Genealogy

Help Save Access to Historical Immigration Records: Take Action with RecordsNotRevenue.com
2008 Press Release announcing USCIS Genealogy Program

Researchers with an interest in immigration and naturalization might be familiar with US Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS, formerly the Immigration and Naturalization Service, INS) and the Genealogy Program launched back in 2008. What might be less well known was the reason for the creation of the program, which was to provide “a dedicated queue for genealogists, historians and others seeking genealogical and historical records and reference services that generally require no FOIA expertise. As a result, USCIS will provide more timely responses to requests for records of deceased individuals.”

While response times ebbed and flowed during the first decade of the Genealogy Program’s operation, today’s reality demonstrates anything but a timely response. Currently, an Index Search request averages 245 business days for a result. The subsequent Records Request averages an astounding 275 business days to provide record copies.[1] That’s more than two years, start to finish, to obtain records once promised in less than 90 days.[2] Worryingly, more and more people receive correspondence telling them their file cannot be located. Some correspondence to Genealogy Program customers shows their files received extensive FOIA review, exactly what the creation of the program sought to avoid.

Trendline Graph demonstrating near-exponential wait times to receive historical record information from USCIS Genealogy Program

Now (January 2023) USCIS proposes changes to the fees for the Genealogy Program, as well as changes to the operational structure of the program. USCIS claims the need for enormous fee hikes reflects the cost to operate the Genealogy Program. It also claims the structural changes “might” improve the wait time to receive records, but only if records have been “previously digitized.”[3]

What the proposed fee hikes will do, if adopted, is certain: make access to historical immigration records unaffordable to most Americans. What the proposed structural changes will do, if adopted, is certain: mislead customers to think that they might receive all the records with one payment of $100. The reality, though, is that only one of the five document types serviced by the Genealogy Program is fully digitized.[4]

Back in 2020, USCIS promised to “transfer more files to NARA [National Archives] in the near future,” [5] yet only a small number of non-historic A-files have transitioned to NARA custody. Many historic files remain inaccessible on warehouse shelves because USCIS’ management of its historic records is quite simply, a mess. Over decades, USCIS put fixing this problem in the “too hard bucket” and now it expects customers to pay the price – up to 269% more than current fees.

These records should be at the National Archives, but it’s not as simple as calling in moving trucks. USCIS seems unwilling or unable to provide NARA the finding aids and index for the records in a usable format.[6] USCIS cannot simply dump records at NARA’s doorstep and expect NARA to fix the problem USCIS created. The resulting stalemate means it is virtually impossible to access records of 20th century immigration.

Speak out! RecordsNotRevenue.com provides all the details on issues of access, efficiency and transparency with the USCIS proposed rule. RecordsNotRevenue.com has suggestions on how to craft a comment, and shows you the steps to take. Join RecordsNotRevenue.com in telling USCIS to get their records management act together. Ask USCIS to present to the public a real plan to fix the two-year (plus!) backlog. Expect USCIS to coordinate with NARA to create a plan to transition these historical records in a manner that makes them serviceable to the public.

The comment period ends 6 March 2023. Visit RecordsNotRevenue.com and take action today!

Illustration explaining the proposed new fees and wait times for the USCIS Genealogy Program
This graphic illustrates the future if we don’t stop the proposed changes to the USCIS Genealogy Program.

[1] https://www.uscis.gov/records/genealogy/genealogical-records-help/request-status, last updated 28 Dec 2022; accessed 9 February 2023.

[2] https://www.uscis.gov/records/genealogy/genealogical-records-help/record-requests-frequently-asked-questions, accessed 9 February 2023.

[3] https://www.recordsnotrevenue.com/take-action

[4] The digitized series, known as Alien Registration forms (AR-2), came into use in 1940. Some Certificate files (C-files) are digitized. All other documents – A-files, Visa Files and Registry Files – would be subject to the $240 per document fee.

[5] U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Fee Schedule and Changes to Certain Other Immigration Benefit Request Requirements, published 3 Aug 2020. https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2020-16389/p-830, accessed 6 January 2023.

[6] https://www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/accessioning/finding-aid.html, accessed 9 February 2023; and MiDAS System schedule N1-566-06-002, see item 1(b). After the initial transfer, the NARA copy was supposed to receive periodic updates.

[7] The full text of the mission statement of the National Archives: https://www.archives.gov/about/info/mission, accessed 10 Feb 2023.

Odessa

No one knows why my grandfather chose Odessa for his place of birth. Like many children who immigrated to the United States at a young age, Max knew little of the place he left behind. Yet unlike his three other immigrant siblings, two older, one younger, he somehow knew something they didn’t – a specific place of birth – Odessa. How Max summoned the name of that fabled city to put on various government documents remains an unsolved mystery.

1920s-era Max Carl

A scrappy deal-maker, Max would have fit into Moldavanka like a glove. His Prohibition-era experiences would have served him well in the underground markets. His love of being well-dressed, and standing out in a crowd, despite his diminutive size, would have found him strolling Derybasivska on a warm spring evening.

It’s hard to prove a negative, but I’m pretty certain Max was not born in Odessa. His origins are probably in Volhynia, near his father’s city of Novohrad-Volynskyi, or his mother’s town of Sudylkiv. With the essential help of an historian, genealogist and expert on Odessa[1], we scoured the vast archival records of Odessa, marking each Karol birth and death, looking for a connection. We even found a boy named Mordkho[2] born at the right time, with parents who were originally from Volhynia, but those parents, and their patronymics, did not match the names for Max’s mother and father. Maybe they are cousins.

Brodsky Synagogue in Odessa

I traveled to Odessa in 2018, taking in the romantic, gritty city on the Black Sea and pondering why my grandfather chose Odessa. I walked to the Brodsky Synagogue, home of the Odessa State Archives and thought about the lives and the secrets held inside. Now I think about the lives and the people trapped in Odessa, and across Ukraine, while this madman wages war from the east.

Historians say write it down now, while the history is happening. To that I say, it’s complicated being two generations removed from a place I’m not from and feeling such strong emotions about it. The branches of my family who left Ukraine are the branches who survived WWII. But Odessa, the place my grandfather never saw, is a place I also chose. And while history is happening, I feel helpless.

It wasn’t easy, but he managed to banish his memories. Then, livening up, he began where he’d left off, telling the Chekists who’d been sent down from Moscow about the life of Froim the Rook, about his shrewdness, his elusiveness, his contempt for his fellow man – all those astounding stories that have receded for ever into the past…

–Isaac Babel, from “Froim the Rook” in Odessa Stories, translated by Boris Dralyuk

Read more about Odessa and its history

[1] I am not putting this person’s name here now, out of an abundance of caution. When this horrible war ends, I will shout it from the rooftops.

[2] Mordkho is a Yiddish version of the Hebrew name Mordechai, Max’s Hebrew name.

The Eastern European Mutt is going to…

…nowhere! I’m going nowhere. But will be speaking at 41st IAJGS International Conference on Jewish Genealogy, August 1-5, 2021. Check out my live panel presentation, Know Your USCIS Records, with Rich Venezia and Marian Smith, taking place on 3 August from 11:15am – 1:30pm EDT.

The two-hour panel session will introduce researchers to Certificate Files (C-Files), Visa Files and Registry Files, Alien Registration Forms and A-files. We will work to untangle the misinformation and misunderstanding surrounding the records created by US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and its predecessor, the Immigration and Naturalization Service. The session will help participants understand the fee-based USCIS Genealogy Program, what might be found duplicated in court records, and what might be at the National Archives. We’ll discuss the content of the records, value to genealogical research, and unclear status regarding preservation and future researcher access. Despite the interest in these records, and advocacy for them, future access to USCIS records remains in jeopardy if the community does not continue to work to protect the records.    

I also have an on-demand talk, Three is Not the Magic Number: Better Ways to Add Up Evidence and Improve Analysis. Finding three examples of a piece of information equals a fact is a genealogy myth. This presentation breaks apart the notion of three, and replaces it with using documents to learn definitions of primary and secondary information, original and derivative source documents, and direct and indirect evidence – all part of using the Evidence Analysis Process Map to weigh and analyze the evidence before making a conclusion.

Examples of how the “rule of three” can result in incorrect conclusions will be discussed in case studies, which will also help participants understand how to build research plans, equaling better research, better conclusions and fewer genealogy “do-overs.” The records discussed in this presentation will focus on those easily available for a newer researcher: vital records (birth, marriage, death), headstones, Census records, immigration and naturalization records, Social Security number applications, and military draft cards.

Will I see you online?

Following My Own Advice: Tending to a Family Tree

Brickwalls, the figurative ones, exist to torture genealogists. I talk about them a lot. Why they exist, strategies to break them, condolences when it appears the brickwall might stay standing. In early 2021, I presented a virtual talk for the Jewish Genealogy Society of Greater Washington, with a focus on methods a hobbyist genealogist can use to get to the next level. I push them to think about how they research, and what they do with the information they find.

In the talk, I point out that just like in real life, our genealogy trees need pruning and routine maintenance. Perhaps incorrect information got added during a late-night research session, or a clue missed on a previously reviewed document. Or maybe a brickwall can be broken with a genealogy “do-over,” because the information needed is now accessible, or more easily available.

Work on one of my brickwalls traces back more than a decade. I wanted to determine the relationship between my great-grandfather, Samuel Brand, and Harry Brandt. Samuel Brand traveled to the United States with Harry’s family, lived with them, and bought a house with Harry. They shared a surname, kind of, but how were they related? Sam was about 18 years younger than Harry. Was Harry an uncle, cousin, much older sibling, or no relation at all?

[1]

I needed to know Harry’s father’s name, and the most likely place to find that was on a death certificate or a headstone.

Harry Brandt and his son Aaron vanished from St. Louis about 1913, and I could not figure out what happened to them. Did they go back to Russia? Did they relocate? Another of Harry’s sons moved to Chicago, and I could find a suitable Harry Brandt there, but not with enough information to prove a match. Parts of the family spelled the surname Brand, and I could find men named Harry Brand, too, in St. Louis, Chicago and other locations. But the right one? No clue.

A lot less was available online when I first began work on this problem. I ordered Harry’s naturalization documents from the National Archives in Kansas City, and the copies were sent to me on a DVD. I scoured the St. Louis Public Library’s obituary index, ordering any Brand or Brandt, and the library sent me photocopies in the mail. I visited the St. Louis Recorder of Deeds and using both microfiche and microfilm, got copies of the home ownership papers.[2] I photographed every Brand or Brandt at Chesed Shel Emeth cemetery. I tried to make use of digitized newspapers at Chronicling America, but their OCR search combined with the last name Brand(t) gave me thousands of hits for every advertisement of “Brand Name” or “Brand New” and trying to find Harry in that haystack of hits was not possible.[3]

I traced Harry’s other children, and where they went. I contacted some of their family members. No one knew what happened to Harry. I needed Harry’s father’s name to try and place him within my family’s Brand(t) lines. And I could not find it.

Fast forward to March 2021, and a project I am a part of with a group of other professional genealogists who focus on late 19th and 20th Century immigration to the United States. As part of the effort, we collected examples of naturalizations from different courts around the US. I pulled up Harry’s file, but no new revelations came from reviewing the documents, and a naturalization doesn’t have the one piece of information I needed to include him in the project – his date of death.

I typed Harry’s name into a genealogy database search, wondering if anything new might show up. And there it was. A death certificate in Los Angeles, from 1914, for a man born about 1862, named Harry Brandt. I clicked on the thumbnail to open the image. At first glance, it seemed to be another record that might not give me enough information to form a conclusion, as the name of the informant was helpfully written as “son.” But Box 18 offered literally,

SPECIAL INFORMATION …. Former or Usual Residence: St. Louis

[4]

I was on to something. I obtained a photograph of the corresponding headstone, and finally solved this brickwall. Now, I can welcome my great-grandfather Samuel Brand’s older brother, Nachman Tzvi son of Mordechai Leib, to the family.

Figuring this out opens a lot of research doors for this line, but for now I will sit and ponder if the answer had been there all along? Probably not. Genealogy website search engine algorithms are funny things. But why did I decide to check again, and why did it show up right away? Our brains are funny things, too. We see information we might have missed the first time, we interpret and analyze documents differently with fresh eyes. New data is added to genealogy sites daily. It’s hard to keep up, but important to remember that trees need occasional maintenance. A spring cleaning, if you will.

[1] St Louis Recorder of Deeds Archives, 1909, book 2255, page 423.

[2] This was a feat unto itself. A researcher has to start with the name of the present owner of the building, then work their way back in time, from grantee to grantor, charting the numbers of each transaction, until the name of the people in question are located. This information is on microfiche. The numbers located are then used to pull up, on microfilm, the copies of the deeds.

[3] The Library of Congress’ free digitized newspaper collection. This was before any other online newspaper search engines launched.

[4] “California, County Birth and Death Records, 1800-1994,” database and images, FamilySearch. Death Certificate #1778, 1914.

The Persistence of Myth

Your family’s name was not changed at Ellis Island. And yet, again and again, the response to that factual statement is a retort of “well, in my family it was.” I understand. No one wants to call their grandparent a liar.

  • Grandpa said his grandpa was called Schwartz and now our name is Black. It was changed at Ellis Island.
  • Grandma said our name was Weiss and now it’s White. They were given that name on color day at Ellis Island.

I’ll tell you what is black and white – records. The documents have the facts, which are not always the same as the oral history. Previously, I documented the evolution of the surname on my paternal side. Let’s break down the myth again looking at my maternal line.

Growing up, I was told that this document was my great-grandfather’s steamship ticket – in reality it is an inspection card. The inspection card, issued to immigrants and steerage passengers, was filled out in Southampton, England. It bears the stamp of the US Consulate in Southampton.[1]1904 Gotcher inspection card

This little card provides multiple points for cross-referencing:

  • the ticket number (upper right – 20600)
  • the ship and date of departure
  • last residence
  • page of the ship manifest (stamped “AA”)
  • number on the page AA of the ship manifest (5)

and, of course, the name in the center – Solomon Gotcher. That’s not his signature. This was filled out for him. How do I know it’s not his signature? Other documents required his signature, such as his Declaration of Intention to become a US citizen.[2]

1917 Dec of Int sig

But this signature says “Solomon Ketcher” not “Solomon Gotcher.” How did the name change happen?

A look at the ship manifest[3] shows a mirror of the inspection card. Solomon Gotcher appears on sheet AA, line 5, with the ticket number 20600 penciled in. That’s not his signature, either.

1904 Gotcher St Paul Manifest

How did Solomon get from Gotcher to Ketcher? Well, it was more of a return. In February of 1904, Solomon married in Daugavpils, Latvia.[4] The surname, written in Cyrillic, Кацерь, is underlined. It transliterates to “Katsher,” which is pretty close to Ketcher. And it has nothing to do with Ellis Island, or baseball.

1904 Dvinsk marriage

Resources on Inspection Cards:

More resources on name changes that never happened:

[1] A faded stamp to the right shows he passed inspection in New York.

[2] US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Declaration of Intentions. Vol 40 p365, 1917 Solomon Ketcher, Declaration 18469, citing St Louis County Library Film 68, FHL Film 1749653.

[3] New York Passenger Arrival Lists (Ellis Island), 1892-1924, database with images, FamilySearch, Roll 473, vol 928-929, 2 Jul 1904-5 Jul 1904; citing NARA publications T715 and M237.

[4] Latvijas Valsts Vēstures Arhīvs, Rīga. Latvijas Ebreju Rabinātu Metriku Grāmatas. Fond 5054, Apraksts 2, Lieta 276, page 15, entry 35.

After Action Reports

On 26 March 1945, at 0200 hours, the 89th Infantry Division began crossing the Rhine on its march eastward. Imagine the coordination between the divisions, brigades, battalions, batteries to make this happen. As the crossing began, the 914th Field Artillery Battalion provided support to the 355th Infantry Regiment. The crossings were made near St. Goar and Oberwesel. My great uncle Irwin Carl, a corporal in the 914th Field Artillery Battalion, was there. He was one of 88 men in Battery C, positioned 1500 yards east of Niederburg. 12th Army map web[1]

How do I have such detail, down to his exact position? After Action Reports.[2]

After Action Reports typically comprise a narrative, plus S-3 and S-2 Reports and a Unit Journal. The “S” stands for “Staff.” The “3” refers to “Operations,” and the “2” to “Intelligence.” The After Action report is a high-level narrative, written in the weeks after events. It does not give names. For the 914th Field Artillery Battalion, the 10 – 31 March 1945 report was submitted on 1 April 1945.

Reading through the After Action report for 24 – 29 March provides much detail on the Battalion, and each Battery within the Battalion. It details the locations, and exact timing of movements of troops – even the type and amount of ammunition expended.

From reading the primary source material, I know that the Rhine crossing took days – the 914th Field Artillery Battalion, Battery C started crossing at 0130 hours on 28 March 1945 – 48 hours after the first troops headed across – and they finished at 0400 hours on 28 March 1945.

Primary source materials, and drilling down into the details, tells the soldiers’ stories. These documents helped inform this blog post:

914 FA Bn After Action Rpt WWII cropped web    914 FA Bn After Action S3 Rpt WWII cropped web

914 FA Bn After Action Rpt WWII Unit Journal web

Many thanks to Eric S. Van Slander, Archivist at National Archives, College Park, for his assistance locating a mislabeled box, without which this research would not be possible. See also:

Next in the series… Liberation of Ohrdruf

[1] Allied Forces. Army Group, 1. E. S. & United States Army. Army Group, 1. H. (1944) HQ Twelfth Army Group situation map: Battle of the Bulge–France, Belgium, Netherlands, and Germany. 26 March 1945. [England?: Twelfth Army Group, to 1945] [Map] Retrieved from the Library of Congress, https://www.loc.gov/item/2001628569/, 26 March 2020.

[2] After Action reports are located in Record Group 407: Records of the Adjutant General’s Office, 1905 – 1981, World War II Operations Reports, 1940 – 1948. The 914th FA Bn: Entry (NM3) 427, File 389 – FA(914) – 0.3.

Records, Not Revenue

In a past career life, I coordinated diverse groups of non-profits and ran advocacy campaigns, harnessing their collective voice for positive change. When I departed the political sphere, I never thought that I’d return to those roots in order to help keep historical records accessible.

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Genealogy Program, keeper of some of the most essential records on 20th century immigrants, has proposed a 492 percent increase in the fees required to search their index and obtain historical records held under their purview. Many of these records should already be publicly accessible. USCIS is essentially holding them hostage, demanding individuals pay exorbitant fees to access documents of our immigrant ancestors.USCIS Genealogy Program Fee Hikes final v4

If approved, fees to access records will start at $240 and could cost up to $625 for a single file.  The fees are even more inexplicable when USCIS refers the majority of genealogy record requests to their Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) program for processing.  If these requests are FOIA requests, researchers should not be paying any fees other than standard FOIA fees.

Everyone should care about the issues involved, even if your research does not include these records. What can be done to one type of records can be done to others. You do not need to be a US resident nor citizen to submit a public comment. Any interested party can make their voice heard.

You can make a difference. Make your voice heard in 3 easy steps:

Step 1: Review the proposed rule here, and jump to the Genealogy Program section here. There’s a summary available at RecordsNotRevenue.com

Step 2: Write your comments, addressing the issues listed here or any issue you think is important. Be sure to mention the Genealogy Program. See these conversation starters for thoughts on how to begin. 

Step 3: Send your comments BEFORE 30 DECEMBER 2019 to

    • Federal Rulemaking Portal and refer to DHS Docket No. USCIS-2019-0010 and follow instructions for submitting comments on the Genealogy Program; and
    • Send a copy of your comments to your US Senators and Representative, and refer to DHS Docket No. USCIS-2019-0010. Tell them you care about preserving access to federal records!

Sign up to stay informed on this effort and learn more at RecordsNotRevenue.com

Amplify your voice! Please share this with genealogical societies, historical societies, and every family historian and researcher you know!

About that DNA test you got… Part II Addendum: Privacy?

Opening Pandora’s Box.abstract-2154782_1280

Sailing in uncharted waters.

The train has left the station.

It’s the Wild Wild West.

Brave New World.

I think we’re at the clichéd Wild Wild West stage, fast approaching the unknown. DNA enthusiasts and genealogists no longer know what to expect.

In the weeks since I posted the information about DNA testing and privacy, there was a massive change, then a partial walk-back, from FamilyTreeDNA and their Terms of Service. Other companies have come forward to clarify what is and is not private for their sites.

Genealogists and others are divided on law enforcement’s access to matches for use in solving crimes. These issues do not impact European Union citizens, as they are protected under GDPR, as are UK residents, for now.[1]

Test, don’t test, destroy your test? That is a very personal question. DNA has become an integral part of the genealogist’s toolkit. Its impact in providing answers to adoptees is real. Its impact in reuniting broken branches of families is real, and something I witnessed recently, giving my nonagenarian client a chance to meet close family for the first time since he was a child. Crowdsourcing DNA matches makes this possible.

Many of my recommendations stand. Know why you are testing. Read the Terms and Conditions, before you test. Stay abreast of changes to Terms and Conditions. Read the company’s Privacy statement. Pressure testing companies to respect why people test, and allow for opt-in consent.[2] Talk to family members. Be informed consumers.

 

Image courtesy of Pixabay. Yes, I do want you to think of Saul Bass’ poster for Vertigo, accessed 31 March 2019.

[1] GDPR Associates, “GDPR and Brexit” https://www.gdpr.associates/gdpr-brexit/, accessed 31 March 2019

[2] Judy G. Russell, “https://www.legalgenealogist.com/2019/03/31/opt-out-is-not-informed-consent/,” The Legal Genealogist (https://www.legalgenealogist.com/blog : posted 31 Mar 2019).

About that DNA Test You Got for the Holidays… Part 2: Privacy

silence means securityThe first post from this series examined the most common DNA test used for genealogy, the autosomal DNA test (atDNA), and discussed what the test can, and cannot do, along with a few words of caution about expectations.

This post continues the theme of questions a genealogist might ask a client regarding their desire to take a DNA test. Remember, genealogists want you to test. Genealogists also want informed consumers and educated clients. My typical first question – why do you want to test? or another way of looking at it, what are your goals for testing? – appeared in Part 1.

Second question: what are your privacy concerns?

We need to have a discussion about privacy. All genealogy research is deeply personal, and nothing more so than your genetic material. My aim is not to scare you. I want you to take a DNA test. I want you to be comfortable, and understand what it is, what it does, and what the future holds.

If you are considering DNA testing or even if you have already tested, please read the testing company’s Terms and Conditions. Carefully. Read the Informed Consent. Carefully. Read the Privacy Statement. Yes, carefully. It’s a lot of legalese, and it isn’t easy to digest, but please do it. Some companies value your privacy, some value your genetic data. Some will use it for their greater gains.[1]

Every testing company has slightly different Terms and Conditions, Informed Consent, and Privacy policies. The International Society of Genetic Genealogy Wiki maintains comparison chart[2] which can help answer some of these questions, but nothing, nothing, replaces reading the documentation. I know this feels like a homework assignment, but it’s one of those tasks that makes you a better student in the end.

As you read, take note of the following: where is your test processed? Who owns the genetic data – you or the company? What are the opt-in or opt-out options? Will your DNA be assessed for health or other traits? Is the testing company in contractual partnership with any other companies? Who owns the DNA testing company?

Another essential set of questions to ask yourself regarding DNA testing: have you prepared yourself for the possibility of unexpected results? Have you considered how you will approach family members, or strangers, when communicating about results, expected or not? Do you know if any other family members – siblings, parents, cousins – have tested?

Now that the legalese is out of the way, I want to address a few myths:

  • When I test, my DNA will be online for anyone to see. Your DNA test is only viewable at the company with which you choose to test. Depending on the company, it’s up to you to control and share the information with potential matches, only within the company. If you want to share more widely there are options that you control.[3]
  • If I test, law enforcement will be able to take my DNA. False, sometimes true, or, it depends. Here is what it depends upon: if you test and keep the results within the database of the testing company, law enforcement would be required to obtain a court order to access your DNA.[4] Using a company’s website is not what happened with the now-famous case of the Golden State Killer. A third-party testing site called GEDmatch was used. On GEDmatch, users take their raw DNA results and upload them to GEDmatch, and the results are compared to users who have done the same process. GEDmatch does not test DNA, it provides a public platform upon which people can openly share and look for matches across the different testing sites.
  • My sibling tested so I don’t need to – my DNA is already “out there.” Not really.[5] Some of your DNA might be “out there,” as full siblings have about 50% of their DNA in common. Even identical twins do not have 100 percent identical DNA.[6] Additionally, testing siblings, parents, cousins, etc. can be an important part of a DNA research plan. Before that can happen, have a conversation with your sibling (parent, cousin, etc.) about DNA testing and see if you can agree on privacy settings, where to test, who to test, expectations, and more.

Conclusions

Finally, the information in this post is based on my experience testing myself, family members and clients, as well as my study of DNA testing for genealogy. I do not receive advertising or other revenue from any of the DNA testing companies. I am not a lawyer and please do not consider this legal advice.

[1] “Opting out,” The Legal Genealogist, https://www.legalgenealogist.com/2015/07/26/opting-out/, accessed 2 Jan 2019.

[2] “Autosomal DNA testing comparison chart” Tim Janzen for ISOGG Wiki, https://isogg.org/wiki/Autosomal_DNA_testing_comparison_chart, accessed 2 Jan 2019

[3] Based on the information provided by testing companies and reported on at “Autosomal DNA testing comparison chart” Tim Janzen for ISOGG Wiki, https://isogg.org/wiki/Autosomal_DNA_testing_comparison_chart, as reviewed on 2 Jan 2019. Policies can change. This statement assumes appropriate security measures are in place to prevent data hacks.

[4] If you search the name of a DNA testing company plus the phrase “law enforcement,” for example, “FamilyTreeDNA+law enforcement,” you will be able to read each company’s policy on granting access.

[5] Time to brush up on recombination, which is the exchange of DNA segments between the two copies of a chromosome (maternally inherited and paternally inherited). The creation of each egg and sperm is an independent event, and the newly formed chromosome in the fertilized egg is a patchwork of contributions. Siblings inherit different portions. Basically, that’s why they are siblings and not clones! I know, I snuck in more science.

[6] “Identical Twins’ Genes are Not Identical.” Anne Casselman, Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/identical-twins-genes-are-not-identical/, accessed 8 Jan 2019.

Image: “Silence Means Security.” Record Group 44: Records of the Office of Government Reports, 1932 – 1947. Office for Emergency Management. Office of War Information. Domestic Operations Branch. Bureau of Special Services. 3/9/1943-9/15/1945 Series: World War II Posters, 1942 – 1945, War and Conflict Number 828.

About that DNA Test You Got for the Holidays… Part 1

Everyone’s doing it, which sounds like a comment made at a high school party. But according to recent reports, more than 14 million DNA testing kits have been sold – by one company alone! It’s anyone’s guess how many total kits have been actually processed (vs. sold), but the number could easily reach 20 million in 2019.[1] This post will tackle the most popular type of test, autosomal DNA (atDNA). Future posts will address privacy and the two other types of DNA tests taken for genealogical research: mitochondrial, also known as mtDNA, and Y-DNA.

23 chromo

There are loads of articles and Internet searches for “Best DNA Test kit,” but I have yet to find an article in a major media outlet that was written by a genealogist. If you ask a genealogist which testing company is best, I would hope they would turn around and ask you a question or two back, because like all things genealogy, DNA testing is personal, and there is a lot to consider.

If you were to ask me, my first question would be: Why do you want to take the test?

Possible answers:

  • I want to know my ethnicity
  • I want to get my family tree

Let’s pause here. These are the two most common responses I hear, and the ones I spend the most time discussing. DNA testing doesn’t really do either of these things well, even though the commercials promise otherwise.

Here’s the deal. Autosomal DNA tests (atDNA), the most common tests on the market, run from $50-80 or so, depending on the company and the sales. Companies promise your ethnicity estimate(s), and some say that can get to a very granular level with the tests. How do they do that? Beware: science content ahead – or more accurately – beware: statistics ahead!

An atDNA test uses data from the sequence of information on a person’s 22 autosomal chromosomes.[2] The testing company compares individual’s atDNA results to reference samples, looking for identical or similar strands of DNA on the different chromosomes, known as markers.

The data for the reference samples comes from individuals tested with known ancestry from a specific region, going back many generations. These samples help to establish unique genetic signatures from divergent regions around the globe. DNA testing companies take these reference samples and create proprietary databases, which form the basis of the ethnicity estimates.

Scientists still face challenges in this emerging field of study. The analysis is limited by the reference populations used. To date, only a few ancient human remains have yielded usable atDNA,[3] so the reference populations rely on living samples. Results can change as more data and refinement of reference populations change. Each company has a proprietary database, so one person testing with different companies will quite possibly receive different results.

The results are limited by the reference samples (populations) used in the analysis, therefore it is important to remember that the test provides only an ethnicity estimate, and sometimes the tests do not reflect the historic paper trail.

The discussion might continue with some follow up questions: But the results say I’m [Spanish, French, Scandinavian, etc.] but none of my ancestors are [Spanish, French, Scandinavian, etc.]. Is my grandfather not really my grandfather? Where is my German? Is the research you did for me wrong?

No, the historic research isn’t wrong, and though non-paternity events do happen, remember these are ethnicity estimates. The ethnicity of people from Europe is particularly challenging to pinpoint,[4] as brilliantly explained in the maps at this blog entry at DNAeXplained.[5] Think of it this way: could you really tell the difference between someone from Illinois vs Missouri vs Wisconsin? Or Connecticut vs. Massachusetts vs Vermont? How can we expect DNA to know the difference between France and Germany when the borders of those countries changed many times in the last 300 years?

Remember, ethnicity estimates are predictions limited by the reference samples (populations) used in the analysis, and because of the limitations of the reference samples, sometimes the estimates do not reflect the historic paper trail.

Given the political climate of the past few years, I have to raise another, more ominous reason I’m not so keen on the ethnicity estimates: nationalism.

For a lot of places in Europe, the country some DNA kits assign to the results might not have been a country when your ancestors lived there. Germany, not a country until 1871. Italy? Same. Poland, and many other places in Eastern Europe, didn’t exist or had ping pong borders until after WWII, and for some, not until the break-up of the Soviet Union. Current country borders in Africa and South America do not resemble their pre-colonial kingdoms and tribal regions.

Why do we want to plant a flag on our DNA? Sure, it’s cool to know where you are from simply by spitting or swabbing, but the negative undercurrent of relying on ethnicity estimates to “prove” whiteness or align with a certain country or nationality or race needs a careful eye.[6]

Now, about that family tree. Many people assume that when they receive the results of their DNA test, the website will display an amazing family tree. This might happen if you test and match with a relative who has done extensive work, but most of the time, there will be no tree.

Why do genealogists want their clients to test? It’s for the matches. The matches are the prize. Matches allow genealogists to break down brick walls, determine unknown maiden names, locate lost family, rebuild broken branches of trees, and more. Matches are essential tools, particularly if an adoptee is seeking information on a biological family.

How do matches work? Aren’t they just estimates, too? In a word, no. Matches are hard science, comparing your DNA with others who have also tested with the same company. If you match with another person who tested at the same company, it means that both of you have an ancestor in common.

Two main factors influence the significance of a match between people: the number of segments of matching DNA; and the length of the matching segments. The longer and more prevalent the strands, the closer the match. Using these matches, genealogists can start to piece together unknown branches of a tree. This work can be challenging, take patience, and time.

Another essential question to ask yourself regarding DNA testing: have you prepared yourself for the possibility of unexpected results? Have you considered how you will approach family members, or strangers, when communicating about results, expected or not?

Don’t be afraid to jump into DNA testing for genealogy. Just be sure to do it with your eyes, and not just your mouth, wide open.

Conclusions

Finally, the information in this post is based on my experience testing myself, family members and clients, as well as my study of DNA testing for genealogy. I do not receive advertising or other revenue from any of the DNA testing companies. I am not a lawyer and please do not consider this legal advice.

[1] “Autosomal Testing Growth,” The DNA Geek, https://thednageek.com/dna-tests/, accessed 30 Dec 2018

[2] “Autosomal DNA,” International Society of Genetic Genealogy, https://isogg.org/wiki/Autosomal_DNA, accessed 23 Dec 2018

[3] “Ancient DNA,” FamilyTreeDNA research group, https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/ancient-dna/about/background, accessed 2 January 2019

[4] There are some exceptions, notably the autosomal DNA of people with Ashkenazi ancestry.

[5] “Ethnicity is Just an Estimate – Yes, Really!,” DNAeXplained – Genetic Genealogy, https://dna-explained.com/2018/12/28/ethnicity-is-just-an-estimate-yes-really/, accessed 30 Dec 2018

[6] “Written in Blood,” Joan Donavan, Anthropology News. http://www.anthropology-news.org/index.php/2018/07/12/written-in-blood/, accessed 20 Dec 2018

Image: Bolzer et al., (2005) Three-Dimensional Maps of All Chromosomes in Human Male Fibroblast Nuclei and Prometaphase Rosettes. PLoS Biol 3(5): e157 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0030157 Image 7a, https://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0030157, used under Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Generic license, accessed 3 Jan 2019