QUESTIONS TO OMIT I would recommend the omission of questions which fall into the following categories: Information of principal use to local communities having little Federal relevance, subjects which are already contained on questionnaires used by other Federal agenceis making the need to ask them on a decennial census minimal, questions simply nonessential to a decennial census, and types of information private market research firms should gather because it is primarily of business or commercial interest. A good hard look and each question will reveal that many, if not most, subjects which have been proposed for 1970 fit into these categories. When the long list of questions is separated into smaller units along the lines I have outlined, I believe their omission becomes clearly justified. Here are the four principal reasons for dropping a large number of questions together with the exact subjects I would omit: First, questions essentially of local interest: Place of work, means of transportation to work, number of units at this address, sewage disposal, and source of water. Second, questions for other Federal agencies to provide statistics: Self-employment and income last year, farm income, other income, citizenship and year of immigration, hours worked last week, hours worked last year, and last year in which worked. Third, questions not significant to merit inclusion on a decennial census: State or country of birth, activity 5 years ago, number of children ever born, mother tongue, year moved to this house, place of residence 5 years ago, married more than once, and date of first marriage. Fourth, questions of a commercial nature referred to private research organizations for collection of data: Heating equipment, telephone, tenure, vacancy status, months vacant, value, contract rent, trailer, bedrooms, automobile, air conditioning, televison, radio, clothes dryer, washing machine, bathroom, dishwasher, and second home. DROP TO SMALLER SAMPLE The Census Bureau believes it must obtain extensive population and housing data providing benchmark statistics on a block-by-block basis, for municipalities, metropolitan areas, States and the Nation. For this reason, the decennial census long form is prescribed for 25 percent or 20 percent of the household. The necessity for this proliferation of detail is debatable. Personally, I feel the decennial ceusus should not attempt to amass extensive data on individuals other than to provide State and National totals. Localities and metropolitan area governments may conduct their own census or contract such a project from the Bureau of the Census, but this should not be a function of a compulsory decennial census. This reasoning leads me to recommend that several proposed questions be dropped from a 25-percent or 20-percent sample to a much more limited number of households. The Census Bureau conducts numerous sample surveys in which some of the decennial census questions could be listed. A special household survey covering 3 million homes has been proposed by the Bureau of the Census which might be suitable for gathering State and National benchmark statistics on several items. A concurrent household survey could be planned for 1970 to collect data on a number of items now proposed for the 100-percent or 20-percent compulsory census program. This would provide overall profiles of the citizenry and household characteristics useful to the Census Bureau as well as give State and National benchmark statistics on a variety of subjects. I would recommend the following items to be included in such a voluntary sample survey: School years completed, school enrollment, employment status, hours worked last week, occupation, wage and salary last year, veterans status, presence or duration of disability, vocational training, occupation or industry 5 years ago, access to unit, rooms, basement, number of units in structure, land used for farming, fuel, and commercial establishments. QUESTIONS TO DEFER I have not listed any items in this category because the determination as to which subjects can be separated from the other questions on a decennial census and not asked concurrent with this national census is a technical matter about which the Bureau of the Census should comment. There are several topics within the two preceding categories, questions to be omitted or dropped to a smaller sample, which might be better placed here. An analysis of which items could be deferred successfully might bear study by the Congress in an effort to assure that a streamlined, maximum response census is conducted in 1970. Mr. Speaker, this has been an attempt to examine the questions proposed for the 1970 decennial census and place all subjects in categories according to their merits. I hope it will serve as a working paper for my colleagues, especially those members of the Post Office and Civil Service Committee directly concerned with this subject. The Census Bureau no doubt will have its reactions to this analysis. I look to the hearings by the Subcommittee on Census and Statistics to be a form where all concerned parties may contribute to a sound census policy for 1970 and beyond. QUESTIONS AND SUBQUESTIONS TO BE ON 1970 CENSUS FORMS (Prepared by Congressman Jackson E. Betts) 1. What is your name? 2. What is your relationship to the head of household? 3. What is your sex? 4. What is your color or race? 5. What is your date of birth? 6. What is your marital status? 7. Fill in circle if you have more than 8 persons in your household. 8. Did you leave anyone out of Column 1 because you were not sure if he should be listed? 9. If so, did you give name(s) and reason person was left out on back page? 10. Did you list anyone in Column 1 who is away from home? 11. If so, did you give name(s) and reason person is away on back page? 12. Did anyone stay here on March 31, who is not listed? 13. If so, did you give name of each visitor from whom there is no one at his home address to report him to a census taker on back page? 14. Is there a telephone on which people who live here can be called? 15. What is the number? 16. How do you enter your living quarters? 17. Do you have complete kitchen facilities and is it shared with another household? 18. How many rooms do you have in your living quarters? 19. Is there hot and cold piped water in this building? 20. Do you have a flush toilet and is it shared with another household? 21. Do you have a bathtub or shower and is it shared with another household? 22. Is this building built with a basement or concrete slab? 23. How are your living quarters heated? 24. Are your living quarters owned or being bought by you or rented? 25. Do you live in a one-family house? 26. If you live in a one-family house, is this property on a place of 10 acres or more? 27. Is any part used as a commercial establishment or medical office? 28. If you live in a one-family house which you own or are buying, what is the value? 29. If you pay rent by the month, what is your monthly rent? 30. What period of time does it cover? 31. What is the occupancy status? 32. Is it vacant, for rent, or sale? 33. How many months is it vacant? 34. If you pay rent for your living quarters, in addition to the rent entered in H13, do you also pay for electricity? 35. What is the average monthly cost? 36. Is it included in the rent? 37. Do you use gas? 38. What is the average monthly cost? 39. Is is included in the rent? 40. Is water used? 41. What is the yearly cost? 42. Is is included in the rent or no charge? 43. Is oil used? (or coal, kerosene, wood?) 44. What is the yearly cost? 45. Is it included in the rent? 46. When was the building originally built? 47. Describe this building. 48. Describe the location of this building. 49. Last year, 1967, did sales of crops, livestock and other farm products from this place amount to $50 or more? 50. Where do you get your water? 51. Is this building connected to a public sewer? 52. How many bathrooms do you have? 53. Do you have air-conditioning? 54. How many passenger automobiles are owned or regularly used by members of your household? 55. Where was this person born? 56. What country was his father born in? 57. What country was his mother born in? 58. What language, other than English, was usually spoken in this person's home when he was a child? 59. When did this person move into this house? 60. Did he live in this house on October 1, 1963? 61. Since Sept. 1, 1968, has this person attended regular school or college at any time? 62. What is the highest grade of regular school he has ever attended? 63. Did he finish the highest grade he attended? 64. When was this person born? 65. If this is a girl or a woman, how many babies has she ever had not counting stillbirths? 66. If this is a man, has he ever served in the Army, Navy, or other Armed Forces of the United States? 67. In what conflict or war did he serve? 68. Did this person work at any time last week? (only listing certain tasks) 69. How many hours did he work last week at all jobs? 70. Where did he work last week? 71. How did he get to work last week? 72. Does this person have a job or business from which he was temporarily absent or on layoff last week? 73. Has he been looking for work during the last 4 weeks? 74. Was there any reason why he could not take a job last week? 75. When did he last work at all, even for a few days? 76. If so, for whom did he work? 77. What kind of business or industry was this? 79. What kind of work was he doing? 80. What were his most important duties or activities? 81. What was his job title? 82. Was this person an employee of private company, business or individual for wages, salary or commissions? 83. In October, 1963, was this person working at a job or business? 84. Last year, 1967, did this person work at all, even for a few days. 85. How many weeks did he work in 1967, either full time or part time? 86. How much did this person earn in 1967 wages, salary, commissions, bonuses, or tips from all jobs? 87. How much did he earn in 1967 from his own nonfarm business, professional practice, or partnership? 88. How much did he earn in 1967 from his own farm? 89. How much did he receive in 1967 from public assistance or welfare payments? 90. How much did he receive in 1967 from all other sources? 91. How many stories or floors are in this building? 92. Is there an elevator in this building? 93. Which fuel is used most for house heating? 94. Which fuel is used most for cooking? 95. Which fuel is used most for water heating? 96. How many bedrooms do you have? 97. Do you own a second house? 98. Do you have a washing machine? 99. Do you have a dryer? 100. Do you have a dishwasher? 101. Do you have a home food freezer? 102. Do you have a television set? 103. Does it have UHF? 104. Do you have a battery operated radio? 105. Are you a naturalized citizen? 106. If so, when did you come to the U.S.? 107. Have you been married more than once? 108. If married more than once, did the marriage end because of death of husband/wife? 109. Have you ever completed a vocational training program? 110. If so, what was your main field of training? 111. Do you have a health condition or disability which limits the kind of work you can do at a job? 112. Does your health keep you from doing any work at all? 113. If so, how long have you had this condition or disability? 114. In 1963, what state did you live in? 115. In 1963, what kind of a business were you in? 116. In 1963, what was your occupation? 117. In 1963, were you employed or self-employed? Representative BETTS. Mr. Chairman, the methodology of the 1970 census has been finalized and at this point we probably have to go along with the plans set forth by the Census Bureau. However, because the construction of the questions, mail-out/mailback procedure, adequacy of scope of the subjects included are now final, this does not preclude further analysis of these Census Bureau methods. I have received a letter written by a Ph. D. student at Northwestern University, Barry S. Wellar in which he comments on a number of phases of the housing portion of the decennial census. I believe Mr. Wellar's position and his dissertation when it is completed, will materially aid Congress and the Census Bureau in planning future censuses. (Mr. Wellar's letter follows:) JACKSON E. BETTS, M.C. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. EVANSTON, ILL., April 18, 1969. DEAR SIR: Although a form letter is somewhat impersonal, the large number of persons with whom I wish to communicate regarding plans for national censuses of housing makes it impossible to adopt any other strategy. I am a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Geography, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, and have been working intensively in the general area of research related to the national census of housing for almost three years. Because I am in the process of completing my dissertation I cannot be as detailed in the brief enclosure as I would like. However, since hearings are being held at this time, and due to the seeming difficulty of the bureaucratic process to escape the inertia which frequently seems to enfold it, I am contacting those persons to whom my work is immediately relevant now, so that if my concepts have any merit they will have been aired prior to the freezing of the format of the 1975 or 1980 national censuses. To ensure that a number of persons have an opportunity to apprise themselves of what I am doing, I am sending out copies of the statement submitted to the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Census and Statistics, Mr. Wilson. In addition, I wish to formally establish my position. I am not an advocate of any particular bill currently being debated. Further, I am grateful to the Bureau of the Census for the cooperation shown me in the acquisition of reports and getting replies to letters, and, in response, have submitted several papers to Census personnel reporting on my research. I disagree with the Census on a number of points, however, and am proposing several alternative concepts and techniques which I will discuss with anyone who is interested, upon completion of my dissertation. Finally, I am a Canadian doing graduate work in the U.S., and am not funded by any interest group or agency in the U.S. for the research I am now conducting. For the record, I am a Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation of Canada Fellow. I welcome any comments or criticisms you may wish to offer in terms of what I have submitted to you, or this research area in general. Sincerely, BARRY S. WELLAR. EVANSTON, ILL., April 18, 1969. Hon. CHARLES WILSON, Chairman, Subcommittee on Census and Statistics, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I am a concerned follower of the proceedings of the Subcommittee on Census and Statistics because much of what the Subcommittee members and witnesses say is directly related to my doctoral dissertation. I am in the process of developing proposals for alternative means of generating needed housing and environmental data, including a method of integrating and coordinating related statistical programs at the federal and local levels, etc. In general, then, my anticipated final product is a considerably improved data gathering-processing-disseminating framework compared with the one that cur rently exists. Of even more immediate concern, however, are the numerous arguments that I contend can be logically derived and arrayed against the proposed format of the 1970 Census of Housing as it now stands. I submit that a tremendous amount of confusion will arise in the usage of Census housing data not merely because the data per se will be unsatisfactory, but for such reasons as: (1) several proposed items have nothing to do with housing per se; (2) several others, if one is precise in his definition, are related to the environment, but environmentrelated considerations in housing-quality evaluation are specifically precluded by the Census; (3) several questions, as currently posed, will not produce the desired data for reasons of ambiguity or careless formulation; (4) the failure to distinguish between quality and stock items, and the associated failure to distinguish between measures and indicators of housing quality; (5) the indiscriminate use of the phrase "level of living' 'to justify an item's inclusion; (6) the selection of "level of living indicators" without any explanation of the rationale involved in the selection process; and (7) argument by circumlocution to justify an item's inclusion. Due to the constraints on my time I cannot document these observations as I would like. Further, I do not want to reveal the contents of my dissertation until it is a completed work. However, to illustrate the nature of my thinking on several matters I have included several brief statements from the diseertation as it now stands. Complete details will be available to anyone interested upon completion of the document, including references which are not included here. First, I am doubtful that a list of housing items which were relevant thirty or more years ago still necessarily hold, or are adequate to accurately reflect housing (and environment) conditions in urban places which are ever-changing, dynamic entities. This observation is discussed in detail in the dissertation. Two relevant paragraphs are offered to illustrate the nature of my contention; "The final issue to be reviewed before establishing a basis for developing an accurate yet operational definition of housing quality, is concerned with the constancy of housing data collected at the national level over the past thirty years. As noted by Dr. Eckler, the housing items for which data are collected have changed little. This is open to argument depending upon the interpretation one attaches to the situation as it could mean that responsible agencies believe that (1) the concept of housing quality has changed little over the period (when considered in the sense of housing as an 'island unto itself') or (2) although no evidence has been found to support the posit, that a determination has been made that quality of housing and urban life have moved in a parallel fashion for these thirty years with the result that the original items still accurately portray housing quality. Or, it could mean that changes in housing quality have occurred but have not been observed or acknowledged by the agencies. On the basis of literature searched to date, it appears that some combination of the first and last suggestions is at work. That is, change has occurred but it has not been recognizable due to the underlying concepts which dictate the form and function (and vice versa) of the data collection operation. As a consequence of becoming locked-in on a particular system of data collection, storage, retrieval, manipulation and presentation, then, the constraints imposed on methodology have essentially nullified the concerted efforts made to improve |