DELAWARE VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION, Hon. WILLIAM J. GREEN, Member of Congress, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN GREEN: I was scheduled to visit with you recently in company with a delegation from the Regional Council of Elected Officials (RCEO), but you had another commitment that day. May I now express my concern over another matter that may soon come to your attention as Chairman of the House Post Office and Civil Service Committee? It has to do with a number of bills that have been introduced to limit the questions that can be included in the 1970 Decennial Census. The U.S. Census is a vital source of data for the planning programs we undertake for the Philadelphia region. Great strides have been made over the years in strengthening the census data gathering efforts, by increasing the detail of the data and extending the coverage. Prior to each census year questions are raised anew as to whether persons should be required to respond to census questions and as to the means of insuring that responses will be grouped in such a manner as to safeguard the privacy of the individual. Experience with past census enumerations indicates that responses can and should be required and that individual privacy can be safeguarded through careful checks of the data reported. Both the Census Bureau itself, and agencies using the data are very aware of this need, and data are aggregated by the Census Bureau in its reporting, and then, of necessity, also by data users, to insure that individual privacy is respected. Our agency is now working with county and local units of government in the Philadelphia area in mapping blocks and identifying block fronts for census purposes, with the objective of improving the capacity of these governments to analyze problems and needs before work is begun on public projects. All of this will be for naught if the data reported on this fine grid is piece-meal, sporadic, or of uneven quality. It is for this reason that I wish to urge you to vote against adoption of the following list of bills: H.R. 10952, Mr. Betts of Ohio. H.R. 13185, Mr. Utt of California. H.R. 13240, Mr. Buchanan of Alabama. H.R. 13406, Mr. Watson of S. Carolina. H.R. 13529, Mr. McDade of Pennsylvania. H.R. 13703, Mr. Harrison of Wyoming. H.R. 13752, Mr. Ashbrook of Ohio. H.R. 13800, Mr. St. Germain of Rhode Island. H.R. 13536, Mr. Halpern of New York. H.R. 13574, Mr. Derwinski of Illinois. H.R. 13690, Mr. Hungate of Missouri. H.R. 13935, Mr. Price of Texas. I would be pleased to respond to any questions you may have regarding these bills or any other Census data matters. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this matter. Sincerely yours, WALTER K. JOHNSON, Executive Director. Hon. WILLIAM J. GREEN, Chairman, Census and Statistics Subcommittee, STATE OF NEW YORK, Albany, N.Y., January 22, 1968. DEAR MR. GREEN: The current proposed legislation (H.R. 10952) to amend Title 13, United States Code, to limit the questions required to be answered under penalty of law in the decennial census of population and housing would profoundly affect New York State government. Essentially, if such legislation is enacted, it will severely reduce New York's statistical base since, as we understand it, the proposed changes would permit only seven mandatory questions which provide basic population information. The reliability and comprehensive nature of census data are of key importance to New York's statistical system. There are no alternative means or substitutes for obtaining such data since, in our experience, surveys of individuals conducted on a voluntary basis result in relatively poor response even with a large degree of costly follow-up. Consequently, limiting mandatory requirement to only seven questions will reduce the quality of the data and undermine the core of our statistical base. The census is probably the single most valuable source of information on the people and housing of New York State. It is used as a benchmark by all of our departments for such population characteristics as income, occupation, ethnic origin, economic level and commutation patterns and for conditions of housing. The significance of the authoritative and comprehensive data provided by the census cannot be overstated. Since they frequently serve not only as a bench mark but as the only available source of reliable information, they have great impact on State programs and help determine the expenditures of billions of dollars. With the technological innovations developed by the Bureau of the Census in making data available on magnetic tape and for small geographic areas, State departments have been anticipating even greater utility from the 1970 Census of Population and Housing. Our Office of Planning Coordination, for example, is heavily depending upon 1970 census data for our long-range regional and Statewide planning. We understand that while the Federal Government is the principal user and enjoys first priority with regard to use of its statistical system, the states are accorded second priority. The expansion and increase of our programs, the complexity of selecting alternatives among them, and the overall importance of statistics in decision making in State Government make a comprehensive statistics base vital. This is quite apart from the importance such statistics play in local governmental and in non-governmental entities in New York State. It should be noted that the Census Bureau has long enjoyed an irreproachable reputation for careful scrutiny of questions asked with no known violations in divulging confidential information. Surely, its long standing and enviable history makes it the ideal and most efficient means for collecting the data so crucial to the needs of government at various levels. Sincerely, NELSON A. ROCKEFELLER, Governor. TENNESSEE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT, Mr. JOHN H. AIKEN, Federal Statistics Users' Conference, DEAR MR. AIKEN: As the State agency responsible for the promotion of industrial development in Tennessee, we are in general concurrence with the views expressed in your Special Newsletter No. 10 (116) concerning H.R. 10952. This agency and the State Planning Commission both feel that the statistical data in the Census Population and Housing are of vital importance to our functions. In recent years, with the proliferation of Federal subsidies, assistance, and grants-in-aid to state and local governments, the importance of this information has increased immeasurably. In many cases, decennial census data are the only sources for the information needed to complete studies and reports necessary to comply with Federal criteria for State and local participation in these programs. Congressman Betts may be correct when he states that certain categories of questions are irrelevant for Federal purposes. However, they are very relevant to State and local governmental agencies in their planning and programming activities. Specific examples of these questions include place of work, means of transportation to work, sewage disposal, water sources, and sources of income. Neither the State or local governments in Tennessee have the resources, personnel, or facilities for gathering much of the data that are used in social and economic planning and the day-to-day operations of various State agencies and departments. Quite often the Federal Census Reports are the only sources. Without some of these data, certain governmental operation, would be seriously curtailed, if not halted completely. Sincerely, WILL T. CHEEK, Research Economist. CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, Hon. WILLIAM J. GREEN, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. GREEN: The City Administration of Denver is most disturbed to note that a bill has been introduced in the United States House of Representatives which would limit the number of questions to be asked in the 1970 Census of Population and Housing. I feel that this bill, HR-10952, would result in a severe curtailment of information vitally needed in Denver and, I'm certain, other major cities. Our cities are undergoing dynamic changes, and we cannot develop programs for the solution of resulting problems without adequate information. Even now we are severely handicapped by the fact that the interval between censuses is ten years. Information on housing conditions, income, and many other matters has been absolutely essential to us in our work on the Model Cities Program and many other federally supported and local activities. I urge you to do everything possible to prevent any curtailing of the flow of information from census sources, which would be nothing less than tragic on the present day urban American scene. DEAR MR. GREEN: It has recently come to my attention that the Subcommittee on Census and Statistics has been considering a number of bills similar to H.R. 10952 drafted by Congressman Jackson E. Betts. I would like to state my strong conviction that I believe Mr. Betts has shown no comprehension of the whole system of federal statistics. From the periphery of the system he has picked up a few isolated (as well as conflicting) statements, and much like Chicken Little, is running around convinced that the sky is falling. I worked in the National Center for Health Statistics in the Department of Health, Education and Welfare for two and one-half years about three years ago. In my work, I had many close contacts with other federal statistical groups as well as the Bureau of the Census. It was always obvious to me that the Census people were well-trained in their job skills, and very conscientious concerning their responsiblity to the citizenry. In my present job, I would be at a complete loss to do any in depth analysis without the basic demographic data provided by the 1960 Census. In fact, since our state has not been able to do any large scale statistical studies on its own, there are additional things that we wish Census would do for us. For instance, we are hoping that Census will cooperate with the State Vital Statistics programs to do a completeness study on birth certificates. We realize however, that the Census cannot do everything we would like them to do. I strongly recommend the Statement of the Federal Statistics User's Conference made before your committee on October 24, 1967, as a sober and extremely well-stated presentation of the situation as it really is. And if you have not already seen it, I would also recommend the Special Newsletter published by the Federal Statistics User's Conference, dated December 21, 1967. Thank you for your time and interest. CAROLANNE H. KEY, Biostatistician, Division of Maternal Child Health. DUTCHESS COUNTY PLANNING BOARD, Hon. WILLIAM J. GREEN, Chairman, Census and Statistics Subcommittee, DEAR CONGRESSMAN GREEN: It has come to my attention that a number of bills have been introduced in the House of Representatives which could severely abridge the scope, content and usefulness of the 1970 Census of Housing and Population. Those that would do this seek to protect privacy and cut costs; they argue that if an agency needs information private resources are available. I have been using Bureau of Census data for more than 10 years for community and county planning studies partially financed with Federal, State and Local Government funds. I have always found that the ability to develop in depth studies was directly related to the availability of Bureau of Census data; that there were severe limitations on the scope of many aspects of a study because of a lack of data. In a time of urban crisis it is in the public interest to expand the scope of data collection by the Bureau of Census, not to cut back. Government will not be able to intelligently deal with the many problems that face it without expanded data. Certainly each of us seeks to protect our privacy and I appreciate the efforts of those having such concerns where there truly is invasion; but, I fail to see where the Census publicly discloses data on any individual person, family or firm. Similarly, we are all concerned about expenditures of tax dollars and appreciate efforts to eliminate costs where justified; but, I am convinced such an economy move is not warranted in this matter. Very truly yours, HENRY HEISSENBUTTEL, IOWA DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION, Mr. JOHN H. AIKEN, Executive Director, Federal Statistics Users' Conference, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. AIKEN: Thank you for your special newsletter describing proposals to limit the 1970 census coverage. This agency is charged with the responsibility for economic development of the state and is likely to be adversely affected in its efforts, should the proposed changes take effect. As you are no doubt aware, a major contribution to this nation's dramatic economic progress has been the availability of accurate and reliable data on which decisions are based. Census data represent the single, basic and most comprehensive source of relevant information. These data often represent the starting point from which more detailed investigations proceed-in other words, they are used in determining where further research efforts are to be concentrated. While many of the data gathered appear to be of limited relevance to the individual respondent, they are extremely relevant to the various federal, state and local government agencies whose responsibility it is to plan and administer economic and development efforts. In the past, the major problem has been the lack of adequate data rather than its excess availability. I would suggest that the reduction of census data may result in unseen social and economic costs which will be far in excess of what the federal government expects to achieve in actual cost savings. What will be the cost for example, of inadequately planned or mislocated local public facilities? What will be the social cost of the small businessman who has made a poor business decision and who is unable to compete with the resources available to a major competitor? Moreover, what are the aggregate social costs of many duplicate, private data collecting activities supported by other government agencies and private business? I would further suggest that there are many other proven techniques for cost 95-144-68- -7 reduction, such as increased use of EDP and mail survey rather than limiting the data collected. You have my support for retaining this important economic tool. RICHARD R. KONICEK, THE KANSAS STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, Congressman WILLIAM J. GREEN, Chairman, Census and Statistics Subcommittee, DEAR CONGRESSMAN GREEN: As a user and dispenser of health and demographic information, combined with basic census data as necessary denominators in generating specific health indicators, I am very much concerned about the bills that have recently been introduced to limit the number of questions that would be asked in the 1970 Census. In fact, I find it difficult to comprehend that such restrictive proposals could come from public officials that are noted to be concerned about attaining maximum precision in defining the needs of the citizenry and in evaluating applied methods and relative costs in meeting these needs. I am deeply concerned because some Congressmen seem to be overlooking or ignoring the carefully constructed and diligently enforced confidentiality safeguards of the census process. In view of the way these disclosure restrictions are observed I would personally feel just as secure about answering a federal census inquiry as I would to confide in my personal physician. In fact, I think the citizen-census bureau relationship is analogous to that of a patient-physician relationship in that the citizen must be willing to confide in the census bureau and trust the bureau with information regarding his personal situation if the citizen expects government services to be effective and efficient in resolving the issues that represent problems of his community and touch his personal well being. I'm sure that many citizens would rather supply details concerning their personal situation to the census bureau and have it returned to local officials in a usable but individually unidentified form than to answer personal inquiries conducted locally where there might be chances of identification with personal data. I am concerned because I feel that in my twenty years of experience in public health work, the census procedures have improved so tremendously that the United States now has the best and most useful information available that this or any country has ever had. This has been accomplished largely through the painstaking, careful, professional and dedicated endeavors of the Census Bureau staff. In reviewing the history of the development of the Census Bureau, it is obvious that the competence to handle the necessary technical aspects of the process have greatly improved. It is also obvious that the progress and development of the Bureau has been under close scrutiny of Congress and that many of the specific census items are part of the schedule because they yield information that Congressmen have deemed essential for effective planning and administration of government functions. I am furthermore concerned because I can't help but feel that the criticism of the census in some instances seems unorthodox and sadly unsubstantiated. I am particularly disappointed in the approach of Congressman Betts. Recognizing that constructive criticism is a necessary component of the democratic process, it seems immediately obvious that to be constructive such criticism must always be based on facts and must be honestly portrayed. I have been wondering if Congressmen are intended to have special immunity from this principle ever since I read the letter dated December 11, 1967, on Congressional stationery with the name of Jackson E. Betts in upper left corner and the affixed signature of Russ Pipe, as a Legislative Assistant. It seems very clear that this letter quotes out of context and that it refers to the Census Bureau in very derogatory terms. Is this type of attack really within bounds of Congressional ethics? In reading the views of Congressman Betts, that have already been inserted in the Congressional Record, I am additionally astounded at his tactics. As an example of the inconsistencies of his criticisms and proposals, it is noted that, on the one hand, he is critical of the undercounting in some areas of census enumerations and estimates while, on the other hand, he proposes a smaller sample. I would certainly challenge the fiscal judgment of the proposal that census costs can be reduced by cutting out a long list of questions, by reducing the |