We believe that Congress should maintain the law pertaining to the confidentiality of personal records as they relate to the release of information to the general public and strengthen, if need be, the law as it relates to the dissemination of information and records by and within various agencies of the Federal Government. 1 If enacted into law, the Betts and similar bills would be self-defeating and would be very damaging to all concerned. We urge that they be opposed. Hon. WILLIAM J. GREEN, SOUTHEAST CHAPTER, SOUTH CAROLINA SECTION, Chairman, Census and Statistics Subcommittee, Columbia, S.C., June 5, 1968. DEAR CONGRESSMAN GREEN: It has been brought to our attention that several bills have been introduced in Congress with the purpose of limiting the 1970 Census. We understand that the first bill of this nature was H.R. 10952, introduced by Congressman Jackson Betts on June 19, 1967, and that similar bills have subsequently been offered, some of them by South Carolina congressmen. We would like to urge you to consider these bills very carefully as we feel that their passage could severely handicap the work of public agencies at all levels as well as hamper those private enterprises whose job it is to supply information necessary to the expansion of our housing industry and other commercial and industrial sectors of our economy. The purpose of the bills as we understand them is to impose certain regulations on the 1970 Census in order to protect the privacy of individuals, eliminate "unnecessary" details from the Census, and reduce the size of the sample of people which are asked certain questions in order to reduce the cost of the Census. While we agree that all of the purposes stated would be worthwhile, we believe that the proposed bills would not help protect individual privacy and that the elimination and reduction of certain questions would severely impair the usefulness of the information which is collected. We certainly agree that the privacy of individuals should be respected and protected. However, nondisclosure laws already exist which prohibit the disclosure of any information which could be identified with any individual or family. To our knowledge, no Census official has ever been accused of violating these rules. The nondisclosure law requires that answers from individual families must be totaled together with answers from enough other families so that no one family can be identified. We feel that this law is adequate protection against revealing private information. There has been some criticism, particularly in the press and by sponsors of the Census limitation bills, that some of the questions are objectionable on a personal basis and are an invasion of privacy. They have criticized the use of such questions as "Do you share your shower." These questions are misstated, taken out of context, and as such constitute a misrepresentation. The actual wording of the question referred to above is: "Do you have a bathtub or shower?" The choice of answers is: "Yes, for this household only", or "Yes, but shared with another household," or "No bathtub or shower." The availability of sanitary facilities is one of the best indices of housing quality. It is for purposes of determining housing equality that this question is asked, not to satisfy bureaucratic curiosity. One proposal of the Census limitation bills is to eliminate a number of "unnecessary" questions and to reduce the sample size of many of the remaining questions. The reasoning of this is that it is felt that answers to certain questions serve no public purpose, and that reduction of samples would save money. We believe that in view of the increasing complexity of the problems which local governments are being asked to solve, the need for more information, and more accurate information, is greater now than ever before. There are certain national goals which have been identified, the implementation of which begins in local communities. Solution of transportation problems and improvement of housing quality are examples. Without sufficient information on the characteristics of our problems, we cannot attack our problems. Yet the Census limitation bills suggest that some of the most vital information be eliminated from the Census. In formation on mode of transportation and place of work is essential to the transportation planning process. Data on vacancy status and sanitary facilities is essential to efforts to improve housing quality. Yet it has been suggested that these items not be included in the 1970 Census. The bills propose that a large number of questions could be omitted from the Census and gathered locally by private companies or local governments. This technique would substantially reduce several of the characteristics which make the Federal Census most valuable. Local gathering of data with the inevitable differences in scope and quality would mean that information would not be consistent, and comparability from place to place and over periods of time would vary. The Federal Census assures localities that comparable methods and standards of quality will be used and that information can be compared from one Census to the next. Local data gathering would mean that each city would have to consult a multiplicity of other sources in order to compare its situation with situations of similar cities. In summary, local data gathering would destroy comparability, reliability, and availability of information. It is suggested that, for those questions which are not eliminated, the sample size be reduced. Sample sizes are not simply set at some convenient number, they are arrived at by scientific principles based on the laws of probability. Any reduction of the sample sizes would result in incorrect and misleading information being developed from the sample information. It would be better not to ask the questions at all rather than to produce misleading results. The question of sample size is particularly critical for small areas such as city blocks and census tracts. Smaller samples would make information on these areas unusable. This would be disastrous for the local problem solving process, for data on small areas tell us just how the problems' characteristics are distributed throughout the larger areas, and we must know this in order to know whether to concentrate efforts toward solving these problems. The quality of the 1970 Census must be insured since the information gathered through the Census is essential as an aid in making wise public policy decisions. We believe that passage of the proposed Census limitation bill would devalue the significance and quality of the national Census at a time when its results are more critically needed than ever before. It would seriously impede local problem solving based on Census data. The South Carolina Section of the American Institute of Planners is unanimously opposed to passage of the census limitation bill, and urges you to consider this bill carefully. Sincerely, Hon. WILLIAM J. GREEN, WILLIAM G. ROBERTS, Section Director. ALL NATIONS FOUNDATION, Chairman, Census and Statistics Subcommittee, DEAR CONGRESSMAN GREEN: I am writing to express my concern regarding proposals which threaten to impair the usefulness of the 1970 census of population and housing. It seems to me that the limitation of the number of compulsory questions reduces the census to hardly more than a head count and deprives the citizenry of the kind of information which gets at the roots of major challenges facing us in these days. The adverse effect of this limitation would be felt not only by people working in the field of social welfare but also by the very census takers whose "privacy" is presumed to be invaded. To a significant extent, it is precisely those citizens who may have the largest stake in being able to document the nature and extent of conditions which lie at the heart of our nation's distress today. I urge the Committee to resist efforts to weaken the effectiveness of the census and to insure its usefulness as a significant tool for social progress. Sincerely, HARLAN R. WAITE. NEIGHBORHOOD YOUTH ASSOCIATION, Hon. WILLIAM J. GREEN, Chairman, Census and Statistics Subcommittee, DEAR MR. GREEN: Although I am most sympathetic to those who oppose harassment of the individual and any invasion of privacy, I think there is information of a social and economic nature which we require to do effective social planning. I would, of course, expect that the Census Bureau would continue to guarantee the confidentiality of the individual response. I therefore urge the defeat of the Betts Bill (H.R. 10952) or any similar one that would seriously limit the number of compulsory questions asked in the 1970 Census. Sincerely, MARGARET MUDGETT, RSW, ACSW, LOS ANGELES COUNTY FEDERATION OF LABOR, AFL-CIO, Hon. WILLIAM J. GREEN, Chairman, Census and Statistics Subcommittee, DEAR CONGRESSMAN GREEN: I am advised that the Betts Bill now under consideration by your sub-committee would seriously limit the amount of information which could be obtained for the 1970 census. It is our experience that more and more people and private agencies in this country rely on data obtained through the census and much more intelligent planning is possible through the availability of this information. Proponents of the Betts Bill take the position that the broad scope of questions asked of individuals in gathering a census data constitutes an invasion of privacy. Since confidentiality of individual answers is rigorously respected and the only information released comes from the collection and collation of total figures, don't see how this argument holds water. On behalf of our organization, I would urge that the Betts Bill be defeated. Sincerely yours, SIGMUND ARY WITZ, Executive Secretary. THE VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA OF LOS ANGELES, Hon. WILLIAM J. GREEN, Chairman, Census and Statistics Subcommittee, DEAR CONGRESSMAN GREEN: May I register my opposition to any changes which would eliminate collection of important data in the 1970 U.S. Census. Several times in recent years we have found invaluable aids in the use of 1960 census information. Proposals which would make submission of information on a voluntary basis, or which would restrict information to six or seven categories would cause drastic hardship on organizations which are seeking to plan constructively in times of rapid change. Sincerely, Lt. Col. PAUL H. NOLTE, Executive Director. Hon. WILLIAM J. GREEN, PROTESTANT COMMUNITY SERVICES, OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNCIL OF CHURCHES, Chairman, Census and Statistics Subcommittee, DEAR MR. GREEN: I am writing to urge defeat of any measures designed to weaken the 1970 Census of Population and Housing. As you must know, the thoroughness and accuracy of this Census is of inestimable importance in the design of programs to meet the deep needs of such great concerns to our nation. Sincerely, Rev. JAMES M. CHRISTENSEN, ACSW, UNITED WAY, INC., Mr. WILLIAM J. GREEN, DEAR MR. GREEN: The United Way, Inc. of Los Angeles County, the coordinating organization for 244 private agencies, and an organization interested in doing proper planning for program where greatest need exists, voted unanimously to register their opposition to Bill HR-10952 and all other like Bills which limit the information that the 1970 Census takers would gather. The census is for information and its questions are necessary for knowledge of our social needs. Sincerely, VICTOR M. CARTER, President. Mr. WILLIAM J. GREEN, THE SALVATION ARMY, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA DIVISION HEADQUARTERS, Los Angeles, Calif., July 8, 1968. Chairman, Census and Statistics Subcommittee, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. GREEN: May I place my support, both as a private citizen and as the Administrative Officer of The Salvation Army Southern California Division, firmly in the position of urging the defeat of the Betts bill and any similar bills which would Attenuate the 1970 Census. Vital to the pursuit of the humanitarian work of The Salvation Army is the availability of accurate, detailed information as to the social circumstances of those in the communities we serve. Already we have come to rely heavily on the data provided in the 1960 Census as a basis for planning our various welfare activities. By using this information we have been able to materially increase our effectiveness. We are anticipating that the 1970 Census will likewise assist us in locating, not only the geographic areas which are in most need of our services; but also, it will provide us with valuable information as to the kinds of service that will be most useful. May I thus add my name to that of the many others who have positions of responsibility in bringing service to those in need, who, I am sure are also urging you to oppose any and all attempts that are being made to Attenuate the 1970 Census. Sincerely yours, ORVAL A. TAYLOR, Brigadier, Divisional Commander. (The following letters were received by the subcommittee, for inclusion in the record, from representatives of various universities.) NATIONAL OPINION RESEARCH CENTER, Chicago, Ill., September 19, 1968. Hon. JACKSON E. BETTS, DEAR CONGRESSMAN BETTS: We are honored that you have asked us for our comments about the Census Bureau. The work of the Census Bureau is vital for us as well as for many other segments of our economy, and Congress should certainly concern itself with the work of the Census Bureau and the problems it faces. It is our considered judgment that the research conducted at the Census Bureau is of the highest quality. Techniques developed by the Census Bureau are used by us and other survey research organizations to improve the quality of our work. Data collected by the Census Bureau is vital to our ability to conduct accurate sample surveys. Indeed, without the data collected by the Census Bureau, neither we nor any other survey research organization could stay in business. We feel that no other survey organizations, including ourselves, could perform most of the surveys conducted by the Census Bureau, at least, not at the same level of quality for the same cost. For example, the Census Bureau conducts the monthly survey of employment and unemployment. This survey has the highest possible quality level because of the care taken with it, the very large sample, and the experience of Census Bureau personnel. Occasionally, special topics are studied at small marginal costs. We and other survey organizations could not duplicate these studies for the same marginal cost, although we could at much higher costs. When a study is beyond the scope of the Census Bureau, because it requires special samples or intensive probing, the Bureau generally recommends that the work be done by a private research group. We observe far less bureaucratic expansion in the Census than in other governmental groups. To our knowledge, the Census Bureau achieves about a ten percent higher cooperation rate than any other survey organization, including our own. While we normally obtain 80 to 85 percent of our designated respondents, the Census Bureau gets 90 to 95 percent. Naturally, this higher cooperation level helps to reduce sample biases and improve the quality of the results. With general population surveys, we do not know whether this increased cooperation is due to the mandatory compliance provision of the law or merely to the prestige of the United States government and the Census Bureau, but we would oppose any changes which might endanger this high completion rate. With surveys of businesses and institutions, which are vital to the measurement of our economic and social progress, it is probably more important that the mandatory compliance provision be maintained, since otherwise those firms which did not cooperate could distort the national estimates which everyones uses. We share your concern about the privacy of American citizens, but it is our belief that the Census Bureau has bent over backwards to avoid unnecessary invasions of privacy. Based on our past experience and the methodological experiments conducted by us and the Census Bureau, we do not believe that the 1970 Census will unduly burden many American households. For these reasons we can see no major purpose which would be served by H.R. 10952. Sincerely yours, NORMAN M. BRADBURN, Director. POPULATION STUDIES CENTER, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, Ann Arbor, Mich., October 3, 1967. Hon. JACKSON E. BETTS, DEAR CONGRESSMAN BETTS: I am writing in connection with your interest in the question of the legal provision for mandatory response to the decennial census with special reference to H.R. 10952. I am sure that you appreciate that a proposal to make a major change in the procedure by which a census is taken will be of immediate interest to all students of population, both in their capacity as academic scholars and as interpreters and analysts of data which bear in so many ways upon questions of public interest. In your remarks reported in the Congressional Record, September 28, 1967, pp. H 12677-H 12681, you indicate that a considerable number of qualified market research organizations have secured response to voluntary surveys running in excess of 90 or 95 per cent. It is, indeed, true that rather low and tolerable refusal rates are experienced both by commercial survey organizations and the Bureau of the Census itself in voluntary surveys. There is, however, one important caution that must be attached to this record of experience. All the figures cited in the letters quoted in your remarks evidently pertain to the overall completion rate for an entire survey. The essence of a decennial census is that the results are needed not just for the nation as a whole, but for individual localities, counties, and minor civil divisions, and also for neighborhoods and subdivisions of major cities. Indeed, many congressional districts comprise just such subdivisions. Hence, even if the national rate of enumeration completeness is acceptably high, there may be particular localities and subdivisions the statistics for which are seriously compromised by failure to be enumerated completely. I have at hand one example that is readily available and instructive. In the attached table, I have shown selected data for the census tracts that make up the community of Englewood in the City of Chicago. At the time of the 1960 |