Page images
PDF
EPUB

THE RESEARCH TRIANGLE REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION,
Research Triangle Park, N.C., April 10, 1968.

Hon. WILLIAM J. GREEN,

House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. GREEN: We are opposed to Congressman Betts' bill, and we endorse the Statement of the Federal Statistics Users' Conference before the Subcommittee on Census and Statistics of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service at Hearings on H.R. 10952.

The Research Triangle Regional Planning Commission is very much involved in preparations for the 1970 decennial census. For several months we have cooperated with the Bureau of the Census in the Metropolitan Mapping Program, the preparation of a geographical coding system, and in other ways.

We are aware of the scope and contents of the proposed 1970 census questionnaire. The data to be gathered and made available will be of immense value in our metropolitan, regional planning program. In fact, I do not know how any local government planning program can even approach optimum effectiveness without the kinds of data supplied by the decennial censuses.

We do recommend that the Bureau of the Census include in the questionnaire an explanation of the need for data on social, economic and housing characteristics of the population, and how such data will be utilized.

Sincerely,

OSCAR R. EWING, Chairman.

GUILFORD COUNTY,

Greensboro, N.C., April 23, 1968.

Hon. WILLIAM J. GREEN,

Chairman, Census and Statistics Subcommittee,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR CHAIRMAN GREEN: Attached is a letter written by Mr. Allan Johnston, Director of Planning for the City of Greensboro, North Carolina in reference to Congressman Betts' proposal to eliminate and deflate certain items scheduled for inclusion in the 1970 Census of Population and Housing.

We fully concur with the content of Mr. Johnston's letter and are adding our comments and observations concerning the Congressman's proposals.

We have read with interest Congressman Betts' comments and ideas concerning the 1970 Census and are taking this opportunity to voice our disapproval of his proposals. Census data, in our opinion, is one of the most valuable sources of statistical information available for planning purposes and we heartily oppose any move that would limit its quality, quantity or reliability as would the legislation called for by Congressman Betts.

To be more specific, this office is currently engaged in a comprehensive housing analysis (using 1960 census data as a base) to determine the condition and extent of blight outside municipal jurisdictions. Our purpose in undertaking this study is to formulate a Workable Program which in turn must be certified by the office of Housing and Urban Development before any federal aid can be obtained to help finance housing for those unfortunate citizens who are forced to live in dwellings that are structurally unfit for human habitation. There are several criteria used in judging the condition of a dwelling unit in addition to those dealing with structural aspects. Among these are extent and condition of plumbing; whether or not a unit has hot water, a bathtub or shower, a flush toilet; and type of heating unit in use.

There are nine housing items proposed in the 1970 Census, many of which deal precisely with the specific items mentioned above. Congressman Betts would eliminate six of these and reduce the size of the sample of three; thus, there would be very little, if any, housing data available by census tract or county and its quality and comparability to 1960 data would be substantially diminished. It would appear to us that the emphasis which has been placed on housing conditions in this country during the past few years through racial strife and other means should clearly demonstrate to the Congress that any move to eliminate or severely curtail basic data needed to provide the ground work for obtaining better housing would be intensely frowned upon by many citizens of these United States.

Sincerely yours,

LINDSAY W. Cox, Planning Director.

Hon. WILLIAM J. GREEN,

CITY OF GREENSBORO, N.C., April 18, 1968.

Chairman, Census and Statistics Subcommittee,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR CHAIRMAN GREEN: The City of Greensboro has recently learned of the introduction of H.R. 10952, a Bill that would limit the number of questions being asked in the 1970 census. We feel that the provisions of this bill would be contrary to the national interest and to the information needs of federal, state, and local government. We wish to make the following observations about the bill and explain to you our concern.

Congressman Betts' proposal unrealistically limits the scope and use of the 1970 census. Most of his allegations seem to us to be entirely unfounded. We believe that most persons do not express the resentment that he alleges in answering questions on a census questionnaire and have few objections to responding. Where such resentment or distrust does exist, perhaps some nation-wide publicity concerning what use is made of census data, the form in which it is available and the unlikeliness that individual information would ever be revealed would provide an even better reception for the 1970 census questionnaires.

We believe that the proposal to reduce the size of the sample questions or to make them voluntary would render them completely invalid and if such a plan is carried through, they might as well be eliminated from the census altogether. Perhaps the Congressman does not realize that a great majority of census data is necessary for local governments to complete the many questionnaires and applications required by Federal agencies for participation in their programs. This particularly applies when any grant for matching funds are sought.

The charge that many subjects included in the census are covered on questionnaires used by other Federal agencies may be true. However, the data from other agencies is not as readily available or as accessible as census data. Further, the standarized publication procedures of the Census Bureau makes their data easier for most agencies to use.

On some of the specific charges that the Congressman makes, we should like to present the following views:

1. That the personal nature of many questions violates the privacy of citizens. Very few of the questions can be termed "personal." We assume here that he refers to income, housing values, etc. This information is in no way revealing in its tabulated and published forms; in fact, the Census Bureau takes great care not to publish data for areas so small as to reveal the source of information. These data in their collective form are of great value to many users of Census information.

2. That many of the questions serve no public purpose.-We believe that the term "public purpose" has a much wider application than just Federal government. Whenever any sort of new programs or enterprises are developed by public or private agencies who have used census data, then the "public purpose" is served. Census data provides assistance to many private firms in selecting industrial and commercial locations. We believe that such assistance is valid because it enhances the development of a community, often providing new employment and other opportunities to residents. Many of these firms are so small that they would not be able to conduct their own surveys to collect necessary information.

Further, census data concerning family composition, income, educational attainment, housing value and contract rent are useful to residential developers. We believe that such developers are an asset to any community and that through the new housing they provide, the public purpose is served.

3. That a great deal of the non-essential information could be collected through private sources.-This deals with two allegations: First, that a great deal of the census information is non-essential; and second, that it could be collected through private sources. The first question should deal with "essential to whom." As pointed out earlier, we believe that much of the information which is useful to non-governmental agencies still serves the public purpose and therefore is essential. We are not in a position to voice an opinion as to how much of the "houshold equipment" information is essential, but we believe that the housing condition and population characteristics are extremely important and useful. The second statement is undoubtedly true; this information could be collected through private sources. However, we feel that it can be collected much more effectively and with much less disturbance to private individuals in one allencompassing survey than through a number of private surveys each year.

Further, we believe that the public in general is likely to be much more responsive to one survey than if they are constantly beleagured by poll takers at their door or on the telephone once a month. We believe that the census will produce more valid results than would a great number of private polls.

4. That localities and metropolitan area governments may conduct their own census or contract such a project from the Bureau of the Census.-Many local, metropolitan and state governments find census data quite useful. However, we believe that few of them have the means or resources to conduct their own censuses or to contract to have them conducted. Most local governments attempt to maintain some sort of current data on vital information within their community and most of them need benchmark data and a basis for updating or projecting the data reported in the 1960 census. Completion of the 1970 census in its planned form will enable them to validate the local data-gathering procedures and projection methods and provide a checkpoint for the many local data banks that have been established throughout the nation. We do not believe many local governments could successfully conduct a census on their own.

While we do not have the knowledge available to comment on all phases of Congressman Betts' proposal, we are extremely concerned that this measure be defeated by Congress. We do not feel that the Census Bureau is an allpowerful mechanism which should be allowed to snoop and pry into every phase of personal life, and Congress is to be commended for providing the watchful eye to oversee its actions. However, we do believe that most of the information contained in the 1970 Census questionnaires has been developed by users of the data, that it is useful and important, and that the census should be carried out essentially as planned.

I wish to thank you for your time in reviewing this letter and for your careful attention to the nation's need for census information.

Sincerely,

Hon. WILLIAM GREEN,

ALLAN JOHNSTON, Director of Planning.

STATE OF MICHIGAN, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, Lansing, Mich., May 13, 1968.

House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN GREEN: The Michigan Department of Public Health opposes the proposition to limit mandatory questions to be answered in the Census.

We recognize and support the need for protection of personal privacy for the citizens of Michigan. However, we also recognize the right of those citizens to demand of their Government and especially the technical and scientific applications, the performance of duties based on detailed and reliable knowledge.

We agree that each locality has need for specific information serving its own end and we feel that localities should take the initiative in obtaining that information. However we feel that this development should be supported in a positive manner by encouragement and example and leadership from technical experts rather than by means of imposing a negative impetus by leaving them with no other resources for information.

We would look forward to an implementation of positive support for detailed local information to occur in conjunction with the mid-decade census of 1975 (if that is authorized) and for communities with very limited technical resources, the implementation might be as far in the future as 1980.

Sincerely,

R. GERALD RICE, M.D., Director.

OREGON STATE BOARD OF HEALTH,
Portland, Oreg., May 20,1968.

Hon. WILLIAM GREEN,

House of Representatives Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. GREEN: This is to urge your support for H.R. 7659 to authorize a mid-decade census and your opposition to H.R. 10952 and similar bills which would limit census responses.

The staff of the Oregon State Board of Health believe that there is ample reason in the increasing mobility of our population and the rapid changes occurring in local population composition to justify a mid-decade census. We believe

that an increase (rather than a limitation as proposed in the Betts Bill-H.R. 10952) in the number of mandatory questions in the official Federal census is required in order to properly identify health problems and focus services where they are really needed.

In our judgment, the mid-decade census and mandatory questions designed by the United States Census Bureau will provide some of the most important needed tools to carry out effective and efficient health services and may actually reduce the total expenditures required for health services. Sincerely,

Hon. WILLIAM J. GREEN,

EDWARD PRESS, M.D.,
State Health Officer.

STATE OF OKLAHOMA,

STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, Oklahoma City, Okla., June 10, 1968.

Chairman, Census and Statistics Subcommittee,
Washington, D.C.

MY DEAR MR. GREEN: The bills introduced by Congressman Jackson E. Betts (H.R. 10952) and others proposing limitation of the 1970 Census of Population and Housing have come to our attention. We wish to record a strong protest against this limitation, and to express our support for the statement of Dr. A. Ross Eckler made at the hearings on the Betts' bill on October 24, 1967, which argues that the bill, if made law, "would devalue the significance and importance of the National Census at a time when its results are more critically needed than ever before."

While it is undoubtedly true that census data as collected in the past have been useful to private industry (and to federal economists as well), much of the same data has also been invaluable in planning public health programs. Public health problems such as chronic diseases, mental illness, infant mortality, communicable diseases, and water pollution, just to name a few, tend to concentrate in population segments defined by such census-recorded characteristics as marital status, level of education, quality of housing and occupation, as well as by age, sex, ethnic groups and residence. The ability to identify high risk groups is vital to continuing efforts to plan health programs for prevention and control of these problems, particularly in those groups where the needs are greatest.

The Bureau of the Census has long been noted: 1) as a center of statistical excellence, 2) for safeguarding the confidentiality of its information, and 3) for actively seeking the advice of both technical and user groups and individuals. Its plans for the 1970 census would continue in this tradition. We strongly endorse the mandatory response feature of the census for all items included whether they are to be collected from 100 percent of the population or from a sample. This feature is insurance that there will be knowledge of the statistical properties of the estimates. Experience has shown that when the responses to questions are voluntary, the process of self selection on the part of the respondent biases the resulting data. This would undermine the census to permit voluntary response. The sampling design should be left to the decision of the Census Bureau and its experts. This group is best qualified to interpret sampling fractions which would furnish estimates for small areas, such as blocks and census tracts. A sampling design is an extremely technical procedure; it is not a process to be undertaken by those who lack the necessary training and skill.

We strongly endorse the mid-decade census (H.R. 7659). The mobility which presently characterizes the population makes such a complete count every five years a real necessity. This hopefully would eliminate the need for population estimates between census years for which the error cannot be computed from the present population estimation methods.

We hope that you will use your good offices to bring about a mid-decade census and to prevent emasculation of the 1970 Census by persons making vague charges of invasion of privacy, harassment, or lack to pertinency of the questions.

Sincerely yours,

A. B. COLYAR, M.D., Commissioner of Health.

HON. WILLIAM J. GREEN,

HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES,
Los Angeles, Calif., June 17, 1968.

Chairman, Census and Statistics Subcommittee,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. GREEN: This Authority has been recently advised of action initiated about a year ago by Congressman Jackson E. Betts of Ohio (H.R. 10952) and similar bills which would limit the effectiveness of our U.S. census to be taken in 1970.

In the Public Housing field we have relied on census figures in many respects as to needs for housing, conditions of housing etc., and we have looked forward to the 1970 census as making available to us definite information on our needs. This letter is written to you to do what is in your power to discourage the passage of any bills which would restrict information to be derived from the census. I feel that census questionnaires in the past have not been unreasonable, and the small amount of time to complete such questionnaires on the part of any individual should not be objectionable.

Sincerely,

Dr. JAMES K. HETLAND, Jr.,

JESSE E. SPRAY, General Housing Manager

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, D.C., June 26, 1968.

Chairman, Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities Area,
St. Paul, Minn.

DEAR JIM: Thank you for your recent letter concerning legislation which would substantially alter the 1970 Census as proposed by the Bureau of the Census. As you know, this legislation was the subject of hearings before a subcommittee of the House Post Office and Civil Service Committee, but no further action has been taken, to date, on any of these bills.

I have taken the liberty of making the excellent Metropolitan Council memorandum on this subject available to the Post Office and Civil Service Committee for their study and consideration.

Keep up the good work.
Best regards.

MEMORANDUM

CLARK MACGREGOR.
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL,
St. Paul, Minn., June 7, 1968.

To: Members of the Metropolitan Council. Subject: Recommendations on the 1970 Census of Population and Housing. There are 16 bills currently before Congress which would alter the 1970 census as proposed by the Bureau of the Census. The main element of each of these bills which is of concern to the Council is the proposal to make the response to a number of the questions voluntary. Many of these questions provide information which is vital to the work of the Council. If answers to these questions are voluntary the answers would be statistically invalid and therefore unusable.

In Appendix "A" are indentified the questions which would be voluntary in the 1970 census under provisions of pending congressional legislition. The value of answers to each of these questions is indicated. Questions with a value of 1 or 2, if made voluntary, would significantly effect the work of the Council. Questions identified with a value of 3, if made voluntary, would have a negligible effect on the work of the Council.

Recommendation

Recommendation is that the Council make available copy of this report to congressional delegation with the request that they oppose legislation which would allow voluntary response on questions with a value of 1 or 2, as indicated on Appendix "A," and support measures designed to protect the confidentiality of information supplied by individuals to the Census Bureau.

ROBERT T. JORVIG, Executive Director.

« PreviousContinue »