burden involved in filling out any questionnaire, and here also we ask ourselves whether the purpose to be served warrants the imposing on the respondent of this burden, which may be moderate or very great, as the circumstances may vary.

Mr. ROMNEY. When you receive a questionnaire or form for clearance, what consultation, if any, do you have with the agency which is proposing the form or questionnaire on all points, and in particular the issue you have just talked about, namely, privacy and appropriateness?

Mr. CROWDER. Let me outline our general procedure and how this fits into it. These proposals come to us formally through the Government mail in a prescribed form with a statement outlining the nature of the proposal. They are registered in our so-called clearance office. They are assigned to that member of the staff whose assignment covers the area in question, and this staff member studies the dockets at an appropriate time, in terms of his own work program; he consults the sponsors, and asks questions which have occurred to him from his review of the dockets.

There are some cases that are so simple that no questions occur, and these go through rather quickly. There are many cases where questions do occur. Sometimes they are answered over the telephone; sometimes there are meetings with the sponsoring agency. Sometimes there are interagency meetings, if more than one agency is involved, and in a number of cases there are meetings with outside advisory groups. This is particularly true of inquiries going to business. But there is a great deal of variation and flexibility in the review

process.

I can say simply that our reviewers identify the issues that seem important, and they pursue them with the sponsoring agency and with any other interests or agencies that are involved.

Mr. HORTON. Mr. Crowder, do I understand that your special function in your office is sort of a clearinghouse for all these questionnaires by all the agencies of Government?

Mr. CROWDER. That is right.

Mr. HORTON. I mean if I went down to your office, I would be able to find all the questionnaires that all the agencies and offices of Government are asking and sending out?

Mr. CROWDER. You would find a file of all active repetitive forms, and a record of the surveys, the single time surveys, that have been made.

Mr. HORTON. Do you have a lot of these in your office?

Are there great numbers of them or are there very few?

Mr. CROWDER. The number of active forms, which is our unit of counting, at the moment is in the neighborhood of 4,600.

Mr. HORTON. Do you mean to tell me that there are 4,600 different questionnaires that go out from different agencies of Government? Mr. CROWDER. You would not call all of them questionnaires, I do not believe. They are what we call "report forms." They are instruments which ask questions, and some of them are no bigger than a postcard and some of them are 40 pages long. But there are that many.

Mr. HORTON. Would this, like this Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census questionnaire, have gone through your office, too? Mr. CROWDER. Yes.

Mr. HORTON. I did not mean to interrupt your questioning, but I would like to ask a few questions. Were you finished?

Mr. ROMNEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. ROSENTHAL. Proceed, Mr. Horton.

Mr. HORTON. I was interested in your testimony with regard to what you do in more or less approving these forms, and your technique for this, and then also the statement that you made with regard to some of these so-called intimate questions.

Do you have a large number of these questionnaires that ask these so-called intimate questions?

Mr. CROWDER. Well, if we mean questions of the type illustrated by the examples I have given, I would say not a large number, but I am not prepared even to estimate the number. This would take a little research in the files.

Mr. HORTON. I do not have a copy of your statement so I am not sure just which ones you refer to, but what is your definition of an intimate question?

Mr. CROWDER. I am afraid I do not really have one. It is just a feeling that one has about certain questions. Some of them everyone would agree are intimate and some of them, like name and address, are not, and in between there is a vast range of questions about which people would differ.

Some people I know regard their occupation as somewhat private, and I would not myself. It is a hard term to define, and I guess we do not really have a formal definition of it.

Mr. HORTON. I am curious as to the number of instances, if you know, where your agency has turned down some of these questionnaires or taken out some of these questions, and I am more interested in the type of personal question that one might conceivably construe as an invasion of privacy, asking personal questions about one's family, and I do not mean the number of children he has or anything like that, but on his thoughts and opinions about different matters.

Mr. CROWDER. Well, what I had particularly in mind in the statement that I have just made was on the one hand the personality test, which has been of particular interest in the hearings of this committee, and on the other hand a group of questions about personal behavior, religion, political affiliation and various other aspects of life which are commonly regarded as private and which no one should be prying into without good reason.

Beyond that, I am afraid I do not have anything very specific as a definition.

Mr. ROSENTHAL. Mr. Cornish?

Mr. CORNISH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Crowder, you seem to have just a wealth of information on many of the subjects that we are vitally interested in because your office does serve as some sort of a clearing operation for these forms and questionnaires. But tell me this:

Does the Bureau of the Budget take the responsibility for determining whether Government questionnaires constitute an invasion of privacy?

Perhaps I can help you on this. Or do you serve simply as a backstop on this? Is this not the primary function of the agencies involved?

Mr. CROWDER. Let me phrase my answer this way: We have an overriding responsibility for the review and approval of Government

55-347-6620

questionnaires, with few exceptions which we need not worry about in this context. That is to say, we are obliged to inquire into whether the questionnaire is justified and technically adequate. Any question which bears on those issues we must consider.

We have not in our procedures formalized a set of rules about the invasion of privacy.

Mr. CORNISH. I understand that. You put that under the category of appropriateness.

Mr. CROWDER. Is is implicit in what we do, but we do not have a set of written staff rules on it.

Mr. CORNISH. But now if an agency came to us and said, "Well, we expect the Bureau of the Budget to review our questionnaires from the standpoint of invasion of privacy, we do not generally do that," would that be a correct situation?

Mr. CROWDER. I would say no.

We feel that the issues that concern us are, most of them, perhaps not all of them, issues which should be of equal concern to the sponsoring agency, and certainly this is one.

Mr. CORNISH. As a matter of fact, you review every Government program, do you not?

Mr. CROWDER. You mean the Budget Bureau?

Mr. CORNISH. The Bureau of the Budget.

Mr. CROWDER. Yes, but in a different sense.

The office that I represent has a function somewhat apart from the regular well-known budget function. It is called the Office of Statistical Standards. It is in the Budget Bureau because the Budget Bureau is the management arm of the President.

Mr. CORNISH. I will put it this way: Do you feel that the Bureau of the Budget has a special responsibility in regard to forms and questionnaires in determining their appropriateness?

Mr. CROWDER. Yes.

Mr. CORNISH. That it does not have perhaps in relation to other Government programs?

Mr. HORTON. Mr. Chairman, I think a new field has been opened up here and I feel that there ought to be more questioning on this, and perhaps we ought to have the witness make available to the staff, so that we can have a basis for further questioning, whatever forms and whatever information they might have filed in their office now, especially on these current forms.

As I understand the witness's testimony, he has in his office, or under his control, all these questionnaires that we have been asking about. So I think it would be appropriate to ask this witness to come back after the staff has had a chance to take a look at the information that they have in the office, so that we could have an opportunity to have further questioning.

Mr. ROSENTHAL. Mr. Crowder, you will make those materials and documents that you have in your office available to the staff, and you will be available for consultation and you will be, I assume, available to come back before the subcommittee to perhaps answer further questions that the staff may develop after these meetings with you? (The information was provided to the staff.)

Mr. CROWDER. Yes, of course.

Mr. ROSENTHAL. With that understanding, you are excused and the special inquiry is adjourned.

(Whereupon, at 4 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned.)

SPECIAL INQUIRY ON INVASION OF PRIVACY

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 1965

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVASION OF PRIVACY
OF THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS,

Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 2203, Rayburn Office Building, Hon. Cornelius E. Gallagher (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Cornelius E. Gallagher, Benjamin S. Rosenthal, and Frank J. Horton.

Also present: Norman G. Cornish, chief of special inquiry; Miles Q. Romney, associate general counsel, Government Operations Committee; and J. Philip Carlson, minority professional staff.

Mr. GALLAGHER. The subcommittee will come to order. The Chair has an opening statement to make before Dr. Ianni will testify. Today's hearing is a continuation of a study by the special inquiry of the House Committee on Government Operations on the subject of invasion of privacy as it is related to certain investigative and datagathering activities of the Federal Government. At our previous hearings, we examined the use of personality tests and questionnaires by Federal agencies in the employment picture. Two of our witnesses today intend to address themselves to that same matter.

However, the special inquiry also is interested in the use of personality tests and questionnaires in federally financed research activities. This is an equally important matter. Our investigation of this subject shows that such tests have been given to hundreds of thousands of school children and college students across the country as a part of research projects sponsored by the Federal Government. Sometimes they are given to a vast sample involving half a million youngsters in many States, such as in Project Talent. In other cases, they are limited to certain regions, States, school districts, and individual schools.

The tests also vary in nature. Some are very intrusive in that they ask young people to answer intimate questions about their families, sex experience, religious views, their own personal values and other matters normally regarded as solely the private business of the individual. Others ask personal questions but attempt to keep invasion of privacy at a minimum. In some cases, parents are made aware of this testing and their permission and cooperation are actively sought. But in other cases, they have no knowledge whatsoever that their children are being asked such questions.

Staff investigators of the special inquiry have examined a number of these projects to determine whether Federal agencies are giving ade

See article entitled "Privacy and Behavorial Research" reprinted from the Columbia Law Review. November 1965, on p. 359 of the appendix.

quate attention to protection of privacy. The element of consent has been a prime consideration. Because of the nature of these tests, we feel that informed parental consent is necessary in research projects which involve school children under college age. When the Federal Government is participating in such research, we believe that such testing should be strictly voluntary and this should be made clear to all persons concerned, including the researcher, the school authorities, teachers, and parents.

Early in August, I, on behalf of the subcommittee and my colleagues, Mr. Rosenthal and Mr. Horton, wrote a letter to the U.S. Commissioner of Education, the Honorable Francis Keppel, noting the concern of the special inquiry on this matter and urging the adoption of new policies and guidelines to strengthen what we consider to be the right to privacy. The Office of Education shared our concern and immediately went to work to take such steps.

I would like the Chief of Special Inquiry to read into the record the exchange of this correspondence at this time.

Mr. CORNISH. This letter is dated August 6, 1965, and is addressed to the Honorable Francis Keppel, Commissioner of Education, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. COMMISSIONER: As you know, the special inquiry of the House Committee on Government Operations has been conducting an investigation of the problem of invasion of privacy as it is related to certain investigative and data-gathering activities of the Federal Government.

One of our most recent concerns has been the use of personality tests and questionnaires in research projects sponsored and financed by grants and contracts under the U.S. Office of Education. Many of these tests and questionnaires, which are given in schools across the country, ask students to answer intimate questions about their family life, sexual experience, religious views, their own personal values and other subjects normally regarded as solely the private business of the individual.

Inasmuch as the Federal Government is involved in this activity, it is our belief that new provisions should be added to the grants and contracts to make certain that protection of individual privacy is guaranteed at all times.

The provisions we propose would apply only to those projects involving (1) personality testing, and (2) questionnaires which elicit personal information beyond the ordinary needs of school administration.

The safeguard we propose should make it clear to all concerned that:

(1) The tests and/or questionnaires are strictly voluntary.

(2) Parental consent must be obtained in those cases involving students below the college level.

(3) A copy of the test and/or questionnaire is available for inspection by the parents in the event they wish to look at it before deciding whether to give consent. (4) Parents be given a clear idea of the nature of the test and/or questionnaire when consent is sought. For example, they should be told the instrument asks questions about the student's sex life, family matters, religious views, etc.

We understand, of course, that this safeguard would require the researcher and school authorities to spend some additional time explaining the purpose of the project to parents. In the end, we believe it will result in greater support for, and understanding of, the research effort. At the same time, in those cases where parents do object, the right to privacy will be fully protected.

In addition, we urge that the problems of invasion of privacy be given specific consideration at the time a grant or contract is submitted for approval.

Joining with me in this request are the other members of the special inquiry, the Honorable Benjamin S. Rosenthal, the Honorable Frank J. Horton, and in connection with this particular investigation, the Honorable Henry S. Reuss. Your office has been most cooperative in making available project files and other information to our staff investigators who have been studying this matter. We greatly appreciate the time and effort which has been expended. With kind regards.

Sincerely yours,

CORNELIUS E. GALLAGHER, Chairman, Special Subcommittee on Invasion of Privacy.