MID-DECADE CENSUS

HEARING

4- JUN-6

J^ZL^. 1973

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CENSUS AND STATISTICS, ^

-,/ <r A 1? OF THE

r

^COMMITTEE ON

POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NINETY-THIRD CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

PROPOSALS FOR A MID-DECADE CENSUS OF POPULATION

AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

APRIL !), 1973

Serial No. 93-4

Printed for the use of the

Committee on Post Office nud Civil Service

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

(H-514 WASHINGTON : 1973
COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE

THADDEU8 J. DULSK1, New York, Chairman

DAVID N. HENDERSON, North Carolina, Viet Chairman

MORRIS K. UDALL, Arizona • H. R. OROSS. Iowa

DOMINICK V. DANIELS, New Jersey EDWARD J. DERWINSKI. Illinois

ROBERT N. C. NIX, Pennsylvania ALBERT W. JOHNSON, Pennsylvania

JAMES M. HANLEY, New York LAWRENCE J. HOUAN, Maryland

CHARLES H. WILSON, California JOHN H. ROUSSELOT, California

JEROME R. WALDIE, California ELWOOD HILLIS, Indiana

RICHARD C. WHITE, Teias WALTER E. POWELL, Ohio

WILLIAM D. FORD, Michigan WILLIAM O. MILLS, Maryland

FRANK J. BRASCO, New York RICHARD W. MALLARY, Vermont

WILLIAM (BILL) CLAY, Missouri ANDREW J. HIN8HAW, California

PATRICIA SCHROEDER, Colorado L. A. (SKIP) BAFAL1S, Florida

JOHN JOSEPH MOAKLEY, Massachusetts

WILLIAM LEHMAN, Florida

JOHN H. MARTINT, Chief Counaci

VICTOR C. SMIROLDO, Staff Director and Coiimel

WILLIAM A. IRVINE, Aisistant Staff Director

THEODORE J. KAZV, Senior Staff Astislant

ROBERT E. LOCKHART, Aitistanl Coumei

ROT C. MESEER, Staff Attutant

FRANCIS C. FORTUNE, Coordinator

RALPH J. DEVLIN, Staff AssUtant

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CENSUS AND STATISTICS

RICHARD C. WHITE, Texas, Chairman

JAMES M. HANLEY, New York JOHN H. ROUSSELOT, California

MORRIS K. UDALL, Arizona ANDREW J. HINSHAW, California

WILLIAM LEHMAN, Florida L. A. (SKIP) BAFALIS, Florida

CHARLES H. WILSON, California

(Room B-345(b), Raybum Building•Ext. 86741)
I«

fr'f^C"ONTENTS

Statement by• P

a

*

e

Aiken, John H., executive director of the Federal Statistics Users'

Conference 30

Bogue, Prof. Allan G., chairman, department of history, University

of Wisconsin, accompanied by Dr. Paul Ward, secretary for American History Association 17

Daniels, Thomas E., administrative assistant, the genealogical society

of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints 23

Hagan, Robert L., Deputy Director, Bureau of the Census, accompanied by Alfred Meisner, Assistant General Counsel, Department

of Commerce 1

Harlan, Louis R., representing the Organization of American Historians 72

Statements submitted by•

Albert, Hon. Carl, Speaker of the House of Representatives 82

Bensko, Robert R., assistant city manager, city of Hallandale, Fla 86

Broomfield, Hon. William S., Member of Congress from the State of

Michigan 79

Brotzman, Donald G., Member of Congress from the State of Colorado 80

Colket, Meredith B., Jr., director, the Western Reserve Historical

Society 85

Day, Miss Nancy H., private citizen 89

Erlenborn, Hon. John N., Member of Congress from the State of

Illinois 78

Ferebee, S. Scott, Jr., FAIA, president, the American Institute of

Architects 85

Fuqua, Hon. Don, Member of Congress from the State of Florida 81

Griffiths, William S., city manager, city of Opa-Locka, Fla 86

Haden, Ms. Eunice B., national chairman. Lineage Research Committee, National Society Daughters of the American Revolution 82

McGann, Mr. and Mrs. Leonard A., private citizens 99

MacDougall, Hon. William R., executive director, Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations 93

Madden, Dr. Carl H., chief economist, Chamber of Commerce of the

United States __ 91

Marden, Robert H., president. Council of State Planning Agencies 83

Martin, George C, president, National Association of Home Builders. 95

Perry, Mrs. Joyce C, secretary, Prince Georges County Genealogical

Society. 95

Pollard, Ms. Sharon M., historian and professional genealogist 90

Rarick, Hon. John R., Member of Congress from the State of Louisiana... 1 78

Rhoads, Hon. James B., Archivist of the United States 99

Stryker-Rodda, Kenn, president, National Genealogical Societv 84

Yanik, Hon. Charles A., Member of Congress from the State of

Ohio 97

Wildman, J. Ross, Investments, Oklahoma City 96

Wildman, Mrs. Marguerite Ricks, past president, Oklahoma Society,

Colonial Dames XVII Century 96

Zuccotti, John E., chairman, city planning commission, citv of NewYork 96

Material submitted•

Report on Federal Statistics Users' Conference survey regarding

proposals for a mid-decade census of population and housing 36

<ni)

MID-DECADE CENSUS

MONDAY, APRIL 9, 1973

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CENSUS AND STATISTICS,

Washington, B.C.

The committee met at 9:30 a.m., in room 321, Cannon House Office

Building, Hon. Richard C. White (chairman of the subcommittee)

presiding.

Mr. WHITE. The Census and Statistics Subcommittee will come to

order. This committee is convened for the purpose of hearing testimony

regarding proposed bills that have been introduced on the mid-decade

census and we have a number of witnesses who are present as well as

other persons who are observing.

Last year this committee, under the chairmanship of Mr. Wilson, did

pass out a mid-decade census bill which went to the full committee

and was reported to the floor, but due to the logjam at the latter part

of the session, it was unable to report from the House. So therefore,

we have a history of information and testimony on this particular bill,

and it is our pleasure that you have come today to enlighten new members and add to the record so that we can take action on these bills.

Some of these bills do contain matters which, I don't believe, were

addressed in the other bills, such as a confidentiality question.

At this time I would like to call the first witness. I believe it is Mr.

Robert Hagan. Counsel, is that the first witness?

Mr. BRAY (staff assistant). Yes, sir.

Mr. WHITE. Mr. Hagan? If you have any other persons you would

like to have come up with you, just pull up a chair. It will be all right.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT L. HAGAN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, BUREAU

OF THE CENSUS, ACCOMPANIED BY ALFRED MEISNER, ASSISTANT

GENERAL COUNSEL, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Mr. HAGAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am glad to be here this

morning. I am Robert L. Hagan, Acting Director of the Bureau of

the Census. In response to the chairman's invitation, I will present

the Department of Commerce position on five bills to amend certain

sections of title 13, United States Code.

Mr. Alfred Meisner, Assistant General Counsel with the Department of Commerce, is here with me this morning. I prepared a statement that with your permission I shall read for the record.

Mr. WHITE. Fine.

Mr. HAGAN. I will outline our position on the more important

aspects of the five bills, these bills are H.R. 546, H.R. 592, H.R. 1386,

II.R. 1629, and H.R. 4426, which provide for a mid-decade census or

(1)
sample survey of population; limit the categories of questions for which

reporting is mandatory in a mid-decade census or survey and in the

decennial census; and to assure confidentiality of information furnished

in response to questionnaires, and for other purposes.

The Department of Commerce recommends that none of the proposed legislation be enacted as presently stated, although some provisions of H.R. 4426 are desirable. The Department's position is

based on the following points: H.R. 546, 592, and 1386 all provide

for a mid-decade census. The term census usually implies a complete

enumeration of the population, even though some of the information

may be collected on a sample basis. If this is what is intended by the

legislation, then we think the cost•$200 to $300 million, depending

on the scope of the census•is greater than can be justified by the

needs for the data. We are therefore opposed to these bills.

The Department favors the provision of H.R. 4426 directing the

Bureau of the Census to conduct a sample survey in 1975, and every

10 years thereafter. The Bureau already has authority to conduct

such surveys, but we agree that legislation requiring such surveys to

be conducted would be desirable.

The President has included in his fiscal year 1974 budget a request

for preparatory funds for a 1975 sample survey of the social and

economic characteristics of the population. The proposed size of the

1975 survey sample is approximately 1 million households and its

total cost would be about $45 million.

A sample survey of this size does not require as much lead time

as a full census. Consequently, if Congress approves the request for

funds and the moneys are made available at the beginning of the

fiscal year, the Bureau can still conduct the sample survey in 1975.

However, if there is any delay in funding, 1976 is the earliest the

survey could be done. In your March 29 letter to me, you indicated

that a motion will be made to amend H.R. 4426 to change the date

of mid-decade activities from 1975 to 1976. We therefore would

suggest that the possible amendment to H.R. 4426 give the Secretary

discretion to conduct the survey in either 1975 or 1976. In future

decades, we favor requiring the survey to be done in years ending

with five.

I would like to emphasize several points from our presentation

on confidentiality. H.R. 4426 has several other provisions we favor.

The amendments proposed by section 4 of H.R. 4426 to section 8

of title 13 eliminate obsolete references to Governors and courts of

record and establishing how and to whom an authenticated copy

of a census record may be furnished are considered desirable.

The authority to make special statistical compilations and surveys

for departments, agencies, and establishments of the Federal Government, in addition to the present authorization to perform these

functions for State or local agencies and private persons and agencies,

would eliminate a present ambiguity in what authority the Bureau

should cite in performing such services for Federal agencies.

Section 5 of H.R. 4426 would amend section 9 of title 13 by making

more specific the confidentiality provisions for data collected by the

Bureau. The amendment would apparently eliminate a controversy

over the availability of past decennial records and establish the

limited uses of census reports. We generally favor this amendment.
We would suggest two additional sections to the amendment of

section 9 title 13 to clarify issues that may be variously interpreted.

Part (b) of this amendment describes quite explicitly the restraints

on the uses of the data that apply to other Government agencies.

Similar restraints on the Department of Commerce are implied but

not as clearly stated. We would favor vising similar language for the

Department of Commerce. The second section relates to difficulties

that may occur in attempting to prosecute for refusal to answer

questions or willfully providing false answers. A strict interpretation

of the proposed legislation would prohibit the Bureau of the Census

from providing a court with the information required to prosecute such

cases. An additional section permitting disclosure in such circumstance s

is necessary.

This discussion of the confidentiality provisions of H.R. 4426 sets

forth our views on this subject from our standpoint as the agency

carrying out the census laws. We recognize, however, that others,

including Federal agencies, have different interests in the wealth of

data stored in our files. Census files are probably the best single source

of historical and genealogical data. The General Services Administration in its exercises of Archives functions believes that information

furnished by individuals in the taking of population censuses should

be made publicly available after a period of years for proper historical

and genealogical purposes. In fact GSA feels the Archives law (44

U.S.C. 2104) now provides for such release. H.R. 4426 would amend

section 9 of title 13 by adding a subsection 9(c) to make the Archives

law subject to the census law permitting no such release of information from the census records, forever, unless the respondent or his

descendant.

We share the view that it would be desirable for census information

to become available for legitimate purposes if its release will not constitute an invasion of privacy or serve to destroy public faith that under

the confidentiality provision of the census law answers cannot be used to

the detriment of the respondent. If this faith is lessened, the accuracy of

the census will also be lessened. If it is determined that a permanent

ban on release, as proposed in H.R. 4426, is excessive, we must be

careful that any less stringent approach does not involve legal problems in view of the commitments made at the time these censuses were

taken. Some 7 million people living in 1970 were covered in the census

of 1900. We must be careful not to breach the trust which secured

response to that census. We are willing to work with General Services

Administration and the Office of Management and Budget and other

agencies to try to resolve this complex issue.

Section 10 of H.R. 4426 would extend the penalties of section 214 of

title 13 to any Federal employee who, because of his employment has

access to census data and discloses such data. Such employees would

be subject to a fine of not more than $5,000 or imprisonment for not

more than 5 years, or both. The section also increases the present

$1,000 fine and 2 year imprisonment penalties to sworn Census

Bureau employees. By extending this penalty to any Federal employee

who has access to census data because of his employment, an expanded assurance of confidentiality of census data is established. It is

assumed the amendment would apply to census records which are

transported by, or placed in storage by another Federal agency. The

amendment is favored.
PRISON TERMS FOR REFUSAL TO REPORT

We do not agree with the elimination of imprisonment features of

sections 221, 224, and 225 of title 13 as called for in sections 11-13 of

H.R. 4426. The fines now authorized are relatively small and would

not, by themselves, induce unwilling persons or business firms to cooperate with the census effort. It is believed that the imprisonment

penalties serve to deter willful or flagrant refusal to participate in a

census. Courts are under no obligation to enforce imprisonment penalties, but removal of such an authority could cause serious problems in

completing a full and accurate census.

SPECIAL CENSUSES

Section 9 of H.R. 4426 would add a new section 197 to title 13 and

provide authority to conduct special censuses for States, counties,

cities and other political subdivisions. The Bureau has been performing

these functions under section 8 of title 13 which authorizes surveys

for State or local officials. The proposed section 197 is, therefore,

considered unnecessary.

VOLUNTARY REPORTING

II.R. 1386 and 1629 are objectionable in their provisions to limit to

seven categories the number of questions a respondent must answer in

population and housing censuses without penalty. As we see it, enactment of the proposed legislation would require two censuses•one

on the mandatory basis covering the seven categories, the other on a

voluntary basis covering a sample of the population. The Bureau of

the Census conducts both voluntary and mandatory survey operations

and is familiar with both. To attempt to conduct a census, a part of

which is on a mandatory basis and another part on a voluntary basis,

would lead to so many problems of incomplete returns, respondent

and interviewer confusion, and problems of followup, that the cost

of the census would be greatly increased, the quality suffer and the

resultant stretchout in the completion of the field work would delay

important tabulations.

This proposal has been made several times before, and representatives of the Bureau have always expressed their concern about

being able to conduct a census under such conditions. We know of

no country in the world that conducts censuses with voluntary

provisions. We have noted in the record of the subcommittee's visit

to a group of foreign countries last year, that the issue of voluntary

reporting in censuses was raised with a number of Government

statisticians, with the unanimous reaction that they did not think

they could conduct voluntary censuses.

RECOUNTS

Finally, H.R. 1386 is objectionable in its provision for a new section

196 to provide for recounts of population of a State, county, city or

other unit of government, if the unit of government believes that

reasonable grounds exist for a belief that the count is incomplete.

The proposed section 196 does not set standards or state what facts
and figures or other information would be furnished in support of a

recount request. No alternative is given; if a unit of Government

requests a recount because it has some facts and figures that form

a belief its population count was inaccurate, a recount must be made.

No time limit is specified as to how long after a census is reported

that a request may be made. As a matter of policy, we always check

information supplied by units of Government concerned about our

counts and did so literally hundreds of instances following the 1970

census but we do not consider recounts an acceptable device for

obtaining accurate census totals. We consider recounts unfeasible

because of the impossibility of reconstructing at a much later date

the population as it existed on April 1.

I should like to bring to the committee's attention one additional

item that relates to the issue of confidentiality. A pervasive flaw in

the Federal statistical information system is the lack of comparability among economic statistics series because of differences in lists

of firms used by the various agencies. These include differences in

industry classification, in degrees of completeness of the lists, in

updating of the lists with regard to companies and establishments

going out of business, mergers, new incorporations, etc., and other

inconsistencies.

Over the past 3 to 4 decades there have been several commissions

appointed by the President, the Bureau of the Budget, the Secretary

of Commerce and others whose studies have contained the recommendation that a complete list of business establishments in the

United States be compiled and regularly updated for common use

in the Federal statistical information system.

Beginning with fiscal year 1972, appropriations have been made

by the Congress for the Census Bureau to develop and maintain

such a list. Planning and developmental work began that year and

are continuing with the goal of having an automated list system

operative in calendar 1975. It is expected that upon its institution,

the Office of Management and Budget will require that other Federal

statistical agencies use the list in lieu of the continued maintenance

of separate agency lists.

To effectively operate this statistical establishment list, legislation

will be needed which will enable the consolidation by the Bureau of

the Census of Federal administrative record data and possibly other

agency source data, and permit statistical access to the file by Federal

agencies for a very limited number of items of information such as

firm name, location, industry classification, employer identification

number, and size classification. The legislation will not only specify

the limitation of items but the precise confidentiality requirements.

The Department's written comments do not contain any reference

to this because we are not yet read)' with any proposed legislation and

consequently it did not seem appropriate to discuss it. However, I

do not want to alert the committee to the fact that it is likely we will

propose such legislation in the near future.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WHITE. Thank you very much, Mr. Hagan. At this time I will

call on Mr. Hinshaw. Before I do so, insofar as this comittee belongs

to the people and insofar as so raanv people do come here who are

Inmiliar with the field, we are going to give the opportunity for those
present to submit one question on a piece of paper and pass it to

counsel, and if we have time for those questions to be asked of Mr.

Hagan, we will. If you want to try to do that, we will be happy to

entertain your questions, providing they are pertinent and wdl be

instructive and helpful to this committee.

Mr. HINSHAW. Thank you you, Mr. ChairmaD. Mr. Hagan, to what

extent have you explored the feasibility of doing not only a mid-decade

census but of a complete census supplemented in part by administrative records of other units of State, city, county government?

Mr. HAGAN. We have underway a research effort using adminstrative records presently available from a number of sources. We have

also undertaken cooperative projects with State agencies to develop

population estimates. This effort is limited at the present time to

developing State and count}' population estimates. We consider this

research to have been quite productive up to this point. In fact, we

are optimistic about being able to improve and extend our techniques.

There is a substantial administrative record activity included in our

proposed 1975 sample survey which would permit us to develop

reliable population estimates for larger size places.

Mr. HINSHAW. When do you expect the feasiblity study to be

complete?

Mr. HAGAN. Results will be available next year after we complete

the first cvcle. This information will be provided to the Office of

Revenue Sharing for their consideration for use in computation of

amounts to be paid under the Revenue Sharing Act.

Mr. HINSHAW. Are the population estimates generally extrapolated

from other types of physical characteristics?

Mr. HAGAN. Primarily birth records, death records, and migration

information, which is probably the most difficult element to obtain

on a reliable, basis. Other types of information that the States may

have, of course, are considered, and used where the validity of the

data is substantiated.

Mr. HINSHAW. Well, is it not an appropriate method of estimating

population to go to housing data, numbers of single family houses,

number of housing units in apartments, number of utility connections?

Mr. HAGAN. That is a possible element, although you have to be

careful with that approach if used to the exclusion of other information.

For example, the number of

Mr. HINSHAW. I am not suggesting that we do it to the exclusion

of other information, but isn't it an appropriate ingredient?

Mr. HAGAN. Yes, it is an appropriate ingredient. The point I

wanted to make is that the number of occupants per housing unit

does change and it is dangerous to estimate the population totals

from information of that type without obtaining some other information regarding the trend in the number of occupants.

Mr. HINSHAW. DO you have information on the 20 States as to how

they estimate population? What ingredients?

Mr. HAGAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. HINSHAW. Could you provide to the committee some of this

information? We will be in a better position to evaluate the bills that

are now before us or those that might be put before us; also as to

what the ingredients are of your feasibility study.

Mr. HAGAN. Yes, sir; we will bo happy to provide that information.

[The following tabulation was furnished:]
•

o

•v

el I1 ss

llI»0

E3

^3

• J= o to • iEraM2

Q. 1

II

IS

P JC&K•C -J

'gltlfi ••!2o 8 ?

•K «> to£E>•

litIill

0) vituoo

liiliii 3(/) « o &3 O

O 2« VIO

McE•

•O••

^_S«

• =>»3«

S

M

M J3«

ill! 13 ,_ « i: fi • w • 1u ^ o •

" «5o * O • m • « 2

TScI.2m

£v_ "o o

2°"~w

?5?

|St«£"-| fag

£.c-gg-~.££ .•I«S

<o

-1

N•.c•-a•o .ccs- sHjelff^iljull s > g 2^

Q.-5* .J±*2

re _.~'£*"*« ••= 2 « © • <•> .o *o

= J= Sw

*«nC3f_ trt~3~

P'«£S|2?«*

2«

•-O

=

3O

3 =£,« .O

i-|°isc-5

illillllillH si

i. s\

u OB

S to•

WQ•

ra5

,(/* to

-•= J3 = C = = i-

£§*!

ill- 's = o

Q s"

=ss

^a o.(«

:i

X2

it

53

•?E

ISII

•fl

aEK

•A

1^¥1

*1 S?o«S E . 2£ £-«2 S

^C «3rew,'J5Q.

•*C ^o .a .N S : m^-S'5 * " 2 c B Q.<-M mps?

isJl*S|El

IIIIIIlls

PO Win

•

3

§ ^-3

=

3

coE

10O

H5

*

3

V

|

•^

o

o

a.

MB•Q

«n^ a> 4) Bs

o

JC *- to =3 ^Z 1to

-£=

o

OJ1

to

5

o

E•

"to

•

•£ E2

J=

(O

XJ

rac

o

1(O

rU "5 aj s

E5

<A

•

>o o> 5^

J3"3

1

c

*

3

3 "3

1-

'•2-E«

1*4' E XT •

-OJ3°

e

-S «2

•w to13

- vt r=•

•M **O

:O3 *-*•

*•

c

i <?

*E«b9

•_ al'iia w o n ~ u to O aocCD-u = 3 -7 =

g'SiB

3 °CD

,

5

DCHJ

3 Q.

1BK ":

•KC ' • 3 . O _ S

IK"

if5!

3 .>.o c w I w

2c-J i*sj > B E-O O «0 •- BS 41

ro(7>c

E~8 i.

3

<H

f*|| § 9 o-o • J= £ S

«*"•*

»'o-«oE

°-*2?E • as re o

to»c*

fl§ .2

C

3 »^|

3°2<S o E -.

J=

3

C«

«••5
8

Mr. WHITE. At this time, I will turn to Mr. Lehman.

Mr. LEHMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In my district we have

several cities with populations from 5,000 to 35,000 or 40,000. These

cities such as Opa Locka have increased 35 to 40 percent and even

doubled in population since the 1970 census. And I am concerned

whether the mid-decade census would accurately reflect the changes

in these cities. One city is Hallandale where one housing project will

increase its population 39 percent. And this is low-cost housing,

which actually stimulates the need for revenue sharing, which is

based on census figures. Another example includes areas where the

population has more than doubled since the 1970 census with condominium high rises. They have the problems of density and environmental problems that are also going to require some relief on the

basis of, once again, census information. And I wonder whether the

mid-decade census which you propose is going to offer the kind of

informational relief•I guess you would call it that•-that would enable

these cities to cope with the problems that they are facing at that

time.

Mr. HAGAN. I am afraid it wouldn't, Congressman, under the program that we are proposing, The sample of course is approximately

j'2 percent, and the population size areas for which we could determine or prepare reliable estimates is limited to population groupings

of 50,000 or more; so the size places you are talking about would not

be that large.

Mr. LEHMAN. In order to properly do that, what would it take? I

guess it would just take more money and more equipment to get the

kinds of information retrieval just on information which would not

delay increased funds for these cities for 10 years at a time. Even in

education we are facing certain problems with our title I programs

due to census data. And in an area like south Florida, changes occur

so fast that data can't keep up with them. So I guess only if you had

enough money, you could do what you wanted to?

Mr. HAGAN. It would take a virtually full census to accomplish

that objective for the smaller size cities. However, if an entire county

elected to have us do a special census, those figures would be used

by the Office of Revenue Sharing, but at the present time that is the

only option that these, smaller places have. If the growth is by annexation, then we do provide an adjusted population total based on the

1970 census.

Mr. LEHMAN. I am just trying to find out what I can do, what

effort I can make for these two areas, and another which is going

to grow from 5,000 to 15,000 in the next couple of years. And these

are the kinds of cities that are hurting the worst for the kind of services

that are based on censns data. And I think that this is the kind of

situation that I have got to address myself to as a member of this

committee, in order to help the people that I represent. So I am going

to struggle for the kind of legislation that will enable the census

people to furnish this kind of information. These are the kinds of

situations that are very vital to the health and welfare and actually

the orderly growth of these areas. If you didn't have the data to

deal with them you couldn't•the mayor of one of these particular

cities was up here to meet with myself and the two senators from

Florida, and he needs ongoing data to properly plan the city, and
9

if he isn't able to get it until 1980, you are going to have another

disorderly jungle of municipal growth.

Mr. HAGAN. I understand.

Mr. LEHMAN. This is a tough problem.

Mr. HAGAN. I am sorry the answer I have to give you, of course,

is that the 1975 survey is not large enough. In fact, a 25-percent

sample would not be adequate for places of the 10,000 to 15,000

population level, either. According to our statistical

Mr. HINSHAW. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. LEHMAN. Yes.

Mr. HINSHAW. Why couldn't you, Mr. Hagan, conduct not only

a survey in the sample size and in the format of the sample that you

are proposing, but to also conduct, at the same time, a parallel pilot

study in the same area, trying to ascertain the same information

from other types of sources?

Mr. HAGAN. Are you speaking of this on a limited number of areas,

or nationwide?

Mr. HINSHAW. Obviously, a limited number.

I don't want to get off on another tangent here. Why couldn't

you, in Mr. Lehman's and in other selected areas, conduct a survey

m the normal fashion during a mid-decade census, and in these particular pilot areas from administrative records make an effort to ascertain the same type of information and see to what degree of reliability

you might obtain about these items from other sources.

Mr. HAGAN. Well, we are presently doing that, as a matter of

fact, as part of the administrative record research, Congressman.

We are taking special censuses in a limited number of areas and

comparing the information provided from the administrative record

research program with the results of a special census, which is similar

to what you suggest.

Mr. HINSHAW. In these special areas are you collecting all the types

of data you would normally collect, or limited types?

Mr. HAGAN. Limited.

Mr. HINSHAW. Going back to Mr. Lehman's problem, which is a

major problem all over the country, why couldn t you pick up data

in certain spot areas from administrative records, and then if the

reliability of that approach proves out, then implement the same

procedure for revenue sharing purposes only, on a nationwide basis

so as to see whether you couldn't, from administrative records update

the information every year.

Mr. HAGAN. What you suggest is possible and feasible.

Mr. HINSHAW. Have you given it any thought before?

Mr. HAGAN. We have given it thought. An initial step we have

taken is to compare administrative record data with a special census.

What you suggest is an extension of that, which we could consider

doing. It is an interesting suggestion. The use of that data though,

I must point out, in revenue snaring is not something that the Bureau

of the Census would be able to decide.

Mr. HINSHAW. I recognize that.

Mr. HAGAN. The Office of Revenue Sharing would either accept

or reject the use of such information.

Mr. HINSHAW. HOW many statisticians do you have in the Census

Department?

94-914 O•73 2
10

Mr. HAGAN. We have a large number•in excess of 200.

Mr. HINSHAW. So I would take it that you could develop a reasonably good statistical sample with all the proper coefficients, and other

type of statistical checks built into it and thereby be able to convince

the Bureau people that this idea has merit as an approach?

Mr. HAGAN. We have the technical capability, no doubt about it.

Mr. HINSHAW. Thank you, Mr. Lehman.

Mr. LEHMAN. Thank you. I just visualize the areas where rapid

changes are taking place. One census every 10 years applies to the

whole country, and yet the little town that I grew up in really hasn't

changed very much in 40 or 50 years. You could use the 1940 census

figures for that. And yet in the area I am living in now, you can't

even use the 1970 census figures. They wouldn't have any validity.

This is so important to my area, to do the kind of planning and these

municipalities lean on census figures for their planning, for their

programing, for their very existence and they are not getting the

information retrieval that they need day to day; not only for government grants, and things like that, but for a day to day management

of their own government. So I think that the only kind of mid-decade

census that you can support would be one that would properly serve

the kind of areas that we have all over this country. We have such a

great velocity of population change in certain areas of the country,

that people just don't have the same neighbors every day. So it is a

tough job and I think we have got a tough problem but if we are going

to have a meaningful census we are gomg to have to really dedicate

ourselves to doing the job in a way that would serve the people that you

are trying to help.

Mr. WHITE. Mr. Hagan, in line with Mr. Lehman's questions, I

understood you to say at one point that lH-percent or 1-percent

survey and another time 25 percent survey. Maybe I misunderstood.

What would be the size of survey you contemplate under this bill if

it passed as formed?

Mr. HAGAN. I think I should clarify that, because I did mention

both, and I will repeat for the record the information that I provided.

The survey we propose in 1975 is a lH-percent sample survey of

approximately a million households.

Mr. WHITE. $45 million worth?

Mr. HAGAN. That is right: a nationwide sample which would

provide detailed cross tabulations for population groupings of 250,000

or more. We would provide essentially the same type of cross tabulations of characteristics of the population that were provided in the

1970 census for much smaller areas. We would also provide summary

statistics for population groupings of 50,000 or more.

Mr. WHITE. You say you would have other information for smaller

areas?

Mr. HAGAN. Below the 50,000 population level the only information

we would provide would be county totals, which we determine largely

by use of the administrative record information in measuring migration. For smaller cities, below 50,000, there would not be any

information.

Mr. WHITE. Now what percentage would be required in order to
11

get a pretty good overview of the entire country that you could

project and even smaller communities and what would it cost?

Mr. HAGAN. There are limitations in any sample, even at the 25-

percent rate. And that was the other reference I made.

Mr. WHITE. Twenty-five percent would be a total?

Mr. HAGAN. A 25-percent sample is the largest sample that has

been considered. Let me read our statement of reliability for a 25-

percent sample. I think it is necessary to do at this point.

A 25 percent sample of a uniform sampling rate across the country would provide estimated counts (remember this is a sample, therefore the figures that are

obtained are estimates rather than an actual count) for all states, cities and

counties with 25,000 persons or more.

This would include groups of smaller contiguous counties or neighboring cities.

The full range of characteristics would be available for all areas for

which such data are published in the 1970 census down to the tract

level, which is roughly 4,000 to 5,000. For places under 25,000 because of the reliability of this sample data, the data might be shown as

percentage distributions rather than absolute numbers.

Mr. WHITE. HOW much would that cost, the 25 percent?

Mr. HAGAN. We have updated our estimates from what has previously been furnished by other witnesses in previous years. For a

full set of questions, a 25-percent sample would cost approximately

$200 million.

Mr. WHITE. When you say a full set of questions, tell me please,

what you cover generally by subject matter in the 1 percent as compared to the 25 percent or any range in between.

Mr. HAGAN. The type of data that we would cover, or the type of

inquiry we would make of the public would be

Mr. WHITE. For the 1 percent?

Mr. HAGAN. One and a half, or 25 percent in this instance would

be identical. We would be asking virtually the same questions that

we asked in 1970. Income, education, housing, work experience, employment status, and so forth.

Mr. WHITE. What percentage do you think you would have to take

a survey by sampling in order to be of any value to the revenue

sharing program?

Mr. HAGAN. At the present point in time, with the policy rules

under which the revenue sharing office is operating, I believe that the

only thing they would accept would be the equivalent of a full census

of the area. This however wouldn't imply the full range of information

that I have been discussing here.

Mr. WHITE. Well, actually the bill would give you authority for a

sample survey and as to particulars, as to the percentage, that would

be determined in the discretion of the executive department, so that

could be worked out along with whatever you could get from the

Appropriations Committees too, but this will be of interest to the

Members on the floor and to the committee when it sits as a fidl

committee.

Mr. HAGAN. I would like to add something for the record. There is

one point that might need clarification.
12

Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir.

Mr. HAGAN. We have never considered a sample size larger than 25

percent, because the increased costs of a larger sample approach the

cost of a total census.

Mr. WHITE. You are speaking of mail sample?

Mr. HAGAN. Either mail or personal contact.

Mr. WHITE. When you spoke of $200 million figure, were you

speaking of mail sample?

Mr. HAGAN. A combination of mail and personal interviews. We

would use the mail technique insofar as it is feasible.

Mr. WHITE. Would it be practical in the instance Mr. Hinshaw and

Mr. Lehman spoke of, when you have growth areas•massive growth

areas•to increase a percentage for that particular area, while keeping

or maintaining a static figure tor those areas that have not experienced

any growth?

Mr. HAGAN. Variable sampling for selected areas? Obviously anything like that is possible, but we have not considered that as a

serious proposal at this point.

Mr. WHITE. Surely there aren't that many growth areas in the

country, that it would escalate your cost that much, would it, sir?

Mr. HAGAN. I disagree. I think it would cause a very sizable

addition to the operation of a census. Of course, there are definitional problems as to what growth means; what percentage would

be used and other such problems. I see some problems in this, although

it is possible.

Mr. WHITE. Would it be worth considering by your agency?

Mr. HAGAN. Worth considering as another option; yes, sir.

Mr. WHITE. Let's see, one point on one of the buls, H.R. 4429.

This bill makes an absolute confidentiality of census information.

This is in contradiction to the mode of operation of the National

Archives, which has by agreement and under the auspices of the National Records Act allowed a disclosure of census information in 50

years. Not census, but other information, and there is agreement for

72 years for census information. This has been held in abeyance until

some legislation would clarify it. Now you stated that you see some

value in some disclosure of information. Did I read your testimony

correctly there?

Mr. HAGAN. I think maybe you understood it differently than I

intended. If you refer to page 3, item 4, you will find a basic statement

of the Bureau's position. As far as we are concerned at the present

time, we generally favor this amendment. We do recognize, however,

that there are some very valid arguments proposed for some change

in the Bureau position.

Mr. WHITE. You believe they should be maintained as confidential?

Mr. HAGAN. Until some satisfactory compromise could be worked

out with certainly a lot more input than

Mr. WHITE. Let's talk about that compromise now, because I

think this may be the role of Congress. There have been several

proposals in terms of years, and in terms of absolute•in other words,

one idea would be to have no disclosure. Another would be for 72

{rears. After the 72 years allow disclosure on a limited basis for geneaogical and historical purposes. Another has been to allow within a

span of 72 years or 100 years absolute disclosure to the general public.

I'm not sure about England, I know they have 100 years. I don't
13

know whether it is total public use or limited in scope. But what

would you think of 100 years to allow the disclosure for any purpose

of census records to the general public?

Mr. HAGAN. All I can say at this point is that a few centenarians

would obviously be alive at the 100-year period. That may appear to

minimize the problem. However, I think the principal issue is still

valid, that there are some people alive whose record would be released.

I think the important thing here is to decide that if this is to be the

policy and if it is to be a matter of legislation, that it should be done

in such a way so that the people who furnish the formation are aware

of the fact at the time the information is given that it would be

released at some fixed point in time. The information is already in the

Archives or in our possession, was collected under a different understanding, and confidentiality was promised. We consider the matter

of really keeping faith with the respondents as being very important.

Mr. WHITE. Would you name a period of time that you think

would be proper for limited use?

Mr. HAGAN. I would rather not name a period of time, because I

do not think I am knowledgeable enough to suggest one.

Mr. WHITE. What limited use would you condone for any particular

span of time, with the judgment of Congress?

Mr. HAGAN. I really can't say at this time, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WHITE. Would you say genealogical purposes would be valid

from a number of points of view?

Mr. HAGAN. Yes; that purpose is valid from a number of points

of view; however, the question is whether these needs are strong

enough to motivate Congress to decide differently.

Mr. WHITE. What about historical use?

Mr. HAGAN. Historical use, of course. A number of university

research departments and the like have indicated that there is a lot

of value that they could gain from historical review of census records,

and I don't think we can deny this. The fact that the information, for

instance, prior to 1890 has been made available for historical and

genealogical purposes probably serves to further the thrust of that

argument. Availability ceases with the 1900 census at the present

time.

Mr. WHITE. What do you think about the use of any of these

records for establishing heirships in court, for legal purposes? Would

you think this would be a proper use of these records?

Mr. HAGAN. That seems to be a legal matter and I would like for

Mr. Meisner to comment on that.

Mr. MEISNER. I do. However, under the proposed legislation,

H.R. 4426, only the person who is the respondent, or his heir, or an

authorized agent of the respondent, can obtain census information

or authorize its release for use in court. If it were a contested heirship,

between two or more people in the same family, there will be adverse

interests. What is to the detriment of one will be to the advantage of

the other. You are going to have a problem under this bill, as to

whether you can disclose the pertinent census information, since

section 8(c) states that no such information may be used to the detriment of any respondent or other party covered by the information.

There is present in the law as it exists now, the authority to turn over

for proper purposes census information to a court of record. This

discretion is now vested in the Director of the Census, or the Secretary
14

of Commerce, if you want to start at that statutory level. This discretion, however, is being taken away under H.R. 4426, leaving only

the discretion, as indicated, of the respondent or whoever his representative may be or his heir. This may create problems since with the

passage of time in many instances, as you can visualize, the respondent

dies and may not have a discoverable heir, then the census information

is locked up forever. You have to take these projections into mind

in examining this particular bill, since its present language in this

regard may be too restrictive and thereby negate possibly desirable

results.

Mr. WHITE. If I may leap over your official role for a second, and

probe into your mind, how do you think the law should be in this

area?

Mr. MEISNER. Well, I certainly as an attorney and officer of the

court am interested in getting facts before a court where they are

relevant and necessary to a determination in such a particular case.

I am therefore interested in disclousure as such. But you would have

to have somebody able to exercise discretion to release the needed

census information. In this particular situation, where we are dealing

with information collected in the population censuses, Congress has,

I believe, since the beginning of this century, provided that no information should be given out which is to the detriment of the individual

to whom the information relates. This is in section 8(c) of title 13.

That is a difficult concept to determine, i.e., detriment. And who is

to determine detriment? The Director of the Bureau of the Census?

A judge? Whom? It has been left under the present law, for many

years, to the Secretary of Commerce and his delegatees.

Mr. WHITE. You are suggesting then that it be open to both sides

in the area of judicial determination?

Mr. MEISNEK. I am merely saying I can visualize a number of

instances where it is desirable in litigation, from a private individual

standpoint, that census information be made known to others besides

the person who may have furnished it. But then there is the public

interest. Who is to determine the public interest in a lawsuit, which

may be between private parties or a suit in which the government

may be a party? This disclosure in litigation I think, as Dr. Hagen

has said, has to be balanced against the desirability of obtaining an

accurate census from people who would have to be told, "Your information is going to be kept confidential by the government, except

in such and such situations or for such and such periods of time."

The Congress has to determine the period of time and the exceptions.

Will those factors hurt the accuracy of the census gathering? Will the

people who are concerned be loathe to cooperate and furnish information in a census or survey under these conditions?

Mr. WHITE. You think that if people knew that their census information was to be disclosed, say in 100 years, they would be less likely

to answer, or what do you think about it?

Mr. MEISNER. I don't know. I leave it up to the people who have

been in the field. I personally would not think so.

Mr. HAGAN. I believe there would be some impact but it is difficult

to determine how much. I think it is possible with some of the types

of information that we collect and we are quite successful in collecting

statistical information, but on both mandatory and voluntary surveys
15

much of it is given with the understanding that it is going to be kept

confidential and would not be given out.

Mr. WHITE. You are indicating that you don't think these records

should be open to the public totally after a period of years, but on a

very selected basis?

Mr. HAGAN. That would be my position.

Mr. WHITE. Who do you think would be the proper party to determine who should see the records?

Mr. HAGAN. I think the conditions could be set forth in legislation.

Mr. WHITE. Not by regulation, in other words?

Mr. HAGAN. I think it would be better if it were a matter of specific

reference from legislation as to what purposes. Of course there is always the matter of administering laws of this type.

Mr. MEISNER. Discretion could be given to the administrations

of the law under the legislation, to establish by rule making the types

of releasable information, after notice, holding hearings, and so

forth, and have the people come in and testify. I would want to add

one point on confidentiality. A substantial amount of concern has

been generated with respect to the opening and closing of census records. This concern has essentially involved the population census

records, the personal or private information furnished by people.

However, the Census laws cover not only that information, but also

information furnished in economic censuses and surveys by corporations and other business organisations. The question of course,

then comes up whether that business confidential information should

be distinguished from the confidential information furnished by

individuals in population censuses and similar survens. This bill

makes no such distinction. Should the information furnished by

business organizations be treated the same way as the personel

information? Should it have confidentiality for the same number of

years? Presently, if it becomes subject to Archives control, business

information is releasable after 50 years. The 72 years agreement that

Census has with Archives applies only to information obtained in

the censuses of population. So that there are a number of refinements

to bear in mind in considering changes in the confidentiality provisions

of the census laws.

Mr. WHITE. I am inviting the Census Bureau to submit to us any

amendments to existing bills we have. We would be delighted to

entertain them; at the time we mark up, we would certainly

consider them and I think it would be constructive.

Do any members have further questions?

Mr. HINSHAW. Yes, a couple more. You are suggesting Mr. Hagan,

that the review of the Census data on a selective basis should be

spelled out specifically. Would vou provide to the committee a list

of the type of thing which you think would be desirable as examples?

Mr. HAGAN. We could provide some examples, I am sure.

[The following information was furnished:]

One example would be legislation applicable to future censuses that a respondent be informed that his data will be available for historic research after a period

of 100 years, or some other fixed period.

Another example would be to permit historians to have access to present confidential records after identifying details had been deleted and under controlled

conditions.
16

Mr. HINSHAW. Would you make it a fairly comprehensive list, so

we would not have to think of better examples? Because you would

be in a better position to know what type ofrequests you have had.

Mr. HAOAN. For the record, the representations that have been

made directly to the Bureau of the Census have been largely for

genealogical purposes, people interested in that type of research,

tracing family ancestry, and so forth. I think GSA or the Archives

could probably submit a greater range of the types of requests that

they have received as well. Ours have largely been requests from single

individuals.

Mr. WHITE. If the gentleman will yield, I think he has in mind your

ideas from whatever source that you feel we should include; if you feel

that it should be legislated by description in the bill, we would be

pleased to consider it at that tune.

Mr. HINSHAW. I have one further question. Going back to the

heirships, it might be a disturbing feature in the bill if there were two

members of a Family, each having different views and sought to use

census data to prove the validity or nonvalidity of a claim. However, I

agree that there should be as much disclosure as possible, commensurate with the element principle of confidentiality built into the bill.

Why wouldn't an amendment to the present bill be appropriate

that would say that when there is a civil case involving two members of a family, or a member of a family that might want to disclose

the data of heirship, that the census records be provided to the court

in closed session to determine the" validity or nonvalidity of having

those data exposed in open civil trial?

Mr. MEISNER. That is one of the traditional ways of making confidential information available to the Judge. It is a rare situation, I

gather that we are talking about, but it does come up.

Mr. HINSHAW. YOU brought it up, so I didn't know it was rare.

Mr. MEISNER. It has arisen, and I think there should be some way

of opening those records for necessary court determinations.

Mr. HINSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that perhaps you

could ask the staff to explore an amendment along that line and we

would be pleased also, I am not an attorney

Mr. WHITE. Counsel has been taking notes and he will certainly

comply with your desire.

Mr. Lehman, anything further?

Mr. LEHMAN. No, I guess I am more interested in the information

we can get tomorrow than 100 years from now.

Mr. WHITE. If you have any questions, Counsel, or if there have

been questions not covered by testimony

Mr. BRAY. I believe both of these questions we have from the

audience have been covered by Mr. Hagan.

Mr. WHITE. Do you have any questions yourself?

Mr. BRAY. Not at this time.

Mr. WHITE. Thank you very much for coming today. We may be

calling on you in the future as we consider this bill and any inserts

for the record you can provide for use in the future.

Mr. HAGAN. Thank you.

Mr. WHITE. The next witness is Prof. Allan G. Bogue, chairman,

Department of Histor}^ University of Wisconsin and chairman, American Historical Association's Committee on Quantitative Data.

Professor Bogue, you may introduce your associate and proceed

with your statement.
17

STATEMENT OF PEOF. ALLAN G. BOGUE, CHAIEMAN, DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY, UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN, ACCOMPANIED

BY DR. PAUL WARD, SECRETARY FOR AMERICAN HISTORY ASSOCIATION

Mr. BOGUE. This is Dr. Paul Ward, secretary of the American

Historical Association, and we are most grateful for the opportunity

to appear before you this morning on behalf of the American Historical Association.

We are opposed to H.R. 4426 in its present form because it proposes

to close Federal census data to a large community of qualified scholars

forever. We are opposed to the confidentiality clause that appears

therein. Historians do not wish to invade the privacy of the individual

American, but we do believe that the individual's privacy would be

adequately protected by closing any given Federal census for an extended period of time•72 years appears to be more than adequate•

after which time the rolls would be opened to qualified historians under

appropriate and effective supervisory arrangement.

We think it is important for us to understand the way in which

the country has developed. If we, as a nation, do not know where we

have been, we are going to have considerable trouble in deciding

where we ought to go. History is not just the story of Presidents,

Governors, longs, popes and other leaders. It is also the record of

ordinary citizens and the societies of which they are a part. The original census rolls are a most important source of information about

the representative Americans of times past.

In using the census, historians are not interested in focusing on

individuals for the sake of sensation or ridicule. Their findings indeed

are usually presented in general or quantitative terms, without mentioning names. If specific individuals are ever mentioned, it is because

they illustrate the behavior of considerable numbers of other peoples

who underwent similar experiences or made similar decisions, and if

necessary this mention could be eliminated.

For many years historians have made heavy use of 19th-century

Federal censuses down to 1880, as well as various State censuses

extending into the 20th century, without harm to individuals. Today

we know many important things about the American past as a result

of this research that we could not have known if sucn censuses had

been closed to researchers.

The idea that the analysts of the Bureau of the Census and thenadvisers can know and decide for all time what the important questions are that should be asked about the population of the United

States in a particular year strikes us as naive and even a bit arrogant.

Our experiences with the earlier censuses show that later generations

develop important questions that are answerable from the censuses,

which never occurred to the people planning the censuses originally.

Closing the censuses forever completely forecloses this kind of

possibility.

Let me touch briefly on some of the kinds of uses that researchers

put thi9 information to. Historical research based upon census data

in some quantity dates back to the 1930's when James Malin, of the

University of Kansas^ used census data to study the effect that

diminishing amounts of rainfall had had upon the turnover of successive farmers in the various rainfall belts of Kansas. His findings
18

were so significant to an understanding of agriculture in the Dust

Bowl, that the U.S. Department of Agriculture sent out one of its

economists to do another study to see if he was right.

About the same time, Frank Owsley and other historians at Vanderbilt University started to rework the manuscript censuses of 1850

and I860, to give us a better idea of what Southern society was like

prior to the Civil War, and in the process considerably changed our

understanding of why the War Between the States occurred.

During the last 15 years, there has been a great upsurge in the use

of the old census data by historians exploring the way in which

Americans have moved from place to place to exploit the opportunities

available in America, and the way in which the immigrants have

worked their way into responsible positions in the labor force.

Using census data, political historians have found that in the

United States the ethnic composition of townships and precincts are

often strongly associated with party choice in voting preference, and

by using 19th-century census data to document such relationships

they have produced a better political history than we have ever had

before. In this one kind of research individual names are of no concern

to the researchers; they are interested rather in the occupations that

ethnic groups represented in simple subdivisions.

These are important problems that historians are studying. In this

mobile society of ours, people are going to continue to move around

and reestablish themselves in an effort to exploit opportunities. And

if the people in the country lose their interest in and their understanding of our political system, we are going to be in a bad way. The

more we know about how these processes worked in our past history,

the better we can understand them in the present. We have just come

through an era of public recrimination and dismal prognoses about

the Nation's viability.

Intensive research of the sort being done in census materials gives

to this historian at least the message that we are not in decline, that

we have made progress and that more can be expected. Historical

perspective should be encouraged, not restricted as H.R. 4426 would

do.

There are dozens and dozens of historians who have used or are

using Federal and State census records. Since the States have abandoned their census activity, it is all the more important that the

Federal Government should not deny this resource to historians also.

To sum up, in recent years there have been two particular questions

concerning census policy that have been of great interest to historians.

First, when are we to be allowed to use the 1900 census bearing in mind

that that of 1880 has long been opened for research and that of 1890

was destroyed? And second, can a long-term policy on censuses be

developed that will be in the best interests of all groups concerned?

As to the first, we initially were told that the 1900 census would be

opened after 50 years•then it became 72 years, and that period too

has now gone by. It was explained that a confidentiality pledge barred

us from that material. I find no specific reference to such a pledge in

the statute establishing the census of 1900, although it is possible

that by means of interpretation this has been read into it. On the

face of it, the 1899 act doesn't seem to show such a pledge.

As to a long-range policy, we have in H.R. 4426 a suggested policy

that makes the historian, alone of the social scientists, a pariah. It
19

will close the door forever on aspects of the past that the citizens

of this country will need to know about. We hope that the Congress

will agree that since this country does indeed need its past, census

data should be open to qualified historians under appropriate supervision at the expiration of a period of 70 to 75 years. There are some

middle-ground positions between complete closure and our suggestion,

but none of them can be taken without doing a direct disservice to

many historians and an indirect disservice to the country.

Thank you.

Mr. WHITE. Thank you very much, Professor Bogue. At this time

I call Mr. Lehman.

Mr. LEHMAN. It was kind of interesting to look at this fact that

you say the census of 1850 and 1860 can give a better understanding

of why the War Between the States occurred. I wonder if the census

of 1950 and 1960 can give us any indication of why the Vietnam war

occurred?

Mr. BOGUE. We would like to find out some 70 years from now.

Mr. LEHMAN. I would like to find out quicker than that. I am

using that as a basis for how fast the world is changing. Now there

have been more changes in the last 20 years than there has been in

the last 50 or 100 years before that. So you know, maybe it is good for

knowledge of the 1960's.

Mr. BOGUE. I agree.

Mr. LEHMAN. We have got to react a lot quicker than we used to

have to react. That is all.

Mr. WHITE. Under the present law couldn't historians connected

with the Census Bureau go into these particular records to form

conclusions without naming names?

Mr. BOGUE. Currently?

Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir.

Mr. BOGUE. Could he?

Mr. WHITE. Couldn't a Department of the Census historian, in

making surveys and utilization or interpretation of census information

go into historical questions and of course, you would be spoon fed the

information.

Mr. BOGUE. He could find out a number of interesting things and

we asked on occasion to be allowed to use the 1900 census rolls with

the names covered and that was refused, also.

Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. Chairman, excuse me?

Mr. WHITE. Yes.

Mr. LEHMAN. This is important. If this is a valid premise, if you

could 120 years later find out why we got in the Civil War, what are

some of the causes, on the same token, why couldn't current census

data be used to form national policy to keep us from getting into unfortunate national situations. It is information that lends itself to all

kinds of national interests.

Mr. BOGUE. It does.

Dr. WARD. Mr. Chairman, may I add a couple of remarks? The

historical profession has expanded enormously in the last generation

as part of these great changes going on. Over half of the principle

historians have completed their training since 1960. That is due to the

GI bill, and all of the other changes that have come alo"^. These

represent a much broader sampling of the population with more concerns for ethnic groups with levels of mobility, and for example, the
20

gentleman historians of the past tended to have other interests. My

association has 17,000 members and it is very conscious of these new

historians who are asking the new questions. It is delighted that

Professor Bogue was willing to come in from Wisconsin to represent the

interests of our committee on quantitative data, which is concerned

with getting at precisely this kind of question. These younger men are

quite excited about precisely these questions you are talking about

and any sharp closing of the door to them is going to be of serious

consequences to the development of the questioning spirit about the

background for our involvement in this foreign policy, the way we

have, and the sort of support that has been mustered for these

situations.

Mr. WHITE. Mr. Hinshaw?

Mr. HINSHAW. Yes. I want to state first of all that we are aware

of Ihe idea that historians are reputable and are nice as a group to

have around. We are currently dealing with another group interest

in the Congress, the newsmans shield. Among the news media, there

is a great deal of differentiation as to how you define the term "newsman." Now we can translate that problem over to ask how you define

the scholar or historian?

Why can't I set myself up and claim to be a historian and request

this information for an entirely different motive than a reputable

academic historian might have, and then come back and somehow

or another cause a problem to innocent persons. Professor Bogue,

how do you overcome that problem?

Mr. BOGUE. I think there are various answers here. In the first

place, the person who is going to misuse the data for the purpose

of personal harassment is not going to be prevented from domg this

whether or not we open censuses because he can use municipal data•

birth certificates, marriage certificates and so on•material which is

available and open.

Quite aside from that, there are various ways of going at this.

The National Archives, perhaps, who I assume would continue to

be custodian of such data, could set certain standards for use comparable to what the Library of Congress, for instance, set up in relation to certain manuscript data in their possession and which is open

for use but which they do not have title to, and therefore it can be

looked at, but it cannot be quoted directly, and so on.

So I think regulations could be worked up by the National Archives

that would protect here.

Mr. HINSHAW. If that is possible then you really shouldn't have

any concern about the confidential portion of the statute.

Mr. BOGUE. Oh, no; the confidential portion of the statute proposes to close it, to give no options, no system at all for use of these

data, sir.

Mr. HINSHAW. Well, I believe you are right, but I don't think you

are really being responsive. How do you define historian or scholar

versus someone who might be a legitimate author but also like the

fellow who wrote the book on Howard Hughes, you know.

Mr. BOGUE. Yes, sir.

Mr. HINSHAW. I think that is the big problem. If it were just

historians working for

Mr. BOGUE. I was giving you alternatives. The National Archives

set of requirements for us would be one of them. A clause in the law

putting some sort of penalty in the law for misuse of these records.
21

Mr. HINSHAW. All right.

Mr. BOGUE. Perhaps certification by the American Historical

Association or by certified graduate schools, or both, or all of these

things are options.

Mr. WHITE. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. HINSHAW. Yes.

Mr. WHITE. Dr. Ward was going to say something else.

Dr. WARD. Speaking for the American Historical Association, we

believe that the supervision and selectivity exercised by the Department of Defense in allowing qualified historians access to scientific

material has been working satisfactorily over a number of years. We

would rather that we ourselves did not set outselves up as able to say

who is a true historian or not. We believe that Archives can easily

exercise the same kind of discretion and control that the Department

of Defense has been doing so successfully.

Mr. WHITE. Well, let me ask these questions then if you are

through, Mr. Hinshaw.

Mr. HINSHAW. OK.

Mr. WHITE. In following the line of questioning of Mr. Hinshaw

on this particular bill or bills, whichever one you designate to be the

vehicle, suppose we provided that no information, as gathered from

such information•provided it is remained open to genealogists and

historians•could be utilized to specify individuals.

In other words, you cannot say, "This individual did such and such,"

or, "He said this about himself," he would use it merely in toto as

general information and not as specific information about a person,

would this be objectionable to the historian?

Mr. BOGUE. The historian could work with this.

Mr. WHITE. Going further, you heard the testimony of the Deputy

Director of the Census who stated, in essence, that the American

public has a contract for confidentiality for past census forms that they

filled. You alluded to this somewhat. But would you address yourself

again to that?

A person who answers a form expects it to be confidential. This

has been his understanding.

The law, for a number of years, has said this information shall be

confidential, and, in essence, that becomes a part of the contract in

that the law says it will be confidential.

Would we be breaking faith with the American public for the past

censuses we have taken if we open those records to the general public

or opened it for specific purposes?

Mr. BOGUE. Well, it is unclear in my mind, sir, as to exactly where

and when the specific pledge entered. I do not find it in 1900.1 do not

believe it is in 1910. But I believe that something of this sort does

enter in.

It is a question of how long one is interested in maintaining this,

I suppose. I cannot imagine that, after 70 or 80 years, it really matters

to anyone, or that the people who were involved if the matter had

been put in those terms to them, would have been concerned at that

time.

Mr. WHITE. Well, you are indicating, to a degree, that it should

matter to the person only as long as he lives, really.

Mr. BOGUE. Yes, I suppose that I am.
22

Mr. WHITE. SO what year would you really fix? What span of

years would you fix that would cover that person and probably his

offspring?

Mr. BOGUE. Sir, I am really indicating, I suppose, that to me, it

would only matter to the individual as long as there were materials

relative to his adult life.

I cannot imagine that it matters much to an individual if he is

talking about a census report at the age of 1 or 11 or 15 or something

like that. So I would return to the fact that I think 70 to 80 years is

quite reasonable.

Mr. WHITE. Would you find historians could live with 100 years?

In other words, that is in terms of years that are used in some other

countries.

Mr. BOGUE. Yes. Yes.

Mr. WHITE. And I was just wondering what your understanding

of their utility of this would be.

Mr. BOGUE. Well, there is a great deal of interesting research and

a lot of interesting questions which historians want put to 1900 and

1910 and 1920, and I know that some of the people who want to put

those questions are not going to be around if you extend the 100-year

rule back to cover those particular censuses.

Obviously, if, in your wisdom, you settle on a 100-year rule, then

we are going to have to live with that rule.

Mr. WHITE. Well, really, what you are saying, though, is that

virtually any term of years is not going to really solve the historical

needs. There is an area in my mind on which we could compromise

this; for instance, just off the top of my head, allow some media by

which historians could refer a specific question to the Census Bureau

for 1 or 10 years ago, even the last 2 years.

Mr. BOGUE. AS you know, we do have a clause in the current census

law, section 8, and it has not worked very welj.

Mr. WHITE. Well, I know. But it would be a census official who

would find this information for you within that shorter span of time?

Mr. BOGUE. Yes. But, often, we need to work with large groups of

people, all the residents of a township or precinct or of a county.

To give you one illustration of what might happen, a doctoral

candidate had in mind doing a study of a population on agricultural

change and population changes in the Nebraska plains country from

the 1890's through to the 1960's and thought of taking advantage

of section 8 and having the Census Bureau retabulate the age structure

of certain counties or townships in central Nebraska, the particular

counties he was interested in. So he asked the Census Bureau if he

could do this.

Initially, the response was favorable. They quoted a figure of some

several hundred dollars. Most graduate students are poverty stricken

but he thought he could raise that amount.

Then they advised him they raised their estimate to between

$5,000 and $10,000. It was absolutely impossible for him to pay

that amount of money. The historian, unlike some other sciences,

has no easy avenue to the National Science Foundation.

Mr. WHITE. But it is available now.

Mr. BOGUE. YOU could get retabulations of certain types.

Mr. WHITE. But you cannot get interpretation within the Census

Bureau?
23

Mr. BOGUE. No.

Mr. WHITE. Would you hope, in the periods of time as provided in

any particular bill we may report, that the information would be

open to the general public, or just to genealogists and historians, or

just to historians?

Mr. BOGUE. Well, I am representing the historians this morning,

and I have not addressed myself to those questions.

Mr. WHITE. Well, in fairness, as an American citizen, what would

you say?

Mr. BOGUE. Well, I would say this: that I do not believe there

have been any harmful results as a result of the opening of the Federal

census down to 1880 or the State census, in the case of Kansas, down

to 1930 or 1935.

Mr. WHITE. Were those open to the general public?

Mr. BOGUE. Yes, sir.

Mr. WHITE. Thank you very much. Any other questions from

members of the committee?

Counsel, do you have a question?

Mr. BRAY. NO, sir.

Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. Chairman, is there such a possibility of twotiered questions where certain questions have no point in being

confidential and other questions, I can see, very well may be confidential? Certain questions would be restricted and others could be

available.

Mr. BOGUE. I think that is a useful concept.

Mr. LEHMAN. SO the census could be constructed on the basis of

restricted and nonrestricted material, and the person answering questions could respond in that manner.

The second thing is•perhaps this is academic•in a certain climate

in this country under a national emergency, you are going to have

census data that could very well be opened under executive directive.

I do not know what happened back in 1940, 1941, and 1942 when the

Japanese, for instance, were imprisoned for, say, national security

reasons. I do not know where they got the information on who was

Japanese. But I could well imagine something like that happening

and using census data when something like that could come up.

Mr. WHITE. If there are no further questions, thank you both,

gentlemen, for appearing.

The next witness wifl be Mr. Thomas E. Daniels, Genealogical

Society of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Please

come forward.

STATEMENT OF THOMAS E. DANIELS, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT,

THE GENEALOGICAL SOCIETY OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST

OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH

Mr. DANIELS. Thank you. We are grateful for this opportunity to

present our position. I do, indeed, represent the Genealogical Society

of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-dayrSaints and perhaps other

genealogical interests; the patrons of our genealogical library, its

branches, and the general membership of the church.
24

We speak against sections 4 and 5 of the House bill 4426 for reasons

which will follow.

Now, statements concerning those whom we represent: The general

church membership representing about 3% million people at the present

time; our main genealogical library, which is the largest in the world,

in Salt Lake City serving on the average of 1,500 patrons per day; in

addition to that, the branch libraries located throughout the United

States, 126 of these at the present time which serve a total of approximately 43,875 persons yearly.

Now, 25 percent of these patrons are not members of the Church

of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, indicating that a great number

of nonmember people are interested in genealogy, in fact, far more

than those who are members of the church that I represent.

Additionally, the members of the LDS Church consider the pursuit

of genealogical research as a basic and divinely invoked responsibility

which goes far beyond the general interest in genealogy of people

who are not members of this church.

There is a great interest in genealogy throughout the United

States and, indeed, throughout the world as evidenced by many

State and local genealogical societies and associations which may

have been organized in recent years, some of which are indicated on

the written material.

Now, a statement of our proposal regarding the release of information contained in the Federal census.

We propose that the censuses of the United States be released for

general public search after 72 years•consistent with the code as it

now exists•after 72 years have passed from the date of the enumeration. And the reasons are based on the following:

We find that there is no more confidential information contained

in the 1900 and later censuses than is contained in the 1880 census.

In 1900, the following items of information, not included in the 1880

census, were added to the census forms. For instance. Month and

year of birth, the number of years married, mother of how many

children, the number of these children living, year of immigration to

the United States, number of years in the United States, naturalization, and can speak English.

And then four questions concerning ownership of home.

Deleted from the 1900 schedule, but included in the 1880 census,

were the following items.

Is the person sick or temporarily disabled so as to be unable to

attend to ordinary business or duties? If so, what is the sickness or

disability?

Is the individual blind, deaf and dumb, idiotic, insane, maimed,

crippled, bedridden, or otherwise disabled?

Now, it would seem to us that some of these items deleted from the

1900 schedule would be much more sensitive than those that were

added.

Several of the States of the United States, as we mentioned here

this morning, authorized State censuses in the years 1905, 1915 and

1925. At least Kansas and New York do not consider these confidential. They have been made public.

It seems inconsistent that the Federal returns would be detrimental

to an individual and the State returns would not. We can find no

evidence that the 1900 census carried a promise of confidentiality.
25

The Federal censuses are considered indispensable to genealogists.

There is just no alternative to this information. The following factors,

we would point out, enhance the value of these records. These are

very important to us.

The late beginning and incomplete recording of statewide registration of vital statistics in many States increases greatly the need

for access to the census records.

The arrangement by the Soundex system of families recorded in the

1900 census makes it especially valuable as a "finding tool" to help

locate places of residence of families.

The destruction of the 1890 Federal census further increases the

value of the 1900 census.

In summary, we would agree with the resolution adopted by the

Council of the Society of American Archivists on April 15, 1971, as

follows:

Whereas, the Society of American Archivists (a professional association of about

1,200 archivists, manuscript curators, librarians, and records managers and about

400 institutional members•chiefly public and private archives and manuscript

repositories) desires to grant maximum access to documents, subject to necessary

limitations to protect privacy and the national security;

Whereas, census population schedules provide unique and significant social

indicators, such as family size, occupation, education, and place of birth, useful

in studying the characteristics and mobility of the American people;

Whereas, the Archivist of the United States and the Director of the Bureau

of the Census agreed in 1952 that population schedules be opened to general

research after 72 years; and

Whereas, granting access under that agreement to earlier population schedules,

which contain far more detailed data than the 1900 schedules, has apparently

not been detrimental to any person; be it

Resolved, That the Society petitions the General Services Administration and

its National Archives and Records Service and theDepartment of Commerce and

its Bureau of the Census to grant researchers access to the 1900 population schedules on June 1, 1972, 72 years after the Census Day for the decennial of 1900,

in accordance with the agreement of 1952.

THEODORE M. BURTON,

President.

THOMAS E. DANIELS,

Administrative Assistant.

Mr. DANIELS. Thank you.

Mr. WHITE. Mr. Hinsnaw.

Mr. HINSHAW. I am kind of curious because my sister-in-law belongs

not only to the church, but she tried to trace our records back.

When I say that, I recognize, also that in my former job, I used to

have literally hundreds of requests for access to data about property.

I recognize that back in 1880, 1890, 1900, there was less concern about

keeping track of information, as opposed to what there has been

from, say, 1930 on. There are a great deal in numbers of sources of

information.

Why do we perpetuate the idea that the Federal census is the only

place that we can get data about namess of individuals and their

ancestry?

Mr. DANIELS. I could respond by saying that the census records

are not the primary means of information. But they become one of

the very vital means when other records are not available, such as I

mentioned in the material; such things as vital statistics and church

records.

94-514 O•7&-
26

Census records help genealogists to trace migration, help genealogists to help find many missing people that other records do not

contain.

Mr. HINSHAW. Isn't it possible that some persons that were "lost"

are lost because they choose to be lost and they do not want anyone

tracing them down? And isn't it a fact, also, that many of the so-called

skip tracers use your records?

Mr. DANIELS. Skip tracers?

Mr. HINSHAW. Yes. Persons who are running down persons for

bad credit risks or persons who have skipped because of some legal

obligation they want to avoid.

Mr. DANIELS. I am not aware of any who are. However, our libraries

are open to the public.

As I pointed out, people who have any interest in the records are

permitted access to them. We are planning a patron identification

system to give us closer control of those who use the records.

As I said, we have the largest genealogical library anywhere,

housing approximately 750,000 hundred-foot roles of microfilm, in

addition, about 125,000 printed volumes of family genealogies.

Mr. HINSHAW. Let me put this forth. I have no objection, as a

matter of personal feeling, to releasing data, where you cannot identify the individual, for use by historians, for governmental agencies,

for private businesses, so long as you do not identify the individual.

But the moment you identify the individual•even when you may

have a good reason such as your•then that information becomes

available to anyone else that wants to use it for any purpose whatsoever. Therein, maybe you compromise what the individual wanted to

do; and that is, to remain anonymous for whatever reason.

How do you overcome that?

Mr. DANIELS. We would support the bill to be submitted, introduced to the House by Representative Gunn McKay of Utah, which

is similar in most respects to House bill 4426, except for one section•

subsection F of section 9•which deals with the material on the table

here, those who would have access to the census information after

the expiration of the 72 years, which is our recommendation.

Mr. McKay's bill would call for 77 years. We could live with that.

But he is proposing that a group of individuals who are registered

with the Secretary of Commerce represent a legitimate organization

and would be given access to these records and would have the

privilege of copying them.

This would prevent individuals from having direct access to the

records.

Mr. HINSHAW. But then let me explore that.

What difference does it make whether the person has direct access

to the records, or whether he gets the same data out of your library?

Mr. DANIELS. I do not know what provision might be available

to keep confidential, or whether this would be necessary.

If anyone has access to the records, I would presume that, for legitimate purposes, all people could have access. This, I suppose, would

fall under the law.

At the present time, I do not know of any provision in our organization that would limit anybody from having access to the records.

Mr. HINSHAW. Mr. Daniels, the thing that I am vitally concerned

about is simply because of the geometrically increasing use of com-
27

Imters and the manipulation of data back and forth between States,

ocal governments, the Federal Government, and private business, all

manipulating data, that the more data that the Federal Government,

as well as the State governments, require the individual to provide,

that we may very well be approaching the time of big brotherhood.

Everything we know about an individual can be made available

to everyone else at some point in time. And it just seems to me that

we have to stop that someplace.

Now, when you identify the individual, that is one thing.

When you provide information about aggregate groups of individuals, that is an entirely different aspect, it seems to me.

Mr. DANIELS. We believe that over the period described in our

proposal, the sensitivity of this information would be greatly

diminished.

Mr. HINSHAW. Would it be entirely diminished?

Mr. DANIELS. That is difficult to say. That would be an individual

judgment.

Mr. HINSHAW. Well, I will just ask one more question.

Could you foresee any possible instance where data that you might

collect that might even be 100 years old might be put into your

library that could then come about to the detriment of another

individual?

Mr. DANIELS. The only thing we are interested in, Mr. Hinshaw,

out of the census records, are the items, some of which we have

alluded to, such as the names, dates, places and relationships of

individuals.

We do not care about their financial status. We do not care about

any of these other personal things.

We are interested in family relationships and groupings only.

These are the only kinds of things that we would have available in

our records.

Mr. HINSHAW. Is that the only thing you would take off of the

records?

Mr. DANIELS. This, I would not have the responsibility for, directly.

But I see no reason why the other information would be of any value.

It is my understanding that the demographic data is confined to a

single page in the census. That is all we need.

Mr. HINSHAW. Well, speaking as a committee member alone, if I

knew what type of data you would be interested in and perhaps

limiting yourself to collecting, then perhaps I might not be so concerned about having data exposed that would come to the detriment

of the individual.

But to give you carte blanche to go into the records, even though

you might have it now, is something that I probably would not be in

favor of.

Mr. DANIELS. Well, once again, those items as Usted on page two,

some of which we are keenly interested in, names, dates, places of

birth, places of marriage, places of death, dates

Mr. HINSHAW. Mother of how many children.

Mr. DANIELS. I beg your pardon?

Mr. HINSHAW. The mother of how many children.

Mr. DANIELS. Yes. This is a valuable tool because we sometimes

find the situation where we do not know whether we have all the

children identified in the family. And if that information were avail-
28

able, this would•with other information•provide more definite

data that would be needed by anyone searching that particular line.

Mr. HINSHAW. And how would that help, just tracing the

genealogy?

Mr. DANIELS. HOW would that help genealogy?

Mr. HINSHAW. All of these things, how would they help tracing the

genealogy?

Mr. DANIELS. Well, the interest of the genealogist is to indicate

on a pedigree chart their direct ancestral fine.

Mr. HINSHAW. Well, what difference does it make for the month

and year of birth in tracing genealogy?

Mr. DANIELS. Well, you have the identification•the month,

year and place of birth to make sure that that individual is the

individual that you are concerned with.

Mr. HINSHAW. All right. I can accept that. How about munber of

years married? How is that going to help trace genealogy?

Mr. DANIELS. The number of years married would be of collateral

interest.

Mr. HINSHAW. But not of vital interest?

Mr. DANIELS. Not of vital interest, necessarily.

Mr. HINSHAW. HOW about the number of these children living?

It that vital?

Mr. DANIELS. It would be, as well as the previous question, in

order to help establish a fact that may be partially known.

For instance, the number of years married would indicate, from the

time of the census back, it would indicate when that person was

married, establishing a marriage date, which might not be available,

otherwise.

The number of children living at that time would also help to verify

any other information that may be known about those children.

Mr. HINSHAW. Well, I just comment then, it would just seem to me

that what you are really saying is that you want everything you can

get, not only those things that are extremely vital in tracing genealogy.

And I could see very easily that a person, from your records, could

perhaps ascertain that the parents of children were not married, and,

thereby, at some later point in time, throw a cloud, not only on the

ownership of property but on the future heirship of properties.

Mr. DANIELS. AS I pointed out in Mr. McKay's bill, which we

would feel comfortable with it would make unavailable to any court

of law any information from any census. It will not be admissible as

evidence in any court of law.

Mr. HINSHAW. Which bill is that?

Mr. DANIELS. The bill to be introduced by Representative McKay.

Mr. HINSHAW. Has it been introduced yet?

Mr. DANIELS. NO. It is supposed to be introduced today.

Mr. HINSHAW. I have no further questions.

Mr. WHITE. Thank you, Mr. Hinshaw.

Several quick questions to you, Mr. Daniels.

Do you, or your society, publish the data that you obtained in your

genealogical research census records in the past, do you publish them

for the general public by naming individuals?

Mr. DANIELS. NO, we do not publish anything in the society.

Mr. WHITE. In other words, you have them merely kept in your

records then?
29

Mr. DANIELS. Yes.

Mr. WHITE. Do you make duplicates of those records?

Mr. DANIELS. We make duplicate films for our branch libraries

where there are no restrictions.

Mr. WHITE. What do you mean by "no restrictions"?

Mr. DANIELS. Well, many times, records are received by the society,

microfilmed by the society, and there are restrictions placed on

those records by the holder or the archivist.

Mr. WHITE. What do you do, publish those duplicates? Do you

send them to any other source or keep them within church records?

Mr. DANIELS. The only sources we would send them to would be

our branch genealogical libraries. All this does is provide the same

faculties to the people throughout the country.

Mr. WHITE. Are you indicating by your testimony that you feel

that there was no law for confidentiality in 1900?

Mr. DANIELS. We are not aware of any.

Mr. WHITE. Mr. McKay's proposed bill, I believe, would limit

the availability of census information to genealogists and historians,

if I am not mistaken. Is that correct?

Mr. DANIELS. Yes. This is my understanding.

Mr. WHITE. DO you feel that this might be too restrictive if you

are going to open records at all? Why would you not open records at

all?

Why would you not open them to the economists, sociologists, and

any others?

Mr. DANIELS. I cannot speak for Mr. McKay, and I do not know

whether he would entertain that broad a concept or not.

But I personally would see no reason for preventing a legitimate

interest or organization to have access to these records by virtue of

certain individuals appointed to examine them and make copies.

Mr. WHITE. Thank you, Mr. Daniels.

Counsel, do you have any questions?

Mr. BRAY. I would like to ask why you refer to genealogy as a

divinely invoked responsibility, or why your organization considers

it such.

Mr. DANIELS. That is a very interesting question. I would be very

happy to answer it, if the chairman approves.

Mr. WHITE. Well, I think, if I am not mistaken, that is a part of

the basic religion of the Mormons, is it not?

Mr. DANIELS. Yes, it is. I might point out just briefly, in answer

to that question, that those who are not members of The Jesus Christ

of Latter-day Saints, but who still have great interest in genealogy,

their interest generally terminates with the entry of those names on

a pedigree chart. They identify their people, and that is it.

Our interest goes much deeper than that. We take the names from

pedigree charts after they have been identified, and the names then

are submitted for clearance for ordinance work in the temples of the

Church.

And these ordinances are performed in the temples under the

authority of the priesthood, by proxy, for the dead as well as for the

living. Those who choose to go through the temples for these ordinances on their own behalf way do so.

The concept, as revealed, is that these ordinances are basic and

necessary for eternal life in a family relationship with God. And so
30

this is why I mentioned that this is a divinely invoked responsibility

and whv it goes far beyond the normal interest in genealogy.

Mr. WHITE. Does that answer Counsel's question?

Mr. BRAY. Thank you.

Mr. WHITE. Thank you very much, Mr. Daniels.

At this time, we call on John H. Aiken, Executive Director of the

Federal Statistics Users' Conference.

STATEMENT OF JOHN H. AIKEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE

FEDERAL STATISTICS USERS' CONFERENCE

Mr. AIKEN. AS the Executive Director of the Federal Statistics

Users' Conference, my appearance here today is to present the views

of the Conference on proposals for mid-decade census legislation.

FSCU is an association comprising 189 organizations generally

classified as business firms, labor unions, nonprofit research groups

(including professional associations), State and local governments and

trade associations. Members of these groups have a common interest

in obtaining adequate, timely and reliable information from Federal

statistical programs. Almost every segment of the economy that uses

Federal statistics is represented in the Conference.

I wish to make it clear that the collection of more statistics, per se,

is not an objective of our organization. One of our primary functions,

as spelled out in our by-laws is "to coordinate efforts of Federal statistics users in developing Federal statistical programs of optimum

usefulness at minimum expense."

The Federal Statistics Users' Conference has repeatedly endorsed a

mid-decade census, and has so testified at previous hearings before

this subcommittee, as well as before the Senate Post Office and Civil

Service Committee. I would particularly refer you to our last detailed

statement, presented on May 18, 1971, before this subcommittee.

That statement appears in the printed record of the hearings.

However, at the Sixteenth Annual Meeting of the Federal Statistics

Users' Conference, held in November, 1972, the following resolution

was approved at the membership business meeting:

Whereas, the Two-Hundredth Anniversary of the founding of the Republic

will be celebrated in 1976, and

Whereas, anniversaries are a time for considering the past, the present and the

future, as well as a time for commemoration, and

Whereas, no better milestone can be posted to mark the progress of this great

Nation than a census of population of the United States of America, taken at

this pivotal point in the Nation's history, and

Whereas, the Federal Statistics Users Conference has repeatedly endorsed a

Mid-Decade Census, and

Whereas, it is now known that a Mid-Decade Census in 1975 is not feasible:

Now, therefore, be it

Rtsolved, That the Federal Statistics Users' Conference supports a Bicentennial

count of Population and Housing to be taken in 1976, so that we may have a more

current picture of the distribution and characteristics of the population of our

nation, and be it further

Resolved, That a scaled-down version of the Decennial census, rather than a

full replication, should be taken early in the year 1976 so that the results of this

modified census may be published during the Bicentennial Year.

Now, that was approved on November 21, 1972, last year, and I

think it is clear the general feeling was that if we do not have the lead

time necessary for 1975, certainly we ought to consider 1976.
31

But I would particularly like to call your attention to a report on

FSUC Survey regarding proposals for a Mid-Decade Census of Population and Housing. That report was issued in October, 1971, ana is

included as a part of the hearings held by this subcommittee on

May 18, June 2, and 10, 1971.

Now, there seems to be a discrepancy there, but the hearings record

was held open for later submission of material and we were fortunate

that our report was included. And, if it is agreeable, I would appreciate

it if a copy of that report could again be included in the record of these

hearings.

Mr. WHITE. Without objection, so ordered, and it will be placed in

the record at the end of your testimony.

Mr. AIKEN. Now, the FSUC's survey was conducted at the request

of Congressman Charles H. Wilson, then chairman of the House

Subcommittee on Census and Statistics. FSUC members were asked

for their views on the scope of a mid-decade census, on the level of

detail they believe is essential, and on the penalty provisions of the

law. A total of 156 responses were received from 123 firms or organizations, representing an overall response rate of 59.1 percent.

The report contains 21 pages of detailed tables. The reponses were

tabulated for all respondents, and then further tabulated by classification of respondents; that is, business firms, State and local governments,

universities, nonprofit research organizations, trade associations and

labor unions. As the report indicates, there are distinct variations in

the responses as between the various classifications of respondents.

The principal results of the survey showed the following: 95.4

percent favor a mid-decade census to be taken in 1975; 92.8 percent

favor a census in the middle of every succeeding decade; 90.7 percent

favor the mandatory requirement for response; 67.9 percent believe

the provisions of the law for compulsory response in the censuses should

be amended to remove the jail penalty; 56.8 percent believe that

the level of fine should not be increased.

I want to mention some of the items of major interest. Of the 32

population items included in the 1970 census, 16 of these were rated

of nigh priority in a mid-decade census by 50 percent or more of the

total respondents.

From the standpoint of priorities, it is obvious that age, sex, and

color or race would rank high in the population category.

Other high priority items include: employment, income, occupation,

marital status, education, place of work, means of transportation to

work, relationship to head of household, place of residence 5 years

ago, and year moved into this house.

Of the 33 housing items included in the 1970 census, 11 of these

were rated of high priority in a mid-decade census by 50 percent or

more of the total respondents.

In this category, the following items had the highest priority ratings:

number of units and whether a trailer, value, contract rent, year

structure built, vacancy status, rooms and tenure.

Following in importance is information on: automobiles, flush

toilet, bathrooms, complete kitchen facilities, months vacant, farm

residence and water supply.
32

I think one of the things that the results of this survey show is

that if you are going to have a scaled-down version, this is at least a

documented indication of priority items from the standpoint of users

and I hope it will be useful.

Mr. WHITE. That is very valuable. We appreciate you giving it to

us.

Mr. AIKEN. Now, the main thing is the need for small area data.

The survey provides overwhelming evidence of the great need for

small area data by all classes of users.

For every single population and housing item, more than 50 percent of the respondents indicated a need for data at the county, urban

place or census tract level.

For block data provided from the 100 percent items for both population and housing, an average of approximately 27 percent of user

respondents indicated a need for this level of data.

Now, for these two small area geographic levels•census tracts and

blocks•the range of need is from 68 percent to 86 percent.

It is not in my statement, but I would say that the lowest level for

which our members need data is at the county level. Their minimum

requirement is that they obtain data at the county level in any survey

that might be conducted.

Mr. WHITE. What size of population are you suggesting?

Mr. AIKEN. I think that vanes. I would have to look up the figures

on what is the smallest county. Of course, you may eliminate some.

But from what I heard about the proposed surveys, they are going

to give data only for some large counties. I think that a lot of counties

will be missed that are of great importance. This is why our members

feel that we must get down to the county level in these surveys.

It is this overwhelming need for small area data that prompts the

conference to support legislation for a mid-decade census of population and housing.

As I have mentioned, our position has been made clear in previous testimony. A review of the history of this issue over the past decade•as

compiled in terms of congressional hearings, writings in journals and

newspapers, and public statements by Governors, mayors and other

local government officials•indicates that there is overwhelming evidence of the utility and value of a mid-decade census. There is little

more that can be said now that has not been said before.

We consider legislation for a mid-decade census one of the most

important issues today relating to ourstatistical system. We commend

the subcommittee for recognizing this fact and for placing it first on

the agenda of business. We earnestly urge the subcommittee to report

favorably on a mid-decade census.

Mr. Chairman, we appreciate this opportunity to present the

views of the Federal Statistics Users' Conference on this important

issue.

Mr. WHITE. Thank you, Mr. Aiken. And your former testimony,

of course, is available to the committee, and it has been most helpful.

At this time, I am going to recognize Mr. Hinshaw for 5 minutes of

questioning.

Mr. HINSHAW. Mr. Aiken, first of all, I find the report of the survey

very helpful, from a quick scan that I gave it.

I am going to give a little background information myself, and then

I am going to ask a direct question.
33

t used to be the assessor in Orange County, Calif., and assessors'

offices, generally speaking, do not have computerized records. In

1965 we started collecting all of the property information, of both

businesses and residential property, and putting information on file

in our computer. I suppose, we led the entire Nation in that regard.

After the 1970 census was published, we checked the data that we

had in our file with the data that was listed by census tract and the

correlation was extremely good.

I am not prepared to say whose data was better, but I will guess

you can think whose was better.

Were you in the room when I was asking Mr. Hagan some questions?

Mr. AIKEN. Yes, sir.

Mr. HINSHAW. It would seem to me•and I am asking for your

reaction to this supposition on my part•that if the Federal Government, through whatever fashion they chose, were to encourage States

and local governments to collect all the type of data which States

and local governments are supposed to collect, according to the now

existing laws, and compile that data in such a fashion that computer

tapes would be presented to the Census Bureau for reformat into

whatever fashion it chose, that the huge cost of a mid-decade census,

and the huge cost of a full decade census could be reduced in terms of

number; but, more importantly, perhaps the data could be then

available not every 5 or 10 years but would be available every few

months or every year. I would like to get your reaction to

that suggestion.

Mr. AIKEN. Well, I am not a userj but a representative of users.

But I will say this: We have encouraged and supported better coordination between the Federal Government and State governments

than between State governments. From what I have learned, there

are many different data systems.

They have different definitions, different classifications, and they

are not consistent in their methods of collection and some medium

needs to be established where States can get together•and we have

encouraged it, as a matter of fact•to identify their priorities for

data, to describe how they are collecting data, to determine the

differences, and find a means for improving the system so that the

data can be meshed and coordinated.

I think you have touched on a very important problem. Some

States say, "Well, we don't have the resources, either in money

or staff."

Some are doing a pretty good job and our organization would

encourage greater coordination and lend support to any efforts that

could be made along that line.

Now the question of revenue sharing came up this morning by

Mr. Hagan. We consider this a most important area. As a matter

of fact, I now have under consideration a 2-day conference in June

on data sources and needs for revenue sharing and formula grants.

I am holding a meeting next week of about 20 key people from

government and private industry who are working on this to see

if we can structure a logical, informative program about what kinds

of information we are going to need to establish eligibility•where

does it exist, how do they use it. But I think you have touched on

a very good point.
34

Mr. HINSHAW. Thank you. We have one more point; it seems to

me that the great objections of the States and local governments

to the reliability of the Census Bureau figures of the 1970 census

has been such that the Census Bureau data collection method has

been largely discredited.

My own feeling is that data, however collected, has to be considered

as primarily usable for business because our whole economy, and

therefore government, depends upon accurate, timely data for the

use of business.

Mr. AIKEN. Well, there are, of course, many different types of users

who use the data for the same purposes. But I agree that the business users are vitally important.

The list you refer to includes only five people from each membership group. I think our State and local government group has about

13 or 14 members. I would like to have a meeting of our State members to consider the very suggestion that you made.

Mr. HINSHAW. I will see if I cannot help foster that with you.

Mr. AIKEN. Thank you. We will be happy to have your support.

Mr. HINSHAW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WHITE. Mr. Aiken, even Mr. Hagan, in testifying, indicated

that he felt that a 25-percent central survey, which is about the

amount that appears to be required to reach down into the county

level that you are speaking of, would cost something in the neighborhood of $200 million, if I recall his testimony.

Mr. AIKEN. Two years ago, it was $170 million.

Mr. WHITE. Well, just assuming that those figures are reasonably

accurate.

Mr. AIKEN. We have to go on that assumption because I have no

way to verify them.

Mr. WHITE. Do you feel this would be an economical venture that

will pay off, or do you feel that this would not be a justified

expenditure?

Mr. AIKEN. The question has come up many times, and the Office

of Management and Budget says $200 million is just too much to

spend. They say: Where are you going to get the money? Can you

give it to us?

We support economy in government, but this proposal is a single

isolated type of a program. We have the census, the 10-year census.

That need has been established.

Our attitude is that an expenditure in statistics is a good investment.

It does pay off.

Now, I know the President's Commission examined the question

and said, "Well, we need a good cost-benefit analysis." But it is tough

to do it.

I have not seen a good cost-benefit analysis regarding statistical

programs. What I really think is needed is some measure of the value

of decisions or the kinds of decisions that are made based on statistical

data.

We have often been asked, what kinds of decisions are made based

on certain kinds of statistical data. Well, you cannot say.

The chairman of a corporation may call his economist and say,

"I need data on this." Well, the economist provides a combination of

data. The man that provides the data just does not realize how much

impact that data has on decisionmaking.
35

Mr. WHITE. Mr. Aiken, if we give you the opportunity, would your

organization like to furnish for the record some study that would

indicate the economic feasibility of expenditures of sums upward of

$200 million;

We would be delighted to receive this so that we could have this

completed in the record.

Mr. AIKEN. I am not sure I understood you.

Mr. WHITE. In other words, your justification for the expenditure,

can you show in the various modes how this would be economical to

the country? How it would, in fact, be a savings to the country, rather

than a needless expenditure.

Mr. AIKEN. I am not sure that we are equipped to do it. We are a

small organization, a three-person staff with a small budget.

I would like to suggest that to the board of trustees, but as I say,

we have a $60,000-a-year budget with a 3-person staff. I would like

to see that type of thing done.

Mr. WHITE. That is all right. I thought you had the facilities.

At this time, Mr. Rousselot, do you have any questions of this

witness, or do you wish to wait until the next witness?

Mr. ROUSSELOT. I will wait until the next witness.

Mr. WHITE. Thank you, Mr. Aiken.

[The attachments to Mr. Aiken's statement follow :J
36

REPORT ON FSUC SURVEY REGARDING PROPOSALS FOR

A MID-DECADE CENSUS OF POPULATION AND HOUSING

INTRODUCTION

On Hay 18, 1971, Che Executive Director of the Federal Statistics Users'

Conference appeared before the Subcommittee on Census and Statistics of the House

Post Office and Civil Service Committee to present the views of FSUC in support

of proposals for a mid-decade census. In the course of the hearing, the Executive

Director offered to survey FSUC members in order to obtain an additional expression

of their views on the scope of a mid-decade census, the level of detail they believe

is essential, and on the penalty provisions of the law. Congressman Charles H.

Wilson, Chairman of the Subcommittee, responded to Mr. Alken's offer and requested

that the FSUC membership be surveyed.

Accordingly, on June 30, 1971, an ln-depth questionnaire was sent to the

Official Representative of the 188 member organizations. A follow-up questionnaire

was sent to non-respondents on July 21, 1971.

Prior to the initial distribution of the questionnaire, a Special Newsletter

on the mid-decade census issue was sent to all FSUC members. In addition, this

Special Newsletter was sent as a matter of interest to various non-member users,

as well as to each subscriber to the FSUC Newsletter. All recipients of the

Special Newsletter were Informed that the initial mailing of the questionnaire

would be to Official Representatives of member firms, but that anyone wishing to

respond was cordially invited to do so.

Twenty non-member firms or organizations participated in the survey. Nonmember respondents included one business firm, eight universities and eleven local

governments. Host of the non-member respondents are affiliated with trade and

professional association members of FSUC, that is, through their membership on

government statistics committees of such organizations. Others participated at

their ovn request.

Some of those participating in the survey duplicated the questionnaire for

distribution to persons who might have differing uses and points of view. This

effort resulted in 33 additional responses from eleven organizations. On the

other hand, some members indicated that the questionnaire form had been circulated

to others in the organization and that the single questionnaire response represented the consolidated views of several individuals.

RESPONSE RATES AND TYPES OF USERS

A total of 156 responses were received from 123 firms or organizations, representing an over-all response rate of 59.1 percent. One response was in the form of

a letter with the remaining 155 in the form of questionnaires from which the results

have been tabulated. [Three additional questionnaires were received after the

closing date of the survey.]

A good cross-section of users was covered in the survey, as will be seen in

the following tabulation which classifies respondents by types of firms or organizations.
37

Classification of Respondents to FSUC Mid-decade Census Questionnaire

BUSINESS FIRMS

Advertising and Business Services

Banking-Finance-Insurance

Communications-Transportation

Printing and Publishing

Trade

Manufacturing

STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS if

UNIVERSITIES

NONPROFIT RESEARCH (Including

Professional Associations)

TRADE ASSOCIATIONS

LABOR UNIONS

TOTAL RESPONDENTS

Additional Responses

TOTAL RESPONSES 156

1/ Includes 8 stata governments and 16 local governments.

Firms or

Organizations No. of

Surveyed Respondents Percent

118 58 49.2

(18) ( 7) (38.9)

(35) (18) (51.4)

( 4) ( 2) (50.0)

( 7) ( 1) (14.3)

( 5) ( 2) (40.0)

(49) (28) (57.1)

27 25 92.6

lb 14 93.3

18 13 72.2

20 10 50.0

10 3 30.0

208 123 59.1

11 33

The preceding table listed number of respondents by class,

tabulation lists the number of responses by class:

No. of

Responses

Business firms 65

State and local governments 41

Universities 24

Nonprofit research 13

Trade associations 10

Labor unions 3

Total 156

The following

Percent

of Total

41,.7

26 .3

15 ,4

8..3

6 ,4

1 .9

100.0

The first three groups account for 83.4 percent of the total responses.

With regard to labor unions, it should be pointed out that although the ten

•embers constitute a small proportion of the total members of FSUC, in terms of

the total universe of union membership, they account for 97 percent of that total.

The three labor union members of FSUC that responded to the questionnaire account

for 89 percent of the total U.S. union membership.
No. of Percent

Answers Yes No

153 95.4 4.6

62 93.5 6.5

41 100.0 -0-

24 87.5 12.5

13 100.0 -0-

10 100.0 -0-

3 100.0 -0-

38

-3-

VIEWS ON MID-DECADE CENSUS AND MANDATORY RESPONSE

In tabulating the results It was evident that there were some variations in

the responses as between the various classifications of respondents. Hence, the

responses in this section and the following section on Penalty Provisions have

been classified according to the preceding tabulations.

On the question of whether or not respondents favor a mid-decade census to

be taken in 1975. 98.7 percent answered the question. Responses were as follows:

ALL RESPONDENTS

Business firms

State and local governments....

Universities

Nonprofit research

Trade associations

Labor unions ,

FSUC member views on a mid-decade census have been obtained through the use

of surveys conducted in 1962, 1965, 1966 and 1971. These surveys are indicative

that an Increasing number of our members favor a mid-decade census. The percentage

of respondents favoring a mid-decade census in these years is as follows: 33 percent in 1962; 40 percent In 1965; 85 percent in 1966; and 95 percent in 1971.

On the question of whether or not respondents favor a census in the middle of

every succeeding decade. 98.1 percent answered the question. Responses were as

follows:

No. of Percent

Answers Yes No

ALL RESPONDENTS

Business firms

State and local governments

Universities

Nonprofit research

Trade associations

Labor unions

On the question of whether or not respondents favor the mandatory requirement

for response to a mid-decade census, 96.8 percent answered the question. Responses

were as follows:

No. of Percent

ALL RESPONDENTS ,

Business firms

State and local governments....,

Universities*

Nonprofit research

Trade associations ,

Labor unions 3 100.0

152 92.8 7.2

63 92.1 7.9

40 100.0 -0-

24 75.0 25.0

13 100.0 -0-

9 100.0 -0-

3 100.0 -0-

Answers Yes No

150 90.7 9.3

61 91.8 8.2

40 100.0 -0-

23 69.6 30.4

13 92.3 7.7

10 90.0 10.0
No. of Percent

Answe rs Yes No

131 67.9 32.1

52 73.1 26.9

34 .50.0 50.0

23 73.9 26.1

10 70.0 30.0

9 77.8 22.2

39

VIEWS ON PENALTY PROVISIONS OF CENSUS LAW

On the question of whether or not respondents believe provisions of the law

for compulsory response In the censuses should be amended to remove the jail

penalty, 8A.5 percent answered the question. Responses were as follows:

ALL RESPONDENTS

Business firms

State and local governments....

Universities

Nonprofit research

Trade associations

Labor unions 3 100.0 -0-

Respondents were also asked if they believe that the level of fine should be

increased; 61.5 percent answered the question. Responses were as follows:

ALL RESPONDENTS ,

Business firms

State and local governments.....

Universities

Nonprofit research

Trade associations ,

Labor unions

Respondents were asked for their views as to whether or not the Jail sentence

provision of the law should be made less than 60 days, or whether they thought It

should be made sere than 60 days. Response rates to both of these questions were

extremely low:

On the question of reducing the jail sentence, there were 40 responses, and

72.5 percent of these favored a reduction.

On the question of increasing the jail sentence, there were only 26 responses,

and only 30.8 percent of the respondents favored an increase.

Individual Comments Regarding the Penalty Provisions • A number of respondents

expressed individual comments regarding the penalty provisions. These comments are

quoted in Appendix A attached to this Report.

ITEMS RECOMMENDED FOR INCLUSION OR OMISSION

IN A MID-DECADE CENSUS

Section II of the FSUC questionnaire listed all of the subject items Included

in the 1970 Census of Population and Housing and respondents were asked to Indicate

which items they would recommend for Inclusion or omission in a mid-decade census.

No. of Percent

Answers Yes No

95 43.2 56.8

39 41.0 59.0

19 36.8 63.2

18 44.4 55.6

8 62.5 37.5

8 50.0 50.0

3 33.3 66.7
40

Respondents were also asked to Indicate how they would rank the items recoanended

for inclusion in terms of priority, viz, high, medium or low.

These results are tabulated in Tables A and B, attached. Each group of items

• 100 percent, and the 20 percent, IS percent and 5 percent samples • are listed

according to how the respondents rank them in terms of high, medium or low priority.

Table A covers population items and Table B covers housing items.

It is obvious that all respondents did not answer this part of the questionnaire. However, the range of response for population items was from 86 percent to

93 percent and for housing items the range was from 86 percent to 90 percent.

In addition, respondents were asked to indicate what subject items, not reported

in the 1970 census, they believe should be included in a mid-decade census in 1975.

Part II of Tables A and B lists the recommended additional items according to classification of users.

ITEMS OF MAJOR INTEREST:

Population Items • Of the 32 population items included in the 1970 census, 16

of these were rated of high priority in a mid-decade census by 50 percent or more of

the total respondents. Table C, attached, lists these 16 items ranked according to

the combined percentage of those rating them of high and medium priority. In other

words, by combining these two priority ratings we find that the total degree of

primary Interest ranges from 80 percent to 97 percent. The table also shows the

degree to which respondents require the information on a small area basis, viz, at

the county, urban place, census tract level or at the minor civil division (township) or city block level.

In the case of the university group, 21 population items were rated of high

priority by 50 percent or more of the respondents. For the nonprofit research group,

the number of items with this rating was 18.

Housing Items • Of the 33 housing items Included in the 1970 census, 11 of

these were rated of high priority in a mid-decade census by 50 percent or more of

the total respondents. Table D, attached, lists 14 housing items ranked according

to the combined percentage of those rating them of high and medium priority, showing

the total degree of primary interest. Three additional items are included in this

tabulation because the combined percentage of those rating them of high and medium

priority equalled 80 percent or more. The table also shows the degree to which

respondents require the information on a small area basis.

As one would expect, the state and local government group Indicated the highest

degree of interest in housing items. For this group, 17 housing items were rated of

high priority by 50 percent or more of the respondents.

For both population and housing items, it Is to be noted that some of the less

than 100 percent sample items were of greater interest and rated a higher priority

than some of the complete count (100 percent) items. Likewise, some of the 15 percent sample items were of greater interest and rated a higher priority than some of

the 20 percent Items. This was also the case as between some 5 percent and 15 percent Items.
Low Recommend

Priority Omission

54.9 40.1

54.0 37.0

51.2 40.7

48.3 36.5

46.9 29.9

45.9 37.0

45.9 27.9

43.6 31.9

41

-6-

QUESTIONS RELATING TO EMPLOYMENT, OCCUPATION, ETC.:

Of the 32 population items, ten relate to employment, occupation, place of

work, etc. For convenience, these items have been tabulated separately in Table

E, attached. The table shows both priority rating and geographic level desired.

ITEMS OF LOWEST PRIORITY:

Population Items • The following eight population items were rated of lowest

priority by those recommending their inclusion. A relatively high percentage of

respondents also recommended their omission.

Percent

Year of Immigration

Mother tongue

Country of birth

When married

Period and duration of disability.

Veteran status

Mexican or Spanish origin

Citizenship

Housing Items • The following eight housing items were rated of lowest priority by those recommending their inclusion. A relatively high percentage of respondents also recommended their omission.

Percent

Dishwasher

Television

Radio

Home food freezer

Stories, elevator in structure

Basement ,

Clothes dryer <

Clothes washing machine

ITEMS RECOMMENDED FOR OMISSION:

Tables A and B show the percentage of respondents that recommended omission of

each item from a mid-decade census. For convenience, the following summary indicates

for the complete count and sample groups the highest and lowest percentage of respondents recommending omission:

Population: Percent

(S) 100Z Items: Age

Sex

Relationship to head of household

(12) 201 Items: Income last year-wage and salary income.

State or country of birth

Low Recommend

Priority Omission

38.5 33.6

38.2 34.6

37.9 36.5

35.9 35.0

35.9 34.6

35.6 35.1

35.6 34.3

35.2 33.6

0,.0

0.0

7.,1

2.,1

25 .7

94-SU O - 75 . 4
42

-7-

Populatlon:

(8) 15Z Items:

(7) 5Z Items:

Housing:

(13) 100Z Items:

(S) 20% Items:

(5) I5Z Items:

(10) 5% Items:

Place of residence five years ago

Country of birth of parents

Vocational training completed

Occupation or Industry, 5 years ago

Year of Immigration

Value

Access to unit

Number of units In structure and whether

a trailer

Heating equipment

Automobiles

Bathrooms

Second home

Home food freezer

Percent

10.2

40.6

24.6

24.6

40.1

8.7

30.1

13.1

28.7

17.5

29.2

17.5

35.0

GEOGRAPHIC LEVEL FOR WHICH DATA MOULD BE DESIRED

IN A MID-DECADE CENSUS

Section II of the FSUC questionnaire asked respondents to Indicate the geographic detail for which they would require data in a mid-decade census, based on

the following levels:

1 State

2 SHSA, large city

3 County, urban place, census tract

4 Minor civil division (township), city block

Tables A and B, attached, indicate the percentage of respondents who would

require mid-decade information by geographical levels, according to the breakdown

shown above, for each of the population and housing items Included in the 1970 census.

Need for Small Area Data • Levels 3 and 4 represent the need for data on a

small area basis. The following summarizes the averages of respondents requiring

data at these levels for the complete count and sample items in the population and

housing censuses:

Percent

Population: (5)

(12)

(8)

(7)

100 percent items.

20 percent items.

15 percent items.

5 percent Items.

Level Level Totals

3 4 3 & 4

59.1 26.7 85.8

68.8 10.5 79.3

66.3 10.8 77.1

54.9 8.6 63.5
43

Percent

Level Level Totals

3 4 3 & 4

57.2 26.5 83.7

68.9 13.0 81.9

64.0 11.4 75.4

58.3 9.5 67.8

Housing: (13) 100 percent items

(5) 20 percent items

(5) 15 percent items

(10) 5 percent items

It la obvious from the above that there is an extremely high degree of Interest

and definite need for data at the small area level In a mid-decade census. More than

60 percent of the respondents indioated a need for data at the county, urban place,

or census tract level, for every single population and housing item.

Although it is recognized that block data can be provided only from Information

collected in the 100 percent items in the census, the survey shows that there are

some respondents who desire block data for each of the subject Items included In the

20, 15 and 5 percent samples. In fact, it is important to note that two respondents

felt that all population and housing Information items were vitally needed at the

5-digit zip code level, for the five-year census.

As would be expected, state and local governments indicated the highest degree

of need for data at the block level. To illustrate, on the subject of color or race,

31 percent of all respondents desire such data at the block level, whereas 48.6 percent of state and local government respondents indicated such a need. The next

highest degree of need for block data waa by nonprofit research organizations and

universities. And, as also would be expected, trade associations and labor unions

Indicated little or no interest In block data.

RESPOHSES 8Y CLASS OF USER:

Because of the variations In responses between classes of users, special tabulations have been made of the responses for both population and housing items by the

six major claases of users covered In the survey. These responses are shown for

each of the 32 population items and 33 housing items in Tables F and G, attached.

SUmARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This survey of user views on a mid-decade census is the most definitive survey

ever conducted by the Federal Statistics Users' Conference, not only because of the

large number of subject items covered, but for the first time It accurately pinpoints bow users rate statistical subject areas in terms of priority and the geographic level deaired.

The 59 percent rate of response was the hlgheat of any FSUC survey. The

returns Indicate that respondents gave considerable time and thought to answering

the six-page questionnaire.

Although the survey was designed primarily to determine user views regarding

a mid-decade census, it is obvious that the results will also be beneficial in

defining user Interests and needs in relation to current statistical aeries or

special sample surveys.
44

With regard to criteria for evaluating statistical programs, FSUC's Long Range

Program for Improvement In Federal Statistics states: "Statistical programs which

serve multiple and widely felt needs should have priority over those which serve

United purposes•As a corollary to this criterion, every statistical program,

existing or proposed, should be considered In terms of possible uses to which the

Information can be put and should be designed to provide optimum usefulness for

these different purposes." In other words, programs should provide the greatest

good for the greatest number. On the other hand, this FSUC survey Indicates that,

in some cases, there are considerable variations in the Interests and needs as

between groups of users. For example, one group may have little Interest or need

for a specific type of statistical data, whereas another group will consider the

information highly essential for their purposes. The survey shows that there are

often considerable variations in needs (and obviously uses) as between state and

local governments and university users.

By the same token, consideration should be given to the differences in needs

of non-Federal government users and the Federal government. To illustrate, information on "basements" was given a comparatively low rating by respondents to FSUC's

survey. This item, first collected In 1960, is considered of great Importance to

the Federal government for civil defense purposes. The question on number of

children ever born has been collected in most censuses since 1890. In the FSUC

survey, IS.7 percent of the respondents recommended its omission, 28.3 considered

it of low priority, while 39.8 percent rated it of high priority. Statistics on

children ever born are unique in providing significant information on the current

and future trends of population growth through births and how the composition of

the population is changing through differences in fertility of various population

groups. Such data are used for projecting the age of the future population. In

turn, these projections are needed by Federal, State and local governments and

private Industry for the planning of various short- and long-range projects. So

far as FSUC respondents are concerned, what this may mean is that a relatively

small number are individually concerned with making population projections; while

the remainder may have a high interest, but rely on projections made by others,

especially those of the Federal government.

With regard to a mid-decade census, the survey conclusively shows an extremely

high percentage of respondents favoring both a mid-decade census and mandatory

response. On the subject of penalties, the conclusion is that severe penalties

are not required.

From the standpoint of priorities, it is obvious that age, sex and color or

race would rank high in the population category. Other high priority items Include:

employment, income, occupation, marital status, education, place of work, means of

transportation to work, relationship to head of household, place of residence 5

years ago, and year moved into this house.

In the housing category, the following items had the highest ratings: number

of units and whether a trailer, value, contract rent, year structure built, vacancy

status, rooms and tenure. Following in Importance Is information on: automobiles,

flush toilet, bathrooms, complete kitchen facilities, months vacant, farm residence

and water supply.

The survey results support the statement made by the Executive Director of

FSUC in testimony on proposals for a mid-decade census before the Subcommittee on
45

-10-

Census and Statistics of the House Post Office and Civil Service Committee that a

full replication of the decennial census Is not necessary or desired. The FSUC

survey results should provide some guidance In the planning of a scaled-down census.

If and when legislation for a mid-decade census Is passed.

The survey also provides overwhelming evidence of the great need for email area

data by all classes of users. For every single population and housing item, more

than SO percent of the respondents indicated a need for data at the county, urban

place, or census tract level. For block data provided from the 100 percent items

for both population and housing, an average of approximately 27 percent of user

respondents indicated a need for this level of data. For these too small area

geographic levels, the range of need is from 64 percent to 86 percent.

JOHN H. AIKEN

Executive Director

October, 1971
46

APPENDIX A

INDIVIDUAL COMMENTS REGARDING PENALTY PROVISIONS

BUSINESS FIRMS:

"Jail Is no solution to our problem of obtaining valid and current statistical

Information concerning our citizens. Even an Increased fine probably won't aid much.

The answer must lie in the area of greater public awareness both of the confidentiality with which this data must be treated and the value of the aggregated information to the economic and social well being of the country."

"Penalty is a fool idea. Should be reserved for real crimes and not take up

time of law enforcement agencies with unimportant matters. They can't handle what

we now have."

"I would keep the Jail penalty unless the fine was substantially increased perhaps by saying 'up to $10,000" thus allowing the courts to deal harshly with deliberate violators whose actions endanger the integrity of the Census and moderately

with people who failed to do their duty through ignorance or bad advice or who are

poor, etc."

"The Jail penalty does not-bother me, particularly, inasmuch, as it is seldom

used, but the maximum fine should be much higher."

"Objective Is to obtain valid data. Do not know what value of penalty is in

achieving this objective. Ideally should be able to do without penalty."

"A Jail sentence would make it more democratic In that it would not matter

whether you were rich or poor."

STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:

"I have no strong feelings on the Jail sentence, but if the retention of the

Jail sentence will be a stumbling block to passage of the legislation, I would be

willing to have this provision removed." (State)

"The 100 percent questions should be required of everyone•with a substantial

penalty for refusal (NOT JAIL). The sample questions should bear little or no

penalty for refusal as they lend themselves to adjustment through analytic techniques." (State)

"Make the fine, if possible, proportional to Income•but as guideline suggested

to the courts." (State)

"The penalty should be Increased for wrongful disclosure by a Census Bureau

employee•a step which would reinforce the Bureau's claim that the data is held in

confidence. A $100 fine for non-response is too low to discourage casual challengers.

A heavy fine and jail sentence should be Imposed on Individuals or leaders of organizations that encourage others publicly (in print or otherwise) not to respond or to

alter, falsify or in any other way invalidate their response." (Local)

"Fines could be established on a sliding scale according to a percentage of

income or ability to pay." (Local)
47

-2- APPENDIX A

UNIVERSITIES:

"Maintain penalties for wilfully giving false answers."

"While a 10 year census is desirable, I am opposed to the mandatory answers to

questions other than those relating to the number of people in a given household.

If people wish to answer such questions, well and good, but they should not be

required to do so. However, if they choose to answer such questions, then and only

then should penalties be assessed for wilfully giving false or misleading answers.

Such penalties should be rather harsh."

"The imperfections of the census have been known to users for a long time and

they owe more to the imperfect and often malintegrated structure of our society than

to the motivating force of threat of fines and jail sentences. Making these threats

more pre-eminent would only lessen the cohesion of society further and make it even

•ore difficult for the census to reflect the reality."

"Our feeling is that more emphasis should be placed upon selection of pertinent

questions, the answers to which are needed by the most units in government, education,

research, etc., rather than upon determining what penalties should be applied for

refusal to answer. When a minimum set of questions (selected to yield maximum

genuinely needed information) is chosen, efforts could then be directed toward educating the population as to the benefits to them, the respondents, when decisionmaking units have proper information."

"Since I am only guessing that the threat of fine alone would be sufficient to

guarantee that most people would respond, I think that this question should be

researched to see if the threat of Jail penalty is necessary in order to get a high

response rate. If it is, I would support continuation of both the present fine and

Jail penalties."

NONPROFIT RESEARCH ORGANIZATIONS:

(Including Professional Associations)

"I am unable to state our opinion on Jail vs. a fine without further reflection.

It's true that a small fine (e.g., $100) is a penalty only to the poor, and that is

absurd. I therefore would lean toward imprisonment as a penalty. But If this

Infuriates Congressmen and the issue is a quinquennial census with no prison penalty,

or no quinquennial census, then I'd favor the dropping of imprisonment and substitution of a fine."

"We have recommended that the level of fine be established to be equivalent to

the cost of obtaining the information by other means. We have suggested that standards for determination of this cost may be developed from Information available to

the Pederal government regarding the cost of background investigations for National

security clearance or from the cost of the Federal Civil Service Commission incorporated as a function of their personnel recruitment practices."

TRADE ASSOCIATIONS:

"Since the jail sentence is rarely Imposed, it should be eliminated. Fines

should be used as needed to require responses on the major items or question categories."
48

0»0>c>r

Hfl\ONN

tO r- >H O -4

dodnn

NnNMN

IN CN| <N -* m a* r». r^

•4

^D f» «D

o<«o r>j rv H -» lA C4 C7> W C4

r» r* \o

O fN oo o

.£>

u-l

10

CX> N

w> m •-« O CM CO o* CO u-> CO -H- CM

Nnm (N <N ~J r- u-i ^D O c> CM

H N(M -» ^ •H <*> m Pi r^ <-> O

<r> m r* (M -J -T .£, vO <r< r- »rt CO

l © O <N 00 m

> ^ vOiO^'Oin >

> to n 0 o\ r (*l 00

u-l O "~l in ST r>- sO

^o H O o\ r- 00 ND

00 »H <n ^o tn <N C*

cr. r»* «N m sr CM fl

O oo en CM m «N (^

r- •-• O r- CO <7> oo

CO N 1*1 O -» lO "rt

a*

el

Si

OH X|

in * »-I trt r-

«»1 IflMs N

a

NNMO

HrtNN

-T r» i-» *N «**

1/1

CO

HOftN

CO 0O vD .O

•9

CM O l*> Q

iMCM^J^Nn^r^vD

IDi-JiAN

OiHOOi)OOin<ON(ON

NO>NNMMOd

( m o r*. <** >n -» in

c o

Is **\ O O r>. o i-t

O O O m r*.

HoeoooooifiiflN^Hr- m«N<f m<coo

NNNNm^H HirtMNIfl

NNHNNN

•"t<NO'"*f,'Or«i.r*«.

r-t^Hr-tr-I^HsJfr-lfn

Si 2

sH

O O •-< r* O

i-t fN fN tN <*> rn «•» HHHNNmmm

81

38

C C

III

•o a. If'

r i

5-M .

* 41 . S 00 c

EO

0 *J a. 1 « -*

3 1 CJ II

3 a

• • « *J TJ H 8

J « 9 « c OH

>, X >. u -H O

a x T>

u ki u -u.ii

: « M _ 11 s |

V I I I

•s g • u

5-S

"S3.

a « o • o ^£

I X fH

• 0) o

•< w u ;

o to a >. c

i a. o • 4i

: ff o a 5

. w O >- 3 SI

1 T* • > a

•H hi

« 9

V O

T; * « -H o

p h • u

P 4J H "O

' ° ° I _

I CO 41 O

SUMO

a) (S JC

I UH « U

i £ a* s- «

eo a

tJ v u

SJZ V

w u

O O V

-> £ >

si mov CA4. o n

O* 0> -0* O <7> (N I

iNHAOim

<C 4> ffi d 9 H lA

,4 ^

O -H

Uin b C

o o

5 3

i a.Mi w -o

! n S .

I O J0 -^

I 4) •

I

wo

1 -H « -^ »- C

I M 41 W * 41

I « hi -H 41 JS

! X CM U K- 5

E

I
49

TABLE A FSUC SURVEY ON MID-DECADE CENSUS TABLE A

PART II PART II

NEW ITEMS RECOMMENDED FOR INCLUSION

Respondents were asked If there are any subject Items, not Included in the 1970

census, that they believe should be Included in a mid-decade census in 1975. Recommended items, by classification of user, were aa follows:

POPULATION ITEMS:

Business Firms:

More information on working wives, as separate from working women.

Age and income correlations within the population and If possible on a regional level.

Income five years ago.

Place of residence one year ago.

Data by zip code (S-dlglt).

Means of trash disposal.

Miles from work.

Time required to get to work.

Contact with crime and Justice system; as victim, type of crime, subsequent apprehension of criminal, availability of compensation for loss; number of arrests,

convictions, etc.

State and Local Government Group:

Income five years ago (to determine upward mobility).

Mora detail on migration.

Chronic afflictions.

* Religious preferences.

* Other income - detailed.

Laat employment promotion.

Distance between work and home.

Number of children living with parents.

Distance to school attended by children; means of transportation.

Whether school is public or private.

Personal taxes by level of government.

For employment status, suggest they add "retired."

Breakdown of means of transportation to work to reflect multi-model possibility.

Universities:

Newspaper, magazine reading.

Radio-TV, listening-watching habits.

Amount of annual travel.

Costs for education per family member.

Marriage and the family.

A good ethnic origin question similar to the kind aaked by the Canadian Census

and recently used by the U.S. Census in its monthly sample.

Nonprofit Research Group:

Trade Association Group:

Labor Group:

(No recommended Items)

* indicates two identical recommendations.
50

o a>

J

an

«0>Cin»H(MfNNfS»N«i-l

r4aHr-t*-l*4r-lr-ir4rH>-l

r-o*r*c*»0««rr«i«*i<*">r**»CMC*

•HiHrHeH^HtMCNr-tCNCl

MT. (O vO O

CO "J <S (T H

-» CM r- m 1/1

sr en •« cy» *

Ov CO NOD 4

^•t CM tN •« CM

.» «•"> CM <-* \D

O <S CO H N

no>o MT < O H N o> CO 9> 0>CTiO

H H H O H MiNCT'J'rvr^ai CDCOff'

r-t •-( r-t •-< i-t •-» *H

CMnCOOlH «00»>0»Hf*P»0'a'

tf vO >o >o <n c^iiiAiAifl^inifiin

^j O ^ ^ 00 Cl O B O I

s

^ <t H O f*1

a\ cr> co so <n H<ooifln,*iriiA,a',,3f

•4 H •i ~* r-J NWNNNNNNNN

N <£ a>co H MIOCMCMHI^^^'H**'

m r-i ~J -T r~. <Tr-iaia^OOOOOO

,H _t ,-1 ,-t _l »H

r- ^ CM >» >» aio^fi^r^cMMJ-o

^ CO CO CO CO C0O's'

s

'

s

'*,fsM

N

^

o nirt i«co co-»HCftO>N'ON>ftc*

u"> I/"I >£> r»- U"* NOltifttsCOi/MnCOin *->

Bm

<& tn *e <*i ft r»-»«©»©0D."-t»-,f*.mM3

C> i-H .-H f»* CM NlrtONvCI^HHCOH 3

fi ^i ^ ^ <^ ^ ^ *j f^ ^ ^ ^ *tf en *tf 9

§ m .» c© CM a» irtNnifl^NM^oift

H riHOiH ^^^Hin^nwnN •

lA «» «» «*1 O •»-»n«NNNNNN o

I

•e

• cj

Mn»H. O »» CO *f\ r-i <*1 f _i rv o >* r- ^MnNr* IvDiA'CCl** O

CM rH O* CO CO r

CM -

1

O CJ

a -^

as

5 I

JZ in is a i- o <** a.

•H 3 C O -H

O -H V

9! 5

u

9 b fl

•-< o c o a c • <0 tfl o O 41 r,

> > o M H :

3} 3 '

1 §•:

3b.«UU<i

3

8

C « 1 1 00

3 CO l« C C 3

01

a*

s

£

M M • a, u

o « c a «

*J

33 *•« % >-M-U I M

oCM

u-l

:-3S

all U o o

co o I a

O • H £, a • s w ta

3 I O * -rt

< <J~i <S> 03 <

-2

CJ Q •< • 1 •

O M

I I « G T3 I li

t O • O "O •

i • 3 H •

I Uh(0 K|

8 5

|
51

TABLE B FSUC SURVEY ON MID-DECADE CENSUS TABLE B

PART II PART II

NEW ITEMS RECOMMENDED FOR INCLUSION

Respondents were asked If there are any subject Items, not Included in the 1970

census, that they believe should be Included in a mid-decade census in 197S. Recommended items, by classification of user, were as follows:

HOUSING ITEMS:

Business Firms:

Growth potential regionally.

Persons per household by type of unit.

Number of full and partial bathrooms.

Data by zip code (5-digit).

Should be a breakdown of color TV vs. B/W.

Paving of street; transit within 1/4 mile; frequency of garbage collection;

"adequacy" of heat and of hot water in respondent's opinion.

State and Local Government Group:

More detail on disappearance of housing.

More detail on number of units to structure.

* Assessed value.

Property taxes - detailed.

Millage of real estate tax.

Air conditioner - room vs. central.

Some qualification of second home to Indicate where it la in relation to first

home - or how far away; possibly Its value or other characteristics.

Garbage grinder.

Universities:

Number of residents, per room, in home.

Percent of value spent on repair/remodel of owned home.

Percent of real estate tax increase (year, 5 years).

Value gone up/down?

Nonprofit Research Group:

The situation with respect to CT of model homes should be reviewed.

The process for determination of the number of units per structure should ba

clarified.

Trade Association Group:

Number of structures 3 [geographic level desired].

Labor Group:

(No recommended items)

* indicates two identical recommendations.
52

3

^H•

>111

-J

u

u c

•^ 0)

x o

a u

a oi

H a.

<x

0

3

U -3

o

H to

\OH>jr^mNN«OOH

**0«rjor^c*r^-OvOO

OMrt H N tn *

o% CO ** r** n *o

NHOtN«OI*10«NH O r^ r^ o CM o

u

H

2

U

a

COTJ

32

Hinrvin»*j(MOOm^ oo H tn <n tn co

HHeoaeONNHfn-* NsOOOMH

O-a-^vDiHr-or^CMO IH u-» to m o r*

o

rt q H

M O to

I

g S 3 O M O

o T! o

COB

•H 3 TH

X

1

" "

M 0 C

4 cj

rH • 9

9 m >,

^ a) • o

X f» pH

*J *o o a.

no ff

i-t a •« o>

A C I

cj a IM

00 >H

o a o>

<

a u

0> •• m •- i* n 3 ti

•O 91 S CJ

SC H -H -H

o u

>. a ji a oi O w • p. •

-H O 3 O

Q.OJUUOXU1H

B 00 C O C 01 c "

M < N O M W M

* 9 ^ x

O 01

9

3

o o

u x

an o>

K 01

~H a 3

H 01 O

O >, X

u T3 c m a

* a.

US

a ID

a a

•as

•p •~|

3 >

01 X

CJ O 4J

00 c

u 01

h x

o

o. o

a 4-1

o h -H

•c c o *c >

O iH

o a

o C

tc OJ

£a<2

H° 1

0.

0

0 a h

out. 00

x a a 0

O rH 0

tn 0. >i &
53

rH

01>OJ

-1

*J

O c

•H m

.c u

a ^ 1 01

M a.

tx

o

5

•a* »H r^ co f-i >n s» i M m *c < -» >n H

f*» »>j o^ <^ ^h c^ f* m M r«» r- •H 00 CM

CO O Q-> <T r~- O 00

H (*1 N H N N N

f-l W» O »© ^

.H CM r-l CM CM

oo to

CM

^no«N>oin« ON N WNCI r- c*

2

U

U

o

M

•1 1

1 •§,3

00 ££ c

iH

9•H

•o >4J £

\ONN>OinOiO Q\ H iA(N 00 CO O

O •& CM 00 •* 00 i•( \£> vD Cl *£> O 00 u"i

«« OVHCMiO co ut CM %© oo o *f\

**-! (0

o 41

3

CO 0

2 5

o 10 o

r» 3 iH

en n a

-I C §

•3

o

-i

u

u 2 §

C 3 u

41 4J •

O u •,

tO tfl U

u U I § 3

C • U 0 C

o ai a o a)

u > > « H

4J U

-rH TO 0) rH

0) > CD 3

CO 01

01 -I

^H O

§0 • •

o « r au

U 3 u B B

: H fl o g fl 8

<u. cog Sh3

E2

>

3

o

I
54

COOiAOvniO»vOvOH

§

•H

ITS

I

X)

ONtONOMftlN-JOOiriN

rHU-lOOfHUir^»OCM^J'

HO>N*<nN«»ff'0\m

O*D^Hu"lOin(Nf>i/"\00

lONOvmajffiiftWHvo

ojr^or^-Ti/^O^oOfHtH

o <N <r \o m 00 CO o oo H

N <N < lf| N iA(Mna«9

3 3

• •

C

1

4.

1

i

c

0

1

•J

U

1

i-s

•

•

•

•

•

•

•H to o ca

eo -a

at c • «

X-H 3 3

o h at -H -H

OJ iH <4-l •

I *-» o

o a v

H 3 U

CJ .H

uoa.:

>,-H -H co

i to > u a, CD

; .* tj •1 to -, u

I 91 n ii U U 3

' a> to <j o u o

: s J •< > o x

J=

5 1

si

« 4J

O ^

• c

0) o

CJ -H

CO CO

>»^H •»-»

*-> a >

T4 T4

° S"° «4-1

OC R -H 85

h 3 > T)

CO -H

i-H - U 9

N V

V -4-11-1 M

c?

(0 Wl 3 C

u£ OH

U (A O £

H

H

H«N n ^

l-i 3

CO "V

V- 4-1 O

o en -H

a <o j=

_i *-» u

« T) C > *J *H *0

4-J G 3 4-1 .* UH c^

CO k- l- (0 O t-i

S-HiwH-)O«0i>^C-HO 4iOO30JUO-u3

>* CO >,x4. «H CO

O Q, 41 n m » u a n

Q. O CO

; j* 4J -H « 3 E

I 4i » *J u y 3

41 to U O CJ O

UJOH.I:3J<>O
55

t

i

z W

o (/]

» 3 ii u

* a

^3 w

H tn

o u

I

• 3

O 10

4-f •

o *

I

O [0

- -

O CM *H O O m O

00 CM

CM CM

CM m © CM o

NC1H

f-i fH NO o o o o

o\ fH m o tn o

\o m MA

sO O NO o o m o

o en Ol O O CM O

H (M H 1/)

en r»» NO o o o o

ON r- ON o o m O

CM

O

(M

NO

CM

o

PI

rsi O

n CN en o o O o

o

3 IB

in

in

o

m

o m o

m

r*. r-i NO o o m o

o NO NO o n o o

NO n CM o -» m o

so rsi m o o o o

<N m \o o o tn o

CM en CM o o o o

p-4 co en o o o o

en en m © o © ©

•1 m <r O r^ m o

o

•1

H in m rsi CM

•H

o

m

m CO r^ o O o O

o m r* O o m o

.H

.H

ON o

CN)

CN

H

o

m

CN CD fM O O o o

CM m CM o o o o m m en o o o o

u-i © o tH o © o

en u-, o cr» o © o

fH r*. .H NO O -H O

r-i NO m en © .H ©

H ~-l «H H

Mf en ej» en o cr* O

m«st NQ»O

co r*- ON r- © co o

MS m r*. NO o O O

m en r- en o o o

N CN fv| H O CN O

CM r-. o cr> o CM o

r- en .H en © co o

i-H (H O -H O -H O

r*» CM o o\ O H O

<H m CT> m o CM o

m .H «* NO o o o

r^ r*. CJN en o O O

en>t N r» MN O

CM m r» s» o CM O

«H fH CM CM

*n tH iH CM CO CM O

CN, CM O. CM tH CN

r* »» fH ^ o r-» o N >T»JNO OOCO O

Q CM CM NO Q NO O

00 r<> ON CO CO NO O

OiH(Mni-tNO

iC Nift (O (O N O

o o o o o o o

o o o o o o o

o o o o o o o

I -» CM CM CM tH O

o o o o o o o

o o o o o o o

o o o o o o o

m sO CM CM CM tH O

r* O O O O O O

O O O O Ot o o

-H O O O tH o o

-» NO en CM CM «H O

o -a1 m o o o o

m en *n o o o o

r* <M m o o o o

IflNOst NNH O

S3

<M -rl O O

-0 *1 U 00 -H

co g -H -H so a

to a m «H < 5

01 MO 0 41 V ••• 41 U

•H u i> at) o

3* -H C « ja

U C O H •

•

•ss n O

1 E O 0} • -H 00

•H iH • (X y c

IH •• O O

•O +•» *•» (0 *H

CO C >H -H CD C

CO 0} CO l*-4 < £3

01 t- O

c • v u a u

-H 4J > Q. 13 O

• CD -H C «J Jl

3 *J C O U id

03 tn 3 Z H J

SO

O to

•H tH 01 •

VM <H O O

[ft C -H

n 4 a

o o to

!3£

Si

ssM o

§H -H en c

m >H •< o

e oi v w « u

•H tJ > O.T3 O

3« -H C • ^

*J c O M *
56

-J •-i CO co CO o o

CM

ON UO

n

M3

CM

CO

co

o o

r- r*. ON CM -3- u-i o

ON

uO 10

CM

u"»

co ^1

^3- CO

o

uo

~J ON 00 uO CM uO o

n^noNNO

ro co ON o o o o

N-7NOOOO

m CM OMflO o o

CM co •« •-* CO o o

r-1 iH

o o

ON O r* as ao o o

moON

r^ r- r»

m o

r- m

m o -* fn CM m o

CM r-

•H r-t

m in N

CM

csi o

«-t m

•-H 00 o co o m O

r- m ON m o © O

CM f-i CO o O O O

so in c* ON O o O

o co

r-* so

u-i CO UO O

in

m CM <T co O m o

co ON u-, UO

CM

CM o

u-i

CM 00 O co o u-i O

t co o m o CM o I O >A O CM O

r*. m ON m o o o

CM co CO o O O O

O u-i O ON C u-i O

CN co o co o *n o

m co o »n o CM o

r- fH o »H o o <

o »H o «n o i

co oo o •* O r- r0 W

*1

r- o m -* ON o o

O M3 CM <H r-t O O

u-i us •* CM CM *-* o

r> a* NO o O m o

•j'leNOONO

co co co in o «n o

O O CM ON O CM O

ON co so m o o o

!o o m o

Cn ON r*. o

•H r» o m o <-t O

NHONTOHO

fn #H O <H O IH o

cn m CM CM co iH o

r-t oo NO o o m o

m co CM o o CM o

co o ao o o m o

C1NTM»ONO

IH CM NO O O O O

r-l r» ,* ,-t O m O

co r- 00 00 ON r- ©

CO -T O uo O •I O

CM co o «* O H O

-» CM O iH O »H O

CO m CM CM CO iH o

co m NO o O »n O

m o CM o o CM o

CM O ON O O u-i O

m •* r*. ON O CM o

o •» m o o o O

oo -» o m o I-I o

CM co o >» o r-t o

•3 CM O rH O r-l O

I m CM CM CO .-«• o

i) u u a -H

oo a -* •* i c

co d to u-i < 5

oj E o

a o> a) n i n

<rt u > a*a o

*-> c o u »

0JWDZHJ

- O a) 01 -H B)

4H tip: u s

i £ < 3 i->

SCO -H c

<-> c o

CQU132

O.T3 O >-l

2-3

S3

S3

O 0) ii vl (0

-H 4J " t § TJ *-> 1 -H 1 7! 255 M O

OJ at i- 4i b

*1

Nonp

Trad

Labo

c
57

•* vo o o o o o

CM r* co o CO O O

O **- r^ o CM m O

N in m m N N o

-a- o o o o m o

CM CM o m o CM O

o O vt tn O O o

m<-* <r 0> o o o o

r*. o CO <?• o iTl o

o CD

MS

CO o CM o

u-1

CM o CO co o m o

N^NinONO

r-i o o co o o o

>» •* o wt © m ©

o o r-C o o o o

CT» -» cr> m o o o

r-l O CO o CO u-i O

CM CM

CO 8

CM O

M? u~i

CO o -H o CM uo o

<r O

rH CM

^ o

•1

CM

CM

CM o

•H UO

r-l O o o o o o

•tf CO r- CM o o o

r- e/\ CO O o o o

•» -» o CO »M O

CO co

CO CO

CM CO O

o> m en CM ON O O

r-l iH

MT v£> CM O O

•J- UO IT)

cn co O CM CM N O

-r «tf o m © m o « N O « <7 sOO

I

O* CO o o *~* o o

CM m o o ov o o

r-t «H co tn «-i o o

v£ ^ .T ^r a. -n o

O«MA00OO

iAiO<no o mo

^nmoONO

crs ^c co o o o o

•» ^ mm o w o

M? co o> o o uo o

M5 r*- >T rH t-4 O O

O^O HOf^OO

MT -» o m r-t m co

r*« o o -^ o% r* co

CM co *» co co

O o> M5 •* co **o r*>

uO CO O CM CM «

O cO O C" *«T N O

CO »» »© o o H o

CM co CM o O H O

>» CM >-( o O H O

<» *0 CO CM CM r-t O

ON«COHHO

m in N •» o> H o

NnH-^HHO

•J * N n N HO

C* <H Cft O O r-t O

-tf in r*» O O <H O

r>. co co o O i-t o

ro IT» CO CM CM r-t o

co co <j O O «

fJ»N-J-ff flHO

&

M o at I -H a

i-< •i ly o; u c

*H -H 0 O

•a u 4-i a -H

9Q C -H -H 1 C

at 3 at **-» < 5

u MO

C 4> 0> M 0) M

•n *J > a.T) o

CO flj -r* C <fl J*

3 4J C O M (fl

0Q W O Z H J

II

•HI r-t I (3d CJ C rH

a 4 O)M o

<y MO

C • 4) M w M

•H a > o, *a o

3 co -H c «J ja

*J c o H «

« W D /. H J

.. o at • -H

•H rH ft) « U

•H O

C -H •

to at '

C V • M • M

3 *J C O M «

ffl w U" Z h J

at c -H -H aj c

at <a at (u < -3

« MO

C Q> • M • M

•H H > CO O

3<0 *H C 4 4

w C O M ^

BWDZHd

94-514 O - 73 - 5
58

3

^lANOOOO

r- o r*» «A O O O

m CO (O (*1 l*l o o

• CM cn o O

loonmm

CO 00 r-. o> o '

m ey* O 0"» i*» !*• O

v£> r» o u~i iD >£> O

\0«mi0000

CM -7 CD rH O O O

fN N N «* rv 00 o

K1HH WCltfO

r» is r* eft o M3 O

« * u-1 CM o o o

%o m CM

H

SO o o o

Cft »H C* en en oo o

U1 .-« o> H

00

n CM o

<*> >T U"t

00 CM m (N O 00 O

Cft rs

•H CM

CO %D O CM ©

*n «* m

f- »H O CN r- en O

tA CO CM CM O O O

r- CM •*» M3 O O O

Hifl mnoo n o

CO

-D CO 00

CM g

H m cn CM CO O o

o^ o

CM

CO *D CM O o

u-i

m -H o CM n IS o

r» rH O M3 O •* O mmotf'f oo

CM CM •-• O O n- O f*"> sO CM O O M3 en •}iA«MAHO MnhN'OvOO

CM M3 >T »H O O O Cft -* O O O .-I C*» *» O <T» CM O Cft O i/"S 00 0>00ONO

3

*n CM -» o> o en o oo o r* o o en en CM m m IH in o o oo ch <r o -a- r- ©

!«J Hm-» Hi

i/i rH en o o cn o r». r-» \© co o m o

IS

ot«NrnoNO

CM MO Cft cn CM CM O

H O f* O O en o

SrH »H I

rM rH

o io^ >a cn cn H M r- N n ci N o HOOSO nnno » Ol «j •» H HO

D o to 1 •

•H .H 01 04

I *M -H O 0 <H

3 to «« < i

41 'J I- 01 u

4J > O-TJ O

« -H

N (0

CO O Z H .J

I

£

i

o

•

Eo

O GO (U i-t CO

o

•H

i C T4 e

i eg co 25

Q. *D

i a <a

! O M

' 2 H

0

•8 3

o n u TH a

I -H a> 05 U C

i -H O O

•O 4J U CO <H

§HH ID C

« «-• < 3

U O

a* cu u o> M

i «J > a.-a o

i Kin c 4 j

• *J C O Li CO

i c/j 3 Z H -4

! U 1

| -. '.' *

CO I

0 OS i> -H CO

rH 0* PtS O C

•H O O

•o *J *-» a •*-»

S-H M CD C

!0 ^ -< 3

H O

c ai at u a) M

<H 4J > O.

3 2 act to : 2-8
59

r». x O CM o o o

X 00 CO x o o o

CM -H o o o UN. O

CM r»»

X u-i

ui o

*n

CN ON O m o o o

CM CM

CM CM

IN CM O

ON -* o CM o *n o

ON -i rH O O O O

ON •i r^ o O O O

o •* o o o -* o

en -» g o m H o

•* fM ON en o en o

NNONO MO

N(NO«0'f O

CO m r-4 ^» O O O i o n o © o

CM CO

H

u-i o o O m r*» o m o o

rH CM

o

r-. O o

a

CM

ON

X)

o •*

U"» *-t r*. roo

o

CN

X

r* en r^ r- ui o

X vO m N r- \o CO sH

X> <J c* •* o n o INI ON r- 00 CM O o

•-t CM

CM m•1 r4

o

CM iH CM

e

CO CM o

o

o

o

o

o

en

H

o

o

en flOHHirt o

i-H CM P» O >ft H N

fH rM

o

r-i

CO r- H en •-4 UN. ON ON eo

.» en •-«

Ml

W

5

x> u-i r- -H a u-i o

1 1 c

M n 4 <Nrt

3 1 Mno>*ifloo

U

1

OlMONNOO

4-1

N WlMHHin

-n Ui

c o £

1 u M a- m

J O

<U HOr\NO00H

3

z

$

•o c

c o W

I] inAMAOH^

CM CM CM ^H CM iH vO

8H

£ '

mwmm

CM O r» w*i O ao o

r- o <N m o x o

• o -H o O xi o

ON o *H en i

x- R eo m i

(ftinHOONi

x> r-» CM -» o CN .H

o*> o <» x o co o

x o o C-- o co o

mo«NOno

UN so >o «f in •

ON en H so o CM en

eNN«ONH

NOMOHW O

OOO«O«N o

H N H N «n

en ON o o •* *n o

OHCOO^O o

<N x o m o •i en

ocno-fOH *n

* -H O <-t O iH •-)

> <••» n HO so K CM en *n .H o •ONNnWHO CO 00 -» en CM rH o

TJ 4J 4-* B -.

• I --4 -H I C

« m a <M •< s

« MO

a • 1 M « M

•H u > a, TJ o

3» %-• d eg ja

_ *•» e o fc< «

"SWSZH J

M -H 0 O

*Q M M • <H

C V • u

•H fl > a

« c o 2-8

i

o

cc

l-l I s M o to cu -t a

-< •« D cc cj c

*4 <H O O

•o w *J V -H

S S' 1

C V

32

S3S

i M

C o •

C « «

-H *J >

3 *J c

CU -H CD

ac u c

o o

S3 5

2 • u

a*o o

c m &

o u n

SC H J
60

I

^O O •£• r- O O O

-j in CN r-* o O O

om-J*^MO

vo r- o f» O O O

CM CM O P* »n O O

CO CO o o </-> r-> o

~J «C O O OJ v£) O

«N OV>OONO

O ft •< O *A O O

« iA CO r« iO N

4(0NB9OOO

COQ^COmOQ

H ft H N O

ftHOommo

nmooNNO

r* r*. »n fi o o o

««oaooo

w

CM o •» ft «t o o

CM O 00 f) CM Q O

sO iTl 4) 00 ip M5

O O -H ft O O O

mOHtDmoo

CM f> CM CM (S|

H ft O O ul o o

ftNootno :SS3

** f-i ft -J O O O

O u-i m m o o o

CO •* O CM 00 o ©

>nn4«oo

ft CM m o <o © o

r-MCMMftO

! J « 1

*5ci

S3

N«H«omo

PH .H *» P*- O •» O

p«. o tn r* o © O

.» 00 f) tf\ © so <M

r-. CN vO r-. O O O

ON«inomo

«H CM O C"l Q P- ©

ft CM -tf CM f> en ©

ft «H ao oo © m o

Hotneot

CM irt m MT CM o ©

rl^HCONOO

ir\ m of ft CM •

cn ft oo oo MT o o

Ch P* ft Q -Of O O

CM CM CM ft MT CM ©

m

m CM ft oo ft o o

o* oo MT d cn © ©

0»«N400

«OONnoo

r* r- <?- ut ft o ©

CM CM *-* ft ft CM O

M

MT CM O M3 CM O O

«0«OtO)NOO

00 ft CM M

8

I

«* CM 00 © •-( ft ft

>j O-J >n HI

I4^0SOH(

*NiflirtOHH

I -H CM -3" >£> O rH CM ft CM MT M3

N<0-I~ItN-HO 00 CO «•» CM f» iH O NN •» HN F(0

I o • I

o O

I I

1

C 41

la

<>2S

*J > &. TJ O

!1 -

{I

T; U 4-» « •

2 S

-a

eg.

HMJ)

» C -H

4> H

a v I

•H 9 >

3 01 -H

•S3

O

a.

If 1

91

b o a «*i •

HH t) o! u a

<M ») O O

*0 *J *J « <H

: §^^55

a • I t-i « M

•H U > p, -p O

*J C O M el
61

ll

1B

u

o

X

<n <n o o o o o

vo «n u-i o o o o

i r» o *o o 1* o

CN r«» o fi f* K O

*1 cn io r^ <n ta d

w-i Oi O O O O O

so cn •* d © o o

co-f omtooo

o eo o m so o o

K Os O O * O O

r- in CN »H O -J sO vO o

O CO <T u-i O O o

-1

i-t

r-t .-i .-t

o o o

-H CM r-C o oo o o

H cn CN o

m

om

oo m m in so m o

•H m o O so r» o

(N m O O 00 sO O

t/1 00 .H m o o o

O CN

r-4 ^H

tH CM o o o

CO CN H «0 oo o o

CM sO

Ml •«

.-t CO

>£> so

CM o o

en ^H oi m o o o

m cn

CN CN

CN CN

CN •1

CO

•H

os os SO CN sO o o

i(M»ii5MnH

•» -tf »» -»•/*. s©

<ONI*IOOMO

NHnoiflwo

cn «* <n -* CN cn o

m

u-i r-. co r~s o O O

HHNHN

u-t «? >H u-i co so <H

(OlONflN On

o» o o m *» o o

cn ut cn CN cn o r«»

inn«ONNO«

Os CN «H .H -* O cn

Ifllfl PI MHO ^

iN<<r 4>n

«m«niAoo

mriMftNOO •a* cn -» <n .-t m »n

-* o cn «o o O O

o*« O <T r- u~i o o

P4 CM H •-< tN -ff

NNHHiflO O

<*(ONNOP

cn CN cn -* so in

1 §

11

11

O -T r- ^o ^H cn r-.

r- o ' cn -* •

so oo cn cn o ^ o

-* r-. cr. cn »H •* o

s© so so o o cn o

^Qeo^Htno

Ot f-. -or r» o «* <

l«fs| -» H

tj NN4NP1HO P- r*» •* CN < OS m CO CN cn rH o

•S3

81 • 1 w u • a •

O « • -H

• I 'H -H CO (3 CO SM

• ho I « 1 G •H a > a

« e o

flvipz

1o

00

II

SB 8

0)

B 0)

33

1ST)

!JJ5

12-8

!j

•o

« 3 »

O • QJ -H

2i£

132
62

m *n en en o o o

jiNOinooo

•cr oo *n r-. o o o

r- co cr. so o o o

r-. r*» H H O O O

QO O •-( os O O O

so en rn •-( o O O

•O O U-I r- o O O

en r~* r-» r- en o O Nnnnnoo OKT4««00

<M O O O C* o o

r- oo o O r» o O

\ m m o en o o

co so m r*. en o O

N«NH«00

n co <o os co *^ Q

M NH CM CM O

•-4

0\ -» .H O sO O O

N<oconNoo

MMfl-JNOO

NNHHNiflO

M

ODHinONOO

3 CM •* in

en CM f-f

•tfinvOmN

2

I

M

• 1 o c

•H 1-4

CD u

^3d

e >•

T3 *•* liOD

V SM

« o

z

os O os CN o O r*

O O ^a •£, u-i o O

•-* o m CM m o o

•B »o oo CM *n o o

-» *» *» r»i m -» ©

vomNOOo

OONHWOO en en en en CM CM

mm sin irioo

9>«NM^OO

•* r- kO CO en O Q m m «<nniflo

CM CM O 00 CM O O

en -* os o CM m o

c«* CM ^M en esj CM

Os CM en CO *a O O

lOMnNOOo

CM irt o O o o o

8

I

OS CO o o o >» o o\ co *-t en o «tf f*

^ r^ n so «N ^ (vi

«H «-M CM iH • -£> en m M" in <o o <o <n

o <0 oo rv •* en en rt o r» r^ «j eM en ^-t o co N«J «nnn o oo P» •* en i

I

S3

151) S i o 5

' ^ CB iM

i S3 •< s

' p i M CU M

• ail o

£ «4

o M1

' Z H J

I S

S3

MOB

•*H •i a) i

• fi •H ' co as co '

« M

a « 1

*M 4J >

• 1 -H

3 *J c

n u) 3 :

il 3 « o I

H O 0

OB -H

u o

SB • H

Q.-0 O

l -H C 1 A

5 Z H P3

s

c a)

S5'

S '

too •

!3S

9 > 0-"0 O

5-3

H _1

5
63

•

c

I

31

3(

M:j

o

•

23

u

;£

-

J8M

•sr 10 (V* <T o o o

S CM <* a- o o o

fO IM 01 r-» o o o

CO *» 1*1 Q O •£> CN cO in

>0 CN o » o o o

"3 o m tn o O<M M y»

p* ^H o o o o o

-H <t o o o o o

OVNOMOOG

so r- o r- so o O

•O O O f- -£> O O

ov M O *o ao o o

a* »rt o o o o o

CN sD O O O O O

«NN<f (DOO

en O «"! r* so O O

*n o* o » »o o o

r-» 00 O trt CO O O

f- » o o o o o

f) CO O o o o o

co r- ao <-» o r- o

~J u-» <N u-i O •£> O

4 4 N O no ^

*o p* m P* r- <n p*

tn o o *o *x o o

O* CM O P* Ol O O

•JOmvCHO^

r o m r» p- o P*>

eoNomooo

« <N O O O O O

I -» *> CD O O Po «* -« P» o o <n

p* *0 «n tn o O O

X co u-i cr o «"> O

IIAMNHNO

MOCinriNO

I CO O o o o o

f^am^Hno

co >o •« m nNO

3s m u-i m •< o o

nwoo>HOO

ONO <9NHnO

•58

•ao

o • « •

M o

« u

01 <8

T3 *J

i • n

ss

S3o

» V

O.T3

c « . O M

SB H .

5 5

tt o m OJ -H m

<* *-* I (2 y I

•M vH O O

•O *J *J • ^

3 82£35 a) MO

a • • u « M

- iJ > O. T) O

|i|g ss

a 9 • «w < 5

V MO

• • • U • N

^ « > O. TJ O

3 4 <H C « .Q

C7» •>» P«- © O O O

m IH «*> m o o o

m

3

l/"> o

•n

CO m a p> o o o

•-* CM

O -X) s

m o

CM tO

o> rw o o o o o

ft -J o o o o o

• CN C0NOIAO4CM CO N

O-jftrlH

Cf» P- M *<) •-( O O

O c^i sO r- 0*v O O

co ^^nNOO

iH P» o m CO O O

<otnco •« NCOO.-i

HHmoooo

nMtniAOOO

co r* in m o rn o

CO«4-«NNO

iV

• L

M 0 • • -H •

H ^ « • U C

M T4 O O

•D « u a T-

« Co

• • 1 M | M

a fl > o.T3 o

B « -H C « J3

3 *• a o M V

AlASZH J
64

MNNWflOO

so <H en o t

i-i CO O r* CM O O

•< r*» o •£> CM O O

sO OH O O O •** O

<T CD O O O sO O

I ^ rH O O O O CM Os O sO sO O O

m r-. m r- O O O

-T-* •43so

•o

»o o o

wom

H

CM r*« so CO o o o

.-4

<n

rsi

CO CO

CM

o

*T m O o o o o

m -a r*» co CO o o

CO -4 sD ^T

m io so H <? CO

o

to

r»» vD co iH SO O O

n -* co CO »n o o

m

CM

OS

•-I

co

CO

o

f*1

moo

CM O r- tO n o o

CO

U"t

o

lO

to i-t

sO

co

co

1•1

(M CM o *cO © ©

•a- o o o o o o

CM fH O O O O O

CM) CO o O O o o

m ri o O O o o

en co o o o o o

1 3 c «

3*1 c

> is

T3C M

° 4

MOM

O m

2

5

«ar CO O !*• O en PS

H«n«ooo

CM CM CM CM <

io ,-t r- cr> o r- .

CM SO CO SO CM o co

O so O r* CM o «

INMOOI

ifl iO«s, nirt (

oifl-jojmoN

*n to os CM in o o

irtgtMnoon

00 O CM o o o o

«o o so o o o o

-a- r*» os o O

en co m CM •* *

tn m <r co •-* o O

J o

O (0 z

5l

•H lO .H O ft m o

co CM en os o» CM o

tOMfl-JHHO

co oo en en CM CM o

o -» <n IH

o so os o o o o

l>»MOHrlO

O f* «» *T CO CM O

O •* en i-l

-J-HCCCOHCO

iNnn^HO

O sr en <H

co to co ^o O --3 en

i 0 09 i •

to

CO SIE

235

C 0) 0» M V M

*J > at o

sCO £:§

e co ^

o u ^

Z H HJ

T3 4J 4-1 01 -H

s> fi ^t -H co d

W 9 CD >H < 3

V MO

B « » u v h

•»-*«> a-o o

*J C O M (3

m w -j 7 H J

I O OS I -H CO

I i-t 4) • CJ C

I ft O O

T3 *J M fl) T*

I C ft -H 1 d

i a co «M < 5

3 a co to ;

CD o

C CO XI

; o u AS

• Z H J

CO 3

I

c m

•H t-J 32

• to 0) -H (0 i at os o c

-< o o

I U U • -H H -rt • d

OB «M -5 P
65

o o^ ri 00 «n o O

CO

<n

O ft o o

vn -J m u-i m o o

u-i U*S

u-i o

u-l

CM sO en r- Ml o o

u-i

rx

m N CO u"l o

u-i

m - O O o O o

•£> <j o ••i CD O o

CM

in CM O o

O O o n sO o o

u*l

o

u-i to

a*

so

CO u-i o

o

CO ~J o P* NO O o

CM

•t

•1 o r-» CO

CM

u-i

CM

o

r*. -H o O O O o

ro CO o O O O O ** H O O O O O

r*. o^ er» o so o o

r» -» ^H m co o o

CM ON o f*> vO o o

-4* CO O O O O O

^oooo'od

m CM H CM vO o o

tM --I

CM (N

crv

CM

CO

i-H

CO o o

u-t u-» u-i r-. CO o o

r* 00 CM (M Kg

CO CM CM H uD O O

oi CO VT C7- CO

CM

CM H CM O O o o

vO CM -tf o o o o

3

M

icimoonon

tn v© sj r* ^j o O

•-) oi O **i H O »*»

Mnoon>noo

^j ». «a n f. o o

CM ^-t IH n «n m o

o o c^ o o o o

ci to »y *•>• un o o

CO Ml «* P* <H O O

r» os sD u-i •t O O

\0 O «H 10 <-l O O

onmxNOo

in N«H < oo

i -H r-i o O

o> c5

m >H co vo o o o HCDOOHOI

*momH -JH

tn ^H ** fl o O c*l -H m o so O O <

OOMMOH-f H

co rv. m cn *n CM o N00 \t \T \t NO oo f* M o n CM o NsmmmNO

U • «

O co i •

•H O O

3S

VMM

(0 C -rt -H

tfi fl CO <*-i

41 MO

C • • M • M

•*-<*>> CO O

IC03ZH

S O CO • -H 0)

•H <FH q> K o c

*t -H o O

•O M U • -H

ta • i-t -H 1 c

Ul I OB »M •< »

0i u o

C V V M V M

-< u > a. -3 o

3«n c <fl

«-* C O U (!)

BKASZH J

S-H -i-t a _c

CO «*-• < 3

M O

v • B • u

u > a-a o

U C O M «

(QDZh J

t o en OJ -t co

*H ^-t • • O C

<M v4 O O

(0 C-H-H CO C

« t ta <M •< r5

«t M p

c w • C • u

• ±J > a. -3 o

3 « c o M *

ainsZH j
66

en r-^ en rC en d O

in fv* >-> en (-1 o o

H«eo<-inoo

rC o •» o» en o o

r-t «M nm

9> 00 O O O O O

en 00 o o o o o

r* \D CO r»* o O O

co d in GO d d o

•JI^MOOHOO

O sO O u-t O o o

c* en O O O O O

<-H .» d d © d o

o* <r u^ <-» 0 O O

^T ao

H

00

•1 •< 0 O O

CNJ •-t in a <£> O O

NO

1-1

ao

CD

1O 8

O

tn

H -tf O *

m O O

QD <~t O O O O O

CM <« O O O O O

00 GO 0 0 O O O

CO CM•

C") 0 O O O

r*. •. ^C en H O O

CM

CO

n

en m 0 r* o*> 0 0

•<r O

•-< CM

0 >£> 0 0

CM OO m O O 0 0

I «* o o o o

V?1 NJ

c

H

35T) C|

B

.23

£3

tOniOCD^OO

IO<A Hnnmo

AN^mN NO

.-t

Hv?M(D(DOO

OiNAONOO

f> •» N « •* m

en en CM «* so O O

m •£> <y\ m co m o

N NNHNN

OOMNH

-* O O <M o o o

en o o CM o o o

O »n CM CM m r- en

4 IA 00 4 in <^ N

en en r* CM o o o

co en « *o o o o

CM

CO sO O 00 O f »£>

So*> © en o •* *o

00 ^1 en O O I* PI

O-JQOOM

CM 0 o en m o o

co GO o »n CM o ©

iH NWH ©

(DCD OvOiTIO o

SN 10 I** CM © O

© en o .M o o o

SI

a

5

-^ -H H o o o o

m CM 00 m © o m

r- co co r>. en *r CM

Hrioonooo

co r-* •» en CM CM O

r>> o O O <H CM O

(J^vT CDvJ HNO

o o <*> O O en o

iH co -» -» m CM O co M? •» en en CM o <0\CI^<NHO

ta 9 3 »M m 5

a, 1- o

c • • £ 0) M

T* w > a -c o

3 4J C O l-i *

« to 3 35 H J

•a

j

1-

P

*J

(j

3^u

•

a

•

•

1-1 •3

•

1-

U-l (0

0

l-i ^ a

0) .'T i GJ

sr- <

JSSSU]

0

o

£

9

3

*l

<W -H 0 0

•O 4J *J • -H

* c •* -H as c

(A R 03 «M < 5

C cu u u v u

•rt *i > CO O

S2 •3

IA3ZH J

l15 O • • -H •

H H 01 K U C

•* ^* OO ~3 *J 4-1 y. _«

03 Sou 5 3

W MO

C • V M 4) M

2-a 3 0 •

av)5;
67

%

u

1!

•

1o •

I'

.O r*. O O © O O

» *» CM O O O O

en O O O* -» O O

fl ifl O H 4 o o

=0X00000

*S •-< o o o o o

O«0NNOOO

~H r- -a 00 O O O

u-» o i** r- ,-t o O

» O H CM r- O O

\OmO>MAOO• •

^ m CM i-H c* o o

-» o» o o o o o

<N m o o o o o

<n a* CM r- o o o

ft O e> N O O O

ey r*. •-( o"« W O O

^D r- CO <T r- o o

r-i •; \0 Ml

<C CM

o

rsj •* CO o O O o

* <c r~- p* O O o

2

r» r-

•I

O O o

m o O^ o r• O o

o

u-i

o

•

o

o

o m -T m r-> o o

r-4

00 o

CM

o

JD CTv o O O o o

m 00 m o o o o en CO o o o o o

r- tn en r- o o r^

••] o* O r*» m o O

CM ,© r» r^ w\ o <

^ m H m ifl r» o

NO^Mnooo

HiONHmno

O W •* CM •£> O I*

10 CM O 00 ifl O M

<*i u-i NO O CO o o

i

O *© O ifl r* O B

-41 en .c ^n en CM en

00 lA 00 <•""< r*. c-"i Q •> CD u-\ U-l CN O O

m IO vfi N -9 N

CO

•

5

NHOONBmn

OA -» CM <-l a* -r CM <-i

n n i> iO f* in o

H IAN H

>C H I'I 00 H I/I O r- 00 Os o o en in mi£ N GO CM mo

r> CO « \£ Ot N o

N N <N M n

00 ^O 00 u-i

M N N «

o in en r^ ao en

•H CM

MNNO

CM N m

N «o o r» ^ en o

t^t r-t <^

• - • "-• •' r '

fO •1 iH

N <*1 H

CM

tn CM en o

H M^lfl4 N O OCOM^ n^o ao vo en rt ^ CM o

en in -t ao m o O

m CM •» CM CM o o

N N N -J H O

ri O oo •£> u-i r*. O

HlAn(0(M4>O

en en PH CM V •£>

-T tn --i >n o <-> O

en CM CM oo m <n o

*» -» m CM CM «n

a** O CT> <T 00 vC CM

tjt ^» CM •-*

NiOMno w «

f** 00 en en o en en

CM CM IM en CM en en

ao so a» i^ CM m i-t

en •-(

oo ao *n en rn ^ o

i

Itu 03 M <y -

•H -( a •

- •

• 1 0) *M 3fi I

H •I

M

I I

at

c |

3 2

||

U O

« -H

« 4J

0) «

1 • a

> 0b*O o

•^ c n X3

c o v< <i

3 2 H J

w O • • -

g I

; B1

O • • *H •

•I 01 OS u c

•^ o o

t U U 1 t4

'X t

H
68

ONONOOO

•< 1/-1 CO v£> © o o

CO <n O O <~- O O

nNOi*inoo

c^ •i o o o o o

-J rsj O O O O O

r-» r*. O ~4 ^ o o

O -J CO o

H

o o

Ov O o CO •< o o

O

m CO 00 o-i 1

om

-

u-l o H so o o

CO oo o o o o o

<T iH O o o o o

9\NO WflOO

•H r> m oo <« o o

-- <T o o JD o o

CO i""> O r- •-< O O

-> ~H o o o o o

r- r> »n o O o o

>r o -» «H o o o

<M u-t u-| o> O O

i-t •i rH

o

G0OH9HO o

^-t m «n ^ f*. Q

(O-VNtOmo o

in

nomngio o

I fn .-t

«NOO

m o o o o o o

-? o o o o o o

m o *» I

s

* »n o o

<N m PJ m •

so m c*"i r*» in f*» o

omntoono

weNOOOrt

<"* m O O O O Q

iM^-JiAl

<N ifl •* * ifl M M

00 r» •« «H O r<- r»

*n m m ^H O O d

o<aoHeoono

^H <-H o*> o trt <n o

nnnnNM

cotOBHinoo

r- cr. o •I O O '

rsi -^ .-< tn O O i

u~i m rj co ul O r~

*or CT» »n i

T3 C

c o M

I:91 *

o

2:

to

5

in * n n o <^<^

Sl^OMNHH

<D 00 ^ f> CI H O oo oo W W el H o

r- co r*. .H o tn o

JiMflnMHO

N0D\O Hom o

S3nco OON <*» o

OGO<f Itt^N O

3

M O IS ttj «f

oj g -H -i-i to js

to n co •« < 5

« i- o

C at tu u • u

•H fi > co o

!i 8

CO 1 -H -H • C O

(0 • CO W* < Z3 i-t

V t"t O 4J

C 41 « U V U -H

«H u > an o *o

s *J a o ^ w o

nmazHhJ u

l O t «H 91

-H o oc <j c

' -•' o o

•Q U *J 00 -H

i 3 «o i-t 5 5

I u a

J • • h 0) M

i u > a-a o

I « -H C « A

1 w c 0 M «

i tn O 2 H J

!

•H r-t •

(0 <B it

00 i «rl iH 1 C

oo a co «« < 5

C V 0) b « M

•H « > O.TJ O

34*4 C 4 j

" C O W ft

fflW 3ZH J
69

O CO O I* N o o

CM t-NI sO r»

•-H

o o

o -J o <j- en o o

CT> •a

m

so m

tn

o o

O -J O -J •£> O O

HP

CM

00 m

m

o o

m

O -3- O o O o o

i-t so m O O O O CM n o o o o o

ON CO ON o o

fM

o o

ON. en o O O o o

CO

o o r- m 8°

CO r- u-i o o o o

o »n

eg IN

a- © o

t-( un

o o

CM

CM «3T o O O o o

o> -a- tn o o o o

sO r-f o o i-H o o

§ in

m O

o *» o o ON o o

o

-4

(M m o

CM

NHO o o o o

o\ o o o o o o

i-^ o d d o d o

o*» m o o en o o

m o m

m

o

o

.-1

o

r*. O CO o r-. o o

m

CM

CO o s£> o o

u-i m CM O o o o

en so o o o o o < o o o o o o> r^ m o o o o o »-" sO o o o o

2

\

•* 00 O K O O N 1-4 m »n r^ ro o O o\ r- >» co o O O

o r* *n en

OJ CM ~J

o

CM

O •£>

CM sO

«*» ON tN

CM <H <-4

c

m §

in H OH

r^ t^t t^t tn

«n 0 g

CM m o

.-H

-* en .-< o o O <*I

40.6

43.9

41.7

O -1

CM m

en

o

o

(OMBO o o o

»ft PI N Irt B O 1*1

CM en

CM fH -ar <n

en en en CM

omo

m CM

IN ourn o o o

•£> w3 in

en en -a*

en to

en co

en CM

o

o

tn %o co r**

H so -* sO

nwenn

o o o

*» CO CM *H

-a* m -a- PI

o © o

m

m m o

CM CM

9i rs ^ in co o O

co CM en CM co O O

0> H M N CO ^ H

c

I

C

O Ml m <H en co o >n o .-t co tH ON o en r* %0 <H CO ON O O r»

MN-CCIONO

HHNN en

m vo in CM o en so

en CM en -a- en en so

^a- co r» CM o o so

en CM en -»• CM m so

o

u

2. I H

•* r*> ON m O *n o

CM

m «n en ON en en CM

<f «H r-l

e-» so -» ON CM -a- CM

-? -^ r-t

mH««o^N

I so •* en en CM o CP co «* n M H o Os f*» ** en en CM o co r^ .* en <n .

IlH i-H • (B y c

M <H 0 0

-O JJ tJ CO -H

CO 5 B »M 5 5 -H

• 3: a-a o

§ 2-8

i • H d

M O • I -rt (0

• -* eu oi u c

*< -H O O

T3 *J *-» CO -H

« « CO «u < S

« bo

0 t» « M I **

s-l *J > 0.1J O

3« -H C I A

*J C O M «

eotA3ZH>J

Si • v « •

o • co i .

o • I -H m

ft FH • (2 o c

C II II b « h

I *J c 0 w <

1 W 3 Z H J

8 «

M O CO • ^H •

•H <H « CK U C

*M -. O 0

•a u u a *«

V HO

C • • M « M

~ 0.-0 O

igs-a

I Z H J

35
70

CO m ft CM O O O

r- r» \D co o O O

rH O f* *C «""» O O

r» o CO en en Q O

r^ o r* CM r- o o

«j m en o o o O

O i** vo o O O O

9> CO O^ r-g o o o

CO o* Ift 00

-H

o © o

r-. en ^O *£• en o o

c en en

en

o o

o

en 00 vC CM f- o o

m NO

CM <M

r• CO m

o o

iH 1-4 e^ e o o o

cjv CO ON CM o o o

GO Ov m 00 o o o

r» <n sC' 4> en o o

© en

1*. sO

en

en 8°

en CO sO CM r*. o o

CM CM

r» 00

iH iH

£

^C

o o

•t fH O* O o o o

OA O m N o o o

CO o

r4

m CO © o o

o m CM >C en o ©

*n •#

CM en f» o o

en ©

o o r^ CM r- o ©

CM CM .-1

CC

H

<ooo

NO

fH tn »n o o o o

O r*. m o © o o O r^ *n o o o O O f- m © O O O

r !

L J

r.

2

y

3

1

u

0

z i

CM ^» vo en co o o

CO *J CM 00 CM O Q

en CM in m •* »» o

1-4 *» en r- oo o o

i «C CM O O

i O <*> o o

so o> © en *o o o

>-* oo O r- i

en »n o © en o o

NO>OW* oo

en CM •>» m CM +3 i

r^ oo O i^ .H O O

«H «*"» © o en o ©

in «tf rn en %© © O

ao •* r- co oo O Q

m CM m in CM -» ©

r- iH O O

O o* O O en o O

[1

*H N cr>o>j ^

r^ CM p«» <7» <n -31 CM

OA r* m en en i-i o

en en CJ» o> O *0 r*-.

i r*. -» en m i-* o

NO en as a* O «» r»-

• r* •* n n HO

« HN 0>0>V N

CO N -tf PI fl rt O

•SB«- o

•O 4-1 4J CO -H

• ss

I «H *j > a.*o o

V13ZH J

O • eu «H •

U O

C • • M «) M

I -H •t O CC U

c oj ai u cu u

i os o e

- 05 TJ

! £ 3 £

itauiDZH

T3 O

S3

|5
71

009N000

cr o m CD

H

O O o

»* u-. so £ m o o

O o

o

o

n O * M *

o o

cim^OOOO

O r«* in o O O O

i

o

u

O* r*- o o *c o o

«£> <T O O <T O O

m cr\ o o o o o

I:

.5*

o ^ ffv o* o *o r»

m d m CM <

O QB

•S3

H O (0 41

e « v u v ** •p* *i > a.-6 o

34^4 [3 « 4

*J C O I- «

A W 5 35 H -J
72

Mr. WHITE. At this time, we call to the stand Mr. Louis R. Harlan.

STATEMENT OF LOUIS E. HARLAN, ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN

HISTORIANS

Mr. HARLAN. I am a professor of history at the University of

Maryland and editor of the Booker T. Washington papers. As such, I

have spent hundreds of hours in the archives using manuscript

census records and microfilm. But I am speaking for the Organization

of American Historians, a much larger group, smaller than the

American Historical Association since it only includes historians of

American history.

Since Mr. Bogue covered so many of the points that I wanted to

make, perhaps the simplest thing would he simply to touch some of

thepoints that he did not cover.

Well, it seems to me, and to the Organization of American Historians, that the present divisions in section 5 covering confidentiality

are unreasonable in that they, as your own summary of the bill

indicates in the notice at the bottom of page 1, would close off to

genealogists and also, by implication, to historians, all the censuses

prior to 1900 which had been opened for a number of years.

We think that would be not in the interest of historians and,

more importantly, not in the interest of the American people insofar

as it is their history, not merely the Government's history that is

involved.

We, the people, not just just we the historians, have a stake in a

more open policy.

At the same time, I want to indicate that I do not oppose confidentiality in the sense of protection of the rights of people to privacy

and any reasonable protection. I would support the civil liberties

Sosition of the right of privacy, so that I would not argue with

Ir. Hinshaw on this point.

In fact, I feel very strongly against the idea of a huge surveillance

by the Government of everybody and all that being put into a data

bank.

But there is a strong trend in American historical writing and

teaching toward writing the history of the American people, rather

than merely of the government, of the rich and the famous, the

Presidents and so forth.

Now, it seems to me, that if this history is to be written, it has to

be written with the kind of data that are in the census and the census

is the vest of all the various kinds of nonliterary sources.

I have used the courthouse records. I have used many other kinds

of records, and I found the census the most useful in that area to

study the anonymous Americans and women and Chicanos, the poor

people who do not appear in the manuscript records.

They either did not write manuscripts because they were illiterate

or their families could not afford to preserve their personal papers

because manuscript preservation is a luxury these people could not

afford. So they would be left out of history without such sources as

census.

Now, on the basis of my extensive experience in the census records,

I have worked on Booker T. Washington, a black man born in 1856.

The first time he appears in any public record is in the will of his
73

master whore his name appears. Nowhere else, for the first 16 years

of lus life, does his name even appear.

So the only way we can study anything about his early life is to

study everything around it; that is, to get the agricultural census

record of his owner, to get that man's census return and learn about

his family, and to use the manufacturing census for that county as

showing the tobacco factories around it and the mills, and to learn

generally the economic and social life of the area through the census

records, the church records in the census of religious bodies, of knowing what denominations people belonged to in the area, so that it is

almost like little dots on a grid. We can gradually develop the life

that surrounded him and, therefore, understand something of such

persons of obscure origin.

This is true of the history of many people. It is not just a matter

of getting the statistical evidence either. For example, I have a friend,

a young black historian who is working on a history of New Orleans

blacks from 1860 to 1890. Now, he uses the manuscript census records,

by names of individuals, knowing what their occupations were, where

they lived, the geographical structure of the city in relation to blacks.

Out of that basic social data then can grow a social history on which

he can then add black poets, newspaper editors, and so forth up to

the to]>, the elite blacks.

But the only way to study the ordinary life of the people is through

census records backed up by local records. I think that liistorians

would accept the other half of this bill for this mid-decade sample

survev of population as, in general, a good thing, without knowing

the details about it and without feeling it would help historians

particularly.

But. it seems to me that what has happened here is that there are

two different bills merged into one, I suppose, in the hope of getting

the wider constituents was for one being put into another.

But I would say, in the long-run interest of most people, there

would be a greater advantage in freedom; that is, the advantages of

freedom are greater than the dangers of it.

You always take some risk when you do anything.

But I say that for an open history that is not an official history, not

a governmental history, we would be better served by opening the 1900

census, or the 72-year rule.

Now, if you want an answer to the problem of what to do about the

people 80 odd years old now, who might be involved, in the first place,

they did not make out the census returns. They were made out by the

parents.

In the second place, it might be much cheaper and maybe in the

interest of gerontology and a study of the aged to have a census of

people over 80 that could then be used as a Census Bureau check

against the use of the return.

Mr. WHITE. Mr. Harlan, would you like to introduce your testimony

in full in the record?

Mr. HARLAN. Yes; thank you.

Mr. WHITE. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[The complete statement follows:]

04-514-
74

PBEPABKD STATKMKNT OF Loris R. HARLAN

I am a professor of history at the University of Maryland and editor of the

Booker T. Washington Papers. I am speaking for the Organization of American

Historians at the request of its executive secretary. The Organization of American

Historians, made up of most of the teachers and writers of American history in

the colleges and universities, as well as many secondary teachers, opposes the

confidentiality section (pp. 5-7) of House Bill 4420 as such a sweeping and unreasonable provision for confidentiality of census records that it would make it

impossible to write some of the most important aspects of our country's history.

Our organization would accept any reasonable date for opening census records

like the fifty-year rule of the Library of Congress manuscripts division, or sixty

or seventy years. But to deny historians the right to examine a census return

forever, unless with the " written permission of the respondent or his heir, successor,

or authorized agent," is unreasonable. It will not only work a hardship on historians but will deny to the ordinary people their rightful place in our national

history. "We, the people," then, not just we the historians urge you not to take

this backward step.

There has been for some time a strong trend in American historical writing and

teaching toward considering our history to be not just the story of our government

and the rich and the famous, but the experience of the American people•the poor

and ordinary as well as the rich and famous, the immigrants and ethnic groups,

racial minorities, women, in short, the anonymous Americans who never got into

our history textbooks before. We are moving toward a more democratic history,

and this seems to me altogether a good thing, to consider the totality of out past

and not just the elite part of it. But to study the anonymous Americans, we cannot

expect to use private papers, because the preservation of records is a luxury the

poor cannot afford, even if they arc literate enough to create a file of private

papers. If we are going to write their history at all, if they are to have a recoverable

past, Blacks and Chicanos and Indians have to be studied through the census

records, the county courthouses and other public archives, but above all tlirough

the manuscript census returns.

Perhaps I can make my point with a reference to my own experience as editor

of the Booker T. Washington Papers, a fifteen-volume series now into its fourth

volume. Luckily, Washington was one of the. exceptional Blacks whose papeis

were preserved, about one million items, an amazingly rich collection that allows

us to see behind the veil, to know more about black community life. But in these

letters are frequent references to persons, white or black, who are so obscure that

my assistant editors and I cannot find any record of them in print, even in the

newspapeis. So we turn to the manuscript census records of 1870 and 1SS0. We

have spent hours reading the microfilm at the National Archives, and have been

able to learn from the census the basic facts about them to illuminate their

historical role. The census is the Who's Who of the anonymous and ordinary

American. I was easily able to find in other places information about the white

farmer who owned Booker T. Washington as a slave. But only in the census

could I trace the wanderings after freedom of Washington's Aunt Sophia and

Cousin Sally. To coninue our work of bringing obscure persons into the. light of

history, however, we need the 1900 census, taken more than seventy years ago.

The 1890 census was destroyed, but the 1900 census would open up a whole new

body of social data.

I am sure that historians will regard the other half of this bill, for a mid-decade

sample survey of population, as a forward step, an aid to demographers and social

scientists in studying trends foi the futuie. But we plead with you, while takinc

this forward step, not to try incongruously to take a backward step of cutting

the American people off from an important part of their past.

Mr. WHITE. At this time, I will recognize Mr. Rousselot for 5

minutes.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. Mr. Harlan, I assume, by your testimony, that

you do favor some type of mid-decade census. Are you willing to

participate in paying for the cost of this?

Mr. HARLAN. I simply indicate that I do not believe historians

would regard this as a bad thing. I think most historians would

probably consider this a legitimate use of tax money more so than

some other programs that they might not like as well.
75

Mr. ROUSSELOT. A mid-decade census seems to benefit some groups

more than others. Would your associates be willing to pay some

kind of minimal fees in covering the cost? The cost has been estimated

anywhere from $170 million to $200 million.

Mr. HARLAN. YOU mean in income tax?

Mr. ROUSSELOT. No.

Mr. HARLAN. I don't understand. You see, the historians could

not be using this material; so, therefore, we would not be involved

in paying such a fee, and so I cannot

Mr. ROUSSELOT. YOU do not use the material?

Mr. HARLAN. Not for that•that is, we do not consider a census

of the next 5 years. I see, in the long run over a period of 40, 40 years

later, use of it. I imagine they would probably be under those circumstances, using the decennial census anyhow, since it would be more

complete.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. SO is your answer no or yes?

Mr. HARLAN. Well, it would not be useful to historians.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. SO your answer

Mr. HARLAN. For that reason, we would not have any objection

if it is useful to demographers, useful to economists and useful to

city planners and useful to business concerns, we would not object

to that. We consider it a more sophisticated approach to data

gathering.

As such, not anything we would object to, but on the other hand,

it is not our business.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. Well, let us suppose that, in 2 or 3 years from

the time the mid-decade census was taken, there was developed a

substantial amount of data. Would you, as a group, be willing to

help in some way share in the cost?

Mr. HARLAN. Well, the useful way that we citizens, who do not

have a direct interest in a program, do this is through the tax laws.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. So vou are saying increase the taxes to cover the

cost?

Mr. HARLAN. Well, I think, of course, that there are other•I

mean, other things that could be eliminated and

Mr. ROUSSELOT. That is what everybody says. Everybody that

comes to see us says, "My program is very sacred."

Mr. HARLAN. Well, let me put it this way. I would be willing to

pav taxes for this; yes.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. YOU would?

Mr. HARLAN. Yes. There are a lot of other things I would not like

to pay for by tax, but I do pay my taxes.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do not have any

more questions.

Mr. WHITE. Mr. Hinshaw.

Mr. HINSHAW. Mr. Harlan, just from a historian's point of view,

500, 1,000, 2,000 years ago, recordkeeping did not appear to be as

easy. There did not seem to be as much interest in it from a long

range point of view. So I guess now, historians have a very difficult

task going back in tracing events.

Since, certainly, 1900, there seems to be all kinds of publications,

I guess basically since the early days of movable type it has been as

easier task to trace history. With all of the works that are now put
76

forth, historical works, volumes of historical novels, fiction, nonfiction, Government records, is the census data really as needed as

it might have been, say, for the year 1880?

Mr. HARLAN. YOU mean is census data for today needed as it would

have been for 1880?

Mr. HINSHAW. Yes. Looking at a hundred years from now, is the

need for data from the census files going to be as necessary to the

historians' uses as it is now for the year, say, even 1900?

Mr. HARLAN. I would say, given the trend among historians toward broader conceptualization of what history is, and more use of

quantitative data in arriving at today's trends, it would continue

to be useful.

Furthermore, the censuses of today are so much better than the

censuses of 1880; therefore, they are more useful in that sense. That

is, the data are more precise. You have no idea, unless you have

used those early censuses, just how much errors you have.

In Booker T. Washington's first entry in the 1870 census, that is,

of his family, there were about 10 errors. Some blacks were called

mulatto and vice versa, some females were called males and all sorts

of things like that. In the returns, there were misspellings of family

names and just all sorts of errors, whereas now, the returns are rmi»*

more carefully run.

Mr. HINSHAW. Just take the case of Booker T. Washington. If, all

of a sudden, we were to find out there was a Booker T. Washington

born in the year 1950 and we wanted to trace the first 22 years of his

life, do we really have the problem of tracing what his town would be

like?

We have Chambers of Commerce, publications from which we can

glean information of what the area was like, and the economic conditions under which that person probably grew up more so than we

might have had 70 years ago.

So is it really quite so important, except for the mass of quantitative

data?

Mr. HARLAN. I would agree that it is not as conclusively significant

for 19.50 as it was for 1850; though the data is so much greater that it

would be useful for historians to have it.

I think the case of harm being done to anybody by it has not been

proven or to any substantial segment, compared with the good and

the value derived from it. I am still saying yes, it would be helpful to

have it. I say it is not as needed. I agree.

But w

Te are talking as historians, above all, about that 1900 census

that was promised to be opened 20 years ago. I think 50 years was too

short a time, myself.

I agree that 72 years is much better.

But I say, the census should be made available at some reasonable

time, protecting the right of privacy of the individual who made out

the return, and 72 years will do that because children did not make out

returns. They were made out by heads of families, and that meant

adults. Therefore, this is not information given by the person, until

they are 20, say.

Mr. HINSHAW. No further questions.

Mr. WHITE. Thank you, Mr. Hinshaw.

One question, Mr. Harlan.
77

Do you feel that these records should be opened to the general

public, whatever spun of years this committee should decide on, if

any? Or do you think it should be limited to classes of research?

Mr. HARLAN. I have an individual opinion that would probably

differ from the association.

Mr. WHITE. What is your opinion?

Mr. HARLAN. My individual opinion is that you cannot distinguish

between a historian and a writer. For example, Barbara W. Tucliman,

a really brilliant historical writer, is not an academic, does not have a

Ph. D., but does not bother with that. Yet, from my point of view,

she is a better historian than most.

Tlie same is true of many other people who come out of journalism

and into history. Allen Nevins, a distinguished historian, wrote 40

books in his time and was not a Ph. D. He came out of journalism.

He came out of a New York paper.

So where do you stop? Where do you set up a line of who is a

historian? Shall we have an official list?

Every man is a historian, I say. Somewhere or other, you have to

reach the point where you put a minimal amount of trust in the people.

Mr. WHITE. Did you testify earlier on how many years you thought

woidd be a proper span?

Mr. HARLAN. I said 70 would be proper. Now, I could live with a

a span beyond that. But again, I think that would be reasonable.

Mr. WHITE. What would you say in this bill that this committee

should determine? That the 1900 census returns would bo open to

the general public, but thereafter•subsequent to the 1900•that a

span of years would extend to 100 years, in order to catch up with it

eventually? Would you have any objection to that?

Mr. HARLAN. One of the problems that you would have is that you

would have to go back to 1880 and close it up.

Mr. WHITE. No, no, no. Not go beyond 1900. Catch up with the

years so that eventually in the year 2010, that you would begin going

to subsequent censuses.

Mr. HARLAN. I would oppose it, going beyond the point. I would

not wish to speak for my association on 100 years. It does seem to be

a possible basis for compromise, but I would tend to think 72 is

reasonable enough and that your proposal goes to, eventually, what

I regard as an unreasonable extent; that is, shifting to 100 years.

I still say that is unreasonable, but less unreasonable, certainly,

than the provision in the present bill.

Mr. WHITE. Thank you, Mr. Harlan.

Counsel, do you have any questions?

Mr. BRAY. NO questions.

Mr. WHITE. Thank you very much, Mr. Harlan. There are no

further witnesses on behalf of or in opposition of the mid-decade

census bill.

There was a meeting scheduled tomorrow morning in room No. 219.

That has been canceled, and the markup time will be held at a later

time.

I am going to hold the record open for a period of 10 days in order

to give the others an opportunity to submit written testimony and

written statements for the record.

Is there any further business before the committee?
78

Without any further business, the committee stands adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 12 noon, the hearing was adjourned.]

[The statements and letters which follow were received for inclusion

in the hearing record:]

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN It. RARICK, MEMBER OF CONGRESS FROM THE STATE

OF LOUISIANA

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, I welcome this opportunity to

submit this statement in support of my bill II. R. 1629 and similar legislation to

"limit the categories of questions required to be answered under penalty of law

in the decennial censuses of population, unemployment, and housing, and for other

purposes."

This legislation is necessary to protect the American people from further

governmental intrusion into their lives. There is nothing more important to the

American way of life than the right of privacy. Continued infringement of this

right cannot be countenanced inasmuch as it threatens to destroy the very fabric

of our society.

I urge the Subcommittee to give favorable consideration to my bill H. It. 1629,

or similar legislation which restricts the categories of questions which our people

are required to answer under penalty of law during the decennial censuses of

population. In closing, I would point out that this legislation in no way limits the

type of questions that can be asked; rather, it protects the citizen, much like the

.">tli Amendment ot the Constitution, from being forced to reveal information to

the government which he objects to becoming a part of public knowledge.

STATEMENT OF JOHN N. ERLENIIORN, A MEMBER OF CONGRESS FROM THE STATE

OF ILLINOIS

Mr. Chairman: I would like to register mv appreciation to you for holding

hearings on several similar bills, including 11. R. 6227 which I introduced, to

provide for a mid-decade census of population.

A census in mid-decade becomes increasingly attractive as our nation grows

bevond the 200 million level, and as the pace of our activity increases.

When we were a new nation and a small one, our only need for a census was

that we might have a basis for representation in the House of Representatives.

For that purpose, a head count once every ten years was sufficient; and for that

purpose, in my opinion, it still is.

Over the decades, however, we have found other uses for the census.

I look upon a mid-decade census as a useful device in anticipating and guiding

future urban growth. By making current census figures available twice as often,

we could gain a better understanding of population-related prgrams. Timely

census information can help us to direct our efforts toward ploe.s where they

can do most good and away from the less productive endeavors.ac

What population-related programs do I have in mind?

The cleaning up of the environment comes to my mind. So docs the development of energy; and there are lots of others.

We Americans are a mobile people•more mobile, perhaps, than the nomadic

Indians who inhabited this continent before Columbus came. We not only are

on the move, but the directions we will go an? not always predictable. We also

are an expanding society; and census figures which are eight or nine years old

oftentimes are not much help in dealing with today's problems.

In my estimation, the needs of the House of Representatives for periodic

re-apportionment are adequately met by the censuses we have had every ten

years. I doubt that the people were well served by the adjustments made in congressional districts during the 19fi0's. Hence, I propose that we specifically rule

out the use of the mid-decade census for creating new House districts.

The mid-decade census questionnaire ought to be kept brief, but I have written

no restriction into my bill. I think that once every ten years is often enough for

Congress to get into a debate about such questions as the number of people using

each bathroom. I doubt the wisdom, however, of writing these preferences into

law.

These are my views. I hope they are helpful to this subcommittee in its deliberations of these bills, and I hope they are persuasive in pointing out the need for a

mid-decade census.
79

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM S. BROOMFIELD, A MEMBER OF CONGRESS FROM

THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

Mr. Chairman, as the author of H.R. 1386, one of the mid-decade proposals

under consideration today, I wish to thank and commend the Subcommittee for

convening these necessary and timely hearings. As you know, the institution of a

mid-decade census as a means to assure the fair distribution of federal and state

funds to local governments has been a matter of concern to me for some time.

The most compelling argument for a five-year census is of course the serious

handicap that rapidly-growing communities experience because they are locked

into federal grant distribution formulas that are six, seven, eight or nine years

old. Thus, they are seriously underpaid at a time when increased population

generates severe fiscal pressures upon local officials to maintain basic goods and

services.

Since State governments rely on federal census figures to allocate their funds

to their local units, these errors are compounded. In effect, this results in a form

of double taxation for the people of rapidly-growing communities. They pay a

greater share of federal and state taxes and receive a reduced share of the benefits

from those taxes.

In a recent year, it was estimated that the federal government allocates ten

billion dollars annually to local governments on the basis of census statistics. This

was before the passage of the Revenue Sharing Act which uses population as one

of three main factors for dividing $5 billion annually among the States and their

cities.

Add to (his figure the billions disbursed by the States themselves and it is

clear that the census plays a vitally important role in the fiscal life and death

struggle that many of our local governments are fighting.

Viewed in this perspective, it is apparent that the estimated $150 to $200

million dollar cost of a mid-decade census is well worth it. Furthermore, since the.

benefits of a five-year census would be spread over five years it would carry an

annual price tag of only thirty to forty million dollars.

Consider for instance that the federal government spends in excess of $2 billion

every year on computer rental time. I am suggesting then that we spend 1.5 to

2 percent of that sum so that statistics which are fed into those expensive computers will not be six, seven, eight or nine years out of date. Viewed in this light,

it seems clear that opposition to a five-year census on budgetary grounds is a

classic example of being penny-wise and pound-foolish.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, the administration has requested $G million in

this year's budget for a mid-decade sample survey of 1.5 percent of the population

that will eventually cost $45 million. A sample survey will not be sufficient to

revise the distribution formulas for federal funds, and, therefore, does not compare

to the benefits of a complete headcount.

Interestingly enough, one of the most frequently-cited arguments against the

creation of a mid-decade census in 1975 is the claim that gearing up for a census

requires thirty months of lead time. Since the Census Bureau is already preparing

for a survey, it seems that with additional funds and timely approval of a census

by Congress that this hurdle can be overcome.

Mr. Chairman, we have only to look to the results of the 1970 census to understand why a more frequent population count is so imperative. Never before in

our history has our population been more mobile or migratory.

For example, of the slightly more than eight million people in the State of

Michigan who were more than live-years old in 1970 more than three million of

them had moved since 1905. A half a million of them had moved from another

state or country. Of the remainder, there is no telling for sure how many had

switched from one village or township to another.

If this survey were repeated today in Oakland County, Michigan, these percentages would be even greater. In one \ ection of the county I represent communities have grown from eight to forty-four percent in a recent eighteen month period.

These communities and others like them across the country are being handcuffed by census statistics that are unrealistic even three years after they were

compiled. They will be continually shortchanged unless Congress takes positive

action to initiate a mid-decade census.

This is especially true in regard to the amount of money allocated to various

local units by revenue sharing. I have asked the Treasury Department how they

intend to revise population figures between censuses. While they are exploring

various possibilities, it appears that short of a mid-decade census, it will be

impossible.
80

This is hardly surprising since the Director of the Census Bureau, Dr. George

H. Brown, stated before this Subcommittee in 1971 that:

"The difficulties of making good estimates for smaller cities or for smaller counties

(25,000 or less) are significantly greater. Here the margins of error are so great

that neither the Census Bureau, or any other organization has been able to make

estimates with the accuracy that is needed for their use for administrative

purposes."

If the Census Bureau can not accurately project population growth, how do they

expect the local officials in my Congressional District, to estimate their future

needs? There are only two communities in my Congressional District, Pontiac and

Birmingham, that had a 1970 population in excess of 25,000. The census was never

intended to be for the benefit of large cities to the detriment of smaller ones. If a

ten-year census cannot do the job for all of our cities, then it is about time we had

a five-year census.

Before I conclude, Mr. Chairman, I would like to stress two additional aspects

of my legislation which to my knowledge are not included in any other legislation

now pending before you. I am referring to my proposal to move back the census

date two months and to establish an orderly procedure so that towns can, on demand, receive a recount if they feel they have been undercounted.

Many communities in Oakland County, Michigan, learned through hard experience how necessary this provision is for a proper tallying of their size. Some of

our cities were assigned as many as three or four population counts before a final

figure was assigned to them. Fortunately, some were successful in receiving updated counts which reflected their true growth. Others were not so fortunate.

Before they had a chance to appeal for a recount, the Census Bureau had already

submitted to Congress the official figures.

My legislation would establish a two-month review period specifically for

recounts. If the recount revealed an error of more than five percent by the Census

Bureau, the burden of paying for the recount would fall upon the Federal government. Otherwise, the community would have to absorb the cost.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank you once again for taking up the battle for a

mid-decade census. In the past several vears, your committee has heard hundreds

of witnesses outline the growing need for a five-year census. We now know that

this need is greater today than ever before. A decennial census was more than adequate in the eighteenth and nineteenth century but, in the second half of the

twentieth century it clearly is not. I urge you to favorably report this legislation

to the Floor as soon as possible.

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

Washington, D.C., April 19, 1973.

Hon. RICHARD WHITE,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Census and Statistics, House Post Office and Civil

Service Committee, Cannon House Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR Mr. CHAIRMAN: The federal government is turning more and more to

grant programs with allocations based on population. General Revenue Sharing

is only one of the newest and most prime examples of this fact.

If the federal government is going to expand this practice, there must be a

more accurate accounting of population than our present decennial census allows.

With a highly mobile and fast-growing population, our nation's most current

statistics are badly in error five years after they are taken.

Consider the example of my own Congressional District in Colorado. When the

preliminary estimates of the distribution of general revenue sharing funds were

released early in the last session, I was shocked to discover that three cities in

my district, with populations between 28,000 and 93,000, were not even listed.

These three cities had been incorporated during the decade of the sixties and as

far as the federal government was concerned, they did not exist yet. Obviously,

for such a program to succeed, it is imperative that the population statistics used

by the government agencies need to be more accurate.

The Subcommittee of the House Post Office and Civil Service Committee,

which you Chair, has already held extensive hearings on the need of a mid-decade

census, and I wish to express my appreciation for the work you have already done.

Hopefully, these most recent hearings will result in a bill being reported at an

early date so that the first mid-decade census can be taken in 1975.

Sincerely,

DONALD G. BROTZMAN,

Member of Congress.
81

STATEMENT OP HON. DON FUQUA, A MEMBER OF CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF

FLORIDA

Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I welcome this opportunity to

submit testimony in support of legislation to provide a mid-decade census. I

have introduced identical legislation each year that I have spent in the Congress

and I hope that early and favorable attention can be given this important matter.

The needs for comprehensive census reports more often than once every ten

years have been stated many times. The federal, state and local governments

need this information to assist in the efficient administration of many of their

programs and to help in the planning of programs and facilities. Certainly, with

the enactment of the general revenue sharing program and the Rural Development Act this fact is highlighted. The President has reduced categorical grant

programs for our rural areas dramatically and has replaced these program funds

with general revenue sharing money and Rural Development Act funds. Notwithstanding the fact that the latter two programs cannot provide as much support

as the support previously given, the allocation of these funds depends in part on

accurate population counts.

The number of people in the United States has increased considerably even since

the last census, but this growth has not come evenly year by year, nor has it come

evenly in all parts of the country. Florida's population increased by some two

million persons from 1960 to 1070 and yet, during the last few years of the 1960's

we were using census figures far out of phase with the actual figures.

The need for a National Census of Population, Housing and Unemployment

beginning in 1975 and every ten years thereafter is manifest. There is a real

need for this program at this point in our nation's history. Government, business,

industry, education and virtually every aspect of American life would benefit

from such a program.

While the cost of conducting a national census is high in one sense, I believe

that its actual impact would be to save money for government and business,

those who must now conduct special census and statistical counts because of the

long lapse in time between our national enumerations.

There is another problem that afreets every congressional district and which

is a most serious problem for rural districts. That is the problem of underemployment rather than unemployment. There are many individuals who support

their families on marginal farms and who must supplement their income by parttime work or seasonal work. They are ready, willing and able to work; yet, if

they live in an area with little or no industrialization, they may be out of the

labor force for a long period of time•long enough to be off the unemployment

compensation rolls of the state governments.

Regular surveys on unemployment are conducted by the Bureau of Census

in Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas, which are localities over 50,000 in

population. Raw material producing areas such as farm lumbering, or mining

communities are often not covered by these surveys since most of them have

fewer then 50,000 inhabitants. The impact is great," of course, on rural communities as accurate figures are simply not available.

Each year, the information which guides us grows more and more out of date.

The House will be asked during the next few months to appropriate billions of

dollars which will be distributed to state and local governments to help meet

local needs: more jobs, more training in occupational skills, better schools, better

care for the elderly or for the sick. Yet, we have inadequate information from

which to make decisions as to where these funds should be allocated. There is

little question but that waiting until 1980 to make the next census would be

penny wise and pound foolish. Considerable administrative savings would be

possible as well as insuring that those areas in greatest need would receive the

necessary relief. Those areas which are presently in need, not those areas which

were in need when the last census was taken.

I appreciate this opportunity to present this point of view to the subcommittee

and I urge your prompt approval of the mid-decade census legislation.
82

THE SPEAKER'S ROOMS,

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

Washington, D.C., April 2, 1973.

Hon. RICHARD WHITE,

House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR DICK: Reference is made to our conversation about the matter of public

access to the 1900 U. S. Census.

I hope your Committee does not undertake to withhold this census from examination by researchers, scholars, and others under proper safeguards. For

years historians and genealogists were told by the National Archives and the

Bureau of the Census, if I am properly advised, that this census would be made

available in 1972. It is my understanding that it was not made available at the

request of Congressional committees. No one, of course, wants to make data of

this kind available to embarrass anyone or to support claims in courts of law that

would not be otherwise available.

As I told you on the telephone, in my own State we are completely cut off from

knowing anything about who the pioneers of the State were. There was no 1880

census of Oklahoma, and this is the last census available to the public except for

a few fragmentary pages which were preserved when the 1890 census was

destroyed.

On general principle, it would seem to me that after 73 years the necessity for

complete confidentiality of a census record is exhausted; however, as a shitorical

heritage the census is a veritable national treasure. Without jeopardizing the

work of the Bureau of the Census or the credibility of future census reports, I

hope that a way can be worked out that will enable American historians and

genealogists to have access to the 1900 census records under reasonable safeguards

and circumstances.

Sincerely.

CARL ALBERT, The Speaker.

NATIONAL SOCIETY, DAUGHTERS OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION,

LINEAGE RESEARCH COMMITTEE,

Washington, D.C, April 5, 1973.

The CHAIRMAN,

Subcommittee on Census and Statistics, House, Committee on the Post Office and

Civil Service, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR Mil. CHAIRMAN: It is requested that the following letter be incorporated

in the record of the hearing on the proposed Bill, HR 442G.

As Chairman of Lineage Research for the Daughters of the American Revolution, an historical society whose membership is based on lineage, I am very much

concerned about the possible effects of Sections 4 and S which I believe have not

been considered in depth. I therefore present the following in opposition to Sections 4 and 5 of HR 442G.

In my work I study history continually. History is the all encompassing study

of life and every aspect of it. The Census Schedules are a part of American History, because they record the westward movement and growth of our population.

It is important to us that this information be available.

A census records all the families and proves their whereabouts in the year ot

that census. A historian and genealogist needs that information. This data is

recognized documentation of a family's composition and location.

The Censuses from 1830-1880 are ancient history. There are relatively few

persons alive today who were alive in 1880. They would have to be 93 years of

age or more.

There is nothing in a Census that was not already known to the neighbors

That a family had 10 children was not news; the estimated value of the farm was

not news, because the neighbors had paid the same price and for the new states

the public land office had the records.

In olden days, if someone could not read and write, it was nothing unusual.

What person among us does not know that the quality of public instruction was

extremely poor in many parts of our nation in the years in question. I am not

ashamed that one of my ancestors could not read or write. That family lived on the

frontier and had little time for anything but necessary labor. Besides, there were

few books there, except for the Bible which they probably knew by heart. Those
83

were the brave pioneer people who carved farms out of the wilderess and they also

were the people who took action to develop a public school system so that their

children would be educated. One should be proud of them.

If there were a retarded child, what of it? There are retarded children born

today, and everyone is charitably concerned about it. It is not a disgrace. In fact I

have read the report of a scientist which stated that such a child is very often

born when both father and mother are of extremely high intelligence.

Surely everyone in this country knows that this is a nation formed from immigrants. Our people derive from everywhere in the world. That is a source of

National pride, because it has made Americans a virile and ingenious people.

In over 20 years of research I have found nothing in the Census that anyone

need be sensitive about.

The alleged reasons for this Bill seem much ado about nothing.

It is recommended that the records of the United States decennial censuses

remain open to the public.

Sincerely,

EUNICE B. HADKN,

National Chairman, Lineage Research Committee.

COUNCIL OF STATE PLANNING AGENCIES,

Lexington, Kij., April /,, 1973.

Hon. RICHARD C. WHITE,

Subcommittee on Census and Statistics, House Committee on Post Office and

Civil Service, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: AS President of the Council of State Planning Agencies

(CSPA) which comprises the chief state planning officers of the states and territories, I wish to express our very strong support for H. 4426, which would authorize a mid-decade Federal Census.

In prior years CSPA has expressed similar support for such legislation•most

recently, I believe, through Kenneth Olson, then Chief Planning Officer for the

State of Utah and CSPA President. Certainly as we move toward more positive

state and Regional regulation of land use, settlement and growth policy, and a host

of interrelated federal and state programs, it becomes increasingly essential that

we have the basic data derived from the Federal Census and comparable across

state lines. In the past, change occurred relatively slowly, and it was possible to

bridge the period between the receipt of one set of Federal Census figures and those

available a decade later. Now it is very clear that critical changes are occurring

with increasing rapidity. We must have more up-to-date information on what is

happening, yet few states have the capability for such work.

However, an even more critical need has emerged with the inauguration of

general revenue sharing, and with the possibility of one or more special revenue

sharing programs. The entitlements of state and local governments are affected

critically by both the numbers and income levels of their citizens, and also by

many other demographic factors. I and my colleagues can testify that all units

find it difficult enough to provide firm figures when the Federal Census is relatively

recent. It will become very difficult indeed as the years go by, and "guesstimates''

and approximations must be made in respect to eligibility for shared revenues.

The prospect of doing this over a ten-year period is dismal indeed. We would

anticipate that there will be increasing complaints of unfairness in distributing

shared revenues unless there is some reliable check of these approximations such

as would be provided through a Federal mid-term census.

Finally, we would suggest that the legislation authorizing such a census might

include a requirement that the Bureau of the Census should immediately form an

advisory committee of state and local representatives to help in formulating the

proposed "midseventies" census, so that the problems encountered after the 1970

census, both the census process itself and including the slow pace of putting out

the results•could be minimized as much as possible. The Council of State Planning

Agencies would be very willing to assist in any such endeavor.

Sincerely,

ROIIERT H. MARDEN, President.
84

NATIONAL GENEALOGICAL SOCIETY,

Washington, D.C., April 5, 1973.

Hon. RICHARD C. WHITE,

U.S. House of Representatives, Chairman, Subcommittee on Census and Statistics,

Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SIR: On behalf of the National Genealogical Society, an organization of

approximately three thousand members, its officers and the councilors, I recommend that sections 8 and 9 of IIH 4426 be clarified by addition of a subsection

to the effect that "the restrictions provided for in this Act shall apply to decennial

and mid-decade censuses and surveys conducted in 1975 and thereafter." We

further recommend that a bill be introduced to direct by, say, 1 September 1973,

the National Archives to provide micro-film copies of the 1900 census for research

purposes.

There is a mistaken idea that, except statistically, census returns are. of use

only to the ancestor hunter and to scandal-mongers. The latter is easily dismissed;

for the census is the least likely type of record to contain information deleterious

to the reputation of an individual.

The importance of the census returns of 1900 and subsequent decades for

genealogical purposes is to evident to be dwelt upon. Public vital records of

many states are non-existent or incomplete for the period, and the other resources

most commonly used in later years for locating persons•directories and telephone

lists•were compiled for only certain large communities at the turn of the century.

Moreover, the information recorded in 1900 is more significant than that on previous censuses.

Unless amended as recommended, the present bill would definitely discriminate

against minorities. Those of us with colonial or even early nineteenth century

ancestry in this country have been able•partly with the aid of available census

records•to find and follow our direct and collateral ancestors in their peregrinations. But descendants of late nineteenth century immigrants need the information

on the 1900 census to determine dates of birth and immigration of an ancestor and

his place of origin. Moreover, blacks, Indians ,and other groups, the members

of which are only now seeking identity, need the information concerning their

forebears and their migrations. Many of the queries that come to this office could

lie answered only from this census. But under the proposed terms, if they are

applied retroactively to the 1900 and other censuses, only verification of information would be possible; research in depth would be forbidden.

Moreover, continued suppression of this information would be a great loss to

the history of the United States. The very fruitful study of migrations prior to

1880 has depended in large part on tracing individual families that became parts

of groups that went from one area to another, the clue to the reason often being

the occupations of the heads of the households. For this and other scholarly

purposes, mere statistics from census schedules can be most misleading and, as

statistics are certain to be, superfical.

The Centennial celebration of 1876 stimulated so much interest in both national

and local history that significant publications resulted. Now, in connection with the

Bicentennial observance, communities•especially those founded dviring the

past century•are planning local histories. Many of the early residents do not

appear in deeds and related records, as they were not land-owners; yet they helped

shape the nature and progress of the community. The census is a prime source

of information concerning them.

Often documents that have achieved historic significance are in the possession

of descendants of persons known to have had them or had custody of them at

the turn of the century. Finding the members of the family at the time is the first

step in trying to trace the present possessor. Furthermore, the documentation of

residences and other places preserved by the National Trust, on the National

Register, or protected by state and local agencies requires knowledge of occupants

as well as owners at specific times. Art galleries and museums seek biographical

facts concerning artists, investors, and others represented in their collections.

Similarly, several types of medical research require not only statistics but knowledge of family groups.

These matters and many related ones are of concern to us, partly because

practitioners of other disciplines call upon genealogists to use their expertise in

reading and interpreting census records.

Although I reside in New Jersey, I shall be glad to appear before the Sub

Committee to amplify any of thase statements or to answer questions concerning

this topic.

Respectfully submitted, KENN STRYKER-RODDA,

President.
85

THE WESTERN RESERVE HISTORICAL SOCIETY,

Cleveland, Ohio, April J,, 1973.

Mr. AUSTIN BRAY,

Subcommittee on Censris and Statistics,

Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. BRAV: Through long distance telephone I have learned of HR442G

and have been told of the possible effect that it might have on limiting the use of

government records of wide popular interest, in particular a continuation of the

delay in the opening of the 1900 Population Census Schedules.

Speaking for myself (I was a member of the National Archives staff for 19

years), and for many members of our Society, I wish to urge the opening of the

1900 Schedules and the discouragement of action that would hinder this objective.

Cireater availability of Population Census Schedules 70 years or more is a Stepping

stone toward stimulation of greater interest in our historic heritage. Often it is

through an interest in people that there is generated an interest in our historic

past.

Sincerely yours,

MEREDITH B. COLKET, Jr.

Director.

THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OK ARCHITECTS,

Washington, D.C, April 6, 1973.

Hon. RICHARD C. WHITE,

Subcommittee on Census and Statistics, Committee on Post Office and Civil Service,

Cannon House Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. WHITE: On behalf of The American Institute of Architects, the

national society for the architectural profession representing 24,000 licensed

architects, I would like to express our support for the establishment of a middecade census.

While change has always been an important factor in the American way of

life, the acceleration of change in recent years has been dramatic. The pace of

change is so rapid that the decennial census no longer adequately meets the

variety of uses and widespread needs to which the census data are put. A United

States Department of Commerce statistic indicates that between March of 1967

and March of 1968, over 36,000,000 Americans changed their place of residence.

This statistic, symbolic of the rate of change in recent years, would have been

unimaginable to the drafters of the Constitution. The American Institute of

Architects believes that the decennial census should be replaced with a mid-decade

census.

The need of architects, planners, and government officials for accurate data

is undeniable. The Institute l>elieves that the Federal Government has the only

machinery to produce data the credibility of which will be unchallenged. Statistics

gathered by state and local governments and other interested parties are invariably based on the last comprehensive survey made by the Federal Government.

Because of the rapid rate of change, such figures are bound to be distorted and

subject to criticism. No one can make intelligent decisions without accurate,

comprehensive, and up-to-date data. The Institute strongly believes that the

establishment (if ;i mid-decade census by the Federal Government will meet the

need for accuracy in the decision-making process.

While it is clear that a mid-decade census will cost money, the Institute is

convinced that in the long run it will mean a savings to the American people.

The possibility-•perhaps the inevitability•of error in operating under the current

ten-year figures results In undetermined economic loss. How, for instance, does

one measure the cost of a misplaced hospital? The people who use census data

spend a year or so awaiting the data, two to three years analyzing it, and the

next five years waiting for fresh data. But the problems of growth do not wait.

The Institute submits that, when weighed against the cost of error and the

importance of the decision-making process, the cost of a mid-decade census

would be slight indeed.

The American Institute of Architects wholeheartedly supports the establishment of a mid-decade census. If intelligent decisions are to be made, it is imperative that current, comprehensive, and accurate data be available. We thank

you for this opportunity to present our thoughts for the record and trust that

the Committee will give them careful consideration.

Sincerely,

S. SCOTT FEREBEE, Jr.,

FA1A, President.
8G

ClTV OF OPA-LOCKA, FLA.,

April 5, 1973.

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CENSUS AND STATISTICS,

Rayburn Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is the testimony of the City of Opa-locka, Florida,

which we wish to present to your honorable Committee, in favor of a Mid-Decade

Census.

To substantiate the increase in population in the City of Opa-locka since the

last 1970 Census, our Building Department records indicate and the Certificates

of Occupancy substantiate them that 1,331 units of residences were constructed

since the 1970 census was taken. These units of residence were located primarily

in the low-income areas of our city. There is an average of 3.5 persons in each unit

for a total increase in population of 4,659 persons, which represents a 39% increase

in population over our 1970 census figure of 11,902 persons. This increase of 4,659

persons would give us a total population of 16,561 persons.

Based on the Revenue Sharing Funds which we received, which were based on

the 1970 census figures, in the amount of $201,948, an increase of 39% of this

amount would give us an approximate additional sum of $78,700. This additional

sum of money would enable the City Administration to expand their participation

in the priority expenditures as listed under Section 51.31, permissible expenditures

in the Code of Federal Regulations, Sub-Title B, Part 51.

The City of Opa-locka recognizes their responsibilities to the citizens of Opalocka, therefore we respectfully request that consideration be given by your

honorable Committee to a Mid-Decade Census, in order that we may receive our

just share of the Federal Revenue Sharing Funds.

Very truly yours,

WILLIAM S. GRIFFITHS,

City Manager.

CITY OF HALLANDALE, FLA., April 3, 1973.

CHIEF CLERK,

Subcommittee for Census and Statistics,

Cannon Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SIR: The City Commission of the City of Hallandale is presently preparing

a resolution to Representative Lehman of our district and to your Subcommittee

requesting that the mid-decade census be taken. A copy of this resolution will be

forwarded to you as soon as it is legally adopted at the April 3, 1973, Commission

meeting.

Since both the Federal Revenue Sharing and proposed Special Revenue

Sharing fund allocations are based partly on population and revenues of the local

government units, the City of Hallandale is of the opinion, as are other government

units in rapidly gowing South Florida, that to use the 1970 census as a basis for

fund allocations is discriminatory against growth centers and an inaccurate

method of Revenue Sharing allocations. While we realize the difficulties and

expense of keeping track of population on a yearly basis, a mid-decade census

update would be more equitable. We understand that this is presently being done

as part of annual Revenue Sharing adjustments. It would be possible, however,

to track revenues with accuracy on an annual basis since all government units

are required to prepare an annual audit.

To provide you with an example on how our population compares with the 1970

census, we are forwarding to you as enclosures the following data:

1. July 1, 1972 Population Estimate•The City of Hallandale's population on

July 1, 1972, as computed by the Division of Population Studies, University of

Florida for the State of Florida foi the purpose of State Revenue Sharing allocations, is 30,851 as compared to the 1970 U.S. Census of 23,849. This is a population change of 7,002. The 1973 estimate made by the Broward County Area

Planning Board shows a City population of approximately 34,000. The State of

Florida estimate of 30,851 uses 1970 Census factors such as 72 percent vacancy

in residential units and 1.72 persons per residential unit. However, the estimate

was raised by the use of such data as building permits and certificates of occupancy

issued since 1970 and the fact that we have over 21,000 units using City water.

2. Units under construction with Certificates of Occupancy not yet issued.•At the

present time we have approximately 3,300 residential units under construction

for which no certificates of occupancy have been issued, indicating that between

1973 and 1975 there will be another approximately 6,000 to 7,000 population

increase. So you can see by mid-decade the population make-up and statistics for
87

the City of Hallandale will bo totally changed. A City of approximately 24,000

will become a City of close to 38,000. We are enclosing the list of residential units

under construction with certificates of occupancy not issued.

We hope that this information will aid your Subcommittee in determining the

need for a mid-decade census. If you should have any questions or need any

further information, please contact us.

Sincerely,

ROBERT R. BENSKO,

Assistant City Manager.

Enclosures.

COLLEGE OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION,

UNIVERSITY or FLORIDA,

Gainesville, Fla , February 22, 1973.

Mr. ROBERT BENSKO,

City of Hallandale,

Haltandale, Fla.

DEAR MR. BENSKO: Enclosed is the revised estimate of population for Hallandale for July 1, 1972, as we discussed on the telephone today.

Please return one signed copy as soon as possible for our records.

Sincerely yours,

DAPHNE Y. BELL,

Division of Population Studies.

Enclosures.

LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL UNIT: HALLANDALE (BROWARD COUNTY)

Provisional population estimate for July 1, 1072

Amount

1970 U.S. census 23, 849

Population change due to annexation

Population change 7, 002

Preliminary population estimate for July 1, 1972 30, 851

Less inmates

Preliminary adjusted population estimate for July 1, 1972 '.. 30, 851

i Population estimate proposed lor State revenue sharing in fiscal year 1971-74.

Your provisional population estimate for July 1, 1972, is 30,851.

I, as an official of the local governmental unit, certify that this estimate of

population is considered reasonable.

Signed:

Title: -

Date: -

PLEASE return the SIGNED copy in the enclosed envelope. (Please retain

second copy of this estimate for your files.)

CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY NOT ISSUED

Dale certificate

of occupancy

Owner Permit No. issued

Single (amily residences (19 units):

Boyer

Bello

Hepburn

Leture

tavrich

Maislin

0'Leary

Do

Piercon

Ross

Raulerson

Sica

Sisto

Do.

Do

Do

Sanders

Do

Warren

17535 None.

16742 Do.

17785 Do.

17432 Be.

17127 Do.

16934 Do.

17800 Do.

17913 Do.

17353 Do.

16353 Do.

16988 Do.

17526 Do.

17902 Do

17922 Do.

17920 Do.

17919 Do.

16878 Do.

17152 Do.

17135 Do.
ss

CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY NOT ISSUED•Continued

Owner

Date certificate

of occupancy

Permit No. issued

Duplexes (16 units):

Lar Construction

Do

Do

Do

Do

Do

Do

Do

Triplex (30 units):

Lar Construction

Nowogiocki

Pinto

Do

Batista

Costantino

Chilton

Do

Gonzalez.

Giaconna

Duplexes (24 units):

Hibbits

Higgins

Kuczynski

Lar Construction

Lar Construction (triplex)

Sisto

Do

Selma Investors

Townsend

3140 Corp

Virga

Ves Construction

Apartments (3,217 units):

Aiken & Stearns (44 units)

Arrown Construction (60 units)

Arrow Construction (Cristal•34 units).

Haldale Corp. (140 units) Avant Garde

Haldale Corp. (139 units).

Arrow Construction (26 units)

Brown (208 units)

DeMora (4 units)

Duven (18 units)..-

Drakus & LcCroix(84 units)

14th Towers (56 Units)

Do

Oo

Do

La-Mer (165 units)

La-Mer (111 units)

Lafler (4 units)

Lar Construction (146 units)

Mailman (1,165 units)

Mailman (137 units) Hotel

Nelson (90 units)

Patchard Corp. (10 units)

Parkside Towers (102 units)

Sage (249 units)

Samada (3 units)

Do

Do

Do

Do

Do

Strelitz (14 units)...

Samada (3 units)

Do

Do

Smith (8 units)...

Wallace & Brandman (8 units)

Zuckarman & Vernon

1 None.

17355 Do.

16466 Do.

17452 Do

17451 Do.

17450 Do.

17361 Do.

17356 Do.

17357 Do.

17359 Do.

15798 Do.

17969 Do.

17968 Do.

16839 Do

17964 Do.

17961 Do.

17960 Do

17950 nn

17297 Do.

17745 Dn

17759 Do.

16219 no

17358 no.

17360 Do

17908 Do

17909 Dn

17753 On

17975 Do

16639 Do

17959 Do.

17254 Do.

16441 Do

17423 no.

17110 no,

17555 1)0

17556 Do

16711 On.

16422 Do

17551 Do

16739 Do.

17122 Do

16665 Dn,

16667 Do

16664 Dn

16663 no

15773 Do

17284 Dn

16366 Dn

16925 Do

15445 Dn

16475 Do.

17561 Do

17305 Dn

16291 Do.

17867 Dn

17179 Do

17183 Do.

17180 Dn

17182 Oo.

17181 Do.

17178 1)0.

17091 Do.

16346 Do.

16383 Dn

16382 Do

17634 Do.

17025 Dn.

16509 Do.

Note: Total units under construction and certificates of occupany not issued: 3,306 units.
89

ALEXANDRIA, VA., April 2, 1973.

Hon. RICHARD C. WHITE,

Chairman, Subcommittee un Census and Statistics, Post Office and Civil Service

Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, B.C.

DEAR CHAIRMAN WHITK: My name is Nancy Day, and I am a citizen interested

in U.K. 4426. I would like to have my statement submitted in the record.

I am opposed to certain sections of H.R. 4426, "A bill to amend title 13, United

States Code, to assure confidentiality of information furnished in response to

questionnaires, inquiries, and other requests of the Bureau of the Census, to

provide for a mid-decade sample survey of population, and for other purposes".

My opposition is directed to those sections of the proposed bill which would

eliminate access to the census for valid genealogical purposes. In particular, I

am opposed to the following proposed sections of H.R. 4426:

(1) Sec. 4. (a) which would amend Section 8 of title 13, U.S. Code. I am

against that which is pioposed to be the new subsection 8.(a).

(2) Sec. 5. which would amend Section 9 of title 13, U.S. Code. 1 am against

that which is proposed to be the new subsections 9.(a), 9.(b), and 9.(e).

In general, I am against the above stated sections of H.R. 4426 since it is my

honest and sincere belief that existing provisions of title 13, U.S. Code adequately

provide for protection of the census respondent's privacv. Further, it is my honest

and sincere belief that information in the Federal Censuses shou'd be made

available for valiid genealogical research.

My reasons for the opposition expressed above are as follows:

H.R. 4428, SEC. 4(a)

In effect, this section eliminates the current provision of title 13, U.S. Code,

which allows the Secretaiy of Commerce to, at his discretion, furnish data from

the census, foi genealogical and other proper purposes. Instead, access to census

data is specifically allowed ". . . to any [census] respondent, or to the heir,

successor, or authorized agent of such respondent, . . .".

As a result of correspondence to the former Senator William B. Spong, Jr. of

Virginia regarding access to the 1900 Federal Census for genealogical purposes,

I received a letter from Mr. Leon Ulmau, Acting Assistant Attorney General,

Office of Legal Counsel. In his letter dated October 13, 1972, Mr. Ulman stated

that the Department of Justice had ". . . suspended indefinitely further consideration of the legal question . . ." of release of the 1900 Federal Census, due

in part to H.R. 14153, 92d cong. (which I understand was a forerunner of the

current H.R. 4426). Shortly after receiving Me. Ulman's letter, I spoke with

him by telephone in order to obtain clearification of the terms "heir", "successor",

and "authorized agent" as used in the bill. Mr. Ulman stated that these terms

would be interpreted in the legal sense, and would not refer to a mete decendent

of the census respondent. Therefore, the proposed subsection 8.(a) would, for all

practicable purposes, eliminate the use of census data for genealogical research.

H.R. 4426, SEC. 5

I am opposed to the portions of this Section that are proposed to be the new

subsections 9.(a) and 9.(b) of title 13, due to the use of the phrase "the respondent

of his heir, successor, or authorized agent". My opposition is again due to the

fact that such use of the phrase eliminates the availability of the Federal Census

foi genealogical purposes. In principle, I am not directly against a confidential

provision in title 13, since the Bureau of the Census may include sensitive questions

in their surveys; however I do wonder about the purpose of the Government

seeking truly personal and sensitive information.

I am in no way opposed to the portions of this Section that are proposed to be

the new subsections 9.(c) or 9.(d). Although subsection 9.(d) has included the

phrase "respondent or his heir, successor, or authorized agent", I believe the

purpose of the subsection is propel considering the confidential purpose of Section

9. of title 13, as was the very similar subsection added to title 13, by P.L. 87-813,

approved October 15, 1962.

My opposition to the portion of this Section that is proposed to be the new

subsection 9.(e) is due to the fact that the purpose of the subsection is already

adequately covered in the current provision of title 13.

54-314-
90

At this point I would like to explain why I believe that Federal Census data

should be available for genealogical purposes.

With the sole exception of the 1900 Federal Census, every census taken by the

Federal Government has been either non-confidential or available for genealogical

purposes. Although I have not had the opportunity to research the legislative

history of the various census laws, it seems apparent to me that Congress has

almost always recognized the value of using information already obtained to

increase the historical knowledge of the American public. In fact my belief is

even strengthened by the fact that use of census data for genealogical purposes

was provided for by Congress after the one occasion (the 1900 Federal Census)

that the census was to be completely confidential.

Based on correspondence received from the Bureau of the Census, there are

approximately 7 million persons ali%-e in 1970 who were enumerated in the 1900

Federal Census. I submit that there are an equal number of Americans enumerated

in the 1910 through 1970 Federal Censuses, who are now deceased. As the Bureau

of the Census seeks to protect the living by retaining the confidential provisions

of the 1900 Federal Census, I seek to protect these Americans who relied on the

belief that their census data could be used for genealogical purposes. If the proposed II.R. 4426 were passed, the Government would be robbing their docendents

of historical information, as I understand the bill would apply to the 1900 through

1970, and all subsequent, Federal Censuses.

It is my opinion that current confidential provisions of title 13 are already

adequate. I quote from the statement of the former Director of the Bureau of

the Census, Dr. A. Ross Eckler, made during the 1971 hearings before the Subcommittee on Census and Statistics:

"I believe that it is clear that the subcommittee and committee showed much

wisdom in not yielding to the widespread allegations of public concern over the

issue of invasion of privacy."

"It is generally agreed that the census record for protecting the confidentiality

of individual records greatly reduces the significance of any allegations regarding

invasion of privacy."

"But the other point is, in the main, the census information is not highly

sensitive. . . . But I think that the problem of getting that across is part of a census

publicity, and articles were written and certainly we tried in every way we could

to put that across to the citizenry, and I think we just have to continue to do

that."

At this point, I believe that the Census Bureau is doing their job too well, since

the amount of information obtainable under the current genealogical provisions

is very limited and restricted.

Finally, I have to wonder why the census forms are designed to idenify a respondent, if the purpose of the census is to provide unidentifiable statistical

information.

In closing, I only wish I could convey to the subcommittee the new pride and

love of my country that I have experienced since I started research into my

family tree. With all of the Federally funded activities being designed to celebrate the bicentennial of our nation, what better way could there be than to encourage individual genealogical research? Just as all men desire immortality in

some fashion, 1 believe we should respect similar desires of our ancestors, through

love and rememberance. In the main, our ancestors were ordinary Americans, who

built this country without being famous or infamous. For this great service, we

should seek to honor them for it.

I appreciate this opportunity to present my opinions to the subcommittee.

Sincerely,

(Miss) NANCY II. DAY.

APRIL 5, 1973.

Mr. AUSTIN BHAY,

Subcommittee on Census and Statistics of the House Committee on the Post Office and

Civil Service, Iiayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. BRAY: Before you today gentlemen, are gathered the interested men

and women of a profession devoted to preserving the real history and traditions

of this nation, and who draw a wealth of information from the P'ederal Censuses

of the United States in question; those during the years, 1830-1880.

Genealogy is an integral part of the all encompassing study of history; history

being the all encompassing study of life and every aspect of it. We argue your

premise that information contained in said censuses are discriminatory in any
91

manner. The information is already public knowledge, as anyone with a background of history, received formally or through availing one's self to it, can testify.

What intelligent person amongst us does not know that the quality of public

education during the years in question, was extremely poor, the product being

a widespread lack of people who could neither read nor write. What person amongst

us does not realize that this nation is a 'nation of immigrants' and that our verygreatness is a product of such. What person does not realize that Albert Einstein

and the grand-parents of John F. Kennedy were immigrants and that George

Washington Carver and Frederick Douglass were once slaves.

Obviously the proponents and supporters of Sections 4 and 5 of HIl 4426 fail

to realize that Genealogists are the majority of these who use the Federal Census

and obviously the interest and work of the Genealogist in this instance is grossly

misunderstood. People of this profession are contracted to set down family histories, which also become in their own way a personal history of our nation. Certainly in our modern civilization we do not and cannot hold ourselves responsible

for the deeds of family members who predated our existence.

Thus far, all reasons for the passage of this bill have been displaced as irrelevant

and as being ignorant of the situation in its entirety. I call your attention to the

1880 census gentlemen, to be used as the perfect example, it containing the largest

individual information of any census publicly available. Realistically, what slanderous interest or purpose could business, government or individuals have with

the 1880 census in the year 1973. Certainly we are prompted by our government,

and by our own motivation for progress and for advancement to place emphasis

on our plans and deeds for the future, and not those of the past. I ask you to consider gentlemen which to be the more discriminatory; that said person in 1880 was

an outlaw, was an invalid, was mentally retarded, was uneducated, was of mixed

parentage, was the product of an unlawful marriage, or to pick up a copy of the

April 9th edition of a daily newspaper to read that said person was convicted of

murder, of treason to his country, or of perjury to a court, when he, his family and

friends have to live their life with the possible ramifications and prejudices thereof.

There can be no analogy gentlemen, and you have before you no grounds for this

intended bill.

I end by asking you to give further thought and consideration to articles 4 and

5 of HR 4426, and make an impassioned plea before you to be realistic, representative and to display sound judgment and consideration to the arguments and

reasoning here presented before you.

Sincerely yours,

SHARON M. POLLARD,

Historian and Professional Genealogist.

STATEMENT BT DR. CARL H. MADDEN, FOR THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF

THE UNITED STATES

The Chamber of Commerce of the United States supports a program of middecade censuses beginning in 1975 and to be conducted every ten years thereafter,

a program in addition to the regular decennial census, to include population,

employment and housing.

In response to the suggestions of the Subcommittee as to matters of interest

to their review of the mid-decade census proposals, this statement is organized

in outline form.

A. NEED FOR A MID-DECADE CENSUS

1. Political representation

Only if population in small areas is accurately known, can representation

proportioned to population be achieved in State legislatures, county and city

councils, school boards, and other local bodies. The Supreme Court doctrine of

"one-man, one-vote" makes representation an important continuing question

in a mobile society.

2. Distribution of funds in federal and stale programs

More than S10 billion annually is now allocated by the federal government

to the states or their subdivisions according to formulae using population or

housing data as a major component. Additional large amounts are distributed

by states to their counties and municipalities largely on the basis of population.
92

3. Relevance of population data for federal and stale policy-making

Both federal and state governments use population, employment, and income

data in a variety of ways to develop, analyze, and administer government policy.

In states, the legislative power, taxing authority, and sometimes even the form

of government that may be adopted by counties and cities depend on the population of the jurisdiction. Some types of banking regulation, including bank

reserve and capital requirements, the power of a political subdivision to license

or tax businesses, occupations, or products, school policy in purchasing and many

other exercises of governmental authority may depend in some states on

population.

At the federal level, a multitude of policies ranging from tax policy to poverty

policy depend on accurate calculation of population estimates.

At both federal and local levels, the need for small-area data analysis, and the

ability to manipulate data in analyzing the hypothetical consequences of policy

actions, are converging through the demand for higher standards of competence

in policy-making.

4. The need for belter migration data

Much better and more frequent information on both internal and external

migration is needed. Given the increasing case of communications and travel,

legislators at all levels of government need correct information on internal population movements to make good policy. External migration data also needs

strengthening to measure changing values of people.

5. The need for better social data

There is a growing need for better data and more frequent data useful in

measuring many types of social change so that lawmakers and government

administrators make informed decisions in the field of governmental social policy.

The advent of the computer makes it possible for a city, local jurisdiction, combination of local jurisdictions, or even a state or the nation to calculate the

hypothetical impact of changes in many different areas of policy. For example,

it is now possible to calculate in detail the impact on a city of a change in taxes

or in the supply of public housing, or in many other variables, through the use

of a mathematical, computer-based model of the dynamics of change in the social

entity under study.

The need for small area data on population, income, and emploj-ment or of

crime, health, etc. associated with population, is growing. Very large economics

can be achieved in government by modeling hypothetical policy changes•economies direved from avoiding technical errors and economies derived from correct

diagnosis of policy needs. A mid-decade census would contribute to the data base

needed for improved modeling of hypothetical social change.

6. The need for better sampling bases

Many government programs not based on data from decennial censuses are

based instead on sample inquiries. But sample inquiries, in turn, depend for their

accuracy on correct definition of parent populations from which samples are

drawn. As the data from a census become obsolete with the passage of a decade,

the value of the census as a sampling frame declines. A mid-decade census would

yield benefits to all levels of government and to business•and therefore to owners

of stock and to consumers•through the cost-saving which goes along with

improved accuracy of sampling.

B. MANDATORY RESPONSE TO CENSUS QUESTIONS

Mandatory response to census questions is desirable for technical reasons.

Without the requirement to be counted, complete enumeration would be difficult.

The requirement to answer questions truthfully reduces to a minimum biases

that would result from non-response. If census queries arc voluntary, then statistically the population enumerated is voluntary-respondents-to-the-census, not

the U.S. population. Mandatory response is useful in generating persistence in

enumerators in finding the hard-to-enumerate.

A mandatory census seems well within the power of Congress to ask and the

citizen's duty to answer. Even though the Census has never breached confidentiality defined most stringently, the government should continue to take the

strongest measures to assure confidentiality of information about individual

people in the Census. The government should respect and remain empathetically

sensitive to the U.S. public's fears about the invasion of privacy. And although

the individual may be required to answer questions reasonably related to purposes.
93

of programs set up undei prior legislation, the questions and the way they are

asked have to accord with people's sense of piopriety, on the grounds of common

civility as well as to avoid incieasing the cost of census-taking.

C. LEVEL OF PENALTY FOR NON-RESPONSE

The level of penalty for non-response should be sufficient to make mandatory

answers effective but not out of proportion to the relative seriousness of intentional

non-response.

D. GEOGRAPHIC LEVEL

The mid-dtcade census should enumerate the U.S. population, and therefore

it should be developed and designed by the same census process as is used by the

decennial census.

E. SCOPE AND CONTENT OF QUESTIONNAIRES

A mid-decade census should be less extensive than the decennial census in

subject matter and should give first priority to demographic elements•population, population characteristics, migration patterns and behavior.

The L.S. business community has developed an elaborate and highly complex

system of information in analyzing the demand for and supply of products and

services in a trillion-dollar economy. U.S. business uses information in vast

quantities daily to reduce the risks of loss inherent in a world of uncertainty.

Business uses census data as bench marks; it uses there data as it uses any other

data it can develop•because such information is relevant and available. Bu iness, however, was generally satisfied with the 1970 census questions, and its

interest in either adding or subtracting questions is at a low level. Surveys of

business opinion concerning the 1970 census reflected that even experts, such as

marketing analysts and economists, take the census for granted but at the same

time process such large amounts of information that the census as such is perceived as only one among thousands of data sources.

ADVISORT COMMISSION ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS,

Washington, D.C., April 10, 1973.

Hon. RICHARD C. WHITE,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Census and Statistics, Committee on Post Office and

Civil Service, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR Mr. CHAIRMAN: This is in response to your invitation to present the

Commission's views on a mid-decade census.

The Commission views the census operation of the Federal Government as an

important intergovernmental activity, essential to effective cooperation and

coordination among Federal, State, and local governments. Census data provide

the factual basis for a multitude of policy decisions by the Congress, governors,

mayors, and other Federal, State, and local officials and are required for the

development of long-range plans for public facilities and services at Federal,

State and local levels; the allocation of grants-in-aid by Federal and State governments; and the measurement of changing demands upon all governments as a

result of shifting population patterns. The question of the need for a mid-decade

census is therefore relevant to the responsibilities of this Commission. It might

be noted that there is a close parallel between many of the requirements of individual governments and the research needs of the Commission itself, since

frequently we examine the same questions of policy within the largest context of

i D t ergovernmental relations.

Because basic governmental problems at all levels are now and will continue

to be shaped by the dynamics of population change, more current statistical

measures of the demographic characteristics of our citizenry arc indispensable for

designing and implementing governmental programs and policies to meet these

challenges. We emphasize the importance of more current data, since the tempo

of population movements is altering significantly the characteristics of urban as

well as rural areas over short periods of time; yet the census of population and

housing is taken only once in ten years.

The availability of current data on a national basis is important as research

functions become increasingly significant for local and State governments. But

we would call attention to the limited resources available to these units for basic

data gathering, particularly in small communities currently or prospectively
94

experiencing rapid change. Furthermore, it is highly desirable for State and local

government research activities to be carried out on a standardized statistical

basis throughout the country in order to facilitate interarea comparisons and

establish a wide base for the kind of estimating and prediction which are required

for planning and development. The strategic position of the Census Bureau for

providing the statistical tools is readily apparent.

Enactment of the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972•general

revenue sharing•makes the availability of current data on the characteristics of

our changing population all the more tirgent. The accurate and timely distribution

of revenue sharing funds to some 36,000 large and small local governments requires

the annual updating of both population and income data for each one of them. A

onee-in-ten-year benchmark for such updating is inadequate for this purpose. A

mid-decade census would contribute significantly to this effort.

It is our understanding that complete replication of the 1970 Census of Population and Housing is not absolutely necessary to provide adequate mid-decade

census information. Indeed, this Commission suggested in 1962 that a 2o percent

sample survey might well do the job•and at considerably less cost than a fullblown census. Your Subcommittee should consider the various alternatives•

including sampling•to a full-count mid-decade census.

A close working relationship between the Census Bureau and the States and

localities in the planning of any additional census activities to include the kinds

of coverage desired in supplemental enumeration would ensure effective utilization

of this information in government planning and policymaking. If the Congress

should provide for a mid-decade census, the Commission recommends advance

notice of the census and its prospective content to enable localities to assess their

additional needs and formulate requests for supplemental data collection on a reimbursable basis. Inclusion of such supplements with a regular census would offer

substantial cost ssvings to all levels of government.

To summarize our view: since 1962, the Commission ha« strongly supported a

mid-decade Federal census to serve the needs of different levels of government in

carrying out their responsibilities and in cooperating with one another.

Finally, may I quote a recommendation submitted last year to the Director of

the Bureau of the Census by the Census Advisory Committee on Small Area Data

on which ACIR is represented:

The Bureau has been well aware of the reasons for requiring annual or biennial

data and/or estimates at: (a) county and/or multi-county level, of population and

other indicators of change; and (b) jurisdictions and/or smaller than county-level

areas (e.g., "neighborhoods," tracts or tract-groupings, etc). Both levels arc

"small areas" for which redistricting, campaign expenditures, revenue-sharing,

and a host of "small areas", statistical needs will be with us for the remainder

of this decade and for decades to come, given the present legislation and trends

i n social programming.

The Committee commends the Bureau for its cooperation with the States in

developing current population estimates for counties, and for its efforts to utilize

administrative records to develop improved population estimates for States,

counties and intermediate as well as large-sized cities. We expect that in the long

run there will be substantial gains from these efforts. These efforts, hopefully, can

lead to improved annual population estimates for such areas.

However, the needs of the nation for small area statistics to serve programs

such as health, education, revenue-sharing, transportation, housing and other

subjects of current concern require information for small areas within cities and

counties. Several members of the Committee point out the increasingly important

role which local units smaller than the county•cities, boroughs, townships•

play, and will play, in the metropolitan development of suburban areas. More

informed bases for their participation would enhance their contribution to joint

regional, State and federal planning and policy-making.

The Committee feels it will be unfortunate if the U.S. finds, during the years

1976 through 1981, that it is still using 1970 small area data to guide the planning

and administration of programs, instead of updated information that would be

provided by a 1975 or 1976 census or major sample-survey effort. We strongly

urge the Bureau of the Census to give additional attention to fulfilling this need.

The needs are well documented in Congressional hearings, many meetings the

Census Bureau staff has held throughout the nation, and elsewhere. We hope that

this Committee's urgent recommendation will be called to the attention of the

appropriate Congressional and government groups. A strong program utilizing

administrative records to support annual estimates, coupled with a major middecade sample survey or census, should greatly aid in fulfilling the needs for small

area statistics to serve the Federal, State and local programs.
95

We appreciate the opportunity of submitting the Commission's views on a

mid-decade census. If we can be of further assistance to the Subcommittee in this

matter, please call on us.

Sincerely yours,

WM. R. MACDOUGALL,

Executive Director.

PRINCE GKORGE'S COUNTY GENEALOGICAL SOCIETY,

Bowie, Md., April IS, 1073.

Hon. RICHAUD C. WHITE,

Chairman, Census and Statistics Subcommittee, U.S. House of Representatives,

Kayburn Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAU SIH: It has come to the attention of the members of the Prince George's

County Genealogical Society that Bill IIR4426 has been introduced into Congress

Which would prohibit the opening and use by the general public of the 1900

census. While we realize the reasoning behind the question of release of censuses,

as genealogists and historians we feel that there are many compelling reasons for

the censuses being opened.

For historians compiling local history data there is a need for data on the

people who were residents in 1900, as this was a very formative period for some of

our communities. Around the turn of the century, there was a large influx of immigrants to this country, and data on this group is not available through other

channels. The lack of data after 1880, partly due to the fact that the 1890 census

was almost completely destroyed, is very limited.

Many counties throughout the United States did not keep data on residents

until after 1900. This makes it difficult for some persons who need certificates of

birth, which are not available. The census provides the proof needed for filing

delayed birth certificates. The census can also be essential in establishing relationships and tracing missing heirs when estates are being settled.

It has become apparent over the last decade that many of our young people

lack pride in their country and its history. By making available every tool that

would foster an interest in history, wo would hope to instill some enthusiasm and

patriotism in the younger generations.

With this letter, the members of this society would like to voice our opposition

to the bill as it now reads.

Respectfully,

Mrs. JOYCE C. PERRY, Secretary.

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS,

NATIONAL HOUSING CENTER,

Washington, D.C, April 17, 1973.

Hon. RICHARD C. WHITE,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Census and Statistics, House of Representatives,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: AS the trade association representing the homebuilding

industry, the National Association of Home Builders is acutely aware of the need

for accurate, current data on housing conditions in the United States. We, therefore, support the establishment of a mid-decade census beginning in 1973 which

would include a census of housing.

We firmly believe that the Nation, private business, and the Government are

seriously handicapped by the lack of current data during a large part of each

decade. We believe you will find that this is also the case with respect to the

Congressional Committees dealing with housing legislation and attempting to

discuss future needs and courses of action in mortgage finance and housing

production.

Under the present system, housing data gathered by the census are often

out-dated even before they become generally available. Furthermore, a housing

census conducted only once each decade provided a too infrequent basis on which

to measure and evaluate the housing policies of Government and industry. The

partnership of Government and private industry in providing necessary housing

would be greatly benefited by having a more speedy and detailed check on its

progress.

On behalf of the 67,500 members of our Association, I urge favorable action by

the Congress to provide a mid-decade census of housing beginning in 1975.

Sincerely,

GEORGE C. MARTIN, President.
96

J. Ross WILDMAN, INVESTMENTS,

Oklahoma City, Okla., April 16, 1973.

Mr. AUSTIN BRAY,

Subcommittee on Census and Statistics, Rayburn Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR SIR: We cannot understand why the 1900 Census has not been released

to the public.

There is no reason it should not have been released during the year 1972, as

there is no violation of any law to release it. Also, no guarantee of confidentiality

nor is it classified material.

All genealogists are anxious for the information in the 1900 Census to be released.

Sincerely,

J. Ross WILDMAN.

COLONIAL DAMES XVII CENTURY,

OKLAHOMA SOCIETY,

April 16, 1973.

Mr. AUSTIN BRAY,

Subcommittee on Census and Statistics, Rayburn Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR SIR: The Oklahoma Society Colonial Dames XVII Century is concerned

about the release of the 1900 Census.

May I quote from the National Society Colonial Dames XVII Century Bylaws,

Article I, Section 4:

"The particular business and object of the National Society Colonial Dames

XVII Century is to aid in establishing chairs of historical research in Colleges

and Universities; to cooperate with the International Genealogical Society in the

establishment of a College of Heraldry; to commemorate the heroic deeds of the

founders of our country.

One of our best sources of information in carrying out our purposes is Census

records•they are invaluable.

We would be most grateful to vou for your help in securing the earlv release

of the 1900 Census.

Sincerely,

MARGUERITE RICKS WILDMAN,

Past President.

CITY PLANNING COMMISSION,

New York, N.Y., April IS, 197S.

Hon. RICHARD C. WHITE,

Chairman, Siibntmmittce on Census and Statistics of the Committee on Post Office

and Civil Service, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN WHITE: Each year the Department of City Planning of

the City of New York makes decisions with regard to the local area distribution

of a five-year capital improvement program of almost ten billion dollars. Many

of the sixty-two communities into which the City's five counties are divided would

place high on the list of the nation's cities in rank order.

In the complex decision-making process we rely heavily on the census on where

to spend our increasingly scarce financial resources for schools, parks, playgrounds,

libraries, police stations, firehouses, welfare, health and day-care centers and the

dozens of other community based facilities. City-wide and borough improvement

programs in the fields of transportation and provision of employment opportunities

via the growth of commercial and industrial facilities are also developed within

the frame of reference of their impact upon specific communities and population

groups within them.

As we move further into the decade away from the Decennial Census base data,

our platform for these expensive decisions gets extremely shakey. Our concerns in

the comprehensive planning process are not confined to capital construction but

rather extend deeply into the whole administrative process of community outreach

and the provisions of services to the population most in need. So many of our

programs affect children and the aged that it is particularly important to the

many agencies in this City with whom we work closely to have current small

area figures on age groups by race. But this is only basic minimal data.

Perhaps the most pressing need is for current estimates of family and unrelated

individual income distributions and similar measures. The Bureau of the Census
97

went to elaborate lengths in the 1970 Census to define and describe the numbers

and characteristics of the families and persons below the poverty level. We are

now left for ten years to improvise methods of measuring the impact of the various

poverty programs upon reducing such numbers. With probable in-migration of

poverty population adding to the 1970 levels, we are on a treadmill without the

means of realistically evaluating the situation until 1980.

Proposals for a one or two percent sample census will only yield City-wide

figures. While we will eagerly await these, there is no question that what is really

needed is a sample of sufficient size to permit census tract tallies. Census tracts are

our basic building blocks for a whole variety of administrative and statistical

districting schemes.

I therefore urge the Subcommittee to recommend that Congress authorize a

mid-decade census. At the same time, it is important to presss the Administration

for sufficient funds to execute such a census at a significant geographic level.

Sincerely yours,

JOHN E. ZUCCOTTI, Chairman.

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES A. VANIK, A MEMBER OP CONGRESS FROM

THE STATE OF OHIO

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I would like to take this opportunity

to express my support of the concept of a mid-decade census. In our increasingly

complex society, there is a continually growing need for additional data and information. As Lincoln once said, in a classic understatement of the problem of

government: "If we only knew where we were and whither we were going, we

might better know how to get there." The Census is the means by which governments can determine "where they are" and whither they are going."

1 might add that the need for census data by my own Committee•the Ways

and ^leans Committee•is nearly insatiable.* We have passed new Revenue

Sharing legislation which is wholly dependent on Census data. We are attempting

to develop new tax reform legislation•and it is vital that we know the economic

health and trends of the various segments of America society. We will be dealing

with trade•and willneed new information on the economic status of American

business. We may be dealing with health again in the near future•and will need

to have Census data on the age and income of various sectors of our society. The

same needs apply in our consideration of Social Security and of welfare. If we

are to legislate effectively, we continually need the latest possible information.

But I would also like to take this opportunity today to point out some fo the

problems which can be created by the scheduling of a Census. For exzmple, I

am particularly concerned about the timing or scheduling of the Census proposed

by H.R. 4426. The bill says that the mid-decade Census is to be completed by

April 1st. Now in order for a census to be as accurate and thorough as possible, it

is desirable to give the recipients of Census forms a reasonable length of time to

complete the forms. At least as far as the business and economic parts of the

proposed census go, the present schedule fails to meet that test.

I would like to bring the Committee's attention to the case of one of my constituents, Mr. A. A. Vosen, a piiblic accountant from Solon, Ohio. As Mr. Vosen

stated in letters to me, he and many other small accountants•and probably

even the larger accounting firms•are faced with an impossible burden of government forms to fill out in the early months of the year•the same time of year that

the Census proposed by H.R. 4426 would be conducted.

To provide some idea of the number of forms required in the first few months

of the year, I would like to submit the list provided to my office by Mr. Vosen. In

the month of April alone, four separate forms are due. Adding to this already heavy

load is dangerous. One has to expect that many businessmen faced with this

mass of papers, may fill out their forms with imaginary or "guesstimate" figures

just to meet the filing deadlines. We cannot afford to base our future policies on

distorted and inaccurate figures.

In reading the hearings on "The Federal Paperwork Burden," another example

comes to mind. A small businessman in New Hampshire reported that in 1961 his

restaurant in the course of a year was required to file government forms on at

least eighteen separate dates at a personal cost of $325. In 1971, the number of

forms to be submitted had increased to 27 at a total cost of $820. In addition, to

the proposed mid-decade census, this particular business would be required to fill

seven separate forms in the month of April.

It is my hope, under the circumstances of this paperwork burden, that the final

determination of census filing dates will be made only after this Committee or
98

some other appropriate agency reviews the time demands on American citizens

in filling out and submitting these forms. With this information at hand, it is my

hope that the Committee can ensure that the Census is conducted during a "slack

period," which will place the least additional demand on our constituents and

which will also assure more accurate reporting. Periodic review by the Committee

of the forms that are actually used will, perhaps, help avoid unnecessary paperwork, duplicative questions, and multiple tilings.

In addition, Mr. Chairman, I am seriously concerned about certain forms

used by the Census Bureau. In particular, I question the accuracy of the "mail

census" in many neighborhoods of our larger cities. Statistics formulated from a

mail-in census (even with street follow-up) can only be roughly representative of

those returning the forms.

I would like to include in the hearing record some comments I made in 1966

before the House Committee on Public Works concerning the Economic Development Act Amendments of that year. In that hearing, I offered a detailed census

study of certain neighborhoods of the City of Cleveland and I expressed my concern about the accuracy of existing census data•as collected by the mail census•

in the City's areas of highest unemployment. I would like to include in the hearing

record portions of my testimony from 1966.

To best effect the administration of existing programs and future programs, an

accurate census is vital. Without Improved procedures, present censuses will not

be accurately returned from areas in which the major government social aid

programs exist.

To briefly summarize my statement, I feel that much more consideration be

given to choosing or coordinating the best time for the mid-decade census. I also

hope that this Committee will investigate the administration and accuracy of

these censuses, especially in those areas where it is vital that Federal social

programs be most clearly directed.

(Excerpt of testimony of Congressman Vanik before House Public

Works Committee, June 24, 1966:)

I have been told that more accurate unemployment statistics are only available during the decennial census year when professional interviewers from the

Census Bureau enumerate the employment conditions existing in every tenth

household.

I have also been told by the Bureau of the Census that they are as yet unable

to portray accurately the general levels of unemployment in the hard-pressed

areas of the city, since under present methods, many persons do not. respond to

questions on forms either written or in personal interviews. Therefore, there appears

to be agreement that the present indicated levels of unemployment in poverty

areas and cities is inaccurate and probably significantly understated. My fear is

that the rate of inaccuracy is much higher than is currently admitted by the Bureau

of Census. If this conclusion is true, then we have yet to have an accurate basis

upon which to determine the application of existing employment efforts.

As an additional example, I would point to the definition which the Census

Bureau uses to determine various categories of employment. One such definition

is "service worker," excluding the private house worker. I was informed by the

Bureau of the Census that this particular category includes various occupations

from elevator operator to policeman and fireman. In my attempt to determine

the total number of unskilled workers, a categorization like "service worker,"

which includes a wide variety of skilled and unskilled workers, precludes division

into "skilled" and "unskilled" and renders such definitions useless in terms of

developing adequate manpower employment policies which depend so heavily

upon these census statistics.

In addition, at the conclusion of the list of occupations, which are enumerated,

is a categorv called "Occupation Not Reported." It has been indicated to me by

the Census Bureau that it is safe to assume that, of the uumper listed in this category, most are unskilled. It seems difficult to me to justify such a listing when the

numbers which are so listed are of such a high proportion of the total number of

employed enumerated in all occupation categories.

Finally, the city of Cleveland was one of two cities in which the Bureau of the

Census tested a technique of census data gathering through the U.S. mails, to

determine whether such a system can be applied throughout the nation in the

1970 census. I had an opportunity to study the forms which were utilized in this

test. The format was sufficiently complicated to preclude many persons from completing them.

While I have been assured that the results of this special census were followed

up with a personal interview, it is my considered opinion that the information

from this type of census are highly suspect.
99

Since it is of the utmost importance that accurate statistical profiles of these

hard-pressed areas be obtained to assure the meaningful application of the Economic Development Administration Act and economic opportunity programs, it

is my hope that more accurate census gathering techniques can be developed to

produce more dependable results.

A. A. YOSEN,

PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT,

Solon, Ohio, February IS, tB7S.

Hon. CHARLES A. VANIK,

House of Representatives,

Rayburn Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

SIR: In accordance with our recent telephone conversation, concerning the

Census Reports required to be filed by February 15 with the United States

Department of Commerce, I am listing the various Federal, State, County, and

City tax returns that Public Accountants must OOmpletB for their clients.

Due

Form number Title of return date

Federal:

940 Federal unemployment tax return Jan. 31

941 Employer's quarterly Federal tax return Do.

W-2 Wage and tat statement (1 tor each employee). Do.

W-3 Transmittal of wage and tax statements Do.

1099 U.S. information return on commissions, dividends, and interest Do.

1096 Transmittal return for form 1099 Feb. 28

{{So 'Corporation income tax return Mar. 15

1165 Partnership income tax return Apr. 15

1040 Individual income tax return Do.

State:

IT-941 State return ot income tax withheld Jan. 31

IT j Reconciliation of Ohio income tax withheld and transmittal of wage and tax statement.. Do.

UC02 Employer's contribution report (State unemployment tax report) _ Do.

DP21 State workmen's compensation report. Do.

FT-1120 Corporation franchise tax report Do.

IT-1040 Ohio individual income tax return Apr. 15

938-939 Security valuation and investor's list Mar. 31

ST-10. Semi-annual sales tax return _ Feb. 28

County. Tangible and intangible personal property tax returns for individuals, proprietorships, Apr. 30

and corporations.

City Employer's quarterly withheld municipal tax return Jan. 31

Reconciliation of municipal income lax withheld and transmittal of wage and tax Do.

statement.

City business returns and city individual income tax returns Apr. 30

If these various tax returns are not filed by the due date, the small businessman

or taxpayer is assessed a penalty plus interest by the various governmental

agencies. Having to complete the long and involved Census Reports by February

15 places an undue burden upon the small independent accountant.

Your reply to my telephone call was greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours,

A. A. VosBN, Public Accountant.

114 LUCAS LANE,

Belhcsda, Mi., April 17, 1973.

AUSTIN BRAT,

Administrative Assistant, Subcommittee on Census and Statistics, Rayburn Office

Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SIR: This letter is in reference to H.B. 4426. Release the 1900 census

report immediately. Retain the 72-year law of release. Disregard a 5-year census

schedule.

Yours truly,

ON ETA N. MCGANN.

LEONARD A. MCGANN.

STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES B. RHOADS, ARCHIVIST OF THE UNITED STATES

On April 2 I had the pleasure of appearing informally before the Subcommittee

on Census and Statistics to describe the work of the National Archives. This

statement has been prepared to reiterate our deep concern for the availability
100

of census records•especially the records of the 1900 census•and our objection

to Section 5 of H.R. 4426 which would keep those records closed in perpetuity.

Although the National Archives and Records Service and the Bureau of the

Census differ on this particular issue, there is a long history of close and cooperative relations between the two agencies. In 1936 and 1937, shortly after the National Archives was created, the farm census schedules for 1925 and 1930 were

accessioned into the National Archives because it was believed that they would

be useful for research on post-World War I agricultural history. Nevertheless,

it was agreed that immediate public access to the records could be detrimental to

the farmers. The 20th century population and economic census records were

accepted during the next few years on condition that access would be granted

only to persons authorized by the Director, Bureau of the Census. However, the

Director and the Archivist of the United States agreed that the early population

and economic census records, 1790 to 1870, would, on the other hand, be opened

to all researchers immediately'. The 1870 census records were made available as

they were transferred in 1942, 72 years after the census was taken.

In 1944 the Bureau requested an exception to this policy concerning 19th

century records. The Director proposed that the 1880 schedules "should remain

closed to public examination for reasons that the paper on which the names

were enumerated [had] become so brittle that it breaks easily and public handling

would damage the records beyond all hope of repair." As a result, it was agreed

that the National Archives staff would perform occasional searches among the

schedules until a microfilm Copy could be provided to all qualified researchers.

After the completion of the microfilm project and certification that the copies

were adequate substitutes for the paper records, it was decided to offer the original

copies to the States and to negotiate an agreement on access to all subsequent

population censuses. Consequently, on August 26, 1952, the Director of the Bureau

of the Census, Roy V. Peel, in conformance with the "policy of the Bureau of

the Census to make available to as many people as possible the information contained in [census] records, consistent with National Security and the rights of

individuals concerned," proposed that "after the lapse of 72 years from the

enumeration date of a decennial census, the National Archives and Records

Service may disclose information contained in these records for use in the legitimate historical genealogical or other worthwhile research." The Archivist of the

United States, Wayne C. Grover, accepted this proposal on October 10, 1952.

A lapse of 72 years) it was felt, was sufficient to protect private interests.

Under the agreement and with the knowledge of the Bureau of the Census, in

1952 the National Archives released the 1880 census returns and in 1962 the

fragment of the 1890 census returns that had survived a fire in 1921.

In 1970, at a time when the Bureau of the Census was under criticism as it

prepared to take the decennial census, the Director, George H. Brown, wrote to

me stating that access to the 1900 individual returns should be delayed until

"at least the year 2000." In my reply I stated that the 1952 agreement should not

be amended without soliciting the opinions of leading associations of economists,

genealogists, historians, political scientists and ecologists. Our negotiations on

the issue were inconclusive. In 1972, at the request of the Department of Commerce, we agreed to delay the opening of the 1900 census records that could have

been released on June 1, 1972, pending further efforts to resolve the issue.

The proposed Section 5 of H.R. 4426 seems to assume a promise of permanent

confidentiality of the 1900 and later returns and an overriding public interest in

closing the records for the protection of privacy. The former assumption is a

question of interpreting law. The 12th Census Act of 1899 (30 Stat. 1014) provided

in Section 21, as follows: "That any . . . employee, who, having taken and

subscribed the oath of office required by this Act, shall . . . without the authority

of the Director of the Census, communicate to any person not authorized to receive the same any information gained by him in the performance of his duties,

shall be guilty of a misdemeanor." The historical background to this section, as

we understand it, was to prevent enumerators from revealing personal information

to neighbors.

From 1830 to 1870 census returns had been made public by depositing a duplicate copy in courthouses and State Governments. Enumerators for the 1880

census were required to take an oath to reveal returns only to their superior

officers. Upon request, individual data could nevertheless be supplied to State

Governments. In 1920 President Taft assured the American people that the

census would not be used for taxation, with army or jury service, compulsory

school attendance, the regulation of immigration, or with the enforcement of

laws. Census employees were prohibited from disclosing any information in the
101

returns. It would appear that President, Taft would have added that the confidentiality was to be permanent, if he had so intended. The 15th Census Act of June 18,

1929, (Section 9 U.S.C. Title 13) forbade access to individual reports to anyone

other than sworn employees of the Census Bureau.

In contrast to these earlier census statutes the Federal Records Act of 1950

(62 Stat. 508) imposed a fifty year limit on statutory and other restrictions on

access to records of Executive agencies unless the Archivist of the United States

(who has been delegated this authority by the Administrator of General Services)

determines that they should remain in force for a longer period. When the Act

was being debated, the Archivist noted to the House Committee on Expenditures

in the Executive Departments that census records were among those that could be

restricted beyond 50 years. In accordance with the bill, these records eventually

would be made available to scholars.

The problem of public interest in revelation of census returns is more perplexing

than the purely legal question. In 1908, Joseph A. Hill, Chief of the Division of

Revision and Results, Bureau of the Census, in addressing the American Historical

Association (Annual Report, 1908, Vol. 1 pages 197-208) recommended use of

the original returns.

"I may perhaps render a service to students of history," he said, "if I call

attention to the original material in the possession of the Census Bureau and

make some suggestions regarding its further use for historical purposes." He went

on to suggest research on social and economic history and local, family and

genealogical research. He did not mention future restrictions on access to the

1900 schedules.

Mr. Hill proved an excellent prognosticator in envisioning future studies of

slavery, demography, ethnic groups, marital conditions, and occupations based

upon census returns. There is certainly a growing interest by the Government

and private researchers in such topics as the decline of the extended family,

changes in the nuclear family, the persistence of poverty among many families

and in certain geographic areas, social and geographic mobility of individuals

and families, and the cultural assimilation of ethnic and racial groups.

We have considered the many facets of this question. We have discussed with

the Bureau of the Census and others the desirability, on the one hand, of opening

the records for significant research and, on the other hand, the potential harm to

individuals. We have also reviewed the intensive use made of the 1880 census

returns. Some 40,000 requests for the 1880 census are received each year in the

National Archives Building; there are steadily increasing requests in our 11

Regional Archives Branches; and 500 microfilm copies of the 1880 returns have

been sold to historical societies and universities. Since we have received no complaints about invasion of privacy, this has suggested to us that such release after

a reasonable period will not adversely affect future enumerations. We find no

evidence that genealogical research has been detrimental to individuals. On the

contrary, such research, has often resolved legal problems of heirship.

Thus, we feel that Section a of II.R. 4426 would overturn the policy agreed

upon in 1952 under which late 19th century census records have been opened,

and, it would deny to researchers one of our most important sources for study of

the American people. The Section would also be incompatible with the way

comparable material is handled by the National Archives. Even investigative

files (including dossiers of the Federal Bureau of Investigation) may be made available after 75 years. Other files containing sensitive personal information are also

released after 75 years.

It is the role of the National Archives to preserve the genuinely valuable historic records of the Federal government. But their preservation alone is not

enough. Ultimately, they must be used or their preservation is meaningless.

The substantial research use which the open census records receive from private

researchers suggests the importance of making available those other census

records which are still closed.

On the outside of the National Archives Building are inscribed these words:

"The glory and romance of our history are here preserved in the chronicles

of those who conceived and builded the structure of our nation."

Much of the history of the great and the powerful has been written. Most of

the history of those groups of ordinary folk who also shared in the building of our

nation has yet to be set down. The availability of the census records for research

will make such historical writing possible and will enrich our understanding and

our appreciation of our nation's past.

o