Y

• f

3311-INTERIM REPORT ON THE 1960 CENSUS

GOVERNMENT

Storage

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON

AND GOVERNMENT STATISTICS

OF THla

:171 COMMITTEE ON

IFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE

nu u SE OF REPRESENTATIVES

EIGHTY-SEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MAY 5, 1961

Printed for the use of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

69605 WASHINGTON : 1961

c3"‘ E

co

REFERENCE fp

IcC --4

LIBRARY

1. DEPARTMENT !,.2

rTA
•

COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE

TOM MURRAY, Tennessee, Chairman

JAMES H. MORRISON, Louisiana

JAMES C. DAVIS, Georgia

JOHN LESINSKI, Michigan

KATHRYN E. GRANAHAN, Pennsylvania

THADDEUS I. DULSKI, New York

DAVID N. HENDERSON, North Carolina

ARNOLD OLSEN, Montana

JOSEPH P. ADDABBO, New York

RICHARD H. 'CHORD, Missouri

G. ELLIOTT HAGAN, Georgia

ROBERT J. CORBETT, Pennsylvania

H. R. GROSS, Iowa

JOEL T. BROYHILL, Virginia

AUGUST E. JOHANSEN, Michigan

GLENN CUNNINGHAM, Nebraska

GEORGE M. WALLHAUSER, New Jersey

ROBERT R. BARRY, New York

KATHARINE ST. GEORGE, New York

JOHN H. ROUSSELOT, California

EDWARD J. DERWINSKI, Illinois

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CENSUS AND GOVERNMENT STATISTICS

JOHN LESINSKI, Michigan, Chairman

DAVID N. HENDERSON, North Carolina

ARNOLD OLSEN, Montana

RICHARD H. ICHORD, Missouri

TOM MURRAY, Tennessee

II

AUGUST E. JOHANSEN, Michigan

GLENN CUNNINGHAM, Nebraska

EDWARD J. DERWINSKI, Illinois

Ex Officio

ROBERT I. CORBETT, Pennsylvania

- . .
CONTENTS

Statement of Richard M. Scammon, Director, Bureau of the Census, accompanied by Dr. A. Ross Eckler, Deputy Director, Dr. Conrad Taeuber,

Assistant Director, Demographic Fields, Morris H. Hansen, Assistant

Director for Statistical Standards, and Walter L. Kehres, Assistant

Director for Administration, Bureau of the Census 

Page

14
•
INTERIM REPORT ON THE 1960 CENSUS

FRIDAY, MAY 5, 1961

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CENSUS AND GOVERNMENT STATISTICS

OF THE COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE,

Washington, D .0 .

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 215,

House Office Building, Hon. John Lesinski (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Mr. TJESINSKI. The subcommittee will come to order.

At hearings held on April 8, 1959, and March 18, 1960, officials of

the Bureau of the Census came before this subcommittee to report on

their plans for the 1960 census. In those hearings.it was our pleasure

to review the preliminary and final plans for this enormous undertaking and to acquaint ourselves with some of the radically new procedures which were employed for the first time in 1960.

I refer, of course, to the fact that the 1960 census used "do-it-yourself" procedures for the first time, and also to the fact that the 1960

census results were processed electronically on giant computers—

this was also another first for the census. And, of course, this was

the first census to include Alaska and Hawaii as States.

The population and housing census got underway on schedule on

April 1, 1960. The census work force numbered over 160,000

enumerators directed by some 10,000 crew leaders whose assignment was to enumerate 180 million persons in 58 million households,

as well as persons living in hotels, motels, trailer camps, boats, missions, flophouses, and the rest.

Every family was asked to answer a few simple questions about

each person in the household and the dwelling unit itself. At every

fourth household, more detailed questions were asked about members

of the household and the dwelling unit. In some States, the enumeration was conducted in one stage—in other more densely populated

areas, a two-stage procedure was used often involving different

enumerators for each stage.

Well, how did all this come out? We have asked the Census Director and his staff to meet with our subcommittee this morning and

report to us on the 1960 census experience. In order to direct our

efforts to those census matters of greater concern to the subcommittee,

we submitted a list of questions to the Census Bureau in advance of

this hearing. At this point, I should like to put these and

the replies of the Census Bureau in the record.

REf EREAE cp

LIBRARY -‹

4. DUARIMENT

nit%
2 INTERIM REPORT ON THE 1960 CENSUS

(The document referred to follows:)

COMMENTS CONCERNING THE 1960 CENSUS

1. Questions have been raised with the subcommittee concerning the completeness of the 1960 census, especially in some of our largest cities. I know that the

Census Bureau conducts quality control checks on the census. What is your

technical evaluation of the accuracy of the 1960 counts? What variations might

be expected in the different components of our population?

One of the primary purposes of a decennial census is, of course, to obtain

a complete count of the population of the country. The enumeration in the

1960 census, as those in previous censuses, made use of enumerators who called

at each household. There were, however, some notable changes from earlier

procedures which were intended to improve coverage and quality of response.

The advance census report.—Prior to the beginning of enumeration, advance

census schedules were distributed to all households in the country, through

the cooperation of the Post Office Department. This advance distribution put

the public on notice that there was to be a census and requested them to make

a complete listing of the members of their household and enter information

about them. Both the advance publicity and the opportunity to record household

membership would appear to contribute to the completeness of coverage.

Use of listing book.—In addition to the regular census schedule the enumerator

carried a listing book in which he recorded the address, name of head, and

number of persons, as he systematically canvassed his district. Since this

information was recorded at his first visit (regardless of whether or not anyone

was at home) a basic record was established which permitted an adequate

control over callbacks, and provided a basis for checking coverage on the part

of the crew leader. This procedure was calculated to reduce losses incident

to the failure to make callbacks and to aid in the overall quality control in

the enumeration.

Two-stage enumeration.—For most of the population, the enumeration was

conducted in two stages. In the first stage, enumerators canvassed the households and collected some information concerning each person, along with limited

information about the housing unit. At every fourth household a sample

schedule containing some additional questions was left, with the request that

it be filled out and mailed to the Census Office. This procedure permitted a

greater concentration on coverage, both in the training of the enumerators and

in the actual canvass. It also permitted the initial canvass to be completed in

a shorter period of time and, thus, reduced the hazard of missing people who

moved during the enumeration period.

systematic quality control of enumeration.—The enumerators worked under

the direct supervision of crew leaders, each crew leader being responsible for

15 to 20 enumerators. The crew leaders and their assistants were given a

detailed procedure for an early review of the work of each enumerator. In

this way they were able to identify those enumerators who were not doing an

adequate job on coverage and retrain or terminate them as necessary. Those

who were retrained were kept under close supervision for the remainder of the

enumeration period.

In the dozen or so large cities in which enumeration had been especially

difficult, the general system of quality control was amplified. Listing books

were reviewed to determine whether there were excessive numbers of vacancies,

households with no occupants, or households with one occupant. In all of the

enumeration districts where any of these numbers were excessive, a flAd check

of the enumeration was made and, if necessary, the enumeration district was

completely reenumerated. This procedure was calculated to improve coverage,

particularly in those areas of large cities where it is difficult to find people at

home.

Other procedures used to improve coverage.—In addition to the procedures

developed for the 1960 census, there were a number of other standard practices

in this field developed in earlier censuses which were used in 1960. Among

these may be mentioned the intensive and systematic training of enumerators;

providing enumerators with maps of their enumeration districts; special enumeration of places occupied by transients; a check of the forms obtained from

transients against the schedule for their usual place of residence; the publication

of "missed persons" forms in local newspapers; and finally the preliminary

announcements of population totals by district supervisors for the consideration
INTERIM REPORT ON THE 1960 CENSUS

of local officials and the identification and resolution of problems appearing

to involve underenumeration.

The description of the steps taken to improve coverage does not demonstrate,

of course, that it has been improved. However, the tabulations of sample data

from the scientifically designed post enumeration surveys that have been completed in the field, and the results of other detailed studies that are underway,

will, I believe, provide a more adequate evaluation of coverage in 1960 than

has been available for any preceding census. In the meantime, however, there

are some indications that coverage of the 1960 census was as good as, if not

better than, that of any preceding census.

In other areas local officials and organizations, believing their counts to be too

low, have supplied the Bureau with lists of names of persons allegedly missed.

Many of these persons had actually been listed on the schedules, and field rechecks of those not so listed indicated that many of them were persons who

would not properly be counted in the area in question, as, for example, members

of the Armed Forces stationed elsewhere, or college students attending college

elsewhere. In the case of one moderate-sized city, a count based on a city

directory canvass made at about the same time as the 1960 census, implied

a shortage in the census count of approximately 17 percent. A field check of

the directory count indicated, however, that there was something about the

directory procedure which led to a significant overreporting of children. The

census itself showed a greater number of adults in the community than the

directory listed, and the excess of children was found to result from faulty procedures on the part of the compilers of the directory.

The complaints frequently cited increases in the school age population as evidence of increase in total population. However, it should be noted that while

the total population of the United States increased by about 18 percent, the

population of school age increased by nearly 50 percent. Consequently, an increase in school enrollment of less than about one-third would be consistent

with a decline in the population of the area. Building permits and new construction were frequently cited to indicate an increase in the housing inventory

of a city, but most of these figures do not take into account losses resulting

from demolition or conversion to nonresidential use, nor would they adequately

reflect the changes in household size which occurred in many areas. Changes

in the number of utility connections were also cited as evidence of population

growth, though in the absence of up-to-date figures on the change in size of

household it is difficult to interpret such figures.

Although families tended to increase in size during the decade as a result

of the increased birth rate, there was not a comparable increase in the average

size of housholds. Households include all persons living together whether

related or not. In many cases, elderly people continued to occupy quarters

which they had previously occupied jointly with their children, and other

elderly persons continued to maintain their own homes rather than move in

with the children. There is also evidence that young people have tended to

leave home somewhat earlier and in many cases have established their own

household away from the parental roof.

In many cases the local estimates failed to take into account the growth

in the suburban areas and also failed to recognize that where city boundaries

are fixed, continued growth of the total metropolitan area would normally

occur on the outskirts of the area rather than in the central city where business

uses of property were being expanded.

All of this is not to say that the coverage of the 1960 census was perfect.

As in past censuses, we have evidence of net undercoverage generally, with particular difficulties in a few areas. In these areas we spent considerable time

and resources in an effort to rectify the situation, and have been able, we believe, to insure at least as good or better coverage in the 1960 census as in the

1950 and other recent censuses.

2. (a) What is your present estimate of total costs for the 1960 census,

including the census of agriculture?

The present estimate is $128 million.

2. (b) What are the reasons for the differences between your present estimate

and earlier estimates?

Although many earlier estimates were considered, in 1957 a planning ceiling

of $110 million was set, based on subject content and publication output about

equal to the 1950 census. The comparative cost at that time of the 1950 census

was about $125 million, taking into account the growth of the population and
4 INTERIM REPORT ON THE 1960 CENSUS

Increases in costs of personal services, equipment, travel, and supplies. With

the greater use of sampling and the use of improved equipment a substantial

cost improvement was expected, and is being achieved.

The pay act increase of 1958 (Public Law 85-462) added $8 million to the estimate and the pay act increase of 1960 (Public Law 86-568) added another $1/12

million. The remainder of the difference, amounting to $81/2 million was caused

by increased field costs on the population and housing censuses. The aggregate

increase in field cost for population and housing was near $11 million, but

savings in agriculture enumeration and other areas of work amount to about

$21/2 million.

The increased field costs resulted from serious enumeration problems, particularly in the major metropolitan areas. The areas where it is difficult to find

anyone at home during the day and the highly congested slum areas were the

most difficult. The magnitude of the changes in the major cities and the resulting

enumeration problems greatly exceeded our planning assumptions. In a number

of large cities, the problems were great enough that enumeration was slowed

down, and to assure a correct count it was necessary to recheck and reenumerate

problem areas. In some cities it was very difficult to recruit and retain enumerators. Carrying out these functions was time consuming, and added to the

estimated costs.

2. (c) Would you furnish a breakdown of the present estimated total cost

by major functions?

By prorating general administrative and indirect costs, the total of $128

million is divided by major subject areas as follows:

Population $79,000,000

Housing 27,000,000

Agriculture 22,000,000

Total 128,000,000

The total can also be broken clown on the following functional basis, which

follows our internal cost control pattern:

Operating costs (in thousands) :

Agriculture $21,000

Population and housing:

General population-planning 4,600

General housing planning 2,000

Field enumeration 63,700

General processing 13,500

Publication program 

Offshore areas 

1,

1,

800

100

Survey of components of change and residential finance 2,700

Evaluation program 1,800

Geographic work 4,100

General research 1,000

General administration 5,900

Total operating. costs 123,200

Less depreciation charged as cost —900

Capital outlay:

Electronic equipment 

All other capital outlay 

4,

1,

600

100

Total appropriation 128,000

3. (a) How were the hourly and piece rates paid to enumerators determined?

The pay rates for enumerators were set only after intensive study, both as

to the basic hourly rate and as to the expected production per hour upon which

the piece rates were set.

The first step in establishing the hourly rate was a determination of the prevailing rate of pay for similar work throughout the United States. In this

endeavor we enlisted and received the cooperation of the U.S. Employment

Service, other Government agencies and private research firms. After a careful

analysis of the data in relation to classification standards of the Civil Service

Commission, it was concluded that $1.60 per hour represented a fair rate of

compensation for the work to be performed.
INTERIM REPORT ON THE 1960 CENSUS 5

Estimates of the expected production per hour were developed as the basis

for piece rates, using the most modern time study techniques and relating the

time study data to the experience rates in prior censuses, and to pretest operations. Each required action and time element involved in enumeration assignments was identified and time allowances set. The allowances were set for the

average circumstance, and under abnormal conditions production per hour

might be either greater or less than expected. For example, the time allowed

for each household enumerated included approximately 2 minutes for introductions, explanations, and leave takings, which we called "Hello" and "Goodby" time, in addition to the time allowed for recording the information about

the household. To some degree this time is under each enumerator's control,

but his hourly earnings when on piece rate were somewhat affected by how he

handled this part of his job. Some factors are only partly under the enumerator's control. It was, for example, necessary to estimate how often an enumerator would find no one at home. The piece rate, based on our experience and

pretest observations, provided for an average of 1.6 calls per household.

The final piece rates were set so as to yield $1.60 per hour for the average

enumerator with normal effort and under normal conditions. The rates were

finally determined after an extensive pretest of 1960 procedures, but time did

not permit a final test of the piece rates under operating conditions in the

largest cities. Every precaution, however, was taken to assure insofar as possible that the rates were fair and equitable. However, it was not, nor was it

Intended to be, a soft assignment, and to earn $1.60 an hour the average

enumerator had to apply himself consistently to the job.

The great majority of enumerators were assigned on a piece rate basis.

However, areas for which piece rates appeared to be inappropriate were assigned on an hourly basis, at $1.60 per hour.

3. (b) Were regional differences in pay scales, cost of living figures, transportation costs, etc., taken into consideration when the rates were established?

Of these factors, only transportation costs were taken into account. A transportation allowance was provided in all rural areas and elsewhere as circumstances justified. Transportation costs were allowed as a separate expense

item.

Enumerators were ordinarily employed in the immediate area of their residence. In rural areas, where a car was required, an allowance of 7 cents per

mile for transportation costs and 5 cents per mile for time enroute were allowed. In urban areas, it was the general rule to make no allowance for transportation. However, in certain instances in urban areas, where an enumerator

in the immediate area was not available, transportation costs were provided

for.

Geographic differences in pay scales and other cost of living factors, however,

were not recognized in the pay structure. It may be necessary to consider these

factors in future censuses.

3. (c) What were the chief causes of the complaints to the Congress about

the compensation paid to census workers?

Most of the complaints related to earnings under the piece rates. Considering the large number of enumerators, these and other complaints involved only

a relatively small proportion of enumerators. Based on a national sample

survey conducted during the course of the census, it appears that the earnings

on piece rates averaged about $1.50 per hour.

The chief causes of justifiable complaints involved the following situations:

1. Larger than expected number of one- and two-person households in

which no one was at home during the day.

2. Greatly increased complications in slum areas where respondents were

difficult to communicate with or were noncooperative.

3. An extraordinary increase in the number of areas, previously residential, which had been converted in whole or in part to industrial, commercial,

or other uses.

Field supervisors were under instructions to check their areas in advance, and to

convert problem areas to hourly rate compensation. Because of lack of time, and

in some cases, understanding these instructions were not uniformly carried out.

It should be noted that these situations involved factors not under the control

of the enumerators.

Some of the complaints were from persons who thought they had been guaranteed $12 to $13 a day regardless of the amount of time and effort put in, or the

efficiency with which their work was done. To earn this amount per day, enumerators on the average had to put in a full 8 hours of consistent effort. Many

69605-61-------2
6 INTERIM REPORT ON THE 1960 CENSUS

worked less than a full 8 hours. Some, no doubt, spent more time in "hello"

and "goodbye" time than they realized. The Bureau did not have a daily guaranteed rate for enumeration, but in the course of publicizing the census, the

piece rate was inadvertently translated into a daily rate without sufficient qualifications.

3. (d) What did the Census Bureau do, if anything, to review and solve justifiable complaints?

As soon as it was apparent that inequities in pay existed because of failure

properly to identify all problem areas in advance, supplemental instructions were

sent to all district supervisors ordering a review of all enumerator assignments

for conformance to the criteria which determined whether an assignment should

be piece rate, or hourly rate, and a conversion to hourly rate of those assignments which should not have been at piece rates. Supplemental payments to

correct these situations were subsequently made to about 8,000 enumerators who

were found to have assignment areas meeting the criteria that should have been

on hourly rate under our instructions. Instructions required district supervisors

to review all piece-rate assignments, but only those involving problems not under

the control of the enumerator and which the supervisor believed should not have

been assigned at piece rates were adjusted. Complicating the 1960 job was the

fact that the number of problem areas was found to be far greater than we or

anyone else had anticipated.

In future censuses, special attention must be directed to these problem areas to

be sure that the appropriate pay system is determined before assignment to

an enumerator. Despite the difficulties, the use of a piece-rate system is believed to be the most practicable and equitable way to pay enumerators for the

majority of assignments.

4. (a) Would you comment on the effectiveness of the recruitment system used

In the census?

Overall, it is our opinion that the recruitment system used in the 1960 Decennial Census was effective. The Bureau was able to recruit and train and have

available by the required time, April 1, 1960, an adequate work force (approximately 400 district supervisors, 10,000 crew leaders, and 160,000 enumerators,

plus office personnel).

4. (b) Were referral sources effective in supplying adequate numbers of qualified (I) supervisory personnel and (2) enumerators in all areas?

Referral sources were for the most part effective in supplying adequate numbers of qualified supervisory personnel. As a matter of fact, we feel that in a

substantial majority of the cases more competent supervisory personnel were

obtained 'through referral sources than could have been recruited by other available methods. There are many problems involved in the recruitment of wellqualified supervisory personnel to accept a temporary position of only 3 to 6

months' duration. Referral sources, however, were able in many cases to prevail upon outstanding citizens to accept such short-term positions.

Referral sources were also reasonably effective in supplying enumerator candidates in most areas. The exceptions were in the large cities where recruiting

problems were difficult to solve. These problems were caused by three principal factors:

1. Generally less effective efforts on the part of the local referral sources.

2. Pay scales not as attractive relatively as in less densely populated

areas.

3. In low-income areas the small proportion of available people who are

capable of performing census work.

In the most acute of these problem areas, the Bureau organized substantial

publicity and recruitment efforts to supplement the efforts made by referral

sources. This enabled us to staff the offices in these areas reasonably well.

4. (c) In your opinion would the recruitment problems be lessened if the referral system were modified?

With respect to the referral system, it is important to establish an early date

at which the Bureau would initiate positive supplementary recruitment efforts

to secure enumerators when local referral sources are unable or unwilling to

find adequate numbers of qualified applicants. Secondly, a way must be found

to develop at all levels of the referral system a thorough understanding of the

duties of the census jobs and the qualifications required to perform this work.

We need also to strengthen the understanding of the importance of the qualifying

tests which are uniformly given to applicants for jobs as enumerators or crew

leaders. Referral sources at the congressional level have generally understood
INTERIM REPORT ON THE 1960 CENSUS 7

the requirements and qualifications for district supervisors, but local referral

sources have not uniformly appreciated the qualifications required of a good

enumerator.

5. The 1960 census enumeration was done in two stages in the densely populated areas. What particular advantage was gained by the two-stage enumeration? Did problems arising from the two-stage procedure increase the cost of

this census? Would you comment on the results of the do-it-yourself procedure?

The two-stage procedure which was used in the more densely populated areas,

covering about 80 percent of the population of the United States involved collecting some information for all persons and additional information from a sample

of one in four households. In the case of the sample households, a self-enumeration form was left with the request that it be filled in and mailed back to the

local census office. A primary purpose of introducing this approach was to make

it possible to have the information supplied directly by members of the household,

rather than relying entirely on the person who happened to be present when the

enumerator called. It also provided an opportunity for consultation among

household members to assure that the appropriate information for each member

was available for the census report. Information was also collected from one

person out of every four of those living outside households.

About 80 percent of the sample households responded by mailing in their

questionnaires. Enumerators made callbacks by telephone or personal visit to

correct inconsistent entries or obtain missing information in about two in five

of these, and, of course, calls were necessary at 20 percent of the sample households that did not mail back their forms.

We were pleased with the public cooperation, which was somewhat better

than we had anticipated. We are making evaluation studies, which will not be

available for some months yet, that will tell us more adequately the extent to

which public cooperation through self-enumeration did in fact yield the gains

in accuracy of response that we expected to achieve by this approach.

We made some intensive sample cost studies as a part of the census operation.

These studies indicated that the excess field costs above budget levels that were

encountered occurred to about the same degree in the areas where we took a

single-stage census and in the two-stage areas that were similar in character to

the single-stage areas.

6. (a) A considerable part of the 1960 census processing work (population,

housing, and agriculture) was done at decentralized locations; namely, Jeffersonville, Ind., and Parsons, Kans. What are the criteria used in determining

whether locations are suitable?

The essential characteristics that determine the suitability of a site for the

processing of a major census are as follows:

I. The availability of a sufficient number of qualified persons to fill GS-2

through GS-5 temporary clerical jobs for periods of approximately 9 months

to 2 years.

2. Adequate open-type office space with good lighting and utilities and

facilities which are normal for a clerical-type operation along with sufficient suitable warehouse space to handle large quantities of forms, supplies,

and records.

3. Low-cost space rental and servicing charges.

4. Good rail and air transportation. A rail siding to warehouse areas is

very desirable.

5. A receptive and cooperative attitude by the local officials and citizens.

6. (b) What is your evaluation of the effectiveness of decentralizing these

kinds of operations?

After considerable experience over a long period of time. the Census Bureau

has concluded that the temporary personnel and space requirements for major

censuses can best be satisfied through decentralizing mass processing operations

to a limited number of suitable locations. It must be emphasiz,-d that decentralization of itself might well be ineffective and result in excessive cost and

program delays. However, a planned decentralization giving full consideration

to the criteria outlined in 6(a) above is most elective.

For the information of the committee and in order to compare the current

decentralized operations located in Jeffersonville, Ind., and Parsons, Kans.,

against the criteria outlined above, the following information is set forth.

At Jeffersonville, Ind., the Bureau has temporary assignment of approximately 500,000 square feet of space uniquely adapted to its use. About 200.000

square feet is open-type office space with excellent lighting, adequate utilities
8 INTERIM REPORT ON THE 1960 CENSUS

and facilities, parking areas, etc. In the main office building, a three-story

structure, there are elevators to haul the large volumes of records from floor

to floor as processing progresses. The approximately 300,000 square feet of

warehouse space are well lighted, heated, and arranged in a manner particularly

adapted to census use. This contributed significantly to our ability to assemble

and ship out efficiently a million books of schedules (60 million questionnaires)

to the 400 temporary district offices for further distribution to 170,000 field crew

leaders and enumerators, and some 62 million advance mailing forms which

were distributed through the Post Office Department to all households in the

country.

The proximity of Louisville, Ky. (just across the Ohio River from Jeffersonville), siding to the warehouse buildings, and ramp facilities, greatly facilitated

rail and truck shipments for this large and unique distribution job. On completion of the field enumeration these same facilities enabled us to handle receipt of the material flowing back from all sections of the country and organize

them for processing. The property is federally owned and was formerly the Jeffersonville Quartermaster Depot. The premises were renovated for our use at

a cost of about $250,000 and the General Services Administration services all

the space at cost with no charge for rental.

The labor market in Jeffersonville at the time of selection of the site was,

and continues to be, very favorable to our needs. There were available large

numbers of qualified white-collar persons in need of employment and the area

was and continues to be designated as an area of substantial unemployment.

Approximately 5,200 individuals passed the civil service examinations required

for Census clerical positions and were available to satisfy our peak employment need of about 1,700 employees. The Bureau carried out the mass processing work for both the 1958 Economic Censuses and the 1961) Census of

Population and Housing at this location.

At Parsons, Kans., the Bureau occupies under a temporary permit from the

Defense Department approximately 150,000 square feet of office and warehouse

space. This space again is adaptable to our needs along the same general lines

as set forth above concerning Jeffersonville. The office space is well lighted,

ventilated, etc., and the warehouse space is adequate and adaptable to our needs

although it is less satisfactory than that in Jeffersonville. The space which is

located in the Kansas Ordnance Plant was renovated for our use at a cost of

approximately $125,000. The premises are made available to us rent free and

servicing is provided by a Defense Department contractor at a reasonable

cost. In Parsons, approximately 3,000 individuals passed the civil service examination for a peak employment of about 1,000 employees. Additional candidates were available if the need had developed. Again the general level of the

labor force available was well adapted to our needs and, in fact, a number of

individuals who had had previous experience in processing the 1954 Census of

Agriculture in Pittsburg, Kans., were reemployed. The Parsons area, not

unlike the Jeffersonville area, has consistently been designated as having substantial unemployment.

A favorable statement can be made concerning the labor force available at

both of these locations. The general educational level and the initiative and

resourcefulness of the individuals passing the test resulted in low training

cost, high productivity; high quality work, low sick leave rates, and an unusually

low turnover rate for temporary work. Also, at both locations local offi gals

and the public generally gave enthusiastic support which was of material assistance in establishing and operating these decentralized facilities.

The Bureau of the Census feels that planned decentralization carefully considered against the specific criteria outlined above is an effective way to carry

out temporary mass-processing type operations and at the same time do much

to bolster local economies. The ability to supply experienced professional and

administrative personnel to supervise the operations away from Washington is

essential to the success of this work. Because of the small size of our experienced staff, we are able to provide this talent to only a limited number of

locations.

7. For the first time in history, the 1960 census results were processed on electronic data processing equipment. Would you comment on the effectiveness of

your EDP equipment in: (a) Expediting the final results; (b) eliminating processing errors; and (c) cutting overall costs?

We are pleased with results to date from the use of electronic data processing equipment for processing the 1960 census results. Although work on the

1960 census is far from complete, some measure of the effectiveness of EDP
INTERIM REPORT ON THE 1960 CENSUS 9

equipment and methods can be gained from experience to date in the following

areas:

(a) Expediting final results.—We were able to achieve our objective of basing

the certified count of population used for apportionment purposes on a machine

count of the entire population by detailed geographic areas rather than, as in

the past, on hand counts of field returns. As to public release of figures, the following comparisons provide evidence of the remarkable speedup in publication of results that has been accomplished:

Report series

Date of release for first State Date of release for last State

1950 census 1960 census Speedup

1950 census 1960 census Speedup

Advance reports (machine based) of final

publication figures.

Final bulletins for

number of inhabitants.

Final bulletins for

general characteristics of population.

February 1951_

July 1951 

March 1952_ _ _

August 1960_ _

September

1960.

November

1960.

Months

6

10

16

October 1951_ ..

May 1952_ ___.

February 1953_

December 1960

May 1961

(estimated).

June 1961

(esthnated).

Months

10

12

21

There have been even greater gains than these on the issuance of statistics

from the 1960 Census of Housing.

Although the content of the reports issued in 1950 is not in all cases identical

with the content of a similar report issued in 1960, the figures given above correctly reflect speedups of 6 to 21 months in the public issuance of key figures

from the 1960 census. Not all of these gains are attributable solely to electronic

data processing equipment, but these gains would not have been possible without

this equipment.

( b) Eliminating processing errors.—The use of FOSDIO and the computers

eliminated the manual punching of cards and, thus, eliminated the errors which

are normally introduced during that process in spite of efforts to hold down

such errors. Moreover, the use of the electronic computers permitted us to

correct inconsistencies and supply missing information in individual instances

with greater uniformity than was possible under procedures used in previous

censuses.

In addition, the use of the electronic equipment permitted us for the first time

to secure precise measures of many types of errors in the flow of data processing

and to take corrective action where necessary. We are also able to secure from

the computers detailed statistics on the extent of errors arising from omissions

or inconsistencies due to failure of enumerators to obtain complete or adequate information, as well as omissions or errors due to mechanical failures.

By publishing detailed statistics on these errors and the steps taken to correct

them, we are providing the users of census data with information that is essential to the proper interpretation of the census results.

(c) Cutting overall costs.—As the census work for 1960 still is far from complete, it is not possible to state precise cost comparisons as between 1950 and

1960 methods, but some key indicators of the effectiveness of electronic data

processing equipment in this area are available. For example, more than 2,700

machines for punching, sorting, tabulating and other processing of cards were

employed in the 1950 Census of Population and Housing. In the 1960 census,

6 large-scale digital computers, 4 high speed electronic printers, 4 FOSDIC devices for converting microfilm schedules to magnetic tape and 27 microfilm

cameras were used to accomplish the corresponding processing tasks. For the

1950 Census of Population and Housing we required 205,000 man-days of card

punching time to convert the statistics to a form suitable for tabulation. For

1960 the comparable operations required about 30,000 man-days of a staff consisting of camera operators, FOSDIC operators, technicians, engineers, and

supporting personnel. One element in this reduction was the fact that a part of

the data were collected for only 25 percent of the population.

We believe that when final cost figures of the processing stages of the 1960

census are complete, it will have been demonstrated that the investment by the

Bureau in electronic data processing equipment more than paid for itself in its
10 INTERIM REPORT ON THE 1960 CENSUS

application to decennial census work. These savings in tabulation work were,

of course, anticipated in formulating the cost estimates and appropriation requests for conduct of the 1960 censuses.

8. Members of Congress from Connecticut have been very critical of one of

the published population tables for that State. They claim that a large number

of important Connecticut cities and towns were omitted from this table. What

happened here?

The criticism regarding published figures for Connecticut relate to a matter of

classification and not to the accuracy of the census count.

Table 7 of the Connecticut report provides population figures for each county,

each town, each city, and each borough. In addition, table 7 identifies a number

of clusters of settlements which are not separately incorporated and lists them

as unincorporated places, thus providing data both for the thickly settled area,

as well as for the entire town of which it is a part.

Table 8, at which the criticism has been directed, does not purport to list all

towns and other subdivisions of the counties, but to list only the places which

are incorporated as cities or boroughs and also those unincorporated settlements

which were especially identified for the census. In addition, an attempt has

been made to identify those towns, which by virtue of their total population, or

the density of their settlement, are essentially similar to cities elsewhere, although they are not separately incorporated as cities. The towns with a population of 25,000 inhabitants or more, and those with a population of 2,500 to 25,000

Inhabitants and a density of 1,500 persons or more per square mile, are separately

identified as urban towns.

Table 8 is an attempt to present figures which will be comparable with similar

figures for other States. In Connecticut, and a very small number of other

States, the primary subdivisions of the county are incorporated as towns. They

have certain governmental functions which are different from those assigned

to similar divisions in other States. Some of the towns are essentially urban

In their settlement pattern, while others are essentially rural. To classify all

towns as urban if they have a population of 2,500 or more would destroy the

comparability with statistics for urban places in other States. Because of the

widespread interest in statistics on built-up places, we have attempted to develop

comparable figures on such areas for all the States and most of our users are

well-served by the tables which we have prepared. Some further clarification of

the intent of table 8 seems to be necessary, since the heading has been misunderstood. There is apparently also a need to identify additional places of essentially

urban settlement which were not recognized in the table as published.

The problem of definition which is raised here has been the subject of much

discussion for many years. We have agreed that further consultation will be

had with persons familiar with the situation in Connecticut prior to the next

census. We would welcome any suggestions for dealing with this problem in

a way that will make the statistics most useful to the users in and outside the

State.

9. Authority for the 1960 census program will terminate in December 1962.

Will your publications program be completed within the specified time limit?

We expect to complete the publication program covered by the present appropriations by December 1962. This will be within the framework of the general

ground rules under which the 1960 census was planned: namely, that we should

attempt to meet approximately the levels of accuracy and of detail in our tabulations which were obtained in 1950. There will be some changes from the publication program in 1950, notably, in the direction of providing greater detail for

small areas.

Nevertheless, we want to draw your attention to the fact that a vast store of

information obtained in the census cannot be published within the present framework, even after the publication program has been completed. A large amount

of money will have been spent in collecting the census data, in editing and coding

them, and in arranging them on magnetic tape ready for tabulation by the high

speed computers. At relatively small additional cost a considerable number of

significant additional reports could be completed and published.

10. We realize that it takes a long time to digest all the experience and the

research fundfngs from a series of major censuses. Can you tell U8 anything

at this time about some of the lessons you learned from the 1960 census?

1 U.S. Census of Population: 1960, Number of Inhabitants, Connecticut, Final Report,

PC(1)-8A.
INTERIM REPORT ON THE 1960 CENSUS 11

We have not completed the detailed analysis of our procedures and results

which we expect to make as part of the census program.

From the review which we have made so far, it seems clear to us that more

adequate preparatory work must be planned and budgeted to deal with field

problems of coverage, particularly in large urban places. Advance surveys and

delineation of "problem enumerative areas" seem to be in order; better organization of previous census data for field check against preliminary counts;

more extensive use of the intelligence of local planning sources; and adaptation

of standard procedures as required for regional and local variations from normal

conditions. Improvement of maps to be used in the enumeration is essential

and we hope to be able to develop further simplification of forms and procedures

as well as of training activities.

11. A suggestion has been made to the subcommittee that greater use should

be made of the Post Office Department when we take a national census. Would

you comment on the feasibility of using regular and substitute mail carriers as

census enumerators in some areas, if such arrangements could be made?

The suggestion that greater use should be made of the Post Office Department

In census taking is one in which we have been interested and which we are

actively considering. The Bureau of the Census is constantly experimenting

with new methods of data collection and is eager to avail itself of resources and

cooperation for the improvement of census data, especially if savings in time and

expense and improvements in quality can result. The Bureau of the Census

has had successful experience in using facilities of the Post Office Department

in the past. In the 1960 census, mail carriers physically delivered the Advance

Census Report to all known addresses. In addition, we conducted a test in a

few selected areas in which the Post Office Department then rechecked addresses

for the Census Bureau in an effort to assure full coverage of the enumeration

in those areas. This coverage check had been proven highly satisfactory in

earlier tests and would have been used more extensively in the 1960 census

had more funds been available for that purpose. By agreement with the Census

Bureau, the Post Office Department also coded the "Home Enumeration District

Numbers" on approximately 1Y2 million special census forms for persons away

from home during the census period.

Arrangements for interagency cooperation need to be carefully planned and

discussed in full detail with the officials responsible for both administrative and

technical operations. Past interagency discussions have indicated that the

general use of mail carriers as enumerators is not encouraged by the Post Office

Department which, of course, already has a full time job to perform. Enumeration requires not only time for interviews and reporting, but also for

training which is essential to the quality of the results. Several operations,

such as rechecking or coding of addresses and delivering or receiving mail

questionnaires have been successfully undertaken cooperatively. The use of

mail carriers in remote areas or under circumstances where their qualifications

and knowledge of the area have special value is a possibility that we hope to

explore further with the Post Office Department.

Every consideration will be given to the maximum feasible use of the Post

Office Department facilities in future census undertakings.

12. Social scientists tell us that there were greater population and housing

changes between 1950 and 1960 than in any previous decade. Would you comment on the more significant trends?

Population.—Between 1950 and 1960 the population of the United States increased by 28 million; that is, from 151.3 million to 179.3 million. Numerically,

this was the largest decennial increase ever reported for the United States. The

rate of growth implied by this increase was 18.5 percent, the largest rate of

growth since the decade 1900 to 1910. The increase represents net immigration of nearly 3 million and a natural increase of approximately 25 million, the

difference between 41 million births and 16 million deaths. Within the United

States the high rates of growth tend to be concentrated in the Southwest—California, Nevada, Colorado, Arizona, and New Mexico—all with rates of increase

in excess of 30 percent. Florida, however, had the highest rate of increase, 79

percent. There were also relatively high rates of growth in Michigan, Ohio,

and in Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, and Connecticut which include the

suburban areas near Washington, Baltimore, Philadelphia, and New York.

Alaska, as in the previous decade, had a rate of growth of more than 75 percent.

Growth inside and outside metropolitan areas: Nearly 85 percent of the increase occurred in metropolitan areas as compared with nearly 80 percent in
12 INTERIM REPORT ON THE 1960 CENSUS

the decade 1940 to 1950. The population outside of standard metropolitan statistical areas accounted for the remaining 15 percent of the 28 million. The population of standard metropolitan statistical areas increased by about 26 percent.

The increase in central cities, however, was only about 11 percent, but much

of that was the result of annexations. The population of the suburban rings

increased by nearly 50 percent.

Decline in population of large cities: The decade 1950 to 1960 was one in which

an appreciable number of our large cities lost population. Of the 5 largest cities

of 1950, only one, Los Angeles, gained population, and more than one-fourth of

all central cities of metropolitan areas lost population. Most of the gain in

the central cities of metropolitan areas resulted from annexation. In terms of

their 1950 area, the rate of increase would have been only 1.5 percent and, in

the aggregate, central cities in both the Northeast and North Central regions

would have shown a population loss.

Age: The recently compiled figures on age for the country as a whole suggests that the population of the country grew most rapidly in both the older

and the younger groups during the past decade. The population 65 and over

increased by 34.7 percent; the population under 18 by 36.7 percent; and the

population between these two extremes grew by only a modest 7 percent. The

increase in the number of children under 18 is attributable in large part to the

relatively high birth rates since the end of World War II. The greater relative

and numerical increase in the younger age groups had the net effect of reducing

the median age of the population for the first time in our history.

Race: Between 1950 and 1960, the total population increased by 18.5 percent

and the Negro population by about 25 percent. The percentage of Negroes living

in the South, which was 90 in 1900 and 68 in 1950 dropped to about 60 percent

in 1960. Complementary gains, of course, occurred in other regions, and generally in States outside the South the rate of increase was greater than the national

rate. The South lost about 1.5 million Negroes by migration during the decade.

About 800,000 or more than one-half of these migrants from the South were

to be found as net in-migrants in the 17 SMSA's associated with the largest cities

outside the South.

Housing.—The fact that the first housing census was taken in April 1940

restricts comparisons to the last 2 decades. Further, the need to adapt the content of housing programs to rapidly changing conditions limits our ability to

discern trends. Nevertheless, several significant trends are apparent:

During both decades the housing supply has increased more rapidly than the

population. In 1960 there were 58.3 million housing units as compared with 46.2

million dwelling units in 1950. While a small portion of this increase may be

due to a change in the definition of the unit of enumeration in 1960, it is clear

that the increase in the supply exceeded that achieved in any previous decade.

As a result, the number of persons per room declined. Further, the number of

persons per occupied housing unit declined due to the very large increase in the

number of units occupied by persons living alone.

During the last decade great strides were made in improving the quality of

the Nation's housing. The number of units that were dilapidated or lacked

private toilet or bath or hot water declined by 6 million—from 17.1 million in

1950 to 11 million in 1960—a reduction of 36 percent. On the other hand, housing units that were not dilapidated and contained all plumbing facilities increased by more than 18 million between 1950 and 1960. This improvement in

quantity was national in scope, with all regions of the country registering substantial gains in improving the quality of housing.

The number of units occupied by nonwhites that were dilapidated or lacked

private toilet or bath or hot water declined by 0.5 million in the period 1950-60

while the number of units that were not dilapidated and contained all plumbing

facilities increased by 1.8 million. In spite of this improvement, 20 percent of

all homeowner units lacking some or all plumbing facilities and more than 30

percent of the corresponding rental units were occupied by nonwhites in 1960.

In recent years there has been a definite expansion in the amount of vacant

housing, essential to adequately house a highly mobile population.

Since 1940, the level of homeownership has increased dramatically to the

highest level ever recorded. The number of owner-occupied units increased by

55 percent in the period 1940-50 and by 39 percent in the 1950-60 period. On

the other hand, the number of rental units has increased by less than 3 percent

since 1940. Homeowner units occupied by nonwhite families increased by 46

percent in the period 1950-60; the number of rental units occupied by nonwhites

increased by 26 percent.
INTERIM REPORT ON THE 1960 CENSUS 13

The move to owner-occupied housing was associated with a 65 percent increase in home prices (as measured by median value reported by homeowners)

in the period 1950-60. Median rents advanced by 53 percent from 1950-60.

13. Later this year the subcommittee will hold hearings on the proposed middecade census in 1965. Would you care to comment now on the need for and

feasibility of taking a population and housing oensus in 1965? What would be

the cost on a minimum basis and what are the possibilities of using sampling

when enumerating most or the detailed characteristics?

We cannot speak, at this time, for the Department of Commerce or the executive branch on the policy aspects of a mid-decade census. Views on proposed

legislation for such a census are in the process of being formulated. Nevertheless, we will undertake to advise you of some of the technical aspects of such a

census. The Bureau has been making a review of the needs for such a census

and the methods by which it might most effectively be taken. One of the most

immediate needs for population counts arises from the fact that approximately

$3 billion of Federal and State grants-in-aid are distributed annually with the

population of States or municipalities as a major factor in determining the

amount received by each area. Rapid and uneven population growth or decline

contributes significantly to many community and regional problems. Obviously

under such circumstances outdated census figures are a poor and inequitable

guide for allocation of funds.

In addition to the direct benefits conferred through grants-in-aid, there are

many State and local programs for housing, school construction, hospital construction, and the building of roads and other facilities which are related to

current statistics on population and housing. American business and industry

also has a stake in the more efficient distribution of goods and services made

possible by the type of market research which relies on up-to-date census figures.

An expert Committee which advises the Secretary of HEW on vital and health

statistics recently reviewed the proposal that such a census be taken. They

state:

"There are real needs for more frequent data than are now available regarding the size and composition of the population of States, cities, and small areas.

Sample surveys taken midway between decennial censuses could provide the

desired information for large States and cities at lower cost than a complete

enumeration. For the much larger number of areas with small populations,

however, a complete-count census is the most efficient way of obtaining adequate

data on the population by age, sex, and race. A sample survey, taken in connection with such a census, would be a reasonably satisfactory and inexpensive

way of obtaining the additional data desired regarding the social and economic

characteristics of the population of large areas at middecade."

"The U.S. National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics recommends

that a complete-count middecade census, covering at least age, sex, and race,

and supplemented by sample surveys, be conducted with no curtailment of the

decennial census program."

We have assumed that in order to meet the need for statistics for municipalities and for small areas it is necessary that at least a minimum of information

be collected on the basis of a complete enumeration. Information concerning

the economic and social characteristics of the population and of the housing

Inventory which are not needed for the smallest areas could be collected on a

sample basis. The cost of such a census would depend on the scope of the information to be collected and the amount of geographic detail that is required.

Mr. LESINSKI. I believe that the replies to these questions will tell

us much of what we want to know and at the same time permit the

Census officials to impart information which they may wish to get on

record. Members of the subcommittee should feel free, however, to

raise questions at any time during the testimony. This procedure

worked well in our previous hearings on the census.

We are honored to have with us this morning the new Director of

the Bureau of the Census, Mr. Richard Scammon. First of all, Mr.

Scammon, let me congratulate you on your appointment to this very

important post and I assure you that this subcommittee will cooperate with you fully in your new and difficult assignment.

69605-61 3
14 INTERIM REPORT ON THE 1960 CENSUS

Would you now introduce your staff members and then proceed with

such parts of your statement as you wish to present orally?

The entire statement will be made a part of the record.

Mr. Scammon ?

STATEMENT OF RICHARD M. SCAMMON, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF

THE CENSUS, ACCOMPANIED BY DR. A. ROSS ECKLER, DEPUTY

DIRECTOR; DR. CONRAD TAEUBER, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR

DEMOGRAPHIC FIELDS; MORRIS H. HANSEN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR STATISTICAL STANDARDS; AND WALTER L. KEHRES,

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ADMINISTRATION, BUREAU OF THE

CENSUS

Mr. SCAMMON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman

'

and thank you for your

good wishes on my appointment. I am now 25 hours old, as officially

Director of the Bureau of the Census, and I do feel somewhat a

newcomer, but having served previously in the Department of State

some years ago, perhaps not entirely new in terms of the Federal

bureaucracy.

I would like, if I might, at this time to introduce my colleagues,

my staff members, who are here with me this morning.

Immediately on my left, Dr. Ross Eckler, the Deputy Director of

the Bureau of the Census, and on his left Mr. Walter Kehres, Assistant Director for Administration.

On my right, Dr. Conrad Taeuber, who is the Assistant Director

for Demographic Fields, and on his right Dr. Morris H. Hansen, our

Assistant Director for Statistical Standards, who is responsible for

the finding and developing of our new techniques, particularly in the

electronics fields in tabulation and presentation of data.

Mr. LESINSKI, At that point, Mr. Scammon, I believe you have

been consistently involved in statistics in one way or another?

Mr. SCAMMON. Yes; I have. I have been a consultant to the Bureau of the Census over a period of years both in the field of historical

statistics and in the field of political statistics. While I would not,

I think, regard myself as an expert in the more theoretical values of

statistics, in the practical sense, I think I can speak safely that I know

what statistics are for.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, there are a great many fields in

statistics ranging all the way from the most theoretical down to

batting averages in the American or National Leagues.

Statistics permeate the whole of our life. Indeed, I would suggest,

sir, even here today they permeate some of the political facts of life

for our members on the subcommittee. I would think that the opportunities that I have in the Bureau of the Census are enhanced by the

possession of a staff of first-rate people. I may say, I think, in my

own view one of the best in Washington: qualified, competent. And

after that statement they better be because otherwise I can pick on

them.

Mr. LESINSKI. I have known some of them for a number of years

and I have found them to be so.

Mr. SCAMMON. I might add, Mr. Chairman, that it might be helpful

for the subcommittee if we were to introduce into the record for the

newer members a general statement on the Bureau and its work which
INTERIM REPORT ON THE 1960 CENSUS 15

was prepared for this hearing and which the members might find

useful as a reference to them.

With your consent I would like to give that to the reporter and

ask her to put that in the record.

Mr. LESINSKI. Without objection it will be made a part of the record

at this point.

(The statement follows:)

STATEMENT ON THE BUREAU OF THE CENSUS

The Census Bureau, through its various census and survey programs, collects,

compiles, and organizes statistical data on current economic conditions; the

industrial and social structure of the Nation, regions, States, and other areas;

the activities and characteristics of establishments engaged in manufacturing,

distribution, services, and agriculture; and the social and economic characteristics

of the population, including age, income, occupation, education, health, and

housing. In addition, through the use of its large-scale but flexible facilities,

the Bureau has the ability to move quickly into new major problem areas to

conduct field surveys or to prepare special analyses of existing data.

As the Federal Government's major general-purpose statistical agency, the

Bureau of the Census has unrivaled facilities for large-scale data collection and

tabulation. These facilities include a planning staff with many specialized skills,

a field organization with offices throughout the country, high-speed electronic

computers for data processing, nationwide samples designed for both establishment and household surveys, and a comprehensive collection of maps. With

these resources, it is possible for the Census Bureau to collect and compile,

quickly and accurately, quantities of data in a wide variety of subject fields.

The Bureau's present statistical activities may be divided into the following

major categories: periodic censuses, current surveys and studies, and foreign

trade statistics (see attached list of major programs). The Censuses of Business, Manufactures, Mineral Industries, Agriculture, Governments, Population,

and Housing have all been taken within the past 2 or 3 years; hence, relatively

recent data are available in all these important fields and are now being processed

and published. These provide a storehouse of detailed information for the

study of both national and local conditions. The current survey programs of

the Bureau provide a systematic means for updating the census information,

and for collecting information in other fields, such as foreign trade. In addition to the specialized reports it publishes in each subject field, the Bureau also

compiles and publishes general-purpose compendia such as the Statistical

Abstract.

The Bureau makes its unique statistical facilities available to other agencies

on a service basis. Major services are now provided for the Department of

Health, Education, and Welfare, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the Business

and Defense Services Administration. For other agencies, the Bureau handles

field work for one-time or recurrent surveys in special subject areas, such as

consumer buying plans and recreational activities, and processes data from

these sources as well as data supplied by other agencies. Working in close cooperation with the International Cooperation Administration, the Bureau provides training and assistance in the development of statistical programs to

many foreigii countries. It organizes training courses for foreign participants;

assists foreign visitors to learn about the methods we are using and the specialized equipment we have, and sends technicians overseas.

The Bureau also performs services on a cost or fee basis for non-Federal

Government agencies and private groups and individuals. It takes special

censuses of localities under the sponsorship of the local governments; searches

population census records to locate individuals for the purpose of establishing

their age as a basis for social security payments and for other reasons; and,

under certain conditions, makes special tabulations of census data.

The facilities needed for all of its activities are located in Bureau headquarters,

a regional field office organization, and four other field installations. The regional offices collect data for current surveys and, during major censuses, serve

as a nucleus for a greatly expanded field organization. A large office in Jeffersonville, Ind., has been utilized for preparatory work and is being used for

processing in connection with the 1960 Censuses of Population and Housing.

The Agriculture Operations Office, established specifically for receiving, processing, and tabulating returns from the 1959 Census of Agriculture, is located
16 INTERIM REPORT ON THE 1960 CENSUS

In Parsons, Kans. Work is expected to continue there until late in this calendar

year. The Bureau's age search service is permanently located in Pittsburg,

Kans. The fourth field installation, a temporary processing office established

in San Juan, P.R., to handle collection and processing of Puerto Rico census

returns, is expected to close in September 1961.

Mr. Chairman, it is our hope that members of this committee will find it

possible to visit the Bureau's facilities, as they have in the past, so that they

may meet our employees and observe our methods, procedures, and equipment

in action. We have noted the Census activities included in your announcement of the subcommittee's programs and look forward, Mr. Chairman, to the

opportunities that we may have to explain and discuss our programs and problems in this and any future meetings or hearings you may schedule.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, BUREAU OF THE CENSUS, WASHINGTON

Schedule of censuses

Census I Frequency

Data pertain to years ending in—

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Years

Population 10 X 

Housing 10 X 

Agriculture 5 X X

Irrigation 2 10 X

Drainage 2 

Manufactures 

Mineral industries 

10 

5 

5 

x 

x 

x 

x 

X

Business (retail and wholesale

trade; selected services 5 X X 

Governments (public revenue,

expenditure, debt, valuation,

taxation) 5 X x 

Religious bodies 10 X 

Transportation 3 5 X X 

I All are mandatory, except the census of religious bodies, which is authorized but not required.

2 Taken decennially in conjunction with the census of agriculture for years ending in "9."

A census of transportation was first authorized in 1948, but to date has not been carried out. It is now

authorized to be conducted quinquennially for years ending in" 3" and in "8."

Schedule of major current surveys

Major current survey Frequency

Cotton ginning 

Current industrial reports (81 separate surveys covering specific

products or industries).

Business reports (6 separate reports) 

Foreign trade (23 separate reports on exports, imports, shipping)._

Financial reports of:

States 

Cities 

All governments 

Employee-retirement systems of State and local governments_

Government employment:

State distribution 

City _ 

Current population survey 1 

National health survey 2 

Construction statistics:

Housing starts 

Value of new construction put in place 

New housing units authorized by building permits 

12 specified dates per year.

Monthly, quarterly, semiannual, or

annual, according to need for the

particular survey.

An advance (10-day) report on retail

sales, a monthly and an annual report on retail trade, a monthly report

on wholesale sales and inventories, a

seasonal report on canned food stocks,

and a quarterly report on green coffee

Inventories and roaStings.

Monthly and annual.

Annual.

Do.

Do.

Do.

Do.

Do.

Monthly.

Continuous.

Monthly.

Do.

Do.

1 This survey yields monthly data on employment, unemployment, and other labor force statistics which

are analyzed and reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The survey also provides the basis for quarterly, annual, and occasional reports by the Bureau of the Census.

2 Conducted by the Bureau of the Census acting as an agent of the Public Health Service under authority

given that agency. Results are published by the Public Health Service.
INTERIM REPORT ON THE 1960 CENSUS 17

Mr. SCAMMON. In terms, Mr. Chairman, of the 1960 census, what

we have here in this 13-question formulation of responses to your

inquiries, are the preliminaries of a survey now being undertaken

by the staff. This is not a final record. We don't, indeed, have all of

the final tabulations from the census itself, but what we do have here

are responses to these particular queries from the subcommittee with

respect to particular aspects of the census of 1960. It is a preview,

if you will, of the more important aspects of what we believe the final

study of Census operations will bring out.

Perhaps, if I might, I would like to comment about three or four

things that I am pleased about as a newcomer while looking over this

material.

As a member of the new administration I had no responsibility for

the taking of the 1960 census; I am_ responsible for it now as Director

of the Bureau of the Census. I went over this material with a good

deal of care as much for my own edification to see actually what we

had done. I think perhaps the thing that has impressed me most,

again as a newcomer, in looking over this material was the use of automation and the use of electronic computers to speed up the accuracy

and actual production of Census data.

We are in some cases as much as 21 months ahead of the printing

and production estimates for the 1950 census, and I think in terms of

the accuracy of count, in terms of the• avoidance of error, in terms

of the identification and then elimination of error, the use of these

electronic computers, the use of the print-out systems, the use of

built-in controls, has been one of the most fascinating things about this

1960 census.

As members of the subcommittee may know, the Bureau itself has

long been an innovator and a developer of advanced methods of statistical work. Back in the 1890 census Mr. Hollerith, who developed

the Hollerith cards, first used these for the computing and handling of

Census data. We have out at Suitland, Md., now the original

UNIVAC I, the first electronic computer for data processing which

was developed with the needs of the census in mind, developed by us

and by our colleagues in the Government in cooperation with private

industry to more accurately and more quickly handle the census count.

I think we all recognize that this material has value, primarily in

the sense in which it can be related to an immediate period of time;

naturally, in 1967, 1968, and 1969, the materials from the 1960 Census

of Population or the earlier censuses of agriculture, manufacturers,

industry, and so on, will lose some of their value as they lose some of

their relationship to a particular period of time.

The more quickly, the more accurately this data can be presented,

the more useful it is going to be to the Members of the Congress, to

the general public, to the people who must use these benchmarks for

their work.

Among the other installations in this electronic development which

I think has been particularly useful at Suitland, has been the development of what we call FOSDIC. To give it its full name, Film Optical Sensing Device for Input to Computers. I think they probably

got the word "FOSDIC" first and then worked up something to fit it

later.
18 INTERIM REPORT ON THE 1960 CENSUS

The actual development of this machine permits us to take schedules as they are made out by the individual enumerator, some 160,000

people, who sit at home after they have gotten the data and transcribe

with pencil on the actual schedules which are forwarded down to our

processing office in Jeffersonville, Ind.

There they are put on to photographic material, airmailed to Washington, run through the FOSDIC, material is then taken over onto

a magnetic tape which can be used in computing and can produce the

listing and counting that we need.

The avoidance of error and the speed which such a device as FOSDIC makes possible has put us far, far ahead of our 1950 count.

Mr. OLSEN. What is that full name again?

Mr. SCAMMON. The Film Optical Sensing Device for Input to

Computers.

Mr. LESINSKI. Basically two thoughts come to my mind, No. 1, you

can never do away with the human element 

Mr. SCAMMON. You cannot.

Mr. LESINSKI. And No. 2, being in San Francisco in 1959, the people involved in transportation are rather concerned that they did not

get the foreign trade reports until 2 years later when they were already

outmoded. It is a matter of shipment of goods to and from San

Francisco. This, I think, is typical in most of the ports and is there

any action along that line to expedite those Census reports in that

field of foreign trade?

Mr. ScammoN. I can't speak to that specific point because I just

do not know about the situation that you are citing, Mr. Chairman,

though one of my colleagues might be able to answer, but I would say

that all the way through, in all of the preparation of census material,

speed and speeding up of the presentation of data, even if necessarily

in advance form as we did, you know, with the 1960 census, is most

useful because it just is not worth much if you wait too long.

Mr. LESINSKI. It is most useful because the information they gave

me

'

even if it is a year late it is still useful, but if it is 2 years late, it

is too late.

Mr. SCAMMON. I understand, Mr. Chairman in one of the earlier

censuses they were hard pressed to finish the tally before they started

the next census.

Mr. LESINSKI. That was the 1880?

Mr. SCAMMON. It may be, I think the Chairman knows more about

that than I do.

I might say, secondly, that the thing that impressed me most of

these various questions which were put by the subcommittee to which

our answers are prepared in the material which has been put into

the record, has been what I would call the substantive aspect of the

1960 census.

Sometimes I suppose in talking about technique and costing and

electronics we forget that the most interesting aspect of a census is

the picture that it shows of America, the picture of the farms, the

picture of the people, the picture of the housing, the picture of our

economy, and I have gone over a great deal of the material of the

1960 census, fascinated by some of the odds and ends of trivia, if you

will, in some instances, and some of the odds and ends of really important material that one can extract from these data.
INTERIM REPORT ON THE 1960 CENSUS 19

The picture of metropolitanization, coincident with the decline of

the central city as the center of our life; the development of farm

production and farm size; the development of our housing picture

and what to me quite frankly was a, almost a heartwarming picture

of the tremendous improvement in the housing inventory of the United.

States, the decrease of dilapidated dwellings, the decrease of the impact on our housing inventory of less than standard housing.

These things are, I think, the most interesting things one can pull

out of the census. Many of them are not treated in detail in this

report because the questions with which the subcommittee was particularly concerned are, of course, technical ones dealing with enumerators, mapping, pay scales, and the like.

But I think the questions hint at some of the fascinating studies

that can be made from it.

Finally, of the things that particularly impressed me as I looked

at this as a newcomer, the challenge of a possibility of doing a census

in 1965, of following our Canadian friends in building up a new concept of the mid-decade head count, is a tremendously exciting one.

Now, of course, I, as director of the census, cannot speak for the

Department of Commerce or the executive branch of the administration because there is no formal policy on this. But the challenge and

the excitement of the possibility of doing this kind of count, this kind

of new departure in the technique of establishing our population,

is a most interesting one to me.

But, Mr. Chairman, what I would like to do, if this is agreeable

to you, is just to give you these three things which impressed me

most in looking over this data.

It is a long report; it is a detailed report. Naturally I and my

colleagues who are here this morning would be happy to answer questions about this material or any other questions that members of the

subcommittee might wish to put to us.

Mr. LESINSKI. Well, you have handled yourself very well. You

have got your feet on the ground as I have found is true of most of

the appointments in the present administration, and I am glad to see

this detailed report. I have some further questions.

First of all, before I go any further, any question from any of the

members at this point?

(No response.)

Mr. LESINSKI. I notice that in your discussion of EDP equipment,

you mentioned a total capital outlay of some $6 million. I assume

this was for the purchase of two UNIVAC's at Suitland. What kind

of an arrangement did you make with the Armour Research Institute

of Chicago, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, for

leasing time on their computers and was it a satisfactory

arrangement?

Mr. SCAMMON. I think, if I may, Mr. Chairman, I would like to

have Dr. Hansen address himself to the details of that question.

Mr. HANSEN. The capital outlay of nearly $6 million was a total

capital outlay, and included items in addition to electronic equipment.

The electronic equipment was about three-fourths of that.

This includes the total cost of equipment, not only the two new

UNIVAC 1105 computers that we acquired but also the FOSDIC

equipment and other auxiliary equipment, and the arrangements with
20 INTERIM REPORT ON THE 1960 CENSUS

the two universities, the capital cost in our arrangements with the two

universities. The arrangements with the universities were as follows:

The universities were able, from the manufacturer, as is customary

in this field, to get an academic discount, a substantial discount on the

price that the Government would pay for the computers. These discounts are given by the manufacturers in order to get these types of

equipment at training centers where people will be more widely

trained in their use.

Well, we were able to work arrangements with the manufacturer

and the universities whereby we would put up $700,000 toward the

capital cost2 the price that the universities would have to pay, at each

of two universities, and they would acquire electronic computer

installations compatible with ours.

In some cases they put a little more equipment in the installation.

This $700,000 payment to each university was in effect an advance

payment which helped them pay their capital cost, but it was an

advance payment to the universities for which they committed themselves then to give us time on the computers.

The arrangement was such that they gave substantial amounts

of time on the computers in the early years of their use, when we

needed it for peak work on the census especially, and then a reduced

amount of time for a number of years thereafter.

Now, this gave the census the benefit of extensive capacity on these

computers at low cost at the time we needed it for the census and

gave the universities the advantage of support in getting an installation started and an organization within the university trained and

developed as far as their own utilization is concerned; then as their

uses start to grow more ours will decrease on the system.

We did this first, of course, to get needed capacity to meet our peak

requirements in the census; we did it also to help support, help get

a trained group to support our own needs for trained personnel in

the short run and in the long run.

It has turned out to be a most beneficial arrangement from a number of points of view. It has cost us far less to get time this way

than it would have had we rented it in the ordinary sense, and has

worked out most advantageously, I think, both to the Government and

to the universities.

Mr. LESINSKI. Now:, this $700,000 you gave out to each one of the

universities—I repeat this to clarify in my own mind—as an initial

expense to them but they paid for the whole piece of equipment?

Mr. HANSEN. Yes, actually the equipment that each university got

for which we paid $700,000, the total cost of that equipment installed

is around $2 million to $21/2 million, but with an academic discount

it did not cost the universities that much. They got a 50 percent

discount on the equipment itself, so the cost of the equipment which

was around a little over $2 million they bought for a million, then

they had to pay the installation and housing costs over that.

We paid $700,000 to the university which was perhaps half the

cost to the university and considerably less than it would have cost

us to buy this kind of capacity directly at the prices available to

us for a peak period.

Mr. LESINSKI. The Government actually paid that?
INTERIM REPORT ON THE 1960 CENSUS 21

Mr. HANSEN. The university bought the computer, we made a

transfer of funds to the university2 in return for the availability of

time on this computer over a period of about 9 years.

Mr. LESINSKI. But the university will recoup their cost by the

use of the computer, by taking on various types of work for the computer and at the same time you advanced them $700,000 toward time

that you would use at a future date?

Mr. HANSEN. Yes, an advance payment for the time they would

make available to us in order to have the equipment there and ready

for our use when we needed it for our operations.

Actually we estimated we would use the computer quite a lot in

these universities, it has turned out we have been able to make more

effective use than we contemplated originally.

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Chairman, may I make a remark off the record, please?

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. LESINSKI. I have another question, as regards the number of

man-hours saved by using electronic processing—how many less temporary clerks were hired in 1960 than in 1950 because of the use of

FOSDIC and UNIVAC ? Have you estimated what the savings in

salaries were?

Mr. SCAMMON. I think Mr. Kehres, our administrative officer, can

answer that question.

Mr. KEHRES. Mr. Chairman, I think that our estimate with respect

to the reduction in the numbers of people, not just clerks, as compared

to the 1950 census, would be something in excess of 4,000.

Now, many of these were card-punch operators but there were other

types of personnel in which there were reductions.

I could not give you a figure at this time as to what this amount of

money might be. Mr. Hansen might want to make a suggestion along

that line.

(Supplied later by Mr. Kehres : Salary savings of approximately

$6.7 million are attributed to the use of electronic equipment in 1960.)

Mr. HANSEN. I would like to make this comment, that we talk about

the remarkable gains from the electronic equipment which was very

great in the census in terms of speeding up the results, increasing accuracy, lowering costs, lowering the requirements for personnel, but

actually this gain is the result of several important changes in method

of which electronic equipment is one important piece. We extended

the use of sampling in the census in a very major way and this use of

sampling is fully as important or more important in the reduction of

costs and speeding up results as the use of electronic equipment.

They are both vital, neither one could have accomplished it alone.

The combination of electronic equipment together with collecting

much more of the information on a sample and abbreviating the information to be collected on a 100-percent basis as compared with

what we did before, has made possible these rather substantial gains

in reduced requirements, speeding up the results, and so forth.

Mr. LESINSKI. In other words, if you had to do the 1960 census the

same as the 1950—what was the cost, $128 million—it would probably

cost you roughly $150 million or $160 million, would it not?

Mr. HANSEN. We have estimated in total due to all causes, besides

the two I have mentioned, these are the two most important by far, it
22 INTERIM REPORT ON THE 1960 CENSUS

would cost us about, depending on certain assumptions you make, between $8 and $15 million more to have done the census in 1960 by the

same methods we used in 1950.

Mr. LESINSKI. $8 to $10 million more?

Mr. HANSEN. $8 to $15 million more. Fifteen was the original

estimate of how much the difference in cost would be; actually the

cost of the census has been increased over our estimate, I am not sure,

but much of that increase probably would have occurred, too, using

the other method.

Mr. LESINSKI. You say you saved between $8 to $15 million; on top

of that the results were a lot quicker and a lot more complete?

Mr. HANSEN. Yes.

Mr. LESINSKI. And more accurate?

Mr. HANSEN. I might add that this amount pays for the total

capital cost of the electronic equipment we bought. When the census

is over we will have that electronic equipment and expect to use it

for quite a few years after this. We expect to get a lot more return

from this than just the use in the census.

Mr. LESINSKI. Well, then, $128 million, you say, also included the

cost of the computers. If you deduct that cost what did the census

cost you?

Mr. HANSEN. Well, the total estimated here was $4.6 million for the

payment for electronic equipment.

Mr. LESINSKI. You are up to about $124 million then.

On guestion 6, concerning the effectiveness of decentralizing your

operation from Washington, do your performance standards records

show that employee performance on the whole was better at Jeffersonville, Ind., and Parsons, Kans., than here in Washington?

Mr. SCAMMON. I would say myself, and I want to refer this on to

Mr. Kehres, who worked particularly with this problem, I would say

myself that we are anxious insofar as we can for many of these

jobs to put the work out in a maximum productive labor area and we

have found that in Jeffersonville and in Parsons and in our age search

operations in Pittsburg, Kans., we can get first-rate people, people

who can produce what we need and the kind of work we need, at a

rapid clip and produce it well.

But in terms of the actual detail of work performance out there,

Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Kehres could probably give you a more

complete answer than I.

Mr. LESINSKI. Mr. Kehres?

Mr. KEHRES. Mr. Chairman, as you have indicated, we did find

substantial improvement in productivity—in the amount of work

that the individual employee would produce. I think this was due

to a number of factors, not the least of which was the fact that these

folks needed work in the areas where we went; they applied themselves diligently, shall I say especially diligently, to their jobs; they

realized that their term of employment was temporary, and that we

did use production standards and, to the extent practical, that our

reductions-in-force are operated by cutting off first those folks who

are at the lower level. I believe that these people themselves, the

general state of the local economy, and the fact that we did use production standards all contributed to getting increased productivity

in both Jeffersonville and Parsons.
INTERIM REPORT ON THE 1960 CENSUS 23

Mr. LESINSKI. Very commendable. Under question 3 concerning

rates paid enumerators: It seems to me it would be very difficult to

apply the same hourly rate of pay to enumerators in New York City,

as you would pay to them in a depressed area in West Virginia, for

instance.

Was there any thought given to differences in the pay scale?

Mr. SCAMMON. In the 1960 census some thought was given to this

possibility, Mr. Chairman, and I think perhaps all of my colleagues

joined in this discussion and I would ask whichever one of them feels

most qualified to speak to your question to attempt to answer it.

Mr. KEHRES. I will volunteer, having been closely associated with

it.

As Mr. Scammon indicated, this was discussed. I think it might

be questionable as to the seriousness of these discussions.

Nobody knows better than this committee and its parent committee, that the Government generally pays the same wage scale for Government employment regardless of location.

Now, I think we knew then and we know now that there are differences; that the differences in pay in a place like New York City as

compared to my hometown, a small place in Oklahoma, are significant; that you can attract a different type of personnel and in different

quantities in different places.

We did not apply it. It had been traditional in the census, I

think, not to supply different wage scales, although I believe that there

again we learned that this may be very, very necessary from now on

because the wage differences in geographic areas and the cost-of-living

differences may be getting so great that if we don't give this special

treatment, we will have many problems.

One of the problems, of course, is where you draw the line. Wherever you draw the line it is going to be debatable to some extent,

so in response to your question I think that this is an increasingly important item and will have to be given consideration.

Mr. LESINSKI. I have been informed that in the high-wage areas

they do have a hard time getting qualified enumerators because of

the wages, that is comparable to the wages in that area, like New

York and Detroit.

Of course, the blue-collar workers do get local differences in pay

from the Government today.

In question 9, I note that plans call for terminating the census prorn

gram in December of 1962. I assume this does not include special

reports and monographs which will be prepared later?

Mr. SCAMMON. It does not include the extra work of that type. It

includes all of the established schedules of publication. Perhaps. Dr.

Eckler would like to add to that.

Dr. ECKLER. Mr. Chairman, as the director said, the regular

schedule of work will be completed within the period and within the

funds. The conditions under which the 1960 census were budgeted

were that we would do a job of the approximate quality and scope of

the 1950 census.

The ceiling was established in that manner. And this meant that

there are certain kinds of things which it might be desirable to add

but were not considered because of the ceiling that was imposed.
24 INTERIM REPORT ON THE 1960 CENSUS

Now, we expect to carry out a census consistent with those objectives.

We have, as a matter of fact, very considerably increased the number

of areas for which reports are prepared, nearly twice as many census

tracts and half as many more blocks for which statistics are presented.

Now, when you get through this census, as has been true of censuses

in the past, there will be a very great body of information that could

be tabulated to meet additional uses, detailed tabulations of various

kinds, and specialized tabulations to get information about particular

subgroups of our population.

I think the yield per dollar for money devoted to that task would be

very great. We have not prepared any estimate of it, we don't know

whether it will be in line with policy to do that, but there certainly

would be opportunity, especially with this new equipment, and especially with the availability of information on electronic tapes.

There would be possibilities for turning out a very great amount of

additional information which we think would richly repay the country

for the investment.

Whether that will be appropriate to request and just what the size

of it will be, I don't think we are in a position to comment on today.

Mr. OLSEN. Mr. Chairman, can we have some examples of this kind

of information if it is possible. It would be of the more valuable

kind.

Dr. ECKLER. Of the more valuable kind. I will start, and I would

like to call on Dr. Taeuber to continue because he is closer to the detailed kinds of tabulations.

As an example, we have had a good many discussions with the users

of housing statistics regarding the extent of tabulations that we shall

have for residential finance and for components of change. That is

a rather technical phrase, which is intended to cover a measure of

how the housing inventory changes over a decade, what additions

are made in the way of new units or conversion of units into dwelling

purposes the changes because of demolition, and because of mergers.

Sometimes the housing unit is merged with another, so that two units

become one; others are destroyed by fire and so on.

That whole story of changes over a decade is one of a great deal

of interest to the housing people. We shall be able to do a good many

tabulations, including the more basic tabulations on these subjects of

components of change and residential finance.

At the present time it does not look as if we would be able to do

certain more detailed tabulations, including some of the ones which

were discussed in which there is a good deal of interest for which the

value, I think, would be sufficient to justify expenditures. This same

situation, I believe, would exist in a good many areas of the census.

There are detailed tabulations possible and perhaps Dr. Taeuber, from

his working with the monograph committees and the advisory committees on this subject, would be able to give some concrete examples

in the fields of population, other areas of housing.

Mr. TAEUBER. Mr. Chairman, two or three things perhaps to indicate the kind of detail. We do quite frequently run into requests

for more information about metropolitan areas and we could meet

them—the material is there, it is in readily available form, but with

the limitations that we have, the amount of detail we publish for

any one metropolitan area is still very limited.
INTERIM REPORT ON THE 1960 CENSUS 25

Another area in which a good deal of interest has been expressed

is more detail for the minority groups; more detailed tabulations for

Negroes, for Puerto Ricans, for Spanish-Americans. Partly because

of the decreasing size of the group, we have limited the amount of

detail we will have for foreign born and native born of foreign parentage, the characteristics, the locations, the specific occupations of

these people. The material is all there.

Another area in which our advisers feel that we are being very

limited is in the whole picture of the migration of the population

from one part of the country to another. Who are the migrants?

What are the characteristics of the migrants? To what extent do some

of the problems that cities with large amounts of migration have

arise out of the fact that they are getting a relatively less educated,

less trained population moving in which requires programs of a kind

that were not required for the people who were already there.

The other day I wanted to get a picture of the migrants into your

city, Mr. Chairman, from the South, to answer a specific question

that had been put to us and I couldn't find the data, not because the

information wasn't collected in the census but because the tabulations

had to stop—I am talking now of 1950—before that particular detailed

cross tabulation, had been made.

Another area is one of more information about families. The census

traditionally has put a great deal of emphasis on people and very

little emphasis on families. Well the market research people are

coming at us over and over again, they want more information about

families because it is the family that buys things, it is a family that

gets a house, it is the family income that is important, rather than

only the income of individuals.

We are doing some of this, but we are doing very little.

Yesterday I received in the mail a large brochure advertising a,

special study of census materials that was done primarily at the University of Chicago, with some help from the Department of Agriculture, in which they took the 1950 census and grouped it into economic

areas and the brochure says that this will help business people, market

research people, and others for whom 3,000 counties are too many.

They have grouped the United States into 400 economic areas. They

have combined those economic areas into what they call economic

regions, disregarding State lines. All they have done is to bring together the census materials in another form which presumably will be

more useful. We have had a great many requests for that and we

have taken the position that in our tabulation program we should put

more emphasis on producing raw statistics and less emphasis on combinations of this sort which users would find helpful.

Mr. LESINSKI. Still, being associated with the people as close as I am

in my area, the change of population—I can't tell you the exact number because it is impossible for me to do so—but a large number of the

retired people move South and then, as you mentioned, those of the

farms, uneducated, come up north, and it does pose a problem to us

in the large metropolitan areas for that reason because of the fact that

as your rural farm areas become more consolidated into larger

farms, these people all come into the cities. We are therefore being

affected by it.
26 INTERIM REPORT ON THE 1960 CENSUS

My next question has been discussed to some extent, Mr. Scammon,

regarding the policy of the use of letter carriers as enumerators. Has

an estimate been made as to how much the enumeration cost would

increase if the going pay scale of letter carriers and postal workers

would be applied?

Mr. SCAMMON. You mean in the exclusive use of letter carriers

and postal workers?

Mr. LESINSKI. Yes.

Mr. SCAMMON. I would like to refer that specific question to Mr.

Kehres, but I think, in general, I would like to say that my colleagues

and I are impressed by the potential that exists here for the employment of letter carriers in census enumeration work.

We have worked in very close connection with the Post Office Department in many of the operations concerned with the 1960 census,

in the advance census report distribution and so on. We would like

to increase that work.

One great advantage of the continuing system of special census

operations which can be taken, you know, between the two major ones,

is that this gives us an opportunity to test out a number of these

kinds of things. 

For example, the city of Philadelphia will shortly be asking us to

undertake a special census of several of the subdivisions of that city

and this question of the use of letter carriers as a part or, indeed, perhaps as a major segment of the total census operation we can test out

there.

When we make those tests we will know more about the costing

factor, we will know more about the time factor, because as you know,

Mr. Chairman, one problem is that in order to be effective the census

must be taken over a fairly short period of time. Callbacks must be

made, data must be entered, because if it stretches out too long, you

are going to get people who are unable to remember where they were

on April 1. If we can use the extra pool of substitute labor available, by working out with the Post Office Department and postal

unions an appropriate device for this kind of employment, I think it

might be very helpful.

As to your specific question on costing I can't tell you whether such

a study has been made, I will have to refer that to Mr. Kehres.

Mr. KEHRES. An estimate has not been made, Mr. Chairman, and I

don't know whether it would be proper to conclude, without further

negotiations and procedure developments, that there would be automatically an increase in cost. I think we know that letter carriers'

pay scales would normally be higher than those of census enumerators.

However, if there were procedural benefits and efficiencies, this certainly would affect the cost substantially, whether or not this would

be overtime of whatnot. I think that you can gather from what I

have said that we have not gotten anywhere close to a firm estimate

on this point yet.

Mr. LESINSKI. In other words, you have to compare dollar costs

per hour and also the volume that is achieved in that hour, to know

whether it will cost you more in the end or not. It has to be compiled.

Mr. SCAMMON. I might add, Mr. Chairman, this point, if I might

digress for a moment, this raises one of the problems which has impressed itself upon me. Having come to the Census as a specialist

in election statistics and therefore having been faced with the prob-
INTERIM REPORT ON THE 1960 CENSUS 27

lem of organizing, preparing data every 2 years, mine has been a

continuous function, but the census is only taken every 10 years;

therefore, the wealth of experience and knowledge that exists right

here today among my colleagues here at this table in 1961, may be

diminished by 1965 of 1966 or 1967 when we are planning for the

1970 census.

With the question of the letter carriers I think the same is true. I

think it is quite honest for us to say we really haven't gone into this

in great detail because we simply aren't yet planning for 1970 in the

absence of appropriations and in the absence of time and resources

to do that. I have asked for the views of my colleagues and it may

be that we will want to come to the Congress for a small appropriation,

even within the next couple of years, to begin this kind of planning

work for the1970 census.

Mr. LESINSKI. I seem to get a quicker feel of the economic condition in my area because, of course, coming from an automotive center,

but generally statisticians here in Washington, or economists, do not

get the information until it is 6 months late or a year late before they

compile their figures. A thought occurred to me there should be

some way of working out an economic standard for the Nation as a

whole, through the Census or somehow, so that the administration in

Washington, the powers that be, when handling their appropriations,

for the session coming, they could see the trend sooner, be able to act

to stop it instead of doing something after it is already here. You

have insurance, so have I; but I find invariably Congress acts too

late to be able to do any real good or the administration acts too late

to do any real good because the damage is already done. They have

to rebuild in order to keep going.

Mr. SCAMMON. I would refer here, Mr. Chairman, to the wide

series of contemporary and current programs carried on by the Bureau

of the Census on a quarterly and a monthly and almost on a weekly

basis in terms both of mail questionnaire data and current population

survey interviews for economic indicators.

We prepare, for example, each month for the Council of Economic

Advisors an indicator list for current economic activity which I think

quite frankly is one of the best in the United States, and this catalog,

if you will, of current economic indicators in many instances is only a

matter of perhaps 6 or 7 days old, but it is quite correct that in dealing

with the 1960 census or the previous censuses of the economy, this

material is, of course, older. But on our current program the data is

literally measured in days rather than years.

Mr. IJESINSKI. I am glad to hear that.

I have one question in mind that bothers me a little bit, I don't

know whether to express it or not, but I think it should be brought

out. on the table—the fact that information can be gathered so rapidly.

We talked earlier about the migrating of people from one area to another. The ability to keep track of where a person is, and so forth,

strikes a little note of danger in my mind—the point is that could this

be used by some official at a future date as a means of controlling the

individuals of America?

Mr. SCAMMON. That is an interesting question, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. LESINSKI. I am not asking you to answer it, but if you would

like to comment on it I would be glad to have your views.
28 INTERIM REPORT ON THE 1960 CENSUS

Mr. &AMMON. I would like to comment on it. I think the uneasiness, if I may use that word, which you feel on that is comparable to

the uneasiness that many people feel about public-opinion polls.

There is a feeling that the machines are getting the better of us; that

they are going to become devices by which people are going to be able

to control the whole body politic. This is an interesting question

both in the technique and philosophically. My own guess would be

that the capacity of an individual or a group to control other people

is not really related to the technique, it is related to the people who

are being controlled and the individual who is controlling them.

The capacity of a funeral oration about Julius Ceasar to rouse up

the people of Rome is not really a measure of a machine which is used

for this purpose, it is the measure of relationship between the individual and the people, and I would think that the machine would not

enhance that possibility. As a matter of fact, in terms of the publicopinion poll, to speak only of one aspect of this question, I would

think it might have the opposite effect.

I would think that by and large the enlargement of knowledge, and

this really is what we are using the machines for, so that we have

knowledge, we have it quicker, and we have it better, and we have it

more accurately, and we have it spread out over the total population,

the enlargement of knowledge is likely to decrease the capacity of an

individual to so manipulate and so control. But this leads us into

very deep philosophical waters, I admit, and perhaps far beyond

either my capacity or those of the machines at Suitland.

I would be glad, if you will agree, Mr. Chairman, if my colleagues

have any views they care to put in on this.

Mr. LESINSKI. That is the point I had in mind, the vast knowledge

that these computers can put out, if, say, a Hitler were to be running

this country today. If this were thoroughly developed now as was

brought out by Dr. Taeuber and others, if a Hitler were to take the

place of President Kennedy, he could have at his disposal the complete

control of every individual in America.

Mr. ScAmmoN. I don't think he would have complete control. He

might have more knowledge than he would have had, say, a hundred

years ago, but the Nazi system developed in a highly knowledgeable

society in Germany whereas the Communist system developed in one

which was probably just the opposite. When the Bolsheviks came into

power, I am sure what they had in detailed knowledge about the people was almost zero. What Hitler had in knowledge about the German people was probably very high. But I would think it really

wasn't the matter of knowledge itself, the availability of it, which

made these controls in both Hitler Germany and under the Communist system of the Soviet Union possible.

It was rather the relationship of people to their leadership, the

leaders to the people, and the determination and will for power on

the part of these leaders rather than just the knowledge itself.

I think we can find this kind of control existing in very backward

societies and in very advanced ones and I wouldn't think myself,

though I certainly might be very wrong on this and subject to many

corrections, that the acquiring of the information would increase or

decrease the capacity for control by the individual.

Mr. LEsmsKr. Backward nations, they have been controlled by

-nerstition, whereas forward nations have control by knowledge.
INTERIM REPORT ON THE 1960 CENSUS 29

Any further comments on the point at this time?

Dr. Eckler ?

Dr. ECKLER. I think I would be generally in agreement with what

the Director has said. I think the question that you may be hinting

at is, Would a dictator, by his ability to have access to the census records, be able to take steps which were damaging to the interests of

minority groups, we will say, or particular groups? I suppose that

you can't absolutely rule out that kind of danger, since the confidentiality provisions we have could be swept aside. I think it is a very

remote chance and, of course, as more and more of the census is put on

a sample basis there are fewer and fewer records that pertain to 100

percent of the population; all that we have pertaining to every person

now from the 1960 census is age, sex, color, marital status, family relationship. Some of the information pertaining to income and occupation and place of birth, and so on, which might be a basis for some

of these, what I would think rather remote dangers, would apply to

only one person in four.

It seems to me the likelihood of this kind of development is not very

great. I certainly would agree with what the Director was saying,

the more knowledge we have and disseminate regarding our social

and economic institutions and the developments that have been taking

place, the better we should be protected from irrational and unusual

kinds of policies.

Mr. LESINSKI. Dr. Taeuber said a little while ago in his remarks

that the information is there but it has not been developed. What

I had in mind is movement of population within the country and

whether, like they do in Communist Russia, not allow people to move

from one part of the country to another or across the border, and so

forth, something of that nature. I had that in mind prior to your

mentioning it. I was wondering whether it might be something that

might be imposed upon the people at a future date.

Questions were asked, Mr. Derwinski, prior to this point. Do you

have any questions?

Mr. DERWINSKI. No questions.

Mr. LESINSKI. Any questions?

Mr. HAGAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inject something in the

way of knowledge here if you haven't heard it. America now has

a man who has been up in space. They just picked him up by helicopter and have landed him on the carrier. I thought you might be

interested in knowing that.

Mr. LESINSKI. That is the information I was about to announce.

America has been successful today in putting our first man in space

and returning him safely. I understand the capsule was launched

from Cape Canaveral at 10:43 a.m. and recovered at 10:58 a.m., just

15 minutes later. We congratulate NASA and Commander Shepard

on this tremendous achievement. I will put this on record, that I

doubt that the man the Russians claim was put up into space did go

up into space.

Mr. HAGAN. I want to ask one question. How long has it been

that a man's income has been required on the census reports?

Mr. &AMMON. I would have to refer that question to Dr. Eckler.

Dr. EC1TLER. The first question on income was asked in the 1940

census. Information on wage and salary income and on whether the
30 INTERIM REPORT ON THE 1960 CENSUS

person received $50 or more of income other than wages and salaries,

those were the questions in 1940.

In 1950 we had a general-income question of the type that we had

in 1960 covering all types of income.

Mr. HAGAN. Just by way of information, I just wondered why that

is necessary on a census statement to give a man's income?

Dr. ECKLER. Mr. Chairman, there has been a tremendous amount

of use made of the income information; the most important single

use, I suppose, is that it provides a basis for establishing the economic

levels of different areas for various kinds of study and analysis, business use, and so forth. It is important to have some idea of the

relative buying power of different areas of the country. That is one

very important kind of use.

Another is the relationships among income and education and

occupation, and family characteristics. There has been a great deal

of work done in evaluating the returns to the various classes of the

population, and this is a subject in which interest seems to be increasing continuously.

Now, it was assumed in 1940 that we might have a great deal of

objection to it and there was a certain amount of publicity on that.

We gave an opportunity to citizens to return that information by

means of a confidential questionnaire. As I recall, it was used by

only 200,000 or 300,000 people in 1940, and in 1950 the same device

was, I believe, used even less. So that while there are a few expressions of opposition to this, the cooperation is really at a very high

level and there are objections, also, to other census questions.

Mr. HAGAN. I guess people figured that they send it to the Government anyway on the income tax returns so there is no difference?

Dr. ECKLER. I think there is a good deal of thought about that, the

fact that it might be checked against their income tax returns and we

endeavor to give the most positive assurance that we can that the

information given is treated as confidential, cannot be used for purposes of regulation, taxation, or investigation.

Mr. LESINSKI. In my mind I would say that a person would be

prone not to give the accurate amount of his income.

Dr. ECKLER. The record that we have from the evaluation studies

from matching with other information seems to indicate that the

responses are quite good.

Now, there is a tendency to forget incidental incomes, and the

people who work part time or who have incidental small jobs tend to

leave out some of that. There undoubtedly are cases where people

wish to withhold it from the enumerator but the checks that we have

made indicate that it is perhaps within a range of 10 to 15 percent on

the average.

There might be that much of an understatement of income-10 to

15 percent. But for purposes of establishing groupings, economic

groupings, for most of the uses made this is not a serious difficulty.

Mr. LESINSKI. That 10 to 15 percent seems about right to me. In

other words a person who is on a straight annual salary or straight

monthly salary, for him it does not make much difference, actually,

because the records are in the company anyhow, but a person who

works a number of jobs or, as you say, part time, something like that,

I can see the possibility there.
INTERIM REPORT ON THE 1960 CENSUS 31

Any further questions?

Mr. 'CHORD. Mr. Chairman, we had approximately 160,000 enumerators and 10,000 crew workers as I understand. What was the total

payment to the enumerators and the crewmen?

Mr. SCAMMON. Mr. Kehres, would you care to comment on that

question?

Mr. KEHRES. Let me see if I might.

The total payment, let me see, if I can do this in range. The total

payment to enumerators and crew leaders was from $44 to $46 million,

as I recall. Does anybody dispute that at the table here?

Mr. TAEUBER. For the population and housing census a breakdown

is given under question 2 (c) . The figure is $63,700,000 for the entire

field operation.

Mr. 'CHORD. That is about half of your total cost.

Mr. KEHRES. Yes, sir; the fieldwork and the enumeration payments

comprised the largest expenditure that we had.

Mr. Immix About what was the average payment to the enumerator?

Mr. KEHRES. This is always a dangerous thing to suggest what the

average payment is. I would say that the average payment to an

enumerator was probably in the neighborhood of $150, $175. How

does this sound to you, offhand, as an average?

Mr. TAE-CrBER. It is hard to get an average because we had 160,000

enumerators for the first stage, but we had only about 50,000 or

60,000 enumerators for the second stage.

On the first stage, $150 may not be a bad average, but for the people

who worked right on through it would run more nearly double that.

Mr. KEHRES. I was responding basically to the 160,000 figure which

was used for the initial 100-percent data collection. These payments,

for the most part, were over a hundred dollars and I think they would

range generally under $150, depending on the size of the area and the

population.

Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Chairman, one question.

Mr. LESINSKI. Mr. Derwinski ?

Mr. DERWINSICI. The gentlemen seemed reasonably pleased with

the methods used in acquiring the personnel.

Is this a reasonably good development all over the country or did

you have areas of the country where the referral of personnel or the

acquisition of personnel was not as effective as others?

Mr. SCAMMON. I would think, Mr. Derwinski, that the referral system worked pretty well. I quite honestly would not, based only on

having been Director of the Census for 26 hours, want to make any

suggestions of change in it.

There were obviously some places where it worked better than

others.

I think our real problem however, was not so much the referral

system as such, as it was the character of certain areas. In some of

the bigger cities, as has been pointed out, Mr. Chairman, there was a

difficulty in recruiting enumerators, partly, I suppose, as a result of

the wage rate that was available either on a piece or time basis, and

partly simply because in some areas this kind of work is interesting

and people undertake it, and in the big cities it is just harder to get

people.
32 INTERIM REPORT ON THE 1960 CENSUS

You may remember, this may very well have been the case in

Chicago, for in many of the bigger cities it was necessary to advertise

and make appeals on radio and television for enumerators to come

forward.

I don't think this was a problem of the referral system, it was a

general problem of a relatively prosperous economy.

Mr. DERWINSKI. Your complaints, if I recall, from the personnel

mainly came from those who had to work in very congested city areas,

especially slum areas, where there was even resistance at times from

the inhabitants as to making themselves available to the enumerator ?

Mr. SCAMMON. Yes. As you know, in many urban areas, particularly way down the economic ladder, you have difficulty identifying

people, you have difficulty finding people, they are always §uspicious,

they are suspicious of anyone trying to register them to vote, they are

suspicious of anyone coming around to count him.

There is a general feeling of I don't know where he is, he is out, I

have not seen him for the last day or two.

One of my colleagues was telling me about a hotel in South Chicago

where on the evidence available from the record there were 200 people

living in the hotel on the evening we were counting, actually the total

was 1,200, what the other thousand were doing there I don't know.

When we got them all tabbed up this was, of course, a tremendous

increase.

You will find many people on the edge of society and the counting

of them is an extremely difficult task and this is one of the things we

want to try out in more detail in some of these special census operations we are going to have an opportunity to work with in such cities

as Philadelphia and others that may come up.

Mr. DERWINSKI. South Chicago is in my congressional district.

Mr. SCAMMON. Yours includes the ninth ward, I think.

Mr. DERWINSKI. Yes, but the 10th ward is in my congressional district.

Mr. SCAMMON. Yes, I think this particular area was a little north

of you, I don't know whether yours goes that far up.

Mr. LESINSKI. I think it is significant that our committee was

meeting during America's first space flight. I believe we are off to a

good start, also.

Mr. Scammon, we are glad to have you and your assistants with

us today. I appreciate the candidness of your answers and your complete understanding of these problems and commend you for your

action.

Mr. SCAMMON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would hope that

members of the committee would have an opportunity in these next

few months to come out and visit us at Suitland and see particularly

the electronic computers that are available there because I am sure

they will find them as interesting and fascinating as I did.

Thank you, sir.

Mr. LESINSKI. Thank you.

The committee is now adjourned.

(Whereupon, at 11 :25 a.m., Friday, May 5, 1961, the subcommittee

was adjourned, subject to call of the Chair.)