Those costs are broken down into fiscal years, and each fiscal year we go before the Appropriations Committee to get an appropriation for that particular fiscal year.

As you may know, we have to spend a good deal of money in updating maps and printing questionnaires and developing all kinds of plans, long before we go into the field to take a census and, therefore, we have to have funds in advance of census day. Appropriations Committee recognizes the nature of this operation and we have been working with them for many years.

Mr. YOUNG. The smaller areas would be designated in preparation for the year you actually took the census?

Dr. BROWN. Yes, sir.

Mr. YOUNG. And then that would be your big expense?

Dr. BROWN. Then after the census is over, we have a long period of time during which we are editing, coding, and tabulating and printing the results. We are right now, you know, incurring very large sums with respect to the 1970 census, even though it is 1971.

Mr. YOUNG. I understand now. I think that is all the questions I have, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WILSON. How much leadtime, Dr. Brown, would be needed for a mid-decade census?

Dr. BROWN. Approximately 30 months, Mr. Chairman. This is a matter of having sufficient time to organize all the materials, particularly the maps, and to put in the quality controls that are necessary for a statistical effort of the magnitude of a census.

Mr. WILSON. Do you think we should drop this completely at the present time, or is it your feeling that we should proceed, in the event that the administration might change its mind again?

Dr. BROWN. I would think, Mr. Chairman, you would have to make that decision. We will be working, as you can see, on the very intensive exploration of the use of administrative records. You know, the timing of the census is about a 30-month period. The timing of a bill, if a bill is in order

Mr. WILSON. Well, of course, this isn't a glamorous issue. It is not something that is going to arouse the Congress. The issue of a mid-decade census cannot be compared to such emotional issues as education, the war, or inflation that can so easily be identified as affecting the Members' districts. I would, therefore, think that the least bit of opposition or lack of support by the administration would make it very difficult to pass a mid-decade census bill.

I am just wondering how strong the administration's opposition is. Could you find out for us if the administration would actually instruct all of their party members to vote against the bill if we got one out of the committee, or just what their attitude would be?

Dr. BROWN. Of course, I can't commit the administration, but as has already been suggested by the questions that Mr. Rousselot asked, that I will do what I can, Mr. Chairman. But certainly, as you realize, I cannot commit anyone's answer.

Mr. WILSON. We have just received the findings and recommendations of the Decennial Census Review Committee, the so-called Blue Ribbon Committee, that Mr. Stans appointed. The commission strongly endorses a mid-decade census. They're quite firm in their feelings about the need for a mid-decade census.

I would think that the commission's recommendation would be well received and adhered to. So it seems that everyone is for a mid-decade census, even the committee that Mr. Shultz sits on.

As you know, Dr. Brown, we would have had a mid-decade census now, except for some peculiar reasons in the past and now we are at the point where we need it more than ever. So we will attempt to get a little better reading from some of the administration people in the House as to what their opinion is on a mid-decade census. I would also like to obtain the reactions of the organizations and the associations who appeared before us and see what can be done, if anything, in sufficient time so that you have adequate leadtime to proceed with some type of a mid-decade census.

Do you have anything else, Mr. Young?

Mr. YOUNG. No, sir.

Mr. WILSON. Well, do you have anything further you would like to say, Dr. Brown?

Dr. BROWN. I think, Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that the exploration of the alternatives is what we will be doing. I think it is a very sensible kind of thing. As you know, you asked us to look into some alternatives. The alternative of the administrative records is one that has not been researched and we will be going full scale on that. The administration's position is to go into this matter intensively and to do it within 12 months.

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Dr. Brown. This meeting is adjourned. (Whereupon, the meeting was adjourned at 10:30 a.m.)

(The statement and letter which follow were furnished for inclusion in the record.)

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT W. KASTEN MEIER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN

Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee on Census and Statistics, it is a pleasure for me to present these remarks in support of enabling legislation for a mid-decade census beginning in 1975. I believe it is apparent to most observers that a census conducted every five years would be more useful than one conducted every 10 years. The issue here is not one of utility of the more frequent census, but rather the degree of that utility. In other words, do the benefits derived from such things as more accurate planning and more equitable distribution of federal funds to the states offset the additional costs that would be involved in conducting a census twice as often as is currently done?

In my estimation, the costs of conducting the five-year census would be far outweighed by the benefits to the people of this country. We are a mobile people— restless in our search for a better economic position, better surroundings, better opportunity and a better life. This one fact alone changes the population situation at a rate that cannot adequately be captured by a decennial census. The migrations of people and their changing economic and social conditions have defied accurate projections to a degree that make planning near the end of a decade dithcult, if not impossible.

While I strongly favor a more frequent population count to correct such deiciencies, I would qualify my support by suggesting that the mid-decade census be less probing in its inquiry than the 10-year census. By this I mean that I favor a reasonable limitation on the number and types of questions that are posed in the mid-decade count. I suggest this qualification in the interest of protecting as much as possible the privacy of our citizens, and because I beeve the primary purpose of the mid-decade census should be to determine the umber and geographic location of people, and to determine only limited and essential facts about social and economic status. I feel a limited-scope census is necessary to prevent what otherwise could become unwarranted public resistance to it and unwarranted costs.

Further, I would resist efforts that would incorporate Congressional reapportionment with a mid-decade census. While there may be sound philosophical arguments to support such efforts, I believe all of us currently struggling with the problems of reapportionment would concede strong practical arguments to the contrary.

The following statement was transmitted to me by Mr. Joe B. Nusbaum, Secretary of the Department of Administration for the State of Wisconsin. I endorse the ideas and arguments presented in this statement, and wish to include it with my remarks for the hearing record.

Thank you.

STATEMENT FROM THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE

"The State of Wisconsin has achieved national recognition in its development and implementation of a program planning and budgeting system. It has enhanced the development of public policy by systematically presenting relevant information to decision makers. Through integration of the budgeting and planning processes, state policies are formulated and programs developed within a framework of state goals.

"A standardized and comprehensive base of reliable data is essential to this process. Decennial census data on population and housing provide a vital source of information about people and the way they live. In aggregate, this compilation of data is of inestimable value to planners and fundamental as a base for decision making at all levels of government.

"The dynamics of our present society, however, diminish the reliability of this data within a very few years. This problem became evident during the 1960's. By 1965, planners and decision makers used this data with a low level of confidence. Population projections alone made for the State of Wisconsin in 1968 for the year 1970 were 164,000 short of the 1970 census count.

"But it is more than simply confidence in this data that is critical. It involves the larger question of federal-state relations.

"The basis for major federal aid programs is population. The state's allocation of federal dollars require accurate population data if it is to receive its statutorily mandated funds. Federal aid for highway development, for hospital construction and for law enforcement assistance are only a few examples of federal aid which contain population criteria in their base.

"Furthermore, if we are to move into the area of federal-state sharing in the form of block grants or a variation thereof, accurate population statistics will be essential.

"Data from the federal census provides the best single source of comprehensive information about people and the way they live. This data indicates how population is distributed, what migration has taken place, whether housing is adequate and how the population is earning a living. Information of this sort is critical if the states are to assume greater responsibility by developing programs that effect local communities. The adequacy of educational systems, health and welfare needs, environmental requirements and government reorganization are dependent upon population characteristics.

"The need for population data becomes even more critical for the states themselves. Many states allocate state funds to local units on the basis of population. The formulae developed rely on accurate population figures. This factor will become even more important if states, as Wisconsin, develop more sophisticated revenue sharing programs.

"In the main, the federal census is the only source of such information available. In the absence of a mid-decade census, the states will be required to develop a highly sophisticated and extremely costly alternative. Since states do not now have this expertise available to them, the degree of accuracy, disparity of projections and the type of information that states may develop will be marked by an absence of uniformity. Consequently, the aggregate of state efforts will not produce as valid a profile as a federally administered program, a shortcoming particularly for federal planners and decision makers.

"It is for these reasons that Wisconsin endorses the concept for a mid-decade census beginning in 1975. The desirability of a quinquennial census is underscored by those conducted presently for businesses, manufacturers and governments. “On behalf of the State of Wisconsin, the countless users of this data and the beneficiaries of programs whose principal formulation is based on population statistics, I urge that favorable consideration be given to legislation which will establish a mid-decade census."

(The following letter of invitation with attachment, was ordered placed in the record at this point.)

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CENSUS AND STATISTICS,

OF THE COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE,

Washington, D.C., May 10, 1971.

DEAR MR. : The Subcommittee on Census and Statistics has scheduled its first hearings on mid-decade census legislation for this Congress on May 18, 1971. I understand that your organization is interested in presenting a statement on this matter and, accordingly, I am extending an invitation for you or an appropriate representative to do so in person.

There is attached a statement containing a brief history on mid-decade census legislation efforts, an outline of some proposals under consideration, and various suggestions for the witnesses. We felt that such a general guideline would be instrumental in better focusing the issues and proposals that the Subcommittee will require in its deliberations.

The hearings will be held in Room 210, Cannon House Office Building beginning at 9:30 A.M. Additional hearings on this legislation are being scheduled before the end of this fiscal year.

In order to provide all the scheduled witnesses the opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee, we shall have to insist that each oral presentation be limited within a period of five minutes.

May I thank you in advance for your cooperation in making available your views on this most important subject.

Very truly yours,

Attachments.

CHARLES H. WILSON, Chairman.

MID-DECADE CENSUS PROPOSALS

I. HISTORY

Proposals for a mid-decade census date back to the conclusion of the Decennial Census taken in 1870. Extensive hearings on the subject have been held within the past ten years. Particular attention is directed to the hearings held in various cities in 1961-1962 by the House Subcommittee on Census and Government Statistics. The testimony reflected a broad cross-section of views from industry, academic institutions, commercial interests, as well as local, State, and Federal Government authorities. These hearings were followed by other House hearings on this subject in 1965 and 1967, and with those conducted in 1968 by the Senate Committee on Post Office and Civil Service.

Twelve mid-decade census bills were introduced in the 91st Congress and two such bills have already been introduced in this Congress. Generally these bills propose such a census to be taken in 1975 and every ten years thereafter.

II. PROPOSALS UNDER CONSIDERATION

There are presented below the major alternative levels of a mid-decade census for which the Subcommittee requested the Bureau of the Census to design and develop basic approaches with broad cost estimates. For your reference there is attached an informational copy of the Official Census Form used in the 1970 Census program. Information on pages 2 and 3 was obtained on a 100 percent basis.

Level 1.-Population counts with minimal population characteristics.

Level 2.-Generally equivalent to population and housing information obtained on a complete enumeration basis in the 1970 Census of Population and Housing.

Level 3.-Basically a replication of the 1970 Census of Population and Housing in scope, content, and sampling ratio. It would provide a complete count of the population for all areas, complete counts for limited population and housing characteristics, and a 20 percent sample on a range of population and housing subjects equivalent to that obtained in the 1970 Census.

Level 4.-A sample survey of the population that would provide much of the information available from the 1970 Census for States, metropolitan areas, larger

63-434-72-10

counties, and larger cities. The survey would be designed within a sampling range of 20 to 25 percent. Obviously, it would not produce tabulations for small areas.

III. SUGGESTIONS FOR WITNESSES PRESENTING ORAL TESTIMONY AT HEARINGS ON MID-DECADE CENSUS

1. Fifty copies of your statement should be made available to the Subcommittee Staff Director (Room 207-C Cannon House Office Building) at least 24 hours before the hearings are opened. The statement should contain your name and position (or affiliation) and clearly explain your interest in a mid-decade census.

2. Your oral testimony can be limited to highlighting or summarizing your written statement. You will be give five minutes within which to make your oral presentation. Your entire written statement will appear in the printed record.

3. Your statement should be responsive to the proposals contained in section II, but not necessarily limited to the proposals.

4. The following items are illustrative of the type of information the Subcommittee Members will require in their review and to which they may direct questions.

A. Need for a mid-decade census. It would be most helpful if you could be specific in reflecting the need for data resulting from a mid-decade inquiry. An itemized list of such needs included in the written statement or submitted as a supplement would be most welcome.

B. Comments or definitive statements on the current mandatory requirement for response to a census inquiry versus the adequacy of a voluntary response provision.

C. Comments or definitive statements on the level of penalty, if any, that should be applied to a respondent who willfully refuses to provide information for a census inquiry.

D. Geographic level and subject matter detail of tabulations for which data are desired.

E. Scope and content of the census questionnaire.

Attachment.-Informational Copy of Official Census Form-1970 Census of Population and Housing.