For those of us working in the central cities of this country, current information is essential on the dynamic changes taking place with regard to population and housing. The availability of census data on a ten-year basis is too infrequent. I respectfully urge that this matter be reconsidered. Sincerely, M. JUSTIN HERMAN, Executive Director. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, Hon. RICHARD M. NIXON, DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: The recent testimony by Dr. George H. Brown, Director of the Bureau of the Census, before the Subcommittee on Census and Statistics, took me by surprise, to put it mildly. Dr. Brown testified that the Administration does not recommend a mid-decade census. As head of the Research Section of the Seattle Department of Community Development, I have been working very closely with U.S. Census data since 1951 and understand the needs of such data to urban planners. I have always felt that ten years is too long a period between censuses and that an abbreviated census should be taken in 1975 and every 10 years thereafter. Urban planners desperately need more accurate demographic data such as age, income, race and housing characteristics, and this is hardly possible on a ten-year basis. I don't believe we should take a "complete" census in 1975; however, an abbreviated one would give us a real boost toward adjusting our forecasts and preparing better annual estimates of population between 1975 and 1980. On the average, people move from one home to another once every five years. This means there are many changes in demographic characteristics from one area to another from one year to the next. Decennial censuses is simply too infrequent to cope with these changes. I realize that census taking is a very costly venture; however, a very abbreviated census, say the 100 percent questions, should be substantially less expensive. I would favor such a census in 1975 as against none at all. Even a simple head count would help us. As a heavy user of U.S. Census data, I urge that the Administration reconsider their stand on a mid-decade census and authorize a 1975 census. Sincerely, ALBERT H. CROSETTI, LOS ANGELES, CALIF., July 26, 1971. President RICHARD M. NIXON, The White House, Washington, D.C. DEAR PRESIDENT NIXON: It has come to my attention that the Director of the Bureau of the Census, George H. Brown, has recommended against a mid-decade census. I respectfully request that you ask Mr. Brown to reconsider his recommendation and urge him to support this census. My Division has the responsibility of conducting population and economic studies. As such we have relied heavily on U.S. Census data. One project in particular is the preparation of population and housing estimates semi-annually for the entire City of Los Angeles and for the census tracts therein. These estimates are vital to determining the service needs of the people and to the private sector for market analysis, financial planning and other purposes. Census data are used as a base for these estimates and for projections into the future. Although it is true there are data available to assist local agencies in preparing social-economic estimates between decades, these data are often quite limited and weak because of the nonstandard manner in which data are collected and processed between agencies. The lack of funds at the local level to permit many different agencies to change their methods of processing data into a standardized form compounds the problem. As a result urban researchers feel that during the last few years of the decade little socio-economic data is available that can be considered valid. An example of this dilemma is the experience of the Los Angeles Department of City Planning semi-annual Population Estimate and Housing Inventory. The methodology for this estimate is recognized as a sound approach using local building permits, school enrollment and electric meter data. Between the period of 1957, when the estimating procedure was established, and 1960 the percentage error from the Census was one-tenth of 1 percent for the City as a whole. Despite the fact that improved data was made available during the decade of the 60's, the percent error from the U.S. Census was 4.5 percent. Errors at the census tract level are much greater, some more than 40 pecent in error. This illustration points out the need for more frequent check points that would be provided by the proposed mid-decade census. I recognize that the mid-deca de census is costly and that time is running out to prepare for it. however, from policy statements you have made I know you are concerned with maintaining a balanced growth and monitoring the environment continuously. In my opinion the implementation of your policies are severely impaired without increased resources in areas such as the U.S. Census which provides the benchmarks for monitoring the socio-economic status of cities, rural areas and the nation. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Enclosure. GLENN O. JOHNSON, Chief, Planning Research Division. Note: After checking only about 4 to 1% of tracts (and all in central area), these are major differences (over 35 percent difference)-July 1971. Hon. RICHARD M. NIXON, President of the United States, Washington, D.C. RALEIGH, N.C., July 28, 1971. DEAR SIR: In response to pending legislation authorizing a mid-decade census for 1975 and every ten years thereafter, I wish to express my disappointment at the administration's position of nonrecommendation as stated by Dr. George H. Brown, Director of the Bureau of the Census before the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Census and Statistics, June 10, 1971. I find this position inconsistent with benefits derived from my experience with use of data derived from the Special Census of Wake County, North Carolina, January 24, 1966 as authorized under the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Our informational needs for general land use planning and participation in Federal Grants in Aid programs in the Raleigh urban area were substantially aided by the 1966 enumeration. I would appreciate your careful attention toward reconsideration of this important legislation, and subsequent endorsement of a five-year census. Sincerely yours, Mr. GEORGE P. SHULTZ, Director, Office of Management and Budget, A. C. HALL, Jr., Director of Planning. PORTLAND, MAINE, July 12, 1971. DEAR MR. SHULTZ: The City's need for current census data has increased tremendously from 1960 to 1970, especially in areas of migration, race, age, education levels, and housing. This letter is written to express the support of the City of Portland, Maine for a census every five years instead of the present policy of every ten years. The City feels that a five-year census will enable all levels of government to better serve the people through planning and programming with more up-to-date statistical data. Respectfully yours, JOHN E. MENARIO, City Manager. ATLANTA, GA., July 22, 1971. Hon. CHARLES H. WILSON, Cannon House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. WILSON: Your letter of July 17, 1971 concerning the establishment of a mid-decade census series has been received. The additional data that would be gained from a mid-decade census would certainly be useful, and we will bring your letter to the attention of Mayor Massell as soon as possible. Sincerely, DAN E. SWEAT, Jr., Chief Administrative Officer. CHATTANOOGA, TENN., August 3, 1971. Hon. RICHARD M. NIXON, President of the United States, The White House, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: Representative Charles H. Wilson has written to me stating that administrative support for a census of population and housing in 1975 has been withdrawn. I hope that you will reconsider this position. The emphasis in local government is shifting from problems related to the physical improvements of the city to problems of people. For these problems, accurate and up-to-date information about people is needed, and the census is the best source of such information. Since a census refers to conditions on the census date, it is frequently necessary to use estimates for the years between censuses. These estimates would be much more reliable if they were tied to a quinquennial census rather than to a decennial census. An example of this concerns revenues shared by the State of Tennessee with the cities of the state, based on the cities' population. Population estimates were prepared for the city in 1966, based on census data that was six years old. These estimates did not indicate the full extent of the population loss between 1960 and 1970, so that the amount of State aid to be received in 1971 and subsequent years was over-estimated. This only exacerbates the already difficult problem of budget preparation. A census in 1965 would have alerted us more fully to the population loss and the associated loss of revenue. A census in 1975 will help prevent a similar miscalculation in the future, for Chattanooga and other cities with similar problems. Sincerely yours, ROBERT KIRK WALKER, Mayor. The PRESIDENT, The White House, Washington, D.C. MY DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: I am writing to add my support to those who recognize the serious need for a mid-decade census. Simply stated, those of us in local government who must make day-to-day decisions on important local issues strive to do so on the best advice and information obtainable. Much of that information, vital to reaching the best possible conclusions, is obtained by the census. However, after five years, the data which was so useful to begin with, is useful only as a record of history. For the above reasons and more, I am requesting you to lend your support to efforts by the Subcommittee on Census and Statistics to conduct a mid-decade census. Yours truly, HENRY LOEB, Mayor. The PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, WEST MEMPHIS, ARK., August 19, 1971. DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: The City of West Memphis, Arkansas, would like to go on record enforcing the United States House of Representatives Subcommittee on Census and Statistics, for the need of a mid-decade census. We feel this survey will furnish cities with the needed information for planning and for Federal funds and hope that extensive study will be given this program in time to enact legislation authorizing a mid-decade census to be taken in 1975 and every ten years thereafter. Very truly yours, TILDEN RODGERS, Mayor. PLANNING DEPARTMENT, Las Vegas, Nev., August 2, 1971. Hon. CHARLES H. WILSON, Cannon House Office Building, DEAR REPRESENTATIVE WILSON: This is in reply to your recent correspondence directed to both Mayor Gragson of Las Vegas and myself relative to the proposed mid-decade census. This is to advise you that both Mayor Gragson and I have submited our comments to the President relative to this matter. If we can assist in any further way, please advise. DEAR CONGRESSMAN WILSON: This is in response to your recent letter concerning the need for conduct of a mid-decade census on a regular basis. We thoroughly agree with your position, and as a result, we have sent the enclosed letter to President Nixon expressing our strong support for the concept of a mid-decade census to be conducted in 1975 and each ten years thereafter. It is our hope that our opinions, together with those of other state and local officials concerned with this matter, will be seriously considered by the Administration with the result that White House support for this census will be forthcoming. We certainly appreciate your courtesy in writing us concerning this matter and hope that you will continue to keep us apprised of developments. I wish to assure you of our continuing interest and support in this matter. Very truly yours, Enclosure. SIGMUND LIBERMAN, President. Hon. RICHARD M. NIXON, President of the United States, THE LEAGUE OF ARIZONA CITIES AND TOWNS, MY DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: The purpose of this letter is to apprise you of our strong support of the concept of a mid-decade census, and to set forth our concerns regarding this matter. Perhaps the most obvious of the demographic characteristics of the contemporary United States is rapid growth in population and rapid shift in population from one area to another reflecting the highly mobile character of our country. The general increase in population and the broad general trend of movement of the population from the East to the West coast are well documented, as is the newer but potentially even more significant migration from the central cities to the suburbs. These demographic changes are of the greatest significance to state and local officials in developing service programs and plans not only for services but for the development of service facilities. In short, a vast amount of capital and operating expenditure is predicated on population patterns which can only be definitively known through the instrument of the census. My own State, Arizona, for example has grown by 36.1% in the decade from 1960 to 1970. Arizona is a small State in terms of population, yet this growth represents almost half a million people. Planning ahead to provide for the services needed for a half million or more people at the State and local level is a major undertaking and must be based on the best information available. Our only reliable source of information on population movement nationally is the decennial census. It should also be noted that a number of Federal programs are predicated on population and other factors compared to population; i.e., unemployment, out migration, etc. Additionally, the revenue sharing program endorsed by your Administration is predicated on a combination of population and revenue effort. Thus, any major population shift during the interval of decennial census would impact unfavorably upon some rapidly-growing jurisdiction while unfairly rewarding others where population is declining. It is our feeling that a reliable population count on a fairly frequent basis is essential for equitable administration of these National Programs. Additionally, as you are, I am sure aware, many states share certain revenues with their local governments, primarily on the basis of population. In Arizona, for example, gasoline taxes, auto license taxes, and State sales taxes are shared with cities and towns on a population basis. This allocation is made on the basis of census data, and the currency of census information is of vital significance to State and local officials concerned with the operation of service programs. I believe that equity demands the conduct of census on a more frequent basis. It is also my feeling that economy demands this type of activity since misallocation of resources results in reduced dollar effectiveness as well as inequitable distribution of funds. In an era in which our cities are desperately seeking new sources of revenue to meet continuing service demands, it seems most unwise to deny rapidly growing population centers their fair share of income based on their actual populations. I certainly hope that you and your staff will give serious consideration to modifying the Administration's present position in opposition to the conduct of mid-decade census. In a country as rapidly growing and volatile in terms of population migration as the United States, the conduct of a census every ten years is simply not adequate. A census conducted every five years would certainly reflect a much truer picture of population growth and population shifts within our country and thereby provide for more equitable distribution of National resources in order to meet National problems and priorities. Very truly yours, SIGMUND LIBERMAN, President. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Hon. RICHARD M. NIXON, President of the United States, The White House, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: In light of over a decade of overwhelming testimony presented by government officials, business and industry leaders, educational and research organizations in favor of a Mid-decade Census, it seems incredible that the Administration has recommended deferring this proposal. It is my understanding that the Bureau of the Census must be assured of financing by September 1972 in order to commence a required thirty-month tooling-up stage. To force the Bureau of the Census against its own publicly stated convictions into a year's study of how administrative agency records could be used in lieu of a Mid-decade Census is tantamount to killing any possibility of a 1975 Census. We sincerely believe that any economies the Administration thinks it is effecting by not conducting a Mid-decade Census are false ones. Billions of dollars are spent annually on national and local programs in which the basis of distribution of funds depends on some census variable. This is particularly true in the large urban centers which are dependent upon local area census information as the basis for planning programs. After a ten-year data drought our City's public agencies are voraciously devouring the results of the 1970 Census. There are virtually no census subjects that my agency and those linked to it do not use in an analysis of the socioeconomic structure of the area. We are concerned with the age, family and household composition of the population in order to plan for the health, education and |