Business shares with government a responsibility for planning for the future. These plans often depend on projections stretching many years into the future, and frequently no part of those projections is more important or fundamental than the Census data on population and housing. It is our understanding that the Administration decision stemmed from a need for economy; we are sympathetic to any attempt to eliminate or reduce duplicative or unnecessary data collection. However, one relevant [and oftent forgotten] criterion for judging the value of a mid-decade census is the risk of error arising from the use of old data. The cost of judgments computed from old data has to be weighed against the cost of new data. It is not merely the cost of new data alone. Possibly there are two issues to be considered: More frequent reporting on the location and composition of our population, and an inventory of housing; and, second, the cost of doing this job on a complete enumeration basis. It's conceivable that there is sufficient agreement, perhaps within the Office of Management and the Budget, on the need for more frequent reporting of population and housing data to warrant requesting an OMB estimate of funds deemed necessary for the 1975 Census. At the same time, an analysis could be made aimed at consolidating priorities for such data from their users within both the public and private sectors. It is possible that the demand is so diversified both as to geographical detail and content that only complete enumeration will suffice. On the other hand, it may develop that a combination of procedures will suffice: Complete enumeration in specific areas where changes in population have been dramatic, surveys or sampling in more stable areas, and statistics from other administrative sources, such as the Internal Revenue Service. Because we live in a time of rapid change, because the costs involved in estimating and planning are far higher than they were, with a concomitant cost of error being much higher, it is hoped that the Administration will give this matter the most serious reconsideration. Sincerely, JOHN CRICHTON, President. President RICHARD M. NIXON, AMERICAN PUBLIC HEALTH ASSOCIATION, DEAR PRESIDENT NIXON: The effectiveness of efforts to understand and prevent disease, which you have been supporting, will be seriously diminished by the lack of up to date information about the population of the United States. During the last years of the present decade, when the new money invested in cancer and other programs should be yielding results, we will be unable to accurately discern the degree of success or the need for program modification for lack of an up-todate count of the population. A mid-decade census would greatly enhance the usefulness of scientific expenditure already committed. We urge you to support the taking of a mid-decade census in the United States. Sincerely yours, LAWRENCE BERGNER, M.D., M.P.H., BATTELLE COLUMBUS LABORATORIES, Hon. CHARLES H. WILSON, Subcommittee on Census and Statistics, Cannon House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: I am writing in response to your July 12 letter to the Area Economics Section of Battelle Memorial Institute inviting us to share with the Committee our views on the need for a mid-decade census. We share your view that the pending proposal for a mid-decade census of population and housing merits careful consideration and support. During the 1960's, Battelle Memorial Institute conducted a large number of socioeconomic studies on important topics such as regional development, public policy economics, com munity planning, housing systems evaluation, as well as industrial marketing research-all of these studies utilized as an important input data from the 1960 Census. Our analysts became painfully aware, as the 1960's drew to a close, that in a society of rapid change timely data are particularly important for making good policy decisions; both public and private. Hence, the value of a mid-decade census is obvious to those of us who have engaged in analytical or educational studies concerned with devising solutions to contemporary problems. A colleague of mine at Battelle, Dr. Joseph W. Duncan, who served for a brief period as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Economic Policy Review in the U.S. Department of Commerce, recently pointed out to me the crucial timing and role of the present session of Congress in taking the initiative for establishing a middecade census. As a result of the two-and-a-half-year planning which is necessary to undertake a detailed census, and the normal delays between authorization and appropriation, it is clear that positive action should be taken this year. It is unfortunate that the availability of 1970 Census data frequently causes many to lose perspective on the pressing data demands for current data which will reemerge later in the 1970's. The increasing emphasis on concepts such as revenue sharing and public policy programs which provide for allocation on the basis of population and other socioeconomic characteristics, combines with the increasing geographic and social mobility of our total population to underline the importance of a mid-decade census. Battelle is a Summary Tape Processing Center for the 1970 Census. While this activity represents a minor portion (one tenth of one percent) of the contract research activities of the Department of Social and Management Systems, for which I am responsible, it has given us an exposure to the needs of a wide range of organizations and institutions which are not primarily research oriented. The needs of these users further support our view that a mid-decade census would have widespread benefits. If you would like any additional information concerning our use of census data, I would be pleased to have our staff provide appropriate input. Sincerely, DUANE N. SUNDERMAN, Manager, Department of Social and Management Systems. Hon. RICHARD M. NIXON, AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF PLANNERS, President of the United States, The White House, Washington, D.C. DEAR PRESIDENT NIXON: Several volumes of testimony before Congress document in detail the need for a mid-decade census. The American Institute of Planners as a participant in these hearings reiterates the urgent need for more timely data on the nation's population and stock of housing. If the Bureau of the Census fails to take a mid-decade census, officials at all levels of government will be placed at a severe disadvantage. Sound program formulation and action require up-to-date data. The 1970 Census data will be used to make many governmental decisions. After 1975, decisions based on 1970 data will be progressively less reliable. As happened in the latter half of the 1960's, decisions will be based more on hunches than fact. This probably will result in waste and mismanagement which could be alleviated in part if more recent information were collected. In light of the above, the recent negative statement of the Director of the Bureau of the Census is difficult to comprehend. Certainly very adequate justification for a mid-decade census has been presented by the many organizations and individuals who testified in favor of legislation calling for censuses every five years. We understand that the Bureau of the Census is studying this matter in depth at the present time. We would welcome the opportunity to further advise the Bureau of the needs of local, metropolitan, and state governments for various data that could be included in a mid-decade census. Sincerely yours, GEORGE B. MCGIMSEY, Chairman. The PRESIDENT, NATIONAL FARMERS UNION, Washington, D.C., July 19, 1971. The White House, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: I take this opportunity to urge the beginning of a middecade census, to be undertaken in 1975 and every ten years thereafter. The mid-decade census should be administered by the Bureau of the Census. and should involve a virtually complete enumeration comparable to the census now conducted once each decade. With the rapid and constant change in location and circumstances of the people of the United States, we need a complete census every five years to supply firm statistical information for policy decisions. Those of us who represent farmers and rural people particularly recognize this need. In order to act on farm income and rural development problems, we must have current and reliable information on the movement of peoples out of and into farm and rural areas. We must also have information on the health, housing employment, and other indicators of living conditions in rural America. Since a great deal of lead time is necessary to allow the Bureau of the Census to prepare for a complete enumeration census in 1975, we urge you to actively support legislation now to authorize a mid-decade census. Respectfully, TONY T. DECHANT, President. AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF PLANNERS, The PRESIDENT, The White House, DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: The Census Committee of the Information Systems Department of the American Institute of Planners was shocked and deeply disappointed to learn of the opposition of your Administration at this time to the proposed mid-decade census of population, housing and employment. The opinion of the Census Committee and Information Systems Department of the American Institute of Planners is representative of the Institute's membership of 6,000 professional planners who are directly employed by or serve as consultants to general and special purpose governments at local, city, county, regional, interstate and Federal levels and by growing numbers of private business and industrial firms. We are concerned that you understand the urgent need and likely consequences of a continuing failure on the part of the Federal government to provide data required for planning of government projects and programs by all levels of government for all the needs of the American people. As we pointed out in our testimony of June 2, 1971 before the Subcommittee on Census and Statistics of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, US House of Representatives, planners are the guys who roll up their sleeves and dig into the census data in behalf of the hundreds of thousands of elected officials and other government decision makers throughout the Nation. The metabolism of planning analysis is closely related to the ten year cycle of census data. From one and one-half to as much as three years after each census we await the release of the data. For the next two to three years we are busy analyzing the data, calculating changes from previous estimates and forecasts, analyzing the implications of the change on current and proposed programs and revising forecasts of future growth and change. Then, for the next five years, we wait for new data. Of course the problems of government don't wait and planners try to respond by making local estimates of current population. But they are almost never satisfactory in any respect except gross counts. The migration rates. the characteristics of people and their occupations and jobs and their housing conditions are seldom accurately estimated in the five year period before new census data is available. Bipartisan testimony on the need, value and benefit of a mid-decade census was assembled by Congress at hearings in 1962, 1965 and 1967. After the 1967 hearing a bill was reported favorably by the Post Office and Civil Service Committee and approved in the House by a vote of 255 to 127. As Mr. A. Ross Eckler said in his recent 1971 testimony, "There is no reason to believe that if the Senate Post Office and Civil Service Committee had then brought out a similar bill, the current hearings would be unnecessary." To the best of our knowledge all testimony assembled for the current hearings by the House Subcommittee was favorable except for testimony of Dr. George H. Brown, Director of the Bureau of the Census who testified on June 10, 1971 "At this time the Administration does not recommend a mid-decade census." There may be a great sympathy across the land for your cost conscious approach to Federal government operations but we cannot believe that it applies so broadly that the Nation should be denied the basic data so desperately needed for effective governmental management in these times of high population mobility and dramatic urban change. We will be disappointed, indeed, to have to report to the planning profession at its national conference this coming fall your decision to withhold support from a mid-decade census of population. We urge you to reconsider the Administration's position and assure you of our sincere desire to work with the Bureau of the Census in the planning of a mid-decade census that will meet the urgent need for mid-decade benchmark data at the minimum cost consistent with the need. Sincerely yours, DAVID B. KLOTZ, AIP, Chairman, Census Committee. ADVISORY COMMISSION ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS. Representative CHARLES H. WILSON, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter of July 13th. Prior to receiving it, we had already written the Director of the Office of Budget and Management urging reconsideration of the Administration's position on the middecade census. Cordially, DAVID B. WALKER, Assistant Director. Hon. CHARLES H. WILSON, AMERICAN PUBLIC HEALTH ASSOCIATION, Chairman, Subcommittee on Census and Statistics, Cannon House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR CHAIRMAN WILSON: This is in reply to your letter of July 8, 1971, concerning the matter of a mid-decade census. Prior to receiving your letter, we had communicated with the President on this matter. In addition, you may remember receiving a report on statistical needs prepared by this Association. That report-which strongly recommended a mid-decade census-was also sent to every administrative agency and department of the Executive branch which has an interest in data collection and usage. If for any reason your copy of the report has gone astray, please let me know, and I will be happy to provide you with another. The American Public Health Association is four-square behind a mid-decade census and will give any support it can to its realization. Sincerely yours, JAMES R. KIMMEY, M.D.. MAGAZINE PUBLISHERS ASSOCIATION, INC., Representative CHARLES H. WILSON, Chairman, Subcommittee on Census and Statistics, Cannon House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN WILSON: As president of the Magazine Publishers Association your letter of July 15th addressed to the association's former president, John K. Herbert, has been directed to me. We at MPA and our individual member publishers are very much aware of the value of the Federal Government census activity. We support and encourage your efforts to provide more useful and timely census information and endorse the concept of a mid-decade census, if the derived value anticipated merits the necessary priority for available tax funds or the levying of increased taxes to fund the project. Your committee, the Bureau of the Census, and the national administration are best equipped with all the information to collectively reach an intelligent decision on the priority to assign at this time to this admittedly worthwhile project. Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. Cordially, STEPHEN E. KELLY, President. ELECTIONS RESEARCH CENTER, President RICHARD M. NIXON, The White House, Washington, D.C. MY DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: The announcement last month that the Administration had determined to withdraw its support from the taking of a 1975 mid-decade Census came as a shock to many of us who had counted on previous statements indicating this Administration's acceptance of the necessity for a mid-decade count. So many have endorsed the essentiality of at least a basic head count each five years, that I can only hope this decision will be reversed during the time which remains to permit such reversal. During the four years I was head of the Bureau of the Census this project was much discussed, but I believe it is fair to say that now a general consensus has developed as to the need for the quinquennial count. While priorities must necessarily be developed for this and other domestic undertakings as well as for our defense and international requirements, it seems to me the basic utility of the mid-decade Census data is so great as to place it high on the list of purposes for which the support of your Administration should be mobilized. Respectfully, RICHARD M. SCAMMON, Director. SIDNEY HOLLANDER ASSOCIATES, The PRESIDENT, The White House, DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: I learn with regret that the Administration has decided not to recommend a mid-decade census. I should like to add my voice again to those of many others who believe that the challenges we face in the coming decades would be greatly helped by making basic consistent population, housing and economic data available more often and for small areas. Expenditures to accomplish this would not only repay themselves in assisting in national planning in the public and semi-public sectors by many levels of government and institutions, but would also assist private industry in more efficient allocation of productive resources and in the efficient marketing of commodities and services. Very truly yours, ROBERT PASTERNAK, Partner. FEDERAL STATISTICS USERS' CONFERENCE, The PRESIDENT, The White House, Washington, D.C. Mr. PRESIDENT: This letter is written to express the great concern and disappointment of the Federal Statistics Users' Conference with the position of the Administration in not endorsing the taking of a mid-decade census, as reflected in |