tion, a Bill authorizing a mid-decade census will probably reach the floor of the House early next year, since it is unlikely to meet with opposition in either the Subcommittee, the full committee, or the Rules committee. MINI, MIDI OR MAXI CENSUS Four specific proposals, relating to the scope and scale of a mid-decade census have been under consideration. They are described below, with their approximate, respective, total cost appended. II. $150,000,000-$160,000,000 165,000,000- 175,000,000 Population counts with minimal population characteristics (name, address relationship to head of household, sex, age and race). Generally equivlaent to population and housing information obtained on a complete enumeration basis in the 1970 Census of Population an Housing. III............................ _230, 000, 000– 240, 000, 000 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. IV....... 170,000,000 180,000,000 A sample survey of the population that would provide much of the information available from the 1970 Census for States, metropolitan areas, larger counties, and larger cities. The survey would be designed within a sampling range of 20 to 25 percent. 1 U.S. Bureau of the Census. U.S. House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Census and Statistics of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, 92d Congress. The estimates of direct costs come from the Bureau of the Census and range between a minimum of $150 million for a "bare-boned" population count to a maximum of $240 million for a near-replication of the previous decennial census. The last census, incidentally, cost $215 million, but the Bureau's estimates have allowed for population growth and a probable future rise in costs. Comparable independent estimates from the General Accounting Office are somewhat lower than the Bureau's and range between $140 million and $210 million.' Expenditures, of course, would be spread over a four-year period. Altogether, it would cost approximately one dollar per person to conduct a full scale census in 1975 or the equivalent of a quarter per head over a four-year budget period. In my judgment, neither Level I, since it excludes housing, nor Level IV, since the sample would not produce reliable tabulations for small areas, are satisfactory for local planning. This narrows the range of probable total cost to between $165 and $240 million. For the purpose of discussion, let us choose a generous, round number, $200 million, slightly less than one dollar per capita, as the probable total cost of a 1975 census that would meet the information needs of localities. BUDGETARY CRUNCH, POLITICS, AND ALTERNATIVES The lack of White House support for a mid-decade census is a formidable obstacle. Why has the White House and its chief statistical and budgetary arm, the Office of Management and Budget (O.M.B.), withdrawn support for a census in 1975 despite acknowledging the need for "reliable and up-to-date statistics to support planning activities at the State and local as well as at the Federal levels." 8 Their argument appears to rest on three main grounds. The first and ostensibly primary reason is that a census is costly in a period of fiscal constraint. Second, a census is politically undesirable since it places a needless burden on the public. Finally, there are better ways of generating needed information, by using administrative records in conjunction with special sample surveys: Let us consider the validity of each of these arguments in turn. George B. Gould, Staff Director, House Subcommittee on Census and Statistics. First, the heavy cost of a census in 1975 cannot be justified in the light of the budgetary crunch. An out-of-pocket, direct expenditure of some $200 million, even if spread over four years, is viewed as an unwarranted extravagance since the federal government already spends about $210-220 million annually on other statistical programs, excluding special censuses. In my opinion, this argument is fallacious even when judged solely in terms of economy and efficiency. The federal government currently disburses over $10 billion, annually, to states and cities, through grant-and-aid programs using a population criteria of some kind." Federal allocations, tied to a population formula, as, for example, the President's revenue sharing proposals, will surely increase as the decade advances. The cost of a 1975 census, on an annual basis, represents little more than one-half of a per cent of these federal disbursements alone, a minute sum compared with the disbursements based on census results. Thus, as Dr. Eckler pointed out, even a minor improvement in the efficiency of current federal allocations would, by itself, justify the full cost of a census, without regard to any of its other uses. Furthermore, State disbursements to localities on a per capita basis are also significant. No estimates of total state disbursements, tied to population, are available, but they involve vastly greater expenditures than the $10 billion disbursed by the federal government. Add to this, the potential economies and efficiencies in private capital investments and marketing that would result from more precise, intercensal population and housing information. Altogether, solely from the standpoint of economy and efficiency and apart from any questions of equity, I view objections to spending money on a 1975 Census as nothing short of penny-pinching imprudence. If only false economies are involved in saving money on a mid-decade census, the overriding source of the administration's opposition may be found in the political aspects of censustaking. The second ground for objections to a mid-decade census relates to its possible political effects. Although statistical issues rarely set the voters' blood coursing, a census of population and housing is potentially exceptional; it necessarily touches every citizen in the nation, directly and personally, on home ground. When weighed solely on political scales, a canny politician might be tempted to by-pass a census since he would see few potential political gains and possible public opposition. Attempts to reduce the subject scope of the 1970 Census, you will remember, brought forth three kinds of arguments. For the sake of discussion, I will call them (1) the "ostrich" argument, (2) the "anti-establishment" argument, and (3) the "big brother" argument. I believe that the first two arguments can be dismissed, out-of-hand, as contemporary examples of know-nothingness by fringe groups, but the third argument should be seriously considered. I also dismiss the suggestion that inter-agency rivalries and personal jealousies of the power of the Bureau of the Census, which historically operates with the independence of a separate agency, like the FBI, have played a determinative role in the White House stance, since I have no way to evaluate ad hominem arguments. (1) The "ostrich" argument against the census is usually put forward by fringe groups on the far Right, who abhor the power of the federal government, in general, and post-New Deal social and economic programs, in particular. Since statistics are used to delineate national problems and to develop appropriate policies and programs, the chain of logic runs: less data, less problems, ergo less federal programs. The abortive attempt to cripple the impending 1970 Census, led by Congressman Betts of Ohio, was largely supported by groups who held these views. (2) The "anti-establishment" argument against the census is advanced by far Left, fringe groups, who also abhor the federal government as the very embodiment of institutionalized injuʻtice. This view has found some support among radical civil rights groups, who, using the evidence supplied by the Census Bureau itself, claim that the poor, in general, and blacks, in particular, are regularly undercounted in the census; ergo the census is just another tool of the establishment. Responsible civil rights groups, however, have repudiated this stance and actively assisted the Census Bureau, in 1970, in its efforts to reduce the chronic A. Ross Eckler, op. cit. problem of undercounting minorities and the inner city poor. Civil rights leaders, in many cities, waged campaigns urging cooperation, recognizing that a fullscale count would bring a more equitable distribution of political representation and disbursements in poverty areas. (3) The "big brother is watching you" argument is a new one, since it grows out of recognition that computer technology offers heretofore non-existent opportunities for machine-matching of separate data files. Consequently, it would be technologically feasible to develop extensive dossiers about individual citizens. Granted that the "data banks-dossier" nightmare has potentially realistic and ideologically sound foundations to anyone concerned with the preservation of civil liberties. In my judgment, however, an attack on the census as an incursion on civil liberties or an invasion of privacy is totally misdirected. Irresponsible abuses of confidential data files are largely to be found elsewhere, for example, in schools, health agencies and, particularly, by credit bureaus and other private agencies. In almost 200 years of data collecting, the Census Bureau has yet to violate confidentiality by releasing individual records for any purpose, to any agency. Names and addresses were removed from the 1970 tapes released by the Bureau, and where the possibility of recognition existed, small area data tabulations were deliberately suppressed. The Decennial Census Review Committee considered the confidentiality question and found the Bureau's practiecs, like Caesar's wife, above reproach. However, they went on to recommend several procedures to guard against possible future abuses which, I believe, should be promptly instituted.10 With foresight, the confidentiality issue appears totally manageable since it mainly involves procedural questions. On ideological grounds, the logic of the "big brother is watching you" argument, if carried through, would lead to the abandonment of all statistical programs, certainly the more sensitive ones involving tax or social security records. In essence, it is a line of argument that would throw the baby out with the bath water. Thus, the political grounds for opposing a mid-decade census appear to be as weak as those of economy. The prophecies of the Cassandras of the late Sixties regarding widespread political opposition to the 1970 Census failed to materialize. The 87% response in completed forms, mailed back in metropolitan areas, offers convincing evidence that most sane people regard the census as a simple responsibility of citizenship, as routine, if troublesome, as paying taxes. The third and last ground for opposition to a mid-decade census is based on a conviction, yet to be demonstrated, that cheaper and better ways can be found to supply information needed for policy determination. Therefore, it is argued that limited funds should be committed mostly to exploring the alternatives. Statisticians in the O.M.B. believe that the data generated as a by-product in administering federal programs can be used in conjunction with specialized sample surveys to produce information sufficient for policy planning. Indeed, such information, in their judgment, would be superior to census data since changes would be recorded with greater frequency, and annual estimates of broad-gauged changes are conceivable for states or large metropolitan areas. Of course, the subject matter covered would necessarily be limited in the immediate future as would the level of geographic detail. This argument is most sophisticated since it rests largely on technical grounds. Furthermore, the revamping of federal statistical programs is long overdue and much dessired. It is also the most appealing argument to anyone using census data in local planning and administration. Census data are inherently static, cross-sectional reckonings; they are periodic inventories. They are, therefore, inherently perishable, subject to change, subject to growing stale rapidly, with the passage of time. In fact, the latter is the principal reason for advocating a mid-decade census. Unfortunately, the kind of regular estimates contemplated by the O.M.B., while adequate perhaps for broad-gauged federal policy planning are unlikely to prove satisfactory for planning and policy determination in localities. The 20,000 units of local government in the 247 metropolitan areas of the nation. not to mention the 60,000 other local units, need data that can be disaggregated and reassembled to conform to a variety of decision-making jurisdictions and planning districts. 10 The Decennial Census, op. cit., p. vii. Conceivably, intercensal estimates at the metropolitan level could be greatly improved through record-matching with extensive sample surveys. The flow of statistics contemplated by the O.M.B., however, would shed little light on intrametropolitan conditions and are no substitute for an enumeration. It should be emphasized that the information required by federal agencies such as HUD, DOT, or HEW to administer programs, to draw comparative profiles of changing needs and program effects, is of a very different order and genre, in subject content and area specificity, than that required by mayors and local agencies in evaluating needs and effects of programs at city-wide and neighborhood levels.11 Once again, the mayors and local agencies, whether they be private ar public, would be on their own in attempting to assemble needed information. True, the 1970 Census marked a great leap forward in providing the geographic basis for merging locally generated, administrative statistics into a nationally comparable, statistical framework and for building monitors of local conditions. Whether the hardware and software of computers will actually be used by localities, in the next decade, to develop effective, metropolitan information systems has yet to be determined. Whether the geographic base files developed for the last census in almost 200 metropolitan areas will be maintained and used is yet to be seen. In this context, the Census Use Studies and the assistance of the Bureau are essential since skilled and experienced personnel, able to solve the multiple, complex problems involved, are unevenly distributed, mostly concentrated in a few federal agencies and a few major cities. Because of this near monopoly, the federal government, in a sense, has an obligation to meet local statistical needs. Thus, to pose the question as to which is more useful to localities, generating regular, periodic flows about broad-gauged changes versus a mid-decade inventory of specific changes, is to pose an artificial, either/or question. It is similar to asking which is more important, health or wealth, when both are essential at minimal levels. Furthermore, if major advances in statistical estimating techniques are actually forthcoming in the next years and if viable metropolitan information systems are developed, a mid-decade census becomes all the more important as a checkpoint in evaluating the reliability of new procedures. In conclusion, I believe that, given the state of statistical arts and given the state of contemporary cities, there is a vital need for a census of population and housing in 1975. The grounds for opposition are tenuous, whether for reasons of economy, possible intrusiveness, or potentially superior substitutes. I trust that urban planners, the Census Bureau, and the O.M.B. will not be offended if I borrow from Shakespeare's description of Cleopatra: "Age cannot wither her nor custom stale her infinite variety. Other women cloy the appetites they feed, but she makes hungry where most she satisfies." Unless a mid-decade census is instituted, I suspect that as the Seventies unfold, the commendable, new advance in the last census and, hopefully, in other federal statistical programs will also make hungry where most they satisfy. (Excerpt From "Federal Statistics Report of the President's CommissionVolume I-1971) Findings A QUINQUENNIAL CENSUS A census becomes out-of-date quickly in a country where changes take place rapidly. If good approximations to current population figures are not available, many government responsibilities will be met in a manner far from optimal. To improve planning, many observers, including the Decennial Census Review Committee, have recommended a quinquennial head-count. Such a head-count would be valuable and widely used, but it has not yet been established that the benefits would justify the cost of at least $200 million. In Chapter 3 we suggest the kinds of calculations required to estimate the value of the quinquennial head-count as an alternative to other ways of making intercensal estimates of the distribution of population. If such a study were care 11 Dr. William B. Garrison of the University of Pittsburgh, expert in small area data questions, has argued persuasively on divergent information needs at local, federal, and intermediate levels of government. fully done, it would also contribute to the evaluation of other periodic collections of data, and its value could go well beyond what is contributed to the decision about a quinquennial census. Recommendation An analysis that considers the costs and benefits of a quinquennial head-count census, and alternatives to such a census, should be undertaken by the Bureau of the Census immediately in order to supply evidence in time to decide whether to mount such a census in 1975. STATE OF HAWAII, DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, Representative CHARLES H. WILSON, DEAR REPRESENTATIVE WILSON: We understand that your Subcommittee is now considering the question of a mid-decade census of population, to be taken in 1975 and at decennial intervals thereafter. Such a mid-decade census would be exceptionally useful to public agencies such as this. Our work during recent years has been seriously handicapped by the unavailability of recent census data on the number and characteristics of inhabitants, their geographic distribution, their housing, and other important subjects normally covered by the census. Our 1967 general plan revision program, for example, would have gained greatly in precision and utility had such current statistics been available. We should accordingly like to urge you most strongly to approve the proposed mid-decade census. Sincerely, Cannon House Office Building, SHELLEY M. MARK, Director STATE OF MISSOURI, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, DEAR SIR: The Missouri Department of Community Affairs would like to support the creation of a mid-decade census of population and housing. The current decennial census becomes virtually useless by the middle of the decade, particularly for small area work. This makes it very difficult to arrive at rational decisions concerning the allocation of public funds, land development planning and related matters. If I or my staff can be of any assistance to you, please let me know. Sincerely, GENE SALLY, Director. SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF., July 6, 1971. The PRESIDENT, The White House, DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: I was very disappointed to read in the press that your administration is opposed to a mid-decade census. I have read the letter which Mr. John Aiken of the Federal Statistics Users' Conference addressed to you on June 23, 1971 and agree with it completely. At the same time, I would like to add a few thoughts of my own. Without knowing for certain, I imagine that the reason for your administration's position is budgetary pressure rather than disagreement as to the desirability of a mid-decade census in a fast moving and extremely complex society. From the beginning I have supported your administration because I consider it to be well-rooted in common sense, rationality, and reality. Thus the negative attitude of your administration towards a mid-decade census surprises me. There is no question that the budget situation is extremely important. However, it seems essential to me that a budget recognize the difference between expense and investment. Your innovative welfare program will call for tre |