Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
1515717
label
FY 1978 Director's Crosscut Review
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
1515717
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
FY 1978 Director's Crosscut Review
citationUrl
collections
James M. Cannon Files (Ford Administration)
James Cannon's Budget Files
subjects
Federal budget
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
1515717
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1976-10-31
month
10
year
1976
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1976-10-01
month
10
year
1976
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
fa02bba53fd3c7ed
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 65, folder "FY 1978 Director's Crosscut
Review" of the James M. Cannon Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald Ford donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box 65 of the James M. Cannon Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
Coordinated Statistical Budget
Director's Crosscut Review
October 28, 1976
I. OVERVIEW
1
II. ISSUES
Developing Integrated Statistics
1. Economic Statistics - Industrial Directory
4
2. Social Statistics - A Strategy for Collecting Socioeconomic Data for
Federal, State, and Local Area Needs in the 1980's
7
Organizational Improvement
3. EPA's Central Statistical Quality and Coordination Unit
10
4. Bureau of Criminal Justice Statistics
14
Program Design
5. Federal-State Cooperative Statistical Programs
19
6. Revenue Sharing
24
Informational Item
7. Energy Agencies
29
III. STATUS REPORTS
1. "A Framework for Planning U. S. Federal Statistics, 1978-1989"
32
2. Reducing the Burden of Federal Reporting: Status of the President's Program
34
IV. AGENCY FUNDING TABLES
36
FORD i GERALD LIBRARY
OVERVIEW
1
Overview
Data available at the time of this statistical crosscut reveal the proposed growth for Federal
statistical programs (excluding periodic programs) to be 13 percent, reflecting the fact that substantial
cuts in the real base occurred in the past two years. Obligations for current statistical programs
increased 10 percent in FY 1976 and 1 percent in FY 1977.
As a result of continuing consultation concerning relative priorities, the agency requests are nearly all
acceptable to SPD staff and program budget examiners. The major difference of view concerning budget levels
relates to the programs of the National Center for Health Statistics and the National Center for Education
Statistics. SPD recommends funding $34.0 million of NCHS' requested $44.0 million, and all of NCES' re-
quested funding of $17.2 million. HRD recommends no increase in funding over the FY 77 level of $28.0
million for NCHS and $12.0 million for NCES. These issues relate to the broader policy problem of Federal/
State statistical programs (Tab 5). Questions relating to energy data collection will be deferred until
the Energy Policy and FEA review (Nov. 16, 1976). An information item is shown as Tab 7.
For this Statistical Crosscut, several issues with long range budget implications are presented. They are:
1. Developing Integrated Statistics
Economic statistics - Industrial Directory (Tab 1)
Social statistics - A Strategy for Collecting Socioeconomic Data
for Federal, State, and Local Area Needs in the 1980s (Tab 2)
2. Organizational Improvement
EPA's Central Statistical Quality and Coordination Unit (Tab 3)
Bureau of Criminal Justice Statistics (Tab 4)
3. Program Design
Federal-State Cooperative Statistical Programs (Tab 5)
Revenue sharing (Tab 6)
These are especially important because the policy decisions at this time will affect the initial positions
set forth in the "Framework for U. S. Federal Statistics, 1978-89", which is currently being reviewed by
statistical agencies (see status report section).
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
2
Increasesin Obligations for the Major Statistical Agencies
(in millions of dollars)
%
%
Increase
1978
1978
Increase
1977-1978
1976
1977
Agency
SPD
1977-1978
SPD
Actual
Estimate
Request
Rec.
Request
Recommendation
Department of Agriculture:
Statistical Reporting Service
31.4
34.5
35.9
35.9
4
4
Department of Commerce:
Bureau of Economic Analysis
11.8
12.3
13.3
13.3
8
8
Bureau of the Census (Current programs only) 41.5
43.3
44.7
44.7
3
3
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare:
National Center for Health Statistics
26.1
27.6
44.0
34.0*
59
23
National Center for Education Statistics
13.0
12.0
17.2
17.2**
43
43
Office of Research and Statistics,
Social Security Administration
22.2
32.0
35.6
35.6
11
11
Department of Interior:
Bureau of Mines
13.0
13.3
20.5
13.8
54
4
Department of Justice:
Law Enforcement Assistance Administration
34.0
24.8
27.3
27.3
10
10
Department of Labor:
Bureau of Labor Statistics (Current
programs only)
53.2
65.9
83.6
82.2
27
25
Department of Treasury:
Internal Revenue Service
13.1
12.5
13.5
13.5
8
8
Total (Current programs only)
259.3
278.2
335.6
317.5
21
14
* HRD's recommendation for NCHS is $28.0M.
** HRD's recommendation for NCES is $12.0M.
FORD & LIBRARY
# SPD's recommendation is subject to change.
3
Obligations For Principal Current Statistical Programs
By Broad Subject Areas
(In Millions Of Dollars)
1978
1976
1977
SPD
Actual
Estimate
Recommendation
Prices And Price Indexes
16.0
23.1
33.1
Labor Statistics
77.8
81.3
89.4
Production And Distribution Statistics
80.2
95.7
101.9
Housing And Construction Statistics
15.9
17.6
20.7
Economic And Business Financial Accounts
39.0
40.1
42.5
Energy Statistics*
14.0
15.8
20.2
Environmental Statistics*
20.0
21.5
23.5
Health Statistics
94.4
106.5
119.4
Education Statistics
27.3
13.4
18.5
Income Maintenance And Welfare Statistics
24.7
25.8
29.1
Population Statistics
5.9
6.8
7.8
Criminal Justice Statistics
34.0
24.8
27.3
Total, Principal Current Programs:
449.0
472.5
533.4
FORD : 038830 LIBRARY
*
Some important agency submissions have not yet been received.
I
4
Issue Paper
Department of Commerce
Bureau of the Census
1978 Budget
Issue #1: Industrial Directory
Statement of Issue
Should the President's legislative package for the 95th Congress include proposed legislation to make
the industrial directory available to Federal agencies for statistical purposes?
Background
In October 1968, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) designated the Census Bureau as the "focal
agency" for developing and maintaining a Federal statistical establishment list of U. S. business enterprises
and their establishments for the use of statistical agencies. The need for this program was corroborated
in the recommendation of the President's Commission on Federal Statistics in 1971. This program has been
a line item in Census' budget for six years. A total of $11.7 million has been appropriated to develop
the list of all business establishments in the United States. These funds have been explicitly justified
to the Congress on the basis that other agencies would be required by OMB to use the industrial directory
to serve their statistical list needs.
The purpose of the list is to 1) provide more uniformity in statistical programs through uniform
industry and size coding of establishments listed and used by several agencies in constructing statistical
samples, and 2) reduce the reporting burden associated with multiple agencies' uncoordinated data requests
for listbuilding purposes. The list is currently being used within the Census Bureau, but it is now
appropriate to begin to make it available to other Federal statistical agencies, to designated statistical
units within other Federal agencies, and to their State cooperative agency counterparts with which they
have arrangements to provide statistical services.
Wider use of the list requires legislation because Title 13 of the United States Code prohibits dis-
closure of any individual company information by Census. The proposed bill has undergone extensive scrutiny
FORD & GERALD LIBRAR
by an interagency panel of statisticians and is in shape now to be reviewed by agency counsels as part of
the legislative review process. An earlier draft statement and proposed bill were reviewed by the Business
Advisory Council on Federal Reports. The Council has endorsed the program and its comments have been in-
corporated in the draft, where feasible.
Alternatives
#1. Ask Commerce to submit the legislation as its own initiative.
#2. Include this legislation in the President's legislative package for the 1st session of the 95th
Congress. (SP rec.)
Analysis
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
Budget Authority
($ Millions)
Alternative #1
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
Alternative #2 (SP rec.)
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
Alternative #1.
The industrial directory is a Commerce Department program and the proposed enabling legislation is an
amendment to Title 13 - the Census Code. The Census Bureau has a strong image for protecting confidentiality.
But Commerce would rather not propose this legislative change which might be viewed by some as "weakening"
Title 13 protections even though no confidential data would be released in this program. The name, address,
size code, industrial activity code, and geographic code will be released only to statistical units for
statistical purposes.
Because Commerce is reluctant to introduce the needed legislation, it might be some time until the pro-
posal is made to Congress. This would compound the delay in making the industrial directory available for
use by other agencies, although it is already operational and ready for use now.
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
6
Alternative #2: SP recommendation
The interagency aspects of this program are paramount and justify treating the legislation as a
Presidential initiative both to avoid the perception that this is a particular agency's attempt to achieve
preponderant influence or authority and to underscore the role of interagency coordination in achieving the
program's objective. This coordination is essential because the benefits of more consistent statistics
and greater efficiency depend upon effective action in all the intended user agencies. Moreover, the sources
of information from which the industrial directory is constructed are interagency in character, and positive,
willing compliance will be enhanced by making this a Presidential initiative.
Finally, the reduction in respondent burden, which is a corollary benefit of multiagency access to the
industrial directory for statistical purposes, can clearly be related to the achievement of the Presidential
Management Initiative to reduce the burden of Federal reporting on the public.
FORD
is
LIBRARY
2
7
Issue Paper
Department of Commerce
Bureau of the Census
1978 Budget
Issue #2: A Strategy For Collecting Socioeconomic Data for Federal,
State, and Local Area Needs in the 1980's
Statement of Issue
What are the implications of the mid-decade census bill having been signed into law by the
President for the development of an overall Federal strategy relating to the collection of socio-
economic data in the 1980's?
Background
On Oct. 18, 1976 a mid-decade census for 1985, authorized by Congress, was signed into
law. In its position paper on the mid-decade census, SP indicated that a mid-decade census would
provide the opportunity to develop a truly integrated set of multi-purpose surveys which would
respond to Federal, State, and local needs for socioeconomic data during the 1980's. The anchors
for such an integrated system of surveys would be the decennial and mid-decade censuses. During
census intervals, "follow on" surveys (which rely on the Census to identify a target population -
such as American Indians, the disabled, etc.) and "adjunct" surveys (large scale sample surveys
of the general population) would be conducted to obtain more detailed information which could not
be collected through the Census itself.
Inherent in the argument that the institution of a mid-decade census would result in offsetting
cost reductions was the notion that "follow ons" and "adjuncts" would be conducted. Such surveys
were expected to be conducted during years not ending in 5 (mid-decade) or 0 (decennial) and would be
designed for national and large sub-area estimates, with decennial and mid-decade surveys being used
to obtain State and local area estimates.
The "adjunct" and "follow on" surveys would be designed to satisfy a multitude of legitimate
data requirements in such areas as housing, health, education, etc., and could obtain selected infor-
mation from special populations such as American Indians, people with low incomes and the disabled.
Disability data provides a good example of the potential value of a "follow on" survey. Numerous
Federal agencies (VA, PHS, OE, SRS, to name a few) as well as States, are required to collect data
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
from or about disabled individuals to meet a variety of mandates (e.g, PL 94-142 and PL 93-516
require that certain services provided to, as well as needs of, the disabled population be assessed
on a regular basis). The ability to conduct a large scale multi-purpose survey of disabled individuals,
identified through the census, will mean that numerous data requirements can be accommodated through
one survey mechanism with a resulting cost savings to the Federal government, as well as a reduced
burden on potential respondents.
The need to begin to fund the "follow on" - "adjunct" survey program in 1978 stems from the need
to clarify, concepablize and coordinate Federal, State, and local data requirements, as well as to
plan to pretest alternative data collection mechanisms designed to identify cost-effective data collection
procedures. One such procedure, that of "nested" sampling, needs to be thoroughly tested, and if found
technically feasible will have ramifications for the mid-decade census itself.
The Census Bureausoriginal request for the "follow on" - "adjunct" survey program for 1978 was
$.0 million. In response to a Department requirement to reduce its periodic programs budget, the
Bureau felt that since the decennial census is its highest priority, no funds associated directly
with this activity could be reduced. Consequently, it sacrificed funds related to "follow on"
and "adjunct" activities. Therefore, no funds are presently requested.
Alternatives
#1. Defer initial costs for this program until 1979 (Department request).
#2. Provide $0.25 million as "seed money" to begin this program in 1978 (SP recommendation).
#3. Provide $1.0 million for 1978 as originally requested by the Census Bureau.
Analysis
1978
1979-1982 (SP estimate)
Budget Authority
($ Millions)
Alternative #1 (Department request) 0
58.0-64.0
Alternative #2 (SP recommendation) 0.25
50.5-61.5
Alternative #3
1.0
50.5-61.5
BERALD FORD LIBRARY
Alternative #1: Department request
Although resulting in a negligible cost savings in 1978, this alternative would have the long range
effect of increasing the 5 year cost of this program. This increase would arise from the fact that a
delay in start-up would push the "follow on" program back by at least one year with the result that
9
census data used a screening device to identify sub-population groups would be out-of-date. This delay
would mean that data designed to be collected through the less expensive "follow on" procedure would
have to be collected less efficiently or through larger, more expensive, "adjuncts". In certain cases
a "follow-on" might have to be abandoned entirely.
Alternative #2: SP recommendation
Adoption of this alternative, while fractionally increasing costs in 1978, would permit the Census
Bureau to begin its planning efforts in this program in 1978 - to include research on mid-decade census
linkages, and would likely result in 1) a better coordinated, better developed strategy for collecting
socioeconomic data and 2) a long run cost savings of $8 - 14 million in the "follow on" - "adjunct"
program, and 3) the first step in providing for elimination of small area detail from presently on-
going special purpose surveys of other agencies. (Over the decade of the 1980's the savings to accrue
fromthis program are expected to offset the cost of the mid-decade census itself.)
Alternative #3.
Adoption of this alternative would not likely result in an improved "follow on" - "adjunct" program
since "seed money" during 1978 will be used for issue identification and only limited field testing.
GEBALD R. FORD
S
3
10
Issue Paper
Environmental Protection Agency
1978 Budget
Issue #3: EPA's Central Statistical Quality and Coordination Unit
Statement of Issue
It is recognized that EPA does not have an effective central control unit over its many statistical
activities at headquarters, the research centers, and at the regional level. What is the best way to
establish an adequate capability for statistical coordination and adherence to statistical standards in
program development and implementation?
Background
At present, EPA does not have an effective means for coordination and quality control of its statistical
activities. Statistics play a major role in almost every major agency policy decision including:
- the setting of environmental quality standards;
- the monitoring and analyzing of ambient air, water and pesticide pollution trends;
- the setting up and management of environmental quality information systems;
- the carrying out of enforcement actions;
- the design and implementation of environmental health, economic, and ecological effect studies;
- preparing congressional reports; and
- measuring the overall effectiveness of agency programs.
Because the EPA has developed no effective measures by which the statistical needs of the agency may
be reviewed, statistical resources developed, data quality assured, and intra- and interagency statistical
coordination achieved, the EPA has encountered statistical problems in such areas as:
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
1
- defense of environmental standards;
- enforcement actions; and
- design of meaningful and cost effective health effect studies.
For example, in June 1976 EPA requested that OMB renew clearance of the record sheets used for the Storage
and Retrieval of Aerometric Data System (SAROAD). The purpose of that system is to collect, store and
retrieve local, State, and Federal air quality monitoring data to insure that control officials receive com-
parable, accurate and current data. These data are used to evaluate and control program effectiveness. During
clearance review, OMB determined that the data stored in SAROAD is of highly questionable quality, lacks compara-
bility, and is not supported by adequate documentation or data validity and reliability checks. Moreover, EPA
had no plan for addressing these issues. As a consequence, EPA was given until February 1977 to resolve these
issues and develop plans for their resolution as a condition for further clearance of the SAROAD system.
In February 1976, EPA requested clearance of a survey to collect information on household use of
pesticides. The purpose of that survey was described as collecting data on the exposure of the population
to pesticides, household storage and use practices, adequacy of labels, etc. These data were needed for
development of standards and policy and to provide baseline data for indepth studies. The survey (as sub-
mitted to OMB for clearance) contained gross statistical, questionnaire design, and conceptual errors.
These examples, illustrate that EPA responsibilities for statistical review, development and quality control
are fragmented and ineffective. Clearly, no competent statistician in EPA had detected or remedied the defects
prior to OMB receipt of the materials for the SAROAD and pesticides studies.
Currently EPA statistical problems have been intensified by passage of the Toxic Substance Control Act.
It is likely that implementation of that Act will require the development of substantial statistical pro-
grams for purposes of monitoring, research, standards developments and allocation of compliance resources.
Proposal
To meet this need, a centralized unit should be created and adequately staffed, with unambiguous authority
over the statistical aspects of all EPA activities. Location of this unit within any existing program office
may impede its ability to effect the statistical activities of the agency as a whole. This unit should
perform the following functions:
GERALD FORD
12
Review the adequacy of standards for data collection and research;
Review and evaluate systems design for collecting information for regulatory and policy functions;
Advise top management on statistical issues including adequacy of overall EPA statistical capability
and budget;
Coordinate statistical activities on environmental questions within EPA and with other agencies;
Supervise reports clearance process within EPA; and
Review and evaluate statistical aspects of EPA contracts.
Implementation of this proposal could make it appear that EPA is being singled out for reform.
Consequently, it should be made evident that parallel implementation of similar initiatives should occur
where similar problems exist in OSHA, NIOSH and other agencies now collecting data on the environment
and workplace.
It is essential that this proposal (and the activities involving OSHA, NIOSH, etc.) be implemented
in conjunction with Presidential Management Initiatives so that OMB may exercise adequate review of
agency plans and implementation strategies.
Alternatives
#1. Creation of a central statistical control unit by allocation of five new positions and inclusion
of existing personnel now assigned to the forms clearance function (SP recommendation).
Providing new positions would give the agency the maximum possible flexibility and speed in hiring.
It would help in attracting a strong staff director and persons of a high degree of competence. The
new statistical needs originating from the Toxic Substance Act support the justification for a rapid
implementation of this proposal. Allocation of new positions, however, could result in a failure of
EPA to assess critically its basic statistical resources and needs. The agency might view this alter-
native as an indication that the creation of the central statistical control unit is a less important
task than those in the current EPA base.
FORD
13
#2.
Creation of a central statistical unit by a reprogramming of five existing positions and inclusion of
personnel now assigned to the forms clearance function.
Reprogramming is likely to produce the desired effect of a more critical EPA review of its use, develop-
ment, and coordination of statistical resources. It would indicate that OMB views this task as more
important than some other current EPA activities. However, reprogramming could have the undesired
effect of reducing the number of statistical slots now available to EPA Regional offices. Our evalua-
tion indicates that EPA does not have a surplus of statistical resources at present, In addition, the
process of determining where to reprogram might be a time consuming task and distract from the unit's
capability to produce an overall agency plan for statistical resource development and coordination in
the short term. Finally, reprogramming could result in the assignment of persons to the new statistical
unit who are unqualified.
Analysis
Budget Authority
($ Millions)
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
Alternative #1 (SP rec.)
.07
.07
.30
.30
.30
Alternative #3
.07
.07
.07
.07
.07
Alternative #1 (SP recommendation)
Because of the urgency of the need to implement the required
responsibility quickly, SP recommends this alternative. The
Environment Branch does not object to this position.
Alternative #2
This alternative is not recommended because it might delay implementation of the
proposal and might not increase the overall EPA statistical capability as required.
FORD
GERALD
4
Issue Pa
14
Department of Justice
Bureau of Criminal Statistics
1978 Budget
Issue #4: Bureau of Criminal Justice Statistics
Statement of Issue
How should OMB support the Development of a Bureau of Criminal Justice Statistics within the Department of
Justice?
Background
The Department of Justice has recently initiated steps to establish a Bureau of Criminal Justice
Statistics. This bureau is intended to develop a comprehensive, consistant body of criminal justice data.
Members of the SPD staff have discussed this idea with the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General
and various members of their staffs.
Although some minor action has been taken by the Department, and numerous speeches have been made
by Department officials, particularly the Deputy Attorney General, no specific budget request has been
made to establish such a bureau for fiscal 1978. Some research funds ($2.75 million) have been requested
by the Department and their justification suggests that they will be used for purposes which would support
the development of a statistics bureau. However, it is not clear which group in the Department will be
responsible for this research.
There have been great strides in the development of criminal justice statistics since 1969. The
Law Enforcement Assistance Administration has developed an excellent program of data collection. Many
of the recommendations of various presidential commissions going back to the 1920's have been implemented by
the LEAA's National Criminal Justice Information and Statistics Service (NCJISS). However, the data coming
from these programs have not been utilized by LEAA or the department because of a shortage of statistical
resources within the LEAA. Moreover the data produced under this program are frequently seen by the public
as having been manipulated for political purposes.
The Uniform Crime Reports (UCR), published by the FBI and covering only crimes known to the police have,
for years, been the subject of professional and political criticism. There has been a significant improvement
in the quality of UCR collection activities since 1972, when an LEAA program was established which requires
direct state level involvement in the supervision and auditing of the data produced by local law enforcement
agencies. However the UCR published reports continue to be as misleading as they were 20 years ago. In
&
FORD
GERALD
15
addition to the UCR, LEAA publishes crime statistics obtained through its crime survey panel which measures
crime reported by victims. These separate publications of crime statistics from LEAA and the FBI leads to
confusion in the press, the general public, and in the upper levels of the legislative and executive
branches of government. These activities must be coordinated.
The existing statistical programs within the Department involve an annual expenditure in excess of $30
million. The LEAA program is by far the largest and most comprehensive (the 1978 request totals $273million).
The FBI program, while smaller ($2.6 million in FY '77), involves virtually every police agency in the country.
Present Justice thinking would merge both of these activities along with many smaller functions into the new
bureau.
A major problem faced by the Department results from the fact that other groups within the Department
have no statistical programs at all. The offices of the U.S. Attorneys are the most obvious examples of the
source of a serious statistical data gap. Requiring the U.S. Attorneys to systematically report their
activities would not only provide the data required to make basic decisions about the efficiency of the
criminal justice process but would also directly provide the Attorney General with a key management tool.
The establishment of a bureau will provide the mechanism to significantly reduce such gaps.
Alternatives
#1. Provide the $2.75 million requested by the Department for research and provide no special
instructions to the LEAA or to the FBI (Department request).
#2. In the allowance letter, specify that $.75 million of the research funds be assigned to the
Office of Policy and Planning to develop the nucleus of a bureau. Approve the LEAA request
for $273 million and 11 additional positions for LEAA statistics, and the FBI request for $2.7
million. Instruct the LEAA and the FBI to maintain the level of effort for statistics, described
in their Exhibit 54's (SPD recommendation)
#3. Provide no "research" funding but approve the LEAA and FBI statistics requests and direct them
to maintain the level of funding described in their Exhibit 54's.
#4. Provide no "research" funding and provide no special instructions to LEAA or FBI.
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
16
Analysis
1978
1979
1980
etc.
Budget Authority
($ Millions)*
Alternative #1 (Agency req.) 32.6
32.6
32.6
32.6
Alternative #2 (SP rec.)
30.6
32.6
32.6
32.6
Alternative #3
29.9
29.9
29.9
29.9
Alternative #4
29.9
29.9
29.9
29.9
*An Exhibit 54 has not been received for FBI, these estimates are based on the 1977 level with no increase.
The direct outlay implications of these alternatives are minimal. There could be some cost saving if a
statistics bureau were to find some direct duplication, but this should not be considered one of the likely
outcomes of this decision. Rather the important issue is the ability of the Department to develop a coherent
data system which addresses the crime problem objectively. The absence of a sound data base can cause the
useless expenditures of hundreds of millions to billions of dollars. This problem is particularly serious at
the Federal level. For example, the crime reports showing increases in violent crimes are derived from the UCR
system. There is some evidence that an objective analysis of all of the factors, which could be available from
an independent system, would have shown that a significant part of the increase was due to the improvement in
reporting practices resulting from technical assistance and audit programs funded by the LEAA.
The Department feels that specific legislation is required to implement a full bureau. Until the
legislation is passed they do not feel that it is appropriate to request funds for its establishment.
However, there are significant activities which can and should take place immediately. Such a strategy
was spelled out in the SP planning "Framework" as. follows: (Also see attached Criminal Justice chapter)
"The Justice Department should immediately establish the nucleus of the Bureau of Criminal Statistics.
The operation should be organizationally located so that the Director would report directly to the
Deputy Attorney General. During the development stage, however, the activity could be temporarily
located within the Office of Justice Policy and Planning. Immediate steps should be taken by the
organization to develop a Federal OBTS with all parts of the Department directed to cooperate.
"There is also no reason to delay the development of standards for the publication of statistics
within the Department.
*Offender Based Transaction Statistics (OBTS), a system of data aggregation which provides insight into the
effectiveness of the criminal justice process. Such a system is now being established in several states with
LEAA funding. No similar system describing the Federal process exists.
GERALD FORD
17
"While these activities are taking place, a detailed plan for the development and implementation of a
full Bureau of Criminal Statistics should be prepared. This plan should be coordinated closely with all
of the organizations directly affected as well as the Statistical Policy Division of the Office of
Management and Budget " (page 17).
Some funding is needed for fiscal 1978 to carry out these steps. The general planning can be
accomplished in fiscal 1977 so that an expenditure of approximately $.75 million could be utilized effectively
in fiscal 1978.
The publicity about the creation of such a Bureau (a page one article in The Washington Post, October 13,
and another recent article in The Wall Street Journal) may precipitate another problem. The Department has
made it clear that this change will require moving the statistical activities of several Justice agencies into
main Justice. There is a danger that these agencies may reduce the resources they are devoting to statistics,
thus damaging the overall criminal justice statistics effort. This is particualrly true of LEAA which has
indicated that it will use $10 million from its discretionary funds for both fiscal 1977 and 1978 to support
its Federal/State cooperative statistics program. If these funds are not expended, the Federal/State program
which has been under development since 1972 could be destroyed. There is already evidence that LEAA is
reducing the funding of its statistical programs. The FY'77 request for "Data systems and statistical
assistance" in the President's budget was reduced in the appropriation process by $4 million. The entire $4
million cut was absorbed by the statistics program while the two systems programs were maintained intact.
Similarly, the FBI could reduce the support it provides to the Uniform Crime Reports resulting in a
deterioration in the statistical base, rather than improvement.'
Alternative #1: Department request
This alternative would not assume the orderly development of a statistics bureau within the Department.
However if the Department carried out the activities described in its justification, it would provide some
of the basic work required. The research funds are not requested for any specific operating activities and,
therefore, appear to be more a research "slush fund" for which no one has direct responsibility.
With alternative #1, we have no way of assuring that the LEAA and FBI will maintain the present level of
effort.
FORD & LIBRARY
18
Alternative #2. (SP recommendation)
This alternative guarantees the establishment of a bureau of statistics and protects the present -
criminal justice statistics effort from erosion.
Alternative #3.
This alternative would not provide the funding necessary for the establishment of the Bureau of Statistics
but would guarantee maintenance of effort on the part of LEAA and FBI.
Alternative #4.
This alternative would neither provide the necessary funding or guarantee maintenance of effort.
As of this writing, the Economics and Government Division has made no decisions as to its recommendations
on the detailed funding level for the Department of Justice, LEAA or FBI.
FORD & LIBRARY
SF-III-K-Table 10/01/76 1
SUBJECT TO AGENCY REVIEW
Criminal Justice Statistics
Attachment to Issue #4
Responsible Agencies
A well rounded statistics program for criminal justice would provide
comprehensive information on crime and its victims. on offenders and about
the administration of justice at the Federal. State, and local level. At
present, there are some 15 Federal agencies and thousands of State and
local agencies involved in the collection. analysis and use of criminal
justice statistics. The primary collecting agencies at the Federal level
are the National Criminal Justice Information and Statistics Service
(NCJISS) of the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA). the
Federal Bureau of Investigation. the Census Bureau. and the Administrative
Office of the United States Courts. However, at present almost all of the
major current criminal justice data collection activities involve LEAA in
one or another. For example. LEAA presently expends over $15 million
annually on interagency agreements with the Census Bureau.
Although a great deal of criminal justice data are collected, little
analysis is accomplished. despite LEAA's a clear mandate to do so.
Moreover. there is no activity within the Department of Justice itself,
with the possible exception of the Office of Policy and Planning. which
presently has a role of coordinating or analyzing criminal justice
statistics.
Beyond the analytical function there are a number of other
organizations which could provide support for criminal justice statistical
activities. but do not. The most important of these are the Offices of the
FORD & QERALD LIBRARY
SF-III-K-Table 10/01/76 2
SUBJECT TO AGENC: REVIEW
U.S. Attorneys, which are the focal point for the Federal criminal justice
process from arrest through adjudication.
Users
A major problem concerning criminal justice in the United States today
is a basic misunderstanding of crime and its impact as well as the efficacy
and cost of the criminal justice process. Therefore. a major target group
for criminal justice data is the general public. through the agency of the
press. Because of the constitutional reservation of justice activities to
the States. the decisionmaking is fragmented: the information reported by
the press impacts directly on decisionmakers in city councils, State
legislatures. and leadership personnel in criminal justice agencies at all
levels of government. Thus. it is essential that basic misunderstandings
concerning crime and the administration of justice be corrected. and our
general knowledge In this area expanded.
The academic community also is an important user of criminal justice
statistics. The last decade has seen the establishment of several
specialized schools of criminal justice as well as criminal justice
programs in general Institutions of higher learning. The data currently
being produced is a valuable resource for these institutions. More
importantly. behavioral scientists in general. and criminologists In
particular. are using criminal Justice statistics to develop and evaluate
their theories about crime and justice. Legislative. executive and
judicial decision makers rely heavily on these academics.
Another key user of criminal justice statistics is the Congress. The
FORD & LIBRARY ORRALD
Senate and House Judiciary committees in particular use data to design
SF-III-K-Table 10/01/76 3
SUBJECT TO AGENCY REVIEW
legislation and programs. The Subcommittee on Criminal Laws and Procedures
of the Senate Judiciary Committee, for example. used a great deal of
statistical information on judicial outcomes and sentencing policies among
the various Federal courts in the development of legislation to codify
Federal criminal statutues (S-1). The Juvenile Delinquency Subcommittee
continues to use information on juvenile Institutions and juvenile courts
in its development and monitoring of juvenile justice programs. The
Subcommittee on Crime of the House Judiciary Committee uses information on
urban crime rates in making decisions concerning the shape of Federal
legislation. particularly in the LEAA authorization. which now includes a
special program for high crime areas.
Many LEAA program decisions are based on information concerning crime
and justice. The distribution of funds through the LEAA'S juvenile justice
program was highly impacted by data on juvenile detention facilities.
juvenile arrests and Juvenile court actions. The LEAA "high impact crime
reduction program." a $160 million effort was designed to attempt to reduce
"stranger-to-stranger" crime and burglary in eight large cities. The
selection of cities was based on information on crimes known to the police
as reported in the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) concerning the incidence of
these crimes. The overall evaluation of the program on the other hand is
based on information collected through victimization surveys. Each city,
as part of its participation, was required to establish "crime analysis
teams" which became very active users of statistics on crime and the
effectiveness and cost of various justice process alternatives.
The LEAA program has also established another entire set of users. One
of the requirements for participation in the LEAA Federal/State cooperative
FORD & LIBRARY
program is that each State must establish a Criminal Justice Statistical
SF-III-K-Table 10/01/76 4
SUBJECT TO AGENCY REVIEW
Analysis Center (SAC). These centers provide input to the Criminal Justice
State Planning Agencies (required by the Crime Control Act). State and
local criminal justice agencies and the governor's office. As of mid-1976,
36 States have established criminal justice statistics analysis centers
Advisory Groups
There is no single advisory group which continually reviews and makes
recommendations concerning criminal justice statistics. There are some
advisory groups which are limited to specific programs or which represent a
specific constituancy. An example is the International Association of
Chiefs of Police (IACP) whose Committee on Uniform Crime Records advises
the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) program. Similarly. LEAA has funded
a consortium of States known as SEARCH Group. Inc. (formerly Project
SEARCH) which regularly makes recommendations to LEAA on activities of
particular interest to State agencies.
People concerned with criminal justice statistics have been fortunate
in having had a series of commissions 1/ which have provided excellent
program guidance. Nevertheless, a continuing advisory group is strongly
recommended. A model for such a group already exists. In 1974. LEAA
convened an ad hoc "policy development" group representing Federal, State
and local agencies, the academic community. the press. and public Interest
groups. Such a committee, with additional representation from key segments
of the general public, particularly minority and women's groups. should be
organized and convened on a regular basis. The membership of such a group
should be rotated frequently in order to reduce the tendency for the
advisory committee Itself to become another special interest lobby.
FORD & GERALD LIBRARY
SF-111-K-Table 10/01/76 5
SUBJECT TO AGENCY REVIEW
In addition. a Federal interagency committee should be established to
provide better coordination among the various Federal agencies involved in
criminal justice statistics. However, since most of the agencies involved
are within the Department of Justice. the establishment of an OMB committee
should be delayed until the effectiveness of the newly established
Departmental committee on statistics can be assessed.
Core programs
In order to reasonably discuss the core program for criminal justice
statistics, it is necessary to examine the overall data requirements. The
best description of these requirements can be found in the report of the
Task Force on Assessment of the President's Commission on Law Enforcement
and the Administration of Justice (The Katzenbach Commission).2 and in the
report of the Advisory Task Force on Information Systems and Statistics of
the National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals.3/
Both of these task forces stressed the need for reliable data on crime. the
criminal justice system, the justice process. and information on victims
and offenders.
There are now a variety of programs in place which satisfy many of the
requirements described by the Commissions.
Uniform Crime Reports (FBI). The UCR program in operation since 1930,
is the oldest of the existing criminal justice statistics programs.
Primarily. UCR solicits information on crimes known to the pulice. arrests,
offenses cleared by arrest. law enforcement employee data. data on law
FORD & LIBRARY /
enforcement officers killed. and other law enforcement data. Until 1969,
these data were all reported directly from local police agencies to the
SF-III-K-Table 10/01/76 6
SUBJECT TO AGENCY REVIEW
FBI. In 1969, the Bureau began a program in which State agencies would
assume responsibility for collecting information from the departments
compiling it and forwarding it to the FBI.
In 1972. LEAA included UCR as a part of its Comprehensive Data System
(CDS) program. State agencies participating in this program must assume
responsibility for UCR collection and quality control. To accomplish the
quality control. standardized audit systems have been developed. The UCR
program has long been criticized for being subject to manipulation by local
law enforcement agencies for political purposes. While this possibility
remains. the new quality control efforts should markedly reduce the
problem.
The National Crime Survey Panel (NCSP) LEAA. This survey also gathers
information about crime. It differs from the UCR in that it reports
information obtained from the victim rather than reporting crimes known
only to the police. It has been found that the differences between crime
reported by the Crime Survey Panel and the UCR are significant and vary
widely from place to place. The first survey of the largest cities
indicated that the differences ranged from 2:1 to in excess of 7:1. In all
cities some crimes never come to the attention of the police, but in some
areas, for whatever reason. the public or police fail to report an
exceptionally large number of offenses.
The Crime Survey Panal also has the ability to more carefully examine
complex crimes. Because of its summary collection method, the UCR counts
&
FORD
only the most serious crime which takes place in a criminal event. The
Crime Panel identifies all of the crimes which take place In an episode and
GERALD
LIBRARY
includes an indication of the number of victims. offenders. etc.
SF-III-K-Table 10/01/76 7
SUBJECT TO AGENCY REVIEW
The Crime Panel began regular data collection in 1974. Presently. it
produces data for the United States and for 13 large cities annually. In
addition to gathering information about victimization. the panel is used to
gather attitudinal information about official criminal Justice policies.
etc. These data are collected for LEAA by the Bureau of the Census.
Serious questions have been raised concerning the continued collection
of data for individual cities. The correct argument is made that
collecting data from residents of cities does not adequately reflect crime
which takes place in these cities. However. it does represent the crime
problem of the residents. The differences In the reported rates (UCR) and
the Crime Survey generated rates are significant. For example. when one
examines burglary alone the comparisons bwtween crime survey data and the
UCR. should be exact. Large differences between the NCSP rates and the UCR
rates can only reflect a situation in which the public fails to report
crimes to the police or the police fail to report crimes to the FBI. In
either case these differences can be used as a direct measure of police
performance or credibility in the area.
The effort to audit UCR statistics through the CDS program should
reduce these differences. Until that effort becomes fully operational. the
collection of cities data through the "Crime Survey Panel" remains
imperative.
It is not possible to fund data collection activities in every city
which might be of Interest. Therefore. work should begin immediately on
the development of "synthetic" methods of estimating crime in local areas
utilizing existing crime survey data along with demographic and other data.
The development of such multi-variat techniques should be given high
FORD & GERALD LIBRARY
SF-III-K-Table 10/01/76 8
SUBJECT TO AGENCY REVIEW
priority so that they can be subjected to definitive tests using 1980
Census data. If such estimation procedures can be developed, the cities
sample could be eliminated at a savings of several million dollars per
year.
National Correctional Statistics Program (LEAA). This program consists
of several administrative data collection activities and surveys. The core
of this program is National Prisoner Statistics (NPS). which was
established in 1936. It collects data on the number and movement of
prisoners in State institutions and provides the only definitive data on
capital punishment. The Federal Bureau of Prisons supplies data on
prisoners in Federal Institutions which is reported in this series. NPS
bulletins are published annually.
Another correctional statistics effort is the triennial Census of Jails
and Characteristics of Inmates of Local Jails. A report on the
Characteristics of Inmates of State Prisons is prepared on the same
schedule. Another element of this program is the Juvenile Detention
Facilities Census.
Employment and Expenditures for the Criminal Justice System
(Census/LEAA). This survey collectes detailed information on expenditures
and employment for States. large cities, and large counties. The
expenditure data. which are required by law. provide the basis for LEAA
distribution of funds to State governments and local governments.
Data are provided by sectors of the criminal justice system (e.g.,
police courts, etc.) annually.
FORD & 07W830 LIBRARY
SF-III-K-Table 10/01/76 9
SUBJECT TO AGENCY REVIEW
Uniform Parole Reports (LEAA/National Council on Crime and Delinquency
(NCCD). The Uniform Parole Reports (UPS) are a product of the National
Parole Institutes which is managed by the National Council on Crime and
Delinquency (NCCD). It provides some information on the outcomes of
parole. LEAA has been supporting this effort through grants to NCCD.
Comprehensive Data Systems (LEAA). The Comprehensive Data Systems
program is the LEAA Federal/State cooperative statistics program. In order
to participate in this program each State is required to implement five
modules. The State: (1) must establish a Statistical Analysis Center to
coordinate all of the activities in the program and to provide the
analytical capability for policymakers in the State: (2) Develop an
Offender Based Transaction Statistics Program: (3) Assume responsibility
for Uniform Crime Reports: (4) Establish a Management and Administrative
Statistics program: and (5) Develop a program to provide technical
assistance to participating local agencies.
The Statistical Analysis Centers and the Uniform Crime Reports have
been described above.
The Offender Based Transaction Statistics Program (OBTS) is designed to
identify persons arrested for serious offenses and follows the person as he
passes through the criminal justice system recording the date and the
disposition of each transaction. Each individual thus identified is
assigned a unique identifier (FBI number) based on fingerprint
identification. If such an Idividual is arrested subsequently for a
"fingerprintable" offense, his new OBTS record can be associated with the
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
original record. In this way information on recidivism can be developed.
The CDS concept requires that OBTS data be developed in conjunction with
SF-III-K-Table 10/01/76 10
SUBJECT TO AGENCY REVIEW
the computerized criminal history (CCH) program being developed In
cooperation with the FBI. However the slow and expensive (estimated to
exceed $100 million) development of CCH. has brought the continuation of
the entire program into serious question. While there may be serious
questions as to whether the CCH program should be continued. very few
debate the need for transaction type data to analyze the effectiveness of
various criminal justice processes. 4/ The need for the CCH capability. on
the other hand. should be systematically re-examined if there is found to
be adequate justification. the program should be continued intact. If
continuation cannot be justified. the program should be reopiented or
abolished.
The Management and Administrative Statistics (MAS) program is
designed to provide a mechanism for the States to examine their needs for
general data describing their own system and to develop programs to provide
those data. The Organization of Directors of State Statistical Analysis
Centers are attempting to develop a common set of MAS data requirements. At
some future date. many of the LEAA programs could be modified to use State
provide data rather than collect by the Bureau of the Census.
The Technical assistance part of the program is designed to provide
local agencies with the "know how" to fully participate In the state
program.
Federal Court Data (Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts). The
Administrative Office of the Courts prepares an annual report which
provides detailed information about the workloads and outcomes to actions
In the Federal courts. This administrative system is the only systematic
FORD & QERALD LIBRARY
SF-III-K-Table 10/01/76 11
SUBJECT TO AGENCY REVIEW
program which gives any insight into the workings of the Federal criminal
justice system.
Other Programs
In addition to the programs described above. a number of agencies
maintain data collection efforts which are designed to provide some
information about crime or criminal justice. There are, for example.
programs which collect data on drug users in order to develop estimates of
the user population. Some of the programs of the National Center for
Health Statistics. particularly vital statistics, provide some insight into
injuries and causes of death. which have useful implications for analyzing
crime.
The requirements for criminal justice data and programs to provide such
data are generally shown in the following table.
GERALD R. FORD
\
SF-III-K-Table 10/01/76 12
SUBJECT TO AGENCY REVIEW
Programs
Legend:
Direct Federal Programs
Offender
A. Acceptable coverage1/
Admin.
National
Based
Manage-
P. Partial coverage
Employ-
Office
Correcti-
Trans-
ment
Uni-
Uni-
N. No coverage
National
ment &
of U.S.
onal
action
&Admin.
form
form
Crime
Expendi-
Courts
Statis-
Statis-
Statis-
Crime
Parole
Data Requirements
Survey
ture
Reports
tics
DAWN tics
tics
Reports
Reports
Net
Crime and its Impact
Crime-level and rate
Reported
A
A1/
Unreported
A
A1/
White collar
N
Victimless
N
Costs of crime
A
A1/
Victims
A
A1/
The Justice establishment
Expenditures*
A
A1/
Facilities & Equip.*
P
P
P
P
A1/
A
A
P
A
A1/
Manpower*
A
A
The Justice process
Volumes*
P
P
P
P
P2/
Rates*
P
P
P
P2/
Times*
P
P
P
P2/
Characteristics of
offenders
P
P
P
Drug abuse
p4/
p4/
Illegal Immigration
N
Public attitudes toward
crime and justice
A
A1/
1/ All of the programs marked "A" can and should be improved. The "A"refers only to coverage not to quality.
timeliness or any other desirable attribute of a statistical program.
2/ Not available for all segments of the system at State level.
3/ Not available at Federal level.
4/ Of excessively poor quality.
*
Data In these areas should be available separately for : police, courts. prosecution, and corrections.
FORD & LIBRARY
SF-III-K-Table 10/01/76 13
SUBJECT TO AGENCY REVIEW
Conclusions
The above matrix indicates clearly some of the problem areas In terms
of the data required in criminal justice.
Crime data
In the crime area we find that no data are routinely collected on
"white collar" crime and "victimless crime." Yet, white collar crimes such
as consumer fraud are thought to cost the society hundreds of millions of
dollars annually. White collar criminals prey on both the rich
(embezzlement) and the poor (i.e., consumer fraud). A systematic study
needs to be made to attempt to develop a methodology for assessing these
nearly invisible crimes. The Comprehensive Crime Control Act gives the
Federal Government the responsibility for identifying and quantifying crime
problems so that adequate control procedures can be developed at the State
and local level.
Given the level of national resources allocated to the supression of
victimless crime. it would be reasonable to assume that hard data existed
concerning the incidence and prevalance of such activities. To be sure. we
have some information, but not enough. Arrest statistics provide the most
common surrogate for comprehensive data. But these sources shed no light
on the characteristics of offenders or on the details of the offense nor on
the volumn of offenses.
Drug data
FORD & ORRALD LIBRARY
SF-III-K-Table 10/01/76 14
SUBJECT TO AGENCY REVIEW
Because of the public ideas of the implications of the problem of drug
abuse and the official reaction to public opinion. drug abuse statistics
should be among the most valid and reliable available. While this is a
difficult goal to accomplish. we should not settle for data which at best
are inadequate and are probably grossly misleading.
The program which generates gross measures of abuse-the "DEA 34"
program--is extremely weak methodologically and should be discontinued.
The DAWN program (Drug Abuse Warning Network) is essentially not a
statistical program but is an information system which may give early
warning about drugs of abuse in specific areas. However, it is being used,
irresponsibly as a national statistical system. Much of the data which
have been published have no validity. For example, data have recently been
published with nonresponse rates of up to 80%! There should be no further
publication of DAWN data to the general public or within the Executive
Branch except for law enforcement or health purposes. Further publication
should result In the complete discontinuance of the program. A study should
be undertaken immediately to determine whether or not drug usage data could
be more effectively collected by the National Center for Health Statistics
of HEW or some other agency. perhaps a Bureau of Criminal Justice
Statistics (see below).
Court statistics
A comprehensive court statistics program needs to be established.
Information on caseload by type of case. criminal. civil, traffic. etc. is
essential at every level of government. In such a program caseload data
FORD & LIBRARY GRAALD
should be coupled with resource information to provide a full picture. The
SF-III-K-Table 10/01/76 15
SUBJECT TO AGENCY REVIEW
courts themselves need data on the adjudication process in more detail than
provided by OBTS. The development of standardized court information
systems at the State level could provide the information needed for court
management as well the statistical information required for policy
decisions. An excellent start has been made In this area with the LEAA
sponsored development of the State Judicial Information System (SJIS). In
this program. selected states developed a comprehensive system, which
should now be implemented broadly.
Federal Criminal Justice Data
Another urgently needed new resource is a program to examine the
Federal criminal justice process: a Federal OBTS. This would require that
U.S. Attorneys Offices be involved in a systematic effort. It is only the
Federal prosecutor who has access to complete information from the point of
arrest though adjudication. The Federal Bureau of Prisons and the United
States Parole Board would have to be included to extend the coverage from
adjudication through correctional outcomes. Negotiation should be
undertaken with the administration office of the U.S. courts to secure
their cooperation in this effort.
As an interim step, a partial program could be developed using FBI data
on Federal offenders. These data contain Information about the arrest. the
offense, and the final disposition. Analyzed along with data from the
Administrative Office of the Courts. the FBI criminal history information
could provide about half of the data required on the Federal criminal
justice process.
GERALD R. FORD LIBRACE
A Bureau of Criminal Statistics
SF-III-K-Table 10/01/76 16
SUBJECT TO AGENCY REVIEW
The Katzenbach Commission, reflecting the earlier concerns of the
Wickersham Commission, called for the establishment of a.National Criminal
Justice Statistics Center. The Standards and Goals Commission assumed that
such a center now existed within LEAA. An examination of the history of
the statistics effort within LEAA, however, leads to the conclusion that
LEAA has not established such a center in any sense of the word.
The appropriation for fiscal 1970 provided funds for the establishment
of a statistical effort within LEAA. Since that time the budget for
statistics and information systems has grown from an Initial $1 million in
FY 1970, to a high of $43 million in fiscal 1975. At the same time. the
staff level for the National Criminal Justice Information and Statistics
Service (NJISS) has remained static at approximately 30 fulltime permanent
employees. This level of support is inconsistant with even minimal
responsibility for an important program. LEAA has even had to contract out
many of the planning functions for their extensive statistics programs.
As noted previously. there is little analytical capability for general-
purpose statics in LEAA or elsewhere in the Department of Justice. Although
the National Institute for Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice of LEAA has
human resources, little has been done by the Institute to exploit the data
collected by NCJISS. NCJISS itself has been provided no resources by the
agency which would permit it to assume an analytical function.
In light of these LEAA and Departmenal failures, the most pressing need
in criminal justice statistics is the establishment of a Bureau of Criminal
Statistics or a National Criminal Justice Statistics Center. In order for
such a Bureau to successful. however, adequate resources will have to be
FORD i GREATO
provided. No simple transfer of personnel from existing activities to the
SF-I11-K-Table 10/01/76 17
SUBJECT TO AGENCY REVIEW
new Bureau would be sufficient to perform the activities required. Even
after adequate human resources are provided the Department of Justice will
also have to provide support by requiring the various agencies within the
Department to provide needed administrative data to the new Bureau.
The national center should also coordinate the statistical activities
of various agencies within the Department of Justice. For example. the
uncoordinated publication of crime statistics by the FBI and LEAA. The
perception of the crime problem and the resulting official response is
warped by the separate publication of data on crimes known to the police
(UCR) and crime reports by victims (Crime Panel). Separate publication
should be discontinued and a joint publication developed by the "central
bureau". Such a joint publication should place the disparate estimates
from these two sources in the proper perspective.
Steps to be taken
The Justice Department should immediately establish the nucleus of the
Bureau of Criminal Statistics. The operation should be organizationally
located so that the Director would report directly to the Deputy Attorney
General. During the development stage, however. the activity could be
temporarily located within the Office of Justice Policy and Planning.
FORD & LIBA
Immediate steps should be taken by the organization to develop a Federal
OBTS. with all parts of the Department directed to cooperate.
SF-III-K-Table 10/01/76 18
SUBJECT TO AGENCY REVIEW
There is also no reason to delay the development of standards for the
publication of statistics within the Department.
While these activities are taking place. a detailed plan for the
development and implementation of a full Bureau of Criminal Statistics
should be prepared. This plan should be coordinated closely with all of
the organizations directly affected as well as the Statistical Policy
Division of the Office of Management and Budget.
Summary of recommendations
1. A broad based national advisory committee for criminal justice
statistics should be established (page 5).
2. A Federal Interagency committee on criminal justics statistics should
be established (p.5).
3. Collection of crime survey data from cities Should be continued. (p.8)
4. Statistical methods for estimating the local Incidence and prevalence
of crime should be developed. (p.8)
5. Ways should be found for LEAA to use State produced data rather than
data collected nationally for administrative statistics. (p.11)
6. Methods should be developed to assess "white collar" and victimless
crime (p.14)
FORD & DERALD LIBRARY
SF-III-K-Table 10/01/76 19
SUBJECT TO AGENCY REVIEW
7. A Federal Bureau of Criminal Statistics should be established within
the Justice Department (p.15)
8. A Federal Offender Based Transaction Statistics program should be
established. (p.16)
9. Methods should be developed to generate comprehensive information on
courts (p.16)
10. Drug information programs should be significantly improved or scrapped,
and that the possibility of having drug statistics collected by the
National Center for Health Statistics or the new Bureau of Criminal
Justics Statistics should be examined. (p.18)
FORD & LIBRARY
SF-III-K-Table 10/01/76 20
SUBJECT TO AGENCY REVIEW
1/ The Wickersham Commission Reports. 1929. 1930; The President's
Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice. "The
Katzenbach Commission". 1967. and the National Advisory Commission on
Criminal Justice Standards and Goals in 1973.
2/ Task Force Report. Crime and its Impact - An Assessment. U.S.
Government Printing Office. Washington, D.C., 1967.
3/Criminal Justice System. U.S. Government Printing Office, 1974-528-395.
Region No. 4.
4./Crime and its Inpact Op cit p132 ff
GERALD R. FORD
5
Iss
aper
19
Departments of Health, Education, and Welfare, Housing and Urban Development, and Justice
1978 Budget
Issue #5: Federal-State Cooperative Statistical Programs
Statement of Issue
What should be OMB's position concerning the establishment and maintenance of Federal-State
Cooperative Statistical Programs in Departments with existing or proposed block grant programs?
Background
At least four Federal agencies, housed in three Departments, now have in operation or in proposed
legislation substantial block grant programs which will decentralize the management and administration
of funds to the State level. The States' capability to allocate the available resources appropriately
and equitably will depend in large measure on their access to timely, accurate statistics.
Two Federal agencies have block grant programs in place. The Department of Justice has already
initiated a cooperative statistical program, but funding for its Comprehensive Data System has declined
substantially. The Department of Housing and Urban Development has not undertaken to develop or
implement a cooperative statistical program.
The two proposed block grant programs are in Education and Health. Both of these agencies have
developed cooperative statistical programs. In the case of Education, minimal financial resources have
been allocated. In the case of Health, the cooperative program has received relatively low priority in
terms of overall budget.
Each of the existing cooperative statistical programs has been developed independently. As a
consequence, there is substantial disparity among the existing Departmental programs. At one extreme
is HUD, which has made no effort to develop a cooperative statistical program. In Education, only minimal
support is given to the State agencies. The Health statistics program serves the needs of States as well as
the Federal government for general health statistics. The Health program seeks to support both implementation
and maintenance activities. The LEAA program, on the other hand, concentrates support to the States on
implementation activities, and provides only minimal support for system maintenance.
GERALD R. FORD TIBRANZA
20
The Statistical Policy Division believes that OMB should actively encourage the development and
maintenance of Federal-State Cooperative Statistical Programs in Departments having block grant programs,
and should provide policy guidance concerning the limits of Federal funding responsibility for these activities.
Alternatives
#1. Continue to treat each agency's cooperative statistical effort independently (Agency request).
#2. Actively encourage agencies having block grant programs to develop and maintain cooperative
statistical programs. Provide substantial Federal support for State level implementation and
minimal direct support for system maintenance. Require use of block grant funds to support system
maintenance (SP recommendation).
Provide $17.9 million in FY 1978 for the Cooperative Health Statistics System
(Total NCHS budget recommended is $34.0 million).
Direct NCES to allocate an additional $2.0 million from FY 1978 resources to the Common Core
of Data and Assistance Programs (Total NCES budget recommended is $17.2 million).
Provide $13.0 million in FY 1978 for LEAA Comprehensive Data System (Also see issue #4 on the
Bureau of Criminal Statistics).
Direct HUD to initiate planning for a Federal-State Cooperative Statistical Program.
#3. Actively encourage agencies having block grant programs to develop and maintain cooperative
statistical programs. Provide substantial Federal support for State level implementation and
system maintenance.
FORD & GERALD LIBRARY
21
Analysis
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
Budget Authority
($ Millions)
Alternative #1 (Agency Request)
Department of Justice:
14.3
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
Department of HUD:
-
--
--
--
--
Education Division:
1.8
2.3
4.3
7.0
10.0
Public Health Service:
9.5
10.2
19.0
26.8
28.5
Alternative #2 (SP Recommendation)
Department of Justice:
14.3
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
Department of HUD:
--
I
*
*
*
Education Division:
1.8
2.3
6.3
10.0**
10.0**
Public Health Service:
9.5
10.2
17.0
20.0**
21.0**
* No funding in FY '78 (out year costs would depend on '78 planning process)
** Assumes the passage of block grant proposals
Alternative #3
Department of Justice:
14.3
13.0
13.0
40.0
50.0
Department of HUD:
I
:
--
*
*
Education Division:
1.8
2.3
4.3
30.0
50.0
Public Health Service:
9.5
10.2
19.0
75.0
90.0
*
Depends on FY '78 planning process
The least expensive alternative is #1 in terms of immediate outlay, and it will result in failure
to develop orderly statistical data for use at the Federal and State levels for the planning and administration
of block grant program resources. Under this alternative, it is expected that in education and community
development less, rather than more, attention will be given by the responsible agencies to this important area.
The expected result will be an absence of standard, timely and reliable data for program administration.
FORD & GERALD LIBRARY
The orderly, cooperative development of statistical systems to support Federal and State decisionmaking
would be accomplished best through Alternative #2. Under this alternative, the level of direct Federal
expenditure would be limited in the long-range. The major Federal investment would occur during the early years
of the Cooperative Statistical Program, to ensure the consistent implementation of the program in the States.
Maintenance costs would be drawn from the States' resources, under the block grant programs or otherwise. The
funds for statistics comprise only a small proportion of the funds allocated for block grants.
Comparison of 1978 Block grant funding requests
with Federal/State Cooperative statistical systems
($ millions)
1978
Department of Justice:
Block grant funds
449.6
Cooperative Statistical Program
13.0
Department of HUD:
Block grant funds
3,400.0
Cooperative Statistical Program
--
Education Division:
Block grant funds
3,806.0
Cooperative Statistical Program
6.3
Public Health Service:
Block grant funds
14,000.0
Cooperative Statistical Program
17.0
The most expensive alternative is #3. It poses the risk of having the Federal Government support
the Cooperative Statistical Programs "forever." Given current policy, it may be anticipated that block grant
programs, and the concomitant need for statistical data, will continue for an indeterminite number of years.
Alternative #1: Agency request
While clearly the least expensive in terms of short term outlays, this alternative may have long term costs
to the Federal Government in terms of inadequate or inequitable distribution of Federal block grant funds. This
alternative is not recommended.
FORD & LIBS 22ALD
23
Alternative #2: SP recommendation
This alternative will encourage and allow for the orderly development and implementation of cooperative
statistical programs needed for the allocation of Federal block grant funds. At the same time, it will set
a precedent for the limits of Federal responsibility in supporting maintenance of cooperative systems which
are mutually needed. It should be noted that the funding levels recommended in this alternative do not reflect
final recommendations of relevant budget divisions.
Alternative #3.
This alternative is too costly and not consistent with the block grant concept.
GORALD R. FORD
9
24
Issue Paper
Departments of Commerce and Treasury
1978 Budget
Issue #6: Revenue Sharing
Statement of Issue
Should the Bureau of the Census' Annual Survey of State and Local Government Finance be used to collect
the state and local government reports on actual and proposed uses of revenue sharing entitlements required
by Section 121 of the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Amendments of 1976 or should Treasury proceed with
an independent survey?
Background
Each government (39,000) receiving benefits through the 1976 Amendments of the State and Local Fiscal
Assistance Act of 1972 is required by those amendments to make an annual report to the Secretary of the
Treasury on (1) how much of its previous year's entitlement was expended for what governmental functions,
(2) how much was its total expenditure for each such function, and (3) how use of its entitlement differed
from published plans for its use. The Congress intended that these reports provide for enhanced citizen
participation in local budget decisionmaking and for the collection of detailed information on both the use
and the fiscal impact of revenue sharing monies.
If these data are not collected as anintegral part of the Bureau of the Census' Annual Survey of State
and Local Government Finance, large scale duplication of reporting will occur. Furthermore, there are
questions concerning the comparability of data collected and the practical use of these data for analysis
of the impact of revenue sharing.
FORD & LIBRAR. ALLD
25
Alternatives
#1. Use one Census Bureau survey to collect actual/proposed use data and the data now collected by
Census in its Annual Survey of State and Local Finance. Further, combine Census' Annual Finance
Survey with Census' Annual Survey of State and Local Revenues in fiscal year 1980 and secure an
$800 thousand offset. This would require an increase in the detail and coverage of the Annual
Survey. It would also require minor modifications in the 1977 Census of Government Finance. All
issues (redundancy, comparability and practical utility) would be resolved by this alternative
(SP recommendation).
#2.
Use two coordinated Census Bureau surveys: (1) a new survey to collect actual/proposed use data and
(2) the Annual Survey of Government Finance to continue as a separate survey. This alternative would
resolve the comparability issue, partially resolve the practical utility issue, and leave the redun-
dancy issue unresolved.
#3. Rely upon the Department of Treasury to use methods similar to those employed by the Office of
Revenue Sharing (1972 - 1976) for collection of Actual and Planned Use Reports. This would resolve
none of the three issues.
#4. In opposition to or in conjunction with the above alternatives, request Treasury to develop a
legislative initiative which would remove the reporting requirements from the Act and substitute
for them a requirement that each recipient government certify to the Secretary of Treasury that
it had published proposed and actual use reports in local newspapers of general circulation and
had thereby met the citizen participation requirements of the Act.
Analysis
Budget Authority
($ Millions)
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
Alternative #1 (SP rec.)
Treasury
.2
.2
I
I
I
Census
-
.2
.4
.8
.3 /
Alternative #2
Treasury
.2
.2
-
I
I
Census
-
.1
.3
.4
.4
Alternative #3
&
FORD
Treasury
.2
.3
.3
.4
.4
Census
-
I
I
I
I
Alternative #4
GRALD
Treasury
.2
.2
I
I
-
Census
-
-
-
-
-
The reduction from fiscal year 1979 to 1980 is due to the offset provided by the merger with Census' Annual
Revenues Survey.
26
The reporting requirements of the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Amendments of 1976 pose issues
involving redundant data collection, comparability of data, and practical utility of data. First, in opposition
to the Presidential Management Initiative to reduce the burden of Federal reporting, the new requirements are
likely to impose a redundant and unnecessary reporting burden on all large and many small governments if they are
not fully integrated with ongoing Census programs. Second, this redundant data collection will result in two
Federal statistical series whose data on state and local finance are not necessarily comparable. Third, though
provided by Congress as a means for revenue sharing impact analysis, those reports, unless integrated with Census'
Annual Survey of State and Local Finance, cannot contribute to the intended analysis. If the Department of the
Treasury collects these data, the equivalent of an annual census of state and local government finance will be
required, duplicating the Bureau of the Census' Annual Survey of State and Local Government Finance. (The
Census survey collects fiscal data from 19,000 governments including 7,650 beneficiaries of the Act. All cities
of more than 25,000 and all counties with more than 50,000 population are included in the Census survey.)
Because of the fungible character of revenue sharing expenditures, analysis of the impact of the Act
on government finance and expenditures can best be accomplished through case studies and the development of
econometric models which relate revenue sharing expenditures to the total resources and services of each
government. From the standpoint of such analysis, actual/proposed use reports are not required. Though
linked in the intent of Congress, actual/proposed use reports and meaningful impact analysis have no necessary
relationship.
Alternative #1: Integration of Data Collection (SPD recommendation)
A maximum Census Bureau/Treasury program would involve full integration of actual/proposed use reporting
and the Annual Finance Survey. This alternative would solve the redundancy problem, strengthen Census data on
government finance, and provide limited support to revenue sharing impact analysis. This approach will enable
analysis of revenue sharing expenditures in the context of both the total resources available to each government
and the total services provided by each government. This strategy would prevent the development of separate
data series. Moreover, this approach will strengthen Census' statistical series on government finance and will
make possible future reductions in burden by integration in fiscal year 1980 of the expanded Annual Survey with
intergovernmental revenue surveys now conducted by the Census Bureau. Integration with the revenues survey will
provide an offset in fiscal year 1980 of $800 thousand in Census' budget.
FORD
27
Alternative #2: Coordination with Census Annual Finance Survey
A minimum Census Bureau/Treasury program would involve using Census methods to design and collect actual/
proposed use reports. The data collection would be coordinated with, but not be a part of, Census' Annual
Finance Survey. This approach would neither reduce burden nor result in the production of reliable data, for
it would depend upon the capacity of each government to classify its expenditures in terms of the Census Bureau's
categories. This alternative would neither provide impact analysis data, nor strengthen Census data on government
finance. However, it would collect data on the basis of the Census Bureau's expenditure categories.
Alternative #3: Treasury Data Collection Independent of Census' Surveys
Reliance upon the Department of Treasury to develop and implement a program for collection of proposed
and actual use data will result in redundant data collection and produce data of such poor quality that it will
not be possible to produce valid or reliable national totals much less be used for comparisons between governments
and entitlement periods.
Following enactment of the Act in 1972, OMB sought to achieve significant revisions of the Office of
Revenue Sharing's reports collection plans. The OMB intent was to ensure that the data collected would relate
to basic statistical series on government finance and be useful for intergovernmental comparisons. The ORS
successfully opposed the OMB effort on the basis of ORS interpretation of Congressional intent. The 1976
amendments removed the grounds previously used by ORS in opposing OMB.
The redundancy, comparability and practical utility issues could be raised in the context of OMB review
of ORS plans once submitted to OMB under the Federal Reports Act. However, submission of those reports for OMB
clearance will occur too late for integration with the 1977 Census of Governments, making it infeasible for Census
to provide ORS data on the schedule required for the distribution of entitlements.
Alternative #4: Legislative Initiative to Drop Reports
Alternative #4 proposes that the Department of Treasury develop a legislative initiative to substitute
a certification process for the collection of actual/proposed use reports. This proposal distinguishes between
the role of actual/proposed use reports in the citizen participation context specified in the Act and the role
of those reports as gathered by the Secretary of Treasury for purposes of impact analysis. The actual/proposed
use reports can only serve the citizen participation objective, because, as specified in the Act, those reports
will collect only a small portion of the data required for impact analysis. Recipient governments could be
required to publish actual and proposed use data in newspapers of general circulation and certify to the
Secretary of Treasury that the information was available for citizen use in participation in the budget building
process.
exect FOND
28
Of the four alternatives, removal of the reporting requirement is the most reasonable. This alternative
was suggested to the 94th Congress staff, it was in the Senate bill, but was rejected in conference reflecting
strong Congressional opposition. It is understood that Treasury is opposed to proposing this amendment to
Congress.
FORD & LIBRARD LIBRARY G7V8
7
29
Issue Paper
Information Item
1978 Budget
Issue #7: Energy Agencies
Issue: Coordination of budget review of 1978 requests for energy information and analysis programs
from several agencies.
Statement of the Issue
What steps are needed to reduce the extent of duplication and overlap in the recommendations for
energy information and analysis programs in the 1978 budgets of the FEA, ERDA, Bureau of Mines, FPC, and
U.S. Geological Survey?
Background
After the Arab Oil embargo, some agencies were reorganized and new agencies were created. These
agencies were quick to develop information gathering capabilities to support both regulatory and general
policy functions. In addition, several existing agencies expanded their data collection efforts. The
potential for duplication was great, especially because of the following factors:
The Government did not have a catalog of data already collected in this area. Thus the agencies
were not in all cases aware of the available data.
Regulatory programs were started which required specific data not already collected in the
necessary detail.
Agencies had overlapping responsibilities and, therefore, need similar data analysis.
New laws primarily affecting FEA multiplied that agency's responsibilities and often
mandated specific data collection activities.
FORD & LIBRARY SERVID
30
Other factors, including the divided reports clearance responsibilities under the Federal Reports
Act and inadequate resources for monitoring and coordinating the activities of many agencies,
have hampered efforts to bring this situation under control.
Several steps have been taken to minimize the overlap and duplication of data collection. At OMB's
insistence, FEA has initiated several interagency collection agreements with other agencies. The Federal
Interagency Council on Energy Information has been created, and is working on uniform definitional standards,
creating a data element dictionary, and coordinating data needs of many agencies. SPD is leading inter-
agency groups in consolidating agencies' efforts in petroleum import statistics and estimates of oil and
gas reserves. The development of the Framework for Planning U. S. Federal Statistics includes a chapter on
energy which has already been of help in determining which direction a few agencies should take in the 1978
budget.
Even with these efforts to reduce duplication and to improve coordination in data collection, the
situation in energy statistics is still largely uncontrolled. Congress views the present activities as
confused and uncoordinated. The recently passed Energy Conservation and Production Act (ECPA) establishes
the Office of Energy Information and Analysis in FEA with the responsibility, among other things, "to
verify the accuracy of energy information submitted" to the FEA's energy information system and to
"evaluate independently the adequacy and comprehensiveness of the energy information in possession of the
Office and other agencies in the Federal Government." FEA has told us that an effective effort in this
area covering the major information systems could not be accomplished in less than one year.
The problem of duplication in energy analysis (as distinct from energy data collection) is even
greater. Every agency feels a need for an analytic capability. Although some agencies have fairly
differentiated missions, the descriptions of their analytic and modeling capabilities indicate substantial
overlap.
Consolidation of energy functions would help resolve some of the present problems associated with
reviewing uncoordinated budget proposals from many agencies. However, reorganization is some time in the
future, and will not help in the formulation of the 1978 budget.
OMB has received 1978 requests from many agencies which include significant increases for energy
information and analysis programs. OMB cannot guarantee with any degree of assurance that these requests
FORD LIBRAGE
31
do not duplicate existing programs or each other. This is particularly true for FEA's 1978 request for
an additional $18 million (on a base of $17 million). Exact figures on ERDA's requested increase are
not yet available, but OMB anticipates that it will be substantial.
$ in millions)
Agencies affected
1977 estimate
1978 request
FEA
$16.6
$34.3
ERDA*
n.a.
n.a.
FPC
11.0
15.5
Bureau of Mines
13.3
20.5
U. S. Geological Survey**
n.a.
n.a.
n.a. - not available
Not all agencies have submitted the necessary information required by A-11 nor have they responded
fully to OMB's requests for additional information. SPD will be working closely in the coming weeks with
those OMB divisions responsible for energy programs.
This issue is to be treated in the FEA Director's Review on November 16.
* ERDA has not yet submitted an Exhibit 54. As an indication of the possible magnitude involved, ERDA
is requesting an increase of $47.4 million (from $63.2 to $110.6 million) for systems studies comprising
other programs in addition to Exhibit 54 activities.
** USGS has not submitted an Exhibit 54.
FORD & GERALO LIBRARY
LIBRAGO
/
/
FORD
GIVENTE
/
/
STATUS REPORT #1
32
"A FRAMEWORK FOR PLANNING U.S. FEDERAL STATISTICS, 1978-1989"
In January 1975, a three-year program to develop a comprehensive framework for U.S. Federal statistics was
initiated. The first phase (1975) was devoted to designing a planning process which could be integrated
with the ongoing planning efforts of individual statistical agencies and which could provide a framework
for establishing priorities among various programs. The second phase (1976) is development of draft materials
for review by users and producers of statistics. The initial drafting of these materials has been undertaken
by the Statistical Policy Division. Drafts are now under review by 38 agencies which have a major role
in Federal statistics. The agencies participating in the process are identified in Attachment A.
The objective of this process, in addition to establishing priorities among various statistical programs,
is to assure better integration of Federal statistics. In recent years statistical programs have grown
substantially, yet much of the growth has been in relatively independent special-purpose statistical programs
which provide little opportunity for an integrated view of important policy issues. Three significant develop-
ments are underway to assure better integration of Federal statistics. These are:
1. The Gross National Product Data Improvement Project is nearing completion. This review of the data
base for the national income accounts has been underway since 1973. The final report of this project will
assure orderly development of the data base for the national income accounts which provide an integrated
view of economic developments.
2. On October 18, 1976, President Ford signed into law a bill authorizing a Mid-Decade Census. This
mid-decade statistical effort will be designed to be the keystone in an integrated program of social statistics.
It is expected that the decennial and mid-decade statistical efforts will eventually provide local area
data, with annual social statistical programs at the Federal level being designed to provide nationwide
estimates (and State estimates in certain cases). At the end of the decade it may be feasible to institute
a "system of social and demographic statistics" as has been urged by the United Nations and others for the
past two decades.
3. Congress recently established a commission to examine employment and unemployment statistics. These
statistics, which contribute to both better understanding of economic developments and social conditions,
have been the source of much criticism in recent years. The Commission, which has a very broad charter,
is expected to make a substantial contribution to improving the conceptual basis for these important statistics.
FORD
GERALD
33
The Framework includes a series of crosscutting issues which will influence the character and design of
the Federal Statistical System. During the Fiscal Year 1978 crosscut, the Statistical Policy Division is
introducing discussion of several issues relating to (1) the provision of resources to accelerate statistical
integration, (2) the organization of Federal statistics, and (3) the establishment of a policy concerning Federal/
State relationships. It is recognized that substantial additional work is essential in all these areas
before the recommendations in the Framework will become effective.
The outline for the Framework is Attachment B. The projected time schedule for release of various chapters
for public review and comment is shown in Attachment C.
FORD & 078870 LIBRARY
Attachment A
Table 1: Major Agencies in the Federal Statistical System
LIBRARY
General Coordination Agency
FORD
Statistical Policy Division, Office of Management
is
and Budget, Executive Office of the President
EERALD
Core General Purpose Collection Agencies
Statistical Reporting Service, Department of Agriculture
Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce
Bureau of Labor Statistics, Department of Labor
Functional General Purpose Collection Agencies
National Center for Education Statistics, Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare
National Center for Health Statistics, Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and
Research, Department of Housing and Urban Development
Bureau of Mines, Department of the Interior
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice
Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, Department of Justice
Employment and Training ,Administration, Department of Labor
Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury
Environmental Protection Agency
Federal Energy Administration
Federal Reserve System
Core General Purpose Analysis Agencies
Economic Research Service, Department of Agriculture
Bureau of Economic Analysis, Department of Commerce
Office of Research and Statistics, Social Security Administration,
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation,
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
Functional General Purpose Coordination Agency
Office of the Secretary, Department of Transportation
Program Collection and Analysis Agencies
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration
Center for Disease Control
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources Administration (except the National Center for
Health Statistics)
Health Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
National Institute of Education
2
Program Collection and Analysis Agencies (Continued)
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
3
Office of Education
Social and Rehabilitation Service
FORD
Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Human Development
in
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Community Planning and Development
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing
Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Department of the Treasury
Office of the Secretary, including Office of
Revenue Sharing and Office of Tax Analysis
National Science Foundation
U. S. International Trade Commission
Veterans Administration
Attachment B
TOPICAL OUTLINE FOR A
FRAMEWORK FOR PLANNING
U.S. FEDERAL STATISTICS
1978-1989
This topical outline was prepared to set forth a forward-looking program for Federal
statistics in the coming decade. It is published here in order to provide an early
opportunity for comments and suggestions from data users, advisory committees,
professional organizations and individuals. These can be directed to individual
agencies or to the Statistical Policy Division.
PREPARED BY:
Statistical Policy Division
FORD LIBRARY & GERALD
Office of Management and Budget
In Cooperation With
Other Federal Statistical Agencies
Topical Outline For
B. General-purpose collection efforts.
C. A formal network of policy committees defining
A FRAMEWORK FOR PLANNING
needs and priorities in functional areas.
U.S. FEDERAL STATISTICS
D. A formal network of technical interagency work-
1978-1989
ing groups.
E. An institutionalized mechanism for public advice
Prepared by the
and comment to the collection and analytical
Statistical Policy Division, Office of Management and
agencies.
Budget
F. A control agency for continual planning and co-
In Cooperation With
ordination.
Federal Agencies With Responsibility for the Collection,
Processing, Analysis, and Dissemination of Major
Section II The Organization of U.S. Federal Statistics
Governmental Statistical Programs
I. The Decentralized Organization of U.S. Statistical
Preface
Agencies:
1. Background Section 103 of the Budget and Ac-
A. Existing legislation and strengths of the existing
counting Procedures Act of 1950.
system.
B. Problems which are created.
II. Relation to Other SPD Documents:
C. Need for quality control and limited consolida-
A. Statistical Services of the United States Govern-
tion.
ment, 1975.
B. Federal Statistics: Coordination, Standards,
II. Different Roles and Functions for Statistical Orga-
Guidelines, 1976.
nization:
C. Federal Statistical Directory.
A. A typology of agency by functions and type of or-
D. Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas, 1975.
ganization:
E. Others.
1. Relate agency to budget functional classifica-
tion.
Section I The Nature of the Plan
2. Describe agencies in terms of primary (focal
1. Role of the Plan:
agency) or secondary roles (reimbursable
A. As a framework for agencies to improve coordi-
programs).
nation.
B. Present roles and missions of major agencies:
B. As a vehicle for setting and revising statistical
1. Collection agencies.
priorities for multipurpose and large-scale
2. Analytical agencies.
statistical programs.
3. Statistical support organizations.
C. As a forum for identifying crosscutting statistical
C. Proposed future roles and missions:
issues.
1. Collection agencies.
D. As a mechanism for improving feedback from
2. Analytical agencies.
public and private users of Federal statistics.
3. Statistical support organizations.
E. As an overview to specific plans of agencies.
D. Control mechanisms:
11. The Character of the Plan:
1. Congressional oversight.
A. A flexible document subject to change as priori-
2. Departmental review.
ties evolve, as problems are solved, and as dif-
3. GAO.
4. OMB.
ficulties arise.
B. It is not a budget document, but it has budgetary
implications.
Section III The State of Statistics by Functional Areas
C. It examines agencies, programs, and issues with
I. Listing of Functional Areas:
an objective of clarifying important interac-
A. Labor statistics.
tions in the decentralized U.S. statistical sys-
B. Prices and price indexes.
tem.
C. Production and distribution statistics.
D. It focuses on the 1980's, recognizing the base of
D. Construction statistics.
the ongoing program of the 1970's and the
E. National economic and business financial ac-
present unresolved issues.
counts.
III. Planning is a Participatory Process:
F. Energy statistics.
A. It must recognize the needs of both the producers
G. Environmental statistics.
and the users of statistics.
H. Health statistics.
B. Agencies will have needs which are not addressed
I. Population statistics.
in the Plan:
J. Education statistics.
1. The Plan is directed to major general-purpose
K. Criminal justice statistics.
needs and interagency concerns.
L. Income maintenance and welfare statistics.
2. Agency plans will deal with specific needs of
M. Housing and community development.
agencies.
N. Income, wealth, and consumption.
IV. The Keys to an Integrated Statistical System:
O. Agricultural commodities.
A. Standard concepts and classifications.
P. Transportation.
May 1976
(Reprinted from Statistical Reporter, May 1976, Number 76-11)
GERALD R207 CIBRANT
II. For Each of the Above, Discussion will Review:
H. Reporting burden:
A. Responsible agencies.
1. Definition of burden associated with general-
B. Major user groups, including policy groups.
purpose statistics.
C. The basic core program that exists.
2. Relation to recommendation of the Commi
D. Important gaps.
sion on Federal Paperwork.
E. Programs which should be discontinued.
3. Relation to other portions of the Plan.
F. Recommended new programs.
I. Longrun growth models:
1. Description of agency programs.
Section IV Crosscutting Issues
2. Needs for standardized data inputs.
3. Relation to existing data programs.
I. The character of crosscutting issues:
J. International statistics and technical assistance:
A. Describe the nature of the issue.
1. Role of agencies in international programs.
B. Identify the agencies and/or programs involved.
2. Longrun funding for technical assistance.
C. Outline policy recommendations.
3. Relation to multinational programs for data
D. Describe steps to be taken:
standardization and data improvement.
1. Program consolidation.
K. Interagency (reimbursable) funding:
2. New initiatives required.
1. Analysis of the concept of sponsoring agency
3. Role of existing or proposed interagency com-
responsibility.
mittees, advisory bodies, or research efforts.
2. Mechanisms for multiagency funding.
4. Outline time frame.
3. Relation of reimbursable funding to primary
agency role and mission.
11. The Specific Issues:
L. User access-data banks:
A. Longitudinal surveys:
1. Description of agency programs.
1. Needs for longitudinal data.
2. Role of public-use tapes.
2. Relation to privacy and respondent burden.
3. Transfer of data among agencies.
3. Responsibility for design and maintenance of
4. Relation to confidentiality.
program.
5. Needs for computer systems.
4. Role of special purpose in multipurpose pro-
M. A program of standards development:
grams or instruments.
1. A standard stub of-survey classifications.
5. Use of administrative records.
2. Occupations classifications.
B. General-purpose sample vehicles:
3. Industry classifications.
1. Statistical methodology.
4. Commodity classifications.
2. Role and mission.
5. Presentation standards.
3. Funding (tax on principal agencies-name
6. Timeliness.
them).
7. Public-use samples.
C. Social Indicators:
8. Quality controls.
1. Relation to the System of Social and Demo-
N. The Federal-State cooperative systems of data
graphic Statistics.
collection:
2. Relation to the Monthly Chartbook.
1. Limits of Federal responsibility.
3. Periodicity of publication and scope of cov-
2. Standards.
3. Division of labor.
erage.
D. Civil rights data:
4. Technical assistance.
1. Conceptual issues in measuring discrimina-
tion.
Section V Evolution of the Statistical Plan for the 1980's
2. Level of detail needed (ethnic group, geogra-
I. Nature of Statistical Programs in a Dynamic, Com-
phy, etc.).
plex Society:
3. Relation to administrative records.
A. Needs for historical continuity.
F.. Professional staff training:
B. Needs for new concepts.
1. Type of needs in agencies.
C. Problem anticipation.
2. Relation to existing intramural and extra-
D. Conflicts in values-burden vs. information, pri-
mural programs.
vacy vs. exchange, needs vs. resources, etc.
3. Interagency transfers.
II. An Overview of Proposals for Agency Roles, New
F. Confidentiality:
General-Purpose Programs, and Solution of
1. Problems with existing laws, rules, and regu-
Crosscutting Issues:
lations.
A. How the parts of the Plan interact.
2. Needed legislation.
B. Recommended sequence of actions.
3. Organizational implications.
III. A Program of Research and Review:
4. Relation to sample design and Industrial Di-
A. Unemployment concepts.
rectory.
B. National Income Accounting concepts.
G. Standard Industrial Directory:
C. System of Social and Demographic Statistics.
1. Goals and objectives of present program.
D. Financial statistics.
2. Needed legislation.
E. International trade statistics.
3. Role of Directory in programs of various
F. Balance of Payments and international finance.
agencies.
G. Others.
208
Statistical Repo
L. Income Maintenance and
Appendix A
Welfare Statistics
Historical Review of the Statistical Budget Focus on
1970-1977.
(Milo B Sunderhauf)
M. Housing and Community Development
Appendix B
(Milo B. Sunderhauf)
Agency Roles in Functional Areas.
N. Income, Wealth, and Consumption
Appendix C
Statistics
The 1977 Statistical Budget by Major Program - --- Exhibit
(C. Louis Kincannon)
54's.
O. Agricultural Commodities
Bibliography
(David T. Hulett)
Key reports and plans like the Health Data Plan, the
P. Transportation
Common Core of Education Data, and the Report of the
(Arnold Strasser)
Federal Council on the 1980 Census.
Section IV- Crosscutting Issues
A. Longitudinal Surveys
SPD staff responsible for the various topics are
(George E. Hall)
noted below. Please send your comments directly to
B. General-Purpose Sample Vehicles
the responsible staff person.
(George E. Hall)
Section] - The Nature of the Plan
C. Social Indicators
(Joseph W. Duncan)
(Denis F. Johnston)
Section 11 The Organization of U.S.
D. Civil Rights Data
Federal Statistics
(Katherine K. Wallman)
(Joseph W. Duncan)
E. Professional Staff Training
Section III The State of Statistics
(Barbara F. Reese)
by Functional Areas
F. Confidentiality
A. Labor Statistics
(David T. Hulett)
G. Standard Industrial Directory
(Attfold Strasser)
B. Prices and Price Indexes
(Milo O. Peterson)
(Arnold Strasser)
H. Reporting Burden
C. Production and Distribution Statistics
(Roye L. Lowry)
(Milo Peterson)
I. Longrun Growth Models
D. Construction Statistics
(Joseph W. Duncan)
(La Verne Collins)
J. International Statistics and
E. National Economic and Business
Technical Assistance
Financial Accounts
(Joseph W. Duncan)
(LaVerne V. Collins)
K. Interagency (Reimbursable)
F. Energy Statistics
Funding
(David T. Hulett)
(Robert W. Raynsford)
G. Environmental Statistics
L. User Access-Data Banks
(Charles A. Ellett)
(Suzann K. Evinger)
11. Health Statistics
M. A Program of Standards Development
(Richard A. Eisinger)
(Milo O. Peterson)
N. The Federal-State Cooperative
I. Population Statistics
(George Hall)
Systems of Data Collection
J. Education Statistics
(Katherine K. Wallman)
(Katherine K. Wallman)
Section V Evolution of the Statistical
K. Criminal Justice Statistics
Plan for the 1980's
(George E. Hall)
(Joseph W. Duncan)
FORD
BERALD
209
May 1976
Attachment C
FRAMEWORK FOR PLANNING U.S. FEDERAL STATISTICS
Drafting Schedule
First
Final Agency
Public Review
Chapters
issued
Comments Due
Starts
PREFACE
October
January
February
SECTION-1
The Nature of the Plan:
October
January
February
SECTION-II
Organization:
October
January
February
Social Statistics Overview .
November
February
March
Economic Statistics Overview
October
January
February
SECTION-III FUNCTIONAL AREAS:
A.-Labor
October
January
February
B.-Prices
October
January
February
C.-Production & Distribution
October
January
February
D.-Construction
October
January
February
E.-National Accounts
October
January
February
F.-Energy
October
January
February
G.-Environmental
October
January
February
H.-Health
October
January
February
I.-Population
October
January
February
J.-Education
October
January
February
K.-Criminal Justice
October
January
February
L.-Income Maintenance
November
February
March
M.-Housing
October
January
February
N.-Income & Consumption
October
January
February
0.-Agricultural Commodities
December
March
April
P.-Transportation
December
March
April
SECTION-IV
CROSSCUTTING ISSUES:
A.-Longitudinal Surveys
November
February
March
B.-General Purpose Samples
December
March
April
C.-Social Indicators
December
March
April
D.-Civil Rights
October
January
February
E.-Professional Staff Training
November
February
March
F.-Confidentiality
October
January
February
G.-Standard Industrial Directory
November
February
March
H.-Reporting Burden
December
March
April
I.-Longrun Growth Models
October
January
February
J.-International Technical Assistance
December
March
April
K.-Interagency Funding
October
January
February
L.-User-Access Data
October
January
February
M.-Program of Standards Development
November
February
March
N.-Fed.-State Cooperative Systems
October
January
February
0.-Statistical Methodology
December
March
April
October 1976
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
2
34
STATUS
ORT #2
REDUCING THE BURDEN OF FEDERAL REPORTING:
STATUS OF THE PRESIDENT'S PROGRAM
Summary data from the September 30, 1976 Inventories of Repetitive and Single-time Reports
show that there has been a decline in reporting burden since June 30, 1976. The burden of
repetitive reports is shown as 135.2 million reporting hours, a decrease of 3.2 million
reporting hours, or 2.3 percent since June 30, 1976.
The decline in reporting burden is associated with a continuing decline in the number of
reports used by Federal agencies. Since the guidelines for Phase II of the President's
Program went to agencies on September 1, 1976, it is unlikely that any of the reduction
can be attributed to agency response to this new Presidential initiative.
As part of our efforts to secure the effective implementation of the President's program,
staff of SPD Clearance Office will make some initial explorations into actual agency usage
of information collected from the public. It has been a weakness in our review of data
collection activities that we have never found out how information is actually used by
making on-site visits to agencies.
The single experiment we have made regarding use of the Weekly Payroll Report submitted by
all construction contractors has produced irrefutable evidence that only a small proportion
of these thousands of reports submitted each week are actually used. This is in contra-
diction to statements which have been presented to us previously by the Department of Labor.
We will be forwarding shortly a proposed letter from the Director to the Secretary of Labor
asking him to seriously reexamine the "need" for this information when it is so clearly
unused.
We feel that our efforts to look at the "practical utility" of information collected by
Federal agencies constitute a promising additional tool to help reduce useless reporting
by the public.
As a result of OMB's pilot effort, we expect to produce results which will encourage
agencies to undertake similar activities on their own.
R.
GERALD
FORD
LIBRATA
35
The public interest in the President's program, and the intensive monitoring of its
progress by the Commission on Federal Paperwork (they expect to have a staff larger than
that of our Clearance Office to monitor the Clearance Office) means more paperwork for OMB.
In essence, we are being called upon to produce a monthly report which will summarize all
the transactions for each month, by agency, by type of report, and by type of respondent.
In response to public scrunity, we are reprogramming our internal information system.
Additionally, it will be essential for continuing work by the OMB staff on position papers
being developed by the Commission on Federal Paperwork since the Director, as a member,
must be responsive to the issues.
GERALD R. FORD LIBRANIA
Principal Federal Statistical Programs, By Agency
36
(million $)
A. Current Programs
FY 1978
FY 1976
TQ
FY 1977
Agency
SP Recom-
Actual
Estimate
Estimates
Requests
mendations
Current Programs
Department of Agriculture:
Agricultural Research Service
Economic Research Service
Foreign Agricultural Service
31.4
7.9
34.5
35.9
35.9
Statistical Reporting Service
Department of Commerce:
Bureau of Economic Analysis
11.8
12.3
13.3
13.3
44.7
44.7
Bureau of the Census
41.5
43.3
Domestic and International Business Administration
3.0
.7
2.8
2.8
2.8
1.0
.1
.3
.4
.4
Economic Development Administration
National Bureau of Fire Prevention
.8
.2
1.2
1.8
1.8
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
2.6
.7
4.0
5.4
5.4
Department of Defense:
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.2
Corps of Engineers
FORD & GERALD LIBRARY
37
Principal Federal Statistical Programs, By Agency
(million $)
Current Programs
FY 1978
FY 1976
TQ
FY 1977
Agency
SP Recom-
Current Programs
Actual
Estimate
Estimates
Requests
mendations
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare:
Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health
Administration
6.8
1.3
7.8
9.4
9.4
Center for Disease Control
2.5
.5
3.7
3.9
3.9
Food and Drug Administration
1.6
.3
1.7
1.9
1.9
Health Resources Administration:
National Center for Health Statistics
26.1
6.5
27.6
44.0
34.0 *
Other Health Resources Administration
7.0
.3
1.9
2.5
2.5
Health Services Administration
1.9
1.5
2.9
3.8
3.8
National Center for Education Statistics
13.0
3.3
12.0
17.2
17.2 **
National Institutes of Health
23.4
6.0
29.1
30.0
30.0
Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Human Development
4.9
1.0
4.6
3.2
3.2
Office of Assistant Secretary for Planning
and Evaluation
5.9
1.1
3.7
5.8
5.8
Office of Education
14.3
7.8
1.3
1.3
1.3
&
FOR
* HRD's recommendation for NCHS is $28.0M.
GERALD
** HRD's recommendation for NCES is $12.0M.
38
Principal Federal Statistical Programs, By Agency
(million $)
Current Programs
FY 1978
FY 1976
TQ
FY 1977
Agency
SP Recom-
Actual
Estimate
Estimates
Requests
mendations
Current Programs
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare: (Cont.)
Social and Rehabilitation Service
6.3
1.6
7.6
8.2
8.2
22.2
13.5
32.0
35.6
35.6
Social Security Administration
Department of Housing and Urban Development:
Community Planning and Development
1.0
.2
1.6
2.3
2.3
Housing
Policy Development and Research
9.7
2.6
10.3
12.9
12.9
Department of the Interior:
13.0
3.3
13.3
20.5
13.8#
Bureau of Mines
Fish and Wildlife Service
6.7
1.3
6.8
6.8
6.8
Mining Enforcement and Safety Administration
1.7
.4
1.6
1.6
1.6
Department of Justice:
Drug Enforcement Administration
FORD & FRALD LIBRARY
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Law Enforcement Assistance Administration
34.0
11.3
24.8
27.3
27.3
#
SPD's recommendation is subject to change.
39
Principal Federal Statistical Programs, By Agency
(million $)
Current Programs
FY 1978
FY 1976
TQ
FY 1977
Agency
SP Recom-
Actual
Estimate
Estimates
Requests
mendations
Current Programs
Department of Labor:
Bureau of Labor Statistics
53.2
15.5
65.9
83.6#
82.2
26.3
5.5
23.0
23.3
23.3
Employment and Training Administration
Employment Standards Administration
.5
.1
.5
.5
.5
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
5.4
1.5
6.2
6.2
6.2
Department of Transportation:
3.1
.7
2.8
3.1
3.1
Office of the Secretary
3.3
1.9
4.9
5.1
5.1
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
1.0
.2
1.3
.8
.8
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
6.8
2.4
11.9
14.5
14.5
0.1
0.3
0.9
0.8
0.8
Urban Mass Transportation Administration
Department of the Treasury:
Office of the Secretary
Internal Revenue Service
13.1
4.3
12.5
13.5
13.5
## In 1978, BLS' budget includes a $3.9M transfer from the nonstatistical program of ETA.
STATE FORD LIBRABY
40
Principal Federal Statistical Programs, By Agency
(million $)
Current Programs
FY 1978
FY 1976
TQ
FY 1977
Agency
SP Recom-
Actual
Estimate
Estimates
Requests
mendations
Current Programs
Department of the Treasury: (Cont.)
U. S. Customs Service
.3
.9
3.4
3.4
3.4
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
2.2
.6
2.4
2.6
2.6
Civil Aeronautics Board
Consumer Product Safety Commission
2.3
.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
16.3***
16.3***
Environmental Protection Agency
13.5***
3.5***
14.8***
Federal Energy Administration
Federal Home Loan Bank Board
9.1
2.6
11.0
15.5
15.5
Federal Power Commission
Federal Trade Commission
1.1
.4
1.6
1.9
1.7
Interstate Commerce Commission
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
2.1
.7
2.3
3.0
3.0
National Science Foundation
Securities and Exchange Commission
.7
.2
.8
.8
.8
*** Partial data.
FORD LIBRANY
41
Principal Federal Statistical Programs, By Agency
(million $)
Current Programs
FY 1978
FY 1976
TQ
FY 1977
Agency
SP Recom-
Current Programs
Actual
Estimate
Estimates
Requests
mendations
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES (Continued)
Veterans Administration
8.2
1.9
7.9
8.4
8.4
Total, current programs
449.0
472.5
551.7
533.4
FORD LIBRARY
42
B. Periodic Programs (million $)
FY 1978
FY 1976
TQ
FY 1977
Agency
SP Recom-
Actual
Estimate
Estimates
Requests
mendations
Bureau of the Census
1972 Economic Censuses
.9
-
-
-
-
1977 Economic Censuses
2.2
1.4
6.7
14.9
14.9
1977 Census of Governments
.4
.3
3.7
1.0
1.0
1974 Census of Agriculture
8.4
1.4
2.4
-
I
1978 Census of Agriculture
-
-
3.7
8.3
8.3
Intercensal demographic estimates
7.4
.5
1.7
1.7
1.7
1980 Decennial Census
4.9
2.7
17.4
29.3
29.6
Registration and voting surveys
.1
-
3.5
-
-
Periodic programs geographic support
2.4
.7
2.8
2.8
2.8
Data processing equipment
2.7
.7
7.6
12.2
12.2
General administration and other
1.6
.4
2.5
3.7
3.7
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Revision of Consumer Price Index
6.9
2.0
5.6
-
-
Standard industrial classification revision program
1.5
.4
1.5
1.5
1.5
Total Periodic Programs
39.5
10.6
59.0
75.5
75.7
Total, Principal Statistical Programs
488.5
531.6
627.2
609.2
FORD LIBRARY