A UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE PUBLICATION .aja. •(, ^•wtio*** Data Access Description Collection, Evaluation, and Processing Series, CEP 6 DAD No. 28 May 1972 U. S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE ■ Social and Economic Statistics Administration • BUREAU OF THE CENSUS Delineation of Problem Housing Areas CONTENTS Page Introduction 1 Background- -Measuring Housing Quality in Previous Censuses 1 1940 Census of Housing 2 1950 Census of Housing 2 1960 Census of Housing 2 Procedural Summary 2 The 1970 Census of Housing 3 Using 1970 Census Data Locally to Delineate Problem Housing Areas 3 Selection of Areas Suitable for Study . . 3 Census Indicators of Problem Housing Areas 3 Suggested Uses of Census Data for Studying These Areas 4 Further Information 5 INTRODUCTION The Bureau of the Census has been concerned with the development of reliable measures of hous- ing quality since it first collected housing statis- tics on a large scale in the 1940 Census of Hous- ing. In the decennial censuses from 1940 through 1960, the Census Bureau collected data about the structural condition of housing by direct observa- tion. These data have proved to be unreliable and inaccurate. In the 1970 census, the Census Bureau did not collect information on the structural condition of housing. It did collect data on the presence of complete plumbing facilities, which in 1940, 1950, and 1960 have been used in combination with condition data to provide a key criterion for evaluating the adequacy of the Nation's housing. In response to urgent requests from users of hous- ing statistics, however, the Bureau agreed to provide estimates of substandard housing in 1970 for all cities of 10,000 or more and for counties. The term "substandard" is not an official Cen- sus Bureau classification. For the purposes of this Data Access Description, the definition used by the Federal housing agencies has been adopted: A substandard housing unit is one which was (1) rated dilapidated by a census enumerator, or (2) lacked one or more of the following facilities: Piped hot water, flush toilet for private use, bathtub or shower for private use. The Bureau of the Census suggests that those interested in evaluating the quality of housing at the small-area level use 1970 housing data, avail- able on summary tapes and in the printed reports, as a basis for delineating and studying problem housing areas. A possible method of using 1970 data in the study of housing and neighborhood quality at the local level is described in this Data Access Description. In addition, background in- formation is provided on the methods of collecting data on quality of housing in past censuses; the resulting data are evaluated; and the 1970 "sub- standard" housing estimates to be published in volume VI of the housing report series are brief- ly described. There is no precise solution to the problems of defining substandard housing and of locating areas where such housing exists. The procedures out- lined in this Data Access Description are designed to be suggestive. They are limitedfis tb-kinds of data and their use. ^^itiable data for delineating problem areas car/al^so be obtained from police, welfare, health anr/ Education departments. background— Measuring housing qualii in previous censuses In each of the de^httta,l censuses frprn 1940 to 1960, the Census H^r^u Chad enumerators Data Access Descriptions are intended as introductions to means of access to Census Bureau data for persons with data requirements not fully met by the printed reports assess the structural condition of housing by di- rect observation. The criteria and terminology for judging structural condition were changed for each census, based on the results of data from each previous census. The method of collecting these data in the 1940, 1950, and 1960 censuses and the quality of the resulting statistics for each decade are discussed briefly below. 1940 Census of Housing In the 1940 census, "state of repairs" was used as an indicator of the structural quality of housing units. Under the major classification of state of repairs were two categories: units "not needing major repairs" and units "needing major repairs." A unit was to be classified as needing major re- pairs if parts of the structure, such as floors, roof, walls, or foundation, required major repairs or replacements. The enumerator judged there- pair to be major on the basis of whether or not the continued neglect of the deficiency would im- pair the soundness of the structure and create a hazard for its occupants. This concept measured only the physical con- dition of the structure; it did not indicate the level of quality. Under this concept, a tarpaper shack or a unit with a dirt floor may have been classi- fied as not needing major repairs even though it may not have provided adequate protection from the elements. In addition, the state of repairs measurement required a judgment by the enumer- ator regarding a future condition: Whether or not the continued neglect of the deficiency would im- pair the soundness of the structure and create a hazard. Dissatisfaction with the results of the state of repairs concept was so great that an Interdepart- mental Subcommittee on Housing Adequacy was appointed by the Bureau of the Budget in 1945 to investigate the problems of measuring the quality of housing. The subcommittee worked closely with representatives of the Census Bureau and the 1950 Census of Housing Technical Advisory Com- mittee to develop the concept "condition of struc- ture," which was to be used as the indicator of structural quality in the 1950 Census of Housing. 1950 Census of Housing The concept of "condition of structure" was first employed in the 1950 census and, in accord- ance with it, housing units were classified as either "not dilapidated" or "dilapidated." A unit was to be reported as dilapidated if it had one or more serious deficiencies or was of such poor original construction that it provided inadequate shelter or endangered the safety of the occupants. In addition, a unit was to be classified as dilapi- dated if it had a combination of minor deficiencies to the extent that it did not provide protection against the elements or was physically unsafe. Although the condition of structure concept was considered an improvement over the state of re- pairs concept, many users of the 1950 statistics, particularly those concerned with urban renewal, expressed the need for an intermediate level of condition. In preparation for the 1960 census, the Census Bureau, assisted by an Interdepartmental Subcommittee on Housing Adequacy, developed a two-fold classification- -sound or deteriorating- - to replace the 1950 category "not delapidated." 1960 Census of Housing In the 1960 census, special efforts were made to maintain the 1950 definition "dilapidated." The 1950 "not dilapidated" category was sub- divided in 1960 into two categories, sound and deteriorating. A sound unit was one which had no defects or only slight defects which normally would be corrected during the course of regular maintenance. A deteriorating unit was defined as needing more repair than would be provided dur- ing the course of regular maintenance. The difficulty experienced by enumerators in 1960 in determining whether or not housing units should be classified as dilapidated had an adverse effect on the quality of the statistics for the stand- ard-substandard classification as used by the Federal housing agencies. Evidence indicates that about one-fourth of the units which could be classified as substandard from the findings of one group of enumerators would have been differently classified according to the findings of another group of enumerators. The accuracy of data con- tained in cross-tabulations using the standard- substandard classification was affected adversely since, of necessity, it depended on the accurate rating of individual units. However, trends in substandard housing appear to have been meas- ured adequately for the decade 1950 to 1960. Procedural Summary Procedurally, the application of the concepts for evaluating housing was virtually the same in the 1940, 1950, and 1960 decennial censuses. The enumerators were instructed to observe each unit and to make an overall judgment based on specified criteria. The overall judgment was to be made for each unit separately, regardless of the neighborhood, age of structure, and race of the occupants. Unlike 1940, when the Enumera- tor's Reference Manual was the only training source, the enumerators in 1950 were provided with detailed written criteria and instructions, as well as photographs depicting the two levels of condition (dilapidated and not dilapidated). In ad- dition, audiovisual techniques were used to train enumerators. In 1960 the training techniques were essentially the same as in 1950, except that modi- fications were made to reflect the three-way § >• o ? a a> a classification. The 1960 enumerators were in- structed to determine, first, whether a unit was dilapidated or not dilapidated in order to main- tain comparability with the 1950 enumeration of condition. Then, if the unit was not dilapidated, the enumerators were to determine whether it was sound or deteriorating. However, post-enumeration studies after the censuses of 1950 and 1960 disclosed that the in- formation collected on structural condition of housing in these censuses was unreliable. Of the occupied units classified as dilapidated by the post- census enumerators, only about 48 percent had been similarly classified by the regular cen- sus enumerators in 1950 and 38 percent in 1960. Also, the 1960 Content Evaluation Survey disclosed that there was a net understatement of more than one million dilapidated occupied housing units in 1960. Additional detail on the reliability and ac- curacy of statistics in the 1950 and 1960 censuses can be found in Census Bureau Working Paper No. 25, Measuring the Quality of Housing: An Apprais- al of Census Statistics and Methods . THE 1970 CENSUS OF HOUSING Estimates of substandard housing will be pub- lished in volume VI, which is expected to be avail- able by the end of 1972. These statistics will be presented as a single figure for each city of 10,000 or more inhabitants and for each county, SMSA, State, division, and region of the United States for the following categories: Negro, and white and other races, by renter- and owner-occupied units and year-round vacant units. The 1970 substandard housing figure will be the sum of two categories: (1) units counted in the 1970 census which lack complete private plumbing facilities and (2) an estimate of the num- ber of units with complete private plumbing facil- ities that would have been rated dilapidated in 1970, according to the Census Bureau's estimating procedure. The details of this computational method are described in "Proposed Procedure for Estimating Substandard Housing in 1970"; copies are available from Housing Division, Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C. 20233. USING 1970 CENSUS DATA LOCALLY TO DELINEATE PROBLEM HOUSING AREAS Although 1970 census data are not sufficient- ly detailed to permit identification or classifica- tion of individual housing units as poor or sub- standard, it is possible to use census data to iden- tify specific areas, such as blocks, tracts, and minor civil divisions, in which poor housing is probably located. These areas will be termed "problem housing areas." It should be stressed that there is no generally accepted set of criteria for defining substandard housing. Nevertheless, although precise criteria are wanting, this term is generally understood to refer to housing which is characterized by condi- tions that are hazardous to health and safety and are detrimental to the general welfare. It is in that sense that the terms poor or substandard are used in this section. The emphasis on small-area analysis at the lo- cal level stems from the view that an adequate assessment of the amount of substandard housing requires an evaluation not only of the residential structure but of its enviromentaswell. This view is elaborated in the report to Congress and the President, "Building the American City," pre- pared in 1968 by the National Commission on Ur- ban Problems. In one of a number of comments on this point, the Commission asks: "Is a unit correctly defined as standard un- der available data if the lot next door is lit- tered with garbage; if police protection is limited; if street lights are not provided; if the sidewalk is buckled; if the street is full of potholes; if a liquor store is found on each corner; if sewers are nonexistent or inade- quate; if the noise level is excessive; or if a rendering works is found in the block (as is true along the waterfront in the other- wise exclusive Georgetown area of Wash- ington, D.C.)?" Selection of Areas Suitable for Study The basic unit of action in most localities is likely to be a group of city blocks. The scope of an area selected for treatment will depend upon a number of factors. One of the most important of these is the extent to which individual blocks in a selected area are similar or identical in their housing and household characteristics. The definition of problem housing areas is best made by comparison. Therefore, it is suggested that the study area be defined to include fringe as well as hard-core problem sections. Census Indicators of Problem Housing Areas A number of measures are relevant as indica- tors of substandard housing. These are classified in table 1 according to type and availability by census tracts (or minor civil divisions) or blocks in the 1970 census publications. A more detailed outline of cross-tabulations of the items in table 1 is shown in tables 2 and 3, which refer to data contained in the Third and Fourth Count Sum- mary Tapes. ' The tapes contain considerably more detail than do the printed reports. The items listed in table 1 are not intended to be all-inclusive nor should they be considered equally applicable in all areas. Because circum- stances vary from place to place, it is unlikely that every item will be of equal importance for all cities or even for all areas within the same city. For example, if low rent is selected as a criterion, one should be aware of the special situation posed by public housing. Census data should be used to supplement, not to replace, knowledge of local conditions. Suggested Uses of Census Data for Studying These Areas Once the areas in need of further investigation have been located and census indicators of problem housing considered, the next step is to decide how to use this information. Census statistics can be used in a number of ways to study problem areas. A suggested set of items useful for this purpose is shown below, identified by the column numbers under which they appear in the published 1970 cen- sus reports, Block Statistics , Series HC(3). Local conditions should determine which of these items are most appropriate in a given situation. Suggested Items From Table 2, Block Statistics Reports Economic Status 4. Average value of owner- occupied housing units 5. Average contract rent of renter-occupied housing units Household Composition One-person households Families with female head Units with roomers, boarders, or lodgers Col. 14 Col. 19 Col. 23 Col. 24 Col. 25 At the simplest level of study it may be suffi- cient to identify blocks according to the charac- teristics- -selected from those suggested above — which are present. For example, a checklist would identify blocks which have rent or value below specified amounts, percent of units which lack plumbing, etc. (See illustration on p. 5.) Blocks could be grouped according to the number or kind of items checked for each block. Perhaps the most difficult decision in this procedure would be the determination of a cutoff for rent and value which would represent a problem area and would depend upon local conditions. A visual examination of several pilot blocks, compared with their average rent as reported in the census, might pro- vide a "feeling" for a practical cutoff. Such factors as type of housing unit, presence of public housing, and other environmental factors would have to be considered. Structure and Facility Statistics 1. All year-round housing units lacking some or all plumbing facilities Occupancy and Utilization Statistics 2. Housing units with 1.01 or more persons per room 3. Housing units with 1.01 or more persons per room, lacking complete plumbing facilities Column Number Col. 8 Col. 21 Subtract col. 22 from col. 21 *Part of a series of six summary tapes from the 1970 Census of Population and Housing. The Third Count Summary Tapes contain complete-count (100- percent) summary statistics for blocks. The Fourth Count Summary Tapes provide sample data down to the level of census tracts and minor civil divisions. Further information on this program may be obtained by writing to the Chief, Data User Services Office, Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C. 20233. The use of maps to display the various kinds of data indicative of problem housing areas can be very helpful in understanding the geographic im- plications of the data. Different kinds of data can be displayed in varying patterns (i.e., color, shad- ing, and crosshatching) and as a result, spatial relationships and trends become immediately ap- parent. Data maps can also be produced by com- puter. At a more complex level, it may be useful to examine blocks not only according to the presence of certain characteristics, but also according to the degree these characteristics are present. One way to measure this degree is to limit the items to be checked off to those which exceed a specified standard. Citywide averages could serve as such a standard. Thus, suppose that 6 percent of the occupied units in a particular city are occupied by 1.01 or more persons per room. Using this hypo- thetical situation, one could locate problem areas by identifying those blocks in which the proportion of such units exceeds the citywide average (6 per- cent) plus some constant, e.g., 2 percent. What- ever the constant, it should distinguish blocks with a high concentration of the selected characteristic. It should also be possible, by employing a range of 5 Blocks by Selected Indicators of Problem Housing Areas Units Units Rent (or lacking occupied Households Households Total value) with with Block below some by 1.01 female roomers , indicators number specified amount or all plumbing facilities or more persons per room head of family boarders , or lodgers in each block 101 X X X 3 102 X X X X X 5 103 X X X 3 104 X X 2 201 X X X X 4 202 203 X X X X 4 cutoffs (e.g., city average plus 2 percent or less; city average plus 2 to 4 percent, etc.), to obtain some indication of relative severity of conditions in different neighborhoods. The same method used for blocks can be applied to census tracts. Although a much wider array of data is available by census tracts than by blocks, census tracts have an offsetting disadvantage in that boundaries of problem neighborhoods may not correspond to census tract boundaries. If census tracts are to be the basic survey areas, it is suggested that only those factors be recorded in each tract for which the level of oc- currence is greater than a specified norm or standard, e.g., the citywide proportion of units with the specified characteristic. A relatively simple method to determine the order of severity of poor neighborhood and hous- ing conditions in blocks (or tracts) is to (1) rank each block or tract in the survey area by the per- cent of units or households with specified charac- teristics, (2) sum the ranks of the various characteristics for each block or tract, and (3) order the blocks or tracts by those sums. It is necessary that, for each characteristic, the rank of 1 have the same meaning. For example, if the highest percent of units that lack complete plumb- ing is assigned the rank of 1, then this rank num- ber should uniformly indicate the block with the highest proportion of units that are potential problem areas. Thus, the block with the lowest average rent would also be ranked 1 with respect to rent. The ranking procedure is illustrated in table 4. To take a specific example, table 4 shows that tract 501 ranked 1, based on the sum of ranks. That result should be considered a first step in sorting the tracts according to the concentration of housing and household characteristics indica- tive of problem neighborhoods and housing. A more detailed examination of the results will re- veal, for example, that in some tracts the range in rank between highest and lowest is much great- er than in others. This type of analysis can lead to a sorting of tracts according to their degree of diversity or homogeneity. It can also be observed that tracts differ from one another according to the characteristic which is most predominant. Keeping this fact in mind, one could perform an- other sorting based on more than one character- istic, e.g., availability of plumbing and occupancy by 1.01 or more persons per room. In summary, no single statistic should be con- sidered as a complete index to the type and degree of conditions indicative of poor neighborhoods and housing; rather, a combination of approaches, along with knowledge of local conditions, is likely to produce the most accurate delineation of problem housing areas. FURTHER INFORMATION For further information on the concept of sub- standard housing as it relates to Census Bureau data, address inquiries to: Director Bureau of the Census Washington, D. C. 20233 (Please refer to Data Access Description No. 28, Delineation of Problem Housing Areas, Series CEP-6.) Table 1. -Types of Data Available by Census Tracts and Blocks in Printed Reports Census tracts or minor civil divisions Blocks Structure and facilities a. Number of housing units with complete plumbing facilities b. Type of heating equipment c. Number of units by age of structure 2. Tenure and use a. Number of owner- and renter-occu- pied units b. Units occupied by 1.01 or more persons per room c. Number of vacant units, by length of time vacant 3. Economic status a. Amount of family income b. Number of families with income below poverty levels c. Number of families which received welfare payments d. Amount of rent paid e. Value of owner -occupied units 4. Education and occupation a. Number of school years completed b. Employment as household or service workers 5. Household composition a. Households with female head and with children under 18 b. Households with roomers, boarders, or lodgers c. One-person households Table 2.-Tabulations Available From Third Count Summary Tapes (The numbers below refer to the housing data item on Third Count Summary Tapes) Structure and facilities ; availability of plumbing Occupan cy and uti lization 3rd Count (Blocks) Tenure Negro occupied Persons per room Structure and facilities: Availability of plumbing. . . 29,31 29,31 31 Occupancy and utilization: Tenure and race of head. . . . 29,31 16,34 Economic Status: 32a, 32b 32a, 22a, 32b, 22b 22b, 32b 33a, 33b 23a, 33a, 23b, 33b 23b, 33b Household composition: 27 Families with female head.. 27 Units with roomers, 28 o o .c C c o CO E 03 "I ■H g 01 a H CD 1 •a m n> c J3 to a; oi o a cj « cj a rt *d +j cy 0, a -, u -j 3 « M fi d -H 3 (h CJ +•» i-t o © +> 0) i-l -H j», a *h -H £ -H ■O o CJ cj a C — ■H CO C X. W 0) cj a) j: d o o «M 44 U rH rH C C « O >» H iD-H-H S Q. ,h .h «-» in ' 3 +j +j cnacj-HCD -H U 03-*-»3S-t-»tH(S« OOdOVdO>^ CO 41 e a en 3 u u CV CJ tv o +> 10 o 0> o O O a 12 c •H ffl cti ■n V u c CO O 3 CO N h a U •H 3 u o o •rt B ID 00 00 o r* « t* > < I •H CO C .*; to ty o o> A « o o w h 0> . ) a •H 0> t. CO • u H •D a> * ■D TJ h • m 01 >> C 0) • > > O CO 3 •H ■a • >> o T", ^ T^ .0 s* . 10 v CO C O ffl ■ I o > X) a 0) 73 C a 01 H CO 1) i m H 0) 01 ■a C o ■ D ■ . >> u •o •o co CO T r-4 •H CO • 01 rH 01 en o c - -H £ > ■«• H c s O 1> u 1 X "C ffl E i CO •(- a B c B t to to ^ o F B •n ID b : o - IT ( h h to CM 0) t. X 01 O O X x X c CI C • 01 « EH e r- 01 +j c >■ ti c i ffl 01 01 to C r H co CO i t- tt- •c T «*■ >. s>< +> a T) r t ■» X CO to X A c C c I r C B 01 0) c +> t. i ( (0 m * a > a a a rH CN iH £ IC ; Ik a, s -O I in tn m m m m > 3 V) CM r- ,_, CO T en oi X m X CM to CO T m X X 01 o r- to 01 V CO CO rH rM CO rH H o J* *tH JC rH r-t CM CM CM CM CM r-l oa CM CM CM n CO C c rt >. rt a. a t, hh to m in in in m in in in in m X o iO m m m in m (A M co CM v to o in m m 01 TT <3* d CM X X CM CM X* m 00 00 CM TT o CO O X CO CO 01 E C co CM CM 01 o CM CM to m CM ^r to m m o r~ in X en CO CO r» in ^ CO Ol ^ o X 01 r- 3 n rH i-* T-* r-t i-H rM M u 01 m in in in J* to ^ TT o in o> X CO o 01 r~ v r~ in X CO rH o CO CN V rH o CM 00 o CO to to CM ■CT c at *a c CO n CM CM CM rH rH i -1 CM CM CM tH ** 0) t^ Ol CO ■n h- CD r- CO rM r* O c r-t rM rM c 3 ta ■u 0) 1 s h m in in m in iO m m X to r-t CO CO in CO 01 CO CO r~ m TT o o CM X CM t* 00 eg CO rM o CO tH r- 01 rH X in f- e c CO CM CM CM CM rH CM CO CM IN rH CM rH rH rM CM CM s in o -o « . o> 1 1 2^ o o o o o o O o O o o O o o O O O o o o o O O o o O o O O o O o o o o o o c o O o o O o o o O c o o o o O o o o o a c o o O c to in o m tn N rH to CO ^Ji Ol X Ol TT CM X f- CO O CM CO X CO o CM r* c 3 to a O oo o 00 o 00 in r* X in CM in O CO Ol m r- X Oi ■n 1 ^ 01 01 CO CM CO Ol CO m Jj •a 1 ^ rH rt rt ■"' ^ r-t rt rt CM ' H H H r-t H w rH ^ rH c 01 3 a 01 + m in m in in in a a rH O X CO o ^r X o to to ^r to Ol CM X X CM 0* Ol X X in CM m r* o **" CO l> rH 3 o o a CO CM CO CM CM rH CM CM CM CM CM rH CM CM O . U a o a: J3 0> d +j a < * _ ^ ai CM t* in T to rH rt m 01 to rt CM m rt CO X X r- o CO H O V CO ■^ H CO to ^ O to c en CM en CM 00 rH T Ol i" to in O X CM X CO X en CO m *r X m f* X X X l> ^ (0 m H-i VI rH CM •H r. a C 01 u 3 a 01 a. in in in in m in tn in in m u jc cm O rH V CM to CO X o rH X CO CM t* CO *r X X V 00 Ol (0 m 00 o Ol o to in rM CM 0) u c CM rH CM CO CM OJ CM CM rH CO CM CM CM CM B en K - w hub ri 0) c: o> be *> TJ "O ci o 'Cf r- o o O 01 to o CM X CO in X en X o CM r-t CO CM Ol > l> CO m X h* -I t, i u 01 a a D nH CM rt CO m m CM H in t» H m X 01 X r- CO X C* (0 O CO CO *♦ m H m CM X Ol Ol O a o o CO 0) to in to CM m CM Ol 01 in CO CM o C- X m 00 CO CM t*» ■^ o O t> l> TT •*-» £ CM T in ■n to H HC CM HJ" in CO X X m X X iH o to CM r-l CM CO CO t^ CM »H in CM o o CM H ~ ^ _ H h rH CM rt " rH CM rM H H H CM rM e _! m m in m X in m in m in c a c CO CO *T t~ in CO to Ol CM ^ X X O" o rH X in X o o CM X m CO X CM CM Ol ~ ts. OS CM CM CM CM rH CM CM rH r4 CM CO CO CM CM CM 1 c to N *4 -H to -ri ■*-» C- r- CO to CO to en Ol in in to 01 o ^* Ol CM X N CO i i ^r t- CM O m in X •o 3 c c C 3 11 CM CM CM to CM to CO to ^T CM X *r CM CM H X m X o ■^ CM ^* CO CM t* o n js o rl rt CO CM CM CM r-t H in ^ H I 01 a 0) to in m m m m in in m m m *J 1 to X 01 rH 01 c ^* CM 00 ^ , T to TT r~ CM in tn t» Ol in CM X Oi CO 00 o CO CO o l> rM X Ol t- w rH H O to CM T-\ r-i rM r-H CM CM rH rH CM rH CM CM CO CO CM CM CM a o o c •rl E n rt c o CM in ^ CM ^* X O CM to in h- c c s: e ■rl o to 0) 00 00 CO to rH CO CO CO in X o o *r ^r rH o o 01 00 in r» O o CO o V] ^ f « o rH 3 U -rl -. rl rt ^ +j 11 A J «H a 01 .X in in in m in in < E C bo as in CM ^" en CM ■*r in t» X r-t o o CO CM t~ X CM en l> *r T rH (0 CO r* CD o O Ol tfl rH C C£ CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CO CM CO rM CM iH ft bo tn A c 6 *J CM to CO t» to « !*• CM T o en r* X ■M* CM X 00 CD CO ^ CO o CD X *cr r- to CO 01 ^13 C i Ch u CO to o r- to in m Ol CM TP X CM ^r C- ^* V rH o o l> Ol ■ o o a. o CM CM ^ CM rt r. J 01 a rH to _ m CM CM .h CM CO CO CM 00 CO *r 01 r-t m m CO CM DO. t* CM CM Ol r- Ol in 01 X X X X o 01 n Ol CM 10 CO CO CM m in o Ol in {N to t^ to r~ CO *r CM TT m CO o r~ in X X CM r-t V CO rH CM t> •> X CM ^ m CO *-< o CM rt rt rt - 1 ~ ~ rt " CM H H CM H H w - CM rH o u CO r* T in m ^T CO t- X X C- ^" TT O to CM CM CM CO Ol in VP CO f- o o o o o o o z o o o o o o o o o o o o O o o o o o c o CO T m tn to t^ X 09 o CM CM to v X X r* X O) Ol o CM O CM CO CM in CM CO CM CO CM X CN c n CM CO A New Report of National Interest — MINORITY- OWNED BUSINESSES 1969 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of the Census "Minority-Owned Businesses: 1969" MB-1 This report offers the first set of comprehensive statistical data, compiled in this area, on the minority ownership of businesses in this country. It focuses on the economic characteristics of the principal minority groups, i.e., Negro, Spanish- speaking, and other racial minorities. Wherever possible, the Spanish-speaking group has been classified in terms of ownership by those of Mexican-American, Puerto Rican, Cuban, and Latin American ancestry. The report covers the industrial activity, geographic location, employment, receipts, and legal form of organization of minority-owned enterprises in total, and of each principal minority group. The report will be especially valuable in permitting objective analysis of various government programs concerned with fostering minority growth. ORDER FORM Please send me copies of Minority-Owned Businesses: 1969 MB— 1 180pp. $1.50 MAIL ORDER FORM WITH PAYMENT TO Superintendent of Documents U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 or any U.S. Department of Commerce field office Name Address City State Zip code TOTAL AMOUNT Payment enclosed (Mark one) D Check □ Money order □ GPO coupons OR Charge to: Superintendent of Documents Deposit Account Number To Insure Prompt, Accurate Shipment, Place Correct Address on Mailing Label Below U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE POSTAGE AND FEES PAID PUBLIC OOCUMENTS DEPARTMENT U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON, DC. 20402 OFFICIAL BUSINESS Name RETURN AFTER 5 DAYS Street address City, State, and ZIP Code PENN STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Social and Economic Statistics Administration BUREAU OF THE CENSUS Washington. DC. 20233 A00007265 ,: 1773 POSTAGE AND FEES PAID U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 202 OFFICIAL BUSINESS