Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity
Federal RegisterAug 28, 1995
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Summary: In 1977, OMB issued the Race and Ethnic Standards for Federal
Statistics and Administrative Reporting that are set forth in
Statistical Policy Directive No. 15. The standards in this Directive
have been used for almost two decades throughout the Federal government
for recordkeeping, collection, and presentation of data on race and
Hispanic origin. The standards have been used in two decennial censuses
and in surveys of the population, data collections necessary for
meeting statutory requirements associated with civil rights monitoring
and enforcement, and in other administrative program reporting.
During the past several years, the standards have come under
increasing criticism from those who believe that the minimum categories
set forth in Directive No. 15 do not reflect the increasing diversity
of our Nation's population. Some have also proposed changing the names
of some categories. In response to the criticisms, OMB initiated a
review of the Directive. As a first step in this process, OMB asked the
Committee on National Statistics (CNSTAT) of the National Academy of
Sciences to organize a workshop to discuss issues to be addressed in
the review. A report of the workshop, held in February 1994, is
forthcoming from CNSTAT. During 1994, the review process also included
(1) Public hearings in Boston, Denver, San Francisco, and Honolulu, (2)
comment by Federal agencies on their requirements for racial and ethnic
data, (3) development of a research agenda and related literature
reviews, and (4) publication of a Federal Register notice, 59 FR 29831
(1994). The June 9, 1994, notice contained information on the
development of the current standards and requested public comment on:
(1) The adequacy of current racial and ethnic categories, (2) the
principles that should govern any proposed revisions to the standards,
and (3) specific suggestions for change that had been offered by
individuals and interested groups over the past several years. (See
Appendix for the text of Directive No. 15.)
This Federal Register notice (1) summarizes the suggestions for
changes drawn from public comments, research findings, and literature
reviews, (2) briefly discusses the research agenda for some of the
significant issues that have been identified, and (3) sets forth
proposed principles to be used in reaching a final decision on
standards for the classification of data on race and ethnicity. The
issues, suggestions for change, and pros and cons described in this
notice are those raised in public comment and do not reflect OMB
positions or decisions. In addition it should be noted that because the
categories in Directive No. 15 have been useful for over 18 years for
many purposes, an option under consideration is to make no changes.
Important dates in the balance of the review process are shown
below. Various agencies are conducting activities to support the review
process; these include work by the Bureau of the Census related to the
2000 Census program mentioned below.
Fall 1995--OMB analyzes Federal Register notice comments; receives
results of May 1995 CPS Supplement; continues to consult on options
with affected groups
March 1996--Census Bureau conducts National Content Test (NCT) in
preparation for 2000 Census
June 1996--Census Bureau conducts Race and Ethnic Targeted Test (RAETT)
in preparation for 2000 Census
November 1996 through January 1997--Bureau of the Census provides test
results from National Content Test and Race and Ethnicity Targeted Test
Spring 1997--OMB publishes Federal Register notice on research results
and proposed decisions on changes, if any, to Directive No. 15
Mid-1997--OMB publishes final decision regarding any changes to
Directive No. 15 in a Federal Register notice
ISSUES FOR COMMENT: With this notice, OMB requests public comment on
the following: (1) Are there any issues or options not listed that
should be considered before a final decision is made? (2) for each
option presented, are there additional pros and cons to consider? (3)
are there additional principles that should govern a final decision on
whether or how to revise the standards? and (4) which options should be
included for testing in 1996? This Federal Register notice provides the
last opportunity for public comment on priorities for research in 1996.
All comments received as a result of the June 9, 1994, notice have
been reviewed and considered in preparing this notice. It is not
necessary to resubmit comments sent previously.
ADDRESSES: Written comments on these issues may be addressed to
Katherine K. Wallman, Chief, Statistical Policy, Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, NEOB, Room
10201, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503.
DATES: To ensure consideration, written comments must be provided to
OMB on or before September 30, 1995.
ELECTRONIC AVAILABILITY AND COMMENTS: This document is also accessible
on the U.S. Department of Commerce's FedWorld network under the ``OMB
Library of Files.'' The Telnet address for FedWorld via the Internet is
fedworld.gov. The address (URL) for the World Wide Web is http://
www.fedworld.gov/ftp.htm#omb. For ftp access, ftp://fwux.fedworld.gov/
pub/omb/omb.htm. The telephone number for the FedWorld help desk is
(703) 487-4608. For assistance in using electronic mail, please contact
your system administrator.
Comments may be sent to OMB using the following Internet address:
ombdir15(@)a1.eop.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Suzann Evinger, Statistical Policy
Office, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, NEOB, Room 10201, 725 17th Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20503. Telephone: 202-395-3093.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
The United States government has long collected statistics on race
and ethnicity. Such data have been used to study changes in the social,
demographic, health, and economic characteristics of various groups in
our population. Federal data collections, through censuses, surveys,
and administrative records, have provided an historical record of the
Nation's population diversity and its changing social attitudes and
policy concerns.
Since the 1960s, data on race and ethnicity have been used
extensively in civil rights monitoring and enforcement covering areas
such as employment, voting rights, housing and mortgage lending, health
care services, and educational opportunities. These legislatively-based
priorities created the need among Federal agencies for
[[Page 44675]]
compatible, nonduplicative data for the specific population groups that
historically had suffered discrimination and differential treatment on
the basis of their race or ethnicity. In response, the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) issued in 1977 the ``Race and Ethnic
Standards for Federal Statistics and Administrative Reporting''
contained in Statistical Policy Directive No. 15. These categories also
implemented the requirements of Pub. L. 94-311 of June 16, 1976, which
called for the collection, analysis, and publication of economic and
social statistics on persons of Spanish origin or descent. Hence, the
population groups identified by the Directive No. 15 racial and
Hispanic origin categories reflected legislative and agency needs, and
not efforts by population groups to be specifically identified.
In recent years, Directive No. 15 has been criticized for not
sufficiently reflecting the Nation's diversity. In addition, some
critics have proposed changing the names of some categories. In a June
9, 1994, Federal Register notice, OMB announced a review of Directive
No. 15. As part of the review and public comment period, OMB held
hearings in Boston, Denver, San Francisco, and Honolulu. The June 9,
1994, Federal Register notice contains additional background
information on the development of Directive No. 15; revisions proposed
but not made in 1988; congressional hearings before the House
Subcommittee on Census, Statistics, and Postal Personnel in 1993; a
workshop conducted by the Committee on National Statistics in 1994;
work done by the Interagency Committee for the Review of the Racial and
Ethnic Standards; and general principles for the review of the racial
and ethnic categories.
In the June 9, 1994, Federal Register notice, OMB cited specific
concerns the public had raised over the years regarding Directive No.
15. As a result of the notice, the public commented on the need for new
categories, changes in current categories, whether racial and ethnic
data should be collected, legislative and programmatic needs for the
data, and the issue of self-identification versus observer
identification. OMB received nearly 800 letters in response to the 1994
Federal Register notice and heard the testimony of 94 witnesses during
the four public hearings. OMB heard from a wide array of interested
parties including individuals, data users, and data providers from
within and outside the Federal Government.
This Federal Register notice focuses primarily on the six major
issues discussed in comments from the public (Section B); the expected
future research agenda (Section C); and general principles for making a
final decision on standard racial and ethnic categories for Directive
No. 15 (Section D).
Historical continuity of racial and ethnic data is important to
many data users. Over time, however, there have been variations in how
the Nation's principal population groups have been classified according
to race and ethnicity; such differences have occurred even within data
sets. In decennial censuses, for example, a question on race has been
included since 1790. There have been many changes in the broad racial
categories, the specific components of the categories, and whether data
on ethnicity were collected. Asian Indians, for example, were counted
as ``Hindus'' in censuses from 1920 to 1940, as ``White'' from 1950 to
1970, and as ``Asians or Pacific Islanders'' in 1980 and 1990.
Numerous studies reveal that identification of ethnicity is fluid
and self-perceptions of race and ethnicity change over time and across
circumstances for many people. This is especially true among persons
with heterogeneous ancestries. A study of the Current Population Survey
showed 1 in 3 people reported an ethnicity in 1972 that was different
from the one they had reported in 1971. This level of inconsistency
reflects the fluidity of ethnicity as well as the effect of question
design.
Major historical inconsistencies in the data reflect social reality
and public policy as well as technical decisions by data developers.
Most agree that comparability over time is a desirable goal but that it
is important also to reflect changes in society as they occur. Thus,
General Principles 9 and 10 (see section D below) call for conducting
research before any changes are made and for providing a crosswalk
between old and any new categories so comparisons can be made across
time.
There are also differences among data sets with respect to how race
and ethnicity are classified. On birth records, for example, the race
of the baby's mother and father are based on reports of the mother or
family members. The race of the baby, which is not reported on the
birth record, was once assigned for purposes of published statistics by
an algorithm based on the parents' races. Since 1989, however, the
National Center for Health Statistics has tabulated birth data
according to the mother's race. In censuses and surveys until 1970,
racial data were usually based on the observation of the government
enumerator filling out the questionnaire. Now, the usual practice is
self-administered forms and questionnaires, especially when the purpose
of data gathering is to obtain information on population
characteristics. In the enforcement of civil rights laws, however, the
classification is often made by employers or school administrators, and
the observer's perception is at issue. Whether someone is a victim of
discrimination often turns on the way in which others act on their
perception of, for example, the color of the individual's skin, the
ethnic origin of his or her last name, or the accent with which he or
she speaks. Such issues do not depend generally on the way in which the
individual identifies his or her racial or ethnic background. In sum,
Federal data sets identifying race and ethnicity are a mixture of self-
identification by respondents and the perceptions of observers.
Until the current racial and ethnic standards were adopted in 1977,
Federal data collections used an assortment of definitions for broad
racial categories. In response to that problem, a Federal interagency
committee recommended development of common categories for racial and
ethnic data. Directive No. 15 provides a minimum set of standard
categories and definitions for presenting data on various racial and
ethnic groups in our population. The Directive requires compilation of
data for four racial categories (White, Black, American Indian or
Alaskan Native, and Asian or Pacific Islander), and an ethnic category
to indicate Hispanic origin, or not of Hispanic origin.
To date evaluation of the quality of racial and ethnic data has
been limited to research conducted by the Bureau of the Census, the
National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), and other parts of the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Comparisons of data
sets indicate high consistency in individual responses for White and
Black populations (95 percent consistency) and for the Asian and
Pacific Islander population (90 percent consistency) in the 1990 census
National Content Reinterview Survey conducted by the Census Bureau. For
American Indians and Alaskan Natives, reporting is less consistent (63
percent consistency in the 1990 National Content Reinterview Survey).
Reporting race is also less consistent for multiple-race persons,
Hispanics, the foreign born, and persons who do not read or speak
English well. NCHS found Asians and American Indians are sometimes
misreported as ``White'' on death certificates, and this causes an
[[Page 44676]]
underestimation of death rates for these groups. Nevertheless, these
data quality problems are not so severe as to make the data unusable
for most purposes.
Testimony at the four public hearings in 1994 and letters to OMB
requested data on specific population groups that go beyond
legislatively required levels of detail. Some groups say they have
suffered discrimination in political and economic access but without
data for their specific population group, they feel that the
discrimination is not recognized. For others, the request for
recognition of a particular nationality group seems to be primarily a
matter of pride and identification with that population group.
Public comment indicates self-identification is important to many
people. Some who commented requested different placement of their
specific group within a broad group. Many people of more than one race,
who under Directive No. 15 are told to choose one category that ``most
closely reflects (their) recognition in (their) community,'' said they
wanted to reflect their full heritage, not just part of it.
B. Summary of Issues and Suggestions Raised in Public Comment; Research
Findings
In the June 9, 1994, Federal Register notice, OMB asked for public
comment on (1) the adequacy of the current categories, (2) principles
that should govern any proposed revisions to the standards, and (3)
specific suggestions for changes that have been offered by various
individuals and organizations.
This section summarizes the public comment (including comments from
Federal agencies) that resulted from the June 9, 1994, Federal Register
notice as well as research findings related to the particular issues.
In an effort to be thorough in summarizing public comments the
discussion below of specific data collection and presentation
categories (Issue 6) is necessarily lengthy.
The issues and suggestions shown below are those raised in public
comment and do not reflect OMB positions or decisions. OMB will not
make decisions on the issues until mid-1997. The following six issues
are discussed in this section:
Issue 1. Should the Federal government collect data on race and
ethnicity? Should there be standards at all?
Issue 2. Should Directive No. 15 be revised? Should there be
different collection standards for different purposes?
Issue 3. Should ``race/ethnicity'' be asked as a single
identification or should ``race'' identification be separate from
Hispanic origin or other ethnicities?
Issue 4. Should self-identification or the perception of an
observer guide the methods for collection of racial and ethnic data?
Issue 5. Should population size and geographic distribution of
groups be criteria in the final decision of Directive No. 15
categories?
Issue 6. What should the specific data collection and presentation
categories be? This discussion includes a brief summary of public
comments and previous research findings. Briefly, suggestions that have
been made include:
(a) White (suggestions include adding categories for White ethnic
groups; adding a category for persons from the Middle East or of Arab
descent; and alternative wording for the category name).
(b) Black (suggestions include identification of geographic origin
of ancestors; adding a category for Creoles; and alternative wording
for the category name).
(c) Asian or Pacific Islander (suggestions include having three
separate categories, one for Asians, one for Pacific Islanders, and one
for Native Hawaiians; adding a new category for original peoples of
acquired American lands (``indigenous populations'') that would include
American Indians, Alaskan Natives, Native Hawaiians, and native
American Samoans and Guamanians; and specifying major nationality
groups).
(d) American Indian or Alaskan Native (suggestions include
retaining the category with no change; expanding the definition of the
category to include the Native Hawaiians and the indigenous populations
of American Samoa and Guam; and alternative wording for the category
name).
(e) Multiracial (suggestions ranged from not having any multiracial
category to six suggestions for ways to identify multiracial persons).
(f) Hispanic origin (options include categories for subgroups; and
alternative wording for the category name).
Detailed Discussion of the Six Issues
Issue 1. Should the Federal government collect data on race and
ethnicity? Should there be standards at all?
Summary of views expressed on whether the Federal government should
collect racial and ethnic data. Some agencies presently are required by
Federal statute and regulation to collect racial and ethnic data. (See,
for example, the Voting Rights Act of 1973 (1982) and the Civil Rights
Act of 1964.) To end the collection of racial and ethnic data for these
purposes, repeal of these statutes by Congress would be required. The
view of those who favor continued collection of racial and ethnic data
can be summed up by the words of the writer who said, ``* * * the
measurable gains made in advancing a civil rights agenda to bring all
Americans into the economic, political, and social mainstream would
have been extremely difficult, if not impossible, if we did not have
adequate information on racial and ethnic groups.''
Those who favor no collection gave as their reasons the following:
(1) Doing so is divisive, archaic, unscientific, and racist; (2) it
should not be a function of the Federal government (the government
should be concerned only with citizenship) and the government has no
need to know (tracking heritage is an individual choice and
responsibility); (3) the government should collect ethnicity or
ancestry instead of race; (4) there are no pure races, everyone is
mixed, and therefore, the categories are meaningless; (5) people do not
know their complete ancestry; (6) we are all supposed to have equal
protection under the law (race neutral, color blind); (7) we are all
Americans, we are a melting pot, we are one nation; (8) we are all
human beings; (9) it is dehumanizing to categorize people like nuts and
bolts; and (10) it is upsetting (for example, the categories are too
limited; reminds people of the Nazi holocaust).
Should there be standards at all? Directive No. 15 is used widely
and the strong consensus of public comment was to continue the issuance
of standards for collecting data on race and ethnicity. The background
and demand for the issuance of Directive No. 15 in 1977 is reviewed in
59 FR 29831, (1994).
As part of the public comment period, Federal agencies were asked
to provide information about their requirements for data on race and
ethnicity. Federal agencies report that the standards in Directive No.
15 have facilitated the exchange of data among agencies and among
states, in instances where data are not used exclusively within a
particular agency or program. Even where it is not required, Directive
No. 15 standards are often used in State and business record systems
and by marketers as a matter of convenience and to facilitate
comparisons with other data sets.
The information also suggests, however, that Directive No. 15 may
give a false sense of comparability and continuity among data sets.
Even where
[[Page 44677]]
the definitions of categories are comparable, there have been
variations in collection and processing procedures that lead to
inconsistencies in the data. Additional differences occur because of
the mix of self-identification and observer-identification of race and
ethnicity.
Agencies having statutory requirements to use racial and ethnic
data for policy development, program evaluation, and civil rights
monitoring and enforcement: (1) Want historical continuity of the data;
(2) generally oppose a ``multiracial'' category because the persons
seeking this category are already covered by existing racial
categories; (3) indicate that the perception of others is more valid
for evaluating discrimination than individual self-identification; (4)
note that standardized reporting formats, like the Employer Information
Report, EEO-1, rely on observer identification; (5) express concern
about the cost of making changes that will affect both Federal
agencies, respondents, and other governmental bodies; and (6) generally
favor the broad group structure of Directive No. 15 in its present
format.
Data collection agencies have legislative authority to collect
racial and ethnic data needed for Federal programs and in the case of
the decennial census, for redistricting. They also use racial and
ethnic data for analyses of social, economic, and health trends for
population groups. These agencies said: (1) The categories in Directive
No. 15 confuse some respondents because they are inconsistent, too
broad for some purposes, and the concepts of race, Hispanic origin, and
ancestry overlap; (2) historical continuity of the data is important;
(3) it is important to be able to aggregate any new categories back to
the 1977 Directive No. 15 categories; (4) corrections are needed in
Directive No. 15 (for example, there is no category for South American
Indians and only Hispanic Whites and Hispanic Blacks are identified in
the minimum combined format); (5) subgroups of Asians and Hispanics
were most frequently cited as a need but required data collection
should be limited to groups with sufficient numbers to generate
meaningful estimates; (6) a few agencies expressed interest in
subcategories of the Black population (e.g., African, West Indian); and
(7) for American Indians, some expressed a need to require the
identification of Federal- versus state-recognized tribes. Many felt a
``multiracial'' category (that does not specify the races) is too
heterogeneous and affects the counts of other groups in unknown ways.
Agencies that collect health data particularly need to know specific
categories because some diseases and health problems are more prevalent
among certain racial and ethnic groups. Data collection agencies are
concerned about the significant operational, technical, and cost issues
of a ``check all that apply'' approach for multiracial persons. For
example, processing systems would have to be changed to allow for
reporting more than one category. Additionally, Federal laws have been
written with the assumption that persons identify with one racial
group; these laws would either have to be changed or some method would
have to be devised to meet legislative requirements.
Federal agencies have interpreted Directive No. 15 to apply only to
primary data collection; data collection under grants may or may not
comply with it.
Issue 2. Should Directive No. 15 be revised? Should there be
different collection standards for different purposes?
Among those who favor collection of racial and ethnic data, there
is significant difference of opinion as to whether Directive No. 15
should remain essentially as it is or should be revised. While some
believe there should be no change in Directive No. 15, others say
ethnic identification is in constant flux and Directive No. 15 should
be changed now and subsequently reviewed periodically (for example,
after every decennial census). The Directive No. 15 categories are
nearly two decades old and many people say they no longer identify with
the categories. Intermarriage, changes in immigration flows, and
changes in ethnic consciousness are some of the reasons. These changes
in our basic population structure suggest an increasingly diverse
society and unforeseen future needs for racial and ethnic data.
Public testimony and research indicate that race and ethnicity are
subjective concepts and inherently ambiguous. For purposes of
collecting data in the United States, race and ethnicity are cultural
concepts and social constructs. As stated in the current version of
Directive No. 15, the racial and ethnic categories are not intended to
reflect scientific or anthropological definitions of who should be
included in a particular category. The definitions of the minimum set
of population categories under Directive No. 15 include references to
color, ancestry, and geographic origins in an effort to approximate
social constructs of race prevalent in the United States.
In line with the subjective nature of the concept, research shows
people change how they classify themselves with respect to race and
ethnicity. There is significant inconsistency in the measurement of
ethnicity particularly. Research shows different responses are summoned
by the format of questions (open or specified categories), the number
of categories, the examples listed, changes in self-perceptions within
groups and among age cohorts, and the political climate.
The differing views of whether Directive No. 15 should be revised
relate to the purpose for collecting such data. Federal agencies that
use racial and ethnic data for regulatory programs, civil rights
monitoring and enforcement generally oppose any revision of Directive
No. 15 for the reasons described in Issue 1. Directive No. 15 is seen
as providing practical guidelines for visual identification in a broad
and relatively straightforward manner of the population groups that
have historically suffered discrimination.
Where trend analysis of social and economic changes was the
commenter's purpose, more detailed categories were often favored. The
preference varies for other purposes such as policy development and
program fund allocations. In the public hearings and letters to OMB,
persons concerned with self-identification generally favored revisions
that would provide more detailed categories and more freedom of choice
(see Issue 6).
Given the distinct uses of racial and ethnic data in the Federal
government (especially trend analysis versus regulatory and civil
rights monitoring and enforcement), the possibility of a two-part
Directive No. 15, with one part focusing on each purpose, has been
suggested as an option if there are changes to Directive No. 15. Part A
of Directive No. 15 could provide more detailed standards for use when
a major purpose is trend analysis (such as in the decennial census and
perhaps household surveys). Such a standard would track the increasing
diversity of the U.S. population and provide better information to
inform decisions about whether the categories for administrative and
enforcement purposes should be expanded. Part B of Directive No. 15
could remain essentially unchanged for use in program evaluations and
civil rights monitoring and enforcement.
There are disadvantages to having two levels of data collection
specified in the standards of a revised Directive No. 15. The most
serious disadvantage could be data sets with different counts of
population groups that cannot be
[[Page 44678]]
related, a result of different coding and tabulation rules. This is
especially the case if the specific races of multiracial persons are
identified. Two sets of data could be confusing to data users who may
be unsure of which set to use for various purposes. To prevent
refocusing the problem from data collection to tabulation, there would
have to be generally agreed-upon procedures and guidelines for how
agencies would tabulate data for program purposes. The procedures
should ensure that detailed data collections could be tabulated back to
the broad categories of the 1977 Directive No. 15 in a standard way
across programs. Standard and generally agreed-upon tabulation rules
would be needed for the various combinations of multiracial entries,
including those where neither race is ``White.'' The Bureau of the
Census already has procedures for aggregating detailed data from the
1990 census to the broader categories of Directive No. 15. The
reaggregations could become more complicated because of the different
assumptions that would be required. The requests of some groups who do
not feel they fit into existing categories (e.g., some Arabs, Creoles,
and Cape Verdeans) suggest that aggregations could become even more
problematic. Also, the quality of the reaggregated data can vary by
geographic area.
Some say cost should not be an ``excuse'' for failing to improve
data collection on race and ethnicity, especially where the data are
used for protection of civil rights. Others expressed concern about the
cost of making changes to Directive No. 15 when the broad categories
are acceptable choices for most of the population and cover programs
affecting almost all persons. Added costs associated with more detailed
categories are discussed in Issue 6 below.
Federal, State, and local government agencies urged that any
revisions ensure that data can be tabulated back to the 1977
categories. Most expressed a preference to maintain historical
continuity of the two decades of data sets with the understanding they
are not perfectly comparable. It was also recognized that final
tabulations give the data an appearance of comparability among data
sets when actually there are differences caused by data collection
methods (especially self-identification versus identification by
observers). Nevertheless, the data are widely accepted by courts and
government agencies as reliable indicators of change in housing
patterns, redistricting, and labor markets.
If there are revisions to Directive No. 15, research indicates that
changes in the race and ethnic categories on administrative records
will present problems in data comparability over time. The categories
on the records reflect what they were as of the time of initial
enrollment and the categories are generally carried without change for
decades. Administrative records are often collected from State and
local sources, which have a variety of recordkeeping practices, are not
required to meet Directive No. 15 (but often do), and are unlikely to
collect information for detailed categories. A few States now require a
``mixed race'' category. There will be increasing value to the Federal
government if State records use the same categories as Directive No.
15.
Federal and State government agencies emphasized that if there are
revisions, a reasonable amount of time needs to be given to phase in
the changes.
Issue 3. Should ``race/ethnicity'' be asked as a single
identification or should ``race'' identification be separate from
Hispanic origin or other ethnicities?
Directive No. 15 states that it is preferable to collect data on
race and Hispanic separately to allow flexibility. If a combined format
is used to collect racial and ethnic data the minimum acceptable
categories are: American Indian or Alaskan Native; Asian or Pacific
Islander; Hispanic; White, not of Hispanic origin; and Black, not of
Hispanic origin. The use of the Hispanic category in the combined
format does not provide information on the race of those selecting it.
As a result, the combined format makes it impossible to distribute
persons of Hispanic ethnicity by race and, therefore, reduces the
utility of the four racial categories by excluding from them persons
who would otherwise be included. Thus, the two formats currently
permitted by Directive No. 15 for collecting racial and ethnic data do
not provide comparable data.
Public testimony reflected some data problems with the standards in
Directive No. 15. The combined format does not provide for
identification of Asians or American Indians with Hispanic origins, and
would classify the people of Equatorial Guinea, who are geographically
Africans but who speak Spanish, as Hispanic. There is no apparent
category for Central and South American Indians.
Some persons from non-Hispanic ethnic groups questioned why
Hispanics had been singled out as the only ethnic group specifically
identified in Directive No. 15. Others objected to the term ``non-
Hispanic'' because it defines people by what they are not. For example,
rather than ``White, not of Hispanic origin,'' a category might be
``White, European ethnicity'' or ``American Indian, Mexican.'' This
approach would require a question that identifies ancestry groups
within the broad race groups.
Most Federal agencies did not comment on whether race and Hispanic
origin should be collected in one question or two questions, although
many agencies have been using the combined format for a number of years
and have developed data series with the resulting data. Those few that
commented were split on the issue.
The public indicated differences of opinion also. Those who favored
asking race and Hispanic origin separately said Hispanics were a
multiracial population and a cultural (not a race) group. Many Latin
American countries are populated by immigrants from parts of Europe
other than Spain. Many wanted to identify Asian-Hispanics and American
Indian-Hispanics. Research shows Hispanics who self-identify as White
also fare better economically; thus, some said two questions were
needed because ethnicity alone was insufficient for determining which
Hispanics are likely to be victims of discrimination. Others were
concerned with historical continuity of data concepts and wanted to be
able to generate statistics for the total White and total Black
population. When separate questions are used to collect racial and
ethnic data, there is also a technical matter of which question should
be asked first.
Some who favored asking race/Hispanic origin as one question said
many Hispanics do not identify themselves as a race. Others favored
this approach as a way to end the practice of using the term ``race''
which they see as a social rather than a scientific construct.
For some individuals, race and ethnicity may not be clearly
separable. One proposed solution is to ask a single race/ethnicity
question (that is, one question in which ``Hispanic'' is included in
the list with the broad race categories) and allow respondents to mark
all that apply. Hispanics who identify with a race category could mark
both categories. Hispanic respondents who do not identify with any race
category could mark ``Hispanic'' only. The question would correspond to
self-perceived membership in population groups defined by cultural
heritage, language, physical appearance, or other characteristics.
Some research supports the public comments that some respondents
are confused about how to respond to
[[Page 44679]]
separate race and Hispanic origin items. In the 1990 census, 4 in 10
Hispanics marked ``Other'' in the race question and about 10 percent of
the population did not respond to the Hispanic origin item. The 1990
census reinterview study, in which the answers given by a sample of
respondents to the 1990 census were compared with answers they gave in
a reinterview after the census, also showed that Hispanics had high
levels of inconsistent reporting in the race item. These results
indicate the question may not be operating as intended.
Cognitive research shows that many Hispanics perceive redundancy in
separate race, Hispanic origin, and national origin questions. Some
Hispanic respondents do not identify with the Black or the White
category, and are offended by an ``Other race'' category (which they
interpret to mean that Hispanics are less important than other races
since they do not have their own ``label''). For some, ``White'' is
synonymous with ``Anglo'' meaning non-Hispanic. For example, in a focus
group, a Mexican-American man said that where he lived people were
either Mexicans or Anglos. He was confused by a race question that
seemed to be trying to make him say he was White and to his mind, non-
Hispanic. In an analysis of the responses of Hispanics to the race
question in the 1990 Panel Study of Income Dynamics, Cubans were the
most likely and Mexican-Americans the least likely to identify
themselves as ``White.'' Cognitive research shows some Hispanics,
especially the foreign born, expect to see a single category for
Hispanics.
If race and Hispanic origin are asked as two separate questions,
there is the issue of whether to ask race or Hispanic origin first.
Research done since 1987 indicates that additional instructions and
asking Hispanic origin first reduce nonresponse to that question.
Asking Hispanic origin first also reduces reporting as ``other race''
and increases reporting as ``White'' by U.S.-born Hispanics but not by
immigrants. A large minority of respondents still report as ``other
race.'' The Census Bureau will conduct research in the 1996 National
Content Test for the 2000 census to determine whether placing the
Hispanic item first affects consistency of responses and reporting in
the race category among subgroups not adequately represented in other
studies.
The future research agenda is described in Section C below.
Issue 4. Should self-identification or the perception of an
observer guide the methods for collection of racial and ethnic data?
At the heart of criticisms and public requests for review of
Directive No. 15 is the feeling of some persons, particularly those of
mixed heritage, that they cannot accurately identify their race and
ethnicity as they prefer in Federal data systems using the current
categories. They say the government should not limit their choice of
identification. As stated in the second principle for the review of
racial and ethnic categories (Section D below), ideally OMB prefers
that self-identification should be facilitated to the greatest extent
possible but there are data collection systems where observer
identification is more practical. Federal censuses, surveys, and vital
records give preference to using self-identification; that is, having
the individual (or in some cases a proxy respondent) provide the
information requested about his or her race and Hispanic origin.
Research shows that ethnic groups evolve and may modify their
preferred ethnic group names; individuals may represent their
affiliation with groups differently depending on the situation and may
alter their perceived ethnic membership over time. Category names need
to be acceptable and generally understood both by members and
nonmembers of the groups to which they apply.
Self-identification is not the preferred method among Federal
agencies concerned with monitoring and enforcement of civil rights.
They prefer to collect racial and ethnic data by visual observation.
Since discrimination is based on the perception of an individual's race
or Hispanic origin, these agencies oppose any changes that would make
it more difficult to collect data by observation. Such proposed changes
include the suggested ``multiracial'' category as well as
identification of national origins and ethnicities (for example,
``Arab'' or ``Cape Verdean''). These agencies say that if categories
are more detailed and include nationality groups, or if there is a
``multiracial'' category (and especially if the multiple races have to
be identified), it would be virtually impossible to give instructions
for how to classify by visual observation.
Additionally, they report it is their experience that direct
inquiry about a person's race, ethnicity, or national origin sometimes
raises concerns among employees or other respondents about the purpose
of collecting the data.
American Indian groups express concern about self-identification.
Tribal recognition of status as an American Indian or Alaskan Native
(Alaskan Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut) is a legal definition, not one of
long-ago ancestry. In the 1990 census, 8.7 million persons reported in
the ancestry question that they were American Indian but only 1.9
million reported American Indian race. Only 3 of 4 who reported
``American Indian'' as their race gave ``American Indian'' as their
first ancestry; about 9 percent gave an European first ancestry. There
are also regional effects in reporting American Indian as a race
related to the prevalence of intermarriage, migration, Federal
recognition of regional tribes, and attitudes towards Indians.
Development of Federal data sets includes increased use of
administrative records matched to survey data for trend analysis. This
makes the issue of data collection methods, both by observation and
self-identification, a greater technical difficulty than in the past.
Where identification is by observers or proxy respondents, blood
relatives may be identified differently in administrative records and
an individual may be identified differently among data sets.
Issue 5. Should population size and geographic distribution of
groups be criteria in the final decision of Directive No. 15
categories?
Many of the groups for which data collection has been requested are
numerically small and often are found primarily in specific geographic
areas. In national sample surveys, these factors often make it
unreasonably costly or burdensome on the public to collect reliable
data. A question that allows for self-identification to the greatest
extent possible may be very lengthy. Some see this as a technical
problem, others do not.
There are difficulties with using size of population as a basis for
making a population group a specific category. The size of the
population is itself a subject of controversy at times.
For sample surveys, how small is ``too small''? Sample data can
provide only an estimate of a number and not, with 100-percent
certainty, the true number itself. The smaller the group, the more
unreliable estimates are with respect to sampling error. For example,
in the Current Population Survey (CPS), a national survey of
households, summary measures such as means and percentage distributions
are shown only when the population base is 75,000 or greater. An
example of how much sampling error increases in a survey as the
population size of a group decreases can be provided for a
characteristic such as the poverty rate. If the estimated poverty rate
for the total U.S. population is about 14 to 15 percent (a 90-percent
confidence interval), then for a population group of 1 million persons,
[[Page 44680]]
the poverty rate would be about 8 to 21 percent; for a population group
of 500,000 persons, the poverty rate would be about 6 to 23 percent;
and for a population group of 200,000 persons, the poverty rate would
be about 1 to 28 percent. (A 90-percent confidence interval can be
interpreted roughly as providing 90-percent confidence that the true
number falls between the upper and lower limits.) The accuracy and
reliability of an estimate depends not only upon sample sizes, but also
upon whether the groups are ``controlled'' (i.e., weighted to
independent estimates). Estimates of the Asian and Pacific Islander
population from the 1994 March Current Population Survey differed by
about 20 percent from demographic estimates due primarily to this
factor.
One person suggested that groups should constitute at least one
percent of the population (nationally, about 2.6 million in 1994) to be
considered as a separate category. A time frame and data source would
have to be agreed upon if such a guideline were considered.
Issue 6. What should the specific data collection and presentation
categories be?
There are no clear, unambiguous, objective, generally agreed-upon
definitions of the terms, ``race'' and ``ethnicity.'' Cognitive
research shows that respondents are not always clear on the differences
between race and ethnicity. There are differences in terminology, group
boundaries, attributes, and dimensions of race and ethnicity.
Historically, ethnic communities have absorbed other groups through
conquest, the expansion of national boundaries, and acculturation.
Groups differ in their preferred identification. Concepts also
change over time. Research indicates some respondents are referring to
the national or geographic origin of their ancestors, while others are
referring to the culture, religion, racial or physical characteristics,
language, or related attributes with which they identify. The 1977
Directive No. 15 categories are a mix of these. The categories do not
represent objective ``truth'' but rather, are ambiguous social
constructs and involve subjective and attitudinal issues.
Some said the categories should reflect ancestry or cultural
affiliation rather than skin color. Some wanted to indicate they were
``American'' and had ancestry from a particular geographic region
(``hyphenated Americans'') while others opposed this (``we are all
Americans''). Cognitive research indicated that some people use race
and ethnic origin interchangeably; they see little difference between
the two concepts. Most people do understand the concept of ancestry.
Some groups stated that their preference was for standard
categories that would maximize the size of their population because
they believed larger numbers provide importance in society and greater
political leverage.
In short, groups differed in what they considered the most
desirable standard. It is impossible to satisfy every request for
racial and ethnic categories that OMB received; such a list would be
both lengthy and contradictory. Some persons requested religious
identification; this option is not discussed below because the Federal
collection of religious affiliation has been interpreted as possibly
violating the separation of church and state.
Some suggested a completely open-ended question with no standard
categories for data collection; rather, standards would be set for data
tabulation. An open-ended question is discussed in part (e),
Multiracial option (2)(cc).
Below is a discussion of public comment with regard to the current
broad categories of ``White,'' ``Black,'' ``Asian or Pacific
Islander,'' ``American Indian or Alaskan Native,'' and ``Hispanic
origin.'' Part (e) below discusses options with respect to
classification of persons of multiple races, a category that does not
exist in the current standards. Where possible, in the discussion of
options and their pros and cons, past research results are included.
As part of the discussion of options, the cost of proposed changes
with respect to collecting, tabulating, and analyzing data is an
essential consideration (see Section D, General Principle 8). Any
changes in Directive No. 15 will be imposed on tens of thousands of
State and local agencies such as law enforcement agencies (through the
Uniform Crime Reporting system), school districts, the business
community, and others required to use the Directive in reporting these
data to the Federal government. If administrative records for Federal
programs have to be completely updated to meet a new standard, there
will be significant costs to entities that report to the Federal
Government. For example, the State of Florida estimates it would cost
$2 million to change school enrollment records.
Changes in the current Directive No. 15 would also entail
additional processing costs as software and sometimes data capture
methods would have to be changed. For example, it is more expensive to
capture and code handwritten responses to open-ended questions than
fixed, pre-determined categories. Some of the increased costs
associated with categories more detailed than the current Directive No.
15 would include:
Interviewer training for implementing changes in
collecting these data and updating of interviewer instruction manuals;
Additional interview time to collect more detailed data;
The technical and practical difficulty of administering
more detailed or more complex categories (such as long lists of
nationalities, especially if multiple responses are allowed) in
telephone surveys;
Increases in computer reprogramming and data processing
costs;
Increases in the likelihood of litigation over data
aggregation and processing decision rules;
Increases in the costs of disseminating data in hard copy
or electronic format and storing larger computer data files;
Updating program manuals, regulations, and recordkeeping
requirements to reflect changes; and
Making data analysis more complex.
The cost considerations described above apply, in varying degrees,
to any change and so are not described further in the discussion below
of pros and cons for the various options raised in public comment.
(a) White
In Directive No. 15, the ``White'' category includes persons having
origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, North Africa, or the
Middle East. The public comment included suggestions for subcategories
and related changes in terminology to collect more detailed information
on White ethnic groups according to the geographic region of their
ancestors. This summary reports only on options proposed during public
hearings and in the public comment period. It also highlights pros and
cons for these options as raised in public comment or shown by
research. Inclusion in the summary does not reflect OMB endorsement of
the comments or suggestions. Requests included:
Options Suggested in Public Comments
(1) Collect data for White ethnic groups according to the country
of ancestral origin (for example, German, Scottish, or Irish). Some
prefer other terms such as ``European-American,'' or ``German-
American'' and some
[[Page 44681]]
requested that ``European'' be further subcategorized into ``Western
European'' and ``Eastern European.''
Some suggested subcategories for identifying the original peoples
of Europe, North Africa, and Southwest Asia (Middle East).
Pros of Option (a)(1):
Collection: Some persons identify more with their ancestry
than with ``White'' as a racial category.
Tabulation and analysis: Indicates the ethnic diversity of
the ``White'' population.
Cons of Option (a) (1):
Collection:
--Physical space on forms: If national origin groups are listed,
considerably more space would be needed.
--Telephone interviews: More difficult than currently, especially if
national origin groups are listed; more time consuming to ensure that
respondent is given the opportunity to understand the possible choices.
--Data quality: Effect on counts of specific nationality groups if
country not listed as an example; count also affected by which
nationalities/countries are listed; respondent may be confused between
reporting ancestry (e.g., German) versus country of birth (e.g.,
Russia); and some respondents do not know their ancestry.
--Categories not required by Federal legislation/programs and States
unlikely to collect this detail in administrative records.
--Visual observation: Nationality not easily determined.
Tabulation and analysis: Need rules for tabulating multiple
ancestries. More categories add costs for tabulation and analysis. It
is more complex to analyze and report on many nationalities as compared
with single race categories.
(2) Create a separate category for Arabs/Middle Easterners
(currently included as part of the ``White'' category) in order to
distinguish this population from persons of European descent in the
``White'' category. The public comment offered different suggestions
for the name of the category and how to define the population group it
would be intended to cover. Some comments supported a separate category
for the decennial census enumeration, but not necessarily adding a
separate category to the minimum set of racial and ethnic categories in
Directive No. 15. These suggestions included:
--Create a geographically oriented category called ``Middle Eastern''
(based not on race but on region of origin) for persons from the Middle
East/North Africa and West Asian region, regardless of their race,
religion, or language group. It would include Arab states, Israel,
Turkey, Afghanistan, and Iran. Some suggested also including Pakistanis
and Asian Indians in their geographic definition of the term. Data
availability on subsets of the Middle Eastern regional category was
also requested. Some comments referred to the ``Middle Eastern''
category as an ethnic identifier; some favored the addition of a
``Middle Eastern'' category to the list of basic racial and ethnic
categories; and others suggested a ``Middle Eastern'' subcategory be
created within the ``White'' category. Those preferring a ``Middle
Eastern'' to an ``Arab'' category felt that the category would build on
the other regionally defined categories, consolidate people from
different countries but with similar cultural/geographic experiences
regardless of race, and distinguish them from persons of European
descent in the ``White'' category.
--Add an ethnic category called ``Arab-American'' based on a linguistic
and cultural approach to the minimum set of categories in Directive No.
15. Those who preferred the term, ``Arab'' said Arabs, like Hispanics,
are an ethnic group of mixed race and have a shared language and
culture. They would make ``Arab'' a separate category rather than part
of the ``White'' category; they would leave North Africans, who are not
Arabs, as part of the ``White'' category.
--Reclassify ``Muslim West Asians'' as part of the ``Asian or Pacific
Islander'' category.
Pros of Option (a)(2):
Collection:
--A separate category would satisfy Arab/Middle Eastern respondents who
do not think of themselves as ``White'' or as having any identity in
common with Europeans.
--A separate category would facilitate self-identification and could
possibly improve the quality of the data on Arabs/Middle Easterners.
--Telephone survey: Easy to ask if it is the only category added;
however, if additional categories are added, it may be problematic.
Tabulation and analysis:
--Would provide treatment comparable to Hispanics (and in some data
sets, specific Asian nationality groups).
--Data could be used in policy development, in delivery of services and
needs assessments, for civil rights monitoring and enforcement, and in
health research.
--Reflects the ethnic diversity of the ``White'' category.
Cons of Option (a)(2):
Collection:
--Requires space on form for an additional category.
--There was no general agreement in public comment about the geographic
definition of ``Middle East.'' For example, there is disagreement in
public comment about whether Pakistanis and Asian Indians are included
if the term, ``Middle Eastern'' is used. The term, ``Arab'' clarifies
that Asian Indians and Pakistanis would remain classified with Asians,
which some consider preferable for historical continuity; no requests
were received from Asian Indians or Pakistanis to be reclassified.
Public testimony indicated inconsistencies in understanding which
countries should be included as ``Arab.''
--Identification by observers: Because some Arabs are light-skinned and
some are dark-skinned, identification by visual observation is prone to
error.
Tabulation and analysis:
--A separate Arab/Middle Eastern category may affect the historical
comparability of data in the ``White'' category and may affect the
counts of other racial groups since Arabs are a mixed racial group.
--Adds a category on many national surveys for a geographically
concentrated population (about half of the Arab population is
concentrated in Detroit, New York, Los Angeles, and Washington, DC).
--Relatively small population (less than 900,000 according to the 1990
census, although Arab groups claim 1-3 million). Geographically,
``Middle Easterner'' as a category would include persons other than
Arabs.
(3) Alternative words suggested for ``White'' include ``Caucasian''
and ``Anglo.''
Pros of Option (a)(3):
Collection: ``Caucasian'' preferred by some respondents.
Cons of Option (a)(3):
Collection: ``Anglo'' generally refers to Whites of
European ancestry and excludes Hispanics; this would affect historical
continuity. The term tends to be used regionally and may not be
generally understood.
Past research results/literature review: Some object to the term
``White'' (for example, in cognitive research one said, ``white is the
color of paint'' and in a letter another said, ``I am not the color of
this paper''). Some preferred the term, ``Caucasian.'' Ethnicity is
largely
[[Page 44682]]
symbolic or optional for many Whites. Whites often reported
inconsistently, as ``American,'' or not at all in response to the 1990
census ancestry question. A significant number of Whites do not
strongly identify with a specific European ethnicity. This has been the
case for decades. For example, only about 55 percent of matched persons
who reported English, Scottish, or Welsh in the March 1971 Current
Population Survey (CPS) reported the same origin in March 1972. The
``example effect'' is very strong for White ancestry groups. For
example, in two surveys held five months apart, 40 million people
reported English as their ancestry and in the other, nearly 50 million
said they were English. The only difference was placement of a question
on language use in their home (English for 90 percent of the
population) after the ancestry question in the second survey and
farther apart in the first survey. ``German'' was the first example in
the 1990 census ancestry question and, as a result, the German
population appeared to grow very rapidly. Some Whites, however, do
identify strongly with their ancestry and were confused by the 1990
census race question which listed nationality groups for Asians and
Hispanics but not for Whites.
(b) Black
The term ``Black'' in Directive No. 15 refers to a person having
origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa. There were
suggestions to change the definition to ``persons having origins in any
of the Black peoples of Africa,'' or to define the term to include all
Black persons regardless of country of origin or country of
citizenship. Requests were made to identify Blacks according to the
geographic region of their ancestors. ``African-American'' and ``Black
African-American'' were suggested as names for the category (the
suggestions of ``Black American'' and ``Amerofian'' (described as
Blacks who are American Natives, European, and West African) are not
discussed below). This summary reports only on options proposed during
public hearings and in the public comment period. It also highlights
pros and cons for these options as raised in public comment or as shown
by research. Inclusion in the summary does not reflect OMB endorsement
of the comments or suggestions. Requests included:
Options Suggested in Public Comments
(1) Collect data for Black ethnic groups according to geographic
origin of Black ancestors (African, Haitian, Jamaican, Caribbean, West
Indian, Brazilian, Ethiopian, etc.).
Pros of Option (b)(1):
Collection: Easy to ask in a telephone survey. Some
persons identify more with their ancestry than with ``Black'' as a
racial category.
Tabulation and analysis: Useful for research on health,
diversity, needs assessments, trends analysis; does not affect
historical continuity. Indicates the ethnic diversity of the Black
population.
Cons of Option (b)(1):
Collection:
--Determining geographic origin or nationality/ancestry by visual
observation would be difficult and prone to error.
--If national origin groups are listed, considerably more space would
be needed on forms.
--Telephone interviews would be more difficult than currently,
especially if national origin groups are listed; more time consuming to
ensure that respondent is given the opportunity to understand the
possible choices.
Tabulation and analysis: Data not needed for Federal
program evaluation and enforcement. States are unlikely to collect this
detail in administrative records. Count of specific nationality groups
could be affected if respondent is confused between reporting ancestry
(e.g., Haitian) versus country of birth (e.g., Virgin Islands); some
respondents do not know their ancestry. Rules would be needed for
tabulating multiple ancestries. More categories add costs for
tabulation and analysis. It is more complex to analyze and report on
many nationalities as compared with single race categories.
(2) Create a separate category for Louisiana (French) Creoles. They
objected to categorization with Blacks as they are a multiracial/ethnic
group (African, French, American Indian, and Hispanic).
Pros of Option (b)(2):
Collection: Easy to ask in a telephone survey if it is the
only category added; however, if additional categories are added may be
problematic.
Cons of Option (b)(2):
Collection: Extra space on forms; extra time in telephone
interview.
Tabulation and analysis: Small population size. Affects
historical continuity of data sets.
(3) Use the alternative term, ``African American'' or ``Black,
African-American.''
Pros of Option (b)(3):
Collection: Commonly-used identification for Blacks born
in the United States or Blacks whose parents are Americans.
Cons of Option (b)(3):
Collection:
--Excludes Africans who are not American citizens.
--Term generally refers to Blacks but respondents could reasonably be
confused as to whether to include Whites, Asians, or others born in
Africa (especially North Africa). Could affect historical comparability
of data.
--Blacks born in Brazil or the Caribbean (especially immigrants) do not
identify with the term, ``African American.'' Some Blacks who have been
in the United States for generations have no record of where in Africa
their ancestors were born and do not wish to be called ``African-
Americans.''
--Use of ``American'' increases respondent error by persons who are not
Black but who wish to identify as ``Americans.''
Tabulation and analysis: Refers to a continent, not a
country.
(4) Provide a separate category for Cape Verdeans (Portuguese and
African ancestry from Cape Verde on the western tip of Africa. This is
mostly a multiracial population. ``Cape Verdean'' is generally
considered a national, ethnic and linguistic designation rather than a
racial designation). The category could be an ethnic category rather
than a racial category as is the case for persons of Hispanic origin.
Pros of Option (b)(4):
Collection: Would satisfy Cape Verdean respondents and is
easy to ask.
Tabulation and analysis: Useful for civil rights
monitoring and enforcement in State of Massachusetts.
Cons of Option (b)(4):
Collection:
--Visual identification of Cape Verdeans prone to error because of
various skin colors. People within the same family say they are
identified differently.
--Adds a category for a small, geographically concentrated population.
Tabulation and analysis: Not required for Federal
programs.
Past research results/literature review: In surveys from 1989 to
1991, more Blacks said it did not matter if they were called ``Black''
or ``African American'' than said they preferred one over the other.
Among those with a preference, the ratio choosing ``Black'' over
``African-American'' was 1.2 to 1. In a 1993 survey in the Chicago
area, a majority of Blacks preferred ``African American'' for their
ethnicity and ``Black'' for their race but the proportion had declined
since 1991.
[[Page 44683]]
Several studies of Blacks with roots in the Caribbean or Africa
show they do not feel they share a common history or culture with
American-born Blacks and distinguish themselves from this population.
Further research is needed on the terminology that is generally
understood or most acceptable. In the 1990 census, about 370,000
persons wrote in an entry classified as ``Black''; about three-fourths
of these were ethnic subgroups such as Jamaican and Haitian. Cognitive
research suggests that many foreign-born Blacks interpreted the race
question in terms of national origin rather than race.
(c) Asian or Pacific Islander
The definition used for ``Asian or Pacific Islander'' in Directive
No. 15 refers to a person having origins in any of the original peoples
of the Far East, Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent, and the
Pacific Islands. This area includes, for example, China, India, Japan,
Korea, the Philippine Islands, the Hawaiian Islands, and Samoa. Public
comment indicated confusion about which countries are included in this
definition, particularly for ``Indian subcontinent'' and whether the
aboriginal peoples of Australia are included in this category. Requests
were made to have separate categories for Asians and Pacific Islanders
and to provide additional subcategories under ``Asians'' to describe
better this diverse population; to move Native Hawaiians, American
Samoans, and Chamorros to either a separate category or to the
``American Indian or Alaskan Native'' category. This summary reports
only on options proposed during public hearings and in the public
comment period. It also highlights pros and cons for these options as
raised in public comment or shown by research. Inclusion in the summary
does not reflect OMB endorsement of the comments or suggestions.
Requests included:
Options Suggested in Public Comments
(1) Make two categories, one for ``Asians'' and one for ``Pacific
Islanders.'' Pacific Islanders include indigenous populations from
American Samoans, Carolinians and Chamorros, and Native Hawaiians, as
well as other population groups in the Pacific Islands. Native
Hawaiians have a specific legal status in Federal statutes different
from other indigenous Pacific Islanders.
Pros of Option (c)(1):
Collection:
--Easy to ask in a telephone survey.
--Categories are mutually exclusive.
Tabulation and analysis:
--Pacific Islanders are culturally and ethnically distinct from Asians
so separate data would be useful for trends analyses, needs
assessments, and health research. Historical continuity can be
maintained by aggregating ``Pacific Islanders'' with ``Asians.''
--Separate categories for Pacific Islanders and for Native Hawaiians
would meet program needs of the Department of Veterans Affairs to
report on veterans from specific minority groups.
Cons of Option (c)(1):
Collection:
--Adds a category.
--Respondents may be confused as to the exclusion or inclusion of
Native Hawaiians and other indigenous populations which could seriously
affect data quality.
--Effect on data collected by visual observation is unknown.
Tabulation and analysis:
--Pacific Islanders are geographically concentrated and a relatively
small population group for a separate category.
(2) Specify major Asian nationality groups.
Pros of Option (c)(2)
Collection: Done successfully in the 1990 census.
Tabulation and analysis: Indicates diverse and significant
differences in the characteristics of the Asian population; potentially
useful in analyses of health and other trends.
Cons of Option (c)(2):
Collection:
--Requires significant physical space on forms.
--Telephone interviews: Tedious to read long lists.
--Identification by observers: difficult to determine specific
nationality.
(3) Develop a new category for original peoples of acquired
American lands (``indigenous'' populations). This would include persons
having origins in any of the original peoples of North America who
maintain cultural identification through tribal affiliation or
community recognition (American Indians, Alaskan Indians, Aleuts, and
Eskimos); the Hawaiian Islands; American Samoa; Guam; and the Northern
Marianas. Some suggested this be a ``Native American'' category. Refer
also to Option (d)(2) below.
Pros of Option (c)(3):
Collection:
--Many Native Hawaiians preferred this option. They do not consider
themselves Asians and they insist that they are not immigrants to the
United States. They said that including them in the large ``Asian or
Pacific Islander'' category resulted in data that do not accurately
reflect their social and economic conditions. Some representatives of
Asian groups supported this suggestion.
--No increase in the number of categories.
--Category mutually exclusive.
Tabulation and analysis:
--Inclusion of indigenous Pacific Islanders as ``Asians or Pacific
Islanders'' masks their economic status. For example, Pacific Islanders
have relatively high poverty rates. They also have health issues and
educational needs different from Asians.
Cons of Option (c)(3):
Collection:
--This might be viewed as a political category rather than as one
commonly recognized by most individuals in society.
--Respondent error likely both on forms and in telephone surveys as
``indigenous'' or ``original peoples'' are not familiar terms to most
of the population; the term, ``native'' is interpreted to mean any
person born in a particular area. No generally-understood choice for
the category name.
--Unknown how data collected by visual observation would be affected.
Tabulation and analysis:
--Opposed by most American Indian tribal governments and organizations
as they preferred to maintain a category which refers specifically to
American Indians.
--Heterogeneous population in terms of characteristics; data would be
less useful than currently for policy development, trend analyses, and
needs assessment. Not useful for health research. American Indians were
particularly concerned about possible effects on the quality of data
needed for programs and funding.
(4) Have a separate category for Native Hawaiians (defined as
individuals who are descendants of the aboriginal people who, prior to
1778, occupied and exercised sovereignty in the area that now
constitutes the State of Hawaii). Change ``Hawaiian'' to ``Hawaiian,
part-Hawaiian,'' because most Native Hawaiians are part Hawaiian and
many, in the past, have categorized themselves as ``White.''
Pros of Option (c)(4):
Collection:
--Clearcut, simple and mutually-exclusive category for those who
identify as Native Hawaiians.
[[Page 44684]]
--Easy to ask in a telephone survey.
Tabulation and analysis:
--American Indian groups, concerned with an accurate count of their
population, preferred this option to including Native Hawaiians in the
``American Indian or Alaskan Native'' category.
--Provides specific information for policy development, trends
analyses, needs assessments, program evaluation, health research, and
civil rights enforcement.
Cons of Option (c)(4):
Collection:
--Adds a category.
--High respondent error likely as some persons born in Hawaii but who
do not have their origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii
likely to be confused by the term ``Native.'' Because the Native
Hawaiian population is relatively small (211,000 according to the 1990
census race question), respondent error could seriously affect the
count.
--Unknown how data collected by visual observation would be affected.
--Addition of ``Part-Hawaiian'' will affect historical comparability of
``White'' category in Hawaii to some small extent.
Tabulation and analysis: Very small population group.
Past research results/literature review: The proportion of Asian
and Pacific Islanders such as Cambodians and Laotians (groups not
listed separately) reporting in the ``other race'' response circle to
the 1990 census race item may be due to question design. Additionally,
persons who were not Asians or Pacific Islanders marked the circle for
``Other Asian or Pacific Islander.'' Of persons marking the ``Other
Asian or Pacific Islander'' circle in the 1990 census, 54 percent of
the write-ins were not consistent with the marked circle and nearly 40
percent were Hispanic group write-ins.
(d) American Indian or Alaskan Native
The category of American Indian or Alaskan Native in Directive No.
15 includes persons having origins in any of the original peoples of
North America and who maintain cultural identification through tribal
affiliations or community recognition. This summary reports only on
options proposed during public hearings and in the public comment
period. It also highlights pros and cons for these options as raised in
public comment or shown by research. Inclusion in the summary does not
reflect OMB endorsement of the comments or suggestions. Requests
included:
Options Suggested in Public Comments
(1) Suggestions for change in category title include: ``American
Indian, Alaskan Indian, Eskimo, and Aleut''; ``American Indian, Alaskan
Indian, Aleut, or Eskimo''; ``Federally Recognized American Indian and
Alaskan Native''; and ``Native American.'' Some prefer ``Alaska
Native'' to ``Alaskan Native.'' Suggestions also include collecting
information on Tribal enrollment.
Pros of Option (d)(1):
Collection: ``Alaskan Indian,'' ``Eskimo,'' and ``Aleut''
are more specific terms than ``Alaskan Native'' and reduce respondent
error.
Tabulation and analysis:
--``Federally recognized American Indian and Alaskan Native'' meets
Federal program needs as it indicates the legal (rather than racial)
status of persons in this category. The federal trust responsibility to
provide various educational, health, and housing services extends only
to federally recognized American Indian and Alaskan Native tribes and
their members and descendants of members. More people self-identify as
being of American Indian or Alaskan Native race or descent than are
enrolled in tribes or can prove descendance, which tribal governments
feel deprives their people of benefits rightfully belonging to them
under Federal programs.
--Inclusion of the term, ``Federally recognized'' will affect
historical continuity but for the future, it could clarify the
intention of the category and reduce the changes over time in the
numbers included in the category.
Cons of Option (d)(1):
Collection:
--The term, ``Alaskan Native'' results in respondent error because some
persons born in Alaska but who do not have Alaskan Indian, Eskimo, or
Aleut origins are confused by the term.
--Some individuals of tribes not Federally recognized may not be aware
of the status of their tribe (e.g., State recognized tribes or tribes
awaiting recognition).
--When tribal enrollment/descendance is not required information,
possible overcoverage occurs because the category is marked by many
persons with American Indian ancestry but no legal tribal affiliations
or community recognition. This possible overcoverage could become more
serious if there is an instruction to ``check all that apply'' to allow
multiracial persons to identify their specific racial groups and they
respond in terms of ancestry further back than their immediate parents.
--The term, ``Native American,'' is an unacceptable term to many
American Indians. It is also confusing to some persons who are not
American Indians but who use the term to indicate they were born in the
United States. The term appears to include Native Hawaiians although
this is not entirely clear. ``Aboriginal population,'' while
technically correct, is considered by many to be a demeaning term.
``Indigenous populations'' include persons having origins in any of the
original peoples of North America, the Hawaiian Islands; American
Samoa; Guam; and the Northern Marianas Islands. The terms, ``aboriginal
population,'' ``indigenous populations,'' and ``original peoples,'' are
not generally understood and would likely result in misreporting.
--It is unclear where South American Indians, Russian and European
aboriginal tribes, or Australian aborigines who have immigrated to the
United States are classified. Some think the current Directive No. 15
categories exclude these populations. Others include in the definition
of ``American Indian,'' all the aboriginal peoples of North America
(except Eskimos and Aleuts) and of Central and South America. Some
suggest a separate category for ``other indigenous tribes'' to include
tribes such as Mapuchi and Mayan.
(2) Change the category to include Native Hawaiians and other
indigenous populations. Suggested category names include: ``American
Indian, Alaskan Native, or Native Hawaiian''; ``American Indian,
Alaskan Native, Native Hawaiian, and American Samoan''; ``aboriginal
population''; ``indigenous populations''; and ``Indigenous/Aboriginal
People'' (also see discussion under (c)(3) above).
Pros of Option (d)(2):
Tabulation and analysis: Native Hawaiians are not Asians
or immigrants to the United States.
Cons of Option (d)(2):
Tabulation and analysis:
--There is a legal distinction between ``American Indians and Alaskan
Natives'' and ``Native Hawaiians.'' Native Hawaiians are not eligible
for the majority of programs and services available to American Indians
and Alaskan Natives. Indian tribes are self-governing political
entities. For example, the legislative mandates for Indian Health
Service and the Bureau of Indian Affairs pertain only to American
Indians and Alaskan
[[Page 44685]]
Natives. On the other hand, some programs for ``Native Americans''
includes Native Hawaiians as well as American Indians and Alaska
Natives. Native Hawaiians are of Polynesian/Pacific Islander descent
and are not descendants of the original peoples of North America. They
have a distinct culture and social environment. The category would be
too heterogeneous for health research.
--Would affect historical continuity of the data: Effect on the data
for carrying out trust obligations toward American Indians and Alaskan
Natives is unknown.
--Western Samoa is an independent nation and how to report could be a
problem.
(3) Collect information on specific tribal affiliation and
distinguish between Federally-recognized tribes and State-recognized
tribes (Tribal affiliation is based on criteria established by the
tribe, not self-identification.).
Pros of Option (d)(3):
Tabulation and analysis: Meets Federal agency needs for
policy development, trends analyses, needs assessments, and program
evaluation and enforcement. A way to distinguish between legal and
ancestral identification with the American Indian category.
Cons of Option (d)(3):
Collection: Respondents may not know the difference
between Federally-recognized and State-recognized tribes.
Tabulation and analysis:
--State-recognized tribal affiliation is not required for Federal
purposes.
--Small numbers for most tribes would not provide meaningful statistics
in surveys.
Past research results/literature review: Of persons reporting as
``American Indian'' in the 1990 census, 13 percent did not specify a
tribe; this was an improvement from the 1980 census results. There was
higher than expected growth rate of American Indians from 1980 to 1990
(as well as from 1970 to 1980) which raises questions about what the
census race question is measuring for this population. Some of the
change is attributed to growth and improvements in the census and
outreach programs, some to misreporting (for example, some Asian Indian
parents reported their children as American Indian), and some to shifts
in self-identification from White to American Indian. The quality of
the data for the American Indian population is of concern since it is a
relatively small population (about 2 million in 1990) and the data are
used to disburse Federal program funds to American Indian tribal and
Alaska Native Village governments. About 2 million persons said they
were American Indian in the race question of the 1990 census; however,
8.7 million included American Indian in their response to the ancestry
question.
(e) Multiracial
How to classify persons who identify with more than one race is
perhaps the issue that has engendered the most controversy in the
present review. For the most part, the public comment used the term,
``multiracial'' to refer to persons of two or more races. A variety of
options were suggested in public comment for how to collect racial data
from multiracial persons. They are shown below, followed by pros and
cons cited for each option. Table 1 summarizes the options. This
summary reports only on options proposed during public hearings and in
the public comment period. It also highlights pros and cons for these
options as raised in public comment or shown by research. Inclusion in
the summary does not reflect OMB endorsement of the comments or
suggestions.
In Latin America, a racially mixed society, there is an array of
terms to describe gradations of skin color. This has not been the
history of the United States in this century where the terminology
implies ``pure'' races such as White or Black, rather than biracial or
multiracial categories. In 1960, there were about 150,000 interracial
marriages compared with 1.5 million in 1990. In the 1990 census, about
4 percent of couples reported they were of different races or one was
of Hispanic origin. Such households had about 4 million children.
Directive No. 15 says that persons of mixed racial and ethnic
origins should use the single category which most closely reflects the
individual's recognition in his or her community. The public comments
indicate that multiracial persons objected to this instruction. The
commenters indicate that a single category does not reflect how they
think of themselves. From their perspective, the instruction requires
them to deny their full heritage and to choose between their parents.
They feel they are being required to provide factually false
information. They maintain that the current categories do not recognize
their existence. They say they could mark ``Other'' where that category
is provided but they feel it is demeaning. They want to identify their
multiple races, but say that those who prefer to choose one of the
existing broad categories could do so.
One concern of those who oppose a category for multiracial persons
is that it will reduce the count for persons in the basic categories.
Organizations representing multiracial persons disagree. They say
minority groups could gain numbers as some persons are now classified
as ``White'' under the ``choose one'' rule. As reflected in the options
listed below, there was disagreement as to whether identification
should include specific races. If specific races are identified, there
might be some flexibility in how users could tabulate data. For some,
this is seen as an advantage. For others, it is seen as a disadvantage
because different tabulation rules would result in different counts of
groups.
Some asked how far back in one's ancestry respondents should go in
deciding to identify multiple races. Most who commented meant only the
race or Hispanic origin of parents. This would require additional
instructions and may not be acceptable to those who wish to identify
their earlier ancestry. Presumably, persons would be instructed to list
all races if the parent(s) were also of multiple races; this concerned
those who oppose a multiracial category.
The discussion below refers to ``race'' but some respondents
suggested multiple ``ancestry'' (listing both parents) should be the
focus instead. Asking about ancestry focuses the questions back in time
and conveys an historical and geographic context which some feel is
clearer than the ambiguity of ``race'' or ``ethnicity.''
Table 1. Summary of Options for Identification of Multiracial
Persons
(e)(1) Multiracial identification not allowed (must pick one broad
category):
(aa) Individual chooses the one with which he or she most closely
identifies
(bb) Mother's category is designated
(cc) Father's category is designated
(dd) Race of minority-designated parent (if one is White)
(e)(2) Multiracial identification allowed:
(aa) ``Multiracial'' category--self-identification (SI) or observer
identification (OI)
(bb) ``Mark all that apply'' from list of specific categories--SI
only
(cc) Open-ended question--SI or OI
(dd) ``Other''--SI only
(ee) Mother's and father's geographic ancestry--SI only
(ff) Skin-color gradient chart--SI or OI
Options Suggested in Public Comments
Option (e)(1): Mark one broad category with which the respondent
[[Page 44686]]
most closely identifies (categories are same or similar to current
list)
Pros to Option (e)(1)--mark one broad category:
Collection:
--Physical space on forms and questionnaires same as now.
--Identification: Most people identify with only one of the current
categories; facilitates collection by observers where that method is
used; persons of multiracial heritage who identify with one broad
category do not have difficulty responding.
--Telephone survey: Easy to ask.
Tabulations and analysis:
--Easier than options that allow the identification of multiple races.
--Meets needs of Federal agencies concerned with program evaluation and
civil rights monitoring and enforcement.
--This is the only option that meets the needs of the Indian Health
Service which is responsible for health care of anyone who is a
Federally-recognized American Indian or Alaskan Native, regardless of
the proportion of Indian blood or which parent has Indian blood.
--Maintains historical continuity of data.
--Categories are the same or similar to those used in State and local
administrative records and historical Federal administrative records.
--Federal laws are written based on the assumption that people identify
with one Directive No. 15 category. For civil rights monitoring and
enforcement, respondents clearly fall in or out of a particular
category. Would address concerns of those who believe a ``multiracial''
category would compromise effective implementation of civil rights
laws.
Cons to Option (e)(1)--mark one broad category:
Collection--identification and count issues:
--Having to choose one racial category upsets some respondents,
especially those with immediate multiracial heritage, who identify with
more than one race/ethnicity; telephone interviewers ask race in early
part of interview and then must deal with an unhappy respondent for the
remainder of the questions; and Federal agencies must respond to those
upset by the policy.
--Nonresponse rates may increase for persons who wish to identify with
more than one race but who are instructed to select the one category
with which they most closely identify.
--As the size of the Hispanic population increases, a larger number and
proportion of that population group may mark ``Other'' or not respond.
The 1994 pretest of the Survey of Income and Program Participation
showed some Hispanics would report in the multiracial category.
--Inconsistencies: The same person is likely to be identified
differently across administrative records and surveys which reduces
analytic usefulness of the data. If mother's race is used to assign the
child's race as in birth records, the classifications may be different
than the person's self-identification.
--There is a significant number of interracial marriages among Asians
and Whites. For example, in the 1990 census, in California, nearly one-
fourth of children with any Asian background were White and Asian.
Asian groups contend they are undercounted when forced to identify with
one category only. One study of the 1990 census indicates that the
children of these marriages are more likely to identify themselves as
``White'' than as ``Asian.''
Tabulations: Option (e)(1)(dd), in which the race of the
minority-designated parent is designated as the person's category,
requires additional rules if one parent is not White.
Analysis:
--Does not sufficiently reflect Nation's diversity; no information for
multiracial persons about differences in health, economic status, and
likelihood of discrimination.
--Not as useful in health research as identification of the specific
mixtures. All of the current racial categories are said to be too broad
for analysis of health risks and economic trends; for example, a study
found that 25 percent of those in the ``Asian or Pacific Islander''
category smoked, but this ranged from 20 percent of Filipinos to 72
percent of Laotians.
Option (e)(2)(aa): ``Multiracial'' category (SI or OI)
(Note: May ask respondent to specify races but not necessarily)
Pros to Option (e)(2)(aa)--``Multiracial'' category:
Collection if specific races are not identified:
--Physical space on forms: adds one racial category.
--Meets demand of some multiracial respondents, especially those whose
parents are of different races.
--Telephone survey: Easy to ask if it is the only category added;
however, if additional categories are added may be problematic.
--Somewhat more amenable to identification by observers than any other
option for multiracial persons (however, compared with observer
identification in Option (e)(1), this option is likely to result in an
undercount and a substantially different distribution of current broad
categories).
Tabulation and analysis:
--A few States have passed laws to include this category in their
administrative records. Currently they proportion their multiracial
counts among the OMB categories for Federal reporting purposes based on
percentages of minorities in the general population, although it is not
clear what geographic level they are using (National, State, local,
school districts, etc.) when they refer to ``general population.'' A
change by OMB to a ``multiracial'' category would reduce costs for
these few States because they would not have to maintain data in two
different ways.
--Indication of population diversity.
--Potentially useful in analyzing trends such as education and
employment, especially if specific categories are identified.
Cons to Option (e)(2)(aa)--``Multiracial'' category:
Collection:
--Requires testing for effect on respondents, response rates, and data
quality. Multiracial persons who previously identified principally with
one broad category may become unsure of what is being asked. Multi-
ethnic persons of the same race (e.g., a White person of English and
German descent) may find the questions confusing. It is not clear how
multiracial Hispanics would answer.
--The category is imprecise and specific instructions would be required
on whether respondents should answer in terms of the races of their
parents only or further back. Imprecision of the category leads to
possible confusion since, if one goes back far enough, many Americans
are of mixed racial heritage (for example, many Whites have American
Indian heritage and many Blacks have African, White, and American
Indian heritage).
--Have to determine an acceptable category name. Suggestions included:
Multiple races; Mixed race; Multiracial; Tan American; TIRAH (Tan
InterRacial American Humankind); Mixed origins; Mestee; More than one
race; and Mulatto. Some of these suggestions apply only to Black and
White mixtures. Cognitive research shows that most
[[Page 44687]]
people understand the terms, ``multiracial'' and ``biracial.''
--Requires establishment of a category (and the associated extra costs)
but the category may be used by only a small proportion of the
population. Some school systems allow use of a ``multiracial'' category
and report it is used by less than 2 percent of students.
--Where identification is by an observer: Unknown what criteria an
observer would use to identify persons of more than one race;
identification of specific races unlikely or too inaccurate to be
useful; because of likely mismatch, unclear how it would affect a count
of mixed race persons; broad category of blood relatives likely to be
identified differently, especially in administrative records; and the
same person is likely to be identified differently across
administrative records and surveys which reduces the analytic
usefulness of the category.
Tabulations and analysis:
--The category is not an alternative in the administrative records of
many State and local governments.
--If specific races are identified through an open-ended question, the
development of a classification system for tabulating responses would
be required; choices may be controversial and challenged.
--If specific races are not indicated, the general category is too
heterogeneous for meaningful analysis or for use in civil rights
monitoring and enforcement. A heterogeneous category does not provide
sufficient information for health researchers (disease risk specific to
racial and ethnic groups, monitoring of historical trends) and would
complicate the design, conduct, and evaluation of health intervention
programs. It is unclear how such a heterogeneous category could be used
in civil rights monitoring and enforcement and such efforts could be
more difficult and costly.
--There would be a major effect on historical continuity if specific
races are not indicated because it may reduce the count of the current
broad categories and in unknown ways. Some expressed concern that if
specific races are not known, the category has the potential for
increasing racial segregation, discrimination, and the stigmatization
of broad categories (other than White) which may result in less
effective enforcement of civil rights laws.
--Persons with the same general cultural heritage and with similar
physical characteristics may be classified differently.
Option (e)(2)(bb): ``Mark all that apply'' (SI only)
Pros of Option (e)(2)(bb)--Mark All That Apply
Collection:
--If no new categories are added, physical space on forms and
questionnaires same as now.
--Meets desire for self-identification of many multiracial respondents.
Tabulation and analysis:
--Detail allows flexibility. Indicates extent and makeup of Nation's
diversity.
--Can maintain some historical continuity by aggregating specific
categories into current broad categories (for example, a person who has
one Black parent and one White parent could be tabulated, depending on
the purposes of the data, in three ways: White, Black, or Black/White).
See related discussion below under ``cons.''
--Decision rules about aggregations of detailed categories could be
discussed and documented. Currently, we do not know what basis
multiracial people use for marking their specific identity as a broad
category.
--Provides potentially useful subgroup information for health
researchers in terms of race-specific diseases, especially if the race
of each parent is identified. For example, one study found a difference
in the probability of low birth weight between Black mother-White
father and White mother-Black father populations; small-for-
gestational-age rates and preterm delivery rates also vary by race of
the mother.
Cons of Option (e)(2)(bb)--Mark All That Apply
Collection:
--Telephone survey: Difficult and may negatively affect data quality.
--In personal interviews, must use a flash card (can list responses on
control card if survey will be done by telephone later); tedious in
large households.
Tabulations and analysis:
--Complex because of the many possible combinations. Historical
continuity of counts and characteristics would be problematic. In the
1980 and 1990 censuses, for example, race was reported as ``Black'' for
two-thirds of children in families with one Black parent and one White
parent present. For families with a White parent and an Asian or
Pacific Islander (API) parent, the proportion of children whose race
was reported as ``API'' versus ``White'' was different in the last two
censuses. Allocation rules would be controversial even if the objective
is to achieve historical continuity to the extent possible (especially
for characteristics).
--Aggregation decision rules would be required and may be subject to
controversy.
--Current Federal laws are premised on persons identifying with one
racial group. It is not clear what the impact would be for persons
identifying as multiracial.
Option (e)(2)(cc): Open-Ended Question (SI or OI) (Allows Multiple
Responses)
Pros of Option (e)(2)(cc)--Open-Ended Question
Collection:
--Physical space on questionnaire/forms less than currently.
--Telephone survey: easy to ask if it is the only category added;
however, if additional categories are added may be problematic.
--Meets desire for self-identification of many multiracial respondents,
those who want to answer ``American,'' and persons from small national-
origin groups. Respondents likely to be satisfied since they are not
restricted by pre-defined categories. One study of an open-ended
question showed only 13 percent of Hispanic respondents used the
conventional racial designations of ``White'' or ``Black.'' For these
Hispanics, self-identification was based more on cultural and ethnic
identity. In the 1990 census, about 90 percent of the population
reported an ancestry in the open-ended question; only 0.7 percent were
uncodable responses; but about 10 percent did not respond to the
question.
Tabulations and analysis:
--Detail allows maximum flexibility and provides sociologically rich
information for analyzing trends. Provides subgroup information useful
to health researchers in terms of race-specific disease risk.
--Can maintain some historical continuity by aggregating specific
categories into broad categories in 1977 Directive No. 15 (except see
cons below and under (e)(2)(bb), ``tabulations and analysis'').
--Does not require respondent to indicate a preferred race; if desired,
the tabulation rules can imply a priority by following the order of
responses. Cons of Option (e)(2)(cc)--open-ended question:
Collection:
[[Page 44688]]
--Unlikely States would collect data this way for their administrative
records and thus, there would likely be a mismatch among data sets
(also negative effect on analysis when trying to compare results among
data sets).
--Same person likely to be identified differently across administrative
records and surveys which reduces analytic usefulness.
--Does not allow for observer identification.
Tabulations and analysis:
--Must develop a classification system to categorize hundreds of
possible responses and the choices can be controversial. See discussion
above in (e)(2)(bb) under cons, ``tabulations and analysis.''
--Negative effect on counts of broad categories and data quality,
including considerations listed below:
(1) Religions given as responses cannot be tabulated into a broad
category. This generates complaints (because of separation of church
and state, religions cannot be tabulated by government agencies) and
increases the effective nonresponse rate.
(2) National origins or nationalities are likely answers. Data
collection agencies would have to code to broad categories based on
probability (e.g., ``English'' likely to be White but could be Black or
Asian also).
(3)''American'' is a frequent response (the 6th ranked group in the
1990 census ancestry question with 12.4 million such responses or 5
percent of all responses) and cannot be coded to a broad category
(effectively increases nonresponse rate). Foreign born and non-English
speakers showed greater difficulty with open-ended write-in questions
such as the 1990 census ancestry question.
--Negative effect on data quality: Citing examples is interpreted as
influencing respondents and giving no examples can also have
significant effect on counts of broad categories. Research from the
1980 and 1990 censuses indicates high levels of inconsistent responses
to open-ended questions and strong ``example'' effects. For instance,
from 1980 to 1990, the number of Cajuns, which was an example in the
ancestry question in 1990 but not in 1980, grew from 30,000 to 600,000.
French, which was dropped as an example in 1990, declined from 13
million to 10 million.
--It is sometimes hard to interpret what respondents intend by their
responses.
Option (e)(2)(dd): ``Other--specify'' (SI) at end of list of broad
categories
Pros of Option (e)(2)(dd)--``Other'':
Collection:
--Does not take up much physical space on the questionnaire.
--Telephone survey: Easy to ask if it is the only category added;
however, if additional categories are added may be problematic.
--Identification issues: Respondents likely to find it easier to
express their identity since they are not restricted to only the pre-
defined categories (for example, those who want to answer ``American''
can do so); can ask multiracial respondents to choose one racial
category but if they refuse, they can specify all the categories they
choose; and allows identification of multiple and single categories not
listed elsewhere (e.g., Indians of South and Central American
background).
Tabulations and analysis:
--Detail allows maximum flexibility and provides sociologically rich
information for analyzing trends. Potentially provides subgroup
information useful to health researchers in terms of race-specific
disease risk.
--Can maintain historical continuity by aggregating specific
categories; however, see discussion in (e)(2)(bb) under cons,
``tabulations and analysis.''
Cons of Option (e)(2)(dd)--``Other'':
Collection:
--Some people are offended by identification as ``Other''; when this
proposal was made by OMB in 1988, it was not widely accepted and so was
not adopted.
--Same person likely to be identified differently across administrative
records and surveys which reduces analytic usefulness.
--If ``Hispanic'' is not listed as a separate category, research shows
an extremely high percentage of ``Other'' responses are Hispanics who
do not identify with one of the listed race categories.
Tabulations and analysis:
--Must develop a classification system to categorize hundreds of
possible responses and the choices can be controversial. See discussion
in (e)(2)(bb) under cons, ``tabulations and analysis.''
--Detailed information not needed for program evaluation or civil
rights monitoring and enforcement.
--If specific responses are not coded, the category is too
heterogeneous to be useful.
--Negative effects on counts of broad categories and data quality,
including considerations listed below:
(1) Religions given as responses cannot be tabulated into a broad
category. This generates complaints (because of separation of church
and state, religions cannot be tabulated by government agencies) and
increases the effective nonresponse rate.
(2) National origins or nationalities are likely answers. Data
collection agencies would have to code to broad categories based on
probability (e.g., ``English'' likely to be White but could be Black or
Asian also).
(3) ``American'' is a frequent response (the 6th ranked group in
the 1990 census ancestry question with 12.4 million such responses or 5
percent of all responses) and cannot be coded to a broad category
(effectively increases nonresponse rate).
--Negative effect on data quality: Citing examples is interpreted as
influencing respondents and giving no examples can also have
significant effect on counts of broad categories.
--It is sometimes hard to interpret what respondents intend by their
responses.
Option (e)(2)(ee): Mother's and Father's Geographic Ancestry (SI only)
(Respondent would be given a numbered geographic list and mark the
appropriate numbers to indicate the region of origin of ancestors who
migrated to the United States)
Pros of Option (e)(2)(ee)--Geographic Ancestry
Collection:
--No overlapping categories.
--One clear concept, geographic origin of ancestors. In the 1990 census
ancestry question, virtually all of the responses were national origin
rather than ethnic origin (e.g., ``Italian'' more often than ``Amalfi''
or ``Calabrian'').
--Telephone survey: Can do but not easily.
Tabulations and analysis: Geographic origin may be a
better indicator of health differences than race for many people.
Tabulations would be lengthy but not difficult.
Cons of Option (e)(2)(ee)--Geographic Ancestry
Collection--identification issues:
--People who can mark their race may not know the geographic region of
origin of their ancestors or parents (e.g., adoptees).
[[Page 44689]]
--Likely to be a high rate of error in the ``North America'' category
(only American Indians could correctly mark this category but it is
likely those born in the United States would also mark it).
--Same person likely to be identified differently across administrative
records and surveys which reduces analytic usefulness.
--Many people have ancestors from several different geographic regions
and reports are often inconsistent among data sets.
Collection--physical space on forms: Considerably more
than currently.
Tabulation and analysis: Does not meet Federal program
needs or provide historical continuity (for example, a person from
Africa might be White or Black).
Option (e)(2)(ff): Skin-Color Gradient Chart (SI or OI)
This is a suggestion for a numbered chart, a scale of skin-tone
colors, reproduced on forms. Respondents would check the skin-tone
number closest to the color of the individual respondent.
Pros of Option (e)(2)(ff)--Skin Color Chart
Collection: Less physical space on forms than now.
Analysis:
--Can compare skin-tone responses with socioeconomic status and
differences in effects of discrimination.
--A measure without racial labels less subject to changes in meaning
over time as compared with labels based on race, ethnicity, and
ancestry.
Cons of Option (e)(2)(ff)--Skin Color Chart
Collection:
--Identification: Offensive to many; same person likely to be
identified differently across administrative records and surveys which
reduces analytic usefulness; individuals could change skin colors over
a lifetime as a result of exposure to sunlight or disease.
--Telephone survey: Impossible.
--Costly: Requires precise, multicolor printing (color tones will vary
among forms) when one-color (usually black) printing is now the case
for most forms and questionnaires.
Tabulation and analysis:
--No historical continuity; does not meet program needs.
--Skin color (melanin content) is not the sole way people identify
their race and ethnicity. Culture, geography, and history, for example,
are also considerations for many. For example, Black Africans and very
dark Asian Indians may have similar skin tones but do not consider
themselves in the same race category.
--Blood relatives may be coded differently.
--Not useful for health research or other types of socioeconomic
research.
Past research results/literature review on a multiracial category:
Some persons of mixed parentage or parents of interracial children who
want to report more than one race are unsure how to respond. In the
1990 census, 98 percent of the population identified in one category;
only 2 percent provided write-in multiple responses to the race
question despite the instruction to mark one race only. Developing
instructions for who should and who should not mark a ``multiracial''
category is difficult; in a 1994 pretest of the Census Bureau's
redesigned Survey of Income and Program Participation, some persons
thought they were being asked what race they would like to be if they
could be multiracial even though their parents were from the same
racial group.
(f) Hispanic Origin
Directive No. 15 defines Hispanic as a person of Mexican, Puerto
Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, or other Spanish culture or
origin, regardless of race. There is significant confusion in public
comment as to whether Spaniards, Portuguese, Brazilians, and American
Indians with a mixed heritage of Mexican or Central or South American
tribes are included in the category, ``Hispanic origin.'' Three major
questions were raised. One is whether Hispanic origin should be a
category in a single ``race/ethnicity'' question or whether there
should be a question about Hispanic origin separate from race
(discussed in Issue 3 above). The other two questions, on heterogeneity
of the category and terminology, are discussed below. This summary
reports only on options proposed during public hearings and in the
public comment period. It also highlights pros and cons for these
options as raised in public comment or shown by research. Inclusion in
the summary does not reflect OMB endorsement of the comments or
suggestions. Requests included:
Options Suggested in Public Comment
(1) Collect data for population subgroups of the ``Hispanic
origin'' category.
Pros of Option (f)(1):
Tabulation and analysis: The category, ``Hispanic
origin,'' represents a heterogeneous population. Information on
subgroups describes the significant social, economic, and health
differences among the Puerto Rican, Mexican-American, Cuban, and other
Hispanic populations.
Cons of Option (f)(1):
Collection: Visual identification of nationality groups is
difficult.
(2) Alternative or additional words suggested for ``Hispanic''
include ``Latino/Hispanic Origin,'' ``Latino,'' ``Latin,'' ``Latin
American,'' and ``Hispanics from the Americas'' (to exclude persons
from Spain and the Philippines). Persons of Mexican ancestry did not
agree on terminology for their group. Some wanted ``Pre-Columbian''
because of their Mestizo (Indian) background. Others disagreed saying
some Mexicans have European background. Some preferred the term,
``Chicano'' to identify Mexican-Americans while others found the term
offensive.
Pros of Option (f)(2):
Collection: Some respondents prefer an alternative.
Cons of Option (f)(2):
Collection: The term, ``Latino,'' includes a diverse group
of people from many national origins, races, and backgrounds. Some
understand the term, ``Latin'' or ``Latino'' to include Europeans such
as Italians, French, Portuguese, Romanians, and Spaniards. Cognitive
research by the Census Bureau indicates some understand ``Latino'' as
meaning from Latin America, ``Hispanic'' as meaning someone who speaks
Spanish, and ``of Spanish origin'' as someone from Spain or with a
distant relative who was Hispanic.
Past research results/literature review: Results from the 1990
census showed that the Hispanic population of some 22.4 million grew by
53 percent from 1980 to 1990. Immigration accounted for about half the
growth. Overall, the Census Bureau considers the quality of census and
survey data for Hispanic origin to be good. Nevertheless, evaluations
show high nonresponse (10 percent; research shows most are not
Hispanics) and misreporting (for example, some non-Hispanics report in
the ``Mexican-Amer.'' category to indicate they are American). In the
1990 census race question, two in three persons who did not mark a race
circle, wrote in a response reflecting Hispanic ethnicity. Among
persons who indicated in the 1990 census that they were of Hispanic
origin, 52 percent marked the ``White'' circle and 43 percent marked
the ``Other race'' circle.
[[Page 44690]]
Based on evaluations of the 1980 Census and 1990 Census pretests, it
appears that persons reporting ``Other Spanish/Hispanic,'' included
Brazilians and other persons of Portuguese descent who feel the term,
``Hispanic,'' also applies to them.
C. Future Research Agenda
Agency staff and funding for research and testing associated with
possible changes are very limited. As a result, plans necessarily have
to be developed within those resource constraints and may change.
Within available resources, Federal agencies are conducting research
through 1996 to inform decisions on selected options. A brief summary
of the future research agenda, as of April 1995, is presented in this
section. The number of issues that can be tested in 1995 and 1996 is
limited. This Federal Register notice provides the last opportunity for
public comment on priorities for research in 1996.
Research Agenda
The Interagency Committee's Research Working Group, which is co-
chaired by the Bureau of the Census and the Bureau of Labor Statistics,
reviewed all the criticisms and suggestions for changing the current
categories that appeared in OMB's June 9, 1994, Federal Register
notice, including requests received during the public comment period to
expand the standards by establishing additional categories for specific
population groups. Some of the more significant issues that have been
identified for research and testing are: classification of multiracial
persons; combining race and Hispanic origin; combining concepts of
race/ethnicity/ancestry; changing the names of current categories; and
adding new classifications. The Race and Ethnic Targeted Test, to be
conducted by the Bureau of the Census in 1996, will be the major
opportunity to test three to four options on race and ethnicity.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics designed a Supplement to the May
1995 Current Population Survey (CPS) to provide information about three
issues with respect to Directive No. 15. They are (1) what proportion
of respondents will choose a ``multiracial'' category and how that may
impact on the data for the other racial categories; (2) inclusion of an
Hispanic category in the list of races; and (3) preferences concerning
specific terms such as ``African American'' and ``Latino.'' To gather
this information, the Supplement is divided into four panels, and a
random sample of approximately 15,000 of the 60,000 CPS households will
receive one of the following four survey instruments.
Panel 1: Separate race and Hispanic origin questions; no multiracial
category
Panel 2: Separate race and Hispanic origin questions; with a
multiracial category and races specified
Panel 3: A combined race and Hispanic origin question; no multiracial
category
Panel 4: A combined race and Hispanic origin question; with a
multiracial category and races specified
In addition, all households in the May Supplement will be asked
questions about their ancestry, preferences concerning specific terms,
and use of languages other than English in the home. The ancestry and
language questions are included to help explain differences in
reporting by households with similar racial characteristics. Results of
this test are expected to be available in late Fall 1995.
Multiracial Category.--Research and testing of a multiracial
category is especially important since it could have a significant
impact on the usefulness of data resulting from the current racial and
ethnic categories. An important aspect of this issue on which research
needs to be conducted is the extent to which persons of mixed racial
heritage will identify in a separate multiracial category on surveys
and censuses.
To begin research on this issue, a multiracial response option was
included in operational pretests for the revised Survey of Income and
Program Participation involving 292 households in the Atlanta, Boston,
and Chicago metropolitan areas during April and May 1994. Despite the
small sample size, the results were somewhat informative for two
reasons: (1) A higher percentage (7.3 percent) of persons reported in
the multiracial category than have done so in some of the records from
school and military systems cited in various public hearings and
conferences, and (2) in nearly two-thirds (65 percent) of the 55 write-
ins to the multiracial item, the respondent reported as Hispanic (23
cases or 42 percent) or as Hispanic and some other race group. The
higher percentage reporting as multiracial might reflect the sites of
the pretest and the oversampling of low and high income areas. The high
proportion of multiracial responses involving Hispanics does indicate
that a multiracial category might draw disproportionately more
responses from Hispanics than from the other racially mixed persons for
whom many were seeking this option. These results underscored the
importance of testing the multiracial category in larger samples (as in
the May 1995 CPS Supplement), as well as perhaps the need for
additional definitions or instructions for the category if the
intention is to draw responses primarily from persons whose parents are
of different races. These early findings also served to indicate that
cognitive research would aid in developing that Supplement.
In preparation for the May 1995 CPS Supplement, cognitive research
interviews were conducted in 1994 and early 1995 with individuals who
have parents of different races, as well as individuals who may
identify with only one race, even though they may have a mixed
heritage. The main objective of this cognitive research was to examine
how individuals view race and ethnicity and how they might interpret
and respond to a race question that provides a ``multiracial, specify''
option.
Combining Race and Hispanic Origin.--The May 1995 CPS Supplement
will provide needed research on whether a combined race/Hispanic
ethnicity question should be used instead of separate questions on race
and Hispanic ethnicity. Important reasons to research this issue are
that some Federal agencies have been collecting and reporting data in a
combined format for a number of years, and a high percentage of
Hispanics selected ``other race'' in the 1990 decennial census race
question when race and ethnicity were collected in two separate
questions. Research questions include examining the effects of having a
single race and Hispanic ethnicity question on the counts for other
races and for Hispanics; examining which subgroups to include as
``Hispanic''; determining what percentage of administrative record data
bases already use ``Hispanic'' as a racial category and what percentage
of respondents in these data bases are missing information on Hispanic
ethnicity; and deciding if Hispanic ethnicity should be assumed to take
priority over other racial categories (e.g., Black Hispanics).
In considering this issue, one should bear in mind that the
concepts of race, ethnicity, and ancestry are not clearly or
consistently distinguished in the U.S. population. For example, some
Hispanics regard the ``Hispanic'' designation as a ``racial'' category,
defining ``race'' in terms of national origin and cultural
characteristics. As discussed below, it has been suggested, therefore,
that census and survey respondents be asked about only a single
concept--perhaps ethnicity or race/ethnicity--corresponding to self-
perceived membership in population
[[Page 44691]]
groups that might define themselves by cultural heritage, language,
physical appearance, behavior, or other characteristics.
Combining Concepts of Race/Ethnicity/Ancestry.--Directive No. 15
has been criticized for not clearly distinguishing among race,
ethnicity, and ancestry. Directive No. 15 specifically notes the
absence of anthropological or other scientific bases for their separate
designation. Varied and possibly inconsistent definitional criteria,
such as geographic origin, cultural origin, cultural identification and
affiliation, community recognition, and race itself, are used to
describe the terms.
The current Federal categories have created five single
aggregations from heterogeneous and highly diverse populations. Since
ethnic groups evolve and may change their group name over time,
research is needed on the basic concepts to be measured as well as on
the popular terminology respondents use to refer to their ethnic group.
This research will be helpful in determining those response categories
which would provide useful information about our Nation's population.
The research on this issue needs to consider a number of
implications of combining the concepts. The consolidation of questions
of ``race,'' ``ethnicity,'' and ``ancestry'' into a single question of
``ethnicity'' (or ``race/ethnicity'') or of ``identified population
groups'' would eliminate the distinction between race and ethnicity
indicated in Directive No. 15. Consolidation of the categories would
also address the issue of including Hispanics as a racial designation
rather than as a separate ethnic category. Under consolidation,
Hispanic would be included as an ethnic or racial/ethnic category along
with other categories previously classified as races. If, in addition
to consolidating categories, respondents are allowed to select more
than one ethnic or racial/ethnic identity, the issue of ``multiracial''
identification might also be addressed. The combined question would
most likely solicit multi-ethnic as well as multiracial responses. In
the 1990 census ancestry question, which allows multiple reporting of
ethnicities, about 30 percent of the population reported multiple
ancestries. Such a large proportion of multiple responses would present
processing problems for Federal agencies. The consolidation of race and
ethnicity would interrupt the continuity of categorization in the race
and ethnicity questions in recent decades; however, continuity is
already imperfect due to changes in questions and response options.
Terminology for Categories.--This issue is concerned with whether
to replace or revise current terminology for Black, Hispanic, or
American Indian racial/ethnic categories for data collection and data
reporting with terms that have been suggested such as African American,
Latino/Latina, and Native American. Research is needed to determine
whether, and in what ways, any proposed changes in terminology may
affect reporting or data collection. If a change in terms produces a
change in coverage, it is useful to know what that change signifies.
Any replacement of terminology should consider: (1) That the new terms
might have meanings different from the old terms for respondents while,
for the users, the old and new categories might appear synonymous; (2)
that as current usage changes, terms are likely to have different
meanings to people, and the new terms may exclude persons who were
comfortable with the old terms but who may not perceive themselves as
``fitting'' under the new designation; and (3) the extent to which
definitions need to accompany new categories. Questions about
preferences for various terms are included on the May 1995 CPS
supplement.
Additional research plans:
The Census Bureau is conducting cognitive research from
February through July 1995 on issues such as a multiracial category,
marking all categories that apply, terminology, and a combined race/
Hispanic origin/ancestry question. Research on the classification of
``Native Hawaiian'' is also planned. The extent of research is
dependent upon available resources. The Census Bureau also plans to
conduct two tests in 1996: the National Content Test (NCT) and the Race
and Ethnic Targeted Test (RAETT). The NCT is designed to test selected
population and housing questions for the 2000 census. It will be a
national sample of 35,000 to 50,000 households. To determine what
information respondents will provide in a self-reporting context, the
Census Bureau has identified a multiracial category or response option
(for example, multiple responses) as a high priority for panels on the
1996 National Content Test. Other issues to be tested in the NCT
include terminology and the placement of the Hispanic origin question
first, followed immediately by the race question. The RAETT, which will
include a reinterview, will provide the most extensive opportunity to
test several options for collecting racial and ethnic data. The
proposed sample of about 90,000 households will be targeted to a
diverse sample of racial and ethnic populations. The Census Bureau
expects that the RAETT will allow further testing of a multiracial
classification, terminology, and other selected options.
The National Center for Health Statistics and the Office
of the Assistant Secretary for Health will conduct research on the
effects of changes in racial classification on birth certificate
records.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is
undertaking a project to evaluate the recording of racial
classifications on death certificates. This study will involve a survey
of a sample of funeral directors with the aim of improving the quality
of racial data reported on death certificates.
A literature search on work related to racial
classification in the health field (using MEDLINE) is being conducted
by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS).
An inventory of DHHS minority health data bases is being
developed by the DHHS. It will provide information on what data are
available and data collection problems that have been encountered.
The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) is
conducting a Spring 1995 survey to obtain information: (a) How schools
currently students' collect racial and ethnic data; (b) how
administrative records containing racial and ethnic data are maintained
and reported; (c) what State laws mandate or require of school systems
with respect to collecting data on race and ethnicity; and (d) current
issues in schools regarding race and ethnicity categories.
D. General Principles for the Review of the Racial and Ethnic
Categories
The criticisms and suggestions for changing Directive No. 15 have
underscored the importance of having a set of general principles to
govern the current review process. The following principles were
drafted in cooperation with Federal agencies serving on the Interagency
Committee. The principles listed below are those OMB may use to guide
final decisions on standards for the classification of racial and
ethnic data. The principles are, for the most part, the same as those
published in the June 9, 1994, Federal Register notice. There are
changes to Principles 2, 5, 6, and 8. Principles 12 and 13 are new. The
public is invited to comment on these or suggest additional principles.
1. The racial and ethnic categories set forth in the standard
should not be interpreted as being primarily biological or genetic in
reference. Race and
[[Page 44692]]
ethnicity may be thought of in terms of social and cultural
characteristics as well as ancestry.
2. Respect for individual dignity should guide the processes and
methods for collecting data on race and ethnicity; ideally, respondent
self-identification should be facilitated to the greatest extent
possible, recognizing that in some data collection systems observer
identification is more practical.
3. To the extent practicable, the concepts and terminology should
reflect clear and generally understood definitions that can achieve
broad public acceptance. To assure they are reliable, meaningful, and
understood by respondents and observers, the racial and ethnic
categories set forth in the standard should be developed using
appropriate scientific methodologies, including the social sciences.
4. The racial and ethnic categories should be comprehensive in
coverage and produce compatible, nonduplicated, exchangeable data
across Federal agencies.
5. Foremost consideration should be given to data aggregations by
race and ethnicity that are useful for statistical analysis and program
administration and assessment, bearing in mind that the standards are
not intended to be used to establish eligibility for participation in
any Federal program.
6. The standards should be developed to meet, at a minimum, Federal
legislative and programmatic requirements. Consideration should also be
given to needs at the State and local government levels, including
American Indian tribal and Alaska Native village governments, as well
as to general societal needs for these data.
7. The categories should set forth a minimum standard; additional
categories should be permitted provided they can be aggregated to the
standard categories. The number of standard categories should be kept
to a manageable size, as determined by statistical concerns and data
needs.
8. A revised set of categories should be operationally feasible in
terms of burden placed upon respondents; public and private costs to
implement the revisions should be a factor in the decision.
9. Any changes in the categories should be based on sound
methodological research and should include evaluations of the impact of
any changes not only on the usefulness of the resulting data but also
on the comparability of any new categories with the existing ones.
10. Any revision to the categories should provide for a crosswalk
at the time of adoption between the old and the new categories so that
historical data series can be statistically adjusted and comparisons
can be made.
11. Because of the many and varied needs and strong interdependence
of Federal agencies for racial and ethnic data, any changes to the
existing categories should be the product of an interagency
collaborative effort.
12. Time will be allowed to phase in any new categories. Agencies
will not be required to update historical records.
13. The new directive should be applicable throughout the U.S.
Federal statistical system. The standard or standards must be usable
for the decennial census, current surveys, and administrative records,
including those using observer identification.
The agencies recognize that these principles may in some cases
represent competing goals for the standard. Through the review process,
it will be necessary to balance statistical issues, needs for data, and
social concerns. The application of these principles to guide the
review and possible revision of the standard ultimately should result
in consistent, publicly accepted data on race and ethnicity that will
meet the needs of the government and the public while recognizing the
diversity of the population and respecting the individual's dignity.
Sally Katzen,
Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
Appendix
Directive No. 15
Race and Ethnic Standards for Federal Statistics and Administrative
Reporting
As adopted on May 12, 1977.
This Directive provides standard classifications for
recordkeeping, collection, and presentation of data on race and
ethnicity in Federal program administrative reporting and
statistical activities. These classifications should not be
interpreted as being scientific or anthropological in nature, nor
should they be viewed as determinants of eligibility for
participation in any Federal program. They have been developed in
response to needs expressed by both the executive branch and the
Congress to provide for the collection and use of compatible,
nonduplicated, exchangeable racial and ethnic data by Federal
agencies.
1. Definitions
The basic racial and ethnic categories for Federal statistics
and program administrative reporting are defined as follows:
a. American Indian or Alaskan Native. A person having origins in
any of the original peoples of North America, and who maintains
cultural identification through tribal affiliations or community
recognition.
b. Asian or Pacific Islander. A person having origins in any of
the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, the Indian
subcontinent, or the Pacific Islands. This area includes, for
example, China, India, Japan, Korea, the Philippine Islands, and
Samoa.
c. Black. A person having origins in any of the black racial
groups of Africa.
d. Hispanic. A person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central
or South American or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of
race.
e. White. A person having origins in any of the original peoples
of Europe, North Africa, or the Middle East.
2. Utilization for Recordkeeping and Reporting
To provide flexibility, it is preferable to collect data on race
and ethnicity separately. If separate race and ethnic categories are
used, the minimum designations are:
a. Race:
--American Indian or Alaskan Native
--Asian or Pacific Islander
--Black
--White
b. Ethnicity:
--Hispanic origin
--Not of Hispanic origin
When race and ethnicity are collected separately, the number of
White and Black persons who are Hispanic must be identifiable, and
capable of being reported in that category.
If a combined format is used to collect racial and ethnic data,
the minimum acceptable categories are:
American Indian or Alaskan Native
Asian or Pacific Islander
Black, not of Hispanic origin
Hispanic
White, not of Hispanic origin.
The category which most closely reflects the individual's
recognition in his community should be used for purposes of
reporting on persons who are of mixed racial and/or ethnic origins.
In no case should the provisions of this Directive be construed
to limit the collection of data to the categories described above.
However, any reporting required which uses more detail shall be
organized in such a way that the additional categories can be
aggregated into these basic racial/ethnic categories.
The minimum standard collection categories shall be utilized for
reporting as follows:
a. Civil rights compliance reporting. The categories specified
above will be used by all agencies in either the separate or
combined format for civil rights compliance reporting and equal
employment reporting for both the public and private sectors and for
all levels of government. Any variation requiring less detailed data
or data which cannot be aggregated into the basic categories will
have to be specifically approved by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for executive agencies. More detailed reporting which
can be aggregated to the basic categories may be used at the
agencies' discretion.
b. General program administrative and grant reporting. Whenever
an agency subject to this Directive issues new or revised
administrative reporting or recordkeeping
[[Page 44693]]
requirements which include racial or ethnic data, the agency will use
the race/ethnic categories described above. A variance can be
specifically requested from OMB, but such a variance will be granted
only if the agency can demonstrate that it is not reasonable for the
primary reporter to determine the racial or ethnic background in
terms of the specified categories, and that such determination is
not critical to the administration of the program in question, or if
the specific program is directed to only one or a limited number of
race/ethnic groups, e.g., Indian tribal activities.
c. Statistical reporting. The categories described in this
Directive will be used at a minimum for federally sponsored
statistical data collection where race and/or ethnicity is required,
except when: The collection involves a sample of such size that the
data on the smaller categories would be unreliable, or when the
collection effort focuses on a specific racial or ethnic group. A
repetitive survey shall be deemed to have an adequate sample size if
the racial and ethnic data can be reliably aggregated on a biennial
basis. Any other variation will have to be specifically authorized
by OMB through the reports clearance process. In those cases where
the data collection is not subject to the reports clearance process,
a direct request for a variance should be made to OMB.
3. Effective Date
The provisions of this Directive are effective immediately for
all new and revised recordkeeping or reporting requirements
containing racial and/or ethnic information. All existing
recordkeeping or reporting requirements shall be made consistent
with this Directive at the time they are submitted for extension, or
not later than January 1, 1980.
4. Presentation of Race/Ethnic Data
Displays of racial and ethnic compliance and statistical data
will use the category designations listed above. The designation
``nonwhite'' is not acceptable for use in the presentation of
Federal Government data. It is not to be used in any publication of
compliance or statistical data or in the text of any compliance or
statistical report.
In cases where the above designations are considered
inappropriate for presentation of statistical data on particular
programs or for particular regional areas, the sponsoring agency may
use:
(1) The designations ``Black and Other Races'' or ``All Other
Races,'' as collective descriptions of minority races when the most
summary distinction between the majority and minority races is
appropriate;
(2) The designations ``White,'' ``Black,'' and ``All Other
Races'' when the distinction among the majority race, the principal
minority race and other races is appropriate; or
(3) The designation of a particular minority race or races, and
the inclusion of ``Whites'' with ``All Other Races,'' if such a
collective description is appropriate.
In displaying detailed information which represents a
combination of race and ethnicity, the description of the data being
displayed must clearly indicate that both bases of classification
are being used.
When the primary focus of a statistical report is on two or more
specific identifiable groups in the population, one or more of which
is racial or ethnic, it is acceptable to display data for each of
the particular groups separately and to describe data relating to
the remainder of the population by an appropriate collective
description.
[FR Doc. 95-20787 Filed 8-25-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3110-01-P
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.