Recommendations From the Interagency Committee for the Review of the Racial and Ethnic Standards to the Office of Management and Budget Concerning Changes to the Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity

SUMMARY: OMB requests comments on the recommendations that it has

received from the Interagency Committee for the Review of the Racial

and Ethnic Standards (Interagency Committee) for changes to OMB's

Statistical Policy Directive No. 15, Race and Ethnic Standards for

Federal Statistics and Administrative Reporting (See Appendix 1 for the

text of the standards in Directive No.15, originally issued in 1977).

The Interagency Committee's report and recommendations, which are

published in Appendix 2 in their entirety, are the result of a four-

year, comprehensive review of the current standards.

DATES: To ensure consideration during the final decision making

process, written comments must be provided to OMB no later than

September 8, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on the recommendations may be addressed to

Katherine K. Wallman, Chief Statistician, Office of Information and

Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, NEOB, Room 10201,

725 17th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20503.

Comments may also be submitted by facsimile to 202-395-7245, or by

electronic mail to [email protected] (please note that ``1'' in

``A1'' is the number one and not the letter ``l''). Be sure to include

your name and complete postal mailing address in the comments sent by

electronic mail. If you submit comments by facsimile or electronic

mail, please do not also submit them by regular mail.

Electronic availability and addresses: This Federal Register

notice, as well as the June 9, 1994 and the August 28, 1995 Federal

Register notices related to the review, are available electronically

from the OMB Homepage on the World Wide Web: http://

www.whitehouse.gov/WH/EOP/OMB/html/fedreg.html>>, and in paper copy

from the OMB Publications Office, 727, 17th Street, NW., NEOB, Room

2200, Washington, D.C. 20503, telephone: (202) 395-7332, facsimile:

(202) 395-6137.

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, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20503. Telephone: 202-395-3093.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

The current standards were developed in cooperation with the

Federal agencies to provide consistent and comparable data on race and

ethnicity throughout the Federal government for an array of statistical

and administrative programs. Development of the data standards stemmed

in large measure from new responsibilities to enforce civil rights

laws. Data were needed to monitor equal access to housing, education,

employment opportunities, etc., for population groups that historically

had experienced discrimination and differential treatment because of

their race or ethnicity. The categories that were developed represent a

political-social construct designed to be used in the collection of

data on the race and ethnicity of major broad population groups in this

country, and are not anthropologically or scientifically based. The

standards are used not only in the decennial census (which provides the

``denominator'' for many measures), but also in household surveys, on

administrative forms (e.g., school registration and mortgage lending

applications), and in medical and other research.

The standards provide a minimum set of categories for data on race

and ethnicity. The current standards have four categories for data on

race (American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian or Pacific Islander,

Black, and White) and two categories for data on ethnicity (``Hispanic

origin'' and ``Not of Hispanic origin''). The standards also permit the

collection of more detailed information on population groups provided

that any additional categories can be aggregated into the minimum

standard set of categories. Self-identification is the preferred means

of obtaining information about an individual's race and ethnicity,

except in instances where observer identification more practical (e.g.,

completing a death certificate).

The categories in Directive No. 15 do not identify or designate

certain population groups as ``minority groups.'' As the Directive

explicitly states, these categories are not to be used for determining

the eligibility of population groups for participation in any Federal

programs. Directive No. 15 does not establish criteria or

qualifications (such as blood quantum levels) that are to be used in

determining a particular individual's racial or ethnic classification.

Directive No. 15 does not tell an individual who he or she is, or

specify how an individual should classify himself or herself.

B. Review Process

Particularly since the 1990 census, 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 that has resulted primarily from growth in

immigration and in interracial marriages. In response to the criticism,

OMB announced in July 1993 that it would undertake a comprehensive

review of the current categories for data on race and ethnicity.

This review has been conducted over the last four years in

collaboration with the Interagency Committee for the Review of the

Racial and Ethnic Standards, which OMB established in March 1994 to

facilitate the participation of Federal agencies in the review. The

members of the Interagency Committee, from more than 30 agencies,

represent the many and diverse Federal needs for data on race and

ethnicity, including statutory requirements for such data.

The principal objective of the review is to enhance the accuracy of

the demographic information collected by the Federal Government. The

starting point for the review was the current minimum set of categories

for data on race and ethnicity that have provided 20 years of

information for a variety of purposes, and the recognition of the

importance of being able to maintain this historical continuity. The

review process has had two major elements: (1) Public comment on the

present standards, which helped to identify concerns and provided

numerous suggestions for changing the standards; and (2) research and

testing related to assessing the possible effects of suggested changes

on the quality and usefulness of the resulting data.

Public input, the first element of the review process, was sought

through a variety of means: (1) During 1993, Congressman Thomas C.

Sawyer, then Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Census, Statistics,

and Postal, held four hearings that included 27 witnesses, focusing

particularly on the

[[Page 36875]]

use of the categories in the 2000 census, (2) At the request of OMB,

the National Academy of Sciences' Committee on National Statistics

(CNSTAT) conducted a workshop in February 1994 to articulate issues

surrounding a review of the categories. The workshop included

representatives of Federal agencies, academia, social science research

institutions, interest groups, private industry, and a local school

district. (A summary of the workshop, Spotlight on Heterogeneity: The

Federal Standards for Racial and Ethnic Classification, is available

from CNSTAT, 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20418.)

(3) On June 9, 1994, OMB published a Federal Register (59 FR 29831-

29835) notice that contained background information on the development

of the current standards and requested public comment on: the adequacy

of current racial and ethnic categories; the principles that should

govern any proposed revisions to the standards; and specific

suggestions for change that had been offered by individuals and

interested groups over the past several years. In response, OMB

received nearly 800 letters. As part of this comment period and to

bring the review closer to the public, OMB also heard testimony from 94

witnesses at hearings held during 1994 in Boston, Denver, San

Francisco, and Honolulu. (4) In an August 28, 1995, Federal Register

(60 FR 44674-44693) notice, OMB provided an interim report on the

review process, including a summary of the comments of the June 1994

Federal Register notice, and offered a final opportunity for comment on

the research to be conducted during 1996. (5) OMB staff have also made

themselves available to discuss the review process with various

interested groups and have made presentations at many meetings.

The second element of the review process involved research and

testing of various proposed changes. The categories in OMB's Directive

No. 15 are used not only to produce data on the demographic

characteristics of the population, but also for civil rights

enforcement and program administration. Research would enable an

objective assessment of the data quality issues associated with various

approaches to collecting data on race and ethnicity. For that reason,

the Interagency Committee's Research Working Group on Racial and Ethnic

Standards, which is co-chaired by the Bureau of the Census and the

Bureau of Labor Statistics, reviewed the various criticisms and

suggestions for changing the current categories, and developed a

research agenda for some of the more significant issues that had been

identified. These issues included collecting and classifying data on

persons who identify themselves as ``multiracial''; combining race and

Hispanic origin in one question or having separate questions on race

and Hispanic origin; combining the concepts of race, ethnicity, and

ancestry; changing the terminology used for particular categories; and

adding new categories to the current minimum set.

Because the mode of data collection can have an effect on how a

person responds, the research agenda addressed the issue of how an

individual responds when an interviewer collects the information (in an

in-person interview or a telephone interview) versus how an individual

responds in a self-administered situation, such as in the decennial

census when a form is filled out and mailed back. In addition,

cognitive research interviews were conducted with various groups to

provide guidance on the wording of the questions and the instructions.

The research agenda included several major national tests during

the last two years, the results of which are discussed throughout the

Interagency Committee's report: (1) In May 1995, the Bureau of Labor

Statistics (BLS) sponsored a Supplement on Race and Ethnicity to the

Current Population Survey (CPS). The findings were made available in a

1996 report, Testing Methods of Collecting Racial and Ethnic

Information: Results of the Current Population Survey Supplement on

Race and Ethnicity, available from BLS, 2 Massachusetts Avenue, NE.,

Room 4915, Postal Square Building, Washington, DC 20212, by calling

202-606-7375. The results were also summarized in an October 26, 1995,

news release, which is available electronically at http://

stats.bls.gov/news.release/ethnic.toc.htm>>. (2) The Bureau of the

Census, as part of its research for the 2000 census, tested alternative

approaches to collecting data on race and ethnicity in the March 1996

National Content Survey (NCS). The Census Bureau published the results

in a December 1996 report, Findings on Questions on Race and Hispanic

Origin Tested in the 1996 National Content Survey; highlights of the

report are available at http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/

96natcontentsurvey.html>>. (3) In June 1996, the Census Bureau

conducted the Race and Ethnic Targeted Test (RAETT), which was designed

to permit assessments of effects of possible changes on smaller

populations not reliably measured in national samples, including

American Indians, Alaska Natives, detailed Asian and Pacific Islander

groups (such as Chinese and Hawaiians) and detailed Hispanic groups

(such as Puerto Ricans and Cubans). The Census Bureau released the

results in a May 1997 report, Results of the 1996 Race and Ethnic

Targeted Test; highlights of the report are available at http://

www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps-0018.html>>. Single

copies (paper) of the NCS and RAETT reports may be obtained from the

Population Division, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Washington, DC 20233;

telephone 301-457-2402.

In addition to these three major tests, the National Center for

Education Statistics (NCES) and the Office for Civil Rights in the

Department of Education jointly conducted a survey of 1,000 public

schools to determine how schools collect data on the race and ethnicity

of their students and how the administrative records containing these

data are maintained to meet statutory requirements for reporting

aggregate information to the Federal Government. NCES published the

results in a March 1996 report, Racial and Ethnic Classifications Used

by Public Schools. The report is available electronically at http://

www.ed.gov/NCES/pubs/98092.html>>. Single paper copies may be obtained

from NCES, 555 New Jersey, NW., Washington, DC 20208-5574, or by

calling 202-219-1442.

The research agenda also included studies conducted by the National

Center for Health Statistics, the Office of the Assistant Secretary for

Health, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to evaluate

the procedures used and the quality of the information in

administrative records on race and ethnicity such as that reported on

birth certificates and recorded on death certificates. Since these data

are used in studies of diseases and of the health and well-being of

major population groups, these studies investigated possible impacts of

suggested changes on data needed for medical and health research.

C. Overview of Interagency Committee Report

This Federal Register notice makes available for comment the

Interagency Committee's recommendations for how OMB should revised

Directive No. 15. These recommendations are elaborated in the

Interagency Committee's Report to the Office of Management and Budget

on the Review of Statistical Policy Directive No. 15 which is published

in its entirety as part of this notice. The report consists of six

chapters. Chapter 1 provides a brief history of Directive No. 15, a

summary of the issues

[[Page 36876]]

considered by the Interagency Committee, a review of the research

activities, and a discussion of the criteria used in conducting the

evaluation. Chapter 2 discusses a number of general concerns that need

to be addressed when considering any changes to the current standards.

Chapters 3 through 5 report the results of the research as they bear on

the more significant suggestions OMB received for changes to Directive

No. 15. Chapter 6 gives the Interagency's Committee's recommendations

concerning the various suggested changes based on a review of public

comments and testimony and the research results.

This notice affords a final opportunity for the public to comment

before OMB acts on the recommendations of the Interagency Committee.

None of the recommendations has been adopted and no interim decisions

have been made concerning them. OMB can modify or reject any of the

recommendations, and OMB has the option of making no changes. The

report and its recommendations are published in this Notice because OMB

believes that they are worthy of public discussion and the OMB's

decision will benefit from obtaining the public's views on the

recommendations. OMB will announce its decision in mid-October 1997, so

that changes, if any, can be incorporated into the questions for the

2000 census ``dress rehearsal,'' which will be conducted in spring

1998.

Issues for Comment

With this notice, OMB, requests comments on the recommendations it

has received from the Interagency Committee for the Review of the

Racial and Ethnic Standards concerning the revision of Statistical

Policy Directive No. 15. These recommendations are contained in Chapter

6 of the Interagency Committee's report.

The complete report is included in this Notice because Chapters 1

through 5 provide both a context and the bases for the Interagency

Committee's recommendations outlined in Chapter 6. As an aid in

evaluating the recommendations, readers may wish to refer to the set of

general principles (see Chapter 1) that were developed at the beginning

of the Directive No. 15 review to govern the process--a process that

has attempted to balance statistical issues, needs for data, social

concerns, and the personal dimensions of racial and ethnic

identification. The committee recognized that these principles may in

some cases represent competing goals for the standard. For example,

having categories that are comprehensive in the coverage of our

National's diverse population (Principle 4) and that would facilitate

self-identification (Principle 2) may not be operationally feasible in

terms of the burden that would be placed upon respondents and the

public and private costs that would be associated with implementation

(Principle 8). The following are just a few examples of questions that

might be considered in assessing the recommendations using the general

principles:

--Do the recommendations provide categories for classifying data on

race and ethnicity that are: generally understood and accepted by the

public (Principle 3); comprehensive in coverage (Principle 4); and

useful for statistical analysis, and for Federal statutory and

programmatic requirements (Principles 5 and 6)?

--Are the recommendations based on sound methodological research

(Principle 9)?

--Do the recommendations take into account continuity of historical

data series (Principle 10)?

As reflected in the general principles, the goal has been to

produce a standard that would result in consistent, publicly accepted

data on race and ethnicity which will meet the needs of the Federal

Government and the public, while recognizing the diversity of the

population and respecting the individual's dignity. We would appreciate

receiving your views and comments on any aspects of the Interagency

Committee's recommendations, as well as on the extent to which the

recommendations were successful in meeting the goals of the governing

principles.

Sally Katzen,

Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

[Directive No. 15]

Appendix 1--Race and Ethnic Standards for Federal Statistics and

Administrative Reporting

[as adopted on May 12, 1977]

This Directive provides standard classifications for record

keeping, 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 affiliation 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 Record keeping 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

[[Page 36877]]

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 record keeping 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 record keeping or reporting requirements containing

racial and/or ethnic information. All existing record keeping 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 appropriated; 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

reminder of the population by an appropriate collective description.

Appendix 2--Report to the Office of Management and Budget on the Review

of Statistical Policy Directive No. 15

Prepared By Interagency Committee for the Review of the Racial and

Ethnic Standards

(Transmittal Memorandum)

May 28, 1997.

Memorandum for Katherine K. Wallman

Chief Statistician, Office of Management and Budget.

From: Interagency Committee for the Review of the Racial and Ethnic

Standards.

Subject: Transmittal of Report and Recommendations on the Review of

Directive No. 15.

We are pleased to transmit to you the attached report that

provides the recommendations of the Interagency Committee for the

Review of the Racial and Ethnic Standards for modifying OMB's

Statistical Policy Directive No. 15, Race and Ethnic Standards for

Federal Statistics and Administrative Reporting. These

recommendations, which are outlined in Chapter 6 of the report,

represent our best technical and professional advice for how these

data standards could better reflect the increasing racial and ethnic

diversity of our Nation's population, while maintaining historical

continuity.

Our recommendations for Directive No. 15 are the product of a

three-year review process that is briefly described in Chapter 1 of

the report. During that time, we developed and carried out a

research program to evaluate various proposals for revising the

standards. Chapter 2 discusses some general concerns relevant to

consideration of any changes in the standards. Chapters 3 through 5

report on the extensive research efforts, including three national

tests, that have been conducted to test alternative approaches for

questions to collect data on race and ethnicity. The Interagency

Committee's recommendations, presented in Chapter 6, are based on

our evaluation of the research results and consideration of related

public comments and testimony.

We hope that the Office of Management and Budget will find this

report with its accompanying recommendations informative and helpful

in making its decision on what changes to adopt, if any, in the

Federal standards for reporting data on race and ethnicity.

Attachment

Report to the Office of Management and Budget on the Review of

Statistical Policy Directive No. 15

Table of Contents

Chapter 1. Introduction

1.1 Overview

1.2 History of Directive No. 15

1.3 Concerns About the Current Standards

1.4 Principles for the Review Process

1.5 Overview of Research Activities

1.6 Evaluation of Research Results

Chapter 2. Issues of General Concern

2.1 Overview

2.2 Satisfying Statutory and Program Needs

2.3 Voting Rights Issues

2.4 Data Continuity Concerns

2.5 Financial Costs

Chapter 3. Reporting More Than One Race

3.1 Background

3.2 Current Practice

3.3 Overview of Research on Reporting More Than One Race

3.3.1 Surveys to Explore Options

[[Page 36878]]

3.3.2 Cognitive Research to Guide Survey Design

3.4 Evaulating Research on Options for Reporting More Than One Race

3.4.1 Data Comparability

3.4.2 Should a multiracial category be listed among the response

options to the question on race?

3.4.3 If a multiracial category is listed, should a ``follow-up''

format be used, in which individuals who select the category are

asked to specify their racial identities?

3.4.4 Should a multiple-response format be used, in which the

respondent is instructed to ``mark one or more races''?

3.4.5 Should a multiple response format be used in which the

respondent is instructed to ``mark all that apply'' on the race

question?

3.4.6 Are there other options for reporting more than one race by

respondents?

3.5 Trends With Respect to Reporting of Multiple Races

3.5.1 Trends Contributing to Reporting of Multiple Races

3.5.1.1 Increases in Interracial Marriages and Households and

Births to Parents of Different Races

3.5.1.2 State Requirements for Multiracial Reporting

3.5.2 Public Sentiment

3.6 Measurement Concerns and Opportunities Related to Reporting

More Than One Race

3.6.1 Meeting Legislative and Program Needs

3.6.2 Defining and Using the Term ``Multiracial''

3.6.2.1 Definition of ``Multiracial''

3.6.2.2 Using a Stand-Alone ``Multiracial or Biracial'' Category or

Including a Follow-up Question

3.6.3 Using a ``Mark One or More'' or a ``Mark All That Apply''

Instruction in the Race Question

3.6.4 Issues Related to Primary and Secondary Data Collection

3.7 Some Implications of Allowing the Reporting of More Than One

Race

3.7.1 Possible Effects on Reporting by Particular Population Groups

3.7.2 Tabulation of Multiple Responses

3.7.3 Monetary Costs and Resource Burdens

Chapter 4. A Combined Race and Hispanic Origin Question

4.1 Background

4.2 Concepts of Race and Ethnicity

4.3 Self-Identification

4.4 Some Alternative Formats for Questions

4.5 Research on Data Quality

4.5.1 Reporting in the ``Other Race'' Category by Hispanics

4.5.2 Item Nonresponse in the Race Question

4.5.3 Item Nonresponse in the Hispanic Origin Question

4.5.4 Reporting Inconsistency

4.6 Measures to Correct Misreporting in the Race Question and the

Hispanic Origin Question

4.7 The Effects of Combining the Race Question and the Hispanic

Origin Question into a Single Question

4.7.1 Results From the May 1995 CPS Supplement on Race and Ethnic

Origin

4.7.2 Results From the Race and Ethnic Targeted Test

4.7.2.1 Reporting of Hispanic Origin

4.7.2.2 Reporting of Multiple Races

4.7.2.3 Summary of Findings

4.8 Public Sentiment

4.9 Additional Cost Concerns

Chapter 5. Other Possible Changes

5.1 Background

5.2 Specific Suggestions

5.3 Evaluation of the Possible Effects of Suggested Changes

5.3.1 Changes related to American Indians and Alaska Natives

5.3.1.1 Should the term ``American Indian'' or ``Native American''

be used?

5.3.1.2 Should the term ``Alaska Native'' or ``Eskimo and Aleut''

be used?

5.3.1.3 Should a distinction be made between federally recognized

and nonfederally recognized tribes?

5.3.1.4 What is the best way to elicit tribal affiliation?

5.3.1.5 Should the definition of the ``American Indian or Alaskan

Native'' category be changed to include Indians indigenous to

Central America and South America?

5.3.2 Changes related to Asian and Pacific Islanders

5.3.2.1 Should the ``Asian or Pacific Islander'' category be split

into two categories? If yes, how should this be done?

5.3.2.2 Should specific groups be listed under the Asian or Pacific

Islander category?

5.3.2.3 Should the term ``Guamanian'' or ``Chamorro'' be used?

5.3.3 Changes related to Hawaiians

5.3.3.1 Should the term ``Native Hawaiian'' or ``Hawaiian'' be

used?

5.3.3.2 Should Hawaiians continue to be included in the ``Asian or

Pacific Islander'' category; be reclassified and included in the

``American Indian or Alaskan Native'' category; or be established as

a separate, new category?

5.3.4 Other terminology issues

5.3.4.1 Should the term ``Black'' or ``African American'' be used?

5.3.4.2 Should the term ``Hispanic'' or ``Latino'' be used?

5.3.4.3 Should more than one term be used for Black or for

Hispanic?

5.3.5 Other new category issues

5.3.5.1 Should an Arab or Middle Eastern category be created and,

if so, how should it be defined?

5.3.5.2 Should a Cape Verdean category be created?

Chapter 6. Recommendations and Major Findings

6.1 Summary of Recommendations and Major Findings

6.1.1 Recommendations concerning reporting more than one race

6.1.1.1 Findings concerning a method for reporting more than one

race

6.1.1.2 Findings concerning different formats for reporting more

than one race

6.1.2 Recommendations concerning a combined race and Hispanic

ethnicity question

6.1.2.1 Findings concerning whether race and Hispanic origin should

be combined into a single question

6.1.2.2 Findings concerning different formats if race and Hispanic

origin are combined in a single question

6.1.3 Recommendations concerning the retention of both reporting

formats

6.1.4 Recommendation concerning the ordering of the Hispanic origin

and race questions

6.1.5 Recommendation concerning adding Cape Verdean as an ethnic

category

6.1.6 Recommendation concerning the addition of an Arab or Middle

Eastern ethnic category

6.1.7 Recommendation concerning the addition of any other

categories to the minimum set

6.1.8 Recommendation concerning changing the term ``American

Indian'' to ``Native American''

6.1.9 Recommendation concerning changing the term ``Hawaiin'' to

``Native Hawaiian.''

6.1.10 Recommendation concerning the classification of Hawaiians

6.1.11 Recommendations concerning the use of Alaskan Native instead

of Eskimo and Aleut

6.1.12 Recommendations concerning the classification of South and

Central American Indians

6.1.13 Recommendations concerning the term or terms to be used for

the name of the Black category

6.1.14 Recommendations concerning the term or terms to be used for

Hispanic

6.2 Comparison of the Current Standards with the Recommended

Standards

6.2.1 The Current Standards in Directive No. 15

6.2.2 Recommended Standards

6.3 Recommendations for Further Research

Chapter 1. Introduction

1.1 Overview

This report evaluates a variety of proposals for modifying the

Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Statistical Policy Directive

No. 15, ``Race and Ethnic Standards for Federal Statistics and

Administrative Reporting.'' The Directive sets forth a minimum set of

categories for collecting and presenting data on race and Hispanic

origin. This basic set of categories has served as the guideline for

Federal Government data collections since it was issued in May 1977.

The report presented here, including its recommendations, is the

culmination of three years of research undertaken by Federal agencies

to evaluate the possible impact of suggested changes on the quality and

cost of the resulting data. It is the work of the Interagency Committee

for the Review of the Racial and Ethnic Standards and its Research

Working Group on Racial and Ethnic

[[Page 36879]]

Standards. OMB established the Interagency Committee in 1994 to

evaluate various proposed changes and provide recommendations. The

committee created the Research Working Group to develop and carry out a

research agenda for evaluating the proposals.

The report consists of six chapters. This first chapter provides a

brief history of Directive No. 15, a summary of the issues considered

by the Interagency Committee, a review of the research activities over

the past three years, and a discussion of the criteria used in

conducting the evaluation. Chapter 2 discusses several general concerns

that need to be addressed when considering any changes to the current

standards. Chapters 3 through 5 report the research results as they

bear on the more significant suggestions for changes to Directive No.

15. These suggestions include, but are not limited to, permitting

respondents to report multiple racial backgrounds, a single question on

race and ethnicity that would include Hispanic as a category, expanding

the minimum set of categories to include other specific ethnic or

racial groups. and adding to, or replacing the names of categories used

to identify specific racial or ethnic groups. Chapter 6 presents the

committee's recommendations on various suggested changes based on its

evaluation of the research results and consideration of related public

comments and testimony.

1.2 History of Directive No. 15

The United States Government has long collected statistics on race

and ethnicity. Such data have been used to monitory 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,

health status, and policy concerns.

Since the 1960's, data on race and ethnicity have been used

extensiity in monitoring and enforcing civil rights laws covering areas

such as education, employment, housing and mortgage lending, health

care, voting rights, and the administration of justice. Theses

legislatively based priorities created the need among Federal agencies

for compatible, nonduplicative data for population groups that

historically had suffered discrimination on the basic of their race or

ethnicity. In response, OMB issued, in 1977, the current set of

categories for use in the collection and presentation of data on race

and eithnity. The categories also implemented the requirements of

Public Law 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.

The current standard provides that, if racial and ethnic data are

collected separately, the minimum racial categories are:

--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 affiliation or community recognition.

--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.

--Black. A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of

Africa.

--White. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of

Europe, North Africa, or the Middle East.

For ethnicity, the categories are:

--Hispanic origin. A person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or

South American or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race.

--Not of Hispanic origin. A person not of any Spanish culture or

origin. When a combined format is used, the minimum categories are: (1)

American Indian or Alaskan Native; (2) Asian or Pacific Islander; (3)

Black, not of Hispanic origin; (4) Hispanic; and (5) White, not of

Hispanic origin.

The current categories originated in the work of the Federal

Interagency Committee on Education (FICE) whose membership represented

some 30 Federal agencies. In June 1974, FICE created an Ad Hoc

Committee on Racial and Ethic Definitions, whose 25 members came from

Federal agencies with major responsibilities for the collection or use

of data on race and ethnicity. This ad hoc committee was charged with

developing terms and definitions for a broad range of data on race and

ethnicity to be collected by Federal agencies on a compatible and

nonduplicative basis. The committee sought to ensure that the

categories could be aggregated, disaggregated, or otherwise combined so

that the data developed by one agency could be used in conjunction with

the data developed by another agency. The committee also suggested that

the basic categories could be subdivided into more detailed ethnic

subgroups to meet users' needs, but that to maintain comparability,

data from one major category should never be combined with data from

any other category.

In the spring of 1975, FICE completed its work on a draft set of

categories. An agreement was reached among OMB, the General Accounting

Office (GAO), the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare's (HEW)

Office for Civil Rights, and the Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission (EEOC) to adopt these categories for a trial period of at

least one year. This trial was undertaken to test the new categories

and definitions and to determine what problems, if any, would be

encountered in their implementation.

At the end of the test period, OMB and GAO convened an Ad Hoc

Committee on Racial/Ethnic Categories to review the experience of the

agencies that had implemented the standard categories and definitions

and to discuss any potential problems that might be encountered in

extending the use of the categories to all Federal agencies. The

Committee met in August 1976 and included representatives of OMB; GAO;

the Departments of Justice, Labor, HEW, and Housing and Urban

Development; the Bureau of the Census; and the EEOC. Based upon the

discussion in that meeting, OMB prepared minor revisions to the FICE

definitions and circulated the proposed final draft for agency comment.

These revised categories and definitions became effective in September

1976 for all compliance record keeping and reporting required by the

Federal agencies represented on the Ad Hoc Committee.

Based upon this interagency agreement, OMB drafted for agency

comment a proposed revision of the ``race and color designations in

Federal statistics'' contained in its circular on Standards and

Guidelines for Federal Statistics. Some agencies published the draft

revision for public comment. Following receipt of comments and

incorporation of suggested modifications, OMB, on May 12, 1977,

promulgated the racial and ethnic categories now set forth in Directive

No. 15. Thus, for the first time, standard categories and definitions

were to be used by all Federal agencies in both the collection and the

presentation of data on race and ethnicity. The categories and

definitions were developed primarily on the basis of geography;

therefore, they were not to be interpreted as being scientific or

anthropological in nature. The racial and ethnic categories in the

Directive reflected, in particular, agency needs for data for use in

monitoring and enforcing civil rights laws.

[[Page 36880]]

Although the standards given in Directive No. 15 have not been

revised since 1977, OMB did publish in the January 20, 1988, Federal

Register a draft Statistical Policy Circular soliciting public comment

on a comprehensive revision of existing Statistical Policy Directives.

Among the proposed changes was a revision of Directive No. 15 that

would have added an ``Other'' racial category and required

classification by self-identification. This proposal was supported by

many multiracial and multiethnic groups and some educational

institutions, but it drew strong opposition from large corporation and

Federal agencies such as the Civil Rights Division of the Department of

Justice, the Department of Health and Human Services, the EEOC, and the

Office of Personnel Management (OPM). Critics asserted that the present

system provided adequate data, that any changes would disrupt

historical continuity, and that the proposed changes would be expensive

and potentially divisive. Some members of minority communities

interpreted the proposal as an attempt to provoke internal dissension

within their communities and to reduce the official counts of their

populations. Because it was evident from all of these comments that

this proposal would not be widely accepted, no changes were made to

Directive No. 15.

1.3 Concerns About the Current Standards

The population of the United States has become increasingly diverse

during the 20 years that the current standards have been in effect.

During the 1980s, immigration to the United States from Mexico, Central

and South America, the Caribbean, and Asia reached historic

proportions. The 1990 census data show that the population of the

United States is more racially and ethnically diverse than ever.

Furthermore, as a result of the growth in interracial marriages, there

is an increase in the number of persons born who are of mixed race or

ethnicity. In recent years, Directive No. 15 has been criticized for

not sufficiently reflecting this growing diversity.

In addition, there have been a number of other concerns expressed.

For example:

--The categories and their definitions have been criticized as failing

to be comprehensive and scientific.

--Some have suggested that the geographic orientation of the

definitions for the various racial and ethnic categories is not

sufficiently definitive. They believe that there is no readily apparent

organizing principle for making such distinctions and that definitions

for the categories should be eliminated.

--Others maintain that the identification of an individual's racial and

ethnic ``category'' often is a subjective determination, rather than

one that is objective and factual. Thus, they believe that it may no

longer be appropriate to consider the categories as a ``statistical

standard.''

--There is disagreement over the use of self-identification versus

observer identification.

--Some critics have said that the two formats permitted by Directive

No. 15 are not compatible. They argue that, when using the two separate

questions, race and Hispanic origin can be kept analytically distinct,

but in the combined race/ethnicity format, they cannot, While many find

the combined format particularly suitable for observer identification,

the use of this 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 origin by race and,

therefore, may reduce the utility of counts in the four racial

categories by excluding from them persons who would otherwise tend to

be included.

--Certain critics have requested an open-ended question to solicit

information on race and ethnicity that would combine the concepts of

race, ethnicity, and ancestry.

--The importance of maintaining comparability over time also has been

questioned, given that the categories have changed in the decennial

censuses over the decades.

--Some have said that the collection categories should allow for

capturing greater diversity, but that the categories used to present

data should be aggregations of the more detailed categories.

--Others assert that the collection of data on race and ethnicity

should be eliminated because it perpetuates racism and the

fragmentation of society.

The following are some of the suggestions for changes to the

current categories that OMB received during the current review process:

--Add a ``multiracial'' category to the list of racial designations so

that respondents would not be forced to deny part of their heritage by

having to choose a single category.

--Add an ``other'' category for individuals of multiracial heritage and

for those who want the option of specifically stating a unique

identification.

--Change the name of the ``Black'' category to ``African American.''

--Change the name of the ``American Indian or Alaskan Native'' category

to ``Native American.''

--Since race and ethnicity are not distinct concepts, include Hispanic

as a racial category, rather than as a separate ethnic category.

--Add a ``Middle Eastern'' or ``Arab'' ethnic category.

--Add a ``Cape Verdean'' ethnic category.

--Make ``Native Hawaiians'' a separate category or include ``Native

Hawaiians'' in the American Indian or Alaskan Native category, rather

than retain ``Native Hawaiians'' in the Asian or Pacific Islander

category.

--Change the name of the ``Hispanic'' category to ``Latino.''

During 1993, Thomas C. Sawyer, then Chairman of the House of

Representatives' Subcommittee on Census, Statistics, and Postal

Personnel, held four hearings on the measurement of race and ethnicity

in the decennial census. In testimony on July 29, 1993, OMB announced

that it would undertake a comprehensive review of the categories,

including an analysis of the possible effects of any proposed changes

to the categories on the quality and utility of the resulting data that

are used for a multiplicity of purposes.

As a first step, OMB asked the Committee on National Statistics

(CNSTAT) of the National Academy of Sciences to convene a workshop to

provide an informed discussion of the issues surrounding a review of

the categories. The workshop, held on February 17-18, 1994, included

representatives of Federal agencies, academia, social science research

institutions, interest groups, private industry, and a local school

district.

1.4 Principles for the Review Process

In March 1994, OMB established and held the first meeting of the

Interagency Committee for the Review of the Racial and Ethnic

Standards, whose members from more than 30 agencies represent the many

and diverse Federal needs for data on race and ethnicity, including

statutory requirements for such data. Given the range of suggestions

and criticisms concerning Directive No. 15, OMB sought in constituting

the committee to have all agency stakeholders participate in this

comprehensive review of the standards. Agencies represented on the

Interagency Committee included:

Department of Agriculture

National Agricultural Statistics Service

Economic Research Service

[[Page 36881]]

Department of Commerce

Bureau of the Census

Department of Defense

Defense Manpower Data Center

Office of the Secretary

Department of Education

National Center for Education Statistics

Office for Civil Rights

Department of Health and Human Services

Administration for Native Americans

Agency for Health Care Policy and Research

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Indian Health Service

National Center for Health Statistics

National Institutes of Health

Office for Civil Rights

Office of Minority Health

Office of Refugee Resettlement

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Department of the Interior

Bureau of Indian Affairs

Department of Justice

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Civil Rights Division

Immigration and Naturalization Service

Department of Labor

Bureau of Labor Statistics

Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs

Department of Transportation

Bureau of Transportation Statistics

Department of Veterans Affairs

Equal Opportunity Employment Commission

Federal Reserve Board

National Science Foundation

Office of Personnel Management

Small Business Administration

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

Office of Management and Budget, ex officio

The Interagency Committee developed a set of general principles to

govern the review process. This process was designed not only to

evaluate suggestions received from the public but also to balance

statistical issues, data needs, social concerns, and the personal

dimensions of racial and ethnic identification. These principles were

as follows:

1. The racial and ethnic categories set forth in the standards

should not be interpreted as being primarily biological or genetic in

reference. Race and 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, nonduplicative, 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, 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 committee recognized that these principles may in some cases

represent competing goals for the standards. By applying these

principles to the review process, the committee hoped to produce a

standard that would result in consistent, publicly accepted data on

race and ethnicity that would meet the needs of the Federal Government

and the public while, at the same time, recognizing the diversity of

the population and respecting the individual's dignity.

OMB invited comment on the principles when they were published in a

June 9, 1994, Federal Register notice. That notice also contained

background information on the development of Directive No. 15; the

revision proposed but not made in 1988; the 1993 congressional

hearings; and the CNSTAT workshop. OMB requested public comment on the

adequacy of the current categories, as well as on the suggested changes

it had received over the years. As part of the public comment period,

OMB also held hearings in Boston, Denver, San Francisco, and Honolulu

during July 1994. OMB received nearly 800 letters in response to the

1994 Federal Register notice and heard testimony of 94 witnesses during

the four public hearings. A wide array of interested parties provided

comments, including individuals, data users, and data providers from

within and outside the Federal Government.

1.5 Overview of Research Activities

The Interagency Committee created a Research Working Group to

outline an agenda for researching and testing key concerns. The

Research Working Group, in August 1995, issued the ``Research Agenda

for the Review of the Racial and Ethnic Categories in Directive No.

15,'' based on an examination of the information in the June 1994

Federal Register notice, the public comments it

[[Page 36882]]

engendered, and previous research. This agenda identified five central

research issues together with a number of questions associated with

these issues. Some of the questions cut across several of the central

issues, and others were unique to a particular issue. In developing the

research agenda, the Research Working Group gave equal weight to the

conceptual and the operational questions that must be answered before

any changes to Directive No. 15 can be considered. The five central

issues were:

(1) Reporting of multiple races. What are the possible effects of

including a multiple race response option or a multiracial category in

data collections that ask individuals to identify their race and

ethnicity?

(2) Combining questions on race and Hispanic origin. Should a

combined race/Hispanic origin question be used instead of separate

questions on race and Hispanic origin?

(3) Concepts of race, ethnicity, and ancestry. Should the concepts

of race, ethnicity, and ancestry be combined and include, for example,

a follow-up, open-ended question with no fixed categories? How well

does the public understand these three concepts?

(4) Terminology. Should any of the current terminology for the

racial and ethnic categories be replaced or modified?

(5) New classifications. Should new racial or ethnic categories be

developed for specific population groups and be added to the minimum

basic set of categories?

The most important conceptual questions surrounding these issues

were (1) Who are the stakeholders, (2) how are various terms used and

understood, (3) what is the respondent's view of the task of self-

identification, (4) what would be the effects of any changes on

population counts and historical trends, and (5) what would be the

effects of any changes on the quality and usefulness of the resulting

data? The most important operational questions were (1) How would the

changes affect data collection procedures, (2) what differences might

there be between collection and reporting categories, (3) how could

continuity be maintained, (4) how should any changes be implemented,

and (5) how might cognitive research assist in implementing any

changes? In addition to recommending research that should be done, the

Research Working Group both encouraged and supported a number of more

specific research projects carried out by the individual agencies.

The first national test related to the central issues was the May

1995 Supplement on Race and Ethnicity to the Current Population Survey

(CPS), which had a sample of approximately 60,000 households and more

than 100,000 persons. The supplement, sponsored by the Bureau of Labor

Statistics and conducted by the Bureau of the Census, tested the

effects of: (1) Adding a multiracial category to the list of races, and

(2) including ``Hispanic'' as a category on the race question.

Respondents also were asked about their preferences for terms to

describe themselves (e.g., African-American or Black and Latino or

Hispanic). Originally, questions concerning the respondent's

understanding of the concepts of race, ethnicity, and ancestry were to

be included, but extensive cognitive testing prior to creating the

survey instrument indicated that these types of questions were

confusing and difficult to administer in a large-scale survey.

Additional analysis of open-ended responses by cognitive researchers

provided possible explanations for the inconsistencies in some

respondents' answers to the race and ethnicity questions.

As a part of the research on the subject content for the 2000

census, the Bureau of the Census tested alternative versions of

questions on race and Hispanic origin in the March 1996 National

Content Survey (NCS). This test was designed to provide information on

how members of approximately 90,000 households identify their race and

ethnicity in a self-reporting context, in contrast to the CPS

Supplement which was administered by interviewers either in person or

by telephone. Some NCS panels, comprising about 18,000 households,

tested the effects of adding a multiracial category to the race

question, placing the Hispanic origin question immediately before the

race question, and combining both of these changes. The NCS sample was

not designed to detect possible effects of different treatments on

relatively small population groups, such as American Indians and

Alaskan Natives, detailed Asian and Pacific Islander groups (such as

Chinese and Hawaiians), or detailed Hispanic origin groups (such as

Puerto Ricans and Cubans). Moreover, because the results were based on

the responses from households in the national sample that mailed back

questionnaires, the results do not represent the entire national

population.

In contrast to the NCS, the Race and Ethnic Targeted Test (RAETT)

was designed by the Bureau of the Census to provide findings for

smaller population groups. Conducted in June 1996, the RAETT sample

included approximately 112,000 urban and rural households. The sample

was taken from geographic areas of the country with concentrations of

different racial and ethnic populations including American Indians,

Alaskan Natives, Asians, Pacific Islanders, Hispanics, Blacks, and

White ethnic groups. This design permits assessments of the effects of

changes on relatively small populations not reliably measured in

national samples. The RAETT tested and evaluated the effects of adding

a ``multiracial or biracial'' category; having instructions in the race

question to ``mark one or more'' or to ``mark all that apply; placing

the Hispanic origin item before the race item; combining race, Hispanic

origin, and ancestry in a single, two-part question; using a combined

``Indian (Amer.) or Alaska Native'' category; and using a ``Native

Hawaiian'' or ``Hawaiian'' category.

In the spring of 1995, the National Center for Education Statistics

and the Office for Civil Rights in the Department of Education

conducted a survey of a thousand public schools. This survey obtained

information on how schools currently collect data on students' race and

ethnicity, how administrative records containing data on race and

ethnicity are maintained and reported, what state laws mandate or

require of school systems with respect to collecting data on race and

ethnicity, and current issues in schools regarding categories for

reporting data on race and ethnicity.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention held a Workshop on

the Use of Race and Ethnicity in Public Health Surveillance. The

workshop had three objectives: (1) To describe the current measures of

race and ethnicity and their use in public health surveillance, (2) to

assess the use of data on race and ethnicity in surveillance for

planning, operation, and evaluation of public health programs, and (3)

to propose better use of existing measures for race and ethnicity or to

identify alternative measures. The limitations inherent in the current

concepts, measures, and uses of race and ethnicity in public health

surveillance were identified, and recommendations were made regarding

their improvement.

The National Center for Health Statistics and the Office of Public

Health and Science sponsored interviews with 763 multiracial and

Hispanic women who had a baby during the preceding three years. The

purpose of the study was to determine the effects of different question

formats on reporting of race on birth certificates. The standard open-

ended race question was compared with two experimental versions: (1) An

open-

[[Page 36883]]

ended race question that included the term ``multiracial'' as one of

several examples, and (2) a ``mark all that apply'' format. When

possible, results were compared with the race the respondent recorded

on the youngest child's birth certificate.

A literature search on work related to racial classification in the

health field (using Medline) was conducted by the Department of Health

and Human Services (HHS). An inventory of HHS minority health data

bases that provides information on the data available and on the data

collection problems that have been encountered was developed.

A focus group was conducted with state and local government members

of the Association of Public Data Users. The participants were asked

about possible effects of various suggested changes on their

organizations. An expert on redistricting and reapportionment was

interviewed concerning the effects these same changes might have on

reapportionment and redistricting following the 2000 census. A survey

of a small number of businesses and professional associations that rely

on Federal statistics also was undertaken to ascertain views about the

time and costs involved if various changes were made.

1.6 Evaluation of Research Results

Although some of the issues surrounding the proposed revisions may

ultimately be settled through policy discussion and the criteria used

may at times be subjective, there is an important place in the

discussion for empirically grounded research. Thus, this evaluation,

while considering such subjective information as stakeholder positions

and respondent burden, focuses on the following objective criteria:

(1) Ease of adhering to the principle of self-identification;

(2) Consistency and quality of measurement across time with respect

to various subgroups;

(3) Magnitude of changes to current time series;

(4) Ability to provide categories that are meaningful for policy

purposes;

(5) Ability to develop implementable reporting standards for all

data providers;

(6) Ease of using the measures in different data collection

settings;

(7) Ease of creating data editing and adjustment procedures; and

(8) Costs associated with changing or not changing the standards.

To facilitate the use of research results to evaluate alternatives

and develop recommendations, the Research Working Group has acted as a

clearinghouse for data gathering activities. As such, the Research

Working Group has monitored various projects and overseen the

consolidation of results in a form intended to be useful for policy

makers.

Chapter 2. Issues of General Concern

2.1 Overview

This provides a discussion of several general concerns that the

Research Working Group considered during its review of Directive No.

15. They are: (1) Statutory and programmatic needs of the Federal

agencies for data on race and ethnicity, (2) voting rights issues, (3)

data continuity concerns, and (4) financial costs of making changes to

the Directive. These concerns merit general consideration because they

must be confronted to some degree when dealing with any of the proposed

changes. The relationship of specific suggested changes to these

concerns will be addressed in later chapters.

2.2 Satisfying Statutory and Program Needs

Federal agencies that collect data on race and ethnicity include,

but are not limited to, the Bureau of the Census, the Bureau of Labor

Statistics, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the

National Center for Health Statistics, and the National Center for

Education Statistics. Agencies use data on race and ethnicity for

administrating Federal programs for enforcing the civil rights laws,

and for analyses of social, economic, and health trends for population

groups.

A principal driving force in the 1970s for the development of the

current standards was the need for data on race and ethnicity to

enforce the civil rights laws. Some of the agencies that use these data

for monitoring and enforcing civil rights laws include the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the U.S. Commission on Civil

Rights, the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, the

Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs in the Department of

Labor, the Office for Civil Rights in the Department of Education, and

the Office for Civil Rights in the Department of Health and Human

Services. State and local governments, educational institutions, and

private sector employers use the categories when providing data on race

and ethnicity to meet Federal reporting requirements.

Reliable and consistent information is important for enforcing

Federal laws, In recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions involving

education, employment, and voting rights, the Court has interpreted the

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution to require that

governmental decision-making based on racial classifications be

subjected to ``strict scrutiny'' to determine whether it is ``narrowly

tailored'' to meet ``compelling State interests.'' Changes in Directive

No. 15 could affect the ability of agencies to carry out the court's

mandate. If, for instance, allowing individuals to identify with more

than one race would make it more difficult to identify the members and

characteristics of a particular racial or ethnic group (such as

American Indians and Alaska Natives, or Asians and Pacific Islanders),

then determining whether a ``compelling State interest'' exists with

regard to such persons--and whether the government's action is narrowly

enough tailored to meet that interest--could become correspondingly

more difficult.

Generally, the statutes that require collection of data on race

and/or ethnicity do not specify the exact categories that Federal

agencies must use. Most of these laws simply require that data on race

and ethnicity be collected. The following examples illustrate statutory

requirements that specify the exact categories particular agencies must

use:

The Federal Affirmative Employment Program of the U.S.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is required by 29 CFR 1607.4B.

to use the minimum OMB Directive No. 15 categories except in Hawaii

(where detailed Asian or Pacific Islander subgroups are to be

collected) and Puerto Rico (Hispanic and non-Hispanic)

Federal agencies are required by the Office of Personnel

Management's Federal Personnel Manual 292-I (Book III, pp. 106-107,

296-233 and 298-302) to collect the minimum racial and ethnic

categories and eleven national origin categories (Asian Indian,

Chinese, Filipino, Guamanian, Hawaiian, Japanese, Korean, Samoan,

Vietnamese, all other Asian or Pacific Islanders, and not Hispanic in

Puerto Rico) for the Central Personnel Data Files.

Legislation covering collection of data on race by the

Bureau of Indian Affairs has varying definitions of Indian depending on

the program (Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, 25 U.S.C. 479 and 25

CFR part 5).

Contract Compliance Programs of the Employment Standards

Administration are required by 41 CFR chapter 60 (EEO) to collect data

on race and ethnicity for workforce analysis using the categories

``Blacks, Spanish-surnamed Americans, American

[[Page 36884]]

Indians, and Orientals'' (41 CFR 60-2.11).

Data on race and ethnicity from employee selection tests

and procedures are to be collected using the categories ``Blacks

(Negroes), American Indians (including Alaskan Natives), Asians

(including Pacific Islanders), Hispanic (including persons of Mexican,

Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, or other Spanish origin

or culture regardless of race), Whites (Caucasians) other than

Hispanic, and totals'' (41 CFR 60-3.4B.).

The Center for Minority Veterans of the Department of

Veterans Affairs is required by Sec. 509, Public Law 103-446 and 38

U.S.C. 317 to use the categories Asian American, Black, Hispanic,

Native American (including American Indian, Alaskan Native, and Native

Hawaiian), and Pacific-Islander American.

2.3 Voting Rights Issues

Concerns have been raised that changes to the current categories

for data on race and ethnicity may affect the usefulness of the data

for congressional reapportionment, legislative redistricting, and

enforcement of the Voting Rights Act.

Following each decennial census, congressional reapportionment--the

redistribution of the 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives

among the 50 States--is calculated using the population totals for each

state and the formula of ``equal proportions'' adopted by the Congress

in 1941 (United States Code, Title 2, Section 2a). Redistricting is the

process of redrawing the boundaries of congressional, state, and local

legislative districts in accordance with the Fourteenth Amendment's

``one-person/one-vote'' principle and the standard of population

equality as set forth in Wesberry v. Sanders, Reynolds v. Sims, and

subsequent court decisions. Changes to Directive No. 15 would be

expected to affect congressional reapportionment and one-person/one-

vote compliance in redistricting only to the extent that such changes

affect the overall response to the decennial census.

Charges of minority vote dilution--the claim that the redistricting

plan or at-large election system minimizes or cancels out the voting

strength of a minority group--under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act

(which applies nationwide) are usually determined by reference to

decennial census data on race and ethnicity. In addition, compliance

with Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act--which requires Federal

preclearance for new voting practices and procedures in certain

states--also is generally determined by reference to decennial census

data on race and ethnicity. Changes to Directive No. 15 could have

implications for the effective implementation of the Voting Rights Act.

Decennial census data are used to determine the count and

distribution of the voter-eligible minority population. Proof that it

is possible to draw a district with a voter-eligible minority

population in the majority is usually needed to establish a vote

dilution claim under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Changes to the

current categories that alter the counts of voter-eligible minorities

could affect the ability of such groups to mount successful vote

dilution claims. The Attorney General's preclearance determinations

pursuant to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act--whether to grant or

deny Section 5 preclearance--are often affected by the size and

distribution of the minority population.

In addition, data on race and ethnicity from the decennial census

frequently are used as independent variables in statistical procedures

that estimate group voting behavior, particularly when counts of

registered voters by race or ethnicity are not available. These

estimates of group voting behavior are essential to vote dilution

claims under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, as well as to the

analysis of many types of voting changes under Section 5 of the Voting

Rights Act.

2.4 Data Continuity Concerns

If changes are made to the Federal standards for collecting data on

race and ethnicity, it will be critically important to data users to

understand the impact of those changes vis-a-vis the categories they

have been using for the past 20 years. The acceptance of new ways of

reporting race and ethnicity may require supporting information so that

users can assess the magnitude of changes to current time series. To

that end, alternative methods of tabulating multiple responses on race

into the current minimum set of categories must be investigated

further.

2.5 Financial Costs

If OMB were to revise the categories for data on race and ethnicity

by modifying Directive No. 15, a sizeable number of Federal agencies

and others would have to change data collection forms, computer

programs, interviewers' and coders' manuals, and other related

materials for their data systems. Although Directive No. 15 is a

standard for use by Federal agencies, many State and local agencies and

private sector entities also follow the Federal standards for

collection, record keeping, and presentation data on race and

ethnicity. On the other hand, there will be other costs incurred if

changes are not made to the current categories, and these costs are

also discussed in this section.

If a decision were made either to use separate questions

exclusively, or to use a combined format always, or to use a ``mark one

or more'' reporting option for race, or to add a ``multiracial''

category, there would also be costs for redesigning data editing,

coding, and processing systems to accommodate the changes.

Other costs would be associated with changing data base management,

retrieval and aggregation programs, and historical table formats. Data

base management systems might have to be significantly expanded to

provide data comparability with historical series. Procedures might

have to be developed for editing multiple responses to achieve this

comparability. Staff would have to be trained in the new procedures

resulting from any change to the current categories. Since the

estimated transition time for changing EEOC data bases would be 2-3

years, data for these years could be severely hampered for enforcement

purposes. This would likely result in additional costs for protracted

processing of grievances.

The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) of the

Department of Health and Human Services has noted that substantial

changes for 23 categorical grant programs would be required for

competing and noncompeting grant application materials, data entry and

report programs, and the preference/priority databases. Alterations in

the current collection categories for data on race and ethnicity would

require restructuring of the definitions and data collection tools

designed to report cross-cutting outcome measures for Title VII and

VIII Health Professions and Nursing education and training programs.

During informal discussions, company representatives offered a few

examples of the potential impact on private sector employers if changes

to the categories were to be made. The costs of making changes to forms

is considered to be minimal. Changes in the data systems would be more

expensive than changes in the forms, since this effort would be very

labor intensive. In addition, if there were new categories, employees

might have to be resurveyed in order to update the information on race

and ethnicity.

Any changes from the current collection mechanism would entail

[[Page 36885]]

major program changes for the 700 institutions participating in the

seven student assistance campus-based loan and scholarship programs.

Review and revision of records for eligibility and fiscal accounting

data would be required, including manual review of data, computer

programming changes, and changes to the scope of work for contract

services. In addition, the Student Financial Aid Guideline and the User

Manual for the Electronic Reporting System would require review and

revision. Moreover, changes in definitions would require that schools

reconcile past and current submissions of data for compatibility to

enable HRSA to make appropriate awards to participating institutions.

The Administration on Children and Families (ACF) of the Department

of Health and Human Services considers the overall effect of change to

the racial and ethnic categories to be marginal. ACF collects data on

race and ethnicity for several internal data systems (e.g., foster

care, personnel, grant-related information). However, in relation to

the total cost of maintenance of these internal data systems, possible

changes in the classification of data on race and ethnicity are likely

to have only marginal effects. Alterations to racial and ethnic

categories used for data systems maintained by private contractors for

ACF (e.g., Head Start, Child Abuse and Neglect, Developmentally

Disabled, Native American) would not likely cause excessive burden to

the data collection effort.

In addition, ACF has data systems that are legislatively mandated

and involve data collections by states (such as temporary assistance to

needy families, child support enforcement). If the alterations to

existing systems are profound, states might be resistant to change or

they might seek Federal funds to defray costs of updating state data

systems, particularly to meet Federal reporting requirements.

While financial costs would be incurred if changes are made to

Directive No. 15, there are other types of costs associated with not

making changes. Problems that exist with use of the current Directive

will not be resolved. These continuing problems include lack of

standardization for classifying data on race and ethnicity across state

and Federal agencies; less than optimal participation in Federal

surveys (especially item nonresponse); misidentification of individuals

and groups in surveys; inaccurate counts and rates; inaccurate

research; inaccurate program design, targeting and monitoring; and

possibly misallocation of funds. There will continue to be

inconsistency even within the same Federal agency if Hispanic origin

data continues to be collected using either the combined format or two

separate questions. It is not uncommon for the denominator of a rate

for Hispanics to be based on data collected using separate questions on

race and ethnicity while the numerator is based on data collected using

the combined format.

Chapter 3. Reporting More Than One Race

3.1 Background

This chapter addresses issues related to whether or not the Federal

standards for data on race and ethnicity should provide an option that

permits the reporting of more than one race. The chapter discusses

different approaches that have been studied by Federal agencies to

provide such an option. It presents findings of the research conducted

by Federal agencies on the alternative approaches and identifies

potential implications of providing or not providing a response option

for reporting more than one race. Following a review of the current

standards and an overview of the research conducted, the chapter

addresses the following questions:

Should a multiracial category be listed among the response

options to the question on race? (section 3.4.2)

If a multiracial category is listed, should a ``follow-

up'' format be used, in which individuals who select ``multiracial''

are asked in a follow-up question to specify their racial identities?

(section 3.4.3)

Should a multiple-response format be used in which the

respondent is instructed to ``mark one or more races''? (section 3.4.4)

Should a multiple-response format be used in which the

respondent is instructed to ``mark all that apply'' on the race

question? (section 3.4.5)

Are there other options for reporting of more than one

race by respondents? (section 3.4.6)

Sections 3.5 through 3.7 discuss some of the trends, concerns, and

potential implications related to adding (or not adding) an option for

reporting more than one race to the Federal standard for collecting and

reporting racial categories, including the effects on such areas as

legal and program needs, measurement issues, and data production.

3.2 Current Practice

Directive No. 15 provides a minimum set of racial and ethnic

categories--four categories for data on race (White, Black, American

Indian or Alaskan Native, and Asian or Pacific Islander) and two

categories for data on ethnicity (Hispanic origin and not of Hispanic

origin). The current standard permits Federal agencies to use more

detailed categories for collecting data on population groups, so long

as the data collection is organized in a way that makes it possible for

the agencies to aggregate the more detailed designations into the

Directive No. 15 categories.

For person who identify with more than one race, Directive No. 15

indicates that the single racial category which most closely reflects

the individual's recognition in his or her community should be used.

Directive No. 15 does not provide for identifying two or more races.

3.3 Overview of Research on Reporting More Than One Race

To assist OMB in deciding whether or not the Federal standard

should provide for reporting more than one race, Federal agencies have

conducted several major surveys to test the possible effects on data

quality of various options. Major objectives of the research and

testing programs carried out in 1995 and 1996 have included:

Analysis of the growth, characteristics, and self-

identification patterns of persons in interracial marriages and

households;

Cognitive research to develop alternative race questions

with a category called ``multiracial'' or response options such as

``mark one or more'' or ''mark all that apply;''

Empirical research on how reporting more than one race is

likely to affect current racial distributions in self-administered

censuses and surveys (compared, for example, with interviewer and

telephone surveys); and

Research on whether most respondents who self-identified

as multiracial with specify more than one race.

3.3.1 Surveys to Explore Options

The Current Population Survey, conducted jointly by the Bureau of

Labor Statistics (BLS) and the Bureau of the Census, included a

Supplement on Race and Ethnicity in May 1995 (the CPS Supplement). The

CPS Supplement was designed to test the effect of asking questions

about race and Hispanic ethnicity, with and without a multiracial

response option. As part of its research and testing program for Census

2000, the Bureau of the Census conducted two additional studies--the

National Content Survey (also known as the 1996 census survey or the

Census

[[Page 36886]]

2000 survey) and the Race and Ethnic Targeted Test (the RAETT)--to

explore the implications of using different formats for questions on

respondents' racial identification and reporting of Hispanic origin.

3.3.2 Cognitive Research to Guide Survey Design

The agencies conducted extensive cognitive research to pretest the

racial and ethnic categories and the sequencing of the questions on

race and Hispanic origin in the survey instruments. An interagency team

conducted cognitive research on several versions of the CPS Supplement

questionnaire designed for face-to-face and telephone interviews. The

race question included a multiracial category, with a follow-up

question for reporting the races with which the respondent identified.

The questionnaire was tested with a range of racial and ethnic groups

in various regions of the United States, and respondents from all

groups were able to report that the term ``multiracial'' meant more

than one race. (McKay and de la Puente, 1995)

The Bureau of the Census conducted cognitive research on two

different options for reporting more than one race on the race item in

a mail survey form. The options consisted of including (1) a

``multiracial'' category in the race question, and (2) an instruction

to mark one or more of the racial categories provided in the race

question.

The cognitive research guided the placement of a separate

multiracial category in the race item, determined the appropriate

number of write-in lines to the multiracial-response box, identified

the appropriate terminology for soliciting response from persons of

mixed racial parentage (without providing a definition of

``multiracial'' for this population), and guided the development of the

instructions allowing respondents to choose more than one box. Because

the cognitive research revealed that some respondents believed the term

``multiracial'' meant more than two races, the wording ``multiracial or

biracial'' was used in the NCS and the RAETT to convey to respondents

that the category is to be used by those who identify with two or more

racial groups. (Gerber and de la Puente, 1996)

The cognitive research also was used to develop a ``mark one more''

instruction, indicating that respondents could mark more than one

racial category as applicable. The initial cognitive work, which

offered respondents the choice of marking one racial category or

marking more than one racial category, asked those selecting more than

one group to specify the race with which they most identified.

Cognitive interviews tested several versions of this question. A

number of problems were identified in these interviews. First, some

respondents could not absorb or understand the complex instructions

that were necessary. Second, the formatting (which was subject to space

limitations) made it difficult for some respondents to read and absorb

the question fully. Third, respondents who expected a ``multiracial''

category were disappointed that this response option was not provided.

And finally, some respondents were not comfortable with being asked to

designate a single race, when they did not want to discount any part of

their racial heritage. The question that was ultimately used asked

respondents merely to mark the boxes, without also asking them to

designate the race with which they most identified. (Gerber and de la

Puente, 1996)

Respondents for the cognitive research were recruited on the basis

of interracial parentage or ancestry. In testing the use of multiracial

reporting options in both the interview and self-administered mail

modes, researchers found that many of the respondents recruited based

on known multiracial status did not choose to report as multiracial.

Reasons they gave for not selecting the multiracial category included:

identification with the racial and cultural group of one parent;

acceptance of the racial identity perceived to be conferred by their

community; and a lack of identification with a ``multiracial'' group

encompassing members of different racial ancestries. (McKay and de la

Puente, 1995; Gerger and de la Puente, 1996)

3.4 Evaluating Research on Options for Reporting More Than One Race

The sections that follow present results from the CPS Supplement,

the National Content Survey, and the RAETT as they bear on the

alternative approaches outlined at the beginning of this chapter (See

section 3.1). Brief descriptions of these surveys follow.

The Current Population Survey is a monthly national sample survey

of approximately 60,000 households; it routinely collects information

on the race and ethnic origin of household members using the current

Directive No. 15 categories. The May 1995 CPS Supplement collected

additional racial and ethnic data on the households under four

different panel conditions:

Panel 1 Separate race and Hispanic-origin questions, with no

``multiracial'' category.

Panel 2 Separate race and Hispanic-origin questions, with

``multiracial'' category.

Panel 3 Combined race and Hispanic-origin question, with no

``multiracial'' category.

Panel 4 Combined race and Hispanic-origin question, with

``multiracial'' category.

The CPS Supplement had a response rate of 82.9 percent.

The National Content Survey (NCS), conducted from March through

June 1996, was a mail survey of 94,500 households drawn from 1990

decennial census ``mail back areas'' representing about 95 percent of

the country. The NCS included thirteen panels, four of which were

designed to evaluate the effects of adding a ``multiracial or

biracial'' category and reversing the sequence of the questions on race

and Hispanic origin. It is less representative of American Indians and

Alaska Natives, given that about 25 percent of those populations live

outside ``mail back areas.''

The NCS panels were as follows:

Panel 1 Separate race and Hispanic-origin questions--no ``multiracial

or biracial'' category; race first sequence.

Panel 2 Separate race and Hispanic-origin questions--with

``multiracial or biracial'' category; race first sequence.

Panel 3 Separate race and Hispanic-origin questions--no ``multiracial

or biracial'' category; Hispanic-origin first sequence.

Panel 4 Separate race and Hispanic-origin questions--with

``multiracial or biracial'' category; Hispanic-origin first sequence.

Each of the four questionnaires was mailed to a panel of about

6,000 households. The response rate for the four panels was 72 percent;

the results are thus based on approximately 18,000 households.

Computer-assisted telephone reinterviews were conducted with each

household that had completed and returned the NCS form. Because the NCS

sample excluded households outside 1990 census mailback areas, and some

households did not return a questionnaire, results from the NCS cannot

be generalized to the entire national population.

The RAETT, conducted by the Bureau of the Census in the summer of

1996, was the principal vehicle for testing and evaluating several

important proposed changes for the race question. The RAETT targeted

112,000 households in

[[Page 36887]]

areas that have, relative to the Nation as a whole, high concentrations

of households in any of six specified racial or ethnic groups: White

ethnic (whether European, Canadian, or American), Black, American

Indian, Alaska Native, Asian or Pacific Islander, and Hispanic origin.

A total of 58,911 questionnaires were returned, yielding an overall

response rate 53 percent.

The RAETT included questions designed to test the effects of a

``multiracial or biracial'' category as well as ``mark one or more''

and ``mark all that apply'' approaches to reporting more than one race,

and a combined question on race and Hispanic origin, using eight

different panels or versions of the questionnaire. The RAETT panels

were as follow:

Panel A Separate race and Hispanic origin questions--no ``multiracial

or biracial'' category; Hispanic origin first sequence.

Panel B Separate race and Hispanic origin questions with ``multiracial

or biracial'' category with write-ins; Hispanic origin first sequence.

Panel C Separate race and Hispanic origin questions with ``mark one or

more races'' instruction; Hispanic origin first sequence.

Panel D Separate race and Hispanic origin questions with a

``multiracial or biracial'' category with write-ins; race first

sequence.

Panel E Combined race, Hispanic origin, and ancestry question with a

``multiracial or biracial'' category.

Panel F Combined race, Hispanic origin, and ancestry with ``mark one

or more boxes'' instruction.

Panel G Separate race and Hispanic origin questions with ``multiracial

or biracial'' category with write-ins; Hispanic origin first sequence;

tested terminology and alphabetization of categories.

Panel H Separate race and Hispanic origin questions with ``mark all

that apply'' instruction; Hispanic origin first sequence.

Each of these surveys provides important information about options

for collecting and classifying data on race and ethnicity, but each

also has its limitations. The CPS Supplement is nationally

representative and data were gathered for over 80 percent of the

sample, but it could not provide reliable information for smaller

groups in the population. The NCS is close to being nationally

representative and its use of a mail out/mail back questionnaire is

particularly relevant for designing the 2000 census, but the response

rate was only 72 percent, and it too could not provide reliable

information for smaller groups.

The RAETT design provides a good test of the possible effects of

suggested new racial categories because it focuses on populations for

which the national surveys often do not provide sufficiently large

samples. However, even with a 100 percent response to the RAETT,

results could be generalized only to the population in the census

tracts in each targeted sample frame. The actual response rate averaged

53 percent, and the response rates in some targeted samples were as low

as 34 percent. The sample design of RAETT also does not permit results

for different targeted samples to be combined.

3.4.1 Data Comparability

A key concern of some Federal agencies, reflected in the principles

that have guided the review of the current standards, has been the

comparability of data from any new categories with information produced

under the existing categories. In its report on the RAETT, the Bureau

of the Census presented--for purposes of illustration--different

approaches for tabulating the data, using the information provided in

the write-in entries to the ``multiracial or biracial'' category and in

multiple responses to the race question. Some of these classification

approaches provide examples of procedures that could be developed and

used by the agencies as ``bridges'' between the current and any new

classification. The three illustrative approaches were termed the

single-race approach, the all inclusive approach, and the historical

series approach. They may be characterized as follows:

Single-race approach. Responses indicating only one racial category

would be assigned to that category. Responses from individuals who

reported multiple races would be classified into a separate ``multiple

race'' category. This method provides a lower bound for the number who

identify with a given category. The results from this approach are

readily available from standard tabulations.

All-inclusive approach. Responses are classified into racial

category specified using the minimum set of categories in Directive No.

15. With a single race/ethnicity question using the combined format in

Directive No. 15, the all-inclusive Hispanic proportion would be most

comparable to the proportion reporting Hispanic when there are separate

questions, one for race and one for ethnicity.

The sum of the percentages reported for the four separate racial

categories would exceed 100 percent, because multiple race responses

would be counted in each reported racial category. In spite of this

disadvantage, the all-inclusive approach would provide information on

the total number of times the racial category had been selected.

Historical series approach. Unlike the single race or the all-

inclusive approach, the historical series approach can take on many

variations, just one of which was used in the RAETT illustrative

tabulations. The intent of this approach is to classify data into

categories that resemble those that have been used historically to

enforce current civil rights laws. An individual's response (or

responses) is classified into one and only one category, in a set of

mutually exclusive and exhaustive categories that add up to 100

percent. For example, in the report on the RAETT, which tested a

``multiracial or biracial'' category with a write-in to specify races

as well as other options for reporting more than one race, the

historical series approach classified into the Asian or Pacific

Islander category responses of: (1) Only the Asian or Pacific Islander

category, (2) the Asian or Pacific Islander category and also White,

(3) the Asian or Pacific Islander category and Other Race, and (4) the

Asian or Pacific Islander category and the multiracial category, with

no specification of additional races. The ``multiracial'' or ``other''

category in the historical series were a residual category which

consisted of responses to the ``multiracial'' category that did not

specify any races; and responses of two race categories other than

``White'' or ``Some Other Race.'' A more complete description of the

historical series approach is provided in the RAETT report.

Under the historical series approach, the percentages allocated to

each of the major categories were comparable to the data collected

without a multiple race reporting option (Panel A of the RAETT), except

for the Alaska Native targeted sample. The discrepancy in this group

may be due to the fact that this particular targeted sample suffered

from both a small size and from an extremely low response rate (34

percent).

3.4.2 Should a Multiracial Category Be Listed Among the Response

Options to the Question on Race?

The CPS Supplement on Race and Ethnicity, the National Content

Survey, and the Race and Ethnic Targeted Test all allowed testing of

the effects of adding a multiracial category to the list of races. The

CPS Supplement used the term ``multiracial'' to identify the category,

and the NCS and the RAETT used the term ``multiracial or biracial.''

CPS Supplement. In the CPS Supplement, the race question on

[[Page 36888]]

Panels 2 and 4 included a ``multiracial'' category; results were very

similar--a little more than 1.5 percent identified as multiracial in

each panel.

Table 3.1 shows that the multiracial response option drew

respondents primarily from the American Indian, Eskimo, and Aleut

population, and from those who reported in the ``Something Else''

category. Without a multiracial response category, about 1 percent

reported as American Indian, Eskimo, and Aleut. With a multiracial

category, about 0.75 percent reported in the American Indian, Eskimo,

and Aleut category only.

The proportions reporting in the White category, in the Black

category, and in the Asian or Pacific Islander category were not

affected by the introduction of the multiracial option in the CPS

Supplements.

BILLING CODE 3110-01-M

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09JY97.000

BILLING CODE 3110-01-C

[[Page 36889]]

National Content Survey. In the NCS, the race question included a

multiracial category (using the term ``multiracial or biracial'') in

two of four panels. The percent of respondents identifying themselves

as multiracial on the NCS was 1.2 percent on the panel with the race

question first (Panel 2), and 1.1 percent on the panel with the

Hispanic-origin question first (Panel 4). Thus, as in the CPS, less

than 2 percent of the total population chose the multiracial category

on the NCS. Hispanics on the NCS were more likely than the total

population to identify as multiracial (6.7 percent in Panel 2 and 10.0

percent in Panel 4).

The addition of a multiracial category had no statistically

significant effect on the percentage of persons who reported as White,

as Black, as American Indian, or as Asian or Pacific Islander

regardless of whether the race or the Hispanic-origin question was

asked first. However, the relatively small sample size in the NCS might

not detect changes that were substantively important for small

populations.

For example, although not statistically significant, the declines

in the proportion reporting in the Asian or Pacific Islander category,

from 4.0 percent to 2.7 percent in panels where the race question came

first, and from 3.4 percent to 2.8 percent when the Hispanic-origin

question was asked first, suggested that further analyses should be

undertaken. An analysis of the Asian or Pacific Islander write-in

responses for those who reported in the multiracial category revealed

that if these write-in responses had been reported solely as Asian or

Pacific Islander, the proportion of the population in that category

would have increased to about 3 percent. These findings, however,

cannot be used to draw a firm conclusion about the effects of adding a

multiracial category on reporting as Asian and Pacific Islander because

the sample sizes were too small.

Adding a multiracial category significantly decreased reporting in

the ``Other race'' category when race was asked first, from 3.3 percent

to 1.7 percent. Reporting as ``Other race'' decreased only 0.3 percent

with a multiracial category when the Hispanic-origin question was asked

first.

Race and Ethnic Targeted Sample. The RAETT used a total of eight

panels, Panels A through H (with A as the control panel). Three of the

panels specifically tested the effects of reporting more than one race.

In Panel B, the RAETT tested the effects of including a ``multiracial

or biracial'' category. In Panel C, it tested the effects of

instructing respondents to ``mark one or more'' in response to the race

question; and in Panel H, it tested the effects of instructing

respondents to ``mark all that apply'' in response to the race

question. The results are discussed in succeeding sections of this

chapter.

To determine the effects of including a multiracial category,

responses to Panel B are compared with responses to Panel A. The

findings indicate that the availability of the option to report as

``multiracial or biracial'' had the most substantial effect in the

Asian and Pacific Islander and in the Alaska Native targeted samples.

In the other targeted samples, use of the multiracial category had no

significant effect on how race was reported. The percentages using the

multiracial category in each of the other targeted samples were under

1.0 percent for the White ethnic and the Black targeted samples, 2.33

percent for the Hispanic targeted sample, and 3.67 percent for the

American Indian targeted sample. (See Table 3.2.)

BILLING CODE 3110-01-M

[[Page 36890]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09JY97.001

BILLING CODE 3110-01-C

In the Asian and Pacific Islander targeted sample, 7.58 percent in

Panel B selected the multiracial category, and another 3.06 percent

marked more than one race, even though they were instructed to mark

only one. The corresponding percentages in the Alaska Native targeted

sample were 7.07 percent and 6.32 percent.

The RAETT results show that, if there were the addition of a new

category (e.g., multiracial), the proportion reporting in at least one

of the current categories may be reduced. In the Asian and Pacific

Islander targeted sample, about 2 percent fewer reported in the White

(only) category in Panel B, and about 4.5 percent fewer reported in the

Asian and Pacific Islander (only) category. Within the Asian and

Pacific Islander category, the Hawaiian and the Asian Indian categories

had the largest drops in reporting from Panel A to Panel B. However,

the response rate for the Asian and Pacific Islander targeted sample

was only 55 percent, and the possible impact of nonresponse bias on

these comparisons is not known without further research. (See Table

3.3.)

BILLING CODE 3110-01-M

[[Page 36891]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09JY97.002

BILLING CODE 3110-01-C

[[Page 36892]]

In the Alaska Native targeted sample, the response rate was only 34

percent, leading again to the possibility of nonresponse bias and the

need for further research. This, and the fact that the percent

reporting White (only) increased by about 4.5 percent with the addition

of a multiracial category, suggests that the group reporting in Panel A

was different in some way from the group reporting in Panel B. In this

targeted sample, the multiracial category drew primarily from the

American Indian and Alaska Native category. (See Table 3.4.)

BILLING CODE 3110-01-M

[[Page 36893]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09JY97.003

BILLING CODE 3110-01-C

[[Page 36894]]

3.4.3 If a Multiracial Category Is Listed, Should a ``Follow-Up''

Format Be Used, in Which Individuals Who Select the Category Are Asked

To Specify Their Racial Identities?

All three of the major research surveys--the CPS Supplement, the

NCS, and the RAETT--used a two-part question to evaluate the effects of

a follow-up question on reporting by different racial groups.

CPS Supplement. The responses on the CPS Supplement to the follow-

up question for individuals who identified themselves as multiracial

are shown in Table 3.5.

BILLING CODE 3110-01-M

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09JY97.004

BILLING CODE 3110-01-C

With the exception of respondents who named only one race, the

``American Indian + one other race'' group had the highest frequency in

both panels, followed by ``Asian/Pacific Islander + one race'' on Panel

4. All but a small percentage of the Hispanics who used the multiracial

category reported only an Hispanic ethnic group. (McKay, Stinson, de la

Puente, and Kojetin, 1996)

More than 60 percent of multiracial responses on Panel 2 and close

to 20 percent of multiracial responses on Panel 4 did not provide two

or more different races. Respondents who reported only a single race,

or reported ethnicities as races, were designated as ``unconfirmed

multiracials.'' With the addition on an Hispanic category, there was a

90 percent decline among Hispanic ``unconfirmed multiracials'' between

Panels 2 and 4. There was also a 60 percent decline in such entries for

non-Hispanics between Panels 2 and 4, which is not readily explained by

the presence of the Hispanic category on Panel 4. (See Table 3.6.)

The decline in ``unconfirmed multiracials'' among Hispanics in

Panel 4 may reflect the effect of the combined race and Hispanic origin

question on Hispanic reporting. In the case of non-Hispanics, the

decline might result from the absence of the influence of a preceding

Hispanic origin question.

BILLING CODE 3110-01-M

[[Page 36895]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09JY97.005

BILLING CODE 3110-01-C

Researchers were able to compare the racial identification of CPS

respondents on the CPS control card, which represents the current time

series, with their racial identification on the CPS Supplement. Table

3.7 displays the results.

BILLING CODE 3110-01-M

[[Page 36896]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09JY97.006

BILLING CODE 3110-01-C

[[Page 36897]]

As reported above, only the percent of people identifying as

American Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut was significantly smaller when a

multiracial category was used. However, the largest movement from the

American Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut category is always to the White

category. (See Note to Table 3.7.) Only 4.24 percent of this group used

the multiracial category on Panel 2. On Panel 4, 7.94 percent of those

identifying with this group on the CPS Supplemental selected

multiracial while 7.43 percent chose Hispanic. In sum, a large number

of individuals of mixed American Indian and White ancestry changed

their racial identification on the CPS Supplement but not necessarily

to the multiracial category. This change had a noticeable effect on the

American Indian, Eskimo, and Aleut population counts without noticeably

affecting counts of the White population.

Researchers analyzed the distribution of CPS Supplement respondents

choosing the multiracial category by State to consider whether State

legislative requirements for a multiracial category on State records

influenced the frequency with which this category was chosen. At the

time of the study, Georgia was the only State with a law requiring a

multiracial category; six other States (Florida, Illinois, Indiana,

Michigan, North Carolina, and Ohio) were in the process of framing

legislation requiring a multiracial category. The highest percentage of

CPS respondents choosing the multiracial category for these States was

1.5 percent. Among other States, the five with the highest percentage

of respondents choosing the multiracial category were: Hawaii, Nevada,

Washington, Tennessee, and Alaska. Of these, Hawaii was the highest,

with 11.6 percent; the others had percentages between 3.0 percent and

4.7 percent.

The CPS Supplement data were also analyzed to consider the effect

of having parents of different races on the reporting of the racial

identity of children. Of the CPS households, less than 1 percent

involved married partners of different races with children under the

age of 16 in the household. About 13 percent of these households

involved an Asian/Pacific Islander mother and White father; about 11

percent, a White mother and Black father; about 9 percent, a White

mother and multiracial father; about 8 percent, an Hispanic mother and

White father; and about 8 percent, a multiracial mother and White

father. Almost 32 percent of the children in these households

identified as ``multiracial.''

National Content Survey. In the National Content Survey (NCS),

virtually all persons (98 percent) who marked the multiracial category

in the panels that included this category provided a write-in response.

More than half of these write-in responses (55 percent) identified two

or more different races, and about a third showed a racial category and

a Hispanic-origin group. The remainder of the write-in responses

indicated only one of the racial categories specified in Directive No.

15.

The vast majority (more than 80 percent) of the write-in responses

to the multiracial category included White. (This result is consistent

with research on interracial and inter-ethnic marriages and households,

which usually involve one White spouse (92 percent) or White parent (86

percent).) About 30 percent of the write-in responses included the

Asian or Pacific Islander category, about 25 percent involved the Black

category, and about 7 percent involved the American Indian category. If

the Asian and Pacific Islander write-ins to the multiracial category

had been tabulated solely as Asian and Pacific Islander, the proportion

of the population in that category would have increased to about 3

percent, still smaller than the 4 percent who selected Asian and

Pacific Islander in Panel 1, without a multiracial category.

Race and Ethnic Targeted Test. Information from the write-ins for

panels, B, D, E, F, and G in the RAETT was tabulated in accordance with

the ``historical series'' and the ``all inclusive'' approaches

described in section 3.4.1. The results are useful in assessing the

extent to which write-ins can be used to provide the bridges to the

distributions provided by the current classifications. These results

are described in other parts of this report.

3.4.4 Should a Multiple-Response Format Be Used, in Which the

Respondent is Instructed to ``Mark One or More Races?

Another option for collecting data is to allow respondents to

select more than one race. Some suggest that this approach has the

advantage of preserving detailed data about racial identification that

might not be captured with a single multiracial response category, even

with write-in lines. This section discusses one instruction that

respondents might be given; the next section discusses an alternative

instruction. Only the RAETT tested these alternative approaches.

Race and Ethnic Targeted Test--Panels A and B. In the RAETT, some

respondents marked more than one box on Panels A and B, despite the

instruction on both panels to ``mark one box . . .'' (Panel B included

a ``multiracial'' category; Panel A did not.) Reporting multiple races

on Panel A was especially high in the Alaska Native targeted sample

(5.16 percent). This percentage nearly approached the percentage who

selected the multiracial category on Panel B in this targeted sample

(7.07 percent). Multiple responses on Panel A were also substantial

(3.76 percent) in the Asian and Pacific Islander targeted sample. (By

comparison, it is estimated that 0.5 percent of respondents to the 1990

census selected more than one race when asked to select only one.)

In the targeted samples of the RAETT, the lowest frequency of

marking multiple races on panels with instructions to ``mark one box''

was 0.7 percent in the Black targeted sample. In the Asian and Pacific

Islander targeted sample, persons who were born in the United States

were far more likely to report multiple races than the foreign-born.

In addition, respondents in all of the targeted samples marked one

or more boxes even for the panel that included a multiracial category.

That finding suggests that marking multiple races may have a different

meaning to some respondents than identifying in a category labeled

``multiracial.''

Race and Ethnic Targeted Test--Panel C. In the RAETT, Panel C

instructed respondents to ``mark one or more'' races. The percentages

in each of the targeted samples that provided multiple responses were

under 2 percent for the White ethnic targeted sample and the Black

targeted sample, 3.57 percent for the Hispanic targeted sample, 4.22

percent for the American Indian, and 10.03 percent for the Asian and

Pacific Islander target sample. Approximately the same percentage

marked only the Asian and Pacific Islander category in Panel C as

selected only that category in Panel A. (The Alaska Native targeted

sample did not receive the option to mark one or more.) (See Table

3.8.)

BILLING CODE 3110-01-M

[[Page 36898]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09JY97.007

BILLING CODE 3110-01-C

3.4.5 Should a Multiple Response Format Be Used in Which the

Respondent is Instructed to ``Mark All That Apply'' on the Race

Question?

Respondents evidently interpreted the instruction to ``mark all

that apply'' somewhat differently than the instruction to ``mark one or

more.''

Race and Ethnic Targeted Test--Panel H. The percentages in each of

the RAETT targeted samples that provided multiple responses in the

``mark all that apply'' option were under 2.0 percent for the White

ethnic and the Black targeted samples, 2.24 percent for the Hispanic,

4.27 percent for the American Indian, and 11.47 percent for the Asian

and Pacific Islander targeted samples. The Alaska Native targeted

sample did not receive this option. (See Table 3.9.)

BILLING CODE 3110-01-M

[[Page 36899]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09JY97.008

BILLING CODE 3110-01-C

In contrast to Panel C, significantly fewer respondents in the

Asian and Pacific Islander targeted sample in Panel H, with the ``mark

all that apply'' instruction, selected only the Asian and Pacific

Islander category than was the case in Panel A. (See Table 3.10.) If

those who marked Asian and Pacific Islander in combination with another

category are included with those who marked only Asian and Pacific

Islander, the percentages are about the same. The ``historical series''

approach, described in section 3.4.1 above, also largely eliminated

these reductions in reporting. With this tabulation of responses, the

percentages reporting as Asian and Pacific Islander on Panel H no

longer differed significantly from the percentage on Panel A.

BILLING CODE 3110-01-M

[[Page 36900]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09JY97.009

BILLING CODE 3110-01-C

[[Page 36901]]

3.4.6 Are there Other Options for Reporting more than One Race by

Respondents?

Another option for addressing concerns about reporting multiple

races would be to add the category ``Other'' to the list of races in

all Federal data collections. As discussed in Chapter 1 of this report,

in 1988, OMB considered a proposal to add ``Other'' to the list of

races. Comments at that time indicated that the proposal was

controversial and consensus would not be easily reached. The debate

over the ``Other'' category has continued in the current review of

racial and ethnic categories. Some who commented expressed support for

the adoption of an ``Other'' category--if it is open-ended, allowing

the identification of biracial and multiracial people and ethnic groups

who do not identify with one of the major race groups. Others viewed

use of the term as demeaning, or stated that the category was

unnecessary or that it was too broad to be of much use. (OMB Federal

Register notice, 1995)

A special exemption from Directive No. 15, granted by OMB, allows

the Bureau of the Census to collect data using an ``Other race''

category, and that category was included in the 1980 and 1990 decennial

censuses. In the 1990 Census, more than 250,000 Americans wrote in--as

their race designation--a combination of races or used a term such as

``Eurasian'' that indicates two or more races.

Under its special exemption, the Bureau of the Census does not

assign the ``Other race'' responses to the Directive No. 15 race

categories. The Bureau has, however, developed a Modified Age-Race-Sex

(MARS) file that assigns respondents to the standard race categories in

order to provide data comparable to vital statistics and other

statistical sources. In developing the MARS file, the Bureau of the

Census used a complicated set of algorithms. If OMB were to establish a

new classification system that provided the ``Other race'' option, a

standard algorithm might be needed across agencies. Alternatively,

agencies could simply list ``Other race'' in tabulations. (National

Research Council, 1996)

3.5 Trends With Respect to Reporting Multiple Races

3.5.1 Trends Contributing to Reporting of Multiple Races

As noted earlier in this chapter, a significant number of

respondents select more than one race even when asked to select only

one. At least two trends may be contributing to this phenomenon.

3.5.1.1 Increases in Interracial Marriages and Households and Births

to Parents of Different Races

Some of the impetus for considering an option that allows the

reporting of more than one race comes from the increasing number of

interracial marriages and births to parents of different races in the

past 25 to 30 years. Allowing individuals to report more than one race

could provide a more complete report of the Nation's changing society.

Data suggest that individuals from smaller racial population groups

are more likely to form interracial unions with individuals from

outside their racial population group than are individuals from the

White and the Black populations. The White population is such a large

proportion of the total United States population, however, that in most

interracial marriages one partner is White; similarly, for most

children with parents of different races, one parent is White.

In the 1970 census, there were about 321,000 interracial

unions. By 1980, the number had increased to about 1 million; and by

1990 there were about 1.5 million interracial couples. In all but 8

percent of these interracial couples, one spouse (or unmarried partner)

was White. In 14 percent of all interracial couples, the non-White

spouse was Black; in 22 percent, American Indian and Alaska Native; in

31 percent, Asian and Pacific Islander; and in 25 percent, ``Other

race'' (most of whom were of Hispanic origin).

Census data indicate that the number of children in

interracial families grew from less than one-half million in 1970 to

about 2 million in 1990. In 1990, in interracial families with one

white partner, for about 34 percent of all children the other parent

was American Indian; for 45 percent the other parent was Asian; and for

about 20 percent the other parent was Black.

In 1968, for 2 percent of the births with at least one

Black parent, the second parent was reported as White on the birth

certificate (8,800). This percentage had increased to 9 percent in 1994

(63,000). Analysis of the change in the numbers of births where one

parent is Black and the other is some other race is complicated by the

increasing number of birth for which the race of the second parent,

usually the father, is not given on the birth certificate--40 percent

in 1994, compared with 24 percent in 1968. (See Graph 3.1, Births to

Minority and White Parents as a Percent of All Births to Minority

Parents by Race of Minority Parent: 1968 to 1994.)

Even with this limitation it can be inferred, from births

for which both parents' races are known, that births involving one

Black parent and a second parent of another race other than White also

are increasing.

Among births to American Indian and Alaska Native parents,

a high percentage of all births involve a second parent of another

race. In 1968, 28 percent of all the births with at least one American

Indian or Alaska Native parent listed the second parent as White on the

birth certificate (6,900); in 1994 it was 45 percent (23,000).

Among births to Asian or Pacific Islander parents, the

percentage of births in which the second parent was listed as White was

28 percent in 1968, about 32 percent between 1971 and 1979, and 26

percent in 1994.

BILLING CODE 3110-01-M

[[Page 36902]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09JY97.010

BILLING CODE 3110-01-C

[[Page 36903]]

3.5.1.2 State Requirements for Multiracial Reporting

Legislative activity at the State level generates further impetus

for considering a modification to the Federal standard to provide

reporting of more than one race. Advocacy groups for multiracial

persons have lobbied many State legislatures for laws to add a

multiracial category to all forms and applications used to collect

information on race and ethnicity.

Due at least in part to these advocacy efforts, Georgia, Indiana,

and Michigan require the use of a stand-alone multiracial category

(Georgia since 1994 and Indiana and Michigan since 1995). In these

States, the requirement applies to all State forms and applications

used to collect data on race and ethnicity, including health department

forms. Ohio and Illinois have similarly adopted legislation adding a

multiracial category, but these laws affect only school forms that

collect data on race and ethnicity. Florida and North Carolina have

added a multiracial category (by administrative directives) to school

forms that collect information on race and ethnicity.

At least nine other States are considering legislation to add a

reporting category of multiracial: California, Massachusetts, New

Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin.

In Maryland, a bill adding a multiracial category was passed by the

legislature in 1995, but was voted by the Governor; a task force has

been established to review the issue.

State law enacted thus far specify that it is a Federal agency does

not accept the multiracial data as a category, then the reporting State

agency is to reclassify individuals identified as multiracial to racial

or ethnic classifications approved by the Federal agency according to

the racial and ethnic distribution of the general population. The term

``general population'' is not defined in the legislation.

3.5.2 Public Sentiment

Some advocacy groups support adding a category called

``multiracial.'' They represent, for the most part, persons who

identify themselves as multiracial, or person who want to identify

their children as multiracial in cases where the parents are of

different races. Some are highly critical of an approach that allows

for the reporting of only one racial category. This approach, they say,

forces children to deny the racial heritage of one parent, thereby

adversely affecting self-esteem, sense of family, pride, and

psychological well-being. (OMB Federal Register notice, 1995)

Public comment on how to allow for the reporting of more than one

race has ranged from suggestions for a specific category called

``multiracial'' (without further specification of races) to a

preference for identification by listing more than one race (with or

without a category called ``multiracial''). (OMB Federal Register

notice, 1995.)

In some respects, the consequences of adding a multiracial category

or of providing an option to report more than one race might be minor.

At present, less than 2 percent of the general U.S. population

identifies as ``multiracial'' when the category is included as a

response option. Thus, it would be less disturbing to historical data

series to add a multiracial category soon, while the size of the

population reporting would cause only small changes in data series. A

decade or two from now, the multiracial population will be larger and

the disturbance to historical series correspondingly greater.

[[Page 36904]]

3.6 Measurement Concerns and Opportunities Related to Reporting More

Than One Race

3.61 Meeting Legislative and Program Needs

Many Federal agencies use data on race and ethnicity for policy

development, program evaluation, and civil rights monitoring and

enforcement. A number of these agencies are concerned that adding a new

multiracial category, or allowing individuals to report more than one

race, could affect the comparability and historical continuity of data

series that they rely on to meet their mandates or missions. Some of

the concern is related to uncertainty about how the new data (if a new

multiracial category were provided) would be reported or how the

multiple responses (if respondents were allowed to report more than one

race) would be tabulated. For example, in the employment area,

representatives of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)

have indicated that adding a multiracial category or using an

instruction that permits reporting more than one race could affect the

historical comparability of data used for resolving complaints and

charges as well as for research, making it difficult particularly to

analyze trends.

Other Federal agencies that measure and report on various

conditions suggest that the interest in the reporting of multiracial

information reflects a growing phenomenon that will have to be

addressed sooner or later. In the health field, for example, it is

important to collect comprehensive data about the racial heritage of

individuals. Studies have indicated that rates of low birth weight,

very low birth weight, pre-term delivery, and small-for-gestational-

age--key indicators of children's health status--were highest when both

parents were Black, followed by rates for children with Black mother/

White father, White mother/Black father, and both parents White.

(Carter-Pokras and LaViest, 1996) In the context of health research, a

Federal standard that permitted the reporting of more than one race

could better accommodate efforts to identify individuals at high risk

for certain medical conditions.

Another example of reporting more than one race is provided by the

National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) which since 1982 has been

collecting responses on more than one race through the use of a two-

part question. The first allows respondents to select the race of races

with which they identify from among those listed on a hand card.

Persons who identify more than one race are given a follow-up question

which asks them to pick the race that best describes them, and the

information from both questions is entered into the person's electronic

record. In the surveys that were fielded through 1996, only the first

two races circled in the first question and the race that best

described the respondent are available for analysis. (The 1997 redesign

of the NHIS enables the inclusion of up to five of the races reported

in the first question, as well as the race that best describes the

respondent.) For persons who reported multiple races, information on

the race the best describes them (i.e., that race obtained from the

follow-up question) is used to prepare statistics for NHIS

publications.

However, an analysis of the data from the first NHIS question asked

of multiracial persons (see Table 3.11) revealed the following:

From 1982-1994, an average of 1.4 percent, nearly 1,500

persons out of a sample of 100,000 per year, reported more than one

race in the NHIS. The annual proportion of persons reporting multiple

races ranged from 1.2 to 1.8 percent.

For person reporting more than one race, the most commonly

reported combination was White and Aleut, Eskimo, or American Indian

(55 percent).

About 11.4 percent of respondents who reported more than

one race did not select a single race that best represented their

background. This group represents 0.2 percent of the total population.

BILLING CODE 3110-01-M

[[Page 36905]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09JY97.011

BILLING CODE 3110-01-C

[[Page 36906]]

3.6.2 Defining and Using the Term ``Multiracial''

A Federal standard adding a ``multiracial'' category would have to

address issues of terminology and definition as well as the issue of

whether or not data on specific races would be collected in addition.

3.6.2.1 Definition of ``Multiracial''

In the five States that have enacted ``multiracial'' legislation,

the laws call for use of the term ``multiracial.'' (The same is true in

several other States where legislation is pending.) Georgia, Indiana,

and Michigan have defined ``multiracial'' as involving parents of

different races. In pending legislation, California defines the term

``multiracial'' as meaning an individual whose biological parents,

grandparents, or great-grandparents are of more than one race.

The research findings on the terminology preferred by persons of

more than one race are inconclusive. The May 1995 CPS Supplement on

Race and Ethnicity indicates that almost the same percentage of

multiracial persons preferred the term ``multiracial'' (28.4 percent )

as stated ``no preference'' (27.8 percent); ``Mixed race'' was

preferred by 16.0 percent, ``More than one race'' by 6.0 percent, and

``Biracial'' by 5.7 percent.

Other evidence about terminology comes from a study sponsored by

the National Center for Health Statistics involving women whose parents

were of different races. The mail and telephone survey interviewed 763

women, some of whom were of mixed racial or Hispanic background, who

had had a baby within the preceding three years. Among the respondents,

393 had parents of different races, 149 had one Hispanic parent, and

221 had parents who were either both Hispanic or non-Hispanic and who

were of the same race. The study found that the women were more likely

to enter two or more specific races than to use a term like

``multiracial.'' (Cantor et al., 1997)

If the Federal Standard were to provide for the use of a

``multiracial'' category, it would be necessary not only to agree on

the definition but also to communicate the instructions clearly to

respondents as well as interviewers. More emphasis would need to be

placed on drafting instructions. The experiences of the States in

trying to define the term and the data from the CPS Supplement and the

NCS suggest that some confusion exists about the meaning of

``multiracial.'' Absent a generally accepted understanding of the term,

confusion could be expected if a ``multiracial'' category were to be

listed among the response options. Most Americans are probably of mixed

ancestry, depending on how ancestry is defined, and could confuse

ancestry or ethnicity with race. (Also see the discussion in Chapter 4

regarding the concepts of race and ancestry, in regard to the Hispanic

population.)

3.6.2.2 Using a Stand-Alone ``Multiracial or Biracial'' Category or

Including a Follow-up Question

The research results indicate that between 1.0 and 1.5 percent of

respondents select a multiracial category when offered the opportunity

to do so. Providing an option to report by means of a multiracial

category with no follow-up question would be responsive to persons who

do not want to choose between their different racial heritages.

However, since respondents would not be asked to specify their races,

it would not be possible to tabulate the responses in the current

categories. Concerns about historical continuity of data would not be

addressed. While refraining from such a tabulation would be in keeping

with self-identification, the responses would provide information of

limited utility, particularly for use in health research.

By contrast, a follow-up question would enable the data to be

tabulated in the current categories for purposes of historical

continuity and trend analysis. Further, with the additional detail, the

effects on data for certain groups could be minimized. With a follow-up

question, research results suggest that a large percentage of

``multiracial'' responses could be classified into the categories that

have been used since 1997.

A related option would be to use a multiracial category with a

write-in. Doing so would take up less space but require more coding

than a follow-up question. Conversely, using a follow-up question that

specified race categories would take up more space but require less

coding.

Another option involves the use of the ``Other race'' category, as

in the decennial census, with a multiracial example. However, the use

of this category is offensive to some respondents, and multiracial

individuals still would be unable to self-identity in the manner they

have requested. With an ``Other race'' category, a greater amount of

coding would be required for the variety of responses.

3.6.3 Using a ``Mark One or More'' or a ``Mark All That Apply''

Instruction in the Race Question

Approximately 0.5 percent of respondents to self-administered

surveys, including the 1990 census, already select more than one race,

even when asked to select only one. Allowing individuals to report more

than one race could increase the accuracy of these data, eliminate some

inconsistencies in reporting of race, and improve response rates.

For many Federal agencies, the consequences of implementing the

reporting of more than one race could be expected to vary depending on

the extent to which responses could be tabulated consistently in

accordance with existing racial categories that have been used to meet

current legislative mandates. (National Research Council, 1996) If

information from multiple responses can be tabulated to the current

classifications, the potential for disruption of historical series

important to data users would likely be reduced. In particular, such

disruption could be minimized if information from persons who have

marked multiple boxes could be used to tabulate responses in the race

categories currently specified in Directive No. 15. Implementing ``mark

one or more'' or ``mark all that apply'' approaches would be less

burdensome than having to code data from write-ins. The CPS Supplement

found that many people provided write-ins that represented ethnicity

rather than races, a factor that would unnecessarily increase

processing costs. Either of the multiple response approaches could be

expected to reduce this type of misunderstanding about the information

being asked. Moreover, lengthy definitions of terms would not be

needed, whereas if a ``multiracial'' category were used, instructions

would be needed and the wording of the instructions would be extremely

important.

3.6.4 Issues Related to Primary and Secondary Data Collections

In many cases, the Federal Government collects data through primary

data collections, as in censuses and longitudinal surveys. In primary

data collections, agencies rely on essentially two methods for

collecting information: by self-identification or by observer

identification, which is based on the observer's perception of the most

appropriate category in which to report an individual.

With self-identification, individuals would be able to report

multiracial backgrounds. In the case of observer

[[Page 36907]]

identification, however, the observer would have little basis for a

realistic assessment of a person's racial background. In this case, a

multiple race response option that called for identification of the

particular races (including instructions to ``mark all that apply'')

could pose significant data quality problems. This is true today to

some extent. For example, American Indians who do not live on or near a

reservation are often classified as White or Hispanic.

In other instances, the Federal Government uses secondary data

collection, as when it obtains data from institutions and

administrative records. Examples include aggregate data collected from

colleges and universities on the race and ethnicity of students or

degree recipients, or on persons conducting research supported by

Federal grants. Reporting could become more burdensome for institutions

if individuals who initially provide data to the university were using

a multiple response approach. The primary collectors also would need

guidance on how to aggregate the raw data into categories specified in

the Federal standard.

3.7 Some Implications of Allowing the Reporting of More Than One Race

3.7.1 Possible Effects on Reporting by Particular Population Groups

Data available from the CPS Supplement, the NCS, and the RAETT

uniformly indicate that adding a multiracial option--whether by means

of a multiracial category or providing for multiple-response options--

had little effect on the numbers of people who reported as White or as

Black. On the other hand, adding a multiracial category had a

substantial effect on the reporting in specific racial categories, such

as the American Indian (in the CPS Supplement) and the Alaska Native

and the Asian and Pacific Islander populations (in the NCS and RAETT).

As noted in section 3.4.1, the Bureau of the Census was able to

tabulate substantial percentages of the multiracial responses in the

RAETT in the present Directive No. 15 categories using a procedure

called the ``historical series'' approach. (However, there still may be

some differences remaining.) Whether this ability to tabulate the data

could apply in other contexts needs further investigation.

To the extent that providing a multiracial or a multiple-race

response option can change reporting, the affected population could

experience some consequences. In the case of the American Indian

population, for example, the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian

Health Service provide assistance to persons who can prove descent from

a member of a federally recognized tribe. Tribal governments have

expressed concern that the addition of a multiracial category could

affect their ability to identify their members. In the case of health

statistics, adding a multiracial category could mean that fewer

American Indians/Alaska Natives would be counted for both numerators

(number of births to American Indian/Alaska Native mothers) and

denominators (total number of American Indian/Alaska Natives). (Carter-

Pokras, LaViest, 1996; Hahn, 1992)

3.7.2 Tabulation of Multiple Responses

Whether or not OMB modifies Directive No. 15, some respondents will

report more than one race. It is important to ensure that the data are

treated uniformly. Accordingly, attention needs to be given to

establishing rules for tabulating multiple responses to the race

question both for purposes of historical comparability and to ensure

consistency across Federal agencies.

An algorithm could be used to tabulate responses in the racial

categories that are used currently. For example, one option would be to

tabulate responses from a multiracial category in proportion to the

distributions for the current single-race categories: with a population

of 80 Whites, 10 Asians, and 10 multiracial individuals, the resulting

numbers would be 89 Whites and 11 Asians. This algorithm would not

change the relative sizes of the single-race categories. However, the

tabulation would be arbitrary and could misrepresent the multiracial

respondents (if for instance the 10 respondents in the multiracial

category were the children of Asian/White unions). (National Research

Council, 1996) Moreover, even if this method of tabulation would

suffice for some purposes, there are others in which it would be

necessary to deal with individual records.

Data from the decennial censuses suggest that the way in which

children born into interracial families are identified on the race item

does not follow the race and ethnicity distribution of the population.

Thus, no simple algorithm could assign a single race based on the races

of the parents that adequately matches the race now reported for the

children. For instance, while only 12 percent of the United States

population is Black, 66 percent of the children of Black and White

unions have identified as Black in each census since 1970.

As discussed in section 3.4.1, the Census Bureau developed

procedures to address the reduced reporting of only a single race in

the RAETT that occurred in some targeted samples when a multiracial

category or a multiple-race response option was offered. An algorithm

is used in tabulating all multiple race responses. The historical

series approach tabulates these responses to the Black, the American

Indian and Alaska Native, or the Asian and Pacific Islander category

(and to the Hispanic category in two of the RAETT panels). When both

the White box and either the ``Some other race'' or the ``multiracial''

box were marked, the responses were classified as White. (The extent to

which other agencies might be able to implement a similar

classification procedure would have to be determined.)

This historical series approach tabulated a large percentage of the

multiracial responses in the Directive No. 15 categories. The only

targeted sample in which this tabulation did not appear to produce

results comparable to the single-race reporting in Panel A was the

Alaska Native targeted sample. The historical series noticeably

increased the percentages of American Indian and Alaska Native

respondents on Panel B (which included a multiracial category) and

Panel H (which included a ``mark all that apply'' instruction);

however, the percentages remained lower than on Panel A, which did not

offer a multiracial option.

In the cases of the decennial censuses, the Bureau of the Census

has not tabulated responses of ``Other Race'' in the categories

specified by Directive No. 15. As noted above, however, the Bureau has

developed an algorithm to create a Modified Age-Race-Sex (MARS) file

that tabulates responses in the standard race categories to provide

data comparable to other statistical systems.

In some cases, the Federal Government already is dealing with this

tabulation issue. In Georgia, Indiana, and Michigan--where the

multiracial legislation has general applicability--the requirement to

use a multiracial category affects the collection of data on

registration certificates for births and deaths and on health survey

forms, and it thus affects the reporting of both State and national

statistics by race and ethnicity. The National Center for Health

Statistics has created a ``multiracial'' code for vital records from

States that have passed such legislation. Multiracial persons are coded

by NCHS as ``Other'' and, before analysis, all such entries are

reallocated through an

[[Page 36908]]

imputation method to the standard race categories, consistent with

Directive No. 15. (Carter-Pokras, LaViest, 1996)

A study conducted by the U.S. Department of Education as part of

the review of Directive No. 15 found that when categories such as

``other'' or ``multiracial'' are used, schools typically aggregate

these data into the broad Federal category that is deemed most

appropriate by the school staff before reporting the information to the

Federal Government. (NCES 96-092)

3.7.3 Monetary Costs and Resource Burdens

Efforts were made to obtain estimates of monetary and other

resource costs associated with adding a multiracial response option,

whether by adding a multiracial category or by allowing for multiple

responses to the race question. Several agencies, members of the

Council of Professional Associations on Federal Statistics (COPAFS),

and State and local data users belonging to the Association of Public

Data Users (APDU) provided views.

Some data collections generally would be more costly and difficult

if a multiracial category were added (particularly if the changes

included a combined format for Hispanic ethnicity). There could be

significant costs associated with the disaggregation of the multiracial

category into meaningful population groups for enforcement purposes and

comparability with a large volume of historical data. Instructions that

allowed counting individuals according to more than one race/ethnic

group could make it extremely difficult to perform trend analysis.

Agencies noted that some of these costs would be ongoing rather than

one-time costs.

Costs associated with adding an option to report multiple races

could be expected to vary depending on the reporting technique used. If

a multiracial category involved a write-in option, for instance, and

the responses were assigned to the major groups, the costs for editing

and coding entries could be higher than those for fixed categories.

Classification algorithms would have to be written, tested, and

harmonized across agencies. Further, coding write-in responses could

prove more feasible for major statistical agencies with large data

processing resources, such as the Bureau of the Census, than for

agencies where the collection of racial and ethnic data is only a small

portion of their administrative mandate.

In an informal consultation with BLS staff, COPAFS members

suggested that in some cases a change in Directive No. 15 would

probably mean only minor effects on data systems, Computer-Assisted

Telephone Interviewing software, and sample management systems.

Participants in the discussion noted that a variety of computer-based

analytic tools would have to be reprogrammed. In cases where general

requirements for data collection apply, changes in industry-wide forms

(paper and electronics), electronic data transfer conventions, and

computer programs would be needed. Estimates of time range from two to

three weeks to reprogram and one to two months to re-estimate models.

COPAFS members also were asked about data systems or software that

the organizations would have to revise to accommodate a change. The

responses ranged from ``only minor changes would be needed'' to

``significant changes would be required.'' Members also noted that

changing only the nomenclature from that used in Directive 15 would

have little effect on cost. However, adding an ``Other race'' or a

multiracial category would be both disruptive and costly. Members said

the changes would affect Computer-Assisted Telephone Interviewing

software, forms, electronic reporting systems, and resulting databases.

The cost would be associated with disaggregating the multiracial

category into meaningful groups for enforcement purposes and

comparability with a large volume of historical data. Survey processing

costs would increase due to the additional editing, coding, and keying

of the expanded matrices, and due to the need to redesign the

processing systems to account for the additional data. (Tucker, COPAFS,

1996) One participant said the modifications would be handled as part

of the massive transition from the 1990 Census to the 2000 census,

describing the overall process that occurs once each decade as an

arduous one that could be made more complicated by changes to the

racial and ethnic categories.

In a meeting with data users from State and local organizations,

participants appeared not too concerned about adapting to change.

Unless no changes are made to the decennial census, participants noted,

they have to rewrite their data analysis programs every ten years--in

any event--to conform to the new formats. Participants believed that

costs would not be affected to any great extent. (Tucker, APDU, 1996)

Most participants ultimately favored an option that would allow for

multiple responses to the race question. While recognizing that it

would require more work for analysts and data providers, they believed

it to be the fairest alternative given our Nation's diverse population.

They thought it could be a viable solution, but also expressed interest

in having the Federal Government develop rules for tabulating multiple

race responses. (Tucker, APDU group, 1996)

Several agencies offered dollar estimates for what it would cost to

implement a change in Federal standards that provided for the reporting

of more than one race. These ranged from the tens of thousands into the

millions of dollars, depending on the approach that might be selected

and whether and the extent to which updating of records might be

required.

Chapter 4. A Combined Race and Hispanic Origin Question

4.1 Background

This chapter addresses the issue of whether there should be a

combined race/Hispanic origin question or whether there should be a

separate race question and a separate Hispanic origin question.

Included in this chapter is a summary of findings from research

recently conducted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and by the Bureau

of the Census on the effects of using a combined format instead of

separate questions. The chapter also presents findings from other

relevant research that address the issues associated with a combined

format versus separate questions. These issues include concerns about

data quality that arise when a separate race question and an Hispanic

origin question are used, and approaches that have been tested to

address these data quality concerns.

Directive No. 15 calls for collection of information on persons of

Spanish origin or culture. This information can be collected using two

different formats--either a combined race and Hispanic origin question

or two separate questions, one for race and one for Hispanic origin.

Both approaches are popular among Federal agencies. The Directive also

allows Federal agencies to collect data on race and Hispanic origin

using separate questions and then to present the data in the combined

format.

Even within the same agency, both formats sometimes are used. For

example, almost six out of every ten (56 out of 97) data systems listed

in the Directory of Minority Health and Human Services Data Resources

which collect information on Hispanic origin do so using the separate

format (Department of Health and Human Services, 1995). Slightly more

than half (8 out of 15) of the principal data collections at the

Department of Justice

[[Page 36909]]

use the combined format. At the Bureau of Labor Statistics in the

Department of Labor, some of the surveys use a combined format while

others use two separate questions. The Office for Civil Rights in the

Department of Education, the Office of Civil Rights in the Department

of Health and Human Services, the Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission (EEOC), and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) use the

combined format. In its National Health Interview Survey, the National

Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) uses two questions for race (check

one or more groups, followed by selection of the group which best

represents the person's race), and one question for Hispanic origin.

The combined format tends to be preferred for data collections using

observer identification.

Briefly, according to the Directive, if data on race and ethnicity

are collected using two separate questions, the racial categories are:

--American Indian or Alaskan Native

--Asian or Pacific Islander

--Black

--White

And, for ethnicity:

--Hispanic origin

--Not of Hispanic origin

If the combined format is used, the categories are:

--American Indian or Alaskan Native

--Asian or Pacific Islander

--Black, not of Hispanic origin

--Hispanic

--White, not of Hispanic origin

The separate questions are designed to provide Hispanic origin

information for all persons. The combined format does not allow for

collection of Hispanic origin data if a person reports in the American

Indian or Alaskan Native category, or in the Asian or Pacific Islander

category.1 When a combined question is used, data on the

race of Hispanics is not collected (see OMB Federal Register notice,

June 1994).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ In the 1990 Census, 8.4 percent of American Indians or

Alaskan Natives and 4 percent of Asian or Pacific Islanders were

also Hispanic.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4.2 Concepts of Race and Ethnicity

The decennial census categories used to classify data on ``race''

and ``ethnicity'' have changed depending on what were considered the

population groups of interest. In the 20th century, data on race and

ethnicity have sometimes been coded together and at other times have

been coded separately. Census researchers Bates, de la Puente, DeMaio,

and Martin (1994) have characterized as ``official ambivalence'' the

Federal uncertainty ``about whether Spanish-speaking groups should be

considered a separate race, or not.'' For example, the census

classified Mexicans as a ``race'' in 1930, ``White'' during 1940-1970,

and ``of any race'' they chose in 1980 and 1990. In 1940, persons of

Spanish mother tongue were reported. In 1950 and 1960, persons of

Spanish surname were recorded. By 1960, all Mexicans, Puerto Ricans and

other persons of ``Latin descent'' were counted as ``White'' unless

they were ``definitely Negro, Indian, or some other race (as determined

by observation).'' In 1970, a separate question on Hispanic origin was

added to the census long form (sent to one-sixth of households). In

1980 and 1990, a separate question on Hispanic origin was asked of all

households.

Directive No. 15 defines ``race'' and ``ethnicity'' as separate

concepts. Harry Scarr, then Acting Director of the U.S. Bureau of the

Census, stated in his testimony to the Congressional Subcommittee on

Census, Statistics and Postal Personnel in April 1993, that although

the Bureau treated race and ethnicity as two separate concepts, the

``Bureau recognizes that the concepts are not mutually exclusive * *

*'' (Scarr, 1994:7). Dr. Scarr's observation has been well documented

in the research literature.\2\

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ For example see, Gerber and de la Puente (1996), Kissam et

al. (1993), Rodriguez (1994), and McKay and de la Puente (1995).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Opinion researchers report that respondents in general--not only

Hispanics--find questions about ``race'' and ``ethnicity'' to be among

the most difficult to answer. Tom Smith of the National Opinion

Research Center concludes, ``Of all basic background variables,

ethnicity is probably the most difficult to measure'' (Smith, 1983).

Although respondents may give different answers to questions about each

concept, researchers have observed that respondents do not understand

conceptual differences among terms such as ``race,'' ``ethnicity,'' and

others such as ``ancestry'' or ``national origin.'' For example, NCHS

reports that interviewers for one of their surveys found that ``* * *

the phrase `origin or descent' was poorly understood by many

respondents.'' (Drury, 1980). Researchers at the Bureau of the Census

remark that notions of ``race,'' ``ethnicity,'' and ``ancestry'' are

not clearly distinguished from one another by census respondents and

some persons perceive the race, Hispanic origin, and ancestry questions

as asking for the same information.\3\

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ This observation has been documented in recent cognitive

studies. For example, see Gerber and de la Puente (1995) and McKay

and de la Puente (1995).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The terms ``race'' and ``ethnicity'' are frequently used

interchangeably in the United States. For most daily and practical

applications, Hispanics are considered a race. Definitions of race and

ethnicity in major dictionaries often have considerable overlap. Crews

and Bindon (1991) suggest that race is a sociological construct that is

poorly correlated with any measurable biological or cultural phenomenon

other than the amount of melanin in an individual's skin. Ethnicity,

they suggest, is a sociocultural construct that is often, if not

always, coextensive with discernible features of a group of

individuals. Crews and Bindon cite several human biologists who have

advocated vigorously for use of the term ``ethnic group'' instead of

``race'' to question hypotheses about the genetic and cultural

constituency of groups.

This fluid demarcation between the concepts of ``race'' and

``ethnicity'' and the notion that these concepts are a sociocultural

construct observed among the general population is also applicable to

the Hispanic population. In fact, researchers such as Clara Rodriguez

(1992) have noted that this view of race and ethnicity is consistent

with the views of many Hispanics. Numerous other researche

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.