Revisions to the Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity

SUMMARY: By this Notice, OMB is announcing its decision concerning the

revision of Statistical Policy Directive No. 15, Race and Ethnic

Standards for Federal Statistics and Administrative Reporting. OMB is

accepting the recommendations of the Interagency Committee for the

Review of the Racial and Ethnic Standards with the following two

modifications: (1) the Asian or Pacific Islander category will be

separated into two categories--``Asian'' and ``Native Hawaiian or Other

Pacific Islander,'' and (2) the term ``Hispanic'' will be changed to

``Hispanic or Latino.''

The revised standards will have five minimum categories for data on

race: American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African

American, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and White. There

will be two categories for data on ethnicity: ``Hispanic or Latino''

and ``Not Hispanic or Latino.''

The Supplementary Information in this Notice provides background

information on the standards (Section A); a summary of the

comprehensive review process that began in July 1993 (Section B); a

brief synopsis of the public comments OMB received on the

recommendations for changes to the standards in response to the July 9,

1997, Federal Register Notice (Section C); OMB's decisions on the

specific recommendations of the Interagency Committee (Section D); and

information on the work that is underway on tabulation issues

associated with the reporting of multiple race responses (Section E).

The revised standards for the classification of Federal data on

race and ethnicity are presented at the end of this notice; they

replace and supersede Statistical Policy Directive No. 15.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The new standards will be used by the Bureau of the

Census in the 2000 decennial census. Other Federal programs should

adopt the standards as soon as possible, but not later than January 1,

2003, for use in household surveys, administrative forms and records,

and other data collections. In addition, OMB has approved the use of

the new standards by the Bureau of the Census in the ``Dress

Rehearsal'' for Census 2000 scheduled to be conducted in March 1998.

ADDRESSES: Please send correspondence about OMB's decision to:

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

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

Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

20503; fax: (202) 395-7245.

ELECTRONIC AVAILABILITY AND ADDRESSES: This Federal Register Notice and

the related OMB Notices of June 9, 1994, August 28, 1995, and July 9,

1997, are available electronically from the OMB Homepage on the World

Wide Web: http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/EOP/OMB/html/fedreg.html>>.

Federal Register Notices are also available electronically from the

U.S. Government Printing Office web site: www.access.gpo.gov/

su__docs/aces/aces140.html>>. Questions about accessing the Federal

Register online via GPO Access may be directed to telephone (202) 512-

1530 or toll free at (888) 293-6498; to fax (202) 512-1262; or to E-

mail [email protected]>>.

This Notice is available in paper copy from the OMB Publications

Office, 725 17th Street, NW, NEOB, Room 2200, Washington, D.C. 20503;

telephone (202) 395-7332; fax (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; fax (202) 395-7245.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

For more than 20 years, the current standards in OMB's Statistical

Policy Directive No. 15 have provided a common language to promote

uniformity and comparability for data on race and ethnicity for the

population groups specified in the Directive. They were developed in

cooperation with Federal agencies to provide consistent data on race

and ethnicity throughout the Federal Government. Development of the

data standards stemmed in large measure from new responsibilities to

enforce civil rights laws. Data were needed to monitor equal access in

housing, education, employment, and other areas, for populations that

historically had experienced discrimination and differential treatment

because of their race or ethnicity. The standards are used not only in

the decennial census (which provides the data for 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 categories represent a social-

political construct designed for collecting data on the race and

ethnicity of broad population groups in this country, and are not

anthropologically or scientifically based.

B. Comprehensive 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

criticisms, 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

Interagency Committee developed the following principles to govern the

review process:

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

[[Page 58783]]

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 principal objective of the review has been to enhance the

accuracy of the demographic information collected by the Federal

Government. The starting point for the review was the minimum set of

categories for data on race and ethnicity that have provided

information for more than 20 years 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 Personnel, held four hearings that included 27 witnesses,

focusing particularly on the 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 a period of 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 July 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 on

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 discussed the review process with various interested groups

and have made presentations at numerous 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 to monitor civil rights

enforcement and program implementation. Research was undertaken to

provide an objective assessment of the data quality issues associated

with various approaches to collecting data on race and ethnicity. To

that end, the Interagency Committee's Research Working Group, 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

how to collect data on persons who identify themselves as

``multiracial''; whether to combine race and Hispanic origin in one

question or have separate questions on race and Hispanic origin;

whether to combine the concepts of race, ethnicity, and ancestry;

whether to change the terminology used for particular categories; and

whether to add 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 proposed studies both in surveys

using in-person or telephone interviews and in self-administered

questionnaires, such as the decennial census, which are filled out by

the respondent and mailed back. Cognitive interviews were conducted

with various groups to provide guidance on the wording of the questions

and the instructions for the tests and studies.

The research agenda included several major national tests, the

results of which are discussed throughout the Interagency Committee's

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

Statistical Policy Directive No. 15: (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

[[Page 58784]]

and Ethnicity, available from BLS, 2 Massachusetts Avenue, N.E., Room

4915, Postal Square Building, Washington, D.C. 20212, or 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 the 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, D.C. 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 (NCES 96-092). The report is available electronically

at http://nces.ed.gov/pubs/96092.html>>. Single paper copies may be

obtained from NCES, 555 New Jersey, NW, Washington, D.C. 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 on race and

ethnicity in administrative records such as that reported on birth

certificates and recorded on death certificates.

On July 9, 1997, OMB published a Federal Register Notice (62 FR

36874-36946) containing the Interagency Committee's Report to the

Office of Management and Budget on the Review of Statistical Policy

Directive No. 15. The Notice made available for comment the Interagency

Committee's recommendations for how OMB should revise Directive No. 15.

The report consists of six chapters. Chapter 1 provides a brief history

of Directive No. 15, a summary of the issues 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.

C. Summary of Comments Received on the Interagency Committee's

Recommendations

In response to the July 9, 1997, Federal Register Notice, OMB

received approximately 300 letters (many of them hand written) on a

variety of issues, plus approximately 7000 individually signed and

mailed, preprinted postcards on the issue of classifying data on Native

Hawaiians, and about 500 individually signed form letters from members

of the Hapa Issues Forum in support of adopting the recommendation for

multiple race reporting. Some of the 300 letters focused on a single

recommendation of particular interest to the writer, while other

letters addressed a number of the recommendations. The preponderance of

the comments were from individuals. Each comment was considered in

preparing OMB's decision.

1. Comments on Recommendations Concerning Reporting More Than One Race

The Interagency Committee recommended that, when self-

identification is used, respondents who wish to identify their mixed

racial heritage should be able to mark or select more than one of the

racial categories originally specified in Directive No. 15, but that

there should not be a ``multiracial'' category. This recommendation to

report multiple races was favorably received by most of those

commenting on it, including associations and organizations such as the

American Medical Association, the National Education Association, the

National Council of La Raza, and the National Committee on Vital and

Health Statistics, as well as all Federal agencies that responded.

Comments from some organizations, such as the NAACP Legal Defense and

Educational Fund, the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law,

and the Equal Employment Advisory Council, were receptive to the

recommendation on multiple race responses, but expressed reservations

pending development of tabulation methods to ensure the utility of

these data. The recommendation was also supported by many of the

advocacy groups that had earlier supported a ``multiracial'' (box)

category, such as the Association of MultiEthnic Americans and its

affiliates nationwide. Several individuals wrote in support of

``multiple race'' reporting, basing their comments on a September 1997

article, ``What Race Am I?'' in Mademoiselle magazine, which urged its

readers ``to express an opinion on whether or not a `Multiracial'

category should be included in all federal recordkeeping, including the

2000 census.'' A few comments specifically favoring multiple race

responses suggested that respondents should also be asked to indicate

their primary racial affiliation in order to facilitate the tabulation

of responses. A handful of comments on multiple race reporting

suggested that individuals with both Hispanic and non-Hispanic

heritages be permitted to mark or select both categories (see

discussion below).

A few comments, in particular some from state agencies and

legislatures, opposed any multiple race reporting because of possible

increased costs to collect the information and implementation problems.

Comments from the American Indian tribal governments also were opposed

to the recommendation concerning reporting more than one race. A number

of the comments that supported multiple race responses also expressed

concern about the cost and burden of collecting the information to meet

Federal reporting requirements, the schedule for implementation, and

how the data would be tabulated to meet the requirements of legislative

redistricting

[[Page 58785]]

and enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. A few comments expressed

support for categories called ``human,'' or ``American''; several

proposed that there be no collection of data on race.

2. Comments on Recommendation for Classification of Data on Native

Hawaiians

The Interagency Committee recommended that data on Native Hawaiians

continue to be classified in the Asian or Pacific Islander category.

This recommendation was opposed by the Hawaiian congressional

delegation, the 7,000 individuals who signed and sent preprinted yellow

postcards, the State of Hawaii departments and legislature, Hawaiian

organizations, and other individuals who commented on this

recommendation. Instead, the comments from these individuals supported

reclassifying Native Hawaiians in the American Indian or Alaska Native

category, which they view as an ``indigenous peoples'' category

(although this category has not been considered or portrayed in this

manner in the standards). Native Hawaiians, as the descendants of the

original inhabitants of what is now the State of Hawaii, believe that

as indigenous people they should be classified in the same category as

American Indians and Alaska Natives. On the other hand, the American

Indian tribal governments have opposed such a reclassification,

primarily because they view the data obtained from that category as

being essential for administering Federal programs for American

Indians. Comments from the Native Hawaiians also noted the Asian or

Pacific Islander category provides inadequate data for monitoring the

social and economic conditions of Native Hawaiians and other Pacific

Islander groups. Because the Interagency Committee had recommended

against adding categories to the minimum set of categories, requesting

a separate category for Native Hawaiians was not viewed as an option by

those who commented.

3. Comments on Recommendation Concerning Classification of Data on

Central and South American Indians

The Interagency Committee recommended that data for Central and

South American Indians be included in the American Indian or Alaska

Native category. Several comments from the American Indian community

opposed this recommendation. Moreover, comments from some Native

Hawaiians pointed out what they believed to be an inconsistency in the

Interagency Committee's recommendation to include in the American

Indian or Alaska Native category descendants of Central and South

American Indians--persons who are not original peoples of the United

States--if Native Hawaiians were not to be included.

4. Comments on Recommendation Not to Add an Arab or Middle Eastern

Ethnic Category

The Interagency Committee recommended that an Arab or Middle

Eastern ethnic category should not be added to the minimum standards

for all reporting of Federal data on race and ethnicity. Several

comments were received in support of having a separate category in

order to have data viewed as necessary to monitor discrimination

against this population.

5. Comments on Recommendations for Terminology

Comments on terminology largely supported the Interagency

Committee's recommendations to retain the term ``American Indian,'' to

change ``Hawaiian'' to ``Native Hawaiian,'' and to change ``Black'' to

``Black or African American.'' There were a few requests to include

``Latino'' in the category name for the Hispanic population.

D. OMB's Decisions

This section of the Notice provides information on the decisions

taken by OMB on the recommendations that were proposed by the

Interagency Committee. The Committee's recommendations addressed

options for reporting by respondents, formats of questions, and several

aspects of specific categories, including possible additions, revised

terminology, and changes in definitions. In reviewing OMB's decisions

on the recommendations for collecting data on race and ethnicity, it is

useful to remember that these decisions:

retain the concept that the standards provide a minimum

set of categories for data on race and ethnicity;

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;

underscore that self-identification is the preferred means

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

except in instances where observer identification is more practical

(e.g., completing a death certificate);

do not identify or designate certain population groups as

``minority groups'';

continue the policy that the categories are not to be used

for determining the eligibility of population groups for participation

in any Federal programs;

do 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; and

do not tell an individual who he or she is, or specify how

an individual should classify himself or herself.

In arriving at its decisions, OMB took into account not only the

public comment on the recommendations published in the Federal Register

on July 9, 1997, but also the considerable amount of information

provided during the four years of this review process, including public

comments gathered from hearings and responses to two earlier OMB

Notices (on June 9, 1994, and August 28, 1995). The OMB decisions

benefited greatly from the participation of the public that served as a

constant reminder that there are real people represented by the data on

race and ethnicity and that this is for many a deeply personal issue.

In addition, the OMB decisions benefited from the results of the

research and testing on how individuals identify themselves that was

undertaken as part of this review process. This research, including

several national tests of alternative approaches to collecting data on

race and ethnicity, was developed and conducted by the professional

statisticians and analysts at several Federal agencies. They are to be

commended for their perseverance, dedication, and professional

commitment to this challenging project.

OMB also considered in reaching its decisions the extent to which

the recommendations were consistent with the set of principles (see

Section B of the Supplementary Information) developed by the

Interagency Committee to guide the review of this sensitive and

substantively complex issue. OMB believes that the Interagency

Committee's recommendations took into account the principles and

achieved a reasonable balance with respect to statistical issues, data

needs, social concerns, and the personal dimensions of racial and

ethnic identification. OMB also finds that the Committee's

recommendations are consistent with the principal objective of the

review, which is to enhance the accuracy of the demographic information

collected by the Federal Government by having categories for data on

race and ethnicity that will enable the capture of information about

the increasing diversity of our Nation's population while at the same

time respecting each individual's dignity.

[[Page 58786]]

As indicated in detail below, OMB accepts the Interagency

Committee's recommendations concerning reporting more than one race,

including the recommendation that there be no category called

``multiracial,'' the formats and sequencing of the questions on race

and Hispanic origin, and most of the changes to terminology.

OMB does not accept the Interagency Committee's recommendations

concerning the classification of data on the Native Hawaiian population

and the terminology for Hispanics, and it has instead decided to make

the changes that follow.

Native Hawaiian classification.--OMB does not accept the

recommendation concerning the continued classification of Hawaiians in

the Asian or Pacific Islander category. Instead, OMB has decided to

break apart the Asian or Pacific Islander category into two

categories--one called ``Asian'' and the other called ``Native Hawaiian

or Other Pacific Islander.'' As a result, there will be five categories

in the minimum set for data on race.

The ``Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander'' category will be

defined as ``A person having origins in any of the original peoples of

Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands.'' (The term ``Native

Hawaiian'' does not include individuals who are native to the State of

Hawaii by virtue of being born there.) In addition to Native Hawaiians,

Guamanians, and Samoans, this category would include the following

Pacific Islander groups reported in the 1990 census: Carolinian,

Fijian, Kosraean, Melanesian, Micronesian, Northern Mariana Islander,

Palauan, Papua New Guinean, Ponapean (Pohnpelan), Polynesian, Solomon

Islander, Tahitian, Tarawa Islander, Tokelauan, Tongan, Trukese

(Chuukese), and Yapese.

The ``Asian'' category will be defined as ``A person having origins

in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the

Indian subcontinent including, for example, Cambodia, China, India,

Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and

Vietnam.''

The Native Hawaiians presented compelling arguments that the

standards must facilitate the production of data to describe their

social and economic situation and to monitor discrimination against

Native Hawaiians in housing, education, employment, and other areas.

Under the current standards for data on race and ethnicity, Native

Hawaiians comprise about three percent of the Asian and Pacific

Islander population. By creating separate categories, the data on the

Native Hawaiians and other Pacific Islander groups will no longer be

overwhelmed by the aggregate data of the much larger Asian groups.

Native Hawaiians will comprise about 60 percent of the new category.

The Asian, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander population groups

are well defined; moreover, there has been experience with reporting in

separate categories for the Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander

population groups. The 1990 census included ``Hawaiian,'' ``Samoan,''

and ``Guamanian'' as response categories to the race question. In

addition, two of the major tests conducted as part of the current

review (the NCS and the RAETT) used ``Hawaiian'' and/or ``Native

Hawaiian,'' ``Samoan,'' ``Guamanian,'' and ``Guamanian or Chamorro'' as

response options to the race question. These factors facilitate

breaking apart the current category.

Terminology for Hispanics.--OMB does not accept the recommendation

to retain the single term ``Hispanic.'' Instead, OMB has decided that

the term should be ``Hispanic or Latino.'' Because regional usage of

the terms differs--Hispanic is commonly used in the eastern portion of

the United States, whereas Latino is commonly used in the western

portion--this change may contribute to improved response rates.

The OMB decisions on the Interagency Committee's specific

recommendations are presented below:

(1) OMB accepts the following recommendations concerning reporting

more than one race:

When self-identification is used, a method for reporting

more than one race should be adopted.

The method for respondents to report more than one race

should take the form of multiple responses to a single question and not

a ``multiracial'' category.

When a list of races is provided to respondents, the list

should not contain a ``multiracial'' category.

Based on research conducted so far, two recommended forms

for the instruction accompanying the multiple response question are

``Mark one or more * * *'' and ``Select one or more * * *''

If the criteria for data quality and confidentiality are

met, provision should be made to report, at a minimum, the number of

individuals identifying with more than one race. Data producers are

encouraged to provide greater detail about the distribution of multiple

responses.

The new standards will be used in the decennial census,

and other data producers should conform as soon as possible, but not

later than January 1, 2003.

(2) OMB accepts the following recommendations concerning a combined

race and Hispanic ethnicity question:

When self-identification is used, the two question format

should be used, with the race question allowing the reporting of more

than one race.

When self-identification is not feasible or appropriate, a

combined question can be used and should include a separate Hispanic

category co-equal with the other categories.

When the combined question is used, an attempt should be

made, when appropriate, to record ethnicity and race or multiple races,

but the option to indicate only one category is acceptable.

(3) OMB accepts the following recommendations concerning the

retention of both reporting formats:

The two question format should be used in all cases

involving self-identification.

The current combined question format should be changed and

replaced with a new format which includes a co-equal Hispanic category

for use, if necessary, in observer identification.

(4) OMB accepts the following recommendation concerning the

ordering of the Hispanic origin and race questions:

When the two question format is used, the Hispanic origin

question should precede the race question.

(5) OMB accepts the following recommendation concerning adding Cape

Verdean as an ethnic category:

A Cape Verdean ethnic category should not be added to the

minimum data collection standards.

(6) OMB accepts the following recommendation concerning the

addition of an Arab or Middle Eastern ethnic category:

An Arab or Middle Eastern ethnic category should not be

added to the minimum data standards.

(7) OMB interprets the recommendation not to add any other

categories to mean the expansion of the minimum set to include new

population groups. The OMB decision to break apart the ``Asian or

Pacific Islander'' category does not create a category for a new

population group.

(8) OMB accepts the following recommendation concerning changing

the term ``American Indian'' to ``Native American'':

The term American Indian should not be changed to Native

American.

(9) OMB accepts the following recommendation concerning changing

the term ``Hawaiian'' to ``Native Hawaiian'':

[[Page 58787]]

The term ``Hawaiian'' should be changed to ``Native

Hawaiian.''

(10) OMB does not accept the recommendation concerning the

continued classification of Native Hawaiians in the Asian or Pacific

Islander category.

OMB has decided to break apart the Asian or Pacific

Islander category into two categories--one called ``Asian'' and the

other called ``Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander.'' As a

result, there are five categories in the minimum set for data on race.

The ``Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander'' category

is defined as ``A person having origins in any of the original peoples

of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands.''

The ``Asian'' category is defined as ``A person having

origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia,

or the Indian subcontinent including, for example, Cambodia, China,

India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands,

Thailand, and Vietnam.''

(11) OMB accepts the following recommendations concerning the use

of ``Alaska Native'' instead of ``Eskimo'' and ``Aleut'': ``Alaska

Native'' should replace the term ``Alaskan Native.''

Alaska Native should be used instead of Eskimo and Aleut.

The Alaska Native response option should be accompanied by

a request for tribal affiliation when possible.

(12) OMB accepts the following recommendations concerning the

classification of Central and South American Indians:

Central and South American Indians should be classified as

American Indian.

The definition of the ``American Indian or Alaska Native''

category should be modified to include the original peoples from

Central and South America.

In addition, OMB has decided to make the definition for

the American Indian or Alaska Native category more consistent with the

definitions of the other categories.

(13) OMB accepts the following recommendations concerning the term

or terms to be used for the name of the Black category:

The name of the Black category should be changed to

``Black or African American.''

The category definition should remain unchanged.

Additional terms, such as Haitian or Negro, can be used if

desired.

(14) OMB decided to modify the recommendations concerning the term

or terms to be used for Hispanic:

The term used should be ``Hispanic or Latino.''

The definition of the category should remain unchanged.

In addition, the term ``Spanish Origin,'' can be used if

desired.

Accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget adopts and issues

the revised minimum standards for Federal data on race and ethnicity

for major population groups in the United States which are set forth at

the end of this Notice.

Topics for Further Research

There are two areas where OMB accepts the Interagency Committee's

recommendations but believes that further research is needed: (1)

multiple responses to the Hispanic origin question and (2) an ethnic

category for Arabs/Middle Easterners.

Multiple Responses to the Hispanic Origin Question.--The

Interagency Committee recommended that respondents to Federal data

collections should be permitted to report more than one race. During

the most recent public comment process, a few comments suggested that

the concept of ``marking more than one box'' should be extended to the

Hispanic origin question. Respondents are now asked to indicate if they

are ``of Hispanic origin'' or ``not of Hispanic origin.'' Allowing

individuals to select more than one response to the ethnicity question

would provide the opportunity to indicate ethnic heritage that is both

Hispanic and non-Hispanic.

The term ``Hispanic'' refers to persons who trace their origin or

descent to Mexico, Puerto Rico, Cuba, Central and South America, and

other Spanish cultures. While there has been considerable public

concern about the need to review Directive No. 15 with respect to

classifying individuals of mixed racial heritage, there has been little

comment on reporting both an Hispanic and a non-Hispanic origin. On

many Federal forms, Hispanics can also express a racial identity on a

separate race question. In the decennial census, individuals who

consider themselves part Hispanic can also indicate additional

heritages in the ancestry question.

On one hand, it can be argued that allowing individuals to mark

both categories in the Hispanic origin question would parallel the

instruction ``to mark (or select) one or more'' racial categories.

Individuals would not have to choose between their parents' ethnic

heritages, and movement toward an increasingly diverse society would be

recognized.

On the other hand, because the matter of multiple responses to the

Hispanic ethnicity question was not raised in the early phases of the

public comment process, no explicit provisions were made for testing

this approach in the research conducted to inform the review of

Directive No. 15. While a considerable amount of research was focused

on how to improve the response rate to the Hispanic origin question, it

is unclear whether and to what extent explicitly permitting multiple

responses to the Hispanic origin question would affect nonresponse to

the race question or hamper obtaining more detailed data on Hispanic

population groups.

Information on the possible impact of any changes on the quality of

the data has been an essential element of the review. While the effects

of changes in the Hispanic origin question are unknown, they could

conceivably be substantial. Thus, OMB has decided not to include a

provision in the standards that would explicitly permit respondents to

select both ``Hispanic origin'' and ``Not of Hispanic Origin'' options.

OMB believes that this is an item for future research. In the meantime,

the ancestry question on the decennial census long form does provide

respondents who consider themselves part Hispanic to write in

additional heritages.

Research on an Arab/Middle Easterner category.--During the public

comment process, OMB received a number of requests to add an ethnic

category for Arabs/Middle Easterners so that data could be obtained

that could be useful in monitoring discrimination. The public comment

process indicated, however, that there was no agreement on a definition

for this category. The combined race, Hispanic origin, and ancestry

question in the RAETT, which was designed to address requests that were

received from groups for establishing separate categories, did not

provide a solution.

While OMB accepted the Interagency's Committee recommendation not

to create a new category for this population group, OMB believes that

further research should be done to determine the best way to improve

data on this population group. Meanwhile, the write-ins to the ancestry

question on the decennial census long form will continue to provide

information on the number of individuals who identify their heritage as

Arab or Middle Easterner.

E. Tabulation Issues

The revised standards retain the concept of a minimum set of

categories for Federal data on race and ethnicity and make possible at

the same time the collection of data to reflect the diversity of our

Nation's population. Since the

[[Page 58788]]

Interagency Committee's recommendation concerning the reporting of more

than one race was made available for public comment, the focus of

attention has been largely on how the data would be tabulated. Because

of the concerns expressed about tabulation methods and our own view of

the importance of this issue, OMB committed to accelerate the work on

tabulation issues when it testified in July 1997 on the Interagency

Committee's recommendations.

A group of statistical and policy analysts drawn from the Federal

agencies that generate or use these data has spent the past few months

considering the tabulation issues. Although this work is still in its

early stages, some preliminary guidance can be shared at this time. In

general, OMB believes that, consistent with criteria for

confidentiality and data quality, the tabulation procedures used by the

agencies should result in the production of as much detailed

information on race and ethnicity as possible.

Guidelines for tabulation ultimately must meet the needs of at

least two groups within the Federal Government, with the overriding

objective of providing the most accurate and informative body of data.

The first group is composed of those government officials charged with

carrying out constitutional and legislative mandates, such as

redistricting legislatures, enforcing civil rights laws, and monitoring

progress in anti-discrimination programs. (The legislative

redistricting file produced by the Bureau of the Census, also known as

the Public Law 94-171 file, is an example of a file meeting such

legislative needs.) The second group consists of the staff of

statistical agencies producing and analyzing data that are used to

monitor economic and social conditions and trends.

Many of the needs of the first group can be met with an initial

tabulation that provides, consistent with standards for data quality

and confidentiality, the full detail of racial reporting; that is, the

number of people reporting in each single race category and the number

reporting each of the possible combinations of races, which would add

to the total population. Depending on the judgment of users, the

combinations of multiple responses could be collapsed. One method would

be to provide separate totals for those reporting in the most common

multiple race combinations and to collapse the data for other less

frequently reported combinations. The specifics of the collapsed

distributions must await the results of particular data collections. A

second method would be to report the total selecting each particular

race, whether alone or in combination with other races. These totals

would represent upper bounds on the size of the populations who

identified with each of the racial categories. In some cases, this

latter method could be used for comparing data collected under the old

standards with data collected under the new standards. It is important

that users with the same or closely related responsibilities adopt the

same tabulation method. Regardless of the method chosen for collapsing

multiple race responses, the total number reporting more than one race

must be made available, if confidentiality and data quality

requirements can be met, in order to ensure that any changes in

response patterns resulting from the new standards can be monitored

over time.

Meeting the needs of the second group (those producing and

analyzing statistical data to monitor economic and social conditions

and trends), as well as some additional needs of the first group, may

require different tabulation procedures. More research must be

completed before guidelines that will meet the requirements of these

users can be developed. A group of statistical and policy experts will

review a number of alternative procedures and provide recommendations

to OMB concerning these tabulation requirements by Spring 1998. Four of

the areas in which further exploration is needed are outlined below.

Equal employment opportunity and other anti-discrimination

programs have traditionally provided the numbers of people in the

population by selected characteristics, including racial categories,

for business, academic, and government organizations to use in

evaluating conformance with program objectives. Because of the

potentially large number of categories that may result from application

of the new standards, many with very small numbers, it is not clear how

this need for data will be best satisfied in the future.

The numbers of people in distinct groups based on

decennial census results are used in developing sample designs and

survey controls for major demographic surveys. For example, the

National Health Interview Survey uses census data to increase samples

for certain population groups, adjust for survey non-response, and

provide weights for estimating health outcomes at the national level.

The impact of having data for many small population groups with

multiple racial heritages must be explored.

Vital statistics data include birth and death rates for

various population groups. Typically the numerator (number of births or

deaths) is derived from administrative records, while the denominator

comes from intercensal population estimates. Birth certificate data on

race are likely to have been self reported by the mother. Over time,

these data may become comparable to data collected under the new

standards. Death certificate data, however, frequently are filled out

by an observer, such as a mortician, physician, or funeral director.

These data, particularly for the population with multiple racial

heritages, are likely to be quite different from the information

obtained when respondents report about themselves. Research to define

comparable categories to be used in both numerators and denominators is

needed to assure that vital statistics are as accurate and useful as

possible.

More generally, statistical indicators are often used to

measure change over time. Procedures that will permit meaningful

comparisons of data collected under the previous standards with those

that will be collected under the new standards need to be developed.

The methodology for tabulating data on race and ethnicity must be

carefully developed and coordinated among the statistical agencies and

other Federal data users. Moreover, just as OMB's review and decision

processes have benefited during the past four years from extensive

public participation, we expect to discuss tabulation methods with data

users within and outside the Federal Government. OMB expects to issue

additional guidance with respect to tabulating data on race and

ethnicity by Fall 1998.

Sally Katzen,

Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

Standards for Maintaining, Collecting, and Presenting Federal Data

on Race and Ethnicity

This classification provides a minimum standard for maintaining,

collecting, and presenting data on race and ethnicity for all Federal

reporting purposes. The categories in this classification are social-

political constructs and should not be interpreted as being scientific

or anthropological in nature. They are not to be used as determinants

of eligibility for participation in any Federal program. The standards

have been developed to provide a common language for uniformity and

comparability in the collection and use of data on race and ethnicity

by Federal agencies.

[[Page 58789]]

The standards have five categories for data on race: American

Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African American, Native

Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and White. There are two categories

for data on ethnicity: ``Hispanic or Latino,'' and ``Not Hispanic or

Latino.''

1. Categories and Definitions

The minimum categories for data on race and ethnicity for Federal

statistics, program administrative reporting, and civil rights

compliance reporting are defined as follows:

American Indian or Alaska Native. A person having origins in any

of the original peoples of North and South America (including

Central America), and who maintains tribal affiliation or community

attachment.

Asian. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of

the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent including,

for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia,

Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam.

Black or African American. A person having origins in any of the

black racial groups of Africa. Terms such as ``Haitian'' or

``Negro'' can be used in addition to ``Black or African American.''

Hispanic or Latino. A person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican,

Cuban, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or

origin, regardless of race. The term, ``Spanish origin,'' can be

used in addition to ``Hispanic or Latino.''

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander. A person having

origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or

other Pacific Islands.

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

Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa.

Respondents shall be offered the option of selecting one or more

racial designations. Recommended forms for the instruction accompanying

the multiple response question are ``Mark one or more'' and ``Select

one or more.''

2. Data Formats

The standards provide two formats that may be used for data on race

and ethnicity. Self-reporting or self-identification using two separate

questions is the preferred method for collecting data on race and

ethnicity. In situations where self-reporting is not practicable or

feasible, the combined format may be used.

In no case shall the provisions of the standards be construed to

limit the collection of data to the categories described above. The

collection of greater detail is encouraged; however, any collection

that uses more detail shall be organized in such a way that the

additional categories can be aggregated into these minimum categories

for data on race and ethnicity.

With respect to tabulation, the procedures used by Federal agencies

shall result in the production of as much detailed information on race

and ethnicity as possible. However, Federal agencies shall not present

data on detailed categories if doing so would compromise data quality

or confidentiality standards.

a. Two-Question Format

To provide flexibility and ensure data quality, separate questions

shall be used wherever feasible for reporting race and ethnicity. When

race and ethnicity are collected separately, ethnicity shall be

collected first. If race and ethnicity are collected separately, the

minimum designations are:

Race:

--American Indian or Alaska Native

--Asian

--Black or African American

--Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

--White

Ethnicity:

--Hispanic or Latino

--Not Hispanic or Latino

When data on race and ethnicity are collected separately, provision

shall be made to report the number of respondents in each racial

category who are Hispanic or Latino.

When aggregate data are presented, data producers shall provide the

number of respondents who marked (or selected) only one category,

separately for each of the five racial categories. In addition to these

numbers, data producers are strongly encouraged to provide the detailed

distributions, including all possible combinations, of multiple

responses to the race question. If data on multiple responses are

collapsed, at a minimum the total number of respondents reporting

``more than one race'' shall be made available.

b. Combined Format

The combined format may be used, if necessary, for observer-

collected data on race and ethnicity. Both race (including multiple

responses) and ethnicity shall be collected when appropriate and

feasible, although the selection of one category in the combined format

is acceptable. If a combined format is used, there are six minimum

categories:

--American Indian or Alaska Native

--Asian

--Black or African American

--Hispanic or Latino

--Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

--White

When aggregate data are presented, data producers shall provide the

number of respondents who marked (or selected) only one category,

separately for each of the six categories. In addition to these

numbers, data producers are strongly encouraged to provide the detailed

distributions, including all possible combinations, of multiple

responses. In cases where data on multiple responses are collapsed, the

total number of respondents reporting ``Hispanic or Latino and one or

more races'' and the total number of respondents reporting ``more than

one race'' (regardless of ethnicity) shall be provided.

3. Use of the Standards for Record Keeping and Reporting

The minimum standard categories shall be used for reporting as

follows:

a. Statistical Reporting

These standards shall be used at a minimum for all federally

sponsored statistical data collections that include data on race and/or

ethnicity, 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. Any

other variation will have to be specifically authorized by the Office

of Management and Budget (OMB) through the information collection

clearance process. In those cases where the data collection is not

subject to the information collection clearance process, a direct

request for a variance shall be made to OMB.

b. General Program Administrative and Grant Reporting

These standards shall be used for all Federal administrative

reporting or record keeping requirements that include data on race and

ethnicity. Agencies that cannot follow these standards must request a

variance from OMB. Variances will be considered if the agency can

demonstrate that it is not reasonable for the primary reporter to

determine racial or ethnic background in terms of the specified

categories, that determination of racial or ethnic background is not

critical to the administration of the program in question, or that the

specific program is directed to only one or a limited number of racial

or ethnic groups.

c. Civil Rights and Other Compliance Reporting

These standards shall be used by all Federal agencies in either the

separate or combined format for civil rights and

[[Page 58790]]

other compliance reporting from the public and private sectors and all

levels of government. Any variation requiring less detailed data or

data which cannot be aggregated into the basic categories must be

specifically approved by OMB for executive agencies. More detailed

reporting which can be aggregated to the basic categories may be used

at the agencies' discretion.

4. Presentation of Data on Race and Ethnicity

Displays of statistical, administrative, and compliance data on

race and ethnicity shall use the categories listed above. The term

``nonwhite'' is not acceptable for use in the presentation of Federal

Government data. It shall not be used in any publication or in the text

of any report.

In cases where the standard categories are considered inappropriate

for presentation of data on particular programs or for particular

regional areas, the sponsoring agency may use:

a. The designations ``Black or African American 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;

b. The designations ``White,'' ``Black or African American,'' and

``All Other Races'' when the distinction among the majority race, the

principal minority race, and other races is appropriate; or

c. The designation of a particular minority race or races, and the

inclusion of ``Whites'' with ``All Other Races'' when such a collective

description is appropriate.

In displaying detailed information that represents a combination of

race and ethnicity, the description of the data being displayed shall

clearly indicate that both bases of classification are being used.

When the primary focus of a report is on two or more specific

identifiable groups in the population, one or more of which is racial

or ethnic, it is acceptable to display data for each of the particular

groups separately and to describe data relating to the remainder of the

population by an appropriate collective description.

5. Effective Date

The provisions of these standards are effective immediately for all

new and revised record keeping or reporting requirements that include

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

reporting requirements shall be made consistent with these standards at

the time they are submitted for extension, or not later than January 1,

2003.

[FR Doc. 97-28653 Filed 10-29-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3110-01-P