Federal
Register, June 9, 1994
OFFICE
OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
Standards
for the Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity
AGENCY:
Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
ACTION:
Advance Notice of Proposed Review and Possible Revision of OMB's
Statistical Policy Directive No. 15, Race and Ethnic Standards for
Federal Statistics and Administrative Reporting; and Announcement
of Public Hearings on Directive No. 15.
SUMMARY:
During the past few years, OMB's Statistical Policy Directive No.
15, Race and Ethnic Standards for Federal Statistics and Administrative
Reporting, has come under increasing criticism. These standards
are used governmentwide for recordkeeping, collection, and presentation
of data on race and ethnicity in Federal statistical activities
and program administrative reporting. Since the standards were first
issued 17 years ago, citizens who report information about themselves
and users of the information collected by Federal agencies have
indicated that the categories set forth in Directive No. 15 are
becoming less useful in reflecting the diversity of our Nation's
population. Accordingly, OMB currently is undertaking a review of
the racial and ethnic categories in the Directive. (See Appendix
for the text of Directive No. 15.)
ISSUES
FOR COMMENT: OMB is interested in receiving comments from the
public on (1) the adequacy of the current categories, (2) principles
that should govern any proposed revisions to the standards, and
(3) specific suggestions for changes that have been offered by various
individuals and organizations.
ADDRESS:
Written comments on these issues may be addressed to Katherine K.
Wallman, Chief, Statistical Policy, Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20503.
DATE:
To ensure consideration, written comments must be provided to OMB
on or before September 1, 1994.
PUBLIC
HEARINGS: To provide additional opportunities to hear views
from the public on Directive No. 15, OMB has scheduled a series
of hearings, as follows:
Date/Time |
Location |
July
7, 1994
10:00 a.m. |
Thomas
P. O'Neill, Jr.
Federal Building Auditorium
10 Causeway Street
Boston, Massachusetts
(Local arrangements contact: Harold Wood, Bureau of the Census
Regional Office, 617-424-0500) |
July
11, 1994
10:00 a.m. |
State
Capitol Building
Old Supreme Court Chambers
200 East Colfax Street
Denver, Colorado
(Local arrangements contact: Jerry O'Donnell, Bureau of the
Census Regional Office, 303-969-7750) |
July
14, 1994
10:00 a.m. |
Federal
Reserve Bank of San Francisco
Interpretive Center
101 Market Street
San Francisco, California
(Local arrangements contact: Vicki Cooper- Murphy, Bureau of
Labor Statistics Regional Office, 415-744-7166) |
If
you wish to present an oral statement at any of these hearings,
please contact the Statistical Policy Office (at the address below)
by telephone or fax (do no use electronic mail) by July 1, 1994,
and provide the following information: your name, address, telephone
and fax numbers, and the name of the organization which you represent.
After July 1, please call the appropriate local arrangements contact
identified above to be placed on the hearing schedule. Persons testifying
are asked to bring three (3) copies of their statement to the hearing.
Written statements will also be accepted at the hearings. Depending
on the number of persons who request to present their views, the
hearings in each location may be extended to the following day.
ADDRESS:
Requests to be placed on the hearing schedule should be directed
to the Statistical Policy Office, Office of Management and Budget,
725 17th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20503. Telephone: 202-395-3093.
Fax number: 202-395-7245.
ELECTRONIC
AVAILABILITY AND COMMENTS: This document is available on the
Internet via anonymous File Transfer Protocol (ftp) from ftp.census.gov
as /pub/docs/ombdir15.txt in ASCII format (do not use any capital
letters in the file name). For those who do not have ftp capability,
the document can also be obtained through the gopher (gopher gopher.census.gov)
and HTTP servers (accessible by mosaic, cello, lynx, etc.), or by
sending an electronic mail message to ftpmail@census.gov with the
following lines in the message area:
open
get/pub/docs/ombdir15.txt
quit
Comments
may be sent via electronic mail to an OMB x.400 mail address, which
is /s=ombdir15/c=us/admd=telemail/prmd=gov+eop. The Internet address
is ombdir15@eop.sprint.com. Comments sent to this address will be
included as part of the official record. Do not use this electronic
mail address to have your name included in the hearing schedule.
For
assistance using electronic mail, ftp, gopher, or HTTP, please contact
your system administrator. You may also want to send an electronic
message to access@census.gov with a subject of HELP and nothing
in the message area. You will receive by return electronic mail
"FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions)" and more information on how to
access the services on census.gov.
FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Suzann Evinger, Statistical Policy
Office, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, Telephone: (202) 395-3093.
SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:
Background
Development
of Directive No. 15.--Developmental work on the categories in
OMB's Directive No. 15 originated in the activities of the Federal
Interagency Committee on Education (FICE), which was created by Executive
Order in 1964. More than 30 Federal agencies were members or regular
participants in FICE's work to improve coordination of educational
activities at the Federal level. The FICE Subcommittee on Minority
Education completed a report in April 1973 on higher education for
Chicanos, Puerto Ricans, and American Indians and sent it to then
Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) Caspar Weinberger
for comment. He showed particular interest in the portion of the report
that deplored the lack of useful data on racial and ethnic groups.
Further, he encouraged the implementation of the report's second recommendation
which called for the coordinated development of common definitions
for racial and ethnic groups, and the Federal collection of racial
and ethnic enrollment and other educational data on a compatible and
nonduplicative basis.
In
June 1974, FICE created an Ad Hoc Committee on Racial and Ethnic
Definitions whose 25 members came from Federal agencies with major
responsibilities for the collection or use of racial and ethnic
data. This Ad Hoc Committee was charged with developing terms and
definitions for the collection of a broad range of racial and ethnic
data by Federal agencies on a compatible and nonduplicative basis.
It took on the task of determining and describing the major groups
to be identified by Federal agencies when collecting and reporting
racial and ethnic data. While the Ad Hoc Committee recognized that
there is frequently a relationship between language and ethnicity,
it made no attempt to develop a means of identifying persons on
the basis of their primary language. The Ad Hoc Committee wanted
to ensure that whatever categories the various agencies used 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. In addition, the Ad Hoc Committee
thought 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 major category.
In
the spring of 1975, FICE completed its work on a draft set of categories,
and an agreement was reached among OMB, the General Accounting Office
(GAO), the HEW's 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 recordkeeping 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 ethnic categories contained
in its circular on standards and guidelines for Federal statistics.
Some agencies published the draft revision for public comment. Following
the receipt of comments and incorporation of suggested modifications,
OMB on May 12, 1977, promulgated for use by all Federal agencies
the racial and ethnic categories now contained in Directive No.
15, the text of which appears in the Appendix. This meant that for
the first time, standard categories and definitions would be used
at the Federal level in reporting and presentation of data on racial
and ethnic groups. While OMB requires the agencies to use these
racial and ethnic categories, it should be emphasized that the Directive
permits collection of additional detail if the more detailed categories
can be aggregated into the basic racial and ethnic classifications
set forth in the Directive.
As
demonstrated by this brief history, the present categories were
developed through a deliberate cooperative process; participation
of the agencies that use the categories was an essential element
in that process.
1988
Proposed Revision.--The standards promulgated in 1977 have not
been revised since that time. OMB did, however, 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. While
this proposal was supported by many multi-racial and multi-ethnic
groups and some educational institutions, it drew strong opposition
from 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, and from large corporations.
Respondents
who opposed the change asserted that the present system provided
adequate data, that any changes would disrupt historical continuity,
and that the proposed change 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 minority populations. Because
it was evident from all of these comments that this proposal would
not be widely accepted, no changes were made at the time to Directive
No. 15.
1993
Hearings.--During 1993, Congressman Thomas C. Sawyer, Chairman
of the House Subcommittee on Census, Statistics, and Postal Personnel,
held a series of four hearings (April 14, June 30, July 29, and
November 3) on the measurement of race and ethnicity in the decennial
census. OMB testified at the hearing on July 29. Information on
these hearings may be obtained by contacting the Subcommittee at
(202) 226-7523.
Workshop.--As
a first step in undertaking its review of the racial and ethnic
categories, 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. Convened on February 17-18, 1994, the workshop included
representatives of Federal agencies, academia, social science research,
interest groups, private industry, and local school districts. A
report on the workshop will be forthcoming from CNSTAT.
Interagency
Committee. OMB has established an Interagency Committee for
the Review of the Racial and Ethnic Standards, whose members represent
the many and diverse Federal needs for racial and ethnic data, including
statutory requirements for such data. The Committee will be an integral
part of this review process, by assisting OMB in the evaluation
and assessment of proposed changes, for example, on the quality
of resulting data and costs of implementation.
Suggested
Changes and Criticisms
Your comments
are invited on any aspect of Directive No. 15; if you are satisfied
with the existing racial and ethnic categories, it would be useful
for OMB to know that also. You may also wish to comment on the following
suggestions and criticisms about the Directive that OMB received during
the recent hearings and the CNSTAT workshop:
--
adding a "multi-racial" 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;
-- adding an "other" category for individuals of multi- racial
backgrounds and those who want the option of specifically stating
a unique identification;
-- providing an open-ended question to solicit information on
race and ethnicity, or combining concepts of race, ethnicity,
and ancestry;
-- changing the name of the "Black" category to "African American";
-- changing the name of the "American Indian or Alaskan Native"
category to "Native American";
-- including Native Hawaiians as a separate category or as part
of a "Native American" category (which would also include American
Indians, Aleuts, and Eskimos), rather than as part of the "Asian
or Pacific Islander" category;
-- including Hispanic as a racial designation, rather than as
a separate ethnic category; and
-- adding a "Middle Easterner" category to the list of ethnic
designations.
The
critiques of the current standard and the proposals for change include
as well a number of other concerns. For example:
--
The categories and their definitions have been criticized for failing
to be comprehensive and scientific. As cases in point, using the
present definitions there are no proper categories for the original
Indian population of South America or for Australian aborigines.
-- 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
disagree, stating that the current definitions of the racial and
ethnic categories have served their uses well and thus should
be maintained.
-- The identification of an individual's racial and ethnic "category"
often is a subjective determination, rather than one that is objective
and factual, no matter what the process for arriving at the categories.
Consequently, it has been suggested that it may no longer be appropriate
to consider the categories as a "statistical standard."
-- The issue of self-identification of race and ethnicity versus
third party identification also has been raised. This issue will
merit increased attention if multi-racial and/or multi-ethnic
categories or identification procedures are adopted.
-- Some have proposed eliminating the five-category combined racial
and ethnic classification in favor of separate, mutually exclusive,
racial and ethnic categories. The combined format now permitted
by the Directive is particularly suitable for observer identification,
and is used by the Department of Health and Human Service's Office
for Civil Rights, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,
and the Office of Federal Contract Compliance because it facilitates
aggregating data on the minority groups with which these agencies
are concerned. The use of the Hispanic category in the combined
format does not, however, provide information on the race of those
selecting it. As a result, the combined format makes it impossible
to distribute persons of Hispanic ethnicity by race and, therefore,
reduces the utility of the four racial categories by excluding
from them persons who would otherwise be included. Thus, the two
formats currently permitted by Directive No. 15 for collecting
racial and ethnic data do not provide comparable data.
-- The perceived importance of historical comparability of racial
and ethnic data has been questioned by some. Since the names of
the categories have changed in the decennial censuses, and agencies
use different methods even internally to collect the data, there
is less continuity in racial and ethnic data than many believed.
As a result, it has been suggested that this review of Directive
No. 15 should have a more forward-looking approach, rather than
being bound by past history.
-- Some have suggested that consideration be given to collecting
racial and ethnic data using "categories for response" that can
be decoupled from "categories for reporting data." For example,
the response categories could permit responses reflecting multiple
origins; later these data would be aggregated into reporting categories
following a set of standards and guidelines to make the reported
data more useful for various program, administrative, and statistical
purposes.
-- There have also been suggestions that the classification of
persons by race and ethnicity be eliminated entirely. Proponents
of this view assert that the categories merely serve to perpetuate
an over-emphasis on race in America and contribute to the fragmentation
of our society.
Federal
Uses of Racial and Ethnic Data
Given
the broad range of suggestions and criticisms, OMB believes that a
comprehensive review of all the categories is warranted. It is important
to stress comprehensive, because these categories are not used simply
for statistical purposes. Thus, while the use of the racial and ethnic
categories in the collection of decennial census data is most widely
known -- and has most often been cited in the 1993 hearings and in
the correspondence OMB receives -- the categories are also used by
Federal agencies for civil rights enforcement and for program administrative
reporting. Some important examples of the Federal Government's uses
of racial and ethnic data are:
- enforcing
the requirements of the Voting Rights Act;
- reviewing
State redistricting plans;
- collecting
and presenting population and population characteristics data,
labor force data, education data, and vital and health statistics;
- establishing
and evaluating Federal affirmative action plans and evaluating
affirmative action and discrimination in employment in the private
sector;
- monitoring
the access of minorities to home mortgage loans under the Home
Mortgage Disclosure Act;
- enforcing
the Equal Credit Opportunity Act;
- monitoring
and enforcing desegregation plans in the public schools;
- assisting
minority businesses under the minority business development programs;
and
- monitoring
and enforcing the Fair Housing Act.
These
examples of statutory requirements are mentioned to foster public
awareness and understanding of the Federal Government's many different
needs for racial and ethnic data. Appreciation of the intended uses
of the data helps determine what categories make sense. Further,
these uses need to be taken into account when changes to the categories
are suggested. In any event, OMB believes that it is essential for
the Federal agencies to study the possible effects of any proposed
changes to the categories on the quality and utility of the resulting
data for a multiplicity of purposes.
General
Principles for the Review of the Racial and Ethnic Categories
The critiques
and suggestions for changing Directive No. 15 have underscored the
importance of having a set of general principles to govern the current
review process. The following principles were drafted in cooperation
with Federal agencies serving on the Interagency Committee. Comments
on these principles are welcomed.
- The
racial and ethnic categories set forth in the standard should
not be interpreted as being scientific or anthropological in nature.
- Respect
for individual dignity should guide the processes and methods
for collecting data on race and ethnicity; respondent self-identification
should be facilitated to the greatest extent possible.
- To
the extent practicable, the concepts and terminology should reflect
clear and generally understood definitions that can achieve broad
public acceptance.
- The
racial and ethnic categories should be comprehensive in coverage
and produce compatible, nonduplicated, exchangeable data across
Federal agencies.
- Foremost
consideration should be given to data aggregations by race and
ethnicity that are useful for statistical analysis, program administration
and assessment, and enforcement of existing laws and judicial
decisions, bearing in mind that the standards are not intended
to be used to establish eligibility for participation in any Federal
program.
- While
Federal data needs for racial and ethnic data are of primary importance,
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.
- The
categories should set forth a minimum standard; additional categories
should be permitted provided they can be aggregated to the standard
categories. The number of standard categories should be kept to
a manageable size, as determined by statistical concerns and data
needs.
- A
revised set of categories should be operationally feasible in
terms of burden placed upon respondents and the cost to agencies
and respondents to implement the revisions.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
The
agencies recognize that these principles may in some cases represent
competing goals for the standard. Through the review process, it
will be necessary to balance statistical issues, needs for data,
and social concerns. The application of these principles to guide
the review and possible revision of the standard ultimately should
result in consistent, publicly accepted data on race and ethnicity
that will meet the needs of the government and the public while
recognizing the diversity of the population and respecting the individual's
dignity.
Sally
Katzen
Administrator,
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
APPENDIX
DIRECTIVE NO. 15
RACE AND ETHNIC STANDARDS FOR FEDERAL STATISTICS AND ADMINISTRATIVE
REPORTING
(as adopted on May 12, 1977)
This Directive
provides standard classifications for recordkeeping, collection, and
presentation of data on race and ethnicity in Federal program administrative
reporting and statistical activities. These classifications should
not be interpreted as being scientific or anthropological in nature,
nor should they be viewed as determinants of eligibility for participation
in any Federal program. They have been developed in response to needs
expressed by both the executive branch and the Congress to provide
for the collection and use of compatible, nonduplicated, exchangeable
racial and ethnic data by Federal agencies.
1.
Definitions
The
basic racial and ethnic categories for Federal statistics and program
administrative reporting are defined as follows:
a.
American Indian or Alaskan Native. A person having origins
in any of the original peoples of North America, and who maintains
cultural identification through tribal affiliations or community
recognition.
b. Asian or Pacific Islander. A person having origins in
any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, the
Indian subcontinent, or the Pacific Islands. This area includes,
for example, China, India, Japan, Korea, the Philippine Islands,
and Samoa.
c. Black. A person having origins in any of the black racial
groups of Africa.
d. Hispanic. A person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban,
Central or South American or other Spanish culture or origin,
regardless of race.
e. White. A person having origins in any of the original
peoples of Europe, North Africa, or the Middle East.
2.
Utilization for Recordkeeping and Reporting
To
provide flexibility, it is preferable to collect data on race and
ethnicity separately. If separate race and ethnic categories are
used, the minimum designations are:
When
race and ethnicity are collected separately, the number of White
and Black persons who are Hispanic must be identifiable, and capable
of being reported in that category.
If
a combined format is used to collect racial and ethnic data, the
minimum acceptable categories are:
American
Indian or Alaskan Native
Asian or Pacific Islander
Black, not of Hispanic origin
Hispanic
White, not of Hispanic origin.
The
category which most closely reflects the individual's recognition
in his community should be used for purposes of reporting on persons
who are of mixed racial and/or ethnic origins.
In
no case should the provisions of this Directive be construed to
limit the collection of data to the categories described above.
However, any reporting required which uses more detail shall be
organized in such a way that the additional categories can be aggregated
into these basic racial/ethnic categories.
The
minimum standard collection categories shall be utilized for reporting
as follows:
a.
Civil rights compliance reporting. The categories specified
above will be used by all agencies in either the separate or combined
format for civil rights compliance reporting and equal employment
reporting for both the public and private sectors and for all levels
of government. Any variation requiring less detailed data or data
which cannot be aggregated into the basic categories will have to
be specifically approved by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for executive agencies. More detailed reporting which can
be aggregated to the basic categories may be used at the agencies'
discretion.
b. General program administrative and grant reporting.
Whenever an agency subject to this Directive issues new or revised
administrative reporting or recordkeeping requirements which include
racial or ethnic data, the agency will use the race/ethnic categories
described above. A variance can be specifically requested from
OMB, but such a variance will be granted only if the agency can
demonstrate that it is not reasonable for the primary reporter
to determine the racial or ethnic background in terms of the specified
categories, and that such determination is not critical to the
administration of the program in question, or if the specific
program is directed to only one or a limited number of race/ethnic
groups, e.g., Indian tribal activities.
c. Statistical reporting. The categories described in this
Directive will be used at a minimum for federally sponsored statistical
data collection where race and/or ethnicity is required, except
when: the collection involves a sample of such size that the data
on the smaller categories would be unreliable, or when the collection
effort focuses on a specific racial or ethnic group. A repetitive
survey shall be deemed to have an adequate sample size if the
racial and ethnic data can be reliably aggregated on a biennial
basis. Any other variation will have to be specifically authorized
by OMB through the reports clearance process. In those cases where
the data collection is not subject to the reports clearance process,
a direct request for a variance should be made to OMB.
3.
Effective Date
The
provisions of this Directive are effective immediately for all new
and revised recordkeeping or reporting requirements containing racial
and/or ethnic information. All existing recordkeeping or reporting
requirements shall be made consistent with this Directive at the
time they are submitted for extension, or not later than January
1, 1980.
4.
Presentation of Race/Ethnic Data
Displays
of racial and ethnic compliance and statistical data will use the
category designations listed above. The designation "nonwhite" is
not acceptable for use in the presentation of Federal Government
data. It is not to be used in any publication of compliance or statistical
data or in the text of any compliance or statistical report.
In
cases where the above designations are considered inappropriate
for presentation of statistical data on particular programs or for
particular regional areas, the sponsoring agency may use:
(1)
The designations "Black and Other Races" or "All Other Races," as
collective descriptions of minority races when the most summary
distinction between the majority and minority races is appropriate;
(2)
The designations "White," "Black,"and "All Other Races" when the
distinction among the majority race, the principal minority race
and other races is appropriate; or
(3)
The designation of a particular minority race or races, and the
inclusion of "Whites" with "All Other Races," if such a collective
description is appropriate.
In
displaying detailed information which represents a combination of
race and ethnicity, the description of the data being displayed
must clearly indicate that both bases of classification are being
used.
When
the primary focus of a statistical report is on two or more specific
identifiable groups in the population, one or more of which is racial
or ethnic, it is acceptable to display data for each of the particular
groups separately and to describe data relating to the remainder
of the population by an appropriate collective description.
|