Federal
Register
Notice
October 30, 1997
OFFICE
OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
Revisions
to the 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:
Notice of decision.
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: <</OMB/fedreg/>>.
Federal Register Notices are also available electronically from the U.S. Government
Printing Office web site: <<http://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 <<gpoaccess@gpo.gov>>.
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 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 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/twps0018.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 record keeping, 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 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.
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:
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":
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."
he "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
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.
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 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. |