[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 210 (Thursday, October 30, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58782-58790]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-28653]
[[Page 58781]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part II
Office of Management and Budget
_______________________________________________________________________
Revisions to the Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on
Race and Ethnicity; Notices
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 210 / Thursday, October 30, 1997 /
Notices
[[Page 58782]]
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: 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 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
[[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
