[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 131 (Wednesday, July 9, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36874-36946]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-17664]
[[Page 36873]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part II
Office of Management and Budget
_______________________________________________________________________
Recommendations From the Interagency Committee for the Review of the
Racial and Ethnic Standards to the Office of Management and Budget
Concerning Changes to the Standards for the Classification of Federal
Data on Race and Ethnicity; Notice
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 131 / Wednesday, July 9, 1997 /
Notices
[[Page 36874]]
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
Recommendations From the Interagency Committee for the Review of
the Racial and Ethnic Standards to the Office of Management and Budget
Concerning Changes to the Standards for the Classification of Federal
Data on Race and Ethnicity
AGENCY: Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and
Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
ACTION: Notice and request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: OMB requests comments on the recommendations that it has
received from the Interagency Committee for the Review of the Racial
and Ethnic Standards (Interagency Committee) for changes to OMB's
Statistical Policy Directive No. 15, Race and Ethnic Standards for
Federal Statistics and Administrative Reporting (See Appendix 1 for the
text of the standards in Directive No.15, originally issued in 1977).
The Interagency Committee's report and recommendations, which are
published in Appendix 2 in their entirety, are the result of a four-
year, comprehensive review of the current standards.
DATES: To ensure consideration during the final decision making
process, written comments must be provided to OMB no later than
September 8, 1997.
ADDRESSES: Written comments on the recommendations may be addressed to
Katherine K. Wallman, Chief Statistician, Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, NEOB, Room 10201,
725 17th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20503.
Comments may also be submitted by facsimile to 202-395-7245, or by
electronic mail to [email protected] (please note that ``1'' in
``A1'' is the number one and not the letter ``l''). Be sure to include
your name and complete postal mailing address in the comments sent by
electronic mail. If you submit comments by facsimile or electronic
mail, please do not also submit them by regular mail.
Electronic availability and addresses: This Federal Register
notice, as well as the June 9, 1994 and the August 28, 1995 Federal
Register notices related to the review, are available electronically
from the OMB Homepage on the World Wide Web: <<http://
www.whitehouse.gov/WH/EOP/OMB/html/fedreg.html>>, and in paper copy
from the OMB Publications Office, 727, 17th Street, NW., NEOB, Room
2200, Washington, D.C. 20503, telephone: (202) 395-7332, facsimile:
(202) 395-6137.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Suzann Evinger, Statistical Policy Office, Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, NEOB, Room 10201,
725 17th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20503. Telephone: 202-395-3093.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
The current standards were developed in cooperation with the
Federal agencies to provide consistent and comparable data on race and
ethnicity throughout the Federal government for an array of statistical
and administrative programs. Development of the data standards stemmed
in large measure from new responsibilities to enforce civil rights
laws. Data were needed to monitor equal access to housing, education,
employment opportunities, etc., for population groups that historically
had experienced discrimination and differential treatment because of
their race or ethnicity. The categories that were developed represent a
political-social construct designed to be used in the collection of
data on the race and ethnicity of major broad population groups in this
country, and are not anthropologically or scientifically based. The
standards are used not only in the decennial census (which provides the
``denominator'' for many measures), but also in household surveys, on
administrative forms (e.g., school registration and mortgage lending
applications), and in medical and other research.
The standards provide a minimum set of categories for data on race
and ethnicity. The current standards have four categories for data on
race (American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian or Pacific Islander,
Black, and White) and two categories for data on ethnicity (``Hispanic
origin'' and ``Not of Hispanic origin''). The standards also permit the
collection of more detailed information on population groups provided
that any additional categories can be aggregated into the minimum
standard set of categories. Self-identification is the preferred means
of obtaining information about an individual's race and ethnicity,
except in instances where observer identification more practical (e.g.,
completing a death certificate).
The categories in Directive No. 15 do not identify or designate
certain population groups as ``minority groups.'' As the Directive
explicitly states, these categories are not to be used for determining
the eligibility of population groups for participation in any Federal
programs. Directive No. 15 does not establish criteria or
qualifications (such as blood quantum levels) that are to be used in
determining a particular individual's racial or ethnic classification.
Directive No. 15 does not tell an individual who he or she is, or
specify how an individual should classify himself or herself.
B. Review Process
Particularly since the 1990 census, the standards have come under
increasing criticism from those who believe that the minimum categories
set forth in Directive No. 15 do not reflect the increasing diversity
of our Nation's population that has resulted primarily from growth in
immigration and in interracial marriages. In response to the criticism,
OMB announced in July 1993 that it would undertake a comprehensive
review of the current categories for data on race and ethnicity.
This review has been conducted over the last four years in
collaboration with the Interagency Committee for the Review of the
Racial and Ethnic Standards, which OMB established in March 1994 to
facilitate the participation of Federal agencies in the review. The
members of the Interagency Committee, from more than 30 agencies,
represent the many and diverse Federal needs for data on race and
ethnicity, including statutory requirements for such data.
The principal objective of the review is to enhance the accuracy of
the demographic information collected by the Federal Government. The
starting point for the review was the current minimum set of categories
for data on race and ethnicity that have provided 20 years of
information for a variety of purposes, and the recognition of the
importance of being able to maintain this historical continuity. The
review process has had two major elements: (1) Public comment on the
present standards, which helped to identify concerns and provided
numerous suggestions for changing the standards; and (2) research and
testing related to assessing the possible effects of suggested changes
on the quality and usefulness of the resulting data.
Public input, the first element of the review process, was sought
through a variety of means: (1) During 1993, Congressman Thomas C.
Sawyer, then Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Census, Statistics,
and Postal, held four hearings that included 27 witnesses, focusing
particularly on the
[[Page 36875]]
use of the categories in the 2000 census, (2) At the request of OMB,
the National Academy of Sciences' Committee on National Statistics
(CNSTAT) conducted a workshop in February 1994 to articulate issues
surrounding a review of the categories. The workshop included
representatives of Federal agencies, academia, social science research
institutions, interest groups, private industry, and a local school
district. (A summary of the workshop, Spotlight on Heterogeneity: The
Federal Standards for Racial and Ethnic Classification, is available
from CNSTAT, 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20418.)
(3) On June 9, 1994, OMB published a Federal Register (59 FR 29831-
29835) notice that contained background information on the development
of the current standards and requested public comment on: the adequacy
of current racial and ethnic categories; the principles that should
govern any proposed revisions to the standards; and specific
suggestions for change that had been offered by individuals and
interested groups over the past several years. In response, OMB
received nearly 800 letters. As part of this comment period and to
bring the review closer to the public, OMB also heard testimony from 94
witnesses at hearings held during 1994 in Boston, Denver, San
Francisco, and Honolulu. (4) In an August 28, 1995, Federal Register
(60 FR 44674-44693) notice, OMB provided an interim report on the
review process, including a summary of the comments of the June 1994
Federal Register notice, and offered a final opportunity for comment on
the research to be conducted during 1996. (5) OMB staff have also made
themselves available to discuss the review process with various
interested groups and have made presentations at many meetings.
The second element of the review process involved research and
testing of various proposed changes. The categories in OMB's Directive
No. 15 are used not only to produce data on the demographic
characteristics of the population, but also for civil rights
enforcement and program administration. Research would enable an
objective assessment of the data quality issues associated with various
approaches to collecting data on race and ethnicity. For that reason,
the Interagency Committee's Research Working Group on Racial and Ethnic
Standards, which is co-chaired by the Bureau of the Census and the
Bureau of Labor Statistics, reviewed the various criticisms and
suggestions for changing the current categories, and developed a
research agenda for some of the more significant issues that had been
identified. These issues included collecting and classifying data on
persons who identify themselves as ``multiracial''; combining race and
Hispanic origin in one question or having separate questions on race
and Hispanic origin; combining the concepts of race, ethnicity, and
ancestry; changing the terminology used for particular categories; and
adding new categories to the current minimum set.
Because the mode of data collection can have an effect on how a
person responds, the research agenda addressed the issue of how an
individual responds when an interviewer collects the information (in an
in-person interview or a telephone interview) versus how an individual
responds in a self-administered situation, such as in the decennial
census when a form is filled out and mailed back. In addition,
cognitive research interviews were conducted with various groups to
provide guidance on the wording of the questions and the instructions.
The research agenda included several major national tests during
the last two years, the results of which are discussed throughout the
Interagency Committee's report: (1) In May 1995, the Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS) sponsored a Supplement on Race and Ethnicity to the
Current Population Survey (CPS). The findings were made available in a
1996 report, Testing Methods of Collecting Racial and Ethnic
Information: Results of the Current Population Survey Supplement on
Race and Ethnicity, available from BLS, 2 Massachusetts Avenue, NE.,
Room 4915, Postal Square Building, Washington, DC 20212, by calling
202-606-7375. The results were also summarized in an October 26, 1995,
news release, which is available electronically at <<http://
stats.bls.gov/news.release/ethnic.toc.htm>>. (2) The Bureau of the
Census, as part of its research for the 2000 census, tested alternative
approaches to collecting data on race and ethnicity in the March 1996
National Content Survey (NCS). The Census Bureau published the results
in a December 1996 report, Findings on Questions on Race and Hispanic
Origin Tested in the 1996 National Content Survey; highlights of the
report are available at <<http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/
96natcontentsurvey.html>>. (3) In June 1996, the Census Bureau
conducted the Race and Ethnic Targeted Test (RAETT), which was designed
to permit assessments of effects of possible changes on smaller
populations not reliably measured in national samples, including
American Indians, Alaska Natives, detailed Asian and Pacific Islander
groups (such as Chinese and Hawaiians) and detailed Hispanic groups
(such as Puerto Ricans and Cubans). The Census Bureau released the
results in a May 1997 report, Results of the 1996 Race and Ethnic
Targeted Test; highlights of the report are available at <<http://
www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps-0018.html>>. Single
copies (paper) of the NCS and RAETT reports may be obtained from the
Population Division, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Washington, DC 20233;
telephone 301-457-2402.
In addition to these three major tests, the National Center for
Education Statistics (NCES) and the Office for Civil Rights in the
Department of Education jointly conducted a survey of 1,000 public
schools to determine how schools collect data on the race and ethnicity
of their students and how the administrative records containing these
data are maintained to meet statutory requirements for reporting
aggregate information to the Federal Government. NCES published the
results in a March 1996 report, Racial and Ethnic Classifications Used
by Public Schools. The report is available electronically at <<http://
www.ed.gov/NCES/pubs/98092.html>>. Single paper copies may be obtained
from NCES, 555 New Jersey, NW., Washington, DC 20208-5574, or by
calling 202-219-1442.
The research agenda also included studies conducted by the National
Center for Health Statistics, the Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Health, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to evaluate
the procedures used and the quality of the information in
administrative records on race and ethnicity such as that reported on
birth certificates and recorded on death certificates. Since these data
are used in studies of diseases and of the health and well-being of
major population groups, these studies investigated possible impacts of
suggested changes on data needed for medical and health research.
C. Overview of Interagency Committee Report
This Federal Register notice makes available for comment the
Interagency Committee's recommendations for how OMB should revised
Directive No. 15. These recommendations are elaborated in the
Interagency Committee's Report to the Office of Management and Budget
on the Review of Statistical Policy Directive No. 15 which is published
in its entirety as part of this notice. The report consists of six
chapters. Chapter 1 provides a brief history of Directive No. 15, a
summary of the issues
[[Page 36876]]
considered by the Interagency Committee, a review of the research
activities, and a discussion of the criteria used in conducting the
evaluation. Chapter 2 discusses a number of general concerns that need
to be addressed when considering any changes to the current standards.
Chapters 3 through 5 report the results of the research as they bear on
the more significant suggestions OMB received for changes to Directive
No. 15. Chapter 6 gives the Interagency's Committee's recommendations
concerning the various suggested changes based on a review of public
comments and testimony and the research results.
This notice affords a final opportunity for the public to comment
before OMB acts on the recommendations of the Interagency Committee.
None of the recommendations has been adopted and no interim decisions
have been made concerning them. OMB can modify or reject any of the
recommendations, and OMB has the option of making no changes. The
report and its recommendations are published in this Notice because OMB
believes that they are worthy of public discussion and the OMB's
decision will benefit from obtaining the public's views on the
recommendations. OMB will announce its decision in mid-October 1997, so
that changes, if any, can be incorporated into the questions for the
2000 census ``dress rehearsal,'' which will be conducted in spring
1998.
Issues for Comment
With this notice, OMB, requests comments on the recommendations it
has received from the Interagency Committee for the Review of the
Racial and Ethnic Standards concerning the revision of Statistical
Policy Directive No. 15. These recommendations are contained in Chapter
6 of the Interagency Committee's report.
The complete report is included in this Notice because Chapters 1
through 5 provide both a context and the bases for the Interagency
Committee's recommendations outlined in Chapter 6. As an aid in
evaluating the recommendations, readers may wish to refer to the set of
general principles (see Chapter 1) that were developed at the beginning
of the Directive No. 15 review to govern the process--a process that
has attempted to balance statistical issues, needs for data, social
concerns, and the personal dimensions of racial and ethnic
identification. The committee recognized that these principles may in
some cases represent competing goals for the standard. For example,
having categories that are comprehensive in the coverage of our
National's diverse population (Principle 4) and that would facilitate
self-identification (Principle 2) may not be operationally feasible in
terms of the burden that would be placed upon respondents and the
public and private costs that would be associated with implementation
(Principle 8). The following are just a few examples of questions that
might be considered in assessing the recommendations using the general
principles:
--Do the recommendations provide categories for classifying data on
race and ethnicity that are: generally understood and accepted by the
public (Principle 3); comprehensive in coverage (Principle 4); and
useful for statistical analysis, and for Federal statutory and
programmatic requirements (Principles 5 and 6)?
--Are the recommendations based on sound methodological research
(Principle 9)?
--Do the recommendations take into account continuity of historical
data series (Principle 10)?
As reflected in the general principles, the goal has been to
produce a standard that would result in consistent, publicly accepted
data on race and ethnicity which will meet the needs of the Federal
Government and the public, while recognizing the diversity of the
population and respecting the individual's dignity. We would appreciate
receiving your views and comments on any aspects of the Interagency
Committee's recommendations, as well as on the extent to which the
recommendations were successful in meeting the goals of the governing
principles.
Sally Katzen,
Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
[Directive No. 15]
Appendix 1--Race and Ethnic Standards for Federal Statistics and
Administrative Reporting
[as adopted on May 12, 1977]
This Directive provides standard classifications for record
keeping, collection, and presentation of data on race and ethnicity in
Federal program administrative reporting and statistical activities.
These classifications should not be interpreted as being scientific or
anthropological in nature, nor should they be viewed as determinants of
eligibility for participation in any Federal program. They have been
developed in response to needs expressed by both the executive branch
and the Congress to provide for the collection and use of compatible,
nonduplicated, exchangeable racial and ethnic data by Federal agencies.
1. Definitions
The basic racial and ethnic categories for Federal statistics and
program administrative reporting are defined as follows:
a. American Indian or Alaskan Native. A person having origins in
any of the original peoples of North America, and who maintains
cultural identification through tribal affiliation or community
recognition.
b. Asian or Pacific Islander. A person having origins in any of the
original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, the Indian
subcontinent, or the Pacific Islands. This area includes, for example,
China, India, Japan, Korea, the Philippine Islands, and Samoa.
c. Black. A person having origins in any of the black racial groups
of Africa.
d. Hispanic. A person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or
South American or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race.
e. White. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of
Europe, North Africa, or the Middle East.
2. Utilization for Record keeping and Reporting
To provide flexibility, it is preferable to collect data on race
and ethnicity separately. If separate race and ethnic categories are
used, the minimum designations are:
a. Race:
--American Indian or Alaskan Native
--Asian or Pacific Islander
--Black
--White
b. Ethnicity:
--Hispanic origin
--Not of Hispanic origin
When race and ethnicity are collected separately, the number of White
and Black persons who are Hispanic must be identifiable, and capable of
being reported in that category.
If a combined format is used to collect racial and ethnic data, the
minimum acceptable categories are:
--American Indian or Alaskan Native
--Asian or Pacific Islander
--Black, not of Hispanic origin
--Hispanic
--White, not of Hispanic origin.
The category which most closely reflects the individual's
recognition in his community should be used for purposes of reporting
on persons who are of mixed racial and/or ethnic origins.
In no case should the provisions of this Directive be construed to
limit the collection of data to the categories
[[Page 36877]]
described above. However, any reporting required which uses more detail
shall be organized in such a way that the additional categories can be
aggregated into these basic racial/ethnic categories.
The minimum standard collection categories shall be utilized for
reporting as follows:
a. Civil rights compliance reporting. The categories specified
above will be used by all agencies in either the separate or combined
format for civil rights compliance reporting and equal employment
reporting for both the public and private sectors and for all levels of
government. Any variation requiring less detailed data or data which
cannot be aggregated into the basic categories will have to be
specifically approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
executive agencies. More detailed reporting which can be aggregated to
the basic categories may be used at the agencies' discretion.
b. General program administrative and grant reporting. Whenever an
agency subject to this Directive issues new or revised administrative
reporting or record keeping requirements which include racial or ethnic
data, the agency will use the race/ethnic categories described above. A
variance can be specifically requested from OMB, but such a variance
will be granted only if the agency can demonstrate that it is not
reasonable for the primary reporter to determine the racial or ethnic
background in terms of the specified categories, and that such
determination is not critical to the administration of the program in
question, or if the specific program is directed to only one or a
limited number of race/ethnic groups, e.g., Indian tribal activities.
c. Statistical reporting. The categories described in this
Directive will be used at a minimum for federally sponsored statistical
data collection where race and/or ethnicity is required, except when:
the collection involves a sample of such size that the data on the
smaller categories would be unreliable, or when the collection effort
focuses on a specific racial or ethnic group. A repetitive survey shall
be deemed to have an adequate sample size if the racial and ethnic data
can be reliably aggregated on a biennial basis. Any other variation
will have to be specifically authorized by OMB through the reports
clearance process. In those cases where the data collection is not
subject to the reports clearance process, a direct request for a
variance should be made to OMB.
3. Effective Date
The provisions of this Directive are effective immediately for all
new and revised record keeping or reporting requirements containing
racial and/or ethnic information. All existing record keeping or
reporting requirements shall be made consistent with this Directive at
the time they are submitted for extension, or not later than January 1,
1980.
4. Presentation of Race/Ethnic Data
Displays of racial and ethnic compliance and statistical data will
use the category designations listed above. The designation
``nonwhite'' is not acceptable for use in the presentation of Federal
Government data. It is not to be used in any publication of compliance
or statistical data or in the text of any compliance or statistical
report.
In cases where the above designations are considered inappropriate
for presentation of statistical data on particular programs or for
particular regional areas, the sponsoring agency may use:
(1) The designations ``Black and Other Races'' or ``All Other
Races'', as collective descriptions of minority races when the most
summary distinction between the majority and minority races is
appropriate;
(2) The designations ``White,'' ``Black,'' and ``All Other Races''
when the distinction among the majority race, the principal minority
race and other races is appropriated; or
(3) The designation of a particular minority race or races, and the
inclusion of ``Whites'' with ``All Other Races'', if such a collective
description is appropriate.
In displaying detailed information which represents a combination
of race and ethnicity, the description of the data being displayed must
clearly indicate that both bases of classification are being used.
When the primary focus of a statistical report is on two or more
specific identifiable groups in the population, one or more of which is
racial or ethnic, it is acceptable to display data for each of the
particular groups separately and to describe data relating to the
reminder of the population by an appropriate collective description.
Appendix 2--Report to the Office of Management and Budget on the Review
of Statistical Policy Directive No. 15
Prepared By Interagency Committee for the Review of the Racial and
Ethnic Standards
(Transmittal Memorandum)
May 28, 1997.
Memorandum for Katherine K. Wallman
Chief Statistician, Office of Management and Budget.
From: Interagency Committee for the Review of the Racial and Ethnic
Standards.
Subject: Transmittal of Report and Recommendations on the Review of
Directive No. 15.
We are pleased to transmit to you the attached report that
provides the recommendations of the Interagency Committee for the
Review of the Racial and Ethnic Standards for modifying OMB's
Statistical Policy Directive No. 15, Race and Ethnic Standards for
Federal Statistics and Administrative Reporting. These
recommendations, which are outlined in Chapter 6 of the report,
represent our best technical and professional advice for how these
data standards could better reflect the increasing racial and ethnic
diversity of our Nation's population, while maintaining historical
continuity.
Our recommendations for Directive No. 15 are the product of a
three-year review process that is briefly described in Chapter 1 of
the report. During that time, we developed and carried out a
research program to evaluate various proposals for revising the
standards. Chapter 2 discusses some general concerns relevant to
consideration of any changes in the standards. Chapters 3 through 5
report on the extensive research efforts, including three national
tests, that have been conducted to test alternative approaches for
questions to collect data on race and ethnicity. The Interagency
Committee's recommendations, presented in Chapter 6, are based on
our evaluation of the research results and consideration of related
public comments and testimony.
We hope that the Office of Management and Budget will find this
report with its accompanying recommendations informative and helpful
in making its decision on what changes to adopt, if any, in the
Federal standards for reporting data on race and ethnicity.
Attachment
Report to the Office of Management and Budget on the Review of
Statistical Policy Directive No. 15
Table of Contents
Chapter 1. Introduction
1.1 Overview
1.2 History of Directive No. 15
1.3 Concerns About the Current Standards
1.4 Principles for the Review Process
1.5 Overview of Research Activities
1.6 Evaluation of Research Results
Chapter 2. Issues of General Concern
2.1 Overview
2.2 Satisfying Statutory and Program Needs
2.3 Voting Rights Issues
2.4 Data Continuity Concerns
2.5 Financial Costs
Chapter 3. Reporting More Than One Race
3.1 Background
3.2 Current Practice
3.3 Overview of Research on Reporting More Than One Race
3.3.1 Surveys to Explore Options
[[Page 36878]]
3.3.2 Cognitive Research to Guide Survey Design
3.4 Evaulating Research on Options for Reporting More Than One Race
3.4.1 Data Comparability
3.4.2 Should a multiracial category be listed among the response
options to the question on race?
3.4.3 If a multiracial category is listed, should a ``follow-up''
format be used, in which individuals who select the category are
asked to specify their racial identities?
3.4.4 Should a multiple-response format be used, in which the
respondent is instructed to ``mark one or more races''?
3.4.5 Should a multiple response format be used in which the
respondent is instructed to ``mark all that apply'' on the race
question?
3.4.6 Are there other options for reporting more than one race by
respondents?
3.5 Trends With Respect to Reporting of Multiple Races
3.5.1 Trends Contributing to Reporting of Multiple Races
3.5.1.1 Increases in Interracial Marriages and Households and
Births to Parents of Different Races
3.5.1.2 State Requirements for Multiracial Reporting
3.5.2 Public Sentiment
3.6 Measurement Concerns and Opportunities Related to Reporting
More Than One Race
3.6.1 Meeting Legislative and Program Needs
3.6.2 Defining and Using the Term ``Multiracial''
3.6.2.1 Definition of ``Multiracial''
3.6.2.2 Using a Stand-Alone ``Multiracial or Biracial'' Category or
Including a Follow-up Question
3.6.3 Using a ``Mark One or More'' or a ``Mark All That Apply''
Instruction in the Race Question
3.6.4 Issues Related to Primary and Secondary Data Collection
3.7 Some Implications of Allowing the Reporting of More Than One
Race
3.7.1 Possible Effects on Reporting by Particular Population Groups
3.7.2 Tabulation of Multiple Responses
3.7.3 Monetary Costs and Resource Burdens
Chapter 4. A Combined Race and Hispanic Origin Question
4.1 Background
4.2 Concepts of Race and Ethnicity
4.3 Self-Identification
4.4 Some Alternative Formats for Questions
4.5 Research on Data Quality
4.5.1 Reporting in the ``Other Race'' Category by Hispanics
4.5.2 Item Nonresponse in the Race Question
4.5.3 Item Nonresponse in the Hispanic Origin Question
4.5.4 Reporting Inconsistency
4.6 Measures to Correct Misreporting in the Race Question and the
Hispanic Origin Question
4.7 The Effects of Combining the Race Question and the Hispanic
Origin Question into a Single Question
4.7.1 Results From the May 1995 CPS Supplement on Race and Ethnic
Origin
4.7.2 Results From the Race and Ethnic Targeted Test
4.7.2.1 Reporting of Hispanic Origin
4.7.2.2 Reporting of Multiple Races
4.7.2.3 Summary of Findings
4.8 Public Sentiment
4.9 Additional Cost Concerns
Chapter 5. Other Possible Changes
5.1 Background
5.2 Specific Suggestions
5.3 Evaluation of the Possible Effects of Suggested Changes
5.3.1 Changes related to American Indians and Alaska Natives
5.3.1.1 Should the term ``American Indian'' or ``Native American''
be used?
5.3.1.2 Should the term ``Alaska Native'' or ``Eskimo and Aleut''
be used?
5.3.1.3 Should a distinction be made between federally recognized
and nonfederally recognized tribes?
5.3.1.4 What is the best way to elicit tribal affiliation?
5.3.1.5 Should the definition of the ``American Indian or Alaskan
Native'' category be changed to include Indians indigenous to
Central America and South America?
5.3.2 Changes related to Asian and Pacific Islanders
5.3.2.1 Should the ``Asian or Pacific Islander'' category be split
into two categories? If yes, how should this be done?
5.3.2.2 Should specific groups be listed under the Asian or Pacific
Islander category?
5.3.2.3 Should the term ``Guamanian'' or ``Chamorro'' be used?
5.3.3 Changes related to Hawaiians
5.3.3.1 Should the term ``Native Hawaiian'' or ``Hawaiian'' be
used?
5.3.3.2 Should Hawaiians continue to be included in the ``Asian or
Pacific Islander'' category; be reclassified and included in the
``American Indian or Alaskan Native'' category; or be established as
a separate, new category?
5.3.4 Other terminology issues
5.3.4.1 Should the term ``Black'' or ``African American'' be used?
5.3.4.2 Should the term ``Hispanic'' or ``Latino'' be used?
5.3.4.3 Should more than one term be used for Black or for
Hispanic?
5.3.5 Other new category issues
5.3.5.1 Should an Arab or Middle Eastern category be created and,
if so, how should it be defined?
5.3.5.2 Should a Cape Verdean category be created?
Chapter 6. Recommendations and Major Findings
6.1 Summary of Recommendations and Major Findings
6.1.1 Recommendations concerning reporting more than one race
6.1.1.1 Findings concerning a method for reporting more than one
race
6.1.1.2 Findings concerning different formats for reporting more
than one race
6.1.2 Recommendations concerning a combined race and Hispanic
ethnicity question
6.1.2.1 Findings concerning whether race and Hispanic origin should
be combined into a single question
6.1.2.2 Findings concerning different formats if race and Hispanic
origin are combined in a single question
6.1.3 Recommendations concerning the retention of both reporting
formats
6.1.4 Recommendation concerning the ordering of the Hispanic origin
and race questions
6.1.5 Recommendation concerning adding Cape Verdean as an ethnic
category
6.1.6 Recommendation concerning the addition of an Arab or Middle
Eastern ethnic category
6.1.7 Recommendation concerning the addition of any other
categories to the minimum set
6.1.8 Recommendation concerning changing the term ``American
Indian'' to ``Native American''
6.1.9 Recommendation concerning changing the term ``Hawaiin'' to
``Native Hawaiian.''
6.1.10 Recommendation concerning the classification of Hawaiians
6.1.11 Recommendations concerning the use of Alaskan Native instead
of Eskimo and Aleut
6.1.12 Recommendations concerning the classification of South and
Central American Indians
6.1.13 Recommendations concerning the term or terms to be used for
the name of the Black category
6.1.14 Recommendations concerning the term or terms to be used for
Hispanic
6.2 Comparison of the Current Standards with the Recommended
Standards
6.2.1 The Current Standards in Directive No. 15
6.2.2 Recommended Standards
6.3 Recommendations for Further Research
Chapter 1. Introduction
1.1 Overview
This report evaluates a variety of proposals for modifying the
Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Statistical Policy Directive
No. 15, ``Race and Ethnic Standards for Federal Statistics and
Administrative Reporting.'' The Directive sets forth a minimum set of
categories for collecting and presenting data on race and Hispanic
origin. This basic set of categories has served as the guideline for
Federal Government data collections since it was issued in May 1977.
The report presented here, including its recommendations, is the
culmination of three years of research undertaken by Federal agencies
to evaluate the possible impact of suggested changes on the quality and
cost of the resulting data. It is the work of the Interagency Committee
for the Review of the Racial and Ethnic Standards and its Research
Working Group on Racial and Ethnic
[[Page 36879]]
Standards. OMB established the Interagency Committee in 1994 to
evaluate various proposed changes and provide recommendations. The
committee created the Research Working Group to develop and carry out a
research agenda for evaluating the proposals.
The report consists of six chapters. This first chapter provides a
brief history of Directive No. 15, a summary of the issues considered
by the Interagency Committee, a review of the research activities over
the past three years, and a discussion of the criteria used in
conducting the evaluation. Chapter 2 discusses several general concerns
that need to be addressed when considering any changes to the current
standards. Chapters 3 through 5 report the research results as they
bear on the more significant suggestions for changes to Directive No.
15. These suggestions include, but are not limited to, permitting
respondents to report multiple racial backgrounds, a single question on
race and ethnicity that would include Hispanic as a category, expanding
the minimum set of categories to include other specific ethnic or
racial groups. and adding to, or replacing the names of categories used
to identify specific racial or ethnic groups. Chapter 6 presents the
committee's recommendations on various suggested changes based on its
evaluation of the research results and consideration of related public
comments and testimony.
1.2 History of Directive No. 15
The United States Government has long collected statistics on race
and ethnicity. Such data have been used to monitory changes in the
social, demographic, health, and economic characteristics of various
groups in our population. Federal data collections, through censuses,
surveys, and administrative records, have provided an historical record
of the Nation's population diversity and its changing social attitudes,
health status, and policy concerns.
Since the 1960's, data on race and ethnicity have been used
extensiity in monitoring and enforcing civil rights laws covering areas
such as education, employment, housing and mortgage lending, health
care, voting rights, and the administration of justice. Theses
legislatively based priorities created the need among Federal agencies
for compatible, nonduplicative data for population groups that
historically had suffered discrimination on the basic of their race or
ethnicity. In response, OMB issued, in 1977, the current set of
categories for use in the collection and presentation of data on race
and eithnity. The categories also implemented the requirements of
Public Law 94-311 of June 16, 1976, which called for the collection,
analysis, and publication of economic and social statistics on persons
of Spanish origin or descent.
The current standard provides that, if racial and ethnic data are
collected separately, the minimum racial categories are:
--American Indian or Alaskan Native. A person having origins in any of
the original peoples of North America, and who maintains cultural
identification through tribal affiliation or community recognition.
--Asian or Pacific Islander. A person having origins in any of the
original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, the Indian
subcontinent, or the Pacific Islands. This area includes, for example,
China, India, Japan, Korea, the Philippine Islands, and Samoa.
--Black. A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of
Africa.
--White. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of
Europe, North Africa, or the Middle East.
For ethnicity, the categories are:
--Hispanic origin. A person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or
South American or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race.
--Not of Hispanic origin. A person not of any Spanish culture or
origin. When a combined format is used, the minimum categories are: (1)
American Indian or Alaskan Native; (2) Asian or Pacific Islander; (3)
Black, not of Hispanic origin; (4) Hispanic; and (5) White, not of
Hispanic origin.
The current categories originated in the work of the Federal
Interagency Committee on Education (FICE) whose membership represented
some 30 Federal agencies. In June 1974, FICE created an Ad Hoc
Committee on Racial and Ethic Definitions, whose 25 members came from
Federal agencies with major responsibilities for the collection or use
of data on race and ethnicity. This ad hoc committee was charged with
developing terms and definitions for a broad range of data on race and
ethnicity to be collected by Federal agencies on a compatible and
nonduplicative basis. The committee sought to ensure that the
categories could be aggregated, disaggregated, or otherwise combined so
that the data developed by one agency could be used in conjunction with
the data developed by another agency. The committee also suggested that
the basic categories could be subdivided into more detailed ethnic
subgroups to meet users' needs, but that to maintain comparability,
data from one major category should never be combined with data from
any other category.
In the spring of 1975, FICE completed its work on a draft set of
categories. An agreement was reached among OMB, the General Accounting
Office (GAO), the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare's (HEW)
Office for Civil Rights, and the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC) to adopt these categories for a trial period of at
least one year. This trial was undertaken to test the new categories
and definitions and to determine what problems, if any, would be
encountered in their implementation.
At the end of the test period, OMB and GAO convened an Ad Hoc
Committee on Racial/Ethnic Categories to review the experience of the
agencies that had implemented the standard categories and definitions
and to discuss any potential problems that might be encountered in
extending the use of the categories to all Federal agencies. The
Committee met in August 1976 and included representatives of OMB; GAO;
the Departments of Justice, Labor, HEW, and Housing and Urban
Development; the Bureau of the Census; and the EEOC. Based upon the
discussion in that meeting, OMB prepared minor revisions to the FICE
definitions and circulated the proposed final draft for agency comment.
These revised categories and definitions became effective in September
1976 for all compliance record keeping and reporting required by the
Federal agencies represented on the Ad Hoc Committee.
Based upon this interagency agreement, OMB drafted for agency
comment a proposed revision of the ``race and color designations in
Federal statistics'' contained in its circular on Standards and
Guidelines for Federal Statistics. Some agencies published the draft
revision for public comment. Following receipt of comments and
incorporation of suggested modifications, OMB, on May 12, 1977,
promulgated the racial and ethnic categories now set forth in Directive
No. 15. Thus, for the first time, standard categories and definitions
were to be used by all Federal agencies in both the collection and the
presentation of data on race and ethnicity. The categories and
definitions were developed primarily on the basis of geography;
therefore, they were not to be interpreted as being scientific or
anthropological in nature. The racial and ethnic categories in the
Directive reflected, in particular, agency needs for data for use in
monitoring and enforcing civil rights laws.
[[Page 36880]]
Although the standards given in Directive No. 15 have not been
revised since 1977, OMB did publish in the January 20, 1988, Federal
Register a draft Statistical Policy Circular soliciting public comment
on a comprehensive revision of existing Statistical Policy Directives.
Among the proposed changes was a revision of Directive No. 15 that
would have added an ``Other'' racial category and required
classification by self-identification. This proposal was supported by
many multiracial and multiethnic groups and some educational
institutions, but it drew strong opposition from large corporation and
Federal agencies such as the Civil Rights Division of the Department of
Justice, the Department of Health and Human Services, the EEOC, and the
Office of Personnel Management (OPM). Critics asserted that the present
system provided adequate data, that any changes would disrupt
historical continuity, and that the proposed changes would be expensive
and potentially divisive. Some members of minority communities
interpreted the proposal as an attempt to provoke internal dissension
within their communities and to reduce the official counts of their
populations. Because it was evident from all of these comments that
this proposal would not be widely accepted, no changes were made to
Directive No. 15.
1.3 Concerns About the Current Standards
The population of the United States has become increasingly diverse
during the 20 years that the current standards have been in effect.
During the 1980s, immigration to the United States from Mexico, Central
and South America, the Caribbean, and Asia reached historic
proportions. The 1990 census data show that the population of the
United States is more racially and ethnically diverse than ever.
Furthermore, as a result of the growth in interracial marriages, there
is an increase in the number of persons born who are of mixed race or
ethnicity. In recent years, Directive No. 15 has been criticized for
not sufficiently reflecting this growing diversity.
In addition, there have been a number of other concerns expressed.
For example:
--The categories and their definitions have been criticized as failing
to be comprehensive and scientific.
--Some have suggested that the geographic orientation of the
definitions for the various racial and ethnic categories is not
sufficiently definitive. They believe that there is no readily apparent
organizing principle for making such distinctions and that definitions
for the categories should be eliminated.
--Others maintain that the identification of an individual's racial and
ethnic ``category'' often is a subjective determination, rather than
one that is objective and factual. Thus, they believe that it may no
longer be appropriate to consider the categories as a ``statistical
standard.''
--There is disagreement over the use of self-identification versus
observer identification.
--Some critics have said that the two formats permitted by Directive
No. 15 are not compatible. They argue that, when using the two separate
questions, race and Hispanic origin can be kept analytically distinct,
but in the combined race/ethnicity format, they cannot, While many find
the combined format particularly suitable for observer identification,
the use of this format does not provide information on the race of
those selecting it. As a result, the combined format makes it
impossible to distribute persons of Hispanic origin by race and,
therefore, may reduce the utility of counts in the four racial
categories by excluding from them persons who would otherwise tend to
be included.
--Certain critics have requested an open-ended question to solicit
information on race and ethnicity that would combine the concepts of
race, ethnicity, and ancestry.
--The importance of maintaining comparability over time also has been
questioned, given that the categories have changed in the decennial
censuses over the decades.
--Some have said that the collection categories should allow for
capturing greater diversity, but that the categories used to present
data should be aggregations of the more detailed categories.
--Others assert that the collection of data on race and ethnicity
should be eliminated because it perpetuates racism and the
fragmentation of society.
The following are some of the suggestions for changes to the
current categories that OMB received during the current review process:
--Add a ``multiracial'' category to the list of racial designations so
that respondents would not be forced to deny part of their heritage by
having to choose a single category.
--Add an ``other'' category for individuals of multiracial heritage and
for those who want the option of specifically stating a unique
identification.
--Change the name of the ``Black'' category to ``African American.''
--Change the name of the ``American Indian or Alaskan Native'' category
to ``Native American.''
--Since race and ethnicity are not distinct concepts, include Hispanic
as a racial category, rather than as a separate ethnic category.
--Add a ``Middle Eastern'' or ``Arab'' ethnic category.
--Add a ``Cape Verdean'' ethnic category.
--Make ``Native Hawaiians'' a separate category or include ``Native
Hawaiians'' in the American Indian or Alaskan Native category, rather
than retain ``Native Hawaiians'' in the Asian or Pacific Islander
category.
--Change the name of the ``Hispanic'' category to ``Latino.''
During 1993, Thomas C. Sawyer, then Chairman of the House of
Representatives' Subcommittee on Census, Statistics, and Postal
Personnel, held four hearings on the measurement of race and ethnicity
in the decennial census. In testimony on July 29, 1993, OMB announced
that it would undertake a comprehensive review of the categories,
including an analysis of the possible effects of any proposed changes
to the categories on the quality and utility of the resulting data that
are used for a multiplicity of purposes.
As a first step, OMB asked the Committee on National Statistics
(CNSTAT) of the National Academy of Sciences to convene a workshop to
provide an informed discussion of the issues surrounding a review of
the categories. The workshop, held on February 17-18, 1994, included
representatives of Federal agencies, academia, social science research
institutions, interest groups, private industry, and a local school
district.
1.4 Principles for the Review Process
In March 1994, OMB established and held the first meeting of the
Interagency Committee for the Review of the Racial and Ethnic
Standards, whose members from more than 30 agencies represent the many
and diverse Federal needs for data on race and ethnicity, including
statutory requirements for such data. Given the range of suggestions
and criticisms concerning Directive No. 15, OMB sought in constituting
the committee to have all agency stakeholders participate in this
comprehensive review of the standards. Agencies represented on the
Interagency Committee included:
Department of Agriculture
National Agricultural Statistics Service
Economic Research Service
[[Page 36881]]
Department of Commerce
Bureau of the Census
Department of Defense
Defense Manpower Data Center
Office of the Secretary
Department of Education
National Center for Education Statistics
Office for Civil Rights
Department of Health and Human Services
Administration for Native Americans
Agency for Health Care Policy and Research
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Indian Health Service
National Center for Health Statistics
National Institutes of Health
Office for Civil Rights
Office of Minority Health
Office of Refugee Resettlement
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Department of the Interior
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Department of Justice
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Civil Rights Division
Immigration and Naturalization Service
Department of Labor
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs
Department of Transportation
Bureau of Transportation Statistics
Department of Veterans Affairs
Equal Opportunity Employment Commission
Federal Reserve Board
National Science Foundation
Office of Personnel Management
Small Business Administration
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
Office of Management and Budget, ex officio
The Interagency Committee developed a set of general principles to
govern the review process. This process was designed not only to
evaluate suggestions received from the public but also to balance
statistical issues, data needs, social concerns, and the personal
dimensions of racial and ethnic identification. These principles were
as follows:
1. The racial and ethnic categories set forth in the standards
should not be interpreted as being primarily biological or genetic in
reference. Race and ethnicity may be thought of in terms of social and
cultural characteristics as well as ancestry.
2. Respect for individual dignity should guide the processes and
methods for collecting data on race and ethnicity; ideally, respondent
self-identification should be facilitated to the greatest extent
possible, recognizing that in some data collection systems observer
identification is more practical.
3. To the extent practicable, the concepts and terminology should
reflect clear and generally understood definitions that can achieve
broad public acceptance. To assure they are reliable, meaningful, and
understood by respondents and observers, the racial and ethnic
categories set forth in the standard should be developed using
appropriate scientific methodologies, including the social sciences.
4. The racial and ethnic categories should be comprehensive in
coverage and produce compatible, nonduplicative, exchangeable data
across Federal agencies.
5. Foremost consideration should be given to data aggregations by
race and ethnicity that are useful for statistical analysis and program
administration and assessment, bearing in mind that the standards are
not intended to be used to establish eligibility for participation in
any federal program.
6. The standards should be developed to meet, at a minimum, Federal
legislative and programmatic requirements. Consideration should also be
given to needs at the State and local government levels, including
American Indian tribal and Alaska Native village governments, as well
as to general societal needs for these data.
7. The categories should set forth a minimum standard; additional
categories should be permitted provided they can be aggregated to the
standard categories. The number of standard categories should be kept
to a manageable size, determined by statistical concerns and data
needs.
8. A revised set of categories should be operationally feasible in
terms of burden placed upon respondents; public and private costs to
implement the revisions should be a factor in the decision.
9. Any changes in the categories should be based on sound
methodological research and should include evaluations of the impact of
any changes not only on the usefulness of the resulting data but also
on the comparability of any new categories with the existing ones.
10. Any revision to the categories should provide for a crosswalk
at the time of adoption between the old and the new categories so that
historical data series can be statistically adjusted and comparisons
can be made.
11. Because of the many and varied needs and strong interdependence
of Federal agencies for racial and ethnic data, any changes to the
existing categories should be the product of an interagency
collaborative effort.
12. Time will be allowed to phase in any new categories. Agencies
will not be required to update historical records.
13. The new directive should be applicable throughout the U.S.
Federal statistical system. The standard or standards must be usable
for the decennial census, current surveys, and administrative records,
including those using observer identification.
The committee recognized that these principles may in some cases
represent competing goals for the standards. By applying these
principles to the review process, the committee hoped to produce a
standard that would result in consistent, publicly accepted data on
race and ethnicity that would meet the needs of the Federal Government
and the public while, at the same time, recognizing the diversity of
the population and respecting the individual's dignity.
OMB invited comment on the principles when they were published in a
June 9, 1994, Federal Register notice. That notice also contained
background information on the development of Directive No. 15; the
revision proposed but not made in 1988; the 1993 congressional
hearings; and the CNSTAT workshop. OMB requested public comment on the
adequacy of the current categories, as well as on the suggested changes
it had received over the years. As part of the public comment period,
OMB also held hearings in Boston, Denver, San Francisco, and Honolulu
during July 1994. OMB received nearly 800 letters in response to the
1994 Federal Register notice and heard testimony of 94 witnesses during
the four public hearings. A wide array of interested parties provided
comments, including individuals, data users, and data providers from
within and outside the Federal Government.
1.5 Overview of Research Activities
The Interagency Committee created a Research Working Group to
outline an agenda for researching and testing key concerns. The
Research Working Group, in August 1995, issued the ``Research Agenda
for the Review of the Racial and Ethnic Categories in Directive No.
15,'' based on an examination of the information in the June 1994
Federal Register notice, the public comments it
[[Page 36882]]
engendered, and previous research. This agenda identified five central
research issues together with a number of questions associated with
these issues. Some of the questions cut across several of the central
issues, and others were unique to a particular issue. In developing the
research agenda, the Research Working Group gave equal weight to the
conceptual and the operational questions that must be answered before
any changes to Directive No. 15 can be considered. The five central
issues were:
(1) Reporting of multiple races. What are the possible effects of
including a multiple race response option or a multiracial category in
data collections that ask individuals to identify their race and
ethnicity?
(2) Combining questions on race and Hispanic origin. Should a
combined race/Hispanic origin question be used instead of separate
questions on race and Hispanic origin?
(3) Concepts of race, ethnicity, and ancestry. Should the concepts
of race, ethnicity, and ancestry be combined and include, for example,
a follow-up, open-ended question with no fixed categories? How well
does the public understand these three concepts?
(4) Terminology. Should any of the current terminology for the
racial and ethnic categories be replaced or modified?
(5) New classifications. Should new racial or ethnic categories be
developed for specific population groups and be added to the minimum
basic set of categories?
The most important conceptual questions surrounding these issues
were (1) Who are the stakeholders, (2) how are various terms used and
understood, (3) what is the respondent's view of the task of self-
identification, (4) what would be the effects of any changes on
population counts and historical trends, and (5) what would be the
effects of any changes on the quality and usefulness of the resulting
data? The most important operational questions were (1) How would the
changes affect data collection procedures, (2) what differences might
there be between collection and reporting categories, (3) how could
continuity be maintained, (4) how should any changes be implemented,
and (5) how might cognitive research assist in implementing any
changes? In addition to recommending research that should be done, the
Research Working Group both encouraged and supported a number of more
specific research projects carried out by the individual agencies.
The first national test related to the central issues was the May
1995 Supplement on Race and Ethnicity to the Current Population Survey
(CPS), which had a sample of approximately 60,000 households and more
than 100,000 persons. The supplement, sponsored by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics and conducted by the Bureau of the Census, tested the
effects of: (1) Adding a multiracial category to the list of races, and
(2) including ``Hispanic'' as a category on the race question.
Respondents also were asked about their preferences for terms to
describe themselves (e.g., African-American or Black and Latino or
Hispanic). Originally, questions concerning the respondent's
understanding of the concepts of race, ethnicity, and ancestry were to
be included, but extensive cognitive testing prior to creating the
survey instrument indicated that these types of questions were
confusing and difficult to administer in a large-scale survey.
Additional analysis of open-ended responses by cognitive researchers
provided possible explanations for the inconsistencies in some
respondents' answers to the race and ethnicity questions.
As a part of the research on the subject content for the 2000
census, the Bureau of the Census tested alternative versions of
questions on race and Hispanic origin in the March 1996 National
Content Survey (NCS). This test was designed to provide information on
how members of approximately 90,000 households identify their race and
ethnicity in a self-reporting context, in contrast to the CPS
Supplement which was administered by interviewers either in person or
by telephone. Some NCS panels, comprising about 18,000 households,
tested the effects of adding a multiracial category to the race
question, placing the Hispanic origin question immediately before the
race question, and combining both of these changes. The NCS sample was
not designed to detect possible effects of different treatments on
relatively small population groups, such as American Indians and
Alaskan Natives, detailed Asian and Pacific Islander groups (such as
Chinese and Hawaiians), or detailed Hispanic origin groups (such as
Puerto Ricans and Cubans). Moreover, because the results were based on
the responses from households in the national sample that mailed back
questionnaires, the results do not represent the entire national
population.
In contrast to the NCS, the Race and Ethnic Targeted Test (RAETT)
was designed by the Bureau of the Census to provide findings for
smaller population groups. Conducted in June 1996, the RAETT sample
included approximately 112,000 urban and rural households. The sample
was taken from geographic areas of the country with concentrations of
different racial and ethnic populations including American Indians,
Alaskan Natives, Asians, Pacific Islanders, Hispanics, Blacks, and
White ethnic groups. This design permits assessments of the effects of
changes on relatively small populations not reliably measured in
national samples. The RAETT tested and evaluated the effects of adding
a ``multiracial or biracial'' category; having instructions in the race
question to ``mark one or more'' or to ``mark all that apply; placing
the Hispanic origin item before the race item; combining race, Hispanic
origin, and ancestry in a single, two-part question; using a combined
``Indian (Amer.) or Alaska Native'' category; and using a ``Native
Hawaiian'' or ``Hawaiian'' category.
In the spring of 1995, the National Center for Education Statistics
and the Office for Civil Rights in the Department of Education
conducted a survey of a thousand public schools. This survey obtained
information on how schools currently collect data on students' race and
ethnicity, how administrative records containing data on race and
ethnicity are maintained and reported, what state laws mandate or
require of school systems with respect to collecting data on race and
ethnicity, and current issues in schools regarding categories for
reporting data on race and ethnicity.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention held a Workshop on
the Use of Race and Ethnicity in Public Health Surveillance. The
workshop had three objectives: (1) To describe the current measures of
race and ethnicity and their use in public health surveillance, (2) to
assess the use of data on race and ethnicity in surveillance for
planning, operation, and evaluation of public health programs, and (3)
to propose better use of existing measures for race and ethnicity or to
identify alternative measures. The limitations inherent in the current
concepts, measures, and uses of race and ethnicity in public health
surveillance were identified, and recommendations were made regarding
their improvement.
The National Center for Health Statistics and the Office of Public
Health and Science sponsored interviews with 763 multiracial and
Hispanic women who had a baby during the preceding three years. The
purpose of the study was to determine the effects of different question
formats on reporting of race on birth certificates. The standard open-
ended race question was compared with two experimental versions: (1) An
open-
[[Page 36883]]
ended race question that included the term ``multiracial'' as one of
several examples, and (2) a ``mark all that apply'' format. When
possible, results were compared with the race the respondent recorded
on the youngest child's birth certificate.
A literature search on work related to racial classification in the
health field (using Medline) was conducted by the Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS). An inventory of HHS minority health data
bases that provides information on the data available and on the data
collection problems that have been encountered was developed.
A focus group was conducted with state and local government members
of the Association of Public Data Users. The participants were asked
about possible effects of various suggested changes on their
organizations. An expert on redistricting and reapportionment was
interviewed concerning the effects these same changes might have on
reapportionment and redistricting following the 2000 census. A survey
of a small number of businesses and professional associations that rely
on Federal statistics also was undertaken to ascertain views about the
time and costs involved if various changes were made.
1.6 Evaluation of Research Results
Although some of the issues surrounding the proposed revisions may
ultimately be settled through policy discussion and the criteria used
may at times be subjective, there is an important place in the
discussion for empirically grounded research. Thus, this evaluation,
while considering such subjective information as stakeholder positions
and respondent burden, focuses on the following objective criteria:
(1) Ease of adhering to the principle of self-identification;
(2) Consistency and quality of measurement across time with respect
to various subgroups;
(3) Magnitude of changes to current time series;
(4) Ability to provide categories that are meaningful for policy
purposes;
(5) Ability to develop implementable reporting standards for all
data providers;
(6) Ease of using the measures in different data collection
settings;
(7) Ease of creating data editing and adjustment procedures; and
(8) Costs associated with changing or not changing the standards.
To facilitate the use of research results to evaluate alternatives
and develop recommendations, the Research Working Group has acted as a
clearinghouse for data gathering activities. As such, the Research
Working Group has monitored various projects and overseen the
consolidation of results in a form intended to be useful for policy
makers.
Chapter 2. Issues of General Concern
2.1 Overview
This provides a discussion of several general concerns that the
Research Working Group considered during its review of Directive No.
15. They are: (1) Statutory and programmatic needs of the Federal
agencies for data on race and ethnicity, (2) voting rights issues, (3)
data continuity concerns, and (4) financial costs of making changes to
the Directive. These concerns merit general consideration because they
must be confronted to some degree when dealing with any of the proposed
changes. The relationship of specific suggested changes to these
concerns will be addressed in later chapters.
2.2 Satisfying Statutory and Program Needs
Federal agencies that collect data on race and ethnicity include,
but are not limited to, the Bureau of the Census, the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the
National Center for Health Statistics, and the National Center for
Education Statistics. Agencies use data on race and ethnicity for
administrating Federal programs for enforcing the civil rights laws,
and for analyses of social, economic, and health trends for population
groups.
A principal driving force in the 1970s for the development of the
current standards was the need for data on race and ethnicity to
enforce the civil rights laws. Some of the agencies that use these data
for monitoring and enforcing civil rights laws include the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the U.S. Commission on Civil
Rights, the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, the
Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs in the Department of
Labor, the Office for Civil Rights in the Department of Education, and
the Office for Civil Rights in the Department of Health and Human
Services. State and local governments, educational institutions, and
private sector employers use the categories when providing data on race
and ethnicity to meet Federal reporting requirements.
Reliable and consistent information is important for enforcing
Federal laws, In recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions involving
education, employment, and voting rights, the Court has interpreted the
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution to require that
governmental decision-making based on racial classifications be
subjected to ``strict scrutiny'' to determine whether it is ``narrowly
tailored'' to meet ``compelling State interests.'' Changes in Directive
No. 15 could affect the ability of agencies to carry out the court's
mandate. If, for instance, allowing individuals to identify with more
than one race would make it more difficult to identify the members and
characteristics of a particular racial or ethnic group (such as
American Indians and Alaska Natives, or Asians and Pacific Islanders),
then determining whether a ``compelling State interest'' exists with
regard to such persons--and whether the government's action is narrowly
enough tailored to meet that interest--could become correspondingly
more difficult.
Generally, the statutes that require collection of data on race
and/or ethnicity do not specify the exact categories that Federal
agencies must use. Most of these laws simply require that data on race
and ethnicity be collected. The following examples illustrate statutory
requirements that specify the exact categories particular agencies must
use:
The Federal Affirmative Employment Program of the U.S.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is required by 29 CFR 1607.4B.
to use the minimum OMB Directive No. 15 categories except in Hawaii
(where detailed Asian or Pacific Islander subgroups are to be
collected) and Puerto Rico (Hispanic and non-Hispanic)
Federal agencies are required by the Office of Personnel
Management's Federal Personnel Manual 292-I (Book III, pp. 106-107,
296-233 and 298-302) to collect the minimum racial and ethnic
categories and eleven national origin categories (Asian Indian,
Chinese, Filipino, Guamanian, Hawaiian, Japanese, Korean, Samoan,
Vietnamese, all other Asian or Pacific Islanders, and not Hispanic in
Puerto Rico) for the Central Personnel Data Files.
Legislation covering collection of data on race by the
Bureau of Indian Affairs has varying definitions of Indian depending on
the program (Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, 25 U.S.C. 479 and 25
CFR part 5).
Contract Compliance Programs of the Employment Standards
Administration are required by 41 CFR chapter 60 (EEO) to collect data
on race and ethnicity for workforce analysis using the categories
``Blacks, Spanish-surnamed Americans, American
[[Page 36884]]
Indians, and Orientals'' (41 CFR 60-2.11).
Data on race and ethnicity from employee selection tests
and procedures are to be collected using the categories ``Blacks
(Negroes), American Indians (including Alaskan Natives), Asians
(including Pacific Islanders), Hispanic (including persons of Mexican,
Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, or other Spanish origin
or culture regardless of race), Whites (Caucasians) other than
Hispanic, and totals'' (41 CFR 60-3.4B.).
The Center for Minority Veterans of the Department of
Veterans Affairs is required by Sec. 509, Public Law 103-446 and 38
U.S.C. 317 to use the categories Asian American, Black, Hispanic,
Native American (including American Indian, Alaskan Native, and Native
Hawaiian), and Pacific-Islander American.
2.3 Voting Rights Issues
Concerns have been raised that changes to the current categories
for data on race and ethnicity may affect the usefulness of the data
for congressional reapportionment, legislative redistricting, and
enforcement of the Voting Rights Act.
Following each decennial census, congressional reapportionment--the
redistribution of the 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives
among the 50 States--is calculated using the population totals for each
state and the formula of ``equal proportions'' adopted by the Congress
in 1941 (United States Code, Title 2, Section 2a). Redistricting is the
process of redrawing the boundaries of congressional, state, and local
legislative districts in accordance with the Fourteenth Amendment's
``one-person/one-vote'' principle and the standard of population
equality as set forth in Wesberry v. Sanders, Reynolds v. Sims, and
subsequent court decisions. Changes to Directive No. 15 would be
expected to affect congressional reapportionment and one-person/one-
vote compliance in redistricting only to the extent that such changes
affect the overall response to the decennial census.
Charges of minority vote dilution--the claim that the redistricting
plan or at-large election system minimizes or cancels out the voting
strength of a minority group--under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act
(which applies nationwide) are usually determined by reference to
decennial census data on race and ethnicity. In addition, compliance
with Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act--which requires Federal
preclearance for new voting practices and procedures in certain
states--also is generally determined by reference to decennial census
data on race and ethnicity. Changes to Directive No. 15 could have
implications for the effective implementation of the Voting Rights Act.
Decennial census data are used to determine the count and
distribution of the voter-eligible minority population. Proof that it
is possible to draw a district with a voter-eligible minority
population in the majority is usually needed to establish a vote
dilution claim under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Changes to the
current categories that alter the counts of voter-eligible minorities
could affect the ability of such groups to mount successful vote
dilution claims. The Attorney General's preclearance determinations
pursuant to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act--whether to grant or
deny Section 5 preclearance--are often affected by the size and
distribution of the minority population.
In addition, data on race and ethnicity from the decennial census
frequently are used as independent variables in statistical procedures
that estimate group voting behavior, particularly when counts of
registered voters by race or ethnicity are not available. These
estimates of group voting behavior are essential to vote dilution
claims under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, as well as to the
analysis of many types of voting changes under Section 5 of the Voting
Rights Act.
2.4 Data Continuity Concerns
If changes are made to the Federal standards for collecting data on
race and ethnicity, it will be critically important to data users to
understand the impact of those changes vis-a-vis the categories they
have been using for the past 20 years. The acceptance of new ways of
reporting race and ethnicity may require supporting information so that
users can assess the magnitude of changes to current time series. To
that end, alternative methods of tabulating multiple responses on race
into the current minimum set of categories must be investigated
further.
2.5 Financial Costs
If OMB were to revise the categories for data on race and ethnicity
by modifying Directive No. 15, a sizeable number of Federal agencies
and others would have to change data collection forms, computer
programs, interviewers' and coders' manuals, and other related
materials for their data systems. Although Directive No. 15 is a
standard for use by Federal agencies, many State and local agencies and
private sector entities also follow the Federal standards for
collection, record keeping, and presentation data on race and
ethnicity. On the other hand, there will be other costs incurred if
changes are not made to the current categories, and these costs are
also discussed in this section.
If a decision were made either to use separate questions
exclusively, or to use a combined format always, or to use a ``mark one
or more'' reporting option for race, or to add a ``multiracial''
category, there would also be costs for redesigning data editing,
coding, and processing systems to accommodate the changes.
Other costs would be associated with changing data base management,
retrieval and aggregation programs, and historical table formats. Data
base management systems might have to be significantly expanded to
provide data comparability with historical series. Procedures might
have to be developed for editing multiple responses to achieve this
comparability. Staff would have to be trained in the new procedures
resulting from any change to the current categories. Since the
estimated transition time for changing EEOC data bases would be 2-3
years, data for these years could be severely hampered for enforcement
purposes. This would likely result in additional costs for protracted
processing of grievances.
The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) of the
Department of Health and Human Services has noted that substantial
changes for 23 categorical grant programs would be required for
competing and noncompeting grant application materials, data entry and
report programs, and the preference/priority databases. Alterations in
the current collection categories for data on race and ethnicity would
require restructuring of the definitions and data collection tools
designed to report cross-cutting outcome measures for Title VII and
VIII Health Professions and Nursing education and training programs.
During informal discussions, company representatives offered a few
examples of the potential impact on private sector employers if changes
to the categories were to be made. The costs of making changes to forms
is considered to be minimal. Changes in the data systems would be more
expensive than changes in the forms, since this effort would be very
labor intensive. In addition, if there were new categories, employees
might have to be resurveyed in order to update the information on race
and ethnicity.
Any changes from the current collection mechanism would entail
[[Page 36885]]
major program changes for the 700 institutions participating in the
seven student assistance campus-based loan and scholarship programs.
Review and revision of records for eligibility and fiscal accounting
data would be required, including manual review of data, computer
programming changes, and changes to the scope of work for contract
services. In addition, the Student Financial Aid Guideline and the User
Manual for the Electronic Reporting System would require review and
revision. Moreover, changes in definitions would require that schools
reconcile past and current submissions of data for compatibility to
enable HRSA to make appropriate awards to participating institutions.
The Administration on Children and Families (ACF) of the Department
of Health and Human Services considers the overall effect of change to
the racial and ethnic categories to be marginal. ACF collects data on
race and ethnicity for several internal data systems (e.g., foster
care, personnel, grant-related information). However, in relation to
the total cost of maintenance of these internal data systems, possible
changes in the classification of data on race and ethnicity are likely
to have only marginal effects. Alterations to racial and ethnic
categories used for data systems maintained by private contractors for
ACF (e.g., Head Start, Child Abuse and Neglect, Developmentally
Disabled, Native American) would not likely cause excessive burden to
the data collection effort.
In addition, ACF has data systems that are legislatively mandated
and involve data collections by states (such as temporary assistance to
needy families, child support enforcement). If the alterations to
existing systems are profound, states might be resistant to change or
they might seek Federal funds to defray costs of updating state data
systems, particularly to meet Federal reporting requirements.
While financial costs would be incurred if changes are made to
Directive No. 15, there are other types of costs associated with not
making changes. Problems that exist with use of the current Directive
will not be resolved. These continuing problems include lack of
standardization for classifying data on race and ethnicity across state
and Federal agencies; less than optimal participation in Federal
surveys (especially item nonresponse); misidentification of individuals
and groups in surveys; inaccurate counts and rates; inaccurate
research; inaccurate program design, targeting and monitoring; and
possibly misallocation of funds. There will continue to be
inconsistency even within the same Federal agency if Hispanic origin
data continues to be collected using either the combined format or two
separate questions. It is not uncommon for the denominator of a rate
for Hispanics to be based on data collected using separate questions on
race and ethnicity while the numerator is based on data collected using
the combined format.
Chapter 3. Reporting More Than One Race
3.1 Background
This chapter addresses issues related to whether or not the Federal
standards for data on race and ethnicity should provide an option that
permits the reporting of more than one race. The chapter discusses
different approaches that have been studied by Federal agencies to
provide such an option. It presents findings of the research conducted
by Federal agencies on the alternative approaches and identifies
potential implications of providing or not providing a response option
for reporting more than one race. Following a review of the current
standards and an overview of the research conducted, the chapter
addresses the following questions:
Should a multiracial category be listed among the response
options to the question on race? (section 3.4.2)
If a multiracial category is listed, should a ``follow-
up'' format be used, in which individuals who select ``multiracial''
are asked in a follow-up question to specify their racial identities?
(section 3.4.3)
Should a multiple-response format be used in which the
respondent is instructed to ``mark one or more races''? (section 3.4.4)
Should a multiple-response format be used in which the
respondent is instructed to ``mark all that apply'' on the race
question? (section 3.4.5)
Are there other options for reporting of more than one
race by respondents? (section 3.4.6)
Sections 3.5 through 3.7 discuss some of the trends, concerns, and
potential implications related to adding (or not adding) an option for
reporting more than one race to the Federal standard for collecting and
reporting racial categories, including the effects on such areas as
legal and program needs, measurement issues, and data production.
3.2 Current Practice
Directive No. 15 provides a minimum set of racial and ethnic
categories--four categories for data on race (White, Black, American
Indian or Alaskan Native, and Asian or Pacific Islander) and two
categories for data on ethnicity (Hispanic origin and not of Hispanic
origin). The current standard permits Federal agencies to use more
detailed categories for collecting data on population groups, so long
as the data collection is organized in a way that makes it possible for
the agencies to aggregate the more detailed designations into the
Directive No. 15 categories.
For person who identify with more than one race, Directive No. 15
indicates that the single racial category which most closely reflects
the individual's recognition in his or her community should be used.
Directive No. 15 does not provide for identifying two or more races.
3.3 Overview of Research on Reporting More Than One Race
To assist OMB in deciding whether or not the Federal standard
should provide for reporting more than one race, Federal agencies have
conducted several major surveys to test the possible effects on data
quality of various options. Major objectives of the research and
testing programs carried out in 1995 and 1996 have included:
Analysis of the growth, characteristics, and self-
identification patterns of persons in interracial marriages and
households;
Cognitive research to develop alternative race questions
with a category called ``multiracial'' or response options such as
``mark one or more'' or ''mark all that apply;''
Empirical research on how reporting more than one race is
likely to affect current racial distributions in self-administered
censuses and surveys (compared, for example, with interviewer and
telephone surveys); and
Research on whether most respondents who self-identified
as multiracial with specify more than one race.
3.3.1 Surveys to Explore Options
The Current Population Survey, conducted jointly by the Bureau of
Labor Statistics (BLS) and the Bureau of the Census, included a
Supplement on Race and Ethnicity in May 1995 (the CPS Supplement). The
CPS Supplement was designed to test the effect of asking questions
about race and Hispanic ethnicity, with and without a multiracial
response option. As part of its research and testing program for Census
2000, the Bureau of the Census conducted two additional studies--the
National Content Survey (also known as the 1996 census survey or the
Census
[[Page 36886]]
2000 survey) and the Race and Ethnic Targeted Test (the RAETT)--to
explore the implications of using different formats for questions on
respondents' racial identification and reporting of Hispanic origin.
3.3.2 Cognitive Research to Guide Survey Design
The agencies conducted extensive cognitive research to pretest the
racial and ethnic categories and the sequencing of the questions on
race and Hispanic origin in the survey instruments. An interagency team
conducted cognitive research on several versions of the CPS Supplement
questionnaire designed for face-to-face and telephone interviews. The
race question included a multiracial category, with a follow-up
question for reporting the races with which the respondent identified.
The questionnaire was tested with a range of racial and ethnic groups
in various regions of the United States, and respondents from all
groups were able to report that the term ``multiracial'' meant more
than one race. (McKay and de la Puente, 1995)
The Bureau of the Census conducted cognitive research on two
different options for reporting more than one race on the race item in
a mail survey form. The options consisted of including (1) a
``multiracial'' category in the race question, and (2) an instruction
to mark one or more of the racial categories provided in the race
question.
The cognitive research guided the placement of a separate
multiracial category in the race item, determined the appropriate
number of write-in lines to the multiracial-response box, identified
the appropriate terminology for soliciting response from persons of
mixed racial parentage (without providing a definition of
``multiracial'' for this population), and guided the development of the
instructions allowing respondents to choose more than one box. Because
the cognitive research revealed that some respondents believed the term
``multiracial'' meant more than two races, the wording ``multiracial or
biracial'' was used in the NCS and the RAETT to convey to respondents
that the category is to be used by those who identify with two or more
racial groups. (Gerber and de la Puente, 1996)
The cognitive research also was used to develop a ``mark one more''
instruction, indicating that respondents could mark more than one
racial category as applicable. The initial cognitive work, which
offered respondents the choice of marking one racial category or
marking more than one racial category, asked those selecting more than
one group to specify the race with which they most identified.
Cognitive interviews tested several versions of this question. A
number of problems were identified in these interviews. First, some
respondents could not absorb or understand the complex instructions
that were necessary. Second, the formatting (which was subject to space
limitations) made it difficult for some respondents to read and absorb
the question fully. Third, respondents who expected a ``multiracial''
category were disappointed that this response option was not provided.
And finally, some respondents were not comfortable with being asked to
designate a single race, when they did not want to discount any part of
their racial heritage. The question that was ultimately used asked
respondents merely to mark the boxes, without also asking them to
designate the race with which they most identified. (Gerber and de la
Puente, 1996)
Respondents for the cognitive research were recruited on the basis
of interracial parentage or ancestry. In testing the use of multiracial
reporting options in both the interview and self-administered mail
modes, researchers found that many of the respondents recruited based
on known multiracial status did not choose to report as multiracial.
Reasons they gave for not selecting the multiracial category included:
identification with the racial and cultural group of one parent;
acceptance of the racial identity perceived to be conferred by their
community; and a lack of identification with a ``multiracial'' group
encompassing members of different racial ancestries. (McKay and de la
Puente, 1995; Gerger and de la Puente, 1996)
3.4 Evaluating Research on Options for Reporting More Than One Race
The sections that follow present results from the CPS Supplement,
the National Content Survey, and the RAETT as they bear on the
alternative approaches outlined at the beginning of this chapter (See
section 3.1). Brief descriptions of these surveys follow.
The Current Population Survey is a monthly national sample survey
of approximately 60,000 households; it routinely collects information
on the race and ethnic origin of household members using the current
Directive No. 15 categories. The May 1995 CPS Supplement collected
additional racial and ethnic data on the households under four
different panel conditions:
Panel 1 Separate race and Hispanic-origin questions, with no
``multiracial'' category.
Panel 2 Separate race and Hispanic-origin questions, with
``multiracial'' category.
Panel 3 Combined race and Hispanic-origin question, with no
``multiracial'' category.
Panel 4 Combined race and Hispanic-origin question, with
``multiracial'' category.
The CPS Supplement had a response rate of 82.9 percent.
The National Content Survey (NCS), conducted from March through
June 1996, was a mail survey of 94,500 households drawn from 1990
decennial census ``mail back areas'' representing about 95 percent of
the country. The NCS included thirteen panels, four of which were
designed to evaluate the effects of adding a ``multiracial or
biracial'' category and reversing the sequence of the questions on race
and Hispanic origin. It is less representative of American Indians and
Alaska Natives, given that about 25 percent of those populations live
outside ``mail back areas.''
The NCS panels were as follows:
Panel 1 Separate race and Hispanic-origin questions--no ``multiracial
or biracial'' category; race first sequence.
Panel 2 Separate race and Hispanic-origin questions--with
``multiracial or biracial'' category; race first sequence.
Panel 3 Separate race and Hispanic-origin questions--no ``multiracial
or biracial'' category; Hispanic-origin first sequence.
Panel 4 Separate race and Hispanic-origin questions--with
``multiracial or biracial'' category; Hispanic-origin first sequence.
Each of the four questionnaires was mailed to a panel of about
6,000 households. The response rate for the four panels was 72 percent;
the results are thus based on approximately 18,000 households.
Computer-assisted telephone reinterviews were conducted with each
household that had completed and returned the NCS form. Because the NCS
sample excluded households outside 1990 census mailback areas, and some
households did not return a questionnaire, results from the NCS cannot
be generalized to the entire national population.
The RAETT, conducted by the Bureau of the Census in the summer of
1996, was the principal vehicle for testing and evaluating several
important proposed changes for the race question. The RAETT targeted
112,000 households in
[[Page 36887]]
areas that have, relative to the Nation as a whole, high concentrations
of households in any of six specified racial or ethnic groups: White
ethnic (whether European, Canadian, or American), Black, American
Indian, Alaska Native, Asian or Pacific Islander, and Hispanic origin.
A total of 58,911 questionnaires were returned, yielding an overall
response rate 53 percent.
The RAETT included questions designed to test the effects of a
``multiracial or biracial'' category as well as ``mark one or more''
and ``mark all that apply'' approaches to reporting more than one race,
and a combined question on race and Hispanic origin, using eight
different panels or versions of the questionnaire. The RAETT panels
were as follow:
Panel A Separate race and Hispanic origin questions--no ``multiracial
or biracial'' category; Hispanic origin first sequence.
Panel B Separate race and Hispanic origin questions with ``multiracial
or biracial'' category with write-ins; Hispanic origin first sequence.
Panel C Separate race and Hispanic origin questions with ``mark one or
more races'' instruction; Hispanic origin first sequence.
Panel D Separate race and Hispanic origin questions with a
``multiracial or biracial'' category with write-ins; race first
sequence.
Panel E Combined race, Hispanic origin, and ancestry question with a
``multiracial or biracial'' category.
Panel F Combined race, Hispanic origin, and ancestry with ``mark one
or more boxes'' instruction.
Panel G Separate race and Hispanic origin questions with ``multiracial
or biracial'' category with write-ins; Hispanic origin first sequence;
tested terminology and alphabetization of categories.
Panel H Separate race and Hispanic origin questions with ``mark all
that apply'' instruction; Hispanic origin first sequence.
Each of these surveys provides important information about options
for collecting and classifying data on race and ethnicity, but each
also has its limitations. The CPS Supplement is nationally
representative and data were gathered for over 80 percent of the
sample, but it could not provide reliable information for smaller
groups in the population. The NCS is close to being nationally
representative and its use of a mail out/mail back questionnaire is
particularly relevant for designing the 2000 census, but the response
rate was only 72 percent, and it too could not provide reliable
information for smaller groups.
The RAETT design provides a good test of the possible effects of
suggested new racial categories because it focuses on populations for
which the national surveys often do not provide sufficiently large
samples. However, even with a 100 percent response to the RAETT,
results could be generalized only to the population in the census
tracts in each targeted sample frame. The actual response rate averaged
53 percent, and the response rates in some targeted samples were as low
as 34 percent. The sample design of RAETT also does not permit results
for different targeted samples to be combined.
3.4.1 Data Comparability
A key concern of some Federal agencies, reflected in the principles
that have guided the review of the current standards, has been the
comparability of data from any new categories with information produced
under the existing categories. In its report on the RAETT, the Bureau
of the Census presented--for purposes of illustration--different
approaches for tabulating the data, using the information provided in
the write-in entries to the ``multiracial or biracial'' category and in
multiple responses to the race question. Some of these classification
approaches provide examples of procedures that could be developed and
used by the agencies as ``bridges'' between the current and any new
classification. The three illustrative approaches were termed the
single-race approach, the all inclusive approach, and the historical
series approach. They may be characterized as follows:
Single-race approach. Responses indicating only one racial category
would be assigned to that category. Responses from individuals who
reported multiple races would be classified into a separate ``multiple
race'' category. This method provides a lower bound for the number who
identify with a given category. The results from this approach are
readily available from standard tabulations.
All-inclusive approach. Responses are classified into racial
category specified using the minimum set of categories in Directive No.
15. With a single race/ethnicity question using the combined format in
Directive No. 15, the all-inclusive Hispanic proportion would be most
comparable to the proportion reporting Hispanic when there are separate
questions, one for race and one for ethnicity.
The sum of the percentages reported for the four separate racial
categories would exceed 100 percent, because multiple race responses
would be counted in each reported racial category. In spite of this
disadvantage, the all-inclusive approach would provide information on
the total number of times the racial category had been selected.
Historical series approach. Unlike the single race or the all-
inclusive approach, the historical series approach can take on many
variations, just one of which was used in the RAETT illustrative
tabulations. The intent of this approach is to classify data into
categories that resemble those that have been used historically to
enforce current civil rights laws. An individual's response (or
responses) is classified into one and only one category, in a set of
mutually exclusive and exhaustive categories that add up to 100
percent. For example, in the report on the RAETT, which tested a
``multiracial or biracial'' category with a write-in to specify races
as well as other options for reporting more than one race, the
historical series approach classified into the Asian or Pacific
Islander category responses of: (1) Only the Asian or Pacific Islander
category, (2) the Asian or Pacific Islander category and also White,
(3) the Asian or Pacific Islander category and Other Race, and (4) the
Asian or Pacific Islander category and the multiracial category, with
no specification of additional races. The ``multiracial'' or ``other''
category in the historical series were a residual category which
consisted of responses to the ``multiracial'' category that did not
specify any races; and responses of two race categories other than
``White'' or ``Some Other Race.'' A more complete description of the
historical series approach is provided in the RAETT report.
Under the historical series approach, the percentages allocated to
each of the major categories were comparable to the data collected
without a multiple race reporting option (Panel A of the RAETT), except
for the Alaska Native targeted sample. The discrepancy in this group
may be due to the fact that this particular targeted sample suffered
from both a small size and from an extremely low response rate (34
percent).
3.4.2 Should a Multiracial Category Be Listed Among the Response
Options to the Question on Race?
The CPS Supplement on Race and Ethnicity, the National Content
Survey, and the Race and Ethnic Targeted Test all allowed testing of
the effects of adding a multiracial category to the list of races. The
CPS Supplement used the term ``multiracial'' to identify the category,
and the NCS and the RAETT used the term ``multiracial or biracial.''
CPS Supplement. In the CPS Supplement, the race question on
[[Page 36888]]
Panels 2 and 4 included a ``multiracial'' category; results were very
similar--a little more than 1.5 percent identified as multiracial in
each panel.
Table 3.1 shows that the multiracial response option drew
respondents primarily from the American Indian, Eskimo, and Aleut
population, and from those who reported in the ``Something Else''
category. Without a multiracial response category, about 1 percent
reported as American Indian, Eskimo, and Aleut. With a multiracial
category, about 0.75 percent reported in the American Indian, Eskimo,
and Aleut category only.
The proportions reporting in the White category, in the Black
category, and in the Asian or Pacific Islander category were not
affected by the introduction of the multiracial option in the CPS
Supplements.
BILLING CODE 3110-01-M
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09JY97.000
BILLING CODE 3110-01-C
[[Page 36889]]
National Content Survey. In the NCS, the race question included a
multiracial category (using the term ``multiracial or biracial'') in
two of four panels. The percent of respondents identifying themselves
as multiracial on the NCS was 1.2 percent on the panel with the race
question first (Panel 2), and 1.1 percent on the panel with the
Hispanic-origin question first (Panel 4). Thus, as in the CPS, less
than 2 percent of the total population chose the multiracial category
on the NCS. Hispanics on the NCS were more likely than the total
population to identify as multiracial (6.7 percent in Panel 2 and 10.0
percent in Panel 4).
The addition of a multiracial category had no statistically
significant effect on the percentage of persons who reported as White,
as Black, as American Indian, or as Asian or Pacific Islander
regardless of whether the race or the Hispanic-origin question was
asked first. However, the relatively small sample size in the NCS might
not detect changes that were substantively important for small
populations.
For example, although not statistically significant, the declines
in the proportion reporting in the Asian or Pacific Islander category,
from 4.0 percent to 2.7 percent in panels where the race question came
first, and from 3.4 percent to 2.8 percent when the Hispanic-origin
question was asked first, suggested that further analyses should be
undertaken. An analysis of the Asian or Pacific Islander write-in
responses for those who reported in the multiracial category revealed
that if these write-in responses had been reported solely as Asian or
Pacific Islander, the proportion of the population in that category
would have increased to about 3 percent. These findings, however,
cannot be used to draw a firm conclusion about the effects of adding a
multiracial category on reporting as Asian and Pacific Islander because
the sample sizes were too small.
Adding a multiracial category significantly decreased reporting in
the ``Other race'' category when race was asked first, from 3.3 percent
to 1.7 percent. Reporting as ``Other race'' decreased only 0.3 percent
with a multiracial category when the Hispanic-origin question was asked
first.
Race and Ethnic Targeted Sample. The RAETT used a total of eight
panels, Panels A through H (with A as the control panel). Three of the
panels specifically tested the effects of reporting more than one race.
In Panel B, the RAETT tested the effects of including a ``multiracial
or biracial'' category. In Panel C, it tested the effects of
instructing respondents to ``mark one or more'' in response to the race
question; and in Panel H, it tested the effects of instructing
respondents to ``mark all that apply'' in response to the race
question. The results are discussed in succeeding sections of this
chapter.
To determine the effects of including a multiracial category,
responses to Panel B are compared with responses to Panel A. The
findings indicate that the availability of the option to report as
``multiracial or biracial'' had the most substantial effect in the
Asian and Pacific Islander and in the Alaska Native targeted samples.
In the other targeted samples, use of the multiracial category had no
significant effect on how race was reported. The percentages using the
multiracial category in each of the other targeted samples were under
1.0 percent for the White ethnic and the Black targeted samples, 2.33
percent for the Hispanic targeted sample, and 3.67 percent for the
American Indian targeted sample. (See Table 3.2.)
BILLING CODE 3110-01-M
[[Page 36890]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09JY97.001
BILLING CODE 3110-01-C
In the Asian and Pacific Islander targeted sample, 7.58 percent in
Panel B selected the multiracial category, and another 3.06 percent
marked more than one race, even though they were instructed to mark
only one. The corresponding percentages in the Alaska Native targeted
sample were 7.07 percent and 6.32 percent.
The RAETT results show that, if there were the addition of a new
category (e.g., multiracial), the proportion reporting in at least one
of the current categories may be reduced. In the Asian and Pacific
Islander targeted sample, about 2 percent fewer reported in the White
(only) category in Panel B, and about 4.5 percent fewer reported in the
Asian and Pacific Islander (only) category. Within the Asian and
Pacific Islander category, the Hawaiian and the Asian Indian categories
had the largest drops in reporting from Panel A to Panel B. However,
the response rate for the Asian and Pacific Islander targeted sample
was only 55 percent, and the possible impact of nonresponse bias on
these comparisons is not known without further research. (See Table
3.3.)
BILLING CODE 3110-01-M
[[Page 36891]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09JY97.002
BILLING CODE 3110-01-C
[[Page 36892]]
In the Alaska Native targeted sample, the response rate was only 34
percent, leading again to the possibility of nonresponse bias and the
need for further research. This, and the fact that the percent
reporting White (only) increased by about 4.5 percent with the addition
of a multiracial category, suggests that the group reporting in Panel A
was different in some way from the group reporting in Panel B. In this
targeted sample, the multiracial category drew primarily from the
American Indian and Alaska Native category. (See Table 3.4.)
BILLING CODE 3110-01-M
[[Page 36893]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09JY97.003
BILLING CODE 3110-01-C
[[Page 36894]]
3.4.3 If a Multiracial Category Is Listed, Should a ``Follow-Up''
Format Be Used, in Which Individuals Who Select the Category Are Asked
To Specify Their Racial Identities?
All three of the major research surveys--the CPS Supplement, the
NCS, and the RAETT--used a two-part question to evaluate the effects of
a follow-up question on reporting by different racial groups.
CPS Supplement. The responses on the CPS Supplement to the follow-
up question for individuals who identified themselves as multiracial
are shown in Table 3.5.
BILLING CODE 3110-01-M
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09JY97.004
BILLING CODE 3110-01-C
With the exception of respondents who named only one race, the
``American Indian + one other race'' group had the highest frequency in
both panels, followed by ``Asian/Pacific Islander + one race'' on Panel
4. All but a small percentage of the Hispanics who used the multiracial
category reported only an Hispanic ethnic group. (McKay, Stinson, de la
Puente, and Kojetin, 1996)
More than 60 percent of multiracial responses on Panel 2 and close
to 20 percent of multiracial responses on Panel 4 did not provide two
or more different races. Respondents who reported only a single race,
or reported ethnicities as races, were designated as ``unconfirmed
multiracials.'' With the addition on an Hispanic category, there was a
90 percent decline among Hispanic ``unconfirmed multiracials'' between
Panels 2 and 4. There was also a 60 percent decline in such entries for
non-Hispanics between Panels 2 and 4, which is not readily explained by
the presence of the Hispanic category on Panel 4. (See Table 3.6.)
The decline in ``unconfirmed multiracials'' among Hispanics in
Panel 4 may reflect the effect of the combined race and Hispanic origin
question on Hispanic reporting. In the case of non-Hispanics, the
decline might result from the absence of the influence of a preceding
Hispanic origin question.
BILLING CODE 3110-01-M
[[Page 36895]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09JY97.005
BILLING CODE 3110-01-C
Researchers were able to compare the racial identification of CPS
respondents on the CPS control card, which represents the current time
series, with their racial identification on the CPS Supplement. Table
3.7 displays the results.
BILLING CODE 3110-01-M
[[Page 36896]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09JY97.006
BILLING CODE 3110-01-C
[[Page 36897]]
As reported above, only the percent of people identifying as
American Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut was significantly smaller when a
multiracial category was used. However, the largest movement from the
American Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut category is always to the White
category. (See Note to Table 3.7.) Only 4.24 percent of this group used
the multiracial category on Panel 2. On Panel 4, 7.94 percent of those
identifying with this group on the CPS Supplemental selected
multiracial while 7.43 percent chose Hispanic. In sum, a large number
of individuals of mixed American Indian and White ancestry changed
their racial identification on the CPS Supplement but not necessarily
to the multiracial category. This change had a noticeable effect on the
American Indian, Eskimo, and Aleut population counts without noticeably
affecting counts of the White population.
Researchers analyzed the distribution of CPS Supplement respondents
choosing the multiracial category by State to consider whether State
legislative requirements for a multiracial category on State records
influenced the frequency with which this category was chosen. At the
time of the study, Georgia was the only State with a law requiring a
multiracial category; six other States (Florida, Illinois, Indiana,
Michigan, North Carolina, and Ohio) were in the process of framing
legislation requiring a multiracial category. The highest percentage of
CPS respondents choosing the multiracial category for these States was
1.5 percent. Among other States, the five with the highest percentage
of respondents choosing the multiracial category were: Hawaii, Nevada,
Washington, Tennessee, and Alaska. Of these, Hawaii was the highest,
with 11.6 percent; the others had percentages between 3.0 percent and
4.7 percent.
The CPS Supplement data were also analyzed to consider the effect
of having parents of different races on the reporting of the racial
identity of children. Of the CPS households, less than 1 percent
involved married partners of different races with children under the
age of 16 in the household. About 13 percent of these households
involved an Asian/Pacific Islander mother and White father; about 11
percent, a White mother and Black father; about 9 percent, a White
mother and multiracial father; about 8 percent, an Hispanic mother and
White father; and about 8 percent, a multiracial mother and White
father. Almost 32 percent of the children in these households
identified as ``multiracial.''
National Content Survey. In the National Content Survey (NCS),
virtually all persons (98 percent) who marked the multiracial category
in the panels that included this category provided a write-in response.
More than half of these write-in responses (55 percent) identified two
or more different races, and about a third showed a racial category and
a Hispanic-origin group. The remainder of the write-in responses
indicated only one of the racial categories specified in Directive No.
15.
The vast majority (more than 80 percent) of the write-in responses
to the multiracial category included White. (This result is consistent
with research on interracial and inter-ethnic marriages and households,
which usually involve one White spouse (92 percent) or White parent (86
percent).) About 30 percent of the write-in responses included the
Asian or Pacific Islander category, about 25 percent involved the Black
category, and about 7 percent involved the American Indian category. If
the Asian and Pacific Islander write-ins to the multiracial category
had been tabulated solely as Asian and Pacific Islander, the proportion
of the population in that category would have increased to about 3
percent, still smaller than the 4 percent who selected Asian and
Pacific Islander in Panel 1, without a multiracial category.
Race and Ethnic Targeted Test. Information from the write-ins for
panels, B, D, E, F, and G in the RAETT was tabulated in accordance with
the ``historical series'' and the ``all inclusive'' approaches
described in section 3.4.1. The results are useful in assessing the
extent to which write-ins can be used to provide the bridges to the
distributions provided by the current classifications. These results
are described in other parts of this report.
3.4.4 Should a Multiple-Response Format Be Used, in Which the
Respondent is Instructed to ``Mark One or More Races?
Another option for collecting data is to allow respondents to
select more than one race. Some suggest that this approach has the
advantage of preserving detailed data about racial identification that
might not be captured with a single multiracial response category, even
with write-in lines. This section discusses one instruction that
respondents might be given; the next section discusses an alternative
instruction. Only the RAETT tested these alternative approaches.
Race and Ethnic Targeted Test--Panels A and B. In the RAETT, some
respondents marked more than one box on Panels A and B, despite the
instruction on both panels to ``mark one box . . .'' (Panel B included
a ``multiracial'' category; Panel A did not.) Reporting multiple races
on Panel A was especially high in the Alaska Native targeted sample
(5.16 percent). This percentage nearly approached the percentage who
selected the multiracial category on Panel B in this targeted sample
(7.07 percent). Multiple responses on Panel A were also substantial
(3.76 percent) in the Asian and Pacific Islander targeted sample. (By
comparison, it is estimated that 0.5 percent of respondents to the 1990
census selected more than one race when asked to select only one.)
In the targeted samples of the RAETT, the lowest frequency of
marking multiple races on panels with instructions to ``mark one box''
was 0.7 percent in the Black targeted sample. In the Asian and Pacific
Islander targeted sample, persons who were born in the United States
were far more likely to report multiple races than the foreign-born.
In addition, respondents in all of the targeted samples marked one
or more boxes even for the panel that included a multiracial category.
That finding suggests that marking multiple races may have a different
meaning to some respondents than identifying in a category labeled
``multiracial.''
Race and Ethnic Targeted Test--Panel C. In the RAETT, Panel C
instructed respondents to ``mark one or more'' races. The percentages
in each of the targeted samples that provided multiple responses were
under 2 percent for the White ethnic targeted sample and the Black
targeted sample, 3.57 percent for the Hispanic targeted sample, 4.22
percent for the American Indian, and 10.03 percent for the Asian and
Pacific Islander target sample. Approximately the same percentage
marked only the Asian and Pacific Islander category in Panel C as
selected only that category in Panel A. (The Alaska Native targeted
sample did not receive the option to mark one or more.) (See Table
3.8.)
BILLING CODE 3110-01-M
[[Page 36898]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09JY97.007
BILLING CODE 3110-01-C
3.4.5 Should a Multiple Response Format Be Used in Which the
Respondent is Instructed to ``Mark All That Apply'' on the Race
Question?
Respondents evidently interpreted the instruction to ``mark all
that apply'' somewhat differently than the instruction to ``mark one or
more.''
Race and Ethnic Targeted Test--Panel H. The percentages in each of
the RAETT targeted samples that provided multiple responses in the
``mark all that apply'' option were under 2.0 percent for the White
ethnic and the Black targeted samples, 2.24 percent for the Hispanic,
4.27 percent for the American Indian, and 11.47 percent for the Asian
and Pacific Islander targeted samples. The Alaska Native targeted
sample did not receive this option. (See Table 3.9.)
BILLING CODE 3110-01-M
[[Page 36899]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09JY97.008
BILLING CODE 3110-01-C
In contrast to Panel C, significantly fewer respondents in the
Asian and Pacific Islander targeted sample in Panel H, with the ``mark
all that apply'' instruction, selected only the Asian and Pacific
Islander category than was the case in Panel A. (See Table 3.10.) If
those who marked Asian and Pacific Islander in combination with another
category are included with those who marked only Asian and Pacific
Islander, the percentages are about the same. The ``historical series''
approach, described in section 3.4.1 above, also largely eliminated
these reductions in reporting. With this tabulation of responses, the
percentages reporting as Asian and Pacific Islander on Panel H no
longer differed significantly from the percentage on Panel A.
BILLING CODE 3110-01-M
[[Page 36900]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09JY97.009
BILLING CODE 3110-01-C
[[Page 36901]]
3.4.6 Are there Other Options for Reporting more than One Race by
Respondents?
Another option for addressing concerns about reporting multiple
races would be to add the category ``Other'' to the list of races in
all Federal data collections. As discussed in Chapter 1 of this report,
in 1988, OMB considered a proposal to add ``Other'' to the list of
races. Comments at that time indicated that the proposal was
controversial and consensus would not be easily reached. The debate
over the ``Other'' category has continued in the current review of
racial and ethnic categories. Some who commented expressed support for
the adoption of an ``Other'' category--if it is open-ended, allowing
the identification of biracial and multiracial people and ethnic groups
who do not identify with one of the major race groups. Others viewed
use of the term as demeaning, or stated that the category was
unnecessary or that it was too broad to be of much use. (OMB Federal
Register notice, 1995)
A special exemption from Directive No. 15, granted by OMB, allows
the Bureau of the Census to collect data using an ``Other race''
category, and that category was included in the 1980 and 1990 decennial
censuses. In the 1990 Census, more than 250,000 Americans wrote in--as
their race designation--a combination of races or used a term such as
``Eurasian'' that indicates two or more races.
Under its special exemption, the Bureau of the Census does not
assign the ``Other race'' responses to the Directive No. 15 race
categories. The Bureau has, however, developed a Modified Age-Race-Sex
(MARS) file that assigns respondents to the standard race categories in
order to provide data comparable to vital statistics and other
statistical sources. In developing the MARS file, the Bureau of the
Census used a complicated set of algorithms. If OMB were to establish a
new classification system that provided the ``Other race'' option, a
standard algorithm might be needed across agencies. Alternatively,
agencies could simply list ``Other race'' in tabulations. (National
Research Council, 1996)
3.5 Trends With Respect to Reporting Multiple Races
3.5.1 Trends Contributing to Reporting of Multiple Races
As noted earlier in this chapter, a significant number of
respondents select more than one race even when asked to select only
one. At least two trends may be contributing to this phenomenon.
3.5.1.1 Increases in Interracial Marriages and Households and Births
to Parents of Different Races
Some of the impetus for considering an option that allows the
reporting of more than one race comes from the increasing number of
interracial marriages and births to parents of different races in the
past 25 to 30 years. Allowing individuals to report more than one race
could provide a more complete report of the Nation's changing society.
Data suggest that individuals from smaller racial population groups
are more likely to form interracial unions with individuals from
outside their racial population group than are individuals from the
White and the Black populations. The White population is such a large
proportion of the total United States population, however, that in most
interracial marriages one partner is White; similarly, for most
children with parents of different races, one parent is White.
In the 1970 census, there were about 321,000 interracial
unions. By 1980, the number had increased to about 1 million; and by
1990 there were about 1.5 million interracial couples. In all but 8
percent of these interracial couples, one spouse (or unmarried partner)
was White. In 14 percent of all interracial couples, the non-White
spouse was Black; in 22 percent, American Indian and Alaska Native; in
31 percent, Asian and Pacific Islander; and in 25 percent, ``Other
race'' (most of whom were of Hispanic origin).
Census data indicate that the number of children in
interracial families grew from less than one-half million in 1970 to
about 2 million in 1990. In 1990, in interracial families with one
white partner, for about 34 percent of all children the other parent
was American Indian; for 45 percent the other parent was Asian; and for
about 20 percent the other parent was Black.
In 1968, for 2 percent of the births with at least one
Black parent, the second parent was reported as White on the birth
certificate (8,800). This percentage had increased to 9 percent in 1994
(63,000). Analysis of the change in the numbers of births where one
parent is Black and the other is some other race is complicated by the
increasing number of birth for which the race of the second parent,
usually the father, is not given on the birth certificate--40 percent
in 1994, compared with 24 percent in 1968. (See Graph 3.1, Births to
Minority and White Parents as a Percent of All Births to Minority
Parents by Race of Minority Parent: 1968 to 1994.)
Even with this limitation it can be inferred, from births
for which both parents' races are known, that births involving one
Black parent and a second parent of another race other than White also
are increasing.
Among births to American Indian and Alaska Native parents,
a high percentage of all births involve a second parent of another
race. In 1968, 28 percent of all the births with at least one American
Indian or Alaska Native parent listed the second parent as White on the
birth certificate (6,900); in 1994 it was 45 percent (23,000).
Among births to Asian or Pacific Islander parents, the
percentage of births in which the second parent was listed as White was
28 percent in 1968, about 32 percent between 1971 and 1979, and 26
percent in 1994.
BILLING CODE 3110-01-M
[[Page 36902]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09JY97.010
BILLING CODE 3110-01-C
[[Page 36903]]
3.5.1.2 State Requirements for Multiracial Reporting
Legislative activity at the State level generates further impetus
for considering a modification to the Federal standard to provide
reporting of more than one race. Advocacy groups for multiracial
persons have lobbied many State legislatures for laws to add a
multiracial category to all forms and applications used to collect
information on race and ethnicity.
Due at least in part to these advocacy efforts, Georgia, Indiana,
and Michigan require the use of a stand-alone multiracial category
(Georgia since 1994 and Indiana and Michigan since 1995). In these
States, the requirement applies to all State forms and applications
used to collect data on race and ethnicity, including health department
forms. Ohio and Illinois have similarly adopted legislation adding a
multiracial category, but these laws affect only school forms that
collect data on race and ethnicity. Florida and North Carolina have
added a multiracial category (by administrative directives) to school
forms that collect information on race and ethnicity.
At least nine other States are considering legislation to add a
reporting category of multiracial: California, Massachusetts, New
Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin.
In Maryland, a bill adding a multiracial category was passed by the
legislature in 1995, but was voted by the Governor; a task force has
been established to review the issue.
State law enacted thus far specify that it is a Federal agency does
not accept the multiracial data as a category, then the reporting State
agency is to reclassify individuals identified as multiracial to racial
or ethnic classifications approved by the Federal agency according to
the racial and ethnic distribution of the general population. The term
``general population'' is not defined in the legislation.
3.5.2 Public Sentiment
Some advocacy groups support adding a category called
``multiracial.'' They represent, for the most part, persons who
identify themselves as multiracial, or person who want to identify
their children as multiracial in cases where the parents are of
different races. Some are highly critical of an approach that allows
for the reporting of only one racial category. This approach, they say,
forces children to deny the racial heritage of one parent, thereby
adversely affecting self-esteem, sense of family, pride, and
psychological well-being. (OMB Federal Register notice, 1995)
Public comment on how to allow for the reporting of more than one
race has ranged from suggestions for a specific category called
``multiracial'' (without further specification of races) to a
preference for identification by listing more than one race (with or
without a category called ``multiracial''). (OMB Federal Register
notice, 1995.)
In some respects, the consequences of adding a multiracial category
or of providing an option to report more than one race might be minor.
At present, less than 2 percent of the general U.S. population
identifies as ``multiracial'' when the category is included as a
response option. Thus, it would be less disturbing to historical data
series to add a multiracial category soon, while the size of the
population reporting would cause only small changes in data series. A
decade or two from now, the multiracial population will be larger and
the disturbance to historical series correspondingly greater.
[[Page 36904]]
3.6 Measurement Concerns and Opportunities Related to Reporting More
Than One Race
3.61 Meeting Legislative and Program Needs
Many Federal agencies use data on race and ethnicity for policy
development, program evaluation, and civil rights monitoring and
enforcement. A number of these agencies are concerned that adding a new
multiracial category, or allowing individuals to report more than one
race, could affect the comparability and historical continuity of data
series that they rely on to meet their mandates or missions. Some of
the concern is related to uncertainty about how the new data (if a new
multiracial category were provided) would be reported or how the
multiple responses (if respondents were allowed to report more than one
race) would be tabulated. For example, in the employment area,
representatives of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
have indicated that adding a multiracial category or using an
instruction that permits reporting more than one race could affect the
historical comparability of data used for resolving complaints and
charges as well as for research, making it difficult particularly to
analyze trends.
Other Federal agencies that measure and report on various
conditions suggest that the interest in the reporting of multiracial
information reflects a growing phenomenon that will have to be
addressed sooner or later. In the health field, for example, it is
important to collect comprehensive data about the racial heritage of
individuals. Studies have indicated that rates of low birth weight,
very low birth weight, pre-term delivery, and small-for-gestational-
age--key indicators of children's health status--were highest when both
parents were Black, followed by rates for children with Black mother/
White father, White mother/Black father, and both parents White.
(Carter-Pokras and LaViest, 1996) In the context of health research, a
Federal standard that permitted the reporting of more than one race
could better accommodate efforts to identify individuals at high risk
for certain medical conditions.
Another example of reporting more than one race is provided by the
National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) which since 1982 has been
collecting responses on more than one race through the use of a two-
part question. The first allows respondents to select the race of races
with which they identify from among those listed on a hand card.
Persons who identify more than one race are given a follow-up question
which asks them to pick the race that best describes them, and the
information from both questions is entered into the person's electronic
record. In the surveys that were fielded through 1996, only the first
two races circled in the first question and the race that best
described the respondent are available for analysis. (The 1997 redesign
of the NHIS enables the inclusion of up to five of the races reported
in the first question, as well as the race that best describes the
respondent.) For persons who reported multiple races, information on
the race the best describes them (i.e., that race obtained from the
follow-up question) is used to prepare statistics for NHIS
publications.
However, an analysis of the data from the first NHIS question asked
of multiracial persons (see Table 3.11) revealed the following:
From 1982-1994, an average of 1.4 percent, nearly 1,500
persons out of a sample of 100,000 per year, reported more than one
race in the NHIS. The annual proportion of persons reporting multiple
races ranged from 1.2 to 1.8 percent.
For person reporting more than one race, the most commonly
reported combination was White and Aleut, Eskimo, or American Indian
(55 percent).
About 11.4 percent of respondents who reported more than
one race did not select a single race that best represented their
background. This group represents 0.2 percent of the total population.
BILLING CODE 3110-01-M
[[Page 36905]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09JY97.011
BILLING CODE 3110-01-C
[[Page 36906]]
3.6.2 Defining and Using the Term ``Multiracial''
A Federal standard adding a ``multiracial'' category would have to
address issues of terminology and definition as well as the issue of
whether or not data on specific races would be collected in addition.
3.6.2.1 Definition of ``Multiracial''
In the five States that have enacted ``multiracial'' legislation,
the laws call for use of the term ``multiracial.'' (The same is true in
several other States where legislation is pending.) Georgia, Indiana,
and Michigan have defined ``multiracial'' as involving parents of
different races. In pending legislation, California defines the term
``multiracial'' as meaning an individual whose biological parents,
grandparents, or great-grandparents are of more than one race.
The research findings on the terminology preferred by persons of
more than one race are inconclusive. The May 1995 CPS Supplement on
Race and Ethnicity indicates that almost the same percentage of
multiracial persons preferred the term ``multiracial'' (28.4 percent )
as stated ``no preference'' (27.8 percent); ``Mixed race'' was
preferred by 16.0 percent, ``More than one race'' by 6.0 percent, and
``Biracial'' by 5.7 percent.
Other evidence about terminology comes from a study sponsored by
the National Center for Health Statistics involving women whose parents
were of different races. The mail and telephone survey interviewed 763
women, some of whom were of mixed racial or Hispanic background, who
had had a baby within the preceding three years. Among the respondents,
393 had parents of different races, 149 had one Hispanic parent, and
221 had parents who were either both Hispanic or non-Hispanic and who
were of the same race. The study found that the women were more likely
to enter two or more specific races than to use a term like
``multiracial.'' (Cantor et al., 1997)
If the Federal Standard were to provide for the use of a
``multiracial'' category, it would be necessary not only to agree on
the definition but also to communicate the instructions clearly to
respondents as well as interviewers. More emphasis would need to be
placed on drafting instructions. The experiences of the States in
trying to define the term and the data from the CPS Supplement and the
NCS suggest that some confusion exists about the meaning of
``multiracial.'' Absent a generally accepted understanding of the term,
confusion could be expected if a ``multiracial'' category were to be
listed among the response options. Most Americans are probably of mixed
ancestry, depending on how ancestry is defined, and could confuse
ancestry or ethnicity with race. (Also see the discussion in Chapter 4
regarding the concepts of race and ancestry, in regard to the Hispanic
population.)
3.6.2.2 Using a Stand-Alone ``Multiracial or Biracial'' Category or
Including a Follow-up Question
The research results indicate that between 1.0 and 1.5 percent of
respondents select a multiracial category when offered the opportunity
to do so. Providing an option to report by means of a multiracial
category with no follow-up question would be responsive to persons who
do not want to choose between their different racial heritages.
However, since respondents would not be asked to specify their races,
it would not be possible to tabulate the responses in the current
categories. Concerns about historical continuity of data would not be
addressed. While refraining from such a tabulation would be in keeping
with self-identification, the responses would provide information of
limited utility, particularly for use in health research.
By contrast, a follow-up question would enable the data to be
tabulated in the current categories for purposes of historical
continuity and trend analysis. Further, with the additional detail, the
effects on data for certain groups could be minimized. With a follow-up
question, research results suggest that a large percentage of
``multiracial'' responses could be classified into the categories that
have been used since 1997.
A related option would be to use a multiracial category with a
write-in. Doing so would take up less space but require more coding
than a follow-up question. Conversely, using a follow-up question that
specified race categories would take up more space but require less
coding.
Another option involves the use of the ``Other race'' category, as
in the decennial census, with a multiracial example. However, the use
of this category is offensive to some respondents, and multiracial
individuals still would be unable to self-identity in the manner they
have requested. With an ``Other race'' category, a greater amount of
coding would be required for the variety of responses.
3.6.3 Using a ``Mark One or More'' or a ``Mark All That Apply''
Instruction in the Race Question
Approximately 0.5 percent of respondents to self-administered
surveys, including the 1990 census, already select more than one race,
even when asked to select only one. Allowing individuals to report more
than one race could increase the accuracy of these data, eliminate some
inconsistencies in reporting of race, and improve response rates.
For many Federal agencies, the consequences of implementing the
reporting of more than one race could be expected to vary depending on
the extent to which responses could be tabulated consistently in
accordance with existing racial categories that have been used to meet
current legislative mandates. (National Research Council, 1996) If
information from multiple responses can be tabulated to the current
classifications, the potential for disruption of historical series
important to data users would likely be reduced. In particular, such
disruption could be minimized if information from persons who have
marked multiple boxes could be used to tabulate responses in the race
categories currently specified in Directive No. 15. Implementing ``mark
one or more'' or ``mark all that apply'' approaches would be less
burdensome than having to code data from write-ins. The CPS Supplement
found that many people provided write-ins that represented ethnicity
rather than races, a factor that would unnecessarily increase
processing costs. Either of the multiple response approaches could be
expected to reduce this type of misunderstanding about the information
being asked. Moreover, lengthy definitions of terms would not be
needed, whereas if a ``multiracial'' category were used, instructions
would be needed and the wording of the instructions would be extremely
important.
3.6.4 Issues Related to Primary and Secondary Data Collections
In many cases, the Federal Government collects data through primary
data collections, as in censuses and longitudinal surveys. In primary
data collections, agencies rely on essentially two methods for
collecting information: by self-identification or by observer
identification, which is based on the observer's perception of the most
appropriate category in which to report an individual.
With self-identification, individuals would be able to report
multiracial backgrounds. In the case of observer
[[Page 36907]]
identification, however, the observer would have little basis for a
realistic assessment of a person's racial background. In this case, a
multiple race response option that called for identification of the
particular races (including instructions to ``mark all that apply'')
could pose significant data quality problems. This is true today to
some extent. For example, American Indians who do not live on or near a
reservation are often classified as White or Hispanic.
In other instances, the Federal Government uses secondary data
collection, as when it obtains data from institutions and
administrative records. Examples include aggregate data collected from
colleges and universities on the race and ethnicity of students or
degree recipients, or on persons conducting research supported by
Federal grants. Reporting could become more burdensome for institutions
if individuals who initially provide data to the university were using
a multiple response approach. The primary collectors also would need
guidance on how to aggregate the raw data into categories specified in
the Federal standard.
3.7 Some Implications of Allowing the Reporting of More Than One Race
3.7.1 Possible Effects on Reporting by Particular Population Groups
Data available from the CPS Supplement, the NCS, and the RAETT
uniformly indicate that adding a multiracial option--whether by means
of a multiracial category or providing for multiple-response options--
had little effect on the numbers of people who reported as White or as
Black. On the other hand, adding a multiracial category had a
substantial effect on the reporting in specific racial categories, such
as the American Indian (in the CPS Supplement) and the Alaska Native
and the Asian and Pacific Islander populations (in the NCS and RAETT).
As noted in section 3.4.1, the Bureau of the Census was able to
tabulate substantial percentages of the multiracial responses in the
RAETT in the present Directive No. 15 categories using a procedure
called the ``historical series'' approach. (However, there still may be
some differences remaining.) Whether this ability to tabulate the data
could apply in other contexts needs further investigation.
To the extent that providing a multiracial or a multiple-race
response option can change reporting, the affected population could
experience some consequences. In the case of the American Indian
population, for example, the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian
Health Service provide assistance to persons who can prove descent from
a member of a federally recognized tribe. Tribal governments have
expressed concern that the addition of a multiracial category could
affect their ability to identify their members. In the case of health
statistics, adding a multiracial category could mean that fewer
American Indians/Alaska Natives would be counted for both numerators
(number of births to American Indian/Alaska Native mothers) and
denominators (total number of American Indian/Alaska Natives). (Carter-
Pokras, LaViest, 1996; Hahn, 1992)
3.7.2 Tabulation of Multiple Responses
Whether or not OMB modifies Directive No. 15, some respondents will
report more than one race. It is important to ensure that the data are
treated uniformly. Accordingly, attention needs to be given to
establishing rules for tabulating multiple responses to the race
question both for purposes of historical comparability and to ensure
consistency across Federal agencies.
An algorithm could be used to tabulate responses in the racial
categories that are used currently. For example, one option would be to
tabulate responses from a multiracial category in proportion to the
distributions for the current single-race categories: with a population
of 80 Whites, 10 Asians, and 10 multiracial individuals, the resulting
numbers would be 89 Whites and 11 Asians. This algorithm would not
change the relative sizes of the single-race categories. However, the
tabulation would be arbitrary and could misrepresent the multiracial
respondents (if for instance the 10 respondents in the multiracial
category were the children of Asian/White unions). (National Research
Council, 1996) Moreover, even if this method of tabulation would
suffice for some purposes, there are others in which it would be
necessary to deal with individual records.
Data from the decennial censuses suggest that the way in which
children born into interracial families are identified on the race item
does not follow the race and ethnicity distribution of the population.
Thus, no simple algorithm could assign a single race based on the races
of the parents that adequately matches the race now reported for the
children. For instance, while only 12 percent of the United States
population is Black, 66 percent of the children of Black and White
unions have identified as Black in each census since 1970.
As discussed in section 3.4.1, the Census Bureau developed
procedures to address the reduced reporting of only a single race in
the RAETT that occurred in some targeted samples when a multiracial
category or a multiple-race response option was offered. An algorithm
is used in tabulating all multiple race responses. The historical
series approach tabulates these responses to the Black, the American
Indian and Alaska Native, or the Asian and Pacific Islander category
(and to the Hispanic category in two of the RAETT panels). When both
the White box and either the ``Some other race'' or the ``multiracial''
box were marked, the responses were classified as White. (The extent to
which other agencies might be able to implement a similar
classification procedure would have to be determined.)
This historical series approach tabulated a large percentage of the
multiracial responses in the Directive No. 15 categories. The only
targeted sample in which this tabulation did not appear to produce
results comparable to the single-race reporting in Panel A was the
Alaska Native targeted sample. The historical series noticeably
increased the percentages of American Indian and Alaska Native
respondents on Panel B (which included a multiracial category) and
Panel H (which included a ``mark all that apply'' instruction);
however, the percentages remained lower than on Panel A, which did not
offer a multiracial option.
In the cases of the decennial censuses, the Bureau of the Census
has not tabulated responses of ``Other Race'' in the categories
specified by Directive No. 15. As noted above, however, the Bureau has
developed an algorithm to create a Modified Age-Race-Sex (MARS) file
that tabulates responses in the standard race categories to provide
data comparable to other statistical systems.
In some cases, the Federal Government already is dealing with this
tabulation issue. In Georgia, Indiana, and Michigan--where the
multiracial legislation has general applicability--the requirement to
use a multiracial category affects the collection of data on
registration certificates for births and deaths and on health survey
forms, and it thus affects the reporting of both State and national
statistics by race and ethnicity. The National Center for Health
Statistics has created a ``multiracial'' code for vital records from
States that have passed such legislation. Multiracial persons are coded
by NCHS as ``Other'' and, before analysis, all such entries are
reallocated through an
[[Page 36908]]
imputation method to the standard race categories, consistent with
Directive No. 15. (Carter-Pokras, LaViest, 1996)
A study conducted by the U.S. Department of Education as part of
the review of Directive No. 15 found that when categories such as
``other'' or ``multiracial'' are used, schools typically aggregate
these data into the broad Federal category that is deemed most
appropriate by the school staff before reporting the information to the
Federal Government. (NCES 96-092)
3.7.3 Monetary Costs and Resource Burdens
Efforts were made to obtain estimates of monetary and other
resource costs associated with adding a multiracial response option,
whether by adding a multiracial category or by allowing for multiple
responses to the race question. Several agencies, members of the
Council of Professional Associations on Federal Statistics (COPAFS),
and State and local data users belonging to the Association of Public
Data Users (APDU) provided views.
Some data collections generally would be more costly and difficult
if a multiracial category were added (particularly if the changes
included a combined format for Hispanic ethnicity). There could be
significant costs associated with the disaggregation of the multiracial
category into meaningful population groups for enforcement purposes and
comparability with a large volume of historical data. Instructions that
allowed counting individuals according to more than one race/ethnic
group could make it extremely difficult to perform trend analysis.
Agencies noted that some of these costs would be ongoing rather than
one-time costs.
Costs associated with adding an option to report multiple races
could be expected to vary depending on the reporting technique used. If
a multiracial category involved a write-in option, for instance, and
the responses were assigned to the major groups, the costs for editing
and coding entries could be higher than those for fixed categories.
Classification algorithms would have to be written, tested, and
harmonized across agencies. Further, coding write-in responses could
prove more feasible for major statistical agencies with large data
processing resources, such as the Bureau of the Census, than for
agencies where the collection of racial and ethnic data is only a small
portion of their administrative mandate.
In an informal consultation with BLS staff, COPAFS members
suggested that in some cases a change in Directive No. 15 would
probably mean only minor effects on data systems, Computer-Assisted
Telephone Interviewing software, and sample management systems.
Participants in the discussion noted that a variety of computer-based
analytic tools would have to be reprogrammed. In cases where general
requirements for data collection apply, changes in industry-wide forms
(paper and electronics), electronic data transfer conventions, and
computer programs would be needed. Estimates of time range from two to
three weeks to reprogram and one to two months to re-estimate models.
COPAFS members also were asked about data systems or software that
the organizations would have to revise to accommodate a change. The
responses ranged from ``only minor changes would be needed'' to
``significant changes would be required.'' Members also noted that
changing only the nomenclature from that used in Directive 15 would
have little effect on cost. However, adding an ``Other race'' or a
multiracial category would be both disruptive and costly. Members said
the changes would affect Computer-Assisted Telephone Interviewing
software, forms, electronic reporting systems, and resulting databases.
The cost would be associated with disaggregating the multiracial
category into meaningful groups for enforcement purposes and
comparability with a large volume of historical data. Survey processing
costs would increase due to the additional editing, coding, and keying
of the expanded matrices, and due to the need to redesign the
processing systems to account for the additional data. (Tucker, COPAFS,
1996) One participant said the modifications would be handled as part
of the massive transition from the 1990 Census to the 2000 census,
describing the overall process that occurs once each decade as an
arduous one that could be made more complicated by changes to the
racial and ethnic categories.
In a meeting with data users from State and local organizations,
participants appeared not too concerned about adapting to change.
Unless no changes are made to the decennial census, participants noted,
they have to rewrite their data analysis programs every ten years--in
any event--to conform to the new formats. Participants believed that
costs would not be affected to any great extent. (Tucker, APDU, 1996)
Most participants ultimately favored an option that would allow for
multiple responses to the race question. While recognizing that it
would require more work for analysts and data providers, they believed
it to be the fairest alternative given our Nation's diverse population.
They thought it could be a viable solution, but also expressed interest
in having the Federal Government develop rules for tabulating multiple
race responses. (Tucker, APDU group, 1996)
Several agencies offered dollar estimates for what it would cost to
implement a change in Federal standards that provided for the reporting
of more than one race. These ranged from the tens of thousands into the
millions of dollars, depending on the approach that might be selected
and whether and the extent to which updating of records might be
required.
Chapter 4. A Combined Race and Hispanic Origin Question
4.1 Background
This chapter addresses the issue of whether there should be a
combined race/Hispanic origin question or whether there should be a
separate race question and a separate Hispanic origin question.
Included in this chapter is a summary of findings from research
recently conducted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and by the Bureau
of the Census on the effects of using a combined format instead of
separate questions. The chapter also presents findings from other
relevant research that address the issues associated with a combined
format versus separate questions. These issues include concerns about
data quality that arise when a separate race question and an Hispanic
origin question are used, and approaches that have been tested to
address these data quality concerns.
Directive No. 15 calls for collection of information on persons of
Spanish origin or culture. This information can be collected using two
different formats--either a combined race and Hispanic origin question
or two separate questions, one for race and one for Hispanic origin.
Both approaches are popular among Federal agencies. The Directive also
allows Federal agencies to collect data on race and Hispanic origin
using separate questions and then to present the data in the combined
format.
Even within the same agency, both formats sometimes are used. For
example, almost six out of every ten (56 out of 97) data systems listed
in the Directory of Minority Health and Human Services Data Resources
which collect information on Hispanic origin do so using the separate
format (Department of Health and Human Services, 1995). Slightly more
than half (8 out of 15) of the principal data collections at the
Department of Justice
[[Page 36909]]
use the combined format. At the Bureau of Labor Statistics in the
Department of Labor, some of the surveys use a combined format while
others use two separate questions. The Office for Civil Rights in the
Department of Education, the Office of Civil Rights in the Department
of Health and Human Services, the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC), and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) use the
combined format. In its National Health Interview Survey, the National
Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) uses two questions for race (check
one or more groups, followed by selection of the group which best
represents the person's race), and one question for Hispanic origin.
The combined format tends to be preferred for data collections using
observer identification.
Briefly, according to the Directive, if data on race and ethnicity
are collected using two separate questions, the racial categories are:
--American Indian or Alaskan Native
--Asian or Pacific Islander
--Black
--White
And, for ethnicity:
--Hispanic origin
--Not of Hispanic origin
If the combined format is used, the categories are:
--American Indian or Alaskan Native
--Asian or Pacific Islander
--Black, not of Hispanic origin
--Hispanic
--White, not of Hispanic origin
The separate questions are designed to provide Hispanic origin
information for all persons. The combined format does not allow for
collection of Hispanic origin data if a person reports in the American
Indian or Alaskan Native category, or in the Asian or Pacific Islander
category.1 When a combined question is used, data on the
race of Hispanics is not collected (see OMB Federal Register notice,
June 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In the 1990 Census, 8.4 percent of American Indians or
Alaskan Natives and 4 percent of Asian or Pacific Islanders were
also Hispanic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.2 Concepts of Race and Ethnicity
The decennial census categories used to classify data on ``race''
and ``ethnicity'' have changed depending on what were considered the
population groups of interest. In the 20th century, data on race and
ethnicity have sometimes been coded together and at other times have
been coded separately. Census researchers Bates, de la Puente, DeMaio,
and Martin (1994) have characterized as ``official ambivalence'' the
Federal uncertainty ``about whether Spanish-speaking groups should be
considered a separate race, or not.'' For example, the census
classified Mexicans as a ``race'' in 1930, ``White'' during 1940-1970,
and ``of any race'' they chose in 1980 and 1990. In 1940, persons of
Spanish mother tongue were reported. In 1950 and 1960, persons of
Spanish surname were recorded. By 1960, all Mexicans, Puerto Ricans and
other persons of ``Latin descent'' were counted as ``White'' unless
they were ``definitely Negro, Indian, or some other race (as determined
by observation).'' In 1970, a separate question on Hispanic origin was
added to the census long form (sent to one-sixth of households). In
1980 and 1990, a separate question on Hispanic origin was asked of all
households.
Directive No. 15 defines ``race'' and ``ethnicity'' as separate
concepts. Harry Scarr, then Acting Director of the U.S. Bureau of the
Census, stated in his testimony to the Congressional Subcommittee on
Census, Statistics and Postal Personnel in April 1993, that although
the Bureau treated race and ethnicity as two separate concepts, the
``Bureau recognizes that the concepts are not mutually exclusive * *
*'' (Scarr, 1994:7). Dr. Scarr's observation has been well documented
in the research literature.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ For example see, Gerber and de la Puente (1996), Kissam et
al. (1993), Rodriguez (1994), and McKay and de la Puente (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opinion researchers report that respondents in general--not only
Hispanics--find questions about ``race'' and ``ethnicity'' to be among
the most difficult to answer. Tom Smith of the National Opinion
Research Center concludes, ``Of all basic background variables,
ethnicity is probably the most difficult to measure'' (Smith, 1983).
Although respondents may give different answers to questions about each
concept, researchers have observed that respondents do not understand
conceptual differences among terms such as ``race,'' ``ethnicity,'' and
others such as ``ancestry'' or ``national origin.'' For example, NCHS
reports that interviewers for one of their surveys found that ``* * *
the phrase `origin or descent' was poorly understood by many
respondents.'' (Drury, 1980). Researchers at the Bureau of the Census
remark that notions of ``race,'' ``ethnicity,'' and ``ancestry'' are
not clearly distinguished from one another by census respondents and
some persons perceive the race, Hispanic origin, and ancestry questions
as asking for the same information.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ This observation has been documented in recent cognitive
studies. For example, see Gerber and de la Puente (1995) and McKay
and de la Puente (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The terms ``race'' and ``ethnicity'' are frequently used
interchangeably in the United States. For most daily and practical
applications, Hispanics are considered a race. Definitions of race and
ethnicity in major dictionaries often have considerable overlap. Crews
and Bindon (1991) suggest that race is a sociological construct that is
poorly correlated with any measurable biological or cultural phenomenon
other than the amount of melanin in an individual's skin. Ethnicity,
they suggest, is a sociocultural construct that is often, if not
always, coextensive with discernible features of a group of
individuals. Crews and Bindon cite several human biologists who have
advocated vigorously for use of the term ``ethnic group'' instead of
``race'' to question hypotheses about the genetic and cultural
constituency of groups.
This fluid demarcation between the concepts of ``race'' and
``ethnicity'' and the notion that these concepts are a sociocultural
construct observed among the general population is also applicable to
the Hispanic population. In fact, researchers such as Clara Rodriguez
(1992) have noted that this view of race and ethnicity is consistent
with the views of many Hispanics. Numerous other researchers have
concluded that the racially diverse Hispanic population regards their
``Hispanic'' identity as a ``racial'' one.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ For example, see Kissam, 1993 and Rodriguez, 1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This view of race and ethnicity among Hispanics has its origins in
Latin American culture. For example, Rodriguez (1994) observes that in
Latin America, there are a greater number of racial terms for
``intermediate'' categories. In contrast, the emphasis in the United
States has been on constructing ``pure'' races (e.g., Black and White,
and not biracial or multiracial terms). Conceptions of race in Latin
America result in the use of more categories since they are based more
on ethnicity, national origin, and culture than appearance. Recent
studies have found that Hispanics tend to see race as a continuum and
use cultural frames of reference when discussing race (e.g., see
Bracken and de Bango, 1992; Romero, 1992; Rodriguez and Hagan, 1991).
Unlike the United States where racial formation has evolved from
the acceptance and legitimization of the ``one-drop'' rule, if a person
looked
[[Page 36910]]
``White'' in Latin America, then this is what they were, regardless of
what their ancestors may have looked like or how much blood of a
particular non-White group they may have. Race in the Caribbean and
Latin America is often viewed as an individual marker, while in the
United States it determines one's reference group (Wright, 1994). Latin
American countries tend to have a more social view of race as compared
with the genealogically based view in the United States. This more
social view of race tends to include other physical and social
characteristics besides color (e.g., education, social class, and
context), and may lead to overlapping categories and different racial
taxonomies (Rodriguez and Cordero-Guzman, 1992; Harris et al.,
1993).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ These views of race are reflected in how Latin American
countries collect information on race and ethnicity. In general,
those countries with a predominately European culture (e.g.,
Argentina, Chile, Costa Rica, Uruguay) did not have questions on
race/ethnicity on census forms (Almey, Pryor, and White, 1992:7-8).
Questions on race and ethnicity were more likely in countries with
slavery and plantation histories (e.g., Cuba, Brazil, British
Indies). Countries with significant indigenous populations (e.g.,
Bolivia, Guatemala, Panama) collected data on indigenous and non-
indigenous populations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.3 Self-Identification
Studies indicate differences between the racial and ethnic
classification assessed by self-identification and: (1) Proxy
identification by other household members, family, or friends, (2)
identification by research or survey interviewers, and (3)
identification by the personnel of institutions such as funeral homes.
Several studies concentrate on the identification of Hispanic origin,
while others focus more broadly on the identification of racial and/or
ethnic groups, including Hispanics. Substantial differences have been
found between how Hispanics identify themselves and how they are
identified by interviewers (Rodriguez and Cordero-Guzman, 1992; Falcon,
1994; Tumin and Feldman, 1961; Rodriguez, 1974; Ginorio, 1979; Ginorio
and Berry, 1972; Martinez, 1988).
Hahn, Truman, and Barker (1996) examined the consistency of self-
perceived identification at first interview and proxy-reported ancestry
at a follow-up interview (an average of 10 years later) in the U.S.
population. Ten percent of household proxies did not know the
backgrounds of sample persons. Proxy reports of ancestry were
consistent with self-classification for 55 percent of sample persons.
Consistent classification between proxy and sample person was highest
for sample persons classifying themselves as Mexican (98 percent); for
other Hispanic groups, consistency was 70 percent. Overall, consistency
between self- and proxy-identification was high for several European
populations, for Asians, and for Hispanics, but low for American
Indians.
In another study comparing self- and interviewer-identification
(Drury, Moy, and Poe 1980), researchers compared respondents' self-
identified ancestry, including Hispanic categories as well as races,
with classification at the same time by an observer (as White, Black,
or other). Among self-identified Hispanic groups, between 86 percent
and 100 percent were identified by interviewers as White, the remainder
as Black or other. A more recent study of the U.S. population (Hahn,
Truman, and Barker 1996) compared respondents' self-identified ancestry
with race as determined by the interviewer. Among respondents who self-
identified as Mexican, 95 percent were classified as White, 5 percent
as other; among respondents who self-identified as members of other
Hispanic populations, 84 percent were classified as White, 15 percent
as Negro. Overall, studies consistently indicate that interviewers are
effective in identifying Whites and Blacks, moderately effective in
identifying the members of Hispanic groups, and poor in identifying
Asians and American Indians.
Other studies have focused on identification by personnel of
institutions such as funeral homes. Hahn, Mulinare, Teutsch (1992)
compared the race and ethnicity on the birth and death certificates of
all U.S. infants born from 1983 through 1985 who died within a year.
Among infants designated as Hispanic at birth, 20 percent of Mexicans,
48 percent of Puerto Ricans, and 67 percent of Cubans were likely to
have another designation at death; for all Hispanic infants who had
different designations on birth and death certificates, more than half
were classified as non-Hispanic (White or Black) on death certificates.
Observer identification may result in underestimation of mortality for
some racial and ethnic groups. For example, when data on Hispanic
origin from the birth certificate was used instead of the death
certificate, estimates of Hispanic infant mortality were 8.9 percent
higher than those based on the death certificate (Hahn 1992).
Similar discrepancies have been reported for U.S. adults. Poe et
al., (1993) found that Hispanics were misclassified as non-Hispanic on
19 percent of death certificates. Other studies have also found
significant misclassification of Hispanics (Sorlie 1993; Lindan 1990;
Massey 1980).
4.4 Some Alternative Formats for Questions
Several alternative formats for questions to collect data on
Hispanic origin have been suggested in public comments. Directive No.
15 currently allows two formats for questions on race and ethnicity: a
combined format option (referred to as Alternative 1 for the discussion
in this section), and two separate questions (Alternatives 2 and 3).
Hispanic can be chosen independently of race only when it is a separate
question.
Alternative 1: Combined Format (Allowed Under Directive No. 15)
--American Indian or Alaskan Native
--Asian or Pacific Islander
--Black, Not of Hispanic Origin
--Hispanic
--White, Not of Hispanic Origin
Alternative 2: Two Separate Questions With Race Question First (Allowed
Under Directive No. 15)
--American Indian or Alaskan Native
--Asian or Pacific Islander
--Black
--White
--Hispanic origin
--Not of Hispanic origin
Alternative 3: Two Separate Questions With Hispanic Origin Question
First (Allowed Under Directive No. 15)
--Hispanic origin
--Not of Hispanic origin
--American Indian or Alaskan Native
--Asian or Pacific Islander
--Black
--White
The following two formats are commonly used outside the Federal
Government:
Alternative 4:
--American Indian or Alaska Native
--Asian or Pacific Islander
--Black
--Hispanic
--White
Alternative 5:
--Non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native
--Non-Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander
--Non-Hispanic Black
--Hispanic
--Non-Hispanic White
Variation of these have also been suggested in public comments. For
example, some suggested that a ``multiracial'' category could be
followed by a list of categories to select,
[[Page 36911]]
or a line could be provided to specify the categories. Another
alternative which was tested in the Race and Ethnic Targeted Test
combined the concepts of race, ethnicity, and ancestry in a two-part
single question.
4.5 Research on Data Quality
This section summarizes research that has examined the quality of
data on race and Hispanic origin obtained through a separate question
for race and a separate question for Hispanic origin. The major data
quality measures examined by this research include the reporting of
``other race'' by Hispanics (section 4.5.1), item nonresponse for race
(section 4.5.2), item nonresponse for Hispanic origin (section 4.5.3),
and inconsistent reporting in both the race and Hispanic-origin items
(section 4.5.4). The chapter then turns to measures that have been
proposed and tested for addressing the data quality concerns just cited
(section 4.5.6).
4.5.1 Reporting in the ``Other Race'' Category by Hispanics
Evaluations of the results from the 1980 Census, the 1980 Current
Population Survey, the 1990 Census, the 1990 Panel Study of Income
Dynamics, and the 1991 Current Population Survey have shown that
approximately 40 percent of Hispanics select the ``Other Race''
category (Denton and Massey, 1989; Tienda and Ortiz 1986; Rodriguez
1992). Research also shows that the use of the ``Other Race'' category
varies by Hispanic subgroup and geography (Rodriguez, 1989; Tucker et
al., 1996). Almost all (98 percent) of respondents who classified
themselves as ``Other Race'' in the 1990 Census were Hispanic (U.S.
General Accounting Office, 1993:26). This has raised concern among
researchers that Hispanic do not identify with the racial categories
usually offered. Reporting in the ``Other Race'' category by Hispanics
occurs because, as noted earlier, some Hispanics do not identify with
the major race groups. For this reason these members of the Hispanic
population report in the ``Other Race'' category and many register
their Hispanic origin in the ``Other Race'' write-in line when
available. (For example, see Kissam et al., 1993). In the 1996 National
Content Survey, between 25 percent and 43 percent of Hispanics reported
in the ``Other Race'' category depending on whether the Hispanics
origin question was placed before or after the race question (Harrison
et al., 1996).
4.5.2 Item Nonresponse in the Race Question
Relatively high item nonresponse to the race question among
Hispanics is another reporting issue associated with the use of a
separate question to collect information on Hispanic origin and race.
The item nonresponse to the race question varies depending on the mode
of data collection. In self-administered surveys such as the 1996
National Content Survey (NCS), the item nonresponse rate for the race
question is much higher than in interviewer-administered surveys. For
example, in the NCS, the item nonresponse rate for the race question
ranged from 1.1 percent to 2.2 percent for non-Hispanics, and from 31
percent to 36.5 percent for Hispanics. (Harrison et al., 1996). In
interviewer-administer surveys, item nonresponse to the race question
is much lower. For example, item nonresponse for the race question in
the 1994 National Health Interview Survey was 0.4 percent, and on the
Current Population Survey, less than one tenth of one percent of
Hispanics were missing information on race.
4.5.3 Item Nonresponse in the Hispanic Origin Question
The General Accounting Office concluded that ``the results from the
1990 census showed that the Hispanic origin item continues to pose one
of the more significant data quality challenges for the Bureau in terms
of allocation rate'' (GAO, 1993:24). The Hispanic origin question had
the highest nonresponse rate of any question of the 1980 and 1990
censuses, suggesting that some people regarded the question as not
applicable, redundant, or unclear. Information was missing from 10
percent of the 1990 census short forms (McKenney, 1992). For the more
detailed sample questionnaires, the allocation rate for nonresponse was
3.5 percent. Non-Hispanic respondents contributed substantially to the
high nonresponse rate for the Hispanic origin item. The 1990 Content
Reinterview Survey found that 94 percent of non-respondents to the
Hispanic origin item were non-Hispanic.
In the Census Bureau's 1996 National Content Survey, item
nonresponse to the Hispanic origin question ranged from 5.2 percent to
8.6 percent depending on whether the Hispanic origin question was
placed before or after the race question (Harrison et al., 1996).
Item nonresponse to the Hispanic origin item is considerably lower
in interviewer administered surveys than in self-administered surveys.
For example, the item nonresponse rate from the Current Population
Survey for the Hispanic origin variable was 0.6 percent for the first 6
months of 1995. In the 1994 National Health Interview Survey, Hispanic
origin was missing for 1.2 percent of sample persons. On the other
hand, some data systems that collect information based on observer-
identification have considerably higher nonresponse for the Hispanic
origin data items. Examples include 15 percent for the National
Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, 30 percent for the National
Home and Hospice Care Survey, and 75 percent for the National Hospital
Discharge Survey, all conducted by the National Center for Health
Statistics. (DHHS, 1995).
4.5.4 Reporting Inconsistency
The General Accounting Office concluded that ``the Content
Reinterview Survey for the 1990 Census showed generally good response
consistency for both the race and Hispanic origin questions'' (GAO,
1993, p. 22). However, of those who said they were ``Other Hispanic,''
only 64 percent answered similarly in the reinterview study. In the
race question, only 36 percent of those who said on the Census form
that they were of ``Other Race'' reported similarly when reinterviewed.
Those reporting as American Indians also were more likely to change
their response. Reporting race generally was less consistent for
multiple-race persons, Hispanics, foreign-born persons, and person who
did not read or speak English well (OMB Federal Register notice, 1995:
44675).
The 1996 National Content Survey compared responses from mailback
survey forms to the responses provided in the telephone reinterview
(Harrison et al., 1996). Approximately 3 percent Hispanics reported
inconsistently on the mailback survey forms and telephone reinterview
when two separate questions on race and ethnicity were used. Using a
Hispanic origin question first with no multiracial category, 2.9
percent of Hispanics reported inconsistently. Inconsistency was not
reduced for Hispanics when the order of the questions on race and
Hispanic origin was changed (2.9 percent). Among Hispanics,
inconsistency was highest (3.8 percent) when Hispanic origin was asked
first and the race question included a multiracial category. Use of a
multiracial category in the 1996 National Content Survey did not have a
statistically significant effect on the consistency with which persons
reported Hispanic origin (Harrison et al., 1996).
[[Page 36912]]
Information on reporting consistency is also available from other
surveys. For example, Hahn, Truman and Barker (1996) found that 58
percent of respondents to the first National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey and subsequent Epidemiologic Follow-up Study were
consistent in self-classification over the follow-up period. In another
study Johnson et al. (1995:15) found that 40 percent of mixed-race and
Hispanic respondents changed the way they reported their racial and
ethnic background depending on the context, social situation, options
on application forms or ``perceived advantages in applying for
scholarships, loans, school admissions, housing and employment.''
Changes in self-awareness and identification were also responsible for
changes in reported identity. Hispanics with two Hispanic parents were
much less likely (12.5 percent) to have ever identified themselves
differently.
4.6 Measures to Correct Misreporting in the Race Question and the
Hispanic Origin Question
The reporting issues just described--reporting in the ``Other
race'' category, item nonresponse to the race question, item
nonresponse to the Hispanic origin question, and inconsistency of
reporting--result from having a separate race and a separate Hispanic
origin question. Two important measures have been used and tested to
address these reporting concerns while keeping two separate questions:
placement of the Hispanic origin question before the race question, and
providing respondents with written instructions to respond to both the
race question and the Hispanic origin question.
Bates, de la Puente, Martin and DeMaio (1994) analyzed and
summarized multiple replications of five major Census Bureau studies on
decennial census race and Hispanic origin questions to determine the
effects of question order and instructions on reporting in the race
question and the Hispanic origin question.\6\ Based on this analysis
and on qualitative information obtained through focus groups and in-
depth personal interviews, the authors conclude that the evidence
consistently shows that placement of the Hispanic origin question
before the race question provides a more restrictive frame of reference
for race reporting and thus respondents (mostly Hispanics) are less
likely to report in the ``Other Race'' category and more likely to
select one of the major race groups listed in the race question.
Further, restricting the frame of reference for race reporting also
results in reductions in item nonresponse to the race question.
Although these measures substantially reduced reporting in the ``Other
Race'' category, reduced item nonresponse for the race question among
Hispanics, and reduced item nonresponse to the Hispanic origin
questions by non-Hispanics, these measures did not entirely eliminate
the reporting problems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The authors analyzed data from the following Census Bureau
questionnaire design experiments: ``Classroom'' tests (a series of
30 group sessions with split-panel experiments), the National Census
Test (a nationally representative mailout/mailback test conducted
during 1988), the Alternative Questionnaire Experiment (a split-
ballot experiment conducted in urban areas during the 1990 census),
the Simplified Questionnaire Test (a national test conducted in 1992
designed to assess whether response rates can be improved by using
more ``respondent friendly'' census forms), and the Appeals and Long
Form Experiment (a national test conducted in 1993 intended to test
two revised census ``long'' forms). In addition to these
experiments, the authors also examined qualitative information on
race and Hispanic origin reporting obtained through focus groups and
in-depth personal interviews. For more information, see Bates, de la
Puente, Martin and DeMaio (1994) and Bates, Martin, DeMaio and de la
Puente (1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For example, in the National Content Survey, ``Other Race''
reporting by Hispanics went from 40 percent when the race question was
placed before the Hispanic origin question down to 20 percent when the
Hispanic origin question was placed before the race question. The
comparable percentages in the Appeals and Long Form Experiment were 53
percent when the race question was placed before the Hispanic origin
question and 26 percent when the Hispanic origin was placed before the
race question. The declines in ``Other Race'' reporting by Hispanics in
the other three Census Bureau studies were more modest. (Bates et al.,
1994).
Bates, de la Puente, Martin, and DeMaio (1994) report that the
inclusion of instructions to aid reporting had positive effects. For
example, the Alternative Questionnaire Experiment (AQE) used a two-
question format to gather data on race and Hispanic origin, and
included an instruction in some panels that read ``Fill in the NO
circle if not Spanish/Hispanic'' next to the question text on Hispanic
origin. Results from the AQE demonstrate that adding this instruction
alone reduced nonresponse to the Hispanic origin question from 19
percent to 8 percent. Combining the instruction with asking the
ethnicity question prior to race resulted in a nonresponse rate of 5
percent. These findings suggest that instructions can help reduce, but
not eliminate, nonresponse to the Hispanic origin question.
Bates, de la Puente, Martin and DeMaio (1994) also conducted
multivariate analyses to improve understanding of the effects of
question order and instructions on race reporting by Hispanics. Four
variables hypothesized to affect race reporting by Hispanics were
included in the analyses: Place of birth (native or foreign-born),
recency of arrival in the United States, educational level, and English
proficiency. The results from the multivariate analyses are mixed. The
authors concluded that the effect of question ordering on the reporting
of race among Hispanics does not seem to be influenced by time in the
United States, education, or knowledge of English. The authors added
that data at least two of the five Census Bureau studies considered
indicated that Hispanic response to the race question may be
conditioned by recency of arrival in the United States (Bates et al.,
1994).
Unlike the Census Bureau tests examined in the Bates, de la Puente,
Martin and DeMaio (1994) study, the 1996 National Content Survey also
examined the effects of sequencing on the reporting of race and
Hispanic origin using race questions that provided a ``multiracial''
category as one of the response options. Findings from this test are in
line with the results reported by Bates et al. (1994).
In the 1996 National Content Survey panels where the race question
did not include a multiracial category as a response option, ``Other
Race'' reporting by Hispanics significantly declined from about 43
percent when the Hispanic origin question was placed after the race
question to approximately 25 percent when the Hispanic origin question
was placed before the race question. ``Other Race'' reporting also
declined among Hispanics when the Hispanic origin question was placed
before the race question that included a multiracial category as a
response option, but the decline was not statistically significant. In
panels where the race question included a multiracial response option,
reporting of ``Other Race'' by Hispanics declined from about 33 percent
when the Hispanic origin question was placed after the race question to
about 25 percent when the Hispanic origin question was placed before
the race question (Harrison et al., 1996). It is important to note that
these declines in ``other race'' reporting were reduced, but not
eliminated, by reversing the order of the Hispanic origin and race
questions.
Placing the Hispanic origin question before the race question in
the 1996 National Content Survey reduced item
[[Page 36913]]
nonresponse rates for the race question among Hispanics, but these
reductions were not statistically significant and item nonresponse
rates for the race question remained relatively high (Harrison et al.,
1996).
The sequencing of the Hispanic origin question and the race
question was also one of the major research objectives of the Race and
Ethnic Targeted Test (RAETT). The findings from the RAETT on this issue
echo those of studies just discussed. In the Hispanic targeted sample,
asking the Hispanic origin question before the race question reduced
item nonresponse to the Hispanic origin question from about 10 percent
to about 7 percent. Placing the Hispanic origin question before the
race question had no effect on the item nonresponse rate for the race
question in the Hispanic targeted sample.
In the RAETT, reductions in the reporting as ``Other Race'' and
``Multiracial'' and an increase in the reporting as ``White'' in the
Hispanic targeted sample were detected when the Hispanic origin
question was asked before the race question. More specifically, in the
Hispanic targeted sample in Panel D (race question first), about 56
percent of respondents reported as White, about 25 percent reported as
``Other Race'', and about 3 percent reported as ``Multiracial.'' In
contrast, when the Hispanic origin question was placed before the race
question (Panel B), approximately 67 percent reported as White, 16
percent reported as ``Other Race'', and 2 percent reported as
``Multiracial.''
4.7 The Effects of Combining the Race Question and the Hispanic Origin
Question into a Single Question
A combined question on race and Hispanic origin was tested in the
1995 CPS Supplement and in the RAETT.
4.7.1 Results From the May 1995 CPS Supplement on Race and Ethnic
Origin
Having a separate versus combined race and ethnicity question
appears to have a significant effect on the percentage of persons who
identify as Hispanic. In the May 1995 Current Population Survey (CPS)
Supplement, significantly more people identified as Hispanic when they
were asked a separate question on Hispanic origin than when Hispanic
origin was combined with the race question (See Table 4.1). (Because an
interviewer collects the data, either in person or by telephone,
multiple responses are much less likely to occur.) In particular, 10.6
percent of the respondents who received a separate question (panels 1
and 2 combined from Table 4.1) identified as Hispanic compared with 8.1
percent of the respondents who were given the combined race and ethnic
origin question (panels 3 and 4 combined from Table 4.1), (Tucker et
al., 1996).
BILLING CODE 3110-01-M
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09JY97.012
BILLING CODE 3110-01-C
Additionally, it is important to note that some specific Hispanic
subgroups may respond differently than others to separate race and
ethnicity questions versus a combined race and ethnicity question (See
Table 4.2). In particular, the proportions of respondents who report
Mexican, Cuban, and ``Other Hispanic'' national origins differed
significantly depending on the type of race and ethnicity question.
Specifically, the respondents who identify as Hispanic in a combined
race and ethnicity question (as in panels 3 and 4 combined from Table
4.2) are composed of a greater percentage of people with Mexican
national origin (66 percent) than the respondents who identify as
Hispanic in a separate ethnicity question (about 60 percent in panels 1
and 2 combined from Table 4.2). In contrast, the respondents who
identify as Hispanic in a separate question are composed of a greater
percentage of people with Cuban and ``Other Hispanic'' national origins
(about 4 percent Cuban and 13 percent ``Other Hispanic'' in panels 1
and 2 combined from Table 4.2) than the respondents who identified as
Hispanic from the combined race and ethnicity question (about 2 percent
Cuban and 9 percent ``Other Hispanic'' in panels 3 and 4 combined from
Table 4.2). In other words, Hispanics of different national origins
differ in how likely they are to identify themselves as Hispanic
depending upon whether they are asked a separate Hispanic question or a
combined race and Hispanic origin question (Tucker et al., 1996).
BILLING CODE 3110-01-M
[[Page 36914]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09JY97.013
BILLING CODE 3110-01-C
In the May 1995 CPS supplement, analyses of the effect of a
separate versus combined race and ethnicity question showed that there
were no significant differences in the percentage of people identifying
as Black, Asian or Pacific Islander, or American Indian (See Table
4.3). However, the number of American Indians in the sample was too
small for drawing reliable conclusions for that population. The
percentage of people identifying as White was influenced by whether
there was a separate Hispanic question or not, with 75.22 percent
(panels 3 and 4 combined from Table 4.3) of the respondents identifying
as White when Hispanic was included in the list of races compared with
79.81 percent who identified as White when Hispanic origin was a
separate question (panels 1 and 2 combined from Table 4.3). Thus,
including Hispanic as a category in the race question will likely lower
the proportion of people currently identifying as White only and the
proportion of persons classified as ``Other.'' These findings were also
reflected in the analysis of the differences in respondent reporting
between the CPS race question and the May 1995 CPS Supplement race
questions (see Tucker et al., 1996).
BILLING CODE 3110-01-M
[[Page 36915]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09JY97.014
BILLING CODE 3110-01-C
By using respondents' Hispanic national origin from the CPS and
examining their racial identification in the May 1995 CPS Supplement,
further insights are gained into how subgroups of Hispanics identify
depending upon whether they are asked separate race and ethnicity
questions or a combined race and ethnicity question (See Table 4.4). As
can be seen in Table 4.4, a sizable percentage of respondents with
Hispanic national origins do not identify as Hispanic in a combined
race and ethnicity question (panels 3 and 4). Specifically, 11 percent
of respondents with a Mexican national origin identified as White when
having a to choose between White and Hispanic in the combined race and
ethnicity question. Similarly, 23 percent of respondents with other
Hispanic national origins identified as White when there was a combined
race and ethnicity question and a majority of respondents of Cuban
origin identified as White even though the Hispanic category was
offered in the combined question (Tucker et al., 1996). This pattern of
racial identification for Mexican-origin and Cuban-origin respondents
is consistent with the findings of the 1990 Panel Study of Income
Dynamics conducted by the Institute for Survey Research at the
University of Michigan. For Hispanics reporting a single race when
given a list of racial categories that included ``Latino,'' 88 percent
of Cubans reported as White and 9 percent as Latino, compared with
Mexicans, 56 percent of whom reported as White and 35 percent of whom
reported as Latino (Duncan et al., 1992). Bates, et al. (1996) found
that Cubans, compared with other Hispanic groups, were most likely to
report their race as White when the race question followed a question
on Hispanic origin.
BILLING CODE 3110-01-M
[[Page 36916]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09JY97.015
BILLING CODE 3110-01-C
[[Page 36917]]
4.7.2 Results From the Race and Ethnic Targeted Test
Two versions of a combined race, Hispanic origin, and ancestry
question were tested in RAETT. Both versions provided check boxes for
``White,'' for ``Black, African Am., or Negro,'' for ``Indian (Amer.)
or Alaska Native'' (with a write-in line for tribal affiliation), for
``Asian or Pacific Islander,'' for ``Hispanic'' and for ``Some other
race.'' One version (Panel E) also included the category ``Multiracial
or biracial.'' A second version (Panel F) did not contain a multiracial
category but rather instructed respondents to ``Mark one or more boxes
to indicate what this person considers himself/herself to be.'' Both
versions, E and F, were followed by a question which asked respondents
to write in their ``ancestry or ethnic group'' in the space provided.
Panels E and F were compared with the corresponding panels that
contained a separate race question and a separate Hispanic Origin
question. These were Panel B (containing a multiracial category like
Panel E) and Panel C (containing a multiple response option like Panel
F). The major findings from these panel comparisons are presented
below.
4.7.2.1 Reporting of Hispanic Origin
A combined race and Hispanic origin question must, of necessity,
produce fewer Hispanic only responses or fewer responses in at least
one of the major race groups, than a separate race question and a
separate Hispanic origin question. If all individuals who select the
Hispanic category alone or in combination with another race group are
tabulated as Hispanic (termed ``all-inclusive Hispanic''), such a
tabulation could provide similar information to that which would be
obtained if separate questions on race and Hispanic origin were used.
The RAETT found no statistically significant differences between
the ``all-inclusive Hispanic'' tabulation for the combined question on
panels E and F and the appropriate panels containing a separate
Hispanic origin question and a separate race question. Specifically,
panels B and E, which both contained a multiracial category, and panels
C and F, which both contained the instruction to ``mark one or more,''
all had responses ranging from 74 percent to 76 percent. However, if
one were to tabulate as Hispanic those who selected only the Hispanic
category, then a much lower percent (about 57 percent) of responses
would be Hispanic in panels E and F.
Table 4.5 shows that the percentages reporting the specific
Hispanic origins Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban and Other were quite
different on panels E and F than on panels, A, B, and C. This is most
likely an artifact of the way the data were collected and tabulated. In
panels, A, B, and C, respondents were asked to check boxes with the
labels shown in Table 4.5. In panels E and F, respondents were asked in
a separate question to write in their ancestry or ethnic group. These
write-in groups were tabulated (for those who marked only the Hispanic
category) and are shown in table 4.5. Those who consider themselves
both Hispanic and something else are not included in counts shown for
the specific Hispanic origins for panels E and F; they are included
only in ``Hispanic (only or in combination).'' In addition, if Hispanic
only respondents wrote in two different Hispanic origins they are
counted in ``other Hispanic'' in Panels E and F. In panels, A, B, and
C, the instructions appeared to ask Hispanic respondents to select one
Hispanic origin category, although some may have marked multiple
categories. A tabulation using the ``historic series'' approach or the
``all-inclusive'' approach would shed additional light on this issue.
BILLING CODE 3110-01-M
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09JY97.016
BILLING CODE 3110-01-C
[[Page 36918]]
4.7.2.2 Reporting of Multiple Races
The combined race, Hispanic origin, and ancestry question (Panels E
and F) elicited relatively high percentages of multiple responses in
the Hispanic targeted sample. Table 4.6 shows that in Panel E, where a
multiracial category was provided and respondents were instructed to
mark one box, 18 percent of respondents in the Hispanic targeted sample
selected more than one category. In Panel F, where there was no
multiracial category and respondents were instructed to ``Mark one or
more boxes'' 19 percent of respondents of the Hispanic targeted sample
selected more than one category.
The relatively high rates of multiple responses in the Hispanic
targeted sample on Panel E suggests that substantial percentages of
Hispanics wish to report a race as well as their Hispanic origin, and
will check more than one category even when they encounter a question
that instructs them to choose one or the other. Additional support for
this conclusion can be found in the fact that more than 92 percent of
multiple responses in Panels E and F in the Hispanic targeted sample
marked the Hispanic box or provided Hispanic write-in entries.
BILLING CODE 3110-01-M
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09JY97.017
BILLING CODE 3110-01-C
4.7.2.3 Summary of Findings
Inherently, a combined race and Hispanic origin question will
result in lower reporting in the Hispanic origin category alone, or in
one of the major race groups alone than separate race and Hispanic
origin questions where race and Hispanic origin are independent. The
RAETT found patterns of declines in reporting as Hispanic alone, as
White alone, and as Asian and Pacific Islander alone in the combined
questions. This suggests that there are respondents who will report as
Hispanic and as White or as Asian and Pacific Islander when they
encounter separate questions on race and Hispanic origin. However, when
faced with a combined question, some of these respondents will report
as Hispanic, some will report as White or as Asian and Pacific
Islander, and some will mark more than one of these categories, even
when the option of doing so is not offered. In contrast, the absence of
significant changes in reporting as Black or as American Indian in the
respective RAETT targeted samples for those populations suggests that
the numbers of respondents in the Black and American Indian targeted
samples who report as Hispanic when separate Hispanic origin and race
questions are offered are relatively small or that they are more likely
to report their race rather than their Hispanic origin in a combined
question.
When Hispanic is offered as an option in the combined question, a
number of Hispanic respondents will select both Hispanic and a race,
even when instructed not to do so.
4.8 Public Sentiment
The Hispanic origin ethnicity category was included in Directive
No. 15 to meet the requirements of Pub. L. 94-311, which called for
improving data on persons of Spanish culture or origin. During
discussions of the content of the 1990 Census, the Interagency Working
Group on Race and Ethnicity concluded that a combined race and Hispanic
origin question would not meet program needs and could result in an
undercount of the Hispanic origin population (Bureau of the Census,
1988).
During 1994, several national Hispanic organizations supported the
incorporation of the term ``Hispanic'' into a combined ``Race/
Ethnicity'' question (Kamasaki, 1994; Olguin, 1994; Blackburn-Moreno,
1994). Both the National Council of La Raza (NCLR) and ASPIRA Assoc.
Inc. argued that additional research should be conducted before any
change is made. The Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund
(MALDEF) saw the lack of a uniform definition of Hispanic throughout
the Federal Government and differential undercounts of Hispanics as
more important problems (Carbo, 1994). A few public comment letters
sent in response to OMB's August 28, 1995, Federal Register notice
showed some support for Hispanic as a racial category, but none of
these letters of support were from an Hispanic surnamed individual or
Hispanic organization.
In a book chapter published in January 1997, the NCLR president,
Raul Yzaguirre stated that he does not support the inclusion of
Hispanic origin
[[Page 36919]]
as a racial category, but does support further testing of both the
Hispanic origin and race questions. He also added that: ``Before large-
scale changes are made, however, it is critical that the Census Bureau
and the Office of Management and Budget determine which version of the
questions accommodates the largest number of respondents and provides
the most accurate data.'' (Yzaguirre 1997: 89).
The majority of Hispanics in the May 1995 CPS Supplement preferred
the combined question. It has been argued that they did not know the
impact of combining the questions on the population count of Hispanics
(Torres, 1996:4). This concern appears to be based on the comparison of
the percent reporting Hispanic using the separate question format with
the percent reporting Hispanic only using the combined question with a
multiple response option. As described in Section 4.7.2.1,
approximately the same percent report as Hispanic when data are
tabulated in the all inclusive Hispanic category (the total of those
who mark Hispanic either alone or in combination with other categories)
in the combined format as report ``Hispanic'' in a separate question
format.
A concern expressed by some is that the use of the combined format
may affect aggregate statistics about the Hispanic population since
Cubans tend to have higher socioeconomic and health status than other
Hispanics. Two examples were therefore calculated. When the results
from the May 1995 CPS Supplement are applied to 1994 data on
unemployment by Hispanic subgroup, it is estimated that the 1994
unemployment rate for Hispanics would have changed relatively little--
from 10.9 percent to 11.2 percent if the combined format (and Hispanic
alone category) had been used. The percent of Hispanics with a regular
source of primary health care in 1991 did not change in these
calculations (61.8 percent using separate questions and 61.4 percent
using the combined format).
4.9 Additional Cost Concerns
If OMB were to change the choice Federal agencies currently have to
collect Hispanic origin data using either the combined format or two
separate questions, there would be a sizable number of large data
systems for which data collection forms, computer programs,
interviewers' and coders' manuals, and other related materials would
have to be changed. For example, both the separate and combined formats
are used within the Department of Health and Human Services, (DHHS,
1995). Fifty-eight percent (56 out of 97) of the DHHS data systems
listed in the Directory which do collect Hispanic origin data use the
separate format.
The Indian Health Service (IHS) in the Department of Health and
Human Services prefers that ``Hispanic'' be retained as a separate
ethnic category. Many American Indians and Alaska Natives are of
Hispanic origin and have Spanish surnames, especially in the West and
Southwest. They state that if ``Hispanic'' were to be considered as a
racial category (even if there were a ``mark all that apply'' approach
built in), it is probable that the identity of many American Indians
and Alaska Natives would be masked by responses to the Hispanic
category. If ``Hispanic'' is retained as an ethnic category, however,
Indians will still be able to identify with both backgrounds. Based on
findings from the 1990 Census and the May 1995 Current Population
Survey supplement, IHS expects that although the reductions in
reporting as American Indian, strictly from an alternative that would
include Hispanic as a racial category, would be less than from the
adoption of a stand-alone multiracial category (or a multiracial
category with a follow-up question); the reduction would, nonetheless,
be serious.
The Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) uses the combined
format to collect information on race and Hispanic origin for Medicare
beneficiaries. If the decision were made to use only two separate
questions to collect data on race and ethnicity, HCFA would have to
perform a 100% survey of Medicare beneficiaries. To revise HCFA's race/
ethnicity categories for future beneficiaries, HCFA would have to
negotiate payment to the Social Security Administration to collect this
information on Social Security beneficiaries at enrollment. The cost of
changing HCFA's data systems to accept new codes if a combined format
were to be used would be minimal.
Similarly, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
currently uses only the combined question format to collect data on
race and ethnicity. The instruction booklets for completing all EEOC
employment reports have a section on race/ethnic identification which
provides guidance on conducting visual surveys and maintaining
postemployment records as to the race/ethnic identity of employees.
Thus, the costs associated with a requirement to use only the two
question format would extend beyond simple computer programming, and
the expenses would be greater than the minimal costs that some states
have recently encountered when implementing state legislative
requirements for a multiracial category.
Chapter 5. Other Possible Changes
5.1 Background
This chapter considers suggestions for changes in how data on
certain population groups should the classified and for other
improvements or clarifications. The issues discussed cover four areas:
establishment of new categories for specific population groups,
terminology, format, and instructions. The chapter's sections
correspond to specific racial and ethnic categories, and all of the
issues related to that category or subcategory are discussed together.
It should be noted that while Directive No. 15 uses the term
``Alaskan Native,'' the term used in Federal law and generally
preferred is ``Alaska Native.'' For this reason the term appears as
``Alaska Native'' throughout those sections dealing with this group
except where the reference is specifically to the category in Directive
No. 15.
5.2 Specific Suggestions
In addition to the proposals discussed in Chapters 3 and 4, the
following fifteen suggestions for changes were examined during the
current review of Directive No. 15:
Changes related to American Indians and Alaska Natives
Should the term ``American Indian'' or ``Native American''
be used?
Should the term ``Alaska Native'' or ``Eskimo and Aleut''
be used?
Should a distinction be made between federally recognized
and nonfederally recognized tribes?
What is the best way to elicit tribal affiliation?
Should the definition be changed to include Indians
indigenous to Central America and South America?
Changes related to Asians and Pacific Islanders
Should the ``Asian or Pacific Islander'' category be split
into two categories? If yes, how should this be done?
Should specific groups be listed under the ``Asian or
Pacific Islander'' category?
Should the term ``Guamanian'' or ``Chamorro'' be used?
Changes related to Hawaiians
Should the term ``Native Hawaiian'' or ``Hawaiian'' be
used?
[[Page 36920]]
Should Hawaiians continue to be included in the ``Asian or
Pacific Islander'' category; be reclassified and included in an
``American Indian or Alaska Native'' category; or be established as a
separate, new category?
Other terminology issues
Should the term ``Black'' or ``African American'' be used?
Should the term ``Hispanic'' of ``Latino'' be used?
Should more that one term be used in either case?
Other New Category Issues
Should an Arab or Middle Eastern category be created? If
yes, how should it be defined?
Should a Cape Verdean category be created?
5.3 Evaluation of the Possible Effects of Suggested Changes
5.3.1 Changes Related to American Indians and Alaska Natives
The following suggested changes to Directive No. 15 as they relate
to American Indians and Alaska Natives are discussed in this section:
Should the term ``American Indian'' or ``Native American''
be used?
Should the term ``Alaska Native'' or ``Eskimo and Aleut''
be used?
Should a distinction be made between federally recognized
and nonfederally recognized tribes?
What is the best way to elicit tribal affiliation?
Should the definition be changed to include Indians
indigenous to Central America and South America?
Currently, the ``American Indian or Alaskan Native'' category is
used to classify data on ``a person having origins in any of the
original peoples of North America, and who maintains cultural
identification through tribal affiliation or community recognition.''
5.3.1.1 Should the Term ``American Indian'' or ``Native American'' be
Used?
``American Indian'' is the term used in Directive No. 15 to
identify the descendants of the indigenous population of North America.
The term has generally been used over the past several decades to
identify this population group and is recognized by members of this
group. In general usage, the term ``American Indian'' includes
individuals who are members of tribes that may or may not be recognized
by the Federal Government. Federally recognized tribal governments
include only members of their tribe and may use their own Indian name
for their tribal name. Further, while Federally recognized tribal
governments have their own criteria to determine tribal membership,
such membership is not required by Directive No. 15. As a result, the
number of individuals enumerated in this category exceeds the number of
individuals who hold official membership in recognized tribal
governments. Most Federal programs do not require membership in
federally recognized tribes for program eligibility. For example, to be
eligible for Indian Health Service (IHS) programs, a person need only
prove descent from a member of a federally recognized tribe; blood
quantum and membership are not relevant. It has also been the practice
to classify Canadian Indians in this category.
The term ``Native American'' has been in use since the 1960s. There
are other indigenous groups besides American Indians and Alaska Natives
(e.g., Hawaiians) in the United States and areas under U.S. Government
jurisdiction. Technically, ``Native American'' is a term that does not
apply exclusively to American Indians and Alaska Natives. Its use may
also lead to some confusion in that individuals who are not descended
from indigenous populations but who were born in the United States may
consider themselves to be ``Native Americans'' and may select this
category erroneously. The May 1995 CPS Supplement on Race and Ethnicity
found that more than half of those identifying as American Indian or
one of the Alaska Native groups preferred ``American Indian'' or
``Alaska Native'' but a third chose ``Native American.'' (Tucker et
al., 1996) Public comments from tribal governments to OMB indicated a
clear preference for the term ``American Indian.''
In the RAETT's American Indian targeted sample, American Indians
continued to write in a tribal affiliation across all panels, A through
H, that used the combined category ``Indian (Amer.) or Alaska Native''
with the instruction, ``Print name of enrolled or principal tribe.'' On
Panels B through H, some respondents used write-in entries such as
``Amer. Indian,'' ``American Indian,'' ``American Ind.,'' and ``Indian
Amer.'' to indicate that they are American Indian rather than Alaska
Native, but did not provide a specific tribal entry. The percentage
ranged from 6.5 percent on Panel H to less than 1 percent on Panel A.
There also were write-ins, such as ``Amer-Indian-Navajo,'' in which
respondents indicated first that they are American Indian, before
writing in the tribal affiliation.
In the RAETT, which drew its American Indian targeted sample from
areas in close proximity to reservations, reinterviews were conducted
with respondents in households with at least one person who identified
as American Indian. This group indicated they preferred the term Native
American (52 percent) to American Indian (25 percent). The remaining
respondents indicated they had no preference (16 percent), preferred
both terms (6 percent), or preferred another term (2 percent).
Measurement. Measurement issues--discussed for each of the options
presented in this chapter--relate to self-identification, quality and
consistency of data, and implementation.
The use of self-identification allows more people to identify as
American Indian than are members of tribes. This includes people who
are or who have ancestral ties to American Indians but do not meet
tribal enrollment requirements. The term ``Native American'' attracts
persons who were born in the United States as well as persons with
American Indian and/or Alaska Native ancestry.
To improve reporting of American Indian tribes in the decennial
census, the instruction ``Print name of enrolled or principal tribe''
was tested and then included in the 1990 census race question. The
instruction helped to reduce the rate of nonreporting of tribe from
about 20 percent in 1980 to 13 percent in 1990. This improvement
occurred in reservation areas but not in off-reservation areas. (1990
CPH-L-99, ``American Indian Population by Tribe, for the United States,
Regions, Divisions, and States: 1990'' and unpublished tables)
The use of self-identification rather than observation by an
enumerator provides more complete data on American Indians but with
limitations. The consistency of reporting as American Indian is low
among persons with both American Indian and White ancestry. In
decennial census data collection and tabulation there has been no
distinction between federally recognized tribes and nonfederally
recognized tribes. The federally recognized tribal governments, as well
as the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Indian Affairs, would
like the American Indian and Alaska Native definition limited to
enrolled tribal members of federally recognized tribes. The Indian
Health Service favors a distinction between federally recognized tribes
and nonfederally recognized tribes. IHS is only responsible for
federally recognized tribes; however, a separate count for nonfederally
recognized tribes indicates the potential IHS service population if the
tribes were to receive Federal recognition.
[[Page 36921]]
Some have suggested using a follow-up question to ask if a person
is enrolled in the tribe reported in the race question. An enrollment
question has not been included in the decennial census because there
are no statutory requirements for tribal enrollment data and because of
space constraints on the census questionnaire. Also, tribal governments
that responded to the Bureau of the Census Survey of Census Needs of
Non-Federal Data Users did not indicate that they needed tribal
enrollment data.
The 1980 Census Supplementary Questionnaire for American Indians
(Reservations and the Historic Areas of Oklahoma) asked a follow-up
question on whether the person was enrolled in the tribe reported.
There were a total of 336,280 American Indians on all reservations and
113,280 American Indians in the historic areas of Oklahoma (excluding
urbanized areas) reported. For those on reservations, 87 percent were
enrolled and 7 percent did not answer the question, For the historic
areas of Oklahoma (excluding urbanized areas), 51 percent were enrolled
and 11 percent did not answer. To determine whether a tribal enrollment
question should be asked in the future, more extensive research will be
needed on how to improve the reporting of such enrollment, particularly
given the relatively high nonresponse rates in the past.
Data production. Data production issues--discussed for each of the
options presented in this chapter--relate to coding, editing, and
adjustment needs.
A change in the name of the American Indian category would not
change the way American Indians are tabulated and would raise no data
production issues. However, the introduction of the term ``Native
American'' could be misinterpreted as meaning ``anyone born in the
United States,'' with the result that some respondents would be
misclassified. While the instruction asking for ``enrolled or principal
tribe'' might indicate the focus of the category, it might also lead to
a large number of write-in answers that would need to be coded.
Analytic. Analytic issues--discussed for each of the options
presented in this chapter--relate to comparability over time and
aggregation.
On the face of it, a change in the name of a group should not lead
to a change in results if the definition of that group is not changed.
To the extent that native-born individuals mistakenly check this
category and are not identified in the coding or editing procedures,
however, it is possible that using the term ``Native American'' would
result in data that are not compatible with historical series.
Cost. While there are no direct costs associated with a change in
name, there are important, if unmeasurable, indirect costs related to
misclassification and the cascading effect on data analysis.
Legislative or program needs. Any approach collecting accurate data
for this category would meet legislative and programs needs for most
Federal agencies. The exception is the Bureau of Indian Affairs, which
needs data only for federally recognized tribes and their members. Most
Federal agencies use special tabulations of American Indians and Alaska
Natives as one group, but data are also tabulated by tribe for some
users.
5.3.1.2 Should the Term ``Alaska Native'' or ``Eskimo and Aleut'' be
Used?
While Directive No. 15 uses ``Alaskan Native,'' the preferred term
is ``Alaska Native.'' This is reflected in Pub. L. 92-203, the Alaska
Native Claims Settlement Act (ANSCA) of 1971, and subsequent
legislation. The Indian Health Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs,
and the Bureau of the Census prefer and use ``Alaska Native.''
In the RAETT Alaska Native targeted sample, most Alaska Natives--83
percent on Panel B and 88 percent on Panel D--reported a specific tribe
or corporation when the panel used the combined category ``Indian
(Amer.) or Alaska Native'' with the instruction, ``Print name of
enrolled or principal tribe.'' The ``tribe not reported'' rates on
these panels were 14 percent and 12 percent, respectively. On Panels B
and D, 21 percent and 15 percent of respondents, respectively, wrote in
``Alaska Native'' by itself. These respondents indicated they were
Alaska Native rather than American Indian, but did not provide a
specific tribal or corporation affiliation. In addition, on Panels B
and D, some respondents reported ``Eskimo'' (10 percent and 15 percent,
respectively) and ``Aleut'' (2 percent and 1 percent, respectively)
without reporting a specific tribal or corporation affiliation.
In the RAETT reinterview for the Alaska Native targeted sample,
respondents in households with at least one person who identified as
Eskimo or Aleut indicated, by answering ``yes'' or ``no'' to each, that
their tribal entry was an ethnic group (63 percent), a tribe (55
percent), a land corporation (55 percent), a nation (30 percent), or
something else (22 percent). Respondents who said their tribal entry
was something else provided examples such as ``born in Alaska,
indigenous people, Eskimo group, or Eskimos, self government, and
people. In reinterview households with at least one person who
identified as Eskimo, 88 percent of the respondents indicated that
Eskimo was an acceptable term to them. Respondents who said Eskimo was
acceptable but who preferred another term to Eskimo provided examples
such as Inupiat, Yupik, Alaska Native, and American Indian. In
reinterview households with at least one person who identified as
Aleut, all respondents indicated that Aleut was an acceptable term to
them.
In Alaska, the terms Alaskan Indian, Eskimo, and Aleut were in
general use before 1971. Beginning with the passage of ANCSA in 1971,
the term Alaska Native came into use and has been used since. Alaska
Native includes Alaskan Indians (Athabascans, Tlingits, and Haidas),
Eskimos (Inupiat, Yupiks, etc.), and Aleuts (who primarily live on
Kodiak Island and in the Aleutian chain) covered by ANCSA. Under ANCSA,
Alaska Native does not include children who were born after 1972, but
such persons do identify with the term despite the legal distinction.
ANCSA established regional and village corporations that have
membership requirements. It is also important to distinguish among the
tribes that comprise the Alaska Native population. Alaska Native tribal
governments and the State of Alaska have stated that they would find
census data more useful if tribes were distinguished for Alaska Natives
as they are for American Indians. These tribes are just as distinct
politically, culturally, and linguistically as are the American Indian
tribes in the lower 48 states.
Focus groups and cognitive interviews with Alaska Natives found
that Alaska Natives are reporting in the combined category, ``American
Indian or Alaska Native,'' and are reporting a tribe. Also, statements
indicated that the use of the term ``Eskimo'' may be offensive to some
people. If the combined category is used, the term ``Eskimo'' as a
descriptor would not be used.
Measurement. As in the case of American Indians, the use of self-
identification allows more people to identify as Alaska Native than are
members of tribes or corporations. However, Directive No. 15 (which
uses the term Alaskan Native) makes no reference to ANCSA, with the
result that individuals not included in the legal definition only
identify themselves as Alaska Native.
Data production. If Alaska Natives are asked to designate an
enrolled or
[[Page 36922]]
principal tribe, there will be data tabulation and production
implications for the decennial census. For example, a list of the
tribes will have to be developed; a determination will have to be made
about which tribes to list in tabulations; and editing and coding
routines will have to be refined to correct for multiple spellings or
misspellings of tribal names.
Analytic. If Alaska Natives are asked to report their tribal
affiliation, it would still be possible to aggregate them into the
groups (American Indian, Eskimo, and Aleut) used previously in the
decennial census.
Cost. The data production needs discussed above will increase the
cost of the decennial census to collect and report results by specific
tribe.
Legislative or program needs. Using the term Alaska Native and
asking for the enrolled or principal tribe would meet legislative and
program needs for most Federal agencies. It would not meet the needs of
the Bureau of Indian Affairs to differentiate, at a minimum, between
tribes that are or are not recognized by the Federal Government. It
also would not allow for an absolute accounting of who is a member of a
recognized tribe.
5.3.1.3 Should a Distinction be Made Between Federally Recognized and
Nonfederally Recognized Tribes?
In public comments to OMB, the federally recognized tribal
governments would like the American Indian and Alaska Native definition
limited to enrolled tribal members. In decennial census data collection
and tabulation there has been no distinction between federally
recognized tribes and nonfederally recognized tribes. Because self-
identification is used in the decennial census, it is not possible to
distinguish between those individuals who have formally registered with
a specific tribe and those who only claim an ancestral tie. To meet
requirements of tribes, according to the Bureau of Indian Affairs and
the Indian Health Service, it is preferable that data be collected for
both members and nonmembers alike, but that a distinction be made
between the two groups.
Measurement. Currently, aside from the decennial census, most data
collection follows Directive No. 15 and uses the ``American Indian or
Alaska Native'' category or a combined American Indian, Eskimo, and
Aleut category without asking for any tribal affiliation. The 1980 and
1990 decennial censuses used three separate categories--American
Indian, Eskimo, and Aleut. For persons who identified as American
Indian, tribal affiliation was asked. The continued use of the category
``American Indian or Alaskan Native'' does not impose an implementation
problem for Federal agencies.
Data production. Aside from data collections that ask for enrolled
or principal tribe, there are no data production issues. However, when
tribal affiliation is asked, many coding and editing issues come into
play. These issues are not new and are well known to the agencies for
which tribal affiliation is an important factor.
Analytic. To the extent that data production related to coding and
editing tribal affiliation identifies and reclassifies respondents who
erroneously checked this racial category, no longer asking this
information will inflate the number of American Indians.
Cost. There are some costs associated with coding and editing
tribal affiliation.
Legislative or program needs. Using the category ``American Indian
or Alaska Native'' and asking for the enrolled or principal tribe would
meet legislative and program needs for most Federal agencies, except
for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, which needs data on tribal members of
federally recognized tribes.
5.3.1.4 What is the Best Way to Elicit Tribal Affiliation?
American Indians have been asked in most decennial censuses to
report their tribal affiliation. In the 1990 census, the instruction,
``Print name of enrolled or principal tribe,'' improved reporting of
tribal affiliation.
Given the relatively large number of Alaska Natives who also
specify tribal affiliation and the extent of negative reaction to the
term ``Eskimo,'' careful consideration needs to be given to its
continued use in either the name of the category or as an example. The
use of the combined category ``American Indian or Alaska Native'' and
the instruction, ``Print name of enrolled or principal tribe,'' would
address both points.
See section 5.3.1.2 above for a discussion of the measurement, data
production, analytic, cost, and legislative or program needs issues
related to this topic.
5.3.1.5 Should the Definition of the ``American Indian or Alaska
Native'' Category be Changed to Include Indians Indigenous to Central
America and South America?
Currently, the definition for the ``American Indian or Alaska
Native'' category does not include Indians indigenous to Central
America and South America. In the 1990 census, members of Central
American tribes (1,688) and South American Tribes (3,133) comprised
less than 0.3 percent of the total American Indian population
(1,878,285). Given these small numbers, no major difficulties occur
with the current classification and collection method if the category
were to be expanded. Even if the census numbers include these tribes,
the count would have to be much larger, at least 50,000 or more, to
appear in any Federal data collection other than the decennial census.
(1990 CPH-L-99, ``American Indian Population by Tribe, for the United
States, Regions, Divisions, and States: 1990'')
It should be noted that in the development work that formed the
basis for the current categories, some members of the FICE Ad Hoc
Committee thought that the definition should refer to ``original
peoples of the Western Hemisphere'' so as to include South American
Indians. Ultimately, the Ad Hoc Committee decided that including South
American Indians might present data problems for Federal agencies
concerned with federally recognized tribes or Indians eligible for U.S.
Government benefits.
Given that the Central and South American Indian population in the
United States is so small, no significant issues arise with respect to
measurement, data production, analytic, cost, or legislative or program
needs.
5.3.2 Changes related to Asian and Pacific Islanders
The following suggested changes to Directive No. 15 concerning
Asian and Pacific Islanders are discussed in this section:
Should the ``Asian or Pacific Islander'' category be split
into two categories? If yes, how should this be done?
Should specific subgroups be listed under the current
category?
Should the term ``Guamanian'' or ``Chamorro'' be used?
5.3.2.1 Should the ``Asian or Pacific Islander'' Category be Split
into Two Categories? If Yes, How Should this be Done?
The issue is whether to retain the current Asian or Pacific
Islander category, or to split the category into two separate
categories, one for Asians and one for Pacific Islanders. The argument
in favor of such a split is that the current category places together
peoples who have few social or cultural similarities. It is argued that
having separate categories for Asians and
[[Page 36923]]
Pacific Islanders would result in more homogeneous groups, which would
increase the comprehensibility and logic of the entire classification
scheme. In addition, the two resulting groups are dissimilar on a
number of measures. For example.
Education--Although approximately the same numbers of
Asians and Pacific Islanders graduate from high school, far fewer
Pacific Islanders (about 11 percent of persons 25 years of age and
older) than Asians (about 40 percent) obtain bachelors degrees
Income and employment--According to 1990 census data, 5.2
percent of Asians over age 16 were unemployed, compared with 7.3
percent of Pacific Islanders. Median household income was $41,583 for
Asians and $33,955 for Pacific Islanders.
Poverty--The poverty rate was 13.7 percent for Asians and
16.6 percent for Pacific Islanders. (Fernandez, 1996)
Aggregating Asians and Pacific Islanders separately is not
problematic in decennial census data as currently collected, since
separate data are available for each population group. Other data
collections do not provide the opportunity to collect data separately
for Asians and Pacific Islanders. In these instances, since Pacific
Islanders are a small group numerically, their inclusion does not
strongly affect the statistics for Asians. For example, the poverty
rate for the entire Asian and Pacific Islander category is 13.8
percent, as compared with 13.7 percent for Asians alone. Because
Pacific Islanders were only 365,000 of the Asian and Pacific Islander
total of 7,274,000 reported in the 1990 census (Fernandez, 1996),
however, the situation of Pacific Islanders is frequently masked. For
this reason it is possible to argue that users could make better use of
data if there were separate Asian and Pacific Islander categories.
Given their relatively small numbers, however, there is the question of
whether Pacific Islanders are a large enough population group to
warrant a separate category.
A complicating factor is the request to separate Hawaiians from
other Pacific Islanders, and to include them in the American Indian
category (see section 5.3.3.2). If Hawaiians are not counted with other
Pacific Islanders, the remaining ``Non-Hawaiian Pacific Islander''
group becomes very small. About 60 percent (211,000) of the Pacific
Islanders are Hawaiians (Fernandez, 1996). The remaining 154,00 Pacific
Islanders may be too small a group to justify a separate category. A
residual ``Asian and Non-Hawaiian Pacific Islander'' category might
confuse Hawaiian respondents, since the word Hawaiian would occur in
two places in the question, and could prove difficult for other
respondents to comprehend. For these reasons it is possible to argue
that the Pacific Islander category, assuming it meets some minimum
threshold, should only be considered as a stand-alone category if
Hawaiians continue to be included in that category.
With such small numbers, it might become difficult to obtain
adequate sample data for Pacific Islanders at the State or other local
level if the category were to stand alone. Unless it uses a methodology
that calls for oversampling for Pacific Islanders, any national survey
using a random sample of the general population would expect to find
three Pacific Islanders per 2,000 cases. A study would have to have a
sample in excess of 20,000 respondents to obtain thirty respondents
without using a stratified sample. It is unlikely that Federal agencies
could afford to plan a study calling for such a national sample in
order to have reliable data for a separate Pacific Islander category.
In addition, only a few agencies, such as the Department of
Education in its assessment of reading proficiency, currently collect
data separately on Asians and Pacific Islanders. In a number of cases,
the numbers of Pacific Islander students were too small to permit
statistically significant estimates. For example, although the
percentage of Pacific Islander students at or above a ``proficient''
reading level in fourth grade in 1994 could be determined nationally,
sample sizes were too small to permit reliable estimates for the
Northeast, Southeast, Central, and West regions of the United States.
Estimates were published only for three of the fifty States, and the
estimate for California was flagged for interpretation with caution
(Campbell, et al., 1996).
Currently, Directive No. 15 defines a member of the Asian and
Pacific Islander category as a person having origins in any of the
original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, the Indian
subcontinent, or the Pacific Islands (including, for example, China,
India, Japan, Korea, the Philippine Islands, and Samoa). This
definition does not clearly distinguish Asian from Pacific Islander
areas. For example, by some definitions, Japan (an Asian country) could
be considered a Pacific Island, and many of the peoples of the
Philippines (also considered part of Asia) share linguistic and
cultural features in common with Polynesians, Micronesians, and
Melanesians. Further, the definition does not provide guidance about
the classification of some groups. For example, Australian aborigines
and the Papuan cultures of the South Pacific might be considered to be
Pacific Islanders, although they have few social or linguistic
affinities with the Polynesian, Micronesian, and Melanesian peoples
otherwise included in the group.
Data production. Since the decennial census already codes and edits
the Asian and Pacific Islander groups separately, data production in
this case should not be affected by separating the Asian and Pacific
Islander category. In data collection procedures that require a write-
in for national origin, additional coding and editing would be
required. Regardless of the size of the data collections at the
national level, splitting this category will cause production
difficulties for States with large populations of the two groups.
Analytic. Whenever a new category is established there are
comparability discontinuities. In this case the discontinuities should
be minor. It would be possible to recreate the antecedent category
simply by adding the two categories together. Of greater difficulty
would be trying to recreate data for earlier surveys using the two
categories. Where population counts are large enough (as in the case of
the decennial census), it should be a simple matter of disaggregation.
In smaller studies, however, even those that oversampled for Asian and
Pacific Islanders, splitting may be impossible.
Splitting the Asian or Pacific Islander category would have an
additional effect in those areas where Asian and Pacific Islander
populations have intermarried (such as Hawaii). Individuals with both
Asian and Pacific Islander ancestry, who currently are able to respond
in a single category, would have to choose between the two categories.
They might respond as ``other race'' or as ``multiracial,'' if such a
category were available. Thus, comparisons over time would be more
difficult, inasmuch as certain individuals might no longer report
either as Asian or as Pacific Islander.
Cost. There would be substantial costs to requiring all Federal
agencies to collect data on Asians and Pacific Islanders separately,
particularly for the larger samples that would be required to produce
statistically significant data for the small residual Pacific Islander
category. Additional decennial census costs would be marginal for data
collection and processing, since Asian and Pacific Islander groups are
handled separately now. Additional costs would be incurred in the
preparation and
[[Page 36924]]
dissemination of new data products containing the split categories.
Legislative or program needs. Data on Asian and Pacific Islander
populations are needed for apportionment in those States with large
Asian or Pacific Islander populations. Splitting the Asian or Pacific
Islander category into two categories might have an impact on
apportionment for State legislative seats in States that have large
populations of both groups.
5.3.2.2 Should Specific Groups be Listed Under the Asian or Pacific
Islander Category?
The issue of whether to list specific groups in this category is
important only for the decennial census, as most agencies do not
collect data on separate Asian and Pacific Islander groups on a regular
basis. A brief history puts this issue into perspective.
The 1980 Census contained a listing of Asian and Pacific Islander
groups. The Census Bureau conducted several tests to see if Asian or
Pacific Islander reporting would suffer if the specific groups were not
listed and if a write-in line was provided instead. These tests
indicated that data quality was the same or better in questions that
did not list the groups separately. The 1986 National Content Test used
the original 1980 version of the question, a modified version with a
shorter list of subgroups, and a ``short'' version with a write-in box
for specifying nationality after responding to the Asian or Pacific
Islander category. The original 1980 version had an item nonresponse
rate of 5.3 percent, the modified short-list version an item
nonresponse rate of 2.7 percent, and the short version an item
nonresponse rate of 1.6 percent. The Bureau of the Census found the
item nonresponse for the 1980 version was unacceptably high: ``* * *
traditionally, the race nonresponse rate has been small--under two
percent.'' An additional test in Chicago also found that the short-
question version produced better results than the original 1980
version. (Minutes and Report of Committee Recommendations, Census
Advisory Committee, April 21 and 22, 1988.) For 1990, the Census Bureau
recommended using the Asian or Pacific Islander category in the short
form, in combination with a write-in box where all Asian and Pacific
Islander groups could supply detailed data. However, citizen groups
objected to this plan, and they were able to bring Congressional
pressure to bear to restore the original list of Asian and Pacific
Islander groups.
The arguments in favor of and against listing specific groups
remain essentially the same as they were in 1988. An issue paper dated
November 10, 1988, described the case for listing the Asian and Pacific
Islander groups in terms of relations between the Census Bureau and the
Asian and Pacific Islander community, which might have a negative
impact on Asian or Pacific Islander participation in the census. The
arguments in favor of listing the groups included: (1) Strong
opposition and outrage in the Asian and Pacific Islander community
could actually lead to poorer reporting of race; (2) intense emotional
feeling have the potential of affecting the overall enumeration
(therefore, coverage in the census); and (3) opposition was creating
divisiveness among racial and ethnic groups.
The groups that advocated the listing of the Asian and Pacific
Islander groups were also concerned that the proposed 1990 version,
which would have required all Asian and Pacific Islander persons to
write in a group, could not produce detailed statistics on each group
in a timely manner.
The current arguments against listing the subgroups are again the
same as those made in 1988. A Census Bureau paper dated August 9, 1988,
discussed the anticipated problems with listing the Asian and Pacific
Islander groups. It noted that the listing approach would affect the
accuracy of the racial data for Asian and Pacific Islanders as well as
for Whites, Blacks, American Indians, Eskimos and Aleuts in the
following ways (based on 1980 census and 1990 census test experience):
Nonresponse rate for the race item would be higher.
Misreporting by Asians or Pacific Islanders (for example,
groups not listed such as Cambodians or Laotians reporting in the
Vietnamese category; Asians and Pacific Islanders misreporting in the
category of ``Other race'' due to a lack of understanding of the
category ``Other API'').
More misclassifications by Black and White persons (for
example, ethnic groups such as Italian, West Indian, and Greek writing
in an entry in the ``Other race'' box instead of using the appropriate
category).
More misreporting in the ``Other race'' category due to
confusion about the intent of the question and lack of understanding of
categories.
These drawbacks are still likely to occur in formats that list the
Asian and Pacific Islander groups, as reflected in the National Content
Survey and other recent Census Bureau tests.
It is important to note that a number of these drawbacks pertain to
the reactions of other groups to a question that lists countries of
origin only for Asians and Pacific Islanders. In 1988, the Bureau of
Census reported to the Minority Advisory Committee:
``The national origin groups listed in the race question caused
confusion among respondents, and some racial groups protested that
they were not specifically identified in the question. For example,
some European and Black ethnic groups misinterpreted the race
question; they also marked off the ``Other'' race category and wrote
in their ethnic identification. That was not the question's intent,
and the misreporting required a very expensive corrective operation
both in the field and in the data processing offices.'' (Minutes and
Report of the Minority Advisory Committee Recommendations, April 21-
22, 1988)
The effectiveness of the question for other groups should be of
concern in a decision about the listing of Asian or Pacific Islander
groups in the decennial census.
An additional consideration, as before the 1990 census, is space.
Although the format of the census instrument has changed from a grid to
a booklet, space remains at a premium. This makes it difficult to add
additional categories (such as persons from the countries of the former
Soviet Union that should report in the Asian or Pacific Islander
category) to the question to represent a changing Asian and Pacific
Islander population.
Measurement. It is clear from the discussion above that the listing
of Asian and Pacific Islander groups negatively affects general data
quality with an item nonresponse rate more than four times higher than
when group data are collected in a write-in format. The listing also
has an effect on other racial categories, when respondents look for a
relevant specific listing and then use the ``Other race'' category to
supply ethnic or ancestral data.
The RAETT tested two variations in listing the groups that make up
this category: listing them in alphabetical order and not listing them
in alphabetical order. The results of this methodological difference
are reported in Table 11-4R, ``Terminology Issue: Comparison of Panel B
(Without Alphabetization of Asian and Pacific Islander) and Panel G
(With Alphabetization of Asian and Pacific Islander) for the Asian and
Pacific Islander Targeted Sample, By Race: 1996 RAETT.'' Of the ten
groups listed (Chinese, Filipino, Hawaiian, Korean, Vietnamese,
Japanese, Asian Indian, Samoan, Guamanian, and Other Asian and Pacific
Islander), five reported higher numbers with alphabetization and five
reported higher numbers without. However, only two groups recorded a
statistically significant difference at the 90-percent confidence
[[Page 36925]]
level, one under each option. This seems to indicate that the manner in
which the list is shown has no consistent effect on the category as a
whole.
Data production. Part of the resistance to the short version of the
census race question prior to 1990 (without the Asian and Pacific
Islander subgroups) came from doubts that the Census Bureau would be
able to code write-in responses in a timely manner. According to a
Government Accounting Office report on the controversy, ``[d]elays in
the publication of detailed Asian and Pacific Islander data after the
1980 census resulted in concerns about how the data from the 1990
census would be processed.'' The Census Bureau's plans to put new
technology in place came too late to ease this concern (GAO, 1993).
With the automated coding operation that is now in place, this argument
in favor of listing Asian and Pacific Islander groups can no longer be
made.
Editing may also be necessary if the list of Asian and Pacific
Islander groups remains in the decennial census race question. Tests
conducted during the 1980's found that recently migrated groups that
were not listed did not use the ``other'' write-in as intended, but
rather filled the circle next to a closely related group, crossed out
the group's name, and wrote in their own country of origin. For
example, Laotians and Cambodians (not listed separately) filled the
circle by the category ``Vietnamese'' and then crossed out
``Vietnamese.'' The Bureau of the Census estimates that 6 percent of
those reporting as Vietnamese did so in error. The exact figures are
not known because most of the editing was done directly on the
questionnaires, in the regions or in the processing centers, and
records were not kept of these changes.
Analytic. Splitting the Asian or Pacific Islander category would
not create a comparability problem if the definitions of the two groups
remain the same. However, if Hawaiians are removed, the resulting
groups would not be comparable over time.
5.3.2.3 Should the Term ``Guamanian'' or ``Chamorro'' Be Used?
In November 1995, the Bureau of the Census released a report on a
focus group involving twelve Chamorro speakers held in the Washington,
DC area. In the conclusion to the report, the author states that ``the
term Chamorro should probably be substituted for Guamanian on the
questionnaire * * * . All focus group participants indicated that they
preferred Chamorro to Guamanian, although with varying degrees of
intensity.'' It should be noted, however, that the sample
underrepresented Chamorros born in the United States and non-Chamorro
speakers. (Levin, 1995)
In the RAETT reinterview for the Asian and Pacific Islander
targeted sample, respondents in households with at least one person who
identified as Guamanian indicated they preferred Guamanian (58
percent), Chamorro (20 percent), had no preference (18 percent), or
preferred both (4 percent). Respondents also indicated that Guamanian
(72 percent) and Chamorro (79 percent) were acceptable terms to them.
There are no measurement, data production, analytic, cost, or
legislative or program needs issues related to the current method of
data collection.
5.3.3 Changes related to Hawaiians
Changes to Directive No. 15 as they relate to Hawaiians discussed
in this section include:
Should the term ``Native Hawaiian'' or ``Hawaiian'' be
used?
Should Hawaiians continue to be included in the ``Asian or
Pacific Islander'' category; be reclassified and included in the
``American Indian or Alaska Native'' category; or be established as a
separate, new category?
5.3.3.1 Should the Term ``Native Hawaiian'' or ``Hawaiian'' Be Used?
Two questions are raised by this issue. The first is how best to
identify individuals who trace their ancestry to the people who lived
in what is now the State of Hawaii prior to the arrival in 1778 of
Captain James Cook. The second is how to help respondents differentiate
between these individuals and others who are born in Hawaii but who are
not descended from the indigenous people.
In the vital statistics system for the State of Hawaii, births are
counted as Hawaiian if either parent is Hawaiian or part Hawaiian. The
State is also developing a register of individuals who can trace their
ancestry back to someone living in Hawaii before Captain Cook's 1778
visit to the Hawaiian Islands. Directive No. 15 itself does not provide
guidance on this level of detail. Publications from the 1990 census use
the term ``Hawaiian.'' The RAETT results shed some light on this issue
as four panels include a ``Hawaiian'' category and two include a
``Native Hawaiian'' category.
The RAETT tested the term ``Native Hawaiian'' in Panels D and G.
The results of this test are reported in Table 7-4R, ``Sequencing Issue
in: Comparison of Panel D (Race Question First) and Panel B (Hispanic
Origin Question First) for the Asian and Pacific Islander Targeted
Sample, by Race: 1996 RAETT'' and Table 11-4R, ``Terminology Issue:
Comparison of Panel B (Without Alphabetization of Asian and Pacific
Islander) and Panel G (With Alphabetization of Asian and Pacific
Islander) for the Asian and Pacific Islander Targeted Sample, by Race:
1996 RAETT.'' While no table specifically looks at the results using
``Hawaiian'' versus ``Native Hawaiian,'' it is possible to get an idea
whether the terminology used affects the results. In Table 7-4R no
statistical difference in the reporting of Hawaiians is shown, while in
Table 11-4R a statistical difference in the reporting of Hawaiians is
shown.
In neither comparison is the issue of using the Hawaiian or the
Native Hawaiian terminology the only issue under consideration.
Therefore, it is hard to interpret these results conclusively. On the
one hand, the term ``Hawaiian'' does not appear to cause any confusion
in the minds of respondents. But on the other hand, the term ``Native
Hawaiian'' may not cause confusion either, and it might more clearly
define the population the term is aimed at enumerating.
In the RAETT reinterview for the Asian and Pacific Islander
targeted sample, respondents in households with at least one person who
identified as Hawaiian indicated that they preferred Hawaiian (48
percent), Native Hawaiian (35 percent), had no preference (10 percent),
or preferred another term (0.5 percent). Respondents also indicated
that Native Hawaiian (84 percent) and Hawaiian (95 percent) were
acceptable terms to them.
There are no measurement, data production, analytic, cost, or
legislative or program needs issues related to this decision regardless
of which option is selected.
5.3.3.2 Should Hawaiians Continue To Be Included in the ``Asian or
Pacific Islander'' Category; Be Reclassified and Included in the
``American Indian or Alaskan Native'' Category; or be Established as a
Separate, New Category?
In the public comments, some Native Hawaiians expressed a
preference for the option of being included with American Indians and
Alaska Natives in a category for indigenous peoples of the United
States, possibly called ``Native Americans.'' They said that including
them in the large ``Asian and Pacific Islander'' category resulted in
data that do not accurately reflect their social and economic
conditions. For example, Pacific Islanders have relatively high
[[Page 36926]]
poverty rates. They also have health issues and educational needs
different from Asians. American Indian Tribal organizations opposed
this option. Other comments against this option ranged from the term
``Native'' can ``mean any persons born in a particular area'' to the
``data would be less useful than currently for policy development,
trend analyses, and needs assessment;'' and ``not useful for health
research.''
Inclusion of Hawaiians in a category with American Indians and
Alaska Natives would have a major impact on the picture of the social
and economic conditions of American Indians and Alaska Natives; while
Hawaiians make up 2.9 percent of the Asian and Pacific Islander
category, they would represent 9.7 percent of a reconstituted
``American Indian or Alaskan Native'' category. (For detail on the
State of residence of Hawaiians, see Table 5.1)
A separate Hawaiian category also was proposed. In addition, it was
suggested that ``Hawaiian'' be changed to ``Hawaiian, part-Hawaiian,''
because most native Hawaiians are part Hawaiian and many, in the past,
have categorized themselves as ``White.'' Those for this option say
that it provides specific information for policy development, trends
analyses, needs assessments, program evaluation, and civil rights
enforcement. However, because Hawaiians are a small geographically
concentrated population, this option may create a problem for surveys
in states outside the Pacific Region. In most states there are not
enough Hawaiians to form a sampling pool large enough to obtain
findings that are significant in any way.
The 1990 census reported 211,014 Hawaiians, or slightly less than
0.01 percent of the total population of the United States. Hawaiians
are a highly concentrated population: almost two-thirds (138,742)
reside in the State of Hawaii. The second highest concentration is in
California, which has more than one-sixth (34,447) of all Hawaiians.
The third highest concentration is in the State of Washington, which
has about 2.5 percent (5,423) of all Hawaiians.
Another option, not suggested, but always available, is for local
areas with large Hawaiian or part Hawaiian populations to have a
separate classification. If Hawaiian is not included in the minimum
list of MOB categories, it could still be used by states, local
governments, or federal agencies with a specific need for this
category.
What category should include Hawaiians may be a question of the
alternative bases for classification and intent. If the categories used
are intended to classify the races as a function of geography, the
individuals of Hawaiian ancestry should remain as a sub-category of the
Asian or Pacific Islander category.
If, on the other hand, the goal is to classify the indigenous
people of what is now the United States of America, then individuals of
Hawaiian ancestry should be moved. However, this also raises a question
about the other groups that are indigenous to various territories that
are part of the United States--e.g., Guam, Micronesia, and the Virgin
Islands. While a distinction could be made based on the fact that
Hawaii is a State, this is nonetheless an issue that will likely need
to be addressed in a future, if not in this, revision of the Federal
standards.
More important, however, is the issue of whether classifying
individuals of Hawaiian ancestry into the same category as the American
Indians confuses matters regarding legal status. American Indians have
a special legal status with the Federal Government as a result of
treaties and legislation. It is important, if individuals of Hawaiian
ancestry are categorized as ``Native Americans,'' that linkage to this
special legal status be addressed and not left to interpretation or
litigation.
BILLING CODE 3110-01-M
[[Page 36927]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09JY97.018
[[Page 36928]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09JY97.019
BILLING CODE 3110-01-C
The RAETT sheds some light on the number of individuals selecting
the Hawaiian category under various reporting options. Table 1-4R
(Multiracial Issue: Comparison of Panel A (No Multiracial Category) and
Panel B (With a Multiracial Category) for the Asian and Pacific
Islander Targeted Sample, by Race: 1996 RAETT,) and Table 6-4R
(Multiracial Issue: Comparison of Panel C (``Mark One or More''
Instruction) and Panel H (``Mark All That Apply'' Instruction) for the
Asian and Pacific Islander Targeted Sample, by Race: 1996 RAETT,) show
that the addition of an option to report multiple races results in a
lower reporting of Hawaiian only. Many Hawaiians select a multiple race
option. Without a multiple reporting option, 9.20 percent of the Asian
and Pacific Islander targeted sample report as Hawaiian (Panel A Table
1-4R). When a ``Multiracial'' category is offered (Panel B), the
proportion selecting ``Hawaiian'' (only) drops to 5.48 percent. Table
6-4R shows that the proportion reporting Hawaiian (only) is 4.66
percent when the instruction is to ``mark one or more'' races (Panel C)
and is 3.87 percent when the instruction is to ``mark all that apply''
(Panel H). The two panels in which multiple responses were allowed also
showed an increase in the proportion reporting as ``Other Asian and
Pacific Islander,'' 9.93 percent in Panel C and 7.57 percent in Panel
H. This increase is due in part to recoding done by the Bureau of the
Census to prepare tabulations for the RAETT. If ``Hawaiian'' and any
other Asian or Pacific Islander category were marked, the respondent
was classified as ``Other Asian and Pacific Islander.'' A more complete
analysis of the multiple race reporting on RAETT among Hawaiians could
provide additional insights.
Measurement. The measurement of individuals of Hawaiian ancestry in
the decennial census or in those studies that identify this group would
not be affected by reclassification of Hawaiians since there is no
change in how Hawaiian ancestry is determined. However, such
reclassification of those with Hawaiian ancestry would have substantial
impact on the data consistency for both the resulting ``Asian or
Pacific Islander'' category and the expanded ``American Indian''
category in the more typical cases where detail for individuals of
Hawaiian ancestry is not collected/reported separately. It is likely
that there would be no consistency across the classification change. It
would be impossible to say with certainty whether differences in
characteristics over time in either resulting category were a
consequence of real change or of the new categorization of those with
Hawaiian ancestry. Informing the data user about the discontinuity
could be accomplished by footnotes. Data users interested in a time
series would require additional information or special tabulations in
the absence of specific subcategory data, which may not always be
possible to produce.
Data production. Data production would not be affected by moving
individuals of Hawaiian ancestry; the group would not be defined
differently, but moved to a different tabulation category. Of more
importance would be the need for a redesign of the published tables at
the subcategory level, as well as the need for explanatory footnotes.
Analytic. While there should be no effect on who is reporting as
being of Hawaiian ancestry, a change would have a major impact on the
comparability over time of the aggregated, larger racial categories.
[[Page 36929]]
While this population is small in number, Hawaiians make up just under
3 percent of the current ``Asian or Pacific Islander'' category but
would make up almost 10 percent of a newly broadened category that
would include American Indians, Alaska Natives, and those of Hawaiian
ancestry. Casual data users looking up information in an almanac or a
statistical publication might be misled by the change. Researchers
using race as a major analytic variable in longitudinal time series
might have to adjust their time series.
Cost. The costs associated with reclassifying Hawaiians are hard to
calculate. They include, but are not limited to, discarding current
forms; the preparation of new forms and instructions; an educational
campaign to inform people filling out forms as well as data users of
the change; the need to check submissions over the short run to make
sure the change has been properly made; and the fact that data for the
next few years may be inaccurate as a result of misclassifications.
Legislative or program needs. Current legislative and program needs
related to individuals of Hawaiian ancestry will be unaffected by this
change. However, legislative and program needs related to American
Indians would be affected by the need for an additional analytic step
to account for the change. For example, Census figures from 1990 show a
median family income of $21,750 for American Indians and Alaskan
Natives with 31 percent of the individuals in this population below the
poverty line. Median family income in 1990 for Asian and Pacific
Islanders was $41,251, and 14 percent were below the poverty line (1990
Census of Population, Social and Economic Characteristics: United
States, 1990 CP-2-1). These figures for Hawaiians (a very small
proportion of the Asian or Pacific Islander category) were much closer
to those for the Asians than to those for American Indians--$37,269 and
14 percent. Asians, however, are considerably more likely to have
completed college (37.7 percent) than either Hawaiians (11.9 percent)
or American Indians (9.3 percent).
In addition, moving individuals of Hawaiian ancestry to the
American Indian category could affect apportionment at the State
legislative--district level in local areas or States where the
reclassification affects the resulting Asian and Pacific Islander or
American Indian counts.
5.3.4 Other Terminology Issues
Other issues Related to Directive No. 15 concerning terminology
covered in this section are:
Should the term ``Black'' or ``African American'' be used?
Should the term ``Hispanic'' or ``Latino'' be used?
Should more than one term be used in either case?
5.3.4.1. Should the Term ``Black'' or ``African American'' be Used?
The terms used to identify population groups do not necessarily
invalidate the categorization scheme, but they may have marginal
effects on nonresponse rates and misreporting. They also could cause
resentment among some respondents. Smith (1992) notes that the terms
can be important because they are used by the particular group's
members to indicate the achievement of standing in the greater
community. In the case of Blacks, disagreements over terms can result
among persons of different ancestries. Among Blacks of African-American
heritage, a growing proportion express a preference for ``African-
American'' over the term ``Black'' (Lavrakas, Schejbal, and Smith,
1994). On the other hand, Blacks with roots in the Caribbean or Africa
do not identify with the term ``African-American'' (Denton and Massey,
1989; Billingsly, 1993).
Options that were investigated with respect to the Black category
included using only Black, as currently, or using African-American
instead.
Measurement. Testimony given at hearings held by OMB on proposed
changes to Directive No. 15 stressed the importance of having
categories that are generally understood and with which people could
identify. This is a fundamental requirement if the principle of self-
identification is to be honored. Moreover, supplying the Federal
Government's definitions for the various population groups will be
particularly important for recent immigrants.
The terms used for classification have to be both familiar and
acceptable to the respondent. For instance, focus group participants
from the Association of Public Data Users (APDU) believed that
Jamaicans would resist identifying as African-American, but that they
would identify as Black. If only African-American were offered,
Jamaicans might turn to the ``Other'' category. This underscores the
need for supplying a comprehensive definition of the category to
interviewers and respondents.
The May 1995 CPS Supplement asked Black respondents to choose the
term they preferred. Keeping in mind that their choices may have been
influenced by the terminology in the race and ethnicity questions they
already had received, ``Black'' was the term more preferred. However,
while 44 percent chose ``Black'' almost as many in total selected
either ``African-American'' (28 percent) or ``Afro-American'' (12
percent), while 9 percent gave no preference (Tucker et al., 1996).
Additional analysis of the CPS Supplement data revealed that preference
was dependent on respondents' demographic characteristics. Young and
well-educated Blacks were more likely to prefer ``African-American'' or
``Afro-American.'' The results of the National Content Survey generally
coincide with the results from the CPS Supplement. ``Black'' was
preferred by 45 percent of those identifying as Black, while 33 percent
preferred ``African-American.''
As noted, problems could arise if terms are not defined or if
certain national groups feel excluded by the terms. This may be a
particular problem for example, for Caribbean Blacks.
The context in which data collection occurs must be considered when
changing terminology. Against, mode of data collection will affect the
way choices can be presented. Where observer identification is
necessary, clear coding rules will need to accompany any changes in
terminology. More precise population group definitions in instructions
and data collection instruments will help State and local governments
as well as private-sector organizations.
Data production. To the extent that some Blacks do not identify
with the terminology provided, they may not respond or may check the
``Other race'' category when it is offered. In this case, specific
answers would have to be coded. Better instructions and definitions may
reduce this problem.
Analytic. Because there is diversity in the Black community, the
terminology used to measure this population needs to be encompassing.
Denton and Massey (1989) found that it is important to capture the
complete ethnic identities of Blacks when studying living patterns. For
example, they documented that Caribbean Blacks were less segregated
from Hispanics than they were from other Blacks.
A number of Federal agencies have expressed concern that changes
will make it difficult, if not impossible, to recreate or to aggregate
data to the categories they currently are using. These agencies do not
object to greater detail but do worry that aggregation to the current
categories might not be
[[Page 36930]]
possible. Their concern is that some Blacks (or Hispanics) no longer
would identify with the same category if terminology were changed. Both
the Department of Defense and the Federal Bureau of Investigation
suggested that part of the Black population, especially recent
immigrants, could be misclassified if ``African-American'' were to
replace ``Black.'' Furthermore, some of the public comment suggests
that the term ``American'' should not be used in this category, given
that it is not used in other categories such as Asian.
Cost. The costs involved in changing terminology would be small
relative to some of the other possible changes. These costs would come
from the development of new instructions, new definitions, and new
forms designs. Some costs may be incurred for additional statistical
adjustment and estimation procedures beyond those usually employed
after each decennial census if distributions change as a result of new
terminology. Changes in terminology should not increase costs much for
those outside the Federal Government since these changes would be
incorporated in the transition made to accommodate the new data from
Census 2000.
Social costs may result whether changes are made or not made.
Depending upon the decision, different interest groups may be unhappy.
Legislative or program needs. Many Federal agencies will expect to
be able to make comparisons to past data series regardless of any
changes. To the extent that changes in terminology prevent such
comparisons, this will be a problem that must be resolved. However, the
problems in this particular case are expected to be minimal relative to
other possible changes. A survey of public school systems conducted by
NCES (1996) found that a majority (55 percent) did not believe changing
to ``African-American'' would be a problem, while 10 percent said it
would be a significant problem. About 30 percent believed it would
create some problems.
5.3.4.2 Should the Term ``Hispanic'' or ``Latino'' Be Used?
The issues with respect to terminology for the Hispanic category
are somewhat different. Many Hispanics prefer to identify with their
country of origin. As Hahn (1994) points out, ``Hispanic'' is a term
created by the Federal Government and is not traditionally used by
peoples with origins in Central and South America. In fact, the term
appears to be a compromise among the various groups. Some researchers
suggest using ``Latino'' instead (Hayes-Bautista and Chapa, 1987) while
others are comfortable with ``Hispanic'' (Trevino, 1987). In either
case some groups might mistakenly be included or excluded. For example,
Italians might identify as Latino, but Filipinos would not. In addition
to the broad category identifier, knowledge of the particular Hispanic
subgroup is often desirable (Farley, 1993). The National Council of La
Raza, for example, supports the collection of the respondent's
subgroup.
In the case of Hispanic origin, possibilities include (1) using
only Hispanic; (2) collecting Hispanic subgroup designation or country
of origin; or (3) using other terms instead of Hispanic, such as
``Latino,'' ``Chicano,'' and ``Of Spanish Origin.'' In addition,
instructions could be given for the respondent to mark ``No'' if not
Hispanic. If an Hispanic subgroup is asked for, an ``Other'' category
might be provided along with a space to specify the group.
Measurement. In the CPS Supplement, the term ``Hispanic'' was
chosen by 58 percent of the respondents, and ``Latino'' and ``Of
Spanish Origin'' were each selected by 12 percent. Another 10 percent
indicated they had no preference, while 8 percent chose some other
term. More than 60 percent of Mexicans and Puerto Ricans chose
``Hispanic,'' compared with a little over 40 percent among the other
subgroups. Hispanics over age 50 were less likely than younger ones to
prefer ``Hispanic.'' They were more likely than the others to choose
``Of Spanish Origin'' or ``Some other term.'' Again, the result from
the National Content Survey paralleled the CPS Supplement findings. The
term ``Hispanic'' was preferred by 47 percent of the respondent,
``Spanish'' by 21 percent, and ``Latino'' by 13 percent.
Differences in specific terms or subgroup identifiers might not be
recognized by neutral observers, but they can be very important to the
individual respondent. Even if observers could classify Hispanic
correctly, identifying the particular subgroup (e.g., Puerto Rican,
Cuban, Mexican, or other Hispanic) or distinguishing when someone is
both Black and Hispanic (e.g., the Caribbean Blacks spoken of by
Billingsly, 1993). Hahn, Truman, and Barker (1996) also found that even
some proxies had troubles with this task.
Clearly, the quality of data will suffer when proxies or observers
cannot correctly determine race and ethnicity, but respondent
themselves are not always consistent in their responses to these
questions. McKenney, et al. (1991) found this in examining reinterview
data from the 1990 census. Overall, inconsistency was found to be low,
but it was greatest for Hispanics who had been in this country for a
long period of time or those who were born here, who only spoke
English, and who said they were ``Other Spanish'' when asked to
indicate their subgroup. The Hispanics of higher socio-economic status
also show some inconsistency (Hazuda et al., 1986). Those who are not
Hispanic do not consistency mark ``No'' unless provided with an
instruction to do so (Bates, 1991).
Kissam, Herrera, and Nakemoto (1993) concluded that ``Hispanic'' or
``Latino'' would be better than ``Spanish,'' but that asking for
national origin would be even better, particularly for recent
immigrants. The use of several terms or complicated instructions can be
difficult both for recent immigrants and the illiterate. The effects of
specific terms or the question format differ by mode of survey.
Personal visits can overcome these problems best, but many surveys are
no longer done this way. Mail surveys do lay out the alternatives
clearly for respondents, but this mode assumes literacy. Telephone
surveys may be most affected by wording and format.
Data production. As with Blacks, to the extent that some Hispanics
do not identify with the names of the categories provided, they may not
respond or may check the ``Other'' category when it is offered (either
in the Hispanic origin question or the race question). When more
detailed information on Hispanics is collected, the write-in answers in
the ``Other'' category must be coded. Editing of open-ended responses
may be required. Imputation will be needed for those who do not
identify with the terms provided and who leave the question blank. This
may be a particular problem for Hispanics failing to give a subgroup.
This editing is on top of that resulting from Hispanics failing to
respond to the race question and non-Hispanics not answering the
ethnicity question.
To the extent that the failure to answer the race and ethnicity
questions because of disagreement with the terms is not random, both
the Blacks and the Hispanics that do answer the questions will not be
representative. This would be an additional source of error affecting
statistical distributions including the counts of subgroups. Weighting
adjustments would be needed, but could be carried out only if the
necessary information is available.
Analytic. One methodological point that those studying the Hispanic
community agree on is that more detailed information about respondents'
[[Page 36931]]
origins is needed. This is certainly true for substantive analysts,
although some Federal agencies may not need this level of detail to
carry out their specific mandates. Researchers stress that a simple
``yes-no'' question is not sufficient for analyzing differences in the
diverse Hispanic community. Gimenez (1989) concluded that a global
identification is not useful because Hispanics are so heterogeneous.
The members of APDU who were interviewed indicated that they often must
distinguish between different Hispanic subgroups in their work in local
communities. Wong and McKay (1992) argued that comparisons across
Hispanic subgroups actually are more important than comparisons of
Hispanics with Blacks, Whites, and Asians. Kleinman (1990), in looking
at health outcomes, came to the same conclusion.
The 1990 census did request a Hispanic subgroup. Whether or not
Hispanic subgroup is ascertained, the Hispanic community is so diverse
that the terminology used needs to be encompassing. To the extent that
some Hispanics cannot identify with the terms used, a part of this
diverse population might be missed. Furthermore, with the increasing
Hispanic immigration, subgroups might need to be tracked and
terminology might need to change more rapidly than in the past in order
to provide the same level of knowledge.
Cost. Most of the same issues discussed for Blacks apply in this
case, with two additional ones. More space on forms would have to be
allocated if information on Hispanic subgroups is desired. The amount
of open-ended coding in the race question probably would be affected
more by changes in terminology for Hispanics than for Blacks.
Legislative or program needs. Federal agencies will have the same
concerns about changes in categories for Hispanics as they do about
changes for Blacks.
5.3.4.3 Should More Than One Term Be Used for Black or for Hispanic?
One possible solution to the problems arising from the choice of
terms the Black and Hispanic categories is the use of more than one
term in the names of the categories. If several terms were used,
respondents who identified with any one of the terms could select the
category. Options considered as part of this review included (1) some
combination of ``Black,'' ``African-American,'' and ``Negro'' and (2)
some combination of ``Hispanic,'' ``Latino,'' ``Chicano,'' and ``of
Spanish Origin.''
Measurement. If several terms are used (or, possibly, with just a
change in terms), the current definitions might need revision. For
example, a recommendation was offered at the Workshop on the Federal
Standards for Racial and Ethnic Classification, held by the National
Academy of Sciences, to use the term ``African-American'' in addition
to the term ``Black'' (1996). The evidence from the CPS Supplement
suggests that using both Black and African-American would satisfy most
of the respondents in that category. The same would be true for using
several terms in the Hispanic origin question. In both cases, the
populations identifying with each category could be more diverse. At
that point, the identification of subgroups might become more critical
for analytic purposes.
The Hispanic origin question in Panel 3 of the NCS read, ``Is this
person of Spanish/Hispanic origin?'' Additionally, in Panel 3 the
Hispanic origin question came immediately before the race question and
the race question did not offer a multiracial category as a reporting
option. The Hispanic origin question in Panel 4 of the NCS read, ``Is
this person Spanish/Hispanic/Latino?'' Further, as in Panel 3, the
Hispanic origin question in Panel 4 came immediately before the race
question but, unlike Panel 3, the race question in Panel 4 offered a
multiracial category as a reporting option.
The NCS found that Panel 4 (where the race question included the
multiracial category) had a lower percentage of respondents who
reported as Hispanic in the Hispanic origin question compared with
Panel 3--6.9 percent in Panel 4 compared with 9.0 percent in Panel 3.
This decline was particularly pronounced among Mexicans, declining from
5.6 percent in Panel 3 to 3.2 percent in Panel 4.
Additional analyses of responses to comparable panels were
conducted to determine whether the decline in Hispanic origin
identified by these data is due to the fact that a multiracial category
was included in the race question or to the change in the wording of
the Hispanic origin question (``Spanish/Hispanic origin'' in Panel 3,
and ``Spanish/Hispanic/Latino'' in Panel 4). These analyses revealed
that neither the multiracial category in the race question nor
differences in the wording of the Hispanic origin question was
associated with a statistically significant decline in the proportion
of Mexicans or of Hispanics in those panels 3 and 4. Moreover,
additional analyses using NCS reinterview data ruled out the
possibility that significantly different proportions of Mexicans were
sampled in Panels 3 and 4.
Given these analyses, it is not clear whether the decline in the
percentage who reported as Hispanic in Panel 4 relative to Panel 3,
particularly among the Mexican subgroup, is due to the presence of the
multiracial category in the race question, the wording of the Hispanic
origin question, the placement of the Hispanic origin question before
the race question, or the confluence of these factors. Thus, the drop
in reporting as Hispanic, and particularly as Mexican, on Panel 4
remains unexplained.
Data production. If several terms were used for the Hispanic origin
and Black categories, it is possible that the coverage of these
populations would be improved. A significant number of Hispanics,
however, might still choose an ``Other race'' category or not answer
the race question, as demonstrated by the NCS and the CPS Supplement.
Analytic. The use of several terms may increase the diversity of
those comprising the Black and Hispanic populations. Thus, their
characteristics may be different than would be the case if only one
term were used. In fact, while a more complete picture of these groups
may result, that picture could be confusing. Subgroup differences might
be more important.
Cost. Again, costs will be small compared to some of the other
changes being considered, and these costs are for the same items
already mentioned. However, costs for open-ended coding are likely to
be reduced if multiple terms are used, because the residual or
``Other'' category will be chosen less often.
Legislative or program needs. The use of several terms for Blacks
and Hispanics still could produce a lack of comparability with earlier
data. Slightly larger population counts may result for the groups from
the use of multiple terms. The effects could be more pronounced in some
local areas than in others, depending on the diversity of the
population.
5.3.5 Other New Category Issues
Public comment included suggestions to add other population groups
to the minimum set of categories currently used for all data collection
and reporting by the Federal Government. Some of the issues raised
(summarized in OMB's August 1995 Federal Register notice) were: Adding
categories for White ethnic groups; adding a category for persons for
Arab or Middle Eastern descent; adding a category for Creoles; and
adding a category for Cape Verdeans. The discussion below focuses
[[Page 36932]]
on issues surrounding the addition of categories for Arab or Middle
Easterner and for Cape Verdean.
There were a number of public comments which requested that
categories for European-Americans and for German-Americans be included
in the revised Directive. This issue was not addressed in the research
program. However, such data are available from the ancestry question on
the decennial census.
5.3.5.1 Should an Arab or Middle Eastern Category Be Created and, If
So, How Should It Be Defined?
The argument for creating a separate category for persons of Arab
or Middle Eastern descent is similar to that made for persons of
Hispanic descent: they are a diverse population group having some
language and cultural characteristics in common. Like Hispanics,
persons of Arab or Middle Eastern descent can be of any race. Many are
White but there also are many Black and other racial descent. The
number of persons (1.6 million, or 0.7 percent of the U.S. population
in 1990) who report in one of the ancestries that the Census Bureau has
shown under the heading of ``North Africa and Southwest Asia'' (a very
broad, geographically based categorization) exceeds that of many of the
groups shown on the decennial census form. (An alternative to adding an
ethnic group would be a short-form question on ethnicity/ancestry--
replacing or in addition to the Hispanic origin question--with space
for a write-in of specific, less common ancestries.)
It has been suggested that in order to track problems related to
discrimination against Arabs or Middle Easterners, some way of
identifying them separately is necessary. Then, if a pattern of
problems can be discerned, a case could be made to alter legislation in
which specific protected groups are identified. It is also contended
that recent Arab and Middle Eastern immigrants have the same problems
as those from Asia, Central or South America, or Africa.
Some believe that having a separate category for persons of Arab or
Middle Eastern descent would more easily qualify them for program
benefits aimed at the socially and economically disadvantaged. On the
other hand, an article in American Demographics states that, while it
is true that Arab Americans suffer from stereotyping and negative
press, it is equally true that they are younger, more educated, and
more affluent than the average American. (``The Arab-American Market,''
American Demographics, January 1994)
Currently there is no recognized common identity for this
population group--neither a generally accepted name nor a common
description. One characteristic that many Arab or Middle Easterners
have in common is the Moslem religion; but many others are of other
religious backgrounds as, for example, Lebanese Christians. Because of
the separation of church and state in the United States, data are not
collected on religious affiliations. Conversely, many Moslems do not
have race or geographic origin in common--they come from Asia, Sub-
Saharan Africa, etc. If the category were called or included ``Middle
Easterner'' in its title, would it include persons from a non-Arab
state such as Israel?
While a name and a definition could be imposed for this suggested
new category, in a decennial census respondents need to understand
clearly the concepts and the definitions of the classifications without
necessarily having to read a definition. The public comment showed
there is no agreement about the Middle Eastern countries to be
included; this is further confused by the fact that there are Arab
countries in North Africa and that the Middle East includes Israel, a
non-Arab country.
The research to develop a definition and a commonly understood name
(and the information campaign that would be required to inform the
public of the new category) would be difficult to undertake in time for
the 2000 census. While such research has not always been carried out
prior to including a category in the decennial census, such a decision
without research would be hard to rationalize given the intensive
research on other issues surrounding race and ethnicity.
The requisite research could allow consideration of incorporating a
new classification that would identify persons of Arab and Middle
Eastern descent in a future classification system. The 1990 census
indicates that this is a growing population group--with a high
proportion of foreign-born and recent immigrants. According to a Census
Bureau report (1990 CP-3-2), 40 percent of persons of Arab ancestry are
foreign-born and half of these foreign-born came to the United States
between 1980 and 1990.
Measurement. No research has been conducted on the quality and
consistency of reporting of persons of Arab or Middle Eastern descent
on the race item on previous decennial censuses. Directive No. 15
instructs persons of Middle Eastern or North African descent to report
their race as ``White.'' However, it is not known how well this
instruction is followed--or even if persons know that such a definition
exists. Over the years there has been confusion about how persons of
these ancestries should respond--``Asian,'' ``White,'' or ``Other
race.'' Requests for consideration of adding an Arab or Middle Eastern
category have not been consistent in the suggested name and the
criteria for the definition of what geographic area should be
encompassed.
Even in 1990 census reports, the definition of Arab was not
consistent. Two reports on ancestry, Ancestry of the Population in the
United States (1990 CP-3-2) and Detailed Ancestry Groups for States
(1990 CP-S-1-2), used different definitions of ``Arab,'' which resulted
in different counts of persons. A comparison is presented in Table 5.2.
BILLING CODE 3110-01-M
[[Page 36933]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09JY97.020
BILLING CODE 3110-01-C
[[Page 36934]]
The data on ancestries that are marked ``X'' on Table 5.2 were
shown separately in the respective reports. Ancestries marked ``#,''
including the specific reporting of ``Arab'' as an ancestry, were
grouped and shown as a balance category, ``Other Arab,'' in Ancestry of
the Population in the United States. In contrast, in Detailed Ancestry
Groups for States, ``Arab'' was shown as a separate category, not
grouped with other ancestries. In this latter report, the ancestries
that are marked with an asterisk on Table 5.2 were combined into a
balance category called ``Other North African and Southwest Asian,
n.e.c. (not elsewhere classified).''
Table 5.3 presents data from Detailed Ancestry Groups for States.
It shows the number of persons reporting in any of the categories
listed, as well as the number who reported specifically as ``Arab'' or
``Middle Eastern.'' The report carries a footnote stating that these
two categories are ``a general type response, which may encompass
several ancestry groups'' (no further explanation is provided).
Given the lack of a generally understood concept, should the term
Arab or Middle Eastern be used and be defined as persons whose ``mother
tongue'' or culture was Arabic? Or should the category be based upon a
strict geographic definition (and if so, which countries should be
included)? Public comment included the following suggested names:
Middle Eastern; Middle Easterner; Arab American; Middle Eastern or
Arabic heritage; Arab American and other Middle Eastern; and West
Asian. In any case, implementation would require a consensus building
effort to arrive at appropriate terminology and a definition. In
addition, the implementation of such a category on a 100-percent basis
would require more instruction than is typically given on a 100-percent
item in the decennial census. The closest approximation would be a
listing such as that given on the 1990 census long form ancestry item.
BILLING CODE 3110-01-M
[[Page 36935]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09JY97.021
[[Page 36936]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09JY97.022
BILLING CODE 3110-01-C
Data production. If a separate category specifically for Arab or
Middle Eastern were presented on the decennial census form, no further
coding would be necessary. However, it would be advisable to compare
the reported race to any other information collected in the decennial
census (e.g., country of birth and ancestry, if these data are
collected), to be able to understand the reported information better.
Analytic. The addition of a racial category in which persons of
Arab or Middle Eastern descent might respond could reduce the total
number of Whites counted in the next census. If this category were
generally understood and only persons who previously responded
``White'' reported into this new category, one could compare the
numbers of Whites between censuses (or other Federal data collections)
by adding the Arab and Middle Eastern numbers to the numbers of persons
reporting White to approximate the numbers of Whites in previous
collections. However, the number of persons considering themselves to
be Arab or Middle Eastern who actually reported in the White category
is unknown; in the 1980 and 1990 censuses, many may have reported into
the ``Asian or Pacific Islander'' category rather than the ``White''
category. If this was the case, then adding the numbers of persons
reporting into a new ``Arab or Middle Eastern'' category to those
reporting ``White'' could result in a higher number of ``Whites''
overall.
If an ethnic category were added, rather than a racial category,
there would no reduction in the number of any racial category. Before
such an addition could be made, however, there would have to be
agreement on how the new category would be defined. As the public
comments have indicated, this is not an easy task.
Cost. The cost of collecting information about persons of Arab or
Middle Eastern descent from the decennial census is not known.
Components of the cost are the cost of adding a specific category to
the form itself and then the cost of analyzing the resultant data to
determine its quality and usefulness. The cost of tabulations of data
would incrementally increase with the addition of a new category. As
Table 5.2 indicates, the 1990 census reports did tabulate Arab or
Middle Easterner, but under two different definitions.
Legislative or program needs. At this time, there are no extant
Federal legislative needs or specific program rule requirements for
data on Arabs or Middle Easterners. Persons who have requested that
this information be collected in the 2000 census and other Federal data
collections make the argument that the information is needed in order
to make a case for changes in civil rights and related legislation. An
example of this contention appeared in a public comment, which
erroneously held that under current civil rights legislation ``A Korean
shopkeeper is protected but a neighboring Arab or Middle-Eastern
shopkeeper is not'' (letter received by OMB during public comment
period). Others would argue that current civil rights laws provide for
a means of seeking redress for discrimination.
5.3.5.2 Should a Cape Verdean Category be Created?
Cape Verde is a country consisting of a number of islands off the
west coast of Africa at about 15 degrees latitude. For many years the
islands were a Portuguese colony. The population of the islands is
generally a mix of Black and White. As an island nation, its population
depended on the ocean for economic survival. As skilled seamen, many
islanders immigrated to New England to take part in the whaling
industry. According to a Census Bureau report, Ancestry of the
Population of the United States (1990 CP-3-2), 71 percent of all
persons of Cape Verdean ancestry are native-born, and 18 percent are
[[Page 36937]]
foreign-born and are not citizens. (Thus, the proportion of Cape
Verdeans who are native-born is lower and the proportion of foreign
born noncitizens is higher than for the total U.S. population: for the
total U.S. population 92 percent were native-born and 5 percent were
foreign-born and were not citizens.)
As of the 1990 census, 51,000 persons reported Cape Verdean
ancestry or ethnicity (0.02 percent of the total U.S. population). They
are a population that is concentrated in four Northeastern states; 86
percent of persons who reported Cape Verdean ancestry lived in
Massachusetts (58 percent), Rhode Island (20 percent), Connecticut (6
percent), and New York (2 percent). Another 5 percent of the Cape
Verdean ancestry population resided in California. While they are a
very small percentage of the U.S. population as a whole, they made up
1.0 percent of the Rhode Island population, 0.5 percent of the
Massachusetts population, and 0.1 percent of the Connecticut
population.
Measurement. Discussion with respect to this population group is
limited because the only previous measures come from the ancestry/
ethnicity questions in the census long forms of 1980 and 1990. This
discussion assumes that if there were a separate ethnic category, about
the same numbers of people would report as Cape Verdean as in the 1990
ancestry question.
Because a distinct ethnic category for such a small and
geographically concentrated population group may not be possible, even
on the decennial census, the Cape Verdean population might also find
acceptable a multiracial or ``Other race, specify'' category that
required specification of the respondent's component races. This
question, combined with the use of the ethnicity/ancestry question that
was tested as one of the options in the RAETT, may be a feasible and
acceptable form of reporting. The addition of a multiracial category on
other Federal forms would allow persons to report as multiracial (Cape
Verdean) on these as well. If achieving a count of Cape Verdeans on a
Federal form at the national level through the race question is
desired, then an educational program would be required in order to
inform persons that they can report this way. However, there has been
no research concentrated on this population group; hence, it is not
known how they would report given race classifications such as
``multiracial'' or ``Other race, specify.''
Perhaps the most satisfactory solution for counting Cape Verdeans
is a local one. The four states with the highest numbers of Cape
Verdeans in their populations (Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York,
and Rhode Island) could find some means to count them for local and
state purposes--for example in school administrative records systems,
in employment and unemployment data, and in vital records systems. If
guidance is given on how to aggregate this population into the Federal
categories, there should be little impact for the State's record
systems.
Data production. Cape Verdeans often write in ``Cape Verdean''
after marking the ``Other race'' category.
Analytic. In the absence of specific research, it is unclear how
other race categories would be affected if a separate Cape Verdean
category were established.
Cost. The cost of collecting information about Cape Verdeans by
adding a new category in the decennial census is not known. If such
information were collected on a 100-percent basis, the cost would be
significantly higher than was experienced in coding responses to the
ancestry item on the long form sample of one-sixth of all households.
Legislative or program needs. Currently, there are neither Federal
legislative needs nor programmatic needs for these data on the national
level. State-level program needs for information on Cape Verdeans are
likely to exist in those states where there are significant
concentrations of this population.
Chapter 6. Recommendations and Major Findings
6.1 Summary of Recommendations and Major Findings
Research conducted as part of the review of Directive No. 15 has
produced a considerable amount of information about the issues covered
in this report. The sources of this information have included public
comments gathered from hearings and responses to two Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) notices published in the Federal Register,
opinions of experts in the area of race and ethnicity, small-scale
ethnographic and cognitive laboratory studies, and several national
tests sponsored by Federal agencies. This section presents the
recommendations of the Interagency Committee for the Review of the
Racial and Ethnic Standards to OMB for how Directive No. 15 should be
changed. It also summarizes the major research findings for the issues
addressed by the recommendations. These findings are based on estimates
from sample surveys.
The recommendations concern options for reporting by respondents,
formats of questions, and several aspects of specific categories,
including possible additions, revised terminology, and changes in
definitions. Instructions for interviewers, the wording of questions,
and specifications for tabulations are not addressed in the
recommendations. The need for separate guidelines covering these topics
is discussed at the end of the chapter. As in the current Directive No.
15, the recommendations are designed to provide minimum standards for
Federal data on race and ethnicity. The recommendations continue to
permit the collection of more detailed information on population groups
to meet the needs of specific data users, provided the additional
detail can be aggregated to comply with the minimum standards.
6.1.1. 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.
Two acceptable 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.
The multiracial population is growing, and the task of measuring
this phenomenon will have to be confronted sooner or later. Adopting a
method for reporting more than one race now means that the demographic
changes in society can be measured more precisely with a smaller
discontinuity in historical data series than would occur in the future.
Moreover, while technical concerns should not govern the decision, new
procedures will be needed in any event, given that at least
[[Page 36938]]
0.5 percent of respondents to the 2000 Census are likely to select more
than one race even if told to select only one. Allowing respondents in
Federal data collections to select more than one race will be
consistent with the trend toward this option at the state level, and
may encourage the states to conform to a Federal standard.
Methods for reporting more than one race have been tested in both
self-administered and interviewer-administered settings with similar
results. This change will involve costs, but they are likely to be
manageable and probably would be incurred eventually. The counts for
Whites and Blacks, at least in the short term, will not likely be
affected by allowing the reporting of more than one race; for
populations whose counts could be affected, the information can be
recovered to some degree with tabulation procedures. Standardized
tabulation rules need to be developed by the Federal agencies working
in cooperation with one another. When results from data collection
activities are reported or tabulated, the number selecting more than
one race should be given, assuming that minimum standards for data
quality and confidentiality are met. Data producers are encouraged to
provide greater detail about the distribution of multiple responses.
Allowing multiple responses is preferable to establishing a
multiracial category, given the lack of legislative need for a specific
count of the multiracial population and some of the drawbacks
associated with the use of that category. There is no general consensus
for a definition of ``multiracial,'' as reflected in the public comment
and in current state legislation requiring a multiracial category. A
multiracial category is more likely to be misunderstood by respondents,
resulting in greater misreporting. If a multiracial category were to be
used (with write-in lines or a follow-up question), it would require
either more space or more coding. An ``Other'' category with a
multiracial example may be less likely to produce accurate data, may be
offensive, and will require coding. Although self-identification should
be greatly encouraged, its use is not always feasible or appropriate.
When observer identification is used, determining a multiracial
background by observation may be difficult, if not impossible.
Since data producers will be given until 2003 to conform to the new
standards, additional research could be conducted in the context of the
different data collection initiatives. This research might estimate the
effects in the different settings and evaluate methods for data
tabulation to meet users' needs. This data was chosen because
information from Census 2000 will be available then for use in
conjunction with other Federal data collections. It is expected,
however, that data producers will begin using the new standards as soon
as possible.
6.1.1.1 Finding Concerning a Method of Reporting More Than One Race
Findings favoring adoption of a method for reporting more than one
race:
Between 1 and 1.5 percent of the public select a
multiracial category when offered an opportunity to do so.
The opportunity to identify with more than one race
promotes self-identification, may increase self-esteem, and may reduce
nonresponse to the race question.
The multiracial population has grown over the past 25 to
30 years.
Some multiracial individuals strongly advocate the change.
Some states have already begun allowing individuals to
identify with more than one race using a multiracial category.
Approximately 0.5 percent of respondents to self-
administered surveys, including the 1990 census, selected more than one
race even when asked to select only one race.
Allowing individuals to report more than one race may
provide a more complete report of a changing society.
Allowing individuals to report more than one race could
increase the accuracy of racial reports, and some inconsistencies in
racial reporting may be eliminated.
The counts for Whites and Blacks, at least in the near
term, are unlikely to be affected.
The counts for affected races can, to some degree, be
recovered using various tabulation procedures.
Test results in self-administered surveys and interviewer-
administered surveys have produced similar estimates of individuals who
are likely to report more than one race.
The process for reapportionment and redistricting is not
likely to be affected.
Findings not favoring adoption of a method for reporting more than one
race:
There is a potential for lowering counts for some groups,
such as American Indians and Alaskan Natives and Asians and Pacific
Islanders.
Advocacy groups for some populations have strongly opposed
the change.
Time series and other analyses will have to account for
the change.
Alternative tabulations will be needed to carry out some
program requirements, and this may be in conflict with the principle of
self-identification.
The effects of survey mode (self-administered or
administered by interviewer, over the telephone or in person) may be
accentuated, and data quality may suffer if instructions for reporting
more than one race are not as successfully communicated to the
respondent in some modes as in others.
Enforcement of the Voting Rights Act might be affected by
the reporting of more than one race.
Only a subset of multiracial individuals may choose to
identify with multiple races, so estimates for this population might be
questioned.
Data processing systems may have to be modified to
incorporate tabulation procedures for reporting more than one race.
Data collection instruments, instructions, and procedures
will have to be modified, and more emphasis will need to be placed on
the creation of instructions for respondents.
Observer, and possibly proxy, identification could be
operationally difficult to implement.
There are no Federal legislative requirements for
information about the multiracial population.
6.1.1.2 Findings Concerning Different Formats for Reporting More Than
One Race
Multiracial Category
Definitions and terminology for the category would have to
be generally understood and accepted by the public.
Persons may identify with two or more races, but may not
choose to respond as ``multiracial.''
Using a multiracial category with a write-in would take up
little space but require more coding.
Using a multiracial category with a follow-up question
specifying races would take up more space but require less coding.
A multiracial category with a write-in works well for
self-administered data collections but would not be appropriate for
interviewer-administered surveys, which would need a follow-up
question.
Multiracial is sometimes misinterpreted by respondents as
also meaning multiethnic.
The presence of a multiracial category may affect
reporting by Hispanics on the Hispanic origin question.
[[Page 36939]]
Select One or More Races
Only one question is needed.
With fewer write-ins, less coding is required.
It is not necessary to select terminology and develop a
definition if a ``multiracial'' category is not being added.
Instructions would be needed, and their wording would be
extremely important.
Some respondents already select more than one race even
when asked to mark only one.
Tabulating a multiple response option may be more
straightforward and consistent across Federal agencies than tabulating
write-in responses would be.
An ``Other'' Category With Examples That Include Multiracial
Public comment indicated that an ``Other'' category is
offensive to some respondents.
A greater amount of coding of responses would be required.
Multiracial individuals will not be able to express
adequately their own identity.
A smaller proportion of respondents may report ``other''
compared with the other options for reporting more than one race.
6.1.2 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.
The two question format allows Hispanics both to identify as
Hispanic and to provide information about their race. It provides a
complete distribution simply and continuity with past data is more
likely to be maintained. Data on Hispanic subgroups can be obtained
more easily with this format. The two question format should be used in
all cases involving self-identification. When self-identification is
not possible (e.g., the respondent is incapacitated), a combined format
could be used. The recording of both Hispanic ethnicity and a race
should be encouraged. The recording of only one identification,
however, should be left as an option.
6.1.2.1 Findings Concerning Whether Race and Hispanic Origin Should Be
Combined Into a Single Question
Findings favoring a single question:
Respondents may not confront what they may consider to be
redundant questions.
The concepts of ``race'' and ``ethnicity'' are difficult
to separate.
Reporting by Hispanics in the ``Other'' race category may
be reduced.
Some Hispanics and data users have expressed support for a
combined question.
The number of respondents using write-ins for the race
question may be reduced.
Inconsistencies in Hispanic reporting may be reduced.
Self-identification for Hispanics may be enhanced.
Findings not favoring a single question:
Some Hispanics want to identify their race in addition to
Hispanic origin.
Some Hispanics, including the Census Hispanic Advisory
Committee and most Hispanic organizations, oppose a single, combined
question.
``Hispanic'' is not considered a race by some respondents
and users.
The reporting of Hispanic subgroups will be awkward with a
single question.
A single, combined question may have a differential effect
on reporting by Hispanic subgroups.
A single, combined question will increase the need for
additional tabulations as a result of multiple responses.
Time series and other analyses will have to account for
the change.
The historical continuity of economic or demographic
statistics for Hispanics may be affected.
Additional tabulations may be needed for administrative
reporting, and this might infringe on self-identification.
6.1.2.2 Findings Concerning Different Formats if Race and Hispanic
Origin are Combined in a Single Question
A combination of race, ethnicity, and ancestry:
More responses will need to be coded and edited.
Some Hispanic respondents may not provide subgroup detail,
reducing the counts of specific subgroups and increasing the ``other
Hispanic'' group.
Ancestry would be collected for the entire population on
every data collection and not just the Census long form, but the
distribution may change from that with a separate ancestry question.
The question may be too difficult for some respondents.
A question with an Hispanic category allowing multiple responses:
Only a single question is needed.
Hispanic origin would be a category co-equal with race.
Some Hispanics prefer to indicate both their Hispanic
origin and race.
A question with an Hispanic category allowing only one response:
The count of Hispanics may be reduced, since some
Hispanics may select a category other than Hispanic.
Hispanic origin would be co-equal with race.
Observer and proxy identification could be more difficult.
For those reporting Hispanic, no race is obtained.
6.1.3 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 replaced
with a combined format which includes a co-equal Hispanic category for
use, if necessary, in observer identification.
The two question format for collecting data on Hispanic origin and
race is considered superior to the single question format, and it
should be used in all cases involving self-identification. The single
question format should only be used where self-identification is not
possible. In these cases, a single question in the form of the combined
question discussed above can be used, but, again, data collectors
should be strongly encouraged to record both ethnicity and race to
provide more complete information about the individual. Attempts to
obtain proxy responses (from family or friends) as opposed to using
observer identification also should be encouraged in order to promote
data accuracy.
Findings favoring retention:
Both formats are being used by Federal agencies; a number
of large administrative data bases use the combined format.
Some data collection instruments and procedures as well as
processing systems currently being used will have to change if only one
format is retained.
Time series and other analyses would have to account for
the change.
Findings not favoring retention:
The two formats do not produce comparable data.
The combined format allowed in Directive 15 does not
produce a
[[Page 36940]]
complete distribution of Hispanic origin by race.
6.1.4 Recommendation Concerning the Ordering of the Hispanic Origin
and Race Questions
When the two questions format is used, the Hispanic origin
question should precede the race question.
All research findings point to placing the Hispanic origin question
before the race question. Hispanics appear less confused by the race
question and do not select the ``Other'' race category as often when
this sequencing is used. This reduces the amount of data editing and
coding needed. Furthermore, non-Hispanics are more likely to give a
response to the Hispanic origin question.
Findings favoring the race question appearing first:
Current time series or other analyses would have to take
account of a change in question sequencing.
Even if the Hispanic origin question were to appear first,
some Hispanic respondents will not answer the race question or will
select ``Other'' race in the decennial census.
Findings favoring the Hispanic origin question appearing first:
The meaning of the race question will be clearer,
especially to Hispanics.
Non-Hispanics will be more likely to give a response to
the Hispanic origin question.
Data editing and coding should be reduced.
6.1.5 Recommendation Concerning Adding Cape Verdean as an Ethnic
Category
A Cape Verdean ethnic category should not be added to the
minimum data collection standards.
Given the small size and geographic concentration of this
population, the analytical power gained by a separate identification at
the national level would be minimal compared to the costs, especially
for sample surveys. Even without a separate category, however, the
ability to report more than one race may allow Cape Verdeans to express
their identity. An ancestry question would allow Cape Verdeans to
identify themselves for the purposes of estimating population size.
States with a significant Cape Verdean population can collect data for
state and local purposes.
Findings favoring the addition of a Cape Verdean ethnic category:
It would respond to complaints that discrimination against
Cape Verdeans is difficult to assess without a separate category for
data on this population.
Cape Verdean is easily defined.
Some Cape Verdeans favor the addition of the category.
Data may be useful for administering some state and local
programs.
The number of write-ins in an ``Other'' category may be
reduced.
The principle of self-identification would be supported.
The picture of society would be more complete.
Findings not favoring a Cape Verdean ethnic category:
This population is concentrated in certain states that
could collect data at the local level.
There is no specific Federal requirement for information
about Cape Verdeans.
Little research has been done on the effects of adding
Cape Verdean to the list of ethnic categories.
Time series and other analyses would have to account for
the change.
Cape Verdeans could be accommodated if the reporting of
more than one race were allowed, although additional tabulations would
be needed.
The ancestry question on the decennial census provides an
opportunity for individuals to identify their Cape Verdean ancestry.
6.1.6 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.
The definition of Arab or Middle Eastern ethnicity is problematic.
At least three approaches--linguistic, geographic, and religious--have
been proposed. More space would be needed on questionnaires, and Arab
or Middle Eastern ethnicity can be obtained from an ancestry question.
States with a significant Arab or Middle Eastern population can collect
data for state and local purposes. Given the small size and geographic
concentration of this population, the analytical power gained by a
separate identification at the national level would be minimal compared
to the costs, especially for sample surveys.
Findings favoring the addition of an Arab or Middle Eastern ethnic
category:
It would respond to complaints that discrimination against
Arabs or persons from the Middle East is difficult to assess without a
separate ethnic category.
Some Arabs or Middle Easterners favor a separate ethnic
identification.
It may address the difficulty some Arabs or Middle
Easterners have in responding to the race question.
Data may be useful for administering some state and local
programs.
The number of write-ins for an ``Other'' category may be
reduced.
The principle of self-identification would be supported.
The picture of society would be more complete.
Arabs and Middle Easterners are racially mixed and, hence,
similar conceptually to the Hispanic community.
Findings not favoring the addition of an Arab or Middle Eastern ethnic
category:
An Arab or Middle Eastern ethnicity is difficult to
define.
States having concerntations of Arabs or Middle Easterners
could collect data at the local level.
An Arab or Middle Eastern ethnicity question would require
more space.
There are no Federal requirements for information about
Arabs or those from the Middle East.
Little research has been done on the effects of adding an
Arab or Middle Eastern ethnic category.
Time series or other analyses would have to account for
the change.
Arab or Middle Eastern ethnicity can be obtained with an
ancestry question on the decennial census.
6.1.7 Recommendation Concerning the Addition for Any Other Categories
to the Minimum Set
No other racial or ethnic categories should be added to
the minimum set of categories.
Additional racial and ethnic categories would require more space
with little analytical value added. States can collect data at the
state and local level for groups concentrated in their areas. The
current Directive permits the collection of this greater detail. Some
of these groups would be accommodated by allowing the reporting at the
Federal level of more than one race. Given the small size and
geographic concentration of these populations, the analytical power
gained by a separate identification at the national level would be
minimal compared to the costs, especially for sample surveys.
Findings favoring the addition of other categories:
Such an addition would respond to complaints that
discrimination cannot be assessed without separate categories.
Some states and local areas have diverse populations and
need additional detail for administrative purposes.
[[Page 36941]]
The picture of society would be more complete.
Some groups favor the creation of their own categories.
The number of write-ins in an ``Other'' category may be
reduced.
The principle of self-identification would be supported.
Findings not favoring the addition of other categories:
There are no specific Federal requirements for information
on other population groups.
States having concentrations of certain population groups
could collect data at the local level to meet their requirements.
Little research has been done on the effects of additional
categories.
A long list would require more space on all data
collection instruments, not just the decennial census forms.
Time series and other analyses would have to account for
the change.
Some of these categories would be accommodated by allowing
the reporting of more than one race.
The current Directive permits the collection of more
detailed data on population groups, provided the detail can be
aggregated into the minimum set of categories.
6.1.8 Recommendation Concerning Changing the Term ``American Indian''
to ``Native American''
The term American Indian should not be changed to Native
American.
The term ``Native American'' may confuse those born in the United
States, and the count of American Indians may become less accurate.
``Native American'' is a term which could include more than American
Indians. American Indians are divided on which term they prefer, but
most tribal organizations prefer ``American Indian.''
Findings favoring the change:
Some find the term to be a more accurate description of
this indigenous population.
Some American Indians expressed a preference for the term
``Native American.''
Findings not favoring the change:
American Indian tribal governments prefer to retain the
term ``American Indian.''
The term ``Native American'' often is interpreted by
respondents to mean ``born in this country.''
The accuracy of the counts of American Indians may be
affected by a change in terminology.
Time series and other analyses would have to account for
the change in terminology.
``Native American'' is confusing, since it refers to
groups other than American Indians.
6.1.9 Recommendation Concerning Changing the Term ``Hawaiian'' to
``Native Hawaiian''
The term ``Hawaiian'' should be changed to ``Native
Hawaiian.''
Although the term ``Native Hawaiian'' may be misinterpreted by
respondents to mean ``born in Hawaii,'' there is little evidence to
suggest this would be as likely as in the case of ``Native American.''
Furthermore, the preponderance of the public comments on this issue
favored using ``Native Hawaiian.''
Findings favoring the change:
Hawaiians are an indigenous people to what is now the
United States.
Public comment indicated a preference for the use of the
term ``Native Hawaiian.''
The review found no compelling evidence that counts of
this group would be affected.
Findings not favoring the change:
``Native Hawaiian'' may be misinterpreted by respondents
to mean ``born in Hawaii.''
The accuracy of counts of Hawaiians may be affected.
Time series and other analyses could have to take account
of the change.
Some research findings indicated that more Hawaiians
appear to prefer ``Hawaiian'' to ``Native Hawaiian,'' but both were
acceptable terms.
6.1.10 Recommendation Concerning the Classification of Hawaiians
Hawaiians should continue to be classified in the Asian or
Pacific Islander category.
Although Hawaiians are an indigenous people, they are
geographically linked to other Pacific Islanders. Furthermore, other
groups, such as the American Samoans and the Guamanians, requested a
similar change, with the result that the meaning of the Pacific
Islander classification would likely be affected. Hawaiians are divided
on which classification should be used. The historical continuity of
data on the economic characteristics of Pacific Islanders would be
affected.
Findings favoring classification with other indigenous populations
Hawaiians are an indigenous people.
Like Alaska, and unlike American Samoa or Guam, Hawaii is
a state.
Hawaiians account for approximately ten percent of the
indigenous population of the United States.
Some Hawaiians favor classification in the same category
as the American Indians and Alaska Natives.
Findings favoring continued classification as Asian/Pacific Islander
Geographically, Hawaiians should be classified with other
Pacific Islanders:
Time series and other analyses would not have to account
for the change in classification.
The administration of Federal programs for the indigenous
population might be affected by the change.
Other groups, such as the Samoans and the Guamanians, also
have requested reclassification out of the Asian/Pacific Islander
category. These changes, along with a change for Hawaiians, would
effectively eliminate the Pacific Islander category.
The historical continuity of economic and demographic
statistics for Pacific Islanders as well as American Indians could be
affected by a change in classification.
American Indian tribal governments are opposed to the
change, because it might affect the quality of the data for American
Indians.
There appears to be no clear preference on the part of
Hawaiians--some Hawaiians favor classification in the American Indian
category, and still others favor a separate Native Hawaiian category.
Except for the proportion of college graduates, Hawaiians
resemble Asians more than American Indians in terms of economic status.
6.1.11 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.
``Alaska Native'' is the term preferred by this population (as
compared to ``Alaskan Native''). Alaska Native, accompanied by a
request for tribal affiliation, provides more accurate and complete
data.
Findings favoring the use of Alaska Native:
The term ``Eskimo'' is offensive to some respondents.
Alaska Native, accompanied by a request for tribal
affiliation, provides more accurate data for administrative purposes.
[[Page 36942]]
``Alaska Native'' is the term preferred by this
population.
Findings not favoring the use of Alaska Native:
The terms ``Eskimo'' and ``Aleut'' are acceptable to most
Alaska Natives.
6.1.12 Recommendations Concerning the Classification of South and
Central American Indians
South and Central 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 South
and Central America.
The classification of South and Central American Indians as
American Indian is consistent with how the Canadian Indians are
classified, but the definition of the category would need to be changed
accordingly. While the effects on the count of American Indians will be
minimal, South and Central American Indians may find it easier to
answer the race question.
Findings favoring a more inclusive American Indian classification:
Classification in the American Indian category would be
consistent with how the Canadian Indians in the United States have been
classified using the current categories.
The consistency of the classification of American Indians
will be increased.
It would be easier for South and Central American Indians
to answer the race question.
The effects of this change on the population count and
other data on American Indians will be minimal.
Some South and Central American Indians may prefer being
classified as American Indian.
Findings not favoring a more inclusive American Indian classification:
Little research has been done on the potential effects of
changes.
Some South and Central American Indians may prefer being
classified as White.
The reclassification may have a small effect the
administration of Federal programs for American Indians.
6.1.13 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.
Substantial numbers of this population identify with one of the two
terms, Black and African-American. If the two terms are connected by an
``or,'' Caribbean Blacks can identify with the category. Other terms,
such as ``Negro'' and ``Haitian,'' can be used, but they should not be
required. Since a relatively small number of Blacks identify with
``Negro'' and ``Haitian,'' the term ``Black or African American'' is
likely to be sufficient.
Findings favoring using ``Black'':
Time series and other analyses will be unaffected.
A plurality of Blacks prefer this term.
This term does not cause much confusion for respondents,
such as Caribbean Blacks.
For most Blacks, it is not an offensive term.
Some respondents find ``African-American'' a confusing
term because the term could exclude Caribbean Blacks or include anyone
from Africa, including Whites.
Some public comment indicated an objection to the use of
``American'' in ``African-American,'' because it connotes nationality
and is not used in the names of the other categories, except for the
American Indian category.
Findings favoring using ``African American'' or ``Afro-American'':
A large proportion of Blacks favor one of these terms.
For most Blacks, these are not offensive terms.
The terms are commonly used and there seems to be a
general consensus about the population group in the United States for
which the term is intended.
Findings favoring another term:
``Negro'' may be favored by older Blacks.
``Colored'' may be favored by some Blacks in the South.
Findings favoring use of more than one term: