[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 166 (Monday, August 28, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44674-44693]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-20787]




[[Page 44673]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part VI





Office of Management and Budget





_______________________________________________________________________



Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity; 
Notice

  Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 166 / Monday, August 28, 1995 / 
Notices   

[[Page 44674]]


OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET


Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on Race and 
Ethnicity

AGENCY: Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

ACTION: Interim Notice of Review and Possible Revision of OMB's 
Statistical Policy Directive No. 15, Race and Ethnic Standards for 
Federal Statistics and Administrative Reporting: Summary and Analysis 
of Public Comments and Brief Discussion of Research Agenda.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary: In 1977, OMB issued the Race and Ethnic Standards for Federal 
Statistics and Administrative Reporting that are set forth in 
Statistical Policy Directive No. 15. The standards in this Directive 
have been used for almost two decades throughout the Federal government 
for recordkeeping, collection, and presentation of data on race and 
Hispanic origin. The standards have been used in two decennial censuses 
and in surveys of the population, data collections necessary for 
meeting statutory requirements associated with civil rights monitoring 
and enforcement, and in other administrative program reporting.
    During the past several years, 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. Some have also proposed changing the names 
of some categories. In response to the criticisms, OMB initiated a 
review of the Directive. As a first step in this process, OMB asked the 
Committee on National Statistics (CNSTAT) of the National Academy of 
Sciences to organize a workshop to discuss issues to be addressed in 
the review. A report of the workshop, held in February 1994, is 
forthcoming from CNSTAT. During 1994, the review process also included 
(1) Public hearings in Boston, Denver, San Francisco, and Honolulu, (2) 
comment by Federal agencies on their requirements for racial and ethnic 
data, (3) development of a research agenda and related literature 
reviews, and (4) publication of a Federal Register notice, 59 FR 29831 
(1994). The June 9, 1994, notice contained information on the 
development of the current standards and requested public comment on: 
(1) The adequacy of current racial and ethnic categories, (2) the 
principles that should govern any proposed revisions to the standards, 
and (3) specific suggestions for change that had been offered by 
individuals and interested groups over the past several years. (See 
Appendix for the text of Directive No. 15.)
    This Federal Register notice (1) summarizes the suggestions for 
changes drawn from public comments, research findings, and literature 
reviews, (2) briefly discusses the research agenda for some of the 
significant issues that have been identified, and (3) sets forth 
proposed principles to be used in reaching a final decision on 
standards for the classification of data on race and ethnicity. The 
issues, suggestions for change, and pros and cons described in this 
notice are those raised in public comment and do not reflect OMB 
positions or decisions. In addition it should be noted that because the 
categories in Directive No. 15 have been useful for over 18 years for 
many purposes, an option under consideration is to make no changes.
    Important dates in the balance of the review process are shown 
below. Various agencies are conducting activities to support the review 
process; these include work by the Bureau of the Census related to the 
2000 Census program mentioned below.

Fall 1995--OMB analyzes Federal Register notice comments; receives 
results of May 1995 CPS Supplement; continues to consult on options 
with affected groups
March 1996--Census Bureau conducts National Content Test (NCT) in 
preparation for 2000 Census
June 1996--Census Bureau conducts Race and Ethnic Targeted Test (RAETT) 
in preparation for 2000 Census
November 1996 through January 1997--Bureau of the Census provides test 
results from National Content Test and Race and Ethnicity Targeted Test
Spring 1997--OMB publishes Federal Register notice on research results 
and proposed decisions on changes, if any, to Directive No. 15
Mid-1997--OMB publishes final decision regarding any changes to 
Directive No. 15 in a Federal Register notice

ISSUES FOR COMMENT: With this notice, OMB requests public comment on 
the following: (1) Are there any issues or options not listed that 
should be considered before a final decision is made? (2) for each 
option presented, are there additional pros and cons to consider? (3) 
are there additional principles that should govern a final decision on 
whether or how to revise the standards? and (4) which options should be 
included for testing in 1996? This Federal Register notice provides the 
last opportunity for public comment on priorities for research in 1996.
    All comments received as a result of the June 9, 1994, notice have 
been reviewed and considered in preparing this notice. It is not 
necessary to resubmit comments sent previously.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on these issues may be addressed to 
Katherine K. Wallman, Chief, Statistical Policy, Office of Information 
and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, NEOB, Room 
10201, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503.

DATES: To ensure consideration, written comments must be provided to 
OMB on or before September 30, 1995.

ELECTRONIC AVAILABILITY AND COMMENTS: This document is also accessible 
on the U.S. Department of Commerce's FedWorld network under the ``OMB 
Library of Files.'' The Telnet address for FedWorld via the Internet is 
fedworld.gov. The address (URL) for the World Wide Web is http://
www.fedworld.gov/ftp.htm#omb. For ftp access, ftp://fwux.fedworld.gov/
pub/omb/omb.htm. The telephone number for the FedWorld help desk is 
(703) 487-4608. For assistance in using electronic mail, please contact 
your system administrator.
    Comments may be sent to OMB using the following Internet address: 
ombdir15(@)a1.eop.gov.

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, NW., 
Washington, DC 20503. Telephone: 202-395-3093.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

    The United States government has long collected statistics on race 
and ethnicity. Such data have been used to study 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 and 
policy concerns.
    Since the 1960s, data on race and ethnicity have been used 
extensively in civil rights monitoring and enforcement covering areas 
such as employment, voting rights, housing and mortgage lending, health 
care services, and educational opportunities. These legislatively-based 
priorities created the need among Federal agencies for 

[[Page 44675]]
compatible, nonduplicative data for the specific population groups that 
historically had suffered discrimination and differential treatment on 
the basis of their race or ethnicity. In response, the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) issued in 1977 the ``Race and Ethnic 
Standards for Federal Statistics and Administrative Reporting'' 
contained in Statistical Policy Directive No. 15. These categories also 
implemented the requirements of Pub. L. 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. Hence, the 
population groups identified by the Directive No. 15 racial and 
Hispanic origin categories reflected legislative and agency needs, and 
not efforts by population groups to be specifically identified.
    In recent years, Directive No. 15 has been criticized for not 
sufficiently reflecting the Nation's diversity. In addition, some 
critics have proposed changing the names of some categories. In a June 
9, 1994, Federal Register notice, OMB announced a review of Directive 
No. 15. As part of the review and public comment period, OMB held 
hearings in Boston, Denver, San Francisco, and Honolulu. The June 9, 
1994, Federal Register notice contains additional background 
information on the development of Directive No. 15; revisions proposed 
but not made in 1988; congressional hearings before the House 
Subcommittee on Census, Statistics, and Postal Personnel in 1993; a 
workshop conducted by the Committee on National Statistics in 1994; 
work done by the Interagency Committee for the Review of the Racial and 
Ethnic Standards; and general principles for the review of the racial 
and ethnic categories.
    In the June 9, 1994, Federal Register notice, OMB cited specific 
concerns the public had raised over the years regarding Directive No. 
15. As a result of the notice, the public commented on the need for new 
categories, changes in current categories, whether racial and ethnic 
data should be collected, legislative and programmatic needs for the 
data, and the issue of self-identification versus observer 
identification. OMB received nearly 800 letters in response to the 1994 
Federal Register notice and heard the testimony of 94 witnesses during 
the four public hearings. OMB heard from a wide array of interested 
parties including individuals, data users, and data providers from 
within and outside the Federal Government.
    This Federal Register notice focuses primarily on the six major 
issues discussed in comments from the public (Section B); the expected 
future research agenda (Section C); and general principles for making a 
final decision on standard racial and ethnic categories for Directive 
No. 15 (Section D).
    Historical continuity of racial and ethnic data is important to 
many data users. Over time, however, there have been variations in how 
the Nation's principal population groups have been classified according 
to race and ethnicity; such differences have occurred even within data 
sets. In decennial censuses, for example, a question on race has been 
included since 1790. There have been many changes in the broad racial 
categories, the specific components of the categories, and whether data 
on ethnicity were collected. Asian Indians, for example, were counted 
as ``Hindus'' in censuses from 1920 to 1940, as ``White'' from 1950 to 
1970, and as ``Asians or Pacific Islanders'' in 1980 and 1990.
    Numerous studies reveal that identification of ethnicity is fluid 
and self-perceptions of race and ethnicity change over time and across 
circumstances for many people. This is especially true among persons 
with heterogeneous ancestries. A study of the Current Population Survey 
showed 1 in 3 people reported an ethnicity in 1972 that was different 
from the one they had reported in 1971. This level of inconsistency 
reflects the fluidity of ethnicity as well as the effect of question 
design.
    Major historical inconsistencies in the data reflect social reality 
and public policy as well as technical decisions by data developers. 
Most agree that comparability over time is a desirable goal but that it 
is important also to reflect changes in society as they occur. Thus, 
General Principles 9 and 10 (see section D below) call for conducting 
research before any changes are made and for providing a crosswalk 
between old and any new categories so comparisons can be made across 
time.
    There are also differences among data sets with respect to how race 
and ethnicity are classified. On birth records, for example, the race 
of the baby's mother and father are based on reports of the mother or 
family members. The race of the baby, which is not reported on the 
birth record, was once assigned for purposes of published statistics by 
an algorithm based on the parents' races. Since 1989, however, the 
National Center for Health Statistics has tabulated birth data 
according to the mother's race. In censuses and surveys until 1970, 
racial data were usually based on the observation of the government 
enumerator filling out the questionnaire. Now, the usual practice is 
self-administered forms and questionnaires, especially when the purpose 
of data gathering is to obtain information on population 
characteristics. In the enforcement of civil rights laws, however, the 
classification is often made by employers or school administrators, and 
the observer's perception is at issue. Whether someone is a victim of 
discrimination often turns on the way in which others act on their 
perception of, for example, the color of the individual's skin, the 
ethnic origin of his or her last name, or the accent with which he or 
she speaks. Such issues do not depend generally on the way in which the 
individual identifies his or her racial or ethnic background. In sum, 
Federal data sets identifying race and ethnicity are a mixture of self-
identification by respondents and the perceptions of observers.
    Until the current racial and ethnic standards were adopted in 1977, 
Federal data collections used an assortment of definitions for broad 
racial categories. In response to that problem, a Federal interagency 
committee recommended development of common categories for racial and 
ethnic data. Directive No. 15 provides a minimum set of standard 
categories and definitions for presenting data on various racial and 
ethnic groups in our population. The Directive requires compilation of 
data for four racial categories (White, Black, American Indian or 
Alaskan Native, and Asian or Pacific Islander), and an ethnic category 
to indicate Hispanic origin, or not of Hispanic origin.
    To date evaluation of the quality of racial and ethnic data has 
been limited to research conducted by the Bureau of the Census, the 
National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), and other parts of the 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Comparisons of data 
sets indicate high consistency in individual responses for White and 
Black populations (95 percent consistency) and for the Asian and 
Pacific Islander population (90 percent consistency) in the 1990 census 
National Content Reinterview Survey conducted by the Census Bureau. For 
American Indians and Alaskan Natives, reporting is less consistent (63 
percent consistency in the 1990 National Content Reinterview Survey). 
Reporting race is also less consistent for multiple-race persons, 
Hispanics, the foreign born, and persons who do not read or speak 
English well. NCHS found Asians and American Indians are sometimes 
misreported as ``White'' on death certificates, and this causes an 

[[Page 44676]]
underestimation of death rates for these groups. Nevertheless, these 
data quality problems are not so severe as to make the data unusable 
for most purposes.
    Testimony at the four public hearings in 1994 and letters to OMB 
requested data on specific population groups that go beyond 
legislatively required levels of detail. Some groups say they have 
suffered discrimination in political and economic access but without 
data for their specific population group, they feel that the 
discrimination is not recognized. For others, the request for 
recognition of a particular nationality group seems to be primarily a 
matter of pride and identification with that population group.
    Public comment indicates self-identification is important to many 
people. Some who commented requested different placement of their 
specific group within a broad group. Many people of more than one race, 
who under Directive No. 15 are told to choose one category that ``most 
closely reflects (their) recognition in (their) community,'' said they 
wanted to reflect their full heritage, not just part of it.

B. Summary of Issues and Suggestions Raised in Public Comment; Research 
Findings

    In the June 9, 1994, Federal Register notice, OMB asked for public 
comment on (1) the adequacy of the current categories, (2) principles 
that should govern any proposed revisions to the standards, and (3) 
specific suggestions for changes that have been offered by various 
individuals and organizations.
    This section summarizes the public comment (including comments from 
Federal agencies) that resulted from the June 9, 1994, Federal Register 
notice as well as research findings related to the particular issues. 
In an effort to be thorough in summarizing public comments the 
discussion below of specific data collection and presentation 
categories (Issue 6) is necessarily lengthy.
    The issues and suggestions shown below are those raised in public 
comment and do not reflect OMB positions or decisions. OMB will not 
make decisions on the issues until mid-1997. The following six issues 
are discussed in this section:
    Issue 1. Should the Federal government collect data on race and 
ethnicity? Should there be standards at all?
    Issue 2. Should Directive No. 15 be revised? Should there be 
different collection standards for different purposes?
    Issue 3. Should ``race/ethnicity'' be asked as a single 
identification or should ``race'' identification be separate from 
Hispanic origin or other ethnicities?
    Issue 4. Should self-identification or the perception of an 
observer guide the methods for collection of racial and ethnic data?
    Issue 5. Should population size and geographic distribution of 
groups be criteria in the final decision of Directive No. 15 
categories?
    Issue 6. What should the specific data collection and presentation 
categories be? This discussion includes a brief summary of public 
comments and previous research findings. Briefly, suggestions that have 
been made include:
    (a) White (suggestions include adding categories for White ethnic 
groups; adding a category for persons from the Middle East or of Arab 
descent; and alternative wording for the category name).
    (b) Black (suggestions include identification of geographic origin 
of ancestors; adding a category for Creoles; and alternative wording 
for the category name).
    (c) Asian or Pacific Islander (suggestions include having three 
separate categories, one for Asians, one for Pacific Islanders, and one 
for Native Hawaiians; adding a new category for original peoples of 
acquired American lands (``indigenous populations'') that would include 
American Indians, Alaskan Natives, Native Hawaiians, and native 
American Samoans and Guamanians; and specifying major nationality 
groups).
    (d) American Indian or Alaskan Native (suggestions include 
retaining the category with no change; expanding the definition of the 
category to include the Native Hawaiians and the indigenous populations 
of American Samoa and Guam; and alternative wording for the category 
name).
    (e) Multiracial (suggestions ranged from not having any multiracial 
category to six suggestions for ways to identify multiracial persons).
    (f) Hispanic origin (options include categories for subgroups; and 
alternative wording for the category name).

Detailed Discussion of the Six Issues
    Issue 1. Should the Federal government collect data on race and 
ethnicity? Should there be standards at all?
    Summary of views expressed on whether the Federal government should 
collect racial and ethnic data. Some agencies presently are required by 
Federal statute and regulation to collect racial and ethnic data. (See, 
for example, the Voting Rights Act of 1973 (1982) and the Civil Rights 
Act of 1964.) To end the collection of racial and ethnic data for these 
purposes, repeal of these statutes by Congress would be required. The 
view of those who favor continued collection of racial and ethnic data 
can be summed up by the words of the writer who said, ``* * * the 
measurable gains made in advancing a civil rights agenda to bring all 
Americans into the economic, political, and social mainstream would 
have been extremely difficult, if not impossible, if we did not have 
adequate information on racial and ethnic groups.''
    Those who favor no collection gave as their reasons the following: 
(1) Doing so is divisive, archaic, unscientific, and racist; (2) it 
should not be a function of the Federal government (the government 
should be concerned only with citizenship) and the government has no 
need to know (tracking heritage is an individual choice and 
responsibility); (3) the government should collect ethnicity or 
ancestry instead of race; (4) there are no pure races, everyone is 
mixed, and therefore, the categories are meaningless; (5) people do not 
know their complete ancestry; (6) we are all supposed to have equal 
protection under the law (race neutral, color blind); (7) we are all 
Americans, we are a melting pot, we are one nation; (8) we are all 
human beings; (9) it is dehumanizing to categorize people like nuts and 
bolts; and (10) it is upsetting (for example, the categories are too 
limited; reminds people of the Nazi holocaust).
    Should there be standards at all? Directive No. 15 is used widely 
and the strong consensus of public comment was to continue the issuance 
of standards for collecting data on race and ethnicity. The background 
and demand for the issuance of Directive No. 15 in 1977 is reviewed in 
59 FR 29831, (1994).
    As part of the public comment period, Federal agencies were asked 
to provide information about their requirements for data on race and 
ethnicity. Federal agencies report that the standards in Directive No. 
15 have facilitated the exchange of data among agencies and among 
states, in instances where data are not used exclusively within a 
particular agency or program. Even where it is not required, Directive 
No. 15 standards are often used in State and business record systems 
and by marketers as a matter of convenience and to facilitate 
comparisons with other data sets.
    The information also suggests, however, that Directive No. 15 may 
give a false sense of comparability and continuity among data sets. 
Even where 

[[Page 44677]]
the definitions of categories are comparable, there have been 
variations in collection and processing procedures that lead to 
inconsistencies in the data. Additional differences occur because of 
the mix of self-identification and observer-identification of race and 
ethnicity.
    Agencies having statutory requirements to use racial and ethnic 
data for policy development, program evaluation, and civil rights 
monitoring and enforcement: (1) Want historical continuity of the data; 
(2) generally oppose a ``multiracial'' category because the persons 
seeking this category are already covered by existing racial 
categories; (3) indicate that the perception of others is more valid 
for evaluating discrimination than individual self-identification; (4) 
note that standardized reporting formats, like the Employer Information 
Report, EEO-1, rely on observer identification; (5) express concern 
about the cost of making changes that will affect both Federal 
agencies, respondents, and other governmental bodies; and (6) generally 
favor the broad group structure of Directive No. 15 in its present 
format.
    Data collection agencies have legislative authority to collect 
racial and ethnic data needed for Federal programs and in the case of 
the decennial census, for redistricting. They also use racial and 
ethnic data for analyses of social, economic, and health trends for 
population groups. These agencies said: (1) The categories in Directive 
No. 15 confuse some respondents because they are inconsistent, too 
broad for some purposes, and the concepts of race, Hispanic origin, and 
ancestry overlap; (2) historical continuity of the data is important; 
(3) it is important to be able to aggregate any new categories back to 
the 1977 Directive No. 15 categories; (4) corrections are needed in 
Directive No. 15 (for example, there is no category for South American 
Indians and only Hispanic Whites and Hispanic Blacks are identified in 
the minimum combined format); (5) subgroups of Asians and Hispanics 
were most frequently cited as a need but required data collection 
should be limited to groups with sufficient numbers to generate 
meaningful estimates; (6) a few agencies expressed interest in 
subcategories of the Black population (e.g., African, West Indian); and 
(7) for American Indians, some expressed a need to require the 
identification of Federal- versus state-recognized tribes. Many felt a 
``multiracial'' category (that does not specify the races) is too 
heterogeneous and affects the counts of other groups in unknown ways. 
Agencies that collect health data particularly need to know specific 
categories because some diseases and health problems are more prevalent 
among certain racial and ethnic groups. Data collection agencies are 
concerned about the significant operational, technical, and cost issues 
of a ``check all that apply'' approach for multiracial persons. For 
example, processing systems would have to be changed to allow for 
reporting more than one category. Additionally, Federal laws have been 
written with the assumption that persons identify with one racial 
group; these laws would either have to be changed or some method would 
have to be devised to meet legislative requirements.
    Federal agencies have interpreted Directive No. 15 to apply only to 
primary data collection; data collection under grants may or may not 
comply with it.
    Issue 2. Should Directive No. 15 be revised? Should there be 
different collection standards for different purposes?
    Among those who favor collection of racial and ethnic data, there 
is significant difference of opinion as to whether Directive No. 15 
should remain essentially as it is or should be revised. While some 
believe there should be no change in Directive No. 15, others say 
ethnic identification is in constant flux and Directive No. 15 should 
be changed now and subsequently reviewed periodically (for example, 
after every decennial census). The Directive No. 15 categories are 
nearly two decades old and many people say they no longer identify with 
the categories. Intermarriage, changes in immigration flows, and 
changes in ethnic consciousness are some of the reasons. These changes 
in our basic population structure suggest an increasingly diverse 
society and unforeseen future needs for racial and ethnic data.
    Public testimony and research indicate that race and ethnicity are 
subjective concepts and inherently ambiguous. For purposes of 
collecting data in the United States, race and ethnicity are cultural 
concepts and social constructs. As stated in the current version of 
Directive No. 15, the racial and ethnic categories are not intended to 
reflect scientific or anthropological definitions of who should be 
included in a particular category. The definitions of the minimum set 
of population categories under Directive No. 15 include references to 
color, ancestry, and geographic origins in an effort to approximate 
social constructs of race prevalent in the United States.
    In line with the subjective nature of the concept, research shows 
people change how they classify themselves with respect to race and 
ethnicity. There is significant inconsistency in the measurement of 
ethnicity particularly. Research shows different responses are summoned 
by the format of questions (open or specified categories), the number 
of categories, the examples listed, changes in self-perceptions within 
groups and among age cohorts, and the political climate.
    The differing views of whether Directive No. 15 should be revised 
relate to the purpose for collecting such data. Federal agencies that 
use racial and ethnic data for regulatory programs, civil rights 
monitoring and enforcement generally oppose any revision of Directive 
No. 15 for the reasons described in Issue 1. Directive No. 15 is seen 
as providing practical guidelines for visual identification in a broad 
and relatively straightforward manner of the population groups that 
have historically suffered discrimination.
    Where trend analysis of social and economic changes was the 
commenter's purpose, more detailed categories were often favored. The 
preference varies for other purposes such as policy development and 
program fund allocations. In the public hearings and letters to OMB, 
persons concerned with self-identification generally favored revisions 
that would provide more detailed categories and more freedom of choice 
(see Issue 6).
    Given the distinct uses of racial and ethnic data in the Federal 
government (especially trend analysis versus regulatory and civil 
rights monitoring and enforcement), the possibility of a two-part 
Directive No. 15, with one part focusing on each purpose, has been 
suggested as an option if there are changes to Directive No. 15. Part A 
of Directive No. 15 could provide more detailed standards for use when 
a major purpose is trend analysis (such as in the decennial census and 
perhaps household surveys). Such a standard would track the increasing 
diversity of the U.S. population and provide better information to 
inform decisions about whether the categories for administrative and 
enforcement purposes should be expanded. Part B of Directive No. 15 
could remain essentially unchanged for use in program evaluations and 
civil rights monitoring and enforcement.
    There are disadvantages to having two levels of data collection 
specified in the standards of a revised Directive No. 15. The most 
serious disadvantage could be data sets with different counts of 
population groups that cannot be 

[[Page 44678]]
related, a result of different coding and tabulation rules. This is 
especially the case if the specific races of multiracial persons are 
identified. Two sets of data could be confusing to data users who may 
be unsure of which set to use for various purposes. To prevent 
refocusing the problem from data collection to tabulation, there would 
have to be generally agreed-upon procedures and guidelines for how 
agencies would tabulate data for program purposes. The procedures 
should ensure that detailed data collections could be tabulated back to 
the broad categories of the 1977 Directive No. 15 in a standard way 
across programs. Standard and generally agreed-upon tabulation rules 
would be needed for the various combinations of multiracial entries, 
including those where neither race is ``White.'' The Bureau of the 
Census already has procedures for aggregating detailed data from the 
1990 census to the broader categories of Directive No. 15. The 
reaggregations could become more complicated because of the different 
assumptions that would be required. The requests of some groups who do 
not feel they fit into existing categories (e.g., some Arabs, Creoles, 
and Cape Verdeans) suggest that aggregations could become even more 
problematic. Also, the quality of the reaggregated data can vary by 
geographic area.
    Some say cost should not be an ``excuse'' for failing to improve 
data collection on race and ethnicity, especially where the data are 
used for protection of civil rights. Others expressed concern about the 
cost of making changes to Directive No. 15 when the broad categories 
are acceptable choices for most of the population and cover programs 
affecting almost all persons. Added costs associated with more detailed 
categories are discussed in Issue 6 below.
    Federal, State, and local government agencies urged that any 
revisions ensure that data can be tabulated back to the 1977 
categories. Most expressed a preference to maintain historical 
continuity of the two decades of data sets with the understanding they 
are not perfectly comparable. It was also recognized that final 
tabulations give the data an appearance of comparability among data 
sets when actually there are differences caused by data collection 
methods (especially self-identification versus identification by 
observers). Nevertheless, the data are widely accepted by courts and 
government agencies as reliable indicators of change in housing 
patterns, redistricting, and labor markets.
    If there are revisions to Directive No. 15, research indicates that 
changes in the race and ethnic categories on administrative records 
will present problems in data comparability over time. The categories 
on the records reflect what they were as of the time of initial 
enrollment and the categories are generally carried without change for 
decades. Administrative records are often collected from State and 
local sources, which have a variety of recordkeeping practices, are not 
required to meet Directive No. 15 (but often do), and are unlikely to 
collect information for detailed categories. A few States now require a 
``mixed race'' category. There will be increasing value to the Federal 
government if State records use the same categories as Directive No. 
15.
    Federal and State government agencies emphasized that if there are 
revisions, a reasonable amount of time needs to be given to phase in 
the changes.
    Issue 3. Should ``race/ethnicity'' be asked as a single 
identification or should ``race'' identification be separate from 
Hispanic origin or other ethnicities?
    Directive No. 15 states that it is preferable to collect data on 
race and Hispanic separately to allow flexibility. 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; Hispanic; White, not of Hispanic origin; and Black, not of 
Hispanic origin. The use of the Hispanic category in the combined 
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 ethnicity by race and, therefore, reduces the 
utility of the four racial categories by excluding from them persons 
who would otherwise be included. Thus, the two formats currently 
permitted by Directive No. 15 for collecting racial and ethnic data do 
not provide comparable data.
    Public testimony reflected some data problems with the standards in 
Directive No. 15. The combined format does not provide for 
identification of Asians or American Indians with Hispanic origins, and 
would classify the people of Equatorial Guinea, who are geographically 
Africans but who speak Spanish, as Hispanic. There is no apparent 
category for Central and South American Indians.
    Some persons from non-Hispanic ethnic groups questioned why 
Hispanics had been singled out as the only ethnic group specifically 
identified in Directive No. 15. Others objected to the term ``non-
Hispanic'' because it defines people by what they are not. For example, 
rather than ``White, not of Hispanic origin,'' a category might be 
``White, European ethnicity'' or ``American Indian, Mexican.'' This 
approach would require a question that identifies ancestry groups 
within the broad race groups.
    Most Federal agencies did not comment on whether race and Hispanic 
origin should be collected in one question or two questions, although 
many agencies have been using the combined format for a number of years 
and have developed data series with the resulting data. Those few that 
commented were split on the issue.
    The public indicated differences of opinion also. Those who favored 
asking race and Hispanic origin separately said Hispanics were a 
multiracial population and a cultural (not a race) group. Many Latin 
American countries are populated by immigrants from parts of Europe 
other than Spain. Many wanted to identify Asian-Hispanics and American 
Indian-Hispanics. Research shows Hispanics who self-identify as White 
also fare better economically; thus, some said two questions were 
needed because ethnicity alone was insufficient for determining which 
Hispanics are likely to be victims of discrimination. Others were 
concerned with historical continuity of data concepts and wanted to be 
able to generate statistics for the total White and total Black 
population. When separate questions are used to collect racial and 
ethnic data, there is also a technical matter of which question should 
be asked first.
    Some who favored asking race/Hispanic origin as one question said 
many Hispanics do not identify themselves as a race. Others favored 
this approach as a way to end the practice of using the term ``race'' 
which they see as a social rather than a scientific construct.
    For some individuals, race and ethnicity may not be clearly 
separable. One proposed solution is to ask a single race/ethnicity 
question (that is, one question in which ``Hispanic'' is included in 
the list with the broad race categories) and allow respondents to mark 
all that apply. Hispanics who identify with a race category could mark 
both categories. Hispanic respondents who do not identify with any race 
category could mark ``Hispanic'' only. The question would correspond to 
self-perceived membership in population groups defined by cultural 
heritage, language, physical appearance, or other characteristics.
    Some research supports the public comments that some respondents 
are confused about how to respond to 

[[Page 44679]]
separate race and Hispanic origin items. In the 1990 census, 4 in 10 
Hispanics marked ``Other'' in the race question and about 10 percent of 
the population did not respond to the Hispanic origin item. The 1990 
census reinterview study, in which the answers given by a sample of 
respondents to the 1990 census were compared with answers they gave in 
a reinterview after the census, also showed that Hispanics had high 
levels of inconsistent reporting in the race item. These results 
indicate the question may not be operating as intended.
    Cognitive research shows that many Hispanics perceive redundancy in 
separate race, Hispanic origin, and national origin questions. Some 
Hispanic respondents do not identify with the Black or the White 
category, and are offended by an ``Other race'' category (which they 
interpret to mean that Hispanics are less important than other races 
since they do not have their own ``label''). For some, ``White'' is 
synonymous with ``Anglo'' meaning non-Hispanic. For example, in a focus 
group, a Mexican-American man said that where he lived people were 
either Mexicans or Anglos. He was confused by a race question that 
seemed to be trying to make him say he was White and to his mind, non-
Hispanic. In an analysis of the responses of Hispanics to the race 
question in the 1990 Panel Study of Income Dynamics, Cubans were the 
most likely and Mexican-Americans the least likely to identify 
themselves as ``White.'' Cognitive research shows some Hispanics, 
especially the foreign born, expect to see a single category for 
Hispanics.
    If race and Hispanic origin are asked as two separate questions, 
there is the issue of whether to ask race or Hispanic origin first. 
Research done since 1987 indicates that additional instructions and 
asking Hispanic origin first reduce nonresponse to that question. 
Asking Hispanic origin first also reduces reporting as ``other race'' 
and increases reporting as ``White'' by U.S.-born Hispanics but not by 
immigrants. A large minority of respondents still report as ``other 
race.'' The Census Bureau will conduct research in the 1996 National 
Content Test for the 2000 census to determine whether placing the 
Hispanic item first affects consistency of responses and reporting in 
the race category among subgroups not adequately represented in other 
studies.
    The future research agenda is described in Section C below.
    Issue 4. Should self-identification or the perception of an 
observer guide the methods for collection of racial and ethnic data?
    At the heart of criticisms and public requests for review of 
Directive No. 15 is the feeling of some persons, particularly those of 
mixed heritage, that they cannot accurately identify their race and 
ethnicity as they prefer in Federal data systems using the current 
categories. They say the government should not limit their choice of 
identification. As stated in the second principle for the review of 
racial and ethnic categories (Section D below), ideally OMB prefers 
that self-identification should be facilitated to the greatest extent 
possible but there are data collection systems where observer 
identification is more practical. Federal censuses, surveys, and vital 
records give preference to using self-identification; that is, having 
the individual (or in some cases a proxy respondent) provide the 
information requested about his or her race and Hispanic origin.
    Research shows that ethnic groups evolve and may modify their 
preferred ethnic group names; individuals may represent their 
affiliation with groups differently depending on the situation and may 
alter their perceived ethnic membership over time. Category names need 
to be acceptable and generally understood both by members and 
nonmembers of the groups to which they apply.
    Self-identification is not the preferred method among Federal 
agencies concerned with monitoring and enforcement of civil rights. 
They prefer to collect racial and ethnic data by visual observation. 
Since discrimination is based on the perception of an individual's race 
or Hispanic origin, these agencies oppose any changes that would make 
it more difficult to collect data by observation. Such proposed changes 
include the suggested ``multiracial'' category as well as 
identification of national origins and ethnicities (for example, 
``Arab'' or ``Cape Verdean''). These agencies say that if categories 
are more detailed and include nationality groups, or if there is a 
``multiracial'' category (and especially if the multiple races have to 
be identified), it would be virtually impossible to give instructions 
for how to classify by visual observation.
    Additionally, they report it is their experience that direct 
inquiry about a person's race, ethnicity, or national origin sometimes 
raises concerns among employees or other respondents about the purpose 
of collecting the data.
    American Indian groups express concern about self-identification. 
Tribal recognition of status as an American Indian or Alaskan Native 
(Alaskan Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut) is a legal definition, not one of 
long-ago ancestry. In the 1990 census, 8.7 million persons reported in 
the ancestry question that they were American Indian but only 1.9 
million reported American Indian race. Only 3 of 4 who reported 
``American Indian'' as their race gave ``American Indian'' as their 
first ancestry; about 9 percent gave an European first ancestry. There 
are also regional effects in reporting American Indian as a race 
related to the prevalence of intermarriage, migration, Federal 
recognition of regional tribes, and attitudes towards Indians.
    Development of Federal data sets includes increased use of 
administrative records matched to survey data for trend analysis. This 
makes the issue of data collection methods, both by observation and 
self-identification, a greater technical difficulty than in the past. 
Where identification is by observers or proxy respondents, blood 
relatives may be identified differently in administrative records and 
an individual may be identified differently among data sets.
    Issue 5. Should population size and geographic distribution of 
groups be criteria in the final decision of Directive No. 15 
categories?
    Many of the groups for which data collection has been requested are 
numerically small and often are found primarily in specific geographic 
areas. In national sample surveys, these factors often make it 
unreasonably costly or burdensome on the public to collect reliable 
data. A question that allows for self-identification to the greatest 
extent possible may be very lengthy. Some see this as a technical 
problem, others do not.
    There are difficulties with using size of population as a basis for 
making a population group a specific category. The size of the 
population is itself a subject of controversy at times.
    For sample surveys, how small is ``too small''? Sample data can 
provide only an estimate of a number and not, with 100-percent 
certainty, the true number itself. The smaller the group, the more 
unreliable estimates are with respect to sampling error. For example, 
in the Current Population Survey (CPS), a national survey of 
households, summary measures such as means and percentage distributions 
are shown only when the population base is 75,000 or greater. An 
example of how much sampling error increases in a survey as the 
population size of a group decreases can be provided for a 
characteristic such as the poverty rate. If the estimated poverty rate 
for the total U.S. population is about 14 to 15 percent (a 90-percent 
confidence interval), then for a population group of 1 million persons, 


[[Page 44680]]
the poverty rate would be about 8 to 21 percent; for a population group 
of 500,000 persons, the poverty rate would be about 6 to 23 percent; 
and for a population group of 200,000 persons, the poverty rate would 
be about 1 to 28 percent. (A 90-percent confidence interval can be 
interpreted roughly as providing 90-percent confidence that the true 
number falls between the upper and lower limits.) The accuracy and 
reliability of an estimate depends not only upon sample sizes, but also 
upon whether the groups are ``controlled'' (i.e., weighted to 
independent estimates). Estimates of the Asian and Pacific Islander 
population from the 1994 March Current Population Survey differed by 
about 20 percent from demographic estimates due primarily to this 
factor.
    One person suggested that groups should constitute at least one 
percent of the population (nationally, about 2.6 million in 1994) to be 
considered as a separate category. A time frame and data source would 
have to be agreed upon if such a guideline were considered.
    Issue 6. What should the specific data collection and presentation 
categories be?
    There are no clear, unambiguous, objective, generally agreed-upon 
definitions of the terms, ``race'' and ``ethnicity.'' Cognitive 
research shows that respondents are not always clear on the differences 
between race and ethnicity. There are differences in terminology, group 
boundaries, attributes, and dimensions of race and ethnicity. 
Historically, ethnic communities have absorbed other groups through 
conquest, the expansion of national boundaries, and acculturation.
    Groups differ in their preferred identification. Concepts also 
change over time. Research indicates some respondents are referring to 
the national or geographic origin of their ancestors, while others are 
referring to the culture, religion, racial or physical characteristics, 
language, or related attributes with which they identify. The 1977 
Directive No. 15 categories are a mix of these. The categories do not 
represent objective ``truth'' but rather, are ambiguous social 
constructs and involve subjective and attitudinal issues.
    Some said the categories should reflect ancestry or cultural 
affiliation rather than skin color. Some wanted to indicate they were 
``American'' and had ancestry from a particular geographic region 
(``hyphenated Americans'') while others opposed this (``we are all 
Americans''). Cognitive research indicated that some people use race 
and ethnic origin interchangeably; they see little difference between 
the two concepts. Most people do understand the concept of ancestry.
    Some groups stated that their preference was for standard 
categories that would maximize the size of their population because 
they believed larger numbers provide importance in society and greater 
political leverage.
    In short, groups differed in what they considered the most 
desirable standard. It is impossible to satisfy every request for 
racial and ethnic categories that OMB received; such a list would be 
both lengthy and contradictory. Some persons requested religious 
identification; this option is not discussed below because the Federal 
collection of religious affiliation has been interpreted as possibly 
violating the separation of church and state.
    Some suggested a completely open-ended question with no standard 
categories for data collection; rather, standards would be set for data 
tabulation. An open-ended question is discussed in part (e), 
Multiracial option (2)(cc).
    Below is a discussion of public comment with regard to the current 
broad categories of ``White,'' ``Black,'' ``Asian or Pacific 
Islander,'' ``American Indian or Alaskan Native,'' and ``Hispanic 
origin.'' Part (e) below discusses options with respect to 
classification of persons of multiple races, a category that does not 
exist in the current standards. Where possible, in the discussion of 
options and their pros and cons, past research results are included.
    As part of the discussion of options, the cost of proposed changes 
with respect to collecting, tabulating, and analyzing data is an 
essential consideration (see Section D, General Principle 8). Any 
changes in Directive No. 15 will be imposed on tens of thousands of 
State and local agencies such as law enforcement agencies (through the 
Uniform Crime Reporting system), school districts, the business 
community, and others required to use the Directive in reporting these 
data to the Federal government. If administrative records for Federal 
programs have to be completely updated to meet a new standard, there 
will be significant costs to entities that report to the Federal 
Government. For example, the State of Florida estimates it would cost 
$2 million to change school enrollment records.
    Changes in the current Directive No. 15 would also entail 
additional processing costs as software and sometimes data capture 
methods would have to be changed. For example, it is more expensive to 
capture and code handwritten responses to open-ended questions than 
fixed, pre-determined categories. Some of the increased costs 
associated with categories more detailed than the current Directive No. 
15 would include:
     Interviewer training for implementing changes in 
collecting these data and updating of interviewer instruction manuals;
     Additional interview time to collect more detailed data;
     The technical and practical difficulty of administering 
more detailed or more complex categories (such as long lists of 
nationalities, especially if multiple responses are allowed) in 
telephone surveys;
     Increases in computer reprogramming and data processing 
costs;
     Increases in the likelihood of litigation over data 
aggregation and processing decision rules;
     Increases in the costs of disseminating data in hard copy 
or electronic format and storing larger computer data files;
     Updating program manuals, regulations, and recordkeeping 
requirements to reflect changes; and
     Making data analysis more complex.
    The cost considerations described above apply, in varying degrees, 
to any change and so are not described further in the discussion below 
of pros and cons for the various options raised in public comment.
(a) White
    In Directive No. 15, the ``White'' category includes persons having 
origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, North Africa, or the 
Middle East. The public comment included suggestions for subcategories 
and related changes in terminology to collect more detailed information 
on White ethnic groups according to the geographic region of their 
ancestors. This summary reports only on options proposed during public 
hearings and in the public comment period. It also highlights pros and 
cons for these options as raised in public comment or shown by 
research. Inclusion in the summary does not reflect OMB endorsement of 
the comments or suggestions. Requests included:

Options Suggested in Public Comments

    (1) Collect data for White ethnic groups according to the country 
of ancestral origin (for example, German, Scottish, or Irish). Some 
prefer other terms such as ``European-American,'' or ``German-
American'' and some 

[[Page 44681]]
requested that ``European'' be further subcategorized into ``Western 
European'' and ``Eastern European.''
    Some suggested subcategories for identifying the original peoples 
of Europe, North Africa, and Southwest Asia (Middle East).
    Pros of Option (a)(1):
     Collection: Some persons identify more with their ancestry 
than with ``White'' as a racial category.
     Tabulation and analysis: Indicates the ethnic diversity of 
the ``White'' population.
    Cons of Option (a) (1):
     Collection:

--Physical space on forms: If national origin groups are listed, 
considerably more space would be needed.
--Telephone interviews: More difficult than currently, especially if 
national origin groups are listed; more time consuming to ensure that 
respondent is given the opportunity to understand the possible choices.
--Data quality: Effect on counts of specific nationality groups if 
country not listed as an example; count also affected by which 
nationalities/countries are listed; respondent may be confused between 
reporting ancestry (e.g., German) versus country of birth (e.g., 
Russia); and some respondents do not know their ancestry.
--Categories not required by Federal legislation/programs and States 
unlikely to collect this detail in administrative records.
--Visual observation: Nationality not easily determined.

 Tabulation and analysis: Need rules for tabulating multiple 
ancestries. More categories add costs for tabulation and analysis. It 
is more complex to analyze and report on many nationalities as compared 
with single race categories.
    (2) Create a separate category for Arabs/Middle Easterners 
(currently included as part of the ``White'' category) in order to 
distinguish this population from persons of European descent in the 
``White'' category. The public comment offered different suggestions 
for the name of the category and how to define the population group it 
would be intended to cover. Some comments supported a separate category 
for the decennial census enumeration, but not necessarily adding a 
separate category to the minimum set of racial and ethnic categories in 
Directive No. 15. These suggestions included:

--Create a geographically oriented category called ``Middle Eastern'' 
(based not on race but on region of origin) for persons from the Middle 
East/North Africa and West Asian region, regardless of their race, 
religion, or language group. It would include Arab states, Israel, 
Turkey, Afghanistan, and Iran. Some suggested also including Pakistanis 
and Asian Indians in their geographic definition of the term. Data 
availability on subsets of the Middle Eastern regional category was 
also requested. Some comments referred to the ``Middle Eastern'' 
category as an ethnic identifier; some favored the addition of a 
``Middle Eastern'' category to the list of basic racial and ethnic 
categories; and others suggested a ``Middle Eastern'' subcategory be 
created within the ``White'' category. Those preferring a ``Middle 
Eastern'' to an ``Arab'' category felt that the category would build on 
the other regionally defined categories, consolidate people from 
different countries but with similar cultural/geographic experiences 
regardless of race, and distinguish them from persons of European 
descent in the ``White'' category.
--Add an ethnic category called ``Arab-American'' based on a linguistic 
and cultural approach to the minimum set of categories in Directive No. 
15. Those who preferred the term, ``Arab'' said Arabs, like Hispanics, 
are an ethnic group of mixed race and have a shared language and 
culture. They would make ``Arab'' a separate category rather than part 
of the ``White'' category; they would leave North Africans, who are not 
Arabs, as part of the ``White'' category.
--Reclassify ``Muslim West Asians'' as part of the ``Asian or Pacific 
Islander'' category.

Pros of Option (a)(2):
     Collection:

--A separate category would satisfy Arab/Middle Eastern respondents who 
do not think of themselves as ``White'' or as having any identity in 
common with Europeans.
--A separate category would facilitate self-identification and could 
possibly improve the quality of the data on Arabs/Middle Easterners.
--Telephone survey: Easy to ask if it is the only category added; 
however, if additional categories are added, it may be problematic.

     Tabulation and analysis:

--Would provide treatment comparable to Hispanics (and in some data 
sets, specific Asian nationality groups).
--Data could be used in policy development, in delivery of services and 
needs assessments, for civil rights monitoring and enforcement, and in 
health research.
--Reflects the ethnic diversity of the ``White'' category.

    Cons of Option (a)(2):
     Collection:

--Requires space on form for an additional category.
--There was no general agreement in public comment about the geographic 
definition of ``Middle East.'' For example, there is disagreement in 
public comment about whether Pakistanis and Asian Indians are included 
if the term, ``Middle Eastern'' is used. The term, ``Arab'' clarifies 
that Asian Indians and Pakistanis would remain classified with Asians, 
which some consider preferable for historical continuity; no requests 
were received from Asian Indians or Pakistanis to be reclassified. 
Public testimony indicated inconsistencies in understanding which 
countries should be included as ``Arab.''
--Identification by observers: Because some Arabs are light-skinned and 
some are dark-skinned, identification by visual observation is prone to 
error.

     Tabulation and analysis:

--A separate Arab/Middle Eastern category may affect the historical 
comparability of data in the ``White'' category and may affect the 
counts of other racial groups since Arabs are a mixed racial group.
--Adds a category on many national surveys for a geographically 
concentrated population (about half of the Arab population is 
concentrated in Detroit, New York, Los Angeles, and Washington, DC).
--Relatively small population (less than 900,000 according to the 1990 
census, although Arab groups claim 1-3 million). Geographically, 
``Middle Easterner'' as a category would include persons other than 
Arabs.
    (3) Alternative words suggested for ``White'' include ``Caucasian'' 
and ``Anglo.''
    Pros of Option (a)(3):
     Collection: ``Caucasian'' preferred by some respondents.
    Cons of Option (a)(3):
     Collection: ``Anglo'' generally refers to Whites of 
European ancestry and excludes Hispanics; this would affect historical 
continuity. The term tends to be used regionally and may not be 
generally understood.
    Past research results/literature review: Some object to the term 
``White'' (for example, in cognitive research one said, ``white is the 
color of paint'' and in a letter another said, ``I am not the color of 
this paper''). Some preferred the term, ``Caucasian.'' Ethnicity is 
largely 

[[Page 44682]]
symbolic or optional for many Whites. Whites often reported 
inconsistently, as ``American,'' or not at all in response to the 1990 
census ancestry question. A significant number of Whites do not 
strongly identify with a specific European ethnicity. This has been the 
case for decades. For example, only about 55 percent of matched persons 
who reported English, Scottish, or Welsh in the March 1971 Current 
Population Survey (CPS) reported the same origin in March 1972. The 
``example effect'' is very strong for White ancestry groups. For 
example, in two surveys held five months apart, 40 million people 
reported English as their ancestry and in the other, nearly 50 million 
said they were English. The only difference was placement of a question 
on language use in their home (English for 90 percent of the 
population) after the ancestry question in the second survey and 
farther apart in the first survey. ``German'' was the first example in 
the 1990 census ancestry question and, as a result, the German 
population appeared to grow very rapidly. Some Whites, however, do 
identify strongly with their ancestry and were confused by the 1990 
census race question which listed nationality groups for Asians and 
Hispanics but not for Whites.
(b) Black
    The term ``Black'' in Directive No. 15 refers to a person having 
origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa. There were 
suggestions to change the definition to ``persons having origins in any 
of the Black peoples of Africa,'' or to define the term to include all 
Black persons regardless of country of origin or country of 
citizenship. Requests were made to identify Blacks according to the 
geographic region of their ancestors. ``African-American'' and ``Black 
African-American'' were suggested as names for the category (the 
suggestions of ``Black American'' and ``Amerofian'' (described as 
Blacks who are American Natives, European, and West African) are not 
discussed below). This summary reports only on options proposed during 
public hearings and in the public comment period. It also highlights 
pros and cons for these options as raised in public comment or as shown 
by research. Inclusion in the summary does not reflect OMB endorsement 
of the comments or suggestions. Requests included:

Options Suggested in Public Comments

    (1) Collect data for Black ethnic groups according to geographic 
origin of Black ancestors (African, Haitian, Jamaican, Caribbean, West 
Indian, Brazilian, Ethiopian, etc.).
    Pros of Option (b)(1):
     Collection: Easy to ask in a telephone survey. Some 
persons identify more with their ancestry than with ``Black'' as a 
racial category.
     Tabulation and analysis: Useful for research on health, 
diversity, needs assessments, trends analysis; does not affect 
historical continuity. Indicates the ethnic diversity of the Black 
population.
    Cons of Option (b)(1):
     Collection:

--Determining geographic origin or nationality/ancestry by visual 
observation would be difficult and prone to error.
--If national origin groups are listed, considerably more space would 
be needed on forms.
--Telephone interviews would be more difficult than currently, 
especially if national origin groups are listed; more time consuming to 
ensure that respondent is given the opportunity to understand the 
possible choices.

     Tabulation and analysis: Data not needed for Federal 
program evaluation and enforcement. States are unlikely to collect this 
detail in administrative records. Count of specific nationality groups 
could be affected if respondent is confused between reporting ancestry 
(e.g., Haitian) versus country of birth (e.g., Virgin Islands); some 
respondents do not know their ancestry. Rules would be needed for 
tabulating multiple ancestries. More categories add costs for 
tabulation and analysis. It is more complex to analyze and report on 
many nationalities as compared with single race categories.
    (2) Create a separate category for Louisiana (French) Creoles. They 
objected to categorization with Blacks as they are a multiracial/ethnic 
group (African, French, American Indian, and Hispanic).
    Pros of Option (b)(2):
     Collection: Easy to ask in a telephone survey if it is the 
only category added; however, if additional categories are added may be 
problematic.
    Cons of Option (b)(2):
     Collection: Extra space on forms; extra time in telephone 
interview.
     Tabulation and analysis: Small population size. Affects 
historical continuity of data sets.
    (3) Use the alternative term, ``African American'' or ``Black, 
African-American.''
    Pros of Option (b)(3):
     Collection: Commonly-used identification for Blacks born 
in the United States or Blacks whose parents are Americans.
    Cons of Option (b)(3):
     Collection:
--Excludes Africans who are not American citizens.
--Term generally refers to Blacks but respondents could reasonably be 
confused as to whether to include Whites, Asians, or others born in 
Africa (especially North Africa). Could affect historical comparability 
of data.
--Blacks born in Brazil or the Caribbean (especially immigrants) do not 
identify with the term, ``African American.'' Some Blacks who have been 
in the United States for generations have no record of where in Africa 
their ancestors were born and do not wish to be called ``African-
Americans.''
--Use of ``American'' increases respondent error by persons who are not 
Black but who wish to identify as ``Americans.''
     Tabulation and analysis: Refers to a continent, not a 
country.
    (4) Provide a separate category for Cape Verdeans (Portuguese and 
African ancestry from Cape Verde on the western tip of Africa. This is 
mostly a multiracial population. ``Cape Verdean'' is generally 
considered a national, ethnic and linguistic designation rather than a 
racial designation). The category could be an ethnic category rather 
than a racial category as is the case for persons of Hispanic origin.
    Pros of Option (b)(4):
     Collection: Would satisfy Cape Verdean respondents and is 
easy to ask.
     Tabulation and analysis: Useful for civil rights 
monitoring and enforcement in State of Massachusetts.
    Cons of Option (b)(4):
     Collection:

--Visual identification of Cape Verdeans prone to error because of 
various skin colors. People within the same family say they are 
identified differently.
--Adds a category for a small, geographically concentrated population.

     Tabulation and analysis: Not required for Federal 
programs.
    Past research results/literature review: In surveys from 1989 to 
1991, more Blacks said it did not matter if they were called ``Black'' 
or ``African American'' than said they preferred one over the other. 
Among those with a preference, the ratio choosing ``Black'' over 
``African-American'' was 1.2 to 1. In a 1993 survey in the Chicago 
area, a majority of Blacks preferred ``African American'' for their 
ethnicity and ``Black'' for their race but the proportion had declined 
since 1991. 

[[Page 44683]]

    Several studies of Blacks with roots in the Caribbean or Africa 
show they do not feel they share a common history or culture with 
American-born Blacks and distinguish themselves from this population. 
Further research is needed on the terminology that is generally 
understood or most acceptable. In the 1990 census, about 370,000 
persons wrote in an entry classified as ``Black''; about three-fourths 
of these were ethnic subgroups such as Jamaican and Haitian. Cognitive 
research suggests that many foreign-born Blacks interpreted the race 
question in terms of national origin rather than race.

(c) Asian or Pacific Islander
    The definition used for ``Asian or Pacific Islander'' in Directive 
No. 15 refers to a person having origins in any of the original peoples 
of the Far East, Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent, and the 
Pacific Islands. This area includes, for example, China, India, Japan, 
Korea, the Philippine Islands, the Hawaiian Islands, and Samoa. Public 
comment indicated confusion about which countries are included in this 
definition, particularly for ``Indian subcontinent'' and whether the 
aboriginal peoples of Australia are included in this category. Requests 
were made to have separate categories for Asians and Pacific Islanders 
and to provide additional subcategories under ``Asians'' to describe 
better this diverse population; to move Native Hawaiians, American 
Samoans, and Chamorros to either a separate category or to the 
``American Indian or Alaskan Native'' category. This summary reports 
only on options proposed during public hearings and in the public 
comment period. It also highlights pros and cons for these options as 
raised in public comment or shown by research. Inclusion in the summary 
does not reflect OMB endorsement of the comments or suggestions. 
Requests included:

Options Suggested in Public Comments

    (1) Make two categories, one for ``Asians'' and one for ``Pacific 
Islanders.'' Pacific Islanders include indigenous populations from 
American Samoans, Carolinians and Chamorros, and Native Hawaiians, as 
well as other population groups in the Pacific Islands. Native 
Hawaiians have a specific legal status in Federal statutes different 
from other indigenous Pacific Islanders.
    Pros of Option (c)(1):
     Collection:

--Easy to ask in a telephone survey.
--Categories are mutually exclusive.

     Tabulation and analysis:

--Pacific Islanders are culturally and ethnically distinct from Asians 
so separate data would be useful for trends analyses, needs 
assessments, and health research. Historical continuity can be 
maintained by aggregating ``Pacific Islanders'' with ``Asians.''
--Separate categories for Pacific Islanders and for Native Hawaiians 
would meet program needs of the Department of Veterans Affairs to 
report on veterans from specific minority groups.

    Cons of Option (c)(1):
     Collection:

--Adds a category.
--Respondents may be confused as to the exclusion or inclusion of 
Native Hawaiians and other indigenous populations which could seriously 
affect data quality.
--Effect on data collected by visual observation is unknown.

     Tabulation and analysis:

--Pacific Islanders are geographically concentrated and a relatively 
small population group for a separate category.

    (2) Specify major Asian nationality groups.
    Pros of Option (c)(2)
     Collection: Done successfully in the 1990 census.
     Tabulation and analysis: Indicates diverse and significant 
differences in the characteristics of the Asian population; potentially 
useful in analyses of health and other trends.
    Cons of Option (c)(2):
     Collection:

--Requires significant physical space on forms.
--Telephone interviews: Tedious to read long lists.
--Identification by observers: difficult to determine specific 
nationality.

    (3) Develop a new category for original peoples of acquired 
American lands (``indigenous'' populations). This would include persons 
having origins in any of the original peoples of North America who 
maintain cultural identification through tribal affiliation or 
community recognition (American Indians, Alaskan Indians, Aleuts, and 
Eskimos); the Hawaiian Islands; American Samoa; Guam; and the Northern 
Marianas. Some suggested this be a ``Native American'' category. Refer 
also to Option (d)(2) below.
    Pros of Option (c)(3):
     Collection:

--Many Native Hawaiians preferred this option. They do not consider 
themselves Asians and they insist that they are not immigrants to the 
United States. They said that including them in the large ``Asian or 
Pacific Islander'' category resulted in data that do not accurately 
reflect their social and economic conditions. Some representatives of 
Asian groups supported this suggestion.
--No increase in the number of categories.
--Category mutually exclusive.

     Tabulation and analysis:

--Inclusion of indigenous Pacific Islanders as ``Asians or Pacific 
Islanders'' masks their economic status. For example, Pacific Islanders 
have relatively high poverty rates. They also have health issues and 
educational needs different from Asians.

    Cons of Option (c)(3):
     Collection:

--This might be viewed as a political category rather than as one 
commonly recognized by most individuals in society.
--Respondent error likely both on forms and in telephone surveys as 
``indigenous'' or ``original peoples'' are not familiar terms to most 
of the population; the term, ``native'' is interpreted to mean any 
person born in a particular area. No generally-understood choice for 
the category name.
--Unknown how data collected by visual observation would be affected.

     Tabulation and analysis:

--Opposed by most American Indian tribal governments and organizations 
as they preferred to maintain a category which refers specifically to 
American Indians.
--Heterogeneous population in terms of characteristics; data would be 
less useful than currently for policy development, trend analyses, and 
needs assessment. Not useful for health research. American Indians were 
particularly concerned about possible effects on the quality of data 
needed for programs and funding.

    (4) Have a separate category for Native Hawaiians (defined as 
individuals who are descendants of the aboriginal people who, prior to 
1778, occupied and exercised sovereignty in the area that now 
constitutes the State of Hawaii). Change ``Hawaiian'' to ``Hawaiian, 
part-Hawaiian,'' because most Native Hawaiians are part Hawaiian and 
many, in the past, have categorized themselves as ``White.''
    Pros of Option (c)(4):
     Collection:

--Clearcut, simple and mutually-exclusive category for those who 
identify as Native Hawaiians. 

[[Page 44684]]

--Easy to ask in a telephone survey.

     Tabulation and analysis:

--American Indian groups, concerned with an accurate count of their 
population, preferred this option to including Native Hawaiians in the 
``American Indian or Alaskan Native'' category.
--Provides specific information for policy development, trends 
analyses, needs assessments, program evaluation, health research, and 
civil rights enforcement.

    Cons of Option (c)(4):
 Collection:

--Adds a category.
--High respondent error likely as some persons born in Hawaii but who 
do not have their origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii 
likely to be confused by the term ``Native.'' Because the Native 
Hawaiian population is relatively small (211,000 according to the 1990 
census race question), respondent error could seriously affect the 
count.
--Unknown how data collected by visual observation would be affected.
--Addition of ``Part-Hawaiian'' will affect historical comparability of 
``White'' category in Hawaii to some small extent.

     Tabulation and analysis: Very small population group.
    Past research results/literature review: The proportion of Asian 
and Pacific Islanders such as Cambodians and Laotians (groups not 
listed separately) reporting in the ``other race'' response circle to 
the 1990 census race item may be due to question design. Additionally, 
persons who were not Asians or Pacific Islanders marked the circle for 
``Other Asian or Pacific Islander.'' Of persons marking the ``Other 
Asian or Pacific Islander'' circle in the 1990 census, 54 percent of 
the write-ins were not consistent with the marked circle and nearly 40 
percent were Hispanic group write-ins.

(d) American Indian or Alaskan Native
    The category of American Indian or Alaskan Native in Directive No. 
15 includes persons having origins in any of the original peoples of 
North America and who maintain cultural identification through tribal 
affiliations or community recognition. This summary reports only on 
options proposed during public hearings and in the public comment 
period. It also highlights pros and cons for these options as raised in 
public comment or shown by research. Inclusion in the summary does not 
reflect OMB endorsement of the comments or suggestions. Requests 
included:

Options Suggested in Public Comments
    (1) Suggestions for change in category title include: ``American 
Indian, Alaskan Indian, Eskimo, and Aleut''; ``American Indian, Alaskan 
Indian, Aleut, or Eskimo''; ``Federally Recognized American Indian and 
Alaskan Native''; and ``Native American.'' Some prefer ``Alaska 
Native'' to ``Alaskan Native.'' Suggestions also include collecting 
information on Tribal enrollment.
    Pros of Option (d)(1):
     Collection: ``Alaskan Indian,'' ``Eskimo,'' and ``Aleut'' 
are more specific terms than ``Alaskan Native'' and reduce respondent 
error.
     Tabulation and analysis:

--``Federally recognized American Indian and Alaskan Native'' meets 
Federal program needs as it indicates the legal (rather than racial) 
status of persons in this category. The federal trust responsibility to 
provide various educational, health, and housing services extends only 
to federally recognized American Indian and Alaskan Native tribes and 
their members and descendants of members. More people self-identify as 
being of American Indian or Alaskan Native race or descent than are 
enrolled in tribes or can prove descendance, which tribal governments 
feel deprives their people of benefits rightfully belonging to them 
under Federal programs.
--Inclusion of the term, ``Federally recognized'' will affect 
historical continuity but for the future, it could clarify the 
intention of the category and reduce the changes over time in the 
numbers included in the category.

    Cons of Option (d)(1):
     Collection:

--The term, ``Alaskan Native'' results in respondent error because some 
persons born in Alaska but who do not have Alaskan Indian, Eskimo, or 
Aleut origins are confused by the term.
--Some individuals of tribes not Federally recognized may not be aware 
of the status of their tribe (e.g., State recognized tribes or tribes 
awaiting recognition).
--When tribal enrollment/descendance is not required information, 
possible overcoverage occurs because the category is marked by many 
persons with American Indian ancestry but no legal tribal affiliations 
or community recognition. This possible overcoverage could become more 
serious if there is an instruction to ``check all that apply'' to allow 
multiracial persons to identify their specific racial groups and they 
respond in terms of ancestry further back than their immediate parents.
--The term, ``Native American,'' is an unacceptable term to many 
American Indians. It is also confusing to some persons who are not 
American Indians but who use the term to indicate they were born in the 
United States. The term appears to include Native Hawaiians although 
this is not entirely clear. ``Aboriginal population,'' while 
technically correct, is considered by many to be a demeaning term. 
``Indigenous populations'' include persons having origins in any of the 
original peoples of North America, the Hawaiian Islands; American 
Samoa; Guam; and the Northern Marianas Islands. The terms, ``aboriginal 
population,'' ``indigenous populations,'' and ``original peoples,'' are 
not generally understood and would likely result in misreporting.
--It is unclear where South American Indians, Russian and European 
aboriginal tribes, or Australian aborigines who have immigrated to the 
United States are classified. Some think the current Directive No. 15 
categories exclude these populations. Others include in the definition 
of ``American Indian,'' all the aboriginal peoples of North America 
(except Eskimos and Aleuts) and of Central and South America. Some 
suggest a separate category for ``other indigenous tribes'' to include 
tribes such as Mapuchi and Mayan.

    (2) Change the category to include Native Hawaiians and other 
indigenous populations. Suggested category names include: ``American 
Indian, Alaskan Native, or Native Hawaiian''; ``American Indian, 
Alaskan Native, Native Hawaiian, and American Samoan''; ``aboriginal 
population''; ``indigenous populations''; and ``Indigenous/Aboriginal 
People'' (also see discussion under (c)(3) above).
    Pros of Option (d)(2):
     Tabulation and analysis: Native Hawaiians are not Asians 
or immigrants to the United States.
    Cons of Option (d)(2):
     Tabulation and analysis:

--There is a legal distinction between ``American Indians and Alaskan 
Natives'' and ``Native Hawaiians.'' Native Hawaiians are not eligible 
for the majority of programs and services available to American Indians 
and Alaskan Natives. Indian tribes are self-governing political 
entities. For example, the legislative mandates for Indian Health 
Service and the Bureau of Indian Affairs pertain only to American 
Indians and Alaskan 

[[Page 44685]]
Natives. On the other hand, some programs for ``Native Americans'' 
includes Native Hawaiians as well as American Indians and Alaska 
Natives. Native Hawaiians are of Polynesian/Pacific Islander descent 
and are not descendants of the original peoples of North America. They 
have a distinct culture and social environment. The category would be 
too heterogeneous for health research.
--Would affect historical continuity of the data: Effect on the data 
for carrying out trust obligations toward American Indians and Alaskan 
Natives is unknown.
--Western Samoa is an independent nation and how to report could be a 
problem.

    (3) Collect information on specific tribal affiliation and 
distinguish between Federally-recognized tribes and State-recognized 
tribes (Tribal affiliation is based on criteria established by the 
tribe, not self-identification.).
    Pros of Option (d)(3):
     Tabulation and analysis: Meets Federal agency needs for 
policy development, trends analyses, needs assessments, and program 
evaluation and enforcement. A way to distinguish between legal and 
ancestral identification with the American Indian category.
    Cons of Option (d)(3):
     Collection: Respondents may not know the difference 
between Federally-recognized and State-recognized tribes.
     Tabulation and analysis:
--State-recognized tribal affiliation is not required for Federal 
purposes.
--Small numbers for most tribes would not provide meaningful statistics 
in surveys.

    Past research results/literature review: Of persons reporting as 
``American Indian'' in the 1990 census, 13 percent did not specify a 
tribe; this was an improvement from the 1980 census results. There was 
higher than expected growth rate of American Indians from 1980 to 1990 
(as well as from 1970 to 1980) which raises questions about what the 
census race question is measuring for this population. Some of the 
change is attributed to growth and improvements in the census and 
outreach programs, some to misreporting (for example, some Asian Indian 
parents reported their children as American Indian), and some to shifts 
in self-identification from White to American Indian. The quality of 
the data for the American Indian population is of concern since it is a 
relatively small population (about 2 million in 1990) and the data are 
used to disburse Federal program funds to American Indian tribal and 
Alaska Native Village governments. About 2 million persons said they 
were American Indian in the race question of the 1990 census; however, 
8.7 million included American Indian in their response to the ancestry 
question.
(e) Multiracial
    How to classify persons who identify with more than one race is 
perhaps the issue that has engendered the most controversy in the 
present review. For the most part, the public comment used the term, 
``multiracial'' to refer to persons of two or more races. A variety of 
options were suggested in public comment for how to collect racial data 
from multiracial persons. They are shown below, followed by pros and 
cons cited for each option. Table 1 summarizes the options. This 
summary reports only on options proposed during public hearings and in 
the public comment period. It also highlights pros and cons for these 
options as raised in public comment or shown by research. Inclusion in 
the summary does not reflect OMB endorsement of the comments or 
suggestions.
    In Latin America, a racially mixed society, there is an array of 
terms to describe gradations of skin color. This has not been the 
history of the United States in this century where the terminology 
implies ``pure'' races such as White or Black, rather than biracial or 
multiracial categories. In 1960, there were about 150,000 interracial 
marriages compared with 1.5 million in 1990. In the 1990 census, about 
4 percent of couples reported they were of different races or one was 
of Hispanic origin. Such households had about 4 million children.
    Directive No. 15 says that persons of mixed racial and ethnic 
origins should use the single category which most closely reflects the 
individual's recognition in his or her community. The public comments 
indicate that multiracial persons objected to this instruction. The 
commenters indicate that a single category does not reflect how they 
think of themselves. From their perspective, the instruction requires 
them to deny their full heritage and to choose between their parents. 
They feel they are being required to provide factually false 
information. They maintain that the current categories do not recognize 
their existence. They say they could mark ``Other'' where that category 
is provided but they feel it is demeaning. They want to identify their 
multiple races, but say that those who prefer to choose one of the 
existing broad categories could do so.
    One concern of those who oppose a category for multiracial persons 
is that it will reduce the count for persons in the basic categories. 
Organizations representing multiracial persons disagree. They say 
minority groups could gain numbers as some persons are now classified 
as ``White'' under the ``choose one'' rule. As reflected in the options 
listed below, there was disagreement as to whether identification 
should include specific races. If specific races are identified, there 
might be some flexibility in how users could tabulate data. For some, 
this is seen as an advantage. For others, it is seen as a disadvantage 
because different tabulation rules would result in different counts of 
groups.
    Some asked how far back in one's ancestry respondents should go in 
deciding to identify multiple races. Most who commented meant only the 
race or Hispanic origin of parents. This would require additional 
instructions and may not be acceptable to those who wish to identify 
their earlier ancestry. Presumably, persons would be instructed to list 
all races if the parent(s) were also of multiple races; this concerned 
those who oppose a multiracial category.
    The discussion below refers to ``race'' but some respondents 
suggested multiple ``ancestry'' (listing both parents) should be the 
focus instead. Asking about ancestry focuses the questions back in time 
and conveys an historical and geographic context which some feel is 
clearer than the ambiguity of ``race'' or ``ethnicity.''

Table 1. Summary of Options for Identification of Multiracial 
Persons

(e)(1) Multiracial identification not allowed (must pick one broad 
category):
    (aa) Individual chooses the one with which he or she most closely 
identifies
    (bb) Mother's category is designated
    (cc) Father's category is designated
    (dd) Race of minority-designated parent (if one is White)
(e)(2) Multiracial identification allowed:
    (aa) ``Multiracial'' category--self-identification (SI) or observer 
identification (OI)
    (bb) ``Mark all that apply'' from list of specific categories--SI 
only
    (cc) Open-ended question--SI or OI
    (dd) ``Other''--SI only
    (ee) Mother's and father's geographic ancestry--SI only
    (ff) Skin-color gradient chart--SI or OI

Options Suggested in Public Comments

    Option (e)(1): Mark one broad category with which the respondent 

[[Page 44686]]
    most closely identifies (categories are same or similar to current 
list)
    Pros to Option (e)(1)--mark one broad category:
     Collection:

--Physical space on forms and questionnaires same as now.
--Identification: Most people identify with only one of the current 
categories; facilitates collection by observers where that method is 
used; persons of multiracial heritage who identify with one broad 
category do not have difficulty responding.
--Telephone survey: Easy to ask.

     Tabulations and analysis:

--Easier than options that allow the identification of multiple races.
--Meets needs of Federal agencies concerned with program evaluation and 
civil rights monitoring and enforcement.
--This is the only option that meets the needs of the Indian Health 
Service which is responsible for health care of anyone who is a 
Federally-recognized American Indian or Alaskan Native, regardless of 
the proportion of Indian blood or which parent has Indian blood.
--Maintains historical continuity of data.
--Categories are the same or similar to those used in State and local 
administrative records and historical Federal administrative records.
--Federal laws are written based on the assumption that people identify 
with one Directive No. 15 category. For civil rights monitoring and 
enforcement, respondents clearly fall in or out of a particular 
category. Would address concerns of those who believe a ``multiracial'' 
category would compromise effective implementation of civil rights 
laws.
    Cons to Option (e)(1)--mark one broad category:
     Collection--identification and count issues:

--Having to choose one racial category upsets some respondents, 
especially those with immediate multiracial heritage, who identify with 
more than one race/ethnicity; telephone interviewers ask race in early 
part of interview and then must deal with an unhappy respondent for the 
remainder of the questions; and Federal agencies must respond to those 
upset by the policy.
--Nonresponse rates may increase for persons who wish to identify with 
more than one race but who are instructed to select the one category 
with which they most closely identify.
--As the size of the Hispanic population increases, a larger number and 
proportion of that population group may mark ``Other'' or not respond. 
The 1994 pretest of the Survey of Income and Program Participation 
showed some Hispanics would report in the multiracial category.
--Inconsistencies: The same person is likely to be identified 
differently across administrative records and surveys which reduces 
analytic usefulness of the data. If mother's race is used to assign the 
child's race as in birth records, the classifications may be different 
than the person's self-identification.
--There is a significant number of interracial marriages among Asians 
and Whites. For example, in the 1990 census, in California, nearly one-
fourth of children with any Asian background were White and Asian. 
Asian groups contend they are undercounted when forced to identify with 
one category only. One study of the 1990 census indicates that the 
children of these marriages are more likely to identify themselves as 
``White'' than as ``Asian.''
     Tabulations: Option (e)(1)(dd), in which the race of the 
minority-designated parent is designated as the person's category, 
requires additional rules if one parent is not White.
     Analysis:

--Does not sufficiently reflect Nation's diversity; no information for 
multiracial persons about differences in health, economic status, and 
likelihood of discrimination.
--Not as useful in health research as identification of the specific 
mixtures. All of the current racial categories are said to be too broad 
for analysis of health risks and economic trends; for example, a study 
found that 25 percent of those in the ``Asian or Pacific Islander'' 
category smoked, but this ranged from 20 percent of Filipinos to 72 
percent of Laotians.

Option (e)(2)(aa): ``Multiracial'' category (SI or OI)

(Note: May ask respondent to specify races but not necessarily)

Pros to Option (e)(2)(aa)--``Multiracial'' category:

     Collection if specific races are not identified:

--Physical space on forms: adds one racial category.
--Meets demand of some multiracial respondents, especially those whose 
parents are of different races.
--Telephone survey: Easy to ask if it is the only category added; 
however, if additional categories are added may be problematic.
--Somewhat more amenable to identification by observers than any other 
option for multiracial persons (however, compared with observer 
identification in Option (e)(1), this option is likely to result in an 
undercount and a substantially different distribution of current broad 
categories).

     Tabulation and analysis:

--A few States have passed laws to include this category in their 
administrative records. Currently they proportion their multiracial 
counts among the OMB categories for Federal reporting purposes based on 
percentages of minorities in the general population, although it is not 
clear what geographic level they are using (National, State, local, 
school districts, etc.) when they refer to ``general population.'' A 
change by OMB to a ``multiracial'' category would reduce costs for 
these few States because they would not have to maintain data in two 
different ways.
--Indication of population diversity.
--Potentially useful in analyzing trends such as education and 
employment, especially if specific categories are identified.

Cons to Option (e)(2)(aa)--``Multiracial'' category:

     Collection:

--Requires testing for effect on respondents, response rates, and data 
quality. Multiracial persons who previously identified principally with 
one broad category may become unsure of what is being asked. Multi-
ethnic persons of the same race (e.g., a White person of English and 
German descent) may find the questions confusing. It is not clear how 
multiracial Hispanics would answer.
--The category is imprecise and specific instructions would be required 
on whether respondents should answer in terms of the races of their 
parents only or further back. Imprecision of the category leads to 
possible confusion since, if one goes back far enough, many Americans 
are of mixed racial heritage (for example, many Whites have American 
Indian heritage and many Blacks have African, White, and American 
Indian heritage).
--Have to determine an acceptable category name. Suggestions included: 
Multiple races; Mixed race; Multiracial; Tan American; TIRAH (Tan 
InterRacial American Humankind); Mixed origins; Mestee; More than one 
race; and Mulatto. Some of these suggestions apply only to Black and 
White mixtures. Cognitive research shows that most 

[[Page 44687]]
people understand the terms, ``multiracial'' and ``biracial.''
--Requires establishment of a category (and the associated extra costs) 
but the category may be used by only a small proportion of the 
population. Some school systems allow use of a ``multiracial'' category 
and report it is used by less than 2 percent of students.
--Where identification is by an observer: Unknown what criteria an 
observer would use to identify persons of more than one race; 
identification of specific races unlikely or too inaccurate to be 
useful; because of likely mismatch, unclear how it would affect a count 
of mixed race persons; broad category of blood relatives likely to be 
identified differently, especially in administrative records; and the 
same person is likely to be identified differently across 
administrative records and surveys which reduces the analytic 
usefulness of the category.

     Tabulations and analysis:

--The category is not an alternative in the administrative records of 
many State and local governments.
--If specific races are identified through an open-ended question, the 
development of a classification system for tabulating responses would 
be required; choices may be controversial and challenged.
--If specific races are not indicated, the general category is too 
heterogeneous for meaningful analysis or for use in civil rights 
monitoring and enforcement. A heterogeneous category does not provide 
sufficient information for health researchers (disease risk specific to 
racial and ethnic groups, monitoring of historical trends) and would 
complicate the design, conduct, and evaluation of health intervention 
programs. It is unclear how such a heterogeneous category could be used 
in civil rights monitoring and enforcement and such efforts could be 
more difficult and costly.
--There would be a major effect on historical continuity if specific 
races are not indicated because it may reduce the count of the current 
broad categories and in unknown ways. Some expressed concern that if 
specific races are not known, the category has the potential for 
increasing racial segregation, discrimination, and the stigmatization 
of broad categories (other than White) which may result in less 
effective enforcement of civil rights laws.
--Persons with the same general cultural heritage and with similar 
physical characteristics may be classified differently.

Option (e)(2)(bb): ``Mark all that apply'' (SI only)

Pros of Option (e)(2)(bb)--Mark All That Apply

     Collection:

--If no new categories are added, physical space on forms and 
questionnaires same as now.
--Meets desire for self-identification of many multiracial respondents.

     Tabulation and analysis:

--Detail allows flexibility. Indicates extent and makeup of Nation's 
diversity.
--Can maintain some historical continuity by aggregating specific 
categories into current broad categories (for example, a person who has 
one Black parent and one White parent could be tabulated, depending on 
the purposes of the data, in three ways: White, Black, or Black/White). 
See related discussion below under ``cons.''
--Decision rules about aggregations of detailed categories could be 
discussed and documented. Currently, we do not know what basis 
multiracial people use for marking their specific identity as a broad 
category.
--Provides potentially useful subgroup information for health 
researchers in terms of race-specific diseases, especially if the race 
of each parent is identified. For example, one study found a difference 
in the probability of low birth weight between Black mother-White 
father and White mother-Black father populations; small-for-
gestational-age rates and preterm delivery rates also vary by race of 
the mother.

Cons of Option (e)(2)(bb)--Mark All That Apply

     Collection:

--Telephone survey: Difficult and may negatively affect data quality.
--In personal interviews, must use a flash card (can list responses on 
control card if survey will be done by telephone later); tedious in 
large households.
     Tabulations and analysis:

--Complex because of the many possible combinations. Historical 
continuity of counts and characteristics would be problematic. In the 
1980 and 1990 censuses, for example, race was reported as ``Black'' for 
two-thirds of children in families with one Black parent and one White 
parent present. For families with a White parent and an Asian or 
Pacific Islander (API) parent, the proportion of children whose race 
was reported as ``API'' versus ``White'' was different in the last two 
censuses. Allocation rules would be controversial even if the objective 
is to achieve historical continuity to the extent possible (especially 
for characteristics).
--Aggregation decision rules would be required and may be subject to 
controversy.
--Current Federal laws are premised on persons identifying with one 
racial group. It is not clear what the impact would be for persons 
identifying as multiracial.
Option (e)(2)(cc): Open-Ended Question (SI or OI) (Allows Multiple 
Responses)

Pros of Option (e)(2)(cc)--Open-Ended Question

     Collection:

--Physical space on questionnaire/forms less than currently.
--Telephone survey: easy to ask if it is the only category added; 
however, if additional categories are added may be problematic.
--Meets desire for self-identification of many multiracial respondents, 
those who want to answer ``American,'' and persons from small national-
origin groups. Respondents likely to be satisfied since they are not 
restricted by pre-defined categories. One study of an open-ended 
question showed only 13 percent of Hispanic respondents used the 
conventional racial designations of ``White'' or ``Black.'' For these 
Hispanics, self-identification was based more on cultural and ethnic 
identity. In the 1990 census, about 90 percent of the population 
reported an ancestry in the open-ended question; only 0.7 percent were 
uncodable responses; but about 10 percent did not respond to the 
question.

     Tabulations and analysis:

--Detail allows maximum flexibility and provides sociologically rich 
information for analyzing trends. Provides subgroup information useful 
to health researchers in terms of race-specific disease risk.
--Can maintain some historical continuity by aggregating specific 
categories into broad categories in 1977 Directive No. 15 (except see 
cons below and under (e)(2)(bb), ``tabulations and analysis'').
--Does not require respondent to indicate a preferred race; if desired, 
the tabulation rules can imply a priority by following the order of 
responses. Cons of Option (e)(2)(cc)--open-ended question:
     Collection:


[[Page 44688]]

--Unlikely States would collect data this way for their administrative 
records and thus, there would likely be a mismatch among data sets 
(also negative effect on analysis when trying to compare results among 
data sets).
--Same person likely to be identified differently across administrative 
records and surveys which reduces analytic usefulness.
--Does not allow for observer identification.

    Tabulations and analysis:

--Must develop a classification system to categorize hundreds of 
possible responses and the choices can be controversial. See discussion 
above in (e)(2)(bb) under cons, ``tabulations and analysis.''
--Negative effect on counts of broad categories and data quality, 
including considerations listed below:

    (1) Religions given as responses cannot be tabulated into a broad 
category. This generates complaints (because of separation of church 
and state, religions cannot be tabulated by government agencies) and 
increases the effective nonresponse rate.
    (2) National origins or nationalities are likely answers. Data 
collection agencies would have to code to broad categories based on 
probability (e.g., ``English'' likely to be White but could be Black or 
Asian also).
    (3)''American'' is a frequent response (the 6th ranked group in the 
1990 census ancestry question with 12.4 million such responses or 5 
percent of all responses) and cannot be coded to a broad category 
(effectively increases nonresponse rate). Foreign born and non-English 
speakers showed greater difficulty with open-ended write-in questions 
such as the 1990 census ancestry question.

--Negative effect on data quality: Citing examples is interpreted as 
influencing respondents and giving no examples can also have 
significant effect on counts of broad categories. Research from the 
1980 and 1990 censuses indicates high levels of inconsistent responses 
to open-ended questions and strong ``example'' effects. For instance, 
from 1980 to 1990, the number of Cajuns, which was an example in the 
ancestry question in 1990 but not in 1980, grew from 30,000 to 600,000. 
French, which was dropped as an example in 1990, declined from 13 
million to 10 million.
--It is sometimes hard to interpret what respondents intend by their 
responses.

Option (e)(2)(dd): ``Other--specify'' (SI) at end of list of broad 
categories

Pros of Option (e)(2)(dd)--``Other'':

     Collection:

--Does not take up much physical space on the questionnaire.
--Telephone survey: Easy to ask if it is the only category added; 
however, if additional categories are added may be problematic.
--Identification issues: Respondents likely to find it easier to 
express their identity since they are not restricted to only the pre-
defined categories (for example, those who want to answer ``American'' 
can do so); can ask multiracial respondents to choose one racial 
category but if they refuse, they can specify all the categories they 
choose; and allows identification of multiple and single categories not 
listed elsewhere (e.g., Indians of South and Central American 
background).

     Tabulations and analysis:

--Detail allows maximum flexibility and provides sociologically rich 
information for analyzing trends. Potentially provides subgroup 
information useful to health researchers in terms of race-specific 
disease risk.
--Can maintain historical continuity by aggregating specific 
categories; however, see discussion in (e)(2)(bb) under cons, 
``tabulations and analysis.''

Cons of Option (e)(2)(dd)--``Other'':

     Collection:

--Some people are offended by identification as ``Other''; when this 
proposal was made by OMB in 1988, it was not widely accepted and so was 
not adopted.
--Same person likely to be identified differently across administrative 
records and surveys which reduces analytic usefulness.
--If ``Hispanic'' is not listed as a separate category, research shows 
an extremely high percentage of ``Other'' responses are Hispanics who 
do not identify with one of the listed race categories.

     Tabulations and analysis:

--Must develop a classification system to categorize hundreds of 
possible responses and the choices can be controversial. See discussion 
in (e)(2)(bb) under cons, ``tabulations and analysis.''
--Detailed information not needed for program evaluation or civil 
rights monitoring and enforcement.
--If specific responses are not coded, the category is too 
heterogeneous to be useful.
--Negative effects on counts of broad categories and data quality, 
including considerations listed below:

    (1) Religions given as responses cannot be tabulated into a broad 
category. This generates complaints (because of separation of church 
and state, religions cannot be tabulated by government agencies) and 
increases the effective nonresponse rate.

    (2) National origins or nationalities are likely answers. Data 
collection agencies would have to code to broad categories based on 
probability (e.g., ``English'' likely to be White but could be Black or 
Asian also).
    (3) ``American'' is a frequent response (the 6th ranked group in 
the 1990 census ancestry question with 12.4 million such responses or 5 
percent of all responses) and cannot be coded to a broad category 
(effectively increases nonresponse rate).

--Negative effect on data quality: Citing examples is interpreted as 
influencing respondents and giving no examples can also have 
significant effect on counts of broad categories.
--It is sometimes hard to interpret what respondents intend by their 
responses.

Option (e)(2)(ee): Mother's and Father's Geographic Ancestry (SI only)
(Respondent would be given a numbered geographic list and mark the 
appropriate numbers to indicate the region of origin of ancestors who 
migrated to the United States)

Pros of Option (e)(2)(ee)--Geographic Ancestry

 Collection:

--No overlapping categories.
--One clear concept, geographic origin of ancestors. In the 1990 census 
ancestry question, virtually all of the responses were national origin 
rather than ethnic origin (e.g., ``Italian'' more often than ``Amalfi'' 
or ``Calabrian'').
--Telephone survey: Can do but not easily.

     Tabulations and analysis: Geographic origin may be a 
better indicator of health differences than race for many people. 
Tabulations would be lengthy but not difficult.

Cons of Option (e)(2)(ee)--Geographic Ancestry

     Collection--identification issues:

--People who can mark their race may not know the geographic region of 
origin of their ancestors or parents (e.g., adoptees). 

[[Page 44689]]

--Likely to be a high rate of error in the ``North America'' category 
(only American Indians could correctly mark this category but it is 
likely those born in the United States would also mark it).
--Same person likely to be identified differently across administrative 
records and surveys which reduces analytic usefulness.
--Many people have ancestors from several different geographic regions 
and reports are often inconsistent among data sets.

     Collection--physical space on forms: Considerably more 
than currently.
     Tabulation and analysis: Does not meet Federal program 
needs or provide historical continuity (for example, a person from 
Africa might be White or Black).
Option (e)(2)(ff): Skin-Color Gradient Chart (SI or OI)
    This is a suggestion for a numbered chart, a scale of skin-tone 
colors, reproduced on forms. Respondents would check the skin-tone 
number closest to the color of the individual respondent.

Pros of Option (e)(2)(ff)--Skin Color Chart

     Collection: Less physical space on forms than now.
     Analysis:

--Can compare skin-tone responses with socioeconomic status and 
differences in effects of discrimination.
--A measure without racial labels less subject to changes in meaning 
over time as compared with labels based on race, ethnicity, and 
ancestry.

Cons of Option (e)(2)(ff)--Skin Color Chart

     Collection:

--Identification: Offensive to many; same person likely to be 
identified differently across administrative records and surveys which 
reduces analytic usefulness; individuals could change skin colors over 
a lifetime as a result of exposure to sunlight or disease.
--Telephone survey: Impossible.
--Costly: Requires precise, multicolor printing (color tones will vary 
among forms) when one-color (usually black) printing is now the case 
for most forms and questionnaires.

     Tabulation and analysis:

--No historical continuity; does not meet program needs.
--Skin color (melanin content) is not the sole way people identify 
their race and ethnicity. Culture, geography, and history, for example, 
are also considerations for many. For example, Black Africans and very 
dark Asian Indians may have similar skin tones but do not consider 
themselves in the same race category.
--Blood relatives may be coded differently.
--Not useful for health research or other types of socioeconomic 
research.

    Past research results/literature review on a multiracial category: 
Some persons of mixed parentage or parents of interracial children who 
want to report more than one race are unsure how to respond. In the 
1990 census, 98 percent of the population identified in one category; 
only 2 percent provided write-in multiple responses to the race 
question despite the instruction to mark one race only. Developing 
instructions for who should and who should not mark a ``multiracial'' 
category is difficult; in a 1994 pretest of the Census Bureau's 
redesigned Survey of Income and Program Participation, some persons 
thought they were being asked what race they would like to be if they 
could be multiracial even though their parents were from the same 
racial group.
(f) Hispanic Origin
    Directive No. 15 defines Hispanic as a person of Mexican, Puerto 
Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, or other Spanish culture or 
origin, regardless of race. There is significant confusion in public 
comment as to whether Spaniards, Portuguese, Brazilians, and American 
Indians with a mixed heritage of Mexican or Central or South American 
tribes are included in the category, ``Hispanic origin.'' Three major 
questions were raised. One is whether Hispanic origin should be a 
category in a single ``race/ethnicity'' question or whether there 
should be a question about Hispanic origin separate from race 
(discussed in Issue 3 above). The other two questions, on heterogeneity 
of the category and terminology, are discussed below. This summary 
reports only on options proposed during public hearings and in the 
public comment period. It also highlights pros and cons for these 
options as raised in public comment or shown by research. Inclusion in 
the summary does not reflect OMB endorsement of the comments or 
suggestions. Requests included:
Options Suggested in Public Comment
    (1) Collect data for population subgroups of the ``Hispanic 
origin'' category.
    Pros of Option (f)(1):
     Tabulation and analysis: The category, ``Hispanic 
origin,'' represents a heterogeneous population. Information on 
subgroups describes the significant social, economic, and health 
differences among the Puerto Rican, Mexican-American, Cuban, and other 
Hispanic populations.
    Cons of Option (f)(1):
     Collection: Visual identification of nationality groups is 
difficult.
    (2) Alternative or additional words suggested for ``Hispanic'' 
include ``Latino/Hispanic Origin,'' ``Latino,'' ``Latin,'' ``Latin 
American,'' and ``Hispanics from the Americas'' (to exclude persons 
from Spain and the Philippines). Persons of Mexican ancestry did not 
agree on terminology for their group. Some wanted ``Pre-Columbian'' 
because of their Mestizo (Indian) background. Others disagreed saying 
some Mexicans have European background. Some preferred the term, 
``Chicano'' to identify Mexican-Americans while others found the term 
offensive.
    Pros of Option (f)(2):
     Collection: Some respondents prefer an alternative.
    Cons of Option (f)(2):
     Collection: The term, ``Latino,'' includes a diverse group 
of people from many national origins, races, and backgrounds. Some 
understand the term, ``Latin'' or ``Latino'' to include Europeans such 
as Italians, French, Portuguese, Romanians, and Spaniards. Cognitive 
research by the Census Bureau indicates some understand ``Latino'' as 
meaning from Latin America, ``Hispanic'' as meaning someone who speaks 
Spanish, and ``of Spanish origin'' as someone from Spain or with a 
distant relative who was Hispanic.
    Past research results/literature review: Results from the 1990 
census showed that the Hispanic population of some 22.4 million grew by 
53 percent from 1980 to 1990. Immigration accounted for about half the 
growth. Overall, the Census Bureau considers the quality of census and 
survey data for Hispanic origin to be good. Nevertheless, evaluations 
show high nonresponse (10 percent; research shows most are not 
Hispanics) and misreporting (for example, some non-Hispanics report in 
the ``Mexican-Amer.'' category to indicate they are American). In the 
1990 census race question, two in three persons who did not mark a race 
circle, wrote in a response reflecting Hispanic ethnicity. Among 
persons who indicated in the 1990 census that they were of Hispanic 
origin, 52 percent marked the ``White'' circle and 43 percent marked 
the ``Other race'' circle. 

[[Page 44690]]
Based on evaluations of the 1980 Census and 1990 Census pretests, it 
appears that persons reporting ``Other Spanish/Hispanic,'' included 
Brazilians and other persons of Portuguese descent who feel the term, 
``Hispanic,'' also applies to them.

C. Future Research Agenda

    Agency staff and funding for research and testing associated with 
possible changes are very limited. As a result, plans necessarily have 
to be developed within those resource constraints and may change. 
Within available resources, Federal agencies are conducting research 
through 1996 to inform decisions on selected options. A brief summary 
of the future research agenda, as of April 1995, is presented in this 
section. The number of issues that can be tested in 1995 and 1996 is 
limited. This Federal Register notice provides the last opportunity for 
public comment on priorities for research in 1996.

Research Agenda

    The Interagency Committee's Research Working Group, which is co-
chaired by the Bureau of the Census and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 
reviewed all the criticisms and suggestions for changing the current 
categories that appeared in OMB's June 9, 1994, Federal Register 
notice, including requests received during the public comment period to 
expand the standards by establishing additional categories for specific 
population groups. Some of the more significant issues that have been 
identified for research and testing are: classification of multiracial 
persons; combining race and Hispanic origin; combining concepts of 
race/ethnicity/ancestry; changing the names of current categories; and 
adding new classifications. The Race and Ethnic Targeted Test, to be 
conducted by the Bureau of the Census in 1996, will be the major 
opportunity to test three to four options on race and ethnicity.
    The Bureau of Labor Statistics designed a Supplement to the May 
1995 Current Population Survey (CPS) to provide information about three 
issues with respect to Directive No. 15. They are (1) what proportion 
of respondents will choose a ``multiracial'' category and how that may 
impact on the data for the other racial categories; (2) inclusion of an 
Hispanic category in the list of races; and (3) preferences concerning 
specific terms such as ``African American'' and ``Latino.'' To gather 
this information, the Supplement is divided into four panels, and a 
random sample of approximately 15,000 of the 60,000 CPS households will 
receive one of the following four survey instruments.

Panel 1: Separate race and Hispanic origin questions; no multiracial 
category
Panel 2: Separate race and Hispanic origin questions; with a 
multiracial category and races specified
Panel 3: A combined race and Hispanic origin question; no multiracial 
category
Panel 4: A combined race and Hispanic origin question; with a 
multiracial category and races specified

    In addition, all households in the May Supplement will be asked 
questions about their ancestry, preferences concerning specific terms, 
and use of languages other than English in the home. The ancestry and 
language questions are included to help explain differences in 
reporting by households with similar racial characteristics. Results of 
this test are expected to be available in late Fall 1995.
    Multiracial Category.--Research and testing of a multiracial 
category is especially important since it could have a significant 
impact on the usefulness of data resulting from the current racial and 
ethnic categories. An important aspect of this issue on which research 
needs to be conducted is the extent to which persons of mixed racial 
heritage will identify in a separate multiracial category on surveys 
and censuses.
    To begin research on this issue, a multiracial response option was 
included in operational pretests for the revised Survey of Income and 
Program Participation involving 292 households in the Atlanta, Boston, 
and Chicago metropolitan areas during April and May 1994. Despite the 
small sample size, the results were somewhat informative for two 
reasons: (1) A higher percentage (7.3 percent) of persons reported in 
the multiracial category than have done so in some of the records from 
school and military systems cited in various public hearings and 
conferences, and (2) in nearly two-thirds (65 percent) of the 55 write-
ins to the multiracial item, the respondent reported as Hispanic (23 
cases or 42 percent) or as Hispanic and some other race group. The 
higher percentage reporting as multiracial might reflect the sites of 
the pretest and the oversampling of low and high income areas. The high 
proportion of multiracial responses involving Hispanics does indicate 
that a multiracial category might draw disproportionately more 
responses from Hispanics than from the other racially mixed persons for 
whom many were seeking this option. These results underscored the 
importance of testing the multiracial category in larger samples (as in 
the May 1995 CPS Supplement), as well as perhaps the need for 
additional definitions or instructions for the category if the 
intention is to draw responses primarily from persons whose parents are 
of different races. These early findings also served to indicate that 
cognitive research would aid in developing that Supplement.
    In preparation for the May 1995 CPS Supplement, cognitive research 
interviews were conducted in 1994 and early 1995 with individuals who 
have parents of different races, as well as individuals who may 
identify with only one race, even though they may have a mixed 
heritage. The main objective of this cognitive research was to examine 
how individuals view race and ethnicity and how they might interpret 
and respond to a race question that provides a ``multiracial, specify'' 
option.
    Combining Race and Hispanic Origin.--The May 1995 CPS Supplement 
will provide needed research on whether a combined race/Hispanic 
ethnicity question should be used instead of separate questions on race 
and Hispanic ethnicity. Important reasons to research this issue are 
that some Federal agencies have been collecting and reporting data in a 
combined format for a number of years, and a high percentage of 
Hispanics selected ``other race'' in the 1990 decennial census race 
question when race and ethnicity were collected in two separate 
questions. Research questions include examining the effects of having a 
single race and Hispanic ethnicity question on the counts for other 
races and for Hispanics; examining which subgroups to include as 
``Hispanic''; determining what percentage of administrative record data 
bases already use ``Hispanic'' as a racial category and what percentage 
of respondents in these data bases are missing information on Hispanic 
ethnicity; and deciding if Hispanic ethnicity should be assumed to take 
priority over other racial categories (e.g., Black Hispanics).
    In considering this issue, one should bear in mind that the 
concepts of race, ethnicity, and ancestry are not clearly or 
consistently distinguished in the U.S. population. For example, some 
Hispanics regard the ``Hispanic'' designation as a ``racial'' category, 
defining ``race'' in terms of national origin and cultural 
characteristics. As discussed below, it has been suggested, therefore, 
that census and survey respondents be asked about only a single 
concept--perhaps ethnicity or race/ethnicity--corresponding to self-
perceived membership in population 

[[Page 44691]]
groups that might define themselves by cultural heritage, language, 
physical appearance, behavior, or other characteristics.
    Combining Concepts of Race/Ethnicity/Ancestry.--Directive No. 15 
has been criticized for not clearly distinguishing among race, 
ethnicity, and ancestry. Directive No. 15 specifically notes the 
absence of anthropological or other scientific bases for their separate 
designation. Varied and possibly inconsistent definitional criteria, 
such as geographic origin, cultural origin, cultural identification and 
affiliation, community recognition, and race itself, are used to 
describe the terms.
    The current Federal categories have created five single 
aggregations from heterogeneous and highly diverse populations. Since 
ethnic groups evolve and may change their group name over time, 
research is needed on the basic concepts to be measured as well as on 
the popular terminology respondents use to refer to their ethnic group. 
This research will be helpful in determining those response categories 
which would provide useful information about our Nation's population.
    The research on this issue needs to consider a number of 
implications of combining the concepts. The consolidation of questions 
of ``race,'' ``ethnicity,'' and ``ancestry'' into a single question of 
``ethnicity'' (or ``race/ethnicity'') or of ``identified population 
groups'' would eliminate the distinction between race and ethnicity 
indicated in Directive No. 15. Consolidation of the categories would 
also address the issue of including Hispanics as a racial designation 
rather than as a separate ethnic category. Under consolidation, 
Hispanic would be included as an ethnic or racial/ethnic category along 
with other categories previously classified as races. If, in addition 
to consolidating categories, respondents are allowed to select more 
than one ethnic or racial/ethnic identity, the issue of ``multiracial'' 
identification might also be addressed. The combined question would 
most likely solicit multi-ethnic as well as multiracial responses. In 
the 1990 census ancestry question, which allows multiple reporting of 
ethnicities, about 30 percent of the population reported multiple 
ancestries. Such a large proportion of multiple responses would present 
processing problems for Federal agencies. The consolidation of race and 
ethnicity would interrupt the continuity of categorization in the race 
and ethnicity questions in recent decades; however, continuity is 
already imperfect due to changes in questions and response options.
    Terminology for Categories.--This issue is concerned with whether 
to replace or revise current terminology for Black, Hispanic, or 
American Indian racial/ethnic categories for data collection and data 
reporting with terms that have been suggested such as African American, 
Latino/Latina, and Native American. Research is needed to determine 
whether, and in what ways, any proposed changes in terminology may 
affect reporting or data collection. If a change in terms produces a 
change in coverage, it is useful to know what that change signifies. 
Any replacement of terminology should consider: (1) That the new terms 
might have meanings different from the old terms for respondents while, 
for the users, the old and new categories might appear synonymous; (2) 
that as current usage changes, terms are likely to have different 
meanings to people, and the new terms may exclude persons who were 
comfortable with the old terms but who may not perceive themselves as 
``fitting'' under the new designation; and (3) the extent to which 
definitions need to accompany new categories. Questions about 
preferences for various terms are included on the May 1995 CPS 
supplement.
    Additional research plans:
     The Census Bureau is conducting cognitive research from 
February through July 1995 on issues such as a multiracial category, 
marking all categories that apply, terminology, and a combined race/
Hispanic origin/ancestry question. Research on the classification of 
``Native Hawaiian'' is also planned. The extent of research is 
dependent upon available resources. The Census Bureau also plans to 
conduct two tests in 1996: the National Content Test (NCT) and the Race 
and Ethnic Targeted Test (RAETT). The NCT is designed to test selected 
population and housing questions for the 2000 census. It will be a 
national sample of 35,000 to 50,000 households. To determine what 
information respondents will provide in a self-reporting context, the 
Census Bureau has identified a multiracial category or response option 
(for example, multiple responses) as a high priority for panels on the 
1996 National Content Test. Other issues to be tested in the NCT 
include terminology and the placement of the Hispanic origin question 
first, followed immediately by the race question. The RAETT, which will 
include a reinterview, will provide the most extensive opportunity to 
test several options for collecting racial and ethnic data. The 
proposed sample of about 90,000 households will be targeted to a 
diverse sample of racial and ethnic populations. The Census Bureau 
expects that the RAETT will allow further testing of a multiracial 
classification, terminology, and other selected options.
     The National Center for Health Statistics and the Office 
of the Assistant Secretary for Health will conduct research on the 
effects of changes in racial classification on birth certificate 
records.
     The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is 
undertaking a project to evaluate the recording of racial 
classifications on death certificates. This study will involve a survey 
of a sample of funeral directors with the aim of improving the quality 
of racial data reported on death certificates.
     A literature search on work related to racial 
classification in the health field (using MEDLINE) is being conducted 
by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS).
     An inventory of DHHS minority health data bases is being 
developed by the DHHS. It will provide information on what data are 
available and data collection problems that have been encountered.
     The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) is 
conducting a Spring 1995 survey to obtain information: (a) How schools 
currently students' collect racial and ethnic data; (b) how 
administrative records containing racial and ethnic data are maintained 
and reported; (c) what State laws mandate or require of school systems 
with respect to collecting data on race and ethnicity; and (d) current 
issues in schools regarding race and ethnicity categories.

D. General Principles for the Review of the Racial and Ethnic 
Categories

    The criticisms and suggestions for changing Directive No. 15 have 
underscored the importance of having a set of general principles to 
govern the current review process. The following principles were 
drafted in cooperation with Federal agencies serving on the Interagency 
Committee. The principles listed below are those OMB may use to guide 
final decisions on standards for the classification of racial and 
ethnic data. The principles are, for the most part, the same as those 
published in the June 9, 1994, Federal Register notice. There are 
changes to Principles 2, 5, 6, and 8. Principles 12 and 13 are new. The 
public is invited to comment on these or suggest additional principles.
    1. The racial and ethnic categories set forth in the standard 
should not be interpreted as being primarily biological or genetic in 
reference. Race and 

[[Page 44692]]
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, nonduplicated, 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, as 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 agencies recognize that these principles may in some cases 
represent competing goals for the standard. Through the review process, 
it will be necessary to balance statistical issues, needs for data, and 
social concerns. The application of these principles to guide the 
review and possible revision of the standard ultimately should result 
in consistent, publicly accepted data on race and ethnicity that will 
meet the needs of the government and the public while recognizing the 
diversity of the population and respecting the individual's dignity.
Sally Katzen,
Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

Appendix

Directive No. 15

Race and Ethnic Standards for Federal Statistics and Administrative 
Reporting

As adopted on May 12, 1977.
    This Directive provides standard classifications for 
recordkeeping, collection, and presentation of data on race and 
ethnicity in Federal program administrative reporting and 
statistical activities. These classifications should not be 
interpreted as being scientific or anthropological in nature, nor 
should they be viewed as determinants of eligibility for 
participation in any Federal program. They have been developed in 
response to needs expressed by both the executive branch and the 
Congress to provide for the collection and use of compatible, 
nonduplicated, exchangeable racial and ethnic data by Federal 
agencies.

1. Definitions

    The basic racial and ethnic categories for Federal statistics 
and program administrative reporting are defined as follows:
    a. American Indian or Alaskan Native. A person having origins in 
any of the original peoples of North America, and who maintains 
cultural identification through tribal affiliations or community 
recognition.
    b. Asian or Pacific Islander. A person having origins in any of 
the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, the Indian 
subcontinent, or the Pacific Islands. This area includes, for 
example, China, India, Japan, Korea, the Philippine Islands, and 
Samoa.
    c. Black. A person having origins in any of the black racial 
groups of Africa.
    d. Hispanic. A person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central 
or South American or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of 
race.
    e. White. A person having origins in any of the original peoples 
of Europe, North Africa, or the Middle East.

2. Utilization for Recordkeeping and Reporting

    To provide flexibility, it is preferable to collect data on race 
and ethnicity separately. If separate race and ethnic categories are 
used, the minimum designations are:
    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 described above. 
However, any reporting required which uses more detail shall be 
organized in such a way that the additional categories can be 
aggregated into these basic racial/ethnic categories.
    The minimum standard collection categories shall be utilized for 
reporting as follows:
    a. Civil rights compliance reporting. The categories specified 
above will be used by all agencies in either the separate or 
combined format for civil rights compliance reporting and equal 
employment reporting for both the public and private sectors and for 
all levels of government. Any variation requiring less detailed data 
or data which cannot be aggregated into the basic categories will 
have to be specifically approved by the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) for executive agencies. More detailed reporting which 
can be aggregated to the basic categories may be used at the 
agencies' discretion.
    b. General program administrative and grant reporting. Whenever 
an agency subject to this Directive issues new or revised 
administrative reporting or recordkeeping 

[[Page 44693]]
requirements which include racial or ethnic data, the agency will use 
the race/ethnic categories described above. A variance can be 
specifically requested from OMB, but such a variance will be granted 
only if the agency can demonstrate that it is not reasonable for the 
primary reporter to determine the racial or ethnic background in 
terms of the specified categories, and that such determination is 
not critical to the administration of the program in question, or if 
the specific program is directed to only one or a limited number of 
race/ethnic groups, e.g., Indian tribal activities.
    c. Statistical reporting. The categories described in this 
Directive will be used at a minimum for federally sponsored 
statistical data collection where race and/or ethnicity is required, 
except when: The collection involves a sample of such size that the 
data on the smaller categories would be unreliable, or when the 
collection effort focuses on a specific racial or ethnic group. A 
repetitive survey shall be deemed to have an adequate sample size if 
the racial and ethnic data can be reliably aggregated on a biennial 
basis. Any other variation will have to be specifically authorized 
by OMB through the reports clearance process. In those cases where 
the data collection is not subject to the reports clearance process, 
a direct request for a variance should be made to OMB.

3. Effective Date

    The provisions of this Directive are effective immediately for 
all new and revised recordkeeping or reporting requirements 
containing racial and/or ethnic information. All existing 
recordkeeping or reporting requirements shall be made consistent 
with this Directive at the time they are submitted for extension, or 
not later than January 1, 1980.

4. Presentation of Race/Ethnic Data

    Displays of racial and ethnic compliance and statistical data 
will use the category designations listed above. The designation 
``nonwhite'' is not acceptable for use in the presentation of 
Federal Government data. It is not to be used in any publication of 
compliance or statistical data or in the text of any compliance or 
statistical report.
    In cases where the above designations are considered 
inappropriate for presentation of statistical data on particular 
programs or for particular regional areas, the sponsoring agency may 
use:
    (1) The designations ``Black and Other Races'' or ``All Other 
Races,'' as collective descriptions of minority races when the most 
summary distinction between the majority and minority races is 
appropriate;
    (2) The designations ``White,'' ``Black,'' and ``All Other 
Races'' when the distinction among the majority race, the principal 
minority race and other races is appropriate; or
    (3) The designation of a particular minority race or races, and 
the inclusion of ``Whites'' with ``All Other Races,'' if such a 
collective description is appropriate.
    In displaying detailed information which represents a 
combination of race and ethnicity, the description of the data being 
displayed must clearly indicate that both bases of classification 
are being used.
    When the primary focus of a statistical report is on two or more 
specific identifiable groups in the population, one or more of which 
is racial or ethnic, it is acceptable to display data for each of 
the particular groups separately and to describe data relating to 
the remainder of the population by an appropriate collective 
description.

[FR Doc. 95-20787 Filed 8-25-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3110-01-P