[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 131 (Wednesday, July 9, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36874-36946]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-17664]



[[Page 36873]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part II





Office of Management and Budget





_______________________________________________________________________



Recommendations From the Interagency Committee for the Review of the 
Racial and Ethnic Standards to the Office of Management and Budget 
Concerning Changes to the Standards for the Classification of Federal 
Data on Race and Ethnicity; Notice

  Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 131 / Wednesday, July 9, 1997 / 
Notices  

[[Page 36874]]



OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET


Recommendations From the Interagency Committee for the Review of 
the Racial and Ethnic Standards to the Office of Management and Budget 
Concerning Changes to the Standards for the Classification of Federal 
Data on Race and Ethnicity

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

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: OMB requests comments on the recommendations that it has 
received from the Interagency Committee for the Review of the Racial 
and Ethnic Standards (Interagency Committee) for changes to OMB's 
Statistical Policy Directive No. 15, Race and Ethnic Standards for 
Federal Statistics and Administrative Reporting (See Appendix 1 for the 
text of the standards in Directive No.15, originally issued in 1977). 
The Interagency Committee's report and recommendations, which are 
published in Appendix 2 in their entirety, are the result of a four-
year, comprehensive review of the current standards.

DATES: To ensure consideration during the final decision making 
process, written comments must be provided to OMB no later than 
September 8, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on the recommendations may be addressed to 
Katherine K. Wallman, Chief Statistician, Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, NEOB, Room 10201, 
725 17th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20503.
    Comments may also be submitted by facsimile to 202-395-7245, or by 
electronic mail to [email protected] (please note that ``1'' in 
``A1'' is the number one and not the letter ``l''). Be sure to include 
your name and complete postal mailing address in the comments sent by 
electronic mail. If you submit comments by facsimile or electronic 
mail, please do not also submit them by regular mail.
    Electronic availability and addresses: This Federal Register 
notice, as well as the June 9, 1994 and the August 28, 1995 Federal 
Register notices related to the review, are available electronically 
from the OMB Homepage on the World Wide Web: <<http://
www.whitehouse.gov/WH/EOP/OMB/html/fedreg.html>>, and in paper copy 
from the OMB Publications Office, 727, 17th Street, NW., NEOB, Room 
2200, Washington, D.C. 20503, telephone: (202) 395-7332, facsimile: 
(202) 395-6137.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Suzann Evinger, Statistical Policy Office, Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, NEOB, Room 10201, 
725 17th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20503. Telephone: 202-395-3093.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

    The current standards were developed in cooperation with the 
Federal agencies to provide consistent and comparable data on race and 
ethnicity throughout the Federal government for an array of statistical 
and administrative programs. Development of the data standards stemmed 
in large measure from new responsibilities to enforce civil rights 
laws. Data were needed to monitor equal access to housing, education, 
employment opportunities, etc., for population groups that historically 
had experienced discrimination and differential treatment because of 
their race or ethnicity. The categories that were developed represent a 
political-social construct designed to be used in the collection of 
data on the race and ethnicity of major broad population groups in this 
country, and are not anthropologically or scientifically based. The 
standards are used not only in the decennial census (which provides the 
``denominator'' for many measures), but also in household surveys, on 
administrative forms (e.g., school registration and mortgage lending 
applications), and in medical and other research.
    The standards provide a minimum set of categories for data on race 
and ethnicity. The current standards have four categories for data on 
race (American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian or Pacific Islander, 
Black, and White) and two categories for data on ethnicity (``Hispanic 
origin'' and ``Not of Hispanic origin''). The standards also permit the 
collection of more detailed information on population groups provided 
that any additional categories can be aggregated into the minimum 
standard set of categories. Self-identification is the preferred means 
of obtaining information about an individual's race and ethnicity, 
except in instances where observer identification more practical (e.g., 
completing a death certificate).
    The categories in Directive No. 15 do not identify or designate 
certain population groups as ``minority groups.'' As the Directive 
explicitly states, these categories are not to be used for determining 
the eligibility of population groups for participation in any Federal 
programs. Directive No. 15 does not establish criteria or 
qualifications (such as blood quantum levels) that are to be used in 
determining a particular individual's racial or ethnic classification. 
Directive No. 15 does not tell an individual who he or she is, or 
specify how an individual should classify himself or herself.

B. Review Process

    Particularly since the 1990 census, the standards have come under 
increasing criticism from those who believe that the minimum categories 
set forth in Directive No. 15 do not reflect the increasing diversity 
of our Nation's population that has resulted primarily from growth in 
immigration and in interracial marriages. In response to the criticism, 
OMB announced in July 1993 that it would undertake a comprehensive 
review of the current categories for data on race and ethnicity.
    This review has been conducted over the last four years in 
collaboration with the Interagency Committee for the Review of the 
Racial and Ethnic Standards, which OMB established in March 1994 to 
facilitate the participation of Federal agencies in the review. The 
members of the Interagency Committee, from more than 30 agencies, 
represent the many and diverse Federal needs for data on race and 
ethnicity, including statutory requirements for such data.
    The principal objective of the review is to enhance the accuracy of 
the demographic information collected by the Federal Government. The 
starting point for the review was the current minimum set of categories 
for data on race and ethnicity that have provided 20 years of 
information for a variety of purposes, and the recognition of the 
importance of being able to maintain this historical continuity. The 
review process has had two major elements: (1) Public comment on the 
present standards, which helped to identify concerns and provided 
numerous suggestions for changing the standards; and (2) research and 
testing related to assessing the possible effects of suggested changes 
on the quality and usefulness of the resulting data.
    Public input, the first element of the review process, was sought 
through a variety of means: (1) During 1993, Congressman Thomas C. 
Sawyer, then Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Census, Statistics, 
and Postal, held four hearings that included 27 witnesses, focusing 
particularly on the

[[Page 36875]]

use of the categories in the 2000 census, (2) At the request of OMB, 
the National Academy of Sciences' Committee on National Statistics 
(CNSTAT) conducted a workshop in February 1994 to articulate issues 
surrounding a review of the categories. The workshop included 
representatives of Federal agencies, academia, social science research 
institutions, interest groups, private industry, and a local school 
district. (A summary of the workshop, Spotlight on Heterogeneity: The 
Federal Standards for Racial and Ethnic Classification, is available 
from CNSTAT, 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20418.) 
(3) On June 9, 1994, OMB published a Federal Register (59 FR 29831-
29835) notice that contained background information on the development 
of the current standards and requested public comment on: the adequacy 
of current racial and ethnic categories; the principles that should 
govern any proposed revisions to the standards; and specific 
suggestions for change that had been offered by individuals and 
interested groups over the past several years. In response, OMB 
received nearly 800 letters. As part of this comment period and to 
bring the review closer to the public, OMB also heard testimony from 94 
witnesses at hearings held during 1994 in Boston, Denver, San 
Francisco, and Honolulu. (4) In an August 28, 1995, Federal Register 
(60 FR 44674-44693) notice, OMB provided an interim report on the 
review process, including a summary of the comments of the June 1994 
Federal Register notice, and offered a final opportunity for comment on 
the research to be conducted during 1996. (5) OMB staff have also made 
themselves available to discuss the review process with various 
interested groups and have made presentations at many meetings.
    The second element of the review process involved research and 
testing of various proposed changes. The categories in OMB's Directive 
No. 15 are used not only to produce data on the demographic 
characteristics of the population, but also for civil rights 
enforcement and program administration. Research would enable an 
objective assessment of the data quality issues associated with various 
approaches to collecting data on race and ethnicity. For that reason, 
the Interagency Committee's Research Working Group on Racial and Ethnic 
Standards, which is co-chaired by the Bureau of the Census and the 
Bureau of Labor Statistics, reviewed the various criticisms and 
suggestions for changing the current categories, and developed a 
research agenda for some of the more significant issues that had been 
identified. These issues included collecting and classifying data on 
persons who identify themselves as ``multiracial''; combining race and 
Hispanic origin in one question or having separate questions on race 
and Hispanic origin; combining the concepts of race, ethnicity, and 
ancestry; changing the terminology used for particular categories; and 
adding new categories to the current minimum set.
    Because the mode of data collection can have an effect on how a 
person responds, the research agenda addressed the issue of how an 
individual responds when an interviewer collects the information (in an 
in-person interview or a telephone interview) versus how an individual 
responds in a self-administered situation, such as in the decennial 
census when a form is filled out and mailed back. In addition, 
cognitive research interviews were conducted with various groups to 
provide guidance on the wording of the questions and the instructions.
    The research agenda included several major national tests during 
the last two years, the results of which are discussed throughout the 
Interagency Committee's report: (1) In May 1995, the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics (BLS) sponsored a Supplement on Race and Ethnicity to the 
Current Population Survey (CPS). The findings were made available in a 
1996 report, Testing Methods of Collecting Racial and Ethnic 
Information: Results of the Current Population Survey Supplement on 
Race and Ethnicity, available from BLS, 2 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., 
Room 4915, Postal Square Building, Washington, DC 20212, by calling 
202-606-7375. The results were also summarized in an October 26, 1995, 
news release, which is available electronically at <<http://
stats.bls.gov/news.release/ethnic.toc.htm>>. (2) The Bureau of the 
Census, as part of its research for the 2000 census, tested alternative 
approaches to collecting data on race and ethnicity in the March 1996 
National Content Survey (NCS). The Census Bureau published the results 
in a December 1996 report, Findings on Questions on Race and Hispanic 
Origin Tested in the 1996 National Content Survey; highlights of the 
report are available at <<http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/
96natcontentsurvey.html>>. (3) In June 1996, the Census Bureau 
conducted the Race and Ethnic Targeted Test (RAETT), which was designed 
to permit assessments of effects of possible changes on smaller 
populations not reliably measured in national samples, including 
American Indians, Alaska Natives, detailed Asian and Pacific Islander 
groups (such as Chinese and Hawaiians) and detailed Hispanic groups 
(such as Puerto Ricans and Cubans). The Census Bureau released the 
results in a May 1997 report, Results of the 1996 Race and Ethnic 
Targeted Test; highlights of the report are available at <<http://
www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps-0018.html>>. Single 
copies (paper) of the NCS and RAETT reports may be obtained from the 
Population Division, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Washington, DC 20233; 
telephone 301-457-2402.
    In addition to these three major tests, the National Center for 
Education Statistics (NCES) and the Office for Civil Rights in the 
Department of Education jointly conducted a survey of 1,000 public 
schools to determine how schools collect data on the race and ethnicity 
of their students and how the administrative records containing these 
data are maintained to meet statutory requirements for reporting 
aggregate information to the Federal Government. NCES published the 
results in a March 1996 report, Racial and Ethnic Classifications Used 
by Public Schools. The report is available electronically at <<http://
www.ed.gov/NCES/pubs/98092.html>>. Single paper copies may be obtained 
from NCES, 555 New Jersey, NW., Washington, DC 20208-5574, or by 
calling 202-219-1442.
    The research agenda also included studies conducted by the National 
Center for Health Statistics, the Office of the Assistant Secretary for 
Health, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to evaluate 
the procedures used and the quality of the information in 
administrative records on race and ethnicity such as that reported on 
birth certificates and recorded on death certificates. Since these data 
are used in studies of diseases and of the health and well-being of 
major population groups, these studies investigated possible impacts of 
suggested changes on data needed for medical and health research.

C. Overview of Interagency Committee Report

    This Federal Register notice makes available for comment the 
Interagency Committee's recommendations for how OMB should revised 
Directive No. 15. These recommendations are elaborated in the 
Interagency Committee's Report to the Office of Management and Budget 
on the Review of Statistical Policy Directive No. 15 which is published 
in its entirety as part of this notice. The report consists of six 
chapters. Chapter 1 provides a brief history of Directive No. 15, a 
summary of the issues

[[Page 36876]]

considered by the Interagency Committee, a review of the research 
activities, and a discussion of the criteria used in conducting the 
evaluation. Chapter 2 discusses a number of general concerns that need 
to be addressed when considering any changes to the current standards. 
Chapters 3 through 5 report the results of the research as they bear on 
the more significant suggestions OMB received for changes to Directive 
No. 15. Chapter 6 gives the Interagency's Committee's recommendations 
concerning the various suggested changes based on a review of public 
comments and testimony and the research results.
    This notice affords a final opportunity for the public to comment 
before OMB acts on the recommendations of the Interagency Committee. 
None of the recommendations has been adopted and no interim decisions 
have been made concerning them. OMB can modify or reject any of the 
recommendations, and OMB has the option of making no changes. The 
report and its recommendations are published in this Notice because OMB 
believes that they are worthy of public discussion and the OMB's 
decision will benefit from obtaining the public's views on the 
recommendations. OMB will announce its decision in mid-October 1997, so 
that changes, if any, can be incorporated into the questions for the 
2000 census ``dress rehearsal,'' which will be conducted in spring 
1998.

Issues for Comment

    With this notice, OMB, requests comments on the recommendations it 
has received from the Interagency Committee for the Review of the 
Racial and Ethnic Standards concerning the revision of Statistical 
Policy Directive No. 15. These recommendations are contained in Chapter 
6 of the Interagency Committee's report.
    The complete report is included in this Notice because Chapters 1 
through 5 provide both a context and the bases for the Interagency 
Committee's recommendations outlined in Chapter 6. As an aid in 
evaluating the recommendations, readers may wish to refer to the set of 
general principles (see Chapter 1) that were developed at the beginning 
of the Directive No. 15 review to govern the process--a process that 
has attempted to balance statistical issues, needs for data, social 
concerns, and the personal dimensions of racial and ethnic 
identification. The committee recognized that these principles may in 
some cases represent competing goals for the standard. For example, 
having categories that are comprehensive in the coverage of our 
National's diverse population (Principle 4) and that would facilitate 
self-identification (Principle 2) may not be operationally feasible in 
terms of the burden that would be placed upon respondents and the 
public and private costs that would be associated with implementation 
(Principle 8). The following are just a few examples of questions that 
might be considered in assessing the recommendations using the general 
principles:

--Do the recommendations provide categories for classifying data on 
race and ethnicity that are: generally understood and accepted by the 
public (Principle 3); comprehensive in coverage (Principle 4); and 
useful for statistical analysis, and for Federal statutory and 
programmatic requirements (Principles 5 and 6)?
--Are the recommendations based on sound methodological research 
(Principle 9)?
--Do the recommendations take into account continuity of historical 
data series (Principle 10)?

    As reflected in the general principles, the goal has been to 
produce a standard that would result in consistent, publicly accepted 
data on race and ethnicity which will meet the needs of the Federal 
Government and the public, while recognizing the diversity of the 
population and respecting the individual's dignity. We would appreciate 
receiving your views and comments on any aspects of the Interagency 
Committee's recommendations, as well as on the extent to which the 
recommendations were successful in meeting the goals of the governing 
principles.
Sally Katzen,
Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

[Directive No. 15]

Appendix 1--Race and Ethnic Standards for Federal Statistics and 
Administrative Reporting

[as adopted on May 12, 1977]

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

1. Definitions

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

2. Utilization for Record keeping and Reporting

    To provide flexibility, it is preferable to collect data on race 
and ethnicity separately. If separate race and ethnic categories are 
used, the minimum designations are:
    a. Race:

--American Indian or Alaskan Native
--Asian or Pacific Islander
--Black
--White
    b. Ethnicity:

--Hispanic origin
--Not of Hispanic origin

When race and ethnicity are collected separately, the number of White 
and Black persons who are Hispanic must be identifiable, and capable of 
being reported in that category.
    If a combined format is used to collect racial and ethnic data, the 
minimum acceptable categories are:

--American Indian or Alaskan Native
--Asian or Pacific Islander
--Black, not of Hispanic origin
--Hispanic
--White, not of Hispanic origin.

    The category which most closely reflects the individual's 
recognition in his community should be used for purposes of reporting 
on persons who are of mixed racial and/or ethnic origins.
    In no case should the provisions of this Directive be construed to 
limit the collection of data to the categories

[[Page 36877]]

described above. However, any reporting required which uses more detail 
shall be organized in such a way that the additional categories can be 
aggregated into these basic racial/ethnic categories.
    The minimum standard collection categories shall be utilized for 
reporting as follows:
    a. Civil rights compliance reporting. The categories specified 
above will be used by all agencies in either the separate or combined 
format for civil rights compliance reporting and equal employment 
reporting for both the public and private sectors and for all levels of 
government. Any variation requiring less detailed data or data which 
cannot be aggregated into the basic categories will have to be 
specifically approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for 
executive agencies. More detailed reporting which can be aggregated to 
the basic categories may be used at the agencies' discretion.
    b. General program administrative and grant reporting. Whenever an 
agency subject to this Directive issues new or revised administrative 
reporting or record keeping requirements which include racial or ethnic 
data, the agency will use the race/ethnic categories described above. A 
variance can be specifically requested from OMB, but such a variance 
will be granted only if the agency can demonstrate that it is not 
reasonable for the primary reporter to determine the racial or ethnic 
background in terms of the specified categories, and that such 
determination is not critical to the administration of the program in 
question, or if the specific program is directed to only one or a 
limited number of race/ethnic groups, e.g., Indian tribal activities.
    c. Statistical reporting. The categories described in this 
Directive will be used at a minimum for federally sponsored statistical 
data collection where race and/or ethnicity is required, except when: 
the collection involves a sample of such size that the data on the 
smaller categories would be unreliable, or when the collection effort 
focuses on a specific racial or ethnic group. A repetitive survey shall 
be deemed to have an adequate sample size if the racial and ethnic data 
can be reliably aggregated on a biennial basis. Any other variation 
will have to be specifically authorized by OMB through the reports 
clearance process. In those cases where the data collection is not 
subject to the reports clearance process, a direct request for a 
variance should be made to OMB.

3. Effective Date

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

4. Presentation of Race/Ethnic Data

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

Appendix 2--Report to the Office of Management and Budget on the Review 
of Statistical Policy Directive No. 15

Prepared By Interagency Committee for the Review of the Racial and 
Ethnic Standards

(Transmittal Memorandum)
May 28, 1997.

Memorandum for Katherine K. Wallman

Chief Statistician, Office of Management and Budget.
From: Interagency Committee for the Review of the Racial and Ethnic 
Standards.
Subject: Transmittal of Report and Recommendations on the Review of 
Directive No. 15.

    We are pleased to transmit to you the attached report that 
provides the recommendations of the Interagency Committee for the 
Review of the Racial and Ethnic Standards for modifying OMB's 
Statistical Policy Directive No. 15, Race and Ethnic Standards for 
Federal Statistics and Administrative Reporting. These 
recommendations, which are outlined in Chapter 6 of the report, 
represent our best technical and professional advice for how these 
data standards could better reflect the increasing racial and ethnic 
diversity of our Nation's population, while maintaining historical 
continuity.
    Our recommendations for Directive No. 15 are the product of a 
three-year review process that is briefly described in Chapter 1 of 
the report. During that time, we developed and carried out a 
research program to evaluate various proposals for revising the 
standards. Chapter 2 discusses some general concerns relevant to 
consideration of any changes in the standards. Chapters 3 through 5 
report on the extensive research efforts, including three national 
tests, that have been conducted to test alternative approaches for 
questions to collect data on race and ethnicity. The Interagency 
Committee's recommendations, presented in Chapter 6, are based on 
our evaluation of the research results and consideration of related 
public comments and testimony.
    We hope that the Office of Management and Budget will find this 
report with its accompanying recommendations informative and helpful 
in making its decision on what changes to adopt, if any, in the 
Federal standards for reporting data on race and ethnicity. 
Attachment

Report to the Office of Management and Budget on the Review of 
Statistical Policy Directive No. 15

Table of Contents

Chapter 1. Introduction

1.1  Overview
1.2  History of Directive No. 15
1.3  Concerns About the Current Standards
1.4  Principles for the Review Process
1.5  Overview of Research Activities
1.6  Evaluation of Research Results

Chapter 2. Issues of General Concern

2.1  Overview
2.2  Satisfying Statutory and Program Needs
2.3  Voting Rights Issues
2.4  Data Continuity Concerns
2.5  Financial Costs

Chapter 3. Reporting More Than One Race

3.1  Background
3.2  Current Practice
3.3  Overview of Research on Reporting More Than One Race
3.3.1  Surveys to Explore Options

[[Page 36878]]

3.3.2  Cognitive Research to Guide Survey Design
3.4  Evaulating Research on Options for Reporting More Than One Race
3.4.1  Data Comparability
3.4.2  Should a multiracial category be listed among the response 
options to the question on race?
3.4.3  If a multiracial category is listed, should a ``follow-up'' 
format be used, in which individuals who select the category are 
asked to specify their racial identities?
3.4.4  Should a multiple-response format be used, in which the 
respondent is instructed to ``mark one or more races''?
3.4.5  Should a multiple response format be used in which the 
respondent is instructed to ``mark all that apply'' on the race 
question?
3.4.6  Are there other options for reporting more than one race by 
respondents?
3.5  Trends With Respect to Reporting of Multiple Races
3.5.1  Trends Contributing to Reporting of Multiple Races
3.5.1.1  Increases in Interracial Marriages and Households and 
Births to Parents of Different Races
3.5.1.2  State Requirements for Multiracial Reporting
3.5.2  Public Sentiment
3.6  Measurement Concerns and Opportunities Related to Reporting 
More Than One Race
3.6.1  Meeting Legislative and Program Needs
3.6.2  Defining and Using the Term ``Multiracial''
3.6.2.1  Definition of ``Multiracial''
3.6.2.2  Using a Stand-Alone ``Multiracial or Biracial'' Category or 
Including a Follow-up Question
3.6.3  Using a ``Mark One or More'' or a ``Mark All That Apply'' 
Instruction in the Race Question
3.6.4  Issues Related to Primary and Secondary Data Collection
3.7  Some Implications of Allowing the Reporting of More Than One 
Race
3.7.1  Possible Effects on Reporting by Particular Population Groups
3.7.2  Tabulation of Multiple Responses
3.7.3  Monetary Costs and Resource Burdens

Chapter 4. A Combined Race and Hispanic Origin Question

4.1  Background
4.2  Concepts of Race and Ethnicity
4.3  Self-Identification
4.4  Some Alternative Formats for Questions
4.5  Research on Data Quality
4.5.1  Reporting in the ``Other Race'' Category by Hispanics
4.5.2  Item Nonresponse in the Race Question
4.5.3  Item Nonresponse in the Hispanic Origin Question
4.5.4  Reporting Inconsistency
4.6  Measures to Correct Misreporting in the Race Question and the 
Hispanic Origin Question
4.7  The Effects of Combining the Race Question and the Hispanic 
Origin Question into a Single Question
4.7.1  Results From the May 1995 CPS Supplement on Race and Ethnic 
Origin
4.7.2  Results From the Race and Ethnic Targeted Test
4.7.2.1  Reporting of Hispanic Origin
4.7.2.2  Reporting of Multiple Races
4.7.2.3  Summary of Findings
4.8  Public Sentiment
4.9  Additional Cost Concerns

Chapter 5. Other Possible Changes

5.1  Background
5.2  Specific Suggestions
5.3  Evaluation of the Possible Effects of Suggested Changes
5.3.1  Changes related to American Indians and Alaska Natives
5.3.1.1  Should the term ``American Indian'' or ``Native American'' 
be used?
5.3.1.2  Should the term ``Alaska Native'' or ``Eskimo and Aleut'' 
be used?
5.3.1.3  Should a distinction be made between federally recognized 
and nonfederally recognized tribes?
5.3.1.4  What is the best way to elicit tribal affiliation?
5.3.1.5  Should the definition of the ``American Indian or Alaskan 
Native'' category be changed to include Indians indigenous to 
Central America and South America?
5.3.2  Changes related to Asian and Pacific Islanders
5.3.2.1  Should the ``Asian or Pacific Islander'' category be split 
into two categories? If yes, how should this be done?
5.3.2.2  Should specific groups be listed under the Asian or Pacific 
Islander category?
5.3.2.3  Should the term ``Guamanian'' or ``Chamorro'' be used?
5.3.3  Changes related to Hawaiians
5.3.3.1  Should the term ``Native Hawaiian'' or ``Hawaiian'' be 
used?
5.3.3.2  Should Hawaiians continue to be included in the ``Asian or 
Pacific Islander'' category; be reclassified and included in the 
``American Indian or Alaskan Native'' category; or be established as 
a separate, new category?
5.3.4  Other terminology issues
5.3.4.1  Should the term ``Black'' or ``African American'' be used?
5.3.4.2  Should the term ``Hispanic'' or ``Latino'' be used?
5.3.4.3  Should more than one term be used for Black or for 
Hispanic?
5.3.5  Other new category issues
5.3.5.1  Should an Arab or Middle Eastern category be created and, 
if so, how should it be defined?
5.3.5.2  Should a Cape Verdean category be created?

Chapter 6. Recommendations and Major Findings

6.1  Summary of Recommendations and Major Findings
6.1.1  Recommendations concerning reporting more than one race
6.1.1.1  Findings concerning a method for reporting more than one 
race
6.1.1.2  Findings concerning different formats for reporting more 
than one race
6.1.2  Recommendations concerning a combined race and Hispanic 
ethnicity question
6.1.2.1  Findings concerning whether race and Hispanic origin should 
be combined into a single question
6.1.2.2  Findings concerning different formats if race and Hispanic 
origin are combined in a single question
6.1.3  Recommendations concerning the retention of both reporting 
formats
6.1.4  Recommendation concerning the ordering of the Hispanic origin 
and race questions
6.1.5  Recommendation concerning adding Cape Verdean as an ethnic 
category
6.1.6  Recommendation concerning the addition of an Arab or Middle 
Eastern ethnic category
6.1.7  Recommendation concerning the addition of any other 
categories to the minimum set
6.1.8  Recommendation concerning changing the term ``American 
Indian'' to ``Native American''
6.1.9  Recommendation concerning changing the term ``Hawaiin'' to 
``Native Hawaiian.''
6.1.10  Recommendation concerning the classification of Hawaiians
6.1.11  Recommendations concerning the use of Alaskan Native instead 
of Eskimo and Aleut
6.1.12  Recommendations concerning the classification of South and 
Central American Indians
6.1.13  Recommendations concerning the term or terms to be used for 
the name of the Black category
6.1.14  Recommendations concerning the term or terms to be used for 
Hispanic
6.2  Comparison of the Current Standards with the Recommended 
Standards
6.2.1  The Current Standards in Directive No. 15
6.2.2  Recommended Standards
6.3  Recommendations for Further Research

Chapter 1. Introduction

1.1  Overview

    This report evaluates a variety of proposals for modifying the 
Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Statistical Policy Directive 
No. 15, ``Race and Ethnic Standards for Federal Statistics and 
Administrative Reporting.'' The Directive sets forth a minimum set of 
categories for collecting and presenting data on race and Hispanic 
origin. This basic set of categories has served as the guideline for 
Federal Government data collections since it was issued in May 1977. 
The report presented here, including its recommendations, is the 
culmination of three years of research undertaken by Federal agencies 
to evaluate the possible impact of suggested changes on the quality and 
cost of the resulting data. It is the work of the Interagency Committee 
for the Review of the Racial and Ethnic Standards and its Research 
Working Group on Racial and Ethnic

[[Page 36879]]

Standards. OMB established the Interagency Committee in 1994 to 
evaluate various proposed changes and provide recommendations. The 
committee created the Research Working Group to develop and carry out a 
research agenda for evaluating the proposals.
    The report consists of six chapters. This first chapter provides a 
brief history of Directive No. 15, a summary of the issues considered 
by the Interagency Committee, a review of the research activities over 
the past three years, and a discussion of the criteria used in 
conducting the evaluation. Chapter 2 discusses several general concerns 
that need to be addressed when considering any changes to the current 
standards. Chapters 3 through 5 report the research results as they 
bear on the more significant suggestions for changes to Directive No. 
15. These suggestions include, but are not limited to, permitting 
respondents to report multiple racial backgrounds, a single question on 
race and ethnicity that would include Hispanic as a category, expanding 
the minimum set of categories to include other specific ethnic or 
racial groups. and adding to, or replacing the names of categories used 
to identify specific racial or ethnic groups. Chapter 6 presents the 
committee's recommendations on various suggested changes based on its 
evaluation of the research results and consideration of related public 
comments and testimony.

1.2  History of Directive No. 15

    The United States Government has long collected statistics on race 
and ethnicity. Such data have been used to monitory changes in the 
social, demographic, health, and economic characteristics of various 
groups in our population. Federal data collections, through censuses, 
surveys, and administrative records, have provided an historical record 
of the Nation's population diversity and its changing social attitudes, 
health status, and policy concerns.
    Since the 1960's, data on race and ethnicity have been used 
extensiity in monitoring and enforcing civil rights laws covering areas 
such as education, employment, housing and mortgage lending, health 
care, voting rights, and the administration of justice. Theses 
legislatively based priorities created the need among Federal agencies 
for compatible, nonduplicative data for population groups that 
historically had suffered discrimination on the basic of their race or 
ethnicity. In response, OMB issued, in 1977, the current set of 
categories for use in the collection and presentation of data on race 
and eithnity. The categories also implemented the requirements of 
Public Law 94-311 of June 16, 1976, which called for the collection, 
analysis, and publication of economic and social statistics on persons 
of Spanish origin or descent.
    The current standard provides that, if racial and ethnic data are 
collected separately, the minimum racial categories are:

--American Indian or Alaskan Native. A person having origins in any of 
the original peoples of North America, and who maintains cultural 
identification through tribal affiliation or community recognition.
--Asian or Pacific Islander. A person having origins in any of the 
original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, the Indian 
subcontinent, or the Pacific Islands. This area includes, for example, 
China, India, Japan, Korea, the Philippine Islands, and Samoa.
--Black. A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of 
Africa.
--White. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of 
Europe, North Africa, or the Middle East.

    For ethnicity, the categories are:

--Hispanic origin. A person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or 
South American or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race.
--Not of Hispanic origin. A person not of any Spanish culture or 
origin. When a combined format is used, the minimum categories are: (1) 
American Indian or Alaskan Native; (2) Asian or Pacific Islander; (3) 
Black, not of Hispanic origin; (4) Hispanic; and (5) White, not of 
Hispanic origin.

    The current categories originated in the work of the Federal 
Interagency Committee on Education (FICE) whose membership represented 
some 30 Federal agencies. In June 1974, FICE created an Ad Hoc 
Committee on Racial and Ethic Definitions, whose 25 members came from 
Federal agencies with major responsibilities for the collection or use 
of data on race and ethnicity. This ad hoc committee was charged with 
developing terms and definitions for a broad range of data on race and 
ethnicity to be collected by Federal agencies on a compatible and 
nonduplicative basis. The committee sought to ensure that the 
categories could be aggregated, disaggregated, or otherwise combined so 
that the data developed by one agency could be used in conjunction with 
the data developed by another agency. The committee also suggested that 
the basic categories could be subdivided into more detailed ethnic 
subgroups to meet users' needs, but that to maintain comparability, 
data from one major category should never be combined with data from 
any other category.
    In the spring of 1975, FICE completed its work on a draft set of 
categories. An agreement was reached among OMB, the General Accounting 
Office (GAO), the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare's (HEW) 
Office for Civil Rights, and the Equal Employment Opportunity 
Commission (EEOC) to adopt these categories for a trial period of at 
least one year. This trial was undertaken to test the new categories 
and definitions and to determine what problems, if any, would be 
encountered in their implementation.
    At the end of the test period, OMB and GAO convened an Ad Hoc 
Committee on Racial/Ethnic Categories to review the experience of the 
agencies that had implemented the standard categories and definitions 
and to discuss any potential problems that might be encountered in 
extending the use of the categories to all Federal agencies. The 
Committee met in August 1976 and included representatives of OMB; GAO; 
the Departments of Justice, Labor, HEW, and Housing and Urban 
Development; the Bureau of the Census; and the EEOC. Based upon the 
discussion in that meeting, OMB prepared minor revisions to the FICE 
definitions and circulated the proposed final draft for agency comment. 
These revised categories and definitions became effective in September 
1976 for all compliance record keeping and reporting required by the 
Federal agencies represented on the Ad Hoc Committee.
    Based upon this interagency agreement, OMB drafted for agency 
comment a proposed revision of the ``race and color designations in 
Federal statistics'' contained in its circular on Standards and 
Guidelines for Federal Statistics. Some agencies published the draft 
revision for public comment. Following receipt of comments and 
incorporation of suggested modifications, OMB, on May 12, 1977, 
promulgated the racial and ethnic categories now set forth in Directive 
No. 15. Thus, for the first time, standard categories and definitions 
were to be used by all Federal agencies in both the collection and the 
presentation of data on race and ethnicity. The categories and 
definitions were developed primarily on the basis of geography; 
therefore, they were not to be interpreted as being scientific or 
anthropological in nature. The racial and ethnic categories in the 
Directive reflected, in particular, agency needs for data for use in 
monitoring and enforcing civil rights laws.

[[Page 36880]]

    Although the standards given in Directive No. 15 have not been 
revised since 1977, OMB did publish in the January 20, 1988, Federal 
Register a draft Statistical Policy Circular soliciting public comment 
on a comprehensive revision of existing Statistical Policy Directives. 
Among the proposed changes was a revision of Directive No. 15 that 
would have added an ``Other'' racial category and required 
classification by self-identification. This proposal was supported by 
many multiracial and multiethnic groups and some educational 
institutions, but it drew strong opposition from large corporation and 
Federal agencies such as the Civil Rights Division of the Department of 
Justice, the Department of Health and Human Services, the EEOC, and the 
Office of Personnel Management (OPM). Critics asserted that the present 
system provided adequate data, that any changes would disrupt 
historical continuity, and that the proposed changes would be expensive 
and potentially divisive. Some members of minority communities 
interpreted the proposal as an attempt to provoke internal dissension 
within their communities and to reduce the official counts of their 
populations. Because it was evident from all of these comments that 
this proposal would not be widely accepted, no changes were made to 
Directive No. 15.

1.3  Concerns About the Current Standards

    The population of the United States has become increasingly diverse 
during the 20 years that the current standards have been in effect. 
During the 1980s, immigration to the United States from Mexico, Central 
and South America, the Caribbean, and Asia reached historic 
proportions. The 1990 census data show that the population of the 
United States is more racially and ethnically diverse than ever. 
Furthermore, as a result of the growth in interracial marriages, there 
is an increase in the number of persons born who are of mixed race or 
ethnicity. In recent years, Directive No. 15 has been criticized for 
not sufficiently reflecting this growing diversity.
    In addition, there have been a number of other concerns expressed. 
For example:

--The categories and their definitions have been criticized as failing 
to be comprehensive and scientific.
--Some have suggested that the geographic orientation of the 
definitions for the various racial and ethnic categories is not 
sufficiently definitive. They believe that there is no readily apparent 
organizing principle for making such distinctions and that definitions 
for the categories should be eliminated.
--Others maintain that the identification of an individual's racial and 
ethnic ``category'' often is a subjective determination, rather than 
one that is objective and factual. Thus, they believe that it may no 
longer be appropriate to consider the categories as a ``statistical 
standard.''
--There is disagreement over the use of self-identification versus 
observer identification.
--Some critics have said that the two formats permitted by Directive 
No. 15 are not compatible. They argue that, when using the two separate 
questions, race and Hispanic origin can be kept analytically distinct, 
but in the combined race/ethnicity format, they cannot, While many find 
the combined format particularly suitable for observer identification, 
the use of this format does not provide information on the race of 
those selecting it. As a result, the combined format makes it 
impossible to distribute persons of Hispanic origin by race and, 
therefore, may reduce the utility of counts in the four racial 
categories by excluding from them persons who would otherwise tend to 
be included.
--Certain critics have requested an open-ended question to solicit 
information on race and ethnicity that would combine the concepts of 
race, ethnicity, and ancestry.
--The importance of maintaining comparability over time also has been 
questioned, given that the categories have changed in the decennial 
censuses over the decades.
--Some have said that the collection categories should allow for 
capturing greater diversity, but that the categories used to present 
data should be aggregations of the more detailed categories.
--Others assert that the collection of data on race and ethnicity 
should be eliminated because it perpetuates racism and the 
fragmentation of society.

    The following are some of the suggestions for changes to the 
current categories that OMB received during the current review process:

--Add a ``multiracial'' category to the list of racial designations so 
that respondents would not be forced to deny part of their heritage by 
having to choose a single category.
--Add an ``other'' category for individuals of multiracial heritage and 
for those who want the option of specifically stating a unique 
identification.
--Change the name of the ``Black'' category to ``African American.''
--Change the name of the ``American Indian or Alaskan Native'' category 
to ``Native American.''
--Since race and ethnicity are not distinct concepts, include Hispanic 
as a racial category, rather than as a separate ethnic category.
--Add a ``Middle Eastern'' or ``Arab'' ethnic category.
--Add a ``Cape Verdean'' ethnic category.
--Make ``Native Hawaiians'' a separate category or include ``Native 
Hawaiians'' in the American Indian or Alaskan Native category, rather 
than retain ``Native Hawaiians'' in the Asian or Pacific Islander 
category.
--Change the name of the ``Hispanic'' category to ``Latino.''

    During 1993, Thomas C. Sawyer, then Chairman of the House of 
Representatives' Subcommittee on Census, Statistics, and Postal 
Personnel, held four hearings on the measurement of race and ethnicity 
in the decennial census. In testimony on July 29, 1993, OMB announced 
that it would undertake a comprehensive review of the categories, 
including an analysis of the possible effects of any proposed changes 
to the categories on the quality and utility of the resulting data that 
are used for a multiplicity of purposes.
    As a first step, OMB asked the Committee on National Statistics 
(CNSTAT) of the National Academy of Sciences to convene a workshop to 
provide an informed discussion of the issues surrounding a review of 
the categories. The workshop, held on February 17-18, 1994, included 
representatives of Federal agencies, academia, social science research 
institutions, interest groups, private industry, and a local school 
district.

1.4  Principles for the Review Process

    In March 1994, OMB established and held the first meeting of the 
Interagency Committee for the Review of the Racial and Ethnic 
Standards, whose members from more than 30 agencies represent the many 
and diverse Federal needs for data on race and ethnicity, including 
statutory requirements for such data. Given the range of suggestions 
and criticisms concerning Directive No. 15, OMB sought in constituting 
the committee to have all agency stakeholders participate in this 
comprehensive review of the standards. Agencies represented on the 
Interagency Committee included:

Department of Agriculture

National Agricultural Statistics Service
Economic Research Service

[[Page 36881]]

Department of Commerce

Bureau of the Census

Department of Defense

Defense Manpower Data Center
Office of the Secretary

Department of Education

National Center for Education Statistics
Office for Civil Rights

Department of Health and Human Services

Administration for Native Americans
Agency for Health Care Policy and Research
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Indian Health Service
National Center for Health Statistics
National Institutes of Health
Office for Civil Rights
Office of Minority Health
Office of Refugee Resettlement

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Department of the Interior

Bureau of Indian Affairs

Department of Justice

Bureau of Justice Statistics
Civil Rights Division
Immigration and Naturalization Service

Department of Labor

Bureau of Labor Statistics
Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs

Department of Transportation

Bureau of Transportation Statistics

Department of Veterans Affairs

Equal Opportunity Employment Commission

Federal Reserve Board

National Science Foundation

Office of Personnel Management

Small Business Administration

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

Office of Management and Budget, ex officio

    The Interagency Committee developed a set of general principles to 
govern the review process. This process was designed not only to 
evaluate suggestions received from the public but also to balance 
statistical issues, data needs, social concerns, and the personal 
dimensions of racial and ethnic identification. These principles were 
as follows:
    1. The racial and ethnic categories set forth in the standards 
should not be interpreted as being primarily biological or genetic in 
reference. Race and ethnicity may be thought of in terms of social and 
cultural characteristics as well as ancestry.
    2. Respect for individual dignity should guide the processes and 
methods for collecting data on race and ethnicity; ideally, respondent 
self-identification should be facilitated to the greatest extent 
possible, recognizing that in some data collection systems observer 
identification is more practical.
    3. To the extent practicable, the concepts and terminology should 
reflect clear and generally understood definitions that can achieve 
broad public acceptance. To assure they are reliable, meaningful, and 
understood by respondents and observers, the racial and ethnic 
categories set forth in the standard should be developed using 
appropriate scientific methodologies, including the social sciences.
    4. The racial and ethnic categories should be comprehensive in 
coverage and produce compatible, nonduplicative, exchangeable data 
across Federal agencies.
    5. Foremost consideration should be given to data aggregations by 
race and ethnicity that are useful for statistical analysis and program 
administration and assessment, bearing in mind that the standards are 
not intended to be used to establish eligibility for participation in 
any federal program.
    6. The standards should be developed to meet, at a minimum, Federal 
legislative and programmatic requirements. Consideration should also be 
given to needs at the State and local government levels, including 
American Indian tribal and Alaska Native village governments, as well 
as to general societal needs for these data.
    7. The categories should set forth a minimum standard; additional 
categories should be permitted provided they can be aggregated to the 
standard categories. The number of standard categories should be kept 
to a manageable size, determined by statistical concerns and data 
needs.
    8. A revised set of categories should be operationally feasible in 
terms of burden placed upon respondents; public and private costs to 
implement the revisions should be a factor in the decision.
    9. Any changes in the categories should be based on sound 
methodological research and should include evaluations of the impact of 
any changes not only on the usefulness of the resulting data but also 
on the comparability of any new categories with the existing ones.
    10. Any revision to the categories should provide for a crosswalk 
at the time of adoption between the old and the new categories so that 
historical data series can be statistically adjusted and comparisons 
can be made.
    11. Because of the many and varied needs and strong interdependence 
of Federal agencies for racial and ethnic data, any changes to the 
existing categories should be the product of an interagency 
collaborative effort.
    12. Time will be allowed to phase in any new categories. Agencies 
will not be required to update historical records.
    13. The new directive should be applicable throughout the U.S. 
Federal statistical system. The standard or standards must be usable 
for the decennial census, current surveys, and administrative records, 
including those using observer identification.
    The committee recognized that these principles may in some cases 
represent competing goals for the standards. By applying these 
principles to the review process, the committee hoped to produce a 
standard that would result in consistent, publicly accepted data on 
race and ethnicity that would meet the needs of the Federal Government 
and the public while, at the same time, recognizing the diversity of 
the population and respecting the individual's dignity.
    OMB invited comment on the principles when they were published in a 
June 9, 1994, Federal Register notice. That notice also contained 
background information on the development of Directive No. 15; the 
revision proposed but not made in 1988; the 1993 congressional 
hearings; and the CNSTAT workshop. OMB requested public comment on the 
adequacy of the current categories, as well as on the suggested changes 
it had received over the years. As part of the public comment period, 
OMB also held hearings in Boston, Denver, San Francisco, and Honolulu 
during July 1994. OMB received nearly 800 letters in response to the 
1994 Federal Register notice and heard testimony of 94 witnesses during 
the four public hearings. A wide array of interested parties provided 
comments, including individuals, data users, and data providers from 
within and outside the Federal Government.

1.5  Overview of Research Activities

    The Interagency Committee created a Research Working Group to 
outline an agenda for researching and testing key concerns. The 
Research Working Group, in August 1995, issued the ``Research Agenda 
for the Review of the Racial and Ethnic Categories in Directive No. 
15,'' based on an examination of the information in the June 1994 
Federal Register notice, the public comments it

[[Page 36882]]

engendered, and previous research. This agenda identified five central 
research issues together with a number of questions associated with 
these issues. Some of the questions cut across several of the central 
issues, and others were unique to a particular issue. In developing the 
research agenda, the Research Working Group gave equal weight to the 
conceptual and the operational questions that must be answered before 
any changes to Directive No. 15 can be considered. The five central 
issues were:
    (1) Reporting of multiple races. What are the possible effects of 
including a multiple race response option or a multiracial category in 
data collections that ask individuals to identify their race and 
ethnicity?
    (2) Combining questions on race and Hispanic origin. Should a 
combined race/Hispanic origin question be used instead of separate 
questions on race and Hispanic origin?
    (3) Concepts of race, ethnicity, and ancestry. Should the concepts 
of race, ethnicity, and ancestry be combined and include, for example, 
a follow-up, open-ended question with no fixed categories? How well 
does the public understand these three concepts?
    (4) Terminology. Should any of the current terminology for the 
racial and ethnic categories be replaced or modified?
    (5) New classifications. Should new racial or ethnic categories be 
developed for specific population groups and be added to the minimum 
basic set of categories?
    The most important conceptual questions surrounding these issues 
were (1) Who are the stakeholders, (2) how are various terms used and 
understood, (3) what is the respondent's view of the task of self-
identification, (4) what would be the effects of any changes on 
population counts and historical trends, and (5) what would be the 
effects of any changes on the quality and usefulness of the resulting 
data? The most important operational questions were (1) How would the 
changes affect data collection procedures, (2) what differences might 
there be between collection and reporting categories, (3) how could 
continuity be maintained, (4) how should any changes be implemented, 
and (5) how might cognitive research assist in implementing any 
changes? In addition to recommending research that should be done, the 
Research Working Group both encouraged and supported a number of more 
specific research projects carried out by the individual agencies.
    The first national test related to the central issues was the May 
1995 Supplement on Race and Ethnicity to the Current Population Survey 
(CPS), which had a sample of approximately 60,000 households and more 
than 100,000 persons. The supplement, sponsored by the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics and conducted by the Bureau of the Census, tested the 
effects of: (1) Adding a multiracial category to the list of races, and 
(2) including ``Hispanic'' as a category on the race question. 
Respondents also were asked about their preferences for terms to 
describe themselves (e.g., African-American or Black and Latino or 
Hispanic). Originally, questions concerning the respondent's 
understanding of the concepts of race, ethnicity, and ancestry were to 
be included, but extensive cognitive testing prior to creating the 
survey instrument indicated that these types of questions were 
confusing and difficult to administer in a large-scale survey. 
Additional analysis of open-ended responses by cognitive researchers 
provided possible explanations for the inconsistencies in some 
respondents' answers to the race and ethnicity questions.
    As a part of the research on the subject content for the 2000 
census, the Bureau of the Census tested alternative versions of 
questions on race and Hispanic origin in the March 1996 National 
Content Survey (NCS). This test was designed to provide information on 
how members of approximately 90,000 households identify their race and 
ethnicity in a self-reporting context, in contrast to the CPS 
Supplement which was administered by interviewers either in person or 
by telephone. Some NCS panels, comprising about 18,000 households, 
tested the effects of adding a multiracial category to the race 
question, placing the Hispanic origin question immediately before the 
race question, and combining both of these changes. The NCS sample was 
not designed to detect possible effects of different treatments on 
relatively small population groups, such as American Indians and 
Alaskan Natives, detailed Asian and Pacific Islander groups (such as 
Chinese and Hawaiians), or detailed Hispanic origin groups (such as 
Puerto Ricans and Cubans). Moreover, because the results were based on 
the responses from households in the national sample that mailed back 
questionnaires, the results do not represent the entire national 
population.
    In contrast to the NCS, the Race and Ethnic Targeted Test (RAETT) 
was designed by the Bureau of the Census to provide findings for 
smaller population groups. Conducted in June 1996, the RAETT sample 
included approximately 112,000 urban and rural households. The sample 
was taken from geographic areas of the country with concentrations of 
different racial and ethnic populations including American Indians, 
Alaskan Natives, Asians, Pacific Islanders, Hispanics, Blacks, and 
White ethnic groups. This design permits assessments of the effects of 
changes on relatively small populations not reliably measured in 
national samples. The RAETT tested and evaluated the effects of adding 
a ``multiracial or biracial'' category; having instructions in the race 
question to ``mark one or more'' or to ``mark all that apply; placing 
the Hispanic origin item before the race item; combining race, Hispanic 
origin, and ancestry in a single, two-part question; using a combined 
``Indian (Amer.) or Alaska Native'' category; and using a ``Native 
Hawaiian'' or ``Hawaiian'' category.
    In the spring of 1995, the National Center for Education Statistics 
and the Office for Civil Rights in the Department of Education 
conducted a survey of a thousand public schools. This survey obtained 
information on how schools currently collect data on students' race and 
ethnicity, how administrative records containing data on race and 
ethnicity are maintained and reported, what state laws mandate or 
require of school systems with respect to collecting data on race and 
ethnicity, and current issues in schools regarding categories for 
reporting data on race and ethnicity.
    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention held a Workshop on 
the Use of Race and Ethnicity in Public Health Surveillance. The 
workshop had three objectives: (1) To describe the current measures of 
race and ethnicity and their use in public health surveillance, (2) to 
assess the use of data on race and ethnicity in surveillance for 
planning, operation, and evaluation of public health programs, and (3) 
to propose better use of existing measures for race and ethnicity or to 
identify alternative measures. The limitations inherent in the current 
concepts, measures, and uses of race and ethnicity in public health 
surveillance were identified, and recommendations were made regarding 
their improvement.
    The National Center for Health Statistics and the Office of Public 
Health and Science sponsored interviews with 763 multiracial and 
Hispanic women who had a baby during the preceding three years. The 
purpose of the study was to determine the effects of different question 
formats on reporting of race on birth certificates. The standard open-
ended race question was compared with two experimental versions: (1) An 
open-

[[Page 36883]]

ended race question that included the term ``multiracial'' as one of 
several examples, and (2) a ``mark all that apply'' format. When 
possible, results were compared with the race the respondent recorded 
on the youngest child's birth certificate.
    A literature search on work related to racial classification in the 
health field (using Medline) was conducted by the Department of Health 
and Human Services (HHS). An inventory of HHS minority health data 
bases that provides information on the data available and on the data 
collection problems that have been encountered was developed.
    A focus group was conducted with state and local government members 
of the Association of Public Data Users. The participants were asked 
about possible effects of various suggested changes on their 
organizations. An expert on redistricting and reapportionment was 
interviewed concerning the effects these same changes might have on 
reapportionment and redistricting following the 2000 census. A survey 
of a small number of businesses and professional associations that rely 
on Federal statistics also was undertaken to ascertain views about the 
time and costs involved if various changes were made.

1.6  Evaluation of Research Results

    Although some of the issues surrounding the proposed revisions may 
ultimately be settled through policy discussion and the criteria used 
may at times be subjective, there is an important place in the 
discussion for empirically grounded research. Thus, this evaluation, 
while considering such subjective information as stakeholder positions 
and respondent burden, focuses on the following objective criteria:
    (1) Ease of adhering to the principle of self-identification;
    (2) Consistency and quality of measurement across time with respect 
to various subgroups;
    (3) Magnitude of changes to current time series;
    (4) Ability to provide categories that are meaningful for policy 
purposes;
    (5) Ability to develop implementable reporting standards for all 
data providers;
    (6) Ease of using the measures in different data collection 
settings;
    (7) Ease of creating data editing and adjustment procedures; and
    (8) Costs associated with changing or not changing the standards.
    To facilitate the use of research results to evaluate alternatives 
and develop recommendations, the Research Working Group has acted as a 
clearinghouse for data gathering activities. As such, the Research 
Working Group has monitored various projects and overseen the 
consolidation of results in a form intended to be useful for policy 
makers.

Chapter 2. Issues of General Concern

2.1  Overview

    This provides a discussion of several general concerns that the 
Research Working Group considered during its review of Directive No. 
15. They are: (1) Statutory and programmatic needs of the Federal 
agencies for data on race and ethnicity, (2) voting rights issues, (3) 
data continuity concerns, and (4) financial costs of making changes to 
the Directive. These concerns merit general consideration because they 
must be confronted to some degree when dealing with any of the proposed 
changes. The relationship of specific suggested changes to these 
concerns will be addressed in later chapters.

2.2  Satisfying Statutory and Program Needs

    Federal agencies that collect data on race and ethnicity include, 
but are not limited to, the Bureau of the Census, the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the 
National Center for Health Statistics, and the National Center for 
Education Statistics. Agencies use data on race and ethnicity for 
administrating Federal programs for enforcing the civil rights laws, 
and for analyses of social, economic, and health trends for population 
groups.
    A principal driving force in the 1970s for the development of the 
current standards was the need for data on race and ethnicity to 
enforce the civil rights laws. Some of the agencies that use these data 
for monitoring and enforcing civil rights laws include the Equal 
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the U.S. Commission on Civil 
Rights, the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, the 
Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs in the Department of 
Labor, the Office for Civil Rights in the Department of Education, and 
the Office for Civil Rights in the Department of Health and Human 
Services. State and local governments, educational institutions, and 
private sector employers use the categories when providing data on race 
and ethnicity to meet Federal reporting requirements.
    Reliable and consistent information is important for enforcing 
Federal laws, In recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions involving 
education, employment, and voting rights, the Court has interpreted the 
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution to require that 
governmental decision-making based on racial classifications be 
subjected to ``strict scrutiny'' to determine whether it is ``narrowly 
tailored'' to meet ``compelling State interests.'' Changes in Directive 
No. 15 could affect the ability of agencies to carry out the court's 
mandate. If, for instance, allowing individuals to identify with more 
than one race would make it more difficult to identify the members and 
characteristics of a particular racial or ethnic group (such as 
American Indians and Alaska Natives, or Asians and Pacific Islanders), 
then determining whether a ``compelling State interest'' exists with 
regard to such persons--and whether the government's action is narrowly 
enough tailored to meet that interest--could become correspondingly 
more difficult.
    Generally, the statutes that require collection of data on race 
and/or ethnicity do not specify the exact categories that Federal 
agencies must use. Most of these laws simply require that data on race 
and ethnicity be collected. The following examples illustrate statutory 
requirements that specify the exact categories particular agencies must 
use:
     The Federal Affirmative Employment Program of the U.S. 
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is required by 29 CFR 1607.4B. 
to use the minimum OMB Directive No. 15 categories except in Hawaii 
(where detailed Asian or Pacific Islander subgroups are to be 
collected) and Puerto Rico (Hispanic and non-Hispanic)
     Federal agencies are required by the Office of Personnel 
Management's Federal Personnel Manual 292-I (Book III, pp. 106-107, 
296-233 and 298-302) to collect the minimum racial and ethnic 
categories and eleven national origin categories (Asian Indian, 
Chinese, Filipino, Guamanian, Hawaiian, Japanese, Korean, Samoan, 
Vietnamese, all other Asian or Pacific Islanders, and not Hispanic in 
Puerto Rico) for the Central Personnel Data Files.
     Legislation covering collection of data on race by the 
Bureau of Indian Affairs has varying definitions of Indian depending on 
the program (Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, 25 U.S.C. 479 and 25 
CFR part 5).
     Contract Compliance Programs of the Employment Standards 
Administration are required by 41 CFR chapter 60 (EEO) to collect data 
on race and ethnicity for workforce analysis using the categories 
``Blacks, Spanish-surnamed Americans, American

[[Page 36884]]

Indians, and Orientals'' (41 CFR 60-2.11).
     Data on race and ethnicity from employee selection tests 
and procedures are to be collected using the categories ``Blacks 
(Negroes), American Indians (including Alaskan Natives), Asians 
(including Pacific Islanders), Hispanic (including persons of Mexican, 
Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, or other Spanish origin 
or culture regardless of race), Whites (Caucasians) other than 
Hispanic, and totals'' (41 CFR 60-3.4B.).
     The Center for Minority Veterans of the Department of 
Veterans Affairs is required by Sec. 509, Public Law 103-446 and 38 
U.S.C. 317 to use the categories Asian American, Black, Hispanic, 
Native American (including American Indian, Alaskan Native, and Native 
Hawaiian), and Pacific-Islander American.

2.3  Voting Rights Issues

    Concerns have been raised that changes to the current categories 
for data on race and ethnicity may affect the usefulness of the data 
for congressional reapportionment, legislative redistricting, and 
enforcement of the Voting Rights Act.
    Following each decennial census, congressional reapportionment--the 
redistribution of the 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives 
among the 50 States--is calculated using the population totals for each 
state and the formula of ``equal proportions'' adopted by the Congress 
in 1941 (United States Code, Title 2, Section 2a). Redistricting is the 
process of redrawing the boundaries of congressional, state, and local 
legislative districts in accordance with the Fourteenth Amendment's 
``one-person/one-vote'' principle and the standard of population 
equality as set forth in Wesberry v. Sanders, Reynolds v. Sims, and 
subsequent court decisions. Changes to Directive No. 15 would be 
expected to affect congressional reapportionment and one-person/one-
vote compliance in redistricting only to the extent that such changes 
affect the overall response to the decennial census.
    Charges of minority vote dilution--the claim that the redistricting 
plan or at-large election system minimizes or cancels out the voting 
strength of a minority group--under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act 
(which applies nationwide) are usually determined by reference to 
decennial census data on race and ethnicity. In addition, compliance 
with Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act--which requires Federal 
preclearance for new voting practices and procedures in certain 
states--also is generally determined by reference to decennial census 
data on race and ethnicity. Changes to Directive No. 15 could have 
implications for the effective implementation of the Voting Rights Act.
    Decennial census data are used to determine the count and 
distribution of the voter-eligible minority population. Proof that it 
is possible to draw a district with a voter-eligible minority 
population in the majority is usually needed to establish a vote 
dilution claim under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Changes to the 
current categories that alter the counts of voter-eligible minorities 
could affect the ability of such groups to mount successful vote 
dilution claims. The Attorney General's preclearance determinations 
pursuant to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act--whether to grant or 
deny Section 5 preclearance--are often affected by the size and 
distribution of the minority population.
    In addition, data on race and ethnicity from the decennial census 
frequently are used as independent variables in statistical procedures 
that estimate group voting behavior, particularly when counts of 
registered voters by race or ethnicity are not available. These 
estimates of group voting behavior are essential to vote dilution 
claims under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, as well as to the 
analysis of many types of voting changes under Section 5 of the Voting 
Rights Act.

2.4  Data Continuity Concerns

    If changes are made to the Federal standards for collecting data on 
race and ethnicity, it will be critically important to data users to 
understand the impact of those changes vis-a-vis the categories they 
have been using for the past 20 years. The acceptance of new ways of 
reporting race and ethnicity may require supporting information so that 
users can assess the magnitude of changes to current time series. To 
that end, alternative methods of tabulating multiple responses on race 
into the current minimum set of categories must be investigated 
further.

2.5  Financial Costs

    If OMB were to revise the categories for data on race and ethnicity 
by modifying Directive No. 15, a sizeable number of Federal agencies 
and others would have to change data collection forms, computer 
programs, interviewers' and coders' manuals, and other related 
materials for their data systems. Although Directive No. 15 is a 
standard for use by Federal agencies, many State and local agencies and 
private sector entities also follow the Federal standards for 
collection, record keeping, and presentation data on race and 
ethnicity. On the other hand, there will be other costs incurred if 
changes are not made to the current categories, and these costs are 
also discussed in this section.
    If a decision were made either to use separate questions 
exclusively, or to use a combined format always, or to use a ``mark one 
or more'' reporting option for race, or to add a ``multiracial'' 
category, there would also be costs for redesigning data editing, 
coding, and processing systems to accommodate the changes.
    Other costs would be associated with changing data base management, 
retrieval and aggregation programs, and historical table formats. Data 
base management systems might have to be significantly expanded to 
provide data comparability with historical series. Procedures might 
have to be developed for editing multiple responses to achieve this 
comparability. Staff would have to be trained in the new procedures 
resulting from any change to the current categories. Since the 
estimated transition time for changing EEOC data bases would be 2-3 
years, data for these years could be severely hampered for enforcement 
purposes. This would likely result in additional costs for protracted 
processing of grievances.
    The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) of the 
Department of Health and Human Services has noted that substantial 
changes for 23 categorical grant programs would be required for 
competing and noncompeting grant application materials, data entry and 
report programs, and the preference/priority databases. Alterations in 
the current collection categories for data on race and ethnicity would 
require restructuring of the definitions and data collection tools 
designed to report cross-cutting outcome measures for Title VII and 
VIII Health Professions and Nursing education and training programs.
    During informal discussions, company representatives offered a few 
examples of the potential impact on private sector employers if changes 
to the categories were to be made. The costs of making changes to forms 
is considered to be minimal. Changes in the data systems would be more 
expensive than changes in the forms, since this effort would be very 
labor intensive. In addition, if there were new categories, employees 
might have to be resurveyed in order to update the information on race 
and ethnicity.
    Any changes from the current collection mechanism would entail

[[Page 36885]]

major program changes for the 700 institutions participating in the 
seven student assistance campus-based loan and scholarship programs. 
Review and revision of records for eligibility and fiscal accounting 
data would be required, including manual review of data, computer 
programming changes, and changes to the scope of work for contract 
services. In addition, the Student Financial Aid Guideline and the User 
Manual for the Electronic Reporting System would require review and 
revision. Moreover, changes in definitions would require that schools 
reconcile past and current submissions of data for compatibility to 
enable HRSA to make appropriate awards to participating institutions.
    The Administration on Children and Families (ACF) of the Department 
of Health and Human Services considers the overall effect of change to 
the racial and ethnic categories to be marginal. ACF collects data on 
race and ethnicity for several internal data systems (e.g., foster 
care, personnel, grant-related information). However, in relation to 
the total cost of maintenance of these internal data systems, possible 
changes in the classification of data on race and ethnicity are likely 
to have only marginal effects. Alterations to racial and ethnic 
categories used for data systems maintained by private contractors for 
ACF (e.g., Head Start, Child Abuse and Neglect, Developmentally 
Disabled, Native American) would not likely cause excessive burden to 
the data collection effort.
    In addition, ACF has data systems that are legislatively mandated 
and involve data collections by states (such as temporary assistance to 
needy families, child support enforcement). If the alterations to 
existing systems are profound, states might be resistant to change or 
they might seek Federal funds to defray costs of updating state data 
systems, particularly to meet Federal reporting requirements.
    While financial costs would be incurred if changes are made to 
Directive No. 15, there are other types of costs associated with not 
making changes. Problems that exist with use of the current Directive 
will not be resolved. These continuing problems include lack of 
standardization for classifying data on race and ethnicity across state 
and Federal agencies; less than optimal participation in Federal 
surveys (especially item nonresponse); misidentification of individuals 
and groups in surveys; inaccurate counts and rates; inaccurate 
research; inaccurate program design, targeting and monitoring; and 
possibly misallocation of funds. There will continue to be 
inconsistency even within the same Federal agency if Hispanic origin 
data continues to be collected using either the combined format or two 
separate questions. It is not uncommon for the denominator of a rate 
for Hispanics to be based on data collected using separate questions on 
race and ethnicity while the numerator is based on data collected using 
the combined format.

Chapter 3. Reporting More Than One Race

3.1  Background

    This chapter addresses issues related to whether or not the Federal 
standards for data on race and ethnicity should provide an option that 
permits the reporting of more than one race. The chapter discusses 
different approaches that have been studied by Federal agencies to 
provide such an option. It presents findings of the research conducted 
by Federal agencies on the alternative approaches and identifies 
potential implications of providing or not providing a response option 
for reporting more than one race. Following a review of the current 
standards and an overview of the research conducted, the chapter 
addresses the following questions:
     Should a multiracial category be listed among the response 
options to the question on race? (section 3.4.2)
     If a multiracial category is listed, should a ``follow-
up'' format be used, in which individuals who select ``multiracial'' 
are asked in a follow-up question to specify their racial identities? 
(section 3.4.3)
     Should a multiple-response format be used in which the 
respondent is instructed to ``mark one or more races''? (section 3.4.4)
     Should a multiple-response format be used in which the 
respondent is instructed to ``mark all that apply'' on the race 
question? (section 3.4.5)
     Are there other options for reporting of more than one 
race by respondents? (section 3.4.6)
    Sections 3.5 through 3.7 discuss some of the trends, concerns, and 
potential implications related to adding (or not adding) an option for 
reporting more than one race to the Federal standard for collecting and 
reporting racial categories, including the effects on such areas as 
legal and program needs, measurement issues, and data production.

3.2  Current Practice

    Directive No. 15 provides a minimum set of racial and ethnic 
categories--four categories for data on race (White, Black, American 
Indian or Alaskan Native, and Asian or Pacific Islander) and two 
categories for data on ethnicity (Hispanic origin and not of Hispanic 
origin). The current standard permits Federal agencies to use more 
detailed categories for collecting data on population groups, so long 
as the data collection is organized in a way that makes it possible for 
the agencies to aggregate the more detailed designations into the 
Directive No. 15 categories.
    For person who identify with more than one race, Directive No. 15 
indicates that the single racial category which most closely reflects 
the individual's recognition in his or her community should be used. 
Directive No. 15 does not provide for identifying two or more races.

3.3  Overview of Research on Reporting More Than One Race

    To assist OMB in deciding whether or not the Federal standard 
should provide for reporting more than one race, Federal agencies have 
conducted several major surveys to test the possible effects on data 
quality of various options. Major objectives of the research and 
testing programs carried out in 1995 and 1996 have included:
     Analysis of the growth, characteristics, and self-
identification patterns of persons in interracial marriages and 
households;
     Cognitive research to develop alternative race questions 
with a category called ``multiracial'' or response options such as 
``mark one or more'' or ''mark all that apply;''
     Empirical research on how reporting more than one race is 
likely to affect current racial distributions in self-administered 
censuses and surveys (compared, for example, with interviewer and 
telephone surveys); and
     Research on whether most respondents who self-identified 
as multiracial with specify more than one race.
3.3.1  Surveys to Explore Options
    The Current Population Survey, conducted jointly by the Bureau of 
Labor Statistics (BLS) and the Bureau of the Census, included a 
Supplement on Race and Ethnicity in May 1995 (the CPS Supplement). The 
CPS Supplement was designed to test the effect of asking questions 
about race and Hispanic ethnicity, with and without a multiracial 
response option. As part of its research and testing program for Census 
2000, the Bureau of the Census conducted two additional studies--the 
National Content Survey (also known as the 1996 census survey or the 
Census

[[Page 36886]]

2000 survey) and the Race and Ethnic Targeted Test (the RAETT)--to 
explore the implications of using different formats for questions on 
respondents' racial identification and reporting of Hispanic origin.
3.3.2  Cognitive Research to Guide Survey Design
    The agencies conducted extensive cognitive research to pretest the 
racial and ethnic categories and the sequencing of the questions on 
race and Hispanic origin in the survey instruments. An interagency team 
conducted cognitive research on several versions of the CPS Supplement 
questionnaire designed for face-to-face and telephone interviews. The 
race question included a multiracial category, with a follow-up 
question for reporting the races with which the respondent identified. 
The questionnaire was tested with a range of racial and ethnic groups 
in various regions of the United States, and respondents from all 
groups were able to report that the term ``multiracial'' meant more 
than one race. (McKay and de la Puente, 1995)
    The Bureau of the Census conducted cognitive research on two 
different options for reporting more than one race on the race item in 
a mail survey form. The options consisted of including (1) a 
``multiracial'' category in the race question, and (2) an instruction 
to mark one or more of the racial categories provided in the race 
question.
    The cognitive research guided the placement of a separate 
multiracial category in the race item, determined the appropriate 
number of write-in lines to the multiracial-response box, identified 
the appropriate terminology for soliciting response from persons of 
mixed racial parentage (without providing a definition of 
``multiracial'' for this population), and guided the development of the 
instructions allowing respondents to choose more than one box. Because 
the cognitive research revealed that some respondents believed the term 
``multiracial'' meant more than two races, the wording ``multiracial or 
biracial'' was used in the NCS and the RAETT to convey to respondents 
that the category is to be used by those who identify with two or more 
racial groups. (Gerber and de la Puente, 1996)
    The cognitive research also was used to develop a ``mark one more'' 
instruction, indicating that respondents could mark more than one 
racial category as applicable. The initial cognitive work, which 
offered respondents the choice of marking one racial category or 
marking more than one racial category, asked those selecting more than 
one group to specify the race with which they most identified.
    Cognitive interviews tested several versions of this question. A 
number of problems were identified in these interviews. First, some 
respondents could not absorb or understand the complex instructions 
that were necessary. Second, the formatting (which was subject to space 
limitations) made it difficult for some respondents to read and absorb 
the question fully. Third, respondents who expected a ``multiracial'' 
category were disappointed that this response option was not provided. 
And finally, some respondents were not comfortable with being asked to 
designate a single race, when they did not want to discount any part of 
their racial heritage. The question that was ultimately used asked 
respondents merely to mark the boxes, without also asking them to 
designate the race with which they most identified. (Gerber and de la 
Puente, 1996)
    Respondents for the cognitive research were recruited on the basis 
of interracial parentage or ancestry. In testing the use of multiracial 
reporting options in both the interview and self-administered mail 
modes, researchers found that many of the respondents recruited based 
on known multiracial status did not choose to report as multiracial. 
Reasons they gave for not selecting the multiracial category included: 
identification with the racial and cultural group of one parent; 
acceptance of the racial identity perceived to be conferred by their 
community; and a lack of identification with a ``multiracial'' group 
encompassing members of different racial ancestries. (McKay and de la 
Puente, 1995; Gerger and de la Puente, 1996)

3.4  Evaluating Research on Options for Reporting More Than One Race

    The sections that follow present results from the CPS Supplement, 
the National Content Survey, and the RAETT as they bear on the 
alternative approaches outlined at the beginning of this chapter (See 
section 3.1). Brief descriptions of these surveys follow.
    The Current Population Survey is a monthly national sample survey 
of approximately 60,000 households; it routinely collects information 
on the race and ethnic origin of household members using the current 
Directive No. 15 categories. The May 1995 CPS Supplement collected 
additional racial and ethnic data on the households under four 
different panel conditions:

Panel 1  Separate race and Hispanic-origin questions, with no 
``multiracial'' category.
Panel 2  Separate race and Hispanic-origin questions, with 
``multiracial'' category.
Panel 3  Combined race and Hispanic-origin question, with no 
``multiracial'' category.
Panel 4  Combined race and Hispanic-origin question, with 
``multiracial'' category.

    The CPS Supplement had a response rate of 82.9 percent.
    The National Content Survey (NCS), conducted from March through 
June 1996, was a mail survey of 94,500 households drawn from 1990 
decennial census ``mail back areas'' representing about 95 percent of 
the country. The NCS included thirteen panels, four of which were 
designed to evaluate the effects of adding a ``multiracial or 
biracial'' category and reversing the sequence of the questions on race 
and Hispanic origin. It is less representative of American Indians and 
Alaska Natives, given that about 25 percent of those populations live 
outside ``mail back areas.''
    The NCS panels were as follows:

Panel 1  Separate race and Hispanic-origin questions--no ``multiracial 
or biracial'' category; race first sequence.
Panel 2  Separate race and Hispanic-origin questions--with 
``multiracial or biracial'' category; race first sequence.
Panel 3  Separate race and Hispanic-origin questions--no ``multiracial 
or biracial'' category; Hispanic-origin first sequence.
Panel 4  Separate race and Hispanic-origin questions--with 
``multiracial or biracial'' category; Hispanic-origin first sequence.

    Each of the four questionnaires was mailed to a panel of about 
6,000 households. The response rate for the four panels was 72 percent; 
the results are thus based on approximately 18,000 households. 
Computer-assisted telephone reinterviews were conducted with each 
household that had completed and returned the NCS form. Because the NCS 
sample excluded households outside 1990 census mailback areas, and some 
households did not return a questionnaire, results from the NCS cannot 
be generalized to the entire national population.
    The RAETT, conducted by the Bureau of the Census in the summer of 
1996, was the principal vehicle for testing and evaluating several 
important proposed changes for the race question. The RAETT targeted 
112,000 households in

[[Page 36887]]

areas that have, relative to the Nation as a whole, high concentrations 
of households in any of six specified racial or ethnic groups: White 
ethnic (whether European, Canadian, or American), Black, American 
Indian, Alaska Native, Asian or Pacific Islander, and Hispanic origin. 
A total of 58,911 questionnaires were returned, yielding an overall 
response rate 53 percent.
    The RAETT included questions designed to test the effects of a 
``multiracial or biracial'' category as well as ``mark one or more'' 
and ``mark all that apply'' approaches to reporting more than one race, 
and a combined question on race and Hispanic origin, using eight 
different panels or versions of the questionnaire. The RAETT panels 
were as follow:

Panel A  Separate race and Hispanic origin questions--no ``multiracial 
or biracial'' category; Hispanic origin first sequence.
Panel B  Separate race and Hispanic origin questions with ``multiracial 
or biracial'' category with write-ins; Hispanic origin first sequence.
Panel C  Separate race and Hispanic origin questions with ``mark one or 
more races'' instruction; Hispanic origin first sequence.
Panel D  Separate race and Hispanic origin questions with a 
``multiracial or biracial'' category with write-ins; race first 
sequence.
Panel E  Combined race, Hispanic origin, and ancestry question with a 
``multiracial or biracial'' category.
Panel F  Combined race, Hispanic origin, and ancestry with ``mark one 
or more boxes'' instruction.
Panel G  Separate race and Hispanic origin questions with ``multiracial 
or biracial'' category with write-ins; Hispanic origin first sequence; 
tested terminology and alphabetization of categories.
Panel H  Separate race and Hispanic origin questions with ``mark all 
that apply'' instruction; Hispanic origin first sequence.

    Each of these surveys provides important information about options 
for collecting and classifying data on race and ethnicity, but each 
also has its limitations. The CPS Supplement is nationally 
representative and data were gathered for over 80 percent of the 
sample, but it could not provide reliable information for smaller 
groups in the population. The NCS is close to being nationally 
representative and its use of a mail out/mail back questionnaire is 
particularly relevant for designing the 2000 census, but the response 
rate was only 72 percent, and it too could not provide reliable 
information for smaller groups.
    The RAETT design provides a good test of the possible effects of 
suggested new racial categories because it focuses on populations for 
which the national surveys often do not provide sufficiently large 
samples. However, even with a 100 percent response to the RAETT, 
results could be generalized only to the population in the census 
tracts in each targeted sample frame. The actual response rate averaged 
53 percent, and the response rates in some targeted samples were as low 
as 34 percent. The sample design of RAETT also does not permit results 
for different targeted samples to be combined.

3.4.1  Data Comparability

    A key concern of some Federal agencies, reflected in the principles 
that have guided the review of the current standards, has been the 
comparability of data from any new categories with information produced 
under the existing categories. In its report on the RAETT, the Bureau 
of the Census presented--for purposes of illustration--different 
approaches for tabulating the data, using the information provided in 
the write-in entries to the ``multiracial or biracial'' category and in 
multiple responses to the race question. Some of these classification 
approaches provide examples of procedures that could be developed and 
used by the agencies as ``bridges'' between the current and any new 
classification. The three illustrative approaches were termed the 
single-race approach, the all inclusive approach, and the historical 
series approach. They may be characterized as follows:
    Single-race approach. Responses indicating only one racial category 
would be assigned to that category. Responses from individuals who 
reported multiple races would be classified into a separate ``multiple 
race'' category. This method provides a lower bound for the number who 
identify with a given category. The results from this approach are 
readily available from standard tabulations.
    All-inclusive approach. Responses are classified into racial 
category specified using the minimum set of categories in Directive No. 
15. With a single race/ethnicity question using the combined format in 
Directive No. 15, the all-inclusive Hispanic proportion would be most 
comparable to the proportion reporting Hispanic when there are separate 
questions, one for race and one for ethnicity.
    The sum of the percentages reported for the four separate racial 
categories would exceed 100 percent, because multiple race responses 
would be counted in each reported racial category. In spite of this 
disadvantage, the all-inclusive approach would provide information on 
the total number of times the racial category had been selected.
    Historical series approach. Unlike the single race or the all-
inclusive approach, the historical series approach can take on many 
variations, just one of which was used in the RAETT illustrative 
tabulations. The intent of this approach is to classify data into 
categories that resemble those that have been used historically to 
enforce current civil rights laws. An individual's response (or 
responses) is classified into one and only one category, in a set of 
mutually exclusive and exhaustive categories that add up to 100 
percent. For example, in the report on the RAETT, which tested a 
``multiracial or biracial'' category with a write-in to specify races 
as well as other options for reporting more than one race, the 
historical series approach classified into the Asian or Pacific 
Islander category responses of: (1) Only the Asian or Pacific Islander 
category, (2) the Asian or Pacific Islander category and also White, 
(3) the Asian or Pacific Islander category and Other Race, and (4) the 
Asian or Pacific Islander category and the multiracial category, with 
no specification of additional races. The ``multiracial'' or ``other'' 
category in the historical series were a residual category which 
consisted of responses to the ``multiracial'' category that did not 
specify any races; and responses of two race categories other than 
``White'' or ``Some Other Race.'' A more complete description of the 
historical series approach is provided in the RAETT report.
    Under the historical series approach, the percentages allocated to 
each of the major categories were comparable to the data collected 
without a multiple race reporting option (Panel A of the RAETT), except 
for the Alaska Native targeted sample. The discrepancy in this group 
may be due to the fact that this particular targeted sample suffered 
from both a small size and from an extremely low response rate (34 
percent).

3.4.2  Should a Multiracial Category Be Listed Among the Response 
Options to the Question on Race?

    The CPS Supplement on Race and Ethnicity, the National Content 
Survey, and the Race and Ethnic Targeted Test all allowed testing of 
the effects of adding a multiracial category to the list of races. The 
CPS Supplement used the term ``multiracial'' to identify the category, 
and the NCS and the RAETT used the term ``multiracial or biracial.''
    CPS Supplement. In the CPS Supplement, the race question on

[[Page 36888]]

Panels 2 and 4 included a ``multiracial'' category; results were very 
similar--a little more than 1.5 percent identified as multiracial in 
each panel.
    Table 3.1 shows that the multiracial response option drew 
respondents primarily from the American Indian, Eskimo, and Aleut 
population, and from those who reported in the ``Something Else'' 
category. Without a multiracial response category, about 1 percent 
reported as American Indian, Eskimo, and Aleut. With a multiracial 
category, about 0.75 percent reported in the American Indian, Eskimo, 
and Aleut category only.
    The proportions reporting in the White category, in the Black 
category, and in the Asian or Pacific Islander category were not 
affected by the introduction of the multiracial option in the CPS 
Supplements.

BILLING CODE 3110-01-M 
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09JY97.000


BILLING CODE 3110-01-C

[[Page 36889]]

    National Content Survey. In the NCS, the race question included a 
multiracial category (using the term ``multiracial or biracial'') in 
two of four panels. The percent of respondents identifying themselves 
as multiracial on the NCS was 1.2 percent on the panel with the race 
question first (Panel 2), and 1.1 percent on the panel with the 
Hispanic-origin question first (Panel 4). Thus, as in the CPS, less 
than 2 percent of the total population chose the multiracial category 
on the NCS. Hispanics on the NCS were more likely than the total 
population to identify as multiracial (6.7 percent in Panel 2 and 10.0 
percent in Panel 4).
    The addition of a multiracial category had no statistically 
significant effect on the percentage of persons who reported as White, 
as Black, as American Indian, or as Asian or Pacific Islander 
regardless of whether the race or the Hispanic-origin question was 
asked first. However, the relatively small sample size in the NCS might 
not detect changes that were substantively important for small 
populations.
    For example, although not statistically significant, the declines 
in the proportion reporting in the Asian or Pacific Islander category, 
from 4.0 percent to 2.7 percent in panels where the race question came 
first, and from 3.4 percent to 2.8 percent when the Hispanic-origin 
question was asked first, suggested that further analyses should be 
undertaken. An analysis of the Asian or Pacific Islander write-in 
responses for those who reported in the multiracial category revealed 
that if these write-in responses had been reported solely as Asian or 
Pacific Islander, the proportion of the population in that category 
would have increased to about 3 percent. These findings, however, 
cannot be used to draw a firm conclusion about the effects of adding a 
multiracial category on reporting as Asian and Pacific Islander because 
the sample sizes were too small.
    Adding a multiracial category significantly decreased reporting in 
the ``Other race'' category when race was asked first, from 3.3 percent 
to 1.7 percent. Reporting as ``Other race'' decreased only 0.3 percent 
with a multiracial category when the Hispanic-origin question was asked 
first.
    Race and Ethnic Targeted Sample. The RAETT used a total of eight 
panels, Panels A through H (with A as the control panel). Three of the 
panels specifically tested the effects of reporting more than one race. 
In Panel B, the RAETT tested the effects of including a ``multiracial 
or biracial'' category. In Panel C, it tested the effects of 
instructing respondents to ``mark one or more'' in response to the race 
question; and in Panel H, it tested the effects of instructing 
respondents to ``mark all that apply'' in response to the race 
question. The results are discussed in succeeding sections of this 
chapter.
    To determine the effects of including a multiracial category, 
responses to Panel B are compared with responses to Panel A. The 
findings indicate that the availability of the option to report as 
``multiracial or biracial'' had the most substantial effect in the 
Asian and Pacific Islander and in the Alaska Native targeted samples. 
In the other targeted samples, use of the multiracial category had no 
significant effect on how race was reported. The percentages using the 
multiracial category in each of the other targeted samples were under 
1.0 percent for the White ethnic and the Black targeted samples, 2.33 
percent for the Hispanic targeted sample, and 3.67 percent for the 
American Indian targeted sample. (See Table 3.2.)

BILLING CODE 3110-01-M

[[Page 36890]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09JY97.001



BILLING CODE 3110-01-C

    In the Asian and Pacific Islander targeted sample, 7.58 percent in 
Panel B selected the multiracial category, and another 3.06 percent 
marked more than one race, even though they were instructed to mark 
only one. The corresponding percentages in the Alaska Native targeted 
sample were 7.07 percent and 6.32 percent.
    The RAETT results show that, if there were the addition of a new 
category (e.g., multiracial), the proportion reporting in at least one 
of the current categories may be reduced. In the Asian and Pacific 
Islander targeted sample, about 2 percent fewer reported in the White 
(only) category in Panel B, and about 4.5 percent fewer reported in the 
Asian and Pacific Islander (only) category. Within the Asian and 
Pacific Islander category, the Hawaiian and the Asian Indian categories 
had the largest drops in reporting from Panel A to Panel B. However, 
the response rate for the Asian and Pacific Islander targeted sample 
was only 55 percent, and the possible impact of nonresponse bias on 
these comparisons is not known without further research. (See Table 
3.3.)

BILLING CODE 3110-01-M

[[Page 36891]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09JY97.002



BILLING CODE 3110-01-C

[[Page 36892]]

    In the Alaska Native targeted sample, the response rate was only 34 
percent, leading again to the possibility of nonresponse bias and the 
need for further research. This, and the fact that the percent 
reporting White (only) increased by about 4.5 percent with the addition 
of a multiracial category, suggests that the group reporting in Panel A 
was different in some way from the group reporting in Panel B. In this 
targeted sample, the multiracial category drew primarily from the 
American Indian and Alaska Native category. (See Table 3.4.)

BILLING CODE 3110-01-M

[[Page 36893]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09JY97.003



BILLING CODE 3110-01-C

[[Page 36894]]

3.4.3  If a Multiracial Category Is Listed, Should a ``Follow-Up'' 
Format Be Used, in Which Individuals Who Select the Category Are Asked 
To Specify Their Racial Identities?

    All three of the major research surveys--the CPS Supplement, the 
NCS, and the RAETT--used a two-part question to evaluate the effects of 
a follow-up question on reporting by different racial groups.
    CPS Supplement. The responses on the CPS Supplement to the follow-
up question for individuals who identified themselves as multiracial 
are shown in Table 3.5.

BILLING CODE 3110-01-M
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09JY97.004


BILLING CODE 3110-01-C

    With the exception of respondents who named only one race, the 
``American Indian + one other race'' group had the highest frequency in 
both panels, followed by ``Asian/Pacific Islander + one race'' on Panel 
4. All but a small percentage of the Hispanics who used the multiracial 
category reported only an Hispanic ethnic group. (McKay, Stinson, de la 
Puente, and Kojetin, 1996)
    More than 60 percent of multiracial responses on Panel 2 and close 
to 20 percent of multiracial responses on Panel 4 did not provide two 
or more different races. Respondents who reported only a single race, 
or reported ethnicities as races, were designated as ``unconfirmed 
multiracials.'' With the addition on an Hispanic category, there was a 
90 percent decline among Hispanic ``unconfirmed multiracials'' between 
Panels 2 and 4. There was also a 60 percent decline in such entries for 
non-Hispanics between Panels 2 and 4, which is not readily explained by 
the presence of the Hispanic category on Panel 4. (See Table 3.6.)
    The decline in ``unconfirmed multiracials'' among Hispanics in 
Panel 4 may reflect the effect of the combined race and Hispanic origin 
question on Hispanic reporting. In the case of non-Hispanics, the 
decline might result from the absence of the influence of a preceding 
Hispanic origin question.

BILLING CODE 3110-01-M

[[Page 36895]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09JY97.005


BILLING CODE 3110-01-C

    Researchers were able to compare the racial identification of CPS 
respondents on the CPS control card, which represents the current time 
series, with their racial identification on the CPS Supplement. Table 
3.7 displays the results.

BILLING CODE 3110-01-M

[[Page 36896]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09JY97.006



BILLING CODE 3110-01-C

[[Page 36897]]

    As reported above, only the percent of people identifying as 
American Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut was significantly smaller when a 
multiracial category was used. However, the largest movement from the 
American Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut category is always to the White 
category. (See Note to Table 3.7.) Only 4.24 percent of this group used 
the multiracial category on Panel 2. On Panel 4, 7.94 percent of those 
identifying with this group on the CPS Supplemental selected 
multiracial while 7.43 percent chose Hispanic. In sum, a large number 
of individuals of mixed American Indian and White ancestry changed 
their racial identification on the CPS Supplement but not necessarily 
to the multiracial category. This change had a noticeable effect on the 
American Indian, Eskimo, and Aleut population counts without noticeably 
affecting counts of the White population.
    Researchers analyzed the distribution of CPS Supplement respondents 
choosing the multiracial category by State to consider whether State 
legislative requirements for a multiracial category on State records 
influenced the frequency with which this category was chosen. At the 
time of the study, Georgia was the only State with a law requiring a 
multiracial category; six other States (Florida, Illinois, Indiana, 
Michigan, North Carolina, and Ohio) were in the process of framing 
legislation requiring a multiracial category. The highest percentage of 
CPS respondents choosing the multiracial category for these States was 
1.5 percent. Among other States, the five with the highest percentage 
of respondents choosing the multiracial category were: Hawaii, Nevada, 
Washington, Tennessee, and Alaska. Of these, Hawaii was the highest, 
with 11.6 percent; the others had percentages between 3.0 percent and 
4.7 percent.
    The CPS Supplement data were also analyzed to consider the effect 
of having parents of different races on the reporting of the racial 
identity of children. Of the CPS households, less than 1 percent 
involved married partners of different races with children under the 
age of 16 in the household. About 13 percent of these households 
involved an Asian/Pacific Islander mother and White father; about 11 
percent, a White mother and Black father; about 9 percent, a White 
mother and multiracial father; about 8 percent, an Hispanic mother and 
White father; and about 8 percent, a multiracial mother and White 
father. Almost 32 percent of the children in these households 
identified as ``multiracial.''
    National Content Survey. In the National Content Survey (NCS), 
virtually all persons (98 percent) who marked the multiracial category 
in the panels that included this category provided a write-in response. 
More than half of these write-in responses (55 percent) identified two 
or more different races, and about a third showed a racial category and 
a Hispanic-origin group. The remainder of the write-in responses 
indicated only one of the racial categories specified in Directive No. 
15.
    The vast majority (more than 80 percent) of the write-in responses 
to the multiracial category included White. (This result is consistent 
with research on interracial and inter-ethnic marriages and households, 
which usually involve one White spouse (92 percent) or White parent (86 
percent).) About 30 percent of the write-in responses included the 
Asian or Pacific Islander category, about 25 percent involved the Black 
category, and about 7 percent involved the American Indian category. If 
the Asian and Pacific Islander write-ins to the multiracial category 
had been tabulated solely as Asian and Pacific Islander, the proportion 
of the population in that category would have increased to about 3 
percent, still smaller than the 4 percent who selected Asian and 
Pacific Islander in Panel 1, without a multiracial category.
    Race and Ethnic Targeted Test. Information from the write-ins for 
panels, B, D, E, F, and G in the RAETT was tabulated in accordance with 
the ``historical series'' and the ``all inclusive'' approaches 
described in section 3.4.1. The results are useful in assessing the 
extent to which write-ins can be used to provide the bridges to the 
distributions provided by the current classifications. These results 
are described in other parts of this report.

3.4.4  Should a Multiple-Response Format Be Used, in Which the 
Respondent is Instructed to ``Mark One or More Races?

    Another option for collecting data is to allow respondents to 
select more than one race. Some suggest that this approach has the 
advantage of preserving detailed data about racial identification that 
might not be captured with a single multiracial response category, even 
with write-in lines. This section discusses one instruction that 
respondents might be given; the next section discusses an alternative 
instruction. Only the RAETT tested these alternative approaches.
    Race and Ethnic Targeted Test--Panels A and B. In the RAETT, some 
respondents marked more than one box on Panels A and B, despite the 
instruction on both panels to ``mark one box . . .'' (Panel B included 
a ``multiracial'' category; Panel A did not.) Reporting multiple races 
on Panel A was especially high in the Alaska Native targeted sample 
(5.16 percent). This percentage nearly approached the percentage who 
selected the multiracial category on Panel B in this targeted sample 
(7.07 percent). Multiple responses on Panel A were also substantial 
(3.76 percent) in the Asian and Pacific Islander targeted sample. (By 
comparison, it is estimated that 0.5 percent of respondents to the 1990 
census selected more than one race when asked to select only one.)
    In the targeted samples of the RAETT, the lowest frequency of 
marking multiple races on panels with instructions to ``mark one box'' 
was 0.7 percent in the Black targeted sample. In the Asian and Pacific 
Islander targeted sample, persons who were born in the United States 
were far more likely to report multiple races than the foreign-born.
    In addition, respondents in all of the targeted samples marked one 
or more boxes even for the panel that included a multiracial category. 
That finding suggests that marking multiple races may have a different 
meaning to some respondents than identifying in a category labeled 
``multiracial.''
    Race and Ethnic Targeted Test--Panel C. In the RAETT, Panel C 
instructed respondents to ``mark one or more'' races. The percentages 
in each of the targeted samples that provided multiple responses were 
under 2 percent for the White ethnic targeted sample and the Black 
targeted sample, 3.57 percent for the Hispanic targeted sample, 4.22 
percent for the American Indian, and 10.03 percent for the Asian and 
Pacific Islander target sample. Approximately the same percentage 
marked only the Asian and Pacific Islander category in Panel C as 
selected only that category in Panel A. (The Alaska Native targeted 
sample did not receive the option to mark one or more.) (See Table 
3.8.)

BILLING CODE 3110-01-M

[[Page 36898]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09JY97.007



BILLING CODE 3110-01-C

3.4.5  Should a Multiple Response Format Be Used in Which the 
Respondent is Instructed to ``Mark All That Apply'' on the Race 
Question?

    Respondents evidently interpreted the instruction to ``mark all 
that apply'' somewhat differently than the instruction to ``mark one or 
more.''
    Race and Ethnic Targeted Test--Panel H. The percentages in each of 
the RAETT targeted samples that provided multiple responses in the 
``mark all that apply'' option were under 2.0 percent for the White 
ethnic and the Black targeted samples, 2.24 percent for the Hispanic, 
4.27 percent for the American Indian, and 11.47 percent for the Asian 
and Pacific Islander targeted samples. The Alaska Native targeted 
sample did not receive this option. (See Table 3.9.)

BILLING CODE 3110-01-M

[[Page 36899]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09JY97.008



BILLING CODE 3110-01-C

    In contrast to Panel C, significantly fewer respondents in the 
Asian and Pacific Islander targeted sample in Panel H, with the ``mark 
all that apply'' instruction, selected only the Asian and Pacific 
Islander category than was the case in Panel A. (See Table 3.10.) If 
those who marked Asian and Pacific Islander in combination with another 
category are included with those who marked only Asian and Pacific 
Islander, the percentages are about the same. The ``historical series'' 
approach, described in section 3.4.1 above, also largely eliminated 
these reductions in reporting. With this tabulation of responses, the 
percentages reporting as Asian and Pacific Islander on Panel H no 
longer differed significantly from the percentage on Panel A.

BILLING CODE 3110-01-M

[[Page 36900]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09JY97.009



BILLING CODE 3110-01-C

[[Page 36901]]

3.4.6  Are there Other Options for Reporting more than One Race by 
Respondents?

    Another option for addressing concerns about reporting multiple 
races would be to add the category ``Other'' to the list of races in 
all Federal data collections. As discussed in Chapter 1 of this report, 
in 1988, OMB considered a proposal to add ``Other'' to the list of 
races. Comments at that time indicated that the proposal was 
controversial and consensus would not be easily reached. The debate 
over the ``Other'' category has continued in the current review of 
racial and ethnic categories. Some who commented expressed support for 
the adoption of an ``Other'' category--if it is open-ended, allowing 
the identification of biracial and multiracial people and ethnic groups 
who do not identify with one of the major race groups. Others viewed 
use of the term as demeaning, or stated that the category was 
unnecessary or that it was too broad to be of much use. (OMB Federal 
Register notice, 1995)
    A special exemption from Directive No. 15, granted by OMB, allows 
the Bureau of the Census to collect data using an ``Other race'' 
category, and that category was included in the 1980 and 1990 decennial 
censuses. In the 1990 Census, more than 250,000 Americans wrote in--as 
their race designation--a combination of races or used a term such as 
``Eurasian'' that indicates two or more races.
    Under its special exemption, the Bureau of the Census does not 
assign the ``Other race'' responses to the Directive No. 15 race 
categories. The Bureau has, however, developed a Modified Age-Race-Sex 
(MARS) file that assigns respondents to the standard race categories in 
order to provide data comparable to vital statistics and other 
statistical sources. In developing the MARS file, the Bureau of the 
Census used a complicated set of algorithms. If OMB were to establish a 
new classification system that provided the ``Other race'' option, a 
standard algorithm might be needed across agencies. Alternatively, 
agencies could simply list ``Other race'' in tabulations. (National 
Research Council, 1996)

3.5  Trends With Respect to Reporting Multiple Races

3.5.1  Trends Contributing to Reporting of Multiple Races

    As noted earlier in this chapter, a significant number of 
respondents select more than one race even when asked to select only 
one. At least two trends may be contributing to this phenomenon.

3.5.1.1  Increases in Interracial Marriages and Households and Births 
to Parents of Different Races

    Some of the impetus for considering an option that allows the 
reporting of more than one race comes from the increasing number of 
interracial marriages and births to parents of different races in the 
past 25 to 30 years. Allowing individuals to report more than one race 
could provide a more complete report of the Nation's changing society.
    Data suggest that individuals from smaller racial population groups 
are more likely to form interracial unions with individuals from 
outside their racial population group than are individuals from the 
White and the Black populations. The White population is such a large 
proportion of the total United States population, however, that in most 
interracial marriages one partner is White; similarly, for most 
children with parents of different races, one parent is White.
     In the 1970 census, there were about 321,000 interracial 
unions. By 1980, the number had increased to about 1 million; and by 
1990 there were about 1.5 million interracial couples. In all but 8 
percent of these interracial couples, one spouse (or unmarried partner) 
was White. In 14 percent of all interracial couples, the non-White 
spouse was Black; in 22 percent, American Indian and Alaska Native; in 
31 percent, Asian and Pacific Islander; and in 25 percent, ``Other 
race'' (most of whom were of Hispanic origin).
     Census data indicate that the number of children in 
interracial families grew from less than one-half million in 1970 to 
about 2 million in 1990. In 1990, in interracial families with one 
white partner, for about 34 percent of all children the other parent 
was American Indian; for 45 percent the other parent was Asian; and for 
about 20 percent the other parent was Black.
     In 1968, for 2 percent of the births with at least one 
Black parent, the second parent was reported as White on the birth 
certificate (8,800). This percentage had increased to 9 percent in 1994 
(63,000). Analysis of the change in the numbers of births where one 
parent is Black and the other is some other race is complicated by the 
increasing number of birth for which the race of the second parent, 
usually the father, is not given on the birth certificate--40 percent 
in 1994, compared with 24 percent in 1968. (See Graph 3.1, Births to 
Minority and White Parents as a Percent of All Births to Minority 
Parents by Race of Minority Parent: 1968 to 1994.)
     Even with this limitation it can be inferred, from births 
for which both parents' races are known, that births involving one 
Black parent and a second parent of another race other than White also 
are increasing.
     Among births to American Indian and Alaska Native parents, 
a high percentage of all births involve a second parent of another 
race. In 1968, 28 percent of all the births with at least one American 
Indian or Alaska Native parent listed the second parent as White on the 
birth certificate (6,900); in 1994 it was 45 percent (23,000).
     Among births to Asian or Pacific Islander parents, the 
percentage of births in which the second parent was listed as White was 
28 percent in 1968, about 32 percent between 1971 and 1979, and 26 
percent in 1994.

BILLING CODE 3110-01-M

[[Page 36902]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09JY97.010



BILLING CODE 3110-01-C

[[Page 36903]]

3.5.1.2  State Requirements for Multiracial Reporting

    Legislative activity at the State level generates further impetus 
for considering a modification to the Federal standard to provide 
reporting of more than one race. Advocacy groups for multiracial 
persons have lobbied many State legislatures for laws to add a 
multiracial category to all forms and applications used to collect 
information on race and ethnicity.
    Due at least in part to these advocacy efforts, Georgia, Indiana, 
and Michigan require the use of a stand-alone multiracial category 
(Georgia since 1994 and Indiana and Michigan since 1995). In these 
States, the requirement applies to all State forms and applications 
used to collect data on race and ethnicity, including health department 
forms. Ohio and Illinois have similarly adopted legislation adding a 
multiracial category, but these laws affect only school forms that 
collect data on race and ethnicity. Florida and North Carolina have 
added a multiracial category (by administrative directives) to school 
forms that collect information on race and ethnicity.
    At least nine other States are considering legislation to add a 
reporting category of multiracial: California, Massachusetts, New 
Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin. 
In Maryland, a bill adding a multiracial category was passed by the 
legislature in 1995, but was voted by the Governor; a task force has 
been established to review the issue.
    State law enacted thus far specify that it is a Federal agency does 
not accept the multiracial data as a category, then the reporting State 
agency is to reclassify individuals identified as multiracial to racial 
or ethnic classifications approved by the Federal agency according to 
the racial and ethnic distribution of the general population. The term 
``general population'' is not defined in the legislation.

3.5.2  Public Sentiment

    Some advocacy groups support adding a category called 
``multiracial.'' They represent, for the most part, persons who 
identify themselves as multiracial, or person who want to identify 
their children as multiracial in cases where the parents are of 
different races. Some are highly critical of an approach that allows 
for the reporting of only one racial category. This approach, they say, 
forces children to deny the racial heritage of one parent, thereby 
adversely affecting self-esteem, sense of family, pride, and 
psychological well-being. (OMB Federal Register notice, 1995)
    Public comment on how to allow for the reporting of more than one 
race has ranged from suggestions for a specific category called 
``multiracial'' (without further specification of races) to a 
preference for identification by listing more than one race (with or 
without a category called ``multiracial''). (OMB Federal Register 
notice, 1995.)
    In some respects, the consequences of adding a multiracial category 
or of providing an option to report more than one race might be minor. 
At present, less than 2 percent of the general U.S. population 
identifies as ``multiracial'' when the category is included as a 
response option. Thus, it would be less disturbing to historical data 
series to add a multiracial category soon, while the size of the 
population reporting would cause only small changes in data series. A 
decade or two from now, the multiracial population will be larger and 
the disturbance to historical series correspondingly greater.

[[Page 36904]]

3.6  Measurement Concerns and Opportunities Related to Reporting More 
Than One Race

3.61  Meeting Legislative and Program Needs

    Many Federal agencies use data on race and ethnicity for policy 
development, program evaluation, and civil rights monitoring and 
enforcement. A number of these agencies are concerned that adding a new 
multiracial category, or allowing individuals to report more than one 
race, could affect the comparability and historical continuity of data 
series that they rely on to meet their mandates or missions. Some of 
the concern is related to uncertainty about how the new data (if a new 
multiracial category were provided) would be reported or how the 
multiple responses (if respondents were allowed to report more than one 
race) would be tabulated. For example, in the employment area, 
representatives of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) 
have indicated that adding a multiracial category or using an 
instruction that permits reporting more than one race could affect the 
historical comparability of data used for resolving complaints and 
charges as well as for research, making it difficult particularly to 
analyze trends.
    Other Federal agencies that measure and report on various 
conditions suggest that the interest in the reporting of multiracial 
information reflects a growing phenomenon that will have to be 
addressed sooner or later. In the health field, for example, it is 
important to collect comprehensive data about the racial heritage of 
individuals. Studies have indicated that rates of low birth weight, 
very low birth weight, pre-term delivery, and small-for-gestational-
age--key indicators of children's health status--were highest when both 
parents were Black, followed by rates for children with Black mother/
White father, White mother/Black father, and both parents White. 
(Carter-Pokras and LaViest, 1996) In the context of health research, a 
Federal standard that permitted the reporting of more than one race 
could better accommodate efforts to identify individuals at high risk 
for certain medical conditions.
    Another example of reporting more than one race is provided by the 
National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) which since 1982 has been 
collecting responses on more than one race through the use of a two- 
part question. The first allows respondents to select the race of races 
with which they identify from among those listed on a hand card. 
Persons who identify more than one race are given a follow-up question 
which asks them to pick the race that best describes them, and the 
information from both questions is entered into the person's electronic 
record. In the surveys that were fielded through 1996, only the first 
two races circled in the first question and the race that best 
described the respondent are available for analysis. (The 1997 redesign 
of the NHIS enables the inclusion of up to five of the races reported 
in the first question, as well as the race that best describes the 
respondent.) For persons who reported multiple races, information on 
the race the best describes them (i.e., that race obtained from the 
follow-up question) is used to prepare statistics for NHIS 
publications.
    However, an analysis of the data from the first NHIS question asked 
of multiracial persons (see Table 3.11) revealed the following:
     From 1982-1994, an average of 1.4 percent, nearly 1,500 
persons out of a sample of 100,000 per year, reported more than one 
race in the NHIS. The annual proportion of persons reporting multiple 
races ranged from 1.2 to 1.8 percent.
     For person reporting more than one race, the most commonly 
reported combination was White and Aleut, Eskimo, or American Indian 
(55 percent).
     About 11.4 percent of respondents who reported more than 
one race did not select a single race that best represented their 
background. This group represents 0.2 percent of the total population.

BILLING CODE 3110-01-M

[[Page 36905]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09JY97.011



BILLING CODE 3110-01-C

[[Page 36906]]

3.6.2  Defining and Using the Term ``Multiracial''

    A Federal standard adding a ``multiracial'' category would have to 
address issues of terminology and definition as well as the issue of 
whether or not data on specific races would be collected in addition.

3.6.2.1  Definition of ``Multiracial''

    In the five States that have enacted ``multiracial'' legislation, 
the laws call for use of the term ``multiracial.'' (The same is true in 
several other States where legislation is pending.) Georgia, Indiana, 
and Michigan have defined ``multiracial'' as involving parents of 
different races. In pending legislation, California defines the term 
``multiracial'' as meaning an individual whose biological parents, 
grandparents, or great-grandparents are of more than one race.
    The research findings on the terminology preferred by persons of 
more than one race are inconclusive. The May 1995 CPS Supplement on 
Race and Ethnicity indicates that almost the same percentage of 
multiracial persons preferred the term ``multiracial'' (28.4 percent ) 
as stated ``no preference'' (27.8 percent); ``Mixed race'' was 
preferred by 16.0 percent, ``More than one race'' by 6.0 percent, and 
``Biracial'' by 5.7 percent.
    Other evidence about terminology comes from a study sponsored by 
the National Center for Health Statistics involving women whose parents 
were of different races. The mail and telephone survey interviewed 763 
women, some of whom were of mixed racial or Hispanic background, who 
had had a baby within the preceding three years. Among the respondents, 
393 had parents of different races, 149 had one Hispanic parent, and 
221 had parents who were either both Hispanic or non-Hispanic and who 
were of the same race. The study found that the women were more likely 
to enter two or more specific races than to use a term like 
``multiracial.'' (Cantor et al., 1997)
    If the Federal Standard were to provide for the use of a 
``multiracial'' category, it would be necessary not only to agree on 
the definition but also to communicate the instructions clearly to 
respondents as well as interviewers. More emphasis would need to be 
placed on drafting instructions. The experiences of the States in 
trying to define the term and the data from the CPS Supplement and the 
NCS suggest that some confusion exists about the meaning of 
``multiracial.'' Absent a generally accepted understanding of the term, 
confusion could be expected if a ``multiracial'' category were to be 
listed among the response options. Most Americans are probably of mixed 
ancestry, depending on how ancestry is defined, and could confuse 
ancestry or ethnicity with race. (Also see the discussion in Chapter 4 
regarding the concepts of race and ancestry, in regard to the Hispanic 
population.)

3.6.2.2  Using a Stand-Alone ``Multiracial or Biracial'' Category or 
Including a Follow-up Question

    The research results indicate that between 1.0 and 1.5 percent of 
respondents select a multiracial category when offered the opportunity 
to do so. Providing an option to report by means of a multiracial 
category with no follow-up question would be responsive to persons who 
do not want to choose between their different racial heritages. 
However, since respondents would not be asked to specify their races, 
it would not be possible to tabulate the responses in the current 
categories. Concerns about historical continuity of data would not be 
addressed. While refraining from such a tabulation would be in keeping 
with self-identification, the responses would provide information of 
limited utility, particularly for use in health research.
    By contrast, a follow-up question would enable the data to be 
tabulated in the current categories for purposes of historical 
continuity and trend analysis. Further, with the additional detail, the 
effects on data for certain groups could be minimized. With a follow-up 
question, research results suggest that a large percentage of 
``multiracial'' responses could be classified into the categories that 
have been used since 1997.
    A related option would be to use a multiracial category with a 
write-in. Doing so would take up less space but require more coding 
than a follow-up question. Conversely, using a follow-up question that 
specified race categories would take up more space but require less 
coding.
    Another option involves the use of the ``Other race'' category, as 
in the decennial census, with a multiracial example. However, the use 
of this category is offensive to some respondents, and multiracial 
individuals still would be unable to self-identity in the manner they 
have requested. With an ``Other race'' category, a greater amount of 
coding would be required for the variety of responses.

3.6.3  Using a ``Mark One or More'' or a ``Mark All That Apply'' 
Instruction in the Race Question

    Approximately 0.5 percent of respondents to self-administered 
surveys, including the 1990 census, already select more than one race, 
even when asked to select only one. Allowing individuals to report more 
than one race could increase the accuracy of these data, eliminate some 
inconsistencies in reporting of race, and improve response rates.
    For many Federal agencies, the consequences of implementing the 
reporting of more than one race could be expected to vary depending on 
the extent to which responses could be tabulated consistently in 
accordance with existing racial categories that have been used to meet 
current legislative mandates. (National Research Council, 1996) If 
information from multiple responses can be tabulated to the current 
classifications, the potential for disruption of historical series 
important to data users would likely be reduced. In particular, such 
disruption could be minimized if information from persons who have 
marked multiple boxes could be used to tabulate responses in the race 
categories currently specified in Directive No. 15. Implementing ``mark 
one or more'' or ``mark all that apply'' approaches would be less 
burdensome than having to code data from write-ins. The CPS Supplement 
found that many people provided write-ins that represented ethnicity 
rather than races, a factor that would unnecessarily increase 
processing costs. Either of the multiple response approaches could be 
expected to reduce this type of misunderstanding about the information 
being asked. Moreover, lengthy definitions of terms would not be 
needed, whereas if a ``multiracial'' category were used, instructions 
would be needed and the wording of the instructions would be extremely 
important.

3.6.4  Issues Related to Primary and Secondary Data Collections

    In many cases, the Federal Government collects data through primary 
data collections, as in censuses and longitudinal surveys. In primary 
data collections, agencies rely on essentially two methods for 
collecting information: by self-identification or by observer 
identification, which is based on the observer's perception of the most 
appropriate category in which to report an individual.
    With self-identification, individuals would be able to report 
multiracial backgrounds. In the case of observer

[[Page 36907]]

identification, however, the observer would have little basis for a 
realistic assessment of a person's racial background. In this case, a 
multiple race response option that called for identification of the 
particular races (including instructions to ``mark all that apply'') 
could pose significant data quality problems. This is true today to 
some extent. For example, American Indians who do not live on or near a 
reservation are often classified as White or Hispanic.
    In other instances, the Federal Government uses secondary data 
collection, as when it obtains data from institutions and 
administrative records. Examples include aggregate data collected from 
colleges and universities on the race and ethnicity of students or 
degree recipients, or on persons conducting research supported by 
Federal grants. Reporting could become more burdensome for institutions 
if individuals who initially provide data to the university were using 
a multiple response approach. The primary collectors also would need 
guidance on how to aggregate the raw data into categories specified in 
the Federal standard.

3.7  Some Implications of Allowing the Reporting of More Than One Race

3.7.1  Possible Effects on Reporting by Particular Population Groups

    Data available from the CPS Supplement, the NCS, and the RAETT 
uniformly indicate that adding a multiracial option--whether by means 
of a multiracial category or providing for multiple-response options--
had little effect on the numbers of people who reported as White or as 
Black. On the other hand, adding a multiracial category had a 
substantial effect on the reporting in specific racial categories, such 
as the American Indian (in the CPS Supplement) and the Alaska Native 
and the Asian and Pacific Islander populations (in the NCS and RAETT). 
As noted in section 3.4.1, the Bureau of the Census was able to 
tabulate substantial percentages of the multiracial responses in the 
RAETT in the present Directive No. 15 categories using a procedure 
called the ``historical series'' approach. (However, there still may be 
some differences remaining.) Whether this ability to tabulate the data 
could apply in other contexts needs further investigation.
    To the extent that providing a multiracial or a multiple-race 
response option can change reporting, the affected population could 
experience some consequences. In the case of the American Indian 
population, for example, the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian 
Health Service provide assistance to persons who can prove descent from 
a member of a federally recognized tribe. Tribal governments have 
expressed concern that the addition of a multiracial category could 
affect their ability to identify their members. In the case of health 
statistics, adding a multiracial category could mean that fewer 
American Indians/Alaska Natives would be counted for both numerators 
(number of births to American Indian/Alaska Native mothers) and 
denominators (total number of American Indian/Alaska Natives). (Carter-
Pokras, LaViest, 1996; Hahn, 1992)

3.7.2  Tabulation of Multiple Responses

    Whether or not OMB modifies Directive No. 15, some respondents will 
report more than one race. It is important to ensure that the data are 
treated uniformly. Accordingly, attention needs to be given to 
establishing rules for tabulating multiple responses to the race 
question both for purposes of historical comparability and to ensure 
consistency across Federal agencies.
    An algorithm could be used to tabulate responses in the racial 
categories that are used currently. For example, one option would be to 
tabulate responses from a multiracial category in proportion to the 
distributions for the current single-race categories: with a population 
of 80 Whites, 10 Asians, and 10 multiracial individuals, the resulting 
numbers would be 89 Whites and 11 Asians. This algorithm would not 
change the relative sizes of the single-race categories. However, the 
tabulation would be arbitrary and could misrepresent the multiracial 
respondents (if for instance the 10 respondents in the multiracial 
category were the children of Asian/White unions). (National Research 
Council, 1996) Moreover, even if this method of tabulation would 
suffice for some purposes, there are others in which it would be 
necessary to deal with individual records.
    Data from the decennial censuses suggest that the way in which 
children born into interracial families are identified on the race item 
does not follow the race and ethnicity distribution of the population. 
Thus, no simple algorithm could assign a single race based on the races 
of the parents that adequately matches the race now reported for the 
children. For instance, while only 12 percent of the United States 
population is Black, 66 percent of the children of Black and White 
unions have identified as Black in each census since 1970.
    As discussed in section 3.4.1, the Census Bureau developed 
procedures to address the reduced reporting of only a single race in 
the RAETT that occurred in some targeted samples when a multiracial 
category or a multiple-race response option was offered. An algorithm 
is used in tabulating all multiple race responses. The historical 
series approach tabulates these responses to the Black, the American 
Indian and Alaska Native, or the Asian and Pacific Islander category 
(and to the Hispanic category in two of the RAETT panels). When both 
the White box and either the ``Some other race'' or the ``multiracial'' 
box were marked, the responses were classified as White. (The extent to 
which other agencies might be able to implement a similar 
classification procedure would have to be determined.)
    This historical series approach tabulated a large percentage of the 
multiracial responses in the Directive No. 15 categories. The only 
targeted sample in which this tabulation did not appear to produce 
results comparable to the single-race reporting in Panel A was the 
Alaska Native targeted sample. The historical series noticeably 
increased the percentages of American Indian and Alaska Native 
respondents on Panel B (which included a multiracial category) and 
Panel H (which included a ``mark all that apply'' instruction); 
however, the percentages remained lower than on Panel A, which did not 
offer a multiracial option.
    In the cases of the decennial censuses, the Bureau of the Census 
has not tabulated responses of ``Other Race'' in the categories 
specified by Directive No. 15. As noted above, however, the Bureau has 
developed an algorithm to create a Modified Age-Race-Sex (MARS) file 
that tabulates responses in the standard race categories to provide 
data comparable to other statistical systems.
    In some cases, the Federal Government already is dealing with this 
tabulation issue. In Georgia, Indiana, and Michigan--where the 
multiracial legislation has general applicability--the requirement to 
use a multiracial category affects the collection of data on 
registration certificates for births and deaths and on health survey 
forms, and it thus affects the reporting of both State and national 
statistics by race and ethnicity. The National Center for Health 
Statistics has created a ``multiracial'' code for vital records from 
States that have passed such legislation. Multiracial persons are coded 
by NCHS as ``Other'' and, before analysis, all such entries are 
reallocated through an

[[Page 36908]]

imputation method to the standard race categories, consistent with 
Directive No. 15. (Carter-Pokras, LaViest, 1996)
    A study conducted by the U.S. Department of Education as part of 
the review of Directive No. 15 found that when categories such as 
``other'' or ``multiracial'' are used, schools typically aggregate 
these data into the broad Federal category that is deemed most 
appropriate by the school staff before reporting the information to the 
Federal Government. (NCES 96-092)

3.7.3  Monetary Costs and Resource Burdens

    Efforts were made to obtain estimates of monetary and other 
resource costs associated with adding a multiracial response option, 
whether by adding a multiracial category or by allowing for multiple 
responses to the race question. Several agencies, members of the 
Council of Professional Associations on Federal Statistics (COPAFS), 
and State and local data users belonging to the Association of Public 
Data Users (APDU) provided views.
    Some data collections generally would be more costly and difficult 
if a multiracial category were added (particularly if the changes 
included a combined format for Hispanic ethnicity). There could be 
significant costs associated with the disaggregation of the multiracial 
category into meaningful population groups for enforcement purposes and 
comparability with a large volume of historical data. Instructions that 
allowed counting individuals according to more than one race/ethnic 
group could make it extremely difficult to perform trend analysis. 
Agencies noted that some of these costs would be ongoing rather than 
one-time costs.
    Costs associated with adding an option to report multiple races 
could be expected to vary depending on the reporting technique used. If 
a multiracial category involved a write-in option, for instance, and 
the responses were assigned to the major groups, the costs for editing 
and coding entries could be higher than those for fixed categories. 
Classification algorithms would have to be written, tested, and 
harmonized across agencies. Further, coding write-in responses could 
prove more feasible for major statistical agencies with large data 
processing resources, such as the Bureau of the Census, than for 
agencies where the collection of racial and ethnic data is only a small 
portion of their administrative mandate.
    In an informal consultation with BLS staff, COPAFS members 
suggested that in some cases a change in Directive No. 15 would 
probably mean only minor effects on data systems, Computer-Assisted 
Telephone Interviewing software, and sample management systems. 
Participants in the discussion noted that a variety of computer-based 
analytic tools would have to be reprogrammed. In cases where general 
requirements for data collection apply, changes in industry-wide forms 
(paper and electronics), electronic data transfer conventions, and 
computer programs would be needed. Estimates of time range from two to 
three weeks to reprogram and one to two months to re-estimate models.
    COPAFS members also were asked about data systems or software that 
the organizations would have to revise to accommodate a change. The 
responses ranged from ``only minor changes would be needed'' to 
``significant changes would be required.'' Members also noted that 
changing only the nomenclature from that used in Directive 15 would 
have little effect on cost. However, adding an ``Other race'' or a 
multiracial category would be both disruptive and costly. Members said 
the changes would affect Computer-Assisted Telephone Interviewing 
software, forms, electronic reporting systems, and resulting databases. 
The cost would be associated with disaggregating the multiracial 
category into meaningful groups for enforcement purposes and 
comparability with a large volume of historical data. Survey processing 
costs would increase due to the additional editing, coding, and keying 
of the expanded matrices, and due to the need to redesign the 
processing systems to account for the additional data. (Tucker, COPAFS, 
1996) One participant said the modifications would be handled as part 
of the massive transition from the 1990 Census to the 2000 census, 
describing the overall process that occurs once each decade as an 
arduous one that could be made more complicated by changes to the 
racial and ethnic categories.
    In a meeting with data users from State and local organizations, 
participants appeared not too concerned about adapting to change. 
Unless no changes are made to the decennial census, participants noted, 
they have to rewrite their data analysis programs every ten years--in 
any event--to conform to the new formats. Participants believed that 
costs would not be affected to any great extent. (Tucker, APDU, 1996) 
Most participants ultimately favored an option that would allow for 
multiple responses to the race question. While recognizing that it 
would require more work for analysts and data providers, they believed 
it to be the fairest alternative given our Nation's diverse population. 
They thought it could be a viable solution, but also expressed interest 
in having the Federal Government develop rules for tabulating multiple 
race responses. (Tucker, APDU group, 1996)
    Several agencies offered dollar estimates for what it would cost to 
implement a change in Federal standards that provided for the reporting 
of more than one race. These ranged from the tens of thousands into the 
millions of dollars, depending on the approach that might be selected 
and whether and the extent to which updating of records might be 
required.

Chapter 4. A Combined Race and Hispanic Origin Question

4.1  Background

    This chapter addresses the issue of whether there should be a 
combined race/Hispanic origin question or whether there should be a 
separate race question and a separate Hispanic origin question. 
Included in this chapter is a summary of findings from research 
recently conducted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and by the Bureau 
of the Census on the effects of using a combined format instead of 
separate questions. The chapter also presents findings from other 
relevant research that address the issues associated with a combined 
format versus separate questions. These issues include concerns about 
data quality that arise when a separate race question and an Hispanic 
origin question are used, and approaches that have been tested to 
address these data quality concerns.
    Directive No. 15 calls for collection of information on persons of 
Spanish origin or culture. This information can be collected using two 
different formats--either a combined race and Hispanic origin question 
or two separate questions, one for race and one for Hispanic origin. 
Both approaches are popular among Federal agencies. The Directive also 
allows Federal agencies to collect data on race and Hispanic origin 
using separate questions and then to present the data in the combined 
format.
    Even within the same agency, both formats sometimes are used. For 
example, almost six out of every ten (56 out of 97) data systems listed 
in the Directory of Minority Health and Human Services Data Resources 
which collect information on Hispanic origin do so using the separate 
format (Department of Health and Human Services, 1995). Slightly more 
than half (8 out of 15) of the principal data collections at the 
Department of Justice

[[Page 36909]]

use the combined format. At the Bureau of Labor Statistics in the 
Department of Labor, some of the surveys use a combined format while 
others use two separate questions. The Office for Civil Rights in the 
Department of Education, the Office of Civil Rights in the Department 
of Health and Human Services, the Equal Employment Opportunity 
Commission (EEOC), and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) use the 
combined format. In its National Health Interview Survey, the National 
Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) uses two questions for race (check 
one or more groups, followed by selection of the group which best 
represents the person's race), and one question for Hispanic origin. 
The combined format tends to be preferred for data collections using 
observer identification.
    Briefly, according to the Directive, if data on race and ethnicity 
are collected using two separate questions, the racial categories are:

--American Indian or Alaskan Native
--Asian or Pacific Islander
--Black
--White

    And, for ethnicity:

--Hispanic origin
--Not of Hispanic origin

    If the combined format is used, the categories are:

--American Indian or Alaskan Native
--Asian or Pacific Islander
--Black, not of Hispanic origin
--Hispanic
--White, not of Hispanic origin

The separate questions are designed to provide Hispanic origin 
information for all persons. The combined format does not allow for 
collection of Hispanic origin data if a person reports in the American 
Indian or Alaskan Native category, or in the Asian or Pacific Islander 
category.1 When a combined question is used, data on the 
race of Hispanics is not collected (see OMB Federal Register notice, 
June 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In the 1990 Census, 8.4 percent of American Indians or 
Alaskan Natives and 4 percent of Asian or Pacific Islanders were 
also Hispanic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4.2  Concepts of Race and Ethnicity

    The decennial census categories used to classify data on ``race'' 
and ``ethnicity'' have changed depending on what were considered the 
population groups of interest. In the 20th century, data on race and 
ethnicity have sometimes been coded together and at other times have 
been coded separately. Census researchers Bates, de la Puente, DeMaio, 
and Martin (1994) have characterized as ``official ambivalence'' the 
Federal uncertainty ``about whether Spanish-speaking groups should be 
considered a separate race, or not.'' For example, the census 
classified Mexicans as a ``race'' in 1930, ``White'' during 1940-1970, 
and ``of any race'' they chose in 1980 and 1990. In 1940, persons of 
Spanish mother tongue were reported. In 1950 and 1960, persons of 
Spanish surname were recorded. By 1960, all Mexicans, Puerto Ricans and 
other persons of ``Latin descent'' were counted as ``White'' unless 
they were ``definitely Negro, Indian, or some other race (as determined 
by observation).'' In 1970, a separate question on Hispanic origin was 
added to the census long form (sent to one-sixth of households). In 
1980 and 1990, a separate question on Hispanic origin was asked of all 
households.
    Directive No. 15 defines ``race'' and ``ethnicity'' as separate 
concepts. Harry Scarr, then Acting Director of the U.S. Bureau of the 
Census, stated in his testimony to the Congressional Subcommittee on 
Census, Statistics and Postal Personnel in April 1993, that although 
the Bureau treated race and ethnicity as two separate concepts, the 
``Bureau recognizes that the concepts are not mutually exclusive * * 
*'' (Scarr, 1994:7). Dr. Scarr's observation has been well documented 
in the research literature.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For example see, Gerber and de la Puente (1996), Kissam et 
al. (1993), Rodriguez (1994), and McKay and de la Puente (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Opinion researchers report that respondents in general--not only 
Hispanics--find questions about ``race'' and ``ethnicity'' to be among 
the most difficult to answer. Tom Smith of the National Opinion 
Research Center concludes, ``Of all basic background variables, 
ethnicity is probably the most difficult to measure'' (Smith, 1983). 
Although respondents may give different answers to questions about each 
concept, researchers have observed that respondents do not understand 
conceptual differences among terms such as ``race,'' ``ethnicity,'' and 
others such as ``ancestry'' or ``national origin.'' For example, NCHS 
reports that interviewers for one of their surveys found that ``* * * 
the phrase `origin or descent' was poorly understood by many 
respondents.'' (Drury, 1980). Researchers at the Bureau of the Census 
remark that notions of ``race,'' ``ethnicity,'' and ``ancestry'' are 
not clearly distinguished from one another by census respondents and 
some persons perceive the race, Hispanic origin, and ancestry questions 
as asking for the same information.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ This observation has been documented in recent cognitive 
studies. For example, see Gerber and de la Puente (1995) and McKay 
and de la Puente (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The terms ``race'' and ``ethnicity'' are frequently used 
interchangeably in the United States. For most daily and practical 
applications, Hispanics are considered a race. Definitions of race and 
ethnicity in major dictionaries often have considerable overlap. Crews 
and Bindon (1991) suggest that race is a sociological construct that is 
poorly correlated with any measurable biological or cultural phenomenon 
other than the amount of melanin in an individual's skin. Ethnicity, 
they suggest, is a sociocultural construct that is often, if not 
always, coextensive with discernible features of a group of 
individuals. Crews and Bindon cite several human biologists who have 
advocated vigorously for use of the term ``ethnic group'' instead of 
``race'' to question hypotheses about the genetic and cultural 
constituency of groups.
    This fluid demarcation between the concepts of ``race'' and 
``ethnicity'' and the notion that these concepts are a sociocultural 
construct observed among the general population is also applicable to 
the Hispanic population. In fact, researchers such as Clara Rodriguez 
(1992) have noted that this view of race and ethnicity is consistent 
with the views of many Hispanics. Numerous other researchers have 
concluded that the racially diverse Hispanic population regards their 
``Hispanic'' identity as a ``racial'' one.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ For example, see Kissam, 1993 and Rodriguez, 1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This view of race and ethnicity among Hispanics has its origins in 
Latin American culture. For example, Rodriguez (1994) observes that in 
Latin America, there are a greater number of racial terms for 
``intermediate'' categories. In contrast, the emphasis in the United 
States has been on constructing ``pure'' races (e.g., Black and White, 
and not biracial or multiracial terms). Conceptions of race in Latin 
America result in the use of more categories since they are based more 
on ethnicity, national origin, and culture than appearance. Recent 
studies have found that Hispanics tend to see race as a continuum and 
use cultural frames of reference when discussing race (e.g., see 
Bracken and de Bango, 1992; Romero, 1992; Rodriguez and Hagan, 1991).
    Unlike the United States where racial formation has evolved from 
the acceptance and legitimization of the ``one-drop'' rule, if a person 
looked

[[Page 36910]]

``White'' in Latin America, then this is what they were, regardless of 
what their ancestors may have looked like or how much blood of a 
particular non-White group they may have. Race in the Caribbean and 
Latin America is often viewed as an individual marker, while in the 
United States it determines one's reference group (Wright, 1994). Latin 
American countries tend to have a more social view of race as compared 
with the genealogically based view in the United States. This more 
social view of race tends to include other physical and social 
characteristics besides color (e.g., education, social class, and 
context), and may lead to overlapping categories and different racial 
taxonomies (Rodriguez and Cordero-Guzman, 1992; Harris et al., 
1993).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ These views of race are reflected in how Latin American 
countries collect information on race and ethnicity. In general, 
those countries with a predominately European culture (e.g., 
Argentina, Chile, Costa Rica, Uruguay) did not have questions on 
race/ethnicity on census forms (Almey, Pryor, and White, 1992:7-8). 
Questions on race and ethnicity were more likely in countries with 
slavery and plantation histories (e.g., Cuba, Brazil, British 
Indies). Countries with significant indigenous populations (e.g., 
Bolivia, Guatemala, Panama) collected data on indigenous and non-
indigenous populations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4.3  Self-Identification

    Studies indicate differences between the racial and ethnic 
classification assessed by self-identification and: (1) Proxy 
identification by other household members, family, or friends, (2) 
identification by research or survey interviewers, and (3) 
identification by the personnel of institutions such as funeral homes. 
Several studies concentrate on the identification of Hispanic origin, 
while others focus more broadly on the identification of racial and/or 
ethnic groups, including Hispanics. Substantial differences have been 
found between how Hispanics identify themselves and how they are 
identified by interviewers (Rodriguez and Cordero-Guzman, 1992; Falcon, 
1994; Tumin and Feldman, 1961; Rodriguez, 1974; Ginorio, 1979; Ginorio 
and Berry, 1972; Martinez, 1988).
    Hahn, Truman, and Barker (1996) examined the consistency of self-
perceived identification at first interview and proxy-reported ancestry 
at a follow-up interview (an average of 10 years later) in the U.S. 
population. Ten percent of household proxies did not know the 
backgrounds of sample persons. Proxy reports of ancestry were 
consistent with self-classification for 55 percent of sample persons. 
Consistent classification between proxy and sample person was highest 
for sample persons classifying themselves as Mexican (98 percent); for 
other Hispanic groups, consistency was 70 percent. Overall, consistency 
between self- and proxy-identification was high for several European 
populations, for Asians, and for Hispanics, but low for American 
Indians.
    In another study comparing self- and interviewer-identification 
(Drury, Moy, and Poe 1980), researchers compared respondents' self-
identified ancestry, including Hispanic categories as well as races, 
with classification at the same time by an observer (as White, Black, 
or other). Among self-identified Hispanic groups, between 86 percent 
and 100 percent were identified by interviewers as White, the remainder 
as Black or other. A more recent study of the U.S. population (Hahn, 
Truman, and Barker 1996) compared respondents' self-identified ancestry 
with race as determined by the interviewer. Among respondents who self-
identified as Mexican, 95 percent were classified as White, 5 percent 
as other; among respondents who self-identified as members of other 
Hispanic populations, 84 percent were classified as White, 15 percent 
as Negro. Overall, studies consistently indicate that interviewers are 
effective in identifying Whites and Blacks, moderately effective in 
identifying the members of Hispanic groups, and poor in identifying 
Asians and American Indians.
    Other studies have focused on identification by personnel of 
institutions such as funeral homes. Hahn, Mulinare, Teutsch (1992) 
compared the race and ethnicity on the birth and death certificates of 
all U.S. infants born from 1983 through 1985 who died within a year. 
Among infants designated as Hispanic at birth, 20 percent of Mexicans, 
48 percent of Puerto Ricans, and 67 percent of Cubans were likely to 
have another designation at death; for all Hispanic infants who had 
different designations on birth and death certificates, more than half 
were classified as non-Hispanic (White or Black) on death certificates. 
Observer identification may result in underestimation of mortality for 
some racial and ethnic groups. For example, when data on Hispanic 
origin from the birth certificate was used instead of the death 
certificate, estimates of Hispanic infant mortality were 8.9 percent 
higher than those based on the death certificate (Hahn 1992).
    Similar discrepancies have been reported for U.S. adults. Poe et 
al., (1993) found that Hispanics were misclassified as non-Hispanic on 
19 percent of death certificates. Other studies have also found 
significant misclassification of Hispanics (Sorlie 1993; Lindan 1990; 
Massey 1980).

4.4  Some Alternative Formats for Questions

    Several alternative formats for questions to collect data on 
Hispanic origin have been suggested in public comments. Directive No. 
15 currently allows two formats for questions on race and ethnicity: a 
combined format option (referred to as Alternative 1 for the discussion 
in this section), and two separate questions (Alternatives 2 and 3). 
Hispanic can be chosen independently of race only when it is a separate 
question.
Alternative 1: Combined Format (Allowed Under Directive No. 15)
--American Indian or Alaskan Native
--Asian or Pacific Islander
--Black, Not of Hispanic Origin
--Hispanic
--White, Not of Hispanic Origin
Alternative 2: Two Separate Questions With Race Question First (Allowed 
Under Directive No. 15)
--American Indian or Alaskan Native
--Asian or Pacific Islander
--Black
--White
--Hispanic origin
--Not of Hispanic origin
Alternative 3: Two Separate Questions With Hispanic Origin Question 
First (Allowed Under Directive No. 15)
--Hispanic origin
--Not of Hispanic origin
--American Indian or Alaskan Native
--Asian or Pacific Islander
--Black
--White

    The following two formats are commonly used outside the Federal 
Government:
Alternative 4:
--American Indian or Alaska Native
--Asian or Pacific Islander
--Black
--Hispanic
--White
Alternative 5:
--Non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native
--Non-Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander
--Non-Hispanic Black
--Hispanic
--Non-Hispanic White

Variation of these have also been suggested in public comments. For 
example, some suggested that a ``multiracial'' category could be 
followed by a list of categories to select,

[[Page 36911]]

or a line could be provided to specify the categories. Another 
alternative which was tested in the Race and Ethnic Targeted Test 
combined the concepts of race, ethnicity, and ancestry in a two-part 
single question.

4.5  Research on Data Quality

    This section summarizes research that has examined the quality of 
data on race and Hispanic origin obtained through a separate question 
for race and a separate question for Hispanic origin. The major data 
quality measures examined by this research include the reporting of 
``other race'' by Hispanics (section 4.5.1), item nonresponse for race 
(section 4.5.2), item nonresponse for Hispanic origin (section 4.5.3), 
and inconsistent reporting in both the race and Hispanic-origin items 
(section 4.5.4). The chapter then turns to measures that have been 
proposed and tested for addressing the data quality concerns just cited 
(section 4.5.6).

4.5.1  Reporting in the ``Other Race'' Category by Hispanics

    Evaluations of the results from the 1980 Census, the 1980 Current 
Population Survey, the 1990 Census, the 1990 Panel Study of Income 
Dynamics, and the 1991 Current Population Survey have shown that 
approximately 40 percent of Hispanics select the ``Other Race'' 
category (Denton and Massey, 1989; Tienda and Ortiz 1986; Rodriguez 
1992). Research also shows that the use of the ``Other Race'' category 
varies by Hispanic subgroup and geography (Rodriguez, 1989; Tucker et 
al., 1996). Almost all (98 percent) of respondents who classified 
themselves as ``Other Race'' in the 1990 Census were Hispanic (U.S. 
General Accounting Office, 1993:26). This has raised concern among 
researchers that Hispanic do not identify with the racial categories 
usually offered. Reporting in the ``Other Race'' category by Hispanics 
occurs because, as noted earlier, some Hispanics do not identify with 
the major race groups. For this reason these members of the Hispanic 
population report in the ``Other Race'' category and many register 
their Hispanic origin in the ``Other Race'' write-in line when 
available. (For example, see Kissam et al., 1993). In the 1996 National 
Content Survey, between 25 percent and 43 percent of Hispanics reported 
in the ``Other Race'' category depending on whether the Hispanics 
origin question was placed before or after the race question (Harrison 
et al., 1996).

4.5.2  Item Nonresponse in the Race Question

    Relatively high item nonresponse to the race question among 
Hispanics is another reporting issue associated with the use of a 
separate question to collect information on Hispanic origin and race. 
The item nonresponse to the race question varies depending on the mode 
of data collection. In self-administered surveys such as the 1996 
National Content Survey (NCS), the item nonresponse rate for the race 
question is much higher than in interviewer-administered surveys. For 
example, in the NCS, the item nonresponse rate for the race question 
ranged from 1.1 percent to 2.2 percent for non-Hispanics, and from 31 
percent to 36.5 percent for Hispanics. (Harrison et al., 1996). In 
interviewer-administer surveys, item nonresponse to the race question 
is much lower. For example, item nonresponse for the race question in 
the 1994 National Health Interview Survey was 0.4 percent, and on the 
Current Population Survey, less than one tenth of one percent of 
Hispanics were missing information on race.

4.5.3  Item Nonresponse in the Hispanic Origin Question

    The General Accounting Office concluded that ``the results from the 
1990 census showed that the Hispanic origin item continues to pose one 
of the more significant data quality challenges for the Bureau in terms 
of allocation rate'' (GAO, 1993:24). The Hispanic origin question had 
the highest nonresponse rate of any question of the 1980 and 1990 
censuses, suggesting that some people regarded the question as not 
applicable, redundant, or unclear. Information was missing from 10 
percent of the 1990 census short forms (McKenney, 1992). For the more 
detailed sample questionnaires, the allocation rate for nonresponse was 
3.5 percent. Non-Hispanic respondents contributed substantially to the 
high nonresponse rate for the Hispanic origin item. The 1990 Content 
Reinterview Survey found that 94 percent of non-respondents to the 
Hispanic origin item were non-Hispanic.
    In the Census Bureau's 1996 National Content Survey, item 
nonresponse to the Hispanic origin question ranged from 5.2 percent to 
8.6 percent depending on whether the Hispanic origin question was 
placed before or after the race question (Harrison et al., 1996).
    Item nonresponse to the Hispanic origin item is considerably lower 
in interviewer administered surveys than in self-administered surveys. 
For example, the item nonresponse rate from the Current Population 
Survey for the Hispanic origin variable was 0.6 percent for the first 6 
months of 1995. In the 1994 National Health Interview Survey, Hispanic 
origin was missing for 1.2 percent of sample persons. On the other 
hand, some data systems that collect information based on observer-
identification have considerably higher nonresponse for the Hispanic 
origin data items. Examples include 15 percent for the National 
Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, 30 percent for the National 
Home and Hospice Care Survey, and 75 percent for the National Hospital 
Discharge Survey, all conducted by the National Center for Health 
Statistics. (DHHS, 1995).

4.5.4  Reporting Inconsistency

    The General Accounting Office concluded that ``the Content 
Reinterview Survey for the 1990 Census showed generally good response 
consistency for both the race and Hispanic origin questions'' (GAO, 
1993, p. 22). However, of those who said they were ``Other Hispanic,'' 
only 64 percent answered similarly in the reinterview study. In the 
race question, only 36 percent of those who said on the Census form 
that they were of ``Other Race'' reported similarly when reinterviewed. 
Those reporting as American Indians also were more likely to change 
their response. Reporting race generally was less consistent for 
multiple-race persons, Hispanics, foreign-born persons, and person who 
did not read or speak English well (OMB Federal Register notice, 1995: 
44675).
    The 1996 National Content Survey compared responses from mailback 
survey forms to the responses provided in the telephone reinterview 
(Harrison et al., 1996). Approximately 3 percent Hispanics reported 
inconsistently on the mailback survey forms and telephone reinterview 
when two separate questions on race and ethnicity were used. Using a 
Hispanic origin question first with no multiracial category, 2.9 
percent of Hispanics reported inconsistently. Inconsistency was not 
reduced for Hispanics when the order of the questions on race and 
Hispanic origin was changed (2.9 percent). Among Hispanics, 
inconsistency was highest (3.8 percent) when Hispanic origin was asked 
first and the race question included a multiracial category. Use of a 
multiracial category in the 1996 National Content Survey did not have a 
statistically significant effect on the consistency with which persons 
reported Hispanic origin (Harrison et al., 1996).

[[Page 36912]]

    Information on reporting consistency is also available from other 
surveys. For example, Hahn, Truman and Barker (1996) found that 58 
percent of respondents to the first National Health and Nutrition 
Examination Survey and subsequent Epidemiologic Follow-up Study were 
consistent in self-classification over the follow-up period. In another 
study Johnson et al. (1995:15) found that 40 percent of mixed-race and 
Hispanic respondents changed the way they reported their racial and 
ethnic background depending on the context, social situation, options 
on application forms or ``perceived advantages in applying for 
scholarships, loans, school admissions, housing and employment.'' 
Changes in self-awareness and identification were also responsible for 
changes in reported identity. Hispanics with two Hispanic parents were 
much less likely (12.5 percent) to have ever identified themselves 
differently.

4.6  Measures to Correct Misreporting in the Race Question and the 
Hispanic Origin Question

    The reporting issues just described--reporting in the ``Other 
race'' category, item nonresponse to the race question, item 
nonresponse to the Hispanic origin question, and inconsistency of 
reporting--result from having a separate race and a separate Hispanic 
origin question. Two important measures have been used and tested to 
address these reporting concerns while keeping two separate questions: 
placement of the Hispanic origin question before the race question, and 
providing respondents with written instructions to respond to both the 
race question and the Hispanic origin question.
    Bates, de la Puente, Martin and DeMaio (1994) analyzed and 
summarized multiple replications of five major Census Bureau studies on 
decennial census race and Hispanic origin questions to determine the 
effects of question order and instructions on reporting in the race 
question and the Hispanic origin question.\6\ Based on this analysis 
and on qualitative information obtained through focus groups and in-
depth personal interviews, the authors conclude that the evidence 
consistently shows that placement of the Hispanic origin question 
before the race question provides a more restrictive frame of reference 
for race reporting and thus respondents (mostly Hispanics) are less 
likely to report in the ``Other Race'' category and more likely to 
select one of the major race groups listed in the race question. 
Further, restricting the frame of reference for race reporting also 
results in reductions in item nonresponse to the race question. 
Although these measures substantially reduced reporting in the ``Other 
Race'' category, reduced item nonresponse for the race question among 
Hispanics, and reduced item nonresponse to the Hispanic origin 
questions by non-Hispanics, these measures did not entirely eliminate 
the reporting problems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The authors analyzed data from the following Census Bureau 
questionnaire design experiments: ``Classroom'' tests (a series of 
30 group sessions with split-panel experiments), the National Census 
Test (a nationally representative mailout/mailback test conducted 
during 1988), the Alternative Questionnaire Experiment (a split-
ballot experiment conducted in urban areas during the 1990 census), 
the Simplified Questionnaire Test (a national test conducted in 1992 
designed to assess whether response rates can be improved by using 
more ``respondent friendly'' census forms), and the Appeals and Long 
Form Experiment (a national test conducted in 1993 intended to test 
two revised census ``long'' forms). In addition to these 
experiments, the authors also examined qualitative information on 
race and Hispanic origin reporting obtained through focus groups and 
in-depth personal interviews. For more information, see Bates, de la 
Puente, Martin and DeMaio (1994) and Bates, Martin, DeMaio and de la 
Puente (1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For example, in the National Content Survey, ``Other Race'' 
reporting by Hispanics went from 40 percent when the race question was 
placed before the Hispanic origin question down to 20 percent when the 
Hispanic origin question was placed before the race question. The 
comparable percentages in the Appeals and Long Form Experiment were 53 
percent when the race question was placed before the Hispanic origin 
question and 26 percent when the Hispanic origin was placed before the 
race question. The declines in ``Other Race'' reporting by Hispanics in 
the other three Census Bureau studies were more modest. (Bates et al., 
1994).
    Bates, de la Puente, Martin, and DeMaio (1994) report that the 
inclusion of instructions to aid reporting had positive effects. For 
example, the Alternative Questionnaire Experiment (AQE) used a two-
question format to gather data on race and Hispanic origin, and 
included an instruction in some panels that read ``Fill in the NO 
circle if not Spanish/Hispanic'' next to the question text on Hispanic 
origin. Results from the AQE demonstrate that adding this instruction 
alone reduced nonresponse to the Hispanic origin question from 19 
percent to 8 percent. Combining the instruction with asking the 
ethnicity question prior to race resulted in a nonresponse rate of 5 
percent. These findings suggest that instructions can help reduce, but 
not eliminate, nonresponse to the Hispanic origin question.
    Bates, de la Puente, Martin and DeMaio (1994) also conducted 
multivariate analyses to improve understanding of the effects of 
question order and instructions on race reporting by Hispanics. Four 
variables hypothesized to affect race reporting by Hispanics were 
included in the analyses: Place of birth (native or foreign-born), 
recency of arrival in the United States, educational level, and English 
proficiency. The results from the multivariate analyses are mixed. The 
authors concluded that the effect of question ordering on the reporting 
of race among Hispanics does not seem to be influenced by time in the 
United States, education, or knowledge of English. The authors added 
that data at least two of the five Census Bureau studies considered 
indicated that Hispanic response to the race question may be 
conditioned by recency of arrival in the United States (Bates et al., 
1994).
    Unlike the Census Bureau tests examined in the Bates, de la Puente, 
Martin and DeMaio (1994) study, the 1996 National Content Survey also 
examined the effects of sequencing on the reporting of race and 
Hispanic origin using race questions that provided a ``multiracial'' 
category as one of the response options. Findings from this test are in 
line with the results reported by Bates et al. (1994).
    In the 1996 National Content Survey panels where the race question 
did not include a multiracial category as a response option, ``Other 
Race'' reporting by Hispanics significantly declined from about 43 
percent when the Hispanic origin question was placed after the race 
question to approximately 25 percent when the Hispanic origin question 
was placed before the race question. ``Other Race'' reporting also 
declined among Hispanics when the Hispanic origin question was placed 
before the race question that included a multiracial category as a 
response option, but the decline was not statistically significant. In 
panels where the race question included a multiracial response option, 
reporting of ``Other Race'' by Hispanics declined from about 33 percent 
when the Hispanic origin question was placed after the race question to 
about 25 percent when the Hispanic origin question was placed before 
the race question (Harrison et al., 1996). It is important to note that 
these declines in ``other race'' reporting were reduced, but not 
eliminated, by reversing the order of the Hispanic origin and race 
questions.
    Placing the Hispanic origin question before the race question in 
the 1996 National Content Survey reduced item

[[Page 36913]]

nonresponse rates for the race question among Hispanics, but these 
reductions were not statistically significant and item nonresponse 
rates for the race question remained relatively high (Harrison et al., 
1996).
    The sequencing of the Hispanic origin question and the race 
question was also one of the major research objectives of the Race and 
Ethnic Targeted Test (RAETT). The findings from the RAETT on this issue 
echo those of studies just discussed. In the Hispanic targeted sample, 
asking the Hispanic origin question before the race question reduced 
item nonresponse to the Hispanic origin question from about 10 percent 
to about 7 percent. Placing the Hispanic origin question before the 
race question had no effect on the item nonresponse rate for the race 
question in the Hispanic targeted sample.
    In the RAETT, reductions in the reporting as ``Other Race'' and 
``Multiracial'' and an increase in the reporting as ``White'' in the 
Hispanic targeted sample were detected when the Hispanic origin 
question was asked before the race question. More specifically, in the 
Hispanic targeted sample in Panel D (race question first), about 56 
percent of respondents reported as White, about 25 percent reported as 
``Other Race'', and about 3 percent reported as ``Multiracial.'' In 
contrast, when the Hispanic origin question was placed before the race 
question (Panel B), approximately 67 percent reported as White, 16 
percent reported as ``Other Race'', and 2 percent reported as 
``Multiracial.''

4.7  The Effects of Combining the Race Question and the Hispanic Origin 
Question into a Single Question

    A combined question on race and Hispanic origin was tested in the 
1995 CPS Supplement and in the RAETT.

4.7.1  Results From the May 1995 CPS Supplement on Race and Ethnic 
Origin

    Having a separate versus combined race and ethnicity question 
appears to have a significant effect on the percentage of persons who 
identify as Hispanic. In the May 1995 Current Population Survey (CPS) 
Supplement, significantly more people identified as Hispanic when they 
were asked a separate question on Hispanic origin than when Hispanic 
origin was combined with the race question (See Table 4.1). (Because an 
interviewer collects the data, either in person or by telephone, 
multiple responses are much less likely to occur.) In particular, 10.6 
percent of the respondents who received a separate question (panels 1 
and 2 combined from Table 4.1) identified as Hispanic compared with 8.1 
percent of the respondents who were given the combined race and ethnic 
origin question (panels 3 and 4 combined from Table 4.1), (Tucker et 
al., 1996).

BILLING CODE 3110-01-M
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09JY97.012


BILLING CODE 3110-01-C

    Additionally, it is important to note that some specific Hispanic 
subgroups may respond differently than others to separate race and 
ethnicity questions versus a combined race and ethnicity question (See 
Table 4.2). In particular, the proportions of respondents who report 
Mexican, Cuban, and ``Other Hispanic'' national origins differed 
significantly depending on the type of race and ethnicity question. 
Specifically, the respondents who identify as Hispanic in a combined 
race and ethnicity question (as in panels 3 and 4 combined from Table 
4.2) are composed of a greater percentage of people with Mexican 
national origin (66 percent) than the respondents who identify as 
Hispanic in a separate ethnicity question (about 60 percent in panels 1 
and 2 combined from Table 4.2). In contrast, the respondents who 
identify as Hispanic in a separate question are composed of a greater 
percentage of people with Cuban and ``Other Hispanic'' national origins 
(about 4 percent Cuban and 13 percent ``Other Hispanic'' in panels 1 
and 2 combined from Table 4.2) than the respondents who identified as 
Hispanic from the combined race and ethnicity question (about 2 percent 
Cuban and 9 percent ``Other Hispanic'' in panels 3 and 4 combined from 
Table 4.2). In other words, Hispanics of different national origins 
differ in how likely they are to identify themselves as Hispanic 
depending upon whether they are asked a separate Hispanic question or a 
combined race and Hispanic origin question (Tucker et al., 1996).

BILLING CODE 3110-01-M

[[Page 36914]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09JY97.013



BILLING CODE 3110-01-C

    In the May 1995 CPS supplement, analyses of the effect of a 
separate versus combined race and ethnicity question showed that there 
were no significant differences in the percentage of people identifying 
as Black, Asian or Pacific Islander, or American Indian (See Table 
4.3). However, the number of American Indians in the sample was too 
small for drawing reliable conclusions for that population. The 
percentage of people identifying as White was influenced by whether 
there was a separate Hispanic question or not, with 75.22 percent 
(panels 3 and 4 combined from Table 4.3) of the respondents identifying 
as White when Hispanic was included in the list of races compared with 
79.81 percent who identified as White when Hispanic origin was a 
separate question (panels 1 and 2 combined from Table 4.3). Thus, 
including Hispanic as a category in the race question will likely lower 
the proportion of people currently identifying as White only and the 
proportion of persons classified as ``Other.'' These findings were also 
reflected in the analysis of the differences in respondent reporting 
between the CPS race question and the May 1995 CPS Supplement race 
questions (see Tucker et al., 1996).

BILLING CODE 3110-01-M

[[Page 36915]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09JY97.014



BILLING CODE 3110-01-C

    By using respondents' Hispanic national origin from the CPS and 
examining their racial identification in the May 1995 CPS Supplement, 
further insights are gained into how subgroups of Hispanics identify 
depending upon whether they are asked separate race and ethnicity 
questions or a combined race and ethnicity question (See Table 4.4). As 
can be seen in Table 4.4, a sizable percentage of respondents with 
Hispanic national origins do not identify as Hispanic in a combined 
race and ethnicity question (panels 3 and 4). Specifically, 11 percent 
of respondents with a Mexican national origin identified as White when 
having a to choose between White and Hispanic in the combined race and 
ethnicity question. Similarly, 23 percent of respondents with other 
Hispanic national origins identified as White when there was a combined 
race and ethnicity question and a majority of respondents of Cuban 
origin identified as White even though the Hispanic category was 
offered in the combined question (Tucker et al., 1996). This pattern of 
racial identification for Mexican-origin and Cuban-origin respondents 
is consistent with the findings of the 1990 Panel Study of Income 
Dynamics conducted by the Institute for Survey Research at the 
University of Michigan. For Hispanics reporting a single race when 
given a list of racial categories that included ``Latino,'' 88 percent 
of Cubans reported as White and 9 percent as Latino, compared with 
Mexicans, 56 percent of whom reported as White and 35 percent of whom 
reported as Latino (Duncan et al., 1992). Bates, et al. (1996) found 
that Cubans, compared with other Hispanic groups, were most likely to 
report their race as White when the race question followed a question 
on Hispanic origin.

BILLING CODE 3110-01-M

[[Page 36916]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09JY97.015


BILLING CODE 3110-01-C

[[Page 36917]]

4.7.2  Results From the Race and Ethnic Targeted Test

    Two versions of a combined race, Hispanic origin, and ancestry 
question were tested in RAETT. Both versions provided check boxes for 
``White,'' for ``Black, African Am., or Negro,'' for ``Indian (Amer.) 
or Alaska Native'' (with a write-in line for tribal affiliation), for 
``Asian or Pacific Islander,'' for ``Hispanic'' and for ``Some other 
race.'' One version (Panel E) also included the category ``Multiracial 
or biracial.'' A second version (Panel F) did not contain a multiracial 
category but rather instructed respondents to ``Mark one or more boxes 
to indicate what this person considers himself/herself to be.'' Both 
versions, E and F, were followed by a question which asked respondents 
to write in their ``ancestry or ethnic group'' in the space provided.
    Panels E and F were compared with the corresponding panels that 
contained a separate race question and a separate Hispanic Origin 
question. These were Panel B (containing a multiracial category like 
Panel E) and Panel C (containing a multiple response option like Panel 
F). The major findings from these panel comparisons are presented 
below.

4.7.2.1  Reporting of Hispanic Origin

    A combined race and Hispanic origin question must, of necessity, 
produce fewer Hispanic only responses or fewer responses in at least 
one of the major race groups, than a separate race question and a 
separate Hispanic origin question. If all individuals who select the 
Hispanic category alone or in combination with another race group are 
tabulated as Hispanic (termed ``all-inclusive Hispanic''), such a 
tabulation could provide similar information to that which would be 
obtained if separate questions on race and Hispanic origin were used.
    The RAETT found no statistically significant differences between 
the ``all-inclusive Hispanic'' tabulation for the combined question on 
panels E and F and the appropriate panels containing a separate 
Hispanic origin question and a separate race question. Specifically, 
panels B and E, which both contained a multiracial category, and panels 
C and F, which both contained the instruction to ``mark one or more,'' 
all had responses ranging from 74 percent to 76 percent. However, if 
one were to tabulate as Hispanic those who selected only the Hispanic 
category, then a much lower percent (about 57 percent) of responses 
would be Hispanic in panels E and F.
    Table 4.5 shows that the percentages reporting the specific 
Hispanic origins Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban and Other were quite 
different on panels E and F than on panels, A, B, and C. This is most 
likely an artifact of the way the data were collected and tabulated. In 
panels, A, B, and C, respondents were asked to check boxes with the 
labels shown in Table 4.5. In panels E and F, respondents were asked in 
a separate question to write in their ancestry or ethnic group. These 
write-in groups were tabulated (for those who marked only the Hispanic 
category) and are shown in table 4.5. Those who consider themselves 
both Hispanic and something else are not included in counts shown for 
the specific Hispanic origins for panels E and F; they are included 
only in ``Hispanic (only or in combination).'' In addition, if Hispanic 
only respondents wrote in two different Hispanic origins they are 
counted in ``other Hispanic'' in Panels E and F. In panels, A, B, and 
C, the instructions appeared to ask Hispanic respondents to select one 
Hispanic origin category, although some may have marked multiple 
categories. A tabulation using the ``historic series'' approach or the 
``all-inclusive'' approach would shed additional light on this issue.

BILLING CODE 3110-01-M
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09JY97.016

BILLING CODE 3110-01-C


[[Page 36918]]



4.7.2.2  Reporting of Multiple Races

    The combined race, Hispanic origin, and ancestry question (Panels E 
and F) elicited relatively high percentages of multiple responses in 
the Hispanic targeted sample. Table 4.6 shows that in Panel E, where a 
multiracial category was provided and respondents were instructed to 
mark one box, 18 percent of respondents in the Hispanic targeted sample 
selected more than one category. In Panel F, where there was no 
multiracial category and respondents were instructed to ``Mark one or 
more boxes'' 19 percent of respondents of the Hispanic targeted sample 
selected more than one category.
    The relatively high rates of multiple responses in the Hispanic 
targeted sample on Panel E suggests that substantial percentages of 
Hispanics wish to report a race as well as their Hispanic origin, and 
will check more than one category even when they encounter a question 
that instructs them to choose one or the other. Additional support for 
this conclusion can be found in the fact that more than 92 percent of 
multiple responses in Panels E and F in the Hispanic targeted sample 
marked the Hispanic box or provided Hispanic write-in entries.

BILLING CODE 3110-01-M
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09JY97.017


BILLING CODE 3110-01-C

4.7.2.3  Summary of Findings

    Inherently, a combined race and Hispanic origin question will 
result in lower reporting in the Hispanic origin category alone, or in 
one of the major race groups alone than separate race and Hispanic 
origin questions where race and Hispanic origin are independent. The 
RAETT found patterns of declines in reporting as Hispanic alone, as 
White alone, and as Asian and Pacific Islander alone in the combined 
questions. This suggests that there are respondents who will report as 
Hispanic and as White or as Asian and Pacific Islander when they 
encounter separate questions on race and Hispanic origin. However, when 
faced with a combined question, some of these respondents will report 
as Hispanic, some will report as White or as Asian and Pacific 
Islander, and some will mark more than one of these categories, even 
when the option of doing so is not offered. In contrast, the absence of 
significant changes in reporting as Black or as American Indian in the 
respective RAETT targeted samples for those populations suggests that 
the numbers of respondents in the Black and American Indian targeted 
samples who report as Hispanic when separate Hispanic origin and race 
questions are offered are relatively small or that they are more likely 
to report their race rather than their Hispanic origin in a combined 
question.
    When Hispanic is offered as an option in the combined question, a 
number of Hispanic respondents will select both Hispanic and a race, 
even when instructed not to do so.

4.8  Public Sentiment

    The Hispanic origin ethnicity category was included in Directive 
No. 15 to meet the requirements of Pub. L. 94-311, which called for 
improving data on persons of Spanish culture or origin. During 
discussions of the content of the 1990 Census, the Interagency Working 
Group on Race and Ethnicity concluded that a combined race and Hispanic 
origin question would not meet program needs and could result in an 
undercount of the Hispanic origin population (Bureau of the Census, 
1988).
    During 1994, several national Hispanic organizations supported the 
incorporation of the term ``Hispanic'' into a combined ``Race/
Ethnicity'' question (Kamasaki, 1994; Olguin, 1994; Blackburn-Moreno, 
1994). Both the National Council of La Raza (NCLR) and ASPIRA Assoc. 
Inc. argued that additional research should be conducted before any 
change is made. The Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund 
(MALDEF) saw the lack of a uniform definition of Hispanic throughout 
the Federal Government and differential undercounts of Hispanics as 
more important problems (Carbo, 1994). A few public comment letters 
sent in response to OMB's August 28, 1995, Federal Register notice 
showed some support for Hispanic as a racial category, but none of 
these letters of support were from an Hispanic surnamed individual or 
Hispanic organization.
    In a book chapter published in January 1997, the NCLR president, 
Raul Yzaguirre stated that he does not support the inclusion of 
Hispanic origin

[[Page 36919]]

as a racial category, but does support further testing of both the 
Hispanic origin and race questions. He also added that: ``Before large-
scale changes are made, however, it is critical that the Census Bureau 
and the Office of Management and Budget determine which version of the 
questions accommodates the largest number of respondents and provides 
the most accurate data.'' (Yzaguirre 1997: 89).
    The majority of Hispanics in the May 1995 CPS Supplement preferred 
the combined question. It has been argued that they did not know the 
impact of combining the questions on the population count of Hispanics 
(Torres, 1996:4). This concern appears to be based on the comparison of 
the percent reporting Hispanic using the separate question format with 
the percent reporting Hispanic only using the combined question with a 
multiple response option. As described in Section 4.7.2.1, 
approximately the same percent report as Hispanic when data are 
tabulated in the all inclusive Hispanic category (the total of those 
who mark Hispanic either alone or in combination with other categories) 
in the combined format as report ``Hispanic'' in a separate question 
format.
    A concern expressed by some is that the use of the combined format 
may affect aggregate statistics about the Hispanic population since 
Cubans tend to have higher socioeconomic and health status than other 
Hispanics. Two examples were therefore calculated. When the results 
from the May 1995 CPS Supplement are applied to 1994 data on 
unemployment by Hispanic subgroup, it is estimated that the 1994 
unemployment rate for Hispanics would have changed relatively little--
from 10.9 percent to 11.2 percent if the combined format (and Hispanic 
alone category) had been used. The percent of Hispanics with a regular 
source of primary health care in 1991 did not change in these 
calculations (61.8 percent using separate questions and 61.4 percent 
using the combined format).

4.9  Additional Cost Concerns

    If OMB were to change the choice Federal agencies currently have to 
collect Hispanic origin data using either the combined format or two 
separate questions, there would be a sizable number of large data 
systems for which data collection forms, computer programs, 
interviewers' and coders' manuals, and other related materials would 
have to be changed. For example, both the separate and combined formats 
are used within the Department of Health and Human Services, (DHHS, 
1995). Fifty-eight percent (56 out of 97) of the DHHS data systems 
listed in the Directory which do collect Hispanic origin data use the 
separate format.
    The Indian Health Service (IHS) in the Department of Health and 
Human Services prefers that ``Hispanic'' be retained as a separate 
ethnic category. Many American Indians and Alaska Natives are of 
Hispanic origin and have Spanish surnames, especially in the West and 
Southwest. They state that if ``Hispanic'' were to be considered as a 
racial category (even if there were a ``mark all that apply'' approach 
built in), it is probable that the identity of many American Indians 
and Alaska Natives would be masked by responses to the Hispanic 
category. If ``Hispanic'' is retained as an ethnic category, however, 
Indians will still be able to identify with both backgrounds. Based on 
findings from the 1990 Census and the May 1995 Current Population 
Survey supplement, IHS expects that although the reductions in 
reporting as American Indian, strictly from an alternative that would 
include Hispanic as a racial category, would be less than from the 
adoption of a stand-alone multiracial category (or a multiracial 
category with a follow-up question); the reduction would, nonetheless, 
be serious.
    The Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) uses the combined 
format to collect information on race and Hispanic origin for Medicare 
beneficiaries. If the decision were made to use only two separate 
questions to collect data on race and ethnicity, HCFA would have to 
perform a 100% survey of Medicare beneficiaries. To revise HCFA's race/
ethnicity categories for future beneficiaries, HCFA would have to 
negotiate payment to the Social Security Administration to collect this 
information on Social Security beneficiaries at enrollment. The cost of 
changing HCFA's data systems to accept new codes if a combined format 
were to be used would be minimal.
    Similarly, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) 
currently uses only the combined question format to collect data on 
race and ethnicity. The instruction booklets for completing all EEOC 
employment reports have a section on race/ethnic identification which 
provides guidance on conducting visual surveys and maintaining 
postemployment records as to the race/ethnic identity of employees. 
Thus, the costs associated with a requirement to use only the two 
question format would extend beyond simple computer programming, and 
the expenses would be greater than the minimal costs that some states 
have recently encountered when implementing state legislative 
requirements for a multiracial category.

Chapter 5. Other Possible Changes

5.1  Background

    This chapter considers suggestions for changes in how data on 
certain population groups should the classified and for other 
improvements or clarifications. The issues discussed cover four areas: 
establishment of new categories for specific population groups, 
terminology, format, and instructions. The chapter's sections 
correspond to specific racial and ethnic categories, and all of the 
issues related to that category or subcategory are discussed together.
    It should be noted that while Directive No. 15 uses the term 
``Alaskan Native,'' the term used in Federal law and generally 
preferred is ``Alaska Native.'' For this reason the term appears as 
``Alaska Native'' throughout those sections dealing with this group 
except where the reference is specifically to the category in Directive 
No. 15.

5.2  Specific Suggestions

    In addition to the proposals discussed in Chapters 3 and 4, the 
following fifteen suggestions for changes were examined during the 
current review of Directive No. 15:
Changes related to American Indians and Alaska Natives
     Should the term ``American Indian'' or ``Native American'' 
be used?
     Should the term ``Alaska Native'' or ``Eskimo and Aleut'' 
be used?
     Should a distinction be made between federally recognized 
and nonfederally recognized tribes?
     What is the best way to elicit tribal affiliation?
     Should the definition be changed to include Indians 
indigenous to Central America and South America?
Changes related to Asians and Pacific Islanders
     Should the ``Asian or Pacific Islander'' category be split 
into two categories? If yes, how should this be done?
     Should specific groups be listed under the ``Asian or 
Pacific Islander'' category?
     Should the term ``Guamanian'' or ``Chamorro'' be used?
Changes related to Hawaiians
     Should the term ``Native Hawaiian'' or ``Hawaiian'' be 
used?

[[Page 36920]]

     Should Hawaiians continue to be included in the ``Asian or 
Pacific Islander'' category; be reclassified and included in an 
``American Indian or Alaska Native'' category; or be established as a 
separate, new category?
Other terminology issues
     Should the term ``Black'' or ``African American'' be used?
     Should the term ``Hispanic'' of ``Latino'' be used?
     Should more that one term be used in either case?
Other New Category Issues
     Should an Arab or Middle Eastern category be created? If 
yes, how should it be defined?
     Should a Cape Verdean category be created?

5.3  Evaluation of the Possible Effects of Suggested Changes

5.3.1  Changes Related to American Indians and Alaska Natives

    The following suggested changes to Directive No. 15 as they relate 
to American Indians and Alaska Natives are discussed in this section:
     Should the term ``American Indian'' or ``Native American'' 
be used?
     Should the term ``Alaska Native'' or ``Eskimo and Aleut'' 
be used?
     Should a distinction be made between federally recognized 
and nonfederally recognized tribes?
     What is the best way to elicit tribal affiliation?
     Should the definition be changed to include Indians 
indigenous to Central America and South America?
    Currently, the ``American Indian or Alaskan Native'' category is 
used to classify data on ``a person having origins in any of the 
original peoples of North America, and who maintains cultural 
identification through tribal affiliation or community recognition.''

5.3.1.1 Should the Term ``American Indian'' or ``Native American'' be 
Used?

    ``American Indian'' is the term used in Directive No. 15 to 
identify the descendants of the indigenous population of North America. 
The term has generally been used over the past several decades to 
identify this population group and is recognized by members of this 
group. In general usage, the term ``American Indian'' includes 
individuals who are members of tribes that may or may not be recognized 
by the Federal Government. Federally recognized tribal governments 
include only members of their tribe and may use their own Indian name 
for their tribal name. Further, while Federally recognized tribal 
governments have their own criteria to determine tribal membership, 
such membership is not required by Directive No. 15. As a result, the 
number of individuals enumerated in this category exceeds the number of 
individuals who hold official membership in recognized tribal 
governments. Most Federal programs do not require membership in 
federally recognized tribes for program eligibility. For example, to be 
eligible for Indian Health Service (IHS) programs, a person need only 
prove descent from a member of a federally recognized tribe; blood 
quantum and membership are not relevant. It has also been the practice 
to classify Canadian Indians in this category.
    The term ``Native American'' has been in use since the 1960s. There 
are other indigenous groups besides American Indians and Alaska Natives 
(e.g., Hawaiians) in the United States and areas under U.S. Government 
jurisdiction. Technically, ``Native American'' is a term that does not 
apply exclusively to American Indians and Alaska Natives. Its use may 
also lead to some confusion in that individuals who are not descended 
from indigenous populations but who were born in the United States may 
consider themselves to be ``Native Americans'' and may select this 
category erroneously. The May 1995 CPS Supplement on Race and Ethnicity 
found that more than half of those identifying as American Indian or 
one of the Alaska Native groups preferred ``American Indian'' or 
``Alaska Native'' but a third chose ``Native American.'' (Tucker et 
al., 1996) Public comments from tribal governments to OMB indicated a 
clear preference for the term ``American Indian.''
    In the RAETT's American Indian targeted sample, American Indians 
continued to write in a tribal affiliation across all panels, A through 
H, that used the combined category ``Indian (Amer.) or Alaska Native'' 
with the instruction, ``Print name of enrolled or principal tribe.'' On 
Panels B through H, some respondents used write-in entries such as 
``Amer. Indian,'' ``American Indian,'' ``American Ind.,'' and ``Indian 
Amer.'' to indicate that they are American Indian rather than Alaska 
Native, but did not provide a specific tribal entry. The percentage 
ranged from 6.5 percent on Panel H to less than 1 percent on Panel A. 
There also were write-ins, such as ``Amer-Indian-Navajo,'' in which 
respondents indicated first that they are American Indian, before 
writing in the tribal affiliation.
    In the RAETT, which drew its American Indian targeted sample from 
areas in close proximity to reservations, reinterviews were conducted 
with respondents in households with at least one person who identified 
as American Indian. This group indicated they preferred the term Native 
American (52 percent) to American Indian (25 percent). The remaining 
respondents indicated they had no preference (16 percent), preferred 
both terms (6 percent), or preferred another term (2 percent).
    Measurement. Measurement issues--discussed for each of the options 
presented in this chapter--relate to self-identification, quality and 
consistency of data, and implementation.
    The use of self-identification allows more people to identify as 
American Indian than are members of tribes. This includes people who 
are or who have ancestral ties to American Indians but do not meet 
tribal enrollment requirements. The term ``Native American'' attracts 
persons who were born in the United States as well as persons with 
American Indian and/or Alaska Native ancestry.
    To improve reporting of American Indian tribes in the decennial 
census, the instruction ``Print name of enrolled or principal tribe'' 
was tested and then included in the 1990 census race question. The 
instruction helped to reduce the rate of nonreporting of tribe from 
about 20 percent in 1980 to 13 percent in 1990. This improvement 
occurred in reservation areas but not in off-reservation areas. (1990 
CPH-L-99, ``American Indian Population by Tribe, for the United States, 
Regions, Divisions, and States: 1990'' and unpublished tables)
    The use of self-identification rather than observation by an 
enumerator provides more complete data on American Indians but with 
limitations. The consistency of reporting as American Indian is low 
among persons with both American Indian and White ancestry. In 
decennial census data collection and tabulation there has been no 
distinction between federally recognized tribes and nonfederally 
recognized tribes. The federally recognized tribal governments, as well 
as the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Indian Affairs, would 
like the American Indian and Alaska Native definition limited to 
enrolled tribal members of federally recognized tribes. The Indian 
Health Service favors a distinction between federally recognized tribes 
and nonfederally recognized tribes. IHS is only responsible for 
federally recognized tribes; however, a separate count for nonfederally 
recognized tribes indicates the potential IHS service population if the 
tribes were to receive Federal recognition.

[[Page 36921]]

    Some have suggested using a follow-up question to ask if a person 
is enrolled in the tribe reported in the race question. An enrollment 
question has not been included in the decennial census because there 
are no statutory requirements for tribal enrollment data and because of 
space constraints on the census questionnaire. Also, tribal governments 
that responded to the Bureau of the Census Survey of Census Needs of 
Non-Federal Data Users did not indicate that they needed tribal 
enrollment data.
    The 1980 Census Supplementary Questionnaire for American Indians 
(Reservations and the Historic Areas of Oklahoma) asked a follow-up 
question on whether the person was enrolled in the tribe reported. 
There were a total of 336,280 American Indians on all reservations and 
113,280 American Indians in the historic areas of Oklahoma (excluding 
urbanized areas) reported. For those on reservations, 87 percent were 
enrolled and 7 percent did not answer the question, For the historic 
areas of Oklahoma (excluding urbanized areas), 51 percent were enrolled 
and 11 percent did not answer. To determine whether a tribal enrollment 
question should be asked in the future, more extensive research will be 
needed on how to improve the reporting of such enrollment, particularly 
given the relatively high nonresponse rates in the past.
    Data production. Data production issues--discussed for each of the 
options presented in this chapter--relate to coding, editing, and 
adjustment needs.
    A change in the name of the American Indian category would not 
change the way American Indians are tabulated and would raise no data 
production issues. However, the introduction of the term ``Native 
American'' could be misinterpreted as meaning ``anyone born in the 
United States,'' with the result that some respondents would be 
misclassified. While the instruction asking for ``enrolled or principal 
tribe'' might indicate the focus of the category, it might also lead to 
a large number of write-in answers that would need to be coded.
    Analytic. Analytic issues--discussed for each of the options 
presented in this chapter--relate to comparability over time and 
aggregation.
    On the face of it, a change in the name of a group should not lead 
to a change in results if the definition of that group is not changed. 
To the extent that native-born individuals mistakenly check this 
category and are not identified in the coding or editing procedures, 
however, it is possible that using the term ``Native American'' would 
result in data that are not compatible with historical series.
    Cost. While there are no direct costs associated with a change in 
name, there are important, if unmeasurable, indirect costs related to 
misclassification and the cascading effect on data analysis.
    Legislative or program needs. Any approach collecting accurate data 
for this category would meet legislative and programs needs for most 
Federal agencies. The exception is the Bureau of Indian Affairs, which 
needs data only for federally recognized tribes and their members. Most 
Federal agencies use special tabulations of American Indians and Alaska 
Natives as one group, but data are also tabulated by tribe for some 
users.

5.3.1.2  Should the Term ``Alaska Native'' or ``Eskimo and Aleut'' be 
Used?

    While Directive No. 15 uses ``Alaskan Native,'' the preferred term 
is ``Alaska Native.'' This is reflected in Pub. L. 92-203, the Alaska 
Native Claims Settlement Act (ANSCA) of 1971, and subsequent 
legislation. The Indian Health Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, 
and the Bureau of the Census prefer and use ``Alaska Native.''
    In the RAETT Alaska Native targeted sample, most Alaska Natives--83 
percent on Panel B and 88 percent on Panel D--reported a specific tribe 
or corporation when the panel used the combined category ``Indian 
(Amer.) or Alaska Native'' with the instruction, ``Print name of 
enrolled or principal tribe.'' The ``tribe not reported'' rates on 
these panels were 14 percent and 12 percent, respectively. On Panels B 
and D, 21 percent and 15 percent of respondents, respectively, wrote in 
``Alaska Native'' by itself. These respondents indicated they were 
Alaska Native rather than American Indian, but did not provide a 
specific tribal or corporation affiliation. In addition, on Panels B 
and D, some respondents reported ``Eskimo'' (10 percent and 15 percent, 
respectively) and ``Aleut'' (2 percent and 1 percent, respectively) 
without reporting a specific tribal or corporation affiliation.
    In the RAETT reinterview for the Alaska Native targeted sample, 
respondents in households with at least one person who identified as 
Eskimo or Aleut indicated, by answering ``yes'' or ``no'' to each, that 
their tribal entry was an ethnic group (63 percent), a tribe (55 
percent), a land corporation (55 percent), a nation (30 percent), or 
something else (22 percent). Respondents who said their tribal entry 
was something else provided examples such as ``born in Alaska, 
indigenous people, Eskimo group, or Eskimos, self government, and 
people. In reinterview households with at least one person who 
identified as Eskimo, 88 percent of the respondents indicated that 
Eskimo was an acceptable term to them. Respondents who said Eskimo was 
acceptable but who preferred another term to Eskimo provided examples 
such as Inupiat, Yupik, Alaska Native, and American Indian. In 
reinterview households with at least one person who identified as 
Aleut, all respondents indicated that Aleut was an acceptable term to 
them.
    In Alaska, the terms Alaskan Indian, Eskimo, and Aleut were in 
general use before 1971. Beginning with the passage of ANCSA in 1971, 
the term Alaska Native came into use and has been used since. Alaska 
Native includes Alaskan Indians (Athabascans, Tlingits, and Haidas), 
Eskimos (Inupiat, Yupiks, etc.), and Aleuts (who primarily live on 
Kodiak Island and in the Aleutian chain) covered by ANCSA. Under ANCSA, 
Alaska Native does not include children who were born after 1972, but 
such persons do identify with the term despite the legal distinction. 
ANCSA established regional and village corporations that have 
membership requirements. It is also important to distinguish among the 
tribes that comprise the Alaska Native population. Alaska Native tribal 
governments and the State of Alaska have stated that they would find 
census data more useful if tribes were distinguished for Alaska Natives 
as they are for American Indians. These tribes are just as distinct 
politically, culturally, and linguistically as are the American Indian 
tribes in the lower 48 states.
    Focus groups and cognitive interviews with Alaska Natives found 
that Alaska Natives are reporting in the combined category, ``American 
Indian or Alaska Native,'' and are reporting a tribe. Also, statements 
indicated that the use of the term ``Eskimo'' may be offensive to some 
people. If the combined category is used, the term ``Eskimo'' as a 
descriptor would not be used.
    Measurement. As in the case of American Indians, the use of self-
identification allows more people to identify as Alaska Native than are 
members of tribes or corporations. However, Directive No. 15 (which 
uses the term Alaskan Native) makes no reference to ANCSA, with the 
result that individuals not included in the legal definition only 
identify themselves as Alaska Native.
    Data production. If Alaska Natives are asked to designate an 
enrolled or

[[Page 36922]]

principal tribe, there will be data tabulation and production 
implications for the decennial census. For example, a list of the 
tribes will have to be developed; a determination will have to be made 
about which tribes to list in tabulations; and editing and coding 
routines will have to be refined to correct for multiple spellings or 
misspellings of tribal names.
    Analytic. If Alaska Natives are asked to report their tribal 
affiliation, it would still be possible to aggregate them into the 
groups (American Indian, Eskimo, and Aleut) used previously in the 
decennial census.
    Cost. The data production needs discussed above will increase the 
cost of the decennial census to collect and report results by specific 
tribe.
    Legislative or program needs. Using the term Alaska Native and 
asking for the enrolled or principal tribe would meet legislative and 
program needs for most Federal agencies. It would not meet the needs of 
the Bureau of Indian Affairs to differentiate, at a minimum, between 
tribes that are or are not recognized by the Federal Government. It 
also would not allow for an absolute accounting of who is a member of a 
recognized tribe.

5.3.1.3  Should a Distinction be Made Between Federally Recognized and 
Nonfederally Recognized Tribes?

    In public comments to OMB, the federally recognized tribal 
governments would like the American Indian and Alaska Native definition 
limited to enrolled tribal members. In decennial census data collection 
and tabulation there has been no distinction between federally 
recognized tribes and nonfederally recognized tribes. Because self-
identification is used in the decennial census, it is not possible to 
distinguish between those individuals who have formally registered with 
a specific tribe and those who only claim an ancestral tie. To meet 
requirements of tribes, according to the Bureau of Indian Affairs and 
the Indian Health Service, it is preferable that data be collected for 
both members and nonmembers alike, but that a distinction be made 
between the two groups.
    Measurement. Currently, aside from the decennial census, most data 
collection follows Directive No. 15 and uses the ``American Indian or 
Alaska Native'' category or a combined American Indian, Eskimo, and 
Aleut category without asking for any tribal affiliation. The 1980 and 
1990 decennial censuses used three separate categories--American 
Indian, Eskimo, and Aleut. For persons who identified as American 
Indian, tribal affiliation was asked. The continued use of the category 
``American Indian or Alaskan Native'' does not impose an implementation 
problem for Federal agencies.
    Data production. Aside from data collections that ask for enrolled 
or principal tribe, there are no data production issues. However, when 
tribal affiliation is asked, many coding and editing issues come into 
play. These issues are not new and are well known to the agencies for 
which tribal affiliation is an important factor.
    Analytic. To the extent that data production related to coding and 
editing tribal affiliation identifies and reclassifies respondents who 
erroneously checked this racial category, no longer asking this 
information will inflate the number of American Indians.
    Cost. There are some costs associated with coding and editing 
tribal affiliation.
    Legislative or program needs. Using the category ``American Indian 
or Alaska Native'' and asking for the enrolled or principal tribe would 
meet legislative and program needs for most Federal agencies, except 
for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, which needs data on tribal members of 
federally recognized tribes.

5.3.1.4  What is the Best Way to Elicit Tribal Affiliation?

    American Indians have been asked in most decennial censuses to 
report their tribal affiliation. In the 1990 census, the instruction, 
``Print name of enrolled or principal tribe,'' improved reporting of 
tribal affiliation.
    Given the relatively large number of Alaska Natives who also 
specify tribal affiliation and the extent of negative reaction to the 
term ``Eskimo,'' careful consideration needs to be given to its 
continued use in either the name of the category or as an example. The 
use of the combined category ``American Indian or Alaska Native'' and 
the instruction, ``Print name of enrolled or principal tribe,'' would 
address both points.
    See section 5.3.1.2 above for a discussion of the measurement, data 
production, analytic, cost, and legislative or program needs issues 
related to this topic.

5.3.1.5  Should the Definition of the ``American Indian or Alaska 
Native'' Category be Changed to Include Indians Indigenous to Central 
America and South America?

    Currently, the definition for the ``American Indian or Alaska 
Native'' category does not include Indians indigenous to Central 
America and South America. In the 1990 census, members of Central 
American tribes (1,688) and South American Tribes (3,133) comprised 
less than 0.3 percent of the total American Indian population 
(1,878,285). Given these small numbers, no major difficulties occur 
with the current classification and collection method if the category 
were to be expanded. Even if the census numbers include these tribes, 
the count would have to be much larger, at least 50,000 or more, to 
appear in any Federal data collection other than the decennial census. 
(1990 CPH-L-99, ``American Indian Population by Tribe, for the United 
States, Regions, Divisions, and States: 1990'')
    It should be noted that in the development work that formed the 
basis for the current categories, some members of the FICE Ad Hoc 
Committee thought that the definition should refer to ``original 
peoples of the Western Hemisphere'' so as to include South American 
Indians. Ultimately, the Ad Hoc Committee decided that including South 
American Indians might present data problems for Federal agencies 
concerned with federally recognized tribes or Indians eligible for U.S. 
Government benefits.
    Given that the Central and South American Indian population in the 
United States is so small, no significant issues arise with respect to 
measurement, data production, analytic, cost, or legislative or program 
needs.

5.3.2  Changes related to Asian and Pacific Islanders

    The following suggested changes to Directive No. 15 concerning 
Asian and Pacific Islanders are discussed in this section:
     Should the ``Asian or Pacific Islander'' category be split 
into two categories? If yes, how should this be done?
     Should specific subgroups be listed under the current 
category?
     Should the term ``Guamanian'' or ``Chamorro'' be used?

5.3.2.1  Should the ``Asian or Pacific Islander'' Category be Split 
into Two Categories? If Yes, How Should this be Done?

    The issue is whether to retain the current Asian or Pacific 
Islander category, or to split the category into two separate 
categories, one for Asians and one for Pacific Islanders. The argument 
in favor of such a split is that the current category places together 
peoples who have few social or cultural similarities. It is argued that 
having separate categories for Asians and

[[Page 36923]]

Pacific Islanders would result in more homogeneous groups, which would 
increase the comprehensibility and logic of the entire classification 
scheme. In addition, the two resulting groups are dissimilar on a 
number of measures. For example.
     Education--Although approximately the same numbers of 
Asians and Pacific Islanders graduate from high school, far fewer 
Pacific Islanders (about 11 percent of persons 25 years of age and 
older) than Asians (about 40 percent) obtain bachelors degrees
     Income and employment--According to 1990 census data, 5.2 
percent of Asians over age 16 were unemployed, compared with 7.3 
percent of Pacific Islanders. Median household income was $41,583 for 
Asians and $33,955 for Pacific Islanders.
     Poverty--The poverty rate was 13.7 percent for Asians and 
16.6 percent for Pacific Islanders. (Fernandez, 1996)
    Aggregating Asians and Pacific Islanders separately is not 
problematic in decennial census data as currently collected, since 
separate data are available for each population group. Other data 
collections do not provide the opportunity to collect data separately 
for Asians and Pacific Islanders. In these instances, since Pacific 
Islanders are a small group numerically, their inclusion does not 
strongly affect the statistics for Asians. For example, the poverty 
rate for the entire Asian and Pacific Islander category is 13.8 
percent, as compared with 13.7 percent for Asians alone. Because 
Pacific Islanders were only 365,000 of the Asian and Pacific Islander 
total of 7,274,000 reported in the 1990 census (Fernandez, 1996), 
however, the situation of Pacific Islanders is frequently masked. For 
this reason it is possible to argue that users could make better use of 
data if there were separate Asian and Pacific Islander categories. 
Given their relatively small numbers, however, there is the question of 
whether Pacific Islanders are a large enough population group to 
warrant a separate category.
    A complicating factor is the request to separate Hawaiians from 
other Pacific Islanders, and to include them in the American Indian 
category (see section 5.3.3.2). If Hawaiians are not counted with other 
Pacific Islanders, the remaining ``Non-Hawaiian Pacific Islander'' 
group becomes very small. About 60 percent (211,000) of the Pacific 
Islanders are Hawaiians (Fernandez, 1996). The remaining 154,00 Pacific 
Islanders may be too small a group to justify a separate category. A 
residual ``Asian and Non-Hawaiian Pacific Islander'' category might 
confuse Hawaiian respondents, since the word Hawaiian would occur in 
two places in the question, and could prove difficult for other 
respondents to comprehend. For these reasons it is possible to argue 
that the Pacific Islander category, assuming it meets some minimum 
threshold, should only be considered as a stand-alone category if 
Hawaiians continue to be included in that category.
    With such small numbers, it might become difficult to obtain 
adequate sample data for Pacific Islanders at the State or other local 
level if the category were to stand alone. Unless it uses a methodology 
that calls for oversampling for Pacific Islanders, any national survey 
using a random sample of the general population would expect to find 
three Pacific Islanders per 2,000 cases. A study would have to have a 
sample in excess of 20,000 respondents to obtain thirty respondents 
without using a stratified sample. It is unlikely that Federal agencies 
could afford to plan a study calling for such a national sample in 
order to have reliable data for a separate Pacific Islander category.
    In addition, only a few agencies, such as the Department of 
Education in its assessment of reading proficiency, currently collect 
data separately on Asians and Pacific Islanders. In a number of cases, 
the numbers of Pacific Islander students were too small to permit 
statistically significant estimates. For example, although the 
percentage of Pacific Islander students at or above a ``proficient'' 
reading level in fourth grade in 1994 could be determined nationally, 
sample sizes were too small to permit reliable estimates for the 
Northeast, Southeast, Central, and West regions of the United States. 
Estimates were published only for three of the fifty States, and the 
estimate for California was flagged for interpretation with caution 
(Campbell, et al., 1996).
    Currently, Directive No. 15 defines a member of the Asian and 
Pacific Islander category as a person having origins in any of the 
original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, the Indian 
subcontinent, or the Pacific Islands (including, for example, China, 
India, Japan, Korea, the Philippine Islands, and Samoa). This 
definition does not clearly distinguish Asian from Pacific Islander 
areas. For example, by some definitions, Japan (an Asian country) could 
be considered a Pacific Island, and many of the peoples of the 
Philippines (also considered part of Asia) share linguistic and 
cultural features in common with Polynesians, Micronesians, and 
Melanesians. Further, the definition does not provide guidance about 
the classification of some groups. For example, Australian aborigines 
and the Papuan cultures of the South Pacific might be considered to be 
Pacific Islanders, although they have few social or linguistic 
affinities with the Polynesian, Micronesian, and Melanesian peoples 
otherwise included in the group.
    Data production. Since the decennial census already codes and edits 
the Asian and Pacific Islander groups separately, data production in 
this case should not be affected by separating the Asian and Pacific 
Islander category. In data collection procedures that require a write-
in for national origin, additional coding and editing would be 
required. Regardless of the size of the data collections at the 
national level, splitting this category will cause production 
difficulties for States with large populations of the two groups.
    Analytic. Whenever a new category is established there are 
comparability discontinuities. In this case the discontinuities should 
be minor. It would be possible to recreate the antecedent category 
simply by adding the two categories together. Of greater difficulty 
would be trying to recreate data for earlier surveys using the two 
categories. Where population counts are large enough (as in the case of 
the decennial census), it should be a simple matter of disaggregation. 
In smaller studies, however, even those that oversampled for Asian and 
Pacific Islanders, splitting may be impossible.
    Splitting the Asian or Pacific Islander category would have an 
additional effect in those areas where Asian and Pacific Islander 
populations have intermarried (such as Hawaii). Individuals with both 
Asian and Pacific Islander ancestry, who currently are able to respond 
in a single category, would have to choose between the two categories. 
They might respond as ``other race'' or as ``multiracial,'' if such a 
category were available. Thus, comparisons over time would be more 
difficult, inasmuch as certain individuals might no longer report 
either as Asian or as Pacific Islander.
    Cost. There would be substantial costs to requiring all Federal 
agencies to collect data on Asians and Pacific Islanders separately, 
particularly for the larger samples that would be required to produce 
statistically significant data for the small residual Pacific Islander 
category. Additional decennial census costs would be marginal for data 
collection and processing, since Asian and Pacific Islander groups are 
handled separately now. Additional costs would be incurred in the 
preparation and

[[Page 36924]]

dissemination of new data products containing the split categories.
    Legislative or program needs. Data on Asian and Pacific Islander 
populations are needed for apportionment in those States with large 
Asian or Pacific Islander populations. Splitting the Asian or Pacific 
Islander category into two categories might have an impact on 
apportionment for State legislative seats in States that have large 
populations of both groups.

5.3.2.2  Should Specific Groups be Listed Under the Asian or Pacific 
Islander Category?

    The issue of whether to list specific groups in this category is 
important only for the decennial census, as most agencies do not 
collect data on separate Asian and Pacific Islander groups on a regular 
basis. A brief history puts this issue into perspective.
    The 1980 Census contained a listing of Asian and Pacific Islander 
groups. The Census Bureau conducted several tests to see if Asian or 
Pacific Islander reporting would suffer if the specific groups were not 
listed and if a write-in line was provided instead. These tests 
indicated that data quality was the same or better in questions that 
did not list the groups separately. The 1986 National Content Test used 
the original 1980 version of the question, a modified version with a 
shorter list of subgroups, and a ``short'' version with a write-in box 
for specifying nationality after responding to the Asian or Pacific 
Islander category. The original 1980 version had an item nonresponse 
rate of 5.3 percent, the modified short-list version an item 
nonresponse rate of 2.7 percent, and the short version an item 
nonresponse rate of 1.6 percent. The Bureau of the Census found the 
item nonresponse for the 1980 version was unacceptably high: ``* * * 
traditionally, the race nonresponse rate has been small--under two 
percent.'' An additional test in Chicago also found that the short-
question version produced better results than the original 1980 
version. (Minutes and Report of Committee Recommendations, Census 
Advisory Committee, April 21 and 22, 1988.) For 1990, the Census Bureau 
recommended using the Asian or Pacific Islander category in the short 
form, in combination with a write-in box where all Asian and Pacific 
Islander groups could supply detailed data. However, citizen groups 
objected to this plan, and they were able to bring Congressional 
pressure to bear to restore the original list of Asian and Pacific 
Islander groups.
    The arguments in favor of and against listing specific groups 
remain essentially the same as they were in 1988. An issue paper dated 
November 10, 1988, described the case for listing the Asian and Pacific 
Islander groups in terms of relations between the Census Bureau and the 
Asian and Pacific Islander community, which might have a negative 
impact on Asian or Pacific Islander participation in the census. The 
arguments in favor of listing the groups included: (1) Strong 
opposition and outrage in the Asian and Pacific Islander community 
could actually lead to poorer reporting of race; (2) intense emotional 
feeling have the potential of affecting the overall enumeration 
(therefore, coverage in the census); and (3) opposition was creating 
divisiveness among racial and ethnic groups.
    The groups that advocated the listing of the Asian and Pacific 
Islander groups were also concerned that the proposed 1990 version, 
which would have required all Asian and Pacific Islander persons to 
write in a group, could not produce detailed statistics on each group 
in a timely manner.
    The current arguments against listing the subgroups are again the 
same as those made in 1988. A Census Bureau paper dated August 9, 1988, 
discussed the anticipated problems with listing the Asian and Pacific 
Islander groups. It noted that the listing approach would affect the 
accuracy of the racial data for Asian and Pacific Islanders as well as 
for Whites, Blacks, American Indians, Eskimos and Aleuts in the 
following ways (based on 1980 census and 1990 census test experience):
     Nonresponse rate for the race item would be higher.
     Misreporting by Asians or Pacific Islanders (for example, 
groups not listed such as Cambodians or Laotians reporting in the 
Vietnamese category; Asians and Pacific Islanders misreporting in the 
category of ``Other race'' due to a lack of understanding of the 
category ``Other API'').
     More misclassifications by Black and White persons (for 
example, ethnic groups such as Italian, West Indian, and Greek writing 
in an entry in the ``Other race'' box instead of using the appropriate 
category).
     More misreporting in the ``Other race'' category due to 
confusion about the intent of the question and lack of understanding of 
categories.
    These drawbacks are still likely to occur in formats that list the 
Asian and Pacific Islander groups, as reflected in the National Content 
Survey and other recent Census Bureau tests.
    It is important to note that a number of these drawbacks pertain to 
the reactions of other groups to a question that lists countries of 
origin only for Asians and Pacific Islanders. In 1988, the Bureau of 
Census reported to the Minority Advisory Committee:

    ``The national origin groups listed in the race question caused 
confusion among respondents, and some racial groups protested that 
they were not specifically identified in the question. For example, 
some European and Black ethnic groups misinterpreted the race 
question; they also marked off the ``Other'' race category and wrote 
in their ethnic identification. That was not the question's intent, 
and the misreporting required a very expensive corrective operation 
both in the field and in the data processing offices.'' (Minutes and 
Report of the Minority Advisory Committee Recommendations, April 21-
22, 1988)

    The effectiveness of the question for other groups should be of 
concern in a decision about the listing of Asian or Pacific Islander 
groups in the decennial census.
    An additional consideration, as before the 1990 census, is space. 
Although the format of the census instrument has changed from a grid to 
a booklet, space remains at a premium. This makes it difficult to add 
additional categories (such as persons from the countries of the former 
Soviet Union that should report in the Asian or Pacific Islander 
category) to the question to represent a changing Asian and Pacific 
Islander population.
    Measurement. It is clear from the discussion above that the listing 
of Asian and Pacific Islander groups negatively affects general data 
quality with an item nonresponse rate more than four times higher than 
when group data are collected in a write-in format. The listing also 
has an effect on other racial categories, when respondents look for a 
relevant specific listing and then use the ``Other race'' category to 
supply ethnic or ancestral data.
    The RAETT tested two variations in listing the groups that make up 
this category: listing them in alphabetical order and not listing them 
in alphabetical order. The results of this methodological difference 
are reported in Table 11-4R, ``Terminology Issue: Comparison of Panel B 
(Without Alphabetization of Asian and Pacific Islander) and Panel G 
(With Alphabetization of Asian and Pacific Islander) for the Asian and 
Pacific Islander Targeted Sample, By Race: 1996 RAETT.'' Of the ten 
groups listed (Chinese, Filipino, Hawaiian, Korean, Vietnamese, 
Japanese, Asian Indian, Samoan, Guamanian, and Other Asian and Pacific 
Islander), five reported higher numbers with alphabetization and five 
reported higher numbers without. However, only two groups recorded a 
statistically significant difference at the 90-percent confidence

[[Page 36925]]

level, one under each option. This seems to indicate that the manner in 
which the list is shown has no consistent effect on the category as a 
whole.
    Data production. Part of the resistance to the short version of the 
census race question prior to 1990 (without the Asian and Pacific 
Islander subgroups) came from doubts that the Census Bureau would be 
able to code write-in responses in a timely manner. According to a 
Government Accounting Office report on the controversy, ``[d]elays in 
the publication of detailed Asian and Pacific Islander data after the 
1980 census resulted in concerns about how the data from the 1990 
census would be processed.'' The Census Bureau's plans to put new 
technology in place came too late to ease this concern (GAO, 1993). 
With the automated coding operation that is now in place, this argument 
in favor of listing Asian and Pacific Islander groups can no longer be 
made.
    Editing may also be necessary if the list of Asian and Pacific 
Islander groups remains in the decennial census race question. Tests 
conducted during the 1980's found that recently migrated groups that 
were not listed did not use the ``other'' write-in as intended, but 
rather filled the circle next to a closely related group, crossed out 
the group's name, and wrote in their own country of origin. For 
example, Laotians and Cambodians (not listed separately) filled the 
circle by the category ``Vietnamese'' and then crossed out 
``Vietnamese.'' The Bureau of the Census estimates that 6 percent of 
those reporting as Vietnamese did so in error. The exact figures are 
not known because most of the editing was done directly on the 
questionnaires, in the regions or in the processing centers, and 
records were not kept of these changes.
    Analytic. Splitting the Asian or Pacific Islander category would 
not create a comparability problem if the definitions of the two groups 
remain the same. However, if Hawaiians are removed, the resulting 
groups would not be comparable over time.

5.3.2.3  Should the Term ``Guamanian'' or ``Chamorro'' Be Used?

    In November 1995, the Bureau of the Census released a report on a 
focus group involving twelve Chamorro speakers held in the Washington, 
DC area. In the conclusion to the report, the author states that ``the 
term Chamorro should probably be substituted for Guamanian on the 
questionnaire * * * . All focus group participants indicated that they 
preferred Chamorro to Guamanian, although with varying degrees of 
intensity.'' It should be noted, however, that the sample 
underrepresented Chamorros born in the United States and non-Chamorro 
speakers. (Levin, 1995)
    In the RAETT reinterview for the Asian and Pacific Islander 
targeted sample, respondents in households with at least one person who 
identified as Guamanian indicated they preferred Guamanian (58 
percent), Chamorro (20 percent), had no preference (18 percent), or 
preferred both (4 percent). Respondents also indicated that Guamanian 
(72 percent) and Chamorro (79 percent) were acceptable terms to them.
    There are no measurement, data production, analytic, cost, or 
legislative or program needs issues related to the current method of 
data collection.

5.3.3  Changes related to Hawaiians

    Changes to Directive No. 15 as they relate to Hawaiians discussed 
in this section include:
     Should the term ``Native Hawaiian'' or ``Hawaiian'' be 
used?
     Should Hawaiians continue to be included in the ``Asian or 
Pacific Islander'' category; be reclassified and included in the 
``American Indian or Alaska Native'' category; or be established as a 
separate, new category?

5.3.3.1  Should the Term ``Native Hawaiian'' or ``Hawaiian'' Be Used?

    Two questions are raised by this issue. The first is how best to 
identify individuals who trace their ancestry to the people who lived 
in what is now the State of Hawaii prior to the arrival in 1778 of 
Captain James Cook. The second is how to help respondents differentiate 
between these individuals and others who are born in Hawaii but who are 
not descended from the indigenous people.
    In the vital statistics system for the State of Hawaii, births are 
counted as Hawaiian if either parent is Hawaiian or part Hawaiian. The 
State is also developing a register of individuals who can trace their 
ancestry back to someone living in Hawaii before Captain Cook's 1778 
visit to the Hawaiian Islands. Directive No. 15 itself does not provide 
guidance on this level of detail. Publications from the 1990 census use 
the term ``Hawaiian.'' The RAETT results shed some light on this issue 
as four panels include a ``Hawaiian'' category and two include a 
``Native Hawaiian'' category.
    The RAETT tested the term ``Native Hawaiian'' in Panels D and G. 
The results of this test are reported in Table 7-4R, ``Sequencing Issue 
in: Comparison of Panel D (Race Question First) and Panel B (Hispanic 
Origin Question First) for the Asian and Pacific Islander Targeted 
Sample, by Race: 1996 RAETT'' and Table 11-4R, ``Terminology Issue: 
Comparison of Panel B (Without Alphabetization of Asian and Pacific 
Islander) and Panel G (With Alphabetization of Asian and Pacific 
Islander) for the Asian and Pacific Islander Targeted Sample, by Race: 
1996 RAETT.'' While no table specifically looks at the results using 
``Hawaiian'' versus ``Native Hawaiian,'' it is possible to get an idea 
whether the terminology used affects the results. In Table 7-4R no 
statistical difference in the reporting of Hawaiians is shown, while in 
Table 11-4R a statistical difference in the reporting of Hawaiians is 
shown.
    In neither comparison is the issue of using the Hawaiian or the 
Native Hawaiian terminology the only issue under consideration. 
Therefore, it is hard to interpret these results conclusively. On the 
one hand, the term ``Hawaiian'' does not appear to cause any confusion 
in the minds of respondents. But on the other hand, the term ``Native 
Hawaiian'' may not cause confusion either, and it might more clearly 
define the population the term is aimed at enumerating.
    In the RAETT reinterview for the Asian and Pacific Islander 
targeted sample, respondents in households with at least one person who 
identified as Hawaiian indicated that they preferred Hawaiian (48 
percent), Native Hawaiian (35 percent), had no preference (10 percent), 
or preferred another term (0.5 percent). Respondents also indicated 
that Native Hawaiian (84 percent) and Hawaiian (95 percent) were 
acceptable terms to them.
    There are no measurement, data production, analytic, cost, or 
legislative or program needs issues related to this decision regardless 
of which option is selected.

5.3.3.2  Should Hawaiians Continue To Be Included in the ``Asian or 
Pacific Islander'' Category; Be Reclassified and Included in the 
``American Indian or Alaskan Native'' Category; or be Established as a 
Separate, New Category?

    In the public comments, some Native Hawaiians expressed a 
preference for the option of being included with American Indians and 
Alaska Natives in a category for indigenous peoples of the United 
States, possibly called ``Native Americans.'' They said that including 
them in the large ``Asian and Pacific Islander'' category resulted in 
data that do not accurately reflect their social and economic 
conditions. For example, Pacific Islanders have relatively high

[[Page 36926]]

poverty rates. They also have health issues and educational needs 
different from Asians. American Indian Tribal organizations opposed 
this option. Other comments against this option ranged from the term 
``Native'' can ``mean any persons born in a particular area'' to the 
``data would be less useful than currently for policy development, 
trend analyses, and needs assessment;'' and ``not useful for health 
research.''
    Inclusion of Hawaiians in a category with American Indians and 
Alaska Natives would have a major impact on the picture of the social 
and economic conditions of American Indians and Alaska Natives; while 
Hawaiians make up 2.9 percent of the Asian and Pacific Islander 
category, they would represent 9.7 percent of a reconstituted 
``American Indian or Alaskan Native'' category. (For detail on the 
State of residence of Hawaiians, see Table 5.1)
    A separate Hawaiian category also was proposed. In addition, it was 
suggested that ``Hawaiian'' be changed to ``Hawaiian, part-Hawaiian,'' 
because most native Hawaiians are part Hawaiian and many, in the past, 
have categorized themselves as ``White.'' Those for this option say 
that it provides specific information for policy development, trends 
analyses, needs assessments, program evaluation, and civil rights 
enforcement. However, because Hawaiians are a small geographically 
concentrated population, this option may create a problem for surveys 
in states outside the Pacific Region. In most states there are not 
enough Hawaiians to form a sampling pool large enough to obtain 
findings that are significant in any way.
    The 1990 census reported 211,014 Hawaiians, or slightly less than 
0.01 percent of the total population of the United States. Hawaiians 
are a highly concentrated population: almost two-thirds (138,742) 
reside in the State of Hawaii. The second highest concentration is in 
California, which has more than one-sixth (34,447) of all Hawaiians. 
The third highest concentration is in the State of Washington, which 
has about 2.5 percent (5,423) of all Hawaiians.
    Another option, not suggested, but always available, is for local 
areas with large Hawaiian or part Hawaiian populations to have a 
separate classification. If Hawaiian is not included in the minimum 
list of MOB categories, it could still be used by states, local 
governments, or federal agencies with a specific need for this 
category.
    What category should include Hawaiians may be a question of the 
alternative bases for classification and intent. If the categories used 
are intended to classify the races as a function of geography, the 
individuals of Hawaiian ancestry should remain as a sub-category of the 
Asian or Pacific Islander category.
    If, on the other hand, the goal is to classify the indigenous 
people of what is now the United States of America, then individuals of 
Hawaiian ancestry should be moved. However, this also raises a question 
about the other groups that are indigenous to various territories that 
are part of the United States--e.g., Guam, Micronesia, and the Virgin 
Islands. While a distinction could be made based on the fact that 
Hawaii is a State, this is nonetheless an issue that will likely need 
to be addressed in a future, if not in this, revision of the Federal 
standards.
    More important, however, is the issue of whether classifying 
individuals of Hawaiian ancestry into the same category as the American 
Indians confuses matters regarding legal status. American Indians have 
a special legal status with the Federal Government as a result of 
treaties and legislation. It is important, if individuals of Hawaiian 
ancestry are categorized as ``Native Americans,'' that linkage to this 
special legal status be addressed and not left to interpretation or 
litigation.

BILLING CODE 3110-01-M

[[Page 36927]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09JY97.018



[[Page 36928]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09JY97.019



BILLING CODE 3110-01-C
    The RAETT sheds some light on the number of individuals selecting 
the Hawaiian category under various reporting options. Table 1-4R 
(Multiracial Issue: Comparison of Panel A (No Multiracial Category) and 
Panel B (With a Multiracial Category) for the Asian and Pacific 
Islander Targeted Sample, by Race: 1996 RAETT,) and Table 6-4R 
(Multiracial Issue: Comparison of Panel C (``Mark One or More'' 
Instruction) and Panel H (``Mark All That Apply'' Instruction) for the 
Asian and Pacific Islander Targeted Sample, by Race: 1996 RAETT,) show 
that the addition of an option to report multiple races results in a 
lower reporting of Hawaiian only. Many Hawaiians select a multiple race 
option. Without a multiple reporting option, 9.20 percent of the Asian 
and Pacific Islander targeted sample report as Hawaiian (Panel A Table 
1-4R). When a ``Multiracial'' category is offered (Panel B), the 
proportion selecting ``Hawaiian'' (only) drops to 5.48 percent. Table 
6-4R shows that the proportion reporting Hawaiian (only) is 4.66 
percent when the instruction is to ``mark one or more'' races (Panel C) 
and is 3.87 percent when the instruction is to ``mark all that apply'' 
(Panel H). The two panels in which multiple responses were allowed also 
showed an increase in the proportion reporting as ``Other Asian and 
Pacific Islander,'' 9.93 percent in Panel C and 7.57 percent in Panel 
H. This increase is due in part to recoding done by the Bureau of the 
Census to prepare tabulations for the RAETT. If ``Hawaiian'' and any 
other Asian or Pacific Islander category were marked, the respondent 
was classified as ``Other Asian and Pacific Islander.'' A more complete 
analysis of the multiple race reporting on RAETT among Hawaiians could 
provide additional insights.
    Measurement. The measurement of individuals of Hawaiian ancestry in 
the decennial census or in those studies that identify this group would 
not be affected by reclassification of Hawaiians since there is no 
change in how Hawaiian ancestry is determined. However, such 
reclassification of those with Hawaiian ancestry would have substantial 
impact on the data consistency for both the resulting ``Asian or 
Pacific Islander'' category and the expanded ``American Indian'' 
category in the more typical cases where detail for individuals of 
Hawaiian ancestry is not collected/reported separately. It is likely 
that there would be no consistency across the classification change. It 
would be impossible to say with certainty whether differences in 
characteristics over time in either resulting category were a 
consequence of real change or of the new categorization of those with 
Hawaiian ancestry. Informing the data user about the discontinuity 
could be accomplished by footnotes. Data users interested in a time 
series would require additional information or special tabulations in 
the absence of specific subcategory data, which may not always be 
possible to produce.
    Data production. Data production would not be affected by moving 
individuals of Hawaiian ancestry; the group would not be defined 
differently, but moved to a different tabulation category. Of more 
importance would be the need for a redesign of the published tables at 
the subcategory level, as well as the need for explanatory footnotes.
    Analytic. While there should be no effect on who is reporting as 
being of Hawaiian ancestry, a change would have a major impact on the 
comparability over time of the aggregated, larger racial categories.

[[Page 36929]]

While this population is small in number, Hawaiians make up just under 
3 percent of the current ``Asian or Pacific Islander'' category but 
would make up almost 10 percent of a newly broadened category that 
would include American Indians, Alaska Natives, and those of Hawaiian 
ancestry. Casual data users looking up information in an almanac or a 
statistical publication might be misled by the change. Researchers 
using race as a major analytic variable in longitudinal time series 
might have to adjust their time series.
    Cost. The costs associated with reclassifying Hawaiians are hard to 
calculate. They include, but are not limited to, discarding current 
forms; the preparation of new forms and instructions; an educational 
campaign to inform people filling out forms as well as data users of 
the change; the need to check submissions over the short run to make 
sure the change has been properly made; and the fact that data for the 
next few years may be inaccurate as a result of misclassifications.
    Legislative or program needs. Current legislative and program needs 
related to individuals of Hawaiian ancestry will be unaffected by this 
change. However, legislative and program needs related to American 
Indians would be affected by the need for an additional analytic step 
to account for the change. For example, Census figures from 1990 show a 
median family income of $21,750 for American Indians and Alaskan 
Natives with 31 percent of the individuals in this population below the 
poverty line. Median family income in 1990 for Asian and Pacific 
Islanders was $41,251, and 14 percent were below the poverty line (1990 
Census of Population, Social and Economic Characteristics: United 
States, 1990 CP-2-1). These figures for Hawaiians (a very small 
proportion of the Asian or Pacific Islander category) were much closer 
to those for the Asians than to those for American Indians--$37,269 and 
14 percent. Asians, however, are considerably more likely to have 
completed college (37.7 percent) than either Hawaiians (11.9 percent) 
or American Indians (9.3 percent).
    In addition, moving individuals of Hawaiian ancestry to the 
American Indian category could affect apportionment at the State 
legislative--district level in local areas or States where the 
reclassification affects the resulting Asian and Pacific Islander or 
American Indian counts.

5.3.4  Other Terminology Issues

    Other issues Related to Directive No. 15 concerning terminology 
covered in this section are:
     Should the term ``Black'' or ``African American'' be used?
     Should the term ``Hispanic'' or ``Latino'' be used?
     Should more than one term be used in either case?

5.3.4.1.  Should the Term ``Black'' or ``African American'' be Used?

    The terms used to identify population groups do not necessarily 
invalidate the categorization scheme, but they may have marginal 
effects on nonresponse rates and misreporting. They also could cause 
resentment among some respondents. Smith (1992) notes that the terms 
can be important because they are used by the particular group's 
members to indicate the achievement of standing in the greater 
community. In the case of Blacks, disagreements over terms can result 
among persons of different ancestries. Among Blacks of African-American 
heritage, a growing proportion express a preference for ``African-
American'' over the term ``Black'' (Lavrakas, Schejbal, and Smith, 
1994). On the other hand, Blacks with roots in the Caribbean or Africa 
do not identify with the term ``African-American'' (Denton and Massey, 
1989; Billingsly, 1993).
    Options that were investigated with respect to the Black category 
included using only Black, as currently, or using African-American 
instead.
    Measurement. Testimony given at hearings held by OMB on proposed 
changes to Directive No. 15 stressed the importance of having 
categories that are generally understood and with which people could 
identify. This is a fundamental requirement if the principle of self-
identification is to be honored. Moreover, supplying the Federal 
Government's definitions for the various population groups will be 
particularly important for recent immigrants.
    The terms used for classification have to be both familiar and 
acceptable to the respondent. For instance, focus group participants 
from the Association of Public Data Users (APDU) believed that 
Jamaicans would resist identifying as African-American, but that they 
would identify as Black. If only African-American were offered, 
Jamaicans might turn to the ``Other'' category. This underscores the 
need for supplying a comprehensive definition of the category to 
interviewers and respondents.
    The May 1995 CPS Supplement asked Black respondents to choose the 
term they preferred. Keeping in mind that their choices may have been 
influenced by the terminology in the race and ethnicity questions they 
already had received, ``Black'' was the term more preferred. However, 
while 44 percent chose ``Black'' almost as many in total selected 
either ``African-American'' (28 percent) or ``Afro-American'' (12 
percent), while 9 percent gave no preference (Tucker et al., 1996). 
Additional analysis of the CPS Supplement data revealed that preference 
was dependent on respondents' demographic characteristics. Young and 
well-educated Blacks were more likely to prefer ``African-American'' or 
``Afro-American.'' The results of the National Content Survey generally 
coincide with the results from the CPS Supplement. ``Black'' was 
preferred by 45 percent of those identifying as Black, while 33 percent 
preferred ``African-American.''
    As noted, problems could arise if terms are not defined or if 
certain national groups feel excluded by the terms. This may be a 
particular problem for example, for Caribbean Blacks.
    The context in which data collection occurs must be considered when 
changing terminology. Against, mode of data collection will affect the 
way choices can be presented. Where observer identification is 
necessary, clear coding rules will need to accompany any changes in 
terminology. More precise population group definitions in instructions 
and data collection instruments will help State and local governments 
as well as private-sector organizations.
    Data production. To the extent that some Blacks do not identify 
with the terminology provided, they may not respond or may check the 
``Other race'' category when it is offered. In this case, specific 
answers would have to be coded. Better instructions and definitions may 
reduce this problem.
    Analytic. Because there is diversity in the Black community, the 
terminology used to measure this population needs to be encompassing. 
Denton and Massey (1989) found that it is important to capture the 
complete ethnic identities of Blacks when studying living patterns. For 
example, they documented that Caribbean Blacks were less segregated 
from Hispanics than they were from other Blacks.
    A number of Federal agencies have expressed concern that changes 
will make it difficult, if not impossible, to recreate or to aggregate 
data to the categories they currently are using. These agencies do not 
object to greater detail but do worry that aggregation to the current 
categories might not be

[[Page 36930]]

possible. Their concern is that some Blacks (or Hispanics) no longer 
would identify with the same category if terminology were changed. Both 
the Department of Defense and the Federal Bureau of Investigation 
suggested that part of the Black population, especially recent 
immigrants, could be misclassified if ``African-American'' were to 
replace ``Black.'' Furthermore, some of the public comment suggests 
that the term ``American'' should not be used in this category, given 
that it is not used in other categories such as Asian.
    Cost. The costs involved in changing terminology would be small 
relative to some of the other possible changes. These costs would come 
from the development of new instructions, new definitions, and new 
forms designs. Some costs may be incurred for additional statistical 
adjustment and estimation procedures beyond those usually employed 
after each decennial census if distributions change as a result of new 
terminology. Changes in terminology should not increase costs much for 
those outside the Federal Government since these changes would be 
incorporated in the transition made to accommodate the new data from 
Census 2000.
    Social costs may result whether changes are made or not made. 
Depending upon the decision, different interest groups may be unhappy.
    Legislative or program needs. Many Federal agencies will expect to 
be able to make comparisons to past data series regardless of any 
changes. To the extent that changes in terminology prevent such 
comparisons, this will be a problem that must be resolved. However, the 
problems in this particular case are expected to be minimal relative to 
other possible changes. A survey of public school systems conducted by 
NCES (1996) found that a majority (55 percent) did not believe changing 
to ``African-American'' would be a problem, while 10 percent said it 
would be a significant problem. About 30 percent believed it would 
create some problems.

5.3.4.2  Should the Term ``Hispanic'' or ``Latino'' Be Used?

    The issues with respect to terminology for the Hispanic category 
are somewhat different. Many Hispanics prefer to identify with their 
country of origin. As Hahn (1994) points out, ``Hispanic'' is a term 
created by the Federal Government and is not traditionally used by 
peoples with origins in Central and South America. In fact, the term 
appears to be a compromise among the various groups. Some researchers 
suggest using ``Latino'' instead (Hayes-Bautista and Chapa, 1987) while 
others are comfortable with ``Hispanic'' (Trevino, 1987). In either 
case some groups might mistakenly be included or excluded. For example, 
Italians might identify as Latino, but Filipinos would not. In addition 
to the broad category identifier, knowledge of the particular Hispanic 
subgroup is often desirable (Farley, 1993). The National Council of La 
Raza, for example, supports the collection of the respondent's 
subgroup.
    In the case of Hispanic origin, possibilities include (1) using 
only Hispanic; (2) collecting Hispanic subgroup designation or country 
of origin; or (3) using other terms instead of Hispanic, such as 
``Latino,'' ``Chicano,'' and ``Of Spanish Origin.'' In addition, 
instructions could be given for the respondent to mark ``No'' if not 
Hispanic. If an Hispanic subgroup is asked for, an ``Other'' category 
might be provided along with a space to specify the group.
    Measurement. In the CPS Supplement, the term ``Hispanic'' was 
chosen by 58 percent of the respondents, and ``Latino'' and ``Of 
Spanish Origin'' were each selected by 12 percent. Another 10 percent 
indicated they had no preference, while 8 percent chose some other 
term. More than 60 percent of Mexicans and Puerto Ricans chose 
``Hispanic,'' compared with a little over 40 percent among the other 
subgroups. Hispanics over age 50 were less likely than younger ones to 
prefer ``Hispanic.'' They were more likely than the others to choose 
``Of Spanish Origin'' or ``Some other term.'' Again, the result from 
the National Content Survey paralleled the CPS Supplement findings. The 
term ``Hispanic'' was preferred by 47 percent of the respondent, 
``Spanish'' by 21 percent, and ``Latino'' by 13 percent.
    Differences in specific terms or subgroup identifiers might not be 
recognized by neutral observers, but they can be very important to the 
individual respondent. Even if observers could classify Hispanic 
correctly, identifying the particular subgroup (e.g., Puerto Rican, 
Cuban, Mexican, or other Hispanic) or distinguishing when someone is 
both Black and Hispanic (e.g., the Caribbean Blacks spoken of by 
Billingsly, 1993). Hahn, Truman, and Barker (1996) also found that even 
some proxies had troubles with this task.
    Clearly, the quality of data will suffer when proxies or observers 
cannot correctly determine race and ethnicity, but respondent 
themselves are not always consistent in their responses to these 
questions. McKenney, et al. (1991) found this in examining reinterview 
data from the 1990 census. Overall, inconsistency was found to be low, 
but it was greatest for Hispanics who had been in this country for a 
long period of time or those who were born here, who only spoke 
English, and who said they were ``Other Spanish'' when asked to 
indicate their subgroup. The Hispanics of higher socio-economic status 
also show some inconsistency (Hazuda et al., 1986). Those who are not 
Hispanic do not consistency mark ``No'' unless provided with an 
instruction to do so (Bates, 1991).
    Kissam, Herrera, and Nakemoto (1993) concluded that ``Hispanic'' or 
``Latino'' would be better than ``Spanish,'' but that asking for 
national origin would be even better, particularly for recent 
immigrants. The use of several terms or complicated instructions can be 
difficult both for recent immigrants and the illiterate. The effects of 
specific terms or the question format differ by mode of survey. 
Personal visits can overcome these problems best, but many surveys are 
no longer done this way. Mail surveys do lay out the alternatives 
clearly for respondents, but this mode assumes literacy. Telephone 
surveys may be most affected by wording and format.
    Data production. As with Blacks, to the extent that some Hispanics 
do not identify with the names of the categories provided, they may not 
respond or may check the ``Other'' category when it is offered (either 
in the Hispanic origin question or the race question). When more 
detailed information on Hispanics is collected, the write-in answers in 
the ``Other'' category must be coded. Editing of open-ended responses 
may be required. Imputation will be needed for those who do not 
identify with the terms provided and who leave the question blank. This 
may be a particular problem for Hispanics failing to give a subgroup. 
This editing is on top of that resulting from Hispanics failing to 
respond to the race question and non-Hispanics not answering the 
ethnicity question.
    To the extent that the failure to answer the race and ethnicity 
questions because of disagreement with the terms is not random, both 
the Blacks and the Hispanics that do answer the questions will not be 
representative. This would be an additional source of error affecting 
statistical distributions including the counts of subgroups. Weighting 
adjustments would be needed, but could be carried out only if the 
necessary information is available.
    Analytic. One methodological point that those studying the Hispanic 
community agree on is that more detailed information about respondents'

[[Page 36931]]

origins is needed. This is certainly true for substantive analysts, 
although some Federal agencies may not need this level of detail to 
carry out their specific mandates. Researchers stress that a simple 
``yes-no'' question is not sufficient for analyzing differences in the 
diverse Hispanic community. Gimenez (1989) concluded that a global 
identification is not useful because Hispanics are so heterogeneous. 
The members of APDU who were interviewed indicated that they often must 
distinguish between different Hispanic subgroups in their work in local 
communities. Wong and McKay (1992) argued that comparisons across 
Hispanic subgroups actually are more important than comparisons of 
Hispanics with Blacks, Whites, and Asians. Kleinman (1990), in looking 
at health outcomes, came to the same conclusion.
    The 1990 census did request a Hispanic subgroup. Whether or not 
Hispanic subgroup is ascertained, the Hispanic community is so diverse 
that the terminology used needs to be encompassing. To the extent that 
some Hispanics cannot identify with the terms used, a part of this 
diverse population might be missed. Furthermore, with the increasing 
Hispanic immigration, subgroups might need to be tracked and 
terminology might need to change more rapidly than in the past in order 
to provide the same level of knowledge.
    Cost. Most of the same issues discussed for Blacks apply in this 
case, with two additional ones. More space on forms would have to be 
allocated if information on Hispanic subgroups is desired. The amount 
of open-ended coding in the race question probably would be affected 
more by changes in terminology for Hispanics than for Blacks.
    Legislative or program needs. Federal agencies will have the same 
concerns about changes in categories for Hispanics as they do about 
changes for Blacks.

5.3.4.3  Should More Than One Term Be Used for Black or for Hispanic?

    One possible solution to the problems arising from the choice of 
terms the Black and Hispanic categories is the use of more than one 
term in the names of the categories. If several terms were used, 
respondents who identified with any one of the terms could select the 
category. Options considered as part of this review included (1) some 
combination of ``Black,'' ``African-American,'' and ``Negro'' and (2) 
some combination of ``Hispanic,'' ``Latino,'' ``Chicano,'' and ``of 
Spanish Origin.''
    Measurement. If several terms are used (or, possibly, with just a 
change in terms), the current definitions might need revision. For 
example, a recommendation was offered at the Workshop on the Federal 
Standards for Racial and Ethnic Classification, held by the National 
Academy of Sciences, to use the term ``African-American'' in addition 
to the term ``Black'' (1996). The evidence from the CPS Supplement 
suggests that using both Black and African-American would satisfy most 
of the respondents in that category. The same would be true for using 
several terms in the Hispanic origin question. In both cases, the 
populations identifying with each category could be more diverse. At 
that point, the identification of subgroups might become more critical 
for analytic purposes.
    The Hispanic origin question in Panel 3 of the NCS read, ``Is this 
person of Spanish/Hispanic origin?'' Additionally, in Panel 3 the 
Hispanic origin question came immediately before the race question and 
the race question did not offer a multiracial category as a reporting 
option. The Hispanic origin question in Panel 4 of the NCS read, ``Is 
this person Spanish/Hispanic/Latino?'' Further, as in Panel 3, the 
Hispanic origin question in Panel 4 came immediately before the race 
question but, unlike Panel 3, the race question in Panel 4 offered a 
multiracial category as a reporting option.
    The NCS found that Panel 4 (where the race question included the 
multiracial category) had a lower percentage of respondents who 
reported as Hispanic in the Hispanic origin question compared with 
Panel 3--6.9 percent in Panel 4 compared with 9.0 percent in Panel 3. 
This decline was particularly pronounced among Mexicans, declining from 
5.6 percent in Panel 3 to 3.2 percent in Panel 4.
    Additional analyses of responses to comparable panels were 
conducted to determine whether the decline in Hispanic origin 
identified by these data is due to the fact that a multiracial category 
was included in the race question or to the change in the wording of 
the Hispanic origin question (``Spanish/Hispanic origin'' in Panel 3, 
and ``Spanish/Hispanic/Latino'' in Panel 4). These analyses revealed 
that neither the multiracial category in the race question nor 
differences in the wording of the Hispanic origin question was 
associated with a statistically significant decline in the proportion 
of Mexicans or of Hispanics in those panels 3 and 4. Moreover, 
additional analyses using NCS reinterview data ruled out the 
possibility that significantly different proportions of Mexicans were 
sampled in Panels 3 and 4.
    Given these analyses, it is not clear whether the decline in the 
percentage who reported as Hispanic in Panel 4 relative to Panel 3, 
particularly among the Mexican subgroup, is due to the presence of the 
multiracial category in the race question, the wording of the Hispanic 
origin question, the placement of the Hispanic origin question before 
the race question, or the confluence of these factors. Thus, the drop 
in reporting as Hispanic, and particularly as Mexican, on Panel 4 
remains unexplained.
    Data production. If several terms were used for the Hispanic origin 
and Black categories, it is possible that the coverage of these 
populations would be improved. A significant number of Hispanics, 
however, might still choose an ``Other race'' category or not answer 
the race question, as demonstrated by the NCS and the CPS Supplement.
    Analytic. The use of several terms may increase the diversity of 
those comprising the Black and Hispanic populations. Thus, their 
characteristics may be different than would be the case if only one 
term were used. In fact, while a more complete picture of these groups 
may result, that picture could be confusing. Subgroup differences might 
be more important.
    Cost. Again, costs will be small compared to some of the other 
changes being considered, and these costs are for the same items 
already mentioned. However, costs for open-ended coding are likely to 
be reduced if multiple terms are used, because the residual or 
``Other'' category will be chosen less often.
    Legislative or program needs. The use of several terms for Blacks 
and Hispanics still could produce a lack of comparability with earlier 
data. Slightly larger population counts may result for the groups from 
the use of multiple terms. The effects could be more pronounced in some 
local areas than in others, depending on the diversity of the 
population.

5.3.5  Other New Category Issues

    Public comment included suggestions to add other population groups 
to the minimum set of categories currently used for all data collection 
and reporting by the Federal Government. Some of the issues raised 
(summarized in OMB's August 1995 Federal Register notice) were: Adding 
categories for White ethnic groups; adding a category for persons for 
Arab or Middle Eastern descent; adding a category for Creoles; and 
adding a category for Cape Verdeans. The discussion below focuses

[[Page 36932]]

on issues surrounding the addition of categories for Arab or Middle 
Easterner and for Cape Verdean.
    There were a number of public comments which requested that 
categories for European-Americans and for German-Americans be included 
in the revised Directive. This issue was not addressed in the research 
program. However, such data are available from the ancestry question on 
the decennial census.

5.3.5.1  Should an Arab or Middle Eastern Category Be Created and, If 
So, How Should It Be Defined?

    The argument for creating a separate category for persons of Arab 
or Middle Eastern descent is similar to that made for persons of 
Hispanic descent: they are a diverse population group having some 
language and cultural characteristics in common. Like Hispanics, 
persons of Arab or Middle Eastern descent can be of any race. Many are 
White but there also are many Black and other racial descent. The 
number of persons (1.6 million, or 0.7 percent of the U.S. population 
in 1990) who report in one of the ancestries that the Census Bureau has 
shown under the heading of ``North Africa and Southwest Asia'' (a very 
broad, geographically based categorization) exceeds that of many of the 
groups shown on the decennial census form. (An alternative to adding an 
ethnic group would be a short-form question on ethnicity/ancestry--
replacing or in addition to the Hispanic origin question--with space 
for a write-in of specific, less common ancestries.)
    It has been suggested that in order to track problems related to 
discrimination against Arabs or Middle Easterners, some way of 
identifying them separately is necessary. Then, if a pattern of 
problems can be discerned, a case could be made to alter legislation in 
which specific protected groups are identified. It is also contended 
that recent Arab and Middle Eastern immigrants have the same problems 
as those from Asia, Central or South America, or Africa.
    Some believe that having a separate category for persons of Arab or 
Middle Eastern descent would more easily qualify them for program 
benefits aimed at the socially and economically disadvantaged. On the 
other hand, an article in American Demographics states that, while it 
is true that Arab Americans suffer from stereotyping and negative 
press, it is equally true that they are younger, more educated, and 
more affluent than the average American. (``The Arab-American Market,'' 
American Demographics, January 1994)
    Currently there is no recognized common identity for this 
population group--neither a generally accepted name nor a common 
description. One characteristic that many Arab or Middle Easterners 
have in common is the Moslem religion; but many others are of other 
religious backgrounds as, for example, Lebanese Christians. Because of 
the separation of church and state in the United States, data are not 
collected on religious affiliations. Conversely, many Moslems do not 
have race or geographic origin in common--they come from Asia, Sub-
Saharan Africa, etc. If the category were called or included ``Middle 
Easterner'' in its title, would it include persons from a non-Arab 
state such as Israel?
    While a name and a definition could be imposed for this suggested 
new category, in a decennial census respondents need to understand 
clearly the concepts and the definitions of the classifications without 
necessarily having to read a definition. The public comment showed 
there is no agreement about the Middle Eastern countries to be 
included; this is further confused by the fact that there are Arab 
countries in North Africa and that the Middle East includes Israel, a 
non-Arab country.
    The research to develop a definition and a commonly understood name 
(and the information campaign that would be required to inform the 
public of the new category) would be difficult to undertake in time for 
the 2000 census. While such research has not always been carried out 
prior to including a category in the decennial census, such a decision 
without research would be hard to rationalize given the intensive 
research on other issues surrounding race and ethnicity.
    The requisite research could allow consideration of incorporating a 
new classification that would identify persons of Arab and Middle 
Eastern descent in a future classification system. The 1990 census 
indicates that this is a growing population group--with a high 
proportion of foreign-born and recent immigrants. According to a Census 
Bureau report (1990 CP-3-2), 40 percent of persons of Arab ancestry are 
foreign-born and half of these foreign-born came to the United States 
between 1980 and 1990.
    Measurement. No research has been conducted on the quality and 
consistency of reporting of persons of Arab or Middle Eastern descent 
on the race item on previous decennial censuses. Directive No. 15 
instructs persons of Middle Eastern or North African descent to report 
their race as ``White.'' However, it is not known how well this 
instruction is followed--or even if persons know that such a definition 
exists. Over the years there has been confusion about how persons of 
these ancestries should respond--``Asian,'' ``White,'' or ``Other 
race.'' Requests for consideration of adding an Arab or Middle Eastern 
category have not been consistent in the suggested name and the 
criteria for the definition of what geographic area should be 
encompassed.
    Even in 1990 census reports, the definition of Arab was not 
consistent. Two reports on ancestry, Ancestry of the Population in the 
United States (1990 CP-3-2) and Detailed Ancestry Groups for States 
(1990 CP-S-1-2), used different definitions of ``Arab,'' which resulted 
in different counts of persons. A comparison is presented in Table 5.2.

BILLING CODE 3110-01-M

[[Page 36933]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09JY97.020


BILLING CODE 3110-01-C

[[Page 36934]]

    The data on ancestries that are marked ``X'' on Table 5.2 were 
shown separately in the respective reports. Ancestries marked ``#,'' 
including the specific reporting of ``Arab'' as an ancestry, were 
grouped and shown as a balance category, ``Other Arab,'' in Ancestry of 
the Population in the United States. In contrast, in Detailed Ancestry 
Groups for States, ``Arab'' was shown as a separate category, not 
grouped with other ancestries. In this latter report, the ancestries 
that are marked with an asterisk on Table 5.2 were combined into a 
balance category called ``Other North African and Southwest Asian, 
n.e.c. (not elsewhere classified).''
    Table 5.3 presents data from Detailed Ancestry Groups for States. 
It shows the number of persons reporting in any of the categories 
listed, as well as the number who reported specifically as ``Arab'' or 
``Middle Eastern.'' The report carries a footnote stating that these 
two categories are ``a general type response, which may encompass 
several ancestry groups'' (no further explanation is provided).
    Given the lack of a generally understood concept, should the term 
Arab or Middle Eastern be used and be defined as persons whose ``mother 
tongue'' or culture was Arabic? Or should the category be based upon a 
strict geographic definition (and if so, which countries should be 
included)? Public comment included the following suggested names: 
Middle Eastern; Middle Easterner; Arab American; Middle Eastern or 
Arabic heritage; Arab American and other Middle Eastern; and West 
Asian. In any case, implementation would require a consensus building 
effort to arrive at appropriate terminology and a definition. In 
addition, the implementation of such a category on a 100-percent basis 
would require more instruction than is typically given on a 100-percent 
item in the decennial census. The closest approximation would be a 
listing such as that given on the 1990 census long form ancestry item.

BILLING CODE 3110-01-M

[[Page 36935]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09JY97.021



[[Page 36936]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09JY97.022



BILLING CODE 3110-01-C
    Data production. If a separate category specifically for Arab or 
Middle Eastern were presented on the decennial census form, no further 
coding would be necessary. However, it would be advisable to compare 
the reported race to any other information collected in the decennial 
census (e.g., country of birth and ancestry, if these data are 
collected), to be able to understand the reported information better.
    Analytic. The addition of a racial category in which persons of 
Arab or Middle Eastern descent might respond could reduce the total 
number of Whites counted in the next census. If this category were 
generally understood and only persons who previously responded 
``White'' reported into this new category, one could compare the 
numbers of Whites between censuses (or other Federal data collections) 
by adding the Arab and Middle Eastern numbers to the numbers of persons 
reporting White to approximate the numbers of Whites in previous 
collections. However, the number of persons considering themselves to 
be Arab or Middle Eastern who actually reported in the White category 
is unknown; in the 1980 and 1990 censuses, many may have reported into 
the ``Asian or Pacific Islander'' category rather than the ``White'' 
category. If this was the case, then adding the numbers of persons 
reporting into a new ``Arab or Middle Eastern'' category to those 
reporting ``White'' could result in a higher number of ``Whites'' 
overall.
    If an ethnic category were added, rather than a racial category, 
there would no reduction in the number of any racial category. Before 
such an addition could be made, however, there would have to be 
agreement on how the new category would be defined. As the public 
comments have indicated, this is not an easy task.
    Cost. The cost of collecting information about persons of Arab or 
Middle Eastern descent from the decennial census is not known. 
Components of the cost are the cost of adding a specific category to 
the form itself and then the cost of analyzing the resultant data to 
determine its quality and usefulness. The cost of tabulations of data 
would incrementally increase with the addition of a new category. As 
Table 5.2 indicates, the 1990 census reports did tabulate Arab or 
Middle Easterner, but under two different definitions.
    Legislative or program needs. At this time, there are no extant 
Federal legislative needs or specific program rule requirements for 
data on Arabs or Middle Easterners. Persons who have requested that 
this information be collected in the 2000 census and other Federal data 
collections make the argument that the information is needed in order 
to make a case for changes in civil rights and related legislation. An 
example of this contention appeared in a public comment, which 
erroneously held that under current civil rights legislation ``A Korean 
shopkeeper is protected but a neighboring Arab or Middle-Eastern 
shopkeeper is not'' (letter received by OMB during public comment 
period). Others would argue that current civil rights laws provide for 
a means of seeking redress for discrimination.

5.3.5.2  Should a Cape Verdean Category be Created?

    Cape Verde is a country consisting of a number of islands off the 
west coast of Africa at about 15 degrees latitude. For many years the 
islands were a Portuguese colony. The population of the islands is 
generally a mix of Black and White. As an island nation, its population 
depended on the ocean for economic survival. As skilled seamen, many 
islanders immigrated to New England to take part in the whaling 
industry. According to a Census Bureau report, Ancestry of the 
Population of the United States (1990 CP-3-2), 71 percent of all 
persons of Cape Verdean ancestry are native-born, and 18 percent are

[[Page 36937]]

foreign-born and are not citizens. (Thus, the proportion of Cape 
Verdeans who are native-born is lower and the proportion of foreign 
born noncitizens is higher than for the total U.S. population: for the 
total U.S. population 92 percent were native-born and 5 percent were 
foreign-born and were not citizens.)
    As of the 1990 census, 51,000 persons reported Cape Verdean 
ancestry or ethnicity (0.02 percent of the total U.S. population). They 
are a population that is concentrated in four Northeastern states; 86 
percent of persons who reported Cape Verdean ancestry lived in 
Massachusetts (58 percent), Rhode Island (20 percent), Connecticut (6 
percent), and New York (2 percent). Another 5 percent of the Cape 
Verdean ancestry population resided in California. While they are a 
very small percentage of the U.S. population as a whole, they made up 
1.0 percent of the Rhode Island population, 0.5 percent of the 
Massachusetts population, and 0.1 percent of the Connecticut 
population.
    Measurement. Discussion with respect to this population group is 
limited because the only previous measures come from the ancestry/
ethnicity questions in the census long forms of 1980 and 1990. This 
discussion assumes that if there were a separate ethnic category, about 
the same numbers of people would report as Cape Verdean as in the 1990 
ancestry question.
    Because a distinct ethnic category for such a small and 
geographically concentrated population group may not be possible, even 
on the decennial census, the Cape Verdean population might also find 
acceptable a multiracial or ``Other race, specify'' category that 
required specification of the respondent's component races. This 
question, combined with the use of the ethnicity/ancestry question that 
was tested as one of the options in the RAETT, may be a feasible and 
acceptable form of reporting. The addition of a multiracial category on 
other Federal forms would allow persons to report as multiracial (Cape 
Verdean) on these as well. If achieving a count of Cape Verdeans on a 
Federal form at the national level through the race question is 
desired, then an educational program would be required in order to 
inform persons that they can report this way. However, there has been 
no research concentrated on this population group; hence, it is not 
known how they would report given race classifications such as 
``multiracial'' or ``Other race, specify.''
    Perhaps the most satisfactory solution for counting Cape Verdeans 
is a local one. The four states with the highest numbers of Cape 
Verdeans in their populations (Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, 
and Rhode Island) could find some means to count them for local and 
state purposes--for example in school administrative records systems, 
in employment and unemployment data, and in vital records systems. If 
guidance is given on how to aggregate this population into the Federal 
categories, there should be little impact for the State's record 
systems.
    Data production. Cape Verdeans often write in ``Cape Verdean'' 
after marking the ``Other race'' category.
    Analytic. In the absence of specific research, it is unclear how 
other race categories would be affected if a separate Cape Verdean 
category were established.
    Cost. The cost of collecting information about Cape Verdeans by 
adding a new category in the decennial census is not known. If such 
information were collected on a 100-percent basis, the cost would be 
significantly higher than was experienced in coding responses to the 
ancestry item on the long form sample of one-sixth of all households.
    Legislative or program needs. Currently, there are neither Federal 
legislative needs nor programmatic needs for these data on the national 
level. State-level program needs for information on Cape Verdeans are 
likely to exist in those states where there are significant 
concentrations of this population.

Chapter 6. Recommendations and Major Findings

6.1  Summary of Recommendations and Major Findings

    Research conducted as part of the review of Directive No. 15 has 
produced a considerable amount of information about the issues covered 
in this report. The sources of this information have included public 
comments gathered from hearings and responses to two Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) notices published in the Federal Register, 
opinions of experts in the area of race and ethnicity, small-scale 
ethnographic and cognitive laboratory studies, and several national 
tests sponsored by Federal agencies. This section presents the 
recommendations of the Interagency Committee for the Review of the 
Racial and Ethnic Standards to OMB for how Directive No. 15 should be 
changed. It also summarizes the major research findings for the issues 
addressed by the recommendations. These findings are based on estimates 
from sample surveys.
    The recommendations concern options for reporting by respondents, 
formats of questions, and several aspects of specific categories, 
including possible additions, revised terminology, and changes in 
definitions. Instructions for interviewers, the wording of questions, 
and specifications for tabulations are not addressed in the 
recommendations. The need for separate guidelines covering these topics 
is discussed at the end of the chapter. As in the current Directive No. 
15, the recommendations are designed to provide minimum standards for 
Federal data on race and ethnicity. The recommendations continue to 
permit the collection of more detailed information on population groups 
to meet the needs of specific data users, provided the additional 
detail can be aggregated to comply with the minimum standards.

6.1.1.  Recommendations Concerning Reporting More Than One Race

     When self-identification is used, a method for reporting 
more than one race should be adopted.
     The method for respondents to report more than one race 
should take the form of multiple responses to a single question and not 
a ``multiracial'' category.
     When a list of races is provided to respondents, the list 
should not contain a ``multiracial'' category.
     Two acceptable forms for the instruction accompanying the 
multiple response question are ``Mark one or more * * *'' and ``Select 
one or more * * *''
     If the criteria for data quality and confidentiality are 
met, provision should be made to report, at a minimum, the number of 
individuals identifying with more than one race. Data producers are 
encouraged to provide greater detail about the distribution of multiple 
responses.
     The new standards will be used in the decennial census, 
and other data producers should conform as soon as possible, but not 
later than January 1,2003.
    The multiracial population is growing, and the task of measuring 
this phenomenon will have to be confronted sooner or later. Adopting a 
method for reporting more than one race now means that the demographic 
changes in society can be measured more precisely with a smaller 
discontinuity in historical data series than would occur in the future. 
Moreover, while technical concerns should not govern the decision, new 
procedures will be needed in any event, given that at least

[[Page 36938]]

0.5 percent of respondents to the 2000 Census are likely to select more 
than one race even if told to select only one. Allowing respondents in 
Federal data collections to select more than one race will be 
consistent with the trend toward this option at the state level, and 
may encourage the states to conform to a Federal standard.
    Methods for reporting more than one race have been tested in both 
self-administered and interviewer-administered settings with similar 
results. This change will involve costs, but they are likely to be 
manageable and probably would be incurred eventually. The counts for 
Whites and Blacks, at least in the short term, will not likely be 
affected by allowing the reporting of more than one race; for 
populations whose counts could be affected, the information can be 
recovered to some degree with tabulation procedures. Standardized 
tabulation rules need to be developed by the Federal agencies working 
in cooperation with one another. When results from data collection 
activities are reported or tabulated, the number selecting more than 
one race should be given, assuming that minimum standards for data 
quality and confidentiality are met. Data producers are encouraged to 
provide greater detail about the distribution of multiple responses.
    Allowing multiple responses is preferable to establishing a 
multiracial category, given the lack of legislative need for a specific 
count of the multiracial population and some of the drawbacks 
associated with the use of that category. There is no general consensus 
for a definition of ``multiracial,'' as reflected in the public comment 
and in current state legislation requiring a multiracial category. A 
multiracial category is more likely to be misunderstood by respondents, 
resulting in greater misreporting. If a multiracial category were to be 
used (with write-in lines or a follow-up question), it would require 
either more space or more coding. An ``Other'' category with a 
multiracial example may be less likely to produce accurate data, may be 
offensive, and will require coding. Although self-identification should 
be greatly encouraged, its use is not always feasible or appropriate. 
When observer identification is used, determining a multiracial 
background by observation may be difficult, if not impossible.
    Since data producers will be given until 2003 to conform to the new 
standards, additional research could be conducted in the context of the 
different data collection initiatives. This research might estimate the 
effects in the different settings and evaluate methods for data 
tabulation to meet users' needs. This data was chosen because 
information from Census 2000 will be available then for use in 
conjunction with other Federal data collections. It is expected, 
however, that data producers will begin using the new standards as soon 
as possible.

6.1.1.1  Finding Concerning a Method of Reporting More Than One Race

Findings favoring adoption of a method for reporting more than one 
race:
     Between 1 and 1.5 percent of the public select a 
multiracial category when offered an opportunity to do so.
     The opportunity to identify with more than one race 
promotes self-identification, may increase self-esteem, and may reduce 
nonresponse to the race question.
     The multiracial population has grown over the past 25 to 
30 years.
     Some multiracial individuals strongly advocate the change.
     Some states have already begun allowing individuals to 
identify with more than one race using a multiracial category.
     Approximately 0.5 percent of respondents to self-
administered surveys, including the 1990 census, selected more than one 
race even when asked to select only one race.
     Allowing individuals to report more than one race may 
provide a more complete report of a changing society.
     Allowing individuals to report more than one race could 
increase the accuracy of racial reports, and some inconsistencies in 
racial reporting may be eliminated.
     The counts for Whites and Blacks, at least in the near 
term, are unlikely to be affected.
     The counts for affected races can, to some degree, be 
recovered using various tabulation procedures.
     Test results in self-administered surveys and interviewer-
administered surveys have produced similar estimates of individuals who 
are likely to report more than one race.
     The process for reapportionment and redistricting is not 
likely to be affected.
Findings not favoring adoption of a method for reporting more than one 
race:
     There is a potential for lowering counts for some groups, 
such as American Indians and Alaskan Natives and Asians and Pacific 
Islanders.
     Advocacy groups for some populations have strongly opposed 
the change.
     Time series and other analyses will have to account for 
the change.
     Alternative tabulations will be needed to carry out some 
program requirements, and this may be in conflict with the principle of 
self-identification.
     The effects of survey mode (self-administered or 
administered by interviewer, over the telephone or in person) may be 
accentuated, and data quality may suffer if instructions for reporting 
more than one race are not as successfully communicated to the 
respondent in some modes as in others.
     Enforcement of the Voting Rights Act might be affected by 
the reporting of more than one race.
     Only a subset of multiracial individuals may choose to 
identify with multiple races, so estimates for this population might be 
questioned.
     Data processing systems may have to be modified to 
incorporate tabulation procedures for reporting more than one race.
     Data collection instruments, instructions, and procedures 
will have to be modified, and more emphasis will need to be placed on 
the creation of instructions for respondents.
     Observer, and possibly proxy, identification could be 
operationally difficult to implement.
     There are no Federal legislative requirements for 
information about the multiracial population.

6.1.1.2  Findings Concerning Different Formats for Reporting More Than 
One Race

Multiracial Category
     Definitions and terminology for the category would have to 
be generally understood and accepted by the public.
     Persons may identify with two or more races, but may not 
choose to respond as ``multiracial.''
     Using a multiracial category with a write-in would take up 
little space but require more coding.
     Using a multiracial category with a follow-up question 
specifying races would take up more space but require less coding.
     A multiracial category with a write-in works well for 
self-administered data collections but would not be appropriate for 
interviewer-administered surveys, which would need a follow-up 
question.
     Multiracial is sometimes misinterpreted by respondents as 
also meaning multiethnic.
     The presence of a multiracial category may affect 
reporting by Hispanics on the Hispanic origin question.

[[Page 36939]]

Select One or More Races
     Only one question is needed.
     With fewer write-ins, less coding is required.
     It is not necessary to select terminology and develop a 
definition if a ``multiracial'' category is not being added.
     Instructions would be needed, and their wording would be 
extremely important.
     Some respondents already select more than one race even 
when asked to mark only one.
     Tabulating a multiple response option may be more 
straightforward and consistent across Federal agencies than tabulating 
write-in responses would be.
An ``Other'' Category With Examples That Include Multiracial
     Public comment indicated that an ``Other'' category is 
offensive to some respondents.
     A greater amount of coding of responses would be required.
     Multiracial individuals will not be able to express 
adequately their own identity.
     A smaller proportion of respondents may report ``other'' 
compared with the other options for reporting more than one race.

6.1.2  Recommendations Concerning a Combined Race and Hispanic 
Ethnicity Question

     When self-identification is used, the two question format 
should be used, with the race question allowing the reporting of more 
than one race.
     When self-identification is not feasible or appropriate, a 
combined question can be used and should include a separate Hispanic 
category co-equal with the other categories.
     When the combined question is used, an attempt should be 
made, when appropriate, to record ethnicity and race or multiple races, 
but the option to indicate only one category is acceptable.
    The two question format allows Hispanics both to identify as 
Hispanic and to provide information about their race. It provides a 
complete distribution simply and continuity with past data is more 
likely to be maintained. Data on Hispanic subgroups can be obtained 
more easily with this format. The two question format should be used in 
all cases involving self-identification. When self-identification is 
not possible (e.g., the respondent is incapacitated), a combined format 
could be used. The recording of both Hispanic ethnicity and a race 
should be encouraged. The recording of only one identification, 
however, should be left as an option.

6.1.2.1  Findings Concerning Whether Race and Hispanic Origin Should Be 
Combined Into a Single Question

Findings favoring a single question:
     Respondents may not confront what they may consider to be 
redundant questions.
     The concepts of ``race'' and ``ethnicity'' are difficult 
to separate.
     Reporting by Hispanics in the ``Other'' race category may 
be reduced.
     Some Hispanics and data users have expressed support for a 
combined question.
     The number of respondents using write-ins for the race 
question may be reduced.
     Inconsistencies in Hispanic reporting may be reduced.
     Self-identification for Hispanics may be enhanced.
Findings not favoring a single question:
     Some Hispanics want to identify their race in addition to 
Hispanic origin.
     Some Hispanics, including the Census Hispanic Advisory 
Committee and most Hispanic organizations, oppose a single, combined 
question.
     ``Hispanic'' is not considered a race by some respondents 
and users.
     The reporting of Hispanic subgroups will be awkward with a 
single question.
     A single, combined question may have a differential effect 
on reporting by Hispanic subgroups.
     A single, combined question will increase the need for 
additional tabulations as a result of multiple responses.
     Time series and other analyses will have to account for 
the change.
     The historical continuity of economic or demographic 
statistics for Hispanics may be affected.
     Additional tabulations may be needed for administrative 
reporting, and this might infringe on self-identification.

6.1.2.2  Findings Concerning Different Formats if Race and Hispanic 
Origin are Combined in a Single Question

A combination of race, ethnicity, and ancestry:
     More responses will need to be coded and edited.
     Some Hispanic respondents may not provide subgroup detail, 
reducing the counts of specific subgroups and increasing the ``other 
Hispanic'' group.
     Ancestry would be collected for the entire population on 
every data collection and not just the Census long form, but the 
distribution may change from that with a separate ancestry question.
     The question may be too difficult for some respondents.
A question with an Hispanic category allowing multiple responses:
     Only a single question is needed.
     Hispanic origin would be a category co-equal with race.
     Some Hispanics prefer to indicate both their Hispanic 
origin and race.
A question with an Hispanic category allowing only one response:
     The count of Hispanics may be reduced, since some 
Hispanics may select a category other than Hispanic.
     Hispanic origin would be co-equal with race.
     Observer and proxy identification could be more difficult.
     For those reporting Hispanic, no race is obtained.

6.1.3  Recommendations Concerning the Retention of Both Reporting 
Formats

     The two question format should be used in all cases 
involving self-identification.
     The current combined question format should be replaced 
with a combined format which includes a co-equal Hispanic category for 
use, if necessary, in observer identification.
    The two question format for collecting data on Hispanic origin and 
race is considered superior to the single question format, and it 
should be used in all cases involving self-identification. The single 
question format should only be used where self-identification is not 
possible. In these cases, a single question in the form of the combined 
question discussed above can be used, but, again, data collectors 
should be strongly encouraged to record both ethnicity and race to 
provide more complete information about the individual. Attempts to 
obtain proxy responses (from family or friends) as opposed to using 
observer identification also should be encouraged in order to promote 
data accuracy.
Findings favoring retention:
     Both formats are being used by Federal agencies; a number 
of large administrative data bases use the combined format.
     Some data collection instruments and procedures as well as 
processing systems currently being used will have to change if only one 
format is retained.
     Time series and other analyses would have to account for 
the change.
Findings not favoring retention:
     The two formats do not produce comparable data.
     The combined format allowed in Directive 15 does not 
produce a

[[Page 36940]]

complete distribution of Hispanic origin by race.

6.1.4  Recommendation Concerning the Ordering of the Hispanic Origin 
and Race Questions

     When the two questions format is used, the Hispanic origin 
question should precede the race question.
    All research findings point to placing the Hispanic origin question 
before the race question. Hispanics appear less confused by the race 
question and do not select the ``Other'' race category as often when 
this sequencing is used. This reduces the amount of data editing and 
coding needed. Furthermore, non-Hispanics are more likely to give a 
response to the Hispanic origin question.
Findings favoring the race question appearing first:
     Current time series or other analyses would have to take 
account of a change in question sequencing.
     Even if the Hispanic origin question were to appear first, 
some Hispanic respondents will not answer the race question or will 
select ``Other'' race in the decennial census.
Findings favoring the Hispanic origin question appearing first:
     The meaning of the race question will be clearer, 
especially to Hispanics.
     Non-Hispanics will be more likely to give a response to 
the Hispanic origin question.
     Data editing and coding should be reduced.

6.1.5  Recommendation Concerning Adding Cape Verdean as an Ethnic 
Category

     A Cape Verdean ethnic category should not be added to the 
minimum data collection standards.
    Given the small size and geographic concentration of this 
population, the analytical power gained by a separate identification at 
the national level would be minimal compared to the costs, especially 
for sample surveys. Even without a separate category, however, the 
ability to report more than one race may allow Cape Verdeans to express 
their identity. An ancestry question would allow Cape Verdeans to 
identify themselves for the purposes of estimating population size. 
States with a significant Cape Verdean population can collect data for 
state and local purposes.
Findings favoring the addition of a Cape Verdean ethnic category:
     It would respond to complaints that discrimination against 
Cape Verdeans is difficult to assess without a separate category for 
data on this population.
     Cape Verdean is easily defined.
     Some Cape Verdeans favor the addition of the category.
     Data may be useful for administering some state and local 
programs.
     The number of write-ins in an ``Other'' category may be 
reduced.
     The principle of self-identification would be supported.
     The picture of society would be more complete.
Findings not favoring a Cape Verdean ethnic category:
     This population is concentrated in certain states that 
could collect data at the local level.
     There is no specific Federal requirement for information 
about Cape Verdeans.
     Little research has been done on the effects of adding 
Cape Verdean to the list of ethnic categories.
     Time series and other analyses would have to account for 
the change.
     Cape Verdeans could be accommodated if the reporting of 
more than one race were allowed, although additional tabulations would 
be needed.
     The ancestry question on the decennial census provides an 
opportunity for individuals to identify their Cape Verdean ancestry.

6.1.6  Recommendation Concerning the Addition of an Arab or Middle 
Eastern Ethnic Category

     An Arab or Middle Eastern ethnic category should not be 
added to the minimum data standards.
    The definition of Arab or Middle Eastern ethnicity is problematic. 
At least three approaches--linguistic, geographic, and religious--have 
been proposed. More space would be needed on questionnaires, and Arab 
or Middle Eastern ethnicity can be obtained from an ancestry question. 
States with a significant Arab or Middle Eastern population can collect 
data for state and local purposes. Given the small size and geographic 
concentration of this population, the analytical power gained by a 
separate identification at the national level would be minimal compared 
to the costs, especially for sample surveys.
Findings favoring the addition of an Arab or Middle Eastern ethnic 
category:
     It would respond to complaints that discrimination against 
Arabs or persons from the Middle East is difficult to assess without a 
separate ethnic category.
     Some Arabs or Middle Easterners favor a separate ethnic 
identification.
     It may address the difficulty some Arabs or Middle 
Easterners have in responding to the race question.
     Data may be useful for administering some state and local 
programs.
     The number of write-ins for an ``Other'' category may be 
reduced.
     The principle of self-identification would be supported.
     The picture of society would be more complete.
     Arabs and Middle Easterners are racially mixed and, hence, 
similar conceptually to the Hispanic community.
Findings not favoring the addition of an Arab or Middle Eastern ethnic 
category:
     An Arab or Middle Eastern ethnicity is difficult to 
define.
     States having concerntations of Arabs or Middle Easterners 
could collect data at the local level.
     An Arab or Middle Eastern ethnicity question would require 
more space.
     There are no Federal requirements for information about 
Arabs or those from the Middle East.
     Little research has been done on the effects of adding an 
Arab or Middle Eastern ethnic category.
     Time series or other analyses would have to account for 
the change.
     Arab or Middle Eastern ethnicity can be obtained with an 
ancestry question on the decennial census.

6.1.7  Recommendation Concerning the Addition for Any Other Categories 
to the Minimum Set

     No other racial or ethnic categories should be added to 
the minimum set of categories.
    Additional racial and ethnic categories would require more space 
with little analytical value added. States can collect data at the 
state and local level for groups concentrated in their areas. The 
current Directive permits the collection of this greater detail. Some 
of these groups would be accommodated by allowing the reporting at the 
Federal level of more than one race. Given the small size and 
geographic concentration of these populations, the analytical power 
gained by a separate identification at the national level would be 
minimal compared to the costs, especially for sample surveys.
Findings favoring the addition of other categories:
     Such an addition would respond to complaints that 
discrimination cannot be assessed without separate categories.
     Some states and local areas have diverse populations and 
need additional detail for administrative purposes.

[[Page 36941]]

     The picture of society would be more complete.
     Some groups favor the creation of their own categories.
     The number of write-ins in an ``Other'' category may be 
reduced.
     The principle of self-identification would be supported.
Findings not favoring the addition of other categories:
     There are no specific Federal requirements for information 
on other population groups.
     States having concentrations of certain population groups 
could collect data at the local level to meet their requirements.
     Little research has been done on the effects of additional 
categories.
     A long list would require more space on all data 
collection instruments, not just the decennial census forms.
     Time series and other analyses would have to account for 
the change.
     Some of these categories would be accommodated by allowing 
the reporting of more than one race.
     The current Directive permits the collection of more 
detailed data on population groups, provided the detail can be 
aggregated into the minimum set of categories.

6.1.8  Recommendation Concerning Changing the Term ``American Indian'' 
to ``Native American''

     The term American Indian should not be changed to Native 
American.
    The term ``Native American'' may confuse those born in the United 
States, and the count of American Indians may become less accurate. 
``Native American'' is a term which could include more than American 
Indians. American Indians are divided on which term they prefer, but 
most tribal organizations prefer ``American Indian.''
Findings favoring the change:
     Some find the term to be a more accurate description of 
this indigenous population.
     Some American Indians expressed a preference for the term 
``Native American.''
Findings not favoring the change:
     American Indian tribal governments prefer to retain the 
term ``American Indian.''
     The term ``Native American'' often is interpreted by 
respondents to mean ``born in this country.''
     The accuracy of the counts of American Indians may be 
affected by a change in terminology.
     Time series and other analyses would have to account for 
the change in terminology.
     ``Native American'' is confusing, since it refers to 
groups other than American Indians.

6.1.9  Recommendation Concerning Changing the Term ``Hawaiian'' to 
``Native Hawaiian''

     The term ``Hawaiian'' should be changed to ``Native 
Hawaiian.''
    Although the term ``Native Hawaiian'' may be misinterpreted by 
respondents to mean ``born in Hawaii,'' there is little evidence to 
suggest this would be as likely as in the case of ``Native American.'' 
Furthermore, the preponderance of the public comments on this issue 
favored using ``Native Hawaiian.''
Findings favoring the change:
     Hawaiians are an indigenous people to what is now the 
United States.
     Public comment indicated a preference for the use of the 
term ``Native Hawaiian.''
     The review found no compelling evidence that counts of 
this group would be affected.
Findings not favoring the change:
     ``Native Hawaiian'' may be misinterpreted by respondents 
to mean ``born in Hawaii.''
     The accuracy of counts of Hawaiians may be affected.
     Time series and other analyses could have to take account 
of the change.
     Some research findings indicated that more Hawaiians 
appear to prefer ``Hawaiian'' to ``Native Hawaiian,'' but both were 
acceptable terms.

6.1.10  Recommendation Concerning the Classification of Hawaiians

     Hawaiians should continue to be classified in the Asian or 
Pacific Islander category.
    Although Hawaiians are an indigenous people, they are 
geographically linked to other Pacific Islanders. Furthermore, other 
groups, such as the American Samoans and the Guamanians, requested a 
similar change, with the result that the meaning of the Pacific 
Islander classification would likely be affected. Hawaiians are divided 
on which classification should be used. The historical continuity of 
data on the economic characteristics of Pacific Islanders would be 
affected.
Findings favoring classification with other indigenous populations
     Hawaiians are an indigenous people.
     Like Alaska, and unlike American Samoa or Guam, Hawaii is 
a state.
     Hawaiians account for approximately ten percent of the 
indigenous population of the United States.
     Some Hawaiians favor classification in the same category 
as the American Indians and Alaska Natives.
Findings favoring continued classification as Asian/Pacific Islander
     Geographically, Hawaiians should be classified with other 
Pacific Islanders:
     Time series and other analyses would not have to account 
for the change in classification.
     The administration of Federal programs for the indigenous 
population might be affected by the change.
     Other groups, such as the Samoans and the Guamanians, also 
have requested reclassification out of the Asian/Pacific Islander 
category. These changes, along with a change for Hawaiians, would 
effectively eliminate the Pacific Islander category.
     The historical continuity of economic and demographic 
statistics for Pacific Islanders as well as American Indians could be 
affected by a change in classification.
     American Indian tribal governments are opposed to the 
change, because it might affect the quality of the data for American 
Indians.
     There appears to be no clear preference on the part of 
Hawaiians--some Hawaiians favor classification in the American Indian 
category, and still others favor a separate Native Hawaiian category.
     Except for the proportion of college graduates, Hawaiians 
resemble Asians more than American Indians in terms of economic status.

6.1.11  Recommendations Concerning the Use of Alaska Native Instead of 
Eskimo and Aleut

     ``Alaska Native'' should replace the term ``Alaskan 
Native.''
     Alaska Native should be used instead of Eskimo and Aleut.
     The Alaska Native response option should be accompanied by 
a request for tribal affiliation when possible.
    ``Alaska Native'' is the term preferred by this population (as 
compared to ``Alaskan Native''). Alaska Native, accompanied by a 
request for tribal affiliation, provides more accurate and complete 
data.
Findings favoring the use of Alaska Native:
     The term ``Eskimo'' is offensive to some respondents.
     Alaska Native, accompanied by a request for tribal 
affiliation, provides more accurate data for administrative purposes.

[[Page 36942]]

     ``Alaska Native'' is the term preferred by this 
population.
Findings not favoring the use of Alaska Native:
     The terms ``Eskimo'' and ``Aleut'' are acceptable to most 
Alaska Natives.

6.1.12  Recommendations Concerning the Classification of South and 
Central American Indians

     South and Central American Indians should be classified as 
American Indian.
     The definition of the ``American Indian or Alaska Native'' 
category should be modified to include the original peoples from South 
and Central America.
    The classification of South and Central American Indians as 
American Indian is consistent with how the Canadian Indians are 
classified, but the definition of the category would need to be changed 
accordingly. While the effects on the count of American Indians will be 
minimal, South and Central American Indians may find it easier to 
answer the race question.
Findings favoring a more inclusive American Indian classification:
     Classification in the American Indian category would be 
consistent with how the Canadian Indians in the United States have been 
classified using the current categories.
     The consistency of the classification of American Indians 
will be increased.
     It would be easier for South and Central American Indians 
to answer the race question.
     The effects of this change on the population count and 
other data on American Indians will be minimal.
     Some South and Central American Indians may prefer being 
classified as American Indian.
Findings not favoring a more inclusive American Indian classification:
     Little research has been done on the potential effects of 
changes.
     Some South and Central American Indians may prefer being 
classified as White.
     The reclassification may have a small effect the 
administration of Federal programs for American Indians.

6.1.13  Recommendations Concerning the Term or Terms To Be Used for the 
Name of the Black Category

     The name of the Black category should be changed to 
``Black or African American.'' 
     The category definition should remain unchanged. 
     Additional terms, such as Haitian or Negro, can be used if 
desired. 
    Substantial numbers of this population identify with one of the two 
terms, Black and African-American. If the two terms are connected by an 
``or,'' Caribbean Blacks can identify with the category. Other terms, 
such as ``Negro'' and ``Haitian,'' can be used, but they should not be 
required. Since a relatively small number of Blacks identify with 
``Negro'' and ``Haitian,'' the term ``Black or African American'' is 
likely to be sufficient.
Findings favoring using ``Black'':
     Time series and other analyses will be unaffected.
     A plurality of Blacks prefer this term.
     This term does not cause much confusion for respondents, 
such as Caribbean Blacks.
     For most Blacks, it is not an offensive term.
     Some respondents find ``African-American'' a confusing 
term because the term could exclude Caribbean Blacks or include anyone 
from Africa, including Whites.
     Some public comment indicated an objection to the use of 
``American'' in ``African-American,'' because it connotes nationality 
and is not used in the names of the other categories, except for the 
American Indian category.
Findings favoring using ``African American'' or ``Afro-American'':
     A large proportion of Blacks favor one of these terms.
     For most Blacks, these are not offensive terms.
     The terms are commonly used and there seems to be a 
general consensus about the population group in the United States for 
which the term is intended.
Findings favoring another term:
     ``Negro'' may be favored by older Blacks.
     ``Colored'' may be favored by some Blacks in the South.
Findings favoring use of more than one term:
     Using more than one term is more inclusive and could 
achieve more complete coverage of the Black population.
     Nonresponse to the race question among Blacks may be 
reduced.
     Write-ins are less likely.

6.1.14  Recommendations Concerning the Term or Terms To Be Used for 
Hispanic

     The term used should be ``Hispanic.''
     The definition of the category should remain unchanged.
     Additional terms, such as Latino or Spanish Origin, can be 
used if desired.
    A majority of Hispanics prefer the ``Hispanic'' term. ``Hispanic'' 
is a term with which most of this population is now familiar. Other 
terms, such as ``Latino'' or ``Spanish Origin,'' can be used to achieve 
more complete coverage of the Hispanic population. There is some 
evidence, however, that using the term ``Latino'' may result in the 
inclusion of some unintended population groups, so it should not be a 
part of the minimum standard.
Findings favoring using Hispanic:
     A majority of Hispanics favor this term.
     Time series and other analyses are likely to be 
unaffected.
     Most Hispanics are familiar with this term.
     The inclusion of other terms, such as ``Latino,'' might 
have the effect of including unintended population groups.
Findings favoring using the term ``Latino'':
     Some Hispanics favor this term.
     Some Hispanics are more familiar with this term than with 
``Hispanic'' or other terms.
Findings favoring using the term ``Spanish Origin'':
     Some respondents of Spanish or European descent prefer 
this term.
     Some Hispanics may be more familiar with this term than 
with other terms.
Findings favoring another term:
     The term ``Chicano'' may be favored by Hispanics in the 
Southwest region of the United States.
Findings favoring use of more than one term:
     Nonresponse of Hispanics to the Hispanic ethnicity 
question may be reduced.

6.2  Comparison of the Current Standards With the Recommended Standards

    This section summarizes the differences between Directive No. 15 
and the recommended changes. The current standards are presented in 
Section 6.2.1. Section 6.2.2 shows how the current standards would be 
changed if the recommendations were to be adopted by the Office of 
Management and Budget. In the latter case, the Interagency Committee's 
recommended changes are presented in bold type so that they can be more 
readily compared to the current standards.

[[Page 36943]]

6.2.1  The Current Standards in Directive No. 15

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

6.2.2  Recommended Standards

    The minimum categories for data on race and ethnicity for Federal 
statistics and program administrative reporting are defined as follows:
    a. American Indian or Alaska Native. A person having origins in any 
of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central 
America), and who maintains cultural identification through tribal 
affiliation or community recognition.
    b. Asian or Pacific Islander. A person having origins in any of the 
original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, the Indian 
subcontinent, or the Pacific Islands. This area includes, for example, 
China, India, Japan, Korea, the Philippine Islands, Hawaii, and Samoa.
    c. Black or African-American. 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.
    To provide flexibility and assure data quality, it is preferable to 
collect data on race and ethnicity separately. When race and ethnicity 
are collected separately, ethnicity should be collected first. Persons 
of mixed racial origins can, but are not required to, report more than 
one race. If race and ethnicity are collected separately, the minimum 
designations are:
    a. Race:

--American Indian or Alaska Native
--Asia or Pacific Islander
--Black or African-American
--White

    b. Ethnicity:

--Hispanic origin
--Not of Hispanic origin

    When the data are reported, a minimum of one additional racial 
category, designated ``More than one race,'' must be included, if the 
criteria for data quality and confidentiality are met, in order to 
report the aggregate number of multiple race responses. Data producers 
are encouraged to provide greater detail about the distribution of 
multiple responses. Terms such as ``Haitian'' or ``Negro'' can be used 
in addition to ``Black'' and ``African-American.'' Terms such as 
``Latino'' or ``Spanish origin'' can be used in addition to 
``Hispanic.''
    If a combined format must be used to collect racial and ethnic 
data, both race and ethnicity or multiple races should be collected 
when appropriate, although the selection of one category will be 
acceptable. If a combined format is used, the minimum categories are:

--American Indian or Alaska Native
--Asian or Pacific Islander
--Black or African-American
--Hispanic
--White

    When the data are reported, a minimum of two additional categories, 
designated ``Hispanic and one or more races'' and ``More than one 
race,'' must be included if the criteria for data quality and 
confidentiality are met and both race and ethnicity and multiple races 
were collected.
    In no case should the provisions of this Directive be construed to 
limit the collection of data to the categories described above. In 
fact, the collection of subgroup detail is encouraged. However, any 
reporting required which uses more detail shall be organized in such a 
way that the additional categories can be aggregated into these minimum 
categories for data on race and ethnicity.

6.3  Recommendations for Further Research

    A great deal of research has been conducted over the past few years 
to provide information on which to base possible revisions to Directive 
No. 15. More research still is needed. Most immediately, research 
should be conducted by the affected agencies both to evaluate the 
effects of the proposed changes and to consider methods for 
accommodating them. A phased implementation period of up to five years 
has been proposed to allow agencies to make changes in data collection 
instruments and procedures, as well as in processing and tabulation 
systems. To assist the agencies, OMB should issue guidelines on data 
tabulation and reporting, instructions for interviewers, and suggested 
wording for questions by January 1, 1999.
    Tabulation methods are particularly important in the case of 
reporting more than one race, and Federal and state agencies are 
encouraged to work together, under the auspices of OMB, to develop 
methods that would produce consistent results for program purposes and 
for comparisons with historical data. These guidelines would be 
particularly useful for those charged with civil rights enforcement. In 
addition, much thought should be given to the appropriate way to 
tabulate multiple responses for official purposes. Because instructions 
can have a

[[Page 36944]]

profound effect on data quality, instructions for respondents and 
interviewers that will effectively communicate the intention of the 
race and Hispanic origin questions should be developed. Other aspects 
of questionnaire design, including question wording, also should be 
addressed by the guidelines.
    Some important issues have not been resolved during this period of 
review and a number of questions are left unanswered. For example, 
conceptual bases for defining Arab or Middle Eastern ethnicity should 
be explored. The differences between the concepts of ``race,'' 
``ethnicity,'' and ``ancestry'' have not been satisfactorily 
determined. More intensive study of small populations such as 
Hawaiians, Cape Verdeans, and Creoles should be undertaken. In many 
cases, this work would have to be done in local areas where these 
population groups are concentrated. In the future, there will be the 
opportunity to examine why some people choose to select more than one 
race while others, with the same characteristics, do not. Also, more 
research is needed on inconsistencies in reporting race and ethnicity 
over time. More thought should be given to the current use of 
geographic origin in the definition of racial categories. Building on 
considerable progress the Census Bureau has made, the search for a 
single question that satisfactorily captures both race and ethnicity 
should be continued.

References

Almey, M., Pryor, E.T., and White, P.M. (1992), ``National Census 
Measures of Ethnicity in the Americas,'' in Proceedings of the 
International Union for the Scientific Study of Populations' 
Conference on ``The Peopling of the Americas,'' Vera Cruz, Mexico, 
Vol. 3, pp. 5-22.
Bates, N. (1991), ``The 1990 alternative questionnaire experiment: 
Preliminary report of the 100-percent items,'' Paper written for the 
1990 Decennial Census.
Bates, N., Martin, E.A., DeMaio, T.J., and de la Puente, M. (1996) 
``Questionnaire Effects on Measurements of Race and Spanish 
Origin,'' Journal of Official Statistics, Vol. 11, pages 433-459.
Bates, N., de la Puente, M., DeMaio, T.J., and Martin, E.A. (1994), 
``Research on Race and Ethnicity: Results from Questionnaire Design 
Tests,'' Paper presented at the Census Bureau's Annual Research 
Conference, Rosslyn, VA.
Bennett, C., McKenney, N., and Harrison, R. (1995), ``Racial 
Classification Issues Concerning Children in Mixed-Race 
Households,'' paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the 
Population Association of America, San Francisco, California.
Billingsly, A. (1993), Climbing Jacob's Ladder: The enduring Legacy 
of African-American Families, New York: Simon & Schuster.
Blackburn-Moreno R. (1994), Letter from ASPIRA Assoc. Inc. to OMB.
Bracken, K., and de Bango, G. (1992), ``Hispanics in a racially and 
ethnically mixed neighborhood in the greater metropolitan New 
Orleans area,'' Ethnographic evaluation of the 1990 decennial Census 
report #16, Prepared under Joint Statistical Agreement 89-45 with 
Hispanidad `87, Inc, Bureau of the Census, Washington D.C.
Bureau of the Census (1997), ``Results of the 1996 Race and Ethnic 
Targeted Test,'' Staff in Population Division and Decennial 
Statistical Studies Division, Population Division Working Paper No. 
18.
Bureau of the Census (1996), ``Findings on Questions on Race And 
Hispanic Origin Tested in the 1996 National Content Survey,'' 
Population Division Working Paper No. 16.
Bureau of the Census (1995), Statistical Abstract of the United 
States: 1995 (115th edition) Washington, D.C. 1995.
Bureau of the Census, Ancestry of the Population in the United 
States, 1990 CP-3-2.
Bureau of the Census, Detailed Ancestry Groups for States, 1990 CP-
S-1-2.
Bureau of the Census, American Indian Population by Tribe, for the 
United States, Regions, Divisions, and States: 1990, 1990 CPH-L-99
Bureau of the Census (1988), ``Assessment of Implications of Listing 
Asian and Pacific Islander Groups in the 1990 Census Race Item,'' 
August 19.
Bureau of the Census (1988), ``Issue Paper on the 1990 Census Race 
Question,'' November 10.
Bureau of the Census (1988), ``Minutes and Report of Committee 
Recommendations, Census Advisory Committee of the American Indian 
and Alaska Native, Asian and Pacific Islander, Black and Hispanic 
Populations for the 1990 Census,'' April 21.
Bureau of the Census (1982), Persons of Spanish origin by State: 
1980, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census (PC80-1-7).
Campbell, J.R., Donahue, P., Reese, C., and Phillips, G. (1966), 
``NAEP 1994 Reading Report Card for the Nation and the States: 
Findings from the National Assessment of Educational Progress and 
Trial state Assessment,'' Office of Educational Research and 
Improvement, U.S. Department of Education.
Cantor, D., Kerwin, J., and Schecter, S. (1966), ``Evaluation of 
changes to the race question on birth certificates.'' Proceedings of 
the Section on Survey Research Methods, American Statistical 
Association.
Carbo, 1994. Testimony by MALDEF to the Office of Management and 
Budget, Public Hearings on Standards for the Classification of 
Federal Data on Race and Testimony.
Carter-Pokras, O., and LaVeist, T. (1996), ``Research and Politics: 
The Classification of Multiracial Persons,'' paper presented at the 
American Public Health Association, New York.
Crews, D.E., and Bindon, J.R. (1991), ``Ethnicity as a taxonomic 
tool in biomedical and biosocial research,'' Ethnicity and Disease, 
1:42-49.
Denton, N.A., and Massey, D.S. (1989), ``Racial identity among 
Caribbean Hispanics: The effect of double minority status on 
residential segregation,'' American Sociological Review, 54, 790-
808.
Department of Health and Human Services (1995), Directory of 
Minority Health and Human Services Data Resources, September.
Drury, T.F., Moy, C.S., and Poe, G.S. (1980), ``Going beyond 
interviewer observations of race in the National Health Survey,'' in 
Classification Issues in Measuring the Health Status of Minorities, 
Hyattsville, MD: U.S. Public Health Service, NCHS.
Duncan, G.J., Hill, M.S., Lepkowski, J., Garza, R.G., Falcon, A., 
Garcia, C., and Garcia, J. (1992), Panel Study of Income Dynamics, 
1968-1990 (Latino Sample, 1990). (Computer file) Ann Arbor, MI: 
Survey Research Center (producer) Ann Arbor, MI: Consortium for 
Political and Social Research (distributor).
Elias-Olivares, L. and Farr, M. (1991), ``Sociolinguistic Analysis 
of Mexican-American Patterns of Non-Response to Census 
Questionnaires,'' Ethnographic Exploratory Research, Report #16. 
Center for Survey Methods Research, Bureau of the Census, Washington 
DC.
Falcon A. (1994), ``Puerto Ricans and the politics of racial 
identity,'' in The Psychological development and creative expression 
of racial and ethnic identity, eds. Harris H., Griffith E., Blue H., 
New York: Routledge.
Farley, R. (1993), ``Questions about race, Spanish origin and 
ancestry: Findings from the Census of 1990 and proposals for the 
census of 2000,'' Testimony at hearings of the Subcommittee on 
Census, Statistics and Postal Personnel, House of Representatives, 
April 14.
Federal Register Notice (1995) ``Standards for the Classification of 
Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity,'' Office of Management and 
Budget, Federal Register, 60 FR 44674-44693, August 28, 1995.
Fernandez, E.W. (1996), ``Comparisons of Selected Social and 
Economic Characteristics Between Asians, Hawaiians, Pacific 
Islanders, and American Indians (including Alaskan Natives),'' 
Population Division Working Paper No. 15, U.S. Bureau of the Census.
General Accounting Office (1993), Census Reform: Early Outreach and 
Decisions Needed on Race and Ethnic Questions, GAO Report GGD-93-96.

[[Page 36945]]

Gerber, E., and de la Puente, M. (1996), ``The Development and 
Cognitive Testing of Race and Ethnic Origin Questions for the Year 
2000 Decennial Census,'' Proceedings of the Bureau of the Census 
1996 Annual Research Conference, Arlington, Virginia.
Gimenez, M.E. (1989), ``Latino/Hispanic--who needs a name? The case 
against a standardized terminology,'' International Journal of 
Health Services, 19, 557-571.
Ginorio, A. (1979), ``A comparison of Puerto Ricans in New York with 
native Puerto Ricans and Native Americans on two measures of 
acculturation: gender roles and racial identification,'' Doctoral 
dissertation, Fordham University, New York, NY.
Ginorio, A., and Berry, P.C. (1972), ``Measuring Puerto Ricans' 
perceptions of racial characteristics,'' (Summary) Proceedings of 
the 80th Annual Convention of the American Psychological 
Association, 7:287-288.
Hahn, R.A. (1994), ``The coding of race and ethnicity in federal 
health statistics; problems and prospects,'' paper presented at a 
Workshop on Race and Ethnicity Classification: An Assessment of the 
Federal Standard for Race and Ethnicity Classification, National 
Research Council, Washington, DC, Feb. 17-18.
Hahn, R.A. (1992), ``The State of Federal Health Statistics on 
Racial and Ethnic Groups,'' The Journal of American Medical 
Association, 267, 268-271.
Hahn, R., Mulinare, J., and Teutsch, S. (1992), ``Inconsistencies in 
Coding of Race and Ethnicity Between Birth and Death; A New Look at 
Infant Mortality in the United States 1983-1985,'' Journal of 
American Medical Association, 267:259-63.
Hahn, R.A., Truman, B.I. and Barker, N.D. (1996), ``Identifying 
ancestry: The reliability of ancestral identification in the United 
States by self, proxy, interviewer, and funeral director,'' 
Epidemiology, 7, 75-80.
Harris, M., Consorte, G., Josildeth, L., Joseph, Byrne, B. (1993), 
``Who are the Whites? Imposed Census categories and the racial 
demography of Brazil,'' Social Forces; 72(2), 451-462.
Hayes-Bautista, D.E., and Chapa, J. (1987), ``Latino terminology: 
Conceptual bias for standard terminology,'' American Journal of 
Public Health, 77, 61-68.
Hazuda, H.F., Comeaux, P.H., Stern, M.P., Haffner, S.M., Eifler, 
C.W., and Rosenthal, M.A. (1986), ``A comparison of three indicators 
for identifying Mexican Americans in epidemiologic research; 
Methodological findings from the San Antonio Heart Study,'' American 
Journal of Epidemiology, 123, 96-112.
Johnson, T., Jobe, J.B., O'Rourke, D., Sudman, S., Warnecke, R.B., 
Chavez, N., and Golden, P. (1995), ``Racial and ethnic self-
identification in birth certification,'' paper presented at the 
American Sociological Association, Washington DC.
Kamasaki C. (1994), ``An Hispanic assessment of the Federal standard 
for race and ethnicity,'' paper presented at the Workshop on Race 
and Ethnicity Classification: An Assessment of the Federal Standard 
for Race and Ethnicity. Committee on National Statistics, 
Washington.
Kissam, E., Herrera, E., and Nakamoto, J.M. (1993), ``Hispanic 
responses to Census enumeration forms and procedures,'' Report 
prepared for the Bureau of the Census, Suitland, MD.
Kleinman, J.C. (1990), ``Infant mortality among racial/ethnic 
minority groups,'' Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report CDC 
Surveillance Summary, 39 (3), 31-39.
Lavrakas, P.J., Schejbal, J.A., and Smith, T.W. (1994), ``The use 
and perception of ethnoracial labels: `African-American' and/or 
`Black,' '' Proceedings of the 1994 Annual Research Conference. 505-
515.
Levin, M.J. (1995), ``Report on Focus Group Research for Race Item 
for the 2000 Census: Guamanian Versus Chamorro (or Both),'' Report 
prepared for the Bureau of the Census, Suitland, MD.
Lindan, C.P., Hearst, N., Singleton, J.A., Trachtenberg, A.I., 
Riordan, N.M., Tokagawa, D.A., and Chu, G.S. (1990), 
``Underreporting of Minority AIDS Deaths in San Franciso Bay Area, 
1985-86,'' Public Health Reports 105(4), 400-404.
Martin, E., DeMaio, T.J., and Campanelli, P.C. (1990), ``Statement 
on cognitive research. director of the Center for Survey Methods 
Research. U.S. Bureau of the Census,'' Workshop on Race and 
Ethnicity Classification: An Assessment of the Federal standard for 
race and ethnicity classification. Committee on National Statistics. 
National Research Council. Washington DC, 1994.
Martinez, A.R. (1998), ``The effects of acculturation and racial 
identity on self-esteem and psychological well-being among young 
Puerto Ricans,'' Ph.D. Dissertation. City University of New York.
Massey, J.T. (1980), ``A Comparison of Interviewer Observed Race and 
Respondent Reported Race in the National Health Interview Survey,'' 
paper presented at Annual Meeting of the American Statistical 
Association. Houston, Texas.
McKenney, N. and Cresce A. (1992). ``Measurement of Ethnicity in the 
United States: Experiences of the U.S. Census Bureau.'' Published in 
the Proceedings of the Joint Canada-United States Conference on the 
Measurement of Ethnicity, pages 173-222.
McKenney, N.R., Bennett, C.E., Harrison, B., and del Pinal, J. 
(1991), ``Evaluating racial and ethnic reporting in the 1990 
Census,'' Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of the Census.
McKay, R.B., and de la Puente, M. (1995), ``Cognitive Research in 
Designing the CPS Supplement on Race and Ethnicity,'' Proceedings of 
the Bureau of the Census 1995 Annual Research Conference, Rosslyn, 
Virginia 435-445.
McKay, R.B., Stinson, L.L., de la Puente, M. and Kojetin, B.A. 
(1996), ``Interpreting the Findings of the Statistical Analysis of 
the CPS Supplement on Race and Ethnicity,'' Proceedings of the 
Bureau of the Census 1996 Annual Research Conference, Rosslyn, 
Virginia 326-337.
National Center for Education Statistics, Racial and Ethnic 
Classifications Used by Public Schools, NCES 96-092, pp. 14-15.
National Council of La Raza (1995). Letter of the Office of 
Management and Budget.
National Research Council, Committee on National Statistics (1996), 
Spotlight on Heterogeneity: The Federal Standards for Racial and 
Ethnic Classification (Summary of a Workshop), National Academy 
Press, Washington, D.C.
Office of Management and Budget (1995), ``Standards for the 
Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity,'' Federal 
Register; 60:44674-44693, August 28, 1995.
Office of Management and Budget (1977), ``Race and Ethnic Standards 
for Federal Statistics and Administrative Reporting.''
Olguin F. (1994) Letter from the Mexican American Legal Defense and 
Educational Fund to OMB.
Poe, G.S., Powell-Griner, E., McLaughlin, J.K., Robinson, K., and 
Placek, J. (1993), ``A comparability study of the responses to the 
1986 National Mortality Follow-back Survey to similar demographic 
items from the death certificate,'' US Department of Health and 
Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control 
and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, Vital and 
Health Statistics, Data Evaluation and Methods Research, Series 2, 
No. 118.
Rodriguez, C.E., (1994) ``Challenges and Emerging Issues: Race and 
Ethnic Identity Among Latinos,'' Committee on National Statistics, 
National Research Council, Washington, DC.
Rodriguez, C.E. (1992), ``Race, culture and Latino `otherness' in 
the 1980 Census,'' Social Science Quarterly, 71(4), 930-937.
Rodriguez, C. (1989), Puerto Ricans: Born in the USA, Boston: Urwin 
and Hyman. (Reissued by Westview Press in Boulder, CO in 1991).
Rodriguez, C. (1974), ``Puerto Ricans: Between Black and White,'' 
Journal of New York Affairs, 1(4), 92-101.
Rodriguez, C.E., and Cordero-Guzman, J.M. (1992), ``Place race in 
context,'' Ethnic Racial Studies, 15, 523-43.
Rodriguez, N., and Hagan, J. (1991), ``Investigating Census coverage 
and content among undocumented: An ethnographic study of Latino 
immigrant tenants in Houston,'' Ethnographic evaluation of the 1990 
Decennial Census Report #3, Prepared under Joint Statistical 
Agreement 89-34 with the University of Houston, Bureau of the 
Census, Washington D.C.

[[Page 36946]]

Romero, M. (1992), ``Ethnographic evaluation of behavioral causes of 
Census undercount of undocumented immigrants and Salvadorans in the 
Mission District of San Francisco, California,'' Ethnographic 
evaluation of the 1990 Decennial Census Report #18. Prepared under 
Joint Statistical Agreement 89-41 with the San Francisco State 
University Foundation, Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C.
Scarr, H.A. (1994), Statement of Harry A. Scarr, Acting Director, 
Bureau of the Census. At the Hearings before the Subcommittee on 
Census, Statistics, and Postal Personnel of the Committee on Post 
Office and Civil Service, House of Representatives, 103 Congress, 
first Session, June 30, 1993, Serial No. 103-7, pp. 3-17.
Smith, T. (1992), ``Changing racial labels: From `Colored' to 
`Negro' to `Black' to `African American,' '' Public Opinion 
Quarterly, 56, 496-514.
Smith, T.W. (183), ``Problems in ethnic measurement: Over-, under- 
and misidentification,'' Proceedings of American Statistical 
Association.
Sorlie, P.D., Backlund, E., Johnson N.J., and Rogot, E. (1993), 
``Mortality by Hispanic Status in the United States, ``Journal of 
the American Medical Association 270: 2464-68
Subcommittee on Census, Statistics and Postal Personnel of the 
Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, House of Representatives 
(1993), Hearings on Review of Federal Measurements of Race and 
Ethnicity.
Tienda, M., and Ortiz, V. (1986), ``Hispanicity and the 1980 
Census,'' Social Science Quarterly, 67, 3-20.
Torres, J. (1996), ``Report Says Combining Race and Ethnicity in 
Census Lowers Latino Response,'' Hispanic Link Weekly Report, June 
3, p. 4.
Trevino, F.M. (1987), ``Standardized terminology for Hispanic 
populations,'' American Journal of Public Health, 77, 69-72.
Tucker, C. (1996), ``Summary of Responses on Assessing Possible 
Changes in the Collection of Statistics on Race and Ethnicity,'' 
Survey of Council of Professional Association of Federal Statistics 
members.
Tucker, C. (1996), Summary of Focus Group with State and Local 
Association of Public Data Users Members.
Tucker, C., McKay, R., Kojetin, B., Harrison, R., de la Puente, M., 
Stinson, L., and Robinson, E. (1996), ``Testing methods of 
collecting racial and ethnic information: Results of the Current 
Population Survey Supplement on Race and Ethnicity,'' Bureau of 
Labor Statistics Statistical Notes, No. 40.
Tumin, M., Feldman, A. (1961), Social class and social change in 
Puerto Rico, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Wong, F. Y., and McKay, D.R. (1992), ``Hispanic subgroups and 
intraracial comparisons (letter),'' American Journal of Public 
Health, 82 (12), 1691.
Wright, L. (1994), ``One Drop of Blood,'' New Yorker, 7/25/94, pp. 
46-54.
Yzaguirre, R., and Perez, S.M. (1997), ``Accurate racial/ethnic data 
should drive category review,'' in Double exposure: poverty and race 
in America, eds. C. Hartman and M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, NY.

[FR Doc. 97-17664 Filed 7-8-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3110-01-M