[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 210 (Thursday, October 30, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58782-58790]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-28653]



[[Page 58781]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part II





Office of Management and Budget





_______________________________________________________________________



Revisions to the Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on 
Race and Ethnicity; Notices

  Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 210 / Thursday, October 30, 1997 / 
Notices  

[[Page 58782]]



OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET


Revisions to the Standards for the Classification of Federal Data 
on Race and Ethnicity

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

ACTION: Notice of decision.

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

SUMMARY: By this Notice, OMB is announcing its decision concerning the 
revision of Statistical Policy Directive No. 15, Race and Ethnic 
Standards for Federal Statistics and Administrative Reporting. OMB is 
accepting the recommendations of the Interagency Committee for the 
Review of the Racial and Ethnic Standards with the following two 
modifications: (1) the Asian or Pacific Islander category will be 
separated into two categories--``Asian'' and ``Native Hawaiian or Other 
Pacific Islander,'' and (2) the term ``Hispanic'' will be changed to 
``Hispanic or Latino.''
    The revised standards will have five minimum categories for data on 
race: American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African 
American, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and White. There 
will be two categories for data on ethnicity: ``Hispanic or Latino'' 
and ``Not Hispanic or Latino.''
    The Supplementary Information in this Notice provides background 
information on the standards (Section A); a summary of the 
comprehensive review process that began in July 1993 (Section B); a 
brief synopsis of the public comments OMB received on the 
recommendations for changes to the standards in response to the July 9, 
1997, Federal Register Notice (Section C); OMB's decisions on the 
specific recommendations of the Interagency Committee (Section D); and 
information on the work that is underway on tabulation issues 
associated with the reporting of multiple race responses (Section E).
    The revised standards for the classification of Federal data on 
race and ethnicity are presented at the end of this notice; they 
replace and supersede Statistical Policy Directive No. 15.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The new standards will be used by the Bureau of the 
Census in the 2000 decennial census. Other Federal programs should 
adopt the standards as soon as possible, but not later than January 1, 
2003, for use in household surveys, administrative forms and records, 
and other data collections. In addition, OMB has approved the use of 
the new standards by the Bureau of the Census in the ``Dress 
Rehearsal'' for Census 2000 scheduled to be conducted in March 1998.

ADDRESSES: Please send correspondence about OMB's decision to: 
Katherine K. Wallman, Chief Statistician, Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10201 New 
Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 
20503; fax: (202) 395-7245.

ELECTRONIC AVAILABILITY AND ADDRESSES: This Federal Register Notice and 
the related OMB Notices of June 9, 1994, August 28, 1995, and July 9, 
1997, are available electronically from the OMB Homepage on the World 
Wide Web: <<http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/EOP/OMB/html/fedreg.html>>.
    Federal Register Notices are also available electronically from the 
U.S. Government Printing Office web site: <www.access.gpo.gov/
su__docs/aces/aces140.html>>. Questions about accessing the Federal 
Register online via GPO Access may be directed to telephone (202) 512-
1530 or toll free at (888) 293-6498; to fax (202) 512-1262; or to E-
mail <<[email protected]>>.
    This Notice is available in paper copy from the OMB Publications 
Office, 725 17th Street, NW, NEOB, Room 2200, Washington, D.C. 20503; 
telephone (202) 395-7332; fax (202) 395-6137.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Suzann Evinger, Statistical Policy 
Office, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of 
Management and Budget, NEOB, Room 10201, 725 17th Street, N.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20503; telephone: (202) 395-3093; fax (202) 395-7245.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

    For more than 20 years, the current standards in OMB's Statistical 
Policy Directive No. 15 have provided a common language to promote 
uniformity and comparability for data on race and ethnicity for the 
population groups specified in the Directive. They were developed in 
cooperation with Federal agencies to provide consistent data on race 
and ethnicity throughout the Federal Government. Development of the 
data standards stemmed in large measure from new responsibilities to 
enforce civil rights laws. Data were needed to monitor equal access in 
housing, education, employment, and other areas, for populations that 
historically had experienced discrimination and differential treatment 
because of their race or ethnicity. The standards are used not only in 
the decennial census (which provides the data for the ``denominator'' 
for many measures), but also in household surveys, on administrative 
forms (e.g., school registration and mortgage lending applications), 
and in medical and other research. The categories represent a social-
political construct designed for collecting data on the race and 
ethnicity of broad population groups in this country, and are not 
anthropologically or scientifically based.

B. Comprehensive Review Process

    Particularly since the 1990 census, the standards have come under 
increasing criticism from those who believe that the minimum categories 
set forth in Directive No. 15 do not reflect the increasing diversity 
of our Nation's population that has resulted primarily from growth in 
immigration and in interracial marriages. In response to the 
criticisms, OMB announced in July 1993 that it would undertake a 
comprehensive review of the current categories for data on race and 
ethnicity.
    This review has been conducted over the last four years in 
collaboration with the Interagency Committee for the Review of the 
Racial and Ethnic Standards, which OMB established in March 1994 to 
facilitate the participation of Federal agencies in the review. The 
members of the Interagency Committee, from more than 30 agencies, 
represent the many and diverse Federal needs for data on race and 
ethnicity, including statutory requirements for such data. The 
Interagency Committee developed the following principles to govern the 
review process:
    1. The racial and ethnic categories set forth in the standards 
should not be interpreted as being primarily biological or genetic in 
reference. Race and ethnicity may be thought of in terms of social and 
cultural characteristics as well as ancestry.
    2. Respect for individual dignity should guide the processes and 
methods for collecting data on race and ethnicity; ideally, respondent 
self-identification should be facilitated to the greatest extent 
possible, recognizing that in some data collection systems observer 
identification is more practical.
    3. To the extent practicable, the concepts and terminology should 
reflect clear and generally understood definitions that can achieve 
broad public acceptance. To assure they are reliable, meaningful, and 
understood by respondents and observers, the racial and ethnic 
categories set forth in the standard should be developed using

[[Page 58783]]

appropriate scientific methodologies, including the social sciences.
    4. The racial and ethnic categories should be comprehensive in 
coverage and produce compatible, nonduplicative, exchangeable data 
across Federal agencies.
    5. Foremost consideration should be given to data aggregations by 
race and ethnicity that are useful for statistical analysis and program 
administration and assessment, bearing in mind that the standards are 
not intended to be used to establish eligibility for participation in 
any federal program.
    6. The standards should be developed to meet, at a minimum, Federal 
legislative and programmatic requirements. Consideration should also be 
given to needs at the State and local government levels, including 
American Indian tribal and Alaska Native village governments, as well 
as to general societal needs for these data.
    7. The categories should set forth a minimum standard; additional 
categories should be permitted provided they can be aggregated to the 
standard categories. The number of standard categories should be kept 
to a manageable size, determined by statistical concerns and data 
needs.
    8. A revised set of categories should be operationally feasible in 
terms of burden placed upon respondents; public and private costs to 
implement the revisions should be a factor in the decision.
    9. Any changes in the categories should be based on sound 
methodological research and should include evaluations of the impact of 
any changes not only on the usefulness of the resulting data but also 
on the comparability of any new categories with the existing ones.
    10. Any revision to the categories should provide for a crosswalk 
at the time of adoption between the old and the new categories so that 
historical data series can be statistically adjusted and comparisons 
can be made.
    11. Because of the many and varied needs and strong interdependence 
of Federal agencies for racial and ethnic data, any changes to the 
existing categories should be the product of an interagency 
collaborative effort.
    12. Time will be allowed to phase in any new categories. Agencies 
will not be required to update historical records.
    13. The new directive should be applicable throughout the U.S. 
Federal statistical system. The standard or standards must be usable 
for the decennial census, current surveys, and administrative records, 
including those using observer identification.
    The principal objective of the review has been to enhance the 
accuracy of the demographic information collected by the Federal 
Government. The starting point for the review was the minimum set of 
categories for data on race and ethnicity that have provided 
information for more than 20 years for a variety of purposes, and the 
recognition of the importance of being able to maintain this historical 
continuity. The review process has had two major elements: (1) public 
comment on the present standards, which helped to identify concerns and 
provided numerous suggestions for changing the standards; and (2) 
research and testing related to assessing the possible effects of 
suggested changes on the quality and usefulness of the resulting data.
    Public input, the first element of the review process, was sought 
through a variety of means: (1) During 1993, Congressman Thomas C. 
Sawyer, then Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Census, Statistics, 
and Postal Personnel, held four hearings that included 27 witnesses, 
focusing particularly on the use of the categories in the 2000 census. 
(2) At the request of OMB, the National Academy of Sciences' Committee 
on National Statistics (CNSTAT) conducted a workshop in February 1994 
to articulate issues surrounding a review of the categories. The 
workshop included representatives of Federal agencies, academia, social 
science research institutions, interest groups, private industry, and a 
local school district. (A summary of the workshop, Spotlight on 
Heterogeneity: The Federal Standards for Racial and Ethnic 
Classification, is available from CNSTAT, 2101 Constitution Avenue, 
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20418.) (3) On June 9, 1994, OMB published a 
Federal Register (59 FR 29831-29835) Notice that contained background 
information on the development of the current standards and requested 
public comment on: the adequacy of current racial and ethnic 
categories; the principles that should govern any proposed revisions to 
the standards; and specific suggestions for change that had been 
offered by individuals and interested groups over a period of several 
years. In response, OMB received nearly 800 letters. As part of this 
comment period and to bring the review closer to the public, OMB also 
heard testimony from 94 witnesses at hearings held during July 1994 in 
Boston, Denver, San Francisco, and Honolulu. (4) In an August 28, 1995, 
Federal Register (60 FR 44674-44693) Notice, OMB provided an interim 
report on the review process, including a summary of the comments on 
the June 1994 Federal Register Notice, and offered a final opportunity 
for comment on the research to be conducted during 1996. (5) OMB staff 
have also discussed the review process with various interested groups 
and have made presentations at numerous meetings.
    The second element of the review process involved research and 
testing of various proposed changes. The categories in OMB's Directive 
No. 15 are used not only to produce data on the demographic 
characteristics of the population, but also to monitor civil rights 
enforcement and program implementation. Research was undertaken to 
provide an objective assessment of the data quality issues associated 
with various approaches to collecting data on race and ethnicity. To 
that end, the Interagency Committee's Research Working Group, co-
chaired by the Bureau of the Census and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 
reviewed the various criticisms and suggestions for changing the 
current categories, and developed a research agenda for some of the 
more significant issues that had been identified. These issues included 
how to collect data on persons who identify themselves as 
``multiracial''; whether to combine race and Hispanic origin in one 
question or have separate questions on race and Hispanic origin; 
whether to combine the concepts of race, ethnicity, and ancestry; 
whether to change the terminology used for particular categories; and 
whether to add new categories to the current minimum set.
    Because the mode of data collection can have an effect on how a 
person responds, the research agenda proposed studies both in surveys 
using in-person or telephone interviews and in self-administered 
questionnaires, such as the decennial census, which are filled out by 
the respondent and mailed back. Cognitive interviews were conducted 
with various groups to provide guidance on the wording of the questions 
and the instructions for the tests and studies.
    The research agenda included several major national tests, the 
results of which are discussed throughout the Interagency Committee's 
Report to the Office of Management and Budget on the Review of 
Statistical Policy Directive No. 15: (1) In May 1995, the Bureau of 
Labor Statistics (BLS) sponsored a Supplement on Race and Ethnicity to 
the Current Population Survey (CPS). The findings were made available 
in a 1996 report, Testing Methods of Collecting Racial and Ethnic 
Information: Results of the Current Population Survey Supplement on 
Race

[[Page 58784]]

and Ethnicity, available from BLS, 2 Massachusetts Avenue, N.E., Room 
4915, Postal Square Building, Washington, D.C. 20212, or by calling 
202-606-7375. The results were also summarized in an October 26, 1995, 
news release, which is available electronically at <<http://
stats.bls.gov/news.release/ethnic.toc.htm>>. (2) The Bureau of the 
Census, as part of its research for the 2000 census, tested alternative 
approaches to collecting data on race and ethnicity in the March 1996 
National Content Survey (NCS). The Census Bureau published the results 
in a December 1996 report, Findings on Questions on Race and Hispanic 
Origin Tested in the 1996 National Content Survey; highlights of the 
report are available at <<http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/
96natcontentsurvey.html>>. (3) In June 1996, the Census Bureau 
conducted the Race and Ethnic Targeted Test (RAETT), which was designed 
to permit assessments of the effects of possible changes on smaller 
populations not reliably measured in national samples, including 
American Indians, Alaska Natives, detailed Asian and Pacific Islander 
groups (such as Chinese and Hawaiians), and detailed Hispanic groups 
(such as Puerto Ricans and Cubans). The Census Bureau released the 
results in a May 1997 report, Results of the 1996 Race and Ethnic 
Targeted Test; highlights of the report are available at <<http://www/
census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps-0018.html>>. Single copies 
(paper) of the NCS and RAETT reports may be obtained from the 
Population Division, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C. 20233; 
telephone 301-457-2402.
    In addition to these three major tests, the National Center for 
Education Statistics (NCES) and the Office for Civil Rights in the 
Department of Education jointly conducted a survey of 1,000 public 
schools to determine how schools collect data on the race and ethnicity 
of their students and how the administrative records containing these 
data are maintained to meet statutory requirements for reporting 
aggregate information to the Federal Government. NCES published the 
results in a March 1996 report, Racial and Ethnic Classifications Used 
by Public Schools (NCES 96-092). The report is available electronically 
at <<http://nces.ed.gov/pubs/96092.html>>. Single paper copies may be 
obtained from NCES, 555 New Jersey, NW, Washington, D.C. 20208-5574, or 
by calling 202-219-1442.
    The research agenda also included studies conducted by the National 
Center for Health Statistics, the Office of the Assistant Secretary for 
Health, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to evaluate 
the procedures used and the quality of the information on race and 
ethnicity in administrative records such as that reported on birth 
certificates and recorded on death certificates.
    On July 9, 1997, OMB published a Federal Register Notice (62 FR 
36874-36946) containing the Interagency Committee's Report to the 
Office of Management and Budget on the Review of Statistical Policy 
Directive No. 15. The Notice made available for comment the Interagency 
Committee's recommendations for how OMB should revise Directive No. 15. 
The report consists of six chapters. Chapter 1 provides a brief history 
of Directive No. 15, a summary of the issues considered by the 
Interagency Committee, a review of the research activities, and a 
discussion of the criteria used in conducting the evaluation. Chapter 2 
discusses a number of general concerns that need to be addressed when 
considering any changes to the current standards. Chapters 3 through 5 
report the results of the research as they bear on the more significant 
suggestions OMB received for changes to Directive No. 15. Chapter 6 
gives the Interagency's Committee's recommendations concerning the 
various suggested changes based on a review of public comments and 
testimony and the research results.

C. Summary of Comments Received on the Interagency Committee's 
Recommendations

    In response to the July 9, 1997, Federal Register Notice, OMB 
received approximately 300 letters (many of them hand written) on a 
variety of issues, plus approximately 7000 individually signed and 
mailed, preprinted postcards on the issue of classifying data on Native 
Hawaiians, and about 500 individually signed form letters from members 
of the Hapa Issues Forum in support of adopting the recommendation for 
multiple race reporting. Some of the 300 letters focused on a single 
recommendation of particular interest to the writer, while other 
letters addressed a number of the recommendations. The preponderance of 
the comments were from individuals. Each comment was considered in 
preparing OMB's decision.

1. Comments on Recommendations Concerning Reporting More Than One Race

    The Interagency Committee recommended that, when self-
identification is used, respondents who wish to identify their mixed 
racial heritage should be able to mark or select more than one of the 
racial categories originally specified in Directive No. 15, but that 
there should not be a ``multiracial'' category. This recommendation to 
report multiple races was favorably received by most of those 
commenting on it, including associations and organizations such as the 
American Medical Association, the National Education Association, the 
National Council of La Raza, and the National Committee on Vital and 
Health Statistics, as well as all Federal agencies that responded. 
Comments from some organizations, such as the NAACP Legal Defense and 
Educational Fund, the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, 
and the Equal Employment Advisory Council, were receptive to the 
recommendation on multiple race responses, but expressed reservations 
pending development of tabulation methods to ensure the utility of 
these data. The recommendation was also supported by many of the 
advocacy groups that had earlier supported a ``multiracial'' (box) 
category, such as the Association of MultiEthnic Americans and its 
affiliates nationwide. Several individuals wrote in support of 
``multiple race'' reporting, basing their comments on a September 1997 
article, ``What Race Am I?'' in Mademoiselle magazine, which urged its 
readers ``to express an opinion on whether or not a `Multiracial' 
category should be included in all federal recordkeeping, including the 
2000 census.'' A few comments specifically favoring multiple race 
responses suggested that respondents should also be asked to indicate 
their primary racial affiliation in order to facilitate the tabulation 
of responses. A handful of comments on multiple race reporting 
suggested that individuals with both Hispanic and non-Hispanic 
heritages be permitted to mark or select both categories (see 
discussion below).
    A few comments, in particular some from state agencies and 
legislatures, opposed any multiple race reporting because of possible 
increased costs to collect the information and implementation problems. 
Comments from the American Indian tribal governments also were opposed 
to the recommendation concerning reporting more than one race. A number 
of the comments that supported multiple race responses also expressed 
concern about the cost and burden of collecting the information to meet 
Federal reporting requirements, the schedule for implementation, and 
how the data would be tabulated to meet the requirements of legislative 
redistricting

[[Page 58785]]

and enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. A few comments expressed 
support for categories called ``human,'' or ``American''; several 
proposed that there be no collection of data on race.

2. Comments on Recommendation for Classification of Data on Native 
Hawaiians

    The Interagency Committee recommended that data on Native Hawaiians 
continue to be classified in the Asian or Pacific Islander category. 
This recommendation was opposed by the Hawaiian congressional 
delegation, the 7,000 individuals who signed and sent preprinted yellow 
postcards, the State of Hawaii departments and legislature, Hawaiian 
organizations, and other individuals who commented on this 
recommendation. Instead, the comments from these individuals supported 
reclassifying Native Hawaiians in the American Indian or Alaska Native 
category, which they view as an ``indigenous peoples'' category 
(although this category has not been considered or portrayed in this 
manner in the standards). Native Hawaiians, as the descendants of the 
original inhabitants of what is now the State of Hawaii, believe that 
as indigenous people they should be classified in the same category as 
American Indians and Alaska Natives. On the other hand, the American 
Indian tribal governments have opposed such a reclassification, 
primarily because they view the data obtained from that category as 
being essential for administering Federal programs for American 
Indians. Comments from the Native Hawaiians also noted the Asian or 
Pacific Islander category provides inadequate data for monitoring the 
social and economic conditions of Native Hawaiians and other Pacific 
Islander groups. Because the Interagency Committee had recommended 
against adding categories to the minimum set of categories, requesting 
a separate category for Native Hawaiians was not viewed as an option by 
those who commented.

3. Comments on Recommendation Concerning Classification of Data on 
Central and South American Indians

    The Interagency Committee recommended that data for Central and 
South American Indians be included in the American Indian or Alaska 
Native category. Several comments from the American Indian community 
opposed this recommendation. Moreover, comments from some Native 
Hawaiians pointed out what they believed to be an inconsistency in the 
Interagency Committee's recommendation to include in the American 
Indian or Alaska Native category descendants of Central and South 
American Indians--persons who are not original peoples of the United 
States--if Native Hawaiians were not to be included.

4. Comments on Recommendation Not to Add an Arab or Middle Eastern 
Ethnic Category

    The Interagency Committee recommended that an Arab or Middle 
Eastern ethnic category should not be added to the minimum standards 
for all reporting of Federal data on race and ethnicity. Several 
comments were received in support of having a separate category in 
order to have data viewed as necessary to monitor discrimination 
against this population.

5. Comments on Recommendations for Terminology

    Comments on terminology largely supported the Interagency 
Committee's recommendations to retain the term ``American Indian,'' to 
change ``Hawaiian'' to ``Native Hawaiian,'' and to change ``Black'' to 
``Black or African American.'' There were a few requests to include 
``Latino'' in the category name for the Hispanic population.

D. OMB's Decisions

    This section of the Notice provides information on the decisions 
taken by OMB on the recommendations that were proposed by the 
Interagency Committee. The Committee's recommendations addressed 
options for reporting by respondents, formats of questions, and several 
aspects of specific categories, including possible additions, revised 
terminology, and changes in definitions. In reviewing OMB's decisions 
on the recommendations for collecting data on race and ethnicity, it is 
useful to remember that these decisions:
     retain the concept that the standards provide a minimum 
set of categories for data on race and ethnicity;
     permit the collection of more detailed information on 
population groups provided that any additional categories can be 
aggregated into the minimum standard set of categories;
     underscore that self-identification is the preferred means 
of obtaining information about an individual's race and ethnicity, 
except in instances where observer identification is more practical 
(e.g., completing a death certificate);
     do not identify or designate certain population groups as 
``minority groups'';
     continue the policy that the categories are not to be used 
for determining the eligibility of population groups for participation 
in any Federal programs;
     do not establish criteria or qualifications (such as blood 
quantum levels) that are to be used in determining a particular 
individual's racial or ethnic classification; and
     do not tell an individual who he or she is, or specify how 
an individual should classify himself or herself.
    In arriving at its decisions, OMB took into account not only the 
public comment on the recommendations published in the Federal Register 
on July 9, 1997, but also the considerable amount of information 
provided during the four years of this review process, including public 
comments gathered from hearings and responses to two earlier OMB 
Notices (on June 9, 1994, and August 28, 1995). The OMB decisions 
benefited greatly from the participation of the public that served as a 
constant reminder that there are real people represented by the data on 
race and ethnicity and that this is for many a deeply personal issue. 
In addition, the OMB decisions benefited from the results of the 
research and testing on how individuals identify themselves that was 
undertaken as part of this review process. This research, including 
several national tests of alternative approaches to collecting data on 
race and ethnicity, was developed and conducted by the professional 
statisticians and analysts at several Federal agencies. They are to be 
commended for their perseverance, dedication, and professional 
commitment to this challenging project.
    OMB also considered in reaching its decisions the extent to which 
the recommendations were consistent with the set of principles (see 
Section B of the Supplementary Information) developed by the 
Interagency Committee to guide the review of this sensitive and 
substantively complex issue. OMB believes that the Interagency 
Committee's recommendations took into account the principles and 
achieved a reasonable balance with respect to statistical issues, data 
needs, social concerns, and the personal dimensions of racial and 
ethnic identification. OMB also finds that the Committee's 
recommendations are consistent with the principal objective of the 
review, which is to enhance the accuracy of the demographic information 
collected by the Federal Government by having categories for data on 
race and ethnicity that will enable the capture of information about 
the increasing diversity of our Nation's population while at the same 
time respecting each individual's dignity.

[[Page 58786]]

    As indicated in detail below, OMB accepts the Interagency 
Committee's recommendations concerning reporting more than one race, 
including the recommendation that there be no category called 
``multiracial,'' the formats and sequencing of the questions on race 
and Hispanic origin, and most of the changes to terminology.
    OMB does not accept the Interagency Committee's recommendations 
concerning the classification of data on the Native Hawaiian population 
and the terminology for Hispanics, and it has instead decided to make 
the changes that follow.
    Native Hawaiian classification.--OMB does not accept the 
recommendation concerning the continued classification of Hawaiians in 
the Asian or Pacific Islander category. Instead, OMB has decided to 
break apart the Asian or Pacific Islander category into two 
categories--one called ``Asian'' and the other called ``Native Hawaiian 
or Other Pacific Islander.'' As a result, there will be five categories 
in the minimum set for data on race.
    The ``Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander'' category will be 
defined as ``A person having origins in any of the original peoples of 
Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands.'' (The term ``Native 
Hawaiian'' does not include individuals who are native to the State of 
Hawaii by virtue of being born there.) In addition to Native Hawaiians, 
Guamanians, and Samoans, this category would include the following 
Pacific Islander groups reported in the 1990 census: Carolinian, 
Fijian, Kosraean, Melanesian, Micronesian, Northern Mariana Islander, 
Palauan, Papua New Guinean, Ponapean (Pohnpelan), Polynesian, Solomon 
Islander, Tahitian, Tarawa Islander, Tokelauan, Tongan, Trukese 
(Chuukese), and Yapese.
    The ``Asian'' category will be defined as ``A person having origins 
in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the 
Indian subcontinent including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, 
Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and 
Vietnam.''
    The Native Hawaiians presented compelling arguments that the 
standards must facilitate the production of data to describe their 
social and economic situation and to monitor discrimination against 
Native Hawaiians in housing, education, employment, and other areas. 
Under the current standards for data on race and ethnicity, Native 
Hawaiians comprise about three percent of the Asian and Pacific 
Islander population. By creating separate categories, the data on the 
Native Hawaiians and other Pacific Islander groups will no longer be 
overwhelmed by the aggregate data of the much larger Asian groups. 
Native Hawaiians will comprise about 60 percent of the new category.
    The Asian, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander population groups 
are well defined; moreover, there has been experience with reporting in 
separate categories for the Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander 
population groups. The 1990 census included ``Hawaiian,'' ``Samoan,'' 
and ``Guamanian'' as response categories to the race question. In 
addition, two of the major tests conducted as part of the current 
review (the NCS and the RAETT) used ``Hawaiian'' and/or ``Native 
Hawaiian,'' ``Samoan,'' ``Guamanian,'' and ``Guamanian or Chamorro'' as 
response options to the race question. These factors facilitate 
breaking apart the current category.
    Terminology for Hispanics.--OMB does not accept the recommendation 
to retain the single term ``Hispanic.'' Instead, OMB has decided that 
the term should be ``Hispanic or Latino.'' Because regional usage of 
the terms differs--Hispanic is commonly used in the eastern portion of 
the United States, whereas Latino is commonly used in the western 
portion--this change may contribute to improved response rates.
    The OMB decisions on the Interagency Committee's specific 
recommendations are presented below:
    (1) OMB accepts the following recommendations concerning reporting 
more than one race:
     When self-identification is used, a method for reporting 
more than one race should be adopted.
     The method for respondents to report more than one race 
should take the form of multiple responses to a single question and not 
a ``multiracial'' category.
     When a list of races is provided to respondents, the list 
should not contain a ``multiracial'' category.
     Based on research conducted so far, two recommended forms 
for the instruction accompanying the multiple response question are 
``Mark one or more * * *'' and ``Select one or more * * *''
     If the criteria for data quality and confidentiality are 
met, provision should be made to report, at a minimum, the number of 
individuals identifying with more than one race. Data producers are 
encouraged to provide greater detail about the distribution of multiple 
responses.
     The new standards will be used in the decennial census, 
and other data producers should conform as soon as possible, but not 
later than January 1, 2003.
    (2) OMB accepts the following recommendations concerning a combined 
race and Hispanic ethnicity question:
     When self-identification is used, the two question format 
should be used, with the race question allowing the reporting of more 
than one race.
     When self-identification is not feasible or appropriate, a 
combined question can be used and should include a separate Hispanic 
category co-equal with the other categories.
     When the combined question is used, an attempt should be 
made, when appropriate, to record ethnicity and race or multiple races, 
but the option to indicate only one category is acceptable.
    (3) OMB accepts the following recommendations concerning the 
retention of both reporting formats:
     The two question format should be used in all cases 
involving self-identification.
     The current combined question format should be changed and 
replaced with a new format which includes a co-equal Hispanic category 
for use, if necessary, in observer identification.
    (4) OMB accepts the following recommendation concerning the 
ordering of the Hispanic origin and race questions:
     When the two question format is used, the Hispanic origin 
question should precede the race question.
    (5) OMB accepts the following recommendation concerning adding Cape 
Verdean as an ethnic category:
     A Cape Verdean ethnic category should not be added to the 
minimum data collection standards.
    (6) OMB accepts the following recommendation concerning the 
addition of an Arab or Middle Eastern ethnic category:
     An Arab or Middle Eastern ethnic category should not be 
added to the minimum data standards.
    (7) OMB interprets the recommendation not to add any other 
categories to mean the expansion of the minimum set to include new 
population groups. The OMB decision to break apart the ``Asian or 
Pacific Islander'' category does not create a category for a new 
population group.
    (8) OMB accepts the following recommendation concerning changing 
the term ``American Indian'' to ``Native American'':
     The term American Indian should not be changed to Native 
American.
    (9) OMB accepts the following recommendation concerning changing 
the term ``Hawaiian'' to ``Native Hawaiian'':

[[Page 58787]]

     The term ``Hawaiian'' should be changed to ``Native 
Hawaiian.''
    (10) OMB does not accept the recommendation concerning the 
continued classification of Native Hawaiians in the Asian or Pacific 
Islander category.
     OMB has decided to break apart the Asian or Pacific 
Islander category into two categories--one called ``Asian'' and the 
other called ``Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander.'' As a 
result, there are five categories in the minimum set for data on race.
     The ``Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander'' category 
is defined as ``A person having origins in any of the original peoples 
of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands.''
     The ``Asian'' category is defined as ``A person having 
origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, 
or the Indian subcontinent including, for example, Cambodia, China, 
India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, 
Thailand, and Vietnam.''
    (11) OMB accepts the following recommendations concerning the use 
of ``Alaska Native'' instead of ``Eskimo'' and ``Aleut'': ``Alaska 
Native'' should replace the term ``Alaskan Native.''
     Alaska Native should be used instead of Eskimo and Aleut.
     The Alaska Native response option should be accompanied by 
a request for tribal affiliation when possible.
    (12) OMB accepts the following recommendations concerning the 
classification of Central and South American Indians:
     Central and South American Indians should be classified as 
American Indian.
     The definition of the ``American Indian or Alaska Native'' 
category should be modified to include the original peoples from 
Central and South America.
     In addition, OMB has decided to make the definition for 
the American Indian or Alaska Native category more consistent with the 
definitions of the other categories.
    (13) OMB accepts the following recommendations concerning the term 
or terms to be used for the name of the Black category:
     The name of the Black category should be changed to 
``Black or African American.''
     The category definition should remain unchanged.
     Additional terms, such as Haitian or Negro, can be used if 
desired.
    (14) OMB decided to modify the recommendations concerning the term 
or terms to be used for Hispanic:
     The term used should be ``Hispanic or Latino.''
     The definition of the category should remain unchanged.
     In addition, the term ``Spanish Origin,'' can be used if 
desired.
    Accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget adopts and issues 
the revised minimum standards for Federal data on race and ethnicity 
for major population groups in the United States which are set forth at 
the end of this Notice.

Topics for Further Research

    There are two areas where OMB accepts the Interagency Committee's 
recommendations but believes that further research is needed: (1) 
multiple responses to the Hispanic origin question and (2) an ethnic 
category for Arabs/Middle Easterners.
    Multiple Responses to the Hispanic Origin Question.--The 
Interagency Committee recommended that respondents to Federal data 
collections should be permitted to report more than one race. During 
the most recent public comment process, a few comments suggested that 
the concept of ``marking more than one box'' should be extended to the 
Hispanic origin question. Respondents are now asked to indicate if they 
are ``of Hispanic origin'' or ``not of Hispanic origin.'' Allowing 
individuals to select more than one response to the ethnicity question 
would provide the opportunity to indicate ethnic heritage that is both 
Hispanic and non-Hispanic.
    The term ``Hispanic'' refers to persons who trace their origin or 
descent to Mexico, Puerto Rico, Cuba, Central and South America, and 
other Spanish cultures. While there has been considerable public 
concern about the need to review Directive No. 15 with respect to 
classifying individuals of mixed racial heritage, there has been little 
comment on reporting both an Hispanic and a non-Hispanic origin. On 
many Federal forms, Hispanics can also express a racial identity on a 
separate race question. In the decennial census, individuals who 
consider themselves part Hispanic can also indicate additional 
heritages in the ancestry question.
    On one hand, it can be argued that allowing individuals to mark 
both categories in the Hispanic origin question would parallel the 
instruction ``to mark (or select) one or more'' racial categories. 
Individuals would not have to choose between their parents' ethnic 
heritages, and movement toward an increasingly diverse society would be 
recognized.
    On the other hand, because the matter of multiple responses to the 
Hispanic ethnicity question was not raised in the early phases of the 
public comment process, no explicit provisions were made for testing 
this approach in the research conducted to inform the review of 
Directive No. 15. While a considerable amount of research was focused 
on how to improve the response rate to the Hispanic origin question, it 
is unclear whether and to what extent explicitly permitting multiple 
responses to the Hispanic origin question would affect nonresponse to 
the race question or hamper obtaining more detailed data on Hispanic 
population groups.
    Information on the possible impact of any changes on the quality of 
the data has been an essential element of the review. While the effects 
of changes in the Hispanic origin question are unknown, they could 
conceivably be substantial. Thus, OMB has decided not to include a 
provision in the standards that would explicitly permit respondents to 
select both ``Hispanic origin'' and ``Not of Hispanic Origin'' options. 
OMB believes that this is an item for future research. In the meantime, 
the ancestry question on the decennial census long form does provide 
respondents who consider themselves part Hispanic to write in 
additional heritages.
    Research on an Arab/Middle Easterner category.--During the public 
comment process, OMB received a number of requests to add an ethnic 
category for Arabs/Middle Easterners so that data could be obtained 
that could be useful in monitoring discrimination. The public comment 
process indicated, however, that there was no agreement on a definition 
for this category. The combined race, Hispanic origin, and ancestry 
question in the RAETT, which was designed to address requests that were 
received from groups for establishing separate categories, did not 
provide a solution.
    While OMB accepted the Interagency's Committee recommendation not 
to create a new category for this population group, OMB believes that 
further research should be done to determine the best way to improve 
data on this population group. Meanwhile, the write-ins to the ancestry 
question on the decennial census long form will continue to provide 
information on the number of individuals who identify their heritage as 
Arab or Middle Easterner.

E. Tabulation Issues

    The revised standards retain the concept of a minimum set of 
categories for Federal data on race and ethnicity and make possible at 
the same time the collection of data to reflect the diversity of our 
Nation's population. Since the

[[Page 58788]]

Interagency Committee's recommendation concerning the reporting of more 
than one race was made available for public comment, the focus of 
attention has been largely on how the data would be tabulated. Because 
of the concerns expressed about tabulation methods and our own view of 
the importance of this issue, OMB committed to accelerate the work on 
tabulation issues when it testified in July 1997 on the Interagency 
Committee's recommendations.
    A group of statistical and policy analysts drawn from the Federal 
agencies that generate or use these data has spent the past few months 
considering the tabulation issues. Although this work is still in its 
early stages, some preliminary guidance can be shared at this time. In 
general, OMB believes that, consistent with criteria for 
confidentiality and data quality, the tabulation procedures used by the 
agencies should result in the production of as much detailed 
information on race and ethnicity as possible.
    Guidelines for tabulation ultimately must meet the needs of at 
least two groups within the Federal Government, with the overriding 
objective of providing the most accurate and informative body of data. 
The first group is composed of those government officials charged with 
carrying out constitutional and legislative mandates, such as 
redistricting legislatures, enforcing civil rights laws, and monitoring 
progress in anti-discrimination programs. (The legislative 
redistricting file produced by the Bureau of the Census, also known as 
the Public Law 94-171 file, is an example of a file meeting such 
legislative needs.) The second group consists of the staff of 
statistical agencies producing and analyzing data that are used to 
monitor economic and social conditions and trends.
    Many of the needs of the first group can be met with an initial 
tabulation that provides, consistent with standards for data quality 
and confidentiality, the full detail of racial reporting; that is, the 
number of people reporting in each single race category and the number 
reporting each of the possible combinations of races, which would add 
to the total population. Depending on the judgment of users, the 
combinations of multiple responses could be collapsed. One method would 
be to provide separate totals for those reporting in the most common 
multiple race combinations and to collapse the data for other less 
frequently reported combinations. The specifics of the collapsed 
distributions must await the results of particular data collections. A 
second method would be to report the total selecting each particular 
race, whether alone or in combination with other races. These totals 
would represent upper bounds on the size of the populations who 
identified with each of the racial categories. In some cases, this 
latter method could be used for comparing data collected under the old 
standards with data collected under the new standards. It is important 
that users with the same or closely related responsibilities adopt the 
same tabulation method. Regardless of the method chosen for collapsing 
multiple race responses, the total number reporting more than one race 
must be made available, if confidentiality and data quality 
requirements can be met, in order to ensure that any changes in 
response patterns resulting from the new standards can be monitored 
over time.
    Meeting the needs of the second group (those producing and 
analyzing statistical data to monitor economic and social conditions 
and trends), as well as some additional needs of the first group, may 
require different tabulation procedures. More research must be 
completed before guidelines that will meet the requirements of these 
users can be developed. A group of statistical and policy experts will 
review a number of alternative procedures and provide recommendations 
to OMB concerning these tabulation requirements by Spring 1998. Four of 
the areas in which further exploration is needed are outlined below.
     Equal employment opportunity and other anti-discrimination 
programs have traditionally provided the numbers of people in the 
population by selected characteristics, including racial categories, 
for business, academic, and government organizations to use in 
evaluating conformance with program objectives. Because of the 
potentially large number of categories that may result from application 
of the new standards, many with very small numbers, it is not clear how 
this need for data will be best satisfied in the future.
     The numbers of people in distinct groups based on 
decennial census results are used in developing sample designs and 
survey controls for major demographic surveys. For example, the 
National Health Interview Survey uses census data to increase samples 
for certain population groups, adjust for survey non-response, and 
provide weights for estimating health outcomes at the national level. 
The impact of having data for many small population groups with 
multiple racial heritages must be explored.
     Vital statistics data include birth and death rates for 
various population groups. Typically the numerator (number of births or 
deaths) is derived from administrative records, while the denominator 
comes from intercensal population estimates. Birth certificate data on 
race are likely to have been self reported by the mother. Over time, 
these data may become comparable to data collected under the new 
standards. Death certificate data, however, frequently are filled out 
by an observer, such as a mortician, physician, or funeral director. 
These data, particularly for the population with multiple racial 
heritages, are likely to be quite different from the information 
obtained when respondents report about themselves. Research to define 
comparable categories to be used in both numerators and denominators is 
needed to assure that vital statistics are as accurate and useful as 
possible.
     More generally, statistical indicators are often used to 
measure change over time. Procedures that will permit meaningful 
comparisons of data collected under the previous standards with those 
that will be collected under the new standards need to be developed.
    The methodology for tabulating data on race and ethnicity must be 
carefully developed and coordinated among the statistical agencies and 
other Federal data users. Moreover, just as OMB's review and decision 
processes have benefited during the past four years from extensive 
public participation, we expect to discuss tabulation methods with data 
users within and outside the Federal Government. OMB expects to issue 
additional guidance with respect to tabulating data on race and 
ethnicity by Fall 1998.
Sally Katzen,
Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

Standards for Maintaining, Collecting, and Presenting Federal Data 
on Race and Ethnicity

    This classification provides a minimum standard for maintaining, 
collecting, and presenting data on race and ethnicity for all Federal 
reporting purposes. The categories in this classification are social-
political constructs and should not be interpreted as being scientific 
or anthropological in nature. They are not to be used as determinants 
of eligibility for participation in any Federal program. The standards 
have been developed to provide a common language for uniformity and 
comparability in the collection and use of data on race and ethnicity 
by Federal agencies.

[[Page 58789]]

    The standards have five categories for data on race: American 
Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African American, Native 
Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and White. There are two categories 
for data on ethnicity: ``Hispanic or Latino,'' and ``Not Hispanic or 
Latino.''

1. Categories and Definitions

    The minimum categories for data on race and ethnicity for Federal 
statistics, program administrative reporting, and civil rights 
compliance reporting are defined as follows:

    American Indian or Alaska Native. A person having origins in any 
of the original peoples of North and South America (including 
Central America), and who maintains tribal affiliation or community 
attachment.
    Asian. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of 
the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent including, 
for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, 
Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam.
    Black or African American. A person having origins in any of the 
black racial groups of Africa. Terms such as ``Haitian'' or 
``Negro'' can be used in addition to ``Black or African American.''
    Hispanic or Latino. A person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, 
Cuban, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or 
origin, regardless of race. The term, ``Spanish origin,'' can be 
used in addition to ``Hispanic or Latino.''
    Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander. A person having 
origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or 
other Pacific Islands.
    White. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of 
Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa.

    Respondents shall be offered the option of selecting one or more 
racial designations. Recommended forms for the instruction accompanying 
the multiple response question are ``Mark one or more'' and ``Select 
one or more.''

2. Data Formats

    The standards provide two formats that may be used for data on race 
and ethnicity. Self-reporting or self-identification using two separate 
questions is the preferred method for collecting data on race and 
ethnicity. In situations where self-reporting is not practicable or 
feasible, the combined format may be used.
    In no case shall the provisions of the standards be construed to 
limit the collection of data to the categories described above. The 
collection of greater detail is encouraged; however, any collection 
that uses more detail shall be organized in such a way that the 
additional categories can be aggregated into these minimum categories 
for data on race and ethnicity.
    With respect to tabulation, the procedures used by Federal agencies 
shall result in the production of as much detailed information on race 
and ethnicity as possible. However, Federal agencies shall not present 
data on detailed categories if doing so would compromise data quality 
or confidentiality standards.
a. Two-Question Format
    To provide flexibility and ensure data quality, separate questions 
shall be used wherever feasible for reporting race and ethnicity. When 
race and ethnicity are collected separately, ethnicity shall be 
collected first. If race and ethnicity are collected separately, the 
minimum designations are:

Race:

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

Ethnicity:

--Hispanic or Latino
--Not Hispanic or Latino

    When data on race and ethnicity are collected separately, provision 
shall be made to report the number of respondents in each racial 
category who are Hispanic or Latino.
    When aggregate data are presented, data producers shall provide the 
number of respondents who marked (or selected) only one category, 
separately for each of the five racial categories. In addition to these 
numbers, data producers are strongly encouraged to provide the detailed 
distributions, including all possible combinations, of multiple 
responses to the race question. If data on multiple responses are 
collapsed, at a minimum the total number of respondents reporting 
``more than one race'' shall be made available.
b. Combined Format
    The combined format may be used, if necessary, for observer-
collected data on race and ethnicity. Both race (including multiple 
responses) and ethnicity shall be collected when appropriate and 
feasible, although the selection of one category in the combined format 
is acceptable. If a combined format is used, there are six minimum 
categories:

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

    When aggregate data are presented, data producers shall provide the 
number of respondents who marked (or selected) only one category, 
separately for each of the six categories. In addition to these 
numbers, data producers are strongly encouraged to provide the detailed 
distributions, including all possible combinations, of multiple 
responses. In cases where data on multiple responses are collapsed, the 
total number of respondents reporting ``Hispanic or Latino and one or 
more races'' and the total number of respondents reporting ``more than 
one race'' (regardless of ethnicity) shall be provided.

3. Use of the Standards for Record Keeping and Reporting

    The minimum standard categories shall be used for reporting as 
follows:
a. Statistical Reporting
    These standards shall be used at a minimum for all federally 
sponsored statistical data collections that include data on race and/or 
ethnicity, except when the collection involves a sample of such size 
that the data on the smaller categories would be unreliable, or when 
the collection effort focuses on a specific racial or ethnic group. Any 
other variation will have to be specifically authorized by the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB) through the information collection 
clearance process. In those cases where the data collection is not 
subject to the information collection clearance process, a direct 
request for a variance shall be made to OMB.
b. General Program Administrative and Grant Reporting
    These standards shall be used for all Federal administrative 
reporting or record keeping requirements that include data on race and 
ethnicity. Agencies that cannot follow these standards must request a 
variance from OMB. Variances will be considered if the agency can 
demonstrate that it is not reasonable for the primary reporter to 
determine racial or ethnic background in terms of the specified 
categories, that determination of racial or ethnic background is not 
critical to the administration of the program in question, or that the 
specific program is directed to only one or a limited number of racial 
or ethnic groups.
c. Civil Rights and Other Compliance Reporting
    These standards shall be used by all Federal agencies in either the 
separate or combined format for civil rights and

[[Page 58790]]

other compliance reporting from the public and private sectors and all 
levels of government. Any variation requiring less detailed data or 
data which cannot be aggregated into the basic categories must be 
specifically approved by OMB for executive agencies. More detailed 
reporting which can be aggregated to the basic categories may be used 
at the agencies' discretion.

4. Presentation of Data on Race and Ethnicity

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

5. Effective Date

    The provisions of these standards are effective immediately for all 
new and revised record keeping or reporting requirements that include 
racial and/or ethnic information. All existing record keeping or 
reporting requirements shall be made consistent with these standards at 
the time they are submitted for extension, or not later than January 1, 
2003.

[FR Doc. 97-28653 Filed 10-29-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3110-01-P