OMB HOME • FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES
Federal
Register 7/9/97, Part II. Pages 36873-36946
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 OMBDIR15@A1.EOP.GOV (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: /OMB/fedreg/, and in paper
copy from the OMB Publications Office, 725, 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 als o 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 is 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 pa rticipation 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 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 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,
whi ch 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 the past sev eral 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
Hon olulu. (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 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 ci vil 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 suggestion s 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 se t.
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 intervi ew) 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, N.E., Room 4915, Postal Square Building, Washington, D.C. 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 popul ations 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
r eleased 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 o n 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, 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 qualit y 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 revise 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 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 ca n 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 that OMB's decision will benefi t 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 wis h 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 Nation'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
APPENDIX
1
DIRECTIVE NO. 15
RACE AND ETHNIC STANDARDS FOR FEDERAL STATISTICS
AND ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTING
(as adopted
on May 12, 1977)
This Directive
provides standard classifications for 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:
- 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.
- Hispanic.
A person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American
or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race.
- 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:
- 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.
The minimum
standard collection categories shall be utilized for reporting as follows:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 appropriate; or
(3)
The designation of a particular minority race or races, and the
inclusion of "Whites" with "All Other Races," if
such a collective description is appropriate.
In displaying
detailed information which represents a combination of race and ethnicity,
the description of the data being displayed must clearly indicate that
both bases of classification are being used.
When the
primary focus of a statistical report is on two or more specific identifiable
groups in the population, one or more of which is racial or ethnic,
it is acceptable to display data for each of the particular groups
separately and to describe data relating to the remainder of the population
by an appropriate collective description.
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
2.6 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
3.3.2 Cognitive Research to Guide Survey Design
3.4 Evaluating 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 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 "Hawaiian" 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 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 monitor 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
1960s, data on race and ethnicity have been used extensively 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. These legislatively based priorities created the need among
Federal agencies for compatible, nonduplicative data for population
groups that historically had suffered discrimination on the basis 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 ethnicity. 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 Ethnic
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.
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 corporations
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 also
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:
--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
- 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 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-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 section
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 41CFR chapter 60 (EEO) to collect data on race and ethnicity
for workforce analysis using the categories "Blacks, Spanish-surnamed
Americans, American 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 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 persons
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 will
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 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 or 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; Gerber
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 areas that have, relative to the Nation as a whole, high concentrations
of households in any one 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 of 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 follows:
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 each 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 was 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 sample 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 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 Supplement.
Table
3.1 Racial Distribution from the First Question in the
CPS Supplement Assessing Racial Identity (In percent)
Race/Ethnicity |
Panel |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
White |
79.88 |
79.74 |
75.78 |
74.66 |
Black |
10.29 |
10.66 |
10.60 |
10.27 |
Hispanic |
- |
- |
7.53 |
8.20 |
American
Indian/Eskimo/Aleut |
0.97 |
0.73 |
1.06 |
0.79 |
Asian/Pacific
Islander |
3.83 |
3.25 |
3.25 |
3.30 |
Something
Else |
4.68 |
3.70 |
1.50 |
0.92 |
Don't
Know/Not Applicable |
0.34 |
0.26 |
0.28 |
0.32 |
Total
Multiracial |
- |
1.65 |
- |
1.55 |
Totals |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
Panel 1
- separate Hispanic question, no multiracial category
Panel 2 - separate Hispanic question, multiracial category
Panel 3 - no separate Hispanic question, no multiracial category
Panel 4 - no separate Hispanic question, multiracial category.
From Tucker
et al., 1996.
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.)
Table
3.2 Percent Using Multiracial Category, by Targeted Sample
Targeted
Sample |
"Multiracial
or
Biracial" Category
(Panel B) |
White
ethnic |
0.41 |
Black |
0.95 |
Hispanic |
2.33 |
American
Indian |
3.67 |
Asian
and Pacific Islander |
7.58 |
Alaska
Native |
7.07 |
From Bureau
of the Census, 1997.
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.)
Table
3.3 Comparison of Panel A and Panel B
(With a Multiracial Category) for the Asian and
Pacific Islander Targeted Sample, by Race: 1996 RAETT
Race |
Count
or Estimate |
Difference
(Panel B
minus
Panel A) |
No
multiracial response option (Panel A) |
"Multiracial
or Biracial" category (Panel B) |
White
ethnic |
20.56 |
18.47 |
*
-2.09 |
Black |
5.99 |
6.05 |
0.07 |
American
Indian and Alaska Native |
0.31 |
0.36 |
0.06 |
Asian
and Pacific Islander |
64.95 |
60.48 |
*
-4.47 |
Chinese |
17.76 |
17.50 |
-0.26 |
Filipino |
19.72 |
18.71 |
-1.01 |
Hawaiian |
9.20 |
5.48 |
*
-3.72 |
Korean |
1.55 |
1.59 |
0.05 |
Vietnamese |
1.40 |
1.50 |
0.10 |
Japanese |
8.21 |
8.22 |
0.00 |
Asian
Indian |
1.24 |
0.48 |
*
-0.76 |
Samoan |
1.01 |
1.37 |
0.36 |
Guamanian |
0.00 |
0.29 |
*
0.29 |
Other
Asian and Pacific Islander |
4.85 |
5.33 |
0.47 |
Other
race |
4.44 |
4.00 |
-0.44 |
Multiracial |
-- |
7.58 |
-- |
Unrequested
multiple response |
3.76 |
3.06 |
-0.70 |
* An asterisk
indicates that the difference is statistically significant at the 90-percent
confidence interval assuming there is no bias due to a low response
rate.
From Bureau
of the Census, 1997, Table 1-4R, p. D-6.
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).
Table
3.4 Comparison of Panel A (No Multiracial Category)
and Panel B (With a Multiracial Category)
for the Alaska Native Targeted Sample, by Race: 1996 RAETT
Race |
Count
or Estimate |
Difference
(Panel B
minus
Panel A) |
No
multiracial response option (Panel A) |
"Multiracial
or Biracial" category (Panel B) |
White |
12.55 |
16.99 |
4.44 |
Black |
0.56 |
1.05 |
0.49 |
American
Indian and Alaska Native |
79.36 |
65.26 |
*-14.10 |
Asian
and Pacific Islander |
2.23 |
3.16 |
0.93 |
Other
race |
0.14 |
0.15 |
0.01 |
Multiracial |
-- |
7.07 |
-- |
Unrequested
multiple response |
5.16 |
6.32 |
1.16 |
* An asterisk
indicates that the difference is statistically significant at the 90-percent
confidence interval as long as there is no bias due to a low response
rate. From Bureau of the Census, 1997.
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.
Table
3.5 Racial Distribution from First Question in
CPS Supplement Assessing Racial Identity,
Detailed Identification for "Multiracials" in
Panels 2 and 4 (In percent)
Breakdown
of Responses to a
Follow-up Question |
Panel
2 |
Panel
4 |
"Something
else" as only one race |
0.51 |
0.22 |
Only
1 race (of those provided) |
0.53 |
0.15 |
White-Black/Black-White |
0.09 |
0.16 |
American
Indian + 1 race |
0.20 |
0.28 |
Asian/Pacific
Islander + 1 race |
0.07 |
0.28 |
1
race + Something else |
0.16 |
0.07 |
Other
2 races |
0.00 |
0.20 |
3
or more races |
0.08 |
0.21 |
No
race/don't know/not applicable |
0.02 |
0.00 |
Total
Multiracial Responses |
1.65 |
1.55 |
From Tucker,
et al., 1996.
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 of 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.
Table
3.6 Percentage "Multiracials" and "Unconfirmed" Multiracials
|
Panel
2
separate questions |
Panel
4
(combined questions) |
Multiracial |
"Unconfirmed"
Multiracials |
Multiracial |
"Unconfirmed"
Multiracials |
Named
1 race in response |
Hispanic |
2.21 |
10.73 |
0.00 |
0.71 |
Non-Hispanic |
4.81 |
45.77 |
5.15 |
17.02 |
Named
2 or more races in response |
Hispanic |
3.53 |
4.60 |
22.79 |
0.00 |
Non-Hispanic |
26.02 |
2.33 |
52.46 |
1.88 |
Totals |
36.57 |
63.43 |
80.40 |
19.60 |
From McKay,
Stinson, de la Puente, and Kojetin, 1996.
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.
Table
3.7 Racial Identifications on CPS Control Card and CPS Supplement
Panel |
Race
on CPS Control Card |
Race
on CPS Supplement |
Same
Race |
Another
race |
"Something
Else" |
"Multiracial" |
1 |
White |
95.80 |
1.15 |
3.05 |
--- |
Black |
95.02 |
1.84 |
3.14 |
--- |
American
Indian,
Eskimo, or Aleut |
74.50 |
20.78 |
4.72 |
--- |
Asian
or Pacific
Islander |
90.91 |
3.06 |
6.03 |
--- |
2 |
White |
95.64 |
0.88 |
2.34 |
1.15 |
Black |
93.70 |
1.65 |
1.89 |
2.77 |
American
Indian,
Eskimo, or Aleut |
58.94 |
34.44 |
2.38 |
4.24 |
Asian
or Pacific
Islander |
92.67 |
1.80 |
3.70 |
1.83 |
3 |
White |
91.28 |
7.82 |
0.82 |
--- |
Black |
94.72 |
2.21 |
3.06 |
American
Indian,
Eskimo, or Aleut |
71.98 |
22.94 |
5.07 |
--- |
Asian
or Pacific
Islander |
88.01 |
5.49 |
4.88 |
--- |
4 |
White |
90.15 |
8.38 |
0.54 |
0.92 |
Black |
94.62 |
2.07 |
0.94 |
2.36 |
American
Indian,
Eskimo, or Aleut |
61.71 |
27.84 |
2.51 |
7.94 |
Asian
or Pacific
Islander |
86.00 |
2.70 |
4.35 |
6.93 |
From Tucker
et al., 1996.
Note: The
percentage distribution of the other races for "American Indian,
Eskimo, Aleut" respondents in the CPS Supplement was as follows:
Panel 1: White, 17.89; Black, 0.64; Asian or Pacific Islander, 0.70;
Panel 2: White, 22.10; Black, 10.17; Asian or Pacific Islander, 1.95;
Panel 3: White, 14.24; Black, 0.63; Asian or Pacific Islander, 3.50;
Hispanic, 4.57; Panel 4: White, 14.44; Black, 2.52; Asian or Pacific
Islander, 1.98; Hispanic, 7.43.
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 Supplement 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 targeted 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.)
Table
3.8 Percent Reporting Multiple Responses in the
"Mark One or More Races" Option (Panel C), by Targeted Sample
Targeted
Sample |
Multiple
Response
"Mark one or more"
instruction
(Panel C) |
White
ethnic |
1.35 |
Black |
1.80 |
Hispanic |
3.57 |
American
Indian |
4.22 |
Asian
and Pacific Islander |
10.03 |
Alaska
Native |
(N/A) |
(NA) Not
available. From Bureau of the Census, 1997.
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.)
Table
3.9 Percent Reporting Multiple Responses in the
"Mark All That Apply" Option (Panel H), by Targeted Sample
Targeted
Sample |
Multiple
Response
"Mark one or more"
instruction
(Panel H) |
White
ethnic |
1.23 |
Black |
1.71 |
Hispanic |
2.24 |
American
Indian |
4.27 |
Asian
and Pacific Islander |
11.47 |
Alaska
Native |
(NA) |
(NA) Not
available. From Bureau of the Census, 1997.
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.
Table
3.10 Percent Distribution of Reporting by Race in the Asian and
Pacific Islander Targeted Sample by Option for Reporting
More Than One Race
Race |
No
multiracial
category
(Panel A) |
"Multiracial
or Biracial"
category
(Panel B) |
Reporting
More Than One Race |
"Mark
one
or more"
instruction
(Panel C) |
"Mark
all
that apply"
instruction
(Panel H) |
White |
20.56 |
18.47 |
16.90 |
19.72 |
Black |
5.99 |
6.05 |
4.06 |
6.11 |
American
Indian and
Alaska Native |
0.31 |
0.36 |
0.13 |
0.44 |
Asian
and Pacific
Islander |
64.95 |
60.48 |
64.76 |
58.25 |
|
17.76 |
17.50 |
17.47 |
17.75 |
|
19.72 |
18.71 |
19.58 |
17.55 |
|
9.20 |
5.48 |
4.66 |
3.87 |
|
1.55 |
1.59 |
1.51 |
1.32 |
|
1.40 |
1.50 |
0.84 |
0.34 |
|
8.21 |
8.22 |
8.75 |
7.50 |
|
1.24 |
0.48 |
0.74 |
0.98 |
|
1.01 |
1.37 |
1.27 |
1.36 |
|
0.0 |
0.29 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
- Other
Asian
and Pacific Islander
|
4.85 |
5.33 |
9.93 |
7.57 |
Other
race |
4.44 |
4.00 |
4.12 |
4.01 |
Multiracial |
(NA) |
7.58 |
10.03 |
11.47 |
Unrequested
multiple
response |
3.76 |
3.06 |
(NA) |
(NA) |
(NA) Not
available.
Note: The
sample size for Panels A and B is approximately the same, and is approximately
twice the sample size of Panels C and H.
From Bureau
of the Census, 1997.
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 births 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.
Graph 3.1
Comparison of Births In Which One Parent is White and the Second Parent
is American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian or Pacific Islander, or Black
as a Percentage of All Births in Which Either Parent Is American Indian/Alaska
Native, Asian or Pacific Islander, or Black: 1968 to 1994
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
vetoed by the Governor; a task force has been established to review
the issue.
State laws
enacted thus far specify that if 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 persons 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.
3.6 Measurement
Concerns and Opportunities Related
to Reporting More Than One Race
3.6.1 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 part allows respondents to select the race or 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 that
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
persons 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.
Table
3.11 Weighted number and proportion of persons
reporting race by survey year, NHIS, 1982 to 1994
Year |
Estimates
of persons reporting race (number in thousands, percent)1 |
One
race |
More
than one race2 |
Total
number
reporting at least
one race3 |
Number |
Percent |
Number |
Percent |
1982 |
222,831 |
98.8 |
2,688 |
1.2 |
225,625 |
1983 |
224,912 |
98.7 |
2,918 |
1.3 |
227,868 |
1984 |
226,703 |
98.6 |
3,091 |
1.3 |
229,980 |
1985 |
229,240 |
98.7 |
2,996 |
1.3 |
232,256 |
1986 |
231,986 |
98.7 |
2,801 |
1.2 |
234,999 |
1987 |
233,810 |
98.7 |
2,915 |
1.2 |
236,785 |
1988 |
235,142 |
98.7 |
3,200 |
1.3 |
238,367 |
1989 |
237,893 |
98.6 |
3,501 |
1.5 |
241,396 |
1990 |
240,924 |
98.8 |
3,013 |
1.2 |
243,958 |
1991 |
243,191 |
98.7 |
3,282 |
1.3 |
246,519 |
1992 |
245,447 |
98.5 |
3,669 |
1.5 |
249,267 |
1993 |
248,081 |
98.5 |
3,668 |
1.5 |
251,939 |
1994 |
249,604 |
98.0 |
4,527 |
1.8 |
254,599 |
Average
(all years) |
|
98.6 |
|
1.4 |
|
1 Percentages
may not add up to 100.0 percent because of rounding or because persons
for whom the first and second reported races are in the same race category
are included in the total but not in the multiple-race column.
2 The
count excludes persons for whom the first and second reported races
are in the same race category.
3 The
count includes persons who reported a first, second, and/or main race,
including those for whom the first and second reported race are in
the same race category.
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 1977.
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 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 the 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 the 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 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 electronic), 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 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
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. When a combined
question is used, data on the race of Hispanics is not collected (see
OMB Federal Register Notice, June 1994).
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.
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.
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.
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 "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).
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
Variations
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, 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 Hispanics
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 Hispanic 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-administered 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 persons 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 of Hispanics reported inconsistently
on the mailback survey forms and telephone reinterview when two separate
questions on race and ethnicity were used. Using an 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).
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. 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.
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 question 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 from 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 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).
Table
4.1. Hispanic or non-Hispanic origin identification by panel,
May 1995 CPS Supplement
(Percent distribution)
|
Panel |
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
|
Separate
race and
Hispanic-origin
questions; no
multiracial category |
Separate
race and
Hispanic-origin
questions with a
multiracial category |
A
combined race
and Hispanic-origin
question; no
multiracial category |
A
combined race
and Hispanic-origin
question with a
multiracial category |
Hispanic |
10.79 |
10.41 |
7.53 |
8.58 |
Non-Hispanic |
89.21 |
89.59 |
82.47 |
91.42 |
Total |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
Note: Detail
may not add to totals due to rounding. From Table 3, Tucker, et al.
(1996).
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).
Table
4.2. Hispanic national origin by panel,
May 1995 CPS Supplement
(Percent Distribution)
|
Panel |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
Hispanic
National Origin |
Separate
race and
Hispanic-origin
questions; no
multiracial
category |
Separate
race and
Hispanic-origin
questions
with a
multiracial
category |
A
combined
race and
Hispanic-origin
question; no
multiracial
category |
A
combined
race and
Hispanic-origin
question
with a
multiracial
category |
Mexican,
Mexican-American, Chicano |
59.45 |
60.49 |
67.06 |
65.21 |
Puerto
Rican |
9.66 |
9.33 |
10.04 |
10.46 |
Cuban |
4.69 |
4.12 |
1.96 |
2.40 |
Central
American, South American |
13.00 |
10.61 |
11.93 |
11.78 |
Other
Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish |
11.82 |
13.89 |
8.73 |
9.58 |
Not
really Hispanic, Latino, Spanish |
0.85 |
1.29 |
0.20 |
0.42 |
Don't
know / Not ascertained |
0.54 |
0.28 |
0.07 |
0.15 |
Total |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
Note: Detail
may not add to totals due to rounding. From Table 11, Tucker, et al.
(1996).
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).
Table
4.3. Racial Identification by panel,
May 1995 CPS Supplement (Percent distribution)
|
Panel |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
Separate
race and
Hispanic-origin
questions; no
multiracial
category |
Separate
race and
Hispanic-origin
questions with a
multiracial
category |
A
combined race
and Hispanic-
origin question; no
multiracial
category |
A
combined race
and Hispanic-
origin question
with a multiracial
category |
White |
79.88 |
79.74 |
75.78 |
74.66 |
Black |
10.29 |
10.66 |
10.60 |
10.27 |
Hispanic |
- |
- |
7.53 |
8.20 |
American
Indian |
0.97 |
0.73 |
1.06 |
0.79 |
Asian
or Pacific Islander |
3.83 |
3.25 |
3.25 |
3.30 |
Multiracial |
- |
1.65 |
- |
1.55 |
All
Other |
5.03 |
3.97 |
1.78 |
1.23 |
Total |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
Note: Adapted
From Table 5, Tucker et al., (1996).
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 sizeable 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 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.
Table
4.4. Racial identification in the Supplement by
Hispanics with different national origins from the
initial CPS interview by panel,
May 1995 CPS Supplement (Percent Distribution)
from Table 18 in Tucker et al., 1996.
Panel
1 Separate race and Hispanic-origin questions; no multiracial
category |
|
Mexican-
American,
Chicano,
Mexican |
Puerto
Rican |
Cuban |
Central
or South
American |
Other
Spanish |
White |
64.67 |
61.21 |
93.30 |
42.91 |
59.82 |
Black |
0.00 |
3.86 |
0.83 |
3.95 |
0.91 |
American
Indian, Eskimo, Aleut |
1.77 |
1.02 |
0.00 |
4.70 |
1.38 |
Asian
or Pacific Islander |
0.35 |
0.94 |
0.00 |
1.93 |
0.00 |
All
Other |
33.20 |
32.97 |
5.87 |
46.51 |
37.89 |
Total |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
Panel
2 Separate race and Hispanic-origin questions with a multiracial
category |
|
Mexican-
American,
Chicano,
Mexican |
Puerto
Rican |
Cuban |
Central
or South
American |
Other
Spanish |
White |
61.83 |
56.45 |
95.00 |
63.97 |
49.58 |
Black |
0.00 |
3.60 |
0.00 |
3.85 |
5.03 |
American
Indian, Eskimo, Aleut |
1.30 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
2.05 |
0.50 |
Asian
or Pacific Islander |
0.15 |
0.41 |
0.00 |
1.20 |
2.40 |
Multiracial |
2.98 |
7.00 |
1.17 |
3.03 |
7.15 |
All
Other |
33.75 |
32.54 |
3.83 |
25.91 |
35.34 |
Total |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
Panel
3 Combined race and Hispanic-origin question; no multiracial
category |
|
Mexican-
American,
Chicano,
Mexican |
Puerto
Rican |
Cuban |
Central
or South
American |
Other
Spanish |
White |
10.85 |
21.62 |
57.95 |
19.20 |
18.90 |
Black |
0.26 |
1.90 |
0.00 |
1.99 |
6.10 |
Hispanic |
85.15 |
71.51 |
39.92 |
77.67 |
67.31 |
American
Indian, Eskimo, Aleut |
0.47 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.43 |
0.00 |
Asian
or Pacific Islander |
0.03 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
All
Other |
3.24 |
4.97 |
2.13 |
0.71 |
7.69 |
Total |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
Panel
4 Combined race and Hispanic-origin question with a multiracial
category |
|
Mexican-
American,
Chicano,
Mexican |
Puerto
Rican |
Cuban |
Central
or South
American |
Other
Spanish |
White |
11.16 |
17.04 |
49.90 |
14.08 |
27.16 |
Black |
0.06 |
1.35 |
2.23 |
4.09 |
0.59 |
Hispanic |
84.04 |
77.30 |
46.40 |
75.42 |
65.67 |
American
Indian, Eskimo, Aleut |
0.02 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.41 |
0.11 |
Asian
or Pacific Islander |
0.05 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.56 |
0.00 |
Multiracial |
1.96 |
2.50 |
1.46 |
1.05 |
4.61 |
All
Other |
2.71 |
1.80 |
0.00 |
4.38 |
1.86 |
Total |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
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 the 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.
Table
4.5 Reporting on the Hispanic-Origin Question
in the Hispanic Targeted Sample for Selected Panels
Hispanic
origin |
Panels |
Panel
A
Separate
questions |
Panel
B
Separate
questions |
Panel
C
Separate
questions |
Panel
E
Combined
question |
Panel
F
Combined
question |
Hispanic
(Only or in combination) |
76.5 |
75.6 |
74.1 |
74.1 |
75.1 |
Hispanic
Only |
76.5 |
75.6 |
74.1 |
57.5 |
56.4 |
Mexican |
21.8 |
26.5 |
22.5 |
20.9 |
19.4 |
Puerto
Rican |
31.0 |
26.8 |
28.4 |
8.5 |
8.9 |
Cuban |
17.8 |
17.3 |
17.4 |
7.0 |
5.5 |
Other |
6.0 |
5.1 |
5.8 |
21.1 |
22.6 |
Note: Adapted
From Table 1-9 in Bureau of the Census (1997)
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 in 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.
Table
4.6. Percent Reporting More Than One Race in the Race
Question by Panel and Targeted Sample
(Includes multiple responses and a multiracial category)
Targeted
sample |
Panel
B |
Panel
C |
Panel
E |
Panel
F |
White
ethnic |
1.2 |
1.4 |
2.1 |
1.7 |
Black |
1.3 |
1.8 |
2.7 |
2.1 |
Hispanic |
3.5 |
3.6 |
18.0 |
19.4 |
American
Indian |
4.5 |
4.2 |
5.2 |
7.2 |
Asian
and Pacific Islander |
10.6 |
10.0 |
7.5 |
6.8 |
Alaska
Native |
13.4 |
(NA) |
(NA) |
(NA) |
(NA) Not
available. Note: Adapted From Tables 1-1R, 1-2R, 1-3R, 1-4R, 1-5R,
2-1R, 2-2R, 2-3R, 2-4R, 2-5R, 8-1R, 8-2R, 8-3R, 8-4R, 8-5R in Bureau
of the Census (1997)
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 Public Law 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 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 sizeable 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 be 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?
- 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" or "Latino" be used?
- Should
more than 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 percentages
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.
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 Public Law 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 ANSCA, 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 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 Alaskan 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 Alaska 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 Alaskan Native"
category be changed to include Indians indigenous to Central America
and South America?
Currently,
the definition for the "American Indian or Alaskan 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 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
154,000 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 or 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 or 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 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 feelings 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 19, 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 Asians 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 the 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 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 1980s 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 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 OMB 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.
Table
5.1 Hawaiian Ancestry Population by State and
as a Percent of American Indian, Eskimo, & Aleut (if classified
here)
and Asian or Pacific Islander - 1990 Census of Population
State |
American
Indian,
Eskimo,
and Aleut |
Asian
or
Pacific
Islander |
Hawaiian
Ancestry |
Hawaiian
Ancestry of
AI,E,& A1
(Percent) |
Hawaiian
Ancestry
of API2
(Percent) |
Percent
Hawaiian
Ancestry |
Hawaii |
5,099 |
685,236 |
138,742 |
96.46 |
20.25 |
65.75 |
California |
242,164 |
2,845,659 |
34,447 |
12.45 |
1.21 |
16.32 |
Washington |
81,483 |
210,958 |
5,423 |
6.24 |
2.57 |
2.57 |
Texas |
65,877 |
319,459 |
2,979 |
4.33 |
0.93 |
1.41 |
Oregon |
38,496 |
69,269 |
2,415 |
5.90 |
3.49 |
1.14 |
Florida |
36,335 |
154,302 |
2,049 |
5.34 |
1.33 |
0.97 |
Arizona |
203,527 |
55,206 |
1,690 |
0.82 |
3.06 |
0.80 |
Nevada |
19,637 |
38,127 |
1,534 |
7.25 |
4.02 |
0.73 |
New
York |
62,651 |
693,760 |
1,496 |
2.33 |
0.22 |
0.71 |
Utah |
24,283 |
33,371 |
1,396 |
5.44 |
4.18 |
0.66 |
Virginia |
15,282 |
159,053 |
1,384 |
8.30 |
0.87 |
0.66 |
Colorado |
27,776 |
59,862 |
1,368 |
4.69 |
2.29 |
0.65 |
Illinois |
21,836 |
285,311 |
1,000 |
4.38 |
0.35 |
0.47 |
North
Carolina |
80,155 |
52,166 |
963 |
1.19 |
1.85 |
0.46 |
Alaska |
85,698 |
19,728 |
934 |
1.08 |
4.73 |
0.44 |
Pennsylvania |
14,733 |
137,438 |
859 |
5.51 |
0.63 |
0.41 |
Georgia |
13,348 |
75,781 |
847 |
5.97 |
1.12 |
0.40 |
Michigan |
55,638 |
104,983 |
787 |
1.39 |
0.75 |
0.37 |
Ohio |
20,358 |
91,179 |
785 |
3.71 |
0.86 |
0.37 |
Oklahoma |
252,420 |
33,563 |
712 |
0.28 |
2.12 |
0.34 |
New
Jersey |
14,970 |
272,521 |
638 |
4.09 |
0.23 |
0.30 |
Maryland |
12,972 |
139,719 |
636 |
4.67 |
0.46 |
0.30 |
Missouri |
19,835 |
41,277 |
621 |
3.04 |
1.50 |
0.29 |
Indiana |
12,720 |
37,617 |
528 |
3.99 |
1.40 |
0.25 |
Massachusetts |
12,241 |
143,392 |
505 |
3.96 |
0.35 |
0.24 |
Tennessee |
10,039 |
31,839 |
503 |
4.77 |
1.58 |
0.24 |
Idaho |
13,780 |
9,365 |
476 |
3.34 |
5.08 |
0.23 |
South
Carolina |
8,246 |
22,382 |
426 |
4.91 |
1.90 |
0.20 |
Kansas |
21,965 |
31,750 |
422 |
1.89 |
1.33 |
0.20 |
Louisiana |
18,541 |
41,099 |
411 |
2.17 |
1.00 |
0.19 |
New
Mexico |
134,355 |
14,124 |
408 |
0.30 |
2.89 |
0.19 |
Minnesota |
49,909 |
77,886 |
383 |
0.76 |
0.49 |
0.18 |
Wisconsin |
39,387 |
53,583 |
371 |
0.93 |
0.69 |
0.18 |
Alabama |
16,506 |
21,797 |
343 |
2.04 |
1.57 |
0.16 |
Kentucky |
5,769 |
17,812 |
338 |
5.53 |
1.90 |
0.16 |
Connecticut |
6,654 |
50,698 |
269 |
3.89 |
0.53 |
0.13 |
Iowa |
7,349 |
25,476 |
244 |
3.21 |
0.96 |
0.12 |
Nebraska |
12,410 |
12,422 |
243 |
1.92 |
1.96 |
0.12 |
Arkansas |
12,773 |
12,530 |
226 |
1.74 |
1.80 |
0.11 |
Montana |
47,679 |
4,259 |
179 |
0.37 |
4.20 |
0.08 |
Mississippi |
8,525 |
13,016 |
166 |
1.91 |
1.28 |
0.08 |
New
Hampshire |
2,134 |
9,343 |
116 |
5.16 |
1.24 |
0.05 |
Maine |
5,998 |
6,683 |
115 |
1.88 |
1.72 |
0.05 |
Rhode
Island |
4,071 |
18,325 |
112 |
2.68 |
0.61 |
0
.05 |
Dist.
of Columbia |
1,466 |
11,214 |
101 |
6.45 |
0.90 |
0.05 |
Wyoming |
9,479 |
2,806 |
93 |
0.97 |
3.31 |
0.04 |
West
Virginia |
2,458 |
7,459 |
91 |
3.57 |
1.22 |
0.04 |
North
Dakota |
25,917 |
3,462 |
76 |
0.29 |
2.20 |
0.04 |
South
Dakota |
50,575 |
3,123 |
74 |
0.15 |
2.37 |
0.04 |
Delaware |
2,019 |
9,057 |
65 |
3.12 |
0.72 |
0.03 |
Vermont |
1,696 |
3,215 |
25 |
1.45 |
0.78 |
0.01 |
Totals |
1,959,234 |
7,273,662 |
211,014 |
9.72 |
2.90 |
100.00 |
1Percent
Hawaiian Ancestry of a proposed American Indian, Eskimo, and Aleut
racial category equals the number of Hawaiians divided by the sum of
Hawaiian Ancestry plus the current American Indian, Eskimo, and Aleut
racial category.
2Percent
Hawaiian Ancestry of the Asian and Pacific Islander racial category
equals Hawaiian Ancestry divided by the Asian and Pacific Islander
racial category.
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. 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, 1990CP-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 most 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 most 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.
Again, 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 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 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 results from the National
Content Survey paralleled the CPS Supplement findings. The term "Hispanic"
was preferred by 47 percent of the respondents, "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 Hispanics 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 trouble with
this task. Clearly, the quality of data will suffer when proxies or
observers cannot correctly determine race and ethnicity, but respondents
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 consistently
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' 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 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 of Arab or Middle
Eastern descent; adding a category for Creoles; and adding a category
for Cape Verdeans. The discussion below focuses 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 of 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.
Table
5.2: Definition of "Arab" and "North African and
Southwest Asia" from Decennial Census Reports on Ancestry
Ancestry
Group |
Arab
(CP-3-2) |
North
Africa and
Southwest Asia
(CP-S-1-2) |
Algerian |
# |
X |
Alhucemas |
# |
* |
Arab |
# |
X |
Armenian |
|
X |
Assyrian |
|
X |
Bahraini |
# |
* |
Berber |
# |
* |
Egyptian |
X |
X |
Iranian |
|
X |
Iraqi |
X |
X |
Israeli |
|
X |
Jordanian |
# |
X |
Kaldany |
|
* |
Kurdish |
# |
* |
Kuwaiti |
# |
* |
Lebanese |
X |
X |
Libyan |
# |
* |
Middle
Eastern |
# |
X |
Moroccan |
# |
X |
North
African |
# |
* |
Omani |
# |
* |
Palestinian |
X |
X |
Rio
de Oro |
# |
* |
Saudi
Arabian |
# |
X |
South
Yemen |
# |
* |
Syrian |
X |
X |
Tunisian |
# |
* |
Turkish |
|
X |
United
Arab Emirates |
# |
* |
Yemeni |
# |
X |
Note: See
paragraph preceding Table 5.2 for definitions of the codes.
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.
Table
5.3 Cape Verdean and North African & Southwest Asian
Ancestry From 1990 Census Reports, by State
|
Total
Population |
Cape
Verdean |
North
African
and Southwest
Asian1 |
Middle
Eastern |
Arab |
|
|
Number |
Percent |
Number |
Percent |
Number |
Percent |
United
States |
248,709,873 |
50,772 |
0.020 |
1,631,677 |
0.656 |
7,656 |
127,364 |
Alabama |
4,040,587 |
0 |
0.000 |
8,079 |
0.200 |
18 |
757 |
Alaska |
550,043 |
20 |
0.004 |
903 |
0.164 |
0 |
148 |
Arizona |
3,665,228 |
104 |
0.003 |
18,791 |
0.513 |
99 |
1,600 |
Arkansas |
2,350,725 |
67 |
0.003 |
2,685 |
0.114 |
2 |
303 |
California |
29,760,021 |
2,433 |
0.008 |
454,146 |
1.526 |
1,836 |
27,688 |
Colorado |
3,294,394 |
29 |
0.001 |
12,714 |
0.386 |
55 |
1,394 |
Connecticut |
3,287,116 |
3,047 |
0.093 |
23,666 |
0.720 |
53 |
815 |
Delaware |
666,168 |
0 |
0.000 |
2,507 |
0.376 |
0 |
250 |
Dist
of Columbia |
606,900 |
145 |
0.024 |
4,809 |
0.792 |
43 |
493 |
Florida |
12,937,926 |
718 |
0.006 |
75,269 |
0.582 |
324 |
7,233 |
Georgia |
6,478,216 |
204 |
0.003 |
16,822 |
0.260 |
82 |
1,198 |
Hawaii |
1,108,229 |
50 |
0.005 |
2,303 |
0.208 |
35 |
254 |
Idaho |
1,006,749 |
0 |
0.000 |
1,460 |
0.145 |
8 |
183 |
Illinois |
11,430,602 |
111 |
0.001 |
69,074 |
0.604 |
283 |
10,468 |
Indiana |
5,544,159 |
53 |
0.001 |
12,535 |
0.226 |
23 |
1,513 |
Iowa |
2,776,755 |
0 |
0.000 |
5,521 |
0.199 |
58 |
391 |
Kansas |
2,477,574 |
69 |
0.003 |
6,792 |
0.274 |
75 |
579 |
Kentucky |
3,685,296 |
60 |
0.002 |
6,796 |
0.814 |
20 |
569 |
Louisiana |
4,219,973 |
84 |
0.002 |
13,227 |
0.313 |
59 |
1,271 |
Maine |
1,227,928 |
57 |
0.005 |
4,688 |
0.382 |
2 |
156 |
Maryland |
4,781,468 |
484 |
0.010 |
33,359 |
0.698 |
266 |
2,160 |
Massachusetts |
6,016,425 |
29,326 |
0.487 |
84,673 |
1.407 |
256 |
2,782 |
Michigan |
9,295,297 |
85 |
0.001 |
112,100 |
1.206 |
161 |
14,842 |
Minnesota |
4,375,099 |
37 |
0.001 |
13,536 |
0.309 |
116 |
751 |
Mississippi |
2,573,216 |
12 |
0.000 |
4,812 |
0.187 |
29 |
160 |
Missouri |
5,117,073 |
36 |
0.001 |
13,706 |
0.268 |
85 |
1,090 |
Montana |
799,065 |
0 |
0.000 |
1,514 |
0.189 |
2 |
52 |
Nebraska |
1,578,385 |
21 |
0.001 |
4,195 |
0.266 |
13 |
310 |
Nevada |
1,201,833 |
22 |
0.002 |
7,357 |
0.612 |
0 |
553 |
New
Hampshire |
1,109,252 |
114 |
0.010 |
8,646 |
0.779 |
0 |
307 |
New
Jersey |
7,730,188 |
436 |
0.006 |
82,634 |
1.069 |
491 |
5,311 |
New
Mexico |
1,515,069 |
21 |
0.001 |
5,177 |
0.342 |
44 |
712 |
New
York |
17,990,455 |
1,099 |
0.006 |
181,706 |
1.010 |
1,618 |
12,884 |
North
Carolina |
6,628,637 |
211 |
0.003 |
15,105 |
0.228 |
45 |
1,348 |
North
Dakota |
638,800 |
0 |
0.000 |
1,374 |
0.215 |
25 |
26 |
Ohio |
10,847,115 |
214 |
0.002 |
54,716 |
0.504 |
96 |
5,340 |
Oklahoma |
3,145,585 |
44 |
0.001 |
10,441 |
0.332 |
42 |
790 |
Oregon |
2,842,321 |
19 |
0.001 |
10,864 |
0.382 |
67 |
866 |
Pennsylvania |
11,881,643 |
346 |
0.003 |
55,698 |
0.469 |
176 |
2,893 |
Rhode
Island |
1,003,464 |
10,080 |
1.005 |
13,743 |
1.370 |
6 |
380 |
South
Carolina |
3,486,703 |
78 |
0.002 |
7,881 |
0.226 |
39 |
608 |
South
Dakota |
696,004 |
0 |
0.000 |
1,599 |
0.230 |
0 |
49 |
Tennessee |
4,877,185 |
81 |
0.002 |
9,751 |
0.200 |
99 |
1,085 |
Texas |
16,986,510 |
264 |
0.002 |
67,449 |
0.397 |
469 |
7,067 |
Utah |
1,722,850 |
20 |
0.001 |
5,583 |
0.324 |
0 |
404 |
Vermont |
562,758 |
23 |
0.004 |
2,440 |
0.434 |
10 |
55 |
Virginia |
6,187,358 |
387 |
0.006 |
42,941 |
0.694 |
248 |
4,122 |
Washington |
4,866,692 |
51 |
0.001 |
17,148 |
0.352 |
122 |
1,725 |
West
Virginia |
1,793,477 |
0 |
0.000 |
6,457 |
0.360 |
0 |
256 |
Wisconsin |
4,891,769 |
10 |
0.000 |
11,879 |
0.243 |
50 |
1,139 |
Wyoming |
453,588 |
0 |
0.000 |
406 |
0.090 |
6 |
34 |
1 Includes
persons who reported the following ancestries: Algerian, Alhucemas,
Arab, Armenian, Assyrian, Bahraini, Berber, Egyptian, Iranian, Iraqi,
Israeli, Jordanian, Kalday, Kurdish, Kuwaiti, Lebanese, Libyan, Middle
Eastern, Moroccan, North African, Omani, Palestinian, Rio de Oro, Saudi
Arabian, South Yemen, Syrian, Tunisian, Turkish, United Arab Emirates,
and Yemeni.
Source:
U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1990 Census of Population, Supplementary
Reports, Detailed Ancestry Groups for States, 1990 CP-S-1-2.
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 be
no reduction in the numbers 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 seaman, 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 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 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 date 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
Findings concerning a method for 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.
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 complete distribution
of Hispanic origin by race.
6.1.4 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.
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 concentrations 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 of
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.
- 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.
- "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.
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:
- 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.
- Hispanic.
A person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American
or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race.
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- Black
or African-American. A person having origins in any of
the black racial groups of Africa.
- Hispanic.
A person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American
or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race.
- 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
--Asian 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 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, V. 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. (1996), "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. (1996), "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, 60FR44674-44693, 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.
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 o 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 ethno-racial 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 Francisco 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. (1988), "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 to 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.
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. (1983), "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 a American
Medical Association 270: 2464-68.
Subcommittee
on Census, Statistics and Postal Personnel of the Committee on Post
Office and Civil Service House 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 on 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.