Series 4, Number 31 September 2001

Methodological Issues for

Vital Rates and Population

Estimates: 1997 OMB

Standards for Data on

Race and Etnicity
Copyright information

All material appearing in this report is in the public domain and may be

reproduced or copied without permission; citation as to source, however, is

appreciated.

Suggested citation

Durch JS, Madans JH. Methodological issues for vital rates and population

estimates: The 1997 OMB standards for data on race and ethnicity. National

Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat 4(31). 2001.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Madans JH

Methodological Issues for Vital Rates and Population Estimates: 1997 OMB

Standards for Data on Race and Ethnicity

p.cm.—(Vital and health statistics. Series 4,

ISBN 0-8406-0570-6

1. Ambulatory medical care—Utilization—United States—Statistics.

2. Women’s health services—Utilization—United States—Statistics. 3. Physician

services utilization—United States—Statistics. 4. Women—Diseases—United

States—Statistics. 5. Medical care surveys—United States. I. Madans JH

II. Series.

RA407.3 .A349 no. 31

362.1’0973’02 s—dc21

[362.1’082’0973] 2001030839

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office

Superintendent of Documents

Mail Stop: SSOP

Washington, DC 20402-9328

Printed on acid-free paper.
Series 4, Number 31

Methodological Issues forVital

Rates and Population Estimates:

The 1997 OMB Standards for Data

on Race and Ethnicity

Documents and Committee

Reports

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

National Center for Health Statistics

Hyattsville, Maryland

September 2001

DHHS Publication No. (PHS) 2001-1468
National Center for Health Statistics

Edward J. Sondik, Ph.D., Director

Jack R. Anderson, Deputy Director

Jack R. Anderson, Acting Associate Director for

International Statistics

Jennifer H. Madans, Ph.D., Associate Director for Science

Lawrence H. Cox, Ph.D., Associate Director for Research

and Methodology

Jennifer H. Madans, Ph.D., Acting Associate Director for

Analysis, Epidemiology, and Health Promotion

P. Douglas Williams, Acting Associate Director for Data

Standards, Program Development, and Extramural Programs

Edward L. Hunter, Associate Director for Planning, Budget,

and Legislation

Jennifer H. Madans, Ph.D., Acting Associate Director for

Vital and Health Statistics Systems

Douglas L. Zinn, Acting Associate Director for

Management

Charles J. Rothwell, Associate Director for Information

Technology and Services
Contents

Abstract .................................................................................................. 1

Introduction ............................................................................................... 1

Background ............................................................................................... 2

Population Estimates and Vital Statistics ........................................................................ 2

Primary Concerns .......................................................................................... 3

Research Strategies ......................................................................................... 4

Matching Studies......................................................................................... 4

Vital Record Studies ...................................................................................... 6

Studies of Error .......................................................................................... 7

Studies on Racial and Ethnic Identity ........................................................................ 7

Other Information Needs..................................................................................... 8

References ................................................................................................ 8

Appendix I. OMB Federal Register Notice, October 30, 1997: Revisions to the Standards for the Classification of Federal Data

on Race and Ethnicity ....................................................................................... 9

Appendix II. Workshop Participants .......................................................................... 27

Appendix III. Questions on Race and Hispanic Origin ........................................................... 28

Appendix Figures

Figure I. Questions on race and hispanic origin from Census 2000.................................................. 28

Figure II. Questions on Hispanic origin and race on the current U.S. standard certificate of live birth ..................... 28

Figure III. Questions on Hispanic origin and race on the draft revised U.S. standard certificate of live birth ................ 29

Figure IV. Questions on Hispanic origin and race on the current U.S. standard certificate of death ........................ 30

Figure V. Questions on Hispanic origin and race on the draft revised U.S. standard certificate of death .................... 30

iii
A workshop in July 2000 explored

research needed to address

methodological challenges for

population estimates and vital rates

arising from the revision of the

standards for Federal data on race and

ethnicity; the use of different standards

for Census 2000 and vital records

during the implementation of the

revised standards; and underlying

differences in the collection of race and

ethnicity data in censuses and surveys

and in vital records. Matching studies

were proposed to compare race and

ethnicity reports in vital records and in

Census 2000 or survey responses.

Work on vital records might include

exploring enhanced collection of race

and ethnicity data and documenting

State vital statistics reporting mandates

and practices. Key work on sources of

error includes identifying, quantifying,

and reporting on bias and random

errors related to race and ethnicity in

population estimates and vital rates.

Also needed are comparisons of

Census Bureau and State population

estimates and more frequent tests of

the accuracy of population estimates

and projections. Studies on racial and

ethnic identity were proposed to

examine changes in reporting over time

and to explore origins of racial and

ethnic identities. More information on

these issues should be developed for

technical and nontechnical audiences.

Keywords: population estimates c

birth rates c death rates c race and

ethnicity c data collection

Methodological Issues for Vital

Rates and Population Estimates:

1997 OMB Standards for Data

on Race and Ethnicity

Jane S. Durch, M.A., George Washington University, and Jennifer H.

Madans, Ph.D., National Center for Health Statistics

Introduction

I

n October 1997, the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB)

issued revisions to Statistical Policy

Directive No. 15, Race and Ethnicity

Standards for Federal Statistics and

Administrative Reporting (1, and see

Appendix I). The revised standards

introduced new categories for collecting

and reporting data on race and ethnicity

and also require that Federal data

collection programs allow respondents

to select more than one race. Use of

these revised standards has major

implications for population and health

statistics.

The revised standards were

implemented for the collection of

population data in Census 2000, but

they will not be reflected in the standard

birth and death certificates until 2003 at

the earliest. Moreover, although the

States collaborate with the National

Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) in

developing those standard certificates,

authority for determining the specific

data elements to be collected officially

rests with the States. At least one State

implemented the revised race and

ethnicity data standards for birth and

death certificates in 2000 while most

others will not do so until later in the

decade.

The use of two different standards

for collection of race and ethnicity data

during the transition to full

implementation of the revised OMB

standards is a significant but short-term

concern. A more fundamental and

longstanding concern is that data on

race and ethnicity from censuses and

vital records are never totally

comparable because of differences in the

way the data are collected. Census data

are primarily based on self-identification

while data from death records depend

on identification of a subject’s race and

ethnicity by other informants or

observers. Birth records primarily rely

on self-identification, but the data on

race and ethnicity are for the parents

and do not refer directly to the newborn.

The comparability of data from

decennial censuses and vital records is

of special concern to the OMB, Census

Bureau, and NCHS because both sorts

of data are used to construct population

estimates, and the population estimates

are used in turn to calculate vital rates.1

At the request of these agencies, the

Epidemiology and Biostatistics

Department of the George Washington

1Additional information related to the topics addressed at the workshop is available from the agencies at their Web sites.

Census Bureau: www.census.gov

Census2000: www.census.gov/dmd/www.census.gov/CMS/www/

National Center for Health Statistics: www.cdc.gov/nchs

National Vital Statistics System: www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss.htm

Births data: www.cdc.gov/nchs/births.htm

Deaths data: www.cdc.gov/nchs/about/major/dvs/mortdata.htm

National Death Index: www.cdc.gov/nchs/r&d/ndi.htm

Office of Management and Budget: www.whitehouse.gov/omb

Page 1
Page 2 [ Series 4, No. 31

University School of Public Health and

Health Services and the Metropolitan

Washington Public Health Assessment

Center held a workshop on July 6–7,

2000, for discussion of these issues and

of short- and long-term research needs.

The workshop brought together key staff

members from the Federal agencies,

academic experts, and State officials

with responsibilities for population

estimates and vital statistics. The

discussions included a review of the

technical challenges that the transition to

the revised Federal data standards pose

for the calculation of postcensal

population estimates and vital rates and

consideration of research that could help

improve the quality of those data.

Background

The 1997 revision of the OMB

standards for data on race and

ethnicity increased from four to

five the minimum set of categories to be

used by Federal agencies for

identification of race. As in the past

these categories represent a socialpolitical construct and are not

anthropologically or biologically based.

The five categories for race are:

1. American Indian or Alaska Native

2. Asian

3. Black or African American

4. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific

Islander

5. White

The 1997 standards continue to call

for use, when possible, of a separate

question on Hispanic or Latino ethnicity

and specify that the ethnicity question

should appear before the question on

race. Research suggested that this

question order could help reduce the

proportion of Hispanic respondents who

report ‘‘other race’’ or who give no

response to the separate question on

race (2,3). Collection of additional detail

on race or ethnicity is permitted so long

as the additional categories can be

aggregated into the minimum categories.

The revised standards also add a

requirement to allow reporting of more

than one race for an individual. Overall,

the level of multiple-race reporting is

expected to be low, but it is likely to

vary among population groups (3–7).

Data from the National Health Interview

Survey (NHIS) for 1993–95 show that

1.6 percent of respondents reported more

than one race (5). However, among the

respondents who reported American

Indian or Alaska Native race, more than

50 percent also reported at least one

other race. In the 1996 Race and

Ethnicity Targeted Test (RAETT),

multiple-race reporting ranged from

about 1.4 percent in the sample targeted

to white respondents to about 10 percent

in the sample targeted to Asian and

Pacific Islander respondents (3).

Although multiple-race reporting in the

NHIS has remained relatively consistent

since 1982, an analysis of birth

certificate data from 1971 to 1995

shows an increase from 1.2 percent to

4.6 percent in the percent of births to

parents of different races, suggesting

that multiple-race reporting in censuses

and surveys may increase in the future

(5, 8).

The level of multiple-race responses

can also be expected to vary across

States and communities. In California

5.5 percent of respondents in the 1998

Sacramento dress rehearsal for Census

2000 selected more than one race (9).

As of January 2000 California birth

registration captures and codes reports

of up to three races for each parent, and

a preliminary analysis of reports for the

first few months of 2000 shows, using

the five OMB race categories, that

1.8 percent of mothers reported multiple

races (10). But, as reported at the

workshop, 16 percent of births show a

multiple-race background when the race

of both parents was considered,

reflecting a combination of births with a

least one multiple-race parent and births

with parents of different races. The

Hawaii Health Survey (HHS) gives

respondents the opportunity to report up

to four races for each household

member but uses more race categories

than the five specified by the OMB

standards. Tabulations from the 1998

HHS showed that 33 percent of that

State’s population had multiple-race

backgrounds on the basis of the larger

set of race categories (11).

The introduction of multiple-race

reporting is producing new challenges in

the tabulation of data and in

comparisons with earlier data produced

under the prior standards. By April 2001

the first data from census 2000 will be

available at the national, State, and local

levels for 63 categories of race in each

of the 2 categories of ethnicity

(Hispanic or Latino; Not Hispanic or

Latino). However, routine use of all 126

race-ethnicity categories in most data

products, including population estimates

and vital statistics, will not be practical

because the small number of cases in

many of the categories will not satisfy

requirements for data quality or

protection of confidentiality. Current

tabulation guidance directs Federal

agencies to provide the total number of

persons identified as of more than one

race and to include as much detail as

possible on multiple-race responses,

consistent with criteria for data quality

and confidentiality (5).

Two basic tabulation options are

available for combining multiple-race

responses into a smaller set of

categories. ‘‘Exclusive’’ tabulation

assigns each response to one category in

a set of mutually exclusive race

categories (for example, the five

standard single-race categories plus the

most common multiple-race

combinations and aggregated categories

like ‘‘three or more races’’). ‘‘Inclusive’’

tabulation assigns a multiple-race

response to each of the single-race

categories mentioned; for example, an

‘‘Asian White’’ response would be

counted in the Asian category and in the

white category. An exclusive tabulation

produces an unduplicated count of

respondents, while an inclusive

tabulation produces a count of the total

number of race responses. The choice of

tabulation categories and the tabulation

approach will depend on the intended

uses of the data.

Population Estimates

and Vital Statistics

The workshop focused on special

concerns related to the application

of the 1997 OMB data standards

to population estimates and vital
Series 4, No. 31 [ Page 3

statistics. Calculation of population

estimates depends on population counts

from decennial censuses and on data on

the components of demographic change,

which include vital statistics data on

births and deaths plus estimates of

migration. Vital rates—birth and death

rates, specifically—are calculated from

numerator data obtained from reports of

births and deaths and denominator data

on population size that are generally

from population estimates.

Although data from censuses and

vital statistics must regularly be used

together, there are some key differences

between them in the way information on

race and ethnicity is collected. The

decennial census relies primarily on

self-identification of race and ethnicity

by at least one adult respondent in a

household, and on proxy reports on the

race and ethnicity of children and other

adults in the household. See figure I for

the census 2000 ethnicity and race

questions. Birth records include

information, usually obtained by

self-report, on the race and ethnicity of

the parents of newborns (although one

parent might report for the other), but

race and ethnicity are generally not

reported for newborns. Currently, birth

data are usually tabulated according to

the race and ethnicity of the mother,

regardless of the race and ethnicity of

the father. Displayed in figures II and III

are the race and ethnicity questions as

they appear on the current standard birth

certificate and as planned for the revised

standard certificate.

For deaths, race and ethnicity are

reported by an informant or observer.

This person may be a family member of

the deceased, but may also be a funeral

director or other informant with little or

no knowledge of the deceased’s

background. Figures IV and V show the

race and ethnicity questions appearing

on the current standard death certificate

and as planned for the revised standard

certificate. An assessment of the quality

of death rates found that rates for the

white population and the black

population are generally reliable but

overstated (by 1 percent and 5 percent,

respectively), primarily because of

population undercounts affecting the

denominators (12). For the Asian and

Pacific Islander population

and the American Indian or Alaska

Native population, misclassification of

race on death certificates produces a

substantial understatement of death

rates: about 11 percent for Asians and

Pacific Islanders and about 21 percent

for American Indians and Alaska

Natives (12).

Decennial census and vital statistics

data also differ in that collection of the

census data is a constitutionally

mandated responsibility of the Federal

Government, whereas authority for the

collection of vital statistics rests with

the States. The States voluntarily work

with NCHS to establish a set of

common practices regarding vital

records, and those practices are reflected

in standard birth and death certificates

produced by NCHS. States, however,

retain the authority to collect and

tabulate data in ways that may differ

from Federal guidelines. California, for

example, produces State population

estimates and vital statistics by race

using a set of mutually exclusive

tabulation categories that includes

‘‘Hispanic’’ along with the race

categories specified by OMB. For vital

statistics, the State combines information

from the separate questions on ethnicity

and race on birth and death certificates

to tabulate data using categories of race

that match those for the State population

data. Persons of Hispanic ethnicity are

assigned to the Hispanic category

regardless of race. For Federal reporting

purposes, California recodes as white

those persons who report their race as

Mexican or other designations

considered to be of Hispanic ethnicity.

Of specific concern for the near

term is, as noted earlier, that while

census 2000 followed the 1997 OMB

standards in collecting population data

on race and ethnicity, all but one or two

States are still following the prior

standards in collecting data on births

and deaths. The revised standards for

race and ethnicity data will be in place

for vital statistics, and reflected in new

standard birth and death certificates,

later in the decade. During the transition

to full implementation of the 1997 OMB

standards and to population estimates

based on census 2000, the Census

Bureau and NCHS will be studying how

the data are changing and ways to

facilitate the transition. During the

transition period NCHS and the Census

Bureau must also work together to

develop the appropriate detailed

population estimates for use as

denominators in the calculation of vital

rates.

NCHS hopes to be able to provide

assistance to States to help them update

electronic birth certificate systems to

accommodate the elements of the new

standard certificates, including the

revised data standards for race and

ethnicity. With work just beginning on

electronic death certificate systems, it

should be possible to design them to be

consistent with the revised data

standards from the start. As these

systems are updated or developed, some

States may be able to provide NCHS

with additional detail on race and

ethnicity as it is originally recorded on

birth and death certificates. The added

detail from the certificates may allow

NCHS to recode data to match either

the old or revised reporting standards.

Under newly established agreements

with NCHS, the States of Alaska,

California, Hawaii, and Washington will

begin submitting all terms found in the

section of the certificate where race is

reported (currently only the first listed

race is transmitted to NCHS). As of

August 2000 California began

submitting data for 2000, and the other

three States began developing the

necessary coding and reporting

processes to be able to submit their data.

With access to these data, NCHS will be

able to test computational procedures

and presentation formats for

multiple-race data before the revised

standard certificates are implemented.

Primary Concerns

The workshop discussions

emphasized the fundamental need

for vital statistics and population

data that can meet requirements for

accuracy, consistency, meaningfulness,

and acceptability. But data may be

needed in different forms for different

purposes. For example, distributions

based on inclusive tabulations of
Page 4 [ Series 4, No. 31

multiple-race responses, which count a

response in each single-race category

reported and total to more than

100 percent of the actual population,

may be valuable for analyses of certain

aspects of population and social change.

Program planning and administration,

however, are more likely to require data

from exclusive tabulations that use a set

of mutually exclusive race categories

and count each person only once. It may

also prove difficult to produce data that

can satisfy all requirements equally well.

Population estimates with some detail

on race and ethnicity are needed and

used at the county and community level

even though the error in such estimates

is likely to be greater than for larger

geographic units.

The various issues raised at the

workshop were summarized as four

basic concerns toward which new

research efforts might be directed. These

four concerns are:

1. Producing valid and reliable

population estimates at the most

feasible levels of detail for race and

ethnicity and geography for the

period while population and vital

statistics data are being collected

under different standards for

classification of race and ethnicity,

and for subsequent years when data

collection standards become

consistent but classification

differences related to

self-identification of race and

ethnicity compared with

informant/observer identification

persist.

2. Similarly, producing valid and

reliable vital rates at the most

feasible levels of detail for race and

ethnicity and geography for the

transition period and for subsequent

years.

3. Understanding and measuring error

related to race and ethnicity in vital

rates and population estimates to

guide assessments of data quality for

publication and use of vital rates and

population estimates.

4. Gaining a better understanding of

the phenomenon of racial and ethnic

identity in terms of

self-identification and identification

of others.

The first three concerns are

principally methodological, and

addressing them calls for studies of

matters such as quantifying the level of

consistency in racial and ethnic

identification over time or determining

appropriate tabulation and adjustment

factors between separate data sources.

The fourth concern regarding racial and

ethnic identification is not specifically a

methodological matter, but a better

understanding of the factors that

influence racial and ethnic

self-identification and identification of

others would help guide the collection,

tabulation, and analysis of data.

Research Strategies

Workshop participants identified

several research strategies that

could be used to address the

technical and methodological issues that

the 1997 OMB standards for data on

race and ethnicity raise for vital

statistics and population estimates, and

to address some of the more conceptual

and perceptual aspects of race and

ethnicity that influence reporting in

censuses, surveys, and vital records.

Matching Studies

There was considerable interest in

using matching studies to learn more

about the correspondence between

reports of race and ethnicity in census

2000 and various surveys compared

with vital records. Such studies could

help determine if there are systematic

differences between these data sources

in reporting of race or ethnicity for

specific race groups, age groups, or

geographic areas. If so, it might be

possible to construct adjustment factors

that would improve the consistency of

numerator and denominator data for

vital statistics, and by extension the

accuracy of population estimates.

Matching studies might also help in

determining how best to bridge from the

series of population estimates based on

the 1990 census data and the prior

reporting standards for race and

ethnicity data to a new series based on

Census 2000 data and the new singleand multiple-race categories that will

result from use of the revised reporting

standards. Workshop participants felt

that census matching studies would be

valuable for many such reasons, and

they suggested planning for these

studies following every decennial

census.

Several approaches to matching

studies were discussed and are

summarized below. Because the

population in some race groups is small

relative to the total population and

multiple-race reporting is relatively

infrequent, census-based matching

studies were thought to be more

promising than matches to the smaller

study populations in surveys. But

matching studies based on surveys, such

as the NHIS, the American Community

Survey (ACS), or the Current

Population Survey (CPS), could be

valuable for pilot studies of matching

procedures or for continuing prior

studies and learning about changes over

time in reporting of race and ethnicity.

Census 2000 matching studies—In

such studies, the race and ethnicity

reported on birth or death certificates

could be compared with the race and

ethnicity reported for those individuals

in census 2000. Studies would involve

matching birth records from a period

immediately preceding the census (for

example, July 1999–March 2000) or

death records from a period immediately

following the census (for example,

May–December 2000) with the

corresponding census 2000 record.

Workshop participants considered a

study to match death records and census

2000 records a high priority. There is as

yet little basis for judging how persons

who report multiple races in the census

will be identified by the informants or

observers who provide information on

race for death certificates. About

800,000 to 1 million deaths would be

expected from May through December

2000. It was estimated that about

75 percent of these records could be

matched to census 2000 records.

Achieving a more complete match may

not be cost-effective because the census

records do not include social security

numbers, which are a valuable (but not

foolproof) key for record linkages. The

National Death Index (NDI) provides a
Series 4, No. 31 [ Page 5

mechanism for identifying the original

death certificates filed in each State.

Finding the State records would be

valuable because those records

sometimes contain multiple-race

information that has generally not been

reported to NCHS.

The proposed analysis is similar to

a classic study by Kitagawa and Hauser,

in which death records were matched

with 1960 census records to study

socioeconomic differentials in mortality

(13). With a large enough set of

matched records in a contemporary

study, it might be possible to use data

from the census 2000 long-form

responses to learn more about

socioeconomic correlates of single- or

multiple-race responses. Such data

would also provide valuable information

for studies of racial and ethnic identity,

one of the other research priorities

identified by workshop participants (and

discussed later in this report). In

addition, the linked data would make it

possible to study racial and ethnic

differentials in mortality in greater detail

than is possible with existing data

sources.

A study to match birth records and

census 2000 records would also be

valuable. Data from birth records are

generally tabulated according to the race

and ethnicity of the mother without

regard to the father’s race and ethnicity,

and little is known about how the

maternal classification corresponds to

the race and ethnicity, subsequently,

attributed to the child in the decennial

census. Of particular interest would be

the race and ethnicity reported in census

2000 for children whose birth records

show parents of different races or

ethnicities or for whom information on

paternal race and ethnicity is missing.

Original State birth records, such as the

California records mentioned previously,

would provide additional detail, but the

lack of a national birth index

comparable to the NDI would

complicate the process of identifying

those records. Because birth records are

available only for children born in the

United States (and its territories),

foreign-born children would remain

unmatched in such studies. However, the

contribution of foreign-born children to

multiple-race reporting in the census

may be small.

Although there was general

agreement that studies to match birth or

death records with census 2000 records

would be valuable, several constraints

were noted. In the period following the

census, Census Bureau staff must

produce many products under

demanding deadlines and so will have

limited time to devote to the additional

work that matching studies would

require. A delay in conducting a

matching study will, however, limit its

usefulness for improving the consistency

of vital statistics and population data

during the transition to reporting under

the revised race and ethnicity data

standards. Consideration would also

have to be given to the appropriate level

of investment in reconciling unmatched

and mismatched records. Larger

numbers of unmatched records might

result in underestimates of reporting

discrepancies between the census and

vital records. It would also be necessary

to ensure that State confidentiality

requirements with respect to birth and

death records were met.

Survey-based matching studies—

Several surveys also might be used for

matching studies.

American Community Survey (ACS).

The ACS is designed to produce

community-level demographic and

socioeconomic data more frequently

than can be done by the decennial

census, and beginning in 1999, ACS

questions on race and ethnicity were the

same as those used in census 2000.

When fully implemented, the ACS will

include 3 million households annually,

making it much larger than other survey

samples and increasing the feasibility of

studies involving the matching of birth

or death records to compare reporting

on race and ethnicity. In the near term,

however, studies involving the smaller

scale samples being used to develop and

test the ACS might also be useful. For

example, it might be possible to track

deaths in the 1999 or 2000 cohort of

ACS respondents to assess reports of

race and ethnicity on death certificates

before and after full implementation of

multiple-race reporting for vital records.

The 1998 ACS sample incorporated two

South Carolina counties that were also

census 2000 dress-rehearsal sites in

1998, making it possible to compare

responses to the old and the new

formats for the race and ethnicity

questions. The analysis could be

extended by matching those records to

reports from census 2000 as well.

The ACS samples might also be

used for pilot studies to test matching

procedures and algorithms. For example,

since neither ACS nor census 2000

records include social security numbers,

other matching techniques could be

tested. The inclusion of two California

counties (San Francisco and Tulare) in

the ACS sites for 1999 also presents an

opportunity for preliminary comparisons

of race reporting in vital records

(beginning in 2000) and census-type

records when both offer a multiple-race

option. With the planned continuation of

ACS data collection at the California

test sites through 2002, the comparisons

could include matches with either birth

or death records.

Current Population Survey and

National Longitudinal Mortality Study

The Current Population Survey (CPS), a

monthly survey of about 50,000

households, is conducted primarily to

collect data on labor force

characteristics of the population but is

also a regular source of other

demographic and socioeconomic

information. The National Longitudinal

Mortality Study (NLMS), a collaborative

project by the National Institutes of

Health, the Census Bureau, and NCHS,

has matched selected CPS records for

1973–85 to death certificates for

1979–89 through the NDI (12). Plans

call for updating the death certificate

match through the 1990s. As noted

above, these matched records have been

used, among other purposes, to study

the quality of race data reported on

death certificates.

Because of its age, the current

NLMS database cannot provide

information on multiple-race reporting,

but it offers an existing and tested

framework within which new CPS

cohorts could be added and matched to

death certificates in order to study

changes in race reporting and the

consistency between survey and death

certificate reporting during the transition
Page 6 [ Series 4, No. 31

from the old to the revised standards for

race and ethnicity data. The NLMS is

best suited to studies at the national

level because too few deaths could be

linked to CPS cohorts to produce

reliable results at the State or

community level for multiple-race or

small single-race groups.

National Health Interview Survey.

The National Health Interview Survey

(NHIS), an annual survey covering

about 43,000 households, is a primary

source of information about the health

of the population. NHIS cohorts are

being used to establish a database of

survey records matched with death

certificates, and NHIS records have the

advantage over CPS records of

including, since 1976, multiple-race

responses that are accompanied by a

response on a primary-race

identification. That information makes it

possible to study patterns of

self-identification in single- and

multiple-race categories, and with

matches to death certificates,

corresponding observer assignment into

single-race categories. For NCHS and

other entities interested in the

relationship between health disparities

and race and ethnicity, an NHIS-based

matching study would also have the

advantage of providing access to data on

health status and health risk factors,

which are not available from CPS

records. Workshop participants also

noted that a subset of the 1993 NHIS

respondents (10,847 women aged

15–44) were interviewed for the 1995

cycle of the National Survey of Family

Growth (NSFG) (14), potentially

offering access to additional information

about the characteristics of some

multiple-race respondents.

Other matching studies—Other

matching study approaches or data

sources were also discussed at the

workshop.

National Mortality Followback

Survey. The National Mortality

Followback Study (NMFS), which is

conducted periodically by NCHS,

involves drawing a sample of death

reports and contacting the death

certificate informant. This kind of study

could be used to obtain supplemental

information and to replicate information

reported on the death certificate. The

NMFS approach can provide

information on consistency of reporting

from a single source but not on

consistency across reporting systems. A

new round of the NMFS might,

however, ask informants to respond

using the multiple-race reporting format

as well as the single-race reporting

format of the current death certificate.

An informant-followback component

might also be included in a study based

on matching census 2000 records and

death reports. The size of the NMFS

sample would have to be increased from

past rounds (22,957 decedents in the

1993 round) to provide reliable data

about smaller race groups or

multiple-race reporting.

Immigration and Naturalization

Service data. Workshop participants

discussed the possibility of adding

Immigration and Naturalization Service

(INS) data to matching studies to

improve data on the foreign-born

population, particularly those of

Hispanic origin. The Hispanic

population is among those undercounted

in the census. In addition, the Hispanic

population may be undercounted in the

intercensal estimates of documented and

undocumented immigration. Also,

misclassification to non-Hispanic

ethnicity on death certificates

contributes to inaccuracies in death rates

for this segment of the population.

Workshop participants thought that

immigrants were likely to be making

only a small contribution to the

multiple-race population. Studies

matching INS records with census

reports or vital records might, however,

provide better information on immigrant

fertility and the contribution of

immigration to population growth and to

racial and ethnic diversity in the United

States.

Despite the interest in trying to use

INS data, little was known about the

technical feasibility of matching those

records to decennial census records or

death certificates, or about the

confidentiality constraints that might

exist. Several limitations of such data

were noted. In particular, INS files

cover only persons who have permanent

resident status. They do not account for

emigrants, persons in the United States

on a temporary basis (for example,

students), or most importantly,

unauthorized immigrants.

Vital Records Studies

Studies focusing specifically on

vital records, particularly birth

certificates, were also discussed at the

workshop. Although NCHS works with

the States to define a standard set of

data on births and deaths to be reported

to the Federal level, the original data

collection process is established and

managed by each individual State. As a

result, a few States are already

collecting additional data on race and

ethnicity that could be used to study

reporting in vital records and to explore

how reporting may change under the

revised OMB standards. Specific ideas

for vital records studies included the

following topics:

Race of child. Although data on

births are currently tabulated by the race

and ethnicity of the mother, Washington

State birth records also have separate

questions on the race and Hispanic

origin of the child as reported by the

mother or other informant. This

information, which was recently

provided to NCHS but has not been

widely analyzed, presents an opportunity

to assess the comparability of race and

ethnicity for mothers and their children.

States have generally discouraged

proposals to add routine collection of

separate data on race and Hispanic

origin of the child. Washington State

might serve as a case study for

exploring whether special difficulties

exist in collecting or tabulating such

data. With more information about

Washington State’s experience, other

States might be willing to test the

collection of data on child’s race and

ethnicity.

Regional Study Program—Data

from vital statistics or health surveys in

Alaska, California, Hawaii, and

Washington provide a collection of

resources that might become a base for

a regionally focused set of studies to

explore application of the revised OMB

standards for data on race and ethnicity.

As noted above, NCHS already

established agreements with these four

States to begin providing multiple-race

data from vital records as soon as 2000
Series 4, No. 31 [ Page 7

or 2001. NCHS assistance might also

make it possible for this set of States or

others to code and tabulate additional

data for submission to NCHS, such as

the data on race of child in Washington

State.

Compilation of State Vital Statistics

reporting mandates and practices—As

the workshop discussions around data

from Alaska, California, Hawaii, and

Washington State demonstrated, the

availability of data on race and ethnicity

that is more detailed than the data called

for by the standard birth and death

certificates presents important

opportunities to study how the revised

OMB standards will affect vital rates

and population estimates. To know the

full extent of such State-level data

resources, better information is needed

about the States’ specific vital records

data collection mandates and practices.

A formal compilation of such

information was proposed.

Studies of Error

The opportunity for multiple-race

reporting under the revised OMB

standards will add new challenges to

producing valid and reliable population

estimates, especially for smaller race

groups and at subnational levels. Two

research strategies were proposed to

address measurement error and

uncertainty in population estimates.

Identifying sources of error—A

careful study of the procedures used to

produce population estimates in terms of

the potential sources of error (bias and

random variation) that would be

introduced into the data would provide

valuable guidance to the producers and

the users of those estimates. Some of

the sources of error include the census

undercount and undercount adjustments,

missing data and imputation procedures,

and misreporting and misclassification

of data. The revised OMB standards will

not change the types of error in the data

but will introduce specific new forms of

error, such as misreporting or

misclassification between single- and

multiple-race categories that need to be

understood. The proposed matching

studies would help identify and quantify

some types of bias in the data.

Techniques like multiple imputation can

be used to assess variance. Because the

types and levels of error can differ

among various demographic and

geographic subpopulations and various

data sources (for example, census

records, birth records, and death

records), studies should examine the

total error and the net effect of

offsetting error.

Workshop participants noted the

importance of reporting information

about error—and quantifying it when

possible, perhaps with confidence

intervals—when population estimates

are produced. Also important is

providing data users with information

about the assumptions on which the

estimates are based.

Testing the accuracy of estimates

and projections—The Census Bureau

produces population estimates and

projections for States and communities,

but States also produce independent

estimates of their populations, which

may differ from the Census Bureau

estimates. For example, at the time of

the workshop, California’s State

population estimate was almost 1

million more than the Census Bureau

estimate. Studies are needed to compare

the accuracy of Census Bureau and

State estimates and to identify the

sources of discrepancy. The Census

Bureau conducts studies of the ‘‘error of

closure’’ between the census population

and population estimates derived from

the demographic components of change

in conjunction with decennial censuses,

but such studies are needed more

frequently to account for State-level

variations in population dynamics.

California data from census 2000,

the census dress-rehearsal, and birth and

death records might be used to test

estimation procedures with data that

follow the revised OMB standards.

California also has plans to study the

State estimates and projections for racial

and ethnic subgroups to assist in

bridging its data series between the old

and revised OMB data standards.

Studies on Racial and

Ethnic Identity

Proposals for other studies

emphasized opportunities to improve

data on race and ethnicity by gaining a

better understanding of the meaning of

racial and ethnic identities in society

and of the factors that influence

self-identification and identification of

others. Studies might use routinely

conducted surveys like the CPS or the

NHIS to ask about the race of

respondents’ parents and other ancestors

to learn more about the racial and ethnic

backgrounds of respondents who report

multiple races. A better understanding

might also be gained of factors

associated with single-race reporting for

respondents with multiple-race

backgrounds. An analysis of 1993–95

data from the NHIS found, for example,

that although 3.1 percent of children in

two-parent households had parents of

different races, fewer than one-half of

those children were reported to be of

more than one race (15).

Another study proposal pointed to

the opportunity to use existing NCHS

vital statistics records dating back to

1970 to compile data on births with

differing maternal and paternal races.

These aggregate data on births with

multiple-race backgrounds—classified

by age in 2000, sex, and possibly other

characteristics—could be compared to

levels of multiple-race reporting in

census 2000 to gain a general sense of

potential levels of multiple-race

reporting compared with levels actually

seen in the census. This approach would

avoid the difficulties related to matching

individual records and might point to

factors associated with differences in

identification with multiple races. But

because these birth record data include

only a single race for each parent, they

would miss a multiple-race heritage

dating back to an earlier generation.

Also proposed was a study of race and

ethnicity as reported in census 2000 for

people who were children in

multiple-race households in the 1980 or

1990 censuses. However, linking records

across censuses for such a longitudinal

study may not be feasible.

In addition, further consideration

could be given to the correspondence

between the revised OMB data

standards and public perceptions of race

and ethnicity. For example, the use of

separate questions on Hispanic origin

and race may conflict with the evolving
Page 8 [ Series 4, No. 31

racial identity of the Hispanic

population. Workshop participants noted

that Californians generally consider

Mexicans and other Hispanics to be

‘‘people of color,’’ and that many

California Hispanics agree that they are

not white. Under present practices,

however, Hispanics who do not choose

one of the standard race categories are

generally classified as white in vital

statistics.

Other Information

Needs

n addition to research strategies, the

workshop participants saw a need

for information products that would

help researchers and the public make

better use of data on race and ethnicity

from vital statistics, decennial censuses,

and population estimates and

projections. Many users may not

understand the nature of the changes

being made as a result of the revised

OMB standards or the underlying

differences between data based on

self-identification and data based on

reports from informants or observers.

The research community will be

interested in access to detailed data on

race and ethnicity in public-use files for

census 2000 and other data sets.

Complete detail on responses on race

and ethnicity, rather than recoded data

for a more limited set of categories, will

be of greatest use in studying changes in

reporting over time and among

population groups. Such data products

must also ensure that the confidentiality

of individual respondents is protected.

Whether they are using microdata or

other data products, researchers will

need good technical information about

the quality and the reliability of the

data.

Efforts should also be made to

reach other audiences with more general

information about the changes being

made under the revised OMB standards

and what those changes mean for the

data that will be reported in the future.

Potential audiences for such information

include Congress, the general public,

interest groups, and the broader research

community. Information should be

presented in forms tailored to meet each

group’s needs.

References

1. Office of Management and Budget.

Revisions to the Standards for

Classification of Federal Data on Race

and Ethnicity. Federal Register

62(210):58781–90. October 30, 1997.

www.whitehouse.gov/OMB/fedreg/

1997.html

2. Bureau of the Census. Findings on

questions on Race and Hispanic Origin

Tested in the 1996 National Content

Survey. Staff of Special Population

Statistics, Population Division.

Population Division Working Paper No.

16. 1996. www.census.gov/population/

www/documentation/twps0016/

twps0016.html

3. Bureau of the Census. Results of the

1996 Race and Ethnic Targeted Test.

Population Division Working Paper No.

18. 1997. www.census.gov/population/

www/documentation/twps0018/

twps0018.html

4. 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. Federal Register

62(131):36873–946. July 9, 1997.

www.whitehouse.gov/OMB/fedreg/

1997.html

5. Tabulation Working Group, Interagency

Committee for the Review of Standards

for Data on Race and Ethnicity.

Provisional Guidance on the

Implementation of the 1997 Standards

for Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity.

December 15, 2000.

www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/

r&e_guidance2000update.pdf

6. Goldstein JR, Morning AJ. The

multiple-race population of the United

States: Issues and Estimates.

Proceedings of the National Academy

of Sciences 97(11):6230–5. 2000.

7. Hirschman C, Alba R, Farley R. The

meaning and measurement of race in

the U.S. census: Glimpses into the

future. Demography 37(3):381–93.

2000.

8. Ventura SJ, Martin JA, Curtin SA,

Mathews TJ. Report of final natality

statistics, 1995. Monthly vital statistics

report; vol 45 no 11, supp. Hyattsville,

Maryland: National Center for Health

Statistics. 1997.

9. Dodds DJ. Tabulating diversity: Race

and ethnicity categories in census 2000.

Applied Demography 13(2):1–6. 2000.

10. Williams R. California’s Multiple Race

Reporting from AVSS: Preliminary

Data. 2000. AVSS Project, Institute for

Social, Behavioral, and Economic

Research, University of California,

Santa Barbara. www.avss.ucsb.edu/

OVR/RACE2Kb.htm

11. Baker KK, Onaka AT, Reyes-Salvail F,

Horiuchi B, Dannemiller J, Tom T,

Zhang J, Tanaka C. Multi-Race Health

Statistics: A State Perspective. Hawaii

Health Survey (HHS) 1998. 1999.

www.hawaii.gov/doh/stats/surveys/

nchs.html

12. Rosenberg HM, Maurer JD, Sorlie PD,

Johnson NJ, et al. Quality of death

rates by race and Hispanic origin: A

summary of current research, 1999.

National Center for Health Statistics.

Vital Health Stat 2(128). 1999.

www.cdc.gov/nchs/

13. Kitagawa E, Hauser PM. Differential

mortality in the United States: A Study

in Socioeconomic Epidemiology.

Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University

Press. 1973.

14. Kelly JE, Mosher WD, Duffer AP,

Kinsey SH. Plan and operation of the

1995 National Survey of Family

Growth. Vital Health Stat 1(36). 1997.

15. Parker JD, Lucas JB. Multiple race

reporting for children in a national

health survey. Ethnicity and Disease.

Forthcoming.

I
Series 4, No. 31 [ Page 9

Appendix I. OMB Federal Register

Notice, October 30, 1997: Revisions

to the Standards for the Classification

of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity
Page 10 [ Series 4, No. 31
Series 4, No. 31 [ Page 11
Page 12 [ Series 4, No. 31
Series 4, No. 31 [ Page 13
Page 14 [ Series 4, No. 31
Series 4, No. 31 [ Page 15
Page 16 [ Series 4, No. 31
Series 4, No. 31 [ Page 17
Page 18 [ Series 4, No. 31
Series 4, No. 31 [ Page 19
Page 20 [ Series 4, No. 31
Series 4, No. 31 [ Page 21
Page 22 [ Series 4, No. 31
Series 4, No. 31 [ Page 23
Page 24 [ Series 4, No. 31
Series 4, No. 31 [ Page 25
Page 26 [ Series 4, No. 31
Series 4, No. 31 [ Page 27

Appendix II.

Workshop Participants

Robert N. Anderson, Ph.D.

Statistician

Division of Vital Statistics

National Center for Health Statistics

Frank D. Bean, Ph.D.

Professor

Department of Sociology

University of California, Irvine

Lester R. Curtin, Ph.D.

Acting Associate Director for Research

and Methodology

National Center for Health Statistics

Jane S. Durch, M.A.

The George Washington University

School of Public Health and Health

Services

Irma T. Elo, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor, Department of

Sociology

Research Associate, Population Studies

Center

University of Pennsylvania

Suzann K. Evinger, M.A.

Policy Analyst

Office of Management and Budget

Reynolds Farley, Ph.D.

Population Studies Center

Institute for Social Research

University of Michigan

Linda Gage

California State Demographer

Demographic Research Unit

California Department of Finance

Nancy M. Gordon, Ph.D.

Associate Director for Demographic

Programs

U.S. Census Bureau

Charles Hirschman, Ph.D.

Boeing International Professor

Department of Sociology

University of Washington

Frederick W. Hollmann, Ph.D.

Demographer

Population Projections Branch

Population Division

U.S. Census Bureau

Nancy Kirkendall, Ph.D.

Senior Mathematical Statistician

Energy Information Administration

Department of Energy

John F. Long, Ph.D.

Chief, Population Division

U.S. Census Bureau

Jennifer H. Madans, Ph.D. Associate

Director for Science

National Center for Health Statistics

C. Jane McKendry, M.Ed.

Chief, Vital Statistics Section

Center for Health Statistics

California Department of Health

Services

Stella U. Ogunwole, Ph.D.

Demographer

Racial Statistics Branch

Population Division

U.S. Census Bureau

Alvin T. Onaka, Ph.D.

State Registrar and Chief, Office of

Health Status Monitoring

Hawaii Department of Health

Jennifer D. Parker, Ph.D.

Senior Staff Fellow

Infant and Child Health Studies Branch

National Center for Health Statistics

Harry M. Rosenberg, Ph.D.

Special Assistant to the Director

Division of Vital Statistics

National Center for Health Statistics

Susan Schechter, M.A.

Senior Statistician

Office of Management and Budget

Nat Schenker, Ph.D.

Senior Scientist

Office of Research and Methodology

National Center for Health Statistics

Robert Schoen, Ph.D.

Hoffman Professor of Family Sociology

and Demography

Department of Sociology, and

Population Research Institute

Pennsylvania State University

Stanley K. Smith, Ph.D.

Professor and Program Director

Bureau of Economic & Business

Research

University of Florida

Michael A. Stoto, Ph.D.

Professor and Chair

Department of Epidemiology and

Biostatistics

The George Washington University

School of Public Health and Health

Services

Stephanie J. Ventura, M.A.

Chief, Reproductive Statistics Branch

Division of Vital Statistics

National Center for Health Statistics

Katherine K. Wallman

Chief Statistician

Office of Management and Budget

Signe I. Wetrogan

Assistant Chief for Population Estimates

and Projections

Population Division

U.S. Census Bureau
Page 28 [ Series 4, No. 31

Appendix III. Questions on Race

and Hispanic Origin

Figure I. Questions on race and Hispanic origin from Census 2000

Figure II. Questions on Hispanic origin and race on the current U.S. standard certificate of live birth
Series 4, No. 31 [ Page 29

Figure III. Questions on Hispanic origin and race on the draft revised U.S. standard certificate of live birth
Page 30 [ Series 4, No. 31

Figure IV. Questions on Hispanic origin and race on the current U.S. standard certificate of death

Figure V. Questions on Hispanic origin and race on the draft revised U.S. standard certificate of death
Vital and Health Statistics

series descriptions

SERIES 1.	 Programs and Collection Procedures—These reports 

describe the data collection programs of the National Center 

for Health Statistics. They include descriptions of the methods 

used to collect and process the data, definitions, and other 

material necessary for understanding the data. 

SERIES 2.	 Data Evaluation and Methods Research—These reports are 

studies of new statistical methods and include analytical 

techniques, objective evaluations of reliability of collected data, 

and contributions to statistical theory. These studies also 

include experimental tests of new survey methods and 

comparisons of U.S. methodology with those of other 

countries. 

SERIES 3.	 Analytical and Epidemiological Studies—These reports 

present analytical or interpretive studies based on vital and 

health statistics. These reports carry the analyses further than 

the expository types of reports in the other series. 

SERIES 4.	 Documents and Committee Reports—These are final 

reports of major committees concerned with vital and health 

statistics and documents such as recommended model vital 

registration laws and revised birth and death certificates. 

SERIES 5.	 International Vital and Health Statistics Reports—These 

reports are analytical or descriptive reports that compare U.S. 

vital and health statistics with those of other countries or 

present other international data of relevance to the health 

statistics system of the United States. 

SERIES 6.	 Cognition and Survey Measurement—These reports are 

from the National Laboratory for Collaborative Research in 

Cognition and Survey Measurement. They use methods of 

cognitive science to design, evaluate, and test survey 

instruments. 

SERIES 10.	 Data From the National Health Interview Survey—These 

reports contain statistics on illness; unintentional injuries; 

disability; use of hospital, medical, and other health services; 

and a wide range of special current health topics covering 

many aspects of health behaviors, health status, and health 

care utilization. They are based on data collected in a 

continuing national household interview survey. 

SERIES 11.	 Data From the National Health Examination Survey, the

National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys, and

the Hispanic Health and Nutrition Examination Survey— 

Data from direct examination, testing, and measurement on 

representative samples of the civilian noninstitutionalized 

population provide the basis for (1) medically defined total 

prevalence of specific diseases or conditions in the United 

States and the distributions of the population with respect to 

physical, physiological, and psychological characteristics, and 

(2) analyses of trends and relationships among various 

measurements and between survey periods. 

SERIES 12.	 Data From the Institutionalized Population Surveys— 

Discontinued in 1975. Reports from these surveys are 

included in Series 13. 

SERIES 13.	 Data From the National Health Care Survey—These reports 

contain statistics on health resources and the public’s use of 

health care resources including ambulatory, hospital, and longterm care services based on data collected directly from 

health care providers and provider records. 

SERIES 14.	 Data on Health Resources: Manpower and Facilities— 

Discontinued in 1990. Reports on the numbers, geographic 

distribution, and characteristics of health resources are now 

included in Series 13. 

SERIES 15.	 Data From Special Surveys—These reports contain statistics 

on health and health-related topics collected in special 

surveys that are not part of the continuing data systems of the 

National Center for Health Statistics. 

SERIES 16.	 Compilations of Advance Data From Vital and Health

Statistics—Advance Data Reports provide early release of 

information from the National Center for Health Statistics’ 

health and demographic surveys. They are compiled in the 

order in which they are published. Some of these releases 

may be followed by detailed reports in Series 10–13. 

SERIES 20.	 Data on Mortality—These reports contain statistics on 

mortality that are not included in regular, annual, or monthly 

reports. Special analyses by cause of death, age, other 

demographic variables, and geographic and trend analyses 

are included. 

SERIES 21.	 Data on Natality, Marriage, and Divorce—These reports 

contain statistics on natality, marriage, and divorce that are 

not included in regular, annual, or monthly reports. Special 

analyses by health and demographic variables and 

geographic and trend analyses are included. 

SERIES 22.	 Data From the National Mortality and Natality Surveys— 

Discontinued in 1975. Reports from these sample surveys, 

based on vital records, are now published in Series 20 or 21. 

SERIES 23.	 Data From the National Survey of Family Growth—These 

reports contain statistics on factors that affect birth rates, 

including contraception, infertility, cohabitation, marriage, 

divorce, and remarriage; adoption; use of medical care for 

family planning and infertility; and related maternal and infant 

health topics. These statistics are based on national surveys 

of women of childbearing age. 

SERIES 24.	 Compilations of Data on Natality, Mortality, Marriage,

Divorce, and Induced Terminations of Pregnancy— 

These include advance reports of births, deaths, marriages, 

and divorces based on final data from the National Vital 

Statistics System that were published as supplements to the 

Monthly Vital Statistics Report (MVSR). These reports provide 

highlights and summaries of detailed data subsequently 

published in Vital Statistics of the United States. Other 

supplements to the MVSR published here provide selected 

findings based on final data from the National Vital Statistics 

System and may be followed by detailed reports in Series 20 

or 21. 

For answers to questions about this report or for a list of reports published in 

these series, contact: 

Data Dissemination Branch


National Center for Health Statistics


Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


6525 Belcrest Road, Room 1064


Hyattsville, MD 20782-2003


(301) 458–4636


E-mail: nchsquery@cdc.gov


Internet: www.cdc.gov/nchs/