58782 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 210 / Thursday, October 30, 1997 / Notices

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND

BUDGET

Revisions to the Standards for the

Classification of Federal Data on Race

and Ethnicity

AGENCY: Executive Office of the

President, Office of Management and

Budget (OMB), Office of Information

and Regulatory Affairs.

ACTION: Notice of decision.

SUMMARY: By this Notice, OMB is

announcing its decision concerning the

revision of Statistical Policy Directive

No. 15, Race and Ethnic Standards for

Federal Statistics and Administrative

Reporting. OMB is accepting the

recommendations of the Interagency

Committee for the Review of the Racial

and Ethnic Standards with the following

two modifications: (1) the Asian or

Pacific Islander category will be

separated into two categories—‘‘Asian’’

and ‘‘Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific

Islander,’’ and (2) the term ‘‘Hispanic’’

will be changed to ‘‘Hispanic or Latino.’’

The revised standards will have five

minimum categories for data on race:

American Indian or Alaska Native,

Asian, Black or African American,

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific

Islander, and White. There will be two

categories for data on ethnicity:

‘‘Hispanic or Latino’’ and ‘‘Not Hispanic

or Latino.’’

The Supplementary Information in

this Notice provides background

information on the standards (Section

A); a summary of the comprehensive

review process that began in July 1993

(Section B); a brief synopsis of the

public comments OMB received on the

recommendations for changes to the

standards in response to the July 9,

1997, Federal Register Notice (Section

C); OMB’s decisions on the specific

recommendations of the Interagency

Committee (Section D); and information

on the work that is underway on

tabulation issues associated with the

reporting of multiple race responses

(Section E).

The revised standards for the

classification of Federal data on race

and ethnicity are presented at the end

of this notice; they replace and

supersede Statistical Policy Directive

No. 15.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The new standards will

be used by the Bureau of the Census in

the 2000 decennial census. Other

Federal programs should adopt the

standards as soon as possible, but not

later than January 1, 2003, for use in

household surveys, administrative

forms and records, and other data

collections. In addition, OMB has

approved the use of the new standards

by the Bureau of the Census in the

‘‘Dress Rehearsal’’ for Census 2000

scheduled to be conducted in March

1998.

ADDRESSES: Please send correspondence

about OMB’s decision to: Katherine K.

Wallman, Chief Statistician, Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs,

Office of Management and Budget,

Room 10201 New Executive Office

Building, 725 17th Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20503; fax: (202) 395–

7245.

ELECTRONIC AVAILABILITY AND ADDRESSES:

This Federal Register Notice and the

related OMB Notices of June 9, 1994,

August 28, 1995, and July 9, 1997, are

available electronically from the OMB

Homepage on the World Wide Web:

<<http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/

EOP/OMB/html/fedreg.html>>.

Federal Register Notices are also

available electronically from the U.S.

Government Printing Office web site:

<<http:/www.access.gpo.gov/suldocs/

aces/aces140.html>>. Questions about

accessing the Federal Register online

via GPO Access may be directed to

telephone (202) 512-1530 or toll free at

(888) 293–6498; to fax (202) 512–1262;

or to E-mail <<gpoaccess@gpo.gov>>.

This Notice is available in paper copy

from the OMB Publications Office, 725

17th Street, NW, NEOB, Room 2200,

Washington, D.C. 20503; telephone

(202) 395-7332; fax (202) 395–6137.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Suzann Evinger, Statistical Policy

Office, Office of Information and

Regulatory Affairs, Office of

Management and Budget, NEOB, Room

10201, 725 17th Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20503; telephone:

(202) 395–3093; fax (202) 395–7245.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

For more than 20 years, the current

standards in OMB’s Statistical Policy

Directive No. 15 have provided a

common language to promote

uniformity and comparability for data

on race and ethnicity for the population

groups specified in the Directive. They

were developed in cooperation with

Federal agencies to provide consistent

data on race and ethnicity throughout

the Federal Government. Development

of the data standards stemmed in large

measure from new responsibilities to

enforce civil rights laws. Data were

needed to monitor equal access in

housing, education, employment, and

other areas, for populations that

historically had experienced

discrimination and differential

treatment because of their race or

ethnicity. The standards are used not

only in the decennial census (which

provides the data for the ‘‘denominator’’

for many measures), but also in

household surveys, on administrative

forms (e.g., school registration and

mortgage lending applications), and in

medical and other research. The

categories represent a social-political

construct designed for collecting data on

the race and ethnicity of broad

population groups in this country, and

are not anthropologically or

scientifically based.

B. Comprehensive Review Process

Particularly since the 1990 census, the

standards have come under increasing

criticism from those who believe that

the minimum categories set forth in

Directive No. 15 do not reflect the

increasing diversity of our Nation’s

population that has resulted primarily

from growth in immigration and in

interracial marriages. In response to the

criticisms, OMB announced in July 1993

that it would undertake a

comprehensive review of the current

categories for data on race and ethnicity.

This review has been conducted over

the last four years in collaboration with

the Interagency Committee for the

Review of the Racial and Ethnic

Standards, which OMB established in

March 1994 to facilitate the

participation of Federal agencies in the

review. The members of the Interagency

Committee, from more than 30 agencies,

represent the many and diverse Federal

needs for data on race and ethnicity,

including statutory requirements for

such data. The Interagency Committee

developed the following principles to

govern the review process:

1. The racial and ethnic categories set

forth in the standards should not be

interpreted as being primarily biological

or genetic in reference. Race and

ethnicity may be thought of in terms of

social and cultural characteristics as

well as ancestry.

2. Respect for individual dignity

should guide the processes and methods

for collecting data on race and ethnicity;

ideally, respondent self-identification

should be facilitated to the greatest

extent possible, recognizing that in

some data collection systems observer

identification is more practical.

3. To the extent practicable, the

concepts and terminology should reflect

clear and generally understood

definitions that can achieve broad

public acceptance. To assure they are

reliable, meaningful, and understood by

respondents and observers, the racial

and ethnic categories set forth in the

standard should be developed using
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 210 / Thursday, October 30, 1997 / Notices 58783

appropriate scientific methodologies,

including the social sciences.

4. The racial and ethnic categories

should be comprehensive in coverage

and produce compatible,

nonduplicative, exchangeable data

across Federal agencies.

5. Foremost consideration should be

given to data aggregations by race and

ethnicity that are useful for statistical

analysis and program administration

and assessment, bearing in mind that

the standards are not intended to be

used to establish eligibility for

participation in any federal program.

6. The standards should be developed

to meet, at a minimum, Federal

legislative and programmatic

requirements. Consideration should also

be given to needs at the State and local

government levels, including American

Indian tribal and Alaska Native village

governments, as well as to general

societal needs for these data.

7. The categories should set forth a

minimum standard; additional

categories should be permitted provided

they can be aggregated to the standard

categories. The number of standard

categories should be kept to a

manageable size, determined by

statistical concerns and data needs.

8. A revised set of categories should

be operationally feasible in terms of

burden placed upon respondents; public

and private costs to implement the

revisions should be a factor in the

decision.

9. Any changes in the categories

should be based on sound

methodological research and should

include evaluations of the impact of any

changes not only on the usefulness of

the resulting data but also on the

comparability of any new categories

with the existing ones.

10. Any revision to the categories

should provide for a crosswalk at the

time of adoption between the old and

the new categories so that historical data

series can be statistically adjusted and

comparisons can be made.

11. Because of the many and varied

needs and strong interdependence of

Federal agencies for racial and ethnic

data, any changes to the existing

categories should be the product of an

interagency collaborative effort.

12. Time will be allowed to phase in

any new categories. Agencies will not be

required to update historical records.

13. The new directive should be

applicable throughout the U.S. Federal

statistical system. The standard or

standards must be usable for the

decennial census, current surveys, and

administrative records, including those

using observer identification.

The principal objective of the review

has been to enhance the accuracy of the

demographic information collected by

the Federal Government. The starting

point for the review was the minimum

set of categories for data on race and

ethnicity that have provided

information for more than 20 years for

a variety of purposes, and the

recognition of the importance of being

able to maintain this historical

continuity. The review process has had

two major elements: (1) public comment

on the present standards, which helped

to identify concerns and provided

numerous suggestions for changing the

standards; and (2) research and testing

related to assessing the possible effects

of suggested changes on the quality and

usefulness of the resulting data.

Public input, the first element of the

review process, was sought through a

variety of means: (1) During 1993,

Congressman Thomas C. Sawyer, then

Chairman of the House Subcommittee

on Census, Statistics, and Postal

Personnel, held four hearings that

included 27 witnesses, focusing

particularly on the use of the categories

in the 2000 census. (2) At the request of

OMB, the National Academy of

Sciences’ Committee on National

Statistics (CNSTAT) conducted a

workshop in February 1994 to articulate

issues surrounding a review of the

categories. The workshop included

representatives of Federal agencies,

academia, social science research

institutions, interest groups, private

industry, and a local school district. (A

summary of the workshop, Spotlight on

Heterogeneity: The Federal Standards

for Racial and Ethnic Classification, is

available from CNSTAT, 2101

Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20418.) (3) On June 9,

1994, OMB published a Federal

Register (59 FR 29831–29835) Notice

that contained background information

on the development of the current

standards and requested public

comment on: the adequacy of current

racial and ethnic categories; the

principles that should govern any

proposed revisions to the standards; and

specific suggestions for change that had

been offered by individuals and

interested groups over a period of

several years. In response, OMB

received nearly 800 letters. As part of

this comment period and to bring the

review closer to the public, OMB also

heard testimony from 94 witnesses at

hearings held during July 1994 in

Boston, Denver, San Francisco, and

Honolulu. (4) In an August 28, 1995,

Federal Register (60 FR 44674–44693)

Notice, OMB provided an interim report

on the review process, including a

summary of the comments on the June

1994 Federal Register Notice, and

offered a final opportunity for comment

on the research to be conducted during

1996. (5) OMB staff have also discussed

the review process with various

interested groups and have made

presentations at numerous meetings.

The second element of the review

process involved research and testing of

various proposed changes. The

categories in OMB’s Directive No. 15 are

used not only to produce data on the

demographic characteristics of the

population, but also to monitor civil

rights enforcement and program

implementation. Research was

undertaken to provide an objective

assessment of the data quality issues

associated with various approaches to

collecting data on race and ethnicity. To

that end, the Interagency Committee’s

Research Working Group, co-chaired by

the Bureau of the Census and the

Bureau of Labor Statistics, reviewed the

various criticisms and suggestions for

changing the current categories, and

developed a research agenda for some of

the more significant issues that had

been identified. These issues included

how to collect data on persons who

identify themselves as ‘‘multiracial’’;

whether to combine race and Hispanic

origin in one question or have separate

questions on race and Hispanic origin;

whether to combine the concepts of

race, ethnicity, and ancestry; whether to

change the terminology used for

particular categories; and whether to

add new categories to the current

minimum set.

Because the mode of data collection

can have an effect on how a person

responds, the research agenda proposed

studies both in surveys using in-person

or telephone interviews and in selfadministered questionnaires, such as

the decennial census, which are filled

out by the respondent and mailed back.

Cognitive interviews were conducted

with various groups to provide guidance

on the wording of the questions and the

instructions for the tests and studies.

The research agenda included several

major national tests, the results of which

are discussed throughout the

Interagency Committee’s Report to the

Office of Management and Budget on

the Review of Statistical Policy Directive

No. 15: (1) In May 1995, the Bureau of

Labor Statistics (BLS) sponsored a

Supplement on Race and Ethnicity to

the Current Population Survey (CPS).

The findings were made available in a

1996 report, Testing Methods of

Collecting Racial and Ethnic

Information: Results of the Current

Population Survey Supplement on Race
58784 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 210 / Thursday, October 30, 1997 / Notices

and Ethnicity, available from BLS, 2

Massachusetts Avenue, N.E., Room

4915, Postal Square Building,

Washington, D.C. 20212, or by calling

202–606–7375. The results were also

summarized in an October 26, 1995,

news release, which is available

electronically at <<http://stats.bls.gov/

news.release/ethnic.toc.htm>>. (2) The

Bureau of the Census, as part of its

research for the 2000 census, tested

alternative approaches to collecting data

on race and ethnicity in the March 1996

National Content Survey (NCS). The

Census Bureau published the results in

a December 1996 report, Findings on

Questions on Race and Hispanic Origin

Tested in the 1996 National Content

Survey; highlights of the report are

available at <<http://www.census.gov/

population/www/socdemo/

96natcontentsurvey.html>>. (3) In June

1996, the Census Bureau conducted the

Race and Ethnic Targeted Test (RAETT),

which was designed to permit

assessments of the effects of possible

changes on smaller populations not

reliably measured in national samples,

including American Indians, Alaska

Natives, detailed Asian and Pacific

Islander groups (such as Chinese and

Hawaiians), and detailed Hispanic

groups (such as Puerto Ricans and

Cubans). The Census Bureau released

the results in a May 1997 report, Results

of the 1996 Race and Ethnic Targeted

Test; highlights of the report are

available at <<http://www/census.gov/

population/www/documentation/twps0018.html>>. Single copies (paper) of

the NCS and RAETT reports may be

obtained from the Population Division,

U.S. Bureau of the Census, Washington,

D.C. 20233; telephone 301–457–2402.

In addition to these three major tests,

the National Center for Education

Statistics (NCES) and the Office for Civil

Rights in the Department of Education

jointly conducted a survey of 1,000

public schools to determine how

schools collect data on the race and

ethnicity of their students and how the

administrative records containing these

data are maintained to meet statutory

requirements for reporting aggregate

information to the Federal Government.

NCES published the results in a March

1996 report, Racial and Ethnic

Classifications Used by Public Schools

(NCES 96–092). The report is available

electronically at <<http://nces.ed.gov/

pubs/96092.html>>. Single paper copies

may be obtained from NCES, 555 New

Jersey, NW, Washington, D.C. 20208–

5574, or by calling 202–219–1442.

The research agenda also included

studies conducted by the National

Center for Health Statistics, the Office of

the Assistant Secretary for Health, and

the Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention to evaluate the procedures

used and the quality of the information

on race and ethnicity in administrative

records such as that reported on birth

certificates and recorded on death

certificates.

On July 9, 1997, OMB published a

Federal Register Notice (62 FR 36874–

36946) containing the Interagency

Committee’s Report to the Office of

Management and Budget on the Review

of Statistical Policy Directive No. 15.

The Notice made available for comment

the Interagency Committee’s

recommendations for how OMB should

revise Directive No. 15. The report

consists of six chapters. Chapter 1

provides a brief history of Directive No.

15, a summary of the issues considered

by the Interagency Committee, a review

of the research activities, and a

discussion of the criteria used in

conducting the evaluation. Chapter 2

discusses a number of general concerns

that need to be addressed when

considering any changes to the current

standards. Chapters 3 through 5 report

the results of the research as they bear

on the more significant suggestions

OMB received for changes to Directive

No. 15. Chapter 6 gives the Interagency’s

Committee’s recommendations

concerning the various suggested

changes based on a review of public

comments and testimony and the

research results.

C. Summary of Comments Received on

the Interagency Committee’s

Recommendations

In response to the July 9, 1997,

Federal Register Notice, OMB received

approximately 300 letters (many of them

hand written) on a variety of issues,

plus approximately 7000 individually

signed and mailed, preprinted postcards

on the issue of classifying data on

Native Hawaiians, and about 500

individually signed form letters from

members of the Hapa Issues Forum in

support of adopting the

recommendation for multiple race

reporting. Some of the 300 letters

focused on a single recommendation of

particular interest to the writer, while

other letters addressed a number of the

recommendations. The preponderance

of the comments were from individuals.

Each comment was considered in

preparing OMB’s decision.

1. Comments on Recommendations

Concerning Reporting More Than One

Race

The Interagency Committee

recommended that, when selfidentification is used, respondents who

wish to identify their mixed racial

heritage should be able to mark or select

more than one of the racial categories

originally specified in Directive No. 15,

but that there should not be a

‘‘multiracial’’ category. This

recommendation to report multiple

races was favorably received by most of

those commenting on it, including

associations and organizations such as

the American Medical Association, the

National Education Association, the

National Council of La Raza, and the

National Committee on Vital and Health

Statistics, as well as all Federal agencies

that responded. Comments from some

organizations, such as the NAACP Legal

Defense and Educational Fund, the

Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights

Under Law, and the Equal Employment

Advisory Council, were receptive to the

recommendation on multiple race

responses, but expressed reservations

pending development of tabulation

methods to ensure the utility of these

data. The recommendation was also

supported by many of the advocacy

groups that had earlier supported a

‘‘multiracial’’ (box) category, such as the

Association of MultiEthnic Americans

and its affiliates nationwide. Several

individuals wrote in support of

‘‘multiple race’’ reporting, basing their

comments on a September 1997 article,

‘‘What Race Am I?’’ in Mademoiselle

magazine, which urged its readers ‘‘to

express an opinion on whether or not a

‘Multiracial’ category should be

included in all federal recordkeeping,

including the 2000 census.’’ A few

comments specifically favoring multiple

race responses suggested that

respondents should also be asked to

indicate their primary racial affiliation

in order to facilitate the tabulation of

responses. A handful of comments on

multiple race reporting suggested that

individuals with both Hispanic and

non-Hispanic heritages be permitted to

mark or select both categories (see

discussion below).

A few comments, in particular some

from state agencies and legislatures,

opposed any multiple race reporting

because of possible increased costs to

collect the information and

implementation problems. Comments

from the American Indian tribal

governments also were opposed to the

recommendation concerning reporting

more than one race. A number of the

comments that supported multiple race

responses also expressed concern about

the cost and burden of collecting the

information to meet Federal reporting

requirements, the schedule for

implementation, and how the data

would be tabulated to meet the

requirements of legislative redistricting
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 210 / Thursday, October 30, 1997 / Notices 58785

and enforcement of the Voting Rights

Act. A few comments expressed support

for categories called ‘‘human,’’ or

‘‘American’’; several proposed that there

be no collection of data on race.

2. Comments on Recommendation for

Classification of Data on Native

Hawaiians

The Interagency Committee

recommended that data on Native

Hawaiians continue to be classified in

the Asian or Pacific Islander category.

This recommendation was opposed by

the Hawaiian congressional delegation,

the 7,000 individuals who signed and

sent preprinted yellow postcards, the

State of Hawaii departments and

legislature, Hawaiian organizations, and

other individuals who commented on

this recommendation. Instead, the

comments from these individuals

supported reclassifying Native

Hawaiians in the American Indian or

Alaska Native category, which they

view as an ‘‘indigenous peoples’’

category (although this category has not

been considered or portrayed in this

manner in the standards). Native

Hawaiians, as the descendants of the

original inhabitants of what is now the

State of Hawaii, believe that as

indigenous people they should be

classified in the same category as

American Indians and Alaska Natives.

On the other hand, the American Indian

tribal governments have opposed such a

reclassification, primarily because they

view the data obtained from that

category as being essential for

administering Federal programs for

American Indians. Comments from the

Native Hawaiians also noted the Asian

or Pacific Islander category provides

inadequate data for monitoring the

social and economic conditions of

Native Hawaiians and other Pacific

Islander groups. Because the

Interagency Committee had

recommended against adding categories

to the minimum set of categories,

requesting a separate category for Native

Hawaiians was not viewed as an option

by those who commented.

3. Comments on Recommendation

Concerning Classification of Data on

Central and South American Indians

The Interagency Committee

recommended that data for Central and

South American Indians be included in

the American Indian or Alaska Native

category. Several comments from the

American Indian community opposed

this recommendation. Moreover,

comments from some Native Hawaiians

pointed out what they believed to be an

inconsistency in the Interagency

Committee’s recommendation to

include in the American Indian or

Alaska Native category descendants of

Central and South American Indians—

persons who are not original peoples of

the United States—if Native Hawaiians

were not to be included.

4. Comments on Recommendation Not

to Add an Arab or Middle Eastern

Ethnic Category

The Interagency Committee

recommended that an Arab or Middle

Eastern ethnic category should not be

added to the minimum standards for all

reporting of Federal data on race and

ethnicity. Several comments were

received in support of having a separate

category in order to have data viewed as

necessary to monitor discrimination

against this population.

5. Comments on Recommendations for

Terminology

Comments on terminology largely

supported the Interagency Committee’s

recommendations to retain the term

‘‘American Indian,’’ to change

‘‘Hawaiian’’ to ‘‘Native Hawaiian,’’ and

to change ‘‘Black’’ to ‘‘Black or African

American.’’ There were a few requests

to include ‘‘Latino’’ in the category

name for the Hispanic population.

D. OMB’s Decisions

This section of the Notice provides

information on the decisions taken by

OMB on the recommendations that were

proposed by the Interagency Committee.

The Committee’s recommendations

addressed options for reporting by

respondents, formats of questions, and

several aspects of specific categories,

including possible additions, revised

terminology, and changes in definitions.

In reviewing OMB’s decisions on the

recommendations for collecting data on

race and ethnicity, it is useful to

remember that these decisions:

• retain the concept that the

standards provide a minimum set of

categories for data on race and ethnicity;

• permit the collection of more

detailed information on population

groups provided that any additional

categories can be aggregated into the

minimum standard set of categories;

• underscore that self-identification is

the preferred means of obtaining

information about an individual’s race

and ethnicity, except in instances where

observer identification is more practical

(e.g., completing a death certificate);

• do not identify or designate certain

population groups as ‘‘minority

groups’’;

• continue the policy that the

categories are not to be used for

determining the eligibility of population

groups for participation in any Federal

programs;

• do not establish criteria or

qualifications (such as blood quantum

levels) that are to be used in

determining a particular individual’s

racial or ethnic classification; and

• do not tell an individual who he or

she is, or specify how an individual

should classify himself or herself.

In arriving at its decisions, OMB took

into account not only the public

comment on the recommendations

published in the Federal Register on

July 9, 1997, but also the considerable

amount of information provided during

the four years of this review process,

including public comments gathered

from hearings and responses to two

earlier OMB Notices (on June 9, 1994,

and August 28, 1995). The OMB

decisions benefited greatly from the

participation of the public that served as

a constant reminder that there are real

people represented by the data on race

and ethnicity and that this is for many

a deeply personal issue. In addition, the

OMB decisions benefited from the

results of the research and testing on

how individuals identify themselves

that was undertaken as part of this

review process. This research, including

several national tests of alternative

approaches to collecting data on race

and ethnicity, was developed and

conducted by the professional

statisticians and analysts at several

Federal agencies. They are to be

commended for their perseverance,

dedication, and professional

commitment to this challenging project.

OMB also considered in reaching its

decisions the extent to which the

recommendations were consistent with

the set of principles (see Section B of

the Supplementary Information)

developed by the Interagency

Committee to guide the review of this

sensitive and substantively complex

issue. OMB believes that the Interagency

Committee’s recommendations took into

account the principles and achieved a

reasonable balance with respect to

statistical issues, data needs, social

concerns, and the personal dimensions

of racial and ethnic identification. OMB

also finds that the Committee’s

recommendations are consistent with

the principal objective of the review,

which is to enhance the accuracy of the

demographic information collected by

the Federal Government by having

categories for data on race and ethnicity

that will enable the capture of

information about the increasing

diversity of our Nation’s population

while at the same time respecting each

individual’s dignity.
58786 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 210 / Thursday, October 30, 1997 / Notices

As indicated in detail below, OMB

accepts the Interagency Committee’s

recommendations concerning reporting

more than one race, including the

recommendation that there be no

category called ‘‘multiracial,’’ the

formats and sequencing of the questions

on race and Hispanic origin, and most

of the changes to terminology.

OMB does not accept the Interagency

Committee’s recommendations

concerning the classification of data on

the Native Hawaiian population and the

terminology for Hispanics, and it has

instead decided to make the changes

that follow.

Native Hawaiian classification.—

OMB does not accept the

recommendation concerning the

continued classification of Hawaiians in

the Asian or Pacific Islander category.

Instead, OMB has decided to break

apart the Asian or Pacific Islander

category into two categories—one called

‘‘Asian’’ and the other called ‘‘Native

Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander.’’ As

a result, there will be five categories in

the minimum set for data on race.

The ‘‘Native Hawaiian or Other

Pacific Islander’’ category will be

defined as ‘‘A person having origins in

any of the original peoples of Hawaii,

Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands.’’

(The term ‘‘Native Hawaiian’’ does not

include individuals who are native to

the State of Hawaii by virtue of being

born there.) In addition to Native

Hawaiians, Guamanians, and Samoans,

this category would include the

following Pacific Islander groups

reported in the 1990 census: Carolinian,

Fijian, Kosraean, Melanesian,

Micronesian, Northern Mariana

Islander, Palauan, Papua New Guinean,

Ponapean (Pohnpelan), Polynesian,

Solomon Islander, Tahitian, Tarawa

Islander, Tokelauan, Tongan, Trukese

(Chuukese), and Yapese.

The ‘‘Asian’’ category will be defined

as ‘‘A person having origins in any of

the original peoples of the Far East,

Southeast Asia, or the Indian

subcontinent including, for example,

Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea,

Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine

Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam.’’

The Native Hawaiians presented

compelling arguments that the

standards must facilitate the production

of data to describe their social and

economic situation and to monitor

discrimination against Native Hawaiians

in housing, education, employment, and

other areas. Under the current standards

for data on race and ethnicity, Native

Hawaiians comprise about three percent

of the Asian and Pacific Islander

population. By creating separate

categories, the data on the Native

Hawaiians and other Pacific Islander

groups will no longer be overwhelmed

by the aggregate data of the much larger

Asian groups. Native Hawaiians will

comprise about 60 percent of the new

category.

The Asian, Native Hawaiian, and

Pacific Islander population groups are

well defined; moreover, there has been

experience with reporting in separate

categories for the Native Hawaiian and

Pacific Islander population groups. The

1990 census included ‘‘Hawaiian,’’

‘‘Samoan,’’ and ‘‘Guamanian’’ as

response categories to the race question.

In addition, two of the major tests

conducted as part of the current review

(the NCS and the RAETT) used

‘‘Hawaiian’’ and/or ‘‘Native Hawaiian,’’

‘‘Samoan,’’ ‘‘Guamanian,’’ and

‘‘Guamanian or Chamorro’’ as response

options to the race question. These

factors facilitate breaking apart the

current category.

Terminology for Hispanics.—OMB

does not accept the recommendation to

retain the single term ‘‘Hispanic.’’

Instead, OMB has decided that the term

should be ‘‘Hispanic or Latino.’’

Because regional usage of the terms

differs—Hispanic is commonly used in

the eastern portion of the United States,

whereas Latino is commonly used in the

western portion—this change may

contribute to improved response rates.

The OMB decisions on the

Interagency Committee’s specific

recommendations are presented below:

(1) OMB accepts the following

recommendations concerning reporting

more than one race:

• When self-identification is used, a

method for reporting more than one

race should be adopted.

• The method for respondents to

report more than one race should take

the form of multiple responses to a

single question and not a ‘‘multiracial’’

category.

• When a list of races is provided to

respondents, the list should not contain

a ‘‘multiracial’’ category.

• Based on research conducted so far,

two recommended forms for the

instruction accompanying the multiple

response question are ‘‘Mark one or

more * * *’’ and ‘‘Select one or more

* * *’’

• If the criteria for data quality and

confidentiality are met, provision

should be made to report, at a

minimum, the number of individuals

identifying with more than one race.

Data producers are encouraged to

provide greater detail about the

distribution of multiple responses.

• The new standards will be used in

the decennial census, and other data

producers should conform as soon as

possible, but not later than January 1,

2003.

(2) OMB accepts the following

recommendations concerning a

combined race and Hispanic ethnicity

question:

• When self-identification is used, the

two question format should be used,

with the race question allowing the

reporting of more than one race.

• When self-identification is not

feasible or appropriate, a combined

question can be used and should

include a separate Hispanic category coequal with the other categories.

• When the combined question is

used, an attempt should be made, when

appropriate, to record ethnicity and race

or multiple races, but the option to

indicate only one category is acceptable.

(3) OMB accepts the following

recommendations concerning the

retention of both reporting formats:

• The two question format should be

used in all cases involving selfidentification.

• The current combined question

format should be changed and replaced

with a new format which includes a coequal Hispanic category for use, if

necessary, in observer identification.

(4) OMB accepts the following

recommendation concerning the

ordering of the Hispanic origin and race

questions:

• When the two question format is

used, the Hispanic origin question

should precede the race question.

(5) OMB accepts the following

recommendation concerning adding

Cape Verdean as an ethnic category:

• A Cape Verdean ethnic category

should not be added to the minimum

data collection standards.

(6) OMB accepts the following

recommendation concerning the

addition of an Arab or Middle Eastern

ethnic category:

• An Arab or Middle Eastern ethnic

category should not be added to the

minimum data standards.

(7) OMB interprets the

recommendation not to add any other

categories to mean the expansion of the

minimum set to include new population

groups. The OMB decision to break

apart the ‘‘Asian or Pacific Islander’’

category does not create a category for

a new population group.

(8) OMB accepts the following

recommendation concerning changing

the term ‘‘American Indian’’ to ‘‘Native

American’’:

• The term American Indian should

not be changed to Native American.

(9) OMB accepts the following

recommendation concerning changing

the term ‘‘Hawaiian’’ to ‘‘Native

Hawaiian’’:
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 210 / Thursday, October 30, 1997 / Notices 58787

• The term ‘‘Hawaiian’’ should be

changed to ‘‘Native Hawaiian.’’

(10) OMB does not accept the

recommendation concerning the

continued classification of Native

Hawaiians in the Asian or Pacific

Islander category.

• OMB has decided to break apart the

Asian or Pacific Islander category into

two categories—one called ‘‘Asian’’ and

the other called ‘‘Native Hawaiian or

Other Pacific Islander.’’ As a result,

there are five categories in the minimum

set for data on race.

• The ‘‘Native Hawaiian or Other

Pacific Islander’’ category is defined as

‘‘A person having origins in any of the

original peoples of Hawaii, Guam,

Samoa, or other Pacific Islands.’’

• The ‘‘Asian’’ category is defined as

‘‘A person having origins in any of the

original peoples of the Far East,

Southeast Asia, or the Indian

subcontinent including, for example,

Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea,

Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine

Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam.’’

(11) OMB accepts the following

recommendations concerning the use of

‘‘Alaska Native’’ instead of ‘‘Eskimo’’

and ‘‘Aleut’’: ‘‘Alaska Native’’ should

replace the term ‘‘Alaskan Native.’’

• Alaska Native should be used

instead of Eskimo and Aleut.

• The Alaska Native response option

should be accompanied by a request for

tribal affiliation when possible.

(12) OMB accepts the following

recommendations concerning the

classification of Central and South

American Indians:

• Central and South American

Indians should be classified as

American Indian.

• The definition of the ‘‘American

Indian or Alaska Native’’ category

should be modified to include the

original peoples from Central and South

America.

• In addition, OMB has decided to

make the definition for the American

Indian or Alaska Native category more

consistent with the definitions of the

other categories.

(13) OMB accepts the following

recommendations concerning the term

or terms to be used for the name of the

Black category:

• The name of the Black category

should be changed to ‘‘Black or African

American.’’

• The category definition should

remain unchanged.

• Additional terms, such as Haitian

or Negro, can be used if desired.

(14) OMB decided to modify the

recommendations concerning the term

or terms to be used for Hispanic:

• The term used should be ‘‘Hispanic

or Latino.’’

• The definition of the category

should remain unchanged.

• In addition, the term ‘‘Spanish

Origin,’’ can be used if desired.

Accordingly, the Office of

Management and Budget adopts and

issues the revised minimum standards

for Federal data on race and ethnicity

for major population groups in the

United States which are set forth at the

end of this Notice.

Topics for Further Research

There are two areas where OMB

accepts the Interagency Committee’s

recommendations but believes that

further research is needed: (1) multiple

responses to the Hispanic origin

question and (2) an ethnic category for

Arabs/Middle Easterners.

Multiple Responses to the Hispanic

Origin Question.—The Interagency

Committee recommended that

respondents to Federal data collections

should be permitted to report more than

one race. During the most recent public

comment process, a few comments

suggested that the concept of ‘‘marking

more than one box’’ should be extended

to the Hispanic origin question.

Respondents are now asked to indicate

if they are ‘‘of Hispanic origin’’ or ‘‘not

of Hispanic origin.’’ Allowing

individuals to select more than one

response to the ethnicity question

would provide the opportunity to

indicate ethnic heritage that is both

Hispanic and non-Hispanic.

The term ‘‘Hispanic’’ refers to persons

who trace their origin or descent to

Mexico, Puerto Rico, Cuba, Central and

South America, and other Spanish

cultures. While there has been

considerable public concern about the

need to review Directive No. 15 with

respect to classifying individuals of

mixed racial heritage, there has been

little comment on reporting both an

Hispanic and a non-Hispanic origin. On

many Federal forms, Hispanics can also

express a racial identity on a separate

race question. In the decennial census,

individuals who consider themselves

part Hispanic can also indicate

additional heritages in the ancestry

question.

On one hand, it can be argued that

allowing individuals to mark both

categories in the Hispanic origin

question would parallel the instruction

‘‘to mark (or select) one or more’’ racial

categories. Individuals would not have

to choose between their parents’ ethnic

heritages, and movement toward an

increasingly diverse society would be

recognized.

On the other hand, because the matter

of multiple responses to the Hispanic

ethnicity question was not raised in the

early phases of the public comment

process, no explicit provisions were

made for testing this approach in the

research conducted to inform the review

of Directive No. 15. While a

considerable amount of research was

focused on how to improve the response

rate to the Hispanic origin question, it

is unclear whether and to what extent

explicitly permitting multiple responses

to the Hispanic origin question would

affect nonresponse to the race question

or hamper obtaining more detailed data

on Hispanic population groups.

Information on the possible impact of

any changes on the quality of the data

has been an essential element of the

review. While the effects of changes in

the Hispanic origin question are

unknown, they could conceivably be

substantial. Thus, OMB has decided not

to include a provision in the standards

that would explicitly permit

respondents to select both ‘‘Hispanic

origin’’ and ‘‘Not of Hispanic Origin’’

options. OMB believes that this is an

item for future research. In the

meantime, the ancestry question on the

decennial census long form does

provide respondents who consider

themselves part Hispanic to write in

additional heritages.

Research on an Arab/Middle

Easterner category.—During the public

comment process, OMB received a

number of requests to add an ethnic

category for Arabs/Middle Easterners so

that data could be obtained that could

be useful in monitoring discrimination.

The public comment process indicated,

however, that there was no agreement

on a definition for this category. The

combined race, Hispanic origin, and

ancestry question in the RAETT, which

was designed to address requests that

were received from groups for

establishing separate categories, did not

provide a solution.

While OMB accepted the

Interagency’s Committee

recommendation not to create a new

category for this population group, OMB

believes that further research should be

done to determine the best way to

improve data on this population group.

Meanwhile, the write-ins to the ancestry

question on the decennial census long

form will continue to provide

information on the number of

individuals who identify their heritage

as Arab or Middle Easterner.

E. Tabulation Issues

The revised standards retain the

concept of a minimum set of categories

for Federal data on race and ethnicity

and make possible at the same time the

collection of data to reflect the diversity

of our Nation’s population. Since the
58788 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 210 / Thursday, October 30, 1997 / Notices

Interagency Committee’s

recommendation concerning the

reporting of more than one race was

made available for public comment, the

focus of attention has been largely on

how the data would be tabulated.

Because of the concerns expressed about

tabulation methods and our own view of

the importance of this issue, OMB

committed to accelerate the work on

tabulation issues when it testified in

July 1997 on the Interagency

Committee’s recommendations.

A group of statistical and policy

analysts drawn from the Federal

agencies that generate or use these data

has spent the past few months

considering the tabulation issues.

Although this work is still in its early

stages, some preliminary guidance can

be shared at this time. In general, OMB

believes that, consistent with criteria for

confidentiality and data quality, the

tabulation procedures used by the

agencies should result in the production

of as much detailed information on race

and ethnicity as possible.

Guidelines for tabulation ultimately

must meet the needs of at least two

groups within the Federal Government,

with the overriding objective of

providing the most accurate and

informative body of data. The first group

is composed of those government

officials charged with carrying out

constitutional and legislative mandates,

such as redistricting legislatures,

enforcing civil rights laws, and

monitoring progress in antidiscrimination programs. (The

legislative redistricting file produced by

the Bureau of the Census, also known as

the Public Law 94–171 file, is an

example of a file meeting such

legislative needs.) The second group

consists of the staff of statistical

agencies producing and analyzing data

that are used to monitor economic and

social conditions and trends.

Many of the needs of the first group

can be met with an initial tabulation

that provides, consistent with standards

for data quality and confidentiality, the

full detail of racial reporting; that is, the

number of people reporting in each

single race category and the number

reporting each of the possible

combinations of races, which would add

to the total population. Depending on

the judgment of users, the combinations

of multiple responses could be

collapsed. One method would be to

provide separate totals for those

reporting in the most common multiple

race combinations and to collapse the

data for other less frequently reported

combinations. The specifics of the

collapsed distributions must await the

results of particular data collections. A

second method would be to report the

total selecting each particular race,

whether alone or in combination with

other races. These totals would

represent upper bounds on the size of

the populations who identified with

each of the racial categories. In some

cases, this latter method could be used

for comparing data collected under the

old standards with data collected under

the new standards. It is important that

users with the same or closely related

responsibilities adopt the same

tabulation method. Regardless of the

method chosen for collapsing multiple

race responses, the total number

reporting more than one race must be

made available, if confidentiality and

data quality requirements can be met, in

order to ensure that any changes in

response patterns resulting from the

new standards can be monitored over

time.

Meeting the needs of the second

group (those producing and analyzing

statistical data to monitor economic and

social conditions and trends), as well as

some additional needs of the first group,

may require different tabulation

procedures. More research must be

completed before guidelines that will

meet the requirements of these users can

be developed. A group of statistical and

policy experts will review a number of

alternative procedures and provide

recommendations to OMB concerning

these tabulation requirements by Spring

1998. Four of the areas in which further

exploration is needed are outlined

below.

• Equal employment opportunity and

other anti-discrimination programs have

traditionally provided the numbers of

people in the population by selected

characteristics, including racial

categories, for business, academic, and

government organizations to use in

evaluating conformance with program

objectives. Because of the potentially

large number of categories that may

result from application of the new

standards, many with very small

numbers, it is not clear how this need

for data will be best satisfied in the

future.

• The numbers of people in distinct

groups based on decennial census

results are used in developing sample

designs and survey controls for major

demographic surveys. For example, the

National Health Interview Survey uses

census data to increase samples for

certain population groups, adjust for

survey non-response, and provide

weights for estimating health outcomes

at the national level. The impact of

having data for many small population

groups with multiple racial heritages

must be explored.

• Vital statistics data include birth

and death rates for various population

groups. Typically the numerator

(number of births or deaths) is derived

from administrative records, while the

denominator comes from intercensal

population estimates. Birth certificate

data on race are likely to have been self

reported by the mother. Over time, these

data may become comparable to data

collected under the new standards.

Death certificate data, however,

frequently are filled out by an observer,

such as a mortician, physician, or

funeral director. These data, particularly

for the population with multiple racial

heritages, are likely to be quite different

from the information obtained when

respondents report about themselves.

Research to define comparable

categories to be used in both numerators

and denominators is needed to assure

that vital statistics are as accurate and

useful as possible.

• More generally, statistical

indicators are often used to measure

change over time. Procedures that will

permit meaningful comparisons of data

collected under the previous standards

with those that will be collected under

the new standards need to be

developed.

The methodology for tabulating data

on race and ethnicity must be carefully

developed and coordinated among the

statistical agencies and other Federal

data users. Moreover, just as OMB’s

review and decision processes have

benefited during the past four years

from extensive public participation, we

expect to discuss tabulation methods

with data users within and outside the

Federal Government. OMB expects to

issue additional guidance with respect

to tabulating data on race and ethnicity

by Fall 1998.

Sally Katzen,

Administrator, Office of Information and

Regulatory Affairs.

Standards for Maintaining, Collecting,

and Presenting Federal Data on Race

and Ethnicity

This classification provides a

minimum standard for maintaining,

collecting, and presenting data on race

and ethnicity for all Federal reporting

purposes. The categories in this

classification are social-political

constructs and should not be interpreted

as being scientific or anthropological in

nature. They are not to be used as

determinants of eligibility for

participation in any Federal program.

The standards have been developed to

provide a common language for

uniformity and comparability in the

collection and use of data on race and

ethnicity by Federal agencies.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 210 / Thursday, October 30, 1997 / Notices 58789

The standards have five categories for

data on race: American Indian or Alaska

Native, Asian, Black or African

American, Native Hawaiian or Other

Pacific Islander, and White. There are

two categories for data on ethnicity:

‘‘Hispanic or Latino,’’ and ‘‘Not

Hispanic or Latino.’’

1. Categories and Definitions

The minimum categories for data on

race and ethnicity for Federal statistics,

program administrative reporting, and

civil rights compliance reporting are

defined as follows:

American Indian or Alaska Native. A

person having origins in any of the original

peoples of North and South America

(including Central America), and who

maintains tribal affiliation or community

attachment.

Asian. A person having origins in any of

the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast

Asia, or the Indian subcontinent including,

for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan,

Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine

Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam.

Black or African American. A person

having origins in any of the black racial

groups of Africa. Terms such as ‘‘Haitian’’ or

‘‘Negro’’ can be used in addition to ‘‘Black or

African American.’’

Hispanic or Latino. A person of Cuban,

Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, South or

Central American, or other Spanish culture

or origin, regardless of race. The term,

‘‘Spanish origin,’’ can be used in addition to

‘‘Hispanic or Latino.’’

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander.

A person having origins in any of the original

peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other

Pacific Islands.

White. A person having origins in any of

the original peoples of Europe, the Middle

East, or North Africa.

Respondents shall be offered the

option of selecting one or more racial

designations. Recommended forms for

the instruction accompanying the

multiple response question are ‘‘Mark

one or more’’ and ‘‘Select one or more.’’

2. Data Formats

The standards provide two formats

that may be used for data on race and

ethnicity. Self-reporting or selfidentification using two separate

questions is the preferred method for

collecting data on race and ethnicity. In

situations where self-reporting is not

practicable or feasible, the combined

format may be used.

In no case shall the provisions of the

standards be construed to limit the

collection of data to the categories

described above. The collection of

greater detail is encouraged; however,

any collection that uses more detail

shall be organized in such a way that

the additional categories can be

aggregated into these minimum

categories for data on race and ethnicity.

With respect to tabulation, the

procedures used by Federal agencies

shall result in the production of as

much detailed information on race and

ethnicity as possible. However, Federal

agencies shall not present data on

detailed categories if doing so would

compromise data quality or

confidentiality standards.

a. Two-Question Format

To provide flexibility and ensure data

quality, separate questions shall be used

wherever feasible for reporting race and

ethnicity. When race and ethnicity are

collected separately, ethnicity shall be

collected first. If race and ethnicity are

collected separately, the minimum

designations are:

Race:

—American Indian or Alaska Native

—Asian

—Black or African American

—Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific

Islander

—White

Ethnicity:

—Hispanic or Latino

—Not Hispanic or Latino

When data on race and ethnicity are

collected separately, provision shall be

made to report the number of

respondents in each racial category who

are Hispanic or Latino.

When aggregate data are presented,

data producers shall provide the

number of respondents who marked (or

selected) only one category, separately

for each of the five racial categories. In

addition to these numbers, data

producers are strongly encouraged to

provide the detailed distributions,

including all possible combinations, of

multiple responses to the race question.

If data on multiple responses are

collapsed, at a minimum the total

number of respondents reporting ‘‘more

than one race’’ shall be made available.

b. Combined Format

The combined format may be used, if

necessary, for observer-collected data on

race and ethnicity. Both race (including

multiple responses) and ethnicity shall

be collected when appropriate and

feasible, although the selection of one

category in the combined format is

acceptable. If a combined format is

used, there are six minimum categories:

—American Indian or Alaska Native

—Asian

—Black or African American

—Hispanic or Latino

—Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific

Islander

—White

When aggregate data are presented,

data producers shall provide the

number of respondents who marked (or

selected) only one category, separately

for each of the six categories. In addition

to these numbers, data producers are

strongly encouraged to provide the

detailed distributions, including all

possible combinations, of multiple

responses. In cases where data on

multiple responses are collapsed, the

total number of respondents reporting

‘‘Hispanic or Latino and one or more

races’’ and the total number of

respondents reporting ‘‘more than one

race’’ (regardless of ethnicity) shall be

provided.

3. Use of the Standards for Record

Keeping and Reporting

The minimum standard categories

shall be used for reporting as follows:

a. Statistical Reporting

These standards shall be used at a

minimum for all federally sponsored

statistical data collections that include

data on race and/or ethnicity, except

when the collection involves a sample

of such size that the data on the smaller

categories would be unreliable, or when

the collection effort focuses on a

specific racial or ethnic group. Any

other variation will have to be

specifically authorized by the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) through

the information collection clearance

process. In those cases where the data

collection is not subject to the

information collection clearance

process, a direct request for a variance

shall be made to OMB.

b. General Program Administrative and

Grant Reporting

These standards shall be used for all

Federal administrative reporting or

record keeping requirements that

include data on race and ethnicity.

Agencies that cannot follow these

standards must request a variance from

OMB. Variances will be considered if

the agency can demonstrate that it is not

reasonable for the primary reporter to

determine racial or ethnic background

in terms of the specified categories, that

determination of racial or ethnic

background is not critical to the

administration of the program in

question, or that the specific program is

directed to only one or a limited number

of racial or ethnic groups.

c. Civil Rights and Other Compliance

Reporting

These standards shall be used by all

Federal agencies in either the separate

or combined format for civil rights and
58790 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 210 / Thursday, October 30, 1997 / Notices

other compliance reporting from the

public and private sectors and all levels

of government. Any variation requiring

less detailed data or data which cannot

be aggregated into the basic categories

must be specifically approved by OMB

for executive agencies. More detailed

reporting which can be aggregated to the

basic categories may be used at the

agencies’ discretion.

4. Presentation of Data on Race and

Ethnicity

Displays of statistical, administrative,

and compliance data on race and

ethnicity shall use the categories listed

above. The term ‘‘nonwhite’’ is not

acceptable for use in the presentation of

Federal Government data. It shall not be

used in any publication or in the text of

any report.

In cases where the standard categories

are considered inappropriate for

presentation of data on particular

programs or for particular regional

areas, the sponsoring agency may use:

a. The designations ‘‘Black or African

American and Other Races’’ or ‘‘All

Other Races’’ as collective descriptions

of minority races when the most

summary distinction between the

majority and minority races is

appropriate;

b. The designations ‘‘White,’’ ‘‘Black

or African American,’’ and ‘‘All Other

Races’’ when the distinction among the

majority race, the principal minority

race, and other races is appropriate; or

c. The designation of a particular

minority race or races, and the inclusion

of ‘‘Whites’’ with ‘‘All Other Races’’

when such a collective description is

appropriate.

In displaying detailed information

that represents a combination of race

and ethnicity, the description of the

data being displayed shall clearly

indicate that both bases of classification

are being used.

When the primary focus of a report is

on two or more specific identifiable

groups in the population, one or more

of which is racial or ethnic, it is

acceptable to display data for each of

the particular groups separately and to

describe data relating to the remainder

of the population by an appropriate

collective description.

5. Effective Date

The provisions of these standards are

effective immediately for all new and

revised record keeping or reporting

requirements that include racial and/or

ethnic information. All existing record

keeping or reporting requirements shall

be made consistent with these standards

at the time they are submitted for

extension, or not later than January 1,

2003.

[FR Doc. 97–28653 Filed 10–29–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3110–01–P