[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 110 (Thursday, June 9, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-14079]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: June 9, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
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: Advance Notice of Proposed Review and Possible Revision of
OMB's Statistical Policy Directive No. 15, Race and Ethnic Standards
for Federal Statistics and Administrative Reporting; and Announcement
of Public Hearings on Directive No. 15.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: During the past few years, OMB's Statistical Policy Directive
No. 15, Race and Ethnic Standards for Federal Statistics and
Administrative Reporting, has come under increasing criticism. These
standards are used governmentwide for recordkeeping, collection, and
presentation of data on race and ethnicity in Federal statistical
activities and program administrative reporting. Since the standards
were first issued 17 years ago, citizens who report information about
themselves and users of the information collected by Federal agencies
have indicated that the categories set forth in Directive No. 15 are
becoming less useful in reflecting the diversity of our Nation's
population. Accordingly, OMB currently is undertaking a review of the
racial and ethnic categories in the Directive. (See Appendix for the
text of Directive No. 15.)
ISSUES FOR COMMENT: OMB is interested in receiving comments from the
public on (1) the adequacy of the current categories, (2) principles
that should govern any proposed revisions to the standards, and (3)
specific suggestions for changes that have been offered by various
individuals and organizations.
ADDRESS: Written comments on these issues may be addressed to Katherine
K. Wallman, Chief, Statistical Policy, Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street,
NW., Washington, DC. 20503.
DATE: To ensure consideration, written comments must be provided to OMB
on or before September 1, 1994.
PUBLIC HEARINGS: To provide additional opportunities to hear views from
the public on Directive No. 15, OMB has scheduled a series of hearings,
as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date/Time Location
------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 7, 1994 Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. Federal Building Auditorium
10:00 a.m. 10 Causeway Street
Boston, Massachusetts
(Local arrangements contact: Harold Wood, Bureau of the
Census Regional Office, (617) 424-0500)
July 11, 1994 State Capitol Building
10:00 a.m. Old Supreme Court Chambers
200 East Colfax Street
Denver, Colorado
(Local arrangements contact: Jerry O'Donnell, Bureau of
the Census Regional Office, (303) 969-7750)
July 14, 1994 Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco
10:00 a.m. Interpretive Center
101 Market Street
San Francisco, California
(Local arrangements contact: Vicki Cooper-Murphy, Bureau
of Labor Statistics Regional Office, (415) 744-7166)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you wish to present an oral statement at any of these hearings,
please contact the Statistical Policy Office (at the address below) by
telephone or fax (do no use electronic mail) by July 1, 1994, and
provide the following information: your name, address, telephone and
fax numbers, and the name of the organization which you represent.
After July 1, please call the appropriate local arrangements contact
identified above to be placed on the hearing schedule. Persons
testifying are asked to bring three (3) copies of their statement to
the hearing. Written statements will also be accepted at the hearings.
Depending on the number of persons who request to present their views,
the hearings in each location may be extended to the following day.
ADDRESS: Requests to be placed on the hearing schedule should be
directed to the Statistical Policy Office, Office of Management and
Budget, 725 17th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20503. Telephone: (202)
395-3093. Fax number: (202) 395-7245.
ELECTRONIC AVAILABILITY AND COMMENTS: This document is available on the
Internet via anonymous File Transfer Protocol (ftp) from ftp.census.gov
as
/pub/docs/ombdir15.txt in ASCII format (do not use any capital letters
in the file name). For those who do not have ftp capability, the
document can also be obtained through the gopher (gopher
gopher.census.gov) and HTTP servers (accessible by mosaic, cello, lynx,
etc.), or by sending an electronic mail message to [email protected]
with the following lines in the message area:
open
get/pub/docs/ombdir15.txt
quit
Comments may be sent via electronic mail to an OMB x.400 mail
address, which is /s=ombdir15/c=us/admd=telemail/prmd=gov+eop. The
Internet address is [email protected]. Comments sent to this
address will be included as part of the official record. Do not use
this electronic mail address to have your name included in the hearing
schedule.
For assistance using electronic mail, ftp, gopher, or HTTP, please
contact your system administrator. You may also want to send an
electronic message to [email protected] with a subject of HELP and
nothing in the message area. You will receive by return electronic mail
``FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions)'' and more information on how to
access the services on census.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Suzann Evinger, Statistical Policy
Office, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, Telephone: (202) 395-3093.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Development of Directive No. 15.--Developmental work on the
categories in OMB's Directive No. 15 originated in the activities of
the Federal Interagency Committee on Education (FICE), which was
created by Executive Order in 1964. More than 30 Federal agencies were
members or regular participants in FICE's work to improve coordination
of educational activities at the Federal level. The FICE Subcommittee
on Minority Education completed a report in April 1973 on higher
education for Chicanos, Puerto Ricans, and American Indians and sent it
to then Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) Caspar
Weinberger for comment. He showed particular interest in the portion of
the report that deplored the lack of useful data on racial and ethnic
groups. Further, he encouraged the implementation of the report's
second recommendation which called for the coordinated development of
common definitions for racial and ethnic groups, and the Federal
collection of racial and ethnic enrollment and other educational data
on a compatible and nonduplicative basis.
In June 1974, FICE created an Ad Hoc Committee on Racial and Ethnic
Definitions whose 25 members came from Federal agencies with major
responsibilities for the collection or use of racial and ethnic data.
This Ad Hoc Committee was charged with developing terms and definitions
for the collection of a broad range of racial and ethnic data by
Federal agencies on a compatible and nonduplicative basis. It took on
the task of determining and describing the major groups to be
identified by Federal agencies when collecting and reporting racial and
ethnic data. While the Ad Hoc Committee recognized that there is
frequently a relationship between language and ethnicity, it made no
attempt to develop a means of identifying persons on the basis of their
primary language. The Ad Hoc Committee wanted to ensure that whatever
categories the various agencies used could be aggregated,
disaggregated, or otherwise combined so that the data developed by one
agency could be used in conjunction with the data developed by another
agency. In addition, the Ad Hoc Committee thought that the basic
categories could be subdivided into more detailed ethnic subgroups to
meet users' needs, but that to maintain comparability, data from one
major category should never be combined with data from any other major
category.
In the spring of 1975, FICE completed its work on a draft set of
categories, and an agreement was reached among OMB, the General
Accounting Office (GAO), the HEW's Office for Civil Rights, and the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to adopt these
categories for a trial period of at least one year. This trial was
undertaken to test the new categories and definitions and to determine
what problems, if any, would be encountered in their implementation.
At the end of the test period, OMB and GAO convened an Ad Hoc
Committee on Racial/Ethnic Categories to review the experience of the
agencies that had implemented the standard categories and definitions
and to discuss any potential problems that might be encountered in
extending the use of the categories to all Federal agencies. The
Committee met in August 1976 and included representatives of OMB; GAO;
the Departments of Justice, Labor, HEW, and Housing and Urban
Development; the Bureau of the Census; and the EEOC. Based upon the
discussion in that meeting, OMB prepared minor revisions to the FICE
definitions and circulated the proposed final draft for agency comment.
These revised categories and definitions became effective in September
1976 for all compliance recordkeeping and reporting required by the
Federal agencies represented on the Ad Hoc Committee.
Based upon this interagency agreement, OMB drafted for agency
comment a proposed revision of the race and ethnic categories contained
in its circular on standards and guidelines for Federal statistics.
Some agencies published the draft revision for public comment.
Following the receipt of comments and incorporation of suggested
modifications, OMB on May 12, 1977, promulgated for use by all Federal
agencies the racial and ethnic categories now contained in Directive
No. 15, the text of which appears in the Appendix. This meant that for
the first time, standard categories and definitions would be used at
the Federal level in reporting and presentation of data on racial and
ethnic groups. While OMB requires the agencies to use these racial and
ethnic categories, it should be emphasized that the Directive permits
collection of additional detail if the more detailed categories can be
aggregated into the basic racial and ethnic classifications set forth
in the Directive.
As demonstrated by this brief history, the present categories were
developed through a deliberate cooperative process; participation of
the agencies that use the categories was an essential element in that
process.
1988 Proposed Revision.--The standards promulgated in 1977 have not
been revised since that time. OMB did, however, publish in the January
20, 1988, Federal Register a draft Statistical Policy Circular
soliciting public comment on a comprehensive revision of existing
Statistical Policy Directives. Among the proposed changes was a
revision of Directive No. 15 that would have added an ``Other'' racial
category and required classification by self-identification. While this
proposal was supported by many multi-racial and multi-ethnic groups and
some educational institutions, it drew strong opposition from Federal
agencies such as the Civil Rights Division of the Department of
Justice, the Department of Health and Human Services, the EEOC, and the
Office of Personnel Management, and from large corporations.
Respondents who opposed the change asserted that the present system
provided adequate data, that any changes would disrupt historical
continuity, and that the proposed change would be expensive and
potentially divisive. Some members of minority communities interpreted
the proposal as an attempt to provoke internal dissension within their
communities and to reduce the official counts of minority populations.
Because it was evident from all of these comments that this proposal
would not be widely accepted, no changes were made at the time to
Directive No. 15.
1993 Hearings.--During 1993, Congressman Thomas C. Sawyer, Chairman
of the House Subcommittee on Census, Statistics, and Postal Personnel,
held a series of four hearings (April 14, June 30, July 29, and
November 3) on the measurement of race and ethnicity in the decennial
census. OMB testified at the hearing on July 29. Information on these
hearings may be obtained by contacting the Subcommittee at (202) 226-
7523.
Workshop.--As a first step in undertaking its review of the racial
and ethnic categories, OMB asked the Committee on National Statistics
(CNSTAT) of the National Academy of Sciences to convene a workshop to
provide an informed discussion of the issues surrounding a review of
the categories. Convened on February 17-18, 1994, the workshop included
representatives of Federal agencies, academia, social science research,
interest groups, private industry, and local school districts. A report
on the workshop will be forthcoming from CNSTAT.
Interagency Committee. OMB has established an Interagency Committee
for the Review of the Racial and Ethnic Standards, whose members
represent the many and diverse Federal needs for racial and ethnic
data, including statutory requirements for such data. The Committee
will be an integral part of this review process, by assisting OMB in
the evaluation and assessment of proposed changes, for example, on the
quality of resulting data and costs of implementation.
Suggested Changes and Criticisms
Your comments are invited on any aspect of Directive No. 15; if you
are satisfied with the existing racial and ethnic categories, it would
be useful for OMB to know that also. You may also wish to comment on
the following suggestions and criticisms about the Directive that OMB
received during the recent hearings and the CNSTAT workshop:
--adding a ``multi-racial'' category to the list of racial
designations so that respondents would not be forced to deny part of
their heritage by having to choose a single category;
--adding an ``other'' category for individuals of multi-racial
backgrounds and those who want the option of specifically stating a
unique identification;
--providing an open-ended question to solicit information on race
and ethnicity, or combining concepts of race, ethnicity, and ancestry;
--changing the name of the ``Black'' category to ``African
American'';
--changing the name of the ``American Indian or Alaskan Native''
category to ``Native American'';
--including Native Hawaiians as a separate category or as part of a
``Native American'' category (which would also include American
Indians, Aleuts, and Eskimos), rather than as part of the ``Asian or
Pacific Islander'' category;
--including Hispanic as a racial designation, rather than as a
separate ethnic category; and
--adding a ``Middle Easterner'' category to the list of ethnic
designations.
The critiques of the current standard and the proposals for change
include as well a number of other concerns. For example:
--The categories and their definitions have been criticized for
failing to be comprehensive and scientific. As cases in point, using
the present definitions there are no proper categories for the original
Indian population of South America or for Australian aborigines.
--Some have suggested that the geographic orientation of the
definitions for the various racial and ethnic categories is not
sufficiently definitive. They believe that there is no readily apparent
organizing principle for making such distinctions and that definitions
for the categories should be eliminated. Others disagree, stating that
the current definitions of the racial and ethnic categories have served
their uses well and thus should be maintained.
--The identification of an individual's racial and ethnic
``category'' often is a subjective determination, rather than one that
is objective and factual, no matter what the process for arriving at
the categories. Consequently, it has been suggested that it may no
longer be appropriate to consider the categories as a ``statistical
standard.''
--The issue of self-identification of race and ethnicity versus
third party identification also has been raised. This issue will merit
increased attention if multi-racial and/or multi-ethnic categories or
identification procedures are adopted.
--Some have proposed eliminating the five-category combined racial
and ethnic classification in favor of separate, mutually exclusive,
racial and ethnic categories. The combined format now permitted by the
Directive is particularly suitable for observer identification, and is
used by the Department of Health and Human Service's Office for Civil
Rights, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and the Office of
Federal Contract Compliance because it facilitates aggregating data on
the minority groups with which these agencies are concerned. The use of
the Hispanic category in the combined format does not, however, provide
information on the race of those selecting it. As a result, the
combined format makes it impossible to distribute persons of Hispanic
ethnicity by race and, therefore, reduces the utility of the four
racial categories by excluding from them persons who would otherwise be
included. Thus, the two formats currently permitted by Directive No. 15
for collecting racial and ethnic data do not provide comparable data.
--The perceived importance of historical comparability of racial
and ethnic data has been questioned by some. Since the names of the
categories have changed in the decennial censuses, and agencies use
different methods even internally to collect the data, there is less
continuity in racial and ethnic data than many believed. As a result,
it has been suggested that this review of Directive No. 15 should have
a more forward-looking approach, rather than being bound by past
history.
--Some have suggested that consideration be given to collecting
racial and ethnic data using ``categories for response'' that can be
decoupled from ``categories for reporting data.'' For example, the
response categories could permit responses reflecting multiple origins;
later these data would be aggregated into reporting categories
following a set of standards and guidelines to make the reported data
more useful for various program, administrative, and statistical
purposes.
--There have also been suggestions that the classification of
persons by race and ethnicity be eliminated entirely. Proponents of
this view assert that the categories merely serve to perpetuate an
over-emphasis on race in America and contribute to the fragmentation of
our society.
Federal Uses of Racial and Ethnic Data
Given the broad range of suggestions and criticisms, OMB believes
that a comprehensive review of all the categories is warranted. It is
important to stress comprehensive, because these categories are not
used simply for statistical purposes. Thus, while the use of the racial
and ethnic categories in the collection of decennial census data is
most widely known--and has most often been cited in the 1993 hearings
and in the correspondence OMB receives--the categories are also used by
Federal agencies for civil rights enforcement and for program
administrative reporting. Some important examples of the Federal
Government's uses of racial and ethnic data are:
enforcing the requirements of the Voting Rights Act;
reviewing State redistricting plans;
collecting and presenting population and population
characteristics data, labor force data, education data, and vital and
health statistics;
establishing and evaluating Federal affirmative action
plans and evaluating affirmative action and discrimination in
employment in the private sector;
monitoring the access of minorities to home mortgage loans
under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act;
enforcing the Equal Credit Opportunity Act;
monitoring and enforcing desegregation plans in the public
schools;
assisting minority businesses under the minority business
development programs; and
monitoring and enforcing the Fair Housing Act.
These examples of statutory requirements are mentioned to foster
public awareness and understanding of the Federal Government's many
different needs for racial and ethnic data. Appreciation of the
intended uses of the data helps determine what categories make sense.
Further, these uses need to be taken into account when changes to the
categories are suggested. In any event, OMB believes that it is
essential for the Federal agencies to study the possible effects of any
proposed changes to the categories on the quality and utility of the
resulting data for a multiplicity of purposes.
General Principles for the Review of the Racial and Ethnic
Categories
The critiques and suggestions for changing Directive No. 15 have
underscored the importance of having a set of general principles to
govern the current review process. The following principles were
drafted in cooperation with Federal agencies serving on the Interagency
Committee. Comments on these principles are welcomed.
1. The racial and ethnic categories set forth in the standard
should not be interpreted as being scientific or anthropological in
nature.
2. Respect for individual dignity should guide the processes and
methods for collecting data on race and ethnicity; respondent self-
identification should be facilitated to the greatest extent possible.
3. To the extent practicable, the concepts and terminology should
reflect clear and generally understood definitions that can achieve
broad public acceptance.
4. The racial and ethnic categories should be comprehensive in
coverage and produce compatible, nonduplicated, exchangeable data
across Federal agencies.
5. Foremost consideration should be given to data aggregations by
race and ethnicity that are useful for statistical analysis, program
administration and assessment, and enforcement of existing laws and
judicial decisions, bearing in mind that the standards are not intended
to be used to establish eligibility for participation in any Federal
program.
6. While Federal data needs for racial and ethnic data are of
primary importance, 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, as determined by statistical concerns and data
needs.
8. A revised set of categories should be operationally feasible in
terms of burden placed upon respondents and the cost to agencies and
respondents to implement the revisions.
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.
The agencies recognize that these principles may in some cases
represent competing goals for the standard. Through the review process,
it will be necessary to balance statistical issues, needs for data, and
social concerns. The application of these principles to guide the
review and possible revision of the standard ultimately should result
in consistent, publicly accepted data on race and ethnicity that will
meet the needs of the government and the public while recognizing the
diversity of the population and respecting the individual's dignity.
Sally Katzen,
Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
APPENDIX
DIRECTIVE NO. 15
Race and Ethnic Standards for Federal Statistics and Administrative
Reporting (as adopted on May 12, 1977)
This Directive provides standard classifications for recordkeeping,
collection, and presentation of data on race and ethnicity in Federal
program administrative reporting and statistical activities. These
classifications should not be interpreted as being scientific or
anthropological in nature, nor should they be viewed as determinants of
eligibility for participation in any Federal program. They have been
developed in response to needs expressed by both the executive branch
and the Congress to provide for the collection and use of compatible,
nonduplicated, exchangeable racial and ethnic data by Federal agencies.
1. Definitions
The basic racial and ethnic categories for Federal statistics and
program administrative reporting are defined as follows:
a. American Indian or Alaskan Native. A person having origins in
any of the original peoples of North America, and who maintains
cultural identification through tribal affiliations or community
recognition.
b. Asian or Pacific Islander. A person having origins in any of the
original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, the Indian
subcontinent, or the Pacific Islands. This area includes, for example,
China, India, Japan, Korea, the Philippine Islands, and Samoa.
c. Black. A person having origins in any of the black racial groups
of Africa.
d. Hispanic. A person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or
South American or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race.
e. White. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of
Europe, North Africa, or the Middle East.
2. Utilization for Recordkeeping and Reporting
To provide flexibility, it is preferable to collect data on race
and ethnicity separately. If separate race and ethnic categories are
used, the minimum designations are:
a. Race:
--American Indian or Alaskan Native
--Asian or Pacific Islander
--Black
--White
b. Ethnicity:
--Hispanic origin
--Not of Hispanic origin
When race and ethnicity are collected separately, the number of
White and Black persons who are Hispanic must be identifiable, and
capable of being reported in that category.
If a combined format is used to collect racial and ethnic data, the
minimum acceptable categories are:
--American Indian or Alaskan Native
--Asian or Pacific Islander
--Black, not of Hispanic origin
--Hispanic
--White, not of Hispanic origin.
The category which most closely reflects the individual's
recognition in his community should be used for purposes of reporting
on persons who are of mixed racial and/or ethnic origins.
In no case should the provisions of this Directive be construed to
limit the collection of data to the categories described above.
However, any reporting required which uses more detail shall be
organized in such a way that the additional categories can be
aggregated into these basic racial/ethnic categories.
The minimum standard collection categories shall be utilized for
reporting as follows:
a. Civil rights compliance reporting. The categories specified
above will be used by all agencies in either the separate or combined
format for civil rights compliance reporting and equal employment
reporting for both the public and private sectors and for all levels of
government. Any variation requiring less detailed data or data which
cannot be aggregated into the basic categories will have to be
specifically approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
executive agencies. More detailed reporting which can be aggregated to
the basic categories may be used at the agencies' discretion.
b. General program administrative and grant reporting. Whenever an
agency subject to this Directive issues new or revised administrative
reporting or recordkeeping requirements which include racial or ethnic
data, the agency will use the race/ethnic categories described above. A
variance can be specifically requested from OMB, but such a variance
will be granted only if the agency can demonstrate that it is not
reasonable for the primary reporter to determine the racial or ethnic
background in terms of the specified categories, and that such
determination is not critical to the administration of the program in
question, or if the specific program is directed to only one or a
limited number of race/ethnic groups, e.g., Indian tribal activities.
c. Statistical reporting. The categories described in this
Directive will be used at a minimum for federally sponsored statistical
data collection where race and/or ethnicity is required, except when:
the collection involves a sample of such size that the data on the
smaller categories would be unreliable, or when the collection effort
focuses on a specific racial or ethnic group. A repetitive survey shall
be deemed to have an adequate sample size if the racial and ethnic data
can be reliably aggregated on a biennial basis. Any other variation
will have to be specifically authorized by OMB through the reports
clearance process. In those cases where the data collection is not
subject to the reports clearance process, a direct request for a
variance should be made to OMB.
3. Effective Date
The provisions of this Directive are effective immediately for all
new and revised recordkeeping or reporting requirements containing
racial and/or ethnic information. All existing recordkeeping or
reporting requirements shall be made consistent with this Directive at
the time they are submitted for extension, or not later than January 1,
1980.
4. Presentation of Race/Ethnic Data
Displays of racial and ethnic compliance and statistical data will
use the category designations listed above. The designation
``nonwhite'' is not acceptable for use in the presentation of Federal
Government data. It is not to be used in any publication of compliance
or statistical data or in the text of any compliance or statistical
report.
In cases where the above designations are considered inappropriate
for presentation of statistical data on particular programs or for
particular regional areas, the sponsoring agency may use:
(1) The designations ``Black and Other Races'' or ``All Other
Races,'' as collective descriptions of minority races when the most
summary distinction between the majority and minority races is
appropriate;
(2) The designations ``White,'' ``Black,'' and ``All Other Races''
when the distinction among the majority race, the principal minority
race and other races is appropriate; or
(3) The designation of a particular minority race or races, and the
inclusion of ``Whites'' with ``All Other Races,'' if such a collective
description is appropriate.
In displaying detailed information which represents a combination
of race and ethnicity, the description of the data being displayed must
clearly indicate that both bases of classification are being used.
When the primary focus of a statistical report is on two or more
specific identifiable groups in the population, one or more of which is
racial or ethnic, it is acceptable to display data for each of the
particular groups separately and to describe data relating to the
remainder of the population by an appropriate collective description.
[FR Doc. 94-14079 Filed 6-8-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3110-01-F