Our current U. There are no Latinos in Latin America. You read that right. Because Latino and Hispanic are U. Brazilians are Latino but not Hispanic. Spaniards are Hispanic but not Latino.
Important reasons to research this issue are that some Federal agencies have been collecting and reporting data in a combined format for a number of years, and a high percentage of Hispanics selected "other race" in the decennial census race question when race and ethnicity were collected in two separate questions.
Research questions include examining the effects of having a single race and Hispanic ethnicity question on the counts for other races and for Hispanics; examining which subgroups to include as "Hispanic"; determining what percentage of administrative record data bases already use "Hispanic" as a racial category and what percentage of respondents in these data bases are missing information on Hispanic ethnicity; and deciding if Hispanic ethnicity should be assumed to take priority over other racial categories e.
In considering this issue, one should bear in mind that the concepts of race, ethnicity, and ancestry are not clearly or consistently distinguished in the U. For example, some Hispanics regard the "Hispanic" designation as a "racial" category, defining "race" in terms of national origin and cultural characteristics.
Varied and possibly inconsistent definitional criteria, such as geographic origin, cultural origin, cultural identification and affiliation, community recognition, and race itself, are used to describe the terms.
The current Federal categories have created five single aggregations from heterogeneous and highly diverse populations. Since ethnic groups evolve and may change their group name over time, research is needed on the basic concepts to be measured as well as on the popular terminology respondents use to refer to their ethnic group. This research will be helpful in determining those response categories which would provide useful information about our Nation's population.
The research on this issue needs to consider a number of implications of combining the concepts. Consolidation of the categories would also address the issue of including Hispanics as a racial designation rather than as a separate ethnic category. The combined question would most likely solicit multi-ethnic as well as multiracial responses. In the census ancestry question, which allows multiple reporting of ethnicities, about 30 percent of the population reported multiple ancestries.
Such a large proportion of multiple responses would present processing problems for Federal agencies. The consolidation of race and ethnicity would interrupt the continuity of categorization in the race and ethnicity questions in recent decades; however, continuity is already imperfect due to changes in questions and response options.
Terminology for Categories. Research is needed to determine whether, and in what ways, any proposed changes in terminology may affect reporting or data collection. If a change in terms produces a change in coverage, it is useful to know what that change signifies. Any replacement of terminology should consider: 1 that the new terms might have meanings different from the old terms for respondents while, for the users, the old and new categories might appear synonymous; 2 that as current usage changes, terms are likely to have different meanings to people, and the new terms may exclude persons who were comfortable with the old terms but who may not perceive themselves as "fitting" under the new designation; and 3 the extent to which definitions need to accompany new categories.
Questions about preferences for various terms are included on the May CPS supplement. The criticisms and suggestions for changing Directive No. The following principles were drafted in cooperation with Federal agencies serving on the Interagency Committee. The principles listed below are those OMB may use to guide final decisions on standards for the classification of racial and ethnic data. The principles are, for the most part, the same as those published in the June 9, , Federal Register notice.
There are changes to Principles 2, 5, 6, and 8. Principles 12 and 13 are new. The public is invited to comment on these or suggest additional principles. 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.
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.
The basic racial and ethnic categories for Federal statistics and program administrative reporting are defined as follows:. 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:. 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:.
In no case should the provisions of this Directive be construed to limit the collection of data to the categories described above. 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, 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:.
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 0and to describe data relating to the remainder of the population by an appropriate collective description.
Skip to main content Skip to footer site map. This Federal Register notice provides the last opportunity for public comment on priorities for All comments received as a result of the June 9, , notice have been reviewed and considered in preparing this notice. Comments may be sent to OMB using the following Internet address: ombdir15 a1. Background The United States government has long collected statistics on race and ethnicity. OMB heard from a wide array of interested parties including individuals, data users, and data providers from within and outside This Federal Register notice focuses primarily on the six major issues discussed in comments from the public Section B ; the expected future research agenda Section C ; and general principles for making a final decision on standard racial and ethnic categories for Directive No.
Summary of Issues and Suggestions Raised in Public Comment; Research Findings In the June 9, , Federal Register notice, OMB asked for public comment 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.
In an effort to be thorough in summarizing public comments the discussion below of specific data collection and presentation categories Issue The issues and suggestions shown below are those raised in public comment and do not reflect OMB positions or decisions. Briefly, suggestions that have been made include: a White suggestions include adding categories for White ethnic groups; adding a category for persons from the Middle East or of Arab descent; and alternative wording for the category name.
The future research agenda is described in Section C below. The cost considerations described above apply, in varying degrees, to any change and so are not described further in the discussion below of pros and a White In Directive No. The public comment included suggestions for subcategories and related changes in terminology to collect more detailed information on White ethnic groups according to the geographic region of their ancestors. Requests included: Options Suggested in Public Comments: 1 Collect data for White ethnic groups according to the country of ancestral origin for example, German, Scottish, or Irish.
Pros of Option a 1 : Collection: Some persons identify more with their ancestry than with "White" as a racial category. Tabulation and analysis: Indicates the ethnic diversity of the "White" population. Cons of Option a 1 : Collection: --Physical space on forms: if national origin groups are listed, considerably more space would be needed.
Tabulation and analysis: Need rules for tabulating multiple ancestries. More categories add costs for tabulation and analysis. It is more complex to analyze and report on many nationalities as compared with single race categories.
Some suggested also including Pakistanis and Asian Indians in their geographic definition of the term. Data availability on subsets of the Middle Eastern regional category was also requested. Some comments referred to the "Middle Eastern" category as an ethnic identifier; some favored the addition of a "Middle Eastern" category to the list of basic racial and ethnic categories; and others suggested a "Middle Eastern" subcategory be created within the "White" category.
Those who preferred the term, "Arab" said Arabs, like Hispanics, are an ethnic group of mixed race and have a shared language and culture. They would make "Arab" a separate category rather than part of the "White" category; they would leave North Africans, who are not Arabs, as part of the "White" category. Tabulation and analysis: --Would provide treatment comparable to Hispanics and in some data sets, specific Asian nationality groups.
Cons of Option a 2 : Collection: --Requires space on form for an additional category. The term, "Arab" clarifies that Asian Indians and Pakistanis would remain classified with Asians, which some consider preferable for historical continuity; no requests were received from Asian Indians or Pakistanis to be reclassified.
Public testimony indicated inconsistencies in understanding which countries should be included as "Arab.
Geographically, "Middle Easterner" as a category would include persons other than Arabs. Cons of Option a 3 : Collection: "Anglo" generally refers to Whites of European ancestry and excludes Hispanics; this would affect historical continuity.
The term tends to be used regionally and may not be generally understood. Pros of Option b 1 : Collection: Easy to ask in a telephone survey. Some persons identify more with their ancestry than with "Black" as a racial category. Tabulation and analysis: useful for research on health, diversity, needs assessments, trends analysis; does not affect historical continuity. Tabulation and analysis: Data not needed for Federal program evaluation and enforcement.
States are unlikely to collect this detail in administrative records. Count of specific nationality groups could be affected if respondent is confused between reporting ancestry e. Rules would be needed for tabulating multiple ancestries. Pros of Option b 2 : Collection: Easy to ask in a telephone survey if it is the only category added; however, if additional categories are added may be problematic. Cons of Option b 2 : Collection: Extra space on forms; extra time in telephone interview.
Tabulation and analysis: Small population size. Affects historical continuity of data sets. Could affect historical comparability of data. Tabulation and analysis: useful for civil rights monitoring and enforcement in State of Massachusetts. Cons of Option b 4 : Collection: --Visual identification of Cape Verdeans prone to error because of various skin colors. People within the same family say they are identified differently.
Tabulation and analysis: not required for Federal programs. Pros of Option c 1 : Collection: --Easy to ask in a telephone survey.
Tabulation and analysis: --Pacific Islanders are culturally and ethnically distinct from Asians so separate data would be useful for trends analyses, needs assessments, and health research. Historical continuity can be maintained by aggregating "Pacific Islanders" with "Asians. Cons of Option c 1 : Collection: --Adds a category.
Tabulation and analysis: --Pacific Islanders are geographically concentrated and a relatively small population group for a separate category. Pros Collection: Done successfully in the census. Tabulation and analysis: Indicates diverse and significant differences in the characteristics of the Asian population; potentially useful in analyses of health and other trends.
Cons of Option c 2 : Collection: --Requires significant physical space on forms. They do not consider themselves Asians and they insist that they are not immigrants to the United States.
They said that including them in the large "Asian or Pacific Islander" category resulted in data that do not accurately reflect their social and economic conditions. Some representatives of Asian groups supported this suggestion. Tabulation and analysis: --Inclusion of indigenous Pacific Islanders as "Asians or Pacific Islanders" masks their economic status.
For example, Pacific Islanders have relatively high poverty rates. They also have health issues and educational needs different from Asians. Cons of Option c 3 : Collection: --This might be viewed as a political category rather than as one commonly recognized by most individuals in society.
No generally-understood choice for the category name. Tabulation and analysis: --Opposed by most American Indian tribal governments and organizations as they preferred to maintain a category which refers specifically to American Indians.
Not useful for health research. American Indians were particularly concerned about possible effects on the quality of data needed for programs and funding. Tabulation and analysis: --American Indian groups, concerned with an accurate count of their population, preferred this option to including Native Hawaiians in the "American Indian or Alaskan Native" category.
Cons of Option c 4 : Collection: --Adds a category. Tabulation and analysis: very small population group. Tabulation and analysis: --"Federally recognized American Indian and Alaskan Native" meets Federal program needs as it indicates the legal rather than racial status of persons in this category.
The federal trust responsibility to provide various educational, health, and housing services extends only to federally recognized American Indian and Alaskan Native tribes and their members and descendants of members.
More people self-identify as being of American Indian or Alaskan Native race or descent than are enrolled in tribes or can prove descendance, which tribal governments feel deprives their people of benefits rightfully belonging to them under Federal programs. Cons of Option d 1 : Collection: --The term, "Alaskan Native" results in respondent error because some persons born in Alaska but who do not have Alaskan Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut origins are confused by the term.
This possible overcoverage could become more serious if there is an instruction to "check all that apply" to allow multiracial persons to identify their specific racial groups and they respond in terms of ancestry further back than their immediate parents. It is also confusing to some persons who are not American Indians but who use the term to indicate they were born in the United States. The term appears to include Native Hawaiians although this is not entirely clear. The terms, "aboriginal population," "indigenous populations," and "original peoples," are not generally understood and would likely result in misreporting.
Some think the current Directive No. Some suggest a separate category for "other indigenous tribes" to include tribes such as Mapuchi and Mayan. Indian tribes are self-governing political entities. They have a distinct culture and social environment. The category would be too heterogeneous for health research. Pros of Option d 3 : Tabulation and analysis: Meets Federal agency needs for policy development, trends analyses, needs assessments, and program evaluation and enforcement.
A way to distinguish between legal and ancestral identification with the American Indian category. Cons of Option d 3 : Collection: Respondents may not know the difference between Federally-recognized and State-recognized tribes. Tabulation and analysis: --State-recognized tribal affiliation is not required for Federal purposes. Summary of Options for Identification of Multiracial Persons e 1 Multiracial identification not allowed must pick one broad category : aa Individual chooses the one with which he or she most closely identifies bb Mother's category is designated cc Father's category is designated dd Race of minority-designated parent if one is White e 2 Multiracial identification allowed: aa "Multiracial" category -- self-identification SI or observer identification OI bb "Mark all that apply" from list of specific categories -- SI only cc Open-ended question -- SI or OI dd "Other" -- SI only ee Mother's and father's geographic ancestry -- SI only ff Skin-color gradient chart -- SI or OI Options Suggested in Public Comments: Option e 1 : Mark one broad category with which the respondent most closely identifies categories are same or similar to current list Pros to Option e 1 -- mark one broad category: Collection: --Physical space on forms and questionnaires same as now.
Tabulations and analysis: --Easier than options that allow the identification of multiple races. For civil rights monitoring and enforcement, respondents clearly fall in or out of a particular category. Would address concerns of those who believe a "multiracial" category would compromise effective implementation of civil rights laws. The pretest of the Survey of Income and Program Participation showed some Hispanics would report in the multiracial category. If mother's race is used to assign the child's race as in birth records, the classifications may be different than the person's self-identification.
For example, in the census, in California, nearly one-fourth of children with any Asian background were White and Asian. Asian groups contend they are undercounted when forced to identify with one category only. One study of the census indicates that the children of these marriages are more likely to identify themselves as "White" than as "Asian. Analysis: --Does not sufficiently reflect Nation's diversity; no information for multiracial persons about differences in health, economic status, and likelihood of discrimination.
All of the current racial categories are said to be too broad for analysis of health risks and economic trends; for example, a study found that 25 percent of those in the "Asian or Pacific Islander" category smoked, but this ranged from 20 percent of Filipinos to 72 percent of Laotians. Option e 2 aa : "Multiracial" category SI or OI Note: May ask respondent to specify races but not necessarily Pros to Option e 2 aa -- "Multiracial" category: Collection if specific races are not identified: --Physical space on forms: adds one racial category.
Tabulation and analysis: --A few States have passed laws to include this category in their administrative records. Currently they proportion their multiracial counts among the OMB categories for Federal reporting purposes based on percentages of minorities in the general population, although it is not clear what geographic level they are using National, State, local, school districts, etc.
Cons to Option e 2 aa -- "Multiracial" category: Collection: --Requires testing for effect on respondents, response rates, and data quality. Multiracial persons who previously identified principally with one broad category may become unsure of what is being asked.
Multi-ethnic persons of the same race e. It is not clear how multiracial Hispanics would answer. Imprecision of the category leads to possible confusion since, if one goes back far enough, many Americans are of mixed racial heritage for example, many Whites have American Indian heritage and many Blacks have African, White, and American Indian heritage.
Some of these suggestions apply only to Black and White mixtures. Cognitive research shows that most people understand the terms, "multiracial" and "biracial. Some school systems allow use of a "multiracial" category and report it is used by less than 2 percent of students. Tabulations and analysis: --The category is not an alternative in the administrative records of many State and local governments.
A heterogeneous category does not provide sufficient information for health researchers disease risk specific to racial and ethnic groups, monitoring of historical trends and would complicate the design, conduct, and evaluation of health intervention programs. It is unclear how such a heterogeneous category could be used in civil rights monitoring and enforcement and such efforts could be more difficult and costly.
Some expressed concern that if specific races are not known, the category has the potential for increasing racial segregation, discrimination, and the stigmatization of broad categories other than White which may result in less effective enforcement of civil rights laws.
Option e 2 bb : "Mark all that apply" SI only Pros of Option e 2 bb -- mark all that apply: Collection: --If no new categories are added, physical space on forms and questionnaires same as now. Tabulation and analysis: --Detail allows flexibility. Indicates extent and makeup of Nation's diversity.
See related discussion below under "cons. Currently, we do not know what basis multiracial people use for marking their specific identity as a broad category. For example, one study found a difference in the probability of low birth weight between Black mother-White father and White mother-Black father populations; small-for-gestational-age rates and preterm delivery rates also vary by race of the mother. Cons of Option e 2 bb -- mark all that apply: Collection: --Telephone survey: Difficult and may negatively affect data quality.
Tabulations and analysis: --Complex because of the many possible combinations. Historical continuity of counts and characteristics would be problematic. In the and censuses, for example, race was reported as "Black" for two-thirds of children in families with one Black parent and one White parent present.
Allocation rules would be controversial even if the objective is to achieve historical continuity to the extent possible especially for characteristics. It is not clear what the impact would be for persons identifying as multiracial. Respondents likely to be satisfied since they are not restricted by pre-defined categories. One study of an open-ended question showed only 13 percent of Hispanic respondents used the conventional racial designations of "White" or "Black. In the census, about 90 percent of the population reported an ancestry in the open-ended question; only 0.
Tabulations and analysis: --Detail allows maximum flexibility and provides sociologically rich information for analyzing trends. Provides subgroup information useful to health researchers in terms of race-specific disease risk. Cons of Option e 2 cc -- open-ended question: Collection: --Unlikely States would collect data this way for their administrative records and thus, there would likely be a mismatch among data sets also negative effect on analysis when trying to compare results among data sets.
Tabulations and analysis: --Must develop a classification system to categorize hundreds of possible responses and the choices can be controversial.
See discussion above in e 2 bb under cons, "tabulations and analysis. This generates complaints because of separation of church and state, religions cannot be tabulated by government agencies and increases the effective nonresponse rate. Data collection agencies would have to code to broad categories based on probability e. Foreign born and non-English speakers showed greater difficulty with open-ended write-in questions such as the census ancestry question.
Research from the and censuses indicates high levels of inconsistent responses to open-ended questions and strong "example" effects. For instance, from to , the number of Cajuns, which was an example in the ancestry question in but not in , grew from 30, to , French, which was dropped as an example in , declined from 13 million to 10 million. Option e 2 dd : "Other -- specify" SI at end of list of broad categories Pros of Option e 2 dd -- "other": Collection: --Does not take up much physical space on the questionnaire.
Potentially provides subgroup information useful to health researchers in terms of race-specific disease risk. See discussion in e 2 bb under cons, "tabulations and analysis. Option e 2 ee : Mother's and Father's Geographic Ancestry SI only Respondent would be given a numbered geographic list and mark the appropriate numbers to indicate the region of origin of ancestors who migrated to the United States Pros of Option e 2 ee -- geographic ancestry: Collection: --No overlapping categories.
In the census ancestry question, virtually all of the responses were national origin rather than ethnic origin e. Tabulations and analysis: Geographic origin may be a better indicator of health differences than race for many people. Tabulations would be lengthy but not difficult. Cons of Option e 2 ee -- geographic ancestry: Collection -- identification issues: --People who can mark their race may not know the geographic region of origin of their ancestors or parents e.
Collection -- physical space on forms: considerably more than currently. Tabulation and analysis: Does not meet Federal program needs or provide historical continuity for example, a person from Africa might be White or Black.
Pros of Option e 2 ff -- skin color chart: Collection: Less physical space on forms than now. Analysis: --Can compare skin-tone responses with socioeconomic status and differences in effects of discrimination.
Cons of Option e 2 ff -- skin color chart: Collection: --Identification: offensive to many; same person likely to be identified differently across administrative records and surveys which reduces analytic usefulness; individuals could change skin colors over a lifetime as a result of exposure to sunlight or disease. Tabulation and analysis: --No historical continuity; does not meet program needs. Culture, geography, and history, for example, are also considerations for many.
For example, Black Africans and very dark Asian Indians may have similar skin tones but do not consider themselves in the same race category. Requests included: Options Suggested in Public Comment: 1 Collect data for population subgroups of the "Hispanic origin" category. Pros of Option f 1 : Tabulation and analysis: The category, "Hispanic origin," represents a heterogeneous population.
Information on subgroups describes the significant social, economic, and health differences among the Puerto Rican, Mexican-American, Cuban, and other Hispanic populations. Cons of Option f 1 : Collection: Visual identification of nationality groups is difficult. Pros of Option f 2 : Collection: Some respondents prefer an alternative. Cons of Option f 2 : Collection: The term, "Latino," includes a diverse group of people from many national origins, races, and backgrounds.
Cognitive research by the Census Bureau indicates some understand "Latino" as meaning from Latin America, "Hispanic" as meaning someone who speaks Spanish, and "of Spanish origin" as someone from Spain or with a distant relative who was Hispanic. Future Research Agenda Agency staff and funding for research and testing associated with possible changes are very limited. Research Agenda The Interagency Committee's Research Working Group, which is co-chaired by the Bureau of the Census and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, reviewed all the criticisms and suggestions for changing the current categories that appeared in OMB's June 9, , Federal Register notice, including requests received during the public comment period to expand the standards by establishing additional categories for specific population groups.
Panel 1: Separate race and Hispanic origin questions; no multiracial category Panel 2: Separate race and Hispanic origin questions; with a multiracial category and races specified Panel 3: A combined race and Hispanic origin question; no multiracial category Panel 4: A combined race and Hispanic origin question; with a multiracial category and races specified In addition, all households in the May Supplement will be asked questions about their ancestry, preferences concerning specific terms, and use of languages other than English in the home.
Research on the classification of "Native Hawaiian" is also planned. The extent of research is dependent upon available resources. The NCT is designed to test selected population and housing questions for the census. In a Pew Research study conducted in , two-thirds of Hispanic adults attributed their racial background to their Hispanic background.
Within that statistic, 56 percent of Hispanic adults considered their Hispanic background as part of both their racial and ethnic background. Hispanic identity could not be more complicated if it tried. Latino or Latina identity means someone has ties to one of the 33 countries that make up Latin America, including those in the Caribbean and Central, North and South America.
0コメント