Notice2023-01635
Initial Proposals For Updating OMB's Race and Ethnicity Statistical Standards
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
January 27, 2023
Issuing agencies
Management and Budget Office
Abstract
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) requests comments on the initial proposals from the Federal Interagency Technical Working Group on Race and Ethnicity Standards (Working Group) for revising OMB's 1997 Statistical Policy Directive No. 15: Standards for Maintaining, Collecting, and Presenting Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity (SPD 15).\1\ Responses to this Notice will be shared with the Working Group and will help the Working Group develop their final recommendations to OMB and will also help OMB determine how to revise SPD 15 to improve the quality and usefulness of Federal race and ethnicity data. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 18 (Friday, January 27, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 18 (Friday, January 27, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5375-5384]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-01635]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
Initial Proposals For Updating OMB's Race and Ethnicity
Statistical Standards
AGENCY: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President.
ACTION: Notice and request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) requests comments on
the initial proposals from the Federal Interagency Technical Working
Group on Race and Ethnicity Standards (Working Group) for revising
OMB's 1997 Statistical Policy Directive No. 15: Standards for
Maintaining, Collecting, and Presenting Federal Data on Race and
Ethnicity (SPD 15).\1\ Responses to this Notice will be shared with the
Working Group and will help the Working Group develop their final
recommendations to OMB and will also help OMB determine how to revise
SPD 15 to improve the quality and usefulness of Federal race and
ethnicity data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 62 FR 58723 (Oct. 20, 1997), available at <a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1997-10-30/pdf/97-28653.pdf">https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1997-10-30/pdf/97-28653.pdf</a>.
DATES: Comments must be provided in writing to OMB no later than 75
days from the publication of this notice to ensure consideration during
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
the final decision-making process.
ADDRESSES: Please submit comments via <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</a>, a
Federal website that allows the public to find, review, and submit
comments on documents that agencies have published in the Federal
Register and that are open for comment. Simply type ``OMB-2023-0001''
in the Comment or Submission search box, click Go, and
[[Page 5376]]
follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Comments submitted in response to this notice are subject to the
Freedom of Information Act and may be made available to the public. For
this reason, please do not include any information of a confidential
nature, such as sensitive personal information or proprietary
information. If you submit your email address, it will be automatically
captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the
public docket. Please note that responses to this public comment
request containing any routine notice about the confidentiality of the
communication will be treated as public comments that may be made
available to the public notwithstanding the inclusion of the routine
notice.
Electronic Availability: This document is available on the internet
at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</a>.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob Sivinski, Chair, Interagency
Technical Working Group on Race and Ethnicity Standards, 1650 17th St.
NW, Washington, DC 20500, email address:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d784a3b6a3bea4a3beb4b6bb8893bea5b2b4a3bea1b2a497b8bab5f9b2b8a7f9b0b8a1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1a496e7b6e73696e73797b76455e73687f796e736c7f695a757778347f756a347d756c">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
Functions of the Chief Statistician of the United States: To
operate efficiently and effectively, the Nation relies on the flow of
objective, credible statistics to support the decisions of individuals,
households, governments, businesses, and other organizations.
As part of its role as coordinator of the Federal statistical
system under the Paperwork Reduction Act, OMB, through the Chief
Statistician of the United States, must ensure the efficiency and
effectiveness of the system as well as the integrity, objectivity,
impartiality, utility, and confidentiality of information collected for
statistical purposes. \2\ This statute also charges OMB with developing
and overseeing the implementation of Government-wide principles,
policies, standards, and guidelines concerning the development,
presentation, and dissemination of statistical information.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 44 U.S.C. 3504(e)(1).
\3\ 44 U.S.C. 3504(e)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OMB maintains a set of statistical policy directives to implement
these requirements. OMB's established process for updating existing
statistical policy directives includes technical evaluation of the
current standard by an interagency working group composed of career
Federal subject matter experts; additional technical research, testing,
and analysis to close identified gaps; and solicitation and
consideration of public comment on ways to improve the standard. The
final decisions regarding any changes to the standards are made by OMB.
This Federal Register Notice is part of OMB's current review \4\ of
SPD 15. It requests comments on the initial proposals from the Federal
Interagency Technical Working Group on Race and Ethnicity Standards
(Working Group). Responses to this Notice will help the Working Group
develop their final recommendations to OMB and will also help OMB
determine how to revise SPD 15 to improve the quality and usefulness of
Federal race and ethnicity data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Reviewing and Revising Standards for Maintaining,
Collecting, and Presenting Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity, June
15, 2022, <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/briefing-room/2022/06/15/reviewing-and-revising-standards-for-maintaining-collecting-and-presenting-federal-data-on-race-and-ethnicity/">https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/briefing-room/2022/06/15/reviewing-and-revising-standards-for-maintaining-collecting-and-presenting-federal-data-on-race-and-ethnicity/</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
History of SPD 15: OMB initially developed SPD 15 in 1977, in
cooperation with other Federal agencies, to provide consistent data on
race and ethnicity (when aggregated to the minimum reporting
categories) throughout the Federal Government, including the decennial
census, household surveys, and Federal administrative forms (e.g.,
benefit application forms). Initial development of this data standard
stemmed in large part from Federal responsibilities to enforce civil
rights laws. Since 1977, SPD 15 has been revised one time, resulting in
the 1997 Standards for Maintaining, Collecting, and Presenting Federal
Data on Race and Ethnicity.
The Goals of SPD 15: The goals of SPD 15 are to ensure the
comparability of race and ethnicity across Federal datasets and to
maximize the quality of that data by ensuring that the format,
language, and procedures for collecting the data are consistent and
based on rigorous evidence. To achieve these goals, SPD 15 provides a
minimum set of categories that all Federal agencies must use if they
intend to collect information on race and ethnicity, regardless of the
collection mechanism (e.g., Federal surveys versus program benefit
applications).
The 1997 Standards (Current Standards): For data collected directly
from respondents, the current standards require two separate race and
ethnicity questions, with the ethnicity question collected first before
the race question.
<bullet> For the question ``Are you Hispanic or Latino?'', the
minimum reporting categories are:
1. Hispanic or Latino: A person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican,
Cuban \5\, 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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ SPD 15 currently lists ``Cuban'' two times.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Not Hispanic or Latino
Note that Hispanic or Latino respondents may be of any race, and
multiple responses to the ethnicity question are not permitted.
<bullet> For the question and instructions ``What is your race?
<`Mark' or `Select'> one or more'', the minimum reporting categories
are:
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.''
4. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander: A person having
origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other
Pacific Islands.
5. White: A person having origins in any of the original peoples of
Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa.
The 1997 revision of SPD15 gave respondents the opportunity to
report multiple races.
Example Question Format: Based on the requirements in the current
standards, Figure 1 illustrates how race and ethnicity questions
typically appear on Federal surveys and forms that collect the
minimally required categories directly from individuals.
[[Page 5377]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN27JA23.022
Self-Identification vs. Observed Race and Ethnicity: The 1997
standards emphasize that self-identification using separate race and
ethnicity questions is the preferred means of obtaining information
about an individual's race and ethnicity. However, 1997 standards allow
using a combined race and ethnicity question format where observer
identification is the only or most feasible collection mode.
Collection of More Detailed Data: The 1997 standards encourage the
collection of more detailed information provided that any detailed
groups can be aggregated to the minimum standard categories necessary
to facilitate comparison of data generated from information collections
of varying detail. For example, the Household Pulse Survey \6\
conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau offers respondents several
additional options for racial and ethnic identification that can be
``rolled up'' to the minimum categories in the standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ <a href="https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/demo/technical-documentation/hhp/Phase_36_Household_Pulse_Survey_ENGLISH.pdf">https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/demo/technical-documentation/hhp/Phase_36_Household_Pulse_Survey_ENGLISH.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How the 1997 Standards Define Race and Ethnicity: The categories
developed represent a sociopolitical construct designed to be used in
the self-reported or observed collection of data on the race and
ethnicity of major broad population groups in this country and are not
biologically or genetically based.
The 1997 standards' minimum categories do not identify or designate
certain population groups as ``minority groups.'' Additionally, the
standards state that these categories are not to be used for
determining the eligibility of population groups for participation in
any Federal programs.
Some Other Race: Under the 1997 standards, data collections by
Federal agencies may not include a Some Other Race (SOR) response
category unless required by statute. Since 2005, the decennial census
and American Community Survey (ACS) are required by law \7\ to include
a SOR category, thereby adding a sixth minimum race category for these
collections. The decennial census and ACS are the only information
collections with a statutory requirement for the use of a SOR category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Science, State, Justice, Commerce, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2006, Public Law 109-108, tit. II, 119 Stat.
2290, 2308-09 (2005), available at <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/house-bill/2862">https://www.congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/house-bill/2862</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. The Current Review of SPD 15
The Need to Update SPD 15: OMB undertakes periodic reviews of its
Federal statistical standards to ensure that they are keeping pace with
changes in the population and evolving needs and uses for data. Federal
race and ethnicity standards are inherently complex because they seek
to capture dynamic and fluid sociopolitical constructs. Over the nearly
25 years since SPD 15 was revised there have been large societal,
political, economic, and demographic shifts in the United States
throughout this period, for example:
<bullet> Increasing racial and ethnic diversity;
<bullet> A growing number of people who identify as more than one
race or ethnicity; and
<bullet> Changing immigration and migration patterns.
Federal Interagency Technical Working Group on Race and Ethnicity
Standards: In 2022, OMB convened the Federal Interagency Technical
Working Group on Race and Ethnicity Standards (Working Group).\8\
Consistent with the established OMB process discussed above, the
Working Group comprises Federal career staff who represent programs
that collect or use race and ethnicity data. The agencies on the
Interagency Council on Statistical Policy, i.e., the 13 Principle
Statistical Agencies; \9\ and the 24 agencies enumerated by the Chief
Financial
[[Page 5378]]
Officers Act; \10\ as well as one additional agency selected for its
reliance on race and ethnicity data, the U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission, were invited to nominate representatives to the
Working Group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ OMB convened this group under its authorities in 44 U.S.C.
3504(e),
\9\ See 44 U.S.C. 3504(e)(8).
\10\ See 31 U.S.C. 901(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OMB charged the Working Group with providing recommendations on
topics including, but not limited to:
<bullet> Whether the minimum reporting categories should be changed
and how to best address detailed race and ethnicity groups in the
standards;
<bullet> Whether updates should be made to the question format,
terminology, and wording of the questions, as well as the instructions
for respondents and associated guidance; and
<bullet> Whether guidance for the collection and reporting of race
and ethnicity data can be improved, including in instances when self-
identification is not possible.
The Working Group assessed the work by the previous 2014-2018
Federal Interagency Working Group for Research on Race and
Ethnicity,\11\ existing Federal Government research,\12\ experiences
from the 2020 Census,\13\ and the work of the Interagency Working Group
on Equitable Data pursuant to Executive Order 13985.\14\ Additionally,
the Working Group is also relying on input from the public to help with
identifying needs and uses for data. On August 30, OMB announced the
start of virtual, bi-monthly listening sessions to hear directly from
members of the public.\15\ These listening sessions began in September
2022 and are expected to continue in 2023. Although most of these
sessions did not take place in time to inform the initial proposals in
this FRN, the information presented in the sessions is currently being
assessed by the Working Group and will inform their work as they
develop final recommendations for OMB. The major themes of the comments
heard during the first several months of these listening sessions are
described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Office of Mgmt. & Budget, Exec. Office of the
President, Standards for Maintaining, Collecting, and Presenting
Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity, 81 R 67398 (Sept. 30, 2016),
available at <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/09/30/2016-23672/standards-for-maintaining-collecting-andpresenting-federal-data-on-race-and-ethnicity">https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/09/30/2016-23672/standards-for-maintaining-collecting-andpresenting-federal-data-on-race-and-ethnicity</a>; Office of Mgmt. & Budget, Exec.
Office of the President, Proposals From the Federal Interagency
Working Group for Revision of the Standards for Maintaining,
Collecting, and Presenting Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity, 82 FR
12242 (Mar. 1, 2017), available at <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/03/01/2017-03973/proposals-from-the-federal-interagencyworking-group-for-revision-of-the-standards-for-maintaining">https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/03/01/2017-03973/proposals-from-the-federal-interagencyworking-group-for-revision-of-the-standards-for-maintaining</a>.
\12\ <a href="https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial-census/decade/2020/planning-management/plan/final-analysis/2015nct-race-ethnicity-analysis.html">https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial-census/decade/2020/planning-management/plan/final-analysis/2015nct-race-ethnicity-analysis.html</a>; <a href="https://wwwn.cdc.gov/qbank/report/Willson_2017_NCHS_MENA.pdf">https://wwwn.cdc.gov/qbank/report/Willson_2017_NCHS_MENA.pdf</a>.
\13\ <a href="https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/08/improved-race-ethnicity-measures-reveal-united-states-population-much-more-multiracial.html">https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/08/improved-race-ethnicity-measures-reveal-united-states-population-much-more-multiracial.html</a>.
\14\ <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/eo13985-vision-for-equitable-data.pdf">https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/eo13985-vision-for-equitable-data.pdf</a>.
\15\ OMB Launches New Public Listening Sessions on Federal Race
and Ethnicity Standards Revision, August 30, 2022, <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/briefing-room/2022/08/30/omb-launches-new-public-listening-sessions-on-federal-race-and-ethnicity-standards-revision/">https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/briefing-room/2022/08/30/omb-launches-new-public-listening-sessions-on-federal-race-and-ethnicity-standards-revision/</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Themes From Initial Public Listening Sessions
<bullet> Data Disaggregation for the Black or African American
Population
<bullet> Presenters supported adding detailed categories for the
Black or African American minimum reporting category to allow for
identification for descendants of enslaved Americans, with most
presenters requesting a new detailed category such as ``American
Freedman'' or ``American Descendant of Slavery.''
<bullet> Disaggregated data could be used to allocate program or
initiative benefits.
<bullet> Data Disaggregation for Race and Ethnicity, General
<bullet> Presenters supported collecting more granular data to
better understand within-group disparities (e.g., collecting
disaggregated data for the Asian population, for example ``Japanese'',
``Hmong'', ``Cambodian'', allows for better understanding existing
socio-economic and health disparities and determining specific
community needs).
<bullet> Presenters suggested that including detailed racial and
ethnic categories on questionnaires is more inclusive and allows
respondents to report their identities more easily.
<bullet> Race and Ethnicity Questions Format
<bullet> Some presenters supported a combined race and ethnicity
question stating that, for example, respondents do not understand a
distinction between ``race'' and ``ethnicity'' and that the separate
questions format has contributed to the rise of the ``Some Other Race''
population in the decennial census; additionally, some presenters
showed their own research findings that a more successful design was a
combined race and ethnicity question with descriptive options and
allowing for multiple selections.
<bullet> Additional presenters advised against a combined race and
ethnicity question, expressing concern that race data for the Hispanic
or Latino population may be lost (e.g., some presenters worry that the
Black or African American population in Puerto Rico may only select
``Hispanic or Latino'' and not ``Black or African American'' in a
combined question format, even with the instruction of ``Select all
that apply'')
<bullet> Middle Eastern or North African Category
<bullet> Presenters advocated for the Middle Eastern or North
African (MENA) population to be recognized and respected by becoming a
new and distinct minimum reporting category because, for example, many
in the MENA community do not share the same lived experience as White
people with European ancestry, do not identify as White, and are not
perceived as White by others.
<bullet> The addition of a distinct MENA minimum reporting category
would recognize this community (e.g., MENA population counts could be
used to allocate needed resources).
<bullet> Collecting and Reporting Data for the Multiracial/Ethnic
Population
<bullet> Presenters recommended that SPD 15 permit the reporting
and tabulation of multiple Hispanic or Latino responses (e.g.,
producing data from respondents who are both ``Cuban'' and
``Dominican,'' ``Mexican'' and ``Puerto Rican,'' etc).
<bullet> While some presenters advocated for a ``multiracial''
checkbox, other presenters opposed it expressing concern that detailed
information about which specific racial and ethnic groups an individual
identifies with may be lost.
Governing Principles of the Working Group: In the deliberations
leading to the 1977 and the 1997 race and ethnicity standards,
principles were established to guide interagency consideration. For
this current review, the Working Group adopted the following principles
to guide their work.
1. Race and ethnicity are socio-political constructs. For purposes
of these standards, the race and ethnicity categories set forth are
sociopolitical constructs and are not an attempt to define race and
ethnicity biologically or genetically.
2. Respect individuals. 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. Clear concepts and terminology. To the extent practicable, the
concepts and terminology should reflect clear and generally understood
definitions that can achieve broad public acceptance.
4. Comprehensive categories. The racial and ethnic categories
should be comprehensive in coverage and produce
[[Page 5379]]
compatible, non-duplicated, exchangeable data across Federal agencies.
5. Consider useful data aggregations. 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. Consider State/local government data needs. While Federal 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. Standards set forth minimum categories. The standards should set
forth minimum categories; additional categories should be encouraged,
provided they can be aggregated to the minimum categories. The number
of minimum categories should be kept to a manageable size, as
determined by statistical concerns and data needs.
8. Consider operational feasibility. 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. Category changes are based on sound research. 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. Category revisions require a crosswalk. 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. Changes are based upon an interagency collaborative effort.
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. All racial and ethnic categories should adhere to public law.
All racial and ethnic categories, both established and potential,
should be reviewed and constructed in a manner that adheres to public
law.
C. Initial Proposals for Comment
OMB requests comments on these initial Working Group proposals.
Note that these proposals are preliminary and do not reflect the
settled opinions of the Working Group, the position of OMB, or the
positions of the agencies participating on the Working Group. The
Working Group will continue to deliberate, assess evidence, and take
into consideration comments received from the public before making
final recommendations for OMB's consideration.
1. Collect race and ethnicity information using one combined
question. The Working Group proposes that SPD 15 move from the two
separate questions format to a single combined question as the required
design for self-reported race and ethnicity information collections.
Employing a new combined question design may take significant time and
resources for some surveys and information collections to implement.
Flexibilities should be allowed for agencies dependent on aggregate
data, data that are not self-reported, or data from non-Federal
providers.
a. Background: Evidence suggests that the use of separate race and
ethnicity questions confuses many respondents who instead understand
race and ethnicity to be similar, or the same, concepts. For example, a
large and increasing percentage of Hispanic or Latino respondents on
the decennial census and American Community Survey (ACS) over the past
several decades are either not reporting a race or are selecting Some
Other Race (SOR); this is after responding to the ethnicity question,
which SPD 15 requires to be collected first and separately. Decennial
census and ACS research found that a combined race and ethnicity
question reduces confusion and reduces SOR reporting by Hispanic or
Latino respondents. However, less is known about the comparisons of
separate questions versus combined question approaches for information
collections without a SOR response option.
b. OMB Requests Public Comment On:
1a. Please provide links or references to relevant studies that
examine or test any impacts of collecting race and ethnicity
information using separate questions compared to a combined question.
1b. To what extent would a combined race and ethnicity question
that allows for the selection of one or more categories impact people's
ability to self-report all aspects of their identity?
1c. If a combined race and ethnicity question is implemented, what
suggestions do you have for addressing challenges for data collection,
processing, analysis, and reporting of data?
1d. What other challenges should we be aware of that respondents or
agencies might face in converting their surveys and forms to a one
question format from the current two-question format?
2. Add ``Middle Eastern or North African'' (MENA) as a new minimum
category. The working Group proposes that ``Middle Eastern or North
African'' be added to SPD 15 as a new minimum reporting category
distinct from all other reporting categories. The definition of the
current ``White'' reporting category would be edited to remove MENA
from its definition.
a. Background: Currently in SPD 15, the ``White'' minimum category
specifically includes in its definition those having origins in any of
the original peoples of the Middle East or North Africa. Research
suggests that many MENA respondents view their identity as distinct
from White, and stakeholders have, for over 30 years, advocated for
collecting MENA information separate from White.
The Working Group developed the following draft definition of a
MENA minimum category to be inclusive of both Middle Eastern and North
African populations and with the rationale of listing larger population
groups in the U.S.: The category ``Middle Eastern or North African''
includes all individuals who identify with one or more nationalities or
ethnic groups with origins in the Middle East and North Africa.
Examples include, but are not limited to, Lebanese, Iranian, Egyptian,
Syrian, Moroccan, and Israeli.
b. OMB Requests Public Comment On:
2a. Given the particular context of answering questionnaires in the
U.S. (e.g., decennial census, Federal surveys, public benefit forms),
is the term ``Middle Eastern or North African (MENA)'' likely to
continue to be understood and accepted by those in this community?
Further, would the term be consistently understood and acceptable among
those with different experiences, i.e., those born in the U.S., those
who immigrated but have lived for an extensive period of time in the
U.S., and those who have more recently immigrated to the U.S.?
2b. Do these proposed nationality and ethnic group examples
adequately represent the MENA category? If not, what characteristics or
group examples would make the definition more representative?
2c. Would this proposed definition allow the generation of
statistics necessary to track the experience and wellbeing of the MENA
population?
[[Page 5380]]
3. Require the collection of detailed race and ethnicity categories
by default. The Working Group proposes that SPD 15 require data
collection on race and ethnicity at the detailed category levels, as
specified by the example in Figure 2, unless an agency determines that
the potential benefit of the detailed data would not justify the
additional burden to the agency and the public or the additional risk
to privacy or confidentiality. In those cases, agencies must at least
use the SPD 15's minimum categories, as specified by the example in
Figure 3. In any circumstance, agencies are encouraged to collect and
provide more granular data than the minimum categories.
The example design in Figure 2 represents one of potentially
several options for establishing a consistent approach to collecting
more detailed data, with the minimum categories disaggregated by
country of origin. This example was chosen by the Working Group because
it reflects the approach that performed best of the options tested by
the Census Bureau prior to the 2020 Census. The country of origin
options reflect the most common countries of origin in the U.S. for
each minimum category. This example includes enhancements that reflect
other Working Group initial proposals (e.g., the category ``Native
Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander'' removes the word ``Other''). Refer
to page 30 of 2020 Research and Testing: 2017 Census Test Report--
Tribal Enrollment: <a href="https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial/2020/program-management/census-tests/2017/2017-census-test-report_tribal-enrollment.pdf">https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial/2020/program-management/census-tests/2017/2017-census-test-report_tribal-enrollment.pdf</a>.
[[Page 5381]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN27JA23.023
[[Page 5382]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN27JA23.024
The example design in Figure 3 represents the Working Group's
proposed minimum categories, for use when more detailed collection is
not feasible or justified. It incorporates other proposals from the
Working Group to use a combined race and ethnicity question and to add
a new minimum category for MENA.
a. Background: The minimum categories in SPD 15 contain
heterogeneity, as evidenced by differences in a wide variety of
outcomes for distinct groups within their definitions. The increasing
demand for analysis that represents the diversity of the American
public increases the need for race and ethnicity information
disaggregated beyond--or more granular than--SPD 15's minimum
categories. The collection of disaggregated information already occurs
in many circumstances; for example, some current information
collections use detailed checkboxes and/or write-in fields to collect
detailed race and ethnicity data. Figure 2 shows an example approach
for collecting more detail beyond the minimum categories.
However, collecting data using only the minimum categories may be
necessary when, for example, low response rates among population groups
of interest lead to non-representative data, small sample sizes make
estimates about disaggregated groups statistically unreliable, data is
collected by proxy, or small cell sizes in data analyses and
publications create privacy and confidentiality risks.
b. OMB Requests Public Comment On:
3a. Is the example design seen in Figure 2 inclusive such that all
individuals are represented?
3b. The example design seen in Figure 2 collects additional detail
primarily by country of origin. What other potential types of detail
would create useful data or help respondents to identify themselves?
3c. Some Federal information collections are able to use open-ended
write-in fields to collect detailed racial and ethnic responses, while
some collections must use a residual closed-ended category (e.g.,
``Another Asian Group''). What are the impacts of using a closed-ended
category without collecting further detail through open-ended written
responses?
3d. What should agencies consider when weighing the benefits and
burdens of collecting or providing more granular data than the minimum
categories?
3e. Is it appropriate for agencies to collect detailed data even
though those data may not be published or may require combining
multiple years of data due to small sample sizes?
3f. What guidance should be included in SPD 15 or elsewhere to help
agencies identify different collection and tabulation options for more
disaggregated data than the minimum categories? Should the standards
establish a preferred approach to collecting additional detail within
the minimum categories, or encourage agencies to collect additional
information while granting flexibility as to the kind of information
and level of detail?
3g. Is the current ``default'' structure of the recommendation
appropriate? Should SPD-15 pursue a more voluntary approach to the
collection of disaggregated data, as opposed to having a default of
collecting such data unless certain conditions are met?
3h. What techniques are recommended for collecting or providing
detailed race and ethnicity data for categories with smaller population
sizes within the U.S.?
4. Update Terminology in SPD 15. The working Group proposes that
SPD 15 make the following changes in regards to terminology:
Terminologies Used Within Minimum Categories
<bullet> The Working Group proposes that SPD 15 remove:
--``Negro'' from the Black or African American definition
--``Far East'' from the Asian definition, replacing with ``East Asian''
--``Other'' from ``Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander''
--The phrase ``who maintain tribal affiliation or community
attachment'' in the American Indian or Alaska Native definition, making
this minimum category's definition consistent with all minimum
categories
<bullet> The Working Group proposes that SPD 15 correct ``Cuban''
being listed
[[Page 5383]]
twice in the minimum category definition for ``Hispanic or Latino.''
<bullet> The Working Group proposes that the American Indian or
Alaska Native minimum category description be changed to: ``The
category `American Indian or Alaska Native' includes all individuals
who identify with any of the original peoples of North, Central, and
South America.''
``Majority/Minority''
<bullet> The Working Group proposes that SPD 15 discontinue use of
the terms ``majority'' and ``minority.''
Question Stem and Instructions
<bullet> The Working Group proposes that if a combined race and
ethnicity question is adopted, the question stem use ``race'' and
``ethnicity'' as part of the question, i.e., ``What is < your/name's >
race or ethnicity?''
<bullet> The Working Group proposes that the current instructions
of ``Mark < X > one or more'' and ``Select < X > one or more'' be
updated to ``Mark all that apply'' and ``Select all that apply.''
a. Background: The terminology used in SPD 15 should seek to ensure
that all people are able to identify themselves within one or more of
the minimum categories, that the minimum and detailed categories
reflect meaningful and easy to understand distinctions, and that the
language used is respectful of how people refer to themselves. In the
current SPD 15 the minimum category definitions are internally
inconsistent in their descriptions, and in some places use outdated or
unclear terminology. Recent research shows inconsistent understanding
and use of the terms ``majority'' and ``minority,'' and that the terms
may be perceived by some as pejorative and not inclusive. Decennial
census and ACS research suggests that some respondents are confused by
the distinction between the terms ``race,'' ``ethnicity,'' and
``origin'' used in question stems. The research also suggests that some
respondents stop reading the instructions ``mark one or more'' after
the word ``one.''
b. OMB Requests Public Comment On:
4a. What term (such as ``transnational'') should be used to
describe people who identify with groups that cross national borders
(e.g., ``Bantu,'' ``Hmong,'' or ``Roma'')?
1. If a combined race and ethnicity question is implemented, what
term should be used for respondents who select more than one category?
For example, is the preferred term ``multiracial,'' ``multiethnic,'' or
something else?
2. Please refer to Section D, Previously Tested Definitions of
Minimum Categories. Are these draft definitions:
i. Comprehensive in coverage of all racial and ethnic identities
within the U.S.?
ii. Using equivalent criteria?
iii. Reflective of meaningful distinctions?
iv. Easy to understand?
v. Respectful of how people refer to themselves?
Please suggest any alternative language that you feel would improve
the definitions.
4b. As seen in Figure 2, based on the Working Group's initial
proposal, the question stem asks ``What is your race or ethnicity?'' Do
you prefer a different question stem such as: ``What is your race and/
or ethnicity?'', ``What is your race/ethnicity?'', ``How do you
identify?'', etc.? If so, please explain.
5. Guidance is necessary to implement SPD 15 revisions on Federal
information collections. The Working Group proposes that SPD 15 and its
related documents be placed online in a central location and include
implementation guidance on:
<bullet> The dates agencies must meet as they incorporate revisions
to information collections,
<bullet> Statistical methods to connect data produced from previous
and revised collection formats (e.g., bridging between data collected
via two questions without MENA and data collected via one question with
MENA),
<bullet> Procedures for collecting, processing, and reporting
detailed racial and ethnic categories,
<bullet> Approaches for collecting race and ethnicity information
when self-identification is not possible, i.e., data collected by a
proxy or observation and/or by entities outside of SPD 15's purview
(e.g., State or local governments, hospitals, or schools),
<bullet> Approaches for reporting data for respondents who select
more than one race or ethnicity. Specifically, guidance is needed on
how to balance providing detailed information, for example by including
all possible combinations of multiple responses, and providing a single
category when needed (e.g., ``multiracial''),
<bullet> Guidance on obtaining approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act \16\ to revise existing race and ethnicity data
collections, and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ <a href="https://www.reginfo.gov/public/reginfo/pra.pdf">https://www.reginfo.gov/public/reginfo/pra.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
<bullet> Best practices for agencies to rely on when communicating
SPD 15 revisions to stakeholders.
a. Background: It is a large undertaking for agencies to implement
changes to censuses, surveys, and administrative forms that collect
race and ethnicity data. Agencies need guidance to implement any
potential SPD 15 revisions like those included in the Working Group's
initial proposals.
b. OMB Requests Public Comment On:
5a. For data providers who collect race and ethnicity data that is
then sent to a Federal agency, are there additional guidance needs that
have not been addressed in the initial proposals?
5b. With the proposals to use a combined race and ethnicity
question and to add MENA as a minimum category, what specific bridging
concerns do Federal data users have? Please submit any research on
bridging techniques that may be helpful to the Working Group. Bridging
refers to making data collected using one set of categories (e.g., two
questions without MENA), consistent with data collected using a
different set of categories (e.g., one question with MENA).
5c. What guidance on bridging should be provided for agencies to
implement potential revisions to SPD 15?
5d. How should race and ethnicity be collected when some method
other than respondent self-identification is necessary (e.g., by proxy
or observation)?
5e. What guidance should be provided for the collection and
reporting of race and ethnicity data in situations where self-
identification is unavailable?
6. Comments On Any Additional Topics and Future Research.
6a. SPD 15 does not dictate the order in which the minimum
categories should be displayed on Federal information collections.
Agencies generally order alphabetically or by population size; however,
both approaches have received criticism. What order, alphabetical or by
population size, do you prefer and why? Or what alternative approach
would you recommend?
6b. The current \17\ minimum categories are termed:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ A similar question specifically related to Middle Eastern
or North African is discussed earlier in Section C.
<bullet> American Indian or Alaska Native
<bullet> Asian
<bullet> Black or African American
<bullet> Hispanic or Latino
<bullet> Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ An initial proposal of the Working Group, discussed earlier
in Section C, is to remove ``Other'' from ``Native Hawaiian or Other
Pacific Islander.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
<bullet> White
Do you have suggestions for different terms for any of these
categories?
[[Page 5384]]
6c. How can Federal surveys or forms collect data related to
descent from enslaved peoples originally from the African continent?
For example, when collecting and coding responses, what term best
describes this population group (e.g., is the preferred term ``American
Descendants of Slavery,'' ``American Freedmen,'' or something else)?
How should this group be defined? Should it be collected as a detailed
group within the ``Black or African American'' minimum category, or
through a separate question or other approach?
6d. The proposals in this FRN represent the Working Group's initial
suggestions for revisions to SPD 15 to improve the accuracy and
usefulness of Federal race and ethnicity data. The Working Group and
OMB welcome comments and suggestions on any other ways that SPD 15
could be revised to produce more accurate and useful race and ethnicity
data.
D. Previously Tested Definitions of Minimum Categories
<bullet> American Indian or Alaska Native: The category ``American
Indian or Alaska Native'' includes all individuals who identify with
any of the original peoples of North, Central, and South America. It
includes people who identify as ``American Indian'' or ``Alaska
Native'' and includes groups such as Navajo Nation, Blackfeet Tribe,
Mayan, Aztec, Native Village of Barrow Inupiat Traditional Government,
Tlingit, etc.
<bullet> Asian: The category ``Asian'' includes all individuals who
identify with one or more nationalities or ethnic groups originating in
East Asia, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent. Examples of
these groups include, but are not limited to, Chinese, Filipino, Asian
Indian, Vietnamese, Korean, and Japanese. The category also includes
groups such as Pakistani, Cambodian, Hmong, Thai, Bengali, Mien, etc.
<bullet> Black or African American: The category ``Black or African
American'' includes all individuals who identify with one or more
nationalities or ethnic groups originating in any of the Black racial
groups of Africa. Examples of these groups include, but are not limited
to, African American, Jamaican, Haitian, Nigerian, Ethiopian, and
Somali. The category also includes groups such as Ghanaian, South
African, Barbadian, Kenyan, Liberian, Bahamian, etc.
<bullet> Hispanic or Latino: The category ``Hispanic or Latino''
includes all individuals who identify with one or more nationalities or
ethnic groups originating in Mexico, Puerto Rico, Cuba, Central and
South American, and other Spanish cultures. Examples of these groups
include, but are not limited to, Mexican or Mexican American, Puerto
Rican, Cuban, Salvadoran, Dominican, and Colombian. The category also
includes groups such as Guatemalan, Honduran, Spaniard, Ecuadorian,
Peruvian, Venezuelan, etc.
<bullet> Middle Eastern or North African: The category ``Middle
Eastern or North African'' includes all individuals who identify with
one or more nationalities or ethnic groups originating in the Middle
East or North Africa. Examples of these groups include, but are not
limited to, Lebanese, Iranian, Egyptian, Syrian, Moroccan, and Israeli.
The category also includes groups such as Algerian, Iraqi, Kurdish,
Tunisian, Chaldean, Assyrian, etc.
<bullet> Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander: The category ``Native
Hawaiian or Pacific Islander'' includes all individuals who identify
with one or more nationalities or ethnic groups originating in Hawaii,
Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands. Examples of these groups
include, but are not limited to, Native Hawaiian, Samoan, Chamorro,
Tongan, Fijian, and Marshallese. The category also includes groups such
as Palauan, Tahitian, Chuukese, Pohnpeian, Saipanese, Yapese, etc.
<bullet> White: The category ``White'' includes all individualswho
identify with one or more nationalities or ethnic groups originating in
Europe. Examples of these groups include, but are not limited to,
German, Irish, English, Italian, Polish, and French. The category also
includes groups such as Scottish, Norwegian, Dutch, Slavic, Cajun,
Roma, etc.
E. Conclusion
This Notice is a request for the public to comment on the initial
proposals of the Working Group. None of the initial proposals have been
adopted, and no interim decisions have been made concerning them. OMB
can modify or reject any of the proposals, and OMB has the option of
making no changes. The initial proposals are published in this Notice
because OMB believes that they are worthy of public discussion and that
OMB and the Working Group's further and continuing deliberations will
benefit from obtaining the public's views on the proposals. OMB plans
to complete revisions to SPD 15 no later than Summer 2024.
Richard L. Revesz,
Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2023-01635 Filed 1-26-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3110-01-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on January 27, 2023.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.