Initial Proposals For Updating OMB's Race and Ethnicity Statistical Standards, 5375-5384 [2023-01635]

Agencies

• Management and Budget Office

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 18 (Friday, January 27, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5375-5384]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[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 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1997-10-30/pdf/97-28653.pdf.

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 https://www.regulations.gov, 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 https://www.regulations.gov.

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: 
[email protected].

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, 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/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
     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.
     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\ https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/demo/technical-documentation/hhp/Phase_36_Household_Pulse_Survey_ENGLISH.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 https://www.congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/house-bill/2862.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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:
     Increasing racial and ethnic diversity;
     A growing number of people who identify as more than one 
race or ethnicity; and
     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:
     Whether the minimum reporting categories should be changed 
and how to best address detailed race and ethnicity groups in the 
standards;
     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
     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 https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/09/30/2016-23672/standards-for-maintaining-collecting-andpresenting-federal-data-on-race-and-ethnicity; 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 https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/03/01/2017-03973/proposals-from-the-federal-interagencyworking-group-for-revision-of-the-standards-for-maintaining.
    \12\ https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial-census/decade/2020/planning-management/plan/final-analysis/2015nct-race-ethnicity-analysis.html; https://wwwn.cdc.gov/qbank/report/Willson_2017_NCHS_MENA.pdf.
    \13\ https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/08/improved-race-ethnicity-measures-reveal-united-states-population-much-more-multiracial.html.
    \14\ https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/eo13985-vision-for-equitable-data.pdf.
    \15\ OMB Launches New Public Listening Sessions on Federal Race 
and Ethnicity Standards Revision, August 30, 2022, https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/briefing-room/2022/08/30/omb-launches-new-public-listening-sessions-on-federal-race-and-ethnicity-standards-revision/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Major Themes From Initial Public Listening Sessions

 Data Disaggregation for the Black or African American 
Population
     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.''
     Disaggregated data could be used to allocate program or 
initiative benefits.
 Data Disaggregation for Race and Ethnicity, General
     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).
     Presenters suggested that including detailed racial and 
ethnic categories on questionnaires is more inclusive and allows 
respondents to report their identities more easily.
 Race and Ethnicity Questions Format
     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.
     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'')
 Middle Eastern or North African Category
     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.
     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).
 Collecting and Reporting Data for the Multiracial/Ethnic 
Population
     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).
     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: https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial/2020/program-management/census-tests/2017/2017-census-test-report_tribal-enrollment.pdf.

[[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
     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

     The Working Group proposes that SPD 15 correct ``Cuban'' 
being listed

[[Page 5383]]

twice in the minimum category definition for ``Hispanic or Latino.''
     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''
     The Working Group proposes that SPD 15 discontinue use of 
the terms ``majority'' and ``minority.''
Question Stem and Instructions
     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?''
     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:
     The dates agencies must meet as they incorporate revisions 
to information collections,
     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),
     Procedures for collecting, processing, and reporting 
detailed racial and ethnic categories,
     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),
     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''),
     Guidance on obtaining approval under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act \16\ to revise existing race and ethnicity data 
collections, and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ https://www.reginfo.gov/public/reginfo/pra.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     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.

 American Indian or Alaska Native
 Asian
 Black or African American
 Hispanic or Latino
 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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 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

     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.
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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