New Directions in Measuring Race and Ethnicity: Implications
From the 2010 Census Alternative Questionnaire Experiment
Remarks by Susan Schechter
Federal Committee on Statistical Methodology Policy Seminar
December 5, 2012
Washington, DC
With thanks to Jennifer Madans,
Associate Director for Science, NCHS
Overview
•
•
•
High level recap of role of OMB in setting
classification standards
Changes in the measurement of race and ethnicity
over time
Results of the 2010 Census AQE--Implications for
the statistical community
2
Responsibilities of OMB
• Statistical policy and coordination
• Maintenance and improvement of the quality of
Federal statistics
• Development and oversight of Government-wide
policies, principles, standards, and guidelines –
specifically – Statistical collection procedures and methods;
– Statistical data classification; and
– Statistical information presentation and
dissemination
3
Federal Statistical Standards and Classification
•
•
•
•
North American Industry Classification System
Standard Occupational Classification System
Standards for Defining Metropolitan and
Micropolitan Statistical Areas; and
Standards for Classification of Data on Race and
Ethnicity
4
History
• Long history of collecting statistics on race and
ethnicity by government agencies, most notably the
Decennial Census
• The 1960’s civil rights law, the 1970’s Voting Rights
Act led to greater need for data on race
• Public Law 94-311--Required all Federal agencies to
provide separate counts of the Hispanic population
in data collections
• Agencies within and across departments increasingly
were collecting data related to race and ethnicity
5
1970’s
•
•
•
Federal agencies sought OMB leadership to
develop common, government-wide standards for
data on race and ethnicity
Three year interagency effort
The first Federal Government standard for data
collection and presentation issued in an OMB
Circular in 1977 – Statistical Policy Directive No. 15
6
Statistical Policy Directive No. 15
•
•
These standards represented a minimum common
language for reporting data on race
– American Indian or Alaskan Native (AIAN)
– Asian or Pacific Islander (API)
– Black
– White
Separate question: Hispanic Origin
7
Response to Directive 15
•
Four categories did not reflect the increasing
diversity of the Nation’s population
–
–
•
•
Required selection of one of four race categories
No option to indicate multiracial background
1990 Census – constituents complained to
Congress about categories; half a million multiple
race respondents
After the 1990 Census, standards came under
increasing criticism for not reflecting Nation’s
diversity
8
Comprehensive Review of Standards
•
•
•
•
A four year review began in 1993
No promise that any changes would be made
unless such changes were supported by compelling
research, public concerns and/or agency
justifications
Multi-year research agenda involving tests in
several major sample surveys
Public hearings, interagency committee, and
opportunities for public comment
9
Key Review Questions
•
•
•
How should data on individuals of multiple race
backgrounds be classified?
Should “Hispanic” be a response option to the race
question?
If data on race and ethnicity were to be collected
using two separate questions, what should the
sequence of questions be?
10
Key Review Questions (continued)
• Should data on Native Hawaiians continue to be
classified in the Asian and Pacific Islander category?
• Should the minimum set of categories for data on race
and ethnicity be expanded to include other population
groups?
• Should the terminology for some of the categories be
changed?
• Should there be a “multiracial” category or a “mark all
that apply” option?
11
October 30, 1997
• OMB published the final revised standards in the
Federal Register. The standards permitted agencies to
phase-in implementation until January 1, 2003,
particularly in order to accommodate the necessary
changes needed to record-keeping systems
• Many changes – two of relevance to AQE
– Two question format is the preferred data
collection method, with the Hispanic origin
question preceding the race question
– Mark one or more races approved
12
Post 1997 Standards
•
•
OMB recognized that the revision would result in
fundamental changes in the collection, analysis and
reporting of data on race/ethnicity
OMB also realized that additional research was
needed:
– Improve the reporting of race data among
Hispanic individuals
– Redesign data collection forms to conform to
the revised standards
– Reporting of multiple races complex
13
The Next Phase
• The 1997 standards have also been criticized
• The AQE was designed to address these concerns
• Any change in ACS/2020 Census data collection will
have ramifications across the statistical system
• Issues to consider in making changes
– What are the data collection objectives?
– What methods are needed to meet those
objectives?
– Impact on comparability across data systems and
over time?
14
Circling Back: Why Collect These Data?
• To monitor equal access and adherence to nondiscrimination laws (e.g., housing, education, mortgage
lending, health care, employment)
• To identify disadvantaged groups to allocate resources
and set and monitor social policy
• To help identify disparities
AND/OR
• Affirmation, recognition, and identity of our population
15
Old and New Assumptions
• Race is a social concept and a product of the Nation’s
political and social history--categories change over
time
• Which data collection objective is being met?
– Demand for recognition, choice, and identity
expression by an increasing number of groups -intensive data collection
– If civil rights and measuring discrimination are the
primary objectives, which groups should be included?
– Is minimizing ‘missing’ data still an objective or can we
accept that race is not meaningful for some people?
16
Continued Challenges Facing Federal Data Systems
• Multiple potential objectives
– Different objectives require different methods
– Some objectives require intensive methods
• A range of data collection methods are used
– Census and Surveys have multiple modes
– Mail/Internet versions--limited space and format critical
– Administrative systems – minimal control over primary
data collection, quality, and timeliness
• Decisions that maximize collection in one system (Census) but
which are not portable can adversely affect comparability
– Multiple checkboxes or write-ins
17
Changes in Census Impact Statistical Agencies
• Census data are used
– To develop sample designs and survey controls for
major demographic surveys
– To develop population estimates used as
denominators by other programs that obtain data
from administrative records
• Population estimates use information from
administrative sources (vital records)
• Lack of comparability across the system adversely
affects all components
18
Implications of the AQE Research
•
Shift in the 2020 Census (or earlier in ACS) will
trigger the need for many agencies to respond
– Should each agency change their questions?
– Can and will crosswalks between question
versions be developed prior to any changes?
– Do agencies have the resources and money to
make these changes?
– Do the benefits of a change outweigh the
costs and how can such decisions be made?
19
Susan Schechter, Senior Fellow
NORC at the University of Chicago
Schechter-susan@norc.org
Thank You!