The below text is a reproduction of the on-going governmental debate over 
the census classification options for multiracial individuals. 


_________________________________________________________________

	          (e)  Multiracial

How to classify persons who identify with more than one race is
perhaps the issue that has engendered the most controversy in the
present review.  For the most part, the public comment used the
term, "multiracial" to refer to persons of two or more races.  A
variety of options were suggested in public comment for how to
collect racial data from multiracial persons.  They are shown
below, followed by pros and cons cited for each option.  Table 1
summarizes the options.  This summary reports only on options
proposed during public hearings and in the public comment period.
It also highlights pros and cons for these options as raised in
public comment or shown by research.  Inclusion in the summary
does not reflect OMB endorsement of the comments or suggestions.

In Latin America, a racially mixed society, there is an array of
terms to describe gradations of skin color.  This has not been
the history of the United States in this century where the
terminology implies "pure" races such as White or Black, rather
than biracial or multiracial categories.  In 1960, there were
about 150,000 interracial marriages compared with 1.5 million in
1990.  In the 1990 census, about 4 percent of couples reported
they were of different races or one was of Hispanic origin.  Such
households had about 4 million children.

Directive No. 15 says that persons of mixed racial and ethnic
origins should use the single category which most closely
reflects the individual's recognition in his or her community.
The public comments indicate that multiracial persons objected to
this instruction.  The commenters indicate that a single category
does not reflect how they think of themselves.  From their
perspective, the instruction requires them to deny their full
heritage and to choose between their parents.  They feel they are
being required to provide factually false information.  They
maintain that the current categories do not recognize their
existence.  They say they could mark "Other" where that category
is provided but they feel it is demeaning.  They want to identify
their multiple races, but say that those who prefer to choose one
of the existing broad categories could do so.

One concern of those who oppose a category for multiracial
persons is that it will reduce the count for persons in the basic
categories.  Organizations representing multiracial persons
disagree.  They say minority groups could gain numbers as some
persons are now classified as "White" under the "choose one"
rule.  As reflected in the options listed below, there was
disagreement as to whether identification should include specific
races.  If specific races are identified, there might be some
flexibility in how users could tabulate data.  For some, this is
seen as an advantage.  For others, it is seen as a disadvantage
because different tabulation rules would result in different
counts of groups.

Some asked how far back in one's ancestry respondents should go
in deciding to identify multiple races.  Most who commented meant
only the race or Hispanic origin of parents.  This would require
additional instructions and may not be acceptable to those who
wish to identify their earlier ancestry.  Presumably, persons
would be instructed to list all races if the parent(s) were also
of multiple races; this concerned those who oppose a multiracial
category.

The discussion below refers to "race" but some respondents
suggested multiple "ancestry" (listing both parents) should be
the focus instead.  Asking about ancestry focuses the questions
back in time and conveys an historical and geographic context
which some feel is clearer than the ambiguity of "race" or
"ethnicity."



         Table 1.  Summary of Options for Identification
                      of Multiracial Persons

(e)(1)    Multiracial identification not allowed (must pick one
          broad category):

(aa) Individual chooses the one with which he or she most closely
identifies

(bb) Mother's category is designated

(cc) Father's category is designated

(dd) Race of minority-designated parent (if one is White)

(e)(2)    Multiracial identification allowed:

(aa) "Multiracial" category -- self-identification (SI) or
observer identification (OI)

(bb) "Mark all that apply" from list of specific categories -- SI
only

(cc) Open-ended question -- SI or OI

(dd) "Other" -- SI only

(ee) Mother's and father's geographic ancestry -- SI   only

(ff) Skin-color gradient chart -- SI or OI

               Options Suggested in Public Comments:

Option (e)(1):  Mark one broad category with which the respondent
most closely identifies (categories are same or similar to
current list)

Pros to Option (e)(1) -- mark one broad category:

Collection:
--Physical space on forms and questionnaires same as now.

--Identification:  most people identify with only one of the
current categories; facilitates collection by observers where
that method is used; persons of multiracial heritage who identify
with one broad category do not have difficulty responding.

--Telephone survey:  easy to ask.

Tabulations and analysis:
--Easier than options that allow the identification of multiple
races.

--Meets needs of Federal agencies concerned with program
evaluation and civil rights monitoring and enforcement.

--This is the only option that meets the needs of the Indian
Health Service which is responsible for health care of anyone who
is a Federally-recognized American Indian or Alaskan Native,
regardless of the proportion of Indian blood or which parent has
Indian blood.

--Maintains historical continuity of data.

--Categories are the same or similar to those used in State and
local administrative records and historical Federal
administrative records.

--Federal laws are written based on the assumption that people
identify with one Directive No. 15 category.  For civil rights
monitoring and enforcement, respondents clearly fall in or out of
a particular category.  Would address concerns of those who
believe a "multiracial" category would compromise effective
implementation of civil rights laws.

Cons to Option (e)(1) -- mark one broad category:

Collection -- identification and count issues:
--Having to choose one racial category upsets some respondents,
especially those with immediate multiracial heritage, who
identify with more than one race/ethnicity; telephone
interviewers ask race in early part of interview and then must
deal with an unhappy respondent for the remainder of the
questions; and Federal agencies must respond to those upset by
the policy.

--Nonresponse rates may increase for persons who wish to identify
with more than one race but who are instructed to select the one
category with which they most closely identify.

--As the size of the Hispanic population increases, a larger
number and proportion of that population group may mark  "Other"
or not respond.  The 1994 pretest of the Survey of Income and
Program Participation showed some Hispanics would report in the
multiracial category.

--Inconsistencies:  The same person is likely to be identified
differently across administrative records and surveys which
reduces analytic usefulness of the data.  If mother's race is
used to assign the child's race as in birth records, the
classifications may be different than the person's self-identification.

--There is a significant number of interracial marriages among
Asians and Whites.  For example, in the 1990 census, in
California, nearly one-fourth of children with any Asian
background were White and Asian.  Asian groups contend they are
undercounted when forced to identify with one category only.  One
study of the 1990 census indicates that the children of these
marriages are more likely to identify themselves as "White" than
as "Asian."

Tabulations:  Option (e)(1)(dd), in which the race of the
minority-designated parent is designated as the person's
category, requires additional rules if one parent is not White.

Analysis:
--Does not sufficiently reflect Nation's diversity; no
information for multiracial persons about differences in health,
economic status, and likelihood of discrimination.

--Not as useful in health research as identification of the
specific mixtures.  All of the current racial categories are said
to be too broad for analysis of health risks and economic trends;
for example, a study found that 25 percent of those in the "Asian
or Pacific Islander" category smoked, but this ranged from 20
percent of Filipinos to 72 percent of Laotians.

*****************************************************************

Option (e)(2)(aa):  "Multiracial" category (SI or OI)
(Note:  May ask respondent to specify races but not necessarily)

     Pros to Option (e)(2)(aa) -- "Multiracial" category:

Collection if specific races are not identified:
--Physical space on forms:  adds one racial category.

--Meets demand of some multiracial respondents, especially those
whose parents are of different races.

--Telephone survey:  easy to ask if it is the only category
added; however, if additional categories are added may be
problematic.

--Somewhat more amenable to identification by observers than any
other option for multiracial persons (however, compared with
observer identification in Option (e)(1), this option is likely
to result in an undercount and a substantially different
distribution of current broad categories).

Tabulation and analysis:
--A few States have passed laws to include this category in their
administrative records.  Currently they proportion their
multiracial counts among the OMB categories for Federal reporting
purposes based on percentages of minorities in the general
population, although it is not clear what geographic level they
are using (National, State, local, school districts, etc.) when
they refer to "general population."  A change by OMB to a
"multiracial" category would reduce costs for these few States
because they would not have to maintain data in two different
ways.

--Indication of population diversity.

--Potentially useful in analyzing trends such as education and
employment, especially if specific categories are identified.

Cons to Option (e)(2)(aa) -- "Multiracial" category:

Collection:
--Requires testing for effect on respondents, response rates, and
data quality.  Multiracial persons who previously identified
principally with one broad category may become unsure of what is
being asked.  Multi-ethnic persons of the same race (e.g., a
White person of English and German descent) may find the
questions confusing.  It is not clear how multiracial Hispanics
would answer.

--The category is imprecise and specific instructions would be
required on whether respondents should answer in terms of the
races of their parents only or further back.  Imprecision of the
category leads to possible confusion since, if one goes back far
enough, many Americans are of mixed racial heritage (for example,
many Whites have American Indian heritage and many Blacks have
African, White, and American Indian heritage).

-Have to determine an acceptable category name.  Suggestions
included:  Multiple races; Mixed race; Multiracial; Tan American;
TIRAH (Tan InterRacial American Humankind); Mixed origins;
Mestee; More than one race; and Mulatto.  Some of these
suggestions apply only to Black and White mixtures.  Cognitive
research shows that most people understand the terms,
"multiracial" and "biracial."

--Requires establishment of a category (and the associated extra
costs) but the category may be used by only a small proportion of
the population.  Some school systems allow use of a "multiracial"
category and report it is used by less than 2 percent of
students.

--Where identification is by an observer:  unknown what criteria
an observer would use to identify persons of more than one race;
identification of specific races unlikely or too inaccurate to be
useful; because of likely mismatch, unclear how it would affect a
count of mixed race persons; broad category of blood relatives
likely to be identified differently, especially in administrative
records; and the same person is likely to be identified
differently across administrative records and surveys which
reduces the analytic usefulness of the category.

Tabulations and analysis:
--The category is not an alternative in the administrative
records of many State and local governments.

--If specific races are identified through an open-ended
question, the development of a classification system for
tabulating responses would be required; choices may be
controversial and challenged.

--If specific races are not indicated, the general category is
too heterogeneous for meaningful analysis or for use in civil
rights monitoring and enforcement.  A heterogeneous category does
not provide sufficient information for health researchers
(disease risk specific to racial and ethnic groups, monitoring of
historical trends) and would complicate the design, conduct, and
evaluation of health intervention programs.  It is unclear how
such a heterogeneous category could be used in civil rights
monitoring and enforcement and such efforts could be more
difficult and costly.

--There would be a major effect on historical continuity if
specific races are not indicated because it may reduce the count
of the current broad categories and in unknown ways.  Some
expressed concern that if specific races are not known, the
category has the potential for increasing racial segregation,
discrimination, and the stigmatization of broad categories (other
than White) which may result in less effective enforcement of
civil rights laws.

--Persons with the same general cultural heritage and with
similar physical characteristics may be classified differently.


*****************************************************************

Option (e)(2)(bb):  "Mark all that apply" (SI only)

Pros of Option (e)(2)(bb) -- mark all that apply:

Collection:
--If no new categories are added, physical space on forms and
questionnaires same as now.

--Meets desire for self-identification of many multiracial
respondents.

Tabulation and analysis:
--Detail allows flexibility.  Indicates extent and makeup of
Nation's diversity.

--Can maintain some historical continuity by aggregating specific
categories into current broad categories (for example, a person
who has one Black parent and one White parent could be tabulated,
depending on the purposes of the data, in three ways:  White,
Black, or Black/White).  See related discussion below under
"cons."

--Decision rules about aggregations of detailed categories could
be discussed and documented.  Currently, we do not know what
basis multiracial people use for marking their specific identity
as a broad category.

--Provides potentially useful subgroup information for health
researchers in terms of race-specific diseases, especially if the
race of each parent is identified.  For example, one study found
a difference in the probability of low birth weight between Black
mother-White father and White mother-Black father populations;
small-for-gestational-age rates and preterm delivery rates also
vary by race of the mother.

Cons of Option (e)(2)(bb) -- mark all that apply:

Collection:
--Telephone survey:  Difficult and may negatively affect data
quality.

--In personal interviews, must use a flash card (can list
responses on control card if survey will be done by telephone
later); tedious in large households.

Tabulations and analysis:
--Complex because of the many possible combinations.  Historical
continuity of counts and characteristics would be problematic.
In the 1980 and 1990 censuses, for example, race was reported as
"Black" for two-thirds of children in families with one Black
parent and one White parent present.  For families with a White
parent and an Asian or Pacific Islander (API) parent, the
proportion of children whose race was reported as "API" versus
"White" was different in the last two censuses.  Allocation rules
would be controversial even if the objective is to achieve
historical continuity to the extent possible (especially for
characteristics).

--Aggregation decision rules would be required and may be subject
to controversy.

--Current Federal laws are premised on persons identifying with
one racial group.  It is not clear what the impact would be for
persons identifying as multiracial.

*****************************************************************

Option (e)(2)(cc):  Open-ended question (SI or OI)
(allows multiple responses)

Pros of Option (e)(2)(cc) -- open-ended question:

Collection:
--Physical space on questionnaire/forms less than currently.

--Telephone survey:  easy to ask if it is the only category
added; however, if additional categories are added may be
problematic.

--Meets desire for self-identification of many multiracial
respondents, those who want to answer "American," and persons
from small national-origin groups.  Respondents likely to be
satisfied since they are not restricted by pre-defined
categories.  One study of an open-ended question showed only 13
percent of Hispanic respondents used the conventional racial
designations of "White" or "Black."  For these Hispanics, self-identification
was based more on cultural and ethnic identity.
In the 1990 census, about 90 percent of the population reported
an ancestry in the open-ended question; only 0.7 percent were
uncodable responses; but about 10 percent did not respond to the
question.

Tabulations and analysis:
--Detail allows maximum flexibility and provides sociologically
rich information for analyzing trends.  Provides subgroup
information useful to health researchers in terms of race-specific disease risk.

--Can maintain some historical continuity by aggregating specific
categories into broad categories in 1977 Directive No. 15 (except
see cons below and under (e)(2)(bb), "tabulations and analysis").

--Does not require respondent to indicate a preferred race; if
desired, the tabulation rules can imply a priority by following
the order of responses.

Cons of Option (e)(2)(cc) -- open-ended question:

Collection:
--Unlikely States would collect data this way for their
administrative records and thus, there would likely be a mismatch
among data sets (also negative effect on analysis when trying to
compare results among data sets).

--Same person likely to be identified differently across
administrative records and surveys which reduces analytic
usefulness.

--Does not allow for observer identification.

Tabulations and analysis:
--Must develop a classification system to categorize hundreds of
possible responses and the choices can be controversial.  See
discussion above in (e)(2)(bb) under cons, "tabulations and
analysis."

--Negative effect on counts of broad categories and data quality,
including considerations listed below:
(1) Religions given as responses cannot be tabulated into a broad
category.  This generates complaints (because of separation of
church and state, religions cannot be tabulated by government
agencies) and increases the effective nonresponse rate.

(2) National origins or nationalities are likely answers.  Data
collection agencies would have to code to broad categories based
on probability (e.g., "English" likely to be White but could be
Black or Asian also).

(3)"American" is a frequent response (the 6th ranked group in the
1990 census ancestry question with 12.4 million such responses or
5 percent of all responses) and cannot be coded to a broad
category (effectively increases nonresponse rate).  Foreign born
and non-English speakers showed greater difficulty with open-ended write-in
 questions such as the 1990 census ancestry
question.

--Negative effect on data quality:  citing examples is
interpreted as influencing respondents and giving no examples can
also have significant effect on counts of broad categories.
Research from the 1980 and 1990 censuses indicates high levels of
inconsistent responses to open-ended questions and strong
"example" effects.  For instance, from 1980 to 1990, the number
of Cajuns, which was an example in the ancestry question in 1990
but not in 1980, grew from 30,000 to 600,000.  French, which was
dropped as an example in 1990, declined from 13 million to 10
million.

--It is sometimes hard to interpret what respondents intend by
their responses.

****************************************************************

Option (e)(2)(dd):  "Other -- specify" (SI) at end of list of
broad categories

Pros of Option (e)(2)(dd) -- "other":

Collection:
--Does not take up much physical space on the questionnaire.

--Telephone survey:  easy to ask if it is the only category
added; however, if additional categories are added may be
problematic.

--Identification issues:  respondents likely to find it easier to
express their identity since they are not restricted to only the
pre-defined categories (for example, those who want to answer
"American" can do so); can ask multiracial respondents to choose
one racial category but if they refuse, they can specify all the
categories they choose; and allows identification of multiple and
single categories not listed elsewhere (e.g., Indians of South
and Central American background).

Tabulations and analysis:
--Detail allows maximum flexibility and provides sociologically
rich information for analyzing trends.  Potentially provides
subgroup information useful to health researchers in terms of
race-specific disease risk.

--Can maintain historical continuity by aggregating specific
categories; however, see discussion in (e)(2)(bb) under cons,
"tabulations and analysis."

Cons of Option (e)(2)(dd) -- "other":

Collection:
--Some people are offended by identification as "Other";  when
this proposal was made by OMB in 1988, it was not widely accepted
and so was not adopted.

--Same person likely to be identified differently across
administrative records and surveys which reduces analytic
usefulness.

--If "Hispanic" is not listed as a separate category, research
shows an extremely high percentage of "Other" responses are
Hispanics who do not identify with one of the listed race
categories.

Tabulations and analysis:
--Must develop a classification system to categorize hundreds of
possible responses and the choices can be controversial.  See
discussion in (e)(2)(bb) under cons, "tabulations and analysis."

--Detailed information not needed for program evaluation or civil
rights monitoring and enforcement.

--If specific responses are not coded, the category is too
heterogeneous to be useful.

-Negative effects on counts of broad categories and data
quality, including considerations listed below:
(1) Religions given as responses cannot be tabulated into a broad
category.  This generates complaints (because of separation of
church and state, religions cannot be tabulated by government
agencies) and increases the effective nonresponse rate.

(2) National origins or nationalities are likely answers.  Data
collection agencies would have to code to broad categories based
on probability (e.g., "English" likely to be White but could be
Black or Asian also).

(3) "American" is a frequent response (the 6th ranked group in
the 1990 census ancestry question with 12.4 million such
responses or 5 percent of all responses) and cannot be coded to a
broad category (effectively increases nonresponse rate).

--Negative effect on data quality:  citing examples is
interpreted as influencing respondents and giving no examples can
also have significant effect on counts of broad categories.

--It is sometimes hard to interpret what respondents intend by
their responses.

*****************************************************************

Option (e)(2)(ee):  Mother's and Father's Geographic Ancestry (SI
only)
(Respondent would be given a numbered geographic list and mark
the appropriate numbers to indicate the region of origin of
ancestors who migrated to the United States)


Pros of Option (e)(2)(ee) -- geographic ancestry:

Collection:
--No overlapping categories.

--One clear concept, geographic origin of ancestors.  In the 1990
census ancestry question, virtually all of the responses were
national origin rather than ethnic origin (e.g., "Italian" more
often than "Amalfi" or "Calabrian").

--Telephone survey: can do but not easily.

Tabulations and analysis:  Geographic origin may be a better
indicator of health differences than race for many people.
Tabulations would be lengthy but not difficult.

Cons of Option (e)(2)(ee) -- geographic ancestry:

Collection -- identification issues:
--People who can mark their race may not know the geographic
region of origin of their ancestors or parents (e.g., adoptees).

--Likely to be a high rate of error in the "North America"
category (only American Indians could correctly mark this
category but it is likely those born in the United States would
also mark it).

--Same person likely to be identified differently across
administrative records and surveys which reduces analytic
usefulness.

--Many people have ancestors from several different geographic
regions and reports are often inconsistent among data sets.

Collection -- physical space on forms:  considerably more than
currently.

Tabulation and analysis:  Does not meet Federal program needs
or provide historical continuity (for example, a person from
Africa might be White or Black).

****************************************************************

Option (e)(2)(ff):  Skin-Color Gradient Chart (SI or OI)
This is a suggestion for a numbered chart, a scale of skin-tone
colors, reproduced on forms.  Respondents would check the skin-tone number
 closest to the color of the individual respondent.

Pros of Option (e)(2)(ff) -- skin color chart:

Collection:  Less physical space on forms than now.

Analysis:
--Can compare skin-tone responses with socioeconomic status and
differences in effects of discrimination.

--A measure without racial labels less subject to changes in
meaning over time as compared with labels based on race,
ethnicity, and ancestry.

Cons of Option (e)(2)(ff) -- skin color chart:

Collection:
--Identification:  offensive to many; same person likely to be
identified differently across administrative records and surveys
which reduces analytic usefulness; individuals could change skin
colors over a lifetime as a result of exposure to sunlight or
disease.