The standards in this Directive have been used for almost two decades throughout the Federal government for recordkeeping, collection, and presentation of data on race and Hispanic origin. The standards have been used in two decennial censuses and in surveys of the population, data collections necessary for meeting statutory requirements associated with civil rights monitoring and enforcement, and in other administrative program reporting. During the past several years, the standards have come under increasing criticism from those who believe that the minimum categories set forth in Directive No. Some have also proposed changing the names of some categories. In response to the criticisms, OMB initiated a review of the Directive. During , the review process also included 1 public hearings in Boston, Denver, San Francisco, and Honolulu, 2 comment by Federal agencies on their requirements for racial and ethnic data, 3 development of a research agenda and related literature reviews, and 4 publication of a Federal Register notice, 59 Fed. The June 9, , notice contained information on the development of the current standards and requested public comment on: 1 the adequacy of current racial and ethnic categories, 2 the principles that should govern any proposed revisions to the standards, and 3 specific suggestions for change that had been offered by individuals and interested groups over the past several years. See Appendix for the text of Directive No. This Federal Register notice 1 summarizes the suggestions for changes drawn from public comments, research findings, and literature reviews, 2 briefly discusses the research agenda for some of the significant issues that have been identified, and 3 sets forth proposed principles to be used in reaching a final decision on standards for the classification of data on race and ethnicity. The issues, suggestions for change, and pros and cons described in this notice are those raised in public comment and do not reflect OMB positions or decisions. In addition it should be noted that because the categories in Directive No. Important dates in the balance of the review process are shown below. Various agencies are conducting activities to support the review process; these include work by the Bureau of the Census related to the Census program mentioned below. This Federal Register notice provides the last opportunity for public comment on priorities for. All comments received as a result of the June 9, , notice have been reviewed and considered in preparing this notice. It is not necessary to resubmit comments sent previously.
Key findings about online dating in the U.S.
The telephone number for the FedWorld help desk is For assistance in using electronic mail, please contact your system administrator. Telephone: The United States government has long collected statistics on race and ethnicity. Such data have been used to study changes in the social, demographic, health, and economic characteristics of various groups in our population. Federal data collections, through censuses, surveys, and administrative records, have provided an historical record of the Nation's population diversity and its changing social attitudes and policy concerns. Since the s, data on race and ethnicity have been used extensively in civil rights monitoring and enforcement covering areas such as employment, voting rights, housing and mortgage lending, health care services, and educational opportunities. These legislatively-based priorities created the need among Federal agencies for compatible, nonduplicative data for the specific population groups that historically had suffered discrimination and differential treatment on the basis of their race or ethnicity. These categories also implemented the requirements of Public Law of June 16, , which called for the collection, analysis, and publication of economic and social statistics on persons of Spanish origin or descent. Hence, the population groups identified by the Directive No. In recent years, Directive No. In addition, some critics have proposed changing the names of some categories. The June 9, , Federal Register notice contains additional background information on the development of Directive No. As a result of the notice, the public commented on the need for new categories, changes in current categories, whether racial and ethnic data should be collected, legislative and programmatic needs for the data, and the issue of self-identification versus observer identification. OMB received nearly letters in response to the Federal Register notice and heard the testimony of 94 witnesses during the four public hearings. OMB heard from a wide array of interested parties including individuals, data users, and data providers from within and outside. This Federal Register notice focuses primarily on the six major issues discussed in comments from the public Section B ; the expected future research agenda Section C ; and general principles for making a final decision on standard racial and ethnic categories for Directive No. Historical continuity of racial and ethnic data is important to many data users.
Need to know: The pros and cons of big data in audience measurement
Over time, however, there have been variations in how the Nation's principal population groups have been classified according to race and ethnicity; such differences have occurred even within data sets. In decennial censuses, for example, a question on race has been included since There have been many changes in the broad racial categories, the specific components of the categories, and whether data on ethnicity were collected. Asian Indians, for example, were counted as "Hindus" in censuses from to , as "White" from to , and as "Asians or Pacific Islanders" in and Numerous studies reveal that identification of ethnicity is fluid and self-perceptions of race and ethnicity change over time and across circumstances for many people. This is especially true among persons with heterogeneous ancestries. A study of the Current Population Survey showed 1 in 3 people reported an ethnicity in that was different from the one they had reported in This level of inconsistency reflects the fluidity of ethnicity as well as the effect of question design. Major historical inconsistencies in the data reflect social reality and public policy as well as technical decisions by data developers. Most agree that comparability over time is a desirable goal but that it is important also to reflect changes in society as they occur.
https://www.pnas.org/cms/asset/82a5c60e-1c20-4cf5-b31d-df7a78cef8fd/keyimage.jpgChristian Mingle Review: Is it the Ultimate Christian Dating Site?
Thus, General Principles 9 and 10 see section D below call for conducting research before any changes are made and for providing a crosswalk between old and any new categories so comparisons can be made across time. There are also differences among data sets with respect to how race and ethnicity are classified. On birth records, for example, the race of the baby's mother and father are based on reports of the mother or family members. The race of the baby, which is not reported on the birth record, was once assigned for purposes of published statistics by an algorithm based on the parents' races. Since , however, the National Center for Health Statistics has tabulated birth data according to the mother's race. In censuses and surveys until , racial data were usually based on the observation of the government enumerator filling out the questionnaire. Now, the usual practice is self-administered forms and questionnaires, especially when the purpose of data gathering is to obtain information on population characteristics. In the enforcement of civil rights laws, however, the classification is often made by employers or school administrators, and the observer's perception is at issue. Whether someone is a victim of discrimination often turns on the way in which others act on their perception of, for example, the color of the individual's skin, the ethnic origin of his or her last name, or the accent with which he or she speaks. Such issues do not depend generally on the way in which the individual identifies his or her racial or ethnic background. In sum, Federal data sets identifying race and ethnicity are a mixture of self-identification by respondents and the perceptions of observers. Until the current racial and ethnic standards were adopted in , Federal data collections used an assortment of definitions for broad racial categories. In response to that problem, a Federal interagency committee recommended development of common categories for racial and ethnic data. Directive No. The Directive requires compilation of data for four racial categories White, Black, American Indian or Alaskan Native, and Asian or Pacific Islander , and an ethnic category to indicate Hispanic origin, or not of Hispanic origin. Comparisons of data sets indicate high consistency in individual responses for White and Black populations 95 percent consistency and for the Asian and Pacific Islander population 90 percent consistency in the census National Content Reinterview Survey conducted by the Census Bureau. Reporting race is also less consistent for multiple-race persons, Hispanics, the foreign born, and persons who do not read or speak English well. NCHS found Asians and American Indians are sometimes misreported as "White" on death certificates, and this causes an underestimation of death rates for these groups.Nevertheless, these data quality problems are not so severe as to make the data unusable for most purposes. Testimony at the four public hearings in and letters to OMB requested data on specific population groups that go beyond legislatively required levels of detail. Some groups say they have suffered discrimination in political and economic access but without data for their specific population group, they feel that the discrimination is not recognized. For others, the request for recognition of a particular nationality group seems to be primarily a matter of pride and identification with that population group. Public comment indicates self-identification is important to many people. Some who commented requested different placement of their specific group within a broad group. Many people of more than one race, who under Directive No. In the June 9, , Federal Register notice, OMB asked for public comment on 1 the adequacy of the current categories, 2 principles that should govern any proposed revisions to the standards, and 3 specific suggestions for changes that have been offered by various individuals and organizations. This section summarizes the public comment including comments from Federal agencies that resulted from the June 9, , Federal Register notice as well as research findings related to the particular issues. In an effort to be thorough in summarizing public comments the discussion below of specific data collection and presentation categories Issue. The issues and suggestions shown below are those raised in public comment and do not reflect OMB positions or decisions. OMB will not make decisions on the issues until mid The following six issues are discussed in this section:. ISSUE 1. Should the Federal government collect data on race and ethnicity?
What it's like for women to date bisexual men
Should there be standards at all? ISSUE 2. Should Directive No. Should there be different collection standards for different purposes? ISSUE 3. ISSUE 4. Should self-identification or the perception of an observer guide the methods for collection of racial and ethnic data? ISSUE 5. Should population size and geographic distribution of groups be criteria in the final decision of Directive No. ISSUE 6. What should the specific data collection and presentation categories be? This discussion includes a brief summary of public comments and previous research findings. Briefly, suggestions that have been made include:. Summary of views expressed on whether the Federal government should collect racial and ethnic data. Some agencies presently are required by Federal statute and regulation to collect racial and ethnic data.
To end the collection of racial and ethnic data for these purposes, repeal of these statutes by Congress would be required. The view of those who favor continued collection of racial and ethnic data can be summed up by the words of the writer who said, " Those who favor no collection gave as their reasons the following: 1 doing so is divisive, archaic, unscientific, and racist; 2 it should not be a function of the Federal government the government should be concerned only with citizenship and the government has no need to know tracking heritage is an individual choice and responsibility ; 3 the government should collect ethnicity or ancestry instead of race; 4 there are no pure races, everyone is mixed, and therefore, the categories are meaningless; 5 people do not know their complete ancestry; 6 we are all supposed to have equal protection under the law race neutral, color blind ; 7 we are all Americans, we are a melting pot, we are one nation; 8 we are all human beings; 9 it is dehumanizing to categorize people like nuts and bolts; and 10 it is upsetting for example, the categories are too limited; reminds people of the Nazi holocaust. The background and demand for the issuance of Directive No. As part of the public comment period, Federal agencies were asked to provide information about their requirements for data on race and ethnicity. Federal agencies report that the standards in Directive No. Even where it is not required, Directive No. The information also suggests, however, that Directive No. Even where the definitions of categories are comparable, there have been variations in collection and processing procedures that lead to inconsistencies in the data. Additional differences occur because of the mix of self-identification and observer-identification of race and ethnicity. Agencies having statutory requirements to use racial and ethnic data for policy development, program evaluation, and civil rights monitoring and enforcement: 1 want historical continuity of the data; 2 generally oppose a "multiracial" category because the persons seeking this category are already covered by existing racial categories; 3 indicate that the perception of others is more valid for evaluating discrimination than individual self-identification; 4 note that standardized reporting formats, like the Employer Information Report, EEO-1, rely on observer identification; 5 express concern about the cost of making changes that will affect both Federal agencies, respondents, and other governmental bodies; and 6 generally favor the broad group structure of Directive No. Data collection agencies have legislative authority to collect racial and ethnic data needed for Federal programs and in the case of the decennial census, for redistricting. They also use racial and ethnic data for analyses of social, economic, and health trends for population groups. These agencies said: 1 the categories in Directive No. Many felt a "multiracial" category that does not specify the races is too heterogeneous and affects the counts of other groups in unknown ways. Agencies that collect health data particularly need to know specific categories because some diseases and health problems are more prevalent among certain racial and ethnic groups.
Zoosk Dating Site Review (2023)
Data collection agencies are concerned about the significant operational, technical, and cost issues of a "check all that apply" approach for multiracial persons. For example, processing systems would have to be changed to allow for reporting more than one category. Additionally, Federal laws have been written with the assumption that persons identify with one racial group; these laws would either have to be changed or some method would have to be devised to meet legislative requirements. Federal agencies have interpreted Directive No. Among those who favor collection of racial and ethnic data, there is significant difference of opinion as to whether Directive No. While some believe there should be no change in Directive No. The Directive No. Intermarriage, changes in immigration flows, and changes in ethnic consciousness are some of the reasons. These changes in our basic population structure suggest an increasingly diverse society and unforeseen future needs for racial and ethnic data. Public testimony and research indicate that race and ethnicity are subjective concepts and inherently ambiguous. For purposes of collecting data in the United States, race and ethnicity are cultural concepts and social constructs. As stated in the current version of Directive No. The definitions of the minimum set of population categories under Directive No. In line with the subjective nature of the concept, research shows people change how they classify themselves with respect to race and ethnicity. There is significant inconsistency in the measurement of ethnicity particularly.
More Articles
Research shows different responses are summoned by the format of questions open or specified categories , the number of categories, the examples listed, changes in self-perceptions within groups and among age cohorts, and the political climate. The differing views of whether Directive No. Federal agencies that use racial and ethnic data for regulatory programs, civil rights monitoring and enforcement generally oppose any revision of Directive No. Where trend analysis of social and economic changes was the commenter's purpose, more detailed categories were often favored. The preference varies for other purposes such as policy development and program fund allocations. In the public hearings and letters to OMB, persons concerned with self-identification generally favored revisions that would provide more detailed categories and more freedom of choice see Issue 6. Given the distinct uses of racial and ethnic data in the Federal government especially trend analysis versus regulatory and civil rights monitoring and enforcement , the possibility of a two-part Directive No. Part A of Directive No. Such a standard would track the increasing diversity of the U. Part B of Directive No. There are disadvantages to having two levels of data collection specified in the standards of a revised Directive No. The most serious disadvantage could be data sets with different counts of population groups that cannot be related, a result of different coding and tabulation rules. This is especially the case if the specific races of multiracial persons are identified. Two sets of data could be confusing to data users who may be unsure of which set to use for various purposes. To prevent refocusing the problem from data collection to tabulation, there would have to be generally agreed-upon procedures and guidelines for how agencies would tabulate data for program purposes. The procedures should ensure that detailed data collections could be tabulated back to the broad categories of the Directive No. Standard and generally agreed-upon tabulation rules would be needed for the various combinations of multiracial entries, including those where neither race is "White. The reaggregations could become more complicated because of the different assumptions that would be required. The requests of some groups who do not feel they fit into existing categories e.
Votre commentaire: