A Step Forward for Data Equity: New Federal Standards on Race and Ethnicity Will Improve Policymakers’ Knowledge Base

2020 Census form
Photo by M via Wikimedia Commons

This spring, the federal government updated its standards governing data on race and ethnicity for the first time in 27 years. Informed by years of research and community engagement, the new standards are widely expected to offer improved insights into the ways policy choices impact Americans of all racial and ethnic backgrounds. Once fully implemented, the new standards’ impacts will range from the U.S. Census Bureau to state and local agencies that administer many federal programs. While publication of the new standards is an important step, federal, state, and local agencies must now get to work implementing the standards effectively.

The U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) first published comprehensive rules for the collection of race and ethnicity data by federal agencies in 1977. These standards have impacts felt throughout American society – here are just a few:

• Census data on population sizes and social and economic characteristics
• Federal, state, and local administrative data such as school enrollment and incarceration
• Anti-discrimination compliance data collected by employers

However, these standards are long past due for an update. The standards have been revisited only twice since their introduction in 1977: in 1997 (a 20-year gap), and this year (a 27-year gap). This year’s update brings four major changes (detailed summary):

• A single question for race and ethnicity:
  • The 1997 standards collect data through two separate questions: One question about race (white, Black, American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, and a catch-all “other” category) and one about ethnicity (Hispanic/Latino origin). This framework is motivated by the fact that Hispanic/Latino Americans may belong to any racial group.
  • Research has found that the two-question framework causes confusion and inaccurate data. The new standards use a single question to gather information on race as well as Hispanic/Latino origin, an approach that has been found to work better.
  • The new standards keep the option to choose multiple categories, meaning that the single-question approach will not prevent Hispanic/Latino respondents to provide information on other racial/ethnic groups they may belong to.
• A new Middle Eastern/North African category:
  • The 1997 standards categorized people of Middle Eastern/North African (MENA) origin as white, even when respondents placed themselves in the catch-all “other” category.
  • Categorizing MENA respondents as white rendered these populations invisible, obscured differences from other white groups in social and economic experiences and characteristics, and hindered attempts to understand impacts of policy choices on these groups.
  • The new standards include a top-level category for MENA origin (considered an ethnicity rather than a race), enabling better representation and understanding of these populations.
  • The new standards keep the option to choose multiple categories, meaning that MENA respondents will still have the opportunity to identify themselves as white, Black, Asian, or of any other racial background if applicable.
• Detailed data collection by default:
  • Under the 1997 standards, agencies were generally not required to collect any detail beyond the “top-level” minimum categories (white, Black, American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, and a catch-all “other” category, plus yes/no to Hispanic/Latino origin). Some agencies, such as the Census Bureau, collect more detailed data, but this practice is not widespread.
  • Including only high-level race/ethnicity categories obscures heterogeneity within broad groups. As just one example, detailed data make clear the “Asian” category hides substantial differences in social and economic experiences among Americans with origins in Japan, Pakistan, or Cambodia (for example).
  • The new standards specify detailed subgroups (based on population size) that data collection agencies must by default include as checkboxes on forms. The standards also include a process for agencies to request an exception, such as for data privacy reasons.
• A plan to regularly review the standards:
  • Race and ethnicity are inherently fluid concepts grounded in history. These concepts are certain to evolve over time, and effective data collection frameworks must evolve alongside.
  • Moreover, while this year’s update is a major step forward, all parties acknowledge that it is imperfect. OMB highlights the need for further research on ensuring multiracial/multiethnic respondents choose all applicable categories, refining terminology, and collecting data on Americans descended from people enslaved in the United States, among other issues.
  • OMB plans to establish a standing Interagency Committee on Race and Ethnicity Statistical Standards to pursue this research and update the standards every 10 years, rather than again allowing several decades to pass before they are revisited.

Next Steps: Gradual Implementation

OMB finalized the new standards after a two-year process of research, outreach, and revision. But for federal, state, and local agencies, the process is just beginning:

• Federal agencies are instructed to begin updating surveys and administrative forms as quickly as possible, and required to submit implementation action plans to OMB by fall 2025.
• All federal data collection activities are required to comply with the new standards by March 2029. However, the Office of the U.S. Chief Statistician within OMB aims to support agencies in implementing the standards “much sooner” than the official five-year timeline.
• Many Maryland state and local agencies will update forms and practices as the federal agencies they partner with implement the new standards. The sooner state and local officials familiarize themselves with the update and begin planning, the smoother the transition will be.
• Policymakers should keep in mind that federal requirements are a floor on data collection practices, not a ceiling. Collecting, analyzing, and publishing race and ethnicity data at the most detailed level appropriate ensures that decisionmakers and the public have a sound knowledge base to advance broadly and equitably shared opportunity.