The federal government has now revised its standards for collecting race and ethnicity information for just the second time since they were developed in 1977.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The first, and still controversial revision came in 1997 when \u201cHispanic\u201d was split out as an ethnicity and the federal government began asking about Hispanic ethnicity separately from race. That caused significant confusion and skewed reporting.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The new revision will re-combine race and ethnicity questions, allowing individuals to more easily and understandably identify in all race\/ethnicity categories that apply. And the much debated \u201cMiddle Eastern or North African\u201d (MENA) race category will be added.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
As a rather satisfying side note, BCGi has been advocating for years that contractors stop using the term, \u201cminority\u201d to describe people of color in the aggregate as that term can be both misleading and derogatory (and no regulation or law actually requires<\/em> the use of that term). Office of Management and Budget agrees and is also removing references to \u201cminority\u201d and \u201cmajority\u201d when describing race\/ethnicity. Additionally, they are removing the word, \u201cNegro,\u201d from the definition of \u201cBlack or African American.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n As the federal government collects race and ethnicity data, so follow state and local governments and private organizations that are required to report workforce demographic data to the feds. In other words, race\/ethnicity self-identification is going to change for federal contractor employers, but that will take time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The agency responsible for setting the standard, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) within the White House, will give federal agencies (including the OFCCP) 18 months<\/em> to propose their plans for implementation. In turn, those plans will likely give the public significant time to switch over to new forms and databases. Federal agencies ultimately have up to five years<\/em> to implement changes, but are being strongly encouraged to implement as soon as possible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n So there is no \u201caction item\u201d for Compliance professionals yet<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Stay tuned for more developments. In the meantime, those who want a little more detail can read on.<\/p>\n\n\n\n One Question to Rule Them All<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The distinction between \u201crace\u201d and \u201cethnicity\u201d is extremely important in certain circles, but to the average person facing-down a self-identification form, those concepts most often only serve to confuse. The separation of \u201crace\u201d and \u201cethnicity\u201d questions in the 1997 revisions have demonstrably led to skewed reporting, particularly for those who self-identify as \u201cAfro-Latino.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n And among the myriad debates over the new \u201cMENA\u201d category is whether or not it represents a \u201crace\u201d or an \u201cethnicity\u201d (Answer: undecided).<\/p>\n\n\n\n The good folks at OMB have finally agreed that the distinction between \u201crace\u201d and \u201cethnicity\u201d is not actually germane to the self-identification process and reverses that aspect of the 1997 revisions. When the changes are rolled-out, race and ethnicity will be re-combined into a single question, and users will be encouraged to simply select any and all race\/ethnicity categories that apply to them. If a user selects an \u201cethnicity\u201d category and no \u201crace,\u201d that will (and always has been) fine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For federal contractors, this should simplify self-identification forms and give back some physical space on the form that can be put to better use. Unfortunately for some, this is likely to require significant \u201cback end\u201d changes to software and databases. An \u201cethnicity\u201d column in a database can simply go \u201cdead,\u201d but software platforms will need to be modified.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Vendors tend to treat these changes, at least initially, as \u201ccustomizations\u201d that clients are asked to pay for individually. If that happens to you, push back<\/em>. These changes are not unique to your organization and are necessary for the vendor\u2019s software products to continue to be viable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The New \u201cMiddle Eastern or North African\u201d Category<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Much ink has been spilled over all of the hair-pulling involved in this, but almost everyone agrees that we need some<\/em> new category for people who are loosely from the \u201cFertile Crescent\u201d region, even if they can\u2019t agree on the particulars of the definition. OMB has settled on the particulars, and this is the definition:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIndividuals with origins in any of the original peoples of the Middle East or North Africa, including, for example, Lebanese, Iranian, Egyptian, Syrian, Iraqi, and Israel.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Currently, these people are encouraged to self-identify as \u201cWhite,\u201d though most report that they do not feel like they experience life in America with the privileges typically associated with that label.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Accordingly, the definition of \u201cWhite\u201d will change to:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIndividuals with origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, including, for example, English, German, Irish, Italian, Polish, and Scottish.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n OMB notes that they are not providing an exhaustive list that associates all possible nationalities with one or more of the race\/ethnicity categories. While the category definitions may rely heavily on the concept of nationality, \u201cOMB recognizes that nationality is one of several components that contribute to racial and ethnic identity.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n So Compliance and HR professionals are still going to be facing questions along the lines of, \u201cHow do I answer if I am from X country\/region?\u201d The good news is that your answer does not change. OMB stresses that this is self<\/em>-identification, and the individual\u2019s determination, whether it is correct or not, is paramount. There may not be a right answer, so pick one or more that best reflect how you see yourself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Along those lines, BCGi continues to encourage employers to take their employees\u2019 self-identification responses at face value. Questioning them about their chosen designations is dicey, to put it mildly, and should only be done with very<\/em> good reason and with the advice of legal counsel.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Using the \u201cMinimum\u201d Categories No Longer the \u201cDefault\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Up to now we have technically been talking about the federal government\u2019s \u201cminimum\u201d race\/ethnicity categories currently used by the OFCCP for AAP purposes and the EEOC for EEO-1 purposes. But did you know there is also an official, \u201cdetailed category\u201d framework?<\/p>\n\n\n\n There is. OMB has also designated terms and definitions for collecting more detailed race\/ethnicity data. Each \u201cminimum\u201d category is actually broken-up into several smaller, more specific categories. Up to now, agencies were only encouraged to use the more detailed structure for collecting and reporting on demographic data, but with this revision OMB is requiring<\/em> all federal agencies to use the more detailed structure unless they obtain an exemption from OMB. In other words, more detailed race\/ethnicity self-ID forms will become the \u201cdefault\u201d for the federal government.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Does that mean it will become the default for everyone else? Doubtful, at least any time soon.<\/p>\n\n\n\n OMB recognizes that agencies that work with highly integrated data and those that collect data from the public have a much larger burden with these upcoming changes, and though they aren\u2019t called out specifically, OFCCP and EEOC are likely to be topping that list.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Moving all EEO-1 filers and all AAP preparers to a more detailed race\/ethnicity data collection would be a HUGE lift for both the federal agencies and the affected employers. Just implementing changes to the \u201cminimum\u201d categories is hard enough that OMB decided to give agencies up to five years<\/em> to comply instead of the recommended four years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Blowing out the AAP utilization analysis by \u201cdetailed\u201d race\/ethnicity categories would likely be a disaster, so while contractor employers may eventually<\/em> be required to collect more specific race\/ethnicity data for reporting purposes, if they do they will likely then have to \u201ctranslate\u201d the detailed responses back into the \u201cminimum\u201d categories for AAP purposes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Both the OFCCP and EEOC are likely to request and be granted exemptions to keep using the \u201cminimum\u201d categories as they do now.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If you\u2019re curious, below are the new \u201cdetailed\u201d categories approved by OMB.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Asian:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Black or African American:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Hispanic or Latino:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Middle Eastern or North African:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander:<\/p>\n\n\n\n White:<\/p>\n\n\n\n How did they decide what to list as a specific category and what to list in the \u201cother\u201d group? That was based on the most recent Census figures and determined by the relative sizes of those populations, as far as they can tell from current data.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Terminology Changes<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n OMB is also taking the opportunity to clean-up some language and terminology.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cOther\u201d is being removed from the \u201cNative Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander\u201d category. They\u2019re removing the phrase \u201cwho maintains tribal affiliation or community attachment\u201d from the definition of \u201cAmerican Indian or Alaskan Native.\u201d And they\u2019re eliminating a duplicated reference to Cuba, replacing \u201cIndian Subcontinent\u201d with \u201cSouth Asia,\u201d and a few other linguistic clean-ups.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Most notably, though, they are removing the term, \u201cNegro,\u201d from the definition of \u201cBlack or African American,\u201d and they are removing references to \u201cmajority\u201d and \u201cminority\u201d when describing demographics (those terms can still be used in a statistical context, as appropriate).<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cNegro\u201d was expunged from OFCCP regulations and materials long ago, but references to \u201cminorities\u201d persist in the regulations to this day, leading many to believe that it is a \u201cregulatory term\u201d that they are required<\/em> to use, regardless of any confusion or offense that term might generate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But the OFCCP\u2019s regulations simply use<\/em> the term; they do not actually require any contractors<\/em> to use that term. If and when the agency ever gets around to revising it\u2019s regulations implementing Executive Order 11246, we fully expect them to follow OMB\u2019s lead and expunge references to \u201cminorities.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n BCGi has long recommended contractors refer to \u201cpeople of color\u201d or \u201cPOC\u201d instead, with the latter even fitting better in report column headers. OMB, nor the OFCCP, has landed on an \u201calternate\u201d term, and it is unclear at this point if they even intend to do so. Regardless, \u201cminority\u201d is going the way of the Dodo.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Clearly, the federal government has heard us. We will ignore the countless individuals who actually worked on this issue and take full credit for the change.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Timeframe for Changes<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Nothing is happening right now<\/em>. Your self-identifications don\u2019t need to change yet, nor do your HRMS and ATS platforms and such.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n