1201 East 10th StreetFirst NameFirst NameMonth.docx

1201 East 10th Street
First Name
First Name
Month
Month
First Name
YearDay
Last Name
Last Name
IN
FO
RM
A
TI
O
N
A
L
CO
PY

IN
FO
RM
A
TI
O
N
A
L
CO
PY
Person 7
Person 8
Person 9
Person 10
Person 11
Person 12
Form D-61 (1-15-2009)
U S C E N S U S B U R E A U
D-61- Base prints in BLACK
D-61- Prints Pantone PROCESS CYAN (10%. 20%, 25%,50%
and 100%)

Fold line ➞ Fold line ➞
F
o
ld
L
in
e
➞
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Economics and Statistics Administration
U.S. CENSUS BUREAUThis is the official form for all the
people at this address.
It is quick and easy, and your answers are protected by law.
Use a blue or black pen.
The Census must count every person living in the United
States on April 1, 2010.
Before you answer Question 1, count the people living in
this house, apartment, or mobile home using our guidelines.
• Count all people, including babies, who live and sleep here
most of the time.
The Census Bureau also conducts counts in institutions
and other places, so:
• Do not count anyone living away either at college or in the
Armed Forces.

• Do not count anyone in a nursing home, jail, prison,
detention facility, etc., on April 1, 2010.
• Leave these people off your form, even if they will return to
live here after they leave college, the nursing home, the
military, jail, etc. Otherwise, they may be counted twice.
The Census must also include people without a permanent
place to stay, so:
• If someone who has no permanent place to stay is staying
here on April 1, 2010, count that person. Otherwise, he or
she may be missed in the census.
1. How many people were living or staying in this house,
apartment, or mobile home on April 1, 2010?
Number of people =
IJMark K all that apply.
No additional people
IJMark K ONE box.
Owned by you or someone in this household free and
clear (without a mortgage or loan)?
Rented?
Occupied without payment of rent?
4. What is your telephone number? We may call if we
don’t understand an answer.
Area Code + Number
– –

5. Please provide information for each person living here. Start
with a
person living here who owns or rents this house, apartment, or
mobile
home. If the owner or renter lives somewhere else, start with
any adult
living here. This will be Person 1.
What is Person 1’s name? Print name below.
Last Name
First Name MI
6. IJWhat is Person 1’s sex? Mark K ONE box.
Male Female
➜
Day Year of birthAge on April 1, 2010
9. IJWhat is Person 1’s race? Mark K one or more boxes.
White
Black, African Am., or Negro
American Indian or Alaska Native — Print name of enrolled or
principal tribe. C
Asian Indian
Chinese
Filipino
Other Asian — Print race, for
example, Hmong, Laotian, Thai,
Pakistani, Cambodian, and so on. C
Japanese
Korean

Vietnamese
Native Hawaiian
Guamanian or Chamorro
Samoan
Other Pacific Islander — Print
race, for example, Fijian, Tongan,
and so on. C
Some other race — Print race. C
10. Does Person 1 sometimes live or stay somewhere else?
No IJYes — Mark K all that apply.
In college housing
In the military
At a seasonal
or second residence
For child custody
In jail or prison
In a nursing home
For another reason
➜ If more people were counted in Question 1, continue with
Person 2.
OMB No. 0607-0919-C: Approval Expires 12/31/2011.
Sex Age on April 1, 2010 Date of Birth Related to Person 1?
Last Name First Name MI
Male
Female

Day YearMonth Yes
No
Last Name MI
Male
Female
Day YearMonth Yes
No
Last Name MI
Male
Female
Month Yes
No
MI
Male
Female

Day Year Yes
No
First Name MI
Male
Female
Day YearMonth
Yes
No
Last Name First Name MI
Male
Female
Day YearMonth Yes
No
Thank you for completing your official
2010 Census form.
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
JIC1 JIC2

If your enclosed postage-paid envelope is missing, please mail
your completed form to:
U.S. Census Bureau
National Processing Center
Jeffersonville, IN 47132
If you need help completing this form, call 1-866-872-6868
between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m.,
7 days a week. The telephone call is free.
Use this section to complete information for the rest of the
people you counted in Question 1 on the
front page. We may call for additional information about them.
Draft 6 (1-15-2009)
F
o
ld
L
in
e
➞
Fold line ➞ Fold line ➞
TDD — Telephone display device for the hearing impaired. Call
1-866-783-2010 between
8:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m., 7 days a week. The telephone call is
free.
¿NECESITA AYUDA? Si usted necesita ayuda para completar

este cuestionario, llame al
1-866-928-2010 entre las 8:00 a.m. y 9:00 p.m., 7 días a la
semana. La llamada telefónica
es gratis.
The U.S. Census Bureau estimates that, for the average
household, this form will take about 10 minutes to
complete, including the time for reviewing the instructions and
answers. Send comments regarding this burden
estimate or any other aspect of this burden to: Paperwork
Reduction Project 0607-0919-C, U.S. Census
Bureau, AMSD-3K138, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Washington, DC
20233. You may e-mail comments to
<[email protected]>; use "Paperwork Project 0607-0919-C" as
the subject.
Respondents are not required to respond to any information
collection unless it displays a valid approval
number from the Office of Management and Budget.
Start here
IN
FO
RM
A
TI
O
N
A
L
CO
PY

2. Were there any additional people staying here
April 1, 2010 that you did not include in Question 1?
Children, such as newborn babies or foster children
Relatives, such as adult children, cousins, or in-laws
Nonrelatives, such as roommates or live-in baby sitters
3. Is this house, apartment, or mobile home —
People staying here temporarily
Owned by you or someone in this household with a
mortgage or loan? Include home equity loans.
7. What is Person 1’s age and what is Person 1’s date of birth?
Please report babies as age 0 when the child is less than 1 year
old.
Print numbers in boxes.
Yes, another Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin — Print origin,
for example,
Argentinean, Colombian, Dominican, Nicaraguan, Salvadoran,
Spaniard, and so on. C
Yes, Puerto Rican
Yes, Cuban
Yes, Mexican, Mexican Am., Chicano
NOTE: Please answer BOTH Question 8 about Hispanic origin
and
Question 9 about race. For this census, Hispanic origins are not
races.

8. Is Person 1 of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin?
No, not of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin
http://www.jstor.org/stable/30036980
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of
JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp.
JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that
unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an
entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal,
non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this
work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=annr
evs.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the
same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars,
researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information
technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new
forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please
contact [email protected]
Annual Reviews is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,

preserve and extend access to Annual Review of
Sociology.
http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/stable/30036980?origin=JSTOR-pdf
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=annr
evs
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2003. 29:563-88
doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.29.010202.100006
Copyright ( 2003 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved
RACIAL MEASUREMENT IN THE AMERICAN
CENSUS: Past Practices and Implications
for the Future
C. Matthew Snipp
Department of Sociology, Stanford University, Stanford,
California 94306;
email: [email protected]
Key Words Directive No. 15, hypodescent, blood quantum,
multiracial
U Abstract In 1977, the federal Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) estab-
lished an official classification standard for the measurement of
race in the American
population. In so doing, the OMB authorities created what
amounted to a racial cos-
mology that spread throughout American society, affecting
public perceptions about
the racial hierarchy of American society. In 1997, the OMB

issued a revised version of
this classification in which small changes may profoundly affect
the way policymakers
and the American public think about race. At the very least,
these revisions present
significant challenges to social scientists who study race and
ethnicity. This review
begins with a brief historical overview of racial data collected
by the federal govern-
ment. It subsequently examines the circumstances leading up to
the 1997 revisions of
OMB Directive No. 15 and discusses how these revisions may
affect social scientific
research on the subject of race and ethnicity.
THE ROLE AND SIGNIFICANCE OF
PUBLIC DATA ABOUT RACE
Quarrels about the relative significance of race notwithstanding,
few sociologists
would disagree with the unparalleled importance of race in
American society.
Along with gender, age, and economic resources, few other
social traits pos-
sess as much gravity in determining personal well being. For
most sociologists,
race, class, and gender form the axes that define inequality in
modern society
(Grusky 2001). Consequently, race is a measure that routinely
appears in a va-
riety of sociological studies, ranging from attitudinal surveys to
demographic
analyses.
Sociologists who work with government-sponsored surveys or
data collected

in connection with the decennial census find themselves relying
on the federal
government to obtain information about the racial
characteristics of respondents.
These researchers must use a preselected set of categories
designed to structure data
0360-0572/03/0811-0563$14.00 563
564 SNIPP
reported by a wide variety of federal agencies. Needless to say,
these sociologists
do not have the luxury of designing their own measures of race.
However, even among those sociologists able to design and
field their own
surveys, there is relatively little interest in devising racial
measures different from
those used by the federal government. For example, the
National Opinion Research
Center's General Social Survey (GSS) for many years identified
respondents only
as Black, White, or Other. This practice is virtually identical to
the surveys similar
in size to the GSS sponsored by federal agencies.
There are, indeed, a number of very good reasons why surveys
privately fielded
by social scientists adhere fairly closely to the practices
adopted by the federal
government with respect to the collection of racial data. One
reason is that federal
standards are a serious effort to measure social reality as most

Americans under-
stand it, and thus, racial categories possess substantial face
validity. However, even
more important is that federal surveys and especially the
decennial census provide
an important benchmark for checking the accuracy of smaller
samples.
Despite the extensive use of officially constructed racial
categories directly or
indirectly in sociological research, sociologists have been
relatively complacent
about the content of these categories. Indeed, relatively little
attention is paid to
these methodological constructs with respect to their origins,
implementation, and
current status in the federal statistical system. Even less
attention has been paid
to the social and political implications of this classification
system or to the ways
these categories are manifest in public policy (Nobles 2000).
Most seem to assume
that some sort of social consensus brought forth these categories
in a manner that
transcends sociological scrutiny (Omi 2001).
This essay reviews the classification system currently in place
for describing
the racial composition of the United States and attempts to show
why the fed-
eral government measures race as it does. Furthermore, the
social and political
implications of these practices, particularily that behind these
seemingly straight-
forward and self-evident categories is a more complex reality
that reveals much

about American society (Starr 1992, Nobles 2000, Omi 2001),
are also discussed.
HISTORICAL ANTECEDENTS
1790 to 1840
Although the primitive ideas of Enlightenment scientists did not
have much direct
influence on the political organization of the United States, the
founding fathers
and certainly the Constitutional framers such as Thomas
Jefferson were deeply
influenced by Enlightenment thinking (Fredrickson 2002).
These ideas set the
parameters for the Constitutional debates about who would be
considered a bona
fide citizen of the new nation-state.
At the close of these debates, race became embedded within the
institutional
framework that defined the political organization of the United
States. Article I,
Section 2 of the Constitution sets forth the principles for
apportioning taxation and
RACIAL CLASSIFICATION IN THE CENSUS
political representation. Racial considerations are stipulated
twice in this article.
The framers deemed that "Indians not taxed" were not eligible
for representa-
tion or taxation and that persons other than freemen and Indians
not taxed, i.e.,

slaves, should be counted as three fifths of a person-the
notorious Three-Fifths
Compromise.
The Constitution further mandated that an enumeration should
be conducted
every ten years for the purposes of allocating political
representation in Congress.
In 1790, the first Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson, carried
out the first census
of the United States. As dictated by the Constitution, the
enumeration excluded
Indians exempt from taxes and counted the number of slaves in
fractions of three
fifths, thereby launching the collection of racial data by the
federal government
that continues today.
Although the Constitution provided for the institutional
recognition of race as a
fundamental element of political administration, it is also
essential to keep in mind
that race was subsumed as a category of political and legal
status. For government
purposes, unassimilated Native Americans and African slaves
were political cat-
egories in which phenotypical and cultural traits may have been
implied but were
not explicitly acknowledged or defined in statute. Free Blacks
and assimilated In-
dians whose physical appearances contradicted their social
status were pushed to
the margins of society, often in segregated quarters (Woodward
1955). At the dawn
of the United States, the habits of culture and physical
appearances of those who

occupied subordinate political and legal statuses in the new
nation were not well de-
fined. These qualities would not be clearly articulated until the
development of the
racial sciences-eugenics and ethnology-in the nineteenth
century (Harris 1968).
Nonetheless, from 1790 to 1840, federal marshals under the
supervision of the
Secretary of State conducted the decennial census. In the first
five censuses of this
nation, marshals were responsible for recording the political and
legal status of the
population, whether free or enslaved, and if American Indian,
whether a taxpayer
or not. Racial characteristics were certainly a shorthand
indicator for one's likely
legal and political status in this period, but racial characteristics
per se were not
explicitly introduced until 1820 when the term color was added
to the census (Lott
1993). The 1840 census also was noteworthy because a
controversy arose over the
number of "colored insane" in the North. This dispute was never
resolved, but it
represented the first significant challenge to the accuracy of the
census (Anderson
1988). Furthermore, it alerted Congress to the importance of an
accurate census as
the sectional conflict between the North and South intensified.
This concern was
manifest in the administration of the 1850 census.
1850 to 1890
The 1850 census coincided with a number of important
scientific and political de-

velopments in U.S. history. By 1850, ethnology and eugenics-
scientific racism-
exerted an enormous influence on ideas about racial differences
(Fredrickson
2002). Most scholars agreed that a racial hierarchy existed and
that the hierar-
chy was destined by nature, but considerable debate surrounded
issues such as
565
566 SNIPP
whether racial variances represented different human origins.
These debates had
a special resonance at the time because they provided the
intellectual justification
for attacking or defending slavery.
The 1850 census was taken in a period when the United States
was not yet on
the verge of war, but the intensity of the slavery conflict was
rapidly building. The
1850 census was especially notable because it represented a
departure from past
practices in a number of respects (Anderson 1988, Bennett
2000). For instance,
Congress had created a special census board consisting of the
secretaries of state
and the interior and the postmaster general. Unlike past
censuses, Congress granted
considerable discretion to this board, and this board, in turn,
granted considerable
authority to the superintendent of the census, Joseph C.G.

Kennedy, who served
in this position for 16 years (Anderson 1988, pp. 35-37).
Kennedy introduced a number of innovations to the way the
census was taken,
and for advice and guidance, he turned to leaders in the
American Statistical
Association and the American Geographical and Statistical
Society. Thus, the
1850 census was the first to benefit from scientific advice.
These scholars helped
Kennedy develop a questionnaire and census-taking procedure
that was consid-
erably more extensive and centralized than any previous census
(Anderson 1988,
p. 37). Most notably, the census schedules were designed to
collect individual-level,
as opposed to household-level, information. Furthermore, like
previous censuses,
the 1850 enumeration took note of the "color" of respondents
and their "civil con-
dition," whether free or slave. However, slaves were enumerated
with a special
schedule that identified them only as a number recorded along
with the name of
their owner (Anderson 1988, p. 39). Acknowledging the
existence of Black-White
and Black-Indian relations, the 1850 census questionnaire also
included a category
for Mulatto (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1979).
In the decades following the Civil War, the race question
evolved in ways that re-
flected political concerns of the time, particularly immigration,
as well as scientific
preoccupations with the nature of race. The 1860 census form

followed the format
of the 1850 census but added categories for Chinese and Indian.
Reflecting the
growing concern about immigrant railroad workers, the census
counted Chinese
individuals only in California (Bennett 2000). The concerns
about Asian immi-
gration continued unabated, and the 1870 census added Japanese
for enumeration
in California. The census also continued to enumerate Mulattos.
By one account, the 1880 census was noteworthy because it was
the first modern
census insofar as it replaced federal marshals with specially
appointed supervisors
and enumerators (Anderson 1988, Bennett 2000). Even so, the
enumeration of
race was carried out almost exactly as it had been done in
previous censuses. The
1880 census differed from the 1870 census only in omitting
"Indians not taxed"
from the enumeration schedule. However, in terms of racial
measurement, the 1890
census represented a much more dramatic departure. The 1890
census followed the
Chinese Exclusion Act (1882), the cessation of the Indian Wars
in the West, and
a growing concern among southern politicians over racial
purity. To address these
issues, the 1890 census counted Chinese and Japanese beyond
California; it tallied

American Indians, taxed or not taxed; and it subdivided the
Mulatto population
into "Quadroons" and "Octoroons" (Lee 1993, Bennett 2000).
The 1890 census was besieged with controversy over a variety
of matters. How-
ever, it directly responded to nativistic concerns about the
impact of immigration
on the nation. In particular, it showed that a substantial amount
of the growth in
the population was due to an influx of European immigrants.
This information
provided potent fuel to the anti-immigration movement and
others concerned with
the "degradation" of American stock (Anderson 1988).
Racial Measurement in the Early Twentieth Century
The 1900 census was noteworthy with respect to race in one
significant detail: It
did not attempt to subdivide the Black population as had been
done in the previous
census. The Bureau jettisoned the designations of Octoroon and
Quadroon. How-
ever, it retained the practice of enumerating Mullatos. One
reason for this change
was that no clear mandate behind the collection of this
information existed. Fur-
thermore, the principle of hypodescent as practiced in Jim Crow
legislation made
such distinctions superfluous--Black was Black, regardless of
how much or how
little ancestry was involved (Davis 1991). Nonetheless,
Mulattos continued to be
counted in the 1910 census. This designation was finally
dropped altogether in the
1920 enumeration.

Although the evidence is scant, the decision to abandon the
subdivisions of
the Black population might be seen as the triumph of politics
over science--Jim
Crow over scientific racism. As noted above, the 1850 census
was the first to be
shaped by scientific opinion. This census also began the
practice of enumerating
Mulattos. Census takers were instructed "in all cases where the
person is white,
leave the space blank; in all cases where the person is black,
insert the letter B; if
mulatto, insert M. It is very desirable that these particulars be
carefully regarded."
(U.S. Bureau of the Census 1979, p. 14). These instructions did
not explain why
these particulars should be carefully regarded, but the
enumerator instructions for
the 1870 census were slightly more forthright. To enumerate
race (color) in the
1870 census, the instructions admonished, "Be particularly
careful in reporting
the class Mulatto. The word is here generic, and includes
quadroons, octoroons,
and all persons having any perceptible trace of African blood.
Important scientific
results depend upon the correct determination of this class in
schedules 1 and 2."
(U.S. Bureau of the Census 1979, p. 18). The 1890 instructions
were mute about
why it was important to collect this information but provided
precise definitions
for each category of Octoroon, Quadroon, and Mulatto.
One can speculate about the sorts of "important scientific

results" that were at
stake, but without question, scientific racism, eugenics, and
social Darwinism were
the prevailing ideas of this time and almost certainly were
behind the collection
of this information. Counterbalancing this desire to differentiate
the Black popu-
lation, Jim Crow legislation and its embrace of hypodescent
began spreading after
Reconstruction and was fully ascendant by 1890. The strength
of this movement
567
568 SNIPP
may have come too late to thwart scientific preoccupations in
earlier censuses, but
by 1920, their absence suggests that federal authorities were
content with the idea
that any degree of Black ancestry was sufficient for the
designation of Negro. In
fact, the instructions to enumerators were explicit about this
point (U.S. Bureau of
the Census 2002).
Although the effort to subdivide the Black population was
abandoned in 1900,
census enumerators were instructed to assay the ancestry of
American Indians.
Jim Crow laws did not apply to American Indians in many states
where they were
enacted. Furthermore, the federal government had a vested
interest in limiting the

numbers of American Indians to whom it might have pecuniary
obligations.
In 1900, enumerators were instructed to record the fraction of
White ancestry
("blood") possessed by each American Indian, his or her tribe,
and the tribes of his
or her mother and father. This presaged the introduction of
hyperdescent rules for
American Indians. These rules would establish lower bounds of
ancestry, below
which individuals could not legally claim to be recognized as an
American Indian
(Snipp 1989). Needless to say, hyperdescent was a convenient
device for limiting
the obligations from treaties and other agreements that had been
incurred by the
federal government throughout the preceding century. In the
coming decades, the
federal government would establish minimum blood quantum
standards for being
judged an authentic American Indian and hence being eligible
for a variety of
federal services, including education and health care.
In 1902, Congress established the first permanent census office
and, in so do-
ing, created the Census Bureau as it is known today. In the
decades after 1902, the
Census Bureau has become staffed by civil service employees,
including many
highly trained professionals-statisticians, demographers, and
survey research
specialists-who have made the census increasingly automated,
more accurate, and
more closely attuned to the standards of social scientific

methodology. Nonethe-
less, the monitoring of race evolved slowly during the first
decades of the twentieth
century. The 1910 census used the same set of racial categories
that appeared on the
1900 form and added one category for "Other Race" that was
assigned to persons
who could not be classified by enumerators.
Except for the deletion of the Mulatto category, the racial
classification used by
the census was unchanged in 1920. However, four new
categories were added in
1930: Mexican, Filipino, Hindu, and Korean. These categories
reflected changing
patterns of immigration. Filipinos began to migrate to the
United States after the
Spanish-American War, working mostly as laborers in
California agriculture. A
large number of Mexican farm workers, along with a smaller
number of Koreans
and Asian Indians, also migrated to California during the 1920s.
The 1930 cen-
sus also institutionalized the one-drop rule for Blacks by
instructing enumerators
that:
A person of mixed White and Negro blood was to be returned as
Negro, no
matter how small the percentage of Negro blood; someone part
Indian and
part Negro also was to be listed as Negro, unless the Indian
blood predomi-
nated... (Bennett 2000, pp. 169-170).

The 1940 census also used this same scheme for counting ethnic
minorities,
except that Mexicans were subsumed in the White population
and not enumerated
separately as they had been in the previous census. No doubt
this reflected a
deliberate effort on the part of Mexican-American leaders who
argued that the
Mexican-American population should be counted as White, and
not as an ethnic
minority (Skerry 1993, p. 17).
Racial Measurement in Postwar America
Nearly every aspect of American life was influenced by the
experience of World
War II and the census was no exception. After the war, one
minor revision of the race
question in the 1950 census was the deletion of the term color
from the question-
naire. However, a much more significant series of revisions
took place as a result
of a fortuitous discovery made during the 1940s. In particular,
one study showed
that the 1940 census undercounted men aged 21 to 35 by 2.8%.
More importantly,
the undercount varied by race (Black men were undercounted by
approximately
13%) and by region (Anderson & Fienberg 1999, pp. 29-30).
The distinguished
demographer Ansley Coale evaluated the next census and
concluded that in 1950
non-Whites had been undercounted by 12%-13% (Anderson &
Fienberg 1999,

p. 30). The Census Bureau also instituted a post-enumeration
survey designed to
estimate the magnitude of undercount in the census and
obtained results similar to
those of Coales' research.
The discovery of an undercount of this magnitude was a
startling discovery for
Census Bureau officials. The presence of an undercount was
problematic in its own
right. However, the undercount was disproportionately
concentrated in the non-
White population, and this was especially unsettling in an era
when the Civil Rights
revolution was rapidly gaining momentum. Census planners
undertook a number
of innovations designed to reduce the undercount, but they fixed
their attention on
the role of enumerators and their ability to accurately discern
racial heritage. For
example, in their evaluations of the 1950 census, they found
that, in areas where
there were large concentrations of American Indians, the counts
of American
Indians seemed reasonably accurate. However in other areas,
such as in cities, they
concluded that American Indians were most likely undercounted
by a substantial
amount because enumerators could not accurately identify them
(Snipp 1989).
To remedy the problem of enumerator identification, the Census
Bureau adopted
the practice of using self-identification to obtain information
about the racial her-
itage of respondents. In the spring of 1960, 80% of American

households received
an advance census report form that was to be completed by the
nominal head of the
household and later collected by a census enumerator. The duty
of census enumer-
ators was limited to checking that the forms were completed and
to leaving an ad-
ditional set of questions (long form) with every fourth
household (Anderson 1988).
The impact of this procedural change was relatively small in the
aggregate
population. However, follow-up studies indicated that self-
identification along
with other innovations yielded improved coverage and a more
efficient census
(Anderson 1988). For some populations, however, the impact
was dramatic. For
569
570 SNIPP
example, between 1950 and 1960, the American Indian
population increased dra-
matically from 343,400 to 508,700, an increase of 48%. In the
same period, the
total U.S. population increased 18% from all sources.1
One of the less appreciated implications of the procedural
change from enu-
merator observation to self-identification was a fundamental
redefinition of the
meaning of race. Under the old regime, enumerator observation

meant that racial
identification was based mainly on phenotypical appearances
and on the enu-
merator's visual acuity with respect to cues such as skin color,
hair texture, and
other anatomical features. The number of African Americans,
for example, rep-
resented the number of persons displaying the physical
characteristics associated
with some more or less common notion about African-American
phenotypical
traits. Under the new system, allowing individuals to self-
identify their race meant
that the number of persons counted within a population was a
manifestation of
cultural affiliation and other deeply held personal
considerations beyond the pale
of conventional demographic inquiry. Thus, the dramatic
increase in the American
Indian population could be attributed to the enumeration of
persons who were not
necessarily phenotypically American Indian, but for whom there
was a sufficient
attachment to this population to self-identify themselves as such
when presented
with the opportunity to do so.
This was a large step toward a constructionist interpretation of
race and away
from older biologized perspectives of race. Although there is
little indication that
the census planners at the time fully appreciated the
implications of their decision,
the implementation of self-identification also amounted to a
profound realignment
in the interpretation of racial data from an older essentialist

account to one more
consistent with a social constructionist viewpoint. This change
in procedure moved
the idea of race away from a concept defined in terms of a more
or less well-
defined set of physical traits to a phenomenon defined mostly in
the vague terms
of personal identity. By discarding enumerator observations, the
Census Bureau
introduced a system in which race could take on whatever social
and personal
meaning that respondents chose to assign to it. Although one
might question the
utility of assaying internally organized interpretations of racial
identity (Keith &
Herring 1991, Murguia & Telles 1996), that this change altered
the substantive
interpretation of racial data is indisputable.
After 1960, the decennial census became the object of ever-
more-intense scrutiny
as the result of two important developments that gained
momentum in the postwar
years. One was the Civil Rights movement and its struggle to
mobilize minority
voters. The other was the growth of federal programs that relied
on formula funding
to allocate resources to state and local governments.
It hardly needs saying that the Civil Rights movement, and
especially those
groups concerned with voting rights, was keenly concerned with
the results of the
lIt is worth noting that a small amount of immigration from
Mexico, Canada, and elsewhere

is included in the American Indian population, but otherwise,
immigration is a negligible
component of population growth for this group.
census. After the passage of the Voters Rights Acts in the
1960s, the census was
not only a vehicle for ensuring minority representation, but also
a tool for moni-
toring efforts to abridge the political influence of minority
communities. For these
groups, racial data such as that collected in the decennial census
was of unparal-
leled importance. At the same time, the federal government was
embarking on a
campaign designed to combat poverty, improve economic
opportunities, and deal
with a range of problems from housing segregation to
employment discrimination.
All these efforts relied on census data for documentation and
planning purposes.
Formula funding was not a new idea in the 1960s, but it had
expanded rapidly
after World War II. By 1972, Richard Nixon made revenue
sharing a centerpiece of
his New Federalism policies, with data from the census serving
as the benchmark
for these efforts (Anderson 1988). By the 1970 census, racial
data from the Census
Bureau played an unprecedented role in the affairs of the
national government
(Nobles 2000).

RACIAL DATA AND THE GENESIS OF THE OFFICE OF
MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET DIRECTIVE NO. 15
From 1940 to 1960, census data for ethnic minorities were
relegated to a separate
volume usually titled Nonwhite Population by Race.2 Racial
data were routinely
omitted from the early series that reported social and economic
characteristics
for states, counties, and cities. Instead, data for ethnic
minorities were assembled
at a later date in a smaller publication and published as a
subject report, along
with other topical volumes dealing with unemployment,
migration, and family
and household composition, among other subjects. However, by
1970, the racial
profile of the United States was deemed sufficiently important
that data for Blacks
and Whites were included along with other characteristics of the
population. In
particular, the 1970 census reported numbers of persons by age
and race, social
characteristics for Blacks and Whites, and characteristics for the
Spanish-origin
or Spanish-heritage population.
In the late 1960s, advocates for the Latino population lobbied
for the enumera-
tion of this group with little success. These efforts came late in
the census-planning
process, and the Census Bureau resisted these belated attempts
to press for the enu-
meration of the Hispanic population. Nonetheless, a
compromise was reached in

which a convoluted system based on surname, language, and
birthplace was de-
veloped for 15% of the total population that received a long-
form questionnaire.3
A smaller sample, 5% of the population, received yet another
version of the long
2The titles of these volumes varied slightly from one census to
another, e.g., Characteristics
of the Nonwhite Population by Race (1940 census, published in
1943).
3The Census Bureau actually fields two operations in the
decennial census. One is a complete
count of the population using a brief (short-form) questionnaire.
Another is the distribution
of a relatively lengthy questionnaire designed to obtain
characteristics of the population,
such as labor-force participation, from a sample of the total
population.
571
572 SNIPP
form. This form included a question about nativity that
prompted Hispanics to
indicate their origins, e.g., Mexico or Cuba. This jury-rigged
compromise was
roundly criticized by scholars and activists alike and caused
many to suspect that
the 1970 census seriously undercounted the Hispanic population
(Anderson 1988,
Petersen 1987).

For racial and ethnic minorities, the 1970 census was a
disappointment in a
number of respects. The data for groups other than Blacks were
extremely limited
or nonexistent, the data for Hispanics was exceptionally
unsatisfying, and perhaps
most significant, the differential undercount first discovered in
the 1940 and 1950
censuses was virtually unchanged in the 1970 census. In the
aftermath of the
Voting Rights Acts and a growing number of revenue-sharing
programs, the large
differential undercount was now perceived to be an untenable
problem that the
Census Bureau had to address. One measure the Census Bureau
implemented
in 1974 was to establish an advisory committee on the Black
population, which
was followed by the creation of similar committees for the
Hispanic and Asian
and Pacific-Islander populations. These committees were
formed to advise the
Census Bureau about how it might be more responsive to the
needs and concerns
of ethnic minority communities, thereby encouraging their
participation in the
census (Anderson 1988). Critics argued that these committees
further politicized
the census and undermined the position of social scientists
seeking to develop an
accurate enumeration (Petersen 1987).
In any event, at the same time that the Census Bureau was
trying to resolve
the undercount problem, agencies throughout the federal
government became in-

creasingly reliant on data for racial and ethnic minorities. In
particular, the growth
of revenue sharing under New Federalism heavily emphasized
formula funding
that was driven by statistical data. Some of these data were
derived from the de-
cennial census or Census Bureau surveys such as the Current
Population Survey.
However, many agencies generated their own data from surveys
or from internal
administrative records. The upshot of these efforts was an
exponential increase in
the amount of public data available about racial and ethnic
minorities.
The increase in public data soon presented a significant problem
for federal
policymakers as well as researchers. Namely, there was little or
no standardization
in the racial classifications used by various government
agencies. For example,
some agencies reported data for Whites and Non-Whites; other
agencies kept
records for Whites, Blacks (or Negroes in the language of the
time), and Others;
and a few agencies such as the Census Bureau used a much
larger set of categories.
To deal with this lack of consistency, the White House's Office
of Management and
Budget (OMB) approached the task of creating a standard set of
racial categories
for federal administration by delegating this project to an
already existing federal
interagency committee.
In June 1974, the Federal Interagency Committee on Education

(FICE) estab-
lished an ad hoc committee to coordinate the development of a
standard taxonomy
and set of definitions for racial and ethnic groups of particular
interest to the fed-
eral government. These were groups who historically were the
subjects of racial
oppression in American society and who were the objects of
special protections
under a host of federal policies and programs ranging from the
Voting Rights Acts
to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Lott 1993,
U.S. Congress
1994).
The ad hoc committee deliberated on this matter for over six
months, and in
the spring of 1975, it recommended that federal agencies should
collect data for at
least five more or less distinct groups: (a) American Indians and
Alaska Natives,
(b) Asians and Pacific Islanders, (c) Non-Hispanic Blacks, (d)
Non-Hispanic
Whites, (e) Hispanics (Lott 1993). The ad hoc committee made
this recommen-
dation to the FICE, which further considered it before adopting
it in September
of 1976. However, this recommendation did not become the
official policy of the
federal government until May 12, 1977, when the OMB issued a
document it

designated OMB Directive No. 15 (OMB 1977).
OMB Directive No. 15 instituted the five categories
recommended by the ad
hoc committee.4 It further explained that '"These classifications
should not be inter-
preted as being scientific or anthropological in nature ..." (OMB
1977). Directive
No. 15 also mandated that all agencies, contractors, and
grantees must use these
categories any time that administrative data concerning race
was collected. Thus,
a diverse constituency consisting of federal bureaucracies,
schools, defense con-
tractors, and state and local governments, to name only a few
recipients of federal
funds, were required to adopt these five categories.
Significantly, this policy al-
lowed information to be collected with more detailed
classifications. Indeed, OMB
Directive No. 15 designated the minimum amount of racial
information that had
to be collected by federal agencies, grantees, and contractors.
The impact of Directive No. 15 cannot be underestimated. In
many respects,
this standard established an official racial cosmology for the
United States that
permeated every level of government, many if not most large
corporations, and
many other institutions such as schools and nonprofit
organizations (Omi 2000).
Furthermore, to the extent that sociologists and other
researchers relied on the data
produced by these entities, OMB Directive No. 15 also defined
the scope and types

of racial information that would be available to these scholars.
Demographers,
for example, could study Black-White differences in fertility.
However, data for
other ethnic groups (e.g., Arab Americans) were beyond the
pale of Directive No.
15 and hence unavailable from agencies such as the National
Center for Health
Statistics. To the extent that sociological knowledge is
conditioned by the extant
data, Directive No. 15 had a tremendous impact in defining the
known racial
landscape of the United States in the late twentieth century.
4Directive No. 15 proposed that information about race and
ethnicity should be collected
separately. Operationally, ethnicity was measured by Hispanic
or Not Hispanic origins. The
OMB did not explain why ethnicity was interpreted as solely a
function of Hispanic origins.
However, the OMB did stipulate that when race and ethnicity
were not collected separately,
Hispanic should be among the possible races a respondent might
choose to report for her
or his racial background.
573
574 SNIPP
Conveniently, Directive No. 15 coincided with the interests of
many researchers
concerned with race and ethnicity. Nevertheless, it also should
not be forgotten

that Directive No. 15 to some degree masked the considerable
ethnic diversity
that existed within the American population after 1965. In
particular, the directive
glossed over the diversity within the Asian and Hispanic
populations and among
American Indian tribes, and it tended to reify racial categories
in a way that made
them appear immutable and impermeable. These qualities were
later to become
seriously problematic for a wide variety of groups concerned
about how these data
portrayed the racial composition of American society.
IMPLEMENTING (AND REVISING) DIRECTIVE NO. 15
The implementation of Directive No. 15 was first manifest in
the 1980 census.
Conveniently, Directive No. 15 more or less validated the racial
categories used in
the 1970 census. However, the 1980 census differed from the
1970 census in sev-
eral important respects. One was that a single question about
Hispanic origins-the
"Hispanic identifier"-was included in the set of questions that
100% of house-
holds received. This satisfied the mandate contained in
Directive No. 15 about the
collection of information about the Hispanic population.
However, it provoked a
storm of criticism. Some critics complained that it reified a
nonexistent Hispanic
identity, whereas others alleged that it was largely a politically
inspired innovation
with little scientific merit (Petersen 1987). In a largely
symbolic move, the Census

Bureau also removed the term race from the questionnaire;
instead, respondents
were asked, "is this person," followed by another instruction to
mark one of 15
possible responses-i.e., Black, White, and 13 others.
Another change was that a new item, "ethnic ancestry," was
introduced in place
of the question about nativity that had appeared on previous
censuses. The ethnic-
ancestry item appeared on the long-form sample questionnaire,
and was prompted
by the finding in the 1970 census that relatively few Americans
were foreign born
or had foreign-born parents (Lieberson & Waters 1988, pp. 3-5;
Farley 1991). This
item allowed open-ended responses and caused the Census
Bureau to develop an
elaborate coding system. However, this item also provoked
criticism that it could
not be easily interpreted and that there was not a clear
legislative mandate for the
collection of this information, as is the case for most data
collected in the census
(Petersen 1987).
The implementation of Directive No. 15 in the 1980 census was
not without
problems, particularly for respondents who misread or
misinterpreted the meaning
of these questions. For example, a sizable number of second-
and third-generation
Asian Indians regarded themselves as Americans and as Indians
and identified their
race as American Indian; however, although they were certainly
Indian American,

they were not American Indian in the sense that it was intended
(personal commu-
nication with E. Paisano). Liebler (1996) also found that a
significant number of
persons who reported their race as American Indian but failed to
report a tribal af-
filiation also reported an Asian ancestry. The Hispanic-origin
category for Central
and South American elicited a larger number of responses from
persons living in the
Midwestern and Southern states. Similarly, a sizable number of
persons reported
"American" in response to the ethnic-ancestry item (Lieberson
& Waters 1988).5
The 1980 census was highly controversial and marked by a
series of lawsuits,
but most of these conflicts surrounded allegations of
undercounts or were related to
the delineation of legislative districts. Compared to these
challenges, the objections
directed at the measurement of race and ethnicity in the 1980
census were relatively
minor. However, the expression race and ethnicity in the 1990
census proved to be
more contentious.
Like the 1980 census, the 1990 census was guided by the
mandate of Directive
No. 15, and this rule was unchanged since it was first issued in
1977. Predictably,

the Census Bureau adopted the same racial classification
scheme for the 1990
census that it had used in the 1980 count. In planning for the
1990 census, Bureau
officials considered reducing the number of Asian and Pacific-
Islander categories
that had been used in 1980, as well as some other minor
changes, but in the end,
the 1990 question was virtually identical to that used in 1980.6
However, the term
race was restored on the questionnaire in a clear and
unambiguous manner. The
term appeared as a boldfaced question label and respondents
were asked to "Fill
ONE circle for the race that the person considers himself/herself
to be," followed
by 16 possible responses.
In hindsight, the 1990 census was a watershed event in the
measurement of race
and ethnicity in American society because it energized a variety
of oppositional
groups who were deeply offended by the procedures employed
by the Census
Bureau. In particular, two broad sets of interests coalesced to
instigate a concerted
attack on the way race and ethnicity were measured in the
census. One set of
interests were those of groups who wished to be identified on
the census but for one
reason or another were omitted from the race question. For
example, Taiwanese
and Arab American advocacy groups argued that their
communities should be
included among the selections appearing on the race question,
that Taiwanese and

Arab should be included as a choice along with Chinese,
Korean, Aleuts, and others.
An equally vigorous opposition to the census arose within a
loose network of
organizations concerned with the well being of multiracial
families (Farley 2001).
These organizations consisted mostly of families in which one
spouse was White
and the other was African American. One of the larger and
better known of these
organizations was based in Atlanta, Georgia and was known as
RACE (Reclassify
All Children Equally). They, in particular, had two very
strenuous objections to
the census procedures and to Directive No. 15 more generally.
The instructions on
the 1990 (and earlier) census required respondents to mark one
race only for each
5It could be argued that "American" is a bona fide ethnicity.
However, this was not the sort
of information the ethnic-ancestry item was intended to elicit.
6The proposal to limit the number of Asian and Pacific-Islander
groups appearing on the
census caused an outcry of protests by a number of Asian-
American interest groups who
successfully lobbied for the restoration of these groups.
575
576 SNIPP
member in the household. The child of a Black mother and a

White father, for
example, could be identified as White or as Black but not as
both. In cases where a
respondent neglected to read these directions, or purposefully
wrote two or more
responses, the Census Bureau implemented a complicated series
of "editing" rules
that reassigned multiracial responses one race and one race
only. These procedures
deeply offended the memberships of organizations such as
RACE. In particular,
they found that these rules forced them to choose a single
identity for their offspring,
thereby privileging the racial heritage of the mother or father
over the heritage
of the other parent. Not only did they find these procedures
offensive, they argued
that such measures were a source of deep distress to them and
their children (Farley
2001). The empirical evidence for this resistance appeared when
approximately
500,000 respondents refused to follow the instruction to identify
with one race
only, and marked two or more responses instead (Wallman et al.
2000).
These complaints about the measurement of race and ethnicity
in the 1990 cen-
sus eventually resonated in congressional offices and prompted
action in the form
of hearings in the House of Representatives. In 1993, the House
subcommittee
on Census, Statistics, and Postal Personnel, chaired by Thomas
Sawyer (D-Ohio),
held four informational hearings on Directive No. 15 (U.S.
Congress 1994). No

doubt aware of these objections, officials from the OMB
declared their intentions
to conduct a careful review of Directive No. 15 and the methods
the federal govern-
ment used to collect data about race and ethnicity (Edmonston
& Schultze 1995).
The OMB review of Directive No. 15 was launched with a
conference orga-
nized under the auspices of the National Academy of Science in
February, 1994
(Edmonston et al. 1996). At this meeting, papers and
commentary on racial mea-
surement were presented by meeting participants, and attending
were social scien-
tists, bureaucrats, and representatives of various interest groups
such as multiracial
families. The findings from this meeting were assembled and
eventually published
as a book-length monograph titled Spotlight on Heterogeneity
(Edmonston et al.
1996).
In addition to this meeting, the OMB assembled a large
interagency task force
to undertake the official review of Directive No. 15. This task
force included
representatives from virtually every agency within the federal
government with a
stake in the collection of racial data. The OMB also organized
hearings around
the country to give local groups and individuals an opportunity
to express their
concerns about Directive No. 15. In addition to these efforts,
OMB officials also
worked closely with the Census Bureau to determine the likely

impact on the
federal statistical system that might be caused by a revision of
Directive No. 15.
As part of the planning process for the 2000 census, the Census
Bureau fielded
several large tests to determine the effects of modifying
Directive No. 15, es-
pecially its impact on the decennial census. The first test was
conducted in the
May 1995 Current Population Survey, in which a multiracial-
response item was
included among the choices for racial self-identification. In
1996, the Census Bu-
reau conducted two additional large surveys-the National
Content Test and a
survey specially designed to test alternative specifications of
questions for race
and Hispanic origins. The latter survey was designated the Race
and Ethnicity
Targeted Test and included approximately 120,000 households.
The results of these tests suggested that in the aggregate,
changing the race
question to allow multiracial responses would not seriously
skew the racial profile
of the United States. Indeed, these surveys indicated that only
approximately 2% or
3% of the total population would select a multiracial response if
given this option.
However, there also was evidence that some small groups of

Asians and Ameri-
can Indians would be affected to a much greater degree than the
population as a
whole (Hirschman et al. 2000, Tucker et al. 2000), that is, these
small populations
included sizable number of mixed-race persons who would
identify themselves
as such if given the opportunity. As a result, the statistical
profile of these groups
might be significantly altered by the inclusion of a multiracial-
response option
(Tucker et al. 2000).
In the wake of considerable testimony, research, and
deliberation, OMB officials
decided to issue a revision of Directive No. 15 that would
address many of the
concerns and complaints lodged against it. In October of 1997,
a Federal Register
notice announced new standards for the classification of race
and ethnicity. These
standards were mandated to be adopted by all federal agencies
and their contractors
and grantees effective January 1, 2003 (OMB 1997).
The 1997-revised standard established a new and slightly
different set of cate-
gories along with new guidance for the collection of racial data.
The categories it
mandated were the following:
1. American Indian or Alaskan Native (including Central and
South America)
2. Asian
3. Black or African American
4. Hispanic or Latino

5. Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander
6. White
In addition to these categories, the OMB also mandated that
respondents should
be instructed to "mark one or more" or "choose one or more"
responses to queries
about racial heritage, that is, respondents were to be allowed the
opportunity to
express a multiracial heritage if they so desired (OMB 2000).
In addition to this profoundly significant format change, the
revised categories
were noteworthy in several respects. The revision provided
Native Hawaiians with a
significant victory in their quest for recognition. Native-
Hawaiian activists seeking
recognition for their status as indigenous people with inherent
rights of sovereignty
had initially sought to be included within a broad category
designated as Native
American. Some American-Indian groups opposed a broad
category of Native
American, presumably because they were concerned this might
dilute their own
claims as indigenous people (Edmonston et al. 1996). The OMB
concurred but
granted the Native Hawaiians a category that would set them
apart from the polyglot
577
578 SNIPP

collection of ethnicities formerly subsumed within the old
category of Asian and
Pacific Islander.
American Indians also opposed the language adding Central and
South Amer-
ican Indians. Groups representing American-Indian interests
argued that Central
and South American Indians did not have reservations or a
special legal or political
status similar to those tribes in the 48 states and thus should not
be enumerated with
them. The OMB noted this opposition but ruled to add the
language "(including
Central and South America)" without further explanation.
Finally, and perhaps most significantly, the OMB explicitly set
Hispanics and
Latinos apart as an ethnic group, as opposed to a racial group.
The guidelines now
suggest that whenever possible, two questions should be used to
collect information
about race and ethnicity, respectively. The race question should
use at least five
racial categories, and a second ethnicity question should be
used to determine
Hispanic or Latino origins. The guidelines indicated a single-
race question might
be acceptable in some instances-including Hispanic or Latino as
a response-but
it was also clear that they did not accept the proposition that
Hispanic or Latino
was acceptable as racial designation.
In the October 1997 Federal Register notice, the OMB offered a
modest rationale

for making its revision of Directive No. 15: Improving the
federal statistical system
is desirable, and the old system did not fully capture the
diversity of American soci-
ety. However, it offered relatively little guidance with respect
to how these changes
should be managed. A committee of data specialists had been
assigned the task of
working out the details of implementation in the wake of the
revised standard. Pre-
dictably, a large part of this burden was left to the Census
Bureau because the 2000
census would become the first large-scale implementation of the
1997 revision.7
The 1997 OMB standards and their experience pretesting
multiracial questions
provided Census Bureau officials with a straightforward method
for asking respon-
dents about their race. A facsimile of the 2000 race question
appears in Figure 1.
This question includes minimum categories mandated by the
OMB along with an
additional set of categories for Asians and for Pacific Islanders
similar to the addi-
tional categories that appeared on previous censuses. On April
1, 2000, the whole
of American society was asked to publicly declare their racial
heritage along with
the usual information about residence and family relationships.
The collection of the 2000 census presented officials within the
federal gov-
ernment the first real challenge arising from the 1997 revision
of Directive No.
15. Specifically, census officials were responsible for delivering

to Congress and
state legislatures across the country by April 2001 detailed
population counts for
redrawing legislative districts. These data, also known as the PL
94-171 files, con-
tained information about the age, race, and sex of persons for
geographic areas
about the size of city blocks (census blocks) in all 50 states.
7The Census Bureau was not the first federal agency to
experiment with multiracial re-
sponses. The National Health Inventory Survey sponsored by
NIH adopted a version of this
question before the 2000 census.
What Is this person's race? Mark 0 one or
more races to indicate ,what this person considers
himself/herself to be
O White
O Black, Afncan Arr, or Negro
0 Arr erKcan Indin or Alaska Native - Print name
of enrolled or prncipal tnbe. y
0 Asian Indian O Native Hawaiian
0 Chinese O Guamanian or
O Filpno Chamorro
l Japanese O Samoan
O Korean O Other Pacific Islander -
Vietnarr ese Print race

o Other Asian - Pnnt race.
O Sorr e other race - Pnnt race. ,
Figure 1 Facsimile of a race questions from
the 2000 census.
Managing the sheer volume of these files was a problematic task
for the cen-
sus staff. The reporting of sex was simple, and the PL 94-171
files could include
a truncated age distribution (over and under 18 years).
However, the format for
reporting race was a daunting task. There were 63 unique
combinations that could
be formed from the response items on the race question alone.
Overlaying these 63
items with Hispanic/Non-Hispanic yielded a race/ethnic
reporting format consist-
ing of 126 unique categories. Past censuses strained to report
personal and family
characteristics by race using the five categories stipulated by
the original version
of Directive No. 15. Under the revised standard, the number of
possible iterations
was multiplied 25-fold.8
For the PL 94-171 files, the solution to this dilemma would
seem to require
some reduced number of combinations for which data could be
reported. In fact,
8The Census Bureau has resolved some of this complexity by
reporting data for persons
who identify with one race only along with data for persons who
identify with two or more

races. In some cases, "two or more races" is treated as a
residual category (e.g., "persons
reporting two or more races"), and in others, race-specific
combinations are reported, e.g.,
"White alone" and "White in combination with some other
race." Needless to say, these
numbers cannot be aggregated and summed to 100%.
579
580 SNIPP
the OMB had anticipated this problem and in March 2000 issued
a policy memoran-
dum explaining how racial data should be aggregated for civil-
rights enforcement.
The provisional aggregations proposed in this document (OMB
2000) listed the
following groups as one way that racial data should be reported:
1. American Indian or Alaska Native
2. Asian
3. Black or African American
4. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
5. White
6. American Indian or Alaska Native and White
7. Asian and White
8. Black or African American and White
9. American Indian or Alaska Native and Black or African
American
10. > 1%: Fill in if applicable-
11. > 1%: Fill in if applicable
12. Balance of individuals reporting more than one race

13. Total
Items 10 and 11 were meant for areas, principally in California
and Hawaii, with
unique racial combinations that were rare in other parts of the
country. However,
because this list was not exhaustive of all the possible
combinations of multiracial
responses, the OMB offered this additional guidance (2000) for
the aggregation
of racial data:
* Responses in the five single race categories are not allocated
(to other racial
groups).
* Responses that combine one minority race and white are
allocated to the
minority race.
* Responses that include two or more minority races are
allocated as follows: If
the enforcement action is in response to a complaint, allocate to
the race that
the complainant alleges the discrimination was based on. If the
enforcement
action requires assessing disparate impact or discriminatory
patterns, analyze
the patterns based on alternative allocations to each of the
minority groups.
Knowingly or not, the OMB adopted a policy based on a limited
form of hy-
podescent to resolve the question of whether mixed-race persons
were entitled to
protection under the various civil rights laws.

Heeding these recommendations in the final design for the PL
94-171 file,
the Census Bureau staff proposed a reduced number of
categories. However, after
consulting with other agencies of the federal government that
would depend heavily
on these data, especially the Office of Civil Rights in the
Justice Department, the
original plan was found to be unsatisfactory. A subset of racial
combinations useful
for all agencies in all places was impossible to specify in
advance. Put another way,
data needed to be available to complete the blanks left in items
10 and 11, and the
guidance left open the possibility that data might be needed for
other multiracial
combinations as well. Consequently, a decision was made to
release these files
with the detailed combinations of race and ethnicity.
The PL 94-171 files were released in the spring of 2001,
followed by additional
data based on the 100% short-form questionnaire. In subsequent
releases, the Cen-
sus Bureau opted for more abbreviated formats for reporting
multiracial responses.
In most cases, these reports have been limited to the five racial
categories stipulated
by the OMB, separate reports for Hispanic and Non-Hispanic
persons, and a resid-

ual category reported for persons reporting "two or more races"
in some instances,
and in other instances, a set of categories for persons reporting
a race "alone" or a
race "in combination with one or more races." Needless to say,
this format has the
virtue of being concise and economical. However, it also
obfuscates an enormous
amount of detail about the racial heterogeneity of the
multiracial population. For
the foreseeable future, a simple solution to these issues remains
out of sight.
IMPLICATIONS FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH
The issuance of Directive No. 15 in 1977 was an important and
much needed
step for systematizing the vast collection of racial and ethnic
data by the federal
government. Twenty years later, it was hardly surprising that
many observers felt
that the directive needed updating. However, the revision of this
standard holds
many significant implications for researchers and the public
alike.*
The new procedures for the collection of racial and ethnic data
by the federal
government and most other public agencies will impact social
researchers in large
and small ways. However, at least three major challenges will
confront social
scientists desiring to use these data in the future. The first is
temporal compara-
bility, the second is the impact of measurement error, and the
third is substantive

interpretability.
Temporal comparability is an extremely serious problem facing
researchers
and analysts within the federal government (Tucker 2000, Lee
2001). Strictly
speaking, the 1997 revision is so fundamentally different from
the earlier standard
that precise comparisons of pre-2000 racial data with data
collected later simply
are not possible; in effect, an exact one-to-one match of older
data sources with
newer information is little more than wishful thinking.
Nonetheless, it also should
be possible for researchers to pursue temporal comparisons if
they maintain a
healthy degree of skepticism about the precision of their results.
The 1997 revision appears to have relatively little impact on the
racial profiles
of some groups, such as Blacks and Whites. Tests done in the
1990s, as well as
the 2000 census, show that these groups have relatively few
multiracial persons,
*This essay was written before the implementation deadline of
January 1, 2003.
581
582 SNIPP
that is, the vast majority of persons who declare Black or White
as their race do

not declare any other racial background. Similarly, it appears
that most persons
who declared their race as Black or White before 1997 have not
changed their
declared race in the interim. Thus, the racial identification of
these groups appears
to be relatively stable. Blacks and Whites have consistently
appeared in virtually
all federal data collection efforts and will continue to do so for
the foreseeable
future. Thus, for these groups, close temporal comparisons are
probably feasible
for most purposes.
However, this is probably not the case for smaller groups such
as American
Indians, Asians, Pacific Islanders, and Hispanics or Latinos.
These groups have
relatively large numbers of multiracial persons. Furthermore,
the high rates of
intermarriage in these groups suggest that these numbers almost
certainly will
increase in the future (Edmonston et al. 2000). This means that
a substantial number
of persons must be reallocated to single-race categories for the
sake of comparison
with earlier classifications or omitted entirely. In either event,
data from the 2000
census and from tests in the 1990s indicate that the numbers of
persons in these
groups can vary significantly depending on the allocation rule
that is applied to the
data. No doubt that characteristics will vary as well. This
variability and sensitivity
to aggregation procedures render temporal comparisons
imprecise at best and

impossible at worst. In any event, researchers must be attuned
to the imprecision
that will now attend temporal comparisons involving these
groups.
In addition to the fundamental comparability of these groups
over time, mea-
surement error is another serious problem that will be ever
present in studies of
race and ethnicity. Two types of measurement error-response
variability and clas-
sification error-are likely to be serious problems in these data,
and both are likely
to be exacerbated by the methodology that allows multiple
responses.
Response variability in the reporting of race is not a new
problem. In fact, it
is well documented for the American Indian population (Snipp
1989) and also
may be a problem for the Hispanic or Latino (Eschbach &
Gomez 1998) and
Asian (Xie & Goyette 1998) populations. However, the
instability of racial data
is virtually certain to become a greater problem than it has been
in the past. One
reason is that racial classifications in the future will include
very large numbers of
response options, and response variability occurs when there is
more opportunity,
i.e., a greater likelihood, of responses to vary over time. If
respondents have a
large number of choices with which to identify themselves,
there will be a greater
likelihood they will make inconsistent choices over time,
intentionally or inadver-

tently. Multiracial persons in particular may have considerable
latitude in shaping
how they identify themselves over time (Nobles 2000, Harris
2002). For example,
someone who is Black and White may identify his/herself as
Black at one time,
White at another, and multiracial at yet another. The ethnic
options that White
Americans have available have been well established (Waters
1990, Alba 1990).
Much less is known about how the multiracial population makes
use of whatever
optional identities may be available to it (Harris 2002).
Classification error is another significant problem that has been
documented for
American Indians (Hahn 1992, Hahn et al. 1992). However, it is
likely to become an
equally serious problem for multiracial persons. The most
egregiously error-prone
data are likely to be provided by third-party observers such as
school administrators
and coroners. These officials supply data that social scientists
depend on heavily
about matters related to school enrollment and mortality. Yet
these officials are
seldom in a position to make accurate observations about the
racial heritage of
an individual, especially a person who may claim several
ancestries yet lacks the
phenotypical traits associated with these ancestries. It is

completely unknown how
third-party observers will make reports of racial heritage that
will be consistent
with those provided by individual respondents.
Finally, the revision of Directive No. 15 and the complexity it
poses for re-
searchers underscore an old issue never fully attended to by
sociologists, that is,
we know relatively little about the social processes at work
when an individual
reports himself or herself to be a member of a particular racial
or ethnic group. For
decades, social scientists have taken such reports at face value
with little careful
consideration about how they are produced. What is the calculus
used when an
individual chooses to report a racial identity? Why, for
example, do most African
Americans choose to identify themselves only as African
American, even though
many could also include White or American Indian in their
ancestry (but see Davis
1991)? Why do some individuals with relatively little American
Indian heritage
nonetheless claim this for their racial identity? These and many
other related ques-
tions need to be answered to make the interpretation of racial
data more meaningful.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
From the first days of the United States, notions of race have
been a central theme
in public discourse and a guiding principle in public
administration. Appropri-

ately enough, beginning with the first census in 1790, the
federal government has
endeavored to measure race throughout the history of this
nation. Over time, the
federal government modified and elaborated its methods for
obtaining informa-
tion about the racial composition of the population. Not
surprising, these changes
mirrored public thinking and concern about race in American
society.
In the twentieth century, the struggle for racial equality
galvanized public atten-
tion in much the same way that slavery had in the previous
century. The civil rights
movement and its pursuit of equal access to education, housing,
employment, and
public services underscored the need for a careful record of
conditions among the
races. Social scientists brought their expertise to bear on these
problems, and the
result was the vast expansion of the federal statistical system.
For most purposes,
the Census Bureau and the decennial census served as the
flagship for this system.
A key development in the growth of this system was the
issuance of OMB
Directive No. 15. This document was responsible for
systematizing the racial
information collected by the federal government and established
a benchmark for
ancillary systems around the nation. For the last quarter of the
twentieth century,
Directive No. 15 established a cosmology that defined the racial
composition of

the United States. Although Directive No. 15 was profoundly
important for public
administration, it also was deeply flawed in many respects.
Without question, it
583
584 SNIPP
was an overly simplistic formulation that failed to capture the
complex nuances
associated with the racial hierarchy of American society. It also
rested on older if
not outdated ideas about the immutability of racial boundaries
and the singularity
of racial identity (Omi 2000). Its most glaring failure was that it
failed to keep
pace with the evolving racial complexity of American society,
and after 25 years,
it attracted legions of critics (Skerry 2000, Farley 2001).
In response to these critics, federal officials have introduced
several changes that
will become effective in 2003. These include small changes in
the classification
scheme, and most importantly, an option that will allow
individuals to identify
with more than one race if they so choose. Most likely, these
changes will have the
same sort of influence as Directive No. 15 did after it was
instituted. Consequently,
ending this essay by briefly mentioning two important
implications that are likely
to arise from the revision of Directive No. 15 seems

worthwhile.
One implication concerns the future of hypodescent as a guiding
principle
for public administration. The legitimacy of this doctrine is
certainly open to
question in public opinion and subject to challenge in the courts
(Davis 1991).
Nonetheless, as noted above, an inclusive form of hypodescent
has been adopted to
resolve the question of who is entitled to the protections
afforded by various pieces
of civil rights legislation. Thus, civil rights protections are
extended to various
persons including those of African-American or American-
Indian ancestry. The
federal embrace of hypodescent was made necessary by the new
measures with
which individuals can designate themselves as more than one
race. However, this
legislation does not contain any explicit provisions for persons
of mixed racial
ancestry. Indeed, multiracial persons have an ambiguous and
possibly nonexistent
standing with respect to the laws designed to prevent racial
discrimination.
One reason for this ambiguity is that the laws designed to
countenance racial
discrimination rest heavily on an implicit presumption that
ethnic minorities have
phenotypical traits that make them the objects of illegal
discrimination. It is doubt-
ful that the authors of the civil rights bills passed in the 1960s
ever contemplated
a situation where the laws they crafted would be used to protect

a Black Amer-
ican who looked like a White American. Nonetheless, this is
now the paradox
presented by the 1997 revision of Directive No. 15 and the
OMB's rules for civil
rights enforcement. It is an empirical question as to whether the
American public
will continue to support civil rights protections for persons they
perceive to have no
legitimate claim to such consideration. If hypodescent is
rejected as an acceptable
rule for determining who is and is not an ethnic minority, this
will create a profound
vacuum in public policy. Indeed, Congress, the courts, and the
public will have to
devise new rules for who may legitimately claim to be an ethnic
minority.
This raises a second, equally vexing problem: namely, how to
determine the
substance of race in American society. For decades, the number
of races present in
American society, as reflected in official documents and
statistics, could be counted
on one hand-a small number of discretely bounded groups.
However, in coming
years the American public is about to be confronted by a degree
of diversity
unprecedented in this nation's history. Not only is American
society becoming
more diverse, but the groups responsible for this diversity are
also themselves

becoming more heterogeneous. Thus, the Census Bureau must
now tabulate data
for 126 different racial combinations, whereas it once reported
on less than a dozen.
How the Americans will grasp the complexity of this situation
is unknown.
Kenneth Prewitt, a political scientist and former director of the
Census Bureau,
underscores how this complexity might strain public discourse
about race in Amer-
ican society. He suggests that under the new rules, any
discussion of race would
entail such a cumbersome and exceedingly complicated set of
considerations that
it would eventually forestall productive debate. Burdened by
confusion and an
absence of meaningful discourse, Americans might simply come
to eschew the
idea of race as a part of their social environment.
... the racial measurement system is now vastly more
complicated and mul-
tidimensional than anything preceding it, and there is currently
no prospect
of returning to something simpler. The number of categories is
too few to
accommodate identity politics but too many to fit with law and
legislation as
currently designed. The situation is politically unstable and
something will
have to give .... The political choice might then be to move
away from race-
based policy. (Prewitt 2002, p. 360).

Others analysts have expressed concerns similar to those of
Prewitt's (Harrison
2002; Snipp 1997, 2002). However, although a political
decision to move away
from race-based public policy does not mean that prejudice and
discrimination
will wither away, it does imply that public acknowledgment of
this behavior will
diminish in scope. A small bit of evidence to support this
argument has appeared
in California, where an initiative will be presented to voters in
the spring of 2004
that would forbid the collection of racial data by state
agencies.9
9The Racial Privacy Initiative was submitted to the attorney
general on September 28, 2001
and approved for circulation on November 20, 2001. Prohibition
Against Classifying by
Race by State and Other Public Entities. Section 32 is added to
Article I of the California
Constitution as follows:
(a) The state shall not classify any individual by race, ethnicity,
color or national origin
in the operation of public education, public contracting or
public employment. (b) The
state shall not classify any individual by race, ethnicity, color
or national origin in the
operation of any other state operations, unless the legislature
specifically determines
that said classification serves a compelling state interest and
approves said classifi-
cation by a 2/3 majority in both houses of the legislature, and
said classification is
subsequently approved by the governor. (c) For purposes of this

section, "classifying"
by race, ethnicity, color or national origin shall be defined as
the act of separating,
sorting or organizing by race, ethnicity, color or national origin
including, but not
limited to, inquiring, profiling, or collecting such data on
government forms. (d) For
purposes of subsection (a), "individual" refers to current or
prospective students, con-
tractors or employees. For purposes of subsection (b),
"individual" refers to persons
subject to the state operations referred to in subsection (b). (e)
The Department of Fair
Employment and Housing (DFEH) shall be exempt from this
section with respect to
DFEH-conducted classifications in place as of March 5, 2002.
585
586 SNIPP
However, in contrast to Prewitt's argument, a more cynical view
is that confusion
and misinformation have seldom stifled public debate in the
past, and thus are
unlikely to stifle it in the future. Certainly, reaching a
consensus about race relations
in American society may be more difficult. However,
throughout this nation's
history, race relations have more often than not been the subject
of disagreement
and bitter contention. The practices of the federal government
have done little to
abate this situation. This means that for the foreseeable future,

sociologists and
other social scientists are likely to remain busy trying to sort
out these difficult
issues, ideally, with more success than they have enjoyed in the
past.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I thank Charles Hirschman for his many helpful comments and
suggestions about
this paper.
The Annual Review of Sociology is online at
http://soc.annualreviews.org
LITERATURE CITED
Alba R. 1990. Ethnic Identity. New Haven, CT:
Yale Univ. Press
Anderson MJ. 1988. The American Census: A
Social History. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ.
Press
Anderson MJ, Fienberg SE. 1999. Who Counts:
The Politics of Census-Taking. New York:
Russell Sage
Bennett C. 2000. Racial categories used in the
census, 1790 to the present. Gov. Inf. Q.
17:161-80
Davis FJ. 1991. Who is Black: One Nation's
Definition. University Park, PA: Penn. State
Univ. Press

Edmonston B, Goldstein JR, Lott JT, eds.
1996. Spotlight on Heterogeneity: The Fed-
eral Standards for Racial and Ethnic Classi-
fication. Washington, DC: Natl. Res. Counc.
Edmonston B, Lee SM, Passell JS. 2000. Re-
cent trends in intermarriage and immigration
and their effects on the future racial com-
position of the U.S. population. Presented
at Multiraciality: How Will the New Census
Data be Used?, Bard College, Annandale-
on-Hudson, New York
Edmonston B, Schultze C, eds. 1995. Modern-
izing the U.S. Census. Washington, DC: Natl.
Acad. Press
Eschbach K, Gomez C. 1998. Choosing His-
panic identity: ethnic identity switching
among respondents in high school and be-
yond. Soc. Sci. Q. 79:74-90
Farley R. 1991. The new census question about
ancestry: What did it tell us? Demography
28:411-30
Farley R. 2001. Identifying with multiple races:
a social movement that succeeded but failed?
PSCRes. Rep. No. 01-491, Popul. Stud. Cen.,
Univ. Mich., Ann Arbor, MI
Fredrickson GM. 2002. Racism: A Short His-
tory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
Grusky DB, ed. 2001. Social Stratification:
Class, Race, and Gender in Sociological Per-

spective. Boulder, CO: Westview
Hahn RA. 1992. The state of federal statistics
on racial and ethnic groups. J. Am. Med. As-
soc. 267:268-71
Hahn RA, Mulinara J, Teutch SM. 1992. In-
consistencies in coding of race and ethnicity
between birth and death in U.S. infants. J.
Am. Med. Assoc. 267:259-63
Harris D. 2002. An empirical look at the social
construction of race. Am. Sociol. Rev.
Harris M. 1968. Race. In International Ency-
clopedia of the Social Sciences, ed. DL Sills,
13:263-68. New York: Macmillan Free Press
Harrison RJ. 2002. Inadequacies of multiple-
response race data in the federal statistical
system. See Perlman & Waters 2002, pp.
137-60
Hirschman C, Alba R, Farley R. 2000. The
meaning and measurement of race in the US
census: glimpses into the future. Demogra-
phy 37:381-94
Keith VM, Herring C. 1991. Skin color and
stratification in the black community. Am. J.
Sociol. 97:760-778

Lee SM. 1993. Racial classifications in the US
census, 1890 to 1990. Ethn. Racial Stud.
16:75-94
Lee SM. 2001. Using the new racial categories
in the 2000 census. Kids Count/PRB Census
Rep., Pop. Ref. Bur., Washington, DC
Lieberson S, Waters MC. 1988. From Many
Strands: Ethnic and Racial Groups in Con-
temporary America. New York: Russell Sage
Liebler CA. 1996. American Indian ethnic iden-
tity: an analysis of tribal specification in the
1990 census. Working Pap. No. 96-20, Univ.
Wis. Cen. Demogr. Ecol.
Lott JT. 1993. Policy purposes of race and eth-
nicity: an assessment of federal racial and
ethnic categories. Ethn. Dis. 3:221-28
Murguia E, Telles EE. 1996. Phenotype and
schooling among Mexican Americans. So-
ciol. Educ. 69:276-89
Nobles M. 2000. Shades of Citizenship: Race
and Census in Modem Politics. Stanford,
CA: Stanford Univ. Press
Off. Manag. Budg. (OMB). 1977. Directive
No. 15, Race and Ethnic Standards for Fed-
eral Statistics and Administrative Reporting.
Washington, DC: US Off. Manag. Budg.
Off. Manag. Budg. (OMB). 1997. Revisions to
the Standards for the Classification of Fed-

eral Data on Race and Ethnicity. Washing-
ton, DC: US Off. Manag. Budg.
Off. Manag. Budg. (OMB). 2000. Provisional
Guidance on the Implementation of the 1997
Standards for Federal Data on Race and
Ethnicity. Washington, DC: US Off. Manag.
Budg.
Omi MA. 2001. The changing meaning of race.
In America Becoming: Racial Trends and
Their Consequences, ed. NJ Smelser, WJ
Wilson, F Mitchell, 1:243-63. Washington,
DC: Natl. Acad. Press
Perlman J, Waters MJ, eds. 2002. The New Race
Question: How the Census Counts Multira-
cial Individuals. New York: Russell Sage
Petersen W. 1987. Politics and the measurement
of ethnicity. In The Politics of Numbers, ed.
W Alonso, P Starr, 5:187-233. New York:
Russell Sage
Prewitt K. 2002. Race in the 2000 census: a
turning point. See Perlman & Waters 2002,
pp. 354-62
Skerry P. 1993. Mexican-Americans: The Am-
bivalent Minority. New York: Free Press
Skerry P. 2000. Counting the Census?: Race,
Group Identity, and the Evasion of Politics.
Washington, DC: Brookings Inst. Press

Snipp CM. 1989. American Indians: The First
of this Land. New York: Russell Sage
Snipp CM. 1997. Some observations about
racial boundaries and the experiences of
American Indians. Racial Ethn. Stud. 20:
667-689
Snipp CM. 2002. American Indians: clues to the
future of other racial groups. See Perlman &
Waters 2002, pp. 189-214
Starr P. 1992. Social categories and claims in
the liberal state. Soc. Res. 59:263-95
Tucker NC. 2000. Time series analysis: bridg-
ing to the past. Presented at Multiraciality:
How Will the New Census Data be Used?,
Bard College, Annandale-on-Hudson, New
York
US Bur. Census. 1979. Twenty Censuses: Pop-
ulation and Housing Questions 1790-1980.
Washington, DC: US GPO
US Bur. Census. 2002. Measuring America:
the Decennial Censuses from 1790 to 2000.
Washington, DC: US GPO
US Congr., HR. 1994. Review of federal mea-
surements of race and ethnicity. Hearings
before the HR Subcomm. Census, Stat. Postal
Pers. Comm. Post Off. Civil Serv., 103rd
Congr., April 14, June 30, July 29, November
3, 1993, Ser. No. 103-7. Washington, DC: US
GPO

Wallman K, Evinger S, Schecter S. 2000.
587
588 SNIPP
Measuring our nation's diversity: devel-
oping a common language for data on
race/ethnicity. Am. J. Public Health 90:
1704-8
Waters MC. 1990. Ethnic Options: Choosing
Identities in America. Berkeley: Univ. Calif.
Press
Woodward CV. 1955. The Strange Career
of Jim Crow. New York: Oxford Univ.
Press
Xie Y, Goyette K. 1998. The racial identifi-
cation of biracial children with one Asian
parent: evidence from the 1990 census. Soc.
Forces 76:547-70
Article Contentsp. 563p. 564p. 565p. 566p. 567p. 568p. 569p.
570p. 571p. 572p. 573p. 574p. 575p. 576p. 577p. 578p. 579p.
580p. 581p. 582p. 583p. 584p. 585p. 586p. 587p. 588Issue
Table of ContentsAnnual Review of Sociology, Vol. 29 (2003),
pp. i-xii,1-649Front MatterPrefatory ChaptersBeyond Rational
Choice Theory [pp. 1-21]Teenage Childbearing as a Public
Issue and Private Concern [pp. 23-39]Theory and MethodsThe
Urban Street Gang after 1970 [pp. 41-64]The Science of Asking
Questions [pp. 65-88]Social ProcessesTransitions from Prison
to Community: Understanding Individual Pathways [pp. 89-

113]Institutions and CultureThe Sociology of the Self [pp. 115-
133]Skills Mismatch in the Labor Market [pp. 135-165]The
Dynamics of Racial Residential Segregation [pp. 167-
207]Formal OrganizationsThe African American "Great
Migration" and Beyond [pp. 209-232]Political and Economic
SociologyThe Potential Relevances of Biology to Social Inquiry
[pp. 233-256]Relationships in Adolescence [pp. 257-281]The
Changing Picture of Max Weber's Sociology [pp. 283-306]Day
Labor Work [pp. 307-333]Differentiation and StratificationStill
"Not Quite as Good as Having Your Own"? Toward a Sociology
of Adoption [pp. 335-361]The Lopsided Continent: Inequality in
Latin America [pp. 363-390]Covert Political Conflict in
Organizations: Challenges from Below [pp. 391-415]Racial and
Ethnic Stratification in Educational Achievement and
Attainment [pp. 417-442]Individual and SocietyThe Economic
Sociology of Conventions: Habit, Custom, Practice, and Routine
in Market Order [pp. 443-464]Population and African Society
[pp. 465-486]The Intersection of Gender and Race in the Labor
Market [pp. 487-513]DemographyAssociations and Democracy:
Between Theories, Hopes, and Realities [pp. 515-539]Urban and
Rural Community SociologyCognitive Skills and Noncognitive
Traits and Behaviors in Stratification Processes [pp. 541-
562]Racial Measurement in the American Census: Past Practices
and Implications for the Future [pp. 563-588]PolicyWelfare-
State Regress in Western Europe: Politics, Institutions,
Globalization, and Europeanization [pp. 589-609]Back Matter

1201 East 10th StreetFirst NameFirst NameMonth.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to 1201 East 10th StreetFirst NameFirst NameMonth.docx

Similar to 1201 East 10th StreetFirst NameFirst NameMonth.docx (20)

More from drennanmicah

More from drennanmicah (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

1201 East 10th StreetFirst NameFirst NameMonth.docx