California Counts POPULATION TRENDS and PROFILES Check
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Public Policy Institute of California California Counts POPULATION TRENDS AND PROFILES Volume 1 Number 2 • January 2000 Check One or More . Mixed Race and Ethnicity in California By Sonya M. Tafoya Criticisms from an increasingly diverse racial and ethnic population Summary in the United States have led the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to revise federal standards for collecting race and ethnic data. One change will allow multiracial Americans to check as many race categories as apply to them. Although this change has caused much speculation, exactly how the enumeration of multiracial Americans will affect current public policies remains to be seen. This issue of California Counts1 provides a context for discussing the multiracial/ethnic population of California, focusing specifically on the increasing number of multiracial/ethnic births in the state. Data are drawn from vital statistics birth records from 1982 to 1997. Multiracial/ethnic births increased from about 12 percent of all births in 1982 to about 14 percent in 1997 and they were more common among native-born mothers than among foreign-born mothers. In 1997, approximately 20 percent of native-born mothers but only 7 percent of foreign-born mothers gave birth to children of mixed race/ethnicity. The number of multiracial/ethnic births varies across counties. In 1997, for example, 11 percent of Los Angeles County births were of mixed race/ethnicity; in Sacramento County, the number was 19 percent. Public Policy Institute of California California Counts Check One or More . Context Recognizing the growing complexity of racial and ethnic Subscribe now n 1977, the OMB established identity in the nation, a variety to receive future Iminimum categories for the col- of critics charged that the original editions of lection, record-keeping, and pre- categories no longer reflected the California Counts, sentation of data by race and increasing diversity of the nation. ethnicity. Table 1 illustrates the Among the critics were a group a FREE publication two permissible formats for col- of multiracial Americans who of PPIC lecting and reporting this infor- charged that the established cate- mation. In the two-question gories forced them to deny their See the enclosed format, two questions were asked heritage by selecting a single race.4 about race and ethnicity; thus, In 1993, the OMB announced card for details. persons who reported Hispanic that it would undertake a compre- ancestry could also report the hensive review of these categories. racial group that they identified As part of the OMB review with. In contrast, the one-question process, the National Center for format merged race and ethnicity. Education Statistics and the Office Respondents were asked to select for Civil Rights in the Depart- one of the following five catego- ment of Education conducted a ries: American Indian or Alaskan survey to determine how schools Native, Asian or Pacific Islander, collect, maintain, and report race black, white, and Hispanic. The and ethnic data on their students. Census Bureau used the OMB The report revealed that public two-question format in the 1980 schools in the West were the least and 1990 Censuses.2 Federal and likely to use the minimum five state agencies were permitted to standard categories, whereas collect racial and ethnic data in schools in the Northeast were the more detail provided that the data most likely to use only the mini- could be reduced to the minimum mum five categories. To reflect five categories of the one-question their diversity, schools in the West format. This minimum standard were adding categories and then was established to meet statutory aggregating up to the standard five requirements associated with civil categories as required for federal rights monitoring and enforce- reporting. ment.3 Among the 1977 OMB The sources of diversity in the categories, no provision existed West included an increase in inter- for detailed enumeration of multi- racial marriage and increased immi- racial Americans. Multiracial gration.5 California has been on Americans were instructed to the leading edge in both of these select the racial category that most national trends. Indeed, the Cali- closely reflected their recognition fornia State Supreme Court ruling in their community. ending legal barriers to intermar- 2 Public Policy Institute of California California Counts Check One or More . riage in California took effect in the occurrence of monoracial The sources of diversity 1948—nearly two decades before and monoethnic births of Asians, in the West included an the U.S. Supreme Court took African Americans, and Hispanic increase in interracial action in 1967 to remove all in California? (4) What is the remaining miscegenation laws in racial/ethnic profile of California’s marriage and increased the nation.6 And as of 1997, about multiracial/ethnic newborns? immigration. 25 percent of the state’s popula- The report concludes with a tion was foreign-born compared discussion of how the enumera- to 10 percent in the nation.7 tion of multiracial/ethnic births In 1997, after its comprehen- may affect public policy, examin- sive review, the OMB announced ing the effect of self-identification revisions of the federal guidelines for collecting data by race and ethnicity (Table 2). The new guide- Table 1. OMB Classification Matrix, 1977–1997 lines instruct people to select one or more racial categories.8 Census Characteristic Two-Question Format One-Question Format 2000 will employ the revised categories, and other federal pro- Race White White, not of Hispanic origin grams will adopt the standards Black Black, not of Hispanic origin no later than January 1, 2003. Asian or Pacific Islander Asian or Pacific Islander American Indian or American Indian or Alaskan Ways to tabulate the new data Alaskan Native Native remain an important, unresolved Hispanic issue.9 Clearly, if multiracial Ethnicity Hispanic origin respondents are tabulated in a Not of Hispanic origin manner exclusive of their mono- racial component groups, the numerical strength of monoracial groups will be diminished. Table 2. OMB Revised Classification Matrix, As a precursor to data that October 1997 to Present will be available as these standards are adopted, this report documents Characteristic Two-Question Format One-Question Format the rise in multiracial/ethnic births in California from 1982 to Race White White 1997, addressing the following Black or African American Black or African American questions: (1) What is the overall Asian Asian trend in multiracial/ethnic births American Indian or Alaska American Indian or Alaska Native Native in California? (2) What is the Native Hawaiian or Other Native Hawaiian or Other relationship between immigration Pacific Islander Pacific Islander and multiracial/ethnic births in Hispanic or Latino California? (3) How does the Ethnicity Hispanic or Latino occurrence of multiracial/ethnic Not Hispanic or Latino births in California compare to 3 Public Policy Institute of California California Counts Check One or More . and tabulation methodology since the race/ethnicity of the ethnic births over the past 17 on the relative size of racial and child in this study is derived data years. As a percentage of total ethnic groups. rather than self-identified data, it births in the state, multiracial/ may overestimate the number of ethnic births rose from just under multiracial/ethnic births. In other 12 percent in 1982 to just over Data Source words, some infants classified as 14 percent in 1997 (Figure 1). multiracial/ethnic in this report This change represents a numeri- ata for this report are derived might be identified as monoracial cal increase in multiracial/ethnic Dfrom California Vital Statis- or monoethnic by their parents.11 births from about 50,000 in 1982 tics Birth Records. The birth to about 70,000 in 1997. records include information for The absence of a precipitous mothers’ and fathers’ nativity, Trends and Patterns increase in the occurrence of race, and Hispanic origin.10 Vital multiracial/ethnic births can be Statistics Birth Records employ lthough it has a racially and explained by California’s status as a two-question format for collect- Aethnically diverse population, a large immigrant-receiving state. ing racial and ethnic information. and legal barriers to intermarriage Numerous studies have shown Although the racial and ethnic were abandoned relatively early that compared to the native-born, data in the birth records distin- compared to many other states, immigrants are less likely to marry guish several Asian racial sub- California has experienced only a a member of a different racial/ groups and several Hispanic ethnic moderate increase in multiracial/ ethnic group. This body of litera- subgroups, this report aggregates the data into the current OMB one-question format: American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Figure 1. Percentage of Multiracial/Ethnic Births in black or African American, His- California, 1982–1997 panic or Latino (of any race), Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific 16 Islander, and white. A multiracial/ethnic child 14 is defined as one who has one ) 12 parent from one of the racial/ % ( s ethnic groups noted above and h 10 t r i b the other parent from another. a i 8 Because maternal and paternal n r o f i race/ethnicity data are coded in l a 6 C discrete monoracial and mono- l a t ethnic categories, it is impossible o T 4 to determine if either parent is multiracial or multiethnic; thus, 2 the number of multiracial/ethnic 0 births reported here may be 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 biased downward. Conversely, 4 Public Policy Institute of California California Counts Check One or More . ture cites various explanations for Figure 2. Multiracial/Ethnic Births to Native-Born and this tendency. Explanations include Foreign-Born Mothers, California, 1982–1997 the fact that the foreign-born may be married at the time of immi- ) 22 % gration, they might be more likely ( y 20 Native-born t to live in ethnic enclaves, they i v i Foreign-born t 18 might be more closely tied to a a n ' s 16 culture that resists out-marriage, r e h or they might encounter language t 14 12 o m barriers.