THREADS IN THE HUMAN TAPESTRY The Disaggregation of the API Identifier and the Importance of Having the NHOPI (Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander) Category in Data Collection, Analysis, and Reporting PAPA OLA LŌKAHI Honolulu, Hawai‘i October 2007 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Summary………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………... 4 Background……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………... 4 Populations in the US Fabric............................................................................................................................ 5 Indigenous Peoples and the United States………………………………………………………………………….. 6 OMB 15 and the API Identifier……………………………………………………………………………………………….... 9 NHOPI Recognized……………………………………………………………………………………………………………...14 NHOPI: “Original Peoples of Hawai‘i, Guam, Samoa, and Other Pacific Islands”………………………………………..15 Implementation of Revised OMB standards on Racial and Ethnic Data…………………………………………………...19 Failure of Federal Agencies to fully Implement OMB Revised Standards………………………………………………....24 Impacts and On-going legacies of this Failure to fully Implement: 1. NHPOI populations have large data gaps in federal studies…………………………………………………… 31 2. NHOPI communities are not part of the national healthcare discussion……………………………………….32 3. NHOPI not represented in advisory groups/boards in federal data studies……………………………………33 4. Private sector not aware of NHOPI health issues………………………………………………………………...33 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...34 Bibliography……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….37 2 ATTACHMENT 1: NHOPI Populations – 2000 US Census/Other Census’……………………………............................46 ATTACHMENT 2: Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders “Who We Are”………………………………………………... 51 ATTACHMENT 3: Examples of non-compliance……………………………………………………………………….......... 61 3 Summary Since its inception, the United States government has never been consistent in determining who it is identifying or how it is identifying its nation of people. In 1976, the Executive Office of Management and Budget (OMB) created for the first time racial and ethnic categories for federal data collection and reporting; one of which was “Asian and Pacific Islander,” or “API.” This aggregated identifier brought together in one category multiple populations. In 1997, OMB split this API aggregation into two distinct groups; those of Asian descent (A) and those of Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander decent (NHOPI). The major reasons for disaggregation were: (1) The need for identifying health disparities and issues within Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander populations apart from Asian populations within the United States, and (2) The need for recognizing and protecting the unique relationship and political status that Native Hawaiians and certain Other Pacific Islanders have with the United States. Today, the implementation of this policy continues, sometimes with difficulty, both within the federal government and with private sector organizations and institutions which undertake and report on research involving populations within the United States. The former API category has continued to be used along with a newer “AAPI” (Asian American/Pacific Islander) identifier, yet neither category is recognized by OMB as an appropriate federal definer of a class of people or a racial grouping. The negative impacts of continued use of an API category are considerable both for Asian and for Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander populations. Background Historically, the reporting standards of racial and/or ethnic populations in the United States have never been constant nor have they been consistent yet, they have always reflected the political realities of the period. At the same time, this reporting has been essential for policymakers, statisticians, scholars, and the general public as all treat racial data as important basic facts, and as raw material for socioeconomic analysis and for the development of public policy. 4 In 1976, OMB established for the first time federal standards for the collection and reporting of racial and ethnic data through its issuance of “Statistical Policy Directive No. 15: Race and Ethnic Standards for Federal Statistics and Administrative Reporting.” OMB was formerly the Bureau of the Budget and was established in the Executive Office of the President in 1939. Today, it “evaluates, formulates, and coordinates management procedures and program objectives within and among federal departments and agencies. It also controls the administration of the federal budget, while routinely providing the President with recommendations regarding budget proposals and relevant legislative enactments.” In explaining the need for consistency and standards for the collection and reporting of racial and ethnic data in its 1976 Directive No. 15, OMB noted: The United States Government has long collected statistics on race and ethnicity. Such data have been used to monitor changes in the social, demographic, health, and economic characteristics of various groups in our population. Federal data collections, through censuses, surveys, and administrative records, have provided an historical record of the Nation’s population diversity and its changing social attitudes, health status, and policy concerns. What needs to be added to this statement is that there are definite federal budget implications associated with how well or how poorly specific groups or populations are doing in terms of perceived American ‘norms’ built upon the gathering of statistics and data; and that there are important political ramifications to data collection stemming from the setting of Congressional districts and resulting representation to fulfilling treaty and other agreements made with domestic and foreign governments and with its own Indigenous peoples. In all instances, it can be said that federal data collection and reporting has been and continues to be tied to appropriation allocations and to developing and implementing federal socio-economic policies and law-making for its citizenry. Populations in the US Fabric: The United States prides itself as a multi-racial nation. It has been estimated that there are over 50 distinct racial and/or sub-racial and ethnic groups resident in the country. The dilemma for federal statisticians is how to count them. The US census has been the primary “tool” for counting people since its inception in 1790. While it always has been one based on race and racial categories, it has gone through a number of enumerations based upon the larger trends in the country at the time. Further, it has only been since 1960 that individuals have self-identified in the census. Before that, enumerators determined a person’s race by visual observation. While racial identifications have always been a part of the 5 census, the last fifty years have been shaped by civil rights legislation, the implementation of OMB Statistical Policy Directive No. 15 and its 1997 revision, and the lobbying efforts of organized groups. In addition to the census, other data sources have been developed over time by the United States, primarily to measure specific indicators usually related to socio-economic status. These tools have been especially helpful in terms of measuring advancements, or non-advancements, resulting from civil rights legislation and other federal laws and policies. Over the past twenty years, such studies have been particularly useful in defining health disparities and deficiencies in educational resources among different racial groups within the United States. In recent times, a major dilemma for federal statisticians has been on how best to define the multitudes of racial groups and ethnicities resident in the United States. In 1977, OMB issued its Statistical Policy Directive No. 15 which established standards for data collection and identified the major racial categories for data collection, analysis, and reporting: American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian or Pacific Islander, Black, Hispanic, and White. Twenty years later, in 1997, OMB revised these categories to include American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, Afro-American or Black, Hispanic/Latino, and White and allowed the various federal agencies five years to implement any changes needed to implement this revision. While many have complied, implementation to date is not complete. Indigenous Peoples and the United States: Another force for data collection, analysis, and reporting has been at work in the United States. The federal government always has maintained a unique and special relationship with its indigenous peoples. Over the past twenty-five years, this relationship has become more focused and important as a result of a growing body of international law and the work of the United Nations focusing on Indigenous peoples’ issues and concerns. Federal data collection on American Indians has ebbed and flowed throughout time depending upon the political realities of the federal relationship. Prior to the 1860 census, American Indians who retained their tribal affiliations were not counted in the census as they were not considered American citizens. This changed with the 1870 census when some American Indians were counted; however, American citizenship for American Indians was not attained universally until 1924. Today, there are 561 federally-recognized American Indian tribes and Alaska Native Villages, but more than half of 6 the American Indian/Alaska Native population lives outside of these tribal