BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Joseph L. Dunn, Chair
2005-2006 Regular Session
SB 1615 S
Senator Simitian B
As Amended April 4, 2006
Hearing Date: April 18, 2006 1
Government Code 6
BCP:rm 1
5
SUBJECT
State Agencies: Collection of Data, Ancestry or Ethnic
Origin
DESCRIPTION
This bill would require state agencies, boards, or
commissions that directly collect demographic data on
ancestry, ethnic origin, ethnicity or race to allow
respondents the option of selecting more than one racial
designation.
BACKGROUND
California's population is becoming increasingly
multi-ethnic. In 1997, the federal Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) adopted revisions to Policy Directive No.
15, Race and Ethnic Standards for Federal Statistics and
Administrative Reporting. [62 Fed. Reg. 58782.] Those
revisions required, among other things, for federal
agencies to give individuals the opportunity to select more
than one race when racial information was collected.
Implementation of these regulations by federal agencies was
required by 2003 and OMB authorized a "dress rehearsal" of
the standards for the 2000 Census. According to that
census, about 5% of California residents identify
themselves as multiracial compared to 2.4% nationwide.
These new regulations allow gathered information to
accurately reflect the ethnic makeup of the respondent,
although there were concerns raised about increased cost of
tabulation.
(more)
SB 1615 (Simitian)
Page 2
Currently, most California state agencies do not allow
respondents to select more than one race. This bill would
require any state agency, board, or commission that
directly or by contract collects demographic data on
ancestry, ethnic origin, ethnicity or race to allow
selection of more than one racial designation.
SB 1615 (Simitian)
Page 3
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
Existing federal regulations require federal agencies to
ensure respondents have the option of selection one or more
racial designation. [Standards for Maintaining,
Collecting, and Presenting Federal Data on Race and
Ethnicity 62 Fed. Reg. 58782.]
Existing law does not require state agencies to allow
respondents to check more than one box designating their
race.
This bill would require any state agency, board or
commission that directly or by contract collects
demographic data on ancestry, ethnic origin, ethnicity, or
race to do all of the following:
Provide forms offering respondents the option of
selecting more than one ethnic or racial designation.
Ensure that tabulation or reporting of information
by state agencies, boards or commissions include
number or percentage of respondents identifying with:
o Only one ethnic or racial designation;
o Each ethnic or racial designation, whether
alone or in combination; and
o Multiple ethnic or racial designations.
Comply with rules issued by the federal Office of
Management and Budget in cases of federally mandated
actions relating to an ethnic or racial community, or
to assessing disparate impact or discriminatory
patterns.
Comply as soon as reasonably feasible, no later
than January 1, 2014.
This bill would codify legislative findings and
declarations which state that forcing respondents to choose
only a single ancestry, race or ethnicity forces them to
deny a significant part of their heritage.
COMMENT
1. Stated need for the bill
According to the author, "[c]urrent data collection
practices can be unfair and offensive to the rapidly
increasing population of Californians who identify with
SB 1615 (Simitian)
Page 4
more than one ethnicity or race." Statistics cited by
the author contend that one in six births in California
is multiracial or multiethnic. Current state practices
generally do not allow respondents to check more than one
box when responding to queries about their race or
ethnicity. As a result, the author states that "many
multiracial Californians are . . . forced to deny
significant parts of their heritage and ethnic identity
on state forms."
Additionally, the author raises concerns that current
data collection practices portray a "false picture of the
state's diversity [and] set up a situation where
accurate, reliable information is not available to
doctors, teachers, service providers, and policymakers."
According to the author, these data collection practices
result in underreporting of the "true numbers for members
of minorities and communities of color . . ."
This bill proposes to address these issues by allowing
designation of one or more racial or ethnic categories in
addition to certain tabulation and reporting
requirements.
2. Concerns raised during comment period on the federal
regulations
This bill is premised upon the federal Office of
Management and Budget's Standards for Maintaining,
Collecting, and Presenting Federal Data on Race and
Ethnicity, which revised the federal government's
collection procedures. Prior to adopting those
guidelines, over 300 letters were considered by the OMB.
These letters generally expressed support, although there
were a few opponents.
Allowing reporting of more than one race was "favorably
received by most of those commenting on it, including
associations and organizations." Several comments were
received from state agencies and legislatures who were
"opposed [to] any multiple race reporting because of
possible increased costs to collect the information and
implementation problems." [62 Fed. Reg. 58782,
58784-85.] Additionally, some of those supporting the
provision expressed similar concerns about cost,
SB 1615 (Simitian)
Page 5
implementation and compatibility of the data with
requirements for legislative redistricting and the Voting
Rights Act.
Specifically, the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965
prevents states from "den[ying] or abridg[ing] of the
right of any citizen . . . to vote on account of race or
color." [42 U.S.C. 1973.] Census data on ethnic and
racial makeup of communities is used to ensure that any
state redistricting does not abridge the voting rights of
minority groups. Considering the various state
redistricting proposals introduced over the past couple
of years, any approved redistricting plan must be
evaluated for its impact on the minority population. In
order to evaluate a redistricting plan, the Attorney
General must consider the proposed boundaries based upon
the most recent federal census data. [28 C.F.R. 51.57.]
As the federal census already allows individuals to
select more than one ethnicity, this bill would not
affect the data used to evaluate a proposed redistricting
plan under the Voting Rights Act.
3. Tabulation of data
On October 30, 1997 the federal OMB adopted the Standards
for Maintaining, Collecting, and Presenting Federal Data
on Race and Ethnicity after weighing all of the support
and opposition. In the published notice of decision, the
OMB noted the need for further research on how to
properly tabulate the information as "[t]he methodology
for tabulating data on race and ethnicity must be
carefully developed and coordinated among the statistical
agencies and other . . . data users." [62 Fed. Reg.
58782, 58788.]
A later document, published in 2000, by the OMB
documented the progress of formulating tabulation
guidelines. Recognizing problems inherent in detailed
reporting, the OMB report stated that "[s]ome balance
will need to be struck between having a tabulation
showing the full distribution of all possible
combinations of multiple race responses and presenting
SB 1615 (Simitian)
Page 6
only the minimum -- that is, a single aggregate of people
who reported more than one race." One such balance
allows a limited amount of aggregation by institutions
reporting certain racial and ethnic data. That proposed
aggregation uses five single race categories, the four
double-race combinations most frequently reported, any
multiple race combinations that comprise more than one
percent of the population in the area, and a balance
category to account for all unaccounted individuals.
[OMB Bulletin No. 00-02.]
SB 1615, based upon the federal guidelines, does not
specifically allow for such an aggregation. The bill
does contain a provision requiring compliance with rules
issued by the federal OMB in federally mandated actions
relating to an ethnic or racial community, or to assess
disparate impact or discriminatory patterns. As
discussed below, federal guidelines requiring aggregation
in those instances would be incorporated by SB 1615. In
situations that are not federally mandated, or that do
not assess a disparate impact or discriminatory pattern,
existing provisions may result in voluminous reports that
may distort the actual racial or ethnic data. The
author's office appeared willing to consider suggestions
by which to make this bill more workable.
SHOULD AGENCIES BE ALLOWED TO PERFORM MINIMAL AGGREGATION
OF DATA IN CASES WHERE THE DATA OTHERWISE WOULD LOSE ITS
FUNCTIONALITY?
3. Data tabulated or reported
State agencies, boards or commissions tabulating or
reporting data must include three statistics: number or
percentage of respondents with a single designation,
those who identify with each designation, and those who
identify with multiple designations.
A. Single designation
The first category, those who identify a single ethnic
or racial designation poses no change from current
law. These statistics are easily tabulated and
compared with existing records.
SB 1615 (Simitian)
Page 7
B. Individuals identifying with each designation
The second category, tracking the number or percentage
who identify with each designation, also is straight
forward. However, due to the nature of existing
records, it could be difficult to compare this
information to historical measures of diversity. For
example, historical results may indicate that 60% of
the population is ethnicity A, 25% is ethnicity B, and
15% is ethnicity C. Under this category, reported
data may indicate that 75% of the population is
ethnicity A, 40% is ethnicity B, and 30% is ethnicity
C, with a gross percentage over 100%. While this
information may be useful in the future, it provides
some degree of difficulty in comparing demographic
data to past years. As a result, certain
discriminatory actions may be masked due to the
incompatibility of data in the short term. The
author's office states that the goal of SB 1615 is to
move away from traditional percentage schemes and
toward a version that more accurately represents the
population. In response to concerns that counting
individuals in more than one racial or ethnic group
could lead to misleading data, or at least make
historical comparisons difficult, the author states
that:
. . . [I]t is clear both from real experience
and from the language in the bill that this
kind of "double-counting" scenario would not
come to pass. Just because individuals could
be counted as identifying with multiple
communities under SB 1615 does not in any way
mean that the absolute number of individuals
from which data is collected changes. This
absolute number is determined independent of
the counts for each ethnic or racial community.
Real life experience from the 2000 US Census
verifies this.
C. Individuals identifying with multiple designations
The third category contains those who identify with
multiple designations. According to the author, this
category is intended to require state agencies to
SB 1615 (Simitian)
Page 8
specifically list the percentage of respondents in
each multi racial or ethnic group. The included
language of the section, "[t]he number or percentage
of respondents who identify with multiple ethnic or
racial designations" is ambiguous as to whether
agencies would report the total number of respondents
identifying with multiple ethnic or racial
designations, or delineate the respondents by specific
multiethnic or multiracial category. Further clarity
would help to effectuate the author's intent not to
clump all multiethnic or multiracial respondents
together. As mentioned above, federal agencies
aggregate this information in certain cases where
unaggregated information would be unmanageable.
SUGGESTED AMENDEMENT: "The number or percentage of
respondents who identify with multiple ethnic or
racial designations, delineated by each selected
multiple ethnic or racial designation."
4. Current examples allowing selection of more than one
designation
The author cites several instances where current
California entities allow designation of more than one
race or ethnicity. For example, online applications to
the University of California and state birth and death
certificates allow for multiple racial or ethnic
designations. Although it should be mentioned that
California's birth and death records allow for multiple
designations due to nationwide compliance, which in turn
requires conformity with federal regulations.
5. Civil rights monitoring and enforcement
Section (c)(2)(D) of proposed Section 8310.6 of the
Government Code requires compliance with federal OMB
guidelines for federal actions relating to an ethnic or
racial community, or in the assessment of discriminatory
patterns or disparate impact.
According to the author, this section is intended to
incorporate OMB rules regarding civil rights monitoring
and gathering of ethnic and racial data. OMB's
Provisional Guidance for the Implementation of the 1997
SB 1615 (Simitian)
Page 9
Standards for Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity 61-62
(December 15, 2000) defines how multiple race responses
should be allocated for purposes of civil rights
enforcement by agencies. These federal rules allocate
the race or ethnicity of multiple responses to either the
minority race, or in cases where discrimination,
discriminatory impact or pattern is alleged to the
minority group or groups represented. For example, rules
state that if a response selects one minority race and
white, the response is allocated to the minority race.
Thus, the rules ensure that minority populations are not
underreported for purposes of monitoring civil rights
violations.
The author contends that current practices obscure civil
rights monitoring and enforcement related to the
multiracial population. To the extent that current
practices mask discrimination, the proposed scheme would
allocate race or ethnicity in favor of minorities.
6. Technical amendment
The author proposes the following technical amendments
for clarification:
a) On page 2, line 38, after "and 'select one or more.'"
insert "A single designation for multiracial respondents
does not satisfy this requirement."
b) On page 3, line 13, strike "Complying" and insert "For
civil rights monitoring and enforcement, complying"
c) On page 3, line 14, after "Budget" insert "Bulletin
No. 00-02"
d) On page 3, line 14, after "in cases of" insert "state
or"
e) On page 3, line 16, after "discriminatory patterns."
insert "In such cases, the requirement of (C) of this
paragraph should never be met without also complying with
the requirements of (A), (B), and (D) of this paragraph."
Support: American Counseling Association; American
Federation of Television
SB 1615 (Simitian)
Page 10
and Radio Artists; American Multiethnic Association;
Asian American for Civil Rights & Equality (AACRE);
Asian Pacific Islander American Public Affairs
Association (APAPA); Bridge Communications, Inc.;
California Medical Association; Cancer Resources &
Advocacy; Chicano Consortium; Council on
American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Sacramento
Valley; Crisis Support Services of Alameda County;
Global Family Festival; Holt International;
International Child Resource Institute; I
(Interracial Family) Pride; Ione Band of Miwok
Indians; Japanese American Citizens League (JACL),
Berkeley; Japanese American Citizens League (JACL),
San Jose; Japanese American Citizens League (JACL),
San Mateo; Jewish Multiracial Network; Lambda
Letters Project; Level Playing Field Institute; Life
Learning Academy; Mixed Heritage Center; Mixed
Identity Student Organization, Western Washington
University; Mixed Island; Mixed Student Union, UC
Berkeley; Mosaic; Multicultural Mental Health
Providers Network; Multiethnic Education Program
(International Child Resource Institute);
Multiracial Americans of Southern California;
New/Demographic; New York University Multiracial Law
Students Association; Organization of Chinese
Americans (OCA), Sacramento; Organization of
Multiracial and Biracial Students, Brown University;
Pact, an Adoption Alliance; Swirl; Tomorrow's
Family; Topaz Club; University of Southern
California Hapa Student Community; Steve Westly,
California State Controller; Cruz M. Bustamante,
Lieutenant Governor, State of California; (61)
individuals
Opposition:Project RACE (Reclassify All Children Equally)
HISTORY
Source: MAVIN Foundation; Association of Multi-Ethnic
Americans; Japanese Americans Citizens League (JACL)
Related Pending Legislation: None Known
Prior Legislation: AB 2324 (Chan 2004), would have
required state agencies to comply with
SB 1615 (Simitian)
Page 11
federal regulations including allowing
selection of more than one race or ethnicity.
**************