Office of Management and Budget racial categories and implications for American Indians and Alaska Natives

Abstract

This commentary provides a brief overview of American Indian and Alaskan populations in the United States and selected data issues. The focus of this commentary is an excerpt of recommendations related to Office of Management and Budget Directive 15 (racial categories) and American Indians and Alaska Natives. Of paramount concern is not only that all federal, state, and local agencies collect data on American Indians and Alaska Natives, but also that reports, findings, and peer-reviewed publications include data on American Indians and Alaska Natives. It is of no use to recruit American Indians and Alaska Natives into studies and projects if their race/ethnicity-specific data are not disseminated. Collapsing racial/ethnic categories, such as Asians, Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders, and American Indians and Alaska Natives, into a single racial category of "other" is of no benefit to public health policymakers, researchers, and tribal planners. Likewise, tribal affiliation should be collected whenever it is feasible to do so. Insufficient inclusion and inaccurate identification of American Indians and Alaska Natives in national surveys has also resulted in a dearth of baseline data in significant reports such as Healthy People 2010.

Race and Beliefs About Mental Health Treatment Among Anxious Primary Care Patients

“…Results related to the Asian and Pacific Islander group are of particular concern since this group was likely comprised of many different ethnic sub-groups (e.g., Japanese American, Chinese American, Pacific Islander) with distinctive cultures, making it difficult to interpret findings in an meaningful way (Phinney, 1996; Zane and Sasao, 1992). Regarding Native Americans, many have argued persuasively for inclusion of data about Native Americans and mental health in published reports -- even when the sample size is small -- because of the dearth of information on this population (Burhansstipanov et al, 2000), and we present this data in that spirit. Another caution is that underlying our comparison of beliefs across racial groups was the assumption that beliefs about mental illness and treatment might be a function of culture.…”

Evidence-Based Practices, Attitudes, and Beliefs in Substance Abuse Treatment Programs Serving American Indians and Alaska Natives: A Qualitative Study

“…Local and statewide data on AI/AN’s are often inaccurate and this can affect the visibility and sense of importance of this community, especially to funding sources. Racial misclassification of AI/AN on vital statistics records is well documented in California (Bertolli et al 2007; West et al 2005; Baumeister et al 2000; Burhansstipanov & Satter 2000; Epstein, Moreno & Bacchetti 1997). Reservation data gives significant clues about the widespread issues of Native people; however, once AI/AN individuals become part of an urban data set they are often classified as “other” because of small numbers and their data cannot be analyzed due to small samples.…”

Critical epidemiology in action: Research for and by indigenous peoples

“…Others document how conventional population health statistics reflect limited indigenous input, resulting in erasure and misrepresentation. Burhansstipanov and Satter (2000) , for instance, describe the problematic practice of continental U.S. public health agencies collecting, but then not reporting, data about indigenous health. Freemantle and colleagues (2015) describe how pervasive misclassification of race and ethnicity in vital statistics across numerous nations leads to chronic underreporting of indigenous mortality.…”