Why do most people have stable responses to census race questions, while some do not? Using linked Canadian data, we examine personal, social, and economic characteristics that predict response stability as White or as one of six large visible minority groups, versus a change in response to/from White or to/from another visible minority group. Response change rates in Canada are generally comparable to those in the US, UK, and New Zealand. Likely reflecting the centuries-old hegemony of Whites in these countries, White is the most stable response group in Canada as well as the US, UK, and New Zealand. Multiple-race response groups are among the newest and least stable response groups. Social statuses and experiences (mixed ethnic heritage, immigration status, and exposure to own-group members) are generally more predictive of race response stability and change than economic (income level and change in income) or personal statuses (education, age). This highlights the socially-constructed nature of race group boundaries. Joining and leaving a group are often predicted by the same status/characteristic and in the same direction, hinting that the status/characteristic adds complexity to the race-related experiences of constituents.

The descendants of the First Peoples of the Americas (labeled “American Indians and Alaska Natives” in the federal definition) are a particularly challenging group to count in censuses. In this article, I describe some enumeration issues and then outline what we have learned about American Indians and Alaska Natives from efforts that rely on individuals’ answers to census questions on race, ancestry, ethnicity, and tribe. Those who do not report a tribe and those who change their race response from one census to another complicate these efforts. Tribal self-enumeration and indigenous data sovereignty may improve data about some portions of the population. Census and survey enumeration efforts should continue to separate the concepts of race, ancestry, and tribe lest the various subpopulations become indistinguishable in the data, making the data much less useful and possibly misleading.

Who has which job? When this answer differs by race group or sex, inefficiencies such as labor market discrimination or suboptimal investment in education may be impeding productivity and sustaining inequities. We use US Census data to analyze the occupational structure of American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) workers relative to non-Hispanic white workers. Relative to white workers, AI/AN workers are generally overrepresented in low-skilled occupations and underrepresented in high-skilled occupations, especially men and single-race AI/AN workers. AI/AN occupational dissimilarity does not appear to have declined substantially since 1980. Sex-specific multivariate analyses do not remove the significant inequalities in observed occupational outcomes.

A person's racial or ethnic self-identification can change over time and across contexts, which is a component of population change not usually considered in studies that use race and ethnicity as variables. To facilitate incorporation of this aspect of population change, we show patterns and directions of individual-level race and Hispanic response change throughout the United States and among all federally recognized race/ethnic groups. We use internal U.S. Census Bureau data from the 2000 and 2010 censuses in which responses have been linked at the individual level (N = 162 million). Approximately 9.8 million people (6.1 %) in our data have a different race and/or Hispanic-origin response in 2010 than they did in 2000. Race response change was especially common among those reported as American Indian, Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, Other Pacific Islander, in a multiple-race response group, or Hispanic. People reported as non-Hispanic white, black, or Asian in 2000 usually had the same response in 2010 (3 %, 6 %, and 9 % of responses changed, respectively). Hispanic/non-Hispanic ethnicity responses were also usually consistent (13 % and 1 %, respectively, changed). We found a variety of response change patterns, which we detail. In many race/Hispanic response groups, we see population churn in the form of large countervailing flows of response changes that are hidden in cross-sectional data. We find that response changes happen across ages, sexes, regions, and response modes, with interesting variation across racial/ethnic categories. Researchers should address the implications of race and Hispanic-origin response change when designing analyses and interpreting results.

How is a person's racial self-representation related to the race history of the place in which he or she lives? We use Census Bureau data about race and ancestry to address this research question for two groups of people with mixed racial heritage: those reporting white and American Indian heritages, or reporting black and American Indian heritages. Links between history, place, and self-representation can be seen in geographic clustering for each race/ancestry response combination. We use multinomial logistic regression models to predict individuals' race/ancestry responses (e.g., white with American Indian ancestry versus white and American Indian races) using measures of local race history and the area's contemporary racial composition. Multivariate results highlight the relationship between a person's identity claims and the history of the area, net of contemporary area composition. Future research should attend to the history of the place as a potential contributor to contemporary patterns.

More than one million people reported their race as American Indian/Alaska Native (AIAN) in the 2000 U.S. census but did not do so in the 1990 census. We ask three questions. First, which subgroups had the greatest numerical growth? Second, which subgroups had the greatest proportional increase? And third, are the 2000 single-race AIANs and the 1990 AIANs the same set of people? We use full-count and high-density decennial census data; adjust for birth, death, and immigration; decompose on age, gender, Latino origin, education, and birth state; and compare the observed subgroup sizes in 2000 with the sizes expected based on 1990 counts. The largest numerical increases were among adolescent and middle-aged non-Latinos, non-Latino women, and adults with no college degree. Latinos, women, highly educated adults, and people born in Eastern states had the largest proportionate gains. The ability to report multiple races in 2000 and the new federal definition of "American Indian" may have especially affected these groups, although personal-identity changes are probably also involved. We find that thousands of new Latino AIANs reported only one race in 2000, but many 1990 AIANs reported multiple races in 2000. Thus, the 1990 AIANs and 2000 single-race AIANs are not always the same individuals.

Virtually all research on the racial identification of multiracial individuals has used data from 1990 or later, yet multiracial individuals have existed since long before then. American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians, for example, are small indigenous groups who have been forming interracial unions for many generations. These groups are among the people who are least likely to give exactly the same race response when asked their race(s) in different contexts or on different surveys. In this project, I focus on these groups as well as more commonly studied groups(e.g., whites, blacks, and Asians) to summarize how children of interracially married parents are racially labeled on Census forms and how that has changed between 1960 and 2010. To provide the most accurate estimates, I use dense restricted-use census data housed in the Census Research Data Centers. This research provides a rich background for the expansion of knowledge about multiracial identification to more types of people and to more historical contexts.

Multiracial individuals and mixed race households show different residential locationpatterns depending on the races of the groups involved and the ways in which peoplereport their mixed racial heritage. In this research, we focus on multiracial andinterracially married American Indians in recent decades. Although they aresubstantively interesting, American Indians and multiracial people are rarelyrepresented in social science research on residential location and segregation. UsingU.S. public-use microdata from four decades (1980, 1990, 2000, and 2008), we map thelocations of two groups of multiracial American Indians and two groups of interraciallymarried American Indians, in comparison to their single-race counterparts. In 1980 and1990, we measure multiracial using the respondents answers to both the race and theancestry census questions. Our disaggregation of different types of mixed-raceAmerican Indian households extends the work of Wong (1998, 1999) and Wright et al.(2003) to reflect current sociological knowledge about the varieties of experiences ofpeople in different multiracial situations. By doing so, this research advances knowledgeabout the social context of race and identity in the contemporary United States.

Although multiple race responses are now allowed on federal censuses and surveys, most interracially married single-race parents report a single race for their children. It is well-established that the social context of these racial identification decisions affects their outcome. This research focuses instead on the physical context. It is argued that homelands physical places with cultural meaning are an important component of the intergenerational transfer of a single-race identity in indigenous mixed-race families. To test potential explanations for the relationship between homelands and indigenous identities, this research focuses on families in which an interracially-married American Indian lives with a spouse and child and was included in the Census 2000 5% Public Use Microdata Sample. Logistic regression reveals a strong effect of living in an American Indian homeland on the childs chances of being reported as single-race American Indian. This effect remains even after accounting for strong ties to American Indians and other groups, family and area poverty levels, geographic isolation, and the racial composition of the area. The intergenerational transmission of strong identities continues in this multiracial era (as it has for centuries) in the context of culturally meaningful physical places.

Liebler and Zacher examine the relationship between a mixed-heritage persons answer to the census race and ancestry questions on the one hand, and characteristics of their local area on the other. Employing what C. Wright Mills (1959) called a sociological imagination they explore how certain historical factors have contributed to the personal biographies of mixed-heritage people in the United States. They use publicly available census and ACS microdata and multinomial logistic regression to predict the race/ancestry response of people with mixed white-American Indian heritage and of people with mixed black-American Indian heritage. They have found that measures of the history of the area are powerful predictors of the ways in which people report their multiracial heritage, as are measures of the contemporary racial context of the area. These results highlight the previously under-recognized relationship between a persons own racial identity and the history of the area in which they live.

Despite the advent of historical census data, most studies of interracial marriage have focused solely on patterns and trends since 1960. This paper traces the trend in interracial marriage between both whites and blacks and whites and American Indians from 1850 until 2000. By focusing on a comparison between these two groups, this analysis provides evidence of the different ways in which the boundaries between whites and blacks and whites and American Indians were developed over time. In addition to the overall trend, the paper examines differences by gender, region and education. The results indicate far fewer barriers to prevent the marriage of whites and American Indians throughout the period than for whites and blacks, although substantial social distance still remains between the most assimilated individuals of American Indian ancestry and whites.

Revised federal policies require that multiple-race responses be allowed in all federal data collection efforts, but many researchers find the multitude of race categories and variables very difficult to use. Important comparability issues also interfere with using multiple-race data in analyses of multiple datasets and/or multiple points in time. These difficulties have, in effect, discouraged the use of the more nuanced new data on race. We present a practical method for incorporating multiple-race respondents into analyses that use public-use Microdata. We extend prior work by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) in which they use multiple-race respondents preferred single race and other characteristics to develop a model predicting preferred single race (if forced to choose). In this paper, we apply the NCHS-generated regression coefficients to public-use Microdata with limited geographic information. We include documentation and dissemination tools for this practical and preferable method of including multiple-race respondents in analyses.

People of mixed heritagethose with ancestors of different race groupscan acknowledge this mixed heritage or they can chose not to. For decades, many people have indicated mixed heritage on the U.S. Census by reporting an ancestry or ethnic origin that differs from their reported race(s). This ancestry question was included in the long-form version of the census questionnaire in 1980, 1990, and 2000. In this paper, I take a long-term view of mixed- heritage reports to provide context and background information about the newly enumerated but longstanding mixed race population in America. I focus on the following research questions.1) What social and demographic characteristics predict whether a person of mixed racial heritage will report mixed heritage by reporting an ancestry different from their reported race?2) Over the past three censuses, has there been a shift in which characteristics best predict an ancestry report that is different from the reported single race? Is this change primarily evident between 1990 and 2000 and thus probably due to the change in the race question?3) How do characteristics that predict mismatched race/ancestry reports compare with those predictive of multiple-race reports?