PMCCPMCCPMCC

Search tips
Search criteria 

Advanced

 
Logo of nihpaAbout Author manuscriptsSubmit a manuscriptHHS Public Access; Author Manuscript; Accepted for publication in peer reviewed journal;
 
Demography. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 September 14.
Published in final edited form as:
PMCID: PMC5598760
NIHMSID: NIHMS892490

Joining, Leaving, and Staying in the American Indian/Alaska Native Race Category between 2000 and 2010

Abstract

Conceptualizing and operationalizing American Indian populations is challenging. Each census for decades has seen the American Indian population increase substantially more than expected, with indirect and qualitative evidence that this is due to changes in individuals' race responses. We apply uniquely suited (but not nationally representative) linked data from the 2000 and 2010 decennial censuses (N= 3.1 million) and the 2006–2010 American Community Survey (N = 188,131) to address three research questions. First, to what extent do American Indian people have different race responses across data sources? We find considerable race response change, especially among multiple-race and/or Hispanic American Indians. Second, how are people who change responses different from or similar to those who do not? We find three sets of American Indians: those who (1) had the same race and Hispanic responses in 2000 and 2010, (2) moved between single-race and multiple-race American Indian responses, and (3) added or dropped the American Indian response, thus joining or leaving the enumerated American Indian population. People in groups (1) and (2) were relatively likely to report a tribe, live in an American Indian area, report American Indian ancestry, and live in the West. Third, how are people who join a group different from or similar to those who leave it? Multivariate models show general similarity between joiners and leavers in group (1) and in group (2). Population turnover is hidden in cross-sectional comparisons; people joining each subpopulation of American Indians are similar in number and characteristics to those who leave it.

Introduction

Most demographers expect a national population to increase only when births and immigrants outnumber deaths and emigrants. This straightforward balancing equation has been challenged by the American Indian2 case which highlights another possibility – population growth through changing racial identification.3 While the American Indian population grew at a relatively conventional pace from 1890 through 1950 (see Figure 1) a major shift occurred in 1960 when census respondents could first self-identify their race4 and there was a 52 per cent net increase in the number of enumerated American Indians (Passel 1976; Thornton 1987). This number has continued to grow remarkably. Hundreds of thousands more American Indians have been counted each census than expected based on births and immigration.5 Demographers, as well as qualitative researchers investigating the phenomenon, have concluded that people have been changing their race response to include American Indian.

Figure 1
American Indians and Alaska Natives (AIANs), by identification: 1890-2010

The difference between the number of American Indians expected each year and the number enumerated – the “error of closure” – has been followed with interest since the 1970s, but researchers have had very limited data on which to base their studies. Because censuses are cross-sectional, only net population changes could be assessed and compositional change could only be viewed in the aggregate (Glick and Han 2015; Liebler and Ortyl 2014; Perez and Hirschman 2009). “New American Indians” were deduced to include many former whites with relatively high education and/or from areas far from large American Indian populations (Eschbach et al. 1998; Liebler and Ortyl 2014). Qualitative sociologists have talked with some former whites who began (re)identifying as racially American Indian (Fitzgerald 2007; Jacobs 2015; Liebler 2001; Nagel 1996; Sturm 2011). With little available evidence, the characteristics of those who left the American Indian category have not been studied. However, numerous policies and programs encouraged assimilation by people of American Indian descent (e.g., allotment, boarding schools, and out-adoption) and may have discouraged many from reporting this heritage.

Within this research tradition, we break new ground. We construct a longitudinal data set with information on about 3.1 million people who reported (or were reported as)6 American Indian in the race question in Census 2000, the 2010 Census, or both.7 For those who also participated in the American Community Survey (ACS) in 2006 through 2010 (N = 188,131), we have substantial supplementary data. With linked, longitudinal data about individuals, we move beyond the study of net change to explore the composition of countervailing flows of people into and out of the American Indian response category.

Our research questions are threefold. First, to what extent do people change responses to include or exclude American Indian? The answer addresses the common assumption that race responses are stable over time. Second, how are people who change race responses different from or similar to those who do not? They may have varied identities as well as distinct race-related experiences. Third, to what extent are those who join an American Indian subgroup (e.g. non-Hispanic single race American Indian) different from or similar to those who leave it? Differences between joiners and leavers may point to reasons that people change responses. If the groups are similar, joiners and leavers may be two views of a single group with dynamic identity experiences. Programs serving the point-in-time American Indian population can do so if joiners and leavers are similar, despite flux in identification.

We find that a large number of individuals change their race response to include or exclude American Indian, and this is particularly true among those who also report a Hispanic origin and/or another race. We also find that people who change their race response to include/exclude American Indian differ from those who keep the same response across the two censuses, particularly in terms of their connections to other American Indians measured in terms of whether they reported a tribe or American Indian ancestry, and whether or not they live in American Indian areas. Finally, we find many similarities between joiners and leavers both in terms of numbers and characteristics.

This research is important for both practical and theoretical reasons. We intend to aid analysts, policy makers, and the public in understanding American Indians in 2000 and 2010 (see Lujan 2014). We give disaggregated information about joiners, stayers, leavers, Hispanics, non-Hispanics, single-race responses, and multiple-race responses. Our multivariate analyses provide new evidence of characteristics accompanying each response pattern – evidence relevant to theories about racial identity and the social construction of race (e.g., Wimmer 2008).

American Indians: Exceptions or Forerunners?

In research on identity change and response change, part-American Indians have been shown to shift responses more often than people who report black, Asian, white, and/or Hispanic heritage (Campbell and Troyer 2007; Doyle and Kao 2007; Dusch and Meier 2012; Harris and Sim 2002; Hitlin et al. 2006; Singer and Ennis 2003; U.S. Census Bureau 1993). Are American Indians fundamentally different? In agreement with Snipp (1997), we think not. Instead, we see American Indians as representing the vanguard; other groups may well follow in their path. For example, like American Indians, people in Asian- and Hispanic-American groups are increasingly forming unions across race and ethnic lines (Wang 2012) and as greater numbers of Hispanics and Asians form successive generations in the U.S. (i.e. 4th generation), race and ethnic changes may become more common within these groups. Questions of identity and socially-defined group boundaries are likely to expand for many race/ethnic groups in coming years. How each group is measured will also continue to affect the social construction of race and group boundaries (e.g., Humes and Hogan 2015; Omi and Winant 1994; Prewitt 2013; Snipp 1997). Pacific Islanders and multiple-race respondents from all race groups already show a high level of race response change across the 2000 to 2010 period (Liebler et al. 2014).

At the same time, American Indians are not the same as other race/ethnic groups in the U.S. What it means to be American Indian is complicated by the existence of tribal governments, indigenous homelands, tribal enrollment blood quantum requirements, and political relationships with the federal government. A person deciding whether to mark American Indian as his or her race has extra dimensions to consider – “American Indian” includes sometimes-knotty political and/or legal statuses (and related contested identities) that are not at issue in non-indigenous groups (see Robertson 2013 and U.S. Census Bureau 2008:v).

In this complex milieu, millions of people with American Indian heritage report it to the Census Bureau in an ancestry question but not in the race question (see Figure 1). Over the centuries, many policies and practices have strongly urged American Indian assimilation, fostering an atmosphere of stigma that may still affect some. Also, as Senator Elizabeth Warren's experiences illustrate, part-whites who claim indigenous heritage can be heavily criticized for seeming to try to benefit from minority status (e.g., Seelye 2012). For part-black American Indians, there are twin pressures discouraging an American Indian response: part-blacks are often seen as “just” black (Davis 2005; Khanna and Johnson 2010) and part-American Indians are much less often seen as American Indian (Gullickson and Morning 2011; Snipp 1989, 2003).

The Hispanic American Indian category contains a variety of people, including at least four groups. Some Hispanic American Indians have, for example, one Hispanic parent and one American Indian parent. Some have a mestizo identity and, in an effort to convey this identity on the census form, mark a combination of Hispanic, American Indian, white, and perhaps black.8 Some South and Central American indigenous people9 mark the “American Indian or Alaska Native” check box on the race question; most of these people were reported Hispanic.10 And some South or Central American indigenous people reported their tribe on the form without marking the American Indian check box. These responses11 were coded as American Indian in post-enumeration processing, in accordance with the federal definition of American Indian (Office of Management and Budget 1997).12

Prior Research

To what extent do people change responses to include or exclude American Indian?

Do people change their racial identification to/from American Indian? How common is this? Based on the demographic balancing equation, Passel (1976) calculated the expected net increase from 1960 and 1970 to be 202,000, but the 1970 Census count of American Indians was 67,000 higher than this. Passel suggested that part of this error of closure was due to changes in racial identification from white in 1960 to American Indian in 1970. As illustrated in Figure 1, large errors of closure continued to appear in subsequent decades – 366,000 between 1970 and 1980 (Passel and Berman 1986, Passel 1997), 181,000 between 1980 and 1990 (Harris 1994), and just over one million between 1990 and 2000 (Liebler and Ortyl 2014). These studies and others (Eschbach 1993, 1995; Eschbach et al. 1998; Harris 1994) point to changes in racial classification as a primary factor causing these errors of closure.

Researchers using smaller longitudinal data sets have found lower rates of race response consistency among people giving American Indian responses compared to those reporting white, black, or an Asian group (Dusch and Meier 2012; Singer and Ennis 2003; U.S. Census Bureau 1993). For example, two-fifths of 1990 Census American Indians reported a different race in the post-Census reinterview (U.S. Census Bureau 1993). Over one-quarter of non-Hispanic American Indians and over three-quarters of Hispanic American Indians gave a different race/Hispanic response between Census 2000 and the 2000 Current Population Study (del Pinal and Schmidley 2005). One-third of single-race American Indian youth in 1994/5 reported a different race 6 to 8 years later (Doyle and Kao 2007).

Most prior researchers could not study multiple-race responses and did not disaggregate by Hispanic origin (Eschbach et al. 1998; Harris 1994; Passel 1976, 1997; Passel and Berman 1986). Liebler and Ortyl (2014) are the exception. Using cross-sections of the 1990 and 2000 censuses, they deduced that many newly identified Hispanic American Indians were relatively young. They also demonstrated that some 1990 single-race American Indians must have reported multiple races in 2000.

Not all racial re-classification is due to identity changes. Response change can also be a result of a different person within the household filling out the form, individuals making a mistake when filling out their form, individuals purposely misreporting their race, or an outsider replying for a non-responsive household (Compton et al. 2012; Porter et al. 2015; Rockquemore and Brunsma 2002). Most of these issues could affect all groups, so the particularly high level of response change among American Indians is probably not entirely driven by these factors.

Other measurement issues may disproportionately affect American Indians because of the particularly complex set of forces (described above) that construct who is socially seen as American Indian. A survey instrument may not be fully able to capture complex racial identity experiences. Relatedly, a survey response category that draws responses from a heterogeneous set of people may not fully reflect the identities of those who list it as their identification, potentially resulting in response fluidity.

How are people who change responses different from or similar to those who do not?

What are the characteristics of people who change their race response to/from American Indian? Are they different from those who are consistent in identification? How? Prior quantitative and qualitative researchers (e.g., Eschbach et al. 1998; Sturm 2011) have provided a few answers to these questions.

Consistent responses

Though known to be mutable, racial identity is generally thought to be central to self-conception. A consistent race and Hispanic origin response (whatever the details)13 may indicate a relatively strong attachment to the group. A person who gives the same race and Hispanic responses in 2000 and 2010 – a “stayer” in our study – may have a relatively strong sense of American Indian identity, and may experience the social world accordingly. Indigenous connections to traditional or legal homelands (Liebler 2010b) and “thick ties” to race groups (Cornell and Hartmann 2007) suggest that stayers might more often report a tribal affiliation, live in an American Indian area, and report American Indian ancestry.

Changing responses

We elaborate on three possibilities below.

New personal circumstances

People who change their response may have experienced changes in circumstance that influenced self-conception or others' perception of them (Cooley 1902). Given the impact of local area characteristics on race responses (Eschbach 1993; Kana'iaupuni and Liebler 2005; Liebler 2010b; Xie and Goyette 1997), we anticipate that residential mobility spurs response instability, especially if the residential locations have different racial compositions or culturally-relevant meanings. Children in 2000 who moved out of their parents' homes by 2010 may report a different race for themselves than was previously recorded. Other life changes could also potentially affect race responses, including marriage, divorce, discrimination experiences, or new information about family heritage.

Terminology

People who do not read English well or who are less educated may find the census questions and federal definitions challenging or confusing, potentially resulting in response change from one census to the other. Non-citizens14 and new immigrants may be unsure of the social meaning of each race group in the U.S. context and have shifting understandings as they spend more time in the U.S. Some people – such as newly immigrated indigenous Central and South Americans – might face more than one of these barriers.

Variation in source of information

Observed response changes could also reflect a difference in opinion about what race(s) best describe a person (Song 2003). Enumerators are common in American Indian areas (Bates 2008), and the mail-out form is usually filled out by one member of the household for everyone in the household (Sweet 1994). The multiple facets of race (e.g., observed versus self-identified race) do not necessarily align (Harris and Sim 2002; Porter et al. 2015) and so variation in the source of the information about a person's race(s) may cause variation in the content of that information.

How are joiners different from or similar to leavers?

Our third research task is to understand differences and similarities between those who join and those who leave American Indian subgroups.

Differences

People who join a subgroup might be distinct from those who leave the same subgroup. For example, people who reported single-race American Indian in 2010 but not 2000 might have newly heightened American Indian identity because they recently moved to a densely American Indian area or recently married an American Indian (Eschbach 1993; Kana'iaupuni and Liebler 2005; Lieberson and Waters 1993; Loveman and Muniz 2007). A different change in local or family context could suppress an American Indian race response.

Similarities

Joiners and leavers might be similar if there are certain types of people who are likely to change race responses.

Identity flexibility and white privilege

Many whites in the United States experience their European ethnicities as relatively symbolic or optional,15 causing cross-time fluctuations in the number reporting each European ancestry group (Gans 1979; Hout and Goldstein 1994; Lieberson and Waters 1993; Waters 1990). After centuries of mixing, many people who identify and live as white have American Indian ancestors (Liebler 2010a; Snipp 1989; Waters 1990). If some of these people turn a symbolic or optional ethnicity lens to their non-European ancestors they may decide to mark American Indian race (at least for a time). Eschbach et al. (1998) and Liebler and Ortyl (2014) found that the “new” American Indians in previous censuses have an education profile similar to that of whites.

Self-conception mismatched with questionnaire

Translating complex identities into answers to fixed-choice questions can be a challenge. If a person changes her opinion about the best way to convey her self-conception on a census form, this could cause response change. For example, the Census Bureau does not require tribal enrollment in order to be considered American Indian, but other federal agencies (e.g., the Indian Health Service) do require enrollment. A non-enrolled but self-identified American Indian might assume that she does not qualify as American Indian on the census but later learn that she does fit the census definition and so change her response. Also, someone with a mestizo identity might be unsure of whether to mark white, American Indian, and Hispanic, or to mark Hispanic and Some Other Race (or another combination of responses), and might change her opinion on this issue over time.

Multiple salient heritages

Prior research about people with more than one salient racial heritage shows that many have dynamic racial identities and relatively non-stable patterns of race response (e.g., Harris and Sim 2002; Rockquemore and Brunsma 2002, 2008; Root 1996). This may be especially true of people whose parents are of different races if they have relatively extensive experience with the race groups represented by their parents. Consistent with this, we expect some people to have fluid race reports that reflect fluid identities.

Data, Case Selection, Methods, and Measures

Linked data

The U.S. Census Bureau's Center for Administrative Records Research and Applications (CARRA) created the restricted-access data set we used for this study. CARRA used probabilistic record linkage techniques (Fellegi and Sunter 1969) and personal information (name, gender, date of birth, and address; see Wagner and Layne 2014) to strictly assign16 a unique identifier (a “Protected Identification Key” or PIK) to data sources including the census and ACS.17 The data were anonymized and can be used only for statistical and research purposes. We used the PIKs to link individuals' census and ACS records into a longitudinal data set. Linking people in Census 2000 to their own responses in the 2010 Census gave a data set with about 200 million people.

Our linked data does not include all people. Some people do not receive a unique PIK (e.g., if their personal information was incomplete or not unique). PIK assignment rates are lower for Hispanics and non-whites than for non-Hispanic whites (Bond et al. 2014). A person counted in 2000 who died or left the country by 2010 could not be in these data, nor could someone who was not yet born or did not live in the U.S. in 2000. A person who was present but not enumerated in one of the censuses (Lujan 2014; Mule 2012; U.S. Census Bureau 2003) would also be left out.

Case selection

To select cases for this study from the linked decennial census data, we began with all people whose race response included American Indian in Census 2000 and/or the 2010 Census – this was 4,140,582 people. We made a series of exclusions (described in Table 1) to further reduce the chances of false links and constrain the extent of response changes due to enumeration issues. After case selection, our linked decennial data include 3,059,818 people whose race report included American Indian in Census 2000 and/or the 2010 Census. The information we have about these 3.1 million people is limited to the few questions that were on the decennial census short questionnaires. We supplement this information by including ACS responses for 188,131 people (after case selection) who participated in the ACS between 2006 and 2010.

Table 1
Number of Cases Excluded during Decennial Linked Data Case Selection

Representativeness

The people in our study are all of the people in the linked data who fit the case selection criteria. Results are not weighted estimates and our data are not nationally representative.18 Compared to the full census counts of American Indians in 2000 and 2010 (shown in Appendix A), people in our decennial linked data were more often non-Hispanic, female, reported a tribe, and/or lived in an American Indian area (as defined in Table 2). Because Hispanics have a relatively low response rate to the race question (Rios et al. 2014), they were disproportionately excluded. Women have slightly higher response rates than men (Rastogi et al. 2014), a difference which is magnified when data sources are linked. Using address when assigning a PIK favors people who move less often, thus reducing the PIK rates for men ages 20 to 50 (Rastogi and O'Hara 2012).

Table 2
Construction of Independent Variables

Methods

To improve knowledge and to coincide with common methods of operationalizing “American Indian,” we divide people into four subgroups for analysis: (S1) non-Hispanic single-race American Indian, (S2) non-Hispanic multiple-race American Indian, (S3) Hispanic single-race American Indian, and (S4) Hispanic multiple-race American Indian. Subgroups describe a response at a point in time. A person could be in S1 in 2000 and S2 in 2010, for example, or could be in none of the subgroups in 2000 or in 2010 (e.g., by reporting single-race white).

We use logistic and multinomial logistic regression models to address our second and third research questions, which focus on differences between joiners, stayers, and leavers. Dependent variables for all models reflect race and Hispanic responses in the censuses of 2000 and 2010 only. We explain the dependent variable for each model when introducing the results of the model. So that we can include measures of education, marital status, and labor force participation, we include only people ages 25 and older in the multivariate models.19 Descriptive statistics include people of all ages (except as noted).

Measures

We include measures of individuals' demographic, socioeconomic, and geographic characteristics as independent variables in our analysis. See Table 2 for details about coding.

Results

To what extent do people change responses to include or exclude American Indian?

Race responses are not necessarily stable across a person's lifetime – a high proportion of people in our data changed their racial identification to/from American Indian over the 2000 to 2010 period, as shown in the off-diagonal cells in Table 3. Less than one-third of ever-American Indian people in the data had the same race/Hispanic response in 2000 and 2010. The remainder changed their race and/or Hispanic response across the decade. In other words, though their responses may reflect their identity at the time, it is not safe to assume that the race and Hispanic origin responses of people in our study will be the same from one census to another. Response change might affect any point-in-time measure of race; this has been shown to affect multiple race responses, Pacific Islander responses, and race responses of those who report Hispanic origins (del Pinal and Schmidley 2005; Harris and Sim 2002; Liebler et al. 2014).

Table 3
Race/ethnicity responses in 2000 and 2010 among American Indians in the decennial sample of linked data from Census 2000 and the 2010 Census

Four response change patterns in Table 3 stand out. First, a large proportion of people in our data (45 percent) moved between a single-race response and a multiple-race response. This type of response move is consistent with prior research on identity flux in multiracial people (Harris and Sim 2002; Rockquemore and Brunsma 2008; Root 1996).

Second, some people (20 percent in our data) changed their response from one single-race response to another. This was particularly common among Hispanic American Indians; of those who were consistently identified as Hispanic, 52 per cent changed their race response between American Indian and either white or Some Other Race. Note that most people in our decennial linked data (94 per cent) reported Hispanic/non-Hispanic consistently across censuses.

Third, the number of people joining and leaving each subgroup is similar in size. For example, 1,046,000 people in our data reported non-Hispanic single-race American Indian in 2000. Of these, 158,000 were reported as non-Hispanic single-race white in 2010. They were replaced in the non-Hispanic single-race American Indian category in 2010 by 173,000 people who were reported as non-Hispanic single-race white in 2000. Without longitudinal data, the 15,000-person difference would be the only evidence of these large, countervailing flows.

Fourth, each American Indian subgroup has a low proportion who stayed in the group. Of people in our data who ever report non-Hispanic single-race American Indian, 47 per cent joined or left this group between Census 2000 and the 2010 Census.20 Among Hispanic and/or multiple-race American Indians in our data, over 85 per cent joined or left over the period.21 If this pattern holds in other data, the total number of people reported as American Indian at one point in time reflects only a fraction of the number of people ever reported as American Indian.

In a closer look at these 3.1 million people, we disaggregate each subgroup's joiners, leavers, and stayers by age and gender (see Appendix B). Hispanic multiple-race American Indians are a young group and many children moved into or out of this category before their teenage years. Maybe this multifaceted response reflects an early stage of identity development (Erickson 1968) or perhaps a parent reported the child's race in 2000 and the (former) child self-reported in 2010. More broadly, we see that response changes are not the sole experience of a certain age group or gender; a wide variety of people are involved in response change.

To get a third measure of reported race, we next incorporate the race responses given by/for those who also participated in the ACS; see Table 4 and Appendix C. There was some race response change even among people we label “stayers” using census responses.22 For example, all people in Table 4 rows 1, 4, and 21 (53,495 people) reported single-race American Indian in both censuses, but only those in row 1 (45,869 people) also reported this in the ACS.23 Again we see that a point-in-time measure of race does not necessarily match measures at other points in time; race responses are subject to change.

Table 4
Race responses in Census 2000, the ACS, and the 2010 Census

For each of the 24 possible race response patterns in our 2000-ACS-2010 linked data, we show the proportion who (a) reported Hispanic origins, (b) lived in an American Indian area, (c) reported a tribe, and (d) were children. Hispanic American Indians predominate among those who changed from a single-race American Indian response to a non-American Indian response (rows 9 and 10) or vice versa (rows 15 and 16). Consistently reporting American Indian (including adding or dropping other race responses; rows 1-8) is associated with living in an American Indian area and reporting a tribe.24

How are people who change responses different from or similar to those who do not?

Our second research question asks how stayers (people who gave the same race and Hispanic reports in both censuses) compare to people whose census responses changed. In Table 5 and Appendix D we show characteristics of leavers, stayers, and joiners in each subgroup of American Indians within the ACS-decennial linked data. These tables show, for example, that people who reported multiple-races including American Indian (S2 and S4) tended to have more education than those who ever reported single-race American Indian (S1 and S3).

Table 5
Characteristics of four subgroups of American Indians, by response stability

Prior research on joiners (e.g., Eschbach et al. 1998; Sturm 2011) led us to expect some differences between those who changed responses and those who did not. We find evidence of some differences between stayers and changers. In each subgroup, residential migration was slightly more common among leavers and joiners than stayers. Those who left a subgroup tend to have left an American Indian area and those who joined a subgroup tend to have moved to one. This is consistent with prior research relating homelands and indigenous identities (Eschbach 1995; Kana'iaupuni and Liebler 2005; Liebler 2010b; Memmott and Long 2002).

Hispanic and non-Hispanic American Indians show differences in terms of English language proficiency, education level, and citizenship status. Hispanic American Indians with low English proficiency often change responses, but the few non-Hispanic American Indians who are not proficient in English are more often S1 stayers. Similarly, in the Hispanic American Indian subgroups (S3 and S4) low education is associated with response change, while in the non-Hispanic S1 group lower education is associated with response stability. In S3 and S4, Hispanic foreign-born non-citizens often had different responses from one census to another, but no pattern is evident among the few non-Hispanic non-citizen American Indians. In sum, the four subgroups hold different types of people and should be studied separately when possible.

Besides identifying the response changers, statistics in Table 5 describe characteristics of stayers. When stayers differ from joiners and leavers, cross-sectional numbers give inaccurate estimates of stayer characteristics. For example, compared to S1 joiners and leavers, relatively few adults who stayed in S1 were married. Thus a cross-sectional, point-in-time view would show a higher marriage rate for non-Hispanic single-race American Indians in 2010 than was true of those who had this response in both 2000 and 2010.

To learn whether differences between stayers and changers are statistically significant, we apply multivariate models in two ways. First, we use multinomial logistic regression models25 (shown in Table 6) to predict joining or leaving each subgroup, relative to staying in that group. Second, we compare stayers to people making various common response moves. In Table 7 we compare the characteristics of non-Hispanic American Indians who stayed in S1 or S2 to those who made one of three response moves: (a) between single-race and multiple-race American Indian, (b) between single-race American Indian and single-race white, and (c) between multiple-race American Indian and single-race white. We present a similar model about Hispanic American Indians in Table 8, comparing S3 and S4 stayers to those who changed (a) between single-race or multiple-race American Indian and single-race white, and (b) between single-race or multiple-race American Indian and single-race Some Other Race.

Table 6
Four multinomial logistic regression models predicting membership in the leaver or joiner group, as opposed to the stayer group Ages 25 and older
Table 7
Predictors of five patterns of race response by non-Hispanics (comparison category is S1 stayer) Ages 25 and older
Table 8
Predictors of four patterns of race response among Hispanics (comparison category is S3 Stayer) Ages 25 and older

In Tables 6, ,7,7, and and8,8, we see substantial and significant differences between stayers and those who changed responses across the decade. Measures related to nativity and group connections (non-citizen, English skills, race/ancestry reports in the ACS, tribe reported, and living in an American Indian area) are especially able to distinguish stayers from others.

Our independent variables are particularly effective at parsing non-Hispanic American Indian stayers from joiners/leavers, as shown by the relatively high values of r2 (0.39 for S1 in Table 6, and 0.45 in Table 7). Connections to land and tribe are powerfully predictive of race response patterns among non-Hispanic American Indians, including people who switched between multiple-race and single-race American Indian race responses (but were consistently non-Hispanic). They were relatively likely to report a tribe, report American Indian ancestry, and/or live in an American Indian area as compared to people who left the American Indian group entirely and also compared to S2 stayers.

Measured characteristics are somewhat less effective at distinguishing Hispanic American Indian joiner/leavers from stayers (as seen in the r2 values in Table 8 and also models about S3 and S4 in Table 6). Hispanic American Indian stayers (S3 and S4 in Table 8) were much more likely to report American Indian ancestry, report a tribe, or live in an American Indian area than those who changed responses to/from Hispanic single-race white or Hispanic single-race Some Other Race.

In sum, we found that people in our data who changed their race response between 2000 and 2010 were significantly and substantively different than those who did not. Changers who gave a non-American Indian response in 2000 or 2010 (single-race white or Some Other Race) were also notably different from those who consistently reported American Indian (either as stayers or by moving between single- and multiple-race American Indian responses). Like non-Hispanic stayers (S1 and S2), people who moved between non-Hispanic multiple-race and single-race American Indian (moved between S1 and S2) were more likely to report a tribe, live in an American Indian area, and report American Indian ancestry than were people who changed to/from non-Hispanic white. They seem to have “thicker ties” to American Indians (Cornell and Hartman 2007) than those who left the American Indian group entirely.

How are joiners different from or similar to leavers?

People who joined a particular subgroup of American Indians over the decade may have had different experiences than those who left the same subgroup. In prior research on joiners (e.g., Liebler 2001; Sturm 2011), some joiners have spoken of an identity awakening spurred by relocation or new family history information. Prior researchers have not been able to study leavers.

Joiners and leavers have appeared very similar to each other in Tables 5 and and6.6. To explore this more deeply, we next show disaggregations of each group of response changers – for example, we show those moving between S2 and S1 separately from those in S2 who changed to/from non-Hispanic white – and we present descriptive statistics about each group in Appendixes E through H. In Table 9 we show 12 logistic regression models predicting joining a subgroup rather than leaving it (stayers are excluded).

Table 9
Odds of joining an American Indian subgroup (versus leaving the same subgroup), by the race/Hispanic response given in the non-AIAN year Ages 25 and older

Models in Table 9 show that joiners were significantly different from leavers in some ways in all groups, with cross-group variation in the specifics of these differences. At the same time, we see very poor model fit for all 12 models in Table 9; r2 ranges from 0.02 to 0.07. This means that within a particular response pattern, those who move in one direction (e.g., from S3 to Hispanic single-race white) are very similar to those who move in the opposite direction (e.g., from Hispanic single-race white to S3), at least with respect to the characteristics measured here. This model fit is especially poor in comparison to our other analyses using these same variables to distinguish between other types of response change.

Similarities between joiners and leavers could indicate that the census snapshots caught them at different points in a generally dynamic experience. Prior research outlined above suggests that joiners and leavers who otherwise report non-Hispanic white would be similar to one another. Qualitative researchers have found people with fluid identities give multiple-race responses sometimes and single-race responses at other times (Rockquemore and Brunsma 2008; Root 1996). Based on our models' inability to distinguish joiners from leavers, we conclude that these scenarios are plausible and bear further study.

Discussion and Conclusion

Researchers have known for decades that the American Indian population grows not only through births, deaths, and migration, but also through changes in how people report their race on the census form (e.g., Passel 1976, 1997; Liebler and Ortyl 2014). Until now, it has not been possible to learn characteristics of those who joined the population, whether anyone left the population by changing race responses, and/or the level of response stability. Our research has closed these gaps. We used high-quality, large-scale linked data to study race and Hispanic response changes among people who reported American Indian in Census 2000, the 2010 Census, or both. We addressed three questions. To what extent do people join or leave subgroups of American Indians? How are joiners and leavers different from or similar to stayers? And how are joiners different from or similar to leavers?

We found substantial race response change by people in our data. Almost half of the non-Hispanic single-race American Indians in 2000 left this subgroup and were replaced by others by 2010. A much higher fraction of Hispanic and multiple-race American Indians left and were replaced; in these groups, response change is vastly more common than response stability. Similarly high levels of response change have been found among other multiple-race groups and among Pacific Islanders (Liebler et al. 2014).

People in our data who changed race responses (joiners and leavers) had different characteristics than those who kept the same response across two measures a decade apart (stayers). Stayers were generally distinct from response changers in terms of measured connections to other American Indians including tribe response, ancestry response, and living in an American Indian area (some changers also have these attributes). This suggests that stayers have had different race-related life experiences than those who changed responses.

By further disaggregating joiners and leavers into subgroups, we revealed multiple dynamic processes involving racial fluidity. For example, those who changed between a single-race white response and an American Indian response had a different demographic profile than those who moved between multiple-race and single-race American Indian responses. Our results support the decision to separate investigations of formerly-white American Indians (e.g., Fitzgerald (2007) and Sturm (2011)) from studies of people who consistently report American Indian but sometimes report an additional race or races (e.g., Liebler 2001).

We found substantial similarities in the number and characteristics of people who made a particular response move (e.g., from Hispanic single-race American Indian to Hispanic single-race white) and others who made the inverse move. We used multivariate models to distinguish characteristics of people in inverse groups. The models have very poor fit, perhaps indicating that joiners and leavers are engaged in similar identity processes and simply are captured in our data at different points in the process. This complicates the search for reasons that people change race responses; social movements like Red Power (Nagel 1996), for example, are thought to cause mostly unidirectional response change (i.e., joining) and so cannot give a complete explanation of our findings. Programs serving American Indians may not notice this large-scale churning of individuals into and out of the populations they serve because of similarities between those who join and those who leave the population of self-defined American Indians.

Our research has important caveats and limitations. First, response changes do not necessarily mean identity changes. Some are due to false links, differences in post-enumeration processing across the two censuses, differences in opinion about what would be a “correct” response, or mistakenly marking the wrong box(es) when filling out the form. Second, we are not able to study those with an American Indian identity that was not reported in the census race question. Third, our results over-represent response stability in two ways: (a) due to case selection and limitations of linked data, our data include relatively many non-Hispanics, tribe reporters, and people in American Indian areas – characteristics shared by people with stable responses – and (b) we focus on only two measures of a person's race over an entire decade even though further response changes are possible (and evident in the ACS data).

Our results have theoretical, practical, and policy-related implications. We contribute to conceptual understandings of racial identity and racial fluidity by identifying characteristics of three groups of American Indians who seem to have distinct identity and response fluidity experiences. These are: (I) Stayers: People who keep the same American Indian race/Hispanic response. (II) Joiners/leavers who stay in the American Indian category: People who sometimes report single-race American Indian and other times report multiple-race American Indian. People in groups (I) and (II) show substantial cultural connections to American Indians – many live in an American Indian area and/or report a tribe. And (III) Joiners/leavers who enter/exit the American Indian category: People who add or drop the American Indian race response entirely. Further research is necessary to understand whether the joiners and leavers in groups (II) and (III) are captured at different points in a common identity experience; this would explain why their characteristics are so similar.

Our results show diversity within the “American Indian” population. Many American Indians already know of this diversity and our work provides important validation and documentation. Our work can also help researchers, policy makers, and tribal leaders more effectively interpret census data about American Indians. For example, because we find similarities between people who consistently report non-Hispanic American Indian (even if they add/drop other race responses), researchers should consider including multiple-race American Indians in their analyses. Grouping multiple-race American Indians instead with other multiple-race respondents (e.g., black-whites) may result in unnecessarily separating similar individuals (single-race and multiple-race non-Hispanic American Indians) into two groups. More generally, researchers should also be careful when making claims about American Indians as a whole, given the diversity that exists within this group.

The American Indian case may show the future of race responses change for people of many race and ethnic groups (Liebler et al. 2014). We expect response change to increase for all groups as more unions are formed across racial and ethnic boundaries and as greater proportions of other groups (e.g., Hispanics and Asians) become grandchildren and great grandchildren of immigrants. In these situations, there may be more conversations and social processes defining what makes a person a “real” Hispanic or Asian, and response change could follow.

Although efforts to improve race and ethnicity questions continue (see Compton et al. 2012; Humes and Hogan 2015; Prewitt 2013), these are complex and personal social constructs and it is possible that no point-in-time measure of race or ethnicity will be able to meet the goal of “categoriz[ing] individuals into the same groups over a long period of time” (Humes and Hogan 2009:112). Researchers designing questions to measure race and ethnicity should consider the possibility of response change, and multiple measures of race should be incorporated into data collection and analysis whenever possible. Analysts from all fields would benefit from conceptualizing and operationalizing a person's race as having a past, present, and future (as is done for marital status, work, residence, and so on), rather than acting as if race is an unchanging trait. The dynamics of race exposed in this research lend an unfamiliar dimension of complexity to the study of groups such as American Indians, but this should not deter researchers from engaging the issue (see Espey et al. 2014). Rather, with new knowledge about the extent of these dynamics we can employ repurposed strategies and theories to gain more realistic insights into our complex social world.

Supplementary Material

Acknowledgments

At various stages of this research, we have benefited from thoughtful comments from many people, including: C. Matthew Snipp, Amy O'Hara, James Noon, Leticia Fernandez, Sharon Ennis, Julia Rivera Drew, Catherine Fitch, Liying Luo, Caren Arbeit, Susan Mason, J. Trent Alexander, Jenifer Bratter, and Mary Campbell. We also thank the American Indian and Indigenous Studies Workshop and the Inequality and Methods Workshop, both at the University of Minnesota, for sponsoring helpful discussions of this research. The University of Minnesota's Minnesota Population Center provided important support for the first author through programs made possible by an NIH Center Grant (R24HD041023).

Appendix A: Comparison of people in our analysis data to those in the full decennial censuses of 2000 and 2010

Column %AIAN in 2000AIAN in 2010


Single-raceMultiple-raceSingle-raceMultiple-race




Census 2000
100% data
Analysis dataCensus 2000
100% data
Analysis data2010 Census
100% data
Analysis data2010 Census
100% data
Analysis data









Total N2,475,95678,2021,643,34553,3552,932,24877,6182,288,33161,331
Hispanic origin
 Non-Hispanic84%90%84%92%77%90%78%89%
 Hispanic16%10%16%8%23%10%22%11%
Gender and age
 Girl/Woman50%53%51%54%50%53%52%54%
 Boy/Man50%47%49%46%50%47%48%46%
 Age 0-9*18%19%18%18%17%0%19%0%
 Age 10-2427%22%26%20%26%28%26%29%
 Age 25-3923%23%21%21%21%20%20%19%
 Age 40-6426%32%28%35%30%40%28%39%
 Age 65 or older6%4%7%5%7%12%8%12%
Connection to AIAN communities
 Reported a tribe75%85%62%69%72%86%58%68%
 Reported a S./C. Amer. tribe4%2%4%2%5%2%4%2%
 Did not report a tribe25%15%38%31%28%14%42%32%
 Lived in an AIAN area44%53%13%17%42%55%11%18%
 Did not live in an AIAN area56%47%87%83%58%45%89%82%
Residence
 In Northeast7%5%13%11%7%5%13%11%
 In Midwest16%19%19%25%16%19%18%24%
 In South29%31%32%33%32%33%34%34%
 In West48%45%35%31%46%44%34%31%

Data sources: Census 2000 and 2010 Census 100% data are from SF1 and PL files (census.gov). Analysis data are a sub-set of linked cases from Census 2000, the 2010 Census and the 2006-2010 American Community Survey; see text for details.

AIAN = American Indian/Alaska Native

*A few children were enumerated in 2000 but were reported as less than 10 years old in 2010.

Appendix Table B: American Indian subgroups by Census 2000 gender and age

Census 2000 Gender and AgeS1: Non-Hispanic single-race AIANS2: Non-Hispanic multiple-race AIANS3: Hispanic single-race AIANS4: Hispanic multiple-race AIAN




LeaversStayersJoinersLeaversStayersJoinersLeaversStayersJoinersLeaversStayersJoiners




Boys/Men154,524333,183155,609267,79383,219325,28063,92715,18766,32631,7878,33258,039
 0-929,32368,56235,04447,09920,69072,40815,3164,11916,8459,8093,61318,161
 10-1930,53059,24326,97849,32512,62056,06512,2762,69912,3357,2381,54611,330
 20-2924,26248,02720,99136,3138,87245,4079,9762,05810,6484,4548688,854
 30-3924,38654,73125,86241,25911,91653,26711,2872,47811,7504,1789438,682
 40-4923,38351,08924,55644,18813,61550,0318,7482,2608,5343,3127616,382
 50-5914,98632,99714,47930,9559,73930,2354,1881,1184,1181,8214403,110
 60-695,83514,3355,80213,7394,34612,6891,5893551,5137251211,096
 70 +1,8194,1991,8974,9151,4215,17854710058325040424
Girls/Women167,777390,143163,789297,637106,666370,12167,31717,34469,62435,69610,12066,841
 0-929,26467,17933,12645,70520,60472,32715,3544,03716,9259,7313,52918,258
 10-1933,74865,66827,83454,19414,65763,20313,6173,14013,4578,2171,83814,019
 20-2925,98360,25223,58339,74813,57156,45910,6032,82011,7215,5021,46411,184
 30-3926,41668,51529,00746,09117,04062,93211,3503,13311,8274,8241,35810,098
 40-4926,88464,60726,69252,48718,96757,4929,1222,5588,7504,0061,1087,592
 50-5916,39739,31514,32636,24613,55533,5654,4901,1334,0962,2055763,500
 60-696,41917,8956,13915,8445,86915,6031,8713731,8898421961,502
 70 +2,6666,7123,0827,3222,4038,54091015095936951688

Sources: Census 2000 and 2010 Census.

Note: AIAN = American Indian/Alaska Native.

Appendix Table C: Race responses in Census 2000, the ACS, and the 2010 Census

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nihms892490f1.jpg

Sources: Census 2000, 2010 Census, and 2006-2010 5-year American Community Survey data.

Notes: AIAN = American Indian/Alaska Native. Data include people who responded to the 2000 and 2010 censuses and an ACS in 2006-2010. Hispanic responses and response changes are not taken into account in this table.

Appendix Table D: Characteristics of American Indians, by response stability, for four sub-populations

Characteristic in the ACS (unless noted)S1: Non-Hispanic single-race AIANS2: Non-Hispanic multiple-race AIAN


LeaversStayersJoinersLeaversStayersJoiners






Gender and age
 Girl/Woman10,39126,8719,85219,1777,13421,995
 Boy/Man9,53123,4749,36816,9685,55619,769
 Age 0-96261,5387651,0334651,470
 Age 10-245,26213,2695,4338,4113,23911,220
 Age 25-394,4899,9833,6556,8952,0718,347
 Age 40-647,60620,0237,51615,1725,25516,227
 Age 65 or older1,9395,5321,8514,6341,6604,500
Citizenship and English language ability
 U.S. born and/or citizen of the U.S.19,79750,22119,14035,90912,65141,596
 Foreign-born non-citizen1251248023639168
 Speaks English ‘very well’ or only19,69347,41419,00135,53012,57841,260
 Speaks English less than ‘very well’2292,931219615112504
Poverty (range 0-999)
 Mean income as a per cent of poverty line326%274%333%347%349%332%
Education (ages 25+ only)
 Less than high school2,0216,5911,8293,2428173,682
 High school or GED4,20811,8604,0687,6832,3528,032
 Some college5,06112,3814,6679,8723,46010,883
 Bachelor's degree1,7493,1151,6753,6951,3684,025
 Graduate or professional degree9951,5917832,2099892,452
Labor force (ages 25+ only)
 In the labor force, employed8,40920,2907,89915,7655,14817,144
 In the labor force, not employed7582,3836671,3374851,594
 Not in the labor force4,86712,8654,4569,5993,35310,336
Marital status (ages 25+ only)
 Currently married8,68820,2178,26116,4095,26416,726
 Widowed, separated or divorced3,4198,3333,0946,4942,3917,880
 Never married1,9276,9881,6673,7981,3314,468
Race/Hispanic response in ACS
 Same as stayers in this sub-population4,66443,3777,4745,9737,56512,535
 Different from stayers in sub-population15,2586,96811,74630,1725,12529,229
AIAN ancestry
 AIAN ancestry reported at all11,92946,20813,32115,1428,02620,326
 No AIAN ancestry reported7,9934,1375,89921,0034,66421,438
Connection to AIAN communities
 Reported a tribe in at least one census16,06349,68115,54425,13411,42228,519
 Did not report a tribe in 2000 or 20103,8596643,67611,0111,26813,245
 S./Central Amer. tribe in 2000 or 2010154308421820101
 Lived in American Indian area both censuse4,02931,6764,3953,8202,0264,546
 In Amer. Indian area in 2000 but not 20101,8873,0887932,3886331,179
 In Amer. Indian area in 2010 but not 20008833,3691,8509717853,255
 Not in Amer. Indian area in 2000 or 201013,12312,21212,18228,9669,24632,784
Residence
 Residential migrant3,5024,7153,0265,9001,7876,931
 No indication of residential migration16,42045,63016,19430,24510,90334,833
 In Northeast1,6361,3721,3784,2081,2024,928
 In Midwest4,6689,7454,1559,3103,21210,438
 In South7,79714,7448,77113,0743,91315,435
 In West5,82124,4844,9169,5534,36310,963
Total N19,92250,34519,22036,14512,69041,764
Total ages 25+14,03435,53813,02226,7018,98629,074
Characteristic in the ACS (unless noted)S3: Hispanic single-race AIANS4: Hispanic multiple-race AIAN


LeaversStayersJoinersLeaversStayersJoiners






Gender and age
 Girl/Woman3,2769103,2841,9155533,146
 Boy/Man2,9797703,0891,6084442,734
 Age 0-92477628320393320
 Age 10-241,9725362,0741,2764312,170
 Age 25-391,3743781,5337821771,344
 Age 40-642,2785992,1191,0522541,754
 Age 65 or older3849136421042292
Citizenship and English language ability
 U.S. born and/or citizen of the U.S.5,5121,6135,5913,3289775,438
 Foreign-born non-citizen7436778219520442
 Speaks English ‘very well’ or only4,8641,5314,9693,1389495,046
 Speaks English less than ‘very well’1,3911491,40438548834
Poverty (range 0-999)
 Mean income as a per cent of poverty line273%310%281%344%350%316%
Education (ages 25+ only)
 Less than high school1,3252051,22035736671
 High school or GED1,1042881,15446190801
 Some college1,1374091,1377111901,165
 Bachelor's degree30110834031087481
 Graduate or professional degree1695816520570272
Labor force (ages 25+ only)
 In the labor force, employed2,5746782,6531,3813342,247
 In the labor force, not employed2676627311025229
 Not in the labor force1,1953241,090553114914
Marital status (ages 25+ only)
 Currently married2,4346352,4461,1912751,940
 Widowed, separated or divorced883219825418102739
 Never married71921474543596711
Race/Hispanic response in ACS
 Same as stayers in this sub-population6558551,215420476925
 Different from stayers in sub-population5,6008255,1583,1035214,955
AIAN ancestry
 AIAN ancestry reported at all1,3631,0321,6617253801,454
 No AIAN ancestry reported4,8926484,7122,7986174,426
Connection to AIAN communities
 Reported a tribe in at least one census3,3571,4693,5302,1018133,342
 Did not report a tribe in 2000 or 20102,8982112,8431,4221842,538
 S./Central Amer. tribe in 2000 or 20101,3122761,3595991261,024
 Lived in American Indian area both censuses43325243411345220
 In Amer. Indian area in 2000 but not 20103399312718136100
 In Amer. Indian area in 2010 but not 20001141223697355322
 Not in Amer. Indian area in 2000 or 20105,3691,2135,4433,1568615,238
Residence
 Residential migrant825221931578142988
 No indication of residential migration5,4301,4595,4422,9458554,892
 In Northeast57185697403106830
 In Midwest627190720470153699
 In South1,6242971,5937851461,357
 In West3,4331,1083,3631,8655922,994
Total N6,2551,6806,3733,5239975,880
Total ages 25+4,0361,0684,0162,0444733,390

Sources: Census 2000, 2010 Census, and 2006-2010 5-year American Community Survey Continued

Notes: AIAN = American Indian/Alaska Native. Leavers are in the subpopulation in 2000 but not 2010 while joiners are in the subpopulation in 2010 but not 2000. Stayers are in the subpopulation in both censuses. ACS race/ethnicity response is not taken into account in this classification; see Table 2.

Appendix Table E: Characteristics of people who joined, left, and stayed in the non-Hispanic single-race AIAN (S1) group

S1: Non-Hispanic single-race AIANLeft to …StayersJoined from …


 Race/Hisp in non-AIAN yearAIAN+WElseAIAN+WElse








Gender and age
 Girl/Woman3,9755,0281,38826,8713,2765,2261,350
 Boy/Man3,3255,0431,16323,4742,8925,3411,135
 Age 0-92842071351,538254383128
 Age 10-242,1072,24990613,2691,7432,851839
 Age 25-391,6682,2745479,9831,1242,060471
 Age 40-642,5614,26977620,0232,4024,309805
 Age 65 or older6801,0721875,532645964242
Citizenship and English language ability
 U.S. born and/or citizen of the U.S.7,28010,0422,47550,2216,15310,5442,443
 Foreign-born non-citizen202976124152342
 Speaks English ‘very well’ or only7,24010,0212,43247,4146,11110,4922,398
 Speaks English less than ‘very well’60501192,931577587
Poverty (range 0-999)
 Mean income as a per cent of poverty line322%340%287%274%336%344%276%
Education (ages 25+ only)
 Less than high school5821,1532866,5914351,061333
 High school or GED1,4122,34744911,8601,3232,284461
 Some college1,8652,68750912,3811,5652,615487
 Bachelor's degree6599231673,115558965152
 Graduate or professional degree391505991,59129040885
Labor force (ages 25+ only)
 In the labor force, employed3,0094,50389720,2902,5394,506854
 In the labor force, not employed2244131212,383185376106
 Not in the labor force1,6762,69949212,8651,4472,451558
Marital status (ages 25+ only)
 Currently married3,0144,86980520,2172,7234,832706
 Widowed, separated or divorced1,1781,8743678,3339051,740449
 Never married7178723386,988543761363
Race/Hispanic response in ACS
 Single-race AIAN, non-Hispanic2,8331,31251943,3773,2373,513724
 Any other response4,4678,7592,0326,9682,9317,0541,761
AIAN ancestry
 AIAN ancestry reported at all5,8284,8861,21546,2085,1456,8991,277
 No AIAN ancestry reported1,4725,1851,3364,1371,0233,6681,208
Connection to AIAN communities
 Reported a tribe in at least one census7,0087,4061,64949,6815,9538,1571,434
 Did not report a tribe in 2000 or 20102922,6659026642152,4101,051
 Lived in Am. Ind. area both censuses2,3171,25445831,6762,0891,870436
 In Am. Ind. area in 2000 but not 20105671,1182023,08839230299
 In Am. Ind. area in 2010 but not 2000594198913,3694921,160198
 Not in Am. Ind. area in 2000 or 20103,8227,5011,80012,2123,1957,2351,752
Residence
 Residential migrant1,0751,9844434,7158661,753407
 No indication of residential migration6,2258,0872,10845,6305,3028,8142,078
 In Northeast4088383901,372313709356
 In Midwest1,7282,6283129,7451,4142,417324
 In South2,7684,29373614,7442,6655,240866
 In West2,3962,3121,11324,4841,7762,201939
Total N7,30010,0712,55150,3456,16810,5672,485
Total ages 25+4,9097,6151,51035,5384,1717,3331,518

Sources: Census 2000, 2010 Census, and 2006-2010 5-year American Community Survey data.

Notes: AIAN = American Indian/Alaska Native. AIAN+ = non-Hispanic multiple-race AIAN. W = non-Hispanic single-race white. Else = any other race/Hispanic origin response. Stayers are in the subpopulation in both censuses. ACS race/ethnicity response is not taken into account in this classification; see Table 2.

Appendix Table F: Characteristics of people who joined, left, and stayed in the non-Hispanic multiple-race AIAN (S2) group

S2: Non-Hispanic multiple-race AIANLeft to …StayersJoined from …


 Race/Hisp in non-AIAN yearAIANWElseAIANWElse








Gender and age
 Girl/Woman3,27612,4413,4607,1343,97513,8694,151
 Boy/Man2,89211,3582,7185,5563,32513,2783,166
 Age 0-9254549230465284880306
 Age 10-241,7434,9261,7423,2392,1076,8462,267
 Age 25-391,1244,5691,2022,0711,6685,1411,538
 Age 40-642,40210,4042,3665,2552,56111,0982,568
 Age 65 or older6453,3516381,6606803,182638
Citizenship and English language ability
 U.S. born and/or citizen of the U.S.6,15323,7675,98912,6517,28027,1057,211
 Foreign-born non-citizen1532189392042106
 Speaks English ‘very well’ or only6,11123,6485,77112,5787,24026,9697,051
 Speaks English less than ‘very well’5715140711260178266
Poverty (range 0-999)
 Mean income as a per cent of poverty line336%349%347%349%322%337%324%
Education (ages 25+ only)
 Less than high school4352,3704378175822,626474
 High school or GED1,3235,4838772,3521,4125,631989
 Some college1,5656,7001,6073,4601,8657,0731,945
 Bachelor's degree5582,3407971,3686592,526840
 Graduate or professional degree2901,4314889893911,565496
Labor force (ages 25+ only)
 In the labor force, employed2,53910,5882,6385,1483,00911,2402,895
 In the labor force, not employed1858912614852241,028342
 Not in the labor force1,4476,8451,3073,3531,6767,1531,507
Marital status (ages 25+ only)
 Currently married2,72311,5662,1205,2643,01411,5762,136
 Widowed, separated or divorced9054,4451,1442,3911,1785,3201,382
 Never married5432,3139421,3317172,5251,226
Race/Hispanic response in ACS
 Multiple-race AIAN, non-Hispanic1,8923,2718107,5653,1007,3362,099
 Any other response4,27620,5285,3685,1254,20019,8115,218
AIAN ancestry
 AIAN ancestry reported at all5,1458,7341,2638,0265,82812,2952,203
 No AIAN ancestry reported1,02315,0654,9154,6641,47214,8525,114
Connection to AIAN communities
 Reported a tribe in at least one census5,95316,3082,87311,4227,00818,0183,493
 Did not report a tribe in 2000 or 20102157,4913,3051,2682929,1293,824
 Lived in Am. Ind. area both censuses2,0891,5621692,0262,3172,008221
 In Am. Ind. area in 2000 but not 20103921,78321363356751399
 In Am. Ind. area in 2010 but not 2000492409707855942,417244
 Not in Am. Ind. area in 2000 or 20103,19520,0455,7269,2463,82222,2096,753
Residence
 Residential migrant8663,9741,0601,7871,0754,5221,334
 No indication of residential migration5,30219,8255,11810,9036,22522,6255,983
 In Northeast3132,6601,2351,2024083,2231,297
 In Midwest1,4146,7021,1943,2121,7287,2251,485
 In South2,6658,4561,9533,9132,76810,0952,572
 In West1,7765,9811,7964,3632,3966,6041,963
Total N6,16823,7996,17812,6907,30027,1477,317
Total ages 25+4,17118,3244,2068,9864,90919,4214,744

Sources: Census 2000, 2010 Census, and 2006-2010 5-year American Community Survey data.

Notes: AIAN = American Indian/Alaska Native. AIAN = non-Hispanic single-race AIAN. W = non-Hispanic single-race white. Else = any other race/Hispanic response. Stayers are in the subpopulation in both censuses. ACS race/ethnicity response is not taken into account in this classification; see Table 2.

Appendix Table G: Characteristics of people who joined, left, and stayed in the Hispanic single-race AIAN (S3) group

S3: Hispanic single-race AIANLeft to …StayersJoined from …


 Race/Hisp in non-AIAN yearH, SORH, WElseH, SORH,WElse








Gender and age
 Girl/Woman9701,3239839101,431907946
 Boy/Man9291,1618897701,451860778
 Age 0-9579793761207093
 Age 10-24595681696536865501708
 Age 25-39445533396378753410370
 Age 40-647119795885991,008645466
 Age 65 or older91194999113614187
Citizenship and English language ability
 U.S. born and/or citizen of the U.S.1,5152,1881,8091,6132,4001,5161,675
 Foreign-born non-citizen384296636748225149
 Speaks English ‘very well’ or only1,2651,8931,7061,5312,0451,3311,593
 Speaks English less than ‘very well’634591166149837436131
Poverty (range 0-999)
 Mean income as a per cent of poverty line249%287%280%310%274%292%282%
Education (ages 25+ only)
 Less than high school534557234205643394183
 High school or GED333466305288528334292
 Some college286475376409504317316
 Bachelor's degree5913710510815310384
 Graduate or professional degree35716358694848
Labor force (ages 25+ only)
 In the labor force, employed8381,0876496781,317765571
 In the labor force, not employed6910593661197777
 Not in the labor force340514341324461354275
Marital status (ages 25+ only)
 Currently married8031,0575746351,213737496
 Widowed, separated or divorced230392261219343243239
 Never married214257248214341216188
Race/Hispanic response in ACS
 Single-race AIAN, Hispanic116146393855440234541
 Any other response1,7832,3381,4798252,4421,5331,183
AIAN ancestry
 AIAN ancestry reported at all1082241,0311,0323572381,066
 No AIAN ancestry reported1,7912,2608416482,5251,529658
Connection to AIAN communities
 Reported a tribe in at least one census8021,0651,4901,4691,3737551,402
 Did not report a tribe in 2000 or 20101,0971,4193822111,5091,012322
 S./Central Amer. tribe in 2000 or 2010561549202276843366150
 Lived in Am. Ind. area both censuses20213922523318383
 In Am. Ind. area in 2000 but not 20109812911293241093
 In Am. Ind. area in 2010 but not 2000141189122156102111
 Not in Am. Ind. area in 2000 or 20101,7672,3231,2791,2132,6691,6371,137
Residence
 Residential migrant223335267221410296225
 No indication of residential migration1,6762,1491,6051,4592,4721,4711,499
 In Northeast21718816685380165152
 In Midwest169182276190276210234
 In South404852368297676552365
 In West1,1091,2621,0621,1081,550840973
Total N1,8992,4841,8721,6802,8821,7671,724
Total ages 25+1,2471,7061,0831,0681,8971,196923

Sources: Census 2000, 2010 Census, and 2006-2010 5-year American Community Survey data.

Notes: AIAN = American Indian/Alaska Native. H, SOR = Hispanic single-race Some Other Race. H, W = Hispanic single-race white. Else = any other race/Hispanic origin response. Stayers are in the subpopulation in both censuses. ACS race/ethnicity response is not taken into account in this classification; see Table 2.

Appendix Table H: Characteristics of people who joined, left, and stayed in the Hispanic multiple-race AIAN (S4) group

S4: Hispanic multiple-race AIANLeft to …StayersJoined from …


 Race/Hisp in non-AIAN yearH, SORH, WElseH, SORH, WElse








Gender and age
 Girl/Woman2127489555538698841,393
 Boy/Man2136237724448037551,176
 Age 0-92353127935985176
 Age 10-241374197204314415651,164
 Age 25-39109281392177467356521
 Age 40-64136505411254621534599
 Age 65 or older2011377428499109
Citizenship and English language ability
 U.S. born and/or citizen of the U.S.3531,2761,6999771,4101,5102,518
 Foreign-born non-citizen7295282026212951
 Speaks English ‘very well’ or only3141,1911,6339491,2191,3822,445
 Speaks English less than ‘very well’1111809448453257124
Poverty (range 0-999)
 Mean income as a per cent of poverty line330%377%322%350%311%336%306%
Education (ages 25+ only)
 Less than high school7417710636319201151
 High school or GED5617822790252230319
 Some college76287348190347330488
 Bachelor's degree3214912987148150183
 Graduate or professional degree2710870701067888
Labor force (ages 25+ only)
 In the labor force, employed198615568334832658757
 In the labor force, not employed134750256359107
 Not in the labor force54237262114277272365
Marital status (ages 25+ only)
 Currently married163547481275724582634
 Widowed, separated or divorced42190186102240194305
 Never married6016221396208213290
Race/Hispanic response in ACS
 Multiple-race AIAN, Hispanic26134260476162230533
 Any other response3991,2371,4675211,5101,4092,036
AIAN ancestry
 AIAN ancestry reported at all32176517380187287980
 No AIAN ancestry reported3931,1951,2106171,4851,3521,589
Connection to AIAN communities
 Reported a tribe in at least one census2017811,1198137658311,746
 Did not report a tribe in 2000 or 2010224590608184907808823
 S./Central Amer. tribe in 2000 or 2010122316161126464319241
 Lived in Am. Ind. area both censuses-7103451823179
 In Am. Ind. area in 2000 but not 20101670953691576
 In Am. Ind. area in 2010 but not 2000-1157556779176
 Not in Am. Ind. area in 2000 or 20104011,2831,4728611,5781,5222,138
Residence
 Residential migrant59224295142270287431
 No indication of residential migration3661,1471,4328551,4021,3522,138
 In Northeast78140185106314195321
 In Midwest39182249153152188359
 In South71329385146368423566
 In West2377209085928388331,323
Total N4251,3711,7279971,6721,6392,569
Total ages 25+2658998804731,1729891,229

Sources: Census 2000, 2010 Census, and 2006-2010 5-year American Community Survey data.

Notes: A dash “-“ indicates that the cell is suppressed for disclosure avoidance purposes. AIAN = American Indian/Alaska Native. H, SOR = Hispanic single-race Some Other Race. H, W = Hispanic single-race white. Else = any other race/Hispanic origin response. Stayers are in the subpopulation in both censuses. ACS race/ethnicity response is not taken into account in this classification; see Table 2.

Footnotes

2We use “American Indian” to describe a person who reported “American Indian or Alaska Native” in the race question on the census form. Unless specified, we are referencing the entire group, whether or not other races were also reported and regardless of Hispanic origins. Our study includes those reported as American Indian in the race question in Census 2000 and/or the 2010 Census. We do not assume that they always have or always will report American Indian (or be reported as this). We use the person's time-specific race response to describe him/her. For instance, if someone reported American Indian in 2000 and white in 2010, we refer to him/her as non-American Indian in 2010.

3We use “racial identification” and “race response” to mean the response given on the decennial census form. This is not necessarily the same as a person's racial identity, though they are probably related.

4We apply the terms “race” and “Hispanic origin” in congruence with the federal statistical definitions used to collect the data (Office of Management and Budget 1997). On each questionnaire used here, there was one question about Hispanic origin (one response allowed) and one question about race (multiple responses invited).

5Population growth from identity change has been evident in other indigenous groups (e.g., Guimond et al. 2014; Kukutai and Didham 2009).

6Responses might not be self-reports, though we simplify our prose by writing as though they are self-reports. Using case selection, we ensure that these are self-reports or reports by someone else in the household (probably the householder or his/her spouse; Sweet 1994), though enumerators visited some homes and could influence responses.

7There were 4.1 million American Indians counted in Census 2000 (Grieco and Cassidy 2001) and 5.2 million in the 2010 Census (Humes et al. 2011). For reasons described below, our linked data are not nationally representative.

8Nation building projects in Latin America often promoted ideologies about mestizaje or mestizo – racial and cultural mixture or fusion (Kearney 2000; Miller 2004; Telles and Bailey 2013).

9Many Latin American countries recently legally recognized indigenous groups (Telles and Bailey 2013). There are about 400 indigenous groups in Latin America and the Caribbean (Montenegro and Stephens 2006) and over 40 million of 500 million Latin Americans identify as indigenous (Telles and Bailey 2013). Many are bound to their indigenous heritage through language and political, social, and cultural ties (Gonzalez 1994; Montenegro and Stephens 2006). Though some live on (often remote) tribal lands or rural areas, an increasing share live in urban areas (Dahl and Jensen 2002; Del Popolo et al. 2007; Roldán Ortiga 2004). As a whole, they are relatively poor with worse social and health outcomes (Kearney 2000; Psacharopoulos and Patrinos 1994).

10Among American Indians whose only reported tribe was from South or Central America, 86 per cent reported Hispanic in Census 2000 and 94 per cent did so in the 2010 Census.

11People who listed a tribe anywhere in the race question were coded as American Indian race in post-enumeration processing. Of 244,761 people reporting a Central or South American tribe in the 2010 Census, only 38 per cent marked the “American Indian or Alaska Native” check box. Of the 3,195,538 who reported a North American tribe, 84 per cent marked the box. Our linked decennial sample has higher proportions who marked the check box – 46 per cent and 98 per cent, respectively.

12The federal definition of American Indian or Alaska Native is “A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central America), and who maintains tribal affiliation or community attachment” (Office of Management and Budget 1997).

13The decision of whether to give a single-race response or to report multiple races is based on heritage and also on political and legal considerations, community connections, and other factors (see Liebler 2001; Robertson 2013).

14Foreign-born individuals who have gone through the citizenship process have had considerable experience with the U.S. system and may have substantial understanding of U.S. social practices.

15Relatedly, socioeconomic privilege could make a race response change from white to minority seem especially costless because the person is buffered from the harshest costs of color.

16An estimated 1 per cent of links were to the wrong person (Layne et al. 2014).

17The decennial data has not been through data perturbation. We ensure disclosure avoidance using disclosure review. The ACS data has undergone data perturbation, causing some response mismatch between the decennial and ACS data points.

18We do not use ACS weights. They account for such things as survey non-response and sampling strategies, but they do not adjust for record linkage and case selection so they would not make the data representative.

19Alternate versions of all multivariate models with fewer independent variables but including people of all ages are available on request. Also, descriptive statistics for only people ages 25 and older are available on request.

20A total of 1,365,025 people in our decennial linked data reported non-Hispanic single-race American Indian in 2000 or 2010 (=1,045,627 + 1,042,724 – 723,326). Of these 723,326 gave the same report both times. Thus, 723,326/1,365,025 = 53% of people in S1 were stayers.

21Of people in S2, 13% were stayers. Of people in S3, 11% were stayers. Of people in S4, 9% were stayers.

22We use the ACS-decennial linked data in Tables 4 through through9.9. Throughout the paper we define joiners, stayers, and leavers using only information from the decennial censuses of 2000 and 2010. We take into account ACS race responses in our multivariate analyses.

23A small proportion of ACS race response changes may be due to data perturbation and not from the respondent.

24People in rows 1-8 and 21-24 (American Indian in both censuses) can have a recorded “enrolled or principal tribe” in 2000 and/or in 2010, while those in rows 9-20 (American Indian in one census) can have a recorded tribe in only one census. Note that we code any write-in response as a “tribe report.”

25Relative risks (exp(β)) that are below 1.0 show a negative relationship. For example, in Table 6 those who were never married were significantly less likely to leave S1 than they were to stay in this subgroup (exp(β)=0.75). Relative risks above 1.0 show the opposite; people who did not report a tribe in either census were more than five times as likely (exp(β)=5.63) to be S1 leavers than to be S1 stayers.

References

  • Bates N. 2010 Census Publicity Office – 2010 Census Integrated Communications Research Memoranda Series No 6. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau; 2008. 2010 Census AIAN audience segmentation and evaluation. http://www.census.gov/2010census/partners/pdf/C2POMemoNo6.pdf.
  • Bond B, Brown JD, Luque A, O'Hara A. Center for Administrative Records Research and Applications Working Paper #2014-08. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau; 2014. The nature of bias when studying only linkable person records: Evidence from the American Community Survey.
  • Campbell ME, Troyer L. The implications of racial misclassification by observers. American Sociological Review. 2007;72:750–765.
  • Chun AY, Gan J. Joint Statistical Meetings Proceedings, Survey Research Methods Session. Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association; 2014. Analysis of the source of group quarters enumeration data in the 2010 Census.
  • Compton E, Bentley M, Ennis S, Rastogi S. DSSD 2010 CPEX Memorandum Series #B-05-R, 2010 Census Planning Memoranda Series #211. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau; 2012. 2010 Census Race and Hispanic Origin Alternative Questionnaire Experiment.
  • Cooley CH. Human nature and the social order. NY: Scribner's Sons; 1902.
  • Cornell S, Hartmann D. Ethnicity and race: Making identities in a changing world. 2nd. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press; 2007.
  • Dahl J, Jensen M. Asuntos Indigenas. Copenhagen, Denmark: International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs; 2002. Pueblos indigenas y urbanizacion.
  • Davis FJ. Who is black? One nation's definition. 10th. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press; 2005.
  • del Pinal J, Schmidley D. Population Division Working Paper No 79. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau; 2005. Matched race and Hispanic origin responses from Census 2000 and Current Population Survey February to May 2000.
  • Del Popolo F, Oyarce AM, Ribotta B, Rodriguez J. Indigenous peoples and urban settlements: spatial distribution, internal migration and living conditions. Santiago, Chile: Latin American and Caribbean Demographic Centre (CELADE) Population Division; 2007.
  • Doyle JM, Kao G. Are racial identities of multiracials stable? Changing self-identification among single and multiple race individuals. Social Psychology Quarterly. 2007;70(4):405–423. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Dusch G, Meier F. 2010 Census Program for Evaluations and Experiments. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau; 2012. 2010 Census Content Reinterview Survey evaluation report.
  • Erikson EH. Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: Norton & Co; 1968.
  • Eschbach K. Changing identification among American Indians and Alaska Natives. Demography. 1993;30(4):635–652. [PubMed]
  • Eschbach K. The enduring and vanishing American Indian: American Indian population growth and intermarriage in 1990. Ethnic and Racial Studies. 1995;18:89–108.
  • Eschbach K, Supple K, Snipp CM. Changes in racial identification and the educational attainment of American Indians, 1970-1990. Demography. 1998;35(1):35–43. [PubMed]
  • Espey DK, Jim MA, Richards TB, Begay C, Haverkamp D, Roberts D. Methods for improving the quality and completeness of mortality data for American Indians and Alaska Natives. American Journal of Public Health. 2014;104(S3):S286–S294. [PubMed]
  • Fellegi IP, Sunter AB. A theory for record linkage. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 1969;64:1183–1210.
  • Fitzgerald K. Beyond white ethnicity: Developing a sociological understanding of Native American identity reclamation. New York: Lexington Books; 2007.
  • Gans H. Symbolic ethnicity: The future of ethnic groups and cultures in America. Ethnic and Racial Studies. 1979;2(1):1–20.
  • Glick JE, Han SY. Socioeconomic stratification from within: Changes within American Indian cohorts in the United States: 1990-2010. Population Research and Policy Review. 2015;34:77–112.
  • Gonzalez ML. How many indigenous people? In: Psacharopoulous G, Patrinos HA, editors. Indigenous people and poverty in Latin America: an empirical analysis. Washington DC: The World Bank; 1994. pp. 21–39.
  • Grieco E, Cassidy R. Census 2000 Brief C2KBR/01-1. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau; 2001. Overview of race and Hispanic origin.
  • Guimond E, Robitaille N, Senécal S. Another look at definitions and growth of Aboriginal populations in Canada. In: Trovato F, Romaniuk A, editors. Aboriginal Populations: Social, Demographic, and Epidemiological Perspectives. Alberta: The University of Alberta Press; 2014. pp. 97–118.
  • Gullickson A, Morning A. Choosing race: Multiracial ancestry and identification. Social Science Research. 2011;40(2):498–512.
  • Harris D. The 1990 Census count of American Indians: What do the numbers really mean? Social Science Quarterly. 1994;75:580–593.
  • Harris D, Sim JJ. Who is multiracial? Assessing the complexity of lived race. American Sociological Review. 2002;67:614–627.
  • Hitlin S, Brown JS, Elder GH., Jr Racial self-categorization in adolescence: Multiracial development and social pathways. Child Development. 2006;77(5):1298–1308. [PubMed]
  • Hout M, Goldstein J. How 4.5 million Irish immigrants became 40 million Irish Americans: Demographic and subjective aspects of the ethnic composition of white Americans. American Sociological Review. 1994;59:64–82.
  • Humes K, Hogan H. Do current race and ethnicity concepts reflect a changing America? In: Bangs R, Davis LE, editors. Race and Social Problems: Restructuring Inequality. New York: Springer Science+Business Media; 2015. pp. 15–38.
  • Humes K, Hogan H. Measurement of race and ethnicity in a changing, multicultural America. Race and Social Problems. 2009;1:111–131.
  • Humes K, Jones N, Ramirez R. 2010 Census Brief C2010BR-02. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau; 2011. Overview of race and Hispanic origin: 2010.
  • Jacobs MR. Urban American Indian identity: Negotiating Indianness in Northeast Ohio. Qualitative Sociology. 2015;38(1):79–98.
  • Kana'iaupuni S, Liebler CA. Pondering poi dog: The importance of place to the racial identification of mixed-race Native Hawaiians. Ethnic and Racial Studies. 2005;28:687–721.
  • Kearney M. Transnational Oaxacan indigenous identity: The case of Mixtecs and Zapotecs. Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power. 2000;7(2):173–195.
  • Khanna N, Johnson C. Passing as black: Racial identity work among biracial Americans. Social Psychology Quarterly. 2010;73(4):380–397.
  • Kukutai T, Didham R. In search of ethnic New Zealanders: National naming in the 2006 Census. Social Policy Journal of New Zealand. 2009;36:46–62.
  • Layne M, Wagner D, Rothhaas C. Center for Administrative Records Research and Applications Working Paper 2014-02. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau; 2014. Estimating record linkage false match rate for the Person Identification Validation System.
  • Lee J, Bean F. America's changing color lines: Immigration, race/ethnicity, and multiracial identification. Annual Review of Sociology. 2004;30:221–242.
  • Lieberson S, Waters M. The ethnic responses of whites: What causes their instability, simplification, and inconsistency? Social Forces. 1993;72(2):421–450.
  • Liebler CA. Ph D Dissertation. University of Wisconsin-Madison, Department of Sociology; 2001. Fringes of American Indian identity.
  • Liebler CA. A group in flux: Multiracial American Indians and the social construction of race. In: Korgen KO, editor. Multiracial Americans and social class. New York: Routledge Press; 2010a. pp. 131–144.
  • Liebler CA. Homelands and indigenous identities in a multiracial era. Social Science Research. 2010b;39:596–609.
  • Liebler CA, Rastogi S, Fernandez LE, Noon JM, Ennis SR. Center for Administrative Records Research and Applications Working Paper 2014-09. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau; 2014. America's churning races: Race and ethnic response changes between Census 2000 and the 2010 Census. [PubMed]
  • Liebler CA, Ortyl T. More than one million new American Indians in 2000: Who are they? Demography. 2014;51(3):1101–1130. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Liebler CA, Zacher M. American Indians without tribes in the twenty-first century. Ethnic and Racial Studies. 2012;36(11):1910–1934. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Loveman M, Muniz JO. How Puerto Rico became white: Boundary dynamics and intercensus racial reclassification. American Sociological Review. 2007;72:915–39.
  • Lujan CC. American Indians and Alaska Natives count: The U.S. Census Bureau's efforts to enumerate the Native population. American Indian Quarterly. 2014;38(3):319–341.
  • Memmott P, Long S. Place theory and place maintenance in indigenous Australia. Urban Policy and Research. 2002;20(1):39–56.
  • Miller M. Rise and fall of the cosmic race: The cult of mestizaje in Latin America. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press; 2004.
  • Montenegro RA, Stephens C. Indigenous health in Latin America and the Caribbean. Lancet. 2006;367:1859–69. [PubMed]
  • Mule T. Census coverage measurement estimation report: Summary of estimates of coverage of persons in the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau; 2012.
  • Nagel J. American Indian ethnic renewal: Red power and the resurgence of identity and culture. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996.
  • Office of Management and Budget. Revisions to the standards for the classification of federal data on race and ethnicity. Federal Register. 1997;62:58781–58790.
  • Omi M, Winant H. Racial formation in the United States: From the 1960s to the 1990s. 2nd. New York: Routledge; 1994.
  • Passel J. Provisional evaluation of the 1970 Census count of American Indians. Demography. 1976;13(3):397–409. [PubMed]
  • Passel J. The growing American Indian population, 1960-1990: Beyond demography. Population Research and Policy Review. 1997;16(1-2):11–31.
  • Passel J, Berman P. Quality of 1980 Census data for American Indians. Social Biology. 1986;33:163–182. [PubMed]
  • Perez A, Hirschman C. Estimating net interracial mobility in the United States: A residual methods approach. Sociological Methodology. 2009;39:31–71. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Porter SR, Liebler CA, Noon JM. An outside view: What observers say about others' races and Hispanic origins. American Behavioral Scientist. 2015 doi: 10.1177/0002764215613397. Pre-print. [Cross Ref]
  • Prewitt K. What is your race? The Census and our flawed efforts to classify Americans. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 2013.
  • Psacharopoulos G, Patrinos HA. Indigenous people and poverty in Latin America: an empirical analysis. Washington, DC: The World Bank; 1994.
  • Rastogi S, Fernandez LE, Noon JM, Zapata E, Bhaskar R. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, Conference of European Statisticians: Work Session on Statistical Data Editing. Paris, France: 2014. Apr 28-30, Exploring administrative records use for race and Hispanic origin item non-response. http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/stats/documents/ece/ces/ge.44/2014/mtg1/Topic_4_USA_Rastogi_rev1.pdf.
  • Rastogi S, O'Hara A. 2010 Planning Memoranda Series NO 247. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau; 2012. 2010 Census match study. 2010 Census Program for Evaluations and Experiments.
  • Ríos M, Romero F, Ramirez R. Population Division Working Paper 102. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau; 2014. Race reporting among Hispanics: 2010.
  • Robertson D. A necessary evil: Framing an American Indian legal identity. American Indian Culture and Research Journal. 2013;37(4):115–139.
  • Rockquemore K, Brunsma D. Beyond black: Biracial identity in America. 2. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2008.
  • Rockquemore K, Brunsma D. Socially embedded identities: Theories, typologies, and processes of racial identity among black/white biracials. The Sociological Quarterly. 2002;43(3):335–356.
  • Roldán Ortiga R. Biodiversity Series, Paper No 99. Washington, DC: International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank; 2004. Models for recognizing indigenous land rights in Latin America.
  • Root MPP. The multiracial experience: Racial borders as the new frontier. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1996.
  • Seelye KQ. The Caucus – Warren says she told schools of Indian ancestry. The New York Times. 2012 Jun 1;
  • Singer P, Ennis S. Census 2000 Evaluation B.5. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau; 2003. Census 2000 Content Reinterview Survey: Accuracy of data for selected population and housing characteristics as measured by reinterview.
  • Snipp CM. American Indians: The first of this land. New York: Russell Sage; 1989.
  • Snipp CM. Some observations about racial boundaries and the experiences of American Indians. Ethnic and Racial Studies. 1997;20:668–689.
  • Snipp CM. Racial measurement in the American census: Past practices and implications for the future. Annual Review of Sociology. 2003;29:563–588.
  • Song M. Choosing ethnic identity. Malden, MA: Blackwell; 2003.
  • Sturm C. Becoming Indian: The struggle over Cherokee identity in the twenty-first century. Santa Fe, NM: School for Advanced Research Press; 2011.
  • Sweet E. 1990 DSSD REX Memorandum Series #PP-9. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau; 1994. Who fills out the census questionnaire study.
  • Telles E, Bailey S. Understanding Latin American belief's about racial inequality. American Journal of Sociology. 2013;118(6):1559–1595.
  • Thornton R. American Indian holocaust and survival: A population history since 1492. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press; 1987.
  • U.S. Census Bureau. 1990 Census of Population and Housing Evaluation and Research Reports. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau; 1993. Content Reinterview Survey: Accuracy of data for selected population and housing characteristics as measured by reinterview.
  • U.S. Census Bureau. American Indian and Alaska Native Areas. Ch 5 in Geographic areas reference manual. 1994 http://www.census.gov/geo/reference/pdfs/GARM/Ch5GARM.pdf.
  • U.S. Census Bureau. Technical assessment of ACE Revision II. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau; 2003. http://www.census.gov/dmd/www/pdf/ACETechAssess.pdf.
  • Summary file 1: 2000 Census of Population and Housing technical documentation. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau; 2007. U.S. Census Bureau.
  • U.S. Census Bureau. 2007 American Indian and Alaska Native Tribal Consultations Final Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau; 2008. http://www.census.gov/aian/pdf/CensusFinalReport_07_color-hi_res.pdf.
  • Wagner D, Layne M. Center for Administrative Records Research and Applications Working Paper 2014-01. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau; 2014. The Person Identification Validation System (PVS): Applying the Center for Administrative Records Research and Applications' (CARRA) record linkage software.
  • Wang W. The rise of intermarriage: Rates, characteristics vary by race and gender. Washington, DC: Pew Social & Demographic Trends; 2012.
  • Waters M. Ethnic options: Choosing identities in America. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1990.
  • Wimmer A. The making and unmaking of ethnic boundaries: A multilevel process theory. American Journal of Sociology. 2008;113(4):970–1022.
  • Xie Y, Goyette K. The racial identification of biracial children with one Asian parent: Evidence from the 1990 Census. Social Forces. 1997;76(2):547–570.