Page Comparison

...

Table 1. Comparison of level of detail in current and proposed ethnicity collection

The majority of the expanded categories are subgroups that fall under the broad “American Indian or Alaska Native” group. Of the 194 proposed subgroups, 76 are non-Native American subgroups while the Native American category comprises 118 subgroups. There are several reasons for this. First, the criteria threshold for included subgroups to have a population of 10,000 in the state of California did not work well for Native Americans. This is in part because information on the populations sizes of most Native American tribes is not generally available. Additionally, Native American populations in California are often highly localized, making some groups particularly relevant in certain service areas, although their overall statewide numbers may be low. Also, Native Americans generally tend to have the largest equity gaps and are therefore any information that would allow for more effective equity planning and services would be very helpful.[3] Finally, the decision to expand collection of Native American subgroup information was essentially a binary one: either include all California-recognized tribal groups or none of them. Therefore, the expansion includes all California tribal groups as well as several of the largest nationally recognized Indian nations (e.g., Cherokee, Sioux). Even though this adds a large number of groups to the proposal, only those applicants who select the broader category of “American Indian” would see that larger list.

...