AB 1878 directs every California state agency, board, and commission that collects race or ethnicity data to give respondents the option to select one or more racial or ethnic designations and to change how that data is reported between agencies. When data are shared, agencies must provide counts or percentages for (a) people identifying with a single designation only, (b) people identifying with each designation whether alone or in combination, and (c) people identifying with multiple designations.
For civil‑rights monitoring and enforcement, the bill requires use of the allocation rules in OMB Bulletin No. 00‑02 in addition to those breakdowns.
The law aims to improve accuracy for growing multiracial populations and to give civil‑rights and program analysts more granular inputs. Practically, it forces form redesigns, database changes, and new reporting workflows across state agencies, with implications for privacy, comparability with historical statistics, and budget and vendor planning.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires state entities that collect race or ethnicity data to permit multiple selections on forms and to report aggregated results in three explicit ways: counts for single‑race responses, counts for each race alone-or-in-combination, and counts of respondents who chose multiple races. For civil‑rights enforcement or disparate‑impact work, agencies must also apply OMB Bulletin No. 00‑02 allocation rules.
Who It Affects
All California state agencies, boards, and commissions that collect demographic data; the IT vendors and contractors that maintain forms and databases; civil‑rights units and program administrators who use demographic breakdowns; and researchers and analysts who rely on state demographic statistics.
Why It Matters
It formalizes multiple‑race collection across state government and prescribes exact reporting slices that can change eligibility analyses, monitoring of disparities, and resource allocation. Agencies will need to redesign collection instruments and reporting pipelines to produce the new metrics without compromising confidentiality or analytic comparability.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 1878 requires state-level demographic collection to reflect that individuals may belong to more than one racial or ethnic group. At intake points—online forms, paper surveys, licensing applications, or other information collections—agencies must present respondents with an option to select one or more racial or ethnic designations.
The bill even recommends the instruction text (“mark one or more” or “select one or more”) to make the intent clear to respondents.
When agencies share race and ethnicity data with other state entities, the bill demands specific disaggregations. Agencies must supply counts or percentages showing (1) people who chose each designation alone (no combination), (2) people who chose each designation whether alone or combined with other designations, and (3) the population of respondents who chose multiple designations.
For civil‑rights monitoring and any state or federally mandated action tied to a specific racial or ethnic community, agencies must also follow the multiple‑race allocation rules set out in OMB Bulletin No. 00‑02; in those cases the bill requires that the single‑designation, alone‑or‑in‑combination, and multiple‑designation counts all be available.The bill gives agencies an implementation schedule requiring compliance “as early as reasonably feasible” and sets a hard deadline in the text of January 1, 2022. It also creates a legislative check: agencies must report to the Legislature on implementation by January 1, 2028, and that reporting requirement is repealed on January 1, 2032.
Two narrow exceptions preserve existing workflows: if a state entity collects demographic data from a local agency it may forward that data in the form the local agency submitted it, and if an agency is collecting data solely to satisfy a federal requirement it may use the federally required format.Operationally, the mandate touches forms, back‑end data models, data sharing agreements, and analytic rules. Agencies will need to map old single‑choice fields to the new multi‑response format, decide how to store and index combinations, update interfaces, and revise public reports.
The OMB allocation requirement affects how analysts translate multi‑response records into single‑race counts for statutory enforcement or disparity analyses, which may produce different results than simple cross‑tabulations and will require documented methodology in agency reports.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill requires forms to allow respondents to select one or more racial or ethnic designations and recommends the instruction text “mark one or more” or “select one or more.”, When data are reported between state entities, agencies must provide: counts/percentages for (A) each designation alone, (B) each designation alone or in combination, and (C) respondents who identify with multiple designations.
For civil‑rights monitoring and enforcement, agencies must apply the multiple‑race response allocation rules in OMB Bulletin No. 00‑02 and still supply the counts required in A and B.
The statute instructs agencies to comply when updating forms or systems “as early as reasonably feasible” and sets a backstop compliance date of January 1, 2022.
Each covered agency must report to the Legislature on implementation by January 1, 2028; that reporting obligation is repealed on January 1, 2032.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Findings and policy rationale
This subsection explains why the Legislature is acting: California has a large and growing multiracial population and many state forms force single‑choice answers that undercount or misrepresent that population. The findings cite the OMB standard (since 1997) as the federal comparator. Practically, the findings provide the statutory justification agencies will cite when reallocating budget or prioritizing form redesigns.
Mandatory multi‑response option on forms
This paragraph requires every state agency, board, and commission that collects ethnic origin, ethnicity, or race to provide a means for respondents to select one or more categories. The bill explicitly recommends short instructional text for the question. For implementers, the provision triggers a review of all collection instruments (paper and electronic), consent language, and any downstream validation checks that previously assumed a single selection.
Three specific reporting slices required
When agencies report demographic data to other state entities, they must include three distinct metrics: (A) counts/percentages for people who identify with a designation alone; (B) counts/percentages for people who identify with a designation whether alone or in combination; and (C) counts/percentages for respondents who identify with multiple designations. Implementers must add these fields to data dictionaries, update extract‑transform‑load processes, and consider how combinations will be encoded so that downstream analytic teams receive consistent, machine‑readable outputs.
OMB Bulletin No. 00‑02 allocation for civil‑rights uses
For civil‑rights monitoring, disparate‑impact assessments, or other state or federal actions targeting a racial or ethnic community, the bill requires agencies to follow the multiple‑race response allocation rules in OMB Bulletin No. 00‑02. Practically this means agencies cannot rely solely on the multiple‑designation count: they must produce allocated single‑race estimates using OMB’s prescribed method and document that methodology when those figures inform enforcement or compliance decisions.
Implementation timing, exceptions, and legislative reporting
The statute tells agencies to comply as early as reasonably feasible when updating forms, software, hardware, or procedures and then states a compliance deadline of January 1, 2022. It also creates two exceptions: agencies may pass through local agency data in whatever form it was provided, and agencies collecting data solely to meet federal requirements may keep the federally mandated format. Finally, the bill requires a report to the Legislature on implementation by January 1, 2028 and notes that this reporting requirement lapses on January 1, 2032. These mechanics create both an audit point and a sunset for mandatory legislative oversight.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Civil Rights across all five countries.
Explore Civil Rights in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Californians who identify as multiracial — the bill increases the chance that their full identities are captured in state data and reflected in program design and civil‑rights analyses.
- Civil‑rights enforcement units and disparity analysts — they get required allocation rules and both combined and allocated counts that allow more defensible enforcement and monitoring decisions.
- Public program managers and planners — more granular race/ethnicity inputs can improve targeting, needs assessment, and program evaluation for communities that were previously undercounted.
- Researchers and public‑health analysts — standardized multi‑response collection and explicit reporting slices create a richer dataset for studying health, economic, and social disparities.
Who Bears the Cost
- State agencies, boards, and commissions — they must inventory collection points, redesign forms, update databases, and modify reporting pipelines, which requires staff time and likely procurement of vendor services.
- IT vendors and contractors — projects will expand to include multi‑select UI components, new storage schemas (arrays or junction tables), and updated extraction logic; smaller vendors may need to renegotiate contracts.
- Data‑privacy and compliance officers — the increase in disaggregation raises re‑identification risk for small subgroups, shifting work to suppression rules, differential disclosure control, or legal review.
- Local agencies and data submitters — while permitted to pass through data as submitted, they may face pressure to update local instruments to align with state expectations, creating unfunded local costs.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between producing more accurate, respectful, and analytically useful data about multiracial Californians and the real costs and risks that such disaggregation creates: significant IT and process changes, higher disclosure risk for small groups, and loss of straightforward comparability with historical statistics—tradeoffs with no single technical fix.
The bill improves representation in state datasets but creates several practical tensions. First, converting legacy single‑choice fields to multi‑response formats breaks comparability with historical time series; analysts must choose between back‑casting with assumptions or presenting a methodological break.
Second, reporting the required disaggregations increases the chance of small‑cell counts and disclosure risk; agencies will need concrete suppression or statistical disclosure controls but the statute does not fund those mitigations. Third, the OMB allocation required for civil‑rights work can produce different single‑race estimates than straightforward combination counts, and the law requires both—agencies must document which numbers drove enforcement decisions to avoid legal challenges.
Implementation sequencing is another unresolved issue. The statute’s compliance phrase “as early as reasonably feasible” paired with a firm date of January 1, 2022 creates an internal timeline inconsistency that agencies and auditors will need to reconcile in practice.
The two carve‑outs (local‑submitted formats and federal‑requirement formats) preserve short‑term flexibility but also guarantee the continued existence of incompatible datasets across state programs unless the state invests in normalization processes. Finally, the law prescribes what to report but not how the state will monitor compliance or support smaller agencies, leaving enforcement and resourcing questions open.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.