AB 91 (the MENA Inclusion Act) requires California state and local agencies that collect ancestry or ethnic-origin information — directly or by contract — to offer and tabulate specific Middle Eastern and North African (MENA) ancestry categories on any form that lets respondents select one or more racial, ethnic, or language designations. The statute supplies three groupings (major Middle Eastern, major North African, and major transnational MENA groups) and requires agencies to include the aggregated results in demographic reports published on or after January 1, 2029, while making the aggregated data publicly available consistent with law.
The law is intended to increase visibility of diverse MENA-origin populations for policy, research, and civil-rights enforcement. It also creates concrete operational requirements — form redesign, changes to vendor contracts and data systems, new suppression and aggregation rules to protect privacy, and compliance choices for agencies of different sizes — that will determine how useful the new data are in practice.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill mandates that state and local agencies use a specified set of separate MENA ancestry categories on any form that offers ethnic, racial, or language selections, then include that aggregated data in demographic reports issued on or after January 1, 2029. It requires public availability of aggregated results but forbids disclosure of personal identifying information and bars publication that would be statistically unreliable.
Who It Affects
All California state agencies (excluding the University of California and California State University systems) and all cities and counties that collect ancestry or ethnic-origin data directly or through contractors; vendors and contractors who design intake forms and databases; researchers and program managers who rely on demographic reports.
Why It Matters
The law changes baseline data practices by carving MENA-origin populations out of broader categories and forcing standardized collection and reporting across many public agencies. That improves the ability to identify disparities and target services — but it also triggers privacy, statistical reliability, and implementation trade-offs that will shape how usable the data become.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 91 directs state and local agencies that collect ancestry or ethnic-origin information to add and tabulate a set of MENA-specific categories whenever a form gives respondents the option to select race, ethnicity, or language. The statute provides three buckets — major Middle Eastern groups, major North African groups, and major transnational MENA groups — and lists illustrative examples under each.
Agencies must treat these as separate collection categories rather than folding them into existing broad race labels.
Agencies must include the collected MENA ancestry data in any demographic report on ancestry or ethnic origins published on or after January 1, 2029, and must make aggregated results publicly available in compliance with state and federal law. At the same time, the bill strictly prohibits disclosure of personal identifying information as defined in Penal Code section 530.55(b) and requires agencies to use aggregation (state, county, city, census tract, or ZIP Code levels) to avoid identifying individuals.
It also prohibits publishing data that would be statistically unreliable, creating a duty to suppress or combine small cells.The statute defines who counts as a local agency and lists state agencies broadly while expressly excluding the California State University and University of California systems. It becomes operative January 1, 2028, giving agencies a defined window to redesign intake forms, update databases, renegotiate contracts with data vendors, and set suppression rules that balance disclosure avoidance with analytical utility.Practically, agencies will need to update intake instruments and staff guidance, decide standard aggregation and suppression thresholds, and align internal reporting pipelines to publish the required aggregated data.
Because the law applies to data collected by contract, agencies must also review procurement documents and vendor capabilities. The interplay with federal race and ethnicity standards — which do not currently recognize MENA as a separate OMB category — will affect comparability with federal datasets and could require agencies to document mapping rules between systems.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Operative and reporting timeline: the section becomes operative January 1, 2028, and agencies must include collected MENA ancestry data in demographic reports published on or after January 1, 2029.
Three mandated category sets: the statute requires separate collection and tabulation for (1) major Middle Eastern groups, (2) major North African groups, and (3) major transnational MENA groups, and provides illustrative examples for each.
Privacy and aggregation rules: agencies must not disclose personal identifying information (defined by Penal Code §530.55(b)) and may aggregate data at state, county, city, census tract, or ZIP Code levels to avoid identification.
Statistical reliability bar: the law prohibits agencies from making available any data that would result in statistical unreliability, effectively forcing suppression or combination of small-cell counts.
Scope and exclusion: the requirement covers state and local agencies collecting ancestry or ethnic-origin data directly or by contract, but expressly excludes the California State University and University of California systems.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title — 'MENA Inclusion Act'
This short provision gives the statute its public name, which agencies and stakeholders will use in guidance, procurement documents, and public communications. Naming matters here because contractors and researchers will reference the 'MENA Inclusion Act' when updating form templates, vendor specs, and data dictionaries.
Required collection categories and illustrative group lists
Subdivision (b) is the operative collection mandate: any state or local form that offers respondents race, ethnicity, or language choices must include separate collection categories and tabulations for major Middle Eastern groups, major North African groups, and major transnational MENA groups. The text lists illustrative national-origin and transnational groups (for example, Iranian, Egyptian, Kurdish, Assyrian). Agencies must interpret those lists as non-exhaustive but directive: forms should permit respondents to identify with these specific groups as discrete options rather than forcing a catch-all.
Reporting and public availability requirements
Subdivision (c) requires that data collected under (b) appear in every agency demographic report on ancestry or ethnic origins published on or after January 1, 2029, and that aggregated data be made publicly available consistent with state and federal law. Practically, this compels agencies to incorporate the new categories into scheduled reporting cycles and public dashboards, and to maintain publication workflows that accommodate the new tabulations.
Privacy protections, aggregation authority, and reliability prohibition
This section bars disclosure of personal identifying information and authorizes aggregation at various geography levels (state, county, city, census tract, ZIP Code) to prevent identification. It also separately prohibits making data available when it would be statistically unreliable. Agencies therefore have dual obligations: publish aggregated MENA data for transparency and analysis while adopting suppression or aggregation rules to meet disclosure-avoidance and reliability standards.
Definitions and exclusions
Subdivision (e) defines 'local agency' (city, county, or city and county) and borrows the Penal Code definition for personal identifying information. It broadly defines 'state agency' but explicitly excludes the California State University and University of California systems. That exclusion leaves a clear higher-education data gap that other entities or voluntary surveys may need to fill.
Operative date
The provision sets the statute to become operative January 1, 2028, creating a concrete implementation window. Agencies should treat this date as the deadline for policy, technical, and procurement changes; the separate publication date for required inclusion (on or after January 1, 2029) sets the reporting floor for when aggregated results must begin appearing.
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
- People of Middle Eastern and North African ancestry: the statute creates visibility by giving these populations specific collection options, improving the ability to identify disparities in health, education, employment, and civil‑rights outcomes.
- State and local policy analysts and researchers: standardized MENA categories across agencies enable more precise cross-agency comparisons and targeted program evaluation, assuming suppression rules do not overly fragment the data.
- Civil-rights and community advocacy organizations: advocates gain standardized public data to support enforcement, funding requests, and program design aimed at MENA-origin communities.
Who Bears the Cost
- State and local agencies (data collection units): agencies must redesign forms, update information systems, train staff, and amend reporting pipelines — work that requires funding, project management, and potentially new staff or vendor contracts.
- Vendors and contractors that provide intake and data systems: contractors will need to change software, consent flows, and data schemas; municipalities that rely on third-party platforms will face contract revision and testing costs.
- Small jurisdictions and agencies serving sparse MENA populations: these entities will face tough choices between suppressing many small cells (reducing usefulness) or investing in larger aggregation strategies, with associated analytic and political costs.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between the legitimate policy goal of making MENA-origin populations visible through disaggregated data and the countervailing need to protect individuals and maintain statistical reliability — a trade-off that forces agencies to choose between privacy-preserving aggregation (which can erase small-population nuance) and granular reporting (which risks identification and unreliable statistics).
The law elevates visibility for MENA communities but immediately runs into the classic disaggregation-versus-privacy trade-off. Many California localities house small, dispersed MENA-origin populations; protecting individuals will often require aggregation or suppression that materially reduces the analytical value of the new categories.
Agencies must therefore set suppression thresholds and aggregation rules — decisions that will shape whether the law delivers actionable data or only high-level counts.
The statute also sits awkwardly against federal standards. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) standards for race and ethnicity do not currently treat MENA as a separate category; agencies that must report to federal programs will need mapping conventions and documentation to reconcile datasets.
The exclusion of the CSU and UC systems leaves higher-education gaps in statewide reporting. Finally, the bill provides no enforcement mechanism or funding for implementation, so uptake and uniformity are likely to vary by agency capacity; procurement cycles and vendor readiness will dictate how quickly forms and databases change across jurisdictions.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.