‘Family ethnicity’ Should we count? How should we count? Why? Robert Didham (Statistics NZ) with Paul Callister (Victoria University of Wellington), Deb Potter (Statistics NZ )

Ethnicity (NZ Census 2006) People of one or more (N=4million)…. European ethnicities: 68 percent Maori ethnicity: 15 percent Pacific ethnicities: 7 percent Asian ethnicities: 9 percent MELAA ethnicities: 1 percent Other (mostly NZer): 11 percent MELAA = Middle Eastern, Latin American and African

Multiple ethnicity People with ethnicities in at least one other grouping …. European ethnicities: 12 percent Maori ethnicity: 47 percent Pacific ethnicities: 30 percent Asian ethnicities: 9 percent MELAA ethnicities: 17 percent Other (mostly NZer): 13 percent

Context for the analysis Ethnicity is becoming more complex and fluid – strong age component Ethnic intermarriage is common between all groups Family structures increasingly complex

Individual’s Ethnicities Cultural identity Ancestry Birthplace Social histories Family ethnicity?? Social environment The central issue

Aim of study – three themes What are the uses made of ethnic family/household measures? Are these common enough uses to warrant recommended measure(s) and, if so, what? How different are results are obtained using different methods of classifying the ethnicity of families?

Not an aim of the study To create an official standard for the measurement of family ethnicity

Nor to define the problematic term “FAMILY”

Family ethnicity Implicit assumption that family ethnicity exists: Old proverb: There is but one eye of the needle through which must pass the white, the black and the red threads

Use of family ethnicity by policy makers, researchers and the wider public terms such as “Maori family” or “Pacific household” are commonly used in public discourse policy makers sometimes use this language (e.g. in relation to child or family outcomes) researchers also sometimes use these descriptions BUT definitions generally not clearly stated Currently Statistics New Zealand say “ethnicity is a personal attribute that could not be attributed to a group and should not be a standard output”

Possible uses of family ethnicity Understanding –Family needs/outcomes –Language retention –Inequalities –Settlement outcomes Targeting –Health services –Housing demand and supply BUT Often the full complexity of ethnicity within families precludes one single measure AND If the measure is flawed, can the analysis be valid?

Some specific methodological challenges Ethnic data may not be collected for all (or any) family members Responses may be proxied (i.e. not self-defined) Small sample sizes of most surveys How to handle multiple responses for individuals The “New Zealander” response, especially in 2006 census Outcomes measures for families can also be complex The legacy of prioritisation in some data collections

More challenges What about: – household members not in the family? – family members living outside the household? What to do about missing ethnic responses? Family ethnicity is not directly measured but is derived from individual responses. Derived family ethnicity may not accord with how family members may align themselves.

Methodologies tested Total counts (recommended for individuals) Main single and multiple counts (recommended for individuals) Ethnic prioritisation (now not recommended) Randomly allocate ethnic prioritisation Fractional ethnicity (non-standard method) Base the ethnicity of the family on –the ethnicities of the child(ren) –the ethnicities on the parent(s)

Total counts Well suited to small surveys as it reports the size of each group and has fewer categories A significant number of families are counted more than once Some statistical analysis techniques are difficult Disguises diversity within the group

Single and multiple combination counts Can reflect the complexity of ethnicity within families No double counting But system creates a very large number of possible combinations No weighting is put on how often an ethnicity is recorded within a family It is possible to calculate corresponding total counts from these data But represents combinations of total counts – combinations of combinations not workable.

Prioritisation Ethnic counts equal counts of the total population Order of prioritisation based on political not statistical logic Big losses to some groups, particularly Pacific people living in families Not recommended as output for individuals False sense of clear ethnic boundaries

Random prioritisation Ethnic counts equal counts of the total population It is statistically neutral (i.e does not favour one group over another) Introduces unstable results at high levels of disaggregation and in multiway cross-tabulations

Fractional ethnicity Appears to indicate ‘strength’ of ethnicity But people, or families, are not ‘fractions’ Only one group can be easily analysed at a time (for example ‘European families)

Ethnicity of only parents or only children Can estimate family ethnicity from one response (such as through parent benefit data) Do not know full complexity of family so will miss out some ethnic groups Is it the parents or children who influence family ethnicity? In couples does one focus on both partners or just one partner (and which one)? Same issues of whether to count the ethnicity by total counts or other methods

Two hypothetical families: both a couple with one child Family 1 –Maori only mother –European only father –European and Maori child Family 2 –Pacific and Maori mother –Pacific and European father –Pacific only child (neither of these examples are unusual)

Output counts using main methods Total countSingle and combination PrioritisedRandom prioritisation (on average, different each time) Fractional ethnicity for 1 st and 2 nd Families 2 Maori families 1 Maori and European family 2 Maori families 0.67 Maori families Fam 1 : 0.5 Fam 2 : European families 1 Maori, Pacific and European family 0.67 European families Fam 1: 0.5 Fam 2 : Pacific family 0.67 Pacific families Fam 1 : 0.0 Fam 2 : 0.67

Number of couples with children All data (000s) Total response PrioritisationMain single and multiple European European 220 Maori 63 Maori/ European 40 Asian 3330 Asian 23 Pacific 3022 Pacific 14 Maori 14 Pacific/ European 7 Asian / European 7 Maori / Pacific/Eur 5 Maori /Pacific 3

Average income for couples with children 2001 All data (000s) Total response PrioritisationMain single and multiple European 65,24167,942 European only 67,942 Maori 51,29051,254 European/Asian 61,420 Asian 49,27648,795 Asian/Maori/Eur 56,520 Pacific 45,67644,423 Pacific/European 56,464 Maori/European 54,191 Maori/European/ Pacific 51,166 Asian only 44,925 Maori/Pacific 43,823 Maori only 42,844 Pacific only 36,807

Conclusions – back to basics SHOULD we develop a family ethnicity measure? –perhaps, for well defined specific tasks. HOW? –sensibly, relevantly and explicitly defined. WHY? –helpful, but may also be misleading.

Tentative conclusions Prioritised ethnicity is problematic for individuals and this is even more so in a family setting Fractional ethnicity looks superficially attractive for some types of analysis but is based on some very problematic assumptions Using the ethnicity of only a parent or child might be workable in some contexts Total counts and single/multiple ethnicity have their strengths and weaknesses – but by far the best options

Ultimately… In the end it is ‘horses for courses’ – depends on the end use BUT it is important that researchers and policy makers always clearly set out how they have defined family ethnicity. It does make a difference

Contact Robert Didham Paul Callister