Scottish Government

SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE REVIEW OF CENSUS ETHNICITY CLASSIFICATION SEMINAR

DISCUSSIONS FROM WORKSHOPS

This paper draws together the notes taken from a series of discussions held in three different workshops, as part of the 'Scottish Executive Review of Census Ethnicity Classification Seminar', on 14 April 2005.

Each workshop looked at a specific area relating to the collection and use of ethnicity data. These were:

• Group A: Consulting with Communities
• Group B: Monitoring Ethnicity in a Changing Scottish Population
• Group C: Provision and Use of Ethnicity Data

Please note the following:

• All views expressed in the papers from the workshops are those of the individuals concerned and are not necessarily those of the Scottish Executive or any other organisation.
• Whilst each set of notes given below identifies those individuals who attended the workshops, the body of the discussions has not been attributed to any individual.
• The notes are ordered to reflect on the key questions which focused the discussions.

Note of Workshop Group A - Consulting with Communities

Delegates:

• Frances Forsyth, Office for National Statistics
• Martha Kennedy, Gypsy and Traveller Community Development Project
• Michael Callaghan, Stirling Council, On behalf of Caroline Moore
• Alison Platts, Scottish Executive, Office of Chief Researcher
• Kenny Richardson, NHS Borders
• Gordon Simpson, Lothian and Borders Police
• Dr Kennedy Muturi Nelson, On behalf of Dr Philip Muinde
• Facilitator: Alison Colvine, Scottish Executive, Equality Unit
• Note-taker: Charles Brown, Scottish Executive, Office of Chief Statistician
• Flip Chart/ Feedback: Ian Mate, GRO Scotland (Census)

Barriers and solutions to these issues are considered separately in the notes below.

Barriers

• Suspicion - People collecting data from communities or liaising with them often look overly officious i.e. suited and booted. People can be suspicious of this and this can make them less approachable and act as an immediate barrier. Delegates cited this in relation to gypsy/ traveller sites. Suspicion can also be generated if communities don't know the person approaching them or if the person doesn't observe cultural or linguistic norms.
• Consultation fatigue - Communities are not necessarily tired of consultation per se but are tired of i) not being involved in the early planning stages of the consultation and ii) not knowing what the outcomes of the consultation are and how these will effect their lives. Consultation fatigue may be more prevalent in those communities who are continuously and regularly consulted but not those who are consulted less often, where these communities are less visible or harder to reach.
• Perception of institutional racism - There exists a perception that certain organisations are institutionally racist. Such perception acts as an automatic barrier between the organisation and minority ethnic communities. This is very difficult to try to overcome.
• English not first language - Within certain communities English is not the not the first language spoken or is not spoken at all. This tends to be more the case among older generations. An example given was older members of Chinese communities who speak Cantonese as their first language.
• Resource - Adequate resources both in terms of funding and time must be in place to ensure effective consultation with communities. A lack of time can mean that the consultation is not properly planned and thought through. A community's time is also extremely valuable, so that making too many demands on it is likely harm engagement. An inadequate amount of time given to respond to a consultation may also reduce the level of community engagement. A lack of material resources may increase the risk that a 'one approach fits all' is adopted.
• Representation & Disempowerment - When the results of consultations are published they are often heralded as being completely representative. This is often at odds with the feeling among the communities that the results of the consultation are aimed at or were supposed to be generated from. This can create a feeling of disempowerment among the very communities whom a consultation is aimed at and this can, over time, reduce the chances of communities engaging with further consultations.
• A Lack of Clarity ­- A lack of clarity both in terms of i) the aims of the consultation and ii) its outcomes will strongly mitigate against good community engagement.
• Stereotypes - Stereotyping communities will create barriers between communities and those wishing to engage with these communities.
• Language and Terminology - It is important to consider the type of language and terminology that is used for a consultation and to be mindful that certain words have negative connotations associated with them which may cause offence. An example given by a delegate was that in the English language the term 'black' is often used to connote something negative e.g. 'Black Monday' to describe the stock market crash in 1987 or . 'a black mood' to describe a depressive state. In terms of an ethnic identity classification consultation, communities may not engage where certain language and its connotations cause offence.
• Discerning What & Whom to Respond to - Some delegates felt that response rates to such collections as the Census among certain communities may be affected if people aren't able to discern what it is important for them to respond to and what is not (i.e. what's just junk mail).

Solutions

• Suspicion - There should be careful consideration over who you choose to send out to liaise with communities. Choose someone who won't look or feel incongruous who will approach communities on their own terms both in terms of their cultural and linguistic norms. Sometimes it's advisable to approach communities via community gatekeepers. Some delegates however felt that in order to reach hidden or small communities who tend to be omitted from consultations that it is necessary to go beyond gatekeepers to reach these communities. Decide on who are the key community contacts and do this early on in the consultation process
• Consultation fatigue - This may be alleviated if consultations were targeted more strategically at relevant communities. This often requires creative ways of reaching out to and engaging communities and a move away from a 'one approach fits all' approach. When targeting communities it's particularly important to try and include those communities who may not be consulted on a regular basis where these are smaller or less visible communities. These communities may be eager to engage in consultation. The group were informed that the Scottish Executive has published a best practice guide on consultation, which it uses itself and encourages others to use. This is available on the Scottish Executive web-site.
• Feeding back ­ - There needs to be feedback following consultation. This should be provided as speedily as possible. One example given was that of using an electronic key-pad to take people views to questions which can then be instantly displayed back to the whole audience. This may be particularly effective when consulting younger people because of its immediacy. Feedback can consist of letting communities know what the outcomes of the consultation are in concrete terms i.e. how it effects peoples everyday lives but it should also mean letting respondents know how their views have fed into the decision making process.
• Resources - There is a need to ensure that enough time is factored into planning a consultation and that the appropriate level of resources is attached to this. Don't run the risk of underestimating either and as a general rule of thumb more time and funds will ultimately be required than is planned for, if the consultation is to be effective. Ensure that expectations about the outcome of the consultation aren't raised beyond what the resources will allow. Ensure that a detailed, systematic and costed work plan is drafted at a very early stage in the consultation process. Ensure that communities have adequate time to respond to the consultation. This will differ for different communities. Certain times of year may be less suitable for consultation for some communities. For example travellers may move between sites at certain times of the year, which would be inconvenient for this group.
• Representation & Disempowerment ­- It should be ensured that the consultation is carried on a representative sample of communities so that when the outcome is arrived at and announced they feel that they have ownership of the outcomes.
• A Lack of Clarity - There needs to be absolute clarity about the consultation i) aims and ii) outcomes
• Stereotyping - Stereotyping communities must be avoided at all costs.
• Training - The possibility of training up staff involved in the consultation should be considered where there are gaps in knowledge or expertise. This has a resource implication.
• Language and Terminology - There is a need to be mindful of the language that you use when consulting with communities. Consider how certain language may be offensive and try to avoid its use.
• Discerning What & Whom to Respond to - There is a responsibility for the Executive, other agencies and community gatekeeper to educate people about what collections are important to respond to, such as the Census, in order that people can discern what's important to respond to and what is not.

The group felt that a number of ways to improve consultation response rates had been addressed through the solutions to question 1(b). However a number of further points were discussed as follows:

• Consultation Forums - Delegates felt that consultations are more often than not embarked upon as a reactive response to an issue, with the effect that communities' engagement is sporadic and transient. This may be countered by setting up permanent consultation forums, who can be drawn upon as and when is necessary. Setting up these forums allows trust to build up over the long term between those consulting and communities so that the later are more likely to engage.
• A good tool kit - There should be a wide range of methods used to consult communities. The consultation should be creative and tap into existing networks.
• Engagement with a Capital 'E' - Consultation should be tenacious, engage, engage and then engage some more!

Note of Workshop Group B- Monitoring Ethnicity Data in a Changing Scottish Population

Delegates:

• Peter Barry, Scottish Refugee Council
• Lesley Crozier, Scottish Borders Council
• Philomena de Lima, Inverness College
• Susie Macdonald, British Market Research Bureau (BMRB)
• Irene McDermaid, Scottish Executive, Office of Permanent Secretary
• Venetia Radmore, Scottish Executive, Prison Statistics
• Frank Thomas, GRO Scotland (Census)
• Facilitator: Julie Bright, Scottish Executive, Office of Chief Statistician
• Note-taker: Michael Napier, Scottish Executive, Equality Unit
• Flipchart/ Feedback: Catherine Bissett, Scottish Executive, Analytical Services

Migrant Workers in Rural Areas

• Experience in the Borders Area - The Borders area has recently experienced a wave of migrant workers from Portugal, Poland and Lithuania. Approximately 50 - 100 migrant workers are employed by private enterprises to work in fish farms, hotels and restaurants.
• Reaction in the Borders Area - The local authority has been keen to discuss arrangements with employers before these workers arrive to look at concerns over quality and quantity of accommodation on offer, and endeavouring to provide information in the workers' languages. This is a new and not insignificant phenomenon in the Borders. Lothian and Borders Police has brought its influence to bear in the Community Planning Partnership process to resolve some localised integration issues. Portuguese families have been settling in the Borders which might suggest a desire to settle permanently. Obviously this would bring implications for local schools and health services.
• Experience in Other Areas - This situation is not unique to the Borders, as it is happening elsewhere in rural Scotland. Tayside Communities Scotland and Highlands and Islands Enterprise are doing research in their areas into the situation of newly-arrived migrant workers. The context to this change in population needn't lead to conflict, but often does.
• Research and Evidence - There is not enough evidence available yet to determine how many migrant workers choose to settle permanently in the host communities. Many are brought in by private sector companies which makes this difficult to track. Borders Council has commissioned research into this. In the Borders area there is a trend that seems to suggest migrant workers remain in area after work dries up.

Refugee Integration and Fresh Talent

• Impact of Refugee Integration - Refugees are an important group to consider for ethnic categories. The numbers of refugees dispersed to Scotland has increased twenty-fold and over 3,000 have decided to live in Scotland following positive decisions on their applications to stay.
• Future Integration of Refugees - Home Office is putting pressure on other local authorities to accept dispersed refugees - this will have dramatic consequences for the ethnic profile of the country. Glasgow City Council has recently concluded a new contract with the Home Office to accept more families. Where refugees and/ or immigrants choose to settle is influenced by the number of ex-patriots living in that area - this is another potential use for collecting more detailed information on the ethnic make-up of Scotland's population.
• Linked Programmes - The arrival of refugees is set against other government initiatives such as Fresh Talent: the majority of people relocating to Scotland as part of this scheme are from England, Ireland and North America - this should have a bearing on ethnic categories for the next Census, too.

General Issues on Census Classification and Perception of Ethnicity

• 'Mixed' and 'Other' categories - There are coding issues for the data users of the Census. There are hundreds of categories that can come under the classification of 'mixed' or 'other', but so far GRO Scotland has chosen to aggregate these into only 14 ethnic categories. The majority of 'mixed' respondents are explicit and will specify the background of their mother and father. Could this data be used to 'drill down' for better self-categorisation and to reveal trends?
• New Communities - Data suggests that biggest population growth will be experienced in minority ethnic communities/ 'new' communities, so need to be ready for this.

Influence on Perception of Ethnicity

• Self Perception of Ethnicity - How people choose to identify themselves is not necessarily factual and can be determined by prevailing attitudes of day. The person who fills in the form matters too, as attitudinal differences between generations can skew the data.
• External Influence on Perception of Ethnicity - External factors influence how people choose to identify themselves and can result in people concealing their ethnic identity if they feel it will have a negative outcome. If the politics in Britain continue in the current vein, this could affect how immigrants choose to identify themselves. They may be more inclined to identify themselves as British.

General Census Classification Issues

• Example of Other Census Questions - In Canada the Census form has two questions to broach identity. One regarding ethnic identity and the other regarding ethnic ancestry.
• Record of Discrimination - There is a need to capture the degree of discrimination which is faced by some ethnic groups. Colour is a factor (some colours more susceptible than others), and prevailing attitudes to race will affect how people report. Younger generations of immigrants may identify themselves in a converse manner to that of older generations and may also become more militant as a result of increased discrimination.

Communication on Use of Ethnicity Data - Census data gatherers should have information leaflets available to explain why ethnic information is required. Public information that is available has to be culturally sensitive for its intended audience - not just as an aid to statisticians. A cross-agency strategy is required to advertise benefits of 'visibility' which can explain how ethnic monitoring can be used as tool for measuring racial discrimination.

Impact of Ethnic Monitoring - However, giving the reasons behind ethnic monitoring is not necessarily the 'whole' answer. Proof is needed that improvement to people's lives will happen as a result of capturing ethnic data. There is also a need to move away from the idea of 'colour coding'.

Note on Workshop Group C- Provision and Use of Ethnicity Data

Delegates:

• Rowena Arshad, University of Edinburgh
• Ephraim Borowski, Scottish Council of Jewish Communities
• Jim Gowans, Scottish Prison Service
• Kim Hunter, Scottish Executive, HR Policy
• Rhona MacKenzie, Scottish Executive, Analytical Services
• Richard Morrison, GRO Scotland (Census)
• Keith Stewart, Scottish Prison Service
• Mercy Yaor, Aberdeenshire Council
• Facilitator: Lesley Irving, Scottish Executive, Equality Unit
• Note-taker: Louise McAspurren, Scottish Executive, Analytical Services
• Flip Chart/ Feedback: Chris Oswald, Commission for Racial Equality

Barriers and solution were discussed in parallel, and so they are noted together for this reason.

• History - In some cases there are strong historical reasons why groups would not want to give data on their ethnicity, due to misuse of earlier information gathering and discrimination as a result. It was suggested that this could not be 'overcome', as it was simply too emotive and real to the individuals concerned.
• Conceptual Confusion - Ethnicity and cultural background are often confused to mean the same thing. This proves problematic in the data provider's response, and in many cases might encourage the person not to answer. The solution to this would be difficult, but could be achieved if a 'classification' could be found that was both clear to the data provider and useful for data users.
• "Ethnicity is for Minority Ethnic Groups" - There is a perception among some data providers, that any question in a survey which relates to ethnicity, automatically relates to minority ethnic groups, but not the white 'majority'. This means the data can be difficult to use, because not all people will fill out the form appropriately. This could possibly be solved, in some surveys, by issuing a caveat that if the question is not answered it will be assumed that the answer is 'white'.
• Assumptions and Misconceptions - There are more complex issues around the 'Other' option given in most surveys. Where someone enters 'Jewish' under 'Other', it is often assumed that this equates as 'white'. This is not acceptable.
• Conflict between White Majority and Minority Ethnic Perception - There was concern that the majority of those that would classify themselves as 'white' do not see the ethnicity question as being of relevance to them. However, there is also a fear among some minority ethnic groups that the information will be used against them, and so cause disadvantage. It was suggested that some people saw the classification of ethnicity as coming out of 'apartheid' and others still from a 'political correctness gone mad'. It was thought that the fear should be overcome by explaining what ethnic monitoring is used for. This should address concerns of minority ethnic groups over discrimination. It should also address the worries from some 'white' males, who are more likely to perceive that such monitoring will bring about positive discrimination and result in them losing their job, or access to services.
• Survey Success - It seems that there are examples of surveys which receive a high response rate to their questions on ethnicity. These include the Scottish Parliament (approximately 90%) and the University of Edinburgh (approximately 80%). These should be considered as potential 'good practice' surveys.
• Classification Difficulty - Some specific classifications were thought to be unhelpful, and so not enable people to answer the question. For example 'Black African' is used as a classification but where does this leave a 'White African'? Also, the 'mixed' classification is seen as unhelpful.
• Write In Box - It was thought by some that difficulties around ethnic classification might be solved by dropping all pre-coded categories and using a 'write in' box where people could choose their own form of identity. However, it was argued that the success of this would be reliant on the data collectors having an excellent knowledge of ethnicity issues in order to code the range of answers. There was also concern around other practical issues, including the expense of collecting information in this way. It was suggested that with future improvement in computer technology, the practical difficulties may diminish over time.
• Future Change - It was suggested that the current system of collecting ethnicity data, including the Census, will be obsolete in the future. There needs to be an attitudinal shift, to recognise that changes will need to be made. Currently, the population may see the ethnicity questions and classifications as being too 'broad brush' in its approach. The data collectors need to segregate the information required, possibly through a tiered approach.
• Sensitivities and Subjective Classification - A caveat to the approach suggested above, was that the 'ethnicity' question needed to be careful in considering how to include (or whether to include) colour as a definition of ethnicity.

• Communication - It was suggested that the main reason why people do not understand what ethnic monitoring is used for, is that the data users and policy makers do not communicate this to the public.
• Practice in Collecting Data - Different practices in collecting ethnicity data were discussed among the group. Concern was raised that whilst the data collection was meant to be voluntary and anonymous, some recruitment practices include the ethnicity question in the main application form.
• Change Over Time - It was also claimed that the public find it difficult to understand how ethnicity data is used, because public bodies do not take the opportunity to look at data over a period of time and highlight relevant trends or impact in their area according to issues around ethnicity. With the implementation of Race Equality Schemes, it was hoped that this could change. Institutions needed to be transparent as to the reason for ethnic monitoring and in the publication of findings.
• Positive Messages - It was underlined that the need for communication also required responsible handling, and a positive message for both minority ethnic groups and the 'white' majority.
• Protection of Sensitive Data - It was also stated that some personal or sensitive information may need to be rendered anonymous by the data users or policy makers. However, it was acknowledged that this can be a 'grey area' in knowing when and how to do this. It was suggested legal advice should be sought about the requirements for monitoring under the Race Relations (Amendment) Act, and the anonymity of 'small units' of data.
• Wider Issues on Identity and Use of Data - In considering how to respond to 'self-definition' it was acknowledged that there are some difficulties in attributing classifications to some people who would define themselves as 'Pict' or 'Celt'. Likewise, there were problems in subversion to the serious question on ethnicity or religion, when some people self define as 'Jedi'. It was suggested that there needed to be an education or awareness raising programme to look at the precise issues around identity and ethnicity, which would also look to gather thoughts from the 'bottom up', rather than have ethnic classifications imposed on people.

*****

A brief overview of all these notes is given in a separate paper, attached to the overall report on the seminar.

Scottish Executive

April 2005.