A. SUMMARY This dataset includes San Francisco COVID-19 tests by race/ethnicity and by date. This dataset represents the daily count of tests collected, and the breakdown of test results (positive, negative, or indeterminate). Tests in this dataset include all those collected from persons who listed San Francisco as their home address at the time of testing. It also includes tests that were collected by San Francisco providers for persons who were missing a locating address. This dataset does not include tests for residents listing a locating address outside of San Francisco, even if they were tested in San Francisco.

The data were de-duplicated by individual and date, so if a person gets tested multiple times on different dates, all tests will be included in this dataset (on the day each test was collected). If a person tested multiple times on the same date, only one test is included from that date. When there are multiple tests on the same date, a positive result, if one exists, will always be selected as the record for the person. If a PCR and antigen test are taken on the same day, the PCR test will supersede. If a person tests multiple times on the same day and the results are all the same (e.g. all negative or all positive) then the first test done is selected as the record for the person.

The total number of positive test results is not equal to the total number of COVID-19 cases in San Francisco.

When a person gets tested for COVID-19, they may be asked to report information about themselves. One piece of information that might be requested is a person's race and ethnicity. These data are often incomplete in the laboratory and provider reports of the test results sent to the health department. The data can be missing or incomplete for several possible reasons:

• The person was not asked about their race and ethnicity.
• The person was asked, but refused to answer.
• The person answered, but the testing provider did not include the person's answers in the reports.
• The testing provider reported the person's answers in a format that could not be used by the health department.

For any of these reasons, a person's race/ethnicity will be recorded in the dataset as “Unknown.”

B. NOTE ON RACE/ETHNICITY The different values for Race/Ethnicity in this dataset are "Asian;" "Black or African American;" "Hispanic or Latino/a, all races;" "American Indian or Alaska Native;" "Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander;" "White;" "Multi-racial;" "Other;" and “Unknown."

The Race/Ethnicity categorization increases data clarity by emulating the methodology used by the U.S. Census in the American Community Survey. Specifically, persons who identify as "Asian," "Black or African American," "American Indian or Alaska Native," "Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander," "White," "Multi-racial," or "Other" do NOT include any person who identified as Hispanic/Latino at any time in their testing reports that either (1) identified them as SF residents or (2) as someone who tested without a locating address by an SF provider. All persons across all races who identify as Hispanic/Latino are recorded as “"Hispanic or Latino/a, all races." This categorization increases data accuracy by correcting the way “Other” persons were counted. Previously, when a person reported “Other” for Race/Ethnicity, they would be recorded “Unknown.” Under the new categorization, they are counted as “Other” and are distinct from “Unknown.”

If a person records their race/ethnicity as “Asian,” “Black or African American,” “American Indian or Alaska Native,” “Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander,” “White,” or “Other” for their first COVID-19 test, then this data will not change—even if a different race/ethnicity is reported for this person for any future COVID-19 test. There are two exceptions to this rule. The first exception is if a person’s race/ethnicity value is reported as “Unknown” on their first test and then on a subsequent test they report “Asian;” "Black or African American;" "Hispanic or Latino/a, all races;" "American Indian or Alaska Native;" "Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander;" or "White”, then this subsequent reported race/ethnicity will overwrite the previous recording of “Unknown”. If a person has only ever selected “Unknown” as their race/ethnicity, then it will be recorded as “Unknown.” This change provides more specific and actionable data on who is tested in San Francisco.

The second exception is if a person ever marks “Hispanic or Latino/a, all races” for race/ethnicity then this choice will always overwrite any previous or future response. This is because it is an overarching category that can include any and all other races and is mutually exclusive with the other responses.

A person's race/ethnicity will be recorded as “Multi-racial” if they select two or more values among the following choices: “Asian,” “Black or African American,” “American Indian or Alaska Native,” “Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander,” “White,” or “Other.” If a person selects a combination of two or more race/ethnicity answers that includes “Hispanic or Latino/a, all races” then they will still be recorded as “Hispanic or Latino/a, all races”—not as “Multi-racial.”

C. HOW THE DATASET IS CREATED COVID-19 laboratory test data is based on electronic laboratory test reports. Deduplication, quality assurance measures and other data verification processes maximize accuracy of laboratory test information.

D. UPDATE PROCESS Updates automatically at 5:00AM Pacific Time each day. Redundant runs are scheduled at 7:00AM and 9:00AM in case of pipeline failure.

E. HOW TO USE THIS DATASET San Francisco population estimates for race/ethnicity can be found in a view based on the San Francisco Population and Demographic Census dataset. These population estimates are from the 2016-2020 5-year American Community Survey (ACS).

Due to the high degree of variation in the time needed to complete tests by different labs there is a delay in this reporting. On March 24, 2020 the Health Officer ordered all labs in the City to report complete COVID-19 testing information to the local and state health departments.

In order to track trends over time, a user can analyze this data by sorting or filtering by the "specimen_collection_date" field.

Calculating Percent Positivity: The positivity rate is the percentage of tests that return a positive result for COVID-19 (positive tests divided by the sum of positive and negative tests). Indeterminate results, which could not conclusively determine whether COVID-19 virus was present, are not included in the calculation of percent positive. When there are fewer than 20 positives tests for a given race/ethnicity and time period, the positivity rate is not calculated for the public tracker because rates of small test counts are less reliable.

Calculating Testing Rates: To calculate the testing rate per 10,000 residents, divide the total number of tests collected (positive, negative, and indeterminate results) for the specified race/ethnicity by the total number of residents who identify as that race/ethnicity (according to the 2016-2020 American Community Survey (ACS) population estimate), then multiply by 10,000. When there are fewer than 20 total tests for a given race/ethnicity and time period, the testing rate is not calculated for the public tracker because rates of small test counts are less reliable.

Read more about how this data is updated and validated daily: https://sf.gov/information/covid-19-data-questions

F. CHANGE LOG

• 1/12/2024 - This dataset will stop updating as of 1/12/2024
• 6/21/2023 - A small number of additional COVID-19 testing records were released as part of our ongoing data cleaning efforts. An update to the race or ethnicity designation among a subset of testing records was simultaneously released.
• 1/31/2023 - updated “population_estimate” column to reflect the 2020 Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) San Francisco Population estimates.
• 1/31/2023 - renamed column “last_updated_at” to “data_as_of”.
• 3/23/2022 - ‘Native American’ changed to ‘American Indian or Alaska Native’ to align with the census.
• 2/10/2022 - race/ethnicity categorization was changed. See section NOTE ON RACE/ETHNICITY for additional information.
• 4/16/2021 - dataset updated to refresh with a five-day data lag.

Includes questions written in Spanish pertaining to: race & ethnicitygenderagetribal affiliationdisabilityincomelanguagelocation

Knowing the racial and ethnic composition of a community is often one of the first steps in understanding, serving, and advocating for various groups. This information can help enforce laws, policies, and regulations against discrimination based on race and ethnicity. These statistics can also help tailor services to accommodate cultural differences.This multi-scale map shows the most common race/ethnicity living within an area. Map opens at tract-level in Los Angeles, CA but has national coverage. Zoom out to see counties and states.This map uses these hosted feature layers containing the most recent American Community Survey data. These layers are part of the ArcGIS Living Atlas, and are updated every year when the American Community Survey releases new estimates, so values in the map always reflect the newest data available. The data on race were derived from answers to the question on race that was asked of individuals in the United States. The Census Bureau collects racial data in accordance with guidelines provided by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and these data are based on self-identification. The racial categories included in the census questionnaire generally reflect a social definition of race recognized in this country and not an attempt to define race biologically, anthropologically, or genetically. The categories represent a social-political construct designed for collecting data on the race and ethnicity of broad population groups in this country, and are not anthropologically or scientifically based. Learn more here.

The National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) series (formerly titled National Household Survey on Drug Abuse) primarily measures the prevalence and correlates of drug use in the United States. The surveys are designed to provide quarterly, as well as annual, estimates. Information is provided on the use of illicit drugs, alcohol, and tobacco among members of United States households aged 12 and older. Questions included age at first use as well as lifetime, annual, and past-month usage for the following drug classes: marijuana, cocaine (and crack), hallucinogens, heroin, inhalants, alcohol, tobacco, and nonmedical use of prescription drugs, including pain relievers, tranquilizers, stimulants, and sedatives. The survey covered substance abuse treatment history and perceived need for treatment, and included questions from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) of Mental Disorders that allow diagnostic criteria to be applied. The survey included questions concerning treatment for both substance abuse and mental health-related disorders. Respondents were also asked about personal and family income sources and amounts, health care access and coverage, illegal activities and arrest record, problems resulting from the use of drugs, and needle-sharing. Questions introduced in previous administrations were retained in the 2014 survey, including questions asked only of respondents aged 12 to 17. These "youth experiences" items covered a variety of topics, such as neighborhood environment, illegal activities, drug use by friends, social support, extracurricular activities, exposure to substance abuse prevention and education programs, and perceived adult attitudes toward drug use and activities such as school work. Several measures focused on prevention-related themes in this section. Also retained were questions on mental health and access to care, perceived risk of using drugs, perceived availability of drugs, driving and personal behavior, and cigar smoking. Questions on the tobacco brand used most often were introduced with the 1999 survey. For the 2008 survey, adult mental health questions were added to measure symptoms of psychological distress in the worst period of distress that a person experienced in the past 30 days and suicidal ideation. In 2008, a split-sample design also was included to administer separate sets of questions (WHODAS vs. SDS) to assess impairment due to mental health problems. Beginning with the 2009 NSDUH, however, all of the adults in the sample received only the WHODAS questions. Background information includes gender, race, age, ethnicity, marital status, educational level, job status, veteran status, and current household composition.

This survey of minority groups was part of a larger project to investigate the patterns, predictors, and consequences of midlife development in the areas of physical health, psychological well-being, and social responsibility. Conducted in Chicago and New York City, the survey was designed to assess the well-being of middle-aged, urban, ethnic minority adults living in both hyper-segregated neighborhoods and in areas with lower concentrations of minorities. Respondents' views were sought on issues relevant to quality of life, including health, childhood and family background, religion, race and ethnicity, personal beliefs, work experiences, marital and close relationships, financial situation, children, community involvement, and neighborhood characteristics. Questions on health explored the respondents' physical and emotional well-being, past and future attitudes toward health, physical limitations, energy level and appetite, amount of time spent worrying about health, and physical reactions to those worries. Questions about childhood and family background elicited information on family structure, the role of the parents with regard to child rearing, parental education, employment status, and supervisory responsibilities at work, the family financial situation including experiences with the welfare system, relationships with siblings, and whether as a child the respondent slept in the same bed as a parent or adult relative. Questions on religion covered religious preference, whether it is good to explore different religious teachings, and the role of religion in daily decision-making. Questions about race and ethnicity investigated respondents' backgrounds and experiences as minorities, including whether respondents preferred to be with people of the same racial group, how important they thought it was to marry within one's racial or ethnic group, citizenship, reasons for moving to the United States and the challenges faced since their arrival, their native language, how they would rate the work ethic of certain ethnic groups, their views on race relations, and their experiences with discrimination. Questions on personal beliefs probed for respondents' satisfaction with life and confidence in their opinions. Respondents were asked whether they had control over changing their life or their personality, and what age they viewed as the ideal age. They also rated people in their late 20s in the areas of physical health, contribution to the welfare and well-being of others, marriage and close relationships, relationships with their children, work situation, and financial situation. Questions on work experiences covered respondents' employment status, employment history, future employment goals, number of hours worked weekly, number of nights away from home due to work, exposure to the risk of accident or injury, relationships with coworkers and supervisors, work-related stress, and experience with discrimination in the workplace. A series of questions was posed on marriage and close relationships, including marital status, quality and length of relationships, whether the respondent had control over his or her relationships, and spouse/partner's education, physical and mental health, employment status, and work schedule. Questions on finance explored respondents' financial situation, financial planning, household income, retirement plans, insurance coverage, and whether the household had enough money. Questions on children included the number of children in the household, quality of respondents' relationships with their children, prospects for their children's future, child care coverage, and whether respondents had changed their work schedules to accommodate a child's illness. Additional topics focused on children's identification with their culture, their relationships with friends of different backgrounds, and their experiences with racism. Community involvement was another area of investigation, with items on respondents' role in child-rearing, participation on a jury, voting behavior, involvement in charitable organizations, volunteer experiences, whether they made monetary or clothing donations, and experiences living in an institutional setting or being homeless. Respondents were also queried about their neighborhoods, with items on neighborhood problems including racism, vandalism, crime, drugs, poor schools, teenag

This study is part of the American National Election Studies (ANES), a time series collection of national surveys fielded since 1948. The American National Election Studies are designed to present data on Americans' social backgrounds, political predispositions, social and political values, perceptions and evaluations of groups and candidates, opinions on questions of public policy, and participation in political life. The files included in this study are restricted-use due to the race, nationality, immigration, and heritage data contained in them for the year listed in the title.

Between 2016 and 2019, nearly 10 percent of white, non-Hispanic children and adolescents aged 3 to 17 years in the United States reported that they had current anxiety problems, while only two percent of Asian, non-Hispanic children and adolescents reported the same. This statistic displays the percentage of children and adolescents in the U.S. who had or have ever had anxiety problems from 2016 to 2019, by race/ethnicity.

Relative concentration of the Southern California region's Black/African American population. The variable BLACKALN records all individuals who select black or African American as their SOLE racial identity in response to the Census questionnaire, regardless of their response to the Hispanic ethnicity question. Both Hispanic and non-Hispanic in the Census questionnaire are potentially associated with black race alone.

"Relative concentration" is a measure that compares the proportion of population within each Census block group data unit that identify as Black/African American alone to the proportion of all people that live within the 13,312 block groups in the Southern California RRK region that identify as Black/African American alone. Example: if 5.2% of people in a block group identify as BLACKALN, the block group has twice the proportion of BLACKALN individuals compared to the Southern California RRK region (2.6%), and more than three times the proportion compared to the entire state of California (1.6%). If the local proportion is twice the regional proportion, then BLACKALN individuals are highly concentrated locally.

Relative concentration of the Sierra Nevada region's Asian American population. The variable ASIANALN records all individuals who select Asian as their SOLE racial identity in response to the Census questionnaire, regardless of their response to the Hispanic ethnicity question. Both Hispanic and non-Hispanic in the Census questionnaire are potentially associated with the Asian race alone.

"Relative concentration" is a measure that compares the proportion of population within each Census block group data unit that identify as ASIANALN alone to the proportion of all people that live within the 775 block groups in the Sierra Nevada RRK region that identify as ASIANALN alone. Example: if 5.2% of people in a block group identify as HSPBIPOC, the block group has twice the proportion of ASIANALN individuals compared to the Sierra Nevada RRK region (2.6%), and more than three times the proportion compared to the entire state of California (1.6%). If the local proportion is twice the regional proportion, then ASIANALN individuals are highly concentrated locally.

In 2022, around 54 percent of white adults in the United States reported that they had oral health problems. This statistic illustrates the percentage of adults in the United States who reported oral health problems in 2022, by race/ethnicity.

This data set is no longer being updated and is historical, last update 10/10/2022.Provides the percentage of COVID-19 cases by race/ethnicity in Jefferson County, KY. In addition, percentage of Jefferson county vaccine recipients broken out by race/ethnicity, excluding doses administered by Walgreens and CVS clinics. Fieldname Definition race description of race/ethnicity CensusCountPCT percentage of population make-up of Jefferson county ConfirmedCaseCountPCT percentage of confirmed cases by race/ethnicity (rounded to the whole percent) DeceasedCountPCT percentage of deceased cases by race/ethnicity (rounded to the whole percent) RecoveredCountPCT percentage of recovered cases by race/ethnicity (rounded to the whole percent) VaccinatedCountPCT percentage of Jefferson county vaccine recipients by race/ethnicity, excluding doses administered by Walgreens and CVS clinics. (rounded to the whole percent) Loaded Date the data was loaded into the system Note: This data is preliminary, routinely updated, and is subject to change For questions about this data please contact Angela Graham (Angela.Graham@louisvilleky.gov) or YuTing Chen (YuTing.Chen@louisvilleky.gov) or call (502) 574-8279.

This dataset contains several demographic and transportation-related statistics by SCAG County and by race/ethnicity. Demographic data primarily relies on data from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey 5-Year Public User Microdata Sample, 2018-2022. Other data sources include SCAG Connect SoCal 2024, Healthy Places Index 3.0, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Point-In-Time estimates, National Equity Atlas, and Transportation Injury Mapping System. Due to the differences in racial/ethnicity groups reported by each of these sources, this dataset provides all possible race/ethnicity group names and enters a "-1" value where information is not provided for that source. Updates to this dataset are expected annually, dependent on the data source. For all data sourced from Connect SoCal 2024, updates will be made with the adoption of the next Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. For questions about methodology and updates, please e-mail environmentaljustice@scag.ca.gov. With SCAG's Racial Equity Baseline Conditions Report, this dataset is used to help stakeholders develop a deeper understanding of disparities and monitor progress toward addressing them by highlighting past transportation and housing policies and practices and providing a snapshot of current existing inequitable conditions. The latest version of the Racial Equity Baseline Conditions Report (2022) is available here: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/2022racialequitybaselineconditionsreport_final.pdf

A survey from 2023 found that around 14 percent of Black adults in the United States reported missing work or school due to oral health problems. In comparison, just five percent of white adults reported missing work or school because of oral health problems.

Relative concentration of the Sierra Nevada region's Hispanic and/or Black, Indigenous or person of color (HSPBIPOC) population. The variable HSPBIPOC is equivalent to all individuals who select a combination of racial and ethnic identity in response to the Census questionnaire EXCEPT those who select "not Hispanic" for the ethnic identity question, and "white race alone" for the racial identity question. This is the most encompassing possible definition of racial and ethnic identities that may be associated with historic underservice by agencies, or be more likely to express environmental justice concerns (as compared to predominantly non-Hispanic white communities). Until 2021, federal agency guidance for considering environmental justice impacts of proposed actions focused on how the actions affected "racial or ethnic minorities." "Racial minority" is an increasingly meaningless concept in the USA, and particularly so in California, where only about 3/8 of the state's population identifies as non-Hispanic and white race alone - a clear majority of Californians identify as Hispanic and/or not white. Because many federal and state map screening tools continue to rely on "minority population" as an indicator for flagging potentially vulnerable / disadvantaged/ underserved populations, our analysis includes the variable HSPBIPOC which is effectively "all minority" population according to the now outdated federal environmental justice direction. A more meaningful analysis for the potential impact of forest management actions on specific populations considers racial or ethnic populations individually: e.g., all people identifying as Hispanic regardless of race; all people identifying as American Indian, regardless of Hispanic ethnicity; etc.

"Relative concentration" is a measure that compares the proportion of population within each Census block group data unit that identify as HSPBIPOC alone to the proportion of all people that live within the 775 block groups in the Sierra Nevada RRK region that identify as HSPBIPOC alone. Example: if 5.2% of people in a block group identify as HSPBIPOC, the block group has twice the proportion of HSPBIPOC individuals compared to the Sierra Nevada RRK region (2.6%), and more than three times the proportion compared to the entire state of California (1.6%). If the local proportion is twice the regional proportion, then HSPBIPOC individuals are highly concentrated locally.

Note: This data is preliminary, routinely updated, and is subject to change For questions about this data please contact Angela Graham (Angela.Graham@louisvilleky.gov) or YuTing Chen (YuTing.Chen@louisvilleky.gov) or call (502) 574-8279.

The purpose of the study was to examine the following four broad research questions: (1) Are race/ethnic differences in drug arrests explained by race/ethnic differences in drug use, drug sales, non-drug offending, and/or dwelling in high crime neighborhoods? (2) Does drug arrest reduce the likelihood of subsequent drug offending (i.e., drug use, drug sales)? (3) Does arrest negatively affect bonds to employment, education, and marriage? (4) Does the effect of drug arrest on subsequent drug offending and social bonding vary by race/ethnicity?

Release Date: 2022-11-10.The Census Bureau has reviewed this data product for unauthorized disclosure of confidential information and has approved the disclosure avoidance practices applied (Approval ID: CBDRB-FY22-308)...Release Schedule:.Data in this file come from estimates of business ownership by sex, ethnicity, race, and veteran status from the 2021 Annual Business Survey (ABS) collection. Data are also obtained from administrative records, the 2017 Economic Census, and other economic surveys...Note: The collection year is the year in which the data are collected. A reference year is the year that is referenced in the questions on the survey and in which the statistics are tabulated. For example, the 2021 ABS collection year produces statistics for the 2020 reference year. The "Year" column in the table is the reference year...For more information about ABS planned data product releases, see Tentative ABS Schedule...Key Table Information:.The data include U.S. firms with paid employees operating during the reference year with receipts of $1,000 or more, which are classified in the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), Sectors 11 through 99, except for NAICS 111, 112, 482, 491, 521, 525, 813, 814, and 92 which are not covered. Employer firms with more than one domestic establishment are counted in each geographic area and industry in which they operate, but only once in the U.S. and state totals for all sectors. Employment reflects the number of paid employees during the pay period in the reference year that included March 12...Data Items and Other Identifying Records:.Data include estimates on:.Number of employer firms (firms with paid employees). Sales and receipts of employer firms (reported in $1,000s of dollars). Number of employees (during the March 12 pay period). Annual payroll (reported in $1,000s of dollars)...These data are aggregated by the following demographic classifications of firm for:.All firms. Classifiable (firms classifiable by sex, ethnicity, race, and veteran status). . Sex. Female. Male. Equally male/female. . Ethnicity. Hispanic. Equally Hispanic/non-Hispanic. Non-Hispanic. . Race. White. Black or African American. American Indian and Alaska Native. Asian. Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander. Minority (Firms classified as any race and ethnicity combination other than non-Hispanic and White). Equally minority/nonminority. Nonminority (Firms classified as non-Hispanic and White). . Veteran Status (defined as having served in any branch of the U.S. Armed Forces). Veteran. Equally veteran/nonveteran. Nonveteran. . . . Unclassifiable (firms not classifiable by sex, ethnicity, race, and veteran status). ...Data Notes:.. Business ownership is defined as having 51 percent or more of the stock or equity in the business. Data are provided for businesses owned equally (50% / 50%) by men and women, by Hispanics and non-Hispanics, by minorities and nonminorities, and by veterans and nonveterans. Firms not classifiable by sex, ethnicity, race, and veteran status are counted and tabulated separately.. The detail may not add to the total or subgroup total because a Hispanic or Latino firm may be of any race, and because a firm could be tabulated in more than one racial group. For example, if a firm responded as both Chinese and Black majority owned, the firm would be included in the detailed Asian and Black estimates but would only be counted once toward the higher level all firms' estimates.. References such as "Hispanic- or Latino-owned" businesses refer only to businesses operating in the 50 states and the District of Columbia that self-identified 51 percent or more of their ownership in 2020 to be by individuals of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban or other Hispanic or Latino origin. The ABS does not distinguish between U.S. residents and nonresidents. Companies owned by foreign governments or owned by other companies, foreign or domestic, are included in the category "Unclassifiable."...Industry and Geography Coverage:..The data are shown for the total for all sectors (00) and 2-digit NAICS code levels for:..United States. States and the District of Columbia. Metropolitan Statistical Areas...Data are also shown for the 3- and 4-digit NAICS code for:..United States. States and the District of Columbia...For more information about NAICS, see NAICS Codes & Understanding Industry Classification Systems. For information about geographies used by economic programs at the Census Bureau, see Economic Census: Economic Geographies...Footnotes:.Footnote 660 - Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting (Sector 11): Crop and Animal Production (NAICS 111 and 112) are out of scope..Footnote 661 - Transportation and warehousing...

Background: Ancestry is often viewed as a more objective and less objectionable population descriptor than race or ethnicity. Perhaps reflecting this, usage of the term “ancestry” is rapidly growing in genetics research, with ancestry groups referenced in many situations. The appropriate usage of population descriptors in genetics research is an ongoing source of debate. Sound normative guidance should rest on an empirical understanding of current usage; in the case of ancestry, questions about how researchers use the concept, and what they mean by it, remain unanswered.Methods: Systematic literature analysis of 205 articles at least tangentially related to human health from diverse disciplines that use the concept of ancestry, and semi-structured interviews with 44 lead authors of some of those articles.Results: Ancestry is relied on to structure research questions and key methodological approaches. Yet researchers struggle to define it, and/or offer diverse definitions. For some ancestry is a genetic concept, but for many—including geneticists—ancestry is only tangentially related to genetics. For some interviewees, ancestry is explicitly equated to ethnicity; for others it is explicitly distanced from it. Ancestry is operationalized using multiple data types (including genetic variation and self-reported identities), though for a large fraction of articles (26%) it is impossible to tell which data types were used. Across the literature and interviews there is no consistent understanding of how ancestry relates to genetic concepts (including genetic ancestry and population structure), nor how these genetic concepts relate to each other. Beyond this conceptual confusion, practices related to summarizing patterns of genetic variation often rest on uninterrogated conventions. Continental labels are by far the most common type of label applied to ancestry groups. We observed many instances of slippage between reference to ancestry groups and racial groups.Conclusion: Ancestry is in practice a highly ambiguous concept, and far from an objective counterpart to race or ethnicity. It is not uniquely a “biological” construct, and it does not represent a “safe haven” for researchers seeking to avoid evoking race or ethnicity in their work. Distinguishing genetic ancestry from ancestry more broadly will be a necessary part of providing conceptual clarity.

BackgroundAddressing contemporary anti-Asian racism and its impacts on health requires understanding its historical roots, including discriminatory restrictions on immigration, citizenship, and land ownership. Archival secondary data such as historical census records provide opportunities to quantitatively analyze structural dynamics that affect the health of Asian immigrants and Asian Americans. Census data overcome weaknesses of other data sources, such as small sample size and aggregation of Asian subgroups. This article explores the strengths and limitations of early twentieth-century census data for understanding Asian Americans and structural racism.MethodsWe used California census data from three decennial census spanning 1920–1940 to compare two criteria for identifying Asian Americans: census racial categories and Asian surname lists (Chinese, Indian, Japanese, Korean, and Filipino) that have been validated in contemporary population data. This paper examines the sensitivity and specificity of surname classification compared to census-designated “color or race” at the population level.ResultsSurname criteria were found to be highly specific, with each of the five surname lists having a specificity of over 99% for all three census years. The Chinese surname list had the highest sensitivity (ranging from 0.60–0.67 across census years), followed by the Indian (0.54–0.61) and Japanese (0.51–0.62) surname lists. Sensitivity was much lower for Korean (0.40–0.45) and Filipino (0.10–0.21) surnames. With the exception of Indian surnames, the sensitivity values of surname criteria were lower for the 1920–1940 census data than those reported for the 1990 census. The extent of the difference in sensitivity and trends across census years vary by subgroup.DiscussionSurname criteria may have lower sensitivity in detecting Asian subgroups in historical data as opposed to contemporary data as enumeration procedures for Asians have changed across time. We examine how the conflation of race, ethnicity, and nationality in the census could contribute to low sensitivity of surname classification compared to census-designated “color or race.” These results can guide decisions when operationalizing race in the context of specific research questions, thus promoting historical quantitative study of Asian American experiences. Furthermore, these results stress the need to situate measures of race and racism in their specific historical context.

Understanding Society, (UK Household Longitudinal Study), which began in 2009, is conducted by the Institute for Social and Economic Research (ISER) at the University of Essex and the survey research organisations Verian Group (formerly Kantar Public) and NatCen. It builds on and incorporates, the British Household Panel Survey (BHPS), which began in 1991.

This is a teaching resource for those who are new to data analysis. It is a step-by-step guide starting from exploring a survey, understanding the structure of the survey data and then using the data to do some simple exercises to measure differences in health and wellbeing across ethnic groups. The survey used here is Understanding Society: the UK Household Longitudinal Study which interviews individuals in the sampled households every year. To make it easier to use the teaching dataset accompanying this teaching resource only includes responses given by adults (16+ year olds) during the first interview to questions about ethnicity, health and wellbeing and some key socio-demographic characteristics such as age, sex, education, income, labour market status etc. The statistical software used to construct the dataset is Stata, but it is also available to download in SPSS and tab-delimited text formats.

Nandi, Alita and Wiltshire, Deborah. (2019). "Teaching Resource: Analysing ethnic differences in health using data from Understanding Society".

For information on the main Understanding Society study, see SN 6614, Understanding Society and Harmonised BHPS.

Latest edition information
For the second edition (August 2020), updated data and documentation files were deposited.