Why making the 2011 census long form voluntary is a bad idea

Apparently I'm not the only one who thinks that the idea of sending out a voluntary long form in next year's census is a bad idea. Since this seems to be a file to which I will be returning from time to time, here are a couple of points to consider:

1) Yes, it is a big deal. If response rates vary with the income and education levels, then you won't have a random sample of income and education levels. There is a rather large amount of evidence in the sampling design literature documenting the fact that people with lower levels of education and income have lower response rates, and so these groups will be systematically under-sampled.

Sample selection bias is a recurring problem for virtually all surveys in which participation is not mandatory, and it is possible to correct for it - but only if you know the true distribution of the underlying distribution. For example, if you know that those in poverty are (say) 10% of the population and only 5% of your sample, you can re-weight your observations to make the sample representative. But in order to do this, you need to know that the 'true' proportion is in fact 10%. Usually, the source for this sort of information is the census. But if the census itself suffers from selection bias, there's no easy way to fix it.

2) Concerns about privacy are overstated. Anyone who has had dealings with Statistics Canada will tell you that they are ferociously - and at times irritatingly - determined to protect the privacy of those whose information is stored in their data bases. Researchers never see the data. They are obliged to send their estimation codes to StatsCan professionals, who run the programs and return the output to the researcher. That goes for all other non-StatsCan government employees as well.

And if the question requires looking at a subsample that is so small that there's a chance that individual respondents could be identified, then the request is refused.

3) The implications are more wide-ranging than you might think. According to popular cliché, we are evolving towards a 'knowledge economy' - and knowledge requires data.  And the usefulness of much of these data depends crucially on the anchor of a reliable census. Here is an incomplete list of people who need this information:

• Investors. Suppose you're planning to start a business somewhere, and a crucial factor is a supply of well-educated workers.
• Marketers. Yes, it's all good fun to mock marketers, but if they can't identify what will sell, people lose their jobs.
• Policy-makers at all levels of government. How do we know if a school's poor performance can be explained by socio-economic factors if we don't have reliable data for income and education levels?
• Academic researchers. 'Nuff said.

The federal government made this move without consulting the people who use census data. It should reconsider and reverse its decision.

Comments

[CD]

Another group: Future historians and genealogists. Particularly given that the new census regulations don't declassify the information after 92 years, which is going to create a lot of problems down the road.

[Hal Jam]

If a voluntary long form census is such a bad idea (and it obviously would be a largely wasted exercise for the statistical reason mentioned), then ditch it entirely and just distribute the existing short-form census to everyone. Why?

1) The existing long-form census is so incredibly intrusive there is an incentive for respondents to not fill it out accurately or completely.

If the accuracy or completeness of responses vary with income and education levels, then you won't have a random sample of income and education levels. There is a rather large amount of evidence in the sampling design literature documenting the fact that people with lower levels of education and income are less likely to complete long-form style surveys accurately or completely, and so these groups will be systematically mis-sampled.

In some parts of Canada, such as Aboriginal communities (but not only), StatsCan representatives, including locally recruited temporary workers, usually fill out the long-form census for the respondents (by interviewing them and filling in the responses) precisely in order to ensure accuracy and completeness ... which brings us to the second issue ...

2) Concerns about privacy are NOT overstated.

Even if one accepts that "Statistics Canada ... are ferociously - and at times irritatingly - determined to protect the privacy of those whose information is stored in their data bases", that does not address the question of who has access to the information BEFORE it reaches the StatsCan database. As already noted, in many places across Canada – usually in precisely those disadvantaged places that the partisans of a mandatory long-form census cite as justifying such detailed data collection – local temporary StatsCan contract employees have direct access to their neighbours' responses as a normal and routine part of data collection.

This need to provide assistance in poorly educated, immigrant, and Aboriginal communities to complete a mandatory long-form census in effect requires respondents to divulge their most personal information to some of their neighbours, making a complete mockery of claims that their privacy is respected.

3) "The federal government made this move without consulting the people who use census data."

Whatever the politics of the decision, it would be most interesting to consult the people who are PROVIDING the data in the first place. It would have been interesting to see the results of an additional question added to past long forms: "As a respondent of this long form, do you agree that in a future census long forms should continue to be mandatory? Yes or No".

In the absence of such information, the selfish nature of a great deal of the argument in favour of mandatory long forms is self-evident. 'Nuff said.

[Jim Rootham]

That is a use of the term "selfish" that I was previously unfamiliar with.

[Hal Jam]

No comment on the sampling bias and privacy concerns issues pointed out in reply?

Rather avoid them by apprising us of your new-found awareness of the use of "selfish" as a synonym for "self-absorbed" ...

[Winston]

I don't understand how your premise that the long-form census mis-samples the poor and less-educated leads to the conclusion that it should be abolished. If anything, your premise suggests that we should hire more StatsCan workers to pry information from uncooperative respondents.

Also, nobody has to divulge his or her census data to "neighbours." Like most people, one can simply fill out the form oneself, seal it, and throw it in the nearest mailbox. Privacy concern solved.

If you're opposed to the long-form from purely from a philosophical standpoint, just say so. No need to beat around the bush.

[Mike Moffatt]

Idea: If submitting the long form made you eligible to win some form of lottery, you'd probably get a response rate close to what we have now. Particularly for lower income households.

[Frances Woolley]

Both the long and short forms for 2006 can be downloaded here.

For genealogical research, the existing short form is actually less useful than some of the ones from 100 years ago because it doesn't have occupation.

Some sample selection biases can be corrected with population weights. The short form census has information on age, for example, so it's possible to tell whether young people or old people fill out the long form more often. If older people are more likely to complete the long form than younger people, then by weighting young people more heavily than old people, the resulting picture will be more or less representative of the population as a whole.

Population weights can be used for anything that's in the short form - so age, gender, household size, marital status, first language, postal code (a super-powerful ninja variable). But not education, income, etc, except to the extent that they're captured through another variable like postal code.

[Barnaby]

"The statistical history of modern times proves that in times of depression concentration of business speeds up. Bigger business then has larger opportunity to grow still bigger at the expense of smaller competitors who are weakened by financial adversity.

The danger of this centralization in a handful of huge corporations is not reduced or eliminated, as is sometimes urged, by the wide public distribution of their securities. The mere number of security-holders gives little clue to the size of their individual holdings or to their actual ability to have a voice in the management. In fact the concentration of stock ownership of corporations in the hands of a tiny minority of the population matches the concentration of corporate assets."

Franklin D. Roosevelt
Message to Congress on Curbing Monopolies.
April 29, 1938
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=15637

[Hal Jam]

@ Winston

"I don't understand how your premise that the long-form census mis-samples the poor and less-educated leads to the conclusion that it should be abolished. If anything, your premise suggests that we should hire more StatsCan workers to pry information from uncooperative respondents."

In other words magnify the existing privacy issues I identified?

"Also, nobody has to divulge his or her census data to "neighbours." Like most people, one can simply fill out the form oneself, seal it, and throw it in the nearest mailbox. Privacy concern solved."

You need to read more carefully. A great many Canadians - disproportionately found amongst some of the groups I mentioned (poorly educated, immigrant, and Aboriginal people) - have trouble balancing a chequebook or properly filling out a simple tax return ... and yet you would blithely have them "simply fill out the [long] form [themselves], seal it, and throw it in the nearest mailbox..." Tell me exactly how that would improve data quality?

There is a reason why StatsCan organizes local community liaison workers to help people fill out their census forms – and yes, it is StatsCan itself that does it! - ... because a great many people find filling them out (particularly the long form) to be a daunting exercise. So even if those people are happy to divulge the mass of data requested, they are doing so to their neighbours. And what if they do not wish to so reveal that much ...

The extent to which the data geeks here appear out of touch with how ordinary people often perceive the census experience is truly breathtaking.

You can't seem to understand the irreducible conflict between accuracy and privacy for people who have difficulty filling out the long form - some of the very people for whom the extensive data collection of the long form is justified (Nicely paternalistic, no? We'll help you disadvantaged people by census information gathering, but you get to reveal your lives to the neighbours who help you fill out the forms as the price for that help ...) ...

... And in the previous blog on the same subject we read Alice Woolley proclaiming that "I would note, as a hard core geek, I rather enjoy filling in the long form census, and am a bit disappointed if I only get the short form. I want to be counted, dammit." ... quaere how many Canadians would rather the "disappointment" of the short form ...

[Patrick]

Hal Jam:

What's your angle?

What exactly is it that bothers you so much about smart people using data to do research? How else do you propose having substantive debate and discussion about policy? Would you prefer to leave it to ignorant people who make stuff up?

In any case, you haven't actually stated what specific problems you think dropping the mandatory long form solves. It was used in 2006 and, as far as I am aware, Canadian society didn't come crumbling down under the weight of StatsCan knowing when my house was built (1978), that my ancestors are Welsh coalminers and Irish peasants, and that I earned $0 income from dividends. Heck, if they wanted to know most of the stuff on the form, all they'd have to do is buy me a beer at the local pub and ask!

[Bob Smith]

Stephen,

I think you misrepresent the privacy concern. It isn't that researchers might misuse the information - as you point out, you don't have access to the raw data and it is zealously guarded by Statscan. The concern is that Statscan or its employees might misuse the data.

Stepping back from the more extreme concerns that such personal information might be misused by the government for some broader sinister purpose (which, while it may sound ludicrous to Canada ears is, unfortunately, historically well-founded given the experiences of other, less-enlighted, countries), the notion that such information might be misused by statscan employees is well-founded.

Let me give a recent example in a similar context. There was a story in the Toronto Star (and other papers) last month about Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) employees who were improperly accessing tax information about friends, family, ex-spouses and potential business partners (http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/826154--rogue-tax-workers-snooped-on-ex-spouses-family-members). Some of that may have been "harmless" snooping or to help with the tax problems of families and friends (which, is certainly abusive, if not "harmful" to the persons involved) but some was clearly done for improper purposes (checking on ex-spouses, business partners, creditors, etc.). Nor is this an isolated incident, every so often one hears stories about government employees (often employees of the tax authorities) fishing for information about others (there was a scandal in the US a few years ago involving IRS employees routinely reviewing the files of celebrities).

That the CRA (or the IRS, for that matter) zeolously guards that information, and that it is technically a criminal offense to assess that information for improper purpose, doesn't appear to have deterred CRA employees from misusing the information collected by the government (the newspaper article doesn't disclose what disciplinary measures were taken, but there was at least some suggestion that the employees weren't all dismissed immediately - as they should have been - and the fact that charges weren't laid, at least as of yet, tends to undermine ones faith that the government will prevent such breaches of privacy).

Now, sure, it's probably easier for CRA employees to access this sort of data than for statscan employees (they regularly access such information for legitimate purposes - I suspect statscan employees don't access raw data as frequently), nevertheless, the point remains that the concern that some government employee might (mis)use your personal information is well-founded, no matter what safeguards are put in place.

Moreover, the whole point about privacy is that it violated any time you are compelled to provide otherwise private information to someone else. At most you can say that there are safeguards in place to limit the extent of the breach of you privacy and to limit the possible harm flowing from that breach, not that there's no reason for concern about your privacy - it is clearly violated. And, as the experience of the CRA shows, those safeguards don't always work.

[Bob Smith]

And, on further reflection, the concern about improper use of census data should probably include persons, other than statscan employees, who might be able to access that data for their own purposes. I mean the reality is that information, in all its forms, is probably one of the most valuable commodities out there today - you make that point yourself. I'm sure there's no shortage of people who would love to be able to get their hands on that raw data (question h8(d) of the 2006 long-form, for example, dealing with subjective valuation of real estate, could be a gold-mine for realtors or property speculators).

While I'm sure that Statscan takes every precaution possible to ensure that such information isn't stolen or misplaced, no system is 100% foolproof. Unless you're willing to declare that Statscan data is safer than data held by the Pentagon, big banks, tax authorities etc. (all of whom seem to have data go missing or get hacked every few years), you can't dismiss the privacy concern.

[Bob Smith]

And finally, I think people might have slightly more confidence in the privacy provisions of the Statistics Act if the punishment for breaching them had any teeth. For the most part, though, unless you're misusing census information to try to manipulate the stock market (or doing something similar - which is probably illegal under other provisions as well) at most your facing a 6 month sentence (and, this being Canada, the likelihood of actually serving such a sentence isn't high).

[Stephen Gordon]

as the experience of the CRA shows, those safeguards don't always work.

I'm unconvinced: as you note, the CRA is set up quite differently than StatsCan. I'm not aware of any comparable incident involving census data.

[Bob Smith]

"I'm not aware of any comparable incident involving census data."

Until two weeks ago, I wouldn't have been aware of incidents of misuse of CRA data (the incidents involving the IRS have been around for years). That wouldn't have meant that they didn't happen.

In any event, I am aware of comparable incidents involving census data, thanks in no small part to my keen computer science skills, namely the ability to "google". A few minutes of googling reveals that Statscan has previously confirmed that some of its completed census forms had been stolen by identity thieves(http://www.cjad.com/news/565/790755). It's not obvious that Stats Canada knew about the theft, since they didn't confirm the story until 6 months after the busted happened. That certainly raises concerns about what else Statscan might not know. The same google search reveals that the US Census Bureau has on several occasions "lost" data. This story (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/22/national/main2032797.shtml) reveals that in the previous 5 years the Census Bureau had "lost" over 1,100 laptops which could contain confidential information (it also demonstrates the extent of the problem in other US government departments).

I don't know about you, but I'd consider those to be cause for concern.

And while I previously dismissed the nutbar "the government is going to use this information to destroy us" theories, one second though, we shouldn't be so quick to do so. If I were of Arab descent, for example, I might be reluctant to complete the census form (and certainly to complete it accurately) if I read this story in the New York Times ("Homeland Security Given Data on Arab-Americans" http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/30/politics/30census.html). Certainly, if I were of Jewish or Japanese descent I would be reluctant to complete the census form (or, again, to do so accurately) if I had a passing knowledge of the use made by the Nazis or the US government (and proably the Canadian government too, for all I know), respectively, of national census records at that time. I understand the benefits of mandatory census data, but as a reasonably clever economist once said: "the power to do good is also the power to do harm". I can understand why people might decide to take their chances with neither.

[Bob Smith]

sorry, the first sentence of the last paragraph should read "on second thought". My apologies.

[Patrick]

It was bound to happen. Here we go with the Nazis. By Bob's line of reasoning, census leads to Nazisism. What a load of rubbish. Do you honestly think that in the absence of census data that the Nazis would have thrown in the towel? I can see it now:

Hitler: "How are our plans for genocide progressing?"
Himmler: "Ok, but it'd be much more efficient if we had an accurate census ..."
Hitler: "What!? Well then, call the whole thing off and let's go to the opera instead."

Bob, you need to get a grip.

[Stephen Gordon]

Bob, no-one doubts that these are valid concerns, which is why StatsCan goes through so much trouble to address them. I don't mind admitting that the costs are strictly positive - the point is that they are much less than the benefits.

[Young man.]

The Census long for is intrusive, and unnecessary for electoral redistribution purposes. It's a big data gathering exercise for researchers and marketers, paid for by the public and using the government's co-ercive powers. There' no justification for criminal penalties for someone who doesn't want to aid a university prof's research agenda by revealing their innermost life details.

Making it voluntary reflects its relative importance.

[Bob Smith]

Patrick: "By Bob's line of reasoning, census leads to Nazisism"

I said nothing of the sort, I only pointed out that census data was misused by Nazis for their own evil purposes, as it was misused by the American government (and possibly the Canadian government) for the purposes of interning their citizens of Japanese descent (which, to the credit of the US Census bureau, it has apologized for). Census data doesn't lead to the Holocaust, but it was certainly used by the Nazies in perpetrating it. And if we wanted to spend some time on the suject, we could probably find numerous other examples of census data being historically (and, if you believe the New York Times - that agent of the Harper government - presently) misused by governments, often to the significant prejudice of minority members of those societies. If you want to override people's fundemental right to privacy by making the utilitarian argument that there are benefits to the collection of census data, that's fine, but then you can't just dismiss the realities of the potential for the misuse of such data. What was George Santayana's line about those who cannot remember the past?

In any event, regardless of your thoughts on the risks posed by the collection of census data, people can be reasonably forgiven for not wanting to give the government detailed information about their ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability what have you, given that history.

[Hal Jam]

@ Patrick

"What exactly is it that bothers you so much about smart people using data to do research?"

Er ... you did actually read what I wrote, didn't you? I have no trouble with "smart people using data to do research" – but I do have a great deal of trouble with how the collection of that data (using community workers to assist in form completion) necessarily and grossly violates the privacy of Canadians ... as I clearly explained ...

"Would you prefer to leave it to ignorant people who make stuff up?"

Given the decidedly intrusive nature of the long form and the potential for hassles or worse from not completing it, how do you know that people have not been making stuff up on the long form all along, to avoid revealing details of their lives they'd rather not? And even if data geekdom prevents you from accepting the appalling truth that not everyone finds fulfillment in revealing details of their lives ...

How do you know that people have not simply been making mistakes in completing the long form all along? If they weren't, would StatsCan go through the expense and effort of hiring and training community workers to assist them in doing so correctly?

"In any case, you haven't actually stated what specific problems you think dropping the mandatory long form solves."

Oh, I think I spelled that out rather clearly, if I say so myself. Go back and (re-?) read how the complexity of the mandatory long form effectively forced many thousands of Canadians to drop any privacy expectations with respect to neighbours every census in order to meet the requirement that it be completely and accurately filled out. No mandatory long form, no more invasion of privacy for those people ...

[Andrew F]

It seems to me that the concern about neighbours helping people complete the long form could be addressed by setting up a call centre and giving everyone a anonymizing number. It could even be an automated system, with human assistance if requested. This sounds like a red herring to me, anyway.

[Hal Jam]

On a more general note:

If the commentary on this blog (both here and following "An incredibly stupid decision on the 2011 census") are any indication, the proponents of a mandatory long form might want to rethink their arguments if they wish to appeal to the great mass of ordinary Canadians ... i.e., those not given to ecstatic outpourings at the data nirvana of the census. Assuming that the geeks posting here actually care about what the subjects forced to provide all that lovely data actually think, of course ...?

1) Address the concerns raised by Bob Smith in his posts here. Going on at length about what researchers get to see is probably of interest only to other researchers (and is symptomatic of the self-absorption hereabouts ...) – instead, spell out in detail how their personal details will not be revealed to police, tax and immigration authorities, social assistance, etc., either directly or indirectly (pursuant to a court order, for example).

2) Pressure StatsCan to improve the way data is collected amongst the most vulnerable. Forcing people, who might have difficulty correctly filling out a long form by themselves, to do so in effect "publicly" through the use of locally recruited community worker interviewers is a gross violation of their privacy, no matter how well-intentioned the data collection is.

3) Drop reference to "marketers" in listing the importance of census data. Does anyone here who faces the daily barrage of telemarketing, spam, and forest-destroying junk mail really believe that most Canadians will find the incentive to fill out a long form, mandatory or voluntary, in order to provide data to marketers? Seriously?

4) Drop reference to "Academic researchers." It's too blatantly self-serving, and doesn't do your argument any favours in some regions and among some demographics. 'Nuff said.

[Patrick]

Bob: "give the government detailed information about their ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability what have you, given that history"

Again, that's absolute rubbish. Pencils have been used for many a nefarious deed, ought we to ban pencils? Do you really think that the Japanese Canadians wouldn't have been packed-off to camps sans the census?

Hal Jam:

Again, I ask what's your angle here? Your argument is bizarre. Who are these 'disadvantaged' you claim to be championing by saying they are too stupid to fill out the long form? Do you have any actual data to support the claim that armies of these 'disadvantaged' are being further victimized by the census? Looks to me like you're just making stuff-up.

[westslope]

Hey everybody! I thought there was an elite consensus to not politically screw with the data? Isn't that a fundamental part of what makes us a rich, advanced, developed nation? What happened to that elite consensus?

The populist and righteous Harper government got itself elected, eh? Or would this change have come about regardless of the party in power?

[Patrick]

westslope: Reality has a well known liberal bias. Gotta make it fair and balanced, even if that means fudging it.

[Gareth Morley]

There are costs and benefits on both sides. The fact is that coercing people to provide information about themselves is a big deal. As a society, we have decided to let murderers go free rather than require suspects to answer questions. That choice can be questioned, but I wish the people in favour of extracting information on pain of imprisonment from presumptively law-abiding people would leave off with the rhetoric about paranoia and wingnuts. In BC, at least, distrust of the state is pretty mainstream - on right and left.

[Stephen Gordon]

So what happened between 2006 and now to tip the scales from 'tolerable infringement' to 'intolerable infringement'?

[matt]

@Andrew F

You said "instead, spell out in detail how their personal details will not be revealed to police, tax and immigration authorities, social assistance, etc., either directly or indirectly (pursuant to a court order, for example)."

From the Statcan website:

"As the national statistical agency, Statistics Canada takes strong measures to ensure that the confidentiality and security of data provided by individuals, businesses and organizations are carefully protected.

All Statistics Canada employees take an oath of secrecy and face severe penalties for any breach of confidentiality. Employees who break the oath may be fined and/or jailed for up to six months.

Information collected under the Statistics Act cannot be disclosed under the Access to Information Act or any other act. The Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the courts do not have access to survey responses.

Statistics Canada publishes data as statistical summaries, tables and graphs. No data that could identify an individual, business or organization, are published without the knowledge or consent of the individual, business or organization."

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/edu/power-pouvoir/ch7/5214810-eng.htm#a4

[matt]

I apologize, my last post was for Hal Jam not Andrew F

[matt]

From the Winnipeg Free Press:

"The Federation of Canadian Municipalities expressed surprise at not being consulted. It has been working closely with Statistics Canada on a project to increase accessibility to municipal data.

“Municipalities use the census like a GPS to navigate on-the-ground changes in our communities – to see where we need better bus service, to build affordable housing, or set up support programs for new Canadians," CEO Brock Carlton said in an emailed statement. "There’s a real concern that these changes are going to make it harder for us to meet the needs of Canadians – we need to know the federal government isn’t going to let that happen.”

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/municipal-social-planners-caught-off-guard-by-census-slash-97514599.html

So for those that agree with this move by the Conservative government, how exactly would you obtain the above information?

[Guy]

To municipal planners - ask your province to provide population data by postal code. Vital Statistics are updated daily: the census every 5 years with a 2 year lag for processing. For example, in June 2006 my neighborhood had a population of about 200; in June 2007 the population was about 2000. This would not be captured by a census until 2011 and usable as information until 2013. This means that the census information is useless in terms of planning.

StatsCan hires local canvassers. Even if the forms are mailed, the canvassers are given forms for review to ensure completeness. Maybe I don't want my neighbor to know how much I make, just because I believe it is my right to privacy.

There was a very well organized campaign in 2006 to have Canadians provide mis-information on their census forms, in particular the long forms. So the 2006 information is tainted, as several thousand Canadians did just that. I would think that anyone who voluntarily fills in the long form would be truthful with their answers. Therefore, while potentially a smaller sample size, the data will be of a higher quality and more useful.

[Bob Smith]

Of course, municipalities might also make decisions in response to political pressures (you know, the way they actually do).

I can't speak for anyone else here, but if schools(or buses, or social housing, or roads, or hospitals, or take your pick) in my neighbourhood are inadequate, I don't wait 7 years for a new census to reveal that fact (much less another 5 for anyone to do something about it), I send a letter to my local school board trustee (or city counsellor, mayor, MP, MPP, etc.) telling them to get their act together.

[Bob Smith]

A couple of points.

First, before we get all hot and bothered about the effect of voluntary completion of the long-form will have on data quality, let's keep in mind that the existing data is almost certainly not representative, given that, according to Statscan, it understate's Canada's population by a good 1,000,000 people (3.1%). Since we don't know anything about the nature of the non-responders (Statscan suggests that they're people who are on vacation during the census period, they could be people who just say "the hell with this" knowing that they're unlikely to actually be prosecuted), the data selection problem that Stephen identifies already exists.

Will making the long-form voluntary aggravate that problem? Maybe, thought that depends on how many people are likely to refuse to complete it. If that number is high, sure, data quality will suffer (though, by the same token, if the refusal rate is high, that suggests that many Canadians, not just lone nutjobs, find the long-form burdensome and invasive - which suggests that we may be understating the apparent cost to Canadians of completing it). If the number is a few thousand paranoid conspiracy theorists, than will data quality really be materially affected (given that we're already missing a million people or so)?

Finally, on the planning point, even accepting that census data may be important for planning purposes, query to what extent the data contained in the long-form census is helpful in that regard. I certainly hope that local governments aren't making schooling, bussing, or housing decisions on the basis of the ethnicity of their constituents! Do a lot of municipal decisions turn on people's self assessment of the value of their houses? To be sure, the count data and basic demographic data would be of obvious relevance (even if it might be 7 years out of date), but since that information is also contained in the still mandatory short-form census, that really isn't at issue here.

[Patrick]

"The fact is that coercing people to provide information about themselves is a big deal. As a society, we have decided to let murderers go free rather than require suspects to answer questions"

Ah yes. Another example of stuff that people KNOW, absolutely KNOW to be true, only it isn't really even remotely true if you check the facts. Firstly, there is a constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure. See Prof. Alice Woolley's (Prof. of Law at U of C) comment on an earlier thread about why the census likely wouldn't constitute and unreasonable search and seizure. Feel free to challenge it in court though. As for the second claim, it's flat out wrong. The state has the power to compel testimony by issuing a subpoena.

Bob Smith: 'squeaky wheel get's the grease' decision making is precisely the kind of selection bias one should avoid. You're actually making a case for collecting data and making informed decisions!

[matt]

So now it appears that Census data has some relevance, just not the data from the long form?

Please see the following story:

" The Canadian Institute of Planners (CIP) sent a letter to Minister of Industry, Hon. Tony Clement expressing its concern and requesting that the Conservative government reverse its decision to eliminate the long-form questionnaire in the 2011 Census.

Census data is an essential tool for Canada's professional planners in supporting the provision of transportation, infrastructure, social services and economic development across the country. These changes, and the resulting selection bias, will affect the validity and accessibility of data, which has serious implications for shaping sustainable communities in Canada. Planners are concerned that marginalized communities will be under-represented in the voluntary survey, and this will negatively affect decision-making."

http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/July2010/05/c2131.html

So, I'm guessing they think a letter from one household complaining about a local issue just isn't going to cut it. Though I would love to be there as some city planner sifted through hundreds of such letters trying to determine the "facts". Is this group (are we all agreed that Census data appeals to more than researchers?) involved in a conspiracy to rob Canadians of their privacy?

And just to set the record straight, 80 to 85% (2011 target) of Canadians have the option of returning their completed Census form via the mail (or internet where it is available) without having their their local enumerator (who could be their neighbour) looking at their information.

https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/gen/2011-census-recencement-eng.cfm

[Bob Smith]

Patrick,

I think the word you're looking for, rather than "squeaky wheel gets the grease", is "democracy", hardly something to be avoided. Unless, that it, you think the world would be better place if we were all governed by technocrats.

Matt,

No one is suggesting that there is a "conspiracy" to rob Canadians of their privacy. But the effect of the long-form census is to do precisely that. It's not the intent, but the result that matters.

In any event, I would imagine that the Canadian Institute of Planners puts a great deal of emphasis on the long-form census for the same reason Stephen does, because it is essential to THEIR work (and for much the same reason prison guards are big advocates of tougher sentences for criminals). That certainly reflects their perception of what is important, but it's important to recognize that there's an element of self-interest there (nothing wrong with that, we're all guitly of it, but let's recognize it for what it is).

They also suggest that it would hinder THEIR ability to shape sustainable communities. Maybe, but since "sustainable communities" (a weasel word if ever there was one) has emerged, more or less organically, since the dawn of time despite the absence of modern censuses (much less the existence of professional planners - indeed, the most enjoyable neighbourhoods in Canada, in my experience at least, are those which pre-date the abuses of modern urban planning), I do wonder how much weight we should give to that somewhat self-serving assertion.

Furthermore, the fact that 80-85% of Canadians have the option of returning their completed census forms by mail (or internet) isn't likely to be of much comfort to the remaining 15-20%, is it? And that's assuming that one has faith in the postal service (you might not if you or someone you know has ever had your mail intercepted or stolen) or the security of the internet (because, no data has ever been stolen over the internet, right?).

[Patrick]

Bob Smith: First the Nazi card, then the Democracy trump. Sigh.

So you're seriously saying you don't want Democratic decision making informed by facts and data? I take it you'd prefer that whoever yells the loudest wins? Or maybe the guy with the biggest stick and most impressive bulge in his loin cloth?

[matt]

@Bob Smith

You said: "No one is suggesting that there is a "conspiracy" to rob Canadians of their privacy. But the effect of the long-form census is to do precisely that."

Well, that's one opinion. You should be more precise, "robbing" one fifth of Canadians. Think of it as taking one for the team.

"because it is essential to THEIR work" "but it's important to recognize that there's an element of self-interest there"

Ok, we've recognized that there's an "element" of self-interest. So those that support the long form are then mostly driven by factors that would be considered as not benefiting some sort of personal self-interest whether it's economic, intellectual, etc? Agreed?

Certainly, there's an element of self-interest in your own expressed opposition to the long form. Question is, what has better served Canadians? And just don't ask those self-interested researchers (oh, and now those self-interested city planners too!!), view the opinions expressed by the editorial boards of newspapers, businesses etc. Let me guess, you have a problem with them as well...

"indeed, the most enjoyable neighbourhoods in Canada, in my experience at least, are those which pre-date the abuses of modern urban planning), I do wonder how much weight we should give to that somewhat self-serving assertion."

Just to be clear here, you're not blaming the poor long form for this are you? Oh, can you provide some evidence that the "most enjoyable neighbourhoods in Canada" haven't utilized census data in the last 30 or 40 years. Could you help us locate these neighbourhoods frozen in time?

And the last paragraph. You've certainly covered all possibilities of what could go wrong though you still haven't provided any evidence that in the last forty years data from the long form has been compromised. I presume that you still feel confident enough in government to submit your taxes every year and a Census short form every five years?

[R. Mowat]

It seems to me that thousands of people are already refusing to comply with the mandatory census. Isn't this potentially a huge source of sample selection bias?

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/294018

[LMS]

I'm not surprised that so many people on Indian reserves refused to complete the census. According to Statscan they all got the long form: "One in every five private households received a Form 2B, except in northern areas, remote areas and Indian reserves. In those areas, all households completed a long questionnaire (Form 2D), since sampling was unlikely to produce accurate data for such small populations."

I like data, good, reliable, verifiable data. There is some that is collected in the long form that is worthwhile, but a lot is not. It would make more sense to add key questions to the general census form and drop the long one.

The long form is just too long, and has many questions that would be hard for almost anyone to answer accurately. The question on unpaid work is a good example of data that I would never be able to report on accurately, and would never rely on others to report on accurately. I would be concerned if someone made policy decisions based on answers to this question:

Last week, how many hours did this person spend doing the following activities:
(a) doing unpaid housework, yard work or home maintenance for members of this household, or others? Some examples include: preparing meals, washing the car, doing laundry, cutting the grass, shopping, household planning, etc.
(b) looking after one or more of this person's own children, or the children of others, without pay? Some examples include: bathing or playing with young children, driving children to sports activities or helping them with homework, talking with teens about their problems, etc.
(c) providing unpaid care or assistance to one or more seniors? Some examples include: providing personal care to a senior family member, visiting seniors, talking with them on the telephone, helping them with shopping, banking or with taking medication, etc.

Here is another really useless question from the long form:
What were the ethnic or cultural origins of this person's ancestors?
(An ancestor is usually more distant than a grandparent.)
For example, Canadian, English, French, Chinese, Italian, German, Scottish, East Indian, Irish, Cree, Mi'kmaq (Micmac), Métis, Inuit (Eskimo), Ukrainian, Dutch, Filipino, Polish, Portuguese, Jewish
-Specify as many origins as applicable using capital letters.

[Acroyear]

The simple fact is, is that it is MY personal information. I don't give a damn who wants, why they want it, how safe it is, etc. It's my data, *I* should be the one and only person who gets to decide who I give it too. It's bad enough credit card companies and banks hand it out like it's free candy to anyone who pays for it.

*I* should be the only one who decides who I will give that information too. If Canadian's then choose to give it up...fair enough. But I completely agree with the Federal government that it should be voluntary.

Oh the economists use it plot trends arguments? That only makes me want to hold on to it harder. I do not trust ANY economist as far as I could comfortably spit a rat.

[Acroyear]

"Investors. Suppose you're planning to start a business somewhere, and a crucial factor is a supply of well-educated workers."

You mean the investors who have used the data they gather to figure out they could send tens of thousands of jobs over seas so they can make shoddy products for super cheap prices then send them back to markets and sell them for the same prices as before?

"Marketers. Yes, it's all good fun to mock marketers, but if they can't identify what will sell, people lose their jobs."

Same answer as above. They don't use it to keep jobs...they use it to find out where the money is to sell products too and where people won't bother to find out if the guy in Canmore lost his job so that the manufacture could make another few percent of margin by making his widget in China.

"Policy-makers at all levels of government. How do we know if a school's poor performance can be explained by socio-economic factors if we don't have reliable data for income and education levels?"

You really are kidding right?! Does any person here other than the author really think that anything will change in the slightest? This gives them an out...a way to explain "why" things are the way they are. It's not like any policy maker is going to do so much as work up a gob of spit to CHANGE it.

"Academic researchers. 'Nuff said."

Well, one out of four... so you get a C- minus.

[Mike Moffatt]

"The simple fact is, is that it is MY personal information. I don't give a damn who wants, why they want it, how safe it is, etc. It's my data, *I* should be the one and only person who gets to decide who I give it too."

Again, I'd like to point out this policy change is brought to you by many of the same folks who thought it was a great idea to not only collect public sector salaries but to have them printed for the world to see in the Globe and Mail!

[Acroyear]

Very true Mike...I never said the current government was perfect, just that I agree with this change.

They, as in Stats Can, can gain everything they need to know to make any policy change from tax forms and short forms. I don't have a big problem with the short form, but all the information about my ethnic background, my religion, etc, etc, etc... is a complete and total invasion of my privacy.

Tell me, why should it make the slightest difference to the level of health care provided to know if my children are of a mixed heritage and what religion they are in a system of universal health care? All they need to know is how many people live in my home, and what their gender and ages are...they need know NOTHING else.

It's totally up to the individual Canadian to decide if they want to tell some bureaucrat that sort of information. If that makes it useless, then yes, indeed...lets scrap the long form completely.

[Mike Moffatt]

"Tell me, why should it make the slightest difference to the level of health care provided to know if my children are of a mixed heritage and what religion they are in a system of universal health care?"

RE: Religion. Most hospitals have chaplains, so it'd be helpful to know the religious background of a community to know whether or not it would be useful to add a rabbi or imam to the staff.

RE: Race. Certain ethnicities are more prone to certain illnesses, so if you have a population that doesn't have a lot of Northern Europeans, you'd want to move hospital funding from, say, celiac disease treatment to sickle-cell disease treatment.

[Acroyear]

RE: Religion. Most hospitals have chaplains, so it'd be helpful to know the religious background of a community to know whether or not it would be useful to add a rabbi or imam to the staff.

Always have some sort of Chaplain then...most are community volunteers are they not?

RE: Race. Certain ethnicities are more prone to certain illnesses, so if you have a population that doesn't have a lot of Northern Europeans, you'd want to move hospital funding from, say, celiac disease treatment to sickle-cell disease treatment.

Nope...don't buy that one. Oh I know that some races are more prone to some things, so ask if anyone in the household has any long term health issues that need treatment. That is still very intrusive, but at least makes sense for public health policy.

The simple fact is the long form asks questions they do not need the answers...they just WANT the answers. They are stats folks...they are curious...I get it. And I'm not a nut bar who thinks they will use this to make death camps.

But after reading a long form I find it to be asking questions that I simple refuse to believe have real value to the government in setting policy. The value is to those, such as economists, market researchers, business men, banks, whom I DO NOT WANT TO HAVE THAT DATA.

Simply put...it should be by choice. If the overwhelming majority of Canadians choose not to fill it out, is that not democracy in action?

I actually have been very surprised at the shock in the stats community that this was done...it shows a rather shocking lack of understanding (which is funny considering their jobs) of just how much the average Canadian resents the form, dislikes the form and will, quite obviously, refuse to fill out the form.

I'm not smart enough to find you a better alternative to get you all the data you so want to have...I am smart enough to know that most Canadians not only don't want to be bothered to give it to you...but when really consulted about it, don't WANT you to have it.

[Mike Moffatt]

"Always have some sort of Chaplain then...most are community volunteers are they not?"

Usually there's more than one chaplain, because you want ones for different demonination/faiths. They're not volunteers at the hospital I go to, but I go to a Catholic hospital, so that might not be represenative.

"Nope...don't buy that one. Oh I know that some races are more prone to some things, so ask if anyone in the household has any long term health issues that need treatment."

The idea, though, is you want to be able to predict how many people in an area are going to develop some condition in the long run.. so asking them if they have it today isn't going to help. Asking family medical history is of some use, but there are a lot of conditions that weren't diagnosed very well/at all in the past (e.g. celiac disease) so that is of limited productive use. But if you know, say, how many people are of, say, Irish or Scottish ancentry, you get a better idea of future numbers.

[Patrick]

One thing that emerges pretty clearly from the census issue is just how little people know about the effort it takes to keep society humming along. I can't count the number of time I've heard or read people reacting like spoiled, petulant teenagers: "It's MY information! MINE MINE MINE!". They accuse gov't officials of being uniformly corrupt and lazy, and assume that smart people who actually know stuff (like researchers and university profs) are clearly being paid far too much to do far too little real work in the comfort of their ivory towers.

And just wait. A few years from now there will be howls of protest when HRDC, school boards, hospitals, transportation depts, etc etc have to start explaining why services can't be delivered where they are needed because they don't have census data... And the save group of spoiled, petulant, ignorant morons will just blame them for being uniformly corrupt/lazy/criminal.

I despair for my country.

[Acroyear]

"I can't count the number of time I've heard or read people reacting like spoiled, petulant teenagers: "It's MY information! MINE MINE MINE!"."

Guilty. But is mine...not yours, not anyone else's. End of that discussion. My argument was never, and is not about, how much work it takes to make society run. It was that it was a CRIMINAL OFFENSE not to fill out the census with data that makes not sense to to me as to why anyone would need it to formulate public policy.

We are a democracy, if not a perfect one. The idea that refusing to fill out the long census would be criminal should NEVER have seen the light of day.

"They accuse gov't officials of being uniformly corrupt and lazy, and assume that smart people who actually know stuff (like researchers and university profs) are clearly being paid far too much to do far too little real work in the comfort of their ivory towers."

Part one, agreed...part two...nope. Researchers however, can access other sources of research, or do their own, targeted research for whatever it is they need, using grants from the government, which I have no issue with. Again, it would be voluntary, no weight of law, I can choose to help the professor or not.

And just wait. A few years from now there will be

Some sort of adjustment to the situation that will cover it quite nicely, thank you very much. This one act will not cause the down fall of western civilization. Grow up.

And if we college educated folks are so much smarter than rest of our fellow Canadian, then please explain why we have managed to do NOTHING for them except isolate them and make them totally suspicious of every single thing we do.

Or could it be because in stead of trying to understand their concerns, educated people tend to insult them (points at your post) rather than try to see that such a staggeringly intrusive set of questions makes them (rightly) nervous as to how the data will be used and it is wanted.

"I despair for my country."

So do I...as intellectual snobbery pushes away the very people who could most benefit from having smart people in their lives.

[dantheas]

Does anyone have actual, concrete proof of just how many Canadians refuse to complete the long form census/write letters to complain/submit fake answers? I have personally never heard anyone talk about it, while I have heard everyone talk about health care, taxes, and seal hunting.

The issue is whether to make the long form mandatory. Statistically, it's pretty clear that a voluntary long form will skew the responses much worse than a mandatory long form, especially since the word "mandatory" allows the census taker to start from a position of authority, which means people filling out the forms are more liable to take it seriously. Of course, in practice no one will be jailed for not completing a census, however "mandatory" it may be.

So, either abolish the long form altogether (which no one is proposing) or keep it mandatory.

@Acroyear: "Researchers however, can access other sources of research, or do their own, targeted research for whatever it is they need, using grants from the government, which I have no issue with."
>> Gathering accurate data is always the most difficult part of research. Forcing researchers to do this on their own without the legitimacy of government, and individually putting in the huge labour costs involved in correcting survey biases, is a terrible use of grant funding. It would be like trying to build cars without standard parts. Everything would be ten times slower and break ten times more often.

[Mr Williams]

Census data is used by the Globalist bankers, to give them all the information they need to profile you for the enslavement you are currently experiencing without even knowing about it. In no way shape or form is our Federal government entitled to this information.I will never fill out a census, nor will most of my friends up here in Powell River, According to newly de-clasified information, all the information on Census forms is givin directly to the N.S.A. and Home Land Security. ( this is not a th...eory, its a fact) Hitler, Mao, Stalin, and Ceaser were also very into the census Idea. If you are getting your info from the government or media about what they need a census for, you are being distracted from the truth.
In no way shape or form should our federal government be givin that information, it is none of thier business, It is why our fore fathers came here in the first place. How could you not know that? The more we allow the feds to involve themselves with the individual, the more they will keep growing out of control, into a giant entitiy that controlls every aspect of our lives.
Perhaps a good place to start would be to investigate why your Drivers Licence and or any ID certificate has your name in all capital letters. When you are born, and you agree to having a birth certificate, our government erases your existance as a natural human and creates a corporation in your name that is owned by the money printers we are indebt to . As long as you claim natural person status, you are not required to follow any law that falls under the catagory of statutes, rules, or regulations. That includes filling out paperwork that includes ALL the very personal information that our horribly corrupted government should never have access to. ;)
There has never been mandatory census, as long as you know enough to say you are the natural person, and not the corporation. The census collector will fuck right off. They are only intrested in people living in the fake corprate society. I...n the real world, nothing is illegal except for causing harm to another person or thier property. As long as you tell the judge that you are the natural Craig and he is acting as judge not banker. You could get caught drinking and driving, smoking crack, with no insurance or a licence and you wont even get a slap on the wrist.
Learn your rights, and dont fill out the census, or the jokes on you.