Out of Work, Off the Radar? Why on-reserve unemployment isn’t counted
For a while now, I have wondered why Canada’s national unemployment figures do not include people living on reserves. This week, I decided to find out why, and I’d like to know what other people think of the reasons given for the exclusion.
Every month, Statistics Canada collects and releases its unemployment figures through the Labour Force Survey (LFS). The Survey samples apx. 54,000 households on a rotating basis, with no household staying in the sample for more than 6 months.
For 2006, INAC reports a total of 117,106 dwelling units on reserves. Not one of them gets to be part of the LFS.
According to StatsCan,
Indian reserves have historically been excluded from the LFS due to the serious challenges in contacting and interviewing potential respondents, with many of them living in remote locations not easily accessible to LFS interviewers given the short data collection period each month, and the large effort and cost associated with traveling to these locations.
But after reading into it a bit more (via their own 2008 document Methodology of the Canadian Labour Force Survey), I discovered that
LFS interviews are conducted using two collection methods, computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI) and computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI). Historically, CAPI has been used for households in their first month of the survey, with interviewers visiting in person to conduct the interview. [Subsequent interviews] … are normally conducted using CATI…
Note the word “historically.” As of 2004, a “major change was introduced” when households were brought into the sample for the first time not through a personal interview but via the telephone (a call usually preceded by a letter notifying them in advance).
Here’s the thing: it applies to urban areas only, as “Administrative lists for these areas are updated on a regular basis and the addresses tend to have a standard form, which provides a better match.”
Is this reason enough to justify the exclusion of on-reserve residents? Are reserve phone lists that out of date, their addresses so non-standardized, that it would skew or corrupt the results?
Because here’s the thing. While I recognize telecom access is not the best everywhere, the federal government commissions phone surveys of reserve residents all the time: in fact, a quick Google™ search revealed references to surveys dating back to 2001, 2003, 2006, 2008, and 2009. (They seem to use EKOS a lot.)
At least one case involved a telephone survey of 2,002 First Nations residents living on-reserve, so the sample size is by no means tiny.
Now, I have encountered suggestions that the ‘real’ reason reserve populations are excluded is that including them would see the overall national unemployment rate skyrocket, thereby raising some embarrassing questions for the government. I am not so sure about that, to be honest. Those who might be able to bring additional info to bear on this assertion are invited to share.
To be fair, though, I should note that StatsCan says that, as of 2004,
the Labour Force Survey [has] included an Aboriginal identity question which permitted Aboriginal peoples living off reserve in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia, and all Aboriginal people living in the three territories to identify themselves as North American Indian, Métis or Inuit. As of January 2007, labour market conditions for off-reserve Aboriginal people [has been] collected for all provinces and for all Aboriginal people living in the territories.
Come back often to mediaINDIGENA for reports on future releases of these off-reserve numbers. Of course, we hope that one day they will be complemented by on-reserve data for a complete picture of Aboriginal rates of un/employment in Canada.
Part of the reason why Stats Can is kept off a lot of Indigenous territories is justified. Before the walls went up, Stats Can (and a lot of other surveyors, researchers, miners of information) would arrive unannounced with the blessing of Indian Affairs. They'd come in, gather information – often a lot of very private or confidential information – without bothering with niceties such as full disclosure or prior and informed consent. Then they'd take that information (raw data) and analyze it often to suit their purposes or those of whatever agency hired them. If the folks surveyed, their community or nation, wanted to access their own information, they`d be told to get lost. Or they`d be given some insane cost estimate. That got folks thinking about how their information was gathered, analyzed, used, why and by whom.
It`s led to a conclusion that information is very much a part of self-determination. Who owns it, controls it, can access it, and protects it. So the information that Stats Can gathers belongs to the Government of Canada and whatever agency has contracted Stats Can – including a lot of personal, confidential and sensitive information. The thing is – we don`t control or have any influence over how that information is used. It is the colonization of our information.
That`s why the walls went up. That`s why we should be doing more to protect our own statistical data, and take greater care how that data is used, and who it is given or sold to.
As for Labour Force Stats, they`ve never been racially blind. They`ve always been biased and skewed.
Just sayin`.
Do you know of many First Nations collecting un/employment data, sir?
I tried to reply before, long-winded stuff – but absolutely brilliant! Gone. Reply didn't work. (sigh) So let's give this another go…
Every band office has (or shd have) an econ dev officer, an HR officer, a housing officer, community works, welfare officer, education officer, etc. In other words, even if they don't have a lot of small businesses, they should have people who regularly collect information from their various areas of work.
It doesn't take much to get these people in one room to trade that information with each, get a decent idea of the labour force statistics (ages, education, income, marital-family-work situation, etc). Once that's done, it's fairly easy to spot the gaps in data that need to be collected and devise a work plan to do just that. Some band councils do this. Some don't.
I know there's something called the First Nations Statistical Institute (FNSI) out there. The data it collects go to the Feds – just like Stats Can. It is then skewed – just like Stats Can does – to whatever outcome desired. FNSI is not a steward of data for Indigenous communities and nations. It's simply Stats Can is buckskin and feathers. (IMHO)
I tried to reply before, long-winded stuff – but absolutely brilliant! Gone. Reply didn't work. (sigh) So let's give this another go…
Every band office has (or shd have) an econ dev officer, an HR officer, a housing officer, community works, welfare officer, education officer, etc. In other words, even if they don't have a lot of small businesses, they should have people who regularly collect information from their various areas of work.
It doesn't take much to get these people in one room to trade that information with each, get a decent idea of the labour force statistics (ages, education, income, marital-family-work situation, etc). Once that's done, it's fairly easy to spot the gaps in data that need to be collected and devise a work plan to do just that. Some band councils do this. Some don't.
I know there's something called the First Nations Statistical Institute (FNSI) out there. The data it collects go to the Feds – just like Stats Can. It is then skewed – just like Stats Can does – to whatever outcome desired. FNSI is not a steward of data for Indigenous communities and nations. It's simply Stats Can is buckskin and feathers. (IMHO)