LGBT Surveillance: Next Steps for the Federal Government Summary

On Monday, November 22^nd, we held a BrownBag Webinar called “LGBT Surveillance: Next Steps for the Federal Government.” The call focused on a discussion on federal opportunities for LGBT data to be considered for inclusion in national surveillance (surveys).

The crux of the conversation’s goal was to gather Lessons Learned from stories that callers shared on gathering LGBT data on the state level. In our highest attended BrownBag, participants shared their strategies for LGBT inclusion as well as barriers that have come up in that process. Scout introduced the call by requesting stories on state LGBT data implementation that can be used to help the federal government in whether/how they would include LGBT data questions on national surveys.

Among the reasons LGBT data has been left off national surveys, several myths circulate on why exclusion continues. For instance, surveyors fear higher refusal rates, break-off rates and confusion from respondents taking these surveys.

Current National Surveillance Efforts:

o       Despite failed efforts to include GLBT questions on the national Census, researchers are studying same-sex partner data gathered from the survey.

o       DHHS is including LGBT health measures on their major health survey (National Health Institute Survey : NHIS) but that is still within the works.

o       The National Adult Tobacco Survey includes multiple questions on LGBT as a singular question.

o       CDC sponsored survey on LGBT data in the United States in “Sexual behavior and selected health measures: Men and women 15–44 years of age”

o       A group of researchers and advocates are working on a document for how gender identity questions can be added to national surveys (i.e. education, health.)

State Experiences

• New York: City Health Department in NYC had a strong experience with adding sexual orientation and gender identity

o       Unexpected positive outcome: Mainstream scientists are excited about looking at LGBT data because they care about health disparities showing that LGBT data collection is not just a minority issue.

o       Positive Outcome: Multiple surveys point to LGBT data

• From  “A Blueprint for Meeting LGBT health and Human Services Needs in NYS” Frazer and Warren, 2010
• New York State Department of Health has trans-specific data from 2004 Adult Tobacco Survey.
• LGBT Health and Human Services Needs in New York State also has data and discussion on LGBT data collection.

• California: California Health Interview Survey (CHIS) has included sexual orientation (not gender identity)

o       Barrier and Solution: When respondents are confused, the protocol is to reinforce the need for complete understanding of demographics/disparate populations and that no one is forced to answer the question.

• Illinois – YRBS – does not include LGB, but Chicago does include a question asking folks “Which best describes you ‘gay’, ‘bisexual’, ‘lesbian’, ‘not sure”
• New Mexico – NM has made a lot of progress in adding LGBT measure

o       Strides: “Sexual orientation” was added to both the Adult Tobacco Survey (ATS) in 2003 and the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFS) in 2005.  Since 2009, both surveys added a question including “transgender”.

o       Barriers and Solutions:

• A few participants questioned why LGB was asked, but confusion why that was added was explained.
• In early years, there was confusion from 65+ year old individuals about LGB questions, so NM limited how many seniors received that question as many responded with “I don’t know.”
• Lack of youth data is a major gap that needs to be filled. Since 2005, advocates and researchers have been proposing that “sexual attraction” to be added to the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBS) as no LGBT questions are currently asked on this major survey for youth.

o       Positive Outcome: NM APHA data paper from 2003-2009 showed refusal rates of sexual orientation question in BRFSS to only be .8- 1.8% which compares with refusal rates for other categories like 4.1-4.5% on household income.

• Ohio – Led focus LGBT focus groups with reports on what was asked as well as transcripts for the groups. Another report is here.

o       Barrier: There weren’t enough respondents

Resources on LGBT data collection and best practices

• SMART’s Best Practices for Asking Questions about Sexual Orientation on Surveys
• YRBS map on states asking sexual orientation in 2009.
• Moving Forward: with LGBT Health: First Steps for the Federal Government – Network publication looking at federal need to address LGBT health disparities via data collection for instance.
• Social ecology of tobacco surveillance data for sexual and gender minority populations
  

Next Steps:

• Please send emails or comment here with experiences of “Lessons Learned” at lgbttobacco@gmail.com.
• We are looking for folks who have information on who has adult tobacco, YRBS, BRFFS, Quitlines
• Another call continuing discussion will be announced.
• A separate call on program data may be useful for folks who are looking for assistance on including LGBT data themselves.