Measuring Opportunity—The Methodology
OUR METHOD OF ASSESSMENT
For this report, we assessed the progress of opportunity by examining many of the same indicators as in The State of Opportunity in America, released in 2006. We measured “change” in opportunity by reviewing 2008, 2007, 2006, and 2005 data from mainly federal sources (Note: for a small number of indicators, the most recent official data is from 2004). For the indicators available, we calculated the percent change over the most recent year that data was available (i.e. from 2006 to 2007 or 2005 to 2006). For certain indicators, we measured a gap or a disparity between subpopulations and the majority population. For example, in the instances of racial and ethnic gaps, the white population served as the comparison group and in the instances of gender gaps, men served as the comparison group.
Change in opportunity for one indicator in the community dimension–K-12 public school segregation–was measured using longer trend data. We assessed public school segregation using enrollment data in public schools over a thirteen-year period from the 1993-94 to 2005-06 school years. Additionally, change in opportunity for three indicators in the redemption dimension–drug treatment for prisoners, voting rights while imprisoned, and voting rights after completion of sentence–was measured by assessing the passage of legislation over a one-year period.
DIRECTION OF OPPORTUNITY TRENDS, "ARROWS," AND SIGNIFICANT CHANGE
The following guide is for the supplemental indicators to this report. They can be accessed at www.opportunityagenda.org/StateOfOpportunity. A rating system was used to assess overall progress for each indicator. For the most part, we examined how the nation fared over a one-year time period, both overall and for groups. This is a departure from past reports that reviewed data over a longer time period. Because we evaluated each indicator over a one year period (the last 12-months for which data is available), and small positive or negative changes are highly likely to occur, we considered a change in the overall rate or the rate for any group to be “significant” if it reached or exceeded 2%. The visual rating system is as follows:
Equal Opportunity, or Signs of Progress Toward It: Reflects increased equality of opportunity or, far more commonly, when data trends were significant and suggested progress toward equality despite persistent historic inequality between men and women, whites and people of color, and/or higher income and lower income people. Data for these indicators significantly improved for at least one group, while the change for the other groups and the country as a whole was positive, constant or insignificant.
Opportunity Stagnant: Reflects unchanged or stagnant opportunity. Data for these indicators were constant or did not meet the 2% threshold to be considered a significant change for the overall rate or the rate for any of the groups.
Opportunity Mixed: Reflects both increases and decreases of opportunity for various groups. Data for these indicators had a combination of positive significant change and negative significant change among the overall rate and the rates of the groups.
Opportunity in Decline: Reflects decreased equality of opportunity. Data for these indicators significantly decreased for at least one group, while the change for the other groups and the nation as a whole was constant or insignificant.
RACIAL AND ETHNIC CATEGORIES
Each indicator calculated the change over the time period for the nation as a whole, as well as disaggregated by gender, race and ethnicity, and income when data was available. Because the data sources were largely federal, racial categories for many of the indicators in this report are the same as the racial categories utilized by the federal government. Hence, the racial categories are defined as the following:
White: any person who self-identified as white only and non-Hispanic.
Black: any person who self-identified as black only.
Asian: any person who self-identified as Asian only.
American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN): any person who self-identified as AIAN only.
Hispanic: any person who self-identified as Hispanic.
Because the Hispanic ethnicity category is not mutually exclusive from the race categories, there is some double counting of individuals that identified as black and Hispanic, Asian and Hispanic, and AIAN and Hispanic when federal sources were used. However, the white race category includes only individuals who identified as white in federal sources.1 Additionally, American Indian and Alaska Native data is rarely available in federal sources, which explains its large absence in this report. In a few instances, in which the data sources utilize different racial categories, this report’s indicators do as well. (Note: In the narrative of this report, we use these terms –African American, Latino, and Asian American – rather than the categories used in the sources in recognition that they are the prevailing terminology for race and ethnic categories.)
LIMITATIONS
We recognize that opportunity may be defined and measured in many ways. This assessment is limited in its ability to capture all dimension of opportunity. Annual data was not available for some indicators, and therefore, some indicators that were in the original report and the 2007 update were omitted from this report. In addition, we encountered significant limitations in the data related to opportunity that government and other institutions collect. For example, data are often unavailable or are inadequate for many racial and ethnic groups other than whites, African Americans and Latinos.
Further, these broad racial and ethnic categories often fail to adequately capture the diversity within U.S. racial and ethnic groups, which may vary considerably on the basis of immigration status or nativity, primary language, cultural identification, and area of residence. A full assessment of opportunity should include a consideration of how opportunity varies along these dimensions. For example, we did not find group information such as variations among Asian American and Hispanic nationality groups.
Similarly, federal data are rarely presented disaggregated by both race and ethnicity and measures of social class or socioeconomic status. Yet the opportunity barriers for low-income whites may differ in important ways from those of more affluent whites and some communities of color. We encourage researchers to examine how opportunity indicators differ by race, ethnicity and income, and to explore their interaction. We also urge federal, state, and local governments to collect and disaggregate data along the broader spectrum of dimensions discussed above.
- See the "note" section at the end of any federal source to find the definition of racial categories used.