The American Opportunity Study: A New Infrastructure for Monitoring Outcomes, Evaluating Policy, and Advancing Basic Science.

The American Opportunity Study is an ongoing initiative to build the country's capacity to access and analyze linked administrative data. It is best viewed as a population-level scaffolding on which other administrative data can then be hung. This scaffolding, if used as a stand-alone resource, will allow for long-run analyses of fundamental population and labor market processes. If combined with data from other sources, it will allow for long-run program evaluation and other experimental and quasi-experimental analyses. We discuss the current status of the American Opportunity Study, its potential to advance the field, remaining obstacles that must be overcome to build it, and how it can work within the guidelines suggested by the Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking.

A New Infrastructure for Monitoring Social Mobility in the United States.

The country's capacity to monitor trends in social mobility has languished since the last major survey on U.S. social mobility was fielded in 1973. It is accordingly difficult to evaluate recent concerns that social mobility may be declining or to develop mobility policy that is adequately informed by evidence. This article presents a new initiative, dubbed the American Opportunity Study (AOS), that would allow the country to monitor social mobility efficiently and with great accuracy. The AOS entails developing the country's capacity to link records across decennial censuses, the American Community Survey, and administrative sources. If an AOS of this sort were assembled, it would open up new fields of social science inquiry; increase opportunities for evidence-based policy on poverty, mobility, child development, and labor markets; and otherwise constitute a new social science resource with much reach and impact.

Cancer screening and risk factor rates among American Indians.

OBJECTIVES: We examined cancer screening and risk factor patterns in California using 4 different statistical tabulations of American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) populations. METHODS: We used the 2001 California Health Interview Survey to compare cancer screening and risk factor data across 4 different tabulation approaches. We calculated weighted prevalence estimates by gender and race/ethnicity for cancer screening and risk factors, sociodemographic characteristics, and access to care variables. We compared AIAN men and women with members of other racial groups and examined outcomes among AIAN men and women using the 4 tabulation methods. RESULTS: Although some differences were small, in general, screening and risk factor rates among American Indians/Alaska Natives were most similar to rates among Whites when the most inclusive multiracial tabulation approach was used and least similar when the more exclusive US census "single-race" approach was used. CONCLUSIONS: Racial misclassification and undercounting are among the most difficult obstacles to obtaining accurate and informative data on the AIAN population. Our analysis suggests some guidelines for overcoming these obstacles.