More topics

Best practices for working with Indigenous and racial identity data

Last updated on January 29, 2026

This section offers practical anti-racist approaches for working with Indigenous and racial identity data in a way that supports Indigenous data sovereignty and cultural safety, and prevents community harm. This section is grounded in the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA), recommendations from B.C.’s Human Rights Commissioner and process commitments developed by Indigenous Peoples and the Anti-Racism Data Committee for work under the Anti-Racism Data Act (ARDA). 

On this page

For more information on best practices when collecting and using Indigenous and racial identity data, visit:

Core principles and definitions for the Anti-Racism Data Act

Before exploring some best practices and anti-racist approaches for working with Indigenous and racial identity data, it’s important to understand some of the terms that will be used in this section. Below you will find core principles and definitions commonly used in this document. 

Anti-Racism

The B.C. government defines anti-racism as the deliberate act of opposing racism and promoting a society that is thoughtful, inclusive, and just.  

Race, racism and systemic racism

Race is a social construct (idea) used to classify people into groups based on how they look or where they come from. Race or racial categories are not based on science or genetics but on differences that society has created. 

Racism refers to a set of mistaken assumptions, opinions and actions resulting from the belief that one group of people categorized by colour or ancestry is inherently superior to another. Racism can exist on individual and systemic levels.

Systemic racism occurs through inequities that are built into services, systems and structures. These are often caused by biases that disadvantage people based on their race. For many Indigenous and racialized communities this can result in power imbalances and unequal access to or denial of services. 

Systems can also perpetuate racism and lead to poorer outcomes and negative experiences with public services such as education, health care, child welfare and policing.  For example, a school district without clear policies and procedures around discipline can create a system where administrators’ racial bias (whether conscious or not) is allowed to perpetuate and influence decisions, resulting in over-discipline of racialized students. Indigenous-specific racism is distinct because it is rooted in the ongoing denial of land, water and governance rights, and the legacy of colonial policies that continue to shape Indigenous people’s relationships with government systems today. 

Research using Indigenous and racial identity data can help reveal systemic barriers to equitable programs and services, and how to remove them. 

Cultural safety 

Cultural safety is fundamentally connected to the experiences of First Nations, Métis and Inuit people and the need to address Indigenous-specific racism in health care, as outlined in the Anti-Racism, Cultural Safety and Humility framework (PDF). However, it is important to recognize that First Nations, Métis and Inuit people may have their own guiding principles related to cultural safety. For example, the concept of ‘cultural wellness’, as defined by Métis Nation British Columbia in Kaa-wiichihitoyaahk - We take care of each other (PDF), has parallels to the concept of cultural safety, but is specific to “creating a space in which Métis people can be themselves and fully express and embrace their culture”. 

Culturally-safe principles and practices are increasingly being recognized as crucial to respectful engagement with Indigenous people across multiple settings and recommended when working with other cultural communities. These core principles include:

  • Respectful engagement that recognizes power imbalances inherent in interactions between communities and government systems past and present 
  • Actions that create an environment where people feel heard, seen and safe when providing data related to their identity
  • Processes that recognize and respect peoples’ diverse cultural identities, who they are or what they need, without challenge or denial. This can vary by person and interaction

Community 

The term “community” is often used as a catch-all phrase that can include social groups, religious groups, groups with shared gender identity and more. Communities generally have a set of shared characteristics (for example, ancestry and geography) and individuals can belong to more than one community.

When working with Indigenous and racial identity data and applying the data standards to identify systemic racism it’s important to involve Indigenous and racialized communities. Community voices are central to identifying systemic racism, designing solutions and holding the B.C. government accountable for advancing racial equity. Community advocacy and input was integral to the development of the Anti-Racism Data Act (ARDA) and has been incorporated into the Indigenous and racial identity data standards. 

Mitigating community harm 

Research and data practices have been used to stigmatize, monitor or control Indigenous and racialized communities rather than benefit them. Community harm means racism, prejudice, stereotyping, bias, stigmatization or other harm to which a group of persons is likely to be exposed. 

Work under ARDA must consider the identification, prevention, mitigation and minimization of community harm.

See the definitions section for additional terms.

Indigenous data sovereignty and data disclosure 

The B.C. government is committed to supporting Indigenous data sovereignty, in alignment with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). 

The Indigenous Identity Data Standard supports Indigenous data sovereignty by facilitating a transition away from current pan-Indigenous data approaches which combine First Nations, Métis and/or Inuit people into a single data category that does not reflect their distinct identities and rights. This obscures the ways in which systemic racism impacts these groups differently and the strengths-based opportunities that exist to identify and eliminate barriers. 

Pan-Indigenous data does not provide the level of detail required to deliver tailored services or conduct accurate analysis. Note however, in some cases, distinctions-based data may have small cell size challenges or data limitations.

Indigenous data sovereignty is an important foundation to self-determination and could apply to many different sectors and datasets such as child welfare, transportation or natural resources data.

When collecting, using or sharing Indigenous identity data:

Align with UNDRIP 

Work with Indigenous Governing Entities at all stages of research 

  • Ensure impacted Indigenous Governing Entities (IGEs) are involved in planning the collection, use and disclosure of the data. Ministries can contact the Declaration Act Secretariat at declarationactsecretariat@gov.bc.ca for the best practices regarding consultation and cooperation 
  • Work with IGEs in the development of statistics and avoid developing statistics about individual IGEs without being asked to by them. Work with IGEs on any collection, use and disclosure and any reporting at a provincial or regional level that could potentially identify an IGE

Follow the data standards and understand funding impacts

  • Ensure that data collection, use and disclosure is distinctions-based and respects the diverse and distinct rights of First Nations, Métis and Inuit Peoples, including people living in rural, remote and urban settings 
  • Ensure that the questions in the Indigenous Identity Data Standard are asked before the questions in the Racial Identity Data Standard and use the Indigenous identity variable as the source of truth when doing research about First Nations, Métis or Inuit people
  • Remember that federal Indigenous funding may be tied to Indigenous identity, status or living on reserve. For this, and other reasons, these categories should not be conflated with the Indigenous racial identity 

Support Indigenous data sovereignty by sharing data with IGEs

  • Disclosure of data to IGEs about their members supports Indigenous data sovereignty and self-governance. Sharing data with IGEs provides access to quality data, advances data sovereignty and is foundational to the exercise of the rights of self-government and self-determination
  • Sharing for governance: If an IGE requests disclosure of Indigenous or racial identity data about their members that has been collected under the Anti-Racism Data Act (ARDA), consider using the authority of s. 33(2)(x) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIPPA) to disclose it if it’s for the purposes of a program or activity that supports the exercise of the rights recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Consult the B.C. Ministry of Citizens’ Services Policy, Privacy and Legislation Branch at privacy.helpline@gov.bc.ca for more information
  • Sharing for anti-racism: If an IGE requests disclosure of Indigenous or racial identity data about their members for the purpose of identifying and eliminating systemic racism and advancing racial equity, and the information was collected under an authority other than ARDA (for example, FOIPPA), consider using the authority in s. 4(1) of ARDA to disclose that information. Contact data-act@gov.bc.ca for more information

Community harm in data practices

Collecting and using Indigenous and/or racial identity data can cause harm to communities. This may include social, emotional, physical or economic harm. These harms can stand in the way of addressing the root causes of racism, perpetuate mistrust and even exacerbate or create new inequities. Recognizing the potential for community harm is a crucial step in the data process to ensure harms are not repeated. 

Examples of data being used to harm communities

Health data has been used as a form of racial surveillance, leading to coercive interventions such as wellness checks for Indigenous and racialized individuals when not necessary or appropriate to meet their medical needs.

The Canadian Government used data to track and control the movement of Indigenous people, and to identify Indigenous children, who were then forced to attend residential schools (as outlined in Canada’s Residential Schools: Missing Children and Unmarked Burials, The Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (PDF)).