Careless Decision Making Creates Race-Ethnic Disparities in Distribution of COVID-19 Vaccine

 

The recent story in The Dallas Morning News was clear and disturbing: 

”COVID vaccines at Fair Park aren’t going to Black, Latino residents as officials hoped” [1] 

The story chronicles the missteps in public communications efforts to schedule large-scale vaccinations to historically disenfranchised neighborhoods, which are mostly Black and Latino and below Interstate 30 – groups that have experienced a higher number of illnesses, hospitalizations and mortalities during the pandemic.  Instead, however, the thousands of residents that showed up for the vaccinations at Fair Park were mostly white North Texans from higher-income neighborhoods following mixed messages to the public – many showing up in their Mercedes, Infiniti and BMW automobiles. 

Dallas City Mayor Eric Johnson blamed County Judge Clay Jenkins for the confusion generated by the announcement to register online with the county to receive a vaccine appointment at the South Dallas Mega Center – an announcement that was apparently not coordinated with the Mayor’s office. Word of mouth spread rapidly that an appointment was not needed for residents 75 and older – which left thousands of others on a waiting list and encouraged many out-of-town residents to show up for a vaccine.  County officials pointed out that a significant number of residents who showed up were able to access an unsecured web link that allowed them to book an appointment, regardless of age or status.  Other residents who showed up also pointed to emails received from the county encouraging them to sign up for an appointment.

Interestingly, Dallas County was not prepared to release a demographic profile of those that received vaccinations, a report that would have been very useful in evaluating the extent of the exclusion of more deserving Black and Hispanic residents in the targeted community.  As an apparent after-thought to expand access to the intended Black and Hispanic residents,  Jenkins and his staff began reaching out to leaders in those communities, including elected officials, faith leaders and other organizations that work in communities where the coronavirus was most prevalent.

The vaccine distribution fiasco in Dallas County is not an isolated one as many communities throughout the U.S. are struggling to coordinate the vaccinations using a confusing set of federal guidelines that are implemented inconsistently thoughout the nation.  In a previous blogpost, I had warned about potential problems that could complicate the distribution of the vaccines once they became available.  For example:

·        The Center for Disease Control decided to exclude Blacks and Hispanics from the category of “high-risk” groups, thus reducing their priority level for intervention strategies. Why?  Because the CDC concluded that the high virus rates are not due to genetics, and they want to avoid stigmatizing these groups as “COVID carriers.” [2]

·        Race-ethnic information is missing for many of the cases, hospitalizations and mortalities recorded for COVID-19, which obscures the accurate reporting of this information for Black and Hispanic communities – a consequence of lax mandates for recording race-ethnic information. The absence of this information obscures the true picture of community spread of the virus. [3]

·        Access to testing sites in states like Texas is problematic since these sites are more commonly located in white communities than the more vulnerable Black and Hispanic communities. [4]

It is also disturbing to learn that states like Florida have relaxed the requirements for vaccine eligibility by allowing anyone over the age of 65 years to obtain a vaccine, which has encouraged many tourists and out-of-town residents to drain the vaccine supplies at the expense of more deserving local residents.

In the case of Dallas County and the City of Dallas, it was unfortunate that better coordination was not in place to implement such an important vaccine intervention program at the Fair Park Mega Center.  However, even if the communications had been better coordinated, there is still one important tactical decision that could have produced a different outcome.

In my opinion, it was a major mistake to rely primarily on a web-based strategy to encourage Black and Latino residents in the targeted communities to register for the Mega Center vaccination. From their recent experience to encourage response rates to the Census 2020, both Dallas County and City of Dallas officials were aware that Black and Latino residents, especially immigrants, were excluded in large numbers from completing the Census questionnaire which also primarily relied on the Internet.  Our past research in multicultural communities confirms that Blacks and Hispanics are more likely to respond by telephone, mail and personal contacts when completing surveys and Census questionnaires but least likely to respond by using the Internet. Lastly, a Census population pyramid easily illustrates that a much larger proportion of whites are concentrated in ages 65 and older than Hispanics or Blacks – which would provide whites a distinct advantage when using eligibility criteria based on age alone.

For damage control, Jenkins reportedly began outreach to community elected officials, faith leaders and other organizations in the targeted zip codes – an approach that should have been followed initially. Whether by intent or just careless decision-making, Mr. Johnson was correct in stating that the county was “promoting a system that gave preferential treatment” – that is, to white, higher-income residents who were not the intended target audience of the Mega Center.

With COVID-19 vaccinations, there is less room for error in the fair distribution of a life-saving solution.  Let’s hope that public officials agree to improve the coordination of public vaccination campaigns by improving their communication strategies in culturally diverse communities.

 

Reference Notes


[1]Garcia, N. and Bailey, E. (2021, January 14). COVID vaccines at Fair Park aren’t going to Black, Latino residents as hoped.  The Dallas Morning News.  Accessed at: https://www.dallasnews.com/news/public-health/2021/01/14/dallas-mayor-eric-johnson-blasts-county-after-walkups-allowed-at-covid-19-vaccine-mega-site/

[2] Rincon, E.T. (2020, July 30) CDC blunders in excluding communities of color among high risk groups for COVID-19. https://www.rinconassoc.com/cdc-blunders-in-excluding-communities-of-color-among-high-risk-groups-for-covid-19

[3] Rincon, E.T. (2020, April 16). Missing race-ethnicity data complicates COVID-19 mortality counts, but the solution is simple. Accessed at: https://www.rinconassoc.com/missing-race-ethnicity-data-complicates-covid-19-mortality-counts-but-the-solution-is-simple

[4]Fanning, R. (2020, May 29). Across Texas, black and Hispanic neighborhoods have fewer coronavirus testing sites. Texas Standard. Accessed at: https://www.texasstandard.org/stories/across-texas-black-and-hispanic-neighborhoods-have-fewer-coronavirus-testing-sites/

Political leaders often embrace positive satisfaction ratings, but should they?
It should come as no surprise that political leaders enjoy quoting the positive ratings from surveys of the communities that they serve – a sort of badge of honor for their job performance.  Ex-Dallas City Manager A.C. Gonzales is no exception, making reference to a recent citizen satisfaction survey of 1,512 Dallas City residents that showed an overall community that, with some exceptions, appeared quite happy with City services.  Mayor Mike Rawlings has also referenced these positive ratings from these surveys as well. At the national level, Republican nominee Donald Trump recently pointed to positive student satisfaction ratings to counter allegations of fraud in lawsuits against Trump University.  Indeed, positive ratings are like candy to politicians, whether deserved or not.
But how much faith can we place in these satisfaction ratings? In a recent column by Dallas Morning News columnist Robert Wilonsky, he noted the apparent paradox of the City’s continuing high ratings given the multitude of problems that are left unresolved, such as potholes, loose dogs mauling citizens in poor neighborhoods, contracting irregularities, deteriorating air quality, traffic congestion, and a host of other issues.  Wilonsky also pointed out that the survey vendor’s report curiously omitted information about the ages represented by the study respondents.  Indeed, the report tells us nothing about the satisfaction levels across racial-ethnic groups, income groups, age groups or other key demographics – information that would provide more insight on how well the study sample mirrored Dallas’ diverse population. The City of Dallas is now 41 percent Latino, 24 percent black, 3 percent Asian, and 29 percent white – a diverse community of residents that are entitled to have their voices heard in surveys sponsored by their tax dollars.
While City leaders have no problem embracing citizen satisfaction ratings, we should be cautious about embracing the results of satisfaction surveys, especially those that consistently show their sponsors in a positive light. In the case of the City of Dallas, there is reason to believe that these satisfaction ratings could be inflated and a self-serving exercise for City leaders:
  • Past community surveys for the City have shown a pattern of under-representing certain racial-ethnic groups, age groups, non-English speakers, and the lower income  – groups who are more likely to have negative experiences and opinions of City services. Loose dogs and potholes, for example, are more common in poor neighborhoods.  To what extent would the positive ratings diminish if the voices of such residents were properly represented in the survey?
  • Of course, the survey vendor’s quality of work may be spectacular, making it easier to eliminate the competition. However, the most recent City satisfaction report omitted standard demographic information about the 1,512 city residents that completed the survey.  One has no idea if the survey respondents accurately reflected the diversity of this community by race, ethnicity, gender or age. This is information that is considered standard in industry research reports — information that is commonly used to judge the scientific credibility of the survey findings. Why have City staff allowed the omission of this important information from its report?
  • Given the positive ratings that the City continues to enjoy from these surveys, it is not surprising that the survey company that conducts these surveys has enjoyed a preferred vendor status for many years. While the survey contract is bid competitively, the same out-of-state vendor has been successful in obtaining the contract year after year even though there are various local vendors that are equally qualified to conduct the work.  Are City leaders and staff concerned that a different vendor would change the positive ratings that they enjoy?  
          Community satisfaction ratings provide one measure of the City’s performance in serving a community, but provide an incomplete picture of its actual performance since key groups are often omitted or under-represented in such studies. The fascination of City leaders with these positive ratings and comparisons to other U.S. cities creates the false impression that everything in Dallas is just peachy.  A guided tour of City neighborhoods tells quite a different story.

Clearly, the next City Manager for Dallas, as well as the next Mayor, will have a long list of City-related needs that will require their immediate attention. If the results of citizen satisfaction surveys continue to be used by City leaders and staff as a benchmark of their annual or periodic performance, some changes will be needed to inspire more confidence in the ratings provided by this survey.  First, it is absolutely essential that the public is provided access to a detailed methodology that describes the steps used to conduct the study, including the extent of support in languages other than English.  This is important because many studies confirm that over half of Latino and Asian adults prefer to communicate in their native language, a fact that improves comprehension and survey participation.  Second, the report must provide a detailed demographic profile of the survey respondents – a standard requirement in all research industry studies – and perhaps the only evidence that the random selection of City households resulted in a fair and unbiased representation of the City’s diverse community.  Lastly, to remove the appearance of favoritism in the vendor selection process, City staff should be required to justify the continued selection of one vendor over several years despite the availability of various equally qualified survey vendors.