I am as conservative as the day is long, which leads me to ask, “Why am I criticizing Utah’s conservative Sutherland Institute in this blog post?” I am criticizing the organization for biased reporting of survey findings on marriage in order to make those findings support its political agenda. 

I call it like I see it when it comes to science, and as I see it, the Sutherland Institute is AWOL (Along Way Out to Lunch) on its interpretation of the results of a 2006 American Community Survey on immigration.

BYU’s Daily Universe reported on the Sutherland Institute’s findings. Here is some of what the Daily Universe reported on 08/31/2009:

A recent study released suggests that the influx of Hispanic immigrants into Utah is strengthening marriage in the Beehive State.

The Sutherland Institute, a Utah-based research organization, released a study comparing Utah citizens and illegal immigrants. The study analyzed factors such as hours worked per week, English fluency, state inmate population and marriage comparisons.

The study showed that the “marriage decisions of non-citizen Hispanics suggest illegal immigrants are strengthening the family in Utah.” The data, from the 2006 American Community Survey, showed that in Utah, 66.6 percent of adult citizens are married and 69.2 percent of adult non-citizen Hispanics are married.

Derek H. Monson, a policy analyst for Sutherland and lead author of the publication, said . . . “According to our research, undocumented immigrants are continuing valuable cultural trends that will in turn help strengthen other marriages by association.”

In addition to comparing marriage rates, the study compared Utah citizen and Hispanic non-citizen divorce rates. The study found that of the adult citizens in Utah, 9 percent are divorced, while non-citizen Hispanics have a divorce rate of 3.1 percent.

“The more successful marriages there are, particularly in a world of high divorce rates, the stronger the institution of marriage will be,” Monson said.

So what is wrong with the Sutherland Institute’s study on illegal immigration and marriage? There are two major problems. 

First, I obtained a copy of the 2006 American Community Survey (from which the Sutherland Institute drew its conclusions) and found that it did not collect data on immigration status, thus generalizations to illegal immigrants are not justified. Yet the Sutherland Institute spun the demographic data to make it sound like the results could be extended to illegal immigrants. 

Second, the Sutherland report states that the institution of marriage is strengthened by having more illegal immigrants because they have fewer divorces. Hmm? Since when did divorce rates become an appropriate barometer for measuring respect for marriage? I don’t know about you, but I know a lot of divorced people who highly respect marriage, which is why they tend to get married again. Divorce rates are more a reflection of marital conflict and cohesion than they are a reflection of respect for the institution of marriage. 

To make legitimate conclusions about whether illegal immigrants in Utah are strengthening the institution of marriage, researchers would have to do at least three things: (a) define what it means to ‘strengthen the institute of marriage’; (b) adequately find ways to measure ‘strengthening the institute of marriage’ (called an operationalization); and (c) collect data on those measures from a sufficiently random sample of illegal immigrants. 

The Sutherland Institute did none of these things. It spun the 2006 American Community Survey data to make the claim that illegal immigrants are “saving” marriage in Utah. This blunder reflects either political bias or insufficient understanding of research methodology, or both. Either way, no good.