By Jefferson Rodriguez Najera zea2gm@virginia.edu
A few years ago, my statistics professor stated, "What is not measured does not exist"—highlighting how public administration requires data-driven policy decisions. According to a study by the Latin American Initiative for Open Data (ILDA), Central America faces a significant information gap regarding LGBTIQA+ individuals, who are either misrepresented or completely absent from public institution databases (the study can be accessed here). Costa Rica stands out as one of the region's countries with the largest such data gaps.
This lack of data in public administration makes the LGBTIQA+ population effectively invisible to decision-makers. Officials often avoid taking meaningful action, citing the absence of reliable information. During my work with the Judicial Branch of Costa Rica's Open Data initiatives, we discovered that previous efforts regarding sexual and gender diversity lacked data support, as the Judiciary had no records of sexual orientation or gender identity in its databases.
Shortly after the ILDA study's release, my office took action. We developed a public policy intervention to measure sexual orientations and gender identities. Our goals were twofold: to generate reliable institutional data for decision-making that would address the needs of sexually diverse individuals in the justice sector, and to track specific crimes against these populations under the Law To Criminalize Hate Crimes, Crime Of Racial Discrimination, And Other Violations Of Human Rights. This marked Costa Rica's first such initiative in public administration.
How Did We Do It?
My office assembled an interdisciplinary team to review literature on best practices for collecting such data across Latin America. We then developed categories and measurement variables with clear definitions, including gender identity variables such as male, female, transgender, and others.
When we presented these measurements to LGBTIQA+ rights groups and activists, their feedback was eye-opening. While our measurements were technically accurate, they didn't align with terms commonly used in Costa Rica's LGBTIQA+ community. For example, we had used "homosexual" under sexual orientation, but learned that Costa Ricans prefer "gay" or "lesbian" for historical and cultural reasons. Similar cultural differences emerged with terms like cisgender, transgender, and asexual, which carry distinct connotations in Costa Rica compared to other Latin American countries.
This valuable feedback led us to permanently include these community representatives in our policy development. Their insights proved crucial to the policy's success and implementation.
The project's later stages focused on implementation details—determining how, when, and where to collect these variables. Working together, we created plain-language questions for use in four national courts. While staff must ask these questions, users can choose whether to respond.
The data collection design presented significant challenges. Staff had limited time, and many terms were unfamiliar to the general public. For instance, when asking "Currently, regarding your gender identity, which of these terms best describes you?" with options like "Trans Man," "Trans Woman," "Cis Man," "Cis Woman," staff often needed to explain concepts like gender identity and cisgender to respondents.
Lessons and Concerns
This experience yielded two crucial lessons about public policy measures. First, involving the target population in defining proposals is essential—technical accuracy doesn't guarantee cultural appropriateness. Second, every question and term in data collection tools must be clear and understandable to ensure reliable data.
This experience raises important questions about measurement: How can we ensure data quality when human biases and values influence collection? What are the most effective ways to include citizens in policy and measurement design? And how can we develop better policies in countries where measurement isn't a priority for policymakers?