ASA Connect

Below is a blog post on some statistical issues in racial impact statement laws (which currently exist in Connecticut, Iowa, and Oregon, which are before legislatures in New Jersey, Arkansas, Florida, Mississippi, and Wisconsin). 

“Racial Impact Statement Laws in New Jersey and Elsewhere,” Federalist Society Blog (Mar. 20, 2017) http://www.fed-soc.org/blog/detail/racial-impact-statement-laws-in-new-jersey-and-elsewhere

The post addresses that a proposed New Jersey law is based on the mistaken belief that generally reducing prison populations will tend to reduce relative racial differences in incarceration rates.  It may be of greater interest to members in states where such laws exist or are under consideration. 

The last paragraph discusses a January 4 post on the same site regarding potential effects on NIH and other budgets of the new administration’s understanding issues I addressed in November 14, 2016 comments to the Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking (CEBP).[1]  In light of concern about cuts for NIH in the budget just proposed, I note that one can be confident that those cuts occurred without the administration’s understanding the issues addressed in the comments.  So there exist two bases for further concern.  One involves actions that, upon understanding the issues, the administration may take concerning matters to which they in fact pertain.   In that regard, the administration might consider my fourth recommendation to the CEBP (at 46-47) – regarding requiring government-funding research into demographic differences to consider the implications of the effects of the prevalence of an outcome on the measure employed – to be too modest.  The greater basis for concern, however, would be that the administration would regard the issues identified in the CEBP comments as reason for questioning research in areas where the issues do not apply. These possibilities support the broader recommendation in my October 8, 2015 letter to ASA [2] – that is, to form a committee to address the measurement issues it raised ­– though with added focus on distinguishing between matters to which the issues are pertinent and matters to which they are not.

1. http://www.jpscanlan.com/images/Comments_of_J_Scanlan_for_Comm_on_Evidence-Based_Policymaking_Nov._14,_2016_.pdf
2. http://jpscanlan.com/images/Letter_to_American_Statistical_Association_Oct._8,_2015_.pdf

------------------------------
James Scanlan
James P. Scanlan Attorney At Law
------------------------------

Paragraph 4 of Mr. Scanlan's blog post states:


I would be interested to appreciate said Discussion in this light. Would Mr. Scanlan provide direct quotations from said Discussion demonstrating the manner and extent to which it “accorded with” and was premised on said “near universal belief”?

Notwithstanding Mr. Scanlan’s similar assertions in connection with the Baltimore consent decree, I find no evidence in (e.g.) the NAACP’s letter in that matter of an argument in any way premised on said “belief”. Indeed, similar assertions are rife throughout Mr. Scanlan’s writings, yet I cannot recall any instance where these assertions were supported by the type of evidence (i.e., direct quotations) generally regarded as obligatory in scholarly discourse such as might be our aim on ASA Connect. So I would welcome in addition a compendium of all past instances where Mr. Scanlan has offered this type of evidence (once again, I mean direct quotations) in support of this type of assertion.

Kind regards,

------------------------------
David C. Norris, MD
Precision Methodologies, LLC
Seattle, WA
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 03-21-2017 19:29
From: James Scanlan
Subject: Racial impact statements/NIH funding

Below is a blog post on some statistical issues in racial impact statement laws (which currently exist in Connecticut, Iowa, and Oregon, which are before legislatures in New Jersey, Arkansas, Florida, Mississippi, and Wisconsin). 

“Racial Impact Statement Laws in New Jersey and Elsewhere,” Federalist Society Blog (Mar. 20, 2017) http://www.fed-soc.org/blog/detail/racial-impact-statement-laws-in-new-jersey-and-elsewhere

The post addresses that a proposed New Jersey law is based on the mistaken belief that generally reducing prison populations will tend to reduce relative racial differences in incarceration rates.  It may be of greater interest to members in states where such laws exist or are under consideration. 

The last paragraph discusses a January 4 post on the same site regarding potential effects on NIH and other budgets of the new administration’s understanding issues I addressed in November 14, 2016 comments to the Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking (CEBP).[1]  In light of concern about cuts for NIH in the budget just proposed, I note that one can be confident that those cuts occurred without the administration’s understanding the issues addressed in the comments.  So there exist two bases for further concern.  One involves actions that, upon understanding the issues, the administration may take concerning matters to which they in fact pertain.   In that regard, the administration might consider my fourth recommendation to the CEBP (at 46-47) – regarding requiring government-funding research into demographic differences to consider the implications of the effects of the prevalence of an outcome on the measure employed – to be too modest.  The greater basis for concern, however, would be that the administration would regard the issues identified in the CEBP comments as reason for questioning research in areas where the issues do not apply. These possibilities support the broader recommendation in my October 8, 2015 letter to ASA [2] – that is, to form a committee to address the measurement issues it raised ­– though with added focus on distinguishing between matters to which the issues are pertinent and matters to which they are not.

1. http://www.jpscanlan.com/images/Comments_of_J_Scanlan_for_Comm_on_Evidence-Based_Policymaking_Nov._14,_2016_.pdf
2. http://jpscanlan.com/images/Letter_to_American_Statistical_Association_Oct._8,_2015_.pdf

------------------------------
James Scanlan
James P. Scanlan Attorney At Law
------------------------------