Joel,
It is true that reducing the frequency of adverse outcomes reduces the absolute number of adverse outcomes for the disadvantaged group (and, in the rate ranges at issue for most criminal justice outcomes, tends to reduce the absolute difference between the adverse, and favorable, outcome rates of the advantaged and disadvantaged groups). But reducing the frequency of adverse outcome will tend to increase each of the measures/indicators cited by the President as a basis for African American mistrust of law enforcement (subject, of course, to the qualifications noted in the article and treated at somewhat greater length at pages 8-9 of the July 25, 2016 letter to American Statistical Association (ASA) leadership).
With regard to lending, school discipline, and criminal justice outcomes (and various other things), the government has commonly proceeded on the belief that generally reducing adverse outcomes will tend to reduce (a) relative differences in rates of experiencing the outcomes and (b) the proportions disadvantaged groups make up of persons experiencing the outcomes. The opposite is the case.
But, unaware that reducing the frequency of an outcome tends to increase (a) and (b), the government continues to monitor the fairness of practices on the basis of the size of (a) and (b). Thus, we have many situations where an entity’s complying with government encouragements or pressures to reduce the frequency of adverse outcomes tends to increase the chances that the government will sue the entity for discrimination. We also have situations where agreements are reached – as in the case of the consent decree entered against Ferguson, Missouri in April 2016 and the settlement agreement reached between the Department of Education and Oklahoma City schools the same month – that require entities to modify practices in ways that (unbeknownst to the government or the entities) will tend to increase (a) and (b), while also requiring that the entities reduce (a) and (b). See pages 6-7 of the July 25 ASA letter. See also the treatment of the massive monetary settlements in fair lending cases in reference 1.
We also have many situation where provocative statistics about rare outcomes receive great attention (as in the recent attention to racial disparities in preschool suspensions) creating the anomaly whereby the less consequential a matter is, the more consequential it is perceived to be.[2] That is a pretty longstanding pattern.[3]
Be mindful that I am not maintaining that by reducing the frequency of adverse outcomes the government is increasing the comparative disadvantage of racial minorities. Rather, I am faulting the government for failing to understand that reducing the frequency of an outcome tends to increase, not decrease, (a) and (b) and for the perverse consequence of this failure of understanding.
Any unfairness in my treatment of the government rests in my failing to point out often enough that the government’s failure of understanding is a consequence of a like failure of understanding on the part of the scientific community. I have been urging the scientific community, by means of the July 25 ASA letter and my October 5, 2015 ASA letter,[4] as well as similar letters to entities like the Population Association of America (PAA) and the Association of Population Centers (APC),[5] to correct the government’s misunderstanding. Notably, PAA and APC declined to explain the matter to the government, potentially postponing for decades the understanding of a crucial issue by their own members as well as by the government. So it may be that the scientific community, which even more so than the government ought to know better, deserves severer criticism than the government.
But unless one tells the government in very explicit terms how poorly it understands a matter, the government will never figure that out. The government may never figure it out anyway unless an entity like ASA takes action of the type I recommended in the letters of October 5, 2015, and July 25, 2016.
Jim
1. “Misunderstanding of Statistics Leads to Misguided Law Enforcement Policies,” Amstat News (Dec. 2012)Misunderstanding of Statistics Leads to Misguided Law Enforcement Policies
Letter to Department of Health and Human Services and Department of Education (Aug. 24, 2015)http://jpscanlan.com/images/Letter_to_HHS_and_DOE_re_Preschool_Discipline_Aug._24,_2015_.pdf
3. “The Perils of Provocative Statistics,” Public Interest (Winter 1991)http://jpscanlan.com/images/The_Perils_of_Provocative_Stat.pdf
4. Letter to American Statistical Association (Oct. 8, 2015)http://jpscanlan.com/images/Letter_to_American_Statistical_Association_Oct._8,_2015_.pdf
5. Letter to Population Association of America and Association of Population Centers (Mar. 29, 2016)http://jpscanlan.com/images/Letter_to_PAA_and_APC_Mar._29,_2016_.pdf
------------------------------
James Scanlan
James P. Scanlan Attorney At Law
Original Message:
Sent: 08-10-2016 16:39
From: Joel Wiesen
Subject: Racial Disparities in Criminal Justice Outcomes
> James,
>
> Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that your main point is that at the same time as the advantaged-disadvantaged (AD) group discrepancy in rates of positive outcomes improves, the AD discrepancy in rates of negative outcomes worsens. But perhaps what is most important is not the AD rates of negative outcomes but the absolute number of negative outcomes for disadvantaged group members, which goes down when the rate of positive outcomes goes up. If so, your strongly worded concern seems completely misplaced, even though it is mathematically correct.
>
> Joel
>
>
>
> --
> Joel P. Wiesen, Ph.D., Director
> Applied Personnel Research
> 62 Candlewood Road
> Scarsdale, NY 10583-6040
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/joelwiesen
> (617) 244-8859
> http://appliedpersonnelresearch.com