[IPAC-List] Adverse Impact Statistics

[Mark Hammer]

We've always treated membership in each legally-protected group
separately.  Of course, our legislation does not make the same
distinctions as yours; having only women, persons with disabilities,
aboriginal persons, and members of visible minorities, with no further
within-group distinction.  
 
If a person is a female member of a visible minority and also has a
disability, they count as female when we look at success rates for men
vs women, disabled when we compared disabled against non-disabled, and
visible minority when we compare vismin against non-vismin.  Insomuch as
the analysis is intended to identify whether there are specific systemic
issues, the multiple self-id does not present a computational problem. 
If, however, the intent of the analysis is to say whether, as an
aggregate, protected groups have the same success rates as
non-protected, then one needs to be able to differentiate between
group-membership and actual number of heads.  In which case, the person
isn't so much 1/3 this, 1/3 that, and 1/3 the other, but one person who
is a member of one or more protected groups, and NOT a member of the
particular reference group used for comparison.
 
This sort of how-many-times-do-they-count challenge tends to come up a
lot when the same underqualified person can apply willy-nilly to
multiple positions.  Whether a member of a protected group or not, you
have to be able to differentiate between appliCANTS and appliCATIONS.
 
Ultimately, though, I would imagine it depends on the particular
statistical approach or index being used.  Just keep in mind that there
are always some proportion of false negatives.  That is, an individual
might legally qualify as being of two protected groups, but identify
with one more than the others, and only indicate that one.  We've also
found that sometimes the same folks will self-id on one form/test, but
not on another.  Unless the individual has a VERY distinctive name that
reliably pegs their group membership, there is often no way to tell
which of the incongruities might have been the error.  Moreover, there
are folks who think that they've already told you once, and don't need
to tell you again, because your system just "knows".  So, you're gonna
get error no matter what you do.
 
A naive question: Is it possible for individuals to self-id as
belonging to 3 or more protected groups, in an illogical manner?  In
other words, could I self-ID as African-American, Native-American *and*
Hispanic-American, or is that a logical/legal impossibility?  I ask
simply because I wonder if one needs to build in procedures to trim
these observations as "noise" (not that I would expect all that much
noise to be contributed).
 
Mark Hammer
Ottawa


>>> "Shelley Spilberg" <Shelley.Spilberg at post.ca.gov> 2010/10/13 5:47

PM >>>
If an applicant identifies as having multiple ethnicities (e.g, African
American and American Indian), how should it be reported in Adverse
Impact statistics?  Does each combination get its own category? Is it
split between the two categories (e.g., ½ AA and ½ AI)?  Is it recorded
under one ethnicity or the other?  If so, how is that decision made?


>>> "Shelley Spilberg" <Shelley.Spilberg at post.ca.gov> 2010/10/13 5:47

PM >>>
If an applicant identifies as having multiple ethnicities (e.g, African
American and American Indian), how should it be reported in Adverse
Impact statistics?  Does each combination get its own category? Is it
split between the two categories (e.g., ½ AA and ½ AI)?  Is it recorded
under one ethnicity or the other?  If so, how is that decision made?

Shelley Weiss Spilberg, Ph.D.

CA. Commission on Peace Officer Stnds. & Trng.

1601 Alhambra Boulevard

Sacramento, CA.  95816-7083

(916) 227-4824


CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:  This communication with its contents may
contain confidential and/or legally privileged information.  It is
solely for the use of the intended recipient(s).  Unauthorized
interception, review, use or disclosure is prohibited and may violate
applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act.  If
you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and
destroy all copies of the communication.
_______________________________________________________
IPAC-List
IPAC-List at ipacweb.org
http://www.ipacweb.org/mailman/listinfo/ipac-list


>

This e-mail message is intended for the named recipient(s) and may
contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or exempt from
disclosure under applicable law. Unauthorized disclosure, copying or
re-transmission is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient or not
authorized by the named recipient(s), or if you have received this
e-mail in error, then please notify the sender immediately and delete
the message and any copies.
 >
Ce courriel est destiné exclusivement au destinataire mentionné en titre
et peut contenir de l'information privilégiée, confidentielle ou
soustraite à la communication aux termes des lois applicables. Toute
divulgation non autorisée, toute reproduction ou réacheminement est
interdit. Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire de ce courriel, ou n'êtes
pas autorisé par le destinataire visé, ou encore, si vous l'avez reçu
par erreur, veuillez le mentionner immédiatement à l'expéditeur et
supprimer le courriel et les copies.