[IPAC-List] Subgroup norms of inebriation?

[Shelley Spilberg]

Thanks to much of those who responded to my adverse impact record-keeping question.  Here’s your bonus question:  

When screening police candidates, an individual’s alcohol use, both current and historical is taken into serious consideration. In particularly, frequency of intoxication weighs heavy in these assessments.  In addition to asking about their frequency of inebriation outright, the are also asked about the amount and frequency of alcohol consumed, with the prospective employers doing their own intoxication calculations based on legal definitions of blood alcohol concentrations. However, it is well-established the amount of alcohol needed to become inebriated is moderated by one’s size (weight) and gender.  

Is it lawful under the Civil Rights Act to factor in the candidate’s gender and weight when calculating the candidate’s frequency and extent of inebriation, particularly if this could lead to adverse employment actions that vary by gender and perhaps ethnicity?  

Shelley Weiss Spilberg, Ph.D.

CA. Commission on Peace Officer Stnds. & Trng.

1601 Alhambra Boulevard

Sacramento, CA.  95816-7083

(916) 227-4824

From: Mark Hammer [mailto:Mark.Hammer at psc-cfp.gc.ca] 
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 6:54 AM
To: ipac-list at ipacweb.org; Shelley Spilberg
Subject: Re: [IPAC-List] Adverse Impact Statistics

 

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. 


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.