James P. Scanlan, Attorney at Law

Home Page

Curriculum Vitae

Publications

Published Articles

Conference Presentations

Working Papers

page1

Journal Comments

Truth in Justice Articles

Measurement Letters

Measuring Health Disp

Outline and Guide to MHD

Summary to MHD

Solutions

page3

Solutions Database

Irreducible Minimums

Pay for Performance

Between Group Variance

Concentration Index

Gini Coefficient

Reporting Heterogeneity

Cohort Considerations

Relative v Absolute Diff

Whitehall Studies

AHRQ's Vanderbilt Report

NHDR Measurement

NHDR Technical Issues

MHD A Articles

MHD B Conf Presentations

MHD D Journal Comments

Consensus/Non-Consensus

Spurious Contradictions

Institutional Corresp

page2

Scanlan's Rule

Outline and Guide to SR

Summary to SR

Bibliography

Semantic Issues

Employment Tests

Case Study

Case Study Answers

Case Study II

Subgroup Effects

Subgroup Effects NC

Illogical Premises

Illogical Premises II

Inevitable Interaction

Interactions by Age

Literacy Illustration

RERI

Feminization of Poverty S

Explanatory Theories

Mortality and Survival

Truncation Issues

Collected Illustrations

Income Illustrations

Framingham Illustrations

Life Table Illustrations

NHANES Illustrations

Mort/Surv Illustration

Credit Score Illustration

Intermediate Outcomes

Representational Disp

Statistical Signif SR

Comparing Averages

Meta-Analysis

Case Control Studies

Criminal Record Effects

Sears Case Illustration

Numeracy Illustration

Obesity Illusration

LIHTC Approval Disparitie

Recidivism Illustration

Consensus

Algorithm Fairness

Mortality and Survival 2

Mort/Survival Update

Measures of Association

Immunization Disparities

Race Health Initiative

Educational Disparities

Disparities by Subject

CUNY ISLG Eq Indicators

Harvard CRP NCLB Study

New York Proficiency Disp

Education Trust GC Study

Education Trust HA Study

AE Casey Profic Study

McKinsey Achiev Gap Study

California RICA

Nuclear Deterrence

Employment Discrimination

Job Segregation

Measuring Hiring Discr

Disparate Impact

Four-Fifths Rule

Less Discr Alt - Proc

Less Discr Altl - Subs

Fisher v. Transco Serv

Jones v. City of Boston

Bottom Line Issue

Lending Disparities

Inc & Cred Score Example

Disparities - High Income

Underadjustment Issues

Absolute Differences - L

Lathern v. NationsBank

US v. Countrywide

US v. Wells Fargo

Partial Picture Issues

Foreclosure Disparities

File Comparison Issues

FHA/VA Steering Study

CAP TARP Study

Disparities by Sector

Holder/Perez Letter

Federal Reserve Letter

Discipline Disparities

COPAA v. DeVos

Kerri K. V. California

Truancy Illustration

Disparate Treatment

Relative Absolute Diff

Offense Type Issues

Los Angeles SWPBS

Oakland Disparities

Richmond Disparities

Nashville Disparities

California Disparities

Denver Disparities

Colorado Disparities

Nor Carolina Disparitie

Aurora Disparities

Allegheny County Disp

Evansville Disparities

Maryland Disparities

St. Paul Disparities

Seattle Disparities

Minneapolis Disparities

Oregon Disparities

Beaverton Disparities

Montgomery County Disp

Henrico County Disparitie

Florida Disparities

Connecticut Disparities

Portland Disparities

Minnesota Disparities

Massachusetts Disparities

Rhode Island Disparities

South Bend Disparities

Utah Disparities

Loudoun Cty Disparities

Kern County Disparities

Milwaukee Disparities

Urbana Disparities

Illinois Disparities

Virginia Disparities

Behavior

Suburban Disparities

Preschool Disparities

Restraint Disparities

Disabilities - PL 108-446

Keep Kids in School Act

Gender Disparities

Ferguson Arrest Disp

NEPC Colorado Study

NEPC National Study

California Prison Pop

APA Zero Tolerance Study

Flawed Inferences - Disc

Oakland Agreement

DOE Equity Report

IDEA Data Center Guide

Duncan/Ali Letter

Crim Justice Disparities

U.S. Customs Search Disp

Deescalation Training

Career Criminal Study

Implicit Bias Training

Drawing Inferences

Diversion Programs

Minneapolis PD Investig

Offense Type Issues CJD

Innumerate Decree Monitor

Massachusetts CJ Disparit

Feminization of Poverty

Affirmative Action

Affirm Action for Women

Other Affirm Action

Justice John Paul Stevens

Statistical Reasoning

The Sears Case

Sears Case Documents

The AT&T Consent Decree

Cross v. ASPI

Vignettes

Times Higher Issues

Gender Diff in DADT Term

Adjustment Issues

Percentage Points

Odds Ratios

Statistical Signif Vig

Journalists & Statistics

Multiplication Definition

Prosecutorial Misconduct

Outline and Guide

Misconduct Summary

B1 Agent Cain Testimony

B1a Bev Wilsh Diversion

B2 Bk Entry re Cain Call

B3 John Mitchell Count

B3a Obscuring Msg Slips

B3b Missing Barksdale Int

B4 Park Towers

B5 Dean 1997 Motion

B6 Demery Testimony

B7 Sankin Receipts

B7a Sankin HBS App

B8 DOJ Complicity

B9 Doc Manager Complaints

B9a Fabricated Gov Exh 25

B11a DC Bar Complaint

Letters (Misconduct)

Links Page

Misconduct Profiles

Arlin M. Adams

Jo Ann Harris

Bruce C. Swartz

Swartz Addendum 2

Swartz Addendum 3

Swartz Addendum 4

Swartz Addendum 7

Robert E. O'Neill

O'Neill Addendum 7

Paula A. Sweeney

Robert J. Meyer

Lantos Hearings

Password Protected

OIC Doc Manager Material

DC Bar Materials

Temp Confidential

DV Issues

Indexes

Document Storage

Pre 1989

1989 - present

Presentations

Prosec Misc Docs

Prosec Misc Docs II

Profile PDFs

Misc Letters July 2008 on

Large Prosec Misc Docs

HUD Documents

Transcripts

Miscellaneous Documents

Unpublished Papers

Letters re MHD

Tables

MHD Comments

Figures

ASPI Documents

Web Page PDFs

Sears Documents

Pages Transfer


De-escalation Training

(Sept. 12, 2021)

As explained on the main Criminal Justice Disparities page and its references virtually all entities analyzing racial disparities in criminal justice outcomes share the mistaken belief that reducing adverse reducing adverse criminal justice outcomes (including adverse interactions with police officers) will tend to reduce, rather than increase, (a) relative racial differences in rates of experiencing the outcomes (as commonly presented in terms of the ratio of the Black rate to the white rate) and (b) the proportion Blacks make up of persons experiencing the outcomes (which is compared with the proportion Blacks make up of the population potentially experiencing the outcomes).  One manifestation of the mistaken belief involves the belief that reducing the use of force by police officers by means of de-escalation training will tend to reduce (a) and (b) with regard to being subject to the use of force. 

The Center for Police Research and Policy of the International Association of Chief of Police (IACP) and the University of Cincinnati (UC) conducted a study of the effects of de-escalation training on police use of force in Louisville, Kentucky, some results of which were reported in a document titled “Impact of Integrating Communications, Assessment, and Tactics (ICAT) De-escalation Training for the Louisville Metro Police Department: Initial Findings” (Sept. 16, 2020, updated Oct. 30, 2020).   In accordance with what a numerate observer ought to expect in the circumstances, the data produced in the study that relative differences between rates at which whites and non-whites were subject to the use of force increased. 

This finding was not presented in the aforementioned report (or at least I was unable to find it).[i]   But in a January 12, 2021 webinar titled “Can Racial and Ethnic Disparities Be Mitigated Through Police Training?,” which was part of part of a Conversation Series conducted jointly by the WestEd Justice and Prevention Research Center and the George Mason University Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy (CEBCO) titled “Mitigating Racial Disparities in the Criminal Justice System,” the corresponding author of the report, UC Professor Robyn Engel, described the finding of a larger reduction for whites than non-whites as part of new analyses that the authors were conducting.  Transcript at 13.  Assuming that initially whites had lower rates of being subject to the use of force, this would necessarily mean that relative differences between rate at which whites and non-whites were subjected to the use of force increased.[ii]  Professor Engel, however, described the finding an anomaly that her team was trying to understand rather than what would typically occur anytime there is a reduction in an outcome for two groups that have different baseline rates for the outcome. 

Following the aforementioned description of findings by Professor Engel, CEBCP Director  Cynthia Lum noted that (Transcript at 15):

And one thing I wanted to just emphasize, Robin, that you had mentioned, is that reductions don't always mean positive. We can have reductions in numbers of use of force or other outcomes, but it doesn't always mean that disparity is reduced as well, sometimes disparity can increase. So, I think that's an important point.

Such statements as this, however, do nothing to dispel the view promoted by the title of the webinar and much of its content that generally training that generally reduces adverse outcomes will be expected to reduce relative racial differences in rates of experiencing the outcomes.  In fact, statements that something does not have to happen themselves promote the view that that which does not have to happen will typically happen.



[i] I did not receive a response to a June 2, 2021 email to co-author of the study Professor Nicholas Corsaro seeking access to the underlying data in order to enable me to examine the matter more closely. 

[ii] Typically, reductions in the use of force would cause a larger proportionate reduction in white rates than non-white rates, though (given the rate ranges in which one usually find rates of being subject to the use of force) the absolute reduction would be greater for non-whites than for whites.  Professor Engel did not indicate whether she was meant larger proportionate reductions or larger absolute reductions.  In the context, however, observers usually are referring to proportionate reductions.  But, inasmuch a larger absolute reduction for whites than non-whites would necessarily also mean a larger proportionate reduction for whites than non-whites, Professor Engel’s statements mean that the relative difference between white and non-white rates increase.