Diversion Programs
(Sept. 18, 2021)
This is one of the subpages to the Criminal Justice Disparities page of jpscanlan.com. The page and it subpages principally address the mistaken belief, promoted by the U.S. government and countless organizations that purport to have expertise in the analysis of data on demographic differences, that generally reducing adverse criminal justice outcomes tend to reduce, (a) relative racial differences in rates of experiencing the outcome and (b) the proportion Blacks make up of persons experiencing the outcomes.). In fact, as explained more fully on the Criminal Justice Disparities page, the opposite is the case.
That is, as I have explained in scores of places with respect to any favorable or adverse outcome since 1987, when two groups differ in their susceptibility to an outcome, generally reducing the outcome, while tending to reduce relative differences in rates of avoiding the outcome (i.e., experiencing the opposite outcome), tends to increase relative difference in rates of experiencing the outcome itself. Correspondingly, reducing the outcome, while tending to increase the proportion the more susceptible group makes up of persons avoiding the outcome (thus reducing all measures of difference between the proportion the group makes up of the population and the proportion it makes up of persons avoiding the outcome), tends also to increase the proportion the group makes up of persons experiencing the outcome itself (thus increasing all measures of difference between the proportion the group makes up of the population and the proportion it makes up of persons experiencing the outcome).
One striking manifestation of the misunderstanding of this may be found in the way that numerous entities – sometimes while touting their ability to analyze data in order to reduce racial differences in criminal justice outcomes and sometimes charging substantial sums for training this subject – promote diversion programs as a means of means of reducing relative racial differences in incarceration rates. See especially the Appendix to the “Usual, But Wholly Misunderstood, Effects of Policies on Measures of Racial Disparity Now Being Seen in Ferguson and the UK and Soon to Be Seen in Baltimore,” Federalist Society Blog (Dec. 4, 2019). See also “The misunderstood effects of the Baltimore police consent decree,” The Daily Record (Feb. 15, 2018) and letters to Coalition for Juvenile Justice (Nov. 27, 2018) and
National Center for Juvenile Justice (Nov. 19, 2018).
This misunderstanding persists in the face of the obvious fact that, inasmuch as arrested Black offenders are more likely to have prior convictions than arrested white defenders, white offenders are more likely to be eligible for diversion programs than Black offenders (as discussed, for example, in “United States Exports Its Most Profound Ignorance About Racial Disparities to the United Kingdom,” Federalist Society Blog (Nov. 2, 2017). It also persists in the face of recidivism score data, as that presented in the Recidivism Illustration subpage of the Scanlan’s Rule page, which should make it obvious that lowering the standards for eligibility for eligibility for diversions programs (or bail), while tending to reduce relative differences in rates of meeting the standards, will tend to increase relative differences in rates of failure to meet the standards and thus remaining incarcerated.
Of course, the failure to understand this issue by persons of putative expertise in analysis of demographic differences in criminal justice outcomes, and the effects of policies on such differences, is no more remarkable than the failure the eleven federal government agencies that enforce federal fair lending laws to understand that relaxing lending standards, while tending to reduce relative racial differences in rates of meeting the standards, will tend to increase relative racial differences in failure to meet the standards or specialists in the analysis of demographic differences in poverty to understand that reducing poverty, while tending to reduce relative racial differences in rates of avoiding poverty, will tend to increase relative differences in poverty rates, given that income and credit score data should make these things obvious to minimally numerates observers. See, e.g., Table 3 and 4 of Response of James P. Scanlan to Office of Management and Budget Request for Information “Methods and Leading Practices for Advancing Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through Government” (FR Doc No: 2021-09109) (July 6, 2021) (at 7-8), Table 2 of “Race and Mortality Revisited,” Society (July/Aug. 2014) (at 330), and Table 1 of “Can We Actually Measure Health Disparities?,” Chance (Spring 2006) (at 48).