STATISTICAL APPROACHES FOR ASSESSING DISPARATE IMPACT IN FAIR HOUSING CASES

IF 1.5 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, MATHEMATICAL METHODS Statistics and Public Policy Pub Date : 2023-09-29 DOI:10.1080/2330443x.2023.2263038
Dennis J. Aigner, Marco del Ángel, Joel Wiles
{"title":"STATISTICAL APPROACHES FOR ASSESSING DISPARATE IMPACT IN FAIR HOUSING CASES","authors":"Dennis J. Aigner, Marco del Ángel, Joel Wiles","doi":"10.1080/2330443x.2023.2263038","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The measurement of the disparate impact of a particular de facto discriminatory policy on a minority or otherwise legally protected group has been of importance since passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. When the data available for the measurement of disparate impact, as embodied in the so-called “disparity ratio,” come from samples, a statistical approach naturally suggests itself. This article reviews both the law and statistics literature with regard to statistical inference applicable to the disparity ratio and related measures of disparate impact. From that review, three primary approaches are evaluated, the difference in so-called “rejection” rates for the protected and non-protected groups, their ratio (the disparity ratio), and the natural logarithm of the disparity ratio. For various reasons, the direct ratio estimator is recommended for use in all but small samples, where the log-ratio approach is to be preferred. The main points are illustrated with two fair housing examples, one being the possible discriminatory effect by race owing to a landlord’s refusal to accept Section 8 housing vouchers in lieu of cash rent, and the other being the effects of occupancy restrictions on families with children. Various methodological issues that arise in the application of these three estimation approaches are addressed in the context of the more complex sample designs that underlie the data utilized.","PeriodicalId":43397,"journal":{"name":"Statistics and Public Policy","volume":"45 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Statistics and Public Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2330443x.2023.2263038","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, MATHEMATICAL METHODS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The measurement of the disparate impact of a particular de facto discriminatory policy on a minority or otherwise legally protected group has been of importance since passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. When the data available for the measurement of disparate impact, as embodied in the so-called “disparity ratio,” come from samples, a statistical approach naturally suggests itself. This article reviews both the law and statistics literature with regard to statistical inference applicable to the disparity ratio and related measures of disparate impact. From that review, three primary approaches are evaluated, the difference in so-called “rejection” rates for the protected and non-protected groups, their ratio (the disparity ratio), and the natural logarithm of the disparity ratio. For various reasons, the direct ratio estimator is recommended for use in all but small samples, where the log-ratio approach is to be preferred. The main points are illustrated with two fair housing examples, one being the possible discriminatory effect by race owing to a landlord’s refusal to accept Section 8 housing vouchers in lieu of cash rent, and the other being the effects of occupancy restrictions on families with children. Various methodological issues that arise in the application of these three estimation approaches are addressed in the context of the more complex sample designs that underlie the data utilized.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
评估公平住房案件中差别影响的统计方法
自1964年《民权法案》通过以来,衡量一项特定的事实上的歧视性政策对少数群体或其他受法律保护的群体造成的差别影响一直很重要。当可用于测量差异影响的数据(体现在所谓的“差异比”中)来自样本时,统计方法自然就会出现。本文回顾了法律和统计学文献中关于差异比的统计推断和差异影响的相关措施。从审查中,评估了三种主要方法,即受保护和非受保护群体的所谓“拒绝”率的差异,它们的比率(差距比)和差距比的自然对数。由于各种原因,建议在除小样本外的所有样本中使用直接比率估计器,其中对数比方法是首选方法。用两个公平住房的例子说明了要点,一个是由于房东拒绝接受第8条住房券代替现金租金而可能产生的种族歧视影响,另一个是对有孩子的家庭的占用限制的影响。在这三种估计方法的应用中出现的各种方法问题在使用数据的基础上更复杂的样本设计的背景下得到解决。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Statistics and Public Policy
Statistics and Public Policy SOCIAL SCIENCES, MATHEMATICAL METHODS-
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
6.20%
发文量
13
审稿时长
32 weeks
期刊最新文献
State-Building through Public Land Disposal? An Application of Matrix Completion for Counterfactual Prediction Clusters of Jail Incarcerations in US Counties: 2010-2018 Comment on ‘What protects the autonomy of the Federal Statistics Agencies? An Assessment of the Procedures in Place That Protect the Independence and Objectivity of Official Statistics” by Pierson et al. On Coping in a Non-Binary World: Rejoinder to Biedermann and Kotsoglou Commentary on “Three-Way ROCs for Forensic Decision Making” by Nicholas Scurich and Richard S. John (in: Statistics and Public Policy)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1