The Carrot and the Stick:
Successful Examples of Reductions in Bias
Using Social Science Research and the Legal Process
June 18, 2015
Lisa Evans, JD
Scientific Workforce Diversity Officer
1
Carrot and the Stick
• Modification of the title of a 1990 book, The Carrot or the
Stick for School Desegregation Policy: Magnet Schools
or Forced Busing, Christine Rossell
• Rossell found that voluntary desegregation plans with
incentives (magnets) produce more interracial exposure
than the mandatory plans
• My experience tell me that you need both to address
implicit bias and institutional policies that have a
disparate impact on underrepresented students
2
My Background
• Litigator, Educational Opportunities Section, Department
of Justice, 1994-2000
--desegregation, integration of women,
language access, diversity
• Senior Civil Rights Analyst and Senior Advisor for Policy,
HHS Office of the Secretary, and NIMHD, 2000-2008
--intersection of civil rights, minority health and health
disparities
• Scientific Workforce Diversity Officer, NIH, 2008 to
present
3
The Carrot and the Stick
Brown v. Board of Education
4
The Carrot and the Stick
• Dr. Kenneth and Mamie Clark conducted “the doll test”
on to educate his colleagues in psychology about the
influence of race and color and status on the self-esteem
of black children—fourteen years before Brown
• Legal challenge informed by “the doll test” and other
social science data that overturned “separate but equal”
5
The Carrot and the Stick
Cass Lake, Minnesota
6
Cass Lake Bena School District: A Snapshot
7
Student Assignment
8
What we found—gifted and talented
• Ojibwe families are linguistically and
culturally distinct from their non-native
counterparts
• The Cass Lake Bena Elementary School
identified students using standardized test
scores and a “check list”
9
What did the research show?
• Giftedness is evenly distributed within and
across populations
• Tests alone do not predict which students
are gifted, or who will perform well in gifted
programs
• Checklists should reflect cultural norms
• Experts on designing gifted services and
programs recommended objective and
subjective evaluation
10
Academic Review: Gifted Student Approaches
Portfolio Approach to Assessment
http://www.nagc.org/resources-publications/gifted-education-practices/identification
Objective
Subjective
Nominations: Self, Peer, Teacher, Administrator, Parent. Nominations
Tests & Assessments. Individual intelligence and achievement tests.
help cast a wide net for identifying as many students as possible who might
However, relying on performance results alone may overlook certain
qualify for programs. Often, characteristic checklists, inventory, and
populations.
nomination forms can be completed to provide an informal perspective.
Teacher Observations & Ratings: Learning & Motivation Scales.
Observations and rating scales or checklists can be used to identify students
Student Cumulative Records. Grades, state and standardized tests can be
used as data points during the identification process.
who exhibit a certain traits or characteristics during instruction. Sample
rating scales include Scales for Rating Behavioral Characteristics of Superior
Students (Renzulli & Smith, 1977), Purdue Academic Rating Scales
(PARS), Whitmore or Rimm Underachievement Scales, and Cultural
Characteristics Scales.
Portfolios & Performances. Portfolios or work that is collected over time
can include student reflections of their products (e.g. science fair
exhibits). Portfolios may be developed for academic (math, science) and
creative (speech, arts, music) pursuits.
Student Educational Profiles. An academic case study approach can offer
a more comprehensive process. Case studies may include data,
Purcell, J. & Eckert, R. (2006). Designing services and programs for high-
observations, and growth demonstrated in various settings.
ability learners. National Association for Gifted Children: Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin Press.
11
What Happened?
• Facilitated a series of meetings with district, our
educational expert--reviewed the research and
heard the legal basis for the DOJ law suit
• School district met with Ojibwe community on
student identification and the development of
culturally relevant identification criteria
• The parties entered into a consent decree and
agreed to move to a portfolio approach to
student identification
12
What did we learn?
• Dr. Thomas: institutional bias “reflect and
produce group-based inequities”
• The testing practices and checklist deprived
students of equal educational opportunities
• Our “education” of school personnel consisted of
evidence-based literature, and expert opinion
(carrot)
• Changes only came after we filed suit (stick)
13
NIH‐Sponsored Research on Diversity
The Carrot
•
Diversity in Academic Biomedicine: An Evaluation of Education
and Career Outcomes with Implications for Policy, Ginther et al.,
published on‐line, Social Science Research Network,
(http://ssrn.com/abstract=1677993)
•
Sex Differences in Application, Success, and Funding Rates for
NIH Extramural Programs, Pohlhaus et al., Acad. Med. 86:759‐767,
2011
•
Race, Ethnicity, and NIH Research Awards, Ginther et al.,
Science – published online on August 18, 2011
(http://www.sciencemag.org/hottopics/race‐nihfunding/)
14
NIH Response to the Data
15
Understanding the Problem
Conducting experiments on the review process to
determine if bias exists:
• Illuminate possible sources of bias and intervention
strategies
• De‐identify applications
• Test reviewer ability to determine applicant race
• Assess different types & timing of training against bias
using well validated programs such as Project Implicit
(https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/)
16
Policy Changes
As review experience correlates with success, NIH
established an
• “Early Career Reviewers” program to increase exposure
of investigators from diverse institutions to the review
process (and to increase diversity of review panels)
Funded several extramural grants, including the NIH
Pathfinder Award, that are designed to study interventions
to strengthen the pipeline to improve workforce diversity
17
Rousing the Sleeping Giant
Using the BIG stick
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or the “Sleeping
Giant” of civil rights law. It prohibits discrimination on the
basis of race, color, and national origin in programs
receiving federal financial assistance.
Title VI's can address a huge array of injustices:
From environmental racism to discriminatory profiling, and
from disparities in health care and basic services to
inequities in transportation, housing, and education. Title VI
offers federal agencies a powerful tool to fight
discrimination based on race, color, and national origin.
18
Voluntary Compliance
• Developing training modules for grantees, focused on
our funded investigators on Title VI, Title IX and Section
504 of the Rehabilitation Act
• Work with the HHS Office for Civil Rights on conducting
compliance reviews under all of the statutes
• Congressional interest: March 17, 2015 GAO Report,
Women in STEM Research: Federal Agencies Differ in
the Data They Collect on Grant Applicants
http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/669045.pdf
19