Although many cities and other local and state governments adopted minority and women business programs for public contracting in the 1970s and 1980s, the legal landscape for these programs changed in 1989. In that year, the U.S. Supreme Court established substantial limitations on the ability of state and local governments to have MBE programs or any other programs benefitting a group based on race. Legal restrictions also apply to gender-conscious programs.
Croson decision. The 1989 U.S. Supreme Court decision in City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Company held there are only certain limited permissible reasons for a local government to have a race-conscious program, and set specific conditions for such programs:
- A government agency must establish and thoroughly examine evidence to determine whether there is a compelling governmental interest in remedying specific past identified discrimination or its present effects; and
- A jurisdiction must also ensure that any program adopted is narrowly tailored to achieve the goal of remedying the identified discrimination.
These two requirements must both be satisfied to meet the U.S. Supreme Court’s strict scrutiny standard of review for race-conscious programs.
Disparity studies examine whether there is a disparity between the utilization and availability of minority- and women-owned firms in an agency’s contracting, which is key information in determining whether there is evidence that race or gender discrimination affects a city’s contracting. When the agency already has a race- and gender-conscious program in place, a disparity study examines outcomes for similar public institutions or within the local private sector marketplace to examine if there would be disparities but for that program. Because the U.S. Supreme Court held that a public agency could take action if it had become a passive participant in a system of racial exclusion practiced by elements of the local industry, comprehensive disparity studies examine such information as well.
There are a number of factors used to determine whether a program is narrowly tailored, including consideration of whether workable “race-neutral measures” are sufficient to remedy the identified discrimination.
Methodology. A disparity study develops the quantitative and qualitative information for a government body to consider the types of programs necessary to address the effects of any discrimination against minority- or women-owned firms.
Our methodology is based on relevant case law, including the recent Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision that favorably reviewed the study team’s methodology for measuring availability, analyzing disparity and collecting and analyzing qualitative information.