Racial Bias and LSI-R Assessments in Probation Sentencing and Outcomes

Abstract

Risk assessments are now implemented in correctional settings across the United States as an evidence-based strategy to inform sentencing and supervision decisions. Despite growing research examining racial bias in the predictive validity of risk assessments, few studies have investigated racial bias in the context of judicial decision-making. We investigated the interactive contributions of race and Level of Service Inventory–Revised (LSI-R) risk assessments in predicting sentence length and probation outcomes in 11,792 Black and White probationers. Results showed White probationers at low-risk levels received longer sentences relative to Black probationers classified at the same risk levels. However, there were few differences at higher risk levels and no evidence of racial bias in the predictive accuracy of LSI-R assessments for other probation outcomes. Findings highlight the need for prospective and carefully controlled investigations into whether risk assessments improve the fairness and accuracy of sentencing and other risk management decisions.

Predictive Validity of Pretrial Risk Assessments: A Systematic Review of the Literature

“…On one hand, removing the step of interviewing defendants eliminates barriers to implementation that renders the PSA appealing to many jurisdictions, such as the staffing, space, and time required to conduct the defendant interviews (VanNostrand & Lowenkamp, 2013). On the other hand, variables that reflect prior contact with the criminal justice system have come under particular scrutiny due to their susceptibility to biased policing practices and prosecutorial decisions, as well as recordkeeping errors (Eckhouse et al, 2019; Lowder et al, 2019; Mayson, 2019).…”

“…It is this third issue that speaks to predictive validity. In particular, pretrial risk assessments should be able to forecast pretrial outcomes with comparable predictive validity, regardless of the base rate of offending (Lowder et al, 2019). To our knowledge, there has been no effort to date that examines and compares the predictive validity of pretrial risk assessments as a function of race/ethnicity, or gender for that matter, across instruments and outcomes.…”

Redesigning the Central Eight: Introducing the M-PACT Six

“…Another topic of concern is an RNA’s inherent racial/ethnic bias (Eckhouse et al, 2019; Hamilton et al, 2019; Lowder et al, 2019). While there is a greater focus on risk assessment equity, the prioritization of programming and cultural competency of needs assessments is also an important endeavor worthy of evaluation.…”

Finding Colour in Conformity Part II—Reflections on Structured Professional Judgement and Cross-Cultural Risk Assessment

“…There is an extensive body of risk assessment literature spanning several decades and a growing research base canvassing cross-cultural risk assessment. Findings from this literature indicate that commonly employed forensic risk instruments (both SPJ and actuarial) are generally able to predict recidivism for non-White groups at similar levels of precision to White groups (Lowder et al., 2019; Olver et al., 2014; Shepherd et al., 2014; Wilson & Gutierrez, 2014). However, some research has noted a trend towards reduced accuracy for particular groups (Shepherd & Lewis-Fernandez, 2016)—the extent to which this occurs varies by instrument and warrants further enquiry.…”