Risk, Race, and Recidivism: Predictive Bias and Disparate Impact*

Abstract

One way to unwind mass incarceration without compromising public safety is to use risk assessment instruments in sentencing and corrections. Although these instruments figure prominently in current reforms, critics argue that benefits in crime control will be offset by an adverse effect on racial minorities. Based on a sample of 34,794 federal offenders, we examine the relationships among race, risk assessment [the Post Conviction Risk Assessment (PCRA)], and future arrest. First, application of well‐established principles of psychological science revealed little evidence of test bias for the PCRA—the instrument strongly predicts arrest for both Black and White offenders, and a given score has essentially the same meaning—that is, the same probability of recidivism—across groups. Second, Black offenders obtain higher average PCRA scores than do White offenders (d = .34; 13.5 percent nonoverlap in groups’ scores), so some applications could create disparate impact. Third, most (66 percent) of the racial difference in PCRA scores is attributable to criminal history—which is already embedded in sentencing guidelines. Finally, criminal history is not a proxy for race, but instead it mediates the relationship between race and future arrest. Data are more helpful than rhetoric if the goal is to improve practice at this opportune moment in history.

Risk Assessment and Juvenile Justice

“…Although some researchers have found that race and risk interaction is not a major concern and risk assessments have the potential to be race neutral (Skeem and Lowenkamp, ), it is more important to understand mechanisms that perpetuate racial biases in lieu of risk assessment and how these factors may explain the findings in this study. Understanding the nature of risk assessment and how well they perform relies on the ability to understand how these tools are implemented in practice and the factors that may moderate their predictive validity.…”

Risk assessment tools in criminal justice and forensic psychiatry: The need for better data

“…To determine this, we would need to be able to compare the accuracy of more specific and less specific tools using relevant, reliable and unbiased data on accuracy. Currently deployed tools frequently do use demographic factors such as age and immigration status as predictors, and although recent evidence suggests that including such demographic factors improves predictive accuracy [34], [35], further data are needed to confirm this.…”

Risk and punishment: The recent history and uncertain future of actuarial, algorithmic, and “evidence‐based” penal techniques

“…While third‐generation risk instruments can be and often are linked with rehabilitative programming, research on contemporary risk‐based reform is incipient; at this point, there is almost no evidence on how risk instruments effect either incarceration rates or crime rates (Stevenson, ) . And numerous questions remain about the validity, implementation, ethics, and even constitutionality of risk instruments (Berk, Heidari, Jabbari, Kearns, & Roth, ; Cheliotis, ; Desmarais et al, ; Hannah‐Moffat, ; Harcourt, ; Kemshall, ; Klingele, ; Rothschild‐Elyassi et al, ; Skeem & Lowenkamp, ; Starr, ; Taxman & Caudy, ).…”