The DOI matches its Crossref record; 96 of the 96 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
RISK, RACE, AND RECIDIVISM: PREDICTIVE BIAS AND DISPARATE IMPACT*
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Citations
Cites
Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences
Muller, K. E., & Cohen, J. (1989) · Technometrics · doi:10.2307/1270020 · Cited by 99,603
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1983) · Cited by 79,882
Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.).
Lachenbruch, P. A., & Cohen, J. (1989) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.2307/2290095 · Cited by 37,421
The standards for educational and psychological testing.
Eignor, D. R. (2013) · American Psychological Association eBooks · doi:10.1037/14047-013 · Cited by 6,985
Regression standard errors in clustered samples
Rogers, W. H. (1993) · Stata technical bulletin · Cited by 2,694
National Conference of State Legislatures
Clink, K. (2011) · Reference Reviews · doi:10.1108/09504121111114072 · Cited by 2,310
Kraemer, H. C., Stice, E., Kazdin, A., Offord, D., & Kupfer, D. (2001) · American Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.158.6.848 · Cited by 1,712
Comparing effect sizes in follow-up studies: ROC Area, Cohen's d, and r.
Rice, M. E., & Harris, G. T. (2005) · Law and Human Behavior · doi:10.1007/s10979-005-6832-7 · Cited by 1,608 · cited 1×
“Minimum AUCs of .56, .64, and .71 correspond to “small,” “medium,” and “large” effect sizes, respectively (see Rice and Harris, 2005).”
STEFFENSMEIER, D., ULMER, J., & KRAMER, J. (1998) · Criminology · doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.1998.tb01265.x · Cited by 1,592
A META‐ANALYSIS OF THE PREDICTORS OF ADULT OFFENDER RECIDIVISM: WHAT WORKS!*
GENDREAU, P., LITTLE, T., & GOGGIN, C. (1996) · Criminology · doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.1996.tb01220.x · Cited by 1,244
Research works printed but not linked: 16
- American Law Institute, 2014, Model Penal Code: Sentencing (Tentative Draft No. 3)
- Arnold John, 2015, Fixing justice in America, Politico Magazine
- Blumstein Alfred, 1993, Racial disproportionality of US prison populations revisited, University of Colorado Law Review, 64, 743
- Carson Elizabeth, 2015, Prisoners in 2014
- Durose Matthew, 2014, Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 30 States in 2005: Patterns from 2005 to 2010
- Elek Warren, 2015, Using Risk and Needs Assessment Information at Sentencing: Observations from Ten Jurisdictions
- Ender Philip, 2011, Binary_mediation: Command to Compute Indirect Effect with Binary Mediator and/or Binary Response Variable
- Flores Anthony, Comparing variable and fixed follow‐up outcome periods: Do different methods produce different results?, Criminal Justice and Behavior
- Frase Richard, 2004, The Future of Imprisonment
- Frase Richard, 2009, Crime and Justice
- Lawrence Alison, 2013, Trends in Sentencing and Corrections: State Legislation
- Lowenkamp Christopher T., 2007, Predictive validity of the LSI‐R on a sample of offenders drawn from the records of the Iowa Department of Correction Data Management System, Federal Probation, 71, 25
- Reynolds Cecil R., 2012, Handbook of Psychology, Vol 10, Assessment Psychology
- Sentencing Project News, 2015, Race & Justice News: Risk Assessment or Race Assessment?
- Subramanian Ram, 2014, Recalibrating Justice: A Review of 2013 State Sentencing and Corrections Trends
- Tonry Michael, 2008, In Crime and Justice
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Fair prediction with disparate impact: a study of bias in recidivism prediction instruments
Chouldechova, A. (2017) · Big Data · doi:10.1089/big.2016.0047 · Cited by 2,159
Algorithmic Decision Making and the Cost of Fairness
Corbett-Davies, S., Pierson, E., Feller, A., Goel, S., & Huq, A. (2017) · Proceedings of the 23rd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining · doi:10.1145/3097983.3098095 · Cited by 1,149
Ethical Implications and Accountability of Algorithms
Martin, K. (2019) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-018-3921-3 · Cited by 757
Algorithmic Fairness: Choices, Assumptions, and Definitions
Mitchell, S., Potash, E., Barocas, S., D'Amour, A., & Lum, K. (2021) · Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application · doi:10.1146/annurev-statistics-042720-125902 · Cited by 687
Ethical and Bias Considerations in Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning
Hanna, M. G., Pantanowitz, L., Jackson, B., Palmer, O., Visweswaran, S., Pantanowitz, J., Deebajah, M., & Rashidi, H. H. (2025) · Modern Pathology · doi:10.1016/j.modpat.2024.100686 · Cited by 535
Metadata
- Authors
- SKEEM, J. L., & LOWENKAMP, C. T.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Berkeley (US)
- United States Courts (US)
- Corresponding author
- SKEEM, JENNIFER L.
- Venue
- Criminology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2016-11
- Volume
- 54
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 680-712
- ISSN
- 0011-1384 (ISSN-L)
- 1745-9125
- OpenAlex
- W2546836975
- Semantic Scholar
- de4710c8041180b968ada83c5bc4262232953e8f
- Cited by
- 317
- References
- 96
- Citations by year
- 2026: 23 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 47 · 2021: 49 · 2020: 42 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 7
- FWCI
- 35.80
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Locations
- Criminology (publishedVersion)
- SSRN Electronic Journal (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Keywords
- risk assessment tools, predictive bias, indirect discrimination, recidivism, race, criminal history, federal offenders, mass incarceration, sentencing guidelines
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: RISK, RACE, AND RECIDIVISM: PREDICTIVE BIAS AND DISPARATE IMPACT*. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/1745-9125.12123
- The paper
- SKEEM, J. L., & LOWENKAMP, C. T. (2016). RISK, RACE, AND RECIDIVISM: PREDICTIVE BIAS AND DISPARATE IMPACT*. Criminology. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12123
