Cited by 317Criminal Justice and Corrections AnalysisPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual OffendingEthics and Social Impacts of AI

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 access

SKEEM, JENNIFER L., LOWENKAMP, CHRISTOPHER T.·2016·Criminology

DOI 10.1111/1745-9125.12123

Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/1745-9125.12123

Cites

96 of 96 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences
Muller, K. E., & Cohen, J. (1989) · Technometrics · doi:10.2307/1270020 · Cited by 99,603
Using multivariate statistics
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
How Do Risk Factors Work Together? Mediators, Moderators, and Independent, Overlapping, and Proxy Risk Factors
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).”
THE INTERACTION OF RACE, GENDER, AND AGE IN CRIMINAL SENTENCING: THE PUNISHMENT COST OF BEING YOUNG, BLACK, AND MALE
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

Show all 96 references

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

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
The Measure and Mismeasure of Fairness
Corbett-Davies, S., Gaebler, J. D., Nilforoshan, H., Shroff, R., & Goel, S. (2018) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1808.00023 · Cited by 444
Risk Assessment in Criminal Sentencing
Monahan, J., & Skeem, J. L. (2016) · Annual Review of Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-021815-092945 · Cited by 256
Self-citation
Algorithmic risk governance: Big data analytics, race and information activism in criminal justice debates
Hannah-Moffat, K. (2019) · Theoretical Criminology · doi:10.1177/1362480618763582 · Cited by 236
Big data hurdles in precision medicine and precision public health
Prosperi, M., Min, J. S., Bian, J., & Modave, F. (2018) · BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making · doi:10.1186/s12911-018-0719-2 · Cited by 200
Algorithmic reparation
Davis, J. L., Williams, A. A., & Yang, M. W. (2021) · Big Data & Society · doi:10.1177/20539517211044808 · Cited by 179
Artificial Intelligence for the Otolaryngologist: A State of the Art Review
Bur, A. M., Shew, M. A., & New, J. (2019) · Otolaryngology · doi:10.1177/0194599819827507 · Cited by 178
The Dataset Nutrition Label: A Framework To Drive Higher Data Quality Standards
Holland, S., Hosny, A., Newman, S., Joseph, J., & Chmielinski, K. (2018) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1805.03677 · Cited by 175
Investigating the Impact of Gender on Rank in Resume Search Engines
Chen, L., Ma, R., Hannák, A., & Wilson, C. (2018) · Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3173574.3174225 · Cited by 155
Risk assessment tools in criminal justice and forensic psychiatry: The need for better data
Douglas, T., Pugh, J., Singh, I., Savulescu, J., & Fazel, S. (2016) · European Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.eurpsy.2016.12.009 · Cited by 152
Do risk assessment tools help manage and reduce risk of violence and reoffending? A systematic review.
Viljoen, J. L., Cochrane, D. M., & Jonnson, M. R. (2018) · Law and Human Behavior · doi:10.1037/lhb0000280 · Cited by 136
Responsible AI: Requirements and challenges
Ghallab, M. (2019) · AI Perspectives · doi:10.1186/s42467-019-0003-z · Cited by 120
Psychological Assessments in Legal Contexts: Are Courts Keeping “Junk Science” Out of the Courtroom?
Neal, T. M. S., Slobogin, C., Saks, M. J., Faigman, D. L., & Geisinger, K. F. (2019) · Gothic.net · doi:10.1177/1529100619888860 · Cited by 115
Gender, risk assessment, and sanctioning: The cost of treating women like men.
Skeem, J. L., Monahan, J. T., & Lowenkamp, C. T. (2016) · Law and Human Behavior · doi:10.1037/lhb0000206 · Cited by 103
Self-citation
INTERORGANIZATIONAL UTILITY OF WELFARE STIGMA IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM*
Lara‐Millán, A., & Cleve, N. G. V. (2016) · Criminology · doi:10.1111/1745-9125.12128 · Cited by 103
Fairness issues, current approaches, and challenges in machine learning models
Jui, T. D., & Rivas, P. (2024) · International Journal of Machine Learning and Cybernetics · doi:10.1007/s13042-023-02083-2 · Cited by 100
It's COMPASlicated: The Messy Relationship between RAI Datasets and Algorithmic Fairness BenchmarksPreprint
Bao, M., Zhou, A., Zottola, S. A., Brubach, B., Desmarais, S. L., Horowitz, A., Lum, K., & Venkatasubramanian, S. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2106.05498 · Cited by 94
Using algorithms to address trade‐offs inherent in predicting recidivism
Skeem, J. L., & Lowenkamp, C. T. (2020) · Behavioral Sciences & the Law · doi:10.1002/bsl.2465 · Cited by 89
Self-citation
'Un'Fair Machine Learning Algorithms
Fu, R., Aseri, M., Singh, P. V., & Srinivasan, K. (2019) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.2021.4065 · Cited by 85
The false promise of risk assessments: epistemic reform and the limits of fairness
Green, B. (2020) · Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3351095.3372869 · Cited by 80
Emerging Technologies at Work: Policy Ideas to Address Negative Consequences for Work, Workers, and Society
Bailey, D. E. (2022) · Industrial and Labor Relations Review · doi:10.1177/00197939221076747 · Cited by 74
Socioeconomic marginality in sentencing: The built-in bias in risk assessment tools and the reproduction of social inequality
van Eijk, G. (2016) · Punishment & Society · doi:10.1177/1462474516666282 · Cited by 73
Racist Algorithms or Systemic Problems? Risk Assessments and Racial Disparities
Vincent, G. M., & Viljoen, J. L. (2020) · Criminal Justice and Behavior · doi:10.1177/0093854820954501 · Cited by 68
Monsters, Metaphors, and Machine Learning
Dove, G., & Fayard, A. (2020) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3313831.3376275 · Cited by 68
Impact of risk assessment instruments on rates of pretrial detention, postconviction placements, and release: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Viljoen, J. L., Jonnson, M. R., Cochrane, D. M., Vargen, L. M., & Vincent, G. M. (2019) · Law and Human Behavior · doi:10.1037/lhb0000344 · Cited by 67
Are risk assessments racially biased?: Field study of the SAVRY and YLS/CMI in probation.
Perrault, R. T., Vincent, G. M., & Guy, L. S. (2017) · Psychological Assessment · doi:10.1037/pas0000445 · Cited by 66
Identifying Significant Predictive Bias in ClassifiersPreprint
Zhang, Z., & Neill, D. B. (2016) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1611.08292 · Cited by 66
Age, risk assessment, and sanctioning: Overestimating the old, underestimating the young.
Monahan, J. T., Skeem, J. L., & Lowenkamp, C. T. (2017) · Law and Human Behavior · doi:10.1037/lhb0000233 · Cited by 58
Self-citation
The Tangle of Science
Cartwright, N. D., Hardie, J., Montuschi, E., Soleiman, M., & Thresher, A. C. (2022) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198866343.001.0001 · Cited by 58
Risk Assessment and Juvenile Justice
Campbell, C., Papp, J., Barnes, A. R., Onifade, E., & Anderson, V. R. (2018) · Criminology & Public Policy · doi:10.1111/1745-9133.12377 · Cited by 57
Digital prediction technologies in the justice system: The implications of a ‘race-neutral’ agenda
Ugwudike, P. (2020) · Theoretical Criminology · doi:10.1177/1362480619896006 · Cited by 57
Offender Risk Assessment Practices Vary across Canada
Bourgon, G., Mugford, R., Hanson, R. K., & Coligado, M. (2017) · Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice/La Revue canadienne de criminologie et de justice pénale · doi:10.3138/cjccj.2016-0024 · Cited by 56
Risk and punishment: The recent history and uncertain future of actuarial, algorithmic, and “evidence‐based” penal techniques
Werth, R. (2019) · Sociology Compass · doi:10.1111/soc4.12659 · Cited by 54
The Accuracy, Equity, and Jurisprudence of Criminal Risk Assessment
Goel, S., Shroff, R., Skeem, J. L., & Slobogin, C. (2018) · Edward Elgar Publishing eBooks · doi:10.4337/9781788972826.00007 · Cited by 53
Self-citation
Keeping Designers in the Loop
Yu, B., Yuan, Y., Terveen, L., Wu, Z. S., Forlizzi, J., & Zhu, H. (2020) · Designing Interactive Systems Conference · doi:10.1145/3357236.3395528 · Cited by 52
Many hands make many fingers to point: challenges in creating accountable AI
Slota, S. C., Fleischmann, K. R., Greenberg, S. R., Verma, N., Cummings, B., Li, L., & Shenefiel, C. (2021) · AI & Society · doi:10.1007/s00146-021-01302-0 · Cited by 50
Case study
Rodolfa, K. T., Salomon, E., Haynes, L., Mendieta, I. H., Larson, J., & Ghani, R. (2020) · ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT) · doi:10.1145/3351095.3372863 · Cited by 50
Investigating Algorithmic Risk and Race
Hamilton, M. (2021) · UCLA Criminal Justice Law Review · doi:10.5070/cj85154807 · Cited by 48
Reflections on Artificial Intelligence for Humanity
Braunschweig, B., & Ghallab, M. (2021) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-69128-8 · Cited by 48
Good systems, bad data?: Interpretations of AI hype and failures
Slota, S. C., Fleischmann, K. R., Greenberg, S. R., Verma, N., Cummings, B., Li, L., & Shenefiel, C. (2020) · Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/pra2.275 · Cited by 48
Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) classification models: Still evolving
Taxman, F. S., & Smith, L. (2020) · Aggression and Violent Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.avb.2020.101459 · Cited by 46
The Public Safety Assessment: A Re-Validation and Assessment of Predictive Utility and Differential Prediction by Race and Gender in KentuckyPreprint
DeMichele, M. T., Baumgartner, P., Wenger, M., Barrick, K., Comfort, M. L., & Misra, S. (2018) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3168452 · Cited by 46
On the Validity of Arrest as a Proxy for Offense: Race and the Likelihood of Arrest for Violent Crimes
Fogliato, R., Xiang, A., Lipton, Z. C., Nagin, D. S., & Chouldechova, A. (2021) · Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI Ethics and Society · doi:10.1145/3461702.3462538 · Cited by 45
Achieving Equity with Predictive Policing Algorithms: A Social Safety Net Perspective
Yen, C.-P., & Hung, T.-W. (2021) · Science and Engineering Ethics · doi:10.1007/s11948-021-00312-x · Cited by 45
Predicting Recidivism Risk Meets AI Act
DIJCK, G. V. (2022) · European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research · doi:10.1007/s10610-022-09516-8 · Cited by 43
Public safety assessment
DeMichele, M. T., Baumgartner, P., Wenger, M., Barrick, K., & Comfort, M. L. (2020) · Criminology & Public Policy · doi:10.1111/1745-9133.12481 · Cited by 44
Predictive validity of the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY) with Indigenous and Caucasian female and male adolescents on probation.
Muir, N. M., Viljoen, J. L., Jonnson, M. R., Cochrane, D. M., & Rogers, B. J. (2020) · Psychological Assessment · doi:10.1037/pas0000816 · Cited by 41
Theoretical and Empirical Advances in the Study and Control of White-Collar Offenders
Benson, M. L. (2020) · Justice Evaluation Journal · doi:10.1080/24751979.2020.1808855 · Cited by 39
The Use of Risk Assessment in Sentencing
van Ginneken, E. F. J. C. (2019) · Hart Publishing eBooks · doi:10.5040/9781509921447.ch-002 · Cited by 38
Time-Free Effects in Predicting Recidivism Using Both Fixed and Variable Follow-Up Periods
Flores, A. W., Holsinger, A. M., Lowenkamp, C. T., & Cohen, T. H. (2016) · Criminal Justice and Behavior · doi:10.1177/0093854816678649 · Cited by 35
Self-citation
Better Practices in the Development and Validation of Recidivism Risk Assessments: The Minnesota Sex Offender Screening Tool–4
Duwe, G. (2017) · Criminal Justice Policy Review · doi:10.1177/0887403417718608 · Cited by 35
Beyond Fairness: Reparative Algorithms to Address Historical Injustices of Housing Discrimination in the US
So, W., Lohia, P., Pimplikar, R., Hosoi, A. E., & D’Ignazio, C. (2022) · ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT) · doi:10.1145/3531146.3533160 · Cited by 34
Algorithmic risk assessments and the double‐edged sword of youth
Stevenson, M. T., & Slobogin, C. (2018) · Behavioral Sciences & the Law · doi:10.1002/bsl.2384 · Cited by 34
How can geologic decision-making under uncertainty be improved?
Wilson, C. G., Bond, C. E., & Shipley, T. F. (2019) · Solid Earth · doi:10.5194/se-10-1469-2019 · Cited by 33
The Usual Suspects: Prior Criminal Record and the Probability of Arrest
Stolzenberg, L., D’Alessio, S. J., & Flexon, J. L. (2020) · Police Quarterly · doi:10.1177/1098611120937304 · Cited by 33
Racial Innocence: Law, Social Science, and the Unknowing of Racism in the US Carceral State
Murakawa, N. (2019) · Annual Review of Law and Social Science · doi:10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-101518-042649 · Cited by 31
Actuarial Justice
Rothschild‐Elyassi, G., Koehler, J., & Simon, J. S. (2018) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781119372394.ch14 · Cited by 31
Racial Bias and LSI-R Assessments in Probation Sentencing and Outcomes
Lowder, E. M., Morrison, M. M., Kroner, D. G., & Desmarais, S. L. (2018) · Criminal Justice and Behavior · doi:10.1177/0093854818789977 · Cited by 31
The New Penology
Koehler, J., Rothschild‐Elyassi, G., & Simon, J. S. (2018) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/obo/9780195396607-0245 · Cited by 30
Validating the Ohio Risk Assessment System Community Supervision Tool with a Diverse Sample from Texas
Lovins, B. K., Latessa, E. J., May, T., & Lux, J. L. (2017) · Corrections · doi:10.1080/23774657.2017.1361798 · Cited by 28
Enhancing the fairness of AI prediction models by Quasi-Pareto improvement among heterogeneous thyroid nodule population
Yao, S., Dai, F., Sun, P., Zhang, W., Qian, B., & Lu, H. J. (2024) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-024-44906-y · Cited by 27
Revalidation of the Federal PTRA: Testing the PTRA for Predictive Biases
Cohen, T. H., & Lowenkamp, C. T. (2018) · Criminal Justice and Behavior · doi:10.1177/0093854818810315 · Cited by 27
Self-citation
Removing biased data to improve fairness and accuracyPreprint
Verma, S., Ernst, M. D., & Just, R. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2102.03054 · Cited by 27
Racial Disparities in Lifer Parole Outcomes: The Hidden Role of Professional Evaluations
Young, K. M., & Pearlman, J. (2021) · Law & Social Inquiry · doi:10.1017/lsi.2021.37 · Cited by 26
What Do Criminal Justice Professionals Think About Risk Assessment at Pretrial?Preprint
DeMichele, M. T., Baumgartner, P., Barrick, K., Comfort, M. L., Scaggs, S. J. A., & Misra, S. (2018) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3168490 · Cited by 26
What is Proxy Discrimination?
Tschantz, M. C. (2022) · 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness Accountability and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3531146.3533242 · Cited by 25
Connecting mental health court participants with services: Process, challenges, and recommendations.
Edwards, E. R., Sissoko, D. R. G., Abrams, D., Samost, D., Gamma, S. L., & Geraci, J. C. (2020) · Psychology Public Policy and Law · doi:10.1037/law0000236 · Cited by 25
Enhancing a recidivism prediction tool with machine learning
Karimi-Haghighi, M., & Castillo, C. (2021) · International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law · doi:10.1145/3462757.3466150 · Cited by 25
Differential prediction and disparate impact of pretrial risk assessments in practice: a multi-site evaluation
Lowder, E. M., Diaz, C. L., Grommon, E., & Ray, B. R. (2022) · Journal of Experimental Criminology · doi:10.1007/s11292-021-09492-9 · Cited by 25
An Algorithmic Assessment of Parole Decisions
Laqueur, H. S., & Copus, R. W. (2022) · Journal of Quantitative Criminology · doi:10.1007/s10940-022-09563-8 · Cited by 25
Reliability and Validity of START and LSI-R Assessments in Mental Health Jail Diversion Clients
Lowder, E. M., Desmarais, S. L., Rade, C. B., Johnson, K. L., & Dorn, R. A. V. (2017) · Assessment · doi:10.1177/1073191117704505 · Cited by 25
Do I Look Like a Criminal? Examining how Race Presentation Impacts Human Judgement of Recidivism
Mallari, K., Inkpen, K., Johns, P., Tan, S., Ramesh, D., & Kamar, E. (2020) · Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3313831.3376257 · Cited by 24
The veneers of empiricism: Gender, race and prison classification
Montford, K. S., & Hannah‐Moffat, K. (2020) · Aggression and Violent Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.avb.2020.101475 · Cited by 23
Ethics Guidelines for Using AI-based Algorithms in Recruiting: Learnings from a Systematic Literature Review
Hofeditz, L., Mirbabaie, M., Luther, A., Mauth, R., & Rentemeister, I. (2022) · Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) · doi:10.24251/hicss.2022.018 · Cited by 26
The Impact of Algorithmic Risk Assessments on Human Predictions and its Analysis via Crowdsourcing Studies
Fogliato, R., Chouldechova, A., & Lipton, Z. (2021) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3479572 · Cited by 23
Fairness Evaluation in Presence of Biased Noisy Labels
Fogliato, R., G'Sell, M., & Chouldechova, A. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2003.13808 · Cited by 23
Algorithmic Bias in Criminal Risk Assessment: The Consequences of Racial Differences in Arrest as a Measure of Crime
Neil, R., & Zanger-Tishler, M. (2024) · Annual Review of Criminology · doi:10.1146/annurev-criminol-022422-125019 · Cited by 23
Psychosocial determinants of recidivism risk among incarcerated individuals with a history of substance use: A systematic review
Syasyila, K., Kamaluddin, M. R., Nor, H. A. M., & Singh, P. S. J. (2025) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0327810 · Cited by 23
Who does and doesn't pay taxes?
Advani, A. (2021) · Fiscal Studies · doi:10.1111/1475-5890.12257 · Cited by 23
On the Ethics and Practicalities of Artificial Intelligence, Risk Assessment, and Race.
Hogan, N. R., Davidge, E. Q., & Corabian, G. (2021) · PubMed · doi:10.29158/jaapl.200116-20 · Cited by 23
More Accountable, More Ethical, Yet Less Trusted: Misplaced Corporate Governance in the Era of Big Data
Fotaki, M., Voudouris, I., Lioukas, S. K., & Zyglidopoulos, S. C. (2020) · British Journal of Management · doi:10.1111/1467-8551.12447 · Cited by 23
The Intuitive-Override Model: Nudging Judges Toward Pretrial Risk Assessment InstrumentsPreprint
DeMichele, M. T., Comfort, M. L., Misra, S., Barrick, K., & Baumgartner, P. (2018) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3168500 · Cited by 24
Just Algorithms
Slobogin, C. (2021) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108988025 · Cited by 22
Inteligencia artificial y proceso penal
Falconí, R. J. G., & Pazmiño, K. F. B. (2024) · Revista San Gregorio · doi:10.36097/rsan.v1i58.2808 · Cited by 22
Can we avoid reductionism in risk reduction?
Prins, S. J., & Reich, A. D. (2017) · Theoretical Criminology · doi:10.1177/1362480617707948 · Cited by 22
Judicial Reliance on Risk Assessment in Sentencing Drug and Property Offenders: A Test of the Treatment Resource Hypothesis
Garrett, B. L., Jakubow, A., & Monahan, J. T. (2019) · Criminal Justice and Behavior · doi:10.1177/0093854819842589 · Cited by 22
Risk Assessment Overrides: Shuffling the Risk Deck Without Any Improvements in Prediction
Cohen, T. H., Lowenkamp, C. T., Bechtel, K., & Flores, A. W. (2020) · Criminal Justice and Behavior · doi:10.1177/0093854820953449 · Cited by 22
Self-citation
Leveraging Administrative Data for Bias Audits: Assessing Disparate Coverage with Mobility Data for COVID-19 Policy
Coston, A., Guha, N., Ouyang, D., Lu, L., Chouldechova, A., & Ho, D. E. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3442188.3445881 · Cited by 21
Comparing Official Measures of Recidivism in Juvenile Justice
Caudill, J. W., & Trulson, C. R. (2022) · American Journal of Criminal Justice · doi:10.1007/s12103-022-09672-x · Cited by 21
Towards a More Evidence-Based Risk Assessment for People in the Criminal Justice System: the Case of OxRec in the Netherlands
Fazel, S., Sariaslan, A., & Fanshawe, T. R. (2022) · European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research · doi:10.1007/s10610-022-09520-y · Cited by 21
Visual Auditor: Interactive Visualization for Detection and Summarization of Model Biases
Munechika, D., Wang, Z. J., Reidy, J., Rubin, J., Gade, K., Kenthapadi, K., & Chau, D. H. (2022) · Visualization · doi:10.1109/vis54862.2022.00018 · Cited by 20
Optimizing Equity: Working towards Fair Machine Learning Algorithms in Laboratory Medicine
Azimi, V., & Zaydman, M. A. (2023) · The Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine · doi:10.1093/jalm/jfac085 · Cited by 20
Predicting Sex Offender Recidivism: Using the Federal Post Conviction Risk Assessment Instrument to Assess the Likelihood of Recidivism Among Federal Sex Offenders
Cohen, T. H. (2017) · Journal of Empirical Legal Studies · doi:10.1111/jels.12184 · Cited by 19
Integrating Artificial Intelligence into Causal Research in Epidemiology
Matthay, E. C., Neill, D. B., Titus, A. R., Desai, S. M., Troxel, A. B., Cerdá, M., Diaz, I. M., Santacatterina, M., & Thorpe, L. E. (2025) · Current Epidemiology Reports · doi:10.1007/s40471-025-00359-5 · Cited by 18
Intimate Partner Violence in Same-Sex Relationships: An Analysis of Risk and Rearrest
Gerstenberger, C. B., Stansfield, R., & Williams, K. R. (2019) · Criminal Justice and Behavior · doi:10.1177/0093854819871984 · Cited by 18
Public’s views of risk assessment algorithms and pretrial decision making
Scurich, N., & Krauss, D. A. (2020) · Psychology, Public Policy, and Law · doi:10.1037/law0000219 · Cited by 17

Authors: SKEEM, J. L., & LOWENKAMP, C. T.
Affiliations: University of California, Berkeley (US)
United States Courts (US)
Corresponding author: SKEEM, JENNIFER L.
ORCID: SKEEM, JENNIFER L.
LOWENKAMP, CHRISTOPHER T.
Venue: Criminology
Publisher: Wiley
Published: 2016-11
Volume: 54
Issue: 4
Pages: 680-712
ISSN: 0011-1384 (ISSN-L)
1745-9125
DOI: 10.1111/1745-9125.12123
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
Licence: onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor, 2 d)
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

RISK, RACE, AND RECIDIVISM: PREDICTIVE BIAS AND DISPARATE IMPACT*

Abstract

Overview

Integrity signals

Verification

Claims the paper makes

Citations

Cites

Cited by

Related

Metadata

Record

About these checks