CoChat
Sign Up
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.

Overview

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.

Verification

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.

Citations

Cites

Show all 96 references

Research works printed but not linked: 16

  1. American Law Institute, 2014, Model Penal Code: Sentencing (Tentative Draft No. 3)
  2. Arnold John, 2015, Fixing justice in America, Politico Magazine
  3. Blumstein Alfred, 1993, Racial disproportionality of US prison populations revisited, University of Colorado Law Review, 64, 743
  4. Carson Elizabeth, 2015, Prisoners in 2014
  5. Durose Matthew, 2014, Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 30 States in 2005: Patterns from 2005 to 2010
  6. Elek Warren, 2015, Using Risk and Needs Assessment Information at Sentencing: Observations from Ten Jurisdictions
  7. Ender Philip, 2011, Binary_mediation: Command to Compute Indirect Effect with Binary Mediator and/or Binary Response Variable
  8. Flores Anthony, Comparing variable and fixed follow‐up outcome periods: Do different methods produce different results?, Criminal Justice and Behavior
  9. Frase Richard, 2004, The Future of Imprisonment
  10. Frase Richard, 2009, Crime and Justice
  11. Lawrence Alison, 2013, Trends in Sentencing and Corrections: State Legislation
  12. 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
  13. Reynolds Cecil R., 2012, Handbook of Psychology, Vol 10, Assessment Psychology
  14. Sentencing Project News, 2015, Race & Justice News: Risk Assessment or Race Assessment?
  15. Subramanian Ram, 2014, Recalibrating Justice: A Review of 2013 State Sentencing and Corrections Trends
  16. Tonry Michael, 2008, In Crime and Justice

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–300 of 316

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
SKEEM, J. L., & LOWENKAMP, C. T.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Berkeley (US)
  • United States Courts (US)
Corresponding author
SKEEM, JENNIFER L.
ORCID
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
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