Are risk assessments racially biased?: Field study of the SAVRY and YLS/CMI in probation.

Perrault, Rachael T.; Vincent, Gina M.; Guy, Laura S.

doi:10.1037/pas0000445

Cited by 53 publications

(55 citation statements)

References 68 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Among the evidence contributed here, we offer a study of the SAVRY's predictive ability through AUC calculations. These values are similar to those found in studies from different countries, using both English-speaking and non-English-speaking samples [27,38,44,45], and are similar to meta-analysis data of risk assessment instruments in young offenders [46]. Our results uphold the utility and good functioning of the SAVRY in contexts and languages outside of North America, making it feasible to compare studies regardless of the youths' nationalities.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

Assessing the Interactions between Strengths and Risk Factors of Recidivism through the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY)

Ortega‐Campos

García-García

Fuente-Sánchez

et al. 2020

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Instruments that assess recidivism risk in young people are used widely in the sphere of juvenile justice worldwide. Traditionally, research has focused on the study of risk factors presented by young offenders, and how these relate to criminal recidivism. In present-day research, protective factors have also come into their own, having proven to encourage non-recidivism in young offenders. This paper presents a study carried out with 594 young offenders. The instrument used for assessing risk of recidivism in young offenders was the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY). In the results found here, one can observe how the young offenders who did not reoffend presented a greater level of protective factors than the repeating offenders. The youths with a prior arrest record scored higher in the risk domains than the reoffenders without a prior arrest record. The case of young repeat offenders who already had an arrest record represents a high-risk profile, or a profile of a criminal career. Crimes committed by young people can be isolated incidents in their life. In most youths, criminal behavior does not persist beyond legal age. Protective factors prove to be important in juvenile justice when planning an individualized intervention for the young offender.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

Assessing the Interactions between Strengths and Risk Factors of Recidivism through the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY)

Ortega‐Campos

García-García

Fuente-Sánchez

et al. 2020

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Self-reported violence and offending has significantly less racial disparity than criminal records (Loeber et al, 2015). Indeed, studies have found no significant differences between Black and White youth on items of an SPJ instrument that counts prior illegal acts and conduct as opposed to only what is on one’s official record (e.g., Chapman et al, 2006; Perrault et al, 2017).…”

Section: Risk Instruments Are Not All Created the Samementioning

confidence: 99%

“…1 Eight tested actuarial instruments (C. Campbell et al, 2018; Flores et al, 2016; Lowder et al, 2019; Perrault et al, 2017; Schwalbe et al, 2004, 2007; Skeem & Lowenkamp, 2016), only one of which was a pretrial risk instrument (Cohen & Lowenkamp, 2018), and three tested SPJ instruments (Lowder et al, 2019; Muir et al, 2020; Perrault et al, 2017). Four of the 10 found significant racial differences in predictive accuracy.…”

Section: What Does It Mean For An Instrument To Be Racially Biased?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Racist Algorithms or Systemic Problems? Risk Assessments and Racial Disparities

Vincent

Viljoen

2020

Criminal Justice and Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As recent and historical events attest, racial and ethnic disparities are widely engrained into the justice system. Recently, scholars and policymakers have raised concerns that risk assessment instruments may exacerbate these disparities. While it is critical that risk instruments be scrutinized for racial bias, some concerns, though well-meaning, have gone beyond the evidence. This article explains what it means for an instrument to be “biased” and why instruments should not all be painted with the same brush (some will be more susceptible to bias than others). If some groups get apprehended more, those groups will score higher on non-biased, well-validated instruments derived to maximize prediction of recidivism because of mathematics. Thus, risk instruments shine a light on long-standing systemic problems of racial disparities. This article concludes with suggestions for research and for minimizing disparities by ensuring that systems use risk assessments to avoid unnecessary incarceration while allowing for structured discretion.

show abstract

“…Within risk assessment research, since 2010, there has been a focus on “Field Validity” (previously referred to as “ecological validity”)—or how a risk assessment tool functions in a real world setting (see Perrault et al, ; Singh & Fazel, ). This focuses on how tools are used by clinicians and the predictions made function in real world practice.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It was weakly "predictive" of accidental self-harm and no better than chance at signalling physical ill health. "ecological validity")-or how a risk assessment tool functions in a real world setting (see Perrault et al, 2017;Singh & Fazel, 2010). This focuses on how tools are used by clinicians and the predictions made function in real world practice.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Predictive validity and interrater reliability of the FACE‐CARAS toolkit in a CAMHS setting

Evans

Young

Tiffin

2019

Criminal Behav Ment Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The FACE‐CARAS (Functional Analysis in Care Environments‐Child and Adolescent Risk‐Assessment Suite) toolkit has been developed to support practitioners in Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) in performing a structured risk assessment. It covers a number of risk domains including violence, suicide, self‐harm, experienced abuse, and exploitation. Interrater and internal reliability has already been established but not predictive validity. Aims/Hypothesis Our aim was to establish the predictive validity of the FACE‐CARAS in a CAMHS population. Methods Records from 123 young people with FACE‐CARAS ratings completed by clinicians were examined in a retrospective file review to extract data on a relevant list of adverse outcomes at three and at 6 months following the assessment. Although this was not a prospective longitudinal study, researchers were blind to the clinicians' ratings, allowing valid testing of predictive power. Cases were drawn from across generic and specialist CAMHS teams in approximately equal proportions. Data were analysed using receiver operator characteristic statistics. Results Areas under the curve values in five of the seven risk areas approached or were greater than 0.8 indicated that the FACE‐CARAS profile score was a good potential predictor of risks of self‐harm, suicidal behaviours, serious self‐neglect, abuse or exploitation by others, and violence to others at both 3 and 6 months. It was weakly “predictive” of accidental self‐harm and no better than chance at signalling physical ill health. Conclusions Findings support the use of the “profile summary” section of the tool as likely to generate clinically useful risk predictions. We were concerned that clinical use of the scale did not conform to research standards and often left subscales incompletely rated; however, the fact that the tool nonetheless proved a good predictor of most key adversities under scrutiny may add weight to its value in clinical practice. Further work with the FACE‐CARAS subscales is recommended.

show abstract

Are risk assessments racially biased?: Field study of the SAVRY and YLS/CMI in probation.

Cited by 53 publications

References 68 publications

Assessing the Interactions between Strengths and Risk Factors of Recidivism through the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY)

Assessing the Interactions between Strengths and Risk Factors of Recidivism through the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY)

Racist Algorithms or Systemic Problems? Risk Assessments and Racial Disparities

Predictive validity and interrater reliability of the FACE‐CARAS toolkit in a CAMHS setting

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About