The First Step Act mandated the development and implementation a risk and needs assessment system for the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP). In response, the Prisoner Assessment Tool Targeting Estimated Risk and Needs (PATTERN) was created to assess the risk of recidivism among each person in BOP custody. This investigation represents the first external validation of PATTERN. Results indicated PATTERN is highly predictive of both general and violent recidivism, individuals are capable of changing risk scores and levels while in custody, and changes in risk levels are associated with meaningful differences in recidivism risk. Although PATTERN was accurate in predicting recidivism across all five racial/ethnic groups examined, it also overpredicted recidivism among some groups and underpredicted recidivism for others.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing.
2.
AngwinJ.LarsonJ.MattuS.KirchnerL. (2016). Machine bias: There’s software used across the country to predict future criminals. And it’s biased against blacks. ProPublica.
3.
BerkR.HeidariH.JabbariS.KearnsM.RothA. (2021). Fairness in criminal justice risk assessments: The state of the art. Sociological Methods and Research, 50(1), 3–44.
4.
BerryC. M. (2015). Differential validity and differential prediction of cognitive ability tests: Understanding test bias in the employment context. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2(1), 435–463.
5.
BontaJ. (2002). Offender risk assessment: Guidelines for selection and use. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29(4), 355–379.
6.
BontaJ.AndrewsD. A. (2017). The psychology of criminal conduct (6th ed.). Routledge.
7.
BucklenK. B.DuweG.TaxmanF. S. (2021). Guidelines for post-sentencing risk assessment. National Institute of Justice.
8.
ByrneJ. (2020). The effectiveness of prison programming: A review of the research literature examining the impact of federal, state, and local inmate programming on post-release recidivism. Federal Probation, 84(1), 3–20.
9.
CarsonE. A. (2021). Prisoners in 2020 – statistical tables. Bureau of Justice Statistics.
10.
ChouldechovaA. (2017). Fair prediction with disparate impact: A study of bias in recidivism prediction instruments. Big Data, 5(2), 153–163.
11.
ClarkeM. C.Peterson-BadaliM.SkillingT. A. (2017). The relationship between changes in dynamic risk factors and the predictive validity of risk assessments among young offenders. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 44(10), 1340–1355.
12.
CollinsG. S.ReitsmaJ. B.AltmanD. G.MoonsK. G. M. (2015). Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD). Circulation, 131(2), 211–219. https://doi.org/10/f3kj
13.
DeMicheleM.BaumgartnerP.WengerM.BarrickK.ComfortM. (2020). Public safety assessment: Predictive utility and differential prediction by race in Kentucky. Criminology & Public Policy, 19(2), 409–431.
14.
DieterichW.MendozaC.BrennanT. (2016). COMPAS risk scales: Demonstrating accuracy equity and predictive parity. Northpointe Inc.
15.
DuweG. (2019). Better practices in the development and validation of recidivism risk assessments: The Minnesota sex offender screening tool–4. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 30(4), 538–564.
16.
FazelS.SinghJ. P.DollH. (2012). Use of risk assessment instruments to predict violence and antisocial behaviour in 73 samples involving 24,827 people: Systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ, 345, e4692.
17.
FazelS.WolfA. (2018). Selecting a risk assessment tool to use in practice: A 10-point guide. Evidence -Based Mental Health, 21, 41–43.
18.
Federal Bureau of Prisons. (2006). Inmate security designation and custody classification (policy number 5100.08). U.S. Department of Justice.
19.
Federal Bureau of Prisons. (2021). Evidence-based recidivism reduction (EBRR) programs and productive activities (PA). U.S. Department of Justice.
20.
Federal Bureau of Prisons. (2022a). About our agency. http://www.bop.gov on 6/24/2022
21.
Federal Bureau of Prisons. (2022b). FSA time credits (final rule). U.S. Department of Justice.
22.
FloresA. W.BechtelK.LowenkampC. T. (2016). False positives, false negatives, and false analyses: A rejoinder to “Machine bias: There’s software used across the country to predict future criminals. And it’s biased against blacks.”Federal Probation, 80(2), 38–46.
23.
FreemanK. R.HuC.JannettaJ. (2021). Racial equity and criminal justice risk assessment. Urban Institute.
24.
GoelS.ShroffR.SkeemJ.SloboginC. (2021). The accuracy, equity, and jurisprudence of criminal risk assessment. In VoglR. (ed.), Research handbook on big data law (pp. 9–28). Edward Elgar.
25.
HamiltonZ.DuweG.KigerlA.GwinnJ.LanganN.DollarC. (2022). Tailoring to a mandate: The development and validation of the Prisoner Assessment Tool Targeting Estimated Risk and Needs (PATTERN). Justice Quarterly, 39(6), 1129–1155.
26.
HansonR. K. (2022). Prediction statistics for psychological assessment. American Psychological Association.
27.
HarcourtB. E. (2015). Risk as a proxy for race: The dangers of risk assessment. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 27(4), 237–243.
28.
HolderE. (2014). Attorney general Eric Holder speaks at the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers 57th Annual Meeting. U.S. Department of Justice.
29.
LabrecqueR. M.SmithP.LovinsB. K.LatessaE. J. (2014). The importance of reassessment: How changes in the LSI-R risk score can improve the prediction of recidivism. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 53(2), 116–128.
30.
MonahanJ.SkeemJ. L. (2016). Risk assessment in criminal sentencing. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 12, 489–513.
31.
Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing. (2018). Racial impact analysis of the proposed risk assessment scales.
32.
PrinsS. J.ReichA. (2021). Criminogenic risk assessment: A meta-review and critical analysis. Punishment & Society, 23(4), 578–604.
33.
RiceM. E.HarrisG. T. (2005). Comparing effect sizes in follow-up studies: ROC area, Cohen’s d, and r. Law and Human Behavior, 29(5), 615–620.
34.
RiceM. E.HarrisG. T.LangC. (2013). Validation of and revision to the VRAG and SORAG: The violence risk appraisal guide—revised (VRAG-R). Psychological Assessment, 25(3), 951.
35.
SerinR. C.LloydC. D.HelmusL.DerkzenD. M.LuongD. (2013). Does intra-individual change predict offender recidivism? Searching for the holy grail in assessing offender change. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 18(1), 32–53.
36.
SinghJ. P. (2013). Predictive validity performance indicators in violence risk assessment: A methodological primer. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 31(1), 8–22.
37.
SinghJ. P.GrannM.FazelS. (2011). A comparative study of violence risk assessment tools: A systematic review and metaregression analysis of 68 studies involving 25,980 participants. Clinical Psychology Review, 31(3), 499–513.
38.
SkeemJ. L.LowenkampC. T. (2016). Risk, race, and recidivism: Predictive bias and disparate impact. Criminology, 54(4), 680–712.
39.
SkeemJ. L.LowenkampC. T. (2020). Using algorithms to address trade-offs inherent in predicting recidivism. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 38(3), 259–278.
40.
SkeemJ.MonahanJ. (2020). Lost in translation: “Risks,” “needs,” and “evidence” in implementing the First Step Act. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 38(3), 287–297.
41.
StarrS. B. (2014). Evidence-based sentencing and the scientific rationalization of discrimination. Stanford Law Review, 66, 803–872.
42.
StevensonM. (2018). Assessing risk assessment in action. Minnesota Law Review, 103, 303–384.
43.
TullyR. J.ChouS.BrowneK. D. (2013). A systematic review on the effectiveness of sex offender risk assessment tools in predicting sexual recidivism of adult male sex offenders. Clinical Psychology Review, 33(2), 287–316.
44.
U.S. Department of Justice. (2019). The First Step Act of 2018: Risk and needs assessment system. Office of the Attorney General.
45.
U.S. Department of Justice. (2020a). The First Step Act of 2018: Risk and needs assessment system – Update. Office of the Attorney General.
46.
U.S. Department of Justice. (2020b). First Step Act implementation fiscal year 2020 90-day report. Office of the Attorney General.
47.
U.S. Department of Justice. (2021a). 2020 review and revalidation of the First Step Act risk assessment tool. National Institute of Justice.
48.
U.S. Department of Justice. (2021b). 2021 review and revalidation of the First Step Act risk assessment tool. National Institute of Justice.
49.
U.S. Department of Justice. (2022). First Step Act annual report. Office of the Attorney General.
50.
WhittingtonR.HockenhullJ. C.McGuireJ.LeitnerM.BarrW.CherryM. G.FlentjeR.QuinnB.DundarY.DicksonR. (2013). A systematic review of risk assessment strategies for populations at risk of engaging in violent behaviour: Update 2002-8. Health Technology Assessment, 17(50), 1–128.
51.
WilsonH. A.GutierrezL. (2014). Does one size fit all? A meta-analysis examining the predictive ability of the Level of Service Inventory (LSI) with Aboriginal offenders. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 41(2), 196–219.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
