Various groups have expressed considerable concern about the potential for actuarial risk assessments to exacerbate racial disparities in justice settings. This study examined that potential when using a different approach to risk assessment, structured professional judgment (SPJ), by comparing risk decisions made by evaluators when the examinee’s race was different versus the same as theirs. A large sample of youth (N = 1,308) evaluated on the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY) by 137 juvenile probation officers (JPOs) in five states indicated the only moderation effect for the match or mismatch between JPOs’ and youths’ race/ethnicity was in the weight JPOs placed on five (out of 24) risk factors in their overall risk opinions. The match between JPOs' and youths' race had no bearing on JPOs’ final determination of youths’ risk levels. This study lends support for investigating the use of SPJ instruments as a method for minimizing racial bias.
ÆgisdóttirS.WhiteM. J.SpenglerP. M.MaughermanA. S.AndersonL. A.CookR. S.NicholsC. N.LampropoulosG. K.WalkerB. S.CohenG.RushJ. D. (2006). The meta-analysis of clinical judgment project: Fifty-six years of accumulated research on clinical versus statistical prediction. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(3), 341–382. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000005285875
2.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education, Joint Committee on Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (U.S.). (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. AERA.
BontaJ. (1996). Risk-needs assessment and treatment. In HarlandA. T. (Ed.), Choosing correctional options that work: Defining the demand and evaluating the supply (pp. 18–32). Sage.
7.
BorumR.BartelP.ForthA. (2006). Manual for the structured assessment for violence risk in youth (SAVRY). Psychological Assessment Resources.
8.
BridgesG. S.SteenS. (1998). Racial disparities in official assessments of juvenile offenders: Attributional stereotypes as mediating mechanisms. American Sociological Review, 63(4), 554–570. https://doi.org/10.2307/2657267
9.
ChapmanJ. F.DesaiR. A.FalzerP. R.BorumR. (2006). Violence risk and race in a sample of youth in juvenile detention: The potential to reduce disproportionate minority confinement. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 4(2), 170–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541204006286316
10.
CharmanS. D.KavetskiM.MuellerD. H. (2017). Cognitive bias in the legal system: Police officers evaluate ambiguous evidence in a belief-consistent manner. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6(2), 193–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.02.001
DegnerJ.WenturaD. (2010). Automatic prejudice in childhood and early adolescence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(3), 356–374. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017993
13.
DouglasK. S.HartS. D.WebsterC. D.BelfrageH. (2013). HCR-20V3: Assessing risk of violence—User guide. Mental Health, Law, and Policy Institute, Simon Fraser University.
14.
DouglasK. S.SkeemJ. L. (2005). Violence risk assessment: Getting specific about being dynamic. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11(3), 347–383. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.11.3.347
FujiiD. E. M.TokiokaA. B.LichtonA. I.HishinumaE. (2005). Ethnic differences in prediction of violence risk with the HCR-20 among psychiatric inpatients. Psychiatric Services, 56(6), 711–716.
GroveW. M.MeehlP. E. (1996). Comparative efficiency of informal (subjective, impressionistic) and formal (mechanical, algorithmic) prediction procedures: The clinical–statistical controversy. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 2(2), 293–323. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.2.2.293
20.
GroveW. M.ZaldD. H.LebowB. S.SnitzB. E.NelsonC. (2000). Clinical versus mechanical prediction: A meta-analysis. Psychological Assessment, 12(1), 19–30. https://doi.org/10.1037//1040-3590.12.1.19
21.
GuyL. S.DouglasK. S.HartS. D. (2015). Risk assessment and communication. In CutlerB. L.ZapfP. A. (Eds.), APA handbooks in psychology. APA handbook of forensic psychology, Vol. 1. Individual and situational influences in criminal and civil contexts (pp. 35–86). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/14461-003
22.
GuyL. S.VincentG. M.GrissoT.PerraultR. (2015). Advancing use of risk assessment in juvenile probation. Technical report submitted to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/249155.pdf
HansonR. K.Morton-BourgonK. E. (2009). The accuracy of recidivism risk assessments for sexual offenders: A meta-analysis of 118 prediction studies. Psychological Assessment, 21(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014421
25.
HarcourtB. E. (2007). Against prediction: Profiling, policing, and punishing in an actuarial age. University of Chicago Press.
HartS. D. (2016). Culture and violence risk assessment: The case of Ewert v. Canada. Journal of Threat Assessment and Management, 3(2), 76–96. https://doi.org/10.1037/tam0000068
HewstoneM. (1990). The ‘ultimate attribution error’? A review of the literature on intergroup causal attribution. European Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 311–335. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420200404
30.
HockenberryS.PuzzancheraC. (2020, April). Juvenile Court Statistics 2018. National Center for Juvenile Justice.
JessorR.Van Den BosJ.VanderrynJ.CostaF. M.TurbinM. S. (1995). Protective factors in adolescent problem behavior: Moderator effects and developmental change. Developmental Psychology, 31(6), 923–933. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.31.6.923
33.
KeenanS. J.RushJ. P. (2019). Effect of extra-legal factors on juvenile probation officers’ sentencing recommendations, roles, and practices. Justice Policy Journal, 16, 1–25. www.cjcj.org/jpj
34.
KerrN. L.HymesR. W.AndersonA. B.WeathersJ. E. (1995). Defendant-juror similarity and mock juror judgments. Law and Human Behavior, 19, 545–567. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01499374
LeiberM.PeckJ. H.Beaudry-CyrM. (2014). When does race and gender matter? The interrelationships between the gender of probation officers and juvenile court detention and intake outcomes. Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, Justice Quarterly, 33, 614–641. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2014.958185
37.
LeifkerD.SampleL. L. (2011). Probation recommendations and sentences received: The association between the two and the factors that affect recommendations. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 22(4), 494–517. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403411388405
38.
LowderE. M.DesmaraisS. L.RadeC. B.JohnsonK. L.Van DornR. A. (2019). Reliability and validity of START and LSI-R assessments in mental health jail diversion clients. Assessment, 26, 1347–1361. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191117704505
39.
MarquesJ. M.YzerbytV. Y.LeyensJ. P. (1988). The “black sheep effect”: Extremity of judgments towards ingroup members as a function of group identification. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420180102
40.
McGrathA.ThompsonA. P. (2012). The relative predictive validity of the static and dynamic domain scores in risk-need assessment of juvenile offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39, 250–263. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854811431917
41.
McGrawK. O.WongS. P. (1996). Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychological Methods, 1, 30–46. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.1.1.30
42.
MonahanJ. (2008). Structured risk assessment of violence. In SimonR. I.TardiffK. (Eds.), Textbook of violence assessment and management (pp. 17–33). American Psychiatric Publishing.
43.
MuirN. M.ViljoenJ. L.JonnsonM. R.CochraneD. M.RogersB. J. (2020). Predictive validity of the structured assessment of violence risk in youth (SAVRY) with indigenous and Caucasian female and male adolescents on probation. Psychological Assessment, 32, 594–607. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000816
44.
MurrieD. C.BoccacciniM. T.TurnerD. B.MeeksM.WoodsC.TusseyC. (2009). Rater (dis) agreement on risk assessment measures in sexually violent predator proceedings: Evidence of adversarial allegiance in forensic evaluation?Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 15, 19–53. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014897
45.
MurrieD. C.BoccacciniM. T.ZapfP. A.WarrenJ. I.HendersonC. E. (2008). Clinician variation in findings of competence to stand trial. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 14, 177. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013578
46.
National Research Council. (2013). Reforming juvenile justice: A developmental approach. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/14685
47.
O’SheaL. E.PicchioniM. M.MasonF. L.SugarmanP. A.DickensG. L. (2014). Characteristics of aggressive behavior among male inpatients with schizophrenia. Psychiatry Research, 220, 669–678. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2014.07.080
48.
OlverM. E.StockdaleK. C.WormithJ. S. (2009). Risk assessment with young offenders: A meta-analysis of three assessment measures. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 329–353. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854809331457
49.
PerraultR. T.VincentG. M.GuyL. S. (2017). Are risk assessments racially biased?: Field study of the SAVRY and YLS/CMI in probation. Psychological Assessment, 29, 664–678. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000445
50.
Peterson-BadaliM.SkillingT.HoqaneeZ. (2015). Implementation of risk assessment in case management for youth in the justice system. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42, 304–320. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854814549595
SchmaderT.LickelB. (2006). Stigma and shame: Emotional responses to the stereotypic actions of one’s ethnic ingroup. In Van LaarC.LevinS. (Eds.), Stigma and group inequality: Social psychological perspectives. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
56.
ShepherdS. M.AnthonyT. (2018). Popping the cultural bubble of violence risk assessment tools. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology, 29(2), 211–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/14789949.2017.1354055
57.
ShepherdS. M.LuebbersS.FergusonM.OgloffJ. R. P.DolanM. (2014). The utility of the SAVRY across ethnicity in Australian young offenders. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 20(1), 31–45. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033972
58.
ShepherdS. M.Willis-EsquedaC. (2018). Indigenous perspectives on violence risk assessment: A thematic analysis. Punishment and Society, 20(5), 599–627. https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474517721485
59.
SinghJ. P.DesmaraisS. L.HurducasC.Arbach-LucioniK.CondemarinC.DeanK.DoyleM.FolineJ. O.Godoy-CeveraV.GrannM.Mei Yee HoR.LargeM. M.Hjort NielsenL.PhamT. H.RebocoM. F.ReevesK. A.RettenbergerM.de RuitierC.SeewaldK.OttoR. K. (2014). International perspectives on the practical application of violence risk assessment: A global survey of 44 countries. Surveying Violence Risk Assessment, 13, 193–2016. https://doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2014.922141
60.
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, 499–513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2010.11.009
61.
SkeemJ. L.LowenkampC. T. (2016). Risk, race, and recidivism: Predictive bias and disparate impact. Criminology, 54, 680–712. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12123
SnowdenR. J.GrayN. S.TaylorJ. (2010). Risk assessment for future violence in individuals from an ethnic minority group. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 9, 118–123. https://doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2010.501845
TonryM. (2014). Legal and ethical issues in the prediction of recidivism. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 26, 167–176. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2329849
ViljoenJ. L.JonnsonM. R.CochraneD. M.VargenL. M.VincentG. M. (2019). Impact of risk assessment instruments on rates of pretrial detention, postconviction placements, and release: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 43(5), 397–420. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000344
69.
VincentG. M.ChapmanJ.CookN. E. (2011). Risk-needs assessment in juvenile justice: Predictive validity of the SAVRY, racial differences, and the contribution of needs factors. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38, 42–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854810386000
70.
VincentG. M.GuyL. S.*FuscoS. L.*GershensonB. G. (2012). Field reliability of the SAVRY with probation officers: Implications for training. Law and Human Behavior, 36, 225–236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-011-9284-2
71.
VincentG. M.GuyL. S.PerraultR. T.GershensonB. (2016). Risk assessment matters, but only when implemented well: A multisite study in juvenile probation. Law and Human Behavior, 40, 683–696. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000214
VincentG. M.PerraultR.DrawbridgeD. (2020). Long-term impact and cost-effectiveness of risk-needs assessment and risk-need-responsivity (RNR) reforms in juvenile probation: The long-term rnr impact study. Technical Report submitted to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
74.
WachterA. (2015). Statewide risk assessment in juvenile probation. JJGPS StateScan. National Center for Juvenile Justice.
75.
WebsterC. D.MartinM. L.BrinkJ.NichollsT. L.DesmaraisS. L. (2009). Short-term assessment of risk and treatability (START) (Version. 1.1). British Columbia Mental Health & Addiction Services.
YangM.WongS. C.CoidJ. (2010). The efficacy of violence prediction: A meta-analytic comparison of nine risk assessment tools. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 740–767. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020473
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.
