Download the new technology of risk assessment

PROFESSOR JAMES BYRNE
UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS, LOWELL
COURSE: TECHNOLOGY AND THE CRIMINAL
JUSTICE SYSTEM
S EPT. 3 0 , 2 016
RISK ASSESSMENT AND CRIME PREVENTION
In today’s class, we will examine the specific “tools of the trade” used by ‘experts” to predict violence( and the
likelihood of other crime) in a wide range of contexts:
•
(1) In the general community,
•
•
•
•
•
(2) In schools,
(3) In the workplace,
(4) In courtrooms,
(5) In correctional facilities, and
(6) while on probation or parole.
We will begin by watching a brief lecture on the use of risk assessment to support
sentencing decisions by Stanford University Professor Joan Petersilia:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjPm-gedWo8
PRESENTATION OVERVIEW: RISKY BUSINESS IS
BIG BUSINESS
Prediction Basics:
(1) false positives vs. false negatives
(2) Actuarial vs. Clinical prediction
(3) Predicting violence among known offender populations: the needle in the haystack problem
(4) Risk vs. Stakes: Issues to consider at key decision points:
Prevention Decisions
Apprehension Decisions
Pre-trial Release Decisions
Sentencing Decisions
Release from Custody and Community Supervision Decisions
(5) Global Variations in Pre-trial Detention and incarceration Rates
(6) Types of Risk Assessment Instruments: Private Sector Proprietary Instruments vs. Free ware
THE FALSE POSITIVES PROBLEM
(1) What do researchers mean when they talk about false positives and false
negatives? Why does it matter?
False Positives are individuals predicted to be violent but who are not.
False Negatives are individuals predicted to be non-violent who turn out to be violent
Which mistake are YOU willing to make?
ACTUARIAL VS. CLINICAL PREDICTION
(2) What is the difference between actuarial and
clinical prediction methods?
Actuarial instruments attach specific statistical
weighting to different variables which assess the
risk.
They are premised on the idea that, if accuracy of
prediction is the most important factor, it is best
to find out how members of a comparable group
of individuals conducted themselves over time.
CLINICAL ASSESSMENTS OF RISK
Structured Clinical Guides, in contrast, invite
clinicians to consider a number of variables which
will have some application to the assessment of
risk in the case under consideration.
This type of assessment is based on the idea that a
great deal has been learned over the past two
decades about the factors which should be taken
in account when conducting risk assessments on
various types of mental health, forensic, and
correctional populations.
ACTUARIAL VS. CLINICAL RISK ASSESSMENT
Which type of assessment is more accurate?
There is a large body of research that demonstrates that actuarial risk assessment
instruments outperform clinical risk assessment instruments. Note: See the article
on this topic in our course website’s materials section.
RESEARCH SUMMARY: Grove, Zale, Lebow, Snitz, and Nelson (2000) reported that
statistical prediction was about 10% more accurate than clinical prediction and was
consistently superior across date and source of publication, type of judge (medical vs.
psychological), general or task-relevant experience, type of data (e.g., interview results,
psychological tests, trait ratings, behavioral observations, criminal record), and amount of data
available.Statistical methods predicted forensic outcomes (e.g., criminal and violent behavior)
especially well, mean effect size (d) of .89, but also fared well when predicting other outcomes.
PREDICTING PATTERNS OF COMMUNITY
VIOLENCE
Predictive Analytics are currently being used by police departments to identify
projected violent crime hot spots, and using this information, police departments
are targetting police patrol resources to these areas.
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0gX_z0V0nE&app=desktop
PREDICTING WHO WILL COMMIT VIOLENT
CRIME USING PREDICTIVE ANALYTICS
Video: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-05-23/pre-crime-arrives-chicago-bigdata-tells-cops-whos-next-be-shot
Authorities assume that by narrowing down the key players that are most likely to be
involved in violence will allow them to stop it.
Police superintendent Eddie Johnson says that there is a small segment of people
driving the violence, and although homicides are on the rise after three years of
the program, the "Strategic Subject List" generated by the fourth revision of the
algorithm is the answer to stopping them.
In a city of 2.7 million people, about 1,400 are responsible for much of the violence,
Mr. Johnson said, and all of them are on the department’s “Strategic Subject
List.”
ARE THESE PREDICTIONS ACCURATE?
POLICE IN CHICAGO SAY YES:
“We know we have a lot of violence in Chicago, but we also know there’s a small segment that’s
driving this stuff,” Eddie Johnson, the police superintendent, said in a recent interview.
The authorities hope that knowing who is most likely to be involved in violence can bring them a
step closer to curtailing it. They are warning those highest on the list that they are under
intense scrutiny, while offering social services to those who want a path away from the
bloodshed.
About three years into the program and on a fourth revision of the computer algorithm that
generates the list, critics are raising pointed questions about potential breaches to civil
liberties in the creation of such a ranking. And the list’s efficacy remains in doubt as killings
and shootings have continued to rise this year.
RAND STUDY RAISES SERIOUS QUESTIONS
Background: In 2013, the Chicago Police Department conducted a pilot of a predictive policing program designed to reduce gun
violence. The program included development of a Strategic Subjects List (SSL) of people estimated to be at highest risk of
gun violence who were then referred to local police commanders for a preventive intervention. The purpose of this study is to
identify the impact of the pilot on individual- and city-level gun violence, and to test possible drivers of results.
RAND Study
The SSL consisted of 426 people estimated to be at highest risk of gun violence. We used ARIMA models to
estimate impacts on city-level homicide trends, and propensity score matching to estimate the effects of being placed on the list
on five measures related to gun violence. A mediation analysis and interviews with police leadership and COMPSTAT meeting
observations help understand what is driving results. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11292-016-92720?wt_mc=Affiliate.CommissionJunction.3.EPR1089.DeepLink
Results Individuals on the SSL are not more or less likely to become a victim of a homicide or shooting than the comparison group,
and this is further supported by citylevel analysis. The treated group is more likely to be arrested for a shooting.
Conclusions It is not clear how the predictions should be used in the field. One potential reason why being placed on the list
resulted in an increased chance of being arrested for a shooting is that some officers may have used the list as leads to closing
shooting cases. The results provide for a discussion about the future of individual-based predictive policing programs.
http://www.chicagomag.com/city-life/August-2016/Chicago-Police-Data/
https://www.meritalk.com/articles/report-questions-chicago-predictive-policing-program/
PREDICTING VIOLENCE AMONG KNOWN
OFFENDERS
Once an individual is identified as a violent offender—typically because he/she has
been convicted of a violent crime—can we accurately “predict” whether these
individuals will commit another violent crime in their lifetime, using available risk
prediction instruments?
The short answer is no.
Individual prediction of violence is likely to be inaccurate, because subsequent
violence by known offenders is rare, making it difficult to predict.
PROBABILITY OF ARREST FOR A VIOLENT, PROPERTY,
OR DRUG CRIME 36 MONTHS AFTER RELEASE FROM
PRISON
RISK PREDICTION FOR MURDERERS AND
RAPISTS
As a group, convicted murderers have very low recidivism rates for the same crime,
but they do recidivate at moderate levels overall:
Homicide: 40.7% of homicide offenders released from prison were rearrested for a
new crime (not necessarily a new homicide) within 3 years; 1.2% were re-arrested
for another homicide.
Rapists have very low recidivism rates overall, but the risk posed varies by the type of
sexual assault:
Rape: 46.0% of released rapists were rearrested within 3 years for some type of felony or
serious misdemeanor (not necessarily another violent sex offense); 2.5% were rearrested for another rape during this review period.
RISK VS. STAKES: ISSUES TO
CONSIDER
1. Prevention: assess risk of potential violent acts by targeted
individuals at school, workplace, home, or in community—
Strategies to consider:
(1) HEAT lists targeting at-risk individuals;
(2) involuntary civil commitment:
(3) No fly lists
2. Apprehension: individuals who abscond from probation or parole, violate restraining orders, have outstanding
warrants are placed in custody to prevent crime
3. Pre-Trial Release: risk of pretrial crime, risk of failure to appear in court assessed, use of pretrial supervision
and pretrial detention to prevent pretrial crime and guarantee appe arance in court
4. Sentencing: risk of likely re-offending if not incarcerated assessed using latest risk assessment technology.
5. Release/ Reentry: risk of recidivism upon release or at sentencing with transfer to mental health system an
option for sexually dangerous offenders.
RISK VS STAKES IN PRETRIAL RELEASE
DECISIONS– A GLOBAL VIEW
In the United States, over 60% of all Federal Court defendants will be placed in Federal Pretrial Detention Centers;
by Comparison, slightly less than 40% of state court defendants will be placed in jail prior to disposition of
their case.
Risk of Pretrial Crime: 5-10%
Risk of Failure to Appear: 5%.
Conclusion: Federal Pretrial decision-makers would rather make a false positive error than a false negative error.
They care more about the possibility of pretrial crime and/or failure to appear than the probability of these
events occurring.
Globally, there is significant variation in the use of Pretrial Detention.
Pretrial Detention Rates in twenty highest countries vary from 64-91%
Pretrial Detention Rates in the twenty lowest ranked countries vary from 0-10%.
Conclusion: It appears that a country’s pretrial detention rate can be used as one measure of how that country
balances individual rights against community protection concerns.
COUNTRIES WITH THE HIGHEST PRE-TRIAL
DETENTION RATES EMPHASIZE STAKES
Ranking
Pre-trial Detainees (%)
1
Comoros
91.7
2
Libya
90.0
3
Bolivia
83.2
4
Liberia
83.0
5
Monaco
82.8
6
Democratic Republic of Congo (formerly Zaire)
82.0
7
Lebanon
75.3
8
Congo (Brazzaville)
75.0
9
Benin
74.9
10
Bangladesh
73.8
11
Haiti
72.8
12
Paraguay
72.3
13
Central African Republic
70.2
14
Yemen
70.1
15
Cameroon
70.0
16
Nigeria
69.3
17
India
67.6
18
Pakistan
66.2
19
Republic of Guinea
65.0
20
Uruguay
64.5
COUNTRIES WITH THE LOWEST PRE-TRIAL
DETENTION RATES EMPHASIZE RISK
190
Czech Republic
191
Kuwait
192
Egypt
193
Isle of Man (United Kingdom)
194
Bermuda (United Kingdom)
195
Brunei Darussalam
196
Iceland
197
198
198
200
201
202
203
203
205
206
207
208
209
210
210
Romania
Poland
Kiribati
Rwanda
Namibia
Algeria
Oman
Marshall Islands
Tonga
Palau
Cook Islands (New Zealand)
Taiwan
Laos
San Marino
Tuvalu
10.3
10.0
9.9
9.8
9.6
8.9
8.4
8.0
7.5
7.5
7.1
6.6
6.2
5.6
5.6
4.4
4.1
4.0
3.6
1.0
0.0
0.0
RISK VS STAKES IN THE USE OF INCARCERATION: A
GLOBAL VIEW
Crime Rates vary significantly both within and across global regions.
The rate of incarceration also varies within and across global regions: Global Average:
144 per 100,00—USA: 698 per 100,000( #2 globally)
The top 20 countries (ranked by incarceration rate) include 9 countries from the Caribbean, 5 from the Americas,
2 from Asia,2 from Africa, 1 from Europe, and 1 from Oceana.
Only 4 of the 20 countries with the highest prison population rates have reduced their prison population rate
since 2000: the Russian Federation (36.5% reduction), Guam (4.1% reduction), Bermuda (13.1% reduction),
and the Bahamas (19.4% reduction).
The remaining 16 countries have significantly increased their incarceration rates since 2000. Compared to these
other high prison population–rate countries, the rate of increase in the United States prison population rate
(a 2.2% increase since 2000) has been modest, with increases of 40% or more in 8 of the top 20 countries.
2013 Total Prison Population: 10.2 million is the official count from the UN
75 % of the world’s prison population reside in just 20 countries.
50% of the world’s prison population are located in 3 counties: USA, Russia, and China( 20% of
world population resides in these countries)
PROPOSAL TO REDUCE INCARCERATION
Sentencing Reform Proposal:
Given the proportion of drug and property offenders in the nation’s prison system, it seems
realistic to expect that the United States’ current incarceration rate could be reduced by close
to 50% by developing alternates to incarceration for most of these offenders, while
responding to technical violations in creative ways that do not involve re-incarceration.
Likely Impact: Moderate on Prison Population
The U.S. incarceration rate (which would drop from 698 to 349) would still be
about 2.5 times higher than the average global rate (144), which would still rank
nation in the top 20 globally in prison population rates.
Impact on Crime: Little or no short term impact on crime
COUNTRIES WITH HIGH VS LOW PRISON
POPULATION RATES
1
Seychelles
868
2
United States of America
698
3
St. Kitts and Nevis
611
4
Virgin Islands (USA)
542
5
Turkmenistan
6
203
Liberia
43
203
Mauritania
43
203
Cote d'Ivoire
43
206
Pakistan
41
522
207
Niger
40
Cuba
510
208
Chad
39
7
Rwanda
492
8
El Salvador
465
209
Timor-Leste (formerly
East Timor)
38
9
Russian Federation
463
210
Oman
36
10
Thailand
452
211
35
11
Belize
449
Democratic Republic of
Congo (formerly Zaire)
12
Grenada
430
212
India
33
Virgin Islands (United
Kingdom)
212
Burkina Faso
33
13
425
212
Congo (Brazzaville)
33
14
Guam (USA)
422
215
Mali
32
215
Nigeria
32
217
Comoros
28
218
Republic of Guinea
22
219
Liechtenstein
19
219
Faeroe Islands (Denmark) 19
219
Central African Republic
222
San Marino
15
Bermuda (United
Kingdom)
16
Anguilla (United Kingdom) 407
411
17
Sint Maarten
(Netherlands)
396
18
Panama
392
19
Antigua and Barbuda
389
20
Bahamas
379
19
6
A LOOK AT “CUTTING EDGE” RISK
PREDICTION INSTRUMENTS
General Recidivism
Level of Service Inventory (LSI-R)
General Statistical Information on Recidivism (GSIR)
Youth Level of Service Inventory (YLSI)
Early Assessment Risk for Boys (EARL-20B)
Early Assessment Risk for Girls (EARL-21G)
Watch Video: Ed Latessa, Professor, University of Cincinnati, explains why we use risk
assessment for our known offender population:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EA3eoMvoNY
WHAT VARIABLES ARE IN THE LSI-R?
The Lead Service Inventory-Revised( LSI-R) includes 54 variables across 10 scales:
Criminal History
Education/Employment
Financial
Family/Marital
Accommodation
Leisure/Recreation
Companions
Alcohol/Drug Problems
Emotional/Personal
Attitudes/Orientation
WORKPLACE RISK AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
RISK
Workplace Risk Instruments:
Workplace Risk Assessment (WRA-20)Employee Risk Assessment (ERA-20)
Spousal Violence Risk Assessment Instruments:
Spousal Assault Risk Assessment Guide (SARA)
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KugXmdkW4Hs
RISK INSTRUMENTS
Violent Recidivism Hare Psychopathy Checklist Revised (PCL-R)
Take the test: http://vistriai.com/psychopathtest/
Historical Clinical Risk -20 (HCR-20)Violent Risk Appraisal Guide
(VRAG)
Hare Psychopathy Checklist, Revised - Youth Version
(PCL-R: YV)
Structured Assessment of Violence Risk for Youth (SAVRY)
SEXUAL RECIDIVISM RISK INSTRUMENTS
Sexual Recidivism
Sex Offender Risk Appraisal Guide (SORAG)Sexual
Violence Risk-20 (SVR-20)
Rapid Risk Assessment for Sex Offence Recidivism (RRASOR)STATIC-99/
STATIC 2002
Minnesota Sex Offender Screening Tool - Revised (MnSORT-R)
Sex Offender Needs Assessment Rating (SONAR)
Estimate of Risk of Adolescent Sexual Offence Recidivism (ERASOR)
ISSUES TO CONSIDER: PROPRIETARY RISK
INSTRUMENTS VS FREEWARE
Cost: Many costs associated with the use of Proprietary Risk Assessment tools extend beyond
the pricing of the instrument itself.Other costs include research, training, software, and other
technical assistance services of various forms.
Some RNA instruments are non-proprietary and may be available for use free of charge, but
calculations of total cost should consider the availability and pricing of other important
support services, such as validation research, fidelity testing, training, and customization of
software packages designed for the RNA tool.
Availability of Support Options: What services (e.g., RNA and reporting software, custom IT
integration, user training, train-the-trainer training, quality assurance monitoring, validation
research) does the RNA vendor provide? Alternatively, what support services are not
available?
Ease of Use: How easy is the tool to implement, administer, and use to inform decision-making?
http://www.ncsc.org/~/media/Microsites/Files/CSI/BJA%20RNA%20Final%20Report_Combined
%20Files%208-22-14.ashx