Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorViljoen, Jodi L.
dc.contributor.authorJonnson, Melissa R.
dc.contributor.authorCochrane, Dana M.
dc.contributor.authorVargen, Lee M.
dc.contributor.authorVincent, Gina M.
dc.date2022-08-11T08:10:31.000
dc.date.accessioned2022-08-23T17:11:45Z
dc.date.available2022-08-23T17:11:45Z
dc.date.issued2019-10-01
dc.date.submitted2019-11-26
dc.identifier.citation<p>Law Hum Behav. 2019 Oct;43(5):397-420. doi: 10.1037/lhb0000344. Epub 2019 Aug 15. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000344">Link to article on publisher's site</a></p>
dc.identifier.issn0147-7307 (Linking)
dc.identifier.doi10.1037/lhb0000344
dc.identifier.pmid31414840
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14038/46354
dc.description.abstractOBJECTIVES: Many agencies use risk assessment instruments to guide decisions about pretrial detention, postconviction incarceration, and release from custody. Although some policymakers believe that these tools might reduce overincarceration and recidivism rates, others are concerned that they may exacerbate racial and ethnic disparities in placements. The objective of this systematic review was to test these assertions. HYPOTHESES: It was hypothesized that the adoption of tools might slightly decrease incarceration rates, and that impact on disparities might vary by tool and context. METHOD: Published and unpublished studies were identified by searching 13 databases, reviewing reference lists, and contacting experts. In total, 22 studies met inclusion criteria; these studies included 1,444,499 adolescents and adults who were accused or convicted of a crime. Each study was coded by 2 independent raters using a data extraction form and a risk of bias tool. Results were aggregated using both a narrative approach and meta-analyses. RESULTS: The adoption of tools was associated with (a) small overall decreases in restrictive placements (aggregated odds ratio [OR] = 0.63, p < .001), particularly for individuals who were low risk and (b) small reductions in any recidivism (OR = 0.85, p = .020). However, after removing studies with a high risk of bias, the results were no longer significant. CONCLUSIONS: Although risk assessment tools might help to reduce restrictive placements, the strength of this evidence is low. Furthermore, because of a lack of research, it is unclear how tools impact racial and ethnic disparities in placements. As such, future research is needed.
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.relation<p><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=31414840&dopt=Abstract">Link to Article in PubMed</a></p>
dc.relation.urlhttps://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000344
dc.subjectrisk assessment
dc.subjectviolence
dc.subjectreoffending
dc.subjectincarceration
dc.subjectracial and ethnic disparities
dc.subjectCriminology and Criminal Justice
dc.subjectLaw and Psychology
dc.subjectPsychiatry
dc.subjectPsychiatry and Psychology
dc.subjectRace and Ethnicity
dc.subjectSocial Control, Law, Crime, and Deviance
dc.titleImpact of risk assessment instruments on rates of pretrial detention, postconviction placements, and release: A systematic review and meta-analysis
dc.typeJournal Article
dc.source.journaltitleLaw and human behavior
dc.source.volume43
dc.source.issue5
dc.identifier.legacycoverpagehttps://escholarship.umassmed.edu/psych_pp/914
dc.identifier.contextkey15871475
html.description.abstract<p>OBJECTIVES: Many agencies use risk assessment instruments to guide decisions about pretrial detention, postconviction incarceration, and release from custody. Although some policymakers believe that these tools might reduce overincarceration and recidivism rates, others are concerned that they may exacerbate racial and ethnic disparities in placements. The objective of this systematic review was to test these assertions.</p> <p>HYPOTHESES: It was hypothesized that the adoption of tools might slightly decrease incarceration rates, and that impact on disparities might vary by tool and context.</p> <p>METHOD: Published and unpublished studies were identified by searching 13 databases, reviewing reference lists, and contacting experts. In total, 22 studies met inclusion criteria; these studies included 1,444,499 adolescents and adults who were accused or convicted of a crime. Each study was coded by 2 independent raters using a data extraction form and a risk of bias tool. Results were aggregated using both a narrative approach and meta-analyses.</p> <p>RESULTS: The adoption of tools was associated with (a) small overall decreases in restrictive placements (aggregated odds ratio [OR] = 0.63, p < .001), particularly for individuals who were low risk and (b) small reductions in any recidivism (OR = 0.85, p = .020). However, after removing studies with a high risk of bias, the results were no longer significant.</p> <p>CONCLUSIONS: Although risk assessment tools might help to reduce restrictive placements, the strength of this evidence is low. Furthermore, because of a lack of research, it is unclear how tools impact racial and ethnic disparities in placements. As such, future research is needed.</p>
dc.identifier.submissionpathpsych_pp/914
dc.contributor.departmentImplementation Science and Practice Advances Research Center
dc.contributor.departmentDepartment of Psychiatry, Law and Psychiatry Program
dc.source.pages397-420


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record