The New Technology of Risk Prediction : Challenges and Opportunities Professor James Byrne University of Massachusetts, Lowell Course: Technology and the Criminal Justice System Sept. 30, 2016

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: false positives vs. false negatives Actuarial vs. Clinical prediction Predicting violence among known offender populations: the needle in the haystack problem 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-big- data-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/s11292-016-9272- 0?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 re- arrested 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 10.3 191 Kuwait 10.0 192 Egypt 9.9 193 Isle of Man (United Kingdom) 9.8 194 Bermuda (United Kingdom) 9.6 195 Brunei Darussalam 8.9 196 Iceland 8.4 197 Romania 8.0 198 Poland 7.5 Kiribati 200 Rwanda 7.1 201 Namibia 6.6 202 Algeria 6.2 203 Oman 5.6 Marshall Islands 205 Tonga 4.4 206 Palau 4.1 207 Cook Islands (New Zealand) 4.0 208 Taiwan 3.6 209 Laos 1.0 210 San Marino 0.0 Tuvalu

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 522 6 Cuba 510 7 Rwanda 492 8 El Salvador 465 9 Russian Federation 463 10 Thailand 452 11 Belize 449 12 Grenada 430 13 Virgin Islands (United Kingdom) 425 14 Guam (USA) 422 15 Bermuda (United Kingdom) 411 16 Anguilla (United Kingdom) 407 17 Sint Maarten (Netherlands) 396 18 Panama 392 19 Antigua and Barbuda 389 20 Bahamas 379 203 Liberia 43 Mauritania Cote d'Ivoire 206 Pakistan 41 207 Niger 40 208 Chad 39 209 Timor-Leste (formerly East Timor) 38 210 Oman 36 211 Democratic Republic of Congo (formerly Zaire) 35 212 India 33 Burkina Faso Congo (Brazzaville) 215 Mali 32 Nigeria 217 Comoros 28 218 Republic of Guinea 22 219 Liechtenstein 19 Faeroe Islands (Denmark) Central African Republic 222 San Marino 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