IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/epplan/v108y2025ics0149718924001125.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Problems (and possible solutions) of assessing risk, race and recidivism in long operating drug treatment courts

Author

Listed:
  • DeVall, Kristen E.
  • Gregory, Paul D.
  • Hartmann, David J.

Abstract

Formal criminogenic risk tools can be an important control in assessing racial inequities in access to treatment courts and in evaluating both proximal and distal outcomes from those programs. To achieve this potential, however, it is important that risk tools themselves operate in a racially neutral fashion and that they operate consistently over the period assessed. Tools that are not properly calibrated by race and changes in the tools used over the life of a program are therefore significant evaluation concerns. Our paper is the first to assess the adequacy of an important risk-needs instrument, the LSI-R, across racial groups in a drug treatment court setting. The main contribution of the current study is not as a test of that instrument, which has been widely studied in other settings. Rather, because two different criminogenic risk tools were used over the study time period, we took this opportunity to explore the use of a readily constructible “proxy” measure of risk to support analysis of risk and race interactions over the life of the program.

Suggested Citation

  • DeVall, Kristen E. & Gregory, Paul D. & Hartmann, David J., 2025. "The Problems (and possible solutions) of assessing risk, race and recidivism in long operating drug treatment courts," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:108:y:2025:i:c:s0149718924001125
    DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2024.102510
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149718924001125
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2024.102510?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Threadcraft-Walker, Whitney & Threadcraft, Melody Mitchell & Henderson, Howard & Rembert, David, 2018. "Gender, race/ethnicity and prediction: Risk in behavioral assessment," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 12-19.
    2. Jiaming Zeng & Berk Ustun & Cynthia Rudin, 2017. "Interpretable classification models for recidivism prediction," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 180(3), pages 689-722, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dragos Florin Ciocan & Velibor V. Mišić, 2022. "Interpretable Optimal Stopping," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(3), pages 1616-1638, March.
    2. Shams Mehdi & Pratyush Tiwary, 2024. "Thermodynamics-inspired explanations of artificial intelligence," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-12, December.
    3. Kai Feng & Han Hong & Ke Tang & Jingyuan Wang, 2023. "Statistical Tests for Replacing Human Decision Makers with Algorithms," Papers 2306.11689, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2024.
    4. Xiaochen Hu & Xudong Zhang & Nicholas Lovrich, 2021. "Public perceptions of police behavior during traffic stops: logistic regression and machine learning approaches compared," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 355-380, May.
    5. Carrizosa, Emilio & Ramírez-Ayerbe, Jasone & Romero Morales, Dolores, 2024. "Mathematical optimization modelling for group counterfactual explanations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 319(2), pages 399-412.
    6. Margrét Vilborg Bjarnadóttir & David B. Anderson & Ritu Agarwal & D. Alan Nelson, 2022. "Aiding the prescriber: developing a machine learning approach to personalized risk modeling for chronic opioid therapy amongst US Army soldiers," Health Care Management Science, Springer, vol. 25(4), pages 649-665, December.
    7. Toru Kitagawa & Shosei Sakaguchi & Aleksey Tetenov, 2021. "Constrained Classification and Policy Learning," Papers 2106.12886, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2023.
    8. Emilio Carrizosa & Cristina Molero-Río & Dolores Romero Morales, 2021. "Mathematical optimization in classification and regression trees," TOP: An Official Journal of the Spanish Society of Statistics and Operations Research, Springer;Sociedad de Estadística e Investigación Operativa, vol. 29(1), pages 5-33, April.
    9. Cynthia Rudin & Berk Ustun, 2018. "Optimized Scoring Systems: Toward Trust in Machine Learning for Healthcare and Criminal Justice," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 48(5), pages 449-466, October.
    10. Kristian Lum & David B. Dunson & James Johndrow, 2022. "Closer than they appear: A Bayesian perspective on individual‐level heterogeneity in risk assessment," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 185(2), pages 588-614, April.
    11. Jon Kleinberg & Sendhil Mullainathan, 2019. "Simplicity Creates Inequity: Implications for Fairness, Stereotypes, and Interpretability," NBER Working Papers 25854, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Beau Coker & Cynthia Rudin & Gary King, 2021. "A Theory of Statistical Inference for Ensuring the Robustness of Scientific Results," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(10), pages 6174-6197, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:108:y:2025:i:c:s0149718924001125. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/evalprogplan .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.