This blog is a summary of our published article: Aelick, C., Blais, J., & Babchishin, K. M. (2023). Addressing racial bias in parole decisions: A pre-registered study of the Five-Level Risk and Needs System of risk communication. Psychology, Crime & Law, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2023.2213388
Written by: Samantha Williams
Risk of reoffending is one of the most important considerations when deciding whether someone should be released on parole. As a result, it is important that we understand and interpret their risk level accurately. If we underestimate someone’s risk, we could be releasing them into the community without the appropriate support they need to prevent future offending. If we overestimate risk, we could be keeping someone in prison longer than necessary, which is expensive for taxpayers and can delay people from reintegrating into the community.
Photo by Harry Shelton
via UnSplash
Photo by cagkansayin via Canva
Risk is assessed by calculating a risk score. To do this, we use risk assessment tools that researchers have developed and tested to be accurate in predicting future criminal behaviours. However, there are many, many risk assessment tools and all of them have a different scoring format. The differences in the tools can make it really difficult for decision makers, like judges and parole board members, to interpret the results, so we need to be able to communicate risk scores in a way that is clear and consistent.[1, 2] Without clear and consistent risk communication, factors that aren’t related to someone’s risk level (i.e., bias) can affect parole decisions. For example, racial bias against Indigenous people is a major concern for parole decisions in Canada. Many research studies have found that Indigenous people are less likely to be released on parole when compared with White people even when they are at the same risk to reoffend.[3]
The Five-Level Risk and Needs System, referred to as “5-Levels,” is a guide that we can use to communicate risk levels consistently and accurately to decision makers no matter what tools are used to assess risk.[4] Clinicians can compare the score from a risk assessment tool to the 5-Levels system to determine if the offender is low, low-moderate, moderate, moderate-high, or high risk. The 5-Levels system will also tell the clinician the likelihood that their client will reoffend in the next two years and how much treatment is recommended.
The 5-Levels is a new framework that is still being tested by researchers. For this study, we wanted to test whether the 5-Levels could reduce racial bias in parole decisions by comparing it to the “status quo” risk communication that doesn’t use the 5-Levels framework.
Photo by Monstera Production via Canva
To test this question, we gave a surveyed 428 Canadian adults who had received a bachelor’s (undergraduate) degree (since parole board members must have a bachelor’s degree). Each participant read one of four made-up risk reports:
1. Indigenous client, risk communicated using the 5-Levels Framework
2. Indigenous client, risk communicated using the “status quo” method
3. White client, risk communicated using the 5-Levels Framework
4. White client, risk communicated using the “status quo” method
Everything else in the scenario was exactly the same, including the risk level of the client and details of the original crime.
When comparing the Indigenous and White clients, participants…
Were more likely to grant parole to the Indigenous client
Believed the Indigenous client was less likely to reoffend
Felt more comfortable with the Indigenous client being released on parole
These findings were surprising because racial bias is a known problem for parole decisions. It is possible that the public awareness of anti-Indigenous bias that has grown in recent years due to the media coverage of the Truth and Reconciliation report and uncovered mass graves at residential schools could have led to a change in attitudes. It could also be because our sample was more educated than the samples used in other studies, which may mean they are more aware of and resistant to racial bias. If this is true, we could reduce discrimination in the legal system by educating decision makers about racial bias.
Because there was no anti-Indigenous bias measured in this sample, we weren’t able to look at whether the 5-Levels reduced racial bias in decision making. Compared with the status quo risk communication methods, those who read the 5-levels report…
More accurately identified the client’s risk level
More accurately identified the client’s likelihood of reoffending
Were less confident in their decision to grant parole
Were less comfortable with the client being released from prison
Reported that the risk assessment was more difficult to understand
Therefore, we can conclude that using the 5-Levels framework is more accurate than the status quo risk communication. It reduces subjectivity in decision making related to risk and differences across risk assessment reports that might be due to bias. This finding is important because it supports adopting the 5-Levels into parole board decision-making.
Photo by lechenie-narkomanii via Canva
References
[1] Hilton, N. Z., Carter, A. M., Harris, G. T., & Sharpe, A. J. (2008). Does using nonnumerical terms to describe risk aid in violence risk communication? Clinician agreement and decision making. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23(2), 171–188. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260507309337
[2] Scurich, N. (2018). The case against categorical risk estimates. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 36(5), 554–564. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2382
[3] Parole Board of Canada. (2019). 2017-2018 performance monitoring report. Government of Canada. https://www.canada.ca/en/parole-board/corporate/transparency/reporting-to-canadians/performance-monitoring-report/2017-2018.html
[4] Hanson, R. K., Bourgon, G., McGrath, R. J., Kroner, D., D’Amora, D. A., Thomas, S. S., & Tavarez, L. P. (2017). A five-level risk and needs system: Maximizing assessment results in corrections through the development of a common language. Justice Center Council of State Governments. https://saratso.org/pdf/A_Five_Level_Risk_and_Needs_System_Report.pdf
Commentaires