Use of actuarial screening and assessment tools to guide reentry interventions based on risk factors to return to jail was the area that surfaced the most disagreement among the expert advisors. Predictive assessment has come under extensive criticism in recent years due to concerns about potentially contributing to unfairness in the treatment of certain populations (Roberts Freeman, Hu and Jannetta 2021), and this concern was elevated by expert panel members. Other members expressed the view that these tools are critical correctives to past practices governed by unfettered discretion (or “gut feeling”) and worry that moving away from them would result in losing progress towards data-driven approaches that are needed to guide jail reentry work and allocate time and attention where they will have the most influence on reentry success. More intensive program interventions are most successful when provided to people at greater risk to return to jail, and this is difficult to deliver and monitor absent the use of risk prediction tools.
Challenges
For jail reentry approaches like the TJC model, a simple challenge is that many jails in the country still do not utilize screening and assessment tools. In part this is because reentry-focused tools are just one among many instruments that are needed to provide the quick and early identification of issues such as physical and mental health concerns, substance abuse disorders, potential withdrawal symptoms, and suicide risk. Using screening tools as part of a two-step process to identify who needs more detailed assessment is a strategy to mitigate this, but the challenge of utilizing multiple screening tools intended to inform distinct decisions related to safe housing of people while held in jail, pretrial release/detention, and reentry planning remains.
As referenced above, for places that are using tools to predict the likelihood of post-release recidivism, some expert panel members shared the concern that risk prediction replicates underlying inequities. In essence, this critique is that assessment tool inputs and the outcomes they predict are a combination of individual behaviors (e.g., does a person commit an offense or fail to show up for a court date) and system behaviors (e.g., do more people get arrested for low-level offenses in some neighborhoods because those places get more law enforcement attention).
Opportunities
One option for realizing the significant benefits of screening and assessment tools for reentry decision making and mitigating their potential to deepen inequities is to establish processes by which they are used solely to guide reentry-focused decision making, and not for decisions with liberty stakes, such as pretrial release. To the greatest extent possible given local capacity, assessment should be paired with reentry approaches focused on supporting success for people at all levels of risk and need. If this is done, screening and assessment won’t determine whether someone gets any resources or support, but rather what level and type of intervention is appropriate based on their risk or need level.
Risk assessment tools should be validated not only for predictive performance, but also to test for fairness across dimensions including race, ethnicity, and sex. Experts encouraged providing training on needs and risk assessments, including their interpretation, to staff and program administrators. Experts also noted the distinction between screening and assessment tools being validated and used for the entire jail population and tools that are developed and normed, such as the WRNA for women, for more specific populations. Particularly at the more involved needs assessment stage, more specialized assessment tools can perform better and provide stronger guidance for programming and transition planning decisions.