DO RISK ASSESSMENTS PLAY A ROLE IN THE ENDURING 'COLOR LINE'?

Abstract

This paper presents some of the arguments that have been put forward to suggest that current risk assessments are inherently biased and disproportionally disadvantage people of color in Western correctional systems. We suggest that this is a key area of concern for all correctional professionals and that new methods of risk assessment and approaches to training are needed. In our view, without this people of color will continue to be misclassified, over-assessed, placed in the wrong rehabilitation pathways, imprisoned and/or supervised longer than needed, and consequently remaining overrepresented in the correctional system.

Full text

Advancing Corrections Journal: Edition #10-2020
18
DO RISK ASSESSMENTS PLAY A ROLE IN THE ENDURING ‘COLOR LINE’?
Yilma Woldgabreal1, Andrew Day2 and Armon Tamatea3
Abstract
This paper presents some of the arguments that have been put forward to suggest that current risk
assessments are inherently biased and disproportionally disadvantage people of color in Western
correctional systems. We suggest that this is a key area of concern for all correctional professionals
and that new methods of risk assessment and approaches to training are needed. In our view, without
this people of color will continue to be misclassied, over-assessed, placed in the wrong rehabilitation
pathways, imprisoned and/or supervised longer than needed, and consequently remaining
overrepresented in the correctional system.
Key Words: Risk assessment; people of color; overrepresentation; prison; criminal justice
1 Department for Correctional Services, South Australia; and Deakin University, Australia
2 School of Social and Political Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Australia
3 School of Psychology & Social Sciences, The University of Waikato, New Zealand

Article 2: Do risk assessments play a role in the enduring ‘color line’?
19
Introduction
In 1903, the Harvard-educated African American activist W. E. B. Du Bois predicted that “the problem
of the color line” would become one of the most enduring issues of the twentieth century. More
than a century later, we are grappling—perhaps more than ever —with the problem of racial
disparity across many spheres of life. This is no more visible and pronounced than in the correctional
system where, in western countries, people of color continue to be overrepresented despite making
up a fraction of the overall population. In America, for example, African-Americans make up nearly
40% of the incarcerated population but only approximately 13% of the general population (United
States Census Bureau, 2015). In England and Wales, Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) men
and women make up 14% of the population but represent 25% of adult prisoner population and
over 40% of young people in custody (Ministry of Justice, 2016). Statistics relating to the over-
representation of Indigenous peoples are even more startling. In Canada, Indigenous adults make
up 3% of the population but 25% of the prison population (Government of Canada, Oce of the
Correctional Investigator, 2017). In Australia, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples make up
approximately 3% of the population, but account for 28% of the total Australian prisoner population
(Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2018), and in New Zealand, Māori and Pacic Islanders make up 15%
of the population, but account for more than 50% of the male, 60% of the female, and 70% of the
youth justice prison populations (New Zealand Department of Corrections, 2018). These gures are,
of course, alarming and highlight how the problem of the color line requires the collective attention
of correctional policy makers, practitioners, and researchers around the world. And yet progress
has been minimal, with the problem exacerbating rather than being alleviated in most countries. An
independent review of the treatment of people of color in the England and Wales criminal justice
system, for example, found that the proportion of young adult people of color in prison rose from
11% in 2006 to 19% 2016, and during the same time period the proportion of juveniles of color rose
from 25% to 41% (Lammy, 2017). Another inquiry by the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC)
revealed that the incarceration rates of Indigenous people increased by 41% between 2006 and 2016
compared to 24% of the non-Indigenous people during the same time period (ALRC, 2017).
The focus of this paper is on one central area of correctional practice - the assessment of risk - and
how this has the potential to contribute to both problems of overrepresentation and to potential
solutions. This is, in our view, an important and pressing issue for the ICPA as an international
body that is strongly committed to facilitating dialogue about ethical correctional practice and
injustice. We begin by arguing that current approaches to risk assessment often play a direct role
in the overrepresentation of people of color, given their contribution to decision-making across the
correctional systems (i.e., community-based supervision, security classication, participation in
rehabilitation programs, and conditional release). We then identify some inherent biases built within
current risk assessment tools, and how these serve to inate the risk status of people of color.
Finally, we outline some steps that could be considered as a means of reducing bias and the harmful
consequences of risk assessments on people of color, discussing the roles - and responsibilities - that
all correctional professionals have in addressing the problem of the color line.
So, what explains the phenomenon of overrepresentation?
Views and perspectives about the reasons for the overrepresentation of people of color in criminal
justice systems can be polarized and controversial, often relating to basic assumptions about the
causes of crime. Criminological theories are relevant here and whether they take a broad, large-scale

Advancing Corrections Journal: Edition #10-2020
20
and society-wide view of the causes of crime or consider crime from the perspective of individual
responsibility. The belief, for example, that people in prison are ‘victims of circumstances’ will result
in a quite dierent understanding about the drivers of over-representation than the belief that ‘people
are responsible for their own behavior and life situation’. It is probably fair to say that the theories
of crime that contemporary approaches to risk assessment are based on do not adequately consider
broader historical, structural and systemic drivers of crime and, by extension, over-representation. For
example, Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) General Theory of Crime attributes the overrepresentation
of people of color in the criminal justice system to a lack of self-control arising from inadequate early
parental supervision and guidance. It hypothesizes that people of color are more likely to have a
predisposed history of parental criminality which increases their propensity to commit more frequent
and serious crimes. A similar proposition is put forward by the Dierential Involvement Theory
(Blumstein, 1993; Blumstein & Wallman, 2006), which posits that people of color simply commit
more crimes than Whites and, therefore, are solely responsible for their own overrepresentation in
the criminal justice system. The theory of crime that underpins the delivery of correctional case
management in many Western countries (based on the principles of Risk, Needs and Responsivity)
is the Personal, Interpersonal, and Community Reinforcement (PIC-R) perspective (Bonta & Andrews
2003; Andrews & Bonta, 2010). This also emphasizes the importance of personal responsibility and
the high level of agency that people have over their behavior: “Human beings are active, conscious,
and wilful, and they are goal-oriented. …Their behaviour is under personal control, interpersonal
control, and automatic control” (Andrews & Dowden, 2007, p.442).
These theories contrast with those that highlight the importance of structural drivers of crime. From
the perspective of Strain Theory (Agnew, 2001), for example, people of color continue to experience
subjugation, with risk often manifested through factors such as impoverished communities,
exclusion, dispossession, and patterns of poverty, barriers to education, poor prospect of meaningful
employment, hopelessness, substance abuse, and dysfunctional families. Similarly, Dierential
Selection Theory posits that the dominant groups in the western societies have instituted legal
systems that protect their own interests, and that this dierential bias has resulted in ethnic
stereotypes, proling and harsher punishments (Piquero, 2015). At the core of both theories is the
idea that socio-economic and political disadvantages have simply lent themselves to poor criminal
justice outcomes for people of color, and that this is reected by dierential policing practices,
sentencing outcomes, and explicit and implicit racial bias (see Kamalu, Coulson-Clark, & Kamalu, 2010;
McCarter, 2018). Martin (2017) described this as accumulated disadvantages whereby small
dierences in the treatment of people of color at each stage of the criminal justice process contribute
to over overrepresentation in the correctional system.
There have been surprisingly few attempts by correctional professionals who are involved in the
development of risk assessment instruments to consider the implications of more sociological
theories in their work. Rather, a paradigm for practice has emerged—derived largely from the
work of Canadian correctional professionals and researchers—that is predicated on the idea of risk
relating to personal characteristics. Structural determinants of crime are occasionally acknowledged
(e.g., Bonta’s 1997 discussion of what he calls ‘criminogenic communities’), but these are typically
considered to be outside of the control—or perhaps the remit—of correctional services.

Article 2: Do risk assessments play a role in the enduring ‘color line’?
21
But what actually is risk?
The idea of risk in Western correctional systems has been operationalized through the administration
of risk assessments. These typically adopt actuarial (statistical) methods to predict the likelihood
of an individual reoending based on presence of a set of risk markers that have been shown to
associate with criminal behavior (e.g., Olver, Stockdale, & Wormith, 2014). Markers of risk are often
described in relation to what Andrews and Bonta (2010) have called the ‘central eight’ risk factors –
criminal history, anti-social personality, criminal attitudes, antisocial associates, substance abuse,
relationship problems, and disengagement from employment and education (see also Eisenberg et al.,
2019). Indeed, many of the available assessment tools have been designed to assess these domains.
Examples include the Level of Service Inventory–Revised (LSI-R; Andrews & Bonta, 1995), the Level of
Service/ Case Management Inventory (LS/CMI; Andrews, Bonta, & Wormith, 2004), and the Violence
Risk Scale (VRS; Wong & Gordon; 2003). A substantial body of empirical evidence is now available
that supports the ability of these tools to predict the likelihood of future oending (e.g., Andrews et
al. 2004; Lewis, Olver, & Wong, 2013), including in Aboriginal people (Gutierrez, Wilson, Rugge & Bonta,
2013).
Color-blindness?
It may seem reasonable to argue that while risk clearly arises in a context of social disadvantage,
correctional services can only attend to the needs of those who are sent to them by the courts
and that the central eight risk factors reect individual traits and characteristics that apply to all
sections of the correctional population. Correctional professionals, just like their counterparts in
the healthcare and helping professions, can address oppression specically through a diversity
awareness and cultural competency lens (American Psychological Association, 2017; National
Association of Social Workers, 2015). This is enshrined in the idea of the ‘responsivity principle’
(Andrews & Bonta, 2010) whereby risk factors are addressed by tailoring according to the motivation,
learning styles, abilities, strengths, personality, and demographic characteristics of participants.
Thus, it is the practitioners’ ability to attend to cultural dierence that will determine the success of
correctional eorts to work with people of color in the correctional system.
So what is the problem here—beyond the simple observation that contemporary approaches to
assessing risk have been derived from individualistic theories of criminal behavior and have not been
developed to consider the specic needs of people of color? Well, for some, a direct consequence
of this is that current risk assessment tools—by very virtue of how they have been designed—is
disadvantage (e.g., Martel, Brassard, & Jaccoud, 2011; Shepherd, 2016; Webb, 2018). Consider, for
example, ‘criminal history’ which is one of the ‘central eight’ risk factors. It has been well-documented
that a history of involvement with the criminal justice system is related to a range of biases (Chan,
2011) that result in racial proling and over-policing (Mears, Cochran, & Lindsey 2016), unlawful
stops, searches, higher rates of arrest, and charges (Delsol & Shiner, 2015). With these realities, the
assumption of ‘criminal history’ as an independent predictor of future criminal behavior is clearly
problematic. That is, people of color will almost inevitably score higher on this item simply because
of the net-widening approaches that result from policing practices. This is the position articulated
in a recent statement signed by a group of twenty-seven prominent researchers from MIT, Harvard,
Princeton, NYU, UC Berkeley and Columbia. They point to robust evidence from US studies that
communities of color are arrested at higher rates than their White counterparts, even for crimes that
both groups engage in at comparable rates. Compared to similarly situated White people, African

Advancing Corrections Journal: Edition #10-2020
22
Americans are also more likely to be convicted and more likely to be sentenced to prison in the USA
(see Barabas et al., 2019).
Another example is the ‘criminal attitudes’ risk marker. It is common knowledge that people of color
in developed countries have historically experienced considerable injustices with forced relocation,
slavery, dispositions of land, discrimination, and other ill-treatments. Consequently, it is well-
established that people of color generally tend to mistrust and have unfavorable views of the criminal
justice system compared to their White counterparts (e.g., Gramlich, 2019), meaning that ‘criminal
attitudes’ are more likely to be expressed. In other words, these can be better understood as primarily
attributable to external factors or personal experience rather than as ‘justications’ or ‘cognitive
distortions’ that contribute to risk. Thus, ‘criminal attitudes’ may not represent the same reality
across groups, casting doubt its value as a universal predictor of recidivism.
The bias inherent in risk assessments is even more evident when ‘unemployment’ is considered as
a key predictor. The labour market in most western countries has never been a level playing eld,
with the majority of people of color faring badly in countries such as the USA (Rodgers, 2019), the
United Kingdom (Li & Heath, 2018), and Australia (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2016). And so,
how do we account for - or partial out - the eect of race-based labour market discrimination when
unemployment is used to classify the risk of an individual? The other domains of risk assessments
relate to lifestyle factors (i.e. substance use, family dysfunction, problematic leisure and recreational
activities, antisocial associates), with many arguing that these are rather indicators of socio-economic
disadvantages than markers of criminality (e.g., Hannah-Moat & Montford, 2019; Ward & Maruna,
2007). This suggests that inequalities simply relegate people of color to a higher risk of dysfunctional
lifestyles, which places them at a disadvantage when correctional decisions are made based on how
they are classied in terms of risk.
When these arguments are considered, it might be expected that current risk assessment tools more
readily identify risk in people of color. In fact, there is evidence that actuarial risk prediction is more
accurate for ‘white’ oenders than for those from various ethnic minority/Indigenous groups (see
Singh, Grann, & Fazel, 2011; Singh et al., 2014), with Koniko and Owusa-Bempas (2019) pointing to
studies that have shown, for both the LSI-R and COMPAS risk assessment tools, that ‘Black’ oenders
are more likely to be ‘overclassied’ (i.e., predicted to be rearrested when they actually were not) than
those classied as either ‘White’ or ‘Hispanic’. Concerns about inherent racial bias in risk assessment
tools have also been raised in relation to the classication of prisoners into one of several security
levels (e.g., ‘maximum’, ‘medium’, and ‘low’), with suggestions that people of color are more likely to
be ‘overclassied’ and kept in more restrictive prison conditions (Bohn & Morreale, 2018). We have
refrained from elaborating further on this topic here as it is beyond the scope of this paper.
The broader arguments here, however, rest on the idea that the ‘science’ of risk assessment for re-
oending relies on a set of culturally-biased assumptions that inform the prevailing paradigm about
how behavior—and by extension, criminal behavior—should be dened, measured, and judged. The
tendency for mainstream research to assume group dierences caused by an inherent racial bias
as well as the conspicuous omission of concepts and conceptions of othered peoples is evidence of
epistemic violence (Held, 2019). An appraisal of the positivist paradigm privileges so-called objective
scientic values that are not consonant with the lived experience of many peoples who are subject

Article 2: Do risk assessments play a role in the enduring ‘color line’?
23
to these tools. An appraisal of the paradigm illuminates these biases and the impact on those whom
are researched through this lens (Smith, 2012; Wilson, 2008). For instance, from an ontological
perspective, current risk assessment tools decontextualize the problem. From an axiological stance,
the contemporary practice of risk assessment tool design, administration, scoring and interpretation
is informed by an approach that uses empirically-derived, measurable, and correlational variables
to reduce a wide array of data into a metric that over-simplies reality. However, a result of this is
that the very term risk loses meaning as the line blurs between making ‘predictions’ and making
‘inferences’ (Imrey & Dawid, 2016).
But what is the alternative?
As other peak professional bodies respond to current national and international concerns about
systemic racism and professional discrimination, it is instructive to think about the role that the ICPA
might play in addressing racial disparity and color blindness in correctional practice. In the US, for
example, the American Psychological Association (APA) has committed to addressing the issue on
three levels: by broadly communicating psychological science on bias and racism to both its members
and the wider community; by developing actionable recommendations through an APA presidential
task force related to racial disparities in policing and police-citizen encounters, particularly related to
the Black community; and by working to dismantle institutional racism over the long term. At the core
of this strategy is education—including in relation to topics such as institutional and occupational
cultures, the development of eective training programs, and in understanding key concepts of
respect, implicit bias and intergroup relations. A nal, but nonetheless, critical commitment involves
not only bringing people of color into all levels of professional responsibility but also addressing the
long-standing problems in attracting and retaining students of diverse backgrounds. Such changes,
it is anticipated, will elevate the voices of Black scholars, diversify the workforce, and ensure that
multicultural values and perspectives are prioritized. Quiros, Varghese, and Vanidestine (2019) have,
however, also argued that a cultural competency approach is simply not sucient because it de-
emphasizes the signicance of key ideas relating to race, racism, and whiteness. They argue that it
is not enough to understand how people are ‘dierent’ and that practitioners need to examine how
categories of race result in dierential social power and racism. While many discussions of race and
racism exclusively focus on people of color, they often exclude any analysis of whiteness. Distinct
from being White, whiteness is a term used to refer to the invisible and hegemonic processes that
result in dierential laws, policies, and practices that most often benet those who are constructed as
White (Lpez, 2006).
In concluding this discussion, we call for change in two areas as correctional professionals and
researchers continue to collaborate to reduce bias and the harmful consequences of risk assessments
on people of color:
1. New methods: We call upon correctional agencies in most western countries to recognize the need
to actively seek out and invest in the development of risk assessment instruments that represent the
worldviews, perceptions, experiences, and values of people of color. While making this call, we are
reminded of the recent Ewert v Canada case in the Supreme Court of Canada which highlighted the
inherent limitations of existing risk assessments and the need for new and culturally valid instruments
for use with justice-involved Indigenous Peoples in Canada (Hart, 2016). We have been unable to nd
any published work either from Canada or from other comparable international jurisdictions since

Advancing Corrections Journal: Edition #10-2020
24
this court case. Thus, the need to develop culturally valid risk assessments cannot be emphasized
enough; it is too great an issue to ignore, and these cannot be expected to emerge without the
active participation and leadership of correctional agencies. It is also clear to us that current risk
assessment tools have, to date, lacked any meaningful involvement from ‘stakeholders’ or ‘end-
users’ in both development and use—despite the contributions to practice that are likely to ensue
from this. We currently, for example, know little about the experience of risk assessment and how it
aects individuals and families. Therefore, we suggest that the development of culturally informed
risk assessments should involve direct and active participation from people of color and/or the peak
bodies that represent them. This will not only help to ensure that the experiences and realties of
people of color are accounted for, but that they also have input in decisions that impact on their
lives. Most importantly—and in light of the literature reviewed here - the role of ‘race’ as a potential
predictor of recidivism needs to be explored and its dierential inuence on risk status of people
of color should be mitigated as part of formal risk assessment processes. This is an area of critical
importance for further study.
2. New training: Correctional agencies in most western countries have attempted to address the
overrepresentation of people of color in the criminal justice system through strategic planning
initiatives (e.g., in New Zealand through the Hōkai Rangi strategy, 2019 and in Australia in response
to the recommendations of The Royal Commission into Aboriginal Death in Custody, 1991). These
highlight the need to strengthen culturally inclusive and responsive correctional practices through
the provision of specialist training and programming as well as through the employment of people of
color as consultants and/or direct service providers. However, these initiatives have, so far, resulted
in little or no eect on the overrepresentation people of color in these criminal justice systems.
Therefore, we call upon correctional agencies to re-think current approaches and ensure cultural
competency of practitioners who engage in the administration of risk assessments with people
of color. It is important to recognise the mere employment of people of color and generic cultural
awareness trainings do not equate to cultural competence in any meaningful sense without a deeper
understanding of the limitations of risk assessments and the importance of cultural accountability.
Facilitating discussions among members about white privilege and white fragility should also be
a priority for ICPA and other similar associations. Furthermore, there should be more emphasis on
creating healing opportunities for people of color that address cultural trauma and a process of self-
determination toward a justice system which values, promotes and requires greater involvement in
decision-making, program design and delivery.
Overall, we are strongly of the view that the success of the aforementioned recommendations will
depend on the commitment and focused oversight of peak level correctional administrators. The
ICPA is also uniquely positioned globally to drive professional practice standards that promote the
development, design, and implementation of culturally valid risk assessments as well as to support
new training initiatives.
LIST OF REFERENCES
Agnew, R. (2001). Building on the foundation of general strain theory: Specifying the types of strain
most likely to lead to crime and delinquency. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 38(4),
319–361.

Article 2: Do risk assessments play a role in the enduring ‘color line’?
25
American Psychological Association (APA). (2017). Multicultural guidelines: An ecological approach to
context, identity, and intersectionality. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/
Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (1995). The Level of Service Inventory–Revised. Toronto, Canada: Multi-
Health Systems.
Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2010). Rehabilitating criminal justice policy and practice. Psychology,
Public Policy, and Law, 16(1), 39–55.
Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Wormith, S. J. (2004). The Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (LS/
CMI). Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
Andrews, D. A., & Dowden, C. (2007). The risk-need-responsivity model of assessment and human
service in prevention and corrections: Crime-prevention jurisprudence. Canadian Journal of
Criminology and Criminal Justice, 49(4), 439–464.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2016). National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Survey,
2014-15. Retrieved from <https://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/ Lookup/4714.0Main+Feat
ures100022014-15?OpenDocument>
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2018). Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander prisoner
characteristics. Retrieved from <https://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/
DetailsPage/4517.02018?OpenDocument>
Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC). (2017). Pathways to justice–inquiry into the incarceration
rate of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples. Retrieved from https://www.alrc.gov.au/
inquiry-categories/indgienous-incarceration/
Barabas, C. et al. (2019). Technical aws of pretrial risk assessments raise grave concerns. Retrieved
7/8/19 from <https://cyber.harvard.edu/story/2019-07/technical-aws-pretrial-risk-assessments-
raise-grave-concerns>
Blumstein, A. (1993). Making rationality relevant: The American Society of Criminology 1992
Presidential Address. Criminology, 31, 1-16.
Blumstein, A., & Wallman, J. (2006). The Crime Drop in America. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bohn, L. E., & Morreale, S. A. (2018). Analysis of the racial and ethnic representation of adult male
inmates in large jail isolation Units in the United States. International Journal of Education and
Social Science, 5, 57-68.
Bonta, J., & Andrews, D. A. (2003). A commentary on Ward and Stewart’s model of human needs.
Psychology, Crime & Law, 9, 215-218. doi:10.1080/10683/16031000112115.
Bonta, J., LaPrairie, C., & Wallace-Capretta, S. (1997). Risk prediction and re-oending: Indigenous and
non-Indigenous oenders. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 39, 127–144.
Chan, J. (2011). Racial proling and police subculture. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal
Justice, 53, 75 - 78, http://dx.doi.org/10.3138/cjccj.53.1.75
Delsol & Shiner, 2015). Stop and search: The Anatomy of a Police Power. London: Palgrave Macmillan
Limited
Eisenberg, M., van Horn, J. Dekker, J., Assink, M., van der Put, C., Hendriks, J., & Stams, G.J. (2019).
Static and dynamic predictors of general and violent criminal oense recidivism in the forensic
outpatient population: A meta-analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 46, 732-750. doi:
10.1177/0093854819826109
Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A General Theory of Crime. Stanford University Press.
Government of Canada, Oce of the Correctional Investigator. (2017). Annual Report 2016-2017.
Retrieved from <https://www.oci-bec.gc.ca/cnt/rpt/annrpt/annrpt20162017-eng.aspx>
Government of New Zealand, Department of Corrections. (2019). Hōkai Rangi 2019–2024. Retrieved

Advancing Corrections Journal: Edition #10-2020
26
from <https://www.corrections.govt.nz/resources/strategic_reports/corrections_strategic_plans/
hokai_rangi>
Gramlich, J. (2019). From Police to Parole, Black and White Americans Dier Widely in their Views of
the Criminal Justice System. Pew Research Centre. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/
Gutierrez, L., Wilson, H. A., Rugge, T., & Bonta, J. (2013). The prediction of recidivism with Aboriginal
oenders: A theoretically informed meta-analysis. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal
Justice, 55(1), 55–99.
Hannah-Moat K., & Montford K. S. (2019). Unpacking sentencing algorithms: Risk, racial
accountability, and data harms, in J. de Keijser et al. (eds.), Predictive sentencing: normative and
empirical perspectives (pp. 175-195). Oxford: Hart Publishing
Hart, S. D. (2016). Culture and violence risk assessment: The case of Ewert v. Canada. Journal of Threat
Assessment and Management, 3(2), 76–96. https://doi.org/10.1037/tam0000068
Held, B. S. (2019). Epistemic violence in psychological science: Can knowledge of, from, and for the
(othered) people solve the problem? Theory & Psychology, 30(3), 349-370.
Imrey, P. B., & Dawid, A. P. (2016). A commentary on statistical assessment of violence risk
assessment. Statistics and Public Policy, 2(1), 1-18.
Kamalu, N. C., Coulson-Clark, M., & Kamalu, N. M. (2010). Racial disparities in sentencing: Implications
for the criminal justice system and the African American community. African Journal of
Criminology and Justice Studies, 4(1), 1-31.
Koniko, D., & Owusu-Bempah, K. (2019). Big data and criminal justice – What Canadians should know.
Toronto: Centre for Criminology and Sociolegal Studies University of Toronto.
Lammy, D. (2017). An Independent Review into the Treatment of, and Outcomes for Black, Asian and
Minority Ethnic Individuals in the Criminal Justice System. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/
government/publications/lammy-review-nal-report
Leiber, M. J., & Peck, J. H. (2014). General strain theory. In J. M. Miller, C. Schreck, A.Gover, & W. G.
Jennings (Eds.), The Encyclopedia of Theoretical Criminology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
Lewis, K., Olver, M. E., & Wong, S. C. P. (2013). The Violence Risk Scale: Predictive validity and linking
changes in risk with violent recidivism in a sample of high risk oenders with psychopathic traits.
Assessment, 20, 150–164. doi:10.1177/1073191112441242
Li, Y., & Heath, A. (2018). Persisting disadvantages: a study of labour market dynamics of ethnic
unemployment and earnings in the UK (2009–2015). Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies,
46(5), 857–878. doi: 10.1080/1369183X.2018.153924
Lpez, H. (2006). White by Law: The Legal Construction of Race. New York: New York University Press.
Martel, J., Brassard, R., & Jaccoud, M. (2011). When two worlds collide: Aboriginal risk management in
Canadian corrections. British Journal of Criminology, 51(2), 235-255.doi: 10.1093/bjc/azr003
Martin, W. (2017, June). Unequal Justice for Indigenous Australians. Paper presented at Criminal
Lawyers’ Association of the Northern Territory Biennial Conference, Australia.
McCarter, S. A. (2018). Racial disparities in the criminal justice system. Encyclopedia of Social Work,
1-23. doi: 10.1093/acrefore/9780199975839.013.1289
Mears, D. P., Cochran, J. C., & Lindsey, A. M. (2016). Oending and racial and ethnic disparities in
criminal justice: A conceptual framework for guiding theory and research and informing policy.
Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 32(1), 78–103. doi: 10.1177/1043986215607252
Ministry of Justice (2016). Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic Disproportionality in the Criminal Justice
System in England and Wales. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/crime-justice-and-law
National Association of Social Workers (2015). Cultural and linguistic competence in the social work

Article 2: Do risk assessments play a role in the enduring ‘color line’?
27
profession. In Social work speaks: National Association of Social Workers policy statements,
2015–2017 (pp. 62–67). Washington, DC: NASW Press.
New Zealand Department of Corrections. (2018). Prison Statistics. Retrieved from
<https://www.corrections.govt.nz/resources/research_and_statistics/quarterly_prison_
statistics>
Olver, M. E., Stockdale, K. C., & Wormith, J. S. (2014). Thirty years of research on the Level of
Service scales: A meta-analytic examination of predictive accuracy and sources of variability.
Psychological Assessment, 26, 156-176.
Piquero, A. R. (2015). Understanding race/ethnicity dierences in oending across the life course: Gaps
and opportunities. Journal of Developmental and Life-Course Criminology, 1(1), 21-32.
Quiros, L., Varghese, R., & Vanidestine, T. (2019). Disrupting the single story: Challenging dominant
trauma narratives through a critical race lens. Traumatology, 26(2), 160–168. https://doi.
org/10.1037/trm0000223
Rodgers, W. M. (2019). Race in the labor market: The role of equal employment opportunity and other
policies. The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 5 (5) 198-220; doi: https://
doi.org/10.7758/RSF.2019.5.5.10
Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody (April 1991). Canberra: Australian Government
Publishing Service. Retrieved from http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/IndigLRes/rciadic/
Shepherd, S. M. (2016). Violence risk instruments may be culturally unsafe for use with Indigenous
patients. Australasian Psychiatry, 24, 565–567. doi:10.1177/1039856216665287
Singh, J. P., Grann, M., & Fazel, S. (2011). A comparative study of violence risk assessment tools: A
systematic review and meta-regression analysis of 68 studies involving 25,980 participants
Clinical Psychology Review, 31, 499–513. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2010.11.009
Singh, J. P., Desmarais, S. L., Hurducas, C., Arbach-Lucioni, K., Condemarin, C., Dean, K., Doyle, M., Folino,
J. O., Godoy-Cervera, V., Grann, M., Ho, R. M. Y., Large, M. M., Nielsen, L. H., Pham, T. H., Rebocho,
M. F., Reeves, K. A., Rettenberger, M., de Ruiter, C., Seewald, K. and Otto, R. K. (2014). International
perspectives on the practical application of violence risk assessment: A global survey of 44
countries. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 13, 193–206.
Smith, L. T. (2012). Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and indigenous Peoples. Dunedin, NZ: Otago
University Press.
United States Census Bureau. State & County QuickFacts. Washington, DC: 2015. Retrieved from http://
www.census.gov/quickfacts/map/PST045215/12
Ward, T. & Maruna, S. (2007). Rehabilitation: Beyond the Risk Paradigm. London:Routledge.
Webb, R. (2018). Rethinking the utility of the risk factors and criminogenic needs approaches in
Aotearoa New Zealand. Journal of Global Indigeneity, 3(1), 1-21.
Wilson, S. (2008). Research is Ceremony: Indigenous Research Methods. Halifax, Canada: Fernwood.
Wong, S. C., & Gordon, A. (2003). Violence Risk Scale Manual. Canada: University of Saskatchewan.
About the Authors
Yilma Woldgabreal is a Senior Clinician at the Rehabilitation Programs Branch, Department for
Correctional Services in South Australia. Yilma is aliated with Deakin University, Australia, where
he received his PhD in forensic psychology in 2016. Yilma has nearly two decades experience in
corrections (both prisons and community corrections) and held various positions ranging from
probation ocer to management. His research interest includes risk assessment, evaluation,

Advancing Corrections Journal: Edition #10-2020
28
development of evidence-based rehabilitation programs, with particular emphasis of on the
application of positive psychology. Yilma has published in peer reviewed journals. For correspondence
regarding this article, please contact: Yilma Woldgabreal, P O Box 2278, Port Augusta, South
Australia, 5700. Telephone: +61886489688 | Mobile: +6142108877 | Email: yilma.woldgabreal@sa.gov.
au
Andrew Day is an Enterprise Professor in Criminology at the University of Melbourne in Australia.
A registered clinical and forensic psychologist he has previously worked in prison and forensic
mental health settings in both Australia and the UK. His research interest includes rehabilitation
and reintegration, and the management of prison violence. Contact details: Andrew Day, SSPS, John
Medley Building, Melbourne, Victoria, 3000, Australia. Mobile: +61403064239 | Email: day.a@unimelb.
edu.au
Armon Tamatea, PhD, PGDipPsych (Clin) is an Indigenous clinical psychologist who served as
a clinician and senior research advisor for the Department of Corrections (New Zealand) before
being appointed senior lecturer in psychology at the University of Waikato where he also acted as
director of the post-graduate clinical psychology training programme. He has worked extensively
in the assessment and treatment of violent and sexual oenders, and contributed to the design
and implementation of an experimental prison-based violence prevention programme for high-risk
oenders diagnosed with psychopathy. His research interests include psychopathy, New Zealand
gang communities, and exploring culturally-informed approaches to oender management. Armon is
currently involved in a long-term funded project that aims to reduce prison violence in New Zealand
and currently divides his professional time between research, teaching supervision, and clinical
practice in the criminal justice arena. Contact details: School of Psychology, Division of Arts, Law,
Psychology & Social Sciences, University of Waikato, Private Bag 3105, Hamilton 3240, New Zealand