Bias Testing of the Public Safety Assessment: Error Rate Balance Between Whites and Blacks for New Arrests

2020 ◽  
pp. 001112872096511
Author(s):  
Matthew DeMichele ◽  
Peter Baumgartner
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Error Rate ◽  
Safety Assessment ◽  
Risk Assessments ◽  
People Of Color ◽  
The Public ◽  
Error Measures ◽  
The Poor ◽  
Nuanced Understanding

This study is an evaluation of predictive bias by race when using a pretrial risk assessment. We use data from Kentucky from July 2013 through December 2014 ( n = 164,597) to evaluate differences across five error measures. Pretrial risk assessments were developed to respond to growing awareness about how intuitive processes were leading to disparate impact for people of color and the poor. This study contributes data to the debate about the merits of pretrial risk assessments. The crux of this debate is the lack of standards about how to assess predictive bias. Our analyses demonstrate that a more nuanced understanding of pretrial outcomes and decision making are needed before fully understanding the strengths and weaknesses of pretrial risk assessments.

A Review of the Validity of Juvenile Risk Assessment Across Race/Ethnicity

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christina Campbell ◽  
William Miller
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Ethnic Minorities ◽  
Minority Groups ◽  
Critical Role ◽  
The United States ◽  
Risk Assessments ◽  
Assessment Instruments ◽  
Race Ethnicity ◽  
Racial Ethnic

Juvenile risk assessment instruments have provided juvenile courts with the opportunity to make standardized decisions concerning sentences and intervention needs. Risk assessments have replaced the reliance on professional decision-making practices in which court officials relied on their hunches or previous experience to determine what to do with youth once they became involved in corrections. A primary goal of juvenile risk assessment is to improve case management and help courts focus resources on juveniles who exhibit the greatest intervention needs. Further, juvenile risk assessments play a critical role in estimating which juveniles will likely reoffend by identifying factors that increase the propensity of future offending. Although some researchers believe that the implementation of standardized juvenile risk assessments is a good strategy for reducing biased decision-making for racial/ethnic minorities, other researchers have called into question the extent to which risk assessments overestimate risk for certain juveniles, especially those in minority groups who have a history of being marginalized due to their race, culture, or ethnicity. This article provides an overview of how well juvenile risk assessment instruments predict future delinquency across race and ethnicity. The review suggests that in general, risk assessments do a good job in predicting recidivism across racial/ethnic groups for diverse populations inside and outside the United States. However, there is still some room for improvement concerning the assessment of risk and needs for ethnic minorities. In addition, while there are some studies that do not report the predictive validity of risk assessment scores across race/ethnicity, risk assessments overall seem to be a promising effort to correctly classify and/or identify juveniles who are at greatest risk for future recidivism.

scholarly journals New Elements To Consider When Modeling the Hazards Associated with Botulinum Neurotoxin in Food

2015 ◽  
Vol 198 (2) ◽  
pp. 204-211 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adaoha E. C. Ihekwaba ◽  
Ivan Mura ◽  
Pradeep K. Malakar ◽  
John Walshaw ◽  
Michael W. Peck ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Food Safety ◽  
Health Hazard ◽  
Management Strategies ◽  
Rare Condition ◽  
Risk Assessments ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Hazard Management ◽  
Cranial Nerve Palsies

Botulinum neurotoxins (BoNTs) produced by the anaerobic bacteriumClostridium botulinumare the most potent biological substances known to mankind. BoNTs are the agents responsible for botulism, a rare condition affecting the neuromuscular junction and causing a spectrum of diseases ranging from mild cranial nerve palsies to acute respiratory failure and death. BoNTs are a potential biowarfare threat and a public health hazard, since outbreaks of foodborne botulism are caused by the ingestion of preformed BoNTs in food. Currently, mathematical models relating to the hazards associated withC. botulinum, which are largely empirical, make major contributions to botulinum risk assessment. Evaluated using statistical techniques, these models simulate the response of the bacterium to environmental conditions. Though empirical models have been successfully incorporated into risk assessments to support food safety decision making, this process includes significant uncertainties so that relevant decision making is frequently conservative and inflexible. Progression involves encoding into the models cellular processes at a molecular level, especially the details of the genetic and molecular machinery. This addition drives the connection between biological mechanisms and botulism risk assessment and hazard management strategies. This review brings together elements currently described in the literature that will be useful in building quantitative models ofC. botulinumneurotoxin production. Subsequently, it outlines how the established form of modeling could be extended to include these new elements. Ultimately, this can offer further contributions to risk assessments to support food safety decision making.

Initiating and Managing Risk Assessments within a Risk Analysis Framework: FDA/CFSAN'S Practical Approach

2004 ◽  
Vol 67 (9) ◽  
pp. 2058-2062 ◽  
Author(s):  
ROBERT L. BUCHANAN ◽  
SHERRI DENNIS ◽  
MARIANNE MILIOTIS
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Risk Management ◽  
Risk Analysis ◽  
Risk Assessments ◽  
Analysis Framework ◽  
Regulatory Decision ◽  
Managing Risk ◽  
Risk Managers ◽  
The U.S

Management of risk analysis involves the integration and coordination of activities associated with risk assessment, risk management, and risk communication. Risk analysis is used to guide regulatory decision making, including trade decisions at national and international levels. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) formed a working group to evaluate and improve the quality and consistency of major risk assessments conducted by the Center. Drawing on risk analysis experiences, CFSAN developed a practical framework for initiating and managing risk assessments, including addressing issues related to (i) commissioning a risk assessment, (ii) interactions between risk managers and risk assessors, and (iii) peer review.

Early Geoengineering Governance: The Oxford Principles

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clare Heyward ◽  
Steve Rayner ◽  
Julian Savulescu
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Risk Assessments ◽  
Political Values ◽  
Engineering Research ◽  
The Public ◽  
Ethical Implications ◽  
The World ◽  
Scope Of Application ◽  
Political Decision Making

Clare Heyward, and Steve Rayner, and Julian Savulescu examine the legitimacy and social control over the research, development and eventual deployment of geo-engineering to reduce human caused climate change. They believe that it is permissible in principle but all geo-engineering R&D should be subject to some sort of governance given its potential to affect everyone in the world. They defend the Oxford Principles of ethical-political decision-making principles. 1) Geo-engineering is in the public interest and should be regulated as a public good; 2) there should be public participation in geo-engineering decision-making; 3) geo-engineering research should be transparent and available to the public; 4) risk assessments should be conducted by independent bodies, and be directed toward both the environmental and socio-economic impacts of research and deployment; and 5) the legal, social, and ethical implications of geo-engineering should be addressed before a project is undertaken or technology deployed. The authors then compare the Oxford Principles favorably the three main alternative models that guide geoengineering development. They argue that it has a greater scope of application than the alternatives and better lend themselves to action-guiding recommendations and regulations, appropriate to different technologies -- while preserving longstanding environmental and political values.

‘Walking on ice’: The future of parole in a risk-obsessed society

2019 ◽  
pp. 136248061988055
Author(s):  
Monica Barry
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Risk Reduction ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Future ◽  
Key Drivers ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Risk Assessment And Management

The aim of risk assessment and management in criminal justice is increasingly about minimizing opportunities to create harm to the public rather than maximizing opportunities to create change in offenders. This seems to be particularly the case in respect of parole, where the balance of public protection with rehabilitation has become increasingly unstable in prioritizing the former. This article examines parole decision making and management within the UK from the perspectives of both high risk offenders on licence and parole professionals. It discusses two key drivers to burgeoning recall rates: the stringency of licence conditions and the propensity of professionals to recall in the name of risk elimination rather than risk reduction. The article concludes that the effectiveness of parole is in question, not least in enabling re-entry and reintegration of high risk prisoners. In particular, the future sustainability of parole itself is deemed to be under threat.

scholarly journals Quantitative Benefit–Risk Assessment: State of the Practice Within Industry

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Meredith Y. Smith ◽  
Janine van Til ◽  
Rachael L. DiSantostefano ◽  
A. Brett Hauber ◽  
Kevin Marsh
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Life Sciences ◽  
Risk Assessments ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Pilot Studies ◽  
Implementation Challenges ◽  
Regulatory Guidance ◽  
Benefit Risk Assessment ◽  
Regulatory Submissions

Abstract Background Benefit–risk assessments for medicinal products and devices have advanced significantly over the past decade. The purpose of this study was to characterize the extent to which the life sciences industry is utilizing quantitative benefit–risk assessment (qBRA) methods. Methods Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a sample of industry professionals working in drug and/or medical device benefit–risk assessments (n = 20). Questions focused on the use, timing, and impact of qBRA; implementation challenges; and future plans. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded for thematic analysis. Results While most surveyed companies had applied qBRA, application was limited to a small number of assets—primarily to support internal decision-making and regulatory submissions. Positive impacts associated with use included improved team decision-making and communication. Multi-criteria decision analysis and discrete choice experiment were the most frequently utilized qBRA methods. A key challenge of qBRA use was the lack of clarity regarding its value proposition. Championing by senior company leadership and receptivity of regulators to such analyses were cited as important catalysts for successful adoption of qBRA. Investment in qBRA methods, via capability building and pilot studies, was also under way in some instances. Conclusion qBRA application within this sample of life sciences companies was widespread, but concentrated in a small fraction of assets. Its use was primarily for internal decision-making or regulatory submissions. While some companies had plans to build further capacity in this area, others were waiting for further regulatory guidance before doing so.

Food Safety: Risk Assessment Methodology and Decision-Making Criteria

2003 ◽  
Vol 22 (6) ◽  
pp. 435-451 ◽  
Author(s):  
William J. Brock ◽  
Joseph V. Rodricks ◽  
Alan Rulis ◽  
Vicki L. Dellarco ◽  
George M. Gray ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Safety Assessment ◽  
Food Additives ◽  
Cumulative Risk ◽  
The United States ◽  
Management Process ◽  
Approval Process ◽  
Risk Management Process

As our scientific technology grows, risk assessment methods become more complex and, therefore, open to greater scientific debate. Risk assessment has always been a part of the regulatory notification and approval process for foods. However, the methodologies applied to risk assessment and decision-making have become diverse, dependent on a number of features, including the areas of the world in which one operates, the need to use cumulative risk assessment for pesticides and otheringredients or alternative risk assessment considerations for evaluating nontraditional or bioengineered foods. Diverse institutional structures within a single federal regulatory authority may tend to lead to diversity in risk outcomes that creates policy decisions that complicate and confuse the risk management process. On top of this challenge, decisions become more complicated by the need to examine beneficial factors of foods rather than the adverse effects of foods and food additives. Foods are a complex mixture ofingredients. Regulatory groups recognize the need to use new approaches for evaluating the safety and risks associated with foods and food additives, and to do so in a timely manner. The United States Food and Drug Administration (US FDA) in its need to ensure standards of “reasonable certainty of no harm” continues to explore alternative means to be responsive to petitioners as well as continue to examine scientifically validated means, e.g., quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR), and computer-assisted programs, within the approval process to assist in the evaluation of risks. Another means to improve the risk management process would include the cumulative risk assessment of pesticides that will, no doubt, be the beginning of more intensive efforts to understand cumulative exposures and the inherent risks from multiple pathways of exposure. The passage of the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) resulted in developing additional risk assessment methodologies and approaches to assess the potential for multiple exposures and risks. Addressing the international criteria used in decision-making related to foods safety assessment has resulted in acceptable intake values for foodingredients for carcinogens and noncarcinogens that, in general, tend to be more stringent in the United States compared to Europe. Clearly, the need for harmonization of risk assessment criteria and the impact of the decision process on regulatory approvals and safety assessment is a future need for the continued assurances of food safety. The topics presented in this paper are based on a symposium held in November 2002 at the annual meeting of the American College of Toxicology.

Risk assessment

2018 ◽  
pp. 139-152
Author(s):  
Maria Flynn ◽  
Dave Mercer
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Nursing Care ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Risk Assessments ◽  
Care Services ◽  
Risk Assessment Tools ◽  
Healthcare Environments ◽  
Managing Risk ◽  
Routine Procedures

General adult nurses work with people in hospitals, hospices, community care services, and people’s homes. Irrespective of the place of work, there will be many routine procedures which are an important part of reducing risk to people and organizing subsequent nursing work. It is recognized that all organizations will have different risk assessment tools and recording procedures, but there are generic principles of safety which underpin all these tools. An important aspect of nursing decision-making and practice is understanding and managing risk, and factoring risk management into the planning and delivery of nursing care. This chapter considers the broad principles of risk assessments which are widely used across healthcare environments.

Risk Assessment and Risk Management: An Uneasy Divorce

1994 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ellen K. Silbergeld
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Risk Management ◽  
Environmental Policy ◽  
Science And Policy ◽  
The Public ◽  
Environmental Decision Making ◽  
Methods Of Evaluation ◽  
Scientific Analysis ◽  
Environmental Decision

Over the past decade, the concept of risk has become central to environmental policy. Environmental decision making has been recast as reducing risk by assessing and managing it. Risk assessment is increasingly employed in environmental policymaking to set standards and initiate regulatory consideration and, even in epidemiology, to predict the health effects of environmental exposures. As such, it standardizes the methods of evaluation used in dealing with environmental hazards. Nonetheless, risk assessment remains controversial among scientists, and the policy results of risk assessment are generally not accepted by the public. It is not my purpose to examine the origin of these controversies, which I and others have considered elsewhere (see, e.g., EPA 1987), but rather to consider some of the consequences of the recent formulation of risk assessment as specific decisions and authorities distinguishable from other parts of environmental decision making. The focus of this chapter is the relatively new policy of separating certain aspects of risk assessment from risk management, a category that includes most decision-making actions. Proponents of this structural divorce contend that risk assessment is value neutral, a field of objective scientific analysis, while risk management is the arena where these objective data are processed into appropriate social policy. This raises relatively new problems to complicate the already contentious arena of environmental policy. This separation has created problems that interfere with the recognition and resolution of both scientific and transscientific issues in environmental policymaking. Indeed, both science and policy could be better served by recognizing the scientific limits of risk-assessment methods and allowing scientific and policy judgment to interact to resolve unavoidable uncertainties in the decisionmaking process. This chapter will discuss the forces that encouraged separating the performance of assessment and management at the EPA in the 1980s, which I characterize as an uneasy divorce. I shall examine some scientific and policy issues, especially regarding uncertainty, that have been aggravated by this policy of deliberate separation. Various interpretations of uncertainty have become central, and value-laden issues in decision making and appeals to uncertainty have often been an excuse for inaction.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document