U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

Recidivism Forecasting Challenge

Description

Learn about the winners and challenge results -

The National Institute of Justice’s (NIJ) “Recidivism Forecasting Challenge” (the Challenge) aims to increase public safety and improve the fair administration of justice across the United States. In accordance with priorities set by the DOJ, NIJ supports the research, development, and evaluation of strategies to reduce violent crime, and to protect police and other public safety personnel by reducing recidivism. Results from the Challenge will provide critical information to community corrections departments that may help facilitate more successful reintegration into society for previously incarcerated persons and persons on parole.

As the research, development, and evaluation agency of the U.S. Department of Justice, NIJ invests in scientific research across diverse disciplines to serve the needs of the criminal justice community. NIJ seeks to use and distribute rigorous evidence to inform practice and policy, often relying on data analytic methods to do so. The Challenge aims to improve the ability to forecast recidivism using person- and place-based variables with the goal of improving outcomes for those serving a community supervision sentence. In addition to the Challenge data provided, NIJ encourages contestants to consider a wide range of potential supplemental data sources that are available to community corrections agencies to enhance risk determinations, including the incorporation of dynamic place-based factors, along with the common static and dynamic risk factors.

The Challenge will have three categories of contestants: students; individuals/small teams/businesses; and large businesses. NIJ will evaluate all entries on how accurately they forecast the outcome of recidivism. Recidivism is defined in this Challenge as an arrest for a new crime. To receive prize money, (114 total prizes available, up to 15 per contestant/team) winning applicants must provide a comprehensive document detailing the lessons learned about what variables did and did not matter to their final forecasting model and, when applicable, what type of models outperformed other models. Contestants are encouraged to provide additional intellectual property regarding specific techniques, weighting, or other sensitive decisions.

The Challenge uses data from the State of Georgia about persons released from prison to parole supervision for the period January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2015. Contestants will submit forecasts (percent likelihoods) of whether individuals in the dataset recidivated within one year, two years, or three years after release.

NIJ expects that new and more nuanced information will be gained from the Challenge and help address high recidivism among persons under community supervision. Findings could directly impact the types of factors considered when evaluating risk of recidivism and highlight the need to support people in specific areas related to reincarceration. Additionally, the Challenge could provide guidance on gender specific considerations and strategies to account for racial bias during risk assessment.  

 Appendices

[note 1] Upon review by NIJ, the winner’s documents will be made available to the public on the Challenge website https://nij.ojp.gov/funding/recidivism-forecasting-challenge/

[note 2] The Challenge data only contains individuals with the racial categories of Black and White to reduce the possibility of deductive disclosure of individuals identities. There were less than 500 individuals who were identified as Hispanic, and less than 100 individuals in each of the following categories Asian, Native American, other, and unknown; these cases were dropped from the sample to prevent inadvertent disclosure of personal Identifying information.

[note 3] Kaeble, D. & M. Alper (2020).  Probation and Parole in the United States, 2017-2018.  Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

[note 4] Council of State Governments (2019).  Confined and Costly: How Supervision Violations are Filling Prisons and Burdening Budgets.  Washington, DC: Council of State Governments.

[note 5] Lowenkamp, C., E Latesa. & A. Holsinger (2006).  “The Risk Principle in Action: What have we Learned from 13,676 Offenders and 97 Correctional Programs?”  Crime & Delinquency 52:77-93

[note 6] Pew Charitable Trust (2020).  Probation and Parole Systems Marked by High Stakes, Missed Opportunities.  Washington, DC: Pew Charitable Trust.

[note 7] Bird, M. & R. Grattet (2018).  Evaluating the Effects of Realignment Practices on Recidivism.  Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

[note 8] American Probation and Parole Association (2006).  Caseload Standards for Probation and Parole.  www.appa-net.org/eweb/docs/APPA/stances/ip_CSPP.pdf.

[note 9] Georgia Department of Community Supervisions, personal communication, January 11, 2021

[note 10] See Clear, T. (2007).  Studies in Crime and Public Policy.  Imprisoning Communities: How Mass Incarceration Makes Disadvantaged Neighborhoods Worse.  London: Oxford University Press; National Research Council (2014).  The Growth of Incarceration in the United States: Exploring Causes and Consequences. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press; Sampson, R. & C. Loeffler (2010).  “Punishment’s Place: The Local Concentration of Mass Incarceration.”  Daedalus 139: 20-31.

[note 11] Kaeble, D. & M. Alper (2020).  Probation and Parole in the United States, 2017-2018.  Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

[note 12] Bradner, K. V. Schiraldi, N. Mejia, & E. Lopoo (2020).  More Work To Do: Analysis of Probation and Parole in the United States, 2017-2018.  New York: Columbia University Justice Lab.

[note 13] Western, B. & C. Sirois (2019).  “Radicalized Re-entry: Labor Market Inequality After Incarceration.”  Social Forces: 97:1517-1542.

[note 14] See Berk, R. & A. Elzarka (2020).  “Almost Politically Acceptable Criminal Justice Risk Assessment.”  Criminology & Public Policy 19:1231-1257.

[note 15] Desmarais, S., K. Johnson, & J. Singh (2016).  “Performance of Recidivism Risk Assessment Instruments in U.S. Correctional Settings.”  Psychological Services: 13:206-222.

[note 16] See Berk, R. & A. Elzarka (2020).  “Almost Politically Acceptable Criminal Justice Risk Assessment.”  Criminology & Public Policy 19:1231-1257.

[note 17] Lowenkamp, C., E Latesa. & A. Holsinger (2006).  “The Risk Principle in Action: What have we Learned from 13,676 Offenders and 97 Correctional Programs?”  Crime & Delinquency 52:77-93

[note 18] Carson, E. (2020).  Prisoners in 2019.  Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

[note 19] Kaeble, D. & M. Alper (2020).  Probation and Parole in the United States, 2017-2018.  Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

[note 20] National Institute of Justice (1999).  Research on Women and Girls in the Criminal Justice System.  Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice; Ramirez, R. (2016).  Reentry Considerations for Justice Involved Women.  Kensington, MD: Center for Effective Public Policy.

[note 21] Desmarais, S., K. Johnson, & J. Singh (2016).  “Performance of Recidivism Risk Assessment Instruments in U.S. Correctional Settings.”  Psychological Services: 13:206-222.

[note 22] A contestant is not required to provide a forecast for every Challenge submission time period. Additionally, team rosters may fluctuate depending on the submission period (i.e., gain or lose a member) with the requirement that contestants are only listed on one team roster for each Challenge submission time period (i.e., 1-year, 2-year, and 3-year forecast).

[note 23] The individual or team representative will be contacted by NIJ staff requesting contact information for all listed on the team roster, if not already submitted. Each person on the winning entries will then receive a form that asks for banking information that is sent directly to the Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO); OCFO will then disperse the awards accordingly.