Electronic Monitoring Series Part 2 of 3: Risk Assessment Instruments and the Role they Play in Electronic Monitoring Programs

In Orleans Parish, the eligibility criteria for juvenile Electronic Monitoring (EM) clearly requires a child to have a RAI score of 10-11. Unclear, however, is how these scores are calculated and what they mean for public safety.  

But what is an RAI? Risk Assessment Instruments are tools used to assess a defendant’s risk to themselves and their community. This determines whether they are to be released, monitored, or incarcerated as they await trial. RAIs use information from demographics, past arrest history (if any), and the level of severity of the current offense(s), to determine if a person is likely to commit another offense. RAI factors can include type of charge, other pending charges, prior convictions, prior sentencing, employment status, housing status, and history of drug use (if any). This then generates a score of 1 to 45 that guides judges in their decision-making. 

Due to their heavy use of demographics-based data, RAI systems can and often do make biased predictions. Most systems weigh more heavily an individual’s risk level based on arrest records versus prior convictions. After all, RAIs assess the risk for the person to be rearrested. Since Black and brown people are more likely than white people to be arrested, then being Black or brown is viewed as an increased risk factor by RAIs. In fact, when examined more closely, several RAI systems were found to have artificially inflated risk scores for Black people when compared to white people. 

Notably, the exact risk factors used for RAI predictions are protected as trade secrets, so it is almost impossible for regular citizens to find out how scores are calculated, or even what specific data is used to do so. 

Judges are allowed to override RAI recommendations, which adds a needed human element to the process. However, this more often results in judges choosing to incarcerate individuals with lower scores. Seldom does it lead to a person with a higher or even mid-range score being released. According to LCCR’s defense attorneys, Orleans Parish Juvenile Court judges frequently override release and detention alternative recommendations for children arrested for certain offenses, regardless of risk score. Knowing what factors are used to determine risk, or if the data is biased, ceases to matter when RAI recommendations are routinely being ignored.  

Despite these issues, RAIs can be beneficial. When used properly, RAIs lower incarceration rates without increasing pretrial misconduct. And when data is adjusted for racial bias, RAIs can be more effective than judges at objectively assessing risk.  

The best way forward is a combination of risk determination using RAIs and decision making by judges. This includes making publicly available information about the RAIs source data, and requiring judges to explain their reasoning in cases where they choose to override RAI scores. Increased transparency in this system will reduce bias, lower rates of pretrial misconduct, lower incarceration rates without increasing crime, and increase trust in our legal systems.  

It is vital that we as a community are aware and informed of how pretrial detention decisions are made, and that we are not incarcerating people, or ordering kids to wear ankle monitors, unnecessarily when they pose little to no risk.

In Part 3 of this series, we will explore how Electronic Monitoring operates today in the Orleans Parish juvenile legal system. 

Posted by Taylor Revareon January 23, 2025and categorized as Awards, Client Story, Events, Featured, News, Reports, Uncategorized