While studies examining the predictive validity of the Level of Service Inventory — Revised (LSI-R) are useful and should continue, more research needs to be done in the area of systemic change: Once the LSI-R has been adopted and fully integrated into an agency's work, what systemic changes may occur? Does implementing a third-generation risk/need assessment tool, for example, truly facilitate an agency's ability to abide by the “risk principle” of correctional intervention? This article has two central objectives. First, the LSI-R composite score is used to predict case outcome using several years' worth of data from a large Midwestern city. The data were gathered from the agencies that conduct supervision in the community. The statistical relationship between the LSI-R score and case outcome (success vs. failure) is investigated and assessed. Second, the article provides a cursory look at rates of revocation plus transfer to prison over time (post LSI-R implementation).
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndrewsD. A., & BontaJ. (1995). LSI-R: The Level of Service Inventory — Revised. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems, Inc.
2.
AndrewsD. A.BontaJ., & WormithJ. S. (2006). The recent past and near future of risk and/or need assessment. Crime & Delinquency, 52(1), 7–27.
3.
AndrewsD. A., & DowdenC. (2006). Risk principle of case classification in correctional treatment. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 50(1), 88–100.
4.
AndrewsD. A., & RobinsonD. (1984). The Level of Supervision Inventory: Second report. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Ontario Ministry of Correctional Services.
5.
BarnesG. C.AhlmanL.GillC.ShermanL. W.KurtzE., & MalvestutoR. (2010). Low-intensity community supervision for low-risk offenders: A randomized, controlled trial. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 6, 159–189.
6.
BelknapJ., & HolsingerK. (1998). An overview of delinquent girls: How theory and practice have failed and the need for innovative changes. In ZaplinR. T. (Ed.), Female crime and delinquency: Critical perspectives and effective interventions (pp. 31–64). Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen.
7.
BontaJ. (1996). Risk-needs assessment and treatment. In HarlandA. T. (Ed.), Choosing correctional options that work: Defining the demand and evaluating the supply (pp. 18–32). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
8.
BontaJ., & AndrewsD. A. (1993). The Level of Supervision Inventory: An overview. IARCA Journal, 5, 6–8.
9.
BontaJ., & CormierR. B. (1999). Corrections research in Canada: Impressive progress and promising prospects. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 41(2), 235–247.
10.
ByrneJ. M., & PattavinaA. (2006). Assessing the role of clinical and actuarial assessment in an evidence-based community corrections system: Issues to consider. Federal Probation, 70(2), 64–67.
11.
CampbellM. A.FrenchS., & GendreauP. (2009). The prediction of violence in adult offenders: A meta-analytic comparison of instruments and methods of assessment. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 36(6), 567–590.
12.
ClearT., & GallagherK. W. (1985). Probation and parole supervision: A review of current classification practices. Crime & Delinquency, 31, 423–445.
13.
DowdenC., & AndrewsD. A. (2000). Effective correctional treatment and violent reoffending: A meta-analysis. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 42, 449–467.
14.
FolsomJ. & AtkinsonJ. L. (2007). The generealizability of the LSI-R and the CAT to the prediction of recidivism in female offenders. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 34(8): 1044–1056.
15.
GendreauP.LittleT., & GogginC. (1996). A meta-analysis of the predictors of adult offender recidivism: What works!Criminology, 34, 575–607.
16.
GirardL., & WormithJ. S. (2004). The predictive validity of the Level of Service Inventory — Ontario Revision on general and violent recidivism among various offender groups. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 31(2), 150–181.
17.
GottfredsonS. D., & MoriartyL. J. (2006). Statistical risk assessment: Old problems and new applications. Crime & Delinquency, 52(1), 178–200.
18.
HeilbrunK.DematteoD.FretzR.EricksonJ.YasuharaK.AnumbaN. (2008). How “specific” are gender-specific rehabilitation needs?Criminal Justice & Behavior, 35(11), 1382–1397.
19.
HolsingerA. M.LowenkampC. T., & LatessaE. J. (2006). Exploring the validity of the Level of Service Inventory — Revised with Native American offenders. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34, 331–337.
20.
HoltfreterK., & CuppR. (2007). Gender and risk assessment: The empirical status of the LSI-R for women. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 23(4), 363–382.
21.
KronerD. G., & MillsJ. F. (2001). The accuracy of five risk appraisal instruments in predicting institutional misconduct and new convictions. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 28(4), 471–489.
22.
LowenkampC. T.HolsingerA. M., & LatessaE. J. (2001). Risk/need assessment, offender classification, and the role of childhood abuse. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 28(5), 543–563.
23.
LowenkampC. T.LatessaE. J. & HolsingerA. M. (2006). The risk principle in action: What have we learned from 13,676 offenders and 97 corrections programs?Crime and Delinquency, 52(1), 77–93.
24.
LowenkampC. T.LovinsB., & LatessaE. J. (2009). Validating the Level of Service Inventory — Revised and the Level of Service Inventory: Screening Version with a sample of probationers. The Prison Journal, 2, 192–204.
25.
LowenkampC. T.PealerJ.SmithP., & LatessaE. J. (2006). Adhering to the risk and need principles: Does it matter for supervision-based programs?Federal Probation, 70(3), 2–8.
26.
LowenkampC. T.SmithP., & BechtelK. (2007). Reducing the harm: Identifying appropriate programming for low-risk offenders. Corrections Today, 69(6), 50–52.
27.
LurigioA. J. (2005). Taking stock of community corrections programs. Criminology & Public Policy, 4(2), 259–262.
28.
ManchakS. M.SkeemJ. L.DouglasK. S., & SiranosianM. (2009). Does gender moderate the predictive utility of the Level of Service Inventory — Revised (LSI-R) for serious violent offenders?Criminal Justice & Behavior, 36(5), 425–442.
29.
MotiukL. L. (1993). Where are we in our ability to assess risk?Forum on Corrections Research, 5, 14–18.
30.
OlverM. E.StockdaleK. C., & WormithJ. S. (2009). Risk assessment with young offenders: A meta-analysis of three assessment measures. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 36(4), 329–353.
31.
PalmerE. J., & HollinC. R. (2007). The Level of Service Inventory — Revised with English women prisoners. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 34(8), 971–984.
32.
RettingerL. J., & AndrewsD. A. (2010). General risk and need, gender specificity, and the recidivism of female offenders. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 37(1), 29–46.
33.
RobinsonG. (2003). Implementing the OASys: Lessons from research into LSI-R and ACE. The Journal of Community and Criminal Justice, 50(1), 30–40.
34.
SchlagerM. D. (2009). The organizational politics of implementing risk assessment instruments in community corrections. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 25(4), 412–423.
35.
SchlagerM. D., & SimourdD. J. (2007). Validity of the Level of Service Inventory — Revised (LSI-R) among African American and Hispanic male offenders. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 34(4), 545–554.
36.
SimourdD. J. (2004). Use of dynamic risk/need assessment instruments among long-term incarcerated offendres. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 31(3), 306–323.
37.
VoseB.LowenkampC. T.SmithP., & CullenF. T. (2009). Gender and the predictive validity of the LSI-R. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 25(4), 459–471.
38.
WhiteacreK. W. (2006). Testing the Level of Service Inventory — Revised (LSI-R) for racial/ethnic bias. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 17(3), 330–342.
