The Level of Service Inventory–Revised (LSI-R) is an assessment instrument designed to evaluate the risks and needs of offenders. The current study examines the predictive validity of the LSI-R with a sample of 2,849 probationers and parolees at two points in time. This design allows for the analysis of the instrument’s predictive validity at Time 1 and Time 2, and the correlation between changes in LSI-R scores and recidivism. The results suggest that the LSI-R is a valid assessment instrument for predicting recidivism and that change in LSI-R score is associated with change in risk of recidivism. The implications of these findings for effective correctional intervention are discussed.
AndrewsD. A.BontaJ. (1995). LSI-R the Level of Service Inventory–Revised user’s manual. North Tonawanda, NY: Multi-Health Systems.
2.
AndrewsD. A.BontaJ. (1998). The psychology of criminal conduct (2nd ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
3.
AndrewsD. A.BontaJ.WormithJ. S. (2006). The recent past and near future of risk and/or need assessment. Crime & Delinquency, 52, 7-27. doi:10.1177/0011128705281756
4.
AndrewsD. A.ZingerI.HogeR. D.BontaJ.GendreauP.CullenF. T. (1990). Does correctional treatment work? A clinically-relevant and psychologically-informed meta-analysis. Criminology, 28, 369-404. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.1990.tb01330.x
5.
BarnoskiR.AosS. (2003). Washington’s Offender Accountability Act: An analysis of the Department of Corrections’ risk assessment. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
6.
CohenR. L. (1995). Probation and parole violators in state prison, 1991 (NCJ149076). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
7.
CullenF. T.GendreauP. (2000). Assessing correctional rehabilitation: Policy, practice, and prospects. In HorneyJ. (Ed.), Policies, processes, and decisions of the criminal justice system: Criminal justice 2000 (Vol. 3, pp. 109-175). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
8.
CullenF. T.GilbertK. E. (1982). Reaffirming rehabilitation. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
9.
CullenF. T.MyerA. J.LatessaE. J. (2009). Eight lessons learned from moneyball: The high cost of ignoring evidence-based corrections. Victims & Offenders, 4, 197-213. doi:10.1080/15564880802612631
10.
CummingsG.FinchS. (2005). Inference by eye: Confidence intervals and how to read pictures of data. American Psychologist, 60, 170-180. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.60.2.170
11.
DowdyE. R.LacyM. G.UnnithanN. P. (2002). Correctional prediction and the Level of Supervision Inventory. Journal of Criminal Justice, 30, 29-39. doi:10.1016/S0047-2352(01)00120-9
12.
FeeleyM. M.SimonJ. (1992). The new penology: Notes on the emerging strategy of corrections and its implications. Criminology, 30, 449-474. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.1992.tb01112.x
13.
GendreauP. (1996). The principles of effective intervention with offenders. In HarlandA. T. (Ed.), Choosing correctional options that work: Defining the demand and evaluating the supply (pp. 117-130). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
14.
GendreauP.GogginC. E.LawM. A. (1997). Predicting prison misconducts. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 24, 414-431. doi:10.1177/0093854897024004002
15.
GendreauP.GogginC. E.SmithP. (2002). Is the PCL-R really the “unparalleled” measure of offender risk? A lesson in knowledge cumulation. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29, 397-426. doi:10.1177/0093854802029004004
16.
GendreauP.LittleT.GogginC. E. (1996). A meta-analysis of the predictors of adult offender recidivism: What works!Criminology, 34, 575-607. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.1996.tb01220.x
17.
GendreauP.RossR. R. (1979). Effective correctional treatment: Bibliotherapy for cynics. Crime & Delinquency, 25, 463-489. doi:10.1177/001112877902500405
18.
GendreauP.SmithP.FrenchS. A. (2006). The theory of effective intervention: Empirical status and future directions. In CullenF. T.WrightJ. P.BlevinsK. R. (Eds.), Taking stock: The status of criminological theory (pp. 419-446). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
19.
GlazeL. E.BonczarT. P. (2011). Probation and parole in the United States, 2010 (NCJ236019). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
20.
HendricksB.WernerT.ShipwayL. (2006). Recidivism among spousal abusers: Predictions and program evaluations. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21, 703-716. doi:10.1177/0886260506287310
21.
HirschiT.GottfredsonM. R. (1983). Age and the explanation of crime. American Journal of Sociology, 89, 552-584.
22.
HollinC. R.PalmerE. J.ClarkD. (2003). The Level of Service Inventory–Revised profile of English prisoners: A needs analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30, 422-440. doi:10.1177/0093854803253134
23.
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. doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2006.03.009
24.
HoltfreterK.ReisigM. D.MorashM. (2004). Poverty, state capital, and recidivism among women offenders. Criminology & Public Policy, 3, 185-208. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9133.2004.tb00035.x
25.
HsuC. I.CaputiP.ByrneM. K. (2009). The Level of Service Inventory–Revised (LSI-R): A useful risk assessment measure for Australian offenders?Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 728-740. doi:10.1177/0093854809335409
26.
HubbardD. J. (2007). Getting the most out of correctional treatment: Testing the responsivity principle on male and female offenders. Federal Probation, 71(1), 2-8.
27.
LatessaE. J.CullenF. T.GendreauP. (2002). Beyond correctional quackery: Professionalism and the possibility of effective treatment. Federal Probation, 66(2), 43-49.
28.
LipseyM. W. (1992). Juvenile delinquency treatment: A meta-analytic inquiry into the variability of effects. In CookT. D.CooperH.CordayD. S.HartmannH.HedgesL. V.LightR. J.LewisA.MostellerF. (Eds.), Meta-analysis for explanation: A casebook (pp. 83-127). New York, NY: Russell Sage.
29.
LoselF. (1995). The efficacy of correctional treatment: A review and synthesis of meta-evaluations. In McGuireJ. (Ed.), What works: Reducing reoffending (pp. 77-111). New York, NY: John Wiley.
30.
LowenkampC. T.BechtelK. (2007). The predictive validity of the LSI-R on a sample of offenders drawn from the records of the Iowa Department of Corrections data management system. Federal Probation, 71(3), 25-29.
31.
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, 89, 192-204. doi:10.1177/0032885509334755
32.
MacKenzieD. L. (2000). Evidence-based corrections: Identifying what works. Crime & Delinquency, 46, 457-471. doi:10.1177/0011128700046004003
33.
ManchakS. M.SkeemJ. L.DouglasK. S. (2008). Utility of the revised Level of Service Inventory (LSI-R) in predicting recidivism after long-term incarceration. Law and Human Behavior, 32, 477-488. doi:10.1007/s10979-007-9118-4
34.
MarczykG. R.HeilbrumK.LanderT.DeMatteoD. (2003). Predicting juvenile recidivism with the PCL:YV, MAYSI, and YLS/CMI. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 2, 7-18. doi:10.1080/14999013.2003.10471175
35.
MarloweD. B.FestingerD. S.LeeP. A.DugoshK. L.BenasuttiK. M. (2006). Matching judicial supervision to clients’ risk status in drug court. Crime & Delinquency, 52, 52-76. doi:10.1177/0011128705281746
36.
MilesH.RaynorP. (2004). Community sentences in Jersey: Risk, need and rehabilitation. St. Helier, UK: Jersey Probation and After Care Service.
37.
MillsJ. F.JonesM. N.KronerD. G. (2005). An examination of the generalizability of the LSI-R and VRAG probability bins. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 32, 565-585. doi:10.1177/0093854805278417
38.
MinorK. I.WellsJ. B.SimsC. (2003). Recidivism among federal probationers–Predicting sentence violations. Federal Probation, 67(1), 31-36.
39.
O’KeefeM. L.KlebeK.HromasS. (1998). Validation of the Level of Supervision Inventory (LSI) for community based offenders in Colorado: Phase II. Colorado Springs: Colorado Department of Corrections.
40.
OlverM. E.StockdaleK. C.WormithJ. S. (2009). Risk assessment with young offenders: A meta-analysis of three assessment measures. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 329-353. doi:10.1177/0093854809331457
41.
RaynorP. (2007). Risk and need assessment in British probation: The contribution of LSI-R. Psychology, Crime & Law, 13, 125-138. doi:10.1080/10683160500337592
42.
ReisigM. D.HoltfreterK.MorashM. (2006). Assessing recidivism risk across female pathways to crime. Justice Quarterly, 23, 384-405. doi:10.1080/07418820600869152
43.
SchlagerM. D.PachecoD. (2011). An examination of changes in LSI-R scores over time: Making the case for needs-based case management. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38, 541-552. doi:10.1177/0093854811402300
44.
SchlagerM. D.SimourdD. J. (2007). Validity of the Level of Service Inventory–Revised (LSI-R) among African American and Hispanic male offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 545-554. doi:10.1177/0093854806296039
45.
SchmidtF.HogeR. D.GomesL. (2005). Reliability and validity analyses of the youth Level of Services/Case Management Inventory. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 32, 329-344. doi:10.1177/0093854804274373
46.
SimourdD. J. (2004). Use of dynamic risk/needs assessment instruments among long term incarcerated offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 31, 306-323. doi:10.1177/0093854803262507
47.
SmithP.CullenF. T.LatessaE. J. (2009). Can 14,737 women be wrong? A meta-analysis of the LSI-R and recidivism for female offenders. Criminology & Public Policy, 8, 183-208. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9133.2009.00551.x
48.
SmithP.GendreauP.GogginC. (2004). Correctional treatment: Accomplishments and realities. In Van VoorhisP.BraswellM.LesterD. (Eds.), Correctional counseling & rehabilitation (5th ed., pp. 285-294). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
49.
VoseB.CullenF. T.SmithP. (2008). The empirical status of the Level of Service Inventory. Federal Probation, 72(3), 22-29.
50.
WhiteheadJ. T. (1991). The effectiveness of felony probation: Results from an eastern state. Justice Quarterly, 8, 525-543. doi:10.1080/07418829100091201
