Level of risk is proving to be an important characteristic in effectively serving offender populations. A major limitation to the use of risk assessments is agency resources. There are several screening instruments available that could significantly decrease the amount of resources that are needed to assess for risk. This article assesses the effectiveness of the Level of Service Inventory: Screening Version on 483 probationers in a western state resulting in a 2% false-positive rate. Policy implications are explored and suggestions for future research offered.
Andrews, D.A., & Bonta, J. (1995). The Level of Supervision Inventory-Revised. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
2.
Andrews, D.A., & Bonta, J. (1998). Level of Service Inventory-Revised: Screening Version. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
3.
Andrews, D.A., & Bonta, J. (2003). The psychology of criminal conduct (3rd ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
4.
Andrews, D.A., Bonta, J., & Hoge, R. (1990). Classification for effective rehabilitation: Rediscovering psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17, 19-52.
5.
Andrews, D.A., & Dowden, C. (2006). Risk principle of case classification in correctional treatment: A meta-analytic investigation. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 50, 88-100.
6.
Bonta, J. (1996). Risk/needs assessment and treatment. In A. T. Hartland (Ed.), Choosing correctional options that work: Defining the demand and evaluating the supply (pp. 18-32). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
7.
Coulson, G. (1993). Using the Level of Supervision Inventory in placing female offenders in rehabilitation programs or halfway houses. IARCA Journal, 5(4), 12-13.
Daffern, M., Ogloff, J., Ferguson, M., & Thomson, L. (2005). Assessing risk for aggression in a forensic psychiatric hospital using the Level of Service Inventory-Revised: Screening Version. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 4, 201-206.
10.
Flores, A.W., Lowenkamp, C.T., Holsinger, A.M., & Latessa, E.J. (2006). Predicting outcome with the Level of Service Inventory-Revised: The importance of quality assurance. Journal of Criminal Justice , 34, 523-529.
11.
Gendreau, P. (1996). The principle of effective intervention with offenders . In A. T. Harland (ed.), Choosing Correctional options that work: Defining the demand and evaluating the supply. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
12.
Gendreau, P., French, S., and Gionet, A. (2004). What works (what doesn't work): The principles of effective correctional treatment. Journal of Community Corrections, 13, 4-30.
13.
Gendreau, P., Little, T., & Goggin, C. (1996). A meta-analysis of the predictors of adult offender recidivism: What works!Criminology, 34, 575-607.
14.
Gordon, A., & Nicholaichuk, T. (1996). Applying the risk principle to sex offender treatment. Forum on Correctional Research, Correctional Service of Canada, 8(6), 30.
15.
Holsinger, A.M., Lowenkamp, C.T., & Latessa, E.J. (2006). Exploring the validity of the Level of Service Inventory-Revised with NativeAmerican offenders. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34, 331-337.
16.
Hubbard, J.D., Travis, L.F., & Latessa, E.J. (2001). Case classification in community corrections: A national survey of the state of the art. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
17.
Justice Policy Institute. (2000). The punishing decade: Prison and jail estimates at the millennium. Washington, DC: Author.
18.
Lowenkamp, C.T. (2004). Correctional program integrity and treatment effectiveness: A multi-site, program-level analysis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Cincinnati, OH.
19.
Lowencamp, C.T., Holsinger, A.M., & Latessa, E.J. (2001). Risk/need assessment, offender classification, and the role of childhood abuse. Criminal Justice and Behavior , 28(5), 543-563.
20.
Lowenkamp, C.T., & Latessa, E.J. (2005). Increasing the effectiveness of correctional programming through the risk principle: Identifying offenders for residential placement . Criminology & Public Policy, 2, 263-290.
21.
Lowenkamp, C.T., & Latessa, E.J. (2006). The role of offender risk assessment tools and how to select them. For the Record, 4th Quarter, 18-20.
22.
Lowenkamp, C.T., Latessa, E.J., & Holsinger, A.M. (2006). The risk principle in action: What we have learned from 13,676 offenders and 97 correctional programs. Crime & Delinquency, 52, 77-93.
23.
Packer, H. (1968). The limits of the criminal sanction. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
24.
U.S. General Accounting Office. (1997). Federal offenders: Trends in community supervision (GGD-97-110). Washington, DC: Author.
