This study addresses the validity of the Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R) as a predictor of recidivism for women. We analyzed all female parolees that were released in New Jersey in 2006 (n = 450) as well as a randomly selected group of male parolees. Results indicate that the LSI-R was a valid predictor of rearrests, reconvictions, and technical parole violations, but that the instrument was problematic in accurately predicting true positives both across genders as well as outcome types. It is likely that this lack of specificity is due to local-level policies regarding the use of the instrument.
AndrewsD. (1982). The level of supervision inventory (lsi): The first follow-up. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Carleton University.
2.
AndrewsD. A. (2000). The Principles of effective correctional programs. In MotiukL. L.SerinR. C. (Eds.), Compendium 2000 on effective correctional programming (vol. 1, pp. 9-17). Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Correctional Service of Canada-Ministry of Supply and Services.
3.
AndrewsD. A.BontaJ.WormithS. J. (2004). The level of service/case management inventory (ls/cmi). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
4.
AustinJ.ColemanD.PeytonJ.JohnsonK. (2003). Reliability and validity study of the lsi-r risk assessment instrument. Washington, DC: The Institute on Crime, Justice, and Corrections.
5.
BarnoskiR.AosS. (2003). Washington’s offender accountability act: An analysis of the department of corrections’ risk assessment. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
6.
BelknapJ. (2007). The invisible woman: Gender, crime and justice (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
7.
BontaJ.MotiukL.L. (1985). Utilization of an interview-based classification instrument: A study of correctional halfway houses. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 12, 333-352.
8.
Chesney-LindM. (1989). Girls’ crime and woman’s place: Toward a feminist model of female delinquency. Crime and Delinquency, 35, 5-29.
9.
DowdenC.AndrewsD. A. (1999). What works for female offenders: A meta-analytic review. Crime & Delinquency, 45, 438-452.
10.
DowdyE. R.LacyM.UnnithanP. (2002). Correctional prediction and the level of supervision inventory. Journal of Criminal Justice, 30, 29-39.
11.
FassT. L.HeilbrunK.DematteoD.FretzR. (2008). The LSI-R and the COMPAS: Validation data on two risks-needs tools. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 35, 1095-1108.
12.
FolsomJ.AtkinsonJ. L. (2007). The generalizability of the LSI-R and CAT to the prediction of recidivism in female offenders. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 34, 1044-1056.
13.
FowlerL. T. (1993). What classification for women?In Classification: A tool for managing today’s offenders(pp. 37-45). Arlington, VA: American Correctional Association.
14.
FloresA.W.LowenkampC. T.SmithP.LatessaE. J. (2006). Validating the Level of Service Inventory-Revised on a sample of federal probationers. Federal Probation, 70(2), 44-48.
15.
GendreauP.LittleT.GogginC. (1996). A meta-analysis of the predictors of adult offender recidivism: What works?Criminology, 34, 575-607.
16.
GlazeL. E.BonczarT. P. (2009). Probation and parole in the United States 2008 (NJC 228230). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin.
17.
HerrschaftB. A.VeyseyB. M.Tubman-CarboneH. R.ChristianJ. (2009). Gender differences in the transformation narrative: Implications for revised reentry strategies for female offenders. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 48, 463-482.
18.
HollinC. R.PalmerE. J. (2006). Criminogenic need and women offenders: A critique of the literature. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 11, 179-195.
19.
HolsingerA. M.LowenkampC. T.LatessaE. J. (2003). Ethnicity, gender, and the Level of Service Inventory-Revised. Journal of Criminal Justice, 31, 309-320.
20.
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.
21.
HoltfreterK.CuppR. (2007). Gender and risk assessment: The empirical status of the LSI-R for women. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 23, 363-382.
22.
HsuC.CaputiP.ByrneM. K. (2011). The Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R) & Australian offenders: Factor structure, sensitivity, and specificity. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 38, 600-618.
23.
KellyC. E.WalshW. N. (2008). The predictive validity of the Level of Service Inventory-Revised for drug-involved offenders. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 35, 819-831.
24.
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 Management System. Federal Probation, 71(3), 25-29.
25.
LowenkampC. T.LatessaE. (2001). Level of Service Inventory-Revised Validation Study: North Dakota. Cincinnati, OH: University of Cincinnati.
26.
LowenkampC.T.LatessaE.J. (2002). Profiling of Offenders in North Dakota Using the Level of Service Inventory. Cincinnati, OH: University of Cincinnati.
27.
LowenkampC. T.LatessaE. J. (2004). Increasing the effectiveness of community programming through the risk principle: Identifying offenders for residential placement. Criminology & Public Policy, 4(1), 501-528.
28.
LowenkampC. T.LatessaE. J. (2005). Developing successful reentry programs: Lessons learned from the “What Works” research. Corrections Today, 67, 72-77.
29.
LowenkampC. T.LatessaE. J.HolsingerA. M. (2006). The risk principle in action: What have we learned from 13,676 offenders and 97 correctional programs?Crime & Delinquency, 51(1), 1-17.
30.
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. DOI: 10.1177/0032885509334755
31.
LozaW.SimourdD. J. (1994). Psychometric evaluation of the Level of Supervision Inventory (LSI) among male Canadian federal offenders. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 21, 468-480.
32.
ManchakS. M.SkeemJ.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, 425-442.
33.
MarunaS. (2001). Making good: How ex-convicts reform and rebuild their lives. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
34.
OstermannM. (2009). An analysis of New Jersey’s day reporting center and halfway back programs: Embracing the rehabilitative ideal through evidence based practices. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 48(2), 139-153.
35.
OstermannM. (2010). Parole? Nope, not for me: Voluntarily maxing out of prison. Crime & Delinquency. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0011128710372194.
36.
PaparozziM.CaplanJ. (2010). A national profile of paroling authorities in America: The strange bedfellow of politics and professionalism. The Prison Journal, 89, 401-425.
37.
Pew Center on the States. (2008). One in 100: Behind bars in America 2008. Washington, DC: The Pew Charitable Trusts.
38.
Pew Center on the States. (2009). One in 31: The long reach of American corrections. Washington, DC: The Pew Charitable Trusts.
39.
ReisigM. D.HoltfreterK.MorashM. (2006). Assessing recidivism risk across female pathways to crime. Justice Quarterly, 23, 384-405.
40.
SalisburyE.Van VoorhisP. (2009). Gendered pathways: A Quantitative investigation of women probationers’ paths to incarceration. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 36, 541-566.
41.
SalisburyE. J.Van VoorhisP.SpiropoulousG. V. (2009). The predictive validity of a gender-responsive needs assessment: An exploratory study. Crime & Delinquency, 55, 550-585.
42.
SchlagerM. (2005). Assessing the reliability and validity of the Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R) on a community correction sample: Implications for corrections and parole policy. (Unpublished dissertation) Rutgers University, Newark, NJ.
43.
SchlagerM.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.
44.
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(1), 183-208.
45.
Van VoorhisP.SalisburyE.WrightE.BaumanA. (2008). Achieving accurate pictures of risk and identifying gender responsive needs: Two new assessments for women offenders. (National Institute of Corrections Summary Report). Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections.
46.
Van VoorhisP.WrightE.SalisburyE.BaumanA. (2010). Women’s risk factors and their contributions to existing risk/needs assessment: The Current status of gender responsive assessment. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 37, 261-288.
47.
VoseB. (2008). Assessing the predictive validity of the Level of Service Inventory-Revised: Recidivism among Iowa parolees and probationers (Doctoral dissertation). University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH.
48.
VoseB.CullenF. T.SmithP. (2008). The empirical status of the Level of Service Inventory. Federal Probation, 72(3), 22-29.
49.
VoseB.LowenkampC. T.SmithP.CullenF. T. (2009). Gender and the predictive validity of the LSI-R: A study of parolees and probationers. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 25, 459-471.
50.
WestH. C. (2010). Prison inmates at midyear 2009 (NJC 230113). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics Statistical Tables.
