The Level of Service Inventory—Revised (LSI-R) is an actuarially derived risk assessment instrument with a demonstrated reputation and record of supportive research. It has shown predictive validity on several offender populations. Although a significant literature has emerged on the validity and use of the LSI-R, no research has specifically examined change scores or the dynamics of reassessment and its importance with respect to case management. Flores, Lowenkamp, Holsinger, and Latessa and Lowenkamp and Bechtel, among others, specifically identify the importance and need to examine LSI-R reassessment scores. The present study uses a sample of parolees (N = 179) from various community corrections programs that were administered the LSI-R at two different times. Results indicate that both mean composite and subcomponent LSI-R scores statistically significantly decreased between Time 1 and Time 2. The practical, theoretical, and policy implications of these results are discussed.
Andrews, D.A., & Robinson, D. ( 1984). The Level of Supervision Inventory: Second report ( Report to Research Services). Toronto, Canada: Ontario Ministry of Correctional Services.
6.
Austin, J. ( 2003). Findings in prison classification and risk assessment (Issues in Brief). Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections Prisons Division.
7.
Bonta, J., & Motiuk, L.L. ( 1985). Utilization of an interview-based classification instrument: A study of correctional halfway houses. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 12, 333-352.
8.
Bonta, J., & Motiuk, L.L. ( 1990). Classification to halfway houses: A quasi-experimental evaluation. Criminology, 28, 497-506.
9.
Bonta, J., Rugge, T., Scott, T.L., Bourgon, G., & Yessine, A.K. ( 2008). Exploring the black box of community supervision. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 47, 248-270.
10.
Brown, S.L., St. Armand, M.D., & Zamble, E. ( 2009). The dynamic prediction of criminal recidivism: A three-wave prospective study. Law and Human Behavior, 33, 25-45.
11.
Byrne, J.M., & Pattavina, A. ( 2006). Assessing the role of clinical and actuarial risk assessment in an evidence-based community corrections system: Issues to consider. Federal Probation, 70, 64-67.
12.
Chung, H.L., Schubert, C.A., & Mulvey, E.P. ( 2007). An empirical portrait of community reentry among serious juvenile offenders in two metropolitan cities. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 1402-1426.
13.
Fass, T.L., Heilbrun, K., DeMatteo, D., & Fretz, R. ( 2008). The LSI-R and the Compas: Validation data on two risk-needs tools. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 1095-1108.
14.
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 implementation integrity. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34, 523-529.
15.
Flores, A.W., Lowenkamp, C.T., Smith, P., & Latessa, E.J. ( 2006). Validating the Level of Service Inventory-Revised on a sample of federal probationers. Federal Probation, 70, 44-48.
16.
Gendreau, P., Goggin, C., & Smith, P. ( 2002). Is the PCL-R really the "unparalleled" measure of offender risk? A lesson in knowledge cumulation. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29, 397-426.
17.
Gendreau, P., Little, T., & Goggin, C. ( 1996). A meta-analysis of the predictors of adult offender recidivism: What works!Criminology, 34, 575-607.
18.
Girard, L., & Wormith, J.S. ( 2004). The predictive validity of the Level of Service Inventory-Ontario revision on general and violent recidivism among various offender groups. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 31, 150-181.
19.
Glaze, L.E., & Bonczar, T.P. ( 2009). Probation and parole in the United States, 2008. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
20.
Gottfredson, S.D., & Moriarty, L.J. (2006). Statistical risk assessment: Old problems and new applications. Crime & Delinquency , 52, 178-200.
21.
Haas, S.M., & DeTardo-Bora, K.A. (2009). Prisoner reentry and the utility of the LSI-R in case planning. Corrections Compendium , 34, 11-16, 49-52.
22.
Healey, K.M. ( 1999). Case management in the criminal justice system. Research in action. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
23.
Henderson, H.M. ( 2006). The predictive utility of the Wisconsin risk needs assessment in a sample of Texas probationers. Dissertation Abstracts International, A: The Humanities and Social Sciences, 68, 0738.
24.
Hollin, C.R., & Palmer, E.J. ( 2003). Level of Service Inventory-Revised profiles of violent and nonviolent prisoners. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 18, 1075-1086.
25.
Holsinger, A.M., Lowenkamp, C.T., & Latessa, E.J. ( 2003). Ethnicity, gender, and the Level of Service Inventory- Revised. Journal of Criminal Justice, 31, 309-320.
26.
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.
27.
Kelly, C.E., & Welsh, W.N. ( 2008). The predictive validity of the Level of Service Inventory Revised for drug-involved offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 819-831.
28.
Lipsey, M.W. ( 1995). What do we learn from 400 research studies on the effectiveness of treatment with juvenile delinquency. In J. McGuire (Ed.), What works: Reducing reoffending (pp. 63-78). Chichester , UK: Wiley.
29.
Lösel, F. ( 1995). The efficacy of correctional treatment: A review and synthesis of meta-evaluations. In J. McGuire (Ed.), What works: Reducing reoffending (pp. 79-111). Chichester , UK: Wiley.
30.
Lowenkamp, C.T., & Bechtel, K. ( 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.
Lowenkamp, 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, 543-563.
32.
Manchak, S.M., Skeem, J.L., & Douglas, K.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.
33.
Miller, H.A. ( 2006). A dynamic assessment of offender risk, needs, and strengths in a sample of pre-release general offenders. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 24, 767-782.
34.
Motiuk, L.L., Bonta, J., & Andrews, D.A. ( 1986). Classification in correctional halfway houses: The relative and incremental predictive criterion validities of the Megargee-MMPI and LSI Systems. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 13, 33-46.
35.
New Jersey Department of Corrections. (2006 ). Offender statistics. Retrieved from http://www.state.nj.us/corrections/pages/offender_stats.html
36.
Robinson, G. ( 2003). Implementing OASys: Lesson from research into LSI-R and ACE. Probation Journal, 50, 30-40.
37.
Schlager, M.D. ( 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 (Doctoral dissertation). Available from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text database. (AAT 3160421)
38.
Schlager, M.D., & Simourd, D.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.
39.
Simourd, D.J. ( 2004). Use of dynamic risk/needs assessment instruments among long-term incarcerated offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior , 31, 306-323.
40.
Simourd, D.J., & Malcolm, P.B. ( 1998). Reliability and validity of the Level of Service Inventory-Revised among federally incarcerated sex offenders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 13, 261-271.
41.
Vose, B., Lowenkamp, C.T., Smith, P., & Cullen, F.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.
42.
Whiteacre, K. ( 2004). Case manager experiences with the LSI-R at a federal community corrections center. Corrections Compendium, 29(6), 1-5, 32-35.
