The Level of Supervision Inventory (LSI), an objective risk evaluation instrument based on social learning theory, was administered to 526 provincially incarcerated adult females. The average LSI score was 15.5, compared to average scores ranging from 20.9 to 25.1 for samples of provincially incarcerated adult males from the same jurisdiction. Data on three outcome measures were collected over a 39-month period. Use of LSI scores for prediction produced relative improvement over chance scores for 1-and 2year recidivism, parole failure, and halfway house noncompliance ranging from 54.5% to 71.5%. Across all types of discharge, offenders defined by the LSI as high risk were consistently more likely to fail on release than were low-risk offenders. Recommended cutoff scores for low- and high-risk female offenders are given, and the implications for classification and rehabilitation are explored.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Andrews, D. A. (1982). The Level of Supervision Inventory (LSI): The first follow-up. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Correctional Services.
2.
Andrews, D. A. , Bonta, J. L., & Hoge, H. D. (1990). Classification for effective rehabilitation: Rediscovering psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17, 19-52.
3.
Andrews, D. A. , Bonta, J. L., Motiuk, L. L., & Robinson, D. (1984). Some psychometrics of practical risk/needs assessment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Toronto.
4.
Andrews, D. A. , Kiessling, J. J., & Kominar, S. (1982). The Level of Supervision Inventory (LSI-VI) interview and scoring guide. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Correctional Services.
5.
Andrews, D. A. , Kiessling, J. J., Mickus, S., & Robinson, D. (1986). The construct validity of interview-based risk assessment in corrections. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 18, 460-471.
6.
Andrews, D. A. , Kiessling, J. J., Robinson, D., & Mickus, S. (1986). The risk principle of case classification: An outcome evaluation with young adult probationers. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 36, 377-396.
7.
Andrews, D. A. , & Robinson, D. (1984). The Level of Supervision Inventory: Second report. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Correctional Services.
8.
Andrews, D. A. , Zinger, I., Hoge, R. D., Bonta, J. L., Gendreau, P., & Cullen, F. T. (1990). Does correctional treatment work?: A clinically relevant and psychologically informed metaanalysis. Criminology, 28, 369-404.
9.
Bonta, J. L. (1989). Native inmates: Institutional response, risk, and needs. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 39, 49-62.
10.
Bonta, J. L. (1990). Reaffirming halfway houses. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Correctional Association, Laurel, MD.
11.
Bonta, J. L. , & Motiuk, L. L. (1985). Utilization of an interview-based classification instrument: A study of correctional halfway houses. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 12, 333-352.
12.
Bonta, J. L. , & Motiuk, L. L. (1987). The diversion of incarcerated offenders to correctional halfway houses. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 24, 302-323.
13.
Bonta, J. L. , & Motiuk, L. L. (1989). LSI in institutions: Classification and one year recidivism. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Correctional Services.
14.
Bonta, J. L. , & Motiuk, L. L. (1990). Classification to halfway houses: A quasi-experimental evaluation. Criminology, 28, 497-506.
15.
Bonta, J. L. , & Motiuk, L. L. (1992). Inmate classification. Journal of Criminal Justice, 20, 343-353.
16.
Lab, S. P. , & Allen, R. B. (1984). Self-report and official measures: A further examination of the validity issue. Journal of Criminal Justice, 12, 445-455.
17.
Loeber, R. , & Dishion, T. (1983). Early predictors of male delinquency. Psychological Bulletin, 94, 68-99.
18.
Motiuk, L. L. , & Bonta, J. L. (1991, June). Prediction and matching in corrections: An examination of the risk principle in case classification. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Psychological Association, Calgary.
19.
Motiuk, L. L. , Bonta, J. L., & 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.
20.
Motiuk, L. L. , Bonta, J. L., & Andrews, D. A. (1990, May). Dynamic predictive criterion validity in offender assessment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Psychological Association, Ottawa.
21.
Motiuk, M. S. , Motiuk, L. L., & Bonta, J. L. (1992). A comparison between self-report and interview-based inventories in offender classification. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 19, 143-159.
22.
Shields, I. W. (1991, June). The Young Offender Level of Service Inventory as a predictor of recidivism: A one year follow-up study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Psychological Association, Calgary.
23.
Shields, I. W. , & Simourd, D. J. (1991). Predicting predatory behavior in a population of incarcerated young offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 18, 180-194.
24.
Wright, K. N. , Clear, T. R., & Dickson, P. (1984). Universal applicability of probation risk-assessment instruments. Criminology, 22, 113-134.
