NCJ Number
207949
Journal
Corrections Compendium Volume: 29 Issue: 6 Dated: November/December 2004 Pages: 1-5,32,35
Date Published
November 2004
Length
9 pages
Annotation
This study examined how the Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R) is used by correctional staff to classify offenders at a Federal community corrections center.
Abstract
Previous research has established that the LSI-R is predictive of correctional program performance and post-release recidivism. Other studies have established the instruments validity and reliability. Very little research, however, has focused on how the LSI-R is used by correctional staff, which is important to understanding how effective the instrument is in practice. In the current study, open-ended, structured interviews were conducted with case managers at a Midwestern Federal corrections center to determine how staff used the LSI-R to classify residents. Results indicated a degree of discontent among staff with the LSI-R; administrators thought staff needed more training with the LSI-R, while many staff members considered the instrument a waste of time and not helpful in determining programming. When used during offender interviews, many staff regarded the LSI-R only as a guide for discussion, although some staff did go through the instrument item by item. The LSI-R was considered most useful for assessing offender risk and needs and for planning supervision. The most frequent problems identified with the LSI-R by staff were concerns about its accuracy in predicting future behavior, concerns about bias, concerns about the replication of information, and concerns about unclear items. Overall, despite the general negativity among case staff regarding the LSI-R, most still reported using it in some way. However, the LSI-R was largely not used in the decisionmaking process concerning offender programming. Recommendations emerging from the findings include managerial clarification of the role of the LSI-R within the offender classification system and improved staff training with the instrument. The findings also underscore the need for more research projects focused on how assessment instruments are utilized in the field. References