The Screening Assessment for Stalking and Harassment (SASH) is a brief assessment designed to help frontline professionals prioritize stalking and harassment cases for further response. The SASH was developed due to the dearth of frontline assessment tools specifically for stalking, which differs from intimate partner violence in important ways (both the context of the behavior and who it affects). The number and variety of harassment and stalking cases can overwhelm the resources of first responders such as police, victim shelters, and security services. The SASH is designed to help workers in these agencies make informed decisions about prioritization of resources toward cases that are most likely to require additional investigation or management to prevent harm. This article describes the development and structure of the SASH, its use, and empirical findings regarding its reliability and validity. Development of the SASH The SASH was developed by a team of Australian and Swedish clinicians and researchers with expertise in risk assessment of stalking, harassment, and intimate partner violence. Originally called the Stalking Assessment Screen, a 15-item version was developed in 2010 from a review of relevant stalking, violence, and intimate partner violence risk assessment literature. When creating SASH items, the authors also considered the content of three existing structured professional judgment risk assessment instruments that were relevant to stalking: the Stalking Risk Profile (SRP), the Guidelines for Stalking Assessment and Management, and the Brief Spousal Assault Form for the Evaluation of Risk. After reliability and validity trials in Sweden and Australia, the instrument was updated and published as the SASH in 2015. The SASH does not provide a comprehensive assessment of stalking risk. Rather, it aims to accurately identify cases that require no more than a standard frontline response and separate them from cases that may require additional assessment or management to protect the victim. In this way, the SASH can help frontline workers to make evidence-based decisions about prioritizing cases for further attention or referral to specialist services. Using the SASH The SASH is a single-page instrument available in English, Swedish, Dutch, German, and Italian, accompanied by a 20-page user guide. The SASH is designed for use by first responders in stalking situations, such as in general and specialist police teams, domestic violence shelters, security or threat management teams, mental health and forensic mental health agencies, and probation or correctional services. No specialist training or expertise is required to use the SASH, though users are recommended to read the guidelines that provide additional information about rating items and developing responses. The SASH helps to identify cases that are more likely to involve physical violence or prolonged stalking behavior, both of which can be highly damaging to victims. The SASH should be used only in cases where there is evidence of a current pattern of stalking or harassment—that is, a pattern of repeated, unwanted communications or contacts that cause the target apprehension, distress, or fear that occurs outside of an ongoing intimate relationship. The SASH can be used with perpetrators of either sex, […]
Criminal Justice Research Papers
Risk Matrix 2000
Of the various approaches used in sexual offender risk assessment (unstructured clinical judgment, actuarial risk assessment instruments [ARAIs], and structured professional judgment), ARAIs outperform all other methodologies. Of the numerous sexual offender ARAIs currently available, the Risk Matrix 2000 (RM2000) is one of the most widely used and researched and is the focus of this article. Description The RM2000 is probably the most frequently used second-generation ARAIs in the United Kingdom. In developing the scale, researchers created a two-dimensional risk assessment system for sex offenders referred to collectively as RM2000. The revised system has two scales, one for measuring risk of sexual recidivism—Risk Matrix 2000/ Sexual (RM2000/S)—and one for measuring risk of nonsexual violent recidivism—Risk Matrix 2000/Violent (RM2000/V) in sexual offenders. The RM2000/S and RM2000/V scales were constructed to yield four summary risk categories: low, medium, high, and very high. The scores of both scales can be combined to give a composite risk of reconviction for sexual or nonsexual assault—Risk Matrix 2000/Combined. In developing the RM2000 scales, the authors referred to a landmark meta-analysis of sexual reoffending predictors as they felt this study offered a more complete guide to the literature, containing more precise and representative estimates of the predictive accuracy of individual factors than would be obtained from any individual study. The RM2000/S uses a two-step system to risk assessment. Step 1 contains three risk items (number of previous sexual appearances, number of criminal appearances, and age divided into three age bands), the sum of which is translated into a risk category. Step 2 considers four aggravating risk factors (any conviction for sexual offense against a male, any conviction for a sexual offense against a stranger, any conviction for a noncontact sex offense, and single–never been married); the presence of two or four aggravating factors raises the risk category by one or two levels, respectively. The RM2000 can only be used if the offender meets the following tests: The offender must be aged 18 years or over. The offender must have at least one conviction for a sexual offense committed when the offender was aged 16 years or over. The offender must be male. All appearances for sexual offenses are counted when scoring RM2000/S, including ones where the offender was under the age of 16 years. The scale can also be used in cases where an individual has been charged with a sexual offense but not yet convicted. The scale has demonstrated good interrater reliability with an absolute agreement for a single rating of 0.90 (which is considered excellent) across 50 cases. The item with the lowest reliability was the noncontact item, which still had good interrater reliability (93.2% agreement). Agreement for the risk category rating is also good (94.9% agreement). Predictive Accuracy Since the 2003 development study, the scale has been independently validated by several research studies using samples in Scotland, Denmark, England and Wales, Canada, and the United States. In the development study, the research group examined the predictive accuracy of the RM2000/S on a treated and […]
Actuarial Risk Assessment
Actuarial risk assessment measures consist of a set of predetermined risk factors (sometimes statistically weighted) that are combined based on an algorithm, which produces a total score that is associated with a final risk estimate or probabilistic statement regarding the likelihood of future recidivism. When assessing risk of general and sexual violence, two commonly used actuarial risk assessment measures are the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG) and the Static-99, respectively. Although there has been extensive development and validation of actuarial measures with adult offender populations, there has been limited uptake of purely actuarial measures among young offenders with measures such as the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory representing an adjusted actuarial approach (i.e., lacking in the probabilistic estimate of risk). This article begins by explaining the development of actuarial risk assessment. Next, it describes the strengths and criticisms of actuarial risk assessment. The entry then discusses the use of actuarial risk assessment within a risk management/ treatment paradigm and concludes with a brief discussion of future directions. Development While the initial selection of risk factors for consideration in an actuarial measure can be informed by the broader empirical literature (e.g., meta-analysis), final selection of the risk factors is typically based on their association with an outcome of interest within a development sample (e.g., violent recidivism) and their incremental contribution relative to the other risk factors in predicting outcome. Thus, actuarial measures represent an empirical approach to the risk assessment process. This is not to say, however, that all actuarial measures are void of psychological or behavioral theory. For instance, development of the Level of Service Inventory–Revised, an actuarial risk measure designed for assessing risk of general recidivism, was grounded within the Risk-Need-Responsivity principles and psychology of criminal conduct as developed by psychologist Don Andrews and his colleagues. Strengths of Actuarial Risk Assessment Actuarial risk assessment has consistently outperformed unstructured clinical judgment in predicting short- and long-term violent and sexual recidivism with predictive accuracy that is significantly better than chance. To date, several meta-analytic investigations have found actuarial risk assessment measures to be significant predictors of various forms of outcome such as violence, sexual violence, and general recidivism. Although the majority of the recidivism research has not focused on the nature and severity of violence, there is preliminary evidence to suggest that actuarial measures are significantly associated with such outcomes. This is not surprising, since several of the measure developers have pointed out that actuarial measures were designed to predict these types of outcomes. Unlike clinical judgment, actuarial risk assessment is systematic, impartial, and transparent. Research conducted within applied settings has revealed moderate to high interrater agreement between raters and, in a few instances, between clinicians and researchers (e.g., the Static-99). Likewise, the predictive validity of actuarial risk assessment is similar whether it is scored within an applied (i.e., clinical) or research setting. Similarly, moderate to high predictive accuracy has been found when actuarial measures are scored by frontline staff (e.g., police and parole officers). This highlights an appealing aspect […]
Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version (PCL:YV)
The Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version (PCL:YV) is an assessment that measures psychopathic traits and behaviors in youth aged 12–18 years. The construct of psychopathy has been studied in adults with structured assessment measures developed by Robert Hare since the 1970s using the Psychopathy Checklist (PCL), which later became the PCL–Revised (PCL-R), a measure of psychopathy widely used in research, clinical, and forensic settings. The PCL:YV was adapted from the PCL-R and published in 2003. It has the shared goal among researchers and clinicians of identifying psychopathic traits and their consequences in youth, with the potential to shed light on the developmental precursors of adult psychopathy. Furthermore, it provides a means to discover the persistence of these traits from adolescence to adulthood and to assess the effectiveness of early intervention. Adult psychopathy is related to many negative social and individual outcomes, including violent reoffending, instrumental aggression, substance abuse, and treatment dropout. The PCL:YV was constructed to learn the developmental history of psychopathy and its early manifestation with the goal of ameliorating these negative outcomes. This article describes the structure and administration of the PCL:YV, special considerations when assessing adolescents, its psychometric properties, and its application for understanding the construct of psychopathy in youth. Structure and Administration The PCL:YV is a 20-item rating scale completed on the basis of a semi-structured interview and a collateral file review. The rater scores each item on a 3-point scale from 0 to 2, where 2 is definitely present, 1 is somewhat present, and 0 is not present, resulting in a total score ranging from 0 to 40, with higher scores representing more psychopathic traits and behaviors. The file review is typically conducted first to gather and organize information and to help prepare questions for the interview. A rater who typically has an advanced professional or university degree (e.g., MD, MA, PhD) conducts the interview with the youth, which takes approximately 120 minutes. The interview probes different aspects of the youth’s life, including the youth’s history and current functioning, school, work, family background, relationships, substance use, attitudes, emotions, and antisocial behaviors. As a semi-structured interview, its trajectory may change depending on the flow of conversation, cooperation, and types of information shared by the youth. Although not preferable, when an interview is not possible (e.g., youth or parents withhold consent), a PCL:YV assessment can still be conducted with just a file review. File review-only assessments, however, should contain multiple sources of information from varied contexts, should be noted in the assessment report, and its results interpreted cautiously. The PCL:YV manual provides a detailed description of each item for assessors to minimize rater differences when scoring. In addition to detailed descriptions of each item, the manual provides information on where to find the source of information. These are details and illustrations that give the assessor an indication of what information during the interview and/or file review is relevant and helpful for scoring each item. PCL:YV items can be grouped according to factor analysis into four clusters of traits […]
Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R)
Robert Hare’s Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) and the briefer screening version (PCL:SV) are the predominant tools for assessing psychopathic traits in adult forensic and correctional settings. Psychopathy is a multidimensional personality disorder characterized by an arrogant and manipulative interpersonal style, poverty in major affective reactions, an impulsive and irresponsible lifestyle, and persistent and inadequately motivated antisocial behavior. Contemporary conceptualizations of psychopathy derive from Hervey Cleckley’s seminal work in the 1940s in which he provided comprehensive descriptions of institutionalized psychiatric case studies. Cleckley defined psychopathy primarily in terms of interpersonal and affective deficits under a surface of outwardly normal behavior, which he termed a mask of sanity. Considerable research has demonstrated that adults presenting with psychopathic traits embark on a chronic, proactively (i.e., without provocation, for instrumental gain) aggressive, violent, and criminal lifestyle, and as such are highly overrepresented in the criminal justice system. The PCL and its derivatives are often used by clinicians and forensic professionals for violence risk assessment, although not originally intended for this purpose. In fact, in his case descriptions, Cleckley did not characterize psychopaths as explosively violent, predatory, or cruel; rather, he suggested that the harm that they caused was secondary to their shallow affect. Modern perception of psychopathy’s association with criminal antisocial behavior stems from William and Joan McCord’s work with incarcerated offenders, rather than psychiatric patients. Many current measures of psychopathy assess law-breaking behaviors in addition to the core affective and interpersonal features, which some scholars view as tangential to the construct, constituting a matter of contention. This is due in part to the fact that most existing measures of psychopathy are based on the PCL, which weighs antisocial and criminal externalizing features as strongly as the traits of emotional detachment and interpersonal exploitation. Research finds that the predictive utility of PCL assessments is largely derived from its assessment of antisocial and disinhibitory tendencies rather than interpersonal and affective features. Psychometric Properties and Factor Structure Hare’s initial efforts toward developing this clinical diagnostic instrument consisted of a global ratings system that was based on Cleckley’s institutional description, in which a diagnostic rating from 1 to 7 was assigned to indicate an individual’s likeness to a prototypical psychopath (1 = clearly nonpsychopathic, 7 = definitely psychopathic). However, this original rating system required considerable experience and knowledge of Cleckley’s conceptualization and was not easy to disseminate to other researchers or clinicians. Hare’s original checklist consisted of 22 items that were chosen from a larger item pool on the basis of how effectively they discriminated, as a set, between high and low scores on the global ratings system. Individuals’ likeness to a prototypical psychopath was rated on a 3-point scale (0 = item does not apply; 1 = item applies somewhat; 2 = item definitely applies). The subsequent revised version (PCL-R) dropped two items (“previous diagnosis of psychopathy or similar” and “antisocial behavior not due to alcohol intoxication”) from the original checklist with poor factor loadings and included clarified scoring criteria for ease of use for evaluators. PCL […]
Psychopathic Personality Inventory-Revised (PPI-R)
The Psychopathic Personality Inventory-Revised (PPI-R) is the revised version of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory (PPI), a widely used self-report measure of psychopathic personality (psychopathy). The PPI-R, like its predecessor, is designed to detect the core personality traits of psychopathy, including superficial charm, fearlessness, guiltlessness, manipulativeness, dishonesty, grandiosity, callousness, externalization of blame, and poor impulse control. It excludes items explicitly assessing overt antisocial and criminal behaviors to permit investigators and clinicians to focus on psychopathic personality traits per se. As a consequence, compared with many other psychopathy indices, the PPI-R may better distinguish psychopathy from the conceptually and empirically overlapping construct of antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition. ASPD, in contrast to the largely personality-based condition of psychopathy, is operationalized in terms of a long-standing antisocial and criminal behavior and is virtually by definition maladaptive. Prior to the development of the PPI, most research on psychopathy was limited to offenders, largely because most extant measures of this condition required access to detailed corroborative (e.g., file) information. Perhaps partly as a consequence of the field’s focus on criminal samples, most psychopathy measures were largely maladaptive in content. In contrast, the PPI-R helps to detect both the largely adaptive (e.g., superficial charm, social poise, adventure seeking), and largely maladaptive (e.g., poor impulse control, callousness, dishonesty) features of psychopathy. Although initially intended to identify psychopathic individuals in noncriminal settings, such as those in student, community, and business samples, the PPI-R has since been used extensively in a variety of forensic contexts. This article reviews the construction and structure of the PPI-R and then discusses its reliability and validity. Construction of the PPI and PPI-R The PPI consisted of 187 self-report items arrayed in 1–4 Likert-type format (1 = false, 2 = mostly false, 3 = mostly true, and 4 = true). It was developed over the span of several years in the late 1980s. The initial focal constructs considered for inclusion in the PPI were derived from a comprehensive review of the clinical and research literatures on psychopathy, including the seminal writings of Hervey Cleckley, Benjamin Karpman, David Lykken, Robert Hare, Joan and William McCord, Marvin Zuckerman, and Herbert Quay. PPI items were written to be accessible and understandable by a broad range of respondents. To enhance the likelihood that psychopathic respondents would be willing to endorse trait- relevant items, most PPI items were phrased to be socially normative. For example, a PPI item written to assess dishonesty (retained in the PPI-R) is “I tell a lot of ‘white lies,’” which assesses a dishonest action that is both mild and common in the general population. A PPI-R item written to assess grandiosity is “People are impressed with me after they first meet me,” which ostensibly assesses a feature of narcissism that is positively valued. In the initial version of the PPI, approximately an equivalent number of items were keyed in the true and false directions to minimize acquiescence (“yea-saying”) and counter-acquiescence (“naysaying”) response biases. The […]
Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment (ODARA)
The Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment (ODARA) is an actuarial instrument for evaluating risk of intimate partner violence (IPV). It is used to identify men at risk of violent recidivism; that is, a new offense of assault among men who have already committed an act of IPV. The ODARA is scored based on events at or prior to the most recent occurrence of IPV (the index assault). This article describes how the ODARA was developed and validated, its use within a two-level assessment approach, and its application to other research questions. Development and Validation The ODARA was the first IPV risk assessment to be empirically developed. That is, component items were selected through statistical analysis in a follow-up study of offenders. The construction research included 589 men with a police report of assault on a current or former cohabiting partner and used information contained in police and criminal records to identify offender characteristics and circumstances that best distinguished men who had a subsequent record of IPV from those who did not. Multivariate analyses were used to identify unique predictors, and the statistical sampling technique of bootstrapping was used to maximize the likelihood that the results would generalize to new samples. This empirical method makes it possible to develop assessment norms. The ODARA contains 13 items, each scored 1 for yes and 0 for no based on explicit scoring criteria. In summary form, the items are as follows: pre-index domestic assault in police or criminal records, pre-index nondomestic assault in police or criminal records, pre-index sentence to 30 or more days in custody, failure on pre-index conditional release, threat to physically harm or kill anyone at the index assault, confinement of the partner–victim at the index assault, partner’s concern about future domestic assaults, more than one child of the offender or victim, victim having a biological child with a former partner, pre-index assault on the victim while she was pregnant, offender substance abuse, and barriers to victim support. The total score is the sum of the item scores, prorated where necessary for items treated as missing. Actuarial tables for the ODARA show normative data for total scores. One piece of data is the likelihood of IPV recidivism, defined as a new record of assault on a cohabiting partner in the follow-up that averaged almost 5 years. This information depends on the definitions and time frames used in the original research and will not necessarily calibrate or generalize to other samples. The table also shows rank order in terms of the percentage of offenders at or below each score. These percentiles can be more informative as they allow individual offenders to be compared with other offenders in terms of their risk of IPV recidivism, regardless of its definition or absolute probability. The use of actuarial data to evaluate individual risk is considered controversial by some, but the predictive validity of this method is well established for both violence risk and general offending, and the numeric information that is yielded by actuarial assessment […]
Offender Group Reconviction Scale (OGRS)
The Offender Group Reconviction Scale (OGRS) is the name of a series of actuarial risk assessment instruments for use with convicted criminal offenders. Each version of OGRS has been developed for and used by the adult correctional services of England and Wales, directed since 2004 by the National Offender Management Service, which in 2017 became Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS). Versions of OGRS have been used to predict general and sometimes more serious recidivism among probationers since 1996 and prisoners since 2009. OGRS scores are of considerable importance in court reporting as well as in allocation of offender services and research. Successive updates to OGRS have amended the measurement and scoring of its risk factors to improve its usability and validity as a predictor of reoffending, as well as to ensure that it reflects contemporary patterns of recidivism. This article examines the application and scoring of the OGRS and provides an overview of its development. Applying a Static Actuarial Risk Assessment Instrument OGRS fulfills the demand for an actuarial risk assessment instrument with high levels of predictive validity (as confirmed by prevailing standards in forensic psychology), scored only from easily available static risk factors. Scoring each version of OGRS requires the offender’s gender; dates of birth, conviction, and discharge from custody (when this sentence has been passed); current offense; and a small number of criminal history variables. The resultant scores are estimates of the probability of recidivism within 2 years of discharge from custody or sentencing to a noncustodial court disposal. At court, probation services include OGRS scores in presentence reports to the sentencing judge or magistrate. (Presentence report assessments always assume that a noncustodial sentence will be passed.) After sentencing, minimum OGRS scores form part of the criteria determining suitability for offending behavior programs, operationalizing the risk aspect of the Risk-Need-Responsivity paradigm upon which HMPPS programs are based. OGRS score thresholds are also referred to when determining an individual’s overall level of probation service and, in aggregate, when producing management information reports used in the commissioning of rehabilitative interventions and other offender services. OGRS scores are used by researchers to control for recidivism risk when evaluating interventions and have been used to compare outcomes between those receiving different sentences. They are also a key part of the Payments by Results contractual agreements between the Ministry of Justice and private probation providers, known as Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRC). These agreements specify that the CRCs will receive additional payments, known as Payments by Results, when cohorts of offenders have recidivism rates significantly lower than their OGRS baseline. The reoffending rate of each cohort is compared with that of the baseline 2011 cohort, and a comparison of OGRS4/G scores for the baseline and current cohort is used to adjust the current reoffending rate to reflect changes in the case mix of offenders being supervised. The Development of the OGRS Version 1 of the OGRS (OGRS1) was published in 1996. Its development involved several stages common to all versions. The criminal […]
Minnesota Sex Offender Screening Tool-Revised (MnSOST-R)
The Minnesota Sex Offender Screening Tool-Revised (MnSOST-R) was one of the earliest validated, actuarial risk assessment tool for sexual offenders. This article describes the development and validation of the MnSOST-R in the context of evolving risk assessment strategies and methods, which are essential for effective decisions in the criminal justice system. Risk Assessment With Sexual Offenders Determinations of risk occur across the criminal justice system. From decisions for setting bail, to sentencing, to establishing custody level, to determining conditions of release—implicit or explicit judgments about risk must be made. This has been true throughout modern correctional history. Sexual offenders present even more challenges to the legal system because of additional risk assessment to inform additional high-stakes decisions unique to them. These include registration, community notification, and civil commitment. In 1994, the U.S. Congress passed the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children’s Act, which required states to set up sexual offender registries in order to better track sexual offenders. Megan’s Law, which took just 2 days to pass through the U.S. Congress in 1996 as an amendment to the Jacob Wetterling Act, authorized law enforcement agencies to notify the public about convicted sex offenders living, working, or visiting in their communities. It also required all states to develop a procedure for notifying the public when a convicted sex offender is released into their community. To address these statutes, many states incorporated a three-tier system of risk (low, medium, or high) rather than identifying the specific types of offenders that are to be subject to notification. In Minnesota, for example, the Community Notification Act of 1996 called for a risk assessment scale to be implemented by January 1, 1997, and identified a series of factors to be used in assessing risk and assigning risk levels. As in many other states, those sex offenders determined to present the greatest risk received the highest level of community notification as well as supervision. Also in the 1990s, states began to implement existing, or passed new, civil commitment statutes, often referred to as sexually violent predator laws. These statutes enabled states to commit the most dangerous sexual offenders to forensic hospitals rather than release them back into the community. The policy justification for registration, community notification, and civil commitment statutes was protection of the public from the most dangerous sexual offenders. Clearly, then, the assessment and prediction of dangerousness is essential for the constitutional and effective implementation of these statutes. While accurate assessment has always been important, the high-stakes decisions regarding sexual offenders helped focus attention on the objectivity, consistency, and accuracy of existing methods of risk assessment. The practice of sexual offender assessments in the 1980s and early 1990s was largely clinical and subjective in nature because of the standards of practice at that time and the absence of research on empirically validated risk indicators. However, a compendium of studies, particularly in the 1980s, demonstrated that the clinical prediction of any type of longer term violence, including sexual violence, was essentially no better than chance. Consequently, […]
Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (LS/CMI)
The Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (LS/CMI) is one of the Level of Service Inventory (LSI) instruments. It is an example of a fourth generation offender risk/need assessment scale and is distinguished from previous generation instruments by the fact that it was not only designed to predict offender recidivism but also includes a built-in case management component that translates the need portion of the assessment to an active intervention plan for offender supervision, treatment, and programming. Like the LSI-Revised (LSI-R), the LS/CMI was pilot-tested on a large scale for almost a decade prior to its general release. This article describes the origins of the LS/ CMI, places it historically in the sequence of LSI instruments, itemizes the differences between it and its predecessors, and summarizes the research that it has generated. History and Evolution While the LSI-R was enjoying widespread success and was being implemented in Canada, the United States, and numerous European and Asian countries in the mid-1990s, it became evident to the authors, researchers, administrators, and end users that it could be expanded. Specifically, there was a growing sense that the scope of the assessment should be broadened and its linkage to offender supervision and intervention should be strengthened. Consequently, Donald Andrews, along with James Bonta and Stephen Wormith, began a systematic review of the research and practical experience that had accumulated by that time. There was already extensive, system-wide experience with the LSI-VI (later known as the LSI-R) in Ontario, where correctional authorities were considering extending its use into its provincial prisons. They analyzed LSI assessment and recidivism data provided by the Ontario government. They also reviewed the early and rather crude, by today’s standards, meta-analyses on offender’s risk factors and recidivism. This review coincided with the emergence of the Central Eight domains of offender’s risk/need factors and helped to reorganize and reformat the next version of the LSI. The authors also consulted with LSI assessors, primarily probation officers and psychologists, about their clinical experiences with the offenders they had assessed. They asked what more should the LSI provide to users in the field. They met with various levels of correctional officials, from senior administrators responsible for corporate policy to staff supervisors in the field, professional associations, and the provincial parole board. Routinely, they asked, what more would the various stakeholder groups like to see in the instrument to improve it, to ease its use, and to increase its value to the organization. In 1995, the LSI: Ontario Revision (LSI-OR) was introduced into Ontario’s provincial correctional services, in both its probation offices and its correctional institutions. Then, in 2004, the LS/ CMI was released for more general use by correctional agencies around the world. It included organizational and stylistic modifications from the original LSI-OR, but none of the actual items in the core risk/need assessment portion were changed. In other words, as was the case with the LSI-VI and the LSI-R, the LSI-OR served as a thoroughly monitored and researched precursor to the LS/CMI. Structure and Organization […]