No abstract

This study examines the predictive validity of the Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (LS/CMI) on a sample of sexual offenders extracted from a large cohort of offenders and compares predictive validities with nonsexual offenders from the same cohort. The LS/CMI predicted sex offenders' general recidivism, which occurred at a rate of 44.1%, with about the same accuracy as less frequently occurring violent (12.34%) and sexual recidivism (3.73%; AUC = .77, .74, and .74, respectively) and with nonsexual offenders. The study revealed that allowing assessors to override the numerically derived risk level with their professional judgment, a practice that increased risk level much more often than it decreased it, reduced the predictive validity of the scale and did so particularly for sex offenders by increasing risk excessively. An exploration of factors related to these adjustments revealed that non-risk-related characteristics were used in judgments to modify risk ratings. Implications for policy and practice are considered.

This study examined the applicability of a general risk/need assessment tool, the Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (LS/CMI), to a large sample of Aboriginal offenders (n = 1,692) and compared the predictive validity with that of the rest of the cohort, a sample of non-Aboriginal offenders (n = 24,758). It examined the use of the clinical override with offenders. Aboriginal offenders had considerably higher scores and a greater recidivism rate than non-Aboriginal offenders. Internal consistency was high and virtually identical for both samples. The predictive validity for Aboriginal offenders on general recidivism was high, although slightly higher for non-Aboriginal offenders. The predictive validity was significant but low on violent recidivism for Aboriginal offenders, as were numerous subscales. Assessors used the override feature to change risk level less frequently on Aboriginal offenders. The implications of this study for policy (use on ethnic minority offenders) and practice (how to interpret potential recidivism) are discussed.