The Diversion of Incarcerated Offenders to Correctional Halfway Houses

Abstract

Two studies were undertaken to (1) evaluate an attempt to divert inmates to correctional halfway houses, (2) cross-validate earlier research with the Level of Supervision Inventory (LSI) on a broader offender sample, and (3) explore improved methods of prediction by increased sampling of the criterion variable. In Study 1, the LSI was used to identify potential targets for diversionary intervention. Over two-thirds of the inmates assessed by the LSI as suitable candidates for correctional halfway houses were instead transferred to institutions. In Study 2, LSI scores were used to refer inmates directly to a halfway house review board for possible community placement. The results showed that inmates were transferred to the halfway houses earlier in their sentences, thus increasing the average length of stay in the houses with no increased risk to the community. Despite the use of the LSI to identify potential halfway house candidates, a large proportion of minimum-risk inmates were still transferred to institutions. The results from both studies suggest a tendency to overclassify inmates and that the use of an objective classification instrument can serve to minimize overclassification. In addition, the studies demonstrated predictive validity for the LSI with a representative sample of inmates and improved prediction with increased sampling of the criterion behavior.

The Validity of the Level of Service Inventory–Revised at the Intersection of Race and Gender

“…The validity and reliability of the LSI-R have been demonstrated throughout the literature (e.g., Andrews, 1982;Andrews, Kiessling, Mickus, & Robinson, 1986;Andrews & Robinson, 1984;Bonta & Motiuk, 1987), and the instrument has been found to be a valid predictor of various definitions of recidivism within a variety of community supervision groups including probationers (Andrews, 1982;Andrews & Robinson, 1984), halfway house residents (Bonta & Motiuk, 1985), and parolees (O'Keefe, Klebe, Hromas, 1998;Schlager & Pacheco, 2011). Within the last 15 years, meta-analyses have consistently verified the superiority in the predictive validity of the LSI-R for recidivism over other risk measures and personality scales (e.g., Gendreau, Goggin, & Smith, 1999, 2002Gendreau, Little, & Goggin, 1996), with researchers deeming the assessment the "current measure of choice" (Gendreau et al, 1996, p. 590).…”

The Predictive Validity of the Level of Service Inventory-Ontario Revision on General and Violent Recidivism among Various Offender Groups

“…Among male provincial prisoners, the LSI has also been used to predict prison infractions and reincarceration (Bonta & Motiuk, 1992), as well as security classification, misconducts, days in segregation, and early release (Motiuk, 1991). The LSI was significantly correlated with halfway house adjustment and reincarceration (Bonta & Motiuk, 1985) and has been used to demonstrate the overclassification of inmates, rendering them ineligible for placement in halfway houses (Bonta & Motiuk, 1987, 1990. Application of the LSI to Canadian male federal inmates, including long-term offenders (Simourd, in press), found moderate to strong relationships with prison misconduct (Kroner & Mills, 2001) and various criterion measures of recidivism (Loza & Loza-Fanous, 2001).…”

Putting the “What Works” Research into Practice

“…It is also likely that an existing tool has already been validated, increasing the amount of confidence that people have in the instrument. For example, a significant body of research literature exists that discusses the reliability and validity of the LSI-R (Andrews, Kiessling, Mickus, & Robinson, 1986;Loza & Simourd, 1994) and that discusses its use with different offender populations (Bonta & Motiuk, 1987;D. J. Simourd & Malcolm, 1998).…”