The LSI-R and the Compas

• Author: Tracy L. Fass,Kirk Heilbrun,Ralph Fretz,David DeMatteo
• DOI: 10.1177/0093854808320497
• Published date: 01 September 2008
• Date: 01 September 2008
• Subject Matter: Articles

THE LSI-R AND THE COMPAS

Validation Data on Two Risk-Needs Tools

TRACY L. FASS

Drexel University and Villanova Law School

KIRK HEILBRUN

DAVID DEMATTEO

Drexel University

RALPH FRETZ

Community Education Centers, Inc.

Over the past two decades, the role of risk-needs assessment in the criminal justice system has increased substantially. This

study provides validation data on the Level of Service Inventory–Revised (LSI-R) and the Correctional Offender Management

Profiling for Alternative Sanctions (COMPAS) using a large male cohort (N =975) with a substantial proportion of ethnic

minority offenders. In comparing the predictive validity of these tools,the authors employed a retrospective, archival, known-

groups design to study outcomes of offenders released into the community from New Jersey prisons between 1999 and 2002,

with a postrelease outcome period of 12 months. The results indicate that both the LSI-R composite score and the COMPAS

recidivism score have inconsistent validity when tested on different ethnic/racial populations. Furthermore, the results sug-

gest that different ethnic/racial groups have varying risk and needs factors that predict recidivism.

Keywords: risk; recidivism; risk-needs tools; LSI-R; COMPAS

Actuarial risk-needs assessment tools have become increasingly important in the field

of criminal justice (Andrews & Bonta, 2003; Holsinger, Lowenkamp, & Latessa,

2006). Previously, the risk assessment of offenders incorporated professional judgment to

a large extent (Andrews & Bonta, 2003; Holsinger et al., 2006). Over the past two decades,

however, researchers have developed a number of empirically based risk assessment and

classification tools (Andrews & Bonta, 2003). These tools are used with increasing fre-

quency and have become an integral part of many correctional interventions (Holsinger

et al., 2006; Whiteacre, 2006).

Bonta (1996) described three generations of risk assessment instruments. The first gen-

eration involved assessment conducted through an unstructured or semistructured inter-

view, based largely on the assessor’s experience and qualitative observations, which may

involve gathering information with regard to relevant criminogenic variables (Holsinger

et al., 2006). Second-generation assessments are empirically based risk instruments that use

risk factors empirically related to future antisocial behavior. However, these assessments

use primarily static risk factors and yield little information on rehabilitation needs. Third-

generation assessments are also empirically based but incorporate both static and dynamic

1095

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, Vol. 35 No. 9, September 2008 1095-1108

DOI: 10.1177/0093854808320497

© 2008 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology

AUTHORS’ NOTE: Please address correspondence to Kirk Heilbrun, Department of Psychology, Drexel

University, MS 626, 245 N. 15th Street, Philadelphia, PA 19102; e-mail: kirk.heilbrun@drexel.edu.