The Utility of the YLS/CMI-SV for Assessing Youth Offenders in Singapore

• Author: Hui Yu,Yirong Lee,Gerald Zeng,Chi Meng Chu
• DOI: 10.1177/0093854814537626
• Published date: 01 December 2014
• Date: 01 December 2014

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 2014, Vol. 41, No. 12, December 2014, 1437 –1457.

DOI: 10.1177/0093854814537626

© 2014 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology

1437

THE UTILITY OF THE YLS/CMI-SV FOR

ASSESSING YOUTH OFFENDERS IN SINGAPORE

CHI MENG CHU

Ministry of Social and Family Development

HUI YU

De Montfort University

YIRONG LEE

GERALD ZENG

Ministry of Social and Family Development

The Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory–Screening Version (YLS/CMI-SV) is designed to provide a pre-

liminary estimate of the level of risk for antisocial behaviors as well as an indication of areas for intervention in youth offend-

ers. This study examined the predictive validity of the YLS/CMI-SV for violent, nonviolent, and general recidivism in a

sample of 3,264 youth offenders within a Singaporean context (Mfollow-up = 1,764.5 days; SDfollow-up = 521.5). Cox regression

and Receiver Operating Characteristic analyses revealed that the YLS/CMI-SV is significantly predictive of general, violent,

and nonviolent recidivism for the male youth offenders, but there were mixed results for the female youth offenders. Overall,

these results indicated that the YLS/CMI-SV is a useful measure for assessing the levels of risk for male youth offenders, and

more investigation is needed to determine the suitability of the YLS/CMI-SV for the female youth offenders. Its implications

for clinical practice and policy are discussed.

Keywords: criminogenic needs; cross-cultural; predictive validity; recidivism; risk assessment; screening

It is widely accepted that youth offending is an important social issue, and there is a

need to assess risk factors and consider treatment needs for those youth who are

involved in offending behaviors for the purpose of rehabilitating them (Hoge & Andrews,

1996; McGrath & Thompson, 2012). Historically, the assessment of reoffending risk and

identification of intervention needs of offenders have been based on unstructured

AUTHORS’ NOTE: The views expressed are those of the authors and do not represent the official position or

policies of the Ministry of Social and Family Development. The authors thank the staff of the Clinical and

Forensic Psychology Branch and the Probation Services Branch of the Ministry of Social and Family

Development for their support. In addition, the authors would like to express gratitude to Ms. Jennifer Teoh,

Ms. Bernadette Alexander, Ms. Grace Yim, Ms. Kala Ruby, Ms. Chen Yeh Tan, Ms. Yaming Ang, Ms. Shannon

Chin, Ms. Aileen Tan, Mr. James Loh, Mr. Alvin Koh, Ms. Amelia Wong, Mr. Han Siang Lim, Ms. Cheryl Tan,

Ms. Amanda Tan, and Ms. Melissa Yeo for their facilitation at different stages of the project. They also thank

Professor Robert Hoge for his advice at various stages of this project. Please address all correspondence to:

Dr. Chi Meng Chu, Centre for Research on Rehabilitation and Protection, Rehabilitation and Protection Group,

Ministry of Social and Family Development, 512 Thomson Road, MSF Building, 12th Floor, Singapore 298136;

e-mail: chu_chi_meng@msf.gov.sg.

1438 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR

clinical judgment, but the advent of structured risk assessment measures has led to

assessment practices that are more systematic and empirically based. This has, in turn,

provided more valid and consistent assessments of risk factors and treatment needs

(Hoge, 2002).

RISK-NEEDS-RESPONSIVITY (RNR) FRAMEWORK

The RNR framework (Andrews & Bonta, 2010) is a model that emphasizes the usage of

structured assessment and decision-making with regard to offender assessment and reha-

bilitation. According to the RNR framework, effective offender rehabilitation requires the

accurate classification of the offender’s level of risk and needs. Accurate identification and

classification of risk and needs will allow clinicians to make informed decisions about the

levels of supervision, as well as the type and intensity of the treatment interventions that

should be provided. The RNR framework is underpinned by general personality and cogni-

tive social learning (GPCSL) theoretical perspectives, which posits that the criminal con-

duct of individuals is heavily influenced by the “Big Four” variables of antisocial cognition,

past antisocial behavior, antisocial personality patterns, and antisocial associates. In addi-

tion to these four variables, difficulties pertaining to substance use, family and marital rela-

tionships, education and/or employment, and leisure activities make up the “Central Eight”

variables that are implicated in criminal offending behavior according to the GPCSL per-

spectives (Andrews & Bonta, 2010).

The RNR framework states that the intensity of intervention should be matched to the

level of risk that the offender poses; moreover, intervention should target those crimino-

genic needs that are functionally related to criminal behavior, and that the style and mode

of intervention should match the offender’s abilities and learning style (Andrews & Bonta,

2010). Pertaining to offender rehabilitation, interventions that adhere to the RNR principles

have been associated with significant reductions in recidivism rates, whereas those inter-

ventions that fail to adhere to the RNR principles are not linked to improved outcomes in

terms of recidivism rates (Andrews & Dowden, 2005). Meta-analyses of risk factors and

criminogenic needs with various offender groups have elucidated our understanding of the

major, moderate, and minor risk factors for reoffending (e.g., Bonta, Law, & Hanson, 1998;

Gendreau, Little, & Goggin, 1996; Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2005; Lipsey & Derzon,

1998), and have provided support for “Big Four” as well as “Central Eight” risk and need

factors (see Andrews & Bonta, 2010; McGuire, 2004, for a review).

YOUTH LEVEL OF SERVICE MEASURES

The Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI) is one of the

most widely used structured risk and need assessment measures across many jurisdic-

tions; for example, Canada, the United States of America, Australia, Japan, Singapore,

and the United Kingdom (Chu, Lee, et. al., 2013; McGrath & Thompson, 2012; Onifade

et al., 2008; Rennie & Dolan, 2010; Schmidt, Campbell, & Houlding, 2011; Takahashi,

Mori, & Kroner, 2013). The YLS/CMI comprises 42 items that relate to the “Central

Eight” risk and need domains. The YLS/CMI–Screening Version (YLS/CMI-SV; Hoge &

Andrews, 2009) is an eight-item abbreviated measure of the YLS/CMI; the YLS/CMI-SV

was trialed in Canada during the early 2000s, but was only recently published and made

commercially available. It is designed to provide an initial screening of risk and need