Validation of the LSI-R and ASUS Criminogenic Risk Assessment Instruments
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Interagency Council on Intermediate Sanctions February 2020 Timothy Wong, ICIS Research Analyst Department of the Attorney General State of Hawaii, 2008 – 2016 Reporting Period Validation of the LSI-R and ASUS Criminogenic Risk Assessment Instruments This study report is an update of a previously published validation study1 of the Level of Services – Re- vised (LSI-R) and Alcohol Substance Use Survey (ASUS) published in June 2013. This update is based on a compilation of adult offender risk assessment data from the Cyzap database, and offender ar- rest/conviction data from the Criminal Justice Information System (CJIS) for the reporting years of 2008- 2016 . The report provides detailed analyses of offenders from the Judiciary’s Probation Services, Hawaii Pa roling Authority, and the Department of Public Safety, who were administered the LSI-R and ASUS. These assessment instruments measure criminogenic and alcohol/drug dependency risk levels, respec- tively. All offenders are classified by risk levels, which provide valuable information needed for case super- vision purposes and determining treatment levels. Both assessment instruments reflect risk and need principles established in evidence-based practices, and necessitate validation, e.g., ascertainment of whether they accurately predict recidivism, and if they correctly classify offenders into distinct risk groups. Recidivism is an important outcome measure, since it distinguishes offenders who have re-offended from those who remained free of crime or technical violations, over a three-year period. This report presents information on recidivism rates for probationers, parolees, and maximum-term re- leased offenders in the State of Hawaii. It also assesses a variety of offender conditions, including crimi- nogenic dimensions, criminal offenses committed, and socio-demographic variables. The major objective of this report is to assist Interagency Council on Intermediate Sanctions (ICIS) agencies in evaluating longer-term outcomes, and documenting change in criminogenic risk patterns. It also provides information on the ways in which various predictive indicators play important roles in identifying risk assessment pat- terns. The statistical charts and tables depicted herein present data relating to the following areas: I. Recidivism Analysis – Agency, County, and Social Demographics II. Change in LSI-R and ASUS Criminogenic Risk after Reassessment III. LSI-R and ASUS Scores and Sub-Domains between Recidivists and Non-Recidivists IV. Analysis of LSI-R and ASUS Predictive Validity V. Analysis of Initial and Most Recent LSI-R and ASUS Assessments VI. Offender Recidivism Rates, by Recommended Treatment Level Cut-off Values VII. LSI-R and ASUS Tables of Predictive and Correlational Analysis VIII. Summary and Technical Notes 1Validation of LSI-R and ASUS Criminogenic Risk Instruments, State of Hawaii, 2009-2011 Reporting Period (http://icis.hawaii.gov/) Methodology: The recidivism database includes an unduplicated count of 16,880 offenders, with at least one LSI-R and ASUS assessment administered from 2008 through 2016. Each offender record contains data fields that incorporate initial and most recent LSI-R and ASUS assessment information, criminal arrests, and types of charged offenses. Additionally, calcu- lated fields were added to the database to measure change in both the LSI-R total and pro- tective scores, and criminogenic sub-domain percentiles. For the purpose of this report, recidivism is defined as the first (if any) rearrest, revocation, or technical violation that occurs from the onset of probation supervision or release to parole, tracked over a three-year peri- od. For further information contact: Timothy Wong, Research and Statistics Branch Crime Prevention and Justice Assistance Division Department of the Attorney General Email: [email protected] This report is available electronically at the ICIS web site: <hawaii.gov/icis> - 2 - I. Recidivism Analysis – Agency, County, and Social Demographics Figure 1: Recidivism Rates for Current LSI-R Risk Levels, by Agency 100.0% 80.0% 70.5% 58.6% 60.0% 52.8% 40.0% RecidivismRate 20.0% 0.0% Maximum-Term Released Probation Parole (n=10,427) (n=4,853) Prisoners (n=1,600) Administrative (LSI-R<19) (n=8,117) 43.6%(n=5,176) 37.8%(n=2,565) 55.1%(n=376) Low (LSI-R 19-20) (n=982) 56.9% (n=620) 57.2%(n=278) 63.1% (n=84) Medium (LSI-R 21-25) (n=3,304) 69.4% (n=2,048) 64.5% (n=919) 68.0% (n=337) High (LSI-R 26-35)(n=3,725) 79.5% (n=2,160) 74.9%(n=928) 78.6% (n=637) Surveillance LSI-R >36(n=752) 85.8% (n=423) 88.3% (n=163) 83.1% (n=166) =.325, p<.001 =.336, p<.001 =.223, p<.001 Φ= Strength of association between variables CYZAP 3.2018 Note: The differences in recidivism rates, by individual Agency is statistically significant (p<.001). 2008-2016 Compilation There are statistically significant differences in recidivism rates, by risk levels, for probationers, parolees, and max- imum-term released prisoners. Figure 1 depicts individual agency offender recidivism rates, by LSI-R risk levels. Maximum-term released pris- oners have the highest recidivism rate (70.5%), as compared to probationers (58.6%), and parolees (52.8%). Recidivism rates increase significantly (p<.001) by LSI-R risk levels for all individual agencies. - 3 - Figure 2: Recidivism Rates for Current LSI-R Risk Levels, by County 100.0% 80.0% 55.3% 58.6% 59.3% 60.0% 57.0% 40.0% RecidivismRate 20.0% 0.0% City & County of Hawaii County Maui County Kauai County Honolulu (n=11,025) (n=2,455) (n=2,498) (n=862) (n=429) *Administrative (LSI-R<19)(n=8,091) 42.3% (n=5,221) 46.5% (n=1,206) 40.7% (n=1,235) 40.1% (n=47) Low (LSI-R 19-20) (n=986) 57.2% (n=635) 58.1% (n=148) 58.3% (n=156) 61.7% (n=141) Medium (LSI-R 21-25) (n=3,278) 68.1% (n=2,178) 69.0% (n=497) 69.5% (n=462) 60.3% (n=224) High (LSI-R 26-35) (n=3,733) 79.2% (n=2,467) 76.0% (n=509) 78.2%(n=533) 76.8% (n=21) Surveillance LSI-R >36 (n=752) 86.6% (n=524) 84.2%(n=95) 82.1%(n=112) 90.5% *(8,091)=.036, p<.05 =.337, p<.001 =.274, p<.001 =.341, p<.001 =.331, p<.001 Φ= Strength of association between variables CYZAP 3.2018 2008-2016 Compilation There are statistically significant differences in county-level recidivism rates for offenders who are classified at the Administrative level. Figure 2 reveals county-level offender recidivism rates, by LSI-R risk levels. There are statistically signifi- cant differences in recidivism rates, based on varying offender risk levels in the City & County of Honolulu, and in the counties of Hawaii, Maui, and Kauai. - 4 - Figure 3: Recidivism Rates for Current LSI-R Risk Levels, by Gender 100.0% 80.0% 61.8% 60.0% 55.9% 40.0% RecidivismRate 20.0% 0.0% Male (n=13,279) Female (n=2,834) *Administrative (LSI-R<19) (n=7,600) 46.7% (n=6,197) 39.8% (n=1,403) Low (LSI-R 19-20) (n=946) 59.9% (n=775) 58.5% (n=171) **Medium (LSI-R 21-25) (n=3,179) 70.8% (n=2,686) 65.7% (n=493) **High (LSI-R 26-35) (n=3,654) 80.6% (n=3,039) 77.1% (n=615) Surveillance (LSI-R >36) (n=734) 87.1% (n=582) 84.9% (n=152) * p<.001; **p<.05 =.314, p<.001 =.342, p<.001 Φ= Strength of association between variables Note: Males have overall, without regard to risk levels, statistically significant higher recidivism rates than females at (=.046, p<.001). There are statistically significant differences in recidivism rates between males and females. Figure 3 shows that male offenders recidivated at a significantly (p<.001) higher rate (61.8%) than did female offenders (55.9%), due to statistically significant differences in recidivism rates between males and females at the Administrative (p<.001), Medium (p<.05), and High (p<.05) risk levels. - 5 - Figure 4: Recidivism Rates for Current LSI-R Risk Levels, by Racial/Ethnic Group 100.0% 80.0% 59.0% 63.9% 63.3% 61.6% 61.5% 60.0% 54.5% 40.0% RecidivismRate 20.0% 0.0% Other Pacific Caucasian Filipino Hawn/Pt-Hawn Japanese Other Asians (n=2,660) Islanders (n=1,577) (n=4,911) (n=1,975) (n=626) (n=919) *Administrative (LSI-R<19) 47.8% 41.2% 48.2% 45.7% 45.2% 44.3% (n=7,684) Low (LSI-R 19-20) (n=968) 59.0% 48.5% 62.3% 57.0% 68.2% 60.0% **Medium (LSI-R 21-25)(n=3,237) 68.3% 66.3% 71.7% 75.0% 74.5% 72.8% High (LSI-R 26-35) (n=3,709) 77.3% 79.3% 82.1% 83.5% 80.0% 75.4% Surveillance LSI-R >36 (n=751) 86.5% 78.8% 90.1% 89.2% 84.0% 85.0% * p<.01, **p<.05 =.280, p<.001 =.321, p<.001 =.319, p<.001 =.362, p<.001 =.324, p<.001 =.327, p<.001 Offenders by Individual Race Groups, w ithout regard to risk levels, have statistically Φ= Strength of association between variables significant differences in recidivism rates: (16,349)=.088, p<.001) CYZAP 3.2018 Note: Haw aiian/Part-Haw aiian offenders have statistically significant higher 2008-2016 Compilation recidivism rates than the other race groups(=.088, p<.001). There are statistically significant differences in recidivism rates between individual racial/ethnic groups. Figure 4 examines the recidivism rates of offenders, by racial/ethnic composition and risk levels.