Hennepin County
Department of Community Corrections and Rehabilitation
Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation
LSI-R to LS/CMI Conversion
Analysis of Impact on Business Practices
November 2012
Overview
Hennepin County Department of Community Corrections and Rehabilitation
(DOCCR) will be switching from use of the Level of Service Inventory—Revised
(LSI-R) to the Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (LS/CMI) early in
2013. Because the LSI-R is used to assign clients to appropriate supervision
based on their risk scores, it is important to evaluate to impact that transition to
the LS/CMI will have on this process. For this report LSI-R scores were
converted using a scoring algorithm recommended by Multi-Health System
(MHS). 1 This report compares LSI-R scores to converted LS/CMI scores,
defines equivalent cut-off scores for the LS/CMI, and presents a preliminary
validation of the LS/CMI for predicting 1-year, 2-year, and 3-year recidivism
rates.
Both the LSI-R and the LS/CMI provide a means to assess offender risk to reoffend and offender needs related to recidivism. Assessment items are scored
based on information gathered from offender criminal history and from an
offender structured interview process. The LSI-R consists of 54 items and total
scores can range from 0 to 53. The LS/CMI consists of 43 items and total scores
can range from 0 to 43.
Key findings include:
1
•
The Hennepin normative sample for the LS/CMI was different racially
from the U.S. community normative sample; 54 percent of the Hennepin
sample was black compared to 15 percent of the U.S. community sample.
•
The overall means for the Hennepin and U.S. community normative
samples were nearly identical.
•
Female offenders in the Hennepin normative sample were lower risk
based on the LS/CMI than were females in the U.S. community sample.
•
Black and American Indian offenders scored higher risk than did white
and Asian offenders.
•
The application of proposed cut points for Low, Moderate, and High Risk
for the LS/CMI results in an increase in the number of offenders classified
as Moderate Risk and a decrease in those classified as High and Low
Risk compared to the LSI-R.
Andrews, D.A., Bonta, J.L., & Wormith, J.S. (2004). Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (LS/CMI): An
Offender Assessment System, Appendix B, User’s Manual, 157-159.
•
The 3-year recidivism rate for High Risk offenders based on the LS/CMI
was 42 percent.
•
High risk male offenders recidivated within three years at higher levels
than did high risk females.
•
Black high risk offenders recidivated within three years at a higher rate
than did high risk white offenders.
Methodology
LSI-R data for January 1, 2009 through October 12, 2012 was downloaded from
the Statewide Supervision System. LSI-R scores were then converted to LSCMI
scores using a second SPSS algorithm translated from MHS guidelines defined
in Appendix B of the LS/CMI User’s Manual. As a check on the accuracy of the
conversion algorithm, LSI-R data was also rescored using the Excel scoring
program provided by the Minnesota Department of Corrections.
Normative Sample
Between January 1, 2009 and October 12, 2012, 10,126 LSI-R assessments
were administered to 7,539 offenders.
The majority
(54%) of offenders
in the Hennepin
normative sample
were black
compared to 15%
in the U.S.
community
normative sample
The average score
on the LS/CMI for
the Hennepin
normative sample
was nearly identical
to that of the U.S.
community
LSI-R to LS/CMI Conversion
normative sample
•
17 percent (n=1,253) of the offenders were female and 83 percent
(n=6,286) were male. The percentage of female offenders was
considerably lower than that in the U.S. LS/CMI normative sample of
community offenders (24%).
•
Age of offenders ranged from 17 to 82, with a mean age of 33 (md=30,
s.d.=11.04).
•
Female offenders were younger on average (mean=34) than were male
offenders (mean=32). The age of females in the Hennepin normative
sample was similar to that of females in the U.S. community offenders
(mean=34), but the males in the Hennepin sample were younger than
those in the U.S. community sample (mean=34).
•
The majority (54 percent) of the Hennepin normative sample was
identified as black and 37.4 percent as white. Asian and American Indian
offenders comprised 2 percent and 4.5 percent, respectively, of the
Hennepin sample. The Hennepin normative sample varied considerably
from the U.S. community normative sample which was primarily white
(76.7%). Only 15.4 percent of the U.S. community sample was black.
•
Females scored lower on the Education/Employment and Alcohol/Drug
Problem domains than did females in the U.S. community sample.
Overall LSI-R and LS/CMI Scores
The mean score across the LSI-R assessments was 28.4 (s.d.=9.33) and scores
ranged from 0 to 51. The standard deviation (s.d.) provides a measure of the
dispersion of the scores around the mean score: the larger the value of the
2
November 2012
standard deviation relative to the item mean, the more variable the scores are
around the mean. The mean converted LS/CMI score was 24.3 (s.d.=8.31) and
scores ranged from 0 to 42. Distributions of LSI-R and converted LS/CMI scores
are presented in Figure 1 and 2, respectively. The red line represents the normal
curve and shows that both distributions are somewhat negatively skewed, i.e.,
scores tend to be higher than expected under a normal distribution. The
distribution of LS/CMI scores for the U.S. community normative sample was
similarly skewed and the overall mean converted LS/CMI score was almost
identical to that reported for the U.S. community normative sample (24.4).
Figure 1. Distribution of LSI-R scores (n=10,126).
Figure 2. Distribution of converted LS/CMI scores (n=10,126).
LSI-R to LS/CMI Conversion
3
November 2012
Gender Differences
Females in the Hennepin normative sample scored significantly lower (t=9.02,
df=1687.86, p<.001) on average on the converted LS/CMI (mean=22.3) than did
males (mean=24.8). The observed discrepancy between male and female mean
scores on the LS/CMI was greater than that reported for the U.S. normative
community sample, whereas the mean for females was 23.5 and that for males
24.8. This suggests that Hennepin female offenders are scoring at lower risk
levels than females from the U.S. normative sample.
Race Differences
Black and
American Indian
offenders scored
higher risk based
on the LS/CMI
than did white
and Asian
offenders
There were significant differences in converted LS/CMI scores by race
(F=160.48, df=4, p<.001). Mean scores for American Indian offenders were
higher (29.0) than mean scores for black (26.0), white (21.9), and Asian (20.2)
offenders. Given that black and American Indian offenders scored higher on the
LS/CMI than did white or Asian offenders, it is important to determine whether
these differences in LS/CMI scores are associated with higher levels of actual
risk as measured by subsequent recidivistic behavior. If higher LS/CMI risk
scores for black and American Indian offenders are associated with higher
recidivism rates than white and Asian offends, the LS/CMI is performing as it
should. If there is no corresponding difference in recidivism rates based on race,
it might indicate some racial bias in how the LS/CMI is being applied. No
comparison data by race was available from the U.S. normative community
sample.
Domain Scores
The LSI-R consists of 10 domains. The domains for the LS/CMI were
reconfigured and reduced to eight. The Criminal History domain for the LS/CMI
also takes into account juvenile criminal history. Because the conversion of LSILSI-R to LS/CMI Conversion
4
November 2012
R scores to LS/CMI scores did not include juvenile criminal history, observed
scores on the Criminal History domain will underestimate Criminal History scores
on the actual LS/CMI. The LS/CMI includes a new domain Antisocial Pattern,
which integrates items formerly associated with several domains on the LSI-R.
Tables 1 and 2 present the domain scores for the LSI-R and LS/CMI,
respectively. Because the Criminal History domain on the LS/CMI has two fewer
items, it is expected that the scores on this domain will be slightly lower than
those on the LSI-R.
Table 1. LSI-R Domain Means and Standard Deviations (n=7,539)
Domain (# of items)
Mean
S.D.
Criminal History (10)
5.3
2.31
Education/Employment (10)
5.7
2.82
Financial (2)
1.4
.69
Family/Marital (4)
2.0
1.24
Accommodation (3)
1.2
1.09
Leisure/Recreation (2)
1.5
.78
Companions (5)
2.5
1.41
Alcohol/Drug Problem (9)
4.3
2.78
Emotional/Personal (5)
2.6
1.40
Attitudes/Orientation (4)
1.8
1.45
Table 2. LS/CMI Domain Means and Standard Deviations by Gender
Domain (# of items)
Overall (n=7,539)
Male (n=6,286)
Mean
Mean
S.D.
S.D.
Female (n=1,253)
Mean
S.D.
Criminal History (8)
4.5
2.08
4.6
2.02
3.7
2.22
Education/Employment (9)
5.5
2.46
5.5
2.46
5.2
2.49
Family/Marital (4)
2.0
1.24
2.0
1.23
2.3
1.25
Leisure/Recreation (2)
1.5
.78
1.5
.77
1.4
.82
Companions (4)
2.5
1.40
2.5
1.38
2.4
1.46
Alcohol/Drug Problem (8)
4.2
2.65
4.3
2.60
3.8
2.85
Procriminal Attitude/Orientation (4)
1.8
1.45
1.9
1.46
1.4
1.33
Antisocial Pattern (4)
2.4
1.21
2.4
1.20
2.2
1.22
Gender Differences
Females scored
lower risk on the
LSI-R to LS/CMI Conversion
Education/Employment and
Alcohol/Drug
There were significant differences between male and female offenders on all
eight domains of the LS/CMI. Females in the Hennepin normative sample
scored significantly higher (t=7.70, df=1763.92, p<.001) on average on the
Family/Marital domain (mean=2.3) than did males (mean=2.0). Males scored
5
November 2012
significantly higher (p<.001) on the other seven domains than did females in the
Hennepin normative sample. The observed discrepancy between male and
female mean scores on the Alcohol/Drug Problem domain was greater than that
reported for the U.S. normative community sample, where the mean for males
was 4.4 and that for females 4.2. Females in the Hennepin normative sample
scored much lower (mean=3.8) on average than did females in the U.S.
normative community sample (mean=4.2). The observed discrepancy on the
Education/Employment domain between male (mean=5.5) and female
(mean=5.2) offenders in the Hennepin normative sample is inverse to and
greater than that reported for the U.S. normative community sample (means=5.3
and 5.4, for males and females, respectively).
Race Differences
There were significant differences in LS/CMI domain scores by race. Generally,
domain means for American Indian offenders were higher than those for other
racial groups (see Table 3). Black offenders scored higher on average on the
Procriminal Attitude/Orientation domain than other racial groups. No comparison
data by race was available from the U.S. normative community sample.
Table 3. LS/CMI Domain Means and Standard Deviations by Race
Race
American Indian (n=342)
Asian (n=149)
Black (n=4,069)
White (n=2,823)
Unknown (n=156)
Mean
S.D.
Mean
S.D.
Mean
S.D.
Mean
S.D.
Mean
S.D.
CH
5.0
1.85
3.4
2.41
4.8
1.95
4.1
2.15
3.2
2.20
E/E
6.5
2.09
4.9
2.78
6.1
2.21
4.5
2.50
4.6
2.42
F/M
2.6
1.13
1.5
1.26
2.1
1.22
1.9
1.24
1.7
1.22
L/R
1.6
.66
1.5
.76
1.6
.71
1.3
.84
1.4
.84
CO
2.9
1.29
2.1
1.45
2.7
1.30
2.2
1.44
1.96
1.44
A/DP
5.6
2.02
3.3
2.83
4.0
2.63
4.4
2.64
3.5
2.80
PCA
1.9
1.44
1.5
1.41
2.0
1.44
1.4
1.40
1.4
1.41
ASP
2.8
1.09
2.1
1.24
2.6
1.17
2.1
1.19
2.0
1.16
CH=Criminal History, E/E=Education/Employment, F/M=Family/Marital, L/R=Leisure/Recreation, CO=Companions,
A/DP=Alcohol/Drug Problem, PCA=Procriminal Attitude/Orientation, ASP=Antisocial Pattern
Relationship between LSI-R and LS/CMI
LSI-R total scores are highly related to converted total scores on the LS/CMI.
(r=.97). This is identical to the correlation observed for the U.S. normative
community sample. Appendix A displays the correlation matrix of LSI-R and
LS/CMI domains. Risk using the LSI-R is assigned under current policy as
follows:
Risk Level
Low Risk
Moderate Risk
High Risk
LSI-R to LS/CMI Conversion
6
Total LSI-R Score
0 - 17
18 - 23
24 - 53
November 2012
Based on this policy, 71.6 percent or 5,400 of the offenders in the Hennepin
normative sample are classified as high risk (see Table 4). Low risk offenders
comprise 13.8 percent (n=1,042) and moderate risk offenders 14.6 percent
(n=1,097) of the normative sample. When the current cut points are used to
assign risk, mean LS/CMI scores for low, moderate, and high risk are 10.1, 17.6,
and 28.5, respectively. Appendix B displays the LS/CMI percentiles for male,
female and overall normative Hennepin sample.
Table 4. Risk Levels and Mean LS/CMI Scores based on the LSI-R
LSI-R Risk Level
High
Moderate
Low
% Hennepin
Normative Sample
71.6
14.6
13.8
Mean LS/CMI
Score
28.5
17.6
10.1
Determination of Equivalent Cut Points for LS/CMI
In order to determine LS/CMI cut points equivalent to those currently used for the
LSI-R, distributions of LS/CMI total scores by risk levels based on the LSI-R were
computed (see Appendix B). A statistical technique described by G.W. England
for determination of optimal cut points based on maximal differentiation between
risk groups was used to set new cut points for the LS/CMI. 2 Using this
technique, it was determined that a cut point of 13 maximally differentiated
between low and moderate risk and a cut point of 20 maximally differentiated
between moderate and high risk. Based on this analysis the following policy for
assigning risk levels is proposed:
Risk Level
Low Risk
Moderate Risk
High Risk
Total Score
0 - 13
14 - 20
21 - 43
Application of these cut points, results into 69.6 percent or 5,246 offenders in the
Hennepin normative sample being classified as high risk (see Table 5). 912
offenders or 12.1 percent of are classified as low risk and 1,381 offenders (18.3
percent) as moderate risk.
Table 5. Risk Levels and Mean LS/CMI Scores based on the LS/CMI Cut
Points
LS/CMI Risk Level
High
Moderate
Low
2
% Hennepin
Normative Sample
69.6
18.3
12.1
Mean LS/CMI
Score
28.8
17.4
9.2
For more a detailed explanation of the method, see England, G.W. (1971). Pp. 35-39.
LSI-R to LS/CMI Conversion
7
November 2012
Table 6 shows a comparison of risk levels based on the LS/CMI for various
agencies. MHS recommends the following risk levels: Very Low (0-4), Low (510), Moderate (11-19), High (20-29) and Very High (30-43). The Minnesota
Department of Corrections and Ramsey County have adopted the same policy
for assigning risk until further research can be completed. Washington County
has proposed yet a different method for assigning risk. The proposed Hennepin
cut points, based on norming the tool to our population, most closely aligns with
the MHS recommendations.
Table 6. Assigned LS/CMI Risk Levels for Various Agencies
LS/CMI Score
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43
MHS Recommendations
Proposed Hennepin County
DOC
Ramsey County
Washington County
Very Low Risk, Low Risk, Moderate Risk, High Risk, Very High Risk
Table 7 shows the relationship between risk levels assigned by the LSI-R policy
and the proposed policy for the LS/CMI. Application of the proposed cut points
results in fewer overall offenders (n=154 or 2.9% decrease) being classified as
high risk and 130 fewer offenders overall (12.5%) being classified as low risk.
There is an increase by 25.9 percent (n=284) in offenders classified as moderate
risk.
Table 7. Distribution of Offenders by Risk Level based on LSI-R and
LS/CMI Cut Points
Proposed cutoffs
for the LS/CMI
result in a 2.9%
decrease in
offenders
classified as high
risk
Proposed LS/CMI Cut Points
Low Risk
(0-13)
LSI-R Cut Points
Low Risk (0-17)
Moderate Risk (18-23)
High Risk (24-53)
Total
Moderate Risk
(14-20)
High Risk
(21-43)
853
189
0
1,042
59
881
157
1,097
0
311
5,089
5,400
912
1,381
5,246
7,539
Total
Preliminary Validation Results
There are several different ways to assess the validity of an assessment tool for
predicting recidivism. The DOCCR Automated Recidivism Query was used to
get a preliminary estimate of 1-year, 2-year and 3-year recidivism for the
Hennepin normative sample. Ideally, the full normative sample (n=7,539) should
have had enough time to obtain 3-year recidivism estimates; however, that data
was not available for all assessments. Recidivism is defined as a new conviction
for a misdemeanor offense or above in the State of Minnesota.
LSI-R to LS/CMI Conversion
8
November 2012
Table 8 provides a summary of the overall validity coefficients for the 1-, 2-, and
3-year recidivism for both the LSI-R and the converted LS/CMI. The results are
quite similar for the two assessments. The estimates are under estimates of the
actual expected validity, because the 3-year estimates are based on only 1,413
offenders. These results provide evidence for the validity of the LS/CMI for
predicting recidivism. These values are comparable to published validities.
Table 8. Preliminary 1-, 2-, and 3-Year Validity Coefficients (r) for the LSI-R
and Converted LS/CMI
Assessment Tool
LSI-R
Converted LS/CMI
1-Year
(n=5,299)
.166
.171
2-Year
(n=3,280)
.206
.209
3-Year
(n=1,413)
.224
.232
A second approach to evaluating the effectiveness of an assessment tool for
predicting recidivism is to compare recidivism levels associated with low to high
risk offenders. The observed 1-, 2-, and 3-year recidivism rates by risk levels
assigned using the proposed cut points for the LSI-R and LS/CMI are shown in
Table 9 and 10, respectively.
Table 9. 1-, 2-, and 3-Year Recidivism Rates for the LSI-R Risk Levels
1-Year
(n=5,299)
6.3%
14.6%
23.5%
LSI-R Risk Level
Low Risk (0 – 17)
Moderate Risk (18 - 23)
High Risk (24 - 53)
2-Year
(n=3,280)
12.2%
22.2%
34.3%
3-Year
(n=1,413)
18.6%
28.9%
41.4%
Table 10. 1-, 2-, and 3-Year Recidivism Rates for the converted LS/CMI Risk
Levels
42.2% of high
risk offenders
recidivate within
3 years
1-Year
(n=5,299)
5.7%
13.9%
23.9%
LS/CMI Risk Level
Low Risk (0 – 13)
Moderate Risk (14 – 20)
High Risk (21 – 43)
2-Year
(n=3,280)
10.2%
22.4%
34.7%
3-Year
(n=1,413)
16.7%
27.5%
42.2%
The recidivism rates associated with High Risk based on the LSI-R and LS/CMI
are quite similar. Almost 24 percent of offenders classified as high risk in the
Hennepin normative sample recidivated within one year after their initial
assessment date. The 3-year recidivism rate for high risk offenders was 42
percent. The LS/CMI appears to provide better differentiation in recidivism rates
than the LSI-R based on levels of risk. The observed recidivism rates for the
LS/CMI are consistent with the risk categories based on the proposed cut points.
This data lends further support to the validity of the LS/CMI for predicting overall
recidivism.
A ROC (Receiving Operating Curve) analysis was also performed to further
assess the relationship between the LS/CMI and 3-year recidivism. ROC
analysis provides a means for evaluating how well scores on the converted
LS/CMI predict 3-year recidivism. Basically this analysis looks at how well high
LSI-R to LS/CMI Conversion
9
November 2012
scores on the LS/CMI correspond to re-offense within three years of initial
assessment (True Positive Rate or Sensitivity), while minimizing the errors
where high scores on the LS/CMI correspond to no re-offense within three years
(False Positive Rate or ‘1 – Specificity’).
Figure 3 displays the ROC Curve for the converted LS/CMI. The green line
represents chance level or how well simply tossing a coin could predict a new
offense within three years. The blue line represents how well the LS/CMI does at
predicting a new offense within three years. The larger the gap between the
green and blue lines, the better the performance of the assessment tool.
A measure of the area under the blue curve (AUC) provides a quantitative means
for assessing how well the assessment performs overall. A perfect assessment
would have an AUC equal to 1. A coin toss would have an AUC of 0.5. The AUC
for the LS/CMI is .62, which represents a moderate level of performance. This
was nearly identical to that observed for the LSI-R.
Figure 3. ROC Analysis for LS/CMI Ability to Predict Risk to Re-offend
within 3-Years
AUC equals
.62
Gender Differences
Table 11 displays the 3-year recidivism rates for the LSI-R and converted LS/CMI
by gender. High risk male offenders as defined by both the LSI-R and the
LS/CMI recidivated within three years at significantly higher levels than did
female offenders. The sample sizes for moderate and low risk offenders were
insufficient for differentiating between male and female recidivism levels.
LSI-R to LS/CMI Conversion
10
November 2012
Females scored at lower levels of risk based on both the LSI-R and the LS/CMI
than did males. The observed 3-year recidivism rates supported the differences
in risk levels by gender.
High risk male
offenders (43.6%)
recidivated within
3 years at higher
rates than did high
risk female
offenders (32.5%)
Table 11. 3-Year Recidivism Rates for the LSI-R and Converted LS/CMI
Risk Levels by Gender
Risk Level
Low Risk
Moderate Risk
High Risk
Female
(n=229)
9.5%
20.9%
30.1%
LSI-R
Male
(n=1,184)
21.7%
31.0%
43.0%
Female
Sig. (n=229)
ns
10.6%
ns
16.3%
<.01
32.5%
LS/CMI
Male
(n=1,184)
19.3%
30.0%
43.6%
Sig.
ns
ns
<.05
Race Differences
Table 12 displays the 3-year recidivism rates for the LSI-R and converted LS/CMI
for black and white offenders; the numbers of Asian and American Indian
offenders were too low to evaluate recidivism rates for these offenders. High risk
black offenders as defined by both the LSI-R and the LS/CMI recidivated within
three years at significantly higher levels than did white offenders. Moderate risk
levels based on the proposed cut points for the LS/CMI also supported
differences in 3-year recidivism rates for black and white offenders. The sample
sizes for moderate risk based on the LSI-R and for low risk offenders were
insufficient for differentiating between black and white recidivism levels. White
offenders scored at lower levels of risk based on both the LSI-R and the LS/CMI
than did black offenders. The observed 3-year recidivism rates supported the
differences in risk levels between black and white offenders.
High risk black
offenders (48.5%)
recidivated within 3
years at higher
rates than did high
risk white
offenders (28.4%)
Table 12. 3-Year Recidivism Rates for the LSI-R and Converted LS/CMI
Risk Levels by Black and White Offenders
Risk Level
Low Risk
Moderate Risk
High Risk
LSI-R
Black
White
Black
(n=776)
(n=541)
Sig. (n=776)
25.0%
15.3%
ns
22.1%
33.3%
23.4%
ns
36.9%
48.7%
26.1% <.001
48.5%
LS/CMI
White
(n=541)
13.6%
18.5%
28.4%
Sig.
ns
.001
<.001
Recommendations
Based on the analysis presented in this report, transition to the LS/CMI from the
LSI-R will impact allocation of probation resources. It is recommended that
scores on the LS/CMI between 14 and 20 be classified as moderate risk and
those 21 and above as high risk. Use of these cut points will result in 26 percent
increase in the percent of offenders classified as moderate risk over that
observed with the LSI-R. Approximately 3 percent fewer offenders will be
assessed as high risk.
A preliminary look at the LS/CMI for predicting 1-, 2-, and 3-year recidivism levels
supports its validity and suggests that the LS/CMI is an improvement over the
LSI-R. Training and quality assurance plans for the use of the LS/CMI should
LSI-R to LS/CMI Conversion
11
November 2012
help to maximize incremental improvement obtained by the transition from the
LSI-R to the LS/CMI. It is strongly recommended that a baseline inter-rater
reliability study of the LS/CMI be completed after the LS/CMI is fully
implemented.
While 3-year recidivism rates by gender and for black and white offenders were
consistent with observed differences in risk levels on the LS/CMI based on
gender and race, it is recommended that further research study gender and race
differences in scoring on the LS/CMI. This research should focus on what, if any,
bias might exist in use of the LS/CMI.
Also, the LS/CMI should be normed and validated to confirm preliminary results
reported in this report.
References
Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J.L. (2001). Level of Service Inventory—Revised (LSI-R), User’s Manual. Toronto,
Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J.L., & Wormith, J.S. (2004). Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (LS/CMI):
An Offender Assessment System, User’s Manual. Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
England, G.W. (1971). Development and Use of Weighted Application Blanks. Minneapolis: Industrial
Relations Center, University of Minnesota. No. 55.
LSI-R to LS/CMI Conversion
12
November 2012
Jennifer Schuster-Jaeger, Area Director, Organizational Change Management
Julie Rud, Manager, Policy, Planning and Evaluation
Nancy Skilling, Principal Planning Analyst, Policy, Planning and Evaluation
Cite As: Skilling, N.J. (2012, November). “LSI-R to LS/CMI Conversion: Analysis of the Impact of Business Practices.” Hennepin
County Community Corrections and Rehabilitation: www.co.hennepin.mn.us
LSI-R to LS/CMI Conversion
13
November 2012
Appendix A—Correlation Matrix LSI-R by LS/CMI Domains
LSI-R Domains
LS/CMI Domains
CH
E/E
FI
F/M
AC
L/R
CO
A/D
E/P
A/O
Criminal History
.98
.29
.19
.19
.20
.12
.28
.28
.11
.24
Education/Employment
.33
.98
.41
.28
.36
.38
.39
.20
.16
.30
Family/Marital
.22
.27
.25
1.00
.34
.22
.27
.20
.23
.29
Leisure/Recreation
.14
.38
.20
.22
.24
1.00
.30
.17
.12
.33
Companions
.29
.37
.20
.27
.28
.30
.99
.27
.11
.29
Alcohol/Drug Problem
.28
.21
.15
.19
.22
.17
.27
.99
.26
.17
Procriminal Attitude/Orientation
.27
.30
.15
.29
.28
.33
.29
.17
.17 1.00
Antisocial Social Pattern
.42
.54
.30
.41
.39
.43
.45
.28
.41
.60
LSI-R Domains: CH=Criminal History, E/E=Education/Employment, FI=Financial, F/M=Family/Marital, AC=Accommodation,
L/R=Leisure/Recreation, CO=Companions, A/D=Alcohol/Drug, E/P=Emotional/Personal, A/O=Attitudes/Orientation
LSI-R to LS/CMI Conversion
14
November 2012
Appendix B—Percentile Ranks for LS/CMI
Based on Hennepin Normative Sample (n=7,539)
LS/CMI Score
43
42
41
40
39
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Overall
100.0
100.0
99.9
99.5
98.8
97.7
96.2
94.1
91.3
88.2
84.6
80.8
76.6
72.1
67.2
62.2
57.5
53.0
48.7
44.5
40.2
36.1
32.3
28.8
25.5
22.6
19.9
17.3
14.9
12.9
11.2
9.4
7.8
6.3
5.0
3.8
2.8
2.1
1.5
1.0
0.7
0.4
0.1
0.0
LSI-R to LS/CMI Conversion
Male
100.0
100.0
99.8
99.5
98.8
97.6
96.1
93.9
91.0
87.7
83.9
80.0
75.8
71.1
65.8
60.6
55.8
51.1
46.8
42.5
38.1
34.1
30.3
26.9
23.6
20.6
18.0
15.5
13.4
11.6
9.9
8.3
6.8
5.5
4.3
3.2
2.3
1.7
1.2
0.8
0.5
0.3
0.1
0.0
Female
100.0
100.0
99.8
99.5
99.0
98.1
96.9
95.2
92.8
90.6
88.1
84.4
80.6
77.3
74.1
70.5
66.4
62.4
58.4
54.4
50.8
46.6
42.1
38.5
35.4
32.7
29.8
26.3
22.7
19.7
17.4
15.1
12.7
10.5
8.7
7.0
5.2
4.0
2.9
1.9
1.4
0.7
0.2
0.1
15
November 2012
Appendix C—Cut Point Determination
Low Risk/Moderate/High Risk Based on LSI-R Cut Points
Risk
Level
Low
Risk
Moderate
Risk
High
Risk
LS/CMI Total
Score
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Cut Point 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Cut Point 20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Low
Risk
(0-17)
3
14
25
19
31
44
41
68
86
97
98
119
109
99
70
58
36
18
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
1042
LSI-R to LS/CMI Conversion
Moderate
Risk
(18-23)
High
Risk
(24-53)
1
5
10
43
56
114
143
171
136
159
102
85
42
24
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
22
47
94
141
199
252
298
314
318
330
351
362
381
363
319
303
282
251
220
198
124
103
64
33
17
7
0
1097
5400
Cumulative
Low Risk
3
17
42
61
92
136
177
245
331
428
526
645
754
853
923
981
1017
1035
1042
1042
1042
1042
1042
1042
1042
1042
1042
1042
1042
1042
1042
1042
1042
1042
1042
1042
1042
1042
1042
1042
1042
1042
1042
1042
16
Cumulative
Moderate
Risk
1
6
16
59
115
229
372
543
679
838
940
1025
1067
1091
1097
1097
1097
1097
1097
1097
1097
1097
1097
1097
1097
1097
1097
1097
1097
1097
1097
1097
1097
1097
Cumulative
High Risk
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
29
76
170
311
510
762
1060
1374
1692
2022
2373
2735
3116
3479
3798
4101
4383
4634
4854
5052
5176
5279
5343
5376
5393
5400
5400
LowModerate %
Difference
50.4%
61.4%
70.9%
76.5%
MAX = 78.1%
73.3%
63.7%
49.8%
38.1%
23.6%
14.3%
6.6%
2.7%
0.5%
0.0%
ModerateHigh %
Difference
33.8%
49.0%
60.5%
73.2%
79.9%
MAX = 84.0%
83.2%
79.8%
74.6%
68.7%
62.6%
56.1%
49.4%
42.3%
35.6%
29.7%
24.1%
18.8%
14.2%
10.1%
6.4%
4.1%
2.2%
1.1%
0.4%
0.1%
0.0%
November 2012