When asked if they used the LSI-R in drawing up supervision plans, these case managers downplayed the usefulness of the instrument.
Because so much of the information relevant to the LSI-R is already in the resident's Presentence Investigation Report (PSI), some of the case managers used the LSI-R interview as an opportunity to gauge the resident's honesty by comparing their responses to the information in the PSI.
The LSI-R was also seen as an aid to structure interviews with the residents and highlight important issues that might otherwise be overlooked.
The case managers were split regarding the usefulness of the LSI-R for measuring resident progress or changes between the entry and exit survey.
But some felt the exit LSI-R was not particularly suited for measuring progress.
The case managers identified several problems with the LSI-R.
A few of the case managers felt the LSI-R did not accurately identify those who would re-offend, which is to say they did not feel it could accurately assess risk.
Somewhat related to the concerns over accuracy, several of the case managers felt the LSI-R was biased against poorer residents, those from inner cities and minorities.
I think the LSI-R is racially or culturally biased.
Another problem mentioned by the case managers was that the information they collected with the LSI-R overlapped heavily with information already contained in other forms, especially the PSI.
Some case managers and administrators, however, felt the overlap of information was a strong point of the LSI-R.
In addition to these issues, several of the case managers felt the LSI-R was composed of too many historical items that would not change and that focused too much attention on the past rather than the present and future.