The Big Picture

The Wisconsin Risk Need Assessment Instrument, widely used since its development in the 1970s and 1980s, was intended to classify probation and parole offenders according to their risk and needs. However, recent findings suggest that this instrument has significant limitations, including poor predictive utility. Despite revisions in 2009 that proposed a new scoring system for the risk portion to improve its effectiveness, the instrument still lacks reliable predictive accuracy. This study aims to evaluate both the original and revised versions of the Wisconsin Risk Need Assessment using an independent sample of 194 male probationers in Texas.

What We Did

This study utilized data from 194 male probationers released in 2000 by a Texas probation department. The sample excluded female and DWI offenders due to the original instrument’s design and limitations. The research involved examining the predictive accuracy of the original Wisconsin Risk Need Assessment, as well as the revised version proposed in 2009, to assess their effectiveness in predicting recidivism over a five-year follow-up period.

1

Predictive Utility:

Both the original and revised versions of the Wisconsin Risk Need Assessment demonstrated minimal predictive accuracy. The original risk score correlated with recidivism at 0.25, while the revised score correlated slightly higher at 0.29. However, these correlations only explained about 8% of the variance in recidivism.

2

Classification Errors:

The original scoring system tended to overclassify offenders into high-risk categories, while the revised scoring system adjusted this distribution, reducing the high-risk classifications by 76% and increasing the low-risk classifications by 94%. However, the adjusted scoring did not significantly improve the instrument’s ability to predict recidivism.

3

Needs Assessment:

The needs portion of the instrument was not significantly related to recidivism, and adding needs items to the predictive model did not enhance the overall predictive validity of the assessment. Only a few needs items (employment, financial management, and drug problems) showed any significant relationship with recidivism, but they still accounted for very little variance.

The Wisconsin Risk Need Assessment is mandated in many jurisdictions, including Texas, and influences the allocation of resources for offender supervision and rehabilitation. However, the poor predictive accuracy and substantial classification errors suggest that the instrument may not be effectively guiding these critical decisions. This raises concerns about the equitable and efficient use of resources and the potential for both over- and under-supervision of offenders, which could impact public safety and rehabilitation outcomes.

1

Discontinue Use:

Given the consistent evidence of poor performance, it is recommended that probation and parole departments discontinue the use of the Wisconsin Risk Need Assessment and replace it with more empirically validated instruments.

2

Adopt Alternative Tools:

Instruments like the Level of Service Inventory–Revised (LSI-R) and the Inventory of Offender Risk, Needs, and Strengths (IORNS) have demonstrated stronger predictive validity and could serve as better alternatives for assessing offender risk and needs.

3

Continuous Validation:

Agencies should ensure that the risk assessment tools they use are regularly validated with their specific populations to maintain accuracy and effectiveness in predicting recidivism.

About the Study

This study critically evaluates the Wisconsin Risk Need Assessment Instrument and its revised version within a sample of Texas probationers, highlighting significant limitations in its ability to predict recidivism. The findings suggest that the instrument’s utility is inadequate for effective offender classification and supervision, calling for the adoption of more reliable and validated assessment tools. The full APA citation is: Henderson, H., & Miller, H. A. (2023). The (Twice) Failure of the Wisconsin Risk Need Assessment in a Sample of Probationers. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 24(2), 200-221.