Wisconsin Risk Assessment Instrument

Community corrections agencies across the United States utilize risk assessment instruments to better predict the threat of reoffending (that is, recidivism) by probationers and parolees. The information gained from these risk assessments is used to categorize offenders based on their predicted probability of recidivism and hence to allocate resources more efficiently. One of the first risk assessment scales, known as the Wisconsin Risk Assessment Instrument (WRAI, also referred to as form DOC-502 by the Wisconsin Department of Corrections), was developed in the late 1970s as part of the Wisconsin Case Classification and Staff Deployment Project. The instrument was created using a three-step process. First, data relevant to offender risk of recidivism were gleaned from approximately 250 randomly chosen probationers and parolees. Second, experts provided feedback regarding additional variables that could be used to predict recidivism. Third, the instrument was validated with a new sample and risk categories with score cutoffs were determined.

The WRAI was first evaluated by Christopher Baird, Richard Heinz, and Brian Bemus in 1979 as part of the Wisconsin Case Classification and Staff Deployment project. This early evaluation indicated that classification of offenders based on the scores obtained from the WRAI resulted in more intensive levels of supervision for high-risk clients, which in turn decreased future convictions, revocations, and rules violations. Furthermore, the less intensive supervision received by those identified as low risk did not appear to result in undesirable outcomes (that is, higher recidivism rates). In short, the WRAI appeared to be a valid and reliable tool.

Based on these early findings, the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) declared the WRAI a “model approach” and advocated for its adoption in community corrections agencies nationwide. Many states followed this recommendation; results from a national survey conducted by Dana Jones Hubbard and her colleagues in 1999 indicated that roughly 27 percent of U.S. probation and parole agencies were utilizing the WRAI. Around this time, however, academic scholars began to raise questions about the use of a specific risk assessment instrument on populations for which it had not been designed. In 1984, Kevin Wright, Todd Clear, and Paul Dickson assessed the validity of the WRAI for probationers in New York City. Their evaluation revealed that several items of the WRAI did not adequately predict the threat of reoffending. Similar concerns were subsequently raised with the use of the WRAI for probationers in Hawaii and Texas.

At the request of the Wisconsin Department of Corrections, the Council of State Governments' Justice Center conducted a comprehensive validation of the WRAI on Wisconsin probationers in 2009. This evaluation revealed three main problems. First, a vast majority of the probationers and parolees were being categorized as high risk. This [Page 457]defied the objective of the assessment, which was to rank offenders based on their recidivism risk in order to assign more funds and caseworkers to those who posed the highest risk. Second, the evaluation revealed that probationers and parolees classified at the same risk level did not display the same rates of reoffending. For example, only 18 percent of probationers with no prior felony convictions reoffended within three years of release compared to 30 percent of parolees with no prior felony convictions. Third, researchers realized that the WRAI did not take into consideration that misdemeanor probationers had lower reoffending rates than felony probationers. Based on these findings, the research group recommended that new weightings be assigned for selected items in the instrument, some definitions of risk factors be revised, the assaultive history item be removed, and a new variable measuring the offender's age at placement on community supervision be added. Additionally, the researchers proposed that there be four risk levels of supervision and that probationers and parolees be considered separately when being assigned to these risk levels.

...