The use of risk assessment instruments to measure the probability of individuals under community supervision re-offending is standard operational procedure (SOP) for probation and parole agencies across the country. Across the different generations of instruments that have been employed, the basic question still remains: Does this instrument provide the necessary data to formulate proper levels of offender supervision based on risk, and assist in calculating staff workload and deployment.

The Wisconsin Department of Corrections has recently completed a validation of the risk assessment instrument they use. The study was prepared by the Council of State Governments Justice Center. With a sample of over 42,000 offenders under community supervision (probation and parole) between 2001 and 2002, data were examined using the outcome measures of: "(a) a new offense within three years of placement on community supervision; and (b) new violent offense within three years of placement on community supervision." to define recidivism.

Among the findings:

• A high percentage of offenders were classified as high risk, which is counter to the goal of risk classification: to differentiate the population by risk and and allocate resources accordingly.
• The main reason for the over-classification was the weight given to the assaultive offense factor.
• Other factors, besides the weight given to the assaultive risk factor, may have also contributed to the over-classification issue.
• The probation and parole population differed significantly on the distribution of the population on most risk factors.
• Probationers and parolees classified at the same risk levels had different rates of re-offending with parolees having higher rates of re-offending for the same risk levels.
• The Wisconsin Risk instrument (DOC 502) differentiated populations into groups with different rates of committing a new assaultive offense. However, most of the offenders classified at high risk of committing a new offense did not commit a new assaultive offense during the follow-up period.

Included is a Summary of Recommendations by the authors to increase the effectiveness of this instrument. While this study is specific to Wisconsin, it has implications for every agency that uses assessment instruments for assigning risk and resource allocation.