Measuring Recidivism Among Mental Health Court Participants Using the Wisconsin Risk Need Assessment Tool

ABSTRACT

The majority of prior research on Mental Health Courts (MHCs) and recidivism has focused on the effects of clinical and criminogenic factors. Few studies have examined the efficacy of risk assessment tools in measuring recidivism among MHC participants. The current study examines the predictive validity of the Wisconsin Risk Need assessment tool, along with other intake factors, in measuring rearrest for a sample of 318 defendants referred to a MHC in Texas. Though risk scores were significantly correlated with rearrest, other factors, such as having been placed on probation for a felony and employment at intake had stronger effects in the model. Having been arrested for an assault-related offense was not associated with rearrest. The study’s results highlight the general ineffectiveness of the Wisconsin Risk Need tool with mental health populations and the importance of accounting for other risk and protective factors separately to gauge recidivism.

KEYWORDS:

• Mental health courts
• recidivism
• Wisconsin risk need
• community supervision

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1. The Texas Penal Code defines an assault if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another person; or intentionally or knowingly threatens another with imminent bodily injury or causes physical contact with another when the person knows or should reasonably believe that the other will regard the contact as offensive or provocative.

2. Defendants convicted of a felony offense were placed on felony probation.

3. Categories of risk and needs scores (low, moderate, and high) did not vary significantly for each group of participants. For risk categories, the percentage of MHC and MIC participants was distributed respectively: (low = 26.1; 23.2), (moderate = 44.4; 46.4), (high = 29.0; 30.4). For needs categories, the percentage of MHC and MIC participants was distributed respectively: (low = 3.8; 6.5), (moderate = 17.8; 26.8), (high = 78.3; 66.7).