Modeling Repeat DUI Offender Probation Outcomes Using the Wisconsin Risk Need Assessment

• Date: 01 September 2021
• Author: Durant Frantzen
• DOI: 10.1177/0306624X20923255
• Published date: 01 September 2021
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X20923255

International Journal of

Offender Therapy and

Comparative Criminology

2021, Vol. 65(12) 1316 –1334

© The Author(s) 2020

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0306624X20923255

journals.sagepub.com/home/ijo

Article

Modeling Repeat DUI

Offender Probation

Outcomes Using the

Wisconsin Risk Need

Assessment

Durant Frantzen1

Abstract

This multiyear study of felony driving while intoxicated (DWI) probationers

explores the efficacy of the Wisconsin Risk Need Assessment tool along with

sociodemographic factors as measures of probation outcomes. To date, few

studies have explored the relationship between risk assessment data and technical

violations as well as subsequent arrests of individuals on probation. The sample

for this study consists of 596 chronic DWI offenders on community supervision in

one county who either had been rearrested for a new offense, violated a technical

condition of their probation, or committed no violations within the first 5 years

of community supervision. The findings are that older defendants and those who

had more dependents were more likely to have committed a technical violation

compared with the other two groups. Those rearrested for a new offense were

slightly younger compared with the other two groups, less likely to be employed

and younger at the age of first adjudication of guilt. This study highlights the limited

overall utility of the Wisconsin tool in determining probation outcomes and that

static factors may be as important as dynamic factors when developing a supervision

strategy for chronic DWI offenders.

Keywords

probation outcomes, Wisconsin Risk Need, DUI offender, recidivism, community

supervision

1Texas A&M University—San Antonio, TX, USA

Corresponding Author:

Durant Frantzen, Texas A&M University—San Antonio, San Antonio, TX 78224, USA.

Email: dfrantze@tamusa.edu

923255IJOXXX10.1177/0306624X20923255International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative CriminologyFrantzen

research-article2020

Frantzen 1317

Introduction

Drunk driving on our nation’s streets and highways continues to be a major social

concern. Although the number of alcohol-related fatalities remains high, rates have

decreased 7% since 2008 (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [NHTSA],

2018), and the number of arrests for driving while intoxicated (DWI) has also declined.

For instance, there were 806,369 DWI arrests in 2016 according to the FBI, a decrease

of approximately 28% from 2014 (Driving While Intoxicated: Federal Bureau of

Investigation, 2016). Numerous factors are likely to have contributed to this decline,

such as greater social awareness from media campaigns such as “Drive Sober or Get

Pulled Over” and “Drink-Drive-Go-To-Jail” (Buckley et al., 2016). Adding to the

effects of greater public awareness of intoxicated driving is the fact that treatment for

alcohol-dependent individuals has significantly improved with the expansion of evi-

dence-based interventions (Drake, 2011; Taxman & Belenko, 2012). As a result, com-

munity corrections agencies have integrated a range of treatment options with

court-ordered supervision programs to address chronic drunk driving (Miller et al.,

2015; Nochajski et al., 2013).

Although the incidence of arrests for drunk driving has declined in recent years,

the issue of chronic drunk driving continues to be a serious public safety concern to

the nation. To address chronic drunk driving, state legislatures have responded with

stiffer penalties for violators. Currently, 22 states make a third DWI conviction a

felony offense, and in another 19 states, a fourth conviction is a felony (Mothers

Against Drunk Driving [MADD], 2015). There are also time limits in some states

that require convictions to occur within a specific time frame (e.g., 5, 6, or 10 years).

Texas, like many other states, gives judges discretion to sentence a felony DWI

offender to prison or community supervision, the latter of which can extend up to 10

years (Lee & Teske, 2015). The extended period of supervision means that probation

departments must devote considerable resources to monitoring chronic DWI offend-

ers, provide them with treatment, and respond to violations and implement sanctions

when necessary. However, using rearrest as the sole measure of DWI probation suc-

cess is somewhat problematic, given that DWI offenders are much less likely to be

rearrested for a new offense than other drug users (National Drug Court Institute

[NDCI], 2004). As is the case with other probationers, those on community supervi-

sion for DWI often incur technical violations leading to other negative outcomes

such as revocation, jail time, or loss of employment (Wodahl et al., 2015). Data from

the Council of State Governments showed that 45% of state prison admissions are

the result of either a probation or parole violation, with technical violations account-

ing for 2.8 billion and new offense violations accounting for 6.5 billion annually

(Council for State Governments, 2019). As such, probation staff must be able to

identify the factors that have the greatest impact on both technical violations as well

as new arrests. Findings from this research will help identify appropriate supervision

strategies for repeat DWI offenders.

Prior research on chronic DWI has focused on the efficacy of treatment courts and

similar programs on recidivism (Mitchell et al., 2012). While this research has