The risk need responsivity model of offender rehabilitation: Is there really a need for a paradigm shift?

Abstract

The current paper critically reviews the Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) and Good Lives Model (GLM) approaches to correctional treatment. Research, or the lack thereof, is discussed in terms of whether there is a need for a new model of offender rehabilitation. We argue that although there is a wealth of research in support of RNR approaches, there is presently very little available research demonstrating the efficacy of the GLM in terms of the impact that programs based on this model of rehabilitation have on observed rates of recidivism among offender populations. Additionally, the emphasis of the GLM approach on the principles and techniques of positive psychology is untested in the area of forensic psychology. Evidence with reference to the assessment and treatment of sexual offenders is discussed as this is a particular focus of the GLM approach. We conclude, in agreement with the developers of the GLM approach, that the RNR model needs to be adapted in order to incorporate recent research related to the factors associated with recidivism among sexual offenders. However, we argue that the GLM is largely an empirically untested model, and further offers little in terms of adding to or replacing the RNR model. We recognize that a revised version of the RNR based approach is necessary, incorporating an integrated approach to treatment, and we introduce and briefly describe the RNR-I (Integrated)), a model developed by the authors and supported by a variety of empirical research, including a number of outcome studies produced by our team and others.

Individual Community-Based Treatment of Offenders With Mental Illness

“…As noted above, there is limited evidence in favor of such programs. Other reviews (e.g., Looman & Abracen, 2013a) have essentially arrived at the same conclusion and have argued that approaches that integrate both forensic and mental health care are more likely to meet with success. Nonetheless, few models have been proposed that integrate these approaches into a comprehensive model of care, and none, to the best of our knowledge, have been demonstrated to significantly reduce rates of recidivism.…”

Forensic psychologists should use the behavioral experiment to facilitate cognitive change in clients who have offended

“…For example, problematic cognitions relating to self esteem (e.g., "I am disliked by other people", "I fail at everything I do") will influence an individual's ability to gain and maintain a satisfactory relationship (a criminogenic need; Andrews & Bonta, 2010;Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2005;Mann, Hanson, & Thornton, 2010) and also impede an individual's ability to engage in treatment through forming a cohesive bond with group members. A variety of cognitions can impact upon life quality and/ or responsivity to treatment including those relating to trauma (Clark, Tyler, Gannon, & Kingham, 2014;Gray et al, 2003;Latessa, Johnson, Listwan, & Koetzie, 2014;Looman & Abracen, 2013), mental illness (e.g., psychoses, anxiety disorders, clinical depression; Latessa et al, 2014;Looman & Abracen, 2013), shame and associated low self-esteem (Marshall et al, 2011;Marshall et al, 1999), motivation (Latessa et al, 2014;Yates, 2009), and mistrust of professionals (Gannon & Ward, 2014). Such issues may exacerbate criminogenic needs associated with offending behavior (e.g., self management, inappropriate sexual arousal, problems establishing intimacy, Andrews & Bonta, 2010;Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2005) and increase treatment BEHAVIORAL EXPERIMENT 8 drop out (see Table 1 for examples of cognitions falling into this area).…”

“…There is likely to be significant overlap between cognitions that block an individual's ability to lead a satisfying prosocial life and those that impact upon a client's ability to connect with and respond to treatment (Andrews & Bonta, 2010;Looman & Abracen, 2013;Ward & Gannon, 2006). For example, problematic cognitions relating to self esteem (e.g., "I am disliked by other people", "I fail at everything I do") will influence an individual's ability to gain and maintain a satisfactory relationship (a criminogenic need; Andrews & Bonta, 2010;Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2005;Mann, Hanson, & Thornton, 2010) and also impede an individual's ability to engage in treatment through forming a cohesive bond with group members.…”

The Dynamics of Service User Participation and Compliance in Community Justice Settings

“…; King ; McMurran and Ward , ). Although the article mentions some of the themes that polarise the models, by highlighting the commonalities that unify the models, this article deviates from the common trend of emphasising their differences (see, for example, Looman and Abracen ).…”

“…The aforementioned models of supervision also emphasise that service users are more likely to engage with services that are responsive to their personal attributes and capabilities, and also their social circumstances King 2014;Ward 2004, 2010). Although the article mentions some of the themes that polarise the models, by highlighting the commonalities that unify the models, this article deviates from the common trend of emphasising their differences (see, for example, Looman and Abracen 2013).…”