Why is the RNR model important? The RNR modelhas not only contributed to the development of offender risk instruments that predict as well as the atheoretical, actuarial instruments but also provides information usefulfor offender treatment. Human behaviour is far too complex for our assessment instruments and treatment programs.
When was the RNR model developed?
First formalized in 1990 (Andrews, Bonta & Hoge), the RNR model has been elaborated upon and contextualized within a general personality and cognitive social learning theory of criminal conduct (Andrews & Bonta, 2006).
Is the RNR model useful for offender treatment?
The RNR model has not only contributed to the development of offender risk instruments that predict as well as the atheoretical, actuarial instruments but also provides information useful for offender treatment. We do not mean to paint a rosy picture where all offenders can be perfectly assessed and successfully treated.
What is the risk need and responsivity model (RNR)?
The Risk, Need and Responsivity (RNR) model (Andrews & Bonta, 2010) has been the prominent approach to the treatment of offenders in Canada, as well as other parts of the world (e.g., the U.K, New Zealand, and Australia) for three decades.
What does RNR stand for?
The Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) model is perhaps the most influential model for the assessment and treatment of offenders (Blanchette & Brown, 2006; Ward, Mesler & Yates, 2007).
What is the importance of using risk needs assessments in probation?
Probation and parole departments use risk assessment to set the level of supervision, including home confinement and electronic monitoring. Further, risk assessments are used by case managers and treatment providers to identify needs and link individuals to appropriate services as part of reentry and supervision plans.
Why is it important to consider responsivity?
Responsivity: Maximize the offender's ability to learn from a rehabilitative intervention by providing cognitive behavioural treatment and tailoring the intervention to the learning style, motivation, abilities and strengths of the offender.
What purpose does the risk needs responsivity model serve?
The risk-need-responsivity model is a model used in criminology to develop recommendations for how prisoners should be assessed based on the risk they present and what they need, and what kinds of environments they should be placed in to reduce recidivism.
What purpose does the risk needs responsivity model serve quizlet?
- A treatment correctional model that maintains that offenders and the community are better served if offenders' risks for reoffending and their needs (their deficiencies, such as lack of job skills) are addressed in a way that matches their developmental stage.
How effective is the RNR model?
Looking across studies, adherence to all three principles has been found to result in a 17 per cent positive difference in average recidivism between treated and non-treated offenders when delivered in residential/custodial settings, and a 35 per cent difference when delivered in community settings.
What is the focus of the integrated correctional program model?
The integrated nature of ICPM allows offenders to address all of their criminal behaviour under one program umbrella. This works because even if offenders have diverse patterns of offending and different criminal offences, the program focuses on: commonalities that lead to criminal behaviour. common interests.
How does the RNR model of criminal behavior address risk management?
Many researchers support the risk-need-responsivity (RNR) model, which states that the risk and needs of the incarcerated individual should determine the strategies appropriate for addressing the individual's criminogenic factors before and after release.
Is RNR evidence based?
This evidence-based practice is referred to as the Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) Model (Andrews and Bonta, 2010; Caudy et al., 2013).
Why use the risk and needs instrument?
The dynamic risk factors, also known as criminogenic needs, lay a blueprint for the development of a case plan that will reduce recidivism. In short, the primary reason to use a risk/needs tool is to help officers both identify which offenders need intensive intervention and what type of intervention is required.
What does restorative justice require?
The needs of victims for information, validation, vindication, restitution, testimony, safety and support are the starting points for justice. The safety of victims is an immediate priority.
What is the benefit of virtual visits to medical facilities for correctional inmates?
What is the benefit of virtual visits to medical facilities for correctional inmates? It alleviates public safety concerns with physically transporting inmates to medical facilities.
Which of the following does restorative justice emphasize?
Restorative justice is a theory of justice that emphasizes repairing the harm caused or revealed by criminal behaviour.
What are the three core RNR principles?
The three core RNR principles are as follows: risk is about whom to target, based upon an individual’s likelihood of reoffending. This is important because interventions should match the likelihood of reoffending – rehabilitative interventions should be offered to moderate and high-risk cases, with low-risk cases receiving minimal intervention. ...
What is the difference between criminogenic needs and responsivity?
need is about what should be done – identified criminogenic needs should be the focus of targeted interventions , rather than other needs which are not related to offending behaviour . responsivity is about how the work should be delivered , covering both general and specific responsivity.
Risk and Public Safety
Risk relates to the actual and perceived threats that offenders released from jail pose to the safety and property of potential victims in the community.
Section 2: Resources
Fretz, Ralph. 2006. What Makes A Correctional Treatment Program Effective: Do the Risk, Need, and Responsivity Principles (RNR) Make a Difference in Reducing Recidivism? This article describes the risk-needs-responsivity model, and the importance of generating a treatment environment.
Who developed the RNR model?
The Risk-Needs-Responsivity (RNR) model of corrections and rehabilitation was designed by Andrews, Honta, and Hoge in 1990. This model has demonstrated the strongest research-support on its ability to explain and treat criminal behavior.
How does matching treatment intensity to risk level affect offenders?
By matching treatment intensity to risk level, offenders receive treatment that will be most effective in meeting their therapy needs. Giving an offender the wrong intensity of treatment for their risk level, such as high intensity treatment to a low-risk individual, can have negative effects since a low-risk offender may already have protective ...
What is the RNR model?
The RNR model is not a theory of intervention in itself, rather the RNR perspective represents principles of effective correctional intervention ( Andrews & Bonta, 2010 ), within which a wide variety of therapeutic interventions can be used. Andrews and Bonta argue that a number of factors need to be considered in any comprehensive theory of criminal behavior, including biological/neurological issues, inheritance, temperament, and social and cultural factors, making note of the fact that criminal behavior is multi-factorial. From this general outline (which these authors label as the Psychology of Criminal Conduct), Andrews and Bonta have delineated three principles of effective corrections, termed Risk, Need and Responsivity. These principles have resulted in several decades of research that has revolutionized the practice of assessment and treatment of offender populations, and in which factors associated with RNR are clear, concise and empirically verifiable. We will return to the issue of empirical support when discussing the GLM.
What is Ward's model of desistance?
The most current version of Ward's model incorporates theory related to the GLM, desistence theory, and positive psychology, and has been presented by Laws and Ward (2011; Ward & Laws, 2010) as a Good Live-Desistance approach. This model is derived from an integration of Ward's Good Lives Model and research regarding desistance of offenders from crime (e.g., Maruna, 2001; Sampson & Laub, 2005 ). In brief, the research concerning desistance from offending indicates that the majority of men who become involved with criminal justice systems in their teens and early 20s do not continue to commit crime. Sampson and Laub make the argument that desistance is the norm and that only a minority of offenders continue to re-offend at a high rate across their lifespan. Ward and Laws argue that the same applies to sexual offenders. In their review of the literature, Ward and Laws (2010) identify 12 influences that contribute to the desistance of offenders: 1) aging, 2) marriage, 3) work and job stability, 4) military service, 5) juvenile detention, 6) prison, 7) education, 8) cognitive transformation (i.e., changes in how the person views himself), 9) the Pygmalion effect (i.e., the high expectations of others lead to greater self-belief), 10) “knifing off” (i.e., cutting off bonds with a criminal past), 11) spirituality, and 12) fear of serious assault or death. Ward and Laws (2010) list a 13 th factor, which is sickness and incapacitation, noting that a criminal lifestyle is associated with unhealthy and dangerous behaviors (e.g., smoking, substance use, violence) and that some criminals may desist simply because they are unable to continue with this lifestyle.
Is Inner Peace inversely related to RNR?
Similarly, the GLM Inner Peace primary good is inversely related to the RNR factors of Antisocial Attitudes and Antisocial Personality Pattern. On the surface at least, it appears that GLM Primary Human Goods are inverse restatements of the Big Eight risk factors, viewed from the lens of humanistic psychology.
Is GLM more effective than RNR?
Evidence that the GLM approach is more effective than the approach taken by RNR/RP is lacking, based on the empirical research reviewed above. For instance, the case study of Mr. C. does not support the claim that the GLM approach is more effective, or as effective as the case study appears to imply. While Mr. C. was not arrested for a serious offense in 14 months following release, he reported having assaulted at least one person (he “smashed” a man who was disrespectful toward his partner), and becoming involved in a fight with another. However, Whitehead et al. (2007) interpreted these incidents as relapses with which Mr. C. had successfully coped. Mr. C also attempted to attend university, but withdrew and had not yet re-enrolled. In contrast to the positive evaluation provided by Whitehead et al. (2007), a cynic might say that Mr. C. tried, but failed to attain prosocial goals and that he had in fact re-offended, at least with respect to violence. Further, as reported, the incidents suggest that the client still exhibited a number of significant cognitive distortions that may have not been adequately addressed in treatment.
Is GLM the same as RNR?
The GLM is increasingly viewed as an alternative to the RNR approach. However, a close inspection of the relevant research suggests that many of the assumptions associated with the GLM have already been incorporated into the model established by Andrews and Bonta (2010). Further, there is now a mature literature providing empirical support for RNR based approaches to rehabilitation. The approach advocated by Andrews and Bonta has resulted in reliable reductions in recidivism among offender populations as indicated in the numerous meta-analyses that have been published to date, indicating the efficacy of these approaches with groups of general offenders, sexual offenders, and female offenders. Further, although Ward and his colleagues have argued that the RNR model focuses on deficit reduction, in practice both the GLM and RNR based approaches help clients establish relevant skills to live in a more prosocial manner. One fundamental difference between the approaches, however, is that the RNR approach employs a cognitive-behavioral orientation whereas it is not clear what orientation the GLM approach advocates. When one reads Ward et al.'s writings regarding the GLM, one gets the impression that these authors may be advocating a more humanistic orientation to treatment. Although this approach may seem a pleasant counterpoint to some of the confrontational approaches that have sometimes been used with offender populations in the past, such approaches have nonetheless not been subjected to rigorous long-term evaluation studies. Further, from our perspective, cognitive-behavioral approaches to treatment (such as RNR and RP based techniques) need not be confrontational, or rigidly delivered. Issues associated with the therapeutic alliance and motivational interviewing should be considered central to all approaches to working with offenders (e.g., Miller & Rollnick, 2012, Marshall, Marshall, Serran & O’Brien, 2011 ).
Access Options
You can be signed in via any or all of the methods shown below at the same time.
Abstract
The advancement of evidence-based practices (EBP) and the Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) model suggests several key practices for probation agencies, including validated risk and needs assessments and appropriate treatment matching.
Risk Principle
The risk principle has two important components: (a) use of a reliable and validated risk assessment to predict criminal behavior and (b) appropriately matching level of service to the assessed level of risk.
Needs Principle
The needs principle suggests treatment programs should focus on criminogenic needs, or those factors directly relating to offending behavior that are amenable to change ( Andrews & Bonta, 2010 ).
Responsivity Principle
The responsivity principle provides guidance on how to provide treatment and is broken down into two components—general responsivity and specific responsivity.
Implementation Challenges
While research highlights the importance of implementing the principles of the RNR model, in practice, this is challenging. In probation agencies, EBPs often require changes in core ideologies from a focus on control and authority to more therapeutic and rehabilitative philosophies.
Background
This research was conducted in one mid-Atlantic state in which the Department of Corrections (DOC) and its county probation offices began implementing EBPs in 2006. The DOC used a gradual implementation process, in which individual offices received training incrementally, with all probation offices trained by 2010.