Rnr Model Of Offender Rehabilitation

Offender rehabilitation has mainly revolved around the Risk-Needs-Responsivity (RNR) model which serves as a framework in guiding interventions towards offenders in the past. However, with the emergence of Good Lives Model (GLM) as an alternative model, competing views as to which works better start to arise. In order to discuss which model is better, there is first a need to compare between both approaches towards offender rehabilitation.
The principles revolving around RNR model include the risk, needs and responsivity principles. The risk principle matches the level of service and treatment to the offender’s risk to re-offend, whereas the need principle assesses criminogenic needs and target them in treatment. These include 1) History of

The perspective of criminal behaviour (Andrews & Bonta, 2006) fundamentally reflects a personality predisposition and the learning of criminal behaviour governed by the expectations an individual holds and the actual consequences to his or her behaviour. General personality functions as criminogenic needs (e.g., impulsivity) and responsivity factors (e.g., need for excitement). Cognitive aspects focus on self-regulation in shaping procriminal attitudes, whereas social learning discusses the learning influence within the proximal social circles. On the other hand, GLM is driven by the strength-based rehabilitation theory. Human are by nature, active, goal seeking beings who are consistently engaged in the process of constructing a sense of purpose and meaning in their lives (Ward & & Brown, 2004). Individuals seek each of these primary goods to some degree, therefore there is individual variability in the value or priority assign to the specific primary goods (Fortune, Willis & Ward, 2012). Moreover, this may manifest in a different way. Practical identities in which primary goods are operationalized comprised of secondary goods such that relatedness can be the form of lover or parent (Casey,

RNR model has vast amount of empirical support to its success. It has delivered reductions in reoffending of around 10-30% (Casey, 2013). Nonetheless, the available evidence is insufficient to conclude that RNR based correctional treatment programs are effective (e.g., Marques et al., 2005; Porporino, 2010; Rice and Harris, 2003). The fact that anywhere between 12% (e.g., Hanson et al., 2002) and greater than 50% (e.g., Prentky et al., 1997) of treated child molesters go on to reoffend (and as many as 46% of treated general offenders – Wilson et al., 2005) suggests that there remains considerable scope to address in offender rehabilitation. On the other hand, GLM has limited evidence base and has yet to be properly evaluated. In addition, the focus on attainment on primary goods rather than criminogenic needs could be a risky approach to reducing criminal behaviour because primary goods can be achieved via criminal needs. Perhaps, it is of caution to adopt a model such as RNR, which has shown successes despite gap in its