Table of Contents
Reducing recidivism and the implementation of the RNR model with correctional populations and juvenile offenders
The risk-needs-responsivity model also known as the RNR model is a leading form of an approach used in many countries, such as the UK, us and even Australia for assessing offenders. It is known to bring about immense benefits to both the correctional facilities as well as the offenders. It has led to a decrease in the rate of recidivism in correctional offenders and juveniles as well. Many correctional facilities, such as prisons and the communities have adopted this model to help change the behaviors of the offenders, with great results. Mainly, the treatment approaches of the RNR model relies on three crucial principles, which entail the risk, need and responsivity. Each of these principles shares different roles and objectives, which in the end aggregate to a fundamental goal of lowering the negative actions or behaviors of the offenders, such as abnormal sexual thoughts/behaviors, robbing, and murder. The risk principle focuses on arranging the offenders beginning with the highest crime risk to the lowest. The need principle entails a goal of change in a correctional system for a criminal offender. And in this regard, eight elements under need were developed to help to understand this principle of need. Finally, the responsivity is a process of addressing the criminal behavior, which is how to control their behavior for better behavior. It puts forward the processes that must be followed to achieve this objective – improved offender behavior. Therefore, the RNR model has been perceived to avert dangerous criminal activities, which entails rape or murder as well as general-level recidivism. However, the RNR model is marred by numerous challenges and criticism. There is a high likelihood of the model focusing more on addressing negative behavior, in particular, decreasing the criminal behaviors, such as robbery, violence or even abnormal sexual conduct. In this regard, the RNR model may be leaving out on the positive psychology, such as fostering motivation, self-esteem and normal sexual conduct. Furthermore, there is a need for further studies as well as improvements of the RNR model to integrate both contemporary approaches of assessing offenders and refocusing the model towards positive achievements to reduce recidivism with correctional populations and juvenile offenders.
The main objective of this paper is to present a study of what works in reducing recidivism and the implementation of the RNR model with correctional populations and juvenile offenders. Mainly, this paper begins by presenting an introduction to the topic. It also presents a review and a synthesis of the RNR model literature, which entails the three core principles of RNR model: Risks, Needs, and Responsivity. As well, it presents specific examples under each of the three core principles of the RNR model. This paper also presents a review and synthesis of literature on juvenile offenders. It entails what is known about the juvenile offenders, their specific risk factors, the application of the RNR model and special considerations. As well, this paper postulates potential limitations of the use of the RNR model in managing correctional populations and juvenile offenders. Finally, this paper presents a conclusion of the main findings, which entails the next important steps required in this field based on the review of the RNR model and ideally on account of reducing recidivism among juvenile offenders.
Review and synthesis of the RNR model literature
The RNR model is a set of principles or framework used in managing the correction process of offenders. According to Andrews and Dowden (2007), the RNR model is aimed at integrating a wide variety of correcting approaches in the process of correcting the offenders, for example, social factors, as well as cultural, including biological and issues related to the personality of the offender. In a nutshell, the RNR model focuses on assessing the criminal actions of the offender and seeks correctional involvement considering that the actions of offenders cannot be addressed on one factor alone. The original inventors of this model of correctional intervention, Andrews and Bonta (2010), presented it in three major principles to understand the criminal behaviors, which entail Risk, Need and Responsivity. The three principles are a result of detailed and systematic studies aimed at improving the quality of outcomes of the integration of the model in the criminal correction programs. Such efforts have led to a more refined and improved RNR model.
The risk principle represents a concept of addressing a criminal offender mainly or firstly from the category of their risk. Mainly, it entails assessing the criminal offenders based on the one clustered as a high-risk offender before putting into play any other factor of correction (Looman & Abracen, 2013). The risk approach helps develop a clear understanding of the possibility of an individual to engage in a criminal act. In this regard, some individuals are in a high-risk category to carry out a criminal offense. Therefore, they need to be grouped separately. It is possible to avert many crimes by focusing on high-risk offenders rather than the low-risk offenders. Devon and Polaschek (2012) claim that high-risk offenders are completely different criminal offenders and must always be separated from others keenly, for example, armed robbers, rapists, murderers or pedophiles cannot be viewed as normal criminals, but people found guilty of the atrocious crimes in the land. As well, such a cluster of criminal offenders cannot be placed in an ordinary incarceration or prison setting. As well, in as much as they can be reintegrated back in the society, there is always a great need to provide a detailed supervision. According to Skeem, Steadman, and Manchak (2015), some of such criminals grouped as high-risk cannot be managed in a general prison facility or the society. Also, these offenders have a high likelihood of committing the same crime or even more, when released from prison to the society. Also, they are known or have a track record of repeating crimes even when supervised, which may mean a characteristic importance of removing them from the society. Some criminal systems refer to them as highly-dangerous criminals.
The need principle in the RNR model is a classic principle, which stands for the objectives of change for a criminal offender. Andrews and Bonta (2010) refer to the need as a “criminogenic” need that are features of the offenders and their situations or contexts that when altered lead to a significant transformation in recidivism (Looman & Abracen, 2013). The factor “need” is perceived as a real factor that represents the challenging conditions or correctional treatment requirements. In this regard, Andrews and Bonta came up with eight elements, also referred characteristically as the “Big Eight” for the progress management of criminal actions as described below:
- The background history of the criminal, which is associated with antisocial behaviors, mainly as seen in primary engagement in antisocial activities or environments.
- The antisocial character trait associated with impulse, curious, self-gratifying and violent or destructive actions and a complete disrespect for other people. Some of the risk factors linked to this element are the lack of self-control or complete weakness in controlling one’s action, thoughts or feelings, such as anger. A major objective of addressing this is by building on the mentioned skills.
- An antisocial thought process that entails mind-set or ways of thinking, norms, belief systems and a personal identity favorable to committing a crime.
- Having antisocial friends or allies and a considerable disconnection with pro-social allies where the quality of connection that links to the individual, for example, favorable or unfavorable to committing a crime, are completely essential.
- Challenging conditions of the individual’s home, such as a troubled marriage or parental relationship.
- Troubling conditions, such as challenges at school or workplace.
- Lack of positive spare time activities or few leisure activities for the individual.
- Drug or alcohol abuse.
Based on the above eight needs, the control of criminal behavior must be founded on an individual, interpersonal and social elements. Andrews and Bonta (2010) refer to this as a “criminogenic needs,” which must be addressed. A classic example can be in the case of an individual engaging in drug abuse, and exposure to a related social context that may lure them into crime. In this regard, there is need to lower the drug abuse while focusing on changing the quality of family control. However, Andrews and Bonta (2010) clarify that some criminogenic needs, such as the individual’s self-distress and self-esteem need not be addressed as they are considered tertiary elements and can only be tackled in the third core principles, which is the responsivity principle.
The responsivity principle is the third factor of the RNR model, which outlines how the management of the criminal behavior will be conducted. It entails creating the specific intervention program, with the sole of objective of achieving optimum success or results. Mainly, according to Taxman, Thanner and Weisburd (2016), the responsivity principle entails a detailed model of response to the risk and need principles of the criminal and deciding upon the approaches to correcting their behavioral actions. Such approaches aim at helping the offenders to learn and also change their habits. Some of the approaches entail employing cognitive and behavioral techniques, for example, teaching the offenders special skills and further supporting or fostering pro-social behaviors. According to Ward and Stewart (2003), the principle, responsivity entails the adoption of individual-specific measures in the design and methods of correcting their behaviors. A preferred method will always be the one that they respond to positively and satisfactorily. For example, in the case of prison settings where some inmates show competency than others, these group can be separated on account of correction and help build on their competency as they learn to change their behaviors. It explains some of the examples of courses or skills trained in the prison, such as carpentry. As well, another example of separation in managing the offender’s behavior is gender-based responsively. In particular, some offenders can be placed on complex and fast-paced learning programs as compared to their counterparts, who may need long-sessions or detailed and elaborated learning process. In this regard, it may be found that female offenders share different needs and risk factors, which may be as less rife as compared to their male counterparts. Therefore, the program may consider offering a different gender-sensitive approach for women as compared to the men.
The three principles of RNR are foundational in a correctional system. They provide the steps and framework for addressing the subject of correcting offenders. Mainly, they help address the challenges that correctional officers encounter in managing criminals. On the other hand, the principles help address specific criminal challenges, based on their risks and need level, which may be a sure way of generating better results at the end (Ward & Stewart, 2003). The RNR model brings about respect and dignity of the offenders even as they face their jail sentences. Also, it fosters a legitimacy of the services provided at the correctional settings, as well as the justice system in a bid to restore good behavior of the offenders. According to Andrews and Dowden (2007), the RNR is a classic example of a correctional model that helps boost the professionalism of the correctional officers, as they use a well-formulated approach with guided steps. It is backed up by evidence-based findings. The RNR model gives the correctional facilities an opportunity for resource development for better performance of the officers as well as great results in the offenders. As well, the RNR model fosters an improved management relationship with the correctional officers.
In as much as many researchers postulate increasing array of benefits from using the RNR model in the correctional facilities, many researchers pose immense drawbacks that cannot be overlooked. In fact, the criticism of the RNR model began since its development stage. For example, Laws and Ward (2011) puts forward several weaknesses of the RNR model, terming it a “risk-need model.” Laws and Ward (2011) claim that the RNR model dwells more on the risk, further viewing offenders as the disembodied holders of risk rather than simply instruments of risks. Their reasoning implies that focusing on only the “criminogenic needs” in a criminal case, as Andrews and Bonta (2010) puts it, leaves the offenders with major gaps ebbed in their lives. Laws and Ward (2011) claims that the RNR model leaves out crucial factors in dealing with offenders, which entail the value of comprehending the main human resources linked to the act of committing an offense. As well, there is a great need to ascertain that these resources are addressed socially and separately.
Further arguments reveal that the RNR model is based on negative outlooks, whereby the authors focus more on addressing and averting the negative attributes of an offender. According to Ward and Stewart (2003), the personal needs of a law offender are not met if only the correctional officers focus on using the RNR model, which relies on diminishing their negative personalities, behaviors, and feelings. In particular, the offenders are taken through programs that seek to destroy negative thoughts in their minds as well as get rid of abnormal sexual actions. On the contrary, according to Ward and Stewart (2003) and Laws and Ward (2011), the model needs to focus more on the positive sides of the offenders, such as boosting their strengths and skills. For example, rather than simply subverting the abnormal sexual behaviors, the model should focus on supporting positive sexual feelings. Ward and Stewart (2003) claim that the RNR model enthusiasts need to see the human beings as only subjects of risks, which lead to crime but not as risk-oriented people. As well, the Ward and Stewart (2003) propose need to give a chance for the offenders to take part in the decision-making of their course of correction rather than creating a model based on their risk and need and end up applying on them. In this view, giving the offenders a chance to change their behaviors helps reach long-term goals. The argument proposes that changing the behavior of the offender needs to be value-based, where the offenders are given a chance to correct issues, such as intimacy, stress, and motivation.
Skeem et al. (2015) in a literature review found out over 18 academic studies by the use of PubMed and PsychINFO, which tackled the reliability of the RNR model in the correctional facilities. Few of the studies obtained were used in the study. The study revealed a low literature finding, which shows a dire need for further research on the subject. As well, the study continued to show findings based on general risk assessment of the RNR model, rather than psychological/psychiatric assessment, which shows that the model needs further improvements.
Polaschek (2012) in an appraisal of the RNR model, found out that many people make misguided interpretations of the RNR model, as well as unrealistic translations, which bring about concerns of its reliability or authenticity in the correctional industry. However, Polaschek (2012) proposes efforts towards making improvements than simply throwing it under the rag. As well, Polaschek (2012) points out a deficiency in the research studies of the RNR model, as an underlying factor in the increasing misunderstanding of the validity of this model.
Taxman et al. (2016), in a study to establish the impact of drug abuse and re-arrest, in a randomly selected population of offenders, found that there were no major impacts of re-arrest or drug use in the offenders. However, there was a small effect on the high-risk offenders, who used drugs and had cases of re-arrest. Mainly, the study aimed at finding out the validity of the model to the target population. Even though the study cited instances of instrumentation errors and challenges collecting data, it proved that a lot of emphasis on the validity of the RNR model is based on theoretical understanding, which shows a dire need for more studies. Further studies on the RNR model will help boost its clear use in the target population and separate facts from fiction as well as biases.
Andrews, DBonta, and Wormith (2011) propose a need for creating new and updated models that act in support of the RNR model. Andrews et al. (2011) acknowledge that the RNR model has been used largely in the correctional facilities since its inception and approval. It has helped in carrying out offender assessment and treatment with positive results. As well, Andrews et al. (2011) submit that the RNR model is mainly a theoretical tool that has been used to understand the offender treatment process as well as literature. Andrews et al. (2011) share the same sentiments with Taxman et al. (2016), claiming that there is an urgent need of making improvements in the RNR model for better results in the offenders. As well, Andrews et al. (2011) agree with Ward and Stewart (2003) and Laws and Ward (2011) that there is a need for restructuring of the RNR model to focus more on the strengths of the offenders, than simply focusing on reducing the negative thoughts and feelings of the offenders.
Review and synthesis of literature on juvenile recidivism
The juvenile offenders are also termed as juvenile delinquency, entail young minors below the age of 18, who commit various “crimes,” termed as delinquent acts or break the law. Many junior offenses are characterized differently in different states. However, it is common to find minors between the ages of 10-17 being regarded as juvenile offenders. In this regard, when such individuals commit delinquent acts, they can be charged in a court of law for their actions (Greenwood & Welsh, 2012). They are often charged in juvenile courts. There are also possibilities of such individuals to be charged as adults, mainly when they commit crimes of high severity (FindLaw, 2017). For some time now, many youths are being arrested for committing crimes, despite their young age. Such individuals may be seen to repeat these delinquent acts, also termed as recidivism.
In such instances, there is a need for further programs to be put in place to address juvenile recidivism. For example, some young adults may begin to engage in illegal activities at a young age, such as selling or abusing drugs, or breaking into people’s property, including stealing from people. Others may engage in sexual misconduct, and in this regard, they may need to be charged in a juvenile court (Shader, 2001). As well, there are instances where some juvenile offenses can be perceived to be simply adolescent behavior, mainly because many adolescents tend to engage in non-violent delinquent acts only at adolescent, a stage that once they overcome, they stop the habits (Dowden & Andrews, 1999). However, it is likely that juvenile recidivism may develop even further or reinforce illegal or abnormal habits that may grow into their future lives.
When a juvenile commits a delinquent act, he or she is taken on adjudication and granted a disposition as well as a sentence. The delinquent acts are perceived differently from ordinary adult committed crimes (FindLaw, 2017). Mainly, a delinquent act would be categorized as a crime if an adult was responsible for it. In most cases, when children are tried in court as juveniles, their parents are requested to meet the court costs for the juvenile responsible, because they do not earn any formal form of income to meet such costs (FindLaw, 2017). Such responsibility leaves the parent aware of the delinquency of his or her child and expected to help reduce it in the future. As well, some actions may not fit to be termed as crimes, for example, truancy, where a child fails to go to school.
These days, there are many organizations that focus on addressing the problem of juvenile delinquency. Many of the programs aimed at guiding the minors to follow a better path, where they learn how to develop better behaviors, avoid risk factors as well as avert negative behaviors (Shader, 2001). Some organizations put up mentoring programs in the community, where parents can take their children to, to learn peer issues, adolescence and the challenges involved, including how to avoid getting into trouble (FindLaw, 2017). One example is the RNR model, which is focused on preventing bad behavior, identifying the risk factors and creating program paths for building on good behavior.
The juvenile offenders are exposed to many risk factors of delinquent acts and juvenile recidivism. Risk factors can be described as scientifically proven elements that bring about an underlying relationship with a given problem (Vincent, Paiva-Salisbury, Cook, Guy & Perrault, 2012). A clear understanding of the factors that may cause juvenile offense or delinquency acts is important as it helps develop the most applicable transformation program for the juvenile offender. Such examples of risk factors include personal, environmental, social and family factors (Shader, 2001).
- The personal factors – They entail the behavioral trend or features that may enhance the chances of committing a delinquent act, for example, violence, impulsiveness, or anxiety. Some of these factors are commonly associated with children with cognitive problems, as well as developmental problems, such as low IQ. Such children may end-up becoming truant.
- Environmental factors – They entails the immediate setting where the child lives and grows. Such settings always have a direct impact on their modes of behavior. There are many environmental elements that have been linked to delinquent behaviors, for example, poverty or extreme exposure to violence.
- Social factors – They entail the societal values, norms, and practices instilled in the child. When a child is born into a society that embraces crime, or drug abuse, there is a high likelihood of such children to show delinquent behaviors. As well, on the other hand, children brought up in a morally upright society, tend behaving well and staying clear of crimes or delinquency. A strong and upright society goes a long way to boosting the self-esteem of the child, including their moral confidence.
- Family factors – The family is a leading risk factor for the juveniles as this is the first round where the child learns all his or her behaviors. Mainly, the relationship between a child and the parents will have a clear-cut connection to the way he or she will behave. For example, families with the poor guidance of the child affect the behavior of the child negatively. Equally, when a child is raised by violent parents or those struggling with alcoholism, there is a high likelihood that these children will engage in delinquent behaviors. It shows that parents have a significant role to play in the life of a child, mainly to shape their positive behavior.
The RNR model is a crucial example of a tool that may be applied in managing the behavior of the juveniles. Mainly, the RNR model is broken down into the three core principles of managing the behavior of an offender: risk, need and responsivity (Ward & Stewart, 2003). These three factors help identify the risks that the juvenile offenders are exposed to and help arrange or organize them from the highest risk to the lowest. In this regard, it is possible to set aside juvenile offenders in groups of juveniles based on their risks for better management. For example, juveniles with extremely severe crimes can be taken through a series of learning while those in petty crimes, can be engaged in different community learning programs. As well, it helps set goals for the juvenile offenders in the form of the need principle, which entails knowing what to address and what will help develop the greatest level of change as well as the best approach to undertake. The juvenile offender can be taken through the responsivity principle, which entails determining the exact process that will be used to control their delinquent behaviors.
We can do it today.
There is an urgent need to develop programs and policies tailored to prevent juvenile delinquency as this will help reduce the rising cases of juvenile delinquency. Many cases are caused by lack of systems or programs aimed at addressing some of the adolescent challenges and risks that the children encounter (Greenwood & Welsh, 2012). Some of these challenges may be beyond the control of the children, and therefore, they should not be allowed to traverse these challenges, without the much-needed help. As well, it will help prevent the development of crimes in the future as a result of juvenile recidivism. Many cases of juvenile recidivism are perceived as instances where the child missed a crucial point in their life of learning about bad behavior, as well as how to foster good behavior.
When applying the RNR model in managing the juvenile offenders, it is imperative to put into consideration various factors. It is essential to note that laws and court systems have changed over time, with many states holding divergent procedures of addressing juvenile delinquency and recidivism. In such cases, there is a crucial need to develop programs aimed at addressing the child’s case based on the chosen line of punishment for delinquency (Lipsey, Howell, Kelly, Chapman & Carver, 2010). As well, as much as the main aim is to reduce recidivism in the correctional populations and juvenile offenders by the implementation of the RNR model, it is important to separate juveniles from adults when implementing the model.
It is difficult to make generalizations when addressing the problem of juvenile offenders, bearing in mind children may have various challenges, such as cognitive or developmental problems. Some children also have psychological or social problems that cannot be compared to adults (Schwalbe, Gearing, MacKenzie, Brewer & Ibrahim, 2012). In such cases, there is a need to integrate health approaches, including psychological and developmental knowledge to help ensure that juvenile offenders with cognitive or developmental problems are separated. It will help make an accurate assessment and recommend the necessary modes of therapy to help eradicate juvenile recidivism.
Engaging the children in the formulation of programs is essential as it helps learn more about them, including their feelings, thoughts, and understanding of issues at hand. Such children can be allowed to chose their most preferred change approach, which may help them transform faster or even for the long-term (Schwalbe et al., 2012). Some children are not comfortable engaging in activities, which may be perceived to be less entertaining or involving, such as activities dedicated to adult offenders. Juveniles will learn best in an action-packed set of programs that spur their minds and body, both physically and emotionally.
There is an urgent need of focusing more on their strengths, than their weaknesses. Children often have different levels of strengths, skills, and talents that they may wish to explore when given a chance. Based on the specific risk factor the child is exposed to, the correctional officer need to develop programs that boost their strengths against specific risk factors (Smith, Wolf, Cantillon, Thomas & Davidson, 2004), for example, giving a talented swimmer a chance to engage in swimming lessons as a means to distract him or her from thinking about their distraught or violent parents or family. Equally, more effort should be aimed at boosting the strengths of the juvenile offenders, which entails building their self-esteem, motivation, and confidence. Such efforts will go a long way to preventing them from engaging in delinquent acts again in the future.
Potential limitations
The RNR model is an important tool for managing correctional populations and juvenile offenders, which in the end, averting recidivism. In particular, the main aim of the RNR model is to facilitate change process in the correctional populations and juvenile offenders (Laws & Ward, 2011). When these groups are integrated into systems that allow them to learn new ways of behavior, as well as preventing future recurrence of abnormal behaviors, then the society achieves its set goal of creating a peaceful and habitable place to live. However, it is clear that to achieve this requires a lot of effort and knowledge.
It is clear from the studies conducted that the RNR model is limited in many ways, for example, on account of integrating decision-making in addressing correctional populations and juvenile offenders. As much as the RNR model aims at integrating the specific groups in distinctive clusters of their needs, leaving out their voice or say in the program is a sure way of encouraging recidivism in the future (Ward & Stewart, 2003). There is a high likelihood of many correctional populations and juvenile offenders repeating crimes or delinquent acts now or in the future. Integrating systems that advocate for specific offenders will help address their distinctive risk factors.
The RNR model advocates for the eradication of bad behaviors or delinquent acts in rather than focusing on strengthening the positive behaviors of correctional populations and juvenile offenders. According to Ward and Stewart (2003), RNR is risk-oriented, which means that it perceives human beings as the perpetrators of risks, in place of victims of risks. Such an approach shows a deliberate characterization of the correctional populations and juvenile offenders as bad people, even before seeking to assist them or learn about their challenges. There is a need for the RNR model to focus more on seeking to “purify” from inside out rather than the opposite. With this reasoning, it means putting into consideration their deep values and strengths and empowering them based on these parameters. Grouping the correctional populations and juvenile offenders based on risks they acquire in their lives, such as family violence or environmental factors is unfortunate as most of these people are victims of circumstances. If given a chance they will reflect a life similar to that of ordinary people.
The RNR model appears to lack evidence-based practice and application, such as findings or developments from studies and numerous clinical trials. It appears that many people end up misunderstanding the RNR model or merely adopting divergent views about its validity, which prove a possibility of loopholes in its applications in the modern-day world (Laws & Ward, 2011). Further research is needed, as the RNR model seems to be limited based on the scope and range of application, especially in juveniles.
There is a need to factor in the changes experienced these days, in the health and psychological industry as well as the technological world. Truthfully, these days, many efforts are based on technology, and therefore, any development aimed towards providing a modern-day solution should incline on the use of technology and modern resources. As well, such efforts will lead to the integration of other programs, including disciplines, such as psychology and health in the development and application of the RNR model. It will be even possible to address a wide scope of challenges or risk factors experienced by correctional populations and juvenile offenders, further averting recidivism (Hinton, Sims, Adams & West, 2007).
Conclusion
Overall, this research paper looked into the subject of reducing recidivism and the implementation of the RNR model with correctional populations and juvenile offenders. Mainly, it began by evaluating the RNR model, based on available information from the literature. Many arguments were developed from researchers based on the validity of the RNR model, as well as its application in changing offender’s behavioral patterns. Arguments seem to contradict, while others appear worth not overlooking based on ways of improving the RNR model now and in the future. Indeed from the study conducted and literature reviewed, it is clear that the RNR model is an invaluable tool in the management of offenders, specifically, correctional populations and juvenile offenders. However, there is an urgent need to adopt the following next steps in this field for a better management of offenders, both correctional populations, and juvenile offenders. First, there is a need for further research to be conducted to fill the gaps in the applicability and validity of the RNR model. A lot of studies and trials need to be carried out to help clear the air on the effectiveness of this model in eradicating instances of recidivism. Another step should focus on addressing the approach the model must take in dealing with offenders, such as eradicating negative behaviors in correctional facilities or boosting offender’s strengths and interests. As much as the legal systems aim at separating the court procedures of juvenile offenders from adult offenders, it will be of high importance if the same would be applied in the RNR model. It will act as an approach aimed towards fostering specific needs of the offenders because generalizing them appears to be a leading reason for the rising cases of recidivism in the juveniles. Equally, another important step will be to improve the RNR model to factor in decision-making and involvement of the offender in choosing their most preferred change approaches or models. It will be an ideal way of ensuring that instances of recidivism are eradicated in the correctional populations as people tend to enjoy taking part in activities that satisfy their needs sufficiently. Ultimately, opening avenues for other professions and disciplines in the application of the RNR model is a sure way of reaching the peak of the assessing offenders. It will help develop an advanced set of parameters for analyzing an offender’s case, leading to correct judgments, supervision, and management. It will help create approaches that will increase the chances of transforming offenders to normal people, with highly reduced chances of recidivism.
- Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2010). The psychology of criminal conduct (5th ed.). New Providence, NJ: LexisNexis Matthew Bender.
- Andrews, D. A., & Dowden, C. (2007). The risk-need-responsivity model of assessment and human service in prevention and corrections: Crime-prevention jurisprudence. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 49(4), 439-464.
- Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Wormith, J. S. (2011). The Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) Model: Does Adding the Good Lives Model Contribute to Effective Crime Prevention?. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38, 7, 735-755.
- Devon L. L. Polaschek. (2012). An appraisal of the risk–need–responsivity (RNR) model of offender rehabilitation and its application in correctional treatment. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 17, 1–17.
- Dowden, C., & Andrews, D. A. (1999, May). What works in young offender treatment: A meta-analysis. In Forum on Corrections Research, 11, 21-24.
- FindLaw (2017). Juvenile Delinquents.
- Greenwood, P. W., & Welsh, B. C. (2012). Promoting Evidence‐Based Practice in Delinquency Prevention at the State Level. Criminology & Public Policy, 11(3), 493-513.
- Hinton, W., Sims, P., Adams, M., & West, C. (2007). Juvenile Justice. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 18(4), 466-483.
- Laws, D. R., & Ward, T. (2011). Desistance from sex offending: Alternatives to throwing away the key. New York: The Guilford Press.
- Lipsey, M. W., Howell, J. C., Kelly, M. R., Chapman, G., & Carver, D. (2010). Improving the effectiveness of juvenile justice programs. Washington, DC: Georgetown Center for Juvenile Justice Reform.
- Looman, J., & Abracen, J. (2013). The risk need responsivity model of offender rehabilitation: Is there really a need for a paradigm shift? International Journal of Behavioral Consultation and Therapy, 8(3-4), 30-36.
- Schwalbe, C. S., Gearing, R. E., MacKenzie, M. J., Brewer, K. B., & Ibrahim, R. (2012). A meta-analysis of experimental studies of diversion programs for juvenile offenders. Clinical psychology review, 32(1), 26-33.
- Shader, M. (2001). Risk factors for delinquency: An overview. Washington DC: US Department of Justice.
- Skeem, J. L., Steadman, H.J., & Manchak, S. M. (2015). Applicability of the Risk-Need-Responsivity Model to Persons With Mental Illness Involved in the Criminal Justice System. Psychiatr Serv, 66(9), 916-22.
- Smith, E. P., Wolf, A. M., Cantillon, D. M., Thomas, O., & Davidson, W. S. (2004). The Adolescent Diversion Project: 25 years of research on an ecological model of intervention. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community, 27(2), 29-47.
- Taxman, F. S., Thanner, M., & Weisburd, D. (2016). Risk, Need, and Responsivity (RNR): It All Depends. Crime & Delinquency, 52(1), 28-51.
- Vincent, G. M., Paiva-Salisbury, M. L., Cook, N. E., Guy, L. S., & Perrault, R. T. (2012). Impact of risk/needs assessment on juvenile probation officers’ decision making: Importance of implementation. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 18(4), 549.
- Ward, T., & Stewart, C. A. (2003). The treatment of sex offenders: Risk management and good lives. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 34, 353-360.