Content uploaded by Devon L L Polaschek
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Devon L L Polaschek on Dec 31, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
The RNR model of offender rehabilitation: An appraisal 1
An appraisal of the Risk-Need-Responsivity Model of Offender Rehabilitation and its
application in correctional treatment
Devon L. L. Polaschek1
1School of Psychology, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand
Requests for reprints should be addressed to Devon Polaschek, School of Psychology,
Victoria University of Wellington, P O Box 600, Wellington 6140, New Zealand. E-
mail: devon.polaschek@vuw.ac.nz
The RNR model of offender rehabilitation: An appraisal 2
Abstract
The science of effective offender rehabilitation remains a very young field: dominated
theoretically and empirically by the work of a small group of Canadian psychologists.
Their achievements include the “what works” research literature, and the RNR model
of offender rehabilitation. First disseminated in 1990, over the following 20 years, the
Risk Need and Responsivity Principles became the core of the theoretical framework
used in those correctional systems around the world that use science as a basis for
offender rehabilitation. This paper evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of RNR
model as a Level I rehabilitation framework. It proposes that unrealistic expectations,
and mistranslations of the model into practice are contributing to concerns about its
validity and utility, and stifling needed innovation in the development both of mid-
level treatment resources, and of RNR-adherent interventions. It concludes that
although the RNR model’s empirical validity and practical utility justify its place as
the dominant model, it is not the “last word” on offender rehabilitation; there is much
work still to be done.
The RNR model of offender rehabilitation: An appraisal 3
The scientific study of criminal justice interventions has a short history, from
which the first publications on"the RNR model of offender rehabilitation" emerged
little more than 20 years ago. Founded on three core principles of offender
classification—Risk, Need and Responsivity—today the RNR model remains the only
empirically validated guide for criminal justice interventions that aim to help
offenders to depart from that system.
Despite the progress made, the RNR model and its growing knowledge base
have had limited impact internationally on correctional responses to offenders. The
highly emotive and politicised nature of law and order issues in our communities can
leave little room for the influence of science. Instead, "truthiness"—judging the
validity of ideas by their subjective appeal, without reference to facts, logic or data
(Colbert, 2005) —may prevail. Even in nations that both commit criminal justice
resources to rehabilitation, and that have adopted the model as a matter of policy, the
scope and impact of potentially effective interventions is small compared to the
systemic resources dedicated to ineffective but truthy approaches, such as
increasingly severe and diverse forms of punishment and surveillance. This wider
punitive context often threatens to swamp the application of this knowledge, along
with the efforts of those offenders who strive to desist from crime, and those of the
rehabilitative programme workers who support them. Implementing knowledge
gains—applying what we have learned—despite the forces of "truthiness" is a
significant challenge.
Nevertheless, we know much more than we did about what can work, due in
large part to the concerted efforts of Canadian psychologists during the1980s and
1990s. Although their work started much earlier (Wormith, Gendreau, & Bonta, in
press), at that time they adopted the new technique of meta-analysis to create a
The RNR model of offender rehabilitation: An appraisal 4
turning point in the scientific understanding of how to reduce reoffending risk
(Andrews, Zinger, et al., 1990). Meta-analysis transcended the limitations of narrative
reviews, by empirically agglomerating superficially disparate programmes and
research methodologies, putting them on a common metric: the effect size. For the
first time it was possible to use large amounts of information systematically to
identify the "essential ingredients" in programmes that worked, and to suggest what
was wrong with the many that did not. The "what works" research literature had an
important role in the development of the RNR model, which was first published in
full form in 1994 (Andrews & Bonta, 1994).
However, effect sizes can only take us so far theoretically. Andrews and
colleagues theoretical ideas and original research were at least as important in shaping
the RNR model. Andrews began in the 1970s to translate promising crime theories
into effective correctional service practices (e.g., Andrews, 1980; 1982b).
Although Andrews and colleagues have published numerous papers on the
RNR model, its most detailed descriptions are contained in the five editions of their
graduate text, The Psychology of Criminal Conduct (Andrews & Bonta, 1994, 1998,
2003, 2006, 2010a). Its strengths as a theoretical framework for offender
rehabilitation are substantial; it distils a very large volume of etiological and
intervention-related information into a series of transparently simple principles for
application. Notwithstanding on-going development since 1994, areas of weakness
remain, but perhaps more troubling are some of the ways in which their work has
translated into practice.
Just as with etiological theories, the conceptual resources that inform effective
programme design vary in their abstractness and complexity, and different levels of
models are associated with different purposes and capacities. This paper describes the
The RNR model of offender rehabilitation: An appraisal 5
RNR model, then locates it within a tiered conceptual framework of intervention
model development, to guide an appraisal the strengths and weaknesses of the RNR
model: what it does well, and what it does not, and—in some cases—cannot do. The
paper aims to promote constructive discussion about future developments in the
research and practice of offender rehabilitation.
What is the RNR model?
The RNR model of rehabilitation is a theoretical framework that outlines both
the central causes of persistent criminal behaviour, and some broad principles for
reducing engagement in crime. The dissemination of the model began in 1990 with
just the 3 “core” principles: Risk, Need, and Responsivity (along with a 4th,
Professional Discretion; Andrews, Bonta, & Hoge, 1990). The full model includes not
just the list of principles for effective rehabilitation, later expanded to 18 (Andrews,
2001; Andrews, Bonta, & Wormith, 2011), but also the body of empirical, theoretical
and practical work on which they rest, known as General Personality and Cognitive
Social Learning (GPCSL1) perspective, and its more specific theory of the central
mechanisms of criminal conduct, the Personal, Interpersonal, and Community-
Reinforcement (PIC-R) perspective.
The model assumes that (a) intervening to help offenders reduce their
involvement in crime benefits them and the community around them, and (b) that the
only way to intervene effectively is through compassionate, collaborative, and
dignified human service intervention that targets change on factors that predict
criminal behaviour, (i.e., it is a risk reduction model). It also assumes that correctional
rehabilitation is usually resourced by, and accountable to government; although
1 In earlier accounts of the RNR model, the GPCSL is referred to instead as
the “general personality and social psychology approach” (GPSPA; e.g. Andrews and
Bonta, 1994).
The RNR model of offender rehabilitation: An appraisal 6
offenders have the same rights as others do to assistance with all aspects of their
functioning (e.g., psychological and physical health), correctional programmes do not
have a mandate to address those needs that do not lead to reduced involvement in
crime (Blanchette & Brown, 2006).
The risk principle has two parts. First, at any point in time, people differ from
each other in the likelihood of engaging in criminal behaviour, and that this likelihood
can be predicted from a wide range of factors, including current attributes and
previous criminal behaviour. Level of risk is important because, all other things being
equal, more crime can be prevented by targeting higher rather than lower risk
offenders for service. Therefore offenders' current risk level should be identified prior
to making intervention decisions (Andrews, Bonta, et al., 1990). Second, significant
reductions for higher risk cases require intensive intervention; brief or narrowly
focused programmes have little impact (Andrews & Bonta, 1994).
The need principle refers to the targets for change. Criminogenic needs are
dynamic attributes of offenders and their circumstances that, when changed, are
followed by changes in recidivism (Andrews, Bonta et al., 1990). Andrews and Bonta
use the term "need" in their characteristically pragmatic manner, to refer to
"problematic circumstances” (p. 21, 2010), or correctional treatment needs (Ogloff &
Davis, 2004).
Andrews and Bonta (1994, 1998) listed six and later eight broad "risk/need"
factors: divided into the "big four" (antisocial attitudes, antisocial associates,
antisocial temperament/personality, and a static factor: a history of diverse antisocial
behaviour) and the "moderate four": family/marital circumstances, social/work,
leisure/recreation, and substance abuse. Their presence and ordering is based on meta-
analytic results. To assist their translation into treatment targets, Andrews and Bonta
The RNR model of offender rehabilitation: An appraisal 7
listed "promising targets for change" (1994, p. 233); later these were aligned with
specific criminogenic needs encompassing both offenders themselves (e.g., reduce
drug use) and their social contexts (e.g., change the quality of family supervision).
The third core principle is responsivity, also described as the "how" of
intervention (Andrews and Bonta, 2010): designing and delivering services in ways
that engage offenders, help them to learn and change. General responsivity refers to
general techniques and processes: behavioural, and cognitive-behavioural techniques
such as. teaching skills, and reinforcing prosocial behaviour.
Specific responsivity refers to variations among offenders in the styles and
modes of service to which they respond. For example, women offenders may not
engage as well with a programme based on men's preferences and needs. Young,
physically active men may learn better from shorter, more interactive sessions. Poorly
motivated offenders may engage when they understand better how an intervention
serves their interests (Andrews and Bonta, 1994-2010).
The three core principles are accompanied by "overarching principles",
"additional clinical principles" and "organisational principles" (Andrews & Bonta,
2010a; Andrews, Bonta, & Wormith, 2011). Overarching principles include: (a)
respect for the person and the normative context, (b) basing the programme on
empirically validated psychological theory, and (c) the importance and legitimacy of
services that prevent crime, even when those services are located outside the criminal
justice system. Additional clinical principles state that programmes should target
multiple criminogenic needs (breadth), should assess strengths, both for risk
prediction and responsivity, use structured assessments of risk, and use professional
discretion occasionally on well-reasoned, and well-documented grounds.
Organisational principles recognise intervention contexts and needed resources. They
The RNR model of offender rehabilitation: An appraisal 8
state that community-based interventions are preferable, that staff practice both the
relationship and structuring principles with offenders, and that management must
provide, develop and support the staff and other resources needed (Andrews & Bonta,
2010a). None of these additional principles is new; they draw out and state explicitly
material that was present but less accessible in their earlier writing.
The principles derive both from empirical research and from their Personal,
Interpersonal and Community Reinforcement PIC-R) perspective. The PIC-R is
described as a specific theory derived from a "general personality and cognitive social
learning" (GPCSL) perspective to understanding criminal conduct (Andrews and
Bonta, 1994-2010a). The PIC-R began around 1982 (Andrews, 1982a), as an
ambitious attempt at theory knitting (Ward, Polaschek, & Beech, 2006), integrating
promising aspects of diverse sociological and psychological etiological theories and
research on crime, and distilling their contributions down to the level of the
individual. The primary source theory at the individual level is social learning theory;
crucial roles are accorded to cognition, and modelling and observational learning
(Andrews and Bonta, 1994-2010a).
Although the fifth edition of the Psychology of Criminal Conduct (Andrews
and Bonta, 2010a) is more than twice the length of the first (Andrews and Bonta,
1994) the foundations of the approach remain unchanged. Over successive editions,
Andrews and Bonta continued to elaborate, and contextualise their model, and to
evaluate its empirical accuracy, based on steady growth in relevant research. The
supporting material on each RNR principle, and the PIC-R is extended, incorporating
disparate theoretical and empirical advances in criminological psychology and other
relevant domains (e.g., clinical, neuro- social, and personality psychology).
The RNR model of offender rehabilitation: An appraisal 9
The other notable change over time is an increase in the clarity and
accessibility of presentation; language is less technical, there is more elaboration of
basic concepts, technical aspects of research findings are set beside the main text or in
appendices, rather than embedded, and the principles themselves are described in
more detail. The potential impact of such apparently superficial changes is substantial
for a framework that will be applied to real-world issues; promoting a more complete
understanding of the model. Some of these changes represent responses to critiques
that have encouraged the authors to pull aspects of the model more clearly into the
foreground. For example, the term "strengths" is now featured in the principles
themselves, more emphasis is given to resistance and motivation, and there are more
explicit statements on attention to non-criminogenic needs.
Contextualising the RNR model as a rehabilitation framework
Theories and models are developed to serve particular purposes. They vary on
dimensions that are unrelated to their content domain, such as detail, complexity and
abstractness. No theory—no matter how well crafted—can be all things to all people.
Theory evaluation should be conducted with reference to the intended type or level of
theory proposed, because different levels of theories inevitably tend to have particular
types of strengths and weaknesses.
Integrated and systematic theory-building in the criminal justice system—
especially intervention theory—remains neglected. Some years ago, Ward and
Hudson (1998) recognised a similar problem with etiological theories informing sex
offender treatment, and organised them into three tiers, differing in level of
abstraction and comprehensiveness. This proposed structure—known as the "meta-
theoretical framework"— when applied to correctional rehabilitation theories
The RNR model of offender rehabilitation: An appraisal 10
similarly enhances understanding of current theories and gaps, identifying high-
priority areas for future development (Polaschek, 2011).
This adapted "rehabilitation meta-theoretical framework" is also valuable here.
Locating the RNR model within the tiered framework provides clearer expectations
about how to judge its quality relative to the intended purpose and inherent strengths
and weaknesses of theories of that type.
In Ward and Hudson’s (1998) meta-theoretical framework, theories in the top
tier—Level I—are global and multi- factorial. They leave unspecified important
details about the inner workings of the phenomenon they seek to explain. Level II
theories instead deal with a single etiological factor; specifying mechanisms, and
describing how the factor interacts with other factors. Finally, Level III theories are
local theories of the offence process itself (Ward & Hudson).
In the proposed adaptation for intervention theories, Level I multifactorial
rehabilitation theories are also global and multi-factorial, necessarily broad in focus
and lacking sufficient detail to directly shape the design of specific interventions.
They are hybrids (Ward et al., 2007): informed partly by etiological theories, but also
incorporating the underlying values and assumptions of intervention, therapy
strategies, change processes, programme context and setting, and implementation
issues, all in an abstract, "high level", way. Their main purpose is to provide general
parameters in which rehabilitative endeavours will operate, and to support
developments on the other two levels (Polaschek, 2011).
Turning next to the bottom, most specific, level of conceptual development:
At Level III reside intervention theories for specific programmes. They describe the
programme, its processes and content, therapist characteristics, intended client group,
The RNR model of offender rehabilitation: An appraisal 11
expected changes and so on. They explain their characteristics with reference to Level
II and Level I theory.
In the original meta-theoretical framework (Ward & Hudson, 1998), a
descriptive theory of the offence process is an impoverished one if it draws only on
multivariate etiological theories of sexual offending. Similarly, the breadth and
abstractness of Level I theories makes them unsuited to informing Level III—specific
interventions—either for therapists working individually with offenders, or for expert
teams of programme designers.
Level II contains the conceptual guides representing broad intervention
approaches under the umbrella of a Level I rehabilitation theory. These resources may
vary by offender characteristics (e.g., level of criminal risk, gender and age,
psychopathy, criminal gang members), or by the presence of particular needs (e.g.,
alcohol and drugs) or a focus on change in particular domains (e.g. cognitive skills,
vocational skills, reintegration planning and implementation), or particular settings
(court-based, correctional, hospital). Clearly just as Level I rehabilitation theories are
hybrids rather than true theories, these are also not theories in the conventional sense,
but again comprise elements of theory, research, and practice resources, but at an
intermediate level of abstractness and detail.
What do Level II intervention resources look like? Some concrete models are
available for the treatment of sexual offending: they outline how to rehabilitate sexual
offenders across a range of risk levels and settings. For example, Marshall, Marshall,
Serran, & O’Brien (2011) draw together resources from research, decades of evolving
programme practice, and new theoretical developments in positive psychology. They
outline a Level II theory: a general approach to "strength-based" sexual offender
rehabilitation, and include several Level III derivatives.
The RNR model of offender rehabilitation: An appraisal 12
Finally, Ward and Hudson (1998) distinguished between Level I theories and
"theoretical frameworks". The latter are less well developed and their main function is
"to help organise research by providing a loose set of constructs with which to
approach empirical problems" (Ward & Hudson, 1998, p. 54). At this point in its
development, the RNR model is best thought of not as a fully fledged Level I
multivariate rehabilitation theory, but as a framework (Ward, Melser, & Yates, 2007).
It is not fully developed yet.
Model appraisal
Criteria
Typically explanatory or etiological theories are evaluated against a series of
criteria that includes: empirical validity (retrospective and direct prospective tests),
scope, discriminability, generalisability, internal and external consistency, ability to
unify existing theories, simplicity, falsifiability, research and practical fertility,
explanatory depth, and even creativity or excitement (Sternberg, 2006; T. Ward, et al.,
2006).
Although values other than empirical standing are important in evaluating
theory quality (see Ward, et al., 2006), empirical validity and practical application
have primacy when evaluating intervention theories (Gendreau, Smith, & French,
2006; Ogloff & Davis, 2004). This stronger—though not exclusive—emphasis on
whether theories or models can prove themselves against both existing evidence, and
new data—especially data from the model’s application—is justifiable for two
reasons.
First, the criteria listed above apply to more conventional psychological
theories. Rehabilitation theories are not etiological or explanatory theories in the usual
sense, but hybrids that bring together theoretical and other resources needed for
The RNR model of offender rehabilitation: An appraisal 13
treatment (Ward, et al., 2007). Second, their main purpose is application, rather than
knowledge generation for its own sake. So arguably, although conceptual criteria are
important, they become irrelevant if empirical evidence does not support the model,
or it cannot be adequately implemented in the intended practice setting. The practical
consequences of using such a theory may be serious.
Strengths
Constructed as it was from existing theory and data, the RNR model has
strong unifying power and external consistency. The GPSPCA/PIC-R drew on an
embarrassment of riches: even finding merit in Freudian theory, a notable inclusion
for committed behaviourists (Wormith, 2011).
It has significant explanatory depth in several important respects. For
example, it can explain why programmes as diverse as boot camps, pet therapy, and
anger management programmes do or do not work in reducing recidivism, and why
programmes' "labels" do not reliably signal their potential. For example, Intensive
Supervision Programmes—punitive community supervision regimes—are usually
ineffective, but an ISP incorporating features of the RNR model can reduce
recidivism (see Paparozzi & Gendreau, 2005). Other examples include its ability to
explain why a positive relationship between staff and offenders is a necessary but not
sufficient condition for effective outcomes (i.e., the relationship and structuring
principles), and to pinpoint retrospectively potential sources of loss of programme
effect when demonstration programmes are implemented more widely (see examples
in Andrews & Bonta, 2010a).
Importantly, they sought to demonstrate how factors from multiple levels of
influence, including the political, societal and neighbourhood, can be seen in people’s
behaviour, through translation into social learning principles. Thus they circumvented
The RNR model of offender rehabilitation: An appraisal 14
a big weakness of social-level etiological theories: explaining why some individuals
are more affected by these factors than others in apparently similar environments.
With elegant simplicity, these cognitive-behavioural principles also unify the
etiological with the intervention aspects of the model.
Turning now to empirical validity, it is difficult to fault the RNR model on its
consistency with pre-existing empirical data. Newer research has fleshed out but not
falsified any major aspects of the model; the abstractness of Level I theories often
renders them difficult to falsify. Direct prospective tests of the model, based on (a) the
core RNR principles (Andrews and Bonta’s 2010 meta-analysis, and independent
research: e.g., Hanson, Bourgon, Helmus, & Hodgson, 2009; Lowenkamp, Latessa, &
Smith, 2006), and (b) the model itself, using the Correctional Programme Assessment
Inventory (CPAI; see Andrews, 2006; Goggin & Gendreau, 2006). This research
continues to find that programmes' ability to reduce criminal offending is related to
the extent to which design and implementation conform to the RNR model.
The fertility and practical utility of a rehabilitation theory is demonstrated in
new research and new applications. The fertility of the RNR model is also significant.
Others have used it to understand the effects of diverse types of programmes:
including prisoner re-entry (Listwan, Cullen, & Latessa, 2006), supervision (Pearson,
McDougall,Kanaan, Bowles & Torgerson, 2011; Taxman, 2006), family interventions
(Dowden, & Andrews, 2003) and ISPs (Lowenkamp, Flores, Holsinger, Makarios, &
Latessa, 2010). It has inspired new assessment tools and approaches (Coebergh,
Bakker, Anstiss, Maynard, & Percy, 1999; Gordon & Wong, 2010; Latessa, Lemke,
Makarios, Smith, & Lowenkamp, 2010; Ware & Coebergh, 2004), and new tools for
assessing programme quality (e.g., the CPAI, see Goggin & Gendreau, 2006). It has
found its way into the development of programme accreditation systems (e.g., Bowen,
The RNR model of offender rehabilitation: An appraisal 15
2011; Hanson, 2005; Lipton, Thornton, McGuire, Porporino, & Hollin, 2000; Lösel,
2010).
It is credited with inspiring a flurry of intervention design; in the last decade or
so several criminal justice systems (e.g., New Zealand, the UK) moved to widespread
adoption of assessments and development of programmes based on Andrews and
Bonta's work. Encouragingly, there has been a steady range of research and practice
publications on the least well understood principle of responsivity, on staff behaviour
and treatment process (e.g., Beyko & Wong, 2005; Dowden & Andrews, 2004;
McMurran, 2009; Hubbard & Pealer, 2009). All in all, the RNR model has made an
original substantive contribution to criminal justice assessment, intervention,
research, programme accreditation and programme integrity.
Weaknesses
The PCC is the only detailed source of information about the RNR model;
article summaries often only touch on the three core principles; at best they discuss
very briefly the underlying theory. However, the volume and complexity of material
in the PCC makes familiarising oneself with the full model and its underpinnings a
committing task. Although the principles are succinct (Wormith, et al., in press), in its
totality the overall framework lacks simplicity or parsimony.
In the early editions of the PCC, this complexity led to confusion, especially
with respect to the relationships between different aspects of the model (e.g, the
GPSPA, the PIC-R and the RNR principles;(Ward & Maruna, 2007). The Ward, et al.
(2007) reformulation demonstrated that this problem could be partially remediated.
Later editions of the PCC have made some improvements, expanding the listing of
key principles (see also Andrews, et al., 2011), and presenting the core messages in
diverse and interesting ways that serve to clarify the authors’ views.
The RNR model of offender rehabilitation: An appraisal 16
The model’s explanatory depth is limited in several key areas. For example,
despite its centrality to the model, the responsivity principle is the least developed of
the three core principles (Andrews & Bonta, 2010; see Dowden & Andrews, 2004, for
an exception). It is theoretically unsophisticated: a catch-all category. Yet it contains
much of what makes the application of the model both humane and effective, so its
underdevelopment may have important consequences (Ogloff & Davis, 2004).
For example, it is still unclear why demographic variables such as gender and
ethnicity are important, and there remains limited detail about offender motivation
and engagement in treatment, despite decade-long Level II developments in
motivational interventions (McMurran, 2009) and more recently in treatment
readiness (Day, Casey, Ward, Howells, & Vess, 2010). One of the most useful aspects
of critiques from strength-emphasising perspectives is in reminding us of the
importance of giving offenders reasons to want to engage in desistance and change
(e.g., Porporino, 2010; Ward & Maruna, 2007), not just the capacities to do so.
Developing responsivity theoretically could go some way to reduce the impression
one can get from the RNR model, that “simple operant conditioning” provides an
inherently unsatisfying explanation for how treatment works, and that effective RNR
treatment is only concerned with the external manipulation of contingencies for
behaviour (Ward, Yates, & Willis, in press, p. 27).
Another important limitation on explanatory depth, and so a priority for future
development is the conceptual gap that exists between an identified list of high-
priority dynamic risk factors or targets for change—the central eight—and the
theoretical resources needed to translate these factors into intervention design,
individual clinical formulations, treatment plans, and change monitoring (Porporino,
2010).
The RNR model of offender rehabilitation: An appraisal 17
The central eight are empirically well established as correlates both of criminal
propensity, and of programmes that reduce reoffending. But each is a proxy, or
placeholder for a series of phenomena that Mann, Hanson, and Thornton (2010)
recently labelled "psychologically meaningful risk factors"; factors that potentially
have an actual causal role in on-going involvement in criminal behaviour. A list of
broad categories of treatment targets cannot and is not meant to substitute for an
adequate understanding of (a) the central mechanisms driving current criminal
propensity, and therefore (b) how different risk factors are related to each other, and
further (c) how change processes work on these mechanisms for different offenders
(Ward & Maruna, 2007).
But rather than expecting a Level I framework—abstract and lacking in detail
as it is—to bridge on its own these explanatory gaps, we should instead promote the
development at Level II both of single factor etiological theories, and intervention
theories. Our scientific understanding both of treatment targets and treatment change
processes remains unsophisticated, and that lack of sophistication must inevitably be
imported into Level I theories.
Translation issues
The extent to which theorists themselves should be held responsible for others
misunderstanding or misapplying their work is no doubt a matter for debate. ;
Regardless of how clearly or carefully a theory is presented, there is always potential
for important aspects of it to be "lost in translation". This final section of the critique
considers some areas of concern that rather than being inherent limitations of the
model itself, may instead be difficulties with knowledge transfer.
Andrews, et al. (2011) acknowledge that a lack of clarity and
comprehensibility may have contributed to some of the criticisms levelled at their
The RNR model of offender rehabilitation: An appraisal 18
model, and further, that the style of presentation may even have lacked charisma, or
attractiveness (Andrews & Bonta, 2010a). Experience in teaching with the PCC text
since its first edition suggests that they are correct. Both the detached and formal
academic writing style and some of the terminology (e.g., "clinically appropriate
human service"; p. 270, Andrews & Bonta, 1998; and "the magnitude of the effect of
any one signaled reward for any class of behaviors depends upon the signaled density
of other rewards for that class of behaviors" (p. 142, Andrews and Bonta, 2006)
telegraph to students that the roots of this model precede the birth of their parents.
Though undoubtedly technically correct, both style and terminology may discourage
today’s students of correctional psychology from reading the PCC thoroughly. Instead
they may focus more on summaries of the model (e.g., Andrews & Bonta, 2010b;
Bonta & Andrews, 2007), including those of other commentators, which are, by
definition, social constructions that may be prone to disadvantageous reductionism
(Cullen, in press).
If the next generation of therapists and policy-makers do not fully understand,
or cannot even bring themselves to fully read the relevant material, then their
appraisals of it will be superficial or inaccurate, leading to problems with translation
into practice. Although really good books shouldn't be judged by their covers,
research shows that they are. Simpler, clearer and more accessible language serves to
reduce misunderstandings, and has other important practical implications: readers are
likely to like the model more, and view it as easier to use (Song & Schwarz, 2008,
2009).
Ward and colleagues have provided the most systematic and thought-
provoking critiques of the RNR model. Their critiques include a number of points
they suggest may be better thought of as problems with implementation (Ward &
The RNR model of offender rehabilitation: An appraisal 19
Maruna, 2007; Ward, et al., 2007). Several of their observations point to failures to
implement core tenets of the RNR model.
For example, Ward and Maruna (2007) suggest that in their experience,
programmes derived from the RNR model primarily are conducted for the benefit not
of the offender, but of the community at large. Relatedly, these programmes do not
motivate or engage offenders since they do not build or promote valuable positive
skills and capacities. Further, they cannot support offenders' interests in desisting
from crime, and hamper the development of a good therapeutic alliance. Lastly, in
these programmes offenders' treatment goals are primarily avoidant, because the
overall goal of intervention is to reduce reoffending (Ward & Maruna).
No doubt such programmes exist. It is hard to imagine however, that they
could be effective in reducing recidivism; they differ in important ways from both the
letter and the spirit of the RNR model. Considering these points in turn, first, RNR
programmes are conducted for the benefit of the offender and the community;
throughout the PCC Andrews and Bonta refer to the benefits of human service (i.e.,
rehabilitative) interventions for the offender (e.g. p. 346, 2010). The underlying
assumption of the RNR model—and the rehabilitative ethos from which it emerged—
is that it benefits both offenders and society to get offenders away from the criminal
justice system and into prosocial community life, and RNR rehabilitation is about
assisting them in ways that will achieve that goal (see also Bonta & Andrews, 2003).
Typical RNR programmes, even those for the highest risk offenders devote the
majority of treatment time to helping prisoners learn skills that we would all find
helpful: mood regulation, behavioural regulation, distress tolerance, problem-solving,
communication skills and so on (Cortoni, Nunes, & Latendresse, 2006; Polaschek,
2011; Polaschek & Dixon, 2001; Wong, Gordon, & Gu, 2007). Programme
The RNR model of offender rehabilitation: An appraisal 20
environments often also include vocational skills and education components,
assistance in reconnecting with families, as well as practical assistance with preparing
for community re-entry. Do offenders have other important yet non-criminogenic
needs, and would they benefit from other forms of assistance? Without doubt, but the
presence of other needs doesn’t make risk-related needs unimportant (Ward, et al., in
press): and their amelioration of no benefit to the offender.
RNR programmes are fundamentally capacity-building: the most effective
way to address criminogenic needs is by shaping the development of, and
differentially rewarding the adoption of positive capacities. This idea goes back at
least to early behaviourism (Miltenberger, 2004), and in the RNR model, is
incorporated into the core process of “building up rewards for non-criminal
alternatives”. (p. 741, Andrews, et al., 2011)2
For example, Andrews and Bonta (1994, p. 233) noted that promising targets
for change include “promoting family affection and communication”, “replacing the
skills of lying, stealing, and aggression with more prosocial alternatives”, promoting
identification/association with anticriminal role models” and making noncriminal
activities in familial, academic, vocational, recreational and other behavioural settings
more rewarding than criminal activities, so that offenders will prefer them. These
examples (see also Andrews & Bonta, 2010, pp. 58-60) show too that it is not correct
that RNR-based interventions primarily set avoidant treatment goals with offenders.
Yes, the overall policy goal—the ultimate goal—of correctional interventions is
avoidant: reducing reoffending (Blanchette & Brown, 2006), but this ultimate goal of
2Theoretically, however, RNR-adhering programmes only develop capacities that
either increase responsivity, or reduce criminogenic needs, or both. This is one
important point of difference with the Good Lives Model, which instead seeks to
develop a wider range of capacities, linked to primary goods (Ward et al., in press).
The RNR model of offender rehabilitation: An appraisal 21
risk reduction is best achieved through some combination of avoidant and approach
goals.
Ward and colleagues (Ward & Maruna, 2007; Ward, et al., 2007) drew
attention to these areas of confusion in the context of proposing the Good Lives
Model (GLM). There are important differences between the RNR model and the
GLM, and encouragingly, these differences are becoming clearer as the authors of
each model respond to each others’ comparisons of the two (e.g., Ward et al., in press;
Wormith, et al., in press). However, observations like those above suggest that some
differences between the two models that seem substantive on paper, evaporate, or at
most become differences in emphasis when the models are applied (Blanchette &
Brown, 2006; Cullen, in press). The basis for these misunderstandings seems to be
omissions from the RNR model’s description that occurred because the model was
first developed contemporaneously with an evolving correctional rehabilitation ethos
that made these points self-evident to those involved at the time.
A good working alliance between therapist or correctional worker and
offender is also a founding assumption of the RNR model. It is implicit in the
Responsivity principle, but explicitly embodied in the Relationship and Structuring
principles: in human service interventions workers collaborate with offenders
(Andrews et al., 2011), and they are warm, empathic and flexible (Andrews and
Bonta, 1994). In fact, Andrews was one of the first correctional researchers to
investigate the importance of high-quality relationships between human service
workers and offenders in effective interventions; demonstrating that when probation
officers are warm and empathic, actively challenge antisocial thinking, and actively
reward prosocial thinking, very substantial reductions in recidivism can be achieved
(Andrews, 1980; see also Andrews, 1982b; Andrews & Kiessling, 1980).
The RNR model of offender rehabilitation: An appraisal 22
A second source of difficulties with knowledge transfer can be traced to
inferences made about the model based not in the published literature, but on
observations of interventions intending to operationalize it. The 18 principles of the
RNR model derive in part from the "what works" meta-analyses, in turn based on
diverse programme types. By contrast, over the last decade or so, adoption of
evidence-based rehabilitation policies has led to a series of large “rollouts” of RNR-
based programme suites in countries such as the UK, Canada, and New Zealand, that
primarily translate RNR into one style of intervention: structured, cognitive-
behavioural closed-group based treatment programmes (Porporino, 2010). These
programmes may vary in their target population, and in intensity and setting, but
fundamentally they represent at best, only one version of the diversity that is possible
within the RNR ambit.
More concerning, programmes subject to large-scale implementation
encounter many challenges, especially with regard to treatment integrity (Goggin &
Gendreau, 2006), leading these programmes, and the policies that surround them to be
highly structured, and manualised. But effective treatment requires a focus not just on
good content and technique. Effective, relationship skills and treatment process are
necessary to achieve treatment goals. The former can be specified in a written manual
but the latter is much more difficult to manualise (Marshall, 2009) and may be
compromised by efforts to achieve the former. Highly specified content has been used
to (a) enable inexperienced, or even undertrained programme staff to deliver
treatment simply by “reading aloud” (Mann, 2009), (b) facilitate accreditation
processes that tend to evaluate programmes primarily from written documentation
(Maguire, Grubin, Lösel, & Raynor, 2010; Marshall, 2009), and (c) enable a
simplistic approach to monitoring treatment integrity (i.e., by checking off presented
The RNR model of offender rehabilitation: An appraisal 23
content against manual content; (Polaschek, 2011). The use of overly scripted
content-focused manuals cannot make up for a lack well-trained and constructively
supervised therapy staff, but does constrict application of the responsivity principle.
Therapists cannot adequately tailor the treatment to the client, cannot respond to
obvious crises as naturally occurring “teachable moments”, appear unempathic and
inflexible, rightly leading to “cookie cutter” criticisms (Ward, et al., 2007).
Adherence to the responsivity principle requires intervention “guides” rather than
manuals (Marshall, et al., 2011), well-trained and experienced staff, and practice
supervisors who are sufficiently well informed and skilled to monitor integrity—and
enhance practice—by evaluating whether goals were achieved rather than whether
treatment content that demonstrates only one method of achieving those goals was
presented (Polaschek, 2011). Group-format programmes are not necessarily one-size-
fits-all (Kirsch & Becker, 2006). They can be responsive to individual offenders'
needs, but only if therapists can use RNR-adherent therapy process and content
together to do so.
The lack of effectiveness of some of these widespread roll-outs, by
comparison with the demonstration programmes on which they were based, may be a
result of problems with implementation integrity, but they also reflect a failure to
adhere to the core RNR principle of specific responsivity. This problem—of omitting
or compromising the Responsivity principle—has been explicit in some importations
of the RNR model (e.g., Goggin & Gendreau, 2006; Kemshall, 2010); found that very
few “real world” programmes meet criteria for all three core principles. Although the
responsivity principle is the least developed of the three core principles, it doesn't
follow that it is the least important, but perhaps instead that it is the hardest to
implement.
The RNR model of offender rehabilitation: An appraisal 24
Conclusions and future directions
The RNR model of rehabilitation seems set to remain the “premier
rehabilitation theory” (p. 222, Ward, et al., 2007) as long as it continues to enjoy
strong empirical support, and as long as scientific data are held in higher esteem than
“truthiness”. The achievements of the RNR model are quite remarkable: developing
and promoting from the quagmire of quackery, confusion and contradictory findings
that preceded “what works” (Latessa, Cullen, & Gendreau, 2002) a deceptively
simple series of principles to guide offender rehabilitation.
Yet this appraisal has noted (a) difficulties with complexity, accessibility of
language, and clarity in the model itself, (b) large-scale operationalization of a narrow
range of RNR programmes, and (c) implementation of interventions that emphasise
the core principles of risk and need at the expense of other, equally important
principles such as responsivity, and core staff practices. Together, these factors may
foster a sense of disenchantment with, and misunderstanding about the model and its
value. However, well supported it is empirically, future developments should be
directed at to improving both the model and its application.
The dearth of Level II resources to fill gaps between model and practice also
contributes to frustrations that are instead levelled at the RNR model itself. The
model’s authors themselves addressed this gap in two important practice arenas: the
assessment of offenders (the LSI-R & LS/CMI; Andrews & Bonta, 1995; Andrews,
Bonta, & Wormith, 2004) and the assessment of programme design and delivery (e.g.,
the Correctional Program Assessment Inventory [CPAI-2000]; Gendreau & Andrews,
2001). However, in contrast to some other proponents of rehabilitation theories (e.g.,
Yates, Prescott, & Ward, 2010), the translation of the model into actual intervention
The RNR model of offender rehabilitation: An appraisal 25
programmes or Level II intervention approaches (e.g., mid-level treatment guides),
largely has been left to others, and still remains, mostly, to be done.
The development, and dissemination of more of these types of rehabilitation
resources should be an urgent priority for the field. Where, for example, are the
resources for guiding the treatment of PCL-psychopaths, or moderate-risk offenders
with major drug and alcohol addictions, mentally disordered offenders, violent
offenders? Without them, therapists or programme designers are faced with
constructing for themselves a Level II theory to inform their desired intervention. This
is not a realistic or feasible expectation—even for very capable therapists—and may
explain in part why some choose ineffective interventions to deliver. Their absence
may be leading too to overly narrow and reductionist interpretations of the RNR
model such as those embodied in some highly structured, cognitive-behavioural
closed group treatment programmes (Marshall, et al., 2011).
Many variations in intervention type are consistent with the RNR model.
Empirically-bounded innovation is much needed, given the untapped potential for
improvements in intervention effect sizes. For example, innovative “through-care”
models that challenge different parts of the system to work better together may have
far more impact than long periods of intensive custodial psychological treatment with
little effective aftercare (Porporino, 2010). Such models might follow a shorter period
of intensive psychological treatment with related supervisory oversight (Bonta et al.,
2010; Bonta, Rugge, Scott, Bourgon, & Yessine, 2008) and reintegration assistance,
all guided by RNR principles.
Correctional environments are often hostile at multiple levels to endeavours to
assist offenders; translating well-designed programmes into routine practice that
reaches more than a handful of offenders poses significant challenges (Bourgon,
The RNR model of offender rehabilitation: An appraisal 26
Bonta, Rugge, Scott, & Yessine, 2009). Although successful RNR-adhering
demonstration programmes are now quite numerous, the failure of some recent large-
scale interventions may create pressure to return to “smarter” punitive regimes. It may
be all too easy to “forget that corrections is littered with interventions—from the
penitentiary to boot camps—that were ‘creative’ but proved to be examples of
quackery” (Cullen, in press, pp. 12-13). On-going conceptual debate between
proponents and critics of the RNR model will no doubt result in further improvements
to the model itself; conceptual improvements in high-level theories are certainly
important. But the more significant challenges remain in actually implementing
programmes in such unforgiving settings. Greater benefits for offenders may instead
come more from working with correctional workers, managers and policy makers to
develop better models for applying in practice with offenders what we already have
learned about “what works”.
The RNR model is not the “last word” on offender rehabilitation (Wormith, et
al., in press). It is at its best as an umbrella framework, specifying basic conditions
that should be met across diverse types of intervention. Future programmes may be
able to adhere to more of the principles, and in increasingly effective ways, as mid-
level theorists and programme developers trial ideas from newer theories, and
developments in other intervention domains, to flesh out better ways of doing so.
The RNR model of offender rehabilitation: An appraisal 27
References
Andrews, D. A. (1980). Some experimental investigations of the principles of
differential association through deliberate manipulations of the structure of
service systems. American Sociological Review, 45(448-462).
Andrews, D. A. (1982a). A personal, interpersonal and community-reinfircement
perspective on deviant behaviour (PIC-R). Toronto: Ontario Ministry of
Correctional Services.
Andrews, D. A. (1982b). The supervision of offenders: Identifying and gaining
control over the factors which make a difference. (Report no. 1984-65).
Research Division of the Ministry of the Solicitor General of Canada,
unpublished report.
Andrews, D. A. (2001). Principles of effective correctional programs. In L. L. Motiuk
& R. C. Serin (Eds.), Compendium 2000 on effective correctional treatment
(pp. 9-17). Ottawa, Ontario: Research Branch: Correctional Service of Canada.
Andrews, D. A. (2006). Enhancing adherence to risk-need-responsivity: Making
quality matter of policy. Criminology and Public Policy, 5, 595-602.
Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (1994). The psychology of criminal conduct. Cincinnati
OH: Anderson.
Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (1995). The Level of Service Inventory—Revised (LSI–
R). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (1998). The psychology of criminal conduct (2nd ed.).
Cincinnati OH: Anderson.
Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2003). The psychology of criminal conduct (3rd ed.).
Cincinnati OH: Anderson.
The RNR model of offender rehabilitation: An appraisal 28
Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2006). The psychology of criminal conduct (4th ed.).
Newark, NJ: Matthew Bender.
Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2010a). The Psychology of Criminal Conduct (5th ed.).
Newark, N.J.: Matthew Bender.
Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2010b). Rehabilitating criminal justice policy and
practice. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 16, 39-55.
Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Hoge, R. D. (1990). Classification for effective
rehabilitation: Rediscovering psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17,
19-52.
Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Wormith, J. S. (2004). The Level of Service/Case
Management Inventory (LS/CMI). Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Wormith, J. S. (2011). The Risk-Need Responsivity
model: Does the Good Lives Model contribute to effective crime prevention?
Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38, 735-755. doi: 10.1177/0093854811406356
Andrews, D. A., & Kiessling, J. J. (1980). Program structure and effective
correctional practices: A summary of the CaVIC research. In R. R. Ross & P.
Gendreau (Eds.), Effective correctional treatment (pp. 439-463). Toronto:
Butterworth.
Andrews, D. A., Zinger, I., Hoge, R. D., Bonta, J., Gendreau, P., & Cullen, F. T.
(1990). Does correctional treatment work? A clinically relevant and
psychologically informed meta-analysis. Criminology, 28, 369-404.
Beyko, M. J., & Wong, S. C. P. (2005). Predictors of treatment attrition as indicators
for program improvement not offender shortcomings: A study of sex offender
treatment attrition. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 17,
375-389.
The RNR model of offender rehabilitation: An appraisal 29
Blanchette, K., & Brown, S. L. (2006). The assessment and treatment of women
offenders: An integrative perspective. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Bonta, J., & Andrews, D. A. (2003). A commentary on Ward and Stewart's model of
human needs. Psychology, Crime & Law, 9, 215-218.
Bonta, J., & Andrews, D. A. (2007). Risk-Need-Responsivity model for offender
assessment and rehabilitation. (Report no. 2007-06). Ottawa, Canada:
Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada. Retrieved
from www.publicsafety.gc.ca/res/cor/rep/risk_need_200706-eng.aspx
Bonta, J., Bourgon, G., Rugge, T., Scott, T., Yessine, A. K., Gutierrez, L., & Li, J.
(2010). The Strategic Training Initiative in Community Supervision: Risk-
Need-Responsivity in the real world. Ottawa, Canada: Public Safety Canada.
Retrieved from www.publicsafety.gc.ca/res/cor/rep/2010-01-rnr-eng.aspx
Bonta, J., Rugge, T., Scott, T., Bourgon, G., & Yessine, A. (2008). Exploring the
black box of community supervision. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 47,
248-270.
Bourgon, G., Bonta, J., Rugge, T., Scott, T., & Yessine, A. K. (2009). Translating
"what works" into sustainable everyday practice: Program design,
implementation and evaluation. (Report no. 2009-05). Ottawa, Canada: Public
Safety Canada. Retrieved from http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/res/cor/rep/
2009-05-pdie-eng.aspx
Bowen, E. (2011). The rehabilitation of partner-violent men. Chichester: Wiley.
Coebergh, B., Bakker, L., Anstiss, B., Maynard, K., & Percy, S. (1999). A seein' "I"
to the future: The Criminogenic Needs Inventory (CNI). Wellington, New
Zealand: Department of Corrections Psychological Service unpublished report.
The RNR model of offender rehabilitation: An appraisal 30
Colbert, S. (Producer). (2005. October 17). The Colbert Report [Television series
episode]. New York: Comedy Central. Retrieved from
www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/24039/october-17-2005/the-
word---truthiness
Cortoni, F., Nunes, & Latendresse. (2006). An examination of the effectiveness of the
Violence Prevention Program (R-178). Ottawa: Correctional Service of
Canada unpublished report. Retrieved from http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/
rsrch/reports/ r178/r178_e.pdf.
Cullen, F. T. (in press). Taking rehabilitation seriously: Creativity, science, and the
challenge of offender change Punishment and Society.
Day, A., Casey, S., Ward, T., Howells, K., & Vess, J. (2010). Transitions to better
lives: Offender readiness and rehabilitation. Cullompton, Devon: Willan.
Dowden, C., & Andrews, D. A. (2003). Does family intervention work for
delinquents? Results of a meta-analysis. Canadian Journal of Criminology
and Criminal Justice, 45, 327-342.
Dowden, C., & Andrews, D. A. (2004). The importance of staff practice in delivering
effective correctional treatment: A meta-analytic review of core correctional
practice. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative
Criminology, 48, 203-214.
Gendreau, P., & Andrews, D. A. (2001). Correctional Program Assessment Inventory
– 2000 (CPAI-2000). Saint John, New Brunswick, Canada: University of New
Brunswick.
Gendreau, P., Smith, P., & French, S. (2006). The theory of effective correctional
intervention: Empirical status and future directions. In F. Cullen, J. Wright &
The RNR model of offender rehabilitation: An appraisal 31
M. Coleman (Eds.), Taking stock: The status of criminology theory (pp. 419-
446). New Jersey: Transaction Press.
Goggin, C., & Gendreau, P. (2006). The implementation and maintenance of quality
services in offender rehabilitation programmes In C. R. Hollin & E. J. Palmer
(Eds.), Offending Behaviour Programmes: Development, Application, and
Controversies (pp. 209-246). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Gordon, A., & Wong, S. C. P. (2010). Offence analogue behaviours as indicators of
criminogenic need and treatment progress in custodial settings. In M. Daffern,
L. Jones & J. Shine (Eds.), Offence paralleling behaviour: A case formulation
approach to offender assessment and intervention (pp. 171-183). Chichester:
Wiley.
Hanson, R. K. (2005). Accreditation standards for correctional programs. Research
summary 10 (1). Retrieved from
http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/res/cor/sum/cprs200501_1-eng.aspx
Hanson, R. K., Bourgon, G., Helmus, L., & Hodgson, S. (2009). The principles of
effective correctional treatment also apply to sexual offenders: A meta-
analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 865-892. doi:
10.1177/1079063210366039
Hubbard, D. J., & Pealer, J. (2009). The importance of responsivity factors in
predicting reductions in antisocial attitudes and cognitive distortions among
adult male offenders. The Prison Journal. 89, 79-98.
Kemshall, H. (2010). The role of risk, needs and strengths assessment in improving
the supervision of offenders. In F. McNeill, P. Raynor & C. Trotter (Eds.),
Offender supervision: New directions in theory, research and practice (pp.
155-171). Abingdon, UK: Willan.
The RNR model of offender rehabilitation: An appraisal 32
Kirsch, L. G., & Becker, J. V. (2006). Sexual offending: Theory of problem, theory of
change, and implications for treatment effectiveness. Aggression and Violent
Behavior, 11, 208-224.
Latessa, E. J., Cullen, F. T., & Gendreau, P. (2002). Beyond correctional quackery:
Professionalism and the possibility of effective treatment. Federal Probation,
66, 43-49.
Latessa, E. J., Lemke, R., Makarios, M., Smith, P., & Lowenkamp, C. T. (2010). The
creation and validation of the Ohio Risk Assessment System (ORAS). Federal
Probation, 74, 16-22.
Lipton, D. S., Thornton, D., McGuire, J., Porporino, F. J., & Hollin, C. R. (2000).
Program accreditation and correctional treatment. Substance Use and Misuse,
35, 1705–1734.
Listwan, S. J., Cullen, F. T., & Latessa, E. J. (2006). How to prevent prisoner re-entry
programs from failing: insights from evidence-based corrections. Federal
Probation, 70, 19-25.
Lösel, F. (2010). What works in reducing reoffending: A global perspective. Paper
presented at the 12th Annual conference of the International Corrections and
Prisons Association, Gent, Belgium, 25-29 October, 2010.
Lowenkamp, C. T., Flores, A. W., Holsinger, A. M., Makarios, M. D., & Latessa, E. J.
(2010). Intensive supervision programs: Does program philosophy and the
principles of effective intervention matter? Journal of Criminal Justice, 38,
368-375.
Lowenkamp, C. T., Latessa, E. J., & Smith, P. (2006). Does correctional program
quality really matter? The impact of adhering to the principles of effective
intervention. Criminology and Public Policy, 5, 575-594.
The RNR model of offender rehabilitation: An appraisal 33
Maguire, M., Grubin, D., Lösel, F., & Raynor, P. (2010). "What works" and the
Correctional Services Accreditation Panel: Taking stock from an insider
perspective. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 10, 37-58.
Mann, R. E. (2009). Sex offender treatment: The case for manualization. Journal of
Sexual Aggression, 15, 121-131.
Mann, R. E., Hanson, R. K., & Thornton, D. (2010). Assessing risk for sexual
recidivism: Some proposals on the nature of psychologically meaningful risk
factors. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research & Treatment, 22, 191-217. doi:
10.1177/1079063210366039
Marshall, W. L. (2009). Manualization: A blessing or a curse? Journal of Sexual
Aggression, 15, 109-120.
Marshall, W. L., Marshall, L. E., Serran, G. A., & O’Brien, M. D. (2011).
Rehabilitating sexual offenders: A strength-based approach. Washington, DC:
: American Psychological Association.
McMurran, M. (2009). Motivational interviewing with offenders: A systematic
review. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 14, 83-100.
Miltenberger, R. G. (2004). Behavior modification: Principles and procedures (3rd
ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Thomason Learning.
Ogloff, J. R. P., & Davis, M. R. (2004). Advances in offender assessment and
rehabilitation: Contributions of the risk–needs–responsivity approach, .
Psychology, Crime & Law, 10, 229-242. doi:
10.1080/10683160410001662735
Paparozzi, M. A., & Gendreau, P. (2005). An intensive supervision program that
worked: Service delivery, professional orientation, and organizational
The RNR model of offender rehabilitation: An appraisal 34
supportiveness. The Prison Journal, 85, 445-466. doi:
10.1177/0032885505281529
Pearson, D. A. S., McDougall, C. , Kanaan, M., Bowles, R. A., & Torgerson, D. J.
(2006). Reducting criminal recidivism: Evaluation of citizenship: An
evidence-based probation supervision process. Journal of Experimental
Criminology, 7, 73-102. doi 10.1007/s11292-010-9115-3
Polaschek, D. L. L. (2011). Many sizes fit all: A preliminary framework for
conceptualizing the development and provision of cognitive-behavioral
rehabilitation programs for offenders. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16,
20-35. doi: doi:10.1016/j.avb.2010.10.002
Polaschek, D. L. L., & Dixon, B. G. (2001). The Violence Prevention Project: The
development and evaluation of a treatment programme for violent offenders.
Psychology, Crime, and Law, 7, 1-23.
Porporino, F. J. (2010). Bringing sense and sensitivity to corrections: from
programmes to fix offenders to services support desistance. In J. Brayford, F.
Cowe & J. Deering (Eds.), What else works? Creative work with offenders
(pp. 61-85). Uffculme, Devon, UK: Willan.
Song, H., & Schwarz, N. (2008). If it's hard to read, it's hard to do: processing fluency
affects effort prediction and motivation. Psychological Science, 19, 986-988.
Song, H., & Schwarz, N. (2009). If it's difficult to pronounce, it must be risky:
Fluency, familiarity, and risk perception. Psychological Science, 20, 135-138.
Sternberg, R. J. (2006). Reviewing theory articles. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Reviewing
scientific works in psychology (pp. 43-58). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
The RNR model of offender rehabilitation: An appraisal 35
Taxman, F. (2006). Assessment with a flair: Offender accountability in supervision
plans. Federal Probation, 70, 2-7.
Ward, T., & Hudson, S. M. (1998). The construction and development of theory in the
sexual offending area: A metatheoretical framework. Sexual Abuse: A Journal
of Research and Treatment, 10, 47-63.
Ward, T., & Maruna, S. (2007). Rehabilitation. London: Routledge.
Ward, T., Melser, J., & Yates, P. M. (2007). Reconstructing the risk, need,
responsivity model: A theoretical elaboration and evaluation. Aggression and
Violent Behavior, 12, 208-228.
Ward, T., Polaschek, D. L. L., & Beech, A. R. (2006). Theories of sexual offending.
Chichester: Wiley.
Ward, T., Yates, P. M., & Willis, G. M. (in press). The Good Lives Model and The
Risk Need Responsivity Model: A critical response to Andrews, Bonta, and
Wormith (2011). Criminal Justice and Behavior.
Ware, J., & Coebergh. (2004). CNI Severity Project: A methodology for assessing
offender relapse prevention knowledge/skills and offender motivation.
Christchurch, NZ: Department of Corrections Psychological Service
unpublished report.
Wong, S., Gordon, A., & Gu, D. (2007). Assessment and treatment of violence-prone
forensic clients: An integrated approach. British Journal of Psychiatry, 190
(suppl. 49), s66-s74.
Wormith, J. S. (2011). The legacy of D. A. Andrews in the field of criminal justice:
How theory and research can change policy and practice. International
Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 10, 78-82.
The RNR model of offender rehabilitation: An appraisal 36
Wormith, J. S., Gendreau, P., & Bonta, J. (in press). Deferring to clarity, parsimony,
and evidence in reply to Ward, Yates, and Willis (2011). Criminal Justice and
Behavior.
Yates, P. M., Prescott, D., & Ward, T. (2010). Applying the Good Lives and Self-
regulation models to sex offender treatment: A practical guide for clinicians.
Brandon, Vermont: Safer Society Press.
