Rnr Model Of Offender Rehabilitation

This essay sets out to briefly look at the history of rehabilitation within the penal system from its early beginnings in the late 19th century and how it has arrived at its current state. It will explore the different approaches that have been employed to address criminal behaviour and to encourage personal change over this period and the justifications and arguments for doing so. It will also critically discuss the Risk Need Responsivity (RNR) model, which at this point in time is the leading model of offender rehabilitation. Exploring its strengths, weaknesses, theoretical underpinnings and possible alternative approaches for reducing recidivism, encouraging positive change in offenders and creating safer communities all over the world.
(1990) who argued that treatment within the RNR model of rehabilitation provided the greater effectiveness of reducing recidivism than the punishment and deterrence approach. Work such as this provided the empirical foundation for the implementation of the RNR model within modern penal systems. As is clear with the models name RNR has three core principles, these are risk; the level of service an individual receives must match their risk of re-offending, need; criminogenic needs will be identified and targeted for treatment, and responsivity; tailored intervention to match the learning style, motivation, abilities and strengths of each individual offender (Bonta and Andrews, 2007).
The theory of RNR is underpinned by a strong and extensive empirical base which started with Andrews et al. (1990) and has since been greatly built upon, this is in part due to the environment that the model was introduced into and continues to exist in. This research evidences and indicates that lowered recidivism rates are a direct result of delivering proportionate treatment to offenders, targeting criminogenic needs and tailoring interventions to match individuals (Andrews & Bonta, 2003; Andres & Dowden,
It is argued by Ward and Stewart (2003) that targeting non-criminogenic needs is vitally important when attempting to treat criminogenic needs because any productive and effective treatment requires motivated and engaged offenders. Low self-esteem, mental health issues or distrust can all impact negatively upon the working relationship between professional and offender and therefore the intervention they are delivering. It has been argued that the creation of a positive working relationship where non – criminogenic needs are addressed in addition to the targeting of those concerned with risk, creates a working relationship where interventions are far more effective with offenders (Marshall et al., 2003). The RNR models clear distinction between criminogenic and non-criminogenic needs causes a grey area of uncertainty with professional and places too much emphasis on professional judgement and professional discretion, which can manifest itself in poor delivery of the model through uncertain professionals, leading to unengaged offenders and ultimately unsuccessful