Guiding Offender's Risk-Need-Responsivity Model

The criminal justice system is composed of three main parts; police, courts, and corrections. Each system has a unique purpose within our society. In corrections, they deal with the individuals who are sentenced whether it be an adult, or youth member. Part of their job is to determine what risk does the individual pose to society, and how does their everyday life influence the choices they make. They use a method called RNR, which stands for risk, needs, and responsivity. This helps probationary officers determine what the offenders case plan will be during their sentence and when being reintroduced into society. Probationary officers also have tools and test to help them determine these factors like the central eight

However, research carried out in the 1990’s as part of ‘what works’ movement identified that the most successful sentences were those that attempted to change, not only the offender’s behaviour but also their attitude towards their offending (Hollin, 2007). This catalysed the push towards cognitive-behavioural approaches and by 1999 one especially important development was the establishment of the Correctional Services Accreditation Panel, which ‘quality assured’ probation and prison programmes for rehabilitating offending. This technique brought an emphasis of individual responsibility of an offender (Mair,2004). A criticism of this was the lack of attention of sociological factors that can influence criminal behaviour.

The RNR model first came into existence in nineteen ninety, over the following twenty years, the Risk Need and Responsivity Principles became the core of the theoretical frameworks used in correctional systems around the world. It proposes that misconceptions, unrealistic and mistranslations of the model in practice are contributing to concerns about its validity and utility and stifling needed improvement in the development in certain areas such as Female offending and both treatment resources, and of RNR interventions. Founded on three core principles of offender classification—Risk, Need and Responsivity—today the RNR model is one of a few models used however, the RNR model remains an important empirically validated guide for criminal

The prevailing model of rehabilitative in reentry initiatives today is needs-based. Much of the research has identified major areas of the research has identified major areas in which offenders lack skills and resources as opportunities for intervention. Release inmates face many material and psychological obstacles that must be overcome to prevent a return to the institution. To the extent that these deficiencies are assumed to contribute to repeat offending (or technical violations of parole), addressing them is expected to reduce recidivism. Actually doing this, however, is no easy task and not necessarily one that the current criminal justice system is set up to handle successfully.

(2014). Assessing the Effectiveness of Correctional Sanctions. Journal Of Quantitative Criminology, 30(2), 317-347. doi:10.1007/s10940-013-9205-2 Mcguire, J., Bilby, C. A., L., Hatcher, R. M., Hollin, C. R., Hounsome, J., & Palmer, E. J. (2008). Evaluation of structured cognitive-behavioural treatment programmes in reducing criminal recidivism.

In conclusion, RNR model usually brings to the fore its principles, that is risk policy, need principle and the active principle. Risk policy matches the program intensity versus the risk level there is minimal intervention to low –risk offenders and intensive levels advanced to high-risk offenders. Need policy, on the other hand, aims at the criminogenic needs. These offenders are functionally interrelated to the criminal behavior. Responsively principle tries to match intervention mode style of the offender to their learning styles and abilities (Rothman, 1980).

There are many various risk prediction scales that are being use to assess offenders. By using these risk assessments on offenders we are able to determine whether the offender is a high, medium, or low risk to the society. The Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R) is an assessment that consists of a series of questions that are answered by the offender. LSI-R uses all of the following factors “criminal history, education/employment, financial, family, accommodation, leisure, companions, alcohol/drug problems, emotional/personal, and attitudes” (LSI-R, 2015) when assessing an offender. With the score generated from the LSI-R and opinions from correction professional we can determine whether the offender risk of recidivism is high,

Incarceration means considerably more than just putting an offender behind bars; punishment, deterrence, the protection of society and rehabilitation is essential in the criminal justice system. How the offender is punished will have an important role to play in determining the best form of punishment to protect society. This idea of criminal punishment through increasing the severity of penalty has been consistently used through history as the ideal way of punishment. Though it has been argued that this method is ineffective and that there are better ways to approach criminal punishment through less severe methods. Despite the ongoing movement towards a “Tough on crime” approach to sentencing, recent studies have proven this method of criminal punishment counterproductive; Instead an alternative approach of getting “Smart on Crime” through rehabilitative methods has proven to provide significantly better results in regards to recidivism and reintegration of offenders.

In addition it is usually the fear of being caught that is more of a deterrent and that while crime detection rates are low, the threat of an unpleasant penalty, if caught, seems to be remote. The value of general deterrence is even more doubtful as potential offenders are rarely deterred by severe penalties passed on others. The main aim of rehabilitation is to reform the offender and rehabilitate him into society. It is a forward-looking aim, with the hopes that the offender’s behaviour will be altered by the penalty imposed, so that he or she will not re-offend in the future (it aims to reduce crime this way)

As a country, we should care about all of our citizens and work toward bettering them, because we are only as strong as our weakest link. When it concerns the issue of corrections it should not be a discussion of punishment or rehabilitation. Instead, it should be a balance of both that puts the spotlight on rehabilitating offenders that are capable and willing to change their lives for the better. Through rehabilitation a number of issues in the corrections field can be solved from mental health to overcrowding. More importantly, it allows offenders the chance to do and be better once released from prison. This paper analyzes what both rehabilitation and punishment are as well as how they play a part in corrections. It also discusses the current reasons that punishment as the dominant model of corrections is not as effective as rehabilitation. After explaining rehabilitation and punishment, then breaking down the issues with punishment, I will recommend a plan for balance. A plan that will lower incarceration rates and give offenders a second chance.

of the time. They offer their insight on effective corrections and individualizing treatments based on predictors for crime and behavioral knowledge, as well as conclude that recidivism is reduced by rehabilitation.

The three key goals victims can pursue through the criminal justice system is to punish the offender, compel law breakers to undergo rehabilitate treatment and restitution. Punishment is usually justified on utilitarian grounds as evil. Although it is argued that making transgressors suffer curbs future criminality in a number of ways. It is said if an offender gets punished by unpleasant and unwanted consequences it will most likely discouraged him/her from breaking the law again. Also it satisfies victims thirst for revenge and prevents future vigilantism and incapacitates dangerous predators so they can be off the streets; a safer community. Rehabilitation, some victims want professionals to help offenders become decent,

The tension between rehabilitation and punishment has been increasing dramatically. This is because there have been sharp rises in the prison population and repeat offender rates. When one area is over emphasized in relation to the other, there is the possibility that imbalances will occur. Over the course of time, these issues can create challenges that will impact the criminal justice system and society at large. (Gadek, 2010) (Clear, 2011) (Gatotch, 2011)

There is significant variability in the outcome connected with the type of treatment, for example, how well it is put into action, and the personality of the wrongdoer to whom it is applied. Programs used to re-establish offenders to lessen recidivism are effective if they include proven standards and are aimed to the detailed needs of the offenders; this type of rehabilitation treatments are time and again positive and reasonably significant. The specific sources of that variability have not been well explored, but some principles for effective treatment have emerged (Cullen & Lipsey, 2007). Offenders who gain their high school equivalency diploma while incarcerated are prone to get a job after release, researchers reveal. In addition, those who go through vocational training are highly probable to get jobs with better wages and offenders that went through any drug treatment program during incarceration are less probable to go back to using drugs outside of confinement. When effective programs are implemented, offenders that recidivism could be reduced by 15 to 20 percent (Petersilia, 2011). This is not to express that criminology is a challenge that can always be resolved. There is an explanation for why people go to prison and depending on the circumstances there is incredibly little or nothing can be done to alter the options

Research on recidivism reveals a variety of different ways to define and measure its effectiveness on the outcome. One instrument widely used in assessing offenders is the Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R). The LSI-R was developed with short-term offenders and community supervisees. It assesses largely risk factor for recidivism and is designed to inform parole management decisions (Manchak et al., 2008). The 54 items of the LSI-R assess ten “risk-needs” factors: criminal history, education/employment, financial, family/marital, accommodation, leisure/recreation, peers/companions, alcohol/drug problems, emotional/personal, and attitude/orientation (p. 478). Results indicate that the LSI-R moderately predicts general, but not necessarily violent recidivism (p. 477). The utility of the LSI-R in predicting community recidivism is well established for probationers and minor offenders.