Andrews and colleagues (1990) believe that more research is required to examine the idea that some programs would be working with certain offenders under certain principles, but others are not. They argue that these principles are risk, need, and responsivity. It is believed by some that the movement away from incarceration might be a more effective form of treatment as the community appears to be the preferred context for rehabilitation. Andrews et al. (1990) have highlighted two factors that are key to promoting program implementation: awareness of the literature on effective practices, and willingness to accept a shift in policy.
With respect to RNR model, risk refers to the principle that higher levels of service are best suited for high risk cases (such as clients scoring high or very high on the LSI); similarly, clients deemed as low risk would receive minimal service. This is based on previous research which has demonstrated that the treatment effects are often greater on high risk cases. In fact, more intensive treatments in low risk cases have actually been shown to increase recidivism rates (Lowenkamp & Latessa, 2004; Latessa and Lovins, 2010). Latessa and Lovins (2010) explain that there are three reasons that this occurs. First, when placing low risk offenders in intense program, they are often with high risk offenders, therefore, they may learn some criminal behaviour from the high risk offenders. Second, in a highly structured environment, the factors that make these offenders low risk are disrupted. For example, an intensive program might cause someone to lose their job, distract from family life and cut off prosocial ties. Finally, there might be other factors such as IQ, intellectual functioning and maturity. Lowenkamp and colleagues
12
(2006) suggest that some low functioning and low risk offenders might become easily manipulated by the more intelligent, higher risk offenders.
Criminiogenic needs are the second component of the RNR model and refer to dynamic risk factors (such as antisocial attitudes, feelings, peer associations, family connectedness and self-control). When these needs are altered, they are associated with variations in the changes of criminal conduct. The third and final component of the RNR model is responsivity.
Responsivity refers to the styles and modes of service that are capable of influencing the specific targets of offenders; they should be appropriately matched to the learning styles of offenders (Andrews et al., 1990). Typically, the appropriate types of service involve the use of behaviour and social learning principles, skills enhancement and cognitive change (such as modeling, graduated practice, rehearsal, role playing and reinforcement). It is also suggested through the RNR model that certain aspects should be avoided. This includes: group
programming (if it reinforces criminogenic attitudes); official punishment, because people are not actually ―scared straight‖; and psychodynamic therapies, since they are not usually effective in the offender population.
The idea of RNR has become very popular in corrections research, assisting in
minimizing the ―nothing works‖ mentality. The presence of RNR has been shown to correlate highly with treatment outcome regardless of client age, race or gender. However, regardless of these positive findings, there are still some critics who are able to highlight some negative results from the areas of cognitive skills training and multi-systemic training (MST). Andrews et al. (1990) argued that we must look beyond these results and instead of looking at the simple outcome measures, look at the specifics of the program and the participants: the main premise of the RNR principles. It is recommended that evaluations should focus more on program integrity, treatment resistance, motivation, motivational interviewing, attrition, and facilitator
characteristics (Andrews et al., 1990). 1.4.1. RNR and Risk Assessment Tools
The LSI, and its derivatives, is among the most popular and well known examples of dynamic assessments. These RNR factors are important determinants of where treatment dollars should be allotted, with predictors of recidivism given a greater priority over predictors that are not associated with recidivism (Salisbury et al., 2008). These distinctions between risk and need prompted the formation of two principles that have had a profound impact on correctional
13
practice and funding priorities, the risk principle and the need principle (Salisbury et al., 2008). The risk principle was developed following consistent results showing that the most effective programs for reducing recidivism were programs directed at medium to high risk clients. The need principle, on the other hand, posits that the greatest reductions in risk occur by targeting dynamic risk factors as defined by needs that have been found to be correlated with future offending (Salisbury et al., 2008). Salisbury et al. (2008) describe some of these dynamic risk factors as antisocial attitudes, criminal peers, education, employment, satisfaction with family life, and financial wellbeing (2008).
Tools that have been designed to assess needs rather than risks were developed to look for specific education, employment, substance abuse, mental health, family, financial or medical needs (Salisbury et al., 2008). Research has demonstrated that many of these needs are also significant risk factors that have been found to predict prison misconduct, technical violations and new offences (Andrews et al., 1990; Brews, 2009). In light of these findings, most of the more recent risk assessment instruments now incorporate both offence-based predictors (risk) and criminogenic needs. According to Salisbury et al. ( 2008), community correctional agencies have began to accept the dynamic risk assessment tools much faster than the prisons, particularly because they are more prepared and are better equipped to assess strengths and weakness and aid in offender case management. However, the use of dynamic risk assessment tools has been encouraged recently and a number of institutions are beginning to implement dynamic risk or need assessments in prisons (Salisbury et al., 2008).
Despite the promising findings that are emerging out of much of the corrections research based on the RNR principles, we still do not really know what works, specifically with respect to criminal sanctions. The effects of criminal sanctions on recidivism have been minimal and inconsistent. However, this could be a result of the quality of evaluations being conducted rather than the actual effectiveness of the program. For example, better controlled evaluations often report more positive effects (Andrews et al., 1990). According to Andrews and colleagues (1990), this again shows that certain programs are working for certain individuals under certain circumstances, highlighting the importance of studying this notion further.