Overview

• Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) model for correctional programming has provided as a foundation for the promotion of evidence-based correctional initiatives.

• The RNR framework has three core principles:

  • Identify and target the individual's static risk level

  • Identify the dynamic risk factors (needs) that influence psychosocial functioning and are connected with criminal behavior, and

  • Identify correctional interventions that are appropriate for addressing the risk-need connection.

Risk-Need-Responsivity Model

• Risk: Align the service intensity with the offender's static risk level.

  • Target intermediate and high-risk cases for more intense treatments and preventative measures.

  • In general, avoid generating interactions between low- and high-risk scenarios.

• Need: Focus primarily on criminogenic demands (needs that are directly associated to recidivism).

  • Identify offender needs in terms of both deficiencies and strengths to enhance psychosocial functioning as a whole.

• General Responsivity: Employ evidence-based behavioral, social learning, and cognitive-behavioral treatment strategies.

• Specific Responsivity: Tailor the style and model of service to the context and to the relevant qualities of individual offenders, including their strengths, motivations, preferences, personality, age, gender, ethnicity, and cultural identifications, among other things.

• The RNR framework focuses on individual-level factors that contribute to criminal behavior, with certain types of interventions more likely to reduce recidivism.

• Application of the Risk-Need-Responsivity framework requires that criminal justice agencies:

  • Use a validated risk assessment tool to detect static risk and rank justice-involved individuals for more intense treatment and controls.

  • Identify dynamic offender requirements (such as antisocial cognitions, antisocial peers, and substance addiction) and focus rehabilitative therapies to specific offender needs associated with recidivism;

  • Use therapeutic approaches supported by empirical research and based on behavioral and cognitive-behavioral theories.

• The model emphasizes the need for a human services-based approach to penitentiary rehabilitation.

  • It is supported by a large body of empirical data indicating that adherence to the model's three fundamental principles is associated with improved offender outcomes.

Criminal Justice Risk and Risk Assessment

• The first component of the Risk-Need Responsivity model is static risk level, which refers to an offender's chance of reoffending and is operationalized by prior criminal involvement indicators.

  • Risk assessment instruments are used to assess the likelihood that an individual will experience negative outcomes during or after interaction with the justice system.

  • In the subject of prisons, risk assessment is not a novel notion; it has been utilized for nearly 100 years.

• The four generations of risk assessment

  • First Generation: Clinical Assessment.

    • First-generation risk assessments are based primarily on expert judgment and can produce meaningful information about a person's recidivism risk.

    • Nonetheless, the interview procedure has been challenged due to the possibility of subjectivity-based bias.

    • This has led to worries regarding the introduction of systematic bias into the process of risk assessment.

    • Hence, actuarial measurements of risk are now favored over professional judgments and have become the norm in the justice system.

  • Second Generation: Actuarial Risk Assessments.

    • The second step in the development of risk assessment tools is an actuarial (or statistical) risk calculation, which has proven to be a reliable predictor of future involvement with the legal system (recidivism).

    • Key criminal history risk factors, such as number of prior arrests, number of incarcerations, attempts to escape, behavior in the institution, prior probation violations, and age of first arrest, have been identified as reliable predictors of continued involvement with the justice system over the past ninety years.

    • These assessments can also be used to optimize resource allocation by, for example, detecting a criminal's risk level and placing them in more intense and control-oriented correctional programs.

    • Risk assessment can influence recidivism by assigning high-risk offenders to more intensive programs using assessment instruments.

  • Third Generation: Actuarial Risk and Dynamic Risk (Needs).

    • The third generation of risk assessment systems included dynamic risk factors to better align correctional programming with offender requirements.

    • These characteristics include antisocial attitudes and orientation, occupation, substance misuse, living arrangements, mental health status, leisure time activities, affiliations with criminal peers, and other areas considered to be associated with criminal behavior.

    • Third-generation tools for risk assessment offer two methods for assessing outcomes: historical risk variables (static risk) and dynamic offender requirements (dynamic risk).

    • Recognizing dynamic needs is a crucial component of the RNR model's need and responsiveness principles.

  • Fourth Generation: Case Management

    • Fourth-generation risk and need assessment instruments are an extension of third-generation instruments with an emphasis on treatment matching/case management.

    • They focus on addressing offender needs by developing matching algorithms based on the offender's risk and need profile.

    • The objective of the fourth generation of tools is to increase the quality of assessments and make them more applicable to offender case management and resource allocation by identifying persons and recommending treatment placement.

• The application of a validated risk-need assessment is a crucial component of the Risk-Need-Responsiveness methodology.

  • Static risk is the most accurate predictor of recidivism, but second-generation risk assessment tools are restricted from a case management standpoint.

  • The RNR approach recommends a risk and need assessment of the third or fourth generation.

Dynamic Risk and Criminogenic Needs

• The Risk-Need-Responsivity framework acknowledges that dynamic elements such as substance addiction, mental health, employment retention, pro-social values, friends and families, and criminal thinking are modifiable and are highlighted as intervention targets for rehabilitative correctional programs.

  • The RNR model's need premise stresses triaging dynamic offender needs to prioritize recidivism-related correctional rehabilitation.

  • This technique saves costs by targeting offender traits that affect recidivism and can be altered through programming.

• Central Eight

  • history of antisocial behavior

  • antisocial personality pattern

  • antisocial attitudes/thinking

  • antisocial associates

  • family/ marital problems

  • low levels of education or financial achievement

  • lack of pro-social leisure activities

  • substance abuse.

• The first four needs, known as the Big Four – history of antisocial behavior, antisocial views, antisocial peers, and criminal mentality – are more predictive of recidivism results than the remaining components.

• The model suggests that correctional interventions should focus on these dynamic characteristics.

  • The RNR strategy emphasizes screening and assessment tools to detect dynamic offender requirements to prioritize correctional treatment and interventions.

• Substance Abuse.

  • The RNR paradigm defines substance addiction as a criminogenic need, but ignores the fact that there are many types of drug users and that the relationship between substance abuse and criminal behavior varies.

  • Most assessments of criminal justice risk include questions about substance misuse, but fail to differentiate between substance abuse and reliance.

  • Validated substance use screening and assessment instruments to provide more detailed information regarding lifetime drug use, drug of choice, mode of delivery, longest periods of abstinence, and whether drug use affects employment or is associated with legal issues.

  • The relationship between drug abuse and crime is complex, and empirical data reveals that there is a connection between the two.

  • When considering substance use into the Risk-Need-Responsiveness paradigm, it is essential to evaluate both drug of choice and clinical diagnosis/treatment need level.

  • Drug-crime nexus theory: It proposes that giving substance misuse treatment within the legal system will disrupt criminal activity.

  • A revised RNR model would prioritize substance use treatment needs based on the severity of substance use disorder (SUD) and drug of choice, since there are evidence-based interventions to address this dynamic need.

• Based on existing empirical data, the consideration of substance use within an RNR framework is refined as follows:

  • Certain drugs don't affect crime.

    • The literature shows that opiates and cocaine use are more likely to affect criminal behavior due to the need for money, the desire to participate in the drug trade to maintain a habit, and drunken decisions.

    • Amphetamine use is also growing in this category.

  • Marijuana usage is not a criminogenic need since it does not appear to follow the same trend as "hard drugs" like cocaine, opiates, and amphetamines.

    • Marijuana users with criminal thought patterns should receive antisocial thinking therapies before substance use interventions.

  • Many offenders are arrested on crimes unrelated to substance usage, since substance abuse often drives criminal behavior.

    • Many drug offenders do not have clinical SUDs that require intense treatment, hence they will not benefit from substance abuse programs.

  • Offenders should be divided into four categories regarding substance abuse:

    • nonusers

    • used drugs in the past with current use of soft drugs

    • used hard drugs within a month of the arrest

    • used hard drugs prior to the arrest.

  • Most studies and evaluation tools investigate these issues but do not incorporate clinical assessment criteria (such as the DSM-IV).

• Antisocial Cognitions/Criminal Thinking.

  • Antisocial cognitions: These are the ways through which aberrant behavior is rationalized.

  • These characteristics include dominance, entitlement, self-justification, shifting blame, positive interpretations of reality, and "victim stance"

  • These cognitive errors are typically more prevalent among offenders than among the general population.

  • According to the RNR model, they are one of the "Big Four" criminogenic needs and should receive priority treatment during correctional supervision.

  • Many measures, including the Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking Styles (PICTS), the Criminal Sentiments Scale, the Measure of Offender Thinking Styles, the Criminogenic Thinking Profile, and the Criminal Cognitions Scale, have been designed to examine criminal thinking.

• Antisocial Personality Pattern.

  • The Risk-Need-Responsivity model identifies an antisocial personality pattern as one of the "Big Four" criminogenic requirements, which is characterized by pleasure-seeking behavior, low self-control, and/or aggression.

  • DSM-IV criteria for (antisocial personality disorder) ASPD offer one possible operationalization of this criminogenic need factor.

  • Low self-control is a dynamic characteristic often noted among offenders, and can be addressed through cognitive restructuring interventions.

  • This conception acknowledges that such behaviors are prevalent and that the question is whether the individual regularly demonstrates the features.

• Antisocial Associates and Social Supports.

  • The RNR paradigm emphasizes antisocial associates (family and peers) as a criminogenic necessity and identifies prosocial family and peers as potential protective factors against prolonged involvement in criminal activity.

  • Family relationships can provide emotional support and help the process of offender rehabilitation, but a history of family involvement in crime and prior incarceration are frequently precursors to learnt criminal and drug use behaviors.

  • Three methods of family and peer affiliations (referred to as social bonds) may promote desistance, including the regulation of offender conduct, the provision of emotional support, and the facilitation of a shift.

  • Adult prosocial ties to family and spouse can serve as a trigger for desistance, but a clear empirical link between associations with antisocial peers and offending has been demonstrated.

• Employment and Educational Attainment.

  • The average educational level of offenders is lower than that of the general population, and those who do not complete high school are more likely to reoffend.

  • Education is viewed as a non-criminogenic, dynamic need that requires less treatment focus than criminogenic needs.

  • Employment has an indirect correlation with recidivism and can be targeted by correctional programs.

  • Work following release from prison has been demonstrated to improve outcomes, although the overall association between employment and recidivism remains unclear.

  • More study is required to explain the processes through which employment and education influence recidivism outcomes and the potential for educational and employment-related treatment programs to reduce recidivism.

• Mental Health Status.

  • Due to the prevalence and complexity of mental health issues in the legal system, mental health functioning is a complicated requirement.

  • Despite the significant incidence of mental health conditions and co-occurring disorders (CODs), few empirical investigations have established that the existence of a mental health problem is a direct predictor of criminal behavior.

  • Yet, mental health disorders may have a detrimental effect on the performance of offenders in programming and may increase the probability of technical breaches relating to failure to complete required treatment.

  • The failure to offer mental health care to persons with mental illness can have a detrimental effect on the outcomes of offenders and lead to higher recidivism rates.

• Housing.

  • Housing is another dynamic requirement of offenders that should be included within the RNR framework.

  • Although housing status does not directly predict recidivism, housing instability indirectly affects recidivism since it impairs the offender's overall stability in the community.

  • The resolution of housing concerns can provide stability and enhance offenders' performance under community supervision and in community-based treatment, making it a third-tier dynamic risk factor.

• Risk of Recidivism and Location.

  • Location influences the chance of recidivism, and offenders with similar individual risk profiles are more likely to fail if released to a small number of high-risk regions.

  • It is unlikely that the Risk-Need-Responsivity paradigm will be effective in enhancing offender outcomes if there is no programming to meet dynamic offender requirements.

  • The availability of programming is a central component of the third and final RNR principle: responsivity.

Identifying Targets for Programming

• The objective of the Risk-Need-Responsivity paradigm is to uncover dynamic factors that directly or indirectly lead to criminal behavior.

  • These determinants include mental health status, level of education, employment history and opportunities, housing, and place of living.

  • These non-criminogenic elements influence the decisions and choices made by offenders and must therefore be considered when determining treatment matching and changeability.

  • Screening and assessment of needs provide information regarding which needs are present and which should be addressed in interventions.

• The following concept of need severity can be used to supplement the original Andrews and Bonta Risk-Need-Responsivity paradigm and facilitate more efficient allocation of correctional resources:

  • Primary criminogenic needs should be divided into three categories: substance dependence, criminal lifestyle, and offender type.

    • Based on their relationship to recidivism and understanding of effective therapies, these needs should be prioritized.

  • According to research, the quantity of needs influences recidivism; therefore, offenders with higher scores on criminal attitudes and values, antisocial friends, familial criminal networks, and a history of antisocial behavior should be addressed.

  • Core demographics are essential for determining programming assignments.

    • Gender, age, and home location should be considered in the matching process.

  • Substance addiction and mental illness, which are clinically relevant and have treatment programs, should be emphasized as intervention targets among non-criminogenic requirements.

  • Given their relatively weaker connections with recidivism, the remaining dynamic need factors should either be viewed as stabilizers (protective factors) or destabilizers (negative indicators).

    • This distinction allows for more consideration of aspects that should be used to change programming based on the amount and type of stabilizers and destabilizers present in an individual's life.

Responsivity

• The responsivity principle of the RNR framework has two components: general responsivity and specific responsivity.

  • General responsivity principle: This indicates that correctional interventions will have the greatest influence on recidivism when they are founded on evidence and involve treatment strategies that have been empirically connected to improved offender outcomes.

  • Specific responsivity principle: This now encompasses age, gender, cultural background, personality, and previous treatment experiences.

  • These client characteristics are used to determine the type and level of correctional intervention that will best meet the offender's treatment needs and improve outcomes.

  • This responsivity concept includes program- or intervention-level characteristics that affect programming quality and impact.

• These additional program elements include dosage, content, faithfulness or conformity to the program model, and quality of program resources.

  • Dosage or amount of hours a person spends in a correctional program should vary based on his or her risk level, with higher-risk offenders engaging in more programming.

  • Content or theoretical orientation of the intervention should incorporate therapeutic communities, cognitive-behavioral therapy, or integrated service models like drug treatment courts.

    • The programming of treatment has an effect on the outcomes.

  • Program efficacy is strongly tied to fidelity, adherence to basic correctional procedures, and the degree to which the program is implemented as planned.

    • This construct consists of the program's dose, content, type of staff, curriculum, and other critical functional components that are essential for bringing about offender transformation.

  • Program resources consist of available buildings, resources, and personnel.

    • They should match with the intervention's desired objectives.

    • To guarantee that the clinical or responsiveness components of a program have appropriate resources to be effective, program resources are essential.

• While the basic Risk-Need-Responsivity paradigm remains in place, an increased empirical literature base has helped to reconfigure some of the responsivity choice factors to include:

  • Dosage and programming should be based on static risk.

    • As static risk accounts for most of the diversity in recidivism, moderate to high-risk offenders with diverse criminogenic demands should be prioritized for intensive programming.

  • The RNR framework should consider all dynamic offender needs, including non-criminogenic factors, to identify problem severity.

  • Moderate-to-high-risk offenders should prioritize substance abuse and criminal lifestyle programming.

  • Age and gender are crucial responsiveness characteristics that should affect the program's or service's content.

  • The content of programming should be divided into four levels: cognitive and behavioral, interpersonal and social skills, lifestyle skills, and punishment (no programming).

  • Cognitive and behavioral programming should be the primary form of intervention for individuals with criminogenic needs who are at moderate to high risk.

• This paradigm of extended responsivity can be utilized to match justice-involved individuals to levels of care in accordance with the Risk-Need-Responsivity framework.

• Conceptually, the steps of responsibility are clear:

  • Identifying static risk and prioritizing high and moderate risk offenders for more extensive interventions and therapies;

  • Identify criminogenic demands and focus treatment on specific criminogenic needs;

  • Use cognitive-behavioral, behavioral, and other therapies supported by evidence to address criminogenic needs;

  • Consider non-criminogenic needs, stabilizers, and destabilizers when evaluating the appropriate degree of care for an individual associated with the court system; and

  • Concentrate on the client's strengths to refine and enhance the therapy fit.