Two prevailing models that influence corrections today are the risk/need/responsivity model and the good lives model. The risk/need/responsivity model is comprised of three basic principles: (1) the “risk” principle asserts that criminal behavior can be reliably predicted and that treatment should focus on the higher risk offenders; (2) the “need” principle underscores the importance of criminogenic needs in the design and delivery of treatment; and (3) the “responsivity” principle describes how the treatment should be provided (Bonta & Andrews, 2007). By contrast, the good lives model is based on the belief that everyone has certain primary needs including autonomy, happiness, health, relatedness and competence that they continually attempt to satisfy. From a good lives model perspective, criminal behaviors are effective but maladaptive strategies for satisfying these needs (Schaffer & Jeglic, 2010). Therefore, interventions should be designed to identify these unique needs and assist offenders learn honest and legitimate ways to satisfy them (Schaffer & Jeglic, 2010). Although of these models have their respective proponents and critics, there is a growing body of evidence that the risk/need/responsivity model represents a superior strategy. This paper creates a fictional but realistic scenario in which a hypothetical “offender” is described, including the types of criminal activity and a “responder role.” In addition, an offender rehabilitation response that includes the relevant factors from the risk/need/responsivity model perspective is followed by a summary of the research and important findings concerning identifying optimal offender rehabilitation strategies in the conclusion. Review and Discussion

Scenario

The hypothetical but all-too-common offender in this scenario is “Joseph,” a white, 20-year-old unemployed high school dropout from a broken home who is an impulsive as well as a drug and alcohol abuser. As a result, Joseph has become involved with the criminal justice system repeatedly over the years for crimes ranging from drug possession, petty theft, malicious mischief, criminal trespassing and most recently, charges for selling marijuana and having an illegal hand gun. In addition, Josephs proudly boasts of belonging to a local gang known as “The Cutthroats” whose members are infamous in the community for their propensity for violence and he intimates that because he enjoys the “gangsta” lifestyle, he will most likely remain a member during his incarceration and after his eventual release. In other words, Joseph has a clear disdain for the law and honest work.

Although Joseph was a poor performer in high school (he dropped out in his junior year), he reports being a member of the school’s chess club and participating in several regional tournaments where he achieved a total of three wins and a draw. In addition, Joseph also reports enjoying playing basketball and pickup games of football when he was in middle school and high school. At present, Joseph’s primary leisure and recreational activities are limited to playing video games with fellow gang members and “just hanging out and chillin’ with his buds” (e.g., his fellow gang members). In addition, Joseph reports having a number of girlfriends (usually gang “hangers-on”) over the years (none at present, however) and he has been sexually active since age 15 years. Following his arrest, it was determined that Joseph had just over three-quarters of a pound of marijuana in his possession which qualified him for an intent to distribute charge together with an illegal handgun for which he received 5 years in the state penitentiary.

Prior to his arrest, Joseph lived at home with his mother. Joseph’s parents were discovered 6 years ago and he has seen or heard from his father since except for...

During this encounter, Joseph’s father only exchanged curt greetings with him and nothing else. Likewise, Joseph’s relationship with his mother is highly strained, due in part to her alcoholism and longstanding refusal to secure meaningful employment, preferring to live off of welfare checks and food stamps, something that Joseph admits to resenting in the extreme. In essence, Joseph has been left to his own devices for the past 6 years by an absent father and disengaged mother and he has largely used this time to become increasingly dangerous to himself and his community through his criminal activities and gangster lifestyle.
Overview of the risk/need/responsivity model

The risk/need/responsivity (RNR) model was developed in the 1980s and formalized in 1990 (Bonta & Andrews, 2007). The RNR model is described by Bonta and Andrews as “Perhaps the most influential model for the assessment and treatment of offenders. The RNR model has been elaborated upon and contextualized within a general personality and cognitive social learning theory of criminal conduct” (2007, p. 1). As noted above, the RNR model is guided by three main principles (i.e., risk, need and responsivity) which are described further below.

The risk principle of the RNR model holds that recidivist behaviors by offender can be mitigated provided that the level of treatment services applied to offender rehabilitation is directly proportionate to their risk of reoffending (Bonta & Andrews, 2007). The risk principle is further divided into two components: (1) the level of treatment; and, (2) the offender’s risk of reoffending (Bonta & Andrews, 2007). According to Spencer (2013), “The risk principle requires the use of a validated assessment process to effectively direct treatment resources to the highest-risk offenders” (p. 9).

The RNR model’s need principle is focused on interventions that are designed to address criminogenic needs. According to Bonta and Andrews, “Criminogenic needs are dynamic risk factors that are directly linked to criminal behavior. Criminogenic needs can come and go unlike static risk factors that can only change in one direction (increase risk) and are immutable to treatment intervention” (p. 5). Although offenders will likely have a number of unique needs that should be treated, not all such needs have linked with criminal behaviors (Bonta & Andrews, 2007). Offenders’ criminogenic needs are classified under the major predictors for criminal behavior which are termed the “central eight” risk/need factors (Bonta & Andrews, 2007, p. 5). All of the seven criminogenic needs (i.e., [1] antisocial personality pattern; [2] procriminal attitudes; [3] social supports for crime; [4] substance abuse; [5] family/marital relationships; [6] school/work; and [7] prosocial recreational activities should be regarded as being important to assess and treat with the most efficacious interventions that are available (Bonta & Andrews, 2007).

Finally, the RNR model’s responsivity principle is based on the notion that the most effective strategies for teaching offenders new types of behavior to replace virtually any other type of behavior are cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT)-based social learning interventions (Bonta & Andrews, 2007). In this regard, Ticknor (2017) advises that, “CBT uses strategies, such as positive and negative reinforcements and punishments, for behavior modification. Many have used CBT to treat a variety of problems, including mood disorders, anxiety disorders, personality disorders, eating disorders and substance abuse” (p. 47).

The responsivity principle is also further divided into two more principles as follows: (1) the relationship principle (establishing a warm, respectful and collaborative working alliance with…