An appraisal of the riskneedresponsivity (RNR) model of offender rehabilitation and its application in correctional treatment


1

Legal and Criminological Psychology (2012), 17, 1–17
C© 2012 The British Psychological Society

The
British
Psychological
Society

www.wileyonlinelibrary.com

An appraisal of the risk–need–responsivity (RNR)
model of offender rehabilitation and its
application in correctional treatment

Devon L. L. Polaschek∗
School of Psychology, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand

The science of effective offender rehabilitation remains a very young field: dominated
theoretically and empirically by the work of a small group of Canadian psychologists.
Their achievements include the ‘what works’ research literature, and the RNR model
of offender rehabilitation. First disseminated in 1990, over the following 20 years, the
Risk, Need and Responsivity Principles became the core of the theoretical framework
used in those correctional systems around the world that use science as a basis for
offender rehabilitation. This paper evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of the RNR
model as a Level I rehabilitation framework. It proposes that unrealistic expectations
and mistranslations of the model into practice are contributing to concerns about its
validity and utility, and stifling needed innovation in the development both of mid-level
treatment resources, and of RNR-adherent interventions. It concludes that although
the RNR model’s empirical validity and practical utility justify its place as the dominant
model, it is not the ‘last word’ on offender rehabilitation; there is much work still to be
done.

The scientific study of criminal justice interventions has a short history, from which the
first publications on ‘the RNR model of offender rehabilitation’ emerged little more than
20 years ago. Founded on three core principles of offender classification—risk, need,
and responsivity—today the RNR model remains the only empirically validated guide for
criminal justice interventions that aim to help offenders to depart from that system.

Despite the progress made, the RNR model and its growing knowledge base have had
limited impact internationally on correctional responses to offenders. The highly emotive
and politicized nature of law-and-order issues in our communities can leave little room
for the influence of science. Instead, ‘truthiness’—judging the validity of ideas by their
subjective appeal, without reference to facts, logic, or data (Colbert, 2005) —may prevail.
Even in nations that both commit criminal justice resources to rehabilitation and that have
adopted the model as a matter of policy, the scope and impact of potentially effective
interventions is small compared to the systemic resources dedicated to ineffective but
‘true’ approaches, such as increasingly severe and diverse forms of punishment and

∗Correspondence should be addressed to Devon Polaschek, School of Psychology, Victoria University of Wellington, P. O. Box
600, Wellington 6140, New Zealand (e-mail: devon.polaschek@vuw.ac.nz).

DOI:10.1111/j.2044-8333.2011.02038.x



2 Devon L. L. Polaschek

surveillance. This wider punitive context often threatens to swamp the application of
this knowledge, along with the efforts of those offenders who strive to desist from crime,
and those of the rehabilitative programme workers who support them. Implementing
knowledge gains—applying what we have learned—despite the forces of ‘truthiness’ is
a significant challenge.

Nevertheless, we know much more than we did about what can work, due in large
part to the concerted efforts of Canadian psychologists during the 1980s and 1990s.
Although their work started much earlier (Wormith, Gendreau, & Bonta, in press), at
that time, they adopted the new technique of meta-analysis to create a turning point
in the scientific understanding of how to reduce re-offending risk (Andrews, Zinger
et al., 1990). Meta-analysis transcended the limitations of narrative reviews, by empir-
ically agglomerating superficially disparate programmes and research methodologies,
putting them on a common metric: the effect size. For the first time it was possible
to use large amounts of information systematically to identify the ‘essential ingredients’
in programmes that worked, and to suggest what was wrong with the many that did
not. The ’what works’ research literature had an important role in the development
of the RNR model, which was first published in full form in 1994 (Andrews & Bonta,
1994).

However, effect sizes can only take us so far theoretically. Andrews and colleagues
theoretical ideas and original research were at least as important in shaping the RNR
model. Andrews began in the 1970s to translate promising crime theories into effective
correctional service practices (e.g., Andrews, 1980, 1982b).

Although Andrews and colleagues have published numerous papers on the RNR
model, its most detailed descriptions are contained in the five editions of their graduate
text, The Psychology of Criminal Conduct (Andrews & Bonta, 1994, 1998, 2003,
2006, 2010a). Its strengths as a theoretical framework for offender rehabilitation
are substantial; it distils a very large volume of aetiological and intervention-related
information into a series of transparently simple principles for application. Notwith-
standing on-going development since 1994, areas of weakness remain, but perhaps
more troubling are some of the ways in which their work has been translated into
practice.

Just as with aetiological theories, the conceptual resources that inform effective
programme design vary in their abstractness and complexity, and different levels of
models are associated with different purposes and capacities. This paper describes the
RNR model, then locates it within a tiered conceptual framework of intervention model
development, to guide an appraisal the strengths and weaknesses of the RNR model:
what it does well, and what it does not, and—in some cases—cannot do. The paper
aims to promote constructive discussion about future developments in the research and
practice of offender rehabilitation.

What is the RNR model?
The RNR model of rehabilitation is a theoretical framework that outlines both the
central causes of persistent criminal behaviour, and some broad principles for reducing
engagement in crime. The dissemination of the model began in 1990 with just the
three ‘core’ principles: risk, need, and responsivity (along with a fourth, professional
discretion; Andrews, Bonta, & Hoge, 1990). The full model includes not just the list of
principles for effective rehabilitation, later expanded to 18 (Andrews, 2001; Andrews,



The RNR model of offender rehabilitation: An appraisal 3

Bonta, & Wormith, 2011), but also the body of empirical, theoretical, and practical work
on which they rest, known as General Personality and Cognitive Social Learning (GPCSL1)
perspective, and its more specific theory of the central mechanisms of criminal conduct,
the Personal, Interpersonal, and Community-Reinforcement (PIC-R) perspective.

The model assumes that (a) intervening to help offenders reduce their involvement
in crime benefits them and the community around them, and (b) that the only way
to intervene effectively is through compassionate, collaborative, and dignified human
service intervention that targets change on factors that predict criminal behaviour, (i.e.,
it is a risk reduction model). It also assumes that correctional rehabilitation is usually
resourced by, and accountable to government; although offenders have the same rights
as others do to assistance with all aspects of their functioning (e.g., psychological and
physical health), correctional programmes do not have a mandate to address those needs
that do not lead to reduced involvement in crime (Blanchette & Brown, 2006).

The risk principle has two parts. First, at any point in time, people differ from
each other in the likelihood of engaging in criminal behaviour, and this likelihood can
be predicted from a wide range of factors, including current attributes and previous
criminal behaviour. Level of risk is important because, all other things being equal, more
crime can be prevented by targeting higher rather than lower risk offenders for service.
Therefore, offenders’ current risk level should be identified prior to making intervention
decisions (Andrews, Bonta et al., 1990). Second, significant reductions for higher risk
cases require intensive intervention; brief or narrowly focused programmes have little
impact (Andrews & Bonta, 1994).

The need principle refers to the targets for change. Criminogenic needs are dynamic
attributes of offenders and their circumstances that, when changed, are followed
by changes in recidivism (Andrews, Bonta et al., 1990). Andrews and Bonta use
the term ‘need’ in their characteristically pragmatic manner, to refer to ‘problem-
atic circumstances’ (2010, p. 21), or correctional treatment needs (Ogloff & Davis,
2004).

Andrews and Bonta (1994, 1998) listed six and later eight broad ‘risk/need’ fac-
tors: divided into the ‘big four’ (anti-social attitudes, anti-social associates, anti-social
temperament/personality, and a static factor: a history of diverse anti-social behaviour)
and the ‘moderate four’: family/marital circumstances, social/work, leisure/recreation,
and substance abuse. Their presence and ordering is based on meta-analytic results.
To assist their translation into treatment targets, Andrews and Bonta listed ‘promising
targets for change’ (1994, p. 233); later these were aligned with specific criminogenic
needs encompassing both offenders themselves (e.g., reduce drug use) and their social
contexts (e.g., change the quality of family supervision).

The third core principle is responsivity, also described as the ‘how’ of intervention
(Andrews & Bonta, 2010a): designing and delivering services in ways that engage
offenders, help them to learn and change. General responsivity refers to general
techniques and processes: behavioural and cognitive-behavioural techniques such as
teaching skills and reinforcing prosocial behaviour.

Specific responsivity refers to variations among offenders in the styles and modes of
service to which they respond. For example, women offenders may not engage as well
with a programme based on men’s preferences and needs. Young, physically active men

1In earlier accounts of the RNR model, the GPCSL is referred to instead as the ‘general personality and social psychology
approach’ (GPSPA; e.g., Andrews & Bonta, 1994).



4 Devon L. L. Polaschek

may learn better from shorter, more interactive sessions. Poorly motivated offenders
may engage when they understand better how an intervention serves their interests
(Andrews & Bonta, 1994, 1998, 2003, 2006, 2010a).

The three core principles are accompanied by ‘overarching principles’, ‘additional
clinical principles’, and ‘organizational principles’ (Andrews & Bonta, 2010a; Andrews
et al., 2011). Overarching principles include (a) respect for the person and the
normative context, (b) basing the programme on empirically validated psychological
theory, and (c) the importance and legitimacy of services that prevent crime, even
when those services are located outside the criminal justice system. Additional clinical
principles state that programmes should target multiple criminogenic needs (breadth),
should assess strengths, both for risk prediction and responsivity, use structured
assessments of risk, and use professional discretion occasionally on well-reasoned and
well-documented grounds. Organizational principles recognize intervention contexts
and needed resources. They state that community-based interventions are preferable,
that staff practice both the relationship and structuring principles with offenders, and
that management must provide, develop, and support the staff and other resources
needed (Andrews & Bonta, 2010a). None of these additional principles is new; they
draw out and state explicitly material that was present but less accessible in their earlier
writing.

The principles derive both from empirical research and from their personal, inter-
personal, and community reinforcement (PIC-R) perspective. The PIC-R is described
as a specific theory derived from a ‘general personality and cognitive social learning’
(GPCSL) perspective to understanding criminal conduct (Andrews & Bonta, 1994, 1998,
2003, 2006, 2010a). The PIC-R began around 1982 (Andrews, 1982a) as an ambitious
attempt at theory knitting (Ward, Polaschek, & Beech, 2006), integrating promising
aspects of diverse sociological and psychological aetiological theories and research on
crime, and distilling their contributions down to the level of the individual. The primary
source theory at the individual level is social learning theory; crucial roles are accorded
to cognition and modelling and observational learning (Andrews & Bonta, 1994, 1998,
2003, 2006, 2010a).

Although the fifth edition of the Psychology of Criminal Conduct (Andrews &
Bonta, 2010a) is more than twice the length of the first (Andrews & Bonta, 1994),
the foundations of the approach remain unchanged. Over successive editions, Andrews
and Bonta continued to elaborate, and contextualize their model, and to evaluate its
empirical accuracy, based on steady growth in relevant research. The supporting material
on each RNR principle, and the PIC-R is extended, incorporating disparate theoretical
and empirical advances in criminological psychology and other relevant domains (e.g.,
clinical, neuro-social, and personality psychology).

The other notable change over time is an increase in the clarity and accessibility
of presentation; language is less technical, there is more elaboration of basic concepts,
technical aspects of research findings are set beside the main text or in appendices,
rather than embedded, and the principles themselves are described in more detail. The
potential impact of such apparently superficial changes is substantial for a framework
that will be applied to real-world issues; promoting a more complete understanding of
the model. Some of these changes represent responses to critiques that have encouraged
the authors to pull aspects of the model more clearly into the foreground. For example,
the term ‘strengths’ is now featured in the principles themselves, more emphasis is
given to resistance and motivation, and there are more explicit statements on attention
to non-criminogenic needs.



The RNR model of offender rehabilitation: An appraisal 5

Contextualizing the RNR model as a rehabilitation framework
Theories and models are developed to serve particular purposes. They vary on di-
mensions that are unrelated to their content domain, such as detail, complexity, and
abstractness. No theory—no matter how well crafted—can be all things to all people.
Theory evaluation should be conducted with reference to the intended type or level of
theory proposed, because different levels of theories inevitably tend to have particular
types of strengths and weaknesses.

Integrated and systematic theory building in the criminal justice system—especially
intervention theory—remains neglected. Some years ago, Ward and Hudson (1998)
recognized a similar problem with aetiological theories informing sex offender treatment,
and organized them into three tiers, differing in level of abstraction and compre-
hensiveness. This proposed structure—known as the ‘meta-theoretical framework’—
when applied to correctional rehabilitation theories similarly enhances understanding
of current theories and gaps, identifying high-priority areas for future development
(Polaschek, 2011).

This adapted ‘rehabilitation meta-theoretical framework’ is also valuable here. Locat-
ing the RNR model within the tiered framework provides clearer expectations about
how to judge its quality relative to the intended purpose and inherent strengths and
weaknesses of theories of that type.

In Ward and Hudson’s (1998) meta-theoretical framework, theories in the top tier—
Level I—are global and multi- factorial. They leave unspecified important details about
the inner workings of the phenomenon they seek to explain. Level II theories instead
deal with a single aetiological factor: specifying mechanisms, and describing how the
factor interacts with other factors. Finally, Level III theories are local theories of the
offence process itself (Ward & Hudson, 1998).

In the proposed adaptation for intervention theories, Level I multifactorial reha-
bilitation theories are also global, necessarily broad in focus and lacking sufficient
detail to directly shape the design of specific interventions. They are hybrids (Ward,
Melser, & Yates, 2007): informed partly by aetiological theories, but also incorporating
the underlying values and assumptions of intervention, therapy strategies, change
processes, programme context and setting, and implementation issues, all in an abstract,
‘high level’, way. Their main purpose is to provide general parameters, in which
rehabilitative endeavours will operate, and to support developments on the other two
levels (Polaschek, 2011).

Turning next to the bottom, most specific, level of conceptual development: At
Level III reside intervention theories for specific programmes. They describe the
programme, its processes and content, therapist characteristics, intended client group,
expected changes, and so on. They explain their characteristics with reference to Level
II and Level I theory.

In the original meta-theoretical framework (Ward & Hudson, 1998), a descriptive
theory of the offence process is an impoverished one if it draws only on multivariate
aetiological theories of sexual offending. Similarly, the breadth and abstractness of
Level I theories makes them unsuited to informing Level III—specific interventions—
either for therapists working individually with offenders, or for expert teams of
programme designers.

Level II contains the conceptual guides representing broad intervention approaches
under the umbrella of a Level I rehabilitation theory. These resources may vary by
offender characteristics (e.g., level of criminal risk, gender and age, psychopathy,



6 Devon L. L. Polaschek

criminal gang members) or by the presence of particular needs (e.g., alcohol and
drugs) or a focus on change in particular domains (e.g., cognitive skills, vocational
skills, reintegration planning, and implementation) or particular settings (court-based,
correctional, hospital). Clearly, just as Level I rehabilitation theories are hybrids rather
than true theories, these are also not theories in the conventional sense, but again
comprise elements of theory, research, and practice resources, but at an intermediate
level of abstractness and detail.

What do Level II intervention resources look like? Some concrete models are available
for the treatment of sexual offending: they outline how to rehabilitate sexual offenders
across a range of risk levels and settings. For example, Marshall, Marshall, Serran, &
O’Brien (2011) draw together resources from research, decades of evolving programme
practice, and new theoretical developments in positive psychology. They outline a
Level II theory: a general approach to ‘strength-based’ sexual offender rehabilitation,
and include several Level III derivatives.

Finally, Ward and Hudson (1998) distinguished between Level I theories and
‘theoretical frameworks’. The latter are less well developed and their main function is
‘to help organise research by providing a loose set of constructs with which to approach
empirical problems’ (Ward & Hudson, 1998, p. 54). At this point in its development,
the RNR model is best thought of not as a fully fledged Level I multivariate rehabilitation
theory, but as a framework (Ward et al., 2007). It is not fully developed yet.

Model appraisal criteria
Typically, explanatory or aetiological theories are evaluated against a series of criteria
that includes empirical validity (retrospective and direct prospective tests), scope,
discriminability, generalizability, internal and external consistency, ability to unify
existing theories, simplicity, falsifiability, research and practical fertility, explanatory
depth, and even originality, creativity or excitement (Sternberg, 2006; Ward et al.,
2006).

Although values other than empirical standing are important in evaluating theory
quality (see Ward et al., 2006), empirical validity and practical application have primacy
when evaluating intervention theories (Gendreau, Smith, & French, 2006; Ogloff & Davis,
2004). This stronger—though not exclusive—emphasis on whether theories or models
can prove themselves against both existing evidence, and new data—especially data
from the model’s application—is justifiable for two reasons.

First, the criteria listed above apply to more conventional psychological theories.
Rehabilitation theories are not aetiological or explanatory theories in the usual sense,
but hybrids that bring together theoretical and other resources needed for treatment
(Ward et al., 2007). Second, their main purpose is application, rather than knowledge
generation for its own sake. So arguably, although conceptual criteria are important,
they become irrelevant if empirical evidence does not support the model, or it cannot
be adequately implemented in the intended practice setting. The practical consequences
of using such a theory may be serious.

Strengths
Constructed as it was from existing theory and data, the RNR model has strong unifying
power and external consistency. The GPSPCA/PIC-R drew on an embarrassment of



The RNR model of offender rehabilitation: An appraisal 7

riches: even finding merit in Freudian theory, a notable inclusion for committed
behaviourists (Wormith, 2011).

It has significant explanatory depth in several important respects. For example, it can
explain why programmes as diverse as boot camps, pet therapy, and anger management
programmes do or do not work in reducing recidivism, and why programmes’ ‘labels’
do not reliably signal their potential. For example, intensive supervision programmes
(ISPs)—punitive community supervision regimes—are usually ineffective, but an ISP in-
corporating features of the RNR model can reduce recidivism (see Paparozzi & Gendreau,
2005). Other examples include its ability to explain why a positive relationship between
staff and offenders is a necessary but not sufficient condition for effective outcomes (i.e.,
the relationship and structuring principles) and to pinpoint retrospectively potential
sources of loss of programme effect when demonstration programmes are implemented
more widely (see examples in Andrews & Bonta, 2010a).

Importantly, they sought to demonstrate how factors from multiple levels of
influence, including the political, societal, and neighbourhood, can be seen in people’s
behaviour, through translation into social learning principles. Thus, they circumvented
a big weakness of social-level aetiological theories: explaining why some individuals
are more affected by these factors than others in apparently similar environments. With
elegant simplicity, these cognitive–behavioural principles also unify the aetiological with
the intervention aspects of the model.

Turning now to empirical validity, it is difficult to fault the RNR model on its
consistency with pre-existing empirical data. Newer research has fleshed out but not
falsified any major aspects of the model; the abstractness of Level I theories often renders
them difficult to falsify. Direct prospective tests of the model, have been based on (a) the
core RNR principles (Andrews & Bonta’s 2010 meta-analysis, and independent research,
e.g., Hanson, Bourgon, Helmus, & Hodgson, 2009; Lowenkamp, Latessa, & Smith, 2006),
and (b) the model itself, using the Correctional Programme Assessment Inventory (CPAI;
see Andrews, 2006; Goggin & Gendreau, 2006). This research continues to find that
programmes’ ability to reduce criminal offending is related to the extent to which
design and implementation conform to the RNR model.

The fertility and practical utility of a rehabilitation theory is demonstrated in new
research and new applications. The fertility of the RNR model is also significant. Others
have used it to understand the effects of diverse types of programmes: including prisoner
re-entry (Listwan, Cullen, & Latessa, 2006), supervision (Pearson, McDougall, Kanaan,
Bowles, & Torgerson, 2011; Taxman, 2006), family interventions (Dowden, & Andrews,
2003), and ISPs (Lowenkamp, Flores, Holsinger, Makarios, & Latessa, 2010). It has
inspired new assessment tools and approaches (Coebergh, Bakker, Anstiss, Maynard,
& Percy, 1999; Gordon & Wong, 2010; Latessa, Lemke, Makarios, Smith, & Lowenkamp,
2010; Ware & Coebergh, 2004), and new tools for assessing programme quality (e.g.,
the CPAI, see Goggin & Gendreau, 2006). It has found its way into the development of
programme accreditation systems (e.g., Bowen, 2011; Hanson, 2005; Lipton, Thornton,
McGuire, Porporino, & Hollin, 2000; Lösel, 2010).

It is credited with inspiring a flurry of intervention design; in the last decade or
so, several criminal justice systems (e.g., New Zealand, the UK) moved to widespread
adoption of assessments and development of programmes based on Andrews and Bonta’s
work. Encouragingly, there has been a steady range of research and practice publications
on the least well-understood principle of responsivity, on staff behaviour and treatment
process (e.g., Beyko & Wong, 2005; Dowden & Andrews, 2004; Hubbard & Pealer,
2009; McMurran, 2009). All in all, the RNR model has made an original substantive



8 Devon L. L. Polaschek

contribution to criminal justice assessment, intervention, research, programme accred-
itation, and programme integrity.

Weaknesses
The PCC is the only detailed source of information about the RNR model; article
summaries often only touch on the three core principles; at best, they discuss very
briefly the underlying theory. However, the volume and complexity of material in the
PCC makes familiarizing oneself with the full model and its underpinnings a committing
task. Although the principles are succinct (Wormith et al., in press), in its totality, the
overall framework lacks simplicity or parsimony.

In the early editions of the PCC, this complexity led to confusion, especially with
respect to the relationships between different aspects of the model (e.g., the GPSPA,
the PIC-R, and the RNR principles;(Ward & Maruna, 2007). The Ward et al. (2007)
reformulation demonstrated that this problem could be partially remediated. Later
editions of the PCC have made some improvements, expanding the listing of key
principles (see also Andrews et al., 2011), and presenting the core messages in diverse
and interesting ways that serve to clarify the authors’ views.

The model’s explanatory depth is limited in several key areas. For example, despite its
centrality to the model, the responsivity principle is the least developed of the three core
principles (Andrews & Bonta, 2010; see Dowden & Andrews, 2004, for an exception). It
is theoretically unsophisticated: a catch-all category. Yet, it contains much of what makes
the application of the model both humane and effective, so its underdevelopment may
have important consequences (Ogloff & Davis, 2004).

For example, it is still unclear why demographic variables such as gender and
ethnicity are important, and there remains limited detail about offender motivation and
engagement in treatment, despite decade-long Level II developments in motivational
interventions (McMurran, 2009) and more recently in treatment readiness (Day, Casey,
Ward, Howells, & Vess, 2010). One of the most useful aspects of critiques from strength-
emphasizing perspectives is in reminding us of the importance of giving offenders
reasons to want to engage in desistance and change (e.g., Porporino, 2010; Ward &
Maruna, 2007), not just the capacities to do so. Developing responsivity theoretically
could go some way to reduce the impression one can get from the RNR model, that
‘simple operant conditioning’ provides an inherently unsatisfying explanation for how
treatment works, and that effective RNR treatment is only concerned with the external
manipulation of contingencies for behaviour (Ward, Yates, & Willis, in press).

Another important limitation on explanatory depth, and so a priority for future
development is the conceptual gap that exists between an identified list of high-
priority dynamic risk factors or targets for change—the central eight—and the theoretical
resources needed to translate these factors into intervention design, individual clinical
formulations, treatment plans, and change monitoring (Porporino, 2010).

The central eight are empirically well established as correlates both of criminal
propensity, and of programmes that reduce re-offending. But each is a proxy, or
placeholder for a series of phenomena that Mann, Hanson, and Thornton (2010) recently
labelled ‘psychologically meaningful risk factors’; factors that potentially have an actual
causal role in on-going involvement in criminal behaviour. A list of broad categories of
treatment targets cannot and is not meant to substitute for an adequate understanding of
(a) the central mechanisms driving current criminal propensity, and therefore (b) how



The RNR model of offender rehabilitation: An appraisal 9

different risk factors are related to each other, and further (c) how change processes
work on these mechanisms for different offenders (Ward & Maruna, 2007).

But rather than expecting a Level I framework—abstract and lacking in detail as
it is—to bridge on its own these explanatory gaps, we should instead promote the
development at Level II both of single-factor aetiological theories and intervention
theories. Our scientific understanding both of treatment targets and treatment change
processes remains unsophisticated, and that lack of sophistication must inevitably be
imported into Level I theories.

Translation issues
The extent to which theorists themselves should be held responsible for others
misunderstanding or misapplying their work is no doubt a matter for debate. Regardless
of how clearly or carefully a theory is presented, there is always potential for important
aspects of it to be ‘lost in translation’. This final section of the critique considers some
areas of concern that rather than being inherent limitations of the model itself, may
instead be difficulties with knowledge transfer.

Andrews et al. (2011) acknowledge that a lack of clarity and comprehensibility may
have contributed to some of the criticisms levelled at their model, and further, that
the style of presentation may even have lacked charisma or attractiveness (Andrews
& Bonta, 2010a). Experience in teaching with the PCC text since its first edition
suggests that they are correct. Both the detached and formal academic writing style
and some of the terminology (e.g., ‘clinically appropriate human service’; Andrews &
Bonta, 1998, p. 270; and ‘the magnitude of the effect of any one signaled reward for
any class of behaviors depends upon the signaled density of other rewards for that class
of behaviors’ (Andrews & Bonta, 2006, p. 142) telegraph to students that the roots of
this model precede the birth of their parents. Though undoubtedly technically correct,
both style and terminology may discourage today’s students of correctional psychology
from reading the PCC thoroughly. Instead they may focus more on summaries of the
model (e.g., Andrews & Bonta, 2010b; Bonta & Andrews, 2007), including those of
other commentators, which are, by definition, social constructions that may be prone to
disadvantageous reductionism (Cullen, in press).

If the next generation of therapists and policy makers do not fully understand, or
cannot even bring themselves to fully read the relevant material, then their appraisals
of it will be superficial or inaccurate, leading to problems with translation into
practice. Although really good books should not be judged by their covers, research
shows that they are. Simpler, clearer, and more accessible language serves to reduce
misunderstandings, and has other important practical implications: readers are likely to
like the model more and view it as easier to use (Song & Schwarz, 2008, 2009).

Ward and colleagues have provided the most systematic and thought-provoking
critiques of the RNR model. Their critiques include a number of points they suggest
may be better thought of as problems with implementation ( Ward et al., 2007; Ward &
Maruna, 2007). Several of their observations point to failures to implement core tenets
of the RNR model.

For example, Ward and Maruna (2007) suggest that in their experience, programmes
derived from the RNR model primarily are conducted for the benefit not of the offender,
but of the community at large. Relatedly, these programmes do not motivate or engage
offenders since they do not build or promote valuable positive skills and capacities.
Further, they cannot support offenders’ interests in desisting from crime and hamper



10 Devon L. L. Polaschek

the development of a good therapeutic alliance. Lastly, in these programmes, offenders’
treatment goals are primarily avoidant, because the overall goal of intervention is to
reduce re-offending (Ward & Maruna, 2007).

No doubt such programmes exist. It is hard to imagine, however, that they could be
effective in reducing recidivism; they differ in important ways from both the letter and
the spirit of the RNR model. Considering these points in turn, first, RNR programmes
are conducted for the benefit of the offender and the community; throughout the
PCC, Andrews and Bonta refer to the benefits of human service (i.e., rehabilitative)
interventions for the offender (e.g., 2010, p. 346). The underlying assumption of the
RNR model—and the rehabilitative ethos from which it emerged—is that it benefits both
offenders and society to get offenders away from the criminal justice system and into
pro-social community life, and RNR rehabilitation is about assisting them in ways that
will achieve that goal (see also Bonta & Andrews, 2003).

Typical RNR programmes, even those for the highest risk offenders devote the
majority of treatment time to helping prisoners learn skills that we would all find
helpful: mood regulation, behavioural regulation, distress tolerance, problem solving,
communication skills, and so on (Cortoni, Nunes, & Latendresse, 2006; Polaschek, 2011;
Polaschek & Dixon, 2001; Wong, Gordon, & Gu, 2007). Programme environments often
also include vocational skills and education components, assistance in reconnecting
with families, as well as practical assistance with preparing for community re-entry. Do
offenders have other important yet non-criminogenic needs, and would they benefit
from other forms of assistance? Without doubt, but the presence of other needs does
not make risk-related needs unimportant (Ward et al., in press): and their amelioration
of no benefit to the offender.

RNR programmes are fundamentally capacity building: the most effective way
to address criminogenic needs is by shaping the development of and differentially
rewarding the adoption of positive capacities. This idea goes back at least to early
behaviourism (Miltenberger, 2004), and in the RNR model, is incorporated into the core
process of ‘building up rewards for non-criminal alternatives’ (Andrews et al., 2011,
p. 741).2

For example, Andrews and Bonta (1994, p. 233) noted that promising targets for
change include ‘promoting family affection and communication’; ‘replacing the skills
of lying, stealing, and aggression with more prosocial alternatives’; ‘promoting identifi-
cation/association with anticriminal role models’; and making non-criminal activities
in familial, academic, vocational, recreational, and other behavioural settings more
rewarding than criminal activities, so that offenders will prefer them. These examples
(see also Andrews & Bonta, 2010, pp. 58–60) show too that it is not correct that RNR-
based interventions primarily set avoidant treatment goals with offenders. Yes, the overall
policy goal—the ultimate goal—of correctional interventions is avoidant: reducing re-
offending (Blanchette & Brown, 2006), but this ultimate goal of risk reduction is best
achieved through some combination of avoidant and approach goals for offenders.

Ward and colleagues (Ward et al., 2007; Ward & Maruna, 2007) drew attention to
these areas of confusion in the context of proposing the Good Lives Model (GLM). There
are important differences between the RNR model and the GLM, and encouragingly,

2Theoretically, however, RNR-adhering programmes only develop capacities that either increase responsivity, or reduce
criminogenic needs, or both. This is one important point of difference with the Good Lives Model, which instead seeks to
develop a wider range of capacities, linked to primary goods (Ward et al., in press).



The RNR model of offender rehabilitation: An appraisal 11

these differences are becoming clearer as the authors of each model respond to each
others’ comparisons of the two (e.g., Ward et al., in press; Wormith et al., in press).
However, observations such as those above suggest that some differences between the
two models that seem substantive on paper, evaporate, or at most, become differences
in emphasis when the models are applied (Blanchette & Brown, 2006; Cullen, in press).
The basis for these misunderstandings seems to be omissions from the RNR model’s
description that occurred because the model was first developed contemporaneously
with an evolving correctional rehabilitation ethos that made these points self-evident to
those involved at the time.

A good working alliance between therapist or correctional worker and offender
is also a founding assumption of the RNR model. It is implicit in the Responsivity
principle, but explicitly embodied in the Relationship and Structuring principles: in
human service interventions, workers collaborate with offenders (Andrews et al., 2011)
and they are warm, empathic, and flexible (Andrews & Bonta, 1994). In fact, Andrews
was one of the first correctional researchers to investigate the importance of high-quality
relationships between human service workers and offenders in effective interventions;
demonstrating that when probation officers are warm and empathic, actively challenge
anti-social thinking, and actively reward pro-social thinking, very substantial reductions
in recidivism can be achieved (Andrews, 1980; see also Andrews, 1982b; Andrews &
Kiessling, 1980).

A second source of difficulties with knowledge transfer can be traced to inferences
made about the model based not in the published literature, but on observations of
interventions intending to operationalize it. The 18 principles of the RNR model derive in
part from the ‘what works’ meta-analyses, in turn based on diverse programme types. By
contrast, over the last decade or so, adoption of evidence-based rehabilitation policies has
led to a series of large ‘rollouts’ of RNR-based programme suites in countries such as the
UK, Canada, and New Zealand, that primarily translate RNR into one style of intervention:
structured, cognitive-behavioural closed-group based treatment programmes (Porporino,
2010). These programmes may vary in their target population, and in intensity and
setting, but fundamentally they represent at best, only one version of the diversity that
is possible within the RNR ambit.

More concerning, programmes subject to large-scale implementation encounter many
challenges, especially with regard to treatment integrity (Goggin & Gendreau, 2006),
leading these programmes, and the policies that surround them to be highly structured
and manualized. But, effective treatment requires a focus not just on good content and
technique. Effective relationship skills and treatment process are necessary to achieve
treatment goals. The former can be specified in a written manual but the latter is much
more difficult to manualize (Marshall, 2009) and may be compromised by efforts to
achieve the former. Highly specified content has been used to (a) enable inexperienced,
or even undertrained programme staff to deliver treatment simply by ‘reading aloud’
(Mann, 2009), (b) facilitate accreditation processes that tend to evaluate programmes
primarily from written documentation (Maguire, Grubin, Lösel, & Raynor, 2010; Marshall,
2009), and (c) enable a simplistic approach to monitoring treatment integrity (i.e., by
checking off presented content against manual content; Polaschek, 2011). The use of
overly scripted content-focused manuals cannot make up for a lack of well-trained and
constructively supervised therapy staff, but does constrict application of the responsivity
principle. Therapists cannot adequately tailor the treatment to the client, cannot respond
to obvious crises as naturally occurring ‘teachable moments’, appear unempathic and
inflexible, rightly leading to ‘cookie cutter’ criticisms (Ward et al., 2007). Adherence to



12 Devon L. L. Polaschek

the responsivity principle requires intervention ‘guides’ rather than manuals (Marshall
et al., 2011), well-trained and experienced staff, and practice supervisors who are
sufficiently well informed and skilled to monitor integrity—and enhance practice—
by evaluating whether goals were achieved rather than whether treatment content that
demonstrates only one method of achieving those goals was presented (Polaschek,
2011). Group-format programmes are not necessarily one-size-fits-all (Kirsch & Becker,
2006). They can be responsive to individual offenders’ needs, but only if therapists can
use RNR-adherent therapy process and content together to do so.

The lack of effectiveness of some of these widespread roll-outs, by comparison with
the demonstration programmes, on which they were based, may be a result of problems
with implementation integrity, but they also reflect a failure to adhere to the core
RNR principle of specific responsivity. This problem—of omitting or compromising
the Responsivity principle—has been explicit in some importations of the RNR model
(e.g., Kemshall, 2010). Goggin and Gendreau (2006) found that very few ‘real world’
programmes meet criteria for all three core principles. Although the responsivity
principle is the least developed of the three core principles, it does not follow that
it is the least important, but perhaps instead that it is the hardest to implement.

Conclusions and future directions
The RNR model of rehabilitation seems set to remain the ‘premier rehabilitation theory’
(Ward et al., 2007, p. 222) as long as it continues to enjoy strong empirical support, and
as long as scientific data are held in higher esteem than ‘truthiness’. The achievements
of the RNR model are quite remarkable: developing and promoting from the quagmire
of quackery, confusion, and contradictory findings that preceded ‘what works’ (Latessa,
Cullen, & Gendreau, 2002) a deceptively simple series of principles to guide offender
rehabilitation.

Yet this appraisal has noted (a) difficulties with complexity, accessibility of language,
and clarity in the model itself, (b) large-scale operationalization of a narrow range of
RNR programmes, and (c) implementation of interventions that emphasize the core
principles of risk and need at the expense of other, equally important principles such
as responsivity and core staff practices. Together, these factors may foster a sense of
disenchantment with, and misunderstanding about, the model and its value. However
well supported it is empirically, future developments should be directed at improving
both the model and its application.

The dearth of Level II resources to fill gaps between model and practice also
contributes to frustrations that are instead levelled at the RNR model itself. The model’s
authors themselves addressed this gap in two important practice arenas: the assessment
of offenders (the LSI–R & LS/CMI; Andrews & Bonta, 1995; Andrews, Bonta, & Wormith,
2004) and the assessment of programme design and delivery (e.g., the Correctional
Program Assessment Inventory [CPAI-2000]; Gendreau & Andrews, 2001). However,
in contrast to some other proponents of rehabilitation theories (e.g., Yates, Prescott,
& Ward, 2010), the translation of the model into actual intervention programmes or
Level II intervention approaches (e.g., mid-level treatment guides), largely has been left
to others, and still remains, mostly, to be done.

The development and dissemination of more of these types of rehabilitation resources
should be an urgent priority for the field. Where, for example, are the resources
for guiding the treatment of PCL-psychopaths or moderate-risk offenders with major



The RNR model of offender rehabilitation: An appraisal 13

drug and alcohol addictions, mentally disordered offenders, violent offenders? Without
them, therapists or programme designers are faced with constructing for themselves
a Level II theory to inform their desired intervention. This is not a realistic or feasible
expectation—even for very capable therapists—and may explain in part why some
choose ineffective interventions to deliver. Their absence may be leading too to overly
narrow and reductionist interpretations of the RNR model such as those embodied
in some highly structured, cognitive-behavioural closed-group treatment programmes
(Marshall et al., 2011).

Many variations in intervention type are consistent with the RNR model. Empirically
bounded innovation is much needed, given the untapped potential for improvements in
intervention effect sizes. For example, innovative ‘through-care’ models that challenge
different parts of the system to work better together may have far more impact than
long periods of intensive custodial psychological treatment with little effective aftercare
(Porporino, 2010). Such models might follow a shorter period of intensive psychological
treatment with related supervisory oversight (Bonta et al., 2010; Bonta, Rugge, Scott,
Bourgon, & Yessine, 2008) and reintegration assistance, all guided by RNR principles.

Correctional environments are often hostile at multiple levels to endeavours to assist
offenders; translating well-designed programmes into routine practice that reaches more
than a handful of offenders poses significant challenges (Bourgon, Bonta, Rugge, Scott,
& Yessine, 2009). Although successful RNR-adhering demonstration programmes are
now quite numerous, the failure of some recent large-scale interventions may create
pressure to return to ‘smarter’ punitive regimes. It may be all too easy to ‘forget that
corrections is littered with interventions—from the penitentiary to boot camps—that
were “creative” but proved to be examples of quackery’ (Cullen, in press, pp. 12–13).
On-going conceptual debate between proponents and critics of the RNR model will no
doubt result in further improvements to the model itself; conceptual improvements in
high-level theories are certainly important. But the more significant challenges remain
in actually implementing programmes in such unforgiving settings. Greater benefits for
offenders may instead come more from working with correctional workers, managers,
and policy makers to develop better models for applying in practice with offenders what
we already have learned about ‘what works’.

The RNR model is not the ‘last word’ on offender rehabilitation (Wormith et al.,
in press). It is at its best as an umbrella framework, specifying basic conditions that
should be met across diverse types of intervention. Future programmes may be able to
adhere to more of the principles, and in increasingly effective ways, as mid-level theorists
and programme developers trial ideas from newer theories, and developments in other
intervention domains, to flesh out better ways of doing so.

References
Andrews, D. A. (1980). Some experimental investigations of the principles of differential

association through deliberate manipulations of the structure of service systems. American
Sociological Review, 45, 448–462.

Andrews, D. A. (1982a). A personal, interpersonal and community-reinfircement perspective on
deviant behaviour (PIC-R). Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Correctional Services.

Andrews, D. A. (1982b). The supervision of offenders: Identifying and gaining control over the
factors which make a difference. (Report no. 1984–65). Research Division of the Ministry of
the Solicitor General of Canada, unpublished report.



14 Devon L. L. Polaschek

Andrews, D. A. (2001). Principles of effective correctional programs. In L. L. Motiuk & R. C. Serin
(Eds.), Compendium 2000 on effective correctional treatment (pp. 9–17). Ottawa, Ontario:
Research Branch: Correctional Service of Canada.

Andrews, D. A. (2006). Enhancing adherence to risk-need-responsivity: Making quality matter of
policy. Criminology and Public Policy, 5, 595–602. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9133.2006.00394.x

Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (1994). The psychology of criminal conduct. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (1995). The Level of Service Inventory—Revised (LSI–R). Toronto,

Ontario: Multi-Health Systems.
Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (1998). The psychology of criminal conduct (2nd ed.). Cincinnati,

OH: Anderson.
Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2003). The psychology of criminal conduct (3rd ed.). Cincinnati, OH:

Anderson.
Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2006). The psychology of criminal conduct (4th ed.). Newark, NJ:

Matthew Bender.
Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2010a). The Psychology of Criminal Conduct (5th ed.). Newark, NJ:

Matthew Bender.
Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2010b). Rehabilitating criminal justice policy and practice. Psychology,

Public Policy, and Law, 16 , 39–55. doi:10.1037/a0018362
Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Hoge, R. D. (1990). Classification for effective rehabilitation:

Rediscovering psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17, 19–52.
Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Wormith, J. S. (2004). The Level of Service/Case Management

Inventory (LS/CMI). Toronto, Ontario: Multi-Health Systems.
Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Wormith, J. S. (2011). The Risk-Need Responsivity model: Does the

Good Lives Model contribute to effective crime prevention? Criminal Justice and Behavior,
38, 735–755. doi:10.1177/0093854811406356

Andrews, D. A., & Kiessling, J. J. (1980). Program structure and effective correctional practices:
A summary of the CaVIC research. In R. R. Ross & P. Gendreau (Eds.), Effective correctional
treatment (pp. 439–463). Toronto, Ontario: Butterworth.

Andrews, D. A., Zinger, I., Hoge, R. D., Bonta, J., Gendreau, P., & Cullen, F. T. (1990). Does
correctional treatment work? A clinically relevant and psychologically informed meta-analysis.
Criminology, 28, 369–404.

Beyko, M. J., & Wong, S. C. P. (2005). Predictors of treatment attrition as indicators for program
improvement not offender shortcomings: A study of sex offender treatment attrition. Sexual
Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 17, 375–389. doi:10.1007/s11194-005-8050-8

Blanchette, K., & Brown, S. L. (2006). The assessment and treatment of women offenders: An
integrative perspective. Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Bonta, J., & Andrews, D. A. (2003). A commentary on Ward and Stewart’s model of human needs.
Psychology, Crime & Law, 9, 215–218. doi:10.1080/10683/16031000112115

Bonta, J., & Andrews, D. A. (2007). Risk-Need-Responsivity model for offender assessment
and rehabilitation. (Report no. 2007–06). Ottawa, Canada: Department of Public Safety
and Emergency Preparedness Canada. Retrieved from www.publicsafety.gc.ca/res/cor/rep/
risk need 200706-eng.aspx

Bonta, J., Bourgon, G., Rugge, T., Scott, T., Yessine, A. K., Gutierrez, L., & Li, J. (2010). The
strategic training initiative in community supervision: Risk-need-responsivity in the real
world. Ottawa: Public Safety Canada. Retrieved from www.publicsafety.gc.ca/res/cor/rep/
2010-01-rnr-eng.aspx

Bonta, J., Rugge, T., Scott, T., Bourgon, G., & Yessine, A. (2008). Exploring the black
box of community supervision. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 47, 248–270.
doi:10.1080/10509670802134085

Bourgon, G., Bonta, J., Rugge, T., Scott, T., & Yessine, A. K. (2009). Translating “what works” into
sustainable everyday practice: Program design, implementation and evaluation. (Report
no. 2009–05). Ottawa: Public Safety Canada. Retrieved from http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/
res/cor/rep/2009-05-pdie-eng.aspx



The RNR model of offender rehabilitation: An appraisal 15

Bowen, E. (2011). The rehabilitation of partner-violent men. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Coebergh, B., Bakker, L., Anstiss, B., Maynard, K., & Percy, S. (1999). A seein’ “I” to the future: The

Criminogenic Needs Inventory (CNI). Wellington, New Zealand: Department of Corrections
Psychological Service unpublished report.

Colbert, S. (Producer). (2005. October 17). The Colbert Report [Television series episode]. New
York: Comedy Central. Retrieved from www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/
24039/october-17-2005/the-word-truthiness

Cortoni, F., Nunes, & Latendresse. (2006). An examination of the effectiveness of the Violence
Prevention Program (R-178). Ottawa: Correctional Service of Canada unpublished report.
Retrieved from http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/rsrch/reports/r178/r178 e.pdf.

Cullen, F. T. (in press). Taking rehabilitation seriously: Creativity, science, and the challenge of
offender change. Punishment and Society.

Day, A., Casey, S., Ward, T., Howells, K., & Vess, J. (2010). Transitions to better lives: Offender
readiness and rehabilitation. Cullompton, Devon: Willan.

Dowden, C., & Andrews, D. A. (2003). Does family intervention work for delinquents? Results of
a meta-analysis. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 45, 327–342.

Dowden, C., & Andrews, D. A. (2004). The importance of staff practice in delivering ef-
fective correctional treatment: A meta-analytic review of core correctional practice. In-
ternational Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 48, 203–214.
doi:10.1177/0306624X03257765

Gendreau, P., & Andrews, D. A. (2001). Correctional Program Assessment Inventory – 2000
(CPAI-2000). Saint John, New Brunswick: University of New Brunswick.

Gendreau, P., Smith, P., & French, S. (2006). The theory of effective correctional intervention:
Empirical status and future directions. In F. Cullen, J. Wright, & M. Coleman (Eds.), Taking
stock: The status of criminology theory (pp. 419–446). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Press.

Goggin, C., & Gendreau, P. (2006). The implementation and maintenance of quality services in
offender rehabilitation programmes. In C. R. Hollin & E. J. Palmer (Eds.), Offending behaviour
programmes: Development, application, and controversies (pp. 209–246). Chichester, UK:
John Wiley & Sons.

Gordon, A., & Wong, S. C. P. (2010). Offence analogue behaviours as indicators of criminogenic
need and treatment progress in custodial settings. In M. Daffern, L. Jones, & J. Shine (Eds.),
Offence paralleling behaviour: A case formulation approach to offender assessment and
intervention (pp. 171–183). Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Hanson, R. K. (2005). Accreditation standards for correctional programs. Research summary
10 (1). Retrieved from http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/res/cor/sum/cprs200501 1-eng.aspx

Hanson, R. K., Bourgon, G., Helmus, L., & Hodgson, S. (2009). The principles of effective
correctional treatment also apply to sexual offenders: A meta-analysis. Criminal Justice and
Behavior, 36 , 865–892. doi: 10.1177/1079063210366039

Hubbard, D. J., & Pealer, J. (2009). The importance of responsivity factors in predicting reductions
in antisocial attitudes and cognitive distortions among adult male offenders. The Prison
Journal, 89, 79–98. doi:10.1177/0032885508329987

Kemshall, H. (2010). The role of risk, needs and strengths assessment in improving the supervision
of offenders. In F. McNeill, P. Raynor, & C. Trotter (Eds.), Offender supervision: New directions
in theory, research and practice (pp. 155–171). Abingdon, UK: Willan.

Kirsch, L. G., & Becker, J. V. (2006). Sexual offending: Theory of problem, theory of
change, and implications for treatment effectiveness. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 11,
208–224. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2005.08.001

Latessa, E. J., Cullen, F. T., & Gendreau, P. (2002). Beyond correctional quackery: Professionalism
and the possibility of effective treatment. Federal Probation, 66 , 43–49.

Latessa, E. J., Lemke, R., Makarios, M., Smith, P., & Lowenkamp, C. T. (2010). The creation and
validation of the Ohio Risk Assessment System (ORAS). Federal Probation, 74, 16–22.

Lipton, D. S., Thornton, D., McGuire, J., Porporino, F. J., & Hollin, C. R. (2000). Program
accreditation and correctional treatment. Substance Use and Misuse, 35, 1705–1734.



16 Devon L. L. Polaschek

Listwan, S. J., Cullen, F. T., & Latessa, E. J. (2006). How to prevent prisoner re-entry programs
from failing: Insights from evidence-based corrections. Federal Probation, 70, 19–25.

Lösel, F. (2010). What works in reducing reoffending: A global perspective. Paper presented at
the 12th Annual conference of the International Corrections and Prisons Association, Gent,
Belgium.

Lowenkamp, C. T., Flores, A. W., Holsinger, A. M., Makarios, M. D., & Latessa, E. J. (2010). Intensive
supervision programs: Does program philosophy and the principles of effective intervention
matter? Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 368–375. doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2010.04.004

Lowenkamp, C. T., Latessa, E. J., & Smith, P. (2006). Does correctional program quality really
matter? The impact of adhering to the principles of effective intervention. Criminology and
Public Policy, 5, 575–594. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9133.2006.00388.x

Maguire, M., Grubin, D., Lösel, F., & Raynor, P. (2010). “What works” and the Correctional Services
Accreditation Panel: Taking stock from an insider perspective. Criminology & Criminal
Justice, 10, 37–58. doi:10.1177/1748895809352651

Mann, R. E. (2009). Sex offender treatment: The case for manualization. Journal of Sexual
Aggression, 15, 121–131. doi:10.1080/13552600902907288

Mann, R. E., Hanson, R. K., & Thornton, D. (2010). Assessing risk for sexual recidivism: Some
proposals on the nature of psychologically meaningful risk factors. Sexual Abuse: A Journal
of Research & Treatment, 22, 191–217. doi: 10.1177/1079063210366039

Marshall, W. L. (2009). Manualization: A blessing or a curse? Journal of Sexual Aggression, 15,
109–120. doi:10.1080/13552600902907320

Marshall, W. L., Marshall, L. E., Serran, G. A., & O’Brien, M. D. (2011). Rehabilitating sexual
offenders: A strength-based approach. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
doi:10.1037/12310-000

McMurran, M. (2009). Motivational interviewing with offenders: A systematic review. Legal and
Criminological Psychology, 14, 83–100. doi:10.1348/135532508X278326

Miltenberger, R. G. (2004). Behavior modification: Principles and procedures (3rd ed.). Belmont,
CA: Wadsworth Thomason Learning.

Ogloff, J. R. P., & Davis, M. R. (2004). Advances in offender assessment and rehabilitation:
Contributions of the risk–needs–responsivity approach. Psychology, Crime & Law, 10, 229–
242. doi: 10.1080/10683160410001662735

Paparozzi, M. A., & Gendreau, P. (2005). An intensive supervision program that worked: Service
delivery, professional orientation, and organizational supportiveness. The Prison Journal, 85,
445–466. doi: 10.1177/0032885505281529

Pearson, D. A. S., McDougall, C., Kanaan, M., Bowles, R. A., & Torgerson, D. J. (2006). Reducting
criminal recidivism: Evaluation of citizenship: An evidence-based probation supervision
process. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 7, 73–102. doi: 10.1007/s11292-010-9115-3

Polaschek, D. L. L. (2011). Many sizes fit all: A preliminary framework for conceptualizing the
development and provision of cognitive-behavioral rehabilitation programs for offenders.
Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16 , 20–35. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2010.10.002

Polaschek, D. L. L., & Dixon, B. G. (2001). The violence prevention project: The development and
evaluation of a treatment programme for violent offenders. Psychology, Crime, and Law, 7,
1–23.

Porporino, F. J. (2010). Bringing sense and sensitivity to corrections: From programmes
to fix offenders to services support desistance. In J. Brayford, F. Cowe, & J. Deering
(Eds.), What else works? Creative work with offenders (pp. 61–85). Uffculme, Devon,
UK: Willan.

Song, H., & Schwarz, N. (2008). If it’s hard to read, it’s hard to do: Processing fluency affects
effort prediction and motivation. Psychological Science, 19, 986–988. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
9280.2008.02189.x

Song, H., & Schwarz, N. (2009). If it’s difficult to pronounce, it must be risky: Fluency,
familiarity, and risk perception. Psychological Science, 20, 135–138. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
9280.2009.02267.x



The RNR model of offender rehabilitation: An appraisal 17

Sternberg, R. J. (2006). Reviewing theory articles. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Reviewing
scientific works in psychology (pp. 43–58). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.

Taxman, F. (2006). Assessment with a flair: Offender accountability in supervision plans. Federal
Probation, 70, 2–7.

Ward, T., & Hudson, S. M. (1998). The construction and development of theory in the sexual
offending area: A metatheoretical framework. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and
Treatment, 10, 47–63.

Ward, T., & Maruna, S. (2007). Rehabilitation. London: Routledge.
Ward, T., Melser, J., & Yates, P. M. (2007). Reconstructing the risk, need, responsivity model:

A theoretical elaboration and evaluation. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12, 208–228.
doi:10.1016/j.avb.2006.07.001

Ward, T., Polaschek, D. L. L., & Beech, A. R. (2006). Theories of sexual offending. Chichester,
UK: Wiley.

Ward, T., Yates, P. M., & Willis, G. M. (in press). The Good Lives Model and the Risk Need
Responsivity Model: A critical response to Andrews, Bonta, and Wormith (2011). Criminal
Justice and Behavior.

Ware, J., & Coebergh. (2004). CNI severity project: A methodology for assessing offender relapse
prevention knowledge/skills and offender motivation. Christchurch, NZ: Department of
Corrections Psychological Service, unpublished report.

Wong, S., Gordon, A., & Gu, D. (2007). Assessment and treatment of violence-prone forensic
clients: An integrated approach. British Journal of Psychiatry, 190(suppl. 49), S66–S74.
doi:10.1192/bjp.190.5.s66

Wormith, J. S. (2011). The legacy of D. A. Andrews in the field of criminal justice: How theory and
research can change policy and practice. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health,
10, 78–82. doi:10.1080/14999013.2011.577138

Wormith, J. S., Gendreau, P., & Bonta, J. (in press). Deferring to clarity, parsimony, and evidence
in reply to Ward, Yates, and Willis (2011). Criminal Justice and Behavior.

Yates, P. M., Prescott, D., & Ward, T. (2010). Applying the Good Lives and Self-regulation models
to sex offender treatment: A practical guide for clinicians. Brandon, VT: Safer Society Press.

Received 15 November 2011


	What is the RNR model?
	Contextualizing the RNR model as a rehabilitation framework
	Model appraisal criteria
	Conclusions and future directions
	References