Understanding the risk, need, and responsivity (RNR) model and crime desistance perspective and integrating them into correctional practice

For more than three decades, the Risk, Need, and Responsivity (RNR) framework has been the predominant model in corrections for the development of risk and need assessment instruments (i.e., third and fourth generation instruments, in which risk scores can be meaningfully used to guide case decisions in practice; Andrews, Bonta, & Wormith, 2006; Bonta & Andrews, 2016). Broadly, the RNR principles reflect the essential guiding principles for effective correctional intervention (Gendreau, 1996). Specifically, RNR represents the who, what, and how of correctional interventions. In relation to programming, Smith, Gendreau & Swartz (2009) have demonstrated that more effective outcomes occur when intervention implements the principles of risk, need, and responsivity. In relation to risk assessment, the RNR model has a strong track record of guiding practically useful risk tools by using empirical knowledge about the factors associated with future crime, and evidence of the change factors that drive reductions in recidivism following programs. RNR and Desistance, Serin & Lloyd, 2017. Juxtaposed against this impressive body of work has been increasing interest in crime desistance, the process by which offenders cease offending behaviours. This strength-based work has been represented by two inter-related areas; quantitative and observational qualitative research on crime desistance (Maruna, 2010) and writings that have developed the concepts of the Good Lives Model (Ward, Mann, & Gannon, 2007). To date, much discussion has focussed on the relative merits of one perspective over the other, with many taking the view that these frameworks naturally compete due to fundamentally opposing assumptions about the nature of criminal behaviour. Cullen (2012), appropriately, argued a presumed 'winner' should be determined empirically by weighing the balance of evidence in terms of achieving the greatest reductions in re-offending. But, Cullen (2012) also conceded there is an ongoing need for creative development of alternative or complementary approaches. Essentially, we argue that a more beneficial discussion centers on whether these two perspectives may represent opposite ends of a continuum (e.g., the processes of crime acquisition versus crime cessation), rather than competing zero-sum philosophies. In other words, we suggest that both perspectives are required to fully understand offender behaviour and trajectories over time. This paper proposes that these approaches are complementary, each providing important information regarding the assessment, intervention, and supervision of offenders.