The researchers also incorporated the use of the psychology of criminal conduct in the RNR framework. Their justification for its inclusion included:
- that previously the theory had often been overlooked,
- variations in individuals’ criminal conduct had not been considered,
- psychology provided a basis for understanding biological, personal, interpersonal, circumstantial, and structural/cultural difference in criminal conduct,
- the lack of use of criminal psychology had often resulted from a belief of those in the field of criminology that clinical services were at best ineffective and at worst “evil,”
- and criminal psychology allows for consideration of covariation among the variety of variables involved in determining what rehabilitation services to provide (Andrews, et al., 1990).
The authors provided detailed descriptions of each principle and many examples of what the use of each principle might look like and how it might impact effectiveness of treatment for recidivism. They also differentiated between rehabilitation and punishment, humanitarian reform, and “nice” or “tyrannical” behavior and noted the unfortunate fact that rehabilitation was not considered a “professional area of practice” (Andrews, et al., 1990).
In establishing a new model of service provision with a variety of variables that might be studied in the provision of services for offenders, the study authors also created a new literature base for determining effective recidivism treatment in correctional systems around the world.
Risk, Need, Responsivity Strengths
One assessment of the model evaluated its effectiveness by examining its strengths and weaknesses (Polaschek, 2012). Using a series of criteria that had been used by other empirical studies, the strengths and reasons for each strength were noted as follows:
- Unifying power and external consistency – because the model was created from existing psychological theories and data. This meant that, not having a unique psychological theory of its own, it could be used with almost any theory, including Freudian.
- Explanatory depth – because the model allows effectiveness or lack thereof to be explained by the many variables around which programs are built, including anti-social attitudes.
- Empirical validity – because it was based on existing data and new data from the past 20 years has not negated any of those findings.
- Fertility and practical utility – because the model has infinite possibilities for diversity and innovation and has even been used to develop program accreditation systems.
Risk, Need, Responsivity Weaknesses
The following are the weaknesses and reasons for them listed in the appraisal:
- The framework lacks “simplicity or parsimony” – because the Psychology of Criminal Conduct is the only source for detailed information about the model, the complexity of the model is only available through reading the book or more recent explanations by other authors.
- Limited “explanatory depth” – because not all of the principles it is based upon are fully developed.
Those limitations being stated, the appraisal author does note that 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 (Polaschek, 2012).