Essay on Recidivism: What It Is and How to Prevent It
To promote criminal offenders in re-entering society after their convictions, effective offender rehabilitation is critical. It is vital to take care when deciding on this treatment, as implementing the wrong model may be unsuccessful in reducing recidivism. The Risk-Need-Responsivity framework has become popular in offender rehabilitation but comes with deficit-focussed aspects and engagement issues. In comparison, the strengths-based framework of the Good Lives Model aims to overcome this by incorporating an engaging and prosocial way for offenders to maintain important life values. Both frameworks come with positives and negatives, which leads to the suggestion of a multi-faceted model that incorporates them both, for the most effective outcome.
Background of Offender Rehabilitation
Various researchers have investigated offender rehabilitation programs, aiming to determine the features deemed most effective (Antonowicz & Ross, 1994; Geandreau, 1996). Analyses indicated that interventions targeting the offender’s criminogenic needs (factors that are associated with recidivism) had the greatest success. Antonowicz and Ross (1994) analysed twenty successful programs and indicated that 90% of these targeted criminogenic needs. In doing so, the program style is personal to the offender. Astbury (2008) agrees with this individualisation, also suggesting treatment should match the individual’s level of risk. If high-risk offenders are receiving low-risk interventions, treatment will not be effective. Matching the program’s techniques to the abilities of the offender supports the idea of responsivity. Both analyses concluded this to be beneficial in rehabilitation, as 80% of successful programs incorporated this in Antonowicz and Ross’s (1994) research. Astbury (2008) and Gendreau (1996) also indicate the importance of community-based programs with the application of prosocial behaviours, enabling the offender to reintegrate successfully and safely back into the community. Multi-faceted programs using a range of techniques were also found to be effective (Antonowicz & Ross, 1994; Astbury, 2008).
Overview of the RNR and GLM
These researchers have raised essential factors to consider when designing a rehabilitation intervention. Many of the indicated strengths are components of a risk assessment model that developed into the Risk-Needs-Responsivity (RNR), by Andrews et al., (1990). The RNR is based on three main principles: Risk, need, and responsivity. The risk principle suggests the individual’s risk of re-offending determines what service they receive. The need principle indicates the reduction of criminogenic needs. These include antisocial peers, attitudes, and cognitions that endorse criminal offending. To reduce recidivism, interventions need to target these. The responsivity principle represents the style of intervention, proposing it to be matched to the individual. Once all factors are considered, a professional will decide on the final treatment. However, Ward and Stewart (2003) indicated the need for a more strengths-based rehabilitation, leading to the development of the Good Lives Model (GLM). The model aims to reduce recidivism by encouraging offenders to obtain primary life goods through prosocial actions. This builds on their strengths to reduce their recidivism through a more engaging and fulfilling treatment.
Positives and Negatives of the Risk-Need-Responsivity Framework
Research on the RNR indicates its strengths, as it provides an effective route to help offenders back into the community with reduced re-offending while ensuring safety in their surrounding community (Kewley, 2017; Pack, 2013; Ward, 2007). However, this was only for individuals who completed treatment. A large issue of the RNR is its failure to keep participants involved. Fortune (2018) suggests this model is largely deficit and punishment focussed, which struggles to engage the offenders it is aimed toward. Van Damme et al., (2017) agree, further suggesting the RNR’s problem-focussed nature. Rather than utilising the individual’s skills and enhancing wellbeing, the primary aim is to minimise risk in the community. The individuals are told what to do to change their behaviour, and not given the chance to develop their own prosocial solutions. Willis and Ward (2011) indicate other issues of engagement, such as the difficulty for offenders to change their behaviour toward an act that they previously saw as rewarding, by simply being told not to. This deficit focus can result in offenders resisting participation in the treatment. As an alternative approach that aims to engage offenders, strengths-based frameworks such as the Good Lives Model (GLM) have various benefits (Willis & Ward, 2011).
Positives and Negatives of the Good Lives Model
Due to the critiques of the RNR, many have supported the GLM as an alternative to offender rehabilitation that focuses on the wellbeing of the offender. The model is founded on the belief that criminal behaviour is the outcome of offenders attempting to obtain meaningful life values through maladaptive ways (Willis & Ward, 2011). Individuals have primary life goods (such as intimacy) that they aim to attain through secondary goods (the instrumental way to achieve this). Often, the process of attaining these secondary goods can lead to antisocial acts and criminal offenses. For example, sexual offending may be the way an individual aims to gain intimacy. The GLM then intends to develop prosocial ways in which individuals can acquire these goods, without offending. Individuals develop a ‘Good Lives Plan’ indicating their core values, what lead to their offense, and how to go about it in the future. This is a critical step in their engagement, allowing them to think about how to achieve their primary goals through prosocial routes. Their presence in this procedure emphasises the rights and abilities that humans have; being able to make their own choices rather than being forced into a choice decided by someone else. Fortune (2018) indicates there are large response rates to strengths-based approaches as participants believe they have the ability to change for the better and to build a meaningful life. Qualitative findings through self-report also indicated the individual’s engagement and enjoyment of the GLM rehabilitation (Willis & Ward, 2011).
Although a key weakness of the GLM is its lack of empirical support (Van Damme et al., 2017; Fortune, 2018), some studies have shown its effectiveness. Willis and Ward (2011) analysed correlations between the experiences in offenders’ re-entry into society and the attainment of their primary goods through a GLM framework. As expected, having positive re-entry into society factors three months post-release was positively correlated with higher good lives conceptualisations six months post-release (r = .56, p < .05). However, this was the only correlation found to be significant, which indicates a lag in the effectiveness of the GLM. This lag suggests the individual requires the time and conditions to realise what their life values meant for them and how they can apply their ‘Good Lives Plan’ to their life.
To further support the GLM, Van Damme et al., (2022) studied the role of personal resilience and quality of life in creating meaningful lives for offenders and its relationship with reoffending. As hypothesised, lower levels of reoffending were significantly correlated with higher levels of resilience (r = -.38, p < .01) and quality of life (r = -.21, p < .05), four years after their rehabilitation program. Furthermore, they identified personal resilience had a significant effect on offending, even after they controlled for the variable: Individual’s past offending. This is key to note as Andrews and Bonta (2010) suggest offending history is the strongest predictor of future offenses.
Advantages of a Multi-Faceted Program Incorporating the RNR and GLM
Having identified the strengths and weaknesses of the RNR and GLM, it is critical to identify a way that can incorporate the strengths of them both, for the most effective rehabilitation. Researchers have discovered that integrating aspects of the GLM into the RNR provides an effective rehabilitation (Fortune, 2018; Ward & Stewart, 2003; Van Damme et al., 2017). In doing so, the individuals can identify what goal they aimed to achieve through offending, and then formulate a plan to avoid the attainment of the associated criminogenic needs. In doing so, they are formulating their own ‘Good Lives Plan’ while minimising risk in the community. As the GLM lacks empirical research findings and the RNR is deficit focussed and unengaging, incorporating both perspectives is the best solution. Their overall argument states the RNR has various limitations such as clinical and ethical issues, that the GLM will successfully overcome. Statistics brought forward by Antonowicz and Ross (1994) in early rehabilitation studies found multi-faceted programs accounted for 70% of the twenty that were successful in reducing recidivism. This further supports the benefits of combining techniques and treatments for an overall beneficial model.
Conclusion
After analysing the positives and negatives of the RNR and GLM, it is clear the most effective way to reduce reoffending is to combine the two. Background research of offender rehabilitation favours the key aspects of the RNR, but more recent analyses have found various engagement issues due to its deficit focus. In comparison, the GLM provides a positive and proactive way for offenders to enter society without reoffending. Although this seems useful on its own, there is no denying that the RNR provides aspects key to a safe re-entry into society. Therefore, a framework that combines the two models is most effective.
