Although penologists disagree about how best to achieve the outcome, there is a general consensus that identifying optimal strategies that facilitate offender rehabilitation represents a valuable and timely enterprise at all levels of the criminal justice system. Various models for this purpose have emerged in recent years, including most especially the good lives model and the risk/need/responsivity model. This paper provides a critical analysis of three primary journal research papers about a offender rehabilitation from the perspective of these two key models, followed by a discussion concerning their relevance in light of the good lives model and the risk/need/responsivity model. Finally, a summary of the research and important findings concerning these two key models and offender rehabilitation learned from this exercise are presented in the conclusion. Summary of Relevant Articles

Summary #1: Looman, J. & Abracen, J. (2013, Fall-Winter). The risk need responsivity model of offender rehabilitation: Is there really a need for a paradigm shift? The International Journal of Behavioral Consultation and Therapy, 8(3), 30-35.

The purpose of this study was to determine the extent to which the good lives model can be regarded as a fundamental shift in the theory of offender rehabilitation. According to these authors, advocates of the good lives model of treatment maintain that it can be used in a number of different ways to promote offender rehabilitation based on the belief that all human beings make decisions in a pragmatic fashion, and that everyone makes plans for the short- and long-term and changes these plans as circumstances warrant in order to achieve their unique goals. Achieving these goals, though, requires taking into account a wide array of external environmental factors and resources that can be used to facilitate the process, including cultural, biological, social and physical materials. Although penal settings are dramatically different from mainstream society, of course, all of these factors and resources are also salient in prison and jail settings. From the perspective of the good lives model, offender rehabilitation initiatives should be targeted at helping inmates attain the core competencies that need to effectively participate in the types of behaviors that characterize improved quality of life, including the ability to forge and maintain intimate stable relationships, manage stress and anxiety as well as the flexibility that is required in order to respond effectively to changes in the external environment (Looman & Abracen, 2013).

The good lives model perspective of offender rehabilitation assumes an agency-center approach (e.g., “it is concerned with the ability of individuals to select goals, formulate plans, and act freely in the implementation of those plans”) (Looman & Abracen, 2013, p. 30). Corrections authorities who have extensive experience with highly criminalized individuals, however, may have trouble accepting the main tenets of the good lives model wholesale unless they take a leap of faith beyond their professional comfort zone. Indeed, the good lives model is based on the fundamental ethical notions of human rights and dignity, which recognize the ability of all human beings to behave in ways that contribute to the achievement of their unique set of goals.

In this context, the term “human rights” is used to describe the need to provide the resources that individuals need to formulate their own decisions and that such resources are not withheld unjustly in ways that preclude them from living their preferred lives. In a correctional setting, of course, offenders are confronted with a wide range of limitations on their freedoms (i.e., “Primary Human Goods”), including most especially their freedom of movement, but even the worst offenders enjoy the majority of other Primary Human Goods and these universal human rights guarantee them the resources they need to achieve their other goals (Looman & Abracen, 2013).

Other tenets of the good lives model may be equally difficult for some criminal justice authorities to accept, especially given the notoriety and heinous nature of many sexual offenses. It is important to note, however, that the good lives model even characterizes sexual offenders as otherwise just plain folks if their sexual criminalities are ignored. In this regard, Looman and Abrecen (2013) point out that, “Another assumption of the good lives model, rarely stated overtly, is that most [sexual offenders], apart from their sexual deviance, are not criminals” (p. 31). While rarely stated, this assumption still has a significant impact on the views adopted by advocates...

32). These types of generalizations, though, fail to take into account the fact that some offenders simply do not share any of these “hungers” and are rather motivated by an entirely different worldview (Looman & Abracen, 2013)..
In sum, treatment of offenders should be focused on enhancing their ability to satisfy their Primary Human Goods needs instead of their criminogenic needs. This shift in focus is needed because the source of Primary Human Goods is primal and human beings have evolved over time to develop the need (and presumably the corresponding right) to forge social networks, reproduce and survive in a hostile world. Because human beings are experiential in their learning, incarceration represents an opportunity for offenders to learn better ways to respond to their Primary Human Goods needs (Looman & Abracen, 2013). The authors identify 11 basic Primary Human Goods as follows:

1. Life (including healthy living and optimal physical functioning, sexual satisfaction);

2. Knowledge;

3. Excellence in work (including mastery experiences);

4. Excellence in play (including mastery experiences);

5. Excellence in agency (i.e., autonomy and self-directedness);

6. Inner peace (i.e., freedom from emotional turmoil and stress);

7. Relatedness (including intimate, romantic and family relationships);

8. Community;

9. Spirituality (in the broad sense of finding meaning and purpose in life);

10. Happiness; and

11. Creativity (Looman & Abracen,2013, p. 32).

Clearly, not all of these Primary Human Goods are available and many those that are available are diminished in correctional settings so there is a profound disconnect between the tenets of the good lives model and reality.

In contrast to the theoretical framework provided by the good lives model, the risk/need/responsivity (RNR) model is not a theory but is rather a general set of principles concerning optimal therapeutic interventions that can be used in specialized correctional settings. Likewise in contrast to the good lives model, the RNR model’s Psychology of Criminal Conduct acknowledges that criminal behavior is the result of a number of genetic and environmental factors that must be taken into account when formulating treatment alternatives. The Psychology of Criminal Conduct identifies three basic principles of effective corrections as follows: (a) risk, (b) need and (c) responsivity that have been the focus of significant scholarship over the past several decades that has influenced the popularity of the model as well as providing empirical confirmation concerning those factors that are believed to be most important in contributing to criminal behaviors (Looman & Abracen, 2013). In this context, risk and need are defined as follows:

Risk: With reference to the concept of risk, treatment should be reserved for higher risk groups of offenders, as assessed by actuarial assessment instruments. There are now many decades of research demonstrating that actuarially assessed risk is superior to unstructured clinical judgment (Looman & Abracen, 2013, p. 32); and,

Need: With reference to the concept of need, this refers to criminogenic needs, established by the empirical literature as associated with recidivism in criminal populations (Looman & Abracen, 2013, p. 32). These authors also describe eight key risk/need factors (the so-called "Big Eight") that are believed to be responsible for the emergence and sustainment of criminal behavior as follows:

1. History of antisocial behavior characterized by early involvement in a number and variety of antisocial activities and settings [which] is considered to be a strength when absent.

2. Antisocial Personality Pattern, characterized by impulsive, adventurous, pleasure-seeking, and aggressive behaviors, and callous disregard for others. Associated risks consist of weak self-control, anger-management, and problem solving skills. One target of treatment, therefore, is to enhance these skills.

3. Antisocial cognition, including attitudes, values, beliefs, and a personal identity favorable to crime.

4. Antisocial associates and relative isolation from prosocial individuals, in which the quality of relationships and the influence that associates have on the individual (e.g.,…