Identifying Best Practices in Offender Rehabilitation

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 of the good lives model since it inevitably results in yet another assumption that sexual offenders “hunger for the same things that we all do; a good education, a decent job, good friends, homeownership, family ties, children, being loved by someone and a stable life" (p. 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., favorable/unfavorable to crime) are important.
5. Problematic circumstances of home (family/ marital).
6. Problematic circumstances at school or work.
7. Few if any positive leisure activities.
8. Substance abuse (Looman & Abracen, 2013, p. 33).
Taken together, the Big Eight provide a far more realistic assessment of life behind bars compared to the good lives model that can help shape what types of therapeutic interventions might be most effective with different offender populations in various correctional settings. This means that the RNR model is also contrasted with the good lives model with respect to the priority of treating criminogenic needs while still taking social, personal and interpersonal needs into account but only ancillary to the treatment plan. In this regard, Looman and Abracen conclude that, “Non-criminogenic needs such as low self-esteem and personal distress are viewed as tertiary and should not be the focus of treatment except as they are relevant to the third principle of effective correctional treatment; that is the Responsivity Principle” (2013, p. 33).
The two constituent components of the Responsivity Principle are (a) general responsivity and (b) specific responsivity (Looman & Abracen, 2013). The general responsivity principle holds that cognitive, social learning and behavioral theories should be used to formulate interventions; the specific responsivity principle generally maintains that criminogenic needs should be addressed as well as individualized treatment that draws on strengths that may contribute to the effectiveness of the intervention (Looman & Abracen, 2013).
Article #2: Hillman, W. (2015, July-August). Transforming corrections: Humanistic approaches to corrections and offender treatment. Corrections Today, 77(4), 68.
This article provides a concise overview of the good lives model and contrasts it with the RNR approach to offender rehabilitation. According to Hillman (2015), the overarching focus of the good lives model concerns identifying the set of unique strengths that each offender possesses and drawing on these to formulate a transition from a criminal lifestyle. This aspect of the good lives model also differentiates it from the RNR approach.
Notwithstanding this fundamental difference, though, Hillman also suggests that the good lives model offers some useful qualities that can help inform the intervention formulation process. In this regard, Hillman advises that, “The human spirit in corrections can be understood through existentialism and Eastern mindfulness. Both are useful for the offender and treatment provider. Treatment in corrections needs to focus on the power of relationship as a priority for positive change" (p. 68). Here again, this priority of treatment contrasts the good lives model with the RNR model’s focus on criminogenic needs, and Hillman even argues that the unconditional acceptance of human dignity and agency advocated by Rogerians should be included in this approach. For example, Hillman maintains that, “A credible case is made for the use of Rogerian psychotherapy as a way to facilitate greater therapeutic alliance” (2015, p. 68).
Certainly, much is to be said of the use of Rogerian psychotherapy in the private sector where prisoner control and the threat of violence do not loom large, but some criminologists might be hard pressed to routinely include this approach in their offender rehabilitation treatment plans. In fact, Hillman concedes that this type of psychotherapeutic approach may be untenable given the exigencies of the correctional setting. For example, Hillman notes that, “[Rogerian psychotherapy] s contrasted with the dehumanizing conditions established by the crime-control dynamic, which emphasized the importance of security more than offender rehabilitation and treating mental illness” (p. 68).
In fact, this author suggests that the application of Rogerian psychotherapy or other interventions that serve to forge a strong therapeutic alliance may actually represent a security risk for corrections personnel. As Hillman emphasizes, “Security personnel have come to have two jobs: manage offenders' behavior and develop a human connection with offenders to facilitate management. At times, the two jobs are not compatible” (2015, p. 68). Finally, this author also reports that the challenges that are involved in the provision of high quality offender rehabilitation services have become even more severe in recent years due to dwindling budgets and increasingly scarce resources available for all but the basic necessities. In this environment, any treatment alternative that heightens security risks will likely be viewed with skepticism at best, so corrections personnel are being forced to walk an increasingly thin line when it comes to developing the types of relationships that are needed to make the good lives model an effective alternative treatment approach (Hillman, 2015).
Article #3: Schaffer, M. & Jefilc, E. L. (2010, July 1). Cognitive-behavioral therapy in the treatment and management of sex offenders. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 24(2), 92-96.
The purpose of this article was to provide a discussion concerning current views about treating sexual offenders based on the traditional RNR approach versus the more recent good lives model. The authors then follow this discussion with an analysis concerning how cognitive-behavioral therapy can be integrated into treatment regimens for sex offenders. According to Schaffer and Jefilc (2010), the good lives model is “based on the understanding that each individual has basic or primary needs, such as relatedness, competence, autonomy, happiness, and health, that he or she instinctually strives to meet and that offending represents a maladaptive but effective way to meet these needs” (p. 92). Therefore, more efficacious treatment strategies can be formulated by identifying each offender’s unique set of needs and helping offenders develop more appropriate adaptive responses (Schaffer & Jeglic, 2010). These authors summarize the basic difference between the RNR and good lives model thusly: “Treatment directed by RNR aims solely to reduce an offender's risk of reoffending by addressing criminogenic needs; treatment in a good lives model considers an offender's personal goals or needs as a means of motivating and enabling behavior change” (p. 93).
Although there are some overlaps between the RNR and good lives model in their respective approaches to the treatment and management of sex offenders, there are also some other differences between the two strategies that are relevant for corrections authorities. While the basic goals of the two models is one difference, the good lives model seeks to assist offenders identify prosocial ways of satisfying their Primary Human Goods needs in an effort to prevent them from resorting to past mental schemas that included sex offenses (Schaffer & Jeglic, 2010).
By contrast, the main goal of the RNR model for mitigating recidivist behaviors is to treat the criminogenic needs of offenders while taking into account dynamic risk factors as an adjunct to the intervention (Schaffer & Jeglic, 2010).
Discussion concerning the relevance of these articles in light of the Good Lives Model and the Risk/Need/Responsivity Model
All three of these articles were highly relevant to the discussion of the good lives and RNR models. Likewise, all three provided some different views concerning these models that served to reinforce the need to take a broad-based view of offender and environmental factors into account when formulating interventions. This was a valuable contribution because the unconditional acceptance of the moral agency of all humans reflected in Rogerian psychotherapy tends to overlook the harsh realities that are involved in treating violent career criminals who may be suffering from mental disorders and/or substance abuse problems. Indeed, some jaded criminologists will likely cringe when they hear Rogerian and offender rehabilitation in the same sentence, but authorities such as Hillman (2015) make a good point that developing efficacious interventions is facilitated by the formation of a strong therapeutic alliance. For this purpose, the main tenets of the good lives model provide a valuable addition to the repertoire of offender rehabilitation theories and models available to corrections authorities today.
Conclusion
In a perfect world, there would be no need for any type of offender rehabilitation of course, but the world is far from perfect and so too are the theoretical models that have been advanced for this purpose. In a slightly less perfect world, the research showed that the good lives model might stand a fighting chance at making a meaningful difference in the lives of offenders by helping them develop the mental capacity for changing their criminal thinking and behaviors into legitimate ways to satisfy their Primary Human Goods needs. In the far-less-than-perfect world that exists today, merely warehousing prisoners and keeping them safe and healthy is a monumental enterprise. The “lock ‘em up and throw away the key” mentality that has characterized the criminal justice system over the past several decades has further exacerbated the ability of corrections authorities to provide effective offender rehabilitation services, if these services are provided at all. In the final analysis, corrections officials are saddled with this penny-wise, pound foolish approach to criminal justice that ignores the benefits that can be achieved through informed, evidence-based offender rehabilitation programs including even the good lives model.

References
Hillman, W. (2015, July-August). Transforming corrections: Humanistic approaches to corrections and offender treatment. Corrections Today, 77(4), 68.
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(3-4), 30-35.
. Schaffer, M. & Jefilc, E. L. (2010, July 1). Cognitive-behavioral therapy in the treatment and management of sex offenders. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 24(2), 92-96.