Good Lives Model vs. RNR Model in Offender Rehabilitation

Introduction

Although penologists disagree about how best to achieve the outcome, there is a general consensus that identifying optimal strategies to 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, most notably the Good Lives Model (GLM) and the Risk/Need/Responsivity (RNR) model. This paper provides a critical analysis of three primary journal research articles on offender rehabilitation from the perspective of these two key models, followed by a discussion concerning their relevance in light of the GLM and the RNR model. A summary of the research and important findings concerning these two models and offender rehabilitation is then presented in the conclusion.

Summary of Article One: RNR Model and the Paradigm Shift Question

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 GLM 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 pragmatically, that everyone makes plans for the short and long term, and that people change these plans as circumstances warrant in order to achieve their unique goals. Achieving these goals, however, requires taking into account a wide array of external environmental factors and resources that can facilitate the process, including cultural, biological, social, and physical materials. Although penal settings are dramatically different from mainstream society, all of these factors and resources are also salient in prison and jail settings. From the perspective of the GLM, offender rehabilitation initiatives should be targeted at helping inmates attain the core competencies needed to effectively participate in behaviors that characterize an improved quality of life — including the ability to forge and maintain stable intimate relationships, manage stress and anxiety, and demonstrate the flexibility required to respond effectively to changes in the external environment (Looman & Abracen, 2013).

The GLM perspective on offender rehabilitation assumes an agency-centered approach — that is, 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 GLM wholesale without taking a significant leap of faith beyond their professional comfort zone. Indeed, the GLM is based on the fundamental ethical notions of human rights and dignity, which recognize the capacity 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 individuals with the resources required to formulate their own decisions, and to ensure that such resources are not withheld unjustly in ways that preclude them from living their preferred lives. In a correctional setting, offenders are confronted with a wide range of limitations on their freedoms — referred to as "Primary Human Goods" — including most especially their freedom of movement. Nevertheless, even serious offenders retain the majority of other Primary Human Goods, and these universal human rights guarantee them the resources they need to pursue their other goals (Looman & Abracen, 2013).

Other tenets of the GLM 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 GLM characterizes sexual offenders as otherwise ordinary individuals when their sexual criminalities are set aside. In this regard, Looman and Abracen (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 explicitly, this assumption has a significant impact on the views adopted by GLM advocates, since it inevitably leads to the further 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 generalizations, however, fail to account for offenders who do not share any of these "hungers" and are instead motivated by an entirely different worldview (Looman & Abracen, 2013).

In sum, the GLM holds that treatment of offenders should focus on enhancing their ability to satisfy their Primary Human Goods needs rather than their criminogenic needs. This shift in focus is proposed because the source of Primary Human Goods is primal — human beings have evolved to develop the need, and presumably the corresponding right, to forge social networks, reproduce, and survive in a hostile world. Because human beings learn experientially, incarceration represents an opportunity for offenders to develop better ways of responding to their Primary Human Goods needs (Looman & Abracen, 2013). The authors identify eleven basic Primary Human Goods:

1. Life (including healthy living, optimal physical functioning, and 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 in correctional settings, and many that are available are significantly diminished, creating a profound disconnect between the tenets of the GLM and the realities of incarceration.

In contrast to the theoretical framework of the GLM, the Risk/Need/Responsivity (RNR) model is not a theory but rather a general set of principles concerning optimal therapeutic interventions for use in specialized correctional settings. Also in contrast to the GLM, the RNR model's Psychology of Criminal Conduct acknowledges that criminal behavior results from a number of genetic and environmental factors that must be considered when formulating treatment alternatives. The Psychology of Criminal Conduct identifies three basic principles of effective corrections: (a) risk, (b) need, and (c) responsivity — principles that have been the focus of substantial scholarship over several decades and that have both shaped the model's popularity and provided empirical confirmation of the factors believed to be most important in contributing to criminal behavior (Looman & Abracen, 2013). Risk and need are defined as follows:

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).

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" — believed to be responsible for the emergence and sustainment of criminal behavior:

1. History of antisocial behavior, characterized by early involvement in a number and variety of antisocial activities and settings, which is considered a strength when absent. 2. Antisocial Personality Pattern, characterized by impulsive, adventurous, pleasure-seeking, and aggressive behaviors, and callous disregard for others; associated risks include weak self-control, anger-management, and problem-solving 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 of associates on the individual are important. 5. Problematic home circumstances (family/marital). 6. Problematic circumstances at school or work. 7. Few or no 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 GLM, and can help shape what types of therapeutic interventions might be most effective with different offender populations in various correctional settings. The RNR model thus contrasts with the GLM in its prioritization of treating criminogenic needs, while still taking social, personal, and interpersonal needs into account as ancillary components of 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 Responsivity Principle has two constituent components: (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 maintains that criminogenic needs should be addressed alongside individualized treatment that draws on each offender's strengths, which may contribute to the effectiveness of the intervention (Looman & Abracen, 2013).

Summary of Article Two: Humanistic Approaches to Offender Treatment

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 GLM and contrasts it with the RNR approach to offender rehabilitation. According to Hillman (2015), the overarching focus of the GLM is identifying the unique strengths that each offender possesses and drawing on those strengths to facilitate a transition away from a criminal lifestyle — an aspect that further differentiates the GLM from the RNR approach.

Notwithstanding this fundamental difference, Hillman also suggests that the GLM offers useful qualities that can 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). This priority again contrasts the GLM with the RNR model's focus on criminogenic needs. Hillman goes further by arguing that the unconditional acceptance of human dignity and agency advocated by Rogerian psychotherapy should be incorporated into this approach, maintaining 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 can be said for Rogerian psychotherapy in the private sector, where prisoner control and the threat of violence do not loom large. However, some criminologists would find it difficult to routinely incorporate this approach into offender rehabilitation treatment plans. Indeed, Hillman concedes that this type of psychotherapeutic approach may be untenable given the exigencies of the correctional setting, noting that Rogerian psychotherapy "is 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).

Hillman further suggests that applying Rogerian psychotherapy or other interventions that forge a strong therapeutic alliance may actually represent a security risk for corrections personnel: "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). This author also reports that challenges in providing high-quality offender rehabilitation services have intensified in recent years due to dwindling budgets and increasingly scarce resources. In this environment, any treatment alternative that heightens security risks will likely be viewed with skepticism, and corrections personnel are being forced to walk an increasingly thin line in developing the types of relationships that make the GLM a viable alternative treatment approach (Hillman, 2015).

Conclusion

In a perfect world, there would be no need for any type of offender rehabilitation, but the world is far from perfect and so too are the theoretical models that have been advanced for this purpose. In a somewhat more ideal world, the research suggests that the GLM might stand a genuine chance of making a meaningful difference in the lives of offenders by helping them develop the mental capacity to transform 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 housing prisoners safely and maintaining their health is a monumental undertaking.

The "lock them up and throw away the key" mentality that has characterized the criminal justice system over the past several decades has further eroded the ability of corrections authorities to provide effective offender rehabilitation services, when such services are provided at all. In the final analysis, corrections officials are left with a penny-wise, pound-foolish approach to criminal justice that ignores the benefits achievable through informed, evidence-based offender rehabilitation programs — including even those rooted in 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. & Jeglic, E. L. (2010, July 1). Cognitive-behavioral therapy in the treatment and management of sex offenders. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 24(2), 92–96.