Cognitive-behavioral rehabilitation for high-risk violent offenders: an outcome evaluation of the violence prevention unit

Rehabilitation programs for adult violent offending are still novel, and few published studies examine the recidivism outcomes of those who complete such programs. This study describes a New Zealand prison program for high-risk violent men. The program is intensive and cognitive behavioral. Preliminary outcome data are presented for three indices during 2 or more years of follow-up: nonviolent reconviction, violent reconviction, and subsequent imprisonment. In comparison with untreated offenders, treated men were less likely to be reconvicted of a violent offense, and those who were took longer to fail. There was also a 12% difference in favor of the treated men on the two other indices, nonviolent reconviction and reimprisonment. The authors conclude that the program shows early promise and that further evaluation with a larger sample of treated men will be important in clarifying whether the program is having a differential impact on violent versus nonviolent offending.     

An appraisal of the risk–need–responsivity (RNR) model of offender rehabilitation and its application in correctional treatment

The science of effective offender rehabilitation remains a very young field: dominated theoretically and empirically by the work of a small group of Canadian psychologists. Their achievements include the ‘what works’ research literature, and the RNR model of offender rehabilitation. First disseminated in 1990, over the following 20 years, the Risk, Need and Responsivity Principles became the core of the theoretical framework used in those correctional systems around the world that use science as a basis for offender rehabilitation. This paper evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of the RNR model as a Level I rehabilitation framework. It proposes that unrealistic expectations and mistranslations of the model into practice are contributing to concerns about its validity and utility, and stifling needed innovation in the development both of mid‐level treatment resources, and of RNR‐adherent interventions. It concludes that although the RNR model's empirical validity and practical utility justify its place as the dominant model, it is not the ‘last word’ on offender rehabilitation; there is much work still to be done.