Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice

2014 Edition
| Editors: Gerben Bruinsma, David Weisburd

Actualizing Risk-Need-Responsivity

  • Faye S. Taxman
  • Michael Caudy
  • Stephanie Maass
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5690-2_349

Synonyms

Overview

The Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) model for correctional programming has served as a framework for promoting the use of evidence-based correctional strategies. The RNR framework has three core principles: (1) identify and target the static risk level of the individual, (2) identify the dynamic risk factors (needs) that are associated with offending behavior and that affect psychosocial functioning, and (3) identify appropriate correctional interventions that are suitable to address the risk-need interaction. Adherence to all three of these principles promises a greater impact on recidivism and other individual offender outcomes. This essay provides a brief overview of (1) risk assessment, (2) dynamic offender needs, and (3) responsivity.

The Risk-Need-Responsivity Model

The core components of the RNR Model are:
  • Risk: Match the intensity of...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Recommended Reading and References

  1. Andrews DA, Bonta J (2006) The psychology of criminal conduct, 5th edn. Anderson, CincinnatiGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrews DA, Bonta J (2010) The psychology of criminal conduct, 5th edn. Anderson, CincinnatiGoogle Scholar
  3. Andrews DA, Bonta J, Wormith JS (2006) The recent past and near future of risk and/or need assessment. Crime Delinq 52(1):7–27Google Scholar
  4. Austin J (2006) How much risk can we take? The misuse of risk assessment in corrections. Fed Probat 70(2):58–63Google Scholar
  5. Austin J (2009) The limits of prison based treatment. Vict Offenders 4:311–320Google Scholar
  6. Bonta J, Andrews DA (2007) Risk-need-responsivity model for offender assessment and treatment (user report 2007–06). Public Safety Canada, OttawaGoogle Scholar
  7. Bourgon G, Armstrong B (2005) Transferring the principles of effective treatment into a “real world” prison setting. Crim Justice Behav 32(1):3–25Google Scholar
  8. Byrne J (2009) Maximum impact: targeting supervision on higher-risk people, places and times. Public safety performance project. The PEW Center on the StatesGoogle Scholar
  9. Friedmann PD, Taxman FS, Henderson CE (2007) Evidence-based treatment practices for drug-involved adults in the criminal justice system. J Subst Abus Treat 32(3):267–277Google Scholar
  10. Huebner BM, Berg M (2011) Examining the sources of variation in risk for recidivism. Justice Q 28(1):146–173Google Scholar
  11. Latessa EJ, Lovins B (2010) The role of offender risk assessment: a policy maker guide. Vict Offender 5(3):203Google Scholar
  12. Lipsey MW, Cullen FT (2007) The effectiveness of correctional rehabilitation: a review of systematic reviews. Annu Rev Law Soc Sci 3:297–320Google Scholar
  13. Taxman FS, Belenko S (2012) Implementing evidence-based practices in community corrections and addiction treatment. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Taxman FS, Cropsey KL, Young D, Wexler H (2007a) Screening, assessment, and referral practices in adult correctional settings: a national perspective. Crim Justice Behav 34(9):1216–1234Google Scholar
  15. Taxman FS, Perdoni M, Harrison LD (2007b) Drug treatment services for adult offenders: the state of the state. J Subst Abus Treat 32:239–254Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Faye S. Taxman
    • 1
  • Michael Caudy
    • 1
  • Stephanie Maass
    • 1
  1. 1.Criminology, Law and SocietyGeorge Mason UniversityFairfaxUSA