The DOI matches its Crossref record; 57 of the 57 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
An appraisal of the risk–need–responsivity (RNR) model of offender rehabilitation and its application in correctional treatment
Abstract
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.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Psychology of Criminal Conduct
Hart, S. D., Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (1995) · Political Psychology · doi:10.2307/3792235 · Cited by 2,900
DOES CORRECTIONAL TREATMENT WORK? A CLINICALLY RELEVANT AND PSYCHOLOGICALLY INFORMED META‐ANALYSIS *
ANDREWS, D. A., ZINGER, I., HOGE, R. D., BONTA, J., GENDREAU, P., & CULLEN, F. T. (1990) · Criminology · doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.1990.tb01330.x · Cited by 2,084
Classification for Effective Rehabilitation: Rediscovering Psychology
ANDREWS, D. A., BONTA, J., & HOGE, R. D. (1990) · Criminal Justice and Behavior · doi:10.1177/0093854890017001004 · Cited by 1,895
Criminal Justice and Behavior: An Editorial Retrospective
Brodsky, S. L. (1980) · Criminal Justice and Behavior · doi:10.1177/009385488000700401 · Cited by 1,723
Rehabilitating criminal justice policy and practice
Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2010) · Psychology, Public Policy, and Law · doi:10.1037/a0018362 · Cited by 1,223
The psychology of criminal conduct, 5th ed.
Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. L. (2010) · Cited by 1,156
Behavior Modification: Principles and Procedures
Miltenberger, R. G. (1996) · Cited by 1,003
Mann, R. E., Hanson, R. K., & Thornton, D. (2010) · Sexual Abuse · doi:10.1177/1079063210366039 · Cited by 957
The Psychology of Criminal Conduct
Nussbaum, D. (1999) · Canadian Journal of Criminology · doi:10.3138/cjcrim.41.4.554 · Cited by 906
The Principles of Effective Correctional Treatment Also Apply To Sexual Offenders: A Meta-Analysis
Hanson, R. K., Bourgon, G., Helmus, L., & Hodgson, S. (2009) · Criminal Justice and Behavior · doi:10.1177/0093854809338545 · Cited by 774
Cited by
Layers of bias: A unified approach for understanding problems with risk assessment
Eckhouse, L., Lum, K., Conti-Cook, C., & Ciccolini, J. (2019) · Criminal Justice and Behavior · doi:10.1177/0093854818811379 · Cited by 156
Sensing probation in Canada: Notes on affect and penal aesthetics in risk assessment
Taylor, M. P. (2023) · European Journal of Probation · doi:10.1177/20662203231170688 · Cited by 11
Metadata
- Authors
- Polaschek, D. L. L.
- Venue
- Legal and Criminological Psychology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2012-01-19
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-17
- ISSN
- 1355-3259 (ISSN-L)
- 2044-8333
- OpenAlex
- W1892615705
- Cited by
- 273
- References
- 57
- FWCI
- 20.11
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: An appraisal of the risk–need–responsivity (RNR) model of offender rehabilitation and its application in correctional treatment. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.2044-8333.2011.02038.x
- The paper
- Polaschek, D. L. L. (2012). An appraisal of the risk–need–responsivity (RNR) model of offender rehabilitation and its application in correctional treatment. Legal and Criminological Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8333.2011.02038.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.