NCJ Number
237510
Journal
Criminal Justice and Behavior Volume: 39 Issue: 1 Dated: January 2012 Pages: 94-110
Date Published
January 2012
Length
17 pages
Annotation
This article addresses the perceived weaknesses of an article that poses the question whether adding the "good lives" model (GLM) to crime prevention initiatives provides additional value over and above using interventions based on the "risk need responsivity" model (RNR).
Abstract
The authors content that there are a number of significant weaknesses in the Don Andrews, James Bonta, and Stephen Wormith article "Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) Model: Does Adding the Good Lives Model Contribute to Effective Crime Prevention?" (NCJ 235485), and that these weaknesses undermine their conclusion that "there is nothing unique in the GLM other than the encouragement of weak assessment approaches and the addition of confusion in service planning." The authors content that: 1) there are significant omissions in Andrews et al. characterization of offender rehabilitation and the degree to which it is underpinned by different value types; 2) Andrews et al. summary of the GLM is incomplete and, in some places, incorrect; and 3) Andrews et al. assumptions and conclusions regarding the application of the GLM to practice are misleading and, in some instances, inaccurate. In the article the authors address each of these problems and conclude with an analysis of the differences of GLM and RNR. References