A Critical Evaluation of the Risk, Need, and Responsivity Principles in Family Interventions for Delinquent Youth: A Meta-Analysis

• Published date: 01 September 2024
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/07340168221140830
• Author: Anne M. E. Bijlsma,Mark Assink,Geert Jan J. M. Stams,Claudia E. van der Put
• Date: 01 September 2024

A Critical Evaluation of the

Risk, Need, and Responsivity

Principles in Family

Interventions for Delinquent

Youth: A Meta-Analysis

Anne M. E. Bijlsma

1

, Mark Assink

1

, Geert Jan

J. M. Stams

1

, and Claudia E. van der Put

1

Abstract

This meta-analysis aimed to re-examine the available evidence on the effectiveness of the risk, need,

and responsivity principles of the RNR model in family interventions for juvenile delinquency. As pre-

vious reviews did not examine these principles fully in line with their original def‌initions, this review

aimed to improve the coding of the RNR principles and to re-evaluate their association with interven-

tion effectiveness. A three-level meta-analysis of k=31 studies reporting on 71 effect sizes revealed an

overall small and signif‌icant intervention effect (d=0.382, p< .001). Although larger effects were

found for interventions adhering to any of the RNR principles, none of the RNR principles signif‌icantly

moderated overall intervention effectiveness. Interventions specif‌ically targeting antisocial recrea-

tional activities, and interventions taking into account the youth’s age and cultural background did sig-

nif‌icantly increase overall effectiveness. The results reveal that strong and convincing empirical support

for the RNR principles is not yet available, which can mainly be explained by limitations in the design of

primary studies on the RNR principles and intervention effectiveness. Suggestions are offered to

improve the quality of both primary and secondary research that is needed for establishing a better

empirical evidence for the widely acknowledged RNR model.

Keywords

family intervention, juvenile delinquency, meta-analysis, RNR model, RNR principles

Recidivism of delinquent youth is a major issue as approximately six in ten prior court referred juve-

niles in the United States return to court before the age of 18 (Snyder & Sickmund, 2006). Although

these numbers ref‌lect a lack of effective programs aimed at reducing youth delinquency

1

Research Institute Child Development and Education, University of Amsterdam, Nieuwe Achtergracht 127,

1018 WS Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Corresponding Author:

Anne M. E. Bijlsma, Research Institute Child Development and Education, University of Amsterdam,

Nieuwe Achtergracht 127, 1018 WS Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Email: a.m.e.bijlsma@uva.nl

Article

Criminal Justice Review

2024, Vol. 49(3) 310-344

© 2022 Georgia State University

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/07340168221140830

journals.sagepub.com/home/cjr

(Evans-Chase & Zhou, 2014), promising results have been found in meta-analytic studies that com-

pared family interventions to non-familial responses (Dowden & Andrews, 2003; Hartnett et al.,

2017; Latimer, 2001; Van der Stouwe et al., 2014). Following these meta-analyses, family

interventions can be def‌ined as in-home and community based interventions aimed at reducing

behavior problems of juveniles by improving family functioning. The family risk factors that

are targeted in these type of interventions, such as harsh parental discipline and poor

parent-child-communication, have been associated with adolescent behavior problems and delin-

quency (Baldwin et al., 2012). It is theorized that improving family functioning by targeting such

family risk factors mediate improvements in other social systems, such as peer relationships,

school functioning, and participation in the community (Van der Stouwe et al., 2014). Adolescent

delinquency is associated with an accumulation of criminogenic risk factors across such social

systems (cf. the ecological systems theory of Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Therefore, many family inter-

ventions target criminogenic risks in multiple social systems to create a proper f‌it between those risks

and treatment goals, which is in line with the Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) model of Andrews and

Bonta (1990) (Dowden & Andrews, 2003; Van der Stouwe et al., 2014).

The RNR model is a theoretical framework that outlines the most important causes of criminal

recidivism as well as several principles for effectively reducing criminal engagement. Empirical

support for this model has been provided in multiple meta-analyses (e.g., Dowden & Andrews,

2000; 2006; Hanson et al., 2009). However, many of these studies were conducted one or even

two decades ago. Therefore, this study aimed to gain knowledge on the effectiveness of applying

the RNR principles in family interventions for delinquent youth by replicating and updating the

review of Dowden and Andrews (2003). Relative to the work of Dowden and Andrews, the

current meta-analysis also synthesized studies on family intervention effectiveness that were pub-

lished in the past twenty years, and used a more comprehensive coding procedure to examine the

moderating effect of the RNR principles on intervention effectiveness. Moreover, an advanced three-

level approach to meta-analysis was applied, so that coeff‌icients could be estimated more reliably and

more statistical power was achieved than in previous meta-analyses on the RNR principles.

The Risk-Need-Responsivity Model

The RNR model as developed by Andrews and Bonta (1990) has become the premier worldwide

model for offender assessment and treatment. The most important feature of the RNR model is

the focus on applying human services to criminal justice instead of relying on deterrence or restora-

tion (Bonta & Andrews, 2017). The model consists of three general principles that guides effective

treatment to reduce criminal recidivism: the risk, need, and responsivity principles. The risk principle

states that an intervention’s intensity should be matched to an offender’s risk for recidivism. The

need principle indicates that programs should be matched to the unique criminogenic needs of

offenders, rather than utilizing a one-size-f‌its-all approach (Bonta & Andrews, 2017; Gill &

Wilson, 2017; Vieira et al., 2009; Wylie et al., 2019). Criminogenic needs are changeable risk

factors that are strongly associated with criminal conduct and therefore serve as intervention

targets. The needs that are most strongly associated with offending behavior have been labeled as

the “Central Eight”by Bonta and Andrews (2017). On the other hand, noncriminogenic needs

(e.g., poor self-esteem or depression) are also dynamic attributes of offenders and their circum-

stances, which, when changed, are not associated with reduced recidivism (Bonta & Andrews,

2017). However, the def‌inition and relevance of non-criminogenic needs in treatment deserve recon-

sideration, as non-criminogenic needs correspond to responsivity factors that are explicitly important

to take into account (Bonta & Andrews, 2003). The general responsivity principle prescribes that

cognitive social learning methods (e.g., modelling, role-play, or graduated practice) are used to inf‌lu-

ence behavior. The specif‌icresponsivity principle states that intervention strategies are aligned with

Bijlsma et al. 311

the learning ability, learning style, circumstances, and demographic characteristics –such as gender,

age, and ethnicity - of individual offenders (Andrews et al., 2011; Bonta & Andrews, 2007, 2017).

Effectiveness of the RNR Principles

Adhering to the RNR principles in treatment has been found to produce positive and strong treatment

effects across program types, persons, settings, and methodological conditions (e.g., Andrews &

Dowden, 2006; Dowden & Andrews, 1999; Hanson et al., 2009). Adhering to the RNR principles

may even be the most important explanation for positive program effects, even after accounting

for other variables that are assumed to have an effect on treatment effect sizes (Dowden &

Andrews, 2003), such as random or nonrandom assignment of participants to experimental and

control conditions, and sample size.

The effectiveness of the RNR principles is primarily grounded in f‌indings of multiple meta-

analyses conducted by the developers of the RNR model (Bonta & Andrews, 2017). The f‌irst meta-

analysis synthesized 154 treatment comparisons, and revealed a signif‌icantly lower recidivism rate of

35 percent in the treatment conditions that received treatment according to the RNR principles com-

pared to the control conditions that received treatment as usual (Andrews et al., 1990). Later, positive

effects of the RNR principles, and particularly the risk principle, were found in meta-analyses on

violent reoffending in specif‌ically female and young justice-involved populations (Andrews &

Dowden, 2006; Dowden & Andrews, 1999, 2000). Results of meta-analytic studies by other

researchers support the effectiveness of adhering to the RNR principles. For example, sexual

offender treatment programs adhering to the RNR principles showed the largest reductions in

sexual and general recidivism compared to other treatment programs (Hanson et al., 2009).

Coding of the RNR Principles in Meta-Analytic Research

Even though meta-analytic research mostly supports the effectiveness of the RNR principles, the

f‌indings may be questionable because the coding of the RNR principles was performed inconsistently

across reviews (Smith et al., 2009). First, the risk principle is often coded using an aggregate-sample

approach instead of a within-study sample approach (Lowenkamp et al., 2006). In the former,

inspired by Lipsey and Pollard (1989), the entire treatment sample is coded as low or high risk

based on the “average”risk level of the sample (e.g., most juveniles had one or more prior court con-

tacts), even though there may be juveniles with different risk levels in the sample (Dowden &

Andrews, 1999). It remains ambiguous how this way of coding is related to matching individual

offenders to the appropriate level of treatment intensity. Nevertheless, many review authors

copied the aggregate-sample approach as available primary studies hardly report on differences in

treatment intensity across sampled offenders with different risk levels (Hanson et al., 2009;

Koehler et al., 2013; Prendergast et al., 2013).

The within-sample approach to coding the risk principle implies that intervention effects for low-

and high-risk groups are reported separately within studies (Andrews and Dowden, 2006). However,

this way of coding is also not based on matching risk assessments to treatment goals in individual

offenders, but on separating treatment effects for offenders clinically judged as low risk from treat-

ment effects for offenders clinically judged as high risk. The within-sample approach can be more

closely related to the risk principle as it is sometimes def‌ined as: “providing intensive interventions

to higher risk offenders and little or no service to low risk offenders”(Hanson et al., 2009, p. 871).

However, in practice, almost no primary studies report on differences in treatment intensity (Andrews

& Dowden, 2006; Hanson et al., 2009).

Similar to the risk principle, no quantitative reviews seem to exist in which the coding of the

need principle aligns with the question how treatment goals matches systematically assessed

312 Criminal Justice Review 49(3)