Evaluation of the Implementation of a Risk-Need-Responsivity Service in Community Supervision in Sweden

AuthorCharlotte Robertsson,Johan Wennerholm,Tanya Rugge,Marcus Dynevall,Louise C. Starfelt Sutton,Guy Bourgon,Sarah Åhlén
Published date01 May 2021
DOI10.1177/0093854820958744
Date01 May 2021
Subject MatterArticles
CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 2021, Vol. 48, No. 5, May 2021, 617 –636.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854820958744
Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions
© 2020 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology
617
EVALUATION OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF
A RISK-NEED-RESPONSIVITY SERVICE IN
COMMUNITY SUPERVISION IN SWEDEN
LOUISE C. STARFELT SUTTON
MARCUS DYNEVALL
JOHAN WENNERHOLM
SARAH ÅHLÉN
The Swedish Prison and Probation Service
TANYA RUGGE
Public Safety Canada
GUY BOURGON
Private Consultant
CHARLOTTE ROBERTSSON
The Swedish Prison and Probation Service
The effective use of the core treatment principles from the Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) model has the potential to reduce
criminal recidivism significantly. A pilot trial of the RNR-based model Krimstics in the Swedish probation service showed
increased RNR adherence but no effects on recidivism. The subsequent implementation of Krimstics involved the training
and clinical support of more than 700 probation officers working with community supervision. In parallel, an implementa-
tion evaluation examining RNR adherence was undertaken, collecting and coding audio-recorded supervision sessions and
case file data. Findings showed that Krimstics-trained probation officers (N = 96) used cognitive behavioral therapy-based
techniques in supervision sessions while demonstrating moderate-to-high levels of relationship building skills. However,
adherence to the risk principle was lacking and key cognitive behavioral techniques showed poor quality. Although
Krimstics has increased RNR adherence in a Swedish context, challenges with implementing theory into practice may
obscure the assessment of the service’s effectiveness.
Keywords: Risk-Need-Responsivity; RNR; Sweden; community supervision; probation; evaluation
AUTHORS’ NOTE: The authors thank Dr. James Bonta for valuable comments on drafts of this article. The
authors thank research assistants Sofia Caviezel, Gustav Grut, Rebecca Linder, Daniel Nilsson, Jacqueline
Rodriguez, Caroline Winqvist Karta di Koesoemah, and Elenore Öjes for their help with coding audio-recorded
supervision sessions. Charlotte Robertsson’s affiliation with the Swedish and Probation Service refers to a
previous employment during which she project managed the pilot trial evaluation of Krimstics. The results of
this study have been presented in a government report, published by the Swedish Prison and Probation Service.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Louise C. Starfelt Sutton, Research and
Evaluation Unit, The Swedish Prison and Probation Service, Slottsgatan 78, Norrkoping 601 80, Sweden;
e-mail: louise.starfeltsutton@kriminalvarden.se.
958744CJBXXX10.1177/0093854820958744Criminal Justice and BehaviorStarfelt Sutton et al. /
research-article2021
Community sanctions for convicted persons comprise the main part of prison and proba-
tion practice in Western countries. For example, the 2018 Council of Europe’s annual
penal statistics show that the probation population exceeds the prison population in 26 out
618 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR
of 32 countries surveyed (Aebi et al., 2019). In Sweden, 9,699 individuals commenced
community supervision in 2018, surpassing prison intake at 8,930. Clienteles have steadily
decreased in Sweden since 2010 but increases are now expected against the backdrop of
legal reforms, political agendas, and socioeconomic changes in the population. In parallel,
the Swedish Prison and Probation Service (SPPS) is actively promoting the use of probation
in favor of shorter prison sentences; with the majority of people serving sentences up to 6
months (60% of new prison terms in 2018), there is little time for risk-reducing measures to
prevent reoffending. However, for probation to comprise a credible, and not merely a less
expensive, alternative to incarceration, probation practice needs to deliver effective reha-
bilitation in the interest of public safety. At the same time, the international research litera-
ture provides little support for the effectiveness of the supervision component of probation
(e.g., Barnett & Howard, 2018), which has called for a need to narrow the gap between
research and practice. The Risk-Need-Responsivity model (RNR; Andrews et al., 1990;
Bonta & Andrews, 2017) is currently the most prominent theoretical framework used to
inform rehabilitation of criminal justice-involved individuals and, in Sweden, efforts to
implement practices based on and strengthen adherence to RNR have been undertaken since
the early 2000s.
RISK, NEED, AND RESPONSIVITY (RNR)
The full RNR model consists of 15 principles (Bonta & Andrews, 2017). However, three
clinical principles assume prominence. The risk principle contends that the level of services
should be matched with the individual’s level of risk. Clients with moderate-to-high risk of
reoffending should be targeted for intensive and extensive services. To implement the risk
principle, a structured and valid risk assessment instrument is needed to differentiate reli-
ably clients according to their risk level. The risk level should form the basis of the sentence
plan where parallel and intensive services should be a priority for moderate-to-high risk
clients, whereas none or few, services should be offered to low-risk clients. The need
principle promotes a focus of rehabilitative services on those dynamic risk factors—or
criminogenic needs—that underpin an individual’s criminal behavior and have a strong
evidence base. The premise of this principle is that a change in any of these needs drives a
change in criminal behavior. The responsivity principle refers to the delivery of treatment
in a style and mode that matches the individual’s learning style and abilities.
There are two elements of the responsivity principle. General responsivity refers to
using therapeutic approaches that have the strongest potential to be effective, with cogni-
tive behavioral therapy-based (CBT) approaches demonstrating robust empirical support
(e.g., Koehler et al., 2013; Landenberger & Lipsey, 2005; Lipsey & Cullen, 2007). Specific
responsivity refers to a more specific tailoring of the treatment to match the individual’s
personality, motivation, learning style, and abilities. The positive effects of RNR adher-
ence is established and are consistent across different rehabilitative services, criminal jus-
tice populations, contexts, and methods (e.g., Hanley, 2006; Lovins et al., 2007, 2009).
RNR’s theoretical basis is the General Personality and Cognitive Social Learning
Perspective on criminal conduct (Bonta & Andrews, 2017). The theory emphasizes holistic
explanations for criminal behavior and the interaction between biological (e.g., tempera-
ment), psychological (e.g., attitudes), and social (e.g., peer support) factors. These under-
pinnings culminate in the immediate situation leading up to a crime, in which the individual

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT