The Risk/Needs/Responsivity Model: The Crucial Features of General Responsivity

• Date: 21 May 2012
• Published date: 21 May 2012
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/S1474-7863(2012)0000013006
• Pages: 29-45
• Author: L.E. Marshall,W.L. Marshall

THE RISK/NEEDS/RESPONSIVITY

MODEL: THE CRUCIAL

FEATURES OF GENERAL

RESPONSIVITY

L. E. Marshall and W. L. Marshall

ABSTRACT

This chapter describes Andrews and Bonta’s (2006) Principles of

Effective Offender Treatment and its relevance for the treatment of

sexual offenders. The three principles of this model are Risk, Needs and

Responsivity. Each of these is described in some detail with the greatest

emphasis being placed on general responsivity which is one of the two

parts of the Responsivity Principle. Our interpretation of general

responsivity differs from the view of others (e.g. Hanson et al., 2009)

who define this aspect of Responsivity in terms of Cognitive Behaviour

Therapy (CBT). While Andrews and Bonta indicate that within their

meta-analyses, CBT programmes were the ones most likely to succeed;

such programmes were not at all effective. It seems to us that a far more

important aspect of general responsivity is what Andrews and Bonta

describe as the Core Correctional Practices (CCP) which have to do with

the way in which treatment is delivered. We review the CCPs in some

detail and provide other evidence indicating that the style of treatment

delivery is the crucial factor in determining effectiveness.

Perspectives on Evaluating Criminal Justice and Corrections

Advances in Program Evaluation, Volume 13, 29–45

Copyright r2012 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited

All rights of reproduction in any form reserved

ISSN: 1474-7863/doi:10.1108/S1474-7863(2012)0000013006

29

INTRODUCTION

The development of sexual offender treatment was, for most of the modern

era (see Marshall & Laws, 2003), based on three sources: (1) theoretical

propositions about the origin and maintenance of the behaviour; (2)

clinically derived notions about what targets needed to be addressed; and (3)

the outcome of empirical tests of these clinical ideas.

The initial theory driving treatment was formulated by McGuire, Carlisle,

and Young (1965). In keeping with the conditioning bases of the emerging

behaviour therapy movement, McGuire et al. proposed that unusual sexual

interests arise as the result of the accidental pairing of sexual arousal and

images (or actual experiences) of a deviant act. Subsequent masturbation to

these images, as McGuire et al. claimed, entrench the deviant sexual interest.

This theory directed treatment to the modification of sexual interests, at first

by just reducing deviant arousal (Bond & Evans, 1967) with the later

addition of enhancing appropriate sexual interests (see Marquis, 1970).

Interventions based on these ideas were soon seen as limited with

Marshall (1971) pointing out that changing sexual preferences alone did not

guarantee the client would have the skills and confidence necessary to act on

his newly acquired prosocial interests. However, Marshall did not provide

any evidence to support his plausible proposal. Similarly, but non-empirical,

claims were made about the importance of broader social skills (Barlow,

1974), cognitive distortions (Abel, Becker, & Cunningham-Rathner, 1984),

empathy (Hoppe & Singer, 1976), self-esteem (Marshall & Christie, 1982)

and intimacy and loneliness (Marshall, 1989). Subsequent research (Bumby,

1996;Marshall, 1993;Marshall, Anderson, & Champagne, 1997;McFall,

1990;Pithers, 1994) confirmed that sexual offenders were indeed deficient,

compared to other men, in terms of all these features.

Despite these demonstrations it was still not clear that all these factors

needed to be changed in treatment. It might be, for example, that although

a lack of empathy distinguished sexual offenders, it might be unrelated to a

propensity to reoffend and, therefore, not an appropriate target for a

treatment programme aimed at reducing future offending. What was needed

was an empirical model that identified modifiable features that were related

to reoffending. This, however, would not be sufficient; what was also needed

was an empirically defined approach to treatment delivery as well as

demonstrably effective procedures to change the targets of treatment.

For the present chapter, we will set aside concerns with this latter issue,

which we have addressed in detail in descriptions of our treatment pro-

gramme (Marshall, Anderson, Fernandez, 1999;W. L. Marshall, Marshall,

L. E. MARSHALL AND W. L. MARSHALL30