Three Criminology Databases

Literature Search
To identity relevant literature for this report I searched three criminology databases (AGIS, CINCH and Criminal Justice Abstracts), two criminology journals (British Journal of Criminology and the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology), two social work journals (Australian Social Work and The British Journal of Social Work) and one general database (ProQuest) using a combination of the following key terms: recidivism, meta-analysis, criminology, community, systematic review and social work. I also manually searched relevant articles and abstracts to identify appropriate material.

The search focused on studies that involved adults and young people, but excluded results that examined particular subgroups of offenders,
The risk-need-responsivity (RNR) model is based on three main principles (Patterson 2012). The risk principle states that the most intensive treatment should be reserved for those offenders who are at the highest risk of reoffending (Lowenkamp et al., p. 88); the need principle states that practitioners should focus on changing criminogenic needs (such as drug dependency, antisocial attitudes and lack of self-control) to reduce future criminal behaviours (Andrews et al. 1990); and the responsivity principle states that treatment should be matched with the learning styles and characteristics of the offender treated (Lipsey & Cullen 2007, p. 310). Andrews et al. (1990) found that when all of these principles were adhered to recidivism rates fell by a mean of 53.06%. In contrast, Lowenkamp et al. (2006) found that if the risk principle was not adhered to, that is, if lower risk offenders were targeted with intensive treatment, their recidivism rates rose. While Lipsey and Cullen (2007) did not specifically study the effects that the RNR model has on recidivism rates, they did hypothesise that the variability found in their analysis of treatment types could be caused by inconsistencies in applying the RNR model to offender treatment. These findings seem to indicate that when treatment is tailored to the individual needs, behaviour and personality of offenders, their
1990). In contrast to the community programs based on the rehabilitation model, deterrence programs do nothing to address the criminogenic needs of offenders nor their anti-social cognitions (MacKenzie 2011). Instead, proponents of this approach believe that the severity of the treatment will, in itself, deter people from committing future crimes (Patterson 2012). However, all of the studies chosen for this report concluded that treatment based on a deterrence model did not lead to a significant reduction in recidivism rates and, in some cases, even led to an increase in offender recidivism. In their 1990 study, Andrews et al. concluded that, to their knowledge, not a single study had linked criminal sanctions to lower rates of recidivism and, over twenty years later, MacKenzie (2011) proclaimed that there was still “no evidence” (p. 8) linking increased punishment and control to reduced recidivism. Lipsey and Cullen went one step further and analysed several studies that have linked deterrence methods to an increase in recidivism rates. Spohn and Holleran (2002) found that people sent to prison had higher recidivism rates than those placed on probation; Petersilia and Turner (1993) found that offenders placed on