APPLYING RISK-NEED-RESPONSIVITY-BASEDREHABILITATION: THE NAMIBIAN EXPERIENCEMariana Martin *I. INTRODUCTIONIn Namibia, implementation of the Offender Risk Management Correctional Strategy,
principally founded on the Risk-Need-Responsivity Model, has resulted in remarkabledifferences in offender behaviour during confinement, in turn positively impacting thedelivery of programming and other correctional services to offenders. The primary goal of
the strategy is to gear offenders towards successful reintegration following release,ultimately promoting public safety. However, the implementation of scientific andevidence-based approaches presents various challenges, particularly to resource-deficient
nations like Namibia, where various social factors impinge on efforts to rehabilitate
offenders. The paper shares the Namibian experience in introducing its correctional
strategy in its correctional facilities, highlighting the contextual challenges experienced andthe strategies implemented to mitigate them. The paper also highlights the benefits notedwith implementing its risk-and-need-based correctional strategy.
II. BACKGROUND
Recognizing that the provision of scientific and evidence-based rehabilitation of
offenders is key to desistance and ensuring public safety, the Namibian Correctional
Service, being the custodian of both institutionalized and community-based offenders in
the country and having the responsibility to ensure their rehabilitation and successful
reintegration, in 2012 officially inaugurated its Offender Risk Management Correctional
Strategy.
The Offender Risk Management Correctional Strategy guides all operations relating tooffender management, control, rehabilitation and reintegration, promoting a safe andconducive correctional environment and ensuring the reduction of recidivism. Essentially,
it recognizes the individuality of each offender in terms of the factors that may haveprecipitated their offending, the risks they may present for future offending, the needs they
may have to address their criminogenic factors, and in terms of their motivation to address
their needs and work towards changing their lifestyles.
With that ideology, the Offender Risk Management Correctional Strategy aims toidentify the individual risk factors of offenders in order to manage them more effectively
according to their individual risk profiles.
The Offender Risk Management Correctional Strategy is brought to life by multiple
components, which mutually interact towards effective offender rehabilitation and
Deputy Commissioner-General: Rehabilitation and Reintegration, Namibian Correctional Service,
Namibia (Mariana.Martin@ncs.gov.na).

*- 49 - 49 -

reintegration:
A. Objective Risk/Needs Assessment and Security Classification of Offenders
Risks/needs assessment is the foundation for implementing the Offender Risk
Management Correctional Strategy.
Starting soon after admission, identifying the factors that were/are most involved in thecriminal behaviour of an offender is embarked on through objective risk/needs assessment.
The process necessitates assessment instruments that can identify the right factors leading
to a comprehensive criminal profile of an offender that documents the precipitating factors
to the offence (e.g., emotional state and attitudes at the time, influences from others,
contribution of alcohol or drug use, problems with anger, low ability for problem-solving,
impulsivity, etc.).
A properly completed criminal profile provides direction on repeated patterns of
behaviour that the individual offender may have learned, and needs to unlearn. Together
with a more general and systematic risk/needs assessment of the offender, a picture ispainted of what the offender can work on in attempting to change their behaviour during
their period in custody. Assessment is continued throughout the offender’s period ofincarceration and enables gradual changing of the offender’s security status from one levelof security to another.
B. Correctional Treatment Planning
The understanding generated of the offender’s risks/needs informs a plan of action
where the correctional service can assist the offender to address their needs. This plan ofaction is a detailed outline of the steps the offender can take, both in the shorter-term andin the longer-term to begin to address their areas of difficulty and improve their chances ofsuccessful reintegration. It is specific in outlining who will do what, with what aims, overwhat time frame, and with what other supports. Progress in pursuing the plan is monitored
throughout the sentence, with attention paid to evidence of success in achieving the set
objectives.
C. Case Management
Case Management is the process that takes place to help offenders execute theirindividualized correctional treatment plan.
Primary responsibility to help support and guide the offender in this respect rests withan individual correctional officer, assigned the role of Case Management Officer, thoughother correctional staff also assist with their observation and analysis of the offender’sbehaviour on an on-going basis.
Through regular interaction and the provision of supportive and directive counselling,
the Case Management Officer gets to know the offender, and their style, habits and patternsof behaviour. More than just being someone who responds to complaints, the CaseManagement Officer plays the role of being a mentor to the offender, someone who
consistently directs and redirects the offender towards ways of achieving their life goals,changing their attitudes and benefiting most from the experience of incarceration.

- 50 - 50 -

D. Effective Programme Development and Delivery
The efficacy of the Offender Risk Management Correctional Strategy hinges, in the end,on the availability and quality of programmes and services to assist offenders.
In line with the responsivity principle, the Namibian Correctional Service ensures thatits programmes respond to the characteristics and needs of its offender population, taking
the prevailing risk factors and the personal weaknesses and vulnerabilities of the offenders
into account.
Programmes are tailor-made to, and respond to, the Namibian population, realities andenvironment. Where programmes that are developed elsewhere are used, they are subjected
to a rigorous process of adaptation and domestication.
E. Unit Management
Unit Management is a generally accepted model in modern correctional practice thataims to cluster offenders into smaller, more manageable groupings within a larger
correctional setting (usually groups of about 80 to 120 offenders) so that there can be more
effective deployment of active, dynamic security as an alternative to only passive, static
security.
The notion is that offender rehabilitation is better achieved through an environment thatfacilitates interaction between correctional officers and offenders wherein there is directsupervision on a human-to-human level rather than simply the guarding and disciplining ofoffenders.
The Unit Management model enables professional relationship-building between
correctional staff members and offenders and works more effectively within an ideal
architectural and physical structure designed to accommodate it and also works more
effectively when there is an appropriate compliment of trained and qualified officers
performing various roles.
III. APPLICATION OF THE RISK-NEED-RESPONSIVITY MODEL THROUGH
THE OFFENDER RISK MANAGEMENT CORRECTIONAL STRATEGY
Predominantly based on the risk-need-responsivity model, the Offender Risk
Management Correctional Strategy is premised on the firm belief that offenders are capableof changing. However, it is believed that this change is more likely to happen when
programming is based on scientific and evidence-based practices.
In line with the risk principle, programme interventions are provided based on
individual offender needs since different factors underlie the offending of different
individuals. Correspondingly, offenders undergo thorough assessments to reliably
differentiate low-risk from high-risk offenders, and high-risk offenders are then prioritizedin accessing the most intensive rehabilitation programmes.
Furthermore, in its appreciation of the reality that there are many factors that can beused to explain offending behaviour, the Offender Risk Management Correctional Strategy
recognizes the need for a multitude of interventions covering a range of offender needs
such as substance use management, education, vocational training, psycho-education, etc.
- 51 - 51 -

Thus, the Namibian Correctional Service essentially provides an assortment of
rehabilitation programmes and activities to offenders on the basis of their needs,
prioritizing the most intensive cognitive-behavioural-based programmes for offenders who
are assessed as posing a significant risk of (violent) reoffending. This is in line with the risk
principle that states that the intensity of services given to offenders must be calibrated tothe amount of risk that they pose.
Where programmes are based on the cognitive-behavioural model, their aim is to help
offenders detach from their antisocial tendencies by providing them with extensive
opportunity to practice, rehearse and pattern more prosocial behaviour.
The Offender Risk Management Correctional Strategy responds to the inference drawn
from the responsivity principle that treatment interventions are to consider personal
strengths and weaknesses such as the motivation and individual learning styles of offenders,
as well as various other barriers to meaningful programme participation.
Thus, offenders who may not be in a position to gainfully participate in intensive
cognitive-behavioural-model-based rehabilitation programmes, due to factors such as low
motivation, are encouraged to participate in less intensive support cognitive-behaviouralbased rehabilitation activities prior to participation in the core cognitive-behavioural-based
programmes. Furthermore, as expounded on further in this document, when grouping
offenders into these programmes, due consideration is paid to their personalities, cognitive
styles, language and literacy abilities and other personal characteristics. Programme Officer
qualities are also attended to as a means to enhance responsivity to the programmes.
IV. THE NAMIBIAN EXPERIENCE IN APPLYING THE RISK-NEEDRESPONSIVIVITY PARADIGM
Since embarking on basing its rehabilitation strategy on modern correctional models(risk-need-responsivity) over a decade ago, the Namibian Correctional Service has learned
that transforming to evidence-based correctional practice is a mammoth undertaking
requiring substantial resources, both human and non-human, in order to attain set standards.
For example, most of Namibia’s correctional facilities are old structures inherited fromthe colonial era, and the infrastructure was largely custody oriented and was established toserve the specific needs of the colonial and apartheid ideology. Although some of its
correctional facilities were constructed after the country’s independence, they did notconform to the design and structural requirements of the Unit Management principle.
It, therefore, follows that significant modifications to the infrastructure had to beundertaken to accommodate the Unit Management concept. However, getting all thetargeted facilities to the required standard has been a taxing endeavour owing to resource
constraints. Work still needs to be done on a number of facilities to get them to meet thecorrect specifications, whereas plans exist to replace some correctional facilities with newly
constructed ones.
The partitioning of facilities into smaller functional segments in place of the large
sections that previously accommodated an average of 500 offenders means that correctional
facilities now have smaller units of different security classifications accommodating the- 52 - 52 -

sentenced offenders. This has resulted in notable rehabilitative and security benefits ascorrectional officers are now better able to monitor and interact with offenders, which, inturn, allows them to more effectively address the needs of offenders and also easily detectand swiftly react to potential risks posed by offenders.
Furthermore, implementation of the Risk-Need-Responsivity-based approach brought
to light the necessity of comprehensive and accurate documentation of offender behaviourand occurrences as well as quality information about their backgrounds and criminal
histories, the nature and circumstances of their offending, their needs and problems,
strengths and potential, etc., all of which feed into a proper analysis of risk.
The Namibian Correctional Service has learned that without comprehensive
information on an offender’s criminal and social history, or on the particulars of theiroffence, it becomes very challenging to conduct a proper analysis of risk. This has abearing on the identification of the offender’s needs for rehabilitation. Lack of quality dataalso has a bearing on the correct identification of offender requirements for successful
reintegration as well the accurate analysis of outstanding risks at the time of release into
society. Furthermore, lack of data makes it impossible to measure growth and successes of
the rehabilitation efforts.
This has been resolved by the implementation of a comprehensive electronic offender
information management system in 2015, which is used to record, monitor and evaluate
offender data. The system is undergoing constant improvement, with a module to track
security incidences committed by offenders having been added in 2016 and othermodifications still ongoing. However, critical ICT equipment shortages are a major setback
to the full utilization of the information system and the timely recording of offender data.
Additionally, the experience of the Namibian Correctional Service in implementing its
risk-need-responsivity-based correctional strategy is that its efficacy is further impacted by
the quality of its workforce. Implementation of the Offender Risk Management
Correctional Strategy has made the Namibian Correctional Service aware that the qualityof its risk assessment and related processes was being adversely affected by a lack ofsuitably qualified and skilled officers. It recognized that a proper Risk-Need-Responsivity
Model requires professional staff with good interviewing skills, and the requisite criticalanalysis and judgment for managing offenders who deny criminal responsibility.
Over the years the Namibian Correctional Service has made significant progress inattaining the appropriately diversified and skilled workforce required to make its offendermanagement strategy work. However, it still has fairly large ground to cover before it has
the required levels of staff to make the desired impact, both quantitatively as well as
qualitatively.
V. ADAPTATION OF THE RISK-NEED-RESPONSIVITY MODEL TO THE
NAMIBIAN CONTEXT
The socio-economic characteristics of the Namibian population present somechallenges that necessitated the correctional service to become creative to ensure that when
delivering rehabilitation programmes, the Risk-Need-Responsibility principles are appliedin a manner that is sensitive to those complications.
- 53 - 53 -Specifically concerning the delivery of its Cognitive-Behavioural-Therapy-based
programme interventions, measures needed to be put in place to ensure they are delivered
in a style and manner that best befits the characteristics of its offender population.
Although some challenges are experienced at some correctional facilities to identify
sufficient numbers of offenders that meet the criteria for participation in programmes basedon their risk factors, this is not a general concern. On the other hand, it is a constantchallenge to find offenders who not only qualify for participation in certain rehabilitation
programmes by virtue of possessing high risks/needs but are also able to optimally benefit
from participation in those programmes based on their language and literacy capabilities.
Despite English being the official language in the country, Namibia is home to a wide
diversity of languages, with the native languages being the most widely spoken andunderstood. While only 1.5 per cent of the country’s population have never had formal
education, 1 a grave picture is painted within the correctional setting. In November 2020 thecountry’s most populous correctional facility, the Windhoek Correctional Facility,
recorded a total of 100 offenders that never had any formal education out of a populationof 639 offenders that were assessed. This represents 15.6 per cent of that population.
Expectedly, a considerable number of offenders are unable to gainfully participate incognitive-behavioural based interventions, because they are unable to comprehend theprimary language of delivery of those programmes (English) and are also not able to reador participate in any written group work. Literacy skills are particularly important to beable to benefit from the cognitive-behavioural-based interventions as written assignments
are acritical aspect of those programmes.
To allow the programmes to be available to as many offenders as possible, theNamibian Correctional Service decided to include offenders presenting with only one of
the barriers (language/illiteracy) in cognitive-behavioural-based programme participation
although such offenders would require the Programme Officers to conjointly address the
problem of literacy and language while attending to their risk factors.
As a way to promote responsivity, the cognitive-behavioural-based programmes aredelivered in a manner that is mindful of the above-mentioned challenges. For example,
since programmes are delivered in English, key concepts are translated into local languages.
This approach is supplemented by pairing Programme Officers in a manner that at least oneof them is able to communicate in a different local language.
Where comprehension of English is a problem, offenders who speak the samevernacular language are also placed in the same group to make it easier for Programme
Officers to translate programme content to them. Offenders who are unable to complete
written tasks in English are further encouraged to do so in their vernaculars.
Where difficulties exist to serve an offender due to language barriers, even after theabove efforts have been made, such offender can be transferred to another correctional
facility that has Programme Officers that are able to communicate with the offender in theirvernacular to enable programme participation.
Namibia Statistics Agency. (2011). Namibia 2011 Population and Housing Census Main Report: Republicof Namibia. <https://cms.my.na/assets/documents/p19dmn58guram30ttun89rdrp1.pdf>.

1- 54 - 54 -Thus, with thoughtful and attentive delivery, offenders with language or literacy
barriers are still able to have their risks and needs addressed through cognitive-behaviouralbased programme participation. 2
Another aspect of programme delivery introduced in Namibia, which is quite resource
intensive, but essential, is that every offender in the group is periodically seen individually
by a Programme Officer for a review and support session. These one-to-one sessions havebeen reported by the Programme Officers to have been very useful and productive,
especially for those offenders with English proficiency problems and those experiencing
the content of the programmes as cognitively challenging.
As a durable solution to the literacy and language problem, the correctional service hasover the last decade redoubled its efforts in revamping and strengthening its educational
activities in appreciation of the full importance and relevance of offender education to thesuccess of the delivery of its core rehabilitation programmes.
However, the concentration of efforts on addressing the basic educational needs ofoffenders is not only done to enable them to benefit from the cognitive-behavioural-based
programmes, but also as a rehabilitation effort on its own to address education andemployability as risk factors.
In the past, literacy and educational upgrading was provided to offenders mostly basedon their expressed interest. However, offenders’ literacy and educational levels are now
recorded upon admission to correctional facilities, and educational services are now
provided more based on need, not just on interest.
VI. EFFICACY OF INTRODUCING THE RISK-NEED-RESPONSIVITYMODEL-BASED REHABILITATION STRATEGY IN NAMIBIA
The management of offenders according to their risk profiles has significantly helped
the correctional service mitigate the challenge of resource constraints by enabling it toconcentrate its scarce resources where they would have the most impact.
As a case in point, the eight correctional facilities that have implemented the Offender
Risk Management Correctional Strategy are classified according to the following security
levels: Maximum, Medium, Low-Medium and Minimum. With the focus and intensity of
security work (both static and dynamic) varying by level of security, the ratio of the number
of offenders and the total number of correctional officers providing security duties in the
different units reflect this difference.
For example, fewer officers are deployed in lower security living units, allowing for alarger concentration of staff in the units requiring stricter security. Where one correctional
officer (security) is required for every six offenders in a maximum living unit, one
correctional officer (security) is required for every ten offenders in a minimum living unit.
Offenders that present with both literacy and language barriers are not able to participate in cognitivebehavioural-based interventions as they pose double challenges, rendering their responsivity toprogramming low. Such offenders are first referred to the literacy programme to develop literacy andEnglish competencies, following which they can become eligible to participate in the cognitivebehavioural-based programmes.

2- 55 - 55 -

Furthermore, fewer infrastructural requirements exist for lower than for higher security
level living units. For example, one of the security features of a maximum security unit isthat its courtyard needs to be roofed by diamond mesh. On the other hand, no roofed
courtyard is required for a minimum security unit. This saves on infrastructure costs that
can then be used to tighten up security at higher security units.
In terms of the outcomes of implementing the Offender Risk Management Correctional
Strategy, it is still premature to properly gain appreciation of its efficacy, both in terms of
its ability to reduce security incidents within correctional facilities as well as in terms of
being an effective approach to reduce recidivism.
Although the implementation of the Offender Risk Management Correctional Strategy
at the Windhoek, Elizabeth Nepemba and Evaristus Shikongo correctional facilities alreadytook place in 2010, 2011 and 2014, respectively, rolling out the strategy to the Windhoek
Female, Divundu, Walvis Bay, Hardap and Oluno correctional facilities only took place in
2019. Furthermore, this was done with scant resources, particularly relating to humanresources, and with some facilities missing some crucial components of the strategy suchas infrastructure conforming to the Unit Management philosophy.
The ability to gain proper perspective of the efficacy of Risk-Need-Responsivity-based
rehabilitation in Namibia is compounded by the fact that it is a challenge to find proper
data on offender behaviour before the implementation of the electronic offender
information management system in 2015/2016. Preliminary data, however, shows someindication that adoption of the Risk-Need-Responsivity Model might be promising in so
far as its ability to positively influence offender behaviour goes.
Analysis was conducted on the incident trends (escapes, assaults & fights) of the latest
four facilities to have implemented the Offender Risk Management Correctional Strategy
to determine if any changes in the frequency of security incidents occurred since theiradoption of the strategy. As only a year had passed from the introduction of the strategy to
the time of the analysis, comparison could only be made between incidents that had
occurred during the year following introduction of the strategy and those that had transpiredin the year immediately before as well as the year of implementation of the strategy. 3
Figure 1 shows a notable reduction in the occurrence of assaults committed by
offenders at the four facilities to have last implemented the Offender Risk Management
Correctional Strategy since its implementation. Although escapes were generally low at
those facilities even before introduction of the strategy, a reduction was observed since its
implementation. A sharp increase in the occurrence of fights was, however, observed
during the year the strategy was implemented and a sharp decline again thereafter. As aresult, a pattern between the occurrence of fights and the implementation of the strategy
cannot as yet clearly be established at the four correctional facilities.
Only the Divundu, Hardap, Walvis Bay and Oluno Correctional Facilities are included in this analysis,
because they are the most recent facilities to have implemented the strategy and the incident records ofthose facilities before their implementation of the strategy were available at the time of this report. In
contrast, data on the incidents at the Windhoek, Evaristus Shikongo and Elizabeth Nepemba Correctional
Facilities before their implementation of the strategy were not comprehensive, making comparative
analyses of the incidents at those facilities before and after implementation of the strategy challenging.
Furthermore, although the strategy has been rolled out to eight facilities in total, statistics for the Windhoek
Female Correctional facility are usually recorded under those of the Windhoek Correctional Facility.

3- 56 - 56 -

Figure 1: Security Incidents of Facilities after Implementation of the ORMCS

Security Incidents
90
80

79

77

No of Incidents

70
60
50
40

47
44

39
38

30
20
10
0

5
2018

5

3

2019
Escapes

2020
Assaults

FightsAs per Figure: 2, offenders in Namibia across all correctional facilities, including thosethat have not implemented the Offender Risk Management Correctional Strategy, escaped
significantly more before the adoption of the strategy. 4
In total, 89 escapes occurred from 1997 to 2001, 5 whereas only about a third of thatfigure (32) were experienced from 2016 to 2020. Additionally, the highest frequency ofescapes experienced in a year over the period 2016-2020 was 9. On the other hand, thehighest number of escapes over the period 1997-2001 was 28, with 13 being the lowest
number of escapes recorded in a year during that period.

Separate data focusing only on the facilities that have implemented the strategy is not available. Including
correctional facilities that have not implemented the Offender Risk Management Correctional Strategy inthe analysis is possibly likely to undershoot the influence of the strategy on the frequency of escapes.
5
The period 1997-2001 was randomly selected to compare with simply due to convenience ascomprehensive escape records were available for that period, whereas the data accessible for other years
was fragmented. Inconsistencies in reporting formats also made it difficult to compare data between certain
periods.
4- 57 - 57 -

Figure 2: Escapes by Offenders under Custody of the Namibian Correctional Service before and after
Implementation of the ORMCS

Escape Comparisons over Five-Year Periods
30

28

25
19

20
15
15

14

9

10

7

6

6

4

5
0

13

1997-2001

2016-2020
Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Year 4

Year 5In December 2016 the Namibian Correctional Service implemented a new Community
Supervision framework for the supervision of offenders released conditionally on Full
Parole or Remission of Sentence that is aligned to the Offender Risk Management
Correctional Strategy. Since then (December 2016 to December 2020), 7,717 offenders,were released into Community Supervision, of which 223 ended up getting reconvicted of
new offences, representing a mere 2.9 per cent of the population.
Although, this aspect relates to the management of offenders outside of confinement,
the reality that all offenders released into Community Supervision in Namibia are now
being supervised in terms of their individual risk profiles and corresponding needs acrossthe country provides support for the usefulness of Risk-Need-Responsivity-based offendermanagement in reducing reoffending.
Although more research needs to be conducted for conclusive deductions to be drawn
regarding the impact of the introduction of the Offender Risk Management Correctional
Strategy on the regulation of offender behaviour during incarceration and, ultimately, on
reducing recidivism, the above findings suggest that there are some indications that
implementing of the Risk-Need-Responsivity Model has shown itself to be effective inmanaging offender risk in Namibia.
It is recognized that there is still a lot of work to be done to ensure that all targeted
correctional facilities fully implement all components of the Offender Risk Management
Correctional Strategy and fully apply it as intended for its benefits of the to be fully realized.

- 58 - 58 -

VII.

CONCLUSION

Although this paper focused on the approach of the Namibian Correctional Service tomanage offender behaviour and reduce recidivism through its application of a Risk-NeedResponsivity Model, the country’s strategy to rehabilitate offenders is not limited to theaddressing of criminogenic needs.
The Offender Risk Management Correctional Strategy implemented by the Namibian
Correctional Service recognizes that offenders have various other needs and concerns that,
if not attended to, can also interfere with their desistance from crime.
It, therefore, follows that a range of support programmes and services are also in place
to attend to offenders’ personal problems and reintegration concerns.
Furthermore, the benefits witnessed so far from implementing the Risk-NeedResponsivity-based model are attributable to the immense material, human resource andfinancial investments made by the Namibian Correctional Service to ensure the effective
implementation of the model, in addition to the development of new policies and thecontinuous reviewing of old ones to ensure they are aligned to the effective implementationof the model. This is in recognition that all correctional practices, and the correctional
climate as a whole, have a bearing on the effective implementation of its strategy, and on
the ultimate reduction of recidivism.
Overall, albeit with lots of dedication and innovation, the Namibian experiencedemonstrates that the Risk-Need-Responsivity Model is an encouraging approach for
reducing recidivism, and that it shows itself to be implementable in any context with theright mix of ingredients.

- 59 - 59 -