更生保護学研究創刊号2012年

ＲＮＲＭｏｄｅＩ

TheRNRModelofOffenderTreatment：

IsThereValuefOrCommunityCorrectionsinJapan？
JamesBonta

PublicSafetyCanada340LaurierAvenueWestOttawaPntarioCanadaKlAOP8

Abstract

Canada,ｔｈｅＵｎｉｔｅｄＳｔａｔｅｓａｎｄｍａｎｙｗｅ５ｔｅｍＥｕ｢ｏｐｅａｎｃｏｕｎｔ｢ieshavebeen

strugglingwithhowbesttoreduceoffenderrecidivism､ThishasusualIyinvolveda
combinationofpunishmentandt｢eatmenLFormanyyearstherehasbeenarelianceon

punishmentorthe輿gettough，approachto｢educerecidivism､Thisapproachhasledtolittle
succe5sa､。｢ecentlycriminaljusticesy5tem5havebeentumingtorehabilitationapproaches
withthehopeofachievingreductionsinrecidivi5m・TheRisk-Need-ResponsMty(RNR)model
hasbecomethep｢emierparadigmforguidingthedevelopmentanddelive｢ｙｏfoffender

treatmentprogram5・AlthoughtheRNRmodeli5widelyknowninmanypart5oftheworldits
iamiliarityinjapanislesswide-spreadThisarticledescribe5theRNRmodelanditspotential
relevancetocommunitycorrectionsandthepotentialchallengesoftran5Iatingthemodelto
the｣apanesecontext．
Keywo｢｡s：Rl5k-Need-ResponsMty(RNR)Model，criminogenicneeds，offendertreatment，
STICS(StrategkTraininglnitiativein〔ommunitySupervi5ion）

IwouldliketothankKeiSomedafOrtheinvitationtowriteanarticlefOrthejournal

andhissupportineducatingmeontheJapanesecommunitycorrectionssystem・The

viewsexpresseddonotnecessarilyreHectthoseofPublicSafetyCanadaCorrespondence

concerningthisarticleshouldbeaddressedtoJamesBontaatJimBonta＠psgc・Ca．

犯罪者処遇の動向２９

ＪＡＰＡＮＥＳＥＪＯＵＲＮＡＬＯＦＯＦＦＥＮＩ〕EＲＳＲＥＩＩＡＢＩＬＩＴＡＴＩＯＮＮｏｌ２０１２

TheRNRModelofOffenderTreatment：

IsThereValuefOrCommunityCorrectionsinJapan？
ltisgreathonorandpleasurelOrmetowriteanarticlefOrthenewJournaloftheJapaneseAssociationofOffendersRehabilitation・IwishtocongratulatetheJapanese

AssociationofOffendersRehabilitationfOrpublishingtheJournalandsignalinganew
andexcitinginitiativeinthescientilicunderstandingandpracticalapplicationofoffender
rehabilitationi、Japan・IsincerelywishboththeAssociationandtheJournalsuccessin
theirendeavors

BefOreIbegin，Ｉｗｉｓｈｔｏｓｔａｔｅｔｈａｔｌａｍｂｙｎｏｍｅａｎｓａｎexpertinthecriminal
justicesysteminJapanIamcertainthatthereareimportantdifferencesinlawand

culturebetweenCanadaandJapanbutlalsowouldsuggestthattherearesome

simUaritiesthatwouldallowmetodescribehowtheRisk-Need-Responsivity(RNR)model
mayberelevanttotherehabilitationofolfendersinJapan・Thesimilaritiesthatlreferto
arefOundinthefundamentalsofhumanbehavior､Ｔｈａｔis,criminaloffendersinCanada，Japanandelsewhereintheworldlearnbehaviorsinaccordancewithuniversallearning
principles・Individualsbecomecriminaloffendersinmuchthesamewaythroughouttheworld・Theremaybesomeminorexceptionsthatareassociatedwithraceandculturebut

fOrthemostpartthesimilaritiesoutweighthediiferences・

AfteryearsofrisingincarcerationintheUnitedStates，theincarcerationrate

showeditsfirstdecreasein2010(Guerino,Harrison,＆Sabol,2011).Nevertheless,theUS、

continuestohavethehighestincarcerationrateintheworldestimateｄｔｏｂｅ７３０ｐｅｒｌＯＯ,O00
in2010(InternationalCentrefOrPrisonStudies,2012).Incontrast,Japan'sincarceration
rateisestimatedat55perlOqOOOandCanadahasanincarcerationrateofll7perlOO,000．
WhileCanadahasapproximately39000offendersinprisonsandJapanapproximately

66,O00incarcerated,theUS・hasL6millionimprisonedoffenders(GuerinoetaL,2011)!Ｗｉth
respecttocommunitysupervisio、(probationandparole),non-custodialsentencingoptions
aremoreprevalentinCanadacomparedtoJapanInCanada,approximatelyll5,O00adultoffendersareunderprobationorparolesupervision(PublicSafetyCanada2011).InJapan，
withnearlyfOurtimesthepopulatioｎｏｆＣａｎａｄａ（l27millionvs34million）thereareapproximatelyl8000adultofYendersunderprobationorparolesupervision(Someda,2012；
MinistryofJusticeJapan,2011a,201ｌｂ）

Incarcerationisoneofmanycorrectionalsanctionsintendedtodeterre-offending
However,imprisonmentandothercriminaljusticesanctions(e､9,intensiveprobationboot
ﾖ0

更生保護学研究創刊号2012年

camps）havefailedtoreduceoHenderrecidｉｖｉｓｍＭｙｉｎｔｅｎｔｉｏｎｈｅｒｅｉｓｎｏｔｔｏｓｕｍmarize
thisliteratureasweu-documentedreviewsexistelsewhere（Andrews＆Bonta2010a.ｂ；

Auerhahn,2003;Ｄｏｏｂ＆Webster,2003;SmithGoggin,＆Gendreau’1999;vonHirsch，BottomsBurney,＆Wikstr6m,1999).Rather､Ｉｗｏｕｌｄｌｉｋｅｔｏｓｕｍｍａｒｉｚｅｗｈａｔｗｅｋｎｏw

aboutoHenderrehabilitationandhowtheRNRmodelhasbeendirectingtheHeld
TｿｉｅＲﾉＶＲＭｂｄｅﾉｏｆＯ１?bnderRejla6i"ｍｍｎ

Ａｓｅａｒｌｙａｓｌ９５４，reviewsoftheoffenderrehabilitationliteraturehaveshown

evidencethattreatmentcanreduceoffenderrecidivism（Kirby，1954)．Evenaclose

examinationofMartinsonb(1974)reviewof231olfendertreatmentprogramschallengeshis
pessimisticconclusionthatthereis“verylittlereasontohopethatwehavefOundasure
wayofreducingrecidivismthroughrehabilitation,．（p､４９）Infact,between４０％ａｎｄ６０％

Ofthe231studies(dependinguponone,sdelinitionofrecidivism)demonstratedreduced
recidivism・FollowingMartinson（1974),theevidenceontheeffectivenesscontinuedtogrow(Adams,1975;Gendreau＆ＲＯＳＳ,1987;Palmer,1975)buttherewasaninsufficientunderstandingonthespecificsofeffectivetreatmenL

Inl99qtwoarticleswerepublishedthatprovidedaframeworkandtheevidencefOr
thefactorsassociatedwithtreatmenteffectiveness・ThelirstarticlebyAndrews,Bonta

andHoge(1990)proposedaframeworkfOrunderstandingtreatmentthroughthefOllowing
threeprinciples：

RjSAplmcODﾉe:Matchthelevelofservicetotheoifender,srisktore-oifend・
ノVeedpImc4D/aAssesscriminogenicneedsandtargetthemintreatment・

ReSpo"sjv/typlmcjp/e:Maximizetheoifender,sabilitytolearnfromarehabilitativeinterventionbyprovidingcognitivebehavioraltreatmentandtailoringthe
mterventiontothelearningstyle,motivation,abilitiesandstrengthsoftheoffender、AndrewsandhiscoUeagues(1990)alsodescribedtheBDZbssjbnaﾉｄｊＳｃ1℃ｔｊｍｐｍ]c｣bﾉｅ(exercisediscretionaspartofafairandjustsystem)butthiswillnotbediscussedinthis
papersinceempiricallythisprinciplehashadlessofanimpactcomparedtothefirstthreeprinciples・
RiskprincipleTheriskprinciplespecilieswhoshouldbetreated・Inparticular,ｉｔ
isthehigherriskoffenderwhoappeａｒｓｔｏｂｅｎｅｆｉｔｔｈｅｍｏｓｔｐｍｖｊｔ/edthatthetreatment
isofsuHicientintensity・Thereislittleresearchonhowmuchtreatmentisnecessaryand

ourbestestimatesareapproximatelylOOhourslOrjuveniles(Lipsey,1999)and300hours
IOradults(Bourgon＆Armstrong2005).Furthermore,theevidencewouldsuggestthat
犯ｿ１１者処遇の動向３１

ＪＡＰＡＮＥＳＥＪＯＵＲＮＡＬＯＦＯＦＦＥＮＤＥＲＳＲＥＨＡBILITATIONNol2012

treatmentdirectedtolowriskoffeｎｄｅｒｓｓｈｏｕｌｄｂｅｋｅｐｔｔｏａｍｉｎｉｍｕｍａｓｔherehavebeen

reportsthatintensetreatmentprovidedtolowriskoffendersincreasedrecidivism(ｅｇ，Andrews＆Dowden,2006;BontaWallace-Capretta,＆Rooney,2000)．
Ｗｈａｔｉｓｏｆｔｅｎｎｅｇｌｅｃｔｅｄｂｙｓｅｒｖｉｃｅｐrovidersintheirenthusiasmtoprovide

treatmentisthattofOllowtheriskprincipleitisnecessaEytouseawell-validated
offenderriskassessmentinstrument、Ｏｔｈｅｒｗｉｓｅｈｏｗｃａｎｏｎｅｋｎｏｗｔｈａｔｔｈｅｔruly

higherriskoffendersarebeingdirectedtotreatmentandnotlowriskoffenders？This
isaveryimportantpointsincetoomanycorrectionaljurisdictionsprovidetreatment
serviceswithoutknowingwithanycertaintythattheappropriateoffendersarereceiving

thetreatment・Furthermore，thesetreatmentassignmentdecisionscannotbeleftto
professionaljudgmenLActuarialriskinstrumentsarecriticalfOrsuchdecisions、ThereisabundantresearchdemonstratingthatprofessionaljudgmentpredictsfUturecriminal
behaviorwithlessaccuracytllanactuarialassessmentinstruments(Andrews,Bonta.＆

Wormith,2006;ＢｏｎｔａＬａｗ,＆Hans0,,1998;Hansｏｎ＆Morton-Bourgon,2009)．
Actuarialriskassessmentinstrumentscanbecomprisedofpredominatelystatic

riskfactors(e9.,pnorcriminalconvictions,historyofdrugabuse)oramixofstaticand

dynamicriskfactors(Bonta＆Wormith,2007).Dynamicriskfactorsdifferfromstatic
riskfactorsinthattheycanchangeinbothdirections(e9.,startingorstoppingdruguse).Staticriskscalesshowgoodpredictiveaccuracybutbylimitingtheassessmentof
dynamicriskfactorstheseassessmentinstrumentsmakeitverydifficulttofOllowthe
Needprinciple，ＮｅｅｄprincipleThesecondprinciple，theNeedprinciple，describeswhatshould

bethegoalsoftreatmenLTreatmentgoalsaddresstheneedsofoffendersForexample，
ｔｈｅｇｏａｌｍａｙｂｅｔｏｒｅｄｕｃｅｄｒｕｇａｂｕｓｅｏrtoincreaseselfesteemorperhapstodoboth

OffendershavemanyneedsbuLingeneral,therearethefOUowingtwodiHerenttypesof
needs:１)criminogenicand2)non-criminogenic.CriminogenicneedsarefUnctionallyrelated
tocrimmalbehaviorwhnenon-criminogenicneedsshowlittleornorelationshiptocriminal
behavior．

３２

更生保護学研究創刊号2012年

Tablelillustratesthecriminogenicandnon-criminogenicneedsmostoftentargeted
inrehabilitationprograms・ItisalsoimportanttonotethatcriminogenicneedsaredyJ7amjb
応kfactorsandgoodolfenderassessmentinstrumentsshouldincludethesedynamicrisk
factorsalongwiththemoretraditionalstaticriskfactors
lａｂｌｅｌCriminogenicandNon-CriminogeniｃＮｅｅｄｓ
Criminogenic

Non-Criminogenic

Procriminalattitudes

Poorselfesteem

Antisocialpersonality（lowselfcontrol，
hostility,disregardfOrothers,callousness）

Vaguefeelingsofemotionaldiscomfort(anxiety,depression,feelingsofalienation）

Procriminalassociates

Majormentaldisorder(schizophrenia，
depression）

Employment/education（unemployed，
pooracademicachievement）

Lackofambition

Family/marital(instability,conHict）

Historyofvictimization

Substanceabuse

FearofoHicialpunishment

Leisure/recreation

Lackofphysicalactivit ｙInspectionofthecriminogenicneedspresentedintheleftcolumnofTaｂｌｅｌａｌｓｏｉｓ

ａｓｕｍｍａｒｙｏｆｗｈａｔＡｎｄｒｅｗｓａｎｄＢｏｎｔａ(2010a)calltheCentralEightrisk/needfactors
ofcriminalbehavior(criminalhistory,astaticriskfactor,completesthelist).Thereisa
growingbodyofevidencethattheCentralEightrisk/needfactorsareapplicabletoawide

rangeofoffendergroups,ThevalidityoftheCentralEighthavebeenfOundamongmale
olfenders(AndrewsataL2006),ｗｏｍｅｎ(Andrews,Guzzo,Raynor,Rowe,Rettinger,Brews，＆Wormith,2012),Aboriginaloifenders(Guttierez,WilsonRugge,＆Bonta,inpress),ethnic
minorities(Andrews,ＤｏｗｄｅＬ＆Rettinger,2001),andmentallydisorderedoffenders(Bonta，Blais,＆Wilson,inpress).WhethertheCentralEightrisk/needfactorswillapplytothe

Japanesecorrectionalcontextremamstobeseenbuttheextantevidenceisencouraging
BoththeRiskandNeedprinciplesdemandtheuseofvalidatedactuarialrisk/needassessmentinstruments・Inaddition,theassessmentoftheCentralEightrisk/needfactors
ishighlydesirable、Notethattheassessmentofselfesteemanxiety，mooddisturbanceandothernon-criminogenicneedsarenotprimaryconsiderationswhenthepurposeis
toclassifyoffendersintodifferentrisklevelsandthentodirectthemintotreatments

whosepurposeistoreducerecidivismOffendersmayneedtreatmenttoaddressvarious
emotionalandpsychologicaldiscomlbrtsandthetreatmentmaybesuccessfulinalleviating
犯罪者処遇の動向ヨヨＪＡＰＡＮＥＳＥＪＯＵＲＮＡＬＯＦＯＦＦＥＮＤＥＲＳＲＥＨＡBILITATIONNo12012

thesediscomfOrtsbutachangeiscriminalbehaviorwillnotfOIIow、Onlybyaddressing
criminogenicneedswilltherebeachangeincrimmalbehavior、Currently,themostwideIyusedoHenderrisk/needassessmentsintheworldtoday
arefOundintheLevelofService(LS)instruments・TheLSinstrumentsconsistofasuite

ofinstrumentsrangingfromtheLevelofServicelnventory-Revised（LSI-R;Andrews＆Bontal995)totheLevelofservice/CaseManagementlnventory(LS/CMI;Andrews,Bonta＆Wormith,2004).AlloftheLSinstrumentsassesstheCentralEight・Themorerecent
LSinstrumentssuchａｓｔｈｅＬＳ/CMIalsoprovideacasemanagementplanandassess

responsMtyfactors(tobedescribedshortly）TheLSinstrumentshavedemonstrated

predictivevalidityacrossarangeofoffenders(e9.,men,women,youth,mentallydisordered）
andoutcomes(e9.,violence,paroleviolations,sexualoffending）Firstdevelopedand
validatedinCanadatheinstrumentshavenowbeencross-validatedinavarietyofcountries

andculturesincludingUnitedStates,theUnitedKingdomAustraliaandSingapore(fOrasummaryoftheresearchontheLSinstrumentsseeAndrews,BontaandWormitlL2010)．
Responsivityprinciple・ＴｈｅｔｈｉｒｄｍａｊｏｒｐｒｉｎｃｉｐｌｅｏｆｔｈｅＲＮＲｍｏｄｅｌｉｓｔｈｅ
Responsivityprinciple・ThisprincipleaddresseshowtheinterventionshouldbedeUvered
andtherearetwopartstotheResponsivityprinciple・Firstthereisgeneralresponsivity
whichcallsfOrtheusecognitive-behavioralinterventions・Ｔｈｅｓｅcondpartisspecificresponsivity・Specificresponsivityreferstoindividualizingthetreatmentaccordingto

strengths,ability,motivation,personalityandotherpersonalfactorsinordertoenhancethepersonsresponsivenesstothecognitivebehavioralintervention，ＩｎｔｈｅｓａｍｅｙｅａｒｔｈａｔｔｈｅＲＮＲｐｒｉｎｃｉｐlesweredescribed，Ａｎｄｒｅｗｓａｎｄｈis

colleaguespublishedasecondpaperthatprovidedthefirstempiricalsupportfOrthe
threeRNRprincipals(Andrews,Zinger,Hoge,BontaGendreau,＆Cullen,1990).Inameta‐
analyticreviewofl24comparisonsofatreatmentinterventionwithacontrolcondition
twoimportantresultsemergedFirstprovidinganyhumanservicewasassociatedwith

al5percentagepointreductioninrecidivism(Le､oassuminganotreatmentbaserateof
recidivismof50％，providingsometypeoftreatmentresultedina３５％recidivismrate)．

Second,themagnitudeofthereductioninrecidivismwasinaccordancewiththedegreeof
adherencetotherisk,need,andresponsivityprincipleswiththegreatestreductionsfoundwhenallthreeprincipleswerefOllowed・Sincethetwol990papers,AndrewsandBonta(2010a）haveexpandeduponthe

threeprmciplestoincludeotherimportantfactorsassociatedwitheffectivetreatmentsand

theevidenceinsupportoftheRNRmodelhascontinuedtogrowFromtheirmostrecent
ﾖ４更生保護学研究創刊号2012年

reviewofover250treatmentstudies,providingtreatmentservicesisnowassociatedwith

anaveragel2percentagepointreductioninrecidivismHowever,theimpactonrecidivism
reductionincreaseswithadherencetotheRNRprinciples(seeFigurel）

AdherencetotheRNRprinciplesbysetting

Figurel←亡望シ一つロ①産
ncreaSe

０００００
４３２１

Decrease－１０－２０

NumberofTreatmentConditions（AdaptedfromAndrews＆Bonta2010a）

ReferringtoFigurel,treatmentinterventionsthatdonotadheretoanyofthethreeprinciples(thatis､theytargetthenon-criminogenicneedsoflowriskollendersusingnoncognitive-behavioraltechniques)areactuallycriminogenic(approximately１％pointhigher
recidivismratefOrcoｍｍｕｎity-basedinterventionsbutlO％pointshigherfOrresidentialor
prison-basedprograms）However,ifatreatmentinterventionbeginstoadheretojustone

oftheprincipleswestarttoseereductionsinrecidivism・Whenallthreeprinciplesare
evidentinarehabilitationprogramweseeaveragerecidivismdifferencesbetweenthe
treatedandnon-treatedoffendersofl7％whendeliveredinresidential/custodialsettingsand35％ｗｈｅｎdeliveredincommunitysettings，Ｉｎｓｕｍｍａｒｙ,treatmentcanworkwithanexpectedl2percentagepointdifference
betweentreatedanduntreatedoffenders・Furthermore,thedifferenceswidenwhenthe

principlesarecloselylOllowedandwhenthetreatmentisdeliveredinacommunitysetting

Thequestionthenarises:“whatisachievableina“realworld”setting?慰．
TFeatm印rimﾉｂｅ`１ReaノWbI､ﾉﾛ”

ＩｎｔｈｅＡｎｄｒｅｗｓａｎｄＢｏｎｔａ(2010a)reviewofthetreatmentliteraturethereareamix

ofstudiesthatinclude“demonstration,,ａｎｄ“realworld,,prOjects・Demonstrationprojects
typicallｙａｒｅｓｍａｌｌｓｃａｌｅ(Iessthanonehundredparticipants),theevaluatorsareinvolved
犯罪者処遇の動向３５

JAPANESEJOURNALOFOFFENDERSREHABILITATIONNol2012

inthedesign,deliveryandsupervisionoftheservice,theevaluationistightlycontrolled
andthetreatmentstaffisnotonlyhighlycommittedtotheprogrambuttheyarealsowelltrainedThe“regular，,ｏｒ“realworldm，programｓａｒｅｌａｒｇｅｒｉｎｓｃａｌｅａｎｄｔｈｅｔｒｅａｔｍｅntis
oftendeliveredbyotherswhowerenotinvolvedinthedesigndeliveryandevaluationof
theprogram,Allofthesefactorsareknowntoberelatedtotheeffectivenessoftreatment
Althoughthediiferencebetweendemonstrationprojectsandrealworldtreatments
maybedue,toalargeextentfoissuesofprogramintegritythefactremainsthatwhen
realworldprojectsarecomparedtodemonstrationprojectstheireffectivenessdiminishes、Thisisnottosaythatrealworldprogramsareineffective・Forexample,Lipsey's(1999)study
ofl96juvenile“practicalrehabilitativeprograms”ledhimtoconcludethat“rehabilitative
programsofapractical鰹realworld,,sortclearlycanbeeffective”（p､641).Andrews
andBonta(2010a)provideananalysisofthetwotypesｏｆｐｒｏｇｒａｍｓｄｒａｗｍｇｕｐｏｎｔｈｅｉｒｄａｍｂａseofbothadultandyouthtreatmentstudiesTherelevantresultsareshｏｗｎｉｎ

Ｔａｂｌｅ２(theeHectsizeisastatisticalmeasuredusedtoquantifyresultsfrommanystudies；thehigherthenumberthegreaterthereductioninrecidivism）
MeanEffectSizebyLevelofRNRAdherenceand

TabIe2

byDemonstrationandReguIarProgramming(k＝numberofte5ts）
LevelofAdherencewiththeRNRPrmcipleS
ProgramＴｙｐｅ０(None）

１

２

3(Full）

Demonstration(47）

０１(1)

０７(7)

､３１(16）､３４(23）

RealWorld(209）－．０２(93）､０４(71）０９(34）

１５(11）

TowhatextentisRNRAdherenceassociatedwithincreasedeifectivenessinreal

worldprogramming？ＩｎｓｐｅｃｔｉｏｎｏｆＴａｂｌｅ２ｓｈｏｗｓｔｈａｔＲＮＲＡdherencewasassociatedwithenhancedrecidivismreductioninbothtypesofprogramsWithfulladherence,ｔｈｅｍｅａｎｅ６[ectｏｆ､l5fOrrealworldprogramsismodesｔｃomparedtothecomparablemeaneffectreportedfordemonstrationprojects(､34).Whatmayaccountforthediminishedeffectiveness？Certainlyprogramintegrityandimplementationissuesareimportant

explanationsFurtheranalysesoftｈｅｄａｔａｉｎＴａｂｌｅ２ａｌｓｏｆｏｕｎｄｔｈａｔｄｅｍonstration
prOjectsaremorelikelytofOllowtheRNRprinciplesthanrealworldprograms・Inotherwords,demonstrationprOjectsmorecloselyfOllowscientificprinciples、
AniUustrationofwhatispossiblecomesfbrourownrecentexperienceatPublic
３６

更生保護学研究ilITll号2012年

SafetyCanadalntheStrategicTraininglnitiativeinCommunitySupervision(STICS)８０
probationofficersfromthreeCanadianprovinces(BritishColumbia,SaskatchewanandPrinceEdwardIsland)wererandomlyassignedtoeitheratrainingconditionorroutine

supervision、ThetraininginvolvedenhancingadherencewiththeRNRprinciples・Ｆｏｒ
example,theprobationoHicerssupervisedmediumtohighriskoffendersandweretrained

toaddresstheirclient,scriminogenicneedsusingcognitive-behavioralinterventions
Theprobationofficersinboththeexperimentalandcontrolgroupswereasked
toaudiorecordasampleoftheirsupervisionsessionsTheserecordingswerereviewed
fbrtheircontent(didtheprobationofficerstalkaboutthecriminogenicneedsoftheirclients?)andfOrtheuseofcognitive-behavioralskills、FirstofalLanalysesoftheaudio
recordingsfOundthetrainedoflicersfarmorelikelytodiscussthecriminogenicneedsof
theirclientsthanthecontrolgroupoflicersandtousecognitive-behavioralintervention
techniques(Bonta,Bourgon,Rugge,ScotLYessine,Gutierrez,＆Ｌｉ,2011)．Inaddition,theclientsoftheexperimentalprobationoHicershadarecidivismrateof２５％・Theclientsof

thecontrolprobationoHicershadarecidivismrateof39.5％､Thisprojectwasamixofreal
world(e､9.,aclientsampleofmorethanlOO)anddemonstration(e9.,evaluatorinvolvedin
programdesign,dehveryandevaluation)andweachievedadiHerenceinrecidivismrate
ofl4.5percentagepoints,adiHerencethatwasmorealignedtorealworldstudiesthan
demonstrationpmjects

TheresultsoftheSTICSevaluation(BontaetaL2011)wereverypromisingand

subsequentlyBritishColombia,ｓＣｏｍmunityCorrectionsDivisiondecidedtocapitalizeon
theresultsofthｅｐｉｌｏｔｓｔｕｄｙａｎｄｉｍｐｌｅｍｅｎｔＳＴＩＣＳａｃrosstheprovince・Ｔｈｅｄｅｃｉｓｉｏｎｔｏ
ｄｏｓｏｗａｓｂａｓｅｄｏｎａｎｕmberoffactorsranginghomthereductionmrecidivismobserved

amongtheprobationerstoreportsfromtheofficersinvolvedintheprOjectabouthow
STICSimprovedtheiroverallmoraleonthejobandconfidenceintheirabilitytowork
withdiiYicultclients,Asimportantasthesefactorswere,thepotentialcostsavingswitha
province-wideroll-outwasalsoakeyconsideration、InthefiscalyearspanningAprill’２０１０ｔｏＭａｒｃｈ３Ｌ２０１１,ｏｎａｎｙｇｉｖｅｎｄａｙｔｈｅｒｅ
ｗａｓａｎａｖｅｒａｇｅｏflq250mediumandhighrisksentencedoifenders(includingprobation，recognizancepeacebonds,andconditionalsentenceorders）undersupervisioninthe

provinceatacostof＄10.61ｐｅｒday・Assumingal45percentagepointdropinrecidivism，
therecouldbeadecreaseofL486offendersunderprobationandacostsavingsof$5,754,757.90ｐｅｒyear､Ｔｈｉｓｃｏｓｔｓａｖｍｇｒｅｆｅｒｓｏｎｌｙｔｏｃｏｍｍｕnitysentencesandmedium

andhighriskclientsanddoesnotincludeanySavingｓｔｈａｔｍａｙｂｅｒｅａｌｉｚｅｄｂｙｆｅｗｅｒｂａｉｌ
犯罪者処遇の動向３７

ｊＡＰＡＮＥＳＥＪＯＵＲＮＡＬＯＦＯＦＦＥＮＤＥＲＳＲＥＨＡBＩＬＩＴＡＴＩＯＮＮｏｌ２０１２

clients，prisonremands，policeinvestigationSc()urtandprosecutioncosts・Basedupon
considerationofallofthepreviouslynotedfactors､the2012budgetannounced＄9.5million
dollarsoverthreeyearstoｂｅｓｅｔａｓｉｄｅｔｏｈｉｒｅ３６ａｄｄｉｔｉｏｎａｌｐｒobationoHicerstoallow

selectedprobationofficerｓｔｏａｓｓｕｍｅｔｈｅｒｏｌｅｓｏｆＳＴＩＣＳｃｏａｃｈｅsandfivewhowould
eventuallybecomeSTICStrainers(BritishColumbiaNewsroom2012)．
ＡＳｕｍｍａｌｙａｎｄａｏｓｍｇＴｈｏｕｇﾉi巧ｏｎｒﾉｊｅＲﾉＶＲＭｏｄｅノａｎｄノビＩｐａｎｅｓｅＣｏｍｍｕ"iZy
CmTecnms

Thisbriefreviewsuggeststhatoffendertreatmentcanbehighlyeffectiveifitfbllows
theRNRprinciplesandthatthetreatmentisdeliveredwithintegrity・Withincommunity

settings,demonstrationprOjectswithfulladherencetotheRNRprinciplesaverage35

percentagepointslowerinrecidivismlntherealworld,thereductioninrecidivismfalls
toanaverageofl5percentagepointsTheseresultsareveryencouragingfbrcommunity
correctionsandtheRNRmodelhasbecomethemajormodelfOrcorrectionalrehabilitation
inmostoftheWesternworld(Cullen,2012;Oglolf＆Davis,2004;War｡,Melser,＆Yates，

2007).However,ｎｏｎｅｏｆｔｈｅｓｔｕｄｉｅｓｉｎｔｈｅｖａｒｉｏｕｓｍｅta-analysessupportiveofRNR

comefromJapan､ＷｏｕｌｄｔｈｅＲＮＲｍｏｄｅｌａｄｄｖａｌｕｅｔｏｃｏｍｍunitycorrectionsinJapan？
WithoutthecertaintyofresearchconductedinJapan,IwouldsuggestthatRNRwould
haverelevanceandIwouldliketooutlinemyreasonsandwhatJapanesecommunity
correctionsmaylearnfromthemodel、MyfirstreasontothinkthattheRNRmodelwouldgeneralizetoJapanisbasedon

theory・TheRNRmodelspringsfromAndrewsandBonta'ｓ(2010a)GeneralPersonality
andCognitive-SocialLearning(GPCSL)perspectiveofcriminalbehavior,Ｔｈｉｓisasocial
learningperspectivethatassumesthatcriminalbehaviorislearnedwithinasocialcontexL

GPCSLplacesparticularemphasisoncriminalhistory，procriminalattitudes,procriminal
associatesandantisocialpersonalitypattern(i､e,impulsiveness,thrill-seeking,egocentrism)、

ＴｈｅｆＯｕｒｆａｃｔｏｒｓａｒｅｒｅｆｅｒｒｅｄｔｏａｓｔｈｅ“ＢｉｇFour"・Ａｌｓｏｉｍｐｏｒｔａｎｔｂｕｔｎｏｔｔｏｔｈｅｓａｍｅ

ｄｅｇｒｅｅａｓｔｈｅＢｉｇＦｏｕｒ,ａｒｅｔｈｅ“ModerateFour”（family/maritalfunctioning,substanceabuseleisure/recreationandeducation/employment)．ＴogethertheBigFourand

ModerateFourrepresenttheCentralEightrisk/needfactorsAIthoughGPCSLisspecifictocriminalbehavior,theCentralEightelementsarebasedonthegeneralpsychologyof
humanbehaviorandtherefOrashouldnotbeseverelylimitedbyrace/culture,gender，
economiclevelandage、AshortillustrationmayhelptoexplainthegeneralityoIGPCSL(andbyextension，
3８

更生保護学研究創刊号2012ｲ1｛

theRNRmodel）ＩｗｉｌｌｊｕｓｔｐｒｅｓｅｎｔｉｎｍｙｅｘａｍｐｌｅｔｈｅBigFourrisk/needfactors・

Hopefullyitiscleartothereaderthati［anindMdualhasalengthycriminalhistory,thinks
thatdoingcrimeisjustiHable､hascriminalfriendsandissomewhatoftherisktakerwith

littleregardtothefeelingso[othersthenthisindividualhasahighprobabilityofengaging
incrimeNow､ｗｈａｔｈａｐｐｅｎｓｗｈｅｎｌｕｓｅｔｈｅＢｉｇＦｏurtotryandexplaineverydayhumanbehavior？Ｌｅｔｍｅｇｉｖｅｔｈｅｅｘａｍｐｌｅｏｆａｃａｒｓａｌｅｓmantryingtopredictwhetheranew
clientwillbuyabrandnewToyota・ＡＩｌｔｈａｔｔｈｅｓａｌｅｓｍａｎｎｅｅｄｓｔｏａｓｋｔｈepotential
customerarethefOIIowingfourquestions：ｌ）haveyoueverownedaToyotabefOre(history)?'２)ｄｏｙｏｕｔｈｉｎｋｔｈａｔＴｏｙｏｔａｍａｋｅｓｇｏｏｄａutomobiles(attitude)２３)ｈａｓａｎｙｏｎｅ
ｉｎｙｏｕｒｆａｍｉｌｙｏｒｃｌｏｓｅｆｒiendboughtaToyota(associates)?,ａｎｄ４）doyouthinkthat
drivingaToyotawouldmakeyoufeelhappyandproudtohａｖｅｓｕｃｈａｃａｒ(personality)？
IfthecustomeranswersyestoallfOurquestionsandthepriceisrightthenthesalesman

willlikelyhaveasaleMypointfromtheToyotaexampleisthattheseBigFourfactors
areprobablyjustasrelevantinJapanesecultureasitisacrossdifferentnationalities、
TherefOre,itisquitelikelythattheywillaIsoapplytotheJapanesecriminaloffender、Second，IwouldpointtotheriskfactorresearchTheCentralEightrisk/needfactors,aslhavealreadynoted,havegeneralizedtoavarietyofo6fendersincludingmale
oHenders,femaleoifenders,AboriginaloffendersfromCanada,ｔｈｅＵ.Ｓ,Australia,andNew
Zealand,ethnicminoritiesfromCanadaandtheUS・andmentallydisorderedolfenders、

DemonstrationsofthepredictivevalidityoftheLSinstrumentsinarangeofcountries
fUrthergiveweighttothegeneralityoftheCentralEiｇｈｔａｎｄｔｈｅＲＮＲｍｏｄｅｌ,Wouldan
LSinstrumentshowsimilarpredictivevalidityinJapan？Researchisneededtoanswer
thisquestionunequivocallybutIsuspectthatwhenthestudiesareconductedtheresults
willconfirmthevalidityoftheinstrumentandtheRNRmodeL
Finally，wehavetheevidencefromthetreatmentliterature・Interventionsthat

fOIlowtheRNRprincipleshaveconsistentlyshownreductionsinrecidivism，eveninreal
worldsettingsOnceagain，thishasbeendemonstratedacrossarangeofoifendersand
indifferentcountries・WouldtheJapanesecorrectionalcontextbesomarkedlydilferent

torunagainstthefindingsfromhundredsofstudiesinvolvingthousandsofoffenders？
Doesitnotmakesensetodeliveryourinterventionstothehigherriskoffenders,totarget
intreatmenttheirsubstanceabuse，replacetheircriminalfriendswithprosocialfriends，
lindthememploymentthattheycanfeelsatisfiedwith,etc.？Andwhataboutcognitive-

behavioraltreatment？ThismaybethemoresignificantchallengeintestingtheRNR

modelinJapanesecommunitycorrections､Cognitive-behavioraltherapiesarearelatively
犯罪者処遇の動向３９

ＪＡＰＡＮＥＳＥＪＯＵＲＮＡＬＯＦＯＦＦＥＮＤＥＲＳＲＥＨＡBｌＬＩＴＡＴＩＯＮＮｏｊ２０１２

recentintroductiontoJapanwithpsychodynamic/Jungianpsychotherapyandtherapies

thatareuniquelyJapanesesuchasMoritatherapybeingmorewidelypracticed(Iwakabe
2008;Sato,1998).Whethercognitive-behavioraltherapieswillbemorewidelyacceptedand
usedwithcriminalJapaneseolfendersremainstobeseen

Oncemore,ＩｗｏｕｌｄｌｉｋｅｔｏｅｘｔｅｎｄｍｙｔｈａｎｋｓｔｏｔｈeJapaneseAssociationof

OffendersRehabilitationfOrtheopportunitytowriteanarticlefOrtheirnewjournaLI

hopeatleast・thatmypresentationoftheRNRmodelhasignitedaninterestandprovokedsomethoughtsinreadersoftheJournaLIlookfOrwardtohearingoffUturedevelopments
inwhatseemswillbecomeanewandexcitingerainJapanesecommunitycorrections．

References

Adams,Ｓ・(1975).Evaluation:Awayoutoftherhetoric・PaperpresentedattheEvaluationResearch
Conference,SeattleWA、

Andrews,，.Ａ､＆Bonta,Ｊ(1995).TheLeveﾉofSErWどehTve"roJy‐ReWSedToronto､Ontario:Multi‐
HealthSystems

Andrews,，.Ａ,＆Bonta,』.(2010a).ＴﾉhepSydboﾉbgyofcmmTaﾉconduct(5ｔｈｅ｡)．
Newark,ＮＪ:LexisNexis/MatthewBenden

Andrews,，.Ａ,＆BontaJ.(2010b).Rehabilitatingcriminaljusticepolicyandpractice・
ESychoﾉbgy;ＨＪＭとＰｂｌｊｈｙａｎｄＬａｗｉＩａ３９－５５・
Andrews,，.Ａ,Bonta,』.,＆Hoge,ＲＤ.(1990）ClassilicationlOreHectiverehabilitation：
Rediscoveringpsychology・ＣＩｍＴｍａノルstjbeandBChaWbr､17.19-52．

Andrews,Ｄ､ABontaJ.＆Wormith,Ｓ､Ｊ(2004).ｍｅＬｅＩ′e/ofSerWbB/乙圃ｓｅ
ＭｍａｇＢｍｅｎｒｍｖｅｎｍｌｙ仏S/ＣＭｿ.Toronto,Ontario:MuIti-HealthSystems・
Andrews,，.Ａ,BontaJ.,＆Wormith､ＳＪ.(2006).Ｔｈｅｒｅcentpastandnearfutureofrisk/needassessmenLQmTeandDejmquenCy,52,7-27．
Andrews,Ｄ・AoBontaJ.,＆Wormith,ＳＪ.(2010).TheLevelofService(LS)assessmentofadultsand
olderadolescents・ＩｎＲ・ＫＯｔｔｏ＆Ｋ・Douglas(Edsj,HkmdbooAofWbﾉmcelfsAassessm印r(pp、199-225).NewYork,ＮＹ:Routledge
Andrews.，.Ａ､＆Dowden,Ｃ(2006）Riskprincipleofcaseclassilicationincorrectionaltreatment、
nTtBmatjmaﾉﾉbumaﾉofO/】b"dCrTheJ，aPya"dCbmpaJH"ｖｅＣｍｍｎｏﾉbgy;５U88-lOO
Andrews.，.Ａ,Dowden,Ｃ,＆Rettinger・ＪＬ(2001).Specialpopulationswithincorrections､１，Ｊ、AWinterdyk(Ed.),CbIT巴c血"ｓｍＱｍａｄａｆＳｂｃｈﾉreactjo"ｓｒｏｃｌＴｍｅ(pp､170-212）Toronto・
Ontario:Prentice-HalL

Andrews.，.Ａ,Guzzo,Ｌ,Raynor､Ｐ.､Ｒｏｗｅ､ＲＣ､RettingerJ.Ｌ､,Brews.Ａ,＆Wormith,Ｓ､Ｊ・(2012)．
Arethemajorrisk/needfactorspredictiveofbothIemaIeandmalereoffending？Ａｔｅｓｔｗｉｔｈ
ｔｈｅｅｉｇｈｔｄｏｍａｉｎｓｏｆｔｈｅＬevelofService/CaseManagementlnventory､ｍｒｅｍａｍｎａノルumaノ
ofOjHgn士rTbempyandCbmpaJ日"veCrmmoﾉbgyb宛113-133.

Andrews.ｎＡ,Zinger,LHoge,Ｒ、.,Bonta,Ｊ,Gendreau,Ｐ.,＆Cullen,Ｆ.Ｔ､(1990）
Doescorrectionaltreatmentwork?：AclinicallyrelevantandpsychologicallyinfOrmedmeta
analysis・Ｑｍｍｏ/bgy;詔.369404.

4０

Ⅲ4t保護学研究§Ｉ刊号2012年

Auerhahn@Ｋ.(2003).Ｓｅ/ecf八'ｅ〃Jcapacﾉﾋﾟa〔ｊｂｎａ"ｄｐｕｂ/kypo/k:J':Ｇ１ﾉ"ｂｒｎｍ・sjmpJﾌﾞso"ｍｅ"rcnsls・Albany,ＮＹ:ＳＵＮＹＰｒｃｓｓ

Ｂｏｎｔａ.』.､Bourgon.Ｇ,Rugge.Ｔ､､Scott.Ｔ､-Ｌ・Yessine．Ａ､Ｋ､､Gutierrez．Ｌ､＆Ｌｉ.．］.（2011).An
experimenta］demonstraUonoftrainingprobationofficersinevidence-basedcommunity
supervisionQｿ、"】aノルs此ｅａｎｄＢＢｈａＷｂＥ３８､l127-1148

Bonta.』,BlaisJ..＆Wilson.Ｈ,(inpress).AHieo1℃此a〃ｊｍｍ刀edmeta-a"alysおｏｆｄｉｅ応A7needjhcto店/ｂｒｍｅ"〔aﾉ(ydjSorderCdo錠､｡e妬.(UserReportNo2012-xx).Ottawa:PublicSafety
CanadaBontaJ.,Ｌａｗ.Ｍ､,＆HansonRK.(1998).Thepredictionofcriminalandviolentrecidivismamong
mentallydisorderedoffenders:Ameta-analysis・RSyChoﾉｂｇｊどa/Ｂｕ化、1Ｊ”,123-142．

Bonta,』..ＷaⅡace-CaprettaS.＆Rooney,』.(2000).Aquasi-experimentalevaluationofanintensive
rehabiIitationsupervisionprogram､Ｃｍｍｈａノルｓｔｊｂｅａ"ｄＢｅｈａＷｍ２ス312-329．
BontaJ.,＆Wormith,ＳＪ.(2007).Riskandneedassessment・ＩｎＧＭｃｌｖｏｒ＆Ｐ､Raynor｡(Eds.)，、eye/bpmemsmso“ﾉwoIkwftfloj?bnde応(pp､131-152)Philadelphia:JessicaKingsley，Bourgon,Ｇ,＆Ａｒｍstrong.Ｂ(2005).Transferringtheprinciplesofelfectivetreatmentintoa“realworld”prisonsetting・Ｃｎｍｍａノルs比ｅａｎｄＢ巴ｈａＷｍ３ａ３－２５・BritishColumbiaNewsroom(2012).Budget2012fundsnewprobationoHicers,innovativeapproach
MinistryofJusticenewsrelease・Marcｈ6,2012．
Cullen.Ｆ､Ｔ・(2012).Takingrehabilitationseriously､Ｐｕ"jShment＆SbcjeU′;14,94-114．
Doob,ＡＮ..＆Webster,ＣＭ.(2003).Sentenceseverityandcrime:Acceptingthenullhypothesis、
１，Ｍ.Tonry(Ed).Ｃ、刀ｅａｎｄ〃stjbeFAme症wofmesea1℃h・Ｖｏｌ30,(pp・’43-195).Chicago､L
UniversityofChicagoPress･
Gendreau,Ｐ..＆ＲＯＳＳ､ＲＲ.（1987).Revivicationofrehabilitation:Evidencefromthel980s・ノus雄e
QUarre小4349408．

Guerino､Ｐ.,Harrison,Ｐ.Ｍ､.＆Sabo1,Ｗ.J・(2011)復'ﾌﾞSmeI石jh2uIO・Washington､ＤＣ:Ｕ・SDepartment
ofJustice,BureauofJusticeStatisUcs・Guttierez,Ｌ,Wilson,Ｈ,Rugge,Ｔ､,＆Bonta,』.(inpress）ThepredictionofrecidivismwithAboriginal
offenders:AtheoreticaⅡyinformedmeta-analysis・Qmadja〃んuma/ofCrjmilTomgyand
QTmjnaノルs比e・Hanson,ＲＫ,＆Morton-Bourgon,ＫＥ.(2009).TheaccuracyofrecidivismriskassessmentsfOrsexual
olIenders:Ameta-analysisofll8predictionStudies.届J'choﾉbgj亡aﾉAssessmemb2L1-21・
InternationalCentrefOrPrisonStudies(2012)ＩＣＲＳｗｍ/ｄｐＪ丁ｂｏｍｂ舵fRetrievedAugust2’２０１２from
ｗｗｗ・prisonstudiesorg/infO/worldbrief

lwakabe,Ｓ・(2008）PsychotherapyintegrationinJapa、ﾉbLJmaﾉof・田Sy℃hothempyn]tegm“､,18,103‐
125．

Kirby,ＢＣ(1954）Measuringeffectsoftreatmentofcriminalsanddelinquents､SbcjbﾉbgJ'ａ"dSbcjaノ
RBsea１℃h,詔,３６８３７４．

Lipsey,Ｍ､Ｗ・(1999).CanrehabiIitativeprogramsreducetherecidivismofjuveniIeolIenders？An
inquiryintotheeHectivenessofpracticalprograms.I/7ｈｇｍｍルumaﾉofSDcjﾖﾉPbjにｙａｎｄｔｈｅ
Ｌａ”6,611-641．

Martinson，Ｒ・（1974)．ＷｈａｔWorks?－QuestionsandAnswersaboutPrisonＲｅｆｏｒｍＴｈｅＰｕｂｌｉｃ
Ｄ７ｒｅｌ計CSL五22-54．

MinistryofJusticeJapan(2011a).ＡｎｎｕａﾉEeportofStatfst化ｓｏｎＣｂ舵ctjb".〃１０.Tokyo:Judicial
SystemDepartment,Minister､sSecretariaLMinistryofJustice・

MinistryofJusticeJapan(2011b).AJmua/ReportofSm雄[ｊｂｓｏｎＲｅｈａＭ/ra“",幻１０.Tokyo:Judicial
SystemDepartment､Minister,sSecretariat,MinistryofJusticeOglofflJ・ＲＦ,＆Davis.Ｎ,Ｒ(2004）AdvancesinoffCnderassessmentandrehabilitation:Contributions
犯罪者処遇の動向４１

ＪＡＰＡＮＥＳＥＪＯＵＲＮＡＬＯＦＯＦＦＥＮＤＥＲＳＲＥＩＩＡＢＩＬＩＴＡＴＩＯＮＮｏｌ２０１２

oftheRisk-Needs-ResponsivityapproachFSJ'CAO/bgybCnme＆Ｌａｗ;10,229-242．

Palmer.Ｔ､(1975).Martinsonrevisited.〃u"】amfﾉ?esea１℃ｈｍＱ力】】Ｃａ"ｄＤｅ血que"Gy,12.133-152．
PublicSafetyCanada(2011）ＣＤ"℃c[ﾉonsaJ】ｄｃｏ"dhjbﾉ】a/ｒＢﾉbasesfa施止aﾉoverWEwb卯〃・Ottawa,
Ontario:PublicSaIetyCanada

Sato.Ｔ・（1998).Agencyandcommunion:Therelationshipbetweentherapyandculture､Ｃｕﾉｔｕｒｎノ、ﾊ'eJsjIya"ｄＭｍｍﾉHeaﾉｕＬ4,278-290．

Smith,Ｐ.,Goggin,Ｃ,＆Gendreau,Ｐ.(2002).７ＹＪｅｅ舵αｓｏ/pJねｏｎｓｅ"に"cesa"djn[elmed'aresa"c“"ｓｏｎｒｅｃ/ｄＭＳｍ:Ｃｅ"e、ノｅ雄ｃｔｓａｎｄﾉﾉ7./1ﾉﾉdlJaノdijTbre"ces.（UserReport2002-01).Ottawa，Ontario:PublicSafetyCanada

Someda,Ｋ・(2012).Cbmmumybasednneatme"rofoj?imde心、ノapa〃（I/el弓ｓｊｂｎ９〃.aﾉ.Availablefrom
SomedaKei,email:someda33＠yahooco叩

vonHirsch,Ａ・Bottoms,Ａ､Ｅ,Burney,Ｅ､.＆WikstrOm,Ｐ､－０(1999).Ｃ、刀、ヨノｄどtelr℃ｎｃｅａ"ｄｓｅｍｅｊｒｅ
ｓｅｖＥｍｙＴＡｎａ"alysjSof正cent1℃seaJ℃h・Oxlbrd，England:HarlPublishing

Ward,Ｔ､,Melser,１，＆Yates,Ｐ.Ｍ・(2007）Reconstructingtherisk-need-responsivitymodel:Ａ
theoreticalelaborationandeValuation､４９９７℃ssﾉｏｎａｎｄｌ/】Dノゼ"tBehaWbI;12.208-228．
■4２