Introduction

It is to some extent thanks to the considerable volume of evidence harnessed by the Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) model that rehabilitation has returned to the forefront. RNR is a structured offender treatment model that relies on a series of core principles, including the RNR principles, but also the use of human services, and professional discretion, along with overreaching principles such as respect for the person and evidence-based practices (EBPs), and, lastly, organisational principles that pertain to staff and management (Bonta and Andrews, 2017). This model is, however, frequently criticised by its opponents or competitors, whom the RNR authors then counter-attack, often with transparent gusto (Andrews et al, 2011; Gendreau et al, 2009). In spite of recent theoretical and practical rapprochement or polite acknowledgement that other approaches are worthy of respect, the academic feud has sadly persisted.

This chapter's aim is to explore the disagreements between proponents of key models of supervision and to suggest an integrative RNR model that draws on a broader theoretical and empirical base. It therefore proposes an integrative model that could innovate current understandings of effective supervision skills and practices.

For indeed, in reality, most RNR opponents have essential qualities in common. Most of them believe in rehabilitation-reintegration, and most of them reject deterrence and punitive policies. It is also patent that most of them truly want to support probationers out of the cycle of offending. Most of them also want offender supervision to be delivered ethically, and none would condone abusive practices. This appears to offer a very favourable foundation for the development of an integrative theory.

Since, moreover, opponents usually have mono-specialty backgrounds and approaches, this leads the majority of them to focus mainly on one dimension or another (for example, desistance: social work), it follows that most of them miss important components, undertheorise others, or become entangled in conceptual contradictions, whereas should they draw on one another, they would, to a degree, be able to complement their respective models. Thus, for instance, RNR typically ignores the wider societal or institutional realities (except for its tentative focus on management in its aforementioned organisational principles (Bonta and Andrews, 2017, p 177, principle no 15) and offender reintegration (Porporino, 2010).