ABSTRACT
To adequately construct a model for rehabilitation of offenders, it is necessary to consider the nature of rehabilitation. Ward, Melser, and Yates (2007) found, somewhat to their surprise, that the nature of rehabilitation tends to be taken for granted in the correctional field and very little has been said as to what actually constitutes a rehabilitation theory as opposed to a treatment or aetiological theory. The terms ‘treatment’, ‘therapy’ and ‘rehabilitation’ are used interchangeably as if they refer to the same thing. Ward et al. (2007) propose to use the terms treatment and therapy as local theories of change to guide the treatment of offenders, and to use rehabilitation as in rehabilitation theory, an overarching structure of the broad aims of treatment and their relationship to offending, based on aetiological assumptions. As an introduction to this chapter, we sketch an overarching structure for rehabilitation in line with Ward et al. (2007), who propose a three-component rehabilitation theory: (1) general principles of rehabilitation, (2) aetiological and methodological assumptions and (3) practice implications.
