All the world’s criminal justice systems need to undertake direct rehabilitative work with people who have come under their supervision as a result of criminal offences. Typically, this is organized in penal and correctional services – in custody in prisons, or in the community supervised by services such as probation. Over time, a large corpus of theory and research has emerged to inform the delivery of humane and effective rehabilitative work in these settings. Contemporary models of rehabilitative work such as the Risk-Need-Responsivity model (Bonta and Andrews 2017) and the desistance model (Maruna 2001, 2004) represent key examples. Other models exist alongside these, and the relative utility or suitability of each model is hotly contested within criminological and criminal justice scholarship. For instance, criminology scholars and others interested in rehabilitative work will be familiar with oppositional discourses targeted at the RNR model. An example is the claim that the model is a deficit-based model which focuses on individual deficiencies (or criminogenic needs) and ignores the strengths and capabilities that should be reinforced to achieve rehabilitative goals (Ward and Fortune 2013). The desistance model has also been criticized for lacking robust empirical basis and being primarily essayist (Andrews 2011). It is, however, worth noting that despite their limitations, the models have several strengths and share a similar aim, which is to inform humane and effective rehabilitative work in criminal justice systems. Proponents of the models have therefore continued to refine them in the light of emerging criticisms, evidence, and policy changes.