CASE STUDY 23.1 SAM
Sam is a 42-year-old member of a Native American gang who has a long criminal history and several past periods of imprisonment for assault, rape and robbery. Sam’s Good Lives Plan explicitly linked the goods of knowledge, community and relatedness to his practical identities (secondary goods and contexts) of being a university student and member of the university and other local Native American support and cultural groups. He learned how to manage his anger, alcohol and drug use, and to apply more adaptive norms and beliefs when dealing with people during therapy he received from a correctional psychologist. This work built upon his past participation in RNR violence programmes but because they were recruited in the service of goals he was committed to, were more eagerly utilised by Sam. It was anticipated that he would cultivate social and even romantic relationships with the non-gang people he mixed with in the various support groups he attended, possibly taking up the numerous opportunities to join in recreational and sporting activities. The whole range of primary goods was built into Sam’s GLP with an emphasis being on the two primary practical identities of a Native American history and culture student and being a member of a Native American community and tribe.
CASE STUDY 23.2 PETER
Peter is a 33-year-old, single male who was convicted of sexually molesting two teenage girls while giving them tennis lessons. Peter’s Good Lives Plan is built around two primary goods and their respective practical identities: mastery; and service to the community. Concerning mastery, it was decided that taking into account Peter’s love of teaching and his demonstrated ability, he would train as a teacher of literacy at a local education institution. This identity is one that Peter endorsed and it would also meet his need to be of service to his community given that he would be working with men who were struggling and down on their luck. In order to take full advantage of the training opportunity Peter agreed to work on his mild anxiety and assertiveness problems and to develop the confidence and ability to communicate more effectively with adult men and woman. He required relatively little specialised psychological therapy for his sexual offences and most of the rehabilitation focus was on developing and strengthening his social and vocational relationships and opportunities.
Ward et al. (2007) outlined a group-based application of the GLM based on seven modules typical of current best-practice sex offender treatment programmes: establishing therapy norms; understanding offending and cognitive restructuring; dealing with deviant arousal; victim impact and empathy training; affect regulation; social skills training; and relapse prevention. They highlighted that most modules were associated with an overarching primary good, consistent with the notion that dynamic risk factors can be considered maladaptive means of securing primary goods. For example, an overarching good in the understanding offending and cognitive restructuring module is that of knowledge, attained through providing offenders with an understanding of how their thoughts, feelings and actions led them to offend. The social skills training module is associated with the overarching goods of friendship, community and agency. Offenders’ individual good lives plans should inform the nature of interventions provided in this module. Some offenders, for example, may value other primary goods such as excellence in play and work over the good of friendship, thus basic social skills training will likely suffice. Other offenders, however, may highly value intimate relationships, thus intensive therapeutic work on intimacy and relationships might be required. More recently, Willis, Yates, Gannon and Ward (2013) extended this work and outlined how to integrate the GLM into structured RNR-based treatment programmes. They detail the application of the GLM alongside the RNR into a programme’s overall orientation (e.g. name, aims, guidelines and operating principles), assessment procedures, intervention planning, intervention content and overall delivery.
23.7.4 Empirical Research Supporting the Utility of the GLM
The most commonly cited criticism of the GLM is its lack of empirical support (Andrews, Bonta, & Wormith, 2011; Bonta & Andrews, 2003; Ogloff & Davis, 2004; Wormith, Gendreau, & Bonta, 2012). However, the GLM is not a treatment theory but is rather a rehabilitation framework that is intended to supply practitioners with an overview of the aims and values underpinning practice. It functions as a broad map that needs to be supplemented by specific mini-theories concerning concrete interventions such as cognitive behavioural treatment techniques (Ward & Maruna, 2007). Thus, the criticism that the GLM (itself!) has not been empirically supported entirely misses the point. Rather, it is intended to provide a more comprehensive framework for offender practice than currently exists. However, programmes can be constructed that reflect GLM assumptions and these can (and should) be evaluated. These are best construed as GLM consistent programmes, however, and are not the GLM itself (Laws & Ward, 2010; Ward & Maruna, 2007). Importantly, evaluations must first address the extent to which an intervention adheres to the GLM, before evaluating their effectiveness as GLM consistent interventions. A recent study found that GLM operationalisation in many sexual offending treatment programmes was limited to the addition of an extra phase or module onto the end of an RNR/RP treatment protocol, which is entirely inconsistent with the GLM (Willis, Ward, & Levenson, 2014). To reiterate, the GLM is a broad and overarching rehabilitation theory designed to inform interventions from their very inception. The GLM was developed to address the problem of poor engagement in treatment programmes, and therefore application of the GLM as an “add on” misses opportunities to engage clients who might have otherwise engaged if the GLM was used from the beginning of a programme.
Keeping this general point in mind, a growing number of studies have incorporated principles of the GLM into interventions for sexual offending with promising results (Harkins, Flak, Beech, & Woodhams, 2012; Lindsay, Ward, Morgan & Wilson, 2007; Barnett, Manderville-Norden, & Rakestrow, 2014; Gannon, King, Miles, Lockerbie, & Willis, 2011; Simons, McCullar, & Tyler, 2006; Ware & Bright, 2008; Whitehead, Ward, & Collie, 2007). Given the newness of the GLM relative to the RNR, and the very recent production of clinician guidelines, manuals and workbooks (e.g. Purvis, Ward, & Shaw, 2013; Willis et al., 2013; Yates & Prescott, 2011; Yates, Prescott, & Ward, 2010), it is too early to know the impact of GLM-derived interventions on recidivism. However, we have previously argued that integrated appropriately, outcomes of GLM-derived interventions should be at least equal to those of RNR-based interventions, given that the GLM is designed to be integrated with the RNR (e.g. Willis & Ward, 2013). Preliminary research indicates that the GLM is received favorably by clinicians and clients (Harkins et al., 2012; Willis et al., 2014), likely benefiting the therapeutic relationship and client engagement. Finally, studies conducted in the United States, UK, New Zealand and Singapore have offered support for the GLM’s underlying assumptions, including the construct validity primary human goods (both as fundamental human needs and as drivers of sexual offending) (Barnett & Wood, 2008; Bouman et al., 2009; Chu, Koh, Zeng, & Teoh, 2015; Willis & Grace, 2008; Willis & Ward, 2011; Yates, Simons, Kingston, & Tyler, 2009). Taken together, these studies suggest that adoption of the GLM enhances treatment engagement and positive therapeutic relationships, as well as the promotion of longer term desistance from offending.
In sum, the GLM has demonstrated preliminary effectiveness in addressing key limitations of the risk management approach to offender rehabilitation, more specifically through enhancing treatment engagement, fostering desistance, and paying increased attention to environmental contexts. Moreover, a growing body of research supports the GLM’s underlying assumptions.
23.8 SUMMARY
Individuals with a history of criminal offending are more than bearers of risk and, as such, rehabilitation and reintegration endeavours require more than managing risk.
The risk management approach has been hugely influential and we do not wish to reject the primary RNR principles. Rather, we would like to integrate the principles of risk, need and responsivity within a broader, strengths-based rehabilitation theory, o
f the GLM. Through acknowledging that offenders are people like us, the GLM engages offenders in the process of desistance, thereby bettering their lives and the lives of people they come into contact with.
A problem with risk management practice models is that they tend to be overly focussed on individual offenders and lack sufficient theoretical and ethical resources to enlarge their vision to the broader social and cultural vista.
Helping offenders to turn their lives around requires attending to their needs and value commitments, as well as their potential for behaving harmfully towards others.
In fact, according to the GLM, assisting individuals to acquire the capabilities to pursue and achieve their personal goals is also likely to make them safer.
ESSAY/DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
What is a rehabilitation theory?
What role do values play in the process of offender rehabilitation?
Outline the concept of desistance and describe its role in offender reintegration.
Outline and critically evaluate the RNR model of offender rehabilitation.
Outline and critically evaluate the GLM model of offender rehabilitation.
Contrast and compare the RNR and GLM models of rehabilitation.
ANNOTATED READING LIST
Bonta, J., & Andrews, D. (2010). Viewing offender assessment and rehabilitation through the lens of the risk-needs-responsivity model. In F. McNeill, P. Raynor, & C. Trotter (Eds.), Offender supervision: New directions in theory, research, and practice (pp. 19–40). Abingdon, UK: Willan Publishing. In this chapter the two creators of the RNR, Bonta and Andrews, provide a comprehensive overview of its major principles. They draw from the extensive empirical literature in the correctional field and evaluate the utility of the RNR and its components.
Laub, J. H., & Sampson, R. J. (2003). Shared beginnings, divergent lives: Delinquent boys to age 70. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. In this pioneering book, Laub and Sampson report on a study spanning well over 50 years, of a group of delinquent boys. They discuss the factors that are associated with successful desistance from offending and conclude that social bonds, self-transformation and community support are among the most important desistance variables.
Maruna, S. (2001). Making good: How ex-convicts reform and rebuild their lives. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. In this seminal book, Maruna investigates the divergent lives and aspirations of offenders who desist from, or continue, offending. He argues that a crucial aspect of successful rehabilitation is the degree to which offenders’ self-conceptions are redemptive in nature.
Porporino, F. J. (2010). Bringing sense and sensitivity to corrections: From programmes to “fix” offenders to services to support desistance. In J. Brayford, F. Cowe, & J. Deering (Eds.), What else works? Creative work with offenders (pp. 61–85). Portland, OR: Willan Publishing. In this chapter a father of correctional interventions and developer of an influential model cognitive skills training, reviews current theoretical and practice models in the correctional area. He concludes that while progress has been made there is still much to be learned. Furthermore, he suggests that the incorporation of desistance and strength-based ideas may add value to intervention initiatives.
Ward, T. & Laws, D. R. (2010). Desistance from sexual offending: Motivating change, enriching practice. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 9, 11–23. In this book Laws and Ward review the criminological theoretical and empirical literature on desistance and draw out its implications for offender rehabilitation. More specifically they demonstrate how an enriched version of the Good Lives Model of offender rehabilitation can be fruitfully integrated with desistance ideas.
Ward, T., & Maruna, S. (2007). Rehabilitation: Beyond the risk assessment paradigm. London, UK: Routledge. In this book Ward and Maruna carefully analyse the concept of a rehabilitation theory and argue for its importance in guiding practitioners and researchers working with offenders. They then go on to describe the two most comprehensive rehabilitation theories currently in use, RNR and GLM, and critically evaluate both models.
REFERENCES
Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2010). The psychology of criminal conduct (5th ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing.
Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Hoge, R. D. (1990). Classification for effective rehabilitation: Rediscovering psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17, 19–52. doi: 10.1177/0093854890017001004
Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Wormith, J. S. (2011). The Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) Model: Does adding the Good Lives Model contribute to effective crime prevention? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38, 735–755. doi: 10.1177/0093854811406356
Andrews, D. A., & Dowden, C. (2005). Managing correctional treatment for reduced recidivism: A meta-analytic review of programme integrity. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 10, 173–187. doi: 10.1348/135532505X36723
Andrews, D. A., Zinger, I., Hoge, R. D., Bonta, J., Gendreau, P., & Cullen, F. T. (1990). Does correctional treatment work? A clinically relevant and psychologically informed meta-analysis. Criminology, 28, 369–404. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.1990.tb01330.x
Bahr, S. J., Harris, L., Fisher, J. K., & Armstrong, A. H. (2010). Successful reentry: What differentiates successful and unsuccessful parolees? International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 54, 667–692. doi: 10.1177/0306624X09342435
Barnett, G. D., Manderville-Norden, R., & Rakestrow, J. (2014). The Good Lives Model or relapse prevention: What works better in facilitating change? Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 26, 3–33. doi: 10.1177/1079063212474473
Barnett, G. D., & Wood, J. L. (2008). Agency, relatedness, inner peace, and problem solving in sexual offending: How sexual offenders prioritize and operationalize their good lives conceptions. Sexual Abuse: Journal of Research and Treatment, 20, 444–465. doi: 10.1177/1079063208325202
Beyko, M. J., & Wong, S. C. P. (2005). Predictors of treatment attrition as indicators for program improvement not offender shortcomings: A study of sex offender treatment attrition. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 17, 375–389. doi: 10.1177/107906320501700403
Bonta, J., & Andrews, D. A. (2003). A commentary on Ward and Stewart’s model of human needs. Psychology, Crime & Law, 9, 215–218.
Bonta, J., & Andrews, D. A. (2010). Viewing offender assessment and rehabilitation through the lens of the risks-needs-responsivity model. In F. McNeill, P. Raynor , & C. Trotter (Eds.), Offender supervision: New directions in theory, research and practice (pp. 19–40). Abingdon, UK: Willan Publishing.
Bouman, Y. H. A., Schene, A. H., & de Ruiter, C. (2009). Subjective well-being and recidivism in forensic psychiatric outpatients. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 8, 225–234. doi: 10.1080/14999011003635647
Browne, K. D., Foreman, L., & Middleton, D. (1998). Predicting treatment drop-out in sex offenders. Child Abuse Review, 7, 402–419. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0852(199811/12)7:6<402::AID-CAR530>3.0.CO;2-9
Chu, C. M., Koh, L. L., Zeng, G., & Teoh, J. (2015). Youth who sexual offended: Primary human goods and offense pathways. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 27, 151–172. doi: 10.1177/1079063213499188
Ellerby, L., Bedard, J., & Chartrand, S. (2000). Holism, wellness, and spirituality: Moving from relapse prevention to healing. In D. R. Laws, S. M. Hudson , & T. Ward (Eds.), Remaking relapse prevention with sex offenders: A sourcebook (pp. 427–452). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Gannon, T. A., King, T., Miles, H., Lockerbie, L., & Willis, G. M. (2011). Good lives sexual offender treatment for mentally disordered offenders. British Journal of Forensic Practice, 13, 153–168. doi: 10.1108/14636641111157805
Giordano, P. C., Schroeder, R. D., & Cernkovich, S. A. (2007). Emotions and crime over the life course: A neo-Meadian perspective on criminal continuity and change. American Journal of Sociology, 112, 1603–1661. doi: 10.1086/512710
Glueck, S., & Glueck, E. (1950). Unraveling juvenile delinquency. New York: The Commonwealth
Fund.
Glueck, S., & Glueck, E. (1968). Delinquents and nondelinquents in perspective. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Graffam, J., Shinkfield, A., Lavelle, B., & McPherson, W. (2004). Variables affecting successful reintegration as perceived by offenders and professionals. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 40, 147–171. doi: 10.1300/J076v40n01_08
Hanson, R. K., Bourgon, G., Helmus, L., & Hodgson, S. (2009). The principles of effective correctional treatment also apply to sexual offenders: A meta-analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 865–891. doi: 10.1177/0093854809338545
Forensic Psychology Page 108
