Chu - Et Al. - 2013 - Practicing The Good Lives Model

14 Practising the Good Lives Model
(GLM)
Chi Meng Chu, Tony Ward and Gwenda M. Willis
The Good Lives Model (GLM) is a contemporary theory of offender rehabilita-

tion that emphasises the dual aims of risk reduction and well-being enhance-
ment. The GLM focuses on promoting and building the offender’s personal
goals and strengths respectively, as well as to reduce and manage his or her risk
for future offending. In fact, the GLM is designed to augment principles of
effective correctional intervention, and it is complementary to the Risk–Need–
Responsivity model (RNR; Andrews and Bonta 2010: 45–52). With regard to
desistance, proponents of the RNR model argued that the model recognises the
importance of narrative identity, social ecology and development trajectories,
but prefers an active and empirically supported model of offender rehabilitation
(Andrews et al. 2011). Preliminary research evidence suggests that the GLM
may enhance RNR-based approaches, especially pertaining to increasing client
engagement in treatment while also targeting risk issues (Gannon et al. 2011;
Simons et al. 2006). Most practical illustrations of the GLM focus on its applica-
tion with sexual offending (for exceptions see Barnao et al. 2010; Whitehead et
al. 2007). The aim of this chapter is to demonstrate its application in practice
with a youth who engaged in fire setting. The GLM has been written about
extensively elsewhere, and therefore only a short summary of the rehabilitation
Copyright © 2013. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved.
model will be provided here (see Laws and Ward (2011) for a detailed descrip-
tion of the GLM).
The Good Lives Model: brief overview

Originally proposed by Ward (2002) and elaborated upon over the past decade
by Ward and colleagues (Laws and Ward 2011; Ward and Maruna 2007; Ward
et al. 2007; Yates and Ward 2008), the GLM represents a strengths-based theory
of offender rehabilitation that is complementary to the Risk–Need–Responsivity
model (RNR; Andrews and Bonta 2010). Using the GLM, rehabilitation aims to
reduce risk alongside building clients’ capacity to live personally meaningful
and fulfilling lives. Central to the GLM is the notion that offenders, like all
human beings, are goal-directed and live their lives according to their prioritised
set of primary human goods, which are experiences, states of being, and activ-
ities sought for their own sake, and that will increase the individuals’ sense of
Durnescu, I., & McNeill, F. (Eds.). (2013). Understanding penal practice. ProQuest Ebook Central <a
onclick=window.open('http://ebookcentral.proquest.com','_blank') href='http://ebookcentral.proquest.com' target='_blank' style='cursor: pointer;'>http://ebookce
Created from portsmouth-ebooks on 2020-09-08 10:41:54.
Practising the Good Lives Model (GLM) 207
fulfilment and happiness (Ward 2002). In no particular order, the GLM sets out
the following primary human goods: (1) community (i.e. connection to wider
social groups); (2) creativity (i.e. expressing oneself through alternative pro-
social activities); (3) excellence in agency (i.e. autonomy and self-directedness);
(4) excellence in play (i.e. hobbies and recreational pursuits); (5) excellence in
work (i.e. mastery experiences); (6) inner peace (i.e. freedom from emotional
turmoil and stress); (7) knowledge (i.e. how well informed one feels about things
that are important to them); (8) life (i.e. healthy living and functioning); (9)
pleasure (i.e. the state of happiness or feeling good in the here and now); (10)
relatedness (i.e. peer, romantic and familial relationships), and (11) spirituality
(i.e. in the broad sense of finding purpose and meaning in life) (see, e.g. Ward
and Gannon 2006).
Primary human goods represent the things that individuals strive for, whereas
instrumental or secondary goods represent concrete means or activities that are
undertaken in pursuit of primary human goods, and they take the form of
approach goals (i.e. goals which take individuals towards a specific outcome or
object rather than away). For example, the primary human good of knowledge
might be achieved through attending classes at university or enrolling for spe-
cialist workshops. It is assumed that all individuals seek all or some of the
primary human goods, albeit to different degrees, according to their particular
values, developmental stage, as well as priorities in life. A central assumption of
the GLM is that prosocial attainment of primary goods is associated with higher
levels of well-being, as well as the development of a self-identity and purpose in
life, whereas the converse is associated with life problems, including offending
(see, e.g. Emmons 1999; Ward and Stewart 2003; Yates and Ward 2008).
The GLM posits that offenders, like all individuals, are goal-directed and
attempt to seek primary human goods (Ward et al. 2012; see also Barnett and
Wood 2008; Chu et al. 2012). As such, offending behaviours relate either
directly or indirectly to the pursuit of primary human goods and are viewed as
flawed attempts at gaining fulfilment in individuals’ lives. Notably, these flaws
are associated with problems with secondary goods (i.e. the activities/means that
individuals use to achieve their primary human goods), and not the primary
human goods themselves (Ward and Gannon 2006; Ward and Maruna 2007;
Ward et al. 2006). Within the GLM framework, criminogenic needs (i.e.
dynamic risk factors associated with the continuation of offending behaviour)
are internal and external obstacles that hinder or prevent the acquisition of
primary human goods in prosocial ways, or represent secondary goods in and
of themselves (e.g. relying on antisocial peers to fulfil the primary good of
friendship).
The GLM defines four flaws, which often co-occur and are not mutually
exclusive. The first flaw is the use of inappropriate or harmful means to obtain
primary human goods. The second flaw is a lack of scope in the individual’s
good life plan1 (i.e. the pursuit of an overly narrow range of primary human
goods at the expense of others). For example, an individual might spend substan-
tial amounts of time engaged in activities to fulfil the good of excellence at work
208 C.M. Chu et al.
but leave limited time to engage in activities to fulfil the goods of relatedness
and pleasure. The third flaw is conflict or a lack of coherence between the valued
primary human goods and the secondary goods (i.e. means employed to obtain
them). For example, attempting to secure autonomy by dominating a partner
(itself an example of inappropriate means) conflicts with satisfying the primary
human good of relatedness through the same relationship. The last flaw relates to
a lack of internal and/or external capabilities to satisfy primary human goods.
Problems with internal capacity are internal to the individual and include a lack
of necessary competencies to secure primary goods (including knowledge and
skills). For example, poor emotional regulation skills might obstruct achieve-
ment of inner peace. Problems with external capacity are external to the indi-
vidual and relate to the lack of environmental opportunities, supports and/or
resources to obtain primary human goods. These include lacking prosocial asso-
ciates and employment opportunities. Each of the primary goods may be linked
with one or more criminogenic needs (Ward and Maruna 2007). Possible link-
ages between primary human goods and criminogenic needs are presented in
Table 14.1 (see Fortune and Ward in press; Ward and Maruna 2007).
Research has found that offenders respond well to practitioners who demon-
strate an interest in them and believe in their capacity to make positive changes
in their lives (McNeill et al. 2005). Keeping in mind that offenders are also
human beings may assist practitioners in relating to them more constructively
and improve correctional outcomes. With regard to the practice implications of
the GLM, the aims of intervention are to assist offenders to acquire knowledge,
skills and competencies to obtain their primary human goods in non-harmful and
acceptable ways, overcome flaws in their good life plans, as well as to reduce
and/or manage their risk of recidivism (e.g. Willis et al. in press). There are two
ways risk reduction can occur. First, the establishment of the internal and exter-
nal capacities needed to achieve a primary good (or, more broadly, implement a
Table 14.1 Primary human goods and criminogenic needs

Primary goods Criminogenic needs
Community Antisocial associates

Creativity Possibly unemployment and/or offence-supportive beliefs and
attitudes
Excellence in agency Impulsivity
Excellence in play Criminal and deviant sexual preferences
Excellence in work Unemployment
Inner peace Emotional dysregulation, adjustment difficulties, and/or
sexualised coping
Knowledge Offence-supportive beliefs and attitudes
Life Substance abuse and/or lack of stable living environment
Pleasure Addictive behaviours, sexual preoccupation, and/or deviant sexual
preferences
Relatedness Intimacy deficits and/or lack of perceived social support
Spirituality Offence-supportive beliefs and attitudes
good lives plan) in socially acceptable and personally fulfilling ways can directly
alter criminogenic needs. For example, learning the skills necessary to become a
wood carver will make it easier for an offender to develop concentration and
emotional regulations skills, thereby reducing impulsivity, a criminogenic need.
Second, the reduction of risk can occur indirectly when an offender is strongly
motivated to work hard in treatment because of his involvement in projects that
personally engage him. For example, an individual may work hard at overcom-
ing his substance abuse problems because he is keen to attend a mechanic train-
ing course. In actual practice, the offenders’ good lives plans both directly and
indirectly impact upon dynamic risk factors.
From a GLM perspective, practice foci are on the core ideas of agency, psy-
chological well-being, and the opportunity to live a different type of life – one
that is personally meaningful and satisfying, as well as addressing risk factors
for reoffending (Ward and Stewart 2003). An important therapeutic task involves
managing the delicate balance between the approach goal of promoting the
offender’s goods and the avoidance goal of reducing risk. Making mistakes on
the side of either goal can lead to undesirable social and personal consequences
for the practitioner and the offender (Ward et al. 2007). More specifically,
simply seeking to enhance the well-being of an offender without consideration
for his or her level of risk may result in a happy but dangerous individual. Con-
versely, attempting to manage the offender’s risk without concern for goods pro-
motion or well-being could lead to punitive practices, as well as a disengaged
and hostile client.
The GLM rehabilitation approach may be illustrated using five phases (see
Laws and Ward (2010), Ward and Maruna (2007) and Ward et al. (2007) for a
more detailed description). The first phase of interventions with offenders
involves identifying the social, psychological and environmental aspects of
offending, including level of risk and their social, physical and psychological
resources (e.g. substance use, accommodation and financial situation, and
personality patterns such as level of impulsivity) at the time of their offending
and in the past. The second phase identifies the function of offending-related
actions through an exploration of the primary human goods directly and indi-
rectly associated with the offending behaviour. The third phase involves identi-
fying core practical identities (i.e. a description of the person’s overarching
primary goods and the way these are embedded within specific roles or activ-
ities, e.g. parent) and their associated primary human goods or values to assist
with the development of a life plan. Once an offender’s conceptualisation of
what constitutes a good life is understood, future-oriented secondary goods may
be identified collaboratively, which will assist individuals in achieving their
desired primary goods in socially acceptable ways.
The fourth phase involves generating details from the previous phase, includ-
ing the secondary goods that will help with translating primary human goods/
values into a way of functioning and living a good life. This information is used
to subsequently develop a good life plan. Moreover, it is important to also take
into account the context within which the offending behaviour occurred and the
210 C.M. Chu et al.
environment that the individual is likely to be released into. This includes con-
sidering the social, psychological and material resources that will be available to
assist them in attaining their primary goals. To do this, it is necessary for the
goals to be divided into achievable steps with the associated time frames, and
standard goal-setting techniques are relevant (e.g. setting goals that are specific,
achievable, realistic and with a timeframe: Whitehead et al. 2007).
The fifth phase involves developing a detailed intervention plan that is com-
prehensive and incorporates the internal and external conditions required in
order to accomplish the plan which revolves around an offender’s core goals/
values and practical identities. It is crucial to identify specific steps so that the
plan can be executed, including the required resources/supports necessary to
achieve it. It should also be emphasised that the plan is driven by the values,
goals and identities of the offender while the practitioner assists with forming
the plan and balancing other considerations such as ethical entitlements of
victims and the wider community. We have developed a practice tool, the GLM
Mapping worksheet, to assist in the construction of a GLM case formulation and
good life plan. In the next section, we will detail a case example of a youth who
engaged in fire setting, using this worksheet. Following the case description, we
will propose intervention strategies that are based on the five phases outlined
above.
Case example
This case is essentially a fictionalised composite one drawn from characteristics
of several youth offenders we have worked with in clinical practice. The GLM
Mapping worksheet was completed using the case study of Aaron as an example
to help illustrate its use in clinical practice (see Table 14.2).
Through this case study, we will review how treatment based on a GLM
framework can both manage risk and increase client engagement in treatment.
Phase one
Aaron is a 17-year-old young man of Eurasian descent, who was charged with
13 counts of fire setting over a period of one year. His offences typically
involved burning cardboard boxes and bicycle tyres at refuse collection points in
his neighbourhood. Aaron was placed on 24 months of community-based proba-
tion and was required to attend relevant offender rehabilitation programmes
(including specialised therapy to address his fire-setting behaviours). Aaron had
no prior convictions but he had significant behavioural difficulties in school; in
particular, he had been involved in many fights.
With regard to his personal and family history, Aaron is the only child in his
family. Aaron’s developmental milestones were normal and there were no signi-
ficant medical complaints. Aaron had conflictual relationships with his parents,
and did not typically confide in them. It was noted that his mother often insisted
that he follow her instructions for everything, which Aaron resented. He
lamented that his mother could be ‘overcontrolling and stifling’, and Aaron took
every opportunity to ‘escape from her shackles’. This included staying out late
when he had disputes with his mother. According to Aaron, his parents would
occasionally employ physical punishment on him, but had usually scolded and
advised him.
Within the school context, Aaron had generally performed well in most of his
subjects and his teachers had reported that he was well behaved, polite and coop-
erative in class. Outside of class, Aaron had started fights when his secondary
schoolmates had insulted him using derogatory names. Aaron admitted that he
had difficulty controlling his anger, and he had been disciplined for his violent
behaviour on many occasions. With regard to his peer relationships, Aaron
reported that he would go out with a couple of ‘close friends’ occasionally
during the weekends, but he appeared to have few friends generally. His parents
and teachers have remarked that Aaron had somewhat poor social skills and he
was not popular among his peers. He was musically talented, particularly with
playing the guitar and composing songs, and was an avid reader of science
fiction. His parents and school were supportive of his musical talent and activ-
ities. Concerning his substance use, Aaron had started drinking alcohol at the
age of 14 when he chanced upon his father’s beer at home. He remarked that he
had continued to drink two cans of beer twice a week, but denied ever being ine-
briated. In addition, he had been smoking cigarettes since the age of 14 – a habit
that had started out of curiosity. Aaron considered his substance use as relaxing
activities. There was no reported history of gang affiliation or illicit drug use.
According to recent psychiatric and psychological evaluations following his
recent arrest, Aaron was assessed as having met the diagnostic criteria for pyro-
mania. An intellectual assessment revealed that Aaron was functioning within
the high average range of intelligence. Further psychological assessment
revealed that he was guarded and untrusting in relationships, and suspicious of
the motives of others. In addition, Aaron was assessed to be low in self-efficacy
and overly sensitive to criticism and the possibility of rejection.
Concerning his fire-setting behaviour, Aaron reported that his interest in fires
first started about two years previously when he became aware that the sight of
burning paper enthralled him. In particular, he reported being mesmerised by the
colour, shape and movement of the fire as it consumed the paper. In addition, he
was particularly interested in news reports and games depicting explosions. This
interest in fires and explosions was further piqued by television news reports of
recent riots whereby people had set fire to property and combustible materials.
Specifically, Aaron was fascinated by the way in which the fires burned and pro-
duced smoke, describing it as ‘magical’.
Pertaining to his modus operandi, Aaron admitted that he was preoccupied
about fires, and had difficulty managing his urges to set fires. His fire-setting
offences typically occurred in the context when he had nothing to do and decided
to take a walk around his neighbourhood. However, Aaron disclosed that the
sight of cardboard boxes at refuse collection points would trigger his fire-setting
behaviour, and he would subsequently stand a safe distance away to watch the
Table 14.2 The GLM mapping table (from Purvis et al., 2011)
Name: Aaron Table number: __________
Person ID: Date table commenced:

____/____/______

GOODS WEIGHTING CAPACITY MEANS RELATIONSHIP TO
(preferences/ Appropriate OFFENDING
most valued Internal Internal External External vs. Direct or indirect
good/s) capabilities obstacles capabilities obstacles inappropriate pathway/Protective or
(strengths) (deficits) no relationship
Community
Creativity P Talented at Preoccupied Parental and Time away Appropriate No relationship
composing songs with fires; school support from school
impulsivity for his creativity because of
offences
Excellence in P Generally Anxiety issues; Parent and Restrictive Inappropriate Indirect
agency independent impulsivity school support; parenting
therapy
Excellence in P Good at playing Preoccupied Parental and Restrictive Appropriate Indirect
play guitar, composed with fires; school support parenting; lack
songs, and good impulsivity; for his musical of perceived
at computer anxiety issues talents social support
games

Excellence in work
Inner peace P Willingness to go Anxiety issues; Parental and Restrictive Inappropriate Direct (both for fire-
for therapy; ineffective school support parenting; lack setting and aggressive
recognises need coping style; for his of perceived behaviours)
to address issues; distrustful, rehabilitation; social support
musical talent substance use therapy

Knowledge P Intelligent; did Preoccupied Parental and Time away Appropriate No relationship
well in school; with fires; school support from school
loves to read impulsivity for his academia because of
offences
Life
pleasure P Willingness to go Preoccupied Parental and Parents blamed Inappropriate Direct
for therapy; with fires; school support; him for
recognises need distrustful therapy offences; lack
to address issues; impulsivity; of perceived
musical talent social support
Relatedness P Capacity for Poor social Parental and Conflict with Inappropriate Indirect
caring skills; school support; parents, parents
distrustful; therapy blamed him for
hostility; offences; lack
impulsivity of perceived
social support
Spirituality

214 C.M. Chu et al.
material burn. It was noted that accelerants were used to burn the cardboard
boxes and bicycle tyres. According to Aaron, he felt happy as he watched the
fires, and this pleasurable feeling would continue after his offences as he remi-
nisced about the incidents. Nevertheless, he denied any intention to harm
anyone, and these episodes did not appear to be an expression of anger or to
reflect retaliation against anyone. However, it was evident that Aaron endorsed
some fire-supportive attitudes (e.g. ‘The fires were not harmful to anyone’ and ‘I
was in control of the fires as they quickly burned out’). Aaron denied being sub-
stance affected when he had engaged in fire-setting behaviour.
Although Aaron appeared regretful, he seemed unaware of the full severity of
his actions and the impact they had on local members of the community and his
family. Nevertheless, he expressed a willingness to engage in psychological
treatment for this and his other problems. His parents had also somewhat minim-
ised his fire-setting behaviour initially, but subsequently accepted the severity of
Aaron’s offences. Further probing revealed that his parents were disappointed
with, Aaron, and blamed him for committing the offences. They believed that he
had brought shame to the family, and felt embarrassed having to attend court
sessions, as well as the various interviews with mental health and correctional
professionals. However, his parents remarked that they would provide the neces-
sary support to assist Aaron with his rehabilitation. His school had also been
supportive of his rehabilitation plans and pledged to provide additional remedial
classes to assist him in his preparations for the impending examinations.
Aaron did not have an extensive criminal history or significant difficulties
pertaining to his education and entrenched pro-criminal attitudes/orientation.
However, he did have some difficulties with his relationships with his parents
and substance use. Relative to other youth who have committed criminal
offences, Aaron’s risk of general reoffending was assessed as moderate (Youth
Level of Service/Case Inventory: Hoge and Andrews 2010), but his risk of future
fire-setting behaviour was assessed as moderate to high (based on clinical judge-
ment as there were no psychometrically valid and localised measures of risk for
fire setting or arson presently). Although he did not condone an offending life-
style, he had somewhat minimised the seriousness of his fire-setting behaviour
initially, and endorsed some fire-supportive attitudes. It should also be noted that
Aaron had difficulties controlling his urges to engage in fire setting; importantly,
he was diagnosed with Pyromania. Notwithstanding that Aaron did not exhibit
other significant antisocial features, his fascination with fire, interest in pyrotech-
nic materials, fire-supportive attitudes and fire-setting behaviour were serious
concerns. Another possible area of concern was Aaron’s lack of prosocial
support from his peers; specifically, he did not appear to have any stable and
long-term friendships, even though he did not associate with antisocial peers.
As mentioned earlier in this chapter, the first phase of interventions with offend-
ers involves identifying the social, psychological and material aspects of their
offending, including their level of risk and their social, physical and psychological
resources at the time of their offending and in the past. The first step in achieving
this aim is to assess Aaron’s readiness for treatment. In this case, Aaron had
appeared to be contemplative of treatment but had possessed some responsivity
issues, in particular his personality traits of being distrustful of others and having a
hostile attributional bias (i.e. a tendency to perceive hostile intent on the part of
others, even when it is absent in reality). Success for treatment often hinges on the
relationship that is formed between the practitioner and client (Ackerman and
Hilsenroth 2003; Leach 2005). Given that Aaron might have some difficulties
being responsive to activities that were not of interest to him, it would be beneficial
for the practitioner to adopt a patient and supportive (rather than a strongly con-
frontational) approach to establishing a strong therapeutic alliance with him before
the commencement of the treatment. This would be especially important given that
Aaron might not trust others easily, and desired autonomy.
Subsequently, via a collaborative process, it would be important to assess
Aaron’s own goals, priorities in life, and also the goals of treatment. This step
may be defined as ‘finding the dream factor’, which was well described in
Whitehead et al. (2007: 587–588):
What did the client see himself doing when he was a child? What goals do
they have for their life? Using such questions is a means to explore the
concept of a good life in which the therapist attends to the client and takes
into account the kind of life that would be fulfilling and meaningful to the
individual (i.e., his primary goods, secondary goods, and their relationship
to ways of living and possible environments).
It would be useful at this stage to introduce the concepts of the GLM, simplified
if necessary, to Aaron. This could be achieved by jointly developing a simple
summary of the key points for Aaron to take home. In addition, it was important
for Aaron to visualise a different life for himself (i.e. the ‘new me’), and this
could be achieved by engaging in a thorough examination of each primary
human good that he sought along with an understanding of how secondary goods
(the means of achieving primary human goods) were attaining (or not attaining)
the primary human goods. The ultimate aim is to begin establishing a new per-
sonal or practical identity as a non-offender, capitalising on Aaron’s overarching
primary goods (see Maruna 2001). An ‘old me–new me’ goal-setting exercise
would allow Aaron to identify goals that are important and also to assess whether
these goals had been achieved through inappropriate or appropriate means. This
process is likely to assist Aaron to appreciate what really matters to him and to
start to think about the possibility of achieving his goals differently, appropri-
ately. The client begins to consider a new values framework and different ways
of achieving his goals through prosocial means. For Aaron, the primary good of
creativity appeared to be of overarching importance and this opened up a range
of secondary goods, or means, that could be used to secure this good; for
example, becoming a professional musician, or a dedicated amateur.
The process allowed Aaron to shift from a predominantly present-focused ori-
entation to a future-focused orientation. In addition, he could recognise that
although he possessed a number of criminogenic needs, he also possessed
216 C.M. Chu et al.
strengths that could be used to structure the desistance or rehabilitation process.
Notably, the approach goals that Aaron identified were not, in themselves,
always directly criminogenic (see Table 14.2). Consistently adopting prosocial
means to achieve them would most likely lead to a reduction or elimination of
his array of criminogenic needs. Therefore, these approach goals served to
increase his responsivity to attending to the risk management interventions.
Phase two
The second phase identifies the function of offending through exploration of the
primary human goods directly and indirectly associated with offending
behaviour. Aaron did not appear to have many significant developmental factors
that may have contributed to his fire-setting offences. However, it was likely that
Aaron’s self-regulation deficits in the form of impulsivity may have predisposed
him to these offences. Importantly, Aaron’s interest in fire and pyrotechnic para-
phernalia was a key factor that predisposed him to his current fire-setting
offences. Evidently, news reports and games depicting fires and explosions had
triggered his urges to engage in fire-setting behaviour. His fire-supportive cogni-
tions (e.g. ‘The fires were not harmful to anyone’ and ‘I was in control of the
fires as they quickly burned out’), the intense sensory and affective stimulation
(and consequently soothed feelings) that he obtained from successful fire-setting
behaviours, as well as limited coping strategies, were likely to have maintained
his fire-setting behaviour.
In addition, Aaron did not confide in his parents about his personal problems,
and did not appear to have readily available prosocial support from his peers,
which could be partially attributed to his limited ability to build and maintain
relationships with his peers. Moreover, he felt stifled by his mother’s restrictive
and over-controlling parenting style. Aaron’s personality traits (e.g. being
guarded and untrusting in relationships, and being suspicious of the motives of
others), as well as his over-sensitivity to perceived criticism and rejection, may
have affected how he related to and confided in others, which could have led to
further emotional isolation. Notably, the lack of readily available prosocial
support could also have led Aaron to develop deeply entrenched coping scripts
involving fire, such that in times of high stress, fire setting was used as a coping
strategy and viewed as possessing key stress-reduction properties. Moreover, he
felt that he was in control when he set fires – a sense of agency that he did not
always enjoy at home. However, it was noted that Aaron did not have significant
antisocial cognitions and behaviour, and crucially, he has not engaged in sub-
stance use behaviour that may further contribute to his potential to engage in
further fire-setting behaviour.
Although Aaron did not appear to fully appreciate the impact of his offending
on others, he was regretful of his actions. With regard to his primary human
goods, Aaron appeared to seek pleasure (e.g. feelings of happiness), relation-
ships (e.g. family relationships and friendships), creativity (i.e. music and song-
writing), knowledge, inner peace (i.e. free from bullying and feelings of anxiety),
excellence in agency (i.e. more autonomy from his mother – in line with his
developmental needs as a youth), as well as excellence in play (i.e. his music and
reading hobby). His fire-setting behaviour arguably represents a misguided way
to obtain his goods of pleasure, inner peace, and perhaps excellence in agency.
Poor social and communication skills, emotional dysregulation, a lack of per-
ceived social support, a hostile attributional bias, fire-supportive attitudes, and
his preoccupation with fires were criminogenic needs that blocked the attainment
of his primary human goods in a prosocial manner (see Table 14.2). It was also
possible that the lack of scope in his good life plan (e.g. absence of community)
may have, in part, contributed indirectly to his fire-setting behaviour as well.
Furthermore, his displays of violent behaviour could also be considered as a flaw
in his good life plan to obtain inner peace (i.e. emotional regulation, soothing).
This could be related to his lack of internal (e.g. lacking in social skills as well
as effective anger management and relaxation skills) and external capacities (e.g.
lack of readily available, perceived social support). As such, future interventions
should aim to help Aaron achieve these goods and live a satisfying life without
harming others or putting others’ lives in danger.
Aaron had already identified some personal approach goals in phase one, so it
would useful for him to understand how his approach goals interacted with his
primary human goods and criminogenic needs. According to the GLM approach,
criminogenic needs represent internal and external obstacles that frustrate or
block the acquisition of primary human goals. On the other hand, the RNR
approach states that to reduce criminal recidivism one must reduce criminogenic
needs (i.e. dynamic risk factors for reoffending) (Andrews and Bonta 2010). It is
important to focus on Aaron’s approach goals and think about how attaining
these goals could have a positive impact upon himself and others, as well as clar-
ifying the relationship between these goals and his criminogenic needs (either
directly or indirectly). The practitioner and Aaron must understand relationship
or linkage between his criminogenic needs and desired approach goals.
For example, if the practitioner wants to address Aaron’s anxiety issues (i.e.
primary human good or inner peace), he must be able to describe how the crimino-
genic factors are preventing Aaron from attaining inner peace. In addition, Aaron
must also realise that he has to address the criminogenic needs in order to achieve
his desired goals. In this case, it was beneficial for Aaron to have a plan formulated
around seeking to learn and use more appropriate emotional regulation strategies,
as well as to improve his communication and social skills. Moreover, Aaron would
benefit from therapy to address his substance use (another inappropriate coping
strategy) and hostile attributional bias; the latter being a problem that may result in
him feeling frustrated and annoyed. Furthermore, it was noted that Aaron’s fire-
setting behaviour occurred when he felt bored and unengaged; thus it would be
imperative to constructively engage him in suitable pro-social and personally ful-
filling activities (e.g. education, community service, religious activities and hobbies
(namely music)). These activities might also help him establish a prosocial support
network. Finally, Aaron had keen interests in music and reading, hence these activ-
ities could be used to help him relax and engage him prosocially and could also be
218 C.M. Chu et al.
harnessed to improve his self-efficacy and mastery experiences. According to the
GLM, the overarching or dominant good associated with an individual’s lifestyle
informs practitioners about what is most important in life and provides the focus
for a therapy plan. As such, during the course of intervention, the practitioner
would have to work collaboratively with Aaron to discover what this is.
As noted above, a critical GLM therapeutic task involves managing the
balance between promoting offender goods and managing the risk of criminal
reoffending. From a risk management perspective it was essential to consider
public safety issues. The case formulation developed for Aaron suggests that the
successful management of risk should focus on three areas. First, it would seem
appropriate to refer Aaron for therapy to address his fire-setting behaviour.
Importantly, it would be beneficial for him to address his interest in fires and
fire-supportive attitudes. Moreover, it would be important for Aaron to explore
and establish other avenues of prosocial coping and thrill-seeking, as well as to
reduce the sensory and psychological stimulation associated with fire, possibly
through conditioning and satiation procedures (Gannon et al. 2012).
Aaron’s risk for fire-setting behaviour was elevated when (1) he was bored
and not constructively occupied; (2) he was constantly exposed to videos and
sights of fires and explosions; (3) he increased his alcohol intake and became
frequently inebriated, as well as when (4) he had access to combustible mater-
ials. Given that Aaron was a youth offender, it would also be important to
involve his parents in intervention planning. Thus, Aaron’s parents could benefit
from understanding the dynamics underlying fire-setting behaviour so that they
can advise him on his desistance efforts whenever necessary. It would be useful
for Aaron’s parents to undergo parenting skills training to learn how to appropri-
ately manage Aaron. Parenting skills training could be an important facet of
intervention planning for young people (or children) and their families given that
research has shown that caregivers can model and promote appropriate self-
regulation; whereas over-controlling or inappropriate parenting has been hypoth-
esised to be associated with inadequate self-regulatory behaviours (Baumeister
and Vohs 2004). Finally, it would also be useful to address the problematic rela-
tionship between Aaron and his parents via family therapy.
Phase three
The third phase involves identifying core practical identities and their associated
primary human goods or values (i.e. good lives formulation) to assist with the
development of a good life plan. Once an offender’s conceptualisation of what
constitutes a good life is understood, future-oriented secondary goods may be iden-
tified collaboratively which will assist individuals to achieve their desired primary
goods in socially acceptable ways. For example, Aaron should be aware of how
behaviour is developed, strengthened and maintained. In addition, he needs to be
informed about how the attainment of primary human goods may be frustrated by
criminogenic needs. Furthermore, he would also benefit from recognising that there
are alternate and adaptive ways of obtaining a good life without having to harm
others. In this phase, Aaron should be guided so that he becomes aware of the flaws
in his attempts to seek fulfilment in his life. These flaws include: (1) the previous
means he used to secure goods (e.g. fire setting and violent behaviour); (2) the pos-
sible lack of scope within his good life plan (e.g. absence of community engage-
ment); (3) the presence of conflict among his goals (e.g. the good of inner peace
sought at the expense of relatedness); and (4) potential barriers (e.g. the lack of
perceived social support, lack of social skills, and the lack of effective emotional
regulation skills) to securing the goods. It is anticipated that the promotion of the
practical identities as a developing musician and artist would provide him with an
overarching narrative that incorporates his core interests, and provide direction for
the development of a prosocial and fulfilling good life plan.
Phase four
This phase involves generating details from the previous phase, including the
secondary goods that are likely to help with translating primary human goods or
values into a concrete way of functioning and living a ‘good life’. It is essential
to take into account the contexts within which the offending behaviour occurred
and the environments that the individual is likely to be functioning within in the
future. To do this, it would be necessary for the goals to be divided into achiev-
able steps with the associated time frames, and the use of standard goal-setting
techniques (e.g. setting goals that are specific, achievable and realistic: White-
head et al. 2007).
At this stage, Aaron should be sufficiently motivated to address his safety
issues, and this would allow the integration of both his good life and risk man-
agement plans. For example, he could be encouraged to seek advice from his
specific support persons (i.e. his practitioner, case manager or mentor (e.g. a vol-
unteer)) whenever contemplating using fire setting or physical aggression to
cope with stressors. It would be useful to have the means of contacting these
persons or a helpline readily available (e.g. on speed dial in his mobile phone).
In addition, this strategy could be paired with learning to employ adaptive emo-
tional regulation strategies (e.g. playing music which could be soothing) that
could help him achieve inner peace (and perhaps pleasurable sensations). His
safety plan should also involve him in seeking advice from a support person
prior to engaging in a potential offending behaviour (and informing his practi-
tioner if this person was not his practitioner). By having Aaron adhere to his
safety plan and seeking advice from a support person who would advocate for
non-harmful solutions, he would be able to manage his stressors appropriately
and also benefit from feeling positive, as well as being empowered by his experi-
ence. The crux was to have Aaron engage in approach behaviours that would
ultimately move him away from engaging in fire-setting behaviour. The practical
identity of musician and artist would legitimise the goals of developing his
musical knowledge and skills, as well as his tendency to be somewhat reflective
and socially aloof. However, linking Aaron to music societies and groups of
people with similar interests would also provide a peer group and access to
220 C.M. Chu et al.
social support. Furthermore, the visceral thrill and creativity that he experienced
playing music could gradually come to provide the pleasure and excitement pre-
viously supplied by lighting fires. The opportunity to engage Aaron in a self-
narrative shift to that of a musician and artist was boosted by the availability of a
string-training programme at a local music school and the existence of a music
group at high school.
Phase five
The final phase involves developing a detailed intervention plan that encom-
passes and incorporates the internal and external conditions outlined above. It
would be important to identify practical steps so that the plan could be imple-
mented, including stipulating the necessary resources and supports. From a GLM
perspective, it would be important to clearly map out the necessary skills that
Aaron needed to successfully achieve his approach goals. As such, plans should
be made to assist him in acquiring these skills (e.g. emotional regulation skills as
well as assertiveness, social and communication skills). It should also be
emphasised that the plan would be driven by Aaron’s values and goals (practical
identities) while the practitioner would assist with forming the plan and balan-
cing other considerations such as ethical entitlements of victims and the wider
community. Finally, it would be beneficial for Aaron and his practitioner to con-
tinually review this plan to ensure that they were implementing the strategies as
intended and that Aaron was making progress. For Aaron, establishing connec-
tions with local music groups and institutions, and creating pathways to further
training, was a critical component of his good life plan. The availability of indi-
viduals willing to assist him in this transition, as well as the existence of support
systems, would make this more likely. Furthermore, he would now have greater
incentives to work on his social skills and problem-solving and to enlarge his
range of emotional regulation skills. By doing so, he would: (1) increase his
chances of learning music; (2) make the experience more enjoyable by playing
with others, as well as (3) strengthening his ability to handle stress and
distractions.
Conclusion
In this chapter, we have described the GLM of offender rehabilitation and its
implementation in the case of a youth who had committed a number of arson
offences. Although our example involved a fire setter, the GLM as described
above may be applied to any type of adult or youth offender. Our primary aim
has been to demonstrate how designing an intervention plan around individuals’
personal priorities, embedded within practical identities, can both reduce their
risk of further offending as well as consolidate new and fulfilling ways of living.
It is easier to persuade individuals to abandon criminal lifestyles if they can see
that their core commitments have been acknowledged and factored into a rehab-
ilitation plan. An advantage of the GLM over traditional risk management
approaches is that it is uniquely placed to achieve these aims. It wraps empiri-
cally supported intervention skills around individuals’ central value commit-
ments, and as a consequence is respectful, engaging and risk reducing.
Note
1 A good life plan is the plan (explicit or implicit) that an individual has for his or her
present and future, and the steps that the individual takes, or plans to take, to realise
certain life goals. For example, someone might have a good life plan of becoming an
engineer, getting married and having children, as well as being successful at a com-
petitive sport.
References
Ackerman, S.J. and Hilsenroth, M.J. (2003) A review of therapist characteristics and tech-
niques positively impacting the therapeutic alliance. Clinical Psychology Review, 23:
1–33. doi: 10.1016/S0272–7358(02)00146–0.
Andrews, D.A. and Bonta, J. (2010) The Psychology of Criminal Conduct, 5th edn.
Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing.
Andrews, D.A., Bonta, J. and 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.
Barnao, M., Robertson, P. and Ward, T. (2010) Good lives model applied to a forensic popu-
lation. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law 17: 202–217. doi: 10.1080/13218710903421274.
Barnett, G. and Wood, J.L. (2008) Agency, relatedness, inner peace, and problem solving
in sexual offending: How sexual offenders prioritize and operationalized their good
lives conceptions. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment 20: 444–467.
doi: 10.1177/1079063208325202.
Baumeister, R.F. and Vohs, K.D. (2004) Handbook of Self-regulation: Research, Theory,
and Applications. New York: Guilford Press.
Chu, C.M., Koh, L.L., Zeng, G. and Teoh, J. (2012) Youth who Committed Penetrative
and Nonpenetrative Sexual Offenses: Primary Human Goods and Offense Pathways.
Manuscript submitted.
Emmons, R.A. (1999) The Psychology of Ultimate Concerns. New York: Guilford Press.
Fortune, C.-A. and Ward, T. (in press) Integrating strength-based practice with forensic
CBT, in R.C. Tafrate and D. Mitchell (eds) Forensic CBT: A Practitioner’s Guide.
Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Gannon, T.A., Ó Ciardha, C., Doley, R.M. and Alleyne, E. (2012) The multi-trajectory
theory of adult firesetting (M-TTAF<HS>). Aggression and Violent Behavior 17:
107–121. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2011.08.001.
Gannon, T.A., King, T., Miles, H., Lockerbie, L. and Willis, G.M. (2011) Good lives
sexual offender treatment for mentally disordered offenders. British Journal of For-
ensic Practice 13: 153–168. doi:10.1108/14636641111157805.
Hoge, R.D. and Andrews, D.A. (2010) Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inven-
tory. Toronto, OT: Multi-Health Systems.
Laws, D.R. and Ward, T. (2010) Deistance from sex offending: Motivating change,
enriching practice. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health 9: 11–23. doi:
10.1080/14999011003791598.
222 C.M. Chu et al.
–––– (2011) Desistance and Sex Offending: Alternatives to Throwing Away the Keys.
New York: Guilford Press.
Leach, M.J. (2005) Rapport: A key to treatment success. Complementary Therapies in
Clinical Practice 11: 262–265. doi: 10.1016/j.ctcp. 2005.05.005.
Maruna, S. (2001) Making Good: How Ex-convicts Reform and Rebuild their Lives.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
McNeill, F., Batchelor, S., Burnett, R. and Knox, J. (2005) 21st Century Social Work.
Reducing Reoffending: Key Practice Skills. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive.
Purvis, M., Ward, T. and Willis, G.M. (2011) The Good Lives Model in practice: Offence
pathways and case management. European Journal of Probation 3: 4–28.
Simons, D.A., McCullar, B. and Tyler, C. (2006) Evaluation of the Good Lives Model
approach to treatment planning. Paper presented at the twenty-fifth Annual Association
for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers Research and Treatment Conference, Chicago, IL,
September.
Ward, T. (2002) Good lives and the rehabilitation of offenders: Promises and problems.
Aggression and Violent Behavior 7: 513–528. doi: 10.1016/S1359–1789(01)00076–3.
Ward, T. and Gannon, T.A. (2006) Rehabilitation, etiology, and self-regulation: The com-
prehensive good lives model of treatment for sexual offenders. Aggression and Violent
Behavior 11: 77–94. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2005.06.001.
Ward, T. and Maruna, S. (2007) Rehabilitation: Beyond the Risk Assessment Paradigm.
London: Routledge.
Ward, T. and Stewart, C.A. (2003) The treatment of sex offenders: Risk management and
good lives. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 34: 353–360. doi:
10.1037/0735–7028.34.4.353.
Ward, T., Mann, R.E. and Gannon, T.A. (2007) The good lives model of offender rehab-
ilitation: Clinical implications. Aggression and Violent Behavior 12: 87–107. doi:
10.1016/j.avb.2006.03.004.
Ward, T., Yates, P.M. and Long, C.A. (2006) The Self-regulation Model of the Offence
and Relapse Process: Vol. 2. Treatment. Victoria, BC: Pacific Psychological Assess-
ment Corporation. Retrieved from www.pacific-psych.com.
Whitehead, P.R., Ward, T. and Collie, R.M. (2007) Time for a change: Applying the
Good Lives Model of rehabilitation to a high-risk violent offender. International
Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 51: 578–598. doi:
10.1177/0306624X06296236.
Willis, G.M., Yates, P.M., Gannon, T.A. and Ward, T. (in press) How to integrate the Good
Lives Model into treatment programs for sexual offending: An introduction and overview.
Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research & Treatment. doi: 10.1177/1079063212452618.
Yates, P.M. and Ward, T. (2008) Good lives, self-regulation, and risk management: An
integrated model of sexual offender assessment and treatment. Sexual Abuse in Aus-
tralia and New Zealand: An Interdisciplinary Journal 1: 3–20.

Chu - Et Al. - 2013 - Practicing The Good Lives Model

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chu - Et Al. - 2013 - Practicing The Good Lives Model

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

14 Practising the Good Lives Model

The Good Lives Model (GLM) is a contemporary theory of offender rehabilita-

The Good Lives Model: brief overview

Table 14.1 Primary human goods and criminogenic needs

Primary goods Criminogenic needs

Community Antisocial associates

Name: Aaron Table number: __________

Person ID: Date table commenced:

Created from portsmouth-ebooks on 2020-09-08 10:41:54.

onclick=window.open('http://ebookcentral.proquest.com','_blank') href='http://ebookcentral.proquest.com' target='_blank' style='cursor: pointer;'>http://ebookce

Created from portsmouth-ebooks on 2020-09-08 10:41:54.

onclick=window.open('http://ebookcentral.proquest.com','_blank') href='http://ebookcentral.proquest.com' target='_blank' style='cursor: pointer;'>http://ebookce

You might also like