The Good Lives Model in practice : offence pathways and case management

TL;DR: The theory of the Good Lives Model of Offender Rehabilitation is presented, its conceptual underpinnings are explained and the results of recent GLM empirical research that found two pathways to offending are presented.

Abstract: During the past decade, the Good Lives Model of Offender Rehabilitation (GLM) has gained considerable momentum and popularity as a rehabilitation framework for forensic populations. The GLM is primarily applied by the treatment sector, however very recently, it has been used to generate a structured strengths based approach to case management. The purpose of this paper is multi-layered. First, we present the theory of the GLM, explaining its conceptual underpinnings and in addition, present the results of recent GLM empirical research that found two pathways to offending: direct and indirect. Next, we describe how the GLM conceptual underpinnings, together with the empirical research findings, translate into a structured and meaningful case management approach for community corrections. The process for effective case management of offenders using the GLM is outlined and further, two GLM case management tools are presented and their purpose and application to offender rehabilitation is briefly set out. Finally, we describe the necessary support factors that are vital to the integrity, success and sustainability of this case management approach.

Summary

Introduction

• There appears to be a real tendency for case managers to view their role somewhat narrowly and thus, to underestimate their power to make a significant impact on an offender’s life.
• Correctional officers are often viewed as compliance monitors in addition to being a central co-ordinating body to the many services offenders are often linked in to (see Burnett & McNeill, 2005).
• Emerging research and theory is seriously challenging this somewhat constraining view of case management (see for example, McNeill, Raynor and Trotter, 2010).
• In practice, most offenders have far more contact time with their case manager than they do their offence-specific treatment provider.
• The authors would like to emphasise that their aim is to describe the GLM framework currently being used in the supervision of sex offenders rather than provide an evaluation of this approach.

Existing Approaches for Work with Offenders in Correctional Settings

• The preoccupation with risk management, specifically, the targeting of criminogenic needs, has almost become well known within the correctional arena (Andrews & Bonta, 1998; Gendreau & Andrews, 1990).
• Indeed, empirical research supports the utility of what has been termed the Risk-Need-Responsivity Model (RNR) of offender treatment, a perspective that focuses primarily on the management of risk (Andrews & Bonta, 1998).
• In response, a growing number of researchers, practitioners and intervention programs have questioned the wisdom of concentrating exclusively on risk management at the expense of valued goals, goods, capabilities and human well-being.
• The focus for the worker is two-pronged: risk management and goods promotion.
• These two factors, however, should not be considered as separate and distinct.

The Good Lives Model

• One strengths based approach that is gaining powerful momentum within the forensic treatment arena is the Good Lives Model of Offender Rehabilitation (GLM).
• The GLM’s dual attention to an offender’s internal values and life priorities and external factors such as resources and opportunities give it practical utility in desistanceoriented interventions.
• According to Ward (2002a; 2002b; Ward and Fisher, 2005), there are four primary types of problems that can be evident in a person’s way of living or life plan: capacity, scope, means and coherence.
• It is important that in each person’s life, goods are ordered and coherently related to each other.
• Conflict between goods can also lead to a lack of scope, and research has found that goal conflict and failure to achieve important personal goals has negative effects on physical well-being (Emmons, 1999).

In sum, there are a variety of problems that may be evident in people’s ways of living

• It should be the aim of rehabilitation to identify what problems exist so that lifestyles and life plans can be altered to suit each offender’s preferences, capabilities, skills, temperament and opportunities.
• This would then allow the offender to access goods in pro-social ways that are also intrinsically beneficial and meaningful.

Pathways to Offending

• The etiological underpinnings of the GLM are represented in Figure 1.0.
• Next, dark grey represents the final step prior to offending (darkest grey) where the offender didn’t set out to offend, but ends up offending anyway.
• As with the goods/goals, capacity, means process, a person’s life plan can be explicit or implicit.
• Life plans contributed to offending in direct or indirect ways, much like the means process just outlined.

General Practical Implications of the GLM

• To reiterate, the aim of correctional intervention according to the GLM is the promotion of primary goods, or human needs that, once met, enhance psychological well being (Ward and Brown 2004).
• 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.
• 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 excellence in work over the good of relatedness, thus basic social skills training will likely suffice.

A GLM Case Management Approach

• In applying the GLM to a case management setting, there are a number of phases and two key practice tools that should be employed to ensure structured, targeted and individualised offender management.
• These phases and case management tools are presented here and as such provide a general practical guide to GLM therapeutic work with offenders.
• It should be noted that this paper merely summarises the steps involved in the utility of these tools and that their actual application in real cases is considerably more complex, requiring comprehensive training and a period of skill development and assessment on behalf of the case manager.

Application phases of the GLM in Case Management

• The initial phase of case management is the collection of information about the offender and his circumstances.
• Traditionally, in the RNR approach to case management, this has been rather limited in scope, generally focusing on the offender’s personal and circumstantial risk areas.
• This tool not only summarises the offender’s life and experiences, it helps the case manager to sift out the relevant intelligence and translate this data into workable intervention targets.
• As with each good in the mapping table, the life plan may also have a direct or indirect pathway to offending.
• A final note on practice is that it should be acknowledged that both the GLM Mapping Table and GLM Analysis Table are permanent works in progress: always changing to reflect the offender’s life and behaviours.

The GLM Case Management Approach in Operation

• The GLM case management approach is utilised by Corrections Victoria, the first to do so, and has been in operation since 2008.
• Here, the approach is central to the organisation’s Specialist Case Management Model (SCMM), a highly specialised offender management practice for serious or high risk sexual offenders.
• Corrections Victoria is demonstrating genuine leadership in both the application of the GLM in community corrections and specialist offender case management.
• Whilst formal evaluations are yet to be conducted, it is obvious that in addition to strict adherence to the model, several other factors have ensured its apparent success.

Key Support and Policy Factors

• Appropriate resourcing ensures ongoing access to training and professional development, stability of the specialist case management positions and maintenance of a quality program.
• This program appears to decrease feelings of professional isolation, cements the specialist case manager’s own learning from training and experience and further, prepares a less experienced case manager for permanent promotion or temporary backfill of their mentor’s position when necessary.
• Finally, it should be noted that whilst the framework is most often applied to sexual offenders, in reality the utility of this model reaches far beyond this small demographic.
• The GLM is ultimately a framework for healthy human functioning and as such, should be considered as a necessary approach for therapeutic work with any offender or client base.

Marshall, W.L., Marshall, L.E., Serran, G.A., & O’Brien, M.D. (2011).

• A strength-based approach, also known as Rehabilitating sex offenders.
• "The Good Lives Model and conceptual issues in offender rehabilitation.".
• "The treatment of sex offenders: Risk management and good lives.".

Figures

Figure 1.2: Indirect Route to Offending

Table 1.0

Figure 1.0: The Goods Etiological Theory

Figure 1.1: Direct Route to Offending

Full text

Deakin Research Online
This is the published version:
Purvis, Mayumi, Ward, Tony and Willis, Gwenda 2011, The Good Lives Model in practice :
offence pathways and case management, European journal of probation, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 4-
28.
Available from Deakin Research Online:
http://hdl.handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30034201
Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that permission has been obtained for items
included in Deakin Research Online. If you believe that your rights have been infringed by
this repository, please contact drosupport@deakin.edu.au
Copyright : 2011, European Journal of Probation

4
European Journal of Probation
University of Bucharest
www.ejprob.ro
Vol. 3, No.2, 2011, pp 4 –28
ISSN: 2006 – 2203
The Good Lives Model in Practice: Offence Pathways and Case Management
Mayumi Purvis
University of Melbourne
Tony Ward
and
Gwenda Willis
Deakin University
Abstract
During the past decade, the Good Lives Model of Offender Rehabilitation (GLM) has
gained considerable momentum and popularity as a rehabilitation framework for
forensic populations. The GLM is primarily applied by the treatment sector,
however very recently, it has been used to generate a structured strengths based
approach to case management. The purpose of this paper is multi-layered. First, we
present the theory of the GLM, explaining its conceptual underpinnings and in
addition, present the results of recent GLM empirical research that found two
pathways to offending: direct and indirect. Next, we describe how the GLM
conceptual underpinnings, together with the empirical research findings, translate into
a structured and meaningful case management approach for community corrections.
The process for effective case management of offenders using the GLM is outlined
and further, two GLM case management tools are presented and their purpose and
application to offender rehabilitation is briefly set out. Finally, we describe the
necessary support factors that are vital to the integrity, success and sustainability of
this case management approach.
Keywords: Good lives model - Case management - Australia
Introduction
In many respects, when it comes to effecting change in offenders, case management is
often viewed as secondary to treatment programs. There appears to be a real tendency
for case managers to view their role somewhat narrowly and thus, to underestimate
their power to make a significant impact on an offender’s life. Correctional officers
are often viewed as compliance monitors in addition to being a central co-ordinating
body to the many services offenders are often linked in to (see Burnett & McNeill,
2005). This is quite understandable given the hectic workloads of most correctional
and probation officers. Often, high caseloads demand that officers spend their time
meeting key performance indicators rather than engaging the offenders in a deeply
meaningful way.

5
Emerging research and theory is seriously challenging this somewhat constraining
view of case management (see for example, McNeill, Raynor and Trotter, 2010). In
practice, most offenders have far more contact time with their case manager than they
do their offence-specific treatment provider. The case manager is usually supervising
the offender for the entirety of his order, whereas the therapist will see him for a much
shorter period of time (though sometimes with great intensity). Further, sessions with
the case manager are always individual and one-on-one, where as treatment is most
commonly group based and difficult to tailor to the uniqueness of offenders. There is
reasonable evidence for positive effects of treatment (Andrews & Bonta, 2007);
however we do suggest that the role of case management in offender rehabilitation
could be emphasised to a greater degree. In this paper, we develop the argument for a
change in the value and expectations placed on case managers. In our view, case
management should be viewed as the hub of offender rehabilitation. Not just to co-
ordinate offender referrals to other services, but to engage in real case management
work; the kind that requires genuine investment and belief in offender rehabilitation;
the kind that requires expertise in offender interviewing and motivational techniques,
good quality training and mentoring; and the kind that requires considerably more
time with offenders than many case managers are currently afforded.
We argue that the Good Lives Model of Offender Rehabilitation (GLM, Ward &
Maruna, 2007) provides a comprehensive and theoretically sound framework for case
management of offenders. As such, the purpose of this paper is to outline the key
components of the GLM that are central to the model’s integrity and proper
application. Second, this paper describes the etiological underpinnings of offending
according to the GLM, also detailing the finding of direct and indirect pathways to
offending. Third, we set out the necessary phases for using the GLM as a case
management framework, and also present two key GLM offender management tools
that should be used to guide and maintain focus in case management. Finally, we
describe some of the key external support and policy factors that are vital to the
success of this case management approach. We would like to emphasise that our aim
is to describe the GLM framework currently being used in the supervision of sex
offenders rather than provide an evaluation of this approach. Such an evaluation is
planned for the near future and will be the subject of another paper.
Existing Approaches for Work with Offenders in Correctional Settings
The preoccupation with risk management, specifically, the targeting of criminogenic
needs, has almost become well known within the correctional arena (Andrews &
Bonta, 1998; Gendreau & Andrews, 1990). Indeed, empirical research supports the
utility of what has been termed the Risk-Need-Responsivity Model (RNR) of offender
treatment, a perspective that focuses primarily on the management of risk (Andrews &
Bonta, 1998). In essence, the RNR proposes that treatment should proceed according
to a collection of therapeutic principles: risk, need and responsivity (Andrews &
Bonta, 1998; Hollin, 1999). The risk principle is concerned with the identification of
factors predictive of recidivism (usually static factors), with the level of intervention
being matched to the offender’s level of risk. The need principle states that therapy
should target only those factors that are empirically linked to offending (i.e.,
criminogenic needs). The responsivity principle stresses the importance of matching

6
interventions to offenders’ characteristics (e.g. motivation, learning style, and cultural
identity).
The RNR has consistently produced positive (albeit, often modest) results in reducing
recidivist behaviour by offenders. This suggests that whilst targeting risk has an
impact on offending behaviour, it is by no means a complete answer. By extension,
the RNR has increasingly received criticism for its narrow vision (Ward & Brown,
2003; Ward & Stewart 2003), which focuses largely on risk management and relative
neglect of the role of human goods and the value of building strengths, capabilities
and well-being (Ward & Maruna, 2007). In response, a growing number of
researchers, practitioners and intervention programs have questioned the wisdom of
concentrating exclusively on risk management at the expense of valued goals, goods,
capabilities and human well-being. The resulting argument is for a broadening of the
scope of correctional interventions to take into account the findings of strengths-based
perspectives (e.g., Ellerby, Bedard, & Chartrand, 2000; Maruna, 2001; Ward &
Stewart, 2003).
The aim of strength-based perspectives is to seek constructive and collaborative ways
of working with offenders on their achievement of pro-social and personally
meaningful lives, without neglecting the important task of insuring public safety. In
this sense, the focus for the worker is two-pronged: risk management and goods
promotion. These two factors, however, should not be considered as separate and
distinct. In fact arguably, carefully planned and considered application of the goods
promotion component directly and effectively works to manage risk, but does so in a
positive, approach goal oriented way that inspires investment and motivation from the
offender (Ward & Maruna, 2007). This is arguably, a more positive and sustainable
way in which to effect behaviour change and manage risk long term.
The Good Lives Model
One strengths based approach that is gaining powerful momentum within the forensic
treatment arena is the Good Lives Model of Offender Rehabilitation (GLM). The
GLM is essentially a framework for guiding intervention with offenders and is being
applied in a broad range of offender treatment programs across a range of jurisdictions
internationally. The GLM is a strength-based rehabilitation framework that is
responsive to offenders’ particular interests, abilities, and aspirations. It also directs
practitioners to explicitly construct intervention plans that help offenders acquire the
capabilities to achieve things and outcomes that are personally meaningful to them. It
assumes that all individuals have similar aspirations and needs and that one of the
primary responsibilities of parents, teachers, and the broader community is to help
each of us acquire the tools required to make our own way in the world. Criminal
behaviour results when individuals lack the internal and external resources necessary
to satisfy their values using pro-social means. In other words, criminal behaviour
represents a maladaptive attempt to meet life values (Ward and Stewart 2003).
Rehabilitation endeavours should therefore equip offenders with the knowledge,
skills, opportunities, and resources necessary to satisfy their life values in ways that
don’t harm others. Inherent in its focus on an offender’s life values, the GLM places
a strong emphasis on offender agency. That is, offenders, like the rest of us, actively
seek to satisfy their life values through whatever means available to them. The
GLM’s dual attention to an offender’s internal values and life priorities and external

7
factors such as resources and opportunities give it practical utility in desistance-
oriented interventions.
The GLM is a theory of offender rehabilitation that contains three hierarchical sets of
conceptual underpinnings: general ideas concerning the aims of rehabilitation,
etiological underpinnings that account for the onset and maintenance of offending,
and practical implications arising from the rehabilitation aims and etiological
positioning. Each set of conceptual underpinning will be detailed, followed by an
overview of their application in case management.
General Ideas of the GLM
The GLM is grounded in the ethical concept of human dignity (see Ward and
Syversen, 2009) and universal human rights, and as such it has a strong emphasis on
human agency. That is, the GLM is concerned with individuals’ ability to formulate
and select goals, construct plans, and to act freely in the implementation of these
plans. A closely related assumption is the basic premise that offenders, like all
humans, value certain states of mind, personal characteristics, and experiences, which
are defined in the GLM as primary goods. Following an extensive review of
psychological, social, biological, and anthropological research, Ward and colleagues
(e.g., Ward and Brown 2004; Ward and Marshall 2004) first proposed nine classes of
primary goods. Empirical research performed by Purvis (2006; 2010) tested these
etiological assumptions and actually found that relatedness and community required
separation, as did excellence in play and excellence in work, thus producing eleven
classes of primary goods. These are now defined as: (1) life (including healthy living
and functioning), (2) knowledge (how well informed one feels about things that are
important to them), (3) excellence in play (hobbies and recreational pursuits), (4)
excellence in work (including mastery experiences), (5) excellence in agency
(autonomy and self-directedness), (6) inner peace (freedom from emotional turmoil
and stress), (7) relatedness (including intimate, romantic, and familial relationships),
(8) community (connection to wider social groups), (9) spirituality (in the broad sense
of finding meaning and purpose in life), (10) pleasure (the state of happiness or
feeling good in the here and now), and (11) creativity (expressing oneself through
alternative forms). Whilst it is assumed that all humans seek out all the primary
goods to some degree, the weightings or priorities given to specific primary goods
reflect an offender’s values and life priorities. Moreover, the existence of a number of
practical identities, based on, for example, family roles (e.g., parent), work (e.g.,
psychologist), and leisure (e.g., rugby player) mean that an individual might draw on
different value sources in different contexts, depending on the normative values
underpinning each practical identity.
Instrumental goods, or secondary goods, provide concrete means of securing primary
goods and take the form of approach goals (Ward, Vess et al. 2006). For example,
completing an apprenticeship might satisfy the primary goods of knowledge and
excellence in work, whereas joining an adult sports team or cultural club might satisfy
the primary good of community. Such activities are incompatible with dynamic risk
factors, meaning that avoidance goals are indirectly targeted through the GLM’s focus
on approach goals.
Etiological Underpinnings of the GLM