Models in practice LS-CMI (Level of Service Case Management Inventory); YLS-CMI; Good Lives Programme replacing CSOGP and SOTP
RNR Model Nothing Works to What Works Risk: matching offender risk level to degree of service intervention. Needs: if the purpose of the programme is reducing offending, focus on criminogenic need the dynamic characteristics of higher risk individuals and their circumstances that actually are related to criminal conduct (the central eight) Responsivity: Match the mode, strategies and style of service with the learning styles, motivations, readiness to change of individual offenders
Kevins background Parents separate when he is 4. Issues around domestic abuse and physical abuse of Kevin in early years. Aggressive and bullying behaviour in nursery and primary school (several exclusions due to behavioural problems) Placed on CPR at age 6 for issues around neglect and emotional abuse. Age 11 exposed himself to female peer at school. Excluded for throwing a flask of acid in chemistry class. Regularly truanting at age 12. Resumed contact with father at age 13. At 14 he sexually abused step brother (6) and sister (7) on 6 occasions (2 counts of rape of a young child under ss 18 SOSA) Note: name and details in case study have been altered to preserve confidentiality.
Static Concerns Dynamic Concerns Total Concerns Static Strengths Dynamic Strengths Total Strengths Sexual & Non- sexual Harmful Behaviours MLMLMM Developmental HHHHMM Family HMMLLL Environment LLLHH Totals MMMLMM Management Level Required (High / Medium / Low) Medium Outcome Scores Strengths Improvable Concerns
Kevins Intervention Programme Build self management skills, teach anger management (compulsivity and emotional regulation) Nurture interpersonal relationships Focus on pro-criminal attitudes (sexual feelings towards younger children) Enhance school work Increase access to pro-social hobbies and interests Work on family relationships
Critiques of RNR and the What Works agenda What works for whom? What else works? Who works? Why does it work?
Good Lives Model http://goodlivesmodel.com/glm/Home.html
Risk-Need Model: Draw backs Difficulty in motivating offenders pin-cushion metaphor Negative (or avoidant) treatment goals Does not recognise the role of: personal identity or agency noncriminogenic needs context in rehabilitation 12Intervention and Planning with Young People who Sexually Harm 2011
The Good Lives Approach We have been so busy thinking about how to reduce sexual crimes that we have overlooked a rather basic truth: recidivism may be further reduced through helping offenders to live better lives, not simply targeting isolated risk factors. (Ward et al 2006:391)
The Good Lives approach Ward & Stewart (2003) argue: the most effective way to reduce risk is to give individuals the necessary conditions to lead better lives (good lives) than to simply teach them how to minimise their chances of being incarcerated the primary aim of treatment should be to give offenders the necessary capabilities to secure important personal and social goods in acceptable ways in addition to the reduction and management of risk 14Intervention and Planning with Young People who Sexually Harm 2011
GLM Human Needs – Goods Healthy Living Knowledge Excellence in work and play Excellence in agency (self-management) Inner Peace Relatedness (relating to others) Spirituality Happiness Creativity 15Intervention and Planning with Young People who Sexually Harm 2011
G-MAPs list of Primary goods Being Healthy (body & mind) Having Fun & Achieving (Excitement, enjoyment, status, knowledge, mastery in play & work) Being my own person (independence, autonomy, self management, control of others / situations) Having Purpose & Making a Difference (spirituality, fulfilment, hope, and generosity) Having People in My Life (attachment, intimate, romantic, family, social and community relationships) Staying Safe ( self & others, routine, rules, order )
GLM Human Needs – Goods Healthy Living Knowledge Excellence in work and play Excellence in agency (self-management) Inner Peace Relatedness (relating to others) Spirituality Happiness Creativity 18Intervention and Planning with Young People who Sexually Harm 2011
By focusing on the reasons or needs that ground the actions of offenders, it makes their behaviour intelligible and provides a more effective means of motivating them to enter treatment Offending reflects socially unacceptable and often personally frustrating attempts to pursue primary needs The problem is not the primary needs sought but the way the offender seeks to meet these needs The Key Elements to Good Lives 19Intervention and Planning with Young People who Sexually Harm 2011
OLD LIFE 20Intervention and Planning with Young People who Sexually Harm 2011 What this means in practice?: Kevin and Safer Lives
Have my own place A family of my own Lots of girlfriends Own my own garage Feel close to my Mum and Dad Rich Kevins New Life Having people in my life – intimacy Achievement - status Being healthy – sexual satisfaction Having people in my life Being healthy - emotional health – less stress Achievement Security Being my own person Having people in my life Achieving -status Achievement – status Being healthy -emotional well being – control - respect 21Intervention and Planning with Young People who Sexually Harm 2011
Joining a youth club Going to college Having contact with my Mum
Kevins GOOD LIVES PLAN Intervention and Planning with Young People who Sexually Harm 201124 What do we know about old life? (This section is problem formulation) About me I have problems with my temper I have sexually abused two children I sometimes have sexual thoughts about young girls about 8 years old My relationships with family members are often difficult I have no close friends I thought I was unlikeable I have little self confidence I have not done as well in education as I could have done Around me My Father used to beat up my mother when I was small My Father hit me when I was small My mother often found me difficult to look after I was bullied a lot by others at school I have seen Grahams porn pictures from about the age of 8 What needs did my sexually harmful behaviour meet? Wanting to be like others boys at school, angry that Dad had not given me attention, (Having people in life – belonging) Feeling jealous of Jane and Stephen, (Being Healthy – emotional regulation) Wanting to feel better about myself, (Achievement – self-esteem) Enjoying sex (Being Healthy) Which of my needs seems most important? (Overarching need) I want to have better relationships with my family and I want to have friends (Having people in my life) How do I meet the needs my SHB met, now? (means) Appropriate weekly contact with Mum (Having people in my life) residential group outings / activities (Having people in my life, Self-esteem) Try to not lose temper (Emotional regulation) Individual education lessons (Achievement) Doing stuff with my bikes (Achievement) Inappropriate Withdrawal to own room Which of my needs do I neglect now, if any? (scope)Which of my needs fight against each other now, if any? (conflict) Having people in my life / emotional regulation What means (activities) can I aim for to help meet my needs? In the short term?In the longer term? How to be successful? What do I need to change to be successful in means activities Sexual thoughts about female children Coping with negative feelings Get a better understanding of how my past experiences influence my behaviours Feel confident Get better a making friends Understand more about consequences of sexual abuse Make me and others more confident I am not going to abuse anyone again What do I need others to do to help me to be successful in means activities Mum's understanding of how best to support me A better relationship with Graham To have more interesting outside activities To be able to have less supervision What strengths do I have to help me? Positive attitude Sense of humour Mechanical skills Intelligence Willingness to do offence related work Loyal Caring Hopes for the future Which strengths do others have to help me? Support of Mum Support of key worker and other residential staff Residential units group activities – cinema, bowling, bike riding, etc. Residential education – individual programme
Kevins Good Lives Plan for next 12 weeks Intervention and Planning with Young People who Sexually Harm 2011 25 What do I need to do in next 12 weeks to keep myself and others safe? Take part in supervised group outings or outings with 1 member of staff Have unsupervised contact with Mum but not off site Attend G-MAP sessions and complete homework Try to not lose my temper – particularly when I feel let down, criticised or sense of failure Talk to G-MAP and/or care staff if I have sexual thoughts about young girls or any other thoughts that worry me Accept help and work hard to prove to myself and others that I can be trusted What I and others need to do before my next Good Lives Meeting (achievable and measurable steps) Kevin G-MAP Staff Care Staff Education Staff Family Other
The Debate – Andrews, Bonta and Wormith (2011) on GLM Andrews et al. argue: The portrayal of RNR is inaccurate (e.g. descriptions of relevance of relationship and motivation) The role of universal need outlined in the GLM is untested and potentially dangerous What is the empirical evidence for a shift from RNR to GLM?
At the present time, there is nothing unique in GLM other than the encouragement of weak assessment approaches (a return to unstructured professional judgment…) and the addition of confusion in service planning. (Andrews, 2012)
Ward, Yates and Williss response to Andrews et al. (2012) There are significant omissions in their characterisation of offender rehabilitation and the degree to which it is underpinned by values of different types. Their summary of the GLM is incomplete and, in places, incorrect. Their assumptions and conclusions regarding the application of the GLM to practice are misleading and, in some instances, inaccurate.
Values anyone? Some of the friends of federally sentenced women are becoming quite vocal in their insistence that we should not waste our time researching criminogenic risk/need factors but should help people to become whole and healthy… when the focus is on the objective of reduced vitcitimization of other human beings, however, perhaps advances here too may require some specification, operationalization and testing of the predictive criterion validity of assessments and the underlining constructs of being whole and healthy and of healing. (Andrews 1995)
Final thoughts Applying the Good Lives model. Bolting it on to RNR processes is missing the point. Who defines what a Good Life is? The political dimension of Good Lives. Are we ready to accept offenders as moral strangers.
Bibliography Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2010a). The psychology of criminal conduct (5th ed.). New Providence, NJ: LexisNexis Matthew Bender. 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. F. McNeil, P. Raynor, & C. Trotter (Eds.), Offender supervision: New directions in theory, research and practice (pp. 41-64). New York, NY: Willan. Ward, T., & Maruna, S. (2007). Rehabilitation: Beyond the risk paradigm. New York, NY: Routledge. Ward, T., Yates, P.M. & Willis, G (2012) The Good Lives Model and the Risk Need Responsivity Model : A Critical Response to Andrews, Bonta, and Wormith (2011) Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39, 94 - 110