3The Good Life Model (GLM) Risks Needs and Responsivity (RNR) I want to discuss the Good Lives model today, and to look at some of the criticisms of that model. The Good Lives model is only 10 years old, but in that short time it has proven to be a highly influential theory in criminology which has had a significant impact in service delivery in services to adults and adolescents who offend (especially services focussing on sexual offending). To tell the story of the Good Lives Model, we need to start with the backstory and tell you a little about the RNR model which the Good Lives model effectively critiques.
4Picture of tony ward, picture of Don Andrews. Don Andrews died Oct What I also want to do is tell you a little about an exchange that has taken place between the authors of the RNR model and the good lives model in 2011 and This exchange I think captures some of the essential debates about where we’re going in work with adults and young people who offend, and what I’m going to suggest is that some of the issues in that debate between Andrews and Ward point to fundamental issues about how we orientate our services that work with people who come into conflict with the law. Rather than this being just a skirmish about techniques and how we engage with our client’s in CJ settings, it instead hints at tectonic plates shifting in the depths of criminology.Tony Ward Don Andrews
5Models in practiceLS-CMI (Level of Service Case Management Inventory);YLS-CMI;Good Lives Programme replacing CSOGP and SOTPLS-CMI. Clearest products of rnr: I also want to suggest that the debate between RNR and the GLM is not an academic one, but an alive issue for anyone working in the field. If you work in CJ in Scotland, the RNR model will have been part of your training it is highly likely that you have been trained in LS-CMI over the last 12 months, a tool co-authored by Don Andres and designed to operationalise the RNR principle. Many practitioners in youth justice will have been trained in YLS-CMI, the youth version. If you work in the sex offending field, you are likely to have come across the GLM and it is likely that you will be trained in a form of Good Lives model as this is rolled out as the relaplacement for SOTP and CSOGP. So at the very least, if you work in CJ or YJ, you need to be conversant with the current debates about the differences between these models and their relative merits. LSCMI – 43 items, 8 scales. Andrews has argued it’s difficult to integrate multiple perspectives and approaches
6RNR 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 offenders74 article by Martinson, arguing that nothing works, stating that education and pyschotherapy with offenders doesn’t work and poor experimental design means that we can’t conclude that anything works. What andrews described as desperate times for offender rehabilitation. Growing body of research that contradicts this – shift to meta-analyis to combine findings from different experiments. Programmes that follow these principles seem to be statistically associated with lowering recidivism.1990 Eight risk/need factors (i.e., history of antisocial behavior, antisocial personality pattern,antisocial cognition, antisocial associates, family/marital circumstances, school/work,leisure/recreation, and substance abuse),
7Kevin’s backgroundParents 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.
8Outcome Scores M L H Medium Static Concerns Dynamic Total Strengths ImprovableConcernsManagement Level Required (High / Medium / Low)MediumStaticConcernsDynamicTotalStrengthsSexual & Non-sexual Harmful BehavioursMLDevelopmentalHFamilyEnvironmentTotals
9Kevin’s Intervention Programme Build self management skills, teach anger management (compulsivity and emotional regulation)Nurture interpersonal relationshipsFocus on pro-criminal attitudes (sexual feelings towards younger children)Enhance school workIncrease access to pro-social hobbies and interestsWork on family relationshipsPervasive anger, poor assertiveness, compulsive and emotionally regualtion issues, socially isolatedFamily rejection and not helping the work, not presenting good protective skills, looking after themslves
10Critiques of RNR and the ‘What Works’ agenda What works for whom?What else works?Who works?Why does it work?
11Good Lives Model http://goodlivesmodel.com/glm/Home.html New Zealand based. SO focussed.
12Risk-Need Model: Draw backs Difficulty in motivating offenders‘pin-cushion’ metaphorNegative (or avoidant) treatment goalsDoes not recognise the role of:personal identity or agencynoncriminogenic needscontext in rehabilitationWard notes that there is a considerable evidence base for RNR.Intervention and Planning with Young People who Sexually Harm 20111212
13The 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)
14The ‘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”Intervention and Planning with Young People who Sexually Harm 20111414
15GLM Human Needs – ‘Goods’ Healthy LivingKnowledgeExcellence in work and playExcellence in agency (self-management)Inner PeaceRelatedness (relating to others)SpiritualityHappinessCreativityWe’re all goal directed. Criminogenic needs are the things that get in the way of us achieveing those needs. Secondary goods are the things we do to achieve theseAccording to theGLM, offending results from flaws in an individual’s life plan and relates either directlyand/or indirectly to the pursuit of primary goods (Ward et al., 2006; Ward & Gannon, 2006;Ward & Maruna, 2007). The direct route is evident when primary good(s) are explicitlysought through offense-related actions. A central flaw in the direct route is the use of inappropriatesecondary goods (i.e., the means) to achieve primary goods. For example, anindividual lacking the competencies to satisfy the good of intimacy with an adult mightinstead attempt to meet this good through sexual offending against a child. To reinforce thepoint above concerning the link between secondary goods and criminogenic needs, in thisexample the criminogenic need of intimacy deficits is associated with the secondary goodof seeking intimacy through sex with a child. The indirect route is implicated when anindividual does not have an intention to offend but has problems in the pursuit of othergoods that eventually culminate in an offense. Such problems might include a lack ofscope, in that a number of goods are omitted from a good life plan, conflict and/or lack ofcoherence in the secondary goods (i.e., means) used to secure primary goods, and lack ofinternal and external capabilities to satisfy primary goods in the environment an individuallives. Consider the example of an individual prioritizing the primary goods of relatedness(more specifically, an intimate relationship with his partner) and excellence in work.Increased hours at work might eventually lead to a breakdown in his intimate relationship(i.e., conflict evident in means used to secure primary goods). The use of alcohol to copewith emotional turmoil surrounding a potential end to his relationship (i.e., problems withinternal capability) might lead to loss of control in certain situations and culminate in anoffense. goals.Intervention and Planning with Young People who Sexually Harm 201115
16G-MAP’s 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)Ward suggests there are three classes of primary goods:Body – water/food/warmth/sex/sleep/healthy functioningSelf – autonomy/relatedness/competenceSocial – network/friendships/family/meaningful work/leisureHe identifies 11 primary good & G-Map have cut these down to 6.Explained further on p15 – sexuality comes under ‘Being Healthy’.Having people in my life tends to be the universal primary need.The primary goods of y/p who sexually offend are no different from the rest of the population, however what is different is the way the achieve these goods.16
17Primary Goods and Secondary Goods Similarly, poor emotional regulation—again a dynamic risk factor for all types of recidivism (Bonta & Andrews, 2010)—mightblock attainment of inner peace.
18GLM Human Needs – ‘Goods’ Healthy LivingKnowledgeExcellence in work and playExcellence in agency (self-management)Inner PeaceRelatedness (relating to others)SpiritualityHappinessCreativityIntervention and Planning with Young People who Sexually Harm 201118
19The Key Elements to ‘Good Lives’ 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 treatmentOffending reflects socially unacceptable and often personally frustrating attempts to pursue primary needsThe problem is not the primary needs sought but the way the offender seeks to meet these needsIntervention and Planning with Young People who Sexually Harm 201119
20What this means in practice?: Kevin and Safer Lives Working towards my New LifeMUDLESNWIFOLD LIFEWhat does this mean. Safer Lives model. a key task of assessment involves mappingout an individual’s good lives conceptualization by identifying the weightings given to thevarious primary goods. This is achieved through (a) asking increasingly detailed questionsabout an offender’s core commitments in life and his or her valued day-to-day activitiesand experiences and (b) identifying the goals and underlying values that were evident(either directly or indirectly) in an offender’s offense-related actions.Intervention and Planning with Young People who Sexually Harm 20112020
21Kevin’s New Life Have my own place Feel close to my Mum and Dad AchievementSecurityBeing my own personFeel close to my Mum and DadA family of my ownHaving people in my lifeBeing healthy - emotional health – less stressHaving people in my lifeKevin’s New LifeRichAchieving -statusLots of girlfriendsOwn my own garageHaving people in my life – intimacyAchievement - statusBeing healthy – sexual satisfactionAchievement – statusBeing healthy -emotional well being – control - respectIntervention and Planning with Young People who Sexually Harm 201121
22Having contact with my Mum Joining a youth clubGoing to collegePick out activities using activity cards with Kevin that he can undertake to meet that need. Perhaps two, at most 3 activities per primary need. The hope would be that having done this for one or two primary needs the activity would then serve to also to meet other primary needs – he’ll probably end up with 4,5 or 6 activities. Do this in your groups just as discussion.Having contact with my Mum
23Things about me that will help Things I need to do 2.45pm The next stage would be to then think about what internal and external resources Kevin already has and will need to develop in order to be able to take part in these activities. Choose one or perhaps two activities to work on.Things I get from othersThings I need from others
24Kevin’s GOOD LIVES PLAN What do we know about old life? (This section is problem formulation)About meI have problems with my temperI have sexually abused two childrenI sometimes have sexual thoughts about young girls about 8 years oldMy relationships with family members are often difficultI have no close friendsI thought I was unlikeableI have little self confidenceI have not done as well in education as I could have doneAround meMy Father used to beat up my mother when I was smallMy Father hit me when I was smallMy mother often found me difficult to look afterI was bullied a lot by others at schoolI have seen Graham’s porn pictures from about the age of 8What 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)Appropriateweekly 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)InappropriateWithdrawal to own roomWhich 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 regulationWhat 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 activitiesSexual thoughts about female childrenCoping with negative feelingsGet a better understanding of how my past experiences influence my behavioursFeel confidentGet better a making friendsUnderstand more about consequences of sexual abuseMake me and others more confident I am not going to abuse anyone againWhat do I need others to do to help me to be successful in means activitiesMum's understanding of how best to support meA better relationship with GrahamTo have more interesting outside activitiesTo be able to have less supervisionWhat strengths do I have to help me?Positive attitudeSense of humourMechanical skillsIntelligenceWillingness to do offence related workLoyalCaringHopes for the futureWhich strengths do others have to help me?Support of MumSupport of key worker and other residential staffResidential unit’s group activities – cinema, bowling, bike riding, etc.Residential education – individual programmeIntervention and Planning with Young People who Sexually Harm 201124
25Kevin’s Good Lives Plan for next 12 weeks 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 staffHave unsupervised contact with Mum but not off siteAttend G-MAP sessions and complete homeworkTry to not lose my temper – particularly when I feel let down, criticised or sense of failureTalk to G-MAP and/or care staff if I have sexual thoughts about young girls or any other thoughts that worry meAccept help and work hard to prove to myself and others that I can be trustedWhat I and others need to do before my next Good Lives Meeting (achievable and measurable steps)KevinG-MAP StaffCare StaffEducation StaffFamilyOther25Intervention and Planning with Young People who Sexually Harm 2011
26The 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 dangerousWhat is the empirical evidence for a shift from RNR to GLM?Theprobability of criminal activity decreases with: (a) the density of the rewards for noncriminalalternatives, (b) the density of the costs for crime, (c) decreases in the density of costsfor noncriminal alternatives, and (d) decreases in the density of the rewards for crime. Thecrime prevention effects of the interconnecting contingencies are maximized under threeconditions.
27‘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)
28Ward, Yates and Willis’s 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.
29Values 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)
30Final thoughtsApplying 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’.Good lives model – David Cooke line.Tom and barbara
32BibliographyAndrews, 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,F. McNeil, P. Raynor, & C. Trotter (Eds.), Offender supervision: New directions in theory, research and practice (pp ). 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,