glm model_ reabilitare_ infractorii violenti.pdf

8/21/2019 GLM model_ reabilitare_ infractorii violenti.pdf

1/22

http://ijo.sagepub.com

CriminologyTherapy and Comparative

International Journal of Offender

DOI: 10.1177/0306624X062962362007;

2007; 51; 578 originally published online Jun 28,Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol Paul R. Whitehead, Tony Ward and Rachael M. Collie

High-Risk Violent OffenderTime for a Change: Applying the Good Lives Model of Rehabilitation to a

http://ijo.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/51/5/578 The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:CriminologyInternational Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Additional services and information for

http://ijo.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://ijo.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://ijo.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/51/5/578Citations

by Poledna Sorina on October 19, 2008http://ijo.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://ijo.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://ijo.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://ijo.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://ijo.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://ijo.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://ijo.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/51/5/578http://ijo.sagepub.com/http://ijo.sagepub.com/http://ijo.sagepub.com/http://ijo.sagepub.com/http://ijo.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/51/5/578http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://ijo.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://ijo.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts


2/22

578

Authors’ Note: Please address correspondence to Dr. Tony Ward, School of Psychology, Victoria

University of Wellington, P.O. Box 600, Wellington, New Zealand; phone +64-4-463-6789, fax +64-4-

463-5402; e-mail: [email protected].

International Journal of

Offender Therapy and

Comparative Criminology

Volume 51 Number 5

October 2007 578-598

© 2007 Sage Publications

10.1177/0306624X06296236http://ijo.sagepub.com

hosted at

http://online.sagepub.com

Time for a Change

Applying the Good Lives Model of

Rehabilitation to a High-Risk

Violent Offender

Paul R. Whitehead

Department of Corrections, Hamilton, New Zealand

Tony Ward

Rachael M. Collie

Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand

In this article we operationalise the theoretical concepts of the Good Lives Model (GLM)

of offender rehabilitation by providing a step-by-step framework for assessment, formula-

tion, treatment planning, and monitoring with a high-risk violent offender residing in the

community. The case study illustrates how the GLM can be applied to complement and

enhance traditional Risk-Management interventions and shows how the GLM’s clinical

relevance extends from sex offending to broader offending typologies.

Keywords: offenders; readiness; Good Lives Model

Violence is a significant societal problem with enormous repercussions for victims,society, and offenders themselves. Research tends to show that, although a sub-stantial number of individuals will act aggressively or violently at some point in their

lives, a smaller number account for a relatively large proportion of serious violent

crime (Loeber, Farrington, & Waschbusch, 1998; Moffitt, Caspi, Harrington, & Milne,2002; Serin, 1995). Commonly referred to as serious or persistent violent offenders,

this group typically exhibits antisocial and aggressive behaviour from childhood or

early adolescence that continues throughout much of adulthood (Loeber & Hay, 1997;

Moffitt, 2003; Serin & Preston, 2001). Designing and implementing effective inter-

ventions to reduce further violent behaviour and harm to the community by such adult

offenders is a challenging but potentially very worthwhile task.

Although an accumulation of meta-analyses has shown that recidivism can be

appreciably reduced through offender rehabilitation programmes, most studies have


http://ijo.sagepub.com/http://ijo.sagepub.com/http://ijo.sagepub.com/http://ijo.sagepub.com/


3/22

Whitehead et al. / Good Lives Model 579

addressed juvenile, sexual, or undifferentiated adult offenders, and thus the findings

with regard to adult serious violent offenders are much more limited (Lipton,

Pearson, Cleland, & Yee, 2002; Lösel, 2001; Polaschek & Collie, 2004). In the onlymeta-analysis thus far to focus exclusively on treatment impact on adult violent recon-

victions, Dowden and Andrews (2000) found that programmes that targeted crimino-

genic needs (i.e., the dynamic risk factors linked with the continuance of crime) using

cognitive–behavioural methods produced the greatest effects. They concluded that these

results supported the applicability of the more general Risk-Need-Responsivity (Risk-

Management) model of offender rehabilitation to violent offending (see Andrews &

Bonta, 2003). In brief, this approach contends that treatment should target the dynamic

risk factors linked with crime (i.e., criminogenic needs) with intensity varying in rela-

tion to risk level, using cognitive–behavioural interventions with some modification forindividual treatment-related barriers (e.g., motivational deficits, ethnic mismatch). The

Dowden and Andrews’ meta-analysis, however, drew on outcome evaluations from

diverse studies involving child molesters, rapists, domestically violent offenders, juve-

nile offenders, and generally violent offenders; in addition, violent reconviction was

variously defined and included sexual offences (Raynor & Vanstone, 1996) and family-

only assaults (Sherman & Berk, 1984). Thus, this meta-analysis does not address the

design or effectiveness of programmes for serious violent offenders, per se.

In a narrative review of programmes for serious adult violent offenders, Polaschek

and Collie (2004) found eight programmes with outcome evaluations that involvedmeasures of violent recidivism. The programmes were cognitive–behavioural inter-

ventions that targeted single factors (cognition or anger regulation) or multiple factors

with presumed relationships to violence. Although Polaschek and Collie found that

most studies showed some promise of effectiveness with any form of recidivism or

violent recidivism, the main conclusion drawn was that there is a need for further well-

designed evaluations, and that programmes require clearer theoretical and empirical

integrity. Thus, in contrast to the strongly worded conclusions based on the what works

treatment meta-analyses and the generalised guidelines arising from these, there are

remarkably few methodologically adequate studies of programmes aimed at rehabili-tating adult serious violent offenders. As Lösel (2001) cautions, although the devel-

opments in the offender rehabilitation area represent clear progress, the results of

meta-analyses and the promulgation of guidelines should not mislead researchers and

practitioners into believing that effective treatment is now simply a matter of good

implementation of effective programmes. We still have a lot to learn about what types

of programmes and programme delivery work with different types of offenders in

various settings and contexts.

The Good Lives Model (GLM) of offender rehabilitation (see Table 1) is a relatively

new approach to working with offenders that can be contrasted with the more tradi-tional Risk-Need-Responsivity (or Risk-Management) approach. The GLM is a com-

prehensive theory of offender rehabilitation that focuses on promoting individuals’

important personal goals, while reducing and managing their risk for future offending.




4/22

580 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology

For greater detail on the GLM see Ward (2002), Ward and Brown (2004), Ward and

Gannon (2006), Ward and Marshall (2004), and Ward and Stewart (2003). It is a

strength-based approach in two respects: (a) It takes seriously offenders’personal pref-

erences and values—that is, the things that matter most to them in the world. It drawsupon these primary goods to motivate individuals to live better lives; and (b) therapists

seek to provide offenders with the competencies (internal conditions) and opportuni-

ties (external conditions) to implement treatment plans based on these primary goods.

Primary goods are essentially activities, experiences, or situations that are sought

for their own sake and that benefit individuals and increase their sense of fulfillment

and happiness. Examples of primary human goods include knowledge, relatedness,

autonomy, play, physical health, and mastery. Secondary goods are the means used to

secure the primary goods, and it is here that people often experience problems. For

example, attempting to achieve the good of relatedness though sex with a child is prob-lematic, as is the search for mastery through the domination of another individual.

There is evidence from a wide range of literatures to support the claim that all indi-

viduals typically seek primary human goods and that their attainment is associated

Table 1

Good Lives Model of Offender Rehabilitation

Core Metaphor Dynamic System

Personal identity Essential part of change—emerges from

overarching goods

Agency Individuals are active agents who seek

meaningful lives

Risk conception Distortion of internal and external conditions

required to achieve primary goods

Criminogenic needs Red flags, signal problems in way goods are

sought. Targeting primary goods can also

reduce dynamic risk

Noncriminogenic needs Some are essential targets

Etiology Problems in ways goods sought: means, scope,

capacities, and conflict

Motivation Primary human goods and their associated

secondary goods are inherently motivating

Intervention focus Installing internal and external conditions

required to implement GLM in specific

circumstances. This also reduces impact of

criminogenic needs: promotion of goods and

risk management

Intervention modality Treatment geared to individual circumstances.

Tailoring of manual based approaches

where appropriate




5/22


with higher levels of well being and their absence related to psychological problems

of various kinds (see Emmons, 1999; Ward & Stewart, 2003). From the perspective of

the GLM, offending is likely to reflect the influence of a multitude of goals and theirrelated human goods. Sometimes the higher level (approach) goal is to establish a

sense of intimacy or interpersonal support. On other occasions, the offender may be

pursuing a sense of personal power and mastery over the victim. These are all still

approach goals, but they have quite different etiological and treatment implications.

In the GLM, criminogenic needs (dynamic risk factors) are internal or external

obstacles that frustrate and block the acquisition of primary human goods. The

responses to these obstacles are learned and conditioned throughout the individual’s

life. What this means is that the individual lacks the ability to obtain important out-

comes (i.e., goods) in his life, and in addition he is frequently unable to think about hislife in a reflective manner. We suggest that there are four major types of difficulties

often evident in offenders’ life plans: lack of scope (i.e., important primary goods are

neglected), inappropriate means used to secure goods (i.e., counterproductive methods

used that result in failure to obtain goods), conflict evident in a person’s life plan (i.e.,

the pursuit of one good lessens the chances of another being secured), and lack of

capacity (i.e., internal capacity, such as lack of skills, or external capacity relating to a

lack of support, opportunities, etc.).

The GLM has a twin focus with respect to therapy with offenders—(a) promoting

goods and (b) managing/reducing risk. What this means is that a major aim is to equipthe offender with the skills, values, attitudes, and resources necessary to lead a different

kind of life, one that is personally meaningful and satisfying and does not involve

inflicting harm. In other words, a life that has the basic primary goods, and ways of

effectively securing them, built into it. These aims reflect the etiological assumptions

of the GLM that offenders are either directly seeking basic goods through the act of

offending or else commit an offence because of the indirect effects of a pursuit of basic

goods. Furthermore, according to the GLM, risk factors represent omissions or distor-

tions in the internal and external conditions required to implement a Good Lives Plan

in a specific set of environments. Installing the internal conditions (i.e., skills, values,beliefs) and the external conditions (i.e., resources, social supports, opportunities) is

likely to reduce or eliminate each individual’s set of criminogenic needs.

One of the virtues of the GLM is its ability as a theory to integrate practices and

factors already accepted as important in the rehabilitation arena. Because treatment is

focused on obtaining outcomes that offenders’ value (in socially acceptable ways) they

are more likely to see therapy as relevant to their lives, rather than as something imposed

by therapists and correctional agencies. The advantages of treating offenders within the

GLM framework is that it reminds therapists to actively consider several critical ele-

ments of treatment that tend to be underemphasised in the traditional Risk-Managementapproach. For one thing, the combined approach to treatment outlined in this article

ensures that clinicians deal explicitly with offender goals and values (motivation) and

helps clinicians to appreciate the importance of process variables and the therapeutic




6/22

alliance. The combined approach also incorporates psychological, social, cultural, envi-

ronmental, and biological factors in the treatment plan, bridges the gap between etio-

logical and treatment considerations, and understands that offenders are best viewed aspsychological agents seeking meaning, rather than mechanisms that need to be “restruc-

tured” (Maruna, 2001). It is a deeply humanistic and empirically guided approach to

treatment that takes seriously the fact that therapy is an art as well as a science. These

features reveal the integrative and unifying power of the GLM rehabilitation framework.

Although the GLM is a general theory of rehabilitation, it has primarily been

applied to sexual offenders. The preliminary empirical work of Purvis (2005) supports

the GLM’s contention that offenders seek a variety of outcomes when they sexually

abuse a child. That is, she found that child molesters indirectly or directly seek the

whole range of primary goods outlined earlier in this article when committing offencesagainst children. Sometimes the higher level (approach) goal is to establish a sense of

intimacy or interpersonal support. On other occasions, the offender may be pursuing a

sense of personal power and mastery over the victim. These are all still approach goals,

but they have quite different etiological and treatment implications. Furthermore,

Lindsay, Ward, Morgan, and Wilson (2006) found that utilizing the principles of the

GLM, in conjunction with accepted relapse prevention treatment strategies, enabled

therapists to make progress with particularly intractable cases. In addition, Lindsay

et al. reported that the Good Lives approach made it easier to motivate sexual offend-

ers and to encourage them to engage in the difficult process of changing entrenchedmaladaptive behaviours. These findings provide some very preliminary evidence con-

cerning the empirical adequacy and heuristic value of the GLM.

In this article, we describe using the GLM to guide ongoing treatment with a high-

risk, violent offender. We illustrate how the GLM can help therapists to make genuine

progress with this challenging population and how the GLM can complement and

embed traditional risk-management interventions within a meaningful framework that

encourages offender engagement in the change process. The case study proceeds as

follows: First, we provide a description of the client, including his pattern of offending

and risk of recidivism; second, we provide an overview of the Risk-Management inter-ventions used with the client and the obstacles encountered in making further treat-

ment gains; and third, we outline application of the GLM across five major phases and

note the benefits obtained from adopting this approach.

Case Study

Client Description

The client described in this article gave the principal author his written, informedconsent to discuss his case through publication for the benefit of others. Accordingly

efforts have been made to conceal his identity throughout this article and he is

referred to herein as Mr. C.





7/22


Mr. C is a 28-year-old New Zealand Maori (i.e., indigenous) man who was a pris-

oner and subsequent parolee under the mandate of the New Zealand Department of

Corrections. At the time of Mr. C’s initial contact, he was an active patched memberof a criminal gang with a notorious reputation. He was heavily tattooed on his face and

body, and many of the tattoos vividly denoted his gang allegiance. He would often dis-

play aggression when other people challenged his worldview, and he conveyed a life-

long loyalty to his gang that included an apparent preparedness to die for it.

Mr. C’s official history included 20 convictions since the age of 18 for a diversity of

crimes (e.g., aggravated robbery, inciting violence, burglary, car conversion, and breach

of court bail). He spent the majority of his adult life incarcerated, during which time he

amassed numerous violence- and drug-related infractions. Much of his incarceration

was served in high–medium or closed security units, which are for inmates who presentmoderate-to-high levels of internal and external management risk. His last two periods

of offending in the community included two aggravated robberies; both of these

involved the presentation of firearms to multiple victims, which on one occasion,

included a child. During one of the offences he was noted to have committed a callous

and prolonged attack on a victim while other victims watched and were also explicitly

threatened. His most recent aggravated robbery occurred 6 months after release from

prison for his earlier aggravated robbery. In addition to his official criminal history,

Mr. C self-reported an extensive history of undetected violent and nonviolent offending,

including a pattern of serial rape activity beginning at 12 years of age. Mr. C was clas-sified as a high-risk violent offender and had neither been charged for nor convicted of

any sex offences. Mr. C’s sexual offending appears to have been in the context of his

participating in gang rape of victims who were within his age band at the time of each

offence. Essentially, there was no evidence of deviant sexual interests in children.

Personal and Social Background

Mr. C disclosed a number of notable features about his family background and early

development during clinical interview that are all too frequently the precursors of per-

sistent aggression. He was the middle child of two siblings (brother and sister) and was

raised in a family where he was exposed to interpersonal violence and sexual abuse. He

also alternated between living with his parents and his grandfather, who were of Maori

descent. Mr. C had reported that he often chose to live with his grandfather to avoid

severe physical punishment from his parents. He left home in his teenage years after

frequent arguments with his mother regarding his alcohol use, frequent partying, and

emerging criminal lifestyle. Mr. C exhibited a range of early antisocial behaviours (e.g.,

sniffing petrol, alcohol/cannabis abuse, school truancy, robbing shops, and assault on

other pupils) that were reinforced by members of his extended family. He experienced

little formal success at school and left at 15 years of age without any qualifications. He

gravitated to an antisocial peer group and began associating with a criminally oriented

gang in which some members were relatives. Acceptance by his gang associates acted

as significant reinforcement for his antisocial lifestyle. His violent behaviour continued




8/22

to escalate in seriousness throughout adolescence and included use of weapons and a

significant pattern of nonconsensual sex with females. Also during his adolescence he

was raised for a time by two female prostitutes, who took sexual advantage of him.In the course of his childhood and adolescence it was evident that Mr. C had devel-

oped a number of maladaptive and offence-related beliefs. His combined experiences

of interpersonal violence and sexual abuse appeared linked to maladaptive beliefs

about the acceptability of abusing others. Moreover, early modelled and experiential

exposure to forced sex accompanied with feelings of sexual excitement, dominance,

and peer approval appeared likely to have severely limited Mr. C’s capacity for devel-

oping loving, intimate, and equal relationships. Living with city sex workers in his

adolescent years also appeared to strengthen his attitude that sex was a commodity that

could be bought with money or forcefully taken by those with greater physical power.Moreover, cognitive distortions surrounding rape became entrenched to the extent that

Mr. C believed that rape only occurred if a woman verbally said “no.” This distortion

resulted in further forced sex occurring under the context of unspoken threat. Against

his background of violent propensity, Mr. C’s abuse of alcohol and cannabis and his

gang membership lowered his inhibitions and reinforced existing beliefs about the

legitimacy of using violence and engaging in criminal activity. Conversely, the enjoy-

ment he derived from using violence sometimes resulted in a desire to be drug and

alcohol free so as to enjoy the experience more.

An excerpt of Mr. C’s writing while in prison is included below to highlight theextent of his problematic attitudes toward violence and toward change. Mr. C wrote this

piece following his completion of an intensive (i.e., 100-hour) cognitive–behavioural

programme designed to target the criminogenic needs of violent offenders:

Anyway I’m in [this prison unit] now bro, been here for about a week, first day here

smashed someone over, second day smashed a nigger up, down at the gym, sent to the

digger for two days, on the fifth day stepped out two more bastards, they dropped it cuz,

sieg heil.

The term bro denotes the expression brother, although not literally; digger refers

to solitary confinement; the expression cuz denotes cousin; the expression dropped

it refers to his victims not coping with the assault and backing away. The expression

sieg heil was the Nazi greeting during the Hitler/Third Reich period of history, and

its use invokes painful memories of the Holocaust and the 6 million Jews, gypsies,

disabled, and others that were killed by the Nazis. In the context of this article, the

term was adopted as a greeting by Mr. C and his gang to denote strong gang alle-

giance, highlighting their extreme antisocial orientation.

Level of Risk

Mr. C was assessed as a high-risk violent offender on the basis of an actuarial mea-

sure, psychopathy assessment, and the additional information disclosed by him during





9/22


a clinical interview. More specifically the New Zealand Department of Corrections

uses a purpose-designed, actuarial risk-assessment measure that uses static variables in

a regression equation; the measure is termed the Risk of Conviction X Risk of Imprisonment (RoC*RoI; Bakker, O’Malley, & Riley, 1999). The RoC*RoI produces

estimates of the risk of reoffending and reimprisonment in the 5-year period following

release and is based on comparison with large samples of New Zealand offenders. Mr.

C’s recidivism scores indicated that he had a 64% probability of serious reoffending

and a 95% probability of any reoffending within 5 years released into the community.

In addition, the Psychopathy Checklist: Screening Version (PCL:SV; Hart, Cox, &

Hare, 1995) was administered. The PCL:SV has been shown to predict both institu-

tional violence (e.g., Hill, Rogers, & Bickford, 1996) and community violence (e.g.,

Monahan et al., 2000); in addition New Zealand research has shown that elevatedscores on the PCL:SV predict serious violent and sexual reoffending, as well as the

speed of reoffending leading to reimprisonment (Wilson, 2003). Mr. C’s score on the

PCL:SV placed him above the suggested cutoff for a strong indication of psychopathy

(Hart et al., 1995) and above the cutoff that predicted significantly greater (i.e., six

times more) serious violent reoffending in a New Zealand sample (Wilson, 2003).

Standard Risk-Management-Oriented Interventions

Mr. C had completed two intensive cognitive–behavioural, group-based treatment

programmes targeting his criminogenic needs (dynamic risk factors) during his past

two periods of incarceration. The first programme involved 100 hours of contact time

delivered during 10 weeks and focused on participants developing in-depth under-

standing of their offending, high-risk situations, and strategies to deal with these. The

programme is one of the newer initiatives of the New Zealand Department of

Corrections, and as such formal outcome evaluation is not yet available. Mr. C was

released following completion of this programme and subsequently reoffended with

multiple property-related crimes (e.g. burglary theft, motor vehicle theft; see above) as

well as aggravated robbery using a firearm.

The second programme, in which the principal author was extensively involved,

was an intensive 10-week residential violence prevention programme (VPP) situated

in the community and provided primarily to men who are on temporary parole from

prison. The residence operated according to traditional Maori (indigenous) protocols

and values and included specific modules on cultural heritage and practices. An eval-

uation of the programme for the earlier period 1995-1996 found a significant reduction

in violent recidivism for programme completers as compared with noncompleters and

a matched control group for 17 months (25% vs. 42% and 44%, respectively; Berry,

1998, 2003). However, programme completers had a significantly higher rate of non-

violent recidivism as compared with controls, perhaps due to greater time at risk to

commit such offences (Berry, 1998, 2003). A more recent follow-up evaluation of the




10/22

same participants found a stable 20% reduction in violent recidivism during an 8-and-

a-half-year period (N. J. Wilson, personal communication, January 16, 2006).

As a requirement of the VPP, Mr. C completed a comprehensive Risk-Managementand safety plan addressing his criminogenic needs (i.e., substance abuse, violence

propensity, relationship difficulties, criminal companions, and offence-related sexual

arousal). However, on release Mr. C remained unconvinced about the need to imple-

ment his safety plan. Moreover, although he saw the treatment plan as relevant to other

offenders presenting with similar types of problems, he felt it did not apply to him

because of his lifelong commitment to his gang. For example, Mr. C was made aware

that alcohol and drug relapses would endanger himself and those around him and was

shown some avoidance strategies to cope with the relevant high-risk situations.

Nevertheless his self-report indicated that his drug usage remained high and that he hadno intention of putting this aspect of his plan into action. His precontemplation was also

evident in his rejection of the suggestion that he avoid criminal companions. Essentially

Mr. C was adamant that he would not leave his gang under any circumstances.

Mr. C’s earlier treatment engagement seemed largely motivated by the prospect of

parole. Accordingly, the potential beneficial effects of his treatment were limited by his

lack of internal treatment readiness over multiple criminogenic domains. Treatment

effectiveness was also potentially limited by his apparent psychopathic personality

traits. However, Mr. C’s extensive exposure to group-based cognitive–behavioural

treatment had given him a sound knowledge base and an appreciation of different per-spectives with respect to the costs and benefits of criminal behaviour. He was much

more open to feedback and respectful challenges to his worldview. There also existed

some openness and honesty in discussions about his personal history and offending,

although this was dependent on his mood and allegiance to gang codes forbidding dis-

closures outside the gang. Furthermore, Mr. C’s exposure to indigenous (Maori) prac-

tices, protocols, and language had given him a sense of identity and belonging. Indeed,

the renewed sense of identity from a cultural perspective served in part the human good

of spirituality, according to the GLM. In this regard it was important for the therapist

to acknowledge cultural values and accordingly to engage in the appropriate culturalprotocols, particularly at the commencement and closure of treatment sessions.

It was clear Mr. C had received the best interventions available, and the prospect

of any additional work was limited and somewhat daunting. His rigid antisocial

beliefs postintervention imparted a sense of futility to the prospect of working with

him to achieve desistance from crime. Although given the “necessary” interventions

to address his criminogenic factors, the challenge remained of how to engage Mr. C

in the process of changing his criminal lifestyle.

Utilising the GLM of Rehabilitation

As described above, the GLM of offender rehabilitation proposes a twin focus on

goods promotion (approach goals) and risk management (avoidance-related goals),





11/22

with each complementing the other. Examination of the theoretical concepts of the

GLM indicated that it provided three potential benefits in Mr. C’s case. First, the GLM

provided an overall framework for treatment integration by acknowledging Mr. C’slong-term future well-being at the macrolevel but embracing the Risk-Needs framework

at the microlevel. Second, the GLM could potentially facilitate Mr. C’s treatment readi-

ness by triggering or motivating him to apply his prior acquired knowledge. Third,

focussing on approach goals could potentially enable Mr. C to access positive affective

states and begin to visualise a new sense of identity, while providing him the impetus to

implement the skills necessary to manage his future risk and prevent reoffending.

Although strong critiques of the GLM (Bonta & Andrews, 2003), coupled with con-

cerns regarding key theoretical and epistemological differences and its relative new-

ness (Ogloff & Davis, 2004), were noted by the treating clinician, in this case thestandard Risk-Management, cognitive–behavioural treatment options available for Mr.

C were exhausted. More positively, however, Mr. C had shown some changes with

respect to the human good of spirituality through his positive response to, and respect

of, traditional cultural frameworks. Furthermore, examination of the GLM revealed

that the gap between the GLM approach and the standard Risk-Management approach

was not as large as initially thought. Ogloff and Davies (2004), for example, recon-

ceptualised the GLM from within the dominant Risk-Management approach, high-

lighting that the GLM may address offender treatment responsiveness (i.e.,

responsivity principle) by being an important mediating factor in eliciting the changesneeded from a Risk-Management approach.

Stages of GLM Treatment

Proponents of the GLM suggest that it is used as a framework to structure the deliv-

ery of standard Cognitive–Behavioural Therapy (CBT) interventions to offenders

(Ward & Brown, 2004; Ward & Gannon, 2006). More specifically, they set out five

phases in the delivery of GLM-orientated treatment that were used to structure therapy

with Mr. C.

Phase 1

The aims in this phase are to establish relevant treatment goals, to identify domi-

nant human goods, and to increase treatment readiness. The first step in achieving

these aims is to assess the client’s readiness, something that was already well known

to the principal author. During his period in the residential setting, Mr. C had revealed

low treatment readiness through his problematic precontemplative attitudes toward his

drug usage, relationship difficulties, violence propensity, and antisocial attitudes. Thenext step from a GLM perspective is to assess a client’s own goals, life priorities, and

aims for the intervention to establish relevant treatment goals. This step can be defined

as finding the dream factor: What did the client see himself doing when he was a





12/22

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).

In this initial phase, the GLM was introduced to Mr. C, explained in full, and, at his

request, a Good Lives article was given to him to read and discuss in a later session.

Although his request was a clear marker for motivation, in retrospect, the academic

concept of the GLM was pitched at too high a level for Mr. C to fully comprehend.

This was reflected in Mr. C’s self-report at a later date. This process would have been

better served by developing a simple summary of the key points for Mr. C to take home

and giving him a copy of the material as he had requested. It is important to note thatthe key therapeutic change for Mr. C was his personal visualization of the “new me,”

which he realized through the development of approach goals and the use of a personal

map of how to attain the “new me.” This also facilitated a therapeutic change whereby

Mr. C shifted from a predominantly present-focused orientation to a predominantly

future-focused orientation. In this regard, previously life had been represented by

the highs of drugs, alcohol, multiple partners, quick money, violence, and collegial

brotherhood through the gang. Now, life was beginning to be represented by the val-

ues associated with education, equality and respect, intimacy, collegial support through

prosocial endeavors, and self-fulfillment. He began to forge a new identity based onthese values and success at having achieved mastery at working toward his goals. His

approach goals represented aspirations that are likely to have been viewed as improb-

able and unobtainable by Mr. C prior to him engaging in the GLM process. Essentially,

the GLM was invaluable in enabling Mr. C to visualize and begin working toward a

life for himself that he would never have previously considered.

It is also important to note that as Mr. C began visualizing a different life for him-

self, the rigid cognitive distortions that once preventing change began to falter. In this

regard, although Mr. C’s identified approach goals were not, in themselves, directly

criminogenic, the means that he was going to use to implement them was going to havecriminogenic effects (i.e., reduce or eliminate his criminogenic needs). Thus his

approach goals began to serve as the reason for addressing his criminogenic needs (i.e.,

they increased his responsivity to attending to traditional Risk-Management interven-

tions). Mr. C’s approach goals included attending university to further his interest in

Maori studies, concepts, and spirituality, obtaining a driver’s licence, having improved

relationships with members of the opposite sex, and making his family “proud.” The

resultant criminogenic effects included a reduction in drug usage, forming prosocial

peers and accordingly disassociating with antisocial peers, interacting with society,

and the adoption of new prosocial attitudes particularly around violence, power andcontrol, and his pledge of lifelong allegiance to the gang.

The initial stage should include a thorough examination of each primary good in

detail along with an understanding of how secondary goods (the means of achieving





13/22


primary goods) are currently attaining (or not attaining) the primary good. The even-

tual aim is to begin establishing a new personal identity (see Maruna, 2001). An “old

me–new me” goal-setting exercise may help in this phase, whereby the client iden-tifies goals that are important and assesses whether these goals have been achieved

through inappropriate means (and/or not at all). This facilitates the client’s beginning

to establish a sense of how to achieve his or her goals appropriately. The client

begins to consider a new values framework and different ways of achieving his or

her goals through prosocial means. In Mr. C’s case, he continued to show no regret

or remorse for past behaviour, but he could identify his past behaviour as destructive

(albeit reportedly enjoyable) to himself and others. He continued to outwardly

endorse his antisocial orientation through wearing his gang colors (although he took

off his jacket prior to entering sessions). This point underlines the importance froma GLM perspective of focussing the therapy sessions on prudential goods, rather

than moral ones; that is, focus therapy on goods (and goals) likely to be associated

with the offender’s well being and happiness, rather than on moral ideas of right and

wrong. Therapy can then seek to equip clients with the internal and external capa-

bilities to achieve these valued outcomes in personally satisfying and socially

acceptable ways. Thus, ethical means are used to secure personally endorsed goals,

a strategy more likely to be effective with offenders who have psychopathic traits.

Phase 2

In this phase, the aims are for the client to conceptualize his new sense of direc-

tion (related to a plan for living a different life and achieving important personal

goals) and for the therapist to establish with the client how the nominated approach

goals relate to human goods, criminogenic needs, and Risk-Management issues.

Mr. C had identified some significant (personal) approach goals in Phase 1, so now

it became important for him to understand how his approach goals interacted with

his primary human goods and criminogenic needs. Recall that, according to the

Risk-Management approach, to reduce criminal recidivism one must target crimino-

genic need (i.e., dynamic risk factors; Andrews & Bonta, 2003), whereas according

to the GLM perspective, criminogenic needs represent internal or external obstacles

that frustrate or block the acquisition of primary human goods. Thus a twin focus can

be achieved by (a) focusing on the client’s approach goals and considering how

attaining these has a positive impact upon himself and others and (b) relating his

criminogenic needs (either directly or indirectly) to his ability to attain his valued

goals. The interrelatedness of criminogenic needs and desired approach goals must

be understood by both the clinician and client. For example, even if we were to

address the noncriminogenic need for reduced personal distress (i.e., the good of

inner peace), the clinician should be able to elicit how criminogenic factors are frus-

trating the acquisition of that particular human good. In turn, the offender then

realises that he has to address those criminogenic needs to achieve his desired goals.


http://ijo.sagepub.com/http://ijo.sagepub.com/http://ijo.sagepub.com/


14/22


When examining the criminogenic factors frustrating access to human goods, a plan

may be formulated that revolves around drug reduction, relationship skills, and antiso-

cial thinking to achieve the client’s desired outcomes. The important part of this phaseis to listen carefully to the client, have him desire a better (i.e., good) life, and in turn

address his identified criminogenic needs so that he can achieve his valued goals. As

Mr. C examined his approach goals he began to realise through self-reflection that

implementation of his Risk-Management plan was essential to the attainment of his

primary human goods. Thus, Mr. C began to recognize that in order for him to attend

university, acquire a driver’s licence, and develop cultural expertise, he would have to

dissociate from his gang, form a new peer group, and reduce his drug and alcohol intake.

He initially, however, rejected the need to dissociate from his gang, claiming that the

gang needed people in “high” places and that the gang would fund his studies. At this juncture a cost-benefit analysis was beneficial. Through examining the benefits of stay-

ing in the gang versus leaving the gang while studying, he concluded (with some dis-

comfort) that, if he remained in the gang and they funded his studies, he would be

obligated to them. Further, he concluded that continued gang involvement might pre-

clude his acceptance into higher education. His increased awareness of the negative con-

sequences of continued gang association were discordant with his new sense of identity

and goals, as he had begun to picture himself in his future as a gang-free member of

society who contributed positively within his own family. At this point, the human good

of autonomy became dominant for Mr. C as he sought his independence from the gang.He subsequently began to reframe his gang loyalty and obligation by highlighting that

he had “done his time” for his gang.

According to the GLM, the overarching or dominant good associated with a per-

son’s lifestyle informs therapists about what is most important in life and provides

the focus for a therapy plan. Through further reflection, Mr. C was able to see that

beyond the gang, drug abuse and violence were also frustrating his opportunity to

achieve his anticipated good life. This was also a crucial juncture in his therapy and

further reinforced his need to dissociate from his gang. Despite realistic anxieties

about the risk of violence or even death, Mr. C was reportedly able to negotiate hisexit from the gang via a “last rites” session in which he was assaulted by other

members and shared in a drug session. From this point onward, Mr. C did not wear

his gang patch.

A critical GLM therapeutic task involves managing the delicate balance between

promoting offender goods and reducing risk. From a risk-management perspective,

it was important to be mindful of public safety. Indeed, in Mr. C’s case there was a

very real risk of exposing students to an active gang member (and his activities) and

increasing his opportunity to rape through access to women on campus. Although

Mr. C came to his own conclusion to leave the gang, the therapist would have con-tinued to address these risk-management issues with Mr. C, including taking the nec-

essary steps to inform the relevant agencies to protect public safety.




15/22


Phase 3

In Phase 3 the aim is to explicitly develop a Good Lives case formulation. Having

identified aspects of the client’s pattern of behaviour that impede the attainment of a

good life and those which promote and enhance treatment readiness, one should be in

a position to develop a Good Lives formulation with the client. The client should be

aware of how behaviour is developed, strengthened and maintained, how human goods

are frustrated by criminogenic needs and secondary goods, and be aware of alternate

and adaptive ways of obtaining a good life. For Mr. C the formulation was conceptu-

alised as follows:

Mr. C’s criminogenic needs can be understood within a Good Lives framework; in par-

ticular, the Good Lives concepts of direct pathways, primary human goods, and sec-ondary goods are relevant. In this respect there is a direct pathway between Mr. C’s

pursuit of the primary human goods of happiness, friendship, and intimacy through the

secondary goods of his gang membership, associated violence, substance abuse, and

predatory sexual behaviour. For Mr. C, access to his primary human goods of happiness,

friendship, and intimacy were blocked (i.e., prevented) by his criminogenic needs (i.e.,

violence propensity, offence-related sexual arousal, relationship difficulties, substance

abuse, employment instability, antisocial beliefs, and criminal companions). That is, his

criminogenic needs (secondary goods) were associated with the negative feelings of

power, control, notoriety, risk-taking arousal, and offence-related sexual arousal, and

these blocked his genuine achievement of his valued primary goods. Essentially, his

destructive behaviour was maintained through the dominance of the search for the good

of friendship reflected initially through the formation of a coercive interactional style and,

later, through his allegiance to the gang and offence-related sexual arousal. This dominant

good is likely to have contaminated the other primary human goods to the extent that

other goods were also sought through destructive means—that is, at the expense of other

people. This pattern effectively compromised his ability to attain a good life.

In this phase of the therapeutic process, the client should be aware of (a) previous

means used to secure goods (rape, violence, gang association), (b) possible lack of scope within a Good Lives plan (e.g., absence of knowledge, spirituality, healthy liv-

ing), (c) the presence of conflict among goals (e.g., good of friendship sought at the

expense of others), and, (d) potential barriers (no education, knowledge, supports) to

securing the goods (i.e., lack of capabilities and resources).

Phase 4

In this phase the major aim is to develop a detailed Good Lives plan based on the

case formulation. Good Lives Model therapy is about equipping individuals with theskills, values, attitudes, and resources necessary to lead a different kind of life that

is highly valued by each individual and one that does not involve inflicting harm on

themselves. To do this, goals need to be broken into achievable steps with associated




16/22

time frames. Standard goal-setting techniques are relevant (e.g., setting goals that are

Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, and with Timeframes, also known as

using the SMART strategies).Mr. C’s increased readiness to address his safety plan allowed a genuine twin focus

on his Good Lives plan and his Risk-Management plan. One such Risk-Management

concept now embraced by Mr. C was to seek advice from support people if he was con-

templating some form of violent activity. A very salient example for Mr. C occurred

when he faced what he perceived as an obligation to severely attack an alleged perpe-

trator of a child sex crime and to seize the children who resided with him. His safety

plan instructed him to talk about his plans with support people prior to engaging in

potentially high-risk behaviour, so Mr. C and an associate arrived to inform the thera-

pist of their plans to commit violence, irrespective of the consequences. By adheringto his safety plan and seeking advice from a support person who advocates for nonvi-

olent solutions (i.e., his therapist), Mr. C and his associate were able to deal with this

crisis appropriately via the police and local child welfare agency. In addition, the

appropriate departmental risk notification procedures were employed with Mr. C’s

knowledge, a process that ultimately enabled Mr. C to interact with authorities con-

structively and to engage in collaborative risk management. The experience resulted in

Mr. C feeling positive and inwardly proud of his behaviour, rather than resentful and

defiant as would have been the case in the past.

Phase 5

In this phase the aim is to work on goal attainment and to monitor progress via

regular supervision. From a GLM perspective, the implementation and acquisition

of skills necessary for Mr. C to successfully carry out his approach goals was impor-

tant. To assist, a Maori counsellor was employed to provide culturally matched men-

toring and support. The counsellor was able to help Mr. C with his initial inquiries

to the university, while the therapist helped locate resources on prospective tertiary

courses and obtained information about driver’s licence education. Being on campus

and engaging with the public was a new experience for Mr. C, one foreign to

a recidivist offender, and this raised issues about his appearance and presentation.

Mr. C decided to begin the process of having his gang-related tattoos removed from

his face, but subsequently opted for dressing more conventionally and wearing a cap

over his forehead, as he was not ready to remove his tattoos (as evidenced by a series

of missed appointments and subsequent discussion).

Mr. C progressed in small steps toward his goal of enrolling into university. He

decided on a prospective course; with support from his therapist and Maori coun-

sellor met with the Dean of the Faculty, and completed his university application

forms. An excerpt of his written submission (completed without assistance) outlin-

ing his reasons for enrolling is included below as it vividly illustrates changes in

Mr C’s outlook:





17/22


To change my life I need to change the way I think and live. The opportunities that [edu-

cation] can open for me are limitless. For someone like myself this is a big lifestyle change

in a way I thought would never be possible. I’d like to utilize my education into helping

troubled teens that are falling into a lifestyle I’ve lived for the last ten years. To help just

one person makes a difference even within myself to be educated is a big statement in my

life. My main reason to educate myself is so I can self teach my children in the Reo Maori

[Maori language]. To be given an opportunity like this words cannot express. My life is

about to change. I’m given a chance to start a new life and way of living.

Mr. C agreed with the expectations and conditions for his enrolment in university;

he was not to bring gang associates onto the campus or carry drugs with him. The

University Dean also ensured that his courses were consistent with his current abilities.

At about the same time Mr. C had begun working toward his learner’s driver’s licenceand had become involved in a monogamous intimate relationship. Mr. C received pos-

itive feedback from his family, who were amazed and proud of his transformation.

Mr. C made family history by being the first member to attend higher education.

Treatment Progress

During Mr. C’s treatment there was considerable reduction in his drug usage as a

function of external requirements (i.e., the requirements of his study and his obliga-tion to his University Dean), rather than intrinsic motivation. He attended university

for around 6 months before transport difficulties led to his nonattendance. He

has since negotiated with his University Dean to reenroll in his studies. In addition,

Mr. C was involved in an underwater diving course and had almost achieved his

course certification. Both of these achievements were not possible without his belief

in his capacity to achieve a different life.

Mr. C disclosed two violent incidents since his release from prison. The first

involved a retaliatory action after being pushed to the ground at a party. Surprisingly,

for the first time in treatment, he expressed feeling “guilty” for his actions and angertoward himself for his lack of control. The second relapse occurred in response to

his partner being insulted and offended. Mr. C’s reaction included “smashing” the

victim and entering an emotional state synonymous with the abstinence violation

effect (Marlatt & Gordon, 1980). He expressed an intention to immediately return to

his gang and regain his patch. By activating his safety plan and engaging his support

people this was averted, however. Although he presented as distressed and difficult

to engage in rational dialogue, he was able to identify some of his feelings and

behaviours in response to his committing assault, and he was coached to reflect on

his past goals and prior self-statements (e.g., “I am never going back to prison,” “Ihave given the gang 10 years of my life,” his intention to reestablishing university

links, and his happiness in his relationship). Mr. C’s adherence to his safety plan




18/22


combined with his growing desire for a good life and new sense of personal identity

buffered the stress associated with this “failure” and prevented a serious relapse. As

Prochaska and DiClemente (1982) state, one can go around the wheel of changemany times before actually exiting the wheel. Mr. C is no different.

In summary, Mr. C has made a number of profound life changes and achievements

that were not foreseeable prior to embarking on a GLM approach with him. His sex-

ual predatory behaviour is no longer reinforced by antisocial peers, he has reduced his

drug intake, he remains in a committed relationship, he has had success in establish-

ing a new peer group through his university studies, he is developing prosocial leisure

pursuits (e.g., diving), and he has utilised his support network appropriately. As a

result, his sense of identity is being formed around prosocial achievements and aspira-

tions, rather than gang affiliation and criminal activities. The allure and comfort of his past social network and criminal lifestyle remains strong, however, and given his

history and assessed high-risk of reoffending neither Mr. C or those involved in his

case are blind to his risk of intermittent relapse or wholesale return to his past lifestyle.

The profound observation remains, though, that without embarking on this therapeu-

tic journey, such a negative outcome was a certainty, whereas now more positive out-

comes look possible. At the time of writing Mr. C had remained conviction free except

for a minor driving charge for a period of 14 months following his release from prison

(granted parole on 1/10/05 and completes it on 6/3/07). This contrasts markedly with

noncompliance with his community-based sentence in 1997, failing to comply withcourt bail in 1997, and serious reoffending while on parole when last released (after

having completed a 100-hour violence-prevention programme).

Discussion

The purpose of this article was to illustrate the application of the GLM of offender

rehabilitation with a case example—in this instance a high-risk violent offender. The

GLM is a relatively new theory of offender rehabilitation that initially emerged as an

alternative to the traditional Risk-Management Model. As the GLM has been further

developed conceptually and in practice, it is now apparent that it provides a comple-

mentary approach to Risk Management, one that helps to ground the goal of Risk

Management within a framework that is more meaningful and inherently motivating

for offenders. Simply stated, working toward goals that are valued by the offender

facilitates a collaborative approach to therapy and change. Given collaboration is a

core feature of all cognitive-behavioural interventions, it is perhaps unsurprising that

constructing a therapeutic frame that encourages collaboration helps to realise the

potential benefits of intervention. The challenge for therapists working within this

approach is to ensure that the relationship between dynamic risk factors (criminogenic

needs), secondary goods, and primary human goods is clearly conceptualised such that




19/22


treatment is based on a coherent understanding of the offender’s risk factors, Good

Lives problems (i.e., means, scope, conflict, and capacity), and a Good Lives plan that

will achieve valued personal goods in socially acceptable ways.The GLM is not intended to be a magic bullet of offender rehabilitation treatment

but combined with a Risk-Management approach, it can be highly effective. Provided

that treatment programme objectives incorporate a twin-foci approach and the therapist

monitors the appropriateness of identified approach goals, the model complements

Risk-Management offender rehabilitation. For Mr. C the true value of the GLM was in

facilitating treatment readiness (e.g., activating his safety plan) and promoting his long-

term reintegration goals, while creating a more adaptive personal identity. Although

Mr. C had made some progress in his traditional Risk-Management-type interventions,

he continued to endorse offence-related lifestyle goals. It was not until adopting a GLMapproach with him that he started to develop and believe in prosocial goals for which

he could put these more adaptive skills to use. Although this is only a single case study,

his apparently intractable and diverse pattern of offending contrasted with his quite sig-

nificant achievements to date illustrates the promise that the GLM holds.

The case study also illustrated the difficulties in working with high-risk offenders,

especially those with psychopathic traits. Of concern was the lack of treatment traction

gained with respect to eliciting empathy or remorse, except the one example after a self-

reported assault. Hemphill and Hart (2002) recently analysed the treatment-related

motivational deficits associated with psychopathy and provided recommendations forworking around or with those deficits. It is of relevance that they noted that treatments

ought to assess and actively attend to motivation and treatment readiness, to establish a

positive therapeutic alliance, to focus on (cognitive) strengths rather than (affective)

deficits, and to teach concrete behaviour-change strategies. Thus, the GLM appears to

be attending to such deficits appropriately. Using a GLM approach, therapy sessions

focus on clients’ prudential goods (i.e., what is in the best interest of their overall well

being and happiness), rather than on externally imposed moral goods as a means of

enhancing treatment readiness, motivation, and therapeutic alliance. Ethical means are

used to secure personally endorsed goals, rather than profound moral changes per se.This approach is consistent with the notion of helping psychopathic clients move from

self-interest to qualified self-interest, whereby they learn to consider the impact of their

actions on others so they can achieve their own valued goals (Hemphill & Hart, 2002).

There are a number of limitations to this study. First, the specific cultural interven-

tions may not be generalizable to European New Zealanders and prisoners in other

parts of the world. However, one of the strengths of the GLM approach is that it high-

lights the importance of attending to cultural needs and protocols when working with

indigenous people or people of other ethnicities as it does the importance of recogniz-

ing spiritual needs (as stated by the GLM primary human goods) where necessary.In addition, many of the interventions utilized in this case are directly applicable to

nonindigenous offenders, for example, the focus on strengths and primary interests,




20/22


building intervention plans around approach goals, considering issues of identity and

meaning, attending to the social ecology of the offender, and so on.

Second, case study designs are not able to rule out alternative interpretation of thedata. In this case, it is possible that the offender’s clinical changes were due to some

uncontrolled for event or set of processes, rather than to the GLM interventions.

However, a careful examination of the available data on Mr. C’s lifestyle revealed that,

beyond his self-realization that he could achieve a better life for himself, there were no

other obvious variables within the environment that appeared to be responsible for his

therapeutic progress. Of course, it is entirely possible that we are mistaken, but such are

the inevitable weaknesses of relatively soft designs such as single-case studies.

Third, it could be argued that many components of the Risk Need Model were uti-

lized in the case of Mr. C and that therefore the GLM was not solely responsible for thesubsequent positive treatment effects. It is important to note that the GLM involves both

the management of risk and the promotion of approach goals (human goods), and in this

respect it is able to incorporate the principles of the Risk-Need Model while expanding

on them. Therefore, the GLM was not the sole instigator of change, but rather the cata-

lyst for change and helped to capitalize on skills previously taught to Mr. C, under a

Risk Needs approach.

In conclusion, Bonta and Andrews (2003) are perhaps the strongest critics of the

GLM and have argued strongly that the GLM model needs to be operationalised by

relating the concepts of human goods to criminal behaviour. This article has attemptedto address such requests from a qualitative aspect with a high-risk violent offender. The

case study highlighted that the GLM has relevance in facilitating affective states of

offender change (treatment readiness) and addressing long-term reintegration and

maintenance issues. The case also illustrates the GLM can inform and enhance violent

offender rehabilitation, in addition to child molester rehabilitation (where most efforts

have been concentrated to date). Nevertheless, as with any new model, empirical sup-

port is essential. It is hoped that illustrating the phases of the model in this case study

will illustrate how researchers and practitioners can utilise the GLM when design-

ing future treatment programmes. Ideally, comparison of effect sizes between theRisk-Management approach and the combined Risk-Management plus Good Lives

approach will be forthcoming. This would provide the empirical “acid test” of the

value of the GLM. However, to finish with the words of Arnold Goldstein “we are in

the business of small gains, always small gains” (Hollin, 2005, p. 345).

References

Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2003). The Psychology of Criminal Conduct (3rd. ed.). Cincinnati

OH: Anderson.Bakker, L., O’Malley, J., & Riley, D. (1999). Risk of reconviction: Statistical models which predict four

types of re-offending. Christchurch, New Zealand: Department of Corrections.

Berry, S. (1998). An evaluation of the Montgomery House Violence Prevention Programme. Wellington,

New Zealand: Department of Corrections.




21/22


Berry, S. (2003). Stopping violent offending in New Zealand: Is treatment an option? New Zealand

Journal of Psychology, 32, 92-100.

Bonta, J., & Andrews, D. A. (2003). A commentary on Ward and Stewart’s model of human needs.

Psychology, Crime & Law, 9 , 215-218.

Dowden, C., & Andrews, D. A. (2000). Effective correctional treatment and violent re-offending: A meta-

analysis. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 42, 449-467.

Emmons, R. A. (1999). The psychology of ultimate concerns. New York: Guilford Press.

Hart, S. D., Cox, D. N., & Hare, R. D. (1995). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist Screening Version

(PCL:SV). New York: Multi-Health Systems Inc.

Hemphill, J. F., & Hart, S. D. (2002). Motivating the unmotivated: Psychopathy, treatment, and change.

In M. McMurran (Ed.), Motivating offender to change: A guide to enhancing engagement in therapy

(pp. 193-220). Chichester, England: Wiley.

Hill, C. D., Rogers, R., & Bickford, M. E. (1996). Predicting aggressive and socially disruptive behaviour

in a maximum security forensic hospital. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 41, 56-59.

Hollin, C. R. (2005). Working with aggression and violence: Assessment, treatment, and prevention.

Psychology, Crime & Law, 11, 344-345.

Lindsay, W. R., Ward, T., Morgan, T., & Wilson. I. (2006). Self-regulation of sex offending, Future path-

ways and the Good Lives Model: Applications and problems. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Lipton, D., Pearson, F. S., Cleland, C. M., & Yee, D. (2002). The effects of therapeutic communities and

milieu therapy on recidivism. In J. McGuire (Ed.), Offender rehabilitation and treatment: Effective

programmes and policies to reduce recidivism (pp. 79-112). Chichester, England: Wiley.

Loeber, R., Farrington, D. P., & Waschbusch, D. A. (1998). Serious and violent juvenile offenders. In

R. Loeber & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), Serious and violent juvenile offenders: Risk factors and suc-

cessful interventions (pp.13-29). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Loeber, R., & Hay, D. (1997). Key issues in the development of aggression and violence from childhoodto early adulthood. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 371-410.

Lösel, F. (2001). Evaluating the effectiveness of correctional programs: Bridging the gap between

research and practice. In G. A. Bernfeld, D. P. Farrington, & A. W. Leschied (Eds.), Offender reha-

bilitation in practice (pp. 67-92). Chichester, England: Wiley.

Marlatt, G. A., & Gordon, J. R. (1980). Determinants of relapse: Implications for the maintenance of

behavior change. In P. O. Davidson & S. M. Davidson (Eds.), Behavioral medicine: Changing health

lifestyles (pp. 410-452). New York: Brunner.

Maruna, S. (2001). Making good: How ex-convicts reform and rebuild their lives. Washington, DC:

American Psychological Association.

Moffitt, T. E. (2003). Life-course persistent and adolescence-limited antisocial behaviour: A 10-year

research review and research agenda. In B. B. Lahey, T. E. Moffitt, & A. Caspi (Eds.), Causes of con-duct disorder and juvenile delinquency (pp. 49-75). New York: Guilford.

Moffitt, T., & Caspi, A., Harrington, H., & Milne, B. J. (2002). Males on the life-course-persistent and

adolescence-limited antisocial pathways: Follow-up at age 26 years. Development & Psychopathology,

14, 179-207.

Monahan, J., Steadman, H. J., Appelbaum, P. S., Robbins, P. C., Mulvey, E. P., et al. (2000). Developing a

clinically useful actuarial tool for assessing violence risk. British Journal of Psychiatry, 176, 312-319.

Ogloff, J. R. P., & Davis, M. R. (2004). Advances in offender assessment and rehabilitation: Contributions

of the risk-needs-responsivity approach. Psychology, Crime & Law, 10, 229-242.

Polaschek D. L. L., & Collie, R. M. (2004). Rehabilitating serious violent adult offenders: An empirical

and theoretical stock-take. Psychology, Crime & Law, 10, 321-334.

Prochaska, J. O., & DiClemente, C. C. (1982). Transtheoretical therapy: Toward a more integrative modelof change. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, & Practice, 19, 276-288.

Purvis, M. (2005). Good Lives plans and sexual offending: A preliminary study. Unpublished doctoral dis-

sertation, University of Melbourne, Australia.




22/22


Rayner, P., & Vanstone, M. (1996). Reasoning and rehabilitation in Britain: The results of the Straight

Thinking on Probation (STOP) programme. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative

Criminology, 40, 272-284.

Serin, R. C. (1995) Persistently violent (non-sexual) offenders: A program proposal. Correctional Service of

Canada research report, R-42. Retrieved 14 June 2004 from, http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/rsrch/reports/

reports_e.shtml

Serin, R. C., & Preston, D. L. (2001). Managing and treating violent offenders. In J. B. Ashford, B. D.

Sales & W. H. Reid (Eds.), Treating adult and juvenile offenders with special needs (pp. 249-272).

Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Sherman, L. W., & Berk, R. A. (1984). The specific deterrent effects of arrest for domestic assault.

American Sociological Review, 49, 261-272.

Ward, T. (2002). Good lives and the rehabilitation of sexual offenders: Promises and problems.

Aggression and Violent Behavior, 7, 513-528.

Ward, T., & Brown, M. (2004). The good lives model and conceptual issues in offender rehabilitation.

Psychology, Crime & Law, 10, 243-257.

Ward, T., & Gannon, T. A. (2006). Rehabilitation, etiology, and self-regulation: The comprehensive good

lives model of treatment for sexual offenders. Aggression & Violent Behavior, 11, 77-94.

Ward, T., & Marshall, W. L. (2004). Good lives, etiology and the rehabilitation of sex offenders: A bridg-

ing theory. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 10, 153-169.

Ward, T., & Stewart, C. A. (2003). The treatment of sex offenders: Risk management and good lives.

Professional Psychology Research & Practice, 34, 353-360.

Wilson, N. J. (2003). The utility of the Psychopathy Checklist-Screening version for predicting serious

violent recidivism in a New Zealand Offender Sample. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University

of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand.

glm model_ reabilitare_ infractorii violenti.pdf

Documents