Transcript GMAP`s Adaptation of the Good Lives Model

G-map’s Adaptation of the Good
Lives Model for Use With Young
People who Display Harmful Sexual
Behaviour
Laura Wylie
NOTA SCOTLAND
Stirling, 2014
The G-map Programme
• Based in Manchester
• Have worked with 1000+ young people since 1988
• Provide assessment, individual therapeutic
programmes of work, group work, family work,
consultancy and training
• Currently working with young people aged 7-21 yrs
• Spectrum approach
G-map’s Journey
• NOTA
• Authors of AIM
• 2013 : The Good Lives Model for Adolescents Who
Sexually Harm (Edited by Bobbie Print), Safer Society
Press
What is a
Good Life?
The Good Lives Model
www. goodlivesmodel.com
The Good Lives Model
• The GLM is linked to the notions of human dignity
and rights, and takes a positive psychological
approach to intervention with harmful sexual
behaviour
• ‘Primary Goods’ –aspects of life sought for their
intrinsic value
• Secondary Goods (means) - provide concrete
ways of securing primary goods e.g. a job, a
friendship, playing sport
For a comprehensive overview of the GLM see Ward &
Brown (2004), Ward & Gannon (2006), Ward, Mann &
Gannon (2007), Ward & Marshall (2004), Ward &
Stewart (2003).
Ward’s 11 Primary Goods
• Life (healthy living and functioning)
• Knowledge (how well informed one feels about things of personal
importance)
• Excellence in play (hobbies and recreational pursuits)
• Excellence in work (including mastery experiences)
• Excellence in agency (autonomy, power and self-directedness)
• Inner peace (freedom from emotional turmoil and stress)
• Relatedness (including intimate, romantic and familial relationships)
• Community (connection to wider social groups)
• Spirituality (finding meaning and purpose in life)
• Pleasure (feeling good in the here and now)
• Creativity (expressing oneself through alternative forms)
The Development of the GLM-A
G-map has undertaken an informed and structured
adaptation of the GLM to enhance its accessibility
and resonance with young people - Focus group,
service user feedback, piloting, continued
refinement
G-map’s Eight Primary Needs
 Emotional Health (self esteem, emotional safety, managing feelings)
 Physical Health (sleep, diet, hygiene, physical safety)
 Sexual Health (sexual knowledge, sexuality, sexual development)
 Having Fun (thrill /excitement, play)
 Achieving (status, knowledge, competence)
 Being my own person (independence, autonomy, self management,
control of others / situations)
 Having a Purpose & Making a Difference (spirituality, fulfilment,
hope, and generosity)
 Having People in My Life (attachment, intimate, romantic, family,
social and community relationships)
Language Used in the GLM
Language Used in GLM-A
Primary goods
My needs
Secondary goods
How I meet my needs
Overarching need
My most important need
Internal conditions (internal capacity)
The strengths and skills I have to help
me meet my needs
How others can help me meet my
needs
The things about me that get in the
way of meeting my needs
The things around me that get in the
way of meeting my needs
Which of my needs fight against each
other?
Which needs do I neglect?
External conditions (external capacity)
Internal obstacles
External obstacles
Conflict
Scope
Integrating the GLM
From referral …
…to transition
… and beyond
Does ‘doing’ Good Lives
mean not ‘doing’ RNR
(Risk, Need, Responsivity
principles, Andrews,
Bonta & Hoge, 1990)?
Does doing Good Lives
mean overlooking
risk???!!!
“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)
The GLM provides a strong
theoretical rationale and can
accommodate the major
RNR principles
The GLM conceptualises
empirically identified
needs as internal and external
obstacles – these constitute
dynamic risk factors which
become the target of GL intervention
Safer Society Press (2009) – 1379 programmes surveyed in USA &
Canada showed little evidence that focusing on criminogenic needs
alone results in reduced re-offending
Dual focus on risks and strengths
• Growing consensus: Rich (2011) “treatment and
rehabilitation built on correcting deficits is not likely to
be as successful or affirming as treatment built on
highlighting and reinforcing strengths”.
• HSB - Griffin et al (2008) made observation that some of
the young peoples strengths functioned as protective
factors - they mitigated the effects of risk (e.g.
availability and use of emotional confidante could
reduce the young person’s propensity to self-soothe via
maladaptive strategies such as HSB).
Motivational
Qualitative study, G-map practitioners and service
users (2012).
One young person said; “I’ve done things in the past
that I couldn’t talk about . . . because it hurt too
much . . . when I saw how my behavior fitted with the
Good Lives Model I felt relieved that it was
understandable . . . and it was easier to talk about it
to others who understood.”
Another young person said that his mother’s
involvement in the Good Lives Support Network
helped improve their relationship to the extent that
she supported and encouraged him whereas before
she had “hated, cried, and shouted at me.”
2012 - Harkins, Flak, Beech & Woodhams compared the GLM
approach with HSB with standard relapse prevention (RP) approach
(based on RNR principles).
Comparisons examined :• Attrition rates
• Change in targeted areas & achievement of a post-intervention
profile
• Views of therapists and participants.
Attrition rates and achieved change similar across the 2
programmes, i.e. equally effective, BUT practitioners and
participants reported the experience of the GLM approach in a
much more positive, future-focused manner in comparison to RP.
Leigh Harkins continues to develop this multi-national research
project.
What will the implications for longer-term recidivism be??
Just a thought….
Does the focus on strengths which permeates the GLM
help front-line workers to develop and maintain those
therapeutic qualities associated with enhancing
treatment effectiveness…warmth, reward,
encouragement, empathy? (E.g. W. L. Marshall; G. A.
Serran; Y. M. Fernandez; R. Mulloy; R. E. Mann; D.
Thornton, 2003).
The GLM/GLM-A facilitate the engagement of the young person’s
family and other key systems in the process of change
A systemic approach with adolescents has been linked
with reducing recidivism & longer-term desistance
(e.g. Borduin et al, 2009)
The inclusion of the young person’s family as
members of the Good Lives support network
confirms to parents that they are viewed as
important contributors to intervention planning
and ensures that they understand the young
person's needs
• Individualism and personal identity are preserved,
including young person’s cultural, learning and social
needs
• Applicability to broad range of populations. G-map
use with LD, females, diverse risk profiles
A Framework - not a stand alone model
A Good Lives assessment represents one element of assessment
and problem formulation, we also need to draw on existing
Pathways Models, use psychometric measures and use established
and effective risk assessment tools
The GLM informs intervention planning, but does not tell us where
to begin, where to end, or what to do in the middle! We need to
make clinically relevant decisions which consider:-
• Effective intervention modalities
• Responsivity issues
• Sequencing which is considerate
of neurobiological impact factors
• Resilience/Protective factors
Case Study – Ben, aged 14
Ben’s offence was against an adult female who had mental
health difficulties and took place when he was 13 years
old. On the day of the offence the victim was outside her
home in a state of confusion and asked Ben to check inside
her home to make sure there were no intruders. When
the victim thanked Ben for his help he approached her and
began to suck her breast, telling her he loved her, and
asking if he could stay. Ben received a 4 year custodial
sentence. After a successful appeal he received a three
year supervision order and was placed out of area in a
specialist residential facility.
A Good Lives Assessment
• Requires gathering information specific to the time of
the HSB. G-map have developed a semi-structured
interview for this purpose. Kingston, and Ward (2009)
also recommend semi-structured interview.
• Encompasses the prioritization of needs, the means by
which the young people met their needs, the
appropriateness of them, associated internal and
external obstacles and resources, conflict, and lack of
scope
• Alternative ways of collecting the information:photographs/images, drawings, storyboarding, time
lines, raps
Working towards my New Life
Cared for Masked my feelings
siblings
My HSB
A job
Friends
Lonely
Music
rejection
Girl friend
Good Lives Plan
What do we know about my old life that might be relevant to my harmful sexual behaviour?
About me
Around me
What needs did my harmful sexual behaviour meet?
Which of my needs seems most important? (Overarching need)
How do I currently meet the needs that connect to my sexually harmful behaviours? (means)
Appropriate
Inappropriate
Which of my needs do I neglect now, if any? (scope)
Which of my needs fight against each other now, if any?
(conflict)
How else can I meet my needs?
In the short term?
In the longer term?
What do I need to change about me to help stop
me harming others sexually? (internal obstacles)
What do we want to change around me to help stop me
harming others sexually? (external obstacles)
What strengths do I have to help myself?
(internal resources)
What things/people are around to help me?
(external resources)
26
Attending to flaws in Ben’s GLP
Conflict – Ben had learned to be strongly
independent and self-reliant, and this got in the
way of him investing trust in others as a
forerunner to forming close relationships,
resulting in emotional loneliness.
Ben’s GLP for the next 12 weeks
What do I need to keep myself and others safe
(Informed by risk assessment, individualised risk management
plan, and underpinned by multi-agency decision-making)
What I and others need to do before my next planning meeting
(achievable and measurable steps)
• Me
• G-map workers
• Care staff
• Education staff
• Social Worker
• Family
Good Lives Needs Linked
to Ben’s Harmful Sexual
Behavior
Outcomes from
Psychometric Assessment
Outcomes from Risk
Assessment (AIM2)
• Emotional health
• Having people in my life
(belonging)
• Age appropriate sexual
knowledge
• Internal locus of control
• Below average level of
self-esteem
• High degree of
emotional loneliness
• Problems in general
family functioning
• Low Concern/Medium
strength
• Low - Medium level of
supervision required
• Additional risk of other
pro-criminal behaviours
Therapeutic Intervention
Ben’s GL needs: Emotional Heath, Belonging
Focus in therapy included:- developing emotional safety
(e.g. safe place) and emotional regulation skills (e.g.
guided relaxation, biofeedback techniques, mindfulness);
compassionate mind training; Life history and trauma;
understanding and managing HSB; attachment and
interpersonal relationships.
The Good Lives Support Network
• Care staff – Supporting Ben in accessing activities which would
help him meet his GL needs, in particular belonging and
emotional health needs (e.g. rugby team). Key worker,
offering consistency and support. Ben also participated in an
on-site relaxation group, learning and practicing relaxation
techniques with peers
• SW/YOT – regular visits to maintain relationships, worked with
G-map to undertake victim awareness work
• Education – Creative projects which promoted self-esteem
and encouraged collaboration with others, meeting other GL
needs e.g. achievement, fun
• Family – Re-established contact with siblings; Mother
supported to visit Ben (this remained an area of difficulty)
Transition Planning for Ben
 Timely inclusion of a young person’s longer-term support network so
that they have sufficient opportunity to understand the individual's
needs. Specialist Foster Carers identified, matched to Ben, trained and
supervised by G-map.
 Graduated ending of therapeutic involvement - continued supervision of
foster carers for time limited period.
 Ensuring relevant and developmentally appropriate community
resources available to the young person & that goals are realistically
linked to environment in which the young person will eventually live –
Sports team, mainstream school, part-time job, mending bikes, family
life, USING AN EMOTIONAL CONFIDANTE!
Update on Ben – now aged 20
• Living independently but in proximity to foster family,
regular contact (rumoured to bring his washing round!)
• Part of local community – ‘home’
• Positive and secure attachment demonstrated with foster
family – emotional investment and trust
• Attended college – good results – apprenticeship in car
mechanics at local garage – wants to have his own garage
• Established circle of friends and better social life than me
• Reports feeling safe, happy and loved
• No further concerns in relation to HSB
• In stable and intimate relationship with peer-age female, 3
years duration (after initial dilemma of not knowing if he
wanted to date her or her twin sister….)
The GLM/GLM-A - Empirical Support
• As a framework of offender rehabilitation the GLM is growing in
influence and usage (McGrath et al 2010) and when compared with RP
approaches the GLM has a ‘stronger theoretical basis supporting its
integration in sex offender treatment programmes’ (Willis et al 2012).
However, as a relatively new theory, the GLM does not have the same
empirical evidence base as models such as the RNR model .
• Since the GLM-A has undergone a process of development and revision
over the past few years it has only recently been possible to begin to
evaluate it.
Preliminary Findings:• The GLM-A may increase the likelihood of desistance and thus reduce
re-offending through improving young people’s internal locus of control
and enhancing their overall personal resiliency, including their sense of
relatedness and mastery (Griffin, 2013).
• Using a sample of 20 young people aged 14 to 18 years, the AIM2
assessment (Print, Griffin, Beech, Quayle, Bradshaw, Henniker, and
Morrison 2007) was used to assess dynamic risk both prior to and
following interventions underpinned by the GLM-A framework. When
compared with pre-intervention scores, a significant reduction to
dynamic risk was found following intervention, indicating that
undertaking a program of therapeutic work that utilized the GLM-A
may reduce overall risk of future harmful sexual behavior (Griffin,
2013).
The GLAT
(Good Lives Assessment Tool)
GLAT - developed, piloted, and refined by G-map for evaluation of the GLM-A.
Comprises:
• (1) assessment tool to be completed by practitioners;
• (2) questionnaire to be completed by young people;
• (3) questionnaire to be completed by parents/carers.
Designed for age 12 to 18, although can be adapted for other populations.
• The GLAT is completed in relation to each of the identified primary needs
and is completed offence-stage, pre-intervention, 6 monthly, end of
intervention, and post-intervention.
• GLAT revised in 2012, so not yet been possible to achieve a sample size
large enough to permit reliable inferences about intervention change or
test properties. A small-scale inter-rater reliability study – 7 practitioners
trained to complete the GLAT and 9 active cases. Outcome suggests the
tools appear to be capturing intervention change.
• Sparking interest internationally, plans for online version, need
contributors in order to expand sample size and build evidence base.
YOU CAN HELP!
Early Indications
Needs emerging as associated with the young person’s
harmful sexual behavior are: having people in my life
(93%); emotional health (93%); and sexual health (66%).
The needs that appear to be prioritized by young people
and those that are related to harmful behaviors can be
grounded within the wider literature and research, e.g.
attachment, trauma and sexual health research.
G-map Services
1 Roebuck Lane
Sale
Cheshire
M33 7SY
Tel : 01619764414
Email; [email protected]
Key Publications
•
•
•
•
•
•
Print, B. (2013). The good lives model for adolescents who sexually harm.
Brandon, VT: Safer Society Press.
Wylie, L. A., and H. L. Griffin. (2013). G-map’s application of the Good
Lives model to adolescent males who sexually harm: A case study.
Journal of Sexual Aggression, 19, 345-356.
Ward, T & Maruna, S. (2007) Rehabilitation: Beyond the risk paradigm,
Routledge.
Ward, T. & Gannon, T.A. (2005). Rehabilitation, etiology, and selfregulation: The comprehensive good lives model of treatment for sexual
offenders. Aggression and Violent Behaviour.
Ward, T. & Mann, R. (2004). Good lives and the rehabilitation of
offenders: A positive approach to sex offender treatment. In A. Linley &
S. Joseph (Eds.). Positive psychology in practice. Wiley.
Ward, T. & Stewart, C. A. (2003). The treatment of sex offenders: Risk
management and good lives. Professional Psychology: Research and
Bobbie Print - The Good Lives Model Practice, 34, 353-360.
University of Birmingham 2011
41