International Journal of Offender

Therapy and Comparative

Criminology
http://ijo.sagepub.com

Time for a Change: Applying the Good Lives Model of Rehabilitation to a

High-Risk Violent Offender
Paul R. Whitehead, Tony Ward and Rachael M. Collie
Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol 2007; 51; 578 originally published online Jun 28,
2007;
DOI: 10.1177/0306624X06296236
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://ijo.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/51/5/578

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative
Criminology can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://ijo.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://ijo.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations http://ijo.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/51/5/578

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

Time for a Change

Applying the Good Lives Model of
Rehabilitation to a High-Risk
Violent Offender

International Journal of
Offender Therapy and
Comparative Criminology
Volume 51 Number 5
October 2007 578-598
2007 Sage Publications
10.1177/0306624X06296236
http://ijo.sagepub.com
hosted at
http://online.sagepub.com

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, formulation, 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 GLMs clinical
relevance extends from sex offending to broader offending typologies.
Keywords: offenders; readiness; Good Lives Model

iolence is a significant societal problem with enormous repercussions for victims,

society, and offenders themselves. Research tends to show that, although a substantial 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 interventions 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
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 +64-4463-5402; e-mail: Tony.Ward@vuw.ac.nz.

578
Downloaded from http://ijo.sagepub.com by Poledna Sorina on October 19, 2008

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; Lsel, 2001; Polaschek & Collie, 2004). In the only
meta-analysis thus far to focus exclusively on treatment impact on adult violent reconvictions, Dowden and Andrews (2000) found that programmes that targeted criminogenic needs (i.e., the dynamic risk factors linked with the continuance of crime) using
cognitivebehavioural methods produced the greatest effects. They concluded that these
results supported the applicability of the more general Risk-Need-Responsivity (RiskManagement) 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 relation to risk level, using cognitivebehavioural interventions with some modification for
individual 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, juvenile offenders, and generally violent offenders; in addition, violent reconviction was
variously defined and included sexual offences (Raynor & Vanstone, 1996) and familyonly 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 involved
measures of violent recidivism. The programmes were cognitivebehavioural interventions 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 welldesigned 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 rehabilitating adult serious violent offenders. As Lsel (2001) cautions, although the developments 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 traditional Risk-Need-Responsivity (or Risk-Management) approach. The GLM is a comprehensive theory of offender rehabilitation that focuses on promoting individuals
important personal goals, while reducing and managing their risk for future offending.

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

580 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology

Table 1
Good Lives Model of Offender Rehabilitation
Core Metaphor
Personal identity
Agency
Risk conception
Criminogenic needs

Noncriminogenic needs
Etiology
Motivation
Intervention focus

Intervention modality

Dynamic System
Essential part of changeemerges from
overarching goods
Individuals are active agents who seek
meaningful lives
Distortion of internal and external conditions
required to achieve primary goods
Red flags, signal problems in way goods are
sought. Targeting primary goods can also
reduce dynamic risk
Some are essential targets
Problems in ways goods sought: means, scope,
capacities, and conflict
Primary human goods and their associated
secondary goods are inherently motivating
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
Treatment geared to individual circumstances.
Tailoring of manual based approaches
where appropriate

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 preferences and valuesthat is, the things that matter most to them in the world. It draws
upon these primary goods to motivate individuals to live better lives; and (b) therapists
seek to provide offenders with the competencies (internal conditions) and opportunities (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 problematic, 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 individuals typically seek primary human goods and that their attainment is associated

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

Whitehead et al. / Good Lives Model 581

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 their
related 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 individuals
life. What this means is that the individual lacks the ability to obtain important outcomes (i.e., goods) in his life, and in addition he is frequently unable to think about his
life 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 persons 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 equip
the 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 distortions 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 individuals 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 elements of treatment that tend to be underemphasised in the traditional Risk-Management
approach. 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

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

582 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology

alliance. The combined approach also incorporates psychological, social, cultural, environmental, and biological factors in the treatment plan, bridges the gap between etiological and treatment considerations, and understands that offenders are best viewed as
psychological agents seeking meaning, rather than mechanisms that need to be restructured (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 GLMs 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 offences
against 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 offenders and to encourage them to engage in the difficult process of changing entrenched
maladaptive behaviours. These findings provide some very preliminary evidence concerning the empirical adequacy and heuristic value of the GLM.
In this article, we describe using the GLM to guide ongoing treatment with a highrisk, 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 interventions used with the client and the obstacles encountered in making further treatment 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, informed
consent 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.

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

Whitehead et al. / Good Lives Model 583

Mr. C is a 28-year-old New Zealand Maori (i.e., indigenous) man who was a prisoner and subsequent parolee under the mandate of the New Zealand Department of
Corrections. At the time of Mr. Cs initial contact, he was an active patched member
of 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 display aggression when other people challenged his worldview, and he conveyed a lifelong loyalty to his gang that included an apparent preparedness to die for it.
Mr. Cs 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 highmedium or closed security units, which are for inmates who present
moderate-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 classified as a high-risk violent offender and had neither been charged for nor convicted of
any sex offences. Mr. Cs 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 persistent 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

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

584 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology

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 developed 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. Cs capacity for developing 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. Cs 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 enjoyment 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. Cs writing while in prison is included below to highlight the
extent of his problematic attitudes toward violence and toward change. Mr. C wrote this
piece following his completion of an intensive (i.e., 100-hour) cognitivebehavioural
programme designed to target the criminogenic needs of violent offenders:
Anyway Im 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 allegiance, highlighting their extreme antisocial orientation.

Level of Risk
Mr. C was assessed as a high-risk violent offender on the basis of an actuarial measure, psychopathy assessment, and the additional information disclosed by him during

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

Whitehead et al. / Good Lives Model 585

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, OMalley, & 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.
Cs 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 institutional violence (e.g., Hill, Rogers, & Bickford, 1996) and community violence (e.g.,
Monahan et al., 2000); in addition New Zealand research has shown that elevated
scores on the PCL:SV predict serious violent and sexual reoffending, as well as the
speed of reoffending leading to reimprisonment (Wilson, 2003). Mr. Cs 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 cognitivebehavioural, 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 understanding 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 evaluation 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 nonviolent 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

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

586 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology

same participants found a stable 20% reduction in violent recidivism during an 8-anda-half-year period (N. J. Wilson, personal communication, January 16, 2006).
As a requirement of the VPP, Mr. C completed a comprehensive Risk-Management
and 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 implement 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 had
no 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. Cs 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. Cs extensive exposure to group-based cognitivebehavioural
treatment had given him a sound knowledge base and an appreciation of different perspectives 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 disclosures outside the gang. Furthermore, Mr. Cs exposure to indigenous (Maori) practices, 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 cultural
protocols, 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),

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

Whitehead et al. / Good Lives Model 587

with each complementing the other. Examination of the theoretical concepts of the
GLM indicated that it provided three potential benefits in Mr. Cs case. First, the GLM
provided an overall framework for treatment integration by acknowledging Mr. Cs
long-term future well-being at the macrolevel but embracing the Risk-Needs framework
at the microlevel. Second, the GLM could potentially facilitate Mr. Cs treatment readiness 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 concerns regarding key theoretical and epistemological differences and its relative newness (Ogloff & Davis, 2004), were noted by the treating clinician, in this case the
standard Risk-Management, cognitivebehavioural 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, reconceptualised the GLM from within the dominant Risk-Management approach, highlighting that the GLM may address offender treatment responsiveness (i.e.,
responsivity principle) by being an important mediating factor in eliciting the changes
needed from a Risk-Management approach.

Stages of GLM Treatment

Proponents of the GLM suggest that it is used as a framework to structure the delivery of standard CognitiveBehavioural 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 dominant human goods, and to increase treatment readiness. The first step in achieving
these aims is to assess the clients 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. The
next step from a GLM perspective is to assess a clients 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

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

588 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology

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. Cs 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 that
the 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 values associated with education, equality and respect, intimacy, collegial support through
prosocial endeavors, and self-fulfillment. He began to forge a new identity based on
these 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 improbable 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 himself, the rigid cognitive distortions that once preventing change began to falter. In this
regard, although Mr. Cs identified approach goals were not, in themselves, directly
criminogenic, the means that he was going to use to implement them was going to have
criminogenic 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 interventions). Mr. Cs approach goals included attending university to further his interest in
Maori studies, concepts, and spirituality, obtaining a drivers 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 and
control, 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

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

Whitehead et al. / Good Lives Model 589

primary goods) are currently attaining (or not attaining) the primary good. The eventual aim is to begin establishing a new personal identity (see Maruna, 2001). An old
menew me goal-setting exercise may help in this phase, whereby the client identifies goals that are important and assesses whether these goals have been achieved
through inappropriate means (and/or not at all). This facilitates the clients 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. Cs 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 from
a 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 offenders 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 capabilities 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 direction (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 criminogenic 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 clients 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 frustrating 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.

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

590 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology

When examining the criminogenic factors frustrating access to human goods, a plan
may be formulated that revolves around drug reduction, relationship skills, and antisocial thinking to achieve the clients desired outcomes. The important part of this phase
is 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 drivers 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 staying in the gang versus leaving the gang while studying, he concluded (with some discomfort) 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 preclude his acceptance into higher education. His increased awareness of the negative consequences 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 persons 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 his
exit 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. Cs 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 continued to address these risk-management issues with Mr. C, including taking the necessary steps to inform the relevant agencies to protect public safety.

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

Whitehead et al. / Good Lives Model 591

Phase 3
In Phase 3 the aim is to explicitly develop a Good Lives case formulation. Having
identified aspects of the clients 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 conceptualised as follows:
Mr. Cs criminogenic needs can be understood within a Good Lives framework; in particular, the Good Lives concepts of direct pathways, primary human goods, and secondary goods are relevant. In this respect there is a direct pathway between Mr. Cs
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 meansthat 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 living), (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 the
skills, 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

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

592 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology

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. Cs 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 contemplating 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 perpetrator 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 therapist of their plans to commit violence, irrespective of the consequences. By adhering
to his safety plan and seeking advice from a support person who advocates for nonviolent 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. Cs
knowledge, a process that ultimately enabled Mr. C to interact with authorities constructively 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 important. To assist, a Maori counsellor was employed to provide culturally matched mentoring 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 drivers 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 counsellor met with the Dean of the Faculty, and completed his university application
forms. An excerpt of his written submission (completed without assistance) outlining his reasons for enrolling is included below as it vividly illustrates changes in
Mr Cs outlook:

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

Whitehead et al. / Good Lives Model 593

To change my life I need to change the way I think and live. The opportunities that [education] 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. Id like to utilize my education into helping
troubled teens that are falling into a lifestyle Ive 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. Im 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 learners drivers licence
and had become involved in a monogamous intimate relationship. Mr. C received positive 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. Cs treatment there was considerable reduction in his drug usage as a
function of external requirements (i.e., the requirements of his study and his obligation 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 anger
toward himself for his lack of control. The second relapse occurred in response to
his partner being insulted and offended. Mr. Cs 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, I
have given the gang 10 years of my life, his intention to reestablishing university
links, and his happiness in his relationship). Mr. Cs adherence to his safety plan

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

594 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology

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 change
many 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 sexual 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 establishing 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 aspirations, 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 therapeutic journey, such a negative outcome was a certainty, whereas now more positive outcomes 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 with
court 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 examplein 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 complementary 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

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

Whitehead et al. / Good Lives Model 595

treatment is based on a coherent understanding of the offenders 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 longterm 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 GLM
approach 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 significant 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 selfreported assault. Hemphill and Hart (2002) recently analysed the treatment-related
motivational deficits associated with psychopathy and provided recommendations for
working 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 interventions 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 highlights 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 recognizing 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,

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

596 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology

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 the
data. In this case, it is possible that the offenders 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. Cs 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 utilized in the case of Mr. C and that therefore the GLM was not solely responsible for the
subsequent 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 catalyst 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 attempted
to 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 support 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 designing future treatment programmes. Ideally, comparison of effect sizes between the
Risk-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., OMalley, 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.

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

Whitehead et al. / Good Lives Model 597

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 Stewarts model of human needs.
Psychology, Crime & Law, 9, 215-218.
Dowden, C., & Andrews, D. A. (2000). Effective correctional treatment and violent re-offending: A metaanalysis. 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 pathways 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 successful interventions (pp.13-29). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Loeber, R., & Hay, D. (1997). Key issues in the development of aggression and violence from childhood
to early adulthood. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 371-410.
Lsel, 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 rehabilitation 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 conduct 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 model
of change. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, & Practice, 19, 276-288.
Purvis, M. (2005). Good Lives plans and sexual offending: A preliminary study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Melbourne, Australia.

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

598 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology

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 bridging 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.

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