Fenotipos cognitivo-conductuales de los subtipos de MPS III

The Good Lives Model (GLM) is a strengths-based rehabilitation theory that argues the risk, need, and responsivity principles of effective correctional intervention through its focus on assisting clients to develop and implement meaningful life plans that are incompatible with future offending (Ward & Brown, 2004). Preliminary research suggests that the GLM can enhance client engagement in treatment and reduce dropouts from programmes (Simons, McCullar, & Tyler, 2006) a factor well- known to be associated with higher recidivism rates (Hanson, Gordan, Harris, Marques, Olver, Stockdale, & Wormith, 2011). A central assumption of the GLM is that offending results from problems in the way an individual seeks to attain primary human goods, which reflect certain states of mind, outcomes, and experiences that are important for all humans to have in their lives. Primary human goods can include happiness, relationships/friendships, and experiencing mastery in work and leisure activities (Yates & Prescott, 2011). Identifying the primary human goods that are most important to offenders and those that are involved in the offence process are is part of an important part of assessment. Treatment aims to assist clients to attain

34

these primary human goods in personally meaningful, rewarding, and non-harmful ways in addition to addressing re-offence risk. The GLM believes that they directly target treatment as a crucial step towards assisting clients to attain primary goods in their lives. In this way, offenders become invested in the treatment process because treatment directly aims to assist them to live a fulfilling life in addition to reducing and managing risk (Ward & Brown, 2004). To better understand the GML, an example is provided; an offender might have an extensive history of theft, an instrumental/secondary human goods need to be identified in order to know why the offence was committed. The offence could indicate different attempts to achieve the common life goals of life, which could be stealing money to pay rent, enjoying the risk-taking element of stealing (happiness), being financially independent (personal choice and independence), belonging to a gang (community), or any combination of these. Without exploring what the offender gains from theft, the clinician could incorrectly conclude that the offender is simply anti-social, resulting in an incomplete treatment approach to this behaviour (Ward & Brown, 2004).

The GLM believes that it is important to include a section in therapy addressing relationships that focus on how to seek out and establish satisfying relationships rather than to focus on overcoming intimacy deficits and avoiding problematic relationships. Furthermore, GLM believes that the basic idea of the RNR model is to reduce recidivism rates by identifying and reducing or eliminating an individual's range of dynamic risk factors (Ward & Brown, 2004). These factors constitute clinical needs or problems that should be explicitly targeted. Consequently, treatment programmes for offenders should typically be problem-focused and aiming to eradicate or reduce the various psychological and behavioural difficulties associated with offending behaviour (Yates & Prescott, 2011). These problems include intimacy

35

deficits, deviant preferences, cognitive distortions, empathy deficits, drug and alcohol abuse, and difficulties managing negative emotional states. The GLM is said to be offender-oriented and more tailored. Even though the followers of GLM state that this theory is more solution-oriented and motivational, they admit that the RNR model has shown a significant effect on lowering the rate of recidivism (Hollin, 1999; Ward & Brown, 2004; Yates & Prescott, 2011). The GLM believes that even though the RNR is a strong model, there are also some areas of weakness. The majority of these concerns revolve around the issue of offender responsivity and point to the difficulty of motivating offenders using the RNR approach. GLM argues that as a theory of rehabilitation, the RNR model lacks the conceptual resources to adequately guide therapists and to engage offenders (Ward & Stewart, 2003). According to the GLM, the risk need model does not thoroughly address the issue of offender motivation and tends to lead to negative or avoidant treatment goals (Ward & Brown, 2004).

The GLM’s criticism goes on to state that the focus of the RNR is on the reduction of maladaptive behaviours, the elimination of distorted beliefs, the removal of problematic desires, and the modification of offence supportive emotions and attitudes. Therefore, the goals are basically negative in nature and concerned with eradicating factors rather than promoting pro-social and personally more satisfying goals. This perspective often results in a ‘‘one size fits all'' approach to treatment and does not really deal with the critical role of contextual factors in the process of rehabilitation (Ward & Brown, 2004). They also claim that the RNR does not thoroughly consider the relationship between risk factors and human needs or goods. This is important because, in order to motivate offenders to pursue more

36

socially acceptable goals, it is necessary that they view the alternative ways of living as personally meaningful and valuable.

However, the RNR does not address the issue of treatment readiness and the causal preconditions for engagement in therapy. The concept of readiness is broadly defined as the presence of characteristics (states or dispositions) within either the client or the therapeutic situation, which are likely to promote engagement in therapy and which, thereby, are likely to enhance therapeutic change (Willis & Yates, 2012). Hence, the RNR model does not explicitly focus on the importance of establishing a strong therapeutic relationship with the offender and it is silent on the question of therapist factors and attitudes to offenders.

The criticism that GLM makes can be easily answered or cleared by the 15 principles of the RNR model. The GLM states that the RNR is a one-type-fit-all approach, principles 1, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 all involve assessing the offender to identify his/her criminogenic needs which to a certain extent are unique (Andrews, Bonta, & Wormith, 2011). The RNR principles look at the interventions that are needed which involves more treatment for high-risk offenders. The level of the offender’s cognitive ability as well as cultural differences, including language, has to be taken into account during treatment. Other professionals are involved in the treatment of offenders depending on their needs (justice, health, and social services). It is recommended that personality, cognitive style be matched with treatment and therapist. Motivational interviewing is also applied in the RNR model and is part of therapy (Andrews et al., 2011). The GLM goes on to state that the RNR model has a lack of resources to guide the therapist in the actual therapeutic process. The RNR model is based on psychological theory and uses the cognitive social behavioural theory. This theory is a well-grounded psychological theory that was brought into

37

popularity by Bandura (1977) and is an approach also used in learning. It has also been shown to have consistent positive results among substance abuse rehabilitation programmes (Dutra, Stathopoulou, Basden, Leyro, Powers, & Otto, 2008). CSB theory has a clear guideline on how a therapist should use it. The RNR model has also tailored it for the offender. Research has shown that rehabilitation programmes using the RNR model have lower rates of recidivism in comparison to programmes not implementing the RNR model (Lowenkamp et al., 2006; Pearson et al., 2002; Robinson et al., 2011).

The RNR model does not only focus on the therapist but also on all the other staff members that come into contact with the offender. Therefore, it is important that they too model and reward pro-social behaviour and reprimand antisocial behaviour or pro-criminal attitudes (Milkman & Wanberg, 2007). The RNR model places an emphasis on empathy and believes that the relationship between therapist and offender is very important. To date, the RNR model has been shown to be a valid and reliable method for reducing recidivism (Andrews et al., 2011). Even the GLM model admits that there is substantial evidence that the RNR has an impact on recidivism (Ward & Brown, 2004). Research has been done on the GLM model mainly with sex offenders, which is a high-risk group. Some studies show that it does work, while others find the contrary. The model is still in the process of refining its theory and terminology, and has changed throughout the years. Currently, it is being promoted as an additional model or co-model to be implemented with the RNR. But the basic idea behind the two theories is basically different. A recent finding favourable to the RNR approach, based on longitudinal studies revealed that desistance from crime enhanced success in other areas of an ex-offender's life. In contrast to the GLM model, the RNR model postulates that decreases in

38

criminogenic needs lead to the enhancement of personal well-being while enhancing personal good does not lead to decreases in criminogenic needs (Andrews et al., 2011).