Previous literature has highlighted a number of concerns about forensic care and rehabilitation by those who use the services. The Good Lives Model (GLM) is a strength-based, humanistic approach to offender rehabilitation that has been largely overlooked by forensic mental health practitioners. This study explored the impact of a brief GLM program on forensic service users’ perceptions of rehabilitation, both within and beyond therapeutic programs, using a thematically linked, multiple-case study research design. Pre–post comparisons of participants’ perceptions of rehabilitation suggested three different outcomes: definite change, subtle change, and no change. Possible factors associated with participants’ divergent experiences included level of exposure to the GLM, readiness to change, and practitioners’ adherence to the GLM and experience with the model. The importance of attending to the wider system for successful implementation of this innovative approach is highlighted.
BarnaoM. (2013). The Good Lives Model tool kit for mentally disordered offenders. Journal of Forensic Practice, 15, 157-170.
2.
BarnaoM.RobertsonP.WardT. (2010). Good Lives Model applied to a forensic population. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 17, 202-217.
3.
BarnaoM.WardT.CaseyS. (2015). Looking beyond the illness: Forensic service users perceptions of rehabilitation. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30, 1025-1045.DOI:10.1177/0886260514539764
4.
BergerP.LuckmanT. (1966). The social construction of reality. New York, NY: Anchor.
5.
CarrS.HaversS. (2012). Harnessing hearts and minds for change. In DrennanG.AlredD. (Eds.), Secure recovery: Approaches to recovery in forensic mental health settings (issues in forensic psychology) (pp. 115-129). Oxon, UK: Willan.
6.
ChuC. M.KohL. L.ZengG.TeohJ. (2013). Youth who sexually offended: Primary human goods and offense pathways. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 24, 153-174. doi:10.1177/1079063211404250
7.
DaviesJ.HowellsK.JonesL. (2007). Evaluating innovative treatments in forensic mental health: A role for single case methodology?The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 18, 353-367.
8.
FordK.SweeneyJ.FarringtonA. (1999). User views of a regional secure unit—Findings from a patient satisfaction survey. International Journal of Psychiatric Nursing Research, 5, 526-541.
9.
GannonT. A.KingT.MilesH.LockerbieL.WillisG. M. (2011). Good lives sexual offender treatment for mentally disordered offenders. The British Journal of Forensic Practice, 13, 153-166.
HamiltonR. J.McGregorK. A. (1996). User views of a forensic service. Psychiatric Care, 3, 98-104.
12.
HartS.SturmeyP.LoganC.McMurranM. (2011). Forensic case formulation. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 10, 118-126.
13.
HinsbyK.BakerM. (2004). Patient and nurse accounts of violent incidents in a medium secure unit. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 11, 341-347.
14.
LavertyS. (2003). Hermeneutic phenomenology and phenomenology: A comparison of historical and methodological considerations. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2(3), Article 3. Retrieved from http://www.ualberta.ca/~iiqm/backissues/23final/pdf/Laverty.pdf
15.
LawsD. R.WardT. (2011). Desistance from sex offending: Alternatives to throwing away the keys. New York, NY: Guildford Press.
16.
LindsayW. R.WardT.MorganT.WilsonI. (2007). Self-regulation of sex offending, future pathways and the Good Lives Model: Applications and problems. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 13, 37-50.
17.
LivingstonJ. D.Nijdam-JonesA.BrinkJ. (2012). A tale of two cultures: Examining patient-centered care in a forensic mental health hospital. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 23, 345-360.
18.
ManciniA. D. (2008). Self-determination theory: A framework for the recovery paradigm. Advances in Psychiatric Treatment, 14, 358-365.
19.
MannR. E.WebsterS. D.ScholfieldC.MarshallW. I. (2004). Approach versus avoidance goals in relapse prevention with sexual offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 16, 65-75.
20.
RobertsonP.BarnaoM.WardT. (2011). Rehabilitation frameworks in forensic mental health. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16, 472-484.
21.
SimonsD. A.McCullarB.TylerC. (2006, September). Evaluation of the Good Lives Model approach to treatment planning. Paper presented at the 25th Annual Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers Research and Treatment Conference, Chicago, IL.
22.
StakeR. E. (1994). Case studies. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 236-247). London, England: SAGE.
23.
WardT.MarunaS. (2007). Rehabilitation: Beyond the risk paradigm. London, England: Routledge.
24.
WardT.StewartC. A. (2003). The treatment of sex offenders: Risk management and good lives. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 34, 353-360.
25.
WareJ.BrightD. A. (2008). Evolution of a treatment program for sex offenders: Changes to the NSW Custody-based Intensive Treatment (CUBIT). Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 15, 340-349.
26.
WhiteheadP. R.WardT.CollieR. M. (2007). 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, 51, 578-598.
27.
WilligC. (2008). Introducing qualitative research in psychology. Berkshire, UK: Open University Press.
28.
YinR. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. London, England: SAGE.
