THE GOOD LIVES MODEL (GLM) IN THEORY AND PRACTICEDavid S. Prescott

I. INTRODUCTION
The Good Lives M odel (GLM) is a strengths-based rehabilitation theory that augments the risk,
need, and responsivity principles of effective correctional intervention through its focus on assistingclients to develop and implement meaningful life plans that are incompatible with future offending.
During the decade of its existence,the GLM has seen advances in its underlying theory and application,
as well as its popularity, although empirical support for its application in practice remains in its
infancy. This article briefly reviews the evolution of the application of the GLM, describes new andmore accessible terminology for key GLM constructs, and offers ideas for situating traditional treatment programme components within the GLM framework. This brief article is intended to provide asummary of recent developments from existing texts on the application of the GLM .

II. THE GOOD LIVES M ODELThe Good Lives M odel(GLM;Ward & Gannon,2006;Ward & Stewart,2003)has become increasingly popular in sexual offending treatment programmes (McGrath,Cumming,Burchard,Zeoli,& Ellerby,2010)and is in use in diverse jurisdictions around the world. The GLM is a strengths-based approach
to offender rehabilitation that augments the risk, need, and responsivity principles of effective correctional intervention (RNR;Andrews & Bonta,2010)through its focus on assisting clients to develop
and implement meaningful life plans that are incompatible with offending. Preliminary researchsuggests that the GLM can enhance client engagement in treatment and reduce dropouts from programmes (e.g., Simons, M cCullar, & Tyler, 2006), a factor well-known to be associated with higher
recidivism rates (Hanson, et al., 2002;Olver, Stockdale, & Wormith, 2011). This article reviews theevolution of the application of the GLM since its introduction,describes recently developed accessible
terminology for key constructs, and offers suggestions for applying the GLM in traditional treatment
programmes.
In brief, 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, andexperiences that are important for all humans to have in their lives. Examples include happiness,relationships/friendships, and experiencing mastery in work and leisure activities. Identifying the
primary goods that are most important to clients,and those that are implicated in the offence process,constitutes a fundamental component of assessment because treatment explicitly aims to assist clients
to attain these primary goods in personally meaningful, rewarding, and nonharmful ways in addition
to addressing re-offence risk (Ward, Yates, & Long, 2006;Yates, Prescott, & Ward, 2010; Yates &Ward, 2008). Within the GLM, in addition to representing risk factors for recidivism, criminogenic
needs are conceptualized as obstacles that block or otherwise frustrate pro-social attainment ofprimary human goods. They are therefore directly targeted in treatment as a crucial step towards
assisting clients to attain primary goods in their lives. In this way, clients become invested in thetreatment process because treatment explicitly aims to assist them live a fulfilling life in addition to
reducing and managing risk. As suggested by Ward,Mann,& Gannon (2007)“…offenders want better
lives not simply the promise of less harmful ones”(pp.106). It is beyond the scope of the current article
to describe the GLM theory and its development in detail. Key developments in recent years include
Director, Professional Development Quality Improvement, Becket Family Services.. Authorʼs Note: This paper is
extracted from an article of the same name in press by Gwenda M . Willis, David S. Prescott, and Pamela M. Yates, tobe published in the journal, Sexual Abuse in Australia and New Zealand.

80154TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTSʼPAPERS
its alignment with desistance theory and research (Laws & Ward, 2011) and integration with the
Self-Regulation Model ― Revised (SRM-R;Yates, et al., 2010;Yates & Ward, 2008). Several journal
articles,books,book chapters,and guides for implementation are available that provide comprehensive
descriptions of the GLM theory, including these recent developments (Laws & Ward, 2011;Ward &M aruna, 2007;Ward, Yates, & Willis, 2012;Willis & Yates, in press;Yates, et al., 2010)
Ward and colleagues first proposed the GLM over a decade ago (Ward,2002;Ward & Stewart,2003);
however, its translation into practice has been much more recent (Willis, Yates, Gannon, & Ward, inpress;Yates & Prescott,2011b;Yates,et al.,2010). Not surprisingly,as with anynew model,technique,or approach, its application has not been without problems. In the first years of its existence, there
were few resources for clinicians,such as structured methods for assessing and examining the role ofprimary goods in the life and offence process of each client. As a result, it was common to find that
programmes attempting to implement aspects of the GLM were in fact implementing strategies thatwere not always in keeping with the tenets of the GLM;for example,simply adding a GLM module orcomponent onto the end of a traditional risk-oriented treatment programme (Willis, Ward, et al., inpress). Introducing the GLM at the end of a treatment programme is considered too late because thepotential for enhancing client engagement in each stage of treatment has been lost, and because thisapproach does not allow for examination of the relationships between GLM constructs such as primary
goods and offending and risk factors. M ore recently, an assessment protocol (Yates, et al., 2009),
cliniciansʼguide (Yates, et al., 2010), client workbook (Yates & Prescott, 2011b), and overview for
integrating the GLM into structured treatment programmes (Willis,Yates,et al.,in press)have become
available,in order to better aid clinicians to implement a fully informed GLM approach to treatment.

III. PRIM ARY HUM AN GOODS/COMMON LIFE GOALSThe GLM primary human goods were identified through an extensive review and synthesis of
psychological,social,biological,and anthropological research (Ward & Stewart,2003). Initial descriptions of the GLM proposed 10 primary human goods,while Purvis (2010)has suggested the separationof one of the initially proposed primary goods into two separate primary goods, suggesting thepossibility of 11 primary human goods. In addition, the terminology associated with these goods has
been explicitly revised (Yates & Prescott,2011a)in order to be more accessible to clinicians and clients
than previous terminology, and to reflect common life goals in order to emphasise the importance ofthe goods to all individuals. Table 1 (derived from Ward & Gannon, 2006;Yates & Prescott, 2011a;
Yates & Prescott, 2011b;Yates, et al., 2010)lists primary goods, common life goals, and their definitions. Examples of associated secondary or instrumental goods,which represent the concrete activities
or means through which primary goods are attained, are also provided. Secondary goods can bepro-social or antisocial, and examples of each are provided.

81

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.91
Table 1Primary Goods, Common Life Goals, Definitions, & Possible Secondary/Instrumental Goods1
Primary Good

Common Life Goal

Definition

Life (healthy living
and functioning)

Life: Living andSurviving

Looking after physicalhealth, and/or staying aliveand safe.

Knowledge

Knowledge:
Learning andKnowing

Excellence in Workand Play2

Being Good at
Work and Play

Excellence in Agency Personal Choice(autonomy and self- and Independence
directedness)
Inner Peace (freedom Peace of M indfrom emotional turmoil and stress)
Relatedness (intimate, Relationships andromantic, and family Friendships
relationships)

Possible
Secondary/Instrumental Goods

Pursuing a healthy diet, engaging
in regular exercise,managing specific health problems, earning or
stealing money to pay rent or tomeet basic survival or safety
needs.
Seeking knowledge about Attending school or training
oneself, other people, the courses, self-study (e.g., reading),
environment, or specific mentoring or coaching others,
subjects.
attending a treatment or rehabilitation programme.
Striving for excellence and Being employed or volunteering inmastery in work,hobbies or meaningful work, advancing inleisure activities.
oneʼ
s career; participating in a
sport, playing a musical instrument, arts and crafts.
Seeking independence and Developing and following throughautonomy, making oneʼs with life plans, being assertive,
own way in life.
having control over other people,
abusing or manipulating others.
The experience of emo- Exercise, meditation, use of alcotional equilibrium; freedom hol or other drugs, sex, and any
from emotional turmoil and other activities that help manage
stress.
emotions and reduce stress.
Sharing close and mutual Spending time with family and/or
bonds with other people, in- friends, having an intimate relacluding relationships with tionship with another person.
intimate partners, family,
and friends.
Being part of, or belonging Belonging to a service club,volunto, a group of people who teer group,or sports team;being ashare common interests, member of a gang.
concerns of values.

Community

Community:
Being Part of aGroup

Spirituality (finding
meaning and purposein life)

Spirituality:
Having M eaning
in LifeHaving meaning and pur- Participating in religious activities
pose in life;being a part of a (e.g.,going to church,prayer),parlarger whole.
ticipating in groups that share acommon purpose (e.g., environmental groups).

Happiness

Happiness

The desire to experiencehappiness and pleasure.

Creativity

Creativity

The desire to create some- Painting, photography, and otherthing, do things differently, types of artistic expression; paror try new things.
ticipating in new or novel activities.

Socialising with friends, watchingmovies, sex, thrill-seeking activities, drinking alcohol, taking
drugs.

1Adapted from Yates and Prescott (2011a, 2011b), and Yates et al. (2010).
2The primary good that has been suggested as being separated into two primary goods (i.e., Excellence in Work andExcellence in Play;Purvis, 2010).

82

154TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTSʼPAPERS
Importantly, the common life goals represent changes to the labels of the original primary human
goods, but not to their original definitions, based on the authorsʼexperience and feedback fromclinicians and clients that the use of goal-based language is more accessible to clients and practitioners
and that revision to terminology was required for implementation in practice. What is crucial iscliniciansʼability to convey the meaning to clients in a manner that engages them in treatment, forclients to be able to relate important constructs to their own lives and experiences,and to differentiate
between secondary or instrumental goods and the underlying primary goods or common life goals theyseek to attain via these specific activities. When asking clients about their life goals and valued
activities,clients typically respond at the level of secondary goods,from which the underlying primary
goods or common life goals must be inferred upon exploration (a semi-structured interview protocol isalso available;see Yates,et al.,2009). That is,a secondary good could indicate importance placed on
any number of primary goods,and assessment is required to determine which life goal is being sought.
For example, creating Aboriginal art might reflect numerous underlying primary goods/common life
goals, including creativity, being good at work, being good at play, peace of mind, spirituality,
belonging to a group,and community. Only through exploration of what the Aboriginal art means tothe client can the underlying primary goods or common life goals be identified. Using a different
example,a client might have an extensive historyoftheft,an instrumental/secondarygood which could
indicate attempts to achieve the common life goals of life (e.g.,stealing money to pay rent),happiness(e.g., enjoying the risk-taking element of stealing), personal choice and independence (e.g., being
financially independent),community(e.g.,belonging to a gang),or any combination of these. Without
exploring what the client gains from theft, the clinician could erroneously conclude that the client is
simply antisocial, resulting in an incomplete treatment approach to this behaviour.
The common life goal terminology was designed to provide a concrete and more accessible language to convey primary human goods. It is acknowledged that jurisdictional and cultural differences
might warrant subtle changes to the labels provided. In a recent small-scale study in Australia whichused the common life goal terminology, this terminology was found to be generally well understood;
however,clients indicated that “being good at play”was better understood as “being good at hobbies
and leisure activities;”and “
life:living and surviving”was better understood as “physical well-being
and safety”(Willis & Yates, 2012). Whatever labels are used, it is crucial that each clientʼs valuedcommon life goals and the goals implicated in offending are identified at the point of assessment,that
treatment is designed around these goals and their relationships to offending, and that clients understand these and are able to applythem to their lives and during treatment. Using the GLM ,each clientʼstreatment or intervention plan is centred around these common life goals (see Willis, Yates, et al., inpress),which forms the basis of a future-oriented good life plan (GLP). GLPs contain a detailed set ofplans for achieving valued common life goals in personallymeaningful ways that are incompatible with
future offending.

IV. INTEGRATING COMMON LIFE GOALS WITH
TRADITIONAL TREATM ENT COMPONENTS
Critical to using the GLM and in keeping with the needs principle of effective correctional interventions (Andrews & Bonta,2010)is the assessment of criminogenic needs.The key difference in using the
GLM is how criminogenic needs are understood, included, and addressed within the overarchingframework of a treatment programme and the emphasis on each clientʼs GLP (for details see Willis,
Yates, et al., in press;Yates & Prescott, 2011b;Yates, et al., 2010;Yates & Ward,2008). The aims ofeach treatment component or module are framed using approach goals (goals that the person can work
towards and that are desirable),as opposed to solely avoidant goals (undesirable goals that the persontries to avoid), and are linked to the fulfillment of common life goals. For example, a module
addressing relationships would focus on how to seek out and establish satisfying relationships rather
than a focus on overcoming intimacy deficits and avoiding problematic relationships. M ost modules
common to RNR-based programmes, and all modules targeting the reduction or management ofcriminogenic needs, can be linked to one or more common life goals.
To review,treatment aims to assist clients to attain common life goals in pro-social,non-offending
ways, while simultaneously targeting risk reduction. Addressing criminogenic needs is a crucial stepin working towards these dual aims. For example,consider a client who places high importance on the

83

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.91
common life goals of relationships, peace of mind, and personal choice and independence, yet has
marked emotion regulation problems and intimacy deficits (both dynamic risk factors;see Hanson,
Harris,Scott,& Helmus,2007;Hanson & Morton-Bourgon,2005). Using the GLM ,treatment goals will
centre on developing skills to attain the clientʼs valued common life goals, which will necessarily
include developing effective emotion regulation and intimacy skills to both manage risk and to enable
the client to attain these goals via non-harmful means. By contrast, in a traditional risk-based
program,addressing emotion regulation problems and intimacy deficits would occur in the absence ofany link to a clientʼs priorities and goals in life and would typically be focused on avoiding situations
in which these problems arise and/or on developing and rehearsing strategies to simply cope with thesestates when they occur as a risk reduction strategy.
As illustrated in Table 2, using the GLM , construction of an integrated good life/self-regulation/risk management plan (including a future oriented GLP) replaces the traditional relapse prevention
plan towards which clients work throughout treatment. Rather than a focus solelyon risk factors,highrisk situations, warning signs, and coping strategies, this plan centres on clientsʼvalued common life
goals and their relationships to offending, risk factors, and self-regulation failure. In addition tofactors that are targeted in and of themselves, risk factors are also conceptualised as obstacles,
barriers, or threats toward implementing the GLP, and strategies for addressing risk factors areincluded such that any potential threats to the GLP can be effectively managed. For example,the risk
factor of emotional congruence with children may be seen as interfering with the common life goal of
relationships and friendships with others, in addition to creating a risk to re-offend. Risk factors areincorporated into the GLP, but in a way that is meaningful to the client. Returning to the same
example, using treatment as a means of solely or predominantly for avoiding all interactions withchildren will likely be less successful than developing skills in interpersonal competence in relationships with adults. “Risk factors”that signal that the GLP is not being implemented and that individuals
are not actively pursuing valued goals, are also included (Yates et al., 2010). Table 3 provides afuture-oriented GLP template, illustrating the integration of common life goals,risk factors,and risk
management strategies.

V. CONCLUSIONThe GLM is a theoretical and rehabilitation framework that augments accepted empiricallyderived
principles of effective correctional programming and that supplements existing research-based practice. As illustrated in the current article, the GLM and its operationalization and application have
evolved considerably over the past decade. This brief article has described alternative terminology for
key GLM concepts and outlined how treatment components based on established risk factors can besituated within a GLM framework. The developments presented in this article are designed tosupplement existing GLM resources (see Willis, Yates, et al., in press; Yates, et al., 2009; Yates &Prescott,2011b;Yates,et al.,2010)and to promote the GLMʼs application as intended ― as a treatment
approach and a framework informing treatment programmes in their entirety. Integrated appropriately, the GLM offers the potential to enhance outcomes of cognitive-behavioural,RNR-based treatment
programmes through keeping offenders meaningfully engaged in treatment and in activities to attainlife goals in ways that are incompatible with offending. However, misguided application could
unintentionally increase the very risk practitioners work to prevent and manage.

VI. REFERENCES
Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2010). The psychology of criminal conduct (5th ed.). Cincinnati, OH:
Anderson Publishing.
Hanson, R. K., Gordon, A., Harris, A. J. R., Marques, J. K., M urphey, W., Quinsey,V.L.,et al.(2002).
First report of the collaborative outcome data project on the effectiveness of psychologicaltreatment for sex offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 14, 169-194.
doi:10.1177/107906320201400207
Hanson, R. K., Harris, A. J. R., Scott, T., & Helmus, L. (2007). Assessing the risk of sexual offenders
on community supervision:The Dynamic Supervision Project. Ottawa:Public Safety Canada.

84

154TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTSʼPAPERS
Hanson, R. K., & Morton-Bourgon, K. E. (2005). The characteristics of persistent sexual offenders:A
meta-analysis of recidivism studies.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73,1154-1163.
doi:10.1037/0022-006X.73.6.1154
Laws, D. R., & Ward, T. (2011). Desistance and sex offending: Alternatives to throwing away the keys.
New York, NY:Guilford Press.
Losel, F., & Schmucker, M. (2005). The effectiveness of treatment for sexual offenders:A comprehensive meta-analysis.Journal of Experimental Criminology,1,117-146.doi:10.1007/s11292-004-6466-7
M arshall,W.L.(2005).Therapist Style in Sexual Offender Treatment:Influence on Indices of Change.
Sexual Abuse: Journal of Research and Treatment, 17 , 109-116.doi:10.1177/107906320501700202
M cGrath, R. J., Cumming, G., Burchard, B., Zeoli, S., & Ellerby, L. (2010). Current practices andemerging trends in sexual abuser management: The Safer Society 2009 North American survey.
Brandon, Vermont:Safer Society Press.
Olver, M. E., Stockdale, K. C., & Wormith, J. S. (2011). A meta-analysis of predictors of offender
treatment attrition and its relationship to recidivism. Journal of Consulting and ClinicalPsychology, 79 , 6-21. doi:10.1037/a0022200
Prescott,D.S.(2013).M otivational interviewing:An update for professionals working with people whohave sexually abused. The Forum, Newsletter of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual
Abusers (ATSA), 25, 1-9.
Purvis, M. (2010). Seeking a Good Life: Human Goods and Sexual Offending. Germany: LambertAcademic Press.
Simons, D. A., McCullar, B., & Tyler, C. (2006). Evaluation of the Good Lives Model approach totreatment planning.Paper presented at the 25th Annual Association for the Treatment of Sexual
Abusers Research and Treatment Conference, Chicago, Illinois.
Ward,T.(2002).Good lives and the rehabilitation of offenders:promises and problems.Aggression andViolent Behavior, 7 , 513-528. doi:10.1016/S1359-1789(01)00076-3
Ward, T., & Gannon, T. A. (2006). Rehabilitation, etiology, and self-regulation: The comprehensive
good lives model of treatment for sexual offenders.Aggression and Violent Behavior, 11,77-94.
doi:10.1016/j.avb.2005.06.001
Ward,T.,M ann,R.E.,& Gannon,T.A.(2007).The good lives model of offender rehabilitation:Clinicalimplications. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12, 87-107. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2006.03.004
Ward, T., & Maruna, S. (2007). Rehabilitation: Beyond the risk assessment paradigm. London, UK:
Routledge.
Ward, T., & Stewart, C. A. (2003). The treatment of sex offenders:Risk management and good lives.
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 34, 353-360. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.34.4.353
Ward, T., Yates, P. M ., & Long, C. A. (2006). The Self-Regulation Model of the Offence and Relapse
Process, Volume II: Treatment. Victoria, BC: Pacific Psychological Assessment Corporation.
Available at www.pacific-psych.com.
Ward,T.,Yates,P.M.,& Willis,G.M.(2012).The Good Lives Model and the Risk Need Responsivity
M odel: A critical response to Andrews, Bonta, and Wormith (2011). Criminal Justice andBehavior, 39 , 94-110. doi:10.1177/0093854811426085
Ware, J., & Mann, R. E. (2012). How should “acceptance of responsibility”be addressed in sexual

85

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.91
offending treatment programs?Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17 , 279-288.
Willis, G. M ., Ward, T., & Levenson, J. S. (in press). The Good Lives M odel (GLM ):An evaluation of
GLM operationalization in North American treatment programs. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of
Research & Treatment.
Willis, G. M ., & Yates, P. (2012).Assessing attainment of GLM primary goods.Paper presented at the
31st Annual Conference of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, Denver, CO.
Willis, G. M ., & Yates, P. M . (in press). Strengths-based theories and sexual offending. In T.Ward &T. Beech (Eds.), Theories of Sexual Offending. West Sussex, UK:Wiley-Blackwell.
Willis, G. M ., Yates, P. M., Gannon, T. A., & Ward, T. (in press). How to integrate the Good Lives
M odel into treatment programs for sexual offending: An introduction and overview. Sexual
Abuse: A Journal of Research & Treatment. doi:10.1177/1079063212452618
Yates, P. M . (2002). What works:Effective intervention with sex offenders.In H.E.Allen (Ed.), Whatworks: Risk reduction: Interventions for special needs offenders (pp. 115-163). Lanham, MD:
American Correctional Association.
Yates,P.M .,Kingston,D.A.,& Ward,T.(2009).The Self-Regulation Model of the offence and re-offence
process: A guide to assessment and treatment planning using the integrated Good Lives /Self-Regulation Model of sexual offending. Victoria, BC: Pacific Psychological Assessment
Corporation.
Yates,P.M .,& Prescott,D.S.(2011a).Applying the Good Lives Model to clinical practice: Redefining
primary human goods. Newsletter of the National Organisation for the Treatment of Abusers(NOTA)(http://www.nota.co.uk/), 68, December 2011.
Yates,P.M.,& Prescott,D.S.(2011b).Building a better life: A good lives and self-regulation workbook.
Brandon, VT:Safer Society Press.
Yates, P. M ., Prescott, D. S., & Ward, T. (2010). Applying the Good Lives and Self Regulation Models
to sex offender treatment: a practical guide for clinicians. Brandon, VT:Safer Society Press.
Yates,P.M .,& Ward,T.(2008).Good lives,self-regulation,and risk management:An integrated modelof sexual offender assessment and treatment. Sexual Abuse in Australia and New Zealand: An
Interdisciplinary Journal, 1, 3-20.

86