Good Lives Model Applied to a Forensic Population

Dilemmas in applying strengths-based approaches in working with offenders with mental illness: A critical multidisciplinary review

“…Not only may treatment (at least temporarily) limit one's agency/autonomy and possibilities to acquire human needs (e.g. because he or she is mandated to care) (Barnao et al, 2010), a too narrow focus on treatment in relation to desistance and recovery may overlook the role of contextual factors and society at large. This surpasses "blaming" the individual and focuses on societal factors that play a crucial role in providing opportunities for people to become "inclusive citizens" (again) (Lister, 2007).…”

“…According to the GLM, all humans strive for the realization of a range of primary goods. This idea emphasizes commonality, thereby challenging violation of human rights which is often underpinned by processes of "othering" (Barnao et al, 2010). Secondary goods provide the means to fulfill one's basic human goods.…”

“…The limited number of papers that applied the GLM to forensic mental health populations suggest that the GLM-forensic modification (GLM-FM) provides a comprehensive strength-based framework for guiding treatment planning (Robertson et al, 2011;Barnao & Ward, 2015). The GLM-FM adds 'mental illness' to the model, which may serve as an obstacle for the fulfillment of one's primary goods, while some symptoms of mental illness may also serve as inappropriate secondary goods to fulfill one's primary goods (Barnao et al, 2010).…”

“…The first challenge relates to patients' double jeopardy, which is closely related to practitioners' double role in forensic mental health services, simultaneously combining support and restriction (Blackburn, 2004). The second challenge relates to the potential benefits and pitfalls of treatment in forensic mental health services (Barnao et al, 2010;Robertson et al, 2011). On the one hand, treatment in these services may serve as a facilitator of fulfilling one's primary goods, for example, by identifying and addressing both individual/personal and environmental/structural capacities/obstacles that, respectively, supported/hampered true fulfillment of one's primary goods (Barnao et al, 2011).…”

“…The risk paradigm is situated within a criminal justice approach, focusing on assessment and management of the risk of reoffending. The psychopathology paradigm is situated within a mental health approach, focusing on treatment of mental illness (Barnao et al, 2010). Offenders with mental illness are often described as being in double jeopardy (Grisso, 2004), which refers to the co-occurrence of offending behavior and mental health problems, implying dual impairments, risks, needs and challenges.…”