Good Lives Model (GLM) et alliance avec l’auteur d’infraction : quel apport selon différentes modalités d’entretien (individuel, groupe, réalité virtuelle) ?

Abstract

Introduction

This article presents the positive results of a study about the interest of the Good Lives Model (GLM). If the offenders were not selected, the area of employment was systematically noted, as well as limited receptivity. The Council of Europe (Rule 66, REP, 2010) gives the starting point for the stages relating to probation with the RNR model (Risk, Needs, Responsivity). The complementary model Good Lives Model is also recommended in the REPs, and in the French standards, but rarely used. According to the GLM, offenders must be considered as people monitored in each context with methods which may or may not conform to their own “goods” and “strengths”. The readiness is defined here as the presence of characteristics (states or dispositions) in the offenders or in the professional situation likely to promote engagement in support. This proposal could be interesting for offenders who present risk factors linked to employment.

Method

One hundred and forty-six offenders experienced GLM using different methods of administration (individual n = 111, virtual n = 11, group n = 24). The interviews were conducted for a total duration of 4 hours, or an equivalent of 584 hours of interviews. Subsequently, the research team administered the WAO (alliance scale) combined with semi-structured interviews. The results were compared to a previous study concerning unstructured interviews (n = 38) and structured interviews with the RNR model (n = 40).

Results

Of the 146 participants, 53 benefited from results that could be used for comparative research. The GLM seems to be a particularly interesting method for the alliance between the professional and the offender, compared to other methods (unstructured or structured RNR). However, 4 criteria out of 12 meet higher scores in the context of so-called unstructured individual interviews and only 1 criterion in the context of structured individual interviews based on risk. The results indicate that the three groups (individual, group, RV) present positive results in terms of alliance with high averages (more than 4/5). The highest results are found in the group, which benefited from GLM interviews in Virtual Reality (average of 4.64), then those who benefited from group GLM interviews (average of 4.45), then individual GLM interviews (average 4.38). The questions that received the most responses “ALWAYS” (5/5) are the criteria related to the relationship between the offender and the professional, therefore question 3 “I believe that professionals respect me” with 87.1%, question 5 “I have the feeling that professionals really listen to me” with 83.9% and question 9 “Professionals and I show respect towards each other” with 93.5% responses. The professionals underlined the importance of the employment issue and the link between it and the elements of the Life Plan in general. Professionals also confirmed the daily difficulty linked to employment and the encroachment on the “human needs” of the offender more generally. Within the positive feedback, two trends seem to emerge. The first case concerns the offenders who present generalized vulnerabilities and a multitude of risk factors for recidivism beyond the area of employment. The second case concerns the offenders who currently present few vulnerabilities and risks outside the field of employment. Here the GLM could have been interesting as a reinforcement of the offender's strengths and motivations, without having as obvious a usefulness as in the first case. Taking into consideration the various feedback collected from professionals, it seems that methods based on GLM are of great interest in the context of monitoring offenders with encysted problems and a high level of risk.

Conclusion

Its efficiency is qualitatively reported for problematic situations, particularly with the use of currently alternative interview techniques (group, virtual reality). Despite the limitations raised, the results are promising and support the use of GLM in intervention with offenders.