Offender Coercion in Treatment

• Author: Adele M. Beauregard,Karen K. Parhar,Dena M. Derkzen,J. Stephen Wormith
• Published date: 01 September 2008
• DOI: 10.1177/0093854808320169
• Date: 01 September 2008
• Subject Matter: Articles

OFFENDER COERCION IN TREATMENT

A Meta-Analysis of Effectiveness

KAREN K. PARHAR

J. STEPHEN WORMITH

DENA M. DERKZEN

ADELE M. BEAUREGARD

University of Saskatchewan

Mandating offenders to attend correctional treatment is a controversial function of the justice system, in part because of the

uncertainty about the effectiveness of such practice. A meta-analysis was conducted to compare the effectiveness of man-

dated, coerced, and voluntary correctional treatment in reducing recidivism. A search of correctional treatment studies

resulted in 129 studies meeting the inclusion criteria. In general, mandated treatment was found to be ineffective in several

analyses, particularly when the treatment was located in custodial settings, whereas voluntary treatment produced significant

treatment effect sizes regardless of setting. Few significant differences in effect sizes were found between levels of coercion.

The implications of mandating correctional treatment for offenders are discussed.

Keywords: meta-analysis; coercion; mandated treatment; voluntary treatment; correctional treatment

The evidence that correctional treatment programs can be effective in reducing recidivism

rates is now well established (e.g., Hollin, 1999; Lipsey, Chapman, & Landenberger,

2001; McGuire, 2002). More specifically, principles of effective correctional treatment—

such as risk, need, and responsivity (RNR)—that increase the likelihood of success and

decrease recidivism rates most dramatically have been well documented (e.g., Andrews,

Bonta, & Hoge, 1990; Andrews, Bonta, & Wormith, 2006; Andrews, Zinger, et al., 1990).

Consequently, there appears to be strong support for correctional treatment programs within

correctional agencies (McGuire, 2004) and among many in the judiciary (W. Hall, 1997).

Perhaps because of this revived confidence in the effectiveness of correctional treatment,

the use of court-ordered or legally mandated treatment, which is accompanied by “threats of

legal consequences if individuals refuse to comply with a referral to treatment” (Polcin &

Greenfield, 2003, p. 650), and coercive treatment, whereby refusal to participate in treatment

results in negative consequences (Day, Tucker, & Howells, 2004), has become increasingly

1109

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, Vol. 35 No. 9,September 2008 1109-1135

DOI: 10.1177/0093854808320169

© 2008 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology

AUTHORS’ NOTE: We thank Erin Beatty, Lee Anne Bichel, Tamara Colton, Candice Davis, Tanis Kershaw,

Tyson Kurtenbach, Lila McCormick, Krystal Shutko, and others who assisted with the study. Some of the pre-

liminary data in this article were previously presented at the annual conference of the Canadian Psychological

Association in Calgary, Alberta (June 2006) and the biennial Symposium on Violence & Aggression in

Saskatoon, Saskatchewan (June 2006). Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Karen

K. Parhar, Department of Psychology, Arts Building, University of Saskatchewan, 9 Campus Drive, Saskatoon,

Saskatchewan, S7N 5A5, Canada; e-mail: karen.parhar@usask.ca.

commonplace. For example, the number of legally mandated correctional treatment programs

for substance abusers and spousal assaulters has increased significantly within the past decade

(Holtzworth-Munroe, 2001; Polcin, 1999; Rosenbaum & Geffner, 2002; Wells-Parker, 1994).

Furthermore, court-ordered counseling for substance abusers has now become common

practice in many regions and states of the United States (Shearer & Baletka, 1999).

Another possible explanation for the increased use of court-ordered programs is the

belief that few offenders will enter treatment without some sort of external motivation

(Farabee, Prendergast, & Anglin, 1998). Therefore, it may be argued that treatment should

be legally mandated to safeguard the community. However, another perspective commonly

held by clinicians is that treatment can be effective only if the participants choose to attend

treatment because of their own internal motivations (Shearer & Baletka, 1999).

MANDATED AND NONMANDATED OFFENDER TREATMENT

Although only a few studies have compared the recidivism rates of participants attending

treatment under a legal mandate to those who attend voluntarily (e.g., “Principles of Drug

Addiction,” 2000), some evidence supports the concept of legally mandated treatment.

After reviewing 11 empirical studies of compulsory substance abuse treatment programs,

Farabee et al. (1998) concluded that legal referral to substance abuse treatment programs is

an effective strategy for improving outcome and enhancing retention and compliance. This

finding is supported by other drug treatment studies that have concluded that mandated

treatment contributes to treatment completion (Rempel & Destefano, 2001; Siddall &

Conway, 1988).

Moreover, comparative studies have found that those who are legally mandated to treatment

are more likely to stay in treatment longer than those who are not legally mandated to treatment

(e.g., Collins & Allison, 1983; Schnoll, Goldstein, Antes, & Rinella, 1980). For example,

Rosenberg and Liftik (1976) compared retention rates between coerced and voluntary

participants and found that offenders coerced to participate in an alcoholism treatment

program had better attendance rates than did voluntary patients. In addition, Maxwell (2000)

found that greater perceived legal threat increased retention in drug treatment, regardless of

the client’s actual legal status.

Other studies have found less favorable results for mandated treatment. Howard and

McCaughrin (1996) found that organizations in which 75% of the cases were court mandated

had a higher rate of treatment failure than did organizations with few court-mandated clients.

Examining outcome studies of court-ordered treatment programs for spousal assaulters,

Rosenfeld (1992) found that mandated treatment did not reduce recidivism. Rather, men

who were arrested for spousal assault and were not treated were just as likely to recidivate as

those who completed treatment. Moreover, court-mandated and nonmandated participants

were equally likely to withdraw from treatment. Concerning two domestic violence treatment

studies that found positive results for court-mandated treatment (i.e., Dutton, 1986; Waldo,

1988), Rosenfeld (1992) speculated that the participants who completed treatment were

likely to have been the most motivated and least treatment resistant.

There is also evidence that nonmandated treatment programs are associated with treatment

retention and compliance. Harford, Ungerer, and Kinsella (1976) found that offenders not

under any legal pressure to attend drug abuse treatment remained in treatment for longer

periods than did clients who were under legal pressure. Shearer and Ogan (2002) measured

1110 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR