Measuring Motivation to Change in Sexual Offenders From Institutional Intake to Community Treatment

Abstract

Changes in motivational levels occurring during various stages of treatment (institutional and community) were measured among 101 federally sentenced sexual offenders in the Ontario region. Motivation was conceptualized as a dynamic process that can be construed from behavioral referents and more global evaluations of internal features/readiness/psychological stance. Five motivational indices were examined: acceptance of guilt for the offense; acceptance of personal responsibility for the offense; disclosure of personal information; motivation to change behavior; and participation in treatment. Offender scores on these indices were evaluated using the Goal Attainment Scaling protocol (T. Hogue, 1994), at four stages of the treatment process: (1) at institutional assessment, (2) following institutional treatment, (3) upon conditional release to the community, and (4) following a 12-week period of community treatment. Results showed that motivation to change sexually deviant behavior was higher at the end of institutional treatment relative to the initial assessment. However, levels of motivation decreased upon conditional release to the community, with few offenders making significant rebounds following 12 weeks of community treatment. Admission of guilt and acceptance of personal responsibility (measured at community treatment) were both significantly associated with treatment outcome.

Understanding service users’ and therapists’ experiences of pharmacological treatment for sexual preoccupation and/or hypersexuality in incarcerated sex offenders

“…Reduced motivation on release is a recognised concept and accentuates the importance in ensuring those involved in care in the community are aware of the potential need to re-engage offenders in treatment, even when motivation in prison was high (Barrett, Wilson & Long, 2003). This is particularly the case as the association between motivation and increased responsibility to change is an established phenomenon within sexual offender treatment (Garland & Dougher, 1991;Tierney & McCabe, 2002).…”

Effects of a Relapse Prevention Program on Sexual Recidivism: Final Results From California?s Sex Offender Treatment and Evaluation Project (SOTEP)

“…SOTEP did not have a treatment readiness phase or other components (such as motivational interviewing; Miller & Rollnick, 1991) designed to prepare individuals to change and to engage them in treatment. We also did not target the decrease in motivation that some treated offenders show after release to the community (Barrett, Wilson, & Long, 2003). We learned from interviews with reoffenders that a number of our treatment failures did not use the self-management skills they had acquired in the program, and some did not even accept the basic goals of self control and relapse avoidance (Marques et al, 2000).…”

The impact of pre-treatment responsivity and treatment participation on violent recidivism in a violent offender sample

“…Marshall, Marshall, and Kingston (2011) assert that denial and minimisation are responsivity factors that can present obstacles to effective engagement; and others have noted a positive association between these offence specific cognitive distortions with low motivation to change and programme noncompletion (Jung & Nunes, 2012;Latendrese, 2007), and an inverse relationship with therapeutic engagement (Langevin, 2006;Levenson & Macgowan, 2004). Conversely, admissions of guilt and acceptance of responsibility are associated with positive treatment outcomes, including reductions in recidivism (Barnett, Wilson, & Long, 2003;Hosser, Windzio, & Greve, 2008). Rather than excluding offenders who deny or minimise aspects of their offences, it has been argued that treatment programmes should focus on engaging these offenders early in the therapeutic process and work to retain them in treatment; this is turn would likely reduce their risk of reoffending (Yates, 2009).…”