Mandated Disciplinary Counseling: Working Effectively With Challenging Clients

Mandated disciplinary counseling has been a long-established practice for many college and university counseling centers. Although the practice is well established, practitioners continue to raise questions about its appropriateness and effectiveness. Student dynamics and other issues influencing the efficacy of mandated counseling are explored. Counseling readiness interventions are recommended to mitigate the types of reactance issues that can be barriers to effective counseling outcomes. ********** College and university counselors' caseloads often include students referred for mandated disciplinary counseling. Although institutional and client needs are both potentially met by providing effective service for this population, mandated counseling also raises important challenges. Two of the most salient challenges are addressing the professional and ethical issues surrounding coerced counseling and addressing client resistance to mandated treatment. In this article, we explore the current literature on mandated treatment and resistance in counseling, elucidate the problematic treatment issues inherent in mandated counseling, and suggest avenues for more effective therapeutic work with this client population. Professional Practice of Mandated Counseling Historical Context Historically, college and university counseling has embraced mandated disciplinary counseling as an important professional role on the campus (Williamson, 1956; Williamson & Foley, 1949; Wrenn, 1949). In the historical context, if a student's perceived behavioral misconduct was the result of an underlying psychological problem, then treatment for the disorder became the focus of the judicial referral. If mental health concerns were not an issue, then the purpose of counseling was reeducating and socializing the mandated student to the behavioral roles and responsibilities of campus life. Frequently, stated objectives of disciplinary counseling were to help students generate insight into the sources and consequences of their perceived misbehaviors and to change their unacceptable behaviors by learning emotional stability, moral judgment, self-reliance, and self-control (Dannells, 1977). The earliest literature has offered support and a rationale for providing counseling services under nonpermissive conditions (Arbuckle & Boy, 1961; Beier, 1952; Gometz & Parker, 1968; Snoxell, 1960). Prevalence of Mandated Judicial Counseling on College and University Campuses Survey data generated over the past 30 years has revealed that college and university counseling centers not only continue to engage in the practice of disciplinary counseling, but also increasingly view mandated judicial counseling as an important service responsibility (Dannells, 1990; Gallagher, Zhang, & Taylor, 2003; Oetting, Ivey, & Weigel, 1970). For example, in a nationwide survey of college and university counseling center directors affiliated with the Association for University and College Counseling Center Directors, Gallagher et al. examined the prevalence of mandated counseling activities on more than 300 college and university campuses. Their data indicated that more than 38% of the surveyed campuses accepted mandated referrals from administrators and judicial boards for both assessment and treatment services. Another 49.8% of centers in the sample accepted mandated referrals for assessment purposes only (Gallagher et al., 2003). Another nationwide survey by Consolvo and Dannells (2000), which included both university judicial officers and college counseling center directors, examined the stimuli for disciplinary counseling referrals. According to their data, several behavioral issues were associated with reported disciplinary referrals: alcohol abuse (88%), violence (78.4%), illicit drug use (76.2%), alcohol policy violations (71.3%), sexual harassment (54.6%), harassing speech (37.3%), racial harassment (33. …