Howells (05)

• • Anger management interventions with offenders, particularly violent offenders, are a common form of rehabilitative activity. The rationale for addressing anger problems is clear-cut and there is good evidence that anger management can be effective with some client populations. Information relating to effectiveness with serious offenders, however, is sparse. ​
  • An intervention study is reported in which offenders receiving anger management were compared with waiting list controls on a range of dependent measures. ​
• • In general, the degree of pre-treatment/post-treatment change was small and experimental versus control differences were not statistically significant. ​
  • The degree of improvement was found to be predictable from pre-treatment measures of anger and treatment readiness.​
  • Explanations of the low impact of anger management on violent offenders are discussed and recommendations made for improving outcomes. ​
• Sample:

  • 418 offenders – 86% from prison AMP​
  • Spread of ethnicities and ave age of 28.8​
  • 285 did post intervention assessment​
  • 78 - 2 month follow up​
  • 21 - 6 month follow up​
  • Control group were on the waiting list – not random allocation​
  • (did the pre and post reviews and then were offered AMP)
• Procedure:

  • 10 2 hr sessions - trained people​
  • Program content included structured exercises focussing on skills, such as identifying provocations, relaxation, cognitive restructuring, assertion, and relapse prevention​
  • Measures – anger itself, knowing how to deal with anger, readiness for anger management
• Procedure:

  • All self-report measures were administered in a group format, but completed on an individual basis. The exception to this was when participants had trouble with literacy, when measures were verbally administered.​
  • 2 correctional officers + 1 staff member collected data on those in community scheme​
  • Participants were also asked to report on their own behaviour over the same reporting period. Correctional databases were accessed to collect data regarding the number and severity of incidents and charges for the six months following the program. ​
• Results:

  • Nothing was statistically significant ​
  • Knowing about anger increased in both groups, but more so in the experimental… probably because they were either on the waiting list or in the programme.​
  • 2 month improvements were linear (a slight improvement to a greater one at 2 months) in anger control (amongst others)​

  At 6 months gains were mostly maintained​

  They suggested readiness for treatment affected the effectiveness of the treatment
• Conclusion:

  • Little effectiveness – treatment group did improve, just not significantly​
  • Completing the assessments are beneficial (thinking about aggression – catharsis?)​
  • Low motivation could effect the AMP outcomes
• Strengths:

  • Large sample (follow ups drop out)​
  • Integrity by checks for what the course covered​
  • The control still got the treatment (ethics)​
  • Lots of scales – validity
• Weaknesses:

  • Follow ups – small numbers​
  • The improvement of the control – due to education from the assessments, or as they were waiting for treatment they may have been actively trying to be less angry​
  • Self repot data”