skip to main content
Washington State Institute for Public Policy
Back Button

Anger management programs (other) (during incarceration)

Adult Criminal Justice
Benefit-cost methods last updated December 2024.  Literature review updated August 2024.
Anger management programs aim to address aggressive behavior by teaching individuals to control their reactions to anger-provoking situations, including the emotional feelings of anger, the physiological arousal associated with anger, and the resulting angry behavior. Often, these programs employ cognitive-behavioral techniques to manage anger and avoid violence. These programs use trained therapists or certificated staff to engage with incarcerated individuals in weekly group or individual counseling sessions.

Examples of programs in the analysis include Violence Reduction Treatment, Skill Training for Aggression Control (STAC), and Violence Prevention Program.

On average, participants in anger management are moderate- to high-risk and currently serving a term of incarceration for a violent or person-based offense. These participants receive between 24 to 180 hours of programming over three to seven months. All participants in the included studies were male.

Evaluations of the Serious Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI), treatment for perpetrators of domestic violence, treatment for individuals convicted of sex offenses, Beyond Violence, Thinking 4 a Change, dialectical behavioral therapy (DBT), treatment for individuals with substance use disorder, or adult boot camps are excluded from this analysis and analyzed separately.
 
ALL
BENEFIT-COST
META-ANALYSIS
CITATIONS
For an overview of WSIPP's Benefit-Cost Model, please see this guide. The estimates shown are present value, life cycle benefits and costs. All dollars are expressed in the base year chosen for this analysis (2023).  The chance the benefits exceed the costs are derived from a Monte Carlo risk analysis. The details on this, as well as the economic discount rates and other relevant parameters are described in our Technical Documentation.
Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant
Benefits to:
Taxpayers $7,458 Benefits minus costs $23,832
Participants $0 Benefit to cost ratio $25.75
Others $14,089 Chance the program will produce
Indirect $3,247 benefits greater than the costs 100%
Total benefits $24,795
Net program cost ($963)
Benefits minus cost $23,832

^WSIPP’s benefit-cost model does not monetize this outcome.

^^WSIPP does not include this outcome when conducting benefit-cost analysis for this program.

Meta-analysis is a statistical method to combine the results from separate studies on a program, policy, or topic to estimate its effect on an outcome. WSIPP systematically evaluates all credible evaluations we can locate on each topic. The outcomes measured are the program impacts measured in the research literature (for example, impacts on crime or educational attainment). Treatment N represents the total number of individuals or units in the treatment group across the included studies.

An effect size (ES) is a standard metric that summarizes the degree to which a program or policy affects a measured outcome. If the effect size is positive, the outcome increases. If the effect size is negative, the outcome decreases. See Estimating Program Effects Using Effect Sizes for additional information on how we estimate effect sizes.

The effect size may be adjusted from the unadjusted effect size estimated in the meta-analysis. Historically, WSIPP adjusted effect sizes to some programs based on the methodological characteristics of the study. For programs reviewed in 2024 or later, we do not make additional adjustments, and we use the unadjusted effect size whenever we run a benefit-cost analysis.

Research shows the magnitude of effects may change over time. For those effect sizes, we estimate outcome-based adjustments, which we apply between the first time ES is estimated and the second time ES is estimated. More details about these adjustments can be found in our Technical Documentation.

Meta-Analysis of Program Effects
Outcomes measured Treatment age No. of effect sizes Treatment N Effect sizes (ES) and standard errors (SE) used in the benefit-cost analysis Unadjusted effect size (random effects model)
First time ES is estimated Second time ES is estimated
ES SE Age ES SE Age ES p-value
Crime
Any criminal conviction according to court records, sometimes measured through charges, arrests, incarceration, or self-report.
 30 3 496 -0.265 0.088 31 -0.265 0.088 39 -0.264 0.003
Violent offenses^
Criminal recidivism for a subsequent violent offense for a population of individuals convicted of violent offenses.
 30 2 415 -0.260 0.106 31 n/a n/a n/a -0.259 0.014
Technical violations^^
Violations of the conditions of an individual’s terms of probation, parole, or supervision.
 30 1 305 -0.327 0.109 31 n/a n/a n/a -0.327 0.003
Prison misconduct^
Criminal or deviant behavior during incarceration. Misconduct is often associated with violating policy within a prison or secure facility.
30 1 36 -0.423 0.361 31 n/a n/a n/a -0.423 0.241
Anger or aggression^
Self-reported anger or aggression measured on a validated scale.
30 1 36 -0.814 0.374 30 n/a n/a n/a -0.814 0.029
1In addition to the outcomes measured in the meta-analysis table, WSIPP measures benefits and costs estimated from other outcomes associated with those reported in the evaluation literature. For example, empirical research demonstrates that high school graduation leads to reduced crime. These associated measures provide a more complete picture of the detailed costs and benefits of the program.

2“Others” includes benefits to people other than taxpayers and participants. Depending on the program, it could include reductions in crime victimization, the economic benefits from a more educated workforce, and the benefits from employer-paid health insurance.

3“Indirect benefits” includes estimates of the net changes in the value of a statistical life and net changes in the deadweight costs of taxation.
Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant
Affected outcome: Resulting benefits:1 Benefits accrue to:
Taxpayers Participants Others2 Indirect3 Total
Crime Criminal justice system $7,458 $0 $14,089 $3,729 $25,276
Program cost Adjustment for deadweight cost of program $0 $0 $0 ($482) ($481)
Totals $7,458 $0 $14,089 $3,247 $24,795
Click here to see populations selected
Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant
Annual cost Year dollars Summary
Program costs $963 2023 Present value of net program costs (in 2023 dollars) ($963)
Comparison costs $0 2023 Cost range (+ or -) 40%
The per-participant cost estimate was provided by the Washington State Department of Corrections (DOC). The estimate is based on delivering a 100-hour program at a rate of $77 per hour (salary and benefits) for DOC Psychology Associate staff delivering this program. It assumes an average group size of eight individuals.
The figures shown are estimates of the costs to implement programs in Washington. The comparison group costs reflect either no treatment or treatment as usual, depending on how effect sizes were calculated in the meta-analysis. The cost range reported above reflects potential variation or uncertainty in the cost estimate; more detail can be found in our Technical Documentation.
Benefits Minus Costs
Benefits by Perspective
Taxpayer Benefits by Source of Value
Benefits Minus Costs Over Time (Cumulative Discounted Dollars)
The graph above illustrates the estimated cumulative net benefits per-participant for the first fifty years beyond the initial investment in the program. We present these cash flows in discounted dollars. If the dollars are negative (bars below $0 line), the cumulative benefits do not outweigh the cost of the program up to that point in time. The program breaks even when the dollars reach $0. At this point, the total benefits to participants, taxpayers, and others, are equal to the cost of the program. If the dollars are above $0, the benefits of the program exceed the initial investment.

Citations Used in the Meta-Analysis

Cortoni, F., Latendresse, M., & Nunes, K.L. (2006). An examination of the effectiveness of the Violence Prevention Program (Research report R-178). Ottawa, Ontario: Correctional Service of Canada.

Gaertner‚G.P.  (1983). A component analysis of stress inoculation training for the development of anger management skills in adult male offenders. Doctoral dissertation Pennsylvania State University, 1983: UMI No. 8327490 Dissertation Abstracts International‚ 44‚ 2359.

Mercer, G., Ziersch, E., Sowerbutts, S., Day, A., & Pharo, H. (2022). The violence prevention program in South Australia: A recidivism and cost benefit analysis pilot study. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 49(1), 20-36.

Polaschek, D.L.L. (2011). High-intensity rehabilitation for violent offenders in New Zealand: Reconviction outcomes for high- and medium-risk prisoners. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(4), 664-682.