Abstract:
Background: Correctional boot camps were first opened in United States
adult correctional systems in 1983. Since that time they have rapidly grown,
first within adult systems and later in juvenile corrections, primarily within the
United States. In the typical boot camp, participants are required to follow a
rigorous daily schedule of activities including drill and ceremony and physical
training, similar to that of a military boot-camp. Punishment for misbehavior
is immediate and swift and usually involves some type of physical activity
like push-ups. Boot-camps differ substantially in the amount of focus given to
the physical training and hard labor aspects of the program versus therapeutic
programming such as academic education, drug treatment or cognitive skills.
Objectives: To synthesize the extant empirical evidence on the effects of
boot-camps and boot camp like programs on the criminal behavior (e.g., postrelease
arrest, conviction, or reinstitutionalization) of convicted adult and juvenile
offenders.
Search Strategy: Numerous electronic databases were searched for both
published an unpublished studies. The keywords used were: boot camp(s),
intensive incarceration, and shock incarceration. We also contacted U.S and
non-U.S. researchers working in this area requesting assistance in locating
additional studies. The final search of these sources was completed in early
December of 2003.
Selection Criteria: The eligibility criteria were (a) that the study evaluated
a correctional boot camp, shock incarceration, or intensive incarceration
program; (b) that the study included a comparison group that received either
probation or incarceration in an alternative facility; (c) that the study participants
were exclusively under the supervision of the criminal or juvenile justice
system; and (d) that the study reported a post-program measure of criminal behavior,
such as arrest or conviction.
Data Collection and Analysis: The coding protocol captured aspects of
the research design, including methodological quality, the boot-camp program,
the comparison group condition, the participant offenders, the outcome
measures and the direction and magnitude of the observed effects. All studies
were coded by two independent coders and all coding differences were resolved
by Drs. MacKenzie or Wilson. Outcome effects were coded using the
odds-ratio and meta-analysis was performed using the random effects model.
Main Results: Thirty-two unique research studies met our inclusion criteria.
These studies reported the results from 43 independent boot-camp/comparison
samples. The random effects mean odds-ratio for any form of recidivism was
1.02, indicating that the likelihood that boot camp participants recidivating was roughly equal to the likelihood of comparison participants recidivating.
This overall finding was robust to the selection of the outcome measure and
length of follow-up. Methodological features were only weakly related to outcome
among these studies and did not explain the null findings. The overall
effect for juvenile boot camps was slightly lower than for adult boot camps.
Moderator analysis showed that studies evaluating boot-camp programs with
a strong treatment focus had a larger mean odds-ratio than studies evaluating
boot camps with a weak treatment focus.
Conclusions: Although the overall effect appears to be that of “no difference,”
some studies found that boot camp participants did better than the
comparison, while others found that comparison samples did better. However,
all of these studies had the common element of a militaristic boot camp
program for offenders. The current evidence suggests that this common and
defining feature of a boot-camp is not effective in reducing post boot-camp
offending.
boot camp