camps. According to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS), boot camps are

BOOT CAMP Boot camp programs are a correctional sanction modeled after military basic training camps. According to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS), boot camps are in-prison programs that resemble military basic training by emphasizing vigorous physical activity, drill and ceremony, manual labor, and other activities that ensure that participants have very little or no free time at all. They are often referred to as shock or intensive incarceration. The first correctional boot camps originated in the adult correctional systems in Georgia and Oklahoma in 1983. Since then, correctional boot camps have grown rapidly within the adult correctional systems as well as juvenile correctional systems. They are now a part of many federal, state and local juvenile and adult jurisdictions in the United States of America. Currently, the some have questioned the effectiveness of boot camp programs and call into question its results. In theory, the introduction of military style discipline to prisoners seems to make sense but boot camp programs reduce recidivism rates? This research paper will describe the significance of the correctional boot camp program and its history. It will also discuss the importance of evidence-based practice in criminal justice. Further, this paper will present various assessment techniques associated with the evaluation of correctional programs such as boot camps while analyzing the limitations of the various evaluation techniques used to judge the effectiveness of boot camps. Lastly, this paper will review the overall effectiveness of correctional boot camp programs and present recommendations for the future of such programs based on the available evidence. In 1888, the Elmira Reformatory in Elmira, New York, was the first American correctional facility to implement military training in American corrections. It was no

coincidence that such efforts were made after the passage of legislation known as Yates Law, a measure that abolished inmate labor beginning in 1888. Warden Zebulon Brockway of the Elmira Reformatory sought to implement new methods of occupying his inmate s time that encouraged discipline and conformity while remaining in compliance with the newly enacted law. The Warden adopted the idea of using military training to discipline inmates and keep them orderly. The initial military approach utilized at Elmira Reformatory lasted until about 1920 and was gradually phased out by the end of World War I as a result of the public s resistance toward war and programs associated with the war and military. Before the practice of military basic training resurfaced in the form of correctional boot camps in the 1980s, several states experimented with incorporating military inspired environments to foster noncriminal behavior. Prior to the modern re-introduction of boot camps, the use of shock probation as a correctional method was developed in 1965 in Ohio and was employed, at that time, by states such as, Ohio, Texas, and Kentucky. Shock probation was an attempt to influence criminal behavior by shocking offenders with a short experience of the real prison life. Experts believed that giving offenders a taste of prison by briefly incarcerating them for a period of 90-180 days, followed by probation, may cause offenders to think twice before committing another crime. Proponents of this technique thought the program s approach would have deterrent effects on criminal behavior, but research revealed that such programs had little or no effect on crime rates. The 1979 film, Scared Straight, accurately depicts the shock probation method. The film dramatized the prison life of murderers and other inmates serving life sentences at Rahway Prison in New Jersey. The theory behind scared straight was that young offenders would be deterred from crime after a visit to a prison, followed by an intensive confrontation session with life-sentenced inmates who would make them think about the pains of

imprisonment (Anderson, Dyson, and Burns, 1999, p. 10). The goal behind Scared Straight was similar to the theory behind shock probation. Both programs aimed at preventing future criminal behavior by implanting fear in non-hardened criminals. As the theory went, giving criminals a taste of prison life would scare them into being law abiding citizens. Boot camp programs are an alternative sanction to traditional incarceration and have become increasingly prevalent among the American correctional systems since its reintroduction in the early 1980 s. Programs like shock probation were similar to earlier versions of boot camp in that they were based on the philosophy to shock offenders in their early stages of incarceration through tough, regimented treatment in an attempt to lay the groundwork for positive change in their behavior (Armstrong, 2004, p. 7). The philosophy of shock probation was adopted by boot camp programs and further revised to incorporate a militaristic style regimen to create a more structured environment conducive to treatment and rehabilitation. The major difference between shock probation and boot camp is the required participation in military like drills and physical training. Boot camp programs first emerged during 1983 in the adult correctional systems in Georgia and Oklahoma. Since then, boot camp correction programs have emerged all over the United States. Fueled primarily by growth in the number of offenders incarcerated during the past decade and changing views of the role of punishment and treatment in the correctional system, shock incarceration programs, or boot camps as they have been more recently called, have emerged as an increasingly popular alternative sanction for nonviolent crimes (Herbert, MacKenzie, 1996). The main goal of boot camp programs was to rehabilitate and to reduce offender rates of recidivism. Another major incentive was to develop a cost-effective method to reduce prison overcrowding while providing a safe environment.

Although boot camp programs vary depending on the jurisdiction under which they fall, most boot camp programs consist of common features, such as those concisely identified in the following quote: The specific components of shock incarceration programs vary. The similarity among all programs is the short period of imprisonment in a military boot camp type program involving participation in military drills, rigorous exercise and maintenance of living quarters. Programs differ, however, in whether activities such as work, community service, education or counseling are also incorporated in the schedule of activities. (MacKenzie and Armstrong, 2004, p. 49). In addition to the differences mentioned above, other differences between boot camp programs include the method of which offenders are selected to be a part of boot camp programs. According to Anderson et al., (1999), typically, the profile of a boot camp inmate would be a 21 year old white male with a prior juvenile or adult record. The typical boot camp candidate is a drug user who most likely convicted for a nonviolent offense, generally involving property, and most likely resulting in burglary. The main components of state boot camp programs include military drill and ceremonies (marching) and physical training (such as push-ups, sit-ups, etc.). In addition to physical drills, boot camp programs routinely incorporate other rehabilitation programs with boot camp programs. For example, all but one state considers manual labor to be a vital component of boot camp programs, nearly eighty percent of the states consider individual and group counseling to be an essential element of boot camp, seventy-five percent of programs address the need for drug and alcohol treatment (including the introduction

of twelve steps programs advocated by Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) and Narcotics Anonymous (NA)) and almost sixty percent of states chose to include programs related to recreation, community services, and the General Equivalency Diploma (GED). Certain rehabilitation programs are less popular components the states boot camp programs evidenced by statistics that show that only fourteen states incorporate educational programs into their boot camps. Boot camp programs began to proliferate and grew rapidly by the 1990s. The NCJRS claims that, during the year 1995, state correctional agencies operated seventy five adult boot camps and both state and local correctional agencies operated thirty juvenile boot camps. Scholars believed that the rising crime rate and increasing prison population ripened the social climate for what was perceived to be a conservative and punitive approach toward rehabilitation of nonviolent offenders. The strict rules, organized structure and intense verbal tactics that are hallmarks of many boot camp programs were designed to break down inmates resistance to authority and to provoke constructive behavioral changes. Throughout the history of boot camp programs, one theme continues to perpetuate, [t]hat theme is inmates can be rehabilitated by using an approach that incorporates scaring, shocking, and giving them a taste of prison, provided it is done within the context of an organized and controlled environment. Military training brings an organized and disciplined environment to the boot camp. (Anderson et al., 1999, p. 15) Some programs found that they can provide participants with the life skills that they would need to become constructive members of society. Although boot camp programs appeal to the public with their get tough approach on crime, their effectiveness on reducing recidivism rates have become the subject of controversy. Boot camp programs may appear to promote positive changes in criminal behavior, but do they really work? Some evaluations show positive results, some are unclear and others conclude they are ineffective.

After the mid 1990s, increased public scrutiny drove the number of boot camp programs to a rapid decline. Policy makers where beginning to question whether or not boot camp programs were as effective as they were advertized to be. Signs showed that recidivism rates remained level even after implementation of programs that were designed to prevent crime. By the year 2000, almost one third of all boot camp programs were discontinued. Evaluation studies consistently showed the low success rate of boot camp programs aimed at reducing recidivism rates, prison populations and costs. Before evaluating the effectiveness of boot camp programs, one must consider the importance of evidence-based practice in the determining what works for implementing crime prevention programs. As noted by Welsh and Farrington (2003), evidence-based crime prevention strives to avoid making the mistake of implementing programs without evidence of what works best by ensuring that the best available evidence is considered in any decision to implement a program designed for crime prevention. Evidence-based practice stresses that policy makers should move beyond certain influential factors and start considering the results of scientific studies. In the very least, decision makers should be aware of the research evidence that carries on policies under consideration. Unfortunately, determining what works through evidence-based practice is not an easy task to accomplish. To help meet the challenges posed by evidence-based policy, a team was created to prepare, update, and disseminate systematic reviews of evidence on what works relevant to social and educational intervention. The team is referred to as the Campbell Collaboration and they ambitiously seek to address the many challenges associated with evidence-based policy. The Campbell Collaboration aims to find relevant evaluation studies for researchers to draw precise conclusions, which can be an arduous task because of the importance

of appraising the evaluation studies for methodological quality. Another problem that may persist for criminologists is that research studies can be scattered anywhere across various different academic fields and finding these studies can be quite frustrating. Leaving out evidence can limit the validity of any findings. In regards to the effectiveness of correctional boot camp programs, the Campbell Collaboration utilizes a systematic review incorporating meta-analytic techniques to evaluate quasi-experimental and experimental studies. The systematic review method and the metaanalytic review method are the most rigorous methods for assessing the effectiveness for criminological interventions. Systematic reviews are a valuable tool in the evidence-based process because it uses explicit, state-of-the-art methods in determining relevant evaluative studies by critically appraising them. Systematic reviews include in depth details of the decision process as well as how the analyses were done and how the conclusions were reached. The foremost advantage of systematic reviews is that when done well and with full integrity, they provide the most reliable and comprehensive statement about what works. (Welsh and Farrington, 2001, p. 20) With detailed processes of how conclusions were met, systematic reviews play a vital role in evidence-based policy. In addition to the systematic reviews used to discover what works in crime prevention, meta-analytic techniques are also incorporated to assess research findings. The findings from meta-analysis not only reveal robust empirical relationships but also identify existing weaknesses in the knowledge base. (Welsh and Farrington, 2001, p. 71) In the text, Welsh and Farrington (2001) also note that meta-analysis takes systematic reviews a step further by quantifying the direction and magnitude of the findings of interest across studies and uses specialized statistical methods to analyze the relationship between findings and study features.

After rigorous examinations of hundreds of studies, the meta-analysis review method was able to conclude the boot camp programs effect on recidivism. The Campbell Collaboration gathered thirty seven documents and found twenty nine studies that were considered to be eligible for inclusion in the systematic review of boot camp programs. Of the twenty nine studies, forty four samples were able to provide the primary unit of analysis. Through the systematic, meta-analytic review of the various studies inspected by the Campbell Collaboration and most other researchers, it was found that there were no overall significant differences in recidivism rates between boot camp participants and comparison samples. After methodologically examining hundreds of crime prevention program studies, research can finally answer the controversial question of whether or not boot camp programs are effective at reducing recidivism rates among nonviolent criminals. Proving that there are no differences in recidivism rates when boot camp program samples are compared to offenders who receive other correctional sanctions is a breakthrough in being able to discover new ways to improve crime prevention programs for future use. Advocates of the programs expects them to successfully reduce the future criminal activities of adults and juveniles. Critics argues that the programs are poorly conceived as therapeutic interventions, they will not reduce recidivism, and they may actually have the opposite effect by increasing criminal activities. (Welsh and Farrington, 2001, p. 137) Although some may be disappointed with these results, the conclusion may actually be beneficial for social and educational intervention purposes. Advocates and critics of boot camp programs may both be dissatisfied with the outcome of the review findings since they do not favor either

side, but the research results can benefit the future of boot camp programs by laying out the groundwork for future crime prevention reform. Although some may be disappointed with these results, the conclusion may actually be beneficial for social and educational intervention purposes. Advocates and critics of boot camp programs may both be dissatisfied with the outcome of the review findings since they do not favor either side, but the research results can benefit the future of boot camp programs by laying out the groundwork for future crime prevention reform. In the opinion of the Campbell Collaboration, a possible reason that boot camps are no more or less effective than other alternatives is because they may offer no more therapy or treatment than the alternatives. Boot camp programs may not be as effective as policy makers initially thought they would be at reducing recidivism, but these programs have helped save millions of dollars by alleviating prison overcrowding. Should boot camp programs be abolished or continued based on the findings? Since the findings do not support either side, the future of boot camp programs remain questionable. As specified by the Campbell Collaboration, the lack of therapy and treatment can be the key to why the results showed no differences in recidivism rates between boot camp participants and participants of other sanctions. With that said, one proposal for the future of boot camp programs is to provide participants with additional therapy and treatments under a supervised environment after the completion of the boot camp program. One criticism claimed by Anderson et al., (1999) is that offenders return to the same dysfunctional communities where they were arrested and are expected to avoid the same criminogenic factors that they were unable to avoid before being sentenced to boot camp. Furthermore, critics contend that employment and proper aftercare provisions could prevent offenders from continuing in a life of crime.

Boot camp programs may be more effective at reaching the goal of reducing recidivism if they are accompanied by more effective aftercare provisions. Studies on boot camps in Maryland, Arizona, New Hampshire and Illinois with aftercare provisions provide evidence that indicate a decrease in recidivism. The recidivism levels of Baltimore boot camp graduated were lower by 19.6 percent. Similarly, Arizona had a twenty percent decrease in the shock incarceration return rate. New Hampshire found that after two years, boot camp graduates recidivism rates decreased by nearly thirty percent. Further, Illinois reported a thirteen percent drop in recidivism rates. One commonality between these programs are that they all provide intensive aftercare provisions for their boot camp graduates. If boot camp programs fail to provide aftercare services to probationers, they could undermine the rehabilitative efforts made by participants, as well as boot camp officials. (Anderson et al., 1999, p. 103) Aftercare services can be an integral part of the boot camp program. Boot camp programs hold much potential in reducing prison overcrowding, reducing recidivism rates, and remain cost-effective. Findings which show no positive or negative support for these boot camp programs only indicate that these programs are simply in between being a negative or a positive program for crime prevention. The crime prevention programs like shock probation and scared straight which came before boot camp programs proved to be ineffective and even having reverse results in combatting crime and recidivism. Although boot camp programs are not quite up to par yet, they have come a long way from their predecessors. The evidence shows that the are gradually progressing. In short, the best proposal that can be made from the evaluative evidence provided is to require boot camp graduates to participate in an effective aftercare provision program which ensures that graduates are presented with the proper skills needed to become constructive law abiding citizens within their communities. The skills that are taught should promote non-

criminogenic behavior that include taking on responsibilities within the job atmosphere as well as responsibilities in the home and family environment. In conclusion, the systematic review of boot camp programs make a great foundation for policy makers to improve the future of crime prevention programs. Boot camp programs offer participants with significant militaristic structure and discipline as well as instill a motivational basis for positive change in criminal behavior. From the earlier forerunners to boot camp programs, crime prevention has been able to make notable changes to move in an upward trajectory with crime prevention reform. Through evidence-based practice, policy-makers are able to conclude what works with preventing crime. The biggest role that influences offenders to step back into a life of crime is provisional aftercare programs provided for boot camp graduates. All in all, the research findings of boot camp programs indicate that although participants show no differences in recidivism than participants of other sanctions changes can be made to produce more effective crime preventions policies.

Work Cited Anderson, F. J., Dyson, L., Burns C. J., (1999). Boot Camps: An intermediate Sanction. New York, NY: University Press. Farrington, P. D., Welsh, C. B., (2001). What Works in Preventing Crime? Systematic Reviews of Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. MacKenzie, L. D., Armstrong, S. G., (2004). Correctional Boot Camps: Military Basic Training or a Model for Corrections? Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. MacKenzie, L. D., Herbert, E. E., (1996). Correctional Boot Camps: A Tough Intermediate Sanction. http://ncjrs.aspensys.com:81/catalog.html. Parent, D. G., (2003). Correctional Boot Camps: Lessons from a Decade of Research. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij