Boot Camps and Shock Incarceration Programs

by

Ojmarrh Mitchell, Fawn T. Ngo

• LAST REVIEWED: 06 November 2017
• LAST MODIFIED: 02 March 2011
• DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780195396607-0068

Introduction

Correctional boot camps, also known as “shock incarceration” programs, are correctional programs modeled after military basic training. Just like basic training, boot camps emphasize drill and ceremony—and physical activity. Generally, boot camps target young, nonviolent offenders with limited criminal history. Boot camps are largely short-term programs lasting 90 to 180 days. Inmates who successfully complete these programs are released under supervision back to the community; however, inmates who drop out or are dismissed from boot camps are often required to serve longer terms of incarceration in traditional correctional facilities. Typically, inmates involved in boot camps are required to wake up before dawn, dress quickly, gather, and march to an exercise yard, where they perform calisthenics, complete long runs, take on obstacle/challenge courses, and engage in manual labor. Inmates march to their dining facilities, where they typically eat quickly and with minimal conversation before engaging in more military exercises. Boot camps require inmates to adhere to a strict code of conduct at all times. Deviations from these rules are met with reprimands or punishments involving physical exercises (e.g., push-ups) or the removal of privileges. Outside of this quasi-military orientation, boot camps vary greatly. Some programs have little to no time allotted for treatment activities, while others devote considerable portions of the day to these activities. Some programs require offenders to volunteer for the programs; others allow judges or corrections officials to mandate boot camp participation. Another important variation is in the manner and intensity of postrelease community supervision; some programs offer offenders limited community supervision, while other programs offer intensive supervision. This bibliography lists research describing boot camps and their philosophy and goals. It also details research that evaluates inmate adjustment to the boot camp environment and the effects of boot camp participation on various outcomes. Taken together, the studies listed here describe the rise, fall, and evolution of correctional boot camp programs.

General Overviews

Numerous overviews of boot camps are available. MacKenzie and Hebert 1996, an edited volume, is notable for its chapters examining the various manifestations of boot camp programs in operation across the United States at the time. Cronin 1994 is another overview of the different forms of boot camp programs in operation in the early 1990s. Benda and Pallone 2005 provides a comprehensive overview of the issues surrounding boot camps. MacKenzie and Armstrong 2004 is another comprehensive collection of articles researching boot camps. For those looking for a briefer overview of boot camps, several resources are available. See, for example, Armstrong and MacKenzie 2003, MacKenzie 1990, Parent 2003, and Jenkins, et al. 1993. MacKenzie and Parent 1992 is unique in that it is a general overview of boot camp programs for juvenile offenders.

• Armstrong, Gaylene S., and Doris L. MacKenzie. 2003. Boot camps. In Encyclopedia of juvenile justice. Edited by Marilyn D. McShane and Franklin P. Williams III, 28–35. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  A very brief but expansive encyclopedia entry on boot camps, the debate about boot camps, and evaluations of boot camps’ effectiveness in reducing recidivism and prison crowding.

  Find this resource:

• Benda, Brent B., and Nathaniel J. Pallone, eds. 2005. Rehabilitation issues, problems, and prospects in boot camps. New York: Haworth.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  This edited volume contains chapters tracing the rise and fall of boot camps’ popularity, evaluations of boot camps on various outcomes, and adjustment to the boot camp environment. This volume was simultaneously published as a special issue of the Journal of Offender Rehabilitation (40.3–4 [2005]).

  Find this resource:

• Cronin, Roberta C., and Mei Han. 1994. Boot camps for adult and juvenile offenders: Overview and update. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  This research report surveyed correctional departments in all fifty states and the District of Columbia in 1992 and 1993. It provides an overview of boot camp programs at that time, as well as efforts to evaluate these programs.

  Find this resource:

• Jenkins, William, Jr., Lynn Gibson, and Frankie Fulton. 1993. Prison boot camps: Short-term prison costs reduced, but long-term impact uncertain. Washington, DC: US General Accounting Office.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  This report focuses on describing the number of boot camps; their effectiveness in reducing recidivism, prison costs, and prison crowding; and assessing the potential of boot camps in the federal prison system.

  Find this resource:

• MacKenzie, Doris L. 1990. Boot camp prisons: Components, evaluations, and empirical issues. Federal Probation 54:44–52.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  This brief overview of boot camps describes the features of boot camps, their goals, and their effectiveness in achieving these goals.

  Find this resource:

• MacKenzie, Doris L., and Gaylene S. Armstrong, eds. 2004. Correctional boot camps: Military basic training or a model for corrections? Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  This is perhaps the most comprehensive book on the topic of boot camps. All major issues surrounding boot camps are addressed. This volume is also notable because it focuses on the work of Doris L. MacKenzie, a prominent boot camp researcher, and her colleagues.

  Find this resource:

• MacKenzie, Doris L., and Eugene E. Hebert, eds. 1996. Correctional boot camps: A tough intermediate sanction. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  This is an edited volume of relatively early research on boot camps. It is notable for its chapters detailing boot camps in local, state, and federal facilities, as well as boot camps’ problems and prospects with special populations (e.g., substance abusers and women).

  Find this resource:

• MacKenzie, Doris L., and Dale G. Parent. 1992. Boot camp prisons for young offenders. In Smart sentencing: The emergence of intermediate sanctions. Edited by James M. Byrne, Arthur J. Lurigio, and Joan R. Petersilia, 103–122. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  This chapter discusses the growth and goals of boot camps, opposition to boot camps, and various manifestations of boot camps. The authors also discuss the evidence assessing the effectiveness of boot camps in meeting their goals.

  Find this resource:

• Parent, Dale G. 2003. Correctional boot camps: Lessons from a decade of research. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  The author reviewed ten years of research on boot camps to measure their effectiveness in meeting the goals of reduced recidivism and reductions in prison populations and correctional costs. He concludes that evaluations of boot camps generally report positive change in attitudes but not recidivism, and that boot camps reduce prison populations and correctional costs only in certain circumstances.

  Find this resource:

History, Philosophy, and Goals

Modern correctional boot camps emerged in Oklahoma and Georgia in 1983 and spread rapidly across the country, as described in Armstrong 2004 and Gowdy 1996. At one point, the vast majority of states had at least one boot camp in operation. MacKenzie and Souryal 1995 shows that boot camps were popular for several reasons; some favored them because they believed that the quasi-military environment would instill discipline and self-control; others favored them because they give judges and corrections officials a needed “intermediate sanction”; and still others supported them because boot camps can infuse needed funds into corrections. Critics of boot camps, however, argued that the military focus of boot camps is poorly suited to meet the needs of offenders, especially juvenile offenders, as explained in Henggeler and Schoenwald 1994, Mathlas and Matthews 1991, and Simon 1995. Other critics warned that the harsh, ultramasculine environment of boot camps could undermine efforts to rehabilitate, as outlined in Morash and Rucker 1990. Yet research such as MacKenzie, et al. 1989 and MacKenzie and Souryal 1991, which actually assessed boot camp programming, found that boot camps are much more supportive of rehabilitation than the rhetoric surrounding them implies.

• Armstrong, Gaylene S. 2004. Boot camps as a correctional option. In Correctional boot camps: Military basic training or a model for corrections? Edited by Doris L. MacKenzie and Gaylene S. Armstrong, 7–15. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  This chapter provides an overview of the history of boot camp programs, their surge in popularity beginning in the 1980s, and their goals and characteristics.

  Find this resource:

• Gowdy, Voncile. 1996. Historical perspective. In Correctional boot camps: A tough intermediate sanction. Edited by Doris L. MacKenzie and Eugene E. Hebert, 1–15. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  This chapter traces the history and growth of boot camps. It also provides useful descriptive statistics on various components of then-existing boot camp programs. Available online from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service.

  Find this resource:

• Henggeler, Scott W., and Sonja K. Schoenwald. 1994. Boot camps for juvenile offenders: Just say no. Journal of Child and Family Studies 3.3: 243–248.

  DOI: 10.1007/BF02234684Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  The authors assess the effectiveness of boot camps in reducing recidivism, using two approaches. First, the authors review evaluations of boot camp programs. Second, they review the causes and correlates of delinquency and examine whether boot camps target these risk factors. Based on these two lines of research, they argue that boot camps are ineffective.

  Find this resource:

• MacKenzie, Doris L., Larry A. Gould, Lisa M. Riechers, and James W. Shaw. 1989. Shock incarceration: Rehabilitation or retribution? Journal of Offender Counseling, Services and Rehabilitation 14.2: 25–40.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  This article reviews Louisiana’s first shock incarceration program. The authors focus on understanding the philosophy of this program and its “rehabilitative potential.”

  Find this resource:

• MacKenzie, Doris L., Claire C. Souryal. 1991. Boot camp survey: Rehabilitation, recidivism reduction outrank punishment as main goals. Corrections Today 53.6: 90–96.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  Boot camp administrators were asked to rate eleven program goals as one of the following: very important, important, somewhat important, not important, or not a goal. The program goals rated as “very important” by administrators were rehabilitation, reduced recidivism, and drug education. Reduced prison populations and safe prison environments were generally considered “important” goals. The least important program goals were punishment and vocational education.

  Find this resource:

• MacKenzie, Doris L., and Claire Souryal. 1995. A “Machiavellian” perspective on the development of boot camp programs: A debate. In Correctional boot camps: Military basic training or a model for corrections? Edited by Doris L. MacKenzie and Gaylene S. Armstrong, 58–71. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  These authors juxtapose two perspectives on boot camps: the Machiavellian perspective adopted by some correctional administrators supports boot camps and the funds that accompany them, despite concerns about these programs; the opposing perspective, adopted by many academics, cautions that boot camps may actually have detrimental effects.

  Find this resource:

• Mathlas, Rudolf E. S., James W. Mathews. 1991. Boot camp program for offenders: Does the shoe fit? International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 35.4: 322–327.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  These authors argue that boot camps “widen the net” by incarcerating offenders who otherwise would have been sentenced to probation. For these offenders, the boot camp environment may be harmful and is unlikely to be successful.

  Find this resource:

• Morash, Merry, and Lila Rucker. 1990. A critical look at the idea of a boot camp as a correctional reform. Crime & Delinquency 36.2: 204–222.

  DOI: 10.1177/0011128790036002002Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  These authors critique the boot camp model. They emphasize that its approach is steeped in images of masculinity and power, which may encourage aggression by staff and inmates.

  Find this resource:

• Simon, Jonathan. 1995. They died with their boots on: The boot camp and the limits of modern penality. Social Justice 22.2: 25–48.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  Simon argues that boot camps will prove to be ineffective because these short-term programs do not address the individual and contextual factors giving rise to criminal behavior. Thus, boot camps will not prove to be a lasting penal paradigm.

  Find this resource:

Atmosphere and Practices

Boot camps vary tremendously in their program components, target populations, length, and goals. In fact, the only common element tying boot camps together is a quasi-military environment utilizing military drill and ceremony, physical activity, and strict discipline. Collectively, these articles describe the various manifestations of boot camps in America; attention is given in Cass and Kaltenecker 1996 to describing program components, in Erwin 1996 to methods of discipline, and in Bourque, et al. 1996 to the availability of postrelease aftercare. Several studies compare the environments of boot camps and traditional correctional facilities from different perspectives: Gover, et al. 2000 compares these two types of facilities by utilizing interviews with administrators and program records; Styve, et al. 2000 compares types of facilities by contrasting the perceptions of juveniles confined in both types of facilities; Lutze 1998 compares facilities using adult perceptions; and Mitchell, et al. 1999 compares facility types as reported by correctional staff. Given the practices and goals of boot camps, Colledge and Gerber 1998 argues that the success of boot camps should be evaluated in light of each program’s specific goals. Lutze and Brody 1999 notes that some of the disciplinary practices employed in the various manifestations of boot camps may conflict with the Eighth Amendment.

• Bourque, Blair B., Mei Han, and Sarah M. Hill. 1996. Inventory of aftercare provisions for fifty-two boot camp programs. NIJ Research Report. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  This report describes the aftercare components of fifty-two correctional boot camps operated throughout the United States.

  Find this resource:

• Cass, Elizabeth S., and Neil Kaltenecker. 1996. The development and operation of juvenile boot camps in Florida. In Correctional boot camps: A tough intermediate sanction. Edited by Doris L. MacKenzie and Eugene E. Hebert, 179–190. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  At one time, Florida had more juvenile boot camps in operation than any other state. This chapter describes the development and operation of juvenile boot camps in Florida, with an emphasis on Manatee County’s program. Available online from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service.

  Find this resource:

• Colledge, Dale, and Jurg Gerber. 1998. Rethinking the assumptions about boot camps. Federal Probation 62:54–61.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  This article presents a typology based on the level of rehabilitative programming available and program goals for understanding differences between boot camp programs. The authors argue that the “success” of a particular boot camp program should be based on its true goals, and that success will be affected by several factors.

  Find this resource:

• Erwin, Billie S. 1996. Discipline in Georgia’s correctional boot camps. In Correctional boot camps: A tough intermediate sanction. Edited by Doris L. MacKenzie and Eugene E. Hebert, 191–205. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  In this chapter, the author details the methods used to maintain discipline in Georgia’s boot camps. These methods include verbal confrontation, “motivational physical therapy” (e.g., push-ups), issuing of demerits, written disciplinary reports, the removal of privileges, and ultimately removal from the program. Available online from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service.

  Find this resource:

• Gover, Angela R., Doris L. MacKenzie, and Gaylene J. Styve. 2000. Boot camps and traditional correctional facilities for juveniles: A comparison of the participants, daily activities, and environments. Journal of Criminal Justice 28.1: 53–68.

  DOI: 10.1016/S0047-2352(99)00032-XSave Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  Based on interviews and information collected about each facility, the authors compared twenty-seven juvenile boot camps to twenty-two traditional correctional facilities. Boot camps had less serious offenders, a more regimented structure, comparable therapeutic activities, and less contact with the community than traditional facilities.

  Find this resource:

• Lutze, Faith. 1998. Are shock incarceration programs more rehabilitative than traditional prison? A survey of inmates. Justice Quarterly 15.3: 547–563.

  DOI: 10.1080/07418829800093881Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  The author compared the perceptions of a group of shock incarceration inmates to those of a group of inmates incarcerated in a traditional prison, using the Prison Environment Inventory. The author found that the shock incarceration program’s environment was perceived as providing more control but was no more supportive of internal change (rehabilitation) than the traditional prison.

  Find this resource:

• Lutze, Faith E., and David C. Brody. 1999. Mental abuse as cruel and unusual punishment: Do boot camp prisons violate the Eighth Amendment? Crime & Delinquency 45.2: 242–255.

  DOI: 10.1177/0011128799045002004Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  These authors assess whether common forms of discipline used in boot camps violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. They conclude that some practices could be considered cruel and unusual, and that boot camps may thus be susceptible to costly litigation.

  Find this resource:

• Mitchell, Ojmarrh, Doris L. MacKenzie, Angela R. Gover, and Gaylene J. Styve. 1999. The environment and working conditions in juvenile boot camps and traditional facilities. Justice Research and Policy 1.2: 1–22.

  DOI: 10.3818/JRP.1.2.1999.1Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  Using data collected from over 1,200 juvenile correctional facility staff, the authors compare the perceived environmental conditions of boot camps and traditional facilities. Staff perceived boot camps as having activity for their inmates, more control over inmates, more structure, and more therapeutic programming.

  Find this resource:

• Styve, Gaylene J., Doris L. MacKenzie, Angela R. Gover, and Ojmarrh Mitchell. 2000. Perceived conditions of confinement: A national evaluation of juvenile boot camps and traditional facilities. Law and Human Behavior 24.3: 297–308.

  DOI: 10.1023/A:1005532004014Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  These authors compared the perceptions of juveniles confined in a national sample of boot camps to those of juveniles confined in traditional juvenile facilities. They found that juveniles in boot camps perceived the boot camp environment to be more controlled, active, structured, and more therapeutic than traditional prisons. Residents also perceived the boot camp environment to present less danger from other residents, but more danger from staff, than traditional prisons.

  Find this resource:

Offender Adjustment

Considerable research attention has been given to describing and assessing offender adjustment to the environments of boot camps. Studies such as Lutze 2001; MacKenzie, et al. 2001; MacKenzie, et al. 1992; and MacKenzie and Shaw 1990 find that most offenders adjust rapidly to the boot camp without experiencing major difficulties. A few studies, however, such as MacKenzie and Brame 1995, show no difference in offender adjustment. Interestingly, MacKenzie, et al. 2001 shows that youthful offenders with histories of abuse appear to adjust poorly to the boot camp environment. Similarly, Lutze and Murphy 1999 finds that inmates who perceive the boot camp environment as more masculine adjusted more poorly than other inmates. Further, a substantial minority of offenders either cannot conform to boot camps’ strict rules or handle the physical rigors, and as a result they either drop out or are dismissed, as shown in Benda, et al. 2006. Offenders who fail to complete boot camps tend to perceive the boot camp environment more negatively, have greater indicators of criminal tendency, and have lower self-efficacy than other participants.

• Benda, Brent B., Nancy J. Toombs, and Mark Peacock. 2006. Distinguishing graduates from dropouts and dismissals: Who fails boot camp? Journal of Criminal Justice 34.1: 27–38.

  DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2005.11.003Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  These authors looked at the characteristics of offenders who failed to complete a boot camp program (by dropping out or by being dismissed), as well as those who completed the program. Boot camp graduates and program failures differed in measures of social bonding, drug problems, and self-efficacy.

  Find this resource:

• Lutze, Faith E. 2001. The influence of a shock incarceration program on inmate adjustment and attitudinal change. Journal of Criminal Justice 29.3: 255–267.

  DOI: 10.1016/S0047-2352(01)00088-5Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  Lutze compared a group of inmates incarcerated in a shock incarceration program (SIP) to a group of inmates confined in a traditional minimum-security prison. In comparison to the traditional facility, inmates adjusted better to the SIP environment, and the SIP environment was perceived more positively.

  Find this resource:

• Lutze, Faith E., and David W. Murphy. 1999. Ultra-masculine prison environments and inmate adjustment: It’s time to move beyond the “boys will be boys” paradigm. Justice Quarterly 16.4: 709–733.

  DOI: 10.1080/07418829900094341Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  Authors tested the hypothesis that shock incarceration programs (i.e., boot camps) have ultramasculine environments by comparing a group of inmates incarcerated in a shock incarceration program to a group of inmates confined in a minimum-security traditional prison. Found mixed support for the masculinity hypothesis; however, inmates who perceived their environment as more masculine reported poorer adjustment.

  Find this resource:

• MacKenzie, Doris L., David B. Wilson, Gaylene S. Armstrong, and Angela R. Gover. 2001. The impact of boot camps and traditional institutions on juvenile residents: Perceptions, adjustment, and change. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 38.3: 279–313.

  DOI: 10.1177/0022427801038003004Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  Authors compared the experiences of 2,668 juveniles in twenty-six boot camps to those of 1,848 juveniles confined in twenty-two traditional juvenile facilities. They found that juveniles perceived the boot camp environment as being more therapeutic, more structured, and less dangerous. Juveniles confined in boot camps became less antisocial than juveniles confined in comparison facilities. Juveniles with histories of abuse faired less favorably in the boot camp environment.

  Find this resource:

• MacKenzie, Doris L., and Robert Brame. 1995. Shock incarceration and positive adjustment during community supervision. Journal of Quantitative Criminology 11.2: 111–142.

  DOI: 10.1007/BF02221120Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  This research compares the adjustment to community supervision of offenders released from shock incarceration programs and traditional prisons in five states. The authors find little conclusive evidence of differences in adjustment.

  Find this resource:

• MacKenzie, Doris L., James W. Shaw, and Claire Souryal. 1992. Characteristics associated with successful adjustment to supervision: A comparison of parolees, probationers, shock participants, and shock dropouts. Criminal Justice and Behavior 19.4: 437–454.

  DOI: 10.1177/0093854892019004007Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  Examines characteristics of a sample of offenders released from a boot camp. Those who successfully adjusted to community supervision were older, had less criminal history, and were more likely to be employed than former boot camp inmates who were unsuccessful in the first year after release from prison.

  Find this resource:

• MacKenzie, Doris L., and James W. Shaw. 1990. Inmate adjustment and change during shock incarceration: The impact of correctional boot camp programs. Justice Quarterly 7.1: 125–150.

  DOI: 10.1080/07418829000090501Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  Compares the adjustment, expectations for the future, and attitudes of offenders participating in a shock incarceration program with dropouts from the program, and with a comparison group of incarcerated offenders in traditional prisons. Findings indicate that boot camp participants adjust more positively to prison environment, perceive themselves as being more able to make positive changes, and have more prosocial attitudes than inmates in regular prisons.

  Find this resource:

Effect on Offenders’ Attitudes

Another area of considerable interest has been the effect of boot camp participation on offenders’ attitudes. The research generally concludes that boot camp participation is associated with positive attitudinal changes. Burton and Marquart 1993, McCorkle 1995, and Wright and Mays 1998 all support this conclusion. However, other research, such as MacKenzie 1995 and Mitchell, et al. 2005, indicates that these changes often are small and may not differ from attitudinal changes experienced in traditional facilities.

• Burton, Velmer S., Jr., and James W. Marquart. 1993. A study of attitudinal change among boot camp participants. Federal Probation 57.3: 46–52.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  Participants in a boot camp completed incoming and outgoing surveys that assessed eight domains. Survey findings indicate that participants exhibited positive change in every domain except AIDS counseling.

  Find this resource:

• McCorkle, Richard C. 1995. Correctional boot camps and change in attitude: Is all this shouting necessary? A research note. Justice Quarterly 12.2: 365–375.

  DOI: 10.1080/07418829500092721Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  Compares the change in attitudes of forty-eight boot camp participants to thirty-four inmates held in a treatment-oriented traditional prison. Results indicated that both groups’ attitudes changed to become more prosocial, and that there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in attitudinal change.

  Find this resource:

• MacKenzie, Doris L., and Claire Souryal. 1995. Inmates’ attitude change during incarceration: A comparison of boot camp with traditional prison. Justice Quarterly 12.2: 325–354.

  DOI: 10.1080/07418829500092701Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  These authors assessed the change in antisocial attitudes of boot camp and traditional prison inmates. They found that inmates in both groups developed less antisocial attitudes.

  Find this resource:

• Mitchell, Ojmarrh, Doris L. MacKenzie, and Deanna M. Pérez. 2005. A randomized evaluation of the Maryland correctional boot camp for adults: Effects on offender antisocial attitudes and cognitions. In Rehabilitation issues, problems, and prospects in boot camps. Edited by Brent B. Benda and Nathaniel J. Pallone, 71–86. New York: Haworth.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  These authors compared offenders randomly assigned to either a boot camp program or a traditional correctional facility on a measure of antisocial attitudes. They found no statistically or substantively significant differences in attitudinal change.

  Find this resource:

• Wright, Dionne T., and G. L. Mays. 1998. Correctional boot camps, attitudes, and recidivism: The Oklahoma experience. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 28.1–2: 71–87.

  DOI: 10.1300/J076v28n01_05Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  Authors evaluated the effects of Oklahoma’s Regimented Inmate Discipline (RID) program on measures of recidivism and attitudinal change. They found that nearly 75 percent of boot camp participants felt that the boot camp helped them change for the better; however, boot camp graduates were slightly more likely to recidivate than both probationers and inmates released from traditional prisons.

  Find this resource:

Effect of Adult Boot Camps on Recidivism

Numerous evaluations of boot camp programs for adult offenders have been conducted. Generally, these evaluations exhibit significant methodological shortcomings that undermine confidence in any one study’s results (see MacKenzie, et al. 2001). To date, MacKenzie, et al. 2007 is the only randomized experimental evaluation of an adult boot camp program. Notably, Mackenzie and colleagues found that boot camp participants had marginally lower recidivism rates compared to inmates assigned to a traditional prison. This conclusion is supported by findings from other research, such as Jones 1996 and MacKenzie 1991, which also found that boot camp participants had marginally lower recidivism rates than comparable offenders. Other notable evaluations of adult boot camps include Camp and Sandhu 1995, which is one of a very few to evaluate a female-only boot camp. MacKenzie, et al. 1995 is a multisite evaluation of boot camps in eight states; the authors tried to determine whether the military component of boot camps could account for the differences in recidivism between boot camp graduates and samples of prison parolees, probationers, and boot camp dropouts. The results from the multisite evaluation suggest that the observed group differences are due to factors other than the military component of boot camp programs. Overall, this body of research reveals mixed results, with some studies reporting significantly lower recidivism rates for boot camp participants, while other studies show lower recidivism rates for the comparison groups. MacKenzie 2006; MacKenzie, et al. 2001; and Wilson, et al. 2008 are systematic reviews of boot camps’ effects on recidivism. These reviews found no statistically significant differences in recidivism between the boot camp and comparison samples. The two latter reviews also conducted moderator analyses to examine the influence of method, offender, and treatment characteristics on observed results. They found that boot camps that had a greater emphasis on treatment or had an aftercare component did significantly better than comparison groups. This conclusion is supported by Kurlychek and Kempinen 2008, which found that boot camp participants who received a mandatory aftercare component have significantly lower recidivism rates relative to the control group.

• Camp, David A., and Harjit S. Sandhu. 1995. Evaluation of Female Offender Regimented Treatment program (FORT). Journal of the Oklahoma Criminal Justice Research Consortium 2:50–57.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  An evaluation of a female boot camp in Oklahoma. Caucasian and African American participants admitted to the Female Offender Regimented Treatment (FORT) program were compared to a group of offenders who had served in traditional prison.

  Find this resource:

• Jones, Mark. 1996. Do boot camp graduates make better probationers? Journal of Crime and Justice 19.1: 1–14.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  Jones compared the performance of boot camp graduates to other probationers on intensive probation. Boot camp graduates had lower rates of failure, but this difference was not statistically significant.

  Find this resource:

• Kurlychek, Megan, and Cynthia Kempinen. 2008. Beyond boot camp: The impact of aftercare on offender reentry. Criminology & Public Policy 5.2: 363–388.

  DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-9133.2006.00384.xSave Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  An outcome evaluation of a residential aftercare component provided to offenders graduating from the Quehanna Motivational Boot Camp in Quehanna, Pennsylvania. Compared to the control group, offenders who received the mandatory aftercare component had significantly lower recidivism rates.

  Find this resource:

• MacKenzie, Doris L. 1991. The parole performance of offenders released from shock incarceration (boot camp prisons): A survival time analysis. Journal of Quantitative Criminology 7.3: 213–236.

  DOI: 10.1007/BF01063232Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  The parole performance of graduates from a shock incarceration program was compared to offenders who either served time on probation or were released from traditional prisons on parole. The author found no evidence that graduation from the shock incarceration program reduced recidivism.

  Find this resource:

• MacKenzie, Doris L. 2006. What works in corrections: Reducing the criminal activities of offenders and delinquents. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  This book examines the impact of correctional treatment and rehabilitation programs, including boot camps, in reducing the recidivism of offenders and delinquents.

  Find this resource:

• MacKenzie, Doris L., David Bierie, and Ojmarrh Mitchell. 2007. An experimental study of a therapeutic boot camp: Impact on impulses, attitudes and recidivism. Journal of Experimental Criminology 3.3: 221–246.

  DOI: 10.1007/s11292-007-9027-zSave Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  The first randomized experimental evaluation of an adult boot camp. The main objective of the evaluation was to determine whether a correctional boot camp with a treatment orientation reduces recidivism in comparison to a standard correctional facility that also has a treatment orientation but no military component.

  Find this resource:

• MacKenzie, Doris L., Robert Brame, David McDowall, and Claire Souryal. 1995. Boot camp prisons and recidivism in eight states. Criminology 33.3: 327–358.

  DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.1995.tb01181.xSave Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  The recidivism of boot camp graduates was compared to that of prison parolees, probationers, and boot camp dropouts in eight states: Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, New York, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas. Since boot camp programming content differs substantially from state to state, the focus of the study was to determine whether the military aspect of boot camp programs, by itself, can account for differences between boot camps and traditional facilities.

  Find this resource:

• MacKenzie, Doris L., David B. Wilson, and Suzanne B. Kider. 2001. Effects of correctional boot camps on offending. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences 578.1: 126–143.

  DOI: 10.1177/0002716201578001008Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  A systematic review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of boot camps for juvenile and adult offenders in reducing recidivism. This review found no difference in recidivism rates between boot camps and their comparison groups. This finding was largely robust to variations in method, sample, and treatment characteristics.

  Find this resource:

• Wilson, David B., Doris L. MacKenzie, and Fawn N. Mitchell. 2008. Effects of correctional boot camps on offending. Campbell Systematic Review 1.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  An updated systematic review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of boot camps for juveniles and adults in reducing recidivism. These updated results (they were first published in 2003) continued to find no overall difference in recidivism rates between boot camps and their comparison groups. Boot camps with a stronger emphasis on treatment, however, had larger effects (i.e., produced greater reductions in recidivism).

  Find this resource:

Effect of Juvenile Boot Camps on Recidivism

The results generated from recidivism evaluations of juvenile boot camps are very similar to the findings of adult programs. Some studies have found that juvenile boot camp participants do better than their comparison groups, while other studies report that the comparison samples do better. Austin, et al. 2000 is a multisite evaluation of juvenile boot camp programs, and although in some cases the authors found boot camp participants exhibiting higher recidivism relative to comparison samples, overall there were no significant differences in recidivism between the boot camps and the comparisons. Farrington, et al. 2001 evaluated two distinct boot camp programs and found boot camp participants did better in one program, while the comparison group did better in the other. Bottcher and Ezell 2005 is an evaluation of a randomized experiment of a juvenile boot camp and intensive parole program in California; the authors report no significant differences between boot camp and control youths in terms of time to first arrest or average arrest frequency. Two systematic reviews of the effects of juvenile boot camps on recidivism, MacKenzie, et al. 2001 and Wilson, et al. 2008 found that participation in juvenile boot camps does not reduce recidivism in comparison to confinement in traditional juvenile facilities. Further, MacKenzie, et al. 2001 found the average effect of participation in a juvenile boot camp was slightly lower than adult boot camps, although this difference was not statistically significant. In the updated systematic review, Wilson, et al. 2008 notes that juvenile boot camps treating nonviolent offenders have slightly larger effects than boot camps with a more diverse and mixed offender population. However, the authors found the difference to be small and not significant.

• Austin, James, Donna Camp-Blair, Alethea Camp, Thomas Castellano, Terri Adams-Fuller, Michael Jones, Steve Kerr, Richard Lewis, and Susan Plant. 2000. Multisite evaluation of boot camp programs: Final report. Washington, DC: National Council on Crime and Delinquency, and the Institute on Crime, Justice, and Corrections at George Washington University.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  A multisite evaluation of juvenile boot camps. The authors found that boot camp participants demonstrated higher recidivism relative to comparison samples in some cases. Overall, however, they found no significant differences in recidivism between the boot camp and the comparisons.

  Find this resource:

• Bottcher, Jean, and Michael E. Ezell. 2005. Examining the effectiveness of boot camps: A randomized experiment with a long-term follow-up. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 42.3: 309–332.

  DOI: 10.1177/0022427804271918Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  A randomized experiment looking at a juvenile boot camp and an intensive parole program in California with a long-term follow-up. Program participants were compared to youths in standard custody and parole. The researchers found no significant differences between boot camp and control youths in terms of time to first arrest or average arrest frequency.

  Find this resource:

• Farrington, David P., John Ditchfield, Gareth Hancock, Philip Howard, Darrick Jolliffe, Mark S. Livingston, and Kate A. Painter. 2001. Evaluation of two intensive regimes for young offenders. Home Office Research Study 239. London: Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  Two samples of young males confined in quasi-military environments, the Thorn Cross High Intensity Treatment (HIT) and the Colchester Military Corrective Training Centre (MCTC), were compared to males from other prisons in the area. Participants in the HIT program did better than the comparison group, but participants in the MCTC did worse.

  Find this resource:

• MacKenzie, Doris L., David B. Wilson, and Suzanne B. Kider. 2001. Effects of correctional boot camps on offending. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences 578.1: 126–143.

  DOI: 10.1177/0002716201578001008Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  A systematic review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of boot camps for juvenile and adult offenders in reducing recidivism. This review found no difference in recidivism rates between boot camps and their comparison groups. This finding was largely robust to variations in method, sample, and treatment characteristics.

  Find this resource:

• Wilson, David B., Doris L. Mackenzie, and Fawn N. Mitchell. 2008. Effects of correctional boot camps on offending. Campbell Systematic Review 1.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  An updated systematic review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of boot camps for juveniles and adults in reducing recidivism. These updated results (they were first published in 2003) continued to find no overall difference in recidivism rates between boot camps and their comparison groups. Boot camps with a stronger emphasis on treatment, however, had larger effects (i.e., produced greater reductions in recidivism).

  Find this resource:

Overcrowding and Correctional Costs

Relatively few evaluations of the effects of boot camps on overcrowding or correctional costs have been conducted. Aziz and Korotkin 1996 discusses a method of estimating the effects on correctional costs. MacKenzie and Piquero 1994; Parent 1996; and Parent, et al. 1999 all evaluate the impact of boot camps on prison populations, with all of them concluding that boot camps have minimal effects on correctional populations.

• Aziz, David W., and Paul H. Korotkin. 1996. Can boot camps save dollars as well as souls? In Juvenile and Adult Boot Camps. Edited by Alice Fins, 353–366. Lanham, MD: American Correctional Association.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  This chapter discusses the ability of New York’s Shock Incarceration program to reduce correctional costs, as well as a model used to estimate these cost savings.

  Find this resource:

• MacKenzie, Doris L., and Alex Piquero. 1994. The impact of shock incarceration programs on prison crowding. Crime & Delinquency 40.2: 222–249.

  DOI: 10.1177/0011128794040002005Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  The authors evaluate the effect of shock incarceration programs on prison crowding in five states based on recidivism rates, length of incarceration, and other factors. Their results indicate that only programs whose entrants were almost uniformly diverted from traditional prison sentences produced reductions in prison populations.

  Find this resource:

• Parent, Dale G.1996. Boot camps and prison crowding. In Correctional boot camps: A tough intermediate sanction. Edited by Doris L. MacKenzie and Eugene E. Hebert, 263–274. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  Based on population simulations, the author specifies sets of conditions that must be met in order for boot camps to reduce prison populations. These sets of conditions are difficult to achieve and few boot camps meet them. Thus, the author concludes that boot camps in most jurisdictions are more likely to increase correctional populations and costs than reduce them. Available online from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service.

  Find this resource:

• Parent, Dale G., R. B. Snyder, and Bonnie Blaisdell. 1999. Boot camps’ impact on confinement bed space requirements: Final report to National Institute of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  The authors of this report examined the impact of boot camps on prison populations. Results indicate that (1) correctional systems need to analyze offender flow to estimate the appropriate size of boot camp programs; (2) boot camp participation should be reserved for prison-bound offenders; (3) sentence reductions for graduates should be large; (4) revocation for technical offenses should be minimized; and (5) cost savings are likely to be modest.

  Find this resource:

Special Populations

In addition to the general effects of boot camps, some research has also focused on the effects of boot camps on special populations. The two most commonly examined special populations are female and substance-abusing offenders. In regard to substance abusers in boot camps, Cowles, et al. 1995 shows that a large proportion of boot camps include substance abuse treatment and education components. Souryal and MacKenzie 1994 discusses the potential of substance abuse treatment in boot camps. Perhaps most important, Shaw and MacKenzie 1992 demonstrates that substance abusers do no worse in boot camps than nonabusers, and sometimes better, as shown in Benda, et al. 1996 and Shaw and MacKenzie 1991. In regard to female offenders, applying the boot camp model to female offenders has been met with considerable criticism on a host of grounds. Clark 1996 and Marcus-Mendoza, et al. 1998 argue that boot camps do not address female risk factors for recidivism and criminal behavior, whereas MacKenzie, et al. 1996 empirically demonstrates that women in mixed-gender boot camps experience serious problems.

• Benda, Brent B., Nancy J. Toombs, and Leanne Whiteside. 1996. Recidivism among boot camp graduates: A comparison of drug offenders to other offenders. Journal of Criminal Justice 24.3: 241–253.

  DOI: 10.1016/0047-2352(96)00008-6Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  Compares the recidivism of boot camp graduates incarcerated on a drug conviction to graduates convicted of other offenses. The results indicate that drug offenders have lower rates of recidivism than other offenders.

  Find this resource:

• Clark, Cheryl L. 1996. Sisters are doing it for themselves: Women in correctional boot camps. In Juvenile and Adult Boot Camps. Edited by Alice Fins, 309–320. Lanham, MD: American Correctional Association.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  This author examines the fit of women in boot camp programs in theory and in practice, focusing on whether female offenders have equal opportunities to enter boot camps, the effects of boot camps on offender females, and alternative correctional programs for female offenders.

  Find this resource:

• Cowles, Ernest L., Thomas C. Castelano, and Laura A. Gransky. 1995. “Boot camp” drug treatment and aftercare interventions: An evaluation review. NIJ Research in Brief. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  Describes the nature of boot camp substance-abuse programs and summarizes evidence of their effectiveness.

  Find this resource:

• MacKenzie, Doris L., Lori A. Elis, Sally S. Simpson, and Stacy B. Skroban.1996. Boot camps as an alternative for women. In Correctional boot camps: A tough intermediate sanction. Edited by Doris L. MacKenzie and Eugene E. Hebert, 233–244. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  The authors researched women in boot camps and found two different types of boot camps: (1) camps that served mostly males but included a few females, and (2) camps that served exclusively females. They found that female offenders involved in exclusively female boot camps faired more favorably on many outcomes, and therefore conclude that females should not be combined with males in these programs. Available online from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service.

  Find this resource:

• Marcus-Mendoza, Susan T., Jody Klein-Saffran, and Faith Lutze. 1998. A feminist examination of boot camp prison programs for women. Women & Therapy 21.1:173–185.

  DOI: 10.1300/J015v21n01_05Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  These authors critique the application of the boot camp model to female offenders. They argue that the model assumes that offenders lack discipline, but that research does not indicate that female offenders are lacking in discipline. The authors examine what is known about female criminality and the fit between these findings and the boot camp model.

  Find this resource:

• Shaw, James W., and Doris L. MacKenzie. 1991. Shock incarceration and its impact on the lives of problem drinkers. American Journal of Criminal Justice 16.1: 63–96.

  DOI: 10.1007/BF02899749Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  This study found that problem drinkers involved in shock incarceration programs tend to become less alienated and more prosocial in attitudes than their counterparts incarcerated in traditional prisons. Problem drinkers released from shock incarceration programs adjusted better to parole than problem drinkers released from regular prisons.

  Find this resource:

• Shaw, James W., and Doris L. MacKenzie. 1992. The one-year community supervision performance of drug offenders and Louisiana DOC-identified substance abusers graduating from shock incarceration. Journal of Criminal Justice 20.6: 501–516.

  DOI: 10.1016/0047-2352(92)90060-MSave Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  These authors found that substance abusers were no more or less likely to successfully complete shock incarceration than nonabusers. They also found that shock incarceration was unrelated to performance on community supervision.

  Find this resource:

• Souryal, Claire, and Doris L. MacKenzie. 1994. Can boot camps provide effective drug treatment? Corrections Today 56.1: 48–54.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  Describes and analyzes the drug treatment component of boot camp programs in five states. Authors recommend that such programs should screen offenders carefully, last at least three months, and be followed by a community-based intensive aftercare component.

  Find this resource:

Fall from Popularity, Evolution, and Future

Cullen, et al. 2005 and MacKenzie and Armstrong 2004 show that the popularity of boot camps has dropped markedly. While the reasons for this fall are debatable, Hayeslip 1996 argues that the decline in popularity of boot camps was predictable. Cullen, et al. 2005 implies that correctional boot camps are inherently flawed and should be abandoned, whereas Gransky, et al. 1995 suggest that boot camps have evolved away from the early emphasis on the military model and now incorporate considerable rehabilitative programming. Stinchcomb 1999 and Neely-Bertrand 2001 offer suggestions for revising and improving future boot camps.

• Cullen, Francis T., Kristie R. Blevins, Jennifer S. Trager, and Paul Gendreau. 2005. The rise and fall of boot camps: A case study in common-sense corrections. In Rehabilitation issues, problems, and prospects in boot camps. Edited by Brent B. Benda, and Nathaniel J. Pallone, 53–70. New York: Haworth.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  These authors argue that much of the appeal of boot camps was based on the common-sense notion that harsh punishment deters crime. However, empirical evidence failed to support this notion, and this research therefore diminished the popularity of boot camp programs. The authors use this perspective to demonstrate the potential benefits of “evidence-based” corrections.

  Find this resource:

• Gransky, Laura A., Thomas C. Castellano, and Ernest L. Cowles. 1995. Is there a “second generation” of shock incarceration facilities? The evolving nature of goals, program elements, and drug treatment services in boot camp programs. In Intermediate sanctions sentencing in the 1990s. Edited by John Ortiz Smykla and William L. Selke, 89–111. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  Based on survey data, the researchers found that shock incarceration programs exhibit high levels of rehabilitative ideology. They argue that the integration of treatment into boot camp programs represents a “second generation” of boot camps, as opposed to the first generation that focused more on the military model. The researchers also found that drug treatment was a particularly important focus of boot camp programs.

  Find this resource:

• Hayeslip, David W.1996. The future of boot camps. In Correctional boot camps: A tough intermediate sanction. Edited by Doris L. MacKenzie and Eugene E. Hebert, 297–307. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  Discusses the growth and evolution of boot camps, as well as future research needs. Hayeslip (correctly) predicted in this report that the popularity of boot camps would depend on political factors, the results of future research, and legal issues. Available online from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service.

  Find this resource:

• MacKenzie, Doris L., and Gaylene S. Armstrong. 2004. Where do we go from here? Boot camps in the future. In Correctional boot camps: Military basic training or a model for corrections? Edited by Doris L. MacKenzie and Gaylene S. Armstrong, 317–327. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  These authors briefly synthesize the results of existing boot camp evaluations and then suggest future directions for boot camp research. They conclude with a discussion of inmate safety in boot camps in light of well-publicized incidents of abuse in boot camps.

  Find this resource:

• Neeley-Bertrand, DeQuendre. 2001. Should camps get the boot? Could once-popular juvenile boot camps, now widely regarded as failed experiments, be made to succeed? Children’s Voice 10.2: 20–23.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  Traces the rise and fall of boot camps, and offers recommendations for better implementing and evaluating boot camps.

  Find this resource:

• Stinchcomb, Jeanne B. 1999. Recovering from the shocking reality of shock incarceration: What correctional administrators can learn from boot camp failures. Corrections Management Quarterly 3.4: 43–52.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  This author offers suggestions for improving boot camp programs. These suggestions include clearly defining program goals, implementing programs that closely adhere to program models, choosing appropriate offenders, and providing postrelease services.

  Find this resource: