U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 

Crime Prevention 

Research Review No. 5 

Effects of Correctional 

Boot-Camps on Offending 

David B. Wilson, Ph.D. 

Department of Criminology, Law and Society 

George Mason University 

Doris L. MacKenzie, Ph.D. 

Department of Sociology and Crime, 

Law and Justice 

Pennsylvania State University 

Fawn T. Ngo, Ph.D. 

University of South Florida 

Sarasota-Manatee 

The Campbell Collaboration 

The Campbell Collaboration Crime and Justice Group 
Suggested citation: 

Wilson, D.B., D.L. MacKenzie, and Ngo, F.T., Effects of 

Correctional Boot-Camps on Offending: A Campbell Collaboration 

Systematic Review, 2005. www.campbellcollaboration.org 

The opinions contained herein are those of the author and do 

not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the 

U.S. Department of Justice. References to specific companies, 

products, or services should not be considered an endorsement 

by the author or the U.S. Department of Justice. Rather, the 

references are illustrations to supplement discussion of the issues. 

The Campbell Collaboration Crime and Justice Group 

(www.campbellcollaboration.org/ccjg) is an international 

network of researchers that prepares, updates, and rapidly 

disseminates systematic reviews of high-quality research 

conducted worldwide on effective methods to reduce 

crime and delinquency and improve the quality of justice. 

This report is a Campbell Collaboration systematic review and was supported in part by a grant 

from the Jerry Lee Foundation. 

The Campbell Collaboration 

The Campbell Collaboration Crime and Justice Group 
Contents
�

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
�

Summary of Systematic Review Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
�

Findings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
�

Analysis of Variability in Effectiveness Across Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
�

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
�

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
�

Tables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
� 1 

 

 

 

Correctional boot-camps exist in federal, state, 

and local juvenile and adult jurisdictions in 

the United States. 

Introduction 
4 

Introduction 

Correctional boot-camps are an alternative to traditional incarceration and are modeled after 

the military boot-camp. They were first opened in adult correctional systems in Georgia and 

Oklahoma in 1983. They grew rapidly throughout the 1980s and 1990s, first within adult systems 

and later in juvenile corrections and were supported in part by the federal Violent Offender 

Incarceration and Truth-In-Sentencing Incentive Formula Grant Program (Bureau of Justice 

Programs 2005). 

Correctional boot-camps exist in federal, state, and local juvenile and adult jurisdictions in the 

United States. The initial popularity of boot-camps has been attributed to their common sense 

appeal and “notion that boot-camps strip away a recruit’s youthful immaturity, slovenliness, and 

general disrespect for authority” (Cullen et al. 2005, p. 60). The popularity of boot-camps has 

waned during the past decade, driven in part by media reports of abuse and death in juvenile 

boot-camps (e.g., Cullen et al. 2005; Leary 2006) and evidence, such as that presented in this 

report, that they are ineffective (Cullen et al. 2005). 

In the typical boot-camp, participants are required to arise early each morning and follow 

a rigorous daily schedule of activities, including drill and ceremony and physical training. 

Correctional officers are given military titles and participants are required to use these titles when 

addressing them. Staff and inmates are required to wear uniforms. Punishment for misbehavior 

is immediate and swift and usually involves some type of physical activity such as push-ups. 

Frequently, groups of inmates enter the boot-camps as squads or platoons. There is often an 

elaborate intake ceremony where inmates are immediately required to follow the rules, respond 

to staff in an appropriate way, stand at attention, and have their heads shaved. Many bootcamps have graduation ceremonies for those who successfully complete the program, and family 

members and others from the outside public frequently attend this event. The typical boot-camp 

program is 3 months, although some run for 6 months or are part of a longer split sentence. 

The camps for adjudicated juveniles differ somewhat from the adult camps. Less emphasis 

is placed on hard labor and, as required by law, the camps provide juveniles with academic 

education. Juvenile camps are also apt to provide more therapeutic components. However, in 

many other aspects the juvenile camps are similar to adult camps described above. 
 

 

 

 

While there are some basic similarities among the correctional boot-camps, the programs differ 

greatly in other aspects (MacKenzie and Hebert 1996). For example, the camps differ 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. Some 

camps emphasize therapeutic programming while others focus on discipline and rigorous physical 

training. Programs also differ in whether they are designed to be an alternative to probation or to 

prison. In some jurisdictions, judges sentence participants to the camps; in others, participants 

are identified by department of corrections personnel from those serving terms of incarceration. 

Another difference among programs is whether the residential phase is followed by an aftercare or 

re-entry program designed to assist the participants with adjustment back into the community. 

The purpose of this review is to systematically synthesize the extant empirical evidence on the effects 

of boot-camps and similar programs on the criminal behavior (recidivism) of convicted adult and 

juvenile offenders. This review did not examine research on the cost effectiveness of these programs, 

nor did it review the potential secondary effects on outcomes such as antisocial attitudes. 

5 

 

 

...the study evaluated a correctional bootcamp, shock incarceration, or intensive 

incarceration program... 

Summary of Systematic 

Review Methods 
8 

Summary of Systematic Review Methods 

This review used experimental and quasi-experimental evaluations of boot-camp and 

boot-camp-like programs for juvenile and adult offenders that utilized a comparison group. 

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, such as jail or 

prison; (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. 

Several strategies were used to identify studies, published or otherwise, that met the above 

criteria, including a keyword search of computerized databases, contact with authors 

working in this area, and examination of study registries. The final search of these sources 

was completed in early December 2003. We also contacted U.S. and non-U.S. researchers 

working in this area to request assistance in locating additional studies. 

All studies were coded using a structured protocol that captured information about the 

nature of the boot-camp, the research design, and the study results. Meta-analytic methods 

were used to analyze and synthesize the recidivism results across studies. 
 

 

...a review which ignores pre-post studies without control 

groups would miss a large number of problem-oriented 

policing evaluations. 

Findings 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Findings
�

10 

We identified 32 unique research studies reported in 43 documents. These 32 research studies 

evaluated the effectiveness of 43 independent boot-camp programs. Most of these studies 

evaluated boot-camps in the United States. One evaluated a Canadian program and another 

evaluated two separate programs in Great Britain. A complete listing of these studies can be 

found in the full Campbell Collaboration review (www.campbellcollaboration.org). 

All of these studies reported the recidivism rates for the boot-camp group and a comparison 

group at some point following release. The typical comparison condition was prison or jail 

or some other form of residential placement in the case of juveniles. Recidivism was typically 

measured at 12 months. For example, a study might report the percentage of the offenders 

released from the boot-camp and prison who were arrested within 1 year of release. These 

data were used to compute an odds-ratio effect size used to compare results across studies and 

perform the meta-analysis. An odds-ratio greater than 1 reflects a lower recidivism rate among 

the boot-camp offenders, and an odds-ratio less than 1 reflects a higher recidivism rate among 

the boot-camp offenders, related to the comparison condition. 

We examined the results in several ways, and each approach yielded highly similar results. 

First, we selected the most general measure of recidivism reported in each study. Second, we 

computed an average odds-ratio for each study using all reported results. Third, we examined 

results separately for odds-ratios based on arrest, reconviction, and reinstitutionalization. The 

mean odds-ratio across studies for each of these methods is reported in Table 1 on page 22. The 

results indicate that on average the recidivism rates for offenders, including both adults and 

juveniles, released from boot-camps were highly similar to the recidivism rates for offenders 

released from prison or jail (that is, the mean odds-ratios were near 1). In short, the evidence 

suggests that boot-camps, in general, do not produce a reduction in future offending relative to 

the typical criminal justice system sanctions. 

Figure 1, on page 23, is a graphic depiction (forest plot) of the distribution of odds-ratios 

across the studies. The diamond represents the odds-ratio for each study and the horizontal 

line represents the 95 percent confidence interval (range in which we are 95 percent sure the 

true effect of that particular program resides). Some studies found that boot-camp participants 

recidivated at a lower rate than comparable offenders, whereas other studies found just the 

opposite. This variability in effectiveness across studies is substantial—some boot-camp programs 

may be effective, whereas others may be harmful. 
 

 

 

...the evidence suggests that boot-camps, 

in general, do not produce a reduction 

in future offending relative to the typical 

criminal justice system sanctions. 

Analysis of Variability in 

Effectiveness Across Studies 
Analysis of Variability in Effectiveness Across Studies
�

12 

One potential source of the variability in results across studies is differences in methodological 

rigor. We examined several important methodological differences across studies and the results 

revealed no meaningful relationships between method features and study findings. The four 

studies that used random assignment to the boot-camp and comparison conditions observed 

results that slightly favored the comparison condition, but not statistically significantly so. 

Several other methodological quality variables slightly favored the boot-camp group but 

taken together, these analyses suggest that the finding of the ineffectiveness of boot-camps at 

reducing recidivism is robust to methodological differences across studies. 

Another source of variability across studies was in the nature of the offenders in the study. 

Most of the samples were exclusively male, with only two studies examining the effects of 

female-only boot-camps, and seven studies evaluating mixed gender boot-camps. Overall, the 

studies that evaluated female-only boot-camp programs had slightly negative effects, albeit not 

meaningfully so. Similarly, evaluations of juvenile boot-camps observed slightly lower effects 

(and slightly negative) than evaluations of adult boot-camps. No single group of offenders 

appeared to benefit from boot-camps relative to traditional sentences. In particular, the effects 

did not vary by gender. 

Although the dominant features of boot-camps are physical exercise and military drill and 

ceremony, both carried out in the context of strict discipline, the boot-camps evaluated by 

the studies in this review often incorporated other traditional rehabilitative programs such as 

drug abuse treatment, vocational education, and aftercare transition assistance. These expressly 

rehabilitative components may add value to a boot-camp program, producing a beneficial 

effect for the offenders. Analyses suggested that boot-camps with a stronger rehabilitative focus 

produced more positive outcomes than those with a lesser rehabilitative focus. In particular, 

evaluations of boot-camps that integrated some form of counseling had larger, and positive, 

effects than evaluations of boot-camps without counseling, particularly for juvenile bootcamps. Additionally, slight differences favored boot-camps that incorporated an aftercare 

component, drug treatment, and academic programming. When we categorized boot-camps 

as having a strong or weak rehabilitative focus, the overall mean odds-ratio for those programs 

with a strong rehabilitative is only slightly positive and not statistically significant. Thus, even 

with a strong rehabilitative focus, the evidence suggests that boot-camps are no more effective 

than more traditional correctional alternatives. 
 

 

 

The interventions covered a variety 

of problems, demonstrating the wide 

applicability of problem-oriented policing. 

Conclusions 
14 

Conclusions
�

This systematic review addressed the question: Are correctional boot-camps effective at 

reducing criminal behavior? It should be clear from the discussion thus far that boot-camp is a 

general term for a category of correctional programs that varies between programs. All bootcamps, however, do have a common set of features that include the militaristic atmosphere, a 

rigorous and rigid daily schedule that includes physical training or labor, and strict discipline. 

Both advocates and critics of boot-camps are likely to be disappointed by the findings of this 

review. Advocates expect the programs to successfully reduce the future criminal activities of 

adults and juveniles. Critics argue that boot-camps are poorly conceived programs that will 

not reduce recidivism and may actually have the opposite effect by causing psychological harm 

and even increasing criminal activities. Our results do not support either side of this argument. 

Correctional boot-camps are neither as good as the advocates expect nor as bad as the critics 

hypothesize. 

Although the overall effect appears to be that of “no difference,” some studies found that bootcamp participants did better than the comparison, while others found that comparison samples 

did better. Our analyses found few variables that reliably explain these differences in results 

across studies. Programs with a stronger rehabilitative focus did, however, fair slightly better 

than strictly military drill and ceremony type boot-camps. 

What do these findings mean? All of these studies had the common element of a militaristic 

boot-camp program for offenders. We reason that if this common component across studies 

is truly effective at reducing the future criminal behavior of offenders, then we would expect 

to see a distribution of effects that is positive, on average. That is, if a militaristic atmosphere, 

strict discipline, and rigorous physical exercise are beneficial, then the boot-camp samples 

would have shown lower rates of recidivism than the comparison samples (e.g., prison, 

jail, and probation), even though the effects may have varied substantially because of other 

programmatic elements incorporated into the boot-camp programs. This is not what we found. 

Thus, the extant evidence suggests that the military component of boot-camps is not effective 

in reducing post boot-camp offending. 
Should boot-camps be abolished? Although this review questions the effectiveness of boot-camps 

as a correctional practice, the evidence also suggests that they are no worse than the alternatives 

examined in these studies (e.g., jail and prison time). The large variation in the distribution 

of effects suggests that effective treatment components such as those identified by other metaanalyses (Andrews et al. 1990; Gendreau and Ross 1987; Lipsey 1992; Lipsey and Wilson 

1998) may be added to boot-camps, resulting in an effective program. We do not know whether 

effective correctional programming is more (or less) effective within the boot-camp environment 

than when provided within a prison or as an adjunct to probation. Furthermore, boot-camps may 

have other benefits such as reduced need for prison beds (e.g., MacKenzie and Piquero 1994; 

MacKenzie and Parent 1991) or improved prosocial attitudes, attachment to community or 

reduced impulsivity (MacKenzie et al. 2001; MacKenzie and Shaw 1990; MacKenzie and Souryal 

1995). Justifying the adoption or continued use of boot-camps should not, however, be made on 

claims of their potential to reduce crime within a community. 

15

References
�
18 

References
�

Andrews, D.A., I. Zinger, R.D. Hoge, J. Bonta, P. Gendreau, and F.T. Cullen. “Does Correctional 

Treatment Work? A Clinically Relevant and Psychologically Informed Meta-Analysis.” 

Criminology, 28 (1990): 369–404. 

Bureau of Justice Assistance. Violent Offender Incarceration and Truth-In-Sentencing Incentive 

Formula Grant Program (Report to Congress). Washington, D.C.: Office of Justice Programs, 

U.S. Department of Justice, 2005. 

Clark, C.L. and D.W. Aziz. “Shock Incarceration in New York State: Philosophy, Results, and 

Limitations.” In D.L. MacKenzie and E.E. Hebert (Eds.), Correctional Boot Camps: A Tough 

Intermediate Sanction. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice, 1996. 

Cullen, F.T., K.A. Blevins, J.S. Trager, and P. Gendreau. “The Rise and Fall of Boot Camps: A 

Case Study in Common-Sense Corrections.” Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 40 (3/4) 

(2005): 53–70. 

Fleiss, J.L. “Measures of Effect Size for Categorical Data.” In H. Cooper and L.V. Hedges, The 

Handbook of Research Synthesis. New York: Russell Sage, 1994. 

Gendreau, P., T. Little, and C. Groggin. “A Meta-Analysis of the Predictors of Adult Offender 

Recidivism: What Works!” Criminology, 34 (1996): 575–607. 

Gendreau, P and R.R. Ross. “Revivification of Rehabilitation: Evidence from the 1980s.” Justice 

Quarterly, 4 (1987): 349–407. 

Gowdy, V.B. “Historical Perspective.” In D.L. MacKenzie and E.E. Hebert (Eds.), Correctional 

Boot Camps: A Tough Intermediate Sanction. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice, 

1996. 

Leary, A. “Boot Camps Losing Favor Nationally.” St. Petersburg Times (Florida). Retrieved January 

28, 2009, from LexisNexis Academic, March 5, 2006. 

Lipsey, M. “Juvenile Delinquency Treatment: A Meta-Analytic Inquiry Into the Variability of 

Effects.” In T.D. Cook, H. Cooper, D.S. Cordray, H. Hartmann, L.V. Hedges, R.J. Light, T.A. 

Louis, and F. Mosteller (Eds.), Meta-Analysis for Explanation: A Casebook (pp. 83–127). New 

York, New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1992. 
 

 

 

Lipsey, M.W. and D.B. Wilson. “Effective Intervention for Serious Juvenile Offenders: A 

Synthesis of Research.” In R. Loeber and D. Farrington (Eds.), Serious and Violent Juvenile 

Offenders: Risk Factors and Successful Interventions (pp. 313–345). Thousand Oaks, California: 

Sage, 1998. 

Lipsey, M.W. and D.B. Wilson. Practical Meta-Analysis. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage, 2001. 

MacKenzie, D.L. “Reducing The Criminal Activities of Known Offenders and Delinquents: 

Crime Prevention in the Courts and Corrections.” In L.W. Sherman, D.P. Farrington, B.C. 

Welsh, and D.L. MacKenzie (Eds.), Evidence-Based Crime Prevention. Harwood Academic 

Publishers, United Kingdom, 2000. 

MacKenzie, D.L. “Criminal Justice and Crime Prevention.” In L.W. Sherman et al. (Eds.), 

Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn’t, What’s Promising (A Report to the United States 

Congress). College Park, Maryland: Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 

University of Maryland, 1997. 

MacKenzie, D.L., and E.E. Herbert, (Eds.). Correctional Boot Camps: A Tough Intermediate 

Sanction. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice, 1996. 

MacKenzie, D.L. and D. Parent. “Boot Camp Prisons for Young Offenders.” In J.M. Byrne, A.J. 

Lurigio, and J. Petersilia (Eds.), Smart Sentencing: The Emergence of Intermediate Sanctions. 

Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications, 1992. 

MacKenzie, D.L. and A. Piquero. “The Impact of Shock Incarceration Programs on Prison 

Crowding.” Crime & Delinquency, 40 (1994): 222–249. 

MacKenzie, D.L., J.W. Shaw, and V.B. Gowdy. Evaluation of Shock Incarceration in Louisiana, 

Executive Summary. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice, 1990. 

MacKenzie, D.L. and C. Souryal. Multi-Site Evaluation of Shock Incarceration: Executive 

Summary. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice, 1994. 

MacKenzie, D.L., G.J. Styve, A.R. Gover, and D.B. Wilson. “The Impact of Boot Camps and 

Traditional Institutions on Juvenile Residents: Adjustment, Perception of the Environment 

and Changes in Social Bonds, Impulsivity, and Antisocial Attitudes.” Journal on Research in 

Crime & Delinquency, 38 (2001): 279–313. 

19 
 

20 

MacKenzie, D.L., D.B. Wilson, and S. Kider. “Effects of Correctional Boot Camps on 

Offending.” Annals of the American Academy of Political & Social Science, 578 (2001): 

126–143. 

Morash, M. and L. Rucker. “A Critical Look at the Idea of Boot Camp as a Correctional Reform.” 

Crime & Delinquency, 36 (1990): 204–222. 

Sechrest, D.D. “Prison ‘Boot Camps’ Do Not Measure Up.” Federal Probation, 53 (1989): 15–20. 

Wilson, D.B. and L.D. MacKenzie. (In press). “Correctional Boot Camps and Offending.” 

In B.C. Welsh and D.P. Farrington, Preventing Crime: What Works for Children, Offenders, 

Victims, and Places. Belmont, California: Wadsworth. 
Tables
�
22 

Table 1: Overall Mean Odds-Ratio by Outcome Type 

95% Confidence Interval 

Selected Outcome 

Mean 

Odds-Ratio Lower Upper Number of Odds-Ratio 

Any Recidivism (most general) 1.02 0.90 1.14 43 

All Crime Outcomes 1.00 0.85 1.18 43 

Selected Outcome 

Arrest 0.96 0.82 1.14 23 

Reconviction 1.10 0.96 1.26 35 

Reinstitutionalization 1.11 0.93 1.32 19 
23

Figure 1: Graphic Illustration of the Odds-Ratio (Most General Effect) and 95% Confidence Interval for Each Study 

Author and Year  N  Favors Comparison  Favors Bootcamp

 Fl. Dept. of JJ (Martin Co.), 1997  110  Fl. Dept. of JJ (Polk Co., Boys), 1997  128  MacKenzie & Souryal (Louisiana), 1994  404

 MacKenzie & Souryal (Illinois), 1994  294

 Farrington et al. (Colchester), 2001  175

 Farrington et al. (Thron Cross), 2001  314

 MacKenzie & Souryal (Florida), 1994  289  Marcus­Mendoza (Men), 1995  4032

 Flowers, Carr, & Ruback 1991  2468

 Kempinem & Kurlychek, 2001  1040

 MacKenzie & Souryal (S.C., Old), 1994  217  Peters (Mobile, AL), 1996b  363

 Aloisi & Lebaron, 2001  609

 MacKenzie & Souryal (Oklahoma), 1994  311  Fl. Dept. of JJ (Leon Co.), 1996  129

 T3 Associates, 2000  294

 MacKenzie & Souryal (New York), 1994  286

 Zhang (unmatched comparison), 2000  200

 Camp & Sandhu, 1995  508  NY DCS (88­99 Releases), 2003  59136

 Jones, 1996  307

 Jones (FY91­93), 1998  19099

 Stinchcomb & Terry, 2001  479  Zhang (matched comparison), 2000  854

 Harer & Klein­Saffran, 1996  310

 CA Dept. of the Youth Authority, 1997  642

 Burns & Vito, 1995  375

 Gransky & Jones, 1995  8496

 Austin, Jones, & Bolyard, 1993  760  Peters (Denver, CO), 1996a  240

 Mackenzie, et al. 1997  694

 Fl. Dept. of JJ (Bay Co.), 1997  121

 NY DCS (00­01 Releases), 2003  5369

 NY DCS (99­00 Releases), 2003  5365

 Fl. Dept. of JJ (Pinellas Co.), 1996  109

 Fl. Dept. of JJ (Manatee Co.), 1996  121

 Wright & Mays, 1998  1937

 Thomas & Peters, 1996  364

 Jones, 1997  700

 Boyles, Bokenkamp, & Madura, 1996  735  MacKenzie & Souryal (S.C., New), 1994  218  Fl. Dept. of JJ (Polk Co., Girls), 1997  60

 MacKenzie & Souryal (Georgia), 1994  164

 Overall Mean Odds­Ratio

 .1  .25  .50  .75  1  2  5  10  25

 Odds­Ratio 


U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 

Two Constitution Square 

145 N Street, N.E. 

Washington, DC 20530 

To obtain details on COPS programs, 

call the COPS Office Response Center at 800.421.6770
�

Visit COPS Online at www.cops.usdoj.gov

September 2010 

e09101303 

ISBN: 978-1935676-25-6