Last updated: March 2011 www.ojjdp.gov/mpg

 Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 1

Wilderness Camps 

Wilderness camps (or challenge programs or wilderness therapy programs) are residential placements 

that provide participants with a series of physically challenging outdoor activities designed to prevent 

or reduce delinquent behavior and recidivism. Wilderness camps serve as alternatives to traditional 

detention (Tarolla et al. 2002). The Government Accountability Office (GAO) defined wilderness 

therapy as “a program that places youth in different natural environments, including forests, 

mountains, and deserts” (GAO 2007, 5). The programs seek to remove youths from the distractions of 

their everyday lives, so they can concentrate on themselves while in the program. These programs vary 

widely in terms of settings, eligibility criteria, types of activities, duration, involvement of family 

members, and therapeutic goals. Key program components common in wilderness camps include 

therapeutic camping, rock climbing, wagon train trips, overnight solo experiences, alternative schools, 

individual and group therapy sessions, and family counseling (Roberts 2004). 

Lack of a Standard Definition 

Although wilderness camps have distinct program components, there are currently no standardized 

definitions of residential programs that allow for easy differentiation between program types. This has 

led to confusion over the differences between specific types of programs, especially wilderness camps 

and boot camps. Some programs that advertise as “wilderness therapy programs” may actually be boot 

camps run in a wilderness environment. One of the major differences between wilderness camps and 

boot camps is the underlying theoretical framework of the programs. Wilderness camps are grounded 

in experiential learning that advocates “learning by doing” and facilitates opportunities for personal 

growth, while boot camps are informed by a military model and involve the use of physical and 

psychological aggression against juveniles. In addition, the evaluation research on wilderness camps 

has generally shown promising or mixed results, while evaluations of boot camps have shown mixed 

results—in particular that they are not as effective at reducing recidivism or changing youths’ behavior 

(Russell 2001). 

In addition, a lack of a standard definition of residential programs, including wilderness camps, has 

contributed to serious issues in the oversight of these programs. The GAO launched an investigation 

into allegations of abuse and death in residential treatment programs for troubled youth. The 

investigations found thousands of cases and allegations of child abuse and neglect (GAO 2007). The 

report noted that ineffective management and negligent operating practices led to many cases where 

youths were abused or even killed (see the literature on Residential for further information on the 

GAO findings). 

Suggested Reference: Development Services Group, Inc. 2011. “Wilderness Camp.” Literature review. Washington, D.C.: Office 

of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. https://www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/litreviews/Wilderness_Camp.pdf

Prepared by Development Services Group, Inc., under cooperative agreement number 2013–JF–FX–K002. Points of view or 

opinions expressed in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of 

OJJDP or the U.S. Department of Justice.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 2

One specific measure that was taken against wilderness camp programs as results of the GAO report 

came from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the Federal Government department that manages 

public lands and waters. The BLM issued an Instrument Memorandum (IM) to wilderness therapy or 

residential treatment programs that operate on public lands under Special Recreation Permits. The IM 

addressed concerns from the GAO report and issued numerous special requirements as a result of the 

findings of abuse and neglect at residential programs. One of the special requirements would deny 

applications for a permit to wilderness therapy programs that operate on public lands in States without 

licensing or regulation of these programs, because the BLM does not have the personnel or expertise to 

provide the necessary oversight (BLM 2008). 

Target Population

The target population of wilderness camps varies by location. In a survey of therapeutic wilderness 

programs, Fuentes and Burns (2002) found that program participants ranged from 11 to 17 years old, 

though the vast majority of participants were older teenagers. Program participants were 

predominately male and white, with a mix of nonviolent and violent offenses. Most of the programs 

often excluded females and juveniles convicted of sexual offenses (Fuentes and Burns 2002).

Theoretical Foundation

Generally, wilderness camps seek to rehabilitate youth by concentrating on three risk factors of 

delinquency: external locus of control, low self-esteem, and poor interpersonal skills (Wilson and 

Lipsey, 2000). The risk factors are supported by longitudinal studies (Hawkins and Catalano 1992; 

Huizinga, Loeber, and Thornberry 1992) that have found correlations (though not a causal relationship) 

between psychological and interpersonal adjustment and delinquent behavior. Recent reviews of 

previous studies (Hawkins et al. 1998; Lipsey and Derzon 1998) have also supported the association 

between psychological and interpersonal factors and delinquency.

Antisocial and delinquent behaviors of youths are ameliorated through two dimensions of experiential 

learning: mastery of 1) physical activities and 2) interpersonal interactions.

The physical activities of wilderness camps are usually unfamiliar and demanding, presenting 

challenging problems with clear consequences of failure. By mastering the difficult activities, program 

participants experience success and achievement that translate into positive attitudinal and behavior 

changes through increases in confidence and self-esteem and a more internalized locus of self-control 

(Wilson and Lipsey 2000). The newly empowered youth is presumably less likely to commit future 

delinquent acts.

The second dimension, interpersonal interactions, takes place through the group orientation of 

wilderness camps. Although some physical activities can be completed by youths on their own, other 

activities require cooperation and communication in a group setting. Youths learn prosocial and 

interpersonal skills that can be applied to life outside the program through positive and cooperative 

interaction with team leaders and supportive peers during the activities (Tarolla et al. 2002; Wilson and 

Lipsey 2000).

Outcome Evidence

While military-style boot camps have consistently failed to demonstrate any positive impact on juvenile 

offenders’ recidivism rates, the data on wilderness camps is more encouraging. Wilson and Lipsey’s 

meta-analysis (2000) of 29 different studies of wilderness programs, involving more than 3,000 juvenile 

offenders, indicates that program participants experience recidivism rates that are about 8 percentage 
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 3

points lower than comparison subjects (29 percent versus 37 percent). However, these moderately 

positive results do not reflect the marked inconsistencies in individual program results. The results 

from the meta-analysis also show that programs involving a combination of relatively intense physical 

activity and therapeutic enhancement such as individual counseling, family therapy, and therapeutic 

group sessions were especially effective, while those that involved less physically challenging activities 

and little or no therapeutic content made a less significant impact. 

One of the best-known and most studied wilderness programs in the United States is VisionQuest. 

Founded in 1973, this national program provides alternatives to incarceration for serious juvenile 

offenders. VisionQuest youths typically spend 12 to 15 months in various challenging outdoor impact 

and therapeutic treatment programs. A normal treatment course often includes a 3-month stay at a 

wilderness orientation program (where the youths live in tepees or comparable primitive conditions), 

a 5-month adventure program (during which juvenile offenders can embark on wagon train odysseys, 

cross country biking trips, or ocean voyages), and a 5-month community residential/therapeutic 

program. The program also features an aftercare program called HomeQuest that offers support to 

youths and families upon reentry. 

Controlled studies of VisionQuest have consistently demonstrated its efficacy in lowering participants’ 

recidivism rates. One evaluation, performed by the RAND Corporation in the 1980s (Greenwood and 

Turner 1987), found that VisionQuest graduates consistently outperformed a control group from a 

conventional correctional facility, despite the fact that the VisionQuest group contained more serious 

offenders. When differences in group characteristics were statistically controlled, VisionQuest youths 

were about half as likely as subjects in the control group to be rearrested after 1 year (Howell 1998). 

Limitations of Research

Other studies of wilderness camps have found that they are as effective as or more effective than 

traditional institutionalization at reducing recidivism rates (Roberts 2004). Despite such promising 

results, numerous questions about the efficacy of wilderness programs remain unanswered. Wilson 

and Lipsey (2000) found that the length of wilderness programs seemed to have an inverse effect on 

treatment results (i.e., the longer the program, the less chance of its achieving statistically significant 

results on treatment outcomes). Such a finding seems counterintuitive and puzzling in light of the 

success of some long-term programs, such as VisionQuest. Additional studies have also noted that, thus 

far, the majority of participants in wilderness programs have been white male juvenile offenders. Little 

is known about the program’s effectiveness with African Americans, Hispanics, and females. 

Additional research is still required to conclusively demonstrate the efficacy of such programs across 

different treatment types and diverse target populations (Fuentes and Burns 2002). Further research is 

also needed to improve the methodological rigor of evaluation studies looking at the effectiveness of 

wilderness camps. Future program evaluations should incorporate stronger study designs, such as 

randomly controlled trial, to ensure internal validity of the results. Studies should also examine the 

particular components of wilderness camps that contribute to positive effects on participants. 

References

(BLM). U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2008. “Health and Safety of 

Participants Attending ‘Wilderness Therapy Programs’ or ‘Residential Treatment Programs for 

Troubled Youth’ on Public Lands.” Instruction Memorandum No. 2008–141. Washington, D.C.: 

U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management.

Fuentes, Angel I., and Ronald Burns. 2002. “Getting Back to Nature: An Examination of Therapeutic 

Wilderness Programming.” Journal for Juvenile Justice and Detention Services 17(1):21–35.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 4

(GAO) U.S. Government Accountability Office. 2007. “Residential Treatment Programs: Concerns 

Regarding Abuse and Death in Certain Programs for Troubled Youth.” Testimony Before the 

Committee of Education and Labor, U.S. House of Representatives. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Government Accountability Office.

Greenwood, Peter W., and Susan Turner. 1987. The VisionQuest Program: An Evaluation. Santa Monica, 

Calif.: RAND Corporation.

Hawkins, J. David, and Richard F. Catalano. 1992. Communities That Care. San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey–

Bass.

Hawkins, J. David, Todd I. Herrenkohl, David P. Farrington, Devon D. Brewer, Richard F. Catalano, 

and Tracy W. Harachi. 1998. “A Review of Predictors of Youth Violence.” In Rolf Loeber and 

David P. Farrington (eds.). Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders: Risk Factors and Successful 

Interventions. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE Publications.

Howell, James C. 1995. Guide for Implementing the Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic 

Juvenile Offenders. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

Huizinga, David H., Rolf Loeber, and Terence P. Thornberry. 1992. Urban Delinquency and Substance 

Abuse. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of 

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

Lipsey, Mark W., and James H. Derzon. 1998. “Predictors of Violent or Serious Delinquency in 

Adolescence and Early Adulthood: A Synthesis of Longitudinal Research.” In Rolf Loeber and 

David P. Farrington (eds.). Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders: Risk Factors and Successful 

Interventions. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE Publications.

Roberts, Albert P. 2004. “Structured Wilderness Experience: Camping, Environmental, and Other 

Outdoor Rehabilitation Programs.” In Albert P. Roberts (ed.). Juvenile Justice Sourcebook: Past, 

Present, and Future. New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press.

Russell, Keith C. 2001. “What Is Wilderness Therapy?” Journal of Experiential Education 24(2):70–79.

Tarolla, Susan M., Eric F Wagner, Jonathan Rabinowitz, and Jonathan G. Tubman. 2002. 

“Understanding and Treating Juvenile Offenders: A Review of Current Knowledge and Future 

Directions.” Aggression and Violent Behavior 7(2):125–43.

Wilson, Sandra Jo, and Mark W. Lipsey. 2000. “Wilderness Challenge Programs for Delinquent Youth: 

A Meta-Analysis of Outcome Evaluations.” Evaluation and Program Planning 23:1–12.