Impacts of After-School Programs on Student Outcomes: A Systematic Review
By Susan Zief, S. Lauver, R. Maynard. 2006
105 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Correctional boot camps were first opened in United States adult correctional systems in 1983. Since that time they have rapidly grown,first within adult systems and later in juvenile corrections, primarily within theUnited States. In the typical boot camp, participants are required to follow a rigorous daily schedule of activities including drill and ceremony and physical training, similar to that of a military boot-camp. Punishment for misbehavior is immediate and swift and usually involves some type of physical activity like push-ups. Boot-camps differ substantially in the amount of focus given to the physical training and hard labor aspects of the program versus therapeutic programming such as academic education, drug treatment or cognitive skills. Objectives: To synthesize the extant empirical evidence on the effects of boot-camps and boot camp like programs on the criminal behavior (e.g., postrelease arrest, conviction, or reinstitutionalization) of convicted adult and juvenile offenders. The eligibility criteria were (a) that the study evaluated a correctional boot camp, shock incarceration, or intensive incarceration program; (b) that the study included a comparison group that received either probation or incarceration in an alternative facility; (c) that the study participants were exclusively under the supervision of the criminal or juvenile justice system; and (d) that the study reported a post-program measure of criminal behavior, such as arrest or conviction. Thirty-two unique research studies met our inclusion criteria. These studies reported the results from 43 independent boot-camp/comparison samples. The random effects mean odds-ratio for any form of recidivism was 1.02, indicating that the likelihood that boot camp participants recidivating Effects of Correctional Boot Camps 3 was roughly equal to the likelihood of comparison participants recidivating. This overall finding was robust to the selection of the outcome measure and length of follow-up. Methodological features were only weakly related to outcome among these studies and did not explain the null findings. The overall effect for juvenile boot camps was slightly lower than for adult boot camps. Moderator analysis showed that studies evaluating boot-camp programs with a strong treatment focus had a larger mean odds-ratio than studies evaluating boot camps with a weak treatment focus. Although the overall effect appears to be that of “no difference,” some studies found that boot camp participants did better than the comparison, while others found that comparison samples did better. However, all of these studies had the common element of a militaristic boot camp program for offenders. The current evidence suggests that this common and defining feature of a boot-camp is not effective in reducing post boot-camp offending.
Subfields: Education, Safety Research, Social Psychology
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/8a9445c94d415a6dd3d239cb5e729d708bd5ddd8
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Education
In Safety Research
Citations in the corpus
- Youth Empowerment Programs for Improving Adolescents’ Self-Efficacy and Self-Esteem (2013, result): “Independent results for all of the review’s primary and secondary outcomes measured by the included studies are displayed in Tables 2 and 3 (adaptations of table templates used by the Zief et al (2006) review).”