Introduction Adult boot camps, also called “shock incarceration” programs, were first implemented in Georgia and Oklahoma in the early 1980s (Guerrero, 2009, p.73). They are short-term residential facilities with programs that resemble those within a military basic training camp. The purpose of these camps is to scare or “shock” an individual away from participating in criminal behavior by placing them in a harsh physical environment. In late 1990s, third-generation boot camps began to rise and are still used today. These camps incorporate drug and alcohol treatment programs and emphasize an aftercare component when individuals are released back into society (as seen in the Alabama boot camp program). The goals and objectives of these programs
…show more content…
The primary target audience of this camp is young, first-time offenders who have committed non-violent crimes. As most boot camps do, the program regimen mostly consists of military marching, discipline, physical training, work, classes and drug and alcohol treatment following the “twelve step” program. The Alabama Boot Camp Program is split into three, 30-day phases: the Confrontation phase, the Self-Discovery phase, and the Prerelease phase. None of which were thoroughly expounded upon in Burns and Vito’s analysis. I believe these should have been explained more because some of the programs implemented in these different phases might help explain the results of the study. Much like all experimental designs, the program possessed a few central goals: that exposure to a rigid discipline would break the cycle of crime; and to reduce prison costs by releasing inmates early, thus reducing the entire prison …show more content…
91). Burns and Vito did a good job identifying the success or failure of each goal. The scholars went over the way each objective was measured and the outcomes of each measurement as it pertained to the success or failure of the Alabama Boot Camp’s intended purpose. In regards to measurement, the way Burns and Vito organized the methodology section of the evaluation was strength as well. The authors went through a detailed explanation of the experiment beginning from what kind of experiment it was, to how many people were in each group, and even demographics of each group, which is all vital information to include when evaluating an experiment. Chapter 5 and Chapter 11 outline the ways in which a quasi-experimental design should be performed. The assessment by Burns and Vito listed all the components of what we learned a quasi-experimental design to be, which I consider to be another strength of the paper. We studied that this type of design consists of two groups: nonequivalent and time-series. I consider this experiment to be a nonequivalent group (when groups are formed through a nonrandom procedure, it cannot be assumed they are equivalent) (Maxfield & Babbie, 2015, p. 122). Research by Maxfield and Babbie (2015) states, in a quasi-experimental design, “whenever experimental and control groups are not equivalent, we
The primary target audience of this camp is young, first-time offenders who have committed non-violent crimes. As most boot camps do, the program regimen mostly consists of military marching, discipline, physical training, work, classes and drug and alcohol treatment following the “twelve step” program. The Alabama Boot Camp Program is split into three, 30-day phases: the Confrontation phase, the Self-Discovery phase, and the Prerelease phase. None of which were thoroughly expounded upon in Burns and Vito’s analysis. I believe these should have been explained more because some of the programs implemented in these different phases might help explain the results of the study. Much like all experimental designs, the program possessed a few central goals: that exposure to a rigid discipline would break the cycle of crime; and to reduce prison costs by releasing inmates early, thus reducing the entire prison …show more content…
91). Burns and Vito did a good job identifying the success or failure of each goal. The scholars went over the way each objective was measured and the outcomes of each measurement as it pertained to the success or failure of the Alabama Boot Camp’s intended purpose. In regards to measurement, the way Burns and Vito organized the methodology section of the evaluation was strength as well. The authors went through a detailed explanation of the experiment beginning from what kind of experiment it was, to how many people were in each group, and even demographics of each group, which is all vital information to include when evaluating an experiment. Chapter 5 and Chapter 11 outline the ways in which a quasi-experimental design should be performed. The assessment by Burns and Vito listed all the components of what we learned a quasi-experimental design to be, which I consider to be another strength of the paper. We studied that this type of design consists of two groups: nonequivalent and time-series. I consider this experiment to be a nonequivalent group (when groups are formed through a nonrandom procedure, it cannot be assumed they are equivalent) (Maxfield & Babbie, 2015, p. 122). Research by Maxfield and Babbie (2015) states, in a quasi-experimental design, “whenever experimental and control groups are not equivalent, we