To the poster who was claiming that the Justice Department review lumped wilderness and boot camps together, s/he obviously didn't read it very closely:
Here's the section on wilderness-- no lumping:
One type of program particularly popular during the late 1970s and early 1980s was the wilderness or outward bound-type programs. These programs emphasize physical challenge and demand that individuals excel beyond what they feel they can do. Winterdyk and Roesch report that they found well over one hundred wilderness programs for treating delinquent youths in North America in the early 1980s. Outcome evaluations have been extremely rare (Gendreau and Ross 1987). Recently, several other wilderness-type programs have been studied. The results are shown in Table 8. All of these programs consider themselves wilderness programs. Perhaps the most frequently cited study of this type of program in the VisionQuest study by Greenwood and Turner (1987). They examined the behavior of the juveniles during the six to 18 months after release from the program (controlling for prior arrests). Youth from VisionQuest had fewer rearrests than youth who had served time in a probation camp or who had refused to accept the VisionQuest placement and were placed in other programs. While the results appear positive, as noted on the table the research methodology makes it impossible to draw conclusions regarding the program's effectiveness.
In a more recent study, Deschenes, Greenwood and Marshall (1996) examined the Nokomis Challenge Program in the Michigan Department of Social Services. Nokomis was designed as an intensive treatment program for low to medium risk juveniles. The focus of the program was on relapse prevention. Male youth were expected to spend less time in the residential facility but a longer time in community treatment when compared with youth in the training schools. Findings (see Table 9-8) indicated that the Nokomis youth had more felony arrests after release than did the comparison (significant). It is important to note that the examination of the implementation of the program revealed that the aftercare phase of the program failed to provide many of the expected treatment programs. There was limited substance abuse treatment and control group youth had more family counseling than the treatment group.
Castellano and Soderstrom completed a study of the Spectrum program in Illinois. This wilderness program was modeled after outward bound. The thirty day course focuses on teaching wilderness survival and group living skills to pre-delinquent and delinquent juveniles. A comparison of recidivism rates indicated that 75 percent of the Spectrum participants were rearrested in the follow-up period compared with 62.6 percent of the matched comparison group (nonsignificant).
In a random assignment study, RAND researchers examined the effectiveness of the Paint Creek Youth Center (PCYC) in southern Ohio (Greenwood and Turner 1993). The program targeted youth convicted of serious felonies who were required to spend an average of almost a year in residential treatment. While the program was located in a rural setting, it would not be classified as a wilderness or challenge program because these activities were not a major component of the program. The distinguishing features of the PCYC were: small size, problem oriented focus, cognitive/behavioral methods, family group therapy and intensive community reintegration and aftercare. Youth were randomly assigned to either the PCYC or regular training schools. Their behavior in the community after release was compared. The design was weakened because a relatively large number of the youth (25 percent) were removed from the PCYC and sent to the training schools to serve the remainder of their term. Furthermore, 27 percent of the remaining youth did not complete all three phases of the residential program. Official records of recidivism indicated that 50.7 percent of the PCYC youth (including those who were removed) and 61.3 percent of the control group had been arrested during a one-year follow-up. The difference was nonsignificant. The small numbers of offenders in the study limits the power to detect differences between groups. This along with the loss of 25 percent of the PCYC youth makes it difficult to draw any definitive conclusions from the research.
Overall, these studies of juvenile residential programs had very mixed results. Although several of the studies were well designed, problems with the small number of subjects, attrition and program implementation limit the conclusions that can be drawn about the effectiveness of the programs in preventing crime. The one program that included both a strong research design and a reduction in recidivism, although this difference was not significant, was Paint Creek. Interestingly, this program followed many of the principles proposed by Andrews et al. (1990). High risk youth were targeted for participation an the intensive program that used a cognitive/behavioral mode of treatment. However, problems with the research design severely limited the potential for detecting differences even if the program had indeed been effective. Most notably, the focus of the program was not on wilderness or challenge activities.
The other programs reviewed in this section either targeted individuals who were lower risks for recidivism (Nokomos, Spectrum), were of short duration (Spectrum), were less behavioral in treatment philosophy, or focused on non-criminogenic factors such as physical challenge (Spectrum). Thus, from the perspective of the research on rehabilitation (see section on rehabilitation and the Andrews et al. 1990 study), we would not expect them to be effective in reducing future criminal behavior.
Table 9-8. Studies of youth residential programs showing scientific methods score and findings.
Study Scientific Findings
Methods Score
Greenwood and Turner 2 VisionQuest (39%) fewer arrests than
(1987) YCC Control (71%), S.
Deschenes et al (1996) 3 Nokomis group (48%) had more arrests
than control (23%), S.
Greenwood and Turner 3 Paint Creek youth had fewer
(1993) official arrests (51%) than control
youth (61%), NS.
Paint Creek youth self-reported more
serious offenses (75%) than control
(62%), NS.
Castellano and Soderstrom 2 Spectrum youth did not differ from
(1992) control youth in recidivism, NS.
Note: NS=nonsignificant, S=significant
Note the low methods scores (5 is the best).
Regarding the meta-analysis:
Here's a good summary quote "Two trends in the literature were noted. First, although many studies report benefits from participation in wilderness therapy programs, MOST IF NOT ALL studies appear to be plagued with methodological problems and HAVE NOT PROVIDED CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE THAT WILDERNESS THERAPY IS EFFECTIVE. And second, the majority of studies FAILED TO USE FOLLOW UP MEASURES OR ONLY USED SHORT TERM FOLLOW-UP, SUGGESTING A LACK OF LONGITUDINAL STUDY DESIGN IN THE LITERATURE.
http://www.obhic.com/research/doctoral.pdfAnd this is a review by one of the leading supporters of wilderness-- he admits that there's no good evidence to favor it and calls for more study, basically. Also note that the programs he does additional research on in this meta-analysis have models that are supposed to avoid humiliation and confrontation-- so that even if the studies show these do work, it wouldn't prove that the in-your-face stuff that goes on in so many of these programs is helpful.
In fact, one of the main reasons that wilderness treatment is so problematic is that, as Cathy Sutton's story illustrates and that of Aaron Bacon and his family, parents cannot tell whether they will actually *get* kind, caring gentle treatment in these programs or abuse. Because of low pay and high turnover, the idea that a program is "good" can change overnight if they hire staff from one that is abusive.
