Impacts of After-School Programs on Student Outcomes: A Systematic Review

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.

[1]  Marion E. Bickford,et al.  A Broader View , 1993 .

[2]  D. Vandell,et al.  Low-income children's after-school care: are there beneficial effects of after-school programs? , 1994, Child development.

[3]  Edward A. Flynn,et al.  America's After-School Choice: The Prime Time for Juvenile Crime, or Youth Enrichment and Achievement. , 2000 .

[4]  P. Little,et al.  A Review of Out-of-School Time Program Quasi-Experimental and Experimental Evaluation Results. Out-of-School Time Evaluation Snapshot. , 2003 .

[5]  B. Flay,et al.  Substance use among eighth-grade students who take care of themselves after school. , 1989, Pediatrics.

[6]  J. Osofsky,et al.  The impact of violence on children. , 1999, The Future of children.

[7]  B. Flay,et al.  Characteristics of eighth-grade students who initiate self-care in elementary and junior high school. , 1990, Pediatrics.

[8]  G H Guyatt,et al.  Randomized trials versus observational studies in adolescent pregnancy prevention. , 2000, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[9]  S. Long,et al.  The New Child Care Block Grant: State Funding Choices and Their Implications , 1997 .

[10]  R. Raley,et al.  Multiple Choices after School: Findings from the Extended-Service Schools Initiative. , 2002 .

[11]  M. Lipsey,et al.  The role of method in treatment effectiveness research: evidence from meta-analysis. , 2001, Psychological methods.

[12]  S. Schinke,et al.  Enhancing the Educational Achievement of At-Risk Youth , 2000, Prevention Science.

[13]  Mark W. Lipsey,et al.  Practical Meta-Analysis , 2000 .

[14]  S. Jurs,et al.  Evaluations of After-School Programs: A Meta-Evaluation of Methodologies and Narrative Synthesis of Findings , 2002 .

[15]  M. Mclaughlin,et al.  Urban Sanctuaries: Neighborhood Organizations That Keep Hope Alive. , 1994 .

[16]  David Weisburd,et al.  Does Research Design Affect Study Outcomes in Criminal Justice? , 2001 .

[17]  Thomas J. Kane.  The Impact of After-School Programs: Interpreting the Results of Four Recent Evaluations , 2004 .

[18]  Megan K. Beckett,et al.  Accountability for After-School Care: Devising Standards and Measuring Adherence to Them , 2002 .

[19]  Richard F. Catalano,et al.  Positive youth development in the United States: Research findings on evaluations of positive youth development programs. , 2002 .

[20]  Brown Ss.  National campaign to prevent teen pregnancy. , 1996 .

[21]  Roberto Agodini,et al.  Are Experiments the Only Option? A Look at Dropout Prevention Programs , 2004, Review of Economics and Statistics.

[22]  L. Hedges,et al.  The Handbook of Research Synthesis , 1995 .

[23]  D. Vandell,et al.  After-school activities and the development of low-income urban children: a longitudinal study. , 1999, Developmental psychology.

[24]  L. LoSciuto,et al.  A Two-Year Evaluation of the Wood Rock Youth Development Project , 1999 .

[25]  M. Freeman,et al.  An Outcome Evaluation of the Woodrock Youth Development Project , 1997 .

[26]  R. Phillips.  Intervention with Siblings of Children with Developmental Disabilities from Economically Disadvantaged Families , 1999 .

[27]  Olatokunbo S. Fashola.  Review of Extended-Day and After-School Programs and Their Effectiveness. Report No. 24. , 1998 .

[28]  D. Offord,et al.  Reduction of antisocial behavior in poor children by nonschool skill-development. , 1989, Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, and allied disciplines.

[29]  L. Hedges,et al.  The Handbook of Research Synthesis , 1995 .

[30]  A. D. Kanter.  After-School Programs for Adolescents: , 2001 .

[31]  J. Brooks-Gunn,et al.  Promoting Healthy Adolescents: Synthesis of Youth Development Program Evaluations , 1998 .

[32]  S. Lauver.  Assessing the benefits of an after -school program for urban youth: An impact and process evaluation , 2002 .

[33]  D. Baker,et al.  Evaluation of the Impact of Two After-School Programs , 1996 .

[34]  S. Glazerman.  Nonexperimental Replications of Social Experiments A Systematic Review Interim ReportDiscussion Paper , 2002 .

[35]  M. Coye,et al.  NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL AND INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE , 1998 .

[36]  Mark Dynarski,et al.  A Broader View: The National Evaluation of the 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program. Design Report, Volume II: Instruments. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research , 2001 .

[37]  J. Eccles,et al.  Chapter 4: Extracurricular and Other After-School Activities for Youth , 2002 .

[38]  Sharon Vandivere.  Unsupervised Time: Family and Child Factors Associated with Self-Care , 2003 .

[39]  Nicholas Zill,et al.  Adolescent Time Use, Risky Behavior, and Outcomes: An Analysis of National Data , 1995 .

[40]  D. Vogel,et al.  The Research-Based Model Partnership Education Program: A 4-Year Outcome Study. , 1998 .

[41]  R. Hollister.  The Growth In After-School Programs And Their Impact , 2003 .