Therapeutic Boot Camp - Impact on Impulses, Attitudes, and Recidivism - Literature review Example

?An experimental study of a therapeutic boot camp: Impact on impulses, attitudes and recidivism A Methodological Review Boot camps for offenders maybe traced back as early as 1983 in the American state of Georgia adopted from the military practice for disciplining offenders through a set of rigorous activities. Some sectors view therapeutic boot camps to be more successful than the traditional military-style ones (Alarid & Del Carmen, 2007). There are, however, some studies which showed evidence that traditional correctional facilities and boot camps have comparable effect on inmates. This methodological review tackles the impact of a therapeutic boot camp on impulses, attitudes and recidivism grounded on the findings of an experimental research by Mackenzie, Bierie, and Mitchell (2007). 1.0 Summarizing the Work The study covered adult males entering prison in the state of Maryland who were assigned randomly in an early release program as inmates either in a traditional state prison or a correctional boot camp. The objectives of the program were threefold: (1) evaluate whether a therapeutic program of education and treatment in a boot camp environment significantly reduce recidivism more than a comparable program in a traditional correctional facility; (2) compare change in self-reported criminogenic attitudes and impulses between inmates in the boot camp and the traditional prison; and (3) assess the relationship between self-reported antisocial attitudes and impulses, and later criminal activity; and the effect of the antisocial attitudes and impulses on recidivism. MacKenzie, et al. (2007) assumed that “changes in attitudes and impulses may precede future changes in behaviour” (p. 224). The therapeutic programs posited to be the mediators of such changes are also expected to influence inmates’ future criminal activities. Methodology used include sampling by random assignment of the inmates sentenced to serve 2-5 years for non-violent crime, by the Maryland Parole Board to an early release program in a boot camp or a traditional prison facility. Effectiveness of the therapeutic program components of the boot camp was measured using the Correctional Program Assessment Inventory (CPAI). Inmate profiles were sourced from documentary analysis of prison and state records. Recidivism was evaluated using survival analysis. Additional inmate profile information was obtained using self-report pre-test / post-test surveys. Criminogenic scales were administered to measure attitudes and impulses associated with criminal behaviour. Reliability of the scales was verified. Findings of the post test survey and the criminogenic variables were correlated to scrutinize recidivism. The researchers reported having requested respondents to sign informed consents prior to the time 1 survey of their profile, arrest and criminal records, and criminogenic characteristics. It was the only instance that ethical considerations were mentioned in the journal report of this study. Findings of the study revealed that inmates released from the boot camp had lower recidivism compared to those released from a traditional prison setting. On the basis of the pre-test and post-test self reports, the boot camp exerted minimal influence on the criminogenic characteristics of the inmates, except for lower self control. The findings also demonstrated that the inmates from the traditional prison setting exhibited more of anti-social characteristics, less self control, more intense anger management problems and more criminal tendencies after their six-month term in the early release program. A significant relationship was found between criminogenic behaviour and recidivism. 2.0. Evaluating the Research MacKenzie, et al. (2007) assumed that changes in attitudes and impulses among the inmates may serve as predictors their behavioural changes after release, particularly recidivism. Corollary to such changes would be an underlying assumption that the therapeutic programs including treatment and education would be instrumental in working out changes in the behaviour of inmates upon their release. The three objectives of the study revolved around the mechanics of this assumption. Initially the CPAI performed to assess compliance of the therapeutic programmes in the boot camp showed weaknesses of the Maryland boot camp to the components of effective correctional treatment. As singled out by Levesque (2006), there are three theoretically motivated principles of effective correctional treatment: risk, need and responsivity. The first principle was not taken in consideration in the MacKenzie, et al. (2007) study, since the inmates may all be considered low risk. This assertion is grounded on the premise that the inmates were serving sentences for non-violent crimes for a period of two to five years. In which case, the boot camp offered practically the same level of service for all the inmates, although the same can not be said of the control in this study, who was detained in a traditional prison facility. The second principle of effective correctional treatment requires that program components target the dynamic risk factors of recidivism. This was exactly what was done in the MacKenzie, et al. (2007) study, as influenced by the underlying assumption of the study. Meanwhile, the third principle argues that offenders’ response to rehabilitative programmes utilize behavioural and social learning concepts provided by therapists who uphold the approach “fair but firm” (p. Levesque, 2006, p. 550). The therapeutic boot camp was designed exactly to provide the aforementioned service to the inmates. Again, the design was fuelled by the underlying assumption – experiences in the boot camp, and even in the traditional prison facility, should make a difference in the behaviour of the offenders to the end that such changes in behaviour will result in lower if not totally zero recidivism rates. Measurement of the criminogenic scales among the inmates using pre-test and post-test surveys was intended to offer clues on the behaviour of these inmates and how they changed over time. Consequently these criminogenic variables were correlated with recidivism in an attempt to statistically visualize how future behaviour was predicted by the criminogenic attitudes and impulses measured. On the whole, all phases of this experimental study were guided by the underlying assumption made by the researchers. In terms of methodological techniques, it may be generalized that the approaches applied in the study were appropriate for the research problem being addressed. Random assignment in an experimental study is a key factor which permits the researcher to state a founded assertion of cause and effect. As maintained in Johnson and Christensen (2012), random assignment aims to produce comparable groups on all possible factors at the start of the experiment. This approach is important because the study seeks to find out if the boot camp was responsible in lower recidivism among the participants. In this regard, random assignment precludes any possibility that there are significant differences in the boot camp group and the control even before the experiment commenced. Replication of the random assignment would have been possible for other researchers because the explanation of the method was given in sufficient detail. The flow chart given on page 226 of the MacKenzie, et al. (2007) study presented the protocol accurately with numerical details of the sample in each milestone point. Justification for the reduced sample after randomization is achieved was also offered. Survival analysis was also suitable in the study of recidivism analysis. Barton-Bellessa and Hanser (2012) admitted that only a handful of researches adopted survival analysis in the study of recidivism rates in experimental studies. They, however, believe that survival analysis models are more preferable than other methods in investigating recidivism in the sense that survival analysis makes use of time-dependent data, which are significant inputs in evaluating whether and when the former inmates recidivate. In this study, it should be recalled that the pre-test was administered before entry to the early release program, whereas the post-test was administered prior to the inmates’ release six months later. Bradford, Federoff and Firestone (2008), however, maintained that reported rates of recidivism increases with longer follow-up period and that a five year follow-up period is necessary for a valid study. This may explain why the MacKenzie, et al. (2007) study might have produced a marginal outcome. In spite of the short follow-up period, the survival analysis did use the exponential model and this is considered as a good choice. The exponential model is the most basic survival model and is an extensively adopted distribution for survival analysis, particularly as a waiting time model. Use of this model was likened to the normal distribution in statistical estimation (Halli and Rao, 1992). Replication of this survival analysis for parallel studies is also possible based on an excellent discussion of the procedure followed and the rationalization forwarded with several decisions made during the analysis. The use of standardized and valid criminological scales like the Jesness Inventory provided credibility to the study in its measurement of social maladjustment, value orientation, alienation, manifest aggression, and denial (as cited in Eysenck, 2003). Further, the STAXI anger management scale which was also used in this study is able to predict not only important behaviours but also physiological changes among the inmates. This scale also has available norm for both adolescents and adults (Kassinove, and Tafrate, 2002). The Grasmick, et al. psychometric scale is a measurement of low self control grounded on the criteria laid out by Gottfredson and Hirshi’, which was used in the MacKenzie, et al. (2007) study, examined only direct effects. They conceptual basis of the scale was that low self control in individuals tend to result in criminal and analogous acts, and that low self control is associated with offending (Tibbetts and Hemmens, 2010). Meanwhile, the Self Appraisal Questionnaire (SAQ) covered primary static and dynamic risk domains and offers a self-report tool for risk assessment. It has also been regarded to be acceptable on a number of studies in terms of its psychometric properties. However, as reported by Collie, Vess and Murdoch (2007) there were mixed findings on the psychometric properties of the SAQ. The same findings were observed on the Criminal Tendencies subscale in other studies (Collie, et al, 2007). The findings and conclusions are credible. The use of random assignment discounted the possibility of selection bias in the assignment of the inmates to boot camp or in the traditional corrections facility. As indicated in Slavin (2007), random assignment presents itself as a solution to what has been considered as one of the crucial dilemmas of research design – selection bias or differential selection. As pointed out by Bushway and Apel (2010), if selection bias is not eliminated or controlled in the research design, conclusions drawn tend to be misleading. As observed by Bushway and Apel (2010), “the rise of experimental criminology in the last 10 years can be attributed to the growing focus on the need to causally identify the impact of programs on crime in the face of selection bias” (p.596). The argument presented by Bushway and Apel (2010) on the association between rehabilitative correctional programs and reduced crime discounts the possibility of pinpointing causality on program participation without appropriate controls for intervening variables or omitted variables. It is in this regard that the MacKenzie, et al. (2007) study presented its findings in convincing fashion when the researchers concluded that the differences in recidivism were observed among the inmates from the boot camp not because of the positive effect of the boot camp, but because those who were released from the traditional prison facility, which happens to be the control group, became more criminogenic during their confinement. Additionally, the above mentioned MacKenzie, et al. (2007) scenario illustrated the efficacy of randomized experimentation in handling threats to internal validity. Theoretically, internal validity is threatened in situations when “the comparison that is drawn in practice differs from the ideal comparison” (Reichardt, 2009, p. 67). It should, however, be borne in mind that internal validity is just one of four kinds of validity in research, which are external validity, construct validity and statistical conclusion validity. While it is needless to highlight that “internal validity is the sine qua non1 of experimentation” (Reichardt, 2009, p. 68), the chance that random assignment may strictly limit the setting in which the study can be carried out, which implies external validity may be compromised. There is also the possibility that the reactive nature of the randomisation can hamper the construct validity of the experiment. These two threats to validity were not present in the randomised experiment by MacKenzie, et al. (2007). The findings may, therefore, be generalizable to the population of the study. Meanwhile, threat to statistical conclusion validity may be present if the statistical power computations and procedures are not correctly applied, or when statistical power is not adequate (Reichardt, 2009). The statistical procedures in this study appeared to be accurate and exacting. However, no mention was made as to the use of statistical power analysis in the MacKenzie, et al. (2007), either a-priori or post hoc. This is one limitation of the full text report examined for this methodological review. The importance of statistical power analysis stems from its provision of a rational mechanism for critical decisions regarding the design and the boundaries of the study (Murphy and Myors, 2004). Finally, the only mention of informed consent in the full-text journal article was before the pre-test survey was administered. This ethical aspect of the study was mentioned only in passing that the respondents who agreed signed the informed consent. The circumstances are vague in the sense that it was not clear whether the inmates’ agreement were for voluntary participation only. The equally important components of informed consent pertaining to a comprehensive explanation of the study objectives, as well as the protocol involved in the randomised experiment, possible risks, direct or indirect benefits, alternative methodology, and the boundaries of confidentiality (Johnson and Christensen, 2011). No mention was made in the full-text journal article in this regard. On the whole, in consideration of the strengths in the study design and methodology, and the plausibility of its findings, but with a few weaknesses the MacKenzie, et al. (2007) study is more than just average work, it may be awarded 4 of 5 stars. 3.0. References Alarid, LF, and RV Del Carmen (2011) Community-Based Corrections, 8th edn. Belmont CA: Wadsworth / Cengage Learning. Barton-Bellessa, SM, and RD Hanser (2012) Community-based corrections: A text / reader, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. Bradford, JMW, P Federoff, and P Firestone (2008) ‘Sexual violence and the clinician’, in RI Simon & K Tardiff (eds), Textbook of violence assessment and management, American Psychiatric Publishing, Arlington, VA, 441-460. Bushway, SD, and RJ Apel (2010) ‘Instrumental variables in criminology and justice’, in AR Piquero & D Weisburd (eds), Handbook of quantitative criminology, Springer Science + Business Media, New York, 595-614. Eysenck, HJ (2003) ‘Personality theory and the problem of criminality’, in E McLaughlin, J. Muncie & G. Hughes (eds), Criminological perspectives: Essential readings, 2nd edn, Sage Publications, London, 91-109. Collie, RM, J Vess,and S Murdoch (2007) ‘Violence-related cognition: Current research’, in TA Gannon, T Ward, AR Beech & D Fisher (eds), Aggressive offenders’ cognition: Theory, research and practice, John Wiley & Sons, West Sussex, GBR, 179-198. Halli SS, and KV Rao (1992) Advanced techniques of population analysis, Plenum Press, New York. Johnson, B, and L. Christensen (2012) Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approach, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. Kassinove, H, and Tafrate, RC (2002) The complete treatment guidebook for practitioners, Impact Publishers, Atascadero, CA. Levesque, RJR (2006) The psychology and law of criminal justice processes, Nova Science Publishers, New York. MacKenzie, DL, D Bierie, and O Mitchell (2007) ‘An experimental study of a therapeutic boot camp: Impact on impulses, attitudes and recidivism’, Journal of Experimental Criminology, 3(3), 221-246. Murphy, KR, and B Myors (2004) Statistical power analysis: A simple and general model for traditional and modern hypothesis tests, 2nd edn, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ. Reichardt, CS (2009) ‘Quasi-experimental design’, in RE Millsap & AM Olivares (eds), The Sage handbook of quantitative methods in psychology, Sage Publications, London, GBR, 46-71. Sienkewiez, TJ, and JT McDonough (eds) (1999) World dictionary of foreign expressions: A resource for readers and writers, Bolchazy-Carducci Publishers, Wauconda, IL. Slavin, RE (2007) Educational research in an age of accountability, 2nd edn, Pearson Education, Essex, GBR. Tibbetts, SG, and C Hemmens (2010), Criminological theory: A text/ reader, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. Read More