supervision intensity but the authors concluded that the impact on recidivism was negligible. In five states, no difference in rates could be attributed to the program. But in Illinois, Louisiana, and New York graduates may have had lower rates on specific recidivism measures such as new crimes in Illinois or technical violations in New York. Each of these states has intensive community supervision programs that may explain the difference. It is unclear which boot camp components are critical to reducing recidivism (Mackenzie and Souryal 1996). Although the NIJ study found little evidence that boot camps, including New Yorks, reduce recidivism, the New York Department of Correctional Services (DOCS) views its program as a success. In its 1998 annual report, DOCS "unequivocally states" that shock incarceration (1) graduates are more likely than comparison groups to remain in the community after one, two, or three years and (2) reduces prison bed space and saves money despite greater program expenses (New York DOCS 1998). DOCS calculates a total of $542 million savings on inmate housing costs because shock graduates were released an average of 11.7 months before their court-ordered minimum period of incarceration. For the first 17,938 releases, these savings amounted to $452.2 million in operating costs plus $89.8 million in savings from avoiding prison construction. These figures are somewhat suspect because DOCS did not include the additional costs of intensive parole supervision (New York DOCS 1998).There is no definitive word on the success of boot camps at reducing recidivism rates. Like the programs, recidivism rates for boot camps vary around the country. The cost will also vary around the country, but it consistently higher than traditional incarceration. The cost might be accepted in a greater fashion, and the opportunity cost may be acceptable if the recidivism rate were better. In conclusion, the boot camps provide an alter...
