The militaristic regime of boot camps implemented in a secure environment less costly than traditional incarceration was initially viewed as a logical, cost-effective means of executing a "get-tough" correctional policy. Its political appeal in the context of the popular justice model led to the rapid proliferation of boot camps in the 1990s. Although broadly implemented under a similar military model, boot camps across and within jurisdictions have significant differences in program components, program length, and aftercare services. Still, few evaluations have unconditionally affirmed their effectiveness in meeting their goals. Boot camps have persisted in the face of unfavorable evaluations, albeit in fewer numbers, because of their political appeal; the lack of other more effective sentencing alternatives to incarceration; and most significantly, the nature of evaluation research and its practical utility. Public policy evaluations are not designed to determine definitively whether an intervention does or does not "work." Rather, they are designed and intended to provide input, feedback, and guidance to improve the product. In the case of boot camps, however, the evaluations have failed to achieve this result, in that there is little evidence that evaluations have led to any significant changes in how boot camps are conceptualized and operated. The aversion of researchers, practitioners, and policymakers to collective collaboration in assessing and improving programs has undermined the value of evaluations. 10 notes and 71 references