A 1971 study concluded that the Outward Bound program was effective because its participants had a recidivism rate of 20 percent 1 year after parole while the rate for a control group was 42 percent. The wilderness approach was believed to be particularly successful with delinquents who had never been institutionalized and who stole goods or cars as a response to an adolescent crisis. These findings have not withstood the test of time, and Outward Bound's recidivism rates are no longer significantly lower than those of other programs. There have been five recidivism studies conducted on Project DARE since its opening in 1971. Summaries are presented to illustrate several methodological irregularities which seriously question the validity of the evaluations' conclusions. The 5 evaluations used different definitions of recidivism and a range of followup periods from 3 months to 3 years. They failed to differentiate between judicial processes followed in each State and did not distinguish between the type or severity of offense. Many assumed recidivism if a youth was charged with an offense rather than measuring judicial dispositions. Evaluation results also emphasized the inappropriateness of the wilderness program for miltiple recidivists and criticized the lack of followup services for DARE graduates. For more meaningful evaluation, wilderness programs themselves must establish the criteria by which they are to be assessed. Possible alternative criteria include program costs compared with institutionalization and the project's impact on physical fitness and consequent rise in self-esteem. The key issue, however, lies in clearly articulated, replicable programing with specifications concerning target behaviors, processes which can change juvenile behavior, theoretical bases for the wilderness approach, anticipated effects of intervention, and expected level and duration of success.