Boot Camps At A Glance Essay, Research Paper

The questions put forth in this research paper are: whether participants in juvenile boot camps receive the services prescribed for them, what impact juvenile boot camps have on recidivism rates, what benefits juvenile offenders derive from boot camps, and whether juvenile boot camps are cost effective. Other topics that will arise in the course of this paper are the definition of “boot camp,” and goals of juvenile boot camps. Responding to increasing juvenile arrests, several states and localities established juvenile boot camps. Modeled after boot camps for adult offenders, the first camps emphasized military discipline and physical conditioning.

RIn response to increases in juvenile crime and the high cost of traditional confinement, the number of boot camps for juvenile offenders has grown in the last several years. Concurrently, much has been learned about juvenile boot camps and about their effectiveness as an intermediate corrections option. In other words are boot camps “maximizing their chances of developing an effective program to help steer juvenile offenders back onto the pathway to responsible citizenship”(Austin, 1993).

A considerable body of thought concerning correctional boot camps has evolved from the inception of the first adult camp in 1983 through the development of the current juvenile camps. Several studies have surveyed the status of boot camps (Parent, 1989; MacKenzie and Souryal, 1991; Austin, Jones, and Bolyard, 1993; U.S. General Accounting Office, o1993; Cronin and Han, 1994). MacKenzie and Hebert’s Correctional Boot Camps: A Tough Intermediate Sanction, published by the National Institute of Justice in 1996, provides the most recent comprehensive assessment of the state of boot camps.

Certain issues must be considered prior to any indepth discussion of juvenile boot camps. These issues include:

o A definition of “boot camp.”

o The goals of juvenile boot camps.

o Findings from evaluations of adult boot camps(American Correctional Association, 1995).

A definition of “boot camp”

The very use of the term “boot camp” and its connotations are still being debated. The media tend to focus on the confrontational element of boot camps — the element that juvenile practitioners like the least.

Dr. MacKenzie, who has been studying adult boot camps since 1987, holds that defining the term “boot camp” has been a major issue and remains one. Her 1991 survey of adult boot camps (MacKenzie and Souryal, 1991) found some common boot camp characte ?ristics, including:

o A military-style environment.

o Separation of boot camp participants from regular prison inmates when they are housed in collocated facilities.

o The participants’ perception that boot camp is an alternative to a longer term of confinement.

o Some hard labor(MacKenzie, 1991).

The most noteworthy finding from Dr. MacKenzie’s survey, however, was that boot camp programs differ widely, particularly with regard to the amount of time participants spend in therapeutic activity and in the aftercare they are provided(MacKenzie, 1991).

The definition of boot camps given by OJP in 1995 is:

o Participation by nonviolent offenders only (to free up space in traditional facilities for violent felony offenders, i.e., those who have used dangerous weapons against another person, caused death or serious bodily injury, or committed serious sex offenses).

o A residential phase of 6 months or less.

o A regimented schedule stressing discipline,

physical Ytraining, and work.

o Participation by inmates in appropriate education opportunities, job training, and substance abuse counseling or treatment.

o Provision of aftercare services that are

coordinated with the program that is provided

during the period of confinement(Office of Justice Programs, 1995).

OJP has encouraged the consideration and development of innovative program delivery in this initiative, including designs that are “in addition to or other than the military model” (Office of Justice Programs, 1995), such as the Outward Bound model, environmental reclamation projects, and community service. The program guidelines also identify six key components to maximize the effectiveness of juvenile boot camp programs:

o Education and job training and placement.

o Community service.

o Substance abuse counseling and treatment.

o Health and mental health care.

o Continuous, individualized case management.

o Intensive aftercare services that are fully integrated with the bo eot camp program(OJP, 1995).

Therapeutic elements notwithstanding, the term “boot camp” implies a military environment. The OJP program guidelines require a “regimented schedule.” Dr. Hamburg pointed out that although juveniles can benefit from the structure and discipline of the boot camp model, the different branches of the U.S. armed services provide different kinds of basic training, and there is an array of military and nonmilitary models to borrow from in designing the most appropriate boot camp model(OJP, 1995).

The goals of juvenile boot camps

Parent addressed the issue of goals for juvenile boot camps. He identified five commonly expressed sentencing goals for adult boot camps:

o Deterrence,

o Incapacitation,

o Rehabilitation,

o Punishment, and

o Cost control (Parent, 1995).

Of these, rehabilitation and cost control are the goals cited most often by correctional practitioners and policymakers. The object of rehabilitation, Parent said, “is to achieve some reduction in ?further criminality, either by changing an offender’s attitudes and values, perhaps leading to some behavioral change, or by addressing some of the personal deficiencies or problems that are believed to be linked to criminal activity” (Parent, 1995), such as lack of education, substance abuse, and/or lack of social skills. Thus far the research on the effect of rehabilitation in boot camps has been inconclusive.

Similarly, few hard data are available on cost, although it is known that adult boot camps cost as much as traditional prisons per inmate per day. Parent stated that his simulation model has demonstrated that four conditions must be met to reduce costs:

o The target population must be confinement bound. The boot camp population should not be selected by judges, but by correctional officials, who would choose juveniles for boot camp from among those who have already been sentenced to or confined in a facility.

o The term of co Infinement must be cut significantly. However, this condition for cutting costs is easier to implement in an adult facility than in a juvenile facility, because adults usually receive longer sentences than juveniles.

o Program failures must be minimized. There are several ways to do this:

o Minimize voluntary dropout rates. Orientation should give potential participants a very clear understanding of what to expect in the boot camp so that they are not surprised.

o Minimize expulsions. Participants should be given more chances for successful completion. This can be accomplished by establishing graduated sanctions and by allowing participants to repeat the program (”recycle”) .

o Minimize postrelease failure. The recycling option should again be available. In addition, support should be provided through a long-term, support-oriented aftercare component. Levels of surveillance during aftercare should be linked to specific risk factors and, therefore, shoul ?d vary among program graduates.

o The boot camp must have a large capacity. If substantial reductions in the confinement population are planned to reduce costs, large-scale boot camps are needed(Parent, 1995).

Parent stated that currently there are two boot camp models — treatment and population reduction and that it is difficult to accomplish the aims of both models simultaneously. The population reduction model, which emphasizes cost control, would be difficult to replicate for juveniles because they generally serve much shorter sentences than adult offenders. Rehabilitation, therefore, may be the only logical goal in opening a juvenile correctional boot camp.

Findings from evaluations of adult boot camps

Dr. MacKenzie’s study of Multisite Evaluation of Shock Incarceration (MacKenzie and Souryal, 1994), was conducted in eight States and involved young male offenders between the ages of 19 and 21 who had been referred from the ? adult court system. According to Dr. MacKenzie, the most surprising finding of the evaluation was that in each of the boot camps studied, regardless of the amount of therapeutic treatment, all participants who completed the program were more positive about their experiences than were offenders in a traditional prison setting. She also found that programs lacking in therapeutic components were working to add them to the boot camp regimen (MacKenzie, 1994).

Some evidence indicated that the rate of recidivism declined in programs where offenders spent 3 or more hours per day in therapeutic activity and had some type of aftercare or intensive supervision after release. However, the finding of differences in recidivism came from an exploratory analysis. In general, the MacKenzie and Souryal evaluation found similar recidivism rates for those who completed boot camps and comparable offenders who spent long periods of time ?in prison (MacKenzie, 1994).

The selection of “boot camp” youths

Even if, as Parent suggests, the primary goal of juvenile boot camps ought to be rehabilitation, the cost-control argument for targeting confinement-bound youth is a valid one (Parent, 1995). Dr. Altschuler, who has found that most juvenile boot camps are being used as an alternative to probation, raised another reason for targeting confinement-bound youth for boot camp rather than those who receive probation. According to Altschuler, “research has demonstrated that low- or moderate-risk juvenile and adult offenders who are subjected to high levels of supervision (as in a boot camp program that includes a structured aftercare component) actually do worse than those left on traditional probation” (Altschuler, 1992). It is therefore important to distinguish between juveniles who should be placed on probation with minimal supervision and those who need more supervision.

This caution t youches on another issue related to selection: net widening. Judges may find appealing the option of assigning a youth to boot camp rather than to some other available intermediate sanction. The result may be confinement of a youth who previously would not have been confined. Under these premises, the final effect is actually an increase in the number of youth who are confined and thereby an increase in cost.

There is also the issue of the high percentage of minority youth (as many as 80 percent) among those who are confined in boot camps. This can be attributed to the fact that boot camps typically serve urban areas with a high percentage of minority youth. Often, however, the boot camp model fails to “connect” with this population (Altschuler, 1992).

Boot camp design

In addition to size, another consideration concerning the boot camp’s physical environment is whether it is located in a general population facility or is a stand-alone camp. In the adult system, general population facilities c uollocate the inmates of medium- or maximum-security prisons with adult boot camp inmates. The housing is separate, however, and the common areas of the facilities are used by adult boot camp inmates and adult prison inmates at different times.

Stand-alone adult boot camps avoid this operational concern. Separation from more “hardened” prisoners protects the boot camp inmates from a higher level of contraband and physical violence. Staffing also benefits because potential conflict between the boot camp staff and the prison staff of a collocated facility — for example, “conflict arising from the promotion or demotion of a prison staff member versus a boot camp staff member — is eliminated in a stand-alone facility” (Parent, 1996).

In a paper delivered at OJP’s 1995 technical assistance workshop for applicants seeking funding under the Corrections Boot Camp Initiative, Parent stated that there is no empirical evidence to support one type of facility over another in relation to the impact on an off ender’s

development (OJP, 1995). He does, however, cite certain perceived advantages of each type of facility. For example, the advantages of locating a boot camp in a general population facility include cost savings derived from sharing infrastructure, goods, and services with the prison. In addition, it is easier to recruit and replace boot camp staff, because they do not have to move to a new community.

Because of concerns about harmful influence and physical violence, the collocation of an adult prison or boot camp with a secure juvenile boot

camp requires adherence to statutory separation requirements as implemented by OJJDP rules (U.S. Department of Justice, 1996):

Juveniles must be separated from incarcerated

adults by architectural or procedural means that

prevent sustained sight or sound contact. Brief

and inadvertent or accidental sight or sound

contact is only considered to be a violation if it

occurs in a secure area that is dedicated to use

by juvenile offenders, includi ing any residential

area.(Parent, 1996)

The best model to induce behavioral change

The basic premise of the military boot camp model is that the military atmosphere acts as a catalyst to facilitate changes in offenders’ behavior. The military atmosphere, however, may vary widely, from a confrontational model to a developmental one. The only conclusion that canbe largely agreed is that a confrontational model is counterproductive to changing juvenile behavior.

Dr. Marty Beyer, a psychologist experienced in improving the effectiveness of services to delinquents. Three things known about adolescent development, she said, should be considered when designing any program for youth:

o Adolescents are fairness fanatics. Running any adole yscent group care program is difficult because adolescents are very sensitive to anything they perceive as unfair, particularly anything that applies to the whole group.

o Adolescents reject imposed structure and assistance.

o Adolescents respond to encouragement, not punishment. Although they may change their behavior to avoid punishment, their attitudes and behaviors do not change in response to punishment (Andrews, 1990).

The implications of these three factors are that youth will defend themselves against what they see as unfair, regardless of the motivation of the adults who are caring for them, and will reject what may be offered as assistance because they do not recognize the providers of that assistance as being part of their support system. Dr. Beyer suggested that this rejection of assistance is positive. “It is the way youth have survived poverty and adverse conditions. If this natural inclination is subdued, it will undermine the very survival technique that has allowed these youth to make yit this far” (Andrews, 1990).

According to Dr. Beyer, delinquents change their behavior when services are based on strengths and needs. “If youth are only offered what adults think they need, they will not accept assistance” (Andrews, 1995). Effective services will help youth set up their own notions of what they need and then make it possible for them to meet their needs through nondelinquent behavior. The services developed should be based on the individual strengths of the youth.

It must also be asked whether juvenile boot camps, in both their residential and aftercare components, meet common needs of youth, such as the need to be competent at something, to feel a sense of belonging, to feel in charge (especially for those who have been victims of discrimination and abuse), and to feel a connection to their families. Dr.

Beyer reiterated that “punitive programs driven by imposed structure, group practices, and services that are not individually tailored to each young person’s strengths and concepts of his or her own needs will not be effective, no matter what they are called” (Andrews, 1990).

The confrontational model is full of potentially abusive situations and is “antithetical to the development of the kind of healthy, productive relationship with an adult that a youth needs to develop maturity” (Andrews, 1990). The suitability of boot camps for introducing therapeutic intervention was questioned, and it was also pointed out that the confrontational model is difficult, if not impossible, to monitor.

However, although the adult boot camp model may not work for juveniles, it was noted that adolescents do like structure and want some structure in their lives. Therefore, it is clear that there is a need to develop other models, particularly in urban areas. Suggestions included the following:

o Models that incorporate mentoring and job skills.

o Models such as Outward Bound, which has been successful in challenging youth individually in neighborhoods such as Washington Heights in NewYork City.

o Models with varying goals and structures that could meet a wide range of adolescent needs. Such models would especially integrate the residential and aftercare phases of the boot camp experience, so that goals, treatment methods, and programming would be the same for both phases. Coordination with all levels of the aftercare agencies during the planning and execution of the residential phase would partially ensure this desired continuity (Andrews, 1990).

Aftercare issues

Aftercare is the last phase before to utal release from juvenile court supervision. Dr. Altschuler asserted that reintegration into the community is the key to boot camp success. “Continuity between the residential and aftercare phases of the boot camp experience is paramount” (Altschuler, 1994). In general, proper reintegration requires adequate funding for both the boot camp and aftercare programs, management that is coordinated throughout the entire program, and graduated sanctions and incentives.

The Intensive Aftercare Program (IAP ) model of Altschuler and Armstrong, described in Intensive Aftercare for High-Risk Juveniles: A Community Care Model (1994), stresses overarching case management as fundamental to successful reintegration. Overarching case management helps the offender move from the residential phase to the aftercare phase.

The IAP model divides case management into five components:

o Assessment, classification, and selection criteria. Selecting youth at the highest risk of recidivism requires appropriate assessment and

classification measures. These measures give weight to justice system factors, such as age at first offense, and to need-related factors, such as

substance abuse. The accuracy of the measures chosen is directly related to the success of other design choices: for example, staffing levels, the

size of the inmate population, and the boot camp as a whole.

o Individual case planning incorporating family and community perspectives. Individualized case planning should address how the special needs of the youth u are linked to his or her social network (e.g., family, close friends, and peers in general) and community (e.g., schools, workplace, church, training programs, and specialized treatment

programs). To ensure continuity from the residential phase to the aftercare phase, an aftercare counselor should be involved from the

beginning of the residential phase. At a minimum, contact between the counselor and the offender should be made before discharge from the

residential phase.

o A mix of intensive surveillance and services. Because justice system factors accompany need-related factors in the average offender,

successful aftercare must strike a balance between surveillance and services. Neither one alone will suffice. Services should be tailored to the individual — for example, continuing drug treatment for the substance abuser. Surveillance should exceed the old purpose of simply jailing

recidivists by identifying impending recidivism and, ideally, reversing it through rewards and graduated sanctions o.

o A balance of incentives and graduated consequences coupled with the imposition of realistic, enforceable conditions. Positive reinforcement can induce healthy behavioral change. On the other hand, overly burdensome parole conditions can undermine healthy change or even

contribute to recidivism — from a psychological effect or merely from increased contact with those who record acts of recidivism.

o Service brokerage with community resources and linkage with social networks. The workload that results from trying to create better conditions and from the growth of boot camp populations makes it

impossible for the aftercare counselor to succeed without help. Service brokerage with community resources and linkage with social networks is

critical. Service brokerage helps to meet the needs for job training and education, among others. Linkage with social networks helps to heal those

common divisions exhibited by high-risk youth in the areas of family relationships, peer relationships, and sch ool (Altschuler, 1994). O

Conclusion

At this point in their development, boot camps do not appear to be the panacea that many hoped they would become. Nonetheless, boot camps do appear to offer certain practical advantages and futur e promise that warrant continued testing and examination. As an intermediate sanction, boot camps are a useful alternative for offenders for whom probation would be insufficiently punitive, yet for whom long-term incarceration would be excessive. As such, under certain conditions, boot camps can free bed space for more hardened offenders, thereby reducing the financial burden on correctional budgets. Future research must focus on the kinds of questions that have been raised here to provide the informatio ?n needed to enable the justice system to maximize the benefits of boot camps as an intermediate corrections option. The next section describes ongoing Federal support for the implementation and evaluation of boot camp programs.

i

Bibliography

Altschuler, D.M., and T.L. Armstrong. 1994

(September). Intensive Aftercare for High-Risk

Juveniles: A Community Care Model. Program Summary.

Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs,

U.S. Department of Justice.

Altschuler, D.M., and T.L. Armstrong. 1994

(September). Intensive Aftercare for High-Risk

Juveniles: Policies and Procedures. Program

Summary. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice

Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.

Altschuler, D.M., and T.L. Armstrong. 1992 (June).

Intensive Aftercare for High-Risk Juvenile

Parolees: A Model Program Design. Baltimore, MD:

Institute for Policy Studies, The Johns Hopkins

University.

American Correctional Association. 1995. Standards

for Juvenile Correctional Boot Camp Programs.

Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs,

U. S. Department of Justice.

Andrews, D.A., I. Zinger, H.D. Hoge, J. Bonta, P.

Gendreau, Beyer, M., and F.T. Cullen. 1990. “Does Correctional

Treatment Work? A Clinically Relevant and

Psychologically Informed Meta-analysis.”

Criminology 28:369-404.

Armstrong, T.L., and D.M. Altschuler. 1993.

Intensive Interventions With High-Risk Youths:

Promising Approaches in Juvenile Probation and

Parole. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.

Austin, J.M., M. Jones, and M. Bolyard. 1993

(October). “The Growing Use of Jail Boot Camps: The

Current State of the Art.” Research in Brief.

Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice,

Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of

Justice.

Brame, R., and D.L. MacKenzie. 1996. “Shock

Incarceration and Positive Adjustment During

C ommunity Supervision: A Multisite Evaluation.” In

Correctional Boot Camps: A Tough Intermediate

Sanction, edited by D.L. MacKenzie and E.E. Hebert.

Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice,

Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of

Justice.

ECastellano, T.C. 1995. “Enhancing the Evaluation

Outcomes of Innovative Boot Camp Programs.”

Progress report presented to the National Institute

of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S.

Department of Justice, September 27, 1995.

Cronin, R., and M. Han. 1994. Boot Camps for Adult

and Juvenile Offenders: Overview and Update.

Research Report. Washington, DC: National Institute

of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S.

Department of Justice.

tGransky, L.A., T.C. Castellano, and E.L. Cowles.

1995. “Is There a `Second Generation’ of Shock

Incarceration Facilities?: The Evolving Nature of

Goals, Program Elements, and Drug Treatment

Services in Boot Camp Programs.” In Intermediate

Sanctions: Sentencing in the 1990’s, edited by J.

Smykla and W. Selke. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson

Publishing Company, pp. 89-112.

Greenwood, P., E. Deschenes, and J. Adams. 1993.

Chronic Juvenile Offenders: Final Results from the

Skillman Aftercare Experiment. Santa Monica, CA:

The RAND Corporation.

Institute for Criminological Research and American

Institutes for Research. 1992 (September). Boot

Camps for Juvenile Offenders: Constructive

Intervention and Early Support — Implementation

Evaluation. Washington, DC: National Institute of

Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S.

Department of Justice.

Krisberg, B. 1991 (July). Juvenile Intensive

Supervision Program Model, Operations Manual and

Guide. Special report submitted to the Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office

of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.

Little, G., and K. Robinson. 1994.

“Cost-effectiveness, Rehabilitation Potential, and

Safety of Intermediate Sanctions: Mixed Results.”

Cognitive-Behavioral Treatment Review 3(1):4-7.

MacKenzie, D.L. 1993 (November). “Boot Camp Prisons

in 1993.” National Institute of Justice Journal,

pp. 21-28.

?MacKenzie, D.L., and E.E. Hebert, eds. 1996.

Correctional Boot Camps: A Tough Intermediate

Sanction. Washington, DC: National Institute of

Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S.

Department of Justice.

MacKenzie, D.L., and J.W. Shaw. 1990. “Inmate

Adjustment and Change During Shock Incarceration:

The Impact of Correctional Boot Camp Programs.”

Justice Quarterly 7:125-150.

MacKenzie, D.L., and C. Souryal. 1994. Multisite

Evaluation of Shock Incarceration. Washington, DC:

National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice

Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.

MacKenzie, D.L., and C.C. Souryal. 1991 (October).

“Boot Camp Survey: Rehabi Alitation, Recidivism

Reduction Outrank Punishment as Main Goals.”

Corrections Today 53(6):90-92, 94-96.

Marlette, M. 1991. “Boot Camp Prisons Thrive.”

Corrections Compendium 16(1):1-12.

Office of Justice Programs. 1995. Fiscal Year 1995

Corrections Boot Camp Initiative: Violent Offender

Incarceration Grant Program. Program Guidelines and

Application Information. Washington, DC: Office of

Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.

?Parent, D.G. 1996. “Boot Camps and Prison

Crowding.” In Correctional Boot Camps: A Tough

Intermediate Sanction, edited by D.L. MacKenzie and

E.E. Hebert. Washington, DC: National Institute of

Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S.

Department of Justice.

Parent, D.G. 1995. Planning a Bootcamp: An Overview

of Five Critical Elements. Paper presented at the

Office of Justice Programs Boot Camp Technical

Assistance Workshop, Atlanta, Georgia, April 1,

1995.

Parent, D.G. 1994. “Boot Camps Failing to Achieve

Goals.” Overcrowded Times 5(4):8-11.

Parent, D.G. 1989. Shock Incarceration: An Overview

of Existing Programs. Washington, DC: National

Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,

U.S. Department of Justice.