Correctional Boot Camps: A Tough Intermediate Sanction - Chapter 12.
Discipline in Georgia's Correctional Boot Camps
MENU TITLE: Discipline in Georgia's Boot Camps
Series: NIJ Report
Published: February 1996
16 pages
36,098 bytes
Discipline in Georgia's Correctional Boot Camps
by Billie S. Erwin
Billie Erwin has been with the Georgia Department
of Corrections for 21 years, with experience in
community corrections field supervision, as
Department of Corrections Chief of Evaluations and
as Coordinator of Research and Development. She
received The American Probation and Parole/Sam
Houston State University Publications Award in
1987.
Georgia's boot camp system dates back to 1983 and
currently incorporates both probation boot camps
for men directly sentenced by the court and inmate
boot camps for male offenders selected from among
those sentenced to prison. Both types of boot camps
have the same regimen of military-style basic
training, hard work, programs addressing substance
abuse and other offender problems, and followup
through strict probation and parole supervision.
Some require enrollment in classes to obtain a
general equivalency diploma. Boot camp staff
receive rigorous training, and selected officers
participate in U.S. Army drill training courses at
Ft. McClellan, Alabama. Verbal confrontation as a
method of discipline is integral to the program,
and all offenders must refer to themselves in the
third person during any formal communication. Major
disciplinary infractions result in revocation, but
minor infractions are dealt with in several ways
explicitly specified in the boot camp procedures
manual followed throughout the boot camp system.
This chapter also describes an extension of the
boot camp model to a standard prison, the close
security Valdosta Correctional Institution, which
formed an Intensive Therapeutic Program within some
dormitories. It began as an implementation of
certain military-style protocols in regard to work
programs, orderliness, and cleanliness of living
quarters but has been extended to include an entire
system of positive reinforcements.
Boot camp is discipline. Before discussing
disciplinary procedures in correctional boot camps,
one must recognize the assumptions underlying their
concept and design. Boot camps are based on the
rationale that many young offenders have never
learned rudimentary discipline and respect for
authority because of failure of parenting,
inadequate socialization, or adolescent rebellion.
A boot camp is a 90- to 120-day crash program in
discipline.
The term "boot camp" itself conjures immediate,
usually vivid images in the minds of most
Americans, among them one of a platoon marching in
cadence under the stern leadership of a drill
sergeant. Another consists of rows of recruits or
offenders (with freshly shaved heads) doing
calisthenics, again under an exacting physical
training instructor ever ready to deliver harsh
criticism for any failure to perform with
uniformity, vigor, and full extension.
Then there is the closeup of a hard-nosed,
sabre-voiced drill instructor in a black campaign
hat who addresses each group member from close
range, shouting a barrage of directions,
admonitions, and warnings along with a generally
negative assessment of the individual and warnings
about the changes in attitude and behavior required
to survive in the platoon. These changes might
relate to posture, appearance, even facial
expression. This is popularly referred to as the
"in your face" approach, indisputably effective in
gaining the attention of the person receiving such
treatment.
Another source of the prevalent perception of boot
camps is the previous military experience of a
large number of American men. Before the United
States discontinued the draft, a significant
proportion of able-bodied men from all segments of
the population were likely to have had a military
experience, often in the form of 3-year duty
immediately after high school or college. Many
remember this as the time when they learned to
conform to tough discipline and associate the
experience with their passage into manhood and
responsible citizenship.
Although these images may be extremely popular and
useful as an approach to punishment of law
violators and may even be beneficial in garnering
political support, they may miss the core content
of the actual boot camp program, which evolved in
response to a need for activities that contribute
to changed behavior. This chapter describes the
disciplinary component of the boot camp program as
it has evolved in Georgia. It also contains a
description of an innovative and successful
application of the military boot camp model to a
regular, more hardened population of close-security
inmates sentenced to standard prison terms at the
State's Valdosta Correctional Institution. (See
chapter 5 for a discussion of programs in Georgia's
boot camps.)
Historical Background
When the State of Georgia implemented its Special
Alternative Incarceration (SAI) in 1983 for
nonviolent young offenders, this program was
designed primarily as a 90-day experience in drill
and discipline in the military boot camp model.
Through ongoing evaluation and assessment, program
modifications have been made as necessary to
increase effectiveness. The earliest evaluation in
Georgia, conducted by Gerald T. Flowers, a Senior
Operations Analyst with the Georgia Department of
Corrections, pointed out the need for followup
after the 90-day period of incarceration (Flowers,
1986). This was essential to ensure adequate
supervision for offenders in the critical period
after release. During that time, offenders needed
assistance in dealing with issues such as
conducting a job search, applying learned
discipline to decisionmaking, and resisting
temptations within the community. The agency
implemented a policy of assigning offenders to
intensive probation supervision for the first 6
months after release from boot camps.
Georgia Governor Zell Miller, who served in the
United States Marine Corps as a young man, often
refers to boot camp as a molding experience. He has
strongly advocated boot camps as a sentencing tool
for first-time drug offenders. Prior to his
administration, the predominant offenders found in
Georgia's boot camps were burglars. In reality many
burglary offenses were known to be related to
underlying substance abuse problems, but
correctional officials did not address this in
their programs. Georgia therefore developed
programmatic standards for all boot camps that
included mandatory formal educational and substance
abuse training for all participants, as well as
more intensive substance abuse counseling for
selected offenders.
Programmatic Evolution and Expansion
The New Comprehensive Correctional Boot Camp
Program represents an expansion of SAI, both in
terms of number of boot camps and number of
participants. Georgia's boot camps now also
incorporate more programming.
These boot camps can be divided into two groups:
probation boot camps and inmate boot camps. The men
in the probation boot camps are sentenced to the
program directly by the court and are referred to
as "detainees." The men in the inmate boot camps
(referred to as "inmates") have received prison
sentences but are given the opportunity by the
corrections department to volunteer for the
program. Selection is made during the diagnostic
and classification process with the concurrence of
the State Board of Pardons and Paroles. Boot camp
policies in Georgia are identical for both types of
boot camps, and, except as indicated, this chapter
refers to a regimen and programming applicable to
both, with the term "offenders" used for both
detainees and inmates.
The camps have four primary components:
o  Military-style basic training.
o  Hard work.
o  Programs addressing substance abuse and other
offender problems.
o  Followup through strict probation and parole
supervision.
A probation boot camp warden has described the
progression through the program as beginning with
"initial shock," moving to the "teaching phase,"
and following up with "positive reinforcement." The
warden is not comfortable with identifying any
reinforcement as a reward but believes that a
desired work detail assignment may be an incentive
for good behavior. Such assignments can involve
kitchen duty or lawn mowing as opposed to digging
and other hard labor.
The program has maintained its dominant image of
military drill and discipline, and in no cases have
officials relaxed the requirement for participants
to perform regular work assignments. Originally,
the evening hours were seen as a time for quiet
reflection, thought to be therapeutic in eliciting
behavior change. Modifications have given structure
to these evening time slots by including both
educational and basic substance abuse programming.
There has also been an increase in elective
recreation and religious activity time.
Access to television entertainment in the evenings
has always been denied, although sometimes public
television programs are allowed during certain time
periods. Boot camp participants have access to
library books and to Alcoholics Anonymous and
Narcotics Anonymous handbooks.
The boot camp concept has gained increasing
popularity in Georgia. Use of boot camps was a
major campaign issue supported by Governor Miller
in his 1990 election campaign. With strong
political support, two complete minimum security
prisons were converted to probation boot camps, and
one new probation boot camp and four new inmate
boot camps were constructed.
A 1991 departmental evaluation tracking graduates
from the SAI program over 36 months showed a
40.7-percent return-to-prison rate for graduates
compared to a 53.4-percent return-to-prison rate
for a comparison group of offenders. This second
group met the eligibility criteria for boot camp
but were sentenced to prison instead. On average,
the comparison group served 118 days in prison, 28
days longer than the SAI group serving a standard
90 days (Flowers et al., 1991), showing significant
cost savings.
Since Governor Miller's inauguration in January
1991, combined effects of new construction and
allocation of dormitory units at several
institutions produced a total of three probation
boot camps. These camps have bedspace for 475
detainees, and inmate boot camp units have bedspace
for 1,076 inmates, for a total of 1,551 boot camp
spaces. Further expansion is projected through new
construction to be completed in fiscal year 1996.
Probationers are sentenced to the program directly
by the court, and inmates are selected by
departmental staff.
Eligibility criteria have been expanded to
incorporate offenders 17 to 35 years old. There is
no longer any firm requirement that the offender
have no previous prison experience, although the
intent is to target those who have not been
hardened by such an experience.
Disciplinary Philosophies
The Georgia program was initially designed to shock
young male probationers who had never experienced
any incarceration in prison. (Georgia has not
implemented any boot camp programs for females.)
Many had tested the system, often through
successive "last chances" on probation, and
exhibited a continued lack of respect or even open
defiance toward authority. The concept advocated a
90-day period of intensive verbal confrontation,
drill, and rigorous work to instill respect for
authority, physical conditioning, and work habits
that would enable these young men to return to
probation, gain and hold a job, and maintain
self-discipline in the community.
Part of this approach was based on the belief that
exposing these young offenders to the reality of
prison life (without exposing them to any of the
real abuses that may occur among a hardened prison
population) would convince them never again to defy
the law. This philosophy hinges primarily on habit
training with little emphasis on specific skills
development.
The routine and drill that established these
disciplinary expectations have always constituted
the core structure of Georgia's boot camps and were
the means for showcasing boot camps to the media.
All offenders must participate in drill and
ceremony as well as develop and exhibit a level of
skill in precision drill marching. Since most
facilities create some sort of competitive process
for grading platoons on precision drilling, this
aspect can become a point of developing pride and
improving self-image in addition to serving as a
tool for discipline. Some boot camps, through
competitive drill presentations, select a Gold
Award Drill Unit to perform for visiting
dignitaries.
Departmental staff, supported by criminal justice
literature, acknowledge that defiance of the law
can occur not simply as an absence of discipline
but as the result when young offenders feel they
are denied access to participation in the
mainstream community and cannot achieve economic
success and other goals through traditional and
lawful means. Serious involvement in drug abuse,
through both using and dealing, and a lack of basic
life skills and employability are also major
deficits in a large percentage of cases.
Programs now require that all boot camp
participants complete a basic alcohol and drug
education course. Some boot camps require
participants without a high school diploma or
general equivalency diploma (GED) to enroll in
either GED or adult basic education throughout the
boot camp period or until the GED is acquired.
Officer Training and Development of Procedures
Georgia's disciplinary program depends on staff
training to ensure that both drill and disciplinary
techniques are grounded in up-to-date military
practice. It also depends on comprehensive
handbooks that ensure understanding of rules and
procedures by staff and inmates alike.
The Department's 4-week Basic Correctional Officer
Training program, which is both rigorous and
thorough, includes passing tests on departmental
policies and procedures. Thus all officers have a
firm knowledge of the official definition of
disciplinary infractions and the appropriate
response. In addition, boot camp officers complete
drill instructor training developed by the
departmental training division. Selected officers
have participated in specialized boot camp training
offered to correctional agencies by the U.S. Marine
Corps at Quantico, Virginia, and by the U.S. Army
at Ft. McClellan, Alabama.1 Because of the
proximity of Ft. McClellan, its training
opportunities and drill techniques are now used by
all Georgia boot camps. Officers who graduate are
entitled to wear the all-black uniform and black
"campaign cover," or broad-brimmed hat, of the
Senior Drill Instructor, a designation of
distinction.
Participants, too, are taught the rules from the
outset. As one warden observed, "Discipline begins
at the gate." During orientation, each boot camp
participant receives a copy of a handbook that
includes specific rules and procedures. Each
facility prepares its own handbook, so there is
some variation in specific institutional activities
and rules. In all cases, however, the handbook
describes the expectation of military decorum,
protocol, and etiquette. The new boot camp
participant signs an agreement indicating he
understands the rules, and this agreement becomes
the foundation of disciplinary policy.
Specific rules common to all Georgia's boot camps
include prohibition against fighting, sexual
activity, weapons, drugs or alcohol, and escape.
The handbook also describes the disciplinary
process and grievance procedures, visitation, mail
and telephone policies, and programmatic activities
(both mandatory and voluntary). Special sections
deal with policy allowing searches of person,
property, and living areas at any time. Handbooks
include a section on work and one on personal
hygiene and cleanliness.
Verbal Confrontation and Communication
Verbal confrontation as a method of discipline is
integral to the program. A verbal dressdown is a
regular occurrence and may not be prompted by any
specific violation. It is often applied in the
assumption that offenders are arrogant and have
previously shown a pattern of challenging
authority. Correctional staff turn the "in your
face" style of communication into an art form.
Departmental policy forbids the use of profanity or
physical contact by staff, but the terms often
heard in admonishing boot camp participants may be
highly derogatory. Staff often remark that "you
must break them down so you can build them up."
Boot camp participants are forbidden to speak until
they make a formal request by first identifying
themselves as "Inmate (surname), request permission
to speak." For the most part, the pattern of formal
communication continues in the third person. There
is considerable variation among institutions and
supervisory staff regarding when and where to allow
informal communication. General policy forbids
talking at mealtime and on work detail without
permission. In practice, however, some conversation
does occur in work situations. At any point when
this is considered to be detrimental or disruptive,
correctional officers are expected to immediately
impose the rule of silence. When any staff member
directs a question to the offender, the expected
response is "Yes, sir" or "No, sir."
Dealing With Disciplinary Infractions
Staff report that physical conflicts are rare among
boot camp participants. Activity is so closely
supervised that there is little opportunity for
uncontrolled behavior. Disciplinary infractions are
categorized as "minor" or "major." The most
frequent minor infractions are verbal
insubordination, failure to follow instructions,
and failure to perform work assignments. Major
disciplinary infractions include bringing an
illegal drug into the facility from an outside work
detail. This almost certainly results in a
revocation.
When a minor infraction occurs, the officer is free
to handle the situation by giving a verbal warning,
issuing demerits, or preparing a written
disciplinary report. Any written disciplinary
report results in a formal hearing and a finding of
guilt or innocence. Findings of guilt result in
specific sanctions that must be approved by the
warden.
An officer may deal with a minor infraction in
several ways. He may issue a verbal warning and
follow up with more precise instructions on how an
assignment must be done, or issue three demerits on
a participant's work record for failure to follow
instructions. Options vary with the style of the
officer and with the circumstance. If the failure
to perform the work assignment is seen as an
intentional act of defiance, it is addressed with a
written disciplinary report, which must cite a
specific code section and violation. This
requirement for a formal report ensures that
disciplinary actions conform to departmental
policies, become subject to audit, and meet high
standards of professional judgment.
Disciplinary hearings are conducted under formal
rules that allow an offender to have an advocate
present, usually the person's counselor. The
offender may also request witnesses.
In the staffing design for probation boot camps,
the correctional lieutenant is the highest ranking
security officer, and he conducts the hearing. The
shift supervisor on duty when an infraction occurs
investigates the disciplinary report to ascertain
all the facts prior to the hearing. The
correctional lieutenant acts in the role of
administrative judge, reviews the written
disciplinary report, and hears testimony from the
officer who wrote the report, from the offender,
and from any other witnesses. A correctional
captain performs the role of hearing officer in
inmate boot camps. The offender has an opportunity
to speak, and the hearing officer decides guilt or
innocence as well as any sanctions to be imposed.
This decision is reviewed by the warden or
superintendent, who signs off on the finding and
sanctions or makes changes. All disciplinary
hearing reports are forwarded to the Department of
Corrections Central Office.
Range of Sanctions
As noted, for minor disciplinary infractions the
correctional officer may issue a verbal warning.
When a minor infraction occurs, the officer also
has the discretionary power to require pushups for
the sake of immediacy of punishment. This is called
"motivational physical therapy," and no other
situational punishments are allowed. As pointed out
by Dale Parent, the use of summary punishments
could erode the protections of disciplinary
procedures established as national standards
(Parent, 1989). For this reason, the Georgia
Department of Corrections has established clearly
defined limits for the use of any on-the-spot
sanctions. If a formal disciplinary report and
hearing occur, a specified range of options is
defined in the boot camp handbook.
Sanctions for minor disciplinary infractions may
take the form of delay of visitation or telephone
privileges for specified time periods or extra duty
assignments (in 10-hour increments). Other
sanctions include loss of privileges for purchasing
items at the boot camp store or extra duty in place
of a recreation period. In general, Georgia boot
camps observe a policy of progressive sanction,
whereby successive infractions result in more
severe sanctions.
Major disciplinary infractions may result in a 10-
to 30-day "recycling," or repetition of certain
elements of the program; this results in a longer
stay before graduation or release. Serious
infractions may result in up to 10 days of
isolation, which are not counted toward program
completion.
In 1993 the Facilities Division extended the
standard period for the inmate boot camp program
from 90 days to 120 days to create time for
programmatic additions without infringing on time
allocated to standard drill, physical training, and
work. For probation boot camps, the Community
Corrections Division maintained the standard time
period of 90 days, but provision was made for
recycling up to 30 days. Probation detainees may be
in boot camp for 120 days as a result of failure to
meet disciplinary requirements, but if they exhibit
no performance problems, they are released after 90
days. The potential for increased length of stay as
a disciplinary sanction thus becomes a significant
motivation for cooperation.
In inmate boot camps, an offender may be removed
from the program when means of enforcing discipline
are exhausted. The State Board of Pardons and
Paroles has the authority to assign and release
inmates. Recent statistics show that 5 percent of
those originally assigned to the program
voluntarily withdraw and 5 percent are removed
through disciplinary action. In the case of inmates
assigned to boot camp, a removal either for
voluntary or disciplinary reasons results in
reassignment to another institution. The security
level assigned is influenced by the nature of the
disciplinary problem.
In probation boot camps, detainees must be returned
to the sentencing court for action; this usually
results in revocation from probation and a new
sentence for confinement. In some cases, however,
the courts impose a different alternative sanction.
Georgia's progression of intermediate sanctions
place boot camp as the last alternative before
incarceration, but judges are free to act in a
different order. Sometimes reassignment occurs for
medical rather than disciplinary reasons.
Preventive Discipline
Programs have formal and informal ways for giving
offenders who are exhibiting adjustment problems
special attention to enable them to succeed. Staff
identify inmates who have serious family problems,
exhibit volatility, or have accumulated 20 or more
demerits (indicating potential escalation to more
serious violations). One inmate boot camp has
implemented a behavior adjustment group for those
with marginal behavior. This group meets for four
1-hour sessions planned around issues of anger
management and cognitive restructuring (a means of
getting offenders to analyze how they responded to
situations in their lives and to develop
alternative responses). Individualized techniques
include counseling and psychodrama scenarios that
relate to "stuffing" (suppressing feelings),
escalating, and directing behaviors. Various
techniques for identifying and managing anger are
presented.
Positive Reinforcement
Individual wardens differ philosophically about the
appropriateness of rewards for positive behaviors
during the boot camp stay. Some regard the
completion of a GED certificate as an intrinsic
reward realized for the offender but oppose
tangible rewards within the program. Others
dispense concrete rewards. In one facility, members
of the platoon that wins the Gold Boot award for
precision drilling earn the right to eat first for
1 week and receive soft drinks and candy.
Generally, some positive reinforcement is provided
to balance the elements of work, drill, and
discipline that dominate the military boot camp
model. This positive reinforcement is achieved by
several means.
In some boot camps a range meeting is held once a
week at which positive achievements and behavior
are recognized; the group may also have peer
discussions of problems. Communication is less
formal, and in some cases a counselor may follow up
on issues raised or help individuals resolve
problems.
In addition, each offender is scheduled for an
individual counseling session at least once a
month. This meeting begins after the offender
knocks on the counselor's door and says "Inmate (or
detainee) report." The counselor then responds by
saying, "at ease," which signals the opportunity to
converse during the counseling session without
formal permission to speak. However, counselors
expect all responses to show self-respect and
self-discipline.
Communication Issues
Staff members were asked about their experience and
beliefs regarding the requirement that offenders
identify themselves in the third person throughout
the program while they are expected to reflect upon
past behavior and feelings and to internalize
behavioral and attitudinal change. This issue was
originally raised by a staff psychologist who
conducted regular adjustment groups in one inmate
boot camp. Once a week for a 90-minute group
session, he required each participant to use the
first person for discussing and accepting
responsibility for his own behaviors and feelings.
Although this group was discontinued, the issue of
the best means of promoting personal responsibility
remains.
During site visits, researchers observed situations
in which individual expression was exhibited in
various ways:
o  Often, skilled counselors created group
situations in which a great deal of individual
expression occurred while participants continued to
observe the official protocol of formal
communication.
o  At some boot camps the development of the
guidon, the banner displaying the platoon and
company identification, is a group project under
the direction of the correctional officer in charge
of drill for the platoon. The group members are
supplied basic art supplies to make the guidon,
which expresses their pride and commitment. Some
banners are quite artistic. Examples of guidons
include one with the name "Mighty Aces," a bulldog
pictured as mascot and a slogan, "United we stand,
divided we fall." Administrators differ about the
appropriateness of guidons like these, some
considering them expressions of esprit de corps or
power statements inappropriate to the offenders'
status, and others viewing them more positively.
o  Another form of group expression is the cadence
chant, a creation of the platoon. These chants vary
and often show how well the group is progressing. A
counselor observed that when platoons near
completion of the program, the word "freedom" is
often heard as part of the cadence.
o  During leisure education time, offenders have
library access and can read or write as they like.
On occasion, offenders have composed a written
piece for use at a graduation ceremony.
As boot camp participants move toward completion of
the program, they use more informal communication,
whether as part of the boot camp planning or as the
result of staff encouragement. This suggests that
although formal communication remains in the third
person, there are opportunities for individual and
group expression to develop.
Extending the Boot Camp Disciplinary Model to
Standard Prison
The combination of strict military discipline, a
code of ethics, and clear application of positive
reinforcement is noteworthy and demonstrates the
balancing of strict discipline with positive
reinforcement. The success of this model in boot
camps led Georgia to adopt it in a close-security
(in Georgia, the next step down from maximum
security) prison, the Valdosta Correctional
Institution. The rest of this chapter describes the
successful application of this model to an entirely
different population to show the potential of this
aspect of boot camps to offer a solution to some
seemingly intractable problems in prisons housing
more serious, violent offenders. While it is
difficult to make long-term comparisons of the
outcomes of this prison model (given the longer
incarceration of prison inmates), it offers some
interesting insights from the standpoint of theory
and experience.
Valdosta inmates have committed serious felonies--
some are among the most notorious offenders in the
State and are serving multiple life sentences. All
have been classified as in need of close security.
In 1990 the prison implemented the boot camp style
of discipline for inmates for whom previous methods
of control would be periods of isolation or
lockdown. The program at Valdosta is called the
Intensive Therapeutic Program (ITP) and is a 30-day
alternative to more traditional forms of control in
the prison.
The institution is led by a warden who clearly
believes in positive reinforcement and uses the
technique effectively. Valdosta has won awards as
the outstanding institution in Georgia under this
leadership and also won the 1993 award as the
Outstanding Correctional Facility in the United
States as part of City and State magazine's
Excellence in Government/Correctional Award
Program.
The ITP living unit was originally established to
implement certain military-style protocols in
regard to work programs, orderliness, and
cleanliness of living quarters. As this approach
proved to be effective, and inmates marched and
developed cadences, the administration began to
introduce more military protocols. The unit is
managed by a drill instructor who has completed the
U.S. Army course in military drill. The framed Code
of Ethics, which hangs in every dormitory, demands
discipline, self-pride, and uniformity.
Since the inception of the ITP program, 300 inmates
have completed the program each year. By the end of
1993 disciplinary reports had decreased from an
average of 330 a month to 100 a month and assaults
by 75 percent. Staff from other units began to
request the opportunity to use these protocols.
To provide positive reinforcement, the warden makes
inspection tours twice a week, visiting each
dormitory. The inmates present themselves and their
quarters for inspection, observing military
protocols. The protocols are often led by peers,
and individual motivational statements are offered
in some dormitories. These stress self-discipline
and leadership support and are delivered in rote
fashion while standing at attention. An observer
gets the impression that the energy exerted would
provide release equal to that provided by
calisthenics.
The warden moves swiftly through the institution
and takes careful note both of areas where
improvement is needed and areas of excellence. He
speaks to individual offenders about the need to
tighten sheets or iron a shirt, but he also makes
special note where the orderliness is exemplary. In
advance of the inspection, his staff has prepared a
listing by dormitory of individuals who have
noteworthy accomplishments, such as receipt of a
GED or a notation for improved performance. As he
enters each dormitory he requests that these
individuals be brought forward. He gives them his
personal congratulation for the accomplishment. To
an inmate who has completed a GED, he may affirm,
"They can take that uniform away from you, but no
one can take that education from you." An observer
can see that the inmates value the individual
recognition.
Positive reinforcement takes other forms as well. A
golf cart follows the warden on his inspection tour
across the grounds. The cart has been painted with
balloons by the vocational education classes and is
laden with refreshments. As the warden completes
his inspection of each dormitory, staff members
wait to distribute Cokes and honey buns to all
residents of a dormitory who pass inspection and
something extra for those who lead in drill or who
offer special motivational statements.
Conclusion
Universally accepted research in response
conditioning, pioneered by B.F. Skinner, indicates
that positive reinforcement is more effective than
negative reinforcement in achieving behavioral
change. Effective discipline seeks the necessary
balance between disciplinary intervention to
control destructive behavior and positive
reinforcement of constructive behavior.
Within the span of a 90- to 120-day boot camp
program that seeks to impart strict discipline for
a group with serious deficits in this area, there
may always be an apparent emphasis on calling
attention to negatives. The positive reinforcements
do occur, however, at lower decibels and with less
attention from the press. It is important that they
not be forgotten. Strong aftercare linkages to the
community during the readjustment period offer
opportunities to continue positive reinforcement of
the self-discipline and personal responsibility
instilled in the boot camp.
Note
1.  Boot camps and other correctional agencies
interested in this training should contact Retired
Command Sergeant Major Josh Perry, Ft. McClellan
Department of the Army Military Police School, Ft.
McClellan, AL 36205 (telephone 205-848-4383). The
training program at Quantico has been closed.
References
Flowers, Gerald T. An Evaluation of the Use and
Performance of Special Alternative Incarceration in
Georgia. Atlanta: Georgia Department of
Corrections, 1986.
Flowers, Gerald T., Timothy S. Carr, and R. Barry
Ruback. Special Alternative Incarceration
Evaluation. Atlanta: Georgia Department of
Corrections, 1991.
MacKenzie, Doris L. Boot Camp Prisons in 1993.
Research in Action. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Justice, National Institute of
Justice, 1993.
MacKenzie, Doris L., and L.I. Goodstein. "Stress
and the Control Beliefs of Prisons: A Test of Three
Models of Control-limited Environments." Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 16 (1986):3.
Parent, Dale G. "Boot Camps Failing To Achieve
Goals." Overcrowded Times, 5, no. 4 (August
1993):8-11.
Parent, Dale G. Shock Incarceration: An Overview of
Existing Programs. Issues and Practices in Criminal
Justice. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1989.
Toch, Hans. Living in Prison. New York: The Free
Press, 1977.
Toch, Hans, and K. Adams. "Punishment, Treatment
and Prison Infractions." Journal of Offender
Counseling Services and Rehabilitation, 12 (1988).