Correctional Boot Camps: A Tough Intermediate Sanction - Chapter 2.
An Overview of Boot Camp Goals, Components, and Results


MENU TITLE: Overview of Boot Camp Goals
Series: NIJ Report
Published: February 1996
25 pages
51,691 bytes

An Overview of Boot Camp Goals, Components, and
Results

by John K. Zachariah

John Zachariah is the Deputy Court Administrator
and Director of the Administrative Services
Department of the Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court in
Ohio. He was formerly the Chief Probation Officer
of the county's Juvenile Probation Department. When
he was Regional Administrator for the American
Correctional Association, he directed the
development of boot camp national standards, a
project funded by the National Institute of
Justice.

This overview of boot camps consists of a review of
the literature and a discussion of findings from a
mail survey and telephone and onsite interviews
with directors of departments of corrections,
directors of juvenile corrections, and military
staff to obtain information on the goals and
components of military, adult, and juvenile boot
camps as a preliminary task in developing standards
for adult and juvenile correctional boot camps.
Uniformity was found in the use of military drill
and ceremony and physical activity, but there was
considerable variation on the value of including
education and drug and alcohol treatment as boot
camp components. The findings of selected
evaluations as of January 1993 indicate that boot
camps may be a useful alternative sanction to keep
first offenders from offending again over the short
term, but that the long-term effects on recidivism
or reduction of costs and prison crowding have not
yet been determined. 

Sir, yes sir! Sir, no sir!" Many corrections
facilities now resound with shouted orders and
courteous but clipped responses. Correctional boot
camp programs for youthful offenders have grown
over the past decade. This growth promises to
continue, spurred on by citizens--who like seeing
offenders toeing the line--and by legislators who
represent them. In 1990 Congress authorized the
Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) to fund State
boot camps as "corrections options" through its
discretionary grant program, and 2 years later it
authorized the Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to establish three
model juvenile boot camps emphasizing education and
other services.

This rapid growth in boot camp programs has
produced an immediate need for standards to guide
the design and components of these programs. To
this end, the American Correctional Association
(ACA) completed a study of the status of boot
camps, funded by a grant from the National
Institute of Justice (NIJ), and in January 1995
published a set of standards for both adult and
juvenile boot camp programs.

ACA has now published Standards for Juvenile
Correctional Boot Camp Programs and Standards for
Adult Correctional Boot Camp Programs. These
standards were developed over several months with
the participation of correctional practitioners,
academicians, Department of Justice officials, and
other national correctional leaders. At every step
of the process, these standards have undergone
field review and critique by correctional
practitioners, ACA's Standards Committee, the
Commission on Accreditation for Corrections, and
correctional administrators. The standards were
field tested in a variety of boot camp sites to
ensure their validity. They represent the
collective wisdom of many professionals who have
reviewed and developed standards that reflect an
acceptable level of operation for the field. 

The goal of establishing these standards continues
to be the same as the correctional process that
began in 1870 when the Association published the
first principles designed to improve working
conditions for staff and employees and living
conditions for inmates. ACA has published standards
reflecting the consensus of the profession in
setting forth the principles, policies, and
procedures necessary to maintain correctional
facilities that are safe, humane, efficient, and
effective.

Professional standards for corrections are prepared
with several constituencies in mind. Critics
sometimes overlook one or more of these important
groups or tend to focus on a single purpose.
Standards are designed to consider the members of
the public who have been victimized by crime; the
staff who work in correctional systems; inmates who
serve sentences; the judges and court officers who
impose sentences; and the legislative and executive
offices responsible for corrections.

ACA completed a literature review, a direct mail
inquiry (asking programs to send their policies and
procedures), indepth telephone interviews with
corrections officials in eight States, and site
visits to four States. Staff reviewed all major
publications, annual reports, and unpublished
papers to date on the status of boot camp programs,
in addition to written information from 34 boot
camp programs (51 percent of all adult and Federal
boot camp programs) and the District of Columbia
(whose program was implemented in 1994). 

In April 1993, ACA staff sent letters to military
bases and members of the American Correctional
Military Association, an ACA affiliate. These
letters asked for information about their branch of
the service, including mission statements, goals,
objectives, policies, and procedures. All four
branches of military service responded.

This chapter discusses the similarities and
differences between military and correctional boot
camps and summarizes several key boot camp program
components from the literature review and materials
submitted in response to the survey questionnaire.1

Military Boot Camps

Results of the military boot camp survey showed
that the primary purpose of military boot camps,
which are 8 weeks long, is to convert a civilian
into a soldier who is physically conditioned,
motivated, and self-disciplined--one who can take
his or her place in the ranks of the Armed Forces
in the field. 

The Armed Forces manual2 explicitly states several
key issues that are essential to military boot camp
training goals:

o  Organization. The program must be organized with
formal intermediate goals or progressive phases so
that the conversion process can be properly
structured and both the trainer and new soldier are
clear on progress. 

o  The dignity of the new soldier. From the time
the new soldier takes the oath of enlistment, he or
she is a soldier and should be addressed as one.
Every effort must be made to instill a sense of
identification with the uniform, the training unit,
and the leaders of that unit. This cannot be
accomplished in an atmosphere of "we/they." From
the start of the training cycle, the new soldier
must be presented an atmosphere that says
"leader/soldier," where the drill sergeant,
committee group trainer, and officers are seen as
role models to emulate rather than people to be
feared and avoided.

o  Degree of control. The leaders of training units
must continue to develop self-discipline in their
soldiers. Self-discipline begins early in boot camp
by ensuring that the training center cadre
maintains total control over the soldiers'
activities. This control is relaxed over time as
soldiers demonstrate their willingness to accept
responsibility for their actions. 

o  Responsibility. If new soldiers are to be
successful and productive members in their future
units, they must learn responsibility for others as
well as for themselves. Every work detail, every
period of instruction, and every opportunity to
reinforce leadership should emphasize the necessity
for cooperation and teamwork.

o  Training cadre role. The operative philosophy is
to train soldiers by building on their strengths
and shoring up their weaknesses. It is not to "tear
them down and build them up again."

Asked to comment on the compatibility of both
military and correctional boot camp goals,
Lieutenant Colonel Bruce R. Conover, Chief of
Corrections Branch Headquarters, Department of the
Army, reported that the goals of correctional boot
camp programs are similar to those of military boot
camps:

The military boot camp environment facilitates
individual training and prepares soldiers for the
mental and physical stress which will confront them
in combat. This same environment is highly
conducive to assisting in the correction of
first-time, nonviolent offenders, and preparing for
their reintroduction into the community upon
completion of their sentence. 

While both kinds of boot camp focus on training,
the purpose of correctional boot camp training is
different from that of military boot camps. Conover
reported that:

. . . while military boot camps train soldiers in
unique military arts, the correctional boot camp's
training focus should be educational, occupational,
or tailored specifically to correct the behavior
for which the offender is incarcerated. Like its
military counterpart, the training environment
should generate physical and mental stress to
assist in preparing the prisoner for the pressures
of constructive citizenship. Intensive supervision
and success-oriented counseling and mentorship
apply to both the military and corrections "boot
camp" environment.3

Dale Parent, building on the philosophy of the
military boot camps, especially using the drill
sergeant, group trainers, and officers as role
models, has written:

If the disciplinary regimen is expected to alter
the offender's future behaviors, the agency should
describe in writing the link between the regimen
and the future behavior change. For example, staff
may be expected to be good role models for inmates,
in which case we might expect that offenders'
attitudes and behaviors would become more like
those of staff, and that offenders' crime and
violation rates would decline. Alternately, we
might expect fair and consistently enforced rules
to teach offenders about being accountable for
their deeds. We might expect offenders' values to
be more readily subject to positive (pro-social)
change in a boot camp environment than in an
institution, and that once released to the
community, that ex-offenders with more pro-social
values would be less likely to commit new crimes or
violate conditions of their release.4 

The focus of military boot camps and correctional
boot camps is training. Military boot camps train
recruits in military arts to enable them to become
competent soldiers. Correctional boot camps train
offenders in responsible living techniques to help
them to become law-abiding citizens. Some of the
most common characteristics of the two types of
boot camps are barracks-style housing, military
titles, drill and ceremonies, military-style
uniforms, grouping in platoons, summary punishment,
and group rewards and punishment.

Meanwhile, some of the differences are in the
program content area, such as group and individual
counseling, drug and alcohol education and
counseling, education, vocational training, and job
preparation. Clearly defined purposes and goals
will determine the structure and content of a
correctional boot camp that can best serve
offenders and the community.

Goals and Philosophies of Correctional Boot Camp
Programs

Research indicates that there have been three
primary reasons for implementing correctional boot
camp programs: reducing crowding, reducing costs,
and lowering recidivism.5 In a 1991 survey, Doris
MacKenzie asked boot camp administrators to rate
the importance of 11 goals. The goals
administrators deemed "very important" were
rehabilitation, recidivism reduction, and drug
education. 

Goals deemed "important" were reducing crowding,
developing work skills, and providing a safe prison
environment. Goals believed to be "somewhat
important" were deterrence, education, and drug
treatment. Vocational education was the goal most
often believed "not important" or "not a goal"
(although 14 States claimed it was important or
somewhat important).6

MacKenzie also found each program's goals to be
clearly reflected in its daily schedule of
activities. For example, in South Carolina's boot
camp program academic and drug education were
high-priority goals. Thus, offenders in South
Carolina spent 4 hours every day in educational
programs and 3 hours each week in drug education.
On the other hand, drug treatment was not a
high-priority goal and offenders spent little time
in treatment.

Like MacKenzie, ACA staff found in their survey
that the major goals held by most boot camp
programs included reducing crowding and costs,
reducing recidivism, and rehabilitation. In fact,
of the 16 boot camp programs that had philosophies,
mission statements, or goal statements in some
written form, staff found that 14 stated
rehabilitation was a major goal. Only five States
mentioned punishment or deterrence as a goal.7

Parent addressed the goals of both punishment and
deterrence and concluded that neither of them in
fact could be viewed as appropriate correctional
boot camp goals.8

Punishment. In his study, Parent discussed the
issue of "just deserts" as the primary theory
around which punishment has been organized. He
stated:

Under just deserts, punishment must be proportional
and uniform. Punishments are proportional if the
severity of punishment increases in direct relation
to increases in (a) the gravity of crime(s)
committed and (b) the magnitude of offenders'
culpability. Thus, minor crimes committed by
"virgin" offenders should get modest punishments;
severe crimes committed by habitual offenders
should get much harsher punishments. Punishments
are uniform if similar offenders convicted of
similar crimes generally get similar sentences.9

Because most boot camp programs select only
first-time "virgin" offenders, the severe nature of
the program runs counter to the theory of "just
deserts."

Deterrence and rehabilitation. On the issue of
deterrence Parent said, "It is not the boot camp
itself which deters future criminal conduct, but
the offender's fear of real prison." He reported
that when deterrence is a goal, boot camp programs
are usually located within a general population
prison so that participants can see and hear
regular inmates and observe prison routine. Staff
contribute to the offender's fears of the unknown
by describing the "exploitation" and "sexual
victimization" that happens in prison. 

In short, these programs try to scare participants
into desisting from crime. No one has specifically
evaluated the deterrent effects of boot camp
prisons. However, evaluations of other related
programs, including the Scared Straight programs of
the 1970's, suggest that boot camps are unlikely to
achieve specific deterrence.

Evaluations of the Rahway program and several
similar ones found no evidence of a deterrence
effect--in fact, some studies found that those who
participated failed at higher rates than control
groups who did not participate.10

On the other hand, and although there is no hard
and fast evidence, Parent did see that
rehabilitation, crowding reduction, and lowered
costs are viable boot camp program goals.

ACA staff found that almost all boot camp programs
included rehabilitation as one of their goals. They
hoped to achieve rehabilitation through the
disciplinary regimen itself and through treatment
programs (see other research reported in this
volume).

Reducing crowding and costs. Although crowding and
costs have not been issues in boot camps for
juveniles, both have been consistently reported as
goals for adult boot camps. But Parent has warned
administrators to be realistic about what boot
camps can do to meet these goals. (See the research
described elsewhere in this volume, especially
chapter 16.)

Program Components

The survey showed that while many boot camp
programs are similar in nature, there are some
distinct differences in how each State administers
its particular program. For example, the length of
boot camp programs runs from a minimum of 30 days
to a maximum of 240 days, sometimes prohibiting
additional educational programs or counseling
services. Most programs, however, are in the 90- to
120-day range.11

A review of the written materials from boot camp
programs demonstrated a variety of program
emphases. The particular emphasis of a program
depends largely on its expressed mission and goal
statements. The primary components of most boot
camp programs include physical training, labor,
drill and ceremony, and summary punishment. This
last is an interim punishment imposed by staff for
disciplinary infractions, which entails an
on-the-spot, immediate sanction for an infraction.
This punishment may include pushups, extra chores,
or another work assignment. 

Depending on a program's goals, the rehabilitative
components and treatment components might include:

o  Academic education.
o  Vocational education.
o  Life skills training.
o  Drug and alcohol education or treatment.
o  Reality therapy.
o  Rational behavior training.
o  Therapeutic community.
o  Relaxation therapy.

Not all programs offer all components. Vocational
education, for example, does not appear to be
feasible within the confines of a strict boot camp
program. 

Yet over time, as boot camp programs continue to
develop, they change. The first programs stressed a
rigid military atmosphere, physical training, and
hard labor. Although these components are still
part of every program, many boot camp programs have
increased the time they give to education and
treatment.12 MacKenzie reported that in 1992, most
programs had some type of drug education or a
combination of drug education and treatment in
their schedules, even though the amount of time
devoted to drug education or treatment still varied
greatly among programs. She said that some programs
had as few as 15 days of treatment, while others
offered drug treatment every day. Some programs,
notably New York, used a therapeutic community
model, and all offenders received the same drug
treatment while in the program.

The platoons form a small "community" and meet
daily to solve problems and discuss their progress
in the program. Inmates also spend time in
substance abuse education classes and in group
counseling. The counseling program is based on the
Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) and Narcotics Anonymous
(NA) model of abstinence and recovery. All inmates
participate in the drug treatment programs
regardless of their substance abuse history.13

Other States, notably Illinois, used a very
different treatment model. 

In Illinois drug counselors evaluate offenders and
match the education or treatment level to the
severity of the offender's substance abuse
problems. Inmates with no history of substance
abuse receive only 2 weeks of drug education. Those
who are identified as probable substance abusers
receive 4 weeks of group counseling along with the
drug education. Inmates who are classified as
having drug addictions receive the drug education
and 10 weeks of drug treatment.14 (See chapter 4 in
this volume for more on the Illinois boot camp
program.) 

Eligibility Requirements

ACA staff analyzed the programs in eight States
that had specific eligibility criteria, including
the selection process and the type of consent
required for participation in the boot camp
program. All States responding to the survey used
several criteria (corroborating the findings of an
NIJ multistate study that MacKenzie conducted).

Offender status. Most States limited boot camp
programs to first-time, nonviolent offenders who
did not have outstanding felony detainers or
warrants. Many States specified, in writing, the
violent crimes that prohibit an offender from
entering the boot camp program.

Age. Most States differed in their age
requirements. The following list is a sampling:

o  Kansas--ages 18 to 25.
o  Maryland--under 32 years.
o  California--age 40 or younger.
o  New York--age 30 or younger.
o  Illinois--ages 17 to 29.
o  Tennessee--ages 17 to 29.
o  Oklahoma--under 25 years. 

Sentence length. Although one of the motivators for
entering a boot camp program is a reduction in
sentence length, and one of the most consistent
boot camp program goals is to reduce prison
crowding, States surveyed differed in the number of
years an offender should have spent in prison had
there been no boot camp program. For example,
Maryland restricted its boot camp program to
offenders sentenced for up to 10 years who have at
least 9 months remaining to serve. New York
required that offenders become eligible for release
on parole within 3 years. Illinois required that
offenders have been sentenced to prison for up to 5
years and Tennessee for up to 6 years; the latter
also required that the boot camp program last at
least 90 days.

Selection Process

According to General Accounting Office (GAO)
research:  

The actual selection process varies by
state and may involve more than one placement
authority. For example, 20 states reported that the
sentencing judge could sentence a person directly
to a boot camp. Twenty states also said that the
correctional agency could make this decision when
the inmate enters the system. Only four states said
that the decision could be made by probation or
parole authorities.15

MacKenzie wrote that "judges may be particularly
interested in programs that have an impact on the
individual offender and that provide more control
than traditional probation. In contrast,
corrections administrators, seeking new programs
and facing serious prison crowding, may emphasize
the importance of using intermediate sanctions such
as boot camp.16

In New York, Louisiana, and Illinois, the
Department of Corrections selects candidates for
the programs. In other States, offenders are sent
to the boot camp by the court, which maintains full
control over the offenders. Those who are dismissed
before completion and those who successfully
complete the program must return to the court for
final disposition. 

According to MacKenzie, Texas and the original
programs in Georgia and South Carolina were
designed this way. However, South Carolina now
operates its program through the Department of
Corrections, and Georgia operates some programs
through the court and some through corrections.17

Voluntary Consent

All of the States studied required offenders to
volunteer for the boot camp program and to sign a
form so indicating. Most departments viewed this
form as a protection against liability. Critics
suggest, however, that the programs are not
voluntary simply because an offender's choice is
limited to two different types of confinement, one
of which is for a considerably shorter period of
time. 

Community Followup

As a distinct part of the total boot camp program,
most States have a strong community followup
component to help offenders make the transition
from the program back to the community. For
example, Kansas performed 3-month, 6-month,
9-month, and 1-year checks for new crimes with the
Kansas Bureau of Investigation, local law
enforcement, and court of referral to evaluate the
offender's adjustment after returning to the
community. New York's intensive community program
incorporated work programs, employment counseling,
drug counseling, and a continuation of the daily
therapeutic community meetings that were part of
the boot camp program. In Illinois, graduates from
the program were electronically monitored for the
first 3 months of community supervision and placed
on community supervision for a period of 1 to 2
years depending on the class of their crime.

Maryland placed boot camp graduates into
transitional houses where they received intensive
supervision and a variety of services geared to
meet their needs (e.g., counseling, social worker
reviews, and job searches.)

MacKenzie said that California's new boot camp
prison at San Quentin planned to train offenders
for 120 days. Following this period offenders would
be required to live at a nearby naval air station
for 60 days.18 They could leave the base if 
employed or they could work on the base while
searching for a job. Upon release from the base,
they were to be intensively supervised in the
community for an additional 4 months.

Staff Training and Selection

Parent wrote that boot camp programs provide a
high-stress environment for both inmates and staff.
Staff typically are at first "rejuvenated" by their
role in boot camps, but in many programs burnout is
rapid and turnover rates are high. As burnout and
turnover increase, the potential for inmate abuse
stemming from staff error or negligence also rises.
This is probably true for inmate injury (and staff
injury by inmates) as well.

Because staff are paramount to the success of the
boot camp program, and because boot camps carry
strong potential for abuse of offenders, staff
selection and training are critical issues.
Relatively few programs studied, however, have
given staff selection or training special
attention. 

No one has assessed the effectiveness of various
screening criteria for selecting staff, but several
programs were screening out applicants who had:

o  A history of abuse (or neglect) involving a
person in their care or custody.

o  A history of drug or alcohol problems.

o  Current serious personal problems (such as
divorce, bankruptcy, or a seriously ill spouse).

o  A history of issuing numerous misconduct reports
on prison inmates (that is, applicants who deal
with conflict by asserting authority rather than
solving problems).

Staff in most programs did not believe that prior
military service was a necessary requirement for a
boot camp drill instructor. Most, however, expected
drill instructors to be positive role models and
physically fit enough to perform any task required
of inmates. This is one reason some programs have
set requirements pertaining to height, weight, and
physical conditioning. 

Unfortunately, few States have offered substantial 
preservice training for boot camp staff. The New 
York State Department of Correctional Services is 
an important exception. It has developed a 
comprehensive boot camp staff training package. 
(See chapter 3 in this volume for more on the New 
York program.)

Boot Camps for Juveniles

Boot camp programs appear to have a focus more
easily identified with adults than juveniles.
Despite this, in many States youthful offenders
under the age of 18 are considered adults and have
been placed within the adult boot camp population.
For example, Georgia's program has targeted
offenders who are 17 years old and above; Alabama,
15 and above; and New York, 16 and above.

For the most part, juvenile corrections
practitioners have been slow to embrace the boot
camp program concept. They have considered the
amount of time devoted to military drill, ceremony,
and exercise as an encroachment on the time
available for education or drug and alcohol
rehabilitation programs. 

Most educators agree that juveniles usually resist
authority and generally have poor social skills and
self-concepts. Often they are underachievers and
are unable to make the connection between their
behavior and its effect. For these reasons,
educators have believed that juveniles need an
atmosphere of challenge and experiential learning,
a variety of "learning by doing" programs. However,
because boot camp programs have caught the public
eye and have strong support, some juvenile justice
agencies are feeling pressure to develop and
implement them. 

In some States juvenile practitioners are combining
elements of the boot camp program philosophy with
experiential or adventure programming and are
relabeling the programs with names such as "stress
challenge." In other States, juvenile practitioners
are looking for ways to translate the strict adult
boot camp philosophy into programs that will work
well with juveniles.

Conclusions and Recommendations

An effective intervention must take place to
prevent first-time offenders from penetrating
deeper into the juvenile justice system and
especially to prevent juvenile offenders from
graduating to the adult criminal justice system.
Providing a boot camp program may be an important
step in keeping the young offender from further
incarceration.

However, starting any new program is a challenge.
Boot camp programs are experiencing some successes,
at least with respect to short-term costs and the
short-term impact of programs on graduates. Many,
however, were designed and implemented quickly--
without feasibility studies--and without written
policies and procedures to guide their
implementation.

In the written materials that many boot camp
programs submitted to ACA, for example, the stated
goals varied--sometimes drastically--from one
program to the next, and sometimes within the same
program. At the two extremes are programs that
espouse punishment as a goal and those that espouse
rehabilitation. 

The structures of the programs varied also.
Military drill, ceremony, and physical exercise
were common to all programs, but the balance of the
boot camp day varied. Some boot camp programs
required offenders to spend 4 to 6 hours in basic
education or drug treatment. Others required
offenders to work 8 hours a day. Very few programs
had any type of formal evaluation process to
measure success in meeting goals. 

Unfortunately, some evaluations have indicated that
the long-term impact of boot camp programs may be
no different from that of traditional prison. The
U.S. General Accounting Office reported in 1993
that after 2 years out, boot camp graduates had the
same rate of recidivism as offenders on parole.19
Many critical issues, therefore, need to be
addressed by policymakers and administrators who
would establish boot camp programs. The literature
review and the telephone and site visit interviews
identified some of the most pressing of these
issues.

Mission statements, goals, and measurable
objectives. A fundamental requirement for success
is to express mission statements, goals, and
objectives in clear, precise, and measurable
language. 

Of all of the possible goals that boot camp 
programs may adopt, the two that are reasonably 
attainable, according to the literature, are 
rehabilitation and reduction of crowding and costs.

Thomas Castellano20 suggested that the boot camp
mission statement should also address--in specific
terms--the role of the boot camp within the
correctional system and should specify how
particular program elements and components
contribute to the achievement of that larger
mission.

Evaluation. When goal statements and objectives are
written in specific, measurable terms, the
short-term and long-term goals can be measured
efficiently and effectively. Problems can be
anticipated before they occur or are solved.
Castellano suggested that each boot camp program
maintain an information system that contains the
type of data necessary for meaningful program
monitoring, assessment, and evaluation. He said
that there should also be systemwide collaboration
to collect information about the offender--from the
point when the offender enters the boot camp
program, through aftercare. Castellano also
promoted research and evaluation as significant
program elements. He specifically cited
feasibility, process, and impact studies.

Before making a commitment to start a boot camp,
correctional administrators should conduct a
feasibility study to determine whether such a
program would be appropriate in their jurisdiction.
Giving consideration to the program's goals and
objectives, administrators should study:

o  The program's targeted population.

o  The selection criteria, including intake and
exit criteria and procedures and ways the offender
will be tracked through the program.

o  Questions such as whether the pool of eligible
offenders is large enough to justify opening the
program and whether current sanctioning patterns in
the jurisdiction can accommodate the proposed
client flow. 

o  The methodology that will be used to document
cost savings and the impact on prison crowding. 

o  The types of programs the boot camp will provide
and associated staffing, contracted services, and
physical construction. This information is
necessary to estimate program costs, which then
should be compared with the costs of alternative
intermediate sanctions serving similar populations.

Boot camp programs will also need to conduct both
process and impact evaluations. A process
evaluation measures whether the program is actually
operating the way it was designed to operate. An
impact evaluation measures how effective the
program was in achieving its goals. Impact
evaluations basically answer the questions, "Does
the program work? Is the program effective?" 

Selection criteria. Most boot camp programs target
first-time, nonviolent offenders--within a
specified age range--as appropriate participants.
The majority of programs also include mostly males
who are physically and psychologically able to
complete the strict military exercise requirements.

Parent pointed out that boot camp administrators,
in establishing rigid criteria, might be inviting
another problem: possible discrimination.

Clearly, if eligible male inmates are given a
chance to shorten their prison terms in a boot
camp, similar female inmates should have the same
opportunity. From a physiological viewpoint,
younger inmates are better able to do the physical
training and hard labor than older inmates. Most
boot camp programs, therefore, restrict
participation to offenders who are less than 30
years old. Disabled inmates or those with
nondisabling medical conditions that limit their
physical performance are also typically excluded.
While these exclusions may be reasonable, older,
disabled, or physically impaired inmates may have a
liberty interest because they have no access to an
alternative program that shortens their term of
confinement.21 

Aftercare. Correctional boot camps differ in the
amount of time they allocate to aftercare or
community supervision. Some programs have offered
boot camp graduates intensive supervision for 8
months to a year or more; some have used a 2- to
3-month aftercare program.

Parent said that if boot camp aftercare is to
contribute to the goal of rehabilitation, it should
provide an extended supportive period emphasizing
employment (job training, placement, retention,
housing, and continuation of treatment programming
begun in the facility).

He made an interesting comparison between military
and correctional boot camp aftercare. 

. . . in the military, those who complete basic
training are considered to be "trainable assets"--
that is, they are ready to begin learning the
skills needed to perform their respective missions.
Military basic training is followed by specialized
training, a job, food, regular pay, adequate
housing, clothing, health care, opportunities for
advancement and advanced education. Military
service provides complete support for several
years. By parallel, it is possible that the way we
operate aftercare will have major impacts on the
boot camp graduates' return to prison rates, and on
the boot camp programs' overall attainment of their
goals.22

Juvenile issues. As already noted, many juvenile
justice practitioners prefer not to implement
juvenile boot camp programs for a variety of
reasons. In interviews, treatment and mental health
professionals expressed concern over the impact
such programs might have on juvenile offenders.
Some practitioners thought that juveniles would be
more appropriately placed in training schools or in
community residential programs where they could
receive the type and amount of education and
counseling they needed.

On the other hand, Yitzhak Bakal, Executive
Director of one of the three juvenile boot camp
programs funded by OJJDP, saw merit in the
intensity of the boot camp routine. He said: "The
military structure gives these kids strong
motivation and a sense of control and empowerment.
They work from early in the morning to late in the
evening. The atmosphere here is quite different
from the institutions where 20 or 30 kids sit in a
day room and watch TV all day. In the boot camp,
the kids are emotional and positive."23

Practitioners are still experimenting with the
right formula, however. Parent pointed out that we
had very little evidence to guide us in answering
important questions about juveniles and boot camp
programs. How young is too young? In a juvenile
program, how should the disciplinary regimen
differ? Should the programmatic content and
physical training requirements differ from those in
adult boot camps? What effect do mandatory school
laws have on the amounts and types of educational
programming provided in juvenile boot camps? Do
child protection laws limit the regimen and
practices in juvenile boot camp programs?

Discrimination and Abuse Issues

The literature on boot camps described several
other problem areas of particular concern to
policymakers and administrators, especially in the
area of inmates' rights and inmates' protection.

Policymakers may need to consider that
"particularly in their strictest form, boot camps
operate very close to the line of
unconstitutionality. The verbal and physical
aspects of the program (the same aspects that
appeal to much of the public) do not have to
deteriorate very far to reach the point of
illegality. Camp operations must be supervised very
carefully to avoid this deterioration."24

Parent added that several factors make protection
of inmates' legal rights in boot camp programs
especially important. Grievance procedures, for
example, are not curtailed in boot camps, but there
may be a chilling effect on their use. Inmates may
fear that if they file a grievance, they may be
removed from the program and made to serve a full
prison term. Some offender misconduct is summarily
punished. Telephone calls may be even more
restricted (especially during early weeks) than in
the prison. Visits may be prohibited until near the
end of the program.

The boot camp programs' short duration,
restrictions on visitation and telephone use, and
in many cases, their remote location increase the
potential for abuse. Boot camp inmates have less
time to initiate available forms of legal redress,
and there are fewer visitors or volunteers who
might observe and report abuses.25

Although there are numerous areas of concern
involving inmate protection, the following suggests
only a few of the more basic guidelines that should
be considered when writing policies and procedures:

o  Offenders admitted to boot camp programs should
get a much more extensive physical examination than
is routinely given to incoming prison inmates. The
examination should look for rare conditions that
might be life threatening to someone doing heavy
exercise.

o  Boot camp programs must develop explicit limits
on heavy physical exercise, work, and running, and
enforce them strictly. In addition, water intake
must be linked by policy to levels of exercise or
work and climatic conditions.

o  The food ration must provide sufficient caloric
intake to permit boot camp inmates to engage in the
strenuous level of exercise and work required of
them.

o  Boot camp programs must specify the conduct for
which summary punishment may be administered, and
the types of sanctions that can be applied
summarily.

The critical issues discussed in this document are
important considerations in initiating or revising
either an adult or a juvenile boot camp program. 

Notes

1.  The information presented in this chapter forms
a general backdrop for issues that will be
developed in greater and in some cases more current
detail by other authors in this volume. The present
tense is used here in discussing the findings even
though some specifics may have changed in the 2
years since the survey was conducted.

2.  Department of the Army, Basic Combat Training
Program of Instruction, October 1991.

3.  From questionnaire completed by Lieutenant
Colonel Conover.

4.  Dale G. Parent, "A Foundation for
Performance-Based Standards for Adult and Juvenile
Boot Camps," p. 3.

5.  U.S. General Accounting Office, Prison Boot
Camps: Short-Term Prison Costs Reduced, But
Long-Term Impact Uncertain, p. 19.

6.  D. MacKenzie and C. Souryal, "Boot Camp Survey:
Rehabilitation, Recidivism Reduction Outrank
Punishment as Main Goals," p. 91.

7.  Twelve States sent written policies and
procedures, and 22 sent either program
descriptions, inmate handbooks, or brochures with
brief descriptions of program goals and components.
All of the States that responded had a written
mission statement and delineated goals, but only a
few mentioned a formal evaluation component.
Although all referred to eligibility criteria,
selection processes, and voluntary participation,
only eight States had written policies on these
issues.

8.  Parent, "Foundation," pp. 4-8.

9.  Parent, p. 5.

10.  Parent, p. 7. The Scared Straight! program
initiated in Rahway, New Jersey, sought to deter
juveniles from further delinquency through group
visits to adult prisons where the rigor and
brutality of prison life were graphically
presented.

11.  U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO), op.
cit., p. 17.

12.  Doris Layton MacKenzie, "Boot Camp Prisons in
1993," p. 24.

13.  MacKenzie, "Boot Camp Prisons in 1993," p. 24.

14.  MacKenzie, p. 24.

15.  GAO, p. 16.

16.  Mackenzie, p. 23.

17.  MacKenzie, p. 23.

18.  Michelle Quinn, San Francisco Chronicle,
January 19, 1993.

19.  GAO, pp. 28-29.

20.  Thomas C. Castellano. Recommendation for ACA
Boot Camp Standards Relating to Program Evaluation.

21.  Parent, p. 28.

22.  Parent, p. 28.

23.  Quoted by David Steinhart, "Juvenile Boot
Camps: Clinton May Rev Up An Old Drill," pp. 15-16.

24.  "Physical Abuse of Inmates Leads to
Indictments Against Boot Camp Staff," p. 22.

25.  Parent, p. 28.

Bibliography

Acorn, L.R. "Working in a Boot Camp." Corrections
Today (October 1991):
110-112.

Anderson, E.S. "Project Sprite." Wisconsin Trails
(October 1988):37-38.

Aziz, David. Shock Incarceration Evaluation:
Preliminary Data. Unpublished
report to the State of New York, Department of
Correctional Services, 1989. 

Bowen, Andy E. "Making Boot Camps Bigger and
Better." Corrections Today (October 1991):99-101.

Castellano, T.C. Recommendation for ACA Boot Camp
Standards Relating to Program Evaluation.
Unpublished report, 1993.

Collingwood, T.R. Survival Camping: A Therapeutic
Mode for Rehabilitating Problem Youths. Little
Rock: Arkansas Rehabilitation and Research Training
Center, 1972.

Creager, C. "A Rugged Route to Recovery."
Professional Counselor (July/August 1986):37-40.

Deal, G. Ropes and Recovery. Unpublished report on
the Randolph Clinic, Charlotte, North Carolina,
1983.

Falcioni, J.G. "Camps Don't Coddle Cons. Inmates
Get Shock Training." City and State, May 9, 1988.

Florida Department of Corrections. "Boot Camp: A
25-Month Review." Tallahassee: Bureau of Planning,
Research and Statistics, 1990. 

Florida Department of Corrections. "Boot Camp
Evaluation." Tallahassee: Bureau of Research,
Planning and Statistics, 1989.

Flowers, Gerald T. An Evaluation of the Use and
Performance of Special Alternative Incarceration in
Georgia. Atlanta: Georgia Department of
Corrections. Unpublished manuscript, 1986.

Frank, S. "Oklahoma Camp Stresses Structure and
Discipline." Corrections Today (October 1991):102-
105.

Freelander, D. "Money for Boot Camps at Issue." The
Houston Post (December 28, 1987).

Gauntt, M. "Outdoor Challenge Rehabilitation
Programs Planned." Medical Gazette, June 11, 1989.

Gendreau, Paul, and Robert R. Ross. "Correctional
Potency: Treatment and Deterrence on Trial." In
Issues in Juvenile Justice, R. Roesch and R.R.
Corrado (eds.). Toronto: Butterworths, 1981.

Gendreau, Paul, and Robert R. Ross. "Revivification
of Rehabilitation: Evidence from the 1980s."
Justice Quarterly, 4 (1987):349-407.

Gendreau, Paul, and Robert R. Ross. "Success in
Corrections: Program and Principles." In Issues in
Juvenile Justice, R. Corrado, M. Leblanc, and J.
Trepanier (eds.). Toronto: Buttersworths, 1983.

Georgia Department of Corrections. "Miller Boot
Camp Program--A National First." Media advisory,
1991.

Greenwood, P., and F.E. Zimring. One More Chance:
The Pursuit of Promising 
Intervention Strategies for Chronic Juvenile
Offenders. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation Press,
1985.

Hengesh, Donald J. "Think of Boot Camps As a
Foundation for Change, Not an Instant Cure."
Corrections Today (October 1991):106-108.

Impact Incarceration Program. Annual Report to the
Illinois Governor and the General Assembly.
Planning and Budget Bureau of Administration and
Training. Unpublished manuscript, 1992. 

Kagan, D. "Ensured Trip to Prison Camp Billed as
Drug Crime Antidote." INSIGHT (May 11, 1989).

Kelly, F. Outward Bound and Delinquency: A Ten-Year
Experience. Paper presented at the Conference on
Experiential Education, Estes Park, Colorado, 1974.

Kruse, T. An Argument for the Use of Ropes Courses
in Adolescent Substance Abuse Treatment.
Unpublished summary of thesis for Master's Degree,
University of Nevada, Las Vegas, May 1987.

Lambert, D. "Boot Camps: Latest Trend in Juvenile
Justice." Youth Law News (September/October
1990):12-14.

MacKenzie, Doris L. "Boot Camp Prisons: Components,
Evaluations, and Empirical Issues." Federal
Probation (September 1991):44-52.

MacKenzie, Doris L. "Boot Camp Prisons in 1993."
National Institute of Justice Journal, 227
(November 1993):21-28. 

MacKenzie, Doris L. "Boot Camp Programs Grow in
Number and Scope." NIJ Reports, 222
(November/December 1990):6-8.

MacKenzie, Doris L. "The Parole Performance of
Offenders Released From Shock Incarceration (Boot
Camp Prisons): A Survival Time Analysis." Journal
of Quantitative Criminology, 7, no. 3 (1991):213-
236. 

MacKenzie, Doris L., and D.B. Ballow. "Shock
Incarceration Programs in State Correctional
Jurisdictions--An Update." NIJ Reports, 214
(May/June 1989):9-10.

MacKenzie, Doris L., Larry A. Gould, Lisa M.
Riechers, and James W. Shaw. "Shock Incarceration:
Rehabilitation or Retribution?" Journal of Offender
Counseling, Services, and Rehabilitation, 14, no. 2
(1989):25-40.

MacKenzie, Doris L., and Dale G. Parent. "Boot Camp
Prisons for Young Offenders." In Smart Sentencing:
The Emergence of Intermediate Sanctions, James M.
Byrne, Arthur J. Lurigio, and Joan Petersilia
(eds.). Newbury Park, California: Sage
Publications, 1992.

MacKenzie, Doris L., and Dale G. Parent. "Shock
Incarceration and Prison Crowding in Louisiana."
Journal of Criminal Justice, 19 (1991):225-237.

MacKenzie, Doris L., and James W. Shaw. "Inmate
Adjustment and Change During Shock Incarceration:
The Impact of Correctional Boot Camp Programs."
Justice Quarterly, 7, no. 1 (1990):125-150.

MacKenzie, Doris L., James W. Shaw, and Voncile B.
Gowdy. An Evaluation of Shock Incarceration in
Louisiana. Research in Brief. U.S. Department of
Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1993.

MacKenzie, Doris L., and Claire C. Souryal. "Boot
Camp Survey: Rehabilitation, Recidivism Reduction
Outrank Punishment as Main Goals." Corrections
Today, 53 (October 1991):90-96.

Morash, Merry, and L. Rucker. "A Critical Look at
the Idea of Boot Camp as a Correctional Reform."
Crime and Delinquency, 36, no. 2 (1990):209-220.

New York State Department of Correctional Services
and New York State Division of Parole. The Fourth
Annual Report to the Legislature: Shock
Incarceration in New York State. Albany: Division
of Program Planning, Research and Evaluation and
the Office of Policy Analysis and Information.
Unpublished, 1992.

New York State Department of Correctional Services
and New York State Division of Parole. The Third
Annual Report to the Legislature: Shock
Incarceration in New York State. Albany: Division
of Program Planning, Research and Evaluation and
the Office of Policy Analysis and Information.
Unpublished, 1991.

Parent, Dale G. "A Foundation for Performance-Based
Standards for Adult and Juvenile Boot Camps." Draft
manuscript prepared for the American Correctional
Association, 1993.

Parent, Dale G. "Shock Incarceration Programs."
Address to the American Correctional Association
Winter Conference, Phoenix, Arizona, 1988. 

Parent, Dale G. "Shock Incarceration Programs."
American Probation and Parole Association (Fall
1988):9-15.

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.

"Physical Abuse of Inmates Leads to Indictments
Against Boot Camp Staff." Correctional Law
Reporter, August 1992.

"Shape Up, SON." The Oregonian (March 1988):12-14.

Shaw, James W., and Doris L. MacKenzie. "Shock
Incarceration and Its Impact on the Lives of
Problem Drinkers." American Journal of Criminal
Justice, 16, no. 1 (1991):63-97.

Shlesinger, B.E. "Teaching Youths To Invent."
Corrections Today (May/June 1981):20.

South Carolina State Reorganization Commission Jail
and Prison Overcrowding Project. "Shock
Incarceration." Series on Alternatives to
Incarceration, Issue 3 (May 1990):1-6.

"Squeeze You Like a Grape." LIFE (June 1988):82-85.

Steinhart, David. "Juvenile Boot Camps: Clinton May
Rev Up an Old Drill." Youth Today (January/February
1993).

Tennessee Department of Youth Development, Section
for Planning, Information Resources, and
Accreditation. "A Report to the 96th General
Assembly on Shock Incarceration Programs for
Juvenile Offenders." Unpublished manuscript, 1990. 

Tucker, Neely. "Making Florida's Boot Camp Work."
The Miami Herald, October 23, 1988.

U.S. General Accounting Office. Prison Boot Camps:
Short-Term Prison Costs Reduced, But Long-Term
Impact Uncertain. Washington, D.C.: U.S. General
Accounting Office, 1993.

U.S. General Accounting Office. Prison Boot Camps:
Too Early To Measure Effectiveness. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. General Accounting Office, 1988.

Virginia Department of Corrections, Research,
Evaluation and Certification Unit. "An Evaluation
of Southampton Intensive Treatment Center:
Preliminary Report on Client Characteristics,
Program Effects and Community Adjustments."
Unpublished, 1992.

Vito, G.F., and H.E. Allen. "Shock Probation in
Ohio: A Comparison of Outcomes." International
Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative
Criminology, 25 (1981):70-76.