Correctional Boot Camps: A Tough Intermediate Sanction.


MENU TITLE: Correctional Boot Camps: A Tough Intermediate Sanction
Series: NIJ Report
Published: February 1996
314 pages
661,676 bytes
 
A Tough Intermediate Sanction

Edited by 
Doris L. MacKenzie, Ph.D., and Eugene E. Hebert


Doris Layton MacKenzie, Ph.D., a nationally
recognized authority on the use of boot camps as an
intermediate sanction, has conducted numerous
research studies and evaluations of boot camp
programs with support from the National Institute
of Justice. She is currently Associate Professor,
Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice,
University of Maryland. Eugene E. Hebert is a
senior writer/editor at the National Institute of
Justice.

Invaluable editorial assistance in the preparation
of this book was provided by Monique Smith and Joan
Alpert, National Criminal Justice Reference
Service. 

Editorial supervision was provided by Mary G.
Graham, Publications Manager, National Institute of
Justice. The book was designed by Amy Quach,
National Criminal Justice Reference Service.

Photos courtesy of New York State Department of
Correctional Services (cover and chapter 3),
Illinois Department of Corrections (chapter 4),
Georgia Department of Corrections (chapters 5 and
12), U.S. Bureau of Prisons (chapters 6 and 15), 
Mobile County (Alabama) Juvenile Court (chapter 9),
and California Youth Authority (chapter 10).

NCJ 157639

Opinions or points of view expressed in this
document are those of the authors and do not
necessarily reflect the official position of the
U.S. Department of Justice.

Contents
Foreword  Jeremy Travis
Preface   Doris Layton MacKenzie, Ph.D.
          Eugene E. Hebert

Chapter 1: Historical Perspective
Voncile B. Gowdy, Ph.D.

Chapter 2: An Overview of Boot Camp Goals, 
Components, and Results
John K. Zachariah

Chapter 3: Shock Incarceration in New York 
State: Philosophy, Results, and Limitations 
Cheryl L. Clark and David W. Aziz, Ph.D.

Chapter 4: The Development and Implementation 
of Illinois' Impact Incarceration Program 
Robert J. Jones and Steven P. Karr

Chapter 5: Programming in Georgia's Boot Camps
John P. Keenan

Chapter 6: Bureau of Prisons: Expanding 
Intermediate Sanctions Through Intensive 
Confinement Centers
Jody Klein-Saffran, Ph.D. 

Chapter 7: A Survey of Jail-Operated Boot Camps 
and Guidelines for Their Implementation     
James Austin, Ph.D., Michael Jones, and Melissa
Bolyard

Chapter 8: Santa Clara County PRIDE Program: 
A Local Boot Camp   
Carole Sanchez Knapel

Chapter 9: The Development of Boot Camps in the 
Juvenile System: Implementation of Three 
Demonstration Programs
Daniel B. Felker, Ph.D., and Blair B. Bourque

Chapter 10: First-Year Evaluation of the 
California Youth Authority Boot Camp
Jean Bottcher and Teresa Isorena

Chapter 11: The Development and Operation of 
Juvenile Boot Camps in Florida
Elizabeth S. Cass, Ph.D., and Neil Kaltenecker

Chapter 12: Discipline in Georgia's Correctional 
Boot Camps   
Billie S. Erwin

Chapter 13: Substance Abuse Programming in Adult 
Correctional Boot Camps: A National Overview 
Ernest L. Cowles, Ph.D., and Thomas C. Castellano,
Ph.D.

Chapter 14: Boot Camps as an Alternative for Women 
Doris Layton MacKenzie, Ph.D., Lori A. Elis, 
Sally S. Simpson, Ph.D., and Stacy B. Skroban

Chapter 15: Planning and Designing Boot Camp 
Facilities 
Cindie A. Unger

Chapter 16: Boot Camps and Prison Crowding 
Dale G. Parent

Chapter 17: Shock Incaceration and Positive 
Adjustment During Community Supervision: 
A Multisite Evaluation 
Robert Brame and Doris Layton MacKenzie, Ph.D.

Chapter 18: Multisite Study of Correctional 
Boot Camps 
Doris Layton MacKenzie, Ph.D., and Claire Souryal

Conclusion

Chapter 19: The Future of Boot Camps      
David W. Hayeslip, Ph.D.

Foreword

Over the past dozen years, correctional boot camps,
or shock incarceration programs, have mushroomed as
an intermediate sanction, first in State and then
in the Federal prison systems, and more recently
even in county jails. The notion of a strict,
military-style punishment as an alternative to
extended incarceration is an attractive one, on a
number of fronts: It appeals politically, because
it promises both tough punishment and the promise
of financial savings through shortened sentences;
it appeals to the citizenry, largely because of its
noncompromising image of rigorous discipline for
offenders; it appeals to corrections administrators
by offering the opportunity to free up scarce
correctional bedspace.

Recognizing the vast potential of correctional boot
camps as a tool to aid the criminal justice system
in coping with the burgeoning populations in the
Nation's prisons and jails, the Violent Crime
Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 directed
the National Institute of Justice to solicit
research in and evaluations of the impact of both
existing boot camps and those to be funded under
the Act.

In the years since the first prison boot camp
programs began in Oklahoma and Georgia, NIJ has
pioneered in research and evaluations of this
alternative sanction. Early on there was, however,
a great deal of difficulty in conducting focused
research on this rapidly expanding approach,
largely because of the vast diversity in the
number, type, and size of boot camp programs. Some
adhere to a rigid military atmosphere; some
emphasize treatment, while others focus on hard
labor and physical training. Some, in New York
State, for example, have developed a highly
sophisticated regimen with extensive postrelease
followup.

Much of the NIJ-sponsored research on correctional
boot camp programs has been conducted by Doris
Layton MacKenzie, who notes in the Preface to this
book that simply defining what constituted a boot
camp was a major initial problem. It is one that
NIJ researchers resolved by determining specific
core elements common to most such programs. But as
the number of approaches utilizing this sanction
have proliferated, the diversity of programs has
continued to multiply.

This book represents the first comprehensive
attempt to report on the many and various
approaches to correctional boot camps nationwide,
ranging from the evolution of the first such
programs in Georgia to the methods developed in
Illinois, from the evaluation of the first year of
boot camps operated by the California Youth
Authority to the highly structured approach of
Shock Incarceration in New York State, and
including a look into the future of boot camps.

Many questions remain about the value of boot
camps. Do they work? The answer seemingly depends
on what they are asked to do. Will this alternative
sanction continue to grow in use nationwide? Almost
certainly. This book does not provide "answers" to
the countless questions being posed regarding boot
camps. But what it does, we believe, is provide a
forthright, accurate look into this correctional
innovation and its implementation across the
Nation. We believe it will be of value to
policymakers and practitioners alike, and to all
others who are interested in the 
future of corrections.

Jeremy Travis
Director
National Institute of Justice
----------------------------------
Preface

In the military, boot camp represents an abrupt,
often shocking transition to a new way of life.
Discipline is strict; there is an emphasis on hard
work, physical training, and unquestioning
obedience to authority. The new recruit is told
when to sleep, when to get up, when to eat; he
marches with his fellows everywhere he goes, to
meals, to training; orders must be obeyed
instantly; personal liberty is almost nonexistent.
By the end of boot camp, the young recruit has
become a different person.

Such was the hope for boot camp, or shock
incarceration, programs in American prisons: that
young, nonviolent offenders could be diverted from
a life outside the law using the same tactics
successfully employed by the military to turn
civilians into soldiers. This reliance on a
military atmosphere still provokes controversy over
boot camp programs, with proponents arguing that
the rigid discipline promotes positive behavior and
opponents arguing that it is a harmfully negative
influence.

This book was written to address the critical need
for reliable information about the variety of boot
camp programs currently in operation: in Federal
and State prisons, in local jails, for adult men,
for women, for juveniles. 

Prison boot camp programs began in Oklahoma and
Georgia in 1983, and in the years since there has
been an enormous growth in the number, type, and
size of the programs. Today, boot camps for adult
felons exist in most States and in the Federal
Bureau of Prisons. In addition, many local prisons
or jails have either begun or are considering
starting boot camp programs for their offender
populations; some facilities offer boot camp
programs for women, and boot camps for juvenile
delinquents have started to become popular.  

With support from the National Institute of Justice
(NIJ), we first began studying these programs in
1987. One of our first tasks was to identify
exactly what was meant by the term "prison boot
camp." Many media examples portrayed prison "drill
instructors" (as the guards in the camps were
frequently called) shouting at the inmates (or in
less harsh camps "confronting" inmates, or
"speaking in a command voice"). Seeing this, some
jurisdictions began to call their programs "work
camps," or "challenge camps," or "motivational
camps." These jurisdictions rejected the negative
image of an abusive atmosphere being shown on
television news programs and did not want to be
identified with it. On the other hand, some
jurisdictions with work or forestry camps referred
to their programs as "boot camps" despite the fact
that they did not appear to have a military
atmosphere.

We were thus left with trying to decide what was
consistent across the programs that would make one
a boot camp but exclude another. At the time it was
difficult to separate the true boot camp programs
from other correctional programs that utilized many
of the elements typical of boot camps. For example,
shock probation required offenders to serve short
periods of time in prison or jail; prison
wilderness camps, forestry camps, and
outward-bound-type programs presented physical
challenges to inmates; prison drug treatment
programs had rigid rules and discipline. The
problem was compounded by the fact that not all
boot camp programs conformed to the same model.

In order to decide how to classify programs as boot
camps, we surveyed all State jurisdictions
responsible for adult felons. We found some
consistency among programs and, in the end, decided
programs were boot camps if they (1) had military
drill and ceremony as a component of the program;
(2) separated the participants from general prison
population offenders; (3) were considered to be an
alternative to confinement; and (4) required
offenders to participate in a rigorous daily
schedule of hard labor and physical training. To
some degree most boot camps incorporate these
components. 

However, as more and more boot camp programs were
developed, more and more differences began to
emerge. For example, although juvenile boot camps
have a rigorous daily schedule, they do not
necessarily include hard labor, nor are all
programs considered an alternative to confinement.
As a working definition of a boot camp program,
however, the above four characteristics represent a
reasonable way to distinguish between correctional
boot camps and other types of prison programs.

Our survey revealed that most of the camps targeted
young, nonviolent offenders who did not have an
extensive past history of criminal activity.
However, camps differed in their definitions of
"past history" and "nonviolent," and whether they
restricted participation to young offenders. Thus,
we did not consider the target population as a
defining element of the program. Other than
similarities stated above in the four basic
components and in offender participants targeted
for the programs, the boot camps differed
dramatically at the time of our survey. Today these
differences remain. 

One major difference among the many forms of boot
camp programs is the amount of time in the daily
schedule devoted to therapeutic and educational
activities in comparison to drill, ceremony,
physical training, and work. Other differences 
include such factors as how offenders are selected 
for the program (by the court, by the department 
of corrections), the type of therapeutic 
programming, emphasis on the military aspect, 
the use of summary punishments, and the type of 
aftercare and supervision available
after release. Although often not explicitly
expressed, perhaps the most significant difference
among programs is in the philosophy upon which the
program is based. Some emphasize military training,
physical training, and hard labor and focus on a
deterrent-type model of changing inmates. Others
emphasize rehabilitation through therapeutic
treatment or academic education. And, in the latter
cases, a decisive factor is whether there is
sufficient funding available to implement this
planned programming. 

As boot camp programs have moved from adult prisons
to local jails and juvenile populations, new issues
have arisen. For example, while adult programs
could target nonviolent offenders in prison,
nonviolent juveniles were much less apt to be
incarcerated. Thus, net widening and the associated
costs became critical issues for juvenile programs.
This is particularly relevant given the history of
concern with the destructive environment of
detention centers for nonviolent juveniles or
status offenders. The deceptively seductive idea of
providing discipline and structure for disruptive
juveniles means there is a real threat that
increasingly large numbers of juveniles will be
placed in boot camps, whether or not it is a
suitable alternative sanction. Furthermore, in
contrast to adult boot camps, academic and
therapeutic programming and aftercare are viewed as
necessary components in juvenile programs.   

Similarly, local jurisdictions have faced problems
in implementing boot camp programs in jails. Prison
programs could coerce offenders to stay in the boot
camps by offering them the promise of early
release. In contrast, the length of stay in jails
is relatively short. Offenders may actually stay
longer in confinement if they enter a boot camp
than they would have otherwise. As a result, there
is little enticement for offenders to volunteer for
boot camp. Also, a jail boot camp may prove very
costly, given the extended length of incarceration
and the likelihood that a boot camp may involve
rehabilitative programming. 

Perhaps the newest use of the boot camps has been
in Georgia, in the disciplinary and mental health
units of one State prison. Aimed at those who are
having trouble adjusting to prison, the goal is to
get offenders out of individual segregation cells
for longer periods of time each day until finally
they can be moved back among the general
population. 

Obviously, these distinctly varied uses of the boot
camp model differ dramatically, and there is every
reason to believe that these differences among
programs will result in wide variation in
effectiveness in achieving specific program goals. 

When we began the NIJ-supported study of the
Louisiana prison boot camp in 1988, it quickly
became evident that it would be difficult to base a
generalization about boot camps on one program,
given that so many were so different. Thus, the
Institute funded a multisite study of correctional
boot camps that permitted us to cooperate with
researchers in eight States. At the same time,
several States were conducting studies of their own
programs, and studies examining programs in local
jails and for juveniles were also being initiated.
Additional information about the effectiveness of
these boot camp programs comes from studies
examining drug treatment for offenders in boot
camps and the more recent implementation of boot
camp programs for women. Through these studies we
are beginning to learn something about the general
effectiveness of boot camps.

Yet there is still a great deal of controversy
surrounding boot camps, and much of it has to do
with a kind of instinctive reaction to the military
atmosphere. Those on the positive side, such as
Governor Zell Miller of Georgia, who fondly recalls
his own Marine boot camp experience, strongly
advocate boot camps as sentencing alternatives for
nonviolent first offenders. Others respond that the
harsh boot camp discipline is not an effective way
to change people. Obviously, the criminal justice
system needs to learn more about what policymakers
and the public really expect from these programs. 

It is important, however, to separate this
instinctive reaction from the debates that occur
among people who are knowledgeable about the
programs and corrections in general. Here, there is
a much more interesting debate.  

One perspective exhibited by many knowledgeable
correctional experts is what might be called a
"Machiavellian point of view." These individuals
expect little direct benefit from the military
atmosphere of the boot camp programs, but they are
willing to use it to achieve two ends: early
release for nonviolent offenders and additional
funds for treatment programs (both within and
outside prison). In their opinion, the popularity
of the boot camps with policymakers and the public
allows corrections to obtain early release and
treatment that would not otherwise be available to
these offenders. 

Others fear the dangers of boot camps, despite
these potential benefits; many psychologists who
are experienced in both corrections and behavioral
change take this position when examining boot camp
programs. They believe that the potential dangers
of the military models are too great to compromise
for early release or funds for treatment.

Furthermore, they argue that boot camps cannot
provide a mechanism for treatment because many of
the characteristics of the programs (confrontation,
punishment instead of reward) are antithetical to
treatment. These boot camp opponents fear that,
even though some programs may be used as early
release mechanisms, most have a serious potential
for widening the net. This point is particularly
critical for the newly developing juvenile
programs.   

Yet a third perspective argues that the military
atmosphere is an effective model for changing
offenders. Persons who have worked in drug
treatment programs--where strict rules, discipline,
and confrontational interactions are common--seem
to be more comfortable with the military model.
And, of course, many of those responsible for the
development and implementation of individual boot
camp programs are committed to and believe in the
viability of this approach. They argue that the
stress created in boot camp may shake up the
inmates and make them ready to change and take
advantage of the treatment and aftercare programs
offered.  And further, they believe that the
military atmosphere of boot camp may actually
enhance the effect of this treatment by keeping the
offenders physically and mentally healthy and
enabling them to focus on their education,
treatment, and therapy. 

And so the debate continues, and there is merit in
arguments both in favor of and opposition to boot
camp programs as alternative sanctions. The main
point may be that there are good, well-run boot
camp programs, and there are bad, poorly run boot
camp programs. Much like the nursery rhyme about
the little girl with the curl--when they are good
they are very, very good, but when they are bad
they are horrid. Good boot camps provide what we
know to be good correctional programming with fair
and firm discipline, a mentally and physically
healthy environment, and programming that addresses
criminogenic needs. When they are bad they can be
abusive, destructive, and even dangerous for
inmates and staff. 

One of the necessary conditions for an exemplary
boot camp program is research to examine its
effectiveness in achieving its objectives. The
majority of the camps described in this book have
done this, and the research is reported herein. Too
often, new correctional programs are introduced and
we hear great things about their accomplishments
from the program developers. Program administrators
report on wonderful, innovative programs with
outstandingly low recidivism rates for boot camp
graduates. Yet there is no research to support
these claims, no mention made of time in the
community or reasonable control groups. There is,
instead, programming that looks good on paper but
is not backed up by competent, qualified personnel. 
   

In this book we have identified boot camps that we
consider "good" programs, but we make no
guarantees. Priority was given to boot camps that
have invested in research to learn whether their
programs were achieving the desired goals. The
various authors describe the programs, discuss the
goals, and report on the results of studies
examining the effectiveness of the programs in
obtaining their goals. We have made a particular
effort to make the book relevant to policymakers
and practitioners, and interesting and readable to
those with only a cursory interest in prison boot
camp programs.

We have tried to obtain the widest possible range
of authors, with chapters about Federal, State, and
local programs, and those for both adults and
juveniles. Other chapters report on programs for
special populations such as women, disruptive
inmates, and those with mental health problems.
Some chapters were authored by directors of major
research studies that have examined the boot camps.

We have tried throughout to present an honest,
objective picture of the boot camp programs
described. We hope that this compilation of
information will prove helpful to the field.

Doris Layton MacKenzie, Ph.D.
University of Maryland
Eugene E. Hebert
National Institute of Justice

December 1995
------------------------------------------------------------------
Correctional Boot Camps: A Tough Intermediate Sanction - Chapter 1

Historical Perspective 
by Voncile B. Gowdy, Ph.D.

Voncile B. Gowdy, Doctor of Public Administration,
is a Senior Social Scientist at the National
Institute of Justice. She manages the Institute's
Corrections Research Program, specializing in the
area of community corrections, boot camps, and
intermediate sanctions. 

Since their beginning in 1983 in Georgia, boot
camps have spread to half the States and have
gained wide popular appeal for their "get tough"
policies. Proponents of boot camps cite their
potential for rehabilitating offenders and curbing
future criminal behavior. Opponents caution that
more information is needed on a variety of issues
including costs and the potential for abuse of
power. NIJ's research into boot camps began with a
1988 study of Louisiana's boot camp program and
continued with a multisite evaluation in 1989 and
other research reported in this volume. The
chapters that follow deal with various local,
State, and Federal experiences with the boot camp
concept; juvenile boot camps; other boot camp
models; and evaluative research on shock
incarceration.

Fueled primarily by growth in the number of
offenders incarcerated during the past decade and
changing views of the role of punishment and
treatment in the correctional system, shock
incarceration programs, or "boot camps" as they
have been more recently called, have emerged as an
increasingly popular alternative sanction for
nonviolent crimes.

Boot camp programs operate under a military-like
routine wherein young offenders convicted of less
serious, nonviolent crimes are confined for a short
period of time, typically from 3 to 6 months. They
are given close supervision while being exposed to
a demanding regimen of strict discipline, physical
training, drill, inspections, and physical labor.
All the programs also incorporate some degree of
military structure and discipline, such as
requiring inmates to stand at attention and respond
with "Yes, sir" or "No, sir." Recent work by
Roberta Cronin documented the differences among
adult correctional boot camps. 

Although the common element among all shock
incarceration programs is the short period of
imprisonment in a military atmosphere, the specific
components of the programs vary widely among
jurisdictions (Cronin, 1994; Parent, 1989;
MacKenzie et al., 1989; U.S. GAO, 1988). Programs
also differ in whether activities such as work,
community services, education, or counseling are
incorporated in the schedule of activities. There
is some consistency, however, in the goals of the
programs (Cronin, 1994), among them to reduce
prison crowding and to change offenders' behavior
and thus their future involvement in crime. 

Some jurisdictions stress the need for intensive
supervision after release if the behavioral changes
brought about by shock incarceration are to
continue in the community. Some States impose
additional requirements, such as drug testing,
while the offender is under parole supervision. 

Boot camp programs are generally designed for
young, nonviolent offenders with their first felony
conviction. These offenders usually volunteer for
the program and must meet physical and mental
health requirements. Placement and release
decisions vary from one program to another (Parent,
1989) and may be made by judges, corrections
department administrators, or members of parole
boards. 

Precursors of shock incarceration programs include
"shock probation" and "Scared Straight," which
pursued specific deterrence objectives. The Scared
Straight program tried to deter young delinquents
by making them fearful of prison through short,
confrontational performances dramatized inside a
prison by hardcore inmates. Many current shock
incarceration programs also seek to deter criminal
behavior, but they have other significant goals as
well.

The early shock probation programs locked up young
adult offenders in the prison population for a
brief period so they could get a "real" experience
with prison life. In contrast to the boot camps,
offenders were mixed with general population
offenders, and there were no military aspects.
Evaluations of the shock probation programs were
not positive; participants failed at rates similar
to those in comparison groups (Vito and Allen,
1981). 

Boot camp programs had their beginning in 1983 in
Georgia. In 1993, just 10 years later, a survey
sponsored by the General Accounting Office showed
that 59 boot camp programs were operating in 29
States, with a total capacity of 10,065. Only two
States--Michigan and Texas--have reduced their
capacity since then. The largest programs are in 
New York and Georgia; together these two States 
account for half the total capacity nationwide. 
Most programs accommodate 100 to 250 inmates and 
continue to limit participants to young, nonviolent
first offenders who enter the boot camps voluntarily,
primarily to shorten their prison terms. However,
some States have raised the upper age limit to
include offenders over 30, and some now allow more
serious offenders, with only 28 percent of the
States restricting boot camp eligibility to first
offenders in 1993 (Cronin, 1994). 

Doris MacKenzie and Dale Parent argue that these
programs have strong appeal with the general public
(Parent, 1989; MacKenzie and Parent, 1992) and that
they are magnets for media coverage because of
their disciplinary aspects and "get tough" image.

Even boot camp proponents, however, believe that
the criminal justice system should still proceed
cautiously in implementing programs until some of
the on-going research and program development
efforts are completed. Discussions have centered
around issues such as:

o  The projected high cost of treatment-oriented
programs. It is difficult to interpret the cost
data from different States or make meaningful
comparisons across States because of differences in
methods of accounting (Cronin, 1994).

o  Criteria to determine the most appropriate and
rigorous medical and psychological screening
processes.

o  Acquisition of more information about what
actually happens in boot camp.

o  Better assessment techniques to determine how
offenders change in boot camp.

o  Staff qualifications, including the ability to
impose discipline evenhandedly while taking account
of individual differences.

o  Potential abuse of power and the effect it may
have on both inmates and program staff.

o  The need for clear policies governing the use of
immediate punishment, force, and profanity. (The
American Correctional Association has developed
standards for adult and juvenile boot camps.)

Research Perspectives of the National Institute of
Justice

During the mid-1980's, the Nation's prison
population grew rapidly, crimes by younger
offenders escalated steadily, and prisons outgrew
their capacity. Therefore, NIJ, the research arm of
the Department of Justice, undertook the task of 
exploring the boot camp concept.

In 1988, NIJ sponsored Dr. Doris MacKenzie, then of
Louisiana State University, in evaluating the shock
incarceration program in that State. The Louisiana
Department of Public Safety and Correction's
Intensive Motivational Program of Alternative
Correctional Treatment (IMPACT), implemented in
1987, was then a two-phased boot camp program. In
the first phase, offenders were incarcerated for 90
to 180 days in a rigorous boot camp atmosphere.
Following this, they were placed under intensive
parole supervision. This second phase required
offenders to have at least four contacts a week
with their supervising officers, adhere to a strict
8 p.m. to 6 a.m. curfew, perform community service,
and work. 

In establishing the IMPACT program, Louisiana's
major stated goal was to create a new sentencing
option that would provide placement for inmates who
would otherwise be sent to the State's crowded
prison. Other program goals were to provide
participants with the life skills they would need
to succeed in becoming constructive members of
society. The evaluation, designed to examine
Louisiana's success in meeting its goals, examined
how the program was implemented, changes in inmate
behavior and attitude resulting from the program,
and system-level changes such as costs and
benefits.

The evaluators found that staff saw the program as
more than a way of "getting tough" with the young
offenders; both the staff and the inmates found
their interaction to be more positive than in
regular prison. Nonetheless, offenders found the
boot camp regimen to be physically and mentally
taxing, and many dropped out before completing the
program. Findings from the evaluation indicated
that inmates who completed the program believed
they had learned valuable lessons and skills, and
their positive attitudes grew during the time they
were in the program. By contrast, regular prison
inmates had increasingly negative attitudes during
their prison stays; they said they learned only
that they did not want to return to prison.

Boot camp offenders were involved in more positive
activities during their time under community
supervision than other parolees, probationers, and
boot camp dropouts, but during the 6-month
supervision period, the positive activities of all
groups declined. There was no significant
difference among all the groups in the percentage
arrested during these 6 months.

Cost savings per boot camp inmate were significant
($13,784) over the cost of the longer term
incarceration that would have taken place, but
these savings were somewhat offset by higher costs
for the community supervision phase ($5,956), thus
netting a total of $7,828 saved for each offender
who completed the program instead of going to
regular prison.

The evaluators concluded that programs like IMPACT
may achieve the goal of creating new sentencing
options for some offenders who would otherwise
spend longer terms in prison. 

Around the same time that the Louisiana evaluation
was being completed, the boot camp option was
attracting considerable interest as an alternative
to traditional imprisonment for young offenders.
Boot camp programs were springing up in many parts
of the country, but critics were calling for a
guarded approach because of major concerns that
needed to be thoroughly examined. 

In response, NIJ undertook a multisite evaluation
of boot camp programs that began with a 1989 survey
of 50 State correctional jurisdictions to determine
what specific program components seemed to work
best and for what types of offenders. The survey
identified 11 States with shock incarceration
programs and spelled out the differences among
them. For instance, in some programs judges
selected offenders for this sanction; in others the
decision lay with correctional department
officials. Different programs placed varying
emphasis on rehabilitation, academic education, and
vocational education. 

This information indicated a need to examine the
efficacy of boot camp programs. Were they meeting
their stated goals? How were they operating? This
multisite evaluation studied boot camp programs in
eight States (Florida, Georgia, Illinois,
Louisiana, New York, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and
Texas) to develop a broader picture of how this
popular new sanction was being applied.

In general, the study found that recidivism rates
of those completing boot camp programs were similar
to those for comparable offenders who spent a
longer time in prison. Lower recidivism rates were
found in three States, however--New York, Illinois,
and Louisiana. Programs in these States had a
strong therapeutic focus and included an intensive
6-month supervision phase on release into the
community. The findings suggested that the boot
camp experience alone is not sufficient for 
reducing recidivism. Chapter 18 of this book,
Multisite Study of Correctional Boot Camps, details
these findings. 

About This Book

After more than a decade of experience with boot
camps, numerous unanswered questions remain about
their operation, as well as about their
effectiveness and impact. This book examines these
issues and recent developments in the use of boot
camps.

The next chapter provides an overview of boot camps
that is crucial for the development of national
standards for correctional boot camps. Although the
Department of Justice has established operating
principles for correctional boot camps, standards
to guide the development of components for these
programs are necessary for continued improvement in
their effectiveness. While statutes may specify the
legislative authorization and the general mission
assigned for these programs, there is a need for
indepth exposition. 

Chapters 3 to 8 deal with various local, State, and
Federal experiences with boot camps. Clearly, an
opportunity to assess the best models will be
informative and useful for jurisdictions that have
not yet tried the boot camp alternative. Offenders
participating in most of the State programs are
usually released in a shorter time period than
would be the case if they served their sentences in
a traditional correctional facility. Yet at the
Federal level, inmates do not have a reduced
sentence but instead serve a portion of their time
at the boot camp while the remainder of their time
is served in a community corrections center. 

The widespread concept of "boot camp" has become a
part of the juvenile system. Chapters 9 to 11
address the development of boot camps for youthful
offenders and begin to examine the impact of these
programs. Contrary to the requirements for adult
boot camp participants, juvenile boot camps tend to
recruit offenders who are deeply involved in the
juvenile justice system. The typical incarceration
at a juvenile boot camp is a few months, although
in some States an offender's stay may be lengthened
if requirements for graduation are not met. 

Chapters 12 to 14 present information on various
aspects of boot camp programming.

Chapters 15 to 18 highlight evaluative research on
various aspects of the boot camp concept. While
only a limited number of significant process and
impact evaluations have been completed to date, the
results of the study summarized in chapter 18 by
Doris MacKenzie are probably the most
comprehensive. 

The final chapter in this volume addresses the
future of boot camps; it emphasizes the need for
more research to guide policymakers and criminal
justice professionals in implementing more
effective boot camp programs. 

References

Austin, James, Michael Jones, and Melissa Bolyard.
The Growing Use of Jail Boot Camps: The Current
State of the Art. Research in Brief. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National
Institute of Justice, 1993.

Cronin, Roberta. Boot Camps for Adult and Juvenile
Offenders: Overview and Update. Research Report.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,
National Institute of Justice, 1994. 

Gransky, Laura A., Thomas C. Castellano, and Ernest
L. Cowles. "Is There a `Second Generation' of Shock
Incarceration Facilities?: The Evolving Nature of
Goals, Program Components, and Drug Treatment
Services in Boot Camp Programs." In Intermediate
Sanctions: Sentencing in the 90s, J. Smykla and W.
Selke (eds.). Cincinnati: Anderson Publishing
Company, 1995.

MacKenzie, Doris L. "Boot Camp Prisons, Components,
Evaluations, and Empirical Issues." Federal
Probation (September 1990):44-52.

MacKenzie, Doris L. "`Boot Camp' Programs Grow in
Number and Scope." NIJ Reports (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., 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, no. 3 (1991):225-
237.

MacKenzie, Doris L., and Alex Piquero. "The Impact
of Shock Incarceration on Prison Crowding." Crime
and Delinquency, 40, no. 2 (1994):222-249.

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. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of
Justice, 1993.

MacKenzie, Doris L., and Claire C. Souryal.
Multisite Evaluation of Shock Incarceration.
Evaluation Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Justice, National Institute of
Justice, 1994. 

Parent, Dale G. "Boot Camps Failing To Achieve
Goals." Overcrowded Times, 5, no. 4 (1994):8-11.

Parent, Dale G. Shock Incarceration: An Overview of
Existing Programs. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Justice, National Institute of
Justice, 1989.

Shaw, James W., and Doris L. MacKenzie. "The
One-Year Community Supervision Performance of Drug
Offenders and Louisiana DOC-Identified Substance
Abusers Graduating From Shock Incarceration."
Journal of Criminal Justice, 20 (1992):501-616.

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):63-96.

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

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.


------------------------------------------------------------------
Correctional Boot Camps: A Tough Intermediate Sanction - Chapter 2


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.


------------------------------------------------------------------
Correctional Boot Camps: A Tough Intermediate Sanction - Chapter 3


Shock Incarceration in New York State: 
Philosophy, Results, and Limitations

by Cheryl L. Clark and David W. Aziz, Ph.D.

Cheryl L. Clark is the Director of Shock
Development for the New York State Department of
Correctional Services (DOCS). 
David W. Aziz, Ph.D., is a research specialist
with DOCS.

The New York State Shock Incarceration program
provides a therapeutic environment designed to
address a wide range of inmate problems and should
not be mistaken for just a "boot camp."
Established in 1987, the 6-month Shock
Incarceration program stresses a highly structured
and regimented routine, considerable physical work
and exercise, and intensive substance abuse
treatment. It seeks to build character, instill a
sense of maturity and responsibility, and promote
a positive self-image for offenders so they can
return to society as law-abiding citizens. The
program's therapeutic model, "Network," is based
on control theory and seeks to restore inmates'
bonds to society. Compliance, or direct control, 
is used in conjunction with other types of 
social control, both internal and external, to 
effect changes in inmates' behavior. New York's 
Shock Incarceration program has significantly 
improved math and reading scores, provided 
approximately 1.2 million hours of community
service in a single year, and saved both 
operational and capital costs to New
York's Department of Correctional Services.
Recidivism rates of Shock Incarceration graduates
are better than for persons released after
standard prison sentences. The New York rates
indicate that 90 percent of released graduates do
well in their first year of release, although over
time, as followup support and resources diminish,
their rates appear to become similar to those of
inmates who spend more time in prison. Although
not the cure-all many enthusiasts portray them to
be, shock incarceration programs like New York's
can constitute an effective intervention.


In the debate over the efficacy of shock
incarceration programs nationally, attention has
been devoted primarily to whether programs save
money for corrections systems or lower the
recidivism rates for participants (Nossiter,
1993:A1; and GAO, 1993:25). This seems to be the
exclusive focus of the academic analysts and
program practitioners who have been informing the
boot camp debate. In this debate there seems to be
a willingness to lump all shock incarceration
programs together and an assumption that all such
programs do the same thing and have the same
goals. Variation among programs or variation in
individual programs over time are rarely
considered. Little attention has been paid to the
underlying philosophy of shock incarceration
programs, how they are structured, and how that
structure may affect the ultimate question of what
standards should be used to 
determine if they work.

It is generally recognized that bed savings and
return rates are the "gold standard" by which
shock incarceration programs will ultimately be
judged, and the New York State Department of
Correctional Services (DOCS) has provided numbers
each year in these two critical areas that have
surpassed its expectations for program
success.These issues are consistently addressed in
DOCS annual reports to the State legislature, and
some of the findings will be addressed later in
this chapter. Still, there is a need to understand
how the program in New York was designed by
explicitly examining the program's philosophical
foundations and identifying what it can and cannot
do. 

Current discussions about the rise in violent
crime and gun use among the young have revolved
around the premise that our society is suffering
from a loss of values, dysfunctional families and
communities, and an unwillingness by individuals
to take responsibility for their lives and
behavior. The breakdown of the individual and the
community is not new to sociological theory.
Durkheim (1966) and Merton (1938) talked about
societal decay in terms of "anomie," or the state
of normless- ness, and how individuals react to
this state, while Hirschi (1969) discussed the
absence of positive values, beliefs, and
attachments as contributing to dysfunctional
behavior. 

Since DOCS' first published report on the New York
program, the department has stressed the
theoretical underpinnings of the shock
incarceration concept and the program's intention
to help instill positive, prosocial values for
people who had adapted their behavior to survive
in a normless society. 

Because DOCS' officials strongly believe that
philosophy drives goals and that goals affect
results, they have attempted to clearly articulate
the New York Shock Incarceration program's goals
and have implemented a treatment plan that 
addresses the physical, mental, spiritual, and
emotional dimensions of everyone in the program,
staff and inmates alike. The goals and methods are
consistent with attempts to counter some of the
causes of delinquency as outlined in social
control theory. The department emphasizes staff
involvement because staff are the key to effective
implementation. 

This chapter will describe the New York program's
philosophy and structure, provide some outcome
measures, and discuss the limitations to what
Shock or any correctional treatment program can
accomplish.

Legislative History and Philosophy

The New York State Shock Incarceration program was
established in 1987. The State legislative bill
enabling its creation specified that:

o  The program be designed for certain young
inmates who could benefit from a special 6-month
program of intensive incarceration. 

o  The program be provided to carefully selected
inmates committed to the State Department of
Correctional Services who are in need of substance
abuse treatment and rehabilitation.

o  The program be an alternative form of
incarceration that stresses a highly structured
and regimented routine, including extensive
discipline, considerable physical work and
exercise, and intensive drug rehabilitation
therapy. It should build character, instill a
sense of maturity and responsibility, and promote
a positive self-image for offenders so they can
return to society as law-abiding citizens.

This enabling legislation summarizes the essence
of the State's approach. First, DOCS identified
the specific pool of inmates to be offered the
Shock Incarceration program. At present, they are
young, serving their first term of State
incarceration for a nonviolent felony offense, and
within 3 years of parole eligibility. While the
department believes that shock incarceration could
benefit a wider inmate pool, the short duration of
the program, coupled with public protection
issues, has influenced the selection of
candidates. 

The program has four major eligibility criteria:

o  Restrict age to focus on younger inmates.

o  Eliminate violent offenders, sex offenders, and
escape risks.

o  Set a limit on the time reduction benefits
available to successful participants and ensure
that inmates selected have not committed serious
crimes. 

o  Prohibit prior service of an indeterminate
sentence to ensure that these inmates are
first-time commitments.

Second, the department has targeted prison-bound
inmates who account for the rapidly growing pool
crowding into the system; these are primarily drug
offenders. The department carefully screens these
offenders to include only those individuals whose
early release would not jeopardize community
safety. DOCS is as concerned with suitability of
placement as with eligibility criteria. 

Third, the department's methods are consistent
with control theory and have been designed to
build self-esteem, positive values and beliefs,
thinking and problem-solving skills, and prosocial
attitudes. 

Starting in 1987, DOCS began establishing its four
Shock Incarceration facilities and began operating
the Nation's largest shock incarceration program
for sentenced State prisoners at Lakeview, with a
capacity of 1,390 male and 180 female inmates as
well as 222 beds for orientation and screening. 

At the start of 1994 at least 50 boot camp
facilities were operating in 33 State correctional
systems and in the Federal Bureau of Prisons. As
of that date, 1,690 of the 8,255 inmates housed in
these programs were in New York facilities (Camp
and Camp, 1994:60). Boot camp programs vary widely
in content and philosophy and cannot be readily
grouped into a homogeneous treatment approach.
Failure to acknowledge this variation results in
diminishing the positive outcomes that have been
achieved. 

The Foundation of the New York State Program:
Control Theory
 
The New York State Shock Incarceration program is
based on a therapeutic community model called
"Network." The Network model was designed to
establish living and learning units within
correctional facilities that are supervised and 
operated by specially trained correction officers
and supervisors.

The underlying basis of the Network philosophy is
a theoretical model of the causes of delinquency
known as "control theory." Part of a group of
social and cultural support theories of
criminality, control theory proposes that
"nonconformity is a product of the failure of the
social bond. Through the attachment of individuals
to others, conformity is assured. When such
attachments fail to develop or when they are
disrupted, the internalization of legitimate norms
becomes problematic" (Farrell and Swigert,
1975:211).

Thus control theory is designed to explain
conformity in individuals and implies that
deviation from conformity (or criminal behavior)
can be explained by variations in an individual's
ties to the conventional social order.

The main proponent of this theory, Travis Hirschi,
asserted that "delinquent acts result when an
individual's bond to society is weak or broken"
(Hirschi, 1969:16). This bond consists of
attachment to others, commitment, involvement in
conventional activities, and belief in a positive
value system. The assumption made by control
theorists is that people who are at risk of
engaging in criminal behavior are individuals
whose bond to society has been weakened or broken.
Shock Incarceration in New York has been designed
to provide an opportunity to strengthen or restore
the bond.

Control theory is a key component of the Shock
Incarceration philosophy in New York. It is
assumed that inmates entering DOCS are individuals
whose bonds to society are either weakened or
broken and that exposure to the philosophies and
practices of this program will help restore these
bonds. The program emphasizes the need for
individuals to strengthen their indirect controls,
their internalized controls, and their controls
over opportunities for conventional activities by
promoting responsibility for choices and stressing
the consequences of their behavior. Inmates who do
not participate in this restoration process and
who fail to live up to their responsibilities are
destined to fail in the program and will serve the
remainder of their sentences in a traditional
prison setting.

When Cheryl L. Clark, now New York's Director of
Shock Incarceration, established Network units
within DOCS in 1979, they were based on ideas of
social control theory and learning theory and the
principles taught in Alcoholics Anonymous and
Narcotics Anonymous programs. These models of
change were offered to inmates who were willing
and able to volunteer to live in Network community
living units during their incarceration. The units
were structured as total learning environments:
Inmates lived together as a therapeutic community,
holding daily meetings, decisionmaking seminars,
and self-help groups led by trained corrections
officers. The Network philosophy, now the Shock
Incarceration philosophy, recited each day to
begin community meetings, says:

Network is a positive environment for human
development in a caring community where
individuals can help themselves and each other. 
Staff and participants work together to establish
and maintain positive, growth-filled environments
within prisons. Community members focus on
behavioral change and confront attitudes which are
destructive to individuals and the life of the
program (Clark, 1979).

Network was also committed to having inmates with
substance abuse problems become actively involved
in ASAT (Alcohol and Substance Abuse Treatment)
while they lived in the Network community. The
success of this program influenced the former New
York State Commissioner of Correctional Services,
Thomas A. Coughlin III, to direct that Network
become the foundation piece of the Shock 
Incarceration program and that the program
strongly emphasize substance abuse treatment.

Network has been operating in New York State
Correctional Facilities since 1979 and has
strengthened our resolve to identify and deal with
the special needs of our staff and inmates. It has
proven successful in providing an opportunity for
positive growth and change. That's what Shock
Incarceration is all about--bridging the external
discipline of the military model with an
internalized system of positive values (NYS DOCS
Sixth Annual Report: 9).

The operational components of control theory
incorporated in Shock Incarceration were discussed
by Wells and Rankin in a summary of F. Ivan Nye's
writings on the elements of social control. Nye
identified four types of social controls on human
behavior:

o  Direct control based on the application or
threat of punishments and rewards to gain
compliance with conventional norms.

o  Indirect control based on affectional
attachment to or identification with conventional
persons (especially parents).

o  Internalized control based on the development
of autonomous patterns of conformity located in
the individual personality, self-concept, or
conscience. 

o  Control over opportunities for conventional and
deviant activities whereby compliance results from
restricted choices or alternatives (Wells and
Rankin, 1988:265).

New York's Shock Incarceration program is based on
the understanding that the permanency of changes
in human behavior depends on changing attitudes
through both internal and external influences. As
with the Network program, Shock is influenced by
these control models. The four social controls
outlined by Nye represent a continuum of mental
and moral development. Problems result when there
is an overreliance on only one of the four
controls, no matter which is chosen. Much
criticism of boot camp programs is based on the
perception that they rely exclusively on the
compliance model. For individual change to be
effective and lasting, all four strategies of the
continuum must be present.

Compliance 

The first of Nye's behavior control models, direct
control, is based on compliance with rules and
authority. Compliance is a fact of life. There are
rules that everyone must follow every day and
appropriate limits to socially acceptable
behavior. Moral development and ethical judgment
are results of a healthy respect for boundaries
and compliance with the social contract, through
which we have established standards for how we
relate to each other. Throughout our lives,
authority figures such as parents, teachers,
clergy, police, and judges impose and enforce
these standards. Boundaries and limits create a
social order, and it is this order that allows
freedom. Everyone at some point is subject to
authority. It is the abuse of authority that
becomes a problem, not the simple fact of the need
to comply.

Compliance models work for limited periods of time
and under very specific conditions (e.g.,
radar-enforced speed control) but are challenged
at every opportunity. Shock Incarceration in New
York acknowledges the importance of
self-discipline and compliance with rules and
recognizes that some people change only when they
have to, hence the need for prisons. However, a
sentence to prison (i.e., deprivation of liberty)
is punishment. Shock incarceration programs are
not designed to inflict punishment, but they use
the compliance model to teach discipline and to
demonstrate how both limits and discipline make
freedom possible. 

One component of the New York Shock Incarceration
program is consistent with compliance. The
military-based features of the program are
designed to teach self-discipline and to improve
inmates' physical, mental, and emotional
condition. It is important to emphasize the value
of military discipline and pride in performance
for New York's Shock Incarceration participants.
The one programmatic feature that shock
incarceration programs nationwide usually have in
common is military discipline and training.

Military discipline played an important role in
historical antecedents to Shock Incarceration in
New York, particularly the inmate regimen
established at the Elmira Reformatory in New York
by Zebulon Brockway. Supporters of the Elmira
experiment believed discipline to be the
cornerstone of effective inmate reform:

Military discipline is found to be exceedingly
beneficial in inculcating promptness in obedience,
attention, and harmony of action with others. It
develops the prisoner physically, quickens him
mentally and, by making him a part of the
disciplinary force, gives him a clearer insight
into the meaning and benefits of thorough
discipline. The standard of discipline should be
so fixed that each prisoner may know exactly what
to expect, and know that his release can only be
accomplished by reaching this standard through his
own efforts. Having attained this standard he
should be released upon parole, to suitable
employment, under efficient supervision, for a
period of time long enough for him to demonstrate
his fitness for an honest life, in society . . .
(Allen, 1928:120).

The Elmira Reformatory was established in 1876 to
house younger inmates who were convicted of first
felonies but given indeterminate sentences. The
reformatory emphasized manual training; inmates
were taught "marketable, honest skills in building
part of the institution and making several
products" (Smith, 1988:34).

Following the passage of a variety of laws against
inmate labor in the early 1880's, New York's
inmate labor system was deemed to be illegal. To
keep inmates at Elmira occupied and trained,
Brockway decided in 1888 that military training
would be a useful substitute:

The training was instituted to meet an emergency,
but survived long after the short-lived trouble.
The military organization permeated almost every
aspect of the institution: schooling, manual
training, sports teams, physical training, daily
timetables, supervision of inmates, and even
parole practices. In short, the training was used
to discipline the inmates and organize the
institution (Smith, 1988:33).

The problem with relying solely on a compliance
model for boot camp programs is that it works only
when participants believe that someone is
watching. Even the worst "shock" wears off over
time. Indeed, in most cases, the more severe the
shock, the more quickly people want to forget it
happened; denial is a natural healing and coping
mechanism for reducing extreme negative stress and
regaining equilibrium. Boot camp programs that are
overly concerned about compliance with rules
appear to have little effect after inmates are
released.

Criticisms of boot camps based only on compliance.
The rush to create shock incarceration programs
has been accompanied by healthy skepticism that
boot camps represent only "quick fix" solutions to
complex social problems. As recently as December
1993, the New York Times reported that at a time
when Congress was prepared to provide major
funding to jurisdictions wanting to open more boot
camps, the concept was "getting a skeptical look
from many academics and correctional experts"
(Dec. 18, 1993:A1). 

In the past critics including former Commissioner
Larry Meachum of the Connecticut Department of
Corrections as well as Merry Morash and Lisa
Rucker have raised concerns that shock programs
have the potential for abuse and may be harmful to
their participants. According to Morash and
Rucker, "A number of potential negative outcomes
of a boot camp environment have been identified.
One of these is increased offender aggression"
(Morash and Rucker, 1990:218).

Despite the viscerally attractive prospect of
housing inmates in a disciplined environment,
critics believe that shock programs have no real
lasting effects on participants. The author of an
article about Florida's boot camp program spent 24
days in the program and reported that ". . . only
one change is certain when these convicted felons
return to your town, your neighborhood, your
street. They will be stronger and faster" (Tucker,
1988:10).

Many of these concerns stem from early attempts by
jurisdictions to create boot camps that reflected
their desire to "just get tough" on criminals.
Critics have voiced concern that compliance is the
only model emphasized in these shock incarceration
programs and that high recidivism rates reflect a
breakdown in compliance. For example, note the
program description written in 1986 for Georgia's
boot camps:

. . . the fundamental program concept is that a
brief period of incarceration under harsh physical
conditions, strenuous manual labor, and exercise
within a secured environment will "shock" the
younger and less seriously criminally oriented
offender out of a future life of crime (Flowers,
1986:3).

The use of coercion to gain inmate compliance is
seen by many correctional experts as having
limited value, and for that reason numerous
observers have criticized these programs. Ira
Schwartz, director of Michigan's Center for the
Study of Youth Policy, called boot camps a fad
that doesn't work (Tucker, 1988:15). In 1988,
another critic, Edward Leghorn, Commissioner of
the Massachusetts Department of Youth Services,
commented, "To think that 90 days of training is
going to undo 17 years of family troubles is a
terribly naive approach. . . . They're kidding
themselves. These kids have no education. No job
skills. The counseling is no more than a classroom
lecture. . . . What are these guys going to do for
a living when they get out? Pushups?" (Tucker,
1988:15).

These generic criticisms--based on limited
anecdotal data and lacking long-term empirical
analyses--may not have as much relevance when
individual shock incarceration programs are
examined since there is great variation among
programs nationally.

While Doris MacKenzie, who has written extensively
on boot camps, argues correctly that "there is
little evidence that the getting tough element of
shock incarceration will, by itself, lead to
behavioral change" (MacKenzie, 1988:5), it is also
evident that the the self-discipline taught
through drill and ceremony and physical training
has many positive benefits in other aspects of the
program. Inmates, for example, perform better
academically while in the New York program, and it
is clear from inmates' attention and enthusiasm in
the academic classrooms that military bearing and
physical training support their ability to
concentrate and learn.

A recent letter received from the father of a
Shock Incarceration inmate just 6 weeks into the
program underscores this point. 

Yesterday, our family visited at your facility 
for the second time. I was so overwhelmed with 
positive feelings that I wanted to share them 
with you. My son . . . has always had low self-
esteem. He was classified as learning disabled 
throughout his schooling. He never memorized 
anything nor has he ever finished reading an 
entire story or book. Throughout the 5 hours we 
visited with him I was enthralled by his passion 
for your program and his positive feelings for 
your staff. In an extremely short period of time, 
you have stripped him of his "bullshit image" and 
he has learned so many good things about himself. 
He proudly recited the Ten General Orders from 
memory. His military bearing and positive attitude 
as to program and staff made us feel very proud 
of him. Over the remainder of the program I am 
sure he will continue to gain further insight and 
self-reliance and through repetition incorporate 
your teachings to have positive self-esteem. We 
cannot thank you and your staff enough as we feel 
that he will be capable of caring for himself and 
enjoying a lifestyle with positive values due to 
this experience.

Identification

Nye's second type of social control, indirect
control, emphasizes positive role models to change
behavior. Many offenders' role models are deviant,
inconsistent, criminogenic, and influential; and
offenders too often identify legitimate authority
figures such as parents, teachers, truant
officers, police, and probation officers as the
"enemy" while considering drug dealers and pimps
to be heroes. In Shock Incarceration, these
assumptions are turned around; inmates need to
identify with prosocial role models and recognize
the shortcomings of emulating antisocial 
behavior. 

Staff are the primary role models in Shock
Incarceration in New York, and their attitudes and
behavior influence inmates' attitudes toward
change, growth, and the development of positive
social norms. In New York, staff complete the
program with inmates and are expected to model the
program philosophy at all times. New York is not a
"do as I say, not as I do" program. Drill
instructors with gravy stains on their uniforms
and a day-old growth of beard cannot effectively
instruct inmates on grooming standards.
Supervisors, counselors, and teachers who do not
model the effectiveness of what Shock
Incarceration is trying to teach undermine the
actions of committed staff.

Because staff in the program so strongly influence
results, they must be clear about the examples
they set. The values of staff are reflected in
their behavior, and the values they reinforce
among inmates are influenced by the congruency of
their words and actions. For example, the New York
program's first General Order for inmates is to
follow all orders given by all staff at all times.
As such, it is incumbent on the staff to ensure
that their orders are lawful, ethical, and moral.
The SMART rule is emphasized in every aspect of
the program: Orders must be Specific, Measurable,
Attainable, Realistic, and Timely. An officer who
is out of shape and unable to do 10 pushups on a
good day should not be ordering an inmate to "drop
and give me 100." 

To this end, staff are expected to model what is
taught in the Shock Incarceration program. They
are expected to "walk the walk" and to demonstrate
congruently that the model works. The program also
emphasizes an interdisciplinary approach to inmate
instruction and supervision to maintain
consistency among the security, treatment, and
administrative staff. If inmates can play one
discipline against another, the foundation of the
program is undermined.

Acknowledging the importance of compliance to
rules and consistent discipline from effective
role models is important to the effectiveness of
boot camp programs. Dale Parent, an observer of
boot camps nationally, concluded:

The programs we observed varied in the consistency
with which rules were enforced. Where rules were
less consistently enforced, it appeared inmates
were more prone to test the limits of enforcement.
Confrontations with staff seemed more numerous and
overall tension levels seemed higher. Where rule
enforcement was consistent, inmates seemed less
prone to test their limits, confrontations were
less evident, and tension levels seemed lower. . .
. In terms of molding offender behavior,
consistency and accountability in expulsion
practices are important factors. The offender
learns that his or her actions have clear, well
defined consequences: that appropriate self
control will be rewarded and inappropriate
behavior punished (Parent, 1989:25-26).

It is important that New York graduates learn the
program's behavioral model and remember it once
they are back in their communities. Yolanda
Johnson, one of the program's most successful
graduates, tells this story to inmates in the
program when she returns to present commencement
addresses:

One night shortly after graduation I was at a
party. A guy I used to know who I ran into
immediately started digging in his pocket. When he
passed me a crack pipe I said, "No thank you, I
don't smoke no more." So he said, "Whoa! Baby!
This used to be your shit!" He tried passing it to
me again two or three times so finally I said to
him, real loud, "What part don't you get? The no
thank you or the I don't smoke no more?" And he
backed right up and said, "Uh-oh baby," and left.
I got that from my drill instructor. 

Staff training. Because Shock Incarceration is not
corrections as usual, it is important that staff
understand the program, the theory behind it, and
what is expected of inmates. One important way to
ensure program integrity is through proper staff
training. All staff who work in New York State
Shock Incarceration facilities are required to
attend a comprehensive, highly structured,
rigorous 4-week training program that is similar
to the regimen for offenders in the Shock
Incarceration program. The goal of the training is
to give all correctional employees, regardless of
discipline, a thorough understanding of the
program's concepts, goals, and structure.

All staff are required to attend this training.
The training is based on the model first
introduced in 1979 to train interdisciplinary
teams to staff Network units. That training
originally consisted of 2 weeks of intensive
training in therapeutic community concepts as
applied to a corrections facility. Shock
Incarceration staff training was expanded to 4
weeks and also includes physical training, drill
and ceremony, an introduction to ASAT, and
decisionmaking skills as taught in Network.

The training is designed to help employees better
understand the inmates they will work with as well
as the interrelationships among security,
programs, and administration. Staff training also
gives employees an opportunity to increase their
understanding of themselves and others. Group
unity and teamwork are emphasized as staff are
placed in platoons and work together throughout
the training in an experiential approach to
learning how to teach inmates.

The course content includes control theory,
leadership skills, training in teaching inmates
decisionmaking skills, the ASAT curriculum, drill
and ceremony, physical training, and military
bearing. The training emphasizes an
interdisciplinary approach so that all staff are
able to teach all aspects of the program. The
training schedule is based on a modified version
of a typical day for Shock Incarceration
participants, beginning with physical training
each morning and concluding with community
meetings in the evening. 

Each day's instruction includes drill and ceremony
and is designed to cover some aspect of the
6-month treatment curriculum. As with the full
inmate program, all staff training is taught using
accelerated learning strategies. To work at a
Shock Incarceration facility, staff agree to
undergo this rigorous training and commit to the
principles of the Shock Incarceration program. As
a result of this training, the staff tend to be
very committed to the program goals and are highly
motivated.

As of October 1994, more than 1,800 New York State
DOCS employees had been trained in Shock
Incarceration methods. In addition to conducting
staff training in New York, staff trainers also
provided training for other States and localities.

Internalization

Nye's third type of social control,
internalization, while the most complex, time
consuming, and difficult to achieve, is the most
desirable to accomplish due to its long-term
effects. Internalization flows from a clear
understanding of why we need to comply with
limits. We internalize values learned from role
models with whom we identify. Internalization is
fundamental to our understanding of "who we are"
and is concerned with our system of beliefs and
values. Internalization of values is dependent
upon our experience, which tells us that believing
in these values has a payoff. Individuals, for
example, often take a position of absolute
certainty that what they believe is right when
discussing political or religious values. It is
very difficult, if not impossible, to change other
people's beliefs and values. They must first see a
benefit to themselves before they change values.

Inmates are taught in Shock Incarceration that the
only people they can change are themselves. They
are asked to examine their beliefs and attitudes
to determine if the results they are getting in
their lives are satisfying and fulfilling. Through
this self-assessment, inmates begin to see the
need to change their values and approaches to
life. 

Internalization requires willingness, and therein
lies the difficulty. Very few people really want
to change their beliefs; beliefs are essential to
self-image and attitudes toward life.
Internalization deals with the spiritual dimension
of life, the most uncomfortable to confront.
Internalization is what Hirschi refers to when he
speaks of the four elements that constitute the
social bond: attachment, belief, commitment, and
involvement (Hirschi, 1969). Participating in the
social bond implies making a commitment to
conventional beliefs and activities and
understanding that decisions and behaviors have
consequences.

The New York program seeks to have participants
internalize a positive, prosocial system of values
designed to raise self-esteem. The program
emphasizes helping inmates acknowledge how their
old values and choices led to their exclusion from
society and restriction of freedom. In Shock
Incarceration inmates experience positive values
producing positive results--an important step
toward realizing that a system of values is the
key to changing behavior.

The limitations of internalization involve
external influences that affect our daily choices.
Shock Incarceration is designed to be a positive
environment for human development in a caring
community. Unfortunately, this environment does
not always resemble postrelease reality for boot
camp graduates. An overwhelming majority return to
dysfunctional environments.

Even when Shock Incarceration graduates have
strong family support, the neighborhoods to which
they return are often steeped in the drug culture.
Gangs and old friends offer the familiar
environment that embraced and accepted them before
they went to prison and that will support them
again if they give up the "brainwashing" they
learned in Shock Incarceration. Many graduates are
undomiciled, with no community ties, and despite
the program's emphasis on academic education, may
not have received a GED because they started from
so far behind.

The New York program's decisionmaking curriculum
reinforces the principle "environment is stronger
than will" and recognizes that social values
greatly influence experiences and choices. Inmates
find support in platoons of individuals working
together to get through the program and in the
bonds formed with each other and with their team
of drill instructors, counselors, and teachers.
Staff constantly emphasize that inmates need each
other to get through the program and that it is
easier to overcome challenge with support. Staff
also remind inmates of programs like Alcholics
Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous, Weight Watchers,
churches, health clubs, and other community
organizations that offer support for people with
similar needs and interests; they encourage them
to join support groups like these upon release.

In ASAT and in Network, inmates are urged to
change "people, places, and things," attend "90
meetings in 90 days," and find a sponsor to mentor
and support them in their continuing sobriety.
Since the need to belong is a powerful driving
force in human beings, staff encourage
participants to seek support from postrelease
groups that will continue to reinforce their
positive growth.

For some graduates, this is too difficult;
returning to the old neighborhood and the old gang
triggers old behaviors and attitudes. The drive to
get our needs met is so strong that people will
actively seek out opportunities for belonging,
power, freedom, and fun. A return to old patterns
is to be expected of graduates if the old
neighborhood group is meeting their needs and
aftercare resources are limited or nonexistent. 

Nonetheless, many graduates withstand these
pressures and overcome tremendous odds. The prison
return rates for New York graduates indicate that
90 percent of released graduates do well in their
first year of release. Over time, however, as
followup support and resources diminish, their
rates appear to become similar to those of inmates
who spend more time incarcerated. 

Autonomy 

Nye's fourth type of social control, autonomy,
represents the integration of the first three
types and flows from those models. According to
Nye, autonomy, or the ability to choose
responsibly, involves "control over opportunities
for conventional and deviant activities whereby
compliance results from restricted choices or
alternatives" (Nye, 1958). 

Individuals who have gained internal control over
thoughts, feelings, and behavior through study and
practice have a wider range of choices about how
they want to live their lives. Autonomy implies a
recognition that our choices are determined by our
standards of behavior and not by external
circumstances. While circumstances do affect our
choices, we can always control how we respond to
those circumstances. 

William Glasser, another proponent of control
theory, wrote that ". . . to be worthwhile we must
maintain a satisfactory standard of behavior"
(Glasser, 1965:10). In the foreword to Glasser's 
book, O. Hobart Mower also emphasized standards 
of behavior, arguing that "...human beings get 
into emotional binds, not because their standards 
are too high, but because their performance has 
been, and is, too low." It flows from this premise
that when we raise our standards of behavior, we 
raise our self-esteem. This approach to change is 
the core of the New York program and is emphasized
in every aspect of the program. From 5:30 a.m. to 
9:30 p.m., every experience of the day supports
inmates' attempts to build life skills that lead
to success.

The theme of the decisionmaking curriculum in
Network is "Choose Your Life, Live Your Choice,"
which is designed to teach inmates how to get
their needs met in responsible ways, not by
interfering with others. Glasser's approach to
control theory emphasizes the impact of internal
controls and the way these controls stem from
basic needs. Glasser's theory states that the
innate drive to meet one's needs is so strong that
if these needs are not met in positive and
constructive ways, they will be met in negative
and destructive ways (Glasser, 1965, 1986, and
1987). 

A sense of self-worth and personal pride forms the
foundation of a responsible lifestyle. The Network
environment is structured to foster respect for
self and others and focuses on supportive
community living methods that were developed,
tested, and refined by staff and participants over
time and then codified into a set of community
standards.

Network program objectives can be grouped into
three areas: responsibility for self,
responsibility to others, and responsibility for
the quality of one's life. To make responsible
decisions, individuals must consider their needs,
the effect those needs have on others, and the
variables of situations they find themselves in.

As with all communities, there are rules and
standards for behavior in the Network program to
which members must adhere. If rule breaking is
detected, the community will react:

The pressures of the group, accepting, yet
confronting, interpreting, pointing out,
suggesting modifications, understanding and
facilitating problem solving will be a different
reaction from the authoritarian suppression he has
hitherto provoked, and he may come to see that for
him also there can be the possibility of a shift
of behavior roles in this different type of
society. If he continues to act out, then the
community imposed sanctions mount in parallel with
his misdemeanors until it becomes clear that he
must change his pattern if he wants to stay or if
he wants to continue in his old ways (and he is
welcome to do so)--he must leave (Whiteley,
1973:56).

Under the Network design, peer confrontation
groups are used to deal with participants'
negative attitudes. The strength of peer groups is
their lack of authority-based coercive feedback to
inmates. Peer groups provide clear perspectives on
the consequences of dysfunctional behavior while
suggesting positive alternatives to that behavior.
This approach works, however, only in the context
of a caring community.

The Choices curriculum is taught in tandem with
the 12 Steps to Recovery program espoused in
Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) and Narcotics Anonymous
(NA). Throughout their 26 weeks in Shock
Incarceration, participants study each step of
Choices and the 12 Steps program; all aspects of
their activities--community meetings, group work,
prerelease sessions, and academic classes--are
tied into each week's curriculum theme.

The combined Choices and ASAT curriculum also
involves inmates in experiential exercises,
journaling (therapeutic writing exercises), and
group discussions andactivities that sharpen their
skills, and planning for the future. The program's
approach to learning is that the most long-lasting
benefits result from practice. 

"Muscle memory" learning techniques ensure that
concepts taught to inmates are anchored in their
experiences. Cadences, sung as inmates march or
run, reinforce the message of the treatment
sessions. Throughout their incarceration, inmates
are reminded that AA and NA support is available
nearly everywhere in the world and that they are
taking the first step in a program of lifelong
recovery and choices about freedom. Inmates are
reminded daily that limits exist in everyone's
life and that limits are not limitations. The
Choices curriculum teaches that limits are facts
of life, while limitations are feelings and
attitudes that can be changed. 

The Network community is an opportunity to live
and practice the concepts taught in the Choices
curriculum. Network promotes the positive
involvement of its participants in an environment
that focuses on their successful reintegration
into society and encourages inmates to seek out
other positive groups in their home communities to
continue this reinforcement.

Substance Abuse Treatment 

Within the therapeutic community model of Shock
Incarceration, an emphasis is placed on substance
abuse treatment because of documented drug or
alcohol abuse by a majority of program
participants. Since the start of the program, at
least two-thirds of male participants and over 80
percent of female participants had been convicted
of drug offenses prior to their incarceration. 
In remarks before the U.S. Senate Committee on the
Judiciary in 1989, the former New York State
Commissioner of Corrections, Thomas Coughlin,
underscored the priority given to substance abuse
programs in the New York Shock Incarceration
program:

For every 500 hours of physical training plus
drill and ceremony that has led to the media
calling it a "boot camp," Shock Incarceration in
New York also includes 546 hours of the
therapeutic approach to treating addiction, based
on the Network and the ASAT programs. It also
includes at least 260 mandatory hours of academic
education and 650 hours of hard labor, where
inmates work on facility projects, provide
community service work, and work on projects in
conjunction with the Department of Environmental
Conservation (U.S. Senate Committee on the
Judiciary, July 25, 1989:1).

The New York program combines numerous treatment
approaches that have been used successfully. The
multitreatment approach employed at the program
has been viewed as the best means of achieving
positive changes in inmate behavior (Gendreau and
Ross, 1979:485). 

In addition to voluntary participation, some of
the components of successful correctional
rehabilitation programs include formal rules,
anticriminal modeling and reinforcement, problem
solving, use of community resources, improved
interpersonal relationships, relapse prevention
and self-efficacy, and therapeutic integrity
(MacKenzie, 1988:4). The New York program uses all
of these components within the framework of a
military structure to help participants learn to
be productive citizens.

Aftercare

It must also be made clear that Shock
Incarceration in New York is a unique two-part
process involving both institutional treatment for
inmates and intensive parole supervision and
aftercare programs for graduates. With the most
intensive supervision caseloads in the State,
parole officers working with Shock Incarceration
graduates use community service providers to
facilitate job placement, relapse prevention, and
educational achievement. During the first 6 months
after inmates graduate, parole staff help them
maintain the decisionmaking and conflict
resolution counseling that began at Shock
Incarceration facilities. 

Many Shock Incarceration graduates have done so
well after release that they have been hired by
service provider agencies as employees. These
graduates help newly released participants
reintegrate into the community by facilitating
Network counseling in community groups and
providing life skills training, vocational
training, services of the Alcohol Council and
Fellowship Center in New York City, and a range of
other services to their clients. A team of Shock
Incarceration graduates also works with the New
York City Probation Department to teach Network
concepts to probationers. Periodically, successful
graduates return to Shock Incarceration facilities
to discuss their experiences with inmates and help
prepare them for the second phase of the program. 

While these types of aftercare services are
critical to the success of graduates, there are
limits to community-based resources. Funding
dictates the number, type, and variety of
resources available to ex-offenders and controls
how long they may access aftercare services. Some
services, such as AA and NA, are free, but many
offenders need ongoing substance abuse treatment,
family counseling, child care services, and a
range of other services that require money.

Overall, New York's correctional officials believe
that their Shock Incarceration program is a better
method of incarceration than traditional prison.
Inmates are constantly engaged and programmed in a
shorter and more intense incarceration experience
that builds self-esteem, detoxifies addicts, and
teaches a modicum of responsibility. In sum, the
New York program provides inmates with a
prescription and the tools to succeed after
graduation. Many community resources exist for
ex-offenders to use after their Shock
Incarceration instruction ends, but failure to
follow the Shock Incarceration prescription, as in
the medical arena, can lead to relapse and
recommitment.

Program Results and Measures

There are a variety of ways to measure how well
New York's program is achieving its goals and
helping inmates restore the bonds that are
described in social control theory. Any discussion
of program results, however, must be tempered with
the acknowledgment that there are limitations to
what inmates can achieve in correctional treatment
programs.

To ensure that Shock Incarceration in New York
fulfilled its legislative mandate, two measurable
goals were enunciated for the program: reduce the
demand for bedspace and treat and release
specially selected State prisoners earlier than
their court-mandated minimum incarceration periods
without compromising community safety.

To reduce the demand on prison bedspace, the
program had to target offenders who would
definitely be incarcerated. As a result, the New
York program admits only those inmates sentenced
to serve time in a State prison.

In addition, the length of imprisonment for Shock
Incarceration participants had to be substantially
shorter than the prison term they would otherwise
have served. Any long-term reduction in bedspace
demand depends on inmates successfully completing
the program and keeping their rates of return to
DOCS custody consistent with the overall return
rate for the department for similarly situated
inmates.

The New York program's goals--saving bedspace and
protecting the community--are clearly related, and
the State of New York has sought to make them more
achievable by:

o  Limiting judicial involvement in deciding who
goes into the Shock Incarceration program, thus
ensuring that participants are drawn from a
prison-bound population. (Some judges tend to use
boot camp as an alternative to fines or probation,
sending offenders to boot camp who would not have
gone to prison anyway.)

o  Creating the program as a backend
(postsentencing) operation that is not an
alternative to probation but rather a program for
incarcerated felons.

o  Creating a treatment-oriented program that
emphasizes the development of skills designed to
lead inmates to successful parole outcomes.

o  Creating a strong, intensive parole supervision
program for Shock Incarceration graduates that
enlists the aid of community-based service
providers.

With both the program's goals and underlying
philosophy in mind, it is particularly important
to determine if the New York program has had any
systematic effect on participants by measuring
outcomes in key program areas. 

Academic Education 

Improving the educational achievement of inmates
during their imprisonment is one of the central
concerns of the New York Shock Incarceration
program. At all New York Shock Incarceration
facilities, education is mandatory for inmates.
Each week inmates must spend at least 12 hours in
academic classes and 22 hours in treatment
programs that also have an educational focus. The
program's academic instruction is geared to
enhance inmates' verbal, math, reading, and
writing skills and to give inmates who are
prepared the opportunity to take the general
equivalency diploma (GED) exam.

For many inmates, the importance of obtaining a
GED cannot be overstated. Data from the U.S.
Bureau of Justice Statistics and DOCS indicate
that higher levels of education prior to
incarceration or the completion of a GED while in
prison is one factor related to lower recidivism
rates (Beck and Shipley, 1989:5; and DOCS,
Division of Program, Planning, Research and
Evaluation, 1989). 

Initial inmate placement in academic programs is
based on the results of standardized achievement
tests administered as part of the inmate reception
and classification process. Achievement tests are
subsequently administered to measure progress and
to determine eligibility for placement in more
advanced classes. DOCS uses the Test of Adult
Basic Education (TABE) exam as the standardized
testing instrument in its Shock Incarceration
program.

Even though attaining a GED while in Shock
Incarceration is a desirable goal for all
graduates, inmates have only 6 months to do so and
education is but one of many required program
components. Moreover, attaining a GED within 6
months is an unrealistic goal for inmates entering
the program with low educational levels.

Achievement testing. An analysis of math and
reading TABE scores for 1,202 New York Shock
Incarceration inmates who graduated between April
1, 1993, and March 31, 1994, and who were given at
least two achievement tests, shows that in 6
months or less, 84.7 percent had increased their
math scores by at least one grade, 41.0 percent by
at least two grades, and 15.8 percent by at least
four grades. 

Similarly, 62.8 percent of graduates increased
their scores in reading aptitude by at least one
grade, 27.0 percent by at least two grades, and
5.8 percent by at least four grades. 

GED testing. Despite the short period of time that
inmates spend at Shock Incarceration facilities,
the proportion of graduates passing the GED in FY
1993-94 (68.4 percent) was notably higher than
that of inmates at five State minimum security
facilities (51.7 percent) and that of inmates at
six State medium security facilities (59.3
percent) who were used as a comparison population.
The passing rate for New York Shock Incarceration
graduates has increased steadily since FY 1989-90,
from 40.0 percent to 68.4 percent in FY 1993-94.

The New York Shock Incarceration program's
emphasis on obtaining high-quality educational
outcomes has thus shown positive results despite
the short period of inmate incarceration and the
relatively small amount of time spent in academic
classes. Shock Incarceration facilities have also
consistently tested inmates more often and more
successfully than have comparison prison
facilities. 

Community Service Projects

One of the least publicized components of the New
York Shock Incarceration program involves
community service work performed by inmates.
Community service work has often been used as an
effective alternative to incarceration and has a
successful track record. 

The legislative mandate for the program stipulated
that it had to involve inmate participants in an
intensive regimen of physical labor. State
correctional officials found an innovative way to
fulfill this mandate by having inmates complete
community service projects for towns, villages,
and State parks near Shock Incarceration
facilities.

Each year, supervised crews of Shock Incarceration
inmates perform thousands of hours of community
service as part of their daily routine; and as a
result cash-strapped municipalities, religious
organizations, and community groups receive manual
labor needed to complete a variety of projects for
which funding sources were not available. Based on
information provided by Shock Incarceration
facilities, it is estimated that in calendar year
1993 inmates performed approximately 1.2 million
hours of community service. This is the equivalent
of 1,000 inmates working 6 hours per day, 4 days
per week for 50 weeks. In fact, since no money is
available to fund these projects, they would not
have been done at all.

The opportunity for these inmates to perform much
needed community services helps the program meet
two important objectives: fulfill the hard
physical labor component of the program and give
inmates positive and altruistic community 
experiences. The positive behavior exhibited by
inmates providing these community services is
consistent with the ninth step of the Twelve Steps
to Recovery program--to make "direct amends" for
past destructive behavior wherever possible.
Involving Shock Incarceration inmates in community
affairs also helps build strong local support for
Shock Incarceration programs and their
accomplishments.

Bed Savings and the Cost Avoidance Model

When measuring the effectiveness of a Shock
program using the standards of bed savings and
recidivism, New York's experience is consistent
with the findings of a 1993 U.S. General
Accounting Office (GAO) report. The report
concluded that shock programs reduced overall
corrections costs and systemwide crowding and
noted that of the jurisdictions studied New York
was the best example of reported cost savings
(U.S. General Accounting Office, 1993:25).

What would it have cost DOCS if the Shock
Incarceration program did not exist and all
graduates since the start of the program had
served out their sentences in non-Shock
Incarceration facilities? The model constructed to
answer this question measured the program's
effectiveness in two areas: 

o  Savings from reducing the need for care and
custody of inmates. 

o  Savings from avoiding capital construction
costs.

Because the New York model examined the fiscal
impact of the program since its inception, dollar
savings were considered to be cumulative. In New
York, it is more costly on a per diem basis to run
Shock Incarceration facilities than it is to run
selected minimum and medium security prisons. It
must be remembered, however, that per diem costs
constitute only part of the New York program's
fiscal outlook, as money is saved through the
early release of Shock Incarceration graduates. 

Successful completion of shock incarceration is
the only systemic way that New York State inmates
can be released prior to their parole eligibility
dates. As a result, graduates spend less time
incarcerated.

If the New York program did not exist, each of the
10,927 Shock Incarceration inmates released
through September 30, 1994, would have spent on
average 546 days in prison, including time in
reception, until their parole eligibility dates.
The actual time Shock Incarceration releasees
spent on average in DOCS custody, including time
in reception, was 216 days. Thus each inmate
released to parole supervision through Shock
Incarceration represented a net savings of 330
days, or approximately 10.8 months.

An additional source of savings separate from the
program's operating costs are bed savings, which
allow the State to avoid capital construction
costs as a result of not having to house Shock
Incarceration graduates.

By examining the distribution of incarceration
time owed by Shock Incarceration graduates, it is
possible to determine at any given point how many
of these inmates would still need to be housed if
the New York program were not in existence. As of
September 30, 1994, there were 2,173 inmates who
would have required department housing if Shock
Incarceration had not been available. 

Based on the results of this model, DOCS has
concluded that while the Shock Incarceration
program is expensive to operate, it is capable of
reducing the demand for bedspace and saving the
State money. (See the New York State Department of
Correctional Services and Division of Parole's
Annual Reports to the legislature for more
information.)

Returns to Custody 

The measure of community success typically used to
evaluate the performance of correctional treatment
programs is some form of recidivism. New York uses
a conservative measure of returns to custody for
new crimes and technical violations. To provide 
some basis for comparison, data for Shock 
Incarceration graduates are compared with
results for three groups of similar, legally
eligible inmates who were either not exposed to
shock incarceration or who were not able to
complete the program. These inmates served longer
prison sentences than Shock Incarceration
graduates and were released to community
supervision under less restrictive conditions. In
contrast, during their first 6 months in the
community, Shock Incarceration graduates are the
most intensively supervised parolees in New York
State and stay under active parole supervision
longer than their non-Shock Incarceration
counterparts.

Each year the return rates of Shock Incarceration
graduates and those of inmates in comparison
groups are examined. Offenders released between
March 1988 and March 1993 were tracked until March
1994. All participants had been released a minimum
of 12 months before data were collected. Success
rates were determined by the number of offenders
who had not been physically returned to DOCS
custody within 12, 24, 36, 48, and 60 months of
release. Shock Incarceration parolees have
consistently had the highest success rate at each
interval despite having spent between 8 and 12
fewer months in State prison.

Shock Incarceration parole supervision has also 
had a significant impact on employment and program 
enrollment rates of graduates relative to those 
of non-Shock Incarceration offenders who had 
traditional prison and parole experiences. It 
appears to be a factor helping Shock Incarceration 
graduates make the transition from institution to 
community.

Higher relative employment rates and greater
levels of program participation among former Shock
Incarceration inmates can be attributed in part to
the more intensive services provided to them
during their first 6 months on parole. Shock
Incarceration graduates' relative success can also
be attributed in part to the greater level of
motivation and spirit exhibited by newly released
Shock Incarceration offenders, who may be more
inclined to follow up on employment and program
referrals made by parole officers. These results
support the likelihood that Shock Incarceration
graduates will make a more successful transition
to community living and become more productive
citizens after release.

Conclusion

It is clear from this chapter that Shock
Incarceration in New York is a complex
correctional treatment program designed for
younger nonviolent offenders, which employs a
variety of change principles that have both
theoretical and practical underpinnings. Boot
camps serve a variety of purposes and are run very
differently one from another. To simply say that
all boot camps are the same is a gross
simplification. 

In New York, Shock Incarceration is a credible
correctional treatment alternative that affords
early release to youthful, nonviolent offenders,
thereby allowing the State to save prison space
for more violent and incorrigible offenders. But
beyond this, the Shock Incarceration program in
New York is a complex correctional treatment
program that employs a wide variety of methods to
change inmates' attitudes and behavior. The
standards first set for the program in 1987 have
been met. While not the cure-all many enthusiasts
have portrayed them to be, shock incarceration
programs like New York's can constitute an
effective intervention. 

Jurisdictions that run shock incarceration
programs are encouraged to take the time to
examine their programs' philosophies and to
evaluate how they are being run. As this chapter
has shown, there are a number of measures that can
be used to examine success. Using them will lead
to a better understanding of whom shock
incarceration is designed for and for whom it
appears to work. 

Bibliography

Allen, Fred. Extracts from Penological Reports and
Lectures Written by Members of the Management and
Staff of the New York State Reformatory, Elmira.
New York: The Summary Press, 1928.

Aziz, David. Shock Incarceration Evaluation:
Preliminary Data. Albany: New York State
Department of Correctional Services, Shock
Incarceration Legislative Report. Unpublished,
1988.

Aziz, David, Paul Korotkin, and Donald Macdonald.
Initial Follow-Up Study of Shock Incarceration
Graduates. Albany: New York State Department of
Correctional Services, Division of Program
Planning, Research and Evaluation. Unpublished,
1989.

Aziz, David, Paul Korotkin, and Donald Macdonald.
Shock Incarceration Program Follow-Up Study,
August 1990. Albany: New York Department of
Correctional Services, Division of Program
Planning, Research and Evaluation. Unpublished,
1990.

Aziz, David, Paul Korotkin, and Donald Macdonald.
Shock Incarceration Program Follow-Up Study, May
1991. Albany: New York Department of Correctional
Services, Division of Program Planning, Research
and Evaluation. Unpublished, 1991.

Beck, Allen J., and Bernard Shipley. Recidivism of
Prisoners Released in 1983. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice
Statistics, March 1989.

Camp, Camille, and George Camp. The Corrections
Yearbook 1994: Adult Corrections. South Salem, New
York: Criminal Justice Institute, 1994.

Clark, Cheryl L. Network Program Procedure Manual.
Albany: New York Department of Correctional
Services. Unpublished, 1979.  

Clark, Cheryl L. Network Program Procedural
Manual. Albany: New York State Department of
Correctional Services. Unpublished, 1985.

Clark, Cheryl L. Shock Incarceration Procedural
Manual. Albany: New York State Department of
Correctional Services. Unpublished, 1991.

Correctional Association of New York. Observations
and Proposals Regarding New York State's Shock
Incarceration Program. Albany: Correctional
Association of New York, March 1991.

DiIulio, John J. Governing Prisons: A Comparative
Study of Correctional Management. New York: The
Free Press, 1987.

Durkheim, Emile. Rules of the Sociological Method.
Translated by S.A. Lolvay and J.H. Mueller. G.
Catlin (ed). New York: The Free Press, 1966.

Farrell, Ron, and Lynn Swigert. Social Deviance.
Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Company, 1975.

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

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

Flowers, Gerald T., and R. Barry Ruback. Special
Alternative Incarceration Evaluation. Atlanta:
Georgia Department of Corrections, January 1991. 

Gendreau, Paul, and Robert Ross. "Effective
Correctional Treatment: Bibliotherapy for Cynics."
Crime and Delinquency, October 1979.

Georgia Department of Corrections. Georgia's
Special Alternative Incarceration. Unpublished
report to the Shock Incarceration Conference.
Washington, D.C., 1989.

Glasser, William. Reality Therapy. New York:
HarperCollins, 1965.

Glasser, William. Control Theory. New York:
HarperCollins, 1986.

Glasser, William. Control Theory in the Classroom.
New York: HarperCollins, 1987.

Hirschi, Travis. Causes of Delinquency. Los
Angeles and Berkeley: University of California
Press, 1969.

MacKenzie, Doris L. Evaluating Shock Incarceration
in Louisiana: A Review of the First Year.
Louisiana Department of Corrections. Unpublished
report, 1988.

MacKenzie, Doris L. The Parole Performance of
Offenders Released From Shock Incarceration (Boot
Camp Prisons): A Survival Time Analysis. Paper
presented at the American Probation and Parole
Association 14th Annual Training Institute,
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 1989.

MacKenzie, Doris L. "Boot Camps: Components,
Evaluations, and Empirical Issues." Federal
Probation, September 1990.

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

MacKenzie, Doris L., and D.B. Ballow. "Shock
Incarceration Programs In State Correctional
Jurisdictions--An Update." NIJ Reports, May/June
1989.

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

Merton, Robert K. "Social Structure and Anomie."
American Sociological Review, 3 (October
1938):678-682.  

Morash, Merry, and Lila Rucker. "A Critical Look
at the Idea of Boot Camp as a Correctional
Reform." Crime and Delinquency, 36, no. 2
(1990):204-222.

New York Department of Correctional Services.
Follow-Up Study of a Sample of Participants in the
Network Program, Albany: Division of Program
Planning, Research and Evaluation. Unpublished, 
1987.

New York State Department of Correctional
Services. Follow-Up Study of a Sample of Offenders
Who Earned High School Equivalency Diplomas While
Incarcerated. Albany: Division of Program
Planning, Research and Evaluation. Unpublished,
1989.

New York State Department of Correctional Services
and New York State Division of Parole. The Fifth
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, 1993.

New York State Department of Correctional Services
and New York State Division of Parole. The Sixth
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, 1994.

New York State Department of Correctional Services
and New York State Division of Parole. The Seventh
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, 1995.

New York State Division of Parole. Preliminary
Supervision Assessment of the First Six Shock
Incarceration Platoons. Albany: New York State
Division of Parole, Shock Incarceration 
Legislative Report. Unpublished, 1988.

New York State Division of Parole. Qualitative and
Descriptive Analysis of Shock Incarceration
Supervision Program. Albany: New York State
Division of Parole. Unpublished, 1989.

New York State Division of Parole. "Shock
Incarceration National Study." Parole Digest.
Albany: Office of Policy Analysis and Information.
Unpublished, May 1991.

Nossiter, Adam. "As Boot Camps for Criminals
Multiply, Skepticism Grows." New York Times (Dec.
18, 1993):A1.

Nye, F. Ivan. Family Relationships and Delinquent
Behavior. New York: Wiley, 1958.

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

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.

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):63-96.

Smith, Beverly. "Military Training at New York's
Elmira Reformatory, 1888-1920." Federal Probation,
March 1988.

Tucker, Neely. "Last Chance U." The Miami Herald
(Oct. 23, 1988):8-18.

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, April 1993.

U.S. House of Representatives. Subcommittee on
Crime, Committee on the Judiciary. On H.R. 2374,
Corrections Alternative Act of 1989. 101st
Congress, 1st Session, August 2, 1989.

U.S. House of Representatives. Subcommittee on
Criminal Justice, Committee on the Judiciary. On
H.R. 2985, Sentencing Option Act of 1989. 101st
Congress, 1st Session, September 14, 1989.

U.S. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary. The Major
Component of the Crime and Drug Problem in
America: Incarceration and Alternative Sanctions
for Drug Offenders. 101st Congress, 1st Session,
July 25, 1989.

U.S. Senate. Subcommittee on Oversight of
Government Management, Committee on Governmental
Affairs. Federal Role in Promoting and Using
Special Alternative Incarceration, 101st Congress,
2nd Session, January 19 and March 1, 1990.

Van Voorhise, Patricia, et al. "The Impact of
Family Structure and Quality on Delinquency: A
Comparative Assessment of Structural and
Functional Factors." Criminology, 26, no. 2
(1988):235-261.

Wells, L. Edward, and Joseph H. Rankin. "Direct
Parental Controls and Delinquency." Criminology,
26, no. 2 (May 1988)63-285.

Whiteley, Stuart. Dealing with Deviants: The
Treatment of Antisocial Behavior. New York:
Schocken, 1973.


------------------------------------------------------------------
Correctional Boot Camps: A Tough Intermediate Sanction - Chapter 4


The Development and Implementation of Illinois'
Impact Incarceration Program

by Robert J. Jones and Steven P. Karr

Robert Jones and Steven Karr are research
scientists for the Illinois Department of
Corrections. Mr. Jones has primary responsibility
for parole and work release classification, program
evaluation of incarceration alternatives and
correctional treatment programs, and recidivism and
legislative bill analyses. Mr. Karr's primary areas
of responsibility are the forecasting of juvenile
and adult populations, impact analyses of juvenile
policy, and evaluation of the State's Impact
Incarceration Program.

Illinois' implementation of a voluntary boot camp
program for nonviolent first offenders 17 to 29
years of age who had been sentenced to up to 5
years in prison involved the introduction of new
State legislation, extensive planning with
representatives of a broad spectrum of criminal
justice, educational, and social service agencies,
together with research and site visits to other
States to understand the options available in
instituting shock incarceration programs. The
impetus for the Illinois program was prison
crowding, but the program, as developed, included
rehabilitative programming to improve basic
education, reduce drug and alcohol abuse, and build
offenders' self-esteem and life skills. A
substantial aftercare component was built into the
program incorporating both electronic detention and
parole. Other features of the Illinois Impact
Incarceration Program include the special selection
and training of program staff and an evaluation
component. Illinois' first boot camp, at Dixon
Springs, opened in 1990, and the Greene County and
DuQuoin boot camps opened in 1993 and 1994,
respectively, in part to relieve a backlog of
offenders slated to enter the program. In 1993 the
Illinois Legislature increased the pool of eligible
offenders to include those who had committed second
offenses, were up to 35 years of age, and had been
sentenced to prison terms of not more than 8 years.

The Illinois prison population was well above rated
capacity during the 1980's due primarily to the
incarceration of large numbers of property and drug
offenders. At the close of fiscal year 1983, the
adult prison population was 13,735. By the end of
fiscal year 1990, it had doubled to 27,295. In part
as a response to this escalation, the Illinois
Department of Corrections (IDOC) decided to develop
a shock incarceration (boot camp) program for
nonviolent first-time offenders. 

Termed Impact Incarceration Program (IIP),
Illinois' was not the first shock incarceration
program implemented by a State correctional
authority, but it was one of the first boot camps
to incorporate extensive residential program
service elements and an intensive supervision
aftercare component. 

The IIP emphasizes the diversity of treatment
elements for successful correctional rehabilitative
programs both in the prison setting and in the
community. The IIP uses a structured environment to
address the problems that have led to the inmates'
criminal activity. The IIP has three components:

o  A basic military physical training model
stressing a highly structured and regimented
routine.

o  Substance abuse education, treatment, and
counseling, together with basic education, life
skills training, and aftercare preparation.

o  A period of gradual reintroduction to the
community through a series of increasingly less
restrictive supervision levels.

The IIP is a 120-day program, with the first 2
weeks consisting of orientation to military bearing
and physical activities and the final 2 weeks
directed toward aftercare preparation as the inmate
gets ready for release to the community. The 90-day
period between these two phases focuses on building
self-esteem through program services, instruction,
and treatment.

The IIP operates in three jurisdictions: Dixon
Springs, opened in 1990; Greene County, opened in
1993; and DuQuoin, opened in 1994. The Dixon
Springs correctional facility houses 220 male and
24 female inmates. Both Greene County and DuQuoin
have a 200-bed capacity for male inmates only.
Female inmates complete the same physical training
and labor details as male inmates.

This chapter provides considerable detail about how
the program was developed and implemented, together
with a discussion of its day-to-day operation, for
the benefit of jurisdictions considering
implementing or modifying their own boot camp
programs.

Program Development

Two activities had to precede the implementation
and much of the planning for the program. The first
was to secure the legislation that would set the
parameters for an effective boot camp program. The
second was to identify and secure State and Federal
funding.

Legislation

Development of a correctional boot camp program in
Illinois required changes in State statutes, a
process that began in February 1989 and culminated
in the signing of Public Acts 86-1182 and 86-1183
in July 1990. The legislative process was extensive
and called for compromise as staff from many
branches of corrections and other government
agencies expressed concerns for individual issues.
During the first few months, staff from IDOC's
Planning and Research Unit and Office of
Intergovern- mental Relations analyzed the data on
prison crowding and informed the General Assembly
of prospective impacts of a boot camp program on
the prison population. 

Two legislative bills and numerous amendments
mandating a prison boot camp program were
introduced in the Illinois General Assembly 
during the 1989 spring session. Discussion 
continued into the fall following further 
review by IDOC's Planning and Research Unit, 
Legal Services, and Intergovernmental
Relations Office, as well as the Attorney General's
Office.
 
After the law was passed, a Department Rule had to
be filed with the Secretary of State before the
first facility could begin operations.
Administrative directives (internal departmental
policies) and procedural forms were also prepared.

Planning

A great deal of groundwork needed to be laid,
including development of a planning committee
representing a broad spectrum of perspectives and
experience that would learn as much as possible
about Illinois' options in selecting sites,
determining offender eligibility, and designing an
effective program. 

Department staff at all levels (executive,
administrative, fiscal, research, and line staff)
participated in the planning process, which began
with a series of administrative planning sessions,
research and site visits of other shock
incarceration programs, and development of policy
and procedural documents. A small planning
committee was selected and met regularly to study
the implementation of a shock incarceration
program. Many other experienced staff served as
consultants, providing advice to committee members,
assisting with written documents, and making
presentations at planning sessions. 

Committee members studied research publications,
State evaluation documents, and videos of boot
camps in other jurisdictions to review methods of
educating young, unsophisticated offenders to
promote future lawful, responsible behavior,
respect for authority, and self-esteem, and at the
same time reduce prison bedspace and preserve
public safety. They looked at how a shock
incarceration program would affect their
responsibilities, staff under their supervision,
and all of IDOC. They discussed the degree to which
discipline, physical activities, labor details, and
military bearing would be balanced with program
services, instruction, and aftercare supervision.

The committee defined a common purpose, drafted a
mission statement, prepared specific objectives,
and outlined a timetable for monitoring progress
and documenting achievements. 

Obtaining Funds

General revenue funds allocated to the new program
did not cover all elements. Looking for outside
funding, IDOC applied for Federal money available
from the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law
Enforcement Assistance Program, Title VI of the
Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988. Among other strategies
to control drugs and improve the criminal justice
system, Byrne funds support correctional
alternatives for persons who pose no danger to the
community, through formula grants and competitive
discretionary grants to States. 

IDOC received a $250,000 discretionary grant, the
largest award available, primarily for program
services and program evaluation. Grant funds were
used for salaries of educators, social workers, and
an in-house parole agent to provide instruction in
basic education, life skills, substance abuse, and
aftercare preparation. Federal funds also supported
a parole agent in the community, who worked with
the in-house agent to develop individual
supervision plans and coordinate community
referrals. Funds were established for drug testing
and electronic detention equipment to monitor IIP
graduates. A research scientist was hired onsite to
evaluate the program, collect and analyze data, and
write progress reports. Remaining funds were used
for travel within the State, site visits to boot
camps in other States, and supplies for program
services staff.

At the end of the first year of Dixon Springs'
operation, IDOC was awarded another $200,000 in
Federal funding under the same discretionary grant
program because of the progress made during the
implementation and development of the program,
especially in the program service components. 

Further, substance abuse education and treatment at
all IIP facilities has been funded through a grant
from the Illinois Criminal Justice Information
Authority, which distributes Federal drug
appropriations, letting out contracts to private 
agencies for services.

Visits to Other Boot Camps

It was essential that IDOC staff visit and discuss
shock incarceration programs with experienced
administrators and line staff before and after
implementing the program. The education and
exchange of ideas would yield meaningful
information from the successes and failures of
other programs. Time and energy would be saved, and
fewer problems would be confronted.

During the initial planning stages, several State
administrators, legislators, and IIP staff visited
an existing prison boot camp facility, the Special
Alternative Incarceration Program in Michigan.
During a 2-week period, they witnessed all phases
of the program's operations, reviewed program
documents, and interviewed experienced line staff.

A second site visit resulted from IDOC's
participation in an evaluation of shock
incarceration in eight States, sponsored by the
National Institute of Justice. Planning and
research staff joined correctional researchers from
the seven other States in a visit to the Lakeview
Shock Incarceration Program in New York during
August 1990. The visit incorporated 3 days of
discussion of shock incarceration evaluation
strategies.

A third site visit took place in December 1991,
after the Dixon Springs IIP had been operating for
a full year. Six IDOC staff, now experienced in the
implementation and operation of a boot camp
program, observed functions at six Georgia DOC boot
camp facilities. Georgia had recently completed a
comprehensive evaluation of its boot camp program
and was expanding the program to include various
prison populations. IDOC was able to use the
information gleaned in Georgia to review the
implementation progress of the IIP. Innovative
ideas regarding program components, philosophy,
operations, and facility design were recorded and
used.

Site Selection

One of IDOC's most important considerations was
whether to house the boot camp in an existing
facility or construct a new one. IDOC chose to
convert an existing work camp facility for its
first boot camp because the management system and
fiscal structure of Illinois' work camps were
considered to be similar to those of boot camps. 

IDOC selected the site of the former Dixon Springs
Work Camp located in southern Illinois. The site
was isolated and would provide meaningful work
opportunities in the Shawnee National Forest and
the economically disadvantaged surrounding
communities while reducing construction costs.

The capacity at the Dixon Springs Work Camp was 150
beds, requiring renovation to expand to the 200
beds planned for the boot camp. The conversion
process included constructing an asphalted area for
exercising and marching, developing additional
parking space, grading the site, improving general
site lighting, installing ceiling and floor tiles,
and repairing fire alarms. The existing gymnasium
was partially converted to programming use. 

After the first 4 months of operation, 30 more beds
were added. The expansion of the facility from its
original 150-bed capacity to 230 beds required IDOC
to upgrade the sewage treatment facilities and
kitchen maintenance equipment and further renovate
instructional classrooms. 

Selecting Offenders for the Program

In formulating IIP legislation, the Illinois
General Assembly provided for input from both
judges and correctional officials in the selection
process. The judge recommends a statutorily
eligible inmate for placement in the program, and
IDOC staff further review the case to determine if
the inmate would pose a safety, mental health, or
security risk. This system allows a series of
criminal justice professionals to review each case;
combined efforts are used to select the lowest risk
candidates. 

Allowing experienced corrections staff to help
select participants had two advantages. First, it
was likely that prison admissions would increase if
the judge were allowed sole discretion. Other
States' experiences indicated that judges would
tend to sentence offenders to boot camp who would
normally receive probation to "teach them a
lesson." If the net were thus widened, offenders
would be added to the traditional prison
population. On the other hand, disallowing judicial
discretion might hinder existing cooperation
between the courts and the correctional system. 

Having decided that the IIP was most appropriate
for young, nonviolent, low-risk offenders sentenced
to adult prison for the first time, IDOC developed
more specific criteria for selecting candidates.
Based on the experience of other programs and a
profile of eligible candidates sentenced to prison
each year, IDOC sought candidates who:

o  Were between 17 and 29 years old. It was
expected that the number of first-time offenders 30
years or older in good physical condition would be
limited and would be likely to defy authority and
challenge orders in front of their younger cohorts.

o  Received a sentence of 5 years' imprisonment or
less. The 4-month IIP program reduces the length of
incarceration. Accepting offenders with longer
sentences would shorten the incarceration time even
further, but they would pose higher risks because
of the greater seriousness of their offenses.

o  Could participate in strenuous physical
activities or labor. Inmates with physical problems
would be most likely to quit the program or be
forced to leave for medical reasons, adding an
unnecessary cost to the program. A comprehensive
physical examination would take place at reception
and classification centers, and a doctor would have
to approve and sign an IIP-specific medical
screening form.

o  Would consent in writing to participate in the
IIP. The program was designed to be voluntary to
allow inmates the personal decision to enter and
withdraw. A voluntary program would also reduce the
likelihood of attempts to escape. A
consent-to-participate form was developed which
each inmate would read and sign before placement in
the program. Inmates who decided to leave the
program would have to sign a notice of voluntary
termination.

Excluded were:

o  Candidates who had previously served a felony
sentence in an adult correctional facility.

o  Offenders convicted of a Class X felony (serious
crime), first or second degree murder, armed
violence, aggravated kidnapping, criminal sexual
assault, aggravated criminal abuse, criminal sexual
abuse, forcible detention, or arson.

o  Offenders with a mental disorder or disability
that would prevent participation in the IIP.
Inmates had to be able to understand and follow
direct orders and not be intimidated to the point
of assaulting staff and other inmates when under
pressure. A separate, more detailed mental health
examination would take place at IDOC's Reception
and Classification Center, and the psychologist
would approve and sign an IIP-specific mental
health screening form.

IDOC would also consider whether the committed
person had a history of escape or absconding or any
outstanding detainers or warrants and whether
participation in the Impact Incarceration Program
would pose a safety or security risk.

Training Staff

IIP security staff were required to have 1 year of
experience as correctional officers. All security
staff had to participate in 240 hours of IDOC
preservice correctional officer training, followed
by another 40 hours of orientation at their
worksite. Thereafter, 40 hours of inservice
training were required at the worksite annually.
IIP Dixon Springs staff were required, in addition,
to complete 80 hours of specialized boot camp
training before joining the boot camp staff. 

The ensuing training program consisted of 12
modules covering military drill, inspections, and
physical training; disciplinary procedures; and
instruction skills, classroom management, and
program delivery. There was a substantial emphasis
on health issues, communicable diseases, and crisis
intervention as well as on safety precautions,
especially in the drill and physical training
components. The lesson plans in the training manual
offered guidelines on time allotment, target
population, number of participants, and classroom
space for particular components. The curriculum
contained examinations, films, role playing, and
interaction simulations. A considerable number of
activities encouraged officers to understand and
become acclimated to the use of nonverbal
communication skills.

Moreover, staff had to maintain themselves in good
physical condition. Staff medical examinations and
psychological screening became mandatory, with
procedures negotiated with employee unions.

Black, military-style uniforms were designed to
distinguish boot camp personnel from the
green-uniformed officers in conventional Illinois
prisons. Staff uniforms had to be neatly cleaned
and pressed to encourage orderliness and personal
hygiene among the inmates. Blocked hats emphasized
the military environment. 

Information Dissemination

Two groups needed immediate information about the
program: judges needed to understand the purpose of
the shock incarceration program and their roles in
it; sentenced offenders needed to know about the
options before them so that qualified candidates
would volunteer for the program. 

Sentencing judges had to be made fully aware of the
criteria, components, and philosophy of the shock
incarceration program so that they could make
knowledgeable decisions in recommending offenders
for the program. To publicize the program before it
began, IDOC made available a video about the
proposed IIP and distributed it to judges and other
interested parties. A second video was later
prepared showing program activities after the IIP
began operations. 

Providing information to the courts is an ongoing
effort. Since August 1990 correctional
administrators have made a series of presentations
to the judiciary to help it better understand the
program. IDOC staff also work with the
Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts (AOIC)
to inform judges during AOIC training sessions.
Copies of the IIP evaluation reports are mailed to
judges periodically to keep them informed of
program progress.

It was deemed important to inform inmates as well
about the IIP, its advantages, requirements, and
regimen. Thus, IDOC prepared a video that explained
the IIP concept in clear, simple language for
recommended offenders who had not yet volunteered
for participation. Counselors at IDOC's Reception
and Classification Center (R&C) were trained to
provide consistent, reliable information to
potential candidates. Any forms that inmates would
need to review while making their decision to enter
the IIP were made available, and they were notified
of all consequences, including the strenuous
environment and shortened prison sentence, before
signing participatory forms.

Backlog Problems

At first, all approved inmates were sent directly
to the boot camp, but as publicity was generated by
the opening of the boot camp, the number of
judicial recommendations increased to the point
that by January 1991 the IIP was consistently
filled to capacity. It thus became necessary to
have the male inmates awaiting entry held in a
housing unit separate from the general population,
at a nearby adult prison facility. 

Over time, not only did the number of inmates
waiting to enter the IIP increase, but the waiting
period before entering the program increased as
well. At one point the backlog reached 224 inmates
who were waiting an average of 4 months to enter
the program, increasing their prison stays and
reducing cost savings.

This caused logistical and security problems, as
institutional schedules had to be shuffled to keep
the IIP inmates separate from the general
population. For example, prospective IIP inmates
had their recreational periods at night when the
other inmates were sleeping or confined to their
cells. Confrontations took place when general
population inmates taunted and ridiculed inmates in
the IIP holding unit.

Another consequence of the backlog was that a
number of candidates, chafing at the delay, changed
their minds about entering the program. As their
release dates came closer, traditional prison and
regular parole options seemed once more viable
alternatives to the strenuous program and its
intensive supervision. Worse, during the waiting
period the candidates' lack of contact with inmates
in the general population limited the type and
number of activities they could undertake during
the day. Some committed disciplinary infractions
that eventually rendered them ineligible for the
program. The backlog problem was eventually solved
through the opening of a second facility.

Eligible boot camp inmates are still held in
custody apart from the general prison population
while they undergo the extensive screening process
at R&C. Delays in reviewing court documents and
warrants, together with medical problems that
present obstacles to approval for entry into the
IIP, cause candidate inmates to continue to be
temporarily housed at the holding facility. In both
of these circumstances, the inmate may be returned
to R&C to be screened again.

Current Program Operation

As has been shown, development of Illinois' shock
incarceration program took time, comprehensive
planning, and the participation of many players.
Since the program was initiated, it has undergone
further refinement, but the early efforts have
benefited the program, which has gained favorable
public acceptance, the thoughtful input of judges,
and the enrollment of hundreds of sentenced
offenders. Since program inception, 6,367 inmates
have been admitted to the IIP. Of these, 4,079 have
graduated, 1,119 have left voluntarily, and 528
have been removed involuntarily. On June 30, 1995,
641 inmates were participating in the program. 

Orientation

Immediately upon arrival at the IIP, new program
participants begin an orientation that prepares
them for military regimentation and enables staff
to assess them for appropriate programming. The
recruits receive intensive instruction in military
bearing, courtesy, drill and ceremony, and physical
exercise. The purpose of the introductory phase is
to provide a realistic overview of the IIP and of
the expectations and potential benefits of the
program.

After the 2-hour intake process, inmates meet with
a correctional officer to review the orientation
manual, then with a parole agent to learn about
electronic detention and the aftercare component.
On the second day, new inmates start learning
military bearing and drill, activities that will
consume most of their time during the orientation
period. 

During this phase, inmates wear white jump suits to
identify them as new recruits, or "ghosts." This is
the most difficult period of the program for them.
They also have an opportunity to talk to the
experienced inmates to learn more about the program
and to have some of their fears allayed. Most
adjust to the rigorous structure, but some decide
to drop out during this period.

Staff are slightly more lenient toward the new
inmates at this time. With the elimination of
alcohol, cigarettes, and drugs, running and other
strenuous exercises are at first difficult. Ghosts
are allowed to build their physical endurance.
However, after 2 weeks, all inmates are expected to
participate in full exercise. 

Before leaving the orientation phase, all inmates
receive a manual that contains the IIP mission
statement, a list of formal procedures regarding
care of personal items and inmate dress codes, and
a narrative describing expectations and program
activities. The manual also describes IDOC rules
about disciplinary procedures and the inmate
grievance process. 

Inmates then enter the core program, where
participation in regularly scheduled exercises and
all program activities is mandatory. Activities are
scheduled from 5:30 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. 

General Residential Rules 

Inmates must adhere to all requirements and rules
of conduct. Violation results in sanctions
consistent with the program's disciplinary
procedures. Positive behavior that supports
individual and community growth is required, while
negative behavior is targeted for change. Training
alternatives, such as exercises of the day and a
demerit system, are used in a progressive manner to
instill correct behavior. 

Military bearing is strictly enforced when inmates
address program staff, gather for meal formation,
and participate in drills. Specific rules of
conduct for grooming standards, dress codes, and
foot locker maintenance are also enforced. Staff
conduct personal and room inspections as well as
inmate counts periodically throughout the day.

Personal items such as reading materials or
electrical items are prohibited, and telephone,
mail, and visiting privileges are limited. Inmates
can receive commissary credits but only after
purchases of necessary personal items have been
deducted. Voluntary interfaith services are held
for an hour each Sunday.

Medical emergencies or medical complaints are
referred to an onsite health professional; sick
call is conducted daily. Medically unfit inmates
must stay on a medical bunk (without receiving
participation credit for that day) while they are
incapacitated. 

While not participating in program services,
inmates work on in-house details and public service
crews cleaning grounds and roads. Inmates do work
that is highly visible to the surrounding
communities and builds good public relations for
the program. The IIP also receives considerable
media exposure, second only to the publicity
generated by the military style of the boot camp.
During the summer of 1993, the IIP received
national recognition through the print and
broadcast media for efforts to control Mississippi
River flooding. 

Substance Abuse Education and Treatment

The IIP provides a unique opportunity for treating
substance abuse and breaking the cycle of drugs and
crime. The IIP philosophy demands that the process
begin at admission and continue through PreStart
(parole) supervision. Inmates are counseled about
the dangers of drug and alcohol abuse and the
ramifications of selling drugs on the streets.
Further, by instilling discipline, self-esteem, and
positive work habits, the IIP teaches inmates that
there are other, safer ways to make a living than
resorting to drug dealing and substance abuse.

During orientation inmates are fully assessed and
evaluated by licensed substance abuse
professionals, and individual treatment plans are
developed. The IIP is the only State correctional
boot camp that offers multilevel drug treatment.
Classified inmates fall into three categories:

o  Level I inmates are designated as having no
probable substance abuse and receive 2 weeks of
drug education, during which they learn to identify
and distinguish between different types of drugs
and their effects. All inmates participate in drug
education. 

o  Level II inmates are considered to be probable
substance abusers. In addition to drug education,
these inmates receive 4 weeks of drug treatment in
which denial and family support issues are
discussed in group therapy. 

o  Level III inmates have been determined to have
probable drug addictions and receive special group
services. They review issues discussed in Level I
and Level II and discuss substance abuse relapse,
codependency, behavioral differences, and addicted
families, along with the role that they play within
their families. Therapy continues for a 10-week
period after the 2 weeks of drug education. During
the final 2 weeks of the IIP, Level II and Level
III inmates meet with substance abuse counselors to
arrange referrals for treatment upon release. 

Basic Education

Program services in basic education are designed to
enable IIP participants to receive their general
equivalency diploma (GED). Inmates are assessed at
orientation through the Test of Adult Basic
Education; those scoring lower than a sixth grade
level are required to attend a special class.
Further testing to measure progress is conducted
throughout participation in the IIP. 

Inmates work at their own pace in the class. Not
all are able to achieve the GED certificate level,
but they are expected to work hard in the
classroom. Teamwork is emphasized to ensure that
individual educational achievement goals are met. 

Inmates who already have a high school diploma or
GED certificate help instructors in the educational
development of other inmates. Outside the
classroom, inmates are allowed to study during free
periods that are incorporated into the daily
schedule. Inmates are tutored by other IIP
participants during study times. Through fiscal
year 1995, 810 inmates had taken the GED
examination, of which 704 had passed (87 percent).

Inmates who leave the IIP without a GED are
assessed prior to release, and plans are made for
them to continue their education and obtain a GED
during the aftercare phase.

Life Skills Development

IIP inmates participate in classroom sessions and
group discussions in the basic life skills and
positive value structures that will enable them to
function in their community. The life skills
curriculum focuses on four key areas: self-esteem,
employment preparedness, financial planning, and
health awareness. 

IIP staff introduce inmates to the services
available in the community and help them obtain
important credentials, such as a social security
card, birth certificate, driver's license, and
library card. After release, parole staff help them
make use of programs and services for gaining job
referrals and developing job-searching techniques;
these include Correctional Employment Services, the
Illinois Job Service, the Job Training Partnership
Act, and Title XX vendors. Inmates are also
instructed in how to collaborate with State
agencies, such as the Departments of Children and
Family Services, Public Aid, Alcoholism and
Substance Abuse, and Mental Health and
Developmental Disabilities. 

Aftercare Preparation

Preparation for aftercare begins when the inmates
arrive at the boot camp; release plans are
developed for their eventual placement on
electronic detention. During the final 2 weeks of
participation, inmates develop a release program
with parole staff. An Individual Development Plan
(IDP) is formed that comprehensively identifies
postrelease needs and outlines a needs-resolution
strategy with short- and long-range goals. The plan
becomes part of the Mandatory Supervised Release
(MSR) agreement signed by the releasee. Topics
covered in the IDP include long-range personal
goals and a maintenance program for health and
physical fitness, social relationships, and
positive use of free time; assessment of current
and future problems, with appropriate resolutions;
and orientation to MSR responsibilities. 

IDOC employs a full range of resources to achieve
beneficial programming in employment, education,
and training. Referrals for use of these resources
are initiated during this aftercare preparation
phase of the IIP residential component. Although it
is not a mandatory element of the program, IIP
graduates are sometimes released to community
correctional centers or contracted halfway house
facilities when a suitable host site cannot be
designated for electronic detention.

Inmates view a video on electronic detention that
answers questions about what will be expected of
them after release, and each inmate meets with the
parole agent who coordinates aftercare activities
and determines possible host sites for electronic
detention. 

Leaving the Program

The IIP is a voluntary program beginning at the
time of the recommendation and sentencing by the
judge, during the screening and approval process,
and continuing throughout the 120 days of boot
camp. At each of these stages, an inmate can
withdraw from the program, with full understanding
of the consequences of this withdrawal. Inmates who
still request removal are placed on a "quitter's
bunk," where they can discuss the issue with staff
and other inmates. All means available are used to
keep participants in the program; inmates who
withdraw cannot reenter.

An inmate can be involuntarily terminated from the
IIP for a major rule violation or noncompliance
with program requirements as documented by
disciplinary notices. This usually follows an
accumulation of numerous infractions, careless
following of program rules, or challenges to
authority through intimidation and threats. 

An inmate can also be discharged for medical or
mental health reasons or for mistakes made in the
eligibility review. 

Extensions of time. Inmates may have their terms
extended up to 60 days beyond the 120-day boot camp
period for disciplinary reasons, medical problems,
or other interruptions in their active program
participation. For instance, inmates who consider
leaving the program voluntarily are allowed time to
weigh the decision. 

However, any time spent on this "quitter's" status
is not counted as active participation, and if they
decide to stay in the program they must make up the
lost time. In some cases boot camp inmates are
allowed 3 days that do not need to be made up;
these are for circumstances beyond their control
(such as injuries sustained during program
activities), after staff review the circumstances.

Graduation. Formal graduation ceremonies were
included in the IIP's original design to end the
residential phase of the program with a positive,
ceremonious recognition of participants'
accomplishments. IIP graduating inmates address
their fellow inmates during morning formations,
showing them that they have learned respect for
authority and have acquired an ability to work with
others. The graduates encourage inmates who are
just beginning program activities or contemplating
voluntary termination to stay with the program. IIP
staff congratulate the graduates individually and
give them their diplomas. 

Aftercare Program

After release from the IIP, graduates begin a
two-tiered aftercare program designed to gradually
reintegrate them into the community. This consists
of electronic detention followed by regular
parole.1 

The relatively short stay at the boot camp marks
just the beginning of efforts to address and
resolve the underlying issues that have contributed
to an inmate's criminal behavior. Aftercare
supervision is designed to closely monitor the
releasee's activities and encourage law-abiding
behavior. IIP graduates must participate in 35
hours per week of primary programming after
release. Primary programming consists of education,
employment, community service, substance abuse
treatment, or group therapy. Graduates with a
limited work history or who have no viable
vocational skills are encouraged to enroll in a
training program. Functionally illiterate releasees
are required to enroll in a literacy program.
Graduates are required to register with local job
services and work with them until a job is found.
Drug and alcohol counseling is mandatory for those
with a substance abuse history.

Overall, the program gradually moves the releasee
through a series of supervision levels. It is
designed to reward positive adjustment and deter
unwanted behavior. Releasees who demonstrate
positive behavior are moved to the next, less
restrictive phase. Minor violations or consistent
lack of motivation to become fully active in
worthwhile program activities delay the releasee's
progress. 

This final phase reinforces the program's accent on
public safety. During the first 90 days after
release, when the graduate is on electronic
detention, random drug tests and physical spot
checks are conducted and a curfew is strictly
enforced. A schedule outlining the graduate's
activities outside the home must be approved by
parole staff, and face-to-face contacts are
frequent. After successful community reintegration
during electronic detention, as evidenced by stable
employment, educational pursuit, or absence of
substance abuse, graduates are placed in the
regular parole supervision component (PreStart).

PreStart focuses on providing services that will
reduce patterns of reoffending. Community service
centers allow releasees in search of job,
educational, and counseling opportunities to
contact parole staff. Emphasis is directed toward
providing reintegrative programming rather than
strict enforcement of the MSR agreement.

Program Evaluation

Since the program was implemented, the IIP's
developmental progress has been continuously
monitored mainly due to two factors. First, an
enacting clause in the IIP legislation mandates
that IDOC submit an annual report documenting
program activities and profiling inmates
recommended for the program. Illinois is one of
only two States (New York is the other) that
publish annual reports describing their
correctional boot camps. Second, participation in
the National Institute of Justice's Multisite Study
of Shock Incarceration provided guidelines and
materials to evaluate the program. This is
important because a main criticism in the
development of correctional boot camps nationwide
has been that methods in place for program
evaluation are flawed and that there is
insufficient evidence that boot camps are 
effective.

In response to those concerns, IDOC has made a
commitment to analyze the program internally and to
allow external reviewers to evaluate it as well.
During the implementation phase, a process
evaluation was conducted to determine whether the
IIP was operating according to design. This
resulted in an increase in the number of scheduled
hours for program services and a revision of
disciplinary procedures. Further, an analysis of
the backlog of IIP-eligible inmates, which started
4 months after the program was implemented, allowed
IDOC to determine that the IIP should be expanded
to a second site. The Greene County IIP started 
operations in March 1993. 

As part of a series of recommendations, the
Illinois Task Force on Crime and Corrections, using
profile data provided by IDOC, called for expanding
the statutory eligibility for the IIP. This
recommendation culminated in a new law, enacted in
August 1993, extending the maximum age of
eligibility from 29 to 35, extending the maximum
sentence from 5 to 8 years, and permitting
second-time offenders to enter the program. The
other eligibility criteria remained unchanged.
Expansion of the eligibility criteria was primarily
responsible for the opening of the DuQuoin IIP in
August 1994.

IDOC has a quasi-experimental design in place to
analyze recidivism and cost effectiveness.
Comparison groups are made up of inmates who are
statutorily eligible for the IIP but are either not
recommended by judges or are denied participation
by IDOC. During 3-year followup periods, recidivism
analyses are conducted, with recidivism defined as
a return to prison.

A study of IIP graduates revealed that 21 percent
of releasees returned to prison with a new offense
within 3 years of release. This was found to be
significantly lower than the comparison group's
rate of 34 percent. Conversely, IIP graduates
returned to prison with a technical violation (as
opposed to a new crime) significantly more often
than traditional releasees. In addition, fiscal
analyses have revealed that the IIP has reduced
incarceration costs by more than $11,500,000 since
program inception. Primarily, this has been due to
prison time reduction, which assists IDOC in
conserving bedspace for higher risk inmates.

The recidivism results are consistent with the
findings of the Multisite Study of Shock
Incarceration. The study employed survival time
procedures where the prevalence of recidivism and
time spent on parole prior to a recidivism event
are analyzed together. Illinois and Louisiana were
the only States of eight studied that had
significantly lower new offense rates for boot camp
graduates and New York had lower rates of technical
violations in comparison to similar prison
releasees (see chapter 18 of this volume).

Another study sponsored by the Illinois Criminal
Justice Information Authority examined the new
offense return-to-prison rates for IIP graduates,
IIP failures, and traditional inmates. The study
also included an examination of IIP graduates based
on the level of assessed substance abuse treatment
provided while at the boot camp. The study revealed
that drug offenders among IIP graduates returned to
prison less often than IIP failures and traditional
releasees. Younger offenders in all three groups 
returned at a higher rate than their older 
counterparts. IIP graduates assessed for the most 
intensive substance abuse treatment had the highest
return-to-prison rates. Original offense type, age, 
and committing county also proved to be indicators 
of recidivism.

Summary

The development and implementation of the IIP was
an arduous process requiring much planning and
deliberation. Although this chapter does not detail
the specifics involved in putting the IIP into
operation, key elements and considerations in
beginning a correctional boot camp program have
been noted.

A collaborative effort supported by a multitude of
staff representing all phases of the legislative,
administrative, and correctional process was
instrumental in establishing a correctional boot
camp program. IDOC instituted a series of planning
sessions, pursued outside funding to support
rehabilitative programs and staff, visited boot
camps in other States, and prepared alternative
procedural documents and training curriculums.

Most important, IIP administrators were flexible in
their approach to making programmatic changes based
on evaluation during the initial stages of
development. This included revision of the
disciplinary procedures, increase in the number of
hours for instruction and other programming,
expansion of the program to additional sites, and
expansion of the eligibility criteria. The key
aspects of program review focused on monitoring
data over extended followup periods, developing
profiles of all recommended IIP-eligible inmates,
and participating in research studies. 

The intent has been to build a boot camp program
that can demonstrate proper methods of behaving in
society--procedures that must be demonstrated in a
relatively short time period and must be carried
into the community and maintained in the future. It
is anticipated that the IIP will continue to result
in advantages for the reduction of prison crowding
as well as for the young men and women who go
through the program. 

Note

1.  A significant program modification occurred on
November 1, 1992, when IDOC removed part of the IIP
aftercare component. Under previous policy, IIP
graduates spent at least 90 days on electronic
detention plus at least 90 additional days on
intensive supervision prior to being placed under
regular parole (PreStart) supervision. The
intensive supervision requirement was abolished
mainly because of low recidivism rates for
commission of new offenses by IIP graduates during
the first year after release from the IIP. This was
based on comparative analyses conducted with
inmates released from traditional institutions who
had similar demographic, criminal history, and
sentence characteristics.

References

Campaign for an Effective Crime Policy. Evaluating
Boot Camp Prisons. Public Policy Report Series,
1994.

Cowles, Ernest L., Thomas C. Castellano, and Laura
A. Gransky. "Boot Camp" Drug Treatment and
Aftercare Intervention: An Evaluation Review.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,
National Institute of Justice, 1995.

Cronin, Roberta C. Boot Camps for Adult and
Juvenile Offenders: Overview and Update.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,
National Institute of Justice, 1994.

Gransky, Laura A., and Robert J. Jones. Evaluation
of the Post-Release Status of Substance Abuse
Program Participants. Chicago: Illinois Criminal
Justice Information Authority, 1995.

Illinois Compiled Statutes. Chapter 730, ILCS, 5/5-
8-1.1, 1995.

Illinois Department of Corrections. Impact
Incarceration Program: 1992 Annual Report to the
Governor and the General Assembly. Springfield:
Illinois Department of Corrections, 1992.

Illinois Revised Statutes. Chapter 38, paragraph
1005-8-1.1, 1991.

Illinois Task Force on Crime and Corrections. Final
Report, 1993.

Jones, Robert J. 1994 Statistical Presentation.
Springfield: Illinois Department of Corrections,
1995.

Karr, Steven P., and Robert J. Jones. Impact
Incarceration Program: 1993 Annual Report to the
Governor and the General Assembly. Springfield:
Illinois Department of Corrections, 1994.

Karr, Steven P., and Robert J. Jones. Impact
Incarceration Program: 1994 Annual Report to the
Governor and the General Assembly. Springfield:
Illinois Department of Corrections, 1994.

MacKenzie, Doris L. "Boot Camp Prisons: Components,
Evaluations, and Empirical Issues." Federal
Probation, 54 (1990):44-52.

MacKenzie, Doris L., and Claire Souryal. Multisite
Evaluation of Shock Incarceration. Evaluation
Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1994.

New York State Department of Correctional Services
and New York State Division of Parole. The Seventh
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 report, 1995.

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.


------------------------------------------------------------------
Correctional Boot Camps: A Tough Intermediate Sanction - Chapter 5


Programming in Georgia's Boot Camps

by John P. Keenan

John Keenan has worked in the Georgia Department of
Corrections for 15 years and is currently the
evaluation team leader for the department's
Evaluation Unit. 

Georgia's boot camps date back to 1983 when the
State's Department of Corrections instituted
Special Alternative Incarceration (SAI) to relieve
the increasingly crowded conditions in prisons and
jails. SAI provided short terms of imprisonment,
followed by community supervision, as a condition
for probation. Georgia's Comprehensive Correctional
Boot Camp Program is an outgrowth of SAI and
incorporates boot camps for both probationers and
sentenced inmates, as well as special programs for
certain State prisoners and detention centers for
selected nonviolent offenders as a condition of
probation. This chapter presents findings from a
descriptive process evaluation. Georgia's
Comprehensive Correctional Boot Camp Program
provides a military-style regimen for all
participants, inside and outside work detail,
physical training, basic education, and programming
in life skills and alcohol and substance abuse
treatment. 

Georgia was one of the first States in the Nation
to use shock incarceration as a response to
increased prison commitments and a chronic shortage
of bedspace. During the late 1960's, several
counties in Georgia had shut down their county work
camps, producing overcrowded State facilities and
large backlogs of sentenced inmates in local jails.
Throughout the 1970's, Georgia jail and prison
systems were beleaguered by repeated crowding
crises that were relieved only by having the State
Board of Pardons and Parole release more prisoners
(Flowers et al., 1991). By the early 1980's, jail
and prison crowding was universally recognized as
the most serious problem facing Georgia's criminal
justice system.

This chapter provides background on Georgia's
experience in developing its boot camp program and
describes the current system. Some early findings
of a process evaluation (see box) and a description
of programs in Georgia's boot camp facilities are
presented. (Disciplinary aspects of the program are
described in detail in chapter 12 of this volume.)

SAI: Forerunner of Today's Boot Camp Program

One of the initiatives to deal with correctional
crowding was the development of the Special
Alternative Incarceration (SAI) program. Mandated
as a special condition to a sentence of probation,
SAI required participants to serve 90 days in
prison and then a period of postconfinement
community supervision. The program offered judges a
statewide sentencing alternative to lengthy prison
terms.

SAI's prison phase was an intense, rigorously
structured 90-day experience. Hard manual labor and
strenuous physical conditioning exercises were the
key components of this phase, and strict
military-style discipline and regimen were its
hallmark features. The followup community
supervision, while less structured than prison,
applied the general conditions of regular
probation. Some selected offenders were required to
follow SAI with assignment to a diversion center (a
4-month residential program) or Intensive
Supervision Probation (Flowers et al., 1991).

The first SAI program was established in 1983 at
Dodge Correctional Institution (C.I.) in Chester.
Fifty beds at Dodge C.I. were used to house the SAI
offenders, who were kept separate from the general
inmate population. In November 1986, a second SAI
program was started at Burruss
Correctional/Training Center in Forsyth.

In January 1991, the Georgia Department of
Corrections completed a major evaluation of SAI as
it existed from 1983 to 1990 (Flowers et al.,
1991). The study examined program operations and
analyzed various return-to-prison rates of SAI
graduates. It found that Superior Court judges
sentenced 4,743 offenders to SAI between December
1983 and December 1990. During 1990 alone, judges
sentenced 1,077 offenders to the program. SAI
participants were 43 percent urban and 55 percent
black; 15 percent were convicted of violent crimes,
26 percent of drug offenses, and 49 percent of
property offenses.

The evaluators concluded that for the particular
offenders studied, within the limits of the
analytic approach employed, recidivism of SAI
participants was lower than recidivism of regular
prisoners. Recidivism of SAI probationers was lower
than that of offenders receiving intensive
supervision probation, comparable to that of
residents of diversion centers, and higher than
that of offenders sentenced to regular probation.

Today's Comprehensive Correctional Boot Camp
Program

Much has happened to affect the SAI program since
that evaluation took place. During his campaign in
1990, then gubernatorial candidate Zell Miller
pledged to expand and enhance the State's boot camp
program. Once elected, Governor Miller said, he
would discontinue the early release program his
predecessor had initiated to ease statewide prison
crowding. However, estimates suggested that within
3 to 6 months of this action, local jails would be
crowded with four or five thousand additional
inmates. It quickly became apparent that early
releases could be discontinued only if another
program was initiated to keep the backlog down and
provide a publicly acceptable degree of punishment
for offenders (Flowers et al., 1991).

The program thus developed, known as the
Comprehensive Correctional Boot Camp Program, was
built on the foundation laid by SAI--that of hard
work and military-style discipline--but new
critical program elements such as compulsory drug
education modules and postrelease followup in the
community were added. The first goal of the new
program was to relieve crowding in the State's 30
prisons by diverting about 12,000 lower risk
offenders to boot camps each year. The second goal
was to reduce recidivism among young offenders ages
17 to 30 by incorporating a rigorously structured
program and intensive aftercare (Bowen, 1991).

The Comprehensive Correctional Boot Camp Program
plan that was developed now includes four types of
facilities. Two--inmate boot camps and intensive
treatment programs--house sentenced prison inmates.
The other two--probation SAI/boot camps and
probation detention centers--house persons who are
sentenced to the boot camps as a condition of
probation.

Inmate boot camps. Offenders in inmate boot camps
have already been sentenced to prison; they are
assigned to a boot camp by the State Board of
Pardons and Paroles based on criteria established
by the Georgia Department of Corrections and the
Parole Board. If they successfully complete the
120-day program, they are released to strict parole
supervision. If they "wash out" of the boot camp,
they are transferred to a regular prison. In most
cases the units are located next to large prisons
that can provide basics such as food services,
allowing GDC to keep operating costs down.

Selected offenders are processed through a central
diagnostic facility for all inmate boot camps at
Bostic C.I. in Milledgeville. At first only males
between the ages of 17 and 30 convicted of a drug
offense, with a sentence length of 1-10 years,
could be assigned to an inmate boot camp. The pool
of eligible offenders has now been expanded to
include offenders convicted of driving under the
influence (DUI), habitual traffic violators, and
persons convicted of most other nonviolent crimes.

Georgia has six inmate boot camps, all located on
the grounds of a State correctional institution.
More than 6,500 men have entered an inmate boot
camp, with approximately 87 percent completing the
program.

Intensive treatment programs. These are for State
prison inmates who have been assigned to the
program as a disciplinary sanction. They are
intensive, in-prison programs in which inmates work
their way out of disciplinary isolation or
administrative segregation and back into the
general prison population. The programs have a
military-based structure and call for compulsory
participation in educational and counseling
programs. (For more information on this program for
prison inmates, see chapter 12 of this volume,
which describes the program at the Valdosta
Correctional Institution.)

SAI/probation boot camps. These target first-time
drug offenders, DUI and habitual traffic violators,
and other offenders identified and sentenced by
judges as a condition of probation. These units
combine the intensity of a boot camp regimen with
compulsory drug and alcohol abuse treatment
programs. The units may be adjacent to prisons or
may be stand-alone units in the community. Georgia
has three probation boot camps with a combined
capacity of 437 offenders. Since their initiation,
probation boot camps have graduated 92 percent of
the 5,500 they have admitted. Although the normal
stay at a probation boot camp is 90 days, the law
now allows the probation boot camp superintendent
to keep offenders an additional 30 days if they
create disciplinary problems.

The evaluation found that probationers entering the
boot camps were felons (only 2 percent were
convicted of a misdemeanor), with 77 percent
sentenced to less than 6 years. Most frequent
convictions were for property offenses (45
percent), drug possession (25 percent), or violent
offenses against persons (14 percent). Their
average age was 19.8, and most were nonwhite males.
Twenty-nine percent were sentenced as first
offenders.

Probation detention centers. These form another
option in Georgia's Comprehensive Correctional Boot
Camp Program. Probation detention center
participants are sentenced to the program by judges
as a condition of probation. These centers aim
their work-intensive, highly structured program at
relatively low-risk offenders, including those
convicted of alcohol- and drug-related crimes or
property crimes, and those whose poor physical
health would make them ineligible for the
physically demanding boot camp programs. In
addition to the compulsory community service now
imposed on these offenders, a basic military-style
daily regimen is in place in these centers. The
major program focus is on outside work details for
the benefit of the community and on alcohol and
drug education and treatment. 

The average age of detainees sent to probation
detention centers was 27.2 years. Detainees were
primarily male, nonwhite (59 percent) and serving a
5-year straight probation sentence for a felony.
Twelve percent were sentenced as first offenders,
with 45 percent convicted for a substance abuse
offense and 39 percent for a property crime.

In December 1993, 12 probation detention centers
were in operation, including one for females. They
had a total of 1,885 beds, usually 166 per unit.
Since 1988, 23,280 probationers have been
transferred to the detention centers, usually for
4-6-month periods. Almost all offenders complete
the program successfully; the washout rate is only
4 percent.

Four-Phase Program

Whether in an inmate or probation boot camp
facility, offenders move through a basic four-phase
program plan that may differ slightly from facility
to facility:

Phase 1, intake. This phase consists of diagnostic
and orientation activities lasting for the first
week of stay.

Phase 2, work/discipline. This phase consists
primarily of drill and ceremony and work. The
purpose is to instill responsibility in the
offenders through emphasis on work, although
offenders may begin their education and other
programs during this time. This phase lasts 4
weeks.

Phase 3, programming. During this phase drill and
ceremony are not emphasized as heavily. The
offenders begin other programming classes, which
may include leisure education, life skills, and
Bible study. This phase lasts 4 weeks and is
described in detail below.

Phase 4, prerelease. For the final phase of the
boot camps, offenders are typically transferred to
a prerelease counselor's caseload. At this time,
they attend classes that emphasize the skills
needed to search, apply, and interview for jobs. In
addition, the prerelease counselor helps offenders
plan for after their release, such as obtaining
transportation home, finding a place to stay, and
obtaining a job. During this phase offenders are
allowed visits from friends and family members.

Physical Training

Physical training guidelines specify nine different
exercises, with a variable number of sets and
repetitions based on the conditioning of the inmate
(specified by medical clearance and length of time
in the program).

Physical training takes place every day, including
weekends, weather permitting. In most facilities, a
correctional officer or recreation director
conducts physical training by calling the count for
the exercise and performing it along with the
offenders.

Physical Labor

Work on various details is thought to instill the
importance of making an earnest living in the
world, getting offenders used to a consistent work
schedule, and occupying them both mentally and
physically during the day. All the camps maintain
outside and inside work details.

Outside details typically involve construction or
maintenance projects for local municipalities,
counties, or the State. Many details provide the
equivalent of thousands of dollars of free labor to
these governments and enable the offenders to make
partial amends directly to the citizenry of
Georgia. These outside details have involved:

o  Supporting State forestry projects, working with
the Georgia State patrol, maintaining vehicles at
Department of Transportation facilities, and
working at the new youth facility in Eastman.

o  Preparing construction sites and landscaping and
maintaining public school buildings.

o  Clearing drainage ditches and rights of way,
building concrete curbs, and picking up trash in
local cities.

Inside details typically involve maintenance or
specialized labor for more skilled offenders such
as brick masonry and vehicle repair, but they also
include building maintenance, laundry, and general
cleanup.

Program Components 

Although work is heavily stressed as a part of the
total program in Georgia's boot camps, a
significant part of the offender's time is spent in
treatment programming. Coupled with military
discipline and hard physical labor, the goal of
treatment programming and counseling is to assist
the offender in building a respect for authority, a
sense of self-worth and respect, and to provide the
necessary tools to live a crime- and drug-free life
once released. 

Following the "tearing down" provided by military
drill and physical labor, programming attempts to
provide the "building back up" stage in the
offender's development. Chapter 12 in this volume
describes this process.

Group sessions and classroom instruction are
usually conducted every weekday evening, and for
selected groups and activities on the weekends. 

Orientation is conducted during the first week and
includes instruction in the rules, regulations, and
policies to be followed. A counselor usually
conducts orientation.

Life skills are provided in a 12-class series
typically offered during phases 3 and 4, designed
to teach offenders the skills necessary to function
successfully in society. Classes focus on values
clarification, problem-solving skills, work-seeking
and retention skills, family and parent training,
communication skills, stress reduction, and
consumer education. This class may be conducted by
a staff person or a volunteer. 

Twelve-step programs, such as Alcoholics Anonymous
(AA) and Narcotics Anonymous (NA), promote a sober
and drug-free lifestyle by providing a fellowship
of persons who share their experience in order to
recover from a common addiction. Such programs are
available by referral and request throughout the
12-week boot camp experience. They are conducted by
volunteers from local AA/NA chapters.

Substance abuse treatment is available to offenders
who need it. Level I substance abuse programming
involves 10 to 12 hours of substance abuse
education; topics include alcohol, narcotics,
barbiturates, opiates, stimulants, cocaine and
crack, steroids, and "designer" drugs. This class
is usually given during phase 1. Level II substance
abuse programming includes a series of 16 to 24
interactive groups based on relapse prevention
therapy. This program, known as Staying Sober
Recovery Education Modules, has three primary
components: 

o  Relapse education, which teaches individuals
about the processes of recovery and relapse and
helps individuals recognize and successfully manage
relapse warning signs.

o  Group therapy, which provides the individual an
opportunity to personalize and integrate his
understanding of recovery and relapse prevention.

o  Relapse support groups, which give 12-step
support for managing relapse and maintaining
sobriety and a drug-free lifestyle. The program is
offered during phases 3 and 4. These sessions are
conducted by counseling staff.

o  Prerelease, a series of groups typically held
during phase 4, designed to focus the offenders on
successful reintegration to their home communities.
Group topics may include family issues, employment
planning, treatment and support planning,
postrelease plans, and goal setting. This class is
generally conducted by the counselor responsible
for prerelease.

Bible study is conducted by citizen volunteer
religious groups who also offer life lessons and
worship services for the offenders. On weekends,
groups may also conduct inspirational singing.

Platoon meetings take place as inmates in each
dormitory meet weekly as a group to discuss issues
concerning living in the unit. An attempt is made
to resolve problems using a positive group process
and to promote discussion of opinions and ideas.
This group is usually conducted by a staff
counselor.

Leisure education occurs when offenders are taught
sports fundamentals and are given the opportunity
to participate in organized, structured games such
as basketball, softball, and volleyball. This class
is conducted by the recreation supervisor.

Library call gives offenders the opportunity to
read books or magazines in the institutional
library. In some facilities, inmates can check out
reading materials to take to their dormitories.

Program Resources

Program resources vary from camp to camp with
respect to space, staffing, and materials.
Educational classes may occur in the institution's
library or in day rooms and designated program
rooms. In many cases, groups are conducted in the
dormitory units for want of better program space.

At Treutlen Shock Unit in Soperton, one of the
probation boot camps, an ambitious program schedule
calls for use of both dormitory and program rooms.
Programs are conducted during the evening hours in
two 90-minute sessions, beginning at 6:00 p.m.
Depending on his current phase and program plan,
the offender may attend educational classes during
one session and another class or program such as
Alcoholics Anonymous during the other session.
Offenders not involved in a program during a given
period may go to recreation at the gym, or drill. 

At Dodge Inmate Boot Camp in Chester, correctional
officers conduct many of the classes and groups due
to a lack of treatment staff. To signal this change
of role, officers remove their circular campaign
hats or caps and ease out of the formality of the
military atmosphere that dominates life outside
class. Each building officer typically conducts
weekly groups in his dormitory. A new topic is
assigned to each platoon each week. The officer
calls members of the platoon out of their rooms and
talks about that topic with them. Typical subjects
are "The Importance of Goals" and "Your Duty to
Your Family," treated in a lecture rather than
discussion format. The officers generally indicated
that they liked participating in these sessions but
would benefit from more training.

Treatment staff provide individual counseling in
addition to case management and scheduling of
activities. These individual sessions are conducted
at least once a month or more frequently as the
need arises. Offenders may request to see their
assigned counselor at any time through the use of a
counselor request form. A review of institutional
files revealed that in most cases the counselors
made notations in the progress record section of
the offenders' files every 2 weeks or so. The
entries generally described the offenders' current
activities and their progress in the program.
Interviews with the offenders revealed that the
counselors were available to the offenders on an
as-needed basis (usually with no more than a day's
response time to a request from an offender). The
offenders also reported that the counselors made a
point of seeing them approximately every other
week.

Education

Three levels of adult education are provided in
Georgia's boot camp program: basic literacy, adult
basic education, and preparation and testing for
the general equivalency diploma (GED). Limited
resources among the camps create widely varying
levels of programming.

At Treutlen, all educational services are provided
by a local technical school. The program is funded
by a Federal grant of approximately $50,000
annually, which covers seven teachers' salaries,
books, paper, and some equipment. Offenders are
tested and placed in the appropriate level class
during their orientation phase. Those who test up
to the midpoint of the 5th grade go into basic
literacy class, from the 5th to the 10th grade to
adult basic education, at the 10th and above to
preparation for the GED. Participation is mandatory
and there is no waiting list. Classes average
between 15 and 20 offenders.

Classes in all three levels are based on
self-paced, individual modules, with each offender
progressing to the next level upon completion of a
module and successful testing on the material. The
teachers work individually and with small groups of
offenders during the sessions.

One counselor is certified to administer the GED
test. At the time of the evaluation site visit,
approximately 118 offenders had earned their GED
certificates. Aggregate numbers were not available
on the offenders' progress in the other educational
programs. Individual results and achievement are
made a part of the file that accompanies the
offender back to his community and aftercare
supervision.

At the time of the site visits, other boot camps
did not have the resources of Treutlen for
educational programming. One boot camp facility,
located on the site of a State prison, shared a
single instructor with the rest of the institution.
Although the instructor staggered her weekly hours
to accommodate an evening schedule of classes,
there was a long waiting list to enter the classes.
Another unit relied on two volunteer teachers to
come in during the evening hours to teach one basic
education class each, 2 nights a week. Since that
time, additional instructors have been hired at
each of these units.

Community Supervision 

Followup of offenders who have been in a probation
detention center, an SAI/probation boot camp, or an
inmate boot camp continues in the community. Where
resources are available, offenders have a minimum
of 3 months of highly structured supervision on
probation or parole, followed by a period of
regular supervision.

Conclusion

The adequate provision of resources is critical to
any programming in corrections, but nowhere more so
than in boot camps. As boot camp facilities around
the Nation have discovered, a great deal can be
accomplished in the relatively short stay of 90 to
120 days in a boot camp. Offenders have proved they
can increase reading levels and even complete
GED's.

Some have suggested that a boot camp that utilizes
physical labor and military drill alone will not
accomplish the goal of significantly changing the
behavior of offenders if it does not include other
program activities such as education, counseling,
or drug treatment. MacKenzie and Parent (1990) list
three hypotheses that support the combination of
physical labor, military discipline, and treatment
programming:

o  The time spent in a boot camp program results in
offenders freeing themselves from a downward cycle
of drug usage and poor physical conditioning.

o  Boot camp programs create an environment that
shakes up the everyday life of offenders, creating
stress. During this time, offenders may be more
susceptible to outside influences, allowing
programming to have a greater impact on them.

o  In most cases, offenders in boot camp facilities
receive more treatment (counseling or education)
than they would in regular prison facilities.

It would be unreasonable to expect boot camp
programs to reverse in 90 to 120 days an offender's
lifetime of poor physical conditioning, failure in
school, and negative experience with law
enforcement and the entire criminal justice system.
The criminal justice system has had little impact
on these offenders through the more routine methods
employed by probation and short-term incarceration
in local jails.

However, as Hengesh (1991) points out, perhaps the
role of the correctional boot camp is much like
that of its model in the military, that is,
providing a strong foundation of discipline,
responsibility, and self-esteem that can be built
upon in followup training and treatment. Once the
stripping away of the resentment of authority and
the false pride of a criminal lifestyle is
completed, counseling and educational programming,
along with work and military discipline, can start
developing self-esteem, self-discipline, and
experience with success.

References

Aziz, David. Shock Incarceration Evaluation:
Preliminary Data. Unpublished report to the New
York Department of Correctional Services, 1988.

Blackmore, John. Director of Project Development,
Narcotic and Drug Research, Inc. Unpublished notes,
August 18, 1991.

Bowen, Andy E. "Making Boot Camps Bigger and
Better." Corrections Today, October 1991.

Camp, Damon. "Shock Incarceration in Georgia: An
Analysis of Task Performance and Training Needs
Among Corrections Officers." Journal of Offender
Rehabilitation, 16, no. 3/4 (1991):153-176.

Flowers, Gerald T., Timothy S. Carr, and R. Barry
Ruback. Special Alternative Incarceration
Evaluation. Atlanta: Georgia Department of
Corrections, 1991. 

Georgia Department of Corrections. Comprehensive
Correctional Boot Camp Program Proposal, 1990. 

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

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

MacKenzie, Doris L. Testimony on Boot Camp Prisons.
United States Senate Committee on Governmental
Affairs, Subcommittee on Oversight of Government
Management, 1990.

MacKenzie, Doris L., and Dale G. Parent. Shock
Incarceration and Prison Crowding in Louisiana.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,
National Institute of Justice, 1990.

MacKenzie, Doris L., and James W. Shaw. "Inmate
Adjustment and Change During Shock Incarceration:
The Impact of Correctional Boot Camp Programs."
Justice Quarterly, 7(1) 1990.

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.


------------------------------------------------------------------
Correctional Boot Camps: A Tough Intermediate Sanction - Chapter 6


Bureau of Prisons: Expanding Intermediate Sanctions
Through Intensive Confinement Centers

by Jody Klein-Saffran, Ph.D.

Jody Klein-Saffran, Ph.D., is a Research Analyst at
the Federal Bureau of Prisons, specializing in
community corrections, alternative sanctions, and
recidivism. She has published a number of papers in
scholarly journals and professional publications.

The Federal Bureau of Prisons has two shock
incarceration facilities, the Intensive Confinement
Center (ICC) for men at Lewisburg, Pennsylvania,
and the Intensive Confinement Center for women at
Bryan, Texas. Both are adjacent or attached to
Federal correctional institutions and contain a
slightly older population (average age: 27) than
State-administered boot camps. All participants are
volunteers for the program, 90 percent of them
committed directly by the court and the rest drawn
from already incarcerated inmates. The Federal
Government's ICC program shares many of the
features of State programs but does not incorporate
summary punishments or result in a reduction of
participants' sentences. Through a daily regimen of
physical training, work assignments, education,
vocational training, and substance abuse treatment,
the program seeks to improve offenders'
decisionmaking, self-direction, and self-image and
help them gain permanent employment. The 6-month
incarceration period at the ICC facilities is
followed by a community corrections period during
which participants finish out their sentences,
first at a halfway house and subsequently under
home confinement. The overall objective of the ICC
program is to change offenders' behavior so they
will reduce their involvement in crime and become
safely reintegrated into the community.

The U.S. Bureau of Prisons' Intensive Confinement
Center (ICC) program shares with State shock
incarceration programs the same primary goal: to
change offenders' behavior and ultimately reduce
their involvement in criminal activity without
compromising public safety. 

Yet there are several important differences between
the Federal and State programs. First, inmates tend
to be older at the Federal level than at the State
level. The average age for an ICC male participant
is 27 in comparison to the average age for
participants at the State level, which is between
19 and 20 (MacKenzie and Souryal, 1994). Second,
whereas most States reduce the sentences of boot
camp participants, the Federal Government does not.

Third, the Federal program does not use summary
punishments by staff (as is done in some State boot
camps) because it is inconsistent with Bureau of
Prisons policy on inmate discipline, which follows
due process procedures and carefully prescribes
appropriate sanctions for acts of misconduct
(Klein-Saffran, 1991).

A fourth difference between the Federal ICC and
many State programs is that the ICC places a
considerable emphasis on nonmilitary rehabilitative
activities in contrast with many State programs
that focus primarily on military-type activities.
ICC participants spend roughly 3 to 4 hours each
day in various types of programs such as life
skills, health and nutrition, substance abuse
counseling, and adult basic education and GED
(general equivalency diploma) instruction. A fifth
difference, unique to the Federal program, is the
community corrections component. All inmates who
graduate from the ICC spend the remainder of their
sentences in a halfway house (community corrections
center) followed by home confinement. Although this
component shares the objective of State aftercare
programs, it provides a far more controlled
environment.

The Federal Intensive Confinement Center Programs

Consistent with the Crime Control Act of 1990, the
Bureau of Prisons' Intensive Confinement Center at
Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, was established adjacent
to the U.S. Penitentiary and began accepting male
participants in that same year. ICC Lewisburg is
designed to incarcerate 192 adult male Federal
offenders. In July 1992, an ICC for women was
established on the grounds of the Federal
Correctional Institution in Bryan, Texas. ICC Bryan
is designed to hold 120 adult female offenders in
dormitory-style barracks. 

As with all Bureau of Prisons (BOP) facilities, the
ICC's mission is to maintain custody of inmates in
an environment that is safe, secure, and humane.
Both ICC Lewisburg and ICC Bryan were developed to
direct offenders' behavior along prosocial lines
without compromising public safety. Each ICC
facility is purposely spartan and restrictive. In a
highly structured environment, the ICC offers a
specialized program consisting of a daily regimen
of physical training, labor-intensive work
assignments 6 days per week, education and
vocational training, substance abuse treatment, and
life skills programs conducive to a successful
reintegration into mainstream community life.

Each training cycle lasts 180 days. Program
entrance is voluntary, and inmates who successfully
complete the program are given the opportunity to
serve the remainder of their sentence--a portion
greater than otherwise would be possible--in a
community-based program. This community component
is designed to help offenders consolidate and
sustain the gains they make during their
incarceration. 

Program Foundation and Philosophy

ICC program objectives are to help offenders
develop responsible decisionmaking, self-direction,
and a positive self-image, and obtain and keep a
job. The intensive discipline, work, and program
components of the regimen are designed to fulfill
the decisionmaking, self-direction, and positive
self-image objectives. Life skills classes and the
postrelease community corrections component help
participants attain the employment objective.

Bureau of Prisons management philosophy focuses not
only on humane care but also on the promotion of
positive interaction between staff and inmates. The
use of summary and group punishment in some boot
camp programs is considered inconsistent with this
philosophy and with BOP's policy of providing
prescribed, appropriate sanctions for acts of
misconduct. In both the Bryan and Lewisburg
facilities, BOP has attempted to blend the more
positive elements of the boot camp approach to
discipline with the traditional components of
inmate management. 

There are differences, however, in how the programs
in the two facilities deal with inmates. For
example, in establishing the program at ICC Bryan,
BOP considered the particular concerns of female
offenders with regard to interpersonal
relationships, psychological issues, family ties,
and similar matters. Perceiving that many female
inmates lack self-confidence, Bryan staff encourage
them to take more control over their lives. A
greater effort is made to offer programs that
strengthen their self-esteem, help them deal with
domestic violence, and promote their parenting
skills. Although less emphasis is placed on
military drill than at the male ICC, this aspect of
boot camp training has proved surprisingly popular
with the female participants. 

While the two ICC programs differ in the respects
mentioned, there are greater differences between
the ICC and regular prisons, primarily with respect
to mandatory classes to improve life skills,
fitness, health, and nutrition, as well as
substance abuse counseling sessions. In addition,
the ICC inmates are taught to work together as a
team, whereas in regular prison this is
discouraged. In fact, the unspoken rule of "doing
your own time" remains a strong component of the
standard prison culture. At the ICC facilities,
correctional officers are expected to establish
close working relationships with inmates and gain
more knowledge about their charges than would be
the case in a typical prison facility. 

Eligibility Criteria and the Screening Process

There are five basic eligibility criteria for
initial court commitment designations to the ICC
program. An individual must:

o  Be serving a sentence of 12 to 30 months.
o  Be serving a first incarceration sentence or
have a minor history of prior incarcerations (e.g.,
for personal drug use or minor property offenses).
o  Pose a minimum security risk.
o  Lack medical restrictions.
o  Volunteer for participation in the program. 

For ICC Lewisburg, males must be 35 years old or
younger on program entry.1 

The original intent was for Bureau of Prisons 
regional office staff to identify candidates for 
the ICC program, with the concurrence of the 
sentencing judge. Optimally, all candidates 
for the ICC program were to be new court
commitments meeting the eligibility criteria
outlined above. When the ICC program started,
however, only a few eligible court commitments were
available. An administrative decision was therefore
made to obtain volunteers for the program from
persons incarcerated in minimum security facilities
who met the eligibility criteria. Both ICC
Lewisburg and Bryan now draw on offenders who are
serving 12- to 60-month sentences at Federal
institutions. However, direct court commitments
currently account for over 90 percent of admissions
to the ICC facilities.

The ICC population differs in some respects from
the overall Bureau of Prisons population
when one compares offender profiles for 
ICC inmates with those of the general
male and female inmate populations. This program's
purpose is to place offenders in a highly
structured, no-frills environment for teaching
self-control and discipline, thereby reducing the
potential for future incarceration. 

Initial designees may be rejected if they fail to
meet the established criteria. The ICC
Administrator has the option of terminating
participants who fail to perform appropriately.
Inmates who do not fully complete the program are
reassigned to an appropriate facility and serve the
imposed sentence without benefit of the special
incentives derived from participating in the
program.

Admissions, Orientation, and Daily Schedule

Once inmates arrive at an ICC facility, they are
appointed to a team and participate in a 2-week
admission and orientation (A&O) program. The A&O
program familiarizes them with the mission,
purpose, and scope of the facility and with the
programs they will participate in. Each team
consists of 40 to 55 participants who go through
A&O and the ICC 6-month program together. During
A&O, staff tell the inmates about the daily routine
and the benefits of participating in the ICC
program. 


Community Corrections 

After completing the 6-month intensive confinement
period, inmates are transferred to a halfway house,
or community corrections center (CCC). At the CCC,
inmates progress through phases of increasing
freedom based on demonstrated personal
responsibility and commitment to law-abiding
behavior. In most cases, the CCC phase ends with a
period of home confinement supervised by CCC staff
(Federal Bureau of Prisons, 1992). In addition,
inmates with a history of drug and alcohol abuse
are required to participate in Transitional
Services, a program that offers inmates drug and
alcohol treatment during the halfway house (CCC)
period of their sentences.

Arrival at a CCC marks the beginning of phase I
(the CCC component) of the postincarceration
period. The inmate is initially placed in the
Community Corrections Center. In this first phase,
the inmate is expected to maintain regular
employment in the community but remain at the
center at all other times unless authorized to
leave for religious or other special program
purposes. All family visits and leisure activities
occur at the center. 

Those who adjust satisfactorily may progress to the
prerelease component (phase II). During this
period, inmates have greater access to the
community and may visit family and friends outside
the center until the evening curfew. They also
become eligible for weekend passes and furloughs. 
Successful completion of phase II allows inmates to
be considered for home confinement, phase III,
whereby they live at home for the remainder of the
term, under certain restrictions and reporting
requirements (Federal Bureau of Prisons, 1992). 

Generally, progression through the phases depends
on an inmate's favorable adjustment. An inmate who
fails to comply with CCC or home confinement
program requirements may be placed in a more
restrictive program phase or terminated from
community corrections programs altogether and
returned to a regular correctional institution for
the remainder of the sentence. 

Status of Program Participants

A total of 1,015 males graduated between Team 1's
graduation in ICC Lewisburg in July 1991 through
Team 22's graduation in December 1994.
Approximately 9 percent (94) failed during their
first 6 months in the halfway house, and
approximately 6 percent (70) failed after 6 months.
Reasons for the 10 arrests included driving with a
suspended license or under the influence of
alcohol, fighting, possession of drugs, spouse
abuse, shoplifting, sexual assault, and
trespassing.

A total of 457 females graduated between January
1993 and December 1994, of whom 30 (6 percent)
failed within the first 6 months of the halfway
house and 21 (4 percent) during the second 6
months. Two of the three arrests were for fraud.
After 1 year or longer, six more females failed.

The Bureau of Prisons Office of Research and
Evaluation is conducting a study to determine if
ICC reduces recidivism among graduates. To this
end, researchers are comparing recidivism rates
among prison inmates in the first four graduating
classes to rates for a control group of regular
minimum-security inmates matched for their
backgrounds and several variables. Recidivism was
defined as a return to prison from a halfway house,
rearrest while on parole, or parole revocation for
violating parole conditions.

Summary of BOP's Rehabilitation Process

The ICC program is an intensive application of
BOP's general approach to rehabilitating offenders
in Federal correctional facilities. The Bureau of
Prisons sees the offender rehabilitation process as
involving three elements: the institutional
experience, community involvement in the offender's
life, and the offender's personal actions and
personal choices.

The institutional experience. Prisons have the
first-stage rehabilitative responsibility of
providing inmates with access to appropriate
programs. In the ICC, this consists of the
intensive program opportunities previously
described. Prison staff develop ways to promote
self-motivation and encourage inmates to function
as productive citizens. Innovative techniques are
needed because traditional self-improvement and
treatment programs have already failed to
significantly help these offenders. 

Community involvement. The community has a
different but equally important responsibility in
rehabilitating offenders. Generally, community
support starts with the willingness of family and
friends to maintain contact with imprisoned
offenders, assuring them that they are still part
of the community even though physically separated
from it. Especially critical to this phase of the
rehabilitation process are programs and
organizations that continue to provide support
after the inmates are released from prison. They
provide offenders services such as job placement,
counseling, housing, and other programs vital to
successful reintegration into the community.

Inmate responsibility. The third and most
fundamental area of responsibility in the
rehabilitation process rests with the inmates. For
institutional programs to be effective and for
community-based activity to be supportive, inmates
must choose to better themselves and not commit
crime upon release. The ICC program charges
participants with the responsibility of taking
advantage of all the resources offered to them as
they plan for their release as law-abiding
citizens. 

Future Directions

The Bureau of Prisons' ICC program has received the
enthusiastic support of politicians, correctional
administrators, and line staff, who value the ICC
as an option for offenders who would previously
have served their sentence in a regular prison
environment.

As shock incarceration programs become more refined
over time, administrators will want to retain those
features the research has shown to be effective and
eliminate those proved ineffective. Moreover, if
shock incarceration programs are to serve as a
useful sanction along the continuum of intermediate
punishments, it will be expedient for research to
extend beyond the prison facility to include
followup with community components.

Administrators believe services such as postrelease
drug treatment and employment counseling will
facilitate reintegration into the community.
Organizational commitment to make these policies
successful in practice will make it more likely
that expectations will be met.

Shock incarceration programs, at whatever level of
government, constitute more than just a response to
prison crowding and political policy. They serve a
special need for specific offender populations. The
results of evaluations of these programs that take
these special needs into account can then be used
to expand program options and maximize positive
outcomes. 

Note

1.  This criterion was changed for the male
population in January 1994. Currently neither males
nor females have to meet age requirements to be
accepted into the ICC program.

References

Federal Bureau of Prisons, Operations Memorandum
120-92 (5391), 1992.

Klein-Saffran, Jody. "Shock Incarceration, Bureau
of Prisons Style." Research Forum, 1(3), 1991.

Klein-Saffran, Jody, David A. Chapman, and Janie L.
Jeffers. "Boot Camp for Prisoners." Law Enforcement
Bulletin, 62 (1993):13-16.

MacKenzie, Doris L. "Boot Camp Prisons: Components,
Evaluations, and Empirical Issues." Federal
Probation, 54, no. 3 (September 1990):44-52.

MacKenzie, Doris Layton, and Claire Souryal.
Multisite Evaluation of Shock Incarceration.
Evaluation Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Justice, National Institute of
Justice, 1994.

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.


------------------------------------------------------------------
Correctional Boot Camps: A Tough Intermediate Sanction - Chapter 7


A Survey of Jail-Operated Boot Camps and 
Guidelines for Their Implementation

by James Austin, Ph.D., Michael Jones, and Melissa
Bolyard

James Austin, Doctor of Sociology, is Executive
Vice President for the National Council on Crime
and Delinquency (NCCD). He currently serves as
director of several programs, most notably an
evaluation of "Three Strikes and You're Out," the
National Evaluation of the Multistate Correctional
Options Program for the National Institute of
Justice, and the National Assessment of Structured
Sentencing Reforms.

Michael Jones is a Senior Researcher with NCCD and
has conducted research, evaluation, and population
projection studies in the areas of juvenile justice
and adult corrections in more than 20 States.

Melissa Bolyard is a Senior Research Associate with
NCCD and has participated in the evaluation of the
Los Angeles County Sheriff's boot camp program and
the National Evaluation of Correctional Options
program funded by the U.S. Bureau of Justice
Assistance.

This chapter is designed to inform criminal justice
practitioners and policymakers of current
state-of-the-art jail-operated boot camps and to
provide guidelines for their implementation. The
results are based on a national survey of
jail-operated boot camps and an evaluation of the
Los Angeles County Regimented Inmate Diversion
Program, both conducted by the National Council on
Crime and Delinquency through funding by the
National Institute of Justice. Some of the
suggested guidelines resulting from this research
are to (1) establish realistic goals such as
reduced jail crowding, inmate rehabilitation, and
improved jail operations; (2) pretest the selection
criteria so that program capacity can be achieved;
(3) limit program length of stay to no more than 90
to 120 days so that time spent in jail is actually
reduced by program participation; (4) establish a
strong aftercare component so that the positive
effects of the program's rehabilitative services
can be maintained; and (5) conduct periodic
evaluations of program operations and impact so
that the effectiveness of jail boot camps can be
determined.

To date, most attention has been directed to boot
camps as an intermediate sanction in State prison
systems. Typically, these State prison-operated
boot camps target offenders who would spend at
least a year in prison had the boot camp sanction
not been available to either the courts or the
State prison system.

Most recently, there has been increased interest
and activity in the use of boot camps for jail
populations. Often neglected and misunderstood by
the public, the Nation's jail system consists of
approximately 3,500 adult detention systems that
process 10.27 million cases each year.1 On any
given day nearly 490,000 pretrial or sentenced
inmates are housed in jails.2 In terms of numbers,
the Nation's jails touch more adults than any other
form of corrections.3

There are a number of other reasons why a
jail-operated boot camp can be of strategic value
to the criminal justice system. Although the
overall average length of stay for defendants and
offenders admitted to jail is relatively short (15-
16 days) compared to State prisoners (approximately
2 years), jails are increasingly housing inmates
who may spend many months in confinement; in most
jurisdictions inmates can be sentenced to a year or
more. In Pennsylvania, for instance, offenders can
be sentenced to from 2 to 5 years. In most
jurisdictions, inmates can also receive consecutive
sentences of less than 1 year that can produce
total sentences of several years without the
benefit of good time.

Jails also hold significant numbers of
State-sentenced inmates who spend many months
there. For example, paroled prisoners who violate
the terms of their parole are generally housed in
local detention facilities until a decision is made
by the State to revoke the prisoner's parole
status. Such decisions may not be determined for
several months.

Crowding in State facilities has also led to a
wider use of jails to house long-term,
State-sentenced prisoners (often for well over a
year). Nearly 54,000 State and local prisoners from
other authorities are now held in jail facilities.4

Because the inmate population found in jails is so
diversified and differs from the State prison
population, program goals and attributes associated
with prison-operated boot camps may not apply or
may be more difficult to achieve in a jail-operated
boot camp. For example, a 180-day program in prison
may result in early release for participants and
subsequently reduce prison crowding, but due to a
shorter average length of stay, a 180-day program
will not produce the same effect in jails. 

However, a boot camp may be particularly useful in
jails for other reasons. For example, it may serve
as an effective intermediate sanction for probation
or parole violators in lieu of revocation and
commitment to State prison. Significant numbers of
adults placed on probation subsequently violate
probation and are readmitted to jail to await the
court decisions on whether to return them to
probation or commit them to prison. Offenders may
spend substantial periods of time in custody during
this process.

The data in this chapter are based on a 1992 survey
funded by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ)
and conducted by the National Council on Crime and
Delinquency (NCCD). The survey sought information
on the number and characteristics of jail-operated
boot camps across the Nation. In addition, data
from an NIJ evaluation conducted by NCCD of the now
defunct Los Angeles Sheriff's Regimented Inmate
Diversion (RID) boot camp program are included to
shed light on practical issues in implementing jail
boot camp programs.5 

During spring 1992, NCCD mailed more than 2,200
letters to sheriffs, jail administrators, and
State-operated probation departments throughout the
United States to identify the number and
characteristics of jail boot camps then in
existence. The survey also asked whether jail
administrators were interested in establishing boot
camps or planning to do so in the near future.
Approximately 200 (10 percent) of these surveys
were returned, with 10 jurisdictions indicating
that they were operating boot camps.6 In addition,
13 jurisdictions reported that they were planning
to open boot camps in 1992 or 1993. An additional
130 jurisdictions responded that they had no
immediate plans but were interested in opening ones
in the near future. These survey results indicate
that the popularity of jail-operated boot camps was
growing.7 Since 1993, the Bureau of Justice
Assistance has funded three county-based boot camps
for young adult offenders as part of its
Correctional Options demonstration program. And, as
part of the 1994 Crime Bill, the U.S. Department of
Justice funded another 12 county or regional boot
camp programs in 1995.

A detailed followup telephone interview was
conducted with each of the 10 identified boot camp
programs to obtain more detailed information about
how they operated. Following the interviews, NCCD
researchers visited four boot camp programs to
supplement information already collected and to
learn more from program administrators and
offenders about their boot camp experiences. 

Organizational Characteristics

All of the surveyed boot camps were funded by
State, city, or county governments and administered
by local sheriff or county departments of
corrections. Most of these programs were relatively
new, having begun operations in 1991 or 1992. The
earliest programs began in New Orleans (1986) and
in Travis County, Texas (1988).

Although the programs tended to be located within
large jail systems (all but 2 systems had 2,000 or
more inmates), the size of the programs was quite
small (ranging from 12 to 380 inmates), thus
representing only a small proportion of the total
jail population. The expected length of stay in
these programs was considerably shorter than in
prison boot camps. Five of the 10 programs had a
maximum length of stay of less than 70 days,
whereas prison boot camp stays ranged from 3 to 6
months. 

Almost all of the programs operated at less than
their design capacity, due in part to the selection
criteria, lack of coordination among criminal
justice agencies, and the fact that few jail
inmates would be in custody longer than the
expected duration of the boot camp program.

Considerable variation existed among the sites in
their staffing and funding levels. Some programs--
like New York City (men's program), and Harris
County, Texas--had both a large program staff and a
large custody staff. Consequently, their
staff-to-inmate ratios were quite high.

Documenting the actual costs of these programs was
quite difficult since many of the costs were
appended to the jurisdiction's overall jail budget.
Where such data existed, program budgets ranged
from $400,000 for the 60-bed program in Oakland,
Michigan, to $3.5 million for the 384-bed program
in Harris County, Texas.

Program Goals

Like prison boot camps, jail boot camps list many
goals they hope to accomplish, ranging from
rehabilitation to punishment. In the survey not all
programs viewed reducing jail crowding as an
important goal--perhaps recognizing that achieving
such a goal would be difficult given the relatively
short period that most inmates were in jail.

There is greater consensus that boot camps can
reduce recidivism by rehabilitating offenders
through a wide array of employment, educational,
vocational, and drug treatment programs. These
goals are directly linked to the perception that a
large number of jail inmates are not yet committed
to a criminal lifestyle and can either be deterred
or rehabilitated through the boot camp program.

Some of the jails cited less dramatic but equally
significant--and perhaps more pragmatic--program
goals. In some cases, the jail hoped that the boot
camp program would provide a safer environment for
staff and inmates alike. Some programs also
enhanced the sheriff's public image by having
inmates participate in community work projects.
Many administrators looked to custody staff
assigned to the program to develop good
interpersonal skills working with boot camp inmates
because they were exposed to a more assertive but
personal style of dealing with inmates on a daily
basis.

Selection Criteria

The criteria for selecting boot camp participants
were quite varied across the 10 jurisdictions
studied. Like prison boot camps, most jail boot
camp programs tended to identify youthful
offenders, although many had age limitations
exceeding 25 years. In particular, New York (men)
and New Orleans had maximum age limitations of 39
and 45, respectively.

Although most programs typically selected
first-time offenders convicted of nonviolent or
drug-related crimes, no consistent policy had been
developed to automatically include such offenders
at all sites. A number of programs accepted State
parolees who had not been arrested for a new crime
but had violated the terms of their parole
supervision.

Four programs accepted both males and females,
while two were exclusively set up for females
(Santa Clara and New York City).8 It should be
noted that the New York City women's program lacked
a military training component. In general,
coeducational programs had a low number of female
participants, and some indicated they might
discontinue female participation.

An offender was selected and admitted to a program
by one of two basic processes: court sentencing or
jail selection. At four sites the sentencing court
had considerable power in determining who was
admitted to the boot camp program. The court
recommended that certain offenders be considered by
the program staff. After the program staff screened
the offenders to verify that they met the admission
criteria, the staff made a recommendation to the
court to sentence the offenders to the program. In
one jurisdiction (Harris County, Texas), the judge
could directly sentence inmates with or without the
consent of program staff.

In five jurisdictions the jail had unilateral
authority to admit an offender to the program
independent of the court's recommendation. In this
situation the jail conducted its own screening of
potential candidates who were either in the jail or
were brought to the attention of program staff by
prosecutors or defense attorneys.

The process by which offenders are selected can
greatly affect the program's ability to obtain
recruits from the target population. In
jurisdictions that rely on the court, intake may be
less than anticipated if disagreements develop
between prosecutors and defense attorneys on
whether boot camp is an acceptable alternative
sentence. Several jurisdictions indicated that
disagreements between prosecutors and defense
attorneys had reduced the projected program intake.

In situations in which the judge sentenced the
inmate to a boot camp, the offender was returned to
the court when leaving the program. The court had
the authority to resentence inmates who failed the
program to a longer period of incarceration in
prison or jail. Inmates who completed the program
successfully were either discharged or began a
period of supervised probation. Some programs
allowed inmates to leave the program voluntarily
while others did not. 

All but one program (Harris, Texas) required 
that the offenders formally express their desire 
to participate. Typically this occurs during the 
screening process and prior to the judge's 
sentencing decision.

Program Services

Jail boot camp programming was found to be similar
to that of prison boot camps. The curriculum was
generally separated into three phases of activity
involving varying levels of military drill and
physical training; structured work assignments;
adult, vocational, and drug education; and various
counseling and life skills programs.

Military drill, physical training, and work
assignments were emphasized during participants'
initial month. Most programs then allowed for a
gradual shift from the physical training and work
assignments to education, counseling, and community
service activities as offenders progressed through
the program. The number of privileges afforded
inmates increased as they progressed through the
program's various stages. For example, in several
programs, no visits or television were allowed for
the first 30 days. Thereafter, privileges were
increased to reward the participant's performance.

Aftercare Supervision

Most of the programs included an aftercare
component. Typically, after offenders successfully
completed the boot camp program, additional time
was spent under supervised probation or parole. In
these situations, supervision was provided by the
county or State probation agency.

In a few programs, a probation officer was assigned
to the boot camp program to help prepare inmates
for their release to the community. Several
programs also allowed graduates to return to the
program on a volunteer basis to attend group
counseling or support groups.

Program Results

Little research or documentation was available to
determine the success of jail boot camp programs in
realizing their goals. The programs had not
developed automated tracking systems that document
admissions, services delivered, or program
completion rates. Programs that manually tabulated
completion rates showed that rates varied from 48
percent to 93 percent. Disciplinary violations were
the most frequent cause of noncompletion of the
program, although a significant number of offenders
failed because of medical problems that surfaced
after their admission.

There was even less information on these programs'
effect on recidivism rates. Only four sites
reported a 12-month rearrest or probation violation
rate. One site reported a disappointing recidivism
rate of 90 percent. Another had a better rate of
26.9 percent, while two sites reported
extraordinarily low recidivism rates of below 5
percent. With the exception of the now defunct Los
Angeles boot camp program, none has undergone any
formal, independent study or cost-effectiveness
evaluation.

A Boot Camp That Didn't Work: The RID Experience

In September 1990, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's
Department initiated the Regimented Inmate
Diversion pilot program in cooperation with county
probation authorities. This program was to function
as a viable sentencing option for selected
defendants who were likely to receive lengthy jail
sentences (180 days or longer) or short prison
terms, followed by formal probation or parole
supervision.

Funded primarily by money and sale of assets seized
from convicted drug dealers, the expressed major
goals of the program were to reduce jail crowding,
reduce costs through the avoidance of long-term
incarceration, and reduce recidivism. An important
secondary goal was to improve control of inmates by
establishing and enforcing strict rules of conduct.

The program exposed young adult male offenders to a
residential, military-style boot camp for 90 days,
followed by a 90-day period of intensive
supervision (ISP) in the community. In addition,
RID required participation in formal education
classes, drug treatment, and counseling sessions.

Program Utilization

The first RID platoon entered boot camp on
September 26, 1990. Despite operating within the
Nation's largest jail system, inmate participation
was substantially below administrators'
expectations and goals. 

From its inception the boot camp facility had a
336-bed capacity, but during the first year the
average daily population was only 128 inmates, 38
percent of program capacity. During the second,
final year, the boot camp population averaged only
250 offenders, or 74 percent of program capacity. 

All participants were to be supervised in the ISP
component for 90 days following graduation from
boot camp. At the end of the first year, 115
offenders were in the ISP program, only 34 percent
of the 336 program capacity. The number of
offenders under ISP supervision never exceeded 200
offenders--about 60 percent of program capacity.

The chief problem was a lack of referrals from the
courts. Offenders constituting the target
population--young nonviolent offenders--typically
do not serve much time in jail for their crimes.
Neither prosecutors, defense attorneys, nor
offenders had much incentive to participate in RID.
For example, in Los Angeles County an inmate
sentenced to 1 year in jail (a very lengthy jail
sentence) typically served about 150 days of the
sentence. When pretrial confinement days are
credited against the net time to serve, a 1-year
sentence can be further reduced to approximately 90
days.

Three specific steps were taken by program
officials to increase participation, but these had
negative long-term consequences for the program:

First, institutional probation staff were assigned
the primary task of identifying and attracting
referrals into RID. This meant that they were
diverted from their original tasks of developing
personalized community supervision plans for
offenders, providing counseling, and ensuring
program continuity as inmates moved into the
community.

Second, the number of court jurisdictions targeted
to refer cases to RID was dramatically expanded.
This resulted in a weakening of offender
supervision and services because ISP probation
officers were required to spend increased
nonproductive time traveling around the county. As
ISP staff became more "thinly spread," the team
supervision concept was no longer practical and was
subsequently abandoned.

Third, the requirement of court-ordered
participation was eliminated. Large numbers of
inmates ended program involvement without any
aftercare supervision. The practice of
administratively assigning inmates to the program
also tended to remove critical criminal justice
actors (i.e., judges, prosecutors, and defense
attorneys) from the vital referral process.

Despite greatly relaxed intake requirements, county
officials withdrew funding for the program in
February 1992 because of lack of referrals, high
costs, and disappointing recidivism. The last
platoon graduated from boot camp in April 1992, and
the last offender exited the ISP component 90 days
later.

RID Program Impacts

The following findings relate to the degree to
which the program met its initial goals of reducing
jail crowding, confinement costs, and recidivism.
An important secondary goal was to improve inmate
control. 

Did the RID program reduce jail crowding? No. RID
was designed to help alleviate crowding by reducing
to 90 days the incarceration time of inmates who
would otherwise spend substantial periods of
confinement in pretrial and sentenced status.
However, as already noted, program utilization was
well below expectations.

Furthermore, when RID participants' total length of
stay in county jails (157 days, including pretrial
confinement and length of time in boot camp) is
compared with the total time spent in jail by
control group cases (88 days), RID participants
spent 78 percent more time in the jail facility.
The RID program actually increased the inmate's
period of confinement.

However, it should also be noted that approximately
20 percent of the control group received prison
terms of 36 months with an expected length of
actual stay of 17 months. For this group alone, the
RID program would have reduced the use of
confinement but only to the benefit of the State
prison system, not the Sheriff's Department.

Did the RID program reduce the cost of confinement?
No. The program was to produce cost savings by
reducing pretrial and posttrial periods of
confinement and by reducing the likelihood of
recidivism. Analyses suggest that since RID inmates
were confined for longer periods than comparison
cases, costs were substantially greater than those
associated with non-RID inmates. Moreover, the
per-participant daily cost of $64.77 was far higher
than that for a typical jail inmate ($38.25 per
day).

Did the RID program lead to reduced recidivism
rates? No. Although program elements were all
directed toward reducing recidivism, no evidence
suggests that RID program participants had lower
rearrest rates than nonparticipants.

o  Overall, 250 of 528 RID participants (47
percent) were rearrested within 12 months of
release from boot camp; the period between release
and rearrest averaged 132 days. Of 183 comparison
offenders, 81 (44 percent) were rearrested after an
average 106-day period.

o  No difference in rates of rearrest existed
between offenders who successfully completed boot
camp and those who did not. 

Did the RID program improve inmate control? Yes.
One of the most impressive observations while
visiting the boot camp was that participants
behaved very differently from other inmates. Given
the high ratio of staff to inmates, there is little
question that inmate control is enhanced in this
military-type boot camp setting. Furthermore, it
was not just the high ratio of staff to inmates but
also the high level of staff intervention with
inmates. Staff were encouraged to interact
frequently with inmates as part of the military
regimen. With regard to institutional misconduct,
RID program participants had a far lower rate of
misconduct than inmates in comparable housing (such
as minimum-custody units). In addition, serious
acts of violence (e.g., sexual assault, assault
with weapons, and homicide), possession of weapons,
and drug use were nonexistent in the RID program
during the period under investigation. These
activities did occur in comparable regular jail
units.

Suggested Guidelines for Operating a Jail Boot Camp

Although jail boot camps were in their infancy at
the time of the study, a number of important
lessons were learned about how such programs should
be structured and operated.

Establish realistic goals. To be of practical value
to a local jail system, a jail boot camp must
establish goals that can be achieved. As indicated
earlier, jail boot camps listed a wide array of
program goals. The most frequently cited ones are
discussed here, together with suggested means of
achieving them:

o  Reduction of crowding. Given the relatively
short length of stay for most jail inmates, this
objective will not be met unless the program
carefully targets inmates who are spending at least
90 days or more in custody. These include probation
and parole violators likely to be sentenced to
prison or to spend considerable time in jail prior
to transfer to State prison or release to probation
or parole supervision. Diverting these offenders to
a boot camp would help relieve prison intake. In
these situations, the State prison system might
have to subsidize the jail boot camp operations.

o  Rehabilitation. Reversing the cumulative
negative experiences of these youthful offenders
within a 90-day period is, at best, a difficult
objective to realize. A boot camp program can
improve offenders' reading and work skills, help
them find jobs, and help them deal with long-term
drug abuse. Research findings indicate the Los
Angeles RID program was successful in improving
offenders' basic reading and math skills as well as
helping place them in full- and part-time jobs.
Such gains, however, do not easily translate into
reduced crime rates. 

o  Improved jail operations and public relations.
Although not a stated goal, perhaps the most
beneficial aspect of boot camps is creating an
efficient inmate work force and safe housing
environment. Staff skills, too, improved as
officers learned to deal with inmates in a direct
but supportive manner. These, plus boot camp
inmates' participation in community work projects,
can improve the jail's community relations.

Pilot test selection criteria and minimize
screening time. Once formal criteria are set for
determining which offenders are sent to jail and
how long they stay, program personnel need to pilot
test their selection criteria and their screening
process to verify that the program has enough
offenders to approach capacity, and offenders'
length of stay in jail decreases due to boot camp
participation. This can be done by drawing samples
of potential candidates prior to starting the
program to test the screening criteria, methods,
and forms. In so doing, jurisdictions can identify
problems noted here prior to starting the program.

The time required to identify and screen potential
applicants must also be minimized so that it does
not increase the participants' length of stay, as
it did in Los Angeles.

Limit program length of stay to between 90 and 120
days. To reduce crowding and potentially produce
cost savings, the designed program length of stay
should not exceed the average jail or prison
sentence for the target population. Unless there is
compelling evidence that boot camp participants
would spend, on average, 180 days or more in
custody had they not been admitted to the boot
camp, jail boot camps should limit their period of
program participation to 120 days. 

Establish a strong aftercare component. For the
positive effects of the program's rehabilitative
services to be maintained, supervision and services
must be continued after offenders are released. In
some situations this will require establishing a
transitional halfway house, residential drug
treatment, or intensive supervision for a minimum
period of 3 to 6 months.

Evaluate program operations and effectiveness.
Jurisdictions should conduct process evaluations
that assess whether their program is: 

o  Accepting the type and number of offenders for
which it was established.
o  Delivering the types of services it should.
o  Maintaining an acceptable program completion
rate.
o  Effectively working within the allotted budget. 

Once these issues have been addressed, more
rigorous impact evaluations should be launched to
determine the program's effectiveness in reducing
recidivism.

Notes

1.  U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice
Statistics, Jail Inmates 1991. Washington D.C.,
June 1992.

2.  U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice
Statistics, Jails and Jail Inmates 1993-94,
Washington, D.C., April 1995.

3.  Assuming that nearly three-fourths of the total
jail admissions represent individual adults who are
booked only once a year, approximately 3 percent of
the entire adult population is admitted to jail
each year. By contrast, approximately a million
adults are admitted to prison each year, according
to an October 27, 1994, press release from the
Bureau of Justice Statistics.

4.  Jails and Jail Inmates 1993-94. 

5.  James, Austin, M. Jones, and M. Bolyard,
Assessing the Impact of a County Operated Boot
Camp: Evaluation of the Los Angeles County
Regimented Inmate Diversion Program, Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National
Institute of Justice, March 1993.

6.  In the Bureau of Justice Statistics' Jail
Inmates 1992, three jail boot camps are listed that
NCCD was unable to identify during its survey.
These three programs are operated by Tarrant
County, Texas; Palm Beach County, Florida; and
Ventura County, California.

7.  As of January 1994, all 10 programs were still
in operation. In addition, 1 of the 13
jurisdictions planning to open a boot camp in 1992
or 1993 began operation in late 1992 (Hidalgo
County, Texas).

8.  See chapter 8 of this volume for a description
of the Santa Clara boot camp for women.

Editor's Note:

The material in this chapter was originally published
in 1993 as a National Institute of Justice Research in
Brief titled The Growing Use of Jail Boot Camps: The
Current State of the Art. This chapter amplifies the 
original version with a more detailed discussion of the
Los Angeles Regimented Inmate Diversion (RID) boot
camp program.


------------------------------------------------------------------
Correctional Boot Camps: A Tough Intermediate Sanction - Chapter 8


Santa Clara County PRIDE Program: A Local Boot Camp

by Carole Sanchez Knapel

Carole Knapel is currently completing a Fellowship 
with the National Institute of Justice. In Santa
Clara County, California, Ms. Knapel evaluated
alternative sanctions programs, conducted inmate
population projections, drew up inmate 
population management plans, and was responsible
for studying new jail and court construction.

Santa Clara County, California, instituted a boot
camp at its Correctional Center for Women in 1991.
The program's chief goals are to rehabilitate
offenders and reduce recidivism through a program
that incorporates general education, substance
abuse education, health and fitness training,
parenting skills training, psychosocial counseling,
job skills training, and team-building exercises.
The boot camp shares staff and other resources with
the regular facility. This 11-week program admits
volunteers from both pretrial and sentenced
offenders (classified as medium- or
minimum-security); selection is made by the program
staff and administrators. The program enjoys local
criminal justice and media support, and an informal
review of statistics indicates graduates stay
crime-free for as long as a year, a better record
than inmates released from the standard jail
program. The program has been increasing its
emphasis on improving the education and self-esteem
of the women, using physical training, drill, and
ceremony as means to achieve these ends. The
program benefits from an enthusiastic and committed
staff, but issues that remain to be adequately
addressed include training for staff and aftercare
for released participants.

Until recently boot camps were thought to be
appropriate chiefly for offenders sentenced to
State prisons, where relatively long sentences,
even for nonviolent first offenders, contribute to
crowding. The boot camp alternative, which could
significantly reduce the length of time served,
offered a way to trim both inmate populations and
correctional costs for States. At the same time,
the intensive, regimented nature of the programs
could instill the self-discipline that would help
those who completed the program to lead productive,
crime-free lives once they were released.

Local boot camps were considered to be ineffective
because of the relatively short length of time that
offenders spent in jail facilities. In recent
years, these assumptions have been challenged, and
local boot camp programs are beginning to appear.
After outlining length-of-stay issues, this chapter
discusses the goals and operations of one of these
local boot camps, Project PRIDE, in Santa Clara
County, California.

Length-of-Stay Issues

The inmates' length of stay in the facility is the
first issue a local jurisdiction must address in
developing a boot camp program. The average length
of stay for inmates booked at local jails is 2 to 3
weeks. This figure may be misleading, however,
because many inmates are booked but released within
a relatively short time. Other inmates may remain
far longer.

For example, Santa Clara County correctional
facilities booked approximately 62,000 inmates with
new charges in 1993. For those who remained in
custody from the time of initial arrest until final
adjudication, the average length of stay was 76
days. The average length of stay for sentenced
felons in Santa Clara County was 106 days for male
inmates and 99 days for female inmates. These
numbers present a significantly different picture
of the average length of stay in local jail
facilities and suggest that boot camp programs may
be appropriate for some inmates.

Traditionally, many jurisdictions have been
reluctant to accept pretrial inmates into the boot
camp program because of concern that pretrial
inmates could be required to appear in court during
the program and that their intermittent attendance
could be disruptive to the program and of little
benefit to the inmates involved. In recent years,
however, more and more jurisdictions have begun to
reevaluate this position. Many jurisdictions have
determined that inmates held in pretrial custody
remain in custody for long periods of time between
scheduled court hearings. Having these inmates
participate in classes during these periods could
be beneficial for the overall management of the
institution. Further, defense counsel have often
encouraged inmates to participate in programs that
address their needs. If a defendant is found guilty
of charges but has participated in a program
throughout the period of adjudication, the court
may take this fact into consideration upon
sentencing.

Although local jurisdictions may share with State
prisons the goal of reducing crowding and the costs
of incarceration, local programs may define this
goal differently, as Santa Clara County did. 

Santa Clara County Institutes a Jail Boot Camp

Santa Clara County's Project PRIDE,1 a boot camp
for women, was instituted in 1991 with the goal of
reducing recidivism and rehabilitating offenders.
Captain Kathleen Barrow of the Santa Clara County
Department of Corrections had read reports and seen
news coverage of boot camp programs that had been
implemented in jurisdictions throughout the
country. She noted that few of these programs had
been created for female inmates. In her years of
working at the county's facilities, she had
observed that many of the women who spent time in
county jail lacked self-discipline and self-esteem;
on release from custody, many returned to criminal
activity because they saw no other option. They
went in and out of custody on a regular basis.
Captain Barrow convinced the Department of
Corrections that the discipline of a boot camp
program that included educational and drug
counseling components could help some women
offenders. Further, she convinced officials that if
given the opportunity to participate, many of these
women could become better able to take charge of
their own lives on release. The self-discipline and
self-esteem they would gain from the program would
enable them to change the factors that were driving
them to crime. 

When the program began, there was little
information on the development and implementation
of local boot camps. Thus, the department set out
to develop its own plan, tailored to the county's
philosophy, corrections operation, and needs. 

Program Goals

Since Project PRIDE's goals are to rehabilitate
offenders and reduce recidivism, program staff are
concerned with the personal development of each
participant. The project seeks not only to increase
the self-esteem and social awareness of
participants but also to modify their behavior,
help prepare them for jobs, and reduce their
likelihood of recidivism.

All program activities are related to one or more
of seven categories that staff and administration
members believe are central to the program's goals:

o  General education.
o  Substance abuse education.
o  Health and fitness training.
o  Parenting skill training.
o  Psychosocial counseling.
o  Job skills training.
o  Team-building exercises. 

These are considered the building blocks of the
program.

It is important to note that the county does not
specifically mention the reduction of both jail
crowding and the costs of incarceration as program
goals. County officials and project staff members,
however, point out that they do address these
goals, but differently from State prison programs.
County officials believe they can reach inmates
before they go through the criminal justice system
so many times that they end up in State prison. If
they can produce a change in offenders' lives while
they are in a county jail system, imprisonment can
be avoided. Eventually this could affect the size
of the State prison population.

Staff members believe that if they demonstrate the
success of their program, they may have an even
more direct effect on the State prison population.
In California, inmates assigned to the State parole
system can be rearrested and charged with parole
violations. An inmate can be sentenced to a 3- to
6-month term in State prison for such a violation.
Staff members believe that some of these parole
violators may qualify for sentencing to county jail
and assignment to the PRIDE Program. If the county
is able to work jointly with the State Department
of Corrections on this proposal, direct reduction
of the State prison population could be achieved.

Program Description

The PRIDE boot camp is located at Santa Clara
County's Correctional Center for Women. The
Center's population averaged 425 inmates from July
to December 1993. (The total population of the
county's correctional system is approximately 4,300
inmates.) With a capacity for 44 inmates, the
program has been running at 66 percent of capacity
with an average daily population of 29. Two out of
three women who signed up have successfully
completed the program.

Project PRIDE is housed in a modular facility
located within the Correctional Center but fenced
off from other housing. Although the boot camp
activities are conducted separately from the
activities of the Center's general population, some
of the resources provided for participants, such as
drug education counseling and general education,
are provided by the same staff who furnish services
to the rest of the Center.

The daily regimen includes 4 hours of general and
vocational education, 1-1/2 hours of drug education
counseling, 1 hour of general counseling, 4 hours
of physical training and drill, 1-1/2 hours of work
time, and 1 hour for personal hygiene and health.
Following an early rise and breakfast, inmates
start the morning with general education and
continue with physical training and formal
inspection. After lunch, they participate in
substance abuse education, self-esteem training,
drill, and further substance abuse education. After
dinner, they complete study assignments and
maintain their living space and uniforms. No
newspapers or television are allowed, and outside
visits are limited to 1 hour on Sunday afternoons. 

Selection Criteria

Project PRIDE is an 11-week program. Because it
operates in a local county jail, its participants
include both pretrial and sentenced offenders. Due
to limited resources, there is only one group per
11-week cycle, with enrollment allowed only in the
first week. A 3-week hiatus between each cycle
allows the staff time to recruit inmates for the
next cycle, make necessary program adjustments, and
complete other administrative tasks. 

Participants are selected by the program staff and
administrators. Inmates charged with crimes such as
murder, manslaughter, and kidnapping are
automatically disqualified. Although other serious
charges, escape histories, and gang affiliations
are closely examined, women with these charges or
histories may be allowed to participate. In
general, the women who participate are classified
as either medium- or minimum-security offenders.

PRIDE staff members stress the importance of the
voluntary nature of the program. One of the
program's stated goals is behavior modification,
but staff members believe that such modification
can occur only when the inmate is ready to change.
The inmate must be convinced she wants to change
her behavior and is ready to participate in the
program. This view is echoed by program
participants, who say that reluctant participants--
even under the current structure--detract from the
program. 

Participants are recruited by project staff members
and by inmates who have completed the program but
remain in custody because of the length of their
sentence. Generally, participants must be screened
by medical and mental health staff members, must
agree to abide by program rules, and must be
willing to participate in a rigid schedule of
activities. Although graduates are convinced that
the program should remain voluntary, they are
anxious to help recruit new participants. They
believe that once a prospective recruit sees what
she can accomplish, she will voluntarily enter the
program.

An inmate who wants to leave the program prior to
its completion must submit a written request.
Security and counseling staff interview her to
address any problems she identifies as reasons for
wanting to leave. PRIDE staff members believe this
exercise is important in convincing the inmate that
they are willing to help her do what is necessary
to help herself. 

Project Staff

Seven security officers are currently assigned to
the boot camp to provide security and supervision
around the clock. Two officers are designated as
program coordinators to provide day-to-day program
administration. 

Staff members are selected for the program through
a written application and interview process.
Selections are based on the applicant's dedication
to program principles and willingness to work with
inmates and to assist them in every way possible to
successfully complete the program.

An effort is made to select an ethnically diverse
staff with some level of life experience in working
with people individually or in groups. Staff
members with this background are considered to be
more familiar and more prepared to deal with inmate
issues. Military training or experience is not a
prerequisite.

In addition to the custody staff, the program uses
the resources of the Milpitas Adult Education
Program, Friends Outside, and other local community
services and volunteers.

Program Support 

The local criminal justice community and the media
have provided strong support to the program.
Judges, prosecutors, and other officials have
participated in the graduation ceremonies, and the
local press has provided extensive coverage of the
ceremonies.

Although the program has not been formally
evaluated, there is anecdotal evidence of its
short-term benefits. In one case, a judge was
convinced of an inmate's commitment to change her
behavior because of her participation in the
program. At the sentencing hearing, the judge noted
the inmate's changed demeanor and presence and
sentenced her to local jail rather than to a longer
term in State prison.

Staff members have attempted to collect as much
information as possible on the 203 women who have
completed the program. They learned that 52 have
been rearrested, but to date no analysis has been
made on the average length of time before rearrest.
One parole officer noted that clients who
participated in the program appeared much more
likely to meet the conditions of their parole and
demonstrate an improved attitude than
nonparticipants. The officer's informal review of
statistics indicates that some participants were
staying crime-free for as long as a year, whereas
before participating in the program they were
arrested every 3 to 4 months.

Despite these indications of short-term benefits,
one issue raised in discussions with both project
staff and inmates was the lack of aftercare once
inmates were released. Many inmates reported that
they were fearful of release because they had no
place to go but back to their old neighborhoods and
friends. Participation in the program had taught
them that to live crime-free lives they must break
these old ties. Yet many did not have the resources
to do this and feared they would return to old
behavior patterns.

To deal with this issue, PRIDE staff have developed
an informal network of out-of-custody programs that
can be resources for some released inmates. Many of
the most helpful programs are residential ones,
which provide group support for getting off drugs,
developing job skills, and finding employment.
Sometimes the programs are outside Santa Clara
County, helping the women put physical distance
between their old and new lives. Program staff help
graduating inmates find housing placements and link
them with funding and other resources in the
community. Out-of-custody placements are rare,
however, and the majority of those who complete the
program are released without any aftercare or
followup. 

Program Evolution

Because Project PRIDE was established when little
information was available on local boot camp
projects, program administrators and staff members
depended significantly on the experiences of the
Los Angeles County men's program and programs
operated by the California Department of
Corrections. Once Project PRIDE was implemented,
several adjustments were made in the program's
structure and activities.

One of the basic issues was the definition of
program objectives. Program staff devoted
significant effort to defining these objectives,
and although there have been modifications in the
program, staff stated that such changes were
possible because of the clarity of the original
program. 

One change has been in the amount of time devoted
to such activities as physical training, drill, and
ceremony. As the program progressed, a greater
emphasis was placed on learning and developing
self-esteem. Staff members said that these issues
are perhaps more critical for female inmates, who
have lower self-esteem than male inmates. Physical
training and the drill and ceremony are now used as
tools to build self-esteem and address health and
fitness needs.

Staff Training

Santa Clara officials reported that because of a
lack of resources, training was not offered to the
staff assigned to the program. Staff members
completed a 1-day session with the Los Angeles
County staff but had no other training.

Yet the issue of staff training can be vital to the
startup of a new program and is particularly
critical in areas of inmate discipline. Because of
the regimented nature of the boot camp program,
policies and procedures for inmate discipline
should be carefully drafted, according to project
administrators. These should take account of the
special considerations due pretrial inmates, who
have not yet been convicted of a crime or
sentenced.

PRIDE staff members also suggested that they be
assigned to the program on a long-term basis, since
they have formed a working team that functions well
and could ensure the consistency of the program. 

Many Issues Remain

Santa Clara County represents one of only a handful
of jurisdictions that have attempted to operate
boot camp programs at the local level. Such
programs need to be evaluated to determine their
effectiveness but have received little attention.
It is difficult to demonstrate their cost
effectiveness, given their generally limited
duration and small inmate populations.2

Additionally, since local jail systems often
operate separately from probation and parole
programs, there may be little opportunity to
develop aftercare programs for those released from
custody. Local jurisdictions that are considering
implementing such programs should look for
opportunities to address the aftercare issue,
including opportunities to work cooperatively with
State systems. Since aftercare is recognized as an
important component in many State boot camp
programs, local jurisdictions may want to examine
the potential for developing programs that
incorporate both in-custody (corrections) and
out-of-custody (probation) departments of local
government.

Santa Clara's Project PRIDE, however, benefits from
a staff dedicated to the goals of the program and
enthusiastic about its potential benefits for
inmates and the community. The support of the local
criminal justice community, coupled with graduates'
interest in recruiting new participants, indicates
that this local boot camp program merits attention
from jurisdictions faced with problems similar to
those Santa Clara County confronted when it
instituted Project PRIDE.

Notes

1.  The acronym stands for Practical Regimented
Rehabilitation for Inmates Determined To Excel.

2.  See James Austin, Michael Jones, and Melissa
Bolyard, The Growing Use of Jail Boot Camps: The
Current State of the Art, Research in Brief,
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,
National Institute of Justice, October 1993, as
well as these authors' chapter 7 in this volume.
See also D.L. MacKenzie and A. Piquero, "The Impact
of Shock Incarceration Programs on Prison
Crowding," Crime and Delinquency, 40, no. 2
(1994):222-249. 


------------------------------------------------------------------
Correctional Boot Camps: A Tough Intermediate Sanction - Chapter 9


The Development of Boot Camps in the Juvenile
System: Implementation of Three Demonstration
Programs

by Daniel B. Felker, Ph.D., and Blair B. Bourque

Daniel B. Felker, Ph.D., is a Senior Research
Fellow at the American Institutes for Research in
Washington, D.C. Dr. Felker has directed projects
to evaluate drug prevention programs and boot camps
for juvenile and older offenders. Blair B. Bourque
is a Senior Research Scientist at the American
Institutes for Research, focusing on criminal
justice program evaluation. She has recently
conducted an evaluation of boot camps for juvenile
offenders.

The development and early implementation of three
demonstration boot camps for juveniles offenders in
Cleveland, Ohio; Denver, Colorado; and Mobile,
Alabama, are described. The boot camps, which
opened in April 1992, combined military
regimentation and conditioning with rehabilitation
and a range of aftercare and followup services.
Participants, who were all male and ranged in age
from 13 to 18, moved through three program phases:
selection (including screening and intake),
intensive training (a 3-month residential boot
camp), and aftercare (a 6- to 9-month period of
supervision in the community). Participants were
all nonviolent, midlevel offenders, but the three
boot camp populations varied in the seriousness of
their criminal histories, with Cleveland having the
most troubled adolescents and Mobile the least. Up
to half of the youths came from families with
criminal histories or histories of abuse and
neglect. In all three camps physical fitness, basic
education, and life skills training were part of
each day's regimen. Drug prevention and health
concepts were incorporated into various areas of
boot camp instruction. The integration of military
discipline and treatment, selection and training of
staff, appropriate levels of punishment, and
integration of boot camp and aftercare are among
the issues that emerged as important in the future
development of juvenile boot camps.

In July 1990 the Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) announced its
intention to demonstrate and test juvenile boot
camps for nonviolent juvenile offenders. The
juvenile program established through this
initiative borrowed extensively from boot camps in
adult correctional systems. Like adult boot camps,
they were designed as an intermediate sanction--an
intervention less severe than long-term
institutionalization but more severe than immediate
supervised release--and targeted nonviolent
offenders at risk of continuing criminal behavior.
The 90-day programs featured the use of
military-like discipline and structure in a
comprehensive residential setting and were followed
by supervised aftercare in the community for up to
9 months. The programs were expected to reflect
joint public and private sector programming. 

In September 1991 OJJDP awarded boot camp grants 
to three groups:

o  The Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas in
Cleveland, Ohio, in association with the North
American Family Institute.

o  The Boys and Girls Clubs of Greater Mobile,
Alabama, in association with the Strickland Youth
Center of the Mobile County Court and the
University of South Alabama.

o  New Pride, Inc., in Denver, Colorado, in
association with the Colorado Division of Youth
Services.

The first 6 months were spent designing the
intervention programs; the next year the boot camps
were operated. The evaluation of the programs
covered this 18-month period.

Boot Camp Designs

OJJDP stipulated the basic structure of each
program as a contingency for funding. They were to
consist of four phases: selection, intensive
training, preparedness, and accountability. Within
these general parameters, the three programs
differed according to philosophy, needs, and
constraints. These variations are summarized below.

Program context. The pressures that led the sites
to seek Federal funding were similar to those being
felt by juvenile justice systems nationwide:
rapidly rising numbers of juvenile arrests,
increased involvement of youths with drugs,
overcrowded juvenile facilities, and the expense of
institutionalizing youths. In addition, juvenile
facilities in Ohio and Colorado were under public
scrutiny for overcrowding and high rates of
recidivism. Boot camps were viewed in those States
as a possible means of alleviating crowding while
also providing innovative services to at-risk
youths.

Organizational structure. Because grant
requirements stipulated public and private sector
involvement, the organizational structure at each
location was relatively complex. 

In Cleveland the Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court
contracted with the Massachusetts-based North
American Family Institute (NAFI) to run the
residential and aftercare phases of the boot camp.
The juvenile court coordinated all program
activities; conducted planning, research, and
evaluation; and selected participants. NAFI was
responsible for operating the program, training
staff, and providing technical assistance. The
court paid one manager out of grant funds to
oversee the selection process and to serve as
liaison between the court and NAFI.

In Denver the Colorado Division of Youth Services
(DYS) contracted with New Pride, Inc., a private,
nonprofit corporation with a long history of
providing community-based services for high-risk
delinquents, to operate the program. DYS provided
two client managers and a project coordinator to
oversee operations, handle selection, and
administer parole. New Pride operated both the
residential and aftercare phases of the boot camp
program.

The Mobile boot camp was a partnership of the
Strickland Youth Center of the Mobile County Court,
the Boys and Girls Club of Greater Mobile (B&GC),
and the University of South Alabama. B&GC was the
prime contractor, but Mobile County's chief
probation officer and the executive director of
B&GC served as coproject directors. They jointly
supervised the boot camp director who in turn
managed the program's residential and aftercare
phases. Strickland Youth Center provided intake
processing, sentencing, and probation supervision
through three probation officers assigned to boot
camp youths.

Facilities. All three programs modified existing
facilities for their residential camps. The
Cleveland program, Camp Roulston, used two cottages
at Cuyahoga County's Youth Development Center
(YDC), situated 30 miles outside the city. The
program admitted a new platoon of 10 youths each
month. Camp Roulston shared classrooms, gymnasium,
medical care, and food service with the YDC, but
commingling was minimized and Roulston's cottages
were separate from YDC facilities. Aftercare
services were coordinated from a facility in
downtown Cleveland.

The Denver program, Camp Foxfire, operated out of a
building at the DYS Mount View Youth Services
Center, where a regional detention center and the
DYS Assessment Center were also based. Located on
the outskirts of Denver, the facility consisted of
a common day room, single sleeping rooms, a dining
area, classroom space, staff offices, grounds for
an obstacle course, and a fenced courtyard.
Facilities were sufficient to handle intake of 12
youths every 6 weeks. Aftercare services were run
by Wyatt Academy in downtown Denver.

The Mobile program, Environmental Youth Corps,
shared the grounds of the Strickland Youth Center
with Mobile County's juvenile court and detention
center. Each month the program admitted a cohort of
13 youths, housed in a separate barracks-like
building. Two nearby trailers were used for
classrooms and administrative offices. There was an
outdoor obstacle course adjacent to the trailers
and an area for outdoor work and program activities
5 miles from the compound. Aftercare services were
decentralized, operating from seven Boys and Girls
Clubs in greater Mobile.

Staffing. The cognizant juvenile justice agency
provided additional administrative and coordinating
staff support at each site. Cleveland and Mobile
had the largest staffs with 22 and 21 members
respectively for the residential phase. In
contrast, Denver had only 12 staff members. Drill
instructors made up the majority of all three
programs' staff. The bed-to-staff ratio was
considerably lower in Cleveland than it was in the
other two sites, but because both Denver and Mobile
never operated at capacity, the
participant-to-staff ratios there equaled the ratio
in Cleveland.

Operation of Juvenile Boot Camps

The boot camps had 6 months to flesh out policies
and procedures and to prepare their facilities
before they began accepting youths in April 1992.
The programs combined military regimentation and
conditioning with rehabilitation and a range of
aftercare and followup services. Youths moved
through three program phases:

o  Selection, including screening and intake.
o  Intensive training, a 3-month residential boot
camp. 
o  Aftercare, a 6- to 9-month period of supervision
in the community. 

Screening criteria. In accordance with boot camps'
status as "intermediate sanctions," OJJDP specified
that the camps serve mid-level offenders, defined
as nonviolent youths whom the court considered
eligible for confinement in a boot camp program.
The programs met the nonviolent criterion by
excluding offenders who had committed offenses on a
proscribed list--murder, manslaughter, sex
offenses, aggravated arson, and kidnapping. Denver
and Mobile also excluded felony assaults. Mobile
added robberies and burglaries to its proscribed
list, preferring a less serious pool of offenders.

Only Cleveland selected youths who would otherwise
have had a residential placement either at a State
DYS facility or at a county correctional facility.
Denver targeted youths committed to the State DYS
and also youths placed on probation by the local
juvenile court. Mobile defined its pool of eligible
youths on a different basis, targeting those who
had failed on probation and had a recommendation
from a probation officer. All of the programs
refused to accept escape risks or youths rated
unacceptable for minimum security status. 

The demands of boot camp dictated stringent medical
and psychological screening. All three programs
required participants to take medical examinations
before assignment to ensure their physical fitness.
Although the camps accepted youths with alcohol and
drug abuse problems, they excluded those who
required detoxification. Youths whose psychological
assessment indicated serious mental disturbance or
problems were also excluded. 

Only male youths were eligible for the camps, and
ages ranged from 13 to 17 in Mobile, 14 to 17 in
Cleveland, and 14 to 18 in Denver. 
Although voluntary participation is typical of
adult boot camp programs, it was required only for
the Cleveland camp. Staff there perceived voluntary
participation to have program-matic benefits as a
motivational tool for youths. There was concern in
both Denver and Mobile that the incentive to
participate would not be as strong for juvenile
offenders as it is for adults, who accept boot camp
in lieu of longer prison terms, and that they would
not have enough volunteers. Moreover, in Mobile,
judges viewed voluntary participation as a limit on
their judicial discretion.

Over the first year of operation the programs
adjusted their selection criteria. Some sites found
medical screening to be insufficient, failing in
some cases to detect serious health problems. All
of the sites initially admitted youths they could
not control and tried to avoid this problem early
in the program by eliminating participants with a
history of fighting. Cleveland, however, relaxed
the nonviolent criterion to include youths who had
committed excluded offenses as long as those
offenses were not the committing offenses for boot
camp.

Because youths entered the boot camps in platoons
of 10 to 13, the selection process had to occur
early enough to identify sufficient numbers of
youths by the transfer date to the boot camp
program. In Cleveland, since youths are held in
detention during the screening process, early
selection placed a burden on the detention center.
Although detention space became an issue only in
Cleveland, all of the programs had to tinker with
the selection timing, criteria, and process during
their first 6 months of operation.

Screening results. During the camps' first year of
operation--April 1992 to March 1993--screening
criteria yielded an all-male population
predominantly composed of older, minority youths.
Mobile drew a slightly younger recruit class with
an average age of 15.6 (compared to 16.5 in
Cleveland and Denver). The majority of boot camp
enrollees in Cleveland and Mobile were African
American, while in Denver they were more diverse:
35 percent were African American, 35 percent white,
22 percent Hispanic, and 8 percent Native American
and Asian.

The criminal records of youths in the boot camps
differed across sites. Of Mobile recruits, 73.8
percent were on probation or parole when arrested
for the offense that led to their boot camp
sentence--not surprising given that Mobile
intentionally targeted youths who had broken the
conditions of their probation. Similarly, 73.7
percent of Cleveland youths were on probation or
parole before entering the program. Denver drew a
lower proportion of its participants, 61.4 percent,
from a parole/probation population.

The instant offense (offense prompting boot camp
entry) was a violation of probation or court order
for 37.7 percent of youths in Mobile, including 9
percent for violations of CHINS (children in need
of supervision) court orders,1 for 29.3 percent in
Denver, and for 22.7 percent in Cleveland.
Approximately half of the participants in both
Denver and Mobile were brought in on felonies,
which were primarily property offenses because
selection criteria excluded most felony offenses
against persons. Cleveland selected youths with
more serious offenses: 72.4 percent came in on
felony offenses; 16.8 percent came in on felony
offenses against persons. 

Of the three sites, Cleveland also selected youths
with more extensive prior criminal histories. Over
41 percent of the participants in Cleveland had two
or more prior felony findings, compared with 20
percent in the other sites.2 Almost 27 and 21
percent of the youths in Cleveland and Mobile,
respectively, had been committed prior to their
boot camp offense. Although only 4 percent of
participants in Denver had prior commitments to
DYS, nearly half had previously been sentenced to
probation plus detention or to a residential
placement. Youths in Denver started their official
criminal careers at an older age than did youths in
Cleveland or Mobile. 

No more than 30 percent at any site lived with both
parents or with a parent and stepparent. At the two
sites for which public assistance data were
available--Cleveland and Mobile--58 percent and 46
percent, respectively, of participants' families
received some form of aid. 

What is extremely disturbing in these statistics is
the percentage of youths whose families were
engaged in the justice system through criminal
records or child abuse and neglect charges. In
Cleveland nearly half of the youths had a parent or
guardian with a criminal record, and over 36
percent had a parent charged with abuse or neglect.
These percentages were a little lower for family
members and guardians in Denver: 28.6 percent had a
criminal record and 30.3 percent had an abuse or
neglect charge. Less than 30 percent of the youths
in Mobile came from families with criminal or abuse
records, but these lower rates may reflect
differences in charging or recordkeeping.

By all indicators, Cleveland's program admitted the
most troubled adolescents; they had more extensive
criminal records and more severe offenses. Mobile
fell at the other end of the spectrum, serving a
slightly younger group of offenders who had not
penetrated as far into the criminal justice system.

The boot camp: intensive training. The most visible
program feature at each demonstration site was the
boot camp itself, a 90-day, paramilitary
residential phase. As in adult boot camps, this
phase was designed to build self-discipline,
responsibility, self-esteem, and teamwork by
employing military structure, discipline, and
physical fitness training. Because these programs
operated within the juvenile justice system, their
military dimensions were augmented by a number of
therapeutic and educational services such as
remedial education, group counseling sessions, and
life skills training. The specific programming mix
differed by site.

Only Mobile had barracks; Cleveland and Denver
housed youths in dormitory units. Each program's
level of military-like emphasis differed. Denver
created the most military environment and Cleveland
the least. Although all of the programs employed
strict discipline, including the use of group
punishment and rewards and summary punishment,
Cleveland's disciplinary system was considerably
less punitive, using summary punishment only after
staff had tried less punitive measures. Denver and
Mobile employed a "brig," or punishment cell, for
serious offenses, but Cleveland did not. The degree
of verbal confrontation and intimidation employed
by drill instructors was less intense in Cleveland.

All three programs required youths to perform
routine maintenance of their living areas. Recruits
scrubbed, cleaned, and polished living quarters and
policed outdoor areas. The programs considered work
assignments that required little supervision, such
as cleaning administrative offices, to be an earned
privilege. In Mobile, labor was used not only as a
reward but also as a form of punishment. Drill 
instructors made youths dig and fill in huge
holes, a practice later discontinued. 

Physical training was an important adjunct to the 
programs' military regimens. Youths participated
in daily physical conditioning activities, 
beginning with exercises and runs early in the 
morning. Physical fitness tests administered to 
participants upon entry to the camps indicated 
wide variation in their physical condition, 
which raised concerns about the safety of an 
overly aggressive conditioning program. However, 
staff reports and fitness test scores did show 
considerable improvement in physical fitness for 
participants by the end of the programs. 

Although the programs' designs included challenge
programming as an integral part of the boot camp
experience, such efforts received short shrift
during implementation. Denver never implemented a
formal challenge program, although it did construct
and use an obstacle course. Construction of a
challenge course in Cleveland was delayed for
months while staff attempted to locate funds and
resolve location issues with the host facility.
Mobile employed a challenge adventure course
involving physical activities that demanded group
decisionmaking and cooperation to negotiate
successfully and a mountainbiking course, but the
activities were inconsistently scheduled.

Each program devoted several hours a day to
educational activities. The Denver and Mobile
programs hired instructors to provide educational
services to participants. Mobile also used an
individualized educational course, which culminated
in passage of the GED (general equivalency
diploma). In Denver academic instruction focused on
teaching basic reading, writing, phonics, and math
skills. Cleveland, after a few months of patching
together a faculty using part-time teachers from
its host institution, brought in instructors from
an alternative school to run its program, which
also focused on basic skills. In addition to
remedial education, all of the programs offered
life skills or social adjustment curriculums.

Completing a high school education was made a
higher priority for youths at the boot camps than
vocational education or job preparation. To some
extent the entire boot camp experience was seen as
a form of job preparation in that it attempted to
improve youths' work ethic and manners and made
them successfully follow a rigorous schedule. In
addition, the programs included modules in life
skills curriculums on finding jobs, filling out
application forms, and preparing for interviews.
The transition to work received considerably more
attention during the aftercare phase.

The programs offered no separate drug and alcohol
counseling sessions, but drug prevention and health
concepts were incorporated into various areas of
boot camp instruction. Moreover, the life skills
curriculums covered substance abuse problems.
Cleveland attempted to develop a positive peer
culture by holding Guided Group Interaction
sessions each week that encouraged youths to air
and resolve their problems. Drug and alcohol issues
became more prominent during aftercare.

Each program also included a case management
function. Case managers developed and regularly
updated individualized plans for youths based on
assessments conducted when they entered the
programs. In Denver this function was performed by
DYS client managers, in Mobile by one of the three
probation officers assigned to the boot camp, and
in Cleveland by a social worker. 

Aftercare services. Following release from boot
camp, youths entered a 6- to 9-month period of
supervision in the community. Structure,
supervision levels, and services during this phase
varied across programs.

o  Denver graduates attended a special school
operated by New Pride for 6 months. The school was
patterned after a private academy and enforced a
tie and blazer dress code. Youths regained their
regular probation and parole officers during this
phase, with supervision continuing as long as
sentences dictated. Some youths were also required
to participate in drug and alcohol counseling and
other programs.

o  Cleveland graduates attended a day center for 6
months, where they were provided case management
and supervision, counseling, recreation, and other
services including transportation and meals. The
program also created an alternative school at this
center after finding it difficult to return boot
camp graduates to regular school settings.

o  Mobile graduates were given a choice of seven
Boys and Girls Clubs in low-income neighborhoods
throughout the area to report to after school.
Attendance schedules were set by the program and
their probation officers. The clubs offered
graduates tutoring, recreation, drug and alcohol
education, and other special programs. Mobile's
aftercare program lasted 9 months, but attendance
requirements declined progressively as the program
neared conclusion.

Implementation Issues

Designing treatment intervention programs for
juvenile offenders is a complicated process in any
setting. Even more problematic is developing a
program that combines treatment and rigorous
discipline in a highly structured setting. The
obstacles and successes these programs experienced
while implementing their prototype juvenile camps
offer valuable lessons to others. These issues are
addressed below.

Degree of militarism. How much should a juvenile
boot camp be modeled on the military? It is not a
simple case of transplanting military recruit
training procedures to juvenile corrections.
Consideration must also be given to the age of
participants and those aspects of military routine
that address youth needs. All three programs
established structured, military-like environments
where staff wore distinctive military uniforms and
military norms of behavior were expected (e.g.,
"Yes Sir," "Sir, request permission to . . .").
However, the programs differed in intensity, and
they all revised the level of military emphasis
either upward or downward during early
implementation.

Integration of military discipline and treatments.
Boot camps are "carrot and stick" operations where
education and counseling are embedded in a
disciplined structure tolerating little
individualistic behavior. The demonstration
programs all established clear-cut military
procedures for morning and evening routines and for
maintaining an orderly flow of program activities
during the day. However, military-oriented rules
governing behavior of youths during classes,
counseling, and recreation had to be worked out as
the program was implemented. All programs revised
their schedules to optimize the mix of time devoted
to rigorous physical activities versus education
and counseling sessions.

Staff backgrounds. Should boot camp staff have
military backgrounds and learn to work with at-risk
youths? Or is it better to have youth service
professionals learn military routines? There is no
simple, single answer. The ability to operate a
program that adheres faithfully to military spirit
and philosophy requires formal staff exposure to
the military through training or experience. Some
program staff members attended special training
given by the U.S. Army or the Marine Corps. But by
itself, military experience is not sufficient.
Juvenile offenders differ from the average military
recruit in important ways--they are younger, less
prepared academically, and more emotionally and
socially dysfunctional. If staff with military
backgrounds are employed, they should be prepared
to work with juvenile offenders. The programs
generally found that the ability to relate to
youths was more important for an effective staff
than having military or correctional experience.

Appropriate levels of punishment and discipline.
The three programs wrestled with determining
appropriate punishments for program violations. The
extremes were fairly clear: for minor incidents,
extra pushups or drill time sufficed; for major
flagrant violations, suspension from the program
and referral to juvenile court for disposition
could result. Intermediate levels of punishment and
violations varied across sites--restraints in
Cleveland and isolation cells and hard physical
labor in Mobile and Denver. It proved difficult,
however, to match violations to appropriate levels
of punishment equitably or consistently. Violations
of probation during aftercare proved especially
nettlesome. Program staff tended to be reluctant to
file probation violations that might result in
additional institutional time for youths who did
not attend aftercare programs. These experiences
demonstrate a need for better articulation of
program policies regarding levels of punishment,
particularly on what constitutes grounds for filing
a violation of probation during aftercare. 

Integration of boot camp and aftercare. Each
program consisted of a 3-month military-like
residential phase followed by a community aftercare
phase of up to 9 months. Program services for the
residential phase were generally cohesive and
consistent because participants were in one
location and easily monitored. Aftercare service
delivery was less consistent, largely because
delivery points were scattered and involved
different agencies and because youths often failed
to report at scheduled times. One method employed
by two sites to ease the transition from a
structured environment to the community was
creating a separate school for boot camp graduates
to attend. But overall, aftercare treatment should
be given more careful consideration during the
planning process.

Meshing public and private sector staff. Because of
grant requirements, the three programs were
alliances of public and private sector agencies. As
a result, program implementation was occasionally
hampered due to "clashes" of different corporate
cultures and lack of shared vision. For example, at
times the camps' military aspects contradicted
traditional notions of juvenile treatment, and
program procedures deviated from standard juvenile
justice procedures. In addition, "hard money" staff
having career civil service status had different
work regulations and pay scales than "soft money"
program staff who were hired specifically for boot
camp and paid by grant funds. Cohesive program
implementation involving a mix of public and
private sector staff necessitates integrated staff
actions.

Prognosis for Juvenile Boot Camps

There are not yet any concrete results from OJJDP's
experiment with boot camps in the juvenile justice
system. In interviews many youths who graduated
from the intensive training stage described the
program as a positive experience, and some believed
it altered the course of their lives. At a minimum,
they were proud of having completed a tough
military program. It is also known that boot camps
can save the system money; how much depends on how
expensive they are to run as well as the number of
residential days they save. 

But the promising steps youths took at the
conclusion of the programs will be meaningful only
after they return and participate over time in
their communities. As the demonstration programs
concluded their third year of operation, their
challenge was to improve the transition to
aftercare and continue the growth at-risk youths
experienced in boot camp.

Notes

1.  Mobile changed its policy midcourse so that
youths who were brought in for violations of CHINS
court orders were not eligible for boot camp.

2.  Cross-jurisdictional differences in charging
and sentencing practices make cross-site
comparisons of criminal records difficult to
interpret. One practice that can inflate criminal
records is that of splitting various charges
connected with one offense into several petitions.
Neither Denver nor Cleveland split offenses, but
Mobile did. Consequently, criminal records for
Mobile may overestimate youth criminal histories
compared with those of the other sites.

Observations in this chapter are derived from an
evaluation conducted jointly by the American
Institutes for Research and the Institute for
Criminological Research at Rutgers University under
the sponsorship of the National Institute of
Justice. The full report and a Research in Brief
are scheduled for winter 1995 publication. The
demonstration programs were funded by OJJDP.


-------------------------------------------------------------------
Correctional Boot Camps: A Tough Intermediate Sanction - Chapter 10


First-Year Evaluation of the California Youth
Authority Boot Camp

by Jean Bottcher and Teresa Isorena

Jean Botcher and Teresa Isorena are with the
California Youth Authority's Research Division.
They have been working on the LEAD evaluation since
the program's inception in 1992 and expect to
complete their final evaluation report at the end
of 1996.

This chapter assesses the California Youth
Authority (CYA) boot camp's first year of
operation. The program, called LEAD, was
established in 1992 with a legislative mandate to
reduce recidivism and provide a cost-effective
sentencing option. The camp serves CYA's nonviolent
and least serious offenders and was designed with
an experimental evaluation to be completed in 1996.
This chapter documents the program's
accomplishments, including the implementation of an
officer training model that has helped develop
confidence, teamwork, and discipline at the camp; a
generally safer, healthier institutional
environment, but with some emotional and abuse
problems; and short-term reductions in length of
confinement, although insufficient as yet to offset
increased short-term program costs. The following
issues relevant to policymakers are discussed: (1)
the forces that work against cost-saving goals in a
prison system, (2) the problems of designing a
creative, dynamic program in a prison setting, and
(3) the need for a solid treatment and training
core with aftercare support. Also documented are
inherent problems that will make LEAD difficult to
sustain over the long term.

The initiative for developing a California Youth
Authority (CYA) boot camp came from Joe Sandoval,
Secretary of the Youth and Adult Correctional
Agency (YACA), the State agency that oversees
California's prison system. A former head of
California's State police, Sandoval was appointed
Secretary of the Correctional Agency by Governor
Pete Wilson. The Wilson administration had good
reasons for seeking out programs that would lower
the State's incarceration costs, which increased
dramatically during the 1980's. CYA's population of
first commitments from juvenile court increased
from 2,190 in 1980 to 2,433 in 1990, and wards'
average length of incarceration increased from 14
months in 1982 to 25 months in 1992. CYA's
estimated per capita incarceration costs had also
risen rapidly, from $19,953 in 1980 to $30,783 in
1990.

In response to Sandoval's request, the CYA
established a departmental committee in May 1991 to
develop a boot camp program.1 State Senator Robert
Presley sponsored a bill mandating that CYA develop
and evaluate a boot camp program. The bill was
signed by Governor Wilson in February 1992.

The Presley Bill specified program and evaluation
parameters, eligibility criteria, and policies
regarding participating wards for the program,
which was named LEAD, an acronym for the qualities
the program was designed to promote: leadership,
esteem, ability, and discipline. 

The legislation set two major program goals for
LEAD: (1) to provide the State a cost-effective
sentencing option, and (2) to reduce recidivism. It
also specified that the program be a "treatment
continuum" beginning with a 4-month, highly
structured institutional component with extensive
treatment and military training and concluding with
a 6-month intensive parole component with a wide
range of services and a relapse-management
strategy. 

Judges were permitted to recommend but not select
wards for LEAD, and CYA was expected to make every
effort to retain participants. In exceptional
situations wards could be retained in LEAD's
institutional phase for an additional 30 days, but
they were not to be penalized solely on the basis
of not completing the program. The law also
specifically stipulated that staff not use corporal
punishment or "degrading, humiliating, or inhumane"
training methods.

Preparations

Planning for LEAD began in earnest in summer 1992.
Weekly planning sessions were held at the Preston
School of Industry in Ione, California, the
institution selected to house the program's "boot
camp" phase. A collaboration was established during
this period with the California National Guard,
which was seeking peacetime service opportunities.
Captain Robert Bradley of the Guard took an
enthusiastic interest in LEAD, eventually providing
the program training materials and staff training.
He also persuaded the CYA to base the program's
instruction and drill procedures on the U.S. Army
officer training model rather than a boot camp
model in response to the potential problems of
inmate abuse.

Military training for institutional staff began in
midsummer 1992 at Mather Air Force Base in
Sacramento, California, and in September the first
platoon of 15 wards entered the program at Preston.
The CYA's parole branch then conducted a series of
planning sessions that culminated in a manual of
guidelines and a 2-day training session for
selected field parole agents who were to work with
LEAD parolees. The CYA implemented the parole
program when the first platoon of LEAD graduates
was paroled in January 1993. The Superintendent of
Preston and CYA parole officials encouraged
research efforts and provided unusual access to the
LEAD program, as did all other CYA staff at LEAD
and other locations.

Evaluation Design and Methods

There are two legislatively mandated components to
the program's evaluation design. This chapter
presents findings from the first component, which
was an implementation and process evaluation to
determine whether the boot camp was set up as
mandated and to describe how the program is
functioning in practice. The second component is an
experimental impact evaluation, which will measure
the success of the program in achieving its goals.2

Wards were randomly selected and placed either in
LEAD or in a control group, with the control wards
sent to other CYA programs using standard
procedures. The research team attended planning
meetings at Preston and with parole staff during
summer and fall 1992, and subsequently visited the
operating boot camp on numerous occasions to
observe the living unit, participate in staff
meetings, attend graduation ceremonies, observe
program activities, interview staff, and interview
wards, dropouts, and control wards. Researchers
also contacted parole offices to interview wards
and talk to staff, and they visited both reception
centers to discuss screening procedures with
casework staff. 

Selected wards and control wards were interviewed
periodically toward the end of their incarceration
periods. Researchers used an open-ended interview
guide that included questions about what they liked
and disliked about their programs and about
feelings and attitudes that LEAD is attempting to
cultivate. Wards also completed surveys at various
times during their incarceration on their
perceptions of the program and its impact on them,
as well as a prison environment inventory designed
by Kevin Wright (1985) but modified for a juvenile
population.3 

Evaluation surveys were administered to 122 LEAD
participants and 72 control wards.4 An analysis of
the characteristics of the LEAD and control wards
used in the evaluation indicated that the two
groups were quite comparable.

Immediately following LEAD's first year of
operation, interviews were conducted with 9 parole
and 21 institutional staff, including 13 of the 14
counselors originally with the program. Questions
focused on descriptive program information and on
subjective assessments. 

Program Description Findings

The findings on LEAD's first year of operation
address the screening and selection of wards, the
institutional phase, and the intensive parole
phase.

Screening and selecting LEAD wards. LEAD's
legislative mandate included the following
eligibility criteria: an age of at least 16
(subsequently amended to 14), a juvenile court
commitment, no previous LEAD involvement, no
commitments for serious violence, a history or risk
of substance abuse (which has not been used to
exclude wards from the program), medical clearance
for strenuous physical activity, informed consent,
and parole board approval. In addition, the CYA and
the parole board established policies for other
eligibility criteria that excluded wards with a
primary need for the department's special mental
health programs, wards who were illegal aliens, and
wards who engaged in serious incidents of violence
in the 6 months prior to entry that involved, or
likely involved, substantial injury.

Referrals were considered from two sources:
juvenile court first commitments and parole
violators. Fifty-nine percent of first commitment 
referrals were automatically rejected on the 
basis of the violent offense criterion and the
much less restrictive age criterion in the first
year of screening. Of the wards who survived
screening, about 85 percent were approved by the
parole board.5 For juvenile court first
commitments, only 12 percent were accepted after
both CYA screening and parole board review. For
parole violators, only 5 percent of referrals were
ruled eligible.

The screening and selection process was
occasionally contentious during the first year.
Staff at screening centers had difficulty
identifying a sufficient number of eligible wards
and were discouraged when wards were rejected by
the parole board. Some program staff complained
about "inappropriate" referrals of wards they
believed should have been excluded due to their
belligerence, lack of motivation, or need for more
intensive psychological counseling. 

During the first year 51 wards were referred to the
program through judicial recommendations, 15 of
whom did not meet the established age or offense
criterion. Of the remaining wards, 19 were found
eligible and 17 were not. 

Overall during first-year screening, eligible wards
were, on average, 17.5 years old and 40 percent
Hispanic, 29 percent African American, 25 percent
white, and 6 percent other. Of their commitment
offenses, 69 percent were against property, 10
percent against persons, 7 percent drug-related,
and 14 percent other.

Treatment and training in LEAD's institutional
phase. LEAD's living unit or lodge, Hawthorne,
occupies a central location at Preston, one of the
oldest CYA institutions, located in the rolling
foothills of the Gold Rush town of Ione,
California. Three classrooms, a gym, and a common
dining room are located a short march away. A path
runs beside much of the institution's perimeter
security fence and, were it not for the hills,
wards using it would be able to see the lodge from
almost any vantage point along its course. No other
living unit at the institution could be more of a
"fish bowl."

The boot camp lodge, like most Preston buildings,
is made of brick and stone and was built in the
1950's. Its setting is attractive and nicely
landscaped, but fixtures are old and furnishings
spartan. The lodge is always kept clean and neat,
and its two offices are usually busy. Observers
found that wards were usually completing assigned
paperwork, shining shoes, ironing clothes, or
listening to or waiting for orders. Wards rarely
watched television, which was available only for
educational purposes.

LEAD's institutional program is run primarily by 12
"TAC" officers, who are classified as youth
counselors and occupy the primary staff positions
in all CYA living units. TAC stands for teach,
advise, and counsel, key elements of the officer
role as defined in the TAC Standard Operating
Procedures. The procedures, which are in large part
taken directly from Army manuals, stipulate that
the most important element of the LEAD program
environment is the TAC officer. 

This LEAD focus on staff leadership is due
primarily to the selection of a military officer
training model as opposed to a basic boot camp
model. It is the TAC officer's role to teach
leadership and its attendant good qualities. The
TAC officers' role in LEAD is an element of the
program that explicitly and theoretically relates
to reducing recidivism, which can happen in two
mutually reinforcing ways. One way is through the
"referent power" of the TAC's, the possibility that
wards will identify with TAC's and emulate their
good qualities. The other way is by internalizing
the program's discipline as self-discipline.
According to the operating procedures, this process
is made possible when wards experience successes in
training and when they identify with their
officers. Toby and Pearson made similar
observations in their study of juvenile boot
camps.6

TAC officers report directly to a sergeant, who
reports to a captain. LEAD also has a full-time
institutional parole agent, a psychologist, three
teachers, standard group supervisors who stand
watch at night, two part-time liaison agents from
the CYA parole branch, and an office assistant. The
program administrator at Preston in charge of
special units, who reports to the facility's
superintendent, is responsible for the
administration of LEAD. 

The CYA budgeted and enhanced yearly cost of the
LEAD program was $532,500 in fiscal year 1992-93.
Enhanced costs are those over and above the
standard living unit costs of a 50- to 60-bed unit.
A review of LEAD's budget indicated that staffing
the additional positions mentioned above has been
the program's biggest expense. LEAD's overall
budget, including the institutional phase, was
$1,086,300. The other enhanced costs included
additional parole agents, an additional parole
board member, and research staffing.

LEAD's treatment and training program is organized
in monthly phases, visually reinforced by
color-coded T-shirts and caps. At monthly
ceremonies, wards are promoted in color and receive
merit awards. The education program has a practical
life skills focus (e.g., on health and employment
issues the first month) and includes individualized
services such as GED (general equivalency diploma)
testing and special education screening and
tutoring. TAC officers provide supervisory
assistance in classrooms.

During the program's fourth and final month, wards
perform community service activities, prepare for
their parole board appearance, and complete their
life plans (narrative accounts of their past,
present, and expected future lives that include
reappraising values and developing plans to handle
such issues as drug use, sexual relationships,
finances, and work).

Daily activities begin with reveille at 6 a.m. and
conclude with showers and cleanup at 10 or 11 p.m.,
depending on the platoon. Other activities include
2-hour evening substance abuse training sessions
that use a 12-step model, daily physical training,
drill and ceremony exercises, and lodge cleanup
duties. Of particular note are tutoring
arrangements with community volunteers and the
program's voluntary 6- to 8-session bereavement
therapy group, which was developed and conducted by
Dr. Gary Mackelburg, the first LEAD psychologist,
for wards who had experienced the loss of close
family or friends.

During the first full year of program operation,
180 wards entered LEAD in monthly 15-member
platoons, and 107 wards were paroled. Because of
the program's graduated intake process, parolees
represented 71 percent of the wards LEAD could have
paroled during the year. Forty-five wards were
dropped from the program, of whom 42 came from the
10 platoons that could have been paroled. Based on
these figures, the program's dropout rate was 28
percent for the first year. (One ward was demoted
for 30 days at the end of the first year but was
eventually paroled.)

Parole program. Guidelines for LEAD's parole
program are based on a philosophy of providing the
highest quality of services available to meet the
needs of parolees. The underlying goal is to use
every legitimate strategy in the book to help LEAD
parolees avoid revocation and future criminal
involvement.

The LEAD parole program involves both an
institutional phase and a field parole phase. Two
"liaison agents" from the parole program work
part-time at the institutional site, acting as a
crucial communications link among wards,
institution personnel, and field parole staff.
These agents are to ensure the promised "continuum
of treatment" from institution to field parole;
they also supervise LEAD parolees on intensive
parole. 

Specified service levels for intensive parole in
urban or suburban locations are two contacts per
week for the first 60 days and one per week for the
next 4 months, two random drug tests per month, and
other services as needed. Rural locations call for
somewhat reduced numbers of contacts.

LEAD parole agents reported providing parolees the
following interventions and services beyond routine
contacts: substance abuse counseling (46 percent of
LEAD parolees), employment referrals (42 percent),
temporary detention combined with counseling or
"restructuring" (36 percent), alternative
placements (22 percent), a 60-day residential drug
treatment program (13 percent), required community
volunteer work (10 percent), electronic monitoring
(4 percent), and a full-time day reporting program
(2 percent). 

Program Assessment Findings

The report's discussion of program assessment is
framed by two questions: Are the program's
legislatively mandated goals guiding its operation?
How is the program working? Findings discussed
below focus on the activities undertaken to fulfill
the goals and on perceptions of the staff and wards
interviewed. Final assessment of whether LEAD is
achieving its mandated goals to reduce costs and
recidivism must await completion of the impact
evaluation.

Are the Program's Legislatively Mandated Goals
Guiding Its Operation? 

The LEAD program is a rich assortment of treatment
and training activities that, compared to other CYA
living units, are set in a relatively safe,
positive, and disciplined environment. The program
design is not notably theoretical. Implicitly, it
is based on the following assumptions: 

o  By employing diverse activities along with
individualized treatment, the program will reach
more wards.

o  Living in a structured environment will rub off
as self-discipline.

o  A variety of constructive skills, positive
attitudes, and knowledge will "produce" less
criminal activity. 

The TAC procedures previously discussed, which
suggest how wards can internalize new values and
behaviors through relationships with TAC officers,
do, however, add a theoretical dimension to LEAD
programming.

Reducing recidivism. LEAD's first mandated goal was
to reduce recidivism. The evaluation found that the
program, as specified in the enabling legislation,
had been implemented. It also addressed whether the
program was designed and implemented with the
explicit goal of reducing recidivism. 

Virtually all staff expressed the goal of reducing
recidivism by means of some specific treatment
goals. Although institutional staff most commonly
said that the goal of the program was to save
money, they mentioned only treatment and training
as methods to achieve that goal. There were some
variations in focus among the boot camp staff, the
parole staff, and the wards. 

Among the boot camp staff, the most commonly
mentioned methods of achieving LEAD goals were
military training and structure (mentioned by 62
percent); educational training (43 percent); the
12-step drug abuse program (43 percent);
motivational techniques and high staff expectations
(38 percent); physical training (33 percent); good
staff and role modeling (27 percent); and
discipline and structure (27 percent). 

Most parole staff cited reducing recidivism as a
major goal and thought that it could be achieved
through intensive supervision and more parole
services. A third of the parole staff also said
that forming closer relationships with parolees
would help reduce recidivism.

Wards indicated in interviews that they generally
liked the program and found it beneficial. Those
who completed the institutional boot camp phase
typically thought of it as an accomplishment in
their lives. One ward pointed specifically to a
"sense of accomplishment" and added that "most
Youth Authority kids haven't done anything
difficult, anything to have pride about. It is
instilled here. This is the best thing that's
happened to a lot of people."

Analyses of selected items from the ward survey 
and prison environment inventory indicate that, 
compared to control wards, LEAD wards thought 
staff were more supportive and offered a more 
challenging program. They also felt they had 
developed more self-discipline and lived in a 
safer environment. 

Cost savings. LEAD's second mandated goal was cost
savings. So far, data collected in this study have
indicated that the program can "produce"
differences in custody over the short term, but
these differences are not yet sufficient to cover
the additional costs of running an intensive
program like LEAD.

Cost savings can be achieved in two ways: by
reducing lengths of confinement and by lowering
rates of recidivism. Some experimental study data
on confinement are available on this issue, but
they are based on very short-term analyses. Data
from the first seven platoons and their controls
showed that 81 percent of LEAD wards, compared to
50 percent of control wards, were paroled before
the end of the first year. On average, the LEAD
wards were in custody 8.8 months, compared to 10.7
months for the control wards. Time in custody was
measured from a ward's admission to a reception
center through September 30, 1993, and included any
custody on parole for any reason including
residential drug treatment.7

Cost savings were then estimated by multiplying the
average difference in custody for the two groups
(10.7 minus 8.8 = 1.9) by the number of wards in
less custody (1.9 x 103 = 195.7 months) to get
months saved; and then multiplying that number by
the average costs per month of custody (195.7 x
$2,303 = $450,697) to get estimated savings. The
actual savings would probably not be as large as
this figure indicates, however, because differences
of this type would occur "at the margin," where
estimated costs are typically lower than at the
base. Furthermore, calculating actual cost savings
would require including additional costs of the
program for both its parole and institutional
phases. 

Over the course of the evaluation, many factors
were identified that work against the goal of cost
savings. One factor is a belief in the efficacy of
institutional treatment for a very needy ward
population. In staff interviews, for example, 8 of
21 institutional staff spontaneously mentioned
LEAD's short length as a problem. Even parole staff
commented on the program's short institutional
program, with one agent remarking that LEAD "needs
to be longer to sink in."

A second factor is that wards are often transferred
out of the program when they are disruptive. Of the
180 wards in the first 12 platoons, at least 30
were dropped from the program for disruption,
assaultiveness, or lack of interest and effort.
Such transfers, sometimes called "bus therapy," are
essential to the program's overall health and
safety, but it is difficult to know where to draw
the line.

A third factor might be termed the availability of
special psychological treatment programs, to which
five LEAD wards were transferred over the course of
the first year. In contrast, not one ward from the
control group was transferred to such programs,
which suggests that LEAD's strong emphasis on
treatment has unintentionally produced additional
institutional treatment programming. Another factor
is the parole board, which retains the power to
deny parole following program completion. Despite a
general understanding that the parole board would
refer LEAD graduates to parole, one graduate was
denied parole based on the need for further
psychological treatment, and another graduate was
denied because of poor program performance.

Program efficacy was also hampered by parole
revocations after offenders were released. Most of
the revoked parolees were given one or more chances
before revocation, but some simply exhausted the
patience and ingenuity of parole agents. Wards
themselves sometimes appeared to be willing
partners in the extension of incarceration. They
occasionally told interviewers that the program
might be better if it were longer, and two demoted
wards said the extra time was beneficial to them.
One ward who resigned from LEAD was apparently
partly motivated by his need for a place to stay
longer. 

Finally, at the department level, lengths of
incarceration in the CYA were beginning to decline
as LEAD was being implemented, and if these trends
continue, they will dilute any cost savings
projected for LEAD. Electronic monitoring, for
example, is now used as a method of early release
to parole. Nine control wards in the study gained
early release to parole by submitting to electronic
monitoring. In contrast, no LEAD or former LEAD
wards were released early with electronic
monitoring and only three LEAD wards were placed on
electronic monitoring to prolong their parole. In
short, maintaining savings in the LEAD program will
be an uphill struggle. At the levels of
institutional and parole programming, the cost
savings goal often seems to conflict with
treatment-oriented goals.

How Is the Program Working? 

What are the prospects or promising characteristics
of LEAD, and what problems or limitations emerged
during its first year of operation? 

Positive results. In response to an open-ended
question about the positive characteristics of
LEAD, most staff (76 percent) mentioned military
structure. Wards also considered LEAD's military
milieu and leadership training to be important
features. One of the program's most successful
training techniques is the rotation of platoon
leadership among all the wards. Wards expressed a
clear awareness of how this technique promotes
responsibility, self-confidence, and teamwork.

Many staff mentioned enriched staffing patterns as
a positive characteristic. On average, LEAD
parolees had about two more parole agent contacts
per month than did control wards and about one more
drug test per month. Moreover, wards more often 
thought that staff cared about them and wanted 
them to succeed.

More than half the staff considered the educational
program to be a benefit, and wards spontaneously
mentioned their classes in interviews, noting, for
example, the practicality of learning about
parenting and budgeting and the confidence gained
by giving speeches in front of class. 

Another area identified by staff and wards was the
program's focus on physical training. An analysis
of ward interview data found that wards liked
physical training and drill and ceremony exercises
more than anything else in the program. Wards said
that they had never felt better or been in better
physical shape and that physical conditioning
improved their performance in other program
activities.

After making many observations and reviewing survey
data and interviews, researchers concluded that 
LEAD living units were safer and had much less gang 
activity than the living units of the general ward 
population. On every survey measure of violence or 
gang activity, for example, LEAD ward responses 
indicated less violence and gang-related hostility 
than control ward responses. There were no significant 
differences, however, between the two groups in 
responses to questions regarding the existence of 
racial problems or the extent to which wards liked or 
cared about each other.

Problems and limitations. A series of LEAD review
meetings at Preston emphasized the need to develop
more structured programming on parole. In
particular, LEAD parole agents commented that
paroled wards need more jobs, job training,
assistance with schooling, and housing
alternatives. Parolees described similar needs in
interviews, saying that finding stable employment
had been their most difficult problem. Parole
agents placed over 20 percent of the LEAD parolees
in alternative housing during the first year, and
in some cases these placements appeared to have
been critical to their short-term success.

Another issue is the need for an adequate number of
candidates for LEAD. An analysis of the overall CYA
pool of LEAD candidates (based on age and
commitment offense) suggests that many potential
participants were not properly tapped by LEAD's
screening process. The CYA parole branch also
studied the issue of screening parole violators and
reported that about 40 percent of current parole 
violators represent an eligible but untapped pool
of candidates. 

A closely related issue is that of appropriate
screening. A third of the institutional staff and
over half of the parole agents felt that LEAD wards
were too criminally sophisticated, immature, or
unmotivated. Administrative steps have been taken
to resolve the problems, but interviews with
institutional and parole staff suggest that this
issue has not been adequately addressed at the
program level. The development of the program
itself, however, has revealed that virtually all
wards present difficult problems in terms of
treatment or training, and staff will almost
certainly have to develop more realistic
expectations of ward accomplishment. However, this
adjustment should be made without compromising the
staff's ability to use high expectations as an
important motivational tool.

The most common, and most controversial, criticism
among institutional staff was the need for shift
rotation to alleviate burnout. LEAD's original
design built three yearly shift rotations into the
program, but when the union representing staff
counselors successfully challenged these rotations,
no other comparable staffing arrangements were
made. Although a few staff members supported the
union's position, nearly all agreed that the
program was unusually exhausting and that
variations in assignment could provide some relief.

Very few staff felt that emotional abuse of wards
was a problem at LEAD. They acknowledged the
confrontational nature of their military training
techniques but tended not to find them excessive or
abusive. However, ward responses to questions on
emotional abuse presented a different picture. Both
LEAD and control wards were likely to feel that
some staff got carried away with their power over
wards, although neither group typically reported
being physically threatened by staff. (The LEAD
group was, however, more likely to report physical
threats than the control group.) About half of each
group reported being embarrassed or humiliated in
front of other wards; on the other hand, neither
group felt that their program was too harsh or
punishing. This information, as well as intimations 
of degrading techniques used by a few staff, suggest 
that some of LEAD's confrontational training 
methods should be toned down. 

A number of staff criticisms directly or indirectly
spoke to the need for administrative refinements at
the level of institutional program delivery. About
24 percent of the staff directly mentioned
administrative problems, and slightly higher
proportions mentioned staff communication problems
and conflicts regarding disciplinary procedures.
Recent review meetings isolated a
leadership-related problem as well-- the program's
need for a shared vision and shared goals. For
example, some staff mentioned conflicts with
management over LEAD's level of ward attrition. If
everyone shared the cost savings goal, however,
there would be more consensus on the need to
contain ward attrition. 

LEAD functions administratively in much the same
way that other living units function, with two
levels of staff supervision and standard procedures
for most aspects of the program (e.g., grievance
and disciplinary procedures). At LEAD, however,
daily situations must be handled more creatively to
motivate wards and keep them to the program's
strict time commitments, and to ensure that wards
are not lost to other programs. LEAD supervisors
must creatively resolve issues that other programs
do not have to deal with, such as being fair with
wards in disciplinary situations while at the same
time maintaining the program's momentum. Put
differently, a certain inconsistency is required in
LEAD to handle wards individually and
constructively, according to each ward's needs and
abilities. 

Staff also expressed the need to have supervisors
on hand more of the time. This need stems from
another area that reflects the differences between
LEAD and other CYA programs. LEAD thrives on
relationships rather than on established procedures
and requires an administrative structure somewhat
different from that used by other programs.

This chapter's discussion of cost savings pointed
to the many factors that work to lengthen
incarceration time in CYA. Given the instability of
ward motivations for a program such as LEAD, this
issue will likely be a perennial problem. However,
the program's 28-percent attrition rate during the
first year may not be unduly high as long as it is
kept in check.

Because most TAC officers do not have prior
military experience and because new staff are hired
from time to time, periodic military training is
essential. A degree of slackness in current
military procedures and drill and ceremony
exercises was noted by about 20 percent of staff
interviewees. Moreover, ward interviewees typically
requested even more disciplined military
procedures. Although they were critical of
demeaning or humiliating tactics, wards were almost
uniformly in favor of tight structure and
discipline.

Finally, about one-third of parole agents
interviewed said that their case counts were too
high for intensive supervision, and one-fifth of
institutional staff complained about staffing
shortages due to limited backup during staff
absences and replacement. Staff supervision levels
may need to be monitored more closely to ensure
that enriched staffing patterns--a hallmark of this
program--are continued.

Conclusions

Although LEAD had some notable accomplishments
during its first year, the program will be
difficult to sustain if some of its inherent
problems and limitations are not resolved. This
report concludes with five suggestions for program
continuation and refinement: 

o  Work toward some variation or modification of
TAC officer assignments to address staff burnout, a
serious problem that will sap the vitality of LEAD
if left unattended. 

o  Establish periodic program review processes and
staff training, as well as CYA departmental
administrative support for boot camp staff leaders.
Coordinate program services among CYA branches.
Experiment with program supervisory patterns and
staff leadership strategies. 

o  Continue work on a transitional program in the
community that, if possible, includes employment.
There is simply overwhelming evidence that wards
released to the community lack the opportunities
and overall skills required for long-term success. 

o  Integrate the program's cost savings goal with
its treatment goals. While requiring a great deal
of creativity, meeting both these needs may be
possible through greater reliance on the treatment
continuum (from institution to parole), more
extensive use of relapse management strategies, and
possibly policy revisions that permit LEAD parolees
to return to the program for brief periods of
restructuring. To lower attrition, for example,
referrals to parole could in some cases be made
contingent on more rigorously defined treatment in
the community. Linking parole to more treatment in
this way might also provide more assistance to
wards who need several chances to succeed in
community supervision. Staff who know and care
about such wards might be well poised to help them
restructure their plans.

o  Cultivate and maintain positive features of the
program. Prominent among these features are the
program's safe and constructive environment, and
the leadership rotation and TAC mentoring
strategies provided in the military officer
training model. While the military milieu has
something to offer by way of disciplinary
structure, it is the positive and nurturing
relationships of the officer training model that
stand to change wards in a positive and lasting
way.

Notes

1.  Later that year, the committee drafted a budget
change proposal, which is the procedure for
modifying activities funded by the State, but
before it was approved, the CYA participated in
discussions with the National Council on Crime and
Delinquency, State Senator Robert Presley's office,
YACA, the State Assembly Ways and Means Committee
(chaired by Assemblyman John Vasconcellos), and the
State Youthful Offender Parole Board. At issue were
parole board policies, particularly increased
lengths of juvenile incarceration and the need for
new options for youthful offenders. A compromise
was eventually worked out.

2.  Program effects will be determined in the
impact evaluation by measuring differences over a
30-month period on lengths of incarceration (the
primary measure of cost savings) and on subsequent
arrests (the primary measure of recidivism).
Researchers expect LEAD wards to be incarcerated
for shorter periods of time, on average, than
control wards, and that this difference will not be
offset by more arrests of LEAD parolees over
equivalent time periods.

3.  Kevin Wright, "Developing the Prison
Environment Inventory," Journal of Research in
Crime and Delinquency, 22 (1985):257-277.

4.  Control wards were generally less accessible
because they had been sent to CYA institutions and
camps around the State. Staff at those institutions
were not asked to administer surveys to ensure
greater objectivity. Thus, it was not possible to
administer as many surveys to control wards. There
were no selection criteria for surveying control
wards other than their geographical accessibility.

5.  Data on parole board approvals were taken from
the program's northern California reception center
in Sacramento because such information was not
available from the southern reception center or for
any parole violators.

6.  Jackson Toby, and Frank Pearson, "Boot Camp for
Juvenile Offenders: Constructive Intervention,"
unpublished paper, 1992.

7.  It should be noted that the first 7 platoons
each had 15 wards, for a total of 105 wards. The
experimental study groups through the seventh
platoon each had only 103 wards, however, due to
screening errors that forced the exclusion of 2
wards from each study group (that is, experimentals
and controls).


-------------------------------------------------------------------
Correctional Boot Camps: A Tough Intermediate Sanction - Chapter 11


The Development and Operation of Juvenile Boot
Camps in Florida 

by Elizabeth S. Cass, Ph.D., and Neil Kaltenecker

Elizabeth Cass is a researcher with the Florida
Department of Juvenile Justice, where she is
conducting an outcome evaluation of each of the
juvenile boot camps operated by the State of
Florida. Neil Kaltenecker is Program Manager of
P.A.C.E. Center for Girls/Leon, a nonprofit dropout
prevention program in Tallahassee, Florida. He
played a leading role in the development and
implementation of juvenile boot camp programs while
employed at the Florida Department of Health and
Rehabilitative Services.

Florida operates more juvenile boot camps than any
other State in the United States. An important
aspect of these programs is the partnerships local
and State governments have created to promote
community involvement and the utilization of local
resources. The six camps currently operating in
Florida are run by county sheriff's departments
with oversight by the Florida Department of
Juvenile Justice. Boot camps target youths with a
history of serious offenses. The program is
designed to "shock" the youths into compliance by
strict military-style discipline. This chapter
provides an overview of the development and
operation of these boot camps, with special
emphasis on the State's first program in Manatee
County. Drill instructors in the program receive
more than 200 hours of training in boot camp
procedures. Boot camps have an aftercare component
that differs from county to county but generally
includes a postrelease day program in the community
for several months after graduation from the boot
camp itself.

Although Florida has only recently employed boot
camps as a method of dealing with juvenile
delinquency, it currently operates more such camps
than any other State. As of December 1994, juvenile
boot camps were operating in six counties, and
three additional camps are scheduled to open in
1995. 

Juvenile boot camps in Florida were developed
through partnerships between the State and local
governments. Each of the six camps currently
operating was created through the collaborative
efforts of the Florida Department of Juvenile
Justice (DJJ) and local county sheriff's
departments. General guidelines for operating these
programs are established by Florida statute and
further defined in the State's administrative rule,
but otherwise each locality is given the
flexibility to develop a program that makes use of
local resources and involves the community.

Statutory Origin

In 1989 the Florida statute pertaining to juvenile
justice (F.S. Chapter 39) was revised, authorizing
the creation of juvenile boot camps. The camps were
to target "deep-end," more serious offenders, in
contrast to adult boot camps, which are typically
designed for first-time, nonviolent offenders. To
be eligible for boot camp placement, the statute
stipulated that juveniles be between the ages of 14
and 17 at the time of adjudication and have been
committed to the custody of the State for either
(1) a capital, life, first-degree, or second-degree
felony or (2) a third-degree felony with two or
more prior felony adjudications, of which one or
more resulted in residential placement.

The statute intended the programs to be an
"intensive educational and physical training and
rehabilitative program for appropriate children,"
which would require juveniles to "participate in
educational, vocational, and substance abuse
programs and to receive additional training in
techniques of appropriate decisionmaking, as well
as in life skills and job skills. Postrelease
community supervision is mandated, and the camps'
residential and aftercare components must last at
least 6 months.

An administrative rule was promulgated by the State
to govern the operation of boot camps. It set
minimum standards for policies and procedures and
serves as the foundation for State oversight of
boot camp programs. The State's low per diem
funding of boot camps has not covered all of their
operational costs. Therefore, local communities
have had to supplement that funding. With the
involvement and financial backing of local
communities, programs could be designed to best
suit the juveniles in that area. To illustrate this
process, this chapter focuses on the development of
the State's first boot camp in Manatee County,
which has served as a model for the State's other
programs. 

Development of the Manatee County Boot Camp

In September 1992, discussions between the Florida
Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services
(HRS) and the Manatee County Sheriff's Office led
to the creation of the first boot camp for
juveniles in Florida.1 At that time, Manatee County
Sheriff Charlie B. Wells was building a boot camp
facility for the county's adult jail population.
With the support of the Manatee County Commission,
he agreed to change the targeted population to
juveniles to help ease burgeoning residential
placement problems in Florida's juvenile justice
system. A program model for a new juvenile camp was
developed by a group consisting of local and State
HRS officials, Sheriff Wells, and his staff. The
design made use of paramilitary structure and
discipline but also emphasized education, personal
accountability, and positive social values and
behavior.

An operational contract was negotiated in which the
State paid $56 per youth per day to the Manatee
County Sheriff's Office--approximately half the
State funding rate of other high-risk residential
programs. The sheriff's office supplemented the
program's budget by providing meals, medical
services, and a computer laboratory. This type of
collaborative partnership between State and local
governments became the model for boot camps
subsequently opened around the State.

Staffing. The program's drill instructors are
members of the Manatee County Sheriff's Office who
previously worked as correctional officers in the
county jail. In addition to the 411 hours of
training required to become a State-certified
correctional officer, they received 200 more hours
of training in boot camp procedures. 

In 1994, the juvenile justice statute was modified
to provide for the development of statewide boot
camp staff training. The statute now requires all
boot camp staff having direct contact with
juveniles to complete a minimum of 200 hours of
State-approved training, including training in
counseling techniques, basic cardiopulmonary
resuscitation and choke-relief, and the control of
aggression. Furthermore, it requires that all
training courses be taught by certified instructors
of the division of Criminal Justice Standards and
Training of the Florida Department of Law
Enforcement who have prior experience in a juvenile
boot camp program. Counseling techniques must be 
taught by staff who have at least a bachelor's 
degree in social work, counseling, psychology, or 
a related field. The development of a statewide 
course will help address staffing problems faced 
by boot camps that need to replace instructors 
after initial staff training has already taken 
place.

Selection of youths. Florida's juvenile boot camp
programs were originally designed to be high-risk
residential programs. Unlike many boot camp
programs for adults, placement is not voluntary.
The process of placing youths in camps begins when
a juvenile court judge commits a youth to DJJ
custody. After a judge orders placement at one of
four levels of restrictiveness (designated as
nonresidential and low-, moderate-, and high-risk
residential programs), DJJ assigns youths to
specific programs. For youths who are ordered into
a moderate- or high-risk residential program, one
option is boot camp. 

Florida's juvenile justice statute requires that
all youths sent to boot camp be screened to ensure
that programs admit only those juveniles who have
"medical and psychological profiles conducive to
successfully completing an intensive work,
educational, and disciplinary program." Programs
exclude youths with a history of psychiatric
illness or suicidal tendencies, youths currently
taking psychotropic medications, and those with
abnormal electrocardiograms, asthma, or other
physical problems that would make boot camp
placement inappropriate. Although not dictated by
statute, currently boot camps accept only males.

Manatee County Boot Camp has a capacity of 30
juveniles. Consistent with a military model, youths
enter the program as platoons of approximately 15
members. While grouping inmates in platoons is an
appropriate form of military organization, it
produces certain complications for the State's
juvenile justice placement system. New platoons
typically enter camps every 2 months; some youths
face a waiting period between disposition of their
case and entry into the boot camp. Because
supervision is necessary during this period, the
State must provide temporary residential or
nonresidential placement.

The Boot Camp Experience at Manatee

The first day of camp in the Manatee County program
is designed to "shock" the juvenile offender into
compliance. The day begins when hand and leg cuffs
are placed on the youths and they are transported
from the local detention center to the Manatee
County Jail. Once offenders are inside the jail
compound's gates, their hand and leg cuffs are
removed and they are driven to the boot camp
grounds. The van is surrounded by drill instructors
who bang on the outside of the van and demand that
the boys exit the vehicle and line up. 

The new arrivals are frisked and marched to a
classroom where they receive military-style
haircuts. The rules of military conduct are
explained, including requirements that each recruit
begin and end every sentence with "Sir" or "Ma'am"
and excuse himself when passing others. Failure to
perform this ritual is the most common reason for
admonishment during the first day. The response of
drill instructors to noncompliance is swift and
loud, but abusive or derogatory speech is
prohibited. Pushups are used to punish recalcitrant
inmates. 

Each recruit is assigned a room and a uniform. (The
camp's living quarters are made up of single rooms
to increase staff control and to decrease recruit
interaction.) Youths spend the remainder of the
first day reviewing the recruit handbook. A drill
instructor reads the handbook out loud while
encouraging recruits to ask for clarification and
questioning them to make sure they understand. 

The first week of the program is designed to keep
offenders off balance and confused. The expectation
is that the shock of the new environment will cause
the youths to question the behaviors and beliefs
that led to their placement in the camp. They can
then begin the process of changing their view of
themselves and the world.

After a week of orientation, the Manatee County
program's demanding schedule begins, including
training in military-style conduct and the basics
of military drill. Youths begin each day at 5 a.m.
and end it at 9:00 p.m. 

Inmates spend the largest part of each weekday--6
hours--in school. Three and a quarter hours are
devoted to physical activity that includes physical
training, drill and ceremony, the obstacle course,
and upkeep of the camp. One hour is devoted to
group counseling sessions conducted by a private
psychologist contracted by the camp. Youths also
spend 1 hour each day in their rooms, where they
are expected to read, write letters, or do
homework. A silence rule is imposed with the
exception of school, counseling, and, as necessary,
during work details. No television sets, radios, or
newspapers are available in the camp. 

The program's residential phase is designed to last
4 months. Inmates who in the commander's view have
not progressed in that time can be held for a
longer period. During this segment of the program,
youths advance through a series of phases
designated by colored hats. Progress is tracked
through a daily contact record book in which drill
instructors record the positive and negative
behaviors of each recruit. If a recruit's progress
is deemed satisfactory, he receives a new hat at
the end of the month and is accorded the privileges
associated with the next program phase. In the
first phase youths are not permitted visits or
phone calls except in an emergency. In the second
they are allowed a 5-minute telephone call and a
1-hour visit with family members each week.

Youths who complete the program on time attend a
transition ceremony on the boot camp grounds to
mark their accomplishment. Family and friends are
invited to attend, and each recruit receives a
certificate indicating that he is a graduate of the
camp. The transition ceremony is viewed not as an
ending but as the beginning of a new life outside
the camp in which the lessons learned there will be
put to use. 

Programming Differences Among the Camps

Although the Manatee County pilot project was
emulated by other Florida counties, each of the
State's boot camps has modified the model to meet
local conditions. The Leon County Sheriff's
program, for example, has incorporated a second
residential phase called the "Community
Transitional Program" that gives juveniles more
privileges and responsibilities. Youths are also
permitted to participate in community service
projects. 

Pinellas County's program is called a "preparatory
school" and is less regimented than the State's
other boot camps, with time scheduled each day for
recreational activities. The school is conducted
without a strict military atmosphere and does not
use some of the program's military protocol.

Postrelease Community Supervision

After graduating from boot camp, all youths are
assigned to a day treatment program. Assignment is
generally contingent on the location of youths'
homes, and services are provided by a variety of
private agencies. This section provides a general
description of services that can in fact vary from
program to program. 

Youths attend day treatment for 6 to 9 months,
depending on their needs. Typically, boot camp
graduates are picked up from home early in the
morning and transported to the aftercare facility
for supervised activities throughout the day and
evening. Youths are returned home by approximately
9 p.m. A curfew is enforced, with violations
sometimes resulting in electronic monitoring. 

During the day program's first few months, youths
attend school at the aftercare facility. Nonschool
hours are filled with group and individual
counseling and recreational activities. As youths
progress through the program, they earn
unsupervised and unstructured time by demonstrating
positive behaviors and eventually return to their
local high schools or begin full-time jobs. 

During the first 60 days following their release
from boot camp, youths can be returned to custody
for failing to abide by their aftercare programs'
rules and regulations. This option, contingent on
an administrative hearing, is intended to give
aftercare providers a means to manage behavior once
juveniles leave the highly structured boot camp
environment. Returning youths to boot camp is
viewed as a way to refresh instruction and
demonstrates to other youths that noncompliance in
aftercare carries consequences. However, because 
offenders enter boot camps as platoons and 
progress as a group (with some progressing in 
"hats" faster than others), the return of 
graduates to camps has caused logistical
problems. Some camps have elected to create
separate platoons for these individuals; others
have assimilated them into their newest platoons.
Both approaches have proved less than ideal-- the
first produces a manpower drain and the second
disrupts existing platoons.

Statistical Profile of Juvenile Inmates

Between March 29, 1993, when Florida's first camp
opened in Manatee County, and August 31, 1994, 262
youths were placed in boot camp programs around the
State.2 Youths ranged in age from 14 to 18 at
entry, with a mean age of 16. Overall, 59 percent
of youths were black, but programs varied
tremendously in this regard, from a high of 81
percent to a low of 49 percent.

Of the 262 juveniles admitted to the five boot
camps, 94 percent successfully completed their
programs. Boot camps varied in the rate at which
youths completed the program, from a low of 87
percent in Martin County to a high of 100 percent
in Bay County. 

Of the average of 17 recruits who did not graduate,
nearly two-thirds left within the first 30 days.
Inmates not completing their programs did not drop
out in the traditional sense; the decision to leave
a boot camp is not voluntarily made by recruits.
The major reason for noncompletion was poor
screening. Undetected medical problems were the
most frequent cause for removal. A small number of
youths were removed for assaulting drill
instructors or attempting to escape.

Of the youths completing their programs,
preliminary data indicate that 16 percent were
returned to boot camps due to disciplinary problems
in aftercare programs. The additional time they
spent at boot camps varied widely, from 2 to 206
days, with an average of 66 days.4 One issue of
particular interest to DJJ officials is whether
returning juveniles to boot camps ultimately
improves their chances of successful reintegration
into the community. 

Twenty-five percent of recruits were convicted of a
violent felony against a person. Pinellas County
had the highest percentage of violent felons (31
percent), while Bay County admitted no youths who
had committed violent felonies. This variation
across programs reflects the disparate placement
strategies applied throughout the State. 

Inmates' histories of delinquent behavior were also
examined. Recruits averaged 23 previous referrals
to DJJ and 12 previous adjudications in juvenile
court.6 It is clear that juveniles placed in
Florida's boot camps had extensive histories of
delinquency, and 73 percent previously had spent
time in a commitment program. For the majority of
youths, assignment to boot camp was not the first
attempt by the juvenile justice system to change
their behavior. 

The Continuing Development of Florida's Boot Camps

During the 1993-94 session, State legislators made
a number of important changes to Florida's juvenile
justice statute that directly affected juvenile
boot camps. The most important change concerned
boot camp eligibility. After October 1, 1994, the
statute stipulated that eligible juveniles were
those who had been committed to the department for
"any offense that, if committed by an adult, would
be a felony, other than a capital felony, a life
felony, or a violent felony of the first degree." 

This modification simultaneously excluded some
offenders who had previously been eligible for boot
camp placement-- the most violent felons-- and
broadened the pool of eligibility to all other
felons.

A second statutory change authorized the creation
of low- and moderate-risk residential boot camp
programs. Moderate-risk programs now require
juveniles to stay 4 months in boot camp and 4
months in aftercare, whereas low-risk programs
require 2 months in boot camp and 2 months in
aftercare. Finally, the new statute increased the
minimum incarceration period for boot camps
classified as high-risk residential programs to 4
months in boot camp and 4 months in aftercare.

The Florida Legislature also appropriated funds to
implement a total of 12 programs across the State.
Decisions as to which counties will operate camps
are made at DJJ's central office in Tallahassee,
and priority is given to proposals that include
significant local participation in funding and to
those that provide facilities. Three boot camps are
currently under development, including one contract
in Volusia County held by the State Attorney's
office. A 40-bed facility for young women in Polk
County is scheduled to open in 1995.

Future Evaluations

The statute authorizing the creation of juvenile
boot camps in Florida directed DJJ to collect
information on criminal activity, educational
progress, and employment placement for all boot
camp participants. Results in these areas are to be
compared to results for youths placed in other
types of juvenile programs operated by the State.
DJJ's Bureau of Research and Data is currently
collecting data for this evaluation.

Notes

1.  As of October 1, 1994, responsibility for
juvenile justice programs was transferred from
Health and Rehabilitative Services to the newly
created Department of Juvenile Justice.

2.  An additional 17 youths were placed in a
Pensacola, Florida, boot camp operated by the
Private Industry Council. The program closed within
2 months due to operational problems. These youths
are not included in this analysis.

3.  Polk County Sheriff's Office opened a boot camp
on September 30, 1994, and accepted a platoon of 20
recruits. It is the only program in Florida
designed for platoons of 20.

4.  Some recruits were returned to boot camps on
multiple occasions; these figures represent the
total additional time recruits spent in those
programs.

5.  Data were available on only 228 of the 262
cases.

6.  Data were available on only 189 of the 262
cases.

References

Florida Statutes, Chapter 39.057.

Juvenile Boot Camp Program Manual. Palmetto,
Florida: Manatee County Sheriff's Office, 1993.


-------------------------------------------------------------------
Correctional Boot Camps: A Tough Intermediate Sanction - Chapter 12


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).


-------------------------------------------------------------------
Correctional Boot Camps: A Tough Intermediate Sanction - Chapter 13


Substance Abuse Programming in Adult Correctional
Boot Camps: A National Overview

by Ernest L. Cowles, Ph.D., and Thomas C.
Castellano, Ph.D.

Ernest L. Cowles is the Director of the Center for
Legal Studies and an Associate Professor of
Criminal Justice at the University of Illinois at
Springfield. His present research interests focus
on alternative sanctions, special offender
populations, and strategies for improving
correctional management.

Thomas C. Castellano is an Associate Professor of
Administration of Justice in the Center for the
Study of Crime, Delinquency, and Corrections at
Southern Illinois University at Carbondale. He is
currently a Visiting Fellow at the National
Institute of Justice, where he is dedicated to the
identification and evaluation of innovative boot
camp programs.

A survey of adult boot camps, preceded by a
literature review, indicates a strong trend toward
making drug education and treatment a part of shock
incarceration programming. Questionnaires were sent
in the fall of 1992 to the directors or
commissioners of departments of corrections in all
50 States plus the Virgin Islands, the District of
Columbia, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons,
followed up with telephone interviews with 31
administrators. A second survey targeted
facility-level administrators and staff members
responsible for the facilities' substance abuse
treatment or education programs. All the boot camps
surveyed said they offered at least substance abuse
education, and more than 75 percent offered
treatment as well. Various treatment methods were
found to be in use, but they were rarely
individualized to meet specific inmate needs. 
Methods of assessing inmates' need for treatment
primarily consisted of screening interviews, case
history information, and psychological testing
rather than diagnostic processes that would allow a
clinically based decision of need, treatment
amenability, or potential effectiveness. New York,
Georgia, and Oklahoma emphasized drug treatment but
did not participate in the survey.

Many supporters of correctional boot camp programs
and the officials who administer them contend that
such programs have the potential to be a powerful
mechanism for positive offender change. The strict
regimen of the boot camp environment, coupled with
a variety of treatment-oriented program components,
can provide not only a greater level of internal
discipline, self-esteem, and confidence to
participants but also an array of skills that may
promote successful reintegration into the
community. These notions are quite consistent with
the fact that correctional administrators commonly
report rehabilitation of criminal offenders, not
deterrence or retribution, as a primary goal of
boot camps (MacKenzie, 1990; Elis, MacKenzie, and
Souryal, 1992; MacKenzie, 1993; U.S. General 
Accounting Office, 1993). 

A rehabilitative program component often associated
with the boot camp movement is substance abuse
programming. Because many boot camps exclude
violent offenders and some actively target drug
offenders, institutions have reported that
substance abusers constitute a greater proportion
of the boot camp population than of the general
inmate population (Florida Department of
Corrections, 1990; New York State Department of
Correctional Services and Division of Parole,
1991). Arguably some boot camps have been designed
with the intention of making positive impacts on
drug-abusing offenders, and even those not designed
this way often include substance abuse programming
as an integral part of their programs. 

Many available studies have reported information on
the degree to which shock incarceration facilities
target drug offenders or incorporate at least some
form of substance abuse programming into the boot
camp regimen. These studies tend to indicate that
the targeting of drug offenders and the presence of
substance abuse programming are common
characteristics of boot camps. Unfortunately,
little detailed descriptive or relevant evaluative
information is presented within these studies. For
instance, it is generally impossible to ascertain
from the literature whether current drug treatment
programming is clinically relevant and
theoretically informed. This is a central question,
since it is becoming increasingly apparent that
correctional treatment programs are more likely to
have desired outcomes if specific interventions are
based on valid approaches appropriate to the target
population (Andrews et al., 1990).

To fill this gap, the National Institute of Justice
(NIJ) awarded a research grant in the fall of 1991
to the Center for the Study of Crime, Delinquency,
and Corrections at Southern Illinois University at
Carbondale to assess the quality of drug treatment
and aftercare programs for offenders in adult boot
camp prisons. This chapter reports some of the
major findings from that study, preceded by a
review of the literature.

Literature Review

Warnock and Hunzeker (1991) conducted a literature
and statutory review of correctional boot camps at
a time when 23 States operated them. They reported
that New Mexico and Wisconsin specifically targeted
certain drug offenders for participation in their
boot camps and that in Tennessee certain drug
offenders were statutorily excluded from
participation. They also reported that statutes in
at least 10 States specified that drug and alcohol
education or treatment was to be provided in boot
camps. In a related vein, Elis, MacKenzie, and
Souryal's telephone survey of State and Federal
correctional officials in March 1991 identified two
boot camps specifically designed for drug offenders
(Elis, MacKenzie, and Souryal, 1992).

An article published in Corrections Compendium in
January 1991 included survey results from the 27
existing State boot camps. It was reported that 26
of the 27 facilities included or planned to include
alcohol and drug treatment programs, 24 offered
counseling, and 23 offered educational programming.
The only State program that did not offer alcohol
or drug treatment was Georgia, while Louisiana and
South Carolina provided alcohol or drug education
instead (Marlette, 1991).

The Evolution of Substance Abuse Programming in
Boot Camps

The recently released U.S. General Accounting
Office's review of correctional boot camps included
some information on the value accorded substance
abuse programming by boot camp administrators. GAO
researchers asked them to rank the various
objectives of boot camps on a scale of "very great
importance" to "little or no importance." On this
scale "drug treatment and education" was rated very
highly by the respondents and was almost as highly
valued as "meeting the need for alternatives to
traditional incarceration" and "improving
self-esteem." Of the 53 respondents, 32 rated drug
treatment and education as a "very great"
objective, 13 as a "great" objective, 7 as a
"moderate" objective, and 1 rated it as having only
"some" importance. No one accorded it a rating of
"little or no importance" (U.S. General Accounting
Office, 1993, pp. 19-20).

This report suggests that making positive impacts
on the behavior of program participants, especially
in terms of reducing substance-abusing behavior, is
a primary goal of most correctional boot camps.
Austin, Jones, and Bolyard's 1993 study of jail
boot camps reveals goals similar to those that have
been reported with regard to adult boot camps. All
the jail programs reported rehabilitation as a
goal. Drug education and drug treatment were also
listed as important goals by all the responding
agencies, and all agencies reported drug education
or counseling as a program component. The amount of
time residents spent in drug education or
counseling ranged from 4 hours a day at Nassau and
Ontario, New York, to 4 hours a week at Travis,
Texas (Austin et al., 1993).

Literature on boot camp programming suggests that
the program content of early boot camps was
generally consistent across facilities and that
changes have been made over time. Early programs
tended to feature a strong military design in which
offenders participated in physical training, drill
and ceremony, and hard labor (Parent, 1989;
MacKenzie, 1990; Coyle, 1990). As these programs
emerged, basic rehabilitative elements such as
substance abuse treatment and education (although
commonly present) were overshadowed by a strong
emphasis on structure and discipline. Because of
the deemphasis on treatment and training, the early
programs were criticized by some observers
(Sechrest, 1989; Osler, 1991). 

Correctional system officials responsible for boot
camp programming in some States have acknowledged
these concerns. For example, Florida officials
conceded that for some inmates "these unmet needs
[substance abuse treatment and education, basic
education, and job training]...may have negated any
rehabilitative success in other areas" (Florida
Department of Corrections, 1990, p. 25). In a 1991
evaluation of Georgia's Special Alternative
Incarceration (SAI) program, the necessity of
enhanced substance abuse programming was also
highlighted: 

At least 75 percent of the offenders who have gone
through SAI have a problem with drugs and/or
alcohol. They committed crimes while under the
influence or to support their habits, or they were
convicted of DUI or drug possession or sale. Strong
substance abuse programs were needed, both in SAI
and during the followup period of supervision and
treatment. (Georgia Department of Corrections,
1991, p. xi).

It became clear that little evidence existed to
support the idea that discipline and hard work by
themselves would lead to lasting behavioral
changes; enhanced substance abuse programming might
be needed. 

In addition to the lack of emphasis on standard 
rehabilitative elements within early boot camp 
programs, researchers expressed concern about
lack of aftercare services, especially for the
substance-abusing client, as programs grew more
popular. For example, in a study examining the
postrelease experiences of boot camp inmates from
Louisiana, Shaw and MacKenzie noted that "the
behavior of problem drinkers as a group was more
varied than that of nonproblem drinkers,
emphasizing the importance of and the need for
programs such as this to provide adequate support
and aftercare for problem drinkers and substance
abusers" (Shaw and MacKenzie, 1991, p. 63).

Since the initial introduction of boot camp
programs, changes in program structure appear to
have taken place. Although early shock
incarceration programs emphasized structure and
discipline, newer programs appear to be
incorporating more substance abuse treatment into
daily inmate programming, and a stronger aftercare
component as well (see also Gransky, Castellano,
and Cowles, 1995).

Although they started with an emphasis on military
drills, physical training, and work, an
increasingly larger number of facilities appear to
be giving at least equal emphasis to more
traditional forms of treatment programming. Most
boot camps today stress rehabilitation as a primary
program goal, with substance abuse programming
appearing to be highly valued by correctional
officials in charge of operating these facilities.
The overwhelming majority of boot camps include
programming aimed at promoting the successful
community reintegration of graduates. This is to be
accomplished, at least in part, by promoting the
ability of program participants to refrain from
abuse of drugs or alcohol. 

Beyond these broad trends and patterns, however,
more needs to be known about the details of
substance abuse programming associated with the
boot camp experience. 

The Impact of Boot Camps on the Lives of Substance
Abusers 

The only studies that have examined the impact of
boot camps on the lives of substance abusers (and
their potential differential impacts on substance
abusers versus nonabusers) are evaluations of
Louisiana's boot camp program.

Problem drinkers. One relevant examination involved
an analysis of boot camp effects on the lives of
problem drinkers (Shaw and MacKenzie, 1991). This
study involved 112 shock incarceration inmates who
entered the program between October 1987 and
October 1988 and eventually graduated, and a
comparison group of 98 prison inmates legally
eligible but not recommended for placement in the
program. The two groups were fairly similar in
demographic characteristics (except for age),
criminal histories, and measures of neuroticism,
but the prison inmates showed more signs of social
maladjustment, alienation, and manifest aggression.
A total of 58 inmates from across the 2 groups (20
percent of the total) were identified as problem
drinkers. 

Researchers found that problem drinkers in the boot 
camp sample became more prosocial after 3 months, 
but the prison sample showed no change in
antisocial attitudes. Problem drinkers in the shock
incarceration sample also became less alienated
than when they entered the program, while those in
the prison sample became more alienated during
incarceration. 

For each of the first 6 months that a parolee was
under community supervision, parole officers filled
out a standardized evaluation form (the Prosocial
Living Index), which attempted to measure each
parolee's community adjustment. To have a much
broader focus than just on recidivism, the Index
contains such measures as employment status, school
status, performance in treatment programs, as well
as arrests and reconvictions. The community
adjustment of boot camp parolees was found to be
much more positive than the adjustment of inmate
parolees, but there was no difference in the
adjustments of problem and nonproblem drinkers. No
link was found between sample and drinker type,
indicating that problem drinkers in the shock
incarceration sample did not fare better while
under community supervision than problem drinkers
in the inmate sample. In general the performance of
problem drinkers was more sporadic over the 6-month
period than the performance of nonproblem drinkers.
The evaluators underscored the desirability of
implementing stronger aftercare components to
address the specific needs of problem drinkers.

Other drug abusers. Another study of the Louisiana
program examined its effect on drug-involved
offenders (Shaw and MacKenzie, 1992). In this study
the performance of offenders with a drug history,
that is, prior drug arrests and convictions, was
compared to that of offenders who were merely
identified by corrections officials as in need of
community counseling for substance abuse.

The adjustments of a group of 74 paroled boot camp
offenders were compared to those of a group of 92
shock incarceration dropouts, 108 probationers, and
74 inmate parolees. Thirty-eight percent of all
subjects were in the group with histories of prior
drug arrests or convictions, and 28 percent were in
the group that was considered to need substance
abuse counseling. Although there was much overlap
between these two groups, it is noteworthy that 52
percent of the offenders with drug histories were
not required to attend community drug treatment.
There was no difference across samples in the
percentage of subjects with drug histories, but
both boot camp graduates and the regular parolees
were more likely than the probationers to be
required to get drug treatment. 

Evaluators examined program dropout rates to see
whether drug offenders adjusted to the boot camp
experience more negatively than nondrug offenders.
No difference in dropout rates was found between
those with and without drug histories.
Self-reported drug history information also
appeared unrelated to dropout rates. Thus, 
in-program adjustment patterns did not appear to be
a function of prior drug abuse.

Four measures of failure were used to assess
community performance, including positive drug
screens, drug arrests, any arrest, and jailing or
revocation. Sample subjects were followed for 1
year after release. A series of logistic
regressions run on each measure of community
adjustment revealed complex patterns in the
community adjustment of the offenders. First (and
consistent with the research discussed above), the
prison parolee sample and the probation sample did
not display failure patterns significantly
different from those of the boot camp sample.
Second, offenders with drug histories were less
likely to fail while under community supervision
than other drug offenders, especially when the
effect of required treatment was statistically
controlled in the analysis. That is, offenders
arrested or convicted of a drug offense who were
not also judged to need treatment were less likely
to fail while under community supervision than
those who were also judged in need of treatment.
Moreover, they were less likely to fail than
offenders without drug histories who were judged to
need treatment. Thus participation in treatment may
have actually resulted in higher failure rates. 

A third finding may help explain this apparent
anomaly. Although supervision level was controlled
in the logistic regression models, it is possible
that individuals in treatment had higher failure
rates because of some aspect of supervision related
to the requirement to attend treatment. In fact,
higher failure rates in terms of jailing or
revocation among those receiving community
treatment were limited to those in treatment who
were not making satisfactory progress (Shaw and
MacKenzie, 1992, pp. 514-515). 

In summary, the Louisiana boot camp experience
itself did not seem to have any differential or
positive impact on the community adjustments of
either problem drinkers or drug-involved offenders.
Although Louisiana's boot camp did provide some
drug treatment programming such as Alcoholics
Anonymous (AA) and Narcotics Anonymous (NA), it did
not have a formal drug treatment component.
Inferences about the efficacy of boot camp
programming as a vehicle of change on the lives of
substance abusers should await rigorous tests of
programs with substance abuse treatment components
that parallel those found in the community. 

Methodology for the Survey of Boot Camp Drug
Treatment Programs

The present research includes within its scope the
identified universe of shock incarceration programs
for adult offenders at the beginning of 1993. These
include facilities operated by the Federal and
State governments. Excluded from the study are
juvenile programs and boot camps operated by local
governments. Since the beginning of 1993, many
additional boot camps have opened their doors.
These newer programs may exhibit characteristics
quite different from those typically found in older
ones. Thus, findings from this survey may not be
generalizable to all adult boot camp facilities. 

In the fall of 1992, letters asking about the
existence of boot camp facilities were sent to the
directors or commissioners of the departments of
corrections in all 50 States plus the Virgin
Islands, the District of Columbia, and the Federal
Bureau of Prisons.1 At the beginning of 1993, the
survey indicated that there were 43 State boot
camps operating in 29 States. In addition, two
Federal programs were in operation.2 Survey efforts
also revealed 12 planned boot camps in 5 States (7
in Georgia, 2 in Iowa, and 1 each in Illinois,
Kentucky, and Oregon) which were due to be
operational within the next 2 years.

Survey data on substance abuse programming provided
by the above facilities were collected in two
distinct stages. During the first stage, telephone
interviews were conducted with the person at the
level of the correctional system most directly
responsible for planning, implementation, or
oversight of boot camp programming, such as the
department of correction's central office.
Interview questions sought to elicit information on
the correctional aims, program goals, and program
elements of the boot camp. As used in this
research, correctional aims refer to broad
constructs that underlie correctional interventions
(e.g., deterrence, retribution, rehabilitation,
incapacitation). Program goals are more narrowly
defined (e.g., reduced recidivism, reduced
crowding) and can be subsumed by the larger
correctional aim (e.g., rehabilitation includes
reduced recidivism).

Of the 30 jurisdictions previously identified as
operating a boot camp program, 2 States indicated
that their boot camps served specialized functions
and thus had different program operations (i.e.,
Oklahoma with 4 and Georgia with 2 distinct program
types). The officials surveyed from these States
were asked to report on aims, goals, and elements
separately for each type of facility within their
jurisdiction. This added to the number of
interviews to be conducted, but three States
declined to participate in the study. A total of 31
interviews were conducted, representing 26 States
and the Federal system, a response rate of 91
percent. 

The second stage of data collection began early in
1993. Two questionnaires aimed at collecting
information from facility-level personnel were
mailed to each facility. The first, directed to the
facility administrator, sought the administrator's
views as to the facility's correctional aims,
program goals, and program elements, as well as a
description of the target population and selection
criteria, daily scheduling, costs, and staffing.
This survey was designed to capture detailed
information on the facility contexts in which
substance abuse programming was provided.
Sixty-nine percent of the administrative
questionnaires were returned.                                     
                                                        
A second survey form was included in the packet
with the first, with instructions for the facility
administrator to forward the second questionnaire
to the staff member responsible for the facility's
substance abuse treatment or education program, if
such a program existed. The second survey
instrument asked about substance abuse assessment
procedures, treatment modalities and interventions,
hours of education and treatment provided,
aftercare programs, and information regarding the
staff providing substance abuse treatment or
education.

As with the facility administrator's questionnaire,
this survey solicited the substance abuse
provider's perceptions of the program's
correctional aims, goals, and elements. The purpose
of the two-stage data collection on these issues
was to measure congruence in the perceptions held
by individuals responsible for programming at
different levels in the correctional systems.
Sixty-four percent of these questionnaires were
returned.

Nonresponses for the administrative and substance
abuse surveys were primarily due to response
patterns from three States. New York State, which
had five facilities at the time of this survey
effort, refused to participate in the
facility-based survey component. Officials from
that State explained that all of their facilities
have identical substance abuse programming and so
there was no need to ask facility-level personnel
to respond to the questionnaire. Only three of
Georgia's six facilities responded to both surveys,
and only one administrative questionnaire was
returned from among Oklahoma's four programs. Thus,
these States represent 11 of the 14 administrative
questionnaire nonresponses and 12 of the 15
substance abuse questionnaire nonresponses.
Fortunately, these programs have been well
documented (for example, see Clark and Aziz in this
volume and Clark, Aziz, and MacKenzie, 1993) so
that the nature of nonresponse bias can be
estimated. These programs are discussed in the
following analyses if they displayed substance
abuse programming characteristics distinct from
patterns gleaned from the survey data received.

Survey Findings

The survey findings presented below show the extent
to which drug education and treatment have been
made part of boot camp programming and the
different forms they have taken. The survey also
elicited information on how inmates were screened
for treatment, how long the treatment lasted, and
how boot camps staffed their education and
treatment programs.

The Extent of Substance Abuse Programming 

All of the system-level officials indicated that
alcohol and other drug treatments were being
provided in their facilities, although this was
true for only 75 percent of the facility-level
respondents.3 There appears to be confusion among
some respondents as to whether a drug treatment
program existed at certain facilities. Prior
surveys that  indicated almost uniform drug
treatment programming in boot camps may have
overrepresented the reality of the situation
because they tended to report responses generated
by system-level officials. Responses from
individuals closest to the delivery of such
programming efforts indicate that a quarter of
adult boot camps had no such programming.

Most respondents also indicated that physical
training, physical labor, basic education, and
prerelease programming were facility program
components. Conversely, vocational education was
not commonly found in boot camps, with only
slightly more than 40 percent of the system-level
respondents and 30 percent of the facility
administrators indicating vocational education to
be a facility program element. Drug treatment in
most boot camps is one of a variety of components
to balance military-oriented activity, exercise,
and work with more traditional treatment-related
activities such as education and prerelease
programming.

It is also noteworthy that despite the great
emphasis placed on aftercare services as a
necessary component to ease community reintegration
of graduates, about a quarter of the respondents
reported no postrelease service delivery.

Substance abuse programming appeared to be more
available to the boot camp participant than to the
general prison inmate. All of the responding boot
camps had either a substance abuse treatment or a
substance abuse education program. Most boot camps
provide drug treatment (as distinct from drug
education only), and virtually all offenders in
such facilities participate in substance abuse
treatment. In contrast, Lipton, Falkin, and Wexler
(1992) indicate that the percentage of State
correctional systems offering different types of
substance abuse programming ranged from around 62
to 88 percent, with substance abuse education being
the most popular. In a study 4 years earlier,
Chaiken (1989) estimated that about 11.1 percent of
the inmates in the 50 States were involved in drug
treatment.

The Mix of Substance Abuse Education and Treatment 

There is some disagreement in the literature on
whether it is appropriate to consider drug
education as a drug treatment modality. Many argue
that substance abuse education or information
programs do not constitute treatment (e.g., Lipton,
Falkin, and Wexler, 1992) but that education or
information programs may, at best, be considered to
provide basic support for treatment. 

To learn how substance abuse program providers in
boot camp facilities viewed this issue, a number of
survey questions sought to find out if drug
education was considered a totally separate program
from drug treatment or a component of treatment.
The responses reveal three distinct program
groupings for substance abuse education in boot
camps. In the first group are those that provided
only substance abuse education, defined in the
survey questionnaire as "a separate, clearly
identifiable substance abuse education program."
Seven of the 29 responses (24 percent) indicated
this approach. A second group of equal size (seven)
maintained that substance abuse treatment was
provided but that there was no education program as
defined above. That is, substance abuse education
was intertwined with the treatment component in
such a manner that it was not considered a
distinguishable program offering. 

Finally, a third, larger group of 15 facilities (52
percent) indicated the presence of both an
identifiable education program and a substance
abuse treatment program. Beyond these fairly crude
distinctions lies an interesting finding. When
facilities with treatment programs were asked to
identify the approaches that were used in their
programs, all 22 identified education as one. Thus
it would seem that education has played an
important role in substance abuse programming in
boot camp facilities whether it constituted the
only program component or was integrated into a
broader treatment approach.

These data tend to indicate that the perceptions of
providers of substance abuse programming varied
considerably due to the framework under which
substance abuse programming is provided in the boot
camp environment. For instance, although
rehabilitation had a higher priority than the other
correctional aims across all types of facilities,
those locations that had separate substance abuse
education and treatment programs gave
rehabilitation a higher priority than those
facilities providing only substance abuse
education. Additionally, for programs in which
substance abuse education is incorporated into
substance abuse treatment (as opposed to being a
distinct and separate program), alcohol and drug
treatment elements were rated a higher priority
than in programs in which drug education and drug
treatment are separate and distinct portions of the
inmate programming. Further, the presence of drug
treatment programming appears strongly related to
the incorporation of other rehabilitative
programming found in association with boot camps.
For example, a greater proportion of boot camps
that have substance abuse treatment programming
indicated the presence of postrelease programming
(6 of 7 and 12 of 15, respectively) than those that
had only substance abuse education (3 of 7). As
these discussions illustrate, the presence of
substance abuse treatment as a program element may
be a defining characteristic of boot camps that
most forcefully articulate and seek the goal of
offender rehabilitation. However, programs that
merge treatment and education programming may see
the dilution of the former, at least in the eyes of
substance abuse programming providers.

Education 

For those 22 boot camps with a separate substance
abuse education program, either provided in
conjunction with treatment or alone, 20 (91
percent) mandated inmate participation in their
educational programming. The total number of hours
of instruction ranged from 6 to 358 hours, with the
average at just over 61 hours. Facilities with both
identified education programs and treatment
programs provided an average of nearly 30 more
hours of substance abuse education instruction than
programs that had only an education program (70
versus 42), suggesting a more intensive program
effort in facilities that had both substance abuse
education and treatment. 

Over half (54 percent) of the programs providing a
separate education program used in-house staff to
provide the educational programming. Eighteen
percent had external educators, while about 9
percent contracted with an outside organization to
provide education. The remainder used multiple
providers or other sources. The ratio of inmates to
education staff ranged from about 15 to 1 at the
low end to around 200 to 1 at the high end. The
most common inmate-staff ratios were about 30 to 1
reported by 18 percent of the facilities, and 50 to
1 reported by 14 percent of the facilities. Eight
of the facilities (36 percent) required that their
education staff be certified as substance abuse
treatment providers in their respective States.
Four facilities reported that half of their staff
were certified; one facility indicated that 70
percent of its staff had certification; and four
reported that their entire education staff were
certified. The remaining 13 facilities did not
indicate levels of staff 
certification.

Treatment 

The literature identifies a variety of ways to
incorporate substance abuse treatment in
correctional settings. According to Brown (1992),
five types of program models are available for drug
abusers in correctional settings: 

o  Incarceration without specialized services.

o  Incarceration with drug education or drug abuse
counseling or both.

o  Incarceration with residential units dedicated
to drug abuse treatment.

o  Incarceration with client-initiated or
client-maintained services or both.

o  Incarceration with specialized services that do
not directly target users' drug abuse problems. 

Using this taxonomy, the majority of boot camp
substance abuse programs operating at the time of
this study would fall into the second category,
since all the programs featured either substance
abuse education or treatment or both. A minimal
number with well-integrated substance abuse program
elements along the lines of a therapeutic community
might even be placed in the third category,
incarceration with residential units dedicated to
drug abuse treatment.4 Further, substance abuse
treatment provided in boot camp facilities best
fits into what may be termed a short-term (less
than 3 months) residential treatment program,
although a few notable exceptions existed (such as
Minnesota's and New York's programs) which had
longer (180 days) and more extensive programming. 

Models offered for similar correctional substance
abuse treatment programs can be distilled into
three primary components: an assessment phase
including evaluation and development of a treatment
plan, a treatment program, and an aftercare
component (see Finn and Newlyn, 1993; Sherron,
1991; Wexler and Lipton, 1993). This review of boot
camp substance abuse treatment programming examined
the first two of these three components.

Assessment

Assessment of substance abuse problems of inmates
was a fairly common practice in the shock
incarceration programs surveyed. Of the 29 State
and Federal programs responding to the substance
abuse survey, 20 (69 percent) indicated that some
type of substance abuse assessment was conducted
while 9 (31 percent) stated that no assessment took
place. All facilities doing such substance abuse
assessment indicated they did so routinely for all
inmates entering the facility.

Despite this common use of substance abuse
assessment, there appeared to be a lack of clear
links between substance abuse assessment and
subsequent treatment programming. Of the 29
programs responding, 22 reported that they had
substance abuse treatment, but only 18 of this
group conducted a substance abuse assessment.
Further evidence of a lack of integration between
assessment of substance abuse problems and
subsequent treatment was reflected in the fact that
of the 18 programs that conducted assessments, only
half indicated using the assessment data to
classify inmates for treatment programs.

The lack of articulation between substance abuse
assessment processes and treatment decisions has
been clearly driven by the large number of programs
that require all boot camp inmates to participate
in substance abuse treatment. In addition to the
four facilities that place offenders in treatment
without the substance abuse assessment mentioned
above, six of the facilities indicated drug
treatment was mandated by statute; in two the judge
could mandate participation; in three others the
facility mandated treatment after assessment; and
two facilities had different mechanisms for
mandating substance abuse treatment. One typical
boot camp treatment provider indicated, "Any inmate
that meets general criteria for shock incarceration
receives substance abuse treatment." 

A variety of tools, screening instruments, and
classification systems were available to identify
individuals with alcohol and substance abuse
problems. Respondents were asked to identify the
techniques they used to determine which inmates had
substance abuse problems. All except one of the
responding agencies reported using face-to-face
interviews.

Beyond a screening interview, two other methods
were widely used to assess inmates' substance abuse
difficulties. The first was examination of case
history information (beyond the present offense)
gleaned from sources such as presentence
investigations, prior evaluations or treatment
records, and self-reported information provided by
the offender. Eighty-three percent of the programs
reported using such information for assessment. 

The second popular tool consisted of psychological
and behavioral testing instruments, with 78 percent
of those conducting assessments indicating the use
of such tests. However, there did not appear to be
a clear favorite among the instruments identified
by respondents. The most commonly used instrument
was the Michigan Alcoholism Screen Test (MAST),
which was identified by nearly 40 percent of those
using such tests. The Inventory of Drinking
Situations was used by slightly more than a third
(38 percent), and the Alcohol Use Inventory was
employed by about one quarter (28 percent) of those
using tests. Six other scales were identified by
less than 20 percent of this group. It is noted
that 56 percent of those indicating the use of such
assessment instruments indicated they used tests
other than the 14 that were listed on the survey
instrument. In this regard several facilities
indicated the use of substance abuse screening
instruments apparently developed as part of their
admission and diagnostic screening process.

The two other identified methods appeared to have
limited use among boot camp programs. The use of
urine and blood tests was reported by only
one-third of the respondents, and case history
reviews to determine if drugs were involved in the
present offense were used by only 17 percent of the
responding programs.

These data indicate that despite the rather
extensive assessment efforts in place at many boot
camps, the predominant means of placing boot camp
offenders in substance abuse treatment has not been
through a diagnostic process and clinically based
decision of need, treatment amenability, or
potential effectiveness. Rather, 
it has been done through legally mandated or
nonclinical decision processes.

Treatment Modalities and Interventions 

Respondents were asked to identify treatment
modalities used in their programs from among six
commonly associated with correctional substance
abuse programs: substance abuse education; the
Alcoholics Anonymous/Narcotics Anonymous model;
individual counseling; therapeutic communities;
group counseling; and milieu therapy. (Findings
from this study indicate that neither
pharmacological approaches nor detoxification were
in use in boot camp programs at the time of the
survey.) "Modality" was used to mean the general
treatment delivery approach employed by the
program. Additionally, respondents were asked to
select the interventions they used from among a
list of 21 commonplace therapeutic interventions.
Space was also provided for the respondents to list
two interventions not included in the listing. Here
"intervention" denotes the specific type or style
of treatment offered. 

All but one of the reporting boot camps employed
multiple modalities in their treatment programming.
This means that some combination of substance abuse
education, group counseling, AA 12-Step models, and
milieu therapy was used to deliver substance abuse
services. In fact, a combination of four modalities
was the most prevalent grouping, seen in 36 percent
of the programs. Twenty-seven percent used five of
the listed modalities, and one reported using all
six modalities. 

This finding provides a central theme in the data
reported by substance abuse treatment providers.
Substance abuse treatment offered in boot camps has
been eclectic. While eclecticism may be a positive
attribute, it may also reflect a lack of clarity
and specificity as to the theoretical orientation
or treatment approach.

This eclecticism is evidenced by the number of
interventions being employed in each facility--
ranging from 1 to 14 with 5 and 7 the most common
numbers. Further, the type of modality used seemed
to have little effect on the number of
interventions. The mean number of interventions
ranged from 7.41 for therapeutic communities to
9.00 for milieu therapy. (Because there were only
two therapeutic communities, interpretation of this
finding is difficult.)

For each of the treatment modalities except the
therapeutic community approach, three interventions
(AA 12-Step, reality therapy, and stress
management) were consistently ranked as the most
frequently used interventions. The use of several
modalities and the predominance of the same
interventions across modalities (slight variations
are noted for milieu therapy and individual
counseling) seem to indicate a strong similarity,
at least in orientation, among boot camp substance
abuse treatment programs. This is not surprising
given the relative newness and rapid expansion of
boot camp facilities. The few more established
programs frequently served as models for those that
were newly established. Treatment components found
in programs with developed substance abuse
approaches, such as the Alcohol and Substance Abuse
Treatment model (ASAT) in New York, appear to be
replicated again and again. 

Examination of the most and least often employed
treatment interventions offered at boot camp
facilities suggests that most programs have been
taking a pragmatic, skill-building orientation to
help offenders cope with the problems and stressors
they would face on return to the community.
Traditional psychotherapeutic approaches designed
to deal with offenders' underlying psychological
and emotional problems, particularly those
associated with more serious substance abuse, have
been used relatively infrequently.

Length of Treatment 

Research over the years has consistently shown a
relationship between time in treatment and
treatment outcomes (e.g., Hubbard et al., 1989;
Wexler et al., 1992). Two factors can affect the
length of time an individual stays in a treatment
program: whether or not someone completes the
program and the actual length of the 
program. 

As mentioned earlier, for the majority of boot camp
facilities with substance abuse treatment programs,
participation was set in motion through legal or
administrative mechanisms rather than assessment
procedures. Of the 22 reporting facilities with
treatment, in only 1 was treatment voluntary. In
six programs, treatment was required for certain
inmates, such as those with drug offense
convictions or those for whom the judge mandated
participation. In the remaining programs, all
inmates were required to participate. 

Once in the substance abuse program, an inmate had
little opportunity to quit treatment without being
removed from the facility. In only 5 of the 22
facilities providing treatment could an inmate be
administratively removed from treatment but remain
in the boot camp, and in only 3 of the facilities
could the inmate voluntarily quit the substance
abuse treatment program without leaving the boot
camp.

These considerations, coupled with the reluctance
or inability of respondents to indicate how much
time a boot camp devotes to drug treatment, have
made it difficult to estimate the average length of
time a boot camp inmate spent in treatment and its
intensity. Because of the eclectic nature of the
treatments and the common lack of boundaries
between what drug treatment is and what it is not,
the most that can be said is that the length of
drug treatment in boot camps paralleled the average
length of boot camp programs (slightly over 5
months).

The statement of one boot camp psychologist as
reported in Burns (1991) reflects much boot camp
programming in this regard:

...(what I do)...probably does not come across as a
very specific alcohol and drug component to the
inmates. I don't separate it out. When I teach the
12 steps, I show them that the 12 steps are good
for whatever their problem happens to be. And I
view crime as an addictive behavior, just as drugs
are addictive. So that these 12 steps, properly
used, can get you over your addiction to crime"
(Burns, 1991, p. 22). 

In effect, a day in boot camp has been viewed by 
many boot camp treatment providers as a day in 
drug treatment.

Treatment Staff

As Lipton et al. noted in their review of
correctional drug treatment, "staffing is one of
the keys to successful programming whatever the
modality" (1992, p. 23). There are two predominant
issues when considering treatment staff: the
quality and size of the staff relative to the
client population and the type of treatment
offered. 

The survey responses revealed considerable
diversity in the way treatment programs were
staffed, but three models predominated. In the
first, treatment programming is provided by full-
or part-time agency staff, essentially an in-house
program delivery. The second is a mixed model in
which individuals are contracted to supplement
agency staff in providing the program. The third
model involves contracting all services through
individuals or an outside treatment provider.

The in-house model was by far the most common
single approach, with about two-thirds of the
facilities relying solely on agency staff. Only two
reporting facilities used contracted staff solely,
and less than a third used the mixed model of both
agency staff and contracted personnel. These
findings indicate that full-time contracted staff
were more likely to be certified and to have had
formal training in substance abuse treatment than
full-time correctional agency treatment staff.

Boot camp programs also differed widely in the
ratio of client offenders to substance abuse
treatment providers. One program had a ratio of 4
clients for every treatment provider; at the other
end of the spectrum, one had a ratio of 90
participants for every treatment staff member. The
most common ratios were 10 to 1, 30 to 1, 45 to 1,
and 50 to 1, each seen at two facilities. It seems
difficult to imagine that a substance abuse
counselor could have much individualized
interaction with offenders at ratios nearing 100 or
even 50 clients per staff member. However,
inmate-staff ratios in boot camp treatment programs
average in the range of 30 to 1 across types of
modalities.

Summary and Conclusions

In general, adult boot camps provide substance
abuse programming to a greater percentage of their
clients than do correctional facilities. All of the
surveyed programs offered at least substance abuse
education, and over 75 percent offered substance
abuse treatment. Interestingly, respondents who
worked at actual boot camp sites were less likely
than system-level officials to report that
treatment was provided. Substance abuse treatment
programming was found to be a key element in
establishing a rehabilitative correctional regime.
Boot camps with drug treatment programming are not
only more strongly oriented to rehabilitation as a
primary goal but are also more likely to use the
programming often thought necessary to promote the
successful community reintegration of offenders
(e.g., postrelease programming services).

Despite these positive findings, a number of issues
have been identified in this chapter that suggest
that all is not well with boot camp substance abuse
programming. Most boot camps have provided drug
treatment in a manner that makes it difficult to
readily ascertain the number of treatment hours
actually provided to boot camp participants (e.g.,
hours vary per week, treatment hours are not
distinct from education hours). Research does
confirm, however, that the relatively short
duration of boot camp programs does not bode well
for their ability to keep graduates substance free
over the long term. Moreover, assessment of
inmates' need for treatment appears to be an
underdeveloped component of substance abuse
programming, for it is infrequently used to
classify inmates for treatment or to individualize
their treatment plans.

Substance abuse treatment programs in adult boot
camp facilities were also found to take several
forms and to be part of a variety of simultaneously
used modalities. While common in the field,
multimethod approaches were not used in these boot
camp settings to uncover and treat the wide variety
of problems underlying drug use and dependence. For
instance, individualized treatment has been rare,
with individual counseling found to be a modality
in only 14 of the 22 boot camps that provided
substance abuse treatment. More commonly, all boot
camp participants within a facility received the
same treatment regardless of their individual needs
or situations.

Researchers have identified the therapeutic
community model as one of the most successful
approaches to correctional substance abuse
treatment (e.g., Lipton et al., 1992). Somewhat
surprising, then, is the fact that only two of the
facilities reporting, Massachusetts and Wisconsin,
specified the use of a therapeutic community model.
If New York's programs are included, the relative
percentage of boot camps maintaining that a
therapeutic community approach is used increases
substantially. Nonetheless, it appears that a
therapeutic community model of drug treatment has
been underutilized in adult correctional boot
camps. This is especially disturbing because such
facilities appear ideally suited for the
introduction of therapeutic communities.

Clearly there appear to be significant shortfalls
in the manner by which substance abuse treatment is
provided to adult boot camp participants. Although
a number of promising programs exist, much can be
done to improve the current programming in many
States. Such efforts should be guided by the
results of further experimentation and evaluation.

Notes

1.  The responding correctional officials were
given the opportunity to self-define whether
correctional programming in their system included a
"shock incarceration" facility. They were asked if
their jurisdiction contained "any program that has
an intensive training component, not necessarily
based on a military model, that is an
incarceration-based alternative to a traditional
prison sentence." Rather surprisingly, given the
fact that the survey letter did not make reference
to boot camps or shock incarceration and the
program design of the facility was not constrained
to a military model, respondents tended to identify
the same facilities that had been identified in
contemporaneous boot camp surveys (e.g., MacKenzie,
1993).

2.  This count approximates the findings derived
from a March 1992 census of boot camps that
identified 41 boot camps in 26 States (MacKenzie,
Shaw, and Gowdy, 1993). The 45 facilities
identified in this survey are also comparable in
number to the 46 reported by MacKenzie as existing
during 1992 and 1993 (MacKenzie, 1993). Compared to
the MacKenzie survey, the present research
identified one more shock incarceration program in
Georgia and two fewer facilities in Michigan. Both
these surveys report far fewer boot camp facilities
than either the more recent U.S. General Accounting
Office (GAO) or American Correctional Association
(ACA, 1993) surveys. These lower counts are not due
to a rapid increase in the opening of adult boot
camp programs during 1993 but to the GAO's
identification of 19 boot camps in Georgia, while
the ACA reported 11 boot camps in Georgia and 7 in
Missouri. It is questionable whether these latter
figures represent the actual number of boot camps
in those States, even as they may be defined by
correctional officials there. It appears that the
present research effort has been successful in
identifying the universe of broadly defined adult
shock incarceration facilities in the United States
at the beginning of 1993.

3.  If responses from all of the New York
facilities and those from Georgia and Oklahoma were
included in this analysis, the percentage of boot
camps with a drug treatment component would
increase beyond the 75 percent reported above. Each
State (but New York in particular) emphasizes drug
treatment and has a fairly strong component. For
further information on New York's model, 
see MacKenzie (1993), Clark and Aziz in this
volume, and Clark, Aziz, and MacKenzie (1993). This
was not true of the original Georgia and Oklahoma
programs, but in recent years such programming
efforts have been introduced or enhanced in those
States.

4.  The percentage of boot camps that could be
classified in such a manner would increase if New
York's boot camps were included in this analysis.
New York's drug treatment model is based on a
therapeutic community approach.

References

American Correctional Association. "Development of
National Standards for Juvenile and Adult
Correctional Boot Camps, Draft Monograph."
Unpublished paper. Laurel, Maryland. 1993.

Andrews, D.A., I. Zinger, R.D. Hoge, J. Bonta, P.
Gendreau, and F.T. Cullen. "Does Correctional
Treatment Work? A Clinically Relevant and
Psychologically Informed Meta-analysis."
Criminology, 28, no. 3 (1990):369-404.

Austin, J., M. Jones, and M. Bolyard. The Growing
Use of Jail Boot Camps: The Current State of the
Art. Research in Brief. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Justice, National Institute of
Justice, October 1993.

Brown, B.S. Drug Abuse Treatment in Prisons and
Jails. Research Monograph, no. 118. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
National Institute on Drug Abuse, 1992.

Burns, J.C. "A Comparative Evaluation of the
Alabama Department of Corrections' Boot Camp
Program." Paper presented at the Academy of
Criminal Justice Sciences' Annual Meeting,
Nashville, Tennessee. March 6, 1991.

Chaiken, M.R. In-Prison Programs for Drug-Involved
Offenders. Issues and Practices in Criminal
Justice. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1989. 

Clark, C.L., D.W. Aziz, and D.L. MacKenzie. Shock
Incarceration in New York: Focus on Treatment.
Program Focus. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1993.

Coyle, E.J. Boot Camp Prisons. Newark, New Jersey:
Criminal Disposition Commission, 1990.

Elis, L.A., D.L. MacKenzie, and C.C. Souryal. "Boot
Camp Prisons: A Growing Trend in Corrections."
Unpublished paper, 1992.

Finn, P., and A.K. Newlyn. Miami's "Drug Court": A
Different Approach. Program Focus. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National
Institute of Justice, 1993.

Florida Department of Corrections. Boot Camp: A
Twenty-Five Month Review. Tallahassee: Florida
Department of Corrections. Unpublished report,
1990.

Georgia Department of Corrections. Special
Alternative Incarceration: Evaluation. Atlanta:
Georgia Department of Corrections. Unpublished
report, 1991.

Gransky, L., T.C. Castellano, and E.L. Cowles. "Is
There a Next Generation of Shock Incarceration
Facilities? The Evolving Nature of Goals, Program
Components and Drug Treatment Services in Boot Camp
Programs." In J. Smykla and W. Selke (eds.),
Intermediate Sanctions: Sentencing in the 90s.
Cincinnati: Anderson Publishing Co., 1995.

Hubbard, R.L., M.E. Marsden, J.V. Rachal, H.J.
Harwood, E.R. Cavanaugh, and H.M. Ginsburg. Drug
Abuse Treatment: A National Study of Effectiveness.
Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press,
1989.

Lipton, D.S., G.P. Falkin, and H.K. Wexler.
"Correctional Drug Abuse Treatment in the United
States: An Overview." In C. Leukefeld and F. Tims
(eds.), Drug Abuse Treatment in Prisons and Jails.
Research Monograph Series, no. 118. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
National Institute on Drug Abuse, 1992.

MacKenzie, D.L. "Boot Camp Prisons: Components,
Evaluations, and Empirical Issues." Federal
Probation, 54 (1990):44-52.

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

MacKenzie, D.L., J.W. Shaw, and V.B. Gowdy. An
Evaluation of Shock Incarceration in Louisiana.
Research in Brief. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Justice, National Institute of
Justice, June 1993.

MacKenzie, D.L., J.W. Shaw, and C. Souryal.
"Characteristics Associated With Successful
Adjustment to Supervision: A Comparison of
Parolees, Probationers, Shock Participants, and
Shock Dropouts." Criminal Justice and Behavior, 19,
no. 4 (1992): 437-454. 

Marlette, M. "Boot Camp Prisons Thrive."
Corrections Compendium, 16, no. 1 (1991):8-12. 

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, 1991.

Osler, M.W. "Shock Incarceration: Hard Realities
and Real Possibilities." Federal Probation, 55
(1991):34-42.

Parent, D.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.

Sechrest, D.D. "Prison `Boot Camps' Do Not Measure
Up." Federal Probation, 53 (1989):15-20.

Shaw, J.W., and D.L. MacKenzie. "Shock
Incarceration and Its Impact on the Lives of
Problem Drinkers." American Journal of Criminal
Justice, 16, no. 1 (1991):63-96.

Shaw, J.W., and D.L. MacKenzie. "The One-Year
Community Supervision Performance of Drug Offenders
and Louisiana DOC-Identified Substance Abusers
Graduating From Shock Incarceration." Journal of
Criminal Justice, 20 (1992):501-516.

Sherron, T. "Minimum Security and Chemical
Dependency Treatment: A Functional Model for
Corrections." American Jails, 5, no. 5 (1991):76.

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.

Warnock, K.M., and D. Hunzeker. "Prison Boot Camps:
Policy Considerations and Options." National
Conference of State Legislatures State Legislative
Report, 16, no. 1 (1991):1-10.

Wexler, H.K., G.P. Falkin, D.S. Lipton, and A.B.
Rosenblum. "Outcome Evaluation of a Prison
Therapeutic Community for Substance Abuse
Treatment." In C. Leukefeld and F. Tims (eds.),
Drug Abuse Treatment in Prisons and Jails. Research
Monograph Series, no. 118. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, National
Institute on Drug Abuse, 1992.

Wexler, H.K., G.P. Falkin, and D.S. Lipton.
"Outcome Evaluation of a Prison Therapeutic
Community for Substance Abuse Treatment." Criminal
Justice and Behavior, 17, no. 1 (1990): 71-92.

Wexler, H.K., and D.S. Lipton. "From Reform to
Recovery: Advances in Prison Drug Treatment." In J.
Inciardi (ed.)., Drug Treatment in Criminal
Justice. Newbury Park, California: Sage
Publications, 1993.

Wexler, H.K., and R. Williams. "The Stay `N Out
Therapeutic Community: Prison Treatment for
Substance Abusers." Journal of Psychoactive Drugs,
18, no. 3 (1986):221-230.

Editor's Note: A National Institute of Justice
Research Report, Boot Camp Drug Treatment and
Aftercare Intervention: An Evaluation Review (NCJ
153918) and a Research in Brief of the same name
(NCJ 155062) summarizing the report are available
from the National Criminal Justice Reference
Service, 800-851-3420.


-------------------------------------------------------------------
Correctional Boot Camps: A Tough Intermediate Sanction - Chapter 14


Boot Camps as an Alternative for Women

by Doris Layton MacKenzie, Ph.D., Lori A. Elis,
Sally S. Simpson, Ph.D., and Stacy B. Skroban

Doris Layton MacKenzie, Ph.D., is an Associate
Professor in the Department of Criminal Justice and
Criminology at the University of Maryland. Lori
Elis is a graduate student in the department, with
research interests in gender and crime and the
effectiveness of drug treatment programs. Sally
Simpson, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor in the
department, with research interests in
criminological theory, gender and crime, corporate
crime etiology, and social control. Stacy Skroban
is a graduate student with the department. Her
primary research interests include applied
statistical models and evaluation of delinquency
prevention programs.

This chapter describes a study of women in adult
correctional boot camps. The authors visited boot
camp programs in seven States, interviewing staff
and inmates, collecting questionnaire information
from the women boot camp participants, and
examining the facility design, structure, and
operation. They found two different types of boot
camps for women: one integrated women into boot
camps designed for male inmates; other boot camps
for females were completely separate from the male
camps. After reviewing the evidence, the authors
concluded that there were major problems for women
in camps that combined men and women. Few women
were in the camps, and those who were confronted
serious problems. The environment and experiences
of the women were not equal to those of the men in
the same camps. Women in separate or semiseparate
programs fared better. The pros and cons for the
women in these camps were very similar to those for
men, but some characteristics of the women made the
boot camp experience much more difficult than for
men. In particular, for women who had dependency
problems or who had been victims of abuse, the boot
camp provided a negative atmosphere. It was
concluded that women should not be combined with
men in boot camps designed for men. If boot camps
are going to be developed for women, they should be
designed to be compatible with the needs and
characteristics of women offenders. Alternatives to
boot camps should be considered that would offer
women similar opportunities but in a more suitable
environment.

Boot camp programs generally target young,
nonviolent, first-time offenders. Participants have
been overwhelmingly male. However, in the interest
of parity, many departments of corrections have
opened boot camp programs to women offenders. Some
boot camps offer intensive therapeutic programming
or opportunities for early release that would not
be available in traditional prisons or in other
alternative programs. If women are denied access to
boot camps, they will not have equal opportunities
for therapy or early release.

Considering the public and political support for
these programs, there is every reason to believe
money will continue to be funneled into boot camps.
If they do provide benefits for individual
participants, these benefits should be available
equally to men and women offenders. Legally,
incarcerated women have a right to the same level
of programming and benefits available to men
(Rafter, 1990). However, prison boot camps were
developed for men, with women often admitted as an
afterthought. 

Successful litigation by incarcerated females has
increased the availability of upgraded programs for
women in many prisons (Crawford, 1988).
Correctional programs originally designed for men
have become options for women. However, this trend
is not without controversy. The integration of
women into male-oriented correctional programs has
been criticized by some scholars who argue that
placing women in programs originally designed for
males without a prior assessment of the needs of
female offenders may be detrimental (Rafter, 1989;
Morash and Rucker, 1990). Although the program may
have possible benefits, its implementation may have
unintended consequences for the women. "And, as the
entire history of our prison system indicates,
`equal' treatment may actually create hardships for
women if male needs and programs set the standard"
(Rafter, 1990, p. 202).

Most of the research examining boot camps has
focused on male inmates. In a multisite study of
boot camp programs, MacKenzie and Souryal (1994)
found that boot camps had a positive impact on the
attitudes of offenders. Camps emphasizing treatment
and aftercare may also lower recidivism rates of
program graduates. Furthermore, some programs may
be designed to reduce prison crowding by releasing
offenders earlier than they would otherwise be
released. Thus there is evidence that some boot
camps offer benefits for offenders. The multisite
study focused on male offenders because in most
cases there were too few women in the boot camps to
provide reasonable numbers for statistical
analyses. 

This chapter examines the adequacy of correctional
boot camps for women. The researchers identified
the State boot camp programs with women
participants and selected half for a more indepth
descriptive study (MacKenzie, Elis, Simpson, and
Skroban, 1994). Before the study began, a focus
group of feminist scholars, correctional experts,
and criminologists identified an extensive list of
issues important to consider in an evaluation of
the appropriateness of boot camps for females. The
study was designed to address the following
questions: 

o  Do women offenders have an equal opportunity to
enter and remain in the boot camps? 
o  Do the camps address the needs of women
offenders? 
o  Are the boot camps potentially harmful for these
offenders?
o  What are the potential advantages of the camps
for women? 
o  Are there alternative correctional programs that
would be more appropriate? 

Survey of Boot Camp Programs

In March 1992 the researchers surveyed all adult
State correctional systems to determine the number
and characteristics of the boot camp programs in
existence. This study found 39 boot camp programs
for adult felons in 25 States (the survey did not
include boot camps in juvenile detention centers or
in local jails). Thirteen of the 25 States had
women in the boot camp programs, with women making
up 6.1 percent of the boot camp population. Two
additional States (Pennsylvania and Massachusetts)
were planning to open boot camps, with women
eligible to enter the program.

The number of beds for women in the boot camps
varied from a low of 8 in Colorado, Kansas, and New
Hampshire to a high of 150 in New York. Camps for
women in the remaining States (Arizona, Illinois,
Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi,
Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas) were
intermediate in size, their capacities ranging from
10 to 60. The capacity figure for the women in boot
camps in these States was consistently smaller than
that for male inmates.

A major difference among the boot camps with
respect to female participants was the fact that
some programs integrated the females into the
program with male inmates; others had completely
separate female programs. Women participating in
the integrated programs were housed either at the
male boot camp or at a nearby female prison. In
these programs the women participated with the men
in almost all daily activities. Nine States with
boot camp programs for women combined women and men
in one program. The other four had completely
separate programs in which males and females did
not come into contact with one another.

Site Visits

Out of the 13 boot camps for women, 6 were selected
for more indepth study. Since the research team
pilot tested data collection instruments at one
boot camp, the final selection of six sites was a
50-percent sample of boot camps in existence at the
time of the survey. Four of these boot camps had
integrated programs (men and women combined), and
two were separate camps for women. At the time of
the site visits, a total of 69 women were
participating in the boot camps. The number of
women in the camps was much smaller than the
allowable capacity (a total of 143 beds). This was
a particular problem with the integrated programs.
The 4 integrated programs had designated a total of
64 beds for female offenders, yet there were only 9
women in the camps, or only 12.5 percent of the
total capacity. In fact, two of the sites had no
women at the time of the site visits. 

The separate programs differed as to percentage of
beds filled. At one site, 93 percent of the 55-bed
capacity had been reached; at the other, 25 percent
of the 20-bed capacity was filled. Thus, with the
exception of one boot camp, the beds in boot camps
for women were generally empty, particularly in the
combined programs. 

Because the numbers of women from the six sites
were so small, an additional site was added to the
study. This boot camp was not randomly selected.
Its large number of women was expected to yield
additional interviews and information about women's
boot camp experience. Men and women spent some time
together, but they were not integrated for all
activities. Women were housed in separate buildings
from the male inmates. They did not mix during
work, and although they were with male inmates at
meals, they were required to eat at separate
tables. Males and females did participate together
in educational classes, physical training, drill
and ceremony, and drug counseling. Thus, for the
purposes of this study, this program was classified
as semiseparate.

At the seven boot camps, the researchers collected
data through interviews with administrators and
inmates. During a walk through the site, they also
completed a checklist that examined the degree of
integration in programs combining males and
females, including the living situation, the decor,
bathroom facilities, and cross-gender supervision.
Female inmates were also asked to complete a
questionnaire asking for demographic data and
information on their families, history of abuse,
and prior drug and alcohol use.

Results

The majority of the women in the boot camps had
children with whom they would be living after
release. Most were the sole source of financial
support for themselves and their children. They
were serving time for nonviolent crimes (drugs,
theft, or fraud), and a large percentage had prior
contact with the criminal justice system. Many had
substance abuse problems and histories of abusive
relationships.

An analysis of the completed questionnaires,
coupled with results of interviews with both
inmates and staff, revealed a number of issues and
problems about the boot camp experiences of women.

Do Women Offenders Have an Equal Opportunity To
Enter and Remain in the Boot Camps? 

The most conspicuous problem with the randomly
selected sites was the small number of women in the
boot camps. As noted earlier, some boot camp beds
for women were not being used, and of the six sites
receiving visits, two had no women in the program.
The few women who did enter the boot camp program
were apt to drop out. This is a particular problem
when boot camps combine women and men in the same
program.

There are some obvious problems that may account
for the small number of women. First, the programs
were designed for men. Women appeared to have more
problems with the physical demands of the program.
They frequently discussed health problems, and many
of those in the process of dropping out cited a
physical problem as the reason. 

Another problem reported by the women, especially
in the combined programs, was the emotionally
stressful nature of the program. Almost all inmates
have reported that boot camp programs are stressful
(see, for instance, MacKenzie and Souryal, 1994).
However, the women appeared to suffer additional
stress because there were so few women in the
program. That is, there were frequently only 1 or 2
women in a program with 30 or more men. In many
cases, for their protection, the women were
supervised more intensely in the program than the
men. Interviews indicated that women's activities
were often severely restricted to protect them from
abuse and harassment (yet there were still many
instances of problematic sexual activities in the
boot camps).

Additional difficulties related by the women were
due to their different standards of modesty,
privacy, and aesthetics. Many of the boot camps'
bathroom facilities permitted little privacy and
employed cross-gender supervision. Furthermore,
dormitories were barren; the women were not
permitted to display personal items such as
photographs. They missed these reminders of home
and children.

If the women in these boot camps are compared to
the men in another study of boot camps (MacKenzie
and Souryal, 1994), they are found to be similar in
the type of crime they committed and the percentage
who were employed. However, the women were older
than the men in the boot camps (23 to 29 years old
compared to 19 to 24). Age restrictions for
eligibility may be one reason why there were few
women in the boot camps. Four of the sites had an
upper age limit of 25 for participants in the
programs and were filled only up to 33 percent of
capacity. The two programs that had filled the
majority of their beds either had no upper age
limit or an upper age limit of 35. Thus, if women
offenders are on the average older than men when
they enter prison, they may be in effect excluded
only because they do not meet age requirements.
Other eligibility criteria may also limit the
number of women who are admitted, particularly if
the criteria were originally developed for male
offenders (Chesney-Lind and Pollock-Byrne, 1993).

Although women may have been placed in the boot
camps in the interest of equality, mixing women
into a program designed for men did not create an
equal situation. Programs did not take into
consideration the average woman inmate's physical
stamina. The women had to cope with the additional
stress of being in an environment where the
majority of participants and staff were men. 

Do the Camps Address the Needs of Women Offenders? 

A review of the literature on women offenders
suggests that their most important needs include
vocational or employment training to help them
support themselves and their children; substance
abuse treatment; programming that considers their
family obligations, such as parenting classes, life
skills training, and help with the transition to
the community; and counseling for victims of
domestic violence and sexual assault (American
Correctional Association, 1993; Rafter, 1990;
Baunach, 1985). As expected, these problems were
frequently mentioned by women in the boot camps. 

Programs such as parenting training, general
education, and drug treatment were available in
many of the boot camps. If women are excluded from
participation, they may not have an equal
opportunity for such programming.

On the other hand, although many women had serious
drug abuse histories, only half of the boot camps
had drug treatment programs. Few offered
therapeutic programs for the problems many of these
women had, such as programs for surviving sexual
assault or battering, making a successful
transition to the community, or obtaining job
skills. 

Furthermore, there were no innovative visitation
programs to encourage women's interaction with
their children, and in the combined programs
visitation was particularly limited. It appears
that the programs failed to take into consideration
the importance of children to women in boot camps.
Since most of the women were mothers who expected
to be reunited with their children upon release,
the time in prison could be used to strengthen the
mother-child bond and improve parenting skills.
Furthermore, interaction with children may be a
positive influence on female offenders.

Are the Boot Camps Potentially Harmful for Women
Offenders? 

Frequently in interviews inmates mentioned name
calling and offensive comments by the drill
instructors (DIs). They reported being told, "You
are nothing but a convict" and "You're always gonna
be a loser." Several reported being called "bitch."
Perhaps the most offensive comments were those
about the women's ability to be good parents or
comments about their children. One woman who told a
DI about having had a stillborn child believed the
DI was out of place to say, "Good--you didn't bring
another slimeball into the world." Another reported
that being told "your child is a coke baby" hurt
her considerably. Women reported they were "dogged"
and that the DI's attempted to "tear them down."
The women made many comments about how after being
torn down they were supposed to be built up, but
there were few comments about how this was done.
DI's in the combined programs were the source of
the harshest verbal abuse.

Problems related to sexual activities were
mentioned by both staff and inmates. For example,
in one boot camp program a male DI required the
women to exercise in their nightgowns upon arising
in the morning while the male drill instructor
walked through the dormitory. After they complained
to a female DI, the male DI was no longer assigned
to the women's dormitory. 

One of the administrators in a separate program
reported that at one time the program had been
coeducational but that several pregnancies had
occurred and one woman was murdered by a male
inmate. This was one reason for the decision to
separate the male and female boot camp programs. 

Another reported a problem that occurred in a
combined program when a male drill instructor had
sexual relations with one of the female boot camp
inmates. The administrator believed that despite
suggestions that the woman had consented to the
relations, consent could not freely be given
because of the DI's power over the inmate. This
boot camp had gone to great lengths to protect the
female participants from male inmates, requiring a
DI to be with the women at all times. Yet the DI,
who could be male or female (depending upon who was
on duty) had to stay in the bathroom while the
women showered. The inmates were required to strip
down to their underwear in front of the DI before
moving into a shower stall (partially concealed
from view). 

Although some of the women mentioned that they had
been pushed or shoved by correctional officers,
none of those interviewed said they had been
touched sexually. In the combined programs, several
said that the men were pushed by the drill
instructors more often than the women.

Another concern about the boot camps was their
effect on women who had been battered or abused in
the past. This comment from a woman who had just
made the decision to leave the boot camp was
typical: "I was physically and mentally abused and
just being here reminds me of it." She went on to
say:

I have bruises on my arms. They grab you and they
push you around...They shouldn't be that harsh on
you. They get in your face and make you feel like
dirt. For someone like me that's been physically
and mentally abused, that's all it reminds me of--
being abused.

Another woman in a different program who had been
in the program a week said, "You can't talk to the
DI's like they are people because you are not just
allowed to even look at them." She couldn't get
used to this. "When you look at them they scream at
you, `don't look at me.'" She said this was
frightening for people like her who had been abused
in the past.

Another inmate remembered: 
When I first got here, I had people screaming at me
in my ears...I thought I was gonna just come apart,
have a nervous breakdown...For the 2 months I was
here, I cried because it triggered all that stuff
from my childhood that I just started remembering
when I came here.

On the other hand, some of the women who had been
in the boot camps longer felt that they had learned
useful lessons. One reported, "The program teaches
you how to stand up for yourself and that you don't
have to take anybody's crap. The DI's are in your
face all the time and you get to express your
feelings. You can explain to them how you feel."

What Are the Potential Advantages of the Camps for
Women? 

The two primary aspects of the boot camp prison
that can be considered advantages are the chance
for early release and increased opportunities for
therapeutic programming. Most of the women said the
greatest benefit was getting out of prison earlier.
Mothers mentioned wanting to get home to their
children, and others said that completing the
program would mean they would not have a record of
conviction. In one program, the women were upset
because they had to wait a long time in prison or
jail after signing papers to enter the boot camp,
and this lengthened their total incarceration time.
They had no choice between this program and other
programs offering early release. It was either this
program or no early release. 

The program with the largest number of female
offenders was one that separated the sexes. In
contrast to those in the other boot camps,
offenders in this camp were sentenced directly to
the program. They mentioned the possibility of
early release much less frequently, most likely
because they could not be as sure what their
sentences would have been otherwise. Some had been
given a choice of the boot camp, a longer sentence
to prison, or a delayed sentence.

Although the majority of the women in one site said
they had originally entered the boot camp because
they would serve less time in prison, most of them
reported that the therapeutic programs and what
they had learned while in the boot camp were the
best parts of their experience. During interviews,
they suggested ways in which the camps could be
improved by adding specific types of programs. Most
comments about programming depended on whether a
particular program addressed the inmate's own
problems. If it did, she reported that the program
was beneficial. If it did not (and this was the
case most of the time), then the offender suggested
what was missing from the program that should be
included. Women who thought drug treatment was
important reported it as a benefit and said they
would recommend the program to others with drug
problems.

Many of the women cited discipline as a benefit,
and some cited it as a reason for entering the
program. They said learning discipline would
benefit them in the outside world and would help
them achieve self-control. Another benefit reported
by the inmates was that they were now in good
physical condition, were exercising, and were
getting in shape. Several mentioned losing weight.

Are There Alternative Correctional Programs That
Would Be More Appropriate?

It became clear in the interviews that the boot
camp programs failed to address several important
needs of women. Many inmates said they regretted
the lack of opportunity to see their children. They
also knew they would need to support themselves and
their children when they got out but said they
received little help in boot camp to improve their
occupational opportunities. In addition, women with
substance abuse problems reported receiving little
treatment, and victims of domestic abuse were not
helped in how to deal with their husbands or
boyfriends when they returned home.

For these and other reasons, it is questionable
whether the benefits of the boot camps for women
outweigh the costs. Certainly there are serious
problems in combining women and men in one boot
camp prison. There may be other, more appropriate
alternatives for women offenders.

Summary and Conclusions

Many issues of concern for women in boot camps are
similar to those for men. The military atmosphere
carries with it some dangers (such as
staff-on-inmate abuse, injury, and accidents), and
there is little evidence that the military
atmosphere alone will change offenders so that they
will not be involved in crime in the future.

The authors believe that this research uncovered
additional, serious problems for women offenders
placed in boot camps with men. Few women entered
and stayed in those programs, and their experiences
were not the same as those of men. The stress was
greater, their activities were restricted, and
there were problems with sexual behavior. Thus
these programs did not offer women an effectively
equal opportunity for early release and appropriate
programming. 

In general, the separate and semiseparate programs
seemed to have fewer problems than the combined
programs. The separate programs were more likely to
offer therapeutic programs suited to women's needs.
Visitation policies were less restrictive, and the
women had some opportunities to see their children
while in boot camp. Surprisingly, some of them said
they would not recommend the boot camps to males
because men would have "attitude" problems that
would make it difficult for them to complete the
program.

However, the study identified serious issues with
respect to both types of programs. Few of the boot
camps addressed women's needs for vocational
training, drug treatment, or transition to the
community. Of even greater concern was their impact
on women who had lived in abusive relationships.
The confrontation and requirements for absolute
obedience may be particularly bad for women who
have been dependent on male criminal associates or
for women who have been in abusive relationships
(Pollock-Byrne, 1990; Rafter, 1990). When drill
instructors confronted women who had been in such
relationships, the women were sharply reminded of
earlier abusive situations. Only a few said they
had learned to stand up for themselves. The authors
are concerned that many women, particularly those
who dropped out of the program, left with added
scars and diminished self-confidence. Together with
the obvious potential for sexual, physical, or
verbal abuse, this damage to already fragile egos
seems to be one of the most dangerous aspects of
the boot camp experience for women. 

On the other hand, boot camps can offer women the
advantage of earning their way out of prison
earlier, and they have the capability of providing
intense therapy for offenders that is seldom
available in regular prison. If boot camp is the
only way women offenders can obtain treatment and
early release from prison, it should be possible to
design women's boot camp programs that are more
responsive to the needs discussed in this chapter.
The authors believe that existing boot camps should
be considered experimental. They should be
carefully monitored and studied so that future
programs can be designed that achieve the same
correctional objectives without doing damage to the
participants.

References

American Correctional Association. Female
Offenders: Meeting Needs of a Neglected Population.
Laurel, Maryland: American Correctional
Association, 1993.

Baunach, Phyllis J. Mothers in Prison. New
Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Books, 1985.

Chesney-Lind, Meda, and Joycelyn Pollock-Byrne.
Women's Prisons: Equality With a Vengeance.
Unpublished manuscript, University of Hawaii at
Manoa, 1993.

Crawford, Jane. Tabulation of a Nationwide Survey
of State Correctional Facilities for Adult and
Juvenile Female Offenders. Laurel, Maryland:
American Correctional Association, 1988. 

MacKenzie, D.L., R. Brame, D. McDowall, and C.
Souryal. "Boot Camp Prisons and Recidivism in Eight
States." Criminology, 33, no. 3 (1995):401-430.

MacKenzie, D.L., L. Elis, S. Simpson, and S.
Skroban. Females in Boot Camp Prisons. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National
Institute of Justice, 1994.

MacKenzie, D.L., and A. Piquero. "The Impact of
Shock Incarceration Programs on Prison Crowding."
Crime and Delinquency, 40, no. 2 (1994):222-249.

MacKenzie, D.L., and Souryal, C. Multisite
Evaluation of Shock Incarceration. Evaluation
Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1994.

Morash, Merry, and Lila Rucker. "A Critical Look at
the Idea of Boot Camp as a Correctional Reform."
Crime and Delinquency, 36 (1990):204-222.

Pollock-Byrne, Joycelyn. Women, Prison and Crime.
Pacific Groves, California: Brooks/Cole Publishing
Company, 1990.

Rafter, Nicole Hahn. "Gender and Justice: The Equal
Protection Issue." In Lynne Goodstein and Doris
Layton MacKenzie (eds.), The American Prison:
Issues in Research and Policy. New York: Plenum
Press, 1989.

Rafter, Nicole Hahn. Partial Justice: Women,
Prisons and Social Control. New Brunswick, New
Jersey: Transaction Publishers, 1990. 


-------------------------------------------------------------------
Correctional Boot Camps: A Tough Intermediate Sanction - Chapter 15


Planning and Designing Boot Camp Facilities

by Cindie A. Unger

Cindie Unger is Vice President of Correctional
Services Group, Inc., in Kansas City, Missouri,
providing consulting services to Federal, State,
and local criminal justice agencies. Ms. Unger has
completed several projects for the National
Institute of Corrections and the Bureau of Justice
Assistance.

Boot camp facilities need to be designed in
accordance with their goals and activities, which
are different from the goals and activities of
regular prisons. Whether renovating or adding to
existing prison facilities or designing totally new
facilities, correctional planners need to conduct
five activities to ensure that designs enable the
boot camp to fulfill its objectives to: (1) develop
a preliminary program, (2) develop and consider
facility options, (3) determine the costs of
facility options, (4) identify strategies for
reducing construction and operating costs, and (5)
select the most feasible option. The
recommendations made are drawn from Guidelines for
Developing a Boot Camp Program, a manual prepared
in 1993 by the Correctional Services Group, Inc.,
and jointly funded by the U.S. Department of
Justice's National Institute of Corrections and
Bureau of Justice Assistance. One chapter in the
manual tells how to design boot camp facilities so
that they promote the objectives of boot camp
programs. 

The growth of boot camp programs has spawned
numerous studies of boot camps, ranging from
instructional manuals for implementation to
comprehensive evaluations. Nearly all of these
studies focus exclusively on the boot camp program-
-its objectives, its components (drill, physical
exercise, education programming, substance abuse
treatment), eligibility criteria, program length,
and program effectiveness. Very little attention
has been given to the physical facilities that
house boot camp programs and how their design
affects the ability of the programs to achieve
their objectives.

Yet correctional administrators have long
recognized that correctional programs and security
practices are shaped by the structures in which
they are housed. Since the earliest penitentiaries
were constructed on American soil, an integral part
of correctional facility design has been to plan
the physical layout and structure of facilities to
serve the prison's overall goals, programs,
services, and activities. 

This premise holds true for the planning of boot
camp facilities, whether they are located in
existing, expanded, or new correctional buildings.
The Nation's earliest prisons were facilities that
isolated prisoners because the prevailing
correctional philosophies of the day emphasized
silence, penitence, and solitude. Today's boot
camps, on the other hand, simulate the barracks of
military boot camps to bring nonviolent inmates
together to instill discipline, promote teamwork,
and ultimately generate a sense of responsibility
for themselves and for others. Boot camps reflect a
correctional philosophy that emphasizes
rehabilitation through group interaction and
activities.

Because of these special program goals and
nonviolent offender populations, boot camp
facilities are designed differently from
traditional prisons and jails. They contain
proportionally more space for physical exercise and
substance abuse programming, use dormitory housing
almost exclusively, and use outdoor areas for
close-order drill and obstacle courses--training
courses filled with barriers, such as ditches and
walls, that must be negotiated.

To successfully plan and design an effective boot
camp facility, a correctional agency should
complete five activities: (1) develop a preliminary
program, (2) develop and consider facility options,
(3) determine the costs of facility options, (4)
identify strategies for reducing construction and
operating costs, and (5) select the most feasible
option.1

Develop a Preliminary Program

To select a feasible and effective option for a
boot camp facility, the agency must first have a
clear, if preliminary, idea of how the facility
will function and the demands that will be placed
on it. This requires the development of a
preliminary program statement that identifies:

o  The boot camp mission.
o  Boot camp goals.
o  Boot camp programs and services.
o  The daily schedule.
o  Capacity projections.
o  The preliminary estimate of space needs.
o  The relationship among spaces.
o  Potential users.
o  Americans With Disabilities Act requirements.
o  Major activities to be carried out.

The mission of the boot camp guides the development
of its goals, which in turn determine the types of
programs and services that will be needed and that
will determine the daily schedule that the boot
camp participants will follow. Guided by this
schedule, facility planners can identify the
specific types of spaces the boot camp will need to
provide. 

The size of the facility, the number of
participants it can accommodate at any one time,
plus the daily schedule will dictate the number and
size of the spaces planned for each activity or
program.

The preliminary estimate of space needs involves
several activities, preceded by a review of State
and national facility standards. First, planners
should develop a list of spaces needed to carry out
the daily activities. For most boot camps, major
functional spaces will include: 

o  Dormitory housing, including sleeping area, day
room, showers, and toilets.
o  Program space for academic classes, substance
abuse programming, life skills training, anger
management, and other skills enhancement training.
o  Multipurpose space for group meetings, Narcotics
Anonymous and Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, and
religious services.
o  Administrative offices and ancillary support
space.
o  Program and service office space.
o  Gymnasium for indoor physical exercise and
drill.
o  Outdoor physical training area for running
track, calisthenics, and drill.
o  Library.
o  Kitchen.
o  Dining room.
o  Warehouse, including food stores.
o  Laundry.
o  Visiting area.
o  Offender property storage area.
o  Clothing, facility supplies storage area.
o  Intake area.
o  Space for staff services, including lockers,
showers, training room, and assembly room.

Besides the schedule, planners will have to take
into account the capacity of the facility. Then the
estimated net square footage for each type of space
listed must be determined. This is the amount of
space required for a particular function, exclusive
of interior walls or circulation space around the
functional area. Each space must be large enough to
accommodate the number of people who will use the
space (both offenders and staff) and the nature of
the activities that will take place there.

To make functional spaces work in relation to one
another, designers add a grossing factor, which
adds space for interior walls and partitions,
internal corridors, and circulation among
functional components (such as administrative and
program areas). To illustrate grossing, a factor of
35 to 40 percent is typically added to the net
square footage (NSF) estimated for dormitory
housing. Thus, a 50-foot by 70-foot dormitory would
have 3,500 square feet, yet the gross square
footage (GSF) would be at least 4,725 square feet
(3,500 NSF x 0.35 growing factor). In addition, the
preliminary estimate of space needs also involves
computing the facility's overall efficiency factor.
Typically, the efficiency factor is about 1.25
times the gross square footage. In this way, the
overall size of the facility can be determined.

After determining their space needs, boot camp
planners should study the relationship among the
spaces, determining which spaces need to be next to
or near one another (in the language of architects,
spacial relationships are called adjacencies) and
projecting the flow of people, information, and
things throughout the facility. They must also
visualize  the volume, frequency, and importance of
this flow. Potential users include staff, 
offenders, visitors, volunteers, and vendors. 
Designers should consider the number of these 
people, the period and length of time they will 
spend there, and any special requirements they 
may have.

The Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990
significantly strengthened the law on accessibility
to public buildings. Areas or objects whose
accessibility must be evaluated include exterior
step handrails or possible ramp; doors, which
should be wide and easily opened; elevators or
ramps to accompany interior stairs; floors, which
should be level and nonslip; restrooms, which
should have wide doors and grab bars; counters,
which should be of suitable height; corridors,
which should be brightly lit and fitted with grab
bars; and waiting rooms with comfortable seating.

The design must also be based on an understanding
of the major activities to be undertaken for each
user or facility area throughout the building and
the typical sequence of activities, including what
people are involved, what they do, and where they
do it. A master operational schedule, completed by
the users of the facility, is invaluable to
designers at this point.

The Illinois Impact Incarceration Program (IIP) at
Dixon Springs furnishes an example of what happens
when the facility design does not take into account
an important aspect of the program. The program's
inmate code of silence dictates that inmates may
not communicate with one another and that they may
not speak to staff unless they first obtain
permission or are addressed by staff. The facility,
a former forestry camp, has 3 housing units--1 for
women, 1 large unit for 80 of the newest
participants, and another large unit comprising 10
smaller dormitories, each housing 14 inmates. 

Staff are aware that participants routinely violate
the code of silence when they are in the small
dormitories. To enforce the code, IIP would have to
place an officer in each of the 10 small
dormitories to visually monitor inmates' talking
behavior. Because this level of staffing is cost 
prohibitive, the inmates are "on their honor" to 
adhere to the code of silence. A better facility 
design would have consisted of 3 large dormitories 
housing between 60 and 75 inmates each, with a 
correctional officer assigned to each dormitory. 
Alternatively, a housing unit design could have 
been adopted similar to that of the Georgia's 
Women's Detention Center, where 166 inmates are
housed in 4 dormitories designed around a common
control center. The officers who staff the control
center have unobstructed views into each of the
dormitories. 

Another important issue to consider at the planning
stage is the impact created by the facility design
( the materials chosen to construct the facility,
its layout, and the number and types of spaces
included in the facility), as well as the
furnishings, on the attitudes of staff, inmates,
and the public. These features communicate a
message. The public, particularly, wants to see
correctional boot camps that mirror their ideas
about military boot camps--campus-style facilities
built of wood or simple concrete block with sealed
concrete floors; few or no window treatments;
recreational opportunities limited to drill,
calisthenics, running, and the obstacle course;
minimal interior decoration; and inexpensive
furnishings, preferably metal. The message most
correctional agencies wish to communicate to
inmates and staff is somewhat different. Spartan
facilities with simple furnishings focus the
attention and energies of both staff and inmates on
the basics of the boot camp program--growth and
development of the program participants through
discipline, training, and education. Utilitarian
designs, furniture chosen for its durability rather
than its beaut, give the message that the program
is unadorned, no-nonsense, rigid, rigorous, and
character-building.

Develop and Consider Facility Options 

Unlike most secure jails and prisons, boot camps
can be housed in existing buildings or expansions
of existing structures. Boot camp programs have
operated out of forestry camps, medium security
prisons, a school house, military barracks, and a
maximum security jail. The potential for using an
existing building is important to consider,
particularly when funds are limited or there is a
need to implement the program as quickly as
possible, but there are many considerations to be
addressed. Basically, correctional officials have
three principal options for housing boot camps:

o  Renovate an existing facility.
o  Construct a new boot camp on the grounds of an
existing facility.
o  Construct a new stand-alone facility.

Renovating an existing facility. While this option
may appear attractive, based primarily on speed and
cost, a number of conditions must be met. The
failure of the facility to meet any one of these
conditions can nullify any benefits derived from
use of an existing structure. 

First, the building must comply with standards and
legal requirements for boot camps. It must be large
enough to house the projected offender population,
including those waiting to enter the program, and
to accommodate the program's goals and objectives
as well as being adaptable to program needs. It
must be possible to maintain separation between
boot camp inmates and regular inmates.

The building must be sound, fire-safe, and secure,
and provide the minimum level of comfort required
as well as meet sanitation requirements. It must
comply with all building codes, have appropriate
space for programs and services, and promote staff
efficiency.

If the proposed building does not meet all of the
foregoing criteria, it must be renovated to bring
it into compliance. The cost of the required
renovation is an important consideration in
choosing renovation over new construction. While
these considerations are also important in
evaluating the construction of a new facility, the
agency will dictate, up front in the planning
process, the standards, codes, and regulations that
the facility design and construction will have to
meet. Retrofitting a facility to meet applicable
codes, standards, and regulations is often more
expensive than designing and executing these
requirements in new construction.

Addition to existing facility. Adding the boot camp
facility to an existing facility is an option
favored by some. In a study of Georgia's boot camp
program, Special Alternative Incarceration, judges
who were interviewed said that the boot camps
should be housed within a regular prison setting.
They believed the suggestive jeering and taunting
of the older, hardened, adult inmates would instill
fear in the boot camp offenders and thus deter them
from future criminal activity and possible return
to prison.3

Another rationale for placing the boot camp within
a larger facility is to enable the program to
receive wider staff scrutiny and thus guard against
abuse of offenders. 

A final reason is that staff can be easily rotated
into and out of the program when they cannot adjust
to the boot camp environment or are at risk of
burnout.

Most agencies that operate boot camp programs have
followed a similar development path. That is, most
boot camp programs have been initiated not by
corrections agencies but by legislatures, county
commissioners, governors, or city councils.
Existing staff have formed planning teams to
develop the program, recommend policies and
procedures, and estimate the staff, facilities, and
other resources required. Because the
implementation schedule may have been set by
agencies outside corrections, the timeframe for
developing and implementing the program was
frequently very short--a few months to a year. It
became expedient for most boot camp programs to use
existing facilities, renovating them for use as
correctional boot camps. 

For example, the Illinois and New York correctional
agencies converted work camps for adult offenders.
The About Face Program in New Orleans Parish
operates out of a former school building. While
such actions may meet agencies' requirements for
expedient, less costly program startup, boot camp
staff report inadequate facilities, especially lack
of program space.4 

Other factors need to be considered before
attempting to expand an existing structure:
disruption of operations, temporary relocation of
offenders, and permanence of the facility. 

Constructing a stand-alone facility. Most
corrections agencies have not chosen the option of
constructing a stand-alone facility, most likely
because this option costs the most and takes the
longest time to execute.

The construction of a stand-alone boot camp can 
take from 12 to 26 months, depending on the size 
of the facility, how difficult it is to site the 
facility, how long it takes to secure the
necessary zoning and building permits, and the
level of attention given to planning the facility. 

Determine Facility Option Costs 

After choosing the facility option that best makes
sense for a jurisdiction, planners should develop a
preliminary estimate of the cost of the renovation,
expansion, or new construction. This is done by
determining current construction costs on a
square-foot basis, computing the total gross square
footage for the option selected, estimating current
total construction costs, and adjusting for
inflation.

Equally important is to make a preliminary estimate
of what the facility will cost to operate, on an
annual and life-cycle basis, including not only
existing but potential operational expenses.
Calculating operational expenses is critical
because they are annual costs, while renovation or
construction expenses are a one-time cost. To
estimate operational costs, planners should:

o  Calculate annual costs, including fringe
benefits.

o  Determine the cost of offender services on an
annual basis, not excluding permanent agency
employees, but including contractual services.

o  Compute the annual cost of facility maintenance,
including the costs of labor, materials, and
contractual services.

o  Determine all other operational costs, such as
costs for inmate clothing, food, uniforms, travel,
utilities, supplies, and equipment.

o  Calculate the operating cost per bed by adding
the total personnel costs, offender services costs,
facility maintenance costs, and all other
operations costs, and divide by the number of
inmates who will be assigned to the program. This
calculation will provide the annual operating cost
per bed for the boot camp program.

The final activity in calculating estimated costs
is to determine what the facility will cost to
operate over its expected life. An escalation
index, or inflation factor, is applied to the
estimated annual operating expenses over a 20- to
30-year period to derive the life-cycle cost of the
boot camp.

Identify Strategies for Reducing Construction and 
Operating Costs 

Sometimes, after calculating construction,
operational, and life-cycle costs, planners find
the costs exceed the agency's budget. In this
situation, planners can employ one or more of the
following strategies to reduce construction and
operational costs:

o  Reduce dependency on expensive construction,
hardware, and equipment.

o  Minimize the use of expensive mechanical and
electrical systems.

o  Use readily available building materials.

o  Select a site that is easy to build on.

o  Employ a "fast-track" or phased construction
process to reduce time to completion.

o  Use boot camp offenders to construct the
obstacle course, running track, and other physical
training facilities.

o  Locate the boot camp within a larger general
population facility so that it can take advantage
of some of the staff resources of the larger
facility, such as food service, laundry, warehouse,
and medical services.

o  House offenders awaiting admission to the boot
camp in an existing facility, rather than building
a larger boot camp facility to accommodate them. 

To save money on construction, Georgia built some
of its newer boot camp barracks on existing State
prison grounds, availing itself of existing
offender service systems. With the use of offender
labor, Georgia was able to build these new barracks
at a cost of about $2,000 per bed. Stand-alone boot
camps that required their own food service systems,
medical sections, counseling centers, and staff
offices were costing Georgia about $8,900 per bed.5

To reduce operational costs, agencies have used a
variety of strategies, including limiting the size
of the building to reduce staff, utility, and
maintenance costs and increasing the size of the
housing unit while keeping the same number of
security staff supervising the unit, thus achieving
staffing efficiencies. Designs can be created that
focus on maximizing staff efficiency or energy
efficiency, and mechanical systems can be selected
that cost little to maintain.

The Georgia Department of Corrections designed a
boot camp facility for its Probation Detention
Center that allows one staff member, supported by
one rover (a correctional officer whose job is to
move continuously through specified areas of the
facility, supervising inmates and assisting
correctional staff assigned to stationary posts),
to supervise 166 offenders. The housing design,
four dormitories arranged around a central control
center, results in an efficient staff-to-inmate
ratio of 1 to 83. After 1 year of operation, the
only recommendation staff could offer for improving
the design of the housing units was to increase the
number of isolation cells from three to four.6

Select the Most Feasible Option

Each option--designing a new stand-alone boot camp,
renovating an existing facility, or constructing a
boot camp on the grounds of an existing facility--
should be evaluated, with adequate consideration
given to construction and operating costs, as well
as to the advantages and disadvantages of each.

To sum up, with careful planning and attention to
the goals of the boot camp program, a renovated
facility is an acceptable alternative to a new
facility, particularly if the jurisdiction wishes
to start up a boot camp program quickly and cost is
a factor. On the other hand, however well a
renovation of an existing facility is planned, it
can often be difficult to eradicate the prior
function of the facility without considerable
reconstruction. If an extensive renovation is
required to meet the agency's needs for a boot camp
program, it may make more sense to plan, design,
and construct a new facility.

Notes

1.  This chapter is drawn from Cindie A. Unger,
"Guidelines for Developing a Boot Camp Program,"
unpublished report, Kansas City, Missouri:
Correctional Services Group, Inc., August 1993. The
preparation of this manual was jointly funded by
the U.S. Department of Justice's National Institute
of Corrections and Bureau of Justice Assistance.
The manual tells how to design boot camp facilities
so that they promote the objectives of boot camp
programs. 

2.  "Program Readiness Preparation" is the
expression the Minnesota Department of Corrections
gives to the brief period of free time before
inmates begin a busy day of program participation.
During this period they may use the rest room,
gather materials they may need for class, tidy
their beds or barracks, and the like.

3.  G.T. Flowers et al., Special Alternative
Incarceration Evaluation, Atlanta: Georgia
Department of Corrections, 1991:3.

4.  Unger, "Guidelines for Developing a Boot Camp
Program." See also chapter 13 of this volume.

5.  A. Bowen, "Making Boot Camps Bigger and Better
in Georgia," Corrections Today, (October 1991):100.

6.  Cindie A. Unger, Women's Detention Center Case
Study, Georgia Department of Corrections, Community
Corrections Division, 1992:10.


-------------------------------------------------------------------
Correctional Boot Camps: A Tough Intermediate Sanction - Chapter 16


Boot Camps and Prison Crowding

by Dale G. Parent

Dale Parent is an Associate at Abt Associates Inc.
in Cambridge, Massachusetts. He has been studying
boot camps since 1989.

Prison boot camps reduce crowding only under a
limited set of difficult-to-achieve conditions.
Population simulations suggest that to reduce
prison crowding boot camps must recruit offenders
who otherwise would be imprisoned, offer big
reductions in prison terms for completing a boot
camp, minimize washout and return-to-prison rates,
and operate on a large scale. Few boot camps meet
these conditions. Many limit eligibility to
nonviolent first offenders, select offenders who
otherwise would receive probation, and intensively
supervise graduates, thus increasing
return-to-prison rates for technical violations. In
most jurisdictions, boot camps appear more likely
to increase correctional populations and costs
rather than reduce them. These findings have
important implications for how those programs
should be designed and operated. If boot camps are
intended to reduce prison populations, they should
have a large capacity; they should select
participants from among offenders already committed
for relatively long prison terms; and they should
implement policies to minimize in-program and
postrelease failures.

In jurisdictions that run boot camps, most
correctional officials report that their boot camps
are intended to reduce prison populations, prison
crowding, and correctional costs.1 This chapter
explores conditions that must be met to achieve
these goals and assesses the extent to which boot
camps are likely to achieve them. First, boot
camps' impacts on population levels and crowding
are examined, and then cost issues are discussed.
The chapter concludes by describing key
implications and design features of boot camps that
will increase the chances of affecting prison
population levels.

States' prison populations are determined by
factors that are mostly outside the control of
officials who run prisons, including sentencing
laws passed by legislatures, enforcement priorities
set by police, charging and bargaining practices
instituted by prosecutors, sentencing patterns
followed by judges, supervision and revocation
patterns of probation agencies, and release and
revocation practices of parole boards. Prison
officials cannot exercise discretion legally vested
in these other officials.   

In the short term, correctional officials have one
discretionary decision that can be used to affect
prison population levels. Within limits set by law,
they can shorten the duration of confinement for
selected offenders who have been committed to their
custody. To some extent they can adjust durations
of confinement by granting or withholding various
credits for aspects of program participation and
behavior. Correctional officials can release some
prisoners early on furloughs or work release, but
other forms of release, such as parole, must be
approved by other agencies. For some inmates,
release before serving a minimum period of
confinement is prohibited by law. Thus, if boot
camps are to reduce prison populations or crowding,
inmates admitted to boot camps must serve
substantially shorter prison terms than they would
have served otherwise. 

In the long term, correctional officials might be
able to reduce prison admissions if boot camp
graduates returned to prison at lower rates than
comparable parolees, because the graduates either
had fewer new convictions or lower revocation rates
for rule violations. 

Impact on Prison Bedspace 

In 1991, a simulation model was developed to
identify conditions that must be met for prison
boot camps to reduce the number of prison beds
needed. The model can be used when planning a boot
camp to understand how it should be designed to
reduce populations. It can also be used once a boot
camp is in operation to see whether the program is
having the expected impact on prison bedspace.2
Researchers used the model to assess the population
impact of Louisiana's boot camp3 and to assess the
population impacts of boot camps in jurisdictions
participating in a multisite evaluation.4 

In the analysis of the model reported, boot camps'
impacts on prison population levels were assessed
in relative terms. For example, as the probability 
of imprisonment varies, so does the number of 
prison beds lost or, conversely, saved. The 
objectives of the simulation were to find out how 
different boot camp design options affected the 
need for prison space and to determine how many 
prison beds a State would need to provide after 
implementing a boot camp that had particular
design options, compared to the number it would
have had to provide if its past population trends
continued. For this objective, other factors
influencing prison populations were assumed to be
constant, which would allow the identification of
the independent effect of a particular
configuration of boot camp policies on prison
population levels. The objective of the simulation
was not to predict the total number of prisoners a
jurisdiction would have in the future. Such a model
would be much more complex and require development
of a substantial data base on overall sentencing
practices and offender characteristics.

These analyses suggest that the following
conditions must be met if boot camps are to reduce
the need for prison beds:

o  The probability of imprisonment for those
admitted to boot camps must be very high. 
o  Boot camp graduates must get a substantial and
real reduction in their term of imprisonment.
o  In-camp failure rates must be low.
o  Boot camps must operate on a large scale.

High probability of imprisonment. This condition
refers to the odds that offenders admitted to the
boot camp would have been imprisoned if the boot
camp did not exist. Given typical in-program and
postrelease failure rates, the model indicates that
80 percent of those admitted to a boot camp would
have to receive a prison term just to begin
reducing required prison beds. Larger reductions
require even higher probabilities of imprisonment.

In many States, boot camps are restricted to
nonviolent first offenders. This restriction was
lifted from earlier shock probation laws, under
which young, inexperienced offenders (who
presumably were most impressionable and most likely
to be deterred) were sent to a regular prison for
90 days and then returned to community supervision.
Evaluations failed to show any deterrent effect in
shock probation.5 Variants of these
deterrence-based eligibility criteria appear in
most boot camp programs.

If boot camp participants are selected at time of
sentencing, deterrence-based eligibility criteria
make it difficult to achieve a high probability of
imprisonment; no State imprisons 80 percent of its
nonviolent, first-time felons. 

Reduction in term of imprisonment. If boot camp
graduates serve 6 months rather than 24 months,
each boot camp graduate will save the system 18
person-months of confinement. A small reduction--6
months versus 8 months--will not reduce bedspace
needs appreciably. Duration of imprisonment 
varied substantially among different State programs 
in the multisite study. 

Particularly important is the comparison between
the time that shock incarceration graduates spent
in prison and the time they would have spent (e.g.,
the time the shock-eligibles spend in prison).

Deterrence-based eligibility criteria also make it
difficult to achieve substantial reductions in
durations of confinement. In most States, the few
nonviolent first offenders who are imprisoned are
likely to be released after having served very
short prison terms.

Minimization of in-program failure rates. In
typical programs, 30 to 40 percent of those
admitted fail to complete the program and serve
regular prison terms, quickly eroding savings in
prison bedspace. 

If these first three conditions are not met, the
simulation shows that boot camps will increase
prison populations. Boot camps can cause
substantial increases (relative to their capacity)
depending on how they are configured. If their
participants have a low probability of
imprisonment--for example, if only 10 percent of
them would have been in prison if the boot camp did
not exist--a typical 200-bed boot camp will
increase the prison population by more than 500
inmates, due mainly to the 30 to 40 percent who
will fail during the program and who will serve
prison terms as a consequence. If the boot camp
lasts just 90 days, then four times a year it can
cycle in a new group of participants, of whom 30 to
40 percent will become regular prison inmates. In
this example, 90 percent of these in-program
failures would not have been in prison at all if
the boot camp did not exist. 

Operation on a large scale. If jurisdictions
achieve the three conditions described above, they
still must operate large-scale boot camps if they
want to reduce prison bedspace requirements. The
exact size of boot camps needed to achieve a
desired reduction varies with the probability of
imprisonment, the amount of reduction in time
served for completing the boot camp, and the
failure rates. But the effect of a small (e.g.,
50-bed) boot camp in a moderate-sized prison system
will not be discernible. If jurisdictions cannot
run boot camps that conform to the three conditions
described above, running small boot camps at least
will minimize the increase in prison bedspace that
will result.

Long-Term Impact on Prison Populations

In the long-term, boot camps might reduce prison
populations if graduates return to prison at lower
rates than comparable offenders who did not
participate in boot camps before their release from
prison.

At present, the evidence of boot camps' impact on
return-to-prison rates is inconclusive. Most
studies show that boot camp graduates do not return
to prison at significantly different rates than
members of comparison groups.6 To date, however,
none of the studies has randomly assigned inmates
to experimental and control groups, so outcomes may
have been affected by inmate self-selection. (For
example, some eligible inmates volunteer for boot
camps and others do not; some enter and complete
boot camps while others drop out after a few
weeks.) Also, none of the studies has tested the
impact of different models of aftercare on
outcomes. Boot camp graduates frequently are
intensively supervised, even though they usually
are not the high-risk or high-need offenders for
whom intensive supervision was originally intended.
Intensive surveillance may detect more rule
violations that lead to revocation, thus itself
inflating return-to-prison rates.7

Limits on Population Reduction

When design features and practices in existing boot
camps are compared with the findings of the
simulation model, it appears that most adult boot
camps are now designed and operated so that they
are more likely to increase rather than reduce
prison populations. In many jurisdictions, enabling
legislation restricts participation to nonviolent
first offenders and allows judges to select
participants at the time of sentencing, practices
almost certain to yield a pool of offenders who
probably would not have been imprisoned if the boot
camp were not available. Many existing boot camps
also have moderately high in-program and
postrelease failure rates.

Even if boot camps have been carefully designed to
reduce prison bedspace requirements, the broad
factors that drive prison population can easily
overwhelm any population reductions achieved by
boot camps. When the New York State Department of
Correctional Services (NYSDOCS) designed boot camps
in 1987, officials made all the appropriate choices
to reduce populations. NYSDOCS, not judges,
identified candidates for boot camps from among
regular incoming prison inmates, so their
probability of imprisonment was 100 percent. The
legislature approved boot camps for offenders
convicted of moderately serious crimes, who had
somewhat longer prior records. Hence, most New York
inmates who complete a boot camp shave 18 to 24
months from their prison terms. Finally, officials
ran a large boot camp operation--providing 1,750
beds in 5 separate boot camps. 

NYSDOCS staff credibly estimate that by 1992 their
boot camps caused the prison population to be 1,540
less than it would have been otherwise. Yet,
between 1988 and 1992, New York's prison population
grew from approximately 41,000 to nearly 58,000--an
increase more than 11 times greater than the
relative reduction from boot camps.8 At best, New
York's boot camps slightly lessened the extent of
prison population increase. 

If officials seriously expect to reduce or
eliminate prison crowding, then boot camps should
be only one small piece of a much larger and more
fundamental strategy to structure discretionary
sentencing choices and to provide an appropriate
range of sanctioning options. If prison populations
are at or near equilibrium, properly designed boot
camps by themselves may be able to effect a slight
reduction. However, if the prison population is
rising, boot camps are not likely to stop or
reverse that trend.

Impact on Correctional Costs

Boot camps that have sparse programming during the
institutional phase cost about the same to operate
as regular prisons on a per-inmate, per-day basis
because the staffing levels and facility costs are
very similar. Boot camps with richer programming
(e.g., intensive drug treatment, individual
counseling, extensive education, or other programs)
cost more to operate.9 Thus, to reduce total
operating costs, boot camps must substantially
shorten participants' duration of confinement.10

Measuring operating cost savings is difficult.
Officials often incorrectly estimate operating cost
savings by multiplying the estimated reduction in
total person-days of confinement by the average
daily cost of running regular prisons. They
calculate average daily costs by dividing the total
cost of running a prison for a year by the number
of person-days of confinement it provides in the
year. 

This approach leads to substantial overestimation
of savings. In the short term, population
reductions are likely to save only the costs
related to reductions in goods and services
"consumed" by offenders, such as food, clothing,
and health care. In most prisons, these short-term
costs amount to only a few dollars a day.

Staffing patterns (and costs) do not change when a
facility's population varies by a few inmates. To
save long-term costs, populations must be reduced
enough that a cellblock or even an entire prison
can be closed, or that construction of a new
facility can be averted. Averted costs are
especially difficult to demonstrate because it is
not known whether a legislature would have
authorized additional prison construction if the
boot camp had not been operating.

Finally, many practitioners now advocate an
expanded aftercare program for boot camp graduates
that provides a longer period of supervision,
greater continuity in treatment, and more rigorous
provision of support services. It is difficult to
evaluate the cost of such an aftercare program, but
it will cost more than the type of aftercare now
offered to most boot camp graduates.

Implications

For officials considering establishing boot camps
to reduce prison populations or costs, these
findings have sobering implications. They suggest
that officials should first consider whether they
should rely on boot camps for this purpose or
invest their energy and resources in broader and
more promising strategies. For those who decide to
proceed with boot camp development, this section
describes the author's assessment of how boot camps
should be designed and operated. It is based on a
review of the research, talking with correctional
officials, and visiting programs.

If officials want boot camps to reduce prison
populations, crowding, or correctional costs in the
short term, then they should select boot camp
participants from among offenders already committed
for imprisonment. This is the most effective way to
recruit offenders who have a very high probability
of imprisonment. This method, of course, is not
foolproof. Judges might alter their sentencing
practices and imprison selected offenders so that
they may be selected for boot camps. Correctional
officials might counter this potential by operating
"low profile" boot camps, in which they actively
seek to avoid publicizing their programs, and by
forcefully communicating with judges that the
Department of Corrections, not judges, control
placement decisions for those committed to prisons.

Thus, if population impact is the goal, boot camps
should be used as a form of early release. Agencies
that operate confinement facilities should run boot
camps and select participants. If judges select
boot camp participants at time of sentencing,
experience strongly suggests that a large
percentage of those admitted to boot camps probably
would have been given probation, making their
expected rate of imprisonment very low. If this is
the case, judicial selection of boot camp
participants may be incompatible with the goal of
reducing costs and prison populations.11

In addition, boot camps should target offenders who
otherwise would serve moderately long periods of
confinement, not those who will be released in a
few months anyway. This is the most effective way
to get bigger reductions in time served for
offenders who complete the boot camp. Because
almost all boot camps' length varies between 3 and
6 months, there is little room to increase the
reductions by shortening the boot camp's duration. 

This implies that boot camps should be run only by
correctional agencies that confine offenders for
substantial periods of time, for example, 2 or more
years. Agencies that confine offenders for short
terms--like county jails and juvenile training
schools--will find it especially difficult to
reduce populations with boot camps because they
probably will not be able to reduce confinement
terms enough to reduce total person-days of
confinement significantly. They will also find it
harder to get eligible offenders to volunteer if
they can offer only a very small reduction in time
served. 

Another policy implication is that policymakers
should avoid deterrence-based eligibility criteria
that limit boot camps to first-time, nonviolent
offenders. Early boot camps inherited
deterrence-based criteria from prior programs like
Scared Straight!, and shock probation.
Deterrence-based eligibility criteria limit both
the probability of imprisonment and the amount of
potential discount. Instead, boot camps should
target offenders with prior convictions and with
moderately serious offenses (e.g., situational
assaults), as well as probation or parole
violators. 

In order to minimize in-program failure rates, boot
camps should not permit participants to withdraw
during the first few weeks of the program. The
first few weeks in a boot camp are most difficult,
physically and mentally, for inmates, leading to
high rates of voluntary withdrawal. A policy of
prohibiting withdrawals during the first 3 weeks
would allow inmates to adjust to the regimen before
considering withdrawing. 

In addition, boot camps should develop strong
behavioral management systems aimed at reducing
dropouts due to violations of program rules. They
could do this by providing a range of in-program
rewards and sanctions (the latter not involving
removal from the program). Boot camps should
continuously monitor and assess participants'
progress toward behavioral or performance
objectives, so that they can provide immediate,
positive reinforcement to participants who behave
appropriately or who excel, and immediate
correction to participants who do not attain
minimum specified levels. This will let officials
intervene before small problems escalate into
serious issues that might warrant removal from the
program. Of course, officials need the option to
remove from the boot camp and return to regular
prison those who persistently misbehave.

Finally, officials must be willing or able to
operate boot camps with a large capacity.
Otherwise, their relative impact on prison
populations (even under the best conditions) is
likely to be negligible. 

Long-Term Impact on Prison Readmissions

If officials intend to reduce prison populations by
reducing return-to-prison rates for boot camp
graduates, then officials should be certain that
the means by which they expect boot camps to reduce
return-to-prison rates are clearly stated,
plausible, and capable of being implemented as
expected. 

Boot camps may affect return-to-prison rates by two
means or by both operating together (see chapters
17 and 18). First, the disciplinary regimen may
improve offenders' self-esteem or attitudes toward
authority, leading them to change their behavior
once they are released. Second, treatment programs
such as counseling and drug treatment may be
effective in the structured setting of boot camps
in dealing with inmate deficiencies that form
obstacles to improved behavior. 

Disciplinary regimen. If the disciplinary regimen
is expected to alter offenders' future behavior,
the agency should describe the link between the
regimen and the expected future behavioral changes.
For example, an agency may expect that if staff
provide good role models for inmates, then
offenders' attitudes and behavior may become more
prosocial, and upon release, their new crime and
violation rates will decline. Careful selection and
thorough training may be essential if staff are to
play these roles effectively.

Treatment. If treatment is expected to lower the
return-to-prison rates, the boot camp should have a
plausible method of identifying treatment needs and
delivering treatment services. At a minimum, this
should include the capacity to assess offenders'
needs and to develop treatment plans that address
each offender's needs, setting measurable
objectives and performance schedules. The
correctional treatment services specified in those
plans should be delivered to offenders during their
stay in the boot camp. The agency should provide
the resources (staff, materials, space) and allot
sufficient time during the daily schedule of
activities to deliver the services. It should
monitor offenders' progress toward implementing
their treatment plans while in the boot camp and
modify plans as required.

Because all treatment needs probably cannot be met
during a short boot camp program, the agency
operating the boot camp should provide for or
ensure continuity of treatment during aftercare. If
different agencies operate the boot camp and
aftercare, both should be involved in planning the
total program, and appropriate interagency
agreements and protocols should be implemented to
make sure that treatment is delivered during
aftercare as intended. Those who deliver aftercare
should be included in the development of treatment
plans and in the preparation for offenders'
transitions from institution to community. Finally,
the agency operating aftercare should monitor
progress on the treatment plan during aftercare and
modify it as required.

Program officials and aftercare providers should
work as advocates to promote offenders' access to
programs and services offered by other agencies and
to monitor offenders' utilization of those
services. They also need to recognize and remove
barriers to access and utilization of services.

Aftercare should provide surveillance only to the
degree that it is justified on a case-by-case basis
by a valid risk-assessment instrument. If aftercare
consists mostly of intensive surveillance,
revocation rates are likely to be high (due mainly
to minor or "technical" violations of supervision
rules, not new crimes), thus undercutting
population reduction objectives. 

Boot camps that conform to the conditions described
in this chapter may reduce somewhat the need for
prison bedspace. However, as New York's experience
demonstrates, even the best-done boot camps cannot
stop prison population growth if imprisonment rates
or prison terms are growing rapidly. However, boot
camps could be one small part of a broad set of
policy initiatives to help structure the use and
duration of confinement sentences.

Notes

1.  Doris L. MacKenzie and Claire Souryal, "Boot
Camp Survey: Rehabilitation, Recidivism, Population
Reduction Outrank Punishment as Main Goals,"
Corrections Today (October 1992):92.

2.  The simulation model runs under Lotus 1-2-3,
version 2.1, and is available free from Dale G.
Parent, Associate, Abt Associates Inc., 55 Wheeler
Street, Cambridge, MA 02138.

3.  Doris L. MacKenzie and Dale G. Parent, "Shock
Incarceration and Prison Crowding in Louisiana,"
Journal of Criminal Justice, 19, no. 3 (1991):225-
237.

4.  D.L. MacKenzie and A. Piquero, "The Impact of
Shock Incarceration Programs on Prison Crowding,"
Crime and Delinquency, 40, no. 2 (1994):
222-249.

5.  In 1979, Dr. James Finckenauer, an Assistant
Professor of Criminal Justice at Rutgers
University, conducted an experimental analysis that
randomly assigned eligible participants to Scared
Straight! (a program to deter juveniles from
further delinquent behavior by showing them the
rigor and brutality of adult prison) and control
groups (no Scared Straight!). At a 6-month followup
point, those exposed to Scared Straight! performed
worse--41.3 percent engaged in new delinquent
behavior, compared to only 11.9 percent of the
controls. See J. Finckenauer, Scared Straight! and
the Panacea Phenomenon, Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1982.  

6.  Doris Layton MacKenzie and Claire Souryal.
Multisite Evaluation of Shock Incarceration:
Executive Summary. Final report to the National
Institute of Justice, 1994.

7.  See MacKenzie and Parent (1991), and J.
Petersilia and S. Turner, Evaluating Intensive
Supervision Probation/Parole: Results of a
Nationwide Experiment, Research in Brief,
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,
National Institute of Justice, May 1993.

8.  Facility Capacity and Inmate Populations,
12/31/85 to 12/31/94, Program Planning, Research,
and Evaluation Unit, New York State Department of
Corrections Services, Albany, 1995.

9.  See Dale G. Parent, Shock Incarceration: An
Overview of Existing Programs, Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of
Justice, June 1989.

10.  This assumes that boot camp graduates are not
more likely to fail when released to the community
(and to trigger the social and criminal justice
costs associated with such failures) than are
offenders who do not graduate from them. In fact,
data from States with "backend" selection
procedures generally show that boot camp completers
fail at rates equal to or lower than noncompleters
or nonparticipants. In States with frontend
selection, the situation is less clear. Failure
rates for boot camp graduates appear to be somewhat
higher, but "comparison" groups may not, in fact,
be comparable. In addition, there is strong
evidence that many boot camp graduates fail not
because they are a more risky population, but
because they are more intensively supervised, and,
hence, there is a greater chance that minor rule
violations will be detected and punished.

11.  Parent,  1989.


-------------------------------------------------------------------
Correctional Boot Camps: A Tough Intermediate Sanction - Chapter 17


Shock Incarceration and Positive Adjustment During
Community Supervision: A Multisite Evaluation

by Robert Brame and Doris Layton MacKenzie, Ph.D.

Robert Brame is a graduate student in the
Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at
the University of Maryland. His primary research
interests include applied statistical methods and
recidivism models. Doris Layton MacKenzie, Ph.D.,
is an Associate Professor in the Department of
Criminal Justice and Criminology at the University
of Maryland. As a Visiting Scientist at the
National Institute of Justice, she provided
expertise to Federal, State, and local
jurisdictions on shock incarceration, intermediate
sanctions, and other aspects of correctional policy
and practice.

In recent years, shock incarceration, or "boot
camp" programs, have become the object of
widespread attention. One of the often cited
advantages of shock incarceration programs is that
they provide offenders with a heightened sense of
personal responsibility, confidence, and
self-discipline and an increased ability to make a
successful return to the community. This paper
examines data collected in five States on the
extent to which offenders emerging from boot camp
programs adjusted to the day-to-day requirements of
living in the community. The results indicate that
boot camp programs have had limited impact on
positive adjustment. Supervision intensity in the
community, however, played a key role in the
explanation of community adjustment. More
intensively supervised offenders in community
supervision status tended to adjust more positively
than offenders who were less intensively
supervised.

In recent years, corrections officials and
policymakers have been exploring alternatives to
traditional forms of punishment (see, for example,
Morris and Tonry, 1990). These efforts have become
more prominent in the wake of increasing concern
that traditional correctional strategies have
failed to meet both public demands and offender
needs. Shock incarceration, or "boot camp"
programs, have attracted much attention because of
their unorthodox approach to customary correctional
methods. Initial reports both from offenders who
have participated in these programs and from the
officials who administer them indicate that the net
effect of boot camps is positive (MacKenzie and
Shaw, 1993). Consequently, shock incarceration
programs are seen by many as an important component
of a correctional system that relies on an array of
sanctioning alternatives.

Most accounts of dramatic success have been based
on anecdotal evidence. These accounts have
supported public expectations of what convicted
offenders should experience in prison. The boot
camp offender is involved in structured activities
for large portions of the time spent in
confinement. These structured activities include
military-style drills, work, physical exercise,
drug and other treatment, education, and counseling
(MacKenzie and Souryal, 1991). Not surprisingly,
the positive changes in offender behavior
attributed to the boot camp atmosphere have left
many wondering why such programs were not
implemented long ago.

Proponents have contended that the boot camp
emphasis on hard work, personal responsibility,
and, in some cases, treatment of substance abuse
and psychological problems helps prepare offenders
for better adjustment in the community. This
adjustment includes finding and maintaining
employment; having residential and financial
stability; attending drug treatment and counseling;
accessing educational and vocational training
opportunities; and avoiding troublesome behavior
such as rearrest and failing to meet conditions of
community supervision. Data from a multistate study
were used to examine whether shock incarceration
had a positive effect on offenders' adjustment to
their communities.

Previous Research

Although past research has focused little on
whether shock incarceration programs have a
positive effect on offenders' adjustment to their
communities, it indicates that the supervision
intensity, rather than shock incarceration itself,
is of greater significance. MacKenzie et al. (1992)
found that the apparent positive effect of shock
incarceration on offenders' community adjustment in
Louisiana was due to the intensity of supervision
while in community supervision status. While boot
camp offenders did perform better than other groups
in the community, they were also supervised more
intensively. The implicit message in such a finding
is that offenders who are coerced to engage in
certain activities (such as education, employment,
or treatment) as a condition of their community
supervision status tend to meet those requirements
more completely than offenders who are not
supervised as intensively. The evidence in
Louisiana suggests that this effect holds
regardless of whether offenders are released from
boot camp, paroled from prison, or placed on
probation.

Researchers have also begun to explore the impact
of other intermediate sanctions on offender
adjustment in the community. Several major findings
have emerged from these efforts. First, recidivism
patterns for offenders in intermediate sanction
programs have been generally neither better nor
worse than for those in more traditional programs
(MacKenzie, 1991; Petersilia and Turner, 1993;
Gowdy, 1993; MacKenzie et al., 1992; Souryal and
MacKenzie, 1995; Latessa and Vito, 1988; Vito and
Allen, 1981; Vito et al., 1985).

Second, several studies reveal that revocations for
technical violations of probation or parole were
more likely when offenders were more intensively
supervised (MacKenzie and Shaw, 1993; Petersilia
and Turner, 1993). The close monitoring of
activities was the often cited reason for this
disparity. Intensively supervised offenders could 
have higher technical violation rates than their 
less intensively supervised counterparts because 
they are observed more closely and have more
requirements to meet. The studies by Petersilia and
Turner (1993), which incorporate random assignment
of offenders to intensive community supervision
programs and traditional comparison programs in
several States, provide persuasive support for this
possibility.

Third, the literature supports the possibility that
intensive supervision has positive implications for
adjustment in the community. Consistent with the
findings of MacKenzie et al. (1992), offenders in
intensive supervision programs--either through
behavior modification or through "legal coercion"
(Anglin and Hser, 1990)--tended to pursue
employment and treatment programs more aggressively
than offenders in other programs (Latessa and Vito,
1988; Petersilia and Turner, 1993). To the extent
that intermediate sanction programs are effective
at nudging offenders into positive activities in
the community, they may represent a valuable
mechanism for reducing future problematic behavior.

Methodology

The data for this study were collected as part of a
National Institute of Justice multisite research
program on shock incarceration (MacKenzie, 1990).
The selection of participant States was guided by
the desire to include boot camps with different
program characteristics and participant criteria.
Five States took part in the study: Florida,
Georgia, Louisiana, New York, and South Carolina.1
Data in Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina were
collected between 1989 and 1991. Data for New York
were collected between 1988 and 1990 and for
Louisiana between 1987 and 1988.

Demographic information, current offense
characteristics, and prior criminal history
variables were available from offenders' official
records. The positive adjustment index used in
Florida, Georgia, New York, and South Carolina
developed by Latessa and Vito (1988) was also used
for compiling information on supervision intensity
and positive adjustment during community
supervision. The index, completed by each probation
or parole agent, provides a summary description of
offender activities during community supervision.
Among other items, the index includes descriptions
of activities related to employment, treatment,
education, counseling program participation,
residential stability, and financial security. The
index can range in value from 0.00 to 1.00 (where
1.00 represents the highest level of positive
adjustment). A positive adjustment instrument with
similar although not identical items was used in
Louisiana (MacKenzie et al., 1992). The Louisiana
index yields a score that is interpretable in
exactly the same way as the scores in other States.

In Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina,
supervision intensity was operationally defined as
the number of monthly contacts (both face-to-face
and telephone) between officer and offender. In
Louisiana, supervision intensity was measured by
using three indexes that tapped the level of
knowledge of offender activities, requirements for
satisfactory progress, and the level of
surveillance. Supervision intensity data were not
available in New York. 

A sample of male boot camp program graduates was
selected for study in each State. Each State also
selected at least two offender samples from other
correctional programs to which the shock program
graduates could be compared. Samples examined
varied by State. The most common comparison
subjects included prison parolees, probationers,
and boot camp dropouts.2 All samples included
offenders who met the eligibility requirements for
the shock incarceration program in the respective
States.3 It is important to note, however, that
offenders were not assigned to their respective
samples in random fashion. Indeed, several
important differences were identified between
samples in each State that could reasonably be
expected to influence positive adjustment.
Conclusions, therefore, are based upon multivariate
models that control for the effects of these
observed differences.

Subjects were followed during community supervision
for a maximum of 12 months. Many offenders did not
complete the full 12-month followup period,
however. The most common reasons for failure to
complete the followup period included some form of
recidivism (e.g., technical violation, new crime,
rearrest), a legal release, or some unknown reason
about which data are missing. Although data were
collected over time, the positive adjustment scores
studied were averaged over the entire 1-year
followup period for each subject. An offender who
was followed for 6 months, for example, would have
a positive adjustment score that was the mean score
for his 6-month followup period. 

Results4

Multiple regression models of positive adjustment
within each of the five States studied were
estimated. In Florida, the shock incarceration 
graduate sample outperformed both the prison 
parolee and boot camp dropout samples.5 In New York, 
despite the apparent difference, the boot camp
and prison parolee samples did not differ
significantly from each other. However, the boot
camp graduate sample marginally outperformed the
boot camp dropout sample.6 Differences between the
sample categories in the other States were not
significant.7 

Older, Caucasian, violent, or drug-related
offenders with no prior arrest or conviction record
whose current sentence resulted from a new crime
(rather than a technical violation) adjusted more
positively than other offenders. On average, the
more these characteristics were present, the more
positive the adjustment. 

Positive adjustment varied significantly with the
level of community supervision. Offenders who were
supervised more intensively had higher positive
adjustment scores than offenders who were
supervised at low levels of intensity. The effect
of supervision intensity on positive adjustment,
however, was nonlinear in Florida, Georgia, and
South Carolina. That is, on average, positive
adjustment increased with increasing supervision
intensity only up to about 2.0 contacts per month.
Monthly contacts beyond that point did not, except
in extreme cases (beyond the 90th percentile of
supervision intensity), lead to higher levels of
positive adjustment. In Louisiana, the effect of
supervision intensity as measured by the three
supervision intensity indexes was linear, with
heightened supervision intensity associated with
more successful adjustment, consistent with the
results in the other States. 

Discussion and Conclusions

The principal outcome for this evaluation was a
"positive adjustment" index. Measurements on this
index occurred at regular intervals during
community supervision (up to 1 year). The index
comprised a variety of items that indicated whether
offenders were engaging in positive activities such
as securing and maintaining employment, meeting
family obligations, participating in treatment and
education activities, and meeting requirements of
community supervision. Shock incarceration had
little impact on positive adjustment in all but one
of the States studied. Demographic and offender
characteristics were important determinants of
positive adjustment in each of the States.
Supervision intensity was also a key predictor of
positive adjustment. 

The notable exception to the prevailing pattern
occurred in Florida. Although demographic and
offender characteristics as well as supervision
intensity were important in Florida, the State's
boot camp graduate sample adjusted in a
significantly more positive manner than either the
shock dropout sample or the prison parolees.

How might the Florida program differ from the
programs in other States? It is possible that the
Florida shock incarceration program uniquely equips
its participants with the skills, abilities, and
motivation to perform well during community
supervision. An exploration of programming
differences may provide useful insights into
whether this is the case. The Florida program did
not emphasize treatment and counseling as much as
some programs (Louisiana and New York, for example)
but did devote more time to rehabilitative
activities than others, such as Georgia (MacKenzie
and Souryal, 1993). A comparison of the
characteristics of offenders in Florida with those
in other States shows that Florida offenders had,
on the whole, lower rates of prior convictions and
arrests. Thus, the boot camp program may be more
effective among subjects who have no prior criminal
history.

Yet another possibility is the Florida program's
relatively high termination rate. Over a recent
3-year period, the program dismissed approximately
50 percent of its participants for disciplinary,
medical, or emotional difficulties. This rate was
substantially higher than that observed in other
States. Georgia had a 2.8 percent rate; Louisiana,
43.3 percent, New York 31.3 percent, and South
Carolina, 16.0 percent (MacKenzie and Souryal,
1993). Thus, the participants who remained in the
program may have done better for the same reasons
that they were able to complete the boot camp
program. A comparison of the pooled boot camp
graduate and dropout sample to the prison parolee
sample, however, suggests that shock incarceration
entrants still did better as a group than the
prison parolees. While the selection effect is
real, it does not appear to wholly determine the
higher positive adjustment scores observed for the
boot camp sample.

Similar selection effects may also have occurred
before program entrance that predisposed the boot
camp entrants to perform better as a group than the
prison parolees. If this happened, however, the
selection was based on factors that were not
available for study in these data. The
preponderance of the evidence would seem to support
a closer examination of the content of the Florida
program. In the other States, however, the evidence
was less supportive of an effect for boot camp
programs. 

The effect of supervision intensity is clearer. In
every State where information was available on
supervision intensity, positive adjustment
increased when supervision intensity increased.
Although this effect was nonlinear in three of the
four States, the general effect was decidedly
positive. Thus, more contact between offender and
correctional officials appears to lead to more
successful adjustment in the community, at least
during community supervision. The results may 
indicate that the heightened "legal coercion" 
associated with more intensive supervision 
achieves some desirable outcomes in offender 
adjustment. This result is consistent with
what has been observed in other studies and
suggests that supervision intensity may be a key
factor in influencing offender activities during
community supervision.

The positive adjustment index used in this chapter
examines an offender's choice to participate in
positive activities. Not all offenders can, of
their own initiative, change their activities. They
may not possess the ability or motivation, or
outside factors such as lack of treatment
resources, inaccessible educational facilities, or
high unemployment rates may limit or restrict
opportunities. Yet the strong association between
supervision intensity and positive adjustment
suggests that offenders can be coerced to
participate in some positive activities. There are
probably some limits on how much effect supervision
intensity can have, such as the "leveling-off"
observed at about two contacts per month. Further
research on the performance of shock incarceration
offenders should attempt to identify the
characteristics of programs that may be associated
with positive adjustment.

Notes

1.  A more detailed process evaluation of these
programs and those of other participating States is
presented in MacKenzie and Souryal (1993).

2. Shock program dropout samples included only
offenders who left the shock program voluntarily or
for disciplinary or motivational reasons. Offenders
who left for physical or psychological reasons were
not included in this group.

3. The sample structure in South Carolina requires
additional comment. There were two shock graduate
samples. The first was a sample of graduates when
the program was administered by the South Carolina
Department of Probation, Parole, and Pardon
Services (hereafter referred to as the DPPPS Shock
sample). Offenders in this group had been directly
sentenced to the program by the judge hearing their
cases. The second was a sample of graduates when
the program was administered by the South Carolina
Department of Corrections (hereafter referred to as
the DOC Shock sample). Offenders could enter this
program by direct sentencing or at the discretion
of officials in the Department of Corrections,
conditional on the offender's meeting eligibility
criteria. It seems reasonable to speculate that the
pool of offenders from which the DOC group was
drawn would have been more likely to serve prison
time than the DPPPS group had the old system
remained intact. Supervision intensity data were
collected only for the first 6 months, and positive
adjustment data were collected only once (at the
end of the 1-year followup period) for the DOC
Shock sample. These data were collected at multiple
times over a 1-year followup period for subjects in
the other samples. A final followup group, the
split-probation sample, was made up of offenders
originally selected for the probation sample. An
examination of these offenders' records showed that
they had served short prison sentences. They were
therefore analyzed as a separate group (MacKenzie
and Souryal, 1993).

4. A detailed longitudinal analysis of these data
is presented in MacKenzie and Brame (1995).

5. A model was also estimated in which the shock
graduate and dropout samples were combined to form
a group of "shock entrants." This shock entrant
group was then compared to the prison parolees. The
analysis revealed that the prison parolees did not
adjust as well as the shock entrants.

6. As noted earlier, the New York model is
estimated without an effect for supervision
intensity. The coefficients in the New York model
could be biased because of the absence of this
effect. Also, in New York the longitudinal analysis
offered an additional insight. Although the
positive adjustment scores for all groups tended to
decline over time, these declines occurred at a
slower rate in the shock and dropout groups than in
the prison parolee group. Since the shock and
dropout groups approached each other, however, a
great deal was not inferred from this.

7. The longitudinal models in Louisiana led to
slightly different conclusions regarding the effect
of the shock incarceration program. In the early
time periods in Louisiana, the shock graduate group
adjusted much less positively than the other
groups. Over time, however, these differences
became less pronounced. 

References

Anglin, M.D., and Y. Hser. "Treatment of Drug
Abuse." In M. Tonry and J.Q. Wilson (eds.), Crime
and Justice: A Review of Research, vol. 13 (Drugs
and Crime). Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1990:393-460.

Gowdy, V.B. Intermediate Sanctions. Research in
Brief, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1993.

Latessa, E.J., and G.F. Vito. "The Effects of
Intensive Supervision on Shock Probationers."
Journal of Criminal Justice, 16 (1988):319-330.

MacKenzie, D.L. "The Parole Performance of
Offenders Released From Shock Incarceration (Boot
Camp Prisons): A Survival Time Analysis." Journal
of Quantitative Criminology, 7 (1991):213- 236.

MacKenzie, D.L. "Boot Camp Prisons: Components,
Evaluations, and Empirical Issues." Federal
Probation, 54, no. 3 (1990):44-52.

MacKenzie, D.L., and R. Brame. "Shock Incarceration
and Positive Adjustment During Community
Supervision." Journal of Quantitative Criminology,
11, no. 2 (1995):111-142.

MacKenzie, D.L., and J.W. Shaw. The Impact of Shock
Incarceration on Technical Violations and New
Criminal Activities." Justice Quarterly, 10, no. 3
(1993):463- 487.

MacKenzie, D.L., J.W. Shaw, and C. Souryal.
"Characteristics Associated With Successful
Adjustment to Supervision: A Comparison of
Parolees, Probationers, Shock Participants, and
Shock Dropouts." Criminal Justice and Behavior, 19,
no. 4 (1992):437-454.

MacKenzie, D.L., and J.W. Shaw. "Inmate Adjustment
and Change During Shock Incarceration: The Impact
of Correctional Boot Camp Programs." Justice
Quarterly, 7 (1990):125-150.

MacKenzie, D.L., and C. Souryal. Multisite Study of
Shock Incarceration: Process Evaluation.
Unpublished final report to the U.S. Department of
Justice, National Institute of Justice. College
Park: University of Maryland, 1993.

MacKenzie, D.L., and C. Souryal. Inmate Attitude
Change During Incarceration: A Comparison of Boot
Camp and Traditional Prison. Unpublished final
report to the U.S. Department of Justice, National
Institute of Justice. College Park: University of
Maryland, 1992.

MacKenzie, D.L., and C. Souryal. "States Say
Rehabilitation, Recidivism Reduction Outrank
Punishment as Main Goals." Corrections Today, 53
(1991):90-96.

Morris, N., and M. Tonry. Between Prison and
Probation: Intermediate Punishments in a Rational
Sentencing System. New York: Oxford University
Press, 1990.

Petersilia, J., and S. Turner. Evaluating Intensive
Probation/Parole: Results of a Nationwide
Experiment. Research in Brief. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of
Justice, 1993.

Souryal, C., and D.L. MacKenzie. "Shock
Incarceration and Recidivism: An Examination of
Boot Camp Programs in Four States." In J.O. Smykla
and W.L. Selke (eds.), Intermediate Sanctions:
Sentencing in the 90s. Cincinnati: Anderson
Publishing Company, 1995. 

Vito, G.F., R.M. Holmes, and D.G. Wilson. "The
Effect of Shock and Regular Probation Upon
Recidivism: A Comparative Analysis." American
Journal of Criminal Justice, 9 (1985):152-162.

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.


-------------------------------------------------------------------
Correctional Boot Camps: A Tough Intermediate Sanction - Chapter 18


Multisite Study of Correctional Boot Camps

by Doris Layton MacKenzie, Ph.D., and Claire
Souryal

Doris Layton MacKenzie is an Associate Professor in
the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice
at the University of Maryland. As a Visiting
Scientist at the National Institute of Justice, she
provided expertise to Federal, State, and local
jurisdictions on shock incarceration, intermediate
sanctions, and other aspects of correctional policy
and practice. Claire Souryal is a graduate student
in the Department of Criminology and Criminal
Justice, University of Maryland. She worked on a
multisite evaluation of eight correctional boot
camp programs. 

The proliferation of boot camp programs nationwide
appears to have been largely unguided by
comprehensive and methodologically rigorous
evaluations. This chapter provides a brief overview
of boot camp evaluation literature, beginning with
a review of early boot camp research and concluding
with selected findings of a recently completed
NIJ-sponsored evaluation of eight State-level
programs. The findings concern attitudinal change
during incarceration, adjustment during community
supervision, and offender recidivism. The study
found that the in-prison phase of boot camps had a
positive impact on the attitudes of boot camp
participants, in contrast to a sample of regular
prison inmates, whose attitudes deteriorated during
their incarceration. However, boot camp graduates
did not adjust more positively to community
supervision following boot camp than did comparison
samples of boot camp failures, prison releasees,
and probationers. Recidivism findings suggest that
common components of boot camps, such as
military-style discipline, physical training, and
hard labor, did not reduce recidivism. The authors
conclude that future evaluations should focus on
the efficacy of specific boot camp program
components, such as academic training, and on the
relative effectiveness of different types of
community supervision provided to boot camp
releasees.

Since the inception of the first military-style
correctional boot camp (or shock incarceration)
programs in 1983 in Georgia and Oklahoma, boot camp
programs have become a common intermediate sanction
in States and counties across the country. In one
decade, 36 State correctional systems and the
Federal Bureau of Prisons have implemented more
than 47 boot camp programs for adult offenders.
Boot camp programs have also been developed for
juvenile offenders in six States and for use in
local jails. The passage of the Violent Crime
Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which
allocated $25 million for the development of boot
camp programs, virtually ensures their continued
growth and development.

What accounts for the tremendous popularity of boot
camp programs? Why have correctional agencies so
readily embraced them as viable intermediate
sanctions? Certainly, it is not due to the
favorable results of empirical research. Until
recently, comprehensive and methodologically
rigorous evaluations of boot camp programs have
been noticeably lacking. 

Rather, the rapid growth of boot camp programs
across the Nation is attributable to other factors,
including the politics of crime control (i.e.,
politicians clamoring to appear "tough" on crime),
the compelling images of boot camps produced in the
mass media and especially on television, the appeal
of military-style discipline as a correctional tool
with young offenders, the punitive nature of the
program in comparison to other intermediate
sanctions, and the promise of meeting a wide range
of goals for both the system and individuals
(MacKenzie and Parent, 1992). Evaluation research
appears to have played a very small role, if any,
in the proliferation of boot camp programs
nationwide. Indeed, until recently, comprehensive
evaluations of boot camp programs were rarely
conducted.

This chapter begins with a review of early boot
camp research and concludes with an overview of
principal findings about boot camps' effects on
individuals--one aspect of a recently completed
NIJ-sponsored evaluation of eight State-level
programs.

Early Boot Camp Evaluations 

This Nation's first correctional boot camp programs
were developed in Georgia and Oklahoma in 1983.
Other States swiftly followed suit and by the end
of the decade, 14 had developed their own programs.
The development of the earlier programs seems to
have been largely unguided by evaluation research.
In November 1987, for example, then-Senator Lloyd
Bentsen of Texas requested a study of State boot
camp programs from the U.S. General Accounting
Office (GAO). The resulting report, released in
September 1988, concluded that "available data are
not sufficient to determine if boot camps reduce
prison overcrowding, costs, or recidivism" (GAO,
1988). 

Until recently, boot camp evaluations were limited
in scope and methodology and typically conducted by
the State correctional agencies that run them. The
results of these in-house studies were not widely
disseminated, nor were they very thorough.
Examinations of recidivism, for example, often
simply assessed the return-to-prison rates of boot
camp graduates without selecting adequate
comparison samples or controlling for the amount of
time graduates spent on the street after release. 

Moreover, some of the earlier evaluations compared
the return-to-prison rates of boot camp graduates
with those of the total population of prison
releasees in a State. Data used for this comparison
unfairly favored boot camp graduates because boot
camp programs specifically targeted nonviolent
offenders who did not have extensive criminal
histories. Clearly, the selection of adequate
comparison samples is essential to conducting
thorough and unbiased evaluations. 

Another major problem with many of the early
evaluations was that researchers failed to control
for the time offenders spent in the community
following their release from boot camp. At a
meeting of the American Correctional Association, a
boot camp program official bragged about low
recidivism rates for a program that had been
operating for little more than 6 months. The
program had released only one group of graduates,
none of whom had been supervised in the community
for more than 3 months. The recidivism rates for
such a program would appear to be low, of course,
if compared to those of prison releasees who had
been supervised in the community for a year or
more. In general, the longer of ex-offenders are in
the community, the greater the percentage who fail.

The great diversity among boot camp programs is
also problematic from a research perspective. While
some programs devote 3 or more hours per day to
therapeutic activities such as drug treatment,
academic education, or life skills training, others
limit the schedule of daily activities to marching,
military ceremony, and hard labor. Therefore, the
results of any single evaluation have been
difficult to generalize from one jurisdiction to
another. 

The NIJ Multisite Evaluation 

In 1990, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ)
funded an evaluation of boot camp program efficacy
in eight States. This multisite study's overarching
research question was whether boot camp programs
successfully met their stated goals. 

As previously noted, prior NIJ-funded research
examining the effectiveness of boot camp programs
had focused on a single jurisdiction, a major
limitation given the large differences among
programs nationwide (see MacKenzie et al., 1993).
The 1990 evaluation was designed to address this
deficiency by selecting multiple sites for
participation, which would significantly enhance
the ability to generalize results. 

The eight States that participated in the study
were Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, New
York, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas. Sites in
those States were selected because they
incorporated the core elements of boot camp
programs and because they varied on several
dimensions hypothesized to influence the
achievement of program goals. 

Core elements of boot camp programs were defined as
follows:

o  Strict rules, discipline, and a military
boot-camp-like atmosphere.
o  Mandatory participation in military drills and
physical training. 
o  Separation of program participants from other
prison inmates. 

Differences among programs were examined in these
areas:

o  Decisionmaking authority. 
o  Program location.
o  Program components. 
o  Supervision intensity upon release. 

The evaluation was also designed to provide a
comprehensive assessment of each program (MacKenzie
and Souryal, 1994). Rather than focusing on one
measure of program success, such as recidivism
reduction, the evaluation consisted of five major
components: a process evaluation or qualitative
description of the eight programs based on
interviews with staff and inmates, official program
materials, and observation; a study of inmate
attitudinal change during incarceration; a study of
offender recidivism; a study of positive adjustment
during community supervision; and a study of prison
bedspace savings. 

At the individual level, the first stage of the
evaluation examined offenders' experiences during
the in-prison phase of the programs. Its objective
was to ascertain whether the boot camp experience
engendered positive or negative changes in
attitudes over the course of the programs. Next,
after offenders had either completed the program
and been released to the community or failed the
program, their community performance was assessed
in terms of both positive adjustment to community
supervision and recidivism. Positive adjustment to
community supervision included a variety of
measures such as employment/educational status;
recidivism was measured by arrests, revocations for
new crimes, and revocations for technical
violations. 

This chapter presents a brief overview of these
findings. The multisite evaluation's results and
methodology have been presented in detail
elsewhere. (See Brame and MacKenzie, this volume;
MacKenzie, 1994a; MacKenzie, 1994b; MacKenzie and
Souryal, 1994; MacKenzie and Piquero, 1994;
MacKenzie and Brame, 1995.) Also note that
system-level analysis results have not been
presented (see chapter 16 in this volume and
MacKenzie and Piquero, 1994, for a discussion of
the impact of boot camp programs on prison bedspace
savings). 

The remainder of this chapter will focus on
examination of the programs at the individual
level. 

Overview of Evaluation Results 

Three sections of the evaluation assessed the
impact of boot camp programs at the individual
level. In each study the performance of boot camp
participants (either during incarceration or during
community supervision) was compared to the
performance of demographically similar offenders
who were legally eligible for boot camp programs in
their States but had served time in a conventional
prison. Samples of probationers were also examined
in the recidivism and community adjustment studies.
It should be emphasized here that comparison
samples were selected to be as similar as possible
to boot camp participants in each State. 

Attitudinal change during incarceration. Boot camp
participants and comparison samples or prison
inmates were asked to complete a self-report
questionnaire two times during their terms of
incarceration. The questionnaire was first
administered at the beginning of offenders'
incarceration periods and again approximately 90
days later (180 days later in New York). The
questionnaire focused on two types of attitudes--
antisocial attitudes and attitudes toward the
program (or prison). An antisocial attitudes scale
was used to gauge opinions of police and authority,
levels of maturity, and degree of social deviance
(MacKenzie and Souryal, 1993b). The scale has been
found to be related to recidivism and short-term
change. The scale for program attitudes measured
the degree to which offenders expected their period
of incarceration to motivate them to change in a
positive manner, such as growing more mature or
learning self-discipline. 

Findings for this section were remarkably
consistent across sites despite differences in
program content, such as in rehabilitative
programming. Inmates in both samples developed
fewer antisocial attitudes during incarceration. On
program attitudes, however, results differed over
time. Boot camp participants' attitudes became more
positive as their programs progressed, while prison
inmates' attitudes became less positive or stayed
the same. Thus, contrary to the expectations of
some critics, the boot camp experience did not
result in the development of more negative program
or antisocial attitudes. 

In short, regardless of variations in structure and
programming, the boot camp programs appeared to
have a positive impact on inmate attitudes.
Compared to samples of offenders incarcerated in
conventional prisons, boot camp inmates believed
that their boot camp experience had changed them in
a positive way. Prison inmates, on the other hand,
did not view prison as a positive experience. The
fact that the program attitude changes were so
consistent across sites led us to conclude that
these attitude changes were likely a result of the
boot camp atmosphere and not a product of
additional treatment or therapy available in some
camps. Thus, one potential benefit of the programs
is that participants think of boot camps as a
positive experience, a change in attitude which
could help produce behavioral changes after
graduates are released to the community.

Positive adjustment to community supervision.
Performance during community supervision was
assessed in five States using a positive community
adjustment scale. Positive adjustment was measured
in terms of success in pursuing employment,
education, residential and financial stability, and
treatment opportunities. During 1 year of
supervision, probation or parole officers were
asked to complete a 10-item index at 3-month
intervals. Community adjustment was considered to
be a stronger measure of success after release than
simple arrest or revocation rates because boot camp
programs are believed to increase the capability of
offenders to adjust successfully to the day-to-day
requirements of community living. (See chapter 17
of this volume for a fuller description of this
portion of the evaluation.)

The results of this section of the study were also
quite consistent across sites. With the exception
of one jurisdiction, which did not stand out from
the other programs in rehabilitative programming,
boot camp graduates did not adjust more positively
to community supervision than comparison samples of
boot camp failures, prison releasees, and
probationers. Positive community adjustment was
related to demographic and offense-related
characteristics, criminal history, and supervision
intensity, but not to whether offenders had
completed their programs. Similar to the study's
examination of attitude change, then, results were
fairly consistent across sites despite programmatic
differences. This section's results, however,
provided rather convincing evidence that the
in-prison phase of boot camp programs had little,
if any, effect on positive community adjustment. 

Offender recidivism. Recidivism levels for boot
camp graduates and comparison samples were examined
using the following outcome measures: arrests,
probation revocations for new crimes, and
revocations for technical violations. The followup
period was either 1 or 2 years of community
supervision. It should be noted that because
revocations for new crimes could not be
distinguished from revocations for technical
violations in two States, a general revocation
measure was constructed. 

The results of the study were not quite as
consistent across sites due to variations in the
measures of recidivism available, the length of the
followup period, and differences in supervision
intensity. In some States, for example, boot camp
graduates underwent intensive supervision while
comparison samples did not. Nevertheless, taken as
a whole, the results indicated that the in-prison
phase of the boot camp programs had a negligible
impact on recidivism. By and large, boot camp
graduates appeared to perform at the same level as
probationers and prison releasees who had served
longer terms in prison. 

In five States--Florida, Georgia, Oklahoma, South
Carolina, and Texas--there were no differences in
recidivism that could be attributed to the
in-prison phase of the program. But in three
States--Illinois, Louisiana, and New York--evidence
emerged indicating that boot camp graduates may
have had lower recidivism rates on particular
recidivism measures. Graduates in Illinois and
Louisiana, for example, were less likely to have
their supervision status revoked as a result of a
new crime revocation than were comparison samples.
Similarly, graduates of New York's program were
less likely to be returned to prison as a result of
a technical violation, although they did not differ
from the comparison sample on any other measure of
recidivism. Graduates in Illinois, however, were
more likely to have their supervision status
revoked as a result of a technical violation. 

What do the Illinois, Louisiana, and New York
programs have in common that might explain the
similarity in results? These programs stand out as
the only boot camps in the study that have
developed an intensive supervision phase for boot
camp graduates. It is therefore very likely that
differences in recidivism rates in these States
were due to the type of community supervision
provided to graduates, not in-prison programming.
In other words, the effect of the in-prison phase
on participants was likely confounded with the
level of supervision intensity after their release.

These programs also devoted a considerable amount
of time per day (3 hours or more) to rehabilitative
activities, had high dropout rates, required
voluntary participation, and selected participants
from a pool of prison-bound offenders. (Note,
however, that the characteristics listed above are
not exclusive to these programs.) 

Although this study was not able to untangle the
particular effects of each program component on
recidivism, results clearly show that the core
elements of boot camp programs--military-style
discipline, hard labor, and physical training--by
themselves did not reduce offender recidivism. At
this time it is unclear which component or
components are critical to reducing recidivism, but
it is likely that some mixture of rehabilitation
and intensive followup supervision plays an
important role.

Summary of Results 

Paradoxically, the results for each
individual-level component of the evaluation were
remarkably similar across sites despite differences
among the State programs. While the results of the
attitudinal change survey revealed that the
in-prison phase had a clear and consistent impact
on the attitudes of boot camp participants across
sites, this change did not appear to affect
offenders' performance during community
supervision. In fact, there is very little evidence
that the in-prison phase had much of an impact on
community supervision performance. The results of
the positive adjustment to the community
supervision phase of the study would seem to be a
case in point. With the exception of Florida, boot
camp graduates did not adjust more positively to
the community supervision than did comparison
samples of boot camp failures, prison releasees,
and probationers. Although results from the
recidivism study were not as consistent as results
from the other two studies, they strongly suggest
that in-prison components common to each program,
such as military-style discipline, physical
training, and hard labor, did not reduce
recidivism. 

Conclusion

Unquestionably, more research is needed to indicate
what can be accomplished with boot camp programs.
Many times people ask, "Is this a correctional
fad?" Yes, today boot camps are a fad, and they
will fade away as fads inevitably do unless we
explore indepth which aspects of this sanction are
worth keeping and which are not. As jurisdictions
around the country consider implementing their own
programs, the many issues raised in this study need
to be explored. For example, as there does appear
to be some positive attitudinal change associated
with boot camp participation, it is important to
explore whether this atmosphere facilitates other
positive changes associated with participants'
success in the community after release. Do boot
camp inmates learn more in academic classes than
they would in a traditional prison during the same
time period? 

Research to answer these important questions could
easily be accomplished using a pretest/posttest
design. Academic achievement could be measured
first upon entry to the boot camp and again 90 days
later. Performance in boot camps could be compared
with the performance of similar prison inmates over
the same time period. Studies could also be
conducted examining such factors as moral
development and life skills. 

Moreover, more information is needed about the
adjustment and activities of boot camp graduates in
the community. There is evidence that intensive
supervision helps boot camp graduates when they
return to the community; it is important to know
exactly what elements of this supervision are
helpful. Does such supervision have to be preceded
by incarceration in a boot camp or would other
prisoners do just as well if they were provided
with the same type of supervision and services? 

These are the kinds of questions we need to answer
to improve our correctional system over the long
term and move beyond following the latest
correctional fad. What is clear from the multisite
study is that boot camp programs are not
one-dimensional--a boot camp is not a boot camp is
not a boot camp. We must identify the elements of
boot camps that work and reject those that do not.
This type of exhaustive evaluation will not be
possible, however, until enough time, money, and
effort are devoted to independent and objective
study of the programs. 

References

MacKenzie, D.L. "Boot Camps: A National
Assessment." Overcrowded Times: Solving the Prison
Problem, 5, no. 4 (1994a).

MacKenzie, D.L. "Results of a Multisite Study of
Boot Camp Prisons." Federal Probation, 58, no. 2
(1994b):60-66.

MacKenzie, D.L., and R. Brame. "Shock Incarceration
and Positive Adjustment During Community
Supervision." Journal of Quantitative Criminology,
11, no. 2 (1995):111-142.

MacKenzie, D.L., R. Brame, D. McDowall, and C.
Souryal. "Boot Camp Prisons and Recidivism in Eight
States." Criminology, 33, no. 3 (1995):401-430.

MacKenzie, D.L., and D. Parent. "Boot Camp Prisons
for Young Offenders." In Smart Sentencing: The
Emergence of Intermediate Sanctions, J.M. Byrne,
A.J. Lurigio, and J. Petersilia (eds.). Newbury
Park, California: Sage Publications, 1992:103-119.

MacKenzie, D.L., and A. Piquero. "The Impact of
Shock Incarceration Programs on Prison Crowding."
Crime and Delinquency, 40, no. 2 (1994):222-249.

MacKenzie, D.L., J.W. Shaw, and V.B. Gowdy. An
Evaluation of Shock Incarceration in Louisiana.
Research in Brief. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Justice, National Institute of
Justice, 1993.

MacKenzie, D.L., and C. Souryal. Multi-Site Study
of Shock Incarceration: Process Evaluation. Final
Reports I-IV and Executive Summary to the U.S.
Department of Justice, National Institute of
Justice. Washington, D.C., 1994. 

MacKenzie, D.L., and C. Souryal. "Inmate Attitude
Change During Incarceration: A Comparison of Boot
Camp With Traditional Prison." Justice Quarterly,
12(2) 1995.

U.S. General Accounting Office. "Prison Boot Camps:
Too Early To Measure Effectiveness." Briefing
Report to the Honorable Lloyd Bentsen, U.S. Senate.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. General Accounting Office,
1988.


-------------------------------------------------------------------
Correctional Boot Camps: A Tough Intermediate Sanction - Chapter 19


The Future of Boot Camps

by David W. Hayeslip, Ph.D.

David Hayeslip currently manages the Program Design
and Development Division of the Office of Community
Oriented Policing Services (COPS), U.S. Department
of Justice. He was formerly a Program Manager with 
the National Institute of Justice, where he oversaw 
NIJ evaluation initiatives in intermediate 
sanctions, community policing, drug enforcement, 
and training assessments.

Boot camps have become an ever more available
alternative to traditional incarceration in the
past 5 or 6 years, partly as a result of media
attention and popularity with criminal justice
officials, politicians, and the public. There is
growing evidence that they offer cost savings over
longer term imprisonment despite high per diem
costs. The long-term effects of the boot camp
experience on offender behavior are not yet known,
although short-term effects have been positive for
some programs. Research is needed to measure these
long-term effects, but such assessments, comparing
participant outcomes to those of control groups,
are difficult to undertake, given the limited
availability of boot camps in some jurisdictions.
During this growth period, boot camps have evolved
from strictly military-style, discipline-oriented
models to ones that offer more treatment,
especially in relation to drug abuse. Although boot
camp programs are expected to remain popular for
now, it is not known if growth can be sustained.
Among the factors affecting such growth are
political and popular interest, success in
achieving program goals, and legal issues
associated with the selection of program
participants. 

Shock incarceration programs or boot camps
emerged as an alternative intermediate sanction at
the State level a little over a decade ago when
Georgia opened the first one in December 1983.
Early growth in the use of this alternative was
slow; by January 1987 only four boot camp programs
existed (Parent, 1989). However, boot camps began
to multiply later the same year. By 1993 there were
at least 46 operating in 30 States, and 3 more
States were seriously considering implementation.
In 1993, Doris MacKenzie reported a total program
capacity for State and Federal boot camps of 7,518
(MacKenzie, 1993, p. 22). The General Accounting
Office (GAO) estimated 8,880 in June of 1992 (GAO,
1993, p. 15), and the American Institutes for
Research more recently put the figure at about
10,000 (Cronin, 1994, p. 11). It is not clear what
accounts for the differences in capacity estimates,
but varying definitions of boot camps could be
part of the reason. Nonetheless, with the current
average length of stay approximately 107 days in a
boot camp program, the minimum number of prisoners
who could complete boot camp programs is in excess
of 23,000 per year (MacKenzie, 1993). 

Yet this total is small in comparison to the total
daily adult incarcerated population, which exceeded
1 million in prison and 490,400 in jails in 1994
(Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1994, 1995). That
boot camps make up only a small proportion of
correctional populations is further compounded by
the fact that many camps have had difficulty
keeping their facilities filled because of
restrictive selection criteria and high dropout
rates.

Growth of the total incarcerated population seems
likely to continue in the foreseeable future (GAO,
1993). Given this growth and severe prison crowding
in many jurisdictions, correctional administrators
will continue to face the necessity of building new
prisons or developing alternatives to traditional
incarceration, including boot camps. Indeed, over
80 percent of boot camp administrators surveyed by
the GAO ranked as very great the importance of
boot camps in supplying such alternatives (GAO,
1993). In light of this, many might argue that
recent trends in boot camp implementation will
continue unabated. All 50 States will have boot
camp programs by the year 2000 if there is no
change in the current trend.

One could also argue, however, that while this
rapid growth may continue in the short term, it
will slow down significantly and perhaps level off
over the long term. Factors that have supported
recent rapid expansion of boot camps will be
balanced by other factors working against continued
rapid growth. Political and popular interest in
boot camps, success in achieving program goals,
management or administrative issues, the
composition of boot camp populations, and emerging
legal considerations are all factors that will
affect growth.

Available evidence also suggests that boot camps of
the future are likely to be programmatically
different from ones of the past in terms of both
military discipline and treatment.

Evidence Supporting Continuing Growth

One of the major driving forces contributing to the
proliferation of boot camps has been the
significant level of political interest in
establishing them, ranging from the local
politician to the highest levels of Federal
Government. The Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994, for instance, allocated
$24.5 million in competitive funds for boot camp
construction and operation.

The political popularity of boot camps rests in
part on the strong appeal created by the media. As
Dale Parent has noted:  

In many states a political constituency for Shock 
Incarceration (boot camps) has developed, spawned, 
in part, by extensive favorable media coverage. 
Shock incarceration makes good copy, conveying 
powerful visual images well suited to the 
electronic media (Parent, 1989, p. 1).

Or as Adam Nossiter recently suggested, the appeal
of boot camps is their filmability in that the
typical media message portrays them as programs
that do not coddle prisoners (Nossiter, 1993, p.
38). It seems likely that as positive portrayals of
boot camps continue in the media, the political
appeal of such programs will remain quite high.

Boot camps are not only appealing to politicians
and their constituencies. The concept is also
attractive to offenders, judges, and corrections
officials (GAO, 1993). Popularity among offenders
is no doubt tied to the shortness of time offenders
serve in boot camps compared to the time they would
spend in prison for the same sentence. It has also
been suggested that for some offenders the physical
regimen and military orientation are also
attractive, particularly for those hoping (often
unrealistically) to serve in the Armed Forces one
day. 

As an alternative sanction (one the public views as
relatively severe), boot camps are also attractive
to the judiciary. In some jurisdictions sentencing
judges can order boot camp commitments directly. 

Correctional agency appeal is confirmed by the fact
that of 26 States that already had boot camps (as
surveyed by the GAO), 14 were planning or
considering expansion (GAO, 1993). Boot camps
potential for reducing crowding and creating cost
savings is important for corrections officials.
Evidence also suggests that boot camps are much
easier for administrators to manage and (at least
as important) constitute relatively safe
correctional settings (Cronin, 1994; Parent, 1989).

Boot camps are thought to fulfill a variety of
important goals for both offenders and correctional
agencies. According to a recent survey, the most
important goal of correctional boot camps is
rehabilitation (MacKenzie, 1993), and there appears
to be considerable agreement concerning this goal
among system-level officials, facility
administrators, and drug treatment and education
supervisors (Gransky et al., 1993). In some
programs evidence has suggested that in the short
term, at least, participants are demonstrating
physical improvements and increased educational
achievement (Cronin, 1994, pp. 5758). 

Studies also reveal that participating in boot camp
programs results in positive attitude changes
(MacKenzie, 1993; Shaw and MacKenzie, 1992;
MacKenzie and Shaw, 1990). Boot camp participants
appear to adjust better in the community, at least
initially, than other offenders (MacKenzie et al.,
1992). Theoretically, if these demonstrated
short-term results can be translated into long-term
rehabilitation effects and significant reductions
in recidivism, support for boot camp programs is
more likely to continue. However, there is little
evidence of long-term rehabilitation effects. 

Other fundamental goals of boot camps are cost
savings and the reduction of prison crowding
(MacKenzie and Piquero, 1994; MacKenzie, 1993;
MacKenzie and Parent, 1991; Parent, 1989). The
current boot camp approach normally places
offenders in boot camps for shorter periods of time
than if they had been sent to prison. The
assumption is that by holding these offenders for
shorter periods, even at slightly higher per diem
rates, the resulting bedspace will mean reduced
crowding and lower prison confinement costs.
MacKenzie (1993) did find bedspace reductions and
lower overall confinement costs compared to normal
imprisonment in Louisiana, despite slightly higher
daily costs and the expense of intensive
supervision following completion of boot camp. The
GAO suggests that this is not an isolated finding;
many States have reported significant cost savings,
primarily due to reduced sentence lengths (GAO,
1993). MacKenzie and Piquero (1994) confirmed this
observation for several specific States but also
found that cost savings were not guaranteed. Other
factors influencing the bedspace needs of prison
systems must also be carefully assessed and managed
by correctional officials to achieve lower costs.
Thus support for continued growth in boot camps
appears to be based primarily on political and
constituent interest, media support, and the
potential for changing long-term behavior.

Evidence Working Against Continuing Growth

Despite the articulated goals of correctional boot
camps, growing criticism and recent evidence have
raised questions about the extent to which these
programs are achieving long-term behavioral
changes. In addition, there is increasing concern
about potential legal issues associated with boot
camp programs, which up to this point have been
largely ignored. Concerns are also being raised
about practical difficulties in managing such
programs. All these factors appear to be working
against continued rapid growth, at least over the
long term.

The empirical evidence to date concerning sustained
postrelease behavioral change is relatively
limited. What evidence is available would suggest
that long-term goals of boot camps are not being
met. For example, boot camp participation appears
unrelated to performance during the first year
following release (Shaw and MacKenzie, 1992), and
boot camps have not appeared to contribute to
reducing long-term recidivism rates to any
significant degree (MacKenzie, 1991; MacKenzie et
al., 1992; GAO, 1993). In one of the earliest
evaluations of boot camps in Louisiana, MacKenzie
found no differences in the recidivism of
offenders who served time in a traditional prison,
who served time in a shorter shock prison program
in lieu of prison, or who were given a sentence of
probation, with no prison time (MacKenzie and
Parent, 1991, p. 231).

A much more extensive boot camp evaluation
confirmed these findings across various types of
programs in different jurisdictions (MacKenzie and
Souryal, 1994). It is not clear why there has been
no evidence of differences in recidivism between
boot camp participants and others, but some have
speculated that short-term confinement in boot
camps may not allow time for building participants
back up after they are broken down (Osler, 1991) or
for providing for adequate preparation for return
to the community (Gowdy, 1993). These findings have
also raised the concern that for boot camps to be
effective they must provide adequate aftercare
supervision and treatment. The importance of
aftercare in goal achievement is only now beginning
to receive research interest as is the complexity
of multiple influences on the future behavior of
boot camp participants.

As noted earlier, to fulfill the goal of reducing
prison crowding, the selection pool of boot camp
eligibles must be drawn from an otherwise
prison-bound population. However, some boot camp
participants are selected from a population that
would normally receive probation instead of
imprisonment (Parent, 1989; Nossiter, 1993). This
net-widening effect (MacKenzie and Parent, 1991)
can result in increasing numbers of beds rather
than the opposite and add to correctional costs
rather than decreasing them. This phenomenon is
potentially most problematic where placement
authority rests with the judiciary, which occurs in
at least eight States (Cronin, 1994).

An additional requirement for prison crowding
reduction is that there be a sufficient number of
offender participants compared to systemwide
populations (GAO, 1993). However, as was pointed
out earlier, the relatively small size of boot
camps means they cannot have a real effect on
crowding given normal prison and jail populations
(Parent, 1989). Compounding this problem is the
fact that because of selective participation
criteria, most boot camps can draw only from a
limited pool of offenders. Many programs have also
found they must screen large numbers of potential 
participants to end up with a sufficient group.
Medical, legal, and psychological screening
requirements also necessarily limit the number of
participants. For example, Cronin (1994) reported
that in South Carolina only 723 offenders out of
8,542 identified candidates were finally admitted
to boot camp during the first 16 months of
operation. 

Thus, many programs have difficulty keeping their
programs filled. In addition, large proportions of
those who enter boot camps drop out for medical,
personal, or disciplinary reasons. In Louisiana,
for example, 43 percent of those selected dropped
out (MacKenzie and Parent, 1991; MacKenzie et al.,
1993). Those who drop out typically end up serving
longer terms of imprisonment. In Louisiana this
period averaged 7 months longer (MacKenzie et al.,
1993). 

A limited selection pool, potential net widening,
dropout levels, and difficulties keeping programs
filled all work together to make some boot camps
more expensive than current correctional options.
In at least one local jail boot camp program,
higher costs associated with longer boot camp stays
ultimately contributed to the programs closing
(Austin and Bolyard, 1993). A key to cost savings
and participant recruitment has been to offer
sentence reductions or accelerated parole
eligibility to offenders as an incentive. But to
minimize risk associated with such reductions, many
programs have been developed with strict screening
criteria as to type of crime, criminal history, and
physical and mental impairments (GAO, 1993). Legal
issues surrounding this restrictiveness have not
yet been adequately addressed. It is possible that
legal challenges on the basis of equitable
punishment and nondiscriminatory access to programs
and services may have a negative effect on the
future development of boot camps.

Of additional concern in the future may be the
voluntary waiver of legal rights by offenders who
take part in boot camp programs. Participants
typically reside in spartan environments, with
activities allowed the regular incarcerated
offender severely restricted. Visitation and
recreation are examples of activities that may be
voluntarily waived by boot camp participants.
Many jurisdictions assume that because participants
volunteer to enter the program, the boot camp is
shielded from liability. However, as Parent (1989)
points out, it could be argued that the decision to
enter a boot camp program is really not as
voluntary as it seems when an offender is offered
the choice of a few months in boot camp versus
several years in prison.

Although a positive argument for boot camps is
their supposed safety and easier management (in
terms of offender behavior), recent observations
have suggested a number of unanticipated negative
features in managing correctional boot camps.
Participants are subjected to varying degrees of
physical training, psychological intimidation, and
summary punishment. In some boot camp programs,
particularly those implemented early in the growth
period, initial verbal confrontation has been
common. Critics assert that such behavior by
correctional staff is demeaning and abusive, and
for this reason was long ago abandoned in the
military (Parent, 1989; Morash and Rucker, 1990).
Hengesh states that many critics consider boot
camps throwbacks to outdated correctional methods
(Hengesh, 1991, p. 106). 

Summary punishments, such as doing pushups or being
intimidated by drill sergeants (GAO, 1993; Frank,
1991) are still commonplace, with approximately 86
percent of surveyed States operating boot camps
reporting the use of such techniques (Cronin,
1994). While these activities may be considered
essential components of boot camp programs, a fine
line exists between summary punishment and abuse
(MacKenzie et al., 1989). In 1992 five deputies in
Harris County, Texas, were indicted on charges of
beating and choking inmates (Nossiter, 1993). In
her evaluation of the boot camp program in
Louisiana, MacKenzie found that overzealous,
control-oriented officers had to be removed from
the program (MacKenzie et al., 1989, p. 35).

Working in a boot camp is as demanding as serving
time in one, according to Acorn (1991, p. 114).
Drill instructors are typically expected to engage
in the same physical regimen as inmates, including
running, pushups, and other activities. In
addition, stress and officer burnout seem more
likely in boot camp programs that emphasize verbal
confrontation (Parent, 1989) and heavy workloads
(MacKenzie et al., 1989). Such stress and burnout
contribute to high staff turnover rates.
Accordingly, officer selection, training, and
oversight are becoming major concerns of boot camp
administrators.

Thus a number of factors may work against continued
sharp growth in boot camp programs. It may be
possible, for whatever reason, that boot camps
cannot achieve some of the goals on which they are
theoretically based. New and unanticipated legal
issues may make boot camps less attractive, and
management issues, particularly as they relate to
staff oversight and retention, may continue to be
problematic. The combination of these negative
factors (should they continue) could offset some of
the positive factors that have so far supported the
expansion of boot camp programs across the country.

Conclusions

It seems likely, in the short term at least, that
the numbers of boot camp programs will grow and new
jurisdictions will adopt such programs, primarily
because of their popularity among the media,
criminal justice officials, politicians, and the
public. Experience has clearly shown that when
correctional programs have such appeal they are
likely to expand and be sustained regardless of
their effects. As researcher Charles Logan has
pointed out, Fads such as Scared Straight, even
when shown as not beneficial, have had surprising
resilience (Parent, 1989, p. 47). There is also
recent growing evidence that boot camps, as
alternatives to incarceration, can constitute an
effective cost-saving approach to dealing with
offenders, but they must be carefully developed and
managed.

Whether this growth can be sustained over the long
term is a matter of speculation; current evidence
seems to suggest that sustained growth may be
unlikely. However, it should be cautioned that boot
camps are not a static phenomenon. They have
continually developed and changed nationwide over
the past decade (MacKenzie, 1993; Gransky et al.,
1993). Indeed, some authors have suggested that
there has been a significant change in the focus of
many boot camps recently in that they have moved
away from a strictly military, discipline-oriented
model to one that is more treatment oriented,
particularly with respect to drug abuse (Gransky et
al., 1993). How these programs evolve and further
incorporate aftercare and community supervision is
likely to have an impact on their future.

Of critical importance at this juncture is the
recognition that research concerning goal
achievement, management issues, and effectiveness
has been relatively meager and methodologically
limited. For example, few States have performed
their own formal evaluations (GAO, 1993), and only
recently have any large-scale evaluation efforts
been targeted at multiple boot camp sites
(MacKenzie and Souryal, 1994).

Further understanding of the nature of boot camps
and how to guide their implementation requires
ongoing program-specific process evaluations. As
was recently pointed out, Jurisdictions need to be
encouraged to conduct, at a minimum, process
evaluations that would assess whether the program
is accepting the type of offenders it wants,
delivering the types of services it should,
maintaining an acceptable completion rate, and
effectively working within the allotted budget
(Austin, Jones, and Bolyard, 1993, p. 8).

Such evaluations are needed to understand the
problems associated with implementing and
maintaining boot camp programs. Further, process
evaluations can uncover promising approaches and
practices to guide future development. This
research is required to help policymakers set the
future course of boot camps.

Answering the question of whether or not boot camps
work is difficult. Scholars to date have been
able to offer only insights into possible effects
of boot camps rather than measurements of their
impact. The reason for this is that scientifically
measuring the impact of boot camps requires the use
of rigorous experimental designs in which
participants and control groups are randomly
selected and compared. Given the limited
availability of boot camp participants in many
jurisdictions, implementation of this type of
research design has been difficult (Institute for
Criminological Research, 1992). However, if
researchers are truly to learn the outcomes of boot
camps, this experimentation is required. Through
such experimental evaluations, the speculation
about short-term behavioral and attitudinal change
can be examined along with longer term recidivism
and deterrent effects, if they exist. Future
research also needs to examine programmatic efforts
beyond the boot camps themselves. For instance,
many observers have noted the importance of
aftercare as part of the boot camp program
continuum, yet evaluators have paid scant attention
to its implementation and effects. 

In summary, whether boot camps will continue to
grow or be abandoned as another correctional fad
will be contingent on research on both their
implementation and effects. Further, the kinds of
boot camps developed in the future are likely to be
quite different not only from the original ones
that used the get in your face approach but also
from todays, which combine drug treatment and
military discipline. The research needed as these
changes occur will guide policymakers at the local,
State, and Federal levels in charting the future
direction of boot camps.

References

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

Austin, James, Michael Jones, and Melissa Bolyard.
The Growing Use of Jail Boot Camps: The Current
State of the Art. Research in Brief. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National
Institute of Justice, 1993.

Cronin, Roberta. Boot Camps for Adult and Juvenile
Offenders: An Overview and Update. Research Report.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,
National Institute of Justice, 1994.

Frank, Sue. Oklahoma Camp Stresses Structure and
Discipline. Corrections Today (October
1991):104105.

Gowdy, Voncile B. Intermediate Sanctions. Research
in Brief. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1993.

Gransky, Laura A., Thomas C. Castellano, and Ernest
L. Cowles. Is There a Next Generation of Shock
Incarceration Facilities?: The Evolving Nature of
Goals, Program Components, and Drug Treatment
Services. Paper presented to the Academy of
Criminal Justice Sciences at a meeting at Southern
Illinois University, 1993.

Hengesh, Donald J. Think of Boot Camps as a
Foundation for Change, Not an Instant Cure.
Corrections Today (October 1991):106108. 

Institute for Criminological Research and American
Institutes for Research. Boot Camps for Juvenile
Offenders: Constructive Intervention and Early
Support Implementation Evaluation Final Report.
New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University,
1992.

MacKenzie, Doris L. Boot Camp Prisons in 1993.
National Institute of Justice Journal (November
1993):2128.

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):213236. 

MacKenzie, Doris L. Boot Camp Programs Grow in
Number and Scope. National Institute of Justice
Reports, November/December 1990:68.

MacKenzie, Doris L. Boot Camp Prisons: Components,
Evaluations, and Empirical Issues. Federal
Probation, 54, no. 3 (1990):4452.

MacKenzie, Doris L., Larry A. Gould, Lisa M.
Riechers, and James Shaw. Shock Incarceration:
Rehabilitation or Retribution? Journal of Offender
Counseling, Services, and Rehabilitation, 14, no. 2
(1989):2540.

MacKenzie, Doris L., and Dale Parent. Shock
Incarceration and Prison Crowding in Louisiana.
Journal of Criminal Justice, 19, no. 3
(1991):225237.

MacKenzie, Doris L., and Alex Piquero. The Impact
of Shock Incarceration Programs on Prison
Crowding. Crime and Delinquency, 40, no. 2
(1994):222249.

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):125150.

MacKenzie, Doris L., and Claire Souryal. Multisite
Evaluation of Shock Incarceration. Evaluation
Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1994.

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

MacKenzie, Doris L., James W. Shaw, and Claire
Souryal. Characteristics Associated With
Successful Adjustment to Supervision: A Comparison
of Parolees, Probationers, Shock Participants, and
Shock Dropouts, Criminal Justice and Behavior, 19,
no. 4 (December 1992):454457.

Morash, Merry, and Lila Rucker. A Critical Look at
the Idea of Boot Camp as a Correctional Reform.
Crime and Delinquency, 36, no. 2 (1990):204222.

Nossiter, Adam. As Boot Camps for Criminals
Multiply, Skepticism Grows. New York Times,
December 18, 1993:3739.

Osler, M.W. Shock Incarceration: An Overview of
Existing Programs. Federal Probation (March
1991):3442.

Parent, Dale. Shock Incarceration: An Overview of
Existing Programs. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Justice, National Institute of
Justice, 1989.

Sechrest, Dale K. Prison Boot Camps Do Not
Measure Up. Federal Probation, September 1989.

Shaw, James W., and Doris L. MacKenzie. The
One-Year Community Supervision Performance of Drug
Offenders and Louisiana DOC-Identified Substance
Abusers Graduating From Shock Incarceration.
Journal of Criminal Justice, 20 (1992):501515.

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):6397. 

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice
Assistance. Census of State and Federal
Correctional Facilities, 1990. Washington, D.C.,
1992. 

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice
Statistics. State and Federal Prison Population
Tops One Million. Press Release. Washington, D.C.,
October 27, 1994.

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice
Statistics. Jails and Jail Inmates 199394.
Washington, D.C., 1995.

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. Senate. S. 1607: A Bill To Control and Prevent
Crime. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Senate, Calendar No.
260, 1993.