The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S.

Department of Justice and prepared the following final report:

Document Title: Multi-Site Evaluation of Boot Camp Programs,

Final Report

Author(s): James Austin ; Donna Camp-Blair ; Alethea

Camp ; Thomas Castellano ; Terri Adams-Fuller

; Michael Jones ; Steve Kerr ; Richard Lewis ;

Susan Plant

Document No.: 192011

Date Received: January 17, 2002

Award Number: 96-SC-LX-0002

This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice.

To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this Federallyfunded grant final report available electronically in addition to

traditional paper copies.

Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect

the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
INSTIT "^^ . THE 

MULTI-SITE EVALUATION OF 

BOOT CAMP PROGRAMS 

Final Report 

PROPERTY OF 

iiiationai Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS) 

Washlngton, D.C. Offlce 

1619 H Street. N.W. 

Suite 700 

Nashlngton. D.C. 20006 

r 

/ ---- Box 6000 

Rockviile, MD 20849-6000 

The National Council on Crime and Delinquency 

and 

The Institute on Crime, Justice, and Corrections 

at The George Washington University 

August 15,2000 

202.496.6320 phone 

202.496.6342 fax 

New Vork City Office This project was supported by Grant No. 96-SC-LS-0009 awarded by the National Institute of Justice, 

Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view in this document are those of the j33 Broadway authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Suite 718 

ew York. NY 10010 

212.924 661D phone 

21 2.924.6442 fax . 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

Many individuals and several agencies have contributed to this report. We would first like 

to thank the National Institute of Justice (Jeremy Travis, Director) for their financial support. Dr. 

Voncile Gowdy from NIJ served as the program manager and provided much guidance and 

support over the two-year evaluation effort. Additionally. we wish to thank Dr. Thomas 

Castellano and his staff at Southern Illinois University who were extremely helpful in working 

with facilitating the collection of necessary data, the analysis of evaluation results, and the 

resolution of research methodology issues. We would also like to thank the sites who were 

willing to have their boot camp programs examined as part of the national evaluation. It is our 

hope that the research results summarized in this report will provide much needed practical 

information on the possible benefits of boot camps and decisions on whether to implement such 

programs in the future. 

1 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
PROJECT STAFF 

James Austin 

Donna Camp-Blair 

Alethea Camp 

Thomas Castellano 

Terri Adams-Fuller 

Michael Jones 

Steve Kerr 

Richard Lewis 

Susan Plant 

.. 

I1 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Acknowledgments ............................................................ i 

Project Staff ................................................................. ii 

ListofTables ............................................................... iv 

Executivesummary ........................................................... vi 

Chapter 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 

Chapter 2 Research Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 

Chapter 3 Descriptions of the Boot Camp Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 

Chapter 4 Measuring the Impact of Boot Camp on Coping Skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52 

Chapter 5 Impact Evaluations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .72 

Chapter 6 The Declining Future of Boot Camps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 

References .................................................................106 

0 

... 

111 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1 Correctional Populations in the United States (1 990- 1998) ....................... 3 

Table 2 Psychometric Properties of Scales. Adult Sample ............................. 60 

Table 3 Construct Validity Pearson Correlation Coefficients. Adult Sample .............. 61 

Table 4 Psychometric Properties of Scales. Juvenile Sample ........................... 63 

Table 5 Construct Validity Pearson Correlations Coefficients. Juvenile Sample ........... 64 

Table 6 Statistically Significant Paired T-Test Results for Adult Subjects ................. 67 

Table 7 Statistically Significant Paired T-Test Results for Juvenile Subject ............... 69 

Table8IIPStudyGroups ...................................................... 75 

Table 9 IIP Group Characteristics ................................................. 78 

Table 10 IIP Three Year Recidivism Rates . TIP Graduates, Traditional Releases. and 

IIPFailures ................................................................. 80 

Table 11 IIP Recidivism Rates By Group Year and Type of Reincarceration .............. 80 

Table 12 IIP Three Year Recidivism Rates By Subgroup By Type of Reincarceration ....... 81 

Table 13 IIP Total Recidivism Rates Controlling for Study Variable ..................... 82 

Table14EstimatedBedSavings ................................................ 85 

Table 15 Cook County Boot Camp Admissions (March 1997 . March 2000) .............. 87 

Table 16 Admission Status and Boot Camp Termination Status as of April 14. 2000 ........ 91 

Table 17 Success and Failure Characteristics of Boot Camp Participants ................. 92 

Table 18 Comparison Group Characteristics (March 1997- March 2000) ................. 94 

Table 19 Cook County Boot Camp Versus IDOC Boot Camp Eligibles Re -Admission To IDOC 

Rates ....................................................................... 96 a 

iv 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
List of Tables . continued @ 

Table 20 Illinois Department of Corrections Judicial Recommendations to Impact Incarceration 

Program .................................................................... 97 

Table 2 1 Attributes of the WEC Program Participants ................................ 99 

Table 22 12 Month Return to Prison Rates for WEC and Comparison Groups ............ 100 

Table 23 Cost Comparison for WEC and Control Cases .............................. 101 

Table 24 Summit Group and Traditional Releases Characteristics ...................... 102 

Table 25 Camp Summit Experimental and Control Group Characteristics ................ 104 

V 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
Executive Summary 

The evaluation built upon several studies that had been initiated by National Institute of 

Justice (NIJ), the Bureau of Justice Assistance, and several local and state correctional agencies. 

The original evaluation called for the process evaluations of ten of adult and juvenile boot camp 

programs operated by state, county, and private agencies. For each of these programs, 

descriptive process data were collected for all sites. In those sites that showed a potential for 

impact, outcome data were collected using a mix of experimental and quasi-experimental 

designs. 

The results show that boot camp programs are not having the impact on offenders or 

corrections as originally envisioned. Although many of the programs are well administered and 

popular with public officials, they are not demonstrating a significant impact on recidivism, 

prison or jail crowding, or costs -- the three core goals of boot camps. 

The lack of impact on recidivism is probably tied to the fact that many boot camp 

participants are low risk by definition of the selection criteria employed by correctional agencies 

and the courts for determining who is eligible for admission. Another factor that diminishes the 

programs recidivism effect is tied to the lack of treatment “dosage.” Although it’s clear that 

many boot camp participants improve their education levels and “pro social values,” these levels 

of improvement are not sufficient to overcome the more powerful social and economic forces 

that facilitated their involvement in criminal activities. And it does not appear that promise of 

“aftercare services”adds much to the lack of treatment effects. 

- 

With regard to averted cost savings, these programs are simply too small in terms of 

capturing a sufficient “market share” of the prison or jail population to have an impact on 

population growth and the associated operating and construction costs. Furthermore, boot camps 

tend to be more staff and program service intensive than traditional correctional facilities. 

The future of boot camps is not promising. It is unlikely that we will see more boot 

camps implemented. However, it also true they will completely disappear from the correctional 

scene. As long as they offer a setting where low risk offenders can be exposed to a more intense 

level of services in a safe correctional environment without being overly expensive to operate, 

the need for them to exist will continue -- regardless of their limited therapeutic and cost 

benefits. 

vi 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
CHAPTER 1 

INTRODUCTION 

I. PROJECT OVERVIEW 

As of 1998, it was estimated that there are 49 (adult) boot camps functioning in the 

United States with a total population of 6,857. There were also another 30 juvenile boot camp 

programs with an unknown bed capacity (Camp and Camp, 1998; MacKenzie and Rosay, 1996). 

These boot camp programs are operated by state, county, and private agencies that target both 

adult and juvenile offenders. Despite the widespread popularization of these programs, which 

promise to reduce crime and costs, there have been few studies conducted to evaluate or compare 

boot camp programs or the impact these programs have on their participants. 

In 1996, the U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice (NIJ) awarded a 

competitive grant to the National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD) to conduct a 

national multi-site impact evaluation of public and private boot camp programs. The study’s 

team initially selected ten adult and juvenile offender programs operated by state, county, and 

private entities for possible evaluation. Subsequently, two sites were dropped from the study due 

to either the programs being terminated or the fact that the site’s client base was too small. 

Evaluative efforts then focused on eight of the boot camp programs. They include the Camp 

Summit (Indiana); Impact Incarceration Program (Illinois); Twin Pines Academy (California); 

Work Ethic Camp (Washington State); Abraxas Leadership Development Program 

(Pennsylvania); Cook County Boot Camp (Illinois); Maricopa County’s After Shock Program 

(Arizona); and SUMMIT Boot Camp (Oregon). 

Some of the sites selected were part of another Office of Justice Program initiative funded 

by the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) referred to as the Corrections Options program. Other 

sites were conducting their own evaluations and still others had contracts with either NCCD or 

The Institute on Crime, Justice and Corrections (ICJC). 

It should be emphasized that this report attempts to summarize the results of various 

studies which were being conducted by different correctional and research agencies. As noted 

above, the original NIJ award was made to the NCCD with a subcontract to Southern Illinois 

University. Toward the end of the project, The George Washington University‘s ICJC received a 

subcontract from NCCD to complete the study due to a change in the organizational affiliation of 

the project director. All of these changes resulted in a difficult organizational situation for the 

completion of a multi-site evaluation with multiple funding sources. Due to these difficulties 

this report can best be described as an overview of how diverse the structure and operations of 

boot camps have become along with some indication of what, if any, impact can be documented. 

1 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
ir. THE CONTEXT OF THE BOOT CAMP MOVEMENT 

Perhaps the most pervasive problem challenging modern corrections is the nexus of 

a 

overburdened correctional systems and rising confinement costs. Prison and jail populations are 

increasing rapidly, and this growth is paralleled by rising operational and capital costs. In 1998, 

more than 1.8 million inmates were held in the nation's prisons and local jails. More than 1.3 

million offenders were incarcerated in state and federal prisons, and almost 592,462 were housed 

in local jails at midyear 1998. Recent estimates also show that there were more than three 

million offenders on probation and almost 700,000 on parole in 1998. 

There are approximately 5.8 million adult men and women under some form of 

correctional supervision. This compares with only 1.8 million persons under the supervision of 

the correctional system in 1980. These exponential increases are not limited to the prison system 

and have been observed among all forms of correctional supervision. Despite recent reports of 

declining crime rates, jail and prison populations are projected to continue rising. State and local 

governments have responded to the crisis with unparalleled prison construction efforts. These 

efforts have increased operating costs, and data collected over the last decade show that 

confinement costs have more than doubled in the United States. These findings emphasize the 

need for more efficient and cost-effective alternatives to imprisonment. 

In response to increased correctional crowding and confinement costs, the first boot 

camps emerged in 1983. Over the next decade, the boot camp phenomenon expanded from adult 

male prisons to include local jails, juveniles, and women (Toby and Pearson, 1992; Austin, 

Jones, and Bolyard, 1993). As indicated earlier, there are as many as 49 adult state and federal 

correctional boot camps in more than 32 states (Camp and Camp, 1998) and over 30 juvenile 

boot camps in operation (MacKenzie and Rosay, 1996). 

Boot camps have been viewed as a means for reducing the high rate of recidivism 

between offenders and for reducing prison crowding. Often categorized as an intermediate 

sanction, boot camps were designed to punish and treat juvenile and adult offenders convicted of 

less serious, nonviolent crimes for relatively short periods of time. In confining offenders for 

shorter periods, it was hoped that boot camps, would simultaneously reduce the lengths of stay 

(LOS) incarcerated and reduce recidivism (Parent, 1989). In so doing, the costs of imprisonment 

would be reduced by inmates spending a shorter period of time in custody and not returning to 

prison once released. 

While a number of scholars greeted the earliest boot camps with a good deal of 

skepticism, they were fully embraced by many correctional systems (Morash and Rucker, 1990; 

Sechrest, 1989). However, as is often the case with many criminal justice reforms, boot camps 

have recently begun to fall from favor in some circles, which has led to the closure ofa number 

of these programs (Allen, 1997). Indeed, there is culminating empirical evidence suggesting 

that, in many instances. they simply do not work as intended (Nossiter, 1993; MacKenzie and 

Souryal, 1994; Parent. 1996). e 

2 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
TABLE 1 

I997 

1998 

CORRECTIONAL POPULATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES 

1990-1998 

1,242,153 567,079 694,7 8 7 3,296.5 13 5,800,532 

1,302,019 592,462 704,964 3,4 17,6 I3 6,O 17,058 

1990 773,9 19 405,320 53 1,407 2,670,234 4,380,880 

1991 825,559 426,479 590,442 2,728,472 4,570,952 

I992 882,500 444,584 658,60 I 2,81 1,61 1 4,797,296 

1993 970,444 459,804 676,100 2.903,06 1 5,009,409 

I994 1,054,702 486,474 690,37 I 2,98 1,022 5,2 12,569 

1995 1,125,874 507,044 679,42 1 3,077,86 1 5,390,200 

1996 1,183,368 5 18,492 679,733 3,164,996 5,546,589 

)urces Probation and Parole in the United States. 1998, Prisoners in 1998. and Prison and Jail Inmates. 1998. 

Images of a typical boot camp have generated a tremendous level of popular appeal. 

Images of inmates rising early in the predawn night, being forced to adhere to a rigorous regime 

of physical exercise led by a mean and dog-faced drill instructor and marching up and down the 

prison yard in precisely choreographed drill ceremonies have much allure for the general public. 

These images not only reflect the desired infliction of pain upon criminal offenders, pain that is 

often found wanting in traditional prisons; they also have the utilitarian effect of developing 

character and discipline among the prisoners -- characteristics associated with the good and lawabiding, which are almost invariably lacking in the young men and women who find themselves 

confined in correctional facilities. 

However, some observers of the boot camp movement not only withhold their support for 

such programs, but they view boot camps as repulsive -- the anathema of enlightened and 

progressive penal practice. Boot camps are seen as degrading and futile attempts to change 

people based on erroneous psychological principles. In short, these programs are not "clinically 

relevant or psychologically informed" -- in fact, they are at odds with sound and effective 

correctional treatment principles (e.g., Andrews and Bonta, 1994). 

In recent years, there is some evidence that suggests an evolution in boot camp 

3 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
programming. Specifically, boot camps are progressing away froin the military type regime 

toward programs that place increased emphasis on education, therapeutic, and treatment services, 

and community aftercare and less on the boot camp regime (OJJDP, 1997). 

0 

111. RESEARCH FINDINGS ON BOOT CAMPS 

Notwithstanding these trends and continued growth in the number of boot camp 

programs, questions abound regarding the appropriateness, desirability, and effectiveness of boot 

camp programs in correctional settings (e.g., Sechrest, 1989; Morash and Rucker, 1990; 

MacKenzie and Brame, 1995). The available research has been limited in its ability to address 

the above issues. Most relevant research, primarily descriptive in nature, has focused on adult 

boot camps, emphasizing the great variability in boot camp programming (Parent, 1989; Austin 

and Bolyard, 1993; Cronin, 1993; Cowles and Castellano, 1995). These studies highlight the 

sometimes contradictory goals, the limited treatment, and modest aftercare programming 

associated with many boot camps. 

Nonetheless, many observers have commented on the positive features of boot camps, 

including movement toward the inclusion of stronger treatment components in newer program 

designs, as well as the generally safe and orderly program environments found within boot 

camps (Gransky, Castellano, and Cowles, 1995; Bottcher and Isorena, 1996; Erwin, 1996). 

Georgia and Oklahoma were among the first states to establish correctional boot camps in 1983.. 

Early boot camp programs were designed to be similar to military basic training. These 

programs placed emphasis on characteristics including intensified discipline, drill and ceremony, 

and physical challenge. The limits of early contemporary boot camps were widely recognized, 

and as a result we have witnessed a positive evolution in boot camp programming (Gransky et 

al., 1995; Parent 1996b). 

The earliest boot camps, sometimes referred to as "First Generation" camps, tended to 

have a heavy emphasis on military-based program activities but provided little in terms of 

treatment or aftercare programming. "Second Generation" boot camps followed the lead of some 

of the earlier treatment-oriented programs (e.g., New York's Shock Incarceration Program, see 

Clark, Aziz, and MacKenzie, 1994). They toned down the military emphasis and began to 

increase substance abuse, educational, and cognitive programming. Importantly, attempts were 

made to provide boot camp graduates with greater levels of post-release supervision and services 

(Castellano and Plant, 1996). 

Some observers of correctional boot camps suggest that "Third Generation" programs are 

now emerging (Parent, 199613). These programs involve the search for alternative boot camp 

models (e.g., empowerment, leadership, work ethic) that move away from an emphasis on 

militaristic program components and establish daily regimens which are program-rich. 

Importantly aftercare programs that are integrated into institutionally-based interventions and 

which emphasize a continuity of treatment and services once offenders re-enter the community, 

are a hallmark of these more advanced programs. These latter programs are still quite 

4 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
uncommon, and especially so in relation to boot camps for adults (Castellano and Plant, 1996). 

A. Prison Crowding and Costs 

The impact of correctional boot camps on reducing crowding and costs has been the focus 

of a number of studies (MacKenzie and Piquero, 1994; Parent, 1994). The two fundamental 

forces that drive crowding and costs are the number of admissions and the length of stay. These 

forces have the potential to impact a corrections system from both the front-end and back-end. 

Because boot camps share this potential, many jurisdictions have enthusiastically embraced these 

programs as alternatives to incarceration. This enthusiasm, however, is tempered by studies 

showing that many of these programs have not met expectations in terms of reducing prison 

crowding and system costs. In general, the relatively small size of the boot camps and their 

apparent inability to capture a larger share of the prison and jail populations make this goal 

virtually impossible to achieve. This is especially true for jail-based boot camps where the 

average length of stay is measured in weeks and not months or years. Any jail-based boot camp 

that requires a period of incarceration well beyond what is normally experienced by similarly 

situated offenders will likely increase rather than decrease a correctional population and the 

associated operational costs. 

In this report, we will look at several boot camps (both state prison and local jails) that 

have the potential to show savings of some kind due to their size and/or the likelihood that they 

are either reducing admissions or reducing the projected length of stay. 

B. Impact on Boot Camp Participants while Institutionalized 

Some evaluations have examined the impact of boot camps on offender adjustments 

while institutionalized (e.g., MacKenzie and Shaw, 1990; Hunter, Burton, Marquart, and 

Cuvelier, 1992; MacKenzie and Souryal, 1994). In general, these studies indicate that boot 

camps -- as compared to traditional prisons -- seem to result in the more positive adjustments of 

inmates to institutionalization. These studies are consistent in finding that boot camp offenders 

tend to develop more pro-social attitudes and more favorable reactions to the correctional 

environment than do offenders incarcerated in more traditional correctional facilities. 

For instance, MacKenzie's multi-site evaluation of eight state-level adult boot camps 

found that, across all sites, inmates who went through the boot camp programs developed more 

positive attitudes toward their prison experience over time and displayed more pro-social 

attitudes than did comparison samples of inmates incarcerated in conventional settings 

(MacKenzie and Souryal, 1994). Some studies also suggest that boot camp participants witness 

significant increases in a number of desirable short-term outcomes, such as improved self-esteem 

and improved scores on standardized measures of educational achievement (Clark and Aziz, 

1996; Bottcher and Isorena, 1 996; Peters. Thomas, and Zamberlan, 1997). It remains unclear, 

however, whether these effects are attributable to anything unique about these boot camps. For 

instance, these findings may be simply the result of the boot camp participants being directly and 

5 

e 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
intensely supervised by staff. suggesting these effects may extend to a variety of treatmentoriented, non-boot camp programs (McCorkle, 1995). Some of these findings may also be an 

artifact of initial surveys being conducted after boot camp inductions have taken place, which 

may result in decreased pretest scores on the measures of adjustment administered. 

0 

In this report we will report of attempts in some of these sites to measure change in a boot 

camp participant's "pro-social" values. 

C. Offender Recidivism 

1. Adult Boot Camps 

The area of greatest concern, however, has been the effectiveness of boot camps in 

reducing offender recidivism. MacKenzie's multi-site evaluation of eight correctional boot 

camps has been the most important research in this area (e.g., MacKenzie and Souryal, 1994; 

MacKenzie, Brame, McDowall and Souryal, 1995). This multi-faceted study of eight state-level 

adult boot camps found that in most instances boot camps do not appear to reduce offender 

recidivism rates. Of the eight states studied, only in three states did boot camp participants, who 

successfully completed the programs, have lower recidivism rates than comparable inmates who 

served longer prison terms in conventional prisons on at least one measure of recidivism. These 

three state boot camp programs have some common characteristics. First, post-release intensive 

supervision of boot campers is a program component in all three states, while prison releases 

from those states are not generally as intensively supervised upon release from prison (see Karr 

and Jones, 1996). Second, the institutional phase of these programs tend to be longer, contain a 

stronger rehabilitative focus, and generate higher in-program dropout rates than the other boot 

camp programs examined. Other apparently unsuccessful programs also share some of these 

characteristics, so it is unclear how these program characteristics influence failure rates. The 

analyses could not disentangle the effects of particular program features (e.g., intensive 

supervision), although the authors do suggest that it is quite unlikely that the military boot camp 

atmosphere alone had much impact on program participants. 

0 

In general, research results on the effectiveness of adult boot camps show no significant 

difference in recidivism between program participants and others, including those who either 

served longer sentences in prison or are on probation (MacKenzie et al., 1993; MacKenzie and 

Shaw, 1993; Flowers, Carr, and Ruback 199 1 ; Florida Department of Corrections, 1990). Other 

results show that in boot camps where substantial numbers of offenders were dismissed prior to 

program completion, the recidivism rates for those who completed the program were lower than 

the rates for those who were dismissed (MacKenzie et al., 1995). Still other results show some 

continuity across boot camp programs where releases had marginally lower recidivism rates than 

comparison groups on some measures of recidivism. Some common characteristics of promising 

boot camp programs that were identified through research include counseling, drug treatment, 

and follow-up of offenders upon residential program completion (Maryland Report to Congress, 

1997). e 

6 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
2. Juvenile Boot Camps 

During the late 1980s, the use of juvenile boot camps increased dramatically in response 

to rising crime rates and drug-related arrests of youthful offenders. This growth was sustained by 

wide political support and the popular appeal of such programs. Studies of the impact ofjuvenile 

boot camps on offender recidivism are quite limited at this point in time. Preliminary evidence, 

however, from a number of studies that have or are employing experimental designs are not very 

encouraging. These include the California Youth Authority's internal evaluation of its LEAD 

boot camp program (Bottcher and Isorena, 1996) and the Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention's sponsored evaluation of juvenile boot camps in Cleveland, Mobile, and 

Denver (Peters, Thomas, and Zamberlan, 1997). In general, research on the effectiveness of 

juvenile boot camps programs conclude that the boot camp experience does not appear to impact 

re-offending among juveniles released. Among these studies were field experiments utilizing 

random assignment to evaluate the effect of boot camp programming on recidivism. The 

California Youth Authority's internal evaluation of the LEAD boot camp program found no 

offending. Calibar and associates' evaluation of three boot camps in Cleveland, Mobile, and 

Denver, reveaIed that, although there were gains made by the participants while they were 

enrolled in boot camp, there was a great deal of recidivism among the boot campers. In all three 

of the sites, the experimental group (boot campers) had a higher recidivism rate than those in the 

control group (those who were sentenced to traditional confinement centers). 

* statistical difference between experimental and control groups in terms of future repeat 

Each of the boot camps models were developed to provide intervention and needed 

support to juveniles at risk and included military, education, and treatment components. While 

each program has the same basic goals, each site places varying degrees of emphasis on different 

aspects of the program. Cleveland concentrates on their treatment component, Denver places 

greater emphasis on the military aspects, while Mobile highlights education. 

e 

D. Summary 

In summary, adult and juvenile boot camps have not proven to be viable options in terms 

of crime control and delinquency prevention. Moreover, boot camps do not appear to address 

problems concerning the reduction of corrections crowding and confinement costs. There are 

methodological factors that should be considered in interpreting some of these findings. Among 

these factors are the relative few formal evaluations of state sponsored boot camp programs and 

considerable variance in evaluation strategies (United States GAO, 1993). While the evidence 

in support of the efficacy of boot camp programs is sparse, the use of these programs as 

alternatives to incarceration continues. This finding reveals that corrections policy makers must 

reconcile the need to implement alternative sentences with the fact that the general public and 

many elected officials may support more punitive programs in the absence of demonstrable 

positive results. 

Despite the lack of empirical support regarding the efficacy of boot camps in terms of 

reducing rates of offender recidivism and prison costs, and the common concerns articulated 

about the military model as it has been employed in correctional settings (Morash and Rucker, 

7 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
Sechrest, Dickey), it is also fairly clear that the boot camp movement has generated a number of 

benefits for corrections. These benefits, which may be maintained even if boot camp program 0 models witness continued growth and modification, include: 

0 Boot camps have become a politically acceptable form of intermediate sanctions 

for offenders; 

0 Boot camps have become one of the few types of corrections programs where it 

has become politically acceptable to emphasize treatment programming; 

0 Boot camps are safer, more secure, and orderly environments than traditional 

prisons; 

0 Boot camps often result in the more positive adjustments of inmates to 

institutionalization; 

0 Very powerful and effective group processes of individual change have emerged 

in many boot camps; and 

0 Boot camps often result in the revitalization of correctional staff. 

The actual sources of these benefits are uncertain at this point. It does seem, however, 

that having inmates engaged in various tasks continuously and productively throughout the day, 

sharing both positive and negative experiences with other inmates in a highly structured group 

context, coupled with an intensive direct supervision style by staff who are trained to be active 

agents of change, may be the underlying source of most of these benefits. 

0 

Despite the positive gains realized by offenders while assigned to a boot camp, they 

appear to diminish once the offender is released to the community. A major challenge for the 

“next generation” of boot camps will be developing effective aftercare components that will 

sustain the gains realized in the institutional phase of the program. Furthermore, most boot 

camps are relatively small in size and have problems operating at full capacity. Unless a larger 

pool of incarcerated offenders are made eligible for these programs, they cannot function as a 

viable means for controlling prison crowding or reducing the costs of the correctional system. 

Thus, today there is only limited promise, but no consistent evidence that boot camps are 

capable of achieving their primary goals. The research does indicate that particular correctional 

goals are more likely to be achieved if boot camps exhibit certain program components and 

features. Experience with the boot camp movement suggests that pro-active offender 

management, involving the frequent and direct supervision of offenders by staff serving as role 

models and change agents in the pursuit of tasks framed and viewed by the inmates as being 

potentially beneficial and not inherently punitive, may generate very tangible benefits for 

correctional systems. Perhaps with a more potent aftercare component coupled with an 

expansion of the eligibility criteria, boot camps could become an effective intermediate sanction. 

However, the “promise” of boot camps remains unproven and must be the subject of much more 

empirical scrutiny. 

0 

8 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
CHAPTER 2 

RESEARCH METHODS 

I. INTRODUCTION 

This evaluation focused on a wide variety of boot camp programs that, for the most part, 

have been in existence for several years and have made modifications in their program design 

(both institutional and aftercare components) to overcome previous deficiencies in their program 

structures and procedures. In particular, these programs have developed more intensive and 

better administered aftercare components which should greatly enhance the programs’ ability to 

reduce recidivism and other impact measures. Furthermore, the diversity of the six sites to be 

evaluated ensures that important findings will be gathered regarding how best to structure adult 

and juvenile boot camps in the future. The methods used for the evaluation can be separated 

according to process and impact designs which are described below. 

11. PROCESS EVALUATION 

A process evaluation describes how well a program was planned and implemented and 

modified over time. It also serves as a valuable guide for interpreting impact research findings 

that can help answer questions of how the interventions actually operated. In conducting a 

process evaluation, the five following elements of program development and implementation 

need to be addressed: 

Program Context: The set of conditions and assumptions that operationally and 

conceptually define the distinctive features of the program. Included are the theoretical 

assumptions guiding participant selection criteria and intervention strategies (supervision 

and services) as well as the financial, historical, and organizational characteristics of the 

program. 

Program Goals: The measurable outcomes of the program’s interventions that can be 

used to determine its effectiveness. 

Organizational Linkuges: Those formal and informal conditions and relationships with 

other organizations that may hinder or support program operations. 

Selection Process: The combination of procedures and criteria employed to define 

program eligibility and selection. 

Program Interventions: The full range of activities and services provided to program 

participants as well as the staffing pattern required to deliver the program services. 

In general, process evaluations document each of these five program components and 

then evaluate the extent to which each component is implemented and how they relate to each 

other. The data used in an evaluation consists of both qualitative and quantitative data. 

0 

9 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
Qualitative data in the form of interviews with staff, program participants, observations of 

program activities, and a review of program documents and reports. Quantitative data are used to 

describe the numbers and types of offenders admitted to the programs and the level of services 

provided to program participants. While this may seem to be rather straightforward, it often is 

the most difficult form of data to secure due to a lack of organizational structure or poor record 

keeping systems. 

0 

111. IMPACT EVALUATION DESIGN 

The basic question to be answered by an impact evaluation is, “what would have 

happened to the offenders if the program did not exist?” The best test of such a question is a true 

experimental design with random assignment of the eligible offenders into experimental and 

control groups. The basic design of a boot camp program for a true experimental design can be 

graphically portrayed as follows: 

R/M Ol XI O2 

FUM 01 Xi 0, 

where: 

R/M reflects either random assignment or a matching process to establish comparable 

experimental and control groups; 

0, reflects the pre-boot camp observation or measurement of the experimental and 

control populations; 

XI reflects the institutional phase of the boot camp; 

O2 reflects an impact observation taken prior to the offender leaving the boot camp 

(generally 4-6 months after admission); 

Two sites were able to conduct a true random assignment design (1ndiana.Camp Summit 

and the California Youth Authority), while the remaining sites relied upon a quasi-experimental 

design. Many sites were unable to maintain their programs for a sufficient period of time to 

generate the necessary cases to conduct meaningful analysis. 

The lack of cases coupled with the relatively small size of these programs, made the cost 

benefit analysis an academic exercise. It’s clear from these projects that very little if any money 

was being saved via the boot camp programs. Nonetheless, costs analyses were performed using 

various assumptions about either marginal or fdl operating costs depending upon one’s 

assumptions on the actual or potential size of the boot camp program. Recidivism comparisons, 

as measured by re-incarceration rates, were also made at the impact sites. 

10 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
CHAPTER 3 

DESCRIPTIONS OF THE BOOT CAMP PROGRAMS 

This chapter provides the process analysis of each of the boot camp programs. As 

suggested earlier, the data are largely descriptive. These data should give the reader a better 

understanding of each program’s overall structure, historical development, goals, selection 

process, and range of services provided to the participants. For some programs, we have noted 

implementation problems that may have impacted the program’s ability to operate as originally 

designed. These program descriptions reflect the status of each program at the time of the 

evaluation (1 996-1 999) based on on-site visits plus follow-up contacts to update the on-site data. 

I. ABRAXAS LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM (Pennsylvania) 

A. Program Context 

The Cumberland County Probation Department and the Abraxas Foundation, Inc. of 

Pennsylvania was funded by BJA to develop a novel type ofjuvenile boot camp. Abraxas is a 

private treatment foundation that has operated a number of residential treatment facilities. The 

fifteen-week Leadership Development Program (LDP), designed for male youthful offenders 

between the ages of 14 and 18, was based on an experimental learning model which incorporates 

a wilderness stress challenge program (e.g., Outward Bound type program) with educational, life 

skills training, and substance abuse programming. The original grant proposal also indicated 

that an intensive aftercare component would be put in place once the youth graduated the 

institutional program and entered the community, which would be part of the program 

intervention. This would include supervision, case management services, and family 

interventions. This boot camp program was attractive to study not only because of its unique 

programming features, but also because it represented a joint venture between a public criminal 

justice organization and a private, nonprofit treatment provider. 

0 

The program site is located on the grounds of the South Mountain Restoration Center, 

South Mountain, Pennsylvania. Located within Michaux State Park, it is a very isolated and 

rural area near Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. The 72-bed facility is also close to the Appalachian 

Trail, which is used as the site of the wilderness-stress challenge program component. The 

facility, formerly a tuberculosis clinic, is a large complex that is currently being rented to 

Abraxas for $1 a year. 

Like several of the correctional options grants awarded by the BJA, the Abraxas central 

office staff wrote the original grant proposal which established the basic parameters of the 

program. Local program staff were given much autonomy in modifying the program design and 

amending the original approach to make it operational. A strong team approach has been utilized 

in developing, implementing, and refining the program, and there is a clear sense of program 

ownership among the staff leaders. e 

11 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
Program modifications have moved the design from one that was considered too 

ambitious, bulky, detailed, and militaristic. to one that has emphasized educational, clinical, and 

wilderness stress challenge programming. The military components have been de-emphasized 

and are currently conceived as supplementing the core programming elements by providing 

added levels of program structure. 

Abraxas’ strategic plan is to replicate this program over the next three years in West 

Virginia, Ohio, and Washington, DC. The goal is to diversify Abraxas‘ program offerings and to 

create stable revenue streams in the face of impending state reductions in substance abuse 

treatment reimbursements. There have also been some discussions of expanding programming 

efforts at the current facility, perhaps even adding some secure juvenile beds if the state decides 

to privatize. 

The program is designed to develop self-discipline, change irresponsible thinking, and 

create positive self-esteem among a serious delinquent population within a milieu that is 

physically, mentally, and morally challenging. It is hoped that by exposing youth to these 

interventions, recidivism rates would be lowered. It was also expected that the youth who would 

otherwise have been sent to the state’s youth corrections system would be assigned to this 

program thus admissions to secure confinement. 

V. Selection Process 

The target population includes males between the ages of 14 and 18 with no more than 

one or two prior juvenile court adjudications. Program clients must have an IQ of at least 80, not 

be on psychotropic drugs, and not have a long or serious mental health history. Individuals 

convicted of arson and murder, and those who cannot meet the physical challenges of the 

program are not eligible for the program. 

The LDP is a dispositional option for juvenile court judges throughout the state of 

Pennsylvania. Local probation officers most often initiate the process of having a juvenile sent 

to the LDP. Probation officer referrals are made to an Abraxas court liaison, who then reviews 

the court intake packet and conducts a screening. The screening involves an interview and 

completion of the Adolescent Personality Severity Index. This information, and a 

recommendation, is forwarded to LDP staff who make the acceptance decision. Upon a positive 

LDP decision, the sentencing judge makes the final disposition, and in most instances, the youth 

is sent to the LDP. 

Abraxas staff are satisfied with the number and types of referrals they have been 

receiving. It is felt that most of the youth sent to the LDP would have been placed in secure or 

long-term residential placements if the program was not in place. This assumption warrants 

empirical examination. Most of the placements to date have been white juveniles (67%) of 

whom 71% have been adjudicated for a non-violent offense. Approximately 30% of the 

juveniles have a prior local juvenile commitment, and only one percent have ever received a 

prior state juvenile commitment. Slightly over 50% have violated probation immediately prior to 

their admission. The majority of the juveniles have self-reported alcohol and/or marijuana use, 

but only five percent have self-reported cocaine or heroin use. These profile data, in general, are 

12 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
not consistent with that of a chronic, high-risk delinquent population. Staff acknowledge that the 

first class of the LDP represents the "cream of the crop". They are the "best" kids that could be 

found to "help get things going." This is realized in that 23 of the 24 youth in the iirst class of 

the LDP graduated the program. 

Significantly, referrals are not being received nor solicited from the state's two large 

juvenile courts (Philadelphia and Pittsburgh) which further suggests that the LDP is not dealing 

with extremely delinquent youth. Interviews with cadets, however, indicate they would have 

been committed to a long-term, secure residential placement had they not agreed to being 

assigned to the LDP. 

W. Program Interventions 

Groups of 24 youth, referred from throughout the state, enter the program at a time. The 

15-week program -- considered by staff to be the length of time necessary to establish a shortterm, cost-effective program -- is composed of three five-week phases. The first emphasizes 

discipline, the second responsibility and leadership, and the last wilderness survival. Cognitive 

skills development and the establishment of a positive peer culture is the focus of program 

interventions across all phases. To a certain degree, a criminal personality model is endorsed and 

underlies program interventions. Experiential elements are emphasized, and includes a fiveweek Outward Bound type component. A military, regimented environment has been 

established. While the military emphasis is not geared to be an overriding element of the 

program, all staff and youths wear military fatigues throughout the program day (youths are not 

allowed any personal property except for pictures). Daily programming begins at 7:OO A.M. and 

runs till 1O:OO P.M. on weekdays. The schedule is very flexible on weekends because of staff 

shortages, and this reflects a flaw in the program. 

Abraxas has hired a very young and enthusiastic staff to administer the program. Many 

were recent college graduates who want to work with children, have an outdoor orientations, and 

exhibit strong interpersonal skills. The fact that Abraxas is a private corporation with relatively 

unconstrained control over hiring decisions has facilitated the hiring of a very energetic and 

committed staff. While the staff is very committed and enthusiastic, staff experience and 

qualifications are limited. The counseling staff tends to be paraprofessional without formal 

clinical training or certification. Although the facility director has a doctorate in Education, with 

extensive work experience in corrections, his staff does not include any trained mental health 

professionals. This may be partially explained by the nature of the targeted juvenile population 

(youth without major mental health needs) and the relatively low pay scales. 

1. Physical Training 

Each morning starts with outdoors formation that leads to calisthenics, drill, and 

ceremony exercises. Calisthenics and a run are also daily program features that occur after 

school. Much physical activity and exercise take place on the weekends. Recreational sport 

activities, outdoor survival skills, and mastery of a ropes course are also emphasized. 

2. Educational Programming 

a 

13 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
Abraxas provides a full licensed private school staffed by 10 teachers. Classes run daily 

from 9:OO A.M. to 3:30 P.M. and include history, math, English, science, reading, health, and 0 physical education. 

The educational staff share information with the clinical staff, and engage in joint 

programming efforts (e.g., Life Skills Curriculum). Weekly progress reports on each juvenile are 

submitted to the counseling staff and sometimes clinical staff participate in educational staff 

meetings. Thus, educational Programming is viewed and operationalized as being more than 

teaching literacy and a basic educational curriculum -- it represents a holistic approach to 

learning that includes a survival and independent living skills curriculum. This is represented in 

the title of the educational programming structure: The Learning Center. 

The WoodcocWBurns Learning Style Inventory is administered at intake, but post-tests 

are not administered. Based on the intake assessment, an individualized educational program is 

developed. A GED track and a public school track is in place. Towards the cadet's release date, 

the Educational Administrator works with the Continuing Care Supervisor in fashioning the 

educational component of a continuing care plan, and all educational files are forwarded to the 

youth's probation officer. The interviewed cadets uniformly praised the school's program and felt 

that the education they were receiving was much superior to that received in their public schools. 

3. Chemical Dependency Program 

The chemical dependancy program is not a distinct program component, but drugs and 0 alcohol issues are featured in weekly group meetings. Specific substance abuse interventions 

appear limited and psycho-educational in nature. . 

4. Counseling Program 

Group meetings of the entire class/platoon (24 youth) are held daily for one hour and 

range from issue groups that involve group problem identification and problem-solving to "week 

in review" groups that take a game approach to reviewing information and skills presented the 

previous week. There is also a smaller group comprised of six youth -- treatment teams -- that 

meets once a week for approximately one hour. This ongoing group is more therapy oriented 

than the larger daily group meeting. Individual counseling between each juvenile and his 

primary counselor is also offered on an as needed basis, with a minimum of one meeting per . 

week. 

5. Life Skills and Related Programming 

A primary orientation of the program is to develop leadership skills among the youth. 

This is accomplished, at least partially, by designating ranks for the clients, with ranks being 

assigned on the basis ofphase completions. Youth with rank are asked to engage in leader 

filnctions, such as leading activities, yelling cadence during drills, etc. The interviewed youth 

spoke very positively about getting "stripes." Mock job interviews are also a part of life skills 

training. 

14 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
6. Transition Programming 

A Continuing Care Coordinator develops discharge plans for every program participant. 

The discharge plans are developed in conjunction with the youth, his primary counselor, and the 

youth’s family. The wilderness stress challenge component is implemented during the last five 

weeks of the residential program. This interferes somewhat with the development of a strong 

reintegration process. 

Discharge plan recommendations are targeted to both the juvenile and his probation 

officer. Most graduates enter a probation status upon release and the quality of aftercare received 

depends on the probation services offered by the jurisdiction in question. The Continuing Care 

Coordinator feels that some jurisdictions provide good aftercare in terms of having the youth 

receive needed community services, but in most instances probation officers are not skilled 

enough or do not have the time to engage in the desired, or needed, follow-up activities. 

Abraxas has an aftercare program of its own called Supervised Home Services (SHS). 

The five counties that currently buy these services know that the children they send to the LDP 

will be in the SHS component upon their release. Abraxas is actively trying to market the SHS 

to other counties, and extend the continuing care component to as many LDP graduates as 

possible. 

7. Program Disciplinary Mechanisms 

Major disciplinary infractions (fights and serious assaults) have not occurred. Neither has 

an AWOL, despite the fact that the facility does not have a secure perimeter. Staff members are 

very pro-active in managing the cadets and try to solve problems before they erupt. Surprisingly, 

given the military orientation of the program, a demerit system has not been implemented. 

Recycling of cadets who exhibit a lack of progress is one option. A special unit was 

recently created to handle the very incorrigible cadets (roughly five youth in the second class). 

This unit is called the IT squad (Intensive Treatment Squad), and placement in this squad results 

in more intensive supervision and treatment. 

Group sanctions are sometimes applied, but these are not emphasized. Rather, 

confrontations based on negative behaviors and attitudes are common, and are often group-based. 

Passive restraints have been used infrequently (early in the program). This is done to de-escalate 

an acting out situation and is followed up by counseling and the placement of the cadet in his 

room. Interviewed cadets indicate that the control and sanctioning mechanisms in place are 

fairly and effectively applied. 

8. Aftercare Intervention Program 

Post-release services were not well developed. Program administrators are aware of this 

issue but have suggested that aftercare is a county function and that Abraxas will provide 

15 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
aftercare services only to those counties that purchase their aftercare package. Of the 23 youth 

who graduated from the first platoon, only a few entered the Abraxas continuing care program. 

Currently. most of the graduates are from jurisdictions that require six months of post-release 

probation supervision, but there is no formal programming linkage with Abraxas or a continuity 

of care. The lack of continuing care is a concern among local program staff, and they would like 

to see a stronger marketing of the continuing care package to judges and probation officers, as 

well as an expansion in the number of continuing care counselors. 

0 

11. THE TWIN PINES RANCH (California) 

A. Program Context 

This six-month program is “designed to rehabilitate habitual juvenile offenders through a 

comprehensive treatment program, emphasizing a short-term, highly structured institutional 

program which utilizes a military-like milieu, followed by an equally intensive aftercare period 

of probation supervision.” The Twin Pines Ranch is located in a very remote and rural area of 

Riverside County. High in the hills, this non-secure facility is a complex of barrack-styled 

structures, classrooms, vocational buildings, and a gymnasium, all built by former inmates. 

Since implementation of the boot camp component, the site has been renamed the Twin 

Pines Juvenile Correction Academy because it was felt that the term “boot camp” does not 

adequately describe the program. Program staff distinguish this from what they regard as a 

traditional boot camp by likening it to a ROTC-model in which the military training and regimen 

is compartmentalized, rather than forming the total program environment. Program staff regard 

military training and regimen as one phase of the total program. While engaged in this phase, 

cadets are in uniform and during other parts of the day, they need not be. Drill instructors 

conduct the military training, but group counselors supervise other program activities. Militarystyle programming does not interfere with daytime academic classes and vocational training 

because it is run in the evenings in conjunction with various counseling programs. Thus, military 

training is used to promote order and discipline, but is not over-emphasized like in the majority 

of the more traditional boot camps. 

The actual articulation of a “military academy,” or school model, was made only after the 

federal grant was received and a local six-month planning process was undertaken. The planning 

process involved a committee of key program staff and stakeholders, who were hesitant about 

employing a full military model. They recommended an academy approach, and urged special 

precautions be taken to ensure no physical intimidation or verbal abuse of inmates take place. 

The program was fully operational by September 1994, and the entire ranch population 

has been transitioned into the boot camp activities. The implementation process has been 

somewhat difficult. Some of the correctional counselors on staff were adamantly opposed to the 

boot camp component and continue to display resistance. Because of this situation, counselors 

could volunteer to become Drill Instructors (Di), and those with prior military experience tended 

to volunteer. Currently, of the 18 full-time counselors there are four in DI roles. and of the six 

full-time vocational staff, two are DIs. It has taken some time to develop the role of the DI viz-aviz other staff. and role conflicts still persist. The DI role is limited to conducting inspections, 

@ 

20 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
drill and ceremony, running the obstacle course, etc. Once these activities are completed, DIs are 

expected to perform other counseling duties. The DIs tend to feel that they are expected to work 

harder than the other counselors, and feel that the program would benefit if the military 

component was expanded to pervade the entire programming regime. Although a formal staff 

training program was not implemented due to time constraints, it may ameliorate staff conflicts. 

Another implementation problem related to shortening the program length to six months 

from the average of nine to 12 months. In effect, compressing programming activities into a 

shorter time period requires very creative planning. This process has advanced well, but has 

resulted in some turbulence and staff morale problems. Many staff prefer that the program's 

duration be increased to its original length. 

The entire transition process took place while juveniles were being processed through the 

original Ranch program. Thus, "ranch hands" -- the term for the juveniles in the pre-existing 

program -- were being mixed with the newer arrivals -- "cadets" -- for an extended period of time 

while the new program was being implemented. The entire conversion from one program format 

to another was very complicated and program inconsistencies linger. 

Nearly all staff agree that the introduction of the boot camp component to the Twin Pines 

Ranch has resulted in a much stronger program. They note the emergence of a greater sense of 

order and discipline within the camp. This extends to staff behavior as well as to cadet behavior. 

The program day is now much more structured and the cadets seem to respond well to this 

situation. The wards follow directions better than in the recent past and tend to display more 

positive attitudes towards the program. The therapeutic potential of the environment, overall, has 

improved. Most staff indicate that the program reflects a good balance between a "boot camp" 

and a ''treatment environment." Despite these perceived benefits; there can be some 

improvement in the articulation of the military program components and other program 

activities. Group processes of change can be better reinforced across program areas by deemphasizing individual achievement and accenting team building processes. Greater levels of 

staff training, weeding out immature and inexperienced staff, and greater utilization of groupbased change efforts within the platoon structures would be desirable, and would be a significant 

enhancement to the aftercare program. 

The primary goal of this program was broadly stated as "rehabilitation." Staff believed 

that youth who were exhibiting the early signs of a delinquent career could be diverted into the 

boot camp program to correct or counter those social and psychological factors that were 

contributing to the youth's delinquent activities. It was also hoped that reductions in the number 

of youth being committed to either the California Youth Authority (CYA) or the county's own 

secure facilities for adjudicated youth would also be achieved. If this could occur in large 

enough numbers, one could argue that the program was averting costs to both the CYA and the 

county's own detention system. 

B. Selection Process 

The target population are mid-level, adjudicated delinquents, ages 15 to 18, who are 

failing to respond to community-based resources, yet who appear "treatable" in a residential 

21 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
placement. Targets are not deemed appropriate for placement with the California Youth 

Authority. Twin Pines is viewed by the local judiciary as the last available local placement, 

short of state confinement, and is seen as a necessary intermediate sanction. The exclusionary 

criteria for Twin Pines placement are limited, and even those with histories of violence are 

allowed into the program despite statements in program documents to the contrary, Arsonists, 

those with a mental illness, and those that cannot be medically cleared for strenuous activity are 

excluded from the program. Targets include those who have a history of substance abuse, or 

high risk for abusing substances, and who voluntarily consent to participate in the program. The 

Juvenile Courts of Riverside and San Bernardino Counties are the referral sources. 

Like most boot camps, the number of youth being admitted each year is relatively small. 

Between March 1994 and January 1995, a total of 172 cadets entered the program. While 78 

cadets graduated (45%), a total of 55 cadets went AWOL, and 40 cadets were removed from the 

program (55% failure rate). 

X. Program Interventions 

The institutional program consists of four phases: pre-placement (one to two months 

prior to placement), introduction (Month l), basic training (Months 2 to 4), and reentry (Months 

5 to 6). Military oriented programming, including living unit maintenance, occupies 20 to 30 

hours per week. Education takes 30 hours per week, vocational training takes 20.5 hours per 

week, individualized counseling -- including gang awareness and group therapies -- takes 10 

hours per week, community service is six hours per week, and athletics occupies 10 hours per 

week. A comprehensive assessment of each youth is completed in the pre-placement phase and 

guides individualized program interventions. Cadets are involved in some form of structured 

activity for most ofthe 5:30 A.M. to 9:20 P.M. programmed weekday. 

1. Education Programming 

A certified high school program is in place, with focus placed on acquisition of a high 

school diploma or GED. The school day is six hours, with one hour for vocational theory, two 

hours of classroom instructions, two hours of vocational education, and one hour of physical 

education. A competency-based curriculum is in place with the expectation that each cadet will 

achieve 60 credit hours in the six-month program (each credit received is based on successful 

completion of standardized tests). Special education and testing is available on an as needed 

basis. Three full-time credentialed teachers, an aide, and a part-time principal are employed 

through the Riverside Office of Education. Pre and post-tests were administered and indicate 

average students have grade level gains of 1.5 for reading, 1.4 for math, and 2.3 for language. 

During the 1993-94 academic year, 14 high school degrees and five GEDs were awarded. 

2. Vocational Programming 

Vocational training is offered in the following trades: building technology, automotive, 

masonry, culinary arts, plumbing/landscaping, and agriculture. Training is provided by a total of a six skilled craftsmen in their respective vocations. 

22 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
3. Counseling Program 

A clinical staff of 1.5 full-time employees work through a cooperative effort with the 

Riverside County Mental Health Department to provide individual, group, and family 

psychotherapy to select wards in need of these services. This complements a staff of 18 

correctional counselors. Each cadet is assessed during the pre-placement phase for individual 

needs. Teen parenting (one psycho-educational group per week with 12 cadets at a time), alcohol 

and drug abuse (a program the majority of cadets participate in, run by paraprofessional staff), 

gang awareness, and victim awareness groups are provided. 

4. Allied Programming 

A vision program and community service projects, including working with disabled 

children, working on county park projects, and athletic programs, are offered. An eight-hour . 

furlough is awarded to each cadet at the completion of the basic training phase. Alcoholics 

Anonymous (AA) meetings are held weekly, and Narcotics Anonymous (NA) meetings are held 

every two weeks at the ranch. 

5. Reentry 

The re-entry phase involves a collaborative effort between probation officers, school 

officials, and program therapists (one probation officer is physically housed at the ranch) to 

engage in discharge planning and preparation for aftercare probation. This phase begins by 

following each cadet's four-month behavioral and achievement evaluation, and continues until 

the cadet is discharged from the ranch. A reentry group meets one time a week for one hour. 

The reentry group is a mental health, psychotherapy group that utilizes reflective skills, supportconfront techniques, cognitive-behavioral therapy, life redirection and planning techniques, and 

problem solving tools. All cadets also receive individual treatment one time per week and as 

needed. 

' 

6. Aftercare 

After successfully completing the reentry phase, each cadet is closely supervised by a 

team of two probation officers for approximately six months. The probation officers are 

expected to administer random urine drug testing, develop job contacts in the community, 

monitor attendance in community counseling groups, have twice weekly face-to-face contacts, 

and develop family counseling contacts for each graduate. Failure in the community can result in 

placement back at Twin Pines. 

The aftercare component as it currently exists is viewed by program staff as being 

deficient. Discussions have focused on creating aftercare groups for program graduates that 

include ranch staff as well as probation officers, and creating a halfway house program for 

graduates who have transitional living needs. 

23 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
111. WORK ETHIC CAMP (Washington State) 

0 A. Programcontext 

Washington State’s Work Ethic Camp (WEC) is part of a larger correctional options 

program (also including a community track) for inmates sentenced to the Washington 

Department of Corrections. The camp, an alternative to traditional imprisonment that has the 

potential to result in significant cost savings to the Department of Corrections, reflects some of 

the essential characteristics of correctional boot camps. However, the program is a novel 

correctional innovation; it has moved away from a military model, and instead has adopted a 

workplace model. The camp focuses on creating an intensive employment environment for 

offenders that is integrated with vocational and educational programming. The mission of WEC 

is to “provide offenders the opportunity to develop a positive work ethic and crime-free lifestyle 

through a regimented program.” 

The emergence of WEC may represent a strong case study of how external political 

pressure for a punitive boot camp program was transformed by strong leadership in corrections, 

resulting in the development and implementation of an innovative program mode1. The 

following is a short synopsis of this process that illustrates why the development of the WEC 

program presents lessons for a better understanding of correctional innovation associated with 

the boot camp movement. 

The WEC program is the result of a number of factors converging in the early 1990s that 

have implications for the entire boot camp movement. The primary impetus came from the State 

Legislature which wanted the Department of Corrections (DOC) to develop a boot camp program 

along traditional military lines. The Secretary of the DOC was fundamentally opposed to 

establishing a traditional boot camp program, but was under political pressure to do so. At the 

same time that the Secretary was trying to forestall pressure and persuadeleducate legislators that 

boot camps are not desirable, he was heavily involved in crafting legislative bills that would 

allow the DOC flexibility in developing a desirable program. Legislation was passed in July 

1993 authorizing the “work ethic camp.” The original bill demanded that the program contain 

work (more than anything else the legislature wanted inmates to be busy) and education 

components. It did not contain language regarding substance abuse (SA) treatment, but after 

some negotiation, relevant SA provisions were included in the bill that was eventually enacted. 

18 

The legislation mandated that the program be operational by November of 1993, giving 

the DOC only a few months to develop and implement the program. A statewide planning group 

was created after the legislation was passed, to develop a fleshed-out program model. Most of 

the planning responsibility, however, was delegated to the newly hired Superintendent of the 

MacNeil Island Minimum Security Facility. This facility is composed of both the WEC and the 

pre-existing minimum security program (The Annex). Drawing on her own experience as an 

employment counselor, visits to other boot camps, and the literature, the new superintendent was 

responsible for developing the full program model. The resulting model satisfied the punitive 

demands of legislators -- a short-term political goal -- and simultaneously represented a true 

alternative to traditional prisons. This was apparent in the observations of relevant legislative 

24 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
hearings which indicate that members of the Senate Subcommittee on Corrections are very 

favorably disposed to WEC. e 

While certain programming issues are apparent at the WEC, initial observations of the 

WEC indicate that sound offender programming efforts have been actualized. Staff perceptions 

of the program indicate that it goes “beyond the vengeance psychology that dominates.” Public 

reaction to the program has also been positive. As one staff person revealed: 

“it has been well-received politically as well. There has been very 

positive media attention for the most part. The program is safer, more 

secure, and more orderly than most prisons -- it’s a hell of a way to run 

a prison. It has even positively impacted the regular minimum security 

prison.” (DOC staff interview, 1/17/95) 

WEC, thus, represents a good case study of how external political pressure for a punitive boot 

camp program was transformed by strong leadership in corrections. This analysis reveals a 

positive and innovative program model that is now politically quite popular in that state despite 

its small numbers. 

Program goals include providing a cost effective, sound alternative to traditional 

incarceration without compromising public safety. The program also seeks to provide a unique 

environment with programs that enhance the likelihood of long-term diversion from 

incarceration. This is done by providing structured programs, all oriented to work ethic 

development, that intend to provide offenders with the opportunity to develop a sense of self- . @ 

discipline, self-control, and self-esteem. 

There is a strong emphasis on the value of the work ethic concept. The WEC 

Superintendent described WEC as a “co-educational four-month program designed to frame your 

whole life experience, to develop behaviors that enable you to do the right and appropriate 

thing.” She states that WEC’s goal is: 

“to have inmates be able to work successfully by getting them hooked on the 

rewards associated with work. The notion is to socialize people into the world of 

work, to have them buy into the culture of work. This is done behaviorally, by 

teaching the inmates hundreds of little behaviors that turn into positive work 

habits.” 

If all of these goals can be realized, it was then hoped that recidivism rates could be 

reduced. 

B. Selection Process 

The enabling legislation prescribes those persons eligible for WEC. Judges can sentence 

individuals directly to WEC, within the Sentencing Guidelines, if the defendant had an original 

sentence length of 22 to 36 months. Individuals with a current or prior conviction for a sex or 

violent offense are ineligible for the program. The overall eligibility criteria makes it unlikely 

0 

25 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
that the WEC would result in net widening of the prison population. However, the relatively 

small size of the program as well as a substantial failure rate suggests the program can have 

minimal impact on overall population growth, crowding, costs, and recidivism. As of 1998, the 

program capacity was only 127 (including 27 beds for females), with average daily populations 

around 102 to 105. At the time ofthis analysis ,400 participants have entered the program. The 

average termination rate for program participants is 30%. 

@ 

C. Program Interventions 

The WEC shares an entire facility with a regular minimum security prison on MacNeil 

Island. There is much interaction among WEC and non-WEC staff and inmates. For instance, 

non-WEC staff supervise WEC inmates during the evenings and weekends, and WEC inmates 

work on labor crews with non-WEC inmates during months two through four. This dilutes and 

contaminates the ethos of the WEC. The remote physical location also promotes problems of 

accessibility to meaninghl real-world work assignments and constrains dramatically the 

potential involvement of private industries. 

Staff are taught to behave as employers, not guards, and to assist inmates to understand 

the links between behaviors and responses. Thus, the program is based on behavioral approaches 

that feature rewards for the exhibition of socially desirable behaviors, defined by what is 

considered appropriate behavior in the work place. Clearly, WEC has adopted a very different 

theoretical approach from most boot camps in its attempts to change offenders; yet it retains the 

regimented, highly structured, and intensive nature of correctional boot camp interventions. 

All program participants are assessed for educational level, chemical dependencies, 

physical fitness, aptitudes, and skills. Based on initial assessments, individualized program plans 

are developed that are implemented within the constraints of a fairly rigid daily program 

schedule. Most of the non-work programming assignments take place during the late afternoons, 

evenings and weekends. Offenders are kept quite busy each week day with limited personal time 

allowed in the 5:OO A.M. to 1O:OO P.M. program day. 

e 

Individuals are brought into the program as a group (the term platoon is not used) and go 

through four one-month phases together. Inmates get a stripe for passing each phase. Below are 

details on the four phases of the program. 

1. Basic Work Skills and Job Training 

As should be expected by the name and underlying philosophy of the program, work 

activities are the defining feature of the work ethic camp. Throughout the four-month program, 

inmates work from 6:30 A.M. to 230 P.M.. During the first month, offenders are assigned to 

island cleanup crews composed solely of WEC participants. They are supervised by one of three 

correctional officers who teach basic work habits and skills. Ofall the WEC personnel, the 

correctional officers' tasks most closely resemble the functions of DIs. During this period, the 

work assignments change every three days in order to expose participants to a wide range of job 0 learning experiences. 

26 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
During months two through four, WEC inmates are assigned to one of 38 regular island 

work crews. They are mixed with minimum security inmates housed at the Island Annex and 

supervised by correctional staff that are not formally part of the WEC program. These work 

crews support all of the operations of MacNeil Island, including road repair, construction, 

painting, boat operations, etc. Most are menial jobs. This is a clear deficiency in the program, 

and one can easily argue that work activities are designed to support and maintain corrections 

operations on the Island as much or more than to provide WEC inmates with meaningful work 

experiences and training. 

This criticism is blunted somewhat because, to the program's credit, the work ethic 

philosophy pervades all programming efforts at WEC and staffhnmate interactions. Classroom 

instruction activities, group counseling programming, and vocational programming efforts all 

revolve around real world work issues, concerns, and lessons. WEC staffhnmate interactions 

assume the nature of employedemployee roles, and reflect a marked departure from the Drill 

Instructor/inmate interactional patterns found in traditional boot camps. The level of interaction 

between staff and inmate is as extensive in the WEC program as in correctional boot camps, but 

appears much less confrontational. Interactional patterns are much more natural, less blatantly 

power-coercive, and perhaps more likely to result in attitudinal and behavioral changes that 

transcend the boundaries of the program setting. 

2. Educational Programming 

A contract is in place with a local community college for the provision of educational 

programming. A minimum of five teachers work with participants every evening and Saturday. 

These teachers also provide special programs on topics such as victim awareness. The teachers 

utilize the "I-CAN" curriculum, which is based on workplace scenarios. 

The education focuses on helping students obtain a GED (if needed). Only 30% of the 

program participants already have a high school/GED degree upon program entry. By the 

program's end, 60% have obtained their GED and all participants have completed at least three of 

the five GED tests. Workplace math, reading, and writing skills are emphasized for all other 

clients. 

The educational programming at WEC is very broad based, and borders on counseling. 

There are clearly life skill elements to the educational program. For instance, during the first two 

weeks, the focus is on anger and stress management. The second two weeks focus on "unlocking 

your potential" -- self-esteem development. The next eight weeks focus on career and life skills; 

"I-CANS" -- competencies based on work situations (e.g., budgeting, resumes). The last four 

weeks are devoted to transition programming -- identifying individual strengths and the ability to 

articulate those strengths -- developing community resources. The above programs all occur 

Monday through Friday. Weekends are devoted to basic skill classes -- GED and literacy. Those 

who need instruction for English as a Second Language (ESL), are provided relevant classes 

during the evening and all day Friday and Saturday. 

3. Chemical Dependency Program 

27 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
One fU-time certified chemical dependency counselor is on staff to provide individual 

and group therapies. The chemical dependency counselor assesses all inmates when they first 

arrive. A substance abuse screening interview is done, and a variety of tests (MAST, DAST, 

Washington Alcohol Screening Inventory) are administered. PSI’S. criminal histories. and 

driving records are also reviewed. The counselor then delivers treatment to those whose 

“chemical dependency is most closely aligned to criminality.’‘ It is estimated that 85% of the 

inmates are chemically dependent, ”Moral reconation therapy” (MRT) is employed, which is 

similar to 12 step programs in many respects, to about 45 inmates at any one point in time. 

There are three separate process groups (therapy groups) that meet twice a week for two hours at 

a time. The counselor describes his approach as cognitive/behavioral therapy. Inmates in the 

treatment program are also required to attend two AA meetings per month. The educational 

component is an eight-hour program which provides an overview of substances. This component 

is required of the entire inmate population. Some individual counseling is also provided. 

a 

4. Life Skills and Related Programming 

Life skills, angerhtress management, health and fitness, employment readiness (job 

interview skills, developing resumes, etc.) are taught throughout the program. Special two-day 

programs on parenting, family relationships, victim awareness, and interpersonal skills are also 

offered. Three correctional counselors are on staff that facilitate classes on current events and 

anger/stress management, above and beyond their more typical counseling duties. 

5. Transition Programming 

Development of viable release plans for each inmate is considered a key program 

component. Program emphases change during the course of the 120 days to reflect an increasing 

focus on transition needs as the participants near the program’s completion date. Staff from the 

Division of Community Corrections are stationed at the camp two days a week to assist with the 

transition process. They coordinate releases with community corrections, review community 

housing options and plans, coordinate with INS for detainees, provide a workshop of the 

conditions of community supervision, and are to develop community follow-up mechanisms and 

documentation. The final two weeks of the program involve finalizing a release plan, assisting 

the offender with transition issues, and developing referrals for employment. Much of the 

transition programming is coordinated by the Transition Manager. The Transition Manager 

provides inmates with individual assessments and one-on-one counseling for career 

development. This staff person also develops transition packets including community resources 

for employment opportunities and supportive services, resume, tax credit information, federal 

bonding information, social security cards, and state identification. He or she registers inmates 

into the Employment Security Department’s statewide Job Net system and directs job referrals to 

the offender. The Transition Manager also develops employment workshops focusing on topics 

such as employer expectations, interviewing skills, job retention and transition planning. and is 

also expected to follow-up once the offender is released into the community and track the 

offenders in community job placements. 

6. Disciplinary Mechanisms 

28 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
No physical punishments other than extra work duty are imposed at WEC. There is also 

very little yelling and "in your face" style behavior. All disciplines are directly related to the 

misbehavior, and geared toward teaching acceptable work behaviors. Discipline is used as a true 

"learning experience" (i.e., there is a heavy reliance on written and oral projects at WEC). much 

more than at other boot camps, even those that nominally use similar language to describe their 

disciplinary mechanisms. In a related vein, group accountability for individual misbehavior 

does take place but is not preferred or emphasized. Serious behavior problems will generally 

result in termination from the program, although recycling is an option. If no behavior 

improvement is evidenced in the tirst 30 days of the program, an inmate may be forced to restart 

the program. 

0 

7. Aftercare 

Post-release services are not very well developed at this point. By statute, WEC 

graduates are intensively supervised. There is at least weekly contact between the graduate and 

hisher officer, with weekly urinalyses or breathalyser tests, and periodic monitoring by the 

officer of the offender's work and residential status. There is no continuity in care between the 

WEC and community supervision phases of the criminal sanction, however. Graduates are 

released throughout the state, and are distributed across the caseloads of individual community 

custody officers. There are no specialized caseloads, and minimal links exist between 

institutional and community-based programming. For instance, there has been no attempt to 

maintain group processes of change or to maintain the work ethic concept in the community. In 

addition, there's no mandated SA treatment during the aftercare period. 

V. 

A. Program Context 

MARICOPA COUNTY'S AFTERSHOCK PROGRAM (Phoenix) 

0 

Arizona's 120-day Aftershock program (Shock) became a sentencing option in 1988, and 

judges began to sentence cases to Shock in May of 1989. Shock is considered a diversion from 

prison for serious young offenders who are immature and in need of structure and discipline. 

The following eligibility criteria apply: the offender must 

e Be between the ages of 18 and 25 

Never have been incarcerated in an adult prison 

Be granted Intensive Probation Supervision by the courts 

Have no obvious or known communicable disease 

Have no known physical or mental impairments which would prevent 

participation in physical activity 

e 

e 

e 

e 

Shock fully endorses a military model that emphasizes hard work, physical training, and 

drill and ceremony as the primary program components -- it was modeled after Florida's Boot 

Camp. While an academic program (32 hours over the four months) and social skills program 

(said to employ rational motive therapy) is offered; practically no meaningful clinical, 

counseling, life skills, or vocational programming is offered. Shock represents a program 

unlikely by itself to generate meaningful or durable levels of offender change. 

29 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
Intensive probation is required by statute for all Shock graduates. Probation services are 

provided by the county probation department in the offenders county of residence. Soon after 

Shock commenced, it became apparent that failure rates among the Maricopa County Shock 

graduates were very high -- revocation rates were as high as 50%. Over half of the revocations 

took place within 90 days of graduation. This resulted in more system overcrowding and 

suggested that the needs of Shock offenders were not being met by the existing intensive 

probation structure. In particular, offender problems appeared centered around lack of suitable 

housing, employment, and basic living skills. 

As a result, in May 1991, the probation department unsuccessfully sought funding from 

the federal government for a transitional living center. At about the same time, the IPS staff in 

the county created a specialized IPS caseload for Shock graduates. Programming and 

surveillance are enhanced, and there is an effort to maintain some of the structure experienced in 

the boot camp. To foster continued cohesion among Shock graduates, group activities such as 

community service, athletics, and employment search efforts are structured for the Shock 

graduates. 

In January 1992, probation staff collaborated with The New Day Educational Center, a 

local transitional living program, in seeking funds for an After Shock Transitional Center. 

External funding was not achieved, but with rent paid by the Shock graduates and assistance 

from the Center, the program was implemented in April 1992. 

At the time of the BJA grant application, Maricopa County had only one specialized IPS 

Shock Team to supervise boot camp graduates from the county. The supply of graduates 

exceeded staffing abilities so specific restrictions were established on which graduates would 

enter the After Shock program. These included location of residence within the county and 

likelihood that those selected would benefit from the Transitional Living Center. Arsonists, sex 

offenders, and violent offenders are excluded from the Living Center. A probation staff member 

(Shock Coordinator) assesses each graduate from the Shock Program prior to graduation, and 

determines which graduates participate in the After Shock program. Shock graduates assigned to 

other IPS caseloads may be transferred to After Shock, if their situation suggests this would be 

an appropriate assignment. 

In 1993, there were 1 19 Shock graduates from Maricopa who received intensive 

supervision (an 1 1 YO increase over 1992). The original grant proposal estimated that 196 new 

Shock graduates would be placed on intensive supervision during the 18-month grant period. Of 

these, 36% (70 offenders), were to be selected for the After Shock program. 

This overview of After Shock‘s origins indicates that the program emerged slowly and as 

result of perceived inadequacies in existing aftercare services for Shock graduates. Most 

importantly, it must be emphasized that the program‘s emergence was driven by street level 

probation staff who had been working with the Shock offenders. Increased surveillance and 

services were being delivered without a formal program. There were no additional staff, funds or 

resources for them; the extras were being provided only because a few probation officers 

believed in their benefit and were willing to work long hours to deliver those services. As one 

staff member commented: “We were responding to a problem without a formalized process. 

30 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
Only now is it beginning to become formalized." As another stated, ". . . with or without the 

grant, we would have some After Shock programming." 0 

One major premise of the emerging After Shock program was the perceived necessity of 

maintaining group cohesion (started in the boot camp) among Shock graduates. Probation 

officers began running After Shock meetings on Wednesday nights. This would allow the 

graduates to get together and talk about common problems. On many occasions, Drill Instructors 

from the boot camp would donate time and attend the meetings to enhance the support function 

of the meetings. Group activities then expanded to Friday nights and revolved mainly around 

recreational events. Saturdays were devoted to community service projects, at which Shock 

graduates would work alongside probation officers. Then, job searches took on a team approach: 

Groups of Shock participants and probation officers would seek jobs together. These efforts 

proved quite effective, with most persons finding employment. Employers are beginning to view 

Shock graduates as reliable and hard-working individuals. The graduates realized this was 

happening, and their commitment to the group encouraged them not to jeopardize employment 

prospects of their peers. Finally, probation staff realized that suitable and supportive housing 

arrangements were lacking for a good number of Shock participants. Thus, the search for a 

transitional housing facility. 

This staff-driven process, in which service delivery efforts were incrementally added to 

the foundation of intensive probation supervision, reflects the following view of the change 

process among program participants: 

"Boot camp is the start. It strips down the offender, takes down their defenses; and they 

become ready for change. The After Shock program builds them back up . . . puts on the 

finishing touches. It helps give them the individual skills they need to survive.'' (After 

Shock staff member). 

Since 1992, 677 Maricopa residents have been sentenced to Shock. About 75% of the 

screening for Shock in Maricopa result in a sentence to the program. Among those who have 

entered Shock, 5 1 % have graduated from the program (346). The remaining have left for 

disciplinary reasons (34%), medical reasons (13%), or have been removed for other 

administrative reasons (2%). 

The Maricopa County Probation Department was awarded a $1 million BJA grant in 

1993 to develop the Youthful Offender Program (YOP), a program designed to fill gaps in the 

existing continuum of sentencing options for youth ages 16 to 25. YOP's two program 

components include a Day Reporting Center Furlough program designed to divert jail inmates 

from a minimum jail stay of 30 days, and an After Shock Transition program designed to provide 

a smooth transition back into the community for cases successfully exiting the Shock 

Incarceration Boot Camp program. 

The original grant application stated that grant funds would be used to develop three Day 

Reporting Centers for probationers discharged from boot camp and for early releases from the 

Maricopa County Jail. An estimated 350 youthf~il offenders ages 16 to 25 were expected to 

31 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
participate in the jail furlough program and 70 graduates from the Arizona DOC boot camp were 

expected to participate in the After Shock Program. a 

The focus of this site summary is the After Shock Program. Despite this limited scope, 

observations of functioning program indicate that the YOP has been utilized in a manner that 

well exceeds the common boundaries of correctional options efforts. In particular, the program 

illustrates the tremendous potential benefits of community corrections endeavors that foster 

strong partnerships with local citizens. Probation staff appear to be true community-based 

advocates and assistance providers for their clients. 

The YOP has been used to develop linkages between the Probation Department and local 

citizens. For instance, the Day Reporting Centers open their doors and programming efforts to 

the local citizenry. The YOP's literacy program, in particular, seems widely used by nonprobation populations. The buildings and the programs within them, are marketed to the public 

as community resources and can be used by anyone who can benefit from them. Public reaction 

has been very positive as.the Day Reporting Centers have had a positive impact on the 

neighborhood. 

B. Selection Process 

The Arizona Shock Incarceration program is for individuals 18 to 25 years old. Most of 

the Maricopa Shock participants are in the lower end of this age range; very few have been 24 or 

25 years old. About six or seven new cases arrive to After Shock each month. This represents 

about half of the Maricopa County graduates from Shock. All graduates are considered high 

risk, so placement in After Shock is based on need. Staff indicated that those with housing and 

substance abuse needs are sought out, and probationers from Central Phoenix are given priority. 

Some staff, however, stated that most Shock graduates are eligible for After Shock and that they 

self-select into the program, Clearly, admission criteria are unclear, and actual practices may be 

quite varied and unstandardized. 

An After Shock Probation Officer (PO) screens eligible cases prior to sentencing and 

makes a recommendation for Shock before sentencing is imposed. Interviews with indicated 

personnel show that most probation officers believe the Shock offenders would have been sent to 

prison had Shock not been available. 

C. Program Interventions 

Upon entry into the After Shock program, a Case Management Plan is prepared by the 

supervising PO based on risk and need factors. Cases are under the house arrest and supervisory 

requirements of IPS. Length of stay generally spans 90 days or more. Successful stay in the 

program results in transfer to another IPS caseload for supervision. 

After Shock teams include two surveillance officers and one probation officer. Team 

staff are encouraged to interact extensively and to support community service. recreation, and 

32 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
employment searches as a team. There are currently two distinct After Shock caseloads, one for 

offenders who are not in the transitional living component (about 30 offenders) and the other for 

those in residence at the Living Center (maximum of 28). The total caseload is generally 

between 40 and 50, with an attempt to have no more than 25 probationers on either caseload. 

Phase 1 requires four face-to-face contacts per week by each of the two surveillance 

officers (total of eight contacts). A house arrest policy is in effect throughout this time. 

Someone with a drug history will also receive random urinalyses at the officer’s discretion. 

Phase 2 requires two face-to-face contacts per week and Phase 3 requires one face-to-face contact 

per week. Expected contacts are the sole responsibility of surveillance officers. A separate 

probation officer manages community service requirements while a court clerk monitors 

restitution orders. 

The BJA grant money was also used to provide additional resources to the Shock 

graduates and to provide closer, more long-term, and more specialized supervision. Included in 

the grant appropriations were funds for four federally funded surveillance officers (DASO IIs), 

which comprise half of the required probation staff for the Day Reporting Center program. 

Within After Shock, each surveillance officer is paired with a PO to provide “team supervision.” 

DASOs spend most of their time on the streets, providing surveillance and supervision; while the 

POs usually work out of Garfield House. One additional DASO I1 was recruited to develop, 

coordinate, and supervise probationer community restitution projects. Two staff were hired for 

clerical support and two full-time educational instructors were hired to provide instruction at the 

Literacy Center. Funding is also available for 12 urinalyses per client, for intensive outpatient 0 chemical dependency counseling, and vocational and employment services. 

Program interventions include community restitution, community service, 

educationaVvocationa1 activities, general and substance abuse counseling, and random 

urinalyses. The After Shock component provides transitional housing for the neediest cases. 

The After Shock component also emphasizes community service, athletics, and job search skills. 

There is a strong emphasis on the use of existing community services. 

1. Chemical Dependency Program 

A private drug treatment firm was contracted to provide Shock participants with 

treatment programming -- Mountain Valley Counseling Associates, Inc. They have implemented 

a 1 1 -week outpatient program that takes a cognitivelbehavioral and psycho/educational approach 

to drug treatment. Some similar elements to the 12-step model have been incorporated into the 

program though this is not a designated program philosophy. Since May 1994 when the grant 

was implemented, the program is delivered by a full-time, certified substance abuse counselor. 

He works with Shock participants and any other offender at the Day Reporting Center who seeks 

his services. 

All individuals from Shock are screened and assessed with the Addiction Severity Index 

when they enter the program. The counselor reports less than five percent of the clients do not 

exhibit some trace of substance abuse problems. As a group, they need this type of intensive 0 

intervention. He indicates that while few Shock offenders exhibit full-blown alcoholic 

33 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
personalities (I O%), most are poly-substance abusers (SO-SS%), with speed and alcohol as the 

preferred substances of abuse. e 

2. Counseling 

The core of the program for most Shock participants is primary group counseling. Each 

client is required to complete a total of 33 groups (1 1 weeks, three times per week, two hour 

sessions). Primary group members are also expected to attend three outside Alcoholics 

Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous (AA/NA) meetings per week. The counselor seeks 

stability in group membership. Upon completion of the primary group counseling phase, 

offenders enter the aftercare phase. Two-hour sessions offered once a week, are required for 12 

weeks. It is also expected that during the aftercare phase, Shock participants attend AA/NA 

meetings twice weekly. Individual counseling is also a program component. Biweekly sessions 

are held, and the contract specifies up to six sessions per client. Further sessions can be provided 

if need is shown. 

Ir appears that a bona fide chemical dependency program has been implemented. The SA 

counselor reports that the probation staff have been very supportive of the CD program. For 

instance, scheduling conflicts are generally resolved in favor of the program. He feels 

comfortable with the length and intensity of the program and reports that exit interviews with 

clients indicate a very favorable client response to the program. While suggesting that the 

facility does not truly represent a therapeutic environment and some staff are not the best of role 

models (foul language, overly-friendly behavior with the probationers), the counselor’s general 

impression is that the program has positive impacts on the clients. 

3. ‘Transitional Living Program 

This program component is found in one wing of the Garfield House, and has the 

capacity to house up to 28 Shock participants. It is designed to be a “temporary, safe place for 

Shock graduates to reside, find employment, and return to the community, being self-sufficient.” 

While in residence, most of the individuals work during the day and participate in programming 

during the evening (education, chemical dependency). There are separate probation staff (called 

Judicial Administrators) who are the house managers (a total of six staff). The facility is fairly 

Spartan, and most of the work done to refurbish the building has been done by the residents. 

Unfortunately, there are no funds available for capital improvement/development. 

The “Shock House,” as it is called, accepts anyone about to graduate the boot camp. A 

probation officer, who has been in contact with the participants since their referral to Shock, 

informs them about the program. Everyone from Maricopa County is offered the residential 

program, and entry is self-selected. To date, lack of space has not caused anyone to be turned 

away; a waiting list has not been necessary. The goal is to have a resident stay no more than 90 

days, but some have stayed up to six months (due to dependency problems in some cases). 

The residential component is not strictly administered. Although an operations manual 

and house rules have been formalized, there appears to be need for more clarity on expectations. 

34 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
From an. institutional perspective, operations could be clarified considerably (e.g., allowable 

length of stay, termination procedures, basic security measures). a 

35 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
4. Employment Services 

In addition to the Job Developer (federally funded to help Shock participants set up 

savings accounts, engage in financial planning, and broker jobs), all of the probation staff -- 

including surveillance officers -- have given priority to the goal of finding work for their clients. 

They actually go to prospective employers and try to create jobs for the Shock graduates. They 

have been very successful: at the time of the site visit, all of the individuals on one caseload were 

employed the previous week. During a probation ride-a-long, it became quickly apparent that the 

probation staff had been able to get help from a number of large companies (primarily 

construction and manufacturing) that were willing to hire groups of Shock graduates. For 

instance, three graduates who were living together all worked for the same employer, and another 

Shock participant was working for a company that regularly hired from these groups. 

a 

Another illustration of probation's commitment to employment for participants in 

aftercare is that POs will provide transportation to work sites if the individuals have no other 

transportation. 

5. Educational Programming 

A strong educational program is present at all three Day Reporting Centers. Termed 

literacy centers, 15 certified teachers work across the three sites and offer daytime ESL and GED 

classes and a nighttime ESL class (all open to the public). The Centers are all well equipped 

with computers, software programs, and written instructional material. BJA funds have been 

used to hire a Life Skills Educator, who presents a six-week parenting program (soon to be 

offered in Spanish as well). The Educational Program Coordinator has received grants for these 

programs ($50,000 from Department of Education and $1 15,000 from Department of Economic 

Security). 

0 

All Shock program participants have their educational records sent from the Shock 

facility to Garfield House. Based on these records and an initial assessment (e.g., Test of Adult 

Basic Education - TABE scores), an individualized educational plan is developed -- ranging from 

pre-Literacy to GED preparation. An educational curriculum is prepared for three months at a 

time, and both individualized tutoring and classroom instruction is available. Students are in 

educational programming 2.5 hours per day four days a week. On Saturdays, they participate in 

life skills class for two hours (over a six-week period) and a parenting course for two hours 

(provided without federal fiinding). At the time of the site visit, no Shock graduates were in 

ESL, but all were either in life skills or GED. The overall GED passing rate for the YOP 

program is 85%. Unfortunately, there is no standardized post-testing on TABE scores. 

While the educational program is quite strong, the life skills program could be enhanced. 

This is currently limited to a three-hour session on writing a resume. The Educational 

Coordinator would like to see the implementation of a vision and learning disability screening 

process, more cognitive skills development, some vocational programming, and a Family 

Literacy program. a 

6. Community Linkages I. 

36 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
As discussed earlier, After Shock is well integrated into the local community. Judicial 

support for Shock and After Shock appears very strong (based on interview with one local 

judge), although judicial knowledge of actual programming efforts appear limited. The After 

Shock program is well coordinated with the DOC Shock program. No major organizational 

rivalries are apparent -- DOC staff and probation staff work closely together to aid the transition 

from Shock to After Shock. The senior probation officer who screens individuals for After 

Shock and manages all program transitions has gone through the Academy for Shock training, 

and another After Shock PO worked at Shock as a correctional counselor. 

0 

VI. INDIANA JUVENILE CAMP SUMMIT 

A. Program Context 

Indiana’s Department of Corrections, Juvenile Division developed a boot camp program 

for youthful offenders as a response to the growing concern about increasing rates ofjuvenile 

crime. On April 6, 1995, the Indiana Department of Corrections began receiving juvenile male 

offenders into Camp Summit in La Porte, Indiana. Camp Summit is a self-contained juvenile 

facility that houses adjudicated juveniles who have been classified as minimum or medium 

custody. The program is based on the “Normative Model” which clearly establishes expectations 

and norms for those involved in the program. The daily routine is tightly structured and 

incorporates physical activity and academics, as well as classes in life skills, military protocol, 

and military type ceremonies. 

Similar to most boot camps, the program is relatively small with a capacity to house three 

sets of platoons of 14 recruits, for a total of 42 program slots at any given time. It is located in 

the rural area of La Porte in Northern Indiana. It is an isolated area surrounded by farmland. 

Camp Summit is a self-contained facility with adequate space to facilitate all activities on its 

camp grounds. 

0 

The Camp Summit‘s boot camp program listed the following seven goals: (1) divert 

appropriately selected youth from further criminal activity; (2) provide a program of physical 

training and challenge, which will elevate self-esteem and increase perceptions of self worth; (3) 

provide a military model which includes drill, ceremony, and a regimen to provide selfdiscipline, team building, and a sense of community living; (4) provide a program of personal 

development which includes basic skills needed to function effectively in society; (5) provide 

education and guidance directed toward personal growth; (6) develop standards and 

measurements designed to evaluate the effectiveness of the program; and (7) provide follow-up 

support as the youth move through a less structured phase of the program. 

B. Participant Selection 

Participant selection for Camp Summit is determined by the Indiana Department of 

Corrections once the youth has been committed to the agency by the juvenile court. A 

classification officer at the reception center makes the initial recommendation based on a general 

criteria list established by the agency. The preferred initial selection process looks for first-time 

non-violent male offenders. In addition, all participants in the program must have a current 

0 

37 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
residence in three counties which are geographically close to the boot camp program and that can 

provide aftercare services. 

Once initial eligibility has been established, a risk and needs assessment is completed on 

each potential Camp Summit applicant, as well as a Camp Summit Evaluation form. The 

checklist requires a check on each of the following factors: 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

10. 

11. 

Does the offender fall between cells seven and 12 on the risk assessment scale 

(low risk)? 

Is the offender on any medication currently? 

Did the offender score about 70 on the Helmon-Nelson inventory? 

Does the offender have a signed medical clearance form from the doctor in his 

medical packet? (If no, please see that one is completed) 

Can the offender return home upon his release? 

Does the offender have a history of psychiatric treatment or medications? 

Is the offender between the ages of 13 and 16? 

Is the offender able to understand and follow basic staff direction? 

Does the offender have any significant health issues in his past? 

Is the offender a recommitment to the DOC? 

If yes, was he at Camp Summit previously? 

Is the offender recommitted from and living in either Marion, Allen or St. 

Joseph’s county? 

12. 

13. 

Is the offender recommended for Camp Summit either by his clinician or the 

county? 

Does the offender want to go to Camp Summit? 

Some of the items on this instrument are not required to carry a certain answer for placement into 

the Camp Summit program. For example, repeat offender and repeat program participants can be 

admitted to the program. Once all factors are weighed, the classification officer recommends 

placement into the program. 

C. Program Interventions 

Camp Summit receives 14 new youth every 30 days and each group remains in the 

program for 90 days. The 90 days are divided into three phases, which designate the stages of 

growth for the participants: recruit, cadet, and senior. After each 30-day phase is over, each 

participant is tested and evaluated to see if he can progress to the next phase of the program. If 

an individual has not passed the test or evaluation, he is kept at the same phase of the program 

until he is able to meet the qualifications for movement forward to the next phase. The intent of 

the program is to provide a safe, secure, and supportive environment for the youth while assisting 

them in their personal growth and development. It is hoped that this will lead to their reintegration with family, school, and community. 

In accordance with the goals set for the program, the boot camp maintains a highly 

structured daily routine which emphasizes military structure and decorum, physical fitness, 

academic education. life skills, peer group resolutions. and individual challenge. 

0 

38 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
1. Physical Training 

The physical training component of the program was designed to give the youths a sense 

of accomplishment and heighten their self-esteem. The physical training has various components 

including, an obstacle course, running, and strength training. Each person who enters the boot 

camp goes through a fitness assessment testing their level of fitness and skills at the time of 

intake, during each phase of the program, and then again at the time of release to monitor 

progress. 

a 

2. Work Details 

Each person in the Camp Summit program is given a work detail that they are responsible 

for completing each day, which ranges from cleaning the kitchen to doing laundry. 

3. Education 

Camp Summit provides an educational program that includes English, Math, and Social 

Studies. The academic courses are covered during a three-hour time span in the morning. 

Students are encouraged to strengthen their Math, English, and Social Studies skills so they can 

either return to school to complete their high school degree, or attain their GED. Two of the 

downfalls of the educational component of the program are that it is not accredited, and (as there 

are only two separate classrooms) there is a mix of skill levels within each group that makes it 

harder to target the individual learning needs of each child. 

4. Life Skills 

The life skills course addresses substance abuse, health and nutrition, and family living. 

The goal of this aspect of the program is to help reintegrate the youth back into society armed 

with healthy habits and new and improved coping skills. 

5. Aftercare 

Upon completion of the boot camp program, the youths are required to participate in an 

aftercare program in the community. The aftercare program was designed for youth who were in 

need of limited supervision, skill enhancement, and community service, but did not require full, 

24-hour supervision. At the time of the evaluation of Camp Summit, there were eight aftercare 

programs, six of which were privately operated and two operated directly by IDOC. In total 

these eight programs had a capacity to support 175 youths' transition back into society. 

The aftercare program provides educational services (including remedial education and 

tutorial assistance), counseling, a community service site, job training, and recreation. Youth are 

required to check-in and participate in the program activities once a day, either in the morning or 

the evening depending on their outside activities (school or employment schedules). The 

juvenile's parent(s)/care-givers are strongly encouraged to participate in this process, and they 

are considered an essential component of the aftercare program. At the inception of the program, 

the aftercare Component had difiiculty developing contracts with private providers to deliver 

@ 

39 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
aftercare services. Over time, the ability of these agencies to provide services improved 0 significantly. 

VIII. OREGON ADULT SUMMIT PROGRAM 

A. Program Context 

Established in 1994, Oregon‘s SUMMIT Boot Camp Program was designed as an 

alternative to traditional incarceration for adult offenders. SUMMIT is an acronym for “Success 

Using Motivation, Morale, Intensity, and Treatment,“ which describes the overall mission of the 

program. The program operates within a military style framework, which is designed to 

encourage self-control, self-discipline, and teamwork. The key features of the program include, 

education, cognitive retraining, substance abuse treatment, and work squads. 

SUMMIT has program capacity to house 150 males and 16 females, for a total of 166 

program slots. The facility is located in North Bend Oregon at Shutter Creek Correctional 

Institution. 

B. Selection Process 

Program participants are admitted into the program on a voluntary basis under the 

recommendation of Oregon’s Department of Corrections. Oregon’s Department of Corrections 

has a set of criteria that offenders must meet in order to be considered eligible for the program. 

Offenders must be 18 years of age or older, although individuals under the age of 18 are 

considered for the program if they have been convicted of a crime upon remand from juvenile 

court. Potential clients must be assigned to minimum custody status and have no more than 36 

months to serve at the start of the boot camp platoon cycle. Inmates convicted of the most 

serious crimes [including: manslaughter, kidnaping, sex crimes (rape, sexual abuse, sodomy, 

incest, contributing to the sexual delinquency of a minor), arson, and robbery] are not eligible for 

boot camp. 

0 

In order to be accepted into the program, inmates must submit request in writing to 

participate. The request letter must include a signed statement that they are physically and 

mentally able to withstand the rigors of the program and that they have reviewed the program 

description and agree to comply with each of the program requirements. Program slots are 

offered to eligible inmates whose offense history is reflected by the selection priority scale. 

Priority is given to individuals who are United States citizens who have no prior felony 

convictions, whose current offense is drug related or statutory, and whose risk assessment is 

minimum. Inmates with the least time served on their current commitment are first offered the 

opportunity to participate in the SUMMIT Program. 

C. Program Interventions 

The SUMMIT boot camp program operates within two distinct phases. Offenders are 

required to spend six months at the boot camp, followed by transitional leave and an aftercare 

program which is supervised by parole officers. Offenders are admitted into the program in 

@ 

40 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
platoons of 60, and each offender is committed to the institution for a period of26 weeks. There 

are four major program features of the SUMMIT program: education. cognitive retraining, 

substance abuse treatment, and work squads. The program operates on a tight schedule seven 

days a week; inmates are required to start their day at 530 A.M., and they have scheduled 

activities throughout the day until lights are out at 930 P.M. The inmates' days are composed of 

a variety of activities that start with physical training, and include participating in work squads, 

program classes, community meetings, drills, ceremonies, and extensive memory exercises. 

0 

Although SUMMIT operates within a military style framework, the core of the program 

rests on the development of a therapeutic community that is based on the idea that changing 

thinking results in a change of behavior. The cognitive retraining component of the program is 

an essential aspect of the overall programming goals. The cognitive retraining programming 

pools together several different cognitive approaches for maximum efficacy. Inmates are 

encouraged to examine their belief systems and make necessary changes in their thinking to 

foster better decision making. A variety of topics are addressed, including communication, job 

readiness, anger management, team building, time management, and problem solving. The 

program also includes personal health and spiritual awareness programming. The overall goal is 

to make the offenders reevaluate their place in society and change their behavior patterns to 

reflect positive values. 

1. Physical Training 

The inmates are required to participate in physical training once a day, seven days a 

week. The physical training aspect of the program is designed to help stimulate better selfawareness and a sense of achievement. 

2. WorkSquad 

Three days a week, inmates work off-site performing community service and labor for 

nonprofit agencies under the supervision of correctional work crew supervisors. The work done 

in the community in work squads is believed to build cooperative work experience, time 

management skills, teamwork, and pride in accomplishments. 

3. Educational Classes 

The educational component of the program is designed to increase the inmates' cognitive 

and practical skills. Each inmate's intellectual abilities are tested, and follow-up modules are 

designed to enhance learning abilities. Basic education classes are offered approximately 13 

hours a week, and inmates (those who dropped out of high school) are encouraged to work 

toward their GED certificates, computer skills, and written resume's. 

4. Substance Abuse Classes 

Alcohol and drug abuse services entail approximately 12 hours of education classes, 0 discussion groups, and a 12-step meeting. This aspect of the program highlights concepts of 

alcohol and drug addiction, recovery planning, and the social and physical effects of addiction. 

41 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
5. Community Meetings 

In an effort to facilitate a sense of community among the inmates, community meetings 

are held daily. The meetings are facilitated by staff members, and inmates take turns leading the 

discussions. During these meetings, inmates discuss their progress and testify as to what works 

for them. They are also encouraged to report on progress that they see in others. Community 

issues that affect the general inmate population are brought up and discussed in an effort to create 

a more productive environment. 

a 

6. Drills and Ceremonies 

During the course of the day inmates are required to move about the facility in formation, 

either in squads or platoons. In an effort to motivate the proper formation cadences are used, 

which are mostly created by the inmates with approval from the program manager and drill 

sergeant. 

7. Aftercare 

After the initial 120 days of boot camp participation, the inmates are required to complete 

90 days of intensive supervised transitional leave in the community. If for any reason the inmate 

goes against the rules of conduct, he is subject to being returned to the boot camp. Inmates who 

successfully complete both phases of the program receive an average reduction of 3 1 1 days off 

their original sentence. Because the program is rigorous, many of the inmates are not able to 

complete the program. Those that fail to complete the program are transferred to traditional 

correctional facilities to complete the rest of their sentence. 

0 

IX. ILLINOIS ADULT BOOT CAMP 

A. Program Context 

Consistent with other jurisdictions, Illinois developed a correctional boot camp in 

response to a growing prison population. Between June 30, 1983 and June 30, 1990, the Illinois 

Department of Corrections (IDOC) adult prison population doubled (from 13,735 to 27,295 

inmates), requiring numerous bed space construction projects. With the realization that the 

increase was influenced largely by youthful lower-level drug offenders, the IDOC considered the 

correctional boot camp, an option that was then gaining national attention. 

The Illinois governor and General Assembly enacted legislation to operate a correctional 

boot camp on August 20, 1990. Accordingly, the IDOC implemented its first boot camp 

program, termed the Impact Incarceration Program (UP), two months later (October 15, 1990). 

Since then, the program’s statutory eligibility criteria and aftercare supervision policy have been 

altered. However, a strong focus on rehabilitative programming, which served as an original 

defining characteristic of the program, remains in the forefront of IIP operations. 

The IDOC currently operates three IIP sites with a total capacity of 670 beds. The initial 

IIP site gradually has increased capacity from 210 beds (200 males, 10 females) to its current 

e 

42 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
capacity of270 beds (220 males. 50 females). The second and third IIP sites were established 

exclusively fbr male inmates in March 1993 and August 1994. respectively, each having a 200- 0 bed capacity. 

IIP-eligible inmates are screened at a reception and classification (R&C) center, for a 

period of usually up to two weeks. Under ideal circumstances, their contact with traditional 

inmates is limited. However, at times, there has been a backlog of IIP-approved inmates waiting 

for boot camp slots. This has resulted in establishing pre-IIP holding sites within isolated 

housing units at traditional prisons, enhancing potential exposure to traditional inmates. 

The IDOC notes that when a backlog of IIP-approved inmates evolves, the IIP-denial rate 

increases. Because IIP-eligible inmates are primarily nonviolent offenders, their expected time 

to serve is relatively short. The traditional prison and regular supervision option becomes a 

viable alternative to the potential rigors of boot camp and subsequent electronic monitoring as 

the IIP-approved inmate’s release becomes more imminent. Also, IIP-approved inmates discover 

the lengthy wait before entering the program (after expecting to be admitted immediately after 

R&C processing) and become discouraged. These factors increase the likelihood of refusing to 

enter the boot camp or acquisition of disciplinary infractions while awaiting transfer. To combat 

the backlog, the second IIP site was established. The third IIP site was opened to alleviate a 

potential backlog of IIP-approved inmates sentenced under modified statutory eligibility criteria 

which had potential for increasing the IIP-eligible pool. 

All three IIP sites are satellite facilities located several miles from their parent facilities, 

thereby limiting contact with traditional inmates. One site is located in southern Illinois in the 

Shawnee National Forest, another is located in west-central Illinois near the Mississippi River, 

and the other is located on State Fairgrounds property. Daily, each site serves a visible role in 

community projects of the surrounding rural areas. During the flooding of the Mississippi River 

in 1993, the program garnered national attention in The New York Times and on CBS’s 

“48 Hours” for labor services provided to assist flood relief. 

B. Participant selection 

Selection for the IIP is a bifurcated process whereby a judge must recommend an eligible 

offender in the sentencing order, and the IDOC screens the inmate according to statutory 

eligibility criteria for the final placement decision. Ideally, this bifurcated process will limit netwidening, while reserving valuable prison bed space for more serious offenders. Originally the 

statutory eligibility criteria primarily targeted nonviolent first-time offenders. However, as the 

IIP received considerable recognition and preliminary evaluation findings were positive, the 

criteria were modified by statute on August 20, 1993 to increase the number of eligible 

offenders. Briefly, paraphrased from the Illinois Compiled Statutes 730 5/5-8-1.1, an eligible 

offender must: (1) be not less than 17 years of age nor more than 35 years of age’; (2) 

I Prior to the expanded statutory eligibility criteria, the limitation was between 17 and 29 years of age. 

43 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
not have served more than one sentence of imprisonment for a felony in an adult correctional 

facility'; (3) be serving a sentence of eight years or less'; (4) be able to participate in strenuous 

physical activities or labor; (5) not have any mental disordeddisability that would preclude 

participation; (6) not be serving (or have served) a sentence for the conviction of a Class X 

felony (first or second degree murder, armed violence, aggravated kidnaping, criminal sexual 

assault, aggravated criminal sexual abuse or a subsequent conviction for criminal sexual abuse, 

forcible detention, or arson); (7) provide written consent indicating program participation; and 

(8) not have a history of escape or absconding (any outstanding warrants or detainers), or pose a 

safety or security risk to any person (as determined by the IDOC). 

Through June 30, 1998, 13,058 inmates had been admitted to the IIP. Of this number 

about two thirds had successfully completed the boot camp program (8,943 or 69%) while one 

third had failed to complete it (3,509 or 27%). A participant can be removed if he or she 

voluntarily terminates participation, commits a major disciplinary rules infraction, or commits a 

series of minor disciplinary rules infractions indicating noncompliance with program guidelines. 

Of the 3,509 failures, 2,271 (65%) were voluntary and 1,238 (35%) were involuntary 

terminations. 

In accordance with the eligibility requirements described above, court-recommended 

offenders may be denied IIP participation. Through June 30, 1998,6,149 inmates had been 

denied participation for one of the following six reasons: refusal to consent voluntarily, not 

meeting instant offense or offense history criteria, outstanding warrant or detainer, escape risk, 

medical or psychological problem, or voluntarily 'quitting' or committing a disciplinary 

infraction while awaiting transfer to the IIP. 

C. Program Interventions 

During the planning and implementation of the IIP, IDOC staff visited correctional boot 

camp sites located in New York, Michigan, and Georgia. Also, an evaluator for a National 

Institute of Justice (NIJ) sponsored study of correctional boot camps toured the IIP facility 

making suggestions and recommendations regarding program design. These site visits, along 

with a document review of correctional boot camps operating nationwide, assisted with the 

development of the IIP, providing impetus for structuring the program into three core 

components: (1) physical activity and military regimentation; (2) program services; and (3) 

gradual post-release community integration. Combined, these components promoted public 

safety and lawful behavior, the two stated TIP goals. 

The IIP was designed around a basic military training model, stressing a highly structured 

routine. Order and discipline are instilled through military regimentation, physical training, and 

Prior to the expanded statutory eligibility criteria, entrance into IIP was limited to offenders serving their 

first adult felony incarceration. 

Prior to the expanded statutory eligibility, only inmates sentenced to a tenn of imprisonment of five years 

or less were placed into the IIP. 

44 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
labor over a 120-day period of active participation.4 Similar to other "second generation" 

correctional boot camps, the IIP also incorporates extensive residential program service @ elements.' A 90-day electronic monitoring aftercare component follows the in-program phase. 

1. Physical Activities and Military Regimentation 

One of the core features of the IIP is its incorporation of activities involving physical 

fitness and labor. Typically, as in numerous correctional boot camps operating nationwide, the 

IIP emphasizes training in military bearing, drill, and forniations. The physical activities include 

exercise (Le., calisthenics and running) and labor-intensive work details (Le., IIP grounds and 

facility cleanup, community service projects, highway cleanup, and brush cutting). 

2. Substance Abuse 

The IIP is the only state correctional boot camp program that offers multilevel drug 

treatment. Subsequent to assessment, each inmate is classified into treatment programming 

based on individual need. Both education and treatment aspects are included. 

(a) Substance Abuse Education. Each inmate receives two weeks of substance abuse 

education services. During this time, inmates discuss communication and daily 

living skills. Further, they learn to identify and distinguish between the different 

types of drugs and their effects. 

(b) Intensive Therapy Groups. These groups include up to ten weeks of participation 

in both group and individual therapy. A variety of topics are discussed and 

include, for example, the twelve steps of AANA, stress management, decision 

making, co-dependency, communication, and effective parenting. Upon an 

inmate's release from the IIP contracted substance abuse treatment staff provide 

referrals for continued treatment. 

3. Education 

During orientation, each inmate is administered a Test of Adult Basic Education (TABE) 

to assess school placement while at the IIP. An objective of the education element is to increase 

educational level, with an ultimate goal of obtaining a General Equivalency Degree (GED). 

Instruction is provided in five general areas including mathematics, science, English, literature 

-I According to statute, an inmate's period of active participation may be extended up to an additional 60 

' According to Gransky, Castellano, and Cowles (1995), second generation program are those that 

days based on institutional adjustment, health issues, etc. 

transitioned fiorn a basic military program to a more therapeutically oriented regimen. 

45 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
and arts, and social science. Through June 30, 1998, 1.871 inmates had taken the GED 

examination, with 1,634 inmates receiving a passing score (87.3%). 

The education element includes life skills instruction in self-esteem improvement, health 

awareness, employment preparedness, and financial planning. An objective of this instruction is 

to instill a positive value structure and knowledge base prior to the inmate's return to the 

community. 

0 

4. Pre-release Preparation 

Each IIP inmate also participates in pre-release preparation program services. The 

curriculum covers pursuit of educational and employment opportunities, and issues in 

community reintegration. During these sessions, staff assist each inmate in the development of 

an Individual Treatment Plan (IDP). Included within the IDP is an identification of inmate 

needs, a pladmechanism to address those needs, and an outline of short and long-range goals. 

Additionally, the inmate becomes familiar with electronic monitoring rules and equipment for 

the impending aftercare component requirements. 

5. Aftercare 

In the aftercare component, IIP graduates are monitored via electronic detention for a 

minimum of 90 days. IIP graduates gradually move through a series of supervision levels that 

become less restrictive as the individual demonstrates a positive adjustment to the community.6 

Post-release program services includes mandatory education, job service, public service or 

volunteer work, substance abuse counseling or support groups, group therapy, or family group 

therapy. Certain IIP graduates are required to enter literacy programs, while others are 

encouraged to enroll in training programs. Drug andor alcohol counseling is mandatory for 

those identified as needing such services, and all graduates are required to register and work with 

local job services until employed. Further, a minimum of 40 hours of program services, public 

service, or volunteer work is required. After completion of the electronic monitoring element, 

each graduate is placed according to the regular supervision requirements, largely based on 

instant offense. 

@ 

VI. COOK COUNTY IMPACT BOOT CAMP (Chicago) 

A. Program Context 

The Cook County Sherifi7s Boot Camp relies upon partnership between the state's 

Department of Corrections and the local court system. The 12-month program includes an 18- 

week military style boot camp and a 240-day intensive aftercare program. The 1 8-week boot 

' Prior to November I, 1992, IIP graduates were placed in a 90-day restrictive intensive supervision 

element after completing the 90-day electronic monitoring element. This practice was abolished 

primarily due to low new offense recidivism rates during the first year after release from the IIP. 

46 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
camp period is designed to provide non-violent offenders a program based on military discipline 

and fi-indamental vocational skills. The program was designed to benefit the offender with a 

change in lifestyle and increased knowledge in an educational setting. The pre-aftercare program 

provides tools for re-integration into the community and training to develop job skills. The 

aftercare program provides a myriad of support systems, including substance abuse treatment and 

job counseling. 

At maximum operating capacity there are eight platoons comprised of 48 inmates in each 

platoon. The first class of inmates entered the program in March of 1997. Due to the constraints 

of the intensive aftercare services, managers are comfortable with an inmate population of 

approximately 270. 

The new facility (constructed in 1996) used the model of a military barracks complex. 

The program site is in an urban setting adjacent to the Cook County Department of Corrections 

complex. The fully self-contained facility is convenient to the community it serves. 

The sworn boot camp staff members are selected from corrections officers assigned to the 

SherifFs Department of Corrections. Sworn staff members of the Department of Corrections 

follow a union sanctioned bidding process. Corrections Officers submit a bid for the drill 

instructor’s job and are selected through a process of physical fitness requirements and a 

psychological interview process. Once selected, the Corrections Officer is placed on an 

acceptable list. Before placement as a drill instructor in the boot camp, sworn staff members 

must attend an intensive two week training program conducted by the United States Army in Fort 

Leonard Wood Missouri. The training is equivalent to training the U. S. Army provides for its 

military drill instructors. The boot camp program is budgeted for 1 15 sworn positions; it is 

currently staffed by 8 1 personnel. Supervision of the sworn staff is managed by one captain, one 

lieutenant and ten sergeants. 

The civilian staff is headed by a director. The current director has an extensive 

background in education. The education module is managed by teachers with previous public 

education experience. The aftercare program is supervised by a sworn staff position and a 

civilian staff position, and is staffed by drug rehabilitation counselors, substance abuse 

counselors and inmate case managers (currently staffed by 29 personnel). The positions include 

one director, one assistant director, one drug rehabilitation counselor, one doctor (part-time), 

three nurses, one psychologist, one secretary, six teachers, two education background counselors, 

five substance abuse counselors, and seven case managers. Overall, the staff members, both 

sworn and civilian appear to be very competent, enthusiastic, and adequate for managing the 

Cook County Boot Camp program. 

The partnership developed between the state prison system, the state court judges and the 

Cook County Sherifi?s Department is instrumental to the success of the Cook County Boot Camp 

program. Cooperative effort is essential to the life of the program. 

The original intent was for the program to serve as an alternative to state prison. But in 

order for that to occur within the context of a county jail system, it was critical to develop a 

screening process that would admit offenders who otherwise would have been sentenced to 

47 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
prison. These concerns led to a very lengthy implementation process (lasting several years) 

before the program admitted its first platoon. 

A major obstacle was an inability of the prosecutor and public defender to agree on how 

the referral process would function. The public defender was concerned that if the defendant was 

admitted too quickly in the criminal justice process, the defendant would not have sufficient 

information to determine whether the boot camp sanction would be in his or her best interest. 

The Cook County program has a unique blend of sworn and civilian Sherift's Department 

personnel staffing the boot camp. Multiple skills are provided by staff, including strong 

education backgrounds, extensive experience in the military, and previous corporate job careers. 

The complete program, the disciplined military style training, intensive education module, and 

aftercare program have the support of the entire staff. The Cook County Boot Camp has a 

model facility, quality equipment, and well-qualified staff. 

B. Selection Process 

The target population is primarily adult males between the ages of 17 and 35 years, 

however, the facility does have a barracks and accommodations dedicated to female inmates. 

Inmate candidates are not accepted into the program if they are convicted of, or have a history of, 

violent or sexual crimes. The inmate must not have been a member of a previous boot camp 

program, nor could they have served more than a year of imprisonment in an adult correctional 

facility. Inmates convicted of misdemeanors (due to their short length-of-stay) are not admitted 

to the program. The screening process includes a medical evaluation conducted by full-time 

medical staff and informal screening by sworn boot camp staff. The screening process selects 

inmates for the boot camp who are primarily narcotics related offenders. 

0 

The Cook County program is a sentencing option for state court judges used in the 

Chicago city area. All inmate admissions are initiated at the recommendation of the court. Only 

state court judges have the authority to sentence inmates to the boot camp program. The judge 

recommends a candidate for boot camp, the inmate is screened by boot camp staff and referred 

back to the court. Finally, the judge formally remands the inmate to a 12-month boot camp 

sentence in lieu of a state prison sentence. An additional probationary period, following 

successful completion of the boot camp portion of the program, is also used in some cases. 

C. Program Interventions 

Platoons comprised of 48 inmates enter the program to complete the nine phase program 

as a group. The 18-week military/discipline program is supported by an exemplary 240 day 

aftercare program. The education of boot camp inmates is accomplished primarily in the first 18 

weeks; the program consists of pre-GED and GED preparatory courses. The inmates are also 

given fmdamental vocational courses to enhance employment opportunities. The substance 

abuse programs provide both group and individual counseling opportunities. Inmates complete 

e 

48 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
the first 18 weeks in a strict military type environment. Uniforms are worn by all inmates; the 

uniform colors denote their tenure in the 18-week program. 

Daily programs start at 530 A. M. with reveille and conclude with lights out at 930 P.M. 

An average day for inmates, during the first 18 weeks, consists of physical training, work details 

and education classes. The education program begins at 830 A. M. and concludes at 3:30 P. M. 

The education program focuses on two groups of inmates: those who are ready for the GED prep 

course and those whose skills need development to bring them up to the GED prep-course level. 

For those inmates with high school diplomas, the program provides computer related classes and 

some vocational courses. 

I) 

The program is divided into two broad scheduling areas: boot camp and reintegration. 

The boot camp schedule contains phases one through five. The reintegration schedule contains 

phases six through nine. The following summarizes activities identified within each phase: 

1. Orientation and Assessment - Phase I Boot Camp Orientation 

Phase I emphasizes the introduction to boot camp life and program development. During 

this phase, orientation and development of program requirements for treatment and education are 

the objectives. The goals are to establish community standards and rules of conduct/general 

orders and encourage participation in community meetings. 

2. Development of Program Skills - Phase I1 Beginning 

In Phase 11, the inmates are introduced to intensive drug education and community skills. 

e 

During this phase, the objective is development of individual and community responsibility. The 

goals are the individual's use of learning strategies, participation in substance abuse sessions, 

initiation of formal evaluations, and personal goal setting. 

3. Learning Structure and Discipline - Phase 111 

In Phase 111, the inmates work within the camp and the community. During this phase, 

the objectives are to have contact with inmate families and strict emphasis on education. The 

goals are to build commitment to establishing individual and group goals and developing 

family/parent responsibility. 

4. Self - Awareness and Discipline - Phase IV Responsibility 

In Phase IV, inmates begin to look toward the reintegration phase. During this phase, the 

objective is to see the end of the incarceration phase and look toward release. The goals are to 

teach angerktress management, financial management, and violence intervention. * 

5. Completion of Boot Camp Phase - Phase V Commencement 

49 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
Phase V emphasizes planning for the inmate's individual reintegration schedules. During 

this phase, the objective is final preparation for release into the community and establishing the 

mentor program with inmate and mentor. The goals are to develop job readiness, time and 

resource management, family/mentor involvement, and completion of the change into a "whole 

person." 

0 

6. Community Reintegration - Phase VI, VII, VIII, and IX 

In Phase VI, the emphasis is on the inmate's return to the community with close 

supervision (up to 45 days of electronic monitoring), established group contact, and support. 

During this phase, the objective is to provide supervision in the BC Day Reporting Center and 

reinforce and acquire additional living skills. The goals are to ensure the initial return to the 

community under electronic supervision and build on the idea of responsibility to self and others 

through the boot camp group participation. 

In Phase VII, the inmate is supervised within a community setting, receives job readiness 

training, and continues participation in support groups. During this phase, the objectives are for 

the inmate to report to Day Reporting Center, accentuate job skills, and practice newly acquired 

independent life skills to achieve short-term goals. Patterns are established for living and 

achieving short term goals. 

In Phase VIII, the emphasis is continued supervision and preparation for transition into 

the community. During this phase, the objective is continued contact with the inmate regarding 

life in the community and job readiness skills. The goals are to help the inmate set long-term 

goals and focus on living in recovery. 

In Phase IX, the post release life/program development is introduced and continued 

development of skills for the job market. During this phase, orientation is given to ongoing 

education and treatment program requirements. The goals are for the inmate to stay clean, 

establish random urinalysis standards, and learn rules of conduct while in reintegration contact 

(during meetings) with boot camp alumni. 

7. Aftercare 

The purpose of the Cook County Boot Camp Aftercare program is to assist the inmate 

with reintegration into the community. The primary goal is to return the inmate to the 

community with close supervision and establish a support system based on staff and inmate 

group contact. The inmate may be subjected to as many as 45 days of electronic monitoring. 

During the Aftercare phase of boot camp, inmates report to the Day Reporting Center to accent 

building job skills and to practice newly acquired independent life skills for short-term goals. 

The aftercare program begins at the time the platoon of48 inmates is formed and a case 

manager is assigned to the platoon. The case manager's job at this juncture is to identify 

individual aftercare needs for each inmate. After the platoon of inmates have been in the 

program four weeks. the case managers monitor the pre GED and the GED preparatory classes. 

During this period of time, there is an intensive exchange of information relative to the 

0 

50 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
individual inmate among drill instructor staff, education staff, and aftercare case managers. The 

inmates enter phases of training that prepare them for reintegration into the community. 

At the 16th week, prior to the 18-week boot camp graduation ceremony, inmates are 

9 

involved in an intensive program to prepare them for aftercare. The inmates receive social 

security cards, state identification cards, and driver licenses; and they are taught to develop job 

resumes. During this phase, several private corporations work in partnership with local 

government to provide employment training. 

Once the inmate has graduated (1 8th week), the individual enters the aftercare program. 

During the initial 45 days of aftercare, the inmate is subject to electronic monitoring by boot 

camp staff members. The boot camp staff manages its own electronic monitoring program. 

Some inmates have jobs immediately upon entering the aftercare program and those who do not 

receive continuous job counseling. Most inmates are subject to daily reporting to case managers 

until they complete the 240-day aftercare program. Daily reporting consists of numerous 

counseling sessions which include substance abuse counseling and random drug testing. The 

inmates who are not successful in passing the high school equivalency test are required to attend 

classes four days a week until they are successful on the GED examination. During any phase of 

the boot camp, inmates who become discipline problems or re-ject the program are subject to resentencing to state prison by the state court judge. 

51 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
CHAPTER 4 

MEASURING THE IMPACT ON BOOT CAMP PARTICIPANTS' COPING SKILLS' 

I. INTRODUCTION 

This chapter represents an assessment of the psychometric properties of a number of 

scales which purport to measure some of the key dimensions relating to individual coping and 

problem solving skills in four of the boot camps listed in Chapter 3. As noted earlier, many of 

the boot camps attempt to alter so-called "criminal thinking" or "clarify values." Others attempt 

to promote "moral reasoning," "life skills," "anger management skills," "conflict resolution 

skills," and the like. I' Social competency," "cognitive-behavioral," and "interpersonal skills 'I are 

some of the umbrella terms that have been used to categorize and describe these interventions. 

Despite the widespread prevalence of social interventions based on such a perspective, 

and the support their theoretical underpinnings generate both politically and empirically, not 

much progress has been made in the development of measurement strategies designed to assess 

the effectiveness of such interventions. Traditional studies have tended to focus on the 

measurement of behaviors sought to be reduced @e., delinquency, crime, violence), with 

identified decreases in these behaviors commonly used as evidence of program effectiveness. 

Such studies tell us less about why programs are effective or ineffective. 

What has been lacking are systematic measurement strategies that can be used to 

measure, validly and cost-effectively, changes in the coping and social problem solving strategies 

of program targets -- the commonly targeted intermediate outcomes of such interventions. Short 

of very labor intensive and costly clinically-based assessments involving lengthy face-to-face 

structured interviews between clients and well-trained staff, researchers and program evaluators 

have been at a loss in identifying whether the desired intermediate outcomes -- increased selfrestraint and improved coping/problem solving skills -- of such interventions have been 

achieved. Without such knowledge, we will continue to know little about levels of desired 

change that occur within the proverbial "black box" of program interventions. 

0 

This chapter summarizes the results of assessing the impact of such interventions for four 

boot camps on a variety of intermediate outcomes many consider essential to effective offender 

rehabilitation (Abraxas Leadership Development Program, Twin Pines Ranch, Washington 

State's Work Ethic Camp and Arizona's Shock Incarceration Unit. As reported in Chapter 3 two 

of these sites targeted juveniles and three of the four exposed its participants to interventions 

designed to enhance their "mature coping" skills. The Arizona program represented a more 

traditional and militaristic program with few treatment services. 

I'his chapter was primarily authored b) Irina Sodeatrom. Pd.D and 7 hoinas Castellano. 1'h.D. and is drann from a 

paper presented at the I999 Annual Meeting ofthe Academy ofcriminal Justice Sciences. Orlando, FL. March 9- 

13. entitled -'Measuring 'Mature Coping' Skills among Adult and Iuvenile Offenders: A Psychometric Assessment 

of Relevant Instruments." 

7. 

52 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
A "mature coping" perspective, which states that the key to establishing a truly effective 

rehabilitative program is establishing correctional environments that generate positive 

psychological impacts on the inmates' abilities to deal with lifk stresses and problems in a 

constructive and acceptable manner (e.g. Johnson, 1996). guided the above research effort. The 

mature coping perspective is quite compatible with the many social interventions described 

above, and the battery of instruments utilized in this study may be usefully applied in a wide 

variety of program contexts which target both juvenile and adult populations. 

@ 

11. THE "MATURE COPING" FRAMEWORK 

Borrowing most directly from the writings of Robert Johnson (1 996), "mature coping" is 

a construct he utilizes to argue for the establishment of meaningful offender rehabilitation and 

prison reform efforts. The ideas contained within this construct are consistent with many of the 

intervention principles associated with effective correctional treatment programs (e.g., Andrews 

and Bonta, 1994; Gendreau, 1996) and those associated with the broad range of social 

interventions that attempt to improve the decision making skills of program targets. 

According to Johnson, mature coping: 

. . . means, in essence, dealing with life's problems like a responsive and responsibIe 

human being, one who seeks autonomy without violating the rights of others, security 

without resort to deception or violence, and relatedness to others as the finest and hllest 

expression of human identity (p. 98). 

Although Johnson agrees that most inmates have not been equipped or trained to behave in these 

ways, he believes that all people have inclinations toward autonomy, security, and relatedness to 

others. The incarceration experience should build on these inclinations, rather than thwart them. 

For Johnson, an essential element of mature coping is dealing with problems by meeting 

them head on and using all legitimate resources at one's disposal. This involves assertiveness, a 

sense of personal efficacy, an internal locus of control: Persons who exhibit this aspect of 

mature coping are ''more autonomous than their passive counterparts" (1 996: 99). They display 

choice and control over their lives. Yet they do so without being hedonistic, impulsive, or 

predatory. Generally, mature coping in this respect is uncharacteristic of the offender population, 

which is full of ineffectual people who display faulty coping mechanisms -- such as aggression, 

hostility, and denial -- that tend to aggravate their problems (Sykes and Messinger 1960; Toch 

1977; Zamble and Porporino 1990). 

Johnson asserts that the second characteristic of mature coping "is addressing problems 

without resort to deception or violence, except when necessary for self-defense" (Johnson, 1996: 

104). Unfortunately, many observers of prison life have noted that deception and manipulation 

are central features of prison culture (Clemmer, 1940, Empey, 1982). Lying, cheating, and 

aggressiveness are staples of survival in most prison settings. 

The third characteristic of mature coping. according to Johnson, ''is making an effort to 

empathize with and assist others in need, to act as though we are indeed members of a human 

community who can work together to create a more secure and gratifying existence" (p. 107). 

53 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
Clearly, most accounts of prison life are replete with observations that such settings do not 

promote the development of secure and gratifying communities. Nonetheless, these core 

elements of mature coping demand that measures of coping strategies and problem solving skills 

be utilized as central intermediate outcomes in evaluative designs that attempt to assess the 

effectiveness of interventions that attempt to promote mature coping. 

0 

Johnson also contends that "self-esteem mediates coping behavior in any environment 

and must be enhanced if mature coping is to occur" (1 996: 123). The difficult process of 

building self-esteem lies at least partially in the existence of mature problem-solving efforts. 

These efforts are likely to succeed, which in turn builds self-esteem and encourages more mature 

behavior. Success breeds success, while failure (immature problem solving) breeds failure (less 

self-esteem and more immature behavior). Thus, measures of self-esteem should be utilized to 

assess improvements in the mature coping of individuals. 

111. METHODS AND PROCEDURES 

A series of self-administered questionnaire packets -- each varied slightly to reflect 

unique issues at each site and testing period -- and each containing various measures consistent 

with the mature coping construct was developed. Before being administered to the present study 

subjects, the instruments were pre-tested at each site. The pre-tests indicated that the vast 

majority of subjects had no difficulty completing the instruments and those that did were willing 

to accept help. This experience guided the testing procedures that were utilized at each site. 

The instruments were administered within a small group format either by research staff or 

program staff who had been trained on the instruments. At one site, a researcher administered 

all the testing efforts throughout the study period. At the other sites, research staff administered 

the instruments to the first few groups of program entrants and trained local program staff to 

continue data collection efforts thereafter. Educators or clinical staff were primarily used as test 

administrators at these sites in an attempt to reduce potential response biases that might derive if 

custodial staff/drill instructors were perceived as involved in the study. Subjects with reading 

difiiculties were provided one-on-one help if necessary. At the sites with large Hispanic 

populations, a Spanish-speaking staff person often aided in the survey administration process. 

The total package of instruments took between one-half hour to one hour to complete at each 

administration. 

a 

The following data were derived from the administration of testing instruments either 

immediately before the boot camp program participant's entry into the program or immediately 

prior to the participant's exit from the program. All program entrants and successful program 

completers were eligible for participation in the data collection effort. Individuals terminated 

from the program prior to graduation were to be tested prior to their exit, but program realities at 

most sites precluded this from occurring (e.g., runaways, persons terminated from the program 

and immediately transferred could not be reached for testing). 

Subjects participated on a volunteer basis and were allowed to drop out of the study at 

any time. Over 90% of the subjects who were asked initially to participate in the study 

volunteered to do so. All subjects were assured of their anonymity and the confidentiality of the 

54 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
information they provided. Once the subject completed the instrument, he or she was allowed to 

place the forms in an envelope and to seal the envelope. The forms were then delivered to the 

researchers without program staff ever being privy to the responses. Subjects were made aware 

that this process was designed to ensure the confidentiality of their responses. These data 

collection efforts took place between May 1995 and June 1996. 

All tested subjects were included in the following statistical assessment of the 

psychometric properties of the measures. If a subject was tested at two points in time (both the 

pre-test and post-test), only the subject‘s pre-test scores were included in the analysis presented 

here. 

A total of 545 adults from the two adult boot camps completed the testing instruments at 

least at one point in time. The comparable number of juveniles included in this study is 370. 

The average age of the juvenile subjects was 17, while the average age of the adult subjects was 

24. Slightly over 30% of the adults were White, 36% were Hispanic, and 28% were AfricanAmerican. Forty-five percent of the juveniles were White, 32% were Hispanic, and 18% were 

African-American. The remaining adult and juvenile subjects identified themselves of being 

from a differing ethnic or racial category (e.g., Native American or Asian). Consistent with 

prison populations in general, both sets of subjects had achieved low levels of formal education 

and exhibited weak employment patterns. The modal highest educational level achieved among 

the juveniles was ninth grade, and among the adults less than 20% had completed high school. 

Almost half of the adults reported being unemployed during the six months prior to their 

incarceration, as did about 60% of the juveniles. 0 

Each of the boot camp programs had eligibility requirements that restricted the entry of 

offenders who had histories of prior incarceration and violent offenses. Accordingly, most of the 

subjects in this study had been convicted of drug and/or property offenses and did not have long 

histories of involvement in the penal system. 

111. MEASURES OF “MATURE COPING” 

A variety of measures that tap directly into the conceptual domain of mature coping were 

utilized. In addition, a few other measures relevant to the present inquiry which have been 

usefully applied in other boot camp studies were also administered. 

A. The Coping Strategy Indicator (CSI) 

The Coping Strategy Indicator (CSI) is a 33-itemY self-administered measure that asks 

subjects to respond to items in relation to a stressful event that has occurred within the past six 

months (Amirkhan 1990). The CSI is composed of three sub-scales: Problem-Solving, Seeking 

Social Support, and Avoidance. The Problem-Solving scale has 11 items and is seen as an 

instrumental strategy involving manipulation of one’s surroundings. The Seeking Social Support 

scale has 11 items and measures the degree to which people actively recruit human contact for 

aid. The Avoidance scale has 11 items and is seen as a strategy entailing some form of 

withdrawal. A variety of studies have examined the psychometric properties of the CSI. They 

have found it to exhibit strong test-retest reliability (Amirkhan 1990) and favorable levels of 

55 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
convergent, discriminate, and criterion validity (Amirkhan, Risinger, and Swickert 1995; Clark, 

Bormann, Cropanzano, and James 1995). a 

B. Social Problem-Solving Inventory (SPSI) 

The two forms of the Social Problem-Solving Inventory, one designed for adults (SPSIR, D'Zurilla and Nezu 1990) and the other for adolescents (SPSI-A, Frauenknecht and Black 

1995) used in this study are based on theoretical problem-solving models which tap into how 

individuals define, assess, and then respond to perceived problems. While the adult and 

adolescent versions of the SPSI differ in terms of item composition and sub-scale structures, each 

instrument measures key aspects of mature coping. Included is dealing with problems by 

meeting them head on and using all legitimate resources at one's disposal, assessing problems 

and possible response strategies, utilizing rational problem skills, assessing consequences of 

one's decisions, and seeking social support in the resolution of problems. These would be 

considered constructive problem-solving behaviors; while responding impulsively, in an 

avoiding manner, or carelessly, would be associated with dysfunctional problem-solving. 

The SPSI-R has been the subject of more research than the SPSI-A, but both appear to 

exhibit sound psychometric properties. A series of studies by D'Zurilla and his colleagues on the 

adult version of the SPSI have found, based on a series of factor analyses, that the internal 

structure of the SPSI-R overlaps well with the theoretical model on which it is based (D'Zurilla, 

Nezu and Maydeu-Olivares 1995). Coefficient alphas for the SPSI-R scales exceed .70 and testretest reliability coefficients have been reported to range from .71 to .88 (D'Zurilla, Nezu and 

Maydeu-Olivares 1995). Positive evidence for the validity of the SPSI-R is reported in D'Zurilla 

et al.( 1995), Sadowski, Moore and Kelly (1 994), and D'Zurilla and Chang (1995). 

. 

Frauenknecht and Black (1995) have reported, based on studies with three samples of 

adolescents, internal consistency reliability coefficients for the adolescent version of the 

composite SPSI above .93, with sub-scale reliability coefficients exceeding .70. The SPSI-A is a 

relatively stable instrument based on a 2-week test-retest correlation coefficient of .83 for the 

total scale score, and acceptable test-retest correlation coefficients for the seven sub-scales. 

Furthermore, the construct validity of the SPSI-A appears strong. Frauenknecht and Black 

(1 995) report a correlation of .82 between the SPSI-A and the Problem-Solving Inventory 

(Heppner & Peterson 1982), which demonstrates a high degree of commonality between these 

two measures of problem-solving. 

C. Anti-Social Attitudes Scale 

The Anti-Social Attitudes Scale, a 30-item scale found within the Jesness Inventory 

(Jesness 1983), measures antisocial attitudes and refers to a generalized disposition to resolve 

social or personal problems in ways that show disregard for social customs or rules. It taps into 

attitudes toward social deviance and the acceptability of cheating, lying, and stealing. It has been 

reported to be associated with recidivism and short-term change in behavior (MacKenzie and 

Souryal 1994). Further, it has been utilized in a number of boot camp studies (MacKenzie and 

Shaw 1990, MacKenzie and Souryal 1994, McCorkle 1995). Positive results for both the 

reliability and validity of this scale are reported in Jesness (1 98;), and Jesness and Wedge 

56 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
(1 985). MacKenzie and Souryal have reported that this scale exhibits high levels of internal 

consistency reliability when applied to inmate and boot camp populations (MacKenzie and 0 Souryal 1992: 33). 

D. Program Attitudes Scale 

The Program Attitudes Scale consists of 12 items that measure general attitudes of 

program participants toward the program and staff. Applied in MacKenzie's multi-site evaluation 

of boot camps (MacKenzie and Souryal 1992; 1994), it was designed to assess expectations 

about the program's positive impact on the offender and the offender's motivation to change. 

MacKenzie and Souryal report it to be a two-factor scale (i.e., beneficial expectations and 

personal change scales), with each sub-scale exhibiting high levels of internal consistency 

reliability (MacKenzie and Souryal 1992: 33, Table 37). 

E. Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory (SEI): 

The Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory (SEI; Coopersmith 1981) is designed to measure 

self-evaluative attitudes regarding social, academic, family, and personal areas of experience 

(Adair 1984). Both the School Form (appropriate for juveniles aged eight through 15) and the 

Adult form were utilized in this study. The School Form consists of 50 self-esteem items and an 

eight-item lie scale, while the Adult Form consists of 25 items. The SEI is composed of a 

dichotomous response set where the choices are either "like me" or "unlike me." The SEI has 

found many uses in classroom screening, instructional planning, program evaluation, and clinical 

studies, and both forms of the SEI have been reported to be valid and reliable for a variety of 

ethnic groups and special populations (Kimball 1972; Donaldson 1974; Kokenes 1978; Cowan 

Altmann, and Pysh 1978; Coopersmith 1981; Ahmed, Valliant, and Swindle 1985; Reiter and 

Constanzo 1986). A recent application of the Adult Form to adult prisoners found it to exhibit 

only a moderately high level of internal consistency reliability (Cronbach alpha of .60) but to 

exhibit positive indications of construct validity (Castellano and Soderstrom 1997). 

a 

F. Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Inventory (CES-D): 

The Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Inventory (CES-D; Radloff 1977) is 

a 20-item, self-administered paper and pencil instrument designed to measure state levels of 

depression with a normal adult population, aged 18 and older. The instrument was developed 

through factor analytic techniques and face validity judgments involving the selection of items 

from previously validated depression scales (e.g., Beck, Ward, Mendelson, Mock, and Erbaugh 

1961 ; Gardner 1968). Radloff (1 977), Barnes and Prosen (1 984), and Orme, Reiss, and Herz 

(1 986) have reported findings indicative of the CES-D's internal consistency reliability and 

construct validity. Castellano and Soderstrom (1 997) have also reported that when applied to an 

inmate population, the CES-D and the State-Trait Anxiety Index (Spielberger 198 1) appear to be 

measuring the same construct domain. Thus, the CES-D appears not only to measure "state" 

levels of depression, it may also be viewed as a broad measure of demoralization. This scale was 

administered because it is assumed that depressed and demoralized individuals are less likely to 

engage in mature coping behaviors than others and because these boot camp interventions 

actively attempt to raise the morale of their participants. 

a 

57 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
G. Psychometric Properties of "Mature Coping" Measures 

In order to assess the psychometric properties (Le., reliability and validity) of scales 

intended to tap into the mature coping construct, efforts were made to explore the factorial 

validity, construct validity, and internal consistency reliability of these questionnaires after being 

administered to all adult and juvenile subjects. When generating the factor analysis results a 

number of extraction and rotation options were used in order to test the robustness ofa solution 

across factor analysis constraints. The ultimate decisions regarding the number of factors to 

interpret were assisted always with the use of Cattell's scree plot, a factor loading requirement of 

1.401 or higher, and the use of the Kaiser Normalization Rule. Also, when it was concluded that 

construct validity coefficients were in the expected directions, the conclusion was based on the 

fact that a scale reflecting a positive attribute would be positively associated with other positive 

attribute scales, and would be negatively associated with other negative attribute scales (and vice 

versa when negative attribute scales were at focus). Also, all adult and juvenile subjects for 

whom pre-test measures on these scales existed, were used for their respective analyses. 

a 

Because the primary purpose of assessing the psychometric properties of these 

instruments was to see if a battery of measures intended to tap into the "mature coping" construct 

could be employed validly and reliably on special populations of adult and juvenile offenders, 

the psychometric results for each of these scales are discussed only briefly. In fact, the vast 

quantity of quantitative findings resulting from the multitude of analyses performed on these data 

precluded the reporting in tabular form of statistics specific to each factor analysis (e.g., factor 

loadings, commonalities, and correlational information). 

IV. PSYCHOMETRIC RESULTS FOR ADULTS 

Five separate factor analyses (N=522) were conducted to investigate the factorial validity 

of the Program Attitude Scale (PAS). Three analyses were principal components analyses, and 

two were principal-axis factor analyses. Again, the point of conducting multiple factor analyses 

was to investigate whether or not a stable factor structure appeared across the various extraction 

and rotation conditions. Due to the similarity in obtained results across the various model 

constraints, the principal components analysis was determined to adequately represent the 

underlying factor structure of the PAS, and thus was used to summarily report the obtained factor 

solution. 

As can be seen in Table 2, the principal components results suggested that while a twofactor solution could be confirmed, a one-factor solution was considered to best fit the data. This 

single factor accounted for 38% ofthe total variance in adult responses on the PAS. The scale's 

internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's alpha=.83) was found to be acceptable as well. 

Further, the obtained construct validity coefficients (see Table 3) were in the expected directions, 

although they were in the low to moderate range regarding the magnitude of the observed 

relationships. 

Four separate factor analyses (N=503) were conducted to investigate the factorial validity 

of the Coping Strategies Inventory (CSI). Three analyses were principal components, and one 

was a principal-axis factor analysis. Once again, a similar underlying factor structure was 

58 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
indicated by the four analyses and thus, only the principal components solution is summarized in 

tabular form. The principal components results suggested that the three-factor solution 

(accounting for 40% of the total variance in adult responses on the CSI) was the most robust 

factor structure interpretation, thereby confirming the three subscales of the CSI (see Table 2). 

The first dimension was comprised of problem-solving items and resulted in a Cronbach's alpha 

of 37. The second dimension was comprised of seeking social support items and indicated a 

Cronbach's alpha of .88. Avoidance items comprised the third dimension of the scale and 

resulted in a Cronbach's alpha of .75. Thus, it was concluded that all three of the sub-scales 

displayed acceptable levels of internal consistency reliability. Further, the observed moderately 

strong construct validity coefficients (see Table 3) were in the expected directions. 

0 

Three separate factor analyses were conducted (N=503) to investigate the factorial 

validity of the Social Problem Solving Inventory (SPSI-R). All three analyses were principal 

components with varimax rotation, but each analysis was constrained to extract a specified 

number of factors. All three factor solutions suggested that a two-factor solution was the most 

robust across the analyses (thereby confirming the two primary scales of the inventory). Also, it 

was concluded that the five subscales of the instrument could not be confirmed. One of the 

principal components solutions is reported in Table 2. The obtained two-factor solution 

accounted for 40% of the total variance in adult responses on the SPSI-R. The first factor 

confirmed the dysfunctional problem solving scale, and the second factor confirmed the 

constructive problem solving scale. Both of the inventory's scales demonstrated very high 

internal consistency reliability since each resulted in Cronbachs alpha values of .94. Also, the 

observed construct validity coefficients for both scales (see Table 3) were quite high and in the 0 expected directions. 

Due to their wide use and well-established psychometric properties, the factorial validity was not 

assessed for the Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory, The CESD Depression scale, nor the AntiSocial Attitudes scale. All three of these unidimensional inventories did display acceptable 

levels of internal consistency reliability (see Table 2), with respective Cronbach's alpha values of 

.SO, 38, and .73. In summary, this battery of instruments administered to the adult sample in 

order to measure "mature coping" abilities was found to demonstrate desirable psychometric 

properties. 

59 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
TABLE 2 

PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES OF SCALES, ADULT SAMPLE 

Program Attitude Scale 

- 12 item scale that measures general 

attitudes towards staff and prograni 

-expected 2 factor solution 

Coping Strategies Inventory 

-33 items that measure coping responses in 

relation to a stressful event 

-expected 3 factor solution 

Social Problem Solving Inventory - 

assessment, and decision making processes 

Revised -52 item that measure orientation, 

used to respond to problems 

-expected 5 factor solution 

Coopersniith Self-Esteem Inventory 

-unidimensional 

CESD Depression Scale 

-unidimensional 

Aiiti-Social Attitudes 

-unidimensional 

-2 factor solution PAS 22.22 7.12 .83 

confirmed, but 1 factor 

solution fits data well; 

accounted for 37.5% of 

total variance; N=522 

-3 factor solution "Problem Solving" 25.37 5.18 .87 

confirmed, accounted for "Seeking Social 22.43 5.14 .88 

avoidance factor weakest; "Avoidance" 

N=503 

40% of total variance; Support" 20.45 4.20 .75 

-5 factor solution rejected; "Dysfunctional 35.5 1 20.38 .94 

2 factor solution best fits 

the data; accounted for "Constructive Problem 57.35 18.73 .94 

40% of total variance; Solving" 

N=503 

Problem Solving" 

X SEl-Total 72.8 I 17.53 30 

X CESD-Total 17.37 10.79 .88 

X AAS Total 11.13 5.04 .73 

60 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
TABLE 3 

Program Attitudes 

Scale (PAS) 

CSI-Problem Solving 

(PSI 

support (SSS) 

CSI-Seeking Social 

CSI-Avoidance (AV) 

SPSI-R Dysfunctional 

(DYS) 

SPSI-R Constructive 

(CON) 

0 V 

1 .oo -0.18** -0.19" -0.09 0.02 -0.12 

1 .oo 0.36" 0.01 -0.29" 0.44" 

1 .oo 0.17" 0.02 0.3 1" 

1 .oo 0.37" -0.07 

1 .oo -0.14' 

1 .oo 

CONSTRUCT VALIDITY PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS, ADULT 

SAMPLE 

. PSYCHOMETRIC RESULTS FOR JUVENILES 

In a similar fashion as was used with the adult sample, the psychometric properties of 

juvenile-administered instruments were assessed. Again, the psychometric results for each of 

these scales, which were used to operationalize the "mature coping" construct, are discussed 

only in summary fashion. 

Five separate factor analyses were conducted (N=363) to investigate the factorial validity 

of the Program Attitude Scale (PAS). Three analyses were principal components analyses, and 

two were principal-axis factor analyses. The results were found to be quite similar to the results 

obtained when analyzing the adult responses on the PAS, since support was found for a onefactor interpretation of the inventory. Results from one of the principal components analyses are 

summarized in Table 4. The obtained unidimensional factor solution accounted for 36.6% of the 

total variance in juvenile responses on the PAS. Further, it was observed that the PAS displayed 

good internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's alpha=.82), and good construct validity (see 

Table 5) since the moderately strong correlation coefiicients were in the expected directions. 

Four separate factor analyses were conducted (N=343) to investigate the factorial validity 

of the Coping Strategies Inventory (CSI). Again, the results were very similar to those obtained 

when analyzing the adult data set, since support was found for a three-factor interpretation, 

0 thereby confirming the three sub-scales of the inventory. The results from one of the principal 

61 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
components analyses are summarized in Table 4. The three-factor solution accounted for 40% of 

the total variance in juvenile responses on the CSI. The first confirmed sub-scale, the ProblemSolving Scale. resulted in a Cronbach's alpha of 37. The second confirmed sub-scale, the 

Seeking Social Support Scale, indicated a Cronbach's alpha of .88. And the third confirmed subscale, the Avoidance Scale, had the lowest indicator of internal consistency reliability, with a 

Cronbach's alpha of .74. Thus, it was concluded that all three of the CSI sub-scales displayed 

acceptable levels of internal consistency reliability. It also was concluded that these three 

measures of "mature coping" displayed adequate construct validity (see Table 5), since the 

moderately strong correlation coefficients were in the expected directions. 

Eight separate factor analyses were conducted (N=338) to investigate the factorial 

validity of the Social Problem Solving Inventory--Adolescent Form (SPSI-A). Five of the 

analyses were principal components, and three were principal-axis factor analyses using image 

extraction. When rotation of the factor solution was appropriate, an orthogonal &e., varimax) 

rotation was employed. The results of these factor analyses provided support for a three-factor 

solution (confirming the inventory's three primary scales). The results of one principal 

component solution is reported in Table 4. The three-factor solution accounted for 45% of the 

total variance in juvenile responses on the SPSI-A. The internal consistency reliability results 

did not contradict a three-factor interpretation. The obtained Cronbach's alpha for the Automatic 

Process Scale was .82, for the Problem Orientation Scale was .83, and for the Problem-Solving 

scale was .95. Furthermore, on the basis of the observed construct validity coefficients (see 

Table 5) it was concluded that these three sub-scales of the SPSI-A did appear to be measuring 

the intended social problem-solving constructs, since all observed correlations were in the 

expected directions and ranged low to moderate in magnitude of association. 

. 

0 

Six separate principal components analyses were performed (N=3 16) on responses to the 

Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory (SEI) School Form. The first three analyses were conducted 

using all 58 items contained in the instrument. The latter three analyses were conducted using 

only 50 of the items, since the "lie" scale was removed. The principal components results were 

somewhat discouraging in that neither the five sub-scales of the 58-item questionnaire, nor the 

four sub-scales of the 50-item questionnaire (lie scale removed) could be confirmed. An 

equivalent lack of support was found for a unidimensional factor structure interpretation of the 

50-item instrument. In contrast to these discouraging factorial validity results, the internalconsistency reliability results (Cronbach's alpha=.84) for the 50-item instrument (lie scale 

removed) supported a unidimensional interpretation (see Table 4) and could not be improved by 

removing any items. Further, since many of the observed construct validity coefficients (see 

Table 5) were of moderate strength and in the expected directions, it was concluded that evidence 

(other than factorial validity) did exist to support the construct validity of the SEI. 

62 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
TABLE 4 

PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES OF SCALES, JUVENILE SAMPLE 

Program Attitude Scale 

I2 item scale that measures general attitudes 

towards staff and program 

Coping Strategies Inventory 

33 item that measure coping responses in 

relation to a stressful event 

Social Problem Solving Inventory - 

Adolescents 

45 items that measure autoinatic processes used 

to manuge or solve problems, problem 

orientation. and problem solving skills 

Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory - School 

Form 

58 items to assess self-esteem 

CESD Depression Scale 

-unidiriieiisional. 20 item scale 

Anti-Social Attitudes Scale 

-iiiiidiiiiC'iisioiial. 33 items from Jesness Inventory 

-2 factor solution confirmed, but I 

factor solution fits data well; accounted 

for 36.6% of total variance: N=363 

PAS - 25.39 

-3 factor solution confirmed: accounted 

for 40% of total variance; avoidance 

Factor weakest: N=343 

-3 factor solution suggested; accounted 

for 45% of total variance; N=338 

"Seeking Social 

Support" 

"Problem Solving" 

"Avoidance" 

"Problem Solving 

Ski 11s" 

"Problem Orientation" 

"Automatic Process" 

20.69 

22.32 

21.23 

1.91 

2.53 

2. I4 

-No model best tit the data: lack of 

support for a 5,4, or I factor solution; 

poor internal reliability as well for 

supported subscales. but high for 

composite scale; N=3 16 

X 

SEI-Total 

CESD-Total 

67. I2 

20.26 

X AAS Total 14.50 

7.24 .82 

5.30 .88 

5.33 .87 

4.35 .74 

.85 .95 

.69 .x3 

.97 .82 

15.02 34 

10.97 .87 

4.88 I .75 

63 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
TABLE 5 

CONSTRUCT VALIDITY PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS, JUVENILE SAMPLE 

Program Attitudes Scale (PAS) 

CSI-Problem Solving (PS) 

CSI-Seeking Social Support (SSS) 

I .oo -0.13' -0.Ij" -0.06 -0.24" -0.03 -0.19" -0.13' 0.08 0.3 I '' 

1 .oo 0.50" 0.24" 0.4 1 *' 0.1 I 0.36" 0.10 -0.06 -0.08 

1 .oo 0.20" 0.34" 0.12' 0.28" 0.13' -0.04 -0.1 x" 

CSI-Avoidance (AV) 

SPSI-A Problem Solving (PROB) 

SPSI-A Problem Orientation 

(0 R I ENT) 

SPSI-A Automatic Process 

(AIJTO) 

Coopersmith Self-Esteem 

Inventory (SEI) 

I .oo 0.06 

I .oo 

I I I I I I 

-0.4 I ** 

-0.04 

I .oo 

CESD Depression Inventory 1 I I I 1 I I 1 I 1.00 I 0.4 I" 

P = .05 ** P= .01 

-0.02 -0.36" 0.43" 0.29" 

0.66" 0.2 1 *' 0.04 -0.05 

0.08 0.39" - 0.4 8 * -0.37" 

I .oo 0.33" -0.14' -0.09 

I .00 -0.52" -0.44" 

64 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
While the factorial validity was not assessed for juvenile responses on the CESD 

Depression scale, nor the Anti-Social Attitudes scale, both instruments did display acceptable 

levels of internal consistency reliability (see Table 4). In summary, all instruments administered 

to juveniles (with some caution regarding the factorial validity of the SEI) were found to 

demonstrate desirable psychometric properties. 

0 

VI. ABILITY OF SCALES TO DETECT CHANGES IN MATURE COPING SKILLS 

In addition to the need to demonstrate the reliability and validity of the measures of 

mature coping at focus in this study, there is a need to demonstrate that the scales are sensitive 

enough in their measurements to detect or capture changes in subjects' levels of mature coping, 

whether the changes are due to program impact or some other catalyst for change. Therefore, 

paired t-tests were conducted of all pre-test and post-test responses within each boot camp site. 

This type of analysis pairs each subject's pre-test score with his post-test score and tests whether 

the average change for the entire site was statistically significant. 

A. Paired T-Test Results for Adult Subjects 

As can be seen in Table 6, all of the paired t-test results for adults were statistically 

significant (at the alpha=.05 level of significance). Further, the pre-to-post-test changes were 

quite large as indicated by mean difference values. Because the results for separate pre-to-posttest differences within each site (Le., Site 1 and Site 2) produced such similar results, they will be 0 summarized simultaneously. 

The similar results observed for the two adult boot camp sites suggested favorable 

intermediate program impacts with regards to mature coping abilities. Generally, favorable 

mature coping skills increased, and undesirable coping styles decreased upon completion of the 

boot camp experience, regardless of boot camp site. In particular, adult participants exhibited 

increased problem solving abilities, heightened self-esteem, lower depression, reduced antisocial 

attitudes, improved program attitudes, and strengthened coping skills. 

The reader should keep in mind, however, that a more sophisticated research design is 

required before changes in these mature coping measures can be attributed to program impact. 

Again, the point of presenting the results from conducting within-site paired t-tests is simply to 

demonstrate that the mature coping measures at focus in this study do appear to be sensitive 

enough to detect changes on the various dimensions. The determination of whether the boot 

camp experience actually caused the observed changes in mature coping skills is outside the 

purview of this current research effort. 

B. Paired T-Test Results for Juvenile Subjects 

As can be seen in Table 7 (which presents data only for those variables exhibiting 

statistically significant results from the paired t-test analyses), many more significant 

intermediate program effects were detected for Site 1 than was the case for Site 2. The general 

65 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
pattern detected from these statistically significant results was for an average increase to occur in 0 positive mature coping skill levels upon completion of the boot camp program. 

Thus, when the pre-test and post-test scores of subjects from Site 1 were analyzed for 

significant pre-to-post-test changes, the findings were generally positive. Subjects tended to 

indicate decreases in undesirable coping styles and increases in mature coping skills. In 

particular, Site 1 subjects exhibited fewer antisocial attitudes, less depression, less negative 

attitudes toward the boot camp program, improved ability at seeking social support, enhanced 

problem solving abilities, and greater self-esteem levels after completing the program. 

In contrast to the findings observed for Site 1, juveniles completing the Site 2 program 

displayed few positive intermediate program effects. This finding was not surprising since this 

particular boot camp site was included in the study because of the fact that it had many negative 

characteristics which would be consistent with this lack of observed positive change in Site 2 

subjects. 

In fact, a statistically significant finding was obtained for only one of the four measures 

of undesirable coping skills. Site 2 subjects displayed a very large increase in scores (21.9 to 

26.4) on the negatively-scaled Program Attitudes Scale during the pre- to post-test period. This 

was particularly interesting due to the fact that Site 2 subjects had significantly lower Program 

Attitude Scale scores than did Site 1 subjects at the time of pre-testing. This indicates that even 

though Site 2 subjects entered the boot camp with fairly positive expectations regarding their 

experiences. the negative features of this particular program resulted in much more negative 

attitudes about the boot camp upon program completion. 

However, even though Site 2 subjects left the boot camp program with relatively negative 

feelings regarding their boot camp experiences, a few positive intermediate outcomes were 

observed at Site 2. Specifically, Site 2 subjects witnessed significant decreases in depression and 

significant increases in self-esteem and problem solving as measured by the SPSI-A between 

pre- and post-testing. While attrition within Site 2 compels one to exercise caution in 

interpreting the results, these data suggest that not placing youth in the Site 2 boot camp program 

may have had greater benefits for the youth in terms of developing their mature coping skills 

than the making of such a placement. 

66 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
TABLE 6 

STATISTICALLY SIGNIFlCANT PAIRED T-TEST RESULTS FOR ADULT SUBJECTS BY SITE 

SPSI Constructive 

Problem Solving 

SPSI Dysfunctional 

Problem Solving 

SPSI Total 

Problem Solving 

Coopersmith SelfEsteem 

CESD Depression 

Site 1, pre 

Site 1, post 

Site 2, pre 

Site 2, post 

Site 1, pre 

Site 1, post 

Site 2, pre 

Site 2, post 

65 

102 

65 

102 

52.54 

58.55 

54.74 

62.65 

48.12 

37.82 

33.84 

27.26 

17.52 

6.43 

16.85 

22.11 

20.64 

7.58 

19.53 

19.56 

Site 1, pre 

Site 1, post 

Site 2, pre 

Site 2, post 

Site 1, pre 

Site 1, post 

Site 2, pre 

Site 2, post 

Site 1, pre 

Site 1, post 

Site 2, pre 

Site 2, post 

65 

102 

64 

104 

67 

104 

112.41 

128.74 

128.89 

143.38 

64.75 

74.62 

72.19 

80.8 1 

22.75 

18.82 

15.86 

12.72 

29.81 

24.40 

28.84 

3 1.25 

17.77 

15.96 

17.09 

14.90 

10.97 

9.62 

10.17 

9.26 

6.02 3.16 64 .oo2 

7.9 1 3.36 101 .oo I 

-10.31 -4.34 64 .ooo 

-6.58 -3.45 101 .oo 1 

-16.32 -4.66 64 .ooo 

- 14.49 -4.60 101 .ooo 

9.87 5.35 63 .ooo 

8.61 5.28 103 .ooo 

67 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
TABLE 6, continued 

Antisocial Site 1, pre 

Attitudes Site 1, post 

Site 2, pre 

Site 2, post 

Program Attitudes Site 1, pre 

Site 1, post 

Site 2, pre 

Site 2, post 

CSI Problem Site 1, pre 

Solving Site 1, post 

Site 2, pre 

Site 2, post 

CSI Avoidance Site 1, pre 

Site 1, post 

Site 2, pre 

Site 2, post 

66 

107 

69 

107 

67 

102 

67 * 

102 

14.61 4.85 2.18 3.90 65 .ooo 

12.42 4.64 

10.84 4.57 1.95 4.57 106 .ooo 

8.89 5.17 

22.20 7.66 2.48 2.69 

19.72 6.84 

23.49 6.40 3.13 4.61 

20.36 7.10 

68 

106 

23.60 5.55 1.57 1.99 66 .050 

25.16 5.37 

24.72 4.71 1.91 3.35 101 .oo 1 

26.63 5.09 

21.69 4.04 1.49 2.71 66 .009 

20.19 4.22 

20.81 4.39 1.67 3.07 101 .003 

19.13 5.22 

68 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
TABLE 7 

Antisocial 

Attitudes 

CESD Depression 

Program Attitudes 

CSI Seeking 

Social Support 

CSI Problem 

Solving 

SPSI-A Automatic 

Process 

SPSI-A Problem 

Solving 

Coopersmith 

Self-Esteem 

STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT PAIRED T-TEST RESULTS FOR JUVENILE SUBJECTS BY SITE 

Site I, pre 111 13.66 4.95 2.59 5.85 1 IO .ooo 

Site 1, pre 115 2 1.24 11.76 4.03 3.56 1 I4 .oo 1 

Site 2. pre 24 28.17 9.30 5.79 2.47 23 .02 I 

Site I, pre I27 28.14 6.30 8.67 14.74 126 .ooo 

Site 2, pre 54 21.91 6.68 -4.52 -3.25 53 ,002 

Site I, pre 114 19.77 5.67 -3.09 -5.16 I13 .ooo 

Site I. pre 114 2 1.03 5.74 -3.67 -6.54 113 .ooo 

Site 1, post 24.69 5.77 

Site I, pre 112 1.82 1.01 -0.38 -4.07 Ill .ooo . 

Site I, pre 112 1.65 .79 -0.54 -6. I3 111 .ooo 

Site 2, pre 22 1.89 .78 -0.52 -2.53 21 .020 

Site 2, post 2.4 1 .77 

Site 1, pre I12 66.96 15.66 -7.27 -5.18 Ill .ooo 

Site 2, pre 21 6 1.43 13.13 -8.38 -3.46 20 .002 

Site 1, post 11.06 4.60 

Site I, post 17.22 10.85 

Site 2. post 22.38 12.60 

Site 1, post 19.46 5.32 

Site 2, post 26.42 8.17 

Site I, post 22.86 6.26 

Site 1, post 2.30 .82 

Site 1, post 2.19 .84 

Site I, post 74.23 15.67 

Site 2, post 69.8 1 9.25 

69 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
0 VII. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

This analysis revealed that the psychometric properties of each utilized measure of 

“mature coping” are well within acceptable ranges and that, generally, the measures do appear to 

measure what they were intended to measure. Furthermore, the indices demonstrated that they 

were sensitive enough in their measurements to be able to detect changes on the various “mature 

coping” dimensions over the pre-to-post-test period. 

More specifically, the Coping Strategy Indicator was found to be a very robust instrument 

with a strong theoretical base and promising application potential. The results indicated that the 

intended factor structure of this inventory was confirmed, and that strong evidence of its internal 

consistency reliability and construct validity were demonstrated for use with both adult and 

juvenile populations. 

The results for the Social Problem-Solving Inventory were not as promising. The adult 

version of the instrument (SPSI-R) indicated an underlying theoretical model which could not be 

confirmed through factor analysis. Our own observations regarding the administration of the 

instrument suggested that the sub-scales were over-identified and that the instrument was too 

long. Subjects appeared to tire of the redundancy of the items and seemed to rush to complete 

the inventory. The data support a re-conceptualization of the scale to a simpler two-factor 

structure, where many items could be deleted without impairing the overall utility of the scale. 

This re-conceptualization is certainly more intuitively appealing, in addition to having practical 

implications for scale administration. 

0 

The adolescent version of the Social Problem Solving Inventory (SPSI-A) demonstrated 

similar issues. Once again, the underlying theoretical structure of the inventory could not be 

supported through factor analysis, since only three of the nine intended sub-scales of the 

instrument could be identified. Unfortunately, the three sub-scales of the instrument lead to 

rather ambiguous interpretations of whether or not social problem solving has actually improved 

as a result of program impact. The SPSI-A is also too long and has even less intuitive appeal 

than the adult version. We suggest that this instrument be simplified with an attempt to measure 

“weak” vs. ”strong” social problem-solving. In fact, a new adolescent version of the adult 

instrument (SPSI-R) is now available and should be examined closely as a possible replacement 

for the SPSI-A. 

The Anti-Social Attitudes Scale was not examined for its factorial validity since this 

psychometric property had already been well established in the literature. However, the results 

of this current study demonstrated that the instrument did display acceptable levels of internal 

consistency reliability and construct validity for both the adult and juvenile samples. Thus, this 

scale is recommended as a useful measure of antisocial attitudes with respect to societal norms 

and values. 

While the intended two-factor structure of the Program Attitudes Scale could be 

confirmed. the psychometric results suggested that a one-factor intehretation was more 

a 

70 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
appropriate for both adult and juvenile samples. We recommend that this scale be used as a 

parsimonious composite measure of “expected personal change” as a result of program 

intervention. 

@ 

The adult version of the Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory has a unidimensional factor 

structure which has been well-validated in the literature and thus was not a focus of the factorial 

validity analyses performed for this current study. However, this composite measure of selfesteem was found to exhibit desirable levels of internal consistency reliability and construct 

validity for the adult sample. Thus, the limited psychometric evidence generated by this current 

study suggests that the adult version of this measure can be used to assess the self-esteem levels 

of adult offenders. 

In contrast to the adult version of the Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory, the factorial 

validity was investigated for the adolescent version (i.e., School Form) of this instrument. The 

theoretical underlying structure of this inventory could not be confirmed in this current study. 

Furthermore, the 50-item instrument was unnecessarily long and redundant. We recommend that 

another instrument be used to assess the self-esteem levels of juvenile offenders. 

The final measure of “mature coping,” the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression 

Inventory, was not investigated in terms of factorial validity since the instrument has been wellvalidated in other studies. The results of the psychometric analyses which were performed for the 

adult and juvenile samples indicated that strong evidence exists to support the internal 

consistency reliability and construct validity of the inventory. Therefore, we recommend this 

measure of depression for use with both juvenile and adult populations. 

’ 

0 

In conclusion, this research presents significant implications for evaluations of programs 

that attempt to promote the ”mature coping” of program participants. A number of simple, selfadministered pencil and paper instruments appear capable of efficiently measuring a variety of 

attributes, skills, and states often associated with the display of mature coping behaviors. Of 

course, some caution should be exercised in the use of the Social Problem-Solving Inventory 

(both adult and juvenile versions), and we recommend that a different measure of self-esteem be 

used for juveniles than the Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory. However, all of the other 

measures of “mature coping” can be usefully applied to various populations and settings to 

discover whether key intermediate outcomes are being generated by particular program 

interventions. Researchers need to continue to explore the psychometric properties of these 

instruments with a variety of special populations and intervention programs. It is only through 

continued validation research, as undertaken in this current study, that we can feel confident in 

the application and interpretation of personality inventories. 

71 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
CHAPTER 5 

IMPACT EVALUATIONS 

I. INTRODUCTION 

This chapter presents the results of a variety of impact evaluations for a limited number 

of sites. As suggested in Chapter 1, only a few of the original sites were able to complete some 

type of impact assessment. For these sites, efforts were made to determine if the boot camp had 

an impact on either recidivism or costs -- the core outcome goals for most boot camps. 

The first site reported on is the rather large Illinois prison boot camp program. The 

Illinois program is a rather comprehensive overview of recidivism and cost benefits based upon a 

matched comparison group. Immediately following that study is a review of the Cook County 

(Chicago) boot camp program -- one of the few remaining county level programs. It is 

noteworthy in that program seems to have reduced the number of inmates that could be placed in 

the Illinois boot camp program by diverting them into the county level system. 

Finally, In an effort to understand the varied dynamics associated with boot camps, 

selected impact findings are also presented for three additional programs (Indiana’s Camp ’ 

Summit boot camp for juveniles, Washington State’s boot camp, and Oregon’s SUMMIT boot a camp). 

I1 THE ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS BOOT CAMP 

A. Introduction 

Despite the numerous problems encountered in attempting to conduct a national 

assessment of these various boot camp programs, it was possible to complete a fairly 

comprehensive study of the Illinois adult program. This was in large part to the IDOC’s 

commitment to reviewing the progress of the IIP on a periodic basis, subject to internal and 

external evaluations. This commitment is primarily driven by two factors; first, according to 

statute, the IDOC must report annually to the state General Assembly, describing program 

participants and development.* During 1992, a Task Force on Crime and Corrections appointed 

by the governor was charged with determining factors attributed to prison population growth 

while providing recommendations based on a review of successful programs that reduced 

offending and were instrumental in positive community reintegration. As cited in the Task 

Force’s final report, preliminary findings regarding recidivism and cost savings as described n 

Illinois is one of only two states operating correctional boot camps (New York being the other) required 

to do so. 

72 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
the IIP annual reports provided impetus for modifying the statutory eligibility criteria mentioned 0 above to expand the IIP-eligible pool. 

In the IIP annual reports, the IDOC consistently has found lower new-offense recidivism 

rates at 12-month, 24-nionth, and 36-month intervals for IIP graduates versus a comparison 

group of traditional releasees with similar offense and criminal history characteristics. However, 

the IIP graduates are more likely to return to prison for technical revocations to the point that the 

total recidivism rate (new offenses and technical revocations) parallels that of the comparison 

group. No controls have been employed to control for the policy change regarding the intensive 

supervision period or the modified statutory eligibility criteria. Also, the IIP annual reports have 

documented continued cost savings due to a reduction in length of stay for IIP graduates versus a 

comparison group. 

Second, the IDOC received a $250,000 grant award through the Edward Byrne Memorial 

State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Program to assist with the development of the IIP. 

A second $200,000 federal award was granted the following year. These monies were used to 

support the program services component. Also, the IDOC was one of eight states required to 

participate in an NIJ-sponsored study of correctional boot camps. Recidivism findings in the 

multi-site study were similar to those reported by the IDOC regarding the new offense, technical 

revocation, and aggregate return to prison rates. The two above-mentioned factors have 

contributed to program exposure and publicity. Further, evaluations have been conducted by the 

National Institute of Corrections in a case review of three correctional boot camps and by the 

Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority in a recidivism analysis of Illinois’ correctional 

drug treatment programs. Additionally, NIJ and the American Correctional Association have 

included IIP-specific chapters within published documents. 

0 

B. Impact Evaluation Design 

Completing an outcome analysis of the IIP required a quasi-experimental retrospective 

design. One treatment (IIP graduates) and two comparison groups (traditional releasees and IIP 

failures) were selected. Three subgroups were drawn from each of the primary study groups 

controlling for enactment of the modified statutory eligibility criteria and change in supervision 

intensity. For example. the following subgroups exist within the IIP graduate study group: 

Subgroup 1 includes offenders admitted per the original statutory eligibility criteria and released 

under the original supervision intensity; Subgroup 2 encompasses offenders admitted per the 

original statutory eligibility criteria and released under the revised supervision intensity; and, 

Subgroup 3 consists of offenders admitted per the modzjied statutory eligibility criteria and 

released under the revised supervision intensity. 

Only inmates released from the IDOC prior to June 30, 1995 were included in the 

analysis. This allowed for a three-year follow-up period for each case, with observations ending 

June 30, 1998. 

C. Study Groups 

73 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
The treatment group included all 4,070 IIP graduates from program inception through 0 June 30, 1995 (see Table 8). The majority ofthese inmates were placed at the IIP subsequent to 

the statutory eligibility criteria modification and the change in supervision intensity. 

The comparison group of traditional releasees was comprised of offenders eligible for the 

IIP according to the statutory eligibility criteria. A key element to the traditional releasee group 

selection was to discount eligible offenders denied IIP participation by the IDOC, to remove IIP 

failures from consideration, and to exclude inmates who had previously graduated from the IIP 

(control for the second-time felony incarceration provision). According to the statute, an inmate 

cannot be admitted to the IIP after previously having participated. Further, selection of inmates 

in the traditional releasee study group required a two-pronged effort to ensure that selected 

offenders were admitted according to the same time period as the treatment group. First, 

offenders sentenced to the IDOC between August 20, 1990 and August 1 1, 1993 (and released 

prior to June 30, 1995) were included based upon their satisfying the original statutory eligibility 

criteria. No controls were utilized to assess the physical and mental health of the traditional 

releasees, or to ascertain whether offenders would have volunteered to participate in the IIP given 

the opportunity. However, it was possible to limit the traditional releasee pool by reviewing 

safety and security indicators for escape risk, security level designation, and internal supervision 

level indicators as identified at intake.’ Finally, as noted in the IIP annual reports, less than two 

percent of the IIP graduates had a sentence length less than three years. Cases in the traditional 

releasee group with sentence lengths less than three years were excluded to enhance similarities ’ 

with the treatment group. a 

Second, inmates sentenced after August 1 1 , 1993 (and released prior to June 30, 1995) 

were included, based on their satisfying the modified statutory eligibility criteria. The statutory 

eligibility criteria modification allowed for inclusion of older offenders, offenders serving longer 

sentences, and offenders incarcerated with a second adult felony sentence. Technical revocations 

did not exclude offenders under this last provision. For example, an offender could have three 

prior incarcerations and still be eligible for the IIP if two of those prior incarcerations resulted 

from a technical revocation, as opposed to a conviction for a new offense. Additionally, an 

intensive review was conducted to discount cases where a prior incarceration was for any of the 

serious “exclusion” offenses identified by statute. After the safety and security indicators and the 

sentence length consideration described above were controlled, the traditional releasee study 

group totaled 5,723 offenders. 

Only inmates with a ‘low’ escape risk and ‘minimum’ security level designation were included. For 

internal supervision level. inmates with values of ‘limited’, ‘intermediate’, or ‘external’ were included, 

while those with ‘close’ or ‘staff escort’ were excluded. After June 30, 1994, the internal supervision 

level designation was removed from the database, in large part, because the escape risk and security 

level designations were deemed substantive indicators of behavior. Due to the timing of admission and 

release dates for study inclusion, and the continued use of the escape risk and security level designation 

indicators, this would have a tninimurn impact on subject selection. Finally cases with a ‘missing’ or 

‘pending’ value on any of the three safety and security indicators were excluded. 

74 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
TABLE 8 

IIP STUDY GROUPS 

Subgroup 2 (original criteria: revised supervision level) 

Subgroup 3 (revised criteria: revised supervision level) 

c 

Subgroup 2 (original criteria: revised supervision level) 1,002 24.6% 

Subgroup 3 (revised criteria; revised supervision level) 2,085 5 1.2% 

Total 4,070 100.0% 

40*2% 37.1% I 2,300 

2,121 

Subgroup 1 (original criteria; original supervision level) 

Subgroup 2 (original criteria: revised supervision level) 

Subgroup 3 (revised criteria: revised supervision level) 

Total 

-I I 

ItTotal I 5,723 

323 29.0% 

540 48.5% 

250 22.5% 

1.1 13 100.0% 

I I 

The second comparison group included offenders who were admitted to the IIP, but failed 

to complete the program. These offenders then were placed in traditional IDOC facilities to 

serve the remainder of their sentence. Through June 30, 1995, 1,113 IIP failures were released to 

regular supervision. 

D. Study Variables 

All recidivism and offender characteristic data employed for this analysis were gathered 

from the Offender Tracking System (OTS), which is the official database of the IDOC. OTS 

contains security, clinical, and background data attributed to each inmate and releasee in IDOC 

custody. Study variables representing demographic, social, and offense characteristics included 

gender, race, marital status, age at prison admission, committing crime type, self-reported 

75 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
alcohol abuse, self-reported drug abuse, education level at prison admission, committing 

county," prior IDOC commitment, and sentence length.' I 

E. Group Characteristics 

Table 9 presents demographic, social, and offense characteristics for each of the study 

groups. The major differences between these three study groups can be summarized as follows: 

A substantially larger percentage of IIP failures were Black, as compared to IIP 

graduates and traditional releases, and a higher percentage of the IIP graduate and 

traditional releasee study groups were Whites and Hispanics. 

0 A greater proportion of IIP failures have never been married. 

The traditional releasee study group had a slightly older population (24.3 years) as 

compared to 22.3 and 2 I .9 years of age for IIP graduates and IIP failures, 

respectively. 

A greater percentage of those in the IIP graduate and traditional releasee study 

groups had received at least a high school diplomdGED, 36.3% and 36.1%, 

respectively, than their IIP failure counterparts (28.0%). 

0 More than one-quarter of the IIP graduates (28.4%) and traditional releasees 

(36.1 %) were from non-Cook areas within Illinois, as compared to 23.2% of the 

IIP failures. 

0 A greater percentage of offenders who were traditional releasees (8.4%) had 

served a previous sentence within the IDOC, as compared to 2.2% of IIP 

graduates and 1.4% of IIP failures. 

0 A greater percentage of IIP graduates were sentenced with property and drug 

offenses as opposed to those in the comparison groups. 

0 A substantially lower percentage of inmates in the IIP graduates group selfreported drug or alcohol abuse. 

lo Committing county is coinprised of three attributes: inmates froin Cook County (Chicago and the near 

suburbs), collar counties (the five counties adjacent to Cook County), and else (remaining counties). 

" Data regarding a number of potentially important criminal history and socioeconomic variables (e.g., 

age at first arrest, nuinber of prior arrests or convictions, employment status/stability, etc.) were 

unavailable. The researchers acknowledge this limitation to the study. 

76 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
a Finally, IIP graduates had the longest average sentence length at 4.2 years, as 

compared to 3.6 years for both comparison groups. 

a It appears that the longer the sentence length, the greater the likelihood the 

inmate will successfully complete the program. Further, an even greater 

percentage of the traditional releases (54.7%) received 3-year sentences, even 

though sentence length was controlled during group selection. 

77 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
TABLE 9 

IIP GROUP CHARACTERISTICS 

Hispanic I 7.7 1 5.9 I 7.3 I 11 White 25 .ti 20.5 24.5 24.2 

Y 

14. I 18.7 15.1 15.4 

34.8 37.2 35.3 31.7 

I I 

I I I Mean 4.2 years 3.6 years 4.1 years 3.6 years I I I I I 

Note: Totals over or under 100% are due to rounding. 

78 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
Traditionally, recidivists are more likely to be younger, less educated, property or drug 

offenders, from urban areas. with extensive criminal histories. Across each of the study groups 

variations exist with respect to recidivism-type characteristics. As such, attempts were made to 

rule out, the effects of these variables when analyzing the relationship of study group 0 

identification and recidivism. 

F. Recidivism Analysis 

For purposes of this study recidivism was defined as re-incarceration to the IDOC for a 

technical revocation or new offense within three years after release. As shown in Table 10, the 

overall recidivism rates for all of the various study groups ranged from 35-48 percent with most 

of the “failures” representing a re-incarceration for a new offense. Consistent with earlier 

studies, there is no difference between the boot camp participants and the comparison group 

(38% versus 39%). Not unexpectedly, the boot camp failures had a higher overall reincarceration rate due entirely to a much higher re-incarceration rate( 45% versus 25%). The 

traditional releases also have a higher rate of new offenses versus technical violations for the 

boot camp participants. The higher technical violation rate for the IIP graduates may well be a 

function of the fact that IIP graduates receive more intensive supervision at release. 

Further analysis was conducted to identify whether group differences existed in the ’ 

recidivism rates at one, two, and three year intervals. The data were disaggregated by recidivism 

event. In general, the majority of offenders recidivated within two years after release. The 

greatest percentage of new offense recidivist events occurred during the second year of release, 

while the majority of technical revocations occurred during the first year (Table 11). Similarly, 

of the offenders who were returned to the IDOC because of a technical revocation, over 55% of 

each study group did so during Year 1. Overall, given the time required to process a case 

through the court system and the intensive supervision afforded IIP graduates immediately 

following release, these findings are expected. 

I 

0 

Additional analyses were conducted to identify whether the statutory eligibility criteria 

modification and the change in supervision intensity impacted the recidivism rates of IIP 

graduates. Given the information provided in Table 8, it was expected that the criteria 

modification would result in increased new offense recidivism rates for IIP graduates. That is, 

traditional releasees had higher new offense recidivism rates and the criteria modification allowed 

for more traditional releasees to become IIP-eligible. In a similar vein, it was believed that if the 

change in supervision intensity impacted IIP graduate recidivism rates, the incidence of technical 

revocations would decrease. 

Table 12 presents the subgroup three-year recidivism rates by type of re-incarceration. 

Here one can see a lowering of the recidivism rate for only the IIP graduates, principally by a 

lowering of the technical violation rate. There is little change over time for the other groups. 

This might indicate that while IIP graduates were released to a less intensive supervision 

component, inmates released to the IDOC‘s regular supervision were watched more closely.” 

’‘ In July 1991, the IDOC implemented a coininunity supervision component, termed PreStart, in which 

surveillance and supervision functions of parole for most offenders were de-emphasized. while referrals 

to social services that might assist society integration were emphasized. Increasingly, the IDOC was 

criticized as negative publicity surrounding isolated incidents made media headlines. Perhaps as a 

79 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
TABLE 10 

New Offense 

Technical Revocation 

1,028 25.3 501 45.0 1,529 29.5 2,078 36.3 

405 10.0 32 2.9 437 8.0 137 2.4 

IIP THREE YEAR RECIDIVISM RATES-IIP GRADUATES, TRADITIONAL 

RELEASES, AND TIP FAILURES 

TABLE 11 

IIP RECIDIVISM RATES BY GROUP BY YEAR AND TYPE OF REINCARCERATION 

result of these criticisms, the IDOC inforinally began reemphasizing surveillance and supervision 

strategies for most inmates released to PreStart. 

80 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
TABLE 12 

IIP THREE YEAR RECIDIVISM RATES BY SUBGROUP BY TYPE OF 

REINCARCERATION 

Subgroup 1 (n=983) 383 39.0 23 1 23.5 152 15.5 

Subgroup 2 (n= 1,002) 35 1 35.0 265 26.4 86 8.6 

Subgroup 3 (n=2,085) 699 33.5 532 25.5 167 8.0 

Subgroup 1 (n=323) 144 44.6 137 42.4 7 2.2 

Subgroup 2 (n=540) 266 49.3 253 46.9 13 2.4 

Subgroup 3 (n=250) 123 49.2 111 44.4 12 4.8 

I I 1 I 

Subgroup I (1,306) 527 40.4 368 28.2 159 . 12.2 

Subgroup 3 (2,335) 822 35.2 643 27.5 179 7.7 

Subgroup 2 (1,542) 617 40.0 518 33.6 99 6.4 

Subgroup 1 (n=1,302) 510 39.2 48 1 36.9 29 2.2 

Subgroup 2 (n=2,300) 860 37.4 812 35.3 48 2.1 

Subgroup 3 (n=2,12 1) 845 39.8 785 37.0 60 2.8 

81 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
TABLE 13 

IIP TOTAL RECIDIVISM RATES CONTROLLING FOR STUDY VARIABLES 

I Cell count equals I. 

82 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
Based on these findings, it appears that the change in supervision intensity has decreased 

the IIP graduate technical revocation rate without having a significant impact on the new offense 

rate. This pattern negates the claim by some that technical violations serve to suppress new 

offense rates by "catching" them before they commit more serious crimes. 

In terms of items associated with re-incarceration, the usual variables emerge. Across the 

three study groups, marital status, age at prison admission, committing crime type, self-reported 

alcohol abuse, self-reported drug abuse, committing county, prior IDOC commitment, and 

sentence length are associated with recidivism. To illustrate, Black offenders and inmates with 

above an 8th grade education returned to prison at rates lower than those in the comparison 

groups. Conversely, IIP graduates with "white" as a race attribute and IIP graduates with an 8th 

grade education or less had higher recidivism rates than traditional releasees, but lower 

recidivism rates than IIP failures. 

G. Cost Analysis 

A primary reason for developing the IIP was to reduce the length of stay largely for 

nonviolent offenders who possess limited criminal histories. To that extent the length of stay 

reduction should result in lower incarceration costs for these offenders. However, averted 

imprisonment costs can be offset by the impact of IIP failures because these inmates were 

expected to graduate from the IIP. Additionally, the IDOC has continually emphasized both the 

residential and aftercare components of the IIP. Due to the intensive supervision element of the 

IIP aftercare component, additional post-release community supervision costs have the potential 

to neutralize the cost savings of reduced residential length of stay. Further, as evidenced by the 

recidivism findings reported above, technical revocations occurring within a short period after 

release, during the intensive supervision phase, may counterbalance IIP residential cost savings. 

What is required is a comparative analysis of the average length of stay (ALOS) for the 

boot camp participants and the comparison group of traditional releasees. Table 14 lists average 

length of stay data (in months) for the three study groups and the subgroups according to 

program alterations previously described. As expected, the average length of stay for the IIP 

graduates is shorter than for inmates in the comparison groups. In fact, the length of stay for IIP 

failures (1 3.5 months) is more than twice that for IIP graduates (6.2 months). 

The average length of stay for IIP graduates consistently has been six months, two 

months longer than the statutory requirement of 120 days of active participation. Although this 

may be partly explained by delay factors, such as extended medical review or clarification of 

court records, the primary reason is time awaiting transfer to an IIP site. 

The estimated average prison population averted by the overall reduction of 3.4 months 

per IIP admission (includes graduates and failures) is shown in Table 14. This is done by simply 

multiplying the annual number of IIP admissions by the average number of months of 

incarcerated (3.4 months) which amounts to a reduced inmate population of 541. This figure is 

83 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
quite small (about one percent of the entire prison population) given that the entire prison 

population during this time was well over 40,000. This number is not even sufficient to avert the 

construction of a single prison. Consequently, only marginal costs should be applied to the 

analysis. Marginal costs include food, clothing, medical, and other expenses that vary directly 

with the number of inmates in a facility but exclude construction and staffing expenses if a new 

prison were built. During the period of study, marginal costs were approximately $3,000 to 

$4,000, while per capita costs ranged from $1 5,000 to $1 9,000. 

0 

The average annual marginal cost was determined for the IIP ($3,327) and traditional 

prison ($3,048). Further, the average monthly marginal costs were controlled for time served in 

the boot camp and traditional prison. IIP graduates were estimated to serve four months in the 

boot camp, while prior IDOC statistics revealed that the average time served in boot camp for IIP 

failures is one month. The time awaiting transfer to the boot camp becomes a factor here 

because 2.2 months of traditional incarceration costs must be included for each IIP graduate. 

Reducing the IIP graduate average length of stay to include only R&C processing and the 120 

days of active participation would eliminate 1.7 months (or $432 in marginal costs) of time 

served.” The computations resulted in estimated marginal costs based on average length of stay I 

to be $1,668 for IIP graduates, $2,845 for traditional releasees, and $3,452 for IIP failures. 

H. Summary 

Generally, the Illinois boot camp program has been built on modeling positive behavior @ for eligible inmates while reducing their length of stay within a correctional environment. As 

such, public safety and program costs are two policy issues that must be considered by those 

responsible for designing, operating, and evaluating these programs. Since inception on October 

15, 1990, more than 13,000 inmates have been admitted to the program. The boot camp was 

designed to promote lawful behavior via a structured, specialized program that develops 

responsibility, self-esteem,&and apositive self-concept. Additionally, the IIP attempts to address 

the underlying issues that often lead to criminal behavior and substance abuse, and promotes 

public safety through risk management in the selection of participants. 

Since program implementation, two changes related to the “cost versus safety” issue have 

occurred, both primarily the result of preliminary positive findings regarding the recidivism rate 

of IIP graduates. These changes included an increase in the number of IIP-eligible inmates by 

allowing older offenders, those with longer sentences, and those with one prior adult felony 

incarceration to participate. The 90-day restrictive intensive supervision element that followed 

the 90-day electronic monitoring element also was abolished. In both of these changes, the 

IDOC believed that program cost could be lessened with minimal impact on public safety. 

’’ Multiplying $432 of marginal costs against 4,070 IIP graduates computes to $1,758,240 for time 

awaiting transfer. 

84 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
Consistent with previous studies, IIP admissions have the same recidivism rates as 

traditional measures and are only slightly less expensive to house. While it is true that IIP 

graduates return to prison less often. the level and expense of boot camp failures diminishes these 

more positive trends. 

* 

IIP Graduates 

IIP Failures 

Total IIP 

Traditional Releases 

Annualized IIP Admissions 

TABLE 14 

4,070 6.2 70 1 

1,l I3 13.5 417 

5,183 7.8 1,123 

5,723 11.2 1,780 

1,908 3.4 54 1 

ESTIMATED BED SAVINGS 

111. COOK COUNTY BOOT CAMP 

a A. Introduction 

The Cook County program offers an interesting contrast to the Illinois state prison 

program. As noted earlier in the report, the Cook County program is unique because it provides 

a model of cooperation between state and local government. In many ways it represents the best 

opportunity for a county operated boot camp program to have an impact on the criminal justice 

system. This is due to how inmates are selected for the program. Unlike most county operated 

boot camps, inmates eligible for the Cook County program must reflect offenders who have a 

strong probability of being incarcerated within the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC). 

This is accomplished by delaying the screening process until the inmate has been in custody for a 

sufficient period of the time to ensure he or she would not be released on a variety ofpretrial 

release mechanisms. Based on the data provided to the evaluators, the average period of time in 

custody until the inmate is admitted to the program is 86 days. 

In order for the boot camp program to operate, special legislation had to be created that 

allowed the court to sentence offenders to the county operated boot camp program as opposed to 

probation or state prison (ILCS 56-8-1.2). It was passed strictly for the benefit of County as it 

was restricted to only counties '-with more than three million inhabitants." One of the legal 

issues that the legislation resolved was the need to have an aftercare component which was 

85 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
administered by the Sheriff as opposed to probation or the state department of corrections. There 

are no other county boot camp programs in Illinois. 

As of April 1,2000, a total of 1,573 offenders have been sentenced to participate in Cook 

County‘s boot camp program. Of the total 1,573 participants, complete data is available for 1, 

543 participants. Table 15 displays the characteristics of all boot camp participants. What 

follows are the major attributes of these referrals: 

Most of the participants are male (at 97%) under the age of 21 (67%) with an 

average age of20 years; 

African Americans account for the largest racial group at 79%, while Latino’s 

follow at nearly 11 percent, and whites account for nine percent of the population. 

e Nearly all of those sentenced to boot camp were convicted of a felony (99%), and 

drug offenses were the most commonly reported offense at nearly 50%, while 

crimes against persons and property crimes followed at 18% and 1 S%respectively. 

e The average length of time between when an offender is booked and the start of 

boot camp is about 86 days. Thus most offenders spend almost three months in 

jail before being committed to the boot camp program. 

e More than 60% of the offenders admitted into boot camp were assigned a medium 

security classification level, 26 percent received a maximum security 

classification level, and 12% received a minimum security classification level. 

e Reflective of the low percentage of those classified at a minimum custody level, 

nearly 35% of all admittance had an “excessive bail” which precludes them from 

being assigned to minium custody. 

Forty-eight percent of the boot camp participants had been arrested as ajuvenile, 

and close to 12% have had a prior felony conviction. 

A sizable percentage of those admitted into the program were diagnosed with a 

substance abuse problem at 34%. 

While the majority of offenders admitted into the program were not members of 

or affiliated with a gang, nearly 3 1% of all the offenders did have some affiliation 

with a gang. 

Thirty-one percent ofall offenders admitted to Cook County’s boot camp had a 

medical problem, but none that could hinder their full participation in the 

program. 

86 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
TABLE 15 

COOK COUNTY BOOT CAMP ADMISSIONS 

March 1997 - March 2000 

Medium 

Maxinium 

Missing 

1.543 I 100% I Total I 1.543 I 100% I 

~ 

956 62% Serious Violence Threat 13 <I% 

403 26% Substance Abuse Problems 527 34% 

5 <I% Kiiowii Managenient Problem 33 2% 

Male I .494 97% Person 2 74 I 8% 

Feniale 52 31’0 Property 226 15% 

Low 35 2% Suicide Risk 17 I % 

Moderate 605 39% Rlrdicul I’roblcnis 490 32% 

High 859 56%0 1’11) sical Inipairment 3 <I% 

Highest 43 30, IO Mental Deficiency 7 I% 

c 

86 days 

62% 

11 26-30 I 160 I 10% I None 50% ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ 

31-39 83 5% One 587 389’0 

Average Age 20 Two or more 180 12% 

11 Felony I I I Moderate 239L 

- 

Misdemeanor High 3 94 26% 

11 Minimum I 179 I 12% I EscapeTlireat I 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
Collectively, these data suggest that the program has done a good job in targeting inmates 

who absent the boot camp program would have been sentenced to state prison. The most telling 

statistics is the length of time until they are admitted to program, the felony level charge which 

includes some crimes against the person, and their street gang affiliation. It is a well-known fact 

that the longer inmates remain in pretrial custody, the longer they are likely to receive a state 

prison term. Inmates received at the Illinois Department of Corrections serve approximately 3-5 

months in pre-trial detention before being shipped to the state prison system. Although it may be 

that these inmates would receive a suspended prison term and placed on probation, these inmates 

are not “lightweight” misdemeanant type offenders. 

B. Inmate Perceptions of the Boot Camp Program 

In order to gain an additional understanding of the total Boot Camp experience, 

interviews were conducted with inmates at the Cook County Sheriffs Boot Camp during the 

week of September 7, 1999. Nineteen inmates were randomly selected to answer questions 

based on their experience at the Boot Camp thus .far. The interview form consisted of four 

general areas of consideration: (1) background questions, (2) criminal history questions, (3) boot 

camp questions, and (4) the future. 

The purpose of the interviews was to gain insight into the inmate’s total experience 

taking the above areas into consideration. Observations and general likes and dislikes on the part 

, of the inmate were addressed. In addition, an attempt to discern prior criminal history, social 

status, and any future plans played an important role in the interview process. All information 

received was self-reported. 

Background Questions - Personal History 

All inmates interviewed were male. Majority of the interviewees were single between the 

age of 18 to 34, with the average age being 22. Most of the inmates interviewed were AfricanAmerican, while the others were white and Hispanic. In addition, almost half of the inmates 

interviewed were employed at the time of their arrest on the instant offense. Less than half of all 

the inmates completed a high school education, either by graduating with a diploma or by 

obtaining a GED, while the others had not completed high school. None of the inmates 

interviewed had any college education. 

Criminal History 

In the area of criminal history, questions were broken down into juvenile and adult 

arrests. More than half of all the inmates had at least one prior juvenile arrest, and an adult 

arrest. It should be noted that these answers were self-reported and often the inmate gave what 

he felt was his best estimate based on memory. Majority of the inmates indicated that they were 

represented by a Public Defender at the time of their court hearing. 

88 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
Gang AfSi’liations a 

When asked whether or not they had ever belonged to a gang, a majority of the inmates 

answered yes to this question. It is interesting to note that every inmate stated that they had 

renounced their gang affiliation either years earlier. or upon entering the Boot Camp. Numerous 

inmates still had gang tatoos. When asked whether it would be a problem remaining outside of 

the gang upon their release, each inmate felt confident that they could do so without any fear of 

reprisal. Those that had left their gangs in previous years stated that it had never been a problem 

for them to quit. 

Boot Camp Experience 

Most inmates interviewed appeared very dedicated to the Boot Camp. All were pleased 

to have been placed in the program and the majority felt that they would have been sentenced to 

state prison if they had not accepted the offer to attend Boot Camp. The inmates either received 

the Boot Camp sentence directly from the Judge or were offered this alternative by the 

prosecutor. In some instances, their attorney’s requested the Boot Camp as part ofa plea 

bargain. Most of the inmates felt that the majority of other inmates in the program would be 

sentenced to state prison if they had not been accepted. Moreover, all inmates interviewed stated 

that the Boot Camp was much safer than prison noting that there was no fear of being “shanked,” 

no fear of fighting or other types of violence typically associated with state prisons. ’ 

0 Program Experience 

All of the inmates interviewed had high praise for the computer education program. 

Many voiced a desire to join the computer workforce upon their release or to continue their 

computer education. For those who did not already have a high school diploma or GED, there 

was a strong desire to complete this course of study. They all seemed to realize that without an 

education, their habits could quickly fall back to their previous lifestyles. The drug and alcohol 

treatment program also received high praise from the inmates. Many, however, stated that they 

were not addicted and sold drugs solely for money. These individuals did not attend the drug 

counseling sessions. All expressed a clear desire to remain drug-free once released. 

Inmates who were assigned work details stated that they actually enjoyed the work. They 

appreciated the cleanliness of the camp and worked hard to maintain their environment. They 

also commented on the food quality as far superior to anything they had previously experienced. 

There were only two areas were inmates voiced dissent. No one liked the fact that they were 

awake each day at 5:30 a.m.; all would prefer longer sleeping hours. And, while they did admit 

that it was a necessary evil, most interviewees did not like the fact that the entire platoon 

received punishment for the misstep of one member. Otherwise, the inmates expressed a great 

appreciation for the discipline and the “Drills” (Drill Sergeants). 

89 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
The Fzitrrre a 

Each inmate stated that they had no intention of coming back into the criminal justice 

system. For repeat offenders, they seemed to believe that this time would be different. They 

believed that the Boot Camp instilled in them the discipline they previously lacked. They felt 

that they would not have any problems dissociating themselves with the peer groups that they 

had previously been accustomed to engaging in criminal activity with. Most had a strong family 

support system waiting for them upon their release. They all had a place to live, usually with 

family members, upon their release. However, very few had job prospects waiting for them. 

Almost all of the interviewees were counting on the Boot Camp to secure employment for them 

upon completion of the program. 

Most individuals who were involved in drug or alcohol treatment in the Boot Camp 

planned on continuing the same upon release. However, there was no continued treatment 

structured for their release. Their only plan was to continue attending Alcoholics or Narcotics 

Anonymous meetings on the outside and finding a mentor to help them through the most difficult 

times. Some of the inmates had additional one year probation sentences to serve upon 

completion of all phases of the Boot Camp. 

In all, the inmates we spoke to were quite impressed with the entire experience. We 

spoke to inmates at all different levels of entry. Each had their own unique take on the Boot 

Camp experience, but there was a unanimous support for the program and a resounding approval 

for the staff and its rules and regulations. When asked their likes and dislikes about the program, 

numerous inmates stated that they genuinely did not have any negative comments. 

~ 

C. Outcome Analysis of Cook County’s Boot Camp 

As a means to assess the efficacy of Cook County’s Boot Camp programing efforts, an 

external outcome evaluation was conducted. This evaluation examines and compares the 

demographic characteristics, offense characteristics, and recidivism rates of a sample of boot 

camp participants and traditional releases. 

Completing an outcome analysis of Cook County’s Boot Camp program required a quasiexperimental retrospective design. One treatment group (Cook County boot camp participants) 

and one comparison group was selected, with the treatment group divided into two groups, those 

that completed the residential phase of the boot camp and those that did not complete the 

residential phase of the program. Data was collected for offenders associated with Cook County 

Department of Corrections between the dates of March 1997 and March 2000 as well as a 

comparison group of similarly situated offenders who were sentenced to the IDOC. 

Sixty-one percent of offenders who enter Cook County’s boot camp successfully 

complete the residential and aftercare phase of the program; among those that failed the program, 

90 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
12% were removed from the camp, 18% were re-sentenced, and 8% went AWOL during the post 

supervision phase of the program (see Table 16). 

, Aftercare 

Admission with a Termination 

Completed Successfully 

Review of Table 17 shows that there are few differences between those that completed 

the residential and aftercare phase of the program, and those that did not complete both phases of 

the program. It should be noted that this section of the report refers to the terms “complete” and 

“not complete” differently than subsequent sections. Complete is defined as when a boot camp 

participant finishes both the boot camp phase and the aftercare phase of the program, and did not 

complete is defined as when a boot camp participant does not complete all phases of the 

program. 

334 22% 

996 loo% 

607 61% 

Majority of the offenders that succeeded in completing both phases of the program and 

those that did not were African American males. More than 60% of the offenders in both groups 

were under the age of 2 1 ; the average age of those who completed the program was 20 compared 

to the age of 19 for those that did not complete the program. 

Residential Phase 

Disciplinary Reinovals 

Re-sen tenced 

TABLE 16 

3 04 31% 

119 12% 

I85 19% 

ADMISSION STATUS AND BOOT CAMP TERMINATION STATUS 

AS OF APRIL 14,2000 

Total Admission 100% 

11 Still in Program I 35% 

11 Residential I 213 I 14% 

11 Unsuccessful Completions I 389 I 39% 

II After Care Phase I 85 I 9% 

85 I ~ 

9% 

91 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
TABLE 17 

SUCCESS AND FAILURE CHARACTERISTICS OF BOOT CAMP PARTICIPANTS 

N % N % N % N 

Total 607 100% 389 100% Total 608 100% 391 100% 

45% 

Male 579 95% 379 97% LOW 19 3 yo 5 

Female 28 5% IO 3% Moderate 206 34% 173 

1 White I 60 I 10% I 27 I 7% I Highest 

llnder 2 I 379 62% 290 75% High 161 26% 125 32% 

22-25 106 17% 55 1440 Higher! 6 1 ?lo 3 <I% 

Person 110 18% 78 20% Escape Threat 0 0% 2 .5% 

Property 70 11% 60 15% Serious Violence Threat 7 1% 3 3% 

Drug 298 49% 210 54% Substance Abuse Problems 217 36% 129 33% 

Othcr 92 15% 34 9% Known Management 15 2.5% I2 3% 

Problem 

Unknown 37 6% 6 I .5% Excessive Bail 226 37 133 34% 

Classification Scores I I II I Suicide Risk 

I 1 I I 

CfaSsificatioo Led ..-. ’ hledical Prohlenis I49 24% 97 25% 

Mini in tiin 51 X?/o 44 I I% Psychological Iinpairnient 8 I Yo 7 

Meditiin 380 63% 232 59Y0 hlental Deliciency 4 <I% I 

Maximum 174 29% 113 29% I I 

92 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
Majority of the participants who completed the program and those that did not complete 0 the program were charged with a felony, and most committed a drug offense; the second most 

common offense was crimes against persons for both groups. A greater percentage of those who 

failed to complete the program, had a serious offense history than those who completed the 

program, and slightly more of those that did not complete the program also had a history of 

alcohol and drug abuse than those who succeeded in completing the entire program. 

D. Comparison Groups 

As previously mentioned, in order to conduct an evaluation of the boot camp program, 

three study groups were selected -- those that completed the residential phase; those that did not 

complete the residential phase; and a group of inmates who were not admitted to the boot camp 

program but who were similar to the first two groups but were sentenced to the IDOC. Excluded 

form the analysis were the 547 inmates who are still participating in the residential phase (39% ) 

or the post boot camp phase (61%) of the program at the time in which data was collected (see 

Table 16). 

As indicated above, there were 607 who had completed both phases of the program and 

389 who failed to complete either Phase 1 or Phase 2. The IDOC comparison group was drawn 

from 6,320 offenders who based on their level of classification, current charge, and history of 

offense could have been potential boot camp participants, but were sentenced to Cook County 

State Correctional facility. (See Appendix A for a more detailed discussion of how the treatment 

groups and comparison study group populations were selected.) This statistic itself is quite 

significant as it reflects the number of offenders sentenced to prison who could have been placed 

in the Cook County boot camp program had it had sufficient bed space. Even more interesting is 

that fact that the average length of stay for these Cook County boot camp eligibles is only 3.5 

months. 

Table 18 displays the demographic and offense characteristics for each of the study 

groups. Not surprisingly, most of the individuals in both the Cook County /treatment and IDOC 

comparison groups are male, with less than six percent of both the residential failure and the 

residential success treatment groups population being less than six percent female; the 

comparison group had a higher percentage of females in its population at 10%. Few group 

differences were observed when examining the racial breakdowns of the groups, with all of the 

groups having a predominate African American population at or over 80% for all three groups. 

Latinos and whites followed at a close second and third in the racial make-up of the offender 

populations (with equal percentages or less than a two percent difference). 

Slight differences are observed when examining the age differences of the two treatment 

groups, majority of both groups populations were under the age of 21 , and those who 

successfully completed the residential phase of the boot camp were only faintly older (with an 

average age of 20) than those who did not complete the residential phase of the boot camp (with 

an average age of 19). In contrast the IDOC population was considerably older with a more 

93 

a 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
TABLE 18 

COMPARISON GROUP CHARACTERISTICS 

March 1997 to March 2000 

Background Bout Camp Residential IDOC Background Boot Camp Rcsideiitial IDOC 

Failures Group Failures Group 

N=6$36 

Attributes Graduates Phase Comparison A ttri hutes Graduates Phase Coniparisor 

N=692 N=304 N=6,336 N=691 N=301 

Minimum l4Y0 Known Gang I Afiliation 

20% I 39% 

99.7% I 99% I ~ : 

Person 18.5% I 9% 13% Suspccted Drug 99.7% 100% 4% 

Property 12% I 2?6 24% Escessive Bail 38% 33% 34% 

Drug 49.1% 48% 5 I% Medical I’roblems 24”/0 25% 43% 

Other 15% I 9Sb I I% 

Unknown 6% 2% 2% 

Trafficker 

J 

94 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
Over 50% of all three study groups had prior felony convictions (52% for both the boot 

camp graduate population and the comparison group population, and 59% of the non-graduates), 

and 50% or more had a serious offense history (52% of the graduate group, 63% of those that did 

not graduate, and 50% of the IDOC group). In relation to the severity of the arresting charge, 

most of those who completed the residential phase of the program had a high ranking (59%) or a 

moderate ranking (35%). Among those that did not complete the residential phase of the 

program, the most common ranking of their charges were moderate (52%) or low (45%); the 

reverse was true for the comparison group, with most of their charges being 

ranked moderate (62%) or high (35%). 

The most common arresting criminal offense was drug related for all three study groups 

(49% of the boot camp graduates, 48% of the non-graduates, and 5 1% of the comparison group). 

The second most common arresting offense for the boot camp graduate group and its counterpart 

- the group that did not complete the residential phase - was crimes against persons (19%) while 

the second most common offense for the comparison group was property offenses at 24%. 

In regard to special management concerns, over 34% of both had a gang affiliation, 

compared to only 20% of the comparison group. Over 30% of the two treatment group 

populations as well as the comparison group populations had reported substance abuse problems. 

While slight differences were observed among the three study group characteristics, the 

groups are more similar than different. There were two major differences found in the 

populations. A higher percentage of the offender population in the two treatment groups were 

younger than those in the comparison group. It should also be noted that a higher percentage of 

the offenders in the two treatment groups had a reported substance abuse problem. In spite of 

this, all three study groups are comparable. 

E. Recidivism Analysis 

In order to compute a standardized recidivist rate among the study groups, only inmates 

who were discharged from either the boot camp/county jail or the IDOC before April 1, 1999 

were selected. The date of April 1, 1999 was used to ensure that all offenders were in the 

community for a period of at least 12 months Out of 996 individuals who were discharged from 

boot camp either successfully or unsuccessfully, 373 were discharged before April 1, 1999. 

Among these offenders 60 (or 16%) were admitted to the IDOC -- primarily for a new sentence 

for a new crime or for violating the terms of their probation (Table 6). Not surprisingly, those 

that failed the residential phase of the program had a much higher IDOC admission rate that 

those who completed the program (32% verus 5%). 

For the IDOC comparison group, a random sample of 328 inmates was drawn. These 

inmates were similar to the Cook County boot camp inmates but had been sentenced to state 

prison. Since these inmates were released between January 1 and April 1, 1999. it was necessary 

to do a further refinement of the boot camp releases to ensure they had been released during this 

95 

9 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
same window, As shown in Table 19, this analysis shows that inmates who complete the boot 

camp program have a very low re-admission rate (7%) as compared to the program failures 

(20%) and the IDOC comparison group (9%). Given the limits of this analysis, it's clear that the 

boot camp program is successful in graduating inmates who have a very low probability of being 

returned or re-sentenced to state prison. However, it is also clear that a large number of inmates 

now being sentenced to state prison, who are similar to the IMPACT inmates have, an equally 

low recidivism rate and can be retained at the local level. 

I 

Released Prior to April I, 1999 I I I 

TABLE 19 

~ ___~ ~~ 

Residential Phase Graduates 70 5 7% 

Residential Phase Failures 51 IO 20% 

COOK COUNTY BOOT CAMP VERSUS IDOC BOOT CAMP ELIGIBLES 

RE-ADMISSION TO IDOC RATES 

~~~~ ~ 

Total Boot Camp Participants 

Residential Phase Graduates 

a 

3 73 60 16% 

218 11 5 yo 

Residential Phase Failures 

Released Between January 1 and April 1, 1999 

Total Boot Camp Participants 

155 49 32% 

121 15 12% 

I DOC Boot Camp Eligibles Released Between January 

1 and April I, 1999 

328 28 9% 

F. Cost Analysis 

In terms if costs, the FY 2000 appropriation for the program is $7.8 million. With 

approximately 550 inmates in the program on any given day (220 in the residential phase and 

330 in the post-release phase), the overall daily cost is approximately $40 per day. It's difficult 

to separate the residential phase from the after care costs but one would have to assume that most 

of the budget is allocated to the residential phase. By comparison, the average cost of a typical 

Cook County inmate and IDOC inmate is $50 which reflects true incarceration costs. Assuming 

that 75% of the Impact budget is associated with the residential phase, those costs would be $70- 

$75 per day. The higher cost is expected given the higher staffing level (both security and 

programmatic). 

96 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
The program, if expanded. would be cost-beneficial to the IDOC. It appears that the 

Cook County program is diverting several hundred inmates from the IDOC. For example, as 

shown in Table 20, there has been a decrease in the number if cases being recommended by the 

courts in Cook County for the IDOC boot camp program which mirrors the number being 

admitted to the Cook County boot camp (400-500). However, these low risk inmates are 

spending only an average of 3-4 months in state prison before they are release. Given that 

approximately 16,000 inmates are admitted to the IDOC from Cook County per year, a diversion 

of400-500 short-term prison bound inmates per year who will spend an average of 3-4 months in 

state prison would only have a marginal impact on the IDOC budget. 

G. Summary 

The Cook County Boot Camp is a well-administered program that provides a safe 

environment for staff and inmates. Inmates, staff, and the criminal courts staff have high praise 

for the program. While in the program, the inmates who complete it improve their education and 

life skills capabilities. The program also has a well-structured aftercare component. Although 

the program is more expensive to operate than a traditional jail setting, it is succeeding in 

retaining offenders in the community who otherwise would have been incarcerated at the IDOC 

without jeopardizing public safety. It has been recommended to the agency that efforts be made 

to expand the number of low risk offenders who are being unnecessarily sentenced to state prison 

into other less expensive alternatives to incarceration. 

*. 

TABLE 20 

ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS 

JUDICIAL RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPACT INCARCERATION PROGRAM 

IV WASHINGTON STATE 

The Washington state WEC program was part of the BJANIJ-funded Corrections 

Options Demonstration program that was evaluated by the National Council on Crime and 

97 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
Delinquency (NCCD). The NCCD targeted WEC as one of its primary evaluation sites due to its 

positive process evaluation results. Namely. that it was a well-administered boot camp program 

that placed more emphasis on treatment services and less on the military style regime. 

'II) 

Once the an inmate is approved for WEC, she/he must serve the remainder of hidher 

sentence at the WEC and then enter the community under an intense supervision program 

(Community Custody Inmate Status). Thus, WEC is a vehicle for early release. Generally 

speaking, two years of confinement are reduced to two months in prison awaiting a screening 

decision at the DOC reception center and then another four months at the WEC facility or a total 

LOS of six months before being released to the community supervision program. 

Table 2 1 summarizes the attributes of the inmates who were admitted to the program. As 

shown here, the program participants were predominantly male (70%), youthful (24 years), white 

(53%) and Black (37%), unemployed at arrest (37%), without any college education (16% ), and 

convicted of a drug-related (70%) crime (see Table 21). 

In terms of prior criminal record, the vast majority of cases had no prior prison terms (86 

percent) but a large proportion had prior felony arrests (43%) and convictions (40%). The 

majority of the prior convictions were for nonviolent crimes. Relative to drug use, a significant 

number had prior drug treatment (42%) and were poly-drug users (principally alcohol, marijuana, 

* and cocaine) 

A quasi-experimental design was implemented that successfully matched the WEC 

participants on a number of key demographic and criminal history attributes. A 12-month 

follow-up was conducted on both groups. There was a total of 159 offenders in the experimental 

group, and 127 offenders in the comparison group. There were no major differences on the key 

attributes of gender, race, ethnicity, age and committing offense. 

As shown in this table, the WEC participants had a higher overall recidivism rates than 

the comparison group. Similar to the other sites, the technical violation rates reflect most of the 

recidivism with relatively low rates for the offenders returned to prisons with new sentences. 

The WEC participants actually had a lower new conviction rate although these rates are quite 

small for both groups. The higher technical violation rate was ascribed to the intensive 

supervision component that was required by the WEC program. 

98 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
TABLE 21 

Sex 

Male 

Female 

Race 

White 

ATTRIBUTES OF THE WEC PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS 

(N=449) 

70.0% 

30.0% 

53.0% 

Prior Criminal Arrest 

Prior Criminal Conviction 

Violent 

Property 

Drug 

Black 1 37.0% 

42.7% 

40.1 % 

1.7% 

2 1.9% 

24.2% 

Other 

Prior Prison Term 

~ 

8.0% Alcohol 18.2% 

I 13.9% 

~ ____ 

Most Serious Crime Convicted 

Violent 

Property 

Drugs 

Other 

Asian 

~~ 

Currently in AA/NA 2 1.2% 

8.0% Ever in AA/NA 30.3% 

20.7% Enrolled in AA/NA for 6 Months 10.6% 

69.5% Unemployed at Arrest 36.8% 

1.8% Average Age 23.7 years 

I 2.0%. Prior Primary Drug Abuse 

Education Level I Marijuana I 23.3% I I I 

No High School Degree I 41.0% I Cocaine I 13.2% 

High School or GED I 42.0% 1 Other I . 13.4% 

Some College or Higher 16.0% I Prior Drug Treatment? I 41.6% 

IDrug Treatment His tory? T 

99 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
TABLE 22 

Return to Prison - Technical Violation 

Technical Violation - New Conviction 

12 MONTH RETURN TO PRISON RATES FOR 

WEC AND COMPARISON GROUPS 

25.2 13.4 

2.5 5.5 

With respect to costs, the possible averted costs produced by WEC would be caused by . *e reducing the projected length of stay. As noted earlier, two years of confinement are reduced to 

six months. The comparison group, which consisted of inmates who in general were eligible for 

the WEC at a time prior to the WEC’s implementation, were evaluated to determine their actual 

LOS. Based upon the most recent data at the time of the evaluation, 439 inmates had been 

released from the program in 1996. WEC cases spent six months incarcerated while the controls 

were imprisoned for 16 months or a savings of 10 months. On an annualized basis, this program 

is reducing the projected population by approximately 366 inmates. The annualized operating 

cost of WEC is $5,254,830 based on a daily rate of $65.58 as compared to $10,156,704 for the 

control group which is assumed to be a minimum custody population with a daily cost of $57.80. 

The net annual savings would be $4.9 million. 

However, these rates assume that the WEC program has been sufficiently large enough to 

avoid the construction of a new facility or housing unit. The numbers presented here suggest that 

the bed savings may not be sufiicient to avoid prison construction as was the case for many other 

boot camps. If so, it would be more appropriate to use marginal savings rates which would 

approximate 20 percent of the $4.9 million, or about $1 million per year. 

It is noteworthy that the size of the WEC program has diminished significantly over the 

past few years. As of2000, the program now only houses a handful of inmates and will likely 

close due to a lack ofreferrals. 

100 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
TABLE 23 

Graduates per Year 

LOS 

Cost per Month 

COST COMPARISONS FOR WEC AND CONTROL CASES 

439 439 

6 months 16 months 

$1,995 $1,446 

Source: Washington Department of Corrections 

V. OREGON SUMMIT PROGRAM 

The Oregon boot camp Summit program was evaluated by the Department of 

Correction’s research unit. The Oregon researchers attempted to match known attributes of the 

boot camp graduates with the inmates who were not selected for the program. What is more 

important, inmates who failed to complete the program were not included in the impact analysis. 

A total of 1,663 individuals have been admitted to the program but only 56% have completed the 

institutional phase and 48% completed both the institutional and transitional leave (aftercare) 

phases. This high drop out rate makes the decision to exclude dropouts from the recidivism 

analysis even more problematic 

I 

0 

Table 24 presents the demographic, social, and offense characteristics of the boot camp 

graduates and the comparison group. At first blush, the two groups appear too similar. Both 

groups are predominantly male (91 % and 87%, respectively), white (over 70% for both groups) 

and relatively young with mean ages of 28 and 29 years. There were some differences between 

the two groups with respect to the type of crime the inmates had been sentenced to prison for 

with a higher percentage of (34% versus 26%) of the boot camp graduates who had been 

convicted of a violent crime. 

Recidivism rates, based on re-incarceration within 12 months of release from prison 

shows the boot camp graduates have lower recidivism rates, as measured by a subsequent felony 

conviction at 12, 24 and 36 month intervals. However, it must again be noted that the Summit 

rates exclude the large number of boot camp participants who did not complete the program. 

Most of the individuals in both the groups who did recidivate committed either a drug or 

property offense. 

101 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
a TABLE 24 

SUMMIT GROUP AND TRADITIONAL RELEASES CHARACTERISTICS 

Male I I 87.0 II 

Hispanic 5.6% 4.6% 

White 77.9% 77.2% 

African American 14.4% 13.7% 

Native American 1.4% 3.4% 

Other 0.7% 1 .O% 

Mean I 28 years 29 years II 

Violent 33.8% 26.2% 

Property 27.9% 26.2% 

25.4% 29.1 yo 

Other 12.9% 18.5% II 

12 Months 8.0% 16.8% II 

24 Months 17.3% 29.3% 

36 Months 22.7% 37.6% 

Note: Totals over or under 100% are due to rounding. 

102 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
VI. INDIANA’S CAMP SUMMIT BOOT CAMP 

The Indiana juvenile Camp Summit Boot Camp utilized an experimental design with 

a 

random assignment. 

Corrections (IDOC) identified eligible cases. As part of the regular assessment process, IDOC 

classification committee identified 28 young males each month from counties with aftercare 

programs. Three hundred youths were in the study by December 1997. Each month for one 

calendar year (1 2 months) youth were assigned to participate in the boot camp program - they 

became the experimental group; youths not selected for the program became the randomized 

control group and were assigned to regular programming at satellite and contract facilities. 

The random assignment was done as follows. The Indiana Department of 

Table 25 presents the demographic, social, and offense characteristics of the experimental 

and control groups. There was a total of 107 individuals in the experimental group and 98 in the 

control group. African Americans accounted for the majority of the population of both the 

experimental and the control groups, with whites accounting for the second largest percentage of 

both groups. The mean age of both study groups was 15 years of age. Forty-nine percent of the 

youth in the experimental group were in custody as a result of a property crime, 20 percent for 

violent crime, four percent for drugs, and the remainder for another type (or unknown type) of 

crime. Similar to the experimental group, most of the juveniles in the control group were in 

custody for a property offense (at 32%), 13% committed a violent offense, 10% committed a 

drug offense, and the remaining percent committed another type of crime or an unknown offense. 

The majority of the youth in both groups had a drug problem, at 86% for the experimental group 

and 91% for the control group. In summary the random assignment appears to have succeeded in 

creating two equivalent groups. 

’ 

- 

Recidivism analysis entailed examining the differences between individuals who 

graduated from Camp Summit and those that were in the control group, released from traditional 

juvenile correctional facilities. The recidivism rate for individuals charged as juveniles in both 

the experimental group and the control group was relatively the same, at 35 percent for the 

experimental group and 36 percent for the control group. 

Review of Indiana‘s Summit boot camp program revealed that overall the program has 

had little impact on the reduction of juvenile incarceration rates. The reincarceration rates for the 

graduates of the Summit program are only one percentage less than that of the control group. 

Therefore, although the average length of stay for the Summit participants is half that of the 

traditional releases, because the juveniles re-offend at approximately the same rate, the benefits 

associated with cost reduction are diminished. 

103 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
TABLE 25 

Property 

Other 

Drug 

CAMP SUMMIT EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL GROUP CHARACTERISTICS 

49% 32% 

28% 45% 

4 yo 10% 

I 11 BlacklAfrican American I 64% I 68% II 

I I It . I I II I I 

Note: Totals over or under 100% are due to rounding. 

104 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
CHAPTER 6 

THE DECLINING FUTURE OF BOOT CAMPS 

The results show that boot camp programs are not having the impact on offenders or 

corrections as originally envisioned. This is not due to poor administration or program 

“integrity”. Many of the programs reviewed here are well administered by highly dedicated 

staff who strongly believe in the ability of treatment to work. And there are many individual 

cases studies that suggest individual lives were turned around by the program. Furthermore, 

these programs are very popular with public officials and public offering the hope that such 

programs can become alternatives to what many view as a wasteful and ineffective prison 

system. But the reality is that they are not demonstrating a significant impact on recidivism, 

prison or jail crowding, or costs -- the three core goals of boot camps. 

The lack of success in reducing recidivism is likely tied to the fact that many boot camp 

participants are low risk by definition of the selection criteria employed by correctional agencies 

and the courts for determining who is eligible for admission to these programs. Too often boot 

camps target those who require little if any intervention to succeed in the future. 

Another factor that diminishes the programs recidivism effect is tied to the lack of 

treatment “dosage.” Although it’s clear that many boot camp participants improve their 

education levels and develop “pro social values,” these levels of improvement are not sufficient 

or sustained for substantial period of time to overcome the more powerful social and economic 

forces that facilitated their involvement in criminal activities. It is truly naive to assume that 

participation in a 3-6 month program can some how negate the lifelong effects of poverty, child 

abuse, substandard education, medical care, and the traumatic effects of violence and death -- 

even with the promise of “aftercare services”adds much to the lack of treatment effects. 

0 

With regard to averted cost savings, these programs are simply too small in terms of 

capturing a sufficient “market share” of the prison or jail population to have an impact on 

population growth and the associated operating and construction costs. Furthermore, boot camps 

tend to be more staff and program service intensive than traditional correctional facilities. 

For all of these reasons, the future of boot camps is not promising. It is unlikely that we 

will see more boot camps implemented. As reported hear, many have creased to exist or have 

dropped in terms of their numbers. However, it also true they will completely disappear from 

the correctional scene any time soon. As long as they offer a setting where low risk offenders 

can be exposed to a more intense level of services in a safe correctional environment without 

being overly expensive to operate, the need for them to exist will continue -- regardless of their 

limited therapeutic and cost benefits. 

105 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
REFERENCES m 

Adair, F. (1 984) “Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventories.’‘ In Keyser, Daniel J. and Richard C. 

Speetlant (eds.), Test Critiques, Vol. 1. Pp. 226-232. Kansas City, MO: Test Corporation 

of America (subsidiary of Westport Publishers). 

Ahmed, S.M.S., P.M. Valliant, and D. Swindle (1985) “Psychometric Properties of 

Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory.” Perceptual and Motor Skills 61 : 1235-1 241. 

Allen, M. (1997) “Boot Camps Fail to Pass Muster” Governing. 1 1: 2, Pp. 40-41. 

Amirkhan, J.H. (1 990) “A Factor Analytically Derived Measure of Coping: the Coping Strategy 

Indicator.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59(5): 1066-1 074. 

Andrews, D.A. and J. Bonta. (1 994) The Psychology oJ’Criminal Conduct. Cincinnati, OH: 

Anderson Publishing Co. 

Austin, James, M. Jones and M. Bolyard. (1 993) Growing Use of Jail Boot Camps: The 

Current State of the Art. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute 

of Justice. 

Barnes, G.E., and H. Prosen (1 984) “Depression in Canadian General Practice Attenders.” 

Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 4: 561-57 1. 

Beck, A.T., C.H. Ward, M. Mendelson, J. Mock, and J. Erbaugh. (1961) “An Inventory for 

Measuring Depression.” Archives oJ’Generu1 Psychiatry 4: 561 -57 1. 

Bottcher, J. and T. Isorena (1 994) “LEAD: A Boot Camp and Intensive Parole Program: An 

Implementation and Process Evaluation of the First Year.” Washington, DC: California 

Youth Authority and U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 

1 505 13. 

Camps, P. (1 996) ”Shock Incarceration in New York.” In Juvenile and Adult Boot Camps, 

Pp. 23-38, Lanham, MD: American Correctional Association and U.S. Department of 

Justice, NCJ 165592. 

Castellano, T.C., and S.M. Plant (1996) ”Boot Camp Aftercare Programming: Current Limits 

and Suggested Remedies.” In Juvenile and Adult Boot Camps. Pp. 233-255, Lanham, 

MD: American Correctional Association and U.S. Department of Justice, NCJ 165592. 

Castellano, T.C. and I.R. Soderstroni (1 997) ”Self-Esteem, Depression and Anxiety Evidenced 

by a Prison Inmate Sample: Interrelationships and Consequences for Prison 

Programming.” Prison Journal 77(3): 259-280. 

106 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
Clark, K. K., C.A. Bormann, R.S. Cropanzano, and K. Jaines (1995) ”Validation Evidence for 

Three Coping Measures.” Journul ofPersonnIity Assessment 65(3): 434-455. 

Clark, C.L., D.W. Aziz and D.L. MacKenzie (1994) Shock Incarceration in New York: Foczrs 

on Treatment. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of 

Justice. 

Clemmer, D. (1 940) The Prison Community. Boston, MA: Christopher Publishing. 

Coopersmith, S. (1 98 1) Self-Esteem Inventories. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. 

Cowan R., H. Altmann and F. Pysh (1 978) “A Validity Study of Selected Self-concept 

Instruments.” Measurements and Evaluation in Guidance. 10,2 1 1-22 1. 

Cowles, E.L. and T.C. Castellano (1995) “Boot Camp Drug Treatment and Aftercare 

Intervention: An Evaluation Review.” Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 

National Institute of Justice. . 

Cronin, R. (1 993) “Evaluation of the National Demonstration of Boot Camps for Juvenile 

Offenders.” American Institutes for Research (presented at the Fourth Annual. 

Conference on Evaluating Crime and Drug Control Initiatives, Washington, DC: U.S. a Department of Justice. 

Donaldson, T.S. (1 974) Affective Testing in the Alum Rock Voucher Schools. RAND 

Corporation, February. 

D‘Zurilla, T.J. and E.C. Chang (1995) “The Relations between Social Problem Solving and 

Coping.“ Cognitive Therapy and Research 19(5): 547-562. 

D’Zurilla, T.J. and A. Nezu. (1990) “Development and Preliminary Evaluation of the Social 

Problem-Solving Inventory.” Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and 

Clinicd Psychology 2(2): 156- 163. 

D’Zurilla, T.J., A. Nezu and A. Maydeu-Olivares (1995) “Manual for the Social ProblemSolving Inventory-Revised.” Unpublished manuscript, State University of New York at 

Stoney Brook. 

Empey, L. (1982) “Implications & A Game with No Winners.’‘ In A.J. Manocchio and J. DUM 

(eds.), The Time Game: TWO Views oj”u Prison. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. 241-52. 

107 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
Flowers, G.T., T. S. Carr and R. B. Ruback (1991) ”Special Alternative Incarceration 

Evaluation.” Washington DC: Georgia Department of Corrections and U.S. Department 

of Justice, NCJ 13285 1 

0 

Frauenknecht, M., and D.R. Black (1 995) ”Social Problem-Solving Inventory for Adolescents 

(SPSI-A): Development and Preliminary Psychometric Evaluation.” Journal of 

Personalit?, Assessment 64(3): 522-539. 

Gardner, E.A. (1 968) “Development of a Symptom Checklist for the Measurement of 

Depression in a Population.” Unpublished manuscript. 

Gendreau, P. ( 1996) “The Principles of Effective Intervention with Offenders.” In A. Harland 

(ed.) Choosing Correctional Options that Work: Dejning the Demand and Evaluating 

the Supply. Pp. 1 17-1 82. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Gransky. L.A., T.C. Castellano and E.L. Cowles (1995). “Is There a “Second Generation”of 

Shock Incarceration Facilities?” In J.O. Smykla and W.C. Selka (eds.), Intermediate 

Sanctions: Sentencing in the 1990‘s. Pp. 89-1 1 1. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson. 

Gransky, L.A. and R.J. Jones, R.J. (1995) “Evaluation of the Post-release Status of Substance 

Abuse Program Participants.” Chicago, IL: Illinois Criminal Justice Information 

Authority. 

a Heppner. P.P., and C.H. Peterson (1982) “The Development and Implications of a Personal 

Problem Solving Inventory.” Journal of Counseling Psychology 29: 66-75. 

Hunter, R.J., V.S. Burton, J.W. Marquart, and S.J. Cuvelier (1 992) ”Measuring Attitudinal 

Change of Boot Camp Participants.” Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 8(4): 

283 -298. 

Illinois Compiled Statutes. Chapter 730, ILCS, 5/5-8-1. I, 1998. 

Illinois Department of Corrections, Planning and Budget. (1 991). Impacf Incarceration 

Progrum Status Report. Springfield, IL: Illinois Department of Corrections. 

Illinois Department of Corrections, Planning and Budget. (1 991). Impact Incarceration 

Program: 1991 Annunl Report to the Governor and General Assembly. Springfield, TL: 

Illinois Department of Corrections. 

Illinois Department of Corrections, Planning, and Budget. ( 1992). Impuct Incnrcerution 

Progi-ani: I992 Annucrl Report to the Governor and GeneruI Assembly. Springfield, IL: 

Illinois Department of Corrections. 

108 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
Illinois Department of Corrections, Planning, and Budget. ( 1994). Impact Incarceration 

Program: 1993 Annuul Report to the Governor nnd General Asseinbly. Springfield, IL: 

Illinois Department of Corrections. 

0 

Illinois Department of Corrections, Planning, and Budget. (1 995). Impact Incarcercition 

Program: 199.5 Annual Report to the Governor and General Assembly. Springfield, IL: 

Illinois Department of Corrections. 

Illinois Department of Corrections, Planning, and Budget. (1 996). Impact Incarceration 

Program: 1996 Annual Report to the Governor and General Assembly. Springfield, IL: 

Illinois Department of Corrections. 

Illinois Department of Corrections, Planning, and Budget. ( 1997). Impact Incarceration 

Program: 1997 Annual Report to the Governor and General Assembly. Springfield, IL: 

Illinois Department of Corrections. 

Illinois Department of Corrections, Planning, and Budget. (1 998). Impact Incarceration 

Program: 1998 Annual Report to the Governor and General Assembly. Springfield, IL: 

Illinois Department of Corrections. 

Illinois Revised Statutes. Chapter 38, paragraph 1005-8- 1.1, 199 1. 

0 Illinois Task Force on Crime and Corrections. (1 993) Final Report. Springfield, IL: Illinois 

State Police. 

Jesness, C. (1 983) The Jesness Inventory. Palo, Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press. 

Jesness, C. and R. Sedge (1 985) “Jesness Inventory Classification System.” Palo Alto: 

Consulting Psychologists Press. 

Johnson, R. (1 996) Hard Time: Understanding and Reforming the Prison (2nd edition). 

Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co. 

Jones, R.J. (1 996). “Illinois’ Impact Incarceration Program: Evaluation and Implementation 

Issues.” In American Correctional Association (ed.). Juvenile and Adult Boot Camps 

(pp. 327-35 1). Lanham, MD: American Correctional Association and U.S. Department 

of Justice. 

Karr, S.P. & Jones, R.J. (1996). “The Development and Implementation of Illinois’ Impact 

Incarceration Program.” In D.L. MacKenzie and E.E. Hebert (eds.), Correctionti1 Boot 

Ccimps: A Tough Intennediiate Sanction (pp. 69-92). Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Justice, National Institute of Justice. 

109 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
Kimball, O.M. (1 972) ”Development of Norms for the Coopersmith Self-esteem Inventory: 

Grades Four through Eight.“ Doctoral dissertation, Northern Illinois University. e 

Dissertation Abstracts International 34: Pp. 1 13 1-1 132. 

Kokenes, B. (1978) “A Factor Analytic Study of the Coopersmith Self-esteem Inventory.” 

Adolescence 13: 149-155. 

MacKenzie, D.L. (1 989) “The Parole Performance of Offenders Released from Shock 

Incarceration (Boot Camp Prisons): A Survival Time Analysis.” Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. 

MacKenzie, D. L. and J.W. Shaw (1990) “Inmate Adjustment and Change During Shock 

Incarceration: The Impact of Correctional Boot Camp Programs.” Justice Quarterly 7: 

125- 150. 

MacKenzie, D.L., L.A. Gould, L.M. Riechers, and J.W. Shaw. (1990) “Shock Incarceration: 

Rehabilitation or Retribution?” Jotcmal of Ojfender Counseling, Services and 

Rehabilitation 14(2):25- 40. 

MacKenzie, D.L., and J.W. Shaw. (1990) “Inmate Adjustment and Change During Shock 

Incarceration: The Impact of Correctional Boot Camp Programs.” Justice Quarterly 

7: 125-150. 

0 MacKenzie, D.L., and C. Souryal. (1991). “Boot Camp Survey: Rehabilitation, Recidivism 

Reduction Outrank Punishment as Main Goals.” Corrections Today 53(6):90-92,94-96. 

MacKenzie, D.L., and C. Souryal(l992). “Inmate Attitude Change During Incarceration: A 

Comparison of Boot Camp and Traditional Prison.” Part 11, Final Report to the National 

Institute of Justice, University of Maryland. 

MacKenzie, D.L. (1 993) “Boot Camp Prisons in 1993.“ National Institute of Justice Journal, 

227: 21 -28, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. 

MacKenzie, D. L. (1 993) “The Impact of Shock Incarceration on Technical Violations and New 

Criminal Activities,” Justice Qiiarterly 10:463-87. 

MacKenzie, D. L. (1 994) “Boot Camps: A National Assessment,” Overcrowded Times 5(4): 

14-18. 

MacKenzie, D.L. and A. Piquero (1994) “Impact of Shock Incarceration Programs on Prison 

Crowding” Crime and Delinquency 40: 2, Pp. 222- 249. 

110 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
Mackenzie, D.L., and C. Souryal(1994) iWulti-Site Evuluation ojShock Incarceration. 0 Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice: National Institute of Justice. 

MacKenzie, D.L. and C. Souryal, (1 994) “Multi-Site Evaluation of Shock Incarceration, Report 

to the National Institute of Justice.” College Park, MD: University of Maryland, 

Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice. 

MacKenzie, D.L., R. Brame, D. McDowall, and C. Souryal(l995) “Boot Camp Prisons and 

Recidivism in Eight States.” Criminology, 33(3), 327-357. 

Mackenzie, D.L., and R. Brame (1 995) “Shock Incarceration and Positive Adjustment during 

Community Supervision.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 1 1 (2), 1 1 1-142. 

MacKenzie, D.L. and E.E. Hebert, eds. (1996) Correctional Boot Camps: A Tough Intermediate 

Sanction. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. 

MacKenzie, D.L. ( 1997) “Criminal Justice and Crime Prevention.” In Preventing Crime: What 

Works, What Doesn’t, What‘s Promising, (eds. L. W. Sherman, D. Gottfredson, D. 

MacKenzie, J. Eck, P. Reuter, and S. Bushway), report to the U.S. Congress. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. 

McCorkle, R.C. (1995) “Correctional Boot Camps and Change in Attitude: Is All the Shooting a Necessary?’ Justice Quarterly 12(2): 365-375. 

Morash, M. and L. Rucker (1 990) “Critical Look at the Idea of Boot Camp as a Correctional Reform.” 

Crime und Delinquency 36: 2, Pp. 204-222. 

Orme, J.G., Reis, and E.J. Herz, (1986) “Factorial and Discriminate Validity of the Center for 

Epidemiological Studies Depression (CES-D) Scale.” JournuZ ofclinical Psychology, 

42(1), 28-33. 

Parent, D. (1 989) “Shock Incarceration: An Overview of Existing Programs” Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. 

Parent, D. (1 990) “Day Reporting Centers for Criminal Offenders: A Descriptive Analysis of 

Existing Programs.” Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of 

Justice. 

Parent, D., V. Leiter, S. Kennedy, L. Livens, D. Wentworth, and S. Wilcox (1 993) 

“Conditions of Confinement: A Study to Evaluate the Conditions in Juvenile Detention 

and Correctional Facilities.” Final Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

111 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 
Parent, D. (1 994) ”Boot Camps Failing To Achieve Goals,” Overcrowded Times 5(4):8-11. 

Parent, D., J. Byrne, V. Tsarfaty, L. Valade, and J. Esselman (1995) ”Day Reporting Centers.” 

Issues and Pructices. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of 

Justice. 

Peters, M.., D. Thomas, and C. Zamberlan (1 997) “Boot Camps for Juvenile Offenders.” 

Program Summary. In Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Series. 

Washington DC: Series: U.S. Department of Justice, NCJ 164258. 

Radloff, L.S. (1977) “The CES-D Scale: A Self-Report Depression Scale for Research in the 

General Population.’‘ Applied Psychological Measurement 1 : 385-40 1. 

Reiter, H.H., and D. Costanzo (1986) “Relation between Personality Variables and the 

Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory.’’ Mankind Quarterly 27(2): 16 1 - 165. 

Sadowski, C., L.A. Moore and M.L. Kelley (1994) “Psychometric Properties of the Social 

Problem Solving Inventory (SPSI) with Normal and Emotionally Disturbed 

Adolescents.” Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 22(4): 487-499. 

Sechrest, D.K. (1989) “Prison ‘Boot Camps’ Do Not Measure Up.” Federal Probation 53: 3 

Pp. 15-20 . 

a Spielberger, C.D. (1981) Manual for the State-Trait Arzxiety Inventory (Form r). Palo Alto, CA: 

Consulting Psychologists Press. 

Sykes, G. S. and S.L. Messinger (1960) “The Inmate Social System.“ In R.A. Cloward, D.R. 

Cressey, G.H. Grosser et al. (eds.), Theoretical Studies in Social Organization of the 

Prison. Pp 5-20. New York: Social Science Research Council. 

Toch, H. (1 977) Living in Prison: The Ecology of Survival. New York: Free Press. 

U.S. General Accounting Office (1993), “Prison Boot Camps: Short-Term Prison Costs 

Reduced, but Long-Term Impact Uncertain.” Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Intellectual Property and Judicial Administration, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. 

House of Representatives. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 

GAO/GGD-93-69. 

Zamble, E. and F. Proporino (1 990) “Coping, Imprisonment, and Rehabilitation: Some Data and 

their Implications.” Criminal Justice and Behavior. 178: 53-70. 

Zhang, S.C. (1 998). ”In Search ofHopefu1 Glimpses: A Critique of Research Strategies in 

Current Boot Camp Evaluations.’‘ Crime and Delinquency, 22(2), 3 14-334. 

PROPERTY OF 112 

National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS) 

sox 6000 

F-?c&de, MD 20849-6000 

 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not