U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

National Institute of Justice

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

OFF ICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS

BJA NI J OJJDP BJS OVC

A National Survey of Aftercare

Provisions for Boot Camp Graduates

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

National Institute of Justice

Jeremy Travis, Director March 1996

continued . . .

by Blair B. Bourque, Mei Han, and Sarah M. Hill

Over the past decade, the Nation’s

prison population has increased 150 percent,1

 and prisons, jails, and juvenile

correctional facilities are bursting at the

seams. Under these conditions, many

State legislatures and correctional officials have seized upon shock incarceration, or correctional boot camps, as a

quick solution to overcrowding. Boot

camp programs, characterized by a

strong emphasis on military structure,

drill, and discipline, and an abbreviated

period of incarceration, promise immediate savings in prison costs resulting from

early releases, without appearing to

coddle criminals.

Recidivism rates have not declined

(see “Growth of Boot Camps,” page 7),

which research findings indicate is

partly a result of inadequate aftercare.

For example, boot camps in New York,

Illinois, and Louisiana that reported

lower recidivism rates than their prison

counterparts each maintained a 6-month

intensive supervision phase in the community. Researchers suggest that the

lower recidivism rates at these sites were

“very likely due to the type of community supervision and not the in-prison

phase of the program.” The study also

found that the more intensively offenders

Issues and Findings

Discussed in this Brief: Results of

an NIJ-sponsored survey of 52 boot

camps and their aftercare programs,

conducted by the American Institutes for Research.

Key issues: Research has indicated

that boot camps are not necessarily

lowering rates of recidivism, but this

situation may be the result of shortcomings in aftercare programs for

boot camp graduates. The study

analyzed five aspects of aftercare:

● Extent to which aftercare provisions have been expressly designed

for boot camp graduates.

● Continuity and interaction between boot camp and aftercare.

● Intensity and length of

supervision.

● Provisions for gradual decreases

in the structure provided.

● Provisions for monitoring and

evaluation of the boot camp and

aftercare programs.

Key findings:

● Thirteen boot camps (seven statewide adult programs, three juvenile

programs, and three local programs

in one State) had specialized aftercare programs for boot camp

graduates. Eighteen had no special

requirements, and 21 had a specified aftercare regimen, sometimes

with specific aspects for boot camp

graduates.

were supervised after their releases, the

better they adjusted.2

Another study of substance abuse programs in shock incarceration facilities

found that few had developed formal links

with drug treatment providers in the community. Many released offenders to traditional probation or parole supervision.

To deliver effective substance abuse programs, the study suggested development of

“improved aftercare programs and linkages

between the imprisonment and community

release phases of the boot camp sanction.”3

These findings—a consensus among boot

camp providers that aftercare may have

been shortchanged—prompted the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) to examine

boot camp aftercare programs. The American Institutes for Research conducted a

survey of aftercare programs from May

through December 1994 in conjunction

with NIJ’s broad boot camp research

agenda. After describing the survey

method, this Research in Brief describes

the types of aftercare programs available to

graduates of boot camps across the Nation,

identifies critical issues in boot camp

aftercare programming, and highlights

several innovative or promising program

features.
R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

2

Boot camps surveyed

The boot camps surveyed in July 1994

included 34 programs operated by State

correctional departments; the Federal

Bureau of Prisons’ program; 8 programs

operated by local departments of corrections, sheriff’s departments, or parole/

probation departments; and 9 juvenile

programs. This group represents most of

the boot camps in operation.4

Juvenile programs are operated by a variety of agencies. Sheriff’s departments operate the four Florida programs, and

private agencies administer the State of

Colorado and the Cuyahoga County,

Ohio, Juvenile Court programs. The

Boys and Girls Clubs of Mobile, the

Strickland Youth Center, and the University of South Alabama jointly run the

Alabama juvenile camp, and the California Youth Authority operates its own

boot camp.

Data on the age of the programs and the

operating capacity (see table 1) confirm

the continuing popularity of boot camps.

Thirty of the 52 programs have opened

since 1991. State programs account for

most of the operating capacity, with

9,304 beds available, primarily for males.

Because the juvenile programs tended to

be smaller than the State level programs,

usually with operating capacities between

30 and 60 beds, they accounted for a

relatively small proportion of the boot

camp beds in the survey. Local programs

reflected a wider range in size (e.g., the

Harris County, Texas, program can accommodate 384 individuals compared to

15 in the Brazos County, Texas, program)

and a dramatic increase in numbers. For

example, a 1993 study identified only 3

jail boot camps in Texas,5

 but by 1995

officials reported 14 boot camps operating there.

Methodology

The study employed a three-tiered process to identify the range of available

aftercare programming. The process included a telephone survey, creation of

boot camp and aftercare program summaries, and site visits.

In May and June 1994, initial telephone

interviews were conducted with boot

camp administrators identified through

two previous surveys—a 1993 mail survey of State correctional departments

and a 1992 telephone survey of juvenile

correctional departments. In most cases

a second telephone interview was conducted with a parole, probation, or other

official responsible for aftercare. Information from these sources was combined

to create individual case summaries of

the programs, which were then submitted for each boot camp’s review. Representatives from each of the programs

approved the descriptions.

Site visits were conducted at three boot

camps—the Minnesota Challenge Incarceration Program, Maryland’s Herman L.

Toulson Boot Camp, and the Kentucky

First Incarceration Shock Treatment

(FIST) Program—and the aftercare programs located in the proximate urban

areas of Minneapolis, Baltimore, and

Louisville. The focus of each visit was to

determine the links between the boot

camp and the aftercare program and to

document the breadth and intensity of

services and surveillance provided in

aftercare. Each site visit included interviews with key project staff members at

the boot camp and the aftercare program,

a review of archival data, and observations of program activities.

Issues and Findings

continued . . .

● Specialized care is limited by structural and statutory constraints. For

example, one agency may be responsible for incarceration while another

is responsible for probationary

programs.

● Sparsely populated States may

have too few boot camp graduates

in one location to maintain a specialized program.

● For the majority of boot camps,

integration of the boot camp experience and aftercare consists of joint

participation in prerelease planning.

● Most of those released from boot

camp are placed on intensive probation/parole in their communities; the

emphasis is on intensive supervision

rather than intensive services.

● Six programs require time in a residential transitional program (such as

a halfway house) and a few others

offer transitional programming to

certain types of offenders (e.g., drug

offenders or those with inappropriate

home supervision).

● Few programs have developed

structures for monitoring and evaluating boot camp graduates in aftercare.

Although recidivism rates appear

lower for boot camps offering specialized programs, definitive studies

have yet to be performed. However,

this survey found a number of models for integrating aftercare functions

with boot camps that appear to hold

promise for retaining the benefits of

the boot camp experience when the

graduate reenters the community.

Target audience: Corrections officials, State and local policymakers,

and researchers.

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f
R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

3

Table 1: Characteristics of Boot Camp Programs

Federal and State1 Local Juvenile

(n=35) (n=8) (n=9)

Year Opened

Prior to 1988 7 0 0

1988–1990 13 2 0

1991–1993 14 6 6

1994 1 0 3

Capacity2

Male 8,678 806 455

Female 626 102 0

Total Capacity 9,304 908 455

Minimum length of

residential boot camp

< 3 months 2 4 1

3 months 15 2 2

4 months 9 0 5

6 months 9 2 1

1 There were 32 States known to operate boot camps at the time of the study. Since

both Georgia and Oklahoma operate two different types of boot camps, they are

treated separately in the table.

2 When a program did not break out male and female capacity, it was counted as being

male. Therefore, the female capacities may be undercounted.

To the extent that the boot camp approach differs from those employed by

other correctional programs, one would

expect that the aftercare programming

would reflect these differences.

What then happens to the boot camp

graduates when they return to the community? The quasi-military activities,

physical regimen, and intense structure that distinguish boots camps from

other correctional interventions do not

extend to most aftercare programs.

Once individuals graduate from boot

camp, they are typically integrated

with releasees from other institutions.

Of the 52 boot camp programs contacted, 18 had no specific requirements or programming for boot camp

graduates (see table 3, page 5). Once

an individual is released from boot

camp, a decision is made as to whether

to place him or her on standard or

intensive supervision. Often this decision depends on whether intensive

supervision is available where the boot

camp graduate is released.

Existing research on aftercare

provisions

Existing research on aftercare has indicated the importance of tailoring the

community portion of an intervention

to the specific strategy employed by

the institution. One technique recommended for reinforcing and monitoring

skills learned in the institution in the

community is to employ individualized

case planning from the point of commitment until release from supervision.6

In order to adequately reinforce and

monitor skills built while incarcerated,

research also highlights the need for

employing intensive services as well

as intensive surveillance. The latter

would serve to flag problem areas that

Whereas most boot camps, particularly

the older programs, initially limited

participation to males, a substantial

number of the programs have expanded

to include females. The Federal program, 18 of the 34 State programs, and

4 of the 8 local programs have designated some beds for women, although

the total female capacity is only a fraction of the total capacity. The 44-bed

Practical Regimented Rehabilitation

for Inmates Determined to Excel

(PRIDE) program in Santa Clara, California, takes women only. Most of the

programs that serve women and men

maintain entirely separate facilities.

Some, however, such as the FIST Program in Kentucky, integrate females

into the regular platoon structure and

only segregate the living quarters.

The majority of boot camps exclude

violent offenders and those whose sentences are longer than a predetermined

maximum, commonly in the 5- to 10-

year range (see table 2, page 4). State

programs frequently exclude offenders

with a prior incarceration from consideration and require that participants

volunteer for the program. The majority of programs also have set a maximum age for eligibility, typically

between ages 25 and 35.

Overview of existing aftercare

provisions

In general, graduates of boot camps

are nonviolent, young adult (or juvenile) offenders serving their first incarceration. At this point, they have

completed a short but rigorous program that places rigid external controls on behavior. In exchange, they

are being released into the community

far sooner than their original sentences

would have permitted.
R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

4

Table 2: Eligibility Criteria for Boot Camps

 Eligibility Requirements Federal and State Local Juvenile

(n=35) (n=8) (n=9)

Maximum age NA1

25 or under 7 3

26–30 8 1

31–35 7 0

36–40 3 0

No limit 102 4

Maximum sentence NA1

Between 1 and 4 years 9 1

Between 5 and 10 years 15 1

Other3 11 6

Requirement that

enrollment be voluntary4 27 6 3

Exclude those with

Prior incarceration 23 1 0

Violent crimes 33 6 3

1 For juvenile programs the maximum age is the age of juvenile court jurisdiction,

typically age 17. Minimum ages for these programs are 14 for six programs, 12 for

one, 13 for one, and 16 for one. Sentence requirements do not apply.

2 Includes the Federal program, which does not exclude older offenders but does give

priority to offenders under age 36, and the Michigan program, which only accepts

probationers under age 26 but accepts inmates of any age.

3 Includes programs with sentences greater than 10 years and those with no maximums.

4 Does not include two programs (Arizona and Hidalgo County, Texas) that do not have

voluntary requirements but most of the participants do volunteer.

● Continuity and interaction between

boot camp and aftercare.

● Intensity and length of supervision.

● Provisions for gradual decreases in

the structure provided.

● Breadth and frequency of services

provided.

● Provisions for monitoring and evaluation of the boot camp and aftercare

programs.

Aftercare designed for boot

camp graduates

Challenges. Structural, logistical, and

statutory constraints limit boot camp

providers’ ability to offer graduates

would be managed through a referral

system employing incentives and

graduated consequences. Other principles of effective aftercare address

the extent to which programs take

advantage of existing community resources and the extent to which they

employ a system of program evaluation and management information.7

These findings, along with suggestions

from boot camp program and aftercare

staff during the first round of interviews, led to an examination of the

following aspects of aftercare:

● Extent to which aftercare provisions

have been expressly designed for boot

camp graduates.

specialized aftercare programs. In

many cases the correctional system

places the responsibility for postrelease services and supervision

outside the branch or agency that

operates the correctional institutions.

Because different agencies are responsible for the transition to the community, coherent programs are difficult

to develop. In some locations the program establishes the rules for aftercare

options; in others the judge resentences the individual who has completed boot camp; and in still others

the parole board or another governing

entity decides where to place the

graduate.

Geography poses problems for many

boot camps, particularly the State programs that serve broad jurisdictions.

Individuals may be released to counties dispersed across too wide an area

to make congregation of boot camp

graduates possible. In States such as

Georgia or New York,8

 where many

individuals are released from boot

camps monthly, there may be enough

cases in each county to warrant

specialized services. In large States

with small programs such as Montana,9

boot camp releasees are dispersed too

widely and sparsely for such programs

to make sense.

Specific requirements rather than

specialized programs. These difficulties have led many programs to set

specific requirements for the type of

supervision or services that should be

available in the community instead of

developing specialized programs.

Almost half of the surveyed programs

take this approach and release graduates to existing transitional programs

or probation or parole structures where

there is no distinction made between

boot camp graduates and other offenders. The statewide programs usually
R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

5

Table 3: Special Boot Camp Aftercare Programs and Requirements

Federal/State Local Juvenile

Programs Programs Programs

(n=35)1 (n=8) (n=9) TOTALS

No special AL, AR, CO, CA-Santa CO-Golden

requirements or FL2, GA-I3, Clara

programming for ID, MS, NV, MI-Pontiac

boot camp NC, OK-SIP, TX-Brazos

graduates SC, TX, WI, County

specified WY

14 3 1 18

Aftercare regimen CA, GA-P, NY-Nassau GA-LEAD

specified, but IL, KS, KY, NY-Riker’s Island FL-Manatee County

no separate LA, MA, MT, FL-Martin County

program for OK-RID3

, OR, FL-Pinellas County

boot camp PA, TN, VA, FL-Leon County

graduates FEDERAL

14 2 5 21

Aftercare program AZ-Maricopa TX-Travis AL-Mobile

designed and County TX-Hidalgo OH-Cuyahoga

operated MD-Baltimore TX-Harris County

exclusively for MI County NY-South

boot camp MN-St. Paul Kortwright

graduates NH

NY-New York City

OH

7 3 3 13

1 Georgia and Oklahoma operate two different types of programs: George Inmate (GA-I)

and George Probation (GA-P); and Oklahoma Regimented Inmate Discipline (OK-RID)

and Oklahoma Shock Incarceration (OK-SIP).

2 Beginning July 1995, boot camp graduates will be required to spend 4–6 months in

community residential centers before they are released to the community.

3 For inmates on community custody only; inmates with delayed incarceration sentences

are resentenced at the conclusion of boot camp.

require that graduates be placed on

intensive supervision for a set period

before moving to regular supervision

for the remainder of their sentences.

The Labette Correctional Conservation

Camp in Kansas, the FIST Program in

Kentucky, and the Oregon Success

Using Motivation, Morale, Intensity,

and Treatment (SUMMIT) Program

mandate intensive supervision where it

is available.10

Many statewide programs have set requirements beyond intensive supervision. For instance, the Massachusetts

Boot Camp requires that graduates

attend five Alcoholics Anonymous

(AA) or Narcotics Anonymous (NA)

meetings per week, adhere to a curfew,

and submit to urine tests. Requirements beyond intensive supervision for

graduates of Louisiana’s IMPACT Program include performing 100 hours of

unpaid community service work, abiding by a curfew, and meeting with a

parole officer at least 4 times a week.

The Illinois Impact Incarceration Program adds electronic monitoring to the

intensive supervision criteria.

The most stringent of the requirements

for boot camp graduates includes time

in a work furlough or other transitional

residential facility. The Federal intensive confinement centers release all

graduates to the community correctional center located closest to their

residences, mixing boot camp graduates with releasees from other Bureau

of Prisons institutions. During the first

aftercare phase, inmates may only

leave the facility for employment or to

take advantage of special program services. Then they reach prerelease status where they may receive passes for

visits but are required to return to the

center at night. During the last phase,

they are released to home confinement

under intensive supervision, including

the use of electronic monitoring. Other

programs with a mandatory stay in a

transitional center include the San

Quentin Alternative Sentencing Program in California, the Swan River

Correctional Training Center in Montana, the Leon County, Florida, Juvenile Boot Camp, and the Oklahoma

Regimented Inmate Discipline (RID)

Program. For the Leon County program, the requirement only applies to

those participants who are committed

to the Department of Corrections and

who are not required to serve additional time in a minimum security

institution after boot camp.

Several programs have set different

types of requirements. The two local

programs in New York, which target

parole violators who have substance

abuse problems, require that graduates

participate in drug treatment programs. Tennessee’s Special Alternative Incarceration Unit exacts 8 hours

of community service per month until

the expiration of the parolee’s sentence unless the parole officer waives

the requirement. The three Florida
R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

6

juvenile boot camps in Manatee, Martin, and Pinellas Counties require participation in a day treatment program

under contract with local agencies.

Specialized programs. Thirteen programs (seven statewide adult programs,

three local adult programs, and three

juvenile programs) have developed

aftercare models specifically for boot

camp. Five of the seven statewide programs that offer specialized aftercare

programs for boot camp graduates have

capitalized on the fact that most of the

boot camp population reside in the

most populous metropolitan area of the

State. The New York State Division of

Parole accommodates about two-thirds

of the Shock Incarceration releasees

in its Manhattan Aftershock Bureau

staffed by 44 parole officers. Considered to be the standard by which other

programs are judged, this program provides multifaceted services through

subcontracts with community agencies.

Aftershock programs following a similar model, but on a smaller scale in

line with much smaller boot camp

capacities, include:

● The Minnesota Department of

Corrections’ aftercare program for the

70 percent of its boot camp graduates

residing in the 7-county area around

Minneapolis-St. Paul.

● The Maryland Department of

Probation and Parole’s two aftercare

programs in Baltimore and Prince

George’s Counties.

● The Maricopa County, Arizona,

Department of Probation’s program for

shock probationers.

In all four of these boot camp programs, graduates who fall outside of

the area targeted for specialized services are highly supervised, either on

intensive caseloads or through assignment to small caseloads. Michigan has

developed a residential aftercare program for boot camp graduates in its

most populous county, but mixes boot

camp graduates with other parolees

once they are released to the community.

Thirteen specialized programs

New York. Release is granted for 99

percent of the Shock graduates of New

York’s four Shock Incarceration facilities when presented to the board.

Parolees in New York City are released

to the supervision of the Division of

Parole’s intensive aftershock monitoring program for 6 months, before

completing the remainder of their

sentences on traditional parole

supervision.

Two-person parole officer teams are

responsible for caseloads of 38 parolees from proximate neighborhoods.

Monitoring includes random urinalysis,

curfew checks, employment and other

verifications, as well as home visits

(jointly conducted by both officers on

the team). Parolees attend evening

sessions held 4 nights a week.

In addition to the more intensive supervision, the program offers a range of

supplementary services through community agencies, which include job

placement, employment counseling,

vocational testing, and on-the-job

training services. All Shock parolees

also receive initial substance abuse

assessments and weekly relapse prevention counseling sessions organized

by platoon. Other weekly counseling

Network sessions11 continue the boot

camp program. Attendance at these

sessions is mandatory for the first 3

months after release.

The program reports that the boot camp

parolees have higher rates of employment and enrollment in community

programs at the 6-month mark and

higher rates of remaining in the

community at the 1-year mark than

comparable groups of parolees. The

department estimates that for every

100 Shock inmates released, it saves

more than $2 million in inmate costs.

Minnesota. Since boot camp and

aftercare are perceived to be different

stages of a coherent program, Minnesota Challenge Incarceration Program

(CIP) boot camp and the aftercare staff

participate in integrated planning and

staffing sessions during the boot camp

phase. There is a concerted effort to

blend the boot camp philosophy into

aftercare with an emphasis on group

problem solving. Those parolees who

are unable to obtain the requisite employment are referred to job-training

programs.

The Department of Corrections operates CIP and the two-phase aftercare

program. Three CIP staff members

working out of the Minneapolis-St. Paul

office provide direct supervision of the

graduates in the surrounding sevencounty area, as well as link offenders in

nonmetropolitan areas with local programs and resources to meet supervision requirements. These agents review

the progress of participants and make

decisions about their release from boot

camp subject to approval of the Office

of Adult Release. About 78 percent of

the participants complete the residential boot camp phase of the program.

CIP agents use a case management

approach to arrange for aftercare services. Many activities, such as acupuncture therapy, cognitive training

sessions, and chemical dependency

training, span both phases. For the first
R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

7

eginning with a 50-bed program in Georgia in 1983,12 boot camps

have proliferated to 52 programs in 32 States and the Federal Bureau of

Prisons in 1993.13 Capacity has also expanded, with Georgia and New York

operating more than 1,000 beds each. Initially operated by State departments of corrections for young males convicted of nonviolent offenses, boot

camps now encompass a broader spectrum of offenders, including juveniles and women, and are operated by State juvenile, local, and Federal

agencies.

Most programs portray boot camps as an alternative to long-term incarceration that develops self esteem, responsibility, discipline, and a work ethic

in participants and increases their academic and job-related skills. Although military-like activities define the boot camps, the programs differ in

the importance they place on their military and nonmilitary agendas. Most

programs include physical training, manual labor assignments, some type

of counseling, General Equivalency Diploma (GED) programs, and life

skills courses. Some programs put a military veneer over a broad-based

theory of behavior change and management, but many emphasize the military regimen as their central feature. These program features are expected

to develop self-esteem, responsibility, and discipline of participants, and

thereby reduce recidivism among boot camp graduates. A second set of

goals, shared by most of the adult programs, is to reduce correctional costs

and overcrowding by shortening the time a prisoner stays in an institution.

The emerging literature on boot camp effectiveness supports the notion

that these programs can reduce prison overcrowding and costs because

offenders serve less time in boot camp than they would have served in

prison. The net cost benefit is affected, of course, by the number of inmates

in boot camp and the length of the prison terms they would have otherwise

served.14

Boot camps, however, have been less successful in reducing recidivism.

On the one hand, documented improvements in graduates’ social attitudes,

educational achievement, and physical fitness over the course of boot camp

offer promise for their performance in the community. On the other, the

research to date has found little indication that time at the camps alters the

criminal behavior of graduates once they have been released. A 1994 review of the literature about boot camps concluded there is no clear evidence that boot camps reduce recidivism.15 The most comprehensive

evaluation to date, which assessed eight programs, discovered the recidivism rates of boot camp graduates and offenders who spent more time in

prison to be nearly the same.16

6 months after release from boot camp,

offenders in the metropolitan area must

contact a reporting center daily, submit

weekly schedules, and abide by curfews. With caseloads averaging 14

parolees, CIP agents can make random

and unannounced contacts and phone

calls to ensure compliance with the

rules and to conduct random drug and

alcohol tests. Upon release from this

phase of aftercare, each parolee is assigned to an agent in his own community. The designated parole agent

determines the appropriate level of

supervision for the remainder of the

sentence, subject to the review of the

Office of Adult Release.

Maryland. The State graduates about

73 percent of those enrolled in its 6-

month boot camp. The conditions of release, including a date for parole if the

conditions are met, are established before entry to boot camp under a mutual

agreement contract. The boot camp

staff determines if individuals have

met their conditions and are eligible

for release.

Aftercare is the responsibility of the

Department of Probation and Parole.

Two parole officers are assigned to the

boot camp to develop the prerelease

plans for each inmate, including the

transition to the community. Special

boot camp aftercare programs operate

in the population centers of Baltimore

and Prince George’s Counties, with

designated parole officers and activities. (In the remainder of the State, parolees are assigned to intensive parole

supervision along with parolees from

nonboot camp institutions.)

In the Baltimore aftercare program, the

Maryland Department of Economic and

Employment Development also assigns

two staff members to work with boot

camp parolees. Participating parolees

B Growth of Boot Camps
R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

8

are given assistance in locating employment and enrolling in job-training

programs. Other aftercare services include weekly aftercare support group

meetings, community service projects,

weekly substance abuse training and

counseling sessions to complete the

9-month curriculum initiated during

boot camp, and a mentoring program.

The program reports a recidivism rate

of 19.6 percent; about 3 out of 4 of

these offenders committed technical

violations of parole. The return rate is

lower for participants in the Baltimore

aftercare program than for other Maryland boot camp graduates. Baltimore

participants also are more likely to be

employed or to be enrolled in school.

Arizona. Arizona’s program is similar

to the three described above. Its aftercare arrangements include use of a

dedicated aftershock program in a

metropolitan area. However, Arizona’s

aftercare arrangements are more complex than those of the other three programs because the requirements and

supervisory agency differ, depending

on whether graduates were sentenced

to the program as a condition of intensive probation or were diverted from

the prison system. Aftercare for probationers is the responsibility of the

Department of Probation in each

individual’s county of origin, and for

inmates it is the responsibility of the

Parole Division of the Department of

Corrections. About 95 percent of the

boot camp population is sentenced to

boot camp as a condition of intensive

probation.

Shock releasees under the supervision

of the Department of Corrections are

assigned to parole officers who maintain caseloads of about 85 parolees.

For the first 90 days after release, they

are placed under house arrest and

electronically monitored. Then they are

released to general supervision for the

remainder of their sentences and required to report twice a week to their

assigned officers.

Intensive probation supervision lasts

for 9 to 12 months. In Maricopa

County, an aftershock team develops

individual treatment plans for each

probationer. There are 3 phases of

supervision, beginning with 90 to 120

days in either a community house

arrest program or a transitional shock

house. During this period, probationers

must contact their probation offices 4

times a week. In the subsequent 3

months, their contact requirements are

reduced to 3 per week, and finally to

1 per week for the final 3 months.

Participants are subject to random drug

testing.

Boot camp probationers are required to

maintain full-time employment and to

provide 40 hours of community service.

Program activities in the shock probation aftercare program include:

educational classes such as GED

preparation, Adult Basic Education

(ABE); typing; parenting classes; substance abuse classes; self-help groups;

family counseling; recreational activities; and group physical training.

The program reports a prison return

rate of 32 percent, with the Maricopa

County shock probationers reporting

only a 12 percent return rate.

Michigan. Michigan requires three

phases of aftercare: a period in a residential aftercare center, a period of intensive supervision in the community,

and a period of regular supervision for

the balance of the sentence. Assignment to a residential aftercare center is

agreed to by the sentencing court as

part of admission to the program,

either as a condition of probation or as

a condition of parole.

Boot camp graduates spend up to 90

days in either an existing probation

residential center or the special

Wayne County residential facility for

boot camp graduates which accommodates about a third of the boot camp

population. Program elements in the

Wayne County facility borrow extensively from the boot camp, permitting

a gradual weaning from the military

structure. These elements include a

highly structured environment (e.g.,

use of summary punishment, military

rules of dress, inspections, and courtesies, such as coming to attention, saying “yes, sir,” and “no, ma’am,” and

inspections), work details, mandatory

community service, and daily physical

training. In addition, the educational,

substance abuse, and vocational counseling programs are integrated with

those initiated at boot camp. Vocational training is emphasized, with

special training provided in culinary

arts and computer programming. However, boot camp graduates outside

Wayne County are assigned with other

released offenders to probation residential facilities, where there is no

special boot camp focus or effort to

wean probationers from the boot camp

regimen.

After release from one of the residential facilities, offenders spend a

minimum of 160 days undergoing

intensive supervision. Then they are

assigned to regular supervision for

14 months or the balance of the minimum sentence, whichever is longer.

Ohio. In contrast, Ohio’s Shock Incarceration Program does not provide

specialized aftercare solely in metropolitan areas. All participants enter a

30- to 60-day period of intermediate
R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

9

transitional detention following graduation from boot camp. Simultaneously,

each graduate is assigned to a parole

officer. Because the halfway house

exclusively serves those exiting boot

camp, some of the military practices

are continued. Comprehensive services include substance abuse counseling, education, and testing; life

skills programming; employment

services programming; and case

management.

When the participant has completed a

set of conditions for release from the

transitional detention center, he is presented to the parole board for release.

Responsibility shifts to the Adult

Parole Authority, and the boot camp

graduates are mainstreamed into the

general parole population. Initially,

shock graduates are placed on intensive supervision. At this level requirements include weekly contacts,

random drug tests, participation in

substance abuse counseling, and employment. After up to 6 months in intensive supervision, participants serve

the remainder of their sentences on

standard parole.

New Hampshire. New Hampshire’s

specialized aftercare, like Ohio’s,

targets graduates located across the

entire State. For the majority of participants in New Hampshire’s 120-day

boot camp, the court has suspended a

prison sentence under the condition

that the individual successfully complete boot camp and serve up to 5

years on probation. For boot camp participants referred directly from the

Department of Corrections, release

must be approved by the parole board.

Individual graduates are assigned to

an intensive or standard parole

caseload in their communities. Most

individuals are placed in intensive

supervision for the first 90 days after

release, then reduced to standard supervision. Intensive supervision

caseloads typically are 12 to 25 parolees per officer and require daily contact. Standard caseloads are about 100

cases per officer, and require 1 or 2

contacts per week. Individuals with

substance abuse problems are expected to participate in AA and NA

groups in their communities.

Beyond the monitoring and assistance

provided by local probation/parole

officers, the Shock Incarceration Program operates an aftercare program

expressly for boot camp graduates.

Three members of the boot camp staff,

the probation/parole officer and the

two drug and alcohol counselors conduct biweekly meetings at a central,

usually urban location. For the first 6

months after graduation, attendance

is mandatory and transportation is

provided.

The meetings build on the social

bonds established at boot camp by

uniting the platoons. The drug and

alcohol counselors run group sessions

similar to those conducted at boot

camp, where participants discuss personal difficulties and setbacks, and

confront individuals with negative attitudes. The sessions offer an opportunity to provide “refresher” substance

abuse information as well.

The program’s reported 2-year recidivism rate of 17 percent contrasts with

the 47 percent rate for the men’s

prison, although the populations in

these two facilities probably are not

equivalent. About 24 percent of the

boot camp graduates are returned on

violations of probation.

Three local programs. Although

local programs do not have the same

geographical constraints as statewide

programs in providing specialized services, only three of the eight local programs in the survey, all in Texas, have

developed such services. They are the

Convicted Offender Reentry Program

in Austin (Travis County), the Harris

County Boot Camp Program in

Humble, and the Hidalgo County

Boot Camp Program in Edinburg.

Travis County provides a two-phase

work release program for boot camp

participants before releasing them to

routine probation supervision. During

the first 15-day transitional phase,

participants work in government or

nonprofit agencies during the day and

return to boot camp in the evening.

At the successful conclusion of this

phase, they follow a regular schedule

of work or vocational programming

offsite while continuing to live at

boot camp.

In contrast, the Harris County and

Hidalgo County boot camps release

participants directly to supervision by

the local probation/parole departments

but require participation in special

aftercare sessions at night. Harris

County offers a continuation of the life

skills class begun at boot camp 2

nights a week and a boot camp support

group led by a licensed counselor 1

night a week. Hidalgo County offers

weekly counseling and vocational

preparation sessions. Parolees must

attend each week for the first month

after release, then every other week for

the next 6 months. In addition, the

aftercare program continues a community mentor program initiated during

boot camp. Before graduation, family

members and mentors join the offenders to discuss the aftercare plan.
R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

10

Three juvenile programs. Like the

local programs, the juvenile boot

camps typically serve a narrow enough

geographical area to facilitate some

overlap in supervision and activities

from boot camp to aftercare. Three of

the 10 juvenile programs operate special boot camp aftercare programs.

For two of these, the South Kortwright

Youth Leadership Academy and City

Challenge in New York and the

Cuyahoga County Boot Camp Program

in Cleveland, both boot camp and aftercare share a common director and

program philosophy. The Cleveland

program contractor, the North American Family Institute, promotes program integration by conducting joint

staff training, applying the same disciplinary framework, and employing the

same guided group interaction counseling sessions. The third program, the

Environmental Youth Corps in Mobile,

Alabama, splits responsibility for boot

camp and aftercare between the

Strickland Youth Center and the Boys

and Girls Clubs of Mobile, but maintains continuity by assigning two probation officers for supervision of the

youths for the entire program.

New York’s juvenile boot camp lasts

6 months, followed by 3 months in City

Challenge, an intensive day treatment

program. While at City Challenge,

youths participate in a New York City

Board of Education school, family development programs, job preparation

and placement programs, community

involvement programs, as well as a

counseling program begun in boot

camp called the “Magic Within.”

Cuyahoga County’s program, while

similar in structure, provides for only

3 months in boot camp, followed by up

to 9 months in a phased aftercare program operating out of City Center, a

downtown Cleveland center for boot

camp graduates. Youths progress

through three decreasing levels of supervision. During the first month they

are transported to the City Center daily

to attend an alternative educational

academy. The next level of supervision

frees the youths on weekends, and,

if appropriate, allows them to attend

their own schools. In the final stage,

the youths must attend City Center 3

nights a week.

When youths are released from boot

camp in Mobile, Alabama, they are assigned to one of the community’s Boys

and Girls Clubs for participation in life

skills courses, social skills classes,

tutoring, and recreational activities.

The program also provides a weekly

evening aftercare session at a designated Boys and Girls Club and supplemental offsite aftercare events. All

boot camp graduates are placed on

probation status with the Mobile Juvenile Court. They are required to report

regularly to a probation officer and to

fulfill any sentence requirements such

as community service or restitution.

Continuity and interaction

between boot camp and

aftercare

If aftercare programs are to build on

the behavioral, social, attitudinal, and

educational gains that boot camps

hope to produce, some informal links

between the boot camp and aftercare

would provide cross-fertilization of

techniques, theoretical approaches,

and information about individuals

enrolled.

Program continuity can be maintained

by carrying through a common philosophy or treatment approach in the

boot camp and aftercare program, or it

can occur through communication and

joint planning. Except for the 13 programs described above that have developed some specialized services for

boot camp graduates, none of the boot

camp programs described anything

other than minimal efforts to maintain

a theoretical or programmatic link with

aftercare. Programs that profess to

maintain philosophical continuity,

such as New York’s Shock Incarceration Program and Cuyahoga County’s

Juvenile Boot Camp, articulate a

theory of rehabilitation that is more

than simply a military approach. This

approach, without the military trappings, continues in the aftercare

period. In addition, some boot camps

transfer specific program components

such as a life skills curriculum, a

counseling approach, or a substance

abuse treatment program to the

community.

For the majority of the boot camps,

however, integration of boot camp and

aftercare consists of joint participation

in prerelease planning. Some programs

have made concerted efforts to facilitate communication and planning. For

instance, the statewide programs in

Maryland, New York, Oregon, and the

California LEAD program have parole

officers working at the boot camp to

develop individualized release plans.

In some cases these parole officers are

responsible for monitoring the progress

of the graduates in the community and

serving as a liaison with the field

agents as well. Some programs have

made arrangements for field probation

or parole officers to tour the boot camp

facilities and, when distance is not a

problem, to meet with individuals

assigned to their caseloads. Oregon

arranges for the parole agents to meet

with the individuals to whom they have

been assigned, either in person or by

teleconference, before release.
R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

11

Table 4: Supervision Initially Required by Program

Federal/State Local Juvenile

Programs Programs Programs

(n=35) (n=8)1 (n=9)

Release all or AZ2, CA, GA-I, NY-Nassau County CA-LEAD

majority of GA-P, IL, KS, NY-Riker’s Island FL-Leon County

graduates to LA, MD, MA, MI, TX-Travis FL-Manatee County

intensive NM, NH, NY, OH, TX-Harris FL-Martin County

supervision OK-RID, PA, WI, FL-Pinellas

or day treatment FEDERAL NY-South Kortwright

OH-Cuyahoga County

18 4 7

Release graduates KY, OR

to highest

supervision level

available in

graduate’s county 2 0 0

Release graduates CO, ID, MS, MT, MI-Pontiac

to both intensive NC, OK-SIP, TN, TX-Hidalgo

and standard VA

supervision 8 2 0

Release majority AL, AR, FL, NV, TX-Brazos AL-Mobile

of graduates to SC, TX, WY CO-Golden

standard

supervision 7 1 2

1 There is no community supervision required for those released from the Santa Clara,

California, program.

2 Applies to county probationers only. Shock releasees are usually placed in standard

supervision.

The juvenile boot camps have most

closely integrated the aftercare provisions with the boot camp. In the specialized programs, the links are very

tight. In Mobile, the same probation

officers who monitor youths during

boot camp are also responsible for

monitoring them upon release to the

community. In Cuyahoga County, the

boot camp and aftercare programs are

operated by the same organization,

producing common approaches, staffing, training, and monitoring.

In all of the other juvenile programs,

integration efforts consist at a minimum of joint discussions of each youth

before release. In Pinellas County a

transition team continues to monitor

the progress of youths monthly during

their program participation.

Intensity and length of

supervision

The length of the residential segment

of the boot camp has important implications for the cost savings potential of

the program and the requirements for

aftercare supervision. The longer the

camp, the more difficult it is to realize

savings from reductions in the number

of days institutionalized. However, the

shorter camps may require aftercare

in the community that is longer, more

tightly supervised, and therefore more

costly.

According to the survey, the length of

the residential boot camps ranges from

several weeks to 6 months. In many

cases the minimum length of stay can

be extended for 1 or 2 months. The

minimum length of stay for 15 of the

State programs is 3 months; 9 programs require 4-month stays; and 9

more require 6-month stays (see table

1, page 3). The local programs tend to

For more than half of the programs,

the majority of graduates are initially

supervised at intensive levels. For two

more programs, releasees are placed in

intensive supervision if it is available

in the county where a graduate lives.

Specific intensive supervision requirements vary considerably across States.

Relative to standard supervision

within a given State, intensive supervision generally means that:

● Case workers have smaller case

loads of between 15 and 30 parolees,

instead of the usual load of between 60

and 100.

be the shortest, with four of the programs requiring less than a 3-month

stay. However, two local programs require 6 months. Most of the juvenile

programs run 4 months.

Individuals graduating from boot camp

are either released to the community

on intensive or regular supervision, to

a work release or other transitional

facility, or rehoused in an institution

(see table 4). Those who return to

institutions were denied parole or are

waiting for a hearing. In Santa Clara,

California, those who have time left

on their sentence return to standard

incarceration.
R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

12

● Parolees are required to report in

more frequently, in some cases every

day.

● Parolees may be placed under

house arrest, including electronic

monitoring.

● Parolees may be subject to curfews,

random urine checks, and employment

verifications.

● Parolees are required to attend

self-help or other counseling groups.

A period in a residential transitional

program is required by the statewide

programs in California, Michigan, and

Ohio, and by the Travis County, Texas,

local program, the Leon County,

Florida juvenile program, and the Federal Intensive Confinement Centers.

Beginning in 1995, Florida’s Basic

Training Program also requires time in

a residential transitional program under a mandate from the Florida legislature. The majority of the graduates of

the Montana and Wisconsin boot

camps enter a halfway house, but it is

not a requirement.

A few programs offer transitional programming to certain types of offenders,

e.g., drug offenders, or those with inappropriate home arrangements. All of

the release centers offer supervision

and programming in the evening and

require the participants to work or participate in vocational training during

the day. Some of the programs require

a minimum stay in the work release

program, while others set a maximum

of anywhere from 15 days to 120 days.

Florida’s 4-month requirement is the

longest.

Several of the juvenile programs

arrange for participation in day treatment programs that provide extensive

monitoring, but they are not designated as “intensive probation/parole.”

After 3 to 6 months of intensive supervision, most parolees are placed on

regular supervision for the balance of

their sentences. In a few programs, the

required period of intensive supervision may be much longer—up to 4 1/2

years for the Pennsylvania Boot Camp

Program graduates. Ten programs

place all or most of the boot camp

graduates on regular parole/probation,

and in 10 programs it depends on the

individual case, with some graduates

placed on both types of caseloads.

Transitional residential programs and

intensive supervision offer opportunities to gradually reduce the intense

supervision of boot camp as program

graduates adjust to the community. For

example, the Federal boot camps operated by the Bureau of Prisons offer

three phases of progressively less

structured supervision. During the first

phase of aftercare, inmates are housed

in a community corrections center.

They may only leave the facility for

employment or participation in special

programs. During the next phase, they

continue to live at the center, but may

receive passes to visit family and

friends. Finally, they are released to

home confinement for the remainder of

their sentences, under intensive supervision, and in some areas electronic

surveillance. Those committing minor

violations of the terms of their aftercare can be returned to an aftercare

phase involving more intensive supervision.

Breadth and frequency of

services

An aftercare program’s effectiveness

should increase if the program can

arrange for treatment for substance

abuse problems, provide vocational

training and assistance in locating

jobs, and continue counseling.

Although some researchers have proposed that programs should balance

intensive surveillance and intensive

services,17 the programs surveyed

generally emphasize the surveillance

aspects of their aftercare provisions.

Except for the 13 programs that provide separate, special arrangements

for boot camp graduates, aftercare

services provided to graduates of boot

camp are similar to those provided to

other inmates released from other

facilities operated by the sponsoring

agency. Some programs also mentioned that boot camp graduates have

priority in receiving services. The

types of services mentioned by aftercare providers usually include job

placement and training programs or

services, substance abuse treatment

and counseling programs, and participation in self-help groups such as NA

or AA. In some locations probation or

parole officers are considered service

brokers, responsible for identifying

and arranging appropriate services for

the client caseload. A few programs

have additional activities such as

parenting classes, mentor programs,

GED preparation, and family

counseling.

Monitoring and evaluation

Constant monitoring and evaluation of

the boot camp and aftercare programs

are essential to assess how they are

working. Without good recordkeeping

that follows boot camp graduates

through aftercare and beyond, boot

camps can have no way of knowing

what does and does not work.

The survey found that responsibility

for monitoring an individual’s progress
R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

13

usually shifts from the institution or

agency running the boot camp to the

probation or parole agency responsible

for supervision in the community when

the individual graduates. Routine

feedback to the program, if any, consists of information about recidivism

because of parole revocations or new

crimes. However, simple recidivism

data do not provide the type of information that would permit programs to

identify shortcomings in the boot camp

approach and to attempt to improve

the preparation of program participants for release to the community.

Few programs have the resources or

interest to pursue the level of data

collection that would permit this type

of analysis. There are exceptions, such

as the California Leadership, Esteem,

Ability, and Discipline (LEAD) program operated by the California Youth

Authority that is undertaking an elaborate evaluation, including extensive

followup during the aftercare period.

Of the programs that reported recidivism statistics, the rates ranged from a

low of 10 percent to a high of 35 percent. In all but one case, these reported rates were lower than those of a

comparison group, which in most cases

was the entire population released

from prison. Without knowing how

different the boot camp population is

from the general prison population,

these comparisons have limited significance. Nor is it possible to compare rates across programs because of

differences in what constitutes recidivism and in the periods of time

covered.

Conclusion

The aftercare arrangements for the full

spectrum of boot camps are no different from those identified for boot

camps that target substance abuse

populations:18 In both cases most programs release boot camp graduates to

traditional probation and parole supervision. Of the 52 boot camp programs

surveyed, only 13 programs have

developed aftercare programs specifically targeted to the boot camp population. All but two of these programs are

limited to that proportion of the boot

camp graduates who reside in the major metropolitan areas. This means that

for most boot camp graduates, boot

camp ends upon graduation. Graduates are, in essence, starting over when

they reach the community, employing

techniques of behavior control and

change that may be quite different

from, and may possibly contradict, the

strategies employed at boot camp.

The majority of those released from

boot camp are placed on intensive probation/parole in their communities,

but program representatives stressed

the surveillance aspects of intensive

supervision rather than intensive services. Thus, aftercare may fall short of

the goal of identifying problem areas

that could be addressed through a system of increasingly severe sanctions

and arrangements for specific services.19 Nor are there many programs

that continue monitoring and evaluating graduates in aftercare.

The survey found, however, a number

of models for integrating the aftercare

functions with the boot camp. Some

programs have taken advantage of the

fact that a large proportion of the boot

camp population resides in one or two

locations and have developed special

boot camp aftercare programs. Others

have attempted to improve communication and planning during the transition to the community by developing a

liaison between aftercare and boot

camp. Some programs operate or refer

boot camp graduates to transitional

residential programs. Although this

study did not uncover empirical evidence to assess the differential effectiveness of these techniques, they offer

an array of ideas for those program

planners attempting to strengthen the

boot camp and aftercare links.

Notes

1. U.S. General Accounting Office,

Prison Boot Camps: Short-Term Prison

Costs Reduced, But Long-Term Impact

Uncertain, Washington, D.C.: U.S.

General Accounting Office, 1993.

2. MacKenzie, Doris L., and Claire

Souryal, Multisite Evaluation of Shock

Incarceration, Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1994.

3. Cowles, E.L., and T.C. Castellano,

Boot Camp Drug Treatment and

Aftercare Interventions: An Evaluation

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

of Justice, 1995.

4. The list of programs consulted came

from three sources: State programs

were identified from a 1993 survey

AIR conducted of the 50 States and

the District of Columbia to determine

the number of operational and planned

boot camps (Cronin, R.C., Boot Camps

for Adult and Juvenile Offenders,

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of

Justice, National Institute of Justice,

1994); local programs were identified

from Austin, J.M., M. Jones, and M.

Bolyard, The Growing Use of Jail Boot

Camps: The Current State of the Art,

Research in Brief, Washington, D.C.:

U.S. Department of Justice, National

Institute of Justice, 1993; and juvenile

programs were identified from a survey

conducted by the Institute for Criminological Research (1992). Since this
R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

14

study was not addressing the prevalence of boot camps, no systematic attempt was made to determine if there

were additional camps in operation.

5. Austin, J.M., M. Jones, and P.

Bolyard, The Growing Use of Jail Boot

Camps: The Current State of the Art.

6. Altschuler, D.M., and T.L.

Armstrong, Intensive Aftercare for

High-Risk Juveniles: A Community

Care Model, Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1994. Note, although these

principles emerged from the study of

juvenile programs, there is no reason

to believe that they would not apply to

the adult system as well.

7. Altschuler and Armstrong, Intensive

Aftercare for High-Risk Juveniles: A

Community Care Model.

8. Georgia’s Department of Corrections

operates 2 types of boot camps, 1 for

inmates and 1 for probationers in 9

facilities with a total capacity of 1,695.

New York’s program has a slightly

higher operating capacity of 1,795, in

4 facilities. In addition, Georgia operates 10 probation detention facilities

that offer short-term incarceration

similar to boot camps. They were not

included in this study because they do

not have a military focus.

9. The State programs vary considerably in size ranging from Montana’s

small, 30-bed boot camp located in the

Swan River Correctional Center to

Georgia’s or New York’s multifacility

programs.

10. The Kansas State legislature has

set a mandatory 180-day period of intensive supervision for all boot camp

graduates, but it had not taken effect

at the time of this study.

11. Network is a therapeutic approach

to enhancing decisionmaking skills to

solve problems and to building selfesteem. In use in New York State beginning in 1978, the program is based

on a 5-step model taught in 12 sessions. See Clark, Cherie L., David W.

Aziz, and Doris L. MacKenzie, Shock

Incarceration in New York: Focus on

Blair B. Bourque is a senior research scientist with the American

Institutes for Research (AIR), Mei

Han is an associate research scientist, and Sarah M. Hill is a research associate with AIR. The

study was supported under NIJ

grant 92–DD–CX–K043.

A companion document, An Inventory of Aftercare Provisions for 52

Boot Camp Programs, summarizes

each of the boot camp programs

and is intended to serve as a resource document for those interested

in learning about the specific aftercare arrangements and programs

developed by each of the boot camps.

It is available from the National

Criminal Justice Reference Service;

call 800–851–3420, or e-mail

askncjrs@ncjrs.aspensys.com;

ask for NCJ 157665. Both of these

documents can also be seen and

downloaded from the NCJRS Bulletin

Board System or ftp site and seen on

the World Wide Web site. Contact

NCJRS for more information.

Findings and conclusions of the research

reported here are those of the authors and

do not necessarily reflect the official position

or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

The National Institute of Justice is a

component of the Office of Justice

Programs, which also includes the Bureau

of Justice Assistance, Bureau of Justice

Statistics, Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for

Victims of Crime.

NCJ 157664

Treatment, Program Focus, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,

National Institute of Justice, 1994.

12. Parent, D., Shock Incarceration: An

Overview of Existing Programs, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 1989.

13. Cronin, R.C., Boot Camps for Adult

and Juvenile Offenders. Cronin’s report

was the basis for identifying the boot

camps for this project’s survey. It

identified boot camp programs in 29

States.

14. MacKenzie and Souryal, Multisite

Evaluation of Shock Incarceration.

15. Cronin, Boot Camps for Adult and

Juvenile Offenders.

16. MacKenzie and Souryal, Multisite

Evaluation of Shock Incarceration.

17. Altschuler and Armstrong, Intensive Aftercare for High-Risk Juveniles:

A Community Care Model.

18. Cowles and Castellano, Boot Camp

Drug Treatment and Aftercare Interventions: An Evaluation Review.

19. Altschuler and Armstrong, Intensive Aftercare for High-Risk Juveniles:

A Community Care Model.
R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

15

Listed below are selected additional

NIJ publications related to boot

camp issues. These publications

can be obtained free from the National Criminal Justice Reference

Service (NCJRS): telephone

800–851–3420, e-mail

askncjrs@ncjrs.aspensys.com, or

write to NCJRS, P.O. Box 6000,

Rockville, MD 20849–6000.

Please note that when free publications are out of stock, they are

available in photocopies for a minimal fee or through interlibrary loan.

They are also usually available

electronically on the NCJRS Bulletin Board System or on the NCJRS

Justice Information Center World

Wide Web site for viewing or downloading. Contact NCJRS for more

information.

Austin, James Ph.D., Michael

Jones, and Melissa Bolyard, The

Growing Use of Jail Boot Camps:

The Current State of the Art, NIJ

Research in Brief, 1993, NCJ

134708.

Bourque, Blair B., Roberta C. Cronin,

Frank R. Pearson, Daniel M. Felker,

Mei Han, and Sarah M. Hill, Boot

Camps for Juvenile Offenders: An

Implementation Evaluation of Three

Demonstration Programs, NIJ Research in Brief, 12 pages, 1996, NCJ

157317. The complete NIJ Research

Report, 116 pages, is also available;

ask for NCJ 157316.

Clark, Cheri L., David W. Aziz, and

Doris L. MacKenzie, Shock Incarceration in New York: Focus on Treatment,

NIJ Program Focus, 12 pages, 1994,

NCJ 148410.

Cowles, Ernest L., Ph.D., Thomas C.

Castellano, Ph.D., with the assistance

of Laura A.Gransky, “Boot Camp”

Drug Treatment and Aftercare Intervention: An Evaluation Review, NIJ

Research in Brief, 16 pages, 1995,

NCJ 155062. The complete Research

Report, 184 pages, is also available;

ask for NCJ 153918.

Cronin, Roberta C. with assistance

of Mei Han, Boot Camps for Adult

and Juvenile Offenders: Overview

and Update, NIJ Research Report,

68 pages, 1994, NCJ 149175.

MacKenzie, Doris Layton, Ph.D.,

and Eugene Hebert, editors, Correctional Boot Camps: A Tough Intermediate Sanction, NIJ Research

Report, 19 chapters by different

authors, 1995, NCJ 157639.

MacKenzie, Doris Layton, Ph.D.,

James W. Shaw, and Voncille B.

Gowdy, NIJ Research in Brief, An

Evaluation of Shock Incarceration in

Louisiana, 1993, NCJ 140567.

MacKenzie, Doris Layton, Ph.D.,

and Claire Souryal, Multisite Evaluation of Shock Incarceration, NIJ

Research Report, 50 pages, 1994,

NCJ 150062. A two-page summary

is available as an NIJ Update,

Researchers Evaluate Eight Shock

Incarceration Programs.

Related NIJ Publications
R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

16

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

National Institute of Justice

Washington, D.C. 20531

____________________________

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

BULK RATE

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/NIJ

Permit No. G–91