Correctional Boot Camps:

A Tough Intermediate

Sanction

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

National Institute of Justice

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS

BJA NIJ OJJDP BJS OVC

 R e s e a r c h R e p o r t
 i

For more information on the National Institute of Justice, please contact:

National Criminal Justice Reference Service

P.O. Box 6000

Rockville, MD 20849–6000

800–851–3420

e-mail askncjrs@ncjrs.aspensys.com

You can view or obtain an electronic version of this document from the NCJRS

Bulletin Board System (BBS) or the NCJRS Justice Information Center World

Wide Web site.

Access the system in one of the following ways:

To access BBS, direct dial through your computer modem: 301–738–8895

(Modems should be set at 9600 baud and 8–N–1.) or

Telnet to ncjrsbbs.aspensys.com or

Gopher to ncjrs.aspensys.com 71

To access the World Wide Web site, go to

http://ncjrs.aspensys.com:81/catalog.html

If you have any questions, call or e-mail NCJRS.

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.
 i

Correctional Boot Camps:

A Tough Intermediate Sanction

Edited by

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

February 1996
ii

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

National Institute of Justice

Jeremy Travis, J.D.

Director

Doris Layton MacKenzie, Ph.D., a nationally recognized authority on the use of

boot camps as an intermediate sanction, has conducted numerous research studies

and evaluations of boot camp programs with support from the National Institute of

Justice. She is currently Associate Professor, Department of Criminology and

Criminal Justice, University of Maryland. Eugene E. Hebert is a senior writer/editor

at the National Institute of Justice.

Invaluable editorial assistance in the preparation of this book was provided by

Monique Smith and Joan Alpert, National Criminal Justice Reference Service.

Editorial supervision was provided by Mary G. Graham, Publications Manager,

National Institute of Justice. The book was designed by Amy Quach, National

Criminal Justice Reference Service.

Photos courtesy of New York State Department of Correctional Services (cover and

chapter 3), Illinois Department of Corrections (chapter 4), Georgia Department of

Corrections (chapters 5 and 12), U.S. Bureau of Prisons (chapters 6 and 15),

Mobile County (Alabama) Juvenile Court (chapter 9), and California Youth Authority (chapter 10).

NCJ 157639

Opinions or points of view expressed in this document are those of the authors and

do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 iii

Contents

Foreword Jeremy Travis .....................................................................................v

Preface Doris Layton MacKenzie, Ph.D., and Eugene E. Hebert ............... vii

Chapter 1: Historical Perspective .....................................................................1

Voncile B. Gowdy, Ph.D.

Chapter 2: An Overview of Boot Camp Goals, Components,

and Results ....................................................................................17

John K. Zachariah

State Correctional Programs

Chapter 3: Shock Incarceration in New York State: Philosophy,

Results, and Limitations ..............................................................39

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

Chapter 4: The Development and Implementation of Illinois’

Impact Incarceration Program ...................................................69

Robert J. Jones and Steven P. Karr

Chapter 5: Programming in Georgia’s Boot Camps ....................................93

John P. Keenan

The Federal System

Chapter 6: Bureau of Prisons: Expanding Intermediate Sanctions

Through Intensive Confinement Centers .................................107

Jody Klein-Saffran, Ph.D.

Boot Camps in County Jails

Chapter 7: A Survey of Jail-Operated Boot Camps and

Guidelines for Their Implementation .......................................119

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

Chapter 8: Santa Clara County PRIDE Program:

A Local Boot Camp ....................................................................135

Carole Sanchez Knapel
iv

Juvenile Boot Camps

Chapter 9: The Development of Boot Camps in the Juvenile System:

Implementation of Three Demonstration Programs␣ ...............143

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

Chapter 10: First-Year Evaluation of the California Youth

Authority Boot Camp␣ .................................................................159

Jean Bottcher and Teresa Isorena

Chapter 11: The Development and Operation of Juvenile

Boot Camps in Florida␣ ...............................................................179

Elizabeth S. Cass, Ph.D., and Neil Kaltenecker

Different Program Models

Chapter 12: Discipline in Georgia’s Correctional Boot Camps␣ ...................191

Billie S. Erwin

Chapter 13: Substance Abuse Programming in Adult Correctional

Boot Camps: A National Overview␣ ...........................................207

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

Chapter 14: Boot Camps as an Alternative for Women␣ ...............................233

Doris Layton MacKenzie, Ph.D., Lori A. Elis,

Sally S. Simpson, Ph.D., and Stacy B. Skroban

Program Design and Planning

Chapter 15: Planning and Designing Boot Camp Facilities␣ .........................245

Cindie A. Unger

Chapter 16: Boot Camps and Prison Crowding␣............................................263

Dale G. Parent

Chapter 17: Shock Incaceration and Positive Adjustment During

Community Supervision: A Multisite Evaluation␣....................275

Robert Brame and Doris Layton MacKenzie, Ph.D.

Chapter 18: Multisite Study of Correctional Boot Camps␣ ...........................287

Doris Layton MacKenzie, Ph.D., and Claire Souryal

Conclusion

Chapter 19: The Future of Boot Camps␣ ........................................................297

David W. Hayeslip, Ph.D.
 v

Foreword

Over the past dozen years, correctional boot camps, or shock incarceration programs, have mushroomed as an intermediate sanction, first in State and then in the

Federal prison systems, and more recently even in county jails. The notion of a

strict, military-style punishment as an alternative to extended incarceration is an

attractive one, on a number of fronts: It appeals politically, because it promises both

tough punishment and the promise of financial savings through shortened sentences; it appeals to the citizenry, largely because of its noncompromising image of

rigorous discipline for offenders; it appeals to corrections administrators by offering

the opportunity to free up scarce correctional bedspace.

Recognizing the vast potential of correctional boot camps as a tool to aid the criminal justice system in coping with the burgeoning populations in the Nation’s prisons

and jails, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 directed the

National Institute of Justice to solicit research in and evaluations of the impact of

both existing boot camps and those to be funded under the Act.

In the years since the first prison boot camp programs began in Oklahoma and

Georgia, NIJ has pioneered in research and evaluations of this alternative sanction.

Early on there was, however, a great deal of difficulty in conducting focused research on this rapidly expanding approach, largely because of the vast diversity in

the number, type, and size of boot camp programs. Some adhere to a rigid military

atmosphere; some emphasize treatment, while others focus on hard labor and physical training. Some, in New York State, for example, have developed a highly sophisticated regimen with extensive postrelease followup.

Much of the NIJ-sponsored research on correctional boot camp programs has been

conducted by Doris Layton MacKenzie, who notes in the Preface to this book that

simply defining what constituted a boot camp was a major initial problem. It is one

that NIJ researchers resolved by determining specific core elements common to

most such programs. But as the number of approaches utilizing this sanction have

proliferated, the diversity of programs has continued to multiply.

This book represents the first comprehensive attempt to report on the many and

various approaches to correctional boot camps nationwide, ranging from the evolution of the first such programs in Georgia to the methods developed in Illinois, from

the evaluation of the first year of boot camps operated by the California Youth Authority to the highly structured approach of Shock Incarceration in New York State,

and including a look into the future of boot camps.

Many questions remain about the value of boot camps. Do they work? The answer

seemingly depends on what they are asked to do. Will this alternative sanction
vi

continue to grow in use nationwide? Almost certainly. This book does not provide

“answers” to the countless questions being posed regarding boot camps. But what it

does, we believe, is provide a forthright, accurate look into this correctional innovation and its implementation across the Nation. We believe it will be of value to

policymakers and practitioners alike, and to all others who are interested in the

future of corrections.

Jeremy Travis

Director

National Institute of Justice
 vii

Preface

In the military, boot camp represents an abrupt, often shocking transition to a new

way of life. Discipline is strict; there is an emphasis on hard work, physical training, and unquestioning obedience to authority. The new recruit is told when to

sleep, when to get up, when to eat; he marches with his fellows everywhere he

goes, to meals, to training; orders must be obeyed instantly; personal liberty is

almost nonexistent. By the end of boot camp, the young recruit has become a

different person.

Such was the hope for boot camp, or shock incarceration, programs in American

prisons: that young, nonviolent offenders could be diverted from a life outside the

law using the same tactics successfully employed by the military to turn civilians

into soldiers. This reliance on a military atmosphere still provokes controversy over

boot camp programs, with proponents arguing that the rigid discipline promotes

positive behavior and opponents arguing that it is a harmfully negative influence.

This book was written to address the critical need for reliable information about the

variety of boot camp programs currently in operation: in Federal and State prisons,

in local jails, for adult men, for women, for juveniles.

Prison boot camp programs began in Oklahoma and Georgia in 1983, and in the

years since there has been an enormous growth in the number, type, and size of the

programs. Today, boot camps for adult felons exist in most States and in the Federal

Bureau of Prisons. In addition, many local prisons or jails have either begun or are

considering starting boot camp programs for their offender populations; some facilities offer boot camp programs for women, and boot camps for juvenile delinquents have started to become popular.

With support from the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), we first began studying

these programs in 1987. One of our first tasks was to identify exactly what was

meant by the term “prison boot camp.” Many media examples portrayed prison

“drill instructors” (as the guards in the camps were frequently called) shouting at

the inmates (or in less harsh camps “confronting” inmates, or “speaking in a command voice”). Seeing this, some jurisdictions began to call their programs “work

camps,” or “challenge camps,” or “motivational camps.” These jurisdictions rejected the negative image of an abusive atmosphere being shown on television news

programs and did not want to be identified with it. On the other hand, some jurisdictions with work or forestry camps referred to their programs as “boot camps”

despite the fact that they did not appear to have a military atmosphere.
viii

We were thus left with trying to decide what was consistent across the programs

that would make one a boot camp but exclude another. At the time it was difficult to

separate the true boot camp programs from other correctional programs that utilized

many of the elements typical of boot camps. For example, shock probation required

offenders to serve short periods of time in prison or jail; prison wilderness camps,

forestry camps, and outward-bound-type programs presented physical challenges to

inmates; prison drug treatment programs had rigid rules and discipline. The problem was compounded by the fact that not all boot camp programs conformed to the

same model.

In order to decide how to classify programs as boot camps, we surveyed all State

jurisdictions responsible for adult felons. We found some consistency among programs and, in the end, decided programs were boot camps if they (1) had military

drill and ceremony as a component of the program; (2) separated the participants

from general prison population offenders; (3) were considered to be an alternative

to confinement; and (4) required offenders to participate in a rigorous daily schedule of hard labor and physical training. To some degree most boot camps incorporate these components.

However, as more and more boot camp programs were developed, more and more

differences began to emerge. For example, although juvenile boot camps have a

rigorous daily schedule, they do not necessarily include hard labor, nor are all programs considered an alternative to confinement. As a working definition of a boot

camp program, however, the above four characteristics represent a reasonable way

to distinguish between correctional boot camps and other types of prison programs.

Our survey revealed that most of the camps targeted young, nonviolent offenders

who did not have an extensive past history of criminal activity. However, camps

differed in their definitions of “past history” and “nonviolent,” and whether they

restricted participation to young offenders. Thus, we did not consider the target

population as a defining element of the program. Other than similarities stated

above in the four basic components and in offender participants targeted for the

programs, the boot camps differed dramatically at the time of our survey. Today

these differences remain.

One major difference among the many forms of boot camp programs is the amount

of time in the daily schedule devoted to therapeutic and educational activities in

comparison to drill, ceremony, physical training, and work. Other differences include such factors as how offenders are selected for the program (by the court, by

the department of corrections), the type of therapeutic programming, emphasis on

the military aspect, the use of summary punishments, and the type of aftercare and

supervision available after release. Although often not explicitly expressed, perhaps

the most significant difference among programs is in the philosophy upon which

the program is based. Some emphasize military training, physical training, and hard
 ix

labor and focus on a deterrent-type model of changing inmates. Others emphasize

rehabilitation through therapeutic treatment or academic education. And, in the

latter cases, a decisive factor is whether there is sufficient funding available to

implement this planned programming.

As boot camp programs have moved from adult prisons to local jails and juvenile

populations, new issues have arisen. For example, while adult programs could target nonviolent offenders in prison, nonviolent juveniles were much less apt to be

incarcerated. Thus, net widening and the associated costs became critical issues for

juvenile programs. This is particularly relevant given the history of concern with

the destructive environment of detention centers for nonviolent juveniles or status

offenders. The deceptively seductive idea of providing discipline and structure for

disruptive juveniles means there is a real threat that increasingly large numbers of

juveniles will be placed in boot camps, whether or not it is a suitable alternative

sanction. Furthermore, in contrast to adult boot camps, academic and therapeutic

programming and aftercare are viewed as necessary components in juvenile

programs.

Similarly, local jurisdictions have faced problems in implementing boot camp programs in jails. Prison programs could coerce offenders to stay in the boot camps by

offering them the promise of early release. In contrast, the length of stay in jails is

relatively short. Offenders may actually stay longer in confinement if they enter a

boot camp than they would have otherwise. As a result, there is little enticement for

offenders to volunteer for boot camp. Also, a jail boot camp may prove very costly,

given the extended length of incarceration and the likelihood that a boot camp may

involve rehabilitative programming.

Perhaps the newest use of the boot camps has been in Georgia, in the disciplinary

and mental health units of one State prison. Aimed at those who are having trouble

adjusting to prison, the goal is to get offenders out of individual segregation cells

for longer periods of time each day until finally they can be moved back among the

general population.

Obviously, these distinctly varied uses of the boot camp model differ dramatically,

and there is every reason to believe that these differences among programs will

result in wide variation in effectiveness in achieving specific program goals.

When we began the NIJ-supported study of the Louisiana prison boot camp in

1988, it quickly became evident that it would be difficult to base a generalization

about boot camps on one program, given that so many were so different. Thus, the

Institute funded a multisite study of correctional boot camps that permitted us to

cooperate with researchers in eight States. At the same time, several States were

conducting studies of their own programs, and studies examining programs in local
x

jails and for juveniles were also being initiated. Additional information about the

effectiveness of these boot camp programs comes from studies examining drug

treatment for offenders in boot camps and the more recent implementation of boot

camp programs for women. Through these studies we are beginning to learn something about the general effectiveness of boot camps.

Yet there is still a great deal of controversy surrounding boot camps, and much of it

has to do with a kind of instinctive reaction to the military atmosphere. Those on

the positive side, such as Governor Zell Miller of Georgia, who fondly recalls his

own Marine boot camp experience, strongly advocate boot camps as sentencing

alternatives for nonviolent first offenders. Others respond that the harsh boot camp

discipline is not an effective way to change people. Obviously, the criminal justice

system needs to learn more about what policymakers and the public really expect

from these programs.

It is important, however, to separate this instinctive reaction from the debates that

occur among people who are knowledgeable about the programs and corrections in

general. Here, there is a much more interesting debate.

One perspective exhibited by many knowledgeable correctional experts is what

might be called a “Machiavellian point of view.” These individuals expect little direct benefit from the military atmosphere of the boot camp programs, but they are

willing to use it to achieve two ends: early release for nonviolent offenders and additional funds for treatment programs (both within and outside prison). In their

opinion, the popularity of the boot camps with policymakers and the public allows

corrections to obtain early release and treatment that would not otherwise be available to these offenders.

Others fear the dangers of boot camps, despite these potential benefits; many psychologists who are experienced in both corrections and behavioral change take this

position when examining boot camp programs. They believe that the potential dangers of the military models are too great to compromise for early release or funds

for treatment. Furthermore, they argue that boot camps cannot provide a mechanism for treatment because many of the characteristics of the programs (confrontation, punishment instead of reward) are antithetical to treatment. These boot camp

opponents fear that, even though some programs may be used as early release

mechanisms, most have a serious potential for widening the net. This point is particularly critical for the newly developing juvenile programs.

Yet a third perspective argues that the military atmosphere is an effective model for

changing offenders. Persons who have worked in drug treatment programs—where

strict rules, discipline, and confrontational interactions are common—seem to be

more comfortable with the military model. And, of course, many of those
 xi

responsible for the development and implementation of individual boot camp programs are committed to and believe in the viability of this approach. They argue

that the stress created in boot camp may shake up the inmates and make them ready

to change and take advantage of the treatment and aftercare programs offered. And

further, they believe that the military atmosphere of boot camp may actually enhance the effect of this treatment by keeping the offenders physically and mentally

healthy and enabling them to focus on their education, treatment, and therapy.

And so the debate continues, and there is merit in arguments both in favor of and

opposition to boot camp programs as alternative sanctions. The main point may be

that there are good, well-run boot camp programs, and there are bad, poorly run

boot camp programs. Much like the nursery rhyme about the little girl with the

curl—when they are good they are very, very good, but when they are bad they are

horrid. Good boot camps provide what we know to be good correctional programming with fair and firm discipline, a mentally and physically healthy environment,

and programming that addresses criminogenic needs. When they are bad they can

be abusive, destructive, and even dangerous for inmates and staff.

One of the necessary conditions for an exemplary boot camp program is research to

examine its effectiveness in achieving its objectives. The majority of the camps described in this book have done this, and the research is reported herein. Too often,

new correctional programs are introduced and we hear great things about their accomplishments from the program developers. Program administrators report on

wonderful, innovative programs with outstandingly low recidivism rates for boot

camp graduates. Yet there is no research to support these claims, no mention made

of time in the community or reasonable control groups. There is, instead, programming that looks good on paper but is not backed up by competent, qualified

personnel.

In this book we have identified boot camps that we consider “good” programs, but

we make no guarantees. Priority was given to boot camps that have invested in research to learn whether their programs were achieving the desired goals. The various authors describe the programs, discuss the goals, and report on the results of

studies examining the effectiveness of the programs in obtaining their goals. We

have made a particular effort to make the book relevant to policymakers and practitioners, and interesting and readable to those with only a cursory interest in prison

boot camp programs.

We have tried to obtain the widest possible range of authors, with chapters about

Federal, State, and local programs, and those for both adults and juveniles. Other

chapters report on programs for special populations such as women, disruptive

inmates, and those with mental health problems. Some chapters were authored by

directors of major research studies that have examined the boot camps.
xii

We have tried throughout to present an honest, objective picture of the boot camp

programs described. We hope that this compilation of information will prove

helpful to the field.

Doris Layton MacKenzie, Ph.D.

University of Maryland

Eugene E. Hebert

National Institute of Justice

December 1995
 1

CHAPTER 1

Historical Perspective

by Voncile B. Gowdy, Ph.D.

Voncile B. Gowdy, Doctor of Public Administration, is a Senior

Social Scientist at the National Institute of Justice. She manages the

Institute’s Corrections Research Program, specializing in the area of

community corrections, boot camps, and intermediate sanctions.

Since their beginning in 1983 in Georgia, boot camps have spread to half

the States and have gained wide popular appeal for their “get tough”

policies. Proponents of boot camps cite their potential for rehabilitating

offenders and curbing future criminal behavior. Opponents caution that

more information is needed on a variety of issues including costs and the

potential for abuse of power. NIJ’s research into boot camps began with a

1988 study of Louisiana’s boot camp program and continued with a

multisite evaluation in 1989 and other research reported in this volume. The

chapters that follow deal with various local, State, and Federal experiences

with the boot camp concept; juvenile boot camps; other boot camp models;

and evaluative research on shock incarceration.
2

Fueled primarily by growth in the number of offenders incarcerated during

the past decade and changing views of the role of punishment and treatment

in the correctional system, shock incarceration programs, or “boot camps” as

they have been more recently called, have emerged as an increasingly popular alternative sanction for nonviolent crimes.

Boot camp programs operate under a military-like routine wherein young offenders

convicted of less serious, nonviolent crimes are confined for a short period of time,

typically from 3 to 6 months. They are given close supervision while being exposed

to a demanding regimen of strict discipline, physical training, drill, inspections, and

physical labor. All the programs also incorporate some degree of military structure

and discipline, such as requiring inmates to stand at attention and respond with

“Yes, sir” or “No, sir.” Recent work by Roberta Cronin documented the differences

among adult correctional boot camps. For example, exhibit 1 presents some of the

military components that have been adopted by boot camp programs.

Exhibit 1. Military Characteristics of State Boot Camp

Programs for Adult Offenders

Barracks-style housing 26 90

Military titles (captain, sergeant, etc.) 29 100

Military-style protocol 29 100

Drill instructors 25 86

Military-style uniforms for staff 22 79

Military-style uniforms for offenders 14 48

Grouping in platoons (members enter together) 25 86

Summary punishment 25 86

Group rewards and punishments 17 59

“Brig” or punishment cell 6 21

Public graduation ceremony 24 83

Source: Roberta C. Cronin, Boot Camps for Adult and Juvenile Offenders, National Institute of

Justice Research Report, October 1994.

Number

Programs with this feature

(N=29) Characteristic

Percent
 3

Exhibit 2. Programming in State Boot Camp

Programs for Adult Offenders

Military drill and discipline 29 100

Physical labor 28 97

Physical fitness or exercise programs 28 97

Challenge or adventure programming 9 31

Drug/alcohol counseling or education 29 100

Other counseling/therapy 24 83

Education 26 90

Vocational training or job preparation 15 52

Source: Roberta C. Cronin, Boot Camps for Adult and Juvenile Offenders, National Institute of

Justice Research Report, October 1994.

Although the common element among all shock incarceration programs is the short

period of imprisonment in a military atmosphere, the specific components of the

programs vary widely among jurisdictions, as shown in exhibit 2 (Cronin, 1994;

Parent, 1989; MacKenzie et al., 1989; U.S. GAO, 1988). Programs also differ in

whether activities such as work, community services, education, or counseling are

incorporated in the schedule of activities. There is some consistency, however, in

the goals of the programs, as shown in exhibit 3 (Cronin, 1994), among them to

reduce prison crowding and to change offenders’ behavior and thus their future

involvement in crime.

Programs with this feature

(N=29) Characteristic

Number Percent

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

the offender is under parole supervision.

Boot camp programs are generally designed for young, nonviolent offenders with

their first felony conviction. These offenders usually volunteer for the program and

must meet physical and mental health requirements. Placement and release decisions vary from one program to another (Parent, 1989) and may be made by judges,

corrections department administrators, or members of parole boards.
4

Exhibit 3. Program Goals as Reported by

State Corrections Officials

Reducing crowding 3% 3% 38% 21% 35% 2.8

Reducing cost 0 3 24 31 41 3.1

Punishing the offender 21 14 45 21 0 1.7

Protecting the public 0 3 17 14 66 3.4

Deterring future crime 0 0 0 21 79 3.8

Rehabilitating the 0 0 3 38 59 3.6

offender

Lowering recidivism 0 0 7 52 41 3.3

Addressing public 11 11 32 32 14 2.3

dissatisfaction

Source: Roberta C. Cronin, Boot Camps for Adult and Juvenile Offenders, National Institute of

Justice Research Report, October 1994.

* Scale runs from 0 to 4, with 0 = Not a goal and 4 = Very important

Average

rating*

Precursors of shock incarceration programs include “shock probation” and “Scared

Straight,” which pursued specific deterrence objectives. The Scared Straight program tried to deter young delinquents by making them fearful of prison through

short, confrontational performances dramatized inside a prison by hardcore inmates. Many current shock incarceration programs also seek to deter criminal

behavior, but they have other significant goals as well.

The early shock probation programs locked up young adult offenders in the prison

population for a brief period so they could get a “real” experience with prison life.

In contrast to the boot camps, offenders were mixed with general population offenders, and there were no military aspects. Evaluations of the shock probation programs were not positive; participants failed at rates similar to those in comparison

groups (Vito and Allen, 1981).

Boot camp programs had their beginning in 1983 in Georgia. In 1993, just 10 years

later, a survey sponsored by the General Accounting Office showed that 59 boot

camp programs were operating in 29 States, with a total capacity of 10,065. Only

two States—Michigan and Texas—have reduced their capacity since then. The

largest programs are in New York and Georgia; together these two States account

Very

important

Moderately Important

important

Relatively

unimportant

Not a

goal
 5

for half the total capacity nationwide. Most programs accommodate 100 to 250 inmates and continue to limit participants to young, nonviolent first offenders who

enter the boot camps voluntarily, primarily to shorten their prison terms. As exhibit

4 shows, however, some States have raised the upper age limit to include offenders

over 30, and some now allow more serious offenders, with only 28 percent of the

States restricting boot camp eligibility to first offenders in 1993 (Cronin, 1994).

Doris MacKenzie and Dale Parent argue that these programs have strong appeal

with the general public (Parent, 1989; MacKenzie and Parent, 1992) and that they

are magnets for media coverage because of their disciplinary aspects and “get

tough” image.

Even boot camp proponents, however, believe that the criminal justice system

should still proceed cautiously in implementing programs until some of the ongoing research and program development efforts are completed. Discussions have

centered around issues such as:

■ The projected high cost of treatment-oriented programs. It is difficult to interpret

the cost data from different States or make meaningful comparisons across

States because of differences in methods of accounting (Cronin, 1994).

■ Criteria to determine the most appropriate and rigorous medical and

psychological screening processes.

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

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

■ Staff qualifications, including the ability to impose discipline evenhandedly

while taking account of individual differences.

■ Potential abuse of power and the effect it may have on both inmates and

program staff.

■ The need for clear policies governing the use of immediate punishment, force,

and profanity. (The American Correctional Association has developed standards

for adult and juvenile boot camps.)

Research Perspectives of the National

Institute of Justice

During the mid-1980’s, the Nation’s prison population grew rapidly, crimes by

younger offenders escalated steadily, and prisons outgrew their capacity. Therefore,

NIJ, the research arm of the Department of Justice, undertook the task of

exploring the boot camp concept.
6 Exhibit 4. Eligibility Criteria for State Boot Camps

Limitations

Age

limits Fi

r

s

t

-

t

i

m

e

f

e

l

o

n

s

O

f

f

e

n

d

e

r

s

w

i

t

h

o

u

t

p

r

i

s

o

n

r

e

c

o

r

d

M

i

n

i

m

u

m

s

e

n

t

e

n

c

e

(

i

n

y

e

a

r

s

)

M

a

x

i

m

u

m

s

e

n

t

e

n

c

e

(

i

n

y

e

a

r

s

)

State

Alabama Judge — 1 • • • 1 15 Mentally

only

Arizona Judge and corrections 18–25 1 • 1 7 •9 •

authorities

Arkansas Corrections authorities — •7 • • • 1/2 10 • •

California Corrections authorities — • • 1 3 • •

Colorado Corrections authorities 30 and • — — •

under

Florida Judge 15–24 • • • • 1 10 

Georgia Judge and parole 17–352 •5 3/4 5 105 •5 •8 

authories

Idaho Corrections authorities 15 and up 1 1 Life • 

with judge’s agreement

Illinois Corrections authorities 17–29 1 • 1 5 • • 

with judge’s recommendation

Placement authority

Source: Roberta C. Cronin, Boot Camps for Adult and Juvenile Offenders, National Institute of Justice Research Report, October 1994.

F

i

r

s

t

o

f

f

e

n

d

e

r

s

R

e

j

e

c

t

p

h

y

s

i

c

a

l

l

y

/

m

e

n

t

a

l

l

y

i

m

p

a

i

r

e

d

o

f

f

e

n

d

e

r

s

?

V

o

l

u

n

t

a

r

y

e

n

t

r

y

N

o

n

v

i

o

l

e

n

t
 

7

Exhibit 4. Eligibility Criteria for State Boot Camps (continued)

Limitations

State Placement authority 

F

i

r

s

t

o

f

f

e

n

d

e

r

s

N

o

n

v

i

o

l

e

n

t

M

i

n

i

m

u

m

s

e

n

t

e

n

c

e

(

i

n

y

e

a

r

s

)

O

f

f

e

n

d

e

r

s

w

i

t

h

o

u

t

p

r

i

s

o

n

r

e

c

o

r

d

R

e

j

e

c

t

p

h

y

s

i

c

a

l

l

y

/

m

e

n

t

a

l

l

y

i

m

p

a

i

r

e

d

o

f

f

e

n

d

e

r

s

?

Source: Roberta C. Cronin, Boot Camps for Adult and Juvenile Offenders, National Institute of Justice Research Report, October 1994.

Age

limits

Kansas Judge and corrections 16–27 • 1 3 • • 

authorities

Louisiana Judge, corrections 17–39 1 1 7 • •

authorities, and parole

board

Maryland Corrections authorities 16–32 • 3/4 10 • • 

Massachu- Corrections authorities 17–40 — 2 • 

setts

Michigan Judge and corrections 25 & 1 1 — • Physical 

authorities, with under only

judge’s agreement

Minnesota Corrections authorities — • 2 1/3 4 1/2 • Mentally 

only

Mississippi Judge — 1 • — All but •

life

V

o

l

u

n

t

a

r

y

e

n

t

r

y

M

a

x

i

m

u

m

s

e

n

t

e

n

c

e

(

i

n

y

e

a

r

s

)

F

i

r

s

t

-

t

i

m

e

f

e

l

o

n

s
8

Exhibit 4. Eligibility Criteria for State Boot Camps (continued)

Limitations

First offenders

Reject physically/

mentally impaired offenders? Voluntary entry

Offenders without

prison record State Placement authority Minimum sentence

(in years)

Nevada Judge 18 and up • 1 — • 

New Corrections authorities 18–30 • 2 4 • •

Hampshire with judge’s agreement

New York Corrections authorities 16–35 • • — Parole- • • 

with judge’s agreement eligible

within

3 years

North Judge 16–26 — — • • 

Carolina

Ohio Corrections authorities 18–25 • • • 1 5 • • 

Oklahoma Corrections authorities 18–223 • — 5

Pennsylvania Corrections authorities 18–35 1 • • 2 1/2 5 • Mentally 

only

South Judge and corrections 17–29 1 • • 1/4 8 •

Carolina authorities

Age

limits

Source: Roberta C. Cronin, Boot Camps for Adult and Juvenile Offenders, National Institute of Justice Research Report, October 1994.

First-time felons Nonviolent

Maximum sentence

(in years)
 

9

Exhibit 4. Eligibility Criteria for State Boot Camps (continued)

Limitations

R

e

j

e

c

t

p

h

y

s

i

c

a

l

l

y

/

m

e

n

t

a

l

l

y

i

m

p

a

i

r

e

d

o

f

f

e

n

d

e

r

s

?

M

a

x

i

m

u

m

s

e

n

t

e

n

c

e

(

i

n

y

e

a

r

s

)

M

i

n

i

m

u

m

s

e

n

t

e

n

c

e

(

i

n

y

e

a

r

s

)

State

Tennessee Corrections authorities 18–35 • 1 66 • 

Texas Judge 17–25 1 10 •

Virginia Judge 15–24 5 • — 20 • • 

West Virginia Judge 17–25 5 • — — • Physically 

only

Wisconsin Corrections authorities 18–30 5 — — • • 

Number of States with this type 24 14 8 5 9 20 23 22 24

of limitation

1. Some offenses are excluded, but not all violent offenses.

2. 17–35 applies to inmate boot camps. Range is 17–30 for probation boot camps. There are no limits for probation detention centers.

3. No limits for prisoners.

4. Regimented Inmate Discipline only. Other programs have no limits.

5. Inmate programs only. Other programs are not restricted.

6. 12 years for certain drug offenses.

7. “Unless sentenced by a judge.”

Placement authority

Age

limits No

n

v

i

o

l

e

n

t

F

i

r

s

t

o

f

f

e

n

d

e

r

s

F

i

r

s

t

-

t

i

m

e

f

e

l

o

n

s

O

f

f

e

n

d

e

r

s

w

i

t

h

o

u

t

p

r

i

s

o

n

r

e

c

o

r

d

V

o

l

u

n

t

a

r

y

e

n

t

r

y

Source: Roberta C. Cronin, Boot Camps for Adult and Juvenile Offenders, National Institute of Justice Research Report, October 1994.
10

In 1988, NIJ sponsored Dr. Doris MacKenzie, then of Louisiana State University, in

evaluating the shock incarceration program in that State. The Louisiana Department

of Public Safety and Correction’s Intensive Motivational Program of Alternative

Correctional Treatment (IMPACT), implemented in 1987, was then a two-phased

boot camp program. In the first phase, offenders were incarcerated for 90 to 180

days in a rigorous boot camp atmosphere. Following this, they were placed under

intensive parole supervision. This second phase required offenders to have at least

four contacts a week with their supervising officers, adhere to a strict 8 p.m. to

6 a.m. curfew, perform community service, and work.

In establishing the IMPACT program, Louisiana’s major stated goal was to create a

new sentencing option that would provide placement for inmates who would otherwise be sent to the State’s crowded prison. Other program goals were to provide

participants with the life skills they would need to succeed in becoming constructive members of society. The evaluation, designed to examine Louisiana’s success

in meeting its goals, examined how the program was implemented, changes in inmate behavior and attitude resulting from the program, and system-level changes

such as costs and benefits.

The evaluators found that staff saw the program as more than a way of “getting

tough” with the young offenders; both the staff and the inmates found their interaction to be more positive than in regular prison. Nonetheless, offenders found the

boot camp regimen to be physically and mentally taxing, and many dropped out

before completing the program. Findings from the evaluation indicated that inmates

who completed the program believed they had learned valuable lessons and skills,

and their positive attitudes grew during the time they were in the program. By contrast, regular prison inmates had increasingly negative attitudes during their prison

stays; they said they learned only that they did not want to return to prison.

Boot camp offenders were involved in more positive activities during their time under community supervision than other parolees, probationers, and boot camp dropouts, but during the 6-month supervision period, the positive activities of all groups

declined. There was no significant difference among all the groups in the percentage arrested during these 6 months.

Cost savings per boot camp inmate were significant ($13,784) over the cost of the

longer term incarceration that would have taken place, but these savings were

somewhat offset by higher costs for the community supervision phase ($5,956),

thus netting a total of $7,828 saved for each offender who completed the program

instead of going to regular prison.

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

longer terms in prison.
 11

Around the same time that the Louisiana evaluation was being completed, the boot

camp option was attracting considerable interest as an alternative to traditional imprisonment for young offenders. Boot camp programs were springing up in many

parts of the country, but critics were calling for a guarded approach because of major concerns that needed to be thoroughly examined.

In response, NIJ undertook a multisite evaluation of boot camp programs that began

with a 1989 survey of 50 State correctional jurisdictions to determine what specific

program components seemed to work best and for what types of offenders. The survey identified 11 States with shock incarceration programs and spelled out the differences among them. For instance, in some programs judges selected offenders for

this sanction; in others the decision lay with correctional department officials. Different programs placed varying emphasis on rehabilitation, academic education,

and vocational education.

This information indicated a need to examine the efficacy of boot camp programs.

Were they meeting their stated goals? How were they operating? This multisite

evaluation studied boot camp programs in eight States (Florida, Georgia, Illinois,

Louisiana, New York, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas) to develop a broader

picture of how this popular new sanction was being applied.

In general, the study found that recidivism rates of those completing boot camp

programs were similar to those for comparable offenders who spent a longer time

in prison. Lower recidivism rates were found in three States, however—New York,

Illinois, and Louisiana. Programs in these States had a strong therapeutic focus and

included an intensive 6-month supervision phase on release into the community.

The findings suggested that the boot camp experience alone is not sufficient for

reducing recidivism. Chapter 18 of this book, Multisite Study of Correctional Boot

Camps, details these findings.

About This Book

After more than a decade of experience with boot camps, numerous unanswered

questions remain about their operation, as well as about their effectiveness and

impact. This book examines these issues and recent developments in the use of

boot camps.

The next chapter provides an overview of boot camps that is crucial for the development of national standards for correctional boot camps. Although the Department

of Justice has established operating principles for correctional boot camps, standards to guide the development of components for these programs are necessary for

continued improvement in their effectiveness. While statutes may specify the legislative authorization and the general mission assigned for these programs, there is a

need for indepth exposition.
12

Chapters 3 to 8 deal with various local, State, and Federal experiences with boot

camps. Clearly, an opportunity to assess the best models will be informative and

useful for jurisdictions that have not yet tried the boot camp alternative. Offenders

participating in most of the State programs are usually released in a shorter time

period than would be the case if they served their sentences in a traditional correctional facility. Yet at the Federal level, inmates do not have a reduced sentence but

instead serve a portion of their time at the boot camp while the remainder of their

time is served in a community corrections center.

The widespread concept of “boot camp” has become a part of the juvenile system.

Chapters 9 to 11 address the development of boot camps for youthful offenders and

begin to examine the impact of these programs. Contrary to the requirements for

adult boot camp participants, juvenile boot camps tend to recruit offenders who are

deeply involved in the juvenile justice system. The typical incarceration at a juvenile boot camp is a few months, although in some States an offender’s stay may be

lengthened if requirements for graduation are not met. Exhibit 5 presents characteristic features of juvenile boot camps.

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

programming.

Chapters 15 to 18 highlight evaluative research on various aspects of the boot camp

concept. While only a limited number of significant process and impact evaluations

have been completed to date, the results of the study summarized in chapter 18 by

Doris MacKenzie are probably the most comprehensive.

The final chapter in this volume addresses the future of boot camps; it emphasizes

the need for more research to guide policymakers and criminal justice professionals

in implementing more effective boot camp programs.
 13

Source: Roberta C. Cronin, Boot Camps for Adult and Juvenile Offenders, National Institute of Justice Research Report, October 1994.

Exhibit 5. Key Characteristics of Boot Camps for Juvenile Offenders

Limited to:

Educati

counsel

Volunteers

Physical

training/

drill/work

First

custodial

commitment

First

serious

offense

Nonviolent

offenders

Age

limits

Program

duration

(in days)

Year

began

Operated

Program by:

High Intensity State 1990 100 30 12–18 • 36 64 

Treatment, 

Chalkville, AL

Environmental County/ 1992 52 90 13–17 • • • 43 57 

Youth Corps, Private

Mobile, AL

LEAD, CA State 1992 60 120 16–20 • • 34 66 

Drug Treatment County 1990 210 140 16–18 n/a n/a 

Boot Camp, Los

Angeles, CA

Camp Foxfire, State/ 1992 24 90 14–18 • 58 42 

Denver, CO Private

Orleans Parish Parish 1985 275 Depends 13–16 n/a n/a 

Prison, New on 

Orleans, LA sentence

Mississippi State 1992 175 168 10–20 24 76 

Rehabilitative

Camp,

Raymond, MS

Youth Leadership State 1992 30 120 15–16 • • 44 56 

Academy, South

Kortwright, NY

Camp Roulston, County/ 1992 30 90 14–17 • 38 63 

Cleveland, OH Private

% of time devote

Capacity
14

References

Austin, James, Michael Jones, and Melissa Bolyard. The Growing Use of Jail Boot

Camps: The Current State of the Art. Research in Brief. Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1993.

Cronin, Roberta. Boot Camps for Adult and Juvenile Offenders: Overview and

Update. Research Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National

Institute of Justice, 1994.

Gransky, Laura A., Thomas C. Castellano, and Ernest L. Cowles. “Is There a ‘Second Generation’ of Shock Incarceration Facilities?: The Evolving Nature of Goals,

Program Components, and Drug Treatment Services in Boot Camp Programs.” In

Intermediate Sanctions: Sentencing in the 90s, J. Smykla and W. Selke (eds.).

Cincinnati: Anderson Publishing Company, 1995.

MacKenzie, Doris L. “Boot Camp Prisons, Components, Evaluations, and

Empirical Issues.” Federal Probation (September 1990):44–52.

MacKenzie, Doris L. “‘Boot Camp’ Programs Grow in Number and Scope.” NIJ

Reports (November/December 1990):6–8.

MacKenzie, Doris L. “The Parole Performance of Offenders Released From Shock

Incarceration (Boot Camp Prisons): A Survival Time Analysis.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 7, no. 3 (1991):213–236.

MacKenzie, Doris L., Larry A. Gould, Lisa M. Riechers, and James W. Shaw.

“Shock Incarceration: Rehabilitation or Retribution?” Journal of Offender Counseling, Services, and Rehabilitation, 14, no. 2 (1989):25–40.

MacKenzie, Doris L., and Dale G. Parent. “Boot Camp Prisons for Young Offenders.” In Smart Sentencing: The Emergence of Intermediate Sanctions, James M.

Byrne, Arthur J. Lurigio, and Joan Petersilia (eds.). Newbury Park, California: Sage

Publications, 1992.

MacKenzie, Doris L., and Dale G. Parent. “Shock Incarceration and Prison Crowding in Louisiana.” Journal of Criminal Justice, 19, no. 3 (1991):225–237.

MacKenzie, Doris L., and Alex Piquero. “The Impact of Shock Incarceration on

Prison Crowding.” Crime and Delinquency, 40, no. 2 (1994):222–249.

MacKenzie, Doris L., and James W. Shaw. “Inmate Adjustment and Change During

Shock Incarceration: The Impact of Correctional Boot Camp Programs.” Justice

Quarterly, 7, no. 1 (1990):125–150.
 15

MacKenzie, Doris L., James W. Shaw, and Voncile B. Gowdy. An Evaluation of

Shock Incarceration in Louisiana. Research in Brief. Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1993.

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

National Institute of Justice, 1994.

Parent, Dale G. “Boot Camps Failing To Achieve Goals.” Overcrowded Times, 5,

no. 4 (1994):8–11.

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

Shaw, James W., and Doris L. MacKenzie. “The One-Year Community Supervision

Performance of Drug Offenders and Louisiana DOC-Identified Substance Abusers

Graduating From Shock Incarceration.” Journal of Criminal Justice, 20

(1992):501–616.

Shaw, James W., and Doris L. MacKenzie. “Shock Incarceration and Its Impact on

the Lives of Problem Drinkers.” American Journal of Criminal Justice, 16, no. 1

(1991):63–96.

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

Vito, G.F., and H.E. Allen. “Shock Probation in Ohio: A Comparison of Outcomes.”

International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 25

(1981):70–76.
16
 17

CHAPTER 2

An Overview of Boot Camp Goals,

Components, and Results

by John K. Zachariah

John Zachariah is the Deputy Court Administrator and Director of

the Administrative Services Department of the Cuyahoga County

Juvenile Court in Ohio. He was formerly the Chief Probation Officer

of the county’s Juvenile Probation Department. When he was

Regional Administrator for the American Correctional Association,

he directed the development of boot camp national standards, a

project funded by the National Institute of Justice.

This overview of boot camps consists of a review of the literature and a

discussion of findings from a mail survey and telephone and onsite interviews with directors of departments of corrections, directors of juvenile

corrections, and military staff to obtain information on the goals and

components of military, adult, and juvenile boot camps as a preliminary

task in developing standards for adult and juvenile correctional boot

camps. Uniformity was found in the use of military drill and ceremony and

physical activity, but there was considerable variation on the value of

including education and drug and alcohol treatment as boot camp components. The findings of selected evaluations as of January 1993 indicate that

boot camps may be a useful alternative sanction to keep first offenders from

offending again over the short term, but that the long-term effects on

recidivism or reduction of costs and prison crowding have not yet been

determined.
18

Sir, yes sir! Sir, no sir!” Many corrections facilities now resound with shouted

orders and courteous but clipped responses. Correctional boot camp programs for youthful offenders have grown over the past decade. This growth

promises to continue, spurred on by citizens—who like seeing offenders toeing the

line—and by legislators who represent them. In 1990 Congress authorized the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) to fund State boot camps as “corrections options”

through its discretionary grant program, and 2 years later it authorized the Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to establish three model

juvenile boot camps emphasizing education and other services.

This rapid growth in boot camp programs has produced an immediate need for standards to guide the design and components of these programs. To this end, the

American Correctional Association (ACA) completed a study of the status of boot

camps, funded by a grant from the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), and in January 1995 published a set of standards for both adult and juvenile boot camp

programs.

ACA has now published Standards for Juvenile Correctional Boot Camp Programs

and Standards for Adult Correctional Boot Camp Programs. These standards were

developed over several months with the participation of correctional practitioners,

academicians, Department of Justice officials, and other national correctional leaders. At every step of the process, these standards have undergone field review and

critique by correctional practitioners, ACA’s Standards Committee, the Commission

on Accreditation for Corrections, and correctional administrators. The standards

were field tested in a variety of boot camp sites to ensure their validity. They represent the collective wisdom of many professionals who have reviewed and developed standards that reflect an acceptable level of operation for the field.

The goal of establishing these standards continues to be the same as the correctional process that began in 1870 when the Association published the first principles designed to improve working conditions for staff and employees and living

conditions for inmates. ACA has published standards reflecting the consensus of

the profession in setting forth the principles, policies, and procedures necessary to

maintain correctional facilities that are safe, humane, efficient, and effective.

Professional standards for corrections are prepared with several constituencies in

mind. Critics sometimes overlook one or more of these important groups or tend to

focus on a single purpose. Standards are designed to consider the members of the

public who have been victimized by crime; the staff who work in correctional systems; inmates who serve sentences; the judges and court officers who impose sentences; and the legislative and executive offices responsible for corrections.

ACA completed a literature review, a direct mail inquiry (asking programs to send

their policies and procedures), indepth telephone interviews with corrections officials in eight States, and site visits to four States. Staff reviewed all major publica-

“
 19

tions, annual reports, and unpublished papers to date on the status of boot camp

programs, in addition to written information from 34 boot camp programs (51 percent of all adult and Federal boot camp programs) and the District of Columbia

(whose program was implemented in 1994).

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

objectives, policies, and procedures. All four branches of military service

responded.

This chapter discusses the similarities and differences between military and correctional boot camps and summarizes several key boot camp program components

from the literature review and materials submitted in response to the survey

questionnaire.1

Military Boot Camps

Results of the military boot camp survey showed that the primary purpose of military boot camps, which are 8 weeks long, is to convert a civilian into a soldier who

is physically conditioned, motivated, and self-disciplined—one who can take his or

her place in the ranks of the Armed Forces in the field.

The Armed Forces manual2

 explicitly states several key issues that are essential to

military boot camp training goals:

■ Organization. The program must be organized with formal intermediate goals

or progressive phases so that the conversion process can be properly structured

and both the trainer and new soldier are clear on progress.

■ The dignity of the new soldier. From the time the new soldier takes the oath of

enlistment, he or she is a soldier and should be addressed as one. Every effort

must be made to instill a sense of identification with the uniform, the training

unit, and the leaders of that unit. This cannot be accomplished in an atmosphere

of “we/they.” From the start of the training cycle, the new soldier must be

presented an atmosphere that says “leader/soldier,” where the drill sergeant,

committee group trainer, and officers are seen as role models to emulate rather

than people to be feared and avoided.

■ Degree of control. The leaders of training units must continue to develop selfdiscipline in their soldiers. Self-discipline begins early in boot camp by ensuring

that the training center cadre maintains total control over the soldiers’ activities.

This control is relaxed over time as soldiers demonstrate their willingness to

accept responsibility for their actions.
20

■ Responsibility. If new soldiers are to be successful and productive members in

their future units, they must learn responsibility for others as well as for themselves. Every work detail, every period of instruction, and every opportunity to

reinforce leadership should emphasize the necessity for cooperation and

teamwork.

■ Training cadre role. The operative philosophy is to train soldiers by building on

their strengths and shoring up their weaknesses. It is not to “tear them down and

build them up again.”

Asked to comment on the compatibility of both military and correctional boot

camp goals, Lieutenant Colonel Bruce R. Conover, Chief of Corrections Branch

Headquarters, Department of the Army, reported that the goals of correctional boot

camp programs are similar to those of military boot camps:

The military boot camp environment facilitates individual training and

prepares soldiers for the mental and physical stress which will confront

them in combat. This same environment is highly conducive to assisting in

the correction of first-time, nonviolent offenders, and preparing for their

reintroduction into the community upon completion of their sentence.

While both kinds of boot camp focus on training, the purpose of correctional boot

camp training is different from that of military boot camps. Conover reported that:

. . . while military boot camps train soldiers in unique military arts, the

correctional boot camp’s training focus should be educational, occupational, or tailored specifically to correct the behavior for which the

offender is incarcerated. Like its military counterpart, the training environment should generate physical and mental stress to assist in preparing the

prisoner for the pressures of constructive citizenship. Intensive supervision

and success-oriented counseling and mentorship apply to both the military

and corrections “boot camp” environment.3

Dale Parent, building on the philosophy of the military boot camps, especially

using the drill sergeant, group trainers, and officers as role models, has written:

If the disciplinary regimen is expected to alter the offender’s future

behaviors, the agency should describe in writing the link between the

regimen and the future behavior change. For example, staff may be

expected to be good role models for inmates, in which case we might

expect that offenders’ attitudes and behaviors would become more like

those of staff, and that offenders’ crime and violation rates would decline.

Alternately, we might expect fair and consistently enforced rules to teach

offenders about being accountable for their deeds. We might expect

offenders’ values to be more readily subject to positive (pro-social) change
 21

in a boot camp environment than in an institution, and that once released

to the community, that ex-offenders with more pro-social values would be

less likely to commit new crimes or violate conditions of their release.4

The focus of military boot camps and correctional boot camps is training. Military

boot camps train recruits in military arts to enable them to become competent soldiers. Correctional boot camps train offenders in responsible living techniques to

help them to become law-abiding citizens. Some of the most common characteristics of the two types of boot camps are barracks-style housing, military titles, drill

and ceremonies, military-style uniforms, grouping in platoons, summary punishment, and group rewards and punishment.

Meanwhile, some of the differences are in the program content area, such as group

and individual counseling, drug and alcohol education and counseling, education,

vocational training, and job preparation. Clearly defined purposes and goals will

determine the structure and content of a correctional boot camp that can best serve

offenders and the community.

Goals and Philosophies of Correctional

Boot Camp Programs

Research indicates that there have been three primary reasons for implementing

correctional boot camp programs: reducing crowding, reducing costs, and lowering

recidivism.5 In a 1991 survey, Doris MacKenzie asked boot camp administrators to

rate the importance of 11 goals. The goals administrators deemed “very important”

were rehabilitation, recidivism reduction, and drug education. Goals deemed

“important” were reducing crowding, developing work skills, and providing a safe

prison environment. Goals believed to be “somewhat important” were deterrence,

education, and drug treatment. Vocational education was the goal most often believed “not important” or “not a goal” (although 14 States claimed it was important

or somewhat important).6

MacKenzie also found each program’s goals to be clearly reflected in its daily

schedule of activities. For example, in South Carolina’s boot camp program academic and drug education were high-priority goals. Thus, offenders in South Carolina spent 4 hours every day in educational programs and 3 hours each week in

drug education. On the other hand, drug treatment was not a high-priority goal and

offenders spent little time in treatment.

Like MacKenzie, ACA staff found in their survey that the major goals held by most

boot camp programs included reducing crowding and costs, reducing recidivism,

and rehabilitation. In fact, of the 16 boot camp programs that had philosophies,

mission statements, or goal statements in some written form, staff found that 14
22

stated rehabilitation was a major goal. Only five States mentioned punishment or

deterrence as a goal.7

Parent addressed the goals of both punishment and deterrence and concluded that

neither of them in fact could be viewed as appropriate correctional boot camp

goals.8

Punishment. In his study, Parent discussed the issue of “just deserts” as the

primary theory around which punishment has been organized. He stated:

Under just deserts, punishment must be proportional and uniform. Punishments are proportional if the severity of punishment increases in direct

relation to increases in (a) the gravity of crime(s) committed and (b) the

magnitude of offenders’ culpability. Thus, minor crimes committed by

“virgin” offenders should get modest punishments; severe crimes committed by habitual offenders should get much harsher punishments. Punishments are uniform if similar offenders convicted of similar crimes generally get similar sentences.9

Because most boot camp programs select only first-time “virgin” offenders, the

severe nature of the program runs counter to the theory of “just deserts.”

Deterrence and rehabilitation. On the issue of deterrence Parent said, “It is not

the boot camp itself which deters future criminal conduct, but the offender’s fear of

real prison.” He reported that when deterrence is a goal, boot camp programs are

usually located within a general population prison so that participants can see and

hear regular inmates and observe prison routine. Staff contribute to the offender’s

fears of the unknown by describing the “exploitation” and “sexual victimization”

that happens in prison.

In short, these programs try to scare participants into desisting from crime.

No one has specifically evaluated the deterrent effects of boot camp

prisons. However, evaluations of other related programs, including the

Scared Straight programs of the 1970’s, suggest that boot camps are

unlikely to achieve specific deterrence.

Evaluations of the Rahway program and several similar ones found no

evidence of a deterrence effect—in fact, some studies found that those

who participated failed at higher rates than control groups who did not

participate.10

On the other hand, and although there is no hard and fast evidence, Parent did see

that rehabilitation, crowding reduction, and lowered costs are viable boot camp

program goals.
 23

ACA staff found that almost all boot camp programs included rehabilitation as one

of their goals. They hoped to achieve rehabilitation through the disciplinary regimen itself and through treatment programs (see other research reported in this

volume).

Reducing crowding and costs. Although crowding and costs have not been issues

in boot camps for juveniles, both have been consistently reported as goals for adult

boot camps. But Parent has warned administrators to be realistic about what boot

camps can do to meet these goals. (See the research described elsewhere in this

volume, especially chapter 16.)

Program Components

The survey showed that while many boot camp programs are similar in nature,

there are some distinct differences in how each State administers its particular program. For example, the length of boot camp programs runs from a minimum of 30

days to a maximum of 240 days, sometimes prohibiting additional educational programs or counseling services. Most programs, however, are in the 90- to 120-day

range.11

A review of the written materials from boot camp programs demonstrated a variety

of program emphases. The particular emphasis of a program depends largely on its

expressed mission and goal statements. The primary components of most boot

camp programs include physical training, labor, drill and ceremony, and summary

punishment. This last is an interim punishment imposed by staff for disciplinary

infractions, which entails an on-the-spot, immediate sanction for an infraction. This

punishment may include pushups, extra chores, or another work assignment.

Depending on a program’s goals, the rehabilitative components and treatment

components might include:

■ Academic education.

■ Vocational education.

■ Life skills training.

■ Drug and alcohol education or treatment.

■ Reality therapy.

■ Rational behavior training.

■ Therapeutic community.

■ Relaxation therapy.
24

Not all programs offer all components. Vocational education, for example, does not

appear to be feasible within the confines of a strict boot camp program.

Yet over time, as boot camp programs continue to develop, they change. The first

programs stressed a rigid military atmosphere, physical training, and hard labor.

Although these components are still part of every program, many boot camp programs have increased the time they give to education and treatment.12 MacKenzie

reported that in 1992, most programs had some type of drug education or a combination of drug education and treatment in their schedules, even though the amount

of time devoted to drug education or treatment still varied greatly among programs.

She said that some programs had as few as 15 days of treatment, while others offered drug treatment every day. Some programs, notably New York, used a therapeutic community model, and all offenders received the same drug treatment while

in the program.

The platoons form a small “community” and meet daily to solve problems

and discuss their progress in the program. Inmates also spend time in

substance abuse education classes and in group counseling. The counseling program is based on the Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) and Narcotics

Anonymous (NA) model of abstinence and recovery. All inmates participate in the drug treatment programs regardless of their substance abuse

history.13

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

In Illinois drug counselors evaluate offenders and match the education or

treatment level to the severity of the offender’s substance abuse problems.

Inmates with no history of substance abuse receive only 2 weeks of drug

education. Those who are identified as probable substance abusers receive

4 weeks of group counseling along with the drug education. Inmates who

are classified as having drug addictions receive the drug education and 10

weeks of drug treatment.14

(See chapter 4 in this volume for more on the Illinois boot camp program.)

Eligibility Requirements

ACA staff analyzed the programs in eight States that had specific eligibility criteria,

including the selection process and the type of consent required for participation in

the boot camp program. All States responding to the survey used several criteria

(corroborating the findings of an NIJ multistate study that MacKenzie conducted).

Offender status. Most States limited boot camp programs to first-time, nonviolent

offenders who did not have outstanding felony detainers or warrants. Many States
 25

specified, in writing, the violent crimes that prohibit an offender from entering the

boot camp program.

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

sampling:

■ Kansas—ages 18 to 25.

■ Maryland—under 32 years.

■ California—age 40 or younger.

■ New York—age 30 or younger.

■ Illinois—ages 17 to 29.

■ Tennessee—ages 17 to 29.

■ Oklahoma—under 25 years.

Sentence length. Although one of the motivators for entering a boot camp program

is a reduction in sentence length, and one of the most consistent boot camp program goals is to reduce prison crowding, States surveyed differed in the number of

years an offender should have spent in prison had there been no boot camp program. For example, Maryland restricted its boot camp program to offenders sentenced for up to 10 years who have at least 9 months remaining to serve. New York

required that offenders become eligible for release on parole within 3 years. Illinois

required that offenders have been sentenced to prison for up to 5 years and Tennessee for up to 6 years; the latter also required that the boot camp program last at

least 90 days.

Selection Process

According to General Accounting Office (GAO) research:

The actual selection process varies by state and may involve more than

one placement authority. For example, 20 states reported that the sentencing judge could sentence a person directly to a boot camp. Twenty states

also said that the correctional agency could make this decision when the

inmate enters the system. Only four states said that the decision could be

made by probation or parole authorities.15

MacKenzie wrote that “judges may be particularly interested in programs that have

an impact on the individual offender and that provide more control than traditional

probation. In contrast, corrections administrators, seeking new programs and facing
26

serious prison crowding, may emphasize the importance of using intermediate

sanctions such as boot camp.16

In New York, Louisiana, and Illinois, the Department of Corrections selects candidates for the programs. In other States, offenders are sent to the boot camp by the

court, which maintains full control over the offenders. Those who are dismissed

before completion and those who successfully complete the program must return to

the court for final disposition.

According to MacKenzie, Texas and the original programs in Georgia and South

Carolina were designed this way. However, South Carolina now operates its program through the Department of Corrections, and Georgia operates some programs

through the court and some through corrections.17

Voluntary Consent

All of the States studied required offenders to volunteer for the boot camp program

and to sign a form so indicating. Most departments viewed this form as a protection

against liability. Critics suggest, however, that the programs are not voluntary simply because an offender’s choice is limited to two different types of confinement,

one of which is for a considerably shorter period of time.

Community Followup

As a distinct part of the total boot camp program, most States have a strong community followup component to help offenders make the transition from the program back to the community. For example, Kansas performed 3-month, 6-month,

9-month, and 1-year checks for new crimes with the Kansas Bureau of Investigation, local law enforcement, and court of referral to evaluate the offender’s adjustment after returning to the community. New York’s intensive community program

incorporated work programs, employment counseling, drug counseling, and a continuation of the daily therapeutic community meetings that were part of the boot

camp program. In Illinois, graduates from the program were electronically monitored for the first 3 months of community supervision and placed on community

supervision for a period of 1 to 2 years depending on the class of their crime.

Maryland placed boot camp graduates into transitional houses where they received

intensive supervision and a variety of services geared to meet their needs (e.g.,

counseling, social worker reviews, and job searches.)

MacKenzie said that California’s new boot camp prison at San Quentin planned to

train offenders for 120 days. Following this period offenders would be required

to live at a nearby naval air station for 60 days.18 They could leave the base if
 27

employed or they could work on the base while searching for a job. Upon release

from the base, they were to be intensively supervised in the community for an additional 4 months.

Staff Training and Selection

Parent wrote that boot camp programs provide a high-stress environment for both

inmates and staff. Staff typically are at first “rejuvenated” by their role in boot

camps, but in many programs burnout is rapid and turnover rates are high. As burnout and turnover increase, the potential for inmate abuse stemming from staff error

or negligence also rises. This is probably true for inmate injury (and staff injury by

inmates) as well.

Because staff are paramount to the success of the boot camp program, and because

boot camps carry strong potential for abuse of offenders, staff selection and training

are critical issues. Relatively few programs studied, however, have given staff selection or training special attention.

No one has assessed the effectiveness of various screening criteria for selecting

staff, but several programs were screening out applicants who had:

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

■ A history of drug or alcohol problems.

■ Current serious personal problems (such as divorce, bankruptcy, or a seriously ill

spouse).

■ A history of issuing numerous misconduct reports on prison inmates (that is,

applicants who deal with conflict by asserting authority rather than solving

problems).

Staff in most programs did not believe that prior military service was a necessary

requirement for a boot camp drill instructor. Most, however, expected drill instructors to be positive role models and physically fit enough to perform any task required of inmates. This is one reason some programs have set requirements pertaining to height, weight, and physical conditioning.

Unfortunately, few States have offered substantial preservice training for boot camp

staff. The New York State Department of Correctional Services is an important

exception. It has developed a comprehensive boot camp staff training package.

(See chapter 3 in this volume for more on the New York program.)
28

Boot Camps for Juveniles

Boot camp programs appear to have a focus more easily identified with adults than

juveniles. Despite this, in many States youthful offenders under the age of 18 are

considered adults and have been placed within the adult boot camp population. For

example, Georgia’s program has targeted offenders who are 17 years old and

above; Alabama, 15 and above; and New York, 16 and above.

For the most part, juvenile corrections practitioners have been slow to embrace the

boot camp program concept. They have considered the amount of time devoted to

military drill, ceremony, and exercise as an encroachment on the time available for

education or drug and alcohol rehabilitation programs.

Most educators agree that juveniles usually resist authority and generally have poor

social skills and self-concepts. Often they are underachievers and are unable to

make the connection between their behavior and its effect. For these reasons, educators have believed that juveniles need an atmosphere of challenge and experiential learning, a variety of “learning by doing” programs. However, because boot

camp programs have caught the public eye and have strong support, some juvenile

justice agencies are feeling pressure to develop and implement them.

In some States juvenile practitioners are combining elements of the boot camp program philosophy with experiential or adventure programming and are relabeling

the programs with names such as “stress challenge.” In other States, juvenile practitioners are looking for ways to translate the strict adult boot camp philosophy into

programs that will work well with juveniles.

Conclusions and Recommendations

An effective intervention must take place to prevent first-time offenders from penetrating deeper into the juvenile justice system and especially to prevent juvenile

offenders from graduating to the adult criminal justice system. Providing a boot

camp program may be an important step in keeping the young offender from

further incarceration.

However, starting any new program is a challenge. Boot camp programs are experiencing some successes, at least with respect to short-term costs and the short-term

impact of programs on graduates. Many, however, were designed and implemented

quickly—without feasibility studies—and without written policies and procedures

to guide their implementation.

In the written materials that many boot camp programs submitted to ACA, for example, the stated goals varied—sometimes drastically—from one program to the

next, and sometimes within the same program. At the two extremes are programs

that espouse punishment as a goal and those that espouse rehabilitation.
 29

The structures of the programs varied also. Military drill, ceremony, and physical

exercise were common to all programs, but the balance of the boot camp day varied. Some boot camp programs required offenders to spend 4 to 6 hours in basic

education or drug treatment. Others required offenders to work 8 hours a day. Very

few programs had any type of formal evaluation process to measure success in

meeting goals.

Unfortunately, some evaluations have indicated that the long-term impact of boot

camp programs may be no different from that of traditional prison. The U.S. General Accounting Office reported in 1993 that after 2 years out, boot camp graduates

had the same rate of recidivism as offenders on parole.19 Many critical issues, therefore, need to be addressed by policymakers and administrators who would establish

boot camp programs. The literature review and the telephone and site visit

interviews identified some of the most pressing of these issues.

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

precise, and measurable language.

Of all of the possible goals that boot camp programs may adopt, the two that are

reasonably attainable, according to the literature, are rehabilitation and reduction of

crowding and costs.

Thomas Castellano20 suggested that the boot camp mission statement should also

address—in specific terms—the role of the boot camp within the correctional system and should specify how particular program elements and components contribute to the achievement of that larger mission.

Evaluation. When goal statements and objectives are written in specific, measurable terms, the short-term and long-term goals can be measured efficiently and effectively. Problems can be anticipated before they occur or are solved. Castellano

suggested that each boot camp program maintain an information system that contains the type of data necessary for meaningful program monitoring, assessment,

and evaluation. He said that there should also be systemwide collaboration to collect information about the offender—from the point when the offender enters the

boot camp program, through aftercare. Castellano also promoted research and

evaluation as significant program elements. He specifically cited feasibility,

process, and impact studies.

Before making a commitment to start a boot camp, correctional administrators

should conduct a feasibility study to determine whether such a program would be

appropriate in their jurisdiction. Giving consideration to the program’s goals and

objectives, administrators should study:

■ The program’s targeted population.
30

■ The selection criteria, including intake and exit criteria and procedures and ways

the offender will be tracked through the program.

■ Questions such as whether the pool of eligible offenders is large enough to

justify opening the program and whether current sanctioning patterns in the

jurisdiction can accommodate the proposed client flow.

■ The methodology that will be used to document cost savings and the impact on

prison crowding.

■ The types of programs the boot camp will provide and associated staffing,

contracted services, and physical construction. This information is necessary to

estimate program costs, which then should be compared with the costs of

alternative intermediate sanctions serving similar populations.

Boot camp programs will also need to conduct both process and impact evaluations. A process evaluation measures whether the program is actually operating the

way it was designed to operate. An impact evaluation measures how effective the

program was in achieving its goals. Impact evaluations basically answer the questions, “Does the program work? Is the program effective?”

Selection criteria. Most boot camp programs target first-time, nonviolent offenders—within a specified age range—as appropriate participants. The majority of

programs also include mostly males who are physically and psychologically able to

complete the strict military exercise requirements.

Parent pointed out that boot camp administrators, in establishing rigid criteria,

might be inviting another problem: possible discrimination.

Clearly, if eligible male inmates are given a chance to shorten their prison

terms in a boot camp, similar female inmates should have the same

opportunity. From a physiological viewpoint, younger inmates are better

able to do the physical training and hard labor than older inmates. Most

boot camp programs, therefore, restrict participation to offenders who are

less than 30 years old. Disabled inmates or those with nondisabling

medical conditions that limit their physical performance are also typically

excluded. While these exclusions may be reasonable, older, disabled, or

physically impaired inmates may have a liberty interest because they

have no access to an alternative program that shortens their term of

confinement.21

Aftercare. Correctional boot camps differ in the amount of time they allocate to

aftercare or community supervision. Some programs have offered boot camp

graduates intensive supervision for 8 months to a year or more; some have used a

2- to 3-month aftercare program.
 31

Parent said that if boot camp aftercare is to contribute to the goal of rehabilitation,

it should provide an extended supportive period emphasizing employment (job

training, placement, retention, housing, and continuation of treatment programming

begun in the facility).

He made an interesting comparison between military and correctional boot camp

aftercare.

. . . in the military, those who complete basic training are considered to be

“trainable assets”—that is, they are ready to begin learning the skills

needed to perform their respective missions. Military basic training is

followed by specialized training, a job, food, regular pay, adequate

housing, clothing, health care, opportunities for advancement and advanced education. Military service provides complete support for several

years. By parallel, it is possible that the way we operate aftercare will have

major impacts on the boot camp graduates’ return to prison rates, and on

the boot camp programs’ overall attainment of their goals.22

Juvenile issues. As already noted, many juvenile justice practitioners prefer not to

implement juvenile boot camp programs for a variety of reasons. In interviews,

treatment and mental health professionals expressed concern over the impact such

programs might have on juvenile offenders. Some practitioners thought that juveniles would be more appropriately placed in training schools or in community residential programs where they could receive the type and amount of education and

counseling they needed.

On the other hand, Yitzhak Bakal, Executive Director of one of the three juvenile

boot camp programs funded by OJJDP, saw merit in the intensity of the boot camp

routine. He said: “The military structure gives these kids strong motivation and a

sense of control and empowerment. They work from early in the morning to late in

the evening. The atmosphere here is quite different from the institutions where 20

or 30 kids sit in a day room and watch TV all day. In the boot camp, the kids are

emotional and positive.”23

Practitioners are still experimenting with the right formula, however. Parent pointed

out that we had very little evidence to guide us in answering important questions

about juveniles and boot camp programs. How young is too young? In a juvenile

program, how should the disciplinary regimen differ? Should the programmatic

content and physical training requirements differ from those in adult boot camps?

What effect do mandatory school laws have on the amounts and types of educational programming provided in juvenile boot camps? Do child protection laws

limit the regimen and practices in juvenile boot camp programs?
32

Discrimination and Abuse Issues

The literature on boot camps described several other problem areas of particular

concern to policymakers and administrators, especially in the area of inmates’

rights and inmates’ protection.

Policymakers may need to consider that “particularly in their strictest form, boot

camps operate very close to the line of unconstitutionality. The verbal and physical

aspects of the program (the same aspects that appeal to much of the public) do not

have to deteriorate very far to reach the point of illegality. Camp operations must be

supervised very carefully to avoid this deterioration.”24

Parent added that several factors make protection of inmates’ legal rights in boot

camp programs especially important. Grievance procedures, for example, are not

curtailed in boot camps, but there may be a chilling effect on their use. Inmates

may fear that if they file a grievance, they may be removed from the program and

made to serve a full prison term. Some offender misconduct is summarily punished.

Telephone calls may be even more restricted (especially during early weeks) than

in the prison. Visits may be prohibited until near the end of the program.

The boot camp programs’ short duration, restrictions on visitation and telephone

use, and in many cases, their remote location increase the potential for abuse. Boot

camp inmates have less time to initiate available forms of legal redress, and there

are fewer visitors or volunteers who might observe and report abuses.25

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

when writing policies and procedures:

■ Offenders admitted to boot camp programs should get a much more extensive

physical examination than is routinely given to incoming prison inmates. The

examination should look for rare conditions that might be life threatening to

someone doing heavy exercise.

■ Boot camp programs must develop explicit limits on heavy physical exercise,

work, and running, and enforce them strictly. In addition, water intake must be

linked by policy to levels of exercise or work and climatic conditions.

■ The food ration must provide sufficient caloric intake to permit boot camp

inmates to engage in the strenuous level of exercise and work required of them.

■ Boot camp programs must specify the conduct for which summary punishment

may be administered, and the types of sanctions that can be applied summarily.

The critical issues discussed in this document are important considerations in initiating or revising either an adult or a juvenile boot camp program.
 33

Notes

1. The information presented in this chapter forms a general backdrop for issues

that will be developed in greater and in some cases more current detail by

other authors in this volume. The present tense is used here in discussing the

findings even though some specifics may have changed in the 2 years since the

survey was conducted.

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

October 1991.

3. From questionnaire completed by Lieutenant Colonel Conover.

4. Dale G. Parent, “A Foundation for Performance-Based Standards for Adult and

Juvenile Boot Camps,” p. 3.

5. U.S. General Accounting Office, Prison Boot Camps: Short-Term Prison Costs

Reduced, But Long-Term Impact Uncertain, p. 19.

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

7. Twelve States sent written policies and procedures, and 22 sent either program

descriptions, inmate handbooks, or brochures with brief descriptions of

program goals and components. All of the States that responded had a written

mission statement and delineated goals, but only a few mentioned a formal

evaluation component. Although all referred to eligibility criteria, selection

processes, and voluntary participation, only eight States had written policies on

these issues.

8. Parent, “Foundation,” pp. 4–8.

9. Parent, p. 5.

10. Parent, p. 7. The Scared Straight! program initiated in Rahway, New Jersey,

sought to deter juveniles from further delinquency through group visits to adult

prisons where the rigor and brutality of prison life were graphically presented.

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

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

13. MacKenzie, “Boot Camp Prisons in 1993,” p. 24.

14. MacKenzie, p. 24.

15. GAO, p. 16.
34

16. Mackenzie, p. 23.

17. MacKenzie, p. 23.

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

19. GAO, pp. 28–29.

20. Thomas C. Castellano. Recommendation for ACA Boot Camp Standards

Relating to Program Evaluation.

21. Parent, p. 28.

22. Parent, p. 28.

23. Quoted by David Steinhart, “Juvenile Boot Camps: Clinton May Rev Up An

Old Drill,” pp. 15–16.

24. “Physical Abuse of Inmates Leads to Indictments Against Boot Camp Staff,”

p. 22.

25. Parent, p. 28.

Bibliography

Acorn, L.R. “Working in a Boot Camp.” Corrections Today (October 1991):

110–112.

Anderson, E.S. “Project Sprite.” Wisconsin Trails (October 1988):37–38.

Aziz, David. Shock Incarceration Evaluation: Preliminary Data. Unpublished

report to the State of New York, Department of Correctional Services, 1989.

Bowen, Andy E. “Making Boot Camps Bigger and Better.” Corrections Today

(October 1991):99–101.

Castellano, T.C. Recommendation for ACA Boot Camp Standards Relating to

Program Evaluation. Unpublished report, 1993.

Collingwood, T.R. Survival Camping: A Therapeutic Mode for Rehabilitating

Problem Youths. Little Rock: Arkansas Rehabilitation and Research Training

Center, 1972.

Creager, C. “A Rugged Route to Recovery.” Professional Counselor (July/August

1986):37–40.
 35

Deal, G. Ropes and Recovery. Unpublished report on the Randolph Clinic,

Charlotte, North Carolina, 1983.

Falcioni, J.G. “Camps Don’t Coddle Cons. Inmates Get Shock Training.” City and

State, May 9, 1988.

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

Florida Department of Corrections. “Boot Camp Evaluation.” Tallahassee: Bureau

of Research, Planning and Statistics, 1989.

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

Unpublished manuscript, 1986.

Frank, S. “Oklahoma Camp Stresses Structure and Discipline.” Corrections Today

(October 1991):102–105.

Freelander, D. “Money for Boot Camps at Issue.” The Houston Post (December 28,

1987).

Gauntt, M. “Outdoor Challenge Rehabilitation Programs Planned.” Medical

Gazette, June 11, 1989.

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

Toronto: Butterworths, 1981.

Gendreau, Paul, and Robert R. Ross. “Revivification of Rehabilitation: Evidence

from the 1980s.” Justice Quarterly, 4 (1987):349–407.

Gendreau, Paul, and Robert R. Ross. “Success in Corrections: Program and Principles.” In Issues in Juvenile Justice, R. Corrado, M. Leblanc, and J. Trepanier

(eds.). Toronto: Buttersworths, 1983.

Georgia Department of Corrections. “Miller Boot Camp Program—A National

First.” Media advisory, 1991.

Greenwood, P., and F.E. Zimring. One More Chance: The Pursuit of Promising

Intervention Strategies for Chronic Juvenile Offenders. Santa Monica: RAND

Corporation Press, 1985.

Hengesh, Donald J. “Think of Boot Camps As a Foundation for Change, Not an

Instant Cure.” Corrections Today (October 1991):106–108.
36

Impact Incarceration Program. Annual Report to the Illinois Governor and the

General Assembly. Planning and Budget Bureau of Administration and Training.

Unpublished manuscript, 1992.

Kagan, D. “Ensured Trip to Prison Camp Billed as Drug Crime Antidote.”

INSIGHT (May 11, 1989).

Kelly, F. Outward Bound and Delinquency: A Ten-Year Experience. Paper presented

at the Conference on Experiential Education, Estes Park, Colorado, 1974.

Kruse, T. An Argument for the Use of Ropes Courses in Adolescent Substance

Abuse Treatment. Unpublished summary of thesis for Master’s Degree, University

of Nevada, Las Vegas, May 1987.

Lambert, D. “Boot Camps: Latest Trend in Juvenile Justice.” Youth Law News

(September/October 1990):12–14.

MacKenzie, Doris L. “Boot Camp Prisons: Components, Evaluations, and

Empirical Issues.” Federal Probation (September 1991):44–52.

MacKenzie, Doris L. “Boot Camp Prisons in 1993.” National Institute of Justice

Journal, 227 (November 1993):21–28.

MacKenzie, Doris L. “Boot Camp Programs Grow in Number and Scope.” NIJ

Reports, 222 (November/December 1990):6–8.

MacKenzie, Doris L. “The Parole Performance of Offenders Released From Shock

Incarceration (Boot Camp Prisons): A Survival Time Analysis.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 7, no. 3 (1991):213–236.

MacKenzie, Doris L., and D.B. Ballow. “Shock Incarceration Programs in State

Correctional Jurisdictions—An Update.” NIJ Reports, 214 (May/June 1989):9–10.

MacKenzie, Doris L., Larry A. Gould, Lisa M. Riechers, and James W. Shaw.

“Shock Incarceration: Rehabilitation or Retribution?” Journal of Offender Counseling, Services, and Rehabilitation, 14, no. 2 (1989):25–40.

MacKenzie, Doris L., and Dale G. Parent. “Boot Camp Prisons for Young Offenders.” In Smart Sentencing: The Emergence of Intermediate Sanctions, James M.

Byrne, Arthur J. Lurigio, and Joan Petersilia (eds.). Newbury Park, California: Sage

Publications, 1992.

MacKenzie, Doris L., and Dale G. Parent. “Shock Incarceration and Prison Crowding in Louisiana.” Journal of Criminal Justice, 19 (1991):225–237.
 37

MacKenzie, Doris L., and James W. Shaw. “Inmate Adjustment and Change During

Shock Incarceration: The Impact of Correctional Boot Camp Programs.” Justice

Quarterly, 7, no. 1 (1990):125–150.

MacKenzie, Doris L., James W. Shaw, and Voncile B. Gowdy. An Evaluation of

Shock Incarceration in Louisiana. Research in Brief. U.S. Department of Justice,

National Institute of Justice, 1993.

MacKenzie, Doris L., and Claire C. Souryal. “Boot Camp Survey: Rehabilitation,

Recidivism Reduction Outrank Punishment as Main Goals.” Corrections Today, 53

(October 1991):90–96.

Morash, Merry, and L. Rucker. “A Critical Look at the Idea of Boot Camp as a

Correctional Reform.” Crime and Delinquency, 36, no. 2 (1990):209–220.

New York State Department of Correctional Services and New York State Division

of Parole. The Fourth Annual Report to the Legislature: Shock Incarceration in New

York State. Albany: Division of Program Planning, Research and Evaluation and the

Office of Policy Analysis and Information. Unpublished, 1992.

New York State Department of Correctional Services and New York State Division

of Parole. The Third Annual Report to the Legislature: Shock Incarceration in New

York State. Albany: Division of Program Planning, Research and Evaluation and the

Office of Policy Analysis and Information. Unpublished, 1991.

Parent, Dale G. “A Foundation for Performance-Based Standards for Adult and

Juvenile Boot Camps.” Draft manuscript prepared for the American Correctional

Association, 1993.

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

Parent, Dale G. “Shock Incarceration Programs.” American Probation and Parole

Association (Fall 1988):9–15.

Parent, Dale G. Shock Incarceration: An Overview of Existing Programs. Issues and

Practices in Criminal Justice. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,

National Institute of Justice, 1989.

“Physical Abuse of Inmates Leads to Indictments Against Boot Camp Staff.”

Correctional Law Reporter, August 1992.

“Shape Up, SON.” The Oregonian (March 1988):12–14.

Shaw, James W., and Doris L. MacKenzie. “Shock Incarceration and Its Impact on

the Lives of Problem Drinkers.” American Journal of Criminal Justice, 16, no. 1

(1991):63–97.
38

Shlesinger, B.E. “Teaching Youths To Invent.” Corrections Today (May/June

1981):20.

South Carolina State Reorganization Commission Jail and Prison Overcrowding

Project. “Shock Incarceration.” Series on Alternatives to Incarceration, Issue 3

(May 1990):1–6.

“Squeeze You Like a Grape.” LIFE (June 1988):82–85.

Steinhart, David. “Juvenile Boot Camps: Clinton May Rev Up an Old Drill.” Youth

Today (January/February 1993).

Tennessee Department of Youth Development, Section for Planning, Information

Resources, and Accreditation. “A Report to the 96th General Assembly on Shock

Incarceration Programs for Juvenile Offenders.” Unpublished manuscript, 1990.

Tucker, Neely. “Making Florida’s Boot Camp Work.” The Miami Herald, October

23, 1988.

U.S. General Accounting Office. Prison Boot Camps: Short-Term Prison Costs

Reduced, But Long-Term Impact Uncertain. Washington, D.C.: U.S. General

Accounting Office, 1993.

U.S. General Accounting Office. Prison Boot Camps: Too Early To Measure

Effectiveness. Washington, D.C.: U.S. General Accounting Office, 1988.

Virginia Department of Corrections, Research, Evaluation and Certification Unit.

“An Evaluation of Southampton Intensive Treatment Center: Preliminary Report on

Client Characteristics, Program Effects and Community Adjustments.”

Unpublished, 1992.

Vito, G.F., and H.E. Allen. “Shock Probation in Ohio: A Comparison of Outcomes.”

International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 25

(1981):70–76.
 39

CHAPTER 3

Shock Incarceration in

 New York State: Philosophy,

Results, and Limitations

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

Cheryl L. Clark is the Director of Shock Development for the

New York State Department of Correctional Services (DOCS).

David W. Aziz, Ph.D., is a research specialist with DOCS.

The New York State Shock Incarceration program provides a therapeutic

environment designed to address a wide range of inmate problems and

should not be mistaken for just a “boot camp.” Established in 1987, the

6-month Shock Incarceration program stresses a highly structured and

regimented routine, considerable physical work and exercise, and intensive

substance abuse treatment. It seeks to build character, instill a sense of

maturity and responsibility, and promote a positive self-image for offenders

so they can return to society as law-abiding citizens. The program’s therapeutic model, “Network,” is based on control theory and seeks to restore

inmates’ bonds to society. Compliance, or direct control, is used in conjunction with other types of social control, both internal and external, to effect

changes in inmates’ behavior. New York’s Shock Incarceration program has

significantly improved math and reading scores, provided approximately 1.2

million hours of community service in a single year, and saved both operational and capital costs to New York’s Department of Correctional Services.

Recidivism rates of Shock Incarceration graduates are better than for

persons released after standard prison sentences. The New York rates

indicate that 90 percent of released graduates do well in their first year of

release, although over time, as followup support and resources diminish,

their rates appear to become similar to those of inmates who spend more

time in prison. Although not the cure-all many enthusiasts portray them to

be, shock incarceration programs like New York’s can constitute an effective

intervention.
40

I

n the debate over the efficacy of shock incarceration programs nationally,

attention has been devoted primarily to whether programs save money for

corrections systems or lower the recidivism rates for participants (Nossiter,

1993:A1; and GAO, 1993:25). This seems to be the exclusive focus of the academic

analysts and program practitioners who have been informing the boot camp debate.

In this debate there seems to be a willingness to lump all shock incarceration programs together and an assumption that all such programs do the same thing and

have the same goals. Variation among programs or variation in individual programs

over time are rarely considered. Little attention has been paid to the underlying

philosophy of shock incarceration programs, how they are structured, and how that

structure may affect the ultimate question of what standards should be used to

determine if they work.

It is generally recognized that bed savings and return rates are the “gold standard”

by which shock incarceration programs will ultimately be judged, and the New

York State Department of Correctional Services (DOCS) has provided numbers

each year in these two critical areas that have surpassed its expectations for program success.These issues are consistently addressed in DOCS annual reports to

the State legislature, and some of the findings will be addressed later in this chapter.

Still, there is a need to understand how the program in New York was designed by

explicitly examining the program’s philosophical foundations and identifying what

it can and cannot do.

Current discussions about the rise in violent crime and gun use among the young

have revolved around the premise that our society is suffering from a loss of values,

dysfunctional families and communities, and an unwillingness by individuals to

take responsibility for their lives and behavior. The breakdown of the individual

and the community is not new to sociological theory. Durkheim (1966) and Merton

(1938) talked about societal decay in terms of “anomie,” or the state of normlessness, and how individuals react to this state, while Hirschi (1969) discussed the

absence of positive values, beliefs, and attachments as contributing to dysfunctional

behavior.

Since DOCS’ first published report on the New York program, the department has

stressed the theoretical underpinnings of the shock incarceration concept and the

program’s intention to help instill positive, prosocial values for people who had

adapted their behavior to survive in a normless society.

Because DOCS’ officials strongly believe that philosophy drives goals and that

goals affect results, they have attempted to clearly articulate the New York Shock

Incarceration program’s goals and have implemented a treatment plan that

addresses the physical, mental, spiritual, and emotional dimensions of everyone

in the program, staff and inmates alike. The goals and methods are consistent with

attempts to counter some of the causes of delinquency as outlined in social control
 41

theory. The department emphasizes staff involvement because staff are the key to

effective implementation.

This chapter will describe the New York program’s philosophy and structure,

provide some outcome measures, and discuss the limitations to what Shock or any

correctional treatment program can accomplish.

Legislative History and Philosophy

The New York State Shock Incarceration program was established in 1987. The

State legislative bill enabling its creation specified that:

■ The program be designed for certain young inmates who could benefit from a

special 6-month program of intensive incarceration.

■ The program be provided to carefully selected inmates committed to the State

Department of Correctional Services who are in need of substance abuse

treatment and rehabilitation.

■ The program be an alternative form of incarceration that stresses a highly

structured and regimented routine, including extensive discipline, considerable

physical work and exercise, and intensive drug rehabilitation therapy. It should

build character, instill a sense of maturity and responsibility, and promote a

positive self-image for offenders so they can return to society as law-abiding

citizens.

This enabling legislation summarizes the essence of the State’s approach. First,

DOCS identified the specific pool of inmates to be offered the Shock Incarceration

program. At present, they are young, serving their first term of State incarceration

for a nonviolent felony offense, and within 3 years of parole eligibility. While the

Physical exercise is an

important activity of

the New York Shock

Incarceration program.

Photo by Jan Phillips
42

department believes that shock incarceration could benefit a wider inmate pool, the

short duration of the program, coupled with public protection issues, has influenced

the selection of candidates.

The program has four major eligibility criteria:

■ Restrict age to focus on younger inmates.

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

■ Set a limit on the time reduction benefits available to successful participants and

ensure that inmates selected have not committed serious crimes.

■ Prohibit prior service of an indeterminate sentence to ensure that these inmates

are first-time commitments.

Second, the department has targeted prison-bound inmates who account for the

rapidly growing pool crowding into the system; these are primarily drug offenders.

The department carefully screens these offenders to include only those individuals

whose early release would not jeopardize community safety. DOCS is as concerned

with suitability of placement as with eligibility criteria.

Third, the department’s methods are consistent with control theory and have been

designed to build self-esteem, positive values and beliefs, thinking and problemsolving skills, and prosocial attitudes.

Starting in 1987, DOCS began establishing its four Shock Incarceration facilities

and began operating the Nation’s largest shock incarceration program for sentenced

State prisoners at Lakeview, with a capacity of 1,390 male and 180 female inmates

as well as 222 beds for orientation and screening. Exhibit 1 portrays the growth of

the New York program between 1987 and 1994.

At the start of 1994 at least 50 boot camp facilities were operating in 33 State correctional systems and in the Federal Bureau of Prisons. As of that date, 1,690 of the

8,255 inmates housed in these programs were in New York facilities (Camp and

Camp, 1994:60). Boot camp programs vary widely in content and philosophy and

cannot be readily grouped into a homogeneous treatment approach. Failure to

acknowledge this variation results in diminishing the positive outcomes that have

been achieved.
 43

The Foundation of the New York State Program:

Control Theory

The New York State Shock Incarceration program is based on a therapeutic

community model called “Network.” The Network model was designed to establish

living and learning units within correctional facilities that are supervised and

operated by specially trained correction officers and supervisors.

The underlying basis of the Network philosophy is a theoretical model of the

causes of delinquency known as “control theory.” Part of a group of social and cultural support theories of criminality, control theory proposes that “nonconformity is

a product of the failure of the social bond. Through the attachment of individuals to

others, conformity is assured. When such attachments fail to develop or when they

are disrupted, the internalization of legitimate norms becomes problematic” (Farrell

and Swigert, 1975:211).

Thus control theory is designed to explain conformity in individuals and implies

that deviation from conformity (or criminal behavior) can be explained by variations in an individual’s ties to the conventional social order.

The main proponent of this theory, Travis Hirschi, asserted that “delinquent

acts result when an individual’s bond to society is weak or broken” (Hirschi,

1969:16). This bond consists of attachment to others, commitment, involvement

in conventional activities, and belief in a positive value system. The assumption

Number of Inmates In Shock Beds

September 1987–September 1994

Sep 87

Mar 88

Sep 88

Mar 89

Sep 89

Mar 90

Sep 90

Mar 91

Sep 91

Mar 92

Sep 92

Mar 93

Sep 93

Mar 94

Sep 94

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

Number of Inmates

Exhibit 1. Number of Inmates in Shock Beds
44

made by control theorists is that people who are at risk of engaging in criminal

behavior are individuals whose bond to society has been weakened or broken.

Shock Incarceration in New York has been designed to provide an opportunity to

strengthen or restore the bond.

Control theory is a key component of the Shock Incarceration philosophy in New

York. It is assumed that inmates entering DOCS are individuals whose bonds to

society are either weakened or broken and that exposure to the philosophies and

practices of this program will help restore these bonds. The program emphasizes

the need for individuals to strengthen their indirect controls, their internalized controls, and their controls over opportunities for conventional activities by promoting

responsibility for choices and stressing the consequences of their behavior. Inmates

who do not participate in this restoration process and who fail to live up to their

responsibilities are destined to fail in the program and will serve the remainder of

their sentences in a traditional prison setting.

When Cheryl L. Clark, now New York’s Director of Shock Incarceration, established Network units within DOCS in 1979, they were based on ideas of social control theory and learning theory and the principles taught in Alcoholics Anonymous

and Narcotics Anonymous programs. These models of change were offered to inmates who were willing and able to volunteer to live in Network community living

units during their incarceration. The units were structured as total learning environments: Inmates lived together as a therapeutic community, holding daily meetings,

decisionmaking seminars, and self-help groups led by trained corrections officers.

The Network philosophy, now the Shock Incarceration philosophy, recited each day

to begin community meetings, says:

Network is a positive environment for human development in a caring

community where individuals can help themselves and each other.

Staff and participants work together to establish and maintain positive,

growth-filled environments within prisons. Community members focus on

behavioral change and confront attitudes which are destructive to individuals and the life of the program (Clark, 1979).

Network was also committed to having inmates with substance abuse problems

become actively involved in ASAT (Alcohol and Substance Abuse Treatment) while

they lived in the Network community. The success of this program influenced the

former New York State Commissioner of Correctional Services, Thomas A.

Coughlin III, to direct that Network become the foundation piece of the Shock

Incarceration program and that the program strongly emphasize substance abuse

treatment.

Network has been operating in New York State Correctional Facilities

since 1979 and has strengthened our resolve to identify and deal with the

special needs of our staff and inmates. It has proven successful in provid-
 45

ing an opportunity for positive growth and change. That’s what Shock

Incarceration is all about—bridging the external discipline of the military

model with an internalized system of positive values (NYS DOCS Sixth

Annual Report: 9).

The operational components of control theory incorporated in Shock Incarceration

were discussed by Wells and Rankin in a summary of F. Ivan Nye’s writings on the

elements of social control. Nye identified four types of social controls on human

behavior:

■ Direct control based on the application or threat of punishments and rewards to

gain compliance with conventional norms.

■ Indirect control based on affectional attachment to or identification with

conventional persons (especially parents).

■ Internalized control based on the development of autonomous patterns of

conformity located in the individual personality, self-concept, or conscience.

■ Control over opportunities for conventional and deviant activities whereby

compliance results from restricted choices or alternatives (Wells and Rankin,

1988:265).

New York’s Shock Incarceration program is based on the understanding that the

permanency of changes in human behavior depends on changing attitudes through

both internal and external influences. As with the Network program, Shock is

influenced by these control models. The four social controls outlined by Nye represent a continuum of mental and moral development. Problems result when there is

an overreliance on only one of the four controls, no matter which is chosen. Much

criticism of boot camp programs is based on the perception that they rely exclusively on the compliance model. For individual change to be effective and lasting,

all four strategies of the continuum must be present.

Compliance

The first of Nye’s behavior control models, direct control, is based on compliance

with rules and authority. Compliance is a fact of life. There are rules that everyone

must follow every day and appropriate limits to socially acceptable behavior. Moral

development and ethical judgment are results of a healthy respect for boundaries

and compliance with the social contract, through which we have established standards for how we relate to each other. Throughout our lives, authority figures such

as parents, teachers, clergy, police, and judges impose and enforce these standards.

Boundaries and limits create a social order, and it is this order that allows freedom.

Everyone at some point is subject to authority. It is the abuse of authority that

becomes a problem, not the simple fact of the need to comply.
46

Compliance models work for limited periods of time and under very specific

conditions (e.g., radar-enforced speed control) but are challenged at every opportunity. Shock Incarceration in New York acknowledges the importance of selfdiscipline and compliance with rules and recognizes that some people change only

when they have to, hence the need for prisons. However, a sentence to prison (i.e.,

deprivation of liberty) is punishment. Shock incarceration programs are not designed to inflict punishment, but they use the compliance model to teach discipline

and to demonstrate how both limits and discipline make freedom possible.

One component of the New York Shock Incarceration program is consistent with

compliance. The military-based features of the program are designed to teach selfdiscipline and to improve inmates’ physical, mental, and emotional condition. It is

important to emphasize the value of military discipline and pride in performance

for New York's Shock Incarceration participants. The one programmatic feature that

shock incarceration programs nationwide usually have in common is military discipline and training.

Military discipline played an important role in historical antecedents to Shock

Incarceration in New York, particularly the inmate regimen established at the

Elmira Reformatory in New York by Zebulon Brockway. Supporters of the Elmira

experiment believed discipline to be the cornerstone of effective inmate reform:

Military discipline is found to be exceedingly beneficial in inculcating

promptness in obedience, attention, and harmony of action with others. It

develops the prisoner physically, quickens him mentally and, by making

him a part of the disciplinary force, gives him a clearer insight into the

meaning and benefits of thorough discipline. The standard of discipline

should be so fixed that each prisoner may know exactly what to expect,

and know that his release can only be accomplished by reaching this

standard through his own efforts. Having attained this standard he should

be released upon parole, to suitable employment, under efficient supervision, for a period of time long enough for him to demonstrate his fitness

for an honest life, in society . . . (Allen, 1928:120).

The Elmira Reformatory was established in 1876 to house younger inmates who

were convicted of first felonies but given indeterminate sentences. The reformatory

emphasized manual training; inmates were taught “marketable, honest skills in

building part of the institution and making several products” (Smith, 1988:34).

Following the passage of a variety of laws against inmate labor in the early 1880’s,

New York’s inmate labor system was deemed to be illegal. To keep inmates at

Elmira occupied and trained, Brockway decided in 1888 that military training

would be a useful substitute:

The training was instituted to meet an emergency, but survived long after

the short-lived trouble. The military organization permeated almost every
 47

aspect of the institution: schooling, manual training, sports teams, physical

training, daily timetables, supervision of inmates, and even parole practices. In short, the training was used to discipline the inmates and organize

the institution (Smith, 1988:33).

The problem with relying solely on a compliance model for boot camp programs

is that it works only when participants believe that someone is watching. Even the

worst “shock” wears off over time. Indeed, in most cases, the more severe the

shock, the more quickly people want to forget it happened; denial is a natural healing and coping mechanism for reducing extreme negative stress and regaining equilibrium. Boot camp programs that are overly concerned about compliance with rules

appear to have little effect after inmates are released.

Criticisms of boot camps based only on compliance. The rush to create shock

incarceration programs has been accompanied by healthy skepticism that boot

camps represent only “quick fix” solutions to complex social problems. As recently

as December 1993, the New York Times reported that at a time when Congress was

prepared to provide major funding to jurisdictions wanting to open more boot

camps, the concept was “getting a skeptical look from many academics and correctional experts” (Dec. 18, 1993:A1).

In the past critics including former Commissioner Larry Meachum of the Connecticut Department of Corrections as well as Merry Morash and Lisa Rucker have

raised concerns that shock programs have the potential for abuse and may be harmful to their participants. According to Morash and Rucker, “A number of potential

negative outcomes of a boot camp environment have been identified. One of these is

increased offender aggression” (Morash and Rucker, 1990:218).

Despite the viscerally attractive prospect of housing inmates in a disciplined

environment, critics believe that shock programs have no real lasting effects on

participants. The author of an article about Florida’s boot camp program spent 24

days in the program and reported that “. . . only one change is certain when these

convicted felons return to your town, your neighborhood, your street. They will be

stronger and faster” (Tucker, 1988:10).

Many of these concerns stem from early attempts by jurisdictions to create boot

camps that reflected their desire to “just get tough” on criminals. Critics have voiced

concern that compliance is the only model emphasized in these shock incarceration

programs and that high recidivism rates reflect a breakdown in compliance. For example, note the program description written in 1986 for Georgia’s boot camps:

. . . the fundamental program concept is that a brief period of incarceration

under harsh physical conditions, strenuous manual labor, and exercise

within a secured environment will “shock” the younger and less seriously

criminally oriented offender out of a future life of crime (Flowers, 1986:3).
48

The use of coercion to gain inmate compliance is seen by many correctional experts

as having limited value, and for that reason numerous observers have criticized

these programs. Ira Schwartz, director of Michigan’s Center for the Study of Youth

Policy, called boot camps a fad that doesn’t work (Tucker, 1988:15). In 1988,

another critic, Edward Leghorn, Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of

Youth Services, commented, “To think that 90 days of training is going to undo 17

years of family troubles is a terribly naive approach. . . . They’re kidding themselves. These kids have no education. No job skills. The counseling is no more than

a classroom lecture. . . . What are these guys going to do for a living when they get

out? Pushups?” (Tucker, 1988:15).

These generic criticisms—based on limited anecdotal data and lacking long-term

empirical analyses—may not have as much relevance when individual shock

incarceration programs are examined since there is great variation among

programs nationally.

While Doris MacKenzie, who has written extensively on boot camps, argues correctly that “there is little evidence that the getting tough element of shock incarceration will, by itself, lead to behavioral change” (MacKenzie, 1988:5), it is also evident that the the self-discipline taught through drill and ceremony and physical

training has many positive benefits in other aspects of the program. Inmates, for

example, perform better academically while in the New York program, and it is

clear from inmates’ attention and enthusiasm in the academic classrooms that military bearing and physical training support their ability to concentrate and learn.

A recent letter received from the father of a Shock Incarceration inmate just

6 weeks into the program underscores this point.

Yesterday, our family visited at your facility for the second time. I was so

overwhelmed with positive feelings that I wanted to share them with you.

My son . . . has always had low self-esteem. He was classified as learning

disabled throughout his schooling. He never memorized anything nor has

he ever finished reading an entire story or book. Throughout the 5 hours

we visited with him I was enthralled by his passion for your program and

his positive feelings for your staff. In an extremely short period of time,

you have stripped him of his “bullshit image” and he has learned so many

good things about himself. He proudly recited the Ten General Orders

from memory. His military bearing and positive attitude as to program and

staff made us feel very proud of him. Over the remainder of the program I

am sure he will continue to gain further insight and self-reliance and

through repetition incorporate your teachings to have positive self-esteem.

We cannot thank you and your staff enough as we feel that he will be

capable of caring for himself and enjoying a lifestyle with positive values

due to this experience.
 49

Identification

Nye’s second type of social control, indirect control, emphasizes positive role

models to change behavior. Many offenders’ role models are deviant, inconsistent,

criminogenic, and influential; and offenders too often identify legitimate authority

figures such as parents, teachers, truant officers, police, and probation officers as

the “enemy” while considering drug dealers and pimps to be heroes. In Shock

Incarceration, these assumptions are turned around; inmates need to identify with

prosocial role models and recognize the shortcomings of emulating antisocial

behavior.

Staff are the primary role models in Shock Incarceration in New York, and their

attitudes and behavior influence inmates’ attitudes toward change, growth, and the

development of positive social norms. In New York, staff complete the program

with inmates and are expected to model the program philosophy at all times. New

York is not a “do as I say, not as I do” program. Drill instructors with gravy stains

on their uniforms and a day-old growth of beard cannot effectively instruct inmates

on grooming standards. Supervisors, counselors, and teachers who do not model the

effectiveness of what Shock Incarceration is trying to teach undermine the actions

of committed staff.

Because staff in the program so strongly influence results, they must be clear about

the examples they set. The values of staff are reflected in their behavior, and the

values they reinforce among inmates are influenced by the congruency of their

words and actions. For example, the New York program’s first General Order for

inmates is to follow all orders given by all staff at all times. As such, it is incumbent

on the staff to ensure that their orders are lawful, ethical, and moral. The SMART

rule is emphasized in every aspect of the program: Orders must be Specific,

Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, and Timely. An officer who is out of shape and

unable to do 10 pushups on a good day should not be ordering an inmate to “drop

and give me 100.”

To this end, staff are expected to model what is taught in the Shock Incarceration

program. They are expected to “walk the walk” and to demonstrate congruently that

the model works. The program also emphasizes an interdisciplinary approach to

inmate instruction and supervision to maintain consistency among the security,

treatment, and administrative staff. If inmates can play one discipline against

another, the foundation of the program is undermined.

Acknowledging the importance of compliance to rules and consistent discipline

from effective role models is important to the effectiveness of boot camp programs.

Dale Parent, an observer of boot camps nationally, concluded:

The programs we observed varied in the consistency with which rules

were enforced. Where rules were less consistently enforced, it appeared

inmates were more prone to test the limits of enforcement. Confrontations
50

with staff seemed more numerous and overall tension levels seemed

higher. Where rule enforcement was consistent, inmates seemed less prone

to test their limits, confrontations were less evident, and tension levels

seemed lower. . . . In terms of molding offender behavior, consistency and

accountability in expulsion practices are important factors. The offender

learns that his or her actions have clear, well defined consequences: that

appropriate self control will be rewarded and inappropriate behavior

punished (Parent, 1989:25–26).

It is important that New York graduates learn the program’s behavioral model and

remember it once they are back in their communities. Yolanda Johnson, one of the

program’s most successful graduates, tells this story to inmates in the program

when she returns to present commencement addresses:

One night shortly after graduation I was at a party. A guy I used to know

who I ran into immediately started digging in his pocket. When he passed

me a crack pipe I said, “No thank you, I don’t smoke no more.” So he said,

“Whoa! Baby! This used to be your shit!” He tried passing it to me again

two or three times so finally I said to him, real loud, “What part don’t you

get? The no thank you or the I don’t smoke no more?” And he backed

right up and said, “Uh-oh baby,” and left. I got that from my drill

instructor.

Staff training. Because Shock Incarceration is not corrections as usual, it is

important that staff understand the program, the theory behind it, and what is

expected of inmates. One important way to ensure program integrity is through

proper staff training. All staff who work in New York State Shock Incarceration

facilities are required to attend a comprehensive, highly structured, rigorous

4-week training program that is similar to the regimen for offenders in the Shock

Incarceration program. The goal of the training is to give all correctional employees, regardless of discipline, a thorough understanding of the program’s concepts,

goals, and structure.

All staff are required to attend this training. The training is based on the model first

introduced in 1979 to train interdisciplinary teams to staff Network units. That

training originally consisted of 2 weeks of intensive training in therapeutic community concepts as applied to a corrections facility. Shock Incarceration staff training

was expanded to 4 weeks and also includes physical training, drill and ceremony,

an introduction to ASAT, and decisionmaking skills as taught in Network.

The training is designed to help employees better understand the inmates they will

work with as well as the interrelationships among security, programs, and administration. Staff training also gives employees an opportunity to increase their understanding of themselves and others. Group unity and teamwork are emphasized as

staff are placed in platoons and work together throughout the training in an

experiential approach to learning how to teach inmates.
 51

The course content includes control theory, leadership skills, training in teaching

inmates decisionmaking skills, the ASAT curriculum, drill and ceremony, physical

training, and military bearing. The training emphasizes an interdisciplinary

approach so that all staff are able to teach all aspects of the program. The training

schedule is based on a modified version of a typical day for Shock Incarceration

participants, beginning with physical training each morning and concluding with

community meetings in the evening.

Each day’s instruction includes drill and ceremony and is designed to cover some

aspect of the 6-month treatment curriculum. As with the full inmate program, all

staff training is taught using accelerated learning strategies. To work at a Shock

Incarceration facility, staff agree to undergo this rigorous training and commit to

the principles of the Shock Incarceration program. As a result of this training, the

staff tend to be very committed to the program goals and are highly motivated.

As of October 1994, more than 1,800 New York State DOCS employees had been

trained in Shock Incarceration methods. In addition to conducting staff training in

New York, staff trainers also provided training for other States and localities.

Internalization

Nye’s third type of social control, internalization, while the most complex, time

consuming, and difficult to achieve, is the most desirable to accomplish due to its

long-term effects. Internalization flows from a clear understanding of why we need

to comply with limits. We internalize values learned from role models with whom

we identify. Internalization is fundamental to our understanding of “who we are”

and is concerned with our system of beliefs and values. Internalization of values is

dependent upon our experience, which tells us that believing in these values has a

payoff. Individuals, for example, often take a position of absolute certainty that

what they believe is right when discussing political or religious values. It is very

difficult, if not impossible, to change other people’s beliefs and values. They must

first see a benefit to themselves before they change values.

Inmates are taught in Shock Incarceration that the only people they can change are

themselves. They are asked to examine their beliefs and attitudes to determine if the

results they are getting in their lives are satisfying and fulfilling. Through this selfassessment, inmates begin to see the need to change their values and approaches to

life.

Internalization requires willingness, and therein lies the difficulty. Very few people

really want to change their beliefs; beliefs are essential to self-image and attitudes

toward life. Internalization deals with the spiritual dimension of life, the most uncomfortable to confront. Internalization is what Hirschi refers to when he speaks of

the four elements that constitute the social bond: attachment, belief, commitment,

and involvement (Hirschi, 1969). Participating in the social bond implies making a
52

commitment to conventional beliefs and activities and understanding that decisions

and behaviors have consequences.

The New York program seeks to have participants internalize a positive, prosocial

system of values designed to raise self-esteem. The program emphasizes helping

inmates acknowledge how their old values and choices led to their exclusion from

society and restriction of freedom. In Shock Incarceration inmates experience positive values producing positive results—an important step toward realizing that a

system of values is the key to changing behavior.

The limitations of internalization involve external influences that affect our daily

choices. Shock Incarceration is designed to be a positive environment for human

development in a caring community. Unfortunately, this environment does not

always resemble postrelease reality for boot camp graduates. An overwhelming

majority return to dysfunctional environments.

Even when Shock Incarceration graduates have strong family support, the neighborhoods to which they return are often steeped in the drug culture. Gangs and old

friends offer the familiar environment that embraced and accepted them before they

went to prison and that will support them again if they give up the “brainwashing”

they learned in Shock Incarceration. Many graduates are undomiciled, with no

community ties, and despite the program’s emphasis on academic education, may

not have received a GED because they started from so far behind.

The New York program’s decisionmaking curriculum reinforces the principle

“environment is stronger than will” and recognizes that social values greatly influence experiences and choices. Inmates find support in platoons of individuals working together to get through the program and in the bonds formed with each other

and with their team of drill instructors, counselors, and teachers. Staff constantly

emphasize that inmates need each other to get through the program and that it is

easier to overcome challenge with support. Staff also remind inmates of programs

like Alcholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous, Weight Watchers, churches,

health clubs, and other community organizations that offer support for people with

similar needs and interests; they encourage them to join support groups like these

upon release.

In ASAT and in Network, inmates are urged to change “people, places, and things,”

attend “90 meetings in 90 days,” and find a sponsor to mentor and support them in

their continuing sobriety. Since the need to belong is a powerful driving force in

human beings, staff encourage participants to seek support from postrelease groups

that will continue to reinforce their positive growth.

For some graduates, this is too difficult; returning to the old neighborhood and the

old gang triggers old behaviors and attitudes. The drive to get our needs met is so

strong that people will actively seek out opportunities for belonging, power, freedom, and fun. A return to old patterns is to be expected of graduates if the old
 53

neighborhood group is meeting their needs and aftercare resources are limited or

nonexistent.

Nonetheless, many graduates withstand these pressures and overcome tremendous

odds. The prison return rates for New York graduates indicate that 90 percent of

released graduates do well in their first year of release. Over time, however, as

followup support and resources diminish, their rates appear to become similar to

those of inmates who spend more time incarcerated.

Autonomy

Nye’s fourth type of social control, autonomy, represents the integration of the first

three types and flows from those models. According to Nye, autonomy, or the ability

to choose responsibly, involves “control over opportunities for conventional and deviant activities whereby compliance results from restricted choices or alternatives”

(Nye, 1958).

Individuals who have gained internal control over thoughts, feelings, and behavior

through study and practice have a wider range of choices about how they want to live

their lives. Autonomy implies a recognition that our choices are determined by our

standards of behavior and not by external circumstances. While circumstances do

affect our choices, we can always control how we respond to those circumstances.

William Glasser, another proponent of control theory, wrote that “. . . to be worthwhile we must maintain a satisfactory standard of behavior” (Glasser, 1965:10).

In the foreword to Glasser’s book, O. Hobart Mower also emphasized standards of

behavior, arguing that “...human beings get into emotional binds, not because their

standards are too high, but because their performance has been, and is, too low.” It

flows from this premise that when we raise our standards of behavior, we raise our

self-esteem. This approach to change is the core of the New York program and is

emphasized in every aspect of the program. From 5:30 a.m. to 9:30 p.m., every

experience of the day supports inmates’ attempts to build life skills that lead to

success.

New York’s Network

program, which promotes

positive values and

self-esteem, requires

participants’ active

involvement.

Photo by Jan Phillips
54

The theme of the decisionmaking curriculum in Network is “Choose Your Life,

Live Your Choice,” which is designed to teach inmates how to get their needs met

in responsible ways, not by interfering with others. Glasser’s approach to control

theory emphasizes the impact of internal controls and the way these controls stem

from basic needs. Glasser’s theory states that the innate drive to meet one’s needs is

so strong that if these needs are not met in positive and constructive ways, they will

be met in negative and destructive ways (Glasser, 1965, 1986, and 1987).

A sense of self-worth and personal pride forms the foundation of a responsible

lifestyle. The Network environment is structured to foster respect for self and others

and focuses on supportive community living methods that were developed, tested,

and refined by staff and participants over time and then codified into a set of community standards.

Network program objectives can be grouped into three areas: responsibility for self,

responsibility to others, and responsibility for the quality of one’s life. To make responsible decisions, individuals must consider their needs, the effect those needs

have on others, and the variables of situations they find themselves in.

As with all communities, there are rules and standards for behavior in the Network

program to which members must adhere. If rule breaking is detected, the community will react:

The pressures of the group, accepting, yet confronting, interpreting,

pointing out, suggesting modifications, understanding and facilitating

problem solving will be a different reaction from the authoritarian suppression he has hitherto provoked, and he may come to see that for him

also there can be the possibility of a shift of behavior roles in this different

type of society. If he continues to act out, then the community imposed

sanctions mount in parallel with his misdemeanors until it becomes clear

that he must change his pattern if he wants to stay or if he wants to

continue in his old ways (and he is welcome to do so)—he must leave

(Whiteley, 1973:56).

Under the Network design, peer confrontation groups are used to deal with participants’ negative attitudes. The strength of peer groups is their lack of authoritybased coercive feedback to inmates. Peer groups provide clear perspectives on the

consequences of dysfunctional behavior while suggesting positive alternatives to

that behavior. This approach works, however, only in the context of a caring

community.

The Choices curriculum is taught in tandem with the 12 Steps to Recovery program

espoused in Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) and Narcotics Anonymous (NA).

Throughout their 26 weeks in Shock Incarceration, participants study each step of

Choices and the 12 Steps program; all aspects of their activities—community
 55

meetings, group work, prerelease sessions, and academic classes—are tied into

each week’s curriculum theme.

The combined Choices and ASAT curriculum also involves inmates in experiential

exercises, journaling (therapeutic writing exercises), and group discussions and

activities that sharpen their skills, and planning for the future. The program’s

approach to learning is that the most long-lasting benefits result from practice.

“Muscle memory” learning techniques ensure that concepts taught to inmates are

anchored in their experiences. Cadences, sung as inmates march or run, reinforce

the message of the treatment sessions. Throughout their incarceration, inmates are

reminded that AA and NA support is available nearly everywhere in the world and

that they are taking the first step in a program of lifelong recovery and choices

about freedom. Inmates are reminded daily that limits exist in everyone’s life and

that limits are not limitations. The Choices curriculum teaches that limits are facts

of life, while limitations are feelings and attitudes that can be changed.

The Network community is an opportunity to live and practice the concepts taught

in the Choices curriculum. Network promotes the positive involvement of its

participants in an environment that focuses on their successful reintegration into

society and encourages inmates to seek out other positive groups in their home

communities to continue this reinforcement.

Substance Abuse Treatment

Within the therapeutic community model of Shock Incarceration, an emphasis is

placed on substance abuse treatment because of documented drug or alcohol abuse

by a majority of program participants. Since the start of the program, at least twothirds of male participants and over 80 percent of female participants had been

convicted of drug offenses prior to their incarceration. In remarks before the U.S.

Senate Committee on the Judiciary in 1989, the former New York State Commissioner of Corrections, Thomas Coughlin, underscored the priority given to

substance abuse programs in the New York Shock Incarceration program:

For every 500 hours of physical training plus drill and ceremony that has

led to the media calling it a “boot camp,” Shock Incarceration in New York

also includes 546 hours of the therapeutic approach to treating addiction,

based on the Network and the ASAT programs. It also includes at least 260

mandatory hours of academic education and 650 hours of hard labor,

where inmates work on facility projects, provide community service work,

and work on projects in conjunction with the Department of Environmental Conservation (U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, July 25,

1989:1).
56

The New York program combines numerous treatment approaches that have been

used successfully. The multitreatment approach employed at the program has been

viewed as the best means of achieving positive changes in inmate behavior

(Gendreau and Ross, 1979:485). Exhibit 2 indicates the relative amount of time

spent on each aspect of the Shock Incarceration program.

In addition to voluntary participation, some of the components of successful correctional rehabilitation programs include formal rules, anticriminal modeling and

reinforcement, problem solving, use of community resources, improved interpersonal relationships, relapse prevention and self-efficacy, and therapeutic integrity

(MacKenzie, 1988:4). The New York program uses all of these components within

the framework of a military structure to help participants learn to be productive

citizens.

Aftercare

It must also be made clear that Shock Incarceration in New York is a unique twopart process involving both institutional treatment for inmates and intensive parole

supervision and aftercare programs for graduates. With the most intensive supervision caseloads in the State, parole officers working with Shock Incarceration graduates use community service providers to facilitate job placement, relapse prevention, and educational achievement. During the first 6 months after inmates graduate,

parole staff help them maintain the decisionmaking and conflict resolution counseling that began at Shock Incarceration facilities.

*Personal Time 12.9% Academics 9.8%

ASAT & Network

27%

Physical Training 9.3%

Drill 10%

*Personal time includes meals, religious services, visits, homework.

Hard Labor on

Community

Service

Projects

31%

Exhibit 2. Proportion of Time Dedicated to

Shock Program Components

New York State Department of Correctional Services Shock Incarceration Program
 57

Many Shock Incarceration graduates have done so well after release that they

have been hired by service provider agencies as employees. These graduates help

newly released participants reintegrate into the community by facilitating Network

counseling in community groups and providing life skills training, vocational training, services of the Alcohol Council and Fellowship Center in New York City, and a

range of other services to their clients. A team of Shock Incarceration graduates

also works with the New York City Probation Department to teach Network concepts to probationers. Periodically, successful graduates return to Shock Incarceration facilities to discuss their experiences with inmates and help prepare them for

the second phase of the program.

While these types of aftercare services are critical to the success of graduates, there

are limits to community-based resources. Funding dictates the number, type, and

variety of resources available to ex-offenders and controls how long they may

access aftercare services. Some services, such as AA and NA, are free, but many

offenders need ongoing substance abuse treatment, family counseling, child care

services, and a range of other services that require money.

Overall, New York’s correctional officials believe that their Shock Incarceration

program is a better method of incarceration than traditional prison. Inmates are

constantly engaged and programmed in a shorter and more intense incarceration

experience that builds self-esteem, detoxifies addicts, and teaches a modicum of

responsibility. In sum, the New York program provides inmates with a prescription

and the tools to succeed after graduation. Many community resources exist for exoffenders to use after their Shock Incarceration instruction ends, but failure to

follow the Shock Incarceration prescription, as in the medical arena, can lead to

relapse and recommitment.

Program Results and Measures

There are a variety of ways to measure how well New York’s program is achieving

its goals and helping inmates restore the bonds that are described in social control

theory. Any discussion of program results, however, must be tempered with the acknowledgment that there are limitations to what inmates can achieve in correctional

treatment programs.

To ensure that Shock Incarceration in New York fulfilled its legislative mandate,

two measurable goals were enunciated for the program: reduce the demand for

bedspace and treat and release specially selected State prisoners earlier than their

court-mandated minimum incarceration periods without compromising community

safety.

To reduce the demand on prison bedspace, the program had to target offenders who

would definitely be incarcerated. As a result, the New York program admits only

those inmates sentenced to serve time in a State prison.
58

The Network

curriculum seeks to

foster respect for

oneself and for

others and to lead

participants in taking

responsibility for the

quality of their lives.

In addition, the length of imprisonment for Shock Incarceration participants had to

be substantially shorter than the prison term they would otherwise have served. Any

long-term reduction in bedspace demand depends on inmates successfully completing the program and keeping their rates of return to DOCS custody consistent with

the overall return rate for the department for similarly situated inmates.

The New York program’s goals—saving bedspace and protecting the community—

are clearly related, and the State of New York has sought to make them more

achievable by:

■ Limiting judicial involvement in deciding who goes into the Shock Incarceration

program, thus ensuring that participants are drawn from a prison-bound population. (Some judges tend to use boot camp as an alternative to fines or probation,

sending offenders to boot camp who would not have gone to prison anyway.)

■ Creating the program as a backend (postsentencing) operation that is not an

alternative to probation but rather a program for incarcerated felons.

■ Creating a treatment-oriented program that emphasizes the development of skills

designed to lead inmates to successful parole outcomes.

■ Creating a strong, intensive parole supervision program for Shock Incarceration

graduates that enlists the aid of community-based service providers.

With both the program’s goals and underlying philosophy in mind, it is particularly

important to determine if the New York program has had any systematic

effect on participants by measuring outcomes in key program areas.

Photo by Jan Phillips
 59

Academic Education

Improving the educational achievement of inmates during their imprisonment is one

of the central concerns of the New York Shock Incarceration program. At all New

York Shock Incarceration facilities, education is mandatory for inmates. Each week

inmates must spend at least 12 hours in academic classes and 22 hours in treatment

programs that also have an educational focus. The program’s academic instruction

is geared to enhance inmates’ verbal, math, reading, and writing skills and to give

inmates who are prepared the opportunity to take the general equivalency diploma

(GED) exam.

For many inmates, the importance of obtaining a GED cannot be overstated. Data

from the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics and DOCS indicate that higher levels of

education prior to incarceration or the completion of a GED while in prison is one

factor related to lower recidivism rates (Beck and Shipley, 1989:5; and DOCS,

Division of Program, Planning, Research and Evaluation, 1989).

Initial inmate placement in academic programs is based on the results of standardized achievement tests administered as part of the inmate reception and classification process. Achievement tests are subsequently administered to measure progress

and to determine eligibility for placement in more advanced classes. DOCS uses the

Test of Adult Basic Education (TABE) exam as the standardized testing instrument

in its Shock Incarceration program.

Even though attaining a GED while in Shock Incarceration is a desirable goal for

all graduates, inmates have only 6 months to do so and education is but one of

many required program components. Moreover, attaining a GED within 6 months is

an unrealistic goal for inmates entering the program with low educational levels.

Achievement testing. An analysis of math and reading TABE scores for 1,202

New York Shock Incarceration inmates who graduated between April 1, 1993, and

March 31, 1994, and who were given at least two achievement tests, shows that

in 6 months or less, 84.7 percent had increased their math scores by at least one

grade, 41.0 percent by at least two grades, and 15.8 percent by at least four grades.

Similarly, 62.8 percent of graduates increased their scores in reading aptitude by at

least one grade, 27.0 percent by at least two grades, and 5.8 percent by at least four

grades.

GED testing. Despite the short period of time that inmates spend at Shock Incarceration facilities, the proportion of graduates passing the GED in FY 1993–94

(68.4 percent) was notably higher than that of inmates at five State minimum security facilities (51.7 percent) and that of inmates at six State medium security facilities (59.3 percent) who were used as a comparison population. The passing rate for

New York Shock Incarceration graduates has increased steadily since FY 1989–90,

from 40.0 percent to 68.4 percent in FY 1993–94.
60

The New York Shock Incarceration program’s emphasis on obtaining high-quality

educational outcomes has thus shown positive results despite the short period of

inmate incarceration and the relatively small amount of time spent in academic

classes. Shock Incarceration facilities have also consistently tested inmates more

often and more successfully than have comparison prison facilities.

Community Service Projects

One of the least publicized components of the New York Shock Incarceration

program involves community service work performed by inmates. Community service work has often been used as an effective alternative to incarceration and has a

successful track record.

The legislative mandate for the program stipulated that it had to involve inmate participants in an intensive regimen of physical labor. State correctional officials found

an innovative way to fulfill this mandate by having inmates complete community

service projects for towns, villages, and State parks near Shock Incarceration

facilities.

Each year, supervised crews of Shock Incarceration inmates perform thousands of

hours of community service as part of their daily routine; and as a result cashstrapped municipalities, religious organizations, and community groups receive

manual labor needed to complete a variety of projects for which funding sources

were not available. Based on information provided by Shock Incarceration facilities, it is estimated that in calendar year 1993 inmates performed approximately 1.2

million hours of community service. This is the equivalent of 1,000 inmates working 6 hours per day, 4 days per week for 50 weeks. In fact, since no money is available to fund these projects, they would not have been done at all.

Supervised crews of

inmates perform

community service. The

work provides them

positive experiences while

fulfilling the State’s

requirement that they

perform hard labor.
 61

The opportunity for these inmates to perform much needed community services

helps the program meet two important objectives: fulfill the hard physical labor

component of the program and give inmates positive and altruistic community

experiences. The positive behavior exhibited by inmates providing these community services is consistent with the ninth step of the Twelve Steps to Recovery program—to make “direct amends” for past destructive behavior wherever possible.

Involving Shock Incarceration inmates in community affairs also helps build strong

local support for Shock Incarceration programs and their accomplishments.

Bed Savings and the Cost Avoidance Model

When measuring the effectiveness of a Shock program using the standards of bed

savings and recidivism, New York’s experience is consistent with the findings of a

1993 U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) report. The report concluded that

shock programs reduced overall corrections costs and systemwide crowding and

noted that of the jurisdictions studied New York was the best example of reported

cost savings (U.S. General Accounting Office, 1993:25).

What would it have cost DOCS if the Shock Incarceration program did not exist

and all graduates since the start of the program had served out their sentences in

non-Shock Incarceration facilities? The model constructed to answer this question

measured the program’s effectiveness in two areas:

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

■ Savings from avoiding capital construction costs.

Because the New York model examined the fiscal impact of the program since its

inception, dollar savings were considered to be cumulative. In New York, it is more

costly on a per diem basis to run Shock Incarceration facilities than it is to run

selected minimum and medium security prisons. It must be remembered, however,

that per diem costs constitute only part of the New York program’s fiscal outlook,

as money is saved through the early release of Shock Incarceration graduates.

Successful completion of shock incarceration is the only systemic way that New

York State inmates can be released prior to their parole eligibility dates. As a

result, graduates spend less time incarcerated.

If the New York program did not exist, each of the 10,927 Shock Incarceration inmates released through September 30, 1994, would have spent on average 546 days

in prison, including time in reception, until their parole eligibility dates. The actual

time Shock Incarceration releasees spent on average in DOCS custody, including

time in reception, was 216 days. Thus each inmate released to parole supervision

through Shock Incarceration represented a net savings of 330 days, or approximately 10.8 months.
62

An additional source of savings separate from the program’s operating costs are bed

savings, which allow the State to avoid capital construction costs as a result of not

having to house Shock Incarceration graduates.

By examining the distribution of incarceration time owed by Shock Incarceration

graduates, it is possible to determine at any given point how many of these inmates

would still need to be housed if the New York program were not in existence. As of

September 30, 1994, there were 2,173 inmates who would have required department

housing if Shock Incarceration had not been available.

Based on the results of this model, DOCS has concluded that while the Shock

Incarceration program is expensive to operate, it is capable of reducing the demand

for bedspace and saving the State money. (See the New York State Department of

Correctional Services and Division of Parole’s Annual Reports to the legislature for

more information.)

Returns to Custody

The measure of community success typically used to evaluate the performance of

correctional treatment programs is some form of recidivism. New York uses a conservative measure of returns to custody for new crimes and technical violations.

To provide some basis for comparison, data for Shock Incarceration graduates are

compared with results for three groups of similar, legally eligible inmates who were

either not exposed to shock incarceration or who were not able to complete the

program. These inmates served longer prison sentences than Shock Incarceration

graduates and were released to community supervision under less restrictive conditions. In contrast, during their first 6 months in the community, Shock Incarceration

graduates are the most intensively supervised parolees in New York State and

stay under active parole supervision longer than their non-Shock Incarceration

counterparts.

Each year the return rates of Shock Incarceration graduates and those of inmates

in comparison groups are examined. Offenders released between March 1988 and

March 1993 were tracked until March 1994. All participants had been released a

minimum of 12 months before data were collected. Success rates were determined

by the number of offenders who had not been physically returned to DOCS custody

within 12, 24, 36, 48, and 60 months of release. Shock Incarceration parolees have

consistently had the highest success rate at each interval despite having spent between 8 and 12 fewer months in State prison.

Shock Incarceration parole supervision has also had a significant impact on

employment and program enrollment rates of graduates relative to those of nonShock Incarceration offenders who had traditional prison and parole experiences.

It appears to be a factor helping Shock Incarceration graduates make the transition

from institution to community.
 63

Higher relative employment rates and greater levels of program participation

among former Shock Incarceration inmates can be attributed in part to the more

intensive services provided to them during their first 6 months on parole. Shock

Incarceration graduates’ relative success can also be attributed in part to the greater

level of motivation and spirit exhibited by newly released Shock Incarceration offenders, who may be more inclined to follow up on employment and program referrals made by parole officers. These results support the likelihood that Shock Incarceration graduates will make a more successful transition to community living and

become more productive citizens after release.

Conclusion

It is clear from this chapter that Shock Incarceration in New York is a complex

correctional treatment program designed for younger nonviolent offenders, which

employs a variety of change principles that have both theoretical and practical

underpinnings. Boot camps serve a variety of purposes and are run very differently

one from another. To simply say that all boot camps are the same is a gross simplification.

In New York, Shock Incarceration is a credible correctional treatment alternative

that affords early release to youthful, nonviolent offenders, thereby allowing the

State to save prison space for more violent and incorrigible offenders. But beyond

this, the Shock Incarceration program in New York is a complex correctional treatment program that employs a wide variety of methods to change inmates’ attitudes

and behavior. The standards first set for the program in 1987 have been met. While

not the cure-all many enthusiasts have portrayed them to be, shock incarceration

programs like New York’s can constitute an effective intervention.

Jurisdictions that run shock incarceration programs are encouraged to take the time

to examine their programs’ philosophies and to evaluate how they are being run. As

this chapter has shown, there are a number of measures that can be used to examine

success. Using them will lead to a better understanding of whom shock incarceration is designed for and for whom it appears to work.
64

Bibliography

Allen, Fred. Extracts from Penological Reports and Lectures Written by Members

of the Management and Staff of the New York State Reformatory, Elmira. New York:

The Summary Press, 1928.

Aziz, David. Shock Incarceration Evaluation: Preliminary Data. Albany: New York

State Department of Correctional Services, Shock Incarceration Legislative Report.

Unpublished, 1988.

Aziz, David, Paul Korotkin, and Donald Macdonald. Initial Follow-Up Study of

Shock Incarceration Graduates. Albany: New York State Department of Correctional Services, Division of Program Planning, Research and Evaluation. Unpublished, 1989.

Aziz, David, Paul Korotkin, and Donald Macdonald. Shock Incarceration Program

Follow-Up Study, August 1990. Albany: New York Department of Correctional Services, Division of Program Planning, Research and Evaluation. Unpublished, 1990.

Aziz, David, Paul Korotkin, and Donald Macdonald. Shock Incarceration Program

Follow-Up Study, May 1991. Albany: New York Department of Correctional Services, Division of Program Planning, Research and Evaluation. Unpublished, 1991.

Beck, Allen J., and Bernard Shipley. Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1983.

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, March

1989.

Camp, Camille, and George Camp. The Corrections Yearbook 1994: Adult

Corrections. South Salem, New York: Criminal Justice Institute, 1994.

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

Clark, Cheryl L. Network Program Procedural Manual. Albany: New York State

Department of Correctional Services. Unpublished, 1985.

Clark, Cheryl L. Shock Incarceration Procedural Manual. Albany: New York State

Department of Correctional Services. Unpublished, 1991.

Correctional Association of New York. Observations and Proposals Regarding New

York State’s Shock Incarceration Program. Albany: Correctional Association of

New York, March 1991.

DiIulio, John J. Governing Prisons: A Comparative Study of Correctional Management. New York: The Free Press, 1987.
 65

Durkheim, Emile. Rules of the Sociological Method. Translated by S.A. Lolvay and

J.H. Mueller. G. Catlin (ed). New York: The Free Press, 1966.

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

Company, 1975.

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

Research and Statistics, 1989.

Flowers, G.T. An Evaluation of the Use and Performance of Special Alternative

Incarceration in Georgia. Atlanta: Georgia Department of Corrections, Atlanta.

Unpublished manuscript, 1986.

Flowers, Gerald T., and R. Barry Ruback. Special Alternative Incarceration

Evaluation. Atlanta: Georgia Department of Corrections, January 1991.

Gendreau, Paul, and Robert Ross. “Effective Correctional Treatment: Bibliotherapy

for Cynics.” Crime and Delinquency, October 1979.

Georgia Department of Corrections. Georgia’s Special Alternative Incarceration.

Unpublished report to the Shock Incarceration Conference. Washington, D.C.,

1989.

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

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

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

1987.

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

California Press, 1969.

MacKenzie, Doris L. Evaluating Shock Incarceration in Louisiana: A Review of the

First Year. Louisiana Department of Corrections. Unpublished report, 1988.

MacKenzie, Doris L. The Parole Performance of Offenders Released From Shock

Incarceration (Boot Camp Prisons): A Survival Time Analysis. Paper presented at

the American Probation and Parole Association 14th Annual Training Institute,

Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 1989.

MacKenzie, Doris L. “Boot Camps: Components, Evaluations, and Empirical

Issues.” Federal Probation, September 1990.

MacKenzie, Doris L. “Boot Camp Programs Grow in Number and Scope,” NIJ

Reports (November/December 1990):6–8.
66

MacKenzie, Doris L., and D.B. Ballow. “Shock Incarceration Programs In State

Correctional Jurisdictions—An Update.” NIJ Reports, May/June 1989.

MacKenzie, Doris L., Larry A. Gould, Lisa M. Riechers, and James W. Shaw.

“Shock Incarceration: Rehabilitation or Retribution?” Journal of Offender

Counseling, Services, and Rehabilitation, 14, no. 2 (1989):25–40.

MacKenzie, Doris L., and Dale G. Parent. “Shock Incarceration and Prison

Crowding In Louisiana.” Journal of Criminal Justice, 19 (1991):225–237.

MacKenzie, Doris L., and James W. Shaw. “Inmate Adjustment and Change

During Shock Incarceration: The Impact of Correctional Boot Camp Programs.”

Justice Quarterly, 7, no. 1 (1990):125–150.

MacKenzie, Doris L., and Claire C. Souryal. “Boot Camp Survey: Rehabilitation,

Recidivism Reduction Outrank Punishment as Main Goals.” Corrections Today

(October 1991):90–96.

Merton, Robert K. “Social Structure and Anomie.” American Sociological Review,

3 (October 1938):678–682.

Morash, Merry, and Lila Rucker. “A Critical Look at the Idea of Boot Camp as a

Correctional Reform.” Crime and Delinquency, 36, no. 2 (1990):204–222.

New York Department of Correctional Services. Follow-Up Study of a Sample of

Participants in the Network Program, Albany: Division of Program Planning,

Research and Evaluation. Unpublished, 1987.

New York State Department of Correctional Services. Follow-Up Study of a Sample

of Offenders Who Earned High School Equivalency Diplomas While Incarcerated.

Albany: Division of Program Planning, Research and Evaluation. Unpublished,

1989.

New York State Department of Correctional Services and New York State Division

of Parole. The Fifth Annual Report to the Legislature: Shock Incarceration in New

York State. Albany: Division of Program Planning, Research and Evaluation and the

Office of Policy Analysis and Information. Unpublished, 1993.

New York State Department of Correctional Services and New York State Division

of Parole. The Sixth Annual Report to the Legislature: Shock Incarceration in New

York State. Albany: Division of Program Planning, Research and Evaluation and the

Office of Policy Analysis and Information. Unpublished, 1994.

New York State Department of Correctional Services and New York State Division

of Parole. The Seventh Annual Report to the Legislature: Shock Incarceration in

New York State. Albany: Division of Program Planning, Research and Evaluation

and the Office of Policy Analysis and Information. Unpublished, 1995.
 67

New York State Division of Parole. Preliminary Supervision Assessment of the First

Six Shock Incarceration Platoons. Albany: New York State Division of

Parole, Shock Incarceration Legislative Report. Unpublished, 1988.

New York State Division of Parole. Qualitative and Descriptive Analysis of Shock

Incarceration Supervision Program. Albany: New York State Division of Parole.

Unpublished, 1989.

New York State Division of Parole. “Shock Incarceration National Study.” Parole

Digest. Albany: Office of Policy Analysis and Information. Unpublished, May

1991.

Nossiter, Adam. “As Boot Camps for Criminals Multiply, Skepticism Grows.” New

York Times (Dec. 18, 1993):A1.

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

1958.

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

Parent, Dale G. Shock Incarceration: An Overview of Existing Programs. Issues and

Practices in Criminal Justice. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,

National Institute of Justice, 1989.

Shaw, James W., and Doris L. MacKenzie. “Shock Incarceration and Its Impact on

the Lives of Problem Drinkers.” American Journal of Criminal Justice, 16, no.1

(1991):63–96.

Smith, Beverly. “Military Training at New York’s Elmira Reformatory, 1888–1920.”

Federal Probation, March 1988.

Tucker, Neely. “Last Chance U.” The Miami Herald (Oct. 23, 1988):8–18.

U.S. General Accounting Office. Prison Boot Camps: Short-Term Prison Costs

Reduced, But Long-Term Impact Uncertain. Washington, D.C.: U.S. General

Accounting Office, April 1993.

U.S. House of Representatives. Subcommittee on Crime, Committee on the

Judiciary. On H.R. 2374, Corrections Alternative Act of 1989. 101st Congress,

1st Session, August 2, 1989.

U.S. House of Representatives. Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Committee on

the Judiciary. On H.R. 2985, Sentencing Option Act of 1989. 101st Congress, 1st

Session, September 14, 1989.
68

U.S. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary. The Major Component of the Crime and

Drug Problem in America: Incarceration and Alternative Sanctions for Drug

Offenders. 101st Congress, 1st Session, July 25, 1989.

U.S. Senate. Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, Committee

on Governmental Affairs. Federal Role in Promoting and Using Special Alternative

Incarceration, 101st Congress, 2nd Session, January 19 and March 1, 1990.

Van Voorhise, Patricia, et al. “The Impact of Family Structure and Quality on

Delinquency: A Comparative Assessment of Structural and Functional Factors.”

Criminology, 26, no. 2 (1988):235–261.

Wells, L. Edward, and Joseph H. Rankin. “Direct Parental Controls and

Delinquency.” Criminology, 26, no. 2 (May 1988)63–285.

Whiteley, Stuart. Dealing with Deviants: The Treatment of Antisocial Behavior.

New York: Schocken, 1973.
 69

CHAPTER 4

The Development and

Implementation of Illinois’ Impact

Incarceration Program

by Robert J. Jones and Steven P. Karr

Robert Jones and Steven Karr are research scientists for the Illinois

Department of Corrections. Mr. Jones has primary responsibility for

parole and work release classification, program evaluation of

incarceration alternatives and correctional treatment programs, and

recidivism and legislative bill analyses. Mr. Karr’s primary areas of

responsibility are the forecasting of juvenile and adult populations,

impact analyses of juvenile policy, and evaluation of the State’s

Impact Incarceration Program.

Illinois’ implementation of a voluntary boot camp program for nonviolent

first offenders 17 to 29 years of age who had been sentenced to up to 5

years in prison involved the introduction of new State legislation, extensive

planning with representatives of a broad spectrum of criminal justice,

educational, and social service agencies, together with research and site

visits to other States to understand the options available in instituting shock

incarceration programs. The impetus for the Illinois program was prison

crowding, but the program, as developed, included rehabilitative programming to improve basic education, reduce drug and alcohol abuse, and build

offenders’ self-esteem and life skills. A substantial aftercare component was

built into the program incorporating both electronic detention and parole.

Other features of the Illinois Impact Incarceration Program include the

special selection and training of program staff and an evaluation component. Illinois’ first boot camp, at Dixon Springs, opened in 1990, and the

Greene County and DuQuoin boot camps opened in 1993 and 1994,

respectively, in part to relieve a backlog of offenders slated to enter the

program. In 1993 the Illinois Legislature increased the pool of eligible

offenders to include those who had committed second offenses, were up to

35 years of age, and had been sentenced to prison terms of not more than

8 years.
70

The Illinois prison population was well above rated capacity during the

1980’s due primarily to the incarceration of large numbers of property and

drug offenders. At the close of fiscal year 1983, the adult prison population

was 13,735. By the end of fiscal year 1990, it had doubled to 27,295. In part as a

response to this escalation, the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) decided

to develop a shock incarceration (boot camp) program for nonviolent first-time

offenders.

Termed Impact Incarceration Program (IIP), Illinois’ was not the first shock incarceration program implemented by a State correctional authority, but it was one of

the first boot camps to incorporate extensive residential program service elements

and an intensive supervision aftercare component.

The IIP emphasizes the diversity of treatment elements for successful correctional

rehabilitative programs both in the prison setting and in the community. The IIP

uses a structured environment to address the problems that have led to the inmates’

criminal activity. As shown in exhibit 1, the IIP has three components:

■ A basic military physical training model stressing a highly structured and

regimented routine.

■ Substance abuse education, treatment, and counseling, together with basic

education, life skills training, and aftercare preparation.

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

The IIP is a 120-day program, with the first 2 weeks consisting of orientation to

military bearing and physical activities and the final 2 weeks directed toward aftercare preparation as the inmate gets ready for release to the community. The 90-day

period between these two phases focuses on building self-esteem through program

services, instruction, and treatment.

The IIP operates in three jurisdictions: Dixon Springs, opened in 1990; Greene

County, opened in 1993; and DuQuoin, opened in 1994. The Dixon Springs correctional facility houses 220 male and 24 female inmates. Both Greene County and

DuQuoin have a 200-bed capacity for male inmates only. Female inmates complete

the same physical training and labor details as male inmates.

This chapter provides considerable detail about how the program was developed

and implemented, together with a discussion of its day-to-day operation, for the

benefit of jurisdictions considering implementing or modifying their own boot

camp programs.
 71

Exhibit 1. IIP Components

Physical Activities and Regimentation

• Instruction in Military Bearing and Conduct

• Drill

Military formations

• Physical Exercise Sessions

Calisthenics

Running

• Labor-Intensive Work Details

IIP grounds and facility cleanup

Community service projects

Highway cleanup and brush cutting

Program Services (Mandatory Participation)

• Substance Abuse Program

Education

Multilevel treatment

Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous

• Education

Academic skills development leading toward GED achievement

• Life Skills Program

Skills development required for gaining employment,

 managing money, and using public services

Positive parenting skills

• Aftercare Preparation

PreStart Phase I

Postrelease

• Electronic detention

• PreStart Phase II

Program Development

Two activities had to precede the implementation and much of the planning for the

program. The first was to secure the legislation that would set the parameters for an

effective boot camp program. The second was to identify and secure State and

Federal funding.
72

Legislation

Development of a correctional boot camp

program in Illinois required changes in

State statutes, a process that began in February 1989 and culminated in the signing of

Public Acts 86–1182 and 86–1183 in July

1990. The legislative process was extensive

and called for compromise as staff from

many branches of corrections and other

government agencies expressed concerns

for individual issues. During the first few

months, staff from IDOC’s Planning and

Research Unit and Office of Intergovernmental Relations analyzed the data on

prison crowding and informed the General

Assembly of prospective impacts of a boot

camp program on the prison population.

Two legislative bills and numerous amendments mandating a prison boot camp program were introduced in the Illinois

General Assembly during the 1989 spring

session. Discussion continued into the fall

following further review by IDOC’s Planning and Research Unit, Legal Services,

and Intergovernmental Relations Office, as

well as the Attorney General’s Office.

After the law was passed, a Department

Rule had to be filed with the Secretary of

State before the first facility could begin

operations. Administrative directives (internal departmental policies) and procedural

forms were also prepared.

Planning

A great deal of groundwork needed to be

laid, including development of a planning

committee representing a broad spectrum

of perspectives and experience that would

learn as much as possible about Illinois’

options in selecting sites, determining

Broad-Based Planning: A

Key Ingredient for Success

Illinois’ Boot Camp Planning

Committee was able to draw on a

large variety of resources in

designing the IIP:

• Legislative liaison, to assist in

writing and enacting appropriate

legislation.

• Representatives of legal

services, to identify and examine

legal issues.

• Policy and directives staff, to

establish policies and procedures, coordinating efforts with

the legislative liaison and legal

services staff.

• Planning, evaluation, and data

processing personnel, to provide

background information on

strategies used by other

correctional authorities, prepare

grant proposals, and determine

and enter the data needed to

monitor the program’s developmental progress.

• Executive staff and wardens, to

provide experience in the

administrative planning of

opening correctional facilities

and related programs and to

present staff training needs and

potential inmate issues.

• Capital programs personnel, to

assist in the planning, development, and conversion of the

boot camp facility.
 73

offender eligibility, and designing an effective program.

Department staff at all levels (executive,

administrative, fiscal, research, and line

staff) participated in the planning process,

which began with a series of administrative

planning sessions, research and site visits

of other shock incarceration programs, and

development of policy and procedural

documents. A small planning committee

was selected and met regularly to study the

implementation of a shock incarceration

program. Many other experienced staff

served as consultants, providing advice to

committee members, assisting with written

documents, and making presentations at

planning sessions.

Committee members studied research publications, State evaluation documents, and

videos of boot camps in other jurisdictions

to review methods of educating young, unsophisticated offenders to promote future

lawful, responsible behavior, respect for

authority, and self-esteem, and at the same

time reduce prison bedspace and preserve

public safety. They looked at how a shock

incarceration program would affect their

responsibilities, staff under their supervision, and all of IDOC. They discussed the

degree to which discipline, physical activities, labor details, and military bearing

would be balanced with program services,

instruction, and aftercare supervision.

The committee defined a common purpose,

drafted a mission statement, prepared specific objectives, and outlined a timetable for

monitoring progress and documenting

achievements (exhibit 2).

• Representatives of the juvenile

division, to provide recommendations for managing youthful

offenders in an institutional

setting and in the community.

• Clinical services and treatment

staff, to coordinate the program

services and instruction, develop

testing and assessment instruments, and counsel inmates.

• Health care staff, to address

medical, mental health, dietary,

and environmental issues as well

as substance abuse needs.

• Personnel representatives, to

coordinate labor relations and

central screening with respect to

employee issues.

• Training academy staff, to

prepare a specialized boot camp

training manual and curriculum.

• Inmate issues staff, to develop

policies regarding inmate

privileges and grievance

procedures.

• Transfer coordinator, to monitor

classification of IIP-eligible

inmates and authorize movements for intakes and IIP failures.

• Parole staff, to develop strategies

for release preparation and

coordinate the postrelease

supervision system.

• Staff of the public information

office, to inform the media and

criminal justice professionals of

program activities, merits, and

concepts.
74

Exhibit 2. Timetable for IIP Development

Feb. 1989 *Oct. 1990 

Months 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2Legislation Development ▲ ▲Planning ▲ ▲Obtaining Grant Funds ▲ Visits to Other Boot Camps ▲ ▲Site Selection ▲ ▲Establishing Offender Criteria ▲ ▲Training Staff ▲ ▲Information Dissemination ▲ ▲Backlog of Candidates ▲ *Dixon Springs IIP opened on October 15, 1990.
 75

Obtaining Funds

General revenue funds allocated to the new program did not cover all elements.

Looking for outside funding, IDOC applied for Federal money available from the

Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Program,

Title VI of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988. Among other strategies to control

drugs and improve the criminal justice system, Byrne funds support correctional

alternatives for persons who pose no danger to the community, through formula

grants and competitive discretionary grants to States.

IDOC received a $250,000 discretionary grant, the largest award available,

primarily for program services and program evaluation. Grant funds were used for

salaries of educators, social workers, and an in-house parole agent to provide

instruction in basic education, life skills, substance abuse, and aftercare preparation.

Federal funds also supported a parole agent in the community, who worked with the

in-house agent to develop individual supervision plans and coordinate community

referrals. Funds were established for drug testing and electronic detention

equipment to monitor IIP graduates. A research scientist was hired onsite to

evaluate the program, collect and analyze data, and write progress reports.

Remaining funds were used for travel within the State, site visits to boot camps

in other States, and supplies for program services staff.

At the end of the first year of Dixon Springs’ operation, IDOC was awarded

another $200,000 in Federal funding under the same discretionary grant program

because of the progress made during the implementation and development of the

program, especially in the program service components.

Further, substance abuse education and treatment at all IIP facilities has been

funded through a grant from the Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority,

which distributes Federal drug appropriations, letting out contracts to private

agencies for services.

Visits to Other Boot Camps

It was essential that IDOC staff visit and discuss shock incarceration programs with

experienced administrators and line staff before and after implementing the program. The education and exchange of ideas would yield meaningful information

from the successes and failures of other programs. Time and energy would be

saved, and fewer problems would be confronted.

During the initial planning stages, several State administrators, legislators, and IIP

staff visited an existing prison boot camp facility, the Special Alternative Incarceration Program in Michigan. During a 2-week period, they witnessed all phases of the

program’s operations, reviewed program documents, and interviewed experienced

line staff.
76

A second site visit resulted from IDOC’s participation in an evaluation of shock

incarceration in eight States, sponsored by the National Institute of Justice. Planning and research staff joined correctional researchers from the seven other States

in a visit to the Lakeview Shock Incarceration Program in New York during August

1990. The visit incorporated 3 days of discussion of shock incarceration evaluation

strategies.

A third site visit took place in December 1991, after the Dixon Springs IIP had

been operating for a full year. Six IDOC staff, now experienced in the implementation and operation of a boot camp program, observed functions at six Georgia DOC

boot camp facilities. Georgia had recently completed a comprehensive evaluation of

its boot camp program and was expanding the program to include various prison

populations. IDOC was able to use the information gleaned in Georgia to review

the implementation progress of the IIP. Innovative ideas regarding program components, philosophy, operations, and facility design were recorded and used.

Site Selection

One of IDOC’s most important considerations was whether to house the boot camp

in an existing facility or construct a new one. IDOC chose to convert an existing

work camp facility for its first boot camp because the management system and fiscal structure of Illinois’ work camps were considered to be similar to those of boot

camps.

IDOC selected the site of the former Dixon Springs Work Camp located in southern

Illinois. The site was isolated and would provide meaningful work opportunities in

the Shawnee National Forest and the economically disadvantaged surrounding

communities while reducing construction costs.

The capacity at the Dixon Springs Work Camp was 150 beds, requiring renovation

to expand to the 200 beds planned for the boot camp. The conversion process included constructing an asphalted area for exercising and marching, developing additional parking space, grading the site, improving general site lighting, installing

ceiling and floor tiles, and repairing fire alarms. The existing gymnasium was partially converted to programming use.

After the first 4 months of operation, 30 more beds were added. The expansion of

the facility from its original 150-bed capacity to 230 beds required IDOC to upgrade the sewage treatment facilities and kitchen maintenance equipment and further renovate instructional classrooms.

Selecting Offenders for the Program

In formulating IIP legislation, the Illinois General Assembly provided for input

from both judges and correctional officials in the selection process. The judge
 77

recommends a statutorily eligible inmate for placement in the program, and IDOC

staff further review the case to determine if the inmate would pose a safety, mental

health, or security risk. This system allows a series of criminal justice professionals

to review each case; combined efforts are used to select the lowest risk candidates.

Exhibit 3 depicts the approval and subsequent IIP processes.

Allowing experienced corrections staff to help select participants had two advantages. First, it was likely that prison admissions would increase if the judge were

allowed sole discretion. Other States’ experiences indicated that judges would tend

to sentence offenders to boot camp who would normally receive probation to “teach

them a lesson.” If the net were thus widened, offenders would be added to the traditional prison population. On the other hand, disallowing judicial discretion might

hinder existing cooperation between the courts and the correctional system.

Having decided that the IIP was most appropriate for young, nonviolent, low-risk

offenders sentenced to adult prison for the first time, IDOC developed more specific criteria for selecting candidates. Based on the experience of other programs

and a profile of eligible candidates sentenced to prison each year, IDOC sought

candidates who:

■ Were between 17 and 29 years old. It was expected that the number of first-time

offenders 30 years or older in good physical condition would be limited and

would be likely to defy authority and challenge orders in front of their younger

cohorts.

■ Received a sentence of 5 years’ imprisonment or less. The 4-month IIP program

reduces the length of incarceration. Accepting offenders with longer sentences

would shorten the incarceration time even further, but they would pose higher

risks because of the greater seriousness of their offenses.

■ Could participate in strenuous physical activities or labor. Inmates with physical

problems would be most likely to quit the program or be forced to leave for

medical reasons, adding an unnecessary cost to the program. A comprehensive

physical examination would take place at reception and classification centers,

and a doctor would have to approve and sign an IIP-specific medical screening

form.

■ Would consent in writing to participate in the IIP. The program was designed to

be voluntary to allow inmates the personal decision to enter and withdraw. A

voluntary program would also reduce the likelihood of attempts to escape. A

consent-to-participate form was developed which each inmate would read and

sign before placement in the program. Inmates who decided to leave the program would have to sign a notice of voluntary termination.
78

Found Guilty

Sentenced to DOC

Meets Qualifications

Court Recommends IIP

Yes No

Reviewed by DOC

Approved

Level 1: Aftercare Electronic Detention

Level 2: Aftercare Regular Supervision

Discharge Violation

(Technical or New Felony)

Voluntary

 Failure

Involuntary

 Failure

Prison

IIP Inmate

Graduate

Denied

Exhibit 3. Flow Chart of IIP Process
 79

Excluded were:

■ Candidates who had previously served a felony sentence in an adult correctional

facility.

■ Offenders convicted of a Class X felony (serious crime), first or second degree

murder, armed violence, aggravated kidnapping, criminal sexual assault, aggravated criminal abuse, criminal sexual abuse, forcible detention, or arson.

■ Offenders with a mental disorder or disability that would prevent participation in

the IIP. Inmates had to be able to understand and follow direct orders and not be

intimidated to the point of assaulting staff and other inmates when under pressure. A separate, more detailed mental health examination would take place at

IDOC’s Reception and Classification Center, and the psychologist would

approve and sign an IIP-specific mental health screening form.

IDOC would also consider whether the committed person had a history of escape or

absconding or any outstanding detainers or warrants and whether participation in

the Impact Incarceration Program would pose a safety or security risk.

Training Staff

IIP security staff were required to have 1 year of experience as correctional officers.

All security staff had to participate in 240 hours of IDOC preservice correctional

officer training, followed by another 40 hours of orientation at their worksite.

Thereafter, 40 hours of inservice training were required at the worksite annually.

IIP Dixon Springs staff were required, in addition, to complete 80 hours of specialized boot camp training before joining the boot camp staff.

Illinois’ first boot

camp, at Dixon

Springs, opened in

1990 and can house

200 inmates.
80

The ensuing training program consisted of 12 modules covering military drill, inspections, and physical training; disciplinary procedures; and instruction skills,

classroom management, and program delivery. There was a substantial emphasis on

health issues, communicable diseases, and crisis intervention as well as on safety

precautions, especially in the drill and physical training components. The lesson

plans in the training manual offered guidelines on time allotment, target population,

number of participants, and classroom space for particular components. The curriculum contained examinations, films, role playing, and interaction simulations. A

considerable number of activities encouraged officers to understand and become

acclimated to the use of nonverbal communication skills.

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

negotiated with employee unions.

Black, military-style uniforms were designed to distinguish boot camp personnel

from the green-uniformed officers in conventional Illinois prisons. Staff uniforms

had to be neatly cleaned and pressed to encourage orderliness and personal hygiene

among the inmates. Blocked hats emphasized the military environment.

Information Dissemination

Two groups needed immediate information about the program: judges needed to

understand the purpose of the shock incarceration program and their roles in it; sentenced offenders needed to know about the options before them so that qualified

candidates would volunteer for the program.

Sentencing judges had to be made fully aware of the criteria, components, and philosophy of the shock incarceration program so that they could make knowledgeable

decisions in recommending offenders for the program. To publicize the program

before it began, IDOC made available a video about the proposed IIP and distributed it to judges and other interested parties. A second video was later prepared

showing program activities after the IIP began operations.

Providing information to the courts is an ongoing effort. Since August 1990 correctional administrators have made a series of presentations to the judiciary to help it

better understand the program. IDOC staff also work with the Administrative Office

of the Illinois Courts (AOIC) to inform judges during AOIC training sessions. Copies of the IIP evaluation reports are mailed to judges periodically to keep them informed of program progress.

It was deemed important to inform inmates as well about the IIP, its advantages,

requirements, and regimen. Thus, IDOC prepared a video that explained the IIP

concept in clear, simple language for recommended offenders who had not yet

volunteered for participation. Counselors at IDOC’s Reception and Classification

Center (R&C) were trained to provide consistent, reliable information to potential
 81

candidates. Any forms that inmates would need to review while making their

decision to enter the IIP were made available, and they were notified of all

consequences, including the strenuous environment and shortened prison sentence,

before signing participatory forms.

Backlog Problems

At first, all approved inmates were sent directly to the boot camp, but as publicity

was generated by the opening of the boot camp, the number of judicial recommendations increased to the point that by January 1991 the IIP was consistently filled to

capacity. It thus became necessary to have the male inmates awaiting entry held in a

housing unit separate from the general population, at a nearby adult prison facility.

Over time, not only did the number of inmates waiting to enter the IIP increase, but

the waiting period before entering the program increased as well. At one point the

backlog reached 224 inmates who were waiting an average of 4 months to enter the

program, increasing their prison stays and reducing cost savings.

This caused logistical and security problems, as institutional schedules had to be

shuffled to keep the IIP inmates separate from the general population. For example,

prospective IIP inmates had their recreational periods at night when the other inmates were sleeping or confined to their cells. Confrontations took place when general population inmates taunted and ridiculed inmates in the IIP holding unit.

Another consequence of the backlog was that a number of candidates, chafing at

the delay, changed their minds about entering the program. As their release dates

came closer, traditional prison and regular parole options seemed once more viable

alternatives to the strenuous program and its intensive supervision. Worse, during

the waiting period the candidates’ lack of contact with inmates in the general population limited the type and number of activities they could undertake during the day.

Some committed disciplinary infractions that eventually rendered them ineligible

for the program. The backlog problem was eventually solved through the opening

of a second facility.

Eligible boot camp inmates are still held in custody apart from the general prison

population while they undergo the extensive screening process at R&C. Delays in

reviewing court documents and warrants, together with medical problems that

present obstacles to approval for entry into the IIP, cause candidate inmates to continue to be temporarily housed at the holding facility. In both of these circumstances, the inmate may be returned to R&C to be screened again.

Current Program Operation

As has been shown, development of Illinois’ shock incarceration program took

time, comprehensive planning, and the participation of many players. Since the
82

program was initiated, it has undergone further refinement, but the early efforts

have benefited the program, which has gained favorable public acceptance, the

thoughtful input of judges, and the enrollment of hundreds of sentenced offenders.

Since program inception, 6,367 inmates have been admitted to the IIP (see exhibit

4). Of these, 4,079 have graduated, 1,119 have left voluntarily, and 528 have been

removed involuntarily. On June 30, 1995, 641 inmates were participating in the

program.

Orientation

Immediately upon arrival at the IIP, new program participants begin an orientation

that prepares them for military regimentation and enables staff to assess them for

appropriate programming. The recruits receive intensive instruction in military

bearing, courtesy, drill and ceremony, and physical exercise. The purpose of the

introductory phase is to provide a realistic overview of the IIP and of the expectations and potential benefits of the program.

After the 2-hour intake process, inmates meet with a correctional officer to review

the orientation manual, then with a parole agent to learn about electronic detention

and the aftercare component. On the second day, new inmates start learning military bearing and drill, activities that will consume most of their time during the orientation period.

During this phase, inmates wear white jump suits to identify them as new recruits,

or “ghosts.” This is the most difficult period of the program for them. They also

have an opportunity to talk to the experienced inmates to learn more about the

Exhibit 4. Illinois Impact Incarceration Program

 Participant-Flow Statistics

October 15, 1990, through June 30, 1995

Start Voluntary Involuntary 30-Jun-95

Date Admissions Graduates Failures Failures Population

Dixon Springs 15-Oct-90

 Male 3,856 2,544 765 330 217

 Female 181 99 35 23 24

Green County 15-Mar-93 1,658 1,060 265 132 201

DuQuoin 1-Aug-94 672 376 54 43 199

TOTAL 6,367 4,079 1,119 528 641
 83

program and to have some of their fears allayed. Most adjust to the rigorous structure, but some decide to drop out during this period.

Staff are slightly more lenient toward the new inmates at this time. With the elimination of alcohol, cigarettes, and drugs, running and other strenuous exercises are at

first difficult. Ghosts are allowed to build their physical endurance. However, after

2 weeks, all inmates are expected to participate in full exercise.

Before leaving the orientation phase, all inmates receive a manual that contains the

IIP mission statement, a list of formal procedures regarding care of personal items

and inmate dress codes, and a narrative describing expectations and program activities. The manual also describes IDOC rules about disciplinary procedures and the

inmate grievance process.

Inmates then enter the core program, where participation in regularly scheduled

exercises and all program activities is mandatory. Activities are scheduled from

5:30 a.m. to 9:30 p.m.

General Residential Rules

Inmates must adhere to all requirements and rules of conduct. Violation results in

sanctions consistent with the program’s disciplinary procedures. Positive behavior

that supports individual and community growth is required, while negative behavior

is targeted for change. Training alternatives, such as exercises of the day and a demerit system, are used in a progressive manner to instill correct behavior.

Military bearing is strictly enforced when inmates address program staff, gather for

meal formation, and participate in drills. Specific rules of conduct for grooming

The first 2 weeks consist

of orientation to military

bearing and physical

activities.
84

standards, dress codes, and foot locker maintenance are also enforced. Staff conduct personal and room inspections as well as inmate counts periodically throughout the day.

Personal items such as reading materials or electrical items are prohibited, and telephone, mail, and visiting privileges are limited. Inmates can receive commissary

credits but only after purchases of necessary personal items have been deducted.

Voluntary interfaith services are held for an hour each Sunday.

Medical emergencies or medical complaints are referred to an onsite health

professional; sick call is conducted daily. Medically unfit inmates must stay on a

medical bunk (without receiving participation credit for that day) while they are

incapacitated.

While not participating in program services, inmates work on in-house details and

public service crews cleaning grounds and roads. Inmates do work that is highly

visible to the surrounding communities and builds good public relations for the program. The IIP also receives considerable media exposure, second only to the publicity generated by the military style of the boot camp. During the summer of 1993,

the IIP received national recognition through the print and broadcast media for

efforts to control Mississippi River flooding.

Substance Abuse Education and Treatment

The IIP provides a unique opportunity for treating substance abuse and breaking the

cycle of drugs and crime. The IIP philosophy demands that the process begin at admission and continue through PreStart (parole) supervision. Inmates are counseled

about the dangers of drug and alcohol abuse and the ramifications of selling drugs

on the streets. Further, by instilling discipline, self-esteem, and positive work habits, the IIP teaches inmates that there are other, safer ways to make a living than

resorting to drug dealing and substance abuse.

During orientation inmates are fully assessed and evaluated by licensed substance

abuse professionals, and individual treatment plans are developed. The IIP is the

only State correctional boot camp that offers multilevel drug treatment. Classified

inmates fall into three categories:

■ Level I inmates are designated as having no probable substance abuse and

receive 2 weeks of drug education, during which they learn to identify and

distinguish between different types of drugs and their effects. All inmates

participate in drug education.

■ Level II inmates are considered to be probable substance abusers. In addition to

drug education, these inmates receive 4 weeks of drug treatment in which denial

and family support issues are discussed in group therapy.
 85

■ Level III inmates have been determined to have probable drug addictions and

receive special group services. They review issues discussed in Level I and

Level II and discuss substance abuse relapse, codependency, behavioral differences, and addicted families, along with the role that they play within their

families. Therapy continues for a 10-week period after the 2 weeks of drug

education. During the final 2 weeks of the IIP, Level II and Level III inmates

meet with substance abuse counselors to arrange referrals for treatment upon

release.

Basic Education

Program services in basic education are designed to enable IIP participants to receive their general equivalency diploma (GED). Inmates are assessed at orientation

through the Test of Adult Basic Education; those scoring lower than a sixth grade

level are required to attend a special class. Further testing to measure progress is

conducted throughout participation in the IIP.

Inmates work at their own pace in the class. Not all are able to achieve the GED

certificate level, but they are expected to work hard in the classroom. Teamwork is

emphasized to ensure that individual educational achievement goals are met.

Inmates who already have a high school diploma or GED certificate help instructors

in the educational development of other inmates. Outside the classroom, inmates

are allowed to study during free periods that are incorporated into the daily schedule. Inmates are tutored by other IIP participants during study times. Through fiscal

year 1995, 810 inmates had taken the GED examination, of which 704 had passed

(87 percent).

Inmates who leave the IIP without a GED are assessed prior to release, and plans

are made for them to continue their education and obtain a GED during the aftercare phase.

Life Skills Development

IIP inmates participate in classroom sessions and group discussions in the basic life

skills and positive value structures that will enable them to function in their community. The life skills curriculum focuses on four key areas: self-esteem, employment preparedness, financial planning, and health awareness.

IIP staff introduce inmates to the services available in the community and help

them obtain important credentials, such as a social security card, birth certificate,

driver’s license, and library card. After release, parole staff help them make use of

programs and services for gaining job referrals and developing job-searching techniques; these include Correctional Employment Services, the Illinois Job Service,

the Job Training Partnership Act, and Title XX vendors. Inmates are also instructed

in how to collaborate with State agencies, such as the Departments of Children and
86

Family Services, Public Aid, Alcoholism and Substance Abuse, and Mental Health

and Developmental Disabilities.

Aftercare Preparation

Preparation for aftercare begins when the inmates arrive at the boot camp; release

plans are developed for their eventual placement on electronic detention. During the

final 2 weeks of participation, inmates develop a release program with parole staff.

An Individual Development Plan (IDP) is formed that comprehensively identifies

postrelease needs and outlines a needs-resolution strategy with short- and longrange goals. The plan becomes part of the Mandatory Supervised Release (MSR)

agreement signed by the releasee. Topics covered in the IDP include long-range

personal goals and a maintenance program for health and physical fitness, social

relationships, and positive use of free time; assessment of current and future problems, with appropriate resolutions; and orientation to MSR responsibilities.

IDOC employs a full range of resources to achieve beneficial programming in employment, education, and training. Referrals for use of these resources are initiated

during this aftercare preparation phase of the IIP residential component. Although it

is not a mandatory element of the program, IIP graduates are sometimes released to

community correctional centers or contracted halfway house facilities when a suitable host site cannot be designated for electronic detention.

Inmates view a video on electronic detention that answers questions about what

will be expected of them after release, and each inmate meets with the parole agent

who coordinates aftercare activities and determines possible host sites for electronic

detention.

Leaving the Program

The IIP is a voluntary program beginning at the time of the recommendation and

sentencing by the judge, during the screening and approval process, and continuing

throughout the 120 days of boot camp. At each of these stages, an inmate can withdraw from the program, with full understanding of the consequences of this withdrawal. Inmates who still request removal are placed on a “quitter’s bunk,” where

they can discuss the issue with staff and other inmates. All means available are used

to keep participants in the program; inmates who withdraw cannot reenter.

An inmate can be involuntarily terminated from the IIP for a major rule violation or

noncompliance with program requirements as documented by disciplinary notices.

This usually follows an accumulation of numerous infractions, careless following

of program rules, or challenges to authority through intimidation and threats.

An inmate can also be discharged for medical or mental health reasons or for

mistakes made in the eligibility review.
 87

Extensions of time. Inmates may have their terms extended up to 60 days beyond

the 120-day boot camp period for disciplinary reasons, medical problems, or other

interruptions in their active program participation. For instance, inmates who consider leaving the program voluntarily are allowed time to weigh the decision. However, any time spent on this “quitter’s” status is not counted as active participation,

and if they decide to stay in the program they must make up the lost time. In some

cases boot camp inmates are allowed 3 days that do not need to be made up; these

are for circumstances beyond their control (such as injuries sustained during program activities), after staff review the circumstances.

Graduation. Formal graduation ceremonies were included in the IIP’s original design to end the residential phase of the program with a positive, ceremonious recognition of participants’ accomplishments. IIP graduating inmates address their fellow

inmates during morning formations, showing them that they have learned respect

for authority and have acquired an ability to work with others. The graduates encourage inmates who are just beginning program activities or contemplating voluntary termination to stay with the program. IIP staff congratulate the graduates individually and give them their diplomas.

Aftercare Program

After release from the IIP, graduates begin a two-tiered aftercare program designed

to gradually reintegrate them into the community. This consists of electronic detention followed by regular parole.1

The relatively short stay at the boot camp marks just the beginning of efforts to address and resolve the underlying issues that have contributed to an inmate’s criminal behavior. Aftercare supervision is designed to closely monitor the releasee’s

When not

participating in

program services,

inmates work on

in-house details

and public service

crews.
88

activities and encourage law-abiding behavior. IIP graduates must participate in 35

hours per week of primary programming after release. Primary programming consists of education, employment, community service, substance abuse treatment, or

group therapy. Graduates with a limited work history or who have no viable vocational skills are encouraged to enroll in a training program. Functionally illiterate

releasees are required to enroll in a literacy program. Graduates are required to register with local job services and work with them until a job is found. Drug and alcohol counseling is mandatory for those with a substance abuse history.

Overall, the program gradually moves the releasee through a series of supervision

levels. It is designed to reward positive adjustment and deter unwanted behavior.

Releasees who demonstrate positive behavior are moved to the next, less restrictive

phase. Minor violations or consistent lack of motivation to become fully active in

worthwhile program activities delay the releasee’s progress.

This final phase reinforces the program’s accent on public safety. During the first

90 days after release, when the graduate is on electronic detention, random drug

tests and physical spot checks are conducted and a curfew is strictly enforced. A

schedule outlining the graduate’s activities outside the home must be approved by

parole staff, and face-to-face contacts are frequent. After successful community reintegration during electronic detention, as evidenced by stable employment, educational pursuit, or absence of substance abuse, graduates are placed in the regular

parole supervision component (PreStart).

PreStart focuses on providing services that will reduce patterns of reoffending.

Community service centers allow releasees in search of job, educational, and counseling opportunities to contact parole staff. Emphasis is directed toward providing

reintegrative programming rather than strict enforcement of the MSR agreement.

Program Evaluation

Since the program was implemented, the IIP’s developmental progress has been

continuously monitored mainly due to two factors. First, an enacting clause in the

IIP legislation mandates that IDOC submit an annual report documenting program

activities and profiling inmates recommended for the program. Illinois is one of

only two States (New York is the other) that publish annual reports describing their

correctional boot camps. Second, participation in the National Institute of Justice’s

Multisite Study of Shock Incarceration provided guidelines and materials to evaluate the program. This is important because a main criticism in the development of

correctional boot camps nationwide has been that methods in place for program

evaluation are flawed and that there is insufficient evidence that boot camps are

effective.

In response to those concerns, IDOC has made a commitment to analyze the program internally and to allow external reviewers to evaluate it as well. During the

implementation phase, a process evaluation was conducted to determine whether
 89

the IIP was operating according to design. This resulted in an increase in the number of scheduled hours for program services and a revision of disciplinary procedures. Further, an analysis of the backlog of IIP-eligible inmates, which started 4

months after the program was implemented, allowed IDOC to determine that the

IIP should be expanded to a second site. The Greene County IIP started operations

in March 1993.

As part of a series of recommendations, the Illinois Task Force on Crime and Corrections, using profile data provided by IDOC, called for expanding the statutory

eligibility for the IIP. This recommendation culminated in a new law, enacted in

August 1993, extending the maximum age of eligibility from 29 to 35, extending

the maximum sentence from 5 to 8 years, and permitting second-time offenders to

enter the program. The other eligibility criteria remained unchanged. Expansion of

the eligibility criteria was primarily responsible for the opening of the DuQuoin IIP

in August 1994.

IDOC has a quasi-experimental design in place to analyze recidivism and cost effectiveness. Comparison groups are made up of inmates who are statutorily eligible

for the IIP but are either not recommended by judges or are denied participation by

IDOC. During 3-year followup periods, recidivism analyses are conducted, with

recidivism defined as a return to prison.

Exhibit 5. Impact Incarceration Program Recidivism Rates

Graduates Comparison Group

1-year 2-year 3-year 1-year 2-year 3-year

Number

of Cases 1,388 795 199 5,610 3,200 886

New Crime 82 6% 134 17% 41 21% 610 11% 793 25% 299 34%

Technical 161 12% 140 18% 52 26% 70 1% 77 2% 29 3%

Total Violators 243 18% 274 35% 93 47% 680 12% 870 27% 328 37%

 Source: Illinois Department of Corrections.

A study of IIP graduates revealed that 21 percent of releasees returned to prison

with a new offense within 3 years of release (see exhibit 5). This was found to be

significantly lower than the comparison group’s rate of 34 percent. Conversely, IIP

graduates returned to prison with a technical violation (as opposed to a new crime)

significantly more often than traditional releasees. In addition, fiscal analyses have

revealed that the IIP has reduced incarceration costs by more than $11,500,000
90

since program inception. Primarily, this has been due to prison time reduction,

which assists IDOC in conserving bedspace for higher risk inmates.

The recidivism results are consistent with the findings of the Multisite Study of

Shock Incarceration. The study employed survival time procedures where the

prevalence of recidivism and time spent on parole prior to a recidivism event are

analyzed together. Illinois and Louisiana were the only States of eight studied that

had significantly lower new offense rates for boot camp graduates and New York

had lower rates of technical violations in comparison to similar prison releasees

(see chapter 18 of this volume).

Another study sponsored by the Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority examined the new offense return-to-prison rates for IIP graduates, IIP failures, and

traditional inmates. The study also included an examination of IIP graduates based

on the level of assessed substance abuse treatment provided while at the boot camp.

The study revealed that drug offenders among IIP graduates returned to prison less

often than IIP failures and traditional releasees. Younger offenders in all three

groups returned at a higher rate than their older counterparts. IIP graduates assessed

for the most intensive substance abuse treatment had the highest return-to-prison

rates. Original offense type, age, and committing county also proved to be indicators of recidivism.

Summary

The development and implementation of the IIP was an arduous process requiring

much planning and deliberation. Although this chapter does not detail the specifics

involved in putting the IIP into operation, key elements and considerations in beginning a correctional boot camp program have been noted.

A collaborative effort supported by a multitude of staff representing all phases of

the legislative, administrative, and correctional process was instrumental in establishing a correctional boot camp program. IDOC instituted a series of planning sessions, pursued outside funding to support rehabilitative programs and staff, visited

boot camps in other States, and prepared alternative procedural documents and

training curriculums.

Most important, IIP administrators were flexible in their approach to making programmatic changes based on evaluation during the initial stages of development.

This included revision of the disciplinary procedures, increase in the number of

hours for instruction and other programming, expansion of the program to additional sites, and expansion of the eligibility criteria. The key aspects of program

review focused on monitoring data over extended followup periods, developing profiles of all recommended IIP-eligible inmates, and participating in research studies.
 91

The intent has been to build a boot camp program that can demonstrate proper

methods of behaving in society—procedures that must be demonstrated in a relatively short time period and must be carried into the community and maintained in

the future. It is anticipated that the IIP will continue to result in advantages for the

reduction of prison crowding as well as for the young men and women who go

through the program.

Note

1. A significant program modification occurred on November 1, 1992, when IDOC

removed part of the IIP aftercare component. Under previous policy, IIP

graduates spent at least 90 days on electronic detention plus at least 90 additional days on intensive supervision prior to being placed under regular parole

(PreStart) supervision. The intensive supervision requirement was abolished

mainly because of low recidivism rates for commission of new offenses by IIP

graduates during the first year after release from the IIP. This was based on

comparative analyses conducted with inmates released from traditional

institutions who had similar demographic, criminal history, and sentence

characteristics.

References

Campaign for an Effective Crime Policy. Evaluating Boot Camp Prisons. Public

Policy Report Series, 1994.

Cowles, Ernest L., Thomas C. Castellano, and Laura A. Gransky. “Boot Camp”

Drug Treatment and Aftercare Intervention: An Evaluation Review. Washington,

D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1995.

Cronin, Roberta C. Boot Camps for Adult and Juvenile Offenders: Overview and

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

Justice, 1994.

Gransky, Laura A., and Robert J. Jones. Evaluation of the Post-Release Status of

Substance Abuse Program Participants. Chicago: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority, 1995.

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

Illinois Department of Corrections. Impact Incarceration Program: 1992 Annual

Report to the Governor and the General Assembly. Springfield: Illinois Department

of Corrections, 1992.

Illinois Revised Statutes. Chapter 38, paragraph 1005–8–1.1, 1991.
92

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

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

Corrections, 1995.

Karr, Steven P., and Robert J. Jones. Impact Incarceration Program: 1993 Annual

Report to the Governor and the General Assembly. Springfield: Illinois Department

of Corrections, 1994.

Karr, Steven P., and Robert J. Jones. Impact Incarceration Program: 1994 Annual

Report to the Governor and the General Assembly. Springfield: Illinois Department

of Corrections, 1994.

MacKenzie, Doris L. “Boot Camp Prisons: Components, Evaluations, and

Empirical Issues.” Federal Probation, 54 (1990):44–52.

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

Institute of Justice, 1994.

New York State Department of Correctional Services and New York State Division

of Parole. The Seventh Annual Report to the Legislature: Shock Incarceration in

New York State. Albany: Division of Program Planning, Research, and Evaluation

and the Office of Policy Analysis and Information. Unpublished report, 1995.

U.S. General Accounting Office. Prison Boot Camps: Short-Term Prison Costs

Reduced, But Long-Term Impact Uncertain. Washington, D.C.: U.S. General

Accounting Office, 1993.
 93

CHAPTER 5

Programming in Georgia’s

Boot Camps

John P. Keenan

John Keenan has worked in the Georgia Department of Corrections

for 15 years and is currently the evaluation team leader for the

department’s Evaluation Unit.

Georgia’s boot camps date back to 1983 when the State’s Department of

Corrections instituted Special Alternative Incarceration (SAI) to relieve the

increasingly crowded conditions in prisons and jails. SAI provided short

terms of imprisonment, followed by community supervision, as a condition

for probation. Georgia’s Comprehensive Correctional Boot Camp Program

is an outgrowth of SAI and incorporates boot camps for both probationers

and sentenced inmates, as well as special programs for certain State

prisoners and detention centers for selected nonviolent offenders as a

condition of probation. This chapter presents findings from a descriptive

process evaluation. Georgia’s Comprehensive Correctional Boot Camp

Program provides a military-style regimen for all participants, inside and

outside work detail, physical training, basic education, and programming in

life skills and alcohol and substance abuse treatment.
94

Georgia Evaluates Its Boot

Camp Operation

The description of Georgia’s boot

camp program presented in this

chapter is drawn from the interim

findings of an evaluation of

Georgia’s Comprehensive

Correctional Boot Camp Program

being conducted in 1992–1993 by

the Evaluation and Statistics

Section of the Georgia Department

of Corrections with the assistance

of the Georgia State Board of

Pardons and Paroles and the

Statistical Analysis Bureau. The

evaluation had three goals:

1. To assess the implementation

and goal achievements of the

Comprehensive Correctional

Boot Camp Program.

2. To assess its potential for

reducing the return-to-prison

rates of its participants.

3. To assess the impact of the

program on reducing prison

crowding.

The evaluation was in two parts:

process and outcome. As

Blackmore (1991) has explained,

process evaluations go beyond the

scope of traditional audits, in asking

questions concerning the appropriateness and the adequacy of the

studied program and the cost

effectiveness of its activities.

Process evaluations may ask, “Are

the program’s objectives worthwhile? Does the program have the

Georgia was one of the first States

in the Nation to use shock

incarceration as a response to increased prison commitments and a chronic

shortage of bedspace. During the late

1960’s, several counties in Georgia had

shut down their county work camps, producing overcrowded State facilities and

large backlogs of sentenced inmates in local jails. Throughout the 1970’s, Georgia

jail and prison systems were beleaguered

by repeated crowding crises that were relieved only by having the State Board of

Pardons and Parole release more prisoners

(Flowers et al., 1991). By the early 1980’s,

jail and prison crowding was universally

recognized as the most serious problem

facing Georgia’s criminal justice system.

This chapter provides background on

Georgia’s experience in developing its boot

camp program and describes the current

system. Some early findings of a process

evaluation (see box) and a description of

programs in Georgia’s boot camp facilities

are presented. (Disciplinary aspects of the

program are described in detail in chapter

12 of this volume.)

SAI: Forerunner of Today’s

Boot Camp Program

One of the initiatives to deal with correctional crowding was the development of the

Special Alternative Incarceration (SAI) program. Mandated as a special condition to a

sentence of probation, SAI required participants to serve 90 days in prison and then a

period of postconfinement community

supervision. The program offered judges a

statewide sentencing alternative to lengthy

prison terms.
 95

SAI’s prison phase was an intense,

rigorously structured 90-day experience.

Hard manual labor and strenuous physical

conditioning exercises were the key

components of this phase, and strict

military-style discipline and regimen

were its hallmark features. The followup

community supervision, while less

structured than prison, applied the general

conditions of regular probation. Some

selected offenders were required to follow

SAI with assignment to a diversion center

(a 4-month residential program) or

Intensive Supervision Probation (Flowers

et al., 1991).

The first SAI program was established in

1983 at Dodge Correctional Institution

(C.I.) in Chester. Fifty beds at Dodge C.I.

were used to house the SAI offenders, who

were kept separate from the general inmate

population. In November 1986, a second

SAI program was started at Burruss Correctional/Training Center in Forsyth.

In January 1991, the Georgia Department

of Corrections completed a major evaluation of SAI as it existed from 1983 to 1990

(Flowers et al., 1991). The study examined

program operations and analyzed various

return-to-prison rates of SAI graduates. It

found that Superior Court judges sentenced

4,743 offenders to SAI between December

1983 and December 1990. During 1990

alone, judges sentenced 1,077 offenders to

the program. SAI participants were 43 percent urban and 55 percent black; 15 percent

were convicted of violent crimes, 26 percent of drug offenses, and 49 percent of

property offenses.

The evaluators concluded that for the

particular offenders studied, within the

limits of the analytic approach employed,

scope and resources to reach the

targeted population?”

During the process phase,

evaluators record the program’s

formative stages of operation,

identifying problems encountered

during this phase, specifying the

efforts made to resolve them, and

documenting the development of

future plans. A process evaluation

provides a historical account of the

program and of changes made in

the program during the study.

Program goals, activities, and

resources are described through

quantitative and qualitative

measures.

This chapter reports on this first,

process phase of the Georgia

evaluation. Specific program data

were collected, such as the

number of participants entering

and exiting the programs, reasons

for departures, program components completed, and the number

and type of disciplinary measures

taken. Surveys were administered

both to staff and participants to

assess the social climate of the

camps, sample opinions concerning the camps and their activities,

and determine immediate effects

of the program. Site visits were

also conducted at three probation

and two inmate boot camps.

Recommendations from these site

visits have already been incorporated into program operations.
96

recidivism of SAI participants was lower than recidivism of regular prisoners. Recidivism of SAI probationers was lower than that of offenders receiving intensive

supervision probation, comparable to that of residents of diversion centers, and

higher than that of offenders sentenced to regular probation.

Today’s Comprehensive Correctional

Boot Camp Program

Much has happened to affect the SAI program since that evaluation took place.

During his campaign in 1990, then gubernatorial candidate Zell Miller pledged to

expand and enhance the State’s boot camp program. Once elected, Governor Miller

said, he would discontinue the early release program his predecessor had initiated

to ease statewide prison crowding. However, estimates suggested that within 3 to 6

months of this action, local jails would be crowded with four or five thousand additional inmates. It quickly became apparent that early releases could be discontinued

only if another program was initiated to keep the backlog down and provide a publicly acceptable degree of punishment for offenders (Flowers et al., 1991).

The program thus developed, known as the Comprehensive Correctional Boot

Camp Program, was built on the foundation laid by SAI—that of hard work and

military-style discipline—but new critical program elements such as compulsory

drug education modules and postrelease followup in the community were added.

The first goal of the new program was to relieve crowding in the State’s 30 prisons

by diverting about 12,000 lower risk offenders to boot camps each year. The second

goal was to reduce recidivism among young offenders ages 17 to 30 by incorporating a rigorously structured program and intensive aftercare (Bowen, 1991).

The Comprehensive Correctional Boot Camp Program plan that was developed

now includes four types of facilities. Two—inmate boot camps and intensive treatment programs—house sentenced prison inmates. The other two—probation SAI/

boot camps and probation detention centers—house persons who are sentenced to

the boot camps as a condition of probation.

Inmate boot camps. Offenders in inmate boot camps have already been sentenced

to prison; they are assigned to a boot camp by the State Board of Pardons and Paroles based on criteria established by the Georgia Department of Corrections and

the Parole Board. If they successfully complete the 120-day program, they are released to strict parole supervision. If they “wash out” of the boot camp, they are

transferred to a regular prison. In most cases the units are located next to large prisons that can provide basics such as food services, allowing GDC to keep operating

costs down.

Selected offenders are processed through a central diagnostic facility for all inmate

boot camps at Bostic C.I. in Milledgeville. At first only males between the ages of
 97

17 and 30 convicted of a drug offense, with a sentence length of 1–10 years, could

be assigned to an inmate boot camp. The pool of eligible offenders has now been

expanded to include offenders convicted of driving under the influence (DUI),

habitual traffic violators, and persons convicted of most other nonviolent crimes.

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

approximately 87 percent completing the program.

Intensive treatment programs. These are for State prison inmates who have been

assigned to the program as a disciplinary sanction. They are intensive, in-prison

programs in which inmates work their way out of disciplinary isolation or administrative segregation and back into the general prison population. The programs have

a military-based structure and call for compulsory participation in educational and

counseling programs. (For more information on this program for prison inmates,

see chapter 12 of this volume, which describes the program at the Valdosta Correctional Institution.)

SAI/probation boot camps. These target first-time drug offenders, DUI and habitual traffic violators, and other offenders identified and sentenced by judges as a

condition of probation. These units combine the intensity of a boot camp regimen

with compulsory drug and alcohol abuse treatment programs. The units may be adjacent to prisons or may be stand-alone units in the community. Georgia has three

probation boot camps with a combined capacity of 437 offenders. Since their initiation, probation boot camps have graduated 92 percent of the 5,500 they have admitted. Although the normal stay at a probation boot camp is 90 days, the law now

allows the probation boot camp superintendent to keep offenders an additional 30

days if they create disciplinary problems.

The evaluation found that probationers entering the boot camps were felons (only 2

percent were convicted of a misdemeanor), with 77 percent sentenced to less than 6

years. Most frequent convictions were for property offenses (45 percent), drug possession (25 percent), or violent offenses against persons (14 percent). Their average

age was 19.8, and most were nonwhite males. Twenty-nine percent were sentenced

as first offenders.

Probation detention centers. These form another option in Georgia’s Comprehensive Correctional Boot Camp Program. Probation detention center participants are

sentenced to the program by judges as a condition of probation. These centers aim

their work-intensive, highly structured program at relatively low-risk offenders,

including those convicted of alcohol- and drug-related crimes or property crimes,

and those whose poor physical health would make them ineligible for the physically demanding boot camp programs. In addition to the compulsory community

service now imposed on these offenders, a basic military-style daily regimen is in
98

place in these centers. The major program focus is on outside work details for the

benefit of the community and on alcohol and drug education and treatment.

The average age of detainees sent to probation detention centers was 27.2 years.

Detainees were primarily male, nonwhite (59 percent) and serving a 5-year straight

probation sentence for a felony. Twelve percent were sentenced as first offenders,

with 45 percent convicted for a substance abuse offense and 39 percent for a

property crime.

In December 1993, 12 probation detention centers were in operation, including one

for females. They had a total of 1,885 beds, usually 166 per unit. Since 1988,

23,280 probationers have been transferred to the detention centers, usually for

4–6-month periods. Almost all offenders complete the program successfully; the

washout rate is only 4 percent.

Four-Phase Program

Whether in an inmate or probation boot camp facility, offenders move through a

basic four-phase program plan that may differ slightly from facility to facility:

Phase 1, intake. This phase consists of diagnostic and orientation activities lasting

for the first week of stay.

Phase 2, work/discipline. This phase consists primarily of drill and ceremony and

work. The purpose is to instill responsibility in the offenders through emphasis on

work, although offenders may begin their education and other programs during this

time. This phase lasts 4 weeks.

Phase 3, programming. During this phase drill and ceremony are not emphasized

as heavily. The offenders begin other programming classes, which may include

leisure education, life skills, and Bible study. This phase lasts 4 weeks and is

described in detail below.

Phase 4, prerelease. For the final phase of the boot camps, offenders are typically

transferred to a prerelease counselor’s caseload. At this time, they attend classes

that emphasize the skills needed to search, apply, and interview for jobs. In addition, the prerelease counselor helps offenders plan for after their release, such as

obtaining transportation home, finding a place to stay, and obtaining a job. During

this phase offenders are allowed visits from friends and family members.
 99

Physical Training

Physical training guidelines specify nine

different exercises, with a variable number

of sets and repetitions based on the

conditioning of the inmate (specified by

medical clearance and length of time in the

program).

Physical training takes place every day,

including weekends, weather permitting.

In most facilities, a correctional officer or

recreation director conducts physical training by calling the count for the exercise and

performing it along with the offenders.

Physical Labor

Work on various details is thought to instill

the importance of making an earnest living

in the world, getting offenders used to a

consistent work schedule, and occupying

them both mentally and physically during

the day. All the camps maintain outside and

inside work details.

Outside details typically involve construction or maintenance projects for local municipalities, counties, or the State. Many

details provide the equivalent of thousands

of dollars of free labor to these governments and enable the offenders to make

partial amends directly to the citizenry of

Georgia. These outside details have

involved:

■ Supporting State forestry projects, working with the Georgia State patrol,

maintaining vehicles at Department of Transportation facilities, and working at

the new youth facility in Eastman.

■ Preparing construction sites and landscaping and maintaining public school

buildings.

■ Clearing drainage ditches and rights of way, building concrete curbs, and

picking up trash in local cities.

The Boot Camp Day

A typical day in a Georgia boot

camp begins at 5:00 or 5:30 a.m.

depending on the facility. The

offenders march to breakfast at

6:30 after they have had time to

dress, shave, make up their beds,

police the barracks, and attend

sick call if necessary. Offenders

have 10 minutes to finish breakfast, after which they march back

to their dormitories to prepare for

work details.

Work details usually go out by

7:30 a.m. Sack lunches are

prepared for those on outside

detail; within the institution,

lunch is held by noon. Outside

details generally return to the

institution between 2:30 and

3:30 p.m. Some institutions

conduct physical training in the

afternoon after details and

before programs. Physical

training is followed by dinner

around 4:30 p.m. After this day

of physical labor and calisthenics, at around 5:30 or 6:00,

educational and other programming begins. Free time starts at

9:00 p.m. with lights out at

10:00.
100

Inside details typically involve maintenance or specialized labor for more skilled

offenders such as brick masonry and vehicle repair, but they also include building

maintenance, laundry, and general cleanup.

Program Components

Although work is heavily stressed as a part of the total program in Georgia’s boot

camps, a significant part of the offender’s time is spent in treatment programming.

Coupled with military discipline and hard physical labor, the goal of treatment programming and counseling is to assist the offender in building a respect for authority, a sense of self-worth and respect, and to provide the necessary tools to live a

crime- and drug-free life once released. Following the “tearing down” provided by

military drill and physical labor, programming attempts to provide the “building

back up” stage in the offender’s development. Chapter 12 in this volume describes

this process.

Group sessions and classroom instruction are usually conducted every weekday

evening, and for selected groups and activities on the weekends.

Orientation is conducted during the first week and includes instruction in the

rules, regulations, and policies to be followed. A counselor usually conducts

orientation.

Life skills are provided in a 12-class series typically offered during phases 3 and 4,

designed to teach offenders the skills necessary to function successfully in society.

Classes focus on values clarification, problem-solving skills, work-seeking and retention skills, family and parent training, communication skills, stress reduction,

and consumer education. This class may be conducted by a staff person or a

volunteer.

Work on

construction

projects is thought

to instill the

importance of

making an earnest

living in the world.
 101

Twelve-step programs, such as Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) and Narcotics

Anonymous (NA), promote a sober and drug-free lifestyle by providing a fellowship of persons who share their experience in order to recover from a common addiction. Such programs are available by referral and request throughout the 12-

week boot camp experience. They are conducted by volunteers from local AA/NA

chapters.

Substance abuse treatment is available to offenders who need it. Level I substance

abuse programming involves 10 to 12 hours of substance abuse education; topics

include alcohol, narcotics, barbiturates, opiates, stimulants, cocaine and crack, steroids, and “designer” drugs. This class is usually given during phase 1. Level II

substance abuse programming includes a series of 16 to 24 interactive groups based

on relapse prevention therapy. This program, known as Staying Sober Recovery

Education Modules, has three primary components:

■ Relapse education, which teaches individuals about the processes of recovery

and relapse and helps individuals recognize and successfully manage relapse

warning signs.

■ Group therapy, which provides the individual an opportunity to personalize and

integrate his understanding of recovery and relapse prevention.

■ Relapse support groups, which give 12-step support for managing relapse and

maintaining sobriety and a drug-free lifestyle. The program is offered during

phases 3 and 4. These sessions are conducted by counseling staff.

■ Prerelease, a series of groups typically held during phase 4, designed to focus

the offenders on successful reintegration to their home communities. Group

topics may include family issues, employment planning, treatment and support

planning, postrelease plans, and goal setting. This class is generally conducted

by the counselor responsible for prerelease.

Bible study is conducted by citizen volunteer religious groups who also offer life

lessons and worship services for the offenders. On weekends, groups may also

conduct inspirational singing.

Platoon meetings take place as inmates in each dormitory meet weekly as a group

to discuss issues concerning living in the unit. An attempt is made to resolve problems using a positive group process and to promote discussion of opinions and

ideas. This group is usually conducted by a staff counselor.

Leisure education occurs when offenders are taught sports fundamentals and are

given the opportunity to participate in organized, structured games such as basketball, softball, and volleyball. This class is conducted by the recreation supervisor.
102

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

take to their dormitories.

Program Resources

Program resources vary from camp to camp with respect to space, staffing, and materials. Educational classes may occur in the institution’s library or in day rooms

and designated program rooms. In many cases, groups are conducted in the dormitory units for want of better program space.

At Treutlen Shock Unit in Soperton, one of the probation boot camps, an ambitious

program schedule calls for use of both dormitory and program rooms. Programs are

conducted during the evening hours in two 90-minute sessions, beginning at 6:00

p.m. Depending on his current phase and program plan, the offender may attend

educational classes during one session and another class or program such as Alcoholics Anonymous during the other session. Offenders not involved in a program

during a given period may go to recreation at the gym, or drill.

At Dodge Inmate Boot Camp in Chester, correctional officers conduct many of the

classes and groups due to a lack of treatment staff. To signal this change of role,

officers remove their circular campaign hats or caps and ease out of the formality

of the military atmosphere that dominates life outside class. Each building officer

typically conducts weekly groups in his dormitory. A new topic is assigned to each

platoon each week. The officer calls members of the platoon out of their rooms and

talks about that topic with them. Typical subjects are “The Importance of Goals”

and “Your Duty to Your Family,” treated in a lecture rather than discussion format.

The officers generally indicated that they liked participating in these sessions but

would benefit from more training.

All Georgia boot

camps maintain

outside work details

that typically involve

construction or

maintenance for

local government

agencies.
 103

Treatment staff provide individual counseling in addition to case management and

scheduling of activities. These individual sessions are conducted at least once a

month or more frequently as the need arises. Offenders may request to see their

assigned counselor at any time through the use of a counselor request form. A review of institutional files revealed that in most cases the counselors made notations

in the progress record section of the offenders’ files every 2 weeks or so. The entries generally described the offenders’ current activities and their progress in the

program. Interviews with the offenders revealed that the counselors were available

to the offenders on an as-needed basis (usually with no more than a day’s response

time to a request from an offender). The offenders also reported that the counselors

made a point of seeing them approximately every other week.

Education

Three levels of adult education are provided in Georgia’s boot camp program: basic

literacy, adult basic education, and preparation and testing for the general equivalency diploma (GED). Limited resources among the camps create widely varying

levels of programming.

At Treutlen, all educational services are provided by a local technical school. The

program is funded by a Federal grant of approximately $50,000 annually, which

covers seven teachers’ salaries, books, paper, and some equipment. Offenders are

tested and placed in the appropriate level class during their orientation phase. Those

who test up to the midpoint of the 5th grade go into basic literacy class, from the

5th to the 10th grade to adult basic education, at the 10th and above to preparation

for the GED. Participation is mandatory and there is no waiting list. Classes average between 15 and 20 offenders.

Classes in all three levels are based on self-paced, individual modules, with each

offender progressing to the next level upon completion of a module and successful

testing on the material. The teachers work individually and with small groups of

offenders during the sessions.

One counselor is certified to administer the GED test. At the time of the evaluation

site visit, approximately 118 offenders had earned their GED certificates. Aggregate numbers were not available on the offenders’ progress in the other educational

programs. Individual results and achievement are made a part of the file that accompanies the offender back to his community and aftercare supervision.

At the time of the site visits, other boot camps did not have the resources of

Treutlen for educational programming. One boot camp facility, located on the site

of a State prison, shared a single instructor with the rest of the institution. Although

the instructor staggered her weekly hours to accommodate an evening schedule of

classes, there was a long waiting list to enter the classes. Another unit relied on two
104

volunteer teachers to come in during the evening hours to teach one basic education

class each, 2 nights a week. Since that time, additional instructors have been hired

at each of these units.

Community Supervision

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

supervision on probation or parole, followed by a period of regular supervision.

Conclusion

The adequate provision of resources is critical to any programming in corrections,

but nowhere more so than in boot camps. As boot camp facilities around the Nation

have discovered, a great deal can be accomplished in the relatively short stay of 90

to 120 days in a boot camp. Offenders have proved they can increase reading levels

and even complete GED’s.

Some have suggested that a boot camp that utilizes physical labor and military drill

alone will not accomplish the goal of significantly changing the behavior of offenders if it does not include other program activities such as education, counseling, or

drug treatment. MacKenzie and Parent (1990) list three hypotheses that support the

combination of physical labor, military discipline, and treatment programming:

■ The time spent in a boot camp program results in offenders freeing themselves

from a downward cycle of drug usage and poor physical conditioning.

■ Boot camp programs create an environment that shakes up the everyday life of

offenders, creating stress. During this time, offenders may be more susceptible

to outside influences, allowing programming to have a greater impact on them.

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

It would be unreasonable to expect boot camp programs to reverse in 90 to 120

days an offender’s lifetime of poor physical conditioning, failure in school, and

negative experience with law enforcement and the entire criminal justice system.

The criminal justice system has had little impact on these offenders through the

more routine methods employed by probation and short-term incarceration in local

jails.

However, as Hengesh (1991) points out, perhaps the role of the correctional boot

camp is much like that of its model in the military, that is, providing a strong
 105

foundation of discipline, responsibility, and self-esteem that can be built upon in

followup training and treatment. Once the stripping away of the resentment of

authority and the false pride of a criminal lifestyle is completed, counseling and

educational programming, along with work and military discipline, can start

developing self-esteem, self-discipline, and experience with success.

References

Aziz, David. Shock Incarceration Evaluation: Preliminary Data. Unpublished

report to the New York Department of Correctional Services, 1988.

Blackmore, John. Director of Project Development, Narcotic and Drug Research,

Inc. Unpublished notes, August 18, 1991.

Bowen, Andy E. “Making Boot Camps Bigger and Better.” Corrections Today,

October 1991.

Camp, Damon. “Shock Incarceration in Georgia: An Analysis of Task Performance

and Training Needs Among Corrections Officers.” Journal of Offender

Rehabilitation, 16, no. 3/4 (1991):153–176.

Flowers, Gerald T., Timothy S. Carr, and R. Barry Ruback. Special Alternative

Incarceration Evaluation. Atlanta: Georgia Department of Corrections, 1991.

Georgia Department of Corrections. Comprehensive Correctional Boot Camp

Program Proposal, 1990.

Hengesh, Donald J. “Think of Boot Camps As a Foundation for Change, Not an

Instant Cure.” Corrections Today (October 1991):106–108.

MacKenzie, Doris L., Larry A. Gould, Lisa M. Riechers, and James Shaw. “Shock

Incarceration: Rehabilitation or Retribution?” Journal of Offender Counseling,

Services, and Rehabilitation, 14, no. 2 (1989):25–40.

MacKenzie, Doris L. Testimony on Boot Camp Prisons. United States Senate

Committee on Governmental Affairs, Subcommittee on Oversight of Government

Management, 1990.

MacKenzie, Doris L., and Dale G. Parent. Shock Incarceration and Prison

Crowding in Louisiana. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National

Institute of Justice, 1990.

MacKenzie, Doris L., and James W. Shaw. “Inmate Adjustment and Change During

Shock Incarceration: The Impact of Correctional Boot Camp Programs.” Justice

Quarterly, 7(1) 1990.
106

Parent, Dale G. Shock Incarceration: An Overview of Existing Programs. Issues

and Practices in Criminal Justice. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,

National Institute of Justice, 1989.
 107

CHAPTER 6

Bureau of Prisons: Expanding

Intermediate Sanctions Through

Intensive Confinement Centers

by Jody Klein-Saffran, Ph.D.

Jody Klein-Saffran, Ph.D., is a Research Analyst at the Federal

Bureau of Prisons, specializing in community corrections, alternative sanctions, and recidivism. She has published a number of

papers in scholarly journals and professional publications.

The Federal Bureau of Prisons has two shock incarceration facilities, the

Intensive Confinement Center (ICC) for men at Lewisburg, Pennsylvania,

and the Intensive Confinement Center for women at Bryan, Texas. Both are

adjacent or attached to Federal correctional institutions and contain a

slightly older population (average age: 27) than State-administered boot

camps. All participants are volunteers for the program, 90 percent of them

committed directly by the court and the rest drawn from already incarcerated inmates. The Federal Government’s ICC program shares many of the

features of State programs but does not incorporate summary punishments

or result in a reduction of participants’ sentences. Through a daily regimen

of physical training, work assignments, education, vocational training, and

substance abuse treatment, the program seeks to improve offenders’

decisionmaking, self-direction, and self-image and help them gain permanent employment. The 6-month incarceration period at the ICC facilities is

followed by a community corrections period during which participants

finish out their sentences, first at a halfway house and subsequently under

home confinement. The overall objective of the ICC program is to change

offenders’ behavior so they will reduce their involvement in crime and

become safely reintegrated into the community.
108

The U.S. Bureau of Prisons’ Intensive Confinement Center (ICC) program

shares with State shock incarceration programs the same primary goal: to

change offenders’ behavior and ultimately reduce their involvement in

criminal activity without compromising public safety.

Yet there are several important differences between the Federal and State programs.

First, inmates tend to be older at the Federal level than at the State level. The average age for an ICC male participant is 27 in comparison to the average age for participants at the State level, which is between 19 and 20 (MacKenzie and Souryal,

1994). Second, whereas most States reduce the sentences of boot camp participants, the Federal Government does not. Third, the Federal program does not use

summary punishments by staff (as is done in some State boot camps) because it is

inconsistent with Bureau of Prisons policy on inmate discipline, which follows due

process procedures and carefully prescribes appropriate sanctions for acts of misconduct (Klein-Saffran, 1991).

A fourth difference between the Federal ICC and many State programs is that the

ICC places a considerable emphasis on nonmilitary rehabilitative activities in contrast with many State programs that focus primarily on military-type activities. ICC

participants spend roughly 3 to 4 hours each day in various types of programs such

as life skills, health and nutrition, substance abuse counseling, and adult basic

education and GED (general equivalency diploma) instruction. A fifth difference,

unique to the Federal program, is the community corrections component. All

inmates who graduate from the ICC spend the remainder of their sentences in a

halfway house (community corrections center) followed by home confinement.

Although this component shares the objective of State aftercare programs, it provides a far more controlled environment.

The Federal Intensive Confinement Center Programs

Consistent with the Crime Control Act of 1990, the Bureau of Prisons’ Intensive

Confinement Center at Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, was established adjacent to the

U.S. Penitentiary and began accepting male participants in that same year. ICC

Lewisburg is designed to incarcerate 192 adult male Federal offenders. In July

1992, an ICC for women was established on the grounds of the Federal Correctional Institution in Bryan, Texas. ICC Bryan is designed to hold 120 adult female

offenders in dormitory-style barracks.

As with all Bureau of Prisons (BOP) facilities, the ICC’s mission is to maintain

custody of inmates in an environment that is safe, secure, and humane. Both ICC

Lewisburg and ICC Bryan were developed to direct offenders’ behavior along

prosocial lines without compromising public safety. Each ICC facility is purposely

spartan and restrictive. In a highly structured environment, the ICC offers a specialized program consisting of a daily regimen of physical training, labor-intensive
 109

work assignments 6 days per week, education and vocational training, substance

abuse treatment, and life skills programs conducive to a successful reintegration

into mainstream community life.

Each training cycle lasts 180 days. Program entrance is voluntary, and inmates who

successfully complete the program are given the opportunity to serve the remainder

of their sentence— a portion greater than otherwise would be possible— in a community-based program. This community component is designed to help offenders

consolidate and sustain the gains they make during their incarceration.

Program Foundation and Philosophy

ICC program objectives are to help offenders develop responsible decisionmaking,

self-direction, and a positive self-image, and obtain and keep a job. The intensive

discipline, work, and program components of the regimen are designed to fulfill the

decisionmaking, self-direction, and positive self-image objectives. Life skills

classes and the postrelease community corrections component help participants

attain the employment objective.

Bureau of Prisons management philosophy focuses not only on humane care but

also on the promotion of positive interaction between staff and inmates. The use of

summary and group punishment in some boot camp programs is considered inconsistent with this philosophy and with BOP’s policy of providing prescribed, appropriate sanctions for acts of misconduct. In both the Bryan and Lewisburg facilities,

BOP has attempted to blend the more positive elements of the boot camp approach

to discipline with the traditional components of inmate management.

There are differences, however, in how the programs in the two facilities deal with

inmates. For example, in establishing the program at ICC Bryan, BOP considered

the particular concerns of female offenders with regard to interpersonal relationships, psychological issues, family ties, and similar matters. Perceiving that many

Women at the

Intensive Confinement

Center in Bryan,

Texas, do military drill

in addition to 3 or 4

hours a day in

educational, health,

and rehabilitative

programs.
110

female inmates lack self-confidence, Bryan staff encourage them to take more control over their lives. A greater effort is made to offer programs that strengthen their

self-esteem, help them deal with domestic violence, and promote their parenting

skills. Although less emphasis is placed on military drill than at the male ICC, this

aspect of boot camp training has proved surprisingly popular with the female

participants.

While the two ICC programs differ in the respects mentioned, there are greater differences between the ICC and regular prisons, primarily with respect to mandatory

classes to improve life skills, fitness, health, and nutrition, as well as substance

abuse counseling sessions. In addition, the ICC inmates are taught to work together

as a team, whereas in regular prison this is discouraged. In fact, the unspoken rule

of “doing your own time” remains a strong component of the standard prison culture. At the ICC facilities, correctional officers are expected to establish close working relationships with inmates and gain more knowledge about their charges than

would be the case in a typical prison facility.

Eligibility Criteria and the Screening Process

There are five basic eligibility criteria for initial court commitment designations to

the ICC program. An individual must:

■ Be serving a sentence of 12 to 30 months.

■ Be serving a first incarceration sentence or have a minor history of prior

incarcerations (e.g., for personal drug use or minor property offenses).

■ Pose a minimum security risk.

Dormitory facilities at

ICC Bryan resemble

those of military boot

camps.
 111

■ Lack medical restrictions.

■ Volunteer for participation in the program.

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

The original intent was for Bureau of Prisons regional office staff to identify candidates for the ICC program, with the concurrence of the sentencing judge. Optimally, all candidates for the ICC program were to be new court commitments meeting the eligibility criteria outlined above. When the ICC program started, however,

only a few eligible court commitments were available. An administrative decision

was therefore made to obtain volunteers for the program from persons incarcerated

in minimum security facilities who met the eligibility criteria. Both ICC Lewisburg

and Bryan now draw on offenders who are serving 12- to 60-month sentences at

Federal institutions. However, direct court commitments currently account for over

90 percent of admissions to the ICC facilities.

The ICC population differs in some respects from the overall Bureau of Prisons

population. This is illustrated in exhibit 1, which compares offender profiles for

ICC inmates with those of the general male and female inmate populations. This

program’s purpose is to place offenders in a highly structured, no-frills environment

for teaching self-control and discipline, thereby reducing the potential for future

incarceration.

Initial designees may be rejected if they fail to meet the established criteria. The

ICC Administrator has the option of terminating participants who fail to perform

appropriately. Inmates who do not fully complete the program are reassigned to an

appropriate facility and serve the imposed sentence without benefit of the special

incentives derived from participating in the program.

Admissions, Orientation, and Daily Schedule

Once inmates arrive at an ICC facility, they are appointed to a team and participate

in a 2-week admission and orientation (A&O) program. The A&O program familiarizes them with the mission, purpose, and scope of the facility and with the programs they will participate in. Each team consists of 40 to 55 participants who go

through A&O and the ICC 6-month program together. During A&O, staff tell the

inmates about the daily routine and the benefits of participating in the ICC program. Exhibit 2 presents a typical weekday schedule.
112

Exhibit 1. Comparison Between All Male and Female Inmates

and ICC Participants for Selected Characteristcs, May 1995

All Male ICC All Female ICC

Inmates Males Inmates Females

(N=81,748) (N=174) (N=6,216) (N=117)

Average Age in Yrs. 37 27 37 31

Race (percent)

White 60 64 58 61

African American/Other 39 36 42 39

Offense (percent)

Drug 60 82 70 73

Property 5 1 6 2

Extortion/Fraud 6 12 10 16

Robbery 11 2 4 0

Violent 3 0 2 0

Firearms 10 1 4 0

Other 5 2 4 9

Inmate Security (percent)

Minimum 28 84 66 99

Low 27 16 26 1

Medium 25

High 13

Unassigned 7

Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding. Not all offense categories are reported.

Percentages are based on the total number of inmates for whom information was available.

Community Corrections

After completing the 6-month intensive confinement period, inmates are transferred

to a halfway house, or community corrections center (CCC). At the CCC, inmates

progress through phases of increasing freedom based on demonstrated personal

responsibility and commitment to law-abiding behavior. In most cases, the CCC

phase ends with a period of home confinement supervised by CCC staff (Federal

Bureau of Prisons, 1992). In addition, inmates with a history of drug and alcohol

abuse are required to participate in Transitional Services, a program that offers
 113

inmates drug and alcohol treatment during the halfway house (CCC) period of

their sentences.

Arrival at a CCC marks the beginning of phase I (the CCC component) of the

postincarceration period. The inmate is initially placed in the Community Corrections Center. In this first phase, the inmate is expected to maintain regular employment in the community but remain at the center at all other times unless authorized

to leave for religious or other special program purposes. All family visits and leisure activities occur at the center.

Those who adjust satisfactorily may progress to the prerelease component (phase

II). During this period, inmates have greater access to the community and may visit

family and friends outside the center until the evening curfew. They also become

eligible for weekend passes and furloughs. Successful completion of phase II

allows inmates to be considered for home confinement, phase III, whereby they

live at home for the remainder of the term, under certain restrictions and reporting

requirements (Federal Bureau of Prisons, 1992).

Generally, progression through the phases depends on an inmate’s favorable adjustment. An inmate who fails to comply with CCC or home confinement program requirements may be placed in a more restrictive program phase or terminated from

community corrections programs altogether and returned to a regular correctional

institution for the remainder of the sentence.

Exhibit 2. Typical Weekday at the ICC

5 a.m. Wakeup call, physical training period, breakfast, inspection of living

quarters.

8 a.m. Work, education, or counseling assignments and military drill

exercises, before and after lunch.

4:30 p.m. Physical training, military style.

5:30 p.m. Dinner, followed by educational classes or team activities for

improving personal habits, team spirit, and military drill skills.

8:45 p.m. End of workday.

10:00 p.m. Lights out.

Source: Klein-Saffran, Chapman, and Jeffers, 1993.
114

Status of Program Participants

A total of 1,015 males graduated between Team 1’s graduation in ICC Lewisburg in

July 1991 through Team 22’s graduation in December 1994. Approximately 9 percent (94) failed during their first 6 months in the halfway house, and approximately

6 percent (70) failed after 6 months. Exhibit 3 presents reasons for these failures.

Reasons for the 10 arrests included driving with a suspended license or under the

influence of alcohol, fighting, possession of drugs, spouse abuse, shoplifting, sexual

assault, and trespassing.

A total of 457 females graduated between January 1993 and December 1994, of

whom 30 (6 percent) failed within the first 6 months of the halfway house and 21

(4 percent) during the second 6 months. Two of the three arrests were for fraud.

After 1 year or longer, six more females failed.

The Bureau of Prisons Office of Research and Evaluation is conducting a study to

determine if ICC reduces recidivism among graduates. To this end, researchers are

comparing recidivism rates among prison inmates in the first four graduating

classes to rates for a control group of regular minimum-security inmates matched

for their backgrounds and several variables. Recidivism was defined as a return to

prison from a halfway house, rearrest while on parole, or parole revocation for

violating parole conditions.

Summary of BOP’s Rehabilitation Process

The ICC program is an intensive application of BOP’s general approach to rehabilitating offenders in Federal correctional facilities. The Bureau of Prisons sees the

offender rehabilitation process as involving three elements: the institutional experience, community involvement in the offender’s life, and the offender’s personal

actions and personal choices.

The institutional experience. Prisons have the first-stage rehabilitative

responsibility of providing inmates with access to appropriate programs. In the

ICC, this consists of the intensive program opportunities previously described.

Prison staff develop ways to promote self-motivation and encourage inmates to

function as productive citizens. Innovative techniques are needed because

traditional self-improvement and treatment programs have already failed to

significantly help these offenders.

Community involvement. The community has a different but equally important

responsibility in rehabilitating offenders. Generally, community support starts with

the willingness of family and friends to maintain contact with imprisoned

offenders, assuring them that they are still part of the community even though

physically separated from it. Especially critical to this phase of the rehabilitation
 115

Exhibit 3.

Reason for Failure of Male Inmates Who Failed

After Time in a Halfway House

Drug 27 28.7 33 47.1

Unaccountable 21 22.3 8 11.4

Alcohol 16 17.0 7 10.0

Escape 13 13.8 9 12.9

Other 8 8.5 8 11.4

Arrests 6 6.4 4 5.7

Threats/Violence 3 3.2 1 1.4

Total 94 99.9 70 99.9

6 Months or Less

Offense Number Percentage

Reason for Failure of Female Inmates Who Failed

After Time in a Halfway House

Drug 8 26.7 8 38.1

Unaccountable 4 13.3 1 4.8

Alcohol 7 23.3 2 9.5

Escape 3 10.0 1 4.8

Other 5 16.6 5 23.8

Arrests 1 3.3 2 9.5

Threats/Violence 2 6.7 2 9.5

Total 30 99.9 21 100

Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.

6 Months or Less 6 Months or More

Offense Number Percentage Number Percentage

6 Months or More

Number Percentage
116

process are programs and organizations that continue to provide support after the

inmates are released from prison. They provide offenders services such as job

placement, counseling, housing, and other programs vital to successful

reintegration into the community.

Inmate responsibility. The third and most fundamental area of responsibility in the

rehabilitation process rests with the inmates. For institutional programs to be

effective and for community-based activity to be supportive, inmates must choose

to better themselves and not commit crime upon release. The ICC program charges

participants with the responsibility of taking advantage of all the resources offered

to them as they plan for their release as law-abiding citizens.

Future Directions

The Bureau of Prisons’ ICC program has received the enthusiastic support of

politicians, correctional administrators, and line staff, who value the ICC as an

option for offenders who would previously have served their sentence in a regular

prison environment.

As shock incarceration programs become more refined over time, administrators

will want to retain those features the research has shown to be effective and eliminate those proved ineffective. Moreover, if shock incarceration programs are to

serve as a useful sanction along the continuum of intermediate punishments, it will

be expedient for research to extend beyond the prison facility to include followup

with community components.

Administrators believe services such as postrelease drug treatment and employment

counseling will facilitate reintegration into the community. Organizational commitment to make these policies successful in practice will make it more likely that

expectations will be met.

Shock incarceration programs, at whatever level of government, constitute more

than just a response to prison crowding and political policy. They serve a special

need for specific offender populations. The results of evaluations of these programs

that take these special needs into account can then be used to expand program

options and maximize positive outcomes.

Note

1. This criterion was changed for the male population in January 1994. Currently

neither males nor females have to meet age requirements to be accepted into the

ICC program.
 117

References

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

Klein-Saffran, Jody. “Shock Incarceration, Bureau of Prisons Style.” Research

Forum, 1(3), 1991.

Klein-Saffran, Jody, David A. Chapman, and Janie L. Jeffers. “Boot Camp for

Prisoners.” Law Enforcement Bulletin, 62 (1993):13–16.

MacKenzie, Doris L. “Boot Camp Prisons: Components, Evaluations, and

Empirical Issues.” Federal Probation, 54, no. 3 (September 1990):44–52.

MacKenzie, Doris Layton, and Claire Souryal. Multisite Evaluation of Shock

Incarceration. Evaluation Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,

National Institute of Justice, 1994.

Parent, Dale G. Shock Incarceration: An Overview of Existing Programs. Issues and

Practices in Criminal Justice. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,

National Institute of Justice, 1989.
118
 119

CHAPTER 7

A Survey of Jail-Operated Boot

Camps and Guidelines for

Their Implementation

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

James Austin, Doctor of Sociology, is Executive Vice President for

the National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD). He

currently serves as director of several programs, most notably an

evaluation of “Three Strikes and You’re Out,” the National

Evaluation of the Multistate Correctional Options Program for the

National Institute of Justice, and the National Assessment of

Structured Sentencing Reforms.

Michael Jones is a Senior Researcher with NCCD and has

conducted research, evaluation, and population

projection studies in the areas of juvenile justice and

adult corrections in more than 20 States.

Melissa Bolyard is a Senior Research Associate with NCCD and has

participated in the evaluation of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s

boot camp program and the National Evaluation of Correctional

Options program funded by the U.S. Bureau of Justice Assistance.

This chapter is designed to inform criminal justice practitioners and

policymakers of current state-of-the-art jail-operated boot camps and to

provide guidelines for their implementation. The results are based on a national survey of jail-operated boot camps and an evaluation of the Los Angeles

County Regimented Inmate Diversion Program, both conducted by the National Council on Crime and Delinquency through funding by the National

Institute of Justice. Some of the suggested guidelines resulting from this

research are to (1) establish realistic goals such as reduced jail crowding,

inmate rehabilitation, and improved jail operations; (2) pretest the selection

criteria so that program capacity can be achieved; (3) limit program length of

stay to no more than 90 to 120 days so that time spent in jail is actually

reduced by program participation; (4) establish a strong aftercare component

so that the positive effects of the program’s rehabilitative services can be

maintained; and (5) conduct periodic evaluations of program operations and

impact so that the effectiveness of jail boot camps can be determined.
120

To date, most attention has been directed to boot camps as an intermediate

sanction in State prison systems. Typically, these State prison-operated boot

camps target offenders who would spend at least a year in prison had the

boot camp sanction not been available to either the courts or the State prison

system.

Most recently, there has been increased interest and activity in the use of boot

camps for jail populations. Often neglected and misunderstood by the public, the

Nation’s jail system consists of approximately 3,500 adult detention systems that

process 10.27 million cases each year.1 On any given day nearly 490,000 pretrial or

sentenced inmates are housed in jails.2 In terms of numbers, the Nation’s jails touch

more adults than any other form of corrections.3

There are a number of other reasons why a jail-operated boot camp can be of strategic value to the criminal justice system. Although the overall average length of

stay for defendants and offenders admitted to jail is relatively short (15–16 days)

compared to State prisoners (approximately 2 years), jails are increasingly housing

inmates who may spend many months in confinement; in most jurisdictions inmates can be sentenced to a year or more. In Pennsylvania, for instance, offenders

can be sentenced to from 2 to 5 years. In most jurisdictions, inmates can also receive consecutive sentences of less than 1 year that can produce total sentences of

several years without the benefit of good time.

Jails also hold significant numbers of State-sentenced inmates who spend many

months there. For example, paroled prisoners who violate the terms of their parole

are generally housed in local detention facilities until a decision is made by the

State to revoke the prisoner’s parole status. Such decisions may not be determined

for several months.

Crowding in State facilities has also led to a wider use of jails to house long-term,

State-sentenced prisoners (often for well over a year). Nearly 54,000 State and

local prisoners from other authorities are now held in jail facilities.4

Because the inmate population found in jails is so diversified and differs from the

State prison population, program goals and attributes associated with prisonoperated boot camps may not apply or may be more difficult to achieve in a jailoperated boot camp. For example, a 180-day program in prison may result in early

release for participants and subsequently reduce prison crowding, but due to a

shorter average length of stay, a 180-day program will not produce the same effect

in jails.

However, a boot camp may be particularly useful in jails for other reasons. For example, it may serve as an effective intermediate sanction for probation or parole

violators in lieu of revocation and commitment to State prison. Significant numbers

of adults placed on probation subsequently violate probation and are readmitted to
 121

jail to await the court decisions on whether to return them to probation or commit

them to prison. Offenders may spend substantial periods of time in custody during

this process.

The data in this chapter are based on a 1992 survey funded by the National Institute

of Justice (NIJ) and conducted by the National Council on Crime and Delinquency

(NCCD). The survey sought information on the number and characteristics of jailoperated boot camps across the Nation. In addition, data from an NIJ evaluation

conducted by NCCD of the now defunct Los Angeles Sheriff’s Regimented Inmate

Diversion (RID) boot camp program are included to shed light on practical issues

in implementing jail boot camp programs.5

During spring 1992, NCCD mailed more than 2,200 letters to sheriffs, jail administrators, and State-operated probation departments throughout the United States to

identify the number and characteristics of jail boot camps then in existence. The

survey also asked whether jail administrators were interested in establishing boot

camps or planning to do so in the near future. Approximately 200 (10 percent) of

these surveys were returned, with 10 jurisdictions indicating that they were operating boot camps.6

 In addition, 13 jurisdictions reported that they were planning to

open boot camps in 1992 or 1993. An additional 130 jurisdictions responded that

they had no immediate plans but were interested in opening ones in the near future.

These survey results indicate that the popularity of jail-operated boot camps was

growing.7 Since 1993, the Bureau of Justice Assistance has funded three countybased boot camps for young adult offenders as part of its Correctional Options

demonstration program. And, as part of the 1994 Crime Bill, the U.S. Department

of Justice funded another 12 county or regional boot camp programs in 1995.

A detailed followup telephone interview was conducted with each of the 10 identified boot camp programs to obtain more detailed information about how they operated. Following the interviews, NCCD researchers visited four boot camp programs

to supplement information already collected and to learn more from program

administrators and offenders about their boot camp experiences.

Organizational Characteristics

All of the surveyed boot camps were funded by State, city, or county governments

(exhibit 1) and administered by local sheriff or county departments of corrections.

Most of these programs were relatively new, having begun operations in 1991 or

1992. The earliest programs began in New Orleans (1986) and in Travis County,

Texas (1988).

Although the programs tended to be located within large jail systems (all but 2 systems had 2,000 or more inmates), the size of the programs was quite small (ranging

from 12 to 380 inmates), thus representing only a small proportion of the total jail
122 Exhibit 1. Jail Boot Camps: Organizational Attributes Travis, New York New York Santa Nassau, New Orleans, Harris, Ontario, 

Attributes TX City—Men City—Women Clara, CA NY LA TX NY Startup date 9/88 10/90 10/91 4/91 4/92 8/86 5/91 3/92 Bed capacity 76 300 100 44 38 126 384 18 ADP—County 2,222 21,449 21,449 4,026 1,940 4,600 14,512 120 

 jail system

ADP—Boot camp 57 210 84 26 14 80 348 15 Percent of 75% 70% 84% 59% 37% 63% 91% 83% capacityAnnual 266 1,059 210 124 N/A 177 814 108 

admissionsProgram length 90–120 60 70 63–70 90 250–300 90–120a 5 

in daysAverage length 120 60 70 65 N/A 275 120 5 of stay

Number of staff 20 119 24.5 8.5 21 24 119 19  Administrative 5 3 4 .5 5 1 4 3 

 Custody 3 101 17 8 14 23 65 6  Program 12 15 3.5 0 2 0 50 10b Total annual $1.1 $367,119c $858,174 $507,000 $600,000 $879,175 $3.5 no separate 

budget Million Million budgetStaff-to-inmateratio 1:3 1:2 1:4 1:3 1.5:1 1:4 1:3 1:2b Cost per $53 $5c $28 $53 $117 $30 $28 N/A 

inmate/dayFunding county city city county Federal, county State N/A cosource(s) State, and and 

county county co

a Length of stay is extended beyond 120 days for inmates with disciplinary problems.b Part-time volunteer personnel not included in staff-to-inmate ratio.c Staff salary only; does not include maintenance costs.
 123

population. The expected length of stay in these programs was considerably shorter

than in prison boot camps. Five of the 10 programs had a maximum length of stay

of less than 70 days, whereas prison boot camp stays ranged from 3 to 6 months.

Almost all of the programs operated at less than their design capacity, due in part to

the selection criteria, lack of coordination among criminal justice agencies, and the

fact that few jail inmates would be in custody longer than the expected duration of

the boot camp program.

Considerable variation existed among the sites in their staffing and funding levels.

Some programs—like New York City (men’s program), and Harris County, Texas—

had both a large program staff and a large custody staff. Consequently, their staffto-inmate ratios were quite high.

Documenting the actual costs of these programs was quite difficult since many of

the costs were appended to the jurisdiction’s overall jail budget. Where such data

existed, program budgets ranged from $400,000 for the 60-bed program in Oakland, Michigan, to $3.5 million for the 384-bed program in Harris County, Texas.

Program Goals

Like prison boot camps, jail boot camps list many goals they hope to accomplish,

ranging from rehabilitation to punishment (exhibit 2). In the survey not all programs viewed reducing jail crowding as an important goal—perhaps recognizing

that achieving such a goal would be difficult given the relatively short period that

most inmates were in jail.

There is greater consensus that boot camps can reduce recidivism by rehabilitating

offenders through a wide array of employment, educational, vocational, and drug

treatment programs. These goals are directly linked to the perception that a large

number of jail inmates are not yet committed to a criminal lifestyle and can either

be deterred or rehabilitated through the boot camp program.

Some of the jails cited less dramatic but equally significant—and perhaps more

pragmatic—program goals. In some cases, the jail hoped that the boot camp program would provide a safer environment for staff and inmates alike. Some programs also enhanced the sheriff’s public image by having inmates participate in

community work projects. Many administrators looked to custody staff assigned to

the program to develop good interpersonal skills working with boot camp inmates

because they were exposed to a more assertive but personal style of dealing with

inmates on a daily basis.
124

0

2

4

6

8

10

Reduce

Crowding

Rehabilitation Punishment Deterrence Reduce

Recidivism

Safe

Environment

Somewhat Important

Important Very Important

Not A Goal Unimportant

0

2

4

6

8

10

General

Education

Drug

Education

Drug

Treatment

Develop Good

Work Skills

Employment

Referrals

Vocational

Education

Somewhat Important

Important Very Important

Not A Goal Unimportant

Number of Sites Number of Sites

Exhibit 2. Jail Boot Camp Goals
 125

Selection Criteria

The criteria for selecting boot camp participants were quite varied across the 10

jurisdictions studied (exhibit 3). Like prison boot camps, most jail boot camp programs tended to identify youthful offenders, although many had age limitations

exceeding 25 years. In particular, New York (men) and New Orleans had maximum

age limitations of 39 and 45, respectively.

Although most programs typically selected first-time offenders convicted of nonviolent or drug-related crimes, no consistent policy had been developed to automatically include such offenders at all sites. A number of programs accepted State

parolees who had not been arrested for a new crime but had violated the terms of

their parole supervision.

Four programs accepted both males and females, while two were exclusively set up

for females (Santa Clara and New York City).8

 It should be noted that the New York

City women’s program lacked a military training component. In general, coeducational programs had a low number of female participants, and some indicated they

might discontinue female participation.

An offender was selected and admitted to a program by one of two basic processes:

court sentencing or jail selection. At four sites the sentencing court had considerable power in determining who was admitted to the boot camp program. The court

recommended that certain offenders be considered by the program staff. After the

program staff screened the offenders to verify that they met the admission criteria,

the staff made a recommendation to the court to sentence the offenders to the program. In one jurisdiction (Harris County, Texas), the judge could directly sentence

inmates with or without the consent of program staff.

In five jurisdictions the jail had unilateral authority to admit an offender to the program independent of the court’s recommendation. In this situation the jail conducted its own screening of potential candidates who were either in the jail or were

brought to the attention of program staff by prosecutors or defense attorneys.

The process by which offenders are selected can greatly affect the program’s ability

to obtain recruits from the target population. In jurisdictions that rely on the court,

intake may be less than anticipated if disagreements develop between prosecutors

and defense attorneys on whether boot camp is an acceptable alternative sentence.

Several jurisdictions indicated that disagreements between prosecutors and defense

attorneys had reduced the projected program intake.

In situations in which the judge sentenced the inmate to a boot camp, the offender

was returned to the court when leaving the program. The court had the authority

to resentence inmates who failed the program to a longer period of incarceration
126

 Selection Travis, New York New York Santa Clara, Nassau, New Orleans, Harris, Ontario, 

 criteria TX City—Men City—Women CA NY LA TX NY 

Age 17–26 16–39 19 plus 18 plus 16–18 17–45 17–25 16–30 Sex Co-ed Males Females Females Males Co-ed Co-ed Co-ed 1st-time Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No No 

offendersNonviolent Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No No 

offendersOther N/A Low Low Substance N/A Multiple N/A N/A 

classification classification abuse offender

Voluntary entry For some Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes 

Voluntary exit No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No 

Judge Jail selects, Jail selects, Jail selects, Jail selects, Judge Judge Jail selects, Jurecommends no other no other no other no other recommends sentences, no other rewith jail approval approval approval approval with jail jail has approval jaapproval; necessary; necessary; necessary. necessary.a approval; no veto necessary. 

Placement judge then technical technical judge then power. procedure sentences; parole parole sentences.

jail also violators violatorsselects admitted admittedparole upon uponviolators. referral to referral to

boot camp. boot camp.

a Applicants screened by a board composed of correction staff, rehabilitation counselors, education counselor, clergy, and probation sta

Exhibit 3. Jail Boot Camps: Selection Criteria and Placement Procedures
 127

in prison or jail. Inmates who completed the program successfully were either

discharged or began a period of supervised probation. Some programs allowed

inmates to leave the program voluntarily while others did not.

All but one program (Harris, Texas) required that the offenders formally express

their desire to participate. Typically this occurs during the screening process and

prior to the judge’s sentencing decision.

Program Services

Jail boot camp programming was found to be similar to that of prison boot camps

(exhibit 4). The curriculum was generally separated into three phases of activity

involving varying levels of military drill and physical training; structured work assignments; adult, vocational, and drug education; and various counseling and life

skills programs.

Military drill, physical training, and work assignments were emphasized during

participants’ initial month. Most programs then allowed for a gradual shift from the

physical training and work assignments to education, counseling, and community

service activities as offenders progressed through the program. The number of

privileges afforded inmates increased as they progressed through the program’s

various stages. For example, in several programs, no visits or television were

allowed for the first 30 days. Thereafter, privileges were increased to reward the

participant’s performance.

Aftercare Supervision

Most of the programs included an aftercare component. Typically, after offenders

successfully completed the boot camp program, additional time was spent under

supervised probation or parole. In these situations, supervision was provided by the

county or State probation agency.

In a few programs, a probation officer was assigned to the boot camp program to

help prepare inmates for their release to the community. Several programs also allowed graduates to return to the program on a volunteer basis to attend group counseling or support groups.

Program Results

Little research or documentation was available to determine the success of jail boot

camp programs in realizing their goals. The programs had not developed automated

tracking systems that document admissions, services delivered, or program completion rates. Programs that manually tabulated completion rates showed that rates

varied from 48 percent to 93 percent. Disciplinary violations were the most
128

Exhibit 4. Jail Boot Camps: Services, Aftercare, and Completion Rates

Travis, New York New York Santa Clara, Nassau, New Orleans, Harris, Ontario, 

Services provided TX City—Men City—Women CA NY LA TX NY Phys. training & drill 3 hrs/wk 1 hr/day 1 hr/day 3.75 hrs/day 2 hrs/day 2 hrs/day 6 hrs/day 2 hrs/day 

Work 6 hrs/wk 3 hrs/day 0 1.5 hrs/day 4 hrs/day 5 hrs/day 2 hrs/day  ̊ hrs/day Vocational ed. 8 hrs/wk 3 hrs/day 2 hrs/day 2.5 hrs/day 0 3 hrs/day 2 hrs/day 2 hrs/day Drug ed./couns. 4 hrs/wk 5 hrs/wk 2 hrs/day 1.5 hrs/day 4 hrs/day 1 hr/day 1 hr/day 4 hrs/day 

Gen. education 5 hrs/wk 12 hrs/wk 2 hrs/day 1.5 hrs/day 4 hrs/day 4 hrs/day 4 hrs/day 0 Gen. counseling Yesa N/A Yesa 1 hr/day N/A N/A Yesa 2 hrs/wk Other Life skills, Community Community Personal N/A Community Life skills, Health 

4 hrs/wk services services, hygiene, services, 2 hrs/day education,

5 hrs/wk 1 hr/day 1 hr/day 2 hrs/wk

Special aftercare Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes No 

supervisionType of Depends Limited Limited N/A N/A Moderate Intensive: N/A supervision on risk aftercare aftercare monitor

level supervision supervision devices,

for parole for parole halfway

violators and violators and housing

conditional conditional

releases releases

Supervision Probation Parole and Parole and N/A N/A Jail and Probation N/A 

provided by probation probation probation Program 47.7% 69.9% 71.4% 79.0% 67.8%b 78.5%c 97.0% 92.6% 

completion rateNoncompletions 139 319 56 26 19 38 15 8 

Medical/psychol. 21 13 6 3 5 N/A 0 0 Disciplinary 114 126 23 16 7 N/A 0 8 Voluntary withdrawal 0 169 22 0 7 0 0 0 Other 4 11d 5d 7e 0 38f 15g 0 a Hours not available. d Legal.

b Reflects those still successfully enrolled in program; e Sentence served prior to program completion.

none have completed program to date. f Includes medical and disciplinary; breakdown not available.

c Reflects those still successfully enrolled in program; g Probation absconders.

no 1992 completions to date.
 129

frequent cause of noncompletion of the program, although a significant number of

offenders failed because of medical problems that surfaced after their admission.

There was even less information on these programs’ effect on recidivism rates.

Only four sites reported a 12-month rearrest or probation violation rate. One site

reported a disappointing recidivism rate of 90 percent. Another had a better rate of

26.9 percent, while two sites reported extraordinarily low recidivism rates of below

5 percent. With the exception of the now defunct Los Angeles boot camp program,

none has undergone any formal, independent study or cost-effectiveness

evaluation.

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

In September 1990, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department initiated the

Regimented Inmate Diversion pilot program in cooperation with county probation

authorities. This program was to function as a viable sentencing option for selected

defendants who were likely to receive lengthy jail sentences (180 days or longer) or

short prison terms, followed by formal probation or parole supervision.

Funded primarily by money and sale of assets seized from convicted drug dealers,

the expressed major goals of the program were to reduce jail crowding, reduce

costs through the avoidance of long-term incarceration, and reduce recidivism. An

important secondary goal was to improve control of inmates by establishing and

enforcing strict rules of conduct.

The program exposed young adult male offenders to a residential, military-style

boot camp for 90 days, followed by a 90-day period of intensive supervision (ISP)

in the community. In addition, RID required participation in formal education

classes, drug treatment, and counseling sessions.

Program Utilization

The first RID platoon entered boot camp on September 26, 1990. Despite operating

within the Nation’s largest jail system, inmate participation was substantially below

administrators’ expectations and goals.

From its inception the boot camp facility had a 336-bed capacity, but during the

first year the average daily population was only 128 inmates, 38 percent of program capacity. During the second, final year, the boot camp population averaged

only 250 offenders, or 74 percent of program capacity.

All participants were to be supervised in the ISP component for 90 days following

graduation from boot camp. At the end of the first year, 115 offenders were in the

ISP program, only 34 percent of the 336 program capacity. The number of
130

offenders under ISP supervision never exceeded 200 offenders—about 60 percent

of program capacity.

The chief problem was a lack of referrals from the courts. Offenders constituting

the target population—young nonviolent offenders—typically do not serve much

time in jail for their crimes. Neither prosecutors, defense attorneys, nor offenders

had much incentive to participate in RID. For example, in Los Angeles County an

inmate sentenced to 1 year in jail (a very lengthy jail sentence) typically served

about 150 days of the sentence. When pretrial confinement days are credited

against the net time to serve, a 1-year sentence can be further reduced to approximately 90 days.

Three specific steps were taken by program officials to increase participation, but

these had negative long-term consequences for the program:

First, institutional probation staff were assigned the primary task of identifying and

attracting referrals into RID. This meant that they were diverted from their original

tasks of developing personalized community supervision plans for offenders, providing counseling, and ensuring program continuity as inmates moved into the

community.

Second, the number of court jurisdictions targeted to refer cases to RID was

dramatically expanded. This resulted in a weakening of offender supervision

and services because ISP probation officers were required to spend increased

nonproductive time traveling around the county. As ISP staff became more

“thinly spread,” the team supervision concept was no longer practical and was

subsequently abandoned.

Third, the requirement of court-ordered participation was eliminated. Large numbers of inmates ended program involvement without any aftercare supervision. The

practice of administratively assigning inmates to the program also tended to remove

critical criminal justice actors (i.e., judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys)

from the vital referral process.

Despite greatly relaxed intake requirements, county officials withdrew funding for

the program in February 1992 because of lack of referrals, high costs, and disappointing recidivism. The last platoon graduated from boot camp in April 1992, and

the last offender exited the ISP component 90 days later.

RID Program Impacts

The following findings relate to the degree to which the program met its initial

goals of reducing jail crowding, confinement costs, and recidivism. An important

secondary goal was to improve inmate control.
 131

Did the RID program reduce jail crowding? No. RID was designed to help alleviate crowding by reducing to 90 days the incarceration time of inmates who would

otherwise spend substantial periods of confinement in pretrial and sentenced status.

However, as already noted, program utilization was well below expectations.

Furthermore, when RID participants’ total length of stay in county jails (157 days,

including pretrial confinement and length of time in boot camp) is compared with

the total time spent in jail by control group cases (88 days), RID participants spent

78 percent more time in the jail facility. The RID program actually increased the

inmate’s period of confinement.

However, it should also be noted that approximately 20 percent of the control group

received prison terms of 36 months with an expected length of actual stay of 17

months. For this group alone, the RID program would have reduced the use of confinement but only to the benefit of the State prison system, not the Sheriff’s

Department.

Did the RID program reduce the cost of confinement? No. The program was to

produce cost savings by reducing pretrial and posttrial periods of confinement and

by reducing the likelihood of recidivism. Analyses suggest that since RID inmates

were confined for longer periods than comparison cases, costs were substantially

greater than those associated with non-RID inmates. Moreover, the per-participant

daily cost of $64.77 was far higher than that for a typical jail inmate ($38.25 per

day).

Did the RID program lead to reduced recidivism rates? No. Although program

elements were all directed toward reducing recidivism, no evidence suggests that

RID program participants had lower rearrest rates than nonparticipants.

■ Overall, 250 of 528 RID participants (47 percent) were rearrested within 12

months of release from boot camp; the period between release and rearrest

averaged 132 days. Of 183 comparison offenders, 81 (44 percent) were rearrested after an average 106-day period.

■ No difference in rates of rearrest existed between offenders who successfully

completed boot camp and those who did not.

Did the RID program improve inmate control? Yes. One of the most impressive

observations while visiting the boot camp was that participants behaved very

differently from other inmates. Given the high ratio of staff to inmates, there is little

question that inmate control is enhanced in this military-type boot camp setting.

Furthermore, it was not just the high ratio of staff to inmates but also the high level

of staff intervention with inmates. Staff were encouraged to interact frequently with

inmates as part of the military regimen. With regard to institutional misconduct,

RID program participants had a far lower rate of misconduct than inmates in

comparable housing (such as minimum-custody units). In addition, serious acts of
132

violence (e.g., sexual assault, assault with weapons, and homicide), possession of

weapons, and drug use were nonexistent in the RID program during the period

under investigation. These activities did occur in comparable regular jail units.

Suggested Guidelines for Operating a Jail Boot Camp

Although jail boot camps were in their infancy at the time of the study, a number of

important lessons were learned about how such programs should be structured and

operated.

Establish realistic goals. To be of practical value to a local jail system, a jail boot

camp must establish goals that can be achieved. As indicated earlier, jail boot

camps listed a wide array of program goals. The most frequently cited ones are

discussed here, together with suggested means of achieving them:

■ Reduction of crowding. Given the relatively short length of stay for most jail

inmates, this objective will not be met unless the program carefully targets

inmates who are spending at least 90 days or more in custody. These include

probation and parole violators likely to be sentenced to prison or to spend

considerable time in jail prior to transfer to State prison or release to probation

or parole supervision. Diverting these offenders to a boot camp would help

relieve prison intake. In these situations, the State prison system might have to

subsidize the jail boot camp operations.

■ Rehabilitation. Reversing the cumulative negative experiences of these youthful

offenders within a 90-day period is, at best, a difficult objective to realize. A

boot camp program can improve offenders’ reading and work skills, help them

find jobs, and help them deal with long-term drug abuse. Research findings

indicate the Los Angeles RID program was successful in improving offenders’

basic reading and math skills as well as helping place them in full- and part-time

jobs. Such gains, however, do not easily translate into reduced crime rates.

■ Improved jail operations and public relations. Although not a stated goal,

perhaps the most beneficial aspect of boot camps is creating an efficient inmate

work force and safe housing environment. Staff skills, too, improved as officers

learned to deal with inmates in a direct but supportive manner. These, plus boot

camp inmates’ participation in community work projects, can improve the jail’s

community relations.

Pilot test selection criteria and minimize screening time. Once formal criteria

are set for determining which offenders are sent to jail and how long they stay, program personnel need to pilot test their selection criteria and their screening process

to verify that the program has enough offenders to approach capacity, and offenders’ length of stay in jail decreases due to boot camp participation. This can be
 133

done by drawing samples of potential candidates prior to starting the program to

test the screening criteria, methods, and forms. In so doing, jurisdictions can identify problems noted here prior to starting the program.

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

Angeles.

Limit program length of stay to between 90 and 120 days. To reduce crowding

and potentially produce cost savings, the designed program length of stay should

not exceed the average jail or prison sentence for the target population. Unless

there is compelling evidence that boot camp participants would spend, on average,

180 days or more in custody had they not been admitted to the boot camp, jail boot

camps should limit their period of program participation to 120 days.

Establish a strong aftercare component. For the positive effects of the program’s

rehabilitative services to be maintained, supervision and services must be continued

after offenders are released. In some situations this will require establishing a transitional halfway house, residential drug treatment, or intensive supervision for a

minimum period of 3 to 6 months.

Evaluate program operations and effectiveness. Jurisdictions should conduct

process evaluations that assess whether their program is:

■ Accepting the type and number of offenders for which it was established.

■ Delivering the types of services it should.

■ Maintaining an acceptable program completion rate.

■ Effectively working within the allotted budget.

Once these issues have been addressed, more rigorous impact evaluations should be

launched to determine the program’s effectiveness in reducing recidivism.

Notes

1. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Jail Inmates 1991.

Washington D.C., June 1992.

2. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Jails and Jail Inmates

1993–94, Washington, D.C., April 1995.

3. Assuming that nearly three-fourths of the total jail admissions represent individual adults who are booked only once a year, approximately 3 percent of the

entire adult population is admitted to jail each year. By contrast, approximately a

million adults are admitted to prison each year, according to an October 27,

1994, press release from the Bureau of Justice Statistics.
134

4. Jails and Jail Inmates 1993–94.

5. James, Austin, M. Jones, and M. Bolyard, Assessing the Impact of a County

Operated Boot Camp: Evaluation of the Los Angeles County Regimented Inmate

Diversion Program, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National

Institute of Justice, March 1993.

6. In the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ Jail Inmates 1992, three jail boot camps are

listed that NCCD was unable to identify during its survey. These three programs

are operated by Tarrant County, Texas; Palm Beach County, Florida; and Ventura

County, California.

7. As of January 1994, all 10 programs were still in operation. In addition, 1 of the

13 jurisdictions planning to open a boot camp in 1992 or 1993 began operation

in late 1992 (Hidalgo County, Texas).

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

women.

Editor’s note. The material in this chapter was originally published in 1993 as a

National Institute of Justice Research in Brief titled The Growing Use of Jail Boot

Camps: The Current State of the Art. This chapter amplifies the original version

with a more detailed discussion of the Los Angeles Regimented Inmate Diversion

(RID) boot camp program.
 135

CHAPTER 8

Santa Clara County PRIDE

Program: A Local Boot Camp

by Carole Sanchez Knapel

Carole Knapel is currently completing a Fellowship

with the National Institute of Justice. In Santa Clara County,

California, Ms. Knapel evaluated alternative sanctions programs,

conducted inmate population projections, drew up inmate

population management plans, and was responsible for studying

new jail and court construction.

Santa Clara County, California, instituted a boot camp at its Correctional

Center for Women in 1991. The program’s chief goals are to rehabilitate

offenders and reduce recidivism through a program that incorporates

general education, substance abuse education, health and fitness training,

parenting skills training, psychosocial counseling, job skills training, and

team-building exercises. The boot camp shares staff and other resources

with the regular facility. This 11-week program admits volunteers from both

pretrial and sentenced offenders (classified as medium- or minimumsecurity); selection is made by the program staff and administrators. The

program enjoys local criminal justice and media support, and an informal

review of statistics indicates graduates stay crime-free for as long as a year,

a better record than inmates released from the standard jail program. The

program has been increasing its emphasis on improving the education and

self-esteem of the women, using physical training, drill, and ceremony as

means to achieve these ends. The program benefits from an enthusiastic and

committed staff, but issues that remain to be adequately addressed include

training for staff and aftercare for released participants.
136

Until recently boot camps were thought to be appropriate chiefly for offenders sentenced to State prisons, where relatively long sentences, even fornonviolent first offenders, contribute to crowding. The boot camp alternative, which could significantly reduce the length of time served, offered a way to

trim both inmate populations and correctional costs for States. At the same time,

the intensive, regimented nature of the programs could instill the self-discipline that

would help those who completed the program to lead productive, crime-free lives

once they were released.

Local boot camps were considered to be ineffective because of the relatively short

length of time that offenders spent in jail facilities. In recent years, these assumptions have been challenged, and local boot camp programs are beginning to appear.

After outlining length-of-stay issues, this chapter discusses the goals and operations

of one of these local boot camps, Project PRIDE, in Santa Clara County, California.

Length-of-Stay Issues

The inmates’ length of stay in the facility is the first issue a local jurisdiction must

address in developing a boot camp program. The average length of stay for inmates

booked at local jails is 2 to 3 weeks. This figure may be misleading, however, because many inmates are booked but released within a relatively short time. Other

inmates may remain far longer.

For example, Santa Clara County correctional facilities booked approximately

62,000 inmates with new charges in 1993. For those who remained in custody from

the time of initial arrest until final adjudication, the average length of stay was 76

days. The average length of stay for sentenced felons in Santa Clara County was

106 days for male inmates and 99 days for female inmates. These numbers present

a significantly different picture of the average length of stay in local jail facilities

and suggest that boot camp programs may be appropriate for some inmates.

Traditionally, many jurisdictions have been reluctant to accept pretrial inmates into

the boot camp program because of concern that pretrial inmates could be required

to appear in court during the program and that their intermittent attendance could

be disruptive to the program and of little benefit to the inmates involved. In recent

years, however, more and more jurisdictions have begun to reevaluate this position.

Many jurisdictions have determined that inmates held in pretrial custody remain in

custody for long periods of time between scheduled court hearings. Having these

inmates participate in classes during these periods could be beneficial for the overall management of the institution. Further, defense counsel have often encouraged

inmates to participate in programs that address their needs. If a defendant is found

guilty of charges but has participated in a program throughout the period of

adjudication, the court may take this fact into consideration upon sentencing.
 137

Although local jurisdictions may share with State prisons the goal of reducing

crowding and the costs of incarceration, local programs may define this goal

differently, as Santa Clara County did.

Santa Clara County Institutes a Jail Boot Camp

Santa Clara County’s Project PRIDE,1 a boot camp for women, was instituted in

1991 with the goal of reducing recidivism and rehabilitating offenders. Captain

Kathleen Barrow of the Santa Clara County Department of Corrections had read

reports and seen news coverage of boot camp programs that had been implemented

in jurisdictions throughout the country. She noted that few of these programs had

been created for female inmates. In her years of working at the county’s facilities,

she had observed that many of the women who spent time in county jail lacked

self-discipline and self-esteem; on release from custody, many returned to criminal

activity because they saw no other option. They went in and out of custody on a

regular basis. Captain Barrow convinced the Department of Corrections that the

discipline of a boot camp program that included educational and drug counseling

components could help some women offenders. Further, she convinced officials

that if given the opportunity to participate, many of these women could become

better able to take charge of their own lives on release. The self-discipline and selfesteem they would gain from the program would enable them to change the factors

that were driving them to crime.

When the program began, there was little information on the development and

implementation of local boot camps. Thus, the department set out to develop its

own plan, tailored to the county’s philosophy, corrections operation, and needs.

Program Goals

Since Project PRIDE’s goals are to rehabilitate offenders and reduce recidivism,

program staff are concerned with the personal development of each participant. The

project seeks not only to increase the self-esteem and social awareness of participants but also to modify their behavior, help prepare them for jobs, and reduce their

likelihood of recidivism.

All program activities are related to one or more of seven categories that staff and

administration members believe are central to the program’s goals:

■ General education.

■ Substance abuse education.

■ Health and fitness training.

■ Parenting skill training.

■ Psychosocial counseling.

■ Job skills training.

■ Team-building exercises.
138

These are considered the building blocks of the program.

It is important to note that the county does not specifically mention the reduction of

both jail crowding and the costs of incarceration as program goals. County officials

and project staff members, however, point out that they do address these goals, but

differently from State prison programs. County officials believe they can reach inmates before they go through the criminal justice system so many times that they

end up in State prison. If they can produce a change in offenders’ lives while they

are in a county jail system, imprisonment can be avoided. Eventually this could

affect the size of the State prison population.

Staff members believe that if they demonstrate the success of their program, they

may have an even more direct effect on the State prison population. In California,

inmates assigned to the State parole system can be rearrested and charged with parole violations. An inmate can be sentenced to a 3- to 6-month term in State prison

for such a violation. Staff members believe that some of these parole violators may

qualify for sentencing to county jail and assignment to the PRIDE Program. If the

county is able to work jointly with the State Department of Corrections on this

proposal, direct reduction of the State prison population could be achieved.

Program Description

The PRIDE boot camp is located at Santa Clara County’s Correctional Center for

Women. The Center’s population averaged 425 inmates from July to December

1993. (The total population of the county’s correctional system is approximately

4,300 inmates.) With a capacity for 44 inmates, the program has been running at

66 percent of capacity with an average daily population of 29. Two out of three

women who signed up have successfully completed the program.

Project PRIDE is housed in a modular facility located within the Correctional

Center but fenced off from other housing. Although the boot camp activities are

conducted separately from the activities of the Center’s general population, some

of the resources provided for participants, such as drug education counseling and

general education, are provided by the same staff who furnish services to the rest

of the Center.

The daily regimen includes 4 hours of general and vocational education, 1-1/2

hours of drug education counseling, 1 hour of general counseling, 4 hours of

physical training and drill, 1-1/2 hours of work time, and 1 hour for personal

hygiene and health. Following an early rise and breakfast, inmates start the

morning with general education and continue with physical training and formal

inspection. After lunch, they participate in substance abuse education, self-esteem

training, drill, and further substance abuse education. After dinner, they complete

study assignments and maintain their living space and uniforms. No newspapers
 139

or television are allowed, and outside visits are limited to 1 hour on Sunday

afternoons.

Selection Criteria

Project PRIDE is an 11-week program. Because it operates in a local county jail, its

participants include both pretrial and sentenced offenders. Due to limited resources,

there is only one group per 11-week cycle, with enrollment allowed only in the first

week. A 3-week hiatus between each cycle allows the staff time to recruit inmates

for the next cycle, make necessary program adjustments, and complete other

administrative tasks.

Participants are selected by the program staff and administrators. Inmates charged

with crimes such as murder, manslaughter, and kidnapping are automatically disqualified. Although other serious charges, escape histories, and gang affiliations are

closely examined, women with these charges or histories may be allowed to participate. In general, the women who participate are classified as either medium- or

minimum-security offenders.

PRIDE staff members stress the importance of the voluntary nature of the program.

One of the program’s stated goals is behavior modification, but staff members believe that such modification can occur only when the inmate is ready to change.

The inmate must be convinced she wants to change her behavior and is ready to

participate in the program. This view is echoed by program participants, who say

that reluctant participants—even under the current structure—detract from the

program.

Participants are recruited by project staff members and by inmates who have completed the program but remain in custody because of the length of their sentence.

Generally, participants must be screened by medical and mental health staff members, must agree to abide by program rules, and must be willing to participate in a

rigid schedule of activities. Although graduates are convinced that the program

should remain voluntary, they are anxious to help recruit new participants. They

believe that once a prospective recruit sees what she can accomplish, she will

voluntarily enter the program.

An inmate who wants to leave the program prior to its completion must submit a

written request. Security and counseling staff interview her to address any problems she identifies as reasons for wanting to leave. PRIDE staff members believe

this exercise is important in convincing the inmate that they are willing to help her

do what is necessary to help herself.
140

Project Staff

Seven security officers are currently assigned to the boot camp to provide security

and supervision around the clock. Two officers are designated as program

coordinators to provide day-to-day program administration.

Staff members are selected for the program through a written application and

interview process. Selections are based on the applicant’s dedication to program

principles and willingness to work with inmates and to assist them in every way

possible to successfully complete the program.

An effort is made to select an ethnically diverse staff with some level of life experience in working with people individually or in groups. Staff members with this

background are considered to be more familiar and more prepared to deal with

inmate issues. Military training or experience is not a prerequisite.

In addition to the custody staff, the program uses the resources of the Milpitas

Adult Education Program, Friends Outside, and other local community services

and volunteers.

Program Support

The local criminal justice community and the media have provided strong support

to the program. Judges, prosecutors, and other officials have participated in the

graduation ceremonies, and the local press has provided extensive coverage of the

ceremonies.

Although the program has not been formally evaluated, there is anecdotal evidence

of its short-term benefits. In one case, a judge was convinced of an inmate’s commitment to change her behavior because of her participation in the program. At the

sentencing hearing, the judge noted the inmate’s changed demeanor and presence

and sentenced her to local jail rather than to a longer term in State prison.

Staff members have attempted to collect as much information as possible on the

203 women who have completed the program. They learned that 52 have been

rearrested, but to date no analysis has been made on the average length of time before rearrest. One parole officer noted that clients who participated in the program

appeared much more likely to meet the conditions of their parole and demonstrate

an improved attitude than nonparticipants. The officer’s informal review of statistics indicates that some participants were staying crime-free for as long as a year,

whereas before participating in the program they were arrested every 3 to 4 months.

Despite these indications of short-term benefits, one issue raised in discussions with

both project staff and inmates was the lack of aftercare once inmates were released.

Many inmates reported that they were fearful of release because they had no place
 141

to go but back to their old neighborhoods and friends. Participation in the program

had taught them that to live crime-free lives they must break these old ties. Yet

many did not have the resources to do this and feared they would return to old

behavior patterns.

To deal with this issue, PRIDE staff have developed an informal network of out-ofcustody programs that can be resources for some released inmates. Many of the

most helpful programs are residential ones, which provide group support for

getting off drugs, developing job skills, and finding employment. Sometimes the

programs are outside Santa Clara County, helping the women put physical distance

between their old and new lives. Program staff help graduating inmates find

housing placements and link them with funding and other resources in the community. Out-of-custody placements are rare, however, and the majority of those who

complete the program are released without any aftercare or followup.

Program Evolution

Because Project PRIDE was established when little information was available on

local boot camp projects, program administrators and staff members depended

significantly on the experiences of the Los Angeles County men’s program and

programs operated by the California Department of Corrections. Once Project

PRIDE was implemented, several adjustments were made in the program’s

structure and activities.

One of the basic issues was the definition of program objectives. Program staff

devoted significant effort to defining these objectives, and although there have been

modifications in the program, staff stated that such changes were possible because

of the clarity of the original program.

One change has been in the amount of time devoted to such activities as physical

training, drill, and ceremony. As the program progressed, a greater emphasis was

placed on learning and developing self-esteem. Staff members said that these issues

are perhaps more critical for female inmates, who have lower self-esteem than male

inmates. Physical training and the drill and ceremony are now used as tools to build

self-esteem and address health and fitness needs.

Staff Training

Santa Clara officials reported that because of a lack of resources, training was not

offered to the staff assigned to the program. Staff members completed a 1-day

session with the Los Angeles County staff but had no other training.

Yet the issue of staff training can be vital to the startup of a new program and is particularly critical in areas of inmate discipline. Because of the regimented nature of
142

the boot camp program, policies and procedures for inmate discipline should be

carefully drafted, according to project administrators. These should take account of

the special considerations due pretrial inmates, who have not yet been convicted of

a crime or sentenced.

PRIDE staff members also suggested that they be assigned to the program on a

long-term basis, since they have formed a working team that functions well and

could ensure the consistency of the program.

Many Issues Remain

Santa Clara County represents one of only a handful of jurisdictions that have

attempted to operate boot camp programs at the local level. Such programs need to

be evaluated to determine their effectiveness but have received little attention. It is

difficult to demonstrate their cost effectiveness, given their generally limited duration and small inmate populations.2

Additionally, since local jail systems often operate separately from probation and

parole programs, there may be little opportunity to develop aftercare programs for

those released from custody. Local jurisdictions that are considering implementing

such programs should look for opportunities to address the aftercare issue, including opportunities to work cooperatively with State systems. Since aftercare is

recognized as an important component in many State boot camp programs, local

jurisdictions may want to examine the potential for developing programs that

incorporate both in-custody (corrections) and out-of-custody (probation)

departments of local government.

Santa Clara’s Project PRIDE, however, benefits from a staff dedicated to the goals

of the program and enthusiastic about its potential benefits for inmates and the

community. The support of the local criminal justice community, coupled with

graduates’ interest in recruiting new participants, indicates that this local boot camp

program merits attention from jurisdictions faced with problems similar to those

Santa Clara County confronted when it instituted Project PRIDE.

Notes

1. The acronym stands for Practical Regimented Rehabilitation for Inmates

Determined To Excel.

2. See James Austin, Michael Jones, and Melissa Bolyard, The Growing Use of Jail

Boot Camps: The Current State of the Art, Research in Brief, Washington, D.C.:

U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, October 1993, as well

as these authors’ chapter 7 in this volume. See also D.L. MacKenzie and A.

Piquero, “The Impact of Shock Incarceration Programs on Prison Crowding,”

Crime and Delinquency, 40, no. 2 (1994):222–249.
 143

CHAPTER 9

The Development of Boot Camps

in the Juvenile System:

Implementation of Three

Demonstration Programs

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

Daniel B. Felker, Ph.D., is a Senior Research Fellow at the American Institutes for Research in Washington, D.C. Dr. Felker has

directed projects to evaluate drug prevention programs and boot

camps for juvenile and older offenders. Blair B. Bourque is a Senior

Research Scientist at the American Institutes for Research, focusing

on criminal justice program evaluation. She has recently conducted

an evaluation of boot camps for juvenile offenders.

The development and early implementation of three demonstration boot camps

for juveniles offenders in Cleveland, Ohio; Denver, Colorado; and Mobile,

Alabama, are described. The boot camps, which opened in April 1992, combined military regimentation and conditioning with rehabilitation and a range

of aftercare and followup services. Participants, who were all male and ranged

in age from 13 to 18, moved through three program phases: selection (including screening and intake), intensive training (a 3-month residential boot

camp), and aftercare (a 6- to 9-month period of supervision in the community).

Participants were all nonviolent, midlevel offenders, but the three boot camp

populations varied in the seriousness of their criminal histories, with Cleveland having the most troubled adolescents and Mobile the least. Up to half of

the youths came from families with criminal histories or histories of abuse and

neglect. In all three camps physical fitness, basic education, and life skills

training were part of each day’s regimen. Drug prevention and health concepts

were incorporated into various areas of boot camp instruction. The integration

of military discipline and treatment, selection and training of staff, appropriate levels of punishment, and integration of boot camp and aftercare are

among the issues that emerged as important in the future development of

juvenile boot camps.
144

I

n July 1990 the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

(OJJDP) announced its intention to demonstrate and test juvenile boot camps

for nonviolent juvenile offenders. The juvenile program established through this

initiative borrowed extensively from boot camps in adult correctional systems. Like

adult boot camps, they were designed as an intermediate sanction—an intervention

less severe than long-term institutionalization but more severe than immediate

supervised release—and targeted nonviolent offenders at risk of continuing criminal

behavior. The 90-day programs featured the use of military-like discipline and

structure in a comprehensive residential setting and were followed by supervised

aftercare in the community for up to 9 months. The programs were expected to

reflect joint public and private sector programming.

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

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

■ The Boys and Girls Clubs of Greater Mobile, Alabama, in association with the

Strickland Youth Center of the Mobile County Court and the University of South

Alabama.

■ New Pride, Inc., in Denver, Colorado, in association with the Colorado Division

of Youth Services.

The first 6 months were spent designing the intervention programs; the next year

the boot camps were operated. The evaluation of the programs covered this 18-

month period.

Boot Camp Designs

OJJDP stipulated the basic structure of each program as a contingency for funding.

They were to consist of four phases: selection, intensive training, preparedness, and

accountability. Within these general parameters, the three programs differed according to philosophy, needs, and constraints. These variations are summarized

below.

Program context. The pressures that led the sites to seek Federal funding were

similar to those being felt by juvenile justice systems nationwide: rapidly rising

numbers of juvenile arrests, increased involvement of youths with drugs, overcrowded juvenile facilities, and the expense of institutionalizing youths. In addition, juvenile facilities in Ohio and Colorado were under public scrutiny for overcrowding and high rates of recidivism. Boot camps were viewed in those States as a

possible means of alleviating crowding while also providing innovative services to

at-risk youths.
 145

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

complex.

In Cleveland the Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court contracted with the Massachusetts-based North American Family Institute (NAFI) to run the residential and aftercare phases of the boot camp. The juvenile court coordinated all program activities;

conducted planning, research, and evaluation; and selected participants. NAFI was

responsible for operating the program, training staff, and providing technical assistance. The court paid one manager out of grant funds to oversee the selection process and to serve as liaison between the court and NAFI.

In Denver the Colorado Division of Youth Services (DYS) contracted with New

Pride, Inc., a private, nonprofit corporation with a long history of providing community-based services for high-risk delinquents, to operate the program. DYS provided two client managers and a project coordinator to oversee operations, handle

selection, and administer parole. New Pride operated both the residential and aftercare phases of the boot camp program.

The Mobile boot camp was a partnership of the Strickland Youth Center of the

Mobile County Court, the Boys and Girls Club of Greater Mobile (B&GC), and

the University of South Alabama. B&GC was the prime contractor, but Mobile

County’s chief probation officer and the executive director of B&GC served as

coproject directors. They jointly supervised the boot camp director who in turn

managed the program’s residential and aftercare phases. Strickland Youth Center

provided intake processing, sentencing, and probation supervision through three

probation officers assigned to boot camp youths.

Facilities. All three programs modified existing facilities for their residential

camps. The Cleveland program, Camp Roulston, used two cottages at Cuyahoga

County’s Youth Development Center (YDC), situated 30 miles outside the city. The

program admitted a new platoon of 10 youths each month. Camp Roulston shared

classrooms, gymnasium, medical care, and food service with the YDC, but commingling was minimized and Roulston’s cottages were separate from YDC facilities. Aftercare services were coordinated from a facility in downtown Cleveland.

The Denver program, Camp Foxfire, operated out of a building at the DYS Mount

View Youth Services Center, where a regional detention center and the DYS Assessment Center were also based. Located on the outskirts of Denver, the facility consisted of a common day room, single sleeping rooms, a dining area, classroom

space, staff offices, grounds for an obstacle course, and a fenced courtyard.

Facilities were sufficient to handle intake of 12 youths every 6 weeks. Aftercare

services were run by Wyatt Academy in downtown Denver.
146

The Mobile program, Environmental Youth Corps, shared the grounds of the

Strickland Youth Center with Mobile County’s juvenile court and detention center.

Each month the program admitted a cohort of 13 youths, housed in a separate barracks-like building. Two nearby trailers were used for classrooms and administrative offices. There was an outdoor obstacle course adjacent to the trailers and an

area for outdoor work and program activities 5 miles from the compound. Aftercare

services were decentralized, operating from seven Boys and Girls Clubs in greater

Mobile.

Staffing. Exhibit 1 summarizes staffing levels at the programs. The cognizant

juvenile justice agency provided additional administrative and coordinating staff

support at each site. Cleveland and Mobile had the largest staffs with 22 and 21

members respectively for the residential phase. In contrast, Denver had only 12

staff members. Drill instructors made up the majority of all three programs’ staff.

The bed-to-staff ratio was considerably lower in Cleveland than it was in the other

two sites, but because both Denver and Mobile never operated at capacity, the

participant-to-staff ratios there equaled the ratio in Cleveland.

Exhibit 1. Staffing at Three Residential Juvenile Boot Camps

Staff Position Cleveland Denver Mobile

Commander/Director 1 1 1

Drill Instructors 16* 5 9

Night Security Guards — 2 3

Client Managers 1 2 2–3

Educational/Life Skills Staff 3** 2 4

Administrative Personnel 1 — 1

Total Staff 22 12 20–21

Bed-to-Staff Ratio 1.2 2 2.4

Average Participant-to-Staff Ratio 1.1 1.3 1.2

* Supplemented occasionally by part-time staff.

** Educational program provided by subcontract with an alternative education center.
 147

Operation of Juvenile Boot Camps

The boot camps had 6 months to flesh out policies and procedures and to prepare

their facilities before they began accepting youths in April 1992. The programs

combined military regimentation and conditioning with rehabilitation and a range

of aftercare and followup services. Youths moved through three program phases:

■ Selection, including screening and intake.

■ Intensive training, a 3-month residential boot camp.

■ Aftercare, a 6- to 9-month period of supervision in the community.

Screening criteria. In accordance with boot camps’ status as “intermediate sanctions,” OJJDP specified that the camps serve mid-level offenders, defined as nonviolent youths whom the court considered eligible for confinement in a boot camp

program. The programs met the nonviolent criterion by excluding offenders who

had committed offenses on a proscribed list—murder, manslaughter, sex offenses,

aggravated arson, and kidnapping. Denver and Mobile also excluded felony assaults. Mobile added robberies and burglaries to its proscribed list, preferring a less

serious pool of offenders.

Only Cleveland selected youths who would otherwise have had a residential

placement either at a State DYS facility or at a county correctional facility. Denver

The demands of boot

camp dictated

stringent medical and

psychological

screening to ensure

the youths’ physical

fitness.
148

targeted youths committed to the State DYS and also youths placed on probation by

the local juvenile court. Mobile defined its pool of eligible youths on a different

basis, targeting those who had failed on probation and had a recommendation from

a probation officer. All of the programs refused to accept escape risks or youths

rated unacceptable for minimum security status.

The demands of boot camp dictated stringent medical and psychological screening.

All three programs required participants to take medical examinations before assignment to ensure their physical fitness. Although the camps accepted youths with

alcohol and drug abuse problems, they excluded those who required detoxification.

Youths whose psychological assessment indicated serious mental disturbance or

problems were also excluded.

Only male youths were eligible for the camps, and ages ranged from 13 to 17 in

Mobile, 14 to 17 in Cleveland, and 14 to 18 in Denver. Although voluntary

participation is typical of adult boot camp programs, it was required only for the

Cleveland camp. Staff there perceived voluntary participation to have programmatic benefits as a motivational tool for youths. There was concern in both Denver

and Mobile that the incentive to participate would not be as strong for juvenile

offenders as it is for adults, who accept boot camp in lieu of longer prison terms,

and that they would not have enough volunteers. Moreover, in Mobile, judges

viewed voluntary participation as a limit on their judicial discretion.

Over the first year of operation the programs adjusted their selection criteria. Some

sites found medical screening to be insufficient, failing in some cases to detect serious health problems. All of the sites initially admitted youths they could not control

and tried to avoid this problem early in the program by eliminating participants

with a history of fighting. Cleveland, however, relaxed the nonviolent criterion to

include youths who had committed excluded offenses as long as those offenses

were not the committing offenses for boot camp.

Because youths entered the boot camps in platoons of 10 to 13, the selection process had to occur early enough to identify sufficient numbers of youths by the

transfer date to the boot camp program. In Cleveland, since youths are held in detention during the screening process, early selection placed a burden on the detention center. Although detention space became an issue only in Cleveland, all of the

programs had to tinker with the selection timing, criteria, and process during their

first 6 months of operation.

Screening results. As exhibit 2 shows, during the camps’ first year of operation—

April 1992 to March 1993—screening criteria yielded an all-male population predominantly composed of older, minority youths. Mobile drew a slightly younger

recruit class with an average age of 15.6 (compared to 16.5 in Cleveland and Denver). The majority of boot camp enrollees in Cleveland and Mobile were African

American, while in Denver they were more diverse: 35 percent were African
 149

Exhibit 2. Percentage of Boot Camp Youths,

by Age and Race—Year 1

Cleveland Denver Mobile

n=119 n=76 n=122

13–14 4.2 1.3 23.0

15–16 42.9 46.1 52.5

17–19 52.9 52.6 24.6

Mean 16.5 16.5 15.6

African American 79.7 35.1 63.9

White 18.6 35.1 36.1

Hispanic 1.7 21.6 —

Other — 8.2 —

*(n=118) (n=74)

 * Parentheses indicate number of cases with complete data.

American, 35 percent white, 22 percent Hispanic, and 8 percent Native American

and Asian.

The criminal records of youths in the boot camps, shown in exhibit 3, differed

across sites. Of Mobile recruits, 73.8 percent were on probation or parole when

arrested for the offense that led to their boot camp sentence—not surprising given

that Mobile intentionally targeted youths who had broken the conditions of their

probation. Similarly, 73.7 percent of Cleveland youths were on probation or parole

before entering the program. Denver drew a lower proportion of its participants,

61.4 percent, from a parole/probation population.

The instant offense (offense prompting boot camp entry) was a violation of probation or court order for 37.7 percent of youths in Mobile, including 9 percent for violations of CHINS (children in need of supervision) court orders,1

 for 29.3 percent in

Denver, and for 22.7 percent in Cleveland. Approximately half of the participants in

both Denver and Mobile were brought in on felonies, which were primarily property offenses because selection criteria excluded most felony offenses against persons. Cleveland selected youths with more serious offenses: 72.4 percent came in

on felony offenses; 16.8 percent came in on felony offenses against persons. Race Age
150

Exhibit 3. Criminal Histories of Boot Camp Youths—Year 1

Cleveland Denver Mobile

 Status in Juvenile Justice System Upon (n=118) (n=75) (n=122)

 Arrest for Boot Camp Offense

No involvement 16.9 9.3 10.7

Pending charges 3.4 9.3 3.3

On probation or parole 73.7 61.4 73.8

Other* 5.9 19.9 12.3

 Most Serious Instant Offense (n=119) (n=76) (n=122)

Felony against person 16.8 4.0 4.1

Property felony 26.1 32.0 40.2

Drug felony 23.5 2.7 4.9

Other felony 5.9 12.0 —

Misdemeanor against person 0.8 — 3.3

Other misdemeanor 4.1 20.0 9.8

Violation of probation 22.7 29.3 37.7

 Prior Findings (excluding instant offense) (n=119) (n=75) (n=120)

At least three felony findings 19.3 6.7 10.8

Two felony findings 21.8 13.3 10.0

One felony finding 35.3 30.7 35.8

No felony but at least one misdemeanor 7.6 20.0 17.5

No felony or misdemeanor 16.0 29.3 25.8

 Age of First Delinquent Referral (n=119) (n=75) (n=122)

9 or less 2.5 — 2.5

10–11 5.0 — 7.4

12–13 21.9 18.6 29.5

14–15 45.4 45.3 48.4

16 or older 25.2 36.0 12.3

Mean age of 1st delinquency/status referral 13.9 **** 13.3

Mean age of 1st delinquency referral 14.3 14.9 13.7

 Most Serious Prior Sanction (n=119) (n=76) (n=100)

Commitment 26.9 3.9 4.9

Probation plus detention/Camp Basic** 0.0 44.7 16.4

Intensive probation 21.8 *** 1.6

Probation 35.3 25.0 61.5

None of the above 16.0 26.3 15.5

Parentheses indicate number of cases with complete data.

* Includes informal adjustments, stayed commitments, escape, residential facility.

** Camp Basic was a precursor to the boot camp in Mobile.

*** In Denver, no distinction could be made between intensive and regular probation.

However, the intensive probation program was reported to be quite small.

**** No data on status offenses were available in Denver.
 151

Of the three sites, Cleveland also selected youths with more extensive prior criminal histories. Over 41 percent of the participants in Cleveland had two or more

prior felony findings, compared with 20 percent in the other sites.2 Almost 27 and

21 percent of the youths in Cleveland and Mobile, respectively, had been committed prior to their boot camp offense. Although only 4 percent of participants in

Denver had prior commitments to DYS, nearly half had previously been sentenced

to probation plus detention or to a residential placement. Youths in Denver started

their official criminal careers at an older age than did youths in Cleveland or

Mobile.

Exhibit 4 shows youths’ family characteristics. No more than 30 percent at any site

lived with both parents or with a parent and stepparent. At the two sites for which

public assistance data were available—Cleveland and Mobile—58 percent and 46

percent, respectively, of participants’ families received some form of aid.

Exhibit 4. Characteristics of Boot Camp Families

Cleveland Denver Mobile

Percentage of youths residing with

Both parents 11.9 15.8 15.0

Single parent 60.2 31.6 51.7

Parent and stepparent 13.5 14.5 15.0

Other relatives 11.8 11.7 9.1

Other 2.5 26.2 9.2

(n=118) (n=76) (n=120)

Percentage of youths with a parent or guardian who

Has been referred for child neglect 36.4 30.3 11.2

or abuse (n=110) (n=63) (n=104)

Is known to have a criminal record 47.7 28.6 17.3

(n=109) (n=66) (n=107)

Percentage of youths with one or more 43.0 32.3 33.0

delinquent siblings (n=114) (n=68) (n=109)

Percentage of families receiving 57.7 — 45.9

public assistance (n=104) (n=109)

 Note: Valid cases are presented in parentheses for the variable if there are missing data.
152

What is extremely disturbing in these statistics is the percentage of youths whose

families were engaged in the justice system through criminal records or child abuse

and neglect charges. In Cleveland nearly half of the youths had a parent or guardian

with a criminal record, and over 36 percent had a parent charged with abuse or neglect. These percentages were a little lower for family members and guardians in

Denver: 28.6 percent had a criminal record and 30.3 percent had an abuse or neglect charge. Less than 30 percent of the youths in Mobile came from families with

criminal or abuse records, but these lower rates may reflect differences in charging

or recordkeeping.

By all indicators, Cleveland’s program admitted the most troubled adolescents; they

had more extensive criminal records and more severe offenses. Mobile fell at the

other end of the spectrum, serving a slightly younger group of offenders who had

not penetrated as far into the criminal justice system.

The boot camp: intensive training. The most visible program feature at each demonstration site was the boot camp itself, a 90-day, paramilitary residential phase. As

in adult boot camps, this phase was designed to build self-discipline, responsibility,

self-esteem, and teamwork by employing military structure, discipline, and physical

fitness training. Because these programs operated within the juvenile justice system, their military dimensions were augmented by a number of therapeutic and

educational services such as remedial education, group counseling sessions, and life

skills training. The specific programming mix differed by site.

Military features employed by the boot camps are shown in exhibit 5. Only Mobile

had barracks; Cleveland and Denver housed youths in dormitory units. Each

program’s level of military-like emphasis differed. Denver created the most military

environment and Cleveland the least. Although all of the programs employed strict

discipline, including the use of group punishment and rewards and summary punishment, Cleveland’s disciplinary system was considerably less punitive, using

summary punishment only after staff had tried less punitive measures. Denver and

Mobile employed a “brig,” or punishment cell, for serious offenses, but Cleveland

did not. The degree of verbal confrontation and intimidation employed by drill instructors was less intense in Cleveland.

All three programs required youths to perform routine maintenance of their living

areas. Recruits scrubbed, cleaned, and polished living quarters and policed outdoor

areas. The programs considered work assignments that required little supervision,

such as cleaning administrative offices, to be an earned privilege. In Mobile, labor

was used not only as a reward but also as a form of punishment. Drill instructors

made youths dig and fill in huge holes, a practice later discontinued.

Physical training was an important adjunct to the programs’ military regimens.

Youths participated in daily physical conditioning activities, beginning with

exercises and runs early in the morning. Physical fitness tests administered to
 153

participants upon entry to the camps indicated wide variation in their physical condition, which raised concerns about the safety of an overly aggressive conditioning

program. However, staff reports and fitness test scores did show considerable improvement in physical fitness for participants by the end of the programs.

Although the programs’ designs included challenge programming as an integral

part of the boot camp experience, such efforts received short shrift during implementation. Denver never implemented a formal challenge program, although it did

construct and use an obstacle course. Construction of a challenge course in Cleveland was delayed for months while staff attempted to locate funds and resolve location issues with the host facility. Mobile employed a challenge adventure course

involving physical activities that demanded group decisionmaking and cooperation

Exhibit 5. Military Characteristics of Three Juvenile Boot Camps

Cleveland Denver Mobile

Barracks-style housing No Yes1 Yes

Military titles Yes Yes Yes

Military-style protocol Yes Yes Yes

Drill instructors Yes Yes Yes

Military-style uniforms for staff Yes Yes Yes

Military-style uniforms for youths Yes No Yes

Grouping in platoons Yes Yes Yes

Military drills Yes Yes Yes

Spartan regimen Yes Yes Yes

Summary punishment Yes Yes Yes

Group rewards and punishments Yes Yes Yes

“Brig” or punishment cell No Yes Yes

Public graduation ceremony Yes Yes Yes

Regimented daily schedule Yes Yes Yes

Verbal confrontation/intimidation No Yes Yes

Room/personal inspection Yes Yes Yes

Work details Yes Yes Yes

1For newest platoon only.
154

to negotiate successfully and a mountainbiking course, but the activities were

inconsistently scheduled.

Each program devoted several hours a day to educational activities. The Denver and

Mobile programs hired instructors to provide educational services to participants.

Mobile also used an individualized educational course, which culminated in passage of the GED (general equivalency diploma). In Denver academic instruction

focused on teaching basic reading, writing, phonics, and math skills. Cleveland,

after a few months of patching together a faculty using part-time teachers from its

host institution, brought in instructors from an alternative school to run its program,

which also focused on basic skills. In addition to remedial education, all of the programs offered life skills or social adjustment curriculums.

Completing a high school education was made a higher priority for youths at the

boot camps than vocational education or job preparation. To some extent the entire

boot camp experience was seen as a form of job preparation in that it attempted to

improve youths’ work ethic and manners and made them successfully follow a rigorous schedule. In addition, the programs included modules in life skills curriculums on finding jobs, filling out application forms, and preparing for interviews.

The transition to work received considerably more attention during the aftercare

phase.

The programs offered no separate drug and alcohol counseling sessions, but drug

prevention and health concepts were incorporated into various areas of boot camp

Completing a high

school education was

made a higher priority

than vocational

education or job

preparation.
 155

instruction. Moreover, the life skills curriculums covered substance abuse problems.

Cleveland attempted to develop a positive peer culture by holding Guided Group

Interaction sessions each week that encouraged youths to air and resolve their problems. Drug and alcohol issues became more prominent during aftercare.

Each program also included a case management function. Case managers developed and regularly updated individualized plans for youths based on assessments

conducted when they entered the programs. In Denver this function was performed

by DYS client managers, in Mobile by one of the three probation officers assigned

to the boot camp, and in Cleveland by a social worker.

Aftercare services. Following release from boot camp, youths entered a 6- to 9-

month period of supervision in the community. Structure, supervision levels, and

services during this phase varied across programs.

■ Denver graduates attended a special school operated by New Pride for 6 months.

The school was patterned after a private academy and enforced a tie and blazer

dress code. Youths regained their regular probation and parole officers during

this phase, with supervision continuing as long as sentences dictated. Some

youths were also required to participate in drug and alcohol counseling and other

programs.

■ Cleveland graduates attended a day center for 6 months, where they were

provided case management and supervision, counseling, recreation, and other

services including transportation and meals. The program also created an

alternative school at this center after finding it difficult to return boot camp

graduates to regular school settings.

■ Mobile graduates were given a choice of seven Boys and Girls Clubs in lowincome neighborhoods throughout the area to report to after school. Attendance

schedules were set by the program and their probation officers. The clubs

offered graduates tutoring, recreation, drug and alcohol education, and other

special programs. Mobile’s aftercare program lasted 9 months, but attendance

requirements declined progressively as the program neared conclusion.

Implementation Issues

Designing treatment intervention programs for juvenile offenders is a complicated

process in any setting. Even more problematic is developing a program that combines treatment and rigorous discipline in a highly structured setting. The obstacles

and successes these programs experienced while implementing their prototype

juvenile camps offer valuable lessons to others. These issues are addressed below.
156

Degree of militarism. How much should a juvenile boot camp be modeled on the

military? It is not a simple case of transplanting military recruit training procedures

to juvenile corrections. Consideration must also be given to the age of participants

and those aspects of military routine that address youth needs. All three programs

established structured, military-like environments where staff wore distinctive military uniforms and military norms of behavior were expected (e.g., “Yes Sir,” “Sir,

request permission to . . .”). However, the programs differed in intensity, and they

all revised the level of military emphasis either upward or downward during early

implementation.

Integration of military discipline and treatments. Boot camps are “carrot and

stick” operations where education and counseling are embedded in a disciplined

structure tolerating little individualistic behavior. The demonstration programs all

established clear-cut military procedures for morning and evening routines and for

maintaining an orderly flow of program activities during the day. However, military-oriented rules governing behavior of youths during classes, counseling, and

recreation had to be worked out as the program was implemented. All programs

revised their schedules to optimize the mix of time devoted to rigorous physical

activities versus education and counseling sessions.

Staff backgrounds. Should boot camp staff have military backgrounds and learn to

work with at-risk youths? Or is it better to have youth service professionals learn

military routines? There is no simple, single answer. The ability to operate a program that adheres faithfully to military spirit and philosophy requires formal staff

exposure to the military through training or experience. Some program staff members attended special training given by the U.S. Army or the Marine Corps. But by

itself, military experience is not sufficient. Juvenile offenders differ from the average military recruit in important ways—they are younger, less prepared academically, and more emotionally and socially dysfunctional. If staff with military backgrounds are employed, they should be prepared to work with juvenile offenders.

The programs generally found that the ability to relate to youths was more important for an effective staff than having military or correctional experience.

Appropriate levels of punishment and discipline. The three programs wrestled

with determining appropriate punishments for program violations. The extremes

were fairly clear: for minor incidents, extra pushups or drill time sufficed; for major

flagrant violations, suspension from the program and referral to juvenile court for

disposition could result. Intermediate levels of punishment and violations varied

across sites—restraints in Cleveland and isolation cells and hard physical labor in

Mobile and Denver. It proved difficult, however, to match violations to appropriate

levels of punishment equitably or consistently. Violations of probation during aftercare proved especially nettlesome. Program staff tended to be reluctant to file probation violations that might result in additional institutional time for youths who

did not attend aftercare programs. These experiences demonstrate a need for better
 157

articulation of program policies regarding levels of punishment, particularly on

what constitutes grounds for filing a violation of probation during aftercare.

Integration of boot camp and aftercare. Each program consisted of a 3-month

military-like residential phase followed by a community aftercare phase of up to 9

months. Program services for the residential phase were generally cohesive and

consistent because participants were in one location and easily monitored. Aftercare

service delivery was less consistent, largely because delivery points were scattered

and involved different agencies and because youths often failed to report at scheduled times. One method employed by two sites to ease the transition from a structured environment to the community was creating a separate school for boot camp

graduates to attend. But overall, aftercare treatment should be given more careful

consideration during the planning process.

Meshing public and private sector staff. Because of grant requirements, the three

programs were alliances of public and private sector agencies. As a result, program

implementation was occasionally hampered due to “clashes” of different corporate

cultures and lack of shared vision. For example, at times the camps’ military

aspects contradicted traditional notions of juvenile treatment, and program procedures deviated from standard juvenile justice procedures. In addition, “hard money”

staff having career civil service status had different work regulations and pay scales

than “soft money” program staff who were hired specifically for boot camp and

paid by grant funds. Cohesive program implementation involving a mix of public

and private sector staff necessitates integrated staff actions.

The Denver and

Mobile programs

hired instructors to

provide educational

services to

participants.
158

Prognosis for Juvenile Boot Camps

There are not yet any concrete results from OJJDP’s experiment with boot camps in

the juvenile justice system. In interviews many youths who graduated from the intensive training stage described the program as a positive experience, and some believed it altered the course of their lives. At a minimum, they were proud of having

completed a tough military program. It is also known that boot camps can save the

system money; how much depends on how expensive they are to run as well as the

number of residential days they save.

But the promising steps youths took at the conclusion of the programs will be

meaningful only after they return and participate over time in their communities. As

the demonstration programs concluded their third year of operation, their challenge

was to improve the transition to aftercare and continue the growth at-risk youths

experienced in boot camp.

Notes

1. Mobile changed its policy midcourse so that youths who were brought in for

violations of CHINS court orders were not eligible for boot camp.

2. Cross-jurisdictional differences in charging and sentencing practices make crosssite comparisons of criminal records difficult to interpret. One practice that can

inflate criminal records is that of splitting various charges connected with one

offense into several petitions. Neither Denver nor Cleveland split offenses, but

Mobile did. Consequently, criminal records for Mobile may overestimate youth

criminal histories compared with those of the other sites.

Observations in this chapter are derived from an evaluation conducted jointly by

the American Institutes for Research and the Institute for Criminological Research

at Rutgers University under the sponsorship of the National Institute of Justice. The

full report and a Research in Brief are scheduled for winter 1995 publication. The

demonstration programs were funded by OJJDP.
 159

CHAPTER 10

First-Year Evaluation of the

California Youth Authority

Boot Camp

by Jean Bottcher and Teresa Isorena

Jean Botcher and Teresa Isorena are with the California Youth

Authority’s Research Division. They have been working on the

LEAD evaluation since the program’s inception in 1992 and expect

to complete their final evaluation report at the end of 1996.

This chapter assesses the California Youth Authority (CYA) boot camp’s first

year of operation. The program, called LEAD, was established in 1992 with

a legislative mandate to reduce recidivism and provide a cost-effective

sentencing option. The camp serves CYA’s nonviolent and least serious

offenders and was designed with an experimental evaluation to be completed in 1996. This chapter documents the program’s accomplishments,

including the implementation of an officer training model that has helped

develop confidence, teamwork, and discipline at the camp; a generally

safer, healthier institutional environment, but with some emotional and

abuse problems; and short-term reductions in length of confinement,

although insufficient as yet to offset increased short-term program costs.

The following issues relevant to policymakers are discussed: (1) the forces

that work against cost-saving goals in a prison system, (2) the problems of

designing a creative, dynamic program in a prison setting, and (3) the need

for a solid treatment and training core with aftercare support. Also documented are inherent problems that will make LEAD difficult to sustain over

the long term.
160

The initiative for developing a California Youth Authority (CYA) boot camp

came from Joe Sandoval, Secretary of the Youth and Adult Correctional

Agency (YACA), the State agency that oversees California’s prison system.

A former head of California’s State police, Sandoval was appointed Secretary of

the Correctional Agency by Governor Pete Wilson. The Wilson administration had

good reasons for seeking out programs that would lower the State’s incarceration

costs, which increased dramatically during the 1980’s. CYA’s population of first

commitments from juvenile court increased from 2,190 in 1980 to 2,433 in 1990,

and wards’ average length of incarceration increased from 14 months in 1982 to 25

months in 1992. CYA’s estimated per capita incarceration costs had also risen rapidly, from $19,953 in 1980 to $30,783 in 1990.

In response to Sandoval’s request, the CYA established a departmental committee

in May 1991 to develop a boot camp program.1

 State Senator Robert Presley sponsored a bill mandating that CYA develop and evaluate a boot camp program. The

bill was signed by Governor Wilson in February 1992.

The Presley Bill specified program and evaluation parameters, eligibility criteria,

and policies regarding participating wards for the program, which was named

LEAD, an acronym for the qualities the program was designed to promote: leadership, esteem, ability, and discipline.

The legislation set two major program goals for LEAD: (1) to provide the State a

cost-effective sentencing option, and (2) to reduce recidivism. It also specified that

the program be a “treatment continuum” beginning with a 4-month, highly structured institutional component with extensive treatment and military training and

concluding with a 6-month intensive parole component with a wide range of services and a relapse-management strategy.

Judges were permitted to recommend but not select wards for LEAD, and CYA was

expected to make every effort to retain participants. In exceptional situations wards

could be retained in LEAD’s institutional phase for an additional 30 days, but they

were not to be penalized solely on the basis of not completing the program. The

law also specifically stipulated that staff not use corporal punishment or “degrading, humiliating, or inhumane” training methods.

Preparations

Planning for LEAD began in earnest in summer 1992. Weekly planning sessions

were held at the Preston School of Industry in Ione, California, the institution selected to house the program’s “boot camp” phase. A collaboration was established

during this period with the California National Guard, which was seeking peacetime service opportunities. Captain Robert Bradley of the Guard took an enthusiastic interest in LEAD, eventually providing the program training materials and staff
 161

training. He also persuaded the CYA to base the program’s instruction and drill procedures on the U.S. Army officer training model rather than a boot camp model in

response to the potential problems of inmate abuse.

Military training for institutional staff began in midsummer 1992 at Mather Air

Force Base in Sacramento, California, and in September the first platoon of 15

wards entered the program at Preston. The CYA’s parole branch then conducted a

series of planning sessions that culminated in a manual of guidelines and a 2-day

training session for selected field parole agents who were to work with LEAD parolees. The CYA implemented the parole program when the first platoon of LEAD

graduates was paroled in January 1993. The Superintendent of Preston and CYA

parole officials encouraged research efforts and provided unusual access to the

LEAD program, as did all other CYA staff at LEAD and other locations.

Evaluation Design and Methods

There are two legislatively mandated components to the program’s evaluation design. This chapter presents findings from the first component, which was an implementation and process evaluation to determine whether the boot camp was set up as

mandated and to describe how the program is functioning in practice. The second

component is an experimental impact evaluation, which will measure the success of

the program in achieving its goals.2

Wards were randomly selected and placed either in LEAD or in a control group,

with the control wards sent to other CYA programs using standard procedures. The

research team attended planning meetings at Preston and with parole staff during

summer and fall 1992, and subsequently visited the operating boot camp on numerous occasions to observe the living unit, participate in staff meetings, attend graduation ceremonies, observe program activities, interview staff, and interview wards,

dropouts, and control wards. Researchers also contacted parole offices to interview

wards and talk to staff, and they visited both reception centers to discuss screening

procedures with casework staff.

Selected wards and control wards were interviewed periodically toward the end of

their incarceration periods. Researchers used an open-ended interview guide that

included questions about what they liked and disliked about their programs and

about feelings and attitudes that LEAD is attempting to cultivate. Wards also completed surveys at various times during their incarceration on their perceptions of the

program and its impact on them, as well as a prison environment inventory designed by Kevin Wright (1985) but modified for a juvenile population.3

Evaluation surveys were administered to 122 LEAD participants and 72 control

wards.4 An analysis of the characteristics of the LEAD and control wards used in

the evaluation indicated that the two groups were quite comparable.
162

Immediately following LEAD’s first year of operation, interviews were conducted

with 9 parole and 21 institutional staff, including 13 of the 14 counselors originally

with the program. Questions focused on descriptive program information and on

subjective assessments.

Program Description Findings

The findings on LEAD’s first year of operation address the screening and selection

of wards, the institutional phase, and the intensive parole phase.

Screening and selecting LEAD wards. LEAD’s legislative mandate included the

following eligibility criteria: an age of at least 16 (subsequently amended to 14), a

juvenile court commitment, no previous LEAD involvement, no commitments for

serious violence, a history or risk of substance abuse (which has not been used to

exclude wards from the program), medical clearance for strenuous physical activity,

informed consent, and parole board approval. In addition, the CYA and the parole

board established policies for other eligibility criteria that excluded wards with a

primary need for the department’s special mental health programs, wards who were

illegal aliens, and wards who engaged in serious incidents of violence in the

6 months prior to entry that involved, or likely involved, substantial injury.

Referrals were considered from two sources: juvenile court first commitments and

parole violators. Exhibit 1 shows that 59 percent of first commitment referrals were

automatically rejected on the basis of the violent offense criterion and the much

less restrictive age criterion in the first year of screening. Of the wards who survived screening, about 85 percent were approved by the parole board.5

 For juvenile

court first commitments, only 12 percent were accepted after both CYA screening

and parole board review. For parole violators, only 5 percent of referrals were ruled

eligible.

The screening and selection process was occasionally contentious during the first

year. Staff at screening centers had difficulty identifying a sufficient number of eligible wards and were discouraged when wards were rejected by the parole board.

Some program staff complained about “inappropriate” referrals of wards they believed should have been excluded due to their belligerence, lack of motivation, or

need for more intensive psychological counseling.

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

the remaining wards, 19 were found eligible and 17 were not.
 163

Exhibit 1. Screening and Random Selection Procedures

(From July 1, 1992, through June 30, 1993)

Initial Screening by Parole

Agent and Parole Board

(Revocation Hearing)

Parole Violators

(n=950)

First Commitments

(n=2,495)

Screening at Reception

Centers

Not Eligible

Based on

Other Criteria

Not Eligible by

Offense or Age

Criterion

(n=1,469)

Screening at Reception

Centers

Parole

Board

Found Eligible

by CYA

Screening

Random

Selection

Not Eligible

Based on All

Criteria

(n=902)

Found Eligible

(n=48)

Accepted

(n=296) Rejected

LEAD

(Experimentals) Controls

The numbers on this exhibit are from fiscal year 1992–1993, which roughly approximates the first

year of LEAD screening and random selection. Precise tabulations were not available for the boxes

that do not display numbers.
164

Overall during first-year screening, eligible wards were, on average, 17.5 years old

and 40 percent Hispanic, 29 percent African American, 25 percent white, and 6 percent other. Of their commitment offenses, 69 percent were against property, 10 percent against persons, 7 percent drug-related, and 14 percent other.

Treatment and training in LEAD’s institutional phase. LEAD’s living unit or

lodge, Hawthorne, occupies a central location at Preston, one of the oldest CYA

institutions, located in the rolling foothills of the Gold Rush town of Ione, California. Three classrooms, a gym, and a common dining room are located a short

march away. A path runs beside much of the institution’s perimeter security fence

and, were it not for the hills, wards using it would be able to see the lodge from almost any vantage point along its course. No other living unit at the institution could

be more of a “fish bowl.”

The boot camp lodge, like most Preston buildings, is made of brick and stone and

was built in the 1950’s. Its setting is attractive and nicely landscaped, but fixtures

are old and furnishings spartan. The lodge is always kept clean and neat, and its

two offices are usually busy. Observers found that wards were usually completing

assigned paperwork, shining shoes, ironing clothes, or listening to or waiting for

orders. Wards rarely watched television, which was available only for educational

purposes.

LEAD’s institutional program is run primarily by 12 “TAC” officers, who are classified as youth counselors and occupy the primary staff positions in all CYA living

units. TAC stands for teach, advise, and counsel, key elements of the officer role as

defined in the TAC Standard Operating Procedures. The procedures, which are in

large part taken directly from Army manuals, stipulate that the most important

element of the LEAD program environment is the TAC officer.

Wards return to

their living unit

from school.
 165

This LEAD focus on staff leadership is due primarily to the selection of a military

officer training model as opposed to a basic boot camp model. It is the TAC

officer’s role to teach leadership and its attendant good qualities. The TAC officers’

role in LEAD is an element of the program that explicitly and theoretically relates

to reducing recidivism, which can happen in two mutually reinforcing ways. One

way is through the “referent power” of the TAC’s, the possibility that wards will

identify with TAC’s and emulate their good qualities. The other way is by internalizing the program’s discipline as self-discipline. According to the operating procedures, this process is made possible when wards experience successes in training

and when they identify with their officers. Toby and Pearson made similar observations in their study of juvenile boot camps.6

TAC officers report directly to a sergeant, who reports to a captain. LEAD also has

a full-time institutional parole agent, a psychologist, three teachers, standard group

supervisors who stand watch at night, two part-time liaison agents from the CYA

parole branch, and an office assistant. The program administrator at Preston in

charge of special units, who reports to the facility’s superintendent, is responsible

for the administration of LEAD.

The CYA budgeted and enhanced yearly cost of the LEAD program was $532,500

in fiscal year 1992–93. Enhanced costs are those over and above the standard living

unit costs of a 50- to 60-bed unit. A review of LEAD’s budget indicated that staffing the additional positions mentioned above has been the program’s biggest expense. LEAD’s overall budget, including the institutional phase, was $1,086,300.

The other enhanced costs included additional parole agents, an additional parole

board member, and research staffing.

LEAD’s treatment and training program is organized in monthly phases, visually

reinforced by color-coded T-shirts and caps. At monthly ceremonies, wards are

“TAC” officers

teach, advise,

and counsel

wards.
166

promoted in color and receive merit awards. The education program has a practical

life skills focus (e.g., on health and employment issues the first month) and includes individualized services such as GED (general equivalency diploma) testing

and special education screening and tutoring. TAC officers provide supervisory assistance in classrooms.

During the program’s fourth and final month, wards perform community service

activities, prepare for their parole board appearance, and complete their life plans

(narrative accounts of their past, present, and expected future lives that include reappraising values and developing plans to handle such issues as drug use, sexual

relationships, finances, and work).

Daily activities begin with reveille at 6 a.m. and conclude with showers and

cleanup at 10 or 11 p.m., depending on the platoon. Other activities include 2-hour

evening substance abuse training sessions that use a 12-step model, daily physical

training, drill and ceremony exercises, and lodge cleanup duties. Of particular note

are tutoring arrangements with community volunteers and the program’s voluntary

6- to 8-session bereavement therapy group, which was developed and conducted by

Dr. Gary Mackelburg, the first LEAD psychologist, for wards who had experienced

the loss of close family or friends.

During the first full year of program operation, 180 wards entered LEAD in

monthly 15-member platoons, and 107 wards were paroled. Because of the

program’s graduated intake process, parolees represented 71 percent of the wards

LEAD could have

paroled during the

year. Forty-five

wards were dropped

from the program, of

whom 42 came from

the 10 platoons that

could have been paroled. Based on these

figures, the program’s

dropout rate was 28

percent for the first

year. (One ward was

demoted for 30 days

at the end of the first

year but was eventually paroled.)

Physical training

includes a

monkey bar

course.
 167

Parole program. Guidelines for LEAD’s parole program are based on a philosophy

of providing the highest quality of services available to meet the needs of parolees.

The underlying goal is to use every legitimate strategy in the book to help LEAD

parolees avoid revocation and future criminal involvement.

The LEAD parole program involves both an institutional phase and a field parole

phase. Two “liaison agents” from the parole program work part-time at the institutional site, acting as a crucial communications link among wards, institution personnel, and field parole staff. These agents are to ensure the promised “continuum

of treatment” from institution to field parole; they also supervise LEAD parolees on

intensive parole.

Specified service levels for intensive parole in urban or suburban locations are two

contacts per week for the first 60 days and one per week for the next 4 months, two

random drug tests per month, and other services as needed. Rural locations call for

somewhat reduced numbers of contacts.

LEAD parole agents reported providing parolees the following interventions and

services beyond routine contacts: substance abuse counseling (46 percent of LEAD

parolees), employment referrals (42 percent), temporary detention combined with

counseling or “restructuring” (36 percent), alternative placements (22 percent), a

60-day residential drug treatment program (13 percent), required community volunteer work (10 percent), electronic monitoring (4 percent), and a full-time day

reporting program (2 percent).

Program Assessment Findings

The report’s discussion of program assessment is framed by two questions: Are the

program’s legislatively mandated goals guiding its operation? How is the program

working? Findings discussed below focus on the activities undertaken to fulfill the

goals and on perceptions of the staff and wards interviewed. Final assessment of

whether LEAD is achieving its mandated goals to reduce costs and recidivism must

await completion of the impact evaluation.

Are the Program’s Legislatively Mandated Goals

Guiding Its Operation?

The LEAD program is a rich assortment of treatment and training activities that,

compared to other CYA living units, are set in a relatively safe, positive, and disciplined environment. The program design is not notably theoretical. Implicitly, it is

based on the following assumptions:
168

■ By employing diverse activities along with individualized treatment, the

program will reach more wards.

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

■ A variety of constructive skills, positive attitudes, and knowledge will “produce”

less criminal activity.

The TAC procedures previously discussed, which suggest how wards can internalize new values and behaviors through relationships with TAC officers, do, however,

add a theoretical dimension to LEAD programming.

Reducing recidivism. LEAD’s first mandated goal was to reduce recidivism. The

evaluation found that the program, as specified in the enabling legislation, had been

implemented. It also addressed whether the program was designed and implemented with the explicit goal of reducing recidivism.

Virtually all staff expressed the goal of reducing recidivism by means of some specific treatment goals. Although institutional staff most commonly said that the goal

of the program was to save money, they mentioned only treatment and training as

methods to achieve that goal. There were some variations in focus among the boot

camp staff, the parole staff, and the wards.

Among the boot camp staff, the most commonly mentioned methods of achieving

LEAD goals were military training and structure (mentioned by 62 percent); educational training (43 percent); the 12-step drug abuse program (43 percent); motivational techniques and high staff expectations (38 percent); physical training (33

percent); good staff and role modeling (27 percent); and discipline and structure

(27 percent).

Most parole staff cited reducing recidivism as a major goal and thought that it

could be achieved through intensive supervision and more parole services. A third

of the parole staff also said that forming closer relationships with parolees would

help reduce recidivism.

Wards indicated in interviews that they generally liked the program and found it

beneficial. Those who completed the institutional boot camp phase typically

thought of it as an accomplishment in their lives. One ward pointed specifically to a

“sense of accomplishment” and added that “most Youth Authority kids haven’t

done anything difficult, anything to have pride about. It is instilled here. This is the

best thing that’s happened to a lot of people.”

Analyses of selected items from the ward survey and prison environment inventory

(see exhibit 2) indicate that, compared to control wards, LEAD wards thought staff

were more supportive and offered a more challenging program. They also felt they

had developed more self-discipline and lived in a safer environment.
 169

I learned a lot from the teachers in this program.

This program has helped me to be self-disciplined.

Wards have to associate with a gang to be safe.

A weaker ward is physically attacked.

 Exhibit 2. LEAD and Control Ward Responses to

Questions Regarding Personal Growth and Safety

Always or

 Often

Seldom

Never

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

 Agree or

Strongly Agree

Disagree

 Strongly

Disagree

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

 Strongly Agree

Agree

Disagree or

 Strongly

 Disagree

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

LEAD

Control

LEAD

Control

LEAD

Control

Strongly Agree

Agree

Disagree or

 Strongly

 Disagree

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

LEAD

Control
170

Cost savings. LEAD’s second mandated goal was cost savings. So far, data collected in this study have indicated that the program can “produce” differences in

custody over the short term, but these differences are not yet sufficient to cover the

additional costs of running an intensive program like LEAD.

Cost savings can be achieved in two ways: by reducing lengths of confinement and

by lowering rates of recidivism. Some experimental study data on confinement are

available on this issue, but they are based on very short-term analyses. Data from

the first seven platoons and their controls showed that 81 percent of LEAD wards,

compared to 50 percent of control wards, were paroled before the end of the first

year. On average, the LEAD wards were in custody 8.8 months, compared to 10.7

months for the control wards. Time in custody was measured from a ward’s admission to a reception center through September 30, 1993, and included any custody

on parole for any reason including residential drug treatment.7

Cost savings were then estimated by multiplying the average difference in custody

for the two groups (10.7 minus 8.8 = 1.9) by the number of wards in less custody

(1.9 x 103 = 195.7 months) to get months saved; and then multiplying that number

by the average costs per month of custody (195.7 x $2,303 = $450,697) to get estimated savings. The actual savings would probably not be as large as this figure indicates, however, because differences of this type would occur “at the margin,”

where estimated costs are typically lower than at the base. Furthermore, calculating

actual cost savings would require including additional costs of the program for

both its parole and institutional phases.

Over the course of the evaluation, many factors were identified that work against

the goal of cost savings. One factor is a belief in the efficacy of institutional treatment for a very needy ward population. In staff interviews, for example, 8 of 21

institutional staff spontaneously mentioned LEAD’s short length as a problem.

Even parole staff commented on the program’s short institutional program, with

one agent remarking that LEAD “needs to be longer to sink in.”

A second factor is that wards are often transferred out of the program when they

are disruptive. Of the 180 wards in the first 12 platoons, at least 30 were dropped

from the program for disruption, assaultiveness, or lack of interest and effort. Such

transfers, sometimes called “bus therapy,” are essential to the program’s overall

health and safety, but it is difficult to know where to draw the line.

A third factor might be termed the availability of special psychological treatment

programs, to which five LEAD wards were transferred over the course of the first

year. In contrast, not one ward from the control group was transferred to such programs, which suggests that LEAD’s strong emphasis on treatment has unintentionally produced additional institutional treatment programming. Another factor is the

parole board, which retains the power to deny parole following program completion. Despite a general understanding that the parole board would refer LEAD
 171

graduates to parole, one graduate was denied parole based on the need for further

psychological treatment, and another graduate was denied because of poor program

performance.

Program efficacy was also hampered by parole revocations after offenders were

released. Most of the revoked parolees were given one or more chances before revocation, but some simply exhausted the patience and ingenuity of parole agents.

Wards themselves sometimes appeared to be willing partners in the extension of

incarceration. They occasionally told interviewers that the program might be better

if it were longer, and two demoted wards said the extra time was beneficial to them.

One ward who resigned from LEAD was apparently partly motivated by his need

for a place to stay longer.

Finally, at the department level, lengths of incarceration in the CYA were beginning

to decline as LEAD was being implemented, and if these trends continue, they will

dilute any cost savings projected for LEAD. Electronic monitoring, for example, is

now used as a method of early release to parole. Nine control wards in the study

gained early release to parole by submitting to electronic monitoring. In contrast,

no LEAD or former LEAD wards were released early with electronic monitoring

and only three LEAD wards were placed on electronic monitoring to prolong their

parole. In short, maintaining savings in the LEAD program will be an uphill

struggle. At the levels of institutional and parole programming, the cost savings

goal often seems to conflict with treatment-oriented goals.

How Is the Program Working?

What are the prospects or promising characteristics of LEAD, and what problems

or limitations emerged during its first year of operation?

Positive results. In response to an open-ended question about the positive characteristics of LEAD, most staff (76 percent) mentioned military structure. Wards also

considered LEAD’s military milieu and leadership training to be important features. One of the program’s most successful training techniques is the rotation of

platoon leadership among all the wards. Wards expressed a clear awareness of how

this technique promotes responsibility, self-confidence, and teamwork.

Many staff mentioned enriched staffing patterns as a positive characteristic. On average, LEAD parolees had about two more parole agent contacts per month than

did control wards and about one more drug test per month. Moreover, as exhibit 2

shows, wards more often thought that staff cared about them and wanted them to

succeed.

More than half the staff considered the educational program to be a benefit, and

wards spontaneously mentioned their classes in interviews, noting, for example, the
172

practicality of learning about parenting and budgeting and the confidence gained by

giving speeches in front of class.

Another area identified by staff and wards was the program’s focus on physical

training. An analysis of ward interview data found that wards liked physical training and drill and ceremony exercises more than anything else in the program.

Seven wards demonstrate

the LEAD Trust Fall, a

physical activity designed

to teach trust. A

blindfolded ward is

assisted to the top of five

log steps. At the other

side below the top step,

three pairs of wards catch

the ward as he falls.
 173

Wards said that they had never felt better or been in better physical shape and that

physical conditioning improved their performance in other program activities.

After making many observations and reviewing survey data (see exhibit 2) and interviews, researchers concluded that LEAD living units were safer and had much

less gang activity than the living units of the general ward population. On every

survey measure of violence or gang activity, for example, LEAD ward responses

indicated less violence and gang-related hostility than control ward responses.

There were no significant differences, however, between the two groups in responses to questions regarding the existence of racial problems or the extent to

which wards liked or cared about each other.

Problems and limitations. A series of LEAD review meetings at Preston emphasized the need to develop more structured programming on parole. In particular,

LEAD parole agents commented that paroled wards need more jobs, job training,

assistance with schooling, and housing alternatives. Parolees described similar

needs in interviews, saying that finding stable employment had been their most difficult problem. Parole agents placed over 20 percent of the LEAD parolees in alternative housing during the first year, and in some cases these placements appeared

to have been critical to their short-term success.

Another issue is the need for an adequate number of candidates for LEAD. An

analysis of the overall CYA pool of LEAD candidates (based on age and commitment offense) suggests that many potential participants were not properly tapped

by LEAD’s screening process. The CYA parole branch also studied the issue of

screening parole violators and reported that about 40 percent of current parole

violators represent an eligible but untapped pool of candidates.

A closely related issue is that of appropriate screening. A third of the institutional

staff and over half of the parole agents felt that LEAD wards were too criminally

sophisticated, immature, or unmotivated. Administrative steps have been taken to

resolve the problems, but interviews with institutional and parole staff suggest that

this issue has not been adequately addressed at the program level. The development

of the program itself, however, has revealed that virtually all wards present difficult

problems in terms of treatment or training, and staff will almost certainly have to

develop more realistic expectations of ward accomplishment. However, this adjustment should be made without compromising the staff’s ability to use high expectations as an important motivational tool.

The most common, and most controversial, criticism among institutional staff was

the need for shift rotation to alleviate burnout. LEAD’s original design built three

yearly shift rotations into the program, but when the union representing staff

counselors successfully challenged these rotations, no other comparable staffing

arrangements were made. Although a few staff members supported the union’s
174

position, nearly all agreed that the program was unusually exhausting and that

variations in assignment could provide some relief.

Very few staff felt that emotional abuse of wards was a problem at LEAD. They

acknowledged the confrontational nature of their military training techniques but

tended not to find them excessive or abusive. However, ward responses to questions

on emotional abuse presented a different picture. Both LEAD and control wards

were likely to feel that some staff got carried away with their power over wards,

although neither group typically reported being physically threatened by staff. (The

LEAD group was, however, more likely to report physical threats than the control

group.) About half of each group reported being embarrassed or humiliated in front

of other wards; on the other hand, neither group felt that their program was too

harsh or punishing (see exhibit 3). This information, as well as intimations of degrading techniques used by a few staff, suggest that some of LEAD’s confrontational training methods should be toned down.

A number of staff criticisms directly or indirectly spoke to the need for administrative refinements at the level of institutional program delivery. About 24 percent of

the staff directly mentioned administrative problems, and slightly higher proportions mentioned staff communication problems and conflicts regarding disciplinary

procedures. Recent review meetings isolated a leadership-related problem as well—

the program’s need for a shared vision and shared goals. For example, some staff

mentioned conflicts with management over LEAD’s level of ward attrition. If

everyone shared the cost savings goal, however, there would be more consensus on

the need to contain ward attrition.

LEAD functions administratively in much the same way that other living units

function, with two levels of staff supervision and standard procedures for most aspects of the program (e.g., grievance and disciplinary procedures). At LEAD, however, daily situations must be handled more creatively to motivate wards and keep

them to the program’s strict time commitments, and to ensure that wards are not

lost to other programs. LEAD supervisors must creatively resolve issues that other

programs do not have to deal with, such as being fair with wards in disciplinary

situations while at the same time maintaining the program’s momentum. Put differently, a certain inconsistency is required in LEAD to handle wards individually and

constructively, according to each ward’s needs and abilities.

Staff also expressed the need to have supervisors on hand more of the time. This

need stems from another area that reflects the differences between LEAD and other

CYA programs. LEAD thrives on relationships rather than on established procedures and requires an administrative structure somewhat different from that used by

other programs.

This chapter’s discussion of cost savings pointed to the many factors that work to

lengthen incarceration time in CYA. Given the instability of ward motivations for a
 175

Some staff really get carried away with their power over wards.

Wards are physically threatened by the staff.

Staff have embarrassed or humiliated me in front of other wards.

This program is too harsh and punishing.

Exhibit 3. LEAD and Control Ward Responses to

 Questions Regarding Emotional Abuse

Strongly Agree

Agree

Disagree or

 Strongly

 Disagree

Disagree

 Strongly

Disagree

 Strongly

 Agree

Agree

 Strongly

Disagree

 Never

Seldom

Always or

 Often

Disagree

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

0 10 20 30 40 50

LEAD

Control

LEAD

Control

LEAD

Control

LEAD

Control

Agree or

Strongly

Agree
176

program such as LEAD, this issue will likely be a perennial problem. However, the

program’s 28-percent attrition rate during the first year may not be unduly high as

long as it is kept in check.

Because most TAC officers do not have prior military experience and because new

staff are hired from time to time, periodic military training is essential. A degree of

slackness in current military procedures and drill and ceremony exercises was

noted by about 20 percent of staff interviewees. Moreover, ward interviewees typically requested even more disciplined military procedures. Although they were

critical of demeaning or humiliating tactics, wards were almost uniformly in favor

of tight structure and discipline.

Finally, about one-third of parole agents interviewed said that their case counts

were too high for intensive supervision, and one-fifth of institutional staff complained about staffing shortages due to limited backup during staff absences and

replacement. Staff supervision levels may need to be monitored more closely to

ensure that enriched staffing patterns—a hallmark of this program—are continued.

Conclusions

Although LEAD had some notable accomplishments during its first year, the program will be difficult to sustain if some of its inherent problems and limitations are

not resolved. This report concludes with five suggestions for program continuation

and refinement:

Two wards prepare

resumes as part of

their education

and preparation for

release.
 177

■ Work toward some variation or modification of TAC officer assignments to

address staff burnout, a serious problem that will sap the vitality of LEAD if left

unattended.

■ Establish periodic program review processes and staff training, as well as CYA

departmental administrative support for boot camp staff leaders. Coordinate

program services among CYA branches. Experiment with program supervisory

patterns and staff leadership strategies.

■ Continue work on a transitional program in the community that, if possible,

includes employment. There is simply overwhelming evidence that wards

released to the community lack the opportunities and overall skills required for

long-term success.

■ Integrate the program’s cost savings goal with its treatment goals. While

requiring a great deal of creativity, meeting both these needs may be possible

through greater reliance on the treatment continuum (from institution to parole),

more extensive use of relapse management strategies, and possibly policy

revisions that permit LEAD parolees to return to the program for brief periods

of restructuring. To lower attrition, for example, referrals to parole could in

some cases be made contingent on more rigorously defined treatment in the

community. Linking parole to more treatment in this way might also provide

more assistance to wards who need several chances to succeed in community

supervision. Staff who know and care about such wards might be well poised to

help them restructure their plans.

■ Cultivate and maintain positive features of the program. Prominent among these

features are the program’s safe and constructive environment, and the leadership

rotation and TAC mentoring strategies provided in the military officer training

model. While the military milieu has something to offer by way of disciplinary

structure, it is the positive and nurturing relationships of the officer training

model that stand to change wards in a positive and lasting way.

Notes

1. Later that year, the committee drafted a budget change proposal, which is the

procedure for modifying activities funded by the State, but before it was

approved, the CYA participated in discussions with the National Council on

Crime and Delinquency, State Senator Robert Presley’s office, YACA, the State

Assembly Ways and Means Committee (chaired by Assemblyman John

Vasconcellos), and the State Youthful Offender Parole Board. At issue were

parole board policies, particularly increased lengths of juvenile incarceration

and the need for new options for youthful offenders. A compromise was

eventually worked out.
178

2. Program effects will be determined in the impact evaluation by measuring

differences over a 30-month period on lengths of incarceration (the primary

measure of cost savings) and on subsequent arrests (the primary measure of

recidivism). Researchers expect LEAD wards to be incarcerated for shorter

periods of time, on average, than control wards, and that this difference will not

be offset by more arrests of LEAD parolees over equivalent time periods.

3. Kevin Wright, “Developing the Prison Environment Inventory,” Journal of

Research in Crime and Delinquency, 22 (1985):257–277.

4. Control wards were generally less accessible because they had been sent to CYA

institutions and camps around the State. Staff at those institutions were not

asked to administer surveys to ensure greater objectivity. Thus, it was not

possible to administer as many surveys to control wards. There were no

selection criteria for surveying control wards other than their geographical

accessibility.

5. Data on parole board approvals were taken from the program’s northern

California reception center in Sacramento because such information was not

available from the southern reception center or for any parole violators.

6. Jackson Toby, and Frank Pearson, “Boot Camp for Juvenile Offenders:

Constructive Intervention,” unpublished paper, 1992.

7. It should be noted that the first 7 platoons each had 15 wards, for a total of 105

wards. The experimental study groups through the seventh platoon each had

only 103 wards, however, due to screening errors that forced the exclusion of

2 wards from each study group (that is, experimentals and controls).
 179

CHAPTER 11

The Development and Operation of

Juvenile Boot Camps in Florida

by Elizabeth S. Cass, Ph.D., and Neil Kaltenecker

Elizabeth Cass is a researcher with the Florida Department of

Juvenile Justice, where she is conducting an outcome evaluation of

each of the juvenile boot camps operated by the State of Florida.

Neil Kaltenecker is Program Manager of P.A.C.E. Center for Girls/

Leon, a nonprofit dropout prevention program in Tallahassee,

Florida. He played a leading role in the development and implementation of juvenile boot camp programs while employed at the

Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services.

Florida operates more juvenile boot camps than any other State in the

United States. An important aspect of these programs is the partnerships

local and State governments have created to promote community involvement and the utilization of local resources. The six camps currently operating in Florida are run by county sheriff’s departments with oversight by the

Florida Department of Juvenile Justice. Boot camps target youths with a

history of serious offenses. The program is designed to “shock” the youths

into compliance by strict military-style discipline. This chapter provides an

overview of the development and operation of these boot camps, with

special emphasis on the State’s first program in Manatee County. Drill

instructors in the program receive more than 200 hours of training in boot

camp procedures. Boot camps have an aftercare component that differs

from county to county but generally includes a postrelease day program in

the community for several months after graduation from the boot camp

itself.
180

Although Florida has only recently employed boot camps as a method of

dealing with juvenile delinquency, it currently operates more such camps

than any other State. As of December 1994, juvenile boot camps were operating in six counties (see exhibit 1), and three additional camps are scheduled to

open in 1995.

Juvenile boot camps in Florida were developed through partnerships between the

State and local governments. Each of the six camps currently operating was created

through the collaborative efforts of the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice

(DJJ) and local county sheriff’s departments. General guidelines for operating these

programs are established by Florida statute and further defined in the State’s administrative rule, but otherwise each locality is given the flexibility to develop a

program that makes use of local resources and involves the community.

Statutory Origin

In 1989 the Florida statute pertaining to juvenile justice (F.S. Chapter 39) was revised, authorizing the creation of juvenile boot camps. The camps were to target

“deep-end,” more serious offenders, in contrast to adult boot camps, which are typically designed for first-time, nonviolent offenders. To be eligible for boot camp

placement, the statute stipulated that juveniles be between the ages of 14 and 17 at

Exhibit 1. Geographical Distribution of

Florida's Juvenile Boot Camps

LEON

PINELLAS

MANATEE

DADE

BROWARD

MARTIN

VOLUSIA

POLK

BAY

CURRENT BOOT CAMPS

PLANNED BOOT CAMPS
 181

the time of adjudication and have been committed to the custody of the State for

either (1) a capital, life, first-degree, or second-degree felony or (2) a third-degree

felony with two or more prior felony adjudications, of which one or more resulted

in residential placement.

The statute intended the programs to be an “intensive educational and physical

training and rehabilitative program for appropriate children,” which would require

juveniles to “participate in educational, vocational, and substance abuse programs

and to receive additional training in techniques of appropriate decisionmaking, as

well as in life skills and job skills. Postrelease community supervision is mandated,

and the camps’ residential and aftercare components must last at least 6 months.

An administrative rule was promulgated by the State to govern the operation of

boot camps. It set minimum standards for policies and procedures and serves as the

foundation for State oversight of boot camp programs. The State’s low per diem

funding of boot camps has not covered all of their operational costs. Therefore,

local communities have had to supplement that funding. With the involvement and

financial backing of local communities, programs could be designed to best suit the

juveniles in that area. To illustrate this process, this chapter focuses on the development of the State’s first boot camp in Manatee County, which has served as a model

for the State’s other programs.

Development of the Manatee County Boot Camp

In September 1992, discussions between the Florida Department of Health and

Rehabilitative Services (HRS) and the Manatee County Sheriff’s Office led to the

creation of the first boot camp for juveniles in Florida.1 At that time, Manatee

County Sheriff Charlie B. Wells was building a boot camp facility for the county’s

adult jail population. With the support of the Manatee County Commission, he

agreed to change the targeted population to juveniles to help ease burgeoning residential placement problems in Florida’s juvenile justice system. A program model

for a new juvenile camp was developed by a group consisting of local and State

HRS officials, Sheriff Wells, and his staff. The design made use of paramilitary

structure and discipline but also emphasized education, personal accountability, and

positive social values and behavior.

An operational contract was negotiated in which the State paid $56 per youth per

day to the Manatee County Sheriff’s Office—approximately half the State funding

rate of other high-risk residential programs. The sheriff’s office supplemented the

program’s budget by providing meals, medical services, and a computer laboratory.

This type of collaborative partnership between State and local governments became

the model for boot camps subsequently opened around the State.
182

Staffing. The program’s drill instructors are members of the Manatee County

Sheriff’s Office who previously worked as correctional officers in the county jail.

In addition to the 411 hours of training required to become a State-certified correctional officer, they received 200 more hours of training in boot camp procedures.

In 1994, the juvenile justice statute was modified to provide for the development of

statewide boot camp staff training. The statute now requires all boot camp staff having direct contact with juveniles to complete a minimum of 200 hours of State-approved training, including training in counseling techniques, basic cardiopulmonary

resuscitation and choke-relief, and the control of aggression. Furthermore, it requires that all training courses be taught by certified instructors of the division of

Criminal Justice Standards and Training of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement who have prior experience in a juvenile boot camp program. Counseling techniques must be taught by staff who have at least a bachelor’s degree in social work,

counseling, psychology, or a related field. The development of a statewide course

will help address staffing problems faced by boot camps that need to replace instructors after initial staff training has already taken place.

Selection of youths. Florida’s juvenile boot camp programs were originally designed to be high-risk residential programs. Unlike many boot camp programs for

adults, placement is not voluntary. The process of placing youths in camps begins

when a juvenile court judge commits a youth to DJJ custody. After a judge orders

placement at one of four levels of restrictiveness (designated as nonresidential

and low-, moderate-, and high-risk residential programs), DJJ assigns youths to

specific programs. For youths who are ordered into a moderate- or high-risk residential program, one option is boot camp.

Florida’s juvenile justice statute requires that all youths sent to boot camp be

screened to ensure that programs admit only those juveniles who have “medical

and psychological profiles conducive to successfully completing an intensive work,

educational, and disciplinary program.” Programs exclude youths with a history of

psychiatric illness or suicidal tendencies, youths currently taking psychotropic

medications, and those with abnormal electrocardiograms, asthma, or other physical problems that would make boot camp placement inappropriate. Although not

dictated by statute, currently boot camps accept only males.

Manatee County Boot Camp has a capacity of 30 juveniles. Consistent with a military model, youths enter the program as platoons of approximately 15 members.

While grouping inmates in platoons is an appropriate form of military organization,

it produces certain complications for the State’s juvenile justice placement system.

New platoons typically enter camps every 2 months; some youths face a waiting

period between disposition of their case and entry into the boot camp. Because

supervision is necessary during this period, the State must provide temporary

residential or nonresidential placement.
 183

The Boot Camp Experience at Manatee

The first day of camp in the Manatee County program is designed to “shock” the

juvenile offender into compliance. The day begins when hand and leg cuffs are

placed on the youths and they are transported from the local detention center to the

Manatee County Jail. Once offenders are inside the jail compound’s gates, their

hand and leg cuffs are removed and they are driven to the boot camp grounds.

The van is surrounded by drill instructors who bang on the outside of the van and

demand that the boys exit the vehicle and line up.

The new arrivals are frisked and marched to a classroom where they receive military-style haircuts. The rules of military conduct are explained, including requirements that each recruit begin and end every sentence with “Sir” or “Ma’am” and

excuse himself when passing others. Failure to perform this ritual is the most common reason for admonishment during the first day. The response of drill instructors

to noncompliance is swift and loud, but abusive or derogatory speech is prohibited.

Pushups are used to punish recalcitrant inmates.

Each recruit is assigned a room and a uniform. (The camp’s living quarters are

made up of single rooms to increase staff control and to decrease recruit interaction.) Youths spend the remainder of the first day reviewing the recruit handbook.

A drill instructor reads the handbook out loud while encouraging recruits to ask for

clarification and questioning them to make sure they understand.

The first week of the program is designed to keep offenders off balance and confused. The expectation is that the shock of the new environment will cause the

youths to question the behaviors and beliefs that led to their placement in the camp.

They can then begin the process of changing their view of themselves and the

world.

After a week of orientation, the Manatee County program’s demanding schedule

begins, including training in military-style conduct and the basics of military drill.

Youths begin each day at 5 a.m. and end it at 9:00 p.m. Exhibit 2 presents their

weekday schedule.

Inmates spend the largest part of each weekday—6 hours—in school. Three and a

quarter hours are devoted to physical activity that includes physical training, drill

and ceremony, the obstacle course, and upkeep of the camp. One hour is devoted to

group counseling sessions conducted by a private psychologist contracted by the

camp. Youths also spend 1 hour each day in their rooms, where they are expected to

read, write letters, or do homework. A silence rule is imposed with the exception of

school, counseling, and, as necessary, during work details. No television sets, radios, or newspapers are available in the camp.
184

The program’s residential phase is designed to last 4 months. Inmates who in the

commander’s view have not progressed in that time can be held for a longer period.

During this segment of the program, youths advance through a series of phases designated by colored hats. Progress is tracked through a daily contact record book in

which drill instructors record the positive and negative behaviors of each recruit.

If a recruit’s progress is deemed satisfactory, he receives a new hat at the end of

the month and is accorded the privileges associated with the next program phase.

In the first phase youths are not permitted visits or phone calls except in an emergency. In the second they are allowed a 5-minute telephone call and a 1-hour visit

with family members each week.

Youths who complete the program on time attend a transition ceremony on the boot

camp grounds to mark their accomplishment. Family and friends are invited to attend, and each recruit receives a certificate indicating that he is a graduate of the

Exhibit 2. Manatee County Boot Camp’s Weekday Schedule

0500–0515 Wake up/inspection preparation/medications/roll call

0515–0530 Personal inspection

0530-0600 Breakfast/roll call

0600–0615 Return to barracks for laundry/roll call

0615–0645 Physical training/room inspections/roll call

0645–0715 Count/correct inspection deficiencies

0715–0815 Flag detail/drill and ceremony/roll call

0815–0930 Work squad/roll call

0930–1030 Obstacle course/roll call

1030–1130 Rational Emotive Therapy/roll call

1130–1200 Lunch/roll call

1200–1300 Personal time/sick call/review team/roll call

1300–1600 School/GED/substance abuse/roll call

1600–1630 Prep for dinner

1630–1700 Dinner/roll call

1700–1900 GED computer lab/roll call

1900–1930 Alternative training/roll call

1930–2030 Showers/barracks and uniform preparation/roll call

2030–2100 Laundry

2100 Lights out/roll call
 185

camp. The transition ceremony is viewed not as an ending but as the beginning of a

new life outside the camp in which the lessons learned there will be put to use.

Programming Differences Among the Camps

Although the Manatee County pilot project was emulated by other Florida counties,

each of the State’s boot camps has modified the model to meet local conditions.

The Leon County Sheriff’s program, for example, has incorporated a second residential phase called the “Community Transitional Program” that gives juveniles

more privileges and responsibilities. Youths are also permitted to participate in

community service projects.

Pinellas County’s program is called a “preparatory school” and is less regimented

than the State’s other boot camps, with time scheduled each day for recreational

activities. The school is conducted without a strict military atmosphere and does

not use some of the program’s military protocol.

Postrelease Community Supervision

After graduating from boot camp, all youths are assigned to a day treatment program. Assignment is generally contingent on the location of youths’ homes, and

services are provided by a variety of private agencies. This section provides a general description of services that can in fact vary from program to program.

Youths attend day treatment for 6 to 9 months, depending on their needs. Typically,

boot camp graduates are picked up from home early in the morning and transported

to the aftercare facility for supervised activities throughout the day and evening.

Youths are returned home by approximately 9 p.m. A curfew is enforced, with

violations sometimes resulting in electronic monitoring.

During the day program’s first few months, youths attend school at the aftercare

facility. Nonschool hours are filled with group and individual counseling and recreational activities. As youths progress through the program, they earn unsupervised and unstructured time by demonstrating positive behaviors and eventually

return to their local high schools or begin full-time jobs.

During the first 60 days following their release from boot camp, youths can be

returned to custody for failing to abide by their aftercare programs’ rules and

regulations. This option, contingent on an administrative hearing, is intended to

give aftercare providers a means to manage behavior once juveniles leave the

highly structured boot camp environment. Returning youths to boot camp is viewed

as a way to refresh instruction and demonstrates to other youths that noncompliance in aftercare carries consequences. However, because offenders enter boot

camps as platoons and progress as a group (with some progressing in “hats” faster
186

than others), the return of graduates to camps has caused logistical problems.

Some camps have elected to create separate platoons for these individuals; others

have assimilated them into their newest platoons. Both approaches have proved

less than ideal— the first produces a manpower drain and the second disrupts

existing platoons.

Statistical Profile of Juvenile Inmates

Between March 29, 1993, when Florida’s first camp opened in Manatee County,

and August 31, 1994, 262 youths were placed in boot camp programs around the

State.2 Exhibit 3 presents basic information on the five programs operational as of

that date.3 Youths ranged in age from 14 to 18 at entry, with a mean age of 16.

Overall, 59 percent of youths were black, but programs varied tremendously in this

regard, from a high of 81 percent to a low of 49 percent.

Of the 262 juveniles admitted to the five boot camps, 94 percent successfully completed their programs. Boot camps varied in the rate at which youths completed the

program, from a low of 87 percent in Martin County to a high of 100 percent in

Bay County.

Of the average of 17 recruits who did not graduate, nearly two-thirds left within the

first 30 days. Inmates not completing their programs did not drop out in the traditional sense; the decision to leave a boot camp is not voluntarily made by recruits.

The major reason for noncompletion was poor screening. Undetected medical problems were the most frequent cause for removal. A small number of youths were

removed for assaulting drill instructors or attempting to escape.

Exhibit 3. Program Profiles

Manatee 03/29/93 110 (8) 15.9 54 95 145

Pinellas 11/29/93 72 (5) 16.3 49 94 126

Leon 01/12/94 43 (3) 16.1 81 93 149

Martin 04/19/94 31 (2) 15.9 74 87 145

Bay 06/30/94 6 (1) 15.9 50 100 123

Total 262 16.0 59 94 138

Date

opened

Average

total days

in boot

camp

Number of

entering

recruits

(platoons)

Mean age

at entry

Percentage

black

Percentage

graduated

County

in which

program

is located
 187

Of the youths completing their programs, preliminary data indicate that 16 percent

were returned to boot camps due to disciplinary problems in aftercare programs.

The additional time they spent at boot camps varied widely, from 2 to 206 days,

with an average of 66 days.4 Exhibit 4 indicates the distribution of time spent in

boot camp. One issue of particular interest to DJJ officials is whether returning juveniles to boot camps ultimately improves their chances of successful reintegration

into the community.

n=262

Percent

Exhibit 5 presents information on the most serious current offense for which each

recruit was committed to DJJ.5

 Twenty-five percent of recruits were convicted of a

violent felony against a person. Pinellas County had the highest percentage of violent felons (31 percent), while Bay County admitted no youths who had committed

violent felonies. This variation across programs reflects the disparate placement

strategies applied throughout the State.

Exhibit 4. Number of Days Spent in Boot Camp

80 —

60 —

40 —

20 —

0 — 31–60 110–124 125–150 151–179 180 or

more

Fewer

than 30
188

Exhibit 5. Percentage of Juveniles Committed for a Violent Felony

Manatee 22

Pinellas 31

Leon 29

Martin 18

Bay 0

Average of Florida Programs 25

Percentage of recruits committed

for a violent felony

County in which

program is located

Inmates’ histories of delinquent behavior were also examined. Exhibit 6 presents a

tabulation of the average number of previous referrals to the juvenile justice system

as well as the average number of adjudications in juvenile court. Recruits averaged

23 previous referrals to DJJ and 12 previous adjudications in juvenile court.6 It is

clear that juveniles placed in Florida’s boot camps had extensive histories of delinquency, and 73 percent previously had spent time in a commitment program. For

the majority of youths, assignment to boot camp was not the first attempt by the

juvenile justice system to change their behavior.

Exhibit 6. Delinquency Histories

Manatee 26 15

Pinellas 17 9

Leon 28 13

Martin 18 8

Bay 33 16

Average of Florida Programs 23 12

County in which

program is located

Average number of

previous adjudications

Average number of

previous referrals

The Continuing Development of Florida’s Boot Camps

During the 1993–94 session, State legislators made a number of important changes

to Florida’s juvenile justice statute that directly affected juvenile boot camps. The

most important change concerned boot camp eligibility. After October 1, 1994, the
 189

statute stipulated that eligible juveniles were those who had been committed to the

department for “any offense that, if committed by an adult, would be a felony, other

than a capital felony, a life felony, or a violent felony of the first degree.”

This modification simultaneously excluded some offenders who had previously

been eligible for boot camp placement— the most violent felons— and broadened

the pool of eligibility to all other felons.

A second statutory change authorized the creation of low- and moderate-risk residential boot camp programs. Moderate-risk programs now require juveniles to stay

4 months in boot camp and 4 months in aftercare, whereas low-risk programs require 2 months in boot camp and 2 months in aftercare. Finally, the new statute increased the minimum incarceration period for boot camps classified as high-risk

residential programs to 4 months in boot camp and 4 months in aftercare.

The Florida Legislature also appropriated funds to implement a total of 12 programs across the State. Decisions as to which counties will operate camps are

made at DJJ’s central office in Tallahassee, and priority is given to proposals that

include significant local participation in funding and to those that provide facilities. Three boot camps are currently under development, including one contract in

Volusia County held by the State Attorney’s office. A 40-bed facility for young

women in Polk County is scheduled to open in 1995.

Future Evaluations

The statute authorizing the creation of juvenile boot camps in Florida directed DJJ

to collect information on criminal activity, educational progress, and employment

placement for all boot camp participants. Results in these areas are to be compared

to results for youths placed in other types of juvenile programs operated by the

State. DJJ’s Bureau of Research and Data is currently collecting data for this

evaluation.

Notes

1. As of October 1, 1994, responsibility for juvenile justice programs was transferred from Health and Rehabilitative Services to the newly created Department

of Juvenile Justice.

2. An additional 17 youths were placed in a Pensacola, Florida, boot camp

operated by the Private Industry Council. The program closed within 2 months

due to operational problems. These youths are not included in this analysis.
190

3. Polk County Sheriff’s Office opened a boot camp on September 30, 1994, and

accepted a platoon of 20 recruits. It is the only program in Florida designed for

platoons of 20.

4. Some recruits were returned to boot camps on multiple occasions; these figures

represent the total additional time recruits spent in those programs.

5. Data were available on only 228 of the 262 cases.

6. Data were available on only 189 of the 262 cases.

References

Florida Statutes, Chapter 39.057.

Juvenile Boot Camp Program Manual. Palmetto, Florida: Manatee County Sheriff’s

Office, 1993.
 191

CHAPTER 12

Discipline in Georgia’s

Correctional Boot Camps

by Billie S. Erwin

Billie Erwin has been with the Georgia Department of Corrections

for 21 years, with experience in community corrections field

supervision, as Department of Corrections Chief of Evaluations and

as Coordinator of Research and Development. She received The

American Probation and Parole/Sam Houston State University

Publications Award in 1987.

Georgia’s boot camp system dates back to 1983 and currently incorporates

both probation boot camps for men directly sentenced by the court and

inmate boot camps for male offenders selected from among those sentenced

to prison. Both types of boot camps have the same regimen of military-style

basic training, hard work, programs addressing substance abuse and other

offender problems, and followup through strict probation and parole

supervision. Some require enrollment in classes to obtain a general equivalency diploma. Boot camp staff receive rigorous training, and selected

officers participate in U.S. Army drill training courses at Ft. McClellan,

Alabama. Verbal confrontation as a method of discipline is integral to the

program, and all offenders must refer to themselves in the third person

during any formal communication. Major disciplinary infractions result in

revocation, but minor infractions are dealt with in several ways explicitly

specified in the boot camp procedures manual followed throughout the boot

camp system. This chapter also describes an extension of the boot camp

model to a standard prison, the close security Valdosta Correctional

Institution, which formed an Intensive Therapeutic Program within some

dormitories. It began as an implementation of certain military-style protocols in regard to work programs, orderliness, and cleanliness of living

quarters but has been extended to include an entire system of positive

reinforcements.
192

Boot camp is discipline. Before discussing disciplinary procedures in correctional boot camps, one must recognize the assumptions underlying theirconcept and design. Boot camps are based on the rationale that many young

offenders have never learned rudimentary discipline and respect for authority because of failure of parenting, inadequate socialization, or adolescent rebellion. A

boot camp is a 90- to 120-day crash program in discipline.

The term “boot camp” itself conjures immediate, usually vivid images in the minds

of most Americans, among them one of a platoon marching in cadence under the

stern leadership of a drill sergeant. Another consists of rows of recruits or offenders

(with freshly shaved heads) doing calisthenics, again under an exacting physical

training instructor ever ready to deliver harsh criticism for any failure to perform

with uniformity, vigor, and full extension.

Then there is the closeup of a hard-nosed, sabre-voiced drill instructor in a black

campaign hat who addresses each group member from close range, shouting a

barrage of directions, admonitions, and warnings along with a generally negative

assessment of the individual and warnings about the changes in attitude and

behavior required to survive in the platoon. These changes might relate to posture,

appearance, even facial expression. This is popularly referred to as the “in your

face” approach, indisputably effective in gaining the attention of the person

receiving such treatment.

Another source of the prevalent perception of boot camps is the previous military

experience of a large number of American men. Before the United States discontinued the draft, a significant proportion of able-bodied men from all segments of the

population were likely to have had a military experience, often in the form of 3-

year duty immediately after high school or college. Many remember this as the

time when they learned to conform to tough discipline and associate the experience

with their passage into manhood and responsible citizenship.

Although these images may be extremely popular and useful as an approach to

punishment of law violators and may even be beneficial in garnering political support, they may miss the core content of the actual boot camp program, which

evolved in response to a need for activities that contribute to changed behavior.

This chapter describes the disciplinary component of the boot camp program as it

has evolved in Georgia. It also contains a description of an innovative and successful application of the military boot camp model to a regular, more hardened population of close-security inmates sentenced to standard prison terms at the State’s

Valdosta Correctional Institution. (See chapter 5 for a discussion of programs in

Georgia’s boot camps.)
 193

Historical Background

When the State of Georgia implemented its Special Alternative Incarceration (SAI)

in 1983 for nonviolent young offenders, this program was designed primarily as a

90-day experience in drill and discipline in the military boot camp model. Through

ongoing evaluation and assessment, program modifications have been made as necessary to increase effectiveness. The earliest evaluation in Georgia, conducted by

Gerald T. Flowers, a Senior Operations Analyst with the Georgia Department of

Corrections, pointed out the need for followup after the 90-day period of incarceration (Flowers, 1986). This was essential to ensure adequate supervision for offenders in the critical period after release. During that time, offenders needed assistance

in dealing with issues such as conducting a job search, applying learned discipline

to decisionmaking, and resisting temptations within the community. The agency

implemented a policy of assigning offenders to intensive probation supervision for

the first 6 months after release from boot camps.

Georgia Governor Zell Miller, who served in the United States Marine Corps as a

young man, often refers to boot camp as a molding experience. He has strongly

advocated boot camps as a sentencing tool for first-time drug offenders. Prior to his

administration, the predominant offenders found in Georgia’s boot camps were

burglars. In reality many burglary offenses were known to be related to underlying

substance abuse problems, but correctional officials did not address this in their

programs. Georgia therefore developed programmatic standards for all boot camps

that included mandatory formal educational and substance abuse training for all

participants, as well as more intensive substance abuse counseling for selected

offenders.

Governor Zell

Miller signs into

law new

legislation

establishing

inmate boot

camps in

Georgia.
194

Programmatic Evolution and Expansion

The New Comprehensive Correctional Boot Camp Program represents an expansion of SAI, both in terms of number of boot camps and number of participants.

Georgia’s boot camps now also incorporate more programming.

These boot camps can be divided into two groups: probation boot camps and inmate boot camps. The men in the probation boot camps are sentenced to the program directly by the court and are referred to as “detainees.” The men in the inmate

boot camps (referred to as “inmates”) have received prison sentences but are given

the opportunity by the corrections department to volunteer for the program. Selection is made during the diagnostic and classification process with the concurrence

of the State Board of Pardons and Paroles. Boot camp policies in Georgia are identical for both types of boot camps, and, except as indicated, this chapter refers to a

regimen and programming applicable to both, with the term “offenders” used for

both detainees and inmates.

The camps have four primary components:

■ Military-style basic training.

■ Hard work.

■ Programs addressing substance abuse and other offender problems.

■ Followup through strict probation and parole supervision.

A probation boot camp warden has described the progression through the program

as beginning with “initial shock,” moving to the “teaching phase,” and following up

with “positive reinforcement.” The warden is not comfortable with identifying any

reinforcement as a reward but believes that a desired work detail assignment may

be an incentive for good behavior. Such assignments can involve kitchen duty or

lawn mowing as opposed to digging and other hard labor.

The program has maintained its dominant image of military drill and discipline,

and in no cases have officials relaxed the requirement for participants to perform

regular work assignments. Originally, the evening hours were seen as a time for

quiet reflection, thought to be therapeutic in eliciting behavior change. Modifications have given structure to these evening time slots by including both educational

and basic substance abuse programming. There has also been an increase in

elective recreation and religious activity time.

Access to television entertainment in the evenings has always been denied,

although sometimes public television programs are allowed during certain time

periods. Boot camp participants have access to library books and to Alcoholics

Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous handbooks.
 195

The boot camp concept has gained increasing popularity in Georgia. Use of boot

camps was a major campaign issue supported by Governor Miller in his 1990 election campaign. With strong political support, two complete minimum security prisons were converted to probation boot camps, and one new probation boot camp and

four new inmate boot camps were constructed.

A 1991 departmental evaluation tracking graduates from the SAI program over 36

months showed a 40.7-percent return-to-prison rate for graduates compared to a

53.4-percent return-to-prison rate for a comparison group of offenders. This second

group met the eligibility criteria for boot camp but were sentenced to prison instead. On average, the comparison group served 118 days in prison, 28 days longer

than the SAI group serving a standard 90 days (Flowers et al., 1991), showing

significant cost savings.

Since Governor Miller’s inauguration in January 1991, combined effects of new

construction and allocation of dormitory units at several institutions produced a

total of three probation boot camps. These camps have bedspace for 475 detainees,

and inmate boot camp units have bedspace for 1,076 inmates, for a total of 1,551

boot camp spaces. Further expansion is projected through new construction to be

completed in fiscal year 1996. Probationers are sentenced to the program directly

by the court, and inmates are selected by departmental staff.

Eligibility criteria have been expanded to incorporate offenders 17 to 35 years old.

There is no longer any firm requirement that the offender have no previous prison

experience, although the intent is to target those who have not been hardened by

such an experience.

Disciplinary Philosophies

The Georgia program was initially designed to shock young male probationers who

had never experienced any incarceration in prison. (Georgia has not implemented

any boot camp programs for females.) Many had tested the system, often through

successive “last chances” on probation, and exhibited a continued lack of respect or

even open defiance toward authority. The concept advocated a 90-day period of

intensive verbal confrontation, drill, and rigorous work to instill respect for authority, physical conditioning, and work habits that would enable these young men to

return to probation, gain and hold a job, and maintain self-discipline in the

community.

Part of this approach was based on the belief that exposing these young offenders

to the reality of prison life (without exposing them to any of the real abuses that

may occur among a hardened prison population) would convince them never again

to defy the law. This philosophy hinges primarily on habit training with little

emphasis on specific skills development.
196

The routine and drill that established these disciplinary expectations have always

constituted the core structure of Georgia’s boot camps and were the means for

showcasing boot camps to the media. All offenders must participate in drill and ceremony as well as develop and exhibit a level of skill in precision drill marching.

Since most facilities create some sort of competitive process for grading platoons

on precision drilling, this aspect can become a point of developing pride and improving self-image in addition to serving as a tool for discipline. Some boot camps,

through competitive drill presentations, select a Gold Award Drill Unit to perform

for visiting dignitaries.

Departmental staff, supported by criminal justice literature, acknowledge that defiance of the law can occur not simply as an absence of discipline but as the result

when young offenders feel they are denied access to participation in the mainstream community and cannot achieve economic success and other goals through

traditional and lawful means. Serious involvement in drug abuse, through both using and dealing, and a lack of basic life skills and employability are also major

deficits in a large percentage of cases.

Programs now require that all boot camp participants complete a basic alcohol and

drug education course. Some boot camps require participants without a high school

diploma or general equivalency diploma (GED) to enroll in either GED or adult

basic education throughout the boot camp period or until the GED is acquired.

Officer Training and Development of Procedures

Georgia’s disciplinary program depends on staff training to ensure that both drill

and disciplinary techniques are grounded in up-to-date military practice. It also

depends on comprehensive handbooks that ensure understanding of rules and

procedures by staff and inmates alike.

The Department’s 4-week Basic Correctional Officer Training program, which is

both rigorous and thorough, includes passing tests on departmental policies and

procedures. Thus all officers have a firm knowledge of the official definition of disciplinary infractions and the appropriate response. In addition, boot camp officers

complete drill instructor training developed by the departmental training division.

Selected officers have participated in specialized boot camp training offered to correctional agencies by the U.S. Marine Corps at Quantico, Virginia, and by the U.S.

Army at Ft. McClellan, Alabama.1

 Because of the proximity of Ft. McClellan, its

training opportunities and drill techniques are now used by all Georgia boot camps.

Officers who graduate are entitled to wear the all-black uniform and black “campaign cover,” or broad-brimmed hat, of the Senior Drill Instructor, a designation of

distinction.
 197

Participants, too, are taught the rules from the outset. As one warden observed,

“Discipline begins at the gate.” During orientation, each boot camp participant receives a copy of a handbook that includes specific rules and procedures. Each facility prepares its own handbook, so there is some variation in specific institutional

activities and rules. In all cases, however, the handbook describes the expectation

of military decorum, protocol, and etiquette. The new boot camp participant signs

an agreement indicating he understands the rules, and this agreement becomes the

foundation of disciplinary policy.

Specific rules common to all Georgia’s boot camps include prohibition against

fighting, sexual activity, weapons, drugs or alcohol, and escape. The handbook also

describes the disciplinary process and grievance procedures, visitation, mail and

telephone policies, and programmatic activities (both mandatory and voluntary).

Special sections deal with policy allowing searches of person, property, and living

areas at any time. Handbooks include a section on work and one on personal

hygiene and cleanliness.

Verbal Confrontation and Communication

Verbal confrontation as a method of discipline is integral to the program. A verbal

dressdown is a regular occurrence and may not be prompted by any specific violation. It is often applied in the assumption that offenders are arrogant and have previously shown a pattern of challenging authority. Correctional staff turn the “in

your face” style of communication into an art form. Departmental policy forbids

the use of profanity or physical contact by staff, but the terms often heard in admonishing boot camp participants may be highly derogatory. Staff often remark

that “you must break them down so you can build them up.”

Boot camp participants are forbidden to speak until they make a formal request by

first identifying themselves as “Inmate (surname), request permission to speak.”

For the most part, the pattern of formal communication continues in the third person. There is considerable variation among institutions and supervisory staff regarding when and where to allow informal communication. General policy forbids

talking at mealtime and on work detail without permission. In practice, however,

some conversation does occur in work situations. At any point when this is considered to be detrimental or disruptive, correctional officers are expected to immediately impose the rule of silence. When any staff member directs a question to the

offender, the expected response is “Yes, sir” or “No, sir.”
198

Dealing With Disciplinary Infractions

Staff report that physical conflicts are rare among boot camp participants. Activity

is so closely supervised that there is little opportunity for uncontrolled behavior.

Disciplinary infractions are categorized as “minor” or “major.” The most frequent

minor infractions are verbal insubordination, failure to follow instructions, and failure to perform work assignments. Major disciplinary infractions include bringing

an illegal drug into the facility from an outside work detail. This almost certainly

results in a revocation.

When a minor infraction occurs, the officer is free to handle the situation by giving

a verbal warning, issuing demerits, or preparing a written disciplinary report. Any

written disciplinary report results in a formal hearing and a finding of guilt or innocence. Findings of guilt result in specific sanctions that must be approved by the

warden.

An officer may deal with a minor infraction in several ways. He may issue a verbal

warning and follow up with more precise instructions on how an assignment must

be done, or issue three demerits on a participant’s work record for failure to follow

instructions. Options vary with the style of the officer and with the circumstance. If

the failure to perform the work assignment is seen as an intentional act of defiance,

it is addressed with a written disciplinary report, which must cite a specific code

section and violation. This requirement for a formal report ensures that disciplinary

actions conform to departmental policies, become subject to audit, and meet high

standards of professional judgment.

Disciplinary hearings are conducted under formal rules that allow an offender to

have an advocate present, usually the person’s counselor. The offender may also

request witnesses.

In the staffing design for probation boot camps, the correctional lieutenant is the

highest ranking security officer, and he conducts the hearing. The shift supervisor

on duty when an infraction occurs investigates the disciplinary report to ascertain

all the facts prior to the hearing. The correctional lieutenant acts in the role of administrative judge, reviews the written disciplinary report, and hears testimony

from the officer who wrote the report, from the offender, and from any other witnesses. A correctional captain performs the role of hearing officer in inmate boot

camps. The offender has an opportunity to speak, and the hearing officer decides

guilt or innocence as well as any sanctions to be imposed. This decision is reviewed

by the warden or superintendent, who signs off on the finding and sanctions or

makes changes. All disciplinary hearing reports are forwarded to the Department of

Corrections Central Office.
 199

Range of Sanctions

As noted, for minor disciplinary infractions the correctional officer may issue a verbal warning. When a minor infraction occurs, the officer also has the discretionary

power to require pushups for the sake of immediacy of punishment. This is called

“motivational physical therapy,” and no other situational punishments are allowed.

As pointed out by Dale Parent, the use of summary punishments could erode the

protections of disciplinary procedures established as national standards (Parent,

1989). For this reason, the Georgia Department of Corrections has established

clearly defined limits for the use of any on-the-spot sanctions. If a formal disciplinary report and hearing occur, a specified range of options is defined in the boot

camp handbook.

Sanctions for minor disciplinary infractions may take the form of delay of visitation

or telephone privileges for specified time periods or extra duty assignments (in

10-hour increments). Other sanctions include loss of privileges for purchasing items

at the boot camp store or extra duty in place of a recreation period. In general,

Georgia boot camps observe a policy of progressive sanction, whereby successive

infractions result in more severe sanctions.

Major disciplinary infractions may result in a 10- to 30-day “recycling,” or repetition of certain elements of the program; this results in a longer stay before graduation or release. Serious infractions may result in up to 10 days of isolation, which

are not counted toward program completion.

In 1993 the Facilities Division extended the standard period for the inmate boot

camp program from 90 days to 120 days to create time for programmatic additions

without infringing on time allocated to standard drill, physical training, and work.

For probation boot camps, the Community Corrections Division maintained the

standard time period of 90 days, but provision was made for recycling up to 30

days. Probation detainees may be in boot camp for 120 days as a result of failure to

meet disciplinary requirements, but if they exhibit no performance problems, they

are released after 90 days. The potential for increased length of stay as a

disciplinary sanction thus becomes a significant motivation for cooperation.

In inmate boot camps, an offender may be removed from the program when means

of enforcing discipline are exhausted. The State Board of Pardons and Paroles has

the authority to assign and release inmates. Recent statistics show that 5 percent of

those originally assigned to the program voluntarily withdraw and 5 percent are

removed through disciplinary action. In the case of inmates assigned to boot camp,

a removal either for voluntary or disciplinary reasons results in reassignment to

another institution. The security level assigned is influenced by the nature of the

disciplinary problem.
200

In probation boot camps, detainees must be returned to the sentencing court for action; this usually results in revocation from probation and a new sentence for confinement. In some cases, however, the courts impose a different alternative sanction.

Georgia’s progression of intermediate sanctions place boot camp as the last alternative before incarceration, but judges are free to act in a different order. Sometimes

reassignment occurs for medical rather than disciplinary reasons.

Preventive Discipline

Programs have formal and informal ways for giving offenders who are exhibiting

adjustment problems special attention to enable them to succeed. Staff identify inmates who have serious family problems, exhibit volatility, or have accumulated 20

or more demerits (indicating potential escalation to more serious violations). One

inmate boot camp has implemented a behavior adjustment group for those with

marginal behavior. This group meets for four 1-hour sessions planned around issues of anger management and cognitive restructuring (a means of getting offenders to analyze how they responded to situations in their lives and to develop alternative responses). Individualized techniques include counseling and psychodrama

scenarios that relate to “stuffing” (suppressing feelings), escalating, and directing

behaviors. Various techniques for identifying and managing anger are presented.

Positive Reinforcement

Individual wardens differ philosophically about the appropriateness of rewards for

positive behaviors during the boot camp stay. Some regard the completion of a

GED certificate as an intrinsic reward realized for the offender but oppose tangible

rewards within the program. Others dispense concrete rewards. In one facility,

members of the platoon that wins the Gold Boot award for precision drilling earn

the right to eat first for 1 week and receive soft drinks and candy.

Generally, some positive reinforcement is provided to balance the elements of

work, drill, and discipline that dominate the military boot camp model. This

positive reinforcement is achieved by several means.

In some boot camps a range meeting is held once a week at which positive achievements and behavior are recognized; the group may also have peer discussions of

problems. Communication is less formal, and in some cases a counselor may

follow up on issues raised or help individuals resolve problems.

In addition, each offender is scheduled for an individual counseling session at least

once a month. This meeting begins after the offender knocks on the counselor’s

door and says “Inmate (or detainee) report.” The counselor then responds by

saying, “at ease,” which signals the opportunity to converse during the counseling
 201

session without formal permission to speak. However, counselors expect all

responses to show self-respect and self-discipline.

Communication Issues

Staff members were asked about their experience and beliefs regarding the requirement that offenders identify themselves in the third person throughout the program

while they are expected to reflect upon past behavior and feelings and to internalize

behavioral and attitudinal change. This issue was originally raised by a staff psychologist who conducted regular adjustment groups in one inmate boot camp. Once

a week for a 90-minute group session, he required each participant to use the first

person for discussing and accepting responsibility for his own behaviors and

feelings. Although this group was discontinued, the issue of the best means of

promoting personal responsibility remains.

During site visits, researchers observed situations in which individual expression

was exhibited in various ways:

■ Often, skilled counselors created group situations in which a great deal of

individual expression occurred while participants continued to observe the

official protocol of formal communication.

■ At some boot camps the development of the guidon, the banner displaying the

platoon and company identification, is a group project under the direction of the

correctional officer in charge of drill for the platoon. The group members are

supplied basic art supplies to make the guidon, which expresses their pride and

commitment. Some banners are quite artistic. Examples of guidons include one

with the name “Mighty Aces,” a bulldog pictured as mascot and a slogan,

“United we stand, divided we fall.” Administrators differ about the appropriateness of guidons like these, some considering them expressions of esprit de corps

or power statements inappropriate to the offenders’ status, and others viewing

them more positively.

■ Another form of group expression is the cadence chant, a creation of the platoon.

These chants vary and often show how well the group is progressing. A counselor observed that when platoons near completion of the program, the word

“freedom” is often heard as part of the cadence.

■ During leisure education time, offenders have library access and can read or

write as they like. On occasion, offenders have composed a written piece for use

at a graduation ceremony.

As boot camp participants move toward completion of the program, they use more

informal communication, whether as part of the boot camp planning or as the result

of staff encouragement. This suggests that although formal communication remains
202

in the third person, there are opportunities for individual and group expression to

develop.

Extending the Boot Camp Disciplinary Model to

Standard Prison

The combination of strict military discipline, a code of ethics, and clear application

of positive reinforcement is noteworthy and demonstrates the balancing of strict

discipline with positive reinforcement. The success of this model in boot camps led

Georgia to adopt it in a close-security (in Georgia, the next step down from maximum security) prison, the Valdosta Correctional Institution. The rest of this chapter

describes the successful application of this model to an entirely different population

to show the potential of this aspect of boot camps to offer a solution to some seemingly intractable problems in prisons housing more serious, violent offenders.

While it is difficult to make long-term comparisons of the outcomes of this prison

model (given the longer incarceration of prison inmates), it offers some interesting

insights from the standpoint of theory and experience.

Valdosta inmates have committed serious felonies—some are among the most notorious offenders in the State and are serving multiple life sentences. All have been

classified as in need of close security. In 1990 the prison implemented the boot

camp style of discipline for inmates for whom previous methods of control would

be periods of isolation or lockdown. The program at Valdosta is called the Intensive

Therapeutic Program (ITP) and is a 30-day alternative to more traditional forms of

control in the prison.

State

Representative

Bob Patten of

Georgia reviews

a platoon of

inmates in the

ITP program at

Valdosta

Correctional

Institution.
 203

The institution is led by a warden who clearly believes in positive reinforcement

and uses the technique effectively. Valdosta has won awards as the outstanding

institution in Georgia under this leadership and also won the 1993 award as the

Outstanding Correctional Facility in the United States as part of City and State

magazine’s Excellence in Government/Correctional Award Program.

The ITP living unit was originally established to implement certain military-style

protocols in regard to work programs, orderliness, and cleanliness of living quarters. As this approach proved to be effective, and inmates marched and developed

cadences, the administration began to introduce more military protocols. The unit is

managed by a drill instructor who has completed the U.S. Army course in military

drill. The framed Code of Ethics, which hangs in every dormitory, demands

discipline, self-pride, and uniformity.

Since the inception of the ITP program, 300 inmates have completed the program

each year. By the end of 1993 disciplinary reports had decreased from an average

of 330 a month to 100 a month and assaults by 75 percent. Staff from other units

began to request the opportunity to use these protocols.

To provide positive reinforcement, the warden makes inspection tours twice a

week, visiting each dormitory. The inmates present themselves and their quarters

for inspection, observing military protocols. The protocols are often led by peers,

and individual motivational statements are offered in some dormitories. These

stress self-discipline and leadership support and are delivered in rote fashion while

standing at attention. An observer gets the impression that the energy exerted would

provide release equal to that provided by calisthenics.

The warden moves swiftly through the institution and takes careful note both of

areas where improvement is needed and areas of excellence. He speaks to individual offenders about the need to tighten sheets or iron a shirt, but he also makes

special note where the orderliness is exemplary. In advance of the inspection, his

staff has prepared a listing by dormitory of individuals who have noteworthy accomplishments, such as receipt of a GED or a notation for improved performance.

As he enters each dormitory he requests that these individuals be brought forward.

He gives them his personal congratulation for the accomplishment. To an inmate

who has completed a GED, he may affirm, “They can take that uniform away from

you, but no one can take that education from you.” An observer can see that the

inmates value the individual recognition.

Positive reinforcement takes other forms as well. A golf cart follows the warden on

his inspection tour across the grounds. The cart has been painted with balloons by

the vocational education classes and is laden with refreshments. As the warden

completes his inspection of each dormitory, staff members wait to distribute cokes

and honey buns to all residents of a dormitory who pass inspection and something

extra for those who lead in drill or who offer special motivational statements.
204

Conclusion

Universally accepted research in response conditioning, pioneered by B.F. Skinner,

indicates that positive reinforcement is more effective than negative reinforcement

in achieving behavioral change. Effective discipline seeks the necessary balance

between disciplinary intervention to control destructive behavior and positive

reinforcement of constructive behavior.

Within the span of a 90- to 120-day boot camp program that seeks to impart strict

discipline for a group with serious deficits in this area, there may always be an apparent emphasis on calling attention to negatives. The positive reinforcements do

occur, however, at lower decibels and with less attention from the press. It is important that they not be forgotten. Strong aftercare linkages to the community during

the readjustment period offer opportunities to continue positive reinforcement of

the self-discipline and personal responsibility instilled in the boot camp.

Note

1. Boot camps and other correctional agencies interested in this training should

contact Retired Command Sergeant Major Josh Perry, Ft. McClellan Department

of the Army Military Police School, Ft. McClellan, AL 36205 (telephone

205–848–4383). The training program at Quantico has been closed.

References

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

Flowers, Gerald T., Timothy S. Carr, and R. Barry Ruback. Special Alternative

Incarceration Evaluation. Atlanta: Georgia Department of Corrections, 1991.

MacKenzie, Doris L. Boot Camp Prisons in 1993. Research in Action. Washington,

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

MacKenzie, Doris L., and L.I. Goodstein. “Stress and the Control Beliefs of Prisons: A Test of Three Models of Control-limited Environments.” Journal of Applied

Social Psychology, 16 (1986):3.

Parent, Dale G. “Boot Camps Failing To Achieve Goals.” Overcrowded Times, 5,

no. 4 (August 1993):8–11.

Parent, Dale G. Shock Incarceration: An Overview of Existing Programs. Issues and

Practices in Criminal Justice. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,

National Institute of Justice, 1989.
 205

Toch, Hans. Living in Prison. New York: The Free Press, 1977.

Toch, Hans, and K. Adams. “Punishment, Treatment and Prison Infractions.”

Journal of Offender Counseling Services and Rehabilitation, 12 (1988).
 207

CHAPTER 13

Substance Abuse Programming in

Adult Correctional Boot Camps:

A National Overview

by Ernest L. Cowles, Ph.D., and Thomas C. Castellano, Ph.D.

Ernest L. Cowles is the Director of the Center for Legal Studies and

an Associate Professor of Criminal Justice at the University of Illinois

at Springfield. His present research interests focus on alternative

sanctions, special offender populations, and strategies for improving

correctional management.

Thomas C. Castellano is an Associate Professor of Administration of

Justice in the Center for the Study of Crime, Delinquency, and

Corrections at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale. He is

currently a Visiting Fellow at the National Institute of Justice, where

he is dedicated to the identification and evaluation of innovative

boot camp programs.

A survey of adult boot camps, preceded by a literature review, indicates a

strong trend toward making drug education and treatment a part of shock

incarceration programming. Questionnaires were sent in the fall of 1992 to

the directors or commissioners of departments of corrections in all 50

States plus the Virgin Islands, the District of Columbia, and the Federal

Bureau of Prisons, followed up with telephone interviews with 31 administrators. A second survey targeted facility-level administrators and staff

members responsible for the facilities’ substance abuse treatment or

education programs. All the boot camps surveyed said they offered at least

substance abuse education, and more than 75 percent offered treatment as

well. Various treatment methods were found to be in use, but they were

rarely individualized to meet specific inmate needs. Methods of assessing

inmates’ need for treatment primarily consisted of screening interviews,

case history information, and psychological testing rather than diagnostic

processes that would allow a clinically based decision of need, treatment

amenability, or potential effectiveness. New York, Georgia, and Oklahoma

emphasized drug treatment but did not participate in the survey.
208

Many supporters of correctional boot camp programs and the officials who

administer them contend that such programs have the potential to be a

powerful mechanism for positive offender change. The strict regimen of

the boot camp environment, coupled with a variety of treatment-oriented program

components, can provide not only a greater level of internal discipline, self-esteem,

and confidence to participants but also an array of skills that may promote successful reintegration into the community. These notions are quite consistent with the

fact that correctional administrators commonly report rehabilitation of criminal offenders, not deterrence or retribution, as a primary goal of boot camps (MacKenzie,

1990; Elis, MacKenzie, and Souryal, 1992; MacKenzie, 1993; U.S. General

Accounting Office, 1993).

A rehabilitative program component often associated with the boot camp movement

is substance abuse programming. Because many boot camps exclude violent offenders and some actively target drug offenders, institutions have reported that substance abusers constitute a greater proportion of the boot camp population than of

the general inmate population (Florida Department of Corrections, 1990; New York

State Department of Correctional Services and Division of Parole, 1991). Arguably

some boot camps have been designed with the intention of making positive impacts

on drug-abusing offenders, and even those not designed this way often include substance abuse programming as an integral part of their programs.

Many available studies have reported information on the degree to which shock

incarceration facilities target drug offenders or incorporate at least some form of

substance abuse programming into the boot camp regimen. These studies tend to

indicate that the targeting of drug offenders and the presence of substance abuse

programming are common characteristics of boot camps. Unfortunately, little detailed descriptive or relevant evaluative information is presented within these studies. For instance, it is generally impossible to ascertain from the literature whether

current drug treatment programming is clinically relevant and theoretically informed. This is a central question, since it is becoming increasingly apparent that

correctional treatment programs are more likely to have desired outcomes if specific interventions are based on valid approaches appropriate to the target population (Andrews et al., 1990).

To fill this gap, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) awarded a research grant in

the fall of 1991 to the Center for the Study of Crime, Delinquency, and Corrections

at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale to assess the quality of drug treatment

and aftercare programs for offenders in adult boot camp prisons. This chapter

reports some of the major findings from that study, preceded by a review of the

literature.
 209

Literature Review

Warnock and Hunzeker (1991) conducted a literature and statutory review of correctional boot camps at a time when 23 States operated them. They reported that

New Mexico and Wisconsin specifically targeted certain drug offenders for participation in their boot camps and that in Tennessee certain drug offenders were statutorily excluded from participation. They also reported that statutes in at least 10

States specified that drug and alcohol education or treatment was to be provided in

boot camps. In a related vein, Elis, MacKenzie, and Souryal’s telephone survey of

State and Federal correctional officials in March 1991 identified two boot camps

specifically designed for drug offenders (Elis, MacKenzie, and Souryal, 1992).

An article published in Corrections Compendium in January 1991 included survey

results from the 27 existing State boot camps. It was reported that 26 of the 27

facilities included or planned to include alcohol and drug treatment programs, 24

offered counseling, and 23 offered educational programming. The only State program that did not offer alcohol or drug treatment was Georgia, while Louisiana and

South Carolina provided alcohol or drug education instead (Marlette, 1991).

The Evolution of Substance Abuse Programming in Boot Camps

The recently released U.S. General Accounting Office’s review of correctional boot

camps included some information on the value accorded substance abuse programming by boot camp administrators. GAO researchers asked them to rank the various

objectives of boot camps on a scale of “very great importance” to “little or no importance.” On this scale “drug treatment and education” was rated very highly by

the respondents and was almost as highly valued as “meeting the need for alternatives to traditional incarceration” and “improving self-esteem.” Of the 53 respondents, 32 rated drug treatment and education as a “very great” objective, 13 as a

“great” objective, 7 as a “moderate” objective, and 1 rated it as having only “some”

importance. No one accorded it a rating of “little or no importance” (U.S. General

Accounting Office, 1993, pp. 19–20).

This report suggests that making positive impacts on the behavior of program participants, especially in terms of reducing substance-abusing behavior, is a primary

goal of most correctional boot camps. Austin, Jones, and Bolyard’s 1993 study of

jail boot camps reveals goals similar to those that have been reported with regard to

adult boot camps. All the jail programs reported rehabilitation as a goal. Drug education and drug treatment were also listed as important goals by all the responding

agencies, and all agencies reported drug education or counseling as a program

component. The amount of time residents spent in drug education or counseling

ranged from 4 hours a day at Nassau and Ontario, New York, to 4 hours a week at

Travis, Texas (Austin et al., 1993).
210

Literature on boot camp programming suggests that the program content of early

boot camps was generally consistent across facilities and that changes have been

made over time. Early programs tended to feature a strong military design in which

offenders participated in physical training, drill and ceremony, and hard labor

(Parent, 1989; MacKenzie, 1990; Coyle, 1990). As these programs emerged, basic

rehabilitative elements such as substance abuse treatment and education (although

commonly present) were overshadowed by a strong emphasis on structure and discipline. Because of the deemphasis on treatment and training, the early programs

were criticized by some observers (Sechrest, 1989; Osler, 1991).

Correctional system officials responsible for boot camp programming in some

States have acknowledged these concerns. For example, Florida officials conceded

that for some inmates “these unmet needs [substance abuse treatment and education, basic education, and job training]...may have negated any rehabilitative success in other areas” (Florida Department of Corrections, 1990, p. 25). In a 1991

evaluation of Georgia’s Special Alternative Incarceration (SAI) program, the

necessity of enhanced substance abuse programming was also highlighted:

At least 75 percent of the offenders who have gone through SAI have a

problem with drugs and/or alcohol. They committed crimes while under

the influence or to support their habits, or they were convicted of DUI or

drug possession or sale. Strong substance abuse programs were needed,

both in SAI and during the followup period of supervision and treatment.

(Georgia Department of Corrections, 1991, p. xi).

It became clear that little evidence existed to support the idea that discipline and

hard work by themselves would lead to lasting behavioral changes; enhanced

substance abuse programming might be needed.

In addition to the lack of emphasis on standard rehabilitative elements within early

boot camp programs, researchers expressed concern about lack of aftercare services, especially for the substance-abusing client, as programs grew more popular.

For example, in a study examining the postrelease experiences of boot camp inmates from Louisiana, Shaw and MacKenzie noted that “the behavior of problem

drinkers as a group was more varied than that of nonproblem drinkers, emphasizing

the importance of and the need for programs such as this to provide adequate support and aftercare for problem drinkers and substance abusers” (Shaw and

MacKenzie, 1991, p. 63).

Since the initial introduction of boot camp programs, changes in program structure

appear to have taken place. Although early shock incarceration programs emphasized structure and discipline, newer programs appear to be incorporating more

substance abuse treatment into daily inmate programming, and a stronger aftercare

component as well (see also Gransky, Castellano, and Cowles, 1995).
 211

Although they started with an emphasis on military drills, physical training, and

work, an increasingly larger number of facilities appear to be giving at least equal

emphasis to more traditional forms of treatment programming. Most boot camps

today stress rehabilitation as a primary program goal, with substance abuse programming appearing to be highly valued by correctional officials in charge of operating these facilities. The overwhelming majority of boot camps include programming aimed at promoting the successful community reintegration of graduates.

This is to be accomplished, at least in part, by promoting the ability of program

participants to refrain from abuse of drugs or alcohol.

Beyond these broad trends and patterns, however, more needs to be known about

the details of substance abuse programming associated with the boot camp

experience.

The Impact of Boot Camps on the Lives of Substance Abusers

The only studies that have examined the impact of boot camps on the lives of substance abusers (and their potential differential impacts on substance abusers versus

nonabusers) are evaluations of Louisiana’s boot camp program.

Problem drinkers. One relevant examination involved an analysis of boot camp

effects on the lives of problem drinkers (Shaw and MacKenzie, 1991). This study

involved 112 shock incarceration inmates who entered the program between October 1987 and October 1988 and eventually graduated, and a comparison group of

98 prison inmates legally eligible but not recommended for placement in the program. The two groups were fairly similar in demographic characteristics (except

for age), criminal histories, and measures of neuroticism, but the prison inmates

showed more signs of social maladjustment, alienation, and manifest aggression.

A total of 58 inmates from across the 2 groups (20 percent of the total) were identified as problem drinkers.

Researchers found that problem drinkers in the boot camp sample became more

prosocial after 3 months, but the prison sample showed no change in antisocial attitudes. Problem drinkers in the shock incarceration sample also became less alienated than when they entered the program, while those in the prison sample became

more alienated during incarceration.

For each of the first 6 months that a parolee was under community supervision, parole officers filled out a standardized evaluation form (the Prosocial Living Index),

which attempted to measure each parolee’s community adjustment. To have a much

broader focus than just on recidivism, the Index contains such measures as employment status, school status, performance in treatment programs, as well as arrests

and reconvictions. The community adjustment of boot camp parolees was found to

be much more positive than the adjustment of inmate parolees, but there was no

difference in the adjustments of problem and nonproblem drinkers. No link was
212

found between sample and drinker type, indicating that problem drinkers in the

shock incarceration sample did not fare better while under community supervision

than problem drinkers in the inmate sample. In general the performance of problem

drinkers was more sporadic over the 6-month period than the performance of

nonproblem drinkers. The evaluators underscored the desirability of implementing

stronger aftercare components to address the specific needs of problem drinkers.

Other drug abusers. Another study of the Louisiana program examined its effect

on drug-involved offenders (Shaw and MacKenzie, 1992). In this study the performance of offenders with a drug history, that is, prior drug arrests and convictions, was

compared to that of offenders who were merely identified by corrections officials as

in need of community counseling for substance abuse.

The adjustments of a group of 74 paroled boot camp offenders were compared to

those of a group of 92 shock incarceration dropouts, 108 probationers, and 74 inmate parolees. Thirty-eight percent of all subjects were in the group with histories of

prior drug arrests or convictions, and 28 percent were in the group that was considered to need substance abuse counseling. Although there was much overlap between

these two groups, it is noteworthy that 52 percent of the offenders with drug histories were not required to attend community drug treatment. There was no difference

across samples in the percentage of subjects with drug histories, but both boot camp

graduates and the regular parolees were more likely than the probationers to be required to get drug treatment.

Evaluators examined program dropout rates to see whether drug offenders adjusted

to the boot camp experience more negatively than nondrug offenders. No difference

in dropout rates was found between those with and without drug histories. Selfreported drug history information also appeared unrelated to dropout rates. Thus,

in-program adjustment patterns did not appear to be a function of prior drug abuse.

Four measures of failure were used to assess community performance, including

positive drug screens, drug arrests, any arrest, and jailing or revocation. Sample subjects were followed for 1 year after release. A series of logistic regressions run on

each measure of community adjustment revealed complex patterns in the community adjustment of the offenders. First (and consistent with the research discussed

above), the prison parolee sample and the probation sample did not display failure

patterns significantly different from those of the boot camp sample. Second, offenders with drug histories were less likely to fail while under community supervision

than other drug offenders, especially when the effect of required treatment was statistically controlled in the analysis. That is, offenders arrested or convicted of a drug

offense who were not also judged to need treatment were less likely to fail while

under community supervision than those who were also judged in need of treatment.

Moreover, they were less likely to fail than offenders without drug histories who

were judged to need treatment. Thus participation in treatment may have actually

resulted in higher failure rates.
 213

A third finding may help explain this apparent anomaly. Although supervision level

was controlled in the logistic regression models, it is possible that individuals in

treatment had higher failure rates because of some aspect of supervision related to

the requirement to attend treatment. In fact, higher failure rates in terms of jailing

or revocation among those receiving community treatment were limited to those in

treatment who were not making satisfactory progress (Shaw and MacKenzie, 1992,

pp. 514–515).

In summary, the Louisiana boot camp experience itself did not seem to have any

differential or positive impact on the community adjustments of either problem

drinkers or drug-involved offenders. Although Louisiana’s boot camp did provide

some drug treatment programming such as Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) and Narcotics Anonymous (NA), it did not have a formal drug treatment component. Inferences about the efficacy of boot camp programming as a vehicle of change on the

lives of substance abusers should await rigorous tests of programs with substance

abuse treatment components that parallel those found in the community.

Methodology for the Survey of Boot Camp

Drug Treatment Programs

The present research includes within its scope the identified universe of shock incarceration programs for adult offenders at the beginning of 1993. These include

facilities operated by the Federal and State governments. Excluded from the study

are juvenile programs and boot camps operated by local governments. Since the

beginning of 1993, many additional boot camps have opened their doors. These

newer programs may exhibit characteristics quite different from those typically

found in older ones. Thus, findings from this survey may not be generalizable to all

adult boot camp facilities.

In the fall of 1992, letters asking about the existence of boot camp facilities were

sent to the directors or commissioners of the departments of corrections in all 50

States plus the Virgin Islands, the District of Columbia, and the Federal Bureau of

Prisons.1

 At the beginning of 1993, the survey indicated that there were 43 State

boot camps operating in 29 States. In addition, two Federal programs were in operation.2

 Survey efforts also revealed 12 planned boot camps in 5 States (7 in Georgia, 2 in Iowa, and 1 each in Illinois, Kentucky, and Oregon) which were due to be

operational within the next 2 years.

Survey data on substance abuse programming provided by the above facilities were

collected in two distinct stages. During the first stage, telephone interviews were

conducted with the person at the level of the correctional system most directly responsible for planning, implementation, or oversight of boot camp programming,

such as the department of correction’s central office. Interview questions sought to

elicit information on the correctional aims, program goals, and program elements of

the boot camp. As used in this research, correctional aims refer to broad constructs
214

that underlie correctional interventions (e.g., deterrence, retribution, rehabilitation,

incapacitation). Program goals are more narrowly defined (e.g., reduced recidivism,

reduced crowding) and can be subsumed by the larger correctional aim (e.g., rehabilitation includes reduced recidivism).

Of the 30 jurisdictions previously identified as operating a boot camp program,

2 States indicated that their boot camps served specialized functions and thus had

different program operations (i.e., Oklahoma with 4 and Georgia with 2 distinct

program types). The officials surveyed from these States were asked to report on

aims, goals, and elements separately for each type of facility within their jurisdiction. This added to the number of interviews to be conducted, but three States

declined to participate in the study. A total of 31 interviews were conducted, representing 26 States and the Federal system, a response rate of 91 percent.

The second stage of data collection began early in 1993. Two questionnaires aimed

at collecting information from facility-level personnel were mailed to each facility.

The first, directed to the facility administrator, sought the administrator’s views as

to the facility’s correctional aims, program goals, and program elements, as well as

a description of the target population and selection criteria, daily scheduling, costs,

and staffing. This survey was designed to capture detailed information on the

facility contexts in which substance abuse programming was provided. Sixty-nine

percent of the administrative questionnaires were returned.

A second survey form was included in the packet with the first, with instructions

for the facility administrator to forward the second questionnaire to the staff member responsible for the facility’s substance abuse treatment or education program, if

such a program existed. The second survey instrument asked about substance abuse

assessment procedures, treatment modalities and interventions, hours of education

and treatment provided, aftercare programs, and information regarding the staff

providing substance abuse treatment or education.

As with the facility administrator’s questionnaire, this survey solicited the substance abuse provider’s perceptions of the program’s correctional aims, goals, and

elements. The purpose of the two-stage data collection on these issues was to measure congruence in the perceptions held by individuals responsible for programming at different levels in the correctional systems. Sixty-four percent of these

questionnaires were returned.

Nonresponses for the administrative and substance abuse surveys were primarily

due to response patterns from three States. New York State, which had five facilities

at the time of this survey effort, refused to participate in the facility-based survey

component. Officials from that State explained that all of their facilities have

identical substance abuse programming and so there was no need to ask facility-level

personnel to respond to the questionnaire. Only three of Georgia’s six facilities responded to both surveys, and only one administrative questionnaire was returned from
 215

among Oklahoma’s four programs. Thus, these States represent 11 of the 14 administrative questionnaire nonresponses and 12 of the 15 substance abuse questionnaire

nonresponses. Fortunately, these programs have been well documented (for example,

see Clark and Aziz in this volume and Clark, Aziz, and MacKenzie, 1993) so that the

nature of nonresponse bias can be estimated. These programs are discussed in the following analyses if they displayed substance abuse programming characteristics distinct

from patterns gleaned from the survey data received.

Survey Findings

The survey findings presented below show the extent to which drug education and

treatment have been made part of boot camp programming and the different forms

they have taken. The survey also elicited information on how inmates were

screened for treatment, how long the treatment lasted, and how boot camps staffed

their education and treatment programs.

The Extent of Substance Abuse Programming

Exhibit 1 presents information provided by system-level officials, facility administrators, and substance abuse programming providers as to whether their boot camps

incorporated particular program elements into overall programming. Only those

facilities for which all three respondents returned the survey are included in this

table. Interestingly, although all respondents in each category indicated that substance abuse education was a program component, a notable discrepancy emerges

when attention turns to responses on whether alcohol treatment and drug treatment

were provided.

All of the system-level officials indicated that alcohol and other drug treatments

were being provided in their facilities, although this was true for only 75 percent of

the facility-level respondents.3

 There appears to be confusion among some respondents as to whether a drug treatment program existed at certain facilities. Prior surveys that indicated almost uniform drug treatment programming in boot camps

may have overrepresented the reality of the situation because they tended to report

responses generated by system-level officials. Responses from individuals closest to

the delivery of such programming efforts indicate that a quarter of adult boot camps

had no such programming.

Most respondents also indicated that physical training, physical labor, basic education, and prerelease programming were facility program components. Conversely,

vocational education was not commonly found in boot camps, with only slightly

more than 40 percent of the system-level respondents and 30 percent of the facility

administrators indicating vocational education to be a facility program element.

Drug treatment in most boot camps is one of a variety of components to balance

military-oriented activity, exercise, and work with more traditional treatmentrelated activities such as education and prerelease programming.
216

It is also noteworthy that despite the great emphasis placed on aftercare services as

a necessary component to ease community reintegration of graduates, about a

quarter of the respondents reported no postrelease service delivery.

Substance abuse programming appeared to be more available to the boot camp participant than to the general prison inmate. All of the responding boot camps had

either a substance abuse treatment or a substance abuse education program. Most

boot camps provide drug treatment (as distinct from drug education only), and

Exhibit 1. The Percentage of Facilities in Which Various Elements

Exist as Reported by System-Level Officials, Site-Level

Administrators, and Site-Level Substance Abuse Treatment Providers

Elements Percentage Percentage Percentage

Physical Training 100 96 96

Alcohol Treatment 100 75 75

Drug Treatment 100 75 75

Substance Abuse

Education 100 100 100

Physical Labor 100 96 96

Drill/Ceremony 100 100 100

Basic Education 96 93 100

Vocational Education 46 32 43

Prerelease

Programming 93 96 96

Postrelease

Services Delivery 75 75 71

System-Level

Officials

(n=27)

Site-Level

Substance Abuse

Treatment/Education Providers

(n=28)

Site-Level

Administrators

(n=28)

Percentages have been rounded to nearest whole percent.

In this table, percentages are presented only for jurisdictions with system-level respondents

(27 of 31), administrative survey respondents (28 of 32), and substance abuse survey

respondents (28 of 29).
 217

virtually all offenders in such facilities participate in substance abuse treatment. In

contrast, Lipton, Falkin, and Wexler (1992) indicate that the percentage of State

correctional systems offering different types of substance abuse programming

ranged from around 62 to 88 percent, with substance abuse education being the

most popular. In a study 4 years earlier, Chaiken (1989) estimated that about 11.1

percent of the inmates in the 50 States were involved in drug treatment.

The Mix of Substance Abuse Education and Treatment

There is some disagreement in the literature on whether it is appropriate to consider

drug education as a drug treatment modality. Many argue that substance abuse education or information programs do not constitute treatment (e.g., Lipton, Falkin,

and Wexler, 1992) but that education or information programs may, at best, be considered to provide basic support for treatment.

To learn how substance abuse program providers in boot camp facilities viewed this

issue, a number of survey questions sought to find out if drug education was considered a totally separate program from drug treatment or a component of treatment. The responses (summarized in exhibit 2) reveal three distinct program groupings for substance abuse education in boot camps. In the first group are those that

provided only substance abuse education, defined in the survey questionnaire as “a

separate, clearly identifiable substance abuse education program.” Seven of the 29

responses (24 percent) indicated this approach. A second group of equal size

(seven) maintained that substance abuse treatment was provided but that there was

no education program as defined above. That is, substance abuse education was intertwined with the treatment component in such a manner that it was not considered

a distinguishable program offering.

Finally, a third, larger group of 15 facilities (52 percent) indicated the presence of

both an identifiable education program and a substance abuse treatment program.

Beyond these fairly crude distinctions lies an interesting finding. When facilities

with treatment programs were asked to identify the approaches that were used in

their programs, all 22 identified education as one. Thus it would seem that education has played an important role in substance abuse programming in boot camp

facilities whether it constituted the only program component or was integrated into

a broader treatment approach.

Exhibit 2 also presents the perceptions of facility substance abuse programming

providers as to the priority they attached to a variety of boot camp program components and the underlying goals of the boot camp. Responses are broken down by

the type of drug treatment provided within the respondent’s boot camp, as defined

above.
218

Exhibit 2. Comparison of Program Elements and Goals by Facilities

with Substance Abuse Education Only, Substance Abuse

Treatment Only, and Both Education and Treatment

Physical Training 1.00 (7) 1.43 (7) 1.21 (14)

Alcohol Treatment — — 1.14 (7) 1.60 (15)

Drug Treatment — — 1.14 (7) 1.53 (15)

Substance Abuse

Education 2.71 (6) 1.83 (6) 1.53 (15)

Physical Labor 1.67 (6) 2.86 (7) 1.67 (15)

Drill/Ceremony 1.43 (7) 1.57 (7) 1.47 (15)

Basic Education 2.71 (7) 1.57 (7) 2.33 (15)

Vocational Education — — — — 3.80 (10)

Prerelease Programs 3.14 (7) 1.43 (7) 1.64 (14)

Postrelease Programs 1.50 (3) 1.67 (6) 2.33 (12)

Program Goals

Deterrence 2.83 (6) 3.00 (5) 2.27 (15)

Incapacitation 3.50 (7) 2.33 (6) 3.14 (14)

Retribution 3.50 (4) 3.50 (4) 3.46 (13)

Rehabilitation 2.00 (7) 1.50 (6) 1.33 (15)

Mean scores for the priority ratings attached to the program elements are based on a scale of 1

(highest priority) to 6 (lowest priority), and those for the program goals are based on a scale of

1 (primary goal) to 4 (least important goal). Mean scores are based only on responses that

indicated a goal or program element was present at the particular boot camp, with the figures in

parentheses indicating the number of boot camps with this goal or program element.

SA Education

and Treatment

SA Education

Only

SA Treatment

Only

Program Elements Mean Mean Mean (n=7) (n=7) (n=15)

These data tend to indicate that the perceptions of providers of substance abuse programming varied considerably due to the framework under which substance abuse

programming is provided in the boot camp environment. For instance, although rehabilitation had a higher priority than the other correctional aims across all types of

facilities, those locations that had separate substance abuse education and treatment
 219

programs gave rehabilitation a higher priority than those facilities providing only

substance abuse education. Additionally, for programs in which substance abuse

education is incorporated into substance abuse treatment (as opposed to being a distinct and separate program), alcohol and drug treatment elements were rated a

higher priority than in programs in which drug education and drug treatment are

separate and distinct portions of the inmate programming. Further, the presence of

drug treatment programming appears strongly related to the incorporation of other

rehabilitative programming found in association with boot camps. For example, a

greater proportion of boot camps that have substance abuse treatment programming

indicated the presence of postrelease programming (6 of 7 and 12 of 15, respectively) than those that had only substance abuse education (3 of 7). As these discussions illustrate, the presence of substance abuse treatment as a program element

may be a defining characteristic of boot camps that most forcefully articulate and

seek the goal of offender rehabilitation. However, programs that merge treatment

and education programming may see the dilution of the former, at least in the eyes

of substance abuse programming providers.

Education

For those 22 boot camps with a separate substance abuse education program, either

provided in conjunction with treatment or alone, 20 (91 percent) mandated inmate

participation in their educational programming. The total number of hours of instruction ranged from 6 to 358 hours, with the average at just over 61 hours. Facilities with both identified education programs and treatment programs provided an

average of nearly 30 more hours of substance abuse education instruction than

programs that had only an education program (70 versus 42), suggesting a more

intensive program effort in facilities that had both substance abuse education and

treatment.

Over half (54 percent) of the programs providing a separate education program

used in-house staff to provide the educational programming. Eighteen percent had

external educators, while about 9 percent contracted with an outside organization to

provide education. The remainder used multiple providers or other sources. The

ratio of inmates to education staff ranged from about 15 to 1 at the low end to

around 200 to 1 at the high end. The most common inmate-staff ratios were about

30 to 1 reported by 18 percent of the facilities, and 50 to 1 reported by 14 percent

of the facilities. Eight of the facilities (36 percent) required that their education staff

be certified as substance abuse treatment providers in their respective States. Four

facilities reported that half of their staff were certified; one facility indicated that 70

percent of its staff had certification; and four reported that their entire education

staff were certified. The remaining 13 facilities did not indicate levels of staff

certification.
220

Treatment

The literature identifies a variety of ways to incorporate substance abuse treatment

in correctional settings. According to Brown (1992), five types of program models

are available for drug abusers in correctional settings:

■ Incarceration without specialized services.

■ Incarceration with drug education or drug abuse counseling or both.

■ Incarceration with residential units dedicated to drug abuse treatment.

■ Incarceration with client-initiated or client-maintained services or both.

■ Incarceration with specialized services that do not directly target users’ drug

abuse problems.

Using this taxonomy, the majority of boot camp substance abuse programs operating at the time of this study would fall into the second category, since all the programs featured either substance abuse education or treatment or both. A minimal

number with well-integrated substance abuse program elements along the lines of a

therapeutic community might even be placed in the third category, incarceration

with residential units dedicated to drug abuse treatment.4

 Further, substance abuse

treatment provided in boot camp facilities best fits into what may be termed a

short-term (less than 3 months) residential treatment program, although a few notable exceptions existed (such as Minnesota’s and New York’s programs) which had

longer (180 days) and more extensive programming.

Models offered for similar correctional substance abuse treatment programs can be

distilled into three primary components: an assessment phase including evaluation

and development of a treatment plan, a treatment program, and an aftercare component (see Finn and Newlyn, 1993; Sherron, 1991; Wexler and Lipton, 1993). This

review of boot camp substance abuse treatment programming examined the first

two of these three components.

Assessment

Assessment of substance abuse problems of inmates was a fairly common practice

in the shock incarceration programs surveyed. Of the 29 State and Federal programs responding to the substance abuse survey, 20 (69 percent) indicated that

some type of substance abuse assessment was conducted while 9 (31 percent) stated

that no assessment took place. All facilities doing such substance abuse assessment

indicated they did so routinely for all inmates entering the facility.

Despite this common use of substance abuse assessment, there appeared to be a

lack of clear links between substance abuse assessment and subsequent treatment

programming. Of the 29 programs responding, 22 reported that they had substance
 221

abuse treatment, but only 18 of this group conducted a substance abuse assessment.

Further evidence of a lack of integration between assessment of substance abuse

problems and subsequent treatment was reflected in the fact that of the 18 programs

that conducted assessments, only half indicated using the assessment data to classify inmates for treatment programs.

The lack of articulation between substance abuse assessment processes and treatment decisions has been clearly driven by the large number of programs that require all boot camp inmates to participate in substance abuse treatment. In addition

to the four facilities that place offenders in treatment without the substance abuse

assessment mentioned above, six of the facilities indicated drug treatment was

mandated by statute; in two the judge could mandate participation; in three others

the facility mandated treatment after assessment; and two facilities had different

mechanisms for mandating substance abuse treatment. One typical boot camp treatment provider indicated, “Any inmate that meets general criteria for shock incarceration receives substance abuse treatment.”

A variety of tools, screening instruments, and classification systems were available

to identify individuals with alcohol and substance abuse problems. Respondents

were asked to identify the techniques they used to determine which inmates had

substance abuse problems. As shown in exhibit 3, all except one of the responding

agencies reported using face-to-face interviews.

Beyond a screening interview, two other methods were widely used to assess

inmates’ substance abuse difficulties. The first was examination of case history

information (beyond the present offense) gleaned from sources such as presentence

investigations, prior evaluations or treatment records, and self-reported information

provided by the offender. Eighty-three percent of the programs reported using such

information for assessment.

The second popular tool consisted of psychological and behavioral testing instruments, with 78 percent of those conducting assessments indicating the use of such

tests. However, there did not appear to be a clear favorite among the instruments

identified by respondents. The most commonly used instrument was the Michigan

Alcoholism Screen Test (MAST), which was identified by nearly 40 percent of

those using such tests. The Inventory of Drinking Situations was used by slightly

more than a third (38 percent), and the Alcohol Use Inventory was employed by

about one quarter (28 percent) of those using tests. Six other scales were identified

by less than 20 percent of this group. It is noted that 56 percent of those indicating

the use of such assessment instruments indicated they used tests other than the 14

that were listed on the survey instrument. In this regard several facilities indicated

the use of substance abuse screening instruments apparently developed as part of

their admission and diagnostic screening process.
222

The two other identified methods appeared to have limited use among boot camp

programs. The use of urine and blood tests was reported by only one-third of the

respondents, and case history reviews to determine if drugs were involved in the

present offense were used by only 17 percent of the responding programs.

Type of

Assessment

Type of

Assessment

Percentage of SI

Facilitiesa

 With

Assessment

n=18

Percentage of SI

Facilitiesa

 With

Assessment

n=18

Psychological/

 Behavioral Tests 78%

Michigan Alcoholism

 Screen Test (MAST) 39%

Inventory of Drinking

 Situations 38%

Alcohol Use Inventory 28%

MacAndrew Scale

 (MMPI subscale) 17%

Addiction Severity Index 17%

Alcohol Dependence

 Data Schedule 11%

Self-Administered

 Alcoholism Screening

 Test (SAAST) 11%

Substance Abuse Proclivity

 Index (SAPS) 6%

Mortimer-Filkins 6%

Adolescent Drinking

 Inventory 5%

Other 56%

Face-to-Face

 Interviews 94%

Clinical Structured

 Interview for (DSM-III-R)b 39%

Other Structured

 Interview 33%

Case History Beyond

 Offense 83%

Case History Confined

 to Drug Involvement

 in Offense Behavior 17%

Biological Markers

 (e.g., blood/urine tests) 33%

Use of Classification

 Systemsc 44%

World Health

Organization (ICD9) 6%

DSM-III-R 22%

Other 11%

Exhibit 3. Types of Substance Abuse Assessment in Shock

 Incarceration Facilities Providing Substance Abuse Treatment

a

Two facilities that conduct substance abuse assessment for aftercare purposes but do not provide

treatment are not included in figures presented in this exhibit.

bInterview protocol based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (Revised Third Edition)

American Psychiatric Association.

c

Formal treatment classification systems used to classify inmates for treatment.
 223

These data indicate that despite the rather extensive assessment efforts in place at

many boot camps, the predominant means of placing boot camp offenders in substance abuse treatment has not been through a diagnostic process and clinically

based decision of need, treatment amenability, or potential effectiveness. Rather,

it has been done through legally mandated or nonclinical decision processes.

Treatment Modalities and Interventions

Respondents were asked to identify treatment modalities used in their programs

from among six commonly associated with correctional substance abuse programs:

substance abuse education; the Alcoholics Anonymous/Narcotics Anonymous

model; individual counseling; therapeutic communities; group counseling; and

milieu therapy. (Findings from this study indicate that neither pharmacological

approaches nor detoxification were in use in boot camp programs at the time of the

survey.) “Modality” was used to mean the general treatment delivery approach

employed by the program. Additionally, respondents were asked to select the interventions they used from among a list of 21 commonplace therapeutic interventions.

Space was also provided for the respondents to list two interventions not included

in the listing. Here “intervention” denotes the specific type or style of treatment

offered. The frequencies of use for each of the modalities (excluding education)

and the most frequent interventions used in conjunction with each of the modalities

is presented in exhibit 4.

All but one of the reporting boot camps employed multiple modalities in their treatment programming. This means that some combination of substance abuse education, group counseling, AA 12-Step models, and milieu therapy was used to deliver

substance abuse services. In fact, a combination of four modalities was the most

prevalent grouping, seen in 36 percent of the programs. Twenty-seven percent used

five of the listed modalities, and one reported using all six modalities.

This finding provides a central theme in the data reported by substance abuse treatment providers. Substance abuse treatment offered in boot camps has been eclectic.

While eclecticism may be a positive attribute, it may also reflect a lack of clarity

and specificity as to the theoretical orientation or treatment approach.

This eclecticism is evidenced by the number of interventions being employed in

each facility—ranging from 1 to 14 with 5 and 7 the most common numbers.

Further, the type of modality used seemed to have little effect on the number of

interventions. The mean number of interventions ranged from 7.41 for therapeutic

communities to 9.00 for milieu therapy. (Because there were only two therapeutic

communities, interpretation of this finding is difficult.)
224

AA 12-Step 18 (95)

Group Counseling 19 (86) Reality Therapy 16 (84)

Stress Management 15 (79)

Alcoholics Anonymous AA 12-Step 17 (100)

Model Reality Therapy 16 (94)

(AA/NA/CA—self-help) 17 (77) Stress Management 13 (76)

AA 12-Step 13 (93)

Individual Counseling 14 (64) Reality Therapy 12 (86)

Reentry 11 (79)

Stress Management 11 (79)

AA 12-Step 11 (100)

Milieu Therapy 11 (50) Reality Therapy 10 (91)

Reentry 10 (91)

Stress Management 9 (82)

AA 12-Step 2 (100)

Therapeutic Community 2 (9) Positive Peer Culture 2 (100)

Treatment

(Method)

Modality

(Approach)

Number of

Facilities

Using (%)

Number of

Facilities

Using (%)

Exhibit 4. Most Frequently Used Treatment Interventions for Five

Primary Treatment Modalities in Shock Incarceration Facilitiesa

a

For the 22 responding facilities indicating they provide substance abuse treatment.

 “Modality” means the general treatment delivery approach employed by the program.

 “Intervention” denotes the specific type or style of treatment offered.

As shown in exhibit 5, for each of the treatment modalities except the therapeutic

community approach, three interventions (AA 12-Step, reality therapy, and stress

management) were consistently ranked as the most frequently used interventions.

The use of several modalities and the predominance of the same interventions

across modalities (slight variations are noted for milieu therapy and individual

counseling) seem to indicate a strong similarity, at least in orientation, among boot

camp substance abuse treatment programs. This is not surprising given the relative

newness and rapid expansion of boot camp facilities. The few more established

programs frequently served as models for those that were newly established. Treatment components found in programs with developed substance abuse approaches,

such as the Alcohol and Substance Abuse Treatment model (ASAT) in New York,

appear to be replicated again and again.
 225

Exhibit 5. Types of Treatment Offered in

Shock Incarceration Facilities

0

20

40

60

80

100

Covert
 Acupuncture

Sensitization

Family
 T.A. Operant


Therapy

Criminal
 Vocational


Thinking

Positive


Peer Cult.

Non-


Directive

Type of Treatment

The similarities in treatment across programs is further illustrated in exhibit 5,

which presents the percentage of facilities that employed each therapeutic

intervention. Examination of the most and least often employed treatment interventions offered at boot camp facilities suggests that most programs have been taking a

pragmatic, skill-building orientation to help offenders cope with the problems and

stressors they would face on return to the community. Traditional psychotherapeutic

approaches designed to deal with offenders’ underlying psychological and emotional problems, particularly those associated with more serious substance abuse,

have been used relatively infrequently.

Length of Treatment

Research over the years has consistently shown a relationship between time in treatment and treatment outcomes (e.g., Hubbard et al., 1989; Wexler et al., 1992). Two

factors can affect the length of time an individual stays in a treatment program:

whether or not someone completes the program and the actual length of the

program.

As mentioned earlier, for the majority of boot camp facilities with substance abuse

treatment programs, participation was set in motion through legal or administrative

mechanisms rather than assessment procedures. Of the 22 reporting facilities with

Percentage of Facilities
226

treatment, in only 1 was treatment voluntary. In six programs, treatment was required for certain inmates, such as those with drug offense convictions or those for

whom the judge mandated participation. In the remaining programs, all inmates

were required to participate.

Once in the substance abuse program, an inmate had little opportunity to quit

treatment without being removed from the facility. In only 5 of the 22 facilities

providing treatment could an inmate be administratively removed from treatment

but remain in the boot camp, and in only 3 of the facilities could the inmate

voluntarily quit the substance abuse treatment program without leaving the boot

camp.

These considerations, coupled with the reluctance or inability of respondents to indicate how much time a boot camp devotes to drug treatment, have made it difficult

to estimate the average length of time a boot camp inmate spent in treatment and its

intensity. Because of the eclectic nature of the treatments and the common lack of

boundaries between what drug treatment is and what it is not, the most that can be

said is that the length of drug treatment in boot camps paralleled the average length

of boot camp programs (slightly over 5 months).

The statement of one boot camp psychologist as reported in Burns (1991) reflects

much boot camp programming in this regard:

...(what I do)...probably does not come across as a very specific alcohol

and drug component to the inmates. I don’t separate it out. When I teach

the 12 steps, I show them that the 12 steps are good for whatever their

problem happens to be. And I view crime as an addictive behavior, just as

drugs are addictive. So that these 12 steps, properly used, can get you over

your addiction to crime” (Burns, 1991, p. 22).

In effect, a day in boot camp has been viewed by many boot camp treatment

providers as a day in drug treatment.

Treatment Staff

As Lipton et al. noted in their review of correctional drug treatment, “staffing is one

of the keys to successful programming whatever the modality” (1992, p. 23). There

are two predominant issues when considering treatment staff: the quality and size

of the staff relative to the client population and the type of treatment offered.

The survey responses revealed considerable diversity in the way treatment programs were staffed, but three models predominated. In the first, treatment programming is provided by full- or part-time agency staff, essentially an in-house program

delivery. The second is a mixed model in which individuals are contracted to

supplement agency staff in providing the program. The third model involves contracting all services through individuals or an outside treatment provider.
 227

The in-house model was by far the most common single approach, with about twothirds of the facilities relying solely on agency staff. Only two reporting facilities used

contracted staff solely, and less than a third used the mixed model of both agency staff

and contracted personnel. Exhibit 6 presents an overview of some of the characteristics

of contracted and agency staffing. These findings indicate that full-time contracted

staff were more likely to be certified and to have had formal training in substance

abuse treatment than full-time correctional agency treatment staff.

Staff Type

Exhibit 6. Substance Abuse Treatment Staff

at Facilities Providing Treatment (n=22)

Percentage

of Staff

Certified

Number of

Facilities

With (%)

Average

Number

of Staff

Range of

Number of

Inmates per

Staff Member

Percentage

of Staff

With Formal

Training

Full-Time

Contracted 6 (27) 3.2 4–41:1 83 75

Full-Time

Agency 20 (91) 2.7 10–90:1 70 40

Part-Time

Contracted 7 (32) 3.7 10–33:1 71 33

Part-Time

Agency 1 (4) 5.0 15:1 0 100

Boot camp programs also differed widely in the ratio of client offenders to substance abuse treatment providers. One program had a ratio of 4 clients for every

treatment provider; at the other end of the spectrum, one had a ratio of 90 participants for every treatment staff member. The most common ratios were 10 to 1, 30

to 1, 45 to 1, and 50 to 1, each seen at two facilities. It seems difficult to imagine

that a substance abuse counselor could have much individualized interaction with

offenders at ratios nearing 100 or even 50 clients per staff member. However, inmate-staff ratios in boot camp treatment programs average in the range of 30 to 1

across types of modalities.

Summary and Conclusions

In general, adult boot camps provide substance abuse programming to a greater percentage of their clients than do correctional facilities. All of the surveyed programs

offered at least substance abuse education, and over 75 percent offered substance

abuse treatment. Interestingly, respondents who worked at actual boot camp sites

were less likely than system-level officials to report that treatment was provided.
228

Substance abuse treatment programming was found to be a key element in establishing a rehabilitative correctional regime. Boot camps with drug treatment programming are not only more strongly oriented to rehabilitation as a primary goal

but are also more likely to use the programming often thought necessary to promote

the successful community reintegration of offenders (e.g., postrelease programming

services).

Despite these positive findings, a number of issues have been identified in this

chapter that suggest that all is not well with boot camp substance abuse programming. Most boot camps have provided drug treatment in a manner that makes it

difficult to readily ascertain the number of treatment hours actually provided to

boot camp participants (e.g., hours vary per week, treatment hours are not distinct

from education hours). Research does confirm, however, that the relatively short

duration of boot camp programs does not bode well for their ability to keep graduates substance free over the long term. Moreover, assessment of inmates’ need for

treatment appears to be an underdeveloped component of substance abuse programming, for it is infrequently used to classify inmates for treatment or to individualize

their treatment plans.

Substance abuse treatment programs in adult boot camp facilities were also found

to take several forms and to be part of a variety of simultaneously used modalities.

While common in the field, multimethod approaches were not used in these boot

camp settings to uncover and treat the wide variety of problems underlying drug

use and dependence. For instance, individualized treatment has been rare, with

individual counseling found to be a modality in only 14 of the 22 boot camps that

provided substance abuse treatment. More commonly, all boot camp participants

within a facility received the same treatment regardless of their individual needs or

situations.

Researchers have identified the therapeutic community model as one of the most

successful approaches to correctional substance abuse treatment (e.g., Lipton et al.,

1992). Somewhat surprising, then, is the fact that only two of the facilities reporting, Massachusetts and Wisconsin, specified the use of a therapeutic community

model. If New York’s programs are included, the relative percentage of boot camps

maintaining that a therapeutic community approach is used increases substantially.

Nonetheless, it appears that a therapeutic community model of drug treatment has

been underutilized in adult correctional boot camps. This is especially disturbing

because such facilities appear ideally suited for the introduction of therapeutic

communities.

Clearly there appear to be significant shortfalls in the manner by which substance

abuse treatment is provided to adult boot camp participants. Although a number of

promising programs exist, much can be done to improve the current programming

in many States. Such efforts should be guided by the results of further experimentation and evaluation.
 229

Notes

1. The responding correctional officials were given the opportunity to self-define

whether correctional programming in their system included a “shock incarceration” facility. They were asked if their jurisdiction contained “any program that

has an intensive training component, not necessarily based on a military model,

that is an incarceration-based alternative to a traditional prison sentence.” Rather

surprisingly, given the fact that the survey letter did not make reference to boot

camps or shock incarceration and the program design of the facility was not

constrained to a military model, respondents tended to identify the same

facilities that had been identified in contemporaneous boot camp surveys

(e.g., MacKenzie, 1993).

2. This count approximates the findings derived from a March 1992 census of boot

camps that identified 41 boot camps in 26 States (MacKenzie, Shaw, and

Gowdy, 1993). The 45 facilities identified in this survey are also comparable in

number to the 46 reported by MacKenzie as existing during 1992 and 1993

(MacKenzie, 1993). Compared to the MacKenzie survey, the present research

identified one more shock incarceration program in Georgia and two fewer

facilities in Michigan. Both these surveys report far fewer boot camp facilities

than either the more recent U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) or American

Correctional Association (ACA, 1993) surveys. These lower counts are not due

to a rapid increase in the opening of adult boot camp programs during 1993 but

to the GAO’s identification of 19 boot camps in Georgia, while the ACA

reported 11 boot camps in Georgia and 7 in Missouri. It is questionable whether

these latter figures represent the actual number of boot camps in those States,

even as they may be defined by correctional officials there. It appears that the

present research effort has been successful in identifying the universe of broadly

defined adult shock incarceration facilities in the United States at the beginning

of 1993.

3. If responses from all of the New York facilities and those from Georgia and

Oklahoma were included in this analysis, the percentage of boot camps with a

drug treatment component would increase beyond the 75 percent reported above.

Each State (but New York in particular) emphasizes drug treatment and has a

fairly strong component. For further information on New York’s model,

see MacKenzie (1993), Clark and Aziz in this volume, and Clark, Aziz, and

MacKenzie (1993). This was not true of the original Georgia and Oklahoma

programs, but in recent years such programming efforts have been introduced or

enhanced in those States.

4. The percentage of boot camps that could be classified in such a manner would

increase if New York’s boot camps were included in this analysis. New York’s

drug treatment model is based on a therapeutic community approach.
230

References

American Correctional Association. “Development of National Standards for Juvenile and Adult Correctional Boot Camps, Draft Monograph.” Unpublished paper.

Laurel, Maryland. 1993.

Andrews, D.A., I. Zinger, R.D. Hoge, J. Bonta, P. Gendreau, and F.T. Cullen. “Does

Correctional Treatment Work? A Clinically Relevant and Psychologically Informed

Meta-analysis.” Criminology, 28, no. 3 (1990):369–404.

Austin, J., M. Jones, and M. Bolyard. The Growing Use of Jail Boot Camps: The

Current State of the Art. Research in Brief. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of

Justice, National Institute of Justice, October 1993.

Brown, B.S. Drug Abuse Treatment in Prisons and Jails. Research Monograph, no.

118. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National

Institute on Drug Abuse, 1992.

Burns, J.C. “A Comparative Evaluation of the Alabama Department of Corrections’

Boot Camp Program.” Paper presented at the Academy of Criminal Justice

Sciences’ Annual Meeting, Nashville, Tennessee. March 6, 1991.

Chaiken, M.R. In-Prison Programs for Drug-Involved Offenders. Issues and

Practices in Criminal Justice. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,

National Institute of Justice, 1989.

Clark, C.L., D.W. Aziz, and D.L. MacKenzie. Shock Incarceration in New York:

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

National Institute of Justice, 1993.

Coyle, E.J. Boot Camp Prisons. Newark, New Jersey: Criminal Disposition

Commission, 1990.

Elis, L.A., D.L. MacKenzie, and C.C. Souryal. “Boot Camp Prisons: A Growing

Trend in Corrections.” Unpublished paper, 1992.

Finn, P., and A.K. Newlyn. Miami’s “Drug Court”: A Different Approach. Program

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

1993.

Florida Department of Corrections. Boot Camp: A Twenty-Five Month Review.

Tallahassee: Florida Department of Corrections. Unpublished report, 1990.

Georgia Department of Corrections. Special Alternative Incarceration: Evaluation.

Atlanta: Georgia Department of Corrections. Unpublished report, 1991.
 231

Gransky, L., T.C. Castellano, and E.L. Cowles. “Is There a Next Generation of

Shock Incarceration Facilities? The Evolving Nature of Goals, Program Components and Drug Treatment Services in Boot Camp Programs.” In J. Smykla and W.

Selke (eds.), Intermediate Sanctions: Sentencing in the 90s. Cincinnati: Anderson

Publishing Co., 1995.

Hubbard, R.L., M.E. Marsden, J.V. Rachal, H.J. Harwood, E.R. Cavanaugh, and

H.M. Ginsburg. Drug Abuse Treatment: A National Study of Effectiveness. Chapel

Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1989.

Lipton, D.S., G.P. Falkin, and H.K. Wexler. “Correctional Drug Abuse Treatment in

the United States: An Overview.” In C. Leukefeld and F. Tims (eds.), Drug Abuse

Treatment in Prisons and Jails. Research Monograph Series, no. 118. Washington,

D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institute on Drug

Abuse, 1992.

MacKenzie, D.L. “Boot Camp Prisons: Components, Evaluations, and Empirical

Issues.” Federal Probation, 54 (1990):44–52.

MacKenzie, D.L. (1993). “Boot Camp Prisons in 1993.” National Institute of

Justice Journal, November:21–28.

MacKenzie, D.L., J.W. Shaw, and V.B. Gowdy. An Evaluation of Shock Incarceration in Louisiana. Research in Brief. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,

National Institute of Justice, June 1993.

MacKenzie, D.L., J.W. Shaw, and C. Souryal. “Characteristics Associated With

Successful Adjustment to Supervision: A Comparison of Parolees, Probationers,

Shock Participants, and Shock Dropouts.” Criminal Justice and Behavior, 19, no. 4

(1992): 437–454.

Marlette, M. “Boot Camp Prisons Thrive.” Corrections Compendium, 16, no. 1

(1991):8–12.

New York State Department of Correctional Services and New York State Division

of Parole. The Third Annual Report to the Legislature: Shock Incarceration in New

York State. Albany, 1991.

Osler, M.W. “Shock Incarceration: Hard Realities and Real Possibilities.” Federal

Probation, 55 (1991):34–42.

Parent, D.G. Shock Incarceration: An Overview of Existing Programs. Issues and

Practices in Criminal Justice. Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of Justice,

National Institute of Justice, 1989.
232

Sechrest, D.D. “Prison ‘Boot Camps’ Do Not Measure Up.” Federal Probation, 53

(1989):15–20.

Shaw, J.W., and D.L. MacKenzie. “Shock Incarceration and Its Impact on the Lives

of Problem Drinkers.” American Journal of Criminal Justice, 16, no. 1 (1991):

63–96.

Shaw, J.W., and D.L. MacKenzie. “The One-Year Community Supervision Performance of Drug Offenders and Louisiana DOC-Identified Substance Abusers Graduating From Shock Incarceration.” Journal of Criminal Justice, 20 (1992):501–516.

Sherron, T. “Minimum Security and Chemical Dependency Treatment: A Functional Model for Corrections.” American Jails, 5, no. 5 (1991):76.

U.S. General Accounting Office. Prison Boot Camps: Short-Term Prison Costs

Reduced, but Long-Term Impact Uncertain. Washington, D.C.: U.S. General

Accounting Office, 1993.

Warnock, K.M., and D. Hunzeker. “Prison Boot Camps: Policy Considerations and

Options.” National Conference of State Legislatures State Legislative Report, 16,

no. 1 (1991):1–10.

Wexler, H.K., G.P. Falkin, D.S. Lipton, and A.B. Rosenblum. “Outcome Evaluation

of a Prison Therapeutic Community for Substance Abuse Treatment.” In C.

Leukefeld and F. Tims (eds.), Drug Abuse Treatment in Prisons and Jails. Research

Monograph Series, no. 118. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services, National Institute on Drug Abuse, 1992.

Wexler, H.K., G.P. Falkin, and D.S. Lipton. “Outcome Evaluation of a Prison

Therapeutic Community for Substance Abuse Treatment.” Criminal Justice and

Behavior, 17, no. 1 (1990): 71–92.

Wexler, H.K., and D.S. Lipton. “From Reform to Recovery: Advances in Prison

Drug Treatment.” In J. Inciardi (ed.)., Drug Treatment in Criminal Justice. Newbury

Park, California: Sage Publications, 1993.

Wexler, H.K., and R. Williams. “The Stay ‘N Out Therapeutic Community: Prison

Treatment for Substance Abusers.” Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 18, no. 3

(1986):221–230.

Editor’s Note: A National Institute of Justice Research Report, Boot Camp Drug

Treatment and Aftercare Intervention: An Evaluation Review (NCJ 153918) and a

Research in Brief of the same name (NCJ 155062) summarizing the report are

available from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service, 800–851–3420.
 233

CHAPTER 14

Boot Camps as an

Alternative for Women

by Doris Layton MacKenzie, Ph.D., Lori A. Elis,

Sally S. Simpson, Ph.D., and Stacy B. Skroban

Doris Layton MacKenzie, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor in the

Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology at the University of

Maryland. Lori Elis is a graduate student in the department, with

research interests in gender and crime and the effectiveness of drug

treatment programs. Sally Simpson, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor

in the department, with research interests in criminological theory,

gender and crime, corporate crime etiology, and social control.

Stacy Skroban is a graduate student with the department. Her

primary research interests include applied statistical models and

evaluation of delinquency prevention programs.

This chapter describes a study of women in adult correctional boot camps.

The authors visited boot camp programs in seven States, interviewing staff

and inmates, collecting questionnaire information from the women boot

camp participants, and examining the facility design, structure, and operation. They found two different types of boot camps for women: one integrated women into boot camps designed for male inmates; other boot

camps for females were completely separate from the male camps. After

reviewing the evidence, the authors concluded that there were major

problems for women in camps that combined men and women. Few women

were in the camps, and those who were confronted serious problems. The

environment and experiences of the women were not equal to those of the

men in the same camps. Women in separate or semiseparate programs fared

better. The pros and cons for the women in these camps were very similar to

those for men, but some characteristics of the women made the boot camp

experience much more difficult than for men. In particular, for women who

had dependency problems or who had been victims of abuse, the boot camp

provided a negative atmosphere. It was concluded that women should not

be combined with men in boot camps designed for men. If boot camps are

going to be developed for women, they should be designed to be compatible

with the needs and characteristics of women offenders. Alternatives to boot

camps should be considered that would offer women similar opportunities

but in a more suitable environment.
234

Boot camp programs generally target young, nonviolent, first-time offenders.

Participants have been overwhelmingly male. However, in the interest of

parity, many departments of corrections have opened boot camp programs

to women offenders. Some boot camps offer intensive therapeutic programming or

opportunities for early release that would not be available in traditional prisons or

in other alternative programs. If women are denied access to boot camps, they will

not have equal opportunities for therapy or early release.

Considering the public and political support for these programs, there is every reason to believe money will continue to be funneled into boot camps. If they do provide benefits for individual participants, these benefits should be available equally

to men and women offenders. Legally, incarcerated women have a right to the same

level of programming and benefits available to men (Rafter, 1990). However, prison

boot camps were developed for men, with women often admitted as an afterthought.

Successful litigation by incarcerated females has increased the availability of upgraded programs for women in many prisons (Crawford, 1988). Correctional programs originally designed for men have become options for women. However, this

trend is not without controversy. The integration of women into male-oriented correctional programs has been criticized by some scholars who argue that placing

women in programs originally designed for males without a prior assessment of the

needs of female offenders may be detrimental (Rafter, 1989; Morash and Rucker,

1990). Although the program may have possible benefits, its implementation may

have unintended consequences for the women. “And, as the entire history of our

prison system indicates, ‘equal’ treatment may actually create hardships for women

if male needs and programs set the standard” (Rafter, 1990, p. 202).

Most of the research examining boot camps has focused on male inmates. In a

multisite study of boot camp programs, MacKenzie and Souryal (1994) found that

boot camps had a positive impact on the attitudes of offenders. Camps emphasizing

treatment and aftercare may also lower recidivism rates of program graduates. Furthermore, some programs may be designed to reduce prison crowding by releasing

offenders earlier than they would otherwise be released. Thus there is evidence that

some boot camps offer benefits for offenders. The multisite study focused on male

offenders because in most cases there were too few women in the boot camps to

provide reasonable numbers for statistical analyses.

This chapter examines the adequacy of correctional boot camps for women. The

researchers identified the State boot camp programs with women participants and

selected half for a more indepth descriptive study (MacKenzie, Elis, Simpson, and

Skroban, 1994). Before the study began, a focus group of feminist scholars, correctional experts, and criminologists identified an extensive list of issues important to

consider in an evaluation of the appropriateness of boot camps for females. The

study was designed to address the following questions:
 235

■ Do women offenders have an equal opportunity to enter and remain in the

boot camps?

■ Do the camps address the needs of women offenders?

■ Are the boot camps potentially harmful for these offenders?

■ What are the potential advantages of the camps for women?

■ Are there alternative correctional programs that would be more appropriate?

Survey of Boot Camp Programs

In March 1992 the researchers surveyed all adult State correctional systems to determine the number and characteristics of the boot camp programs in existence.

This study found 39 boot camp programs for adult felons in 25 States (the survey

did not include boot camps in juvenile detention centers or in local jails). Thirteen

of the 25 States had women in the boot camp programs, with women making up

6.1 percent of the boot camp population. Two additional States (Pennsylvania and

Massachusetts) were planning to open boot camps, with women eligible to enter

the program.

The number of beds for women in the boot camps varied from a low of 8 in

Colorado, Kansas, and New Hampshire to a high of 150 in New York. Camps for

women in the remaining States (Arizona, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan,

Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas) were intermediate in size, their

capacities ranging from 10 to 60. The capacity figure for the women in boot camps

in these States was consistently smaller than that for male inmates (exhibit 1).

0

20

40

60

80

100

Beds Vacant

Beds Used

Males N=646 Females N=143

Percent

Exhibit 1. Boot Camp Participants in Six Sites:

Capacity vs. Actual Participants
236

A major difference among the boot camps with respect to female participants was

the fact that some programs integrated the females into the program with male inmates; others had completely separate female programs. Women participating in

the integrated programs were housed either at the male boot camp or at a nearby

female prison. In these programs the women participated with the men in almost all

daily activities. Nine States with boot camp programs for women combined women

and men in one program. The other four had completely separate programs in

which males and females did not come into contact with one another.

Site Visits

Out of the 13 boot camps for women, 6 were selected for more indepth study. Since

the research team pilot tested data collection instruments at one boot camp, the final selection of six sites was a 50-percent sample of boot camps in existence at the

time of the survey. Four of these boot camps had integrated programs (men and

women combined), and two were separate camps for women. At the time of the site

visits, a total of 69 women were participating in the boot camps. The number of

women in the camps was much smaller than the allowable capacity (a total of 143

beds). This was a particular problem with the integrated programs. The 4 integrated

programs had designated a total of 64 beds for female offenders, yet there were

only 9 women in the camps, or only 12.5 percent of the total capacity. In fact, two

of the sites had no women at the time of the site visits.

The separate programs differed as to percentage of beds filled. At one site, 93 percent of the 55-bed capacity had been reached; at the other, 25 percent of the 20-bed

capacity was filled. Thus, with the exception of one boot camp, the beds in boot

camps for women were generally empty, particularly in the combined programs.

Because the numbers of women from the six sites were so small, an additional site

was added to the study. This boot camp was not randomly selected. Its large number of women was expected to yield additional interviews and information about

women’s boot camp experience. Men and women spent some time together, but

they were not integrated for all activities. Women were housed in separate buildings

from the male inmates. They did not mix during work, and although they were with

male inmates at meals, they were required to eat at separate tables. Males and

females did participate together in educational classes, physical training, drill and

ceremony, and drug counseling. Thus, for the purposes of this study, this program

was classified as semiseparate.

At the seven boot camps, the researchers collected data through interviews with

administrators and inmates. During a walk through the site, they also completed a

checklist that examined the degree of integration in programs combining males and

females, including the living situation, the decor, bathroom facilities, and crossgender supervision. Female inmates were also asked to complete a questionnaire
 237

asking for demographic data and information on their families, history of abuse,

and prior drug and alcohol use.

Results

The majority of the women in the boot camps had children with whom they would

be living after release. Most were the sole source of financial support for themselves and their children. They were serving time for nonviolent crimes (drugs,

theft, or fraud), and a large percentage had prior contact with the criminal justice

system. Many had substance abuse problems and histories of abusive relationships.

An analysis of the completed questionnaires, coupled with results of interviews

with both inmates and staff, revealed a number of issues and problems about the

boot camp experiences of women.

Do Women Offenders Have an Equal Opportunity To

Enter and Remain in the Boot Camps?

The most conspicuous problem with the randomly selected sites was the small

number of women in the boot camps. As noted earlier, some boot camp beds for

women were not being used, and of the six sites receiving visits, two had no

women in the program. The few women who did enter the boot camp program

were apt to drop out. This is a particular problem when boot camps combine

women and men in the same program.

There are some obvious problems that may account for the small number of

women. First, the programs were designed for men. Women appeared to have more

problems with the physical demands of the program. They frequently discussed

health problems, and many of those in the process of dropping out cited a physical

problem as the reason.

Another problem reported by the women, especially in the combined programs,

was the emotionally stressful nature of the program. Almost all inmates have reported that boot camp programs are stressful (see, for instance, MacKenzie and

Souryal, 1994). However, the women appeared to suffer additional stress because

there were so few women in the program. That is, there were frequently only 1 or 2

women in a program with 30 or more men. In many cases, for their protection, the

women were supervised more intensely in the program than the men. Interviews

indicated that women’s activities were often severely restricted to protect them

from abuse and harassment (yet there were still many instances of problematic

sexual activities in the boot camps).
238

Additional difficulties related by the women were due to their different standards of

modesty, privacy, and aesthetics. Many of the boot camps’ bathroom facilities permitted little privacy and employed cross-gender supervision. Furthermore, dormitories were barren; the women were not permitted to display personal items such as

photographs. They missed these reminders of home and children.

If the women in these boot camps are compared to the men in another study of boot

camps (MacKenzie and Souryal, 1994), they are found to be similar in the type of

crime they committed and the percentage who were employed (exhibit 2). However, the women were older than the men in the boot camps (23 to 29 years old

compared to 19 to 24). Age restrictions for eligibility may be one reason why there

were few women in the boot camps. Four of the sites had an upper age limit of 25

for participants in the programs and were filled only up to 33 percent of capacity.

The two programs that had filled the majority of their beds either had no upper age

limit or an upper age limit of 35. Thus, if women offenders are on the average older

than men when they enter prison, they may be in effect excluded only because they

do not meet age requirements. Other eligibility criteria may also limit the number

of women who are admitted, particularly if the criteria were originally developed

for male offenders (Chesney-Lind and Pollock-Byrne, 1993).

Although women may have been placed in the boot camps in the interest of equality, mixing women into a program designed for men did not create an equal situation. Programs did not take into consideration the average woman inmate’s physical

Exhibit 2. Profile of Female Offenders in

Boot Camps in Four Sites

Characteristic Percentage of Positive Responses

Criminal History

Convicted of drug crime, fraud, or theft 60–63

Was previously arrested 40–70

Was previously convicted 20–63

Economic Profile

Employed 48–60

Sole support of family 50–60

Self-Reported Drug Use in Month Before Arrest

Heroin 0–28

Crack 20–25

Cocaine 14–50

Alcohol 20–27
 239

stamina. The women had to cope with the additional stress of being in an environment where the majority of participants and staff were men.

Do the Camps Address the Needs of

Women Offenders?

A review of the literature on women offenders suggests that their most important

needs include vocational or employment training to help them support themselves

and their children; substance abuse treatment; programming that considers their

family obligations, such as parenting classes, life skills training, and help with the

transition to the community; and counseling for victims of domestic violence and

sexual assault (American Correctional Association, 1993; Rafter, 1990; Baunach,

1985). As expected, these problems were frequently mentioned by women in the

boot camps.

Programs such as parenting training, general education, and drug treatment were

available in many of the boot camps. If women are excluded from participation,

they may not have an equal opportunity for such programming.

On the other hand, although many women had serious drug abuse histories (see

exhibit 2), only half of the boot camps had drug treatment programs. Few offered

therapeutic programs for the problems many of these women had, such as programs

for surviving sexual assault or battering, making a successful transition to the community, or obtaining job skills.

Furthermore, there were no innovative visitation programs to encourage women’s

interaction with their children, and in the combined programs visitation was particularly limited. It appears that the programs failed to take into consideration the

importance of children to women in boot camps. Since most of the women were

mothers who expected to be reunited with their children upon release, the time in

prison could be used to strengthen the mother-child bond and improve parenting

skills. Furthermore, interaction with children may be a positive influence on female

offenders.

Are the Boot Camps Potentially Harmful for

Women Offenders?

Frequently in interviews inmates mentioned name calling and offensive comments

by the drill instructors (DIs). They reported being told, “You are nothing but a convict” and “You’re always gonna be a loser.” Several reported being called “bitch.”

Perhaps the most offensive comments were those about the women’s ability to be

good parents or comments about their children. One woman who told a DI about

having had a stillborn child believed the DI was out of place to say, “Good—you
240

didn’t bring another slimeball into the world.” Another reported that being told

“your child is a coke baby” hurt her considerably. Women reported they were

“dogged” and that the DI’s attempted to “tear them down.” The women made many

comments about how after being torn down they were supposed to be built up, but

there were few comments about how this was done. DI’s in the combined programs

were the source of the harshest verbal abuse.

Problems related to sexual activities were mentioned by both staff and inmates. For

example, in one boot camp program a male DI required the women to exercise in

their nightgowns upon arising in the morning while the male drill instructor walked

through the dormitory. After they complained to a female DI, the male DI was no

longer assigned to the women’s dormitory.

One of the administrators in a separate program reported that at one time the program had been coeducational but that several pregnancies had occurred and one

woman was murdered by a male inmate. This was one reason for the decision to

separate the male and female boot camp programs.

Another reported a problem that occurred in a combined program when a male drill

instructor had sexual relations with one of the female boot camp inmates. The administrator believed that despite suggestions that the woman had consented to the

relations, consent could not freely be given because of the DI’s power over the inmate. This boot camp had gone to great lengths to protect the female participants

from male inmates, requiring a DI to be with the women at all times. Yet the DI,

who could be male or female (depending upon who was on duty) had to stay in the

bathroom while the women showered. The inmates were required to strip down to

their underwear in front of the DI before moving into a shower stall (partially concealed from view).

Although some of the women mentioned that they had been pushed or shoved by

correctional officers, none of those interviewed said they had been touched sexually. In the combined programs, several said that the men were pushed by the drill

instructors more often than the women.

Another concern about the boot camps was their effect on women who had been

battered or abused in the past. This comment from a woman who had just made the

decision to leave the boot camp was typical: “I was physically and mentally abused

and just being here reminds me of it.” She went on to say:

I have bruises on my arms. They grab you and they push you

around...They shouldn’t be that harsh on you. They get in your face and

make you feel like dirt. For someone like me that’s been physically and

mentally abused, that’s all it reminds me of—being abused.
 241

Another woman in a different program who had been in the program a week said,

“You can’t talk to the DI’s like they are people because you are not just allowed to

even look at them.” She couldn’t get used to this. “When you look at them they

scream at you, ‘don’t look at me.’” She said this was frightening for people like her

who had been abused in the past.

Another inmate remembered:

When I first got here, I had people screaming at me in my ears...I thought I

was gonna just come apart, have a nervous breakdown...For the 2 months I

was here, I cried because it triggered all that stuff from my childhood that

I just started remembering when I came here.

On the other hand, some of the women who had been in the boot camps longer felt

that they had learned useful lessons. One reported, “The program teaches you how

to stand up for yourself and that you don’t have to take anybody’s crap. The DI’s

are in your face all the time and you get to express your feelings. You can explain to

them how you feel.”

What Are the Potential Advantages of the

Camps for Women?

The two primary aspects of the boot camp prison that can be considered advantages

are the chance for early release and increased opportunities for therapeutic programming. Most of the women said the greatest benefit was getting out of prison

earlier. Mothers mentioned wanting to get home to their children, and others said

that completing the program would mean they would not have a record of conviction. In one program, the women were upset because they had to wait a long time in

prison or jail after signing papers to enter the boot camp, and this lengthened their

total incarceration time. They had no choice between this program and other programs offering early release. It was either this program or no early release.

The program with the largest number of female offenders was one that separated

the sexes. In contrast to those in the other boot camps, offenders in this camp were

sentenced directly to the program. They mentioned the possibility of early release

much less frequently, most likely because they could not be as sure what their sentences would have been otherwise. Some had been given a choice of the boot camp,

a longer sentence to prison, or a delayed sentence.

Although the majority of the women in one site said they had originally entered

the boot camp because they would serve less time in prison, most of them reported

that the therapeutic programs and what they had learned while in the boot camp

were the best parts of their experience. During interviews, they suggested ways in

which the camps could be improved by adding specific types of programs. Most
242

comments about programming depended on whether a particular program addressed the inmate’s own problems. If it did, she reported that the program was

beneficial. If it did not (and this was the case most of the time), then the offender

suggested what was missing from the program that should be included. Women

who thought drug treatment was important reported it as a benefit and said they

would recommend the program to others with drug problems.

Many of the women cited discipline as a benefit, and some cited it as a reason for

entering the program. They said learning discipline would benefit them in the outside world and would help them achieve self-control. Another benefit reported by

the inmates was that they were now in good physical condition, were exercising,

and were getting in shape. Several mentioned losing weight.

Are There Alternative Correctional Programs That

Would Be More Appropriate?

It became clear in the interviews that the boot camp programs failed to address several important needs of women. Many inmates said they regretted the lack of opportunity to see their children. They also knew they would need to support themselves

and their children when they got out but said they received little help in boot camp

to improve their occupational opportunities. In addition, women with substance

abuse problems reported receiving little treatment, and victims of domestic abuse

were not helped in how to deal with their husbands or boyfriends when they returned home.

For these and other reasons, it is questionable whether the benefits of the boot

camps for women outweigh the costs. Certainly there are serious problems in combining women and men in one boot camp prison. There may be other, more appropriate alternatives for women offenders.

Summary and Conclusions

Many issues of concern for women in boot camps are similar to those for men. The

military atmosphere carries with it some dangers (such as staff-on-inmate abuse,

injury, and accidents), and there is little evidence that the military atmosphere alone

will change offenders so that they will not be involved in crime in the future.

The authors believe that this research uncovered additional, serious problems for

women offenders placed in boot camps with men. Few women entered and stayed

in those programs, and their experiences were not the same as those of men. The

stress was greater, their activities were restricted, and there were problems with

sexual behavior. Thus these programs did not offer women an effectively equal

opportunity for early release and appropriate programming.
 243

In general, the separate and semiseparate programs seemed to have fewer problems

than the combined programs. The separate programs were more likely to offer

therapeutic programs suited to women’s needs. Visitation policies were less restrictive, and the women had some opportunities to see their children while in boot

camp. Surprisingly, some of them said they would not recommend the boot camps

to males because men would have “attitude” problems that would make it difficult

for them to complete the program.

However, the study identified serious issues with respect to both types of programs.

Few of the boot camps addressed women’s needs for vocational training, drug treatment, or transition to the community. Of even greater concern was their impact on

women who had lived in abusive relationships. The confrontation and requirements

for absolute obedience may be particularly bad for women who have been dependent on male criminal associates or for women who have been in abusive

relationships (Pollock-Byrne, 1990; Rafter, 1990). When drill instructors confronted women who had been in such relationships, the women were sharply reminded of earlier abusive situations. Only a few said they had learned to stand up

for themselves. The authors are concerned that many women, particularly those

who dropped out of the program, left with added scars and diminished self-confidence. Together with the obvious potential for sexual, physical, or verbal abuse, this

damage to already fragile egos seems to be one of the most dangerous aspects of

the boot camp experience for women.

On the other hand, boot camps can offer women the advantage of earning their way

out of prison earlier, and they have the capability of providing intense therapy for

offenders that is seldom available in regular prison. If boot camp is the only way

women offenders can obtain treatment and early release from prison, it should be

possible to design women’s boot camp programs that are more responsive to the

needs discussed in this chapter. The authors believe that existing boot camps should

be considered experimental. They should be carefully monitored and studied so that

future programs can be designed that achieve the same correctional objectives without doing damage to the participants.

References

American Correctional Association. Female Offenders: Meeting Needs of a Neglected Population. Laurel, Maryland: American Correctional Association, 1993.

Baunach, Phyllis J. Mothers in Prison. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction

Books, 1985.

Chesney-Lind, Meda, and Joycelyn Pollock-Byrne. Women’s Prisons: Equality

With a Vengeance. Unpublished manuscript, University of Hawaii at Manoa, 1993.
244

Crawford, Jane. Tabulation of a Nationwide Survey of State Correctional Facilities

for Adult and Juvenile Female Offenders. Laurel, Maryland: American Correctional

Association, 1988.

MacKenzie, D.L., R. Brame, D. McDowall, and C. Souryal. “Boot Camp Prisons

and Recidivism in Eight States.” Criminology, 33, no. 3 (1995):401–430.

MacKenzie, D.L., L. Elis, S. Simpson, and S. Skroban. Females in Boot Camp

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

Justice, 1994.

MacKenzie, D.L., and A. Piquero. “The Impact of Shock Incarceration Programs on

Prison Crowding.” Crime and Delinquency, 40, no. 2 (1994):222–249.

MacKenzie, D.L., and Souryal, C. Multisite Evaluation of Shock Incarceration.

Evaluation Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1994.

Morash, Merry, and Lila Rucker. “A Critical Look at the Idea of Boot Camp as a

Correctional Reform.” Crime and Delinquency, 36 (1990):204–222.

Pollock-Byrne, Joycelyn. Women, Prison and Crime. Pacific Groves, California:

Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, 1990.

Rafter, Nicole Hahn. “Gender and Justice: The Equal Protection Issue.” In Lynne

Goodstein and Doris Layton MacKenzie (eds.), The American Prison: Issues in

Research and Policy. New York: Plenum Press, 1989.

Rafter, Nicole Hahn. Partial Justice: Women, Prisons and Social Control. New

Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers, 1990.
 245

CHAPTER 15

Planning and Designing

Boot Camp Facilities

by Cindie A. Unger

Cindie Unger is Vice President of Correctional Services Group, Inc.,

in Kansas City, Missouri, providing consulting services to Federal,

State, and local criminal justice agencies. Ms. Unger has completed

several projects for the National Institute of Corrections and the

Bureau of Justice Assistance.

Boot camp facilities need to be designed in accordance with their goals

and activities, which are different from the goals and activities of regular

prisons. Whether renovating or adding to existing prison facilities or

designing totally new facilities, correctional planners need to conduct five

activities to ensure that designs enable the boot camp to fulfill its objectives

to: (1) develop a preliminary program, (2) develop and consider facility

options, (3) determine the costs of facility options, (4) identify strategies for

reducing construction and operating costs, and (5) select the most feasible

option. The recommendations made are drawn from Guidelines for Developing a Boot Camp Program, a manual prepared in 1993 by the Correctional Services Group, Inc., and jointly funded by the U.S. Department of

Justice’s National Institute of Corrections and Bureau of Justice Assistance.

One chapter in the manual tells how to design boot camp facilities so that

they promote the objectives of boot camp programs.
246

The growth of boot camp programs has spawned numerous studies of boot

camps, ranging from instructional manuals for implementation to comprehensive evaluations. Nearly all of these studies focus exclusively on the boot

camp program—its objectives, its components ( drill, physical exercise, education

programming, substance abuse treatment), eligibility criteria, program length, and

program effectiveness. Very little attention has been given to the physical facilities

that house boot camp programs and how their design affects the ability of the programs to achieve their objectives.

Yet correctional administrators have long recognized that correctional programs and

security practices are shaped by the structures in which they are housed. Since the

earliest penitentiaries were constructed on American soil, an integral part of correctional facility design has been to plan the physical layout and structure of facilities

to serve the prison’s overall goals, programs, services, and activities.

This premise holds true for the planning of boot camp facilities, whether they are

located in existing, expanded, or new correctional buildings. The Nation’s earliest

prisons were facilities that isolated prisoners because the prevailing correctional

philosophies of the day emphasized silence, penitence, and solitude. Today’s boot

camps, on the other hand, simulate the barracks of military boot camps to bring

nonviolent inmates together to instill discipline, promote teamwork, and ultimately

generate a sense of responsibility for themselves and for others. Boot camps reflect

a correctional philosophy that emphasizes rehabilitation through group interaction

and activities.

Because of these special program goals and nonviolent offender populations, boot

camp facilities are designed differently from traditional prisons and jails. They contain proportionally more space for physical exercise and substance abuse programming, use dormitory housing almost exclusively, and use outdoor areas for closeorder drill and obstacle courses—training courses filled with barriers, such as

ditches and walls, that must be negotiated.

To successfully plan and design an effective boot camp facility, a correctional

agency should complete five activities: (1) develop a preliminary program,

(2) develop and consider facility options, (3) determine the costs of facility options,

(4) identify strategies for reducing construction and operating costs, and (5) select

the most feasible option.1

Develop a Preliminary Program

To select a feasible and effective option for a boot camp facility, the agency must

first have a clear, if preliminary, idea of how the facility will function and the

demands that will be placed on it. This requires the development of a preliminary

program statement that identifies:
 247

■ The boot camp mission.

■ Boot camp goals.

■ Boot camp programs and services.

■ The daily schedule.

■ Capacity projections.

■ The preliminary estimate of space needs.

■ The relationship among spaces.

■ Potential users.

■ Americans With Disabilities Act requirements.

■ Major activities to be carried out.

The mission of the boot camp guides the development of its goals, which in turn

determine the types of programs and services that will be needed and that will determine the daily schedule that the boot camp participants will follow. Guided by

this schedule, facility planners can identify the specific types of spaces the boot

camp will need to provide. A sample daily boot camp schedule is provided in

exhibit 1.2

The size of the facility, the number of participants it can accommodate at any one

time, plus the daily schedule will dictate the number and size of the spaces planned

for each activity or program.

The preliminary estimate of space needs involves several activities, preceded by a

review of State and national facility standards. First, planners should develop a list

of spaces needed to carry out the daily activities. For most boot camps, major

functional spaces will include:

■ Dormitory housing, including sleeping area, day room, showers, and toilets.

■ Program space for academic classes, substance abuse programming, life skills

training, anger management, and other skills enhancement training.

■ Multipurpose space for group meetings, Narcotics Anonymous and Alcoholics

Anonymous meetings, and religious services.

■ Administrative offices and ancillary support space.

■ Program and service office space.
248

Exhibit 1. Minnesota Correctional Facility–

Willow River/Moose Lake

Willow River Challenge Incarceration Program Daily Schedule

Time Event

5:30 Wake Up/Roll Call

5:35–5:45 Physical Training Preparation

5:45–6:35 Physical Training

6:35–7:00 Personal Cleanup

7:00–7:30 Breakfast Meal

7:30–7:45 Morning Flag Ritual

7:45–8:25 Barracks Maintenance/Offender Inspection

825–8:30 Program Readiness Preparation

8:30–9:55 Cognitive Skills Training/Barracks Inspection

10:00–11:55 Education Programming or Work Assignment

11:55–12:00 Roll Call

12:00–12:30 Lunch Meal

12:35–3:15 Work Assignment

3:15–3:30 Physical Training Preparation

3:30–4:30 Physical Training

4:30–4:55 Personal Cleanup

4:55–5:00 Roll Call

5:00–5:30 Evening Meal

5:30–6:00/6:15 Evening Flag Ritual/KP/Administration Building Cleanup/Program

Readiness Preparation

6:00–7:00 Lecture or Acupuncture Treatment

7:00–8:00 Chemical Dependency Programming

8:00–9:00 Squad Meeting

9:00–9:25 Individual Offender Programming and Journal/

Correspondence and Study Time

9:25–9:30 Personal Cleanup

9:30 Roll Call

9:35 Lights Out
 249

■ Gymnasium for indoor physical exercise and drill.

■ Outdoor physical training area for running track, calisthenics, and drill.

■ Library.

■ Kitchen.

■ Dining room.

■ Warehouse, including food stores.

■ Laundry.

■ Visiting area.

■ Offender property storage area.

■ Clothing, facility supplies storage area.

■ Intake area.

■ Space for staff services, including lockers, showers, training room, and

assembly room.

Besides the schedule, planners will have to take into account the capacity of the

facility. Then the estimated net square footage for each type of space listed must be

determined. This is the amount of space required for a particular function, exclusive

of interior walls or circulation space around the functional area. Each space must be

large enough to accommodate the number of people who will use the space (both

offenders and staff) and the nature of the activities that will take place there.

To make functional spaces work in relation to one another, designers add a grossing

factor, which adds space for interior walls and partitions, internal corridors, and

circulation among functional components (such as administrative and program

areas). To illustrate grossing, a factor of 35 to 40 percent is typically added to the

net square footage (NSF) estimated for dormitory housing. Thus, a 50-foot by 70-

foot dormitory would have 3,500 square feet, yet the gross square footage (GSF)

would be at least 4,725 square feet (3,500 NSF x 0.35 growing factor). In addition,

the preliminary estimate of space needs also involves computing the facility’s overall efficiency factor. Typically, the efficiency factor is about 1.25 times the gross

square footage. In this way, the overall size of the facility can be determined. A

sample housing space list with estimated square footages is provided in exhibit 2.

After determining their space needs, boot camp planners should study the relationship among the spaces, determining which spaces need to be next to or near one

another (in the language of architects, spacial relationships are called adjacencies)
250

Exhibit 2. Example Space List

Premier Shock Incarceration Center

Summary of Area Requirements: Inmate Housing Area

Space No. of NSF per Total

Spaces Space NSF

Secured Vestibule 1 100 100

Officer Station 1 90 90

Staff Toilet 1 30 30

Dormitory Area 64 50 3,200

Day Room 64 35 2,240

Dining Area 64 15 960

Television Viewing Area Included in Day Room

Showers 8 36 288

Toilets 8 12 96

Sinks 8 5 40

Urinals 8 5 40

Outdoor Recreation Courtyard 1 1,000 1,000

Indoor Weight Station 1 180 180

Interview Room 1 100 100

J.C./Trash storage 1 100 100

General Storage 1 150 150

Beverage Counter 1 20 20

Food Service Staging 1 100 100

Telephone Alcove 1 20 20

Laundry Room 1 100 100

Clothing Storage/Issue 1 100 100

Electronic Equip. Room 1 80 80

Medical Screening Room 1 120 120

Total (One Dormitory) 9,154

Total (Four Dormitories) 36,616
 251

and projecting the flow of people, information, and things throughout the facility.

They must also visualize the volume, frequency, and importance of this flow.

Potential users include staff, offenders, visitors, volunteers, and vendors. Designers

should consider the number of these people, the period and length of time they will

spend there, and any special requirements they may have.

The Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 significantly strengthened the law

on accessibility to public buildings. Areas or objects whose accessibility must be

evaluated include exterior step handrails or possible ramp; doors, which should be

wide and easily opened; elevators or ramps to accompany interior stairs; floors,

which should be level and nonslip; restrooms, which should have wide doors and

grab bars; counters, which should be of suitable height; corridors, which should be

brightly lit and fitted with grab bars; and waiting rooms with comfortable seating.

The design must also be based on an understanding of the major activities to be

undertaken for each user or facility area throughout the building and the typical

sequence of activities, including what people are involved, what they do, and where

they do it. A master operational schedule, completed by the users of the facility, is

invaluable to designers at this point (exhibit 3).

The Illinois Impact Incarceration Program (IIP) at Dixon Springs furnishes an example of what happens when the facility design does not take into account an important aspect of the program. The program’s inmate code of silence dictates that

inmates may not communicate with one another and that they may not speak to

staff unless they first obtain permission or are addressed by staff. The facility, a

former forestry camp, has 3 housing units—1 for women, 1 large unit for 80 of the

newest participants, and another large unit comprising 10 smaller dormitories, each

housing 14 inmates.

Staff are aware that participants routinely violate the code of silence when they are

in the small dormitories. To enforce the code, IIP would have to place an officer in

each of the 10 small dormitories to visually monitor inmates’ talking behavior.

Because this level of staffing is cost prohibitive, the inmates are “on their honor”

 to adhere to the code of silence. A better facility design would have consisted of 3

large dormitories housing between 60 and 75 inmates each, with a correctional

officer assigned to each dormitory. Alternatively, a housing unit design could have

been adopted similar to that of the Georgia’s Women’s Detention Center (see exhibit 4), where 166 inmates are housed in 4 dormitories designed around a common

control center. The officers who staff the control center have unobstructed views

into each of the dormitories.

Another important issue to consider at the planning stage is the impact created by

the facility design ( the materials chosen to construct the facility, its layout, and the

number and types of spaces included in the facility), as well as the furnishings, on

the attitudes of staff, inmates, and the public. These features communicate a
252

Hours of Operation Page____

Exhibit 3. Master Operational Schedule

Activity 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Frequency Location Users 
 253

message. The public, particularly, wants to see correctional boot camps that mirror

their ideas about military boot camps—campus-style facilities built of wood or

simple concrete block with sealed concrete floors; few or no window treatments;

recreational opportunities limited to drill, calisthenics, running, and the obstacle

course; minimal interior decoration; and inexpensive furnishings, preferably metal.

The message most correctional agencies wish to communicate to inmates and staff

is somewhat different. Spartan facilities with simple furnishings focus the attention

and energies of both staff and inmates on the basics of the boot camp program—

growth and development of the program participants through discipline, training,

and education. Utilitarian designs, furniture chosen for its durability rather than its

beaut, give the message that the program is unadorned, no-nonsense, rigid, rigorous, and character-building.

Develop and Consider Facility Options

Unlike most secure jails and prisons, boot camps can be housed in existing buildings or expansions of existing structures. Boot camp programs have operated out of

forestry camps, medium security prisons, a school house, military barracks, and a

maximum security jail. The potential for using an existing building is important to

consider, particularly when funds are limited or there is a need to implement the

program as quickly as possible, but there are many considerations to be addressed.

Basically, correctional officials have three principal options for housing boot

camps:

■ Renovate an existing facility.

■ Construct a new boot camp on the grounds of an existing facility.

■ Construct a new stand-alone facility.

Renovating an existing facility. While this option may appear attractive, based

primarily on speed and cost, a number of conditions must be met. The failure of the

facility to meet any one of these conditions can nullify any benefits derived from

use of an existing structure.

First, the building must comply with standards and legal requirements for boot

camps. It must be large enough to house the projected offender population, including those waiting to enter the program, and to accommodate the program’s goals

and objectives as well as being adaptable to program needs. It must be possible to

maintain separation between boot camp inmates and regular inmates.

The building must be sound, fire-safe, and secure, and provide the minimum level

of comfort required as well as meet sanitation requirements. It must comply with all

building codes, have appropriate space for programs and services, and promote staff

efficiency.
254

Exhibit 4. Boot Camp Design Used in Georgia

If the proposed building does not meet all of the foregoing criteria, it must be renovated to bring it into compliance. The cost of the required renovation is an important consideration in choosing renovation over new construction. While these considerations are also important in evaluating the construction of a new facility, the

agency will dictate, up front in the planning process, the standards, codes, and regulations that the facility design and construction will have to meet. Retrofitting a facility to meet applicable codes, standards, and regulations is often more expensive

than designing and executing these requirements in new construction.

Addition to existing facility. Adding the boot camp facility to an existing facility is

an option favored by some. In a study of Georgia’s boot camp program, Special

Alternative Incarceration, judges who were interviewed said that the boot camps

should be housed within a regular prison setting. They believed the suggestive jeering and taunting of the older, hardened, adult inmates would instill fear in the boot

camp offenders and thus deter them from future criminal activity and possible return to prison.3

Another rationale for placing the boot camp within a larger facility is to enable the

program to receive wider staff scrutiny and thus guard against abuse of offenders.

Legend

1 = Multipurpose space

2 = Dormitory housing

3 = Control center

4 = Day room

5 = Single (isolation cell)

2

4

2

4

2 3

4

5

5

1

4

2

5
 255

A final reason is that staff can be easily rotated into and out of the program when

they cannot adjust to the boot camp environment or are at risk of burnout.

Most agencies that operate boot camp programs have followed a similar development path. That is, most boot camp programs have been initiated not by corrections

agencies but by legislatures, county commissioners, governors, or city councils.

Existing staff have formed planning teams to develop the program, recommend

policies and procedures, and estimate the staff, facilities, and other resources required. Because the implementation schedule may have been set by agencies outside corrections, the timeframe for developing and implementing the program was

frequently very short—a few months to a year. It became expedient for most boot

camp programs to use existing facilities, renovating them for use as correctional

boot camps.

For example, the Illinois and New York correctional agencies converted work

camps for adult offenders. The About Face Program in New Orleans Parish operates

out of a former school building. While such actions may meet agencies’ requirements for expedient, less costly program startup, boot camp staff report inadequate

facilities, especially lack of program space.4

Other factors need to be considered before attempting to expand an existing structure: disruption of operations, temporary relocation of offenders, and permanence

of the facility. Exhibit 5 presents a facility options checklist to help structure

agency decisionmaking concerning the efficacy of renovating an existing facility

for use as a boot camp.

Constructing a stand-alone facility. Most corrections agencies have not chosen

the option of constructing a stand-alone facility, most likely because this option

costs the most and takes the longest time to execute.

The Federal Bureau of

Prisons’ Intensive

Confinement Center for

women in Bryan, Texas,

was established on the

grounds of the Federal

Correctional Institution.

It holds 120 offenders in

dormitory-style barracks.
256

Exhibit 5. Existing Facility Options Checklist

Complete this form for each reasonable facility option.

Option:_____________________________________

Positive Attributes Negative Attributes

Focal Concern of this Option of this Option

Building Soundness and ______________ ________________

 Adaptability ______________ ________________

Fire and Life Safety ______________ ________________

______________ ________________

Security and Safety ______________ ________________

______________ ________________

Separation ______________ ________________

______________ ________________

Scale ______________ ________________

______________ ________________

Comfort and Humane ______________ ________________

 Conditions ______________ ________________

Appropriate and Adequate ______________ ________________

 Spaces for Programs, Services ______________ ________________

Sanitation ______________ ________________

______________ ________________

Efficiency ______________ ________________

______________ ________________

Other Concerns (Indicate): ______________ ________________

_________________________ ______________ ________________

_________________________ ______________ ________________

Ramifications of the Change ______________ ________________

______________ ________________

Summary ______________ ________________

______________ ________________

Source: Jay Farbstein: Correctional Facility Planning and Design. Van Nostrand Reinhold

Company, New York, 1986.
 257

The construction of a stand-alone boot camp

[see box] can take from 12 to 26 months, depending on the size of the facility, how difficult

it is to site the facility, how long it takes to secure the necessary zoning and building permits,

and the level of attention given to planning the

facility. The schedule for constructing a standalone boot camp facility is shown in exhibit 6.

Determine Facility

Option Costs

After choosing the facility option that best

makes sense for a jurisdiction, planners should

develop a preliminary estimate of the cost of the

renovation, expansion, or new construction.

This is done by determining current construction costs on a square-foot basis, computing the

total gross square footage for the option selected, estimating current total construction

costs, and adjusting for inflation.

Equally important is to make a preliminary

estimate of what the facility will cost to operate,

on an annual and life-cycle basis, including not

only existing but potential operational expenses.

Calculating operational expenses is critical because they are annual costs, while renovation or

construction expenses are a one-time cost. To

estimate operational costs, planners should:

■ Calculate annual costs, including fringe

benefits.

■ Determine the cost of offender services on

an annual basis, not excluding permanent

agency employees, but including contractual

services.

■ Compute the annual cost of facility maintenance, including the costs of labor, materials, and contractual services.

Construction Process

for Building a StandAlone Facility

The process involves five

primary steps:

• Site selection—Determining the best location

for the camp within the

jurisdiction, obtaining the

necessary zoning and

building permits,

performing the necessary

site evaluations, and

holding public hearings.

• Predesign—Preparing

the architectural and

operational plan, including identifying the

planning standards that

will govern the design of

the facility (e.g., State and

local building codes,

American Correctional

Association Standards,

State standards);

determining the program

goals; describing how the

facility will operate;

specifying the types and

number of spaces that

will be required; and

identifying the number

and types of staff

necessary to operate the

facility.

• Design—Preparing the

conceptual design,

schematic design, design

development drawings,

and contract drawings;
258

calling for bids; and

awarding contracts.

• Construction—Constructing the facility, including site

preparation, paving,

extension of utilities (if

necessary), construction of

the physical plant, and

shakedown of the facility. In

this context shakedown is a

facility inspection specifically

to ensure the security of the

facility. The construction of

the boot camp facility is

comparable to the construction of any other type of

residential facility except for

the installation of detention,

security, and communications equipment.

• Activation—Hiring and

training staff; ordering and

installing unsecured

furniture, fixtures, equipment, and supplies;

developing policies and

procedures; writing post

orders; developing program

documents; and admitting

inmates according to the

agency’s occupancy

schedule.

■ Determine all other operational costs, such

as costs for inmate clothing, food, uniforms,

travel, utilities, supplies, and equipment.

■ Calculate the operating cost per bed by

adding the total personnel costs, offender

services costs, facility maintenance costs,

and all other operations costs, and divide by

the number of inmates who will be assigned

to the program. This calculation will provide

the annual operating cost per bed for the

boot camp program.

The final activity in calculating estimated costs

is to determine what the facility will cost to operate over its expected life. An escalation index,

or inflation factor, is applied to the estimated

annual operating expenses over a 20- to 30-year

period to derive the life-cycle cost of the boot

camp.

Identify Strategies for

Reducing Construction and

Operating Costs

Sometimes, after calculating construction, operational, and life-cycle costs, planners find the

costs exceed the agency’s budget. In this situation, planners can employ one or more of the

following strategies to reduce construction and

operational costs:

■ Reduce dependency on expensive construction, hardware, and equipment.

■ Minimize the use of expensive mechanical

and electrical systems.

■ Use readily available building materials.

■ Select a site that is easy to build on.
 259

Exhibit 6. Schedule for Constructing a Stand-Alone Facility

Step Timeframe (in Months)

Site Selection 0–6

Predesign Program 1–2

Facility Design 2–4

Construction 8–12

Facility Activation 1–2

Total 12–26

■ Employ a “fast-track” or phased construction process to reduce time to

completion.

■ Use boot camp offenders to construct the obstacle course, running track, and

other physical training facilities.

■ Locate the boot camp within a larger general population facility so that it can

take advantage of some of the staff resources of the larger facility, such as food

service, laundry, warehouse, and medical services.

■ House offenders awaiting admission to the boot camp in an existing facility,

rather than building a larger boot camp facility to accommodate them.

To save money on construction, Georgia built some of its newer boot camp barracks

on existing State prison grounds, availing itself of existing offender service systems. With the use of offender labor, Georgia was able to build these new barracks

at a cost of about $2,000 per bed. Stand-alone boot camps that required their own

food service systems, medical sections, counseling centers, and staff offices were

costing Georgia about $8,900 per bed.5

To reduce operational costs, agencies have used a variety of strategies, including

limiting the size of the building to reduce staff, utility, and maintenance costs and

increasing the size of the housing unit while keeping the same number of security

staff supervising the unit, thus achieving staffing efficiencies. Designs can be created that focus on maximizing staff efficiency or energy efficiency, and mechanical

systems can be selected that cost little to maintain.

The Georgia Department of Corrections designed a boot camp facility for its Probation Detention Center that allows one staff member, supported by one rover (a correctional officer whose job is to move continuously through specified areas of the

facility, supervising inmates and assisting correctional staff assigned to stationary

posts), to supervise 166 offenders. The housing design (see exhibit 4), four
260

Exhibit 7. Option Rating Form

First Operating

Cost ($) Cost ($/yr)

OPTION 1: $ $

OPTION 2: $ $

OPTION 3: $ $

OPTION 4: $ $

Etc.

 Note: Consider options for various time-projection periods.

dormitories arranged around a central control center, results in an efficient staffto-inmate ratio of 1 to 83. After 1 year of operation, the only recommendation staff

could offer for improving the design of the housing units was to increase the number of isolation cells from three to four.6

Select the Most Feasible Option

Each option—designing a new stand-alone boot camp, renovating an existing facility, or constructing a boot camp on the grounds of an existing facility—should be

evaluated, with adequate consideration given to construction and operating costs, as

well as to the advantages and disadvantages of each. An Option Rating Form, to

facilitate this analysis, is provided in exhibit 7.
 261

To sum up, with careful planning and attention to the goals of the boot camp program, a renovated facility is an acceptable alternative to a new facility, particularly

if the jurisdiction wishes to start up a boot camp program quickly and cost is a factor. On the other hand, however well a renovation of an existing facility is planned,

it can often be difficult to eradicate the prior function of the facility without considerable reconstruction. If an extensive renovation is required to meet the agency’s

needs for a boot camp program, it may make more sense to plan, design, and construct a new facility.

Notes

1. This chapter is drawn from Cindie A. Unger, “Guidelines for Developing a Boot

Camp Program,” unpublished report, Kansas City, Missouri: Correctional

Services Group, Inc., August 1993. The preparation of this manual was jointly

funded by the U.S. Department of Justice’s National Institute of Corrections and

Bureau of Justice Assistance. The manual tells how to design boot camp

facilities so that they promote the objectives of boot camp programs.

2. In exhibit 1, “Program Readiness Preparation” is the expression the Minnesota

Department of Corrections gives to the brief period of free time before inmates

begin a busy day of program participation. During this period they may use the

rest room, gather materials they may need for class, tidy their beds or barracks,

and the like.

3. G.T. Flowers et al., Special Alternative Incarceration Evaluation, Atlanta:

Georgia Department of Corrections, 1991:3.

4. Unger, “Guidelines for Developing a Boot Camp Program.” See also chapter 13

of this volume.

5. A. Bowen, “Making Boot Camps Bigger and Better in Georgia,” Corrections

Today, (October 1991):100.

6. Cindie A. Unger, Women’s Detention Center Case Study, Georgia Department of

Corrections, Community Corrections Division, 1992:10.
262
 263

CHAPTER 16

Boot Camps and

Prison Crowding

by Dale G. Parent

Dale Parent is an Associate at Abt Associates Inc. in Cambridge,

Massachusetts. He has been studying boot camps since 1989.

Prison boot camps reduce crowding only under a limited set of difficult-toachieve conditions. Population simulations suggest that to reduce prison

crowding boot camps must recruit offenders who otherwise would be

imprisoned, offer big reductions in prison terms for completing a boot

camp, minimize washout and return-to-prison rates, and operate on a large

scale. Few boot camps meet these conditions. Many limit eligibility to

nonviolent first offenders, select offenders who otherwise would receive

probation, and intensively supervise graduates, thus increasing return-toprison rates for technical violations. In most jurisdictions, boot camps

appear more likely to increase correctional populations and costs rather

than reduce them. These findings have important implications for how those

programs should be designed and operated. If boot camps are intended to

reduce prison populations, they should have a large capacity; they should

select participants from among offenders already committed for relatively

long prison terms; and they should implement policies to minimize inprogram and postrelease failures.
264

I

n jurisdictions that run boot camps, most correctional officials report that their

boot camps are intended to reduce prison populations, prison crowding, and

correctional costs.1 This chapter explores conditions that must be met to achieve

these goals and assesses the extent to which boot camps are likely to achieve them.

First, boot camps’ impacts on population levels and crowding are examined, and

then cost issues are discussed. The chapter concludes by describing key implications and design features of boot camps that will increase the chances of affecting

prison population levels.

States’ prison populations are determined by factors that are mostly outside the

control of officials who run prisons, including sentencing laws passed by legislatures, enforcement priorities set by police, charging and bargaining practices instituted by prosecutors, sentencing patterns followed by judges, supervision and

revocation patterns of probation agencies, and release and revocation practices of

parole boards. Prison officials cannot exercise discretion legally vested in these

other officials.

In the short term, correctional officials have one discretionary decision that can be

used to affect prison population levels. Within limits set by law, they can shorten

the duration of confinement for selected offenders who have been committed to

their custody. To some extent they can adjust durations of confinement by granting

or withholding various credits for aspects of program participation and behavior.

Correctional officials can release some prisoners early on furloughs or work release, but other forms of release, such as parole, must be approved by other agencies. For some inmates, release before serving a minimum period of confinement is

prohibited by law. Thus, if boot camps are to reduce prison populations or crowding, inmates admitted to boot camps must serve substantially shorter prison terms

than they would have served otherwise.

In the long term, correctional officials might be able to reduce prison admissions if

boot camp graduates returned to prison at lower rates than comparable parolees,

because the graduates either had fewer new convictions or lower revocation rates

for rule violations.

Impact on Prison Bedspace

In 1991, a simulation model was developed to identify conditions that must be met

for prison boot camps to reduce the number of prison beds needed. The model can

be used when planning a boot camp to understand how it should be designed to

reduce populations. It can also be used once a boot camp is in operation to see

whether the program is having the expected impact on prison bedspace.2 Researchers used the model to assess the population impact of Louisiana’s boot camp3

 and

to assess the population impacts of boot camps in jurisdictions participating in a

multisite evaluation.4
 265

In the analysis of the model reported, boot camps’ impacts on prison population

levels were assessed in relative terms. For example, as shown in exhibit 1, as the

probability of imprisonment varies, so does the number of prison beds lost or, conversely, saved. The objectives of the simulation were to find out how different boot

camp design options affected the need for prison space and to determine how many

prison beds a State would need to provide after implementing a boot camp that had

particular design options, compared to the number it would have had to provide if

its past population trends continued. For this objective, other factors influencing

prison populations were assumed to be constant, which would allow the identification of the independent effect of a particular configuration of boot camp policies on

prison population levels. The objective of the simulation was not to predict the total

number of prisoners a jurisdiction would have in the future. Such a model would be

much more complex and require development of a substantial data base on overall

sentencing practices and offender characteristics.

Exhibit 1. Estimates of the Impact of Boot Camps on the

Need or Loss of Prison Beds When the Probability

That Entrants Would Have Been Imprisoned Changes

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

Florida

Georgia

Louisiana

South Carolina

New York

LEGEND

Prison Beds (Thousands)

Probability of Imprisonment

Source: Doris Layton Mackenzie and Claire Souryal, Multisite Evaluation of Shock Incarceration,

National Institute of Justice Evaluation Report, November 1994.

These analyses suggest that the following conditions must be met if boot camps are

to reduce the need for prison beds:

■ The probability of imprisonment for those admitted to boot camps must be very

high (see exhibit 1).

■ Boot camp graduates must get a substantial and real reduction in their term of

imprisonment.

■ In-camp failure rates must be low.

■ Boot camps must operate on a large scale.
266

High probability of imprisonment. This condition refers to the odds that offenders admitted to the boot camp would have been imprisoned if the boot camp did not

exist. Given typical in-program and postrelease failure rates, the model indicates

that 80 percent of those admitted to a boot camp would have to receive a prison

term just to begin reducing required prison beds. Larger reductions require even

higher probabilities of imprisonment.

In many States, boot camps are restricted to nonviolent first offenders. This restriction was lifted from earlier shock probation laws, under which young, inexperienced offenders (who presumably were most impressionable and most likely to be

deterred) were sent to a regular prison for 90 days and then returned to community

supervision. Evaluations failed to show any deterrent effect in shock probation.5

Variants of these deterrence-based eligibility criteria appear in most boot camp

programs.

If boot camp participants are selected at time of sentencing, deterrence-based

eligibility criteria make it difficult to achieve a high probability of imprisonment;

no State imprisons 80 percent of its nonviolent, first-time felons.

Reduction in term of imprisonment. If boot camp graduates serve 6 months

rather than 24 months, each boot camp graduate will save the system 18 personmonths of confinement. A small reduction—6 months versus 8 months—will not

reduce bedspace needs appreciably. As shown in exhibit 2, duration of imprisonment varied substantially among different State programs in the multisite study.

Exhibit 2. Average Duration of Imprisonment in

Five Shock Incarceration Programs

Average Duration of Imprisonment (In Months)

FL GA LA NY SC

Shock Incarceration Graduates 3.3 3.0 4.0 6.0 3.0

Shock Incarceration Dropouts 01 01 13.7 18.1 01

Shock Incarceration Washouts 9.5 2.6 14.5 20.4 12.0

Shock-Eligible Prisoners 8.5 9.6 20.5 17.9 12.4

Shock Graduates Revoked 13.4 13.4 10.7 20.6 13.2

1 No voluntary dropouts were permitted.

Source: Doris Layton Mackenzie and Claire Souryal, Multisite Evaluation of Shock Incarceration,

National Institute of Justice Evaluation Report, November 1994.
 267

Particularly important is the comparison between the time that shock incarceration

graduates spent in prison and the time they would have spent (e.g., the time the

shock-eligibles spend in prison).

Deterrence-based eligibility criteria also make it difficult to achieve substantial

reductions in durations of confinement. In most States, the few nonviolent first

offenders who are imprisoned are likely to be released after having served very

short prison terms.

Minimization of in-program failure rates. In typical programs, 30 to 40 percent

of those admitted fail to complete the program and serve regular prison terms,

quickly eroding savings in prison bedspace.

If these first three conditions are not met, the simulation shows that boot camps will

increase prison populations. Boot camps can cause substantial increases (relative to

their capacity) depending on how they are configured. If their participants have a

low probability of imprisonment—for example, if only 10 percent of them would

have been in prison if the boot camp did not exist—a typical 200-bed boot camp

will increase the prison population by more than 500 inmates, due mainly to the 30

to 40 percent who will fail during the program and who will serve prison terms as a

consequence. If the boot camp lasts just 90 days, then four times a year it can cycle

in a new group of participants, of whom 30 to 40 percent will become regular

prison inmates. In this example, 90 percent of these in-program failures would not

have been in prison at all if the boot camp did not exist.

Operation on a large scale. If jurisdictions achieve the three conditions described

above, they still must operate large-scale boot camps if they want to reduce prison

bedspace requirements. The exact size of boot camps needed to achieve a desired

reduction varies with the probability of imprisonment, the amount of reduction in

time served for completing the boot camp, and the failure rates. But the effect of a

small (e.g., 50-bed) boot camp in a moderate-sized prison system will not be discernible. If jurisdictions cannot run boot camps that conform to the three conditions

described above, running small boot camps at least will minimize the increase in

prison bedspace that will result.

Long-Term Impact on Prison Populations

In the long-term, boot camps might reduce prison populations if graduates return to

prison at lower rates than comparable offenders who did not participate in boot

camps before their release from prison.

At present, the evidence of boot camps’ impact on return-to-prison rates is inconclusive. Most studies show that boot camp graduates do not return to prison at significantly different rates than members of comparison groups.6

 To date, however,
268

none of the studies has randomly assigned inmates to experimental and control

groups, so outcomes may have been affected by inmate self-selection. (For example, some eligible inmates volunteer for boot camps and others do not; some enter and complete boot camps while others drop out after a few weeks.) Also, none

of the studies has tested the impact of different models of aftercare on outcomes.

Boot camp graduates frequently are intensively supervised, even though they usually are not the high-risk or high-need offenders for whom intensive supervision

was originally intended. Intensive surveillance may detect more rule violations that

lead to revocation, thus itself inflating return-to-prison rates.7

Limits on Population Reduction

When design features and practices in existing boot camps are compared with the

findings of the simulation model, it appears that most adult boot camps are now

designed and operated so that they are more likely to increase rather than reduce

prison populations. In many jurisdictions, enabling legislation restricts participation

to nonviolent first offenders and allows judges to select participants at the time of

sentencing, practices almost certain to yield a pool of offenders who probably

would not have been imprisoned if the boot camp were not available. Many existing

boot camps also have moderately high in-program and postrelease failure rates.

Even if boot camps have been carefully designed to reduce prison bedspace requirements, the broad factors that drive prison population can easily overwhelm any

population reductions achieved by boot camps. When the New York State

Department of Correctional Services (NYSDOCS) designed boot camps in 1987,

officials made all the appropriate choices to reduce populations. NYSDOCS, not

judges, identified candidates for boot camps from among regular incoming prison

inmates, so their probability of imprisonment was 100 percent. The legislature approved boot camps for offenders convicted of moderately serious crimes, who had

somewhat longer prior records. Hence, most New York inmates who complete a

boot camp shave 18 to 24 months from their prison terms. Finally, officials ran a

large boot camp operation—providing 1,750 beds in 5 separate boot camps.

NYSDOCS staff credibly estimate that by 1992 their boot camps caused the prison

population to be 1,540 less than it would have been otherwise. Yet, between 1988

and 1992, New York’s prison population grew from approximately 41,000 to nearly

58,000—an increase more than 11 times greater than the relative reduction from

boot camps.8

 At best, New York’s boot camps slightly lessened the extent of prison

population increase.

If officials seriously expect to reduce or eliminate prison crowding, then boot

camps should be only one small piece of a much larger and more fundamental

strategy to structure discretionary sentencing choices and to provide an appropriate

range of sanctioning options. If prison populations are at or near equilibrium, prop-
 269

erly designed boot camps by themselves may be able to effect a slight reduction.

However, if the prison population is rising, boot camps are not likely to stop or

reverse that trend.

Impact on Correctional Costs

Boot camps that have sparse programming during the institutional phase cost about

the same to operate as regular prisons on a per-inmate, per-day basis because the

staffing levels and facility costs are very similar. Boot camps with richer programming (e.g., intensive drug treatment, individual counseling, extensive education, or

other programs) cost more to operate.9 Thus, to reduce total operating costs, boot

camps must substantially shorten participants’ duration of confinement.10

Measuring operating cost savings is difficult. Officials often incorrectly estimate

operating cost savings by multiplying the estimated reduction in total person-days

of confinement by the average daily cost of running regular prisons. They calculate

average daily costs by dividing the total cost of running a prison for a year by the

number of person-days of confinement it provides in the year.

This approach leads to substantial overestimation of savings. In the short term,

population reductions are likely to save only the costs related to reductions in goods

and services “consumed” by offenders, such as food, clothing, and health care. In

most prisons, these short-term costs amount to only a few dollars a day.

Staffing patterns (and costs) do not change when a facility’s population varies by a

few inmates. To save long-term costs, populations must be reduced enough that a

cellblock or even an entire prison can be closed, or that construction of a new

facility can be averted. Averted costs are especially difficult to demonstrate because

it is not known whether a legislature would have authorized additional prison

construction if the boot camp had not been operating.

Finally, many practitioners now advocate an expanded aftercare program for boot

camp graduates that provides a longer period of supervision, greater continuity in

treatment, and more rigorous provision of support services. It is difficult to evaluate

the cost of such an aftercare program, but it will cost more than the type of aftercare

now offered to most boot camp graduates.

Implications

For officials considering establishing boot camps to reduce prison populations or

costs, these findings have sobering implications. They suggest that officials should

first consider whether they should rely on boot camps for this purpose or invest

their energy and resources in broader and more promising strategies. For those who

decide to proceed with boot camp development, this section describes the author’s
270

assessment of how boot camps should be designed and operated. It is based on a

review of the research, talking with correctional officials, and visiting programs.

If officials want boot camps to reduce prison populations, crowding, or correctional

costs in the short term, then they should select boot camp participants from among

offenders already committed for imprisonment. This is the most effective way to

recruit offenders who have a very high probability of imprisonment. This method,

of course, is not foolproof. Judges might alter their sentencing practices and imprison selected offenders so that they may be selected for boot camps. Correctional

officials might counter this potential by operating “low profile” boot camps, in

which they actively seek to avoid publicizing their programs, and by forcefully

communicating with judges that the Department of Corrections, not judges, control

placement decisions for those committed to prisons.

Thus, if population impact is the goal, boot camps should be used as a form of early

release. Agencies that operate confinement facilities should run boot camps and

select participants. If judges select boot camp participants at time of sentencing,

experience strongly suggests that a large percentage of those admitted to boot

camps probably would have been given probation, making their expected rate of

imprisonment very low. If this is the case, judicial selection of boot camp participants may be incompatible with the goal of reducing costs and prison populations.11

In addition, boot camps should target offenders who otherwise would serve moderately long periods of confinement, not those who will be released in a few months

anyway. This is the most effective way to get bigger reductions in time served for

offenders who complete the boot camp. Because almost all boot camps’ length varies between 3 and 6 months, there is little room to increase the reductions by shortening the boot camp’s duration.

This implies that boot camps should be run only by correctional agencies that confine offenders for substantial periods of time, for example, 2 or more years. Agencies that confine offenders for short terms—like county jails and juvenile training

schools—will find it especially difficult to reduce populations with boot camps because they probably will not be able to reduce confinement terms enough to reduce

total person-days of confinement significantly. They will also find it harder to get

eligible offenders to volunteer if they can offer only a very small reduction in time

served.

Another policy implication is that policymakers should avoid deterrence-based

eligibility criteria that limit boot camps to first-time, nonviolent offenders. Early

boot camps inherited deterrence-based criteria from prior programs like Scared

Straight!, and shock probation. Deterrence-based eligibility criteria limit both the

probability of imprisonment and the amount of potential discount. Instead, boot

camps should target offenders with prior convictions and with moderately serious

offenses (e.g., situational assaults), as well as probation or parole violators.
 271

In order to minimize in-program failure rates, boot camps should not permit participants to withdraw during the first few weeks of the program. The first few weeks

in a boot camp are most difficult, physically and mentally, for inmates, leading to

high rates of voluntary withdrawal. A policy of prohibiting withdrawals during the

first 3 weeks would allow inmates to adjust to the regimen before considering

withdrawing.

In addition, boot camps should develop strong behavioral management systems

aimed at reducing dropouts due to violations of program rules. They could do this

by providing a range of in-program rewards and sanctions (the latter not involving

removal from the program). Boot camps should continuously monitor and assess

participants’ progress toward behavioral or performance objectives, so that they can

provide immediate, positive reinforcement to participants who behave appropriately

or who excel, and immediate correction to participants who do not attain minimum

specified levels. This will let officials intervene before small problems escalate into

serious issues that might warrant removal from the program. Of course, officials

need the option to remove from the boot camp and return to regular prison those

who persistently misbehave.

Finally, officials must be willing or able to operate boot camps with a large capacity. Otherwise, their relative impact on prison populations (even under the best

conditions) is likely to be negligible.

Long-Term Impact on Prison Readmissions

If officials intend to reduce prison populations by reducing return-to-prison rates

for boot camp graduates, then officials should be certain that the means by which

they expect boot camps to reduce return-to-prison rates are clearly stated, plausible,

and capable of being implemented as expected.

Boot camps may affect return-to-prison rates by two means or by both operating

together (see chapters 17 and 18). First, the disciplinary regimen may improve

offenders’ self-esteem or attitudes toward authority, leading them to change their

behavior once they are released. Second, treatment programs such as counseling

and drug treatment may be effective in the structured setting of boot camps in

dealing with inmate deficiencies that form obstacles to improved behavior.

Disciplinary regimen. If the disciplinary regimen is expected to alter offenders’

future behavior, the agency should describe the link between the regimen and the

expected future behavioral changes. For example, an agency may expect that if staff

provide good role models for inmates, then offenders’ attitudes and behavior may

become more prosocial, and upon release, their new crime and violation rates will

decline. Careful selection and thorough training may be essential if staff are to play

these roles effectively.
272

Treatment. If treatment is expected to lower the return-to-prison rates, the boot

camp should have a plausible method of identifying treatment needs and delivering

treatment services. At a minimum, this should include the capacity to assess offenders’ needs and to develop treatment plans that address each offender’s needs, setting

measurable objectives and performance schedules. The correctional treatment services specified in those plans should be delivered to offenders during their stay in

the boot camp. The agency should provide the resources (staff, materials, space)

and allot sufficient time during the daily schedule of activities to deliver the services. It should monitor offenders’ progress toward implementing their treatment

plans while in the boot camp and modify plans as required.

Because all treatment needs probably cannot be met during a short boot camp program, the agency operating the boot camp should provide for or ensure continuity

of treatment during aftercare. If different agencies operate the boot camp and

aftercare, both should be involved in planning the total program, and appropriate

interagency agreements and protocols should be implemented to make sure that

treatment is delivered during aftercare as intended. Those who deliver aftercare

should be included in the development of treatment plans and in the preparation for

offenders’ transitions from institution to community. Finally, the agency operating

aftercare should monitor progress on the treatment plan during aftercare and

modify it as required.

Program officials and aftercare providers should work as advocates to promote offenders’ access to programs and services offered by other agencies and to monitor

offenders’ utilization of those services. They also need to recognize and remove

barriers to access and utilization of services.

Aftercare should provide surveillance only to the degree that it is justified on a

case-by-case basis by a valid risk-assessment instrument. If aftercare consists

mostly of intensive surveillance, revocation rates are likely to be high (due mainly

to minor or “technical” violations of supervision rules, not new crimes), thus undercutting population reduction objectives.

Boot camps that conform to the conditions described in this chapter may reduce

somewhat the need for prison bedspace. However, as New York’s experience demonstrates, even the best-done boot camps cannot stop prison population growth if

imprisonment rates or prison terms are growing rapidly. However, boot camps

could be one small part of a broad set of policy initiatives to help structure the use

and duration of confinement sentences.
 273

Notes

1. Doris L. MacKenzie and Claire Souryal, “Boot Camp Survey: Rehabilitation,

Recidivism, Population Reduction Outrank Punishment as Main Goals,”

Corrections Today (October 1992):92.

2. The simulation model runs under Lotus 1-2-3, version 2.1, and is available free

from Dale G. Parent, Associate, Abt Associates Inc., 55 Wheeler Street,

Cambridge, MA 02138.

3. Doris L. MacKenzie and Dale G. Parent, “Shock Incarceration and Prison

Crowding in Louisiana,” Journal of Criminal Justice, 19, no. 3 (1991):225–

237.

4. D.L. MacKenzie and A. Piquero, “The Impact of Shock Incarceration

Programs on Prison Crowding,” Crime and Delinquency, 40, no. 2 (1994):

222–249.

5. In 1979, Dr. James Finckenauer, an Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice at

Rutgers University, conducted an experimental analysis that randomly assigned

eligible participants to Scared Straight! (a program to deter juveniles from

further delinquent behavior by showing them the rigor and brutality of adult

prison) and control groups (no Scared Straight!). At a 6-month followup point,

those exposed to Scared Straight! performed worse—41.3 percent engaged in

new delinquent behavior, compared to only 11.9 percent of the controls. See

J. Finckenauer, Scared Straight! and the Panacea Phenomenon, Englewood

Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1982.

6. Doris Layton MacKenzie and Claire Souryal. Multisite Evaluation of Shock

Incarceration: Executive Summary. Final report to the National Institute of

Justice, 1994.

7. See MacKenzie and Parent (1991), and J. Petersilia and S. Turner, Evaluating

Intensive Supervision Probation/Parole: Results of a Nationwide Experiment,

Research in Brief, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National

Institute of Justice, May 1993.

8. Facility Capacity and Inmate Populations, 12/31/85 to 12/31/94, Program

Planning, Research, and Evaluation Unit, New York State Department of

Corrections Services, Albany, 1995.

9. See Dale G. Parent, Shock Incarceration: An Overview of Existing Programs,

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

June 1989.
274

10. This assumes that boot camp graduates are not more likely to fail when

released to the community (and to trigger the social and criminal justice costs

associated with such failures) than are offenders who do not graduate from

them. In fact, data from States with “backend” selection procedures generally

show that boot camp completers fail at rates equal to or lower than noncompleters or nonparticipants. In States with frontend selection, the situation is

less clear. Failure rates for boot camp graduates appear to be somewhat higher,

but “comparison” groups may not, in fact, be comparable. In addition, there is

strong evidence that many boot camp graduates fail not because they are a

more risky population, but because they are more intensively supervised, and,

hence, there is a greater chance that minor rule violations will be detected and

punished.

11. Parent, 1989.
 275

CHAPTER 17

Shock Incarceration and

Positive Adjustment

During Community Supervision:

A Multisite Evaluation

by Robert Brame and Doris Layton MacKenzie, Ph.D.

Robert Brame is a graduate student in the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of Maryland. His primary

research interests include applied statistical methods and recidivism

models. Doris Layton MacKenzie, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor

in the Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology at the

University of Maryland. As a Visiting Scientist at the National

Institute of Justice, she provided expertise to Federal, State, and

local jurisdictions on shock incarceration, intermediate sanctions,

and other aspects of correctional policy and practice.

In recent years, shock incarceration, or “boot camp” programs, have

become the object of widespread attention. One of the often cited advantages of shock incarceration programs is that they provide offenders with a

heightened sense of personal responsibility, confidence, and self-discipline

and an increased ability to make a successful return to the community. This

paper examines data collected in five States on the extent to which offenders

emerging from boot camp programs adjusted to the day-to-day requirements of living in the community. The results indicate that boot camp

programs have had limited impact on positive adjustment. Supervision

intensity in the community, however, played a key role in the explanation of

community adjustment. More intensively supervised offenders in community

supervision status tended to adjust more positively than offenders who were

less intensively supervised.
276

I

n recent years, corrections officials and policymakers have been exploring alternatives to traditional forms of punishment (see, for example, Morris and Tonry,

1990). These efforts have become more prominent in the wake of increasing

concern that traditional correctional strategies have failed to meet both public

demands and offender needs. Shock incarceration, or “boot camp” programs, have

attracted much attention because of their unorthodox approach to customary correctional methods. Initial reports both from offenders who have participated in these

programs and from the officials who administer them indicate that the net effect of

boot camps is positive (MacKenzie and Shaw, 1993). Consequently, shock incarceration programs are seen by many as an important component of a correctional

system that relies on an array of sanctioning alternatives.

Most accounts of dramatic success have been based on anecdotal evidence. These

accounts have supported public expectations of what convicted offenders should

experience in prison. The boot camp offender is involved in structured activities for

large portions of the time spent in confinement. These structured activities include

military-style drills, work, physical exercise, drug and other treatment, education,

and counseling (MacKenzie and Souryal, 1991). Not surprisingly, the positive

changes in offender behavior attributed to the boot camp atmosphere have left

many wondering why such programs were not implemented long ago.

Proponents have contended that the boot camp emphasis on hard work, personal

responsibility, and, in some cases, treatment of substance abuse and psychological

problems helps prepare offenders for better adjustment in the community. This

adjustment includes finding and maintaining employment; having residential and

financial stability; attending drug treatment and counseling; accessing educational

and vocational training opportunities; and avoiding troublesome behavior such as

rearrest and failing to meet conditions of community supervision. Data from a

multistate study were used to examine whether shock incarceration had a positive

effect on offenders’ adjustment to their communities.

Previous Research

Although past research has focused little on whether shock incarceration programs

have a positive effect on offenders’ adjustment to their communities, it indicates

that the supervision intensity, rather than shock incarceration itself, is of greater

significance. MacKenzie et al. (1992) found that the apparent positive effect of

shock incarceration on offenders’ community adjustment in Louisiana was due to

the intensity of supervision while in community supervision status. While boot

camp offenders did perform better than other groups in the community, they were

also supervised more intensively. The implicit message in such a finding is that

offenders who are coerced to engage in certain activities (such as education, employment, or treatment) as a condition of their community supervision status tend

to meet those requirements more completely than offenders who are not supervised
 277

as intensively. The evidence in Louisiana suggests that this effect holds regardless

of whether offenders are released from boot camp, paroled from prison, or placed

on probation.

Researchers have also begun to explore the impact of other intermediate sanctions

on offender adjustment in the community. Several major findings have emerged

from these efforts. First, recidivism patterns for offenders in intermediate sanction

programs have been generally neither better nor worse than for those in more traditional programs (MacKenzie, 1991; Petersilia and Turner, 1993; Gowdy, 1993;

MacKenzie et al., 1992; Souryal and MacKenzie, 1995; Latessa and Vito, 1988;

Vito and Allen, 1981; Vito et al., 1985).

Second, several studies reveal that revocations for technical violations of probation

or parole were more likely when offenders were more intensively supervised

(MacKenzie and Shaw, 1993; Petersilia and Turner, 1993). The close monitoring

of activities was the often cited reason for this disparity. Intensively supervised

offenders could have higher technical violation rates than their less intensively

supervised counterparts because they are observed more closely and have more requirements to meet. The studies by Petersilia and Turner (1993), which incorporate

random assignment of offenders to intensive community supervision programs and

traditional comparison programs in several States, provide persuasive support for

this possibility.

Third, the literature supports the possibility that intensive supervision has positive

implications for adjustment in the community. Consistent with the findings of

MacKenzie et al. (1992), offenders in intensive supervision programs—either

through behavior modification or through “legal coercion” (Anglin and Hser,

1990)—tended to pursue employment and treatment programs more aggressively

than offenders in other programs (Latessa and Vito, 1988; Petersilia and Turner,

1993). To the extent that intermediate sanction programs are effective at nudging

offenders into positive activities in the community, they may represent a valuable

mechanism for reducing future problematic behavior.

Methodology

The data for this study were collected as part of a National Institute of Justice

multisite research program on shock incarceration (MacKenzie, 1990). The selection of participant States was guided by the desire to include boot camps with different program characteristics and participant criteria. Five States took part in the

study: Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, New York, and South Carolina.1 Data in Florida,

Georgia, and South Carolina were collected between 1989 and 1991. Data for New

York were collected between 1988 and 1990 and for Louisiana between 1987 and

1988.
278

Demographic information, current offense characteristics, and prior criminal history variables were available from offenders’ official records. The positive adjustment index used in Florida, Georgia, New York, and South Carolina developed by

Latessa and Vito (1988) was also used for compiling information on supervision

intensity and positive adjustment during community supervision. The index,

completed by each probation or parole agent, provides a summary description of

offender activities during community supervision. Among other items, the index

includes descriptions of activities related to employment, treatment, education,

counseling program participation, residential stability, and financial security. The

index can range in value from 0.00 to 1.00 (where 1.00 represents the highest level

of positive adjustment). A positive adjustment instrument with similar although not

identical items was used in Louisiana (MacKenzie et al., 1992). The Louisiana

index yields a score that is interpretable in exactly the same way as the scores in

other States.

In Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina, supervision intensity was operationally

defined as the number of monthly contacts (both face-to-face and telephone)

between officer and offender. In Louisiana, supervision intensity was measured

by using three indexes that tapped the level of knowledge of offender activities,

requirements for satisfactory progress, and the level of surveillance. Supervision

intensity data were not available in New York.

A sample of male boot camp program graduates was selected for study in each

State. Each State also selected at least two offender samples from other correctional

programs to which the shock program graduates could be compared. Samples examined varied by State. The most common comparison subjects included prison

parolees, probationers, and boot camp dropouts.2 All samples included offenders

who met the eligibility requirements for the shock incarceration program in the respective States.3

 It is important to note, however, that offenders were not assigned

to their respective samples in random fashion. Indeed, several important differences

were identified between samples in each State that could reasonably be expected to

influence positive adjustment. Conclusions, therefore, are based upon multivariate

models that control for the effects of these observed differences.

Subjects were followed during community supervision for a maximum of 12

months. Many offenders did not complete the full 12-month followup period, however. The most common reasons for failure to complete the followup period included some form of recidivism (e.g., technical violation, new crime, rearrest), a

legal release, or some unknown reason about which data are missing. Although data

were collected over time, the positive adjustment scores studied were averaged over

the entire 1-year followup period for each subject. An offender who was followed

for 6 months, for example, would have a positive adjustment score that was the

mean score for his 6-month followup period. Exhibit 1 presents sample sizes and

descriptive statistics for each of the five States.
 279

Nonwhite (%) 56.8 61.5 63.3 82.9 Age at Beginning of Community Supervision (mean) 19.4 21.8 25.1 22.0 Age at First Arrest (mean) 20.8 18.0 Violent Offense (%) 33.2 15.3 9.2 Drug Offense (%) 14.2 27.1 29.9 53.5 Property/“Other” Offense (%) 53.6 57.6 61.0 N.Y. Property Offense (%) 22.7N.Y. “Other” Offense (%) 23.8

Shock Graduates 112 38.8 79 30.2 77 27.7 94 32.9Shock Program Dropouts 68 23.5 16 5.8 97 33.9Prison Parolees 109 37.7 98 37.4 74 26.6 95 33.2 Probationers S.C. Split Probationers S.C. DPPPS Shock Graduates S.C. DOC Shock Graduates 
 287

CHAPTER 18

Multisite Study of

Correctional Boot Camps

by Doris Layton MacKenzie, Ph.D., and Claire Souryal

Doris Layton MacKenzie is an Associate Professor in the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of

Maryland. As a Visiting Scientist at the National Institute of Justice,

she provided expertise to Federal, State, and local jurisdictions on

shock incarceration, intermediate sanctions, and other aspects of

correctional policy and practice. Claire Souryal is a graduate

student in the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice,

University of Maryland. She worked on a multisite evaluation of

eight correctional boot camp programs.

The proliferation of boot camp programs nationwide appears to have been

largely unguided by comprehensive and methodologically rigorous evaluations. This chapter provides a brief overview of boot camp evaluation

literature, beginning with a review of early boot camp research and concluding with selected findings of a recently completed NIJ-sponsored

evaluation of eight State-level programs. The findings concern attitudinal

change during incarceration, adjustment during community supervision,

and offender recidivism. The study found that the in-prison phase of boot

camps had a positive impact on the attitudes of boot camp participants, in

contrast to a sample of regular prison inmates, whose attitudes deteriorated

during their incarceration. However, boot camp graduates did not adjust

more positively to community supervision following boot camp than did

comparison samples of boot camp failures, prison releasees, and probationers. Recidivism findings suggest that common components of boot camps,

such as military-style discipline, physical training, and hard labor, did not

reduce recidivism. The authors conclude that future evaluations should

focus on the efficacy of specific boot camp program components, such as

academic training, and on the relative effectiveness of different types of

community supervision provided to boot camp releasees.
288

Since the inception of the first military-style correctional boot camp (or shock

incarceration) programs in 1983 in Georgia and Oklahoma, boot camp programs have become a common intermediate sanction in States and counties

across the country. In one decade, 36 State correctional systems and the Federal

Bureau of Prisons have implemented more than 47 boot camp programs for adult

offenders. Boot camp programs have also been developed for juvenile offenders in

six States and for use in local jails. The passage of the Violent Crime Control and

Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which allocated $25 million for the development of

boot camp programs, virtually ensures their continued growth and development.

What accounts for the tremendous popularity of boot camp programs? Why have

correctional agencies so readily embraced them as viable intermediate sanctions?

Certainly, it is not due to the favorable results of empirical research. Until recently,

comprehensive and methodologically rigorous evaluations of boot camp programs

have been noticeably lacking.

Rather, the rapid growth of boot camp programs across the Nation is attributable to

other factors, including the politics of crime control (i.e., politicians clamoring to

appear “tough” on crime), the compelling images of boot camps produced in the

mass media and especially on television, the appeal of military-style discipline as a

correctional tool with young offenders, the punitive nature of the program in comparison to other intermediate sanctions, and the promise of meeting a wide range of

goals for both the system and individuals (MacKenzie and Parent, 1992). Evaluation research appears to have played a very small role, if any, in the proliferation of

boot camp programs nationwide. Indeed, until recently, comprehensive evaluations

of boot camp programs were rarely conducted.

This chapter begins with a review of early boot camp research and concludes with

an overview of principal findings about boot camps’ effects on individuals—one

aspect of a recently completed NIJ-sponsored evaluation of eight State-level

programs.

Early Boot Camp Evaluations

This Nation’s first correctional boot camp programs were developed in Georgia and

Oklahoma in 1983. Other States swiftly followed suit and by the end of the decade,

14 had developed their own programs. The development of the earlier programs

seems to have been largely unguided by evaluation research. In November 1987,

for example, then-Senator Lloyd Bentsen of Texas requested a study of State boot

camp programs from the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). The resulting report, released in September 1988, concluded that “available data are not sufficient

to determine if boot camps reduce prison overcrowding, costs, or recidivism”

(GAO, 1988).
 289

Until recently, boot camp evaluations were limited in scope and methodology and

typically conducted by the State correctional agencies that run them. The results of

these in-house studies were not widely disseminated, nor were they very thorough.

Examinations of recidivism, for example, often simply assessed the return-toprison rates of boot camp graduates without selecting adequate comparison

samples or controlling for the amount of time graduates spent on the street after

release.

Moreover, some of the earlier evaluations compared the return-to-prison rates of

boot camp graduates with those of the total population of prison releasees in a

State. Data used for this comparison unfairly favored boot camp graduates because

boot camp programs specifically targeted nonviolent offenders who did not have

extensive criminal histories. Clearly, the selection of adequate comparison samples

is essential to conducting thorough and unbiased evaluations.

Another major problem with many of the early evaluations was that researchers

failed to control for the time offenders spent in the community following their release from boot camp. At a meeting of the American Correctional Association, a

boot camp program official bragged about low recidivism rates for a program that

had been operating for little more than 6 months. The program had released only

one group of graduates, none of whom had been supervised in the community for

more than 3 months. The recidivism rates for such a program would appear to be

low, of course, if compared to those of prison releasees who had been supervised in

the community for a year or more. In general, the longer of ex-offenders are in the

community, the greater the percentage who fail.

The great diversity among boot camp programs is also problematic from a research

perspective. While some programs devote 3 or more hours per day to therapeutic

activities such as drug treatment, academic education, or life skills training, others

limit the schedule of daily activities to marching, military ceremony, and hard labor. Therefore, the results of any single evaluation have been difficult to generalize

from one jurisdiction to another.

The NIJ Multisite Evaluation

In 1990, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) funded an evaluation of boot camp

program efficacy in eight States. This multisite study’s overarching research question was whether boot camp programs successfully met their stated goals.

As previously noted, prior NIJ-funded research examining the effectiveness of boot

camp programs had focused on a single jurisdiction, a major limitation given the

large differences among programs nationwide (see MacKenzie et al., 1993). The

1990 evaluation was designed to address this deficiency by selecting multiple sites
290

for participation, which would significantly enhance the ability to generalize

results.

The eight States that participated in the study were Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, New York, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas. Sites in those States were

selected because they incorporated the core elements of boot camp programs and

because they varied on several dimensions hypothesized to influence the achievement of program goals.

Core elements of boot camp programs were defined as follows:

■ Strict rules, discipline, and a military boot-camp-like atmosphere.

■ Mandatory participation in military drills and physical training.

■ Separation of program participants from other prison inmates.

Differences among programs were examined in these areas:

■ Decisionmaking authority.

■ Program location.

■ Program components.

■ Supervision intensity upon release.

The evaluation was also designed to provide a comprehensive assessment of each

program (MacKenzie and Souryal, 1994). Rather than focusing on one measure of

program success, such as recidivism reduction, the evaluation consisted of five major components: a process evaluation or qualitative description of the eight programs based on interviews with staff and inmates, official program materials, and

observation; a study of inmate attitudinal change during incarceration; a study of

offender recidivism; a study of positive adjustment during community supervision;

and a study of prison bedspace savings.

At the individual level, the first stage of the evaluation examined offenders’ experiences during the in-prison phase of the programs. Its objective was to ascertain

whether the boot camp experience engendered positive or negative changes in attitudes over the course of the programs. Next, after offenders had either completed

the program and been released to the community or failed the program, their community performance was assessed in terms of both positive adjustment to community supervision and recidivism. Positive adjustment to community supervision

included a variety of measures such as employment/educational status; recidivism

was measured by arrests, revocations for new crimes, and revocations for technical

violations.

This chapter presents a brief overview of these findings. The multisite evaluation’s

results and methodology have been presented in detail elsewhere. (See Brame and

MacKenzie, this volume; MacKenzie, 1994a; MacKenzie, 1994b; MacKenzie and
 291

Souryal, 1994; MacKenzie and Piquero, 1994; MacKenzie and Brame, 1995.) Also

note that system-level analysis results have not been presented (see chapter 16 in

this volume and MacKenzie and Piquero, 1994, for a discussion of the impact of

boot camp programs on prison bedspace savings).

The remainder of this chapter will focus on examination of the programs at the

individual level.

Overview of Evaluation Results

Three sections of the evaluation assessed the impact of boot camp programs at the

individual level. In each study the performance of boot camp participants (either

during incarceration or during community supervision) was compared to the performance of demographically similar offenders who were legally eligible for boot

camp programs in their States but had served time in a conventional prison.

Samples of probationers were also examined in the recidivism and community

adjustment studies. It should be emphasized here that comparison samples were

selected to be as similar as possible to boot camp participants in each State.

Attitudinal change during incarceration. Boot camp participants and comparison

samples or prison inmates were asked to complete a self-report questionnaire two

times during their terms of incarceration. The questionnaire was first administered

at the beginning of offenders’ incarceration periods and again approximately 90

days later (180 days later in New York). The questionnaire focused on two types of

attitudes—antisocial attitudes and attitudes toward the program (or prison). An antisocial attitudes scale was used to gauge opinions of police and authority, levels of

maturity, and degree of social deviance (MacKenzie and Souryal, 1993b). The scale

has been found to be related to recidivism and short-term change. The scale for

program attitudes measured the degree to which offenders expected their period of

incarceration to motivate them to change in a positive manner, such as growing

more mature or learning self-discipline.

Findings for this section were remarkably consistent across sites despite differences

in program content, such as in rehabilitative programming. Inmates in both samples

developed fewer antisocial attitudes during incarceration. On program attitudes,

however, results differed over time. Boot camp participants’ attitudes became more

positive as their programs progressed, while prison inmates’ attitudes became less

positive or stayed the same. Thus, contrary to the expectations of some critics, the

boot camp experience did not result in the development of more negative program

or antisocial attitudes.

In short, regardless of variations in structure and programming, the boot camp programs appeared to have a positive impact on inmate attitudes. Compared to samples

of offenders incarcerated in conventional prisons, boot camp inmates believed that
292

their boot camp experience had changed them in a positive way. Prison inmates, on

the other hand, did not view prison as a positive experience. The fact that the program attitude changes were so consistent across sites led us to conclude that these

attitude changes were likely a result of the boot camp atmosphere and not a product

of additional treatment or therapy available in some camps. Thus, one potential

benefit of the programs is that participants think of boot camps as a positive experience, a change in attitude which could help produce behavioral changes after

graduates are released to the community.

Positive adjustment to community supervision. Performance during community

supervision was assessed in five States using a positive community adjustment

scale. Positive adjustment was measured in terms of success in pursuing employment, education, residential and financial stability, and treatment opportunities.

During 1 year of supervision, probation or parole officers were asked to complete a

10-item index at 3-month intervals. Community adjustment was considered to be a

stronger measure of success after release than simple arrest or revocation rates because boot camp programs are believed to increase the capability of offenders to

adjust successfully to the day-to-day requirements of community living. (See chapter 17 of this volume for a fuller description of this portion of the evaluation.)

The results of this section of the study were also quite consistent across sites. With

the exception of one jurisdiction, which did not stand out from the other programs

in rehabilitative programming, boot camp graduates did not adjust more positively

to community supervision than comparison samples of boot camp failures, prison

releasees, and probationers. Positive community adjustment was related to demographic and offense-related characteristics, criminal history, and supervision intensity, but not to whether offenders had completed their programs. Similar to the

study’s examination of attitude change, then, results were fairly consistent across

sites despite programmatic differences. This section’s results, however, provided

rather convincing evidence that the in-prison phase of boot camp programs had

little, if any, effect on positive community adjustment.

Offender recidivism. Recidivism levels for boot camp graduates and comparison

samples were examined using the following outcome measures: arrests, probation

revocations for new crimes, and revocations for technical violations. The followup

period was either 1 or 2 years of community supervision. It should be noted that

because revocations for new crimes could not be distinguished from revocations for

technical violations in two States, a general revocation measure was constructed.

The results of the study were not quite as consistent across sites due to variations in

the measures of recidivism available, the length of the followup period, and differences in supervision intensity. In some States, for example, boot camp graduates

underwent intensive supervision while comparison samples did not. Nevertheless,

taken as a whole, the results indicated that the in-prison phase of the boot camp

programs had a negligible impact on recidivism. By and large, boot camp graduates
 293

appeared to perform at the same level as probationers and prison releasees who had

served longer terms in prison.

In five States—Florida, Georgia, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas—there

were no differences in recidivism that could be attributed to the in-prison phase of

the program. But in three States—Illinois, Louisiana, and New York—evidence

emerged indicating that boot camp graduates may have had lower recidivism rates

on particular recidivism measures. Graduates in Illinois and Louisiana, for example, were less likely to have their supervision status revoked as a result of a new

crime revocation than were comparison samples. Similarly, graduates of New

York’s program were less likely to be returned to prison as a result of a technical

violation, although they did not differ from the comparison sample on any other

measure of recidivism. Graduates in Illinois, however, were more likely to have

their supervision status revoked as a result of a technical violation.

What do the Illinois, Louisiana, and New York programs have in common that

might explain the similarity in results? These programs stand out as the only boot

camps in the study that have developed an intensive supervision phase for boot

camp graduates. It is therefore very likely that differences in recidivism rates in

these States were due to the type of community supervision provided to graduates,

not in-prison programming. In other words, the effect of the in-prison phase on participants was likely confounded with the level of supervision intensity after their

release.

These programs also devoted a considerable amount of time per day (3 hours or

more) to rehabilitative activities, had high dropout rates, required voluntary participation, and selected participants from a pool of prison-bound offenders. (Note,

however, that the characteristics listed above are not exclusive to these programs.)

Although this study was not able to untangle the particular effects of each program

component on recidivism, results clearly show that the core elements of boot camp

programs—military-style discipline, hard labor, and physical training—by themselves did not reduce offender recidivism. At this time it is unclear which component or components are critical to reducing recidivism, but it is likely that some

mixture of rehabilitation and intensive followup supervision plays an important

role.

Summary of Results

Paradoxically, the results for each individual-level component of the evaluation

were remarkably similar across sites despite differences among the State programs.

While the results of the attitudinal change survey revealed that the in-prison phase

had a clear and consistent impact on the attitudes of boot camp participants across

sites, this change did not appear to affect offenders’ performance during commu-
294

nity supervision. In fact, there is very little evidence that the in-prison phase had

much of an impact on community supervision performance. The results of the positive adjustment to the community supervision phase of the study would seem to be

a case in point. With the exception of Florida, boot camp graduates did not adjust

more positively to the community supervision than did comparison samples of boot

camp failures, prison releasees, and probationers. Although results from the recidivism study were not as consistent as results from the other two studies, they

strongly suggest that in-prison components common to each program, such as military-style discipline, physical training, and hard labor, did not reduce recidivism.

Conclusion

Unquestionably, more research is needed to indicate what can be accomplished

with boot camp programs. Many times people ask, “Is this a correctional fad?” Yes,

today boot camps are a fad, and they will fade away as fads inevitably do unless we

explore indepth which aspects of this sanction are worth keeping and which are

not. As jurisdictions around the country consider implementing their own programs, the many issues raised in this study need to be explored. For example, as

there does appear to be some positive attitudinal change associated with boot camp

participation, it is important to explore whether this atmosphere facilitates other

positive changes associated with participants’ success in the community after release. Do boot camp inmates learn more in academic classes than they would in a

traditional prison during the same time period?

Research to answer these important questions could easily be accomplished using a

pretest/posttest design. Academic achievement could be measured first upon entry

to the boot camp and again 90 days later. Performance in boot camps could be

compared with the performance of similar prison inmates over the same time period. Studies could also be conducted examining such factors as moral development

and life skills.

Moreover, more information is needed about the adjustment and activities of boot

camp graduates in the community. There is evidence that intensive supervision

helps boot camp graduates when they return to the community; it is important to

know exactly what elements of this supervision are helpful. Does such supervision

have to be preceded by incarceration in a boot camp or would other prisoners do

just as well if they were provided with the same type of supervision and services?

These are the kinds of questions we need to answer to improve our correctional

system over the long term and move beyond following the latest correctional fad.

What is clear from the multisite study is that boot camp programs are not

one-dimensional—a boot camp is not a boot camp is not a boot camp. We must

identify the elements of boot camps that work and reject those that do not. This
 295

type of exhaustive evaluation will not be possible, however, until enough time,

money, and effort are devoted to independent and objective study of the programs.

References

MacKenzie, D.L. “Boot Camps: A National Assessment.” Overcrowded Times:

Solving the Prison Problem, 5, no. 4 (1994a).

MacKenzie, D.L. “Results of a Multisite Study of Boot Camp Prisons.” Federal

Probation, 58, no. 2 (1994b):60–66.

MacKenzie, D.L., and R. Brame. “Shock Incarceration and Positive Adjustment

During Community Supervision.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 11, no. 2

(1995):111–142.

MacKenzie, D.L., R. Brame, D. McDowall, and C. Souryal. “Boot Camp Prisons

and Recidivism in Eight States.” Criminology, 33, no. 3 (1995):401–430.

MacKenzie, D.L., and D. Parent. “Boot Camp Prisons for Young Offenders.” In

Smart Sentencing: The Emergence of Intermediate Sanctions, J.M. Byrne, A.J.

Lurigio, and J. Petersilia (eds.). Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications,

1992:103–119.

MacKenzie, D.L., and A. Piquero. “The Impact of Shock Incarceration Programs

on Prison Crowding.” Crime and Delinquency, 40, no. 2 (1994):222–249.

MacKenzie, D.L., J.W. Shaw, and V.B. Gowdy. An Evaluation of Shock Incarceration in Louisiana. Research in Brief. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,

National Institute of Justice, 1993.

MacKenzie, D.L., and C. Souryal. Multi-Site Study of Shock Incarceration: Process

Evaluation. Final Reports I–IV and Executive Summary to the U.S. Department of

Justice, National Institute of Justice. Washington, D.C., 1994.

MacKenzie, D.L., and C. Souryal. “Inmate Attitude Change During Incarceration:

A Comparison of Boot Camp With Traditional Prison.” Justice Quarterly, 12(2)

1995.

U.S. General Accounting Office. “Prison Boot Camps: Too Early To Measure

Effectiveness.” Briefing Report to the Honorable Lloyd Bentsen, U.S. Senate.

Washington, D.C.: U.S. General Accounting Office, 1988.
296
 297

CHAPTER 19

The Future of Boot Camps

by David W. Hayeslip, Ph.D.

David Hayeslip currently manages the Program Design and

Development Division of the Office of Community Oriented

Policing Services (COPS), U.S. Department of Justice.

He was formerly a Program Manager with the National Institute

of Justice, where he oversaw NIJ evaluation initiatives in

intermediate sanctions, community policing, drug

enforcement, and training assessments.

Boot camps have become an ever more available alternative to traditional

incarceration in the past 5 or 6 years, partly as a result of media attention

and popularity with criminal justice officials, politicians, and the public.

There is growing evidence that they offer cost savings over longer term

imprisonment despite high per diem costs. The long-term effects of the boot

camp experience on offender behavior are not yet known, although shortterm effects have been positive for some programs. Research is needed to

measure these long-term effects, but such assessments, comparing participant outcomes to those of control groups, are difficult to undertake, given

the limited availability of boot camps in some jurisdictions. During this

growth period, boot camps have evolved from strictly military-style,

discipline-oriented models to ones that offer more treatment, especially in

relation to drug abuse. Although boot camp programs are expected to

remain popular for now, it is not known if growth can be sustained. Among

the factors affecting such growth are political and popular interest, success

in achieving program goals, and legal issues associated with the selection

of program participants.
298

Shock incarceration programs or “boot camps” emerged as an alternative intermediate sanction at the State level a little over a decade ago when Georgiaopened the first one in December 1983. Early growth in the use of this alternative was slow; by January 1987 only four boot camp programs existed (Parent,

1989). However, boot camps began to multiply later the same year. By 1993 there

were at least 46 operating in 30 States, and 3 more States were seriously considering implementation. In 1993, Doris MacKenzie reported a total program capacity

for State and Federal boot camps of 7,518 (MacKenzie, 1993, p. 22). The General

Accounting Office (GAO) estimated 8,880 in June of 1992 (GAO, 1993, p. 15), and

the American Institutes for Research more recently put the figure at about 10,000

(Cronin, 1994, p. 11). It is not clear what accounts for the differences in capacity

estimates, but varying definitions of “boot camps” could be part of the reason.

Nonetheless, with the current average length of stay approximately 107 days in a

boot camp program, the minimum number of prisoners who could complete boot

camp programs is in excess of 23,000 per year (MacKenzie, 1993).

Yet this total is small in comparison to the total daily adult incarcerated population,

which exceeded 1 million in prison and 490,400 in jails in 1994 (Bureau of Justice

Statistics, 1994, 1995). That boot camps make up only a small proportion of correctional populations is further compounded by the fact that many camps have had difficulty keeping their facilities filled because of restrictive selection criteria and high

dropout rates.

Growth of the total incarcerated population seems likely to continue in the foreseeable future (GAO, 1993). Given this growth and severe prison crowding in many

jurisdictions, correctional administrators will continue to face the necessity of

building new prisons or developing alternatives to traditional incarceration, including boot camps. Indeed, over 80 percent of boot camp administrators surveyed by

the GAO ranked as “very great” the importance of boot camps in supplying such

alternatives (GAO, 1993). In light of this, many might argue that recent trends in

boot camp implementation will continue unabated. All 50 States will have boot

camp programs by the year 2000 if there is no change in the current trend.

One could also argue, however, that while this rapid growth may continue in the

short term, it will slow down significantly and perhaps level off over the long term.

Factors that have supported recent rapid expansion of boot camps will be balanced

by other factors working against continued rapid growth. Political and popular interest in boot camps, success in achieving program goals, management or administrative issues, the composition of boot camp populations, and emerging legal considerations are all factors that will affect growth.

Available evidence also suggests that boot camps of the future are likely to be programmatically different from ones of the past in terms of both military discipline

and treatment.
 299

Evidence Supporting Continuing Growth

One of the major driving forces contributing to the proliferation of boot camps has

been the significant level of political interest in establishing them, ranging from the

local politician to the highest levels of Federal Government. The Violent Crime

Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, for instance, allocated $24.5 million in

competitive funds for boot camp construction and operation.

The political popularity of boot camps rests in part on the strong appeal created by

the media. As Dale Parent has noted:

In many states a political constituency for Shock Incarceration (boot

camps) has developed, spawned, in part, by extensive favorable media

coverage. Shock incarceration makes “good copy,” conveying powerful

visual images well suited to the electronic media (Parent, 1989, p. 1).

Or as Adam Nossiter recently suggested, the appeal of boot camps is their

“filmability” in that the typical media message portrays them as “programs that do

not coddle prisoners” (Nossiter, 1993, p. 38). It seems likely that as positive portrayals of boot camps continue in the media, the political appeal of such programs

will remain quite high.

Boot camps are not only appealing to politicians and their constituencies. The concept is also attractive to offenders, judges, and corrections officials (GAO, 1993).

Popularity among offenders is no doubt tied to the shortness of time offenders serve

in boot camps compared to the time they would spend in prison for the same sentence. It has also been suggested that for some offenders the physical regimen and

military orientation are also attractive, particularly for those hoping (often unrealistically) to serve in the Armed Forces one day.

As an alternative sanction (one the public views as relatively severe), boot camps

are also attractive to the judiciary. In some jurisdictions sentencing judges can order

boot camp commitments directly.

Correctional agency appeal is confirmed by the fact that of 26 States that already

had boot camps (as surveyed by the GAO), 14 were planning or considering expansion (GAO, 1993). Boot camps’ potential for reducing crowding and creating cost

savings is important for corrections officials. Evidence also suggests that boot

camps are much easier for administrators to manage and (at least as important)

constitute relatively safe correctional settings (Cronin, 1994; Parent, 1989).

Boot camps are thought to fulfill a variety of important goals for both offenders and

correctional agencies. According to a recent survey, the most important goal of correctional boot camps is rehabilitation (MacKenzie, 1993), and there appears to be

considerable agreement concerning this goal among system-level officials, facility
300

administrators, and drug treatment and education supervisors (Gransky et al.,

1993). In some programs evidence has suggested that in the short term, at least,

participants are demonstrating physical improvements and increased educational

achievement (Cronin, 1994, pp. 57–58).

Studies also reveal that participating in boot camp programs results in positive

attitude changes (MacKenzie, 1993; Shaw and MacKenzie, 1992; MacKenzie and

Shaw, 1990). Boot camp participants appear to adjust better in the community, at

least initially, than other offenders (MacKenzie et al., 1992). Theoretically, if these

demonstrated short-term results can be translated into long-term rehabilitation

effects and significant reductions in recidivism, support for boot camp programs is

more likely to continue. However, there is little evidence of long-term rehabilitation

effects.

Other fundamental goals of boot camps are cost savings and the reduction of prison

crowding (MacKenzie and Piquero, 1994; MacKenzie, 1993; MacKenzie and Parent, 1991; Parent, 1989). The current boot camp approach normally places offenders in boot camps for shorter periods of time than if they had been sent to prison.

The assumption is that by holding these offenders for shorter periods, even at

slightly higher per diem rates, the resulting bedspace will mean reduced crowding

and lower prison confinement costs. MacKenzie (1993) did find bedspace reductions and lower overall confinement costs compared to normal imprisonment in

Louisiana, despite slightly higher daily costs and the expense of intensive supervision following completion of boot camp. The GAO suggests that this is not an isolated finding; many States have reported significant cost savings, primarily due to

reduced sentence lengths (GAO, 1993). MacKenzie and Piquero (1994) confirmed

this observation for several specific States but also found that cost savings were not

guaranteed. Other factors influencing the bedspace needs of prison systems must

also be carefully assessed and managed by correctional officials to achieve lower

costs. Thus support for continued growth in boot camps appears to be based primarily on political and constituent interest, media support, and the potential for changing long-term behavior.

Evidence Working Against Continuing Growth

Despite the articulated goals of correctional boot camps, growing criticism and

recent evidence have raised questions about the extent to which these programs are

achieving long-term behavioral changes. In addition, there is increasing concern

about potential legal issues associated with boot camp programs, which up to this

point have been largely ignored. Concerns are also being raised about practical difficulties in managing such programs. All these factors appear to be working against

continued rapid growth, at least over the long term.
 301

The empirical evidence to date concerning sustained postrelease behavioral change

is relatively limited. What evidence is available would suggest that long-term goals

of boot camps are not being met. For example, boot camp participation appears

unrelated to performance during the first year following release (Shaw and

MacKenzie, 1992), and boot camps have not appeared to contribute to reducing

long-term recidivism rates to any significant degree (MacKenzie, 1991; MacKenzie

et al., 1992; GAO, 1993). In one of the earliest evaluations of boot camps in Louisiana, MacKenzie found “no differences in the recidivism of offenders who served

time in a traditional prison, who served time in a shorter shock prison program in

lieu of prison, or who were given a sentence of probation, with no prison time”

(MacKenzie and Parent, 1991, p. 231).

A much more extensive boot camp evaluation confirmed these findings across various types of programs in different jurisdictions (MacKenzie and Souryal, 1994). It

is not clear why there has been no evidence of differences in recidivism between

boot camp participants and others, but some have speculated that short-term confinement in boot camps may not allow time for building participants back up after

they are broken down (Osler, 1991) or for providing for adequate preparation for

return to the community (Gowdy, 1993). These findings have also raised the concern that for boot camps to be effective they must provide adequate aftercare supervision and treatment. The importance of aftercare in goal achievement is only now

beginning to receive research interest as is the complexity of multiple influences on

the future behavior of boot camp participants.

As noted earlier, to fulfill the goal of reducing prison crowding, the selection pool

of boot camp eligibles must be drawn from an otherwise prison-bound population.

However, some boot camp participants are selected from a population that would

normally receive probation instead of imprisonment (Parent, 1989; Nossiter, 1993).

This “net-widening” effect (MacKenzie and Parent, 1991) can result in increasing

numbers of beds rather than the opposite and add to correctional costs rather than

decreasing them. This phenomenon is potentially most problematic where placement authority rests with the judiciary, which occurs in at least eight States (Cronin,

1994).

An additional requirement for prison crowding reduction is that there be a sufficient

number of offender participants compared to systemwide populations (GAO, 1993).

However, as was pointed out earlier, the relatively small size of boot camps means

they cannot have a real effect on crowding given normal prison and jail populations

(Parent, 1989). Compounding this problem is the fact that because of selective participation criteria, most boot camps can draw only from a limited pool of offenders.

Many programs have also found they must screen large numbers of potential

participants to end up with a sufficient group. Medical, legal, and psychological

screening requirements also necessarily limit the number of participants. For

example, Cronin (1994) reported that in South Carolina only 723 offenders out of
302

8,542 identified candidates were finally admitted to boot camp during the first 16

months of operation.

Thus, many programs have difficulty keeping their programs filled. In addition,

large proportions of those who enter boot camps drop out for medical, personal,

or disciplinary reasons. In Louisiana, for example, 43 percent of those selected

dropped out (MacKenzie and Parent, 1991; MacKenzie et al., 1993). Those who

drop out typically end up serving longer terms of imprisonment. In Louisiana this

period averaged 7 months longer (MacKenzie et al., 1993).

A limited selection pool, potential net widening, dropout levels, and difficulties

keeping programs filled all work together to make some boot camps more expensive than current correctional options. In at least one local jail boot camp program,

higher costs associated with longer boot camp stays ultimately contributed to the

program’s closing (Austin and Bolyard, 1993). A key to cost savings and participant recruitment has been to offer sentence reductions or accelerated parole eligibility to offenders as an incentive. But to minimize risk associated with such reductions, many programs have been developed with strict screening criteria as to type

of crime, criminal history, and physical and mental impairments (GAO, 1993). Legal issues surrounding this restrictiveness have not yet been adequately addressed.

It is possible that legal challenges on the basis of equitable punishment and nondiscriminatory access to programs and services may have a negative effect on the

future development of boot camps.

Of additional concern in the future may be the “voluntary” waiver of legal rights by

offenders who take part in boot camp programs. Participants typically reside in

spartan environments, with activities allowed the regular incarcerated offender severely restricted. Visitation and recreation are examples of activities that may be

“voluntarily” waived by boot camp participants. Many jurisdictions assume that

because participants volunteer to enter the program, the boot camp is shielded from

liability. However, as Parent (1989) points out, it could be argued that the decision

to enter a boot camp program is really not as voluntary as it seems when an offender is offered the choice of a few months in boot camp versus several years in

prison.

Although a positive argument for boot camps is their supposed safety and easier

management (in terms of offender behavior), recent observations have suggested a

number of unanticipated negative features in managing correctional boot camps.

Participants are subjected to varying degrees of physical training, psychological

intimidation, and summary punishment. In some boot camp programs, particularly

those implemented early in the growth period, initial verbal confrontation has been

common. Critics assert that such behavior by correctional staff is demeaning and

abusive, and for this reason was long ago abandoned in the military (Parent, 1989;

Morash and Rucker, 1990). Hengesh states that many critics consider boot camps

“throwbacks to outdated correctional methods” (Hengesh, 1991, p. 106).
 303

Summary punishments, such as doing pushups or being intimidated by drill sergeants (GAO, 1993; Frank, 1991) are still commonplace, with approximately 86

percent of surveyed States operating boot camps reporting the use of such techniques (Cronin, 1994). While these activities may be considered essential components of boot camp programs, a fine line exists between summary punishment and

abuse (MacKenzie et al., 1989). In 1992 five deputies in Harris County, Texas, were

indicted on charges of beating and choking inmates (Nossiter, 1993). In her evaluation of the boot camp program in Louisiana, MacKenzie found that “overzealous,

control-oriented officers” had to be removed from the program (MacKenzie et al.,

1989, p. 35).

“Working in a boot camp is as demanding as serving time in one,” according to

Acorn (1991, p. 114). Drill instructors are typically expected to engage in the same

physical regimen as inmates, including running, pushups, and other activities. In

addition, stress and officer burnout seem more likely in boot camp programs that

emphasize verbal confrontation (Parent, 1989) and heavy workloads (MacKenzie et

al., 1989). Such stress and burnout contribute to high staff turnover rates. Accordingly, officer selection, training, and oversight are becoming major concerns of boot

camp administrators.

Thus a number of factors may work against continued sharp growth in boot camp

programs. It may be possible, for whatever reason, that boot camps cannot achieve

some of the goals on which they are theoretically based. New and unanticipated

legal issues may make boot camps less attractive, and management issues, particularly as they relate to staff oversight and retention, may continue to be problematic.

The combination of these negative factors (should they continue) could offset some

of the positive factors that have so far supported the expansion of boot camp programs across the country.

Conclusions

It seems likely, in the short term at least, that the numbers of boot camp programs

will grow and new jurisdictions will adopt such programs, primarily because of

their popularity among the media, criminal justice officials, politicians, and the

public. Experience has clearly shown that when correctional programs have such

appeal they are likely to expand and be sustained regardless of their effects. As researcher Charles Logan has pointed out, “Fads such as Scared Straight, even when

shown as not beneficial, have had surprising resilience” (Parent, 1989, p. 47). There

is also recent growing evidence that boot camps, as alternatives to incarceration,

can constitute an effective cost-saving approach to dealing with offenders, but they

must be carefully developed and managed.
304

Whether this growth can be sustained over the long term is a matter of speculation;

current evidence seems to suggest that sustained growth may be unlikely. However,

it should be cautioned that boot camps are not a static phenomenon. They have continually developed and changed nationwide over the past decade (MacKenzie,

1993; Gransky et al., 1993). Indeed, some authors have suggested that there has

been a significant change in the focus of many boot camps recently in that they

have moved away from a strictly military, discipline-oriented model to one that is

more treatment oriented, particularly with respect to drug abuse (Gransky et al.,

1993). How these programs evolve and further incorporate aftercare and community supervision is likely to have an impact on their future.

Of critical importance at this juncture is the recognition that research concerning

goal achievement, management issues, and effectiveness has been relatively meager

and methodologically limited. For example, few States have performed their own

formal evaluations (GAO, 1993), and only recently have any large-scale evaluation

efforts been targeted at multiple boot camp sites (MacKenzie and Souryal, 1994).

Further understanding of the nature of boot camps and how to guide their implementation requires ongoing program-specific process evaluations. As was recently

pointed out, “Jurisdictions need to be encouraged to conduct, at a minimum, process evaluations that would assess whether the program is accepting the type of

offenders it wants, delivering the types of services it should, maintaining an acceptable completion rate, and effectively working within the allotted budget” (Austin,

Jones, and Bolyard, 1993, p. 8).

Such evaluations are needed to understand the problems associated with implementing and maintaining boot camp programs. Further, process evaluations can

uncover promising approaches and practices to guide future development. This

research is required to help policymakers set the future course of boot camps.

Answering the question of whether or not boot camps “work” is difficult. Scholars

to date have been able to offer only insights into possible effects of boot camps

rather than measurements of their impact. The reason for this is that scientifically

measuring the impact of boot camps requires the use of rigorous experimental designs in which participants and control groups are randomly selected and compared.

Given the limited availability of boot camp participants in many jurisdictions,

implementation of this type of research design has been difficult (Institute for

Criminological Research, 1992). However, if researchers are truly to learn the outcomes of boot camps, this experimentation is required. Through such experimental

evaluations, the speculation about short-term behavioral and attitudinal change can

be examined along with longer term recidivism and deterrent effects, if they exist.

Future research also needs to examine programmatic efforts beyond the boot camps

themselves. For instance, many observers have noted the importance of aftercare as

part of the boot camp program continuum, yet evaluators have paid scant attention

to its implementation and effects.
 305

In summary, whether boot camps will continue to grow or be abandoned as another

correctional fad will be contingent on research on both their implementation and

effects. Further, the kinds of boot camps developed in the future are likely to be

quite different not only from the original ones that used the “get in your face”

approach but also from today’s, which combine drug treatment and military

discipline. The research needed as these changes occur will guide policymakers at

the local, State, and Federal levels in charting the future direction of boot camps.

References

Acorn, L.R. “Working in a Boot Camp.” Corrections Today (October 1991):110–

112.

Austin, James, Michael Jones, and Melissa Bolyard. The Growing Use of Jail Boot

Camps: The Current State of the Art. Research in Brief. Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1993.

Cronin, Roberta. Boot Camps for Adult and Juvenile Offenders: An Overview and

Update. Research Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National

Institute of Justice, 1994.

Frank, Sue. “Oklahoma Camp Stresses Structure and Discipline.” Corrections

Today (October 1991):104–105.

Gowdy, Voncile B. Intermediate Sanctions. Research in Brief. Washington, D.C.:

U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1993.

Gransky, Laura A., Thomas C. Castellano, and Ernest L. Cowles. “Is There a ‘Next

Generation’ of Shock Incarceration Facilities?: The Evolving Nature of Goals, Program Components, and Drug Treatment Services.” Paper presented to the Academy

of Criminal Justice Sciences at a meeting at Southern Illinois University, 1993.

Hengesh, Donald J. “Think of Boot Camps as a Foundation for Change, Not an

Instant Cure.” Corrections Today (October 1991):106–108.

Institute for Criminological Research and American Institutes for Research. Boot

Camps for Juvenile Offenders: Constructive Intervention and Early Support—

Implementation Evaluation Final Report. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers

University, 1992.

MacKenzie, Doris L. “Boot Camp Prisons in 1993.” National Institute of Justice

Journal (November 1993):21–28.

MacKenzie, Doris L. “The Parole Performance of Offenders Released from Shock

Incarceration (Boot Camp Prisons): A Survival Time Analysis.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 7, no. 3 (1991):213–236.
306

MacKenzie, Doris L. “‘Boot Camp’ Programs Grow in Number and Scope.”

National Institute of Justice Reports, November/December 1990:6–8.

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

MacKenzie, Doris L., Larry A. Gould, Lisa M. Riechers, and James Shaw. “Shock

Incarceration: Rehabilitation or Retribution?” Journal of Offender Counseling,

Services, and Rehabilitation, 14, no. 2 (1989):25–40.

MacKenzie, Doris L., and Dale Parent. “Shock Incarceration and Prison Crowding

in Louisiana.” Journal of Criminal Justice, 19, no. 3 (1991):225–237.

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

MacKenzie, Doris L., and James W. Shaw. “Inmate Adjustment and Change During

Shock Incarceration: The Impact of Correctional Boot Camp Programs.” Justice

Quarterly, 7, no. 1 (1990):125–150.

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

Institute of Justice, 1994.

MacKenzie, Doris L., James W. Shaw, and Voncile B. Gowdy. An Evaluation of

Shock Incarceration in Louisiana. Research in Brief. Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1993.

MacKenzie, Doris L., James W. Shaw, and Claire Souryal. “Characteristics Associated With Successful Adjustment to Supervision: A Comparison of Parolees, Probationers, Shock Participants, and Shock Dropouts,” Criminal Justice and Behavior,

19, no. 4 (December 1992):454–457.

Morash, Merry, and Lila Rucker. “A Critical Look at the Idea of Boot Camp as a

Correctional Reform.” Crime and Delinquency, 36, no. 2 (1990):204–222.

Nossiter, Adam. “As Boot Camps for Criminals Multiply, Skepticism Grows.” New

York Times, December 18, 1993:37–39.

Osler, M.W. “Shock Incarceration: An Overview of Existing Programs.” Federal

Probation (March 1991):34–42.

Parent, Dale. Shock Incarceration: An Overview of Existing Programs. Washington,

D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1989.

Sechrest, Dale K. “Prison ‘Boot Camps’ Do Not Measure Up.” Federal Probation,

September 1989.
 307

Shaw, James W., and Doris L. MacKenzie. “The One-Year Community Supervision

Performance of Drug Offenders and Louisiana DOC-Identified Substance Abusers

Graduating From Shock Incarceration.” Journal of Criminal Justice, 20

(1992):501–515.

Shaw, James W., and Doris L. MacKenzie. “Shock Incarceration and Its Impact on

the Lives of Problem Drinkers.” American Journal of Criminal Justice, 16, no. 1

(1991):63–97.

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance. Census of State and

Federal Correctional Facilities, 1990. Washington, D.C., 1992.

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. “State and Federal Prison

Population Tops One Million.” Press Release. Washington, D.C., October 27, 1994.

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Jails and Jail Inmates

1993–94. Washington, D.C., 1995.

U.S. General Accounting Office. Prison Boot Camps: Short-Term Prison Costs

Reduced, But Long-Term Impact Uncertain. Washington, D.C.: U.S. General

Accounting Office, 1993.

U.S. Senate. S. 1607: A Bill To Control and Prevent Crime. Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Senate, Calendar No. 260, 1993.
308