Correctional Boot Camps: A Tough Intermediate Sanction. MENU TITLE: Correctional Boot Camps: A Tough Intermediate Sanction Series: NIJ Report Published: February 1996 314 pages 661,676 bytes A Tough Intermediate Sanction Edited by Doris L. MacKenzie, Ph.D., and Eugene E. Hebert Doris Layton MacKenzie, Ph.D., a nationally recognized authority on the use of boot camps as an intermediate sanction, has conducted numerous research studies and evaluations of boot camp programs with support from the National Institute of Justice. She is currently Associate Professor, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Maryland. Eugene E. Hebert is a senior writer/editor at the National Institute of Justice. Invaluable editorial assistance in the preparation of this book was provided by Monique Smith and Joan Alpert, National Criminal Justice Reference Service. Editorial supervision was provided by Mary G. Graham, Publications Manager, National Institute of Justice. The book was designed by Amy Quach, National Criminal Justice Reference Service. Photos courtesy of New York State Department of Correctional Services (cover and chapter 3), Illinois Department of Corrections (chapter 4), Georgia Department of Corrections (chapters 5 and 12), U.S. Bureau of Prisons (chapters 6 and 15), Mobile County (Alabama) Juvenile Court (chapter 9), and California Youth Authority (chapter 10). NCJ 157639 Opinions or points of view expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Justice. Contents Foreword Jeremy Travis Preface Doris Layton MacKenzie, Ph.D. Eugene E. Hebert Chapter 1: Historical Perspective Voncile B. Gowdy, Ph.D. Chapter 2: An Overview of Boot Camp Goals, Components, and Results John K. Zachariah Chapter 3: Shock Incarceration in New York State: Philosophy, Results, and Limitations Cheryl L. Clark and David W. Aziz, Ph.D. Chapter 4: The Development and Implementation of Illinois' Impact Incarceration Program Robert J. Jones and Steven P. Karr Chapter 5: Programming in Georgia's Boot Camps John P. Keenan Chapter 6: Bureau of Prisons: Expanding Intermediate Sanctions Through Intensive Confinement Centers Jody Klein-Saffran, Ph.D. Chapter 7: A Survey of Jail-Operated Boot Camps and Guidelines for Their Implementation James Austin, Ph.D., Michael Jones, and Melissa Bolyard Chapter 8: Santa Clara County PRIDE Program: A Local Boot Camp Carole Sanchez Knapel Chapter 9: The Development of Boot Camps in the Juvenile System: Implementation of Three Demonstration Programs Daniel B. Felker, Ph.D., and Blair B. Bourque Chapter 10: First-Year Evaluation of the California Youth Authority Boot Camp Jean Bottcher and Teresa Isorena Chapter 11: The Development and Operation of Juvenile Boot Camps in Florida Elizabeth S. Cass, Ph.D., and Neil Kaltenecker Chapter 12: Discipline in Georgia's Correctional Boot Camps Billie S. Erwin Chapter 13: Substance Abuse Programming in Adult Correctional Boot Camps: A National Overview Ernest L. Cowles, Ph.D., and Thomas C. Castellano, Ph.D. Chapter 14: Boot Camps as an Alternative for Women Doris Layton MacKenzie, Ph.D., Lori A. Elis, Sally S. Simpson, Ph.D., and Stacy B. Skroban Chapter 15: Planning and Designing Boot Camp Facilities Cindie A. Unger Chapter 16: Boot Camps and Prison Crowding Dale G. Parent Chapter 17: Shock Incaceration and Positive Adjustment During Community Supervision: A Multisite Evaluation Robert Brame and Doris Layton MacKenzie, Ph.D. Chapter 18: Multisite Study of Correctional Boot Camps Doris Layton MacKenzie, Ph.D., and Claire Souryal Conclusion Chapter 19: The Future of Boot Camps David W. Hayeslip, Ph.D. Foreword Over the past dozen years, correctional boot camps, or shock incarceration programs, have mushroomed as an intermediate sanction, first in State and then in the Federal prison systems, and more recently even in county jails. The notion of a strict, military-style punishment as an alternative to extended incarceration is an attractive one, on a number of fronts: It appeals politically, because it promises both tough punishment and the promise of financial savings through shortened sentences; it appeals to the citizenry, largely because of its noncompromising image of rigorous discipline for offenders; it appeals to corrections administrators by offering the opportunity to free up scarce correctional bedspace. Recognizing the vast potential of correctional boot camps as a tool to aid the criminal justice system in coping with the burgeoning populations in the Nation's prisons and jails, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 directed the National Institute of Justice to solicit research in and evaluations of the impact of both existing boot camps and those to be funded under the Act. In the years since the first prison boot camp programs began in Oklahoma and Georgia, NIJ has pioneered in research and evaluations of this alternative sanction. Early on there was, however, a great deal of difficulty in conducting focused research on this rapidly expanding approach, largely because of the vast diversity in the number, type, and size of boot camp programs. Some adhere to a rigid military atmosphere; some emphasize treatment, while others focus on hard labor and physical training. Some, in New York State, for example, have developed a highly sophisticated regimen with extensive postrelease followup. Much of the NIJ-sponsored research on correctional boot camp programs has been conducted by Doris Layton MacKenzie, who notes in the Preface to this book that simply defining what constituted a boot camp was a major initial problem. It is one that NIJ researchers resolved by determining specific core elements common to most such programs. But as the number of approaches utilizing this sanction have proliferated, the diversity of programs has continued to multiply. This book represents the first comprehensive attempt to report on the many and various approaches to correctional boot camps nationwide, ranging from the evolution of the first such programs in Georgia to the methods developed in Illinois, from the evaluation of the first year of boot camps operated by the California Youth Authority to the highly structured approach of Shock Incarceration in New York State, and including a look into the future of boot camps. Many questions remain about the value of boot camps. Do they work? The answer seemingly depends on what they are asked to do. Will this alternative sanction continue to grow in use nationwide? Almost certainly. This book does not provide "answers" to the countless questions being posed regarding boot camps. But what it does, we believe, is provide a forthright, accurate look into this correctional innovation and its implementation across the Nation. We believe it will be of value to policymakers and practitioners alike, and to all others who are interested in the future of corrections. Jeremy Travis Director National Institute of Justice ---------------------------------- Preface In the military, boot camp represents an abrupt, often shocking transition to a new way of life. Discipline is strict; there is an emphasis on hard work, physical training, and unquestioning obedience to authority. The new recruit is told when to sleep, when to get up, when to eat; he marches with his fellows everywhere he goes, to meals, to training; orders must be obeyed instantly; personal liberty is almost nonexistent. By the end of boot camp, the young recruit has become a different person. Such was the hope for boot camp, or shock incarceration, programs in American prisons: that young, nonviolent offenders could be diverted from a life outside the law using the same tactics successfully employed by the military to turn civilians into soldiers. This reliance on a military atmosphere still provokes controversy over boot camp programs, with proponents arguing that the rigid discipline promotes positive behavior and opponents arguing that it is a harmfully negative influence. This book was written to address the critical need for reliable information about the variety of boot camp programs currently in operation: in Federal and State prisons, in local jails, for adult men, for women, for juveniles. Prison boot camp programs began in Oklahoma and Georgia in 1983, and in the years since there has been an enormous growth in the number, type, and size of the programs. Today, boot camps for adult felons exist in most States and in the Federal Bureau of Prisons. In addition, many local prisons or jails have either begun or are considering starting boot camp programs for their offender populations; some facilities offer boot camp programs for women, and boot camps for juvenile delinquents have started to become popular. With support from the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), we first began studying these programs in 1987. One of our first tasks was to identify exactly what was meant by the term "prison boot camp." Many media examples portrayed prison "drill instructors" (as the guards in the camps were frequently called) shouting at the inmates (or in less harsh camps "confronting" inmates, or "speaking in a command voice"). Seeing this, some jurisdictions began to call their programs "work camps," or "challenge camps," or "motivational camps." These jurisdictions rejected the negative image of an abusive atmosphere being shown on television news programs and did not want to be identified with it. On the other hand, some jurisdictions with work or forestry camps referred to their programs as "boot camps" despite the fact that they did not appear to have a military atmosphere. We were thus left with trying to decide what was consistent across the programs that would make one a boot camp but exclude another. At the time it was difficult to separate the true boot camp programs from other correctional programs that utilized many of the elements typical of boot camps. For example, shock probation required offenders to serve short periods of time in prison or jail; prison wilderness camps, forestry camps, and outward-bound-type programs presented physical challenges to inmates; prison drug treatment programs had rigid rules and discipline. The problem was compounded by the fact that not all boot camp programs conformed to the same model. In order to decide how to classify programs as boot camps, we surveyed all State jurisdictions responsible for adult felons. We found some consistency among programs and, in the end, decided programs were boot camps if they (1) had military drill and ceremony as a component of the program; (2) separated the participants from general prison population offenders; (3) were considered to be an alternative to confinement; and (4) required offenders to participate in a rigorous daily schedule of hard labor and physical training. To some degree most boot camps incorporate these components. However, as more and more boot camp programs were developed, more and more differences began to emerge. For example, although juvenile boot camps have a rigorous daily schedule, they do not necessarily include hard labor, nor are all programs considered an alternative to confinement. As a working definition of a boot camp program, however, the above four characteristics represent a reasonable way to distinguish between correctional boot camps and other types of prison programs. Our survey revealed that most of the camps targeted young, nonviolent offenders who did not have an extensive past history of criminal activity. However, camps differed in their definitions of "past history" and "nonviolent," and whether they restricted participation to young offenders. Thus, we did not consider the target population as a defining element of the program. Other than similarities stated above in the four basic components and in offender participants targeted for the programs, the boot camps differed dramatically at the time of our survey. Today these differences remain. One major difference among the many forms of boot camp programs is the amount of time in the daily schedule devoted to therapeutic and educational activities in comparison to drill, ceremony, physical training, and work. Other differences include such factors as how offenders are selected for the program (by the court, by the department of corrections), the type of therapeutic programming, emphasis on the military aspect, the use of summary punishments, and the type of aftercare and supervision available after release. Although often not explicitly expressed, perhaps the most significant difference among programs is in the philosophy upon which the program is based. Some emphasize military training, physical training, and hard labor and focus on a deterrent-type model of changing inmates. Others emphasize rehabilitation through therapeutic treatment or academic education. And, in the latter cases, a decisive factor is whether there is sufficient funding available to implement this planned programming. As boot camp programs have moved from adult prisons to local jails and juvenile populations, new issues have arisen. For example, while adult programs could target nonviolent offenders in prison, nonviolent juveniles were much less apt to be incarcerated. Thus, net widening and the associated costs became critical issues for juvenile programs. This is particularly relevant given the history of concern with the destructive environment of detention centers for nonviolent juveniles or status offenders. The deceptively seductive idea of providing discipline and structure for disruptive juveniles means there is a real threat that increasingly large numbers of juveniles will be placed in boot camps, whether or not it is a suitable alternative sanction. Furthermore, in contrast to adult boot camps, academic and therapeutic programming and aftercare are viewed as necessary components in juvenile programs. Similarly, local jurisdictions have faced problems in implementing boot camp programs in jails. Prison programs could coerce offenders to stay in the boot camps by offering them the promise of early release. In contrast, the length of stay in jails is relatively short. Offenders may actually stay longer in confinement if they enter a boot camp than they would have otherwise. As a result, there is little enticement for offenders to volunteer for boot camp. Also, a jail boot camp may prove very costly, given the extended length of incarceration and the likelihood that a boot camp may involve rehabilitative programming. Perhaps the newest use of the boot camps has been in Georgia, in the disciplinary and mental health units of one State prison. Aimed at those who are having trouble adjusting to prison, the goal is to get offenders out of individual segregation cells for longer periods of time each day until finally they can be moved back among the general population. Obviously, these distinctly varied uses of the boot camp model differ dramatically, and there is every reason to believe that these differences among programs will result in wide variation in effectiveness in achieving specific program goals. When we began the NIJ-supported study of the Louisiana prison boot camp in 1988, it quickly became evident that it would be difficult to base a generalization about boot camps on one program, given that so many were so different. Thus, the Institute funded a multisite study of correctional boot camps that permitted us to cooperate with researchers in eight States. At the same time, several States were conducting studies of their own programs, and studies examining programs in local jails and for juveniles were also being initiated. Additional information about the effectiveness of these boot camp programs comes from studies examining drug treatment for offenders in boot camps and the more recent implementation of boot camp programs for women. Through these studies we are beginning to learn something about the general effectiveness of boot camps. Yet there is still a great deal of controversy surrounding boot camps, and much of it has to do with a kind of instinctive reaction to the military atmosphere. Those on the positive side, such as Governor Zell Miller of Georgia, who fondly recalls his own Marine boot camp experience, strongly advocate boot camps as sentencing alternatives for nonviolent first offenders. Others respond that the harsh boot camp discipline is not an effective way to change people. Obviously, the criminal justice system needs to learn more about what policymakers and the public really expect from these programs. It is important, however, to separate this instinctive reaction from the debates that occur among people who are knowledgeable about the programs and corrections in general. Here, there is a much more interesting debate. One perspective exhibited by many knowledgeable correctional experts is what might be called a "Machiavellian point of view." These individuals expect little direct benefit from the military atmosphere of the boot camp programs, but they are willing to use it to achieve two ends: early release for nonviolent offenders and additional funds for treatment programs (both within and outside prison). In their opinion, the popularity of the boot camps with policymakers and the public allows corrections to obtain early release and treatment that would not otherwise be available to these offenders. Others fear the dangers of boot camps, despite these potential benefits; many psychologists who are experienced in both corrections and behavioral change take this position when examining boot camp programs. They believe that the potential dangers of the military models are too great to compromise for early release or funds for treatment. Furthermore, they argue that boot camps cannot provide a mechanism for treatment because many of the characteristics of the programs (confrontation, punishment instead of reward) are antithetical to treatment. These boot camp opponents fear that, even though some programs may be used as early release mechanisms, most have a serious potential for widening the net. This point is particularly critical for the newly developing juvenile programs. Yet a third perspective argues that the military atmosphere is an effective model for changing offenders. Persons who have worked in drug treatment programs--where strict rules, discipline, and confrontational interactions are common--seem to be more comfortable with the military model. And, of course, many of those responsible for the development and implementation of individual boot camp programs are committed to and believe in the viability of this approach. They argue that the stress created in boot camp may shake up the inmates and make them ready to change and take advantage of the treatment and aftercare programs offered. And further, they believe that the military atmosphere of boot camp may actually enhance the effect of this treatment by keeping the offenders physically and mentally healthy and enabling them to focus on their education, treatment, and therapy. And so the debate continues, and there is merit in arguments both in favor of and opposition to boot camp programs as alternative sanctions. The main point may be that there are good, well-run boot camp programs, and there are bad, poorly run boot camp programs. Much like the nursery rhyme about the little girl with the curl--when they are good they are very, very good, but when they are bad they are horrid. Good boot camps provide what we know to be good correctional programming with fair and firm discipline, a mentally and physically healthy environment, and programming that addresses criminogenic needs. When they are bad they can be abusive, destructive, and even dangerous for inmates and staff. One of the necessary conditions for an exemplary boot camp program is research to examine its effectiveness in achieving its objectives. The majority of the camps described in this book have done this, and the research is reported herein. Too often, new correctional programs are introduced and we hear great things about their accomplishments from the program developers. Program administrators report on wonderful, innovative programs with outstandingly low recidivism rates for boot camp graduates. Yet there is no research to support these claims, no mention made of time in the community or reasonable control groups. There is, instead, programming that looks good on paper but is not backed up by competent, qualified personnel. In this book we have identified boot camps that we consider "good" programs, but we make no guarantees. Priority was given to boot camps that have invested in research to learn whether their programs were achieving the desired goals. The various authors describe the programs, discuss the goals, and report on the results of studies examining the effectiveness of the programs in obtaining their goals. We have made a particular effort to make the book relevant to policymakers and practitioners, and interesting and readable to those with only a cursory interest in prison boot camp programs. We have tried to obtain the widest possible range of authors, with chapters about Federal, State, and local programs, and those for both adults and juveniles. Other chapters report on programs for special populations such as women, disruptive inmates, and those with mental health problems. Some chapters were authored by directors of major research studies that have examined the boot camps. We have tried throughout to present an honest, objective picture of the boot camp programs described. We hope that this compilation of information will prove helpful to the field. Doris Layton MacKenzie, Ph.D. University of Maryland Eugene E. Hebert National Institute of Justice December 1995 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Correctional Boot Camps: A Tough Intermediate Sanction - Chapter 1 Historical Perspective by Voncile B. Gowdy, Ph.D. Voncile B. Gowdy, Doctor of Public Administration, is a Senior Social Scientist at the National Institute of Justice. She manages the Institute's Corrections Research Program, specializing in the area of community corrections, boot camps, and intermediate sanctions. Since their beginning in 1983 in Georgia, boot camps have spread to half the States and have gained wide popular appeal for their "get tough" policies. Proponents of boot camps cite their potential for rehabilitating offenders and curbing future criminal behavior. Opponents caution that more information is needed on a variety of issues including costs and the potential for abuse of power. NIJ's research into boot camps began with a 1988 study of Louisiana's boot camp program and continued with a multisite evaluation in 1989 and other research reported in this volume. The chapters that follow deal with various local, State, and Federal experiences with the boot camp concept; juvenile boot camps; other boot camp models; and evaluative research on shock incarceration. Fueled primarily by growth in the number of offenders incarcerated during the past decade and changing views of the role of punishment and treatment in the correctional system, shock incarceration programs, or "boot camps" as they have been more recently called, have emerged as an increasingly popular alternative sanction for nonviolent crimes. Boot camp programs operate under a military-like routine wherein young offenders convicted of less serious, nonviolent crimes are confined for a short period of time, typically from 3 to 6 months. They are given close supervision while being exposed to a demanding regimen of strict discipline, physical training, drill, inspections, and physical labor. All the programs also incorporate some degree of military structure and discipline, such as requiring inmates to stand at attention and respond with "Yes, sir" or "No, sir." Recent work by Roberta Cronin documented the differences among adult correctional boot camps. Although the common element among all shock incarceration programs is the short period of imprisonment in a military atmosphere, the specific components of the programs vary widely among jurisdictions (Cronin, 1994; Parent, 1989; MacKenzie et al., 1989; U.S. GAO, 1988). Programs also differ in whether activities such as work, community services, education, or counseling are incorporated in the schedule of activities. There is some consistency, however, in the goals of the programs (Cronin, 1994), among them to reduce prison crowding and to change offenders' behavior and thus their future involvement in crime. Some jurisdictions stress the need for intensive supervision after release if the behavioral changes brought about by shock incarceration are to continue in the community. Some States impose additional requirements, such as drug testing, while the offender is under parole supervision. Boot camp programs are generally designed for young, nonviolent offenders with their first felony conviction. These offenders usually volunteer for the program and must meet physical and mental health requirements. Placement and release decisions vary from one program to another (Parent, 1989) and may be made by judges, corrections department administrators, or members of parole boards. Precursors of shock incarceration programs include "shock probation" and "Scared Straight," which pursued specific deterrence objectives. The Scared Straight program tried to deter young delinquents by making them fearful of prison through short, confrontational performances dramatized inside a prison by hardcore inmates. Many current shock incarceration programs also seek to deter criminal behavior, but they have other significant goals as well. The early shock probation programs locked up young adult offenders in the prison population for a brief period so they could get a "real" experience with prison life. In contrast to the boot camps, offenders were mixed with general population offenders, and there were no military aspects. Evaluations of the shock probation programs were not positive; participants failed at rates similar to those in comparison groups (Vito and Allen, 1981). Boot camp programs had their beginning in 1983 in Georgia. In 1993, just 10 years later, a survey sponsored by the General Accounting Office showed that 59 boot camp programs were operating in 29 States, with a total capacity of 10,065. Only two States--Michigan and Texas--have reduced their capacity since then. The largest programs are in New York and Georgia; together these two States account for half the total capacity nationwide. Most programs accommodate 100 to 250 inmates and continue to limit participants to young, nonviolent first offenders who enter the boot camps voluntarily, primarily to shorten their prison terms. However, some States have raised the upper age limit to include offenders over 30, and some now allow more serious offenders, with only 28 percent of the States restricting boot camp eligibility to first offenders in 1993 (Cronin, 1994). Doris MacKenzie and Dale Parent argue that these programs have strong appeal with the general public (Parent, 1989; MacKenzie and Parent, 1992) and that they are magnets for media coverage because of their disciplinary aspects and "get tough" image. Even boot camp proponents, however, believe that the criminal justice system should still proceed cautiously in implementing programs until some of the on-going research and program development efforts are completed. Discussions have centered around issues such as: o The projected high cost of treatment-oriented programs. It is difficult to interpret the cost data from different States or make meaningful comparisons across States because of differences in methods of accounting (Cronin, 1994). o Criteria to determine the most appropriate and rigorous medical and psychological screening processes. o Acquisition of more information about what actually happens in boot camp. o Better assessment techniques to determine how offenders change in boot camp. o Staff qualifications, including the ability to impose discipline evenhandedly while taking account of individual differences. o Potential abuse of power and the effect it may have on both inmates and program staff. o The need for clear policies governing the use of immediate punishment, force, and profanity. (The American Correctional Association has developed standards for adult and juvenile boot camps.) Research Perspectives of the National Institute of Justice During the mid-1980's, the Nation's prison population grew rapidly, crimes by younger offenders escalated steadily, and prisons outgrew their capacity. Therefore, NIJ, the research arm of the Department of Justice, undertook the task of exploring the boot camp concept. In 1988, NIJ sponsored Dr. Doris MacKenzie, then of Louisiana State University, in evaluating the shock incarceration program in that State. The Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Correction's Intensive Motivational Program of Alternative Correctional Treatment (IMPACT), implemented in 1987, was then a two-phased boot camp program. In the first phase, offenders were incarcerated for 90 to 180 days in a rigorous boot camp atmosphere. Following this, they were placed under intensive parole supervision. This second phase required offenders to have at least four contacts a week with their supervising officers, adhere to a strict 8 p.m. to 6 a.m. curfew, perform community service, and work. In establishing the IMPACT program, Louisiana's major stated goal was to create a new sentencing option that would provide placement for inmates who would otherwise be sent to the State's crowded prison. Other program goals were to provide participants with the life skills they would need to succeed in becoming constructive members of society. The evaluation, designed to examine Louisiana's success in meeting its goals, examined how the program was implemented, changes in inmate behavior and attitude resulting from the program, and system-level changes such as costs and benefits. The evaluators found that staff saw the program as more than a way of "getting tough" with the young offenders; both the staff and the inmates found their interaction to be more positive than in regular prison. Nonetheless, offenders found the boot camp regimen to be physically and mentally taxing, and many dropped out before completing the program. Findings from the evaluation indicated that inmates who completed the program believed they had learned valuable lessons and skills, and their positive attitudes grew during the time they were in the program. By contrast, regular prison inmates had increasingly negative attitudes during their prison stays; they said they learned only that they did not want to return to prison. Boot camp offenders were involved in more positive activities during their time under community supervision than other parolees, probationers, and boot camp dropouts, but during the 6-month supervision period, the positive activities of all groups declined. There was no significant difference among all the groups in the percentage arrested during these 6 months. Cost savings per boot camp inmate were significant ($13,784) over the cost of the longer term incarceration that would have taken place, but these savings were somewhat offset by higher costs for the community supervision phase ($5,956), thus netting a total of $7,828 saved for each offender who completed the program instead of going to regular prison. The evaluators concluded that programs like IMPACT may achieve the goal of creating new sentencing options for some offenders who would otherwise spend longer terms in prison. Around the same time that the Louisiana evaluation was being completed, the boot camp option was attracting considerable interest as an alternative to traditional imprisonment for young offenders. Boot camp programs were springing up in many parts of the country, but critics were calling for a guarded approach because of major concerns that needed to be thoroughly examined. In response, NIJ undertook a multisite evaluation of boot camp programs that began with a 1989 survey of 50 State correctional jurisdictions to determine what specific program components seemed to work best and for what types of offenders. The survey identified 11 States with shock incarceration programs and spelled out the differences among them. For instance, in some programs judges selected offenders for this sanction; in others the decision lay with correctional department officials. Different programs placed varying emphasis on rehabilitation, academic education, and vocational education. This information indicated a need to examine the efficacy of boot camp programs. Were they meeting their stated goals? How were they operating? This multisite evaluation studied boot camp programs in eight States (Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, New York, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas) to develop a broader picture of how this popular new sanction was being applied. In general, the study found that recidivism rates of those completing boot camp programs were similar to those for comparable offenders who spent a longer time in prison. Lower recidivism rates were found in three States, however--New York, Illinois, and Louisiana. Programs in these States had a strong therapeutic focus and included an intensive 6-month supervision phase on release into the community. The findings suggested that the boot camp experience alone is not sufficient for reducing recidivism. Chapter 18 of this book, Multisite Study of Correctional Boot Camps, details these findings. About This Book After more than a decade of experience with boot camps, numerous unanswered questions remain about their operation, as well as about their effectiveness and impact. This book examines these issues and recent developments in the use of boot camps. The next chapter provides an overview of boot camps that is crucial for the development of national standards for correctional boot camps. Although the Department of Justice has established operating principles for correctional boot camps, standards to guide the development of components for these programs are necessary for continued improvement in their effectiveness. While statutes may specify the legislative authorization and the general mission assigned for these programs, there is a need for indepth exposition. Chapters 3 to 8 deal with various local, State, and Federal experiences with boot camps. Clearly, an opportunity to assess the best models will be informative and useful for jurisdictions that have not yet tried the boot camp alternative. Offenders participating in most of the State programs are usually released in a shorter time period than would be the case if they served their sentences in a traditional correctional facility. Yet at the Federal level, inmates do not have a reduced sentence but instead serve a portion of their time at the boot camp while the remainder of their time is served in a community corrections center. The widespread concept of "boot camp" has become a part of the juvenile system. Chapters 9 to 11 address the development of boot camps for youthful offenders and begin to examine the impact of these programs. Contrary to the requirements for adult boot camp participants, juvenile boot camps tend to recruit offenders who are deeply involved in the juvenile justice system. The typical incarceration at a juvenile boot camp is a few months, although in some States an offender's stay may be lengthened if requirements for graduation are not met. Chapters 12 to 14 present information on various aspects of boot camp programming. Chapters 15 to 18 highlight evaluative research on various aspects of the boot camp concept. While only a limited number of significant process and impact evaluations have been completed to date, the results of the study summarized in chapter 18 by Doris MacKenzie are probably the most comprehensive. The final chapter in this volume addresses the future of boot camps; it emphasizes the need for more research to guide policymakers and criminal justice professionals in implementing more effective boot camp programs. References Austin, James, Michael Jones, and Melissa Bolyard. The Growing Use of Jail Boot Camps: The Current State of the Art. Research in Brief. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1993. Cronin, Roberta. Boot Camps for Adult and Juvenile Offenders: Overview and Update. Research Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1994. Gransky, Laura A., Thomas C. Castellano, and Ernest L. Cowles. "Is There a `Second Generation' of Shock Incarceration Facilities?: The Evolving Nature of Goals, Program Components, and Drug Treatment Services in Boot Camp Programs." In Intermediate Sanctions: Sentencing in the 90s, J. Smykla and W. Selke (eds.). Cincinnati: Anderson Publishing Company, 1995. MacKenzie, Doris L. "Boot Camp Prisons, Components, Evaluations, and Empirical Issues." Federal Probation (September 1990):44-52. MacKenzie, Doris L. "`Boot Camp' Programs Grow in Number and Scope." NIJ Reports (November/December 1990):6-8. MacKenzie, Doris L. "The Parole Performance of Offenders Released From Shock Incarceration (Boot Camp Prisons): A Survival Time Analysis." Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 7, no. 3 (1991):213- 236. MacKenzie, Doris L., Larry A. Gould, Lisa M. Riechers, and James W. Shaw. "Shock Incarceration: Rehabilitation or Retribution?" Journal of Offender Counseling, Services, and Rehabilitation, 14, no. 2 (1989):25-40. MacKenzie, Doris L., and Dale G. Parent. "Boot Camp Prisons for Young Offenders." In Smart Sentencing: The Emergence of Intermediate Sanctions, James M. Byrne, Arthur J. Lurigio, and Joan Petersilia (eds.). Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications, 1992. MacKenzie, Doris L., and Dale G. Parent. "Shock Incarceration and Prison Crowding in Louisiana." Journal of Criminal Justice, 19, no. 3 (1991):225- 237. MacKenzie, Doris L., and Alex Piquero. "The Impact of Shock Incarceration on Prison Crowding." Crime and Delinquency, 40, no. 2 (1994):222-249. MacKenzie, Doris L., and James W. Shaw. "Inmate Adjustment and Change During Shock Incarceration: The Impact of Correctional Boot Camp Programs." Justice Quarterly, 7, no. 1 (1990):125-150. MacKenzie, Doris L., James W. Shaw, and Voncile B. Gowdy. An Evaluation of Shock Incarceration in Louisiana. Research in Brief. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1993. MacKenzie, Doris L., and Claire C. Souryal. Multisite Evaluation of Shock Incarceration. Evaluation Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1994. Parent, Dale G. "Boot Camps Failing To Achieve Goals." Overcrowded Times, 5, no. 4 (1994):8-11. Parent, Dale G. Shock Incarceration: An Overview of Existing Programs. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1989. Shaw, James W., and Doris L. MacKenzie. "The One-Year Community Supervision Performance of Drug Offenders and Louisiana DOC-Identified Substance Abusers Graduating From Shock Incarceration." Journal of Criminal Justice, 20 (1992):501-616. Shaw, James W., and Doris L. MacKenzie. "Shock Incarceration and Its Impact on the Lives of Problem Drinkers." American Journal of Criminal Justice, 16, no. 1 (1991):63-96. U.S. General Accounting Office. Prison Boot Camps: Too Early To Measure Effectiveness. Washington, D.C.: U.S. General Accounting Office, 1988. Vito, G.F., and H.E. Allen. "Shock Probation in Ohio: A Comparison of Outcomes." International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 25 (1981):70-76. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Correctional Boot Camps: A Tough Intermediate Sanction - Chapter 2 An Overview of Boot Camp Goals, Components, and Results by John K. Zachariah John Zachariah is the Deputy Court Administrator and Director of the Administrative Services Department of the Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court in Ohio. He was formerly the Chief Probation Officer of the county's Juvenile Probation Department. When he was Regional Administrator for the American Correctional Association, he directed the development of boot camp national standards, a project funded by the National Institute of Justice. This overview of boot camps consists of a review of the literature and a discussion of findings from a mail survey and telephone and onsite interviews with directors of departments of corrections, directors of juvenile corrections, and military staff to obtain information on the goals and components of military, adult, and juvenile boot camps as a preliminary task in developing standards for adult and juvenile correctional boot camps. Uniformity was found in the use of military drill and ceremony and physical activity, but there was considerable variation on the value of including education and drug and alcohol treatment as boot camp components. The findings of selected evaluations as of January 1993 indicate that boot camps may be a useful alternative sanction to keep first offenders from offending again over the short term, but that the long-term effects on recidivism or reduction of costs and prison crowding have not yet been determined. Sir, yes sir! Sir, no sir!" Many corrections facilities now resound with shouted orders and courteous but clipped responses. Correctional boot camp programs for youthful offenders have grown over the past decade. This growth promises to continue, spurred on by citizens--who like seeing offenders toeing the line--and by legislators who represent them. In 1990 Congress authorized the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) to fund State boot camps as "corrections options" through its discretionary grant program, and 2 years later it authorized the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to establish three model juvenile boot camps emphasizing education and other services. This rapid growth in boot camp programs has produced an immediate need for standards to guide the design and components of these programs. To this end, the American Correctional Association (ACA) completed a study of the status of boot camps, funded by a grant from the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), and in January 1995 published a set of standards for both adult and juvenile boot camp programs. ACA has now published Standards for Juvenile Correctional Boot Camp Programs and Standards for Adult Correctional Boot Camp Programs. These standards were developed over several months with the participation of correctional practitioners, academicians, Department of Justice officials, and other national correctional leaders. At every step of the process, these standards have undergone field review and critique by correctional practitioners, ACA's Standards Committee, the Commission on Accreditation for Corrections, and correctional administrators. The standards were field tested in a variety of boot camp sites to ensure their validity. They represent the collective wisdom of many professionals who have reviewed and developed standards that reflect an acceptable level of operation for the field. The goal of establishing these standards continues to be the same as the correctional process that began in 1870 when the Association published the first principles designed to improve working conditions for staff and employees and living conditions for inmates. ACA has published standards reflecting the consensus of the profession in setting forth the principles, policies, and procedures necessary to maintain correctional facilities that are safe, humane, efficient, and effective. Professional standards for corrections are prepared with several constituencies in mind. Critics sometimes overlook one or more of these important groups or tend to focus on a single purpose. Standards are designed to consider the members of the public who have been victimized by crime; the staff who work in correctional systems; inmates who serve sentences; the judges and court officers who impose sentences; and the legislative and executive offices responsible for corrections. ACA completed a literature review, a direct mail inquiry (asking programs to send their policies and procedures), indepth telephone interviews with corrections officials in eight States, and site visits to four States. Staff reviewed all major publications, annual reports, and unpublished papers to date on the status of boot camp programs, in addition to written information from 34 boot camp programs (51 percent of all adult and Federal boot camp programs) and the District of Columbia (whose program was implemented in 1994). In April 1993, ACA staff sent letters to military bases and members of the American Correctional Military Association, an ACA affiliate. These letters asked for information about their branch of the service, including mission statements, goals, objectives, policies, and procedures. All four branches of military service responded. This chapter discusses the similarities and differences between military and correctional boot camps and summarizes several key boot camp program components from the literature review and materials submitted in response to the survey questionnaire.1 Military Boot Camps Results of the military boot camp survey showed that the primary purpose of military boot camps, which are 8 weeks long, is to convert a civilian into a soldier who is physically conditioned, motivated, and self-disciplined--one who can take his or her place in the ranks of the Armed Forces in the field. The Armed Forces manual2 explicitly states several key issues that are essential to military boot camp training goals: o Organization. The program must be organized with formal intermediate goals or progressive phases so that the conversion process can be properly structured and both the trainer and new soldier are clear on progress. o The dignity of the new soldier. From the time the new soldier takes the oath of enlistment, he or she is a soldier and should be addressed as one. Every effort must be made to instill a sense of identification with the uniform, the training unit, and the leaders of that unit. This cannot be accomplished in an atmosphere of "we/they." From the start of the training cycle, the new soldier must be presented an atmosphere that says "leader/soldier," where the drill sergeant, committee group trainer, and officers are seen as role models to emulate rather than people to be feared and avoided. o Degree of control. The leaders of training units must continue to develop self-discipline in their soldiers. Self-discipline begins early in boot camp by ensuring that the training center cadre maintains total control over the soldiers' activities. This control is relaxed over time as soldiers demonstrate their willingness to accept responsibility for their actions. o Responsibility. If new soldiers are to be successful and productive members in their future units, they must learn responsibility for others as well as for themselves. Every work detail, every period of instruction, and every opportunity to reinforce leadership should emphasize the necessity for cooperation and teamwork. o Training cadre role. The operative philosophy is to train soldiers by building on their strengths and shoring up their weaknesses. It is not to "tear them down and build them up again." Asked to comment on the compatibility of both military and correctional boot camp goals, Lieutenant Colonel Bruce R. Conover, Chief of Corrections Branch Headquarters, Department of the Army, reported that the goals of correctional boot camp programs are similar to those of military boot camps: The military boot camp environment facilitates individual training and prepares soldiers for the mental and physical stress which will confront them in combat. This same environment is highly conducive to assisting in the correction of first-time, nonviolent offenders, and preparing for their reintroduction into the community upon completion of their sentence. While both kinds of boot camp focus on training, the purpose of correctional boot camp training is different from that of military boot camps. Conover reported that: . . . while military boot camps train soldiers in unique military arts, the correctional boot camp's training focus should be educational, occupational, or tailored specifically to correct the behavior for which the offender is incarcerated. Like its military counterpart, the training environment should generate physical and mental stress to assist in preparing the prisoner for the pressures of constructive citizenship. Intensive supervision and success-oriented counseling and mentorship apply to both the military and corrections "boot camp" environment.3 Dale Parent, building on the philosophy of the military boot camps, especially using the drill sergeant, group trainers, and officers as role models, has written: If the disciplinary regimen is expected to alter the offender's future behaviors, the agency should describe in writing the link between the regimen and the future behavior change. For example, staff may be expected to be good role models for inmates, in which case we might expect that offenders' attitudes and behaviors would become more like those of staff, and that offenders' crime and violation rates would decline. Alternately, we might expect fair and consistently enforced rules to teach offenders about being accountable for their deeds. We might expect offenders' values to be more readily subject to positive (pro-social) change in a boot camp environment than in an institution, and that once released to the community, that ex-offenders with more pro-social values would be less likely to commit new crimes or violate conditions of their release.4 The focus of military boot camps and correctional boot camps is training. Military boot camps train recruits in military arts to enable them to become competent soldiers. Correctional boot camps train offenders in responsible living techniques to help them to become law-abiding citizens. Some of the most common characteristics of the two types of boot camps are barracks-style housing, military titles, drill and ceremonies, military-style uniforms, grouping in platoons, summary punishment, and group rewards and punishment. Meanwhile, some of the differences are in the program content area, such as group and individual counseling, drug and alcohol education and counseling, education, vocational training, and job preparation. Clearly defined purposes and goals will determine the structure and content of a correctional boot camp that can best serve offenders and the community. Goals and Philosophies of Correctional Boot Camp Programs Research indicates that there have been three primary reasons for implementing correctional boot camp programs: reducing crowding, reducing costs, and lowering recidivism.5 In a 1991 survey, Doris MacKenzie asked boot camp administrators to rate the importance of 11 goals. The goals administrators deemed "very important" were rehabilitation, recidivism reduction, and drug education. Goals deemed "important" were reducing crowding, developing work skills, and providing a safe prison environment. Goals believed to be "somewhat important" were deterrence, education, and drug treatment. Vocational education was the goal most often believed "not important" or "not a goal" (although 14 States claimed it was important or somewhat important).6 MacKenzie also found each program's goals to be clearly reflected in its daily schedule of activities. For example, in South Carolina's boot camp program academic and drug education were high-priority goals. Thus, offenders in South Carolina spent 4 hours every day in educational programs and 3 hours each week in drug education. On the other hand, drug treatment was not a high-priority goal and offenders spent little time in treatment. Like MacKenzie, ACA staff found in their survey that the major goals held by most boot camp programs included reducing crowding and costs, reducing recidivism, and rehabilitation. In fact, of the 16 boot camp programs that had philosophies, mission statements, or goal statements in some written form, staff found that 14 stated rehabilitation was a major goal. Only five States mentioned punishment or deterrence as a goal.7 Parent addressed the goals of both punishment and deterrence and concluded that neither of them in fact could be viewed as appropriate correctional boot camp goals.8 Punishment. In his study, Parent discussed the issue of "just deserts" as the primary theory around which punishment has been organized. He stated: Under just deserts, punishment must be proportional and uniform. Punishments are proportional if the severity of punishment increases in direct relation to increases in (a) the gravity of crime(s) committed and (b) the magnitude of offenders' culpability. Thus, minor crimes committed by "virgin" offenders should get modest punishments; severe crimes committed by habitual offenders should get much harsher punishments. Punishments are uniform if similar offenders convicted of similar crimes generally get similar sentences.9 Because most boot camp programs select only first-time "virgin" offenders, the severe nature of the program runs counter to the theory of "just deserts." Deterrence and rehabilitation. On the issue of deterrence Parent said, "It is not the boot camp itself which deters future criminal conduct, but the offender's fear of real prison." He reported that when deterrence is a goal, boot camp programs are usually located within a general population prison so that participants can see and hear regular inmates and observe prison routine. Staff contribute to the offender's fears of the unknown by describing the "exploitation" and "sexual victimization" that happens in prison. In short, these programs try to scare participants into desisting from crime. No one has specifically evaluated the deterrent effects of boot camp prisons. However, evaluations of other related programs, including the Scared Straight programs of the 1970's, suggest that boot camps are unlikely to achieve specific deterrence. Evaluations of the Rahway program and several similar ones found no evidence of a deterrence effect--in fact, some studies found that those who participated failed at higher rates than control groups who did not participate.10 On the other hand, and although there is no hard and fast evidence, Parent did see that rehabilitation, crowding reduction, and lowered costs are viable boot camp program goals. ACA staff found that almost all boot camp programs included rehabilitation as one of their goals. They hoped to achieve rehabilitation through the disciplinary regimen itself and through treatment programs (see other research reported in this volume). Reducing crowding and costs. Although crowding and costs have not been issues in boot camps for juveniles, both have been consistently reported as goals for adult boot camps. But Parent has warned administrators to be realistic about what boot camps can do to meet these goals. (See the research described elsewhere in this volume, especially chapter 16.) Program Components The survey showed that while many boot camp programs are similar in nature, there are some distinct differences in how each State administers its particular program. For example, the length of boot camp programs runs from a minimum of 30 days to a maximum of 240 days, sometimes prohibiting additional educational programs or counseling services. Most programs, however, are in the 90- to 120-day range.11 A review of the written materials from boot camp programs demonstrated a variety of program emphases. The particular emphasis of a program depends largely on its expressed mission and goal statements. The primary components of most boot camp programs include physical training, labor, drill and ceremony, and summary punishment. This last is an interim punishment imposed by staff for disciplinary infractions, which entails an on-the-spot, immediate sanction for an infraction. This punishment may include pushups, extra chores, or another work assignment. Depending on a program's goals, the rehabilitative components and treatment components might include: o Academic education. o Vocational education. o Life skills training. o Drug and alcohol education or treatment. o Reality therapy. o Rational behavior training. o Therapeutic community. o Relaxation therapy. Not all programs offer all components. Vocational education, for example, does not appear to be feasible within the confines of a strict boot camp program. Yet over time, as boot camp programs continue to develop, they change. The first programs stressed a rigid military atmosphere, physical training, and hard labor. Although these components are still part of every program, many boot camp programs have increased the time they give to education and treatment.12 MacKenzie reported that in 1992, most programs had some type of drug education or a combination of drug education and treatment in their schedules, even though the amount of time devoted to drug education or treatment still varied greatly among programs. She said that some programs had as few as 15 days of treatment, while others offered drug treatment every day. Some programs, notably New York, used a therapeutic community model, and all offenders received the same drug treatment while in the program. The platoons form a small "community" and meet daily to solve problems and discuss their progress in the program. Inmates also spend time in substance abuse education classes and in group counseling. The counseling program is based on the Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) and Narcotics Anonymous (NA) model of abstinence and recovery. All inmates participate in the drug treatment programs regardless of their substance abuse history.13 Other States, notably Illinois, used a very different treatment model. In Illinois drug counselors evaluate offenders and match the education or treatment level to the severity of the offender's substance abuse problems. Inmates with no history of substance abuse receive only 2 weeks of drug education. Those who are identified as probable substance abusers receive 4 weeks of group counseling along with the drug education. Inmates who are classified as having drug addictions receive the drug education and 10 weeks of drug treatment.14 (See chapter 4 in this volume for more on the Illinois boot camp program.) Eligibility Requirements ACA staff analyzed the programs in eight States that had specific eligibility criteria, including the selection process and the type of consent required for participation in the boot camp program. All States responding to the survey used several criteria (corroborating the findings of an NIJ multistate study that MacKenzie conducted). Offender status. Most States limited boot camp programs to first-time, nonviolent offenders who did not have outstanding felony detainers or warrants. Many States specified, in writing, the violent crimes that prohibit an offender from entering the boot camp program. Age. Most States differed in their age requirements. The following list is a sampling: o Kansas--ages 18 to 25. o Maryland--under 32 years. o California--age 40 or younger. o New York--age 30 or younger. o Illinois--ages 17 to 29. o Tennessee--ages 17 to 29. o Oklahoma--under 25 years. Sentence length. Although one of the motivators for entering a boot camp program is a reduction in sentence length, and one of the most consistent boot camp program goals is to reduce prison crowding, States surveyed differed in the number of years an offender should have spent in prison had there been no boot camp program. For example, Maryland restricted its boot camp program to offenders sentenced for up to 10 years who have at least 9 months remaining to serve. New York required that offenders become eligible for release on parole within 3 years. Illinois required that offenders have been sentenced to prison for up to 5 years and Tennessee for up to 6 years; the latter also required that the boot camp program last at least 90 days. Selection Process According to General Accounting Office (GAO) research: The actual selection process varies by state and may involve more than one placement authority. For example, 20 states reported that the sentencing judge could sentence a person directly to a boot camp. Twenty states also said that the correctional agency could make this decision when the inmate enters the system. Only four states said that the decision could be made by probation or parole authorities.15 MacKenzie wrote that "judges may be particularly interested in programs that have an impact on the individual offender and that provide more control than traditional probation. In contrast, corrections administrators, seeking new programs and facing serious prison crowding, may emphasize the importance of using intermediate sanctions such as boot camp.16 In New York, Louisiana, and Illinois, the Department of Corrections selects candidates for the programs. In other States, offenders are sent to the boot camp by the court, which maintains full control over the offenders. Those who are dismissed before completion and those who successfully complete the program must return to the court for final disposition. According to MacKenzie, Texas and the original programs in Georgia and South Carolina were designed this way. However, South Carolina now operates its program through the Department of Corrections, and Georgia operates some programs through the court and some through corrections.17 Voluntary Consent All of the States studied required offenders to volunteer for the boot camp program and to sign a form so indicating. Most departments viewed this form as a protection against liability. Critics suggest, however, that the programs are not voluntary simply because an offender's choice is limited to two different types of confinement, one of which is for a considerably shorter period of time. Community Followup As a distinct part of the total boot camp program, most States have a strong community followup component to help offenders make the transition from the program back to the community. For example, Kansas performed 3-month, 6-month, 9-month, and 1-year checks for new crimes with the Kansas Bureau of Investigation, local law enforcement, and court of referral to evaluate the offender's adjustment after returning to the community. New York's intensive community program incorporated work programs, employment counseling, drug counseling, and a continuation of the daily therapeutic community meetings that were part of the boot camp program. In Illinois, graduates from the program were electronically monitored for the first 3 months of community supervision and placed on community supervision for a period of 1 to 2 years depending on the class of their crime. Maryland placed boot camp graduates into transitional houses where they received intensive supervision and a variety of services geared to meet their needs (e.g., counseling, social worker reviews, and job searches.) MacKenzie said that California's new boot camp prison at San Quentin planned to train offenders for 120 days. Following this period offenders would be required to live at a nearby naval air station for 60 days.18 They could leave the base if employed or they could work on the base while searching for a job. Upon release from the base, they were to be intensively supervised in the community for an additional 4 months. Staff Training and Selection Parent wrote that boot camp programs provide a high-stress environment for both inmates and staff. Staff typically are at first "rejuvenated" by their role in boot camps, but in many programs burnout is rapid and turnover rates are high. As burnout and turnover increase, the potential for inmate abuse stemming from staff error or negligence also rises. This is probably true for inmate injury (and staff injury by inmates) as well. Because staff are paramount to the success of the boot camp program, and because boot camps carry strong potential for abuse of offenders, staff selection and training are critical issues. Relatively few programs studied, however, have given staff selection or training special attention. No one has assessed the effectiveness of various screening criteria for selecting staff, but several programs were screening out applicants who had: o A history of abuse (or neglect) involving a person in their care or custody. o A history of drug or alcohol problems. o Current serious personal problems (such as divorce, bankruptcy, or a seriously ill spouse). o A history of issuing numerous misconduct reports on prison inmates (that is, applicants who deal with conflict by asserting authority rather than solving problems). Staff in most programs did not believe that prior military service was a necessary requirement for a boot camp drill instructor. Most, however, expected drill instructors to be positive role models and physically fit enough to perform any task required of inmates. This is one reason some programs have set requirements pertaining to height, weight, and physical conditioning. Unfortunately, few States have offered substantial preservice training for boot camp staff. The New York State Department of Correctional Services is an important exception. It has developed a comprehensive boot camp staff training package. (See chapter 3 in this volume for more on the New York program.) Boot Camps for Juveniles Boot camp programs appear to have a focus more easily identified with adults than juveniles. Despite this, in many States youthful offenders under the age of 18 are considered adults and have been placed within the adult boot camp population. For example, Georgia's program has targeted offenders who are 17 years old and above; Alabama, 15 and above; and New York, 16 and above. For the most part, juvenile corrections practitioners have been slow to embrace the boot camp program concept. They have considered the amount of time devoted to military drill, ceremony, and exercise as an encroachment on the time available for education or drug and alcohol rehabilitation programs. Most educators agree that juveniles usually resist authority and generally have poor social skills and self-concepts. Often they are underachievers and are unable to make the connection between their behavior and its effect. For these reasons, educators have believed that juveniles need an atmosphere of challenge and experiential learning, a variety of "learning by doing" programs. However, because boot camp programs have caught the public eye and have strong support, some juvenile justice agencies are feeling pressure to develop and implement them. In some States juvenile practitioners are combining elements of the boot camp program philosophy with experiential or adventure programming and are relabeling the programs with names such as "stress challenge." In other States, juvenile practitioners are looking for ways to translate the strict adult boot camp philosophy into programs that will work well with juveniles. Conclusions and Recommendations An effective intervention must take place to prevent first-time offenders from penetrating deeper into the juvenile justice system and especially to prevent juvenile offenders from graduating to the adult criminal justice system. Providing a boot camp program may be an important step in keeping the young offender from further incarceration. However, starting any new program is a challenge. Boot camp programs are experiencing some successes, at least with respect to short-term costs and the short-term impact of programs on graduates. Many, however, were designed and implemented quickly-- without feasibility studies--and without written policies and procedures to guide their implementation. In the written materials that many boot camp programs submitted to ACA, for example, the stated goals varied--sometimes drastically--from one program to the next, and sometimes within the same program. At the two extremes are programs that espouse punishment as a goal and those that espouse rehabilitation. The structures of the programs varied also. Military drill, ceremony, and physical exercise were common to all programs, but the balance of the boot camp day varied. Some boot camp programs required offenders to spend 4 to 6 hours in basic education or drug treatment. Others required offenders to work 8 hours a day. Very few programs had any type of formal evaluation process to measure success in meeting goals. Unfortunately, some evaluations have indicated that the long-term impact of boot camp programs may be no different from that of traditional prison. The U.S. General Accounting Office reported in 1993 that after 2 years out, boot camp graduates had the same rate of recidivism as offenders on parole.19 Many critical issues, therefore, need to be addressed by policymakers and administrators who would establish boot camp programs. The literature review and the telephone and site visit interviews identified some of the most pressing of these issues. Mission statements, goals, and measurable objectives. A fundamental requirement for success is to express mission statements, goals, and objectives in clear, precise, and measurable language. Of all of the possible goals that boot camp programs may adopt, the two that are reasonably attainable, according to the literature, are rehabilitation and reduction of crowding and costs. Thomas Castellano20 suggested that the boot camp mission statement should also address--in specific terms--the role of the boot camp within the correctional system and should specify how particular program elements and components contribute to the achievement of that larger mission. Evaluation. When goal statements and objectives are written in specific, measurable terms, the short-term and long-term goals can be measured efficiently and effectively. Problems can be anticipated before they occur or are solved. Castellano suggested that each boot camp program maintain an information system that contains the type of data necessary for meaningful program monitoring, assessment, and evaluation. He said that there should also be systemwide collaboration to collect information about the offender--from the point when the offender enters the boot camp program, through aftercare. Castellano also promoted research and evaluation as significant program elements. He specifically cited feasibility, process, and impact studies. Before making a commitment to start a boot camp, correctional administrators should conduct a feasibility study to determine whether such a program would be appropriate in their jurisdiction. Giving consideration to the program's goals and objectives, administrators should study: o The program's targeted population. o The selection criteria, including intake and exit criteria and procedures and ways the offender will be tracked through the program. o Questions such as whether the pool of eligible offenders is large enough to justify opening the program and whether current sanctioning patterns in the jurisdiction can accommodate the proposed client flow. o The methodology that will be used to document cost savings and the impact on prison crowding. o The types of programs the boot camp will provide and associated staffing, contracted services, and physical construction. This information is necessary to estimate program costs, which then should be compared with the costs of alternative intermediate sanctions serving similar populations. Boot camp programs will also need to conduct both process and impact evaluations. A process evaluation measures whether the program is actually operating the way it was designed to operate. An impact evaluation measures how effective the program was in achieving its goals. Impact evaluations basically answer the questions, "Does the program work? Is the program effective?" Selection criteria. Most boot camp programs target first-time, nonviolent offenders--within a specified age range--as appropriate participants. The majority of programs also include mostly males who are physically and psychologically able to complete the strict military exercise requirements. Parent pointed out that boot camp administrators, in establishing rigid criteria, might be inviting another problem: possible discrimination. Clearly, if eligible male inmates are given a chance to shorten their prison terms in a boot camp, similar female inmates should have the same opportunity. From a physiological viewpoint, younger inmates are better able to do the physical training and hard labor than older inmates. Most boot camp programs, therefore, restrict participation to offenders who are less than 30 years old. Disabled inmates or those with nondisabling medical conditions that limit their physical performance are also typically excluded. While these exclusions may be reasonable, older, disabled, or physically impaired inmates may have a liberty interest because they have no access to an alternative program that shortens their term of confinement.21 Aftercare. Correctional boot camps differ in the amount of time they allocate to aftercare or community supervision. Some programs have offered boot camp graduates intensive supervision for 8 months to a year or more; some have used a 2- to 3-month aftercare program. Parent said that if boot camp aftercare is to contribute to the goal of rehabilitation, it should provide an extended supportive period emphasizing employment (job training, placement, retention, housing, and continuation of treatment programming begun in the facility). He made an interesting comparison between military and correctional boot camp aftercare. . . . in the military, those who complete basic training are considered to be "trainable assets"-- that is, they are ready to begin learning the skills needed to perform their respective missions. Military basic training is followed by specialized training, a job, food, regular pay, adequate housing, clothing, health care, opportunities for advancement and advanced education. Military service provides complete support for several years. By parallel, it is possible that the way we operate aftercare will have major impacts on the boot camp graduates' return to prison rates, and on the boot camp programs' overall attainment of their goals.22 Juvenile issues. As already noted, many juvenile justice practitioners prefer not to implement juvenile boot camp programs for a variety of reasons. In interviews, treatment and mental health professionals expressed concern over the impact such programs might have on juvenile offenders. Some practitioners thought that juveniles would be more appropriately placed in training schools or in community residential programs where they could receive the type and amount of education and counseling they needed. On the other hand, Yitzhak Bakal, Executive Director of one of the three juvenile boot camp programs funded by OJJDP, saw merit in the intensity of the boot camp routine. He said: "The military structure gives these kids strong motivation and a sense of control and empowerment. They work from early in the morning to late in the evening. The atmosphere here is quite different from the institutions where 20 or 30 kids sit in a day room and watch TV all day. In the boot camp, the kids are emotional and positive."23 Practitioners are still experimenting with the right formula, however. Parent pointed out that we had very little evidence to guide us in answering important questions about juveniles and boot camp programs. How young is too young? In a juvenile program, how should the disciplinary regimen differ? Should the programmatic content and physical training requirements differ from those in adult boot camps? What effect do mandatory school laws have on the amounts and types of educational programming provided in juvenile boot camps? Do child protection laws limit the regimen and practices in juvenile boot camp programs? Discrimination and Abuse Issues The literature on boot camps described several other problem areas of particular concern to policymakers and administrators, especially in the area of inmates' rights and inmates' protection. Policymakers may need to consider that "particularly in their strictest form, boot camps operate very close to the line of unconstitutionality. The verbal and physical aspects of the program (the same aspects that appeal to much of the public) do not have to deteriorate very far to reach the point of illegality. Camp operations must be supervised very carefully to avoid this deterioration."24 Parent added that several factors make protection of inmates' legal rights in boot camp programs especially important. Grievance procedures, for example, are not curtailed in boot camps, but there may be a chilling effect on their use. Inmates may fear that if they file a grievance, they may be removed from the program and made to serve a full prison term. Some offender misconduct is summarily punished. Telephone calls may be even more restricted (especially during early weeks) than in the prison. Visits may be prohibited until near the end of the program. The boot camp programs' short duration, restrictions on visitation and telephone use, and in many cases, their remote location increase the potential for abuse. Boot camp inmates have less time to initiate available forms of legal redress, and there are fewer visitors or volunteers who might observe and report abuses.25 Although there are numerous areas of concern involving inmate protection, the following suggests only a few of the more basic guidelines that should be considered when writing policies and procedures: o Offenders admitted to boot camp programs should get a much more extensive physical examination than is routinely given to incoming prison inmates. The examination should look for rare conditions that might be life threatening to someone doing heavy exercise. o Boot camp programs must develop explicit limits on heavy physical exercise, work, and running, and enforce them strictly. In addition, water intake must be linked by policy to levels of exercise or work and climatic conditions. o The food ration must provide sufficient caloric intake to permit boot camp inmates to engage in the strenuous level of exercise and work required of them. o Boot camp programs must specify the conduct for which summary punishment may be administered, and the types of sanctions that can be applied summarily. The critical issues discussed in this document are important considerations in initiating or revising either an adult or a juvenile boot camp program. Notes 1. The information presented in this chapter forms a general backdrop for issues that will be developed in greater and in some cases more current detail by other authors in this volume. The present tense is used here in discussing the findings even though some specifics may have changed in the 2 years since the survey was conducted. 2. Department of the Army, Basic Combat Training Program of Instruction, October 1991. 3. From questionnaire completed by Lieutenant Colonel Conover. 4. Dale G. Parent, "A Foundation for Performance-Based Standards for Adult and Juvenile Boot Camps," p. 3. 5. U.S. General Accounting Office, Prison Boot Camps: Short-Term Prison Costs Reduced, But Long-Term Impact Uncertain, p. 19. 6. D. MacKenzie and C. Souryal, "Boot Camp Survey: Rehabilitation, Recidivism Reduction Outrank Punishment as Main Goals," p. 91. 7. Twelve States sent written policies and procedures, and 22 sent either program descriptions, inmate handbooks, or brochures with brief descriptions of program goals and components. All of the States that responded had a written mission statement and delineated goals, but only a few mentioned a formal evaluation component. Although all referred to eligibility criteria, selection processes, and voluntary participation, only eight States had written policies on these issues. 8. Parent, "Foundation," pp. 4-8. 9. Parent, p. 5. 10. Parent, p. 7. The Scared Straight! program initiated in Rahway, New Jersey, sought to deter juveniles from further delinquency through group visits to adult prisons where the rigor and brutality of prison life were graphically presented. 11. U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO), op. cit., p. 17. 12. Doris Layton MacKenzie, "Boot Camp Prisons in 1993," p. 24. 13. MacKenzie, "Boot Camp Prisons in 1993," p. 24. 14. MacKenzie, p. 24. 15. GAO, p. 16. 16. Mackenzie, p. 23. 17. MacKenzie, p. 23. 18. Michelle Quinn, San Francisco Chronicle, January 19, 1993. 19. GAO, pp. 28-29. 20. Thomas C. Castellano. Recommendation for ACA Boot Camp Standards Relating to Program Evaluation. 21. Parent, p. 28. 22. Parent, p. 28. 23. Quoted by David Steinhart, "Juvenile Boot Camps: Clinton May Rev Up An Old Drill," pp. 15-16. 24. "Physical Abuse of Inmates Leads to Indictments Against Boot Camp Staff," p. 22. 25. Parent, p. 28. Bibliography Acorn, L.R. "Working in a Boot Camp." Corrections Today (October 1991): 110-112. Anderson, E.S. "Project Sprite." Wisconsin Trails (October 1988):37-38. Aziz, David. Shock Incarceration Evaluation: Preliminary Data. Unpublished report to the State of New York, Department of Correctional Services, 1989. Bowen, Andy E. "Making Boot Camps Bigger and Better." Corrections Today (October 1991):99-101. Castellano, T.C. Recommendation for ACA Boot Camp Standards Relating to Program Evaluation. Unpublished report, 1993. Collingwood, T.R. Survival Camping: A Therapeutic Mode for Rehabilitating Problem Youths. Little Rock: Arkansas Rehabilitation and Research Training Center, 1972. Creager, C. "A Rugged Route to Recovery." Professional Counselor (July/August 1986):37-40. Deal, G. Ropes and Recovery. Unpublished report on the Randolph Clinic, Charlotte, North Carolina, 1983. Falcioni, J.G. "Camps Don't Coddle Cons. Inmates Get Shock Training." City and State, May 9, 1988. Florida Department of Corrections. "Boot Camp: A 25-Month Review." Tallahassee: Bureau of Planning, Research and Statistics, 1990. Florida Department of Corrections. "Boot Camp Evaluation." Tallahassee: Bureau of Research, Planning and Statistics, 1989. Flowers, Gerald T. An Evaluation of the Use and Performance of Special Alternative Incarceration in Georgia. Atlanta: Georgia Department of Corrections. Unpublished manuscript, 1986. Frank, S. "Oklahoma Camp Stresses Structure and Discipline." Corrections Today (October 1991):102- 105. Freelander, D. "Money for Boot Camps at Issue." The Houston Post (December 28, 1987). Gauntt, M. "Outdoor Challenge Rehabilitation Programs Planned." Medical Gazette, June 11, 1989. Gendreau, Paul, and Robert R. Ross. "Correctional Potency: Treatment and Deterrence on Trial." In Issues in Juvenile Justice, R. Roesch and R.R. Corrado (eds.). Toronto: Butterworths, 1981. Gendreau, Paul, and Robert R. Ross. "Revivification of Rehabilitation: Evidence from the 1980s." Justice Quarterly, 4 (1987):349-407. Gendreau, Paul, and Robert R. Ross. "Success in Corrections: Program and Principles." In Issues in Juvenile Justice, R. Corrado, M. Leblanc, and J. Trepanier (eds.). Toronto: Buttersworths, 1983. Georgia Department of Corrections. "Miller Boot Camp Program--A National First." Media advisory, 1991. Greenwood, P., and F.E. Zimring. One More Chance: The Pursuit of Promising Intervention Strategies for Chronic Juvenile Offenders. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation Press, 1985. Hengesh, Donald J. "Think of Boot Camps As a Foundation for Change, Not an Instant Cure." Corrections Today (October 1991):106-108. Impact Incarceration Program. Annual Report to the Illinois Governor and the General Assembly. Planning and Budget Bureau of Administration and Training. Unpublished manuscript, 1992. Kagan, D. "Ensured Trip to Prison Camp Billed as Drug Crime Antidote." INSIGHT (May 11, 1989). Kelly, F. Outward Bound and Delinquency: A Ten-Year Experience. Paper presented at the Conference on Experiential Education, Estes Park, Colorado, 1974. Kruse, T. An Argument for the Use of Ropes Courses in Adolescent Substance Abuse Treatment. Unpublished summary of thesis for Master's Degree, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, May 1987. Lambert, D. "Boot Camps: Latest Trend in Juvenile Justice." Youth Law News (September/October 1990):12-14. MacKenzie, Doris L. "Boot Camp Prisons: Components, Evaluations, and Empirical Issues." Federal Probation (September 1991):44-52. MacKenzie, Doris L. "Boot Camp Prisons in 1993." National Institute of Justice Journal, 227 (November 1993):21-28. MacKenzie, Doris L. "Boot Camp Programs Grow in Number and Scope." NIJ Reports, 222 (November/December 1990):6-8. MacKenzie, Doris L. "The Parole Performance of Offenders Released From Shock Incarceration (Boot Camp Prisons): A Survival Time Analysis." Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 7, no. 3 (1991):213- 236. MacKenzie, Doris L., and D.B. Ballow. "Shock Incarceration Programs in State Correctional Jurisdictions--An Update." NIJ Reports, 214 (May/June 1989):9-10. MacKenzie, Doris L., Larry A. Gould, Lisa M. Riechers, and James W. Shaw. "Shock Incarceration: Rehabilitation or Retribution?" Journal of Offender Counseling, Services, and Rehabilitation, 14, no. 2 (1989):25-40. MacKenzie, Doris L., and Dale G. Parent. "Boot Camp Prisons for Young Offenders." In Smart Sentencing: The Emergence of Intermediate Sanctions, James M. Byrne, Arthur J. Lurigio, and Joan Petersilia (eds.). Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications, 1992. MacKenzie, Doris L., and Dale G. Parent. "Shock Incarceration and Prison Crowding in Louisiana." Journal of Criminal Justice, 19 (1991):225-237. MacKenzie, Doris L., and James W. Shaw. "Inmate Adjustment and Change During Shock Incarceration: The Impact of Correctional Boot Camp Programs." Justice Quarterly, 7, no. 1 (1990):125-150. MacKenzie, Doris L., James W. Shaw, and Voncile B. Gowdy. An Evaluation of Shock Incarceration in Louisiana. Research in Brief. U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1993. MacKenzie, Doris L., and Claire C. Souryal. "Boot Camp Survey: Rehabilitation, Recidivism Reduction Outrank Punishment as Main Goals." Corrections Today, 53 (October 1991):90-96. Morash, Merry, and L. Rucker. "A Critical Look at the Idea of Boot Camp as a Correctional Reform." Crime and Delinquency, 36, no. 2 (1990):209-220. New York State Department of Correctional Services and New York State Division of Parole. The Fourth Annual Report to the Legislature: Shock Incarceration in New York State. Albany: Division of Program Planning, Research and Evaluation and the Office of Policy Analysis and Information. Unpublished, 1992. New York State Department of Correctional Services and New York State Division of Parole. The Third Annual Report to the Legislature: Shock Incarceration in New York State. Albany: Division of Program Planning, Research and Evaluation and the Office of Policy Analysis and Information. Unpublished, 1991. Parent, Dale G. "A Foundation for Performance-Based Standards for Adult and Juvenile Boot Camps." Draft manuscript prepared for the American Correctional Association, 1993. Parent, Dale G. "Shock Incarceration Programs." Address to the American Correctional Association Winter Conference, Phoenix, Arizona, 1988. Parent, Dale G. "Shock Incarceration Programs." American Probation and Parole Association (Fall 1988):9-15. Parent, Dale G. Shock Incarceration: An Overview of Existing Programs. Issues and Practices in Criminal Justice. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1989. "Physical Abuse of Inmates Leads to Indictments Against Boot Camp Staff." Correctional Law Reporter, August 1992. "Shape Up, SON." The Oregonian (March 1988):12-14. Shaw, James W., and Doris L. MacKenzie. "Shock Incarceration and Its Impact on the Lives of Problem Drinkers." American Journal of Criminal Justice, 16, no. 1 (1991):63-97. Shlesinger, B.E. "Teaching Youths To Invent." Corrections Today (May/June 1981):20. South Carolina State Reorganization Commission Jail and Prison Overcrowding Project. "Shock Incarceration." Series on Alternatives to Incarceration, Issue 3 (May 1990):1-6. "Squeeze You Like a Grape." LIFE (June 1988):82-85. Steinhart, David. "Juvenile Boot Camps: Clinton May Rev Up an Old Drill." Youth Today (January/February 1993). Tennessee Department of Youth Development, Section for Planning, Information Resources, and Accreditation. "A Report to the 96th General Assembly on Shock Incarceration Programs for Juvenile Offenders." Unpublished manuscript, 1990. Tucker, Neely. "Making Florida's Boot Camp Work." The Miami Herald, October 23, 1988. U.S. General Accounting Office. Prison Boot Camps: Short-Term Prison Costs Reduced, But Long-Term Impact Uncertain. Washington, D.C.: U.S. General Accounting Office, 1993. U.S. General Accounting Office. Prison Boot Camps: Too Early To Measure Effectiveness. Washington, D.C.: U.S. General Accounting Office, 1988. Virginia Department of Corrections, Research, Evaluation and Certification Unit. "An Evaluation of Southampton Intensive Treatment Center: Preliminary Report on Client Characteristics, Program Effects and Community Adjustments." Unpublished, 1992. Vito, G.F., and H.E. Allen. "Shock Probation in Ohio: A Comparison of Outcomes." International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 25 (1981):70-76. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Correctional Boot Camps: A Tough Intermediate Sanction - Chapter 3 Shock Incarceration in New York State: Philosophy, Results, and Limitations by Cheryl L. Clark and David W. Aziz, Ph.D. Cheryl L. Clark is the Director of Shock Development for the New York State Department of Correctional Services (DOCS). David W. Aziz, Ph.D., is a research specialist with DOCS. The New York State Shock Incarceration program provides a therapeutic environment designed to address a wide range of inmate problems and should not be mistaken for just a "boot camp." Established in 1987, the 6-month Shock Incarceration program stresses a highly structured and regimented routine, considerable physical work and exercise, and intensive substance abuse treatment. It seeks to build character, instill a sense of maturity and responsibility, and promote a positive self-image for offenders so they can return to society as law-abiding citizens. The program's therapeutic model, "Network," is based on control theory and seeks to restore inmates' bonds to society. Compliance, or direct control, is used in conjunction with other types of social control, both internal and external, to effect changes in inmates' behavior. New York's Shock Incarceration program has significantly improved math and reading scores, provided approximately 1.2 million hours of community service in a single year, and saved both operational and capital costs to New York's Department of Correctional Services. Recidivism rates of Shock Incarceration graduates are better than for persons released after standard prison sentences. The New York rates indicate that 90 percent of released graduates do well in their first year of release, although over time, as followup support and resources diminish, their rates appear to become similar to those of inmates who spend more time in prison. Although not the cure-all many enthusiasts portray them to be, shock incarceration programs like New York's can constitute an effective intervention. In the debate over the efficacy of shock incarceration programs nationally, attention has been devoted primarily to whether programs save money for corrections systems or lower the recidivism rates for participants (Nossiter, 1993:A1; and GAO, 1993:25). This seems to be the exclusive focus of the academic analysts and program practitioners who have been informing the boot camp debate. In this debate there seems to be a willingness to lump all shock incarceration programs together and an assumption that all such programs do the same thing and have the same goals. Variation among programs or variation in individual programs over time are rarely considered. Little attention has been paid to the underlying philosophy of shock incarceration programs, how they are structured, and how that structure may affect the ultimate question of what standards should be used to determine if they work. It is generally recognized that bed savings and return rates are the "gold standard" by which shock incarceration programs will ultimately be judged, and the New York State Department of Correctional Services (DOCS) has provided numbers each year in these two critical areas that have surpassed its expectations for program success.These issues are consistently addressed in DOCS annual reports to the State legislature, and some of the findings will be addressed later in this chapter. Still, there is a need to understand how the program in New York was designed by explicitly examining the program's philosophical foundations and identifying what it can and cannot do. Current discussions about the rise in violent crime and gun use among the young have revolved around the premise that our society is suffering from a loss of values, dysfunctional families and communities, and an unwillingness by individuals to take responsibility for their lives and behavior. The breakdown of the individual and the community is not new to sociological theory. Durkheim (1966) and Merton (1938) talked about societal decay in terms of "anomie," or the state of normless- ness, and how individuals react to this state, while Hirschi (1969) discussed the absence of positive values, beliefs, and attachments as contributing to dysfunctional behavior. Since DOCS' first published report on the New York program, the department has stressed the theoretical underpinnings of the shock incarceration concept and the program's intention to help instill positive, prosocial values for people who had adapted their behavior to survive in a normless society. Because DOCS' officials strongly believe that philosophy drives goals and that goals affect results, they have attempted to clearly articulate the New York Shock Incarceration program's goals and have implemented a treatment plan that addresses the physical, mental, spiritual, and emotional dimensions of everyone in the program, staff and inmates alike. The goals and methods are consistent with attempts to counter some of the causes of delinquency as outlined in social control theory. The department emphasizes staff involvement because staff are the key to effective implementation. This chapter will describe the New York program's philosophy and structure, provide some outcome measures, and discuss the limitations to what Shock or any correctional treatment program can accomplish. Legislative History and Philosophy The New York State Shock Incarceration program was established in 1987. The State legislative bill enabling its creation specified that: o The program be designed for certain young inmates who could benefit from a special 6-month program of intensive incarceration. o The program be provided to carefully selected inmates committed to the State Department of Correctional Services who are in need of substance abuse treatment and rehabilitation. o The program be an alternative form of incarceration that stresses a highly structured and regimented routine, including extensive discipline, considerable physical work and exercise, and intensive drug rehabilitation therapy. It should build character, instill a sense of maturity and responsibility, and promote a positive self-image for offenders so they can return to society as law-abiding citizens. This enabling legislation summarizes the essence of the State's approach. First, DOCS identified the specific pool of inmates to be offered the Shock Incarceration program. At present, they are young, serving their first term of State incarceration for a nonviolent felony offense, and within 3 years of parole eligibility. While the department believes that shock incarceration could benefit a wider inmate pool, the short duration of the program, coupled with public protection issues, has influenced the selection of candidates. The program has four major eligibility criteria: o Restrict age to focus on younger inmates. o Eliminate violent offenders, sex offenders, and escape risks. o Set a limit on the time reduction benefits available to successful participants and ensure that inmates selected have not committed serious crimes. o Prohibit prior service of an indeterminate sentence to ensure that these inmates are first-time commitments. Second, the department has targeted prison-bound inmates who account for the rapidly growing pool crowding into the system; these are primarily drug offenders. The department carefully screens these offenders to include only those individuals whose early release would not jeopardize community safety. DOCS is as concerned with suitability of placement as with eligibility criteria. Third, the department's methods are consistent with control theory and have been designed to build self-esteem, positive values and beliefs, thinking and problem-solving skills, and prosocial attitudes. Starting in 1987, DOCS began establishing its four Shock Incarceration facilities and began operating the Nation's largest shock incarceration program for sentenced State prisoners at Lakeview, with a capacity of 1,390 male and 180 female inmates as well as 222 beds for orientation and screening. At the start of 1994 at least 50 boot camp facilities were operating in 33 State correctional systems and in the Federal Bureau of Prisons. As of that date, 1,690 of the 8,255 inmates housed in these programs were in New York facilities (Camp and Camp, 1994:60). Boot camp programs vary widely in content and philosophy and cannot be readily grouped into a homogeneous treatment approach. Failure to acknowledge this variation results in diminishing the positive outcomes that have been achieved. The Foundation of the New York State Program: Control Theory The New York State Shock Incarceration program is based on a therapeutic community model called "Network." The Network model was designed to establish living and learning units within correctional facilities that are supervised and operated by specially trained correction officers and supervisors. The underlying basis of the Network philosophy is a theoretical model of the causes of delinquency known as "control theory." Part of a group of social and cultural support theories of criminality, control theory proposes that "nonconformity is a product of the failure of the social bond. Through the attachment of individuals to others, conformity is assured. When such attachments fail to develop or when they are disrupted, the internalization of legitimate norms becomes problematic" (Farrell and Swigert, 1975:211). Thus control theory is designed to explain conformity in individuals and implies that deviation from conformity (or criminal behavior) can be explained by variations in an individual's ties to the conventional social order. The main proponent of this theory, Travis Hirschi, asserted that "delinquent acts result when an individual's bond to society is weak or broken" (Hirschi, 1969:16). This bond consists of attachment to others, commitment, involvement in conventional activities, and belief in a positive value system. The assumption made by control theorists is that people who are at risk of engaging in criminal behavior are individuals whose bond to society has been weakened or broken. Shock Incarceration in New York has been designed to provide an opportunity to strengthen or restore the bond. Control theory is a key component of the Shock Incarceration philosophy in New York. It is assumed that inmates entering DOCS are individuals whose bonds to society are either weakened or broken and that exposure to the philosophies and practices of this program will help restore these bonds. The program emphasizes the need for individuals to strengthen their indirect controls, their internalized controls, and their controls over opportunities for conventional activities by promoting responsibility for choices and stressing the consequences of their behavior. Inmates who do not participate in this restoration process and who fail to live up to their responsibilities are destined to fail in the program and will serve the remainder of their sentences in a traditional prison setting. When Cheryl L. Clark, now New York's Director of Shock Incarceration, established Network units within DOCS in 1979, they were based on ideas of social control theory and learning theory and the principles taught in Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous programs. These models of change were offered to inmates who were willing and able to volunteer to live in Network community living units during their incarceration. The units were structured as total learning environments: Inmates lived together as a therapeutic community, holding daily meetings, decisionmaking seminars, and self-help groups led by trained corrections officers. The Network philosophy, now the Shock Incarceration philosophy, recited each day to begin community meetings, says: Network is a positive environment for human development in a caring community where individuals can help themselves and each other. Staff and participants work together to establish and maintain positive, growth-filled environments within prisons. Community members focus on behavioral change and confront attitudes which are destructive to individuals and the life of the program (Clark, 1979). Network was also committed to having inmates with substance abuse problems become actively involved in ASAT (Alcohol and Substance Abuse Treatment) while they lived in the Network community. The success of this program influenced the former New York State Commissioner of Correctional Services, Thomas A. Coughlin III, to direct that Network become the foundation piece of the Shock Incarceration program and that the program strongly emphasize substance abuse treatment. Network has been operating in New York State Correctional Facilities since 1979 and has strengthened our resolve to identify and deal with the special needs of our staff and inmates. It has proven successful in providing an opportunity for positive growth and change. That's what Shock Incarceration is all about--bridging the external discipline of the military model with an internalized system of positive values (NYS DOCS Sixth Annual Report: 9). The operational components of control theory incorporated in Shock Incarceration were discussed by Wells and Rankin in a summary of F. Ivan Nye's writings on the elements of social control. Nye identified four types of social controls on human behavior: o Direct control based on the application or threat of punishments and rewards to gain compliance with conventional norms. o Indirect control based on affectional attachment to or identification with conventional persons (especially parents). o Internalized control based on the development of autonomous patterns of conformity located in the individual personality, self-concept, or conscience. o Control over opportunities for conventional and deviant activities whereby compliance results from restricted choices or alternatives (Wells and Rankin, 1988:265). New York's Shock Incarceration program is based on the understanding that the permanency of changes in human behavior depends on changing attitudes through both internal and external influences. As with the Network program, Shock is influenced by these control models. The four social controls outlined by Nye represent a continuum of mental and moral development. Problems result when there is an overreliance on only one of the four controls, no matter which is chosen. Much criticism of boot camp programs is based on the perception that they rely exclusively on the compliance model. For individual change to be effective and lasting, all four strategies of the continuum must be present. Compliance The first of Nye's behavior control models, direct control, is based on compliance with rules and authority. Compliance is a fact of life. There are rules that everyone must follow every day and appropriate limits to socially acceptable behavior. Moral development and ethical judgment are results of a healthy respect for boundaries and compliance with the social contract, through which we have established standards for how we relate to each other. Throughout our lives, authority figures such as parents, teachers, clergy, police, and judges impose and enforce these standards. Boundaries and limits create a social order, and it is this order that allows freedom. Everyone at some point is subject to authority. It is the abuse of authority that becomes a problem, not the simple fact of the need to comply. Compliance models work for limited periods of time and under very specific conditions (e.g., radar-enforced speed control) but are challenged at every opportunity. Shock Incarceration in New York acknowledges the importance of self-discipline and compliance with rules and recognizes that some people change only when they have to, hence the need for prisons. However, a sentence to prison (i.e., deprivation of liberty) is punishment. Shock incarceration programs are not designed to inflict punishment, but they use the compliance model to teach discipline and to demonstrate how both limits and discipline make freedom possible. One component of the New York Shock Incarceration program is consistent with compliance. The military-based features of the program are designed to teach self-discipline and to improve inmates' physical, mental, and emotional condition. It is important to emphasize the value of military discipline and pride in performance for New York's Shock Incarceration participants. The one programmatic feature that shock incarceration programs nationwide usually have in common is military discipline and training. Military discipline played an important role in historical antecedents to Shock Incarceration in New York, particularly the inmate regimen established at the Elmira Reformatory in New York by Zebulon Brockway. Supporters of the Elmira experiment believed discipline to be the cornerstone of effective inmate reform: Military discipline is found to be exceedingly beneficial in inculcating promptness in obedience, attention, and harmony of action with others. It develops the prisoner physically, quickens him mentally and, by making him a part of the disciplinary force, gives him a clearer insight into the meaning and benefits of thorough discipline. The standard of discipline should be so fixed that each prisoner may know exactly what to expect, and know that his release can only be accomplished by reaching this standard through his own efforts. Having attained this standard he should be released upon parole, to suitable employment, under efficient supervision, for a period of time long enough for him to demonstrate his fitness for an honest life, in society . . . (Allen, 1928:120). The Elmira Reformatory was established in 1876 to house younger inmates who were convicted of first felonies but given indeterminate sentences. The reformatory emphasized manual training; inmates were taught "marketable, honest skills in building part of the institution and making several products" (Smith, 1988:34). Following the passage of a variety of laws against inmate labor in the early 1880's, New York's inmate labor system was deemed to be illegal. To keep inmates at Elmira occupied and trained, Brockway decided in 1888 that military training would be a useful substitute: The training was instituted to meet an emergency, but survived long after the short-lived trouble. The military organization permeated almost every aspect of the institution: schooling, manual training, sports teams, physical training, daily timetables, supervision of inmates, and even parole practices. In short, the training was used to discipline the inmates and organize the institution (Smith, 1988:33). The problem with relying solely on a compliance model for boot camp programs is that it works only when participants believe that someone is watching. Even the worst "shock" wears off over time. Indeed, in most cases, the more severe the shock, the more quickly people want to forget it happened; denial is a natural healing and coping mechanism for reducing extreme negative stress and regaining equilibrium. Boot camp programs that are overly concerned about compliance with rules appear to have little effect after inmates are released. Criticisms of boot camps based only on compliance. The rush to create shock incarceration programs has been accompanied by healthy skepticism that boot camps represent only "quick fix" solutions to complex social problems. As recently as December 1993, the New York Times reported that at a time when Congress was prepared to provide major funding to jurisdictions wanting to open more boot camps, the concept was "getting a skeptical look from many academics and correctional experts" (Dec. 18, 1993:A1). In the past critics including former Commissioner Larry Meachum of the Connecticut Department of Corrections as well as Merry Morash and Lisa Rucker have raised concerns that shock programs have the potential for abuse and may be harmful to their participants. According to Morash and Rucker, "A number of potential negative outcomes of a boot camp environment have been identified. One of these is increased offender aggression" (Morash and Rucker, 1990:218). Despite the viscerally attractive prospect of housing inmates in a disciplined environment, critics believe that shock programs have no real lasting effects on participants. The author of an article about Florida's boot camp program spent 24 days in the program and reported that ". . . only one change is certain when these convicted felons return to your town, your neighborhood, your street. They will be stronger and faster" (Tucker, 1988:10). Many of these concerns stem from early attempts by jurisdictions to create boot camps that reflected their desire to "just get tough" on criminals. Critics have voiced concern that compliance is the only model emphasized in these shock incarceration programs and that high recidivism rates reflect a breakdown in compliance. For example, note the program description written in 1986 for Georgia's boot camps: . . . the fundamental program concept is that a brief period of incarceration under harsh physical conditions, strenuous manual labor, and exercise within a secured environment will "shock" the younger and less seriously criminally oriented offender out of a future life of crime (Flowers, 1986:3). The use of coercion to gain inmate compliance is seen by many correctional experts as having limited value, and for that reason numerous observers have criticized these programs. Ira Schwartz, director of Michigan's Center for the Study of Youth Policy, called boot camps a fad that doesn't work (Tucker, 1988:15). In 1988, another critic, Edward Leghorn, Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Youth Services, commented, "To think that 90 days of training is going to undo 17 years of family troubles is a terribly naive approach. . . . They're kidding themselves. These kids have no education. No job skills. The counseling is no more than a classroom lecture. . . . What are these guys going to do for a living when they get out? Pushups?" (Tucker, 1988:15). These generic criticisms--based on limited anecdotal data and lacking long-term empirical analyses--may not have as much relevance when individual shock incarceration programs are examined since there is great variation among programs nationally. While Doris MacKenzie, who has written extensively on boot camps, argues correctly that "there is little evidence that the getting tough element of shock incarceration will, by itself, lead to behavioral change" (MacKenzie, 1988:5), it is also evident that the the self-discipline taught through drill and ceremony and physical training has many positive benefits in other aspects of the program. Inmates, for example, perform better academically while in the New York program, and it is clear from inmates' attention and enthusiasm in the academic classrooms that military bearing and physical training support their ability to concentrate and learn. A recent letter received from the father of a Shock Incarceration inmate just 6 weeks into the program underscores this point. Yesterday, our family visited at your facility for the second time. I was so overwhelmed with positive feelings that I wanted to share them with you. My son . . . has always had low self- esteem. He was classified as learning disabled throughout his schooling. He never memorized anything nor has he ever finished reading an entire story or book. Throughout the 5 hours we visited with him I was enthralled by his passion for your program and his positive feelings for your staff. In an extremely short period of time, you have stripped him of his "bullshit image" and he has learned so many good things about himself. He proudly recited the Ten General Orders from memory. His military bearing and positive attitude as to program and staff made us feel very proud of him. Over the remainder of the program I am sure he will continue to gain further insight and self-reliance and through repetition incorporate your teachings to have positive self-esteem. We cannot thank you and your staff enough as we feel that he will be capable of caring for himself and enjoying a lifestyle with positive values due to this experience. Identification Nye's second type of social control, indirect control, emphasizes positive role models to change behavior. Many offenders' role models are deviant, inconsistent, criminogenic, and influential; and offenders too often identify legitimate authority figures such as parents, teachers, truant officers, police, and probation officers as the "enemy" while considering drug dealers and pimps to be heroes. In Shock Incarceration, these assumptions are turned around; inmates need to identify with prosocial role models and recognize the shortcomings of emulating antisocial behavior. Staff are the primary role models in Shock Incarceration in New York, and their attitudes and behavior influence inmates' attitudes toward change, growth, and the development of positive social norms. In New York, staff complete the program with inmates and are expected to model the program philosophy at all times. New York is not a "do as I say, not as I do" program. Drill instructors with gravy stains on their uniforms and a day-old growth of beard cannot effectively instruct inmates on grooming standards. Supervisors, counselors, and teachers who do not model the effectiveness of what Shock Incarceration is trying to teach undermine the actions of committed staff. Because staff in the program so strongly influence results, they must be clear about the examples they set. The values of staff are reflected in their behavior, and the values they reinforce among inmates are influenced by the congruency of their words and actions. For example, the New York program's first General Order for inmates is to follow all orders given by all staff at all times. As such, it is incumbent on the staff to ensure that their orders are lawful, ethical, and moral. The SMART rule is emphasized in every aspect of the program: Orders must be Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, and Timely. An officer who is out of shape and unable to do 10 pushups on a good day should not be ordering an inmate to "drop and give me 100." To this end, staff are expected to model what is taught in the Shock Incarceration program. They are expected to "walk the walk" and to demonstrate congruently that the model works. The program also emphasizes an interdisciplinary approach to inmate instruction and supervision to maintain consistency among the security, treatment, and administrative staff. If inmates can play one discipline against another, the foundation of the program is undermined. Acknowledging the importance of compliance to rules and consistent discipline from effective role models is important to the effectiveness of boot camp programs. Dale Parent, an observer of boot camps nationally, concluded: The programs we observed varied in the consistency with which rules were enforced. Where rules were less consistently enforced, it appeared inmates were more prone to test the limits of enforcement. Confrontations with staff seemed more numerous and overall tension levels seemed higher. Where rule enforcement was consistent, inmates seemed less prone to test their limits, confrontations were less evident, and tension levels seemed lower. . . . In terms of molding offender behavior, consistency and accountability in expulsion practices are important factors. The offender learns that his or her actions have clear, well defined consequences: that appropriate self control will be rewarded and inappropriate behavior punished (Parent, 1989:25-26). It is important that New York graduates learn the program's behavioral model and remember it once they are back in their communities. Yolanda Johnson, one of the program's most successful graduates, tells this story to inmates in the program when she returns to present commencement addresses: One night shortly after graduation I was at a party. A guy I used to know who I ran into immediately started digging in his pocket. When he passed me a crack pipe I said, "No thank you, I don't smoke no more." So he said, "Whoa! Baby! This used to be your shit!" He tried passing it to me again two or three times so finally I said to him, real loud, "What part don't you get? The no thank you or the I don't smoke no more?" And he backed right up and said, "Uh-oh baby," and left. I got that from my drill instructor. Staff training. Because Shock Incarceration is not corrections as usual, it is important that staff understand the program, the theory behind it, and what is expected of inmates. One important way to ensure program integrity is through proper staff training. All staff who work in New York State Shock Incarceration facilities are required to attend a comprehensive, highly structured, rigorous 4-week training program that is similar to the regimen for offenders in the Shock Incarceration program. The goal of the training is to give all correctional employees, regardless of discipline, a thorough understanding of the program's concepts, goals, and structure. All staff are required to attend this training. The training is based on the model first introduced in 1979 to train interdisciplinary teams to staff Network units. That training originally consisted of 2 weeks of intensive training in therapeutic community concepts as applied to a corrections facility. Shock Incarceration staff training was expanded to 4 weeks and also includes physical training, drill and ceremony, an introduction to ASAT, and decisionmaking skills as taught in Network. The training is designed to help employees better understand the inmates they will work with as well as the interrelationships among security, programs, and administration. Staff training also gives employees an opportunity to increase their understanding of themselves and others. Group unity and teamwork are emphasized as staff are placed in platoons and work together throughout the training in an experiential approach to learning how to teach inmates. The course content includes control theory, leadership skills, training in teaching inmates decisionmaking skills, the ASAT curriculum, drill and ceremony, physical training, and military bearing. The training emphasizes an interdisciplinary approach so that all staff are able to teach all aspects of the program. The training schedule is based on a modified version of a typical day for Shock Incarceration participants, beginning with physical training each morning and concluding with community meetings in the evening. Each day's instruction includes drill and ceremony and is designed to cover some aspect of the 6-month treatment curriculum. As with the full inmate program, all staff training is taught using accelerated learning strategies. To work at a Shock Incarceration facility, staff agree to undergo this rigorous training and commit to the principles of the Shock Incarceration program. As a result of this training, the staff tend to be very committed to the program goals and are highly motivated. As of October 1994, more than 1,800 New York State DOCS employees had been trained in Shock Incarceration methods. In addition to conducting staff training in New York, staff trainers also provided training for other States and localities. Internalization Nye's third type of social control, internalization, while the most complex, time consuming, and difficult to achieve, is the most desirable to accomplish due to its long-term effects. Internalization flows from a clear understanding of why we need to comply with limits. We internalize values learned from role models with whom we identify. Internalization is fundamental to our understanding of "who we are" and is concerned with our system of beliefs and values. Internalization of values is dependent upon our experience, which tells us that believing in these values has a payoff. Individuals, for example, often take a position of absolute certainty that what they believe is right when discussing political or religious values. It is very difficult, if not impossible, to change other people's beliefs and values. They must first see a benefit to themselves before they change values. Inmates are taught in Shock Incarceration that the only people they can change are themselves. They are asked to examine their beliefs and attitudes to determine if the results they are getting in their lives are satisfying and fulfilling. Through this self-assessment, inmates begin to see the need to change their values and approaches to life. Internalization requires willingness, and therein lies the difficulty. Very few people really want to change their beliefs; beliefs are essential to self-image and attitudes toward life. Internalization deals with the spiritual dimension of life, the most uncomfortable to confront. Internalization is what Hirschi refers to when he speaks of the four elements that constitute the social bond: attachment, belief, commitment, and involvement (Hirschi, 1969). Participating in the social bond implies making a commitment to conventional beliefs and activities and understanding that decisions and behaviors have consequences. The New York program seeks to have participants internalize a positive, prosocial system of values designed to raise self-esteem. The program emphasizes helping inmates acknowledge how their old values and choices led to their exclusion from society and restriction of freedom. In Shock Incarceration inmates experience positive values producing positive results--an important step toward realizing that a system of values is the key to changing behavior. The limitations of internalization involve external influences that affect our daily choices. Shock Incarceration is designed to be a positive environment for human development in a caring community. Unfortunately, this environment does not always resemble postrelease reality for boot camp graduates. An overwhelming majority return to dysfunctional environments. Even when Shock Incarceration graduates have strong family support, the neighborhoods to which they return are often steeped in the drug culture. Gangs and old friends offer the familiar environment that embraced and accepted them before they went to prison and that will support them again if they give up the "brainwashing" they learned in Shock Incarceration. Many graduates are undomiciled, with no community ties, and despite the program's emphasis on academic education, may not have received a GED because they started from so far behind. The New York program's decisionmaking curriculum reinforces the principle "environment is stronger than will" and recognizes that social values greatly influence experiences and choices. Inmates find support in platoons of individuals working together to get through the program and in the bonds formed with each other and with their team of drill instructors, counselors, and teachers. Staff constantly emphasize that inmates need each other to get through the program and that it is easier to overcome challenge with support. Staff also remind inmates of programs like Alcholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous, Weight Watchers, churches, health clubs, and other community organizations that offer support for people with similar needs and interests; they encourage them to join support groups like these upon release. In ASAT and in Network, inmates are urged to change "people, places, and things," attend "90 meetings in 90 days," and find a sponsor to mentor and support them in their continuing sobriety. Since the need to belong is a powerful driving force in human beings, staff encourage participants to seek support from postrelease groups that will continue to reinforce their positive growth. For some graduates, this is too difficult; returning to the old neighborhood and the old gang triggers old behaviors and attitudes. The drive to get our needs met is so strong that people will actively seek out opportunities for belonging, power, freedom, and fun. A return to old patterns is to be expected of graduates if the old neighborhood group is meeting their needs and aftercare resources are limited or nonexistent. Nonetheless, many graduates withstand these pressures and overcome tremendous odds. The prison return rates for New York graduates indicate that 90 percent of released graduates do well in their first year of release. Over time, however, as followup support and resources diminish, their rates appear to become similar to those of inmates who spend more time incarcerated. Autonomy Nye's fourth type of social control, autonomy, represents the integration of the first three types and flows from those models. According to Nye, autonomy, or the ability to choose responsibly, involves "control over opportunities for conventional and deviant activities whereby compliance results from restricted