U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Evaluation of the Impact of Boot Camps for Juvenile Offenders: Mobile Interim Report

NCJ Number
160926
Author(s)
M Peters
Date Published
1996
Length
119 pages
Annotation
An experimental juvenile boot camp program established in Mobile, Ala. in 1992 was evaluated with respect to the comparability of youth in the boot camp and a control group, the rate of successful completion, the extent to which youth received the prescribed services, recidivism, and cost effectiveness.
Abstract
The shock incarceration program was called the Environmental Youth Corps (EYC). It consisted of an intense military environment coupled with academic and life skills training during a 90-day residential stay, followed by a 6- month aftercare program. Evaluation data were collected by means of site visits and reviews of records. The analysis revealed that the initial age range served (13-17 years) was too broad; subsequently the EYC targeted youths ages 13-15 years. In addition, the original aftercare program, which was dispersed among seven Boys and Girls Clubs throughout Mobile, proved not to be workable. A revised, centralized program was implemented in December 1993. Project operations were also hindered by the reduction of Federal funding, high staff turnover, the lack of a family component in the aftercare program, and the difficulty of locating permanent facilities for residential and aftercare programs. The similarity of the recidivism rates of the program and control groups suggests that a significant proportion of the EYC youths were confined for 3 months when they otherwise would have been placed on probation. Finally, the boot camp was not cost-effective. The $6,241 cost per program youth was considerably higher than the weighted cost of $3,193 per control youth, which represents the combined cost for both confined and probation youth. Findings indicated that cost effectiveness depends on the program's diversionary effects on alternative placement in confinement. Figures, tables, and footnotes