Juvenile Boot Camps: Lessons Learned.

In response to a significant increase in juvenile arrests and repeat offenses
over the past decade, several States and many localities have established
juvenile boot camps. The first juvenile boot camp programs, modeled after boot
camps for adult offenders, emphasized military-style discipline and physical
conditioning. OJJDP has supported the development of three juvenile boot camp
demonstration sites. This Fact Sheet describes those demonstration projects,
their evaluations, and lessons learned that will benefit future boot camp
programs.

Pilot Programs
In 1992 OJJDP funded three juvenile boot camps designed to address the special
needs and circumstances of adolescent offenders. The programs were conducted
in Cleveland, Ohio; Denver, Colorado; and Mobile, Alabama.

Focusing on a target population of adjudicated, nonviolent offenders under the
age of 18, the boot camp programs were designed as highly structured, 3-month
residential programs followed by 6 to 9 months of community-based aftercare.
During the aftercare period, youth were to pursue academic and vocational
training or employment while under intensive, but progressively diminishing,
supervision. 

Evaluations
OJJDP undertook impact evaluations for all three sites that compared the
recidivism rates for juveniles who participated in the pilot programs with
those of control groups. The evaluations also compared the cost-effectiveness
of juvenile boot camps with other dispositional alternatives. Reports of the
three impact evaluations are available. The evaluations of the Mobile and
Cleveland programs are interim reports that present data from the earliest 
cohorts. As neither program had stabilized when the data were collected, OJJDP
is considering expanding the evaluation to include the remaining cohorts. The
Denver program is no longer active.

Findings
Most juvenile boot camp participants completed the residential program and
graduated to aftercare. Program completion rates were 96 percent in Cleveland,
87 percent in Mobile, and  76 percent in Denver. 

At the two sites where educational gains were measured, substantial
improvements in academic skills were noted. In Mobile approximately
three-quarters of the participants improved their performance in reading,
spelling, language, and math by one grade level or more. In Cleveland
the average juvenile boot camp participant improved reading, spelling, and
math skills by approximately one grade level. 

In addition, where employment records were available, a significant number of
participants found jobs while in aftercare. 

The pilot programs, however, did not demonstrate a reduction in recidivism. In
Denver and Mobile, no statistically significant difference could be found
between the recidivism rates of juvenile boot camp participants and those of
the control groups (youth confined in State or county institutions, or
released on probation). In Cleveland pilot program participants evidenced a
higher recidivism rate than juvenile offenders confined in traditional
juvenile correctional facilities. It should be noted that none of the sites
fully implemented OJJDPÕs model juvenile boot camp guidelines, and that some
critical aftercare support services were not provided. 

Lessons Learned
Several significant lessons have emerged from the pilot programs:

The appropriate population should be targeted. Boot camps should be designed
as an intermediate intervention. At one site, youth who had been previously
confined were significantly more likely to recidivate, while youth with the
least serious offenses were also more likely to recidivate.

Facility location is important. Cost issues and community resistance were
major obstacles to securing residential and aftercare facilities. To increase
attendance and reduce problems, aftercare facilities should be located in
gang-neutral areas accessible by public transportation.

Staff selection and training needs are critical. To reduce staff turnover,
fill gaps in critical services, and ensure consistent programming, the
screening, selection, and training of juvenile boot camp and aftercare staff
must be sensitive to the programmatic and operational features of a juvenile
boot camp. This is particularly important with regard to youth development
issues. 

Moreover, continuous treatment between the residential and aftercare phases
should be integrated philosophically and programmatically, particularly
through staffing.

Aftercare programs are challenging to implement. Successful aftercare programs
require attention at the outset to develop a comprehensive model with the
flexibility to respond to local needs and concerns. Aftercare programs are
unlikely to succeed if their participants fail to receive the full range of
services prescribed for them. Aftercare programs must be broad-based and
flexible enough to meet the particular educational, employment, counseling,
and support needs of each participant. The aftercare component should form
dynamic linkages with other community services, especially youth service
agencies, schools, and employers. 

Coordination among agencies must be maintained. All three sites experienced
difficulties in maintaining coordination among the participating agencies.
Considerable attention should be paid to building and maintaining a consensus
among participating organizations concerning the program's philosophy and
procedures. 

Effective evaluation begins with planning. To assess the programÕs successes
and failures, quantifiable data should be collected about participation in
treatment by juveniles in the boot camp and in the control group. Measures of
program success should include a broad spectrum of outcomes. Recidivism
measures should capture all subsequent delinquent activity, not simply the
first new adjudication, and data on new offenses should include information on
the origin and circumstances of the complaint to determine whether there is a
monitoring effect, in which the intensity of the supervision causes an
increase in recorded offending. 

When boot camps are used as an alternative to confinement, savings can be
achieved. Communities often implement juvenile boot camps, in part, to reduce
costs. The experience of the pilot sites indicates that when boot camps are
used as an alternative to traditional confinement, costs can be reduced
considerably because of the significantly shorter residential stay. However,
if boot camps are used as an alternative to probation, savings will not be
realized.

Conclusion
Juvenile boot camps embrace a variety of objectives: reducing recidivism,
improving academic performance, cutting the cost of treating juvenile
offenders, and inculcating the values of self-discipline and hard work. In
attempting to reach these objectives, OJJDP is collaborating with the Office
of Justice Programs (OJP) to enhance program models, policies, and practices
of juvenile boot camps. As a result, many of the lessons learned from OJJDP's
three demonstration sites have been incorporated in the OJP Boot Camp
Corrections Program. 

For Further Information
Jurisdictions considering or operating a juvenile boot camp may receive
technical assistance from the National Institute of Corrections. This
assistance is available without regard to whether the jurisdiction is
receiving, or contemplating applying for, Federal funding. 

To order any or all of the three pilot program evaluation reports, or a copy
of a Program Summary on juvenile boot camps that OJJDP will release in summer
1996, please call the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse, toll free, at
800-638-8736.

Eric Peterson is a Program Specialist in OJJDP's Research and Program
Development Division. 
FS-9636