Bootcamp programs: structure, outcomes, and workforce development

Criminal Justice

Bootcamp Programs

For the past two decades significant money and time have been put toward the implementation of prison boot camp programs, sometimes called shock incarceration. Often costing more money per inmate per day, shock incarceration programs hope to save money in the long run by reducing recidivism and prison overcrowding. Mixed reviews in the media have called attention to flaws in these programs, both in their inception and inability to meet their own goals (Burton & Marquart, 1993). However, some programs do seem to work. This study intends to review the available research and data to establish whether prison boot camps are more successful than general incarceration for young adults.

The idea of shock incarceration is to "shock" young, usually first time, offenders into reforming. Programs use military style drills, hard work, physical training, and strict regulations to reprogram young men and women (Burns & Vito, 1995). In many cases, additional training, education, and counseling are available or mandatory for inmates in the programs. The idea behind this additional training is to give inmates more opportunities for lawful behavior and employment once they are released.

In trying to identify whether a boot camp program is successful, it is necessary to clearly delineate what success means. This is not difficult in the case of prison boot camps, as most individual programs set goals based on state, county, or federal mandates. Additionally, administrators of individual programs might have some control over how programs are developed and run. The primary goal of shock incarceration programs is to reduce recidivism and lessen prison overcrowding. Reducing recidivism adds up to fewer crimes committed, but may also reduce prison overcrowding and long prison sentences, thereby saving taxpayer dollars. Therefore, when identifying the success or failure of a prison boot camp program it is necessary to identify whether recidivism has been reduced when compared to inmates who did not participate in the prison boot camp system. Then, it must be established whether the boot camp program reduced the number of individuals incarcerated in the regular prison system. Finally, it is also important to identify whether an individual program's goals are being met.

This paper will review available research concerning boot camp / shock incarceration programs with the goal of compiling and evaluating the available data concerning success. To do this, it will first be necessary to review the background and groundwork behind prison boot camp / shock incarceration programs. This will be discussed in Section II. Next, Section III will examine the methodology of this study, outlining the methods used in compiling and evaluating the data at hand. Section IV will identify the results of the review of pertinent literature. Section V will review the effectiveness of the programs illustrated and reviewed in section IV, with the purpose of identifying key elements of success or failure in prison boot camps. The data will be discussed and outcomes established in section VI. Finally, Section VII will state conclusions, as well as areas in need of additional information or study.

II. History of Boot Camp Programs

The first modern boot camps used by a correctional facility in the United States occurred in Oklahoma and Georgia in 1983 (MacKenzie and Corbett, 1994). The camps were designed in response to prison overcrowding and the need to mediate the growing prison population and the desire to rehabilitate prisoners without appearing "soft" on crime. Boot camps were given positive feedback by the media and public as they focused on reforming young offenders who could be transformed and "fixed" rather than put away for years at the tax payers' expense (Osler, 1991). By 1994, 46 boot camps existed in 31 states. By 1995, 75 state run boot camps and 18 county / locally run boot camps were operating (Ashcroft, Daniels & Hart, 2003). In the late 1990s, research began indicating that recidivism rates were not lower due to boot camps and they became subject to increased public scrutiny. Many camps closed. In 2000, 51 camps existed for adult corrections in the United States (Ashcroft, Daniels & Hart, 2003).

In general, the idea behind boot camp / shock incarceration programs is to "shock" young, usually first time offenders into realizing that they want to live lawfully rather than criminally. The programs use harsh military-style treatment, including cognitive restructuring, teamwork, and intense physical training to improve inmates mentally and physically. Most programs have an upward age cap of 25 or lower. Additionally, most programs require inmates to have been sentenced to a specific term (such as three years or less) and be eligible for parole within a few years' time. Inmates are normally considered for boot camp programs only if they have been convicted of non-violent crimes, such as drug crimes or burglary (Burns & Vito, 1995; Ashcroft, Daniels & Hart, 2003). Some camps are voluntary, while others "draft" regular prison inmates without their prior consent. In voluntary programs, inmates can usually opt-out or quit the program, or they may be removed for misconduct or failure to participate satisfactorily (Clark, Aziz & MacKenzie, 1994).

There are a number of common criticisms surrounding boot camp incarceration programs. As has been already noted, some questions whether boot camps effectively meet their goals of lessened recidivism and tax dollar savings. Others are concerned about the psychological and physical rigors of the camps, particularly for women inmates (Clark and Kellam, 2001). One prominent concern, however, is that the existence of boot camps will actually result in more incarcerated individuals. This is called "net widening" (Burns & Vito, 1995).

Net widening" is when individuals who would otherwise get probation or fines are mandated by judges or others to boot camp incarceration instead. The idea is that boot camp will teach young offenders a lesson. However, sending young offenders to boot camp who would not otherwise be within the prison system negates the financial viability of the program. In other words, the financial benefits of boot camps would be lost if extra individuals were added to the system only because boot camps existed. This process can be avoided if judges are not given the power to send individuals to boot camp as punishment. Rather, it can be recommended by judges or left in the hands of prison administrators instead (Burns & Vito, 1995; Clark, Aziz & MacKenzie, 1994).

III. Methodology

This study is a compiling and assessment of available information regarding shock incarceration. Compiling and assessing data available literature is the most effective means of study in this specific field, unless significant funding allows long-term research and access to multiple boot camp sites. As this is a smaller study attempting to assess the overall state and effectiveness of boot camps, methods included the careful search for and assessment of information sources.

When considering the best way to compile and assess the data relating to boot camps and shock incarceration, it was necessary to focus on the best possible sources available. Eliminating sources that offered repetitive information was necessary, as many studies or state reports covered the same programs and provided the same results. Instead, this report comprises a collection of data from a variety or sources and types of sources. In this way, research results from a variety of sources could be compared to one another to establish real trends and separate them from coincidences inherent in fluke cases.

Efforts were made to include both governmental and private research. Similarly, governmental sources were both federal and state produced. Sources were chosen that illustrated programs in a variety of states. Many studies were chosen because they closely monitored one program, its successes and failure. Others were chosen because they described and compared programs in multiple states. Boot camps run by states, counties, and federal corrections services are all covered in the research. To further learn about successes and other possibilities within boot camp programs, articles explaining women, drug abuse, and the background of boot camps were also collected and chosen accordingly.

IV. Results

In the comparison and compiling of data for this study, it was important to find connections between the available information so that it could be properly viewed. The literature reviewed here can be broken down and compared in many ways. Both governmentally produced and private studies were used, as were other pertinent sources. Governmentally produced sources were most helpful in assessing the current use of boot camps, since they monitor such programs and must report on their findings; private studies have become much less frequent over the last decade as public interest has waned. Results of the studies reviewed have been broken down into the type of information each contains.

Four sources looked at state-run boot camps: Burns & Vito (1995); Christenberry, Burns, & Dickinson (1994); Clark, Aziz, and MacKenzie (1994); WY Department of Corrections (n.d.). One source, Burton and Marquart (1993), investigated a county-run program. Klein-Saffran and Chapman (1993) investigated a federally run boot camp in Pennsylvania. Three sources offered comparisons in multi-site evaluations: MacKenzie and Corbett (1994); MacKenzie and Souryal (1994); and Ashcroft, Daniels and Hart (2003). The sources provided background and reviews of published literature: Holmstrom (1996); Marcus-Mendoza (1995); and Osler (1991). Finally, three reports took on a narrower focus in investigating boot camps: Clark and Kellam (2001); Mueller (1996); and Souryal, Layton & MacKenzie (1994).

Burns and Vito (1995) examined the effectiveness of Alabama boot camps. In Alabama, overcrowded prisons brought on interest at the state level for prison boot camps. State prison boot camps incorporated marching, discipline, physical training, work, classes, and drug and alcohol abuse treatment in three phases. In the first phase, inmates confront their crime and take responsibility for it, ridding themselves of excuses. In the second phase, inmates focus on "self-discovery" by learning about themselves, goal planning, and improving themselves for future release. In the third phase, pre-release, inmates focus on problem solving as the key to their own future success as a lawful citizen upon release. Entry and participation were voluntary once inmates were found to be eligible. Burns and Vito (1995) report that 25% of boot camp participants leave the program, returning to a normal length sentence in a regular prison.

The administrative goals of the Alabama program were: rehabilitating prisoners, breaking the cycle of crime and recidivism, and reducing prison costs through early release and lower recidivism. Critics were concerned about "net widening." Additionally, skepticism existed over whether such programs actually save the state correctional system money (Burns & Vito, 1995).

This study found that "net widening" was not a problem in Alabama state programs. Researchers also found that there was not a significant difference in recidivism between boot camp graduates, individuals released on probation, and individuals who served regular sentences. In other words, the boot camp program did not effectively reduce recidivism in participants. However the early release program did lower inmate crowding and save the state money. Burns and Vito (1995) estimate that $779,229 to $1,676,880 was saved through the use of boot camps when comparing the cost of actual prisoner maintenance.

Christenberry, Burns and Dickinson (1994) specifically investigated the successfulness of educational components in Arkansas state-run boot camp programs for the year of 1992. Inmates entered and left the boot camp voluntarily if they were eligible, and came from a wide range of offences, races, ages, and education. The goals of the program were to reduce recidivism by providing life skills and tools for living lawfully once released. Focuses included confidence, personal responsibility, respect for others, and education. Education components were mandatory and consisted of peer tutoring or independent work. Researchers concluded that educational components were responsible for advances in arithmetic, reading, and spelling for all inmates. On average, inmates gained one and a half years of grade level achievement in arithmetic and reading over their 105 days in the program. Spelling was improved by one year grade level on average during the same period. Significantly, black inmates had more substantial gains in reading than other groups. Researchers concluded that educational goals within the Arkansas boot camp programs were successful.

Clark, Aziz and MacKenzie (1994) studied the effectiveness of New York state's shock incarceration camps. At the time of the study, New York had the largest number of inmates in boot camps, as well as the largest number of female boot camp participants. The camps worked under two legislatively mandated goals. First, the camps must treat and release selected inmates of earlier than they would normally be released by their original court-mandated minimum period of jail time. This must be done without endangering the safety of the public. Second, shock incarceration camps must reduce the need for prison bedspace. To avoid net-widening, judges cannot sentence offenders directly to shock incarceration camps. Entry and exit are voluntary if requirements are met. To ensure public safety, focus within NY shock incarceration camps is on treatment. As such, NY's program has an extensive internal and aftercare program. Both offer drug and alcohol treatment, relapse prevention, family counseling, job training and placement, and support. The after care program, dubbed "After Shock," provides support services for released individuals to ease re-assimilation into society. Focus in on personal responsibility, responsibility for actions taken, and for your own quality of life (Clark, Aziz & MacKenzie, 1994).

Researchers established that the New York camps reduced care and custody costs by shortening terms of confinement. Clark, Aziz and MacKenzie (1994) estimated a savings of $2 million for every 100 camp graduates. Like Christenberry, Burns and Dickinson (1994), they also found that graduates increased reading and math skills by more than one grade level over their camp stay (Clark, Aziz & MacKenzie, 1994). Additionally, researchers observed the rare result of reduced recidivism in shock incarceration graduates. Compared at both 12 and 24 months after incarceration, to those who had been paroled before the program, those who were not eligible, and those who dropped out of the program, shock incarceration graduates were less likely to return to jail. This was based on research conducted by multiple camps within the New York state correctional system (Clark, Aziz & MacKenzie, 1994).

In a review of its own correctional programming, the Wyoming Department of Corrections (n.d.) reports that boot camps in the state have been an effective means of reforming first-time offenders. Wyoming's programming focuses on cognitive restructuring to change attitudes and assumptions in first-time male offenders under the age of 25. Inmates must be recommended to the program by a judge, and must return after boot camp for sentence modification. In most cases, completion of boot camp results in early release. Wyoming's boot camps teach self-esteem and self-worth through physical training. Additionally, the program focuses on coping with grief, anger and stress, as well as goal setting, reality clarification, parenting, and rational emotive training. The Wyoming Department of Corrections (n.d.) reports that two years after graduation from correctional boot camps, 74% of graduates did not return to prison.

Burton and Marquart (1993) report on the only county run boot camp research available for this report. The authors look mostly at young first time felony offenders in a Texas county prison. Researchers felt that boot camps were the result of a desire to meld the public's desire for criminal punishment with the overall goal of rehabilitating offenders and reintegrating them into society safely. Specifically, the program desired to lessen the effects of total institutionalization and reduce the cost of long-term incarceration. Drug counseling and treatment were offered, along with help in coping, self-control and respect for self and others. Researchers polled participants before and after the program to establish whether their attitudes and ideas about the program and themselves had changed. Following the program, inmates were found to have increased respect for superiors, including probation officers and boot camp staff. Inmates also had more faith in drug and alcohol treatment, had better feelings about their ability to function in society, and had greater self-control and coping skills. AIDS education was the only area where inmates attitude did not change in a positive manner. Though this program focused on the attitudes of inmates participating in the county boot camp, it also commented on recidivism. Burton and Marquart (1993) contend that even programs successful in changing inmate attitudes need strong aftercare programming to reduce recidivism in former boot camp participants.

The only study of a federally run boot camp, or "Intensive Confinement Center" (ICC), included in this paper is Klein-Saffran and Chapman (1993). Here researchers identified the goals and investigated the success of a federal ICC in Pennsylvania. The goal of the Pennsylvania boot camp was to change offenders' behavior and internal motivations to discourage future criminal involvement. In examining this program, researchers were identifying what factors contribute to success (long-term avoidance of re-incarceration) of released inmates from these boot camp programs. The program lasted 180 days, longer than the average boot camp program. Only minimum security risk inmates were considered, and inmates could not be older than 35. Individuals may opt out or be kicked out for poor behavior. Those who finish the first stage are released to the Community Corrections Center (CCC) closest to their home. Inmates live at the CCC and gain freedoms over time as they demonstrate their ability to act lawfully and responsibly. Their time at the CCC depends on their original sentence and their progress in the program. Researchers found that three factors contributed to successful rehabilitation: institutional experience; community involvement; and offenders' actions and choices. This study did not address the actual success of the program as that was not its intention.

Of the three multi-site boot camp comparisons, Ashcroft, Daniels and Hart (2003) stood out as the most recent and most comprehensive. The study offered a decade of comparative research on boot camps and provided suggestion for future changed. The study concluded that boot camps offered mixed results. Positive results included: short-term change of attitude and behavior of participants; better problem solving and coping skills in participants; lower recidivism in camps where treatment and education services were offered. However, negative results were the overall failure (on average) of camps to reduce recidivism. Additionally, administrative and financial problems existed where camps were dependent on volunteer participants, or allowed participants to opt out of the program. The report illustrates three main issues responsible for the failure of boot camp prisons to meet their goals. First, most camps have a fully or partially insufficient focus on after care during a graduate's reentry into society. Second, lack of a standard boot camp model makes it difficult to follow progress and improve models efficiently. Third, state and federal mandates requiring boot camps to speedily release prison populations made volunteer systems moot and made many programs inefficient. Ashcroft, Daniels and Hart (2003) suggest that boot camps address these needs to effectively meet their goals.

In another comparison study, MacKenzie and Corbett (1994) studied the goals and successes of eight early (1990) boot camps. The study found a wide variety of methods involved in the boot camps, including some camps (like Georgia) that only entertained the physical aspects of the boot camp model. This was found to be in dire contrast to New York's programs, where more than five hours a day was spent in education and other therapeutic activities. Programs lasted anywhere from 80-180 days. Environment was also found to be different for each camp. Florida boot camps housed inmates in cells rather than bunkhouses and maintained a more prison-like atmosphere than other camps. Some camps were volunteer -enrollment while others were judge-mandated or administration controlled. Georgia's model included volunteers that, once enrolled, could not opt out. South Carolina was the only state allowing inmates with violent crimes to participate. Inmate feedback ranged greatly, though most inmates considered physical improvement and drug treatment among the positive results from the boot camp methods. Complaints from inmates included the verbal abuse inherent in the boot camp model, harsh treatment, and too little sleep (MacKenzie and Corbett, 1994). The eight states had different goals as outlined by the state and administrators. However, all eight states shared two main objectives: change offenders to avoid future recidivism and reduce prison overcrowding (MacKenzie and Corbett, 1994). The authors found that these goals were not adequately met. It was found that shock incarceration alone does not reduce recidivism. Additionally, most individual programs' goals were unrealistic and were not met.

In a wider comparison of the same year, MacKenzie and Souryal (1994) assessed the overall state of boot camp programs. Similarly to MacKenzie and Corbett (1994), MacKenzie and Souryal (1994) found that shock incarceration alone does not improve recidivism. However, the authors contend that properly designed boot camp programs can result in effectively reducing the need for prison bed space. More effective programs also result in participants developing positive attitudes that help them assimilate into society.

Holmstrom (1996) offers a negative review of boot camps during their lessened popularity in the mid to late 1990s. The author cites statistics from Arizona's failing boot camp programs, showing 77% of boot camp participants back in custody after a three-year period.

In his review, Holmstrom (1996) identifies rich educational training, long-term aftercare support and residential aftercare options as the only means of establishing success in shock incarceration programming.

Similarly, Marcus-Mendoza (1995) found that properly maintained programs with treatment and educational opportunities did show markedly reduced recidivism in men. However, the author did not find any difference in women who were normally incarcerated and those who underwent a boot camp program. Marcus-Mendoza (1995) additionally found that discrepancies over the success and reduced recidivism of boot camp programs was due to the wide range of programs available.

Osler (1991) provides input into the public's views and opinions of prison boot camps. The author explains that boot camps meet the public's need to see criminals punished and "whipped into shape." The public sees boot camps as a much more reasonable punishment than other rehabilitation programs that focus heavily on therapeutic counseling and other means that seem less like punishment to most. This article also provides background through the history and development of the programs in the United States (Olser, 1991).

Clark and Kellam (2001) look at the success of women in boot camp programs. Critics contend that the harsh military-style programming and tough physical demands make shock incarceration inappropriate for women inmates. Additionally, women inmates are more likely to have physical or psychological issues from sexual or physical past abuse. Women are less likely to complete boot camp programs than men. Women, however, have a substantially lower rate of recidivism than male graduates; less than 8 out of 10 women will return to prison in the three years after their release from a boot camp program. The researchers also found that women were more receptive to treatment and educational options, most notably parenting classes and counseling. Despite these positive aspects, women are less likely to volunteer for boot camp programs and less likely to finish the program. This reduces the financial savings of boot camp programs for women, and jeopardizes their ongoing need as staff and facilities go empty. Research suggests that staff in women's boot camps should be trained to handle women who have suffered past abuse, and should be well versed in women's issues. For this reason, it is recommended that staff be trained to work mainly with women rather than have revolving duties with both female and male boot camp inmates (Clark and Kellam, 2001).

Mueller (1996) found that boot camp not only helps recidivism statistics for women, but also rates of relapse in drug and alcohol abuse. In programs where treatment for abuse exists, women are more likely to complete boot camp programs and effectively kick drug habits. Research indicates that, for this to happen, programs must address poor ego identity and past physical and sexual abuse. Also, while physical routines should maintain tough, military commands and emotional or verbal abuse should be downplayed to avoid psychological damage to women in the programs. Staff should be allowed to develop therapeutic relationships with women who are receiving drug and alcohol addiction training. These steps appear to make boot camps a highly successful way of addressing drug and alcohol abuse in incarcerated women (Mueller, 1996).

Though their needs are different, a study by Souryal, Layton and MacKenzie (1999) found that drug treatment within boot camps is effective for men as well as women. The authors found that psychological drug treatment went hand in hand with the physical challenges of the boot camp environment. To be effective, drug and alcohol abuse treatment should offer a minimum of three months of meetings and counseling from staff that are not military in style or method. As is the case with women (Mueller, 1996), Souryal, Layton and MacKenzie (1999) found that therapeutic relationships should be allowed between drug treatment staff and inmates if the intent is to address abuse issues effectively.

V. Effectiveness

Effectiveness and success of boot camp programs is mixed, a fact that is obvious from the data available. Effectiveness cannot be stated for all boot camps together, as each state or program has different agendas and goals. However, most programs and states share similar goals of reducing recidivism, saving correctional facility spending, and reducing prison crowding. These effectiveness cues and other positive results from boot camps can be considered success markers.

Statistics on recidivism vary. Some research indicates no change in recidivism for boot camp inmates when compared to other groups (MacKenzie & Souryal, 1994). Ashcroft, Daniels & Hart (2003) see only insignificant differences in recidivism. Yet, the same study and others suggest that higher recidivism occurs in programs where inmates are participating in only the physical aspects of boot camp reform (Ashcroft, Daniels & Hart, 2003; Marcus-Medoza, 1995). Available treatment and education are linked to lower recidivism in these cases (Clark, Aziz & MacKenzie, 1994; Clark & Kellam, 2001; Wyoming Dept. Of Corrections, n.d.). Some programs experience high recidivism even while incorporating highly therapeutic methods and treatment (Burns & Vito, 1995; Homstrom, 1996). In these cases, it is possible that a lack of aftercare resources makes it more difficult for released individuals to assimilate into society. Many researchers cite the quality and quantity of aftercare programs as having the most positive effects on recidivism (Burton & Marquart, 1993; Holmstrom, 1996; Klein-Saffran & Chapman, 1993; Marcus-Mendoza, 1995).