"What Doesn't Work"
Title: A National Study Comparing the Environments of Boot Camps With
Traditional Facilities for Juvenile Offenders
Series: Research in Brief
Author: Doris Layton MacKenzie, Angela R. Gover, Gaylene Styve
Armstrong, and Ojmarrh Mitchell
Published: National Institute of Justice, August 2001
Subject: Boot camps; juvenile corrections
19 pages
47,000 bytes
---------------------------
Figures, charts, forms, and tables are not included in this ASCII plain-text file.
To view this document in its entirety, download the Adobe Acrobat graphic file
available from this Web site or order a print copy from NCJRS at 800-851-
3420 (877-712-9279 For TTY users).
---------------------------
A National Study Comparing the Environments of Boot Camps With
Traditional Facilities for Juvenile Offenders
By Doris Layton MacKenzie, Angela R. Gover, Gaylene Styve Armstrong, and
Ojmarrh Mitchell
During the 1990s, correctional boot camps became an increasingly popular
sentencing option for juvenile delinquents. In 1996, 48 residential boot camps
for adjudicated juveniles were operating in 27 States. Only one of those boot
camps opened prior to 1990.
Boot camp programs are modeled after military basic training. Offenders often
enter the programs in groups that are referred to as platoons or squads. They
are required to wear military-style uniforms, march to and from activities, and
respond rapidly to the commands of the "drill instructors." The rigorous daily
schedule requires youths to wake up early and stay active throughout the day.
Although programs differ somewhat, the schedule usually includes drill and
ceremony practice, strenuous physical fitness activities, and challenge programs
(e.g., ropes courses) as well as required academic education. Frequently,
youths in the camps receive summary punishments, such as having to do
pushups, for misbehavior.
Pros and cons of boot camps
Despite their growing popularity, correctional boot camps are controversial.
The controversy primarily is over whether the camps are an appropriate way to
manage and treat juvenile delinquents and what impact the camps have on the
adjustment and behavior of juveniles while they are confined and after they are
released. Many people who visit or work in boot camps, as well as many
youths in the camps, say the camp atmosphere is conducive to positive growth
and change. Proponents of the camps believe that the structure of the programs
and the control staff have over the participants create a safe environment in
which the youths are less likely to fight with or be victimized by other youths
than they would be in traditional correctional facilities. Furthermore, advocates
argue that the incorporation of the military model builds camaraderie among
youths and fosters respect for staff.
In contrast, boot camp critics say that the camps' confrontational environment is
in direct opposition to the type of positive interpersonal relationships and
supportive atmosphere that are needed for youths' positive development. From
their perspective, the boot camp environment is antithetical to quality
therapeutic programming. The boot camp atmosphere itself--strict control over
juveniles' activities and confrontational interactions between drill instructors and
youths--may cause juveniles to fear the correctional staff, which would create a
negative environment for therapy and educational achievement.
Furthermore, critics argue, the camps' emphasis on group activities does not
allow programs to address individual youths' problems. According to critics,
juveniles' needs vary greatly, and effective programs should assess each
individual's needs and provide appropriate individual programming. Many boot
camps, however, manage juveniles in units or platoons. Youths enter the facility
in a unit and remain with that unit for educational classes and treatment
programs. Moreover, the military philosophy and highly structured daily
schedule may not permit the flexibility needed to address individual problems.
Certain components of boot camps are also suspected of making it more
difficult for juveniles to make the transition back to the community. Most
delinquents will return to the community after being institutionalized for a
relatively short time. For juveniles to succeed in the community, they need to
receive help while they are institutionalized. Critics are concerned that boot
camps, with their focus on group activities, regimentation, and military drill and
ceremony, will not address what juveniles need to successfully make the
transition back to the community. When returning to an environment that lacks
such regimentation and positive group activities, the juveniles may revert to their
old ways of surviving in and relating to the community in which they live.
Another problem critics find with group orientation is that it may cause youths
to view the system as unjust. For example, juveniles may think the program is
unfair or abusive if their entire platoon is punished because one member of the
group misbehaved or because of the controversial nature of the interactions
between themselves and drill instructors.
What research shows. Although the boot camp environment appears to be
radically different from that of traditional residential facilities and some fear its
potentially negative impact, studies have not shown that either type of facility is
more effective in reducing recidivism. In general, no significant differences have
been found for either adults or juveniles when recidivism rates of boot camp
participants have been compared with others receiving more traditional
correctional options.[1]
In recent years, the importance of understanding the institutional environment or
conditions of confinement has become a focus of attention in corrections. One
reason for this interest is that research has shown that the prison environment
has an impact on inmate adjustment and behavior. Facilities "possess unique
and enduring characteristics that impinge on and shape individual behavior."[2]
Because increasing numbers of juveniles are being confined in institutions, it is
important to understand the effect this confinement is having on juveniles'
behavior while they are confined and after they are released.
Furthermore, considerable research shows that correctional treatment programs
can successfully change behavior. Results from meta-analyses, literature
reviews, and assessments of the quality of the research on the effects of
treatment show that treatment programs with particular characteristics are
successful in reducing future delinquent and criminal activities.[3] Effective
programs target offenders who are at risk of recidivism, are modeled after
cognitive-behavior theoretical models and are sensitive to juveniles' learning
styles and characteristics, and address the characteristics of youths directly
associated with criminal activity. Youths should receive sufficient dosage of
treatment (e.g., amount of contact, length of program), and the treatment should
have therapeutic integrity (e.g., appropriately trained staff). From this
perspective, measuring the conditions of confinement becomes important to
understanding which program components are necessary for effective
treatment.
Focus on outcomes. Another justification for the interest in the conditions of
confinement in juvenile institutions is the recent attention given to quality
management and performance-based standards. Quality management has
played an important role in the restructuring of private organizations and
corporations, and these concepts are currently being applied to public
agencies.[4] Quality management focuses on outcome-based decisionmaking.
Traditionally, standards for correctional institutions have been based on expert
opinions about "best practices" in the field of corrections. Total quality
management and performance-based standards change the focus from views on
best practices to desired outcomes. From this perspective, the focus shifts from
what is thought to be the best way to manage a facility to the actual
outcomes desired. Broadly defined, outcomes include client and staff
experiences, short-term changes, and long-term impacts.
In trying to understand the impact of correctional institutions and programs,
many researchers have argued that outcomes must be broadened for various
measures of effectiveness. The focus of the study described here was to
compare boot camps with more traditional facilities by measuring conditions of
the institutional environment (see "Methodology"). The environments of the
institutions were measured from several perspectives: the perceptions of staff
and juveniles, data in institutional records, and the policies and procedures (as
reported by administrators). To examine the impact of the environment on
juvenile offenders, changes experienced by juveniles while confined were
studied. Changes in juveniles' attitudes, stress levels, and social bonds (ties to
family, school, and work) were expected to reflect their responses to the
institutional environment and to be associated with future criminal behavior.
Juvenile perceptions of the institutional environment[5]
Demographics. The majority of the juveniles participating in the study in both
facility types were black or white males who were approximately 16 years old.
On average, these youths were 13 years old when they were arrested for the
first time and had previously been committed to institutions 2.5 to 3 times. On
average, juveniles in the boot camps had shorter sentence lengths than juveniles
in comparison facilities (10 months compared with 16 months). They also had
spent less time in the facility (3 months compared with 7 months). Juveniles in
boot camps were significantly less likely than youths in traditional facilities to
have experienced family violence and to have used illegal substances. Juveniles
in boot camps, however, were significantly more likely than juveniles in
traditional facilities to have problems with alcohol abuse.
Perceptions of the institutional environment. Juveniles in boot camps responded
favorably to their institutional environments more frequently than juveniles in
comparison facilities (see exhibit 1). Across all sites, juveniles in boot camps
more frequently responded positively to their institutional environment, with the
exception of safety from staff. Specifically, boot camp juveniles were more
likely to report that they were in danger from staff. Juveniles in the boot camps
reported more frequently that their environments prepared them for release,
provided therapeutic programming, had structure and control, and kept them
active. On average, juveniles in boot camps reported less environmental
danger, less danger from other residents, and fewer environmental risks than
juveniles in comparison facilities. Juveniles in boot camps reported less
freedom.
Staff perceptions of the institutional environment[6]
Demographics. The majority of the staff in both facility types were male and
white. Boot camp staff were an average age of 36; comparison facility staff
were slightly older, on average, at 39 years old. Most boot camp (85 percent)
and comparison (85 percent) staff had attended or graduated from college.
More boot camp staff had military experience (49 percent compared with 29
percent of the comparison facility staff).
Perceptions of the institutional environment. As in the juvenile survey, staff in
boot camps more frequently reported favorable perceptions of their institutional
environment than traditional facility staff (see exhibit 2). Boot camp staff more
frequently reported that juveniles were given more therapeutic programming
and experienced a caring and just environment compared with reports of
traditional facility staff. Boot camp staff also were more likely than staff in
traditional facilities to say the juveniles were more active, and the camps had
more structure and control and less freedom. Conversely, boot camp staff
reported less frequently than traditional facility staff that there was danger to
juveniles from the environment and other risks, from other juveniles, and from
staff. Less consistent differences were found for the remaining three scales
(quality of life, preparation for release, and individual planning).
Work experiences. In comparison to staff in traditional facilities, boot camp
staff also more frequently reported favorable working conditions (see exhibit 3).
They reported less personal stress, better communication among staff, more
support from the administration, and, in general, more satisfaction with their
working conditions.
Comparison of staff and juvenile perceptions
One interest of this research project was to find out whether juveniles and staff
had the same perceptions of the particular facility in which they were confined
or worked. Overall, there was strong agreement between juvenile and staff
perceptions of the institutions' environments. The five juvenile and staff scales
with the highest correlations were environmental danger, resident danger, care,
quality of life, and control. For 10 of the scales, the correlations between staff
and juveniles' environmental ratings were more than 0.85; the correlations for
the remaining two scales were 0.38 (individual planning) and 0.60 (justice).
Individual adjustment and change
The survey was given to 550 youths in the facilities twice to examine changes in
adjustment over time. This permitted an examination of the changes youths
underwent while they were confined. Anxiety, depression, social bonds,
dysfunctional impulsivity, and social adjustment were measured (see exhibit 4).
The adjustment and change variables were selected for practical and theoretical
reasons.
Critics of boot camps have been particularly concerned about the level of stress
created by the strict, military-based, confrontational model. They fear such an
atmosphere will create excessive stress and will mitigate any positive effects
from academic and therapeutic treatment programs that the camps may offer.
Initial levels of anxiety were slightly higher for the boot camp juveniles, but initial
levels of depression were higher for the comparison youths. The levels of
anxiety and depression decreased over time for juveniles in both facilities;
however, these reductions were greater for the boot camp youths.
Social bonds have been found to be associated with reductions in criminal
activity.[7] If juvenile facilities improved such bonds, future criminal activities
might be reduced. Disappointingly, juveniles in both types of facilities reported a
weakening in their social bonds to family, school, and work while they were
institutionalized. These changes, however, were small, and the differences were
not statistically significant.
Theoretically, an inability to control one's impulses[8] and antisocial attitudes[9]
is associated with delinquent and criminal activities. For this reason, changes in
dysfunctional impulsivity (i.e., the inability to control one's impulses) and social
attitudes (or, conversely, antisocial attitudes) during the time the youths were in
the facility were examined. Juveniles in boot camps reported decreased
dysfunctional impulsivity and increased prosocial attitudes (conversely,
decreased antisocial attitudes). In contrast, juveniles in the comparison facilities
reported more dysfunctional impulsivity and decreases in prosocial attitudes
(conversely, increased antisocial attitudes).
Summary of perceptions and change
Overall, these results provided strong evidence that those who lived and
worked in boot camps perceived their environment more positively than those
who lived and worked in more traditional facilities. On average, both staff and
juveniles in boot camps perceived less danger and more components that were
conducive to positive change, such as more help in planning for release, more
programming in the facility, a more just system, more activity, a more caring
environment, and more individual attention. However, juveniles in boot camps
more frequently reported perceptions of danger from staff.
Juveniles in both types of facilities became less depressed and anxious over
time, but the decreases in depression and anxiety were greater for those in boot
camps. Boot camps also appeared to be associated with more positive changes
during the time juveniles were confined. Boot camp youths became less
antisocial and reported less dysfunctional impulsivity compared with youths in
traditional facilities. These changes were small, however, and youths in both
facility types reported decreases in ties to family, school, and work. Thus,
although youths in boot camps on average had a more positive view of their
environments, there was little evidence that these perceptions translated into
psychosocial changes that would reduce the likelihood of future delinquent or
criminal activities.
Institutional policies and procedures[10]
The structured interview with facility administrators was designed to elicit
information about the type of juveniles who enter the facility, the daily schedule,
selection and admission procedures, facility characteristics, educational and
staff issues, health and medical assistance policies, safety and security issues,
and institutional impacts. While perceptions provide important information
about the facilities, equally important is information about policies and
procedures that might have an impact on those who live and work in the
facilities.
Control and structure. One explanation for juvenile and staff perceptions of a
safe environment in boot camps could be a result of the increased structure and
control over the juveniles' activities. Administrators were asked a series of
questions about how structured juveniles' daily activities were. More boot
camps required juveniles to get up, shower, and study according to a set daily
schedule (see exhibit 5). Not surprising, boot camps also had more
military-style components. Most of these components were indicative of
regimentation and structure. For example, in the majority of the boot camp
facilities, staff and juveniles wore uniforms, and the youths practiced drill and
ceremony, entered the facility in groups, and marched to activities. Thus, the
information from the administrators was similar to the perceptions of staff and
juveniles in suggesting that boot camps provide much more structure for
juveniles than the traditional institutions. These differences may explain why
juveniles in boot camps had more favorable perceptions of their institutional
environments.
Characteristics of juveniles in the facilities. Another possible explanation for the
differences in perceptions is that the juveniles in boot camps differed from those
in traditional facilities. Although individual differences were controlled for
statistically in the perceptual analyses, there is an inherent selection bias at the
administrative level if those who entered boot camps differed from those who
went to traditional facilities. This issue was examined by asking how selective
facilities were about their populations. In general, boot camps were found to be
much more selective (see exhibit 6). Fewer boot camps admitted juveniles who
had psychological problems or were suicide risks. More boot camps required
psychological, medical, and physical evaluations before juveniles were admitted
into the facility. Additionally, more facility personnel in boot camps were able to
select juveniles for their program, and in 25 percent of the boot camps,
juveniles had to volunteer for the program. None of the traditional facilities
required juveniles to volunteer.
The question of whether juveniles with certain past histories or offenses were
admitted to the facilities was also examined (see exhibit 7). For example,
administrators were asked whether juveniles who committed arson are
permitted to enter the facility and, if so, whether the number of such individuals
is limited. In general, comparison facilities admitted delinquents who committed
more serious offenses.
The examination of the structure and admission components of the facilities
suggested that the environments of the two types of facilities differed
substantially. One possibility is that these different environments lead to different
experiences and, hence, different perceptions of the environment. This
investigation of the characteristics of the juveniles in the facilities and the
selection process, however, suggests that the differences in perceptions may
result from characteristics of the juveniles admitted. From this perspective,
juveniles who enter boot camps are different from those who go to the
traditional facilities (e.g., less aggressive, fewer psychological problems);
therefore, because of this selection process, boot camp juveniles judged their
environment more positively.
Therapeutic components. It was somewhat surprising that juveniles and staff
perceived the boot camp environment as having more components conducive
to rehabilitation. In general, those who lived and worked in boot camps viewed
their environment as being more just and caring, better preparing juveniles for
release, and having more therapeutic programming. Staff in most of the boot
camps also believed that their facilities provided more individual planning and
therapeutic programming. This research attempted to verify the perceptions by
obtaining information about programming, treatment, and the efforts facilities
made to help youths maintain outside contacts (see "Differences in Therapeutic
Programming and Individual Attention"). However, few differences were found
in the average number of hours devoted to education per week. Fewer boot
camp youths took a General Educational Development (GED) test, but overall
passing rates for those who did were about the same in both facility types. In
54.2 percent of the boot camps, juveniles attended classes with others in their
grade levels, compared with 59.1 percent of comparison facilities. Comparison
facilities had more teaching staff and more custody and treatment staff per
juvenile, making it possible that juveniles in the traditional facilities would
receive more individual attention. Boot camp facilities scheduled more physical
fitness activities than traditional facilities, but this was not considered as
treatment, education, or therapy.
Another project interest was visitation policies, because such activities would
permit juveniles to stay in contact with their families. Community contact is
important because many juveniles are confined for only a short period of time
and will be released to live most likely with their families. Therefore, attempts at
successful community reintegration should start while juveniles are confined.[11]
Overall, the boot camps permitted less visitation (see "Contact With the
Outside"). More than half the camps did not allow visits during the juveniles'
first month of confinement, and almost one-fifth did not permit visits at any time.
Comparison facilities had fewer restrictions on visitation. Boot camps also were
more likely than traditional facilities to require visitors to schedule their visits in
advance.
Conclusion
The perceptions of staff and youths provide important insight into the adequacy
of these programs as correctional options for juvenile delinquents. This research
found that juveniles and staff in the boot camps perceived their environment as
more caring than did those living and working in the comparison facilities. These
results show that youths in the boot camps were more likely to agree that staff
members encourage residents to try new activities and help residents with
schoolwork or other problems. Youths and staff also believed that the
treatment of residents was more just in the boot camps.
Advantages. Not only did the boot camp youths perceive their facilities as more
caring and just, they also believed the programs were more therapeutic and
provided them with more preparation for their release. In comparison to those
in traditional facilities, youths and staff in boot camps were more likely to agree
that juveniles' experiences in the facility would help them get a job, understand
themselves, keep them focused on their goals, learn new skills, return to school,
and address substance abuse problems. Boot camp staff on average believed
that youths got more individual attention, were healthier since entering the
facility, and were planning for their release through activities such as finding a
place to work, planning to return to school, and setting goals for the future.
Another positive aspect of the boot camps was staff perceptions of their
working environment. In comparison to staff in traditional facilities, the boot
camp staff reported feeling less personal stress, better communication among
staff, a more supportive atmosphere for staff, and more satisfaction with their
work.
Concerns. The one finding that supports the criticism of boot camps as
institutions that offer little to improve interpersonal relationships was the data
indicating that youths in the boot camps more frequently reported feelings of
being in danger from staff. In contrast, traditional facility youths more frequently
reported feelings of danger from other residents.
An additional concern raised by critics of boot camps is that the military basic
training and confrontational interactions may create undue stress on a vulnerable
youth population. The findings from this research suggest that there initially is an
increased level of anxiety for youths in boot camps compared with those in
traditional institutions. This increased level of anxiety, however, did not appear
to be greatly dysfunctional. The juveniles were asked whether they agreed with
statements indicating that they feel anxious, worried, upset, nervous, or not
relaxed or calm; these questions reflect temporary emotions and not permanent
anxiety or other dysfunctional traits. Therefore, the increased anxiety for the
youths in the boot camps may reflect the difficult early period of adjustment to
boot camp.[12] Although the data are not completely comparable to what
some boot camp staff refer to as the "break down" and "build the youths up"
phases, they suggest some similarities in that the early period in the boot camp
may temporarily create more anxiety. Youths, however, do not become more
depressed or exhibit permanent psychological dysfunction.
Findings from this study also indicated that in boot camps and traditional
facilities, attachments or bonds to family, school, and work decreased for
juveniles. This might be expected because youths are removed from their
communities, schools, and work opportunities and have limited contact with
their families. Boot camp youths, however, reported less dysfunctional
impulsivity over time. Youths in the traditional facilities became slightly more
impulsive, but the change was small. Similarly, traditional facility youths became
less prosocial in attitudes over time, while boot camp youths became more
prosocial. Prosocial changes for both boot camp and traditional facility youths,
however, were small and statistically insignificant. Given the small changes in
attitudes among both boot camp and traditional facility youths, it is not
surprising that research to date has found little difference between the recidivism
rates for these two groups.
The findings of administrator surveys of facility policies, procedures, and daily
schedules were largely consistent with those from the perceptual surveys.
Across all survey methods, boot camps were rated higher in
institutional environments' structure, control, and "military-ness." Thus, some of
the differences in perceptions of safety could be due to the structured nature of
the environment. An environment that is structured and controlled by staff may
be perceived by juveniles as safer.
Reasons for the differences. However, differences between boot camps and
traditional facilities in the juvenile selection process may also help explain why
boot camps were perceived as having positive institutional environments. Boot
camps, on average, were much more selective about who entered the facility.
Therefore, one possible reason for the differences in perceptions may be that
boot camp youths have characteristics that make them easier to work with,
which can have an impact on all aspects of the institutional environment.
Another possibility is that differences in the facilities' policies, procedures, and
daily schedules led to differences in staff and juvenile perceptions. For example,
if juveniles in boot camps received more individual attention or spent more time
in treatment or educational programs, this may explain the perceptions of boot
camps' more therapeutic nature. Yet little measurable differences were found in
the facilities' therapeutic atmospheres. The few differences that were found
favored the traditional facilities. For example, the traditional facilities had higher
teaching-staff-per-juvenile and custody-or-treatment-staff-to-juvenile ratios
than the boot camps. The strict rules and regimented environment of the boot
camps may mean that fewer staff are needed to control juveniles, but it also
may mean that youths have less opportunity to receive individual attention.
Designing better programs. Together, the results from this study suggest that
boot camps are successful in the first step--creating a positive environment.
However, boot camps appear to lack the necessary focus on incorporating
components of effective therapy.[13] As a result, it is not surprising that boot
camps have not been effective in reducing recidivism. An additional concern
was the finding that boot camp youths more frequently perceived that they were
in danger from staff. This is disappointing because so many of the other aspects
of boot camps were viewed positively.
Additionally, this study found that few of the boot camps or traditional facilities
had information about what happens to youths after they are released. Because
the majority of these youths will return to their home communities, it is hard to
understand how a facility can design a successful program that does not include
gathering information about what happens to youths after they are released. If
juvenile correctional programs are expected to have a positive impact on the
future lives of these youths, it is important that they have information on what
happens to the juveniles after they return to their communities. Otherwise, how
else can a program effectively evaluate its performance?
Notes
1. MacKenzie, D.L. "Criminal Justice and Crime Prevention," in Preventing
Crime: What Works, What Doesn't, What's Promising, ed. L.W. Sherman,
D.C. Gottfredson, D. MacKenzie, J. Eck, P. Reuter, and S. Bushway,
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice,
1997, NCJ 165366.
2. Wright, K., and L. Goodstein, "Correctional Environments," in The
American Prison, ed. L. Goodstein and D.L. MacKenzie, New York: Plenum
Press, 1989: 266.
3. Andrews, D.A., I. Zinger, R.D. Hoge, J. Bonta, P. Gendreau, and F.T.
Cullen, "Does Correctional Treatment Work? A Clinically Relevant and
Psychologically Informed Meta-Analysis," Criminology 28 (3) (1990): 369-
404; Lipsey, M., "Juvenile Delinquency Treatment: A Meta-Analytic Inquiry
Into the Variability of Effects," in Meta-Analysis for Explanation: A Casebook,
ed. T. Cook et al., New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1992; and
MacKenzie, "Criminal Justice and Crime Prevention."
4. MacKenzie, D.L., G.J. Styve, and A.R. Gover, "Performance-Based
Standards for Juvenile Corrections," Corrections Management Quarterly 2
(1998): 28-35.
5. For a more detailed discussion, see Styve, G.J., D.L. MacKenzie, A.R.
Gover, and O. Mitchell, "Perceived Conditions of Confinement: A National
Evaluation of Juvenile Boot Camps and Traditional Facilities," Law and Human
Behavior 24 (3) (2000): 297-308.
6. For a more detailed discussion, see Mitchell, O., D.L. MacKenzie, A.R.
Gover, and G.J. Styve, "The Environment and Working Conditions in Juvenile
Boot Camps and Traditional Facilities," Justice Research and Policy 1 (2)
(1999): 1-22.
7. Sampson, R.J., and J.H. Laub, Crime in the Making, Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 1993.
8. Gottfredson, M.R., and T. Hirschi, A General Theory of Crime, Stanford,
CA: Stanford University Press, 1990.
9. Andrews, D.A., and J. Bonta, The Psychology of Criminal Conduct,
Cincinnati: Anderson Publishing Co., 1998.
10. Gover, A.R., D.L. MacKenzie, and G.J. Styve, "Boot Camps and
Traditional Correctional Facilities for Juveniles: A Comparison of the
Participants, Daily Activities, and Environments," Journal of Criminal Justice 28
(1) (2000): 53-68.
11. Altschuler, D.M., T.L. Armstrong, and D.L. MacKenzie, Reintegration,
Supervised Release, and Intensive Aftercare, Bulletin, Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,
1999, NCJ 175715.
12. See Zamble, E., and F.J. Porporino, Coping, Behavior, and Adaptation in
Prison Inmates, New York: Springer-Verlag, 1988, for a similar comparison to
adult prison inmates.
13. See, for example, Lipsey, "Juvenile Delinquency Treatment"; and Andrews
et. al, "Does Correctional Treatment Work?"
---------------------------
Issues and Findings
Discussed in this Brief: A comparison of 27 boot camps to 22 more traditional
facilities by measuring components of the institutional environment to determine
the impact of juvenile correctional institutions and programs.
Key issues: Despite their growth in popularity in the 1990s, correctional boot
camps remain controversial. Critics question whether their military-style
methods are appropriate to managing and treating juvenile delinquents
and positively affecting juvenile behavior while they are confined and after their
release. Boot camp advocates contend that the facilities' program structure
gives staff more control over the participants and provides the juveniles with a
safer environment than traditional facilities.
Key findings: Using site visits, 14-point scale surveys of juveniles and staff in
both types of facilities, and structured interviews with facility administrators, this
study revealed:
--Juveniles in boot camps more frequently reported positive responses to their
institutional environment. Boot camp juveniles said they were better prepared
for release, were given more therapeutic programming, had more structure and
control, and were more active than comparison facility youths. The one
exception was that boot camp youths were more likely to report that they were
in danger from staff.
--Staff in boot camps more frequently reported favorable perceptions of their
institutional environments, such as a caring and just environment and more
structure and control compared with traditional facility staff.
Additionally, boot camp staff more frequently reported favorable working
conditions, such as less personal stress and better communication among staff.
--Overall, juvenile and staff perceptions of the institutions' environments were
similar. The five juvenile and staff scales with the highest correlations were
environmental danger, resident danger, care, quality of life, and control.
--Initial levels of anxiety were slightly higher for boot camp youths; initial levels
of depression were higher for comparison facility juveniles. Anxiety and
depression decreased over time for juveniles in both facilities. Juveniles in both
types of facilities experienced a decrease in their social bonds with family,
school, and work while they were institutionalized. These changes, however,
were statistically insignificant.
--In general, boot camps were more selective about the juveniles admitted to
the facility. Boot camps admitted fewer juveniles who had psychological
problems or were suicide risks, and they required psychological, medical, and
physical evaluations before allowing juveniles to enter. In 25 percent of the boot
camps, juveniles had to volunteer for the program.
Target audience: Correctional policymakers and practitioners.
Methodology
In 1996, the researchers surveyed juvenile correctional agencies and identified
48 boot camps in operation; another 2 jurisdictions were developing boot camp
programs. Two programs were eliminated because they were nonresidential
facilities. Of the remaining 46 programs, 27 in 20 States participated in the
study. Although it was not possible to compare program aspects of those that
were not in the study with those that were, the participating programs were
geographically representative of the United States.
A matched comparison facility in the same State was identified for each
participating boot camp. Each comparison facility was selected in consultation
with the agency responsible for and/or the administrator of the boot camp. The
comparison facility was selected as the most likely facility to which juveniles
would have been sent had they not gone to boot camp. Comparison facilities
were traditional institutions such as training schools and detention centers. For
the study, 22 traditional institutions were compared with 27 boot camps.*
The 49 participating correctional facilities were visited between April 1997 and
August 1998. During the site visits, 4,121 juveniles and 1,362 staff were
surveyed. Structured interviews also were conducted with facility administrators
to obtain data from institutional records and information on policies and
procedures.
The juvenile survey contained 266 questions about demographic information,
previous criminal history, attitudes, and experiences in the facility. The survey
was administered in group settings of 15 to 20 juveniles. The informed consent
and all items on the survey were videotaped and played on a VCR to reduce
the amount of reading required of the youths.
The 216-item staff survey asked respondents to describe their demographic,
background, and occupational characteristics. Both the juvenile and staff
surveys included a series of items about perceptions of the facility's
environmental conditions. Staff were asked additional questions about working
conditions. Both surveys included items presented as statements (e.g., staff treat
residents fairly; punishments given are fair), to which respondents answered
according to a five-point scale ranging from "never" to "always."
The structured interviews with facility administrators consisted of 244 questions.
Information was obtained about the facilities' policies and procedures,
population characteristics, screening and admission criteria, the emphasis
placed on programming components, staff and education issues, and visitation.
The survey also requested statistical information from institutional records.
Fourteen scales were formed using factor analyses: control, resident danger,
staff danger, environmental danger, activity, care, risks to residents, quality of
life, structure, justice, freedom, therapeutic programming, preparation for
release, and individual planning (see "Perceptual Environmental Conditions
Scales" for scale descriptions). These scales were used to measure how staff
and juveniles viewed the environment of the facility in which they lived or
worked.
Across all facilities, juvenile and staff perceptions of the environments in boot
camps were compared with perceptions of those in the comparison facilities
using analysis-of-variance models. Overall differences between juveniles in the
boot camps and those in the comparison facilities were compared on the 14
environmental scales. Similarly, boot camp staff perceptions were compared
with traditional facility staff perceptions. Demo-graphics (e.g., age,
race/ethnicity, sex) were used as controls.
* The number of boot camps exceeded the number of traditional facilities
because two boot camps participated in one State, but there were no
comparison sites for these facilities. One comparison site and two boot camps
were selected in three other States.
Perceptual Environmental Conditions Scales
Control: Do staff have control over the residents? Do residents do what staff
tell them? Do residents escape? Do residents have drugs or weapons?
Resident danger: Do residents worry about being hit or punched by other
residents? Are they afraid of other residents? Are residents mean to one
another? Do they fight? Do residents get sexually attacked?
Staff danger (juvenile perspective): Are residents afraid of staff? Do staff grab,
push, or shove residents? Are staff mean to residents?
Staff danger (staff perspective): Are residents mean to staff? Are staff in danger
of being hit or punched by residents? Do residents grab, push, or shove staff?
Environmental danger: Do staff protect residents? Is residents' property safe?
Are gangs in the institution? Do staff catch and punish troublemakers? Are there
enough staff to keep residents safe? Do staff prevent violence and forced sex
among residents?
Activity: Do residents have activities to keep them busy? Do they spend time on
school work? Are they busy at night? Do they plan what they will do when they
leave? Do they exercise? Do they have activities when they are not in school?
Care: Do staff encourage residents to try new activities? Do staff help residents
with school work after class? Do staff tease residents? Do they help residents
with personal problems? Is the health care good? Are residents friendly? Will
someone help if a resident has a problem? Do staff care about residents?
Risk to residents: Are insects, rodents, or dirt a problem? Is there a bad odor
or poor air circulation? Do residents know what to do in case of fire? Do many
accidents happen? Are the jobs safe?
Quality of life: Do residents exercise? Is it noisy? Is there a lot of space in the
living area? Do residents have privacy in the shower and toilet? Is the food
good? Do residents get enough to eat? Is the visiting area crowded?
Structure: Do residents follow a set schedule? Do they study at certain times?
Do they know what will happen if they break a rule? Are they messy? Do staff
change their minds about rules?
Justice: Are residents punished even when they do not do anything wrong? Do
staff use force? Can residents file a grievance against staff? Are residents aware
of the grievance process? Can staff and residents work out problems? Will
something bad happen if a resident files a grievance? Do residents deserve the
punishments they receive? Are punishments fair?
Freedom: Do residents have to work when they do not want to? Can they
choose the type of work? Can they read or listen to music whenever they
want? Are they encouraged to make decisions?
Therapeutic programming: Will the programs help residents find a job,
understand themselves, keep focused on their goals, learn new skills, and/or
return to school? Does the substance abuse treatment help residents? Are
religious services offered? Do residents receive individual attention? Are they
healthier since coming to the facility?
Preparation for release: Are residents encouraged to plan for release? Have
they made plans to find a job, return to school, get drug treatment, and find a
place to work? Do they set goals for the future?
Individual planning (staff only): Do residents have individual meetings with staff?
Do they get help with their problems? Do they receive individual counseling?
---------------------------
Differences in Therapeutic Programming and Individual Attention
--On average, boot camps scheduled 25.3 hours of educational classes per
week compared with 25.7 hours scheduled in the comparison facilities.
--In boot camps, an average of 25.3 percent of juveniles took a General
Educational Development (GED) test in the past year; 42.9 percent of the
juveniles in the traditional facilities took a GED test.
--Of those who took a GED test, an average of 78.3 percent passed in the
boot camp and 75.2 percent passed in the traditional facilities.
--Juveniles attended classes grouped according to their appropriate grade
levels (not with groups, housing units, or platoons) in 54.2 percent of the boot
camps and 59.1 percent of the comparisons.
--Boot camps had 10.1 juveniles for every 1 teaching staff; comparison
facilities had 6.6 juveniles for each teaching staff member.
--Boot camps had 3.5 juveniles to every 1 custody or treatment staff;
comparison facilities had 1.6 juveniles to every custody or treatment staff.
--On average, boot camps scheduled physical fitness activities (including drill
and ceremony practice) for 18.8 hours per week compared with 12.3 hours in
the comparison facilities.
---------------------------
Contact With the Outside
--Boot camps schedule 4.0 hours per week for visitation; comparison facilities
schedule 7.1 hours.
--Fifty-four percent of the boot camps had a "no outside visits" rule during the
first month juveniles were in the facility; 14 percent of the comparison facilities
had such a policy.
--Seventeen percent of the boot camps had a "no outside visits" rule during the
entire time juveniles were in the facility; none of the comparison facilities had
such a policy.
--Sixty-seven percent of the boot camp programs required visitors to schedule
their visits in advance; only 36 percent of the traditional facilities required this of
visitors.
--Juveniles in the boot camps were permitted to make 1.2 phone calls per
week on average; juveniles in the comparison facilities could make 1.6 phone
calls.
---------------------------
Doris Layton MacKenzie, Ph.D., is a professor with the Department of
Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Maryland, College Park, and
Director of the Evaluation Research Group. Angela R. Gover, Ph.D., is
an assistant professor with the College of Criminal Justice, University of South
Carolina, Columbia. Gaylene Styve Armstrong, Ph.D., is visiting assistant
professor with the Administration of Justice Department, Arizona State
University West, Phoenix. Ojmarrh Mitchell is Jerry Lee Research Assistant
Professor, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of
Maryland.
This investigation was supported in part by grant 96-SC-LX-0001 from the
National Institute of Justice and the Corrections Program Office to the
University of Maryland.
The authors thank the administrators, staff, and juveniles at the correctional
facilities who participated in this research as well as the Center for Substance
Abuse Research, which provided technical assistance.
Findings and conclusions of the research reported here are those of the authors
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.
Department of Justice.
This and other NIJ publications can be found at and downloaded from the NIJ
Web site (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij).
The National Institute of Justice is a component of the Office of Justice
Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of
Justice Statistics, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and
the Office for Victims of Crime.
NCJ 187680
http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/171676.pdf
http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/187680.pdf
|
