Research in Brief: A National Survey of Aftercare .
Provisions for Boot Camp Graduates


MENU TITLE: RIB: Boot Camp Aftercare Provisions
Series: NIJ
Published: May 1996
28 pages
61,153 bytes

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
National Institute of Justice

National Institute of Justice
Research in Brief

Jeremy Travis, Director
March 1996

------------------------------

Issues and Findings

Discussed in this Brief: Results of an
NIJ-sponsored survey of 52 boot camps and their
aftercare programs, conducted by the American
Institutes for Research.

Key issues: Research has indicated that boot camps
are not necessarily lowering rates of recidivism,
but this situation may be the result of
shortcomings in aftercare programs for boot camp
graduates. The study analyzed five aspects of
aftercare:

o Extent to which aftercare provisions have been
expressly designed for boot camp graduates.

o Continuity and interaction between boot camp and
aftercare.

o Intensity and length of supervision.

o Provisions for gradual decreases in the structure
provided.

o Provisions for monitoring and evaluation of the
boot camp and aftercare programs.

Key findings:

o Thirteen boot camps (seven statewide adult
programs, three juvenile programs, and three local
programs in one State) had specialized aftercare
programs for boot camp graduates. Eighteen had no
special requirements, and 21 had a specified
aftercare regimen, sometimes with specific aspects
for boot camp graduates.

o Specialized care is limited by structural and
statutory constraints. For example, one agency may
be responsible for incarceration while another is
responsible for probationary programs.

o Sparsely populated States may have too few boot
camp graduates in one location to maintain a
specialized program.

o For the majority of boot camps, integration of
the boot camp experience and aftercare consists of
joint participation in prerelease planning.

o Most of those released from boot camp are placed
on intensive probation/parole in their communities;
the emphasis is on intensive supervision rather
than intensive services.

o Six programs require time in a residential
transitional program (such as a halfway house) and
a few others offer transitional programming to
certain types of offenders (e.g., drug offenders or
those with inappropriate home supervision).

o Few programs have developed structures for
monitoring and evaluating boot camp graduates in
aftercare.

Although recidivism rates appear lower for boot
camps offering specialized programs, definitive
studies have yet to be performed. However, this
survey found a number of models for integrating
aftercare functions with boot camps that appear to
hold promise for retaining the benefits of the boot
camp experience when the graduate reenters the
community.

Target audience: Corrections officials, State and
local policymakers, and researchers.

------------------------------

A National Survey of Aftercare Provisions for Boot
Camp Graduates

by Blair B. Bourque, Mei Han, and Sarah M. Hill

Over the past decade, the Nation's prison
population has increased 150 percent,1 and prisons,
jails, and juvenile correctional facilities are
bursting at the seams. Under these conditions, many
State legislatures and correctional officials have
seized upon shock incarceration, or correctional
boot camps, as a quick solution to overcrowding.
Boot camp programs, characterized by a strong
emphasis on military structure, drill, and
discipline, and an abbreviated period of
incarceration, promise immediate savings in prison
costs resulting from early releases, without
appearing to coddle criminals.

Recidivism rates have not declined (see "Growth of
Boot Camps"), which research findings indicate is
partly a result of inadequate aftercare. For
example, boot camps in New York, Illinois, and
Louisiana that reported lower recidivism rates than
their prison counterparts each maintained a 6-month
intensive supervision phase in the community.
Researchers suggest that the lower recidivism rates
at these sites were "very likely due to the type of
community supervision and not the in-prison phase
of the program." The study also found that the more
intensively offenders were supervised after their
releases, the better they adjusted.2

Another study of substance abuse programs in shock
incarceration facilities found that few had
developed formal links with drug treatment
providers in the community. Many released offenders
to traditional probation or parole supervision. To
deliver effective substance abuse programs, the
study suggested development of "improved aftercare
programs and linkages between the imprisonment and
community release phases of the boot camp
sanction."3

These findings -- a consensus among boot camp
providers that aftercare may have been
shortchanged -- prompted the National Institute of
Justice (NIJ) to examine boot camp aftercare
programs. The American Institutes for Research
conducted a survey of aftercare programs from May
through December 1994 in conjunction with NIJ's
broad boot camp research agenda. After describing
the survey method, this Research in Brief describes
the types of aftercare programs available to
graduates of boot camps across the Nation,
identifies critical issues in boot camp aftercare
programming, and highlights several innovative or
promising program features.

Methodology

The study employed a three-tiered process to
identify the range of available aftercare
programming. The process included a telephone
survey, creation of boot camp and aftercare program
summaries, and site visits.

In May and June 1994, initial telephone interviews
were conducted with boot camp administrators
identified through two previous surveys -- a 1993
mail survey of State correctional departments and a
1992 telephone survey of juvenile correctional
departments. In most cases a second telephone
interview was conducted with a parole, probation,
or other official responsible for aftercare.
Information from these sources was combined to
create individual case summaries of the programs,
which were then submitted for each boot camp's
review. Representatives from each of the programs
approved the descriptions.

Site visits were conducted at three boot camps -- the
Minnesota Challenge Incarceration Program,
Maryland's Herman L. Toulson Boot Camp, and the
Kentucky First Incarceration Shock Treatment (FIST)
Program -- and the aftercare programs located in the
proximate urban areas of Minneapolis, Baltimore,
and Louisville. The focus of each visit was to
determine the links between the boot camp and the
aftercare program and to document the breadth and
intensity of services and surveillance provided in
aftercare. Each site visit included interviews with
key project staff members at the boot camp and the
aftercare program, a review of archival data, and
observations of program activities.

Boot camps surveyed

The boot camps surveyed in July 1994 included 34
programs operated by State correctional
departments; the Federal Bureau of Prisons'
program; 8 programs operated by local departments
of corrections, sheriff's departments, or
parole/probation departments; and 9 juvenile
programs. This group represents most of the boot
camps in operation.4

Juvenile programs are operated by a variety of
agencies. Sheriff's departments operate the four
Florida programs, and private agencies administer
the State of Colorado and the Cuyahoga County,
Ohio, Juvenile Court programs. The Boys and Girls
Clubs of Mobile, the Strickland Youth Center, and
the University of South Alabama jointly run the
Alabama juvenile camp, and the California Youth
Authority operates its own boot camp.

Data on the age of the programs and the operating
capacity confirm the continuing popularity of boot
camps. Thirty of the 52 programs have opened since
1991. State programs account for most of the
operating capacity, with 9,304 beds available,
primarily for males.

Because the juvenile programs tended to be smaller
than the State level programs, usually with
operating capacities between 30 and 60 beds, they
accounted for a relatively small proportion of the
boot camp beds in the survey. Local programs
reflected a wider range in size (e.g., the Harris
County, Texas, program can accommodate 384
individuals compared to 15 in the Brazos County,
Texas, program) and a dramatic increase in numbers.
For example, a 1993 study identified only 3 jail
boot camps in Texas,5 but by 1995 officials
reported 14 boot camps operating there.

Whereas most boot camps, particularly the older
programs, initially limited participation to males,
a substantial number of the programs have expanded
to include females. The Federal program, 18 of the
34 State programs, and 4 of the 8 local programs
have designated some beds for women, although the
total female capacity is only a fraction of the
total capacity. The 44-bed Practical Regimented
Rehabilitation for Inmates Determined to Excel
(PRIDE) program in Santa Clara, California, takes
women only. Most of the programs that serve women
and men maintain entirely separate facilities.
Some, however, such as the FIST Program in
Kentucky, integrate females into the regular
platoon structure and only segregate the living
quarters.

The majority of boot camps exclude violent
offenders and those whose sentences are longer than
a predetermined maximum, commonly in the 5- to
10-year range. State programs frequently exclude
offenders with a prior incarceration from
consideration and require that participants
volunteer for the program. The majority of programs
also have set a maximum age for eligibility,
typically between ages 25 and 35.

Overview of existing aftercare provisions

In general, graduates of boot camps are nonviolent,
young adult (or juvenile) offenders serving their
first incarceration. At this point, they have
completed a short but rigorous program that places
rigid external controls on behavior. In exchange,
they are being released into the community far
sooner than their original sentences would have
permitted.

To the extent that the boot camp approach differs
from those employed by other correctional programs,
one would expect that the aftercare programming
would reflect these differences.

What then happens to the boot camp graduates when
they return to the community? The quasi-military
activities, physical regimen, and intense structure
that distinguish boots camps from other
correctional interventions do not extend to most
aftercare programs. Once individuals graduate from
boot camp, they are typically integrated with
releasees from other institutions. Of the 52 boot
camp programs contacted, 18 had no specific
requirements or programming for boot camp
graduates. Once an individual is released from boot
camp, a decision is made as to whether to place him
or her on standard or intensive supervision. Often
this decision depends on whether intensive
supervision is available where the boot camp
graduate is released.

Existing research on aftercare provisions

Existing research on aftercare has indicated the
importance of tailoring the community portion of an
intervention to the specific strategy employed by
the institution. One technique recommended for
reinforcing and monitoring skills learned in the
institution in the community is to employ
individualized case planning from the point of
commitment until release from supervision.6

In order to adequately reinforce and monitor skills
built while incarcerated, research also highlights
the need for employing intensive services as well
as intensive surveillance. The latter would serve
to flag problem areas that would be managed through
a referral system employing incentives and
graduated consequences. Other principles of
effective aftercare address the extent to which
programs take advantage of existing community
resources and the extent to which they employ a
system of program evaluation and management
information.7

These findings, along with suggestions from boot
camp program and aftercare staff during the first
round of interviews, led to an examination of the
following aspects of aftercare:

o Extent to which aftercare provisions have been
expressly designed for boot camp graduates.

o Continuity and interaction between boot camp and
aftercare.

o Intensity and length of supervision.

o Provisions for gradual decreases in the structure
provided.

o Breadth and frequency of services provided.

o Provisions for monitoring and evaluation of the
boot camp and aftercare programs.

Aftercare designed for boot camp graduates

Challenges. Structural, logistical, and statutory
constraints limit boot camp providers' ability to
offer graduates specialized aftercare programs. In
many cases the correctional system places the
responsibility for post-release services and
supervision outside the branch or agency that
operates the correctional institutions. Because
different agencies are responsible for the
transition to the community, coherent programs are
difficult to develop. In some locations the program
establishes the rules for aftercare options; in
others the judge resentences the individual who has
completed boot camp; and in still others the parole
board or another governing entity decides where to
place the graduate.

Geography poses problems for many boot camps,
particularly the State programs that serve broad
jurisdictions. Individuals may be released to
counties dispersed across too wide an area to make
congregation of boot camp graduates possible. In
States such as Georgia or New York,8 where many
individuals are released from boot camps monthly,
there may be enough cases in each county to warrant
specialized services. In large States with small
programs such as Montana,9 boot camp releasees are
dispersed too widely and sparsely for such programs
to make sense.

Specific requirements rather than specialized
programs. These difficulties have led many programs
to set specific requirements for the type of
supervision or services that should be available in
the community instead of developing specialized
programs. Almost half of the surveyed programs take
this approach and release graduates to existing
transitional programs or probation or parole
structures where there is no distinction made
between boot camp graduates and other offenders.
The statewide programs usually require that
graduates be placed on intensive supervision for a
set period before moving to regular supervision for
the remainder of their sentences. The Labette
Correctional Conservation Camp in Kansas, the FIST
Program in Kentucky, and the Oregon Success Using
Motivation, Morale, Intensity, and Treatment
(SUMMIT) Program mandate intensive supervision
where it is available.10

Many statewide programs have set requirements
beyond intensive supervision. For instance, the
Massachusetts Boot Camp requires that graduates
attend five Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) or Narcotics
Anonymous (NA) meetings per week, adhere to a
curfew, and submit to urine tests. Requirements
beyond intensive supervision for graduates of
Louisiana's IMPACT Program include performing 100
hours of unpaid community service work, abiding by
a curfew, and meeting with a parole officer at
least 4 times a week. The Illinois Impact
Incarceration Program adds electronic monitoring to
the intensive supervision criteria.

The most stringent of the requirements for boot
camp graduates includes time in a work furlough or
other transitional residential facility. The
Federal intensive confinement centers release all
graduates to the community correctional center
located closest to their residences, mixing boot
camp graduates with releasees from other Bureau of
Prisons institutions. During the first aftercare
phase, inmates may only leave the facility for
employment or to take advantage of special program
services. Then they reach prerelease status where
they may receive passes for visits but are required
to return to the center at night. During the last
phase, they are released to home confinement under
intensive supervision, including the use of
electronic monitoring. Other programs with a
mandatory stay in a transitional center include the
San Quentin Alternative Sentencing Program in
California, the Swan River Correctional Training
Center in Montana, the Leon County, Florida,
Juvenile Boot Camp, and the Oklahoma Regimented
Inmate Discipline (RID) Program. For the Leon
County program, the requirement only applies to
those participants who are committed to the
Department of Corrections and who are not required
to serve additional time in a minimum security
institution after boot camp.

Several programs have set different types of
requirements. The two local programs in New York,
which target parole violators who have substance
abuse problems, require that graduates participate
in drug treatment programs. Tennessee's Special
Alternative Incarceration Unit exacts 8 hours of
community service per month until the expiration of
the parolee's sentence unless the parole officer
waives the requirement. The three Florida juvenile
boot camps in Manatee, Martin, and Pinellas
Counties require participation in a day treatment
program under contract with local agencies.

Specialized programs. Thirteen programs (seven
statewide adult programs, three local adult
programs, and three juvenile programs) have
developed aftercare models specifically for boot
camp. Five of the seven statewide programs that
offer specialized aftercare programs for boot camp
graduates have capitalized on the fact that most of
the boot camp population reside in the most
populous metropolitan area of the State. The New
York State Division of Parole accommodates about
two-thirds of the Shock Incarceration releasees in
its Manhattan Aftershock Bureau staffed by 44
parole officers. Considered to be the standard by
which other programs are judged, this program
provides multifaceted services through subcontracts
with community agencies.

Aftershock programs following a similar model, but
on a smaller scale in line with much smaller boot
camp capacities, include:

o The Minnesota Department of Corrections'
aftercare program for the 70 percent of its boot
camp graduates residing in the 7-county area around
Minneapolis-St. Paul.

o The Maryland Department of Probation and Parole's
two aftercare programs in Baltimore and Prince
George's Counties.

o The Maricopa County, Arizona, Department of
Probation's program for shock probationers.

In all four of these boot camp programs, graduates
who fall outside of the area targeted for
specialized services are highly supervised, either
on intensive caseloads or through assignment to
small caseloads. Michigan has developed a
residential aftercare program for boot camp
graduates in its most populous county, but mixes
boot camp graduates with other parolees once they
are released to the community.

Thirteen specialized programs

New York. Release is granted for 99 percent of the
Shock graduates of New York's four Shock
Incarceration facilities when presented to the
board. Parolees in New York City are released to
the supervision of the Division of Parole's
intensive aftershock monitoring program for 6
months, before completing the remainder of their
sentences on traditional parole supervision.

Two-person parole officer teams are responsible for
caseloads of 38 parolees from proximate
neighborhoods. Monitoring includes random
urinalysis, curfew checks, employment and other
verifications, as well as home visits (jointly
conducted by both officers on the team). Parolees
attend evening sessions held 4 nights a week.

In addition to the more intensive supervision, the
program offers a range of supplementary services
through community agencies, which include job
placement, employment counseling, vocational
testing, and on-the-job training services. All
Shock parolees also receive initial substance abuse
assessments and weekly relapse prevention
counseling sessions organized by platoon. Other
weekly counseling Network sessions11 continue the
boot camp program. Attendance at these sessions is
mandatory for the first 3 months after release.

The program reports that the boot camp parolees
have higher rates of employment and enrollment in
community programs at the 6-month mark and higher
rates of remaining in the community at the 1-year
mark than comparable groups of parolees. The
department estimates that for every 100 Shock
inmates released, it saves more than $2 million in
inmate costs.

Minnesota. Since boot camp and aftercare are
perceived to be different stages of a coherent
program, Minnesota Challenge Incarceration Program
(CIP) boot camp and the aftercare staff participate
in integrated planning and staffing sessions during
the boot camp phase. There is a concerted effort to
blend the boot camp philosophy into aftercare with
an emphasis on group problem solving. Those
parolees who are unable to obtain the requisite
employment are referred to job-training programs.

The Department of Corrections operates CIP and the
two-phase aftercare program. Three CIP staff
members working out of the Minneapolis-St. Paul
office provide direct supervision of the graduates
in the surrounding seven-county area, as well as
link offenders in nonmetropolitan areas with local
programs and resources to meet supervision
requirements. These agents review the progress of
participants and make decisions about their release
from boot camp subject to approval of the Office of
Adult Release. About 78 percent of the participants
complete the residential boot camp phase of the
program.

CIP agents use a case management approach to
arrange for aftercare services. Many activities,
such as acupuncture therapy, cognitive training
sessions, and chemical dependency training, span
both phases. For the first 6 months after release
from boot camp, offenders in the metropolitan area
must contact a reporting center daily, submit
weekly schedules, and abide by curfews. With
caseloads averaging 14 parolees, CIP agents can
make random and unannounced contacts and phone
calls to ensure compliance with the rules and to
conduct random drug and alcohol tests. Upon release
from this phase of aftercare, each parolee is
assigned to an agent in his own community. The
designated parole agent determines the appropriate
level of supervision for the remainder of the
sentence, subject to the review of the Office of
Adult Release.

Maryland. The State graduates about 73 percent of
those enrolled in its 6-month boot camp. The
conditions of release, including a date for parole
if the conditions are met, are established before
entry to boot camp under a mutual agreement
contract. The boot camp staff determines if
individuals have met their conditions and are
eligible for release.

Aftercare is the responsibility of the Department
of Probation and Parole. Two parole officers are
assigned to the boot camp to develop the prerelease
plans for each inmate, including the transition to
the community. Special boot camp aftercare programs
operate in the population centers of Baltimore and
Prince George's Counties, with designated parole
officers and activities. (In the remainder of the
State, parolees are assigned to intensive parole
supervision along with parolees from institutions
that are not boot camps.)

In the Baltimore aftercare program, the Maryland
Department of Economic and Employment Development
also assigns two staff members to work with boot
camp parolees. Participating parolees are given
assistance in locating employment and enrolling in
job-training programs. Other aftercare services
include weekly aftercare support group meetings,
community service projects, weekly substance abuse
training and counseling sessions to complete the
9-month curriculum initiated during boot camp, and
a mentoring program.

The program reports a recidivism rate of 19.6
percent; about 3 out of 4 of these offenders
committed technical violations of parole. The
return rate is lower for participants in the
Baltimore aftercare program than for other Maryland
boot camp graduates. Baltimore participants also
are more likely to be employed or to be enrolled in
school.

Arizona. Arizona's program is similar to the three
described above. Its aftercare arrangements include
use of a dedicated aftershock program in a
metropolitan area. However, Arizona's aftercare
arrangements are more complex than those of the
other three programs because the requirements and
supervisory agency differ, depending on whether
graduates were sentenced to the program as a
condition of intensive probation or were diverted
from the prison system. Aftercare for probationers
is the responsibility of the Department of
Probation in each individual's county of origin,
and for inmates it is the responsibility of the
Parole Division of the Department of Corrections.
About 95 percent of the boot camp population is
sentenced to boot camp as a condition of intensive
probation.

Shock releasees under the supervision of the
Department of Corrections are assigned to parole
officers who maintain caseloads of about 85
parolees. For the first 90 days after release, they
are placed under house arrest and electronically
monitored. Then they are released to general
supervision for the remainder of their sentences
and required to report twice a week to their
assigned officers.

Intensive probation supervision lasts for 9 to 12
months. In Maricopa County, an aftershock team
develops individual treatment plans for each
probationer. There are 3 phases of supervision,
beginning with 90 to 120 days in either a community
house arrest program or a transitional shock house.
During this period, probationers must contact their
probation offices 4 times a week. In the subsequent
3 months, their contact requirements are reduced to
3 per week, and finally to 1 per week for the final
3 months. Participants are subject to random drug
testing.

Boot camp probationers are required to maintain
full-time employment and to provide 40 hours of
community service. Program activities in the shock
probation aftercare program include: educational
classes such as GED preparation, Adult Basic
Education (ABE); typing; parenting classes;
substance abuse classes; self-help groups; family
counseling; recreational activities; and group
physical training.

The program reports a prison return rate of 32
percent, with the Maricopa County shock
probationers reporting only a 12 percent return
rate.

Michigan. Michigan requires three phases of
aftercare: a period in a residential aftercare
center, a period of intensive supervision in the
community, and a period of regular supervision for
the balance of the sentence. Assignment to a
residential aftercare center is agreed to by the
sentencing court as part of admission to the
program, either as a condition of probation or as a
condition of parole.

Boot camp graduates spend up to 90 days in either
an existing probation residential center or the
special Wayne County residential facility for boot
camp graduates which accommodates about a third of
the boot camp population. Program elements in the
Wayne County facility borrow extensively from the
boot camp, permitting a gradual weaning from the
military structure. These elements include a highly
structured environment (e.g., use of summary
punishment, military rules of dress, inspections,
and courtesies, such as coming to attention, saying
"yes, sir," and "no, ma'am," and inspections), work
details, mandatory community service, and daily
physical training. In addition, the educational,
substance abuse, and vocational counseling programs
are integrated with those initiated at boot camp.
Vocational training is emphasized, with special
training provided in culinary arts and computer
programming. However, boot camp graduates outside
Wayne County are assigned with other released
offenders to probation residential facilities,
where there is no special boot camp focus or effort
to wean probationers from the boot camp regimen.

After release from one of the residential
facilities, offenders spend a minimum of 160 days
undergoing intensive supervision. Then they are
assigned to regular supervision for 14 months or
the balance of the minimum sentence, whichever is
longer.

Ohio. In contrast, Ohio's Shock Incarceration
Program does not provide specialized aftercare
solely in metropolitan areas. All participants
enter a 30- to 60-day period of intermediate
transitional detention following graduation from
boot camp. Simultaneously, each graduate is
assigned to a parole officer. Because the halfway
house exclusively serves those exiting boot camp,
some of the military practices are continued.
Comprehensive services include substance abuse
counseling, education, and testing; life skills
programming; employment services programming; and
case management.

When the participant has completed a set of
conditions for release from the transitional
detention center, he is presented to the parole
board for release. Responsibility shifts to the
Adult Parole Authority, and the boot camp graduates
are mainstreamed into the general parole
population. Initially, shock graduates are placed
on intensive supervision. At this level
requirements include weekly contacts, random drug
tests, participation in substance abuse counseling,
and employment. After up to 6 months in intensive
supervision, participants serve the remainder of
their sentences on standard parole.

New Hampshire. New Hampshire's specialized
aftercare, like Ohio's, targets graduates located
across the entire State. For the majority of
participants in New Hampshire's 120-day boot camp,
the court has suspended a prison sentence under the
condition that the individual successfully complete
boot camp and serve up to 5 years on probation. For
boot camp participants referred directly from the
Department of Corrections, release must be approved
by the parole board.

Individual graduates are assigned to an intensive
or standard parole caseload in their communities.
Most individuals are placed in intensive
supervision for the first 90 days after release,
then reduced to standard supervision. Intensive
supervision caseloads typically are 12 to 25
parolees per officer and require daily contact.
Standard caseloads are about 100 cases per officer,
and require 1 or 2 contacts per week. Individuals
with substance abuse problems are expected to
participate in AA and NA groups in their
communities.

Beyond the monitoring and assistance provided by
local probation/parole officers, the Shock
Incarceration Program operates an aftercare program
expressly for boot camp graduates. Three members of
the boot camp staff, the probation/parole officer
and the two drug and alcohol counselors conduct
biweekly meetings at a central, usually urban
location. For the first 6 months after graduation,
attendance is mandatory and transportation is
provided.

The meetings build on the social bonds established
at boot camp by uniting the platoons. The drug and
alcohol counselors run group sessions similar to
those conducted at boot camp, where participants
discuss personal difficulties and setbacks, and
confront individuals with negative attitudes. The
sessions offer an opportunity to provide
"refresher" substance abuse information as well.

The program's reported 2-year recidivism rate of 17
percent contrasts with the 47 percent rate for the
men's prison, although the populations in these two
facilities probably are not equivalent. About 24
percent of the boot camp graduates are returned on
violations of probation.

Three local programs. Although local programs do
not have the same geographical constraints as
statewide programs in providing specialized
services, only three of the eight local programs in
the survey, all in Texas, have developed such
services. They are the Convicted Offender Reentry
Program in Austin (Travis County), the Harris
County Boot Camp Program in Humble, and the Hidalgo
County Boot Camp Program in Edinburg.

Travis County provides a two-phase work release
program for boot camp participants before releasing
them to routine probation supervision. During the
first 15-day transitional phase, participants work
in government or nonprofit agencies during the day
and return to boot camp in the evening. At the
successful conclusion of this phase, they follow a
regular schedule of work or vocational programming
offsite while continuing to live at boot camp.

In contrast, the Harris County and Hidalgo County
boot camps release participants directly to
supervision by the local probation/parole
departments but require participation in special
aftercare sessions at night. Harris County offers a
continuation of the life skills class begun at boot
camp 2 nights a week and a boot camp support group
led by a licensed counselor 1 night a week. Hidalgo
County offers weekly counseling and vocational
preparation sessions. Parolees must attend each
week for the first month after release, then every
other week for the next 6 months. In addition, the
aftercare program continues a community mentor
program initiated during boot camp. Before
graduation, family members and mentors join the
offenders to discuss the aftercare plan.

Three juvenile programs. Like the local programs,
the juvenile boot camps typically serve a narrow
enough geographical area to facilitate some overlap
in supervision and activities from boot camp to
aftercare. Three of the 10 juvenile programs
operate special boot camp aftercare programs. For
two of these, the South Kortwright Youth Leadership
Academy and City Challenge in New York and the
Cuyahoga County Boot Camp Program in Cleveland,
both boot camp and aftercare share a common
director and program philosophy. The Cleveland
program contractor, the North American Family
Institute, promotes program integration by
conducting joint staff training, applying the same
disciplinary framework, and employing the same
guided group interaction counseling sessions. The
third program, the Environmental Youth Corps in
Mobile, Alabama, splits responsibility for boot
camp and aftercare between the Strickland Youth
Center and the Boys and Girls Clubs of Mobile, but
maintains continuity by assigning two probation
officers for supervision of the youths for the
entire program.

New York's juvenile boot camp lasts 6 months,
followed by 3 months in City Challenge, an
intensive day treatment program. While at City
Challenge, youths participate in a New York City
Board of Education school, family development
programs, job preparation and placement programs,
community involvement programs, as well as a
counseling program begun in boot camp called the
"Magic Within."

Cuyahoga County's program, while similar in
structure, provides for only 3 months in boot camp,
followed by up to 9 months in a phased aftercare
program operating out of City Center, a downtown
Cleveland center for boot camp graduates. Youths
progress through three decreasing levels of
supervision. During the first month they are
transported to the City Center daily to attend an
alternative educational academy. The next level of
supervision frees the youths on weekends, and, if
appropriate, allows them to attend their own
schools. In the final stage, the youths must attend
City Center 3 nights a week.

When youths are released from boot camp in Mobile,
Alabama, they are assigned to one of the
community's Boys and Girls Clubs for participation
in life skills courses, social skills classes,
tutoring, and recreational activities. The program
also provides a weekly evening aftercare session at
a designated Boys and Girls Club and supplemental
offsite aftercare events. All boot camp graduates
are placed on probation status with the Mobile
Juvenile Court. They are required to report
regularly to a probation officer and to fulfill any
sentence requirements such as community service or
restitution.

------------------------------

Growth of Boot Camps

Beginning with a 50-bed program in Georgia in
1983,12 boot camps have proliferated to 52 programs
in 32 States and the Federal Bureau of Prisons in
1993.13 Capacity has also expanded, with Georgia
and New York operating more than 1,000 beds each.
Initially operated by State departments of
corrections for young males convicted of nonviolent
offenses, boot camps now encompass a broader
spectrum of offenders, including juveniles and
women, and are operated by State juvenile, local,
and Federal agencies.

Most programs portray boot camps as an alternative
to long-term incarceration that develops self
esteem, responsibility, discipline, and a work
ethic in participants and increases their academic
and job-related skills. Although military-like
activities define the boot camps, the programs
differ in the importance they place on their
military and nonmilitary agendas. Most programs
include physical training, manual labor
assignments, some type of counseling, General
Equivalency Diploma (GED) programs, and life skills
courses. Some programs put a military veneer over a
broad-based theory of behavior change and
management, but many emphasize the military regimen
as their central feature. These program features
are expected to develop self-esteem,
responsibility, and discipline of participants, and
thereby reduce recidivism among boot camp
graduates. A second set of goals, shared by most of
the adult programs, is to reduce correctional costs
and overcrowding by shortening the time a prisoner
stays in an institution.

The emerging literature on boot camp effectiveness
supports the notion that these programs can reduce
prison overcrowding and costs because offenders
serve less time in boot camp than they would have
served in prison. The net cost benefit is affected,
of course, by the number of inmates in boot camp
and the length of the prison terms they would have
otherwise served.14

Boot camps, however, have been less successful in
reducing recidivism. On the one hand, documented
improvements in graduates' social attitudes,
educational achievement, and physical fitness over
the course of boot camp offer promise for their
performance in the community. On the other, the
research to date has found little indication that
time at the camps alters the criminal behavior of
graduates once they have been released. A 1994
review of the literature about boot camps concluded
there is no clear evidence that boot camps reduce
recidivism.15 The most comprehensive evaluation to
date, which assessed eight programs, discovered the
recidivism rates of boot camp graduates and
offenders who spent more time in prison to be
nearly the same.16

------------------------------

Continuity and interaction between boot camp and
aftercare

If aftercare programs are to build on the
behavioral, social, attitudinal, and educational
gains that boot camps hope to produce, some
informal links between the boot camp and aftercare
would provide cross-fertilization of techniques,
theoretical approaches, and information about
individuals enrolled.

Program continuity can be maintained by carrying
through a common philosophy or treatment approach
in the boot camp and aftercare program, or it can
occur through communication and joint planning.
Except for the 13 programs described above that
have developed some specialized services for boot
camp graduates, none of the boot camp programs
described anything other than minimal efforts to
maintain a theoretical or programmatic link with
aftercare. Programs that profess to maintain
philosophical continuity, such as New York's Shock
Incarceration Program and Cuyahoga County's
Juvenile Boot Camp, articulate a theory of
rehabilitation that is more than simply a military
approach. This approach, without the military
trappings, continues in the aftercare period. In
addition, some boot camps transfer specific program
components such as a life skills curriculum, a
counseling approach, or a substance abuse treatment
program to the community.

For the majority of the boot camps, however,
integration of boot camp and aftercare consists of
joint participation in prerelease planning. Some
programs have made concerted efforts to facilitate
communication and planning. For instance, the
statewide programs in Maryland, New York, Oregon,
and the California LEAD program have parole
officers working at the boot camp to develop
individualized release plans. In some cases these
parole officers are responsible for monitoring the
progress of the graduates in the community and
serving as a liaison with the field agents as well.
Some programs have made arrangements for field
probation or parole officers to tour the boot camp
facilities and, when distance is not a problem, to
meet with individuals assigned to their caseloads.
Oregon arranges for the parole agents to meet with
the individuals to whom they have been assigned,
either in person or by teleconference, before
release.

The juvenile boot camps have most closely
integrated the aftercare provisions with the boot
camp. In the specialized programs, the links are
very tight. In Mobile, the same probation officers
who monitor youths during boot camp are also
responsible for monitoring them upon release to the
community. In Cuyahoga County, the boot camp and
aftercare programs are operated by the same
organization, producing common approaches,
staffing, training, and monitoring.

In all of the other juvenile programs, integration
efforts consist at a minimum of joint discussions
of each youth before release. In Pinellas County a
transition team continues to monitor the progress
of youths monthly during their program
participation.

Intensity and length of supervision

The length of the residential segment of the boot
camp has important implications for the cost
savings potential of the program and the
requirements for aftercare supervision. The longer
the camp, the more difficult it is to realize
savings from reductions in the number of days
institutionalized. However, the shorter camps may
require aftercare in the community that is longer,
more tightly supervised, and therefore more costly.

According to the survey, the length of the
residential boot camps ranges from several weeks to
6 months. In many cases the minimum length of stay
can be extended for 1 or 2 months. The minimum
length of stay for 15 of the State programs is 3
months; 9 programs require 4-month stays; and 9
more require 6-month stays. The local programs tend
to be the shortest, with four of the programs
requiring less than a 3-month stay. However, two
local programs require 6 months. Most of the
juvenile programs run 4 months.

Individuals graduating from boot camp are either
released to the community on intensive or regular
supervision, to a work release or other
transitional facility, or rehoused in an
institution. Those who return to institutions were
denied parole or are waiting for a hearing. In
Santa Clara, California, those who have time left
on their sentence return to standard incarceration.

For more than half of the programs, the majority of
graduates are initially supervised at intensive
levels. For two more programs, releasees are placed
in intensive supervision if it is available in the
county where a graduate lives. Specific intensive
supervision requirements vary considerably across
States. Relative to standard supervision within a
given State, intensive supervision generally means
that:

o Case workers have smaller case loads of between
15 and 30 parolees, instead of the usual load of
between 60 and 100.

o Parolees are required to report in more
frequently, in some cases every day.

o Parolees may be placed under house arrest,
including electronic monitoring.

o Parolees may be subject to curfews, random urine
checks, and employment verifications.

o Parolees are required to attend self-help or
other counseling groups.

A period in a residential transitional program is
required by the statewide programs in California,
Michigan, and Ohio, and by the Travis County,
Texas, local program, the Leon County, Florida,
juvenile program, and the Federal Intensive
Confinement Centers. Beginning in 1995, Florida's
Basic Training Program also requires time in a
residential transitional program under a mandate
from the Florida legislature. The majority of the
graduates of the Montana and Wisconsin boot camps
enter a halfway house, but it is not a requirement.

A few programs offer transitional programming to
certain types of offenders, e.g., drug offenders,
or those with inappropriate home arrangements. All
of the release centers offer supervision and
programming in the evening and require the
participants to work or participate in vocational
training during the day. Some of the programs
require a minimum stay in the work release program,
while others set a maximum of anywhere from 15 days
to 120 days. Florida's 4-month requirement is the
longest.

Several of the juvenile programs arrange for
participation in day treatment programs that
provide extensive monitoring, but they are not
designated as "intensive probation/parole." 

After 3 to 6 months of intensive supervision, most
parolees are placed on regular supervision for the
balance of their sentences. In a few programs, the
required period of intensive supervision may be
much longer -- up to 4 1/2 years for the Pennsylvania
Boot Camp Program graduates. Ten programs place all
or most of the boot camp graduates on regular
parole/probation, and in 10 programs it depends on
the individual case, with some graduates placed on
both types of caseloads.

Transitional residential programs and intensive
supervision offer opportunities to gradually reduce
the intense supervision of boot camp as program
graduates adjust to the community. For example, the
Federal boot camps operated by the Bureau of
Prisons offer three phases of progressively less
structured supervision. During the first phase of
aftercare, inmates are housed in a community
corrections center. They may only leave the
facility for employment or participation in special
programs. During the next phase, they continue to
live at the center, but may receive passes to visit
family and friends. Finally, they are released to
home confinement for the remainder of their
sentences, under intensive supervision, and in some
areas electronic surveillance. Those committing
minor violations of the terms of their aftercare
can be returned to an aftercare phase involving
more intensive supervision.

Breadth and frequency of services

An aftercare program's effectiveness should
increase if the program can arrange for treatment
for substance abuse problems, provide vocational
training and assistance in locating jobs, and
continue counseling.

Although some researchers have proposed that
programs should balance intensive surveillance and
intensive services,17 the programs surveyed
generally emphasize the surveillance aspects of
their aftercare provisions. Except for the 13
programs that provide separate, special
arrangements for boot camp graduates, aftercare
services provided to graduates of boot camp are
similar to those provided to other inmates released
from other facilities operated by the sponsoring
agency. Some programs also mentioned that boot camp
graduates have priority in receiving services. The
types of services mentioned by aftercare providers
usually include job placement and training programs
or services, substance abuse treatment and
counseling programs, and participation in self-help
groups such as NA or AA. In some locations
probation or parole officers are considered service
brokers, responsible for identifying and arranging
appropriate services for the client caseload. A few
programs have additional activities such as
parenting classes, mentor programs, GED
preparation, and family counseling.

Monitoring and evaluation

Constant monitoring and evaluation of the boot camp
and aftercare programs are essential to assess how
they are working. Without good recordkeeping that
follows boot camp graduates through aftercare and
beyond, boot camps can have no way of knowing what
does and does not work.

The survey found that responsibility for monitoring
an individual's progress usually shifts from the
institution or agency running the boot camp to the
probation or parole agency responsible for
supervision in the community when the individual
graduates. Routine feedback to the program, if any,
consists of information about recidivism because of
parole revocations or new crimes. However, simple
recidivism data do not provide the type of
information that would permit programs to identify
shortcomings in the boot camp approach and to
attempt to improve the preparation of program
participants for release to the community. Few
programs have the resources or interest to pursue
the level of data collection that would permit this
type of analysis. There are exceptions, such as the
California Leadership, Esteem, Ability, and
Discipline (LEAD) program operated by the
California Youth Authority that is undertaking an
elaborate evaluation, including extensive followup
during the aftercare period.

Of the programs that reported recidivism
statistics, the rates ranged from a low of 10
percent to a high of 35 percent. In all but one
case, these reported rates were lower than those of
a comparison group, which in most cases was the
entire population released from prison. Without
knowing how different the boot camp population is
from the general prison population, these
comparisons have limited significance. Nor is it
possible to compare rates across programs because
of differences in what constitutes recidivism and
in the periods of time covered.

Conclusion

The aftercare arrangements for the full spectrum of
boot camps are no different from those identified
for boot camps that target substance abuse
populations:18 In both cases most programs release
boot camp graduates to traditional probation and
parole supervision. Of the 52 boot camp programs
surveyed, only 13 programs have developed aftercare
programs specifically targeted to the boot camp
population. All but two of these programs are
limited to that proportion of the boot camp
graduates who reside in the major metropolitan
areas. This means that for most boot camp
graduates, boot camp ends upon graduation.
Graduates are, in essence, starting over when they
reach the community, employing techniques of
behavior control and change that may be quite
different from, and may possibly contradict, the
strategies employed at boot camp.

The majority of those released from boot camp are
placed on intensive probation/parole in their
communities, but program representatives stressed
the surveillance aspects of intensive supervision
rather than intensive services. Thus, aftercare may
fall short of the goal of identifying problem areas
that could be addressed through a system of
increasingly severe sanctions and arrangements for
specific services.19 Nor are there many programs
that continue monitoring and evaluating graduates
in aftercare.

The survey found, however, a number of models for
integrating the aftercare functions with the boot
camp. Some programs have taken advantage of the
fact that a large proportion of the boot camp
population resides in one or two locations and have
developed special boot camp aftercare programs.
Others have attempted to improve communication and
planning during the transition to the community by
developing a liaison between aftercare and boot
camp. Some programs operate or refer boot camp
graduates to transitional residential programs.
Although this study did not uncover empirical
evidence to assess the differential effectiveness
of these techniques, they offer an array of ideas
for those program planners attempting to strengthen
the boot camp and aftercare links.

Notes

1. 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.

2. MacKenzie, Doris L., and Claire Souryal,
Multisite Evaluation of Shock Incarceration,
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,
National Institute of Justice, 1994.

3. Cowles, E.L., and T.C. Castellano, Boot Camp
Drug Treatment and Aftercare Interventions: An
Evaluation Review, Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Justice, National Institute of
Justice, 1995.

4. The list of programs consulted came from three
sources: State programs were identified from a 1993
survey AIR conducted of the 50 States and the
District of Columbia to determine the number of
operational and planned boot camps (Cronin, R.C.,
Boot Camps for Adult and Juvenile Offenders,
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,
National Institute of Justice, 1994); local
programs were identified from Austin, J.M., M.
Jones, and M. 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; and
juvenile programs were identified from a survey
conducted by the Institute for Criminological
Research (1992). Since this study was not
addressing the prevalence of boot camps, no
systematic attempt was made to determine if there
were additional camps in operation.

5. Austin, J.M., M. Jones, and P. Bolyard, The
Growing Use of Jail Boot Camps: The Current State
of the Art.

6. Altschuler, D.M., and T.L. Armstrong, Intensive
Aftercare for High-Risk Juveniles: A Community Care
Model, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention, 1994. Note, although these principles
emerged from the study of juvenile programs, there
is no reason to believe that they would not apply
to the adult system as well.

7. Altschuler and Armstrong, Intensive Aftercare
for High-Risk Juveniles: A Community Care Model.

8. Georgia's Department of Corrections operates 2
types of boot camps, 1 for inmates and 1 for
probationers in 9 facilities with a total capacity
of 1,695. New York's program has a slightly higher
operating capacity of 1,795, in 4 facilities. In
addition, Georgia operates 10 probation detention
facilities that offer short-term incarceration
similar to boot camps. They were not included in
this study because they do not have a military
focus.

9. The State programs vary considerably in size
ranging from Montana's small, 30-bed boot camp
located in the Swan River Correctional Center to
Georgia's or New York's multifacility programs.

10. The Kansas State legislature has set a
mandatory 180-day period of intensive supervision
for all boot camp graduates, but it had not taken
effect at the time of this study.

11. Network is a therapeutic approach to enhancing
decisionmaking skills to solve problems and to
building self-esteem. In use in New York State
beginning in 1978, the program is based on a 5-step
model taught in 12 sessions. See Clark, Cherie L.,
David W. Aziz, and Doris L. MacKenzie, Shock
Incarceration in New York: Focus on Treatment,
Program Focus, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1994.

12. Parent, D., Shock Incarceration: An Overview of
Existing Programs, Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Justice, 1989.

13. Cronin, R.C., Boot Camps for Adult and Juvenile
Offenders. Cronin's report was the basis for
identifying the boot camps for this project's
survey. It identified boot camp programs in 29
States.

14. MacKenzie and Souryal, Multisite Evaluation of
Shock Incarceration.

15. Cronin, Boot Camps for Adult and Juvenile
Offenders.

16. MacKenzie and Souryal, Multisite Evaluation of
Shock Incarceration.

17. Altschuler and Armstrong, Intensive Aftercare
for High-Risk Juveniles: A Community Care Model.

18. Cowles and Castellano, Boot Camp Drug Treatment
and Aftercare Interventions: An Evaluation Review.

19. Altschuler and Armstrong, Intensive Aftercare
for High-Risk Juveniles: A Community Care Model.

------------------------------

Blair B. Bourque is a senior research scientist
with the American Institutes for Research (AIR),
Mei Han is an associate research scientist, and
Sarah M. Hill is a research associate with AIR. The
study was supported under NIJ grant 92-DD-CX-K043.

A companion document, An Inventory of Aftercare
Provisions for 52 Boot Camp Programs, summarizes
each of the boot camp programs and is intended to
serve as a resource document for those interested
in learning about the specific aftercare
arrangements and programs developed by each of the
boot camps. It is available from the National
Criminal Justice Reference Service; call 800-851-
3420, or e-mail askncjrs@ncjrs.aspensys.com; ask
for NCJ 157665. Both of these documents can also be
seen and downloaded from the NCJRS Bulletin Board
System or ftp site and seen on the World Wide Web
site. Contact NCJRS for more information.

------------------------------

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.

NCJ 157664

------------------------------

The National Institute of Justice is a component of
the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes
the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Bureau of Justice
Statistics, Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims
of Crime.

-----------------------------

Related NIJ Publications

Listed below are selected additional NIJ
publications related to boot camp issues. These
publications can be obtained free from the National
Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS):
telephone 800-851-3420, e-mail
askncjrs@ncjrs.aspensys.com, or write to NCJRS,
P.O. Box 6000, Rockville, MD 20849-6000.

Please note that when free publications are out of
stock, they are available in photocopies for a
minimal fee or through interlibrary loan. They are
also usually available electronically on the NCJRS
Bulletin Board System or on the NCJRS Justice
Information Center World Wide Web site for viewing
or downloading. Contact NCJRS for more information.

Austin, James Ph.D., Michael Jones, and Melissa
Bolyard, The Growing Use of Jail Boot Camps: The
Current State of the Art, NIJ Research in Brief,
1993, NCJ 134708.

Bourque, Blair B., Roberta C. Cronin, Frank R.
Pearson, Daniel M. Felker, Mei Han, and Sarah M.
Hill, Boot Camps for Juvenile Offenders: An
Implementation Evaluation of Three Demonstration
Programs, NIJ Research in Brief, 12 pages, 1996,
NCJ 157317. The complete NIJ Research Report, 116
pages, is also available; ask for NCJ 157316. 

Clark, Cheri L., David W. Aziz, and Doris L.
MacKenzie, Shock Incarceration in New York: Focus
on Treatment, NIJ Program Focus, 12 pages, 1994,
NCJ 148410.

Cowles, Ernest L., Ph.D., Thomas C. Castellano,
Ph.D., with the assistance of Laura A.Gransky,
"Boot Camp" Drug Treatment and Aftercare
Intervention: An Evaluation Review, NIJ Research in
Brief, 16 pages, 1995, NCJ 155062. The complete
Research Report, 184 pages, is also available; ask
for NCJ 153918. 

Cronin, Roberta C. with assistance of Mei Han, Boot
Camps for Adult and Juvenile Offenders: Overview
and Update, NIJ Research Report, 68 pages, 1994,
NCJ 149175.

MacKenzie, Doris Layton, Ph.D., and Eugene Hebert,
editors, Correctional Boot Camps: A Tough
Intermediate Sanction, NIJ Research Report, 19
chapters by different authors, 1995, NCJ 157639.

MacKenzie, Doris Layton, Ph.D., James W. Shaw, and
Voncille B. Gowdy, NIJ Research in Brief, An
Evaluation of Shock Incarceration in Louisiana,
1993, NCJ 140567.

MacKenzie, Doris Layton, Ph.D., and Claire Souryal,
Multisite Evaluation of Shock Incarceration, NIJ
Research Report, 50 pages, 1994, NCJ 150062. A
two-page summary is available as an NIJ Update,
Researchers Evaluate Eight Shock Incarceration
Programs.