I can't say I agree with everything in this article. Moreover, I think that there are some parameters for evaluating "effectiveness" as well as, conversely, long term psychological damage, which were overlooked. Nevertheless, Hanusa does appear to give the subject matter a good shot at a fair overview.
Fwiw, ALL of the comments left for this article were program spam, lol.
-------------- • -------------- • --------------
Are Boot Camps Obsolete?Erin Hanusa · SparkAction
Nov. 30, 2006
In 2003, there were over 96, 000 juvenile offenders in residential placements in the United States, most for offenses against other persons, such as assault and robbery. Out of that total, about 3,000 were serving their time in 54 boot camps in 17 states.
Also known as "shock incarceration," boot camps appeared on the juvenile justice scene during the 1980s. Politicians touted them as a "get tough" solution; the idea was to use the military boot camp model to whip errant youngsters into shape. Adding to boot camps' allure was the promise of lower per-bed costs and relief for overcrowded juvenile detention facilities.
Typically a two-to-four month residential program of military drills, counseling, and education, boot camps are considered an "intermediate sanction" in the juvenile justice lexicon. Intermediate sanctions are more restrictive than probation, but less severe than prison or detention. When they work properly, they are an important component of any juvenile justice system that aims to rehabilitate, rather than simply punish, young offenders.
Although the juvenile justice population has decreased slightly in the last few years, it is still higher than in the mid-1980s, when juvenile crime began to rise sharply. Young offenders coming through the courts can be sentenced to a number of different consequences: incarceration, treatment, and probation are a few. Fourteen percent of juvenile offenders receive other sanctions, including community service, restitution, and programs like juvenile boot camp.
Have Boot Camps Lived Up to Their Promise?Since the inception of boot camp programs in the U.S., no study has found that this type of program reduces recidivism (
1996 Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention study;
1995 Washington State Institute for Public Policy study). A stay in a boot camp is often less expensive than incarceration in a juvenile facility, but the savings are largely dependent on sentence length: boot camp sentences are normally shorter than incarceration periods. While some
kids do make academic gains in boot camp, those gains seem to evaporate once they leave. Why, then, do boot camps still exist?
Many politicians and voters like the idea of boot camp. The images involved are almost romantic: taking the ragged edges of troubled kids and shaping them into the bright, sharp lines of marching cadets. And, as an intermediate sanction, boot camps can take an important place in a spectrum of juvenile sanctions.
Susan Colling, a juvenile programs coordinator in Colorado, bemoans the lack of such intermediate sanctions in her state. "More kids are committed than should be, and more kids are on probation than should be," says Colling. Colorado closed its last boot camp in 2001, and has not committed funds to create a replacement program.
But Dr. Ed Latessa, a juvenile justice expert at the University of Cincinnati, says public esteem for boot camps is misguided. "There's a common misperception that what these kids need is structure, discipline, and order. But those aren't big risk factors. They don't have much to do with criminal behavior," says Latessa. He adds that putting kids who have gotten into trouble with the law together and attempting to forge a military-style
esprit de corps is a flawed idea. "We don't really want to bond delinquents together. We want to disrupt criminal networks."
Latessa cites social learning theory—the premise that we internalize and imitate the behavior we see—as one reason that boot camps don't work. "The first thing they do when these kids get off the bus is yell, scream in their faces, and tell them they're going to straighten them out. So they're teaching these kids that the way you solve problems is to get up in someone's face and yell. It's a formula for disaster."
Former boot camp instructor Peter Vicaire doesn't deny that yelling and screaming happen. Once an employee of Patrick Henry Brady Boot Camp (now Brady Academy) in South Dakota, Vicaire believes the shock of boot camp is more valuable than critics recognize. "[The initial intensity] throws kids off balance for the first couple of months, which creates a perfect opportunity for caseworkers and psychologists to get into their heads. They become a lot more vulnerable; it makes them open up and want to discuss things [with counselors]."
Vicaire says that those who read news reports of boot camp abuse should remember that all boot camps are run differently; there are no mandated standards, so program design is left entirely up to the administrators of a given camp. Vicaire characterizes Brady as well-organized and fairly run. He acknowledges that although there is no physical contact, there is an implied threat. "You try to instill the thought that it could happen to gain control of them so they fall in line and listen."
Whatever the rules governing physical contact, contends Latessa, "The military approach lends itself to abuse."
Limitations on contact are only one of the areas in which boot camps differ. Some camps provide several-week trainings for their new employees. Others provide almost no training at all. "I was taken on a two-day walk around the facility," says Vicaire, of his training before he started work at Brady. "Their attitude was, —You're straight out of the Marines, you know about boot camp, have at it.'"
Gains Prove Hard to MaintainProponents and critics agree that boot camps can produce some
substantial gains for their participants. Many young participants, who typically enter with below-grade-level skills, advance academically, sometimes progressing up to several grade levels. A number of graduates find jobs in the aftercare period. And a 2003 National Institute of Justice report found that
juveniles in boot camps reported decreased anxiety and depression, better impulse control, and better social attitudes than their counterparts in other types of juvenile facilities.
Another point of agreement is the importance of aftercare, the period after boot camp when the graduate is reintroduced to his community. Numerous studies illuminate aftercare as a weak point in many boot camp programs. Susan Colling says the now-closed Colorado boot camp had a pretty good success rate, but that gains disappeared when participants entered the aftercare phase.
Kids can do well in the boot camp setting, but, Colling says, "You throw that kid back in his environment where he doesn't have that structure, and he's bound to fail." She notes the contrast with new soldiers undergoing the real thing. When boot camp is over, "They're still in the military." In other words, although the intensity drops, the structure remains.
The problems that Ed Latessa says are the real risk factors for juvenile crime—things like peer situations, drug issues, and unhealthy cognitive patterns—are still out there waiting for most young boot camp residents.
How can an aftercare program help young boot camp "graduates" negotiate their return to their neighborhoods and communities? The 1996
OJJDP study on boot camps characterized a successful aftercare program as comprehensive and individualized for each graduate; accessible by public transportation; and located in gang-neutral areas. Most importantly, effective aftercare requires communication and coordination between service providers such as school staff, counselors, and potential employers.
Peter Vicaire agrees that the lack of aftercare at Brady was a problem for kids, and suggests that mentors may be an answer. "Even after everything we put them through, they admired us and wanted to impress us." A continued relationship with a drill instructor would provide continuity and valuable modeling, Vicaire contends. But he acknowledges that a program like this would be difficult to implement once graduates scatter back to their homes across the state. Still, he says, he'd recommend a boot camp without aftercare over a large, impersonal detention facility of the type many juveniles encounter: "Where I work now, there are so many more kids, you don't get the closeness that you do at boot camp."
Different DirectionsWith boot camps losing their luster, some states are looking for new solutions. They can look to two very different approaches: small, cozy treatment centers like the ones pioneered in Missouri, and home-based multi-systemic therapy.
In the 1970s, Missouri began to experiment with alternatives to its large, often violent juvenile detention centers. The department of corrections opened a number of small facilities—the largest held only 36 juveniles—and kept teens within driving distance of their families. The focus was on personal and group development rather than punishment. The sites also gradually developed community-based services to assist teens after they left custody.
Inside the walls of Missouri's treatment centers, the atmosphere is homey and supportive. "Teams" of around a dozen teens spend nearly every moment together, frequently checking in with each other and with staff about how they are feeling. Group therapy sessions encourage participants to examine their own personal and family histories and to share their experiences and lessons with others.
Missouri's progressive approach to juvenile justice is yielding results. In 2003, 70 percent of youth released in 1999 had avoided recommitment for three years. And the program is saving money. Missouri's Department of Youth Services budgeted $102 for each youth in 2002; as an example, a few states with higher costs and higher rates of recidivism than Missouri were Louisiana, which spent $270 per youth; Maryland, $193; and Florida, $271.
Another promising alternative is multi-systemic therapy. MST's aim is to keep offenders and their families together, working on problems in a home setting. This approach avoids the problems caused by detaining juveniles in a structured, restricted setting then returning them to the situations in which they originally got into trouble with the law.
Academic problems, drug problems, and peer issues are all areas the MST caseworker targets. Parents and siblings receive services as well. Caseworkers can also help family members learn new behavioral patterns that support the juvenile's rehabilitation.
MST costs about $5,00 to $7,000 per family per year; the average cost for a year of incarceration is $43,000. However, MST's method of working with families in their homes is a challenge that some therapists find difficult to adjust to. And it requires special training, which means added costs and time for juvenile justice and social work agencies.
MST and programs like Missouri's are supported by research on teenage brain development. A March 2006 report on
juvenile justice and adolescent brain maturation by the Wisconsin Council on Children and Families states that, "The most effective programs mirror a supportive family environment or foster a supportive family environment in the community."
So what is the future of juvenile boot camps? Dr. Ed Latessa believes their popularity will naturally dwindle with time. He points out that boot camps emerged during a time when a large percentage of adult males had their own memories of military service as formative in their lives. As that experience becomes less common among policymakers and the general population, he posits, the idea that a military model can solve teen behavioral problems will die out. For Pete Vicaire, boot camps remain a viable way to rehabilitate offenders. "It was like clockwork, the point in boot camp at which kids started taking pride in themselves and each other. I don't see that in the facility I work in now."
Erin Hanusa is a freelance writer and editor living in Madison, Wisconsin.© 2010 SparkAction unless otherwise noted.