Keywords: Boot camps, shock incarceration, military, get tough programs, juvenile

The constant increase in the juvenile crime rate and the overcrowding of many prisons this past decade has required that society consider alternative treatment programs. The complex system of juvenile justice systems is generally run at the state or provincial level (Glick & Sturgeon, 1998, p.7). New programs were established to "scare straight" and rehabilitate juvenile repeat offenders. These juveniles were going to be "shocked" into being good. Politicians, always eager to satisfy their constituents, somewhat support juvenile boot camps because of their attractiveness towards the get tough on crime attitude that society holds. Being tough on crime equals votes.

Boot camps and military training in corrections can be traced all the way back to Zebulon Brockway at the Elmira Reformatory in Elmira, New York in 1888 (Anderson, Dyson, Burns, 1999, p.7). When boot camps were first started, they were distinguished from other correctional programs by their extreme emphasis on physical labor, exercise, and a military atmosphere. In 1983, Oklahoma and Georgia were the first adult prisons to implement actual boot camp programs (American Correctional Association, 1996, p. 93). While boot camp programs were originally designed for adults, the juvenile justice system has also adopted them. The idea of juvenile boot camps is actually a relatively new idea. In 1992, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) funded three pilot sites in: Cleveland, Ohio, Denver, Colorado, and Mobile, Alabama (http://www.ncjrs.org, 2002). These sites focused on adjudicated, nonviolent offenders under the age of 18. These pilot juvenile boot camps were designed to be a highly-structured three to six month residential program followed by six to nine months of aftercare (probation). In contrast to adult boot camps, academic and therapeutic programming, as well as rehabilitation and aftercare are seen as critical components. Currently, there are more than seventy-five adult and juvenile correctional boot camps operating in more than thirty states. Juvenile boot camps are currently operational in ten states which include: Alabama, California, Colorado, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New York, and Ohio (http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org, 2002).

Most boot camps are designed primarily for males, with very few aimed at females. While some states have no age limits, the typical juvenile offender in boot camp is nonviolent and can range anywhere from fourteen to eighteen years of age. The average cost for incarcerating a juvenile in a short-term boot camp program is $4,205 (Anderson, Dyson, Burns, 1999, p.13). This can be compared to the average costs of housing an inmate in prison for a year which costs $21,000. Most juveniles who are forced to attend boot camp are fairly similar. They are repeat, non-violent offenders who have been given a last chance to be rehabilitated. Only 40 percent of juvenile boot camps will accept offenders convicted of violent offenses, while 60 percent are limited to nonviolent offenders (Mackenzie & Rosay, 1996, p. 95). A juvenile judge is the only person authorized to send a juvenile to boot camp.

Many veterans of the armed forces testify that boot camp changed their lives around. This philosophy applies to juvenile boot camps. The main goal of juvenile boot camps is to rehabilitate chronic delinquents before they move into the adult system of criminal justice and offend. Reducing recidivism rates, improving academic performance, cutting the costs of treating juvenile offenders and instilling the values of hard work, discipline and responsibility are also goals (http://www.ncjrs.org, 2002). Essential elements of all state run boot camps include military drill and ceremonies (marching), physical training, labor and a regimented disciplinary environment (Anderson, Dyson, Burns, 1999, p.12). A typical day for a juvenile in a correctional boot camp involves spending between one to ten hours a day in physical training, military drill and work (Mackenzie & Rosay, 1996, p. 96). Poor performance by one individual requires that the whole group pay for his or her mistake. Punishment can include running laps or doing push-ups. Not everything about juvenile boot camps is rough. Education and counseling also play a major role. Most boot camps spend at least three and a half hours a day on these programs (Mackenzie & Rosay, 1996, p. 96). Some boot camps also include alcohol counseling and vocational training. Voluntary dropout is surprisingly almost unheard of. Even when it is permitted, very few juveniles choose to drop out. Expulsion is not uncommon though. Juveniles who do not meet the programs requirements are generally expelled, but this only accounts for about ten percent of the boot camp population (Mackenzie & Rosay, 1996, p. 96).

Surprisingly, juvenile boot camps have a high graduation rate. The average graduation rate is around ninety percent. In 1992, the three pilot programs also reported high completion rates. Cleveland reported a ninety-six percent graduation rate, while Mobile reported an eighty-seven percent rate and Denver reported a seventy-six percent rate (http://www.ncjrs.org, 2002). Not only are graduation rates impressive, but great strides have been reported in improving academic skills. Reading, spelling and math skills have been shown to improve by one grade level while participating in boot camp programs (http://www.ncjrs.org, 2002). Programs that are carefully designed, target the right offenders and give the right rehabilitative services are the most likely to reduce recidivism (Cole, 2003, p. 226). Most juvenile boot camp graduates are placed in some form of aftercare treatment. The treatment may vary in accordance to what programs are available. In 1994, President Clinton signed the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act which allowed two million dollars to build more boot camp correctional programs (Anderson, Dyson, Burns, 1999, p.104). Another attractive aspect of boot camps is that they help reduce the growing problem of prison overcrowding. Currently, America spends around thirty million dollars a year on corrections and has two million inmates incarcerated in its prisons (Cole, 2003, p. 2). Few actual studies of juvenile boot camp programs have been done so the general attitude toward boot camps is mixed.

As with any governmental program, critics are quick to point out flaws in the system. Many believe that juveniles just "play the game and get out early" (Salerno, 1994, pp. 583-587). This does point out the interesting fact that many boot camp programs are voluntary. The juvenile offender is often given the choice to participate in a relatively short boot camp program or be incarcerated for an even longer time. Another criticism is that boot camps are actually no cheaper than prisons. Several states have actually shown data indicating that boot camps exceed prison costs. High rates have also been found in noncompliance, absenteeism and new arrests (http://www.ncjrs.org, 2002). Many graduates of the boot camp programs also fail to complete the aftercare portion of the program. Staff selection is a critical component to a boot camps success. The screening, selection and training of qualified individuals may fall by the wayside at some locations. Power hungry twenty-year-olds are hired at some camps as instructors which results in disastrous effects. The brutalizing environment can also have a negative effect on a juvenile. The harshness of the environment is shown to improve self-esteem, but once juveniles are released they go back home to crime ridden neighborhoods and fall back in with the wrong crowd. Many psychologists argue that the mechanisms on which boot camps operate (fear, confrontation, intimidation and punishment) are damaging and may permanently cause harm to a juvenile (Mackenzie & Rosay, 1996, p. 101). Another issue argues that juvenile boot camps will also soon become overcrowded because of the attractiveness of the programs. The recidivism rate is also an issue of debate. Several follow-up studies have shown than boot camp graduates show no better recidivism rates than those who have been incarcerated (Cole, 2003, p. 226).

At only fourteen years of age, eighth-grader Gina Score stood five foot four and weighed an impressive 226 pounds. On only her second day of boot camp, Gina was forced to participate in a 2.7 mile run in the sweltering July heat of South Dakota. Almost immediately, Gina fell behind the rest of the girls and was soon showing signs of a serious heat stroke. Toward the end of her young life, Gina lied in a pool of her own urine, grasped for every single breath, frothed at the mouth, began to uncontrollably twitch, and was begging for her "mommy" (Parenti, 2000, pp. 31-34). Staff at the all-girls boot camp denied her water and continuously insulted her while she laid on the ground. Gina endured three hours of a serious heat stroke and died en route to the hospital in an ambulance. Juvenile boot camps have adopted a "tough love" policy (Parenti, 2000, pp. 31-34). Power hungry young staffers at these boot camps are a time-bomb waiting to explode. It’s often referred to as the "lord of the flies" scenario (Parenti, 2000, pp. 31-34). Another disturbing story involves a sixteen year-old male by the name of Nicholaus Contreraz. Nicholaus had been busted for joyriding in a stolen car and was sentenced to a privately run Arizona Boys Ranch. While at the camp, he suffered from bouts of 103-degree fever, muscle spasms, severe chest pains and impaired breathing (Parenti, 2000, pp. 31-34). He was forced to participate in calisthenics, running and the harsh military environment while all his problems worsened. It got to the point where he was defecating in his bed and clothing and constantly complaining that his body was hurting everywhere. On Nicholaus’ last day of life he was thrown to the ground and bounced off of a wall on several occasions as well as being forced to do push-ups. An autopsy later showed that his abdomen was flooded with more than two-and-a-half-quarts of pus from a horrible hybrid infection of staph and strep. His immediate cause of death was cardiac arrest (Parenti, 2000, pp. 31-34). Not all boot camps are bad though. In fact, many juveniles have stated that boot camp is better than juvenile hall. Boot camps seem less restrictive and offer more programming such as counseling and education.

To date, juvenile boot camps lack substantial research. The basis of all good governmental programs lies in the administration. The question still remains. Do juvenile boot camps work? There is no definitive answer. While many boot camps reported reduced recidivism rates along with raising academic performance and saving money, critics still argue that they are harmful. A true militaristic correctional boot camp should strike fear in the hearts of offenders. It should, without a doubt, be effective in reducing recidivism rates. It should also be effective in teaching juveniles how to handle stress and learn responsibility. Juvenile boot camps have become attractive alternatives to lengthy juvenile hall sentences and probation. Despite what the critics say, they are slowly growing in number. The first three pilot programs helped pave the way for future boot camps. Many graduates of the juvenile boot camps have claimed that the programs have helped turned their lives around. Dropout rates are becoming a growing problem though. Some juveniles are actually choosing lengthy sentences at juvenile hall over the harsh realities they will encounter at juvenile boot camps programs. The lack of research makes this an interesting topic. One thing is for sure, juvenile boot camps will certainly play a role in the correctional system for many years to come.

Anderson, James F., & Dyson, Laronistine, & Burns, Jerald. (1999). Boot Camps: An Intermediate Sanction. New York: University Press of America.

Cole, George F. (2003). American Corrections (6^th ed.). Belmont, California:  Thompson Learning.

Glick, Barry, & Sturgeon, William. (1998). No time to play: Youthful offenders in adult correctional systems. Marlboro, Maryland: American Correction Association.

Mackenzie, Doris L., & Rosay, Andre B. (1996). Correctional Boot Camps for Juveniles. In Juvenile and adult boot camps (pp.93-117). Lanham, Maryland: American Correctional Association.

Parenti, Christian. (2000, October). When ‘tough love" kills. The Progressive, pp. 31- Retrieved from ProQuest on Oct. 8, 2002.

Salerno, Anthony W. (1994) Boot camps: A critique and a proposed alternative.

Journal of offender rehabilitation. In Juvenile delinquency readings (2^nd ed.). (pp. 583-587). Boston: Pine Forge Press.

(2002). Juvenile Boot Camps: Lessons Learned. Retrieved Sept. 26, 2002 from http://www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles/fs-9636.txt

(2002). Juvenile Justice Reform Initiatives in the States. Retrieved Sept. 26, 2002 from http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/pubs/reform/ch2_g.html

This page available at: