|
Abstract
|
VioLit summary:
OBJECTIVE:
The purpose of this article by Mackenzie and Souryal was to outline and discuss some goals of prison boot camps.
METHODOLOGY:
A quasi-experimental, one-shot case study was employed. Boot camp administrators across the nation participated in a short survey in 1991. Subjects were asked to rate 11 goals (rehabilitation, recidivism reduction, drug education, reducing crowding, developing work skill, providing a safe prison environment, deterrence, education, drug treatment, punishment, and vocational education) on a 4 point scale (very important, important, somewhat important, and not important).
FINDINGS/DISCUSSION:
Rehabilitation, recidivism reduction, and drug education were goals most often cited as very important. Considered important were the goals of reducing crowding, developing work skills, and providing a safe environment for inmates, guards, and staff. Deterrence, education and drug treatment were most often named somewhat important, and punishment and vocation training were most often cited as either not a goal or unimportant. Specifically, 4 states named punishment as not a goal, 3 named it an important goal, 6 deemed it somewhat important, while 8 said it was an unimportant goal. The levels of importance of these goals were said to be reflected in the daily activity schedules. For example, drug and general education were named as important goals in South Carolina, and inmates there spend about 4 hours a day in academic training. The ways different states intended to reduce recidivism vary. Some states focused on education in hopes of rehabilitating offenders while others emphasized hard work as a deterrent. No state, however, reported a statistically significant difference in recidivism rates between boot camp graduates and similar offenders serving time in a normal prison population. Referring to an unnamed study, the authors noted that in New York and Georgia it was found that 20 to 30% of boot camp graduates return to prison. In terms of reducing prison crowding, most programs were either too small to affect population levels, or inmates sentenced to boot camps may have otherwise not affected prison populations.
Those sentenced to boot camps were usually young, first-time, non-violent offenders. Most states restricted entry to offenders between the ages of 17 and 25, and more than half of the programs restricted participation to non-violent offenders. The authors stated that these restrictions hinder the goal of reducing crowding. Because many offenders have drug-related problems, many programs incorporated drug treatment and education into the daily routine. For example, in 9 states drug programs were a legal requirement. Some programs emphasized drug treatment while others stressed drug education. Most respondents of this survey reported drug education more important than treatment. The time spent in drug treatment and education varied among the programs from 12 to 180 days.
(CSPV Abstract - Copyright © 1992-2007 by the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, Regents of the University of Colorado)
Juvenile Crime
Juvenile Inmate
Juvenile Offender
Juvenile Substance Use
Late Adolescence
Adult Substance Use
Adult Crime
Adult Offender
Adult Inmate
Shock Incarceration
Correctional Institution Program
Correctional Institution Intervention
Correctional Institution Treatment
Offender Treatment
Offender Rehabilitation
Offender Recidivism
Recidivism Prevention
Intervention Program
Treatment Program
Criminal Justice System
Correctional Decision Making
Boot Camp
Substance Use Education
Drug Use Education
Offender Substance Use
Crime Intervention
Crime Treatment
05-05 |