NCJ Number
173443
Journal
Texas Probation Volume: 11 Issue: 4 Dated: October 1996 Pages: 2-8
Date Published
1996
Length
7 pages
Annotation
Shock incarceration programs are discusses in terms of their role as an intermediate sanction, their rationale, their current status, their goals, the process for selecting participants, program effectiveness, and current issues and areas of concern.
Abstract
Shock incarceration programs (boot camps) were developed to accomplish the goals of public protection and punishment without further burdening budgets and existing facilities. They are intended to consist of a relatively brief period of incarceration in a military-like setting, followed by a longer period of intensive supervision in the community. The main ingredients of boot camp programs are discipline and physical conditioning. Educational and vocational training, skills training, drug treatment, and counseling are also used to establish a foundation on which participants will build when they return to their communities. Modern boot camps were introduced in 1983 and operated in 30 States by 1993. Boot cams aim to relieve or reduce crowded prison conditions, provide rehabilitative efforts, reduce recidivism, punish offenders, and deter further criminal behavior. The typical adult offender in such a program is under age 35, a first-time offender, convicted of a nonviolent felony crime, serving a first prison term, and free of psychological or physical disabilities. Most juvenile boot camps target property of drug offenders between ages 10 and 20 years. The selection process varies widely from one program to another. Adult programs tend to lack aftercare; juvenile programs usually include some kind of specialized aftercare. There is no persuasive evidence that boot camps reduce recidivism does not exist. Unresolved issues regarding boot camps include the selection process, the potential for abuse, the lack of emphasis on appropriate rehabilitation, the lack of emphasis on preparation for aftercare, high staff turnover, an outdated philosophical base, multiple goals, premature implementation, premature expansion, poor recidivism rates, and lack of consistency between programs. 18 references