EFFECTS OF BOOT CAMPS ON JUVENILE RECIDIVISM

Policy Critique
Kimberly Lee
Criminological Theory
2013

The introduction and growth of correctional boot camp facilities started on December
1983. Georgia was the first state in the nation to conduct the first correctional boot camp facility
(MacKenzie, 1997). The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention collaborated
with the Bureau of Justice Assistance to declare the developments and implementations of a
juvenile boot camp program (Peters, 1996). The programs focal point is to house adjudicated,
nonviolent offenders under the age of 18. During this time, the boot camp will provide these
offenders with proper training of discipline, treatment, and work (Peters, 1996). In April 1992,
experimental boot camps began to operate in Cleveland, Ohio, Denver, Colorado, and Mobile,
Alabama. The intension of these facilities was to provide juvenile offenders, who were at high
risk of continuing delinquency, with constructive interventions and early supports. After the 3-6
month boot camp, the program is then followed by 6-9 moths of community-based aftercare (p.
i).
The way that juveniles are selected into the pool is quite simple. The Environmental
Youth Corps (EYC) focuses on the specific youth who have previously failed on probation (p.
iii). The juvenile is subjected to assessments of criminal history, social history, substance use,
home life, and school performance. If the youth has had trouble with these substantial categories,
then the probation officer recommends the youth to the EYC. The juvenile is assigned to the
EYC only if the judge concurs. Through this experimental design, experimental and control
groups were formed for data collection purposes. In Mobile, Alabama, there were several data
collection instruments. These included Intake Forms, Staff Rating Forms, Boot Camp Exit
Forms, and Aftercare Tracking Forms (p. ii).
The boot camp is dependent on the success of its different components, which include:
military drills, physical training, education, life skills, counseling, individualized treatment plans,
and infractions. Military drills are designed to resemble a military milieu to instill the cadets
with discipline and teamwork. Physical Training is designed to put pride into the juveniles
psychical, conditioned accomplishments (p. iv). Education taught by staff places an opportunity
for the juvenile to become successful in working independently. Life skills help the juvenile face
the issues and concerns involving substance abuse prevention, gang membership, anger
management, and other continuing relevant issues. Counseling is provided to gain a bond
between the juvenile and aftercare probation officer, which may predetermine any future
problems with the rehabilitation process. Individualized Treatment Plans are given to the
juvenile throughout the residential and aftercare phase. Infractions are exercises used as
punishments to juveniles who disobey orders (p. iv).
There are a number of aftercare activities the juvenile must keep up to date with. They
must attend weekly educational and recreational services, tutoring, life skills, and opportunities
in environmental community service (p. iv). In December 1993, some aspects of the criteria were
revised. In addition to these activities, juveniles must also attend sessions with the Drill
Instructor and Aftercare Probation Officer each week. It has been extremely difficult to design an
effective aftercare program due to lack of encouragement by parents and surrounding
communities (p.vi).
The theoretical justification for the boot camps is the social learning theory. Many people
have contributed to the formation of this theory over the years, but two main contributors stand
out. C. Ray Jeffery created the first accepted social learning theory by a direct application of
popular operant-based learning theories from psychology, derived from B.F. Skinner (Williams
and McShane, 2010). Ronald Akers theory evolved from the beginning foundations of the social
learning theory in 1966 (p. 164). Akers and Burgess, another theorist, provided criminology with
a correlation of psychological learning and differential association by reformulating the
propositions of the differential theory. (Williams and McShane, 2010). Both Jeffery and Akers
both believed that criminal behavior is learned (p.165). Both of these contributors share main
concepts but differ in their theories.
From a psychological perspective, Skinner provided an explanation for the importance
and necessity of operant-based learning. Operant learning is concerned with the effect an
individuals behavior has on the environment. Subsequently, the theory is concerned with the
consequences of that effect on the individual. Behavior is not only based on past events of an
individuals life, but also present events (p.166). Skinner discusses the six basic principles of
operant learning, which are positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement, positive punishment,
negative punishment, discriminative stimuli, and schedules. Reinforcement is any event that
follows the occurrence of behavior and alters and increases the frequency of behavior. Positive
reinforcers increase the frequency of behavior they follow (p. 166). Negative reinforcers increase
the frequency of behavior if they remove something undesirable following the behavior.
Punishment reduces the frequency of any behavior it follows. Discriminative stimuli, present
either before or as the behavior occurs, controls behavior by indicating whether reinforcement or
punishment is forthcoming. Schedules of consequence refer to the frequency a consequence will
occur and how long it will take to occur (p.166). Learning takes place due to the consequences
associated with the behavior.
Jeffery explained how criminal behavior is possible to be maintained without the social
approval from others (p.167). He added nonsocial explanations for behavioral purposes. His
theory began with brief descriptions of the six basic operant principles from psychology. In
addition, he added a set of concepts that included satiation and deprivation (p.167). This implies
that a stimulus will be more or less reinforced by the individuals lifestyle and environment. An
individual who is satiated, or has more upholding in society, will be less likely to commit a crime
than a deprived individual (p.167). Jeffery explained that because people do not share the same
experiences, their conditioning histories must differ (p. 168). This past experience is sufficient to
maintain an individuals criminal behavior. He insisted that the most important forms of
reinforcers are material goods gained out of the criminal act (p. 168). His overall summary stated
that humans are born with biological and psychological differences (p. 168). Differences in these
factors lead to direct conflict with other human beings. In order to reduce conflict, one must be
socialized into conformity and control systems must be created to restrict behavior (p. 169).
Akers, on the other hand, views the social environment as the most important source of
reinforcement. He believed that most of the learning of deviant behavior derives from social
interaction (p. 169). Akers created seven main propositions of the social learning theory. He
insisted that deviant behavior is learned from operant conditioning. Deviant behavior is learned
both in nonsocial situations that are reinforcing or discriminating. This social interaction
determines whether or not the person is being reinforced or discriminated for their behavior. He
suggested that learning deviant behavior occurs in groups in which the individual gains major
sources of reinforcements (p.169). Depending on how effective, consistent and available the
reinforcers are, results in the quicker more efficient learning of deviant behavior. The more
people are surrounded by the deviant standards, the easier it becomes for them to commit a
crime. Strength and direct function of this deviant behavior is enforced by the amount,
frequency, and probability of reinforcement (p. 169). A person is more inclined to commit
deviant behavior under normative statements, definitions, and verbalizations which have
acquired discriminative value. Differential reinforcements are more greatly valued over
conforming behaviors to fit in. Deviant patterns may affect the source, amount, and scheduling
of reinforcement a person may receive (p.170).
The creation of these boot camp facilities were based upon principles that both Jeffery
and Akers explained. Jeffery emphasized the importance of each persons individual past
experiences (Williams and McShane, 2010). As a result of this, individual treatment care
programs were implemented in boot camp facilities. Jeffery strongly believed that in order to
reduce conflict, conformity and control must be instilled (p. 168). This concept is clearly evident
throughout the boot camps. Every juvenile offender followed the same schedules and proceeded
through the same programs. Each and every single one of them had to follow the same format
and rules that were instilled in the camp. Control was definitely displayed within the camps,
because the camps took place after a military milieu. Living in the boot camps provides every
single juvenile with stability. Because each one of them maintains the same rank within the
environment, all offenders are satiated in the fact they are given every basic need. This rules out
the possibility of acting out due to deprived measures (Peters, 1996).
Akers spent a massive amount of time explaining the impacts of reinforcement. He
suggested that when the reinforcers are more consistent and positive this results in the
consistency and continuity of deviant behaviors (Williams and McShane, 2010). In these boot
camp facilities, reinforcers were handed out for deviant and fair behaviors. The boot camp itself
took away any opportunity of reinforcers for deviant behaviors one may receive out on the
streets. The staff within the boot camp would reinforce positive behaviors by instilling more
punishments for any juvenile who acted out against the rules in place of the facility. Delinquents
react to the reinforcements given to them within the boot camp. They do not reform themselves
because they want to fit in with the rest of the group. The normative street codes are taken out of
the juveniles lives in order to be replaced with stability (Peters, 1996).
The term recidivism, as defined by Michael Peters in 1996, is a court-adjudicated new
offense or an adjudicated technical violation of probation. This expands the denotative meaning
more than just a mere re-arrest. As a conclusive result of these practices, four key points were
found. There was no overall difference in the amount of recidivism between the experimental
and control group. They EYC youth tended to recidivate quicker than the control youth within
early days of their releases. Group differences, such as demographic characteristics, background
factors, social history, and criminal history, were not masking differences of recidivism in either
group. The treatment of aftercare programs and the types of sentences for the control youth
revealed no correlation between those experiences and recidivism rates (p. xv). Furthermore,
there was a moderate, positive association between having committed a prior property offense
and the recidivating offense being a violent one.
The research makes it clear how extraordinarily difficult it is to gather research when
boot camps are not designed to conduct data analyses (MacKenzie, 1997). Analyses of the boot
camp programs were faulty due to absences of information about the youth involved. There was
no detailed information on treatment during the residential phase. Also, there was a lack of
information kept on the context of the recidivating act. Data collection lacked analyses of
severity of new offense, type of new offence, type of offense over time, level of offense over
time, and indices of severity of offense (Peters, 1996). In order to be effective, the government
needs to ensure they provide adequate aftercare supervision and treatment (MacKenzie, 1997).
Studies found that these boot camp programs needed an intense follow up of community
supervision. As a result, supervision produced larger numbers of technical violators; however,
fewer revocations of new criminal offenses (p.II:2-3).
Overall, the results of the studies done on the effectiveness of boot camps on juvenile
recidivists were quite shocking. Due to positive connotations correlated with a boot camp
facility, one may automatically assume that a boot camp would reform an individual by drastic
measures; however, this was not the case. Boot camps are an excellent idea as a form of
sentencing, but with all great ideas, there is always room for improvement. These facilities
mainly focus upon the juvenile while they are inside of the camp. Juveniles need to learn ways to
cope with negative normative means surrounding them inside and outside of the facility. After
they are released, juveniles do have to keep in contact with legal staff, but their home lives and
situations arent even addressed. Importance of family life should be emphasized after release. A
stronger family bond may help the individual to stay out of trouble. Surrounding communities
should also show support and confidence that these offenders will stop their deviant behaviors
after release. A substantial amount of volunteers should be taken in to help these juveniles within
the camp to show that they do care. Finally, a better collection tool for results needs to be
created.

References
MacKenzie, D. (1997). Boot Camp/Youth Challenge Program. National Criminal Justice
Reference Service.
Peters, M. (1996, March). Evaluation of the Impact of Boot Camps for Juvenile Offenders. Office
of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Williams, F.P. and McShane, M.D. (2010). Criminology theory (5
th
ed., p.p. 165-170) Upper
Saddle Hill, NJ: Prentice Hall Publisher