In recent years, the popularity of juvenile boot camps as a tool for correcting underage offenders has been on the rise. Juvenile boot camps are “short-term residential programs that resemble military basic training and target adjudicated juvenile offenders” (Tyler, Darville & Stalnaker, 2001). The main goal of juvenile boot camps (JBCs) is to correct delinquent behaviors in youthful offenders using behavior modification strategies that aim at eliminating the continuity of delinquency. In JBCs, behavior modification is achieved by reinforcing constructive behaviors and punishing bad behaviors. Other than being behavioral modification avenues, JBCs were also instituted as a cost-cutting mechanism for correction institutions around the country. The stakeholders in the correctional institutions’ tout JBCs as institutions that have the capacity to enhance juvenile literacy and reduce the rate of alcohol and drug abuse among juveniles. This paper seeks to investigate whether JBCs are viable avenues for correcting juvenile delinquency.
The first recorded instance of a JBC occurred in 1971 in the state of Idaho. However, actual popularity of JBCs as alternatives to other forms of incarceration only occurred in 1983. Oklahoma and Georgia were among the first states to start developing boot camps. The popularity of JBCs was fuelled by the need to have a middle ground institution for handling juvenile delinquents. While probation was too lenient for some offenders, prison seemed too harsh for them. JBC’s acted as viable alternatives that were acceptable to judges, offenders, and society. The 1980s witnessed a massive overcrowding in American prisons and JBCs helped lessen this strain. In addition, the conservative Reagan administration was undertaking intensive reforms to eliminate crime, and boot camps were a viable alternative for achieving this goal (Cullen, Blevins, & Gendreau, 2009). The JBC’s were also able to appeal to liberals because they provided a fair sentence to offenders and at the same time appealed to the crime non-tolerant conservatives.
The JBC’s ability to appeal to a wide range of stakeholders, made them acceptable by the justice system. Initial research on JBCs indicated that military training had a significant impact on juvenile delinquency. With time, the co-relationship between military training and JBCs gained prominence. Currently, this trend has continued from the 1980s to the present. Currently, JBC’s are used even by popular media as viable options for curbing delinquency. For instance, it is a common scene in daytime shows; a wayward kid is handed over to a no-nonsense JBC commander and after a few weeks, the same kid is paraded in the same show to indicate the tremendous improvement he/she has achieved. Today, JBC’s are mostly considered as quick fixes to juvenile delinquency. The success of these camps is yet to be fully evaluated. Opinions about the effectiveness of JBC programs are also divided.
A thorough evaluation of JBCs involves an understanding of what the criminal justice program seeks to achieve through these camps. The top three goals of JBC officials are “teaching self-discipline, lowering recidivism, and rehabilitating” (Bourns & Veneziano, 2008). The secondary goals of this program include reducing the prison population, punishing offenders, and satisfying the public. Most JBC programs aim to give their participants these things, “a GED program, challenge/adventure programming, military drills and discipline, alcohol and drug counseling, physical exercise, community service, physical labor, and community restitution” (Bourns & Veneziano, 2008). In addition, offenders might also benefit from counseling therapy and some job training. Therefore, various JBCs tend to focus on achieving specific goals for their participants. Moreover, due to the diversity of JBCs, there are various ways of running such a program. For instance, a state might want to focus on drug counseling, military discipline, and job training programs on its JBCs.
The effectiveness of JBCs is the subject of various mysteries and misconceptions. The best way to investigate the effectiveness of these programs is by using scientific studies on the subject. An example of a scientific study on the effectiveness of JBCs is the one that was conducted on the LEAD program in California. This program consisted of “lengthy daily schedules of physical training, military drill and ceremony exercises, school classes, group counseling sessions, substance abuse treatment groups” (Botcher & Ezell, 2005). The results of the study revealed that the program was satisfying to most participants but it lacked a clear philosophy that defined its correction regimen. Some of the advantages of JBCs include their ability to eliminate recurring delinquency and increase their participants’ rate of employment. The disadvantages of these programs include their ability to ‘label’ participants as misfits and increase their rates of arrest.
Most JBC’s are criticized because of their inability to achieve high levels of success. In addition, they are said to be expensive and degrading to their participants. The rate of youth abuse in these institutions is also high (Kempinen & Kurlychek, 2007). In future, there is a need to evaluate the functionality of JBCs not only by private and liberal stakeholders, but also by lawmakers.
JBC’s have become an appealing avenue for those seeking to quick-fix delinquency. However, studies indicate that their success rate is dismal although the camps that focus on rehabilitative efforts are more successful than those focusing on physical activities are.
References
Bottcher, J., & Ezell, M. E. (2005). Examining the effectiveness of boot camps: A randomized experiment with a long-term follow up. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 42(3), 309-332.
Bourns, W., & Veneziano, L. (2008). A study of criminal justice policymakers’ perspectives: The forgotten component in boot camp programs and goals. Journal of Criminal Justice, 33(2), 113-118.
Cullen, F. T., Blevins, K. R., & Gendreau, P. (2009). The rise and fall of boot camps: A case study in common-sense corrections. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 40(3-4), 53-70.
Kempinen, C. A., & Kurlychek, M. C. (2007). An outcome evaluation of Pennsylvania’s boot camp: Does rehabilitative programming within a disciplinary setting reduce recidivism?. Crime & Delinquency, 49(4), 581-602.
Tyler, J., Darville, R., & Stalnaker, K. (2001). Juvenile boot camps: A descriptive analysis of program diversity and effectiveness. The Social Science Journal, 38(3), 445-460.