Boot Camp: Does the Shoe Fit?

Got a rebellious son? A nose for trouble and too much attitude? A popular solution--at least for well-heeled families­-has been military school. Let the boy taste military discipline and see how tough he thinks he is. No doubt military school, or a stint in the Army itself, has worked for many a boy.

If the military can transform (some) unruly individuals into ram-rod-straight, responsible citizens, why not apply the formula to those found guilty of crimes? Perhaps basic training, with its structure, rigor, and physical challenges, can convert bad guys into good guys.

Good for TV

Nice idea. Correctional boot camps started in Georgia and Oklahoma in 1983 and quickly spread to a majority of states. It was a feel-good innovation, one with a certain amount of logic, strong appeal to conservatives, and good television footage. Liberals couldn't openly trash the experiment, since they always tout "intermediate sanctions" and "alternatives to incarceration" (anything but prison). Boot camps seemed so New Democrat, both tough and smart, the right mix of punishment and rehab.

Boot camps flourished and spread from adult prison camps to juveniles and jail inmates, even to "wilderness" programs.

Whoops. That last item hints at paradigm degeneration, doesn't it?

Boot camps gradually went from tough upper-lip, military drills to therapeutic programming, treatment, and aftercare, while de-emphasizing the military focus. The feminization of boot camps, apparently. Result? Huge variation in programs and little by way of results.

Early systematic studies of adult boot camps (also labeled "shock incarceration") found no significant difference in recidivism for boot camp subjects compared to similar convicts who either received probation or served time in prison. Very disappointing.

But wait, said the researchers, none of these studies involved the best scientific methodology--random assignment of subjects--so maybe boot camps have favorable independent effects on post-release behavior that we can't see just yet. Give us some more government money and we'll investigate further.

No Visible Results

Three random-assignment studies were done with Department of Justice money, and a fourth was conducted by the California Youth Authority. No boot camp showed a significant effect on recidivism rates.

The national authority on the subject, Doris Layton MacKenzie, a criminology professor at the University of Maryland, concluded, "The only hopeful sign is in one follow-up study examining programs that provided intensive rehabilitation-type activities in the boot camp and aftercare upon release."

Is this typical or what? Most criminologists specialize in psychobabble such as "aftercare" for criminals. I'll bet few criminologists or sociologists served in the military, and that most abhor military-style programs. They sympathize with criminals, live off government grant money, and produce research government wants. It's doubtful the academy would find a favorable impact for boot camps if it existed.

Yet boot camps probably do not work as intended, despite much initial enthusiasm and warm TV footage. Changing an evil heart requires that it be willing to change . . . and more than 90 days of regimented life. Teenage curfews, shaming sentences, halfway houses, gun-buyback programs--whatever the "latest solution"--the state flounders in most attempts to prevent crime.

Administering the coup de grace, self-appointed children's rights advocates now campaign against juvenile boot camps, citing them for abuses. They're probably right in a few cases.

California and Colorado have dropped boot camps, so we may be nearer the end than the beginning of boot camps.

What's the most successful crime prevention program in America today? No question, it's the intact married family. Despite this well-researched fact, Patrick Fagan of The Heritage Foundation notes that the government avoids gathering the right data on family structure in its Census of Juvenile (Criminal) Residential Base. He urges Congress to correct this glaring oversight. Of course, if government policies reinforced traditional families rather than undermined them, then DOJ grants, criminology researchers, social workers, and a growing criminal justice establishment would be imperiled.

Roy B. Willett, a Virginia judge and past president of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, said in 1993, "The breakdown of the family is the primary problem. Many parents are not fulfilling their roles. They are expecting the government and the schools to provide parenting functions." That was also the year The Atlantic Monthly published "Dan Quayle was right" by Barbara Dafoe Whitehead.

Put not thy faith in boot camps but in the intact family. Right principles never change.

Morgan Reynolds is director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis.

For more information ...

The Real Root Causes of Violent Crime. How did we get into this mess? A breakdown of marriage, family, and community. (The Heritage Foundation, March 1995, 19pp.)

Request PolicyBot document #1300401