January 4, 1995
The Honorable Pete Wilson Governor of California
The Honorable Bill Lockyer President Pro Tempore of the Senate and Members of the Senate The Honorable Willie L. Brown Jr. Speaker of the Assembly and Members of the Assembly	The Honorable Kenneth L. Maddy Senate Minority Floor Leader The Honorable Jim Brulte Assembly Minority Floor Leader

Dear Governor and Members of the Legislature:

As the public has pressured policy makers to find more effective and less costly methods of dealing with criminals, the boot camp concept has gained increasing popularity. Today, with California expected to receive up to $1.3 billion in federal funding over five years that may be used for alternative sentencing programs, boot camps are on the verge of explosive growth and, therefore, public policy decisions must be resolved on an emergency basis.

Unfortunately, there is no guarantee that the funding earmarked for California will produce the desired results. Boot camps -- once a militaristic, discipline-intensive concept -- have matured in many different directions with very little analysis of what works and scant oversight to guard against abuse, waste and failure. The Little Hoover Commission, recognizing the need to maximize the effectiveness of the forthcoming funding, has examined the state and national experience with boot camps and other work-intensive forms of incarceration. The report being transmitted to policy makers with this letter has four findings and 17 recommendations. They include:

• The necessity for state policy makers to develop a comprehensive plan and provide standards. This is critical for both obtaining federal funding and spending it wisely. An essential goal will be to ensure that any state mandates allow enough local flexibility to meet a variety of needs while at the same time establishing parameters that will increase the likelihood of effective outcomes.
  

• The recognition that the powerful element that makes boot camps and related programs work is the "aftercare" -- the continued contact with the graduates to ensure that education, training and job placement occur. The State needs to take steps to funnel funding and technical assistance only to programs that include comprehensive aftercare components.

• The failure of the State to provide regulations that would both encourage private-sector development of incarceration programs in California and to provide stringent, but appropriate, operational oversight. The result has been that juveniles havebeen shipped out of California at great expense when experts agree that similar locally developed facilities would be more effective and less costly.
  

While the report does not outline the optimum structure and population type for boot camps, it does identify the key components that are critical for making this form of incarceration effective and efficient. The Little Hoover Commission believes the State must move quickly and provide the leadership that can turn boot camps into success stories rather than passing and costly fads. Otherwise California faces the potential of misusing or wasting the $1.3 billion in federal funding. The Commission looks forward to working with policy makers to implement the recommendations provided in the attached report.

Sincerely, Richard R. Terzian Chairman

Executive Summary

Introduction

Background

Finding 1.		Correctional boot camps in California have been evolving independently at state and local levels without the benefit of statewide goals, centralized planning, comprehensive minimum standards or state oversight, thereby increasing the risk of wasted resources and program failures.
		Recommendation 1. The Governor and the Legislature should direct an appropriate agency to prepare a statewide plan for the cost-effective development of boot camps and related facilities.
		Recommendation 2. The Governor and the Legislature should enact legislation that clearly defines the State's expectations and quantifiable goals for boot camps , prescribes local control coupled with centralized accountability, and establishes the requirement that only projects consistent with such a state policy will be eligible for future state grants or subsidy programs.
		Recommendation 3. The Governor and the Legislature should enact legislation authorizing the Board of Corrections to establish appropriate minimum operational and program standards for boot camps and to create a licensing-and-inspection process.
		Recommendation 4. The Governor and the Legislature should enact legislation that establishes a "California Boot Camp Staff Training Academy," under the management of the Board of Corrections, where government and private-sector personnel can be trained and certified.
		Recommendation 5. The California Department of Corrections and the California Youth Authority should continue to upgrade their boot camps.
Finding 2.		The limited variety of formats and rigid selection criteria for pilot programs will not result in a thorough testing of boot camps as an effective alternative sentencing option.
		Recommendation 6. The Governor and Legislature should enact legislation that amends the enabling acts for the Department of Corrections Alternative Sentencing Program (ASP) boot camp and the California Youth Authority's "Leadership Excellence Advise Discipline" (LEAD) program to allow a broader range of offenders to be included in each program.
		Recommendation 7. The Governor and the Legislature should enact legislation directing the California Youth Authority, in conjunction with a county or counties, to develop a "junior boot camp" or "leadership academy" pilot program to evaluate its capability to modify the anti-social behavior of younger juvenile offenders.
		Recommendation 8. The Governor and the Legislature should enact legislation that creates an accelerated-release pilot project for presently incarcerated adult and juvenile multiple offenders to test the effectiveness of boot camps in rehabilitating a more criminally experienced population.
		Recommendation 9. The Governor and the Legislature should enact legislation that creates a pilot pre-release boot camp program to prepare inmates for re-integration into society.
		Recommendation 10. The Governor should direct the Department of Corrections and the California Youth Authority to create pilot programs in conservation (firefighting) camps that focus on upgraded vocational, educational and social skills courses to evaluate how work- and education-intensive camps compare in effectiveness to military-style correctional boot camps.
		Recommendation 11. The Governor and the Legislature should enact legislation directing the Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs to evaluate the substance abuse counseling and treatment capabilities in all California boot camp programs and develop a model intensive program that can secure maximum benefits within available time.
Finding 3.		The present structure of the boot camp process in California does not ensure that offenders receive adequate treatment, rehabilitation and job or training placement.
		Recommendation 12. The Governor and the Legislature should direct the appropriate agency to include in the state comprehensive boot camp plan a three-phase model structure that emphasizes placement of graduates in community-based services, vocational education programs and job training facilities.
		Recommendation 13. The Governor and the Legislature should enact legislation that creates juvenile and adult vocational training facilities available to graduates of public and private boot camp and work/experience-intensive programs.
		Recommendation 14. The State of California should enhance access to resources by funding a computerized consolidation of listings and descriptions of private-sector community services across the state.
		Recommendation 15. The Governor and the Legislature should adopt a resolution urging Congress and the Department of Defense to allow outstanding boot camp graduates to be considered for recruitment into military service.
		Recommendation 16. The California State Council on Vocational Education should develop job training opportunities specifically for graduates of boot camps and work-intensive programs.
Finding 4.		The role of the private sector in creating alternative sentencing and aftercare programs has been restricted in California by inadequate and inappropriate regulations.
		Recommendation 17. The Governor and the Legislature should enact legislation that directs the Department of Social Services to promulgate a new category of regulations for private youth correctional/educational/experiential camps in California.

Conclusion

Appendix

Endnotes

Any report that seeks to examine the boot camp phenomenon must start by addressing what boot camps are and how effective they have proven. Unfortunately, there is no solid answer to either question. As an evolving form, boot camps have no uniform definition but may include any form of non-traditional incarceration that provides long hours of activity, intensive focus and relatively short sentences. In a field where there are no standardized criteria for outcome measurement, "success" is in the eye of the beholder.

With this as a foundation and spurred by the expected influx of up to $1.3 billion in federal funding that is expected to fuel the boot camp development frenzy, the Little Hoover Commission explored the status of boot camps in California. The Commission's main findings and recommendations are as follows:

- Resources are in danger of being wasted because the State has no centralized plan to prioritize needs and coordinate programs. The new federal funding requires an overall criminal justice plan and the State will, no doubt, meet this requirement. However, if the plan is merely grant-driven, rather than based on an accurate assessment of local and regional needs, then the potential for missed opportunities and poorly used resources will be great. The Commission recommends the creation of a statewide plan that focuses on the cost-effective development of boot camps. (Finding 1, Recommendation 1)

- A lack of minimum standards, specialized training, information sharing and state oversight increases the risk that boot camps will fail to meet expectations. Local officials, however, correctly fear that heavy-handed state mandates in this arena will eliminate flexibility to develop programs that are most appropriately suited to local needs and populations. The Commission recommends clearly defined, quantifiable goals and standards set by the State, accompanied generally by local control. (Finding 1, Recommendations 2-4)

- Boot camp experiments to date have focused on low-risk, neophyte criminals. Targeting other populations as well may yield dividends in the form of lower incarceration costs, reduced recidivism and more availability of prison beds for serious offenders. The Commission recommends a series of pilot projects that will test boot camps with pre-delinquent juveniles, already-imprisoned low-risk inmates, and soon-to-be-released inmates. (Finding 2, Recommendations 6-9)

- The so-called aftercare portion of boot camps -- and in particular job placement success -- are widely acknowledged to be the key elements that make boot camps work. Yet, for the most part, these are the weakest links in today's boot camp process. The Commission recommends a standardized three-phase model for boot camps that heavily emphasizes job placement. (Finding 3, Recommendation 12)

- Private-sector operators have been all but stymied from developing California programs because of regulations that were designed to meet other needs and are inappropriate as criminal incarceration requirements. The Commission recommends the creation of a new category of regulations that will ensure adequate oversight while encouraging the development of private-sector sentencing alternatives. (Finding 4, Recommendation 17)

Introduction

		Arush to "boot camps" is on in America and California, with these programs receiving increasing attention as an alternative sentencing option -- punishment that falls between traditional incarceration and probation -- for both adult and juvenile offenders. The primary goal has been to reduce the costs of imprisonment by placing lower-risk, non-violent offenders in abbreviated, highly structured programs outside of crowded mainline institutions. Fueled by a potential $1.3 billion in federal funding over the next five years, boot camps are expected to multiply rapidly in California. Without careful planning and evaluation, the risk of wasting significant resources that are badly needed is very real.
Boot camp name covers a variety of concepts		W hat is a boot camp? These two words are interpreted differently by numerous experts. In defining the scope of the study, the Commission found that the label "boot camp" is unpopular with many involved in the programs and does not convey the variety of increasingly sophisticated approaches. In addition, the military model is not the only form of intensive correctional camp. To recognize the range of approaches, it was necessary to expand the focus of the study to include "work-intensive correctional programs" that do not qualify as "boot camps" but have related features. This includes all intensive programs that include a full day -- up to 16 hours -- of work, physical training, study and counseling. The report also addresses private organizations -- often called "experiential" programs -- that provide camp settings for youthful offenders who undergo physical conditioning, athletic competition and challenging outdoor experiences, usually instead of military drill and ceremonies. For ease of reference, the term "boot camp" in this report is used to cover both the military-based and the work- and experience-intensive programs for adult and youthful offenders, all of which have a counseling emphasis and intensive aftercare programs. Called "shock incarceration" in some states, the military-style programs are often criticized for their perceived potential for mental and physical abuse, if only because of media presentations of correctional officers in drill instructor uniforms screaming at in-coming offenders and ordering them to do pushups. As a result, the trend in recent programs, and specifically in California, has been toward a "modified" or "refined" approach that minimizes intensive verbal confrontations. The emphasis is now on character and responsibility development through a structured environment and intensive work-and-study schedule to build self-esteem and self-discipline. Military-style drill and ceremony are used as a tool to quickly instill discipline and teamwork.
Federal funding will drive development of more boot camps		T he anticipation of about $1.3 billion in federal money from the 1994 national crime bill will further interest in the boot camp option and makes it imperative that controls be established and standards enacted so that funds are not wasted. Since the funding flow will commence shortly, it is essential that public policy decisions be addressed on an emergency basis. Fresh from a study of the adult corrections system and concurrent with its examination of the juvenile justice system, the Little Hoover Commission embarked on an assessment of California's experience with boot camps and their potential for reducing recidivism and costs. The Commission soon learned that boot camps are experimental at this point and it is too soon to make definitive conclusions about effectiveness and cost savings.There are indications that re-arrest statistics at this time are not as positive as had been expected. The national experience has been that offenders participating in the earlier forms of boot camps have shown a re-arrest rate similar to that for offenders sentenced to mainline institutions. Cost reductions largely come from shorter commitment times and tend to disappear as programs improve staffing levels to achieve better results. Therefore, the challenge is to evaluate the full range of boot camp applications to learn what is effective and to determine whether the multiple benefits of these intensive programs are valuable enough in their aggregate to justify investing more public funds. As part of its investigation, the Commission conducted a public hearing on June 23, 1994 (please see Appendix A for a list of witnesses). The nine-month study included a review of national and state literature, a survey of boot camp descriptions from across the nation, attendance at a conference on alternative sentencing, extensive interviews with public and private experts, and visits to three county-operated boot camps, two state-sponsored boot camps, a state aftercare facility (where offender treatment is continued after boot camp graduation), a county juvenile ranch, and two conservation (fire-fighting) camps for adults and juveniles. The study has resulted in this report, which summarizes the programs of the California agencies and jurisdictions with operational boot camp systems, plus those in development; reviews professional opinion concerning the degree of state oversight needed; and identifies pilot projects and priorities that will allow a complete comparison and evaluation of the opportunities presented by a boot camp "continuum." In addition, measures are reviewed that can improve the vital aftercare process of social re-integration during probation and parole. The report begins with a transmittal letter, executive summary and this introduction. The following sections present a background with historic and technical information on national and state programs, four findings, 17 recommendations, a conclusion and appendices, followed by endnotes.

Background

T he "correctional boot camp" has quickly become a common term in the criminal justice vocabulary, although not well defined or understood by many. As a result, its mission and value is much debated among many observers. Although its most effective format is yet to be defined, the concept appears to be here to stay.

Boot camps, commonly referred to as "shock incarceration" particularly in eastern and southern states, involve the use of an abbreviated sentence with a highly intensive daily regime. Typically, these camps use a military format with drill instructors overseeing offenders dressed in fatigues, who are frequently subjected to such punishment as pushups for minor infractions of rules.

Just as there is no single format for boot camps, there is also no one definition that has achieved national acceptance. The National Institute of Justice has identified boot camps as a program that will:

...place offenders in a quasi-military program similar to a military basic training program ...that instills discipline, routine, and unquestioning obedience to orders.1

		A n authority on boot camps has defined them as an "integrated institutional/community-based approach" that establishes "a highly structured schedule that involves team building, discipline, physical-wellness training, education, substance abuse education and treatment, world-of-work readiness training and public service restitution."2 The United States General Accounting Office described boot camps as follows:

The camps generally target young, non-violent first-time offenders, who have not yet committed major felonies, subjecting them to a term of "shock incarceration" where they are put through a regimen similar to military basic training....Boot camp programs generally consist of some combination of precision drills, physical exercise, hard physical labor, close discipline, substance abuse treatment (if needed), counseling and education. Although the physical regimen of the camp is strenuous, the camp offers the participant the incentive of a short incarceration period -- usually six months or less -- rather than a period of years.3
11

		T he key element in all concepts of boot camps is the highly structured schedule that permits no idle time and creates a sense of stress and urgency in the offender. The military format is typically used to develop that mental state and to quickly secure obedience. However, the frequent media presentations of intensive military discipline being used on arriving offenders has led some to equate the current popularity of boot camps to a return to the earliest days of incarceration with its reliance on hard labor and strict regimentation as retributive punishment. Even in the early 1900s, juvenile offenders at New York State's Elmira Reformatory underwent a type of military training program involving long days of exercise and marching with wooden rifles.4 But by the 1950s, the philosophy of hard labor was not viewed as progressive,5 although programs using inmate and ward labor have continued in some form across the nation and in California. Today's work programs in prisons, however, typically involve only a six-hour day.
Underlying concept is two-fold: more effective, less costly		T he historical roots of the boot camp concept began with efforts to replace long prison terms with effective ways to deter criminals from repeat offenses in short, inexpensive programs. "Shock probation" (primarily an abbreviated sentence of 30 to 90 days that demonstrates to "first-time offenders" the harshness of prison before they return to their community under probation6) was initiated in Ohio in the mid-1960s.7 In the late 1970s, a form of "shock education" -- the Scared Straight indoctrinations -- was attempted on at-risk youths. In 1974, Idaho started a short-term (four-month) treatment program for felony offenders (both adults and juveniles who were tried as adults; the youngest to date is 15, the oldest, 82) on an old Air Force base in a remote location. In 1989, the program was expanded to include a military format. The first use of the boot camps as "shock incarceration" began in 1983 and 1984 in the states of Georgia and Oklahoma. The latter was the first to include individual treatment programs and rehabilitative services.8 This use of militaristic camps began to achieve popular and political support in the late 1980s, accelerating in the 1990s as a result of public outrage over the perception of rising crime and liberal treatment of offenders. The initial California boot camp program, one emphasizing drug treatment for youthful offenders, was opened on September 1, 1990, by the Los Angeles County Probation Department. The State Department of Corrections in 1992 began an adult boot camp, called the Alternative Sentencing Program (ASP), at San Quentin Prison. This was followed by the California Youth Authority receiving one of the federal model program designations and opening a camp in northern California in 1992 and one in the south in 1993, both under the acronym LEAD (Leadership, Esteem, Ability, Discipline). A 1993 report by the U.S. General Accounting Office estimated that 30 states and the federal government were operating more than 60 boot-camp adult and juvenile facilities with a capacity of more than 9,000 participants.9 A recent newspaper article found 46 boot camps in 31 states, holding 7,500 inmates, while another article counts 57 boot camps in 30 states, with about 7,000 beds. In addition, by the late 1980s, 23 states were operating inmate conservation and fire-fighting camps.10 Sources offer inconsistent estimates because of the variability of definitions as to what constitutes a boot camp. In addition, national studies rarely look at county operations, in spite of the growing interest of local governments in augmenting their limited options for dealing with offenders. A 1993 survey identified 10 local jurisdictions nationally with a jail (adult) boot camp program and 13 more planning to open such facilities.
Federal agencies have encouraged boot camp development		T he increasing interest in boot camps has translated into action at the federal level. In 1990, Congress authorized the Bureau of Justice Assistance in the U.S. Department of Justice to fund boot camps as correctional options through its discretionary grant program. In 1992, Congress authorized the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention to establish three model juvenile boot camps that emphasize education and other services.12 In September 1994, the president signed the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which authorizes more than $30 billion over a six-year period ending in federal fiscal year 2000. Funding by major program areas is as follows: State and local law enforcement $10.8 billion Federal law enforcement $ 2.6 billion Prison construction $ 9.7 billion Crime prevention $ 7.1 billion Although it is clear that many of the components are subject to future modification by federal regulations and uncertain funding sources, there are a variety of grants available for boot camp programs. The three primary sections of the act involving boot camps are: Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Grant Program:13 The 1994 crime bill amends and further funds the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, which had set 21 "purpose areas" for Byrne program grants, including boot camps and programs for "changing attitudes through physical adventure" for offenders. In FY 94, the CYA LEAD program received $500,000 through this program. For FY 95, a national total of $512 million has been appropriated, largely as a grant that would be distributed on a population-based formula but also including $50 million for discretionary awards.14 The California formula share could be $47.3 million.15 The total amount authorized for the nation from FY 95 through FY 2000 is $932 million, with California's share under $88 million. Certain Punishment for Young Offenders:16 This program offers formula grants for states and local governments "for the purpose of developing alternative methods of punishment for young offenders to traditional forms of incarceration and probation," with such methods including "alternative sanctions" that create accountability and certain punishment for young offenders. The act authorizes a total of $150 million to be expended nationally from FY 96 until FY 2000. California's total five-year share could possibly be $15 million. Grants for Correctional Facilities: This construction grant program is designed to help states "construct, develop, expand, modify, operate, or improve correctional facilities, including boot camp facilities and other alternative correctional facilities that can free conventional prison space for the confinement of violent offenders, to ensure that prison cell space is available for the confinement of violent offenders...."17 To qualify for these grants, each state must supply "assurances" that it has a "comprehensive correctional plan which represents an integrated approach to the management and operation of correctional facilities and programs." A special FY 95 appropriation of $24.5 million in discretionary funds has been set aside solely for adult and juvenile boot camp planning, development and construction-related costs, but not for operations. This money will allow recipients to design their overall boot camp and alternative sentencing programs.18 The FY 96 national authorization is $750 million of formula grants, with a potential California share of $114.1 million. For each FY thereafter the amount rises, with the last year of the program, FY 2000, authorized at $2.07 billion.19 Over a five-year funding period, this program authorizes almost $8 billion nationally,20 of which almost $1.2 billion could go to California.21
Modern camps are evolving into more complex programs		T he increasing level of state and local government interest in and federal funding for boot camps comes at a time when the camps are evolving from rudimentary concepts and experimentation into more mature and complex programs. Modern camps are becoming increasingly sophisticated, offering a variety of components that address a wide range of rehabilitation issues. According to one researcher, these basic characteristics are found across the nation regardless of the type of boot camp and the population targeted: Most have adopted the military model to some degree. Duration ranges from 90 to 180 days (with New York's program being the longest). Most camps take only volunteer offenders who wish to reduce their incarceration time. They are staff-rich, which means that on a daily per-capita basis the camps cost as much or more than traditional prisons. Participants tend to be young, non-violent and without prior felony convictions.22
Most successful camps are small but highly structured		R esearch in California has identified components that create a successful camp program. In a 1989 report the California Youth Authority identified the most successful aspects of county probation juvenile camps (not boot camps) that had lower recidivism rates. These camps (some 16 percent of the total) had a recidivism rate of between 40 and 49 percent. The least successful camps (about 2 percent of the total) had re-arrest rates between 90 and 99 percent, and the statewide average of all camps was 63.5 percent. The camps with the best recidivism results were found to have these characteristics, compared to less successful camps: Comprised of a single, smaller living unit, located in a rural setting. Camp occupancy rate was lower. Length of stay tended to be longer. Program emphasized academic training and work activities, with substantial use of volunteers. In-camp program assignments were made uniformly. Youth were present at their case reviews. A high youth-to-staff ratio.23 These features undoubtedly apply equally to boot camps, which typically include many more academic and work activities. In addition, a growing body of national literature and experience is available to permit generalization of what components are considered essential or useful to the operation of boot camps and related programs. The design of the more successful camps often includes these components: Precise, obtainable, measurable goals and objectives for the program. Eligibility criteria that ensure an adequate number of the targeted offender populations is available to the program. "Shock" tactics only for the first day or days of arrival to secure attention and immediate conformance to orders and to initiate an environment of high, demanding expectations. Military drill, formations and courtesy, used primarily as a means to develop discipline, unit pride and efficiency of movement. (A heavy emphasis on precision marching and military-style ceremonies often may be replaced with physical training, outdoor challenge or intensive physical work.) A highly structured, intensive (no idle time or recreational TV), stress-producing program up to 15 or 16 hours in duration every day (with no more than half a weekend day off) that maintains a "sense of urgency" in the offender, using either a military, work, physical conditioning/athletics and/or outdoor-challenge regime combined with study and counseling. An aftercare component based on individual treatment plans that include, at a minimum, job training and placement assistance, community service and substance abuse treatment. A clear chain of command for operation of the camp, with a single administrator, supervisor or commander in charge and accountable for all operations. Clear and thorough operational rules and regulations, with assurances of consistent application by staff without intrusion of staff personalities, plus adequate spot-checking by management. Clear, focused and complete rules of behavior for incoming wards/inmates that clarify exactly what is expected of them, presented in a format that emphasizes violations that can lead to program dismissal. Often used is a "contract" between the boot camp participant and the program clearly stating appropriate attitudes, behavior and dedication to achievement. Access to a grievance process may be available. Awards and punishments are provided in small increments to acknowledge success or failure in meeting rules and expectations. Clear standards to preclude verbal and physical abuse and humiliation, emphasizing positive motivation, with descriptions of permissible physical exercise used as punishment. A single living unit, with community dwelling (barracks) and eating (mess hall), preferably in a rural or remote location, separate from the mainline institution. A racial mix of staff and offenders that results in camp participants having contact with persons different from themselves. A redirect/temporary detention component for technical parole/probation violations that does not require a return to traditional incarceration. Family involvement in the progress of the offender, including receipt of his life plan and post-graduation placement plan, prepared for offenders' aftercare and parole/probation. A high staff-to-participant ratio, permitting frequent individual counseling as needed. Thorough, independent outcome evaluation.
Education, job training are becoming more important		S ince camps across the nation -- both boot camps and traditional juvenile probation camps -- are increasingly emphasizing rehabilitation, the quality of educational and vocational training components is vitally important. These include General Equivalency Diploma (GED) preparation for those lacking high school diplomas; computer training; workplace and work-readiness skills; and basic communication skills. Especially important is counseling on social and personal responsibility development, including self-restraint/anger control, victim awareness, self-esteem development, sex education and parenting responsibilities. The highest emphasis is placed on substance abuse counseling and treatment. Mandatory preparation of a "life plan" is used in many programs to help define the offender's goals and decisions for the short and long range. Typically, the boot camp brings with it high expectations for performance by the participants. As one professional has said, "Here change not only is expected, it's demanded. It's a whole different emphasis and atmosphere than most prison settings."24 A key to the success of any boot camp is its intensity and the resulting stress placed on the participant. A theme of the California Youth Authority's LEAD program is: "The physical rigor of the program demands that each cadet demonstrate a 'sense of urgency' no matter the program element he is participating in."25 One researcher noted that "some psychic unrest" must occur in the individual before change is possible.26 Another found that:

There may also be an advantage in the fact that boot camp prisons create radical changes in the everyday living patterns of these offenders.... a period of radical change that creates reasonable stress may be a time when people are particularly susceptible to outside influences....this may be an excellent time to have an impact on offenders, making them reconsider their past choices.27

A t the Commission's hearing on boot camps, the president of Rite of Passage, a non-profit juvenile correctional program in Nevada, observed:

Demands of the program create a stress which makes the boy receptive to counseling. Counseling, in turn, helps the boy succeed with the program requirements and internalize the values which are taught.28

		L essons learned from the Civilian Conservation Corps of the Depression era also teach the value of strong structure and work as a means of rehabilitation. An article in 1933 noted that "the forestry camps already are proving that a moderate dose of enforced discipline brings out something in a young man that nothing else can."29 A graduate of the San Quentin Prison boot camp, who spoke at the Little Hoover Commission hearing, highly praised the experience while describing it as "the hardest thing I've ever done." Observers agree that boot camps can deliver a more intensive level of work and challenge than offenders have ever encountered. The theory is, then, that this experience pushes the offender to the edge of his abilities, while counseling and accomplishment of tasks builds self-esteem, with a resulting change in anti-social attitudes. But does it work? The evidence is both limited and mixed in its findings, and academic observers tend to be more skeptical than the managers and staff members of boot camps themselves. The areas where boot camps have been anticipated as having the greatest impact are commonly agreed to be these: Reduction of recidivism. Cost saving in institutions by reducing overcrowding and the need for further prison construction. A means of providing options short of state incarceration for local probation departments and courts.
Boot camp recidivism rates have not met expectations		R ecidivism: Initially, the proponents of boot camps anticipated a reduction in recidivism, which would both protect public safety and save public funding by forestalling or eliminating the need to build more prisons. However, nationally the data has not supported this hope. Many of the national evaluations to date -- which, it should be noted, largely address the earlier generation of less-sophisticated camps -- tend to show a re-arrest rate about the same as traditional institutions. Many feel that recidivism statistics for the California pilot programs, when available, will also fail to show a major improvement. In California there is not yet available a strong base of evidence to support conclusions. A recidivism figure of 30 percent is frequently cited by operators of boot camps as indicating success. However, it is a rate that has also been achieved by other programs that do not have a comparable level of sophistication. California's longest operating boot camp, run by the Los Angeles County Probation Department, reports a 38 percent recidivism rate.30 This can be compared to the more traditional Fouts Springs Boys Ranch, run by Solano and Colusa Counties, which reports a 40 percent rate. (It should be noted that the population of the Los Angeles camps may include much more experienced offenders than those from northern California counties.) The Twin Pines Boys Ranch in Riverside County, even before recently converting to a boot camp-style operation, cited a 30 percent rate,31 as does the CYA parole violation program that is located at Fouts Springs Boys Ranch32and the experience-intensive program run by the non-profit Rite of Passage in Nevada.33 The recidivism rate reported by Santa Clara County for its unique quasi-boot camp for female substance-abuse offenders is now 30 percent, similar to other programs. This rate is a dramatic improvement when compared to the facilities' pre-boot camp re-arrest rate of 85 percent. This may be attributable to the fact that it is not a sentence-reduction program, which would be attractive to all offenders, and is open to volunteers only. Hence, only the most motivated offenders who are more serious about rehabilitation are participants. A point of reference for these recidivism rates is the 63.5 percent estimate made by the California Youth Authority for county probation juvenile camps across the state.34 For additional comparison, in 1991 the adult recidivism rate for Department of Corrections prisons was 69.7 percent,35 while its work-furlough camps were reported at 40.3 percent and the fire-fighting conservation camps at 39.1 percent.36 (In the late 1980s, one source estimated that recidivism for conservation camps was only 20 percent.37) The California Youth Authority reports a 53 percent rate,38 but this does not reflect those ex-wards who have been committed to the adult prison system. Nationally, recidivism estimates for boot camps cover a wide range. One of the lowest is in Idaho, where only some 17 to 18 percent of the boot camp releases are re-arrested (about 11 percent on technical violations and 6 percent on new crimes).39 An important report comes from New York's Vera Institute of Justice, which provides job placement and skills training services to the state's large population of boot camp graduates. Since the program began in 1989, this private organization has placed about two-thirds of its participants into full-time, non-subsidized employment within about two months of graduation. These "shock parolees" show an 8 percent rate of return to prison within a year of parole, as compared to the 23 percent rate for similar parolees not in the "aftershock" parole program.40 The role of such programs in the boot camp process is discussed further in Finding 2.
Comparing rates is often a case of apples and oranges		W hat all of these figures demonstrate is unclear. It should be noted that comparison between programs and jurisdictions is made difficult by the lack of a national and state consensus definition of "recidivism,"41 the variable way these statistics are gathered by different agencies, and the class of offenders being addressed by different programs. In addition in California, there is a lack of current information that would provide the context for recidivism rates because the State no longer collects many types of juvenile crime statistics. While boot camp recidivism figures in general appear lower than institution rates, the populations being compared are very different since all types of camps tend to have less-violent and less-sophisticated offenders. Some believe that if the recidivism rate remains at least roughly equal to that of mainline institutions, the other benefits achieved will make boot camps worthwhile. A thorough evaluation of boot camps requires a comprehensive analysis of other potential benefits and roles that these programs can play in the overall state correctional continuum. Overcrowding and Costs Savings: Boot camps have been embraced in California, as elsewhere, as a means of reducing prison crowding and its associated costs. The enabling legislation (SB 1124, Presley; Statutes of 1992, Chapter 1063) for the Department of Corrections adult boot camp declared the statute to be an urgency measure, with the following explanation of the serious challenge facing California's correctional system:

The state prison is currently overcrowded and is expected to become overcrowded to the point that the state will face a public safety crisis. The trend of using incarceration as a primary punishment option, growing public intolerance for criminal behavior, the impact of drugs and gang violence, and the inability to correct deviant behavior, and the resulting parole failures all have multiplied overcrowding with drastic effects. As a result, additional punishment options must be created as soon as possible to reduce prison overcrowding while protecting public safety.

		C urrently, state prisons are at 186 percent of capacity, with 125,669 inmates.42 The CYA institutions house 9,255 wards at 137 percent of capacity.43 The Legislative Analyst's Office has reported that despite the State's massive construction program, prison overcrowding will be worse at the end of the decade. It is estimated that state prison populations will reach about 202 percent of capacity by 1999, with some 171,000 inmates.44 A major goal for boot camps has been to reduce the populations of mainline institutions in two ways: in the short-term, providing beds in lower-security barracks, thereby reducing pressure on the prisons, and, in the long term, reducing recidivism. If such goals were realized, savings would be achieved in these ways: Reduced use of existing bed space, with a reduction of overcrowding that creates fiscal impacts and places debilitating pressures on staff. Reduced need for more prison construction to accommodate future population increases. However, some observers question whether boot camps -- at the scale now found across most of the nation -- can in the long term secure significant bed savings, which in turn would result in fiscal savings. Some national research has shown these savings to be minimal. For example, a survey found that the Florida boot camp capacity in 1989, as a percent of the total prison population, was only 1.1 percent. The top percentage was 11.6 percent in Mississippi. Based on such findings, a National Institute of Justice study predicted that the potential effect of boot camps on prison overcrowding is small.45 The possibility remains, however, that these jurisdictions might increase the size of their operations specifically to divert a larger number of offenders from mainline institutions.
Cost savings vary depending on what programs offer		In California, the cost savings associated with boot camps depend on the alternative picked for comparison. The following chart illustrates the costs of boot camps and comparable programs, such as boys ranches and private programs:

TABLE 1 COMPARATIVE COSTS OF BOOT CAMPS AND RELATED PROGRAMS
AGENCY	PER CAPITA PER DAY
CALIFORNIA YOUTH AUTHORITY:
LEAD Boot Camps	Not available until 1995
Conservation (Fire) Camp (with CDF)	$51.51
Institutions	$86
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS:
ASP Boot Camp	$59
Conservation (Fire) Camp (with CDF)	$34
Prisons	$52
COUNTY OPTIONS:
Los Angeles Boot Camps	$92.01
County-Run Juvenile Probation Camps (Statewide)	$98.46
Tulare County Boot Camp	$80.40
Fouts Springs Boys Ranch (Non-boot county & CYA)	$61.47 to $80.00 (CYA - $80.67)
Rite of Passage (Non-profit)	NV-$110 CA-$130
Arizona Boys Ranch (Non-profit)	$122
Group Homes	$90.41

		A s the chart shows, daily per-capita costs for boot camps range from $59 for the San Quentin adult program to $92.01 for the Los Angeles County juvenile drug program. Other related programs range from the least expensive, the Department of Corrections' co-sponsored conservation (fire) camps at $34 a day, to the most expensive, the non-profit Arizona Boys Ranch at $122 a day. The boot camp costs are, in general, higher than those for traditional incarceration and only somewhat less expensive than the private-sector alternatives. However, it should be pointed out that, despite the higher per diem cost, the shorter stay that is a primary component of the boot camp program lowers overall costs. Coupled with any improvement in recidivism rates, the lower overall costs would give the boot camp concept a rating of success. The size of the boot camp population is, in fact, the controlling factor regarding its cost effectiveness. New York, which has the largest boot camp program in the nation with 1,158 inmates at any one time, has documented its savings. A 1990 report by the New York Department of Correctional Services estimates that even with higher per-diem costs than other prison facilities, a total savings of $55.6 million had then been realized.46 A later report identified a savings of $1.24 million for every 100 inmates who graduate. Further, the first 4,411 participants led to an operational savings of $84 million and an avoided construction cost of $93 million.47
California's programs have not produced savings		I n California, however, the State's experiment with boot camps has not yet been a fiscal success. As was stated in the Alternative Sentencing Program (ASP) Evaluation Design, prepared by the Department of Corrections in 1994, "In order for the program to show any significant savings, it will have to be expanded." If state policy is clarified regarding the long-term mission of boot camps, especially regarding their availability to a much broader population of offenders than is being processed today, significant cost savings may be achieved. However, such an expansive policy has not yet been established. Local Options: While there are two pilot programs in progress at the state level, the primary interest in boot camps in California is coming from county probation departments, which are seeking new options for the management of their juvenile caseloads. At present the county's primary options regarding youthful offenders is to place them on probation, with any variety of obligations, including attending weekend or evening counseling and classes; to send them to a boys or girls juvenile ranch (also known as county juvenile probation camps); to send juveniles out of state to private programs, such as Rite of Passage in Nevada and the Arizona Boys Ranch; to place them in a group home; or to send the offenders to the California Youth Authority. All of these options have serious deficiencies. Traditional probation may do little more than perpetuate the juvenile's belief that getting arrested does not necessarily result in punishment. County probation ranches are not available in all jurisdictions: only 21 counties maintain them at present, they have limited capacities and funding has become unreliable. Out-of-state placement is expensive and isolates the juvenile from his family. Placing juvenile offenders in group homes is expensive but frequently is the only available option. Statistics from the Department of Social Services show that for a number of years counties have been placing many convicted juveniles in six-person group homes that were originally designed for youth with family, physical or social -- but not criminal -- problems. The regulations and capabilities of these homes are simply not adequate to handle aggressive delinquents, as will be examined in Finding 4. Finally, sending a juvenile to the California Youth Authority is supposed to be a last remedy reserved only for the most serious offenders.
Counties can use boot camps as another sentencing option		B oot camps can offer another option to counties. A paper by the National Conference of State Legislatures noted, "In current practice, boot camps do respond to the need for intermediate sanctions tougher than probation and which depart significantly from traditional prison by stressing offender accountability and change."48 The probability is high that counties will continue to seek the development of boot camps and related programs to address their juvenile justice needs, especially as federal funding becomes available. There are other reasons, in addition to potential reductions of recidivism and costs and the expansion of local options, that are cited as justifications for boot camps. Some believe that the overall learning experience of this experiment is facilitating a new look at the nation's traditional approach to corrections in general. For instance, a conference of leading national experts supported the position that:

...boot camps have the potential to change the nature of imprisonment and may be a key component in an integrated approach to reducing criminality.49

T his observation was tempered with the observation that "the cost of such a large scale social experiment is unknown at this time and may, upon closer inspection, prove to be quite daunting." However, the chief deputy director of the California Youth Authority is even more enthusiastic about the overall potential:

...the Youth Authority has found that the pilot boot camps have been a pivotal and fruitful focus for the department as a whole. Specifically, they have served the mission of the department in four important ways: (1) they have revived an interest in state-of-the-art correctional treatment in both institutions and parole; (2) they have provided an opportunity for a long-term, rigorous program evaluation (with implications for issues that go beyond the boot camp programs themselves); (3) they have placed the YA in the forefront of a number of important contemporary correctional issues, such as turning the tide on the increasingly expensive current rates and lengths of incarceration (which YA boot camps are designed to lower); and (4) they have opened new collaborative relationships with other public and private agencies, such as with the National Guard, the Employment Development Department and the Volunteers of America.50

		O ther positive indicators can be found. For example, a report by the California Youth Authority on county juvenile ranches identifies some of their benefits in addition to potential recidivism reduction. These are also applicable to boot camps: Camps provide a period of community protection while the juvenile is incarcerated. Camps reduce the need to incarcerate youths in state institutions where they must co-exist with more serious offenders. Camps may reduce "violent offending" (that is, while not ensuring there will not be any recidivism, at least acting to reduce the violence level of future offenses).51
Inmates leave programs with better, more productive attitude		N ational research does show that, quite consistently, boot camp inmates who are nearing the end of their program become less anti-social and more positive regarding the boot camp than they were shortly after arrival. This was true of the programs emphasizing therapeutic treatment and those relying on work and physical training.52 A major result regarding boot camp participants is that they "act less impulsively, accept responsibility for the consequences of their actions, and have a sense of direction," as well as "understand and accept that they are part of a larger community to which they can make positive contributions." This improvement in the positive attitude among boot camp attendees is a pattern generally the reverse of inmates in mainline institutions,53 suggesting that there is an important potential for camps to affect anti-social behavior. The test, of course, will be how this is reflected in recidivism rates. National observers find that boot camps reduce the violence level in institutions, both among the participants themselves and against staff. In a recently published evaluation of the LEAD program, the California Youth Authority also found that the interviewed cadets indicated less fear of being hurt, less need to associate with a gang to be safe and the occurrence of fewer attacks, as compared to mainline wards.54 Other encouraging findings are available. For example, the managers of the camp at the Twin Pines Boys Ranch report that in the first six months of its program, as compared to the same period a year ago when the facility was run as a juvenile county ranch, the number of negative incident reports has decreased by 40 percent. They have found that their wards are reacting well to the increased level of military-style discipline and the intensive scheduling.55 In addition, the CYA report also found that both staff and cadets gave a high rating to the military structure, as well as the enriched staffing ratio and the varied treatment and training activities.56 In spite of some positive indicators, many still question the value of boot camps. The most skeptical argue that boot camps are a fad that will in time fade from popularity. Some still debate the philosophy of whether correctional institutions should punish or rehabilitate. Others observe that the boot camp can succeed because it attempts to do both.
Modern version provides nurturing not available in troubled homes		T he development of boot camps has come at a time when society is recognizing that the breakdown of the urban -- and even suburban -- family and neighborhood has reached crisis proportion. This alternative sentencing program has evolved into a mixture of tools for discipline, education and nurturing -- in short, a substitute for the family and schools of troubled youths who have seen their homes and neighborhoods collapse and who have failed to achieve the barest minimum of an education. Boot camp correctional officers have been placed in the imposing role of attempting to be parenting figures and role models for the non-violent, youthful offenders who are now the primary population being sent to boot camps. In all the boot camps and many of the work-intensive programs, innovations are being made constantly. A national overview noted:

Boot camp programs continue to develop and change. The first...emphasized the military atmosphere, physical training, and hard labor. Although these still play a significant role in shock incarceration, many boot camp programs have begun to allot an increasing amount of time to rehabilitation and education.57

N owhere is this more true than in California. The experience nationally and here demonstrates that there is a broad range of options possible under the roof of alternative sentencing and the umbrella of boot camps. The challenge is to identify the best features of those variations and blend them into an effective alternative sentencing tool for protecting the public safety and reducing costs.

Statewide

Planning

The lack of statewide planning means that boot camps have developed without maximizing the use of resources. Without State oversight, there is the danger of waste and abuse. Knowledge about what works and what doesn't work is not shared systematically. Recommendations: Create a plan and set statewide goals. Set enforceable standards and provide adequate oversight. Provide specialized training and certification for staff.

Statewide Planning

Finding 1: Correctional boot camps in California have been evolving independently at state and local levels without the benefit of statewide goals, centralized planning, comprehensive minimum standards or state oversight, thereby increasing the risk of wasted resources and program failures.

*For comparison, the CYA average length of stay is 23.7 months. Military boot camps generally last 6 to 8 weeks.

A s Table 2 indicates, the public work-intensive camps in California provide room for 5,320 inmates and wards, with another 4,000 beds in the county juvenile ranches and camps. In addition, there are 700 beds available in two of the private youth correctional programs that include numerous California juveniles. The length of these programs ranges from 11 weeks to about a year.

The operating jurisdictions in California have adopted a "refined" or "modified" approach to boot camps. The stereotype of the tough drill sergeant with his harsh verbal indoctrination may occur on the first day or days after arrival, but is intended to be quickly replaced by positive reinforcement and self-esteem development. This process is described by the Department of Corrections in a handbook on staff conduct:

Shock orientation will generally be limited to first few days of the program. This is the attention-getting phase. This introduction period is designed to jolt the inmate into a sense of reality, to make him absolutely aware of his status, and what is expected of him. Its further purpose is to strip away all the facades he hides behind. This is why we give him a close haircut, and shave away all the beards and mustaches....We want him to look and feel like all the others around him. Once he sees himself in this new light, all the "phoney" is gone, and he begins to see that he's no better, nor tougher than those around him, then we are ready to begin building true character. Now we can teach adult responsibility, self discipline and personal motivation.

O ther than consistency in using the refined format, each jurisdiction has developed its own program independently with its own interpretations of a mission statement and goals and objectives intended to guide operations. In this area, substantial variability exists among camps, both in California and across the nation, a pattern that was noted by the American Correctional Association:

Research indicates that many existing boot camp programs have been designed and implemented quickly without feasibility studies and without written policies and procedures to guide their implementation....the goals varied from one program to another, and sometimes within the same program.61

		A national survey of states in 1991 by the National Institute of Justice ranked the variety of perceived goals for boot camp programs, with the top three priorities being rehabilitation, reduced recidivism and drug education. The next level was the reduction of facility crowding, development of skills and provision of a safe prison environment. Considered somewhat important were deterrence, education and drug treatment. Last in the priorities, and not considered goals, were punishment and vocational education. It should be noted, however, that recently, especially in California, the need for vocational education and work skills training has been receiving increasing emphasis as part of the refined boot-camp approach. The mission statements for the State's two operations demonstrate the variety of concerns that can be addressed with varying degrees of success. The California Youth Authority has published in its LEAD Program description the following goals and objectives:

The California Youth Authority LEAD Program is designed to prevent the further incursion of youthful offenders into the criminal justice system by increasing parole readiness and parole success utilizing a treatment continuum. This continuum consists of a short-term, time intensive, highly structured institutional program which utilizes a military milieu, followed by an intensive parole experience phase consisting of graduated supervision levels.

		CYA then established these objectives: 1. To develop self-discipline, esteem and control. 2. To develop positive decision-making skills. 3. To develop positive moral/ethical thinking abilities. 4. To develop leadership skills. 5. To eliminate chemical dependency. 6. To increase employability skills. 7. To develop citizenship awareness and community responsibility. 8. To increase and develop positive life skills and responsible adulthood knowledge. 9. To increase knowledge of the impact of crime on victims. 10. To increase basic educational competencies in reading and math. 11. To develop a pro-social subculture free from contamination of the traditional negative institution environment. The Department of Corrections has been somewhat less precise in defining goals and objectives for its adult ASP boot camp program. Its "major goals" are published in a staff handbook, as follows: To be more effective than straight incarceration. To reduce overcrowding. To reduce recidivism by: Providing programs on substance abuse, education, emotional stability, health consciousness, work ethics and skills and other areas .... Providing discipline in a structured environment with clearly established expectations for changed deviant behavior. Expanding parole into a system of highly structured correctional supervision. In the same document there is reference to "program goals," which are restated in somewhat different language, addressing the need to reduce overcrowding; cut costs; deter recidivism; and "improve control." Another document offers only the first three goals and adds this summary: "In short, offer a program focused on salvaging and permanently removing from the criminal justice system the criminally unsophisticated first-time offender without compromising the community protection rights of the citizenry." Elsewhere, the "overall mission" of the program is described as "to avert offenders from institutions where inmates learn negative survival skills." Objectives of ASP include: Provide a structured physical fitness program. Provide a disciplined, regimented environment to teach appropriate decision making, courtesy, self-control and teamwork. Provide a program [with an] intensive, demanding environment free of the negative influences and idle time commonly associated with conventional incarceration. Implement a structured counseling and education program. Utilize team concepts, community expectations, and tangible consequences to illustrate inappropriate behavior and elicit cooperation. Provide an intense work program to teach inmates certain practical skills, but more importantly, work ethics, interpersonal relations, and work as a contribution to the community and expression of self-worth. Provide a vigorous inspection procedure for the inmate.
Sharing of effective concepts, failed efforts does not occur		E ach county has a range of goals, but programs have been developed without much information sharing. There is little or no dissemination of innovations or sharing of solutions to common problems among all the varieties of correctional and work-intensive camps -- including boot, conservation, fire-fighting, county probation and private. In addition, redundant research is being done by every jurisdiction that evaluates the potential for a camp. A management text finds that such lack of communication is a typical but non-productive pattern, noting that managers tend to solve problems through their own base of experience but "they also do so inefficiently, wasting time, money and energy." Such has been the case with boot camps. Each jurisdiction has had to re-invent the boot camp, wasting time and resources and often not securing access to the most current state-of-the-art information. The text further notes that "the most effective way to improve managerial performance is to improve the use of information."62 A researcher writing on juvenile boot camps last year observed, "One problem on the horizon for boot camps is that there are no accepted standards to guide their development or to ensure that they offer essential services." He notes that many are "generic" and that everybody "freelances and invents their own design," with the result that the boot camp label covers a "potpourri" of components.63

Suddenly California is in love with boot camps. Politicians from both parties and at all levels of government are calling for boot camps....Corrections practitioners...are urging judicious, thoughtful consideration and application of the concept to make certain the boot camp model is not oversold and is used appropriately.64

M any are concerned about whether camps are being used "appropriately." Even before a realistic and achievable statewide mission statement can be established, there must be agreement about what camps can accomplish. As national authorities have said:

In order to determine whether or not boot camps 'work,' officials must define, in clear, operational terms, what boot camps are supposed to achieve.65

D ebate continues, even while programs are being created with their own goal statements, which are typically optimistic in tone, suggesting all things are possible. The precise selection of objectives for boot camps is extremely important, since evaluations of program success must be based on whether defined expectations have been satisfied. For example, if reducing recidivism is the primary or sole criterion, boot camps might be labeled a failure. Hence, a mission or goal statement that fails to focus on multiple needs and measurable outcomes could result in negative evaluations.

For example, a professional staff member at a California boot camp offered this advice:

The Boot Camp Program must have a specific, simple and attainable goal/objective in mind. This goal/objective must have a distinct and set way of monitoring and evaluating its success. Both staff and participating wards must be made aware of... exactly what the goals/objectives of the program are.66

T he American Correctional Association in its Manual for Standards for Adult Correctional Boot Camp Facilities advocates that goals be measurable as well as specific:

Many existing boot camp programs have written mission statements, but they have incorporated goals and objectives that are not measurable. For boot camps to be successful, however, the most fundamental requirement is that the mission statement, goals and objectives be stated in clear, precise and measurable language. The boot camp mission statement should also address in specific terms the role of the program within the correctional system, and it should specify how particularprogram elements and components contribute to the achievement of that larger mission.67

		O f the counties operating boot camps, to date only the Riverside County boot camp has included as part of its mission statement a specific percentage of its ward population that is projected to be affected by each element. For example, two of the objectives for its academy are: To develop self-discipline, esteem and control. (Goal: 25 percent of graduates to demonstrate self-esteem improvement.) To develop positive decision-making skills. (Goal: At least 50 percent of cadets are to earn peer leadership positions.) With objectives designed in a similar fashion, any agency can accurately evaluate the success of its program. A state mission statement can provide cohesiveness to the more specific and quantifiable local interpretations.
Statutes address boot camp components to a limited degree		C alifornia is not entirely lacking in statewide mandates, however. For the past several years, the Legislature has been defining specific components that must be included in certain types of camps. For example, the Governor and the Legislature recently approved the Juvenile Offender Local Prevention and Corrections Program (AB 799, Friedman; Chapter 157, Statutes of 1993), which requires several program components to be included in county juvenile ranches and camps, as well as in juvenile boot camps. These include generalized references to a "residential treatment program," a "structured and disciplined program for each resident," individual counseling, "work experience and vocational training through work crew assignments" and other functions. Further, all county camps are required to: Provide a positive reinforcing environment that redirects physical, social and emotional energies into constructive channels. Emphasize responsibility for one's actions. Employ goal-setting methods to maximize self-discipline, self-confidence and sense of pride. In addition to these standards, county juvenile boot camps were directed by this legislation to maintain a "highly structured, military-style environment," plus include "greater emphasis on physical conditioning, athletics, and team building" than do county probation camps. The law also included the legislative intent that a comprehensive boot camp program should include diagnostic assessment, community-based aftercare and accountability. Other legislative proposals have sought to establish the range of components for boot camps. Such specificity in program mandates has been described by some professionals as "micro-managing," especially because essential program components have not yet been defined through a comprehensive planning and oversight process. In addition, no public or private study has fully documented all the activities believed necessary to make a camp effective. To date, the first such publication in California, one offering only preliminary and partial findings, is the California Youth Authority's evaluation of the LEAD program, dated May 1994. The next report is due by the end of 1995.
The challenge is to set standards that avoid micro-managing		A key challenge for the State is to avoid the temptation to micro-manage boot camps and thereby diminish the ability of counties to define programs that meet local needs. Some officials at the local level see any state involvement as pre-empting their ability to run their own program or to attempt innovations. For example, the chief probation officer of Los Angeles County believes the statewide standards as now defined in the California Administrative Code regarding all juvenile camp programs in general, "are sufficient for boot camp operations without addition or modification."68 Another county probation officer says, however, "It is critical that statewide standardization of both adult and juvenile boot camps be established and enforced to reduce the risk of abuse of inmates and ensure minimum programming is offered to inmates." He also believes that an oversight process or agency is required: "Without enforcement, standards often are ignored."69 Others, however, emphasize local flexibility. The executive director of the California Probation, Parole and Correctional Association said:

...differences in kinds and designs of boot camps make it impossible to address the subject as if boot camps were a single, simple thing. The complexity and variety of boot camp programs make it obvious that legislating or otherwise mandating the form and functions of boot camps is not advisable, nor are statewide standards which seek to impose any one particular design. Boot camps must be able to reflect the populations they are designed to serve...as well as the social, geographic, and/or correctional environments in which they exist. They must be able to contain the elements determined by their designers and operators to be necessary to meet expressed goals, and because those goals will be philosophically or programmatically different from one boot camp to the next, there must be flexibility and latitude maintained within the model.70

		O verall, there is strong opinion that several key problem areas require increased attention by the State. These issues include: State planning to assess local needs and opportunities and guide the investment of public funds through requiring compliance with state goals if funding is sought. Eliminating the potential for physical and mental abuse. Upgrading the quality of staff selection and training. Assuring statewide program consistency and quality.
State lacks a centralized approach to boot camp planning		S tate Planning: At present there is no plan or policy framework to identify the State's vision or expectations for boot camps and related programs or to guide the allocation of available resources. In addition, no agency has been specifically designated as responsible for future planning in this area. However, planning is expected to be spurred by recent federal and state legislation. The 1994 federal crime bill mandates the development of a state plan that, while not focusing on boot camp concerns, includes them within the overall issue of using alternative sentencing options to open up beds for violent prisoners.71 To obtain funding for grants to construct (but not operate) correctional facilities, including boot camps and other alternative correctional facilities, states will be required to demonstrate that they have "a comprehensive correctional plan." This document must represent an integrated approach to the management and operation of correctional facilities and programs" and address a variety of components. As described in the Background, this act may offer a variety of funds that can be used for boot camps, not all of which will be under the State's control. Local governments can apply directly for funding of projects under discretionary grants that the Department of Justice can approve independently of any state plans or goals. Therefore, the potential exists for public funds to be invested in projects that may not further the public understanding of the long-term potential of boot camps. State-level planning for the development of alternative correctional facilities must also be coordinated with a new planning program recently authorized in California by the Community-Based Punishment Act of 1994.72 Each county, or grouping of counties, can prepare its own plan to establish a community-based punishment program to expand the use of "intermediate sanctions" for "non-violent offenders and substance abusers who could be successfully treated in appropriate, less-restrictive programs without any increase in danger to the public." These sanctions, falling between incarceration and probation, specifically include boot camps. The Board of Corrections is directed to establish guidelines for the counties to follow in preparation of their plans and to ensure related state and local actions are consistent.