Aftercare issues
Aftercare is the last phase before to utal release from juvenile court supervision. Dr. Altschuler asserted that reintegration into the community is the key to boot camp success. “Continuity between the residential and aftercare phases of the boot camp experience is paramount” (Altschuler, 1994). In general, proper reintegration requires adequate funding for both the boot camp and aftercare programs, management that is coordinated throughout the entire program, and graduated sanctions and incentives.
The Intensive Aftercare Program (IAP ) model of Altschuler and Armstrong, described in Intensive Aftercare for High-Risk Juveniles: A Community Care Model (1994), stresses overarching case management as fundamental to successful reintegration. Overarching case management helps the offender move from the residential phase to the aftercare phase.
The IAP model divides case management into five components:
o Assessment, classification, and selection criteria. Selecting youth at the highest risk of recidivism requires appropriate assessment and
classification measures. These measures give weight to justice system factors, such as age at first offense, and to need-related factors, such as
substance abuse. The accuracy of the measures chosen is directly related to the success of other design choices: for example, staffing levels, the
size of the inmate population, and the boot camp as a whole.
o Individual case planning incorporating family and community perspectives. Individualized case planning should address how the special needs of the youth u are linked to his or her social network (e.g., family, close friends, and peers in general) and community (e.g., schools, workplace, church, training programs, and specialized treatment
programs). To ensure continuity from the residential phase to the aftercare phase, an aftercare counselor should be involved from the
beginning of the residential phase. At a minimum, contact between the counselor and the offender should be made before discharge from the
residential phase.
o A mix of intensive surveillance and services. Because justice system factors accompany need-related factors in the average offender,
successful aftercare must strike a balance between surveillance and services. Neither one alone will suffice. Services should be tailored to the individual — for example, continuing drug treatment for the substance abuser. Surveillance should exceed the old purpose of simply jailing
recidivists by identifying impending recidivism and, ideally, reversing it through rewards and graduated sanctions o.
o A balance of incentives and graduated consequences coupled with the imposition of realistic, enforceable conditions. Positive reinforcement can induce healthy behavioral change. On the other hand, overly burdensome parole conditions can undermine healthy change or even
contribute to recidivism — from a psychological effect or merely from increased contact with those who record acts of recidivism.
o Service brokerage with community resources and linkage with social networks. The workload that results from trying to create better conditions and from the growth of boot camp populations makes it
impossible for the aftercare counselor to succeed without help. Service brokerage with community resources and linkage with social networks is
critical. Service brokerage helps to meet the needs for job training and education, among others. Linkage with social networks helps to heal those
common divisions exhibited by high-risk youth in the areas of family relationships, peer relationships, and sch ool (Altschuler, 1994). O
Conclusion
At this point in their development, boot camps do not appear to be the panacea that many hoped they would become. Nonetheless, boot camps do appear to offer certain practical advantages and futur e promise that warrant continued testing and examination. As an intermediate sanction, boot camps are a useful alternative for offenders for whom probation would be insufficiently punitive, yet for whom long-term incarceration would be excessive. As such, under certain conditions, boot camps can free bed space for more hardened offenders, thereby reducing the financial burden on correctional budgets. Future research must focus on the kinds of questions that have been raised here to provide the informatio ?n needed to enable the justice system to maximize the benefits of boot camps as an intermediate corrections option. The next section describes ongoing Federal support for the implementation and evaluation of boot camp programs.
i
Bibliography
Altschuler, D.M., and T.L. Armstrong. 1994
(September). Intensive Aftercare for High-Risk
Juveniles: A Community Care Model. Program Summary.
Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs,
U.S. Department of Justice.
Altschuler, D.M., and T.L. Armstrong. 1994
(September). Intensive Aftercare for High-Risk
Juveniles: Policies and Procedures. Program
Summary. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice
Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.
Altschuler, D.M., and T.L. Armstrong. 1992 (June).
Intensive Aftercare for High-Risk Juvenile
Parolees: A Model Program Design. Baltimore, MD:
Institute for Policy Studies, The Johns Hopkins
University.
American Correctional Association. 1995. Standards
for Juvenile Correctional Boot Camp Programs.
Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs,
U. S. Department of Justice.
Andrews, D.A., I. Zinger, H.D. Hoge, J. Bonta, P.
Gendreau, Beyer, M., and F.T. Cullen. 1990. “Does Correctional
Treatment Work? A Clinically Relevant and
Psychologically Informed Meta-analysis.”
Criminology 28:369-404.
Armstrong, T.L., and D.M. Altschuler. 1993.
Intensive Interventions With High-Risk Youths:
Promising Approaches in Juvenile Probation and
Parole. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
Austin, J.M., M. Jones, and M. Bolyard. 1993
(October). “The Growing Use of Jail Boot Camps: The
Current State of the Art.” Research in Brief.
Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice,
Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of
Justice.
Brame, R., and D.L. MacKenzie. 1996. “Shock
Incarceration and Positive Adjustment During
C ommunity Supervision: A Multisite Evaluation.” In
Correctional Boot Camps: A Tough Intermediate
Sanction, edited by D.L. MacKenzie and E.E. Hebert.
Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice,
Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of
Justice.
ECastellano, T.C. 1995. “Enhancing the Evaluation
Outcomes of Innovative Boot Camp Programs.”
Progress report presented to the National Institute
of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S.
Department of Justice, September 27, 1995.
Cronin, R., and M. Han. 1994. Boot Camps for Adult
and Juvenile Offenders: Overview and Update.
Research Report. Washington, DC: National Institute
of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S.
Department of Justice.
tGransky, L.A., T.C. Castellano, and E.L. Cowles.
1995. “Is There a `Second Generation’ of Shock
Incarceration Facilities?: The Evolving Nature of
Goals, Program Elements, and Drug Treatment
Services in Boot Camp Programs.” In Intermediate
Sanctions: Sentencing in the 1990’s, edited by J.
Smykla and W. Selke. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson
Publishing Company, pp. 89-112.
Greenwood, P., E. Deschenes, and J. Adams. 1993.
Chronic Juvenile Offenders: Final Results from the
Skillman Aftercare Experiment. Santa Monica, CA:
The RAND Corporation.
Institute for Criminological Research and American
Institutes for Research. 1992 (September). Boot
Camps for Juvenile Offenders: Constructive
Intervention and Early Support — Implementation
Evaluation. Washington, DC: National Institute of
Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S.
Department of Justice.
Krisberg, B. 1991 (July). Juvenile Intensive
Supervision Program Model, Operations Manual and
Guide. Special report submitted to the Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office
of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.
Little, G., and K. Robinson. 1994.
“Cost-effectiveness, Rehabilitation Potential, and
Safety of Intermediate Sanctions: Mixed Results.”
Cognitive-Behavioral Treatment Review 3(1):4-7.
MacKenzie, D.L. 1993 (November). “Boot Camp Prisons
in 1993.” National Institute of Justice Journal,
pp. 21-28.
?MacKenzie, D.L., and E.E. Hebert, eds. 1996.
Correctional Boot Camps: A Tough Intermediate
Sanction. Washington, DC: National Institute of
Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S.
Department of Justice.
MacKenzie, D.L., and J.W. Shaw. 1990. “Inmate
Adjustment and Change During Shock Incarceration:
The Impact of Correctional Boot Camp Programs.”
Justice Quarterly 7:125-150.
MacKenzie, D.L., and C. Souryal. 1994. Multisite
Evaluation of Shock Incarceration. Washington, DC:
National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice
Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.
MacKenzie, D.L., and C.C. Souryal. 1991 (October).
“Boot Camp Survey: Rehabi Alitation, Recidivism
Reduction Outrank Punishment as Main Goals.”
Corrections Today 53(6):90-92, 94-96.
Marlette, M. 1991. “Boot Camp Prisons Thrive.”
Corrections Compendium 16(1):1-12.
Office of Justice Programs. 1995. Fiscal Year 1995
Corrections Boot Camp Initiative: Violent Offender
Incarceration Grant Program. Program Guidelines and
Application Information. Washington, DC: Office of
Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.
?Parent, D.G. 1996. “Boot Camps and Prison
Crowding.” In Correctional Boot Camps: A Tough
Intermediate Sanction, edited by D.L. MacKenzie and
E.E. Hebert. Washington, DC: National Institute of
Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S.
Department of Justice.
Parent, D.G. 1995. Planning a Bootcamp: An Overview
of Five Critical Elements. Paper presented at the
Office of Justice Programs Boot Camp Technical
Assistance Workshop, Atlanta, Georgia, April 1,
1995.
Parent, D.G. 1994. “Boot Camps Failing to Achieve
Goals.” Overcrowded Times 5(4):8-11.
Parent, D.G. 1989. Shock Incarceration: An Overview
of Existing Programs. Washington, DC: National
Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,
U.S. Department of Justice.