GAO

United States
General Accounting OfTice
Washington, D.C. 20648
General Government Division

B-249092
April 29,1993
The Honorable William J. Hughes
Chairman, Subcommittee on Intellectual Property
and Judicial Administration
Committee on the Judiciary
House of Representatives
Dear Mr. Hughes:
In response to your request, this report describes state and federal boot camp programs and
includes data on their costs and impact on prison crowding and recidivism. The report makes
no recommendations.
We are also sending copies of this report to the Attorney General, the Director of the Bureau of
Prisons, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and other interested parties. We
will also make copies available to others upon request.
Major contributors are listed in appendix IX. If you have any questions, please contact me on
(202) 5660026.
Sincerely yours,

Harold A. Valentine
Associate Director, Administration
of Justice Issues

Executive Summary

Purpose

-

Between 1980 and 1991, prison populations grew about 150 percent,
reaching a total of 823,414 inmates. To handle this growth, corrections
systems increased their capacities and looked for less costly alternatives
to traditional forms of incarceration. One such alternative is the prison
boot camp. Using military-style, basic training techniques within a
corrections setting, the boot camps attempt, in general, to steer a young,
nonviolent offender away from a life of crime before he or she commits a
more serious offense.
In 1988, GAO reported that, it was too early to tell whether the seven prison
boot camps then in operation were succeeding. In 1991, the Chairman of
the Subcommittee on Intellectual Property and Judicial Administration,
House Judiciary Committee, asked GAO to update its earlier work and
specifically to determine (1) which corrections systems employed boot
camps; (2) whether the camps were effective in reducing corrections
system costs, overall prison crowding, and inmate recidivism; and (3) what
potential the boot camp concept held for the federal prison system.

Background

The first modern prison boot camps began in 1983 and 1984. Since then,
prison boot camps have achieved popularity among state prison systems
seeking ways to handle spiraling inmate populations and reduce
corrections system costs, prison crowding, and recidivism-or the rate at
which former inmates return to prison. While there have been some
important modifications over the years, prison boot camps continue to
follow a basic model. The camps generally target young, nonviolent
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. Such shock incarceration
facilities are commonly referred to as boot camps. 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 6
months or less-rather than a period of years. For corrections officials,
the potential benefits of boot camps include reducing (1) the overall costs
of building and operating prisons, (2) crowding in facilities that already
are operating at or above capacity, and (3) recidivism among the
participants.

Page 2

GAOIGGD-93-69

Prison Boot Campe

a

Executive

Summary

In 1990, Congress enacted legislation authorizing a boot camp program for
the federal prison system, and the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) created its
Intensive Confinement Program-the federal boot camp program. The
federal program is small, with one camp for men and one for women. This
federal program differs from the state programs in that it does not release
participants directly from the camps. Instead, participants work their way
first through the boot camp, then through a halfway house, and finally
through home confinement before they are released.

Results in Brie

now operating a total of 57 camps with a capacity for 8,880 inmates. While
continuing to follow the traditional military model, many states have
expanded their programs in size and adapted them to the particular needs
of their individual inmate populations.
Whether boot camps eventually will reduce costs, recidivism, and
crowding remains to be determined. Most programs are still relatively
new, and few formal evaluations have been made. The early indications
are that the camps reduce overall corrections costs and systemwide prison
crowding because inmates are released earlier, not because the camps are
less costly per inmate than other forms of imprisonment. Recidivism data
are limited, but the early data show only marginal improvements over
traditional forms of incarceration.
As presently structured, the federal boot camp program, created in 1990, is
too small to have any appreciable effect on reducing overall costs, prison
crowding, and recidivism in the federal prison system. In July 1992,
approximately 1,400 (about 2 percent) of the total inmate population met
the statutory and BOP eligibility requirements for participation. BOP does
not release participants immediately after they graduate from the boot
camp. Although this reduces the program’s potential short-term cost
savings, it does offer IKW the opportunity to build on the skills participants
develop in the camps. With only 77 participants having completed all three
stages of the program, it is too early to assess the federal program’s impact
on recidivism.

GAO’sAnalysisI

When GAO issued its first report on the subject in 1988, only seven states
had boot camp programs, and most of these were still in the
developmental stages. Twenty-six states now have programs, with a
capacity for 8,880 inmates in 57 camps. Fourteen states have camps for

Page 3

GAOIGGD-93-69

Prison Boot Camps

Executive

Summary

women as well as men. The programs vary widely in size. For example,
Georgia and New York together have a capacity for 4,273 inmates-almost
half of the total of the 26 states combined. Nine states, on the other hand,
have capacities of 100 inmates or less. (See ch. 2 and app. III.)
While continuing to follow the basic military model used in establishing
the programs, the states have adapted the programs to fit their own needs.
Eligibility standards still focus on young, first-time offenders, but the
standards vary considerably by the offender’s age, length and type of
sentence, and criminal history. Moreover, there are variations in who
selects the participants and at what stage of sentencing, how long the
programs will run, what types of activities will be featured, and what form
of supervision, if any, will be required upon the participants’ release. The
programs feature discipline and emphasize building the participants’
self-esteem. (See ch. 2.)

Boot Camps May Reduce
Costs and Crowding but
Not Recidivism

State boot camp programs are popular because they offer an alternative to
traditional forms of incarceration. The boot camps are seen as successful
in rehabilitating participants, treating substance abuse, and improving the
participants’ self-image. The long-range effectiveness of the camps is
uncertain, however, because most programs are too new and few
meaningful evaluations have been performed.
The major selling point for boot camps to date has been that the programs
are less costly than those for traditional prisons. However, these lower
costs are not the result of lower daily operating costs per inmate but
rather the reduced time the inmates are incarcerated. Prison crowding is
reduced for this same reason, assuming that (1) the boot camp
participants would have otherwise been placed in prison rather than on
probation and (2) the camps do not result, in higher recidivism in the long
term. (See ch. 3.)
There is no clear indication that boot camps have measurably reduced
recidivism. Part of the problem is that, by definition, recidivism must be
measured over time, and most boot camps are still relatively new. In
addition, identifying comparison groups with identical characteristics is
difficult. Nevertheless, the programs that have attempted to measure
recidivism have shown that boot camp graduates have only marginally
lower recidivism rates than similar inmates in traditional prisons. In
addition, any differences in the rates tend to diminish over time. (See
ch. 3.)

Page 4

GAOIGGD-93-69

Prison Boot Camps

Eiecuthe

The Federal Program Is
Fully Operational but Has
Minimal Impact

Summary

The federal boot camp program is now operational. BOP opened a camp for
men at Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, in December 1990 and a camp for women
at Bryan, Texas, ln July 1992. Overall, the two camps have a capacity for
312 inmates-less than 0.5 percent of the federal inmate population. The
federal program differs greatly from those of the states, since inmates are
not released early. BOP instead offers camp graduates the incentive of
completing their sentences first at halfway houses and subsequently in
home confinement.
The federal boot camp program actually has two categories of eligible
participants, Under the 1990 statute creating the Intensive Confinement
Program, inmates with initial sentences of no more than 30 months may
volunteer for the program. Because not enough inmates met the statutory
requirements to fill the camps, rjor under its own authorities established a
supplemental eligibility standard that allowed certain inmate volunteers
already in BOP facilities to participate. Such inmates must have original
sentences of 60 months or less, no more than 24 months of their sentences
left to serve, and met all other requirements for participation, such as
those for health and age.
Although this supplemental standard gave BOP enough inmates to fill the
camps, it created two categories of boot camp participants who entered
the program under different legal authorities. Participants who quality
under the 1990 statute are eligible for early releases and extended home
confinement after their graduation from boot camp, but those who qualify
under BOP’S supplemental standard are not. However, BOP has a policy of
not releasing any participant immediately after he or she graduates from
the boot camp. (See ch. 4.)
It is too soon to measure results-particularly
recidivism-in the federal
program, since only 77 male participants and no women had completed all
three stages of the program as of December 1992. Because the program is
small and BOP does not release inmates early, the program is not likely to
have any major impact on short-term federal prison costs and crowding.
There are several proposals to expand the federal boot camp program.
Any discussion of program expansion would need to consider the
expansion’s impact on the sentencing policies embodied in the federal
sentencing guidelines and statutes mandating tougher sentences for
certain nonviolent drug and white-collar offenders.

Page 6

GAOIGGD-9349

Prison Boot Campa

Executive

Summary

is making no recommendations in this report.

Recommendations

GAO

Agency Comments

In its oral comments, BOP said it found the chapter on federal boot camps
to be a fair, balanced discussion of the federal program. But while BOP
agrees that the 1990 act creating the federal program may be interpreted as
providing BOP the authority to release boot camp participants immediately
after their graduation from the camp, BOP asked GAO to specifically note
that BOP has no official position on this issue and plans to continue its
policy of releasing no inmate before the end of his or her sentence. GAO
agreed to do so. (See ch. 4.)

Page 6

GAOIGGD-93-69

Prison Boot Camp8

a

Page 7

GAO/GGD-93-69

Prison Boot Camps

Contents

Executive Summary
Chapter 1
Introduction
Chapter 2
Variations of the Basic
Prison Boot Camp
Model Have Been
Adopted in
Twenty-Six States
Chapter 3
Early Results Indicate
State Boot Camps
Reduce Short-Term
Prison Costs and
Crowding but Not
Necessarily
Recidivism or
Long-Term Costs
Chapter 4
The Federal Boot
Camp Program Is
Fully Operational, but
Its Impact on the
Federal Prison System
Is Not Yet Clear

Increasing Prison Populations
Prison Boot Camps
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Twenty-Six States Have Boot Camp Programs

Few States Have Performed Formal Evaluations
State Officials Believe Boot Camps Have Been Successful
Reduced Correctional Costs and Prison Crowding Are the Result
of Shorter Sentences but Not Necessarily Less Recidivism
Conclusions

22
24
24

The Intensive Confinement Program: Three Components, Two
Types of Eligibility
BOP Has Different Options for Category A and B Boot Camp
Graduates
BOP Officials Believe the Program Is Beneficial
Current Requirements May Restrict the Program’s Effectiveness
Policy Issues Concerning the Federal Boot Camp Program
Conclusions
Agency Comments

35

Page 8

GAOIGGD-9349

33

36
42
43
48
52
53

Prison Boot Camps

Content8

Appendixes

Appendix I: List of Contacts for State Boot Camp Programs
Appendix II: Additional Details on Questionnaire Methodology
Appendix III: General Statistics on State Prison Boot Camps
Appendlx IV Legal Authority for State Prison Boot Camps
Appendix V: Stages of Corrections That Boot Camps Were
Designed to Supplement or Replace
Appendix VI: Eligibility Requirements for State Prison Boot

56
59
60
61
62
63

camps

Tables

Appendix VII: Prison Boot Camp Programs in Georgia, New York,
and Oklahoma
Appendix VIII: Success of State Boot Camp Programs as Seen by
State Administrators
Appendix IX: Major Contributors to This Report

66

Table 2.1: Emphasis of Boot Camp Programs as Reported by
States
Table 2.2: Objectives of State Prison Boot Camps as Seen by
Boot Camp Administrators
Table 3.1: State Opinions on Whether Their Prison Boot Camp
Programs Have Reduced Costs, Recidivism, and Crowding
Table 3.2: Recidivism Rates for New York Boot Camp and
Comparison Group Inmates for Inmates Released as of May 1991
Table 3.3: Recidivism Rates for Georgia Boot Camp and
Comparison Group Inmates
Table 3.4: Success of New York Boot Camp Graduates and
Comparison Group Parolees in Obtaining Employment and
Enrollment in Community Reintegration Programs
Table 4.1: Inmates Processed Through the Boot Camp for Men as
of December 1992
Table 1.1:List of Contacts for State Boot Camp Programs

18

71
72

20
25
28
29
32

39
56

Abbreviations
BJA
BOP
FORT
ICC
NLJ
PDC
RID
SAI
SI

Page 9

Bureau of Justice Assistance
Bureau of Prisons
Female Offender Regimented Treatment
Intensive Confinement Center
National Institute of Justice
Probation Detention Center
Regimented Inmate Discipline
Special Alternative Incarceration
Shock Incarceration
GAOIGGD-93-69

Prieon Boot Campe

a

Chapter 1

Introduction

Since 1983, the prison boot camp has become a popular alternative for
prison systems seeking ways to reduce prison costs, prison crowding, and
inmate recidivism. By combining a correctional setting with techniques
more commonly associated with military basic training, the boot camp is
seen as a way to rehabilitate young, nonviolent first-time offenders before
they commit major crimes and without subjecting them to long terms in
traditional prisons.
In 1988, we reported that it was too early to determine the effectiveness of
boot camps within the seven states that then had programs. Since that
time, boot camps have become even more popular, and 26 states and the
federal Bureau of Prisons (Norm)currently have programs. This report
updates our earlier work and examines the effectiveness of current
programs in reducing prison costs, prison crowding, and inmate
recidivism.

Increasing Prison
Populations

Prison populations throughout the United States are increasing rapidly,
continuing a trend that began in the mid-1970s. By the end of 1991, state
and federal prison populations totaled 823,414 inmates, an increase of
almost 150 percent since 1980. Growth is expected to continue for the near
future.
The reasons for the larger prison populations are many and varied. Partly,
the growth is due to general population increases. In addition, there has
been aggressive prosecution of the “war on drugs,” an increase in the
number of offenses within certain crime categories, and greater public
support for punitive correctional approaches.
The inmate population increases have strained corrections systems
nationwide. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the state
systems reported in 1991 that their inmate populations exceeded their
reported capacities by at least 16 percent.
In response to the increasing inmate populations, the state and federal
prison systems have increased the construction of new facilities. More
prison space is seen as only a partial solution, however, and corrections
systems have continued to explore other avenues, such as alternatives to
traditional forms of incarceration. One such alternative is the prison boot
camp.

Page 10

GAOIGGD-93-69

Prison

Boot Camps

Chapter 1
Introduction

Prison Boot Camps

The prison boot camp, a form of shock incarceration, is a relatively recent
phenomenon that attempts to combine elements of military basic training
and traditional corrections philosophy. Although the individual programs
vary widely in form and objectives, the typical boot camp is targeted at
young, nonviolent first-time offenders. Once in the camp, the participant is
subjected to a regimen of (1) military drills and discipline, (2) physical
exercise, (3) hard physical labor, (4) specialized education and training,
and (6) counseling and treatment for substance abuse and addiction.
Most boot camp programs require the inmates to volunteer, offering as an
incentive an incarceration period of a few months, compared to the much
longer periods they would spend in prison or on probation. Generally, a
state boot camp graduate is released to parole, intensive supervision,
home confinement, or some type of community corrections.’
The philosophy behind the prison boot camps is a simple one. Offenders
who can be turned around before they commit a major crime can improve
their own opportunities for living a successful life free of incarceration.
Traditional prisons generally have not been viewed to be successful in
rehabilitating offenders.
According to a National Institute of Justice (NIJ) official, the population at
greatest risk of entering prison is the young adult who is poorly educated,
comes from a low-income background, has not had proper role models or
discipline, has little or no work skills, and is subjected to an environment
where drug use and trafficking are common. Because many misdirected
young persons have become productive citizens after exposure to military
training, the boot camp endeavors to provide this same discipline and
direction to persons who still have a chance of being diverted from a life
of crime and incarceration.
The boot camp concept appeals to diverse elements of the criminal justice
system. For the offender, it offers a second chance. He or she generally
will be returned to the community in a much shorter period without the
stigma of having been in prison. For the judge, it is a sentencing option
that provides sanctions more restrictive than probation but less restrictive
than a conventional prison. For the correctional system, it allows the
placement of individuals outside the traditional prison environment and
reduces costs and crowding by moving persons through the system in less
time.
‘In home confinement, an ofhder
is cor~lincd to his or her home except for specific pre-approved
periods during the day, srwh as a doct&s appointment, or for a job.

Page 11

GAO/GGD-93-69

Prison Boot Camps

Chapter 1
Introduction

The boot camp concept also appeals to groups with diverse views on the
objectives of corrections. For those who believe that corrections should
focus more on rehabilitation, the shorter sentence, structured
environment, supervision after release, and emphasis on training and
treatment can be found in the boot camp. For those who believe prison
should serve as punishment and a deterrent, the highly disciplined
environment, military-style drills, physical exercise, and work within a
correctional setting exist in the boot camp.
Many of the features of the prison boot camp are not new, having been
used in part by various jurisdictions over the years. However, the first
modern prison boot camps began in Georgia and Oklahoma in 1983 and
1984. The concept spread quickly, and by 1987, seven states had programs.
Today, 26 states, the federal prison system administered by BOP, and even
some local jurisdictions have camps.
In 1988, we reported on the status of boot camps at the request of Senator
Lloyd Bentsen. In that report, we noted that boot camp popularity was
expanding, although the camps had not been in operation long enough to
tell whether they would be effective in reducing overall prison costs or
inmate recidivism.2
The Crime Control Act of 1990 (P.L. lOl-647,104 Stat. 4789) authorized BOP
to begin a shock incarceration, or boot camp, program that would
incorporate many of the features of the state boot camps. EKIP opened a
camp for men in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, in December 1990 and a camp
for women in Bryan, Texas, in July 1992. Although they differ in many
respects from the state programs, these camps incorporate the
military-style approach that characterizes the modern prison boot camp.

Objectives, Scope,
and Methodology

The Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Intellectual Property and
Judicial Administration requested that we update our September 1988
report on prison boot camps now that more time had passed and so many
other states had started programs. He asked us to determine (1) what
programs are in place and how they are structured; (2) whether the
programs have been effective in reducing corrections systems costs,
prison crowding, and inmate recidivism; and (3) what plans and
possibilities the boot camp concept held for the federal system. For the
purposes of our work, we further defined these objectives as follows:

‘Prison Boot Camps: Too Early III Mcaswc~ Effwhwws

Page 12

(GhO/GGD4!&126BR,

Sept. 9, 1088).

GAO/GGD-93-69 Prison Boot Camps

Chapter 1
Introduction

l

l

l

Current programs. What state correctional systems now have boot camp
programs in place? How do these programs compare to each other and to
the federal program in such areas as costs, persons served, length of
program, program design, and follow-up services?
Program effectiveness. Have the boot camps been effective in reducing
(1) the overall costs of corrections; (2) recidivism, or the rate at which
former inmates return to prison; and (3) the incidence of crowding in
correctional facilities? How is such effectiveness measured? Have the
states performed evaluations that consider all the necessary factors and
appropriate comparison groups?
Applicability of boot camps within the federal system. How has the boot
camp concept been adapted to the federal system? What are BOP’S
long-range plans for the concept? Are these plans consistent with the
experience of the state systems, with the nature of the federal prison
population, and with other priorities within the federal criminal justice
system? What are these plans likely to achieve?
To answer the questions relating to current programs, we analyzed the
studies on boot camps to date and contacted each state correctional
system to determine which had programs. We identified 26 states that
either had a combined 57 programs in place or were likely to begin
operations during the period of our review. Appendix I provides a key
contact for each of the programs we identified and serves as a resource for
those who desire more information on specific programs.
We developed and sent detailed questionnaires to the states with
programs, asking for information related to program organization and
design, eligibility, statistics, costs, and results. We used two different
questionnaires, as explained in more detail in appendix II. The first
questionnaire concerned overall program administration and results, while
the second dealt with activities in individual camps. In total, we received
responses from each of the 26 states with programs and from 53 of the 67
camps surveyed.
To supplement the questionnaires, we requested and obtained the
published results of any evaluations that had been conducted on boot
camp programs as well as other key documents describing program
activities in the 26 states. We did not verify the information provided,
although we did conduct follow-up telephone interviews to clarify
inconsistencies in the data provided.

Page 13

GAO/GGD-93-69 Prison Boot Campa

Chapter 1
Introduction

To answer the questions relating to program effectiveness, we analyzed
published evaluations by the states and NIJ.In addition, we visited Georgia,
New York, and Oklahoma-three states that were among the older and/or
larger programs. In these states, we obtained and analyzed program
statistics and held discussions with program and criminal justice officials
in an attempt to determine whether the boot camps had led to any
reductions in recidivism, costs, and crowding. Where possible, we
analyzed the data used in the program evaluations, although we did not
attempt a complete verification of such data. We met with program
officials as well as judges, probation and parole personnel, and former
inmates to obtain their views on the programs.
To answer the questions on the applicability of boot camps within the
federal system, we visited the federal camps in Lewisburg and Bryan and
obtained program data from HOPheadquarters in Washington, D.C. We did
not verify the statistics provided by nor, although we did obtain the source
documents where available. We reviewed the applicable law, the program
regulations, and camp guidelines; analyzed cost data; obtained statistics on
the inmates who had been through the program; and discussed plans for
the future. We also visited two halfway houses in Washington, D.C., where
we discussed the federal program with former inmates and halfway house
personnel.
We also met with representatives from NU, the Bureau of Justice Statistics,
and the Bureau of Justice Assistance (nJA)-the three Department of
Justice agencies other than nor involved in boot camp activities. From
these agencies, we obtained materials such as surveys, evaluations, journal
articles, and grant awards.
We did our work between September 1991 and November 1992 and in
accordance with generally accepted governmental auditing standards. We
discussed the report with HOI officials, and their comments are in
chapter 4.

Page 14

GAOIGGD-93-69 Prison Boot Camps

I

Chapter 2

Variations of the Basic Prison Boot Camp
Model Have Been Adopted in Twenty-Six
States
Prison boot camps have continued to increase in popularity since our last
report in 1988. Twenty-six states now have programs, and 14 of these have
camps for women as well as men. Overall, 5’7 camps with a total capacity
of 8,880 inmates were in operation at the time of our review. With some
variations, the camps operated on the military-style model, offering a
combination of work, discipline, drills, training, and treatment to young,
nonviolent offenders who had committed relatively minor offenses and
had no substantial criminal history.
Because no national database exists on state boot camps, we developed a
profile of state camps using a combination of questionnaires to program
and camp administrators, site visits to three states, and a review of the
most recent program evaluations available. We found that within the basic
model, the programs differed in size, objectives, and approach, tailored to
the individual state’s needs and correctional philosophies.

Twenty-Six States
Have Boot Camp
Programs

The prison boot camp concept has spread since the first modern camps
opened in Georgia in 1983 and Oklahoma in 1984. By 1988, when we issued
our first report on boot camps, seven states had programs. Each
succeeding year, other states added new programs, and as of June 1992,
when the Pennsylvania camp began operations, 26 states had boot camp
programs.
At the time of our survey, some states were adding programs, and others
were expanding their program by opening more camps, increasing their
capacities, and beginning programs for women. The 26 states had opened
a total of 57 camps. Fourteen states had programs for women as weIl as
men.
The programs varied widely by size, with an overall capacity of 8,880
inmates. New York and Georgia, the two largest programs by far, were
equipped to handle 4,273 inmates. At the other extreme, 9 of the 26 states
had a capacity for no more than 100 inmates each. Appendix III provides
general information on each state program.
The responses to our questionnaires indicated that more growth may take
place in the future. For example, 14 of the 26 states with programs said
they already planned or were considering expansion over the next 2 years
through such mechanisms as adding new facilities, expanding existing
facilities, increasing the percentage of inmates selected for participation,
and broadening eligibility requirements.

Page 15

GAO/GGD-93-69 Prison Boot Camps

Chapter 2
of the Bssic P&on Boot Camp
Model Have Been Adopted in Twenty-Six
St&M

Varlatlons

Generally, the states began their camps under specific statutory authority,
although some were authorized to do so under existing laws or
administrative procedures as well. Twenty-one states reported a specific
statute authorizing a boot camp, and 5 said their camps were authorized
under other, more general statutes. Two states said they began their
camps in response to an executive decision, and four said they did so
under their state agencies’general authorities. Appendix IV identifies the
types of legal authority for each state’s program.
Depending on the program, the prison boot camp may serve as an
alternative for individuals who otherwise would be in prison, in jail, on
probation, or on parole. Georgia, for example, has both a
probation-alternative program and a prison-alternative program. Among
the 26 states surveyed, 22 reported that their programs supplemented their
prisons, 2 said they supplemented their jails, 9 said they supplemented
probation, and 3 said they supplemented parole. The individual responses
are shown in appendix V.

Program Eligibility

Prison boot camps are aimed at redirecting an individual before he or she
embarks on a career in crime. Thus, most programs target young, first-time
offenders who have not committed major crimes or exhibited a tendency
toward violence. Given the emphasis on physical exertion, participants
generally must be in relatively good health, and most programs require
that they volunteer. Appendix VI summarizes the general eligibility
requirements for each of the 26 states.
Typically, inmates are selected for boot camp participation before or at the
time they first enter the correctional system. Only three states reported
that they took inmates who had served time in prison. The actual selection
process varies by state and may involve more than one placement
authority. For example, 20 states reported that the sentencing judge could
sentence a person directly to a boot camp. Twenty states also said that the
correctional agency could make this decision when the inmate enters the
system. Only four states said that the decision could be made by probation
or parole authorities.
The state programs tend to be aimed at young offenders, even though
some may permit participation by older inmates. Seventeen of the 26
programs were targeted at individuals aged 30 or younger, and 11 of the 17
were targeted at inmates aged 25 or younger.

Page 16

GAO/GGD-93-69 Prison Boot Camps

4

Chapter 2
Variatione of the Bask Prison Boot Camp
Model Have Been Adopted in Twenty-Six
StrtA?lJ

Similarly, the states typically restrict eligibility to inmates who committed
relatively minor felonies and are not subject to long sentences. For
example, 13 of the 26 states denied participation to individuals facing
original sentences of more than 8 years. In addition, many of the states
denied eligibility to individuals who had committed previous adult
offenses, violent crimes, or sex crimes.
Because of the rigorous programs, inmates also generally are screened for
suitability. Nineteen states said they would not take inmates with physical
impairments, and 21 states said they would not take inmates with mental
impairments, Nineteen of the states require inmates to volunteer for boot
camp participation, while 17 allow inmates to withdraw voluntarily.

Program Emphasis

Generally, boot camp programs are of relatively short duration, compared
to the sentences the participants otherwise would have to serve. The
programs typically offer some combination of drills, physical exercise,
work, training, treatment, and education. W ithin these broad parameters,
however, there are wide variations among and sometimes even within the
individual programs.
The short period of incarceration is an important part of the boot camp
philosophy, as it offers an incentive to the individual who wishes to get out
of the correctional system as soon as possible and without the stigma of
having spent years in prison. As shown in appendixes III and VI, the
sentence is almost always shorter if the time was spent in a boot camp
rather than a traditional prison. The length of time spent in the boot camps
ranges from a low of 30 days to a high of 240 days. Most programs were in
the 90- to 120-day range. After successfully completing the camp, the
participant usually is allowed to return home, even though he or she may
be subject to conditions of parole or supervision.
Despite the shorter period of incarceration, a hallmark of the boot camp is
its intensity. Most boot camp programs base their physical training on
exercises used by the military, with an emphasis on precision drills and
calisthenics. Often the participants are subjected to hard physical labor,
such as clearing land, constructing walks and retaining walls, and
providing facility maintenance. Activities typically are conducted within
groups-such as classes, platoons, or teams-to emphasize teamwork.
Also as in military basic training, the participants tend to be subjected to a
very disciplined lifestyle. They live in spartan surroundings, are

Page 17

GAOKGD-93-69 Prison Boot Camps

Chapter 2
Variatione of the Basic Prison Boot Camp
Model Have Been Adopted in Twenty-Six
States

-

responsible for keeping themselves and their bunks neat and clean, and
have reduced contact with the outside world. The participants may be
subjected to summary discipline-such as having to do push-ups
immediately upon being caught in minor infractions-and may even be
subjected to intimidation by drill-sergeant-type instructors.
Another hallmark of the typical boot camp is its emphasis on providing the
participants with skills and assistance that will help them adapt to the
outside world upon release. For example, most programs offer some type
of academic training as well as health care and treatment. Training tends
to focus on basic skills, as many inmates have literacy problems.
Treatment is often aimed at substance abusers, who represent a primary
target group for the boot camps. Personal and group counseling may aiso
be available.
Despite these similarities, each program is unique and has its own mix of
the various components. Table 2.1 shows the emphasis states said they
placed on the various components of their programs.
Table 2.1: Emphasis of Boot Camp Programs as Reported by States
Number of states reporting emphasis as
Very Great
Great
Moderate
Some
Component
extent
extent
extent
extent
Drills
12
IO
4
a
Exercise/fitness
14
10
1
1
Vocational training
Academic instruction
Work
Health care/treatment
Summary discioline
Spartan environment
Reduced visitation and contacts
Intimidation

a
7
13
6
10
9
5
2
@Noresponse in this category.

3
8
9
13
12

2
6
3
4
3

4
2
1
3
1

8
IO
2

6
5
7

4
7

Llttle or
no extent

a

a
a
17
3
a
(1
a
3
2
8

Source:GAO administrativequestionnaires

The boot camp generally is seen as only part of the answer in seeking to
redirect the participants’ lives. Correctional officials said that no matter
how good the program or the intentions of the participants, they often

Page 19

GAO/GGD-93-99 Prison Boot Camper

l

Chapter 2
of the Bask Prison Boot Camp
Model Have Been Adopted in Twenty-Six
State0

VarhtJons

return to the same areas and lifestyles that were such a poor influence on
them in the first place. Thus, the temptation to return to old habits is great.
Most programs include various types of follow-up to reinforce the values
learned in the camps. Only one state reported that graduates are given
unconditional releases. Six states reported that boot camp graduates are
released to general parole, and 17 reported that graduates are released to
special supervision. Seven states reported that graduates may go to
another corrections facility, and eight said that graduates are subject to
other types of supervision.

Program Objectives

Prison boot camps have a broad appeal, within both the corrections
community and the general population, because (1) they tend to reinforce
views on the objectives of incarceration held by diverse groups and
(2) they represent a change from traditional approaches. At one level, the
camps are seen as an ideal punishment and deterrent, since the
participants have little free time, are subject to a rigorous schedule and
discipline, and usually engage in hard physical labor. On another level,
boot camps are seen as an excellent vehicle for rehabilitation, given the
restricted target groups and the emphasis on redirecting the individual
through education, training, treatment, counseling, and enhancing
self-esteem. Overall, boot camps are seen as having the potential to reduce
systemwide prison crowding, the recidivism of their participants, and the
costs of operating corrections systems.
We queried the administrators of the individual camps to determine what
they saw as the primary objectives of their camps. We directed these
questions to the camp level because (1) some states have more than one
type of camp and (2) we wanted the views of those actually charged with
carrying out the day-by-day activities of the camps. We received responses
from 53 of 57 camps.
Camp administrators were asked to gauge the importance of 16 different
objectives-using 5 degrees of importance ranging from “little or no
importance” to “very great importance.” These 16 objectives included such
traditional goals of corrections as punishment, rehabilitation, protecting
the public, and deterring crime or criminals. However, they also included
objectives that corrections officials give as reasons for creating prison
boot camps, such as offering an alternative to traditional incarceration;
improving self-esteem; providing education and training; and reducing

Page 19

GAO/GGD-93.69 Prison Boot Camps

A

Chapter 2
Varbtionr of the Budc Prbon Boot Camp
Model Have Been Adopted in Twenty-Six
State8

costs, recidiv@ m , and crowding. The responses, showing the importance
placed on each of the 16 objectives, are in table 2.2.
Table 2.2: Objective8 of State Prlron Boot Camps as Seen by Boot Camp Administrators
Importance of objective
Objective
Great
Very great
Moderate
Need for alternative to traditional
43
9
1
incarceration
*
Improving self-esteem
22
31
Drug treatment and education
32
13
7
Reducing costs
29
17
6
Rehabilitation
Reducinn crowdina
Reducing recidivism
Protecting public
Discipline/labor
Education
Deterring crime
Deterring specific offenders
Addressing public dissatisfaction
Addressing court pressures
Punishment
Vocational trainina

21
28
18
20
18
14
7
9
6
2
1
5
aN~response in this category.

27
15
28
24

4
5
5
4

5
26
12
9
IO
8
10
8

18
6
23
22
28
24
11
2

Little or no

Some
a

a

a
1
1

a
a
a

a
3
1
5

1
2
1
a

1
5
5
6
2
4
23
23

1
2
6
7
7
15
8
15

Source:GAO boot camp queslionnaires.

Camp administrators saw the need for an alternative to traditional
incarceration as the highest ranking objective, followed closely by
improving self-esteem, providing drug treatment and education, and
attempting rehabilitation. Also high on the list were the objectives of
reducing costs, crowding, and recidivism. Conversely, among the lowest
ranking objectives were providing vocational training, punishment, and
addressing court pressures.
The three states we visited-Georgia, Oklahoma, and New York-provided
examples of the evolution and diversity of today’s prison boot camp
programs. All three have expanded their programs and now have multiple
camps. Georgia and Oklahoma have the two oldest programs, which have
changed from the programs that opened in 1983 and 1984. New York and

Page 20

GAO/GGD-9349 Prieon Boot Camps

Chaptar 2
Variationa of the Basic Prieon Boot Cusp
Model Have Been Adopted in Twenty-Six
&At&N

Georgia are by far the two largest programs. Although the three programs
share many common elements-such as the drills, the work, the
treatment-they have major differences in objectives, organization, and
approach. Appendix VII summarizes the programs in the three states at the
time of our visits.

Page 21

GAO/GGD-93-69 Prison Boot Campa

Chapter 3

Early Results Indicate State Boot Camps
Reduce Short-Term Prison Costs and
Crowding but Not Necessarily Recidivism or
Long-Term Costs
Although the states generally were pleased with their prison boot camp
programs, their long-term effectiveness remains largely unknown. The
programs are still fairly new, and few states have made formal evaluations
of their programs. The evaluations that have been made do not always
provide meaningful comparisons between boot camp participants and
other prison inmates.
The major selling points for boot camps to date have been that they save
money and reduce prison crowding. However, the reason forthe reduced
costs and crowding is that the boot camp programs are shorter in duration
than traditional sentences, and thus participants are released earlier. The
camps do not appear to have had a major effect on recidivism in those few
cases in which evaluations have been attempted.

Few States Have
Performed Formal
Evaluations

One factor hindering the analysis of boot camp success is the shortage of
formal evaluations. Only five states-Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, New
York, and Oklahoma-reported that their prison boot camp programs had
been formally evaluated at the time of our work. We obtained the
evaluations on each to determine the extent to which they measured the
effectiveness of the programs in reducing costs, recidivism, and crowding.
Although we found these to be the most reliable data available on the
subjects, the evaluations varied considerably in their methodologies,
recency, and presentation and consequently were of limited use in
determining overall effectiveness.
The most extensive evaluation process was done in New York, which
publishes an annual report on its boot camp program. Some of the
advantages of its most recent evaluation are (1) New York has processed
more boot camp inmates than any program in the country, providing the
largest base for evaluation; (2) the program is among the oldest in the
country and has not changed significantly since it began in 1987; and
(3) the evaluation utilized comparison groups and provided measurements
of both cost savings and recidivism. At the time of our review, New York
had produced four such annual evaluations; the most recent report was
issued in January 1992.
Georgia’s most recent evaluation report was issued in January 1991, and
like New York’s, it provided both cost and recidivism data. Unlike New
York’s, it did not use control groups but rather compared boot camp
inmates with other classes of inmates that shared some of the same
characteristics. In addition, Georgia’s program was in a period of change

Page 22

GAOIGGD-93-69 Prison Boot Camps

4

clIapt8r 8
Early B.emlt# Indicclte State Boot Camp
Reduce Short-Term Prieon Costa and
Crowding but Not Neceeearily Becidiv&m or
Long-Term Corta

at the time its evaluation was made. The evaluation showed results based
on a program that until 1991 had been limited to probationers. Thus, the
current multicomponent program-with several different types of boot
camps-has not been evaluated.
Florida’s evaluation was issued in a “twenty-five month review” in
April 1990. The report discussed “recommitment,” or recidivism rates of
boot camp participants and similar inmates (Le., nonviolent, firsttime
offenders) throughout the Florida system who had been released from
custody between December 1987 and October 1989. The report also
estimated overall savings to the state of sending offenders to the boot
camp rather than to prison.
Louisiana’s evaluation was conducted by NIJ. The evaluation report was
issued in August 1990 and attempted to measure the impact of the program
on costs, recidivism, and crowding. The analysis included the use of
comparison groups and inmates in the program from February 1987 to
February 1988.
Oklahoma conducted a limited internal evaluation of recidivism within its
boot camp program in September 1986. Although it compared boot camp
participants with other similar inmate populations, the evaluation’s use
was limited for several reasons. First, the program was less than 2 years
old when the evaluation was issued. Second, the evaluation itself was, at
the time of our review, about 6 years old.
Oklahoma is part of a broader ongoing NLJ~JA multisite study of boot camp
programs in eight states. The other states are Florida, Georgia, Illinois,
Louisiana, New York, South Carolina, and Texas. The NIJ/WA study is
divided into three parts: (1) a descriptive analysis of the programs; (2) an
analysis of inmate attitude changes, using comparison groups; and (3) an
analysis of recidivism, also using comparison groups. The first two parts
should have been completed by late 1992, and the recidivism analysis
should be completed by early 1993. At the time of our work, NLJand WA
were still involved in their analysis and could not yet comment on their
findings.
NLJalso has produced other studies of boot camp programs, although these

did not amount to formal evaluations of program success. A June 1989
report entitled Shock Incarceration: An Overview of Existing Programs
was the first attempt at developing a national perspective of boot camp
programs. Since the issuance of this report, NLJalso has produced periodic

Page 23

GAO/GGD-D3-69 PrSmnBootCampo

Chapter
a
Early Ikwulta Indlcatc State Boot Campe
Reduce Short-Term Prison Corrtm and
Crowding but Not Neceeoarily Becidiviem or
Long-Term Costa

national surveys of boot camp programs throughout the nation; the most
recent was conducted in 1991.

State Officials Believe
Boot Camps Have
Been Successful

In our questionnaires to the states, we asked program administrators
whether they believed their prison boot camp programs had been
successful. We asked them to rank the success of their programs in 14
different categories, with the rankings in five degrees ranging from “very
great extent” to “little or no extent.” Recognizing the limited experience in
many programs, we also gave the ranking “no basis” as an option. The
responses are summarized by category in appendix VIII.
In general, the states believed their programs had been successful in
meeting program objectives. For example, 25 of the 26 states believed that
the programs had succeeded in improving inmate self-esteem to a great or
very great extent, while the remaining state’s program was so new there
was no basis for a determination. Similarly, 23 states believed the
objective of providing an alternative to traditional forms of incarceration
had been met to a great or very great extent.
The majority of states also believed the boot camps had succeeded to a
great or very great extent in providing drug treatment and education,
rehabilitation, protecting the public, and addressing public dissatisfaction
with traditional forms of incarceration. While no categories ranked high
under “some extent” or “little to no extent,” at least a fourth of the states
said they had no basis for determining the success in addressing court
pressures, deterring crime in general, deterring specific offenders, or
providing vocational training.

Reduced Correctional
Costs and Prison
Crowding Are the
Result of Shorter
Sentencesbut Not
Necessarily Less
Recidivism

programs were meeting the overall system objectives of reducing
correctional system costs, prison crowding, and inmate recidivism. As
shown in table 3.1, most states believed their programs were effective in
these areas but to varying degrees.

Page 24

GAO/GGD-93-69 Prison Boot CUIIJM

Chapter

8

Early Ihultr
Indicate State Boot Camps
Reduce Short-Term Prison Coaa and
Crowdlng but Not Neceeesrily Becidiviam or
Long-Term Costs

Table 3.1: State Oplnlona on Whether
Their P&on Soot Camp Programs
Have Reduced Costs, Recidivism, and
Crowdlng

Obiectlve
Reducing costs
Reducing recidivism
Reducing crowding
ONoresponse in this category.
Source: GAO administrative

Extent to which objectives have been met
Very
Little
No
or no
basis
areat
Great Moderate
Some
9
4
2
1
3
7
7
8
1
(1
5
5
7
2
8
2
3
4

questionnaires.

Reducing costs was seen as the greatest success with 16 of the states
responding that this objective had been met to a great or very great extent,
while only 3 said it had been met to some or little or no extent.
Respondents saw reducing crowding and recidivism as somewhat less
successful, ranking in the 2 highest categories for 11 and 12 of the states,
respectively. Nine states said recidivism had been reduced to a moderate
or some extent, while 10 states gave these same rankings for reductions in
crowding.
To expand on the state administrators’ views, we looked for objective data
on boot camp effectiveness in reducing costs, recidivism, and crowding,
We found that the limited number of formal evaluations, the differences in
the programs, and the limited amount of time some programs have been in
existence create difficulties in making any overall analysis. Nevertheless,
we used the data that were available as well as information obtained from
our questionnaires and site visits to develop an overview of the results to
date. These data indicated that while there is no evidence that boot camps
significantly reduce recidivism, they do reduce costs and crowding.
However, the reductions appear to be related to shorter programs rather
than more costeffective activities,

Boot Camp Costs
Compared to Probation
and Traditional
Imprisonment

Building and operating prisons is an expensive enterprise, and a major
selling point for boot camps is that they reduce prison corrections costs,
As noted earlier, most questionnaire respondents believed that the camps
saved them money. These sentiments were echoed in our site visits and in
the formal evaluations of individual programs.
New York is the best example of reported cost savings. The state estimates
that care and custody costs for a participant in its boot camp program
averaged $19,000 less than if the inmate was sentenced to a traditional

Page 25

GAOIGGD-93-69 Prison Boot Camp

A

Chapter 8
Early Resulta Indicate State Boot Camps
Reduce Short-Term Prison Costa and
Crowdlng but Not Necessarily Recidivism or
Long-Term Costa

prison. As of September 30,1991, New York estimated it had saved a total
of $83.6 million in operating costs. Moreover, the state estimated it had
saved $93.7 million over this same period by not having to build as many
new facilities, for a total savings of $177.3 million.
Georgia also found the boot camp program to be less costly than its
prisons. In its January 1991 evaluation, the state estimated its average cost
per boot camp participant at $5,294, compared to $7,913 to $19,861 for
other groups of inmates. The boot camp costs would have been higher
than the costs of probation, however, which averaged $2,279 to $4,279 per
person.
Other states also reported cost savings. Florida said that despite
difficulties in projecting amounts, it estimated program cost savings at
$1.25 million during a 25month period from 1987 through 1989. In its
August 1990 evaluation, NLJestimat,ed that Louisiana’s boot camp program
saved the state $7331.93 per participant.
In each case, the cost savings were attributable to savings on a program
basis rather than a daily basis. In fact, we found that average daily costs
for boot camps tended to be higher than those for the traditional prisons
to which the boot camp participants could have been sentenced, because
of the intensive nature of the training and the need for more staff in the
boot camps.
New York, for example, reported for 1991-92 an average daily cost of
$69.33 for its boot camp program, compared with $50.94 for a
minimum-security prison and $59.75 for a medium-security prison. NLI
calculated that Louisiana spent $29.28 a day for boot camp participants,
compared to $27.98 for other inmates. Georgia reported identical costs for
all levels; however, Georgia officials said this was due to an accounting
system that did not segregate costs in a way that the differences could be
calculated. These officials believed their boot camp programs cost more to
run on a daily basis but did not know how much. Similarly, Florida and
Oklahoma officials said the daily costs of boot camp participants were
higher but could not calculate the differences.
The cost savings, therefore, are attributable to less time in incarceration.
For example, the New York boot camp participant spends 180 days in a
camp, compared to the 1 to 3 years he or she could face in prison. In fact,
the longest period of incarceration in any state is 240 days, whereas the
original sentences could be 5 years or more in 22 of the 26 states.

Page 26

GAOIGGD-93-69 Prison Boot Camps

A

Chapter 3
Rarly Reeulta Indicate State Boot Campe
Beduce Short-Term Prison Costa and
Crowding but Not Necessarily Recidivism or
Long-Term Costa

In our questionnaires to the 26 states, we asked for comparative costs on
operating boot camps and other prison facilities. The information provided
was of limited use. Some statistics were not available, and the amounts
reported often differed largely among the states. In addition, we were not
able to do any meaningful validation or verification of the statistics
provided.
At the same time, the questionnaires supported the premise that any cost
savings from boot camps were on an overall program basis rather than a
daily basis. For daily costs per inmate, 16 states provided comparisons of
boot camps and facilities housing similar inmates, with 4 responding that
costs were the same, 9 responding that boot camps cost more, and 3
responding that boot camps cost less. For overall program costs, 16 states
provided comparisons, and each of these responded that boot camps cost
less, ranging from 8 to 74 percent of the costs at facilities for similar
inmates.
1989 overview study, which analyzed program results in four states,
supported the view that boot camp programs should be less costly
because of the shorter time served. The study noted:
N W ’S

“In all states (even those with higher SI [shock incarceration] costs per day), officials
believed that SI cost the state considerably less per inmate than regular imprisonment
because SI inmates are confined for shorter periods.”

The NLI study also noted, however, that these costs would not necessarily
accrue if the states placed offenders in boot camp programs who
otherwise would have been placed on probation-a practice known as
net-widening. In addition, the cost savings do not take into consideration
the additional costs that would be incurred if persons are reincarcerated.

Boot Camps May Not
Necessarily Reduce
Recidivism

Because boot camps by definition represent an attempt to steer individuals
away from continued criminal behavior, reducing recidivism would seem
to be among the most important measures of program success. Although
NIJ officials say that this is the case, they also say, as with corrections in
general, recidivism is one of the most difficult areaa to measure. Some of
the problems in measuring it include determining the time after release at
which recidivism should be measured, comparing inmates with different
characteristics, tracking inmates who may have been arrested in other
jurisdictions, and even deciding what recidivism means (e.g., rearrest,
reconviction, or committing the same type of crime).

Page 27

GAO/GGD-9349 Prison Boot Camps

Chapter

3

Early Besulta Indicate State Boot Camps
Reduce Short-Term Prison Costa and
Crowding but Not Neceeearily Becidfviam or
Long-Term Coats

Some of the states have attempted to measure recidivism but with varying
success and results. For one thing, the data available are incomplete--one
problem being that boot camps are still too new for determining
long-range success. For another, the data do not provide a clear indication
that boot camps lead to lower recidivism.
Again, at the time of our review, New York had developed the best
recidivism data, comparing boot camp participants with three comparison
groups consisting of inmates who (1) would have met the program
eligibility requirements but were incarcerated before the program started
(pre-shock), (2) were considered for the program but did not wish to
participate (considered), or (3) were removed from the program and
returned to other facilities (removals). As shown in table 3.2, New York’s
January 1992 evaluation report calculated the percentages of each @OUP
returned to prison qt 12 months, 18 months, and 24 months after release.
Table 3.2: FtecIdtvlrm Rates for New
York Boot Camp and Comparlson
Group Inmate8 for Inmates Released
88 of May 1991

,

Group
Boot camp graduates
Pre-shock
Considered
Removals

I

II

March 1989 to
March l$& to
March 1990 Septembei 1989
(12 months)
(18 mdnths)
14
29
19
’ 34
20
36
# 40
22

March

1988 to

March 1989
(24 months)
40
44
47
51

Source: “The Fourth Annual Reporl to the Legislature; Shock Incarceration - Shock Parole
Supervision.” New York Department of Correctional Services and Division of Parole.

Although these numbers indicate a lower recidivism rate for boot camp
participants, they also raise certain questions. First, 40 percent of the boot
camp participants were incarcerated within 2 years of release. In addition,
the differences in the categories tend to decrease ovet time. For example,
after 1 year, the recidivism rate for pre-shock inmates is 136 percent of the
return rate for shock (boot camp) inmates. After 2 years, the rate for
pre-shock inmates is 110 percent of shock participants.
Also, the categories do not necessarily offer direct comparisons. For
example, the pre-shock inmates committed their crimes at an earlier date,
spent more time in prison, and presumably were older on average upon
release. The considered inmates and the removals by definition had either
made a voluntary decision not to participate or for some reason did not
meet program requirements.

Page 28

GAOIGGD-93-69 Prison Boot Cempe

Chapter 8
Early Besulta Indicate State Boot Camps
Reduce Short-Term Prison Costa and
Crowdlng but Not Necessarily Recidivism or
Long-Term Caste

Georgia also tracked recidivism in its most recent evaluation report,
comparing boot camp participants with four groups of prison inmates and
three groups of probationers. Table 3.3 compares boot camp recidivism
rates with those for two prison-inmate groups that had no prior
incarcerations and for three probationer groups. From an eligibility
standpoint, these five groups are most nearly like the boot camp
participants.
Table 3.3: Recldlvism Rates for
Georgia Boot Camp and Comparison
Group Inmates

Number of months after release
Category
Boot camp
Prison inmates
No prior incarceration; under 6
months served
No prior incarceration; 6 to 36
months served
Probationers
Intensive probation supervision
Diversion center
Reaular Drobation
Source: “Special Alternative Incarceration:

6

12

36

40

60

37.8

42.7

50.1

51.5

24.2

42.2

51.4

55.6

57.4

10.1

26.5

43.2

50.8

54.6

58.7

16.6

30.9

44.9

50.9

20.3

30.9

39.9

52.1
41.9

53.5

13.5

15.8

24.5

30.4

32.5

34.1

11.3

24.4

10.4

8.9

24

43.7

Evaluation.” Georgia Department of Corrections.

bike New York’s, Georgia’s numbers do not give a clear indication that the
boot camps have been successful in reducing recidivism. After 4 years,
over half the participants were again in prison. In addition, while the boot
camp rates were lower overall, they actually exceeded the prison rates in
the early months and the regular probation rates throughout.
Also, the comparisons may not be relevant. The primary problem is that
until 1991, Georgia’s boot camp program was a probation-alternative
program. There is no way to know whether judges sentenced persons to
the camps who otherwise would have gone to prison. Moreover, the
probation-alternative camps are only one component of Georgia’s current
program.
Florida’s evaluation report was based on a comparison of relatively small
groups consisting of 71 boot camp participants and 176 other inmates with
similar characteristics between December 1987 and October 1989. Overall,
the reincarceration rate was 25.3 percent for the boot camp inmates,
compared to 27.8 percent for the others. The overall difference was caused

Page 29

GAO/GGD-93-69 Prison Boot Camp

a

Chapter 3
Early &rulti
Indicate State Boot Camps
Beduce Short-Term Prison Costa and
Crowdlng but Not Necessarily Recidivism or
Long-Term Costa

by the control group having a larger percentage of probation violators.
However, the rate was the same for those recommitted for new felonies,
and the boot camp inmates actually had a higher rate for new
misdemeanors.
Other studies were even more discouraging about the ability of boot
camps to reduce recidivism. An evaluation by Oklahoma in 1986 indicated
that boot camp participants could have had a higher rate of recidivism
than other inmates, although officials were not sure the statistics were
adequate for comparisons nor reflective of the current program. A more
recent, informal analysis indicated that the boot camp recidivism rate is
roughly comparable to that of other inmates. The Louisiana study by NIJ
found no significant differences in new arrests among boot camp
graduates as compared to probationers and regular prison parolees.
In an article on its annual boot camp survey for 1991, an NJJ official wrote
that %o state has reported a statistically significant difference in
recidivism when boot camps graduates’ performance is compared to that
of similar offenders serving different types of sentences.” The article
emphasized that the data were preliminary and should not be considered
conclusive at this point. This emphasis echoes NIJ'S position in the
Louisiana evaluation, that is, not having been able to reduce recidivism to
date does not mean that the program has failed; it simply may be too early
to tell.

Effect of Boot Camps on
Prison Crowding

According to NIJ, boot camps can reduce prison crowding if two conditions
are met. First, there must be a sufficient number of boot camp participants
compared to the inmate population systemwide. Second, the participants
must be drawn from a population of prison-bound offenders, rather than
persons who otherwise would be placed on probation.
In its 1991 survey of state boot camp programs, NIJ did not believe the first
qualification was being met, since most programs were so small. NLJ noted
that only New York and Texas had more than 300 beds in each of their
programs and that boot camp space did not account for a significant
number of offenders in any of the states.
Our own survey of the states indicates things may be changing. Currently,
New York has space for 1,600 inmates in its program and Georgia has
space for 2,773. Maryland, Michigan, Oklahoma, and Texas have space for
over 400 each. Fourteen states are considering or have developed

Page 30

GAO/GGD-9349 Prison Boot Camps

,:
.:;

a

Chapter 3
Early Beeulta Indicate State Boot Camps
Reduce Short-Term Prison Costa and
Crowding but Not Necessarily Recidiviem or
Long-Term Costs

expansion plans. Moreover, given the short duration of most boot camp
programs, there is substantially more turnover of boot camp participants
than in traditional prisons, so the overall effect may be greater.
At the same time, however, boot camps still represent a relatively small
part of state inmate populations. The camps in the 26 states responding to
our questionnaire had a total capacity of 8,800, and some of these camps
held inmates who otherwise would have been on probation. By
comparison, the overall state prison population in 1991 was over 751,806.
The second qualification NI.J cited for reducing crowding is even more
difficult to measure, since it is impossible to tell in many cases what
sentence a judge would have given or what facility a correctional system
would have selected had the boot camp not existed. In addition, the
amount of time actually spent in prison may vary, depending on such
factors as parole eligibility and sentencing statutes. Oklahoma, for
example, has a law that allows for the judicial review of a sentence after
120 days, at which time the offender faces a number of sentencing options,
including release. Twenty-one of the 26 states we surveyed believed that
the camps had been successful to at least some extent in helping them in
reducing crowding.
In their evaluation reports, both New York and Louisiana identified the
reduction of prison crowding, or the demand for bedspace, as the prime
objective of their programs. Both also believed that this objective is being
achieved to some extent as a result of the boot camp programs. New York
reported that for its first 4,411 shock releases, it saved 1,392 beds and
avoided $93.65 million in capital construction, According to NlJ,
Louisiana’s much smaller program reduced its bedspace needs by 154 beds
a year.
Florida’s evaluation did not list the reduction of crowding as a specific
program objective. However, the state said its central objective is to “deter
repeat criminality by fostering productive and responsible life adjustments
in a brief though intensive correctional experience representing significant
cost savings to the state.” Florida estimated that 39,759 inmate days would
have been added to its corrections system load during a 25-month period
had offenders served their sentences in traditional facilities rather than in
the boot camp. This estimate was the source of the estimated
$15.25 million in cost savings. Thus, reducing crowding is at least an
indirect program objective.

Page 3 1

GAO/GGD-93-09 Prison Boot Campa

a

Chapter 3
Early Resulta Indicate State Boot Camps
Reduce Short-Term Prison Costa and
Crowding but Not Necessarily Recidivism or
Long-Term Costa

Another factor that could affect crowding levels in the future is the impact
of the boot camps on recidivism. However, the impact in this area will not
be known until the states have more experience with the programs and
have evaluated their effectiveness.

Other Data on Boot Camp
Graduates

Although reductions in the overall costs of corrections, recidivism, and
prison crowding are three overall goals of boot camp programs, achieving
these goals is not necessarily the only measure of success. According to an
NLI official, another important factor is the degree of success-such as
educational accomplishments, employment, and income-achieved by
persons who do not return to prison. No significant evaluations have been
performed on this subject. State and federal officials told us they believe
this enhanced success and a higher quality of life will be significant
benefits derived from the boot camp programs.
No significant evaluations have been performed on this subject. However,
at the locations we visited, boot camp graduates we interviewed said that
their lives were much improved because of the boot camp experience.
State officials noted that they did not usually hear these types of responses
from those who were released from traditional prisons.
Although it had not evaluated the overall success of its graduates, New
York had developed statistics on the employment rate of boot camp
graduates as opposed to three comparison groups. In these statistics, the
progress of 2,896 inmates released between October 1,1990, and March 31,
1991, was tracked. As shown in table 3.4, the boot camp graduates were
more likely to be employed and to be enrolled in community programs
aimed at helping them reintegrate in society.

Table 3.4: Success of New York Boot
Camp Graduates and Comparison
Group Parolees In Obtalnlng
Employment and Enrollment In
Community Relntegratlon Programs

a

Group
Boot camp graduates
Pre-shock
Considered
Removals

Number
955
420
1,110
411

Employed
(percent)
75
48
35
34

Enrolled In
community program
(percent)
79
51
47
50

Source: “The Fourth Annual Report to the Legislature.”

Page 32

GAO/GGD-93-69 Prison Boot Camps

Cluptcr 8
Early Berulta Indicate State Boot Cnmpe
Reduce Short-Term Prleon Costa and
Crowding but Not Neceeearily Recidivism or
Long-Term Costa

New York officials attributed the higher employment rate for boot camp
graduates to the higher motivation and spirit of the graduates as well as
the dedicated services provided graduates within the first 6 months after
release.
In its Louisiana evaluation, N W noted that boot camp graduates appeared to
have more positive attitudes. Moreover, the graduates’ views of their
experiences were seen as sharply different from inmates released from
traditional prisons. However, NIJ also pointed out that to some extent these
views may simply indicate that the boot camp inmates, all volunteers,
were “self-selected,” that is, those inmates most interested in improving
their lives volunteered. NLJ said that not enough was known to reach a
conclusion at the time.

Conclusions

The states generally are pleased with their boot camp programs. Although
very few programs have been formally evaluated, officials believe that
these programs provide a viable alternative to traditional forms of
incarceration and have done much to instill discipline, improve
self-esteem, and provide education for all participants and treatment to
drug offenders.
It is still too early to tell whether boot camps will reduce the overall costs
of corrections, inmate recidivism, and prison crowding in the long term.
To date, however, the camps appear to be less costly than traditional
forms of incarceration. These savings are not due to lower daily inmate
costs-in fact, the reverse appears to be the case-but rather are realized
from the shorter periods of incarceration.
The camps also appear to reduce crowding, primarily for the same reason
that costs are lower. Inmates are in the camps for a shorter periods of time
than if they had served their original sentences in traditional facilities. The
overall impact camps have on crowding will not be known, however, until
more data is available to show (1) whether the participants would have
been sentenced to prison rather than probation and (2) how boot camp
participants and other inmates compare in recidivism rates.
Recidivism is still an unknown factor. Very few states have conducted
studies on recidivism, and those that have did not always use
methodologies and comparison groups capable of measuring boot camp
effectiveness. In those cases where recidivism has been measured, the
results indicated that there is little difference between boot camp inmates

Page 33

GAOIGGD-93.69 Prison Boot Campa

I,
, .j/
‘,.

.

b

Cbnpter 3
Early Berults Indicate State Boot Camps
Reduce Short-Term Prison Costa end
Crowding but Not Necessarily Recidlviem or
Long-Term Costa

and other inmates, particularly the longer the time after release. Reduced
recidivism is important in determining whether rehabilitation is achieved
and in measuring long-range effects on costs and crowding.
Also unknown is the degree to which boot camp graduates enjoy a higher
degree of success or quality of life than inmates released from traditional
prisons. State officials believed these areas ultimately would prove to be
among the camps’greatest benefits.

GAO/GGD-93-69 Prison Boot Camps

Page 34

,n’.,

>‘.

.

..
0’

Chapter 4

The Federal Boot Camp Program Is Fully
Operational, but Its Impact on the Federal
Prison System Is Not Yet Clear
boot camp program-the Intensive Confinement Program-was
established in 1990. To date, there is one camp for men and one for
women in the entire federal system. The first participants left BOP custody
in 1992, so the long-term effects on costs, recidivism, and crowding are
unknown.
BOP’S

Although similar in appearance to the state programs, the federal program
differs in some important respects. One difference is that it does not
include the early release incentives usually offered by the states. In
addition, statutory eligibility is more restricted, and BOP added a program
supplement under its existing authority to ensure it had enough
participants to operate the camps. Notwithstanding these additions, the
program remains small in relation to the overall federal inmate population.

The Intensive
Confinement
Program: Three
Components, Two
Types of Eligibility

BOP

developed the federal version of a prison boot camp following the

enactment of special shock incarceration authority in the Crime Control

Act of 1990. WP refers to the overall program as the Intensive Confinement
Program and the boot camp stage itself as the Intensive Confinement
Center. Two such camps now are in operation. A camp for men opened in
Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, in December 1990, and a camp for women
opened in Bryan, Texas, in July 1992.’
The boot camp stage is only the first step of the program. Unlike the state
programs, a federal participant is not given early release after the boot
camp stage is over. Instead, the boot camp graduate is referred to a
Community Corrections Center -most commonly a halfway house-near
his or her home. After a successful period at the halfway house stage, the
participant is eligible to complete his or her sentence on home
confinemenL2
As administered by DOP,the program actually serves two categories of
eligible inmates-volunteers who qualify under the 1990 act (Category A
inmates) and volunteers BOP has added under its general authorities
(Category B inmates). The 1990 act (at 18 U.S.C. 4046) allows BOP to
operate a boot camp program for volunteers sentenced to a term of
imprisonment of more than 12 but not more than 30 months. The statute
provides that BOP may place an inmate in a boot-camp-type program for a
maximum of 6 months. If the inmate successfully completes the program,
‘The first group of women participants

graduated from the camp on January 13, 1092.

21n home confinement, an offender is usually required to remain in his or her home, except for
preapproved time pcric~ls and purposes, such as a doct&s appointment or regular employment

Page 35

GAO/GGD-93-69

Prison

Boot Camp0

Chapter 4
Tbe Federal Boot Camp Program Is Fully
OperatIona& but Ita Impact on tbe Federcll
Frhn
System In Not Yet Cleu

BOP may fix the length and conditions of his or her remaining time in
custody.

Originally, BOP intended to limit program participation to Category A
inmates-those who were just coming into the federal prison system and
met the eligibility requirements in 18 U.S.C 4046. However, the pool of
inmates meeting the requirements was not sufficient to operate the
program. To increase participation, BOP extended program eligibility to
inmates in the general prison population having original sentences of 60
months or less and no more than 24 months left to serve-Category B
inmates. BOP established this supplemental eligibility under 18 USC. 3621,
which authorizes BOP to designate the place of a prisoner’s confinement
and to transfer a prisoner from one BOP facility to another. Adding
Category B inmates had the desired effect of increasing program
participation.
For both groups of inmates, BOP has established additional eligibility
standards to supplement those set by statute. Specifically, BOP restricts
program participation to individuals who are
serving their first period of incarceration or who have a minor history of
prior incarceration,
l
qualified for minimum security,
. 36 years of age or less (men only), and
l
without medical restrictions and capable of participating in the rigorous
program.
l

In addition to meeting the basic eligibility requirements, program
participants must be selected and screened for suitability. Inmates
entering the system ordinarily must be recommended by the sentencing
judge or by BOI’ with the consent of the sentencing judge. Inmates already
in the system are recommended by the wardens of the facilities in which
they are incarcerated; however, 1301’
still obtains the sentencing judge’s
consent to ensure the placement will not interfere with any sentencing
objective.

BOP Has Different
Options for Category
A and B Boot Camp
Graduates

Because Category A and B inmates enter the boot camp program under
different statutory authorities, nor does not have the same options for
managing Category A and B boot camp graduates. For Category A inmates,
the Crime Control Act of 1990 in effect created two exceptions to

Page 30

GAO/GGD-9349 Prison Boot Camps

a

Chapter 4
The Federal Boot Camp Program Is Fully
Operat.lonal, but Its Impact on the Federal
Prhon Syrtem h Not Yet Clear

otherwise applicable federal sentencing guidelines and
statutes-exceptions not applicable to Category B participants.
The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 (P.L. 98-473,98 Stat. 1987) provided (at
18 U.S.C. 3624(b)) that inmates may not generally be released from
custody until they have served the full sentence imposed by the court less
any credit of up to 54 days a year for satisfactory behavior. Thus, an
inmate sentenced to 30 months-the maximum qualifying sentence for
Category A boot camp participants-and who earned the maximum credit
for satisfactory behavior would have to serve all but about 136 days of his
or her sentence before being eligible for release from BOP custody.
However, 18 U.S.C. 4046(c), added by the Crime Control Act of 1990,
provides DOPthe authority to release Category A inmates before they have
served their full sentence. Specifically, section 4046(c) provides that an
inmate graduating from the boot camp shall remain in BOP custody “for
such period (not to exceed the remainder of the prison term otherwise
required by law to be served by that inmate), and under such conditions,
as the Bureau deems appropriate.” This section by its terms provides BOP
with the authority to release eligible inmates before their terms would
otherwise expirea By authorizing the early release of eligible inmates,
section 4046(c) in effect created an exception to otherwise applicable
federal sentencing laws and guidelines.
Second, section 4046(c) provides BOP with broad discretion in setting the
prerelease custody conditions for Category A inmates, in effect exempting
them from certain restrictions applicable to the general inmate population.
Most importantly, BOPcan assign inmates to extended periods in home
confinement and other prerelease custody without regard to the
provisions of 18 U.S.C. 3624(c), which limit such custody to 6 months or
10 percent of an inmate’s original sentence, whichever is less. 4
31n addition, the legislative hislrny of (he slatute that. enacted section 4046 indicates that one of the
section’s basic purposes was to authorize IlOP to use early releases as a component of shock
incarceration and thus follow the state model of having inmates serve a “shorter, but more arduous,
term.” (See H.R. Rep. No. 681(l), 101”’Cong., 2” Scss. lGl-1153 (1990)). Congress indicated that BOP
already had general lcgdl authority to operate prison boot camps, but because early releases are not
permltted under federal sentencing laws and guidelines BOP needed special statutory authority to
release inmates before the expiration of their terms. See H.R. Rep. No. 681(l), earlier, and Sentencing
tion Act of 1989 hearing before the Subcommittee on Crhninal Justice of the House Committee on
ZWd’
e u Ichary, 1 1 Gong., l” Sess. IS-Ill (l!W).
‘Under the federal sentencing guitlolincs, only ccriaiu inmatL:s sentenced 11)terms of no more than 16
months are eligible for “split sentences,” which involve extended periods of prerelease custody. For
other inmates, the term of prerclcase cuslr~dy is limilcd by I8 U.S.C. 3624(c). In contrast, section 4046
authorizes the boot camp program and extcntlcd prerclc,ase custtdy as a component of the program
for inmates having original scnt.cnces over 12 months, up to a maximunl of 30 months.

Page 87

GAO/GGD-93-69 Prison Boot Camps

,
a

Chapter 4
The Federal Boot Camp Program Is Fully
Operational, but Ita Impact on the Federal
Prbon System Is Not Yet Clear

Because Category B inmates do not qualify for the boot camp program
under section 4046, BOP does not have the authority to release them early
and must adhere to the section 3624(c) requirements governing home
confinement, Consequently, BOP must apply different post-camp custody
criteria to Category A and B inmates who graduate from the boot camp
stage.

The Boot Camp Stage

The focal point of the program is the boot camp stage. The boot camp is a
minimum-security camp where, for a period of 6 months, the participant is
subjected to a regimen of drills, work, training, treatment, and education,
with an emphasis on discipline, the development of self-esteem, and
teamwork. Until recently, the only boot camp was the one for men at
Lewisburg, and consequently, most experience has been with that camp.
Upon arrival at the Lewisburg camp, a participant is put through a 2-week
preliminary period of admissions and orientation. During this time, the
participant becomes familiar with the mission, purpose, and scope of the
camp and receives instruction on, among other things, the rules, the
disciplinary process, safety procedures, behavioral expectations, and
health services. After this initial period, a case manager completes the
screening process to ensure the participant is suitable for boot camp
placement. The participant is then given the camp uniform and standard
personal articles, with all other personal gear stored for the duration of his
stay. The participant also must be medically cleared before he can
participate in the strenuous physical activities.
The men’s camp is located outside the walls of the maximum-security
Lewisburg Penitentiary, with the participants housed in modular buildings
that were once used for a minimum-security prison camp. The boot camp
participants work at running the prison farm and maintaining the grounds
of the entire 60-plus acre facility. Despite the collocation and shared
resources, they do not have contact with the maximum-security inmates.
The stated purpose of the boot camp is “to place offenders in a highly
structured, no frills environment as a means of promoting personal
development, self control, and discipline, thereby reducing the potential
for future incarceration.” Thus, the program features the following:
. a due-process system of discipline;
a strict daily regimen of physical training;
military drills and ceremony;

l
l

Page 36

GAO/GGD-93-69 Prison Boot Campe

l

Chapter 4
The Federal Boot Camp Program Is Fully
Operational,
but Its Impact on the Federal
P&on System Is Not Yet Clear

labor-intensive work assignments;
adult basic education;
. vocational training;
l
drug and alcohol counseling;
l
instruction in stress management, life-coping skills, parenting, family
budgeting, nutrition; and
. other programs aimed at successfully reintegrating the individual back
into the community.
l
l

The workweek extends for 6 days, and the workday lasts for 16 hours.
There is little free time except for Sundays and holidays, when visitors are
permitted. Participants are held to high standards on physical neatness,
adherence to the rules, and maintenance of an orderly bunk. Participants
are not subjected to verbal abuse or intimidation, and no summary
discipline is used. Instructors do not require physical exercise unless they
themselves participate.
The Lewisburg boot camp is designed to accommodate 192 inmates at any
one time. The inmates are subdivided into 4 platoons of approximately 48
inmates, with each platoon assigned its own living area and functioning as
a separate unit. The platoons come into the camp on a staggered basis, so
that a platoon is now graduating every 2 months. Through November 1992,
eight platoons had graduated from the camp, and another was scheduled
to graduate in January 1993. Table 4.1 provides data on the 668 inmates
who had participated in the boot camp program for men since its
inception in December 1990 through December 1992,
Table 4.1: Inmates Processed Through
the Boot Carno for Men as of
December 1992

Category
Graduates
Voluntarv withdrawals
Medical withdrawals
Failures
Still in Drofxam
Total

Inmates
Number
4168
72
14
23b
143
668

Percent
62.2
10.8
2.1
3.4
21.4
100.0

aThree of these inmates were not eligible for halfway house placement: thus, only 413 actually
graduated to the halfway house stage.
blncludes 22 disciplinary transfers and 1 remanded to the Immigration and Naturalization Service
for deportation.
Source: BOP.

Page 39

GAOIGGD-93-99 Prison Boot Camps

I,

chapter 4
The Federal Boot Cmp Propram Is Fully
Operational, but Ita Impact on the Federal
Prhon System Ia Not Yet Clear

The boot camp for women is located at the Bryan Federal Prison Camp for
women in Bryan, Texas, and began operations in July 1992. The capacity
of the Bryan boot camp is 120 inmates, consisting of 2 groups of 60 each.
The first group graduated in January 1993. The Bryan camp features hard
work, with the participants cutting trees, clearing brush, and performing
general maintenance and groundskeeping functions in the Sam Houston
National Forest. The women’s camp operates much like the men’s camp,
except that (1) there is no age limit for women and (2) the women are not
divided into platoons.

The Halfway House Stage

Participants who do not complete the boot camp are returned to a
traditional federal facility, while those who graduate move on to the
second component, the Community Confinement Center or halfway house,
which itself is divided into two phases of approximately equal time. As of
December 1992,413 boot camp graduates had moved on to the halfway
house component at facilities throughout the country.
During the first step of the halfway house stage, the participant is allowed
to work in the community under close supervision but must remain at the
halfway house during all other times unless given special permission to
leave for religious or specific program purposes. All visits with family and
all leisure activities must take place at the halfway house.
Participants who successfully complete the first step, move on to the
second step, in which they have more freedom. They continue to work
under close supervision but are allowed to visit in the community until
curfew time at the halfway house. They also may be given weekend passes
and furloughs.
Normally, the halfway house will be near the participant’s home. Most of
these houses are privately operated facilities that are paid a contracted
daily fee for the federal inmates they serve, In cases where no halfway
house exists, BOP may contract with a local correctional center to function
as a halfway house.
During their stay at the halfway house, the participants work, attend
counseling and treatment sessions, and become reacclimated to the
community. As in a regular prison, they also are subject to routine and
random drug tests. Technically, the participants are still incarcerated and
can be disciplined for violation of halfway house rules and procedures.
Such discipline includes returning an individual to the general prison

Page 40

GAO/GGD-93-69 Prison Boot Camps

a

Chapter 4
The Federal Bout Camp Program In Fully
Operational, but Ita Impact on the Federal
P&on System IO Not Yet Clear

population. At one halfway house we visited, for example, two boot camp
graduates had been returned to a federal prison to complete their
sentences. One had tested positive for a controlled substance, while the
other had missed curfew by a few hours without contacting the center in
advance or having a legitimate reason for the violation.

The Home Confinement
Stage

The last stage of the program before a participant’s release is home
confmement. This stage continues the community-readjustment emphasis
of the halfway house with one important difference-the participant is
allowed to live at home. Participants are allowed to move back in with
their families or, in some cases, to find their own accommodations.
Despite the increased freedom, the participants maintain close ties with
the halfway house. The halfway house officials monitor their whereabouts,
visit their homes and jobs, and administer periodic drug tests. Participants
are required to call in every day, come to the halfway house for testing,
and attend counseling sessions at the halfway house at least twice a week.
As with the halfway house stage, the participants can be disciplined for
not following the rules, including being returned to the general prison
population.
In some cases, home confinement is administered by probation officers
under the Probation and Pretrial Services Division of the Administrative
Office of the U.S. Courts rather than the halfway house where the inmate
was previously assigned. This pilot program utilizes electronic monitoring
by contractors to provide information on the physical location of the
participant. Originally limited to 14 U.S. court districts nationwide, the
program has been expanded to about 60 districts, and a contractor is being
sought to extend it nationwide.
Home confinement is still considered incarceration but is the least
restrictive form of custody available to federal inmates. Moreover, it plays
a much larger role in the program than for non-program inmates, who
generally are not released to home confinement except for the last 30 to 60
days. Some program participants may be on home confinement for more
than a year.
The home confinement portion is the least tested portion of the program,
since the program itself is so new. By November 30,1992, a total of 77
program participants had completed all three stages of the program and
been released from BOP custody.

Page 41

GAOIGGD-03-60 Prison Boot Campa

I

Chapter 4
The Federal Boot Camp Program Is Fully
Operational, but Its Impact on the Federal
Prieon Syetem Ia Not Yet Clear

BOP Officials Believe
the Program Is
BeneWc%

they said it was too early to determine its long-term effectiveness in
reducing costs, crowding, and recidivism. They said the major difference
they saw was in the attitudes of the program participants & opposed to
inmates in traditional prisons. These officials believed the increased
discipline, the heavy emphasis on work, and the nonthreatening
environment all tended to produce participants who were able to show a
positive adjustment to prison life and a willingness to correct their lives.
Moreover, they said the increase in pride and self-esteem was evident, as
many of these young men had been forced to accomplish something on
their own for the first time in their lives.
The boot camp administrator gave examples of participants who had been
affected positively by the camp. One participant, for example, had reduced
his weight by more than 100 pounds over the course of the 6-month
program. Other participants had exhibited marked changes in attitude.
Typically, the participants left the boot camp in far better physical
condition than they were in when they entered. The administrator also
said the individuals leaving the camp seemed to be more willing to accept
accountability for their own actions and had an enhanced ability to
function as members of a team.
The administrator also noted the positive influence the program had on
BOP staff. He noted staff members’ willingness to work long hours, often
voluntarily and without extra pay, because they believed they were seeing
results. In addition, he said the staff adapted readily to the tougher
regimen of the program, performing calisthenics and drills alongside the
participants. He said this staff attitude made the participants even more
willing to work hard and also helped the overall morale within the camp.
The halfway house officials with whom we spoke also believed the
program was having a positive effect on the participants, although it was
too early for them to tell how successful the program would be in the long
term. They said the program graduates seemed to be more focused, were
self-motivated, and had more pride and self-esteem. One of the halfway
houses had received four boot camp graduates, and all were functioning
well. The other had received six boot camp graduates, with four still in the
program.
officials we contacted pointed out the common problem in
corrections: No matter how an individual responds while incarcerated, the
real test comes upon his or her return to the community. Frequently, the
BOP

Page 42

GAOIGGD-93-09 Prison Boot Campe

a

Chapter

4

The Federal Boot Camp Program Is Fully
Operational, but Its Impact on the Federal
Prison System Is Not Yet Clear

participant returns to the same family and community problems he or she
left but now with a prison record. In addition, the individual returns to the
same temptations, including drugs and alcohol. The officials said this is
where the best plans begin to break down and the individual must get by
on his or her own. The officials believe that the strength of the program is
in (1) providing the motivation, the self-esteem, and the confidence
necessary for the graduates to overcome these obstacles and (2) allowing
for a gradual readjustment to the community through the halfway house
and home confinement.
At the time of our review, BOP had completed no formal evaluations of the
program. However, officials were in the process of designing an evaluation
model and collecting preliminary information.

Current Requirements
May Restrict the
Program’s
Effectiveness

The program has not been in operation long enough to determine whether
it will reduce recidivism, prison crowding, and corrections costs. As
currently designed, however, its impact is likely to be minimal even if it
ultimately proves to be a success. One reason is that the program is simply
too small to make any real difference overall. In addition, while the
program may be less expensive than traditional prisons, BOP does not grant
early releases and thus cannot realize the same levels of savings in costs
that the states have reported. Whether BOP'S approach will result in lower
recidivision and, thus, lower long-term Costs remains to be seen.

The Program Is Too Small
to Make a Difference
Systemwide

As presently structured, the program is too small an effort to have a
sizeable impact on costs, recidivism, or prison crowding within the federal
prison system as a whole. Fully occupied, the two camps will house 312
participants, or less than 0.5 percent of the federal prison population.
Several eligibility factors work together to limit the program’s size, some
created by the special boot camp statute itself and others by BOP'S own
requirements. These factors include the limits on the original sentence
length, the age limit for men, the requirement that the participants be
minimum security, and the restrictions on previous incarcerations. Each of
these factors is similar to requirements in state systems and is consistent
with the generally accepted goal of targeting boot camp programs to
offenders who are young, impressionable, nonviolent, and with a minor
criminal history. However, the federal inmate population differs from
those of the states in that federal inmates tend to be older, more likely to

Page 43

GAO/GGD-93-69 Prison Boot Camps

Chapter 4
The Federal Boot Camp Program Is Fully
Operrtlond, but Its Impact on the Federal
Prison System Ie Not Yet Clear

have been incarcerated before, and drawn from a broader geographical
area.

Statutory RequirementsHelp
KeepProgram Small

A primary reason for the small number of Category A participants is that
section 4046 restricts program participation to volunteers with an original
sentence of 12 to 30 months. As discussed earlier, the number of inmates
meeting this requirement proved to be so small that BoP-under its
existing authority in section 3621 to choose the place of an inmate’s
incarceration-decided to supplement the program with Category B
inmates drawn from the existing prison population. Through
December 1992,267, or 59.8 percent, of the 413 men who graduated from
the boot camp portion of the program were Category B participants.
Although adding Category B inmates gave BOP a sufficient number of
participants to begin its program, it did not add enough to have a
significant impact on the federal prison system as a whole. BOP estimates
that, as of June 1992, only 1,433 inmates, or about 2.1 percent of the
inmate population, would have qualified under either the Category A or B
requirements on sentence length.
The Category B supplement was intended to be a temporary measure to
ensure that the program had enough participants to operate effectively.
BOP officials believed that over time, enough Category A inmates would
come into the system on a regular basis so that the Category B inmates
would no longer be needed. This appears to be occurring; BOP officials said
that Category A inmates constitute about 90 percent of program entrants
since the summer of 1992.
At the same time, nor officials are so pleased with the response they have
received from Category B inmates that they plan to keep them as part of
the program. The officials said that Category B inmates often are among
the best participants, since they have already served part of their sentence
in the traditional prison system and thus have a means for comparison.
The BOP officials said that operating a program with two categories of
participants required addmona administration, since BOP has much
greater discretion over the post-boot-camp custody of Category A
participants than it does Category B participants. They did not see this as a
problem, however.

BOP RequirementsAlso
Restrict Participktion

The restrictions on age, security level, and incarceration history were
added by DOP.Although they agree that these restrictions limit the pool of
eligible participants, IKP officials said they were necessary to ensure a

Page 44

GAOIGGD-93-69 Prison Boot Can

a

Chapter 4
The Federal Boot Camp Program Is Fully
Operational, but Ita Impact on the Federal
Prison System Is Not Yet Clear

population that was most likely to benefit from the program. The officials
believed that older inmates were more resistant to change, that inmates
above minimum-security levels were potentially violent or too high a
security risk, and that those who had served previous prison terms had
already shown a propensity for continued criminal behavior.
did not have statistics showing how many inmates were excluded by
its own eligibility requirements. However, the requirements do have a
limiting effect. In 1991, for example, 49.4 percent of all federal inmates
were more than 35 years old, 79.7 percent were in custody levels other
than minimum security, and most had been in prison before. The only
inmates in these groups eligible for the program were women over 35 and
inmates whose prior incarceration was considered “minor.”
BOP

On the basis of its early experience with the program, BOP has begun to
reconsider some of the requirements it places on program participants. In
House Appropriation Committee hearings on BOP’Sfiscal year 1992
appropriations, BOP’S Director said the current eligibility requirements had
been considered necessary for the federal inmate population, in which the
average inmate is 37 years old and many are serving their fourth sentence.
He said that at the time the program was created, such inmates were not
considered “prime candidates for these kinds of intensive boot camp-type
of programs.”
The Director also said, however, that the initial staff reaction to the
program was so positive that IMP might consider expanding the program.
He said that while the focus would still be on nonviolent inmates, some
staff had proposed increasing the limits on age, original sentence length,
and the time in the program itself.
At the time of our review, ISOPhad not made any changes--other than the
addition of Category B inmates-to increase the size of the program or
expand eligibility. IKX officials told us they were considering opening
another camp for men on the West Coast but that no action had been
taken to date because of budgetary constraints.

W ithout Early Releases,
the Potential-for Cost &d
Inmate Population
Reductions Is Lim ited

A major selling point for state boot camp programs has been their lower
costs. Although the camps themselves tend to be more expensive than
traditional prisons on a daily basis, the states typically release the boot
campparticipants earlier, thereby saving on the overall costs of
incarceration.

Page 46

GAOIGGD-93-69 Prison Boot Camps

Chapter 4
The Federal Boot Camp Program Is Fully
Operational,
but Its Impact on the Federal
Prison System Is Not Yet Clear

Like the states’programs, the federal boot camp program costs more on a
daily basis than the facilities to which the inmates would have gone
otherwise. BOP estimated the daily cost per participant at $46.42 for the
Lewisburg camp and $45.15 for the Bryan camp, compared to $40.15 for
other minimum-security facilities nationwide. The costs of halfway houses
vary widely across the nation but average about $32.50 a day. The rate BOP
paid the halfway houses for monitoring home confinement is one-half the
rate it pays when they serve as traditional halfway houses. The home
confinement cost is less-as low as $6.00 a day-in those cases in which it
is contracted by the Federal Probation Service.”
Despite the higher costs of the camp, incarcerating inmates in the program
rather than in traditional minimum-security facilities may be less
expensive. This is because after participants graduate from the boot camp
they go on to halfway houses and home confinement, which are less
expensive than minimum-security prison camps.
Using the average costs discussed earlier, we compared the costs for
hypothetical male inmates serving 24-month sentences. We assumed that a
Category A inmate would serve 6 months in the boot camp, 8 months in a
halfway house, and 10 months in home confinement; a Category B inmate
would spend 6 months in the boot camp, 12 months in a halfway house,
and 6 months in home confinement; and a non-program inmate would
spend 22 months in a prison camp and 2 months in home confinement.
Based on these assumptions, the overall costs of incarceration would be
$21,074.69 for a Category A inmate, $23,268.44 for a Category B inmate,
and $27,875.50 for a non-program inmate. Thus, compared to costs for a
non-program inmate, a savings of 24.5 percent for the Category A inmate
and 16.3 percent for the Category B inmate is realized.
Despite these potential cost savings, any comparisons of the costs of the
program and traditional facilities are subject to caveats. First, the savings
vary depending on the length of the sentence and the amount of time spent
in each stage. The savings are greater when the sentence is longer and
more time is spent in home confinement. Second, our comparisons were
based on national averages; the actual costs of halfway houses and home
confinement vary widely. Finally, the inmate not assigned to the boot
camp may have been eligible to spend some or all of his sentence in a

‘This amount includes only the conlracto~% cost. It dots not include the cost of the probation offker’s
supervision of rhc offmdcr. The IWcral Probation Service is part of the federal judiciary and
supervises persons scntcnred to probation and other nonprison terms as well as those who have been
sentenced ELIa period of supervision ;ifkr their IX~lCiWc! from prison.

Page 46

GAO/GGD-93-69 Prison Boot Camps

A

Chapter 4
‘lb Federal Boot Camp Program Is Fully
Operational, but Its Impact on the Federal
Prison System Is Not Yet Clear

halfway house anyway, which would result in lower costs than assigning
him to a prison camp or the boot camp program.
In addition, although the program may be a less expensive form of
incarcerating federal inmates, BOP cannot experience the levels of cost
savings and correctional system population reductions reported by the
states because BOP does not release participants early-a practice based
partially on BOP policy and partially on the law governing Category B
participants. Although, in our view, 18 U.S.C. 4046(c) authorizes BOP to
release Category A participants early, BOP chooses not to do so. Category B
participants cannot be released early because they are not eligible for the
program under section 4046(a) and thus are subject to serving out their
full terms in accordance with federal sentencing laws.
Releasing participants after their graduation from the boot camp would
reduce incarceration costs substantially for individual participants. In the
hypothetical cases discussed earlier, for example, releasing a Category A
participant after the boot camp portion of the program would result in
overall costs of $8,448.44-about half the current costs for a Category A
participant. BOP acknowledges that section 4046(c) appears to give it the
authority to release Category A participants early. However, it does not do
so as a matter of policy and does not plan to revise this policy. In a
November 10, 1992, letter to us, r&s Director gave the following rationale
for this policy:
“In regard to the potential use of early release, we believe there are sufficient incentives to
encourage inmate participation in the ICC[Intensive Confinement Center] program without
allowing early release. In addition, continued custody after completion of the ICCprogram
assists us in monitoring the rehabilit,ative progress of an inmate while also meeting the
desires of the sentencing court and insuring the maximum protection of the public.”

W ithin the program, BOP can reduce costs by assigning the participants to
longer periods of home confinement, since home confinement costs less
than halfway houses. Again, however, BOP has much less discretion over
the amount of time Category B participants spend in home confinement,
since these participants are subject to limitations on prerelease custody in
section 18 U.S.C. 3624(c). Thus, Category A participants may, at BOP’S
discretion, spend as long as 14 months in home confinement while
Category B participants are limited to the lesser of 6 months or 10 percent
of the original sentence.

Page 47

GAO/GGD-93-09 Prison Boot Camps

Chapter 4
Tbs Federal Boot Gamy Program Is Fully
Operational, but Its Impact on the Federal
Prison System Is Not Yet Clear

Not releasing participants early also precludes the program from reducing
the overall population within the federal prison system since (1) the
program participants still are considered incarcerated even when they are
at halfway houses or on home confinement and (2) non-program inmates
also may be assigned to halfway houses and home confinement. However,
placing inmates in these two latter stages does reduce the need for the
minimum-security facilities to the extent the inmates would otherwise be
assigned to them.
The potential for reducing costs and crowding through lower recidivism is
unknown since the program is too new to determine its long-range effects.
The men’s camp has been in existence less than 2 years, and the women’s
camp just opened in July 1992. Of the 668 men who had entered the
program through December 1992, only 77 had completed all three stages of
the program and been released from NOP custody. The first class of women
graduated from the Bryan camp in January 1993; thus no women have yet
completed all three stages of the program.

Policy Issues
Concerning the
Federal Boot Camp
Program

Because it is new and few participants have completed the entire program,
it is too early to measure the effectiveness of the program. Although the
program is already reaching more inmates than those targeted under 18
U.S.C. 4046, it remains so small relative to the overall federal inmate
population, that it is likely to have little systemwide impact.
However, congressional interest in boot camps and other alternatives to
traditional incarceration remains high as policymakers search for less
costly alternatives to traditional imprisonment that do not increase the
risk to public safety. In part, this interest reflects the rapidly rising costs of
building and operating prisons for a federal prison population that has
grown from 41,500 in 1986 to more than 70,000 in November 1992, with a
projected population of 106,000 by 1996.
In 1992, Congress authorized federal grants to the states for the creation of
up to 10 boot camps for juveniles;” President Clinton’s campaign platform
included support for expanding boot camps, and boot camps for first-time
drug offenders have also been proposed. The federal boot camp program
and its potential expansion pose several policy issues for the
administration and Congress. Descriptions of these issues follow. The data
available provide no clear support for one course of action over another.
Quvenile Justice and Delinquency Prcvcntiou Appropriations,
Amendments of 1992 (P.L. 102-W, 106 Slat. 4982).

Page 48

Fiscal Years 1993, 1994, 1996, and 1996

GAO/GGD-93-09

Prison Boot Camps

b

Chapter d
The Federal Boot Camp Program L Fully
Operational,
but Its Imyact on the FederllJ
Primon System Is Not Yet Clear

Issues Posed by Current
Program Structure

Two policy issues are posed by the current federal boot camp program
structure. The first is whether BOP should exercise its authority to release
Category A participants immediately following their graduation from the
camp, as most states do. The second is whether both Category A and B
boot camp graduates should be eligible for early release and extended
home confinement.
Unlike most states, BOP does not release eligible boot camp participants
following their graduation from the boot camp. Consequently, the federal
program cannot achieve the per inmate cost savings that most state
programs do. Since the per diem costs of federal and state boot camps
exceed those of the average minimum-security prison, any immediate
savings from boot camp programs is the result of shorter sentences and/or
the time spent in halfway houses and home confinement, both of which
are less expensive than minimum-security prisons. Any current savings in
the federal program would be the result of the more extensive use of
halfway houses and home confinement.
If BOP were to exercise its early release authority, additional savings in the
federal program would be possible. Should the inmates be released to the
supervision of the Federal Probation Service for all or part of their
remaining sentence, the costs of that supervision would reduce the total
savings to the federal government from early release.’
On the other hand, the additional period of time that federal boot camp
graduates spend in halfway houses and home detention provides BOP with
the opportunity to help inmates build on the educational, vocational, and
other skills they acquired in the camps. If the current approach results in a
lower recidivism rate than state programs have achieved, this approach
may prove to be more cost-effective than early releases in the long run.
Whether to provide nor with the same options for both Category A and B
boot camp graduates is a policy decision, and plausible reasons exist both
for equalizing the treatment of the two categories of graduates and for
continuing the current limitations on Category B graduates.
Category A and B participants enter the federal boot camp program under
different statutory authorities. IKWhas the authority to release Category A
participants after they graduate from the boot camp and to place such
participants in home confinement for whatever period of time it deems
‘Release from BOP custody to probation would lower BOP’s cost but increase costs for the Federal
Probation Service, which is part of the: f~dc~raljudiciary.

GAO/GGD-93-69 Prieon Boot Cunpe

Page 49

,‘I,’

Chapter 4
The Federal Boot Camp Program Ie Folly
Operational,
but Its Impact on the Federal
Prison Syetem Ie Not Yet Clear

appropriate, but not to exceed the remainder of their sentence. However,
BOP does not have the authority to place Category B participants in home
confinement for longer than 6 months or 10 percent of their sentences
(whichever is less). BOP may not release them before they have served
their full sentence, less a maximum of 54 days a year for satisfactory
behavior. Because BOP does not exercise its authority to release Category
A participants after their graduation from the boot camp, in practice, the
principal difference in the treatment of Category A and B boot camp
graduates is the amount of time they may spend in home confinement.
Since both Category A and B participants are volunteers screened by BOP
and selected as appropriate candidates for the boot camp program, some
basis exists for treating both categories of boot camp graduates the same.
If Congress were to grant BOP the same discretion over the post-boot-camp
custody of all boot camp program participants, BOP would be allowed to
make decisions that are cost-effective and tailored to the needs of
individual participants. Some additional cost savings could accrue from
BOP’S ability to place Category B participants in home confinement for
longer periods, even if nor continues its policy of not releasing any
participants early.
On the other hand, several reasons exist for continuing the current
distinction between Category A and B boot camp graduates. First,
Category B participants have been sentenced to as many as 60 months in
prison, up to twice the maximum sentence allowed for Category A
participants. BOP requires both sets of participants to be nonviolent
offenders with minimal or no prior incarceration. However, Category B
participants originally sentenced to more than 30 months generally have
committed more serious offenses than their Category A counterparts.
Second, Category A and B participants enter the program by different
routes and for arguably different purposes. Category A participants enter
the boot camp soon after being sentenced-the program is how they serve
that sentence, and section 4046 specifies a maximum eligible sentence of
30 months for such inmates. Category B participants, however, enter the
program under BOP’S general authority to determine the place of an
inmate’s confinement and to transfer the inmate from one institution to
another.
These inmate volunteers have served as much as 36 months in prison
before their placement in the boot camp. In effect, Category B participants
enter the program as the first step in their transition from prison to the

Page 60

GAO/GGD-93-69 Prison Boot Campe

b

Chapter

d

The Federal Boot Camp Program Is Fully
Operational, but Ita Impact on the Federal
Prhn Bye&m Ia Not Yet Clear

community. This is perhaps the most unusual feature of the federal boot
camp program. It is too early to tell if this use of boot camps will be
successful in reducing recidivism and thus long-term prison costs.
BOP has decided to maintain Category B participants in the program and
has been considering the administrative expansion of eligibility criteria for
Category B participants. BOP officials said that the Category B participants
are often some of the better participants, since they already have served
part of their sentence in traditional imprisonment and have a basis for
comparison with the boot camp program.

Category A participants now comprise about 90 percent of all those
entering the boot camp program. Assuming this trend continues, the
different treatment of Category A and B participants is likely to affect few
Category B participants unless current boot camp capacity is expanded.

Issues Posed by Possible
Program Expansion

BOP is satisfied with the way the program has worked to date, and the
program does offer potential cost savings over traditional incarceration in
minimum-security facilities. However, the program as currently structured
is too small to have a major impact on federal prison crowding and costs.
Although UOP administratively expanded eligibility by the addition of
Category B participants, in July 1992 only slightly more than 2 percent
(about 1,400) of the federal prison population was eligible for the program.
Moreover, with so few participants (77) having completed all three stages
of the program, its impact on recidivism, and thus long-term costs, is also
uncertain.

In addition to releasing participants following their graduation from the
boot camp, expanding eligibility, and thus the pool of potential volunteers,
would also affect potential short-term cost savings. One way to expand
participation would be for ISOPto expand eligibility administratively by
easing its current requirements on age, security level, and incarceration
history as well as increasing the maximum GO-month sentence for
Category B volunteers. Another way of expanding participation, which
would require congressional action, would be to increase the statutory
maximum sentence of 30 months for those inmates now qualifying as
Category A participants.
Administratively, expanding the maximum 60-month sentence for
Category B participants increases the pool of inmates who can volunteer
for the boot camps as the first step in completing the final 24 months of

Page 5 1

GAO/GGD-93-69 Prison Boot Camps

Chapter

4

The Federal Boot Camp Program Ie Fully
Operational, but Iti Impact on the Federal
Prison System Ie Not Yet Clear

their sentence. Like most state programs, the federal program is primarily
designed for nonviolent offenders with minimal criminal history (including
minimal or no prior incarceration). Increasing the maximum eligible
sentence would mean including inmates who have committed more
serious offenses.
Any discussion of statutorily expanding the federal boot camp program
would need to include consideration of the expansion’s impact on the
sentencing policies embodied in the federal sentencing guidelines and
statutes mandating tougher sentences for certain nonviolent drug and
white-collar offenses. Policy choices would include what offenses, if any,
should be excluded from eligibility, and whether all inmates who
successfully complete the boot camp regimen should be eligible for early
release and extended home confinemenq or distinctions should be made,
based on such things as the type of offense or length of sentence.

Conclusions

The federal boot camp program is fairly new and as structured, not likely
to have a significant impact in reducing prison crowding or costs, even if
BOP uses its early release authority for Category A inmates. In part, this is
because the program is so small. Only two camps are in operation, and
these are capable of accommodating 312 inmates, or less than 0.5 percent
of the federal inmate population. Moreover, as of July 1992, only 2.1
percent of the federal population qualified for the program, even though
BOP expanded program eligibility under its general authority to choose the
type and location of an inmate’s incarceration.
could reduce costs if it had the same early release and extended home
confinement authority for Category B boot camp graduates that it has for
Category A graduates. Even if BOPcontinues its policy of releasing no
program participants early, extending the period that Category B
participants may be placed in home confinement would save money, since
the cost is about half that of the halfway houses to which they would
otherwise be confined. However, actual future savings may be small even
with this change. According to IWP,Category A inmates now comprise
about 90 percent of those entering the boot camp program. Assuming this
trend continues, the future number of Category B participants is likely to
be quite small unless current boot camp capacity is expanded.
BOP

BOP is generally pleased with the program thus far but admits that its
long-term impact on reducing prison costs and crowding is uncertain at
this point. Available data from state and federal programs provide no

Page 62

GAOIGGD-9349 Prison Boot Camp6

_’
‘,

!,‘,

&

Chapter 4
The Federal Boot Camp Program Is Fully
Operational, but Ita Impact on the Federal
Prleon Syetem Is Not Yet Clear

reason, other than the potential short-term cost savings, for expanding the
federal boot camp program. Moreover, since available state recidivism
data suggest that boot camp participants may not have a much lower
recidivism rate than those who are sent to traditional prisons, the
long-term effect of boot camps on reducing prison crowding and costs is
uncertain.
Boot camp programs save money and reduce prison crowding in the short
term, because inmates serve shorter sentences and/or spend longer
periods of time in less expensive forms of confinement, such as halfway
houses and home confinement. Additional short-term savings could be
achieved by enlarging the pool of eligible participants by expanding the
length of sentence that qualifies inmates for the program, providing less
restrictive standards for age and security level than those BOPuses,
reducing the length of stay by mandating early release for participants, or
using some combination of these changes. The extent of the potential
savings depends on the changes made. Increasing program participation
would require trade-offs with other current policies such as the
expansion’s impact on the sentencing policies embodied in the federal
sentencing guidelines and statutes mandating tougher sentences for
certain nonviolent drug and white-collar offenders.

Agency Comments

BOP provided oral comments on chapter 4 of the report, which discusses
the federal boot camp program. BOP officials, including those in the

Community Corrections and Detention Division, said that they found the
chapter to be a fair and balanced discussion of the federal boot camp
program.
Regarding its aut,hority to release inmates early under 18 U.S.C. 4046, BOP
acknowledges that section 404(?(c) may be interpreted as providing BOP
with the authority to release Category A participants early. However, BOP
has advised us that it has no official position on this issue and has not
ruled out other possible interpretations of the statute. As a matter of
policy, BOP does not release Category A participants early and has no plans
to revise this policy.
As discussed earlier, we believe that by its terms 18 U.S.C. 4046(c)
authorizes IWPto release eligible participants before their terms would
otherwise expire, and the legislative history of the statute confirms that
Congress intended to grant IW early release authority. While BOP suggests

Page 63

GAOtGGD-93-69 Prison Boot Campa

,
,’
I ,’

,’

a

4
The Federal Boot Camp Program le Fully
Operational, but Its Impact on the Federal
P&on Syrrtem IE Not Yet Clear

Chapter

that other interpretations of the statute might be possible, it has not
provided us with an explanation of these other interpretations.

Page 54

GAOIGGD-93-69 Prison Boot Campe

GAOIGGD-93-69

Page 65

:

”

Prison Boot Cmpe

_.
‘.

_’

Appendix I

List of Contacts for State Boot Camp
Programs
The following is a list of people we contacted to obtain background
information concerning boot camp programs. We are providing the names
and addresses for anyone interested in obtaining information about these
state programs.

Table 1.1: Liet of Contact8 for State Boot Camp Program8
State
Agency/address
Alabama
Department of Corrections
Community Work Center
P.O. Box 368
Childersburg, AL 35044
Arizona
Department of Corrections
ASPC-F East Unit Shock
Incarceration
P.O. Box 629
Florence, AZ 85232
Arkansas
Department of Corrections
Boot Camp
P.O. Box 1010
Wrightsville, AR 72183
Department of Corrections
Colorado
P.O. Box 2017
Buena Vista, CO 81211
Florida
Department of Corrections
Youthful Offender Office
2601 Blairstone Road
Tallahassee. FL 32399
Georgia
Department of Corrections
2 Martin Luther King Drive
Suite 670
Atlanta, GA 30334
Idaho
Department of Corrections
Star Route # 3
Box 147
Cottonwood, ID 83522
Illinois
Department of Corrections
1301 Concordia Ct.
P.O. Box 19277
Sprinofield, IL 62794
Kansas
Department of Corrections
Landon State Office Building
900 SW Jackson
Topeka, KS 66612
Louisiana
Department of Public Safety
654 Main Street
P.O. Box 94394
Baton Rouge, LA 70804

Telephone number
(205) 378-3821

Contact person
John Winston

Blaire Marshall

(602) 868-4011

Major Tommy Rochelle

(501) 897-5806

Major Mike Perry

(719) 395-2404

Clint Cox

(904) 488-l 140

Tommy Payne

(404) 651-7875

Dean E. Allen

(208) 962-3276
a

Robert J. Jones

(217) 522-2666

Terry Reiling

(913) 296-3317

Jean Wall

(504) 342-6740

(continued)

Page 66

GAO/GGD-98.69

,.<.’

.,a1

I’

+.,;.:i

Primn

Boot Camp

Appendix I
L&t of Contaets for State Boot Camp
prOgWlM

State
Maryland

Michigan

Mississippi

Nevada

New Hampshire

New York

North Carolina

Ohio

Oklahoma

Pennsylvania

South Carolina

Tennessee

Agencyladdrere
Divislon of Corrections
P-0. Box 1425
Jessup, MD 20794
Department of Corrections
Grandview Plaza
P.O. Box 30003
Lansing, Ml 489092
Department of Corrections
Regimented Inmate Discipline
P.O. Box 847
Parchman, MS 38738
Department of Prisons
P.O. Box 208
Indian Springs, NV 89070
Department of Corrections
105 Pleasant Street
Main Building
P.O. Box 769
Concord, NH 033302
Department of Corrections
Building 2
Harriman State Office Campus
Albanv, NY 12226
Department of Corrections
IMPACT Youth Center
P.O. Box 211
Hoffman, NC 28347
Department of Rehabilitation
and Corrections
Camp REAMS
5900 B.I.S. Road
Lancaster, OH 43130
Department of Corrections
3400 Martin Luther King Avenue
P.O. Box 11400
Oklahoma City, OK 73136
Department of Corrections
Quehanna Boot Camp
H.C. Box 32
Karthaus. PA 16845
Department of Corrections
P.O. Box 21787
Columbia, SC 29221
Department of Corrections
Wayne County Boot Camp
P.O. Box 182
Clifton, TN 37716

Contact person
Stanley Christian

Telephone number
(301) 7941363

Donald J. Hengesh

(517) 373-0287

Bob Rowe

(601) 745-3037

Lt. Pete Seagriff

(702) 879-3046

John Sanfilippo

(603) 524-9039

Cheryl Clark

(518) 457-8144

Major John Taylor

(919) 281-5156

Major Ralph Coyle

(614) 653-4324

George Lindley

(405) 425-2500
a

John Wertz

(814) 765-0644

Karen C. Martin

(803) 737-8832

James M. Davis

(615) 6763345

(continued)

Page 57

GAO/GGD-93-69 Prison Boot Camps

Appendlx I
Ltat of Contacu for State Boot Camp
PrOgWM

state
Texas

Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

Agencyktdress
Department of Corrections
P.O. Box 99
Huntsville, TX 77340
Department of Corrections
P.O. Box 26963
Richmond, VA 23261
Division of Corrections
Saint Croix Correctional Center
P.O. Box 36
New Richmond, WI 54017
Division of Corrections
40 Pippin Road
Newcastle. WY 82701

Page 58

Contact person
Captain John Pitzeruse

Telephone number
(409) 2956331

Andrew Molloy

(804) 674-3000

Peter Stacy

(715) 246-6971

Captain R. Munoz

(307) 746-4436

GAO/GGD-93-69 Prison Boot Campe

Appendix II

Additional Details on Questionnaire
Methodology
Because no national database on boot camps existed at the time of our
review, we developed our own. The primary method by which we
accomplished this was through the use of two questionnaires-an
administration and a camp questionnaire.
After identifying existing boot camp programs through a telephone survey
of all 60 states and the District of Columbia, we developed the
administration questionnaire and mailed a copy to the senior state officials
overseeing the 26 state programs. The administration questionnaire
gathered information on programwide objectives and methods, participant
eligibility and outcomes, staffing, and costs.
We also developed and sent a camp questionnaire to the states to be
completed for each of their camps. This questionnaire asked for details of
the inmates and program activities at each camp and were to be completed
by the individual designated by the state as in the best position to provide
a response. These individuals included camp commanders, program
officials, and other senior corrections officials. While in New York and
Georgia, we administered the questionnaires during our site work in those
two states rather than mailing them.
When the responses from any state were incomplete, we made follow-up
inquiries by phone. For none of the states did we verify or validate the
information provided on the questionnaires, except that we did ask for
supporting records on costs, recidivism, and crowding to the extent they
were available in Georgia, Oklahoma, and New York-the three states we
visited.
By the end of our field work in November 1992, we had received responses
from all 26 states on the administration questionnaires and from 53 of the
67 camps on the camp questionnaires. State officials for the other four
camps chose not to respond for various reasons, including the recency
with which the camps had opened, the lack of information available, and
the fact that some camps shared facilities.
Despite the high response rate to our questionnaires, we found it difficult
to generalize about the nature of boot camp programs as a whole. The
programs and camps vary widely in size, age, and focus, and information is
maintained in different formats among the states. In addition, the states
sometimes had specific exceptions to general requirements, and some
states had more than one program or component. Therefore, the data are
most useful for providing a descriptive profile of the programs.

GAO/GGD-9349 Prison Boot Cunpa

Page 69

,::. I (,(..,,/.fi,.;.<
,..,
P: :,
,,!:r,:

‘,

.

,,

.,. ‘,. , ,‘.‘,
,.’

Appendix III

General Statistics on State Prison Boot
Camps

Year
State
Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
Colorado
Florida
Georaia
Idaho

started
1988
1988
1990
1991
1987
1983
1989

Illinois

1990

Kansas
Louisana
Maryland
Michigan
Mississppi
Nevada
New Hampshire
New York
North Carolina
Ohio
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Total

1991
1987
1990
1988
1985
1991
1990
1987
1989
1991
1984
1992
1986
1989
1989
1991
1991
1990

Number of
camps
1
1
1
1
1
19
1
1

1
1
1
3
2
1
1
5
1
1
4
1
2
1
3
1
1
1
57

Source: GAO adminislrative

Page 60

Capacity
Men
Women
180
0
24
126
150
0
92
8
100
0
2,623
150
210
0
220
10
8
96
136
2
436
12
600
0
233
30
80
0
60
12
1,350
150
0
90
100
0
346
100
10
190
196
24
150
0
400
12
100
0
40
0
24
0
8,320
552

Total
(in days)
180
150
150
100
100

2,773
210
230
104
138
448
600
263
80
72
1,500
90
100
446
200
220
150
412
100
40
24
8,880

Length of
program
(in days)
90
120
105
90
90

30to 240
100
120
180
90to180
168
90
120
150
120
180
90
90
45to 180
180
90
90
90
88to90
180
90

questionnaires.

GAOIGGD-93.69 Prison Boot Campn

.

,I

Appendix IV

1 Legal Authority for State Prison Boot Camps

State

Specific
statute

Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
Colorado
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Kansas
Louisiana
Maryland
Michigan
Mississippi
Nevada
New Hampshire
New York
North Carolina
Ohio
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Total
Source: GAO adminislralive

Page 61

General
statute

Executive
decision

Agency
authority

Other

X
X
X

X

X
X
X

X
X

X

X
X
X
X
X

X

X

X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X

X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X

21

5

2

4

1

questionnaires

GAOKGD-9349

Prison Boot Camps

Appendix

V

Stages of Corre&tions That Boot Camps
Were Designed to Supplement or Replace
Prison

State
Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
Colorado
Florida
Georaia
Idaho
Illinois
Kansas
Louisiana
Maryland
Michigan
Mississiooi
Nevada
New Hampshire
New York
North Carolina
Ohio
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Virginia
Wisconsin
Wvomina
Total

Jail

Parole

Other

Probation

X

X

X

X
X

X
X
X
X

X

X

X

X
X

X
X

X

X

X

X
X

X

X
X
X
X

X

X

X
X
X

X
X
X
X

X
X

X

X

X
X

23

2

3

9

4

Source: GAO administrativequestionnaires.

GAO/GGD-93-69 Prison Boot Cmnpe

Page 62

:: ,,

a

Appendix VI

Eligibility Requirements for State Prison
Boot Camps

state
Alabama

Arizona

Arkansas

Colorado
Florida

Georgia

Idaho

Illinois

Kansas

Louisiana

Maryland

Michigan

Sentence
authority
Judge

ASP
range
No age limit

Pnvlour
adult
offense
No

Judge and
corrections
authorities
Corrections
authorities

18-25

No

No age limit

No

Corrections
authorities
Judge and
corrections
authorities

18-25

Yes

15-24

Yes

Judge,
corrections
authorities, and
parole
authorities
Judge and
corrections
authorities
Judge and
corrections
authorities

17-3P

Judge and
corrections
authorities
Judge,
corrections
authorities, and
probation/parole
Corrections
authorities, and
probation/
parole
authorities
Judge

Sentence
Impairments
Excluded
faced
Physical Mental
offenses
(W
1-15
Murder, rape,
Yes
No
kidnapping, sodomy,
arson, robbery, crimes
against children, and life
without parole
Murder and violent
I-7
No
No
crimes

Voluntary
In
out
Yes
No

Yes

No

Murder, rape, robbery,
riot offenses, and any
other felonv
All violent crimes

6 mosIO yrs

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No limit

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

l-10

No

No

No

No

Yes

Capital and life felonies,
minimum mandatory
sentences, and any type
of sex offense
Violent and sex offenses

l-10

No

No Yes/No Yes/No

Lower limit
1&no upper
limit
17-29

Yes

Murder I and II

1-life

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

l-5

No

No

Yes

Yes

18-25

Yes

Class X felonies, murder,
armed violence,
kidnapping (i.e., sexual
assault/abuse and
forcibledetention)
Crimes against persons

l-3

No

No

Yes

No

17-39

Yes

Sex offenses and crimes
that do not allow parole
(e.g., armed robbery)

1.57

No

No

Yes

Yes

No lower
limit-31
upper limit

Yes

Violent crimes

9 mosa yrs

No

No

Yes

Yes

No lower
limit-25
upper limit

Yes

Rape, arson, and
offenses that do not
allow probation as a
sentence

l-no limit

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

(continued)

Page 63

GAOIGGD-93-69 Prison Boot Camp

a

Provlour

Lower limit
l&with no
upper limit
18-30

Yes

Sentence
Impairment8
faced
Excluded
Physical Mental
offenaer
(wd
No
No
Crimes involving use of a All
except
deadly weapon,
life and
mandatory life or death
death
sentences, and prior
confinement in an adult
penal institution
l-no limit
No
No
Violent crimes

Yes

Violent crimes

2-4

No

16-35

Yes

1-3

1626
18-25

Yes
No

18-22b

Yes

18-35

No

Judge and
corrections
authorities

17-25

Yes

Tennessee

Judge and
corrections
authorities

la-30

Yes

Texas

Judge

17-25

No

Manslaughter, homicide,
and other violent felony
crimes, rape, sodomy,
sexual abuse, and
escaoes
No crimes
Violent felony crimes,
sex offenses
Violent crimes, more
than two previous
incarcerations
Murder, kidnapping,
rape, involuntary deviate
sexual intercourse, and
robbery
Murder, armed robbery,
kidnapping, criminal
sexual conduct assault,
battery with intent to kill,
burglary, and
manslaughter
Sex offenses, child
abuse, illegal distribution
of controlled substances
to minors, bodily injury to
victim or bystanders
Prior incarceration in a
penitentiary for a felony
conviction

Sentence
state
Mlsslssippi

8lJthOdty

Judge and
corrections
authorities

Nevada

Judge

New Hampshire

Judge,
corrections
authorities and
probation/
parole
authorities
Corrections
authorities

New York

North Carolina
Ohio
Oklahoma

Pennsylvania

South Carolina

Judge
Corrections
authorltles
Judge and
corrections
authorities
Judge and
corrections
authorities

4P
nngc,
No age limit

l dult
offenro
Yes

Voluntary
In
out
No
Yes

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

No limit
l-5

No
No

No
No

Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes

No limit
to 5 yrs

Yes

Yes

No

No

2.5-5

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

3 mos8 yrs

Yes

Yes

Yes

No
I,

l-6

No

No

No

No

l-10

No

No

No

No

(continued)

Page 64

GAG/GOD-93-69

Prison Boot Camp

EJiglbllity ltequiremenu
Boot CmIhpe

state
Virginia

Wisconsin
Wyoming

Sentence
ruthorlty
Judge

Age
mnge
18-24

Corrections
authorities
Judge and
corrections
authorities

18-30
17-25

for State Prison

Prevlour
Excluded
adult
offense offenses
Murder, manslaughter,
Yes
kidnapping, sexual
assault, rape, robbery,
and malicious woundinsl
Sexual assaults and
Yes
weapon offenses
Violent crimes against
No
persons

Sentence
Impairments
faced
Physical
Mental
(w)
No
No
O-20

Voluntary
In
Out
Yes
Yes

No limit

No

No

Yes

Yes

2-4

No

No

Yes

Yes

‘The IntensiveDisciplineUnits do not have age requirements.
qhe age limit applies to the RegimentedDiscipline Program.The other three programs described
in appendix VII do not have an age limit.
Source:GAO administrativequestionnaires.

Page 66

GAWGGD-93-68 Prioon Boot Campa

Appendix VII

Prison Boot Camp Programs in Georgia,
New York, and Oklahoma
To obtain more detailed information on how prison boot camps were
organized and operated in individual states, we visited programs in
Georgia, New York, and Oklahoma. These three programs are among the
oldest and largest in terms of capacity in the country. Moreover, while they
are alike in many ways, there are important differences in the way they
have evolved. The following provides a brief description of the programs
as they were operating at the time of our visits between February and
March 1992.
Georgia began its Special Alternative Incarceration (SAI) program in
November 1983. It was a two-part program consisting of a rigorous 90-day
tour in a prison boot camp followed by a less structured period of
community supervision. The program was designed as an alternative to
prison, and participation was mandated by the sentencing judge as a
condition of probation.

Georgia

Eligibility in SAI was limited to individuals who were between the ages of
17 and 25 and whose crimes would have made them eligible for a sentence
of 1 to 5 years (until 1987, when the sentence limitation was removed).
Moreover, these individuals could not have been incarcerated before as
adults and must have been free of physical and mental health problems,
The boot camp portion of SAIwas intended to routinize the principles of
discipline through hard manual labor, strenuous physical conditioning,
and military-style drills and ceremony. After release from the camps, the
graduates went into periods of community supervision. In most cases, this
was regular probation but could include court-ordered placement in a
diversion center, similar to a federal halfway house, or intensive probation
supervision.
SAIlasted until the end of 1990. During its more than 7 years of existence,
judges in 45 Georgia circuits sentenced 4,743 offenders to the state’s 2
boot camps.
Georgia began its Comprehensive Correctional Boot Camp Program in
1991. While still following the military-style model of SAI,the new program
offered much more. Generally, it was to have the following five key
components:

.

Probation Detention Centers (rnc). These centers use a highly structured
military regimen but are not as physically demanding as the boot camps.

Page 60

GAOIGGD-93-69 Prison Boot Camps

a

Appendix VII
Prbon Boot Camp Programs in Georgia,
New York, and Oklahoma

l

l

l

l

Thus, judges have the option of sentencing offenders who are low&k but
whose poor health would make them ineligible for the boot camps to the
PDC. The length of stay ranges from 60 to 240 days. One PDC is for women,
the only such facility in Georgia’s boot camp program.
s&Vobation Boot Camp. These camps for first-time adult offenders are
similar to the original SAIprogram and are a condition to probation
establlshed by a judge. The length of stay is 90 days. Offenders who
successfully complete this program are released to community
supervision. Offenders who fail may have their probation revoked and be
sentenced to prison.
Inmate Boot Camps. The Board of Pardons and Paroles selects inmates
during the diagnostic process for this program, which is structured along
the same lines as the probation camps with an emphasis on discipline and
work. The length of stay is 90 days. To qualify, an inmate must be 30 years
old or less, sentenced to 10 years or less, and convicted of a nonviolent
offense if the sentence is more than 2 years.
Intensive Discipline Unit. This unique pilot program allows inmates who
have been assigned to disciplinary isolation to work their way back into
the general prison population by going through an intensive discipline
program. The length of stay ranges from 30 to 90 days.
Follow-up. After release from the first three components listed earlier, an
offender will be under continuing supervision in the community. To the
extent resources are available, he or she will have a minimum of 3 months
of highly structured supervision on probation or parole, followed by a
period of regular supervision.
As of May 1992, Georgia was operating 12 PDCS, 3 probation camps, 2
inmate camps, and 2 intensive discipline units. At maximum capacity, the
Comprehensive Correctional Boot Camp program will accommodate
14,692 inmates a year. In addition, it will handle a sizeable portion of a
statewide prison population that currently totals about 23,000.

New York

New York’s boot camp (shock incarceration) program began in July 1987.
It ls a rigorous, multitreatment program that emphasizes discipline, work,
substance abuse treatment, and education-all within a military-style
environment. Although the New York program is similar to other boot
camp programs nationwide, it is much larger, requires a longer period of
incarceration, and places a greater emphasis on treatment for substance
abusers than most programs.

Page 67

GAO/GGD-9349 Prison boot Campr

Appendix VII
Prbon Boot Camp Programs in Georgia,
New York, and Oklahoma

The program has two major phases. During the first phase, participants are
incarcerated in a boot camp for 180 days. During the second phase, these
same participants are subject to a period of intense community
supervision.
Participants are selected for the boot camps by the Department of
Correctional Services during a screening upon entering the prison system.
To be eligible, an inmate (1) must be between the ages of 16 and 35;
(2) must not have been convicted of a violent felony, manslaughter in the
second degree, certain sex crimes, or escape or absconding offenses;
(3) must be eligible for parole within 3 years; (4) must not have previously
been convicted of a felony subject to an indeterminate sentence; and
(6) must volunteer. These eligibility requirements are established by law
and have been amended on occasion since the program began.
New York has five boot camps. Four are for men only, while one
accommodates both men and women. The overall capacity of the camps is
1,500 inmates at any one time. The New York camps have the traditional
boot camp emphasis on drills, discipline, and work. However, the program
is based on a therapeutic community model that uses living/learning units
within the corrections facilities supervised and operated by specially
trained staff. The overall aim is to reintegrate the individual into society
with an emphasis on counseling for alcohol and substance abuse. The
state estimates that for every 500 hours of physical training, drill, and
ceremony, there are also 546 hours of the therapeutic approach to treating
addiction, 260 hours of mandatory education, and 650 hours of hard labor.
New York officials believe that follow-up is necessary for the behavior
modification taught in the camps. The officials also believe that close
supervision at this point is a way to create a smooth transition from the
boot camp to the community and to overcome the problems often
encountered by the participant’s not having a suitable home environment
to go to upon release. The state offers a community-based residential
program to provide temporary housing and support services for up to 90
days for individuals in need of a structured environment.
After graduation from the camps, participants are placed in intensive
shock supervision, under the authority of the Division of Parole. Among
other things, this supervision includes enrollment in an academic or
vocational program within 2 weeks after release, substance abuse
counseling, attendance at community network programs, curfew checks,

Page 68

GAO/GGD-93-69

Prison Boot Camps

6

Appendix VII
Prloon Boot CampProgramein
NewYork,and Oklahoma

Georgia,

and random urinalysis testing. In addition, the participants are expected to
work and receive assistance in obtaining employment.

Oklahoma

Oklahoma actually has 4 separate boot camp programs within the state,
with an overall capacity of 446 inmates. These are the Regimented Inmate
Discipline (RID) program for men, the Female Offender Regimented
Treatment (FORT)program for women, a shock incarceration program for
men and one for women. Although the four programs share certain
common features, they also have major differences in program focus and
eligibility.
program, which began in 1984, is second only to Georgia’s SAIin
longevity among the modern camps. W ith a capacity for 150 inmates, it
was established by statute and is for men aged 18 to 25 who have
committed nonviolent offenses. IUDis a program of intensive drills, work,
and study. It is an open-entry, open-exit, self-paced program. Participants
enter the program at all times, so there really is no “class” with which a
participant graduates, as is the case in the military or in other states’boot
camps.
The

RID

Inmates are sentenced to RID by a judge. Although the program can last up
to 6 months, the participant typically comes up for review after 120 days. If
a participant has responded well, the judge then can judicially review the
sentence originally handed down and revise it. In most cases, a participant
who successfully completes RID will be released to probation. A participant
who does not successfully complete IN) will be returned to the general
inmate population to serve his original sentence.
The FORT program began in 1991 with the assistance of a grant from WA. It
has a capacity for 60 inmates and is located at the Eddie Warrior
Correctional Institution, which it shares with a shock incarceration group
and a general population group-all of the participants are women. M )RTis
almost totally aimed at offenders incarcerated for drug charges and is
heavy on treatment. About half of each day is spent in educational classes,
and half is spent in treatment and counseling. In addition, considerable
drilling and exercise exist, but unlike IUDno work details exist.
bike RID, IQRT is an open-entry, open-exit, self-paced program, and its
participants are committed by a judge as a part of a 120-day judicial
review, delayed sentencing, or regular sentencing. After completing the
program, which can range from 4 to 6 months, they are eligible for parole

GAOIGGD-9349

Page69

‘I

,,

PrieonBootCunpr

Appendix VII
Prbon Boot Camp Program
New York, and Oklahoma

in Georgia,

consideration. If they are approved, they could be released to general
parole; if they are not, they will go into the general prison population.
Unlike RID, there is no age restriction for FORT.
The two shock incarceration camps, which began in late 1991, are
essentially alike, except that one is for men and one is for women. There is
no age restriction. They differ from the other boot camp programs in that
the participants are selected by correctional officials for participation at
the screening/induction center. The program lasts 45 days, during which
the participants engage in intensive work and drills. No education or
treatment is included. At the end of the program, participants are reviewed
by the parole board and either released on parole or returned to the
general prison population.
A unique aspect of the boot camps is that while they are operated by the
Department of Corrections, they were organized under the authority of the
state parole board. In March 1992, the men’s program had a capacity of 196
inmates, while the women’s program had a capacity of 40.
The amount of time an inmate actually spends in prison and the level of
supervision upon release can vary widely in Oklahoma. First, Oklahoma
has a law that can allow a judge to delay sentencing in some cases for up
to 120 days. Another law allows a judge to review-and possibly
aaust-the sentence of an inmate 120 days after sentencing.
In addition, Oklahoma has a unique parole system. Offenders come up for
parole very early in their sentence. However, each case must be reviewed
separately by an unpaid and volunteer parole board, and all paroles must
be approved by the governor himself. In addition, Oklahoma has a
program known as Pre-Parole Conditional Supervision, in which inmates
are allowed to go home under what amounts to a house arrest. Largely,
this option was required because of the burgeoning inmate population and
the fact that Oklahoma does not have the resources to build new prisons.

Page 70

GAO/GGD-93-69 Prison Boot Camps

a

Appendix VIII

Success of State Boot Camp Programs as
Seen by State Administrators

Extent to which objectiver have been achieved
Very
Little
great
Great
Moderate
or no
Some
a
a
(I
14
11

Objectives
lmprovina self-esteem
Need for alternative to
traditional incarceration

11

12

Drug treatment and
education

6

11

Reducing costs
Rehabilitation
Reducing recidivism

7
5
5

Addressing public
dissatisfaction
Protecting public
Reducing crowding
Punishment
Addressino court oressures
Vocational training
Deterring crime
Deterring specific offenders

a

2

a

5

2

a

9
11
7

4
5
0

2
1
1

1
a
a

7
5

9
9

1
3

2
2

1
a

4
2
3
4
2
2

7
6
7
4
5
4

2
7
5
4
5
7

a

2
2
1
3
2
3

4
a
3
4
2

ONoresponse in this category
Source: GAO administrative

questionnaires.

GAOIGGD-93-69 Prison Boot. Camp

Page 71

‘,..;
‘,

,”

‘, ’._
” , //

.’
,’

‘-

Appendix IX

Major Contributors to This Report

General Government
Division, Washington,
D.C.
Office of the General
Counsel, Washington,
DC.

William Jenkins, Jr., Assistant Director
Carl Trisler, Assignment Manager
William Sabol, Social Science Analyst
Carl Ramirez, Social Science Analyst

Geoffrey Hamilton, Attorney-Advisor

Atlanta Regional
Office

F’rankie Fulton, Evaluator-in-Charge
Cynthia Teddleton, Senior Evaluator
Kelly Jimenez, Evaluator

(lR2817)

Page 72

GAO/GGD-9359 Prisoa Boot Cmp

---

Ordering

1t~forrnat,ion

113. (;c~nc~rwlAcc.ouut,ing Office
I’.(). 1%0x tie 15
(~Gth~rshu-g, MI) 20884-6015
or visit,:
700 4t.h St,. NW (comer of 4t,h and G Sts. NW)
I I.S. (;c~nvral Accounthg
Office
W;wtiirigt,ori, I)(:

PRINTED ON ~$$

RECYCLED

PAPER