Correctional Boot Camps: A Tough Intermediate Sanction - Chapter 14. Boot Camps as an Alternative for Women MENU TITLE: Boot Camps: Alternative for Women Series: NIJ Report Published: February 1996 13 pages 25,195 bytes Boot Camps as an Alternative for Women by Doris Layton MacKenzie, Ph.D., Lori A. Elis, Sally S. Simpson, Ph.D., and Stacy B. Skroban Doris Layton MacKenzie, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor in the Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology at the University of Maryland. Lori Elis is a graduate student in the department, with research interests in gender and crime and the effectiveness of drug treatment programs. Sally Simpson, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor in the department, with research interests in criminological theory, gender and crime, corporate crime etiology, and social control. Stacy Skroban is a graduate student with the department. Her primary research interests include applied statistical models and evaluation of delinquency prevention programs. This chapter describes a study of women in adult correctional boot camps. The authors visited boot camp programs in seven States, interviewing staff and inmates, collecting questionnaire information from the women boot camp participants, and examining the facility design, structure, and operation. They found two different types of boot camps for women: one integrated women into boot camps designed for male inmates; other boot camps for females were completely separate from the male camps. After reviewing the evidence, the authors concluded that there were major problems for women in camps that combined men and women. Few women were in the camps, and those who were confronted serious problems. The environment and experiences of the women were not equal to those of the men in the same camps. Women in separate or semiseparate programs fared better. The pros and cons for the women in these camps were very similar to those for men, but some characteristics of the women made the boot camp experience much more difficult than for men. In particular, for women who had dependency problems or who had been victims of abuse, the boot camp provided a negative atmosphere. It was concluded that women should not be combined with men in boot camps designed for men. If boot camps are going to be developed for women, they should be designed to be compatible with the needs and characteristics of women offenders. Alternatives to boot camps should be considered that would offer women similar opportunities but in a more suitable environment. Boot camp programs generally target young, nonviolent, first-time offenders. Participants have been overwhelmingly male. However, in the interest of parity, many departments of corrections have opened boot camp programs to women offenders. Some boot camps offer intensive therapeutic programming or opportunities for early release that would not be available in traditional prisons or in other alternative programs. If women are denied access to boot camps, they will not have equal opportunities for therapy or early release. Considering the public and political support for these programs, there is every reason to believe money will continue to be funneled into boot camps. If they do provide benefits for individual participants, these benefits should be available equally to men and women offenders. Legally, incarcerated women have a right to the same level of programming and benefits available to men (Rafter, 1990). However, prison boot camps were developed for men, with women often admitted as an afterthought. Successful litigation by incarcerated females has increased the availability of upgraded programs for women in many prisons (Crawford, 1988). Correctional programs originally designed for men have become options for women. However, this trend is not without controversy. The integration of women into male-oriented correctional programs has been criticized by some scholars who argue that placing women in programs originally designed for males without a prior assessment of the needs of female offenders may be detrimental (Rafter, 1989; Morash and Rucker, 1990). Although the program may have possible benefits, its implementation may have unintended consequences for the women. "And, as the entire history of our prison system indicates, `equal' treatment may actually create hardships for women if male needs and programs set the standard" (Rafter, 1990, p. 202). Most of the research examining boot camps has focused on male inmates. In a multisite study of boot camp programs, MacKenzie and Souryal (1994) found that boot camps had a positive impact on the attitudes of offenders. Camps emphasizing treatment and aftercare may also lower recidivism rates of program graduates. Furthermore, some programs may be designed to reduce prison crowding by releasing offenders earlier than they would otherwise be released. Thus there is evidence that some boot camps offer benefits for offenders. The multisite study focused on male offenders because in most cases there were too few women in the boot camps to provide reasonable numbers for statistical analyses. This chapter examines the adequacy of correctional boot camps for women. The researchers identified the State boot camp programs with women participants and selected half for a more indepth descriptive study (MacKenzie, Elis, Simpson, and Skroban, 1994). Before the study began, a focus group of feminist scholars, correctional experts, and criminologists identified an extensive list of issues important to consider in an evaluation of the appropriateness of boot camps for females. The study was designed to address the following questions: o Do women offenders have an equal opportunity to enter and remain in the boot camps? o Do the camps address the needs of women offenders? o Are the boot camps potentially harmful for these offenders? o What are the potential advantages of the camps for women? o Are there alternative correctional programs that would be more appropriate? Survey of Boot Camp Programs In March 1992 the researchers surveyed all adult State correctional systems to determine the number and characteristics of the boot camp programs in existence. This study found 39 boot camp programs for adult felons in 25 States (the survey did not include boot camps in juvenile detention centers or in local jails). Thirteen of the 25 States had women in the boot camp programs, with women making up 6.1 percent of the boot camp population. Two additional States (Pennsylvania and Massachusetts) were planning to open boot camps, with women eligible to enter the program. The number of beds for women in the boot camps varied from a low of 8 in Colorado, Kansas, and New Hampshire to a high of 150 in New York. Camps for women in the remaining States (Arizona, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas) were intermediate in size, their capacities ranging from 10 to 60. The capacity figure for the women in boot camps in these States was consistently smaller than that for male inmates. A major difference among the boot camps with respect to female participants was the fact that some programs integrated the females into the program with male inmates; others had completely separate female programs. Women participating in the integrated programs were housed either at the male boot camp or at a nearby female prison. In these programs the women participated with the men in almost all daily activities. Nine States with boot camp programs for women combined women and men in one program. The other four had completely separate programs in which males and females did not come into contact with one another. Site Visits Out of the 13 boot camps for women, 6 were selected for more indepth study. Since the research team pilot tested data collection instruments at one boot camp, the final selection of six sites was a 50-percent sample of boot camps in existence at the time of the survey. Four of these boot camps had integrated programs (men and women combined), and two were separate camps for women. At the time of the site visits, a total of 69 women were participating in the boot camps. The number of women in the camps was much smaller than the allowable capacity (a total of 143 beds). This was a particular problem with the integrated programs. The 4 integrated programs had designated a total of 64 beds for female offenders, yet there were only 9 women in the camps, or only 12.5 percent of the total capacity. In fact, two of the sites had no women at the time of the site visits. The separate programs differed as to percentage of beds filled. At one site, 93 percent of the 55-bed capacity had been reached; at the other, 25 percent of the 20-bed capacity was filled. Thus, with the exception of one boot camp, the beds in boot camps for women were generally empty, particularly in the combined programs. Because the numbers of women from the six sites were so small, an additional site was added to the study. This boot camp was not randomly selected. Its large number of women was expected to yield additional interviews and information about women's boot camp experience. Men and women spent some time together, but they were not integrated for all activities. Women were housed in separate buildings from the male inmates. They did not mix during work, and although they were with male inmates at meals, they were required to eat at separate tables. Males and females did participate together in educational classes, physical training, drill and ceremony, and drug counseling. Thus, for the purposes of this study, this program was classified as semiseparate. At the seven boot camps, the researchers collected data through interviews with administrators and inmates. During a walk through the site, they also completed a checklist that examined the degree of integration in programs combining males and females, including the living situation, the decor, bathroom facilities, and cross-gender supervision. Female inmates were also asked to complete a questionnaire asking for demographic data and information on their families, history of abuse, and prior drug and alcohol use. Results The majority of the women in the boot camps had children with whom they would be living after release. Most were the sole source of financial support for themselves and their children. They were serving time for nonviolent crimes (drugs, theft, or fraud), and a large percentage had prior contact with the criminal justice system. Many had substance abuse problems and histories of abusive relationships. An analysis of the completed questionnaires, coupled with results of interviews with both inmates and staff, revealed a number of issues and problems about the boot camp experiences of women. Do Women Offenders Have an Equal Opportunity To Enter and Remain in the Boot Camps? The most conspicuous problem with the randomly selected sites was the small number of women in the boot camps. As noted earlier, some boot camp beds for women were not being used, and of the six sites receiving visits, two had no women in the program. The few women who did enter the boot camp program were apt to drop out. This is a particular problem when boot camps combine women and men in the same program. There are some obvious problems that may account for the small number of women. First, the programs were designed for men. Women appeared to have more problems with the physical demands of the program. They frequently discussed health problems, and many of those in the process of dropping out cited a physical problem as the reason. Another problem reported by the women, especially in the combined programs, was the emotionally stressful nature of the program. Almost all inmates have reported that boot camp programs are stressful (see, for instance, MacKenzie and Souryal, 1994). However, the women appeared to suffer additional stress because there were so few women in the program. That is, there were frequently only 1 or 2 women in a program with 30 or more men. In many cases, for their protection, the women were supervised more intensely in the program than the men. Interviews indicated that women's activities were often severely restricted to protect them from abuse and harassment (yet there were still many instances of problematic sexual activities in the boot camps). Additional difficulties related by the women were due to their different standards of modesty, privacy, and aesthetics. Many of the boot camps' bathroom facilities permitted little privacy and employed cross-gender supervision. Furthermore, dormitories were barren; the women were not permitted to display personal items such as photographs. They missed these reminders of home and children. If the women in these boot camps are compared to the men in another study of boot camps (MacKenzie and Souryal, 1994), they are found to be similar in the type of crime they committed and the percentage who were employed. However, the women were older than the men in the boot camps (23 to 29 years old compared to 19 to 24). Age restrictions for eligibility may be one reason why there were few women in the boot camps. Four of the sites had an upper age limit of 25 for participants in the programs and were filled only up to 33 percent of capacity. The two programs that had filled the majority of their beds either had no upper age limit or an upper age limit of 35. Thus, if women offenders are on the average older than men when they enter prison, they may be in effect excluded only because they do not meet age requirements. Other eligibility criteria may also limit the number of women who are admitted, particularly if the criteria were originally developed for male offenders (Chesney-Lind and Pollock-Byrne, 1993). Although women may have been placed in the boot camps in the interest of equality, mixing women into a program designed for men did not create an equal situation. Programs did not take into consideration the average woman inmate's physical stamina. The women had to cope with the additional stress of being in an environment where the majority of participants and staff were men. Do the Camps Address the Needs of Women Offenders? A review of the literature on women offenders suggests that their most important needs include vocational or employment training to help them support themselves and their children; substance abuse treatment; programming that considers their family obligations, such as parenting classes, life skills training, and help with the transition to the community; and counseling for victims of domestic violence and sexual assault (American Correctional Association, 1993; Rafter, 1990; Baunach, 1985). As expected, these problems were frequently mentioned by women in the boot camps. Programs such as parenting training, general education, and drug treatment were available in many of the boot camps. If women are excluded from participation, they may not have an equal opportunity for such programming. On the other hand, although many women had serious drug abuse histories, only half of the boot camps had drug treatment programs. Few offered therapeutic programs for the problems many of these women had, such as programs for surviving sexual assault or battering, making a successful transition to the community, or obtaining job skills. Furthermore, there were no innovative visitation programs to encourage women's interaction with their children, and in the combined programs visitation was particularly limited. It appears that the programs failed to take into consideration the importance of children to women in boot camps. Since most of the women were mothers who expected to be reunited with their children upon release, the time in prison could be used to strengthen the mother-child bond and improve parenting skills. Furthermore, interaction with children may be a positive influence on female offenders. Are the Boot Camps Potentially Harmful for Women Offenders? Frequently in interviews inmates mentioned name calling and offensive comments by the drill instructors (DIs). They reported being told, "You are nothing but a convict" and "You're always gonna be a loser." Several reported being called "bitch." Perhaps the most offensive comments were those about the women's ability to be good parents or comments about their children. One woman who told a DI about having had a stillborn child believed the DI was out of place to say, "Good--you didn't bring another slimeball into the world." Another reported that being told "your child is a coke baby" hurt her considerably. Women reported they were "dogged" and that the DI's attempted to "tear them down." The women made many comments about how after being torn down they were supposed to be built up, but there were few comments about how this was done. DI's in the combined programs were the source of the harshest verbal abuse. Problems related to sexual activities were mentioned by both staff and inmates. For example, in one boot camp program a male DI required the women to exercise in their nightgowns upon arising in the morning while the male drill instructor walked through the dormitory. After they complained to a female DI, the male DI was no longer assigned to the women's dormitory. One of the administrators in a separate program reported that at one time the program had been coeducational but that several pregnancies had occurred and one woman was murdered by a male inmate. This was one reason for the decision to separate the male and female boot camp programs. Another reported a problem that occurred in a combined program when a male drill instructor had sexual relations with one of the female boot camp inmates. The administrator believed that despite suggestions that the woman had consented to the relations, consent could not freely be given because of the DI's power over the inmate. This boot camp had gone to great lengths to protect the female participants from male inmates, requiring a DI to be with the women at all times. Yet the DI, who could be male or female (depending upon who was on duty) had to stay in the bathroom while the women showered. The inmates were required to strip down to their underwear in front of the DI before moving into a shower stall (partially concealed from view). Although some of the women mentioned that they had been pushed or shoved by correctional officers, none of those interviewed said they had been touched sexually. In the combined programs, several said that the men were pushed by the drill instructors more often than the women. Another concern about the boot camps was their effect on women who had been battered or abused in the past. This comment from a woman who had just made the decision to leave the boot camp was typical: "I was physically and mentally abused and just being here reminds me of it." She went on to say: I have bruises on my arms. They grab you and they push you around...They shouldn't be that harsh on you. They get in your face and make you feel like dirt. For someone like me that's been physically and mentally abused, that's all it reminds me of-- being abused. Another woman in a different program who had been in the program a week said, "You can't talk to the DI's like they are people because you are not just allowed to even look at them." She couldn't get used to this. "When you look at them they scream at you, `don't look at me.'" She said this was frightening for people like her who had been abused in the past. Another inmate remembered: When I first got here, I had people screaming at me in my ears...I thought I was gonna just come apart, have a nervous breakdown...For the 2 months I was here, I cried because it triggered all that stuff from my childhood that I just started remembering when I came here. On the other hand, some of the women who had been in the boot camps longer felt that they had learned useful lessons. One reported, "The program teaches you how to stand up for yourself and that you don't have to take anybody's crap. The DI's are in your face all the time and you get to express your feelings. You can explain to them how you feel." What Are the Potential Advantages of the Camps for Women? The two primary aspects of the boot camp prison that can be considered advantages are the chance for early release and increased opportunities for therapeutic programming. Most of the women said the greatest benefit was getting out of prison earlier. Mothers mentioned wanting to get home to their children, and others said that completing the program would mean they would not have a record of conviction. In one program, the women were upset because they had to wait a long time in prison or jail after signing papers to enter the boot camp, and this lengthened their total incarceration time. They had no choice between this program and other programs offering early release. It was either this program or no early release. The program with the largest number of female offenders was one that separated the sexes. In contrast to those in the other boot camps, offenders in this camp were sentenced directly to the program. They mentioned the possibility of early release much less frequently, most likely because they could not be as sure what their sentences would have been otherwise. Some had been given a choice of the boot camp, a longer sentence to prison, or a delayed sentence. Although the majority of the women in one site said they had originally entered the boot camp because they would serve less time in prison, most of them reported that the therapeutic programs and what they had learned while in the boot camp were the best parts of their experience. During interviews, they suggested ways in which the camps could be improved by adding specific types of programs. Most comments about programming depended on whether a particular program addressed the inmate's own problems. If it did, she reported that the program was beneficial. If it did not (and this was the case most of the time), then the offender suggested what was missing from the program that should be included. Women who thought drug treatment was important reported it as a benefit and said they would recommend the program to others with drug problems. Many of the women cited discipline as a benefit, and some cited it as a reason for entering the program. They said learning discipline would benefit them in the outside world and would help them achieve self-control. Another benefit reported by the inmates was that they were now in good physical condition, were exercising, and were getting in shape. Several mentioned losing weight. Are There Alternative Correctional Programs That Would Be More Appropriate? It became clear in the interviews that the boot camp programs failed to address several important needs of women. Many inmates said they regretted the lack of opportunity to see their children. They also knew they would need to support themselves and their children when they got out but said they received little help in boot camp to improve their occupational opportunities. In addition, women with substance abuse problems reported receiving little treatment, and victims of domestic abuse were not helped in how to deal with their husbands or boyfriends when they returned home. For these and other reasons, it is questionable whether the benefits of the boot camps for women outweigh the costs. Certainly there are serious problems in combining women and men in one boot camp prison. There may be other, more appropriate alternatives for women offenders. Summary and Conclusions Many issues of concern for women in boot camps are similar to those for men. The military atmosphere carries with it some dangers (such as staff-on-inmate abuse, injury, and accidents), and there is little evidence that the military atmosphere alone will change offenders so that they will not be involved in crime in the future. The authors believe that this research uncovered additional, serious problems for women offenders placed in boot camps with men. Few women entered and stayed in those programs, and their experiences were not the same as those of men. The stress was greater, their activities were restricted, and there were problems with sexual behavior. Thus these programs did not offer women an effectively equal opportunity for early release and appropriate programming. In general, the separate and semiseparate programs seemed to have fewer problems than the combined programs. The separate programs were more likely to offer therapeutic programs suited to women's needs. Visitation policies were less restrictive, and the women had some opportunities to see their children while in boot camp. Surprisingly, some of them said they would not recommend the boot camps to males because men would have "attitude" problems that would make it difficult for them to complete the program. However, the study identified serious issues with respect to both types of programs. Few of the boot camps addressed women's needs for vocational training, drug treatment, or transition to the community. Of even greater concern was their impact on women who had lived in abusive relationships. The confrontation and requirements for absolute obedience may be particularly bad for women who have been dependent on male criminal associates or for women who have been in abusive relationships (Pollock-Byrne, 1990; Rafter, 1990). When drill instructors confronted women who had been in such relationships, the women were sharply reminded of earlier abusive situations. Only a few said they had learned to stand up for themselves. The authors are concerned that many women, particularly those who dropped out of the program, left with added scars and diminished self-confidence. Together with the obvious potential for sexual, physical, or verbal abuse, this damage to already fragile egos seems to be one of the most dangerous aspects of the boot camp experience for women. On the other hand, boot camps can offer women the advantage of earning their way out of prison earlier, and they have the capability of providing intense therapy for offenders that is seldom available in regular prison. If boot camp is the only way women offenders can obtain treatment and early release from prison, it should be possible to design women's boot camp programs that are more responsive to the needs discussed in this chapter. The authors believe that existing boot camps should be considered experimental. They should be carefully monitored and studied so that future programs can be designed that achieve the same correctional objectives without doing damage to the participants. References American Correctional Association. Female Offenders: Meeting Needs of a Neglected Population. Laurel, Maryland: American Correctional Association, 1993. Baunach, Phyllis J. Mothers in Prison. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Books, 1985. Chesney-Lind, Meda, and Joycelyn Pollock-Byrne. Women's Prisons: Equality With a Vengeance. Unpublished manuscript, University of Hawaii at Manoa, 1993. Crawford, Jane. Tabulation of a Nationwide Survey of State Correctional Facilities for Adult and Juvenile Female Offenders. Laurel, Maryland: American Correctional Association, 1988. MacKenzie, D.L., R. Brame, D. McDowall, and C. Souryal. "Boot Camp Prisons and Recidivism in Eight States." Criminology, 33, no. 3 (1995):401-430. MacKenzie, D.L., L. Elis, S. Simpson, and S. Skroban. Females in Boot Camp Prisons. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1994. MacKenzie, D.L., and A. Piquero. "The Impact of Shock Incarceration Programs on Prison Crowding." Crime and Delinquency, 40, no. 2 (1994):222-249. MacKenzie, D.L., and Souryal, C. Multisite Evaluation of Shock Incarceration. Evaluation Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1994. Morash, Merry, and Lila Rucker. "A Critical Look at the Idea of Boot Camp as a Correctional Reform." Crime and Delinquency, 36 (1990):204-222. Pollock-Byrne, Joycelyn. Women, Prison and Crime. Pacific Groves, California: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, 1990. Rafter, Nicole Hahn. "Gender and Justice: The Equal Protection Issue." In Lynne Goodstein and Doris Layton MacKenzie (eds.), The American Prison: Issues in Research and Policy. New York: Plenum Press, 1989. Rafter, Nicole Hahn. Partial Justice: Women, Prisons and Social Control. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers, 1990.