A study of criminal justice policymakers' perspectives: The forgotten component in boot camp programs and goals

Does occupation (sheriff, prosecutor, prison administrator, or parole/probation official) influence selection of boot camp components; especially the traditional positions of “punishers,” usually sheriffs and prosecuting attorneys, and “reformers,” usually prison and probation? As part of a larger study and at the request of the Missouri Department of Corrections, 670 questionnaires were mailed to all Missouri sheriffs, prosecutors, selected prison administrators, probation/parole staff, all public defenders, selected legislatures, and judges in Missouri. Respondents were asked to rank potential boot camp goals and programs using a Likert-type preferences scale of 1 = low preference to 5 = high preference. Three hundred fifty-three were returned, for a return rate of 53 percent. Using the Missouri survey data, the research question for this article was: Did occupation influence selection of boot camp components? To test the association of occupation with selection, a shorter list was compiled from the Missouri survey data of six typical “punishment” items and six typical “reform” items as selected from the literature. Means and a t-test of significance were calculated. Results showed traditional positions of “punishment” and “reform” did not drive program choices. Preference for “reform” items by all occupations was higher than preference for “punishment” items. Results showed a potential shift away from the early military - punishment style of early boot camps. Correctional agencies thinking of reconfiguring or building new boot camps could use the results as a guide.