Correctional Boot Camps: A Tough Intermediate Sanction - Chapter 12. Discipline in Georgia's Correctional Boot Camps MENU TITLE: Discipline in Georgia's Boot Camps Series: NIJ Report Published: February 1996 16 pages 36,098 bytes Discipline in Georgia's Correctional Boot Camps by Billie S. Erwin Billie Erwin has been with the Georgia Department of Corrections for 21 years, with experience in community corrections field supervision, as Department of Corrections Chief of Evaluations and as Coordinator of Research and Development. She received The American Probation and Parole/Sam Houston State University Publications Award in 1987. Georgia's boot camp system dates back to 1983 and currently incorporates both probation boot camps for men directly sentenced by the court and inmate boot camps for male offenders selected from among those sentenced to prison. Both types of boot camps have the same regimen of military-style basic training, hard work, programs addressing substance abuse and other offender problems, and followup through strict probation and parole supervision. Some require enrollment in classes to obtain a general equivalency diploma. Boot camp staff receive rigorous training, and selected officers participate in U.S. Army drill training courses at Ft. McClellan, Alabama. Verbal confrontation as a method of discipline is integral to the program, and all offenders must refer to themselves in the third person during any formal communication. Major disciplinary infractions result in revocation, but minor infractions are dealt with in several ways explicitly specified in the boot camp procedures manual followed throughout the boot camp system. This chapter also describes an extension of the boot camp model to a standard prison, the close security Valdosta Correctional Institution, which formed an Intensive Therapeutic Program within some dormitories. It began as an implementation of certain military-style protocols in regard to work programs, orderliness, and cleanliness of living quarters but has been extended to include an entire system of positive reinforcements. Boot camp is discipline. Before discussing disciplinary procedures in correctional boot camps, one must recognize the assumptions underlying their concept and design. Boot camps are based on the rationale that many young offenders have never learned rudimentary discipline and respect for authority because of failure of parenting, inadequate socialization, or adolescent rebellion. A boot camp is a 90- to 120-day crash program in discipline. The term "boot camp" itself conjures immediate, usually vivid images in the minds of most Americans, among them one of a platoon marching in cadence under the stern leadership of a drill sergeant. Another consists of rows of recruits or offenders (with freshly shaved heads) doing calisthenics, again under an exacting physical training instructor ever ready to deliver harsh criticism for any failure to perform with uniformity, vigor, and full extension. Then there is the closeup of a hard-nosed, sabre-voiced drill instructor in a black campaign hat who addresses each group member from close range, shouting a barrage of directions, admonitions, and warnings along with a generally negative assessment of the individual and warnings about the changes in attitude and behavior required to survive in the platoon. These changes might relate to posture, appearance, even facial expression. This is popularly referred to as the "in your face" approach, indisputably effective in gaining the attention of the person receiving such treatment. Another source of the prevalent perception of boot camps is the previous military experience of a large number of American men. Before the United States discontinued the draft, a significant proportion of able-bodied men from all segments of the population were likely to have had a military experience, often in the form of 3-year duty immediately after high school or college. Many remember this as the time when they learned to conform to tough discipline and associate the experience with their passage into manhood and responsible citizenship. Although these images may be extremely popular and useful as an approach to punishment of law violators and may even be beneficial in garnering political support, they may miss the core content of the actual boot camp program, which evolved in response to a need for activities that contribute to changed behavior. This chapter describes the disciplinary component of the boot camp program as it has evolved in Georgia. It also contains a description of an innovative and successful application of the military boot camp model to a regular, more hardened population of close-security inmates sentenced to standard prison terms at the State's Valdosta Correctional Institution. (See chapter 5 for a discussion of programs in Georgia's boot camps.) Historical Background When the State of Georgia implemented its Special Alternative Incarceration (SAI) in 1983 for nonviolent young offenders, this program was designed primarily as a 90-day experience in drill and discipline in the military boot camp model. Through ongoing evaluation and assessment, program modifications have been made as necessary to increase effectiveness. The earliest evaluation in Georgia, conducted by Gerald T. Flowers, a Senior Operations Analyst with the Georgia Department of Corrections, pointed out the need for followup after the 90-day period of incarceration (Flowers, 1986). This was essential to ensure adequate supervision for offenders in the critical period after release. During that time, offenders needed assistance in dealing with issues such as conducting a job search, applying learned discipline to decisionmaking, and resisting temptations within the community. The agency implemented a policy of assigning offenders to intensive probation supervision for the first 6 months after release from boot camps. Georgia Governor Zell Miller, who served in the United States Marine Corps as a young man, often refers to boot camp as a molding experience. He has strongly advocated boot camps as a sentencing tool for first-time drug offenders. Prior to his administration, the predominant offenders found in Georgia's boot camps were burglars. In reality many burglary offenses were known to be related to underlying substance abuse problems, but correctional officials did not address this in their programs. Georgia therefore developed programmatic standards for all boot camps that included mandatory formal educational and substance abuse training for all participants, as well as more intensive substance abuse counseling for selected offenders. Programmatic Evolution and Expansion The New Comprehensive Correctional Boot Camp Program represents an expansion of SAI, both in terms of number of boot camps and number of participants. Georgia's boot camps now also incorporate more programming. These boot camps can be divided into two groups: probation boot camps and inmate boot camps. The men in the probation boot camps are sentenced to the program directly by the court and are referred to as "detainees." The men in the inmate boot camps (referred to as "inmates") have received prison sentences but are given the opportunity by the corrections department to volunteer for the program. Selection is made during the diagnostic and classification process with the concurrence of the State Board of Pardons and Paroles. Boot camp policies in Georgia are identical for both types of boot camps, and, except as indicated, this chapter refers to a regimen and programming applicable to both, with the term "offenders" used for both detainees and inmates. The camps have four primary components: o Military-style basic training. o Hard work. o Programs addressing substance abuse and other offender problems. o Followup through strict probation and parole supervision. A probation boot camp warden has described the progression through the program as beginning with "initial shock," moving to the "teaching phase," and following up with "positive reinforcement." The warden is not comfortable with identifying any reinforcement as a reward but believes that a desired work detail assignment may be an incentive for good behavior. Such assignments can involve kitchen duty or lawn mowing as opposed to digging and other hard labor. The program has maintained its dominant image of military drill and discipline, and in no cases have officials relaxed the requirement for participants to perform regular work assignments. Originally, the evening hours were seen as a time for quiet reflection, thought to be therapeutic in eliciting behavior change. Modifications have given structure to these evening time slots by including both educational and basic substance abuse programming. There has also been an increase in elective recreation and religious activity time. Access to television entertainment in the evenings has always been denied, although sometimes public television programs are allowed during certain time periods. Boot camp participants have access to library books and to Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous handbooks. The boot camp concept has gained increasing popularity in Georgia. Use of boot camps was a major campaign issue supported by Governor Miller in his 1990 election campaign. With strong political support, two complete minimum security prisons were converted to probation boot camps, and one new probation boot camp and four new inmate boot camps were constructed. A 1991 departmental evaluation tracking graduates from the SAI program over 36 months showed a 40.7-percent return-to-prison rate for graduates compared to a 53.4-percent return-to-prison rate for a comparison group of offenders. This second group met the eligibility criteria for boot camp but were sentenced to prison instead. On average, the comparison group served 118 days in prison, 28 days longer than the SAI group serving a standard 90 days (Flowers et al., 1991), showing significant cost savings. Since Governor Miller's inauguration in January 1991, combined effects of new construction and allocation of dormitory units at several institutions produced a total of three probation boot camps. These camps have bedspace for 475 detainees, and inmate boot camp units have bedspace for 1,076 inmates, for a total of 1,551 boot camp spaces. Further expansion is projected through new construction to be completed in fiscal year 1996. Probationers are sentenced to the program directly by the court, and inmates are selected by departmental staff. Eligibility criteria have been expanded to incorporate offenders 17 to 35 years old. There is no longer any firm requirement that the offender have no previous prison experience, although the intent is to target those who have not been hardened by such an experience. Disciplinary Philosophies The Georgia program was initially designed to shock young male probationers who had never experienced any incarceration in prison. (Georgia has not implemented any boot camp programs for females.) Many had tested the system, often through successive "last chances" on probation, and exhibited a continued lack of respect or even open defiance toward authority. The concept advocated a 90-day period of intensive verbal confrontation, drill, and rigorous work to instill respect for authority, physical conditioning, and work habits that would enable these young men to return to probation, gain and hold a job, and maintain self-discipline in the community. Part of this approach was based on the belief that exposing these young offenders to the reality of prison life (without exposing them to any of the real abuses that may occur among a hardened prison population) would convince them never again to defy the law. This philosophy hinges primarily on habit training with little emphasis on specific skills development. The routine and drill that established these disciplinary expectations have always constituted the core structure of Georgia's boot camps and were the means for showcasing boot camps to the media. All offenders must participate in drill and ceremony as well as develop and exhibit a level of skill in precision drill marching. Since most facilities create some sort of competitive process for grading platoons on precision drilling, this aspect can become a point of developing pride and improving self-image in addition to serving as a tool for discipline. Some boot camps, through competitive drill presentations, select a Gold Award Drill Unit to perform for visiting dignitaries. Departmental staff, supported by criminal justice literature, acknowledge that defiance of the law can occur not simply as an absence of discipline but as the result when young offenders feel they are denied access to participation in the mainstream community and cannot achieve economic success and other goals through traditional and lawful means. Serious involvement in drug abuse, through both using and dealing, and a lack of basic life skills and employability are also major deficits in a large percentage of cases. Programs now require that all boot camp participants complete a basic alcohol and drug education course. Some boot camps require participants without a high school diploma or general equivalency diploma (GED) to enroll in either GED or adult basic education throughout the boot camp period or until the GED is acquired. Officer Training and Development of Procedures Georgia's disciplinary program depends on staff training to ensure that both drill and disciplinary techniques are grounded in up-to-date military practice. It also depends on comprehensive handbooks that ensure understanding of rules and procedures by staff and inmates alike. The Department's 4-week Basic Correctional Officer Training program, which is both rigorous and thorough, includes passing tests on departmental policies and procedures. Thus all officers have a firm knowledge of the official definition of disciplinary infractions and the appropriate response. In addition, boot camp officers complete drill instructor training developed by the departmental training division. Selected officers have participated in specialized boot camp training offered to correctional agencies by the U.S. Marine Corps at Quantico, Virginia, and by the U.S. Army at Ft. McClellan, Alabama.1 Because of the proximity of Ft. McClellan, its training opportunities and drill techniques are now used by all Georgia boot camps. Officers who graduate are entitled to wear the all-black uniform and black "campaign cover," or broad-brimmed hat, of the Senior Drill Instructor, a designation of distinction. Participants, too, are taught the rules from the outset. As one warden observed, "Discipline begins at the gate." During orientation, each boot camp participant receives a copy of a handbook that includes specific rules and procedures. Each facility prepares its own handbook, so there is some variation in specific institutional activities and rules. In all cases, however, the handbook describes the expectation of military decorum, protocol, and etiquette. The new boot camp participant signs an agreement indicating he understands the rules, and this agreement becomes the foundation of disciplinary policy. Specific rules common to all Georgia's boot camps include prohibition against fighting, sexual activity, weapons, drugs or alcohol, and escape. The handbook also describes the disciplinary process and grievance procedures, visitation, mail and telephone policies, and programmatic activities (both mandatory and voluntary). Special sections deal with policy allowing searches of person, property, and living areas at any time. Handbooks include a section on work and one on personal hygiene and cleanliness. Verbal Confrontation and Communication Verbal confrontation as a method of discipline is integral to the program. A verbal dressdown is a regular occurrence and may not be prompted by any specific violation. It is often applied in the assumption that offenders are arrogant and have previously shown a pattern of challenging authority. Correctional staff turn the "in your face" style of communication into an art form. Departmental policy forbids the use of profanity or physical contact by staff, but the terms often heard in admonishing boot camp participants may be highly derogatory. Staff often remark that "you must break them down so you can build them up." Boot camp participants are forbidden to speak until they make a formal request by first identifying themselves as "Inmate (surname), request permission to speak." For the most part, the pattern of formal communication continues in the third person. There is considerable variation among institutions and supervisory staff regarding when and where to allow informal communication. General policy forbids talking at mealtime and on work detail without permission. In practice, however, some conversation does occur in work situations. At any point when this is considered to be detrimental or disruptive, correctional officers are expected to immediately impose the rule of silence. When any staff member directs a question to the offender, the expected response is "Yes, sir" or "No, sir." Dealing With Disciplinary Infractions Staff report that physical conflicts are rare among boot camp participants. Activity is so closely supervised that there is little opportunity for uncontrolled behavior. Disciplinary infractions are categorized as "minor" or "major." The most frequent minor infractions are verbal insubordination, failure to follow instructions, and failure to perform work assignments. Major disciplinary infractions include bringing an illegal drug into the facility from an outside work detail. This almost certainly results in a revocation. When a minor infraction occurs, the officer is free to handle the situation by giving a verbal warning, issuing demerits, or preparing a written disciplinary report. Any written disciplinary report results in a formal hearing and a finding of guilt or innocence. Findings of guilt result in specific sanctions that must be approved by the warden. An officer may deal with a minor infraction in several ways. He may issue a verbal warning and follow up with more precise instructions on how an assignment must be done, or issue three demerits on a participant's work record for failure to follow instructions. Options vary with the style of the officer and with the circumstance. If the failure to perform the work assignment is seen as an intentional act of defiance, it is addressed with a written disciplinary report, which must cite a specific code section and violation. This requirement for a formal report ensures that disciplinary actions conform to departmental policies, become subject to audit, and meet high standards of professional judgment. Disciplinary hearings are conducted under formal rules that allow an offender to have an advocate present, usually the person's counselor. The offender may also request witnesses. In the staffing design for probation boot camps, the correctional lieutenant is the highest ranking security officer, and he conducts the hearing. The shift supervisor on duty when an infraction occurs investigates the disciplinary report to ascertain all the facts prior to the hearing. The correctional lieutenant acts in the role of administrative judge, reviews the written disciplinary report, and hears testimony from the officer who wrote the report, from the offender, and from any other witnesses. A correctional captain performs the role of hearing officer in inmate boot camps. The offender has an opportunity to speak, and the hearing officer decides guilt or innocence as well as any sanctions to be imposed. This decision is reviewed by the warden or superintendent, who signs off on the finding and sanctions or makes changes. All disciplinary hearing reports are forwarded to the Department of Corrections Central Office. Range of Sanctions As noted, for minor disciplinary infractions the correctional officer may issue a verbal warning. When a minor infraction occurs, the officer also has the discretionary power to require pushups for the sake of immediacy of punishment. This is called "motivational physical therapy," and no other situational punishments are allowed. As pointed out by Dale Parent, the use of summary punishments could erode the protections of disciplinary procedures established as national standards (Parent, 1989). For this reason, the Georgia Department of Corrections has established clearly defined limits for the use of any on-the-spot sanctions. If a formal disciplinary report and hearing occur, a specified range of options is defined in the boot camp handbook. Sanctions for minor disciplinary infractions may take the form of delay of visitation or telephone privileges for specified time periods or extra duty assignments (in 10-hour increments). Other sanctions include loss of privileges for purchasing items at the boot camp store or extra duty in place of a recreation period. In general, Georgia boot camps observe a policy of progressive sanction, whereby successive infractions result in more severe sanctions. Major disciplinary infractions may result in a 10- to 30-day "recycling," or repetition of certain elements of the program; this results in a longer stay before graduation or release. Serious infractions may result in up to 10 days of isolation, which are not counted toward program completion. In 1993 the Facilities Division extended the standard period for the inmate boot camp program from 90 days to 120 days to create time for programmatic additions without infringing on time allocated to standard drill, physical training, and work. For probation boot camps, the Community Corrections Division maintained the standard time period of 90 days, but provision was made for recycling up to 30 days. Probation detainees may be in boot camp for 120 days as a result of failure to meet disciplinary requirements, but if they exhibit no performance problems, they are released after 90 days. The potential for increased length of stay as a disciplinary sanction thus becomes a significant motivation for cooperation. In inmate boot camps, an offender may be removed from the program when means of enforcing discipline are exhausted. The State Board of Pardons and Paroles has the authority to assign and release inmates. Recent statistics show that 5 percent of those originally assigned to the program voluntarily withdraw and 5 percent are removed through disciplinary action. In the case of inmates assigned to boot camp, a removal either for voluntary or disciplinary reasons results in reassignment to another institution. The security level assigned is influenced by the nature of the disciplinary problem. In probation boot camps, detainees must be returned to the sentencing court for action; this usually results in revocation from probation and a new sentence for confinement. In some cases, however, the courts impose a different alternative sanction. Georgia's progression of intermediate sanctions place boot camp as the last alternative before incarceration, but judges are free to act in a different order. Sometimes reassignment occurs for medical rather than disciplinary reasons. Preventive Discipline Programs have formal and informal ways for giving offenders who are exhibiting adjustment problems special attention to enable them to succeed. Staff identify inmates who have serious family problems, exhibit volatility, or have accumulated 20 or more demerits (indicating potential escalation to more serious violations). One inmate boot camp has implemented a behavior adjustment group for those with marginal behavior. This group meets for four 1-hour sessions planned around issues of anger management and cognitive restructuring (a means of getting offenders to analyze how they responded to situations in their lives and to develop alternative responses). Individualized techniques include counseling and psychodrama scenarios that relate to "stuffing" (suppressing feelings), escalating, and directing behaviors. Various techniques for identifying and managing anger are presented. Positive Reinforcement Individual wardens differ philosophically about the appropriateness of rewards for positive behaviors during the boot camp stay. Some regard the completion of a GED certificate as an intrinsic reward realized for the offender but oppose tangible rewards within the program. Others dispense concrete rewards. In one facility, members of the platoon that wins the Gold Boot award for precision drilling earn the right to eat first for 1 week and receive soft drinks and candy. Generally, some positive reinforcement is provided to balance the elements of work, drill, and discipline that dominate the military boot camp model. This positive reinforcement is achieved by several means. In some boot camps a range meeting is held once a week at which positive achievements and behavior are recognized; the group may also have peer discussions of problems. Communication is less formal, and in some cases a counselor may follow up on issues raised or help individuals resolve problems. In addition, each offender is scheduled for an individual counseling session at least once a month. This meeting begins after the offender knocks on the counselor's door and says "Inmate (or detainee) report." The counselor then responds by saying, "at ease," which signals the opportunity to converse during the counseling session without formal permission to speak. However, counselors expect all responses to show self-respect and self-discipline. Communication Issues Staff members were asked about their experience and beliefs regarding the requirement that offenders identify themselves in the third person throughout the program while they are expected to reflect upon past behavior and feelings and to internalize behavioral and attitudinal change. This issue was originally raised by a staff psychologist who conducted regular adjustment groups in one inmate boot camp. Once a week for a 90-minute group session, he required each participant to use the first person for discussing and accepting responsibility for his own behaviors and feelings. Although this group was discontinued, the issue of the best means of promoting personal responsibility remains. During site visits, researchers observed situations in which individual expression was exhibited in various ways: o Often, skilled counselors created group situations in which a great deal of individual expression occurred while participants continued to observe the official protocol of formal communication. o At some boot camps the development of the guidon, the banner displaying the platoon and company identification, is a group project under the direction of the correctional officer in charge of drill for the platoon. The group members are supplied basic art supplies to make the guidon, which expresses their pride and commitment. Some banners are quite artistic. Examples of guidons include one with the name "Mighty Aces," a bulldog pictured as mascot and a slogan, "United we stand, divided we fall." Administrators differ about the appropriateness of guidons like these, some considering them expressions of esprit de corps or power statements inappropriate to the offenders' status, and others viewing them more positively. o Another form of group expression is the cadence chant, a creation of the platoon. These chants vary and often show how well the group is progressing. A counselor observed that when platoons near completion of the program, the word "freedom" is often heard as part of the cadence. o During leisure education time, offenders have library access and can read or write as they like. On occasion, offenders have composed a written piece for use at a graduation ceremony. As boot camp participants move toward completion of the program, they use more informal communication, whether as part of the boot camp planning or as the result of staff encouragement. This suggests that although formal communication remains in the third person, there are opportunities for individual and group expression to develop. Extending the Boot Camp Disciplinary Model to Standard Prison The combination of strict military discipline, a code of ethics, and clear application of positive reinforcement is noteworthy and demonstrates the balancing of strict discipline with positive reinforcement. The success of this model in boot camps led Georgia to adopt it in a close-security (in Georgia, the next step down from maximum security) prison, the Valdosta Correctional Institution. The rest of this chapter describes the successful application of this model to an entirely different population to show the potential of this aspect of boot camps to offer a solution to some seemingly intractable problems in prisons housing more serious, violent offenders. While it is difficult to make long-term comparisons of the outcomes of this prison model (given the longer incarceration of prison inmates), it offers some interesting insights from the standpoint of theory and experience. Valdosta inmates have committed serious felonies-- some are among the most notorious offenders in the State and are serving multiple life sentences. All have been classified as in need of close security. In 1990 the prison implemented the boot camp style of discipline for inmates for whom previous methods of control would be periods of isolation or lockdown. The program at Valdosta is called the Intensive Therapeutic Program (ITP) and is a 30-day alternative to more traditional forms of control in the prison. The institution is led by a warden who clearly believes in positive reinforcement and uses the technique effectively. Valdosta has won awards as the outstanding institution in Georgia under this leadership and also won the 1993 award as the Outstanding Correctional Facility in the United States as part of City and State magazine's Excellence in Government/Correctional Award Program. The ITP living unit was originally established to implement certain military-style protocols in regard to work programs, orderliness, and cleanliness of living quarters. As this approach proved to be effective, and inmates marched and developed cadences, the administration began to introduce more military protocols. The unit is managed by a drill instructor who has completed the U.S. Army course in military drill. The framed Code of Ethics, which hangs in every dormitory, demands discipline, self-pride, and uniformity. Since the inception of the ITP program, 300 inmates have completed the program each year. By the end of 1993 disciplinary reports had decreased from an average of 330 a month to 100 a month and assaults by 75 percent. Staff from other units began to request the opportunity to use these protocols. To provide positive reinforcement, the warden makes inspection tours twice a week, visiting each dormitory. The inmates present themselves and their quarters for inspection, observing military protocols. The protocols are often led by peers, and individual motivational statements are offered in some dormitories. These stress self-discipline and leadership support and are delivered in rote fashion while standing at attention. An observer gets the impression that the energy exerted would provide release equal to that provided by calisthenics. The warden moves swiftly through the institution and takes careful note both of areas where improvement is needed and areas of excellence. He speaks to individual offenders about the need to tighten sheets or iron a shirt, but he also makes special note where the orderliness is exemplary. In advance of the inspection, his staff has prepared a listing by dormitory of individuals who have noteworthy accomplishments, such as receipt of a GED or a notation for improved performance. As he enters each dormitory he requests that these individuals be brought forward. He gives them his personal congratulation for the accomplishment. To an inmate who has completed a GED, he may affirm, "They can take that uniform away from you, but no one can take that education from you." An observer can see that the inmates value the individual recognition. Positive reinforcement takes other forms as well. A golf cart follows the warden on his inspection tour across the grounds. The cart has been painted with balloons by the vocational education classes and is laden with refreshments. As the warden completes his inspection of each dormitory, staff members wait to distribute Cokes and honey buns to all residents of a dormitory who pass inspection and something extra for those who lead in drill or who offer special motivational statements. Conclusion Universally accepted research in response conditioning, pioneered by B.F. Skinner, indicates that positive reinforcement is more effective than negative reinforcement in achieving behavioral change. Effective discipline seeks the necessary balance between disciplinary intervention to control destructive behavior and positive reinforcement of constructive behavior. Within the span of a 90- to 120-day boot camp program that seeks to impart strict discipline for a group with serious deficits in this area, there may always be an apparent emphasis on calling attention to negatives. The positive reinforcements do occur, however, at lower decibels and with less attention from the press. It is important that they not be forgotten. Strong aftercare linkages to the community during the readjustment period offer opportunities to continue positive reinforcement of the self-discipline and personal responsibility instilled in the boot camp. Note 1. Boot camps and other correctional agencies interested in this training should contact Retired Command Sergeant Major Josh Perry, Ft. McClellan Department of the Army Military Police School, Ft. McClellan, AL 36205 (telephone 205-848-4383). The training program at Quantico has been closed. References Flowers, Gerald T. An Evaluation of the Use and Performance of Special Alternative Incarceration in Georgia. Atlanta: Georgia Department of Corrections, 1986. Flowers, Gerald T., Timothy S. Carr, and R. Barry Ruback. Special Alternative Incarceration Evaluation. Atlanta: Georgia Department of Corrections, 1991. MacKenzie, Doris L. Boot Camp Prisons in 1993. Research in Action. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1993. MacKenzie, Doris L., and L.I. Goodstein. "Stress and the Control Beliefs of Prisons: A Test of Three Models of Control-limited Environments." Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16 (1986):3. Parent, Dale G. "Boot Camps Failing To Achieve Goals." Overcrowded Times, 5, no. 4 (August 1993):8-11. Parent, Dale G. Shock Incarceration: An Overview of Existing Programs. Issues and Practices in Criminal Justice. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1989. Toch, Hans. Living in Prison. New York: The Free Press, 1977. Toch, Hans, and K. Adams. "Punishment, Treatment and Prison Infractions." Journal of Offender Counseling Services and Rehabilitation, 12 (1988).