Correctional Boot Camps: A Tough Intermediate Sanction - Chapter 15. Planning and Designing Boot Camp Facilities MENU TITLE: Planning/Designing Boot Camp Facilities Series: NIJ Report Published: February 1996 12 pages 24,567 bytes Planning and Designing Boot Camp Facilities by Cindie A. Unger Cindie Unger is Vice President of Correctional Services Group, Inc., in Kansas City, Missouri, providing consulting services to Federal, State, and local criminal justice agencies. Ms. Unger has completed several projects for the National Institute of Corrections and the Bureau of Justice Assistance. Boot camp facilities need to be designed in accordance with their goals and activities, which are different from the goals and activities of regular prisons. Whether renovating or adding to existing prison facilities or designing totally new facilities, correctional planners need to conduct five activities to ensure that designs enable the boot camp to fulfill its objectives to: (1) develop a preliminary program, (2) develop and consider facility options, (3) determine the costs of facility options, (4) identify strategies for reducing construction and operating costs, and (5) select the most feasible option. The recommendations made are drawn from Guidelines for Developing a Boot Camp Program, a manual prepared in 1993 by the Correctional Services Group, Inc., and jointly funded by the U.S. Department of Justice's National Institute of Corrections and Bureau of Justice Assistance. One chapter in the manual tells how to design boot camp facilities so that they promote the objectives of boot camp programs. The growth of boot camp programs has spawned numerous studies of boot camps, ranging from instructional manuals for implementation to comprehensive evaluations. Nearly all of these studies focus exclusively on the boot camp program- -its objectives, its components (drill, physical exercise, education programming, substance abuse treatment), eligibility criteria, program length, and program effectiveness. Very little attention has been given to the physical facilities that house boot camp programs and how their design affects the ability of the programs to achieve their objectives. Yet correctional administrators have long recognized that correctional programs and security practices are shaped by the structures in which they are housed. Since the earliest penitentiaries were constructed on American soil, an integral part of correctional facility design has been to plan the physical layout and structure of facilities to serve the prison's overall goals, programs, services, and activities. This premise holds true for the planning of boot camp facilities, whether they are located in existing, expanded, or new correctional buildings. The Nation's earliest prisons were facilities that isolated prisoners because the prevailing correctional philosophies of the day emphasized silence, penitence, and solitude. Today's boot camps, on the other hand, simulate the barracks of military boot camps to bring nonviolent inmates together to instill discipline, promote teamwork, and ultimately generate a sense of responsibility for themselves and for others. Boot camps reflect a correctional philosophy that emphasizes rehabilitation through group interaction and activities. Because of these special program goals and nonviolent offender populations, boot camp facilities are designed differently from traditional prisons and jails. They contain proportionally more space for physical exercise and substance abuse programming, use dormitory housing almost exclusively, and use outdoor areas for close-order drill and obstacle courses--training courses filled with barriers, such as ditches and walls, that must be negotiated. To successfully plan and design an effective boot camp facility, a correctional agency should complete five activities: (1) develop a preliminary program, (2) develop and consider facility options, (3) determine the costs of facility options, (4) identify strategies for reducing construction and operating costs, and (5) select the most feasible option.1 Develop a Preliminary Program To select a feasible and effective option for a boot camp facility, the agency must first have a clear, if preliminary, idea of how the facility will function and the demands that will be placed on it. This requires the development of a preliminary program statement that identifies: o The boot camp mission. o Boot camp goals. o Boot camp programs and services. o The daily schedule. o Capacity projections. o The preliminary estimate of space needs. o The relationship among spaces. o Potential users. o Americans With Disabilities Act requirements. o Major activities to be carried out. The mission of the boot camp guides the development of its goals, which in turn determine the types of programs and services that will be needed and that will determine the daily schedule that the boot camp participants will follow. Guided by this schedule, facility planners can identify the specific types of spaces the boot camp will need to provide. The size of the facility, the number of participants it can accommodate at any one time, plus the daily schedule will dictate the number and size of the spaces planned for each activity or program. The preliminary estimate of space needs involves several activities, preceded by a review of State and national facility standards. First, planners should develop a list of spaces needed to carry out the daily activities. For most boot camps, major functional spaces will include: o Dormitory housing, including sleeping area, day room, showers, and toilets. o Program space for academic classes, substance abuse programming, life skills training, anger management, and other skills enhancement training. o Multipurpose space for group meetings, Narcotics Anonymous and Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, and religious services. o Administrative offices and ancillary support space. o Program and service office space. o Gymnasium for indoor physical exercise and drill. o Outdoor physical training area for running track, calisthenics, and drill. o Library. o Kitchen. o Dining room. o Warehouse, including food stores. o Laundry. o Visiting area. o Offender property storage area. o Clothing, facility supplies storage area. o Intake area. o Space for staff services, including lockers, showers, training room, and assembly room. Besides the schedule, planners will have to take into account the capacity of the facility. Then the estimated net square footage for each type of space listed must be determined. This is the amount of space required for a particular function, exclusive of interior walls or circulation space around the functional area. Each space must be large enough to accommodate the number of people who will use the space (both offenders and staff) and the nature of the activities that will take place there. To make functional spaces work in relation to one another, designers add a grossing factor, which adds space for interior walls and partitions, internal corridors, and circulation among functional components (such as administrative and program areas). To illustrate grossing, a factor of 35 to 40 percent is typically added to the net square footage (NSF) estimated for dormitory housing. Thus, a 50-foot by 70-foot dormitory would have 3,500 square feet, yet the gross square footage (GSF) would be at least 4,725 square feet (3,500 NSF x 0.35 growing factor). In addition, the preliminary estimate of space needs also involves computing the facility's overall efficiency factor. Typically, the efficiency factor is about 1.25 times the gross square footage. In this way, the overall size of the facility can be determined. After determining their space needs, boot camp planners should study the relationship among the spaces, determining which spaces need to be next to or near one another (in the language of architects, spacial relationships are called adjacencies) and projecting the flow of people, information, and things throughout the facility. They must also visualize the volume, frequency, and importance of this flow. Potential users include staff, offenders, visitors, volunteers, and vendors. Designers should consider the number of these people, the period and length of time they will spend there, and any special requirements they may have. The Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 significantly strengthened the law on accessibility to public buildings. Areas or objects whose accessibility must be evaluated include exterior step handrails or possible ramp; doors, which should be wide and easily opened; elevators or ramps to accompany interior stairs; floors, which should be level and nonslip; restrooms, which should have wide doors and grab bars; counters, which should be of suitable height; corridors, which should be brightly lit and fitted with grab bars; and waiting rooms with comfortable seating. The design must also be based on an understanding of the major activities to be undertaken for each user or facility area throughout the building and the typical sequence of activities, including what people are involved, what they do, and where they do it. A master operational schedule, completed by the users of the facility, is invaluable to designers at this point. The Illinois Impact Incarceration Program (IIP) at Dixon Springs furnishes an example of what happens when the facility design does not take into account an important aspect of the program. The program's inmate code of silence dictates that inmates may not communicate with one another and that they may not speak to staff unless they first obtain permission or are addressed by staff. The facility, a former forestry camp, has 3 housing units--1 for women, 1 large unit for 80 of the newest participants, and another large unit comprising 10 smaller dormitories, each housing 14 inmates. Staff are aware that participants routinely violate the code of silence when they are in the small dormitories. To enforce the code, IIP would have to place an officer in each of the 10 small dormitories to visually monitor inmates' talking behavior. Because this level of staffing is cost prohibitive, the inmates are "on their honor" to adhere to the code of silence. A better facility design would have consisted of 3 large dormitories housing between 60 and 75 inmates each, with a correctional officer assigned to each dormitory. Alternatively, a housing unit design could have been adopted similar to that of the Georgia's Women's Detention Center, where 166 inmates are housed in 4 dormitories designed around a common control center. The officers who staff the control center have unobstructed views into each of the dormitories. Another important issue to consider at the planning stage is the impact created by the facility design ( the materials chosen to construct the facility, its layout, and the number and types of spaces included in the facility), as well as the furnishings, on the attitudes of staff, inmates, and the public. These features communicate a message. The public, particularly, wants to see correctional boot camps that mirror their ideas about military boot camps--campus-style facilities built of wood or simple concrete block with sealed concrete floors; few or no window treatments; recreational opportunities limited to drill, calisthenics, running, and the obstacle course; minimal interior decoration; and inexpensive furnishings, preferably metal. The message most correctional agencies wish to communicate to inmates and staff is somewhat different. Spartan facilities with simple furnishings focus the attention and energies of both staff and inmates on the basics of the boot camp program--growth and development of the program participants through discipline, training, and education. Utilitarian designs, furniture chosen for its durability rather than its beaut, give the message that the program is unadorned, no-nonsense, rigid, rigorous, and character-building. Develop and Consider Facility Options Unlike most secure jails and prisons, boot camps can be housed in existing buildings or expansions of existing structures. Boot camp programs have operated out of forestry camps, medium security prisons, a school house, military barracks, and a maximum security jail. The potential for using an existing building is important to consider, particularly when funds are limited or there is a need to implement the program as quickly as possible, but there are many considerations to be addressed. Basically, correctional officials have three principal options for housing boot camps: o Renovate an existing facility. o Construct a new boot camp on the grounds of an existing facility. o Construct a new stand-alone facility. Renovating an existing facility. While this option may appear attractive, based primarily on speed and cost, a number of conditions must be met. The failure of the facility to meet any one of these conditions can nullify any benefits derived from use of an existing structure. First, the building must comply with standards and legal requirements for boot camps. It must be large enough to house the projected offender population, including those waiting to enter the program, and to accommodate the program's goals and objectives as well as being adaptable to program needs. It must be possible to maintain separation between boot camp inmates and regular inmates. The building must be sound, fire-safe, and secure, and provide the minimum level of comfort required as well as meet sanitation requirements. It must comply with all building codes, have appropriate space for programs and services, and promote staff efficiency. If the proposed building does not meet all of the foregoing criteria, it must be renovated to bring it into compliance. The cost of the required renovation is an important consideration in choosing renovation over new construction. While these considerations are also important in evaluating the construction of a new facility, the agency will dictate, up front in the planning process, the standards, codes, and regulations that the facility design and construction will have to meet. Retrofitting a facility to meet applicable codes, standards, and regulations is often more expensive than designing and executing these requirements in new construction. Addition to existing facility. Adding the boot camp facility to an existing facility is an option favored by some. In a study of Georgia's boot camp program, Special Alternative Incarceration, judges who were interviewed said that the boot camps should be housed within a regular prison setting. They believed the suggestive jeering and taunting of the older, hardened, adult inmates would instill fear in the boot camp offenders and thus deter them from future criminal activity and possible return to prison.3 Another rationale for placing the boot camp within a larger facility is to enable the program to receive wider staff scrutiny and thus guard against abuse of offenders. A final reason is that staff can be easily rotated into and out of the program when they cannot adjust to the boot camp environment or are at risk of burnout. Most agencies that operate boot camp programs have followed a similar development path. That is, most boot camp programs have been initiated not by corrections agencies but by legislatures, county commissioners, governors, or city councils. Existing staff have formed planning teams to develop the program, recommend policies and procedures, and estimate the staff, facilities, and other resources required. Because the implementation schedule may have been set by agencies outside corrections, the timeframe for developing and implementing the program was frequently very short--a few months to a year. It became expedient for most boot camp programs to use existing facilities, renovating them for use as correctional boot camps. For example, the Illinois and New York correctional agencies converted work camps for adult offenders. The About Face Program in New Orleans Parish operates out of a former school building. While such actions may meet agencies' requirements for expedient, less costly program startup, boot camp staff report inadequate facilities, especially lack of program space.4 Other factors need to be considered before attempting to expand an existing structure: disruption of operations, temporary relocation of offenders, and permanence of the facility. Constructing a stand-alone facility. Most corrections agencies have not chosen the option of constructing a stand-alone facility, most likely because this option costs the most and takes the longest time to execute. The construction of a stand-alone boot camp can take from 12 to 26 months, depending on the size of the facility, how difficult it is to site the facility, how long it takes to secure the necessary zoning and building permits, and the level of attention given to planning the facility. Determine Facility Option Costs After choosing the facility option that best makes sense for a jurisdiction, planners should develop a preliminary estimate of the cost of the renovation, expansion, or new construction. This is done by determining current construction costs on a square-foot basis, computing the total gross square footage for the option selected, estimating current total construction costs, and adjusting for inflation. Equally important is to make a preliminary estimate of what the facility will cost to operate, on an annual and life-cycle basis, including not only existing but potential operational expenses. Calculating operational expenses is critical because they are annual costs, while renovation or construction expenses are a one-time cost. To estimate operational costs, planners should: o Calculate annual costs, including fringe benefits. o Determine the cost of offender services on an annual basis, not excluding permanent agency employees, but including contractual services. o Compute the annual cost of facility maintenance, including the costs of labor, materials, and contractual services. o Determine all other operational costs, such as costs for inmate clothing, food, uniforms, travel, utilities, supplies, and equipment. o Calculate the operating cost per bed by adding the total personnel costs, offender services costs, facility maintenance costs, and all other operations costs, and divide by the number of inmates who will be assigned to the program. This calculation will provide the annual operating cost per bed for the boot camp program. The final activity in calculating estimated costs is to determine what the facility will cost to operate over its expected life. An escalation index, or inflation factor, is applied to the estimated annual operating expenses over a 20- to 30-year period to derive the life-cycle cost of the boot camp. Identify Strategies for Reducing Construction and Operating Costs Sometimes, after calculating construction, operational, and life-cycle costs, planners find the costs exceed the agency's budget. In this situation, planners can employ one or more of the following strategies to reduce construction and operational costs: o Reduce dependency on expensive construction, hardware, and equipment. o Minimize the use of expensive mechanical and electrical systems. o Use readily available building materials. o Select a site that is easy to build on. o Employ a "fast-track" or phased construction process to reduce time to completion. o Use boot camp offenders to construct the obstacle course, running track, and other physical training facilities. o Locate the boot camp within a larger general population facility so that it can take advantage of some of the staff resources of the larger facility, such as food service, laundry, warehouse, and medical services. o House offenders awaiting admission to the boot camp in an existing facility, rather than building a larger boot camp facility to accommodate them. To save money on construction, Georgia built some of its newer boot camp barracks on existing State prison grounds, availing itself of existing offender service systems. With the use of offender labor, Georgia was able to build these new barracks at a cost of about $2,000 per bed. Stand-alone boot camps that required their own food service systems, medical sections, counseling centers, and staff offices were costing Georgia about $8,900 per bed.5 To reduce operational costs, agencies have used a variety of strategies, including limiting the size of the building to reduce staff, utility, and maintenance costs and increasing the size of the housing unit while keeping the same number of security staff supervising the unit, thus achieving staffing efficiencies. Designs can be created that focus on maximizing staff efficiency or energy efficiency, and mechanical systems can be selected that cost little to maintain. The Georgia Department of Corrections designed a boot camp facility for its Probation Detention Center that allows one staff member, supported by one rover (a correctional officer whose job is to move continuously through specified areas of the facility, supervising inmates and assisting correctional staff assigned to stationary posts), to supervise 166 offenders. The housing design, four dormitories arranged around a central control center, results in an efficient staff-to-inmate ratio of 1 to 83. After 1 year of operation, the only recommendation staff could offer for improving the design of the housing units was to increase the number of isolation cells from three to four.6 Select the Most Feasible Option Each option--designing a new stand-alone boot camp, renovating an existing facility, or constructing a boot camp on the grounds of an existing facility-- should be evaluated, with adequate consideration given to construction and operating costs, as well as to the advantages and disadvantages of each. To sum up, with careful planning and attention to the goals of the boot camp program, a renovated facility is an acceptable alternative to a new facility, particularly if the jurisdiction wishes to start up a boot camp program quickly and cost is a factor. On the other hand, however well a renovation of an existing facility is planned, it can often be difficult to eradicate the prior function of the facility without considerable reconstruction. If an extensive renovation is required to meet the agency's needs for a boot camp program, it may make more sense to plan, design, and construct a new facility. Notes 1. This chapter is drawn from Cindie A. Unger, "Guidelines for Developing a Boot Camp Program," unpublished report, Kansas City, Missouri: Correctional Services Group, Inc., August 1993. The preparation of this manual was jointly funded by the U.S. Department of Justice's National Institute of Corrections and Bureau of Justice Assistance. The manual tells how to design boot camp facilities so that they promote the objectives of boot camp programs. 2. "Program Readiness Preparation" is the expression the Minnesota Department of Corrections gives to the brief period of free time before inmates begin a busy day of program participation. During this period they may use the rest room, gather materials they may need for class, tidy their beds or barracks, and the like. 3. G.T. Flowers et al., Special Alternative Incarceration Evaluation, Atlanta: Georgia Department of Corrections, 1991:3. 4. Unger, "Guidelines for Developing a Boot Camp Program." See also chapter 13 of this volume. 5. A. Bowen, "Making Boot Camps Bigger and Better in Georgia," Corrections Today, (October 1991):100. 6. Cindie A. Unger, Women's Detention Center Case Study, Georgia Department of Corrections, Community Corrections Division, 1992:10.