Evaluations of and Politics Surrounding Residential Community-Based Sanctions
As alluded to earlier in the lesson, residential community-based sanctions generally receive a fair amount of popular support because of their cost effectiveness and onus of responsibility placed upon the offender. In fact, this support may be primarily responsible for the continuance of a number of programs even in the face of empirical evidence demonstrating a lack of effectiveness.
Criticism of Boot Camps
In the case of boot camps, an initial criticism from juvenile advocates was that as these programs grew at a rapid pace, more juveniles would be 'caught in the net,' so to speak, in order to fill open slots in new boot camp initiatives. Another criticism was that the removal of offenders (either adult or juvenile) was unnecessary as their sentences could’ve been served out under traditional probation supervision with similar outcomes being observed and at a lesser cost. Such removal, it is argued, is a further stigmatization by the criminal justice system that is unwarranted and could have detrimental ramifications further down the line.
The arguments against boot camps, however, are most compelling when one takes into account empirical data on behavioral change post program participation. A number of studies show that juvenile boot camp graduates recidivate, are rearrested and incarcerated at about the same rates as those offenders who serve terms of probation or are placed in traditional placements such as a youth detention center. There has been much academic discussion over the years as to how to interpret these results, what the appropriate outcome measure of the programs should be, etc. However, while declining in number from the peak years of boot camp programming, the sanction remains popular in a number of jurisdictions. Proponents of boot camps point out differences on offenders’ outlooks and attitudes that are harder to quantifiably measure. It is said that boot camps have taken on more ‘hard cases’ that would be difficult to ‘turn around’ using traditional correctional or treatment methods. As the debate goes on, the use of boot camps for both adults and juveniles has been on the decline for some time as policymakers look to other alternatives with a better track record of changing offenders.
Resisitance to Other Residential Treatments
Other forms of residential treatment, excepted perhaps for those that have been long established in communities, receive lesser support from the public, especially from citizens who reside in neighborhoods containing such facilities. It is a difficult proposition to open a new residential treatment center, as even discussion of such a possibility brings out a chorus of 'Not in My Backyard.' As a result, expansion of such facilities is limited by citizen activism and blockage by political entities such as zoning boards. Many facilities, if they do get approval to begin operations, do so in less desirable neighborhoods and in sub-standard structures requiring extensive rehabilitation. In Pennsylvania there is an infamous story regarding a methadone treatment facility for convicted heroin offenders that could not get the ‘OK’ to open in any municipality in an entire metro area and ended up opening in an impoverished urban center over 30 miles from the population it targeted. Curiously, this public opposition is based primarily on conjecture and supposition, as there is virtually no empirical evidence demonstrating an increase in crime or declining property values attributable to the presence of a residential treatment center of any mission.