| Most previous studies on boot camp programs were based on either cursory interviews or field observations, or heavily on use of official records. This paper presents findings from an NIJ-funded evaluation of the Los Angeles Juvenile Drug Treatment Boot Camp, which employed extensive use of self-report measures. The study interviewed 100 boot camp participants and 100 comparison youngsters from conventional juvenile camps. Furthermore, it tracked a separate group of boot camp youngsters for 6-12 months after camp graduation. Official data did not reveal any differences between the two groups in terms of arrests or probation condition violation. Although, self-report interviews indicated that boot camp participants were drawn towards the structured environment and fell it would be more effective if it had been longer, measures on various offenses and attitudes did not produce any significant differences. Although the regimented programs and disciplinary procedures appeal to many policy makers as well as program administrators, the juvenile drug treatment boot camp, as evaluated here, produced more positive rhetoric than concrete behavioral outcomes. The Maryland HotSpot Communities Program, launched in 1997, supports comprehensive strategies in neighborhoods across the state. The neighborhoods were identified by local jurisdictions as places where there is a disproportionate amount of crime or fear of crime, and where community residents are ready to fight back. Local HotSpot strategies include six "core" elements - - actions that are essential to an effective community strategy. 1n addition, many HotSpot Communities are implementing "enhancing' elements - - actions that can have a significant impact if the core elements are in place. The core elements are: community mobilization, community policing, community probation, nuisance abatement, youth prevention, and local coordination. The enhancing elements are: community prosecution, juvenile intervention, crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED), victim outreach, addiction recovery, and community revitalization. The Urban Institute is conducting a process evaluation of these efforts. Our research includes monitoring implementation milestones as reported in progress reports and validated through phone interviews and site: visits with key program participants. In addition, we are evaluating resident "rear of crime" surveys, and conducting physical block surveys as a way of certifying implementation accomplishments. The presentation will highlight patterns/styles of implementation that emerge within urban, suburban, and urban localities. These patterns/styles will be interpreted against expectations articulated in each site's application. |
Updated 05/20/2006