A Good Place to Do Time? Detailing the Construction of Symbolic Social Boundaries in Correctional Boot Camps

• Published date: 01 April 2024
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/00938548241230471
• Author: William J. Schultz,Sandra M. Bucerius,Kevin D. Haggerty
• Date: 01 April 2024

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 2024, Vol. 51, No. 4, April 2024, 588 –607.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548241230471

Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions

© 2024 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology

588

A GOOD PLACE TO DO TIME?

Detailing the Construction of Symbolic Social

Boundaries in Correctional Boot Camps

WILLIAM J. SCHULTZ

MacEwan University

SANDRA M. BUCERIUS

KEVIN D. HAGGERTY

University of Alberta

Drawing on qualitative interviews with 51 incarcerated adult men and nine correctional officers in a Western Canadian prison

system, we ask why some incarcerated people find it appealing to be placed on correctional boot camp units and what such

appeals tell us about broader conditions of incarceration. Participants on three boot camp units drew on narratives relating to

(a) extrinsic benefits, (b) discipline and structure, (c) teamwork and positive relationships, and (d) an opportunity for self-

improvement to construct symbolic boundaries between “normal” units and boot camps, as well as their former self and their

transformed current self. By drawing symbolic boundaries between the past and present and between other units and their

boot camp unit, our participants create narratives that allow them to partially mitigate some pains of imprisonment.

Keywords: prison; boot camps; correctional programming; boundary work; prison subcultures

INTRODUCTION

Controversial since their introduction in the mid-1980s, prison boot camps remain contentious

in the 21st century. Yet, they continue to be a feature of corrections in the United States and

Canada. Two main ways of understanding boot camps have emerged. The first focuses on

whether they reduce or prevent crime (MacKenzie, 1991; MacKenzie & Lattimore, 2018),

while the second line of commentary focuses on the symbolic value of these programs, con-

necting them to how they appeal to “tough on crime” political sensibilities (Tonry, 2001).

AUTHORS’ NOTE: This project was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of

Canada’s Insight Grants (SSHRCIG 435-2017-1051), the Vanier Canada scholarships, the Pierre Elliott

Trudeau Foundation, and the Killam Trusts. The authors thank all the participants who shared stories and

perspectives with us. They also express thanks to Drs. Mark Olver, Jennifer Eno Louden, three anonymous

reviewers, and students and staff at the University of Alberta’s Centre for Criminological Research, all of

whom provided enormously helpful comments on drafts of this article. Correspondence concerning this article

should be addressed to William J. Schultz, Department of Sociology, MacEwan University, 6-396 City Centre

Campus, 10700 104 Avenue NorthWest, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T5J 4S2; e-mail: schultzw4@macewan.ca.

1230471CJBXXX10.1177/00938548241230471Criminal Justice and BehaviorSchultz et al. / Correctional Boot Camps & Symbolic Boundaries

research-article2024

Schultz et al. / CORRECTIONAL BOOT CAMPS & SYMBOLIC BOUNDARIES 589

Neither of these approaches provide much insight into how boot camps operate on a day-

to-day basis. Consequently, we do not have a good understanding of how incarcerated indi-

viduals might perceive the values of these programs independent of any possible influence

on recidivism, particularly in contexts where boot camp participation does not lead to a

reduced sentence. The central questions we address in this article are: Why do some incar-

cerated people find it appealing to be placed on boot camp units characterized by harsh

discipline and strenuous exercise? What rewards do they perceive deriving from such a

highly structured and militarized placement? What might such appeals tell us about the

broader condition of incarceration? We address these questions by drawing on 51 in-depth

interviews with incarcerated men serving time on three boot camp units in Western Canada

and nine correctional officers (COs) working on these units. In addressing these questions,

we provide what may be the only qualitative examination of the subjective experiences of

individuals on prison-based boot camps.

CORRECTIONAL BOOT CAMPS

Correctional “boot camps” are discipline-based programs modeled on basic military train-

ing (Armstrong, 2004). Originally referred to as “shock incarceration,” correctional agen-

cies label modern examples as “accountability programs” and “leadership camps,” reflecting

a focus on program delivery within the para-military structure of the traditional boot camp

design (MacKenzie & Parent, 2004). Program participants typically wear short-cropped

haircuts and distinctive clothing, sometimes resembling military fatigues, visually setting

participants apart from other incarcerated people (Wilson et al., 2005). Boot camp staff

typically reinforce orders through yelling and physical activity (Cullen et al., 2005; Franke

et al., 2010), and strongly emphasize unit cleanliness, using it as evidence of increased dis-

cipline among participants.

Modern correction boot camps emerged in the 1980s when they became a popular pro-

gram in the American South (Armstrong, 2004). Policies relating to the War on Drugs mas-

sively increased the number of incarcerated people (MacKenzie & Lattimore, 2018), and

prison officials, overwhelmed by large populations of bored young men, embraced boot

camps as a method to reduce costs and recidivism. The programs also appealed because the

disciplinary lessons of military boot camps resonated with the millions of Americans for

whom military service was a key formative experience (MacKenzie & Parent, 2004).

Likewise, the harshness of these programs allowed them to serve as valuable political sym-

bols for advocates of tough-on-crime approaches (Tonry, 2001). Consequently, prison boot

camps quickly became a favored programming option for non-violent justice-involved ado-

lescents and expanded to the United Kingdom and Canada (Cullen et al., 2005; MacKenzie

& Parent, 2004).

Soon thereafter, critical research demonstrated that boot camps had little impact on recid-

ivism. In some cases, boot camp graduates had higher re-offense rates than people in “nor-

mal” prisons (MacKenzie, 1991; Wilson et al., 2005). For justice-involved youth, boot

camps were a worst-case scenario, as they interrupted “aging-out” processes while placing

youth in contact with criminally involved peers (Cullen et al., 2005; Tonry, 2001; Wilson

et al., 2005).