Cognitive-behavioral Interventions and Leadership of Correctional

Boot camps
William J. Morgan, Jr.*

William J. Morgan, Jr. is ABD at Capella University, a criminal justice professor at Erie Community College, and
a correction officer in the New York State Department of Correctional Services.

Abstract: The purpose of this paper is to examine the positive aspects of correctional boot camps for youth; often
ignored are the success cases and focus on the few tragedies that occur. The philosophy and people behind the
paradigm finds methods of cognitive-behavioral interventions through a process of transactional and
transformational leadership. With the use of cognitive-behavioral interventions through the leader and specific
leadership styles, the cognition of deviant youth can be transformed into law-abiding behavior.

INTRODUCTION
Eight correction officers and nurse from a
correctional boot camp for juveniles in Florida were
acquitted of manslaughter charges stemming from the
2007 death of a juvenile detainee (Nelson, 2007).
According to the officers, their actions complied with
facility policies and procedures, a finding the jury
found credible. A news story reported by Whoriskey
(2007) elucidated all negative connotations of boot
camps but rarely cited any positive aspects that
offender’s might gain from such institutions.
An examination of juvenile justice programs from
early America through contemporary society finds
that philanthropists, politicians, and private citizens
pronounced solutions to the dilemma of juvenile
delinquency. Some thought that punishment made
compliant citizens; others thought that rehabilitation
was the path to reform. There are many convincing
arguments for programs that work and do not work
and what should be and not be done to remedy the
current problem; the question has always been: what
system of justice best works for juveniles in the
United States? This paper examines the effectiveness
of juvenile programs and leadership models designed
to facilitate reformation of at-risk youth. Examination
and effectiveness of programs based on situational
leadership, transformative leadership, and
transformational leadership in cognitive-behavioral
models through correctional boot camps, finds that
combinations or synthesis are common and the best
models for reforming youth.
_________________________________________
*Address correspondence to the author:
William J. Morgan, Jr.
Erie Community College
45 Oak Street
Buffalo, New York 14203
(716) 851-1246 Email: morganw@ecc.edu
Leadership
According to Bass (1989, 1990); Clark (2004), three
basic principles of leadership development are trait
theory, great events theory, and transformational
leadership theory. Trait theory conceptualizes that
leaders are born with characteristics of integrity,
intelligence, sociability, and determination as
leadership traits (Spencer, 2002). The great events
theory is premised on a single, precipitating event that
throws an individual into a leadership position; these
two concepts create a small amount of leaders.
Transformational leadership, and the most widely
accepted theory, postulates that people want to become
leaders, accomplished through effective
communication, trust, and confidence. Because
leadership requires different styles based on the
individual leader and subordinates, the four factors of
leadership are the leader (charismatic and trustworthy),
the follower (who needs motivation based on emotions
and human nature), communication (the interaction
between leader/subordinate), and the situation (or the
dynamic actions that leaders take depending on the
situation) (Clark, 2004). The most desirable leadership
models are the transactional/authoritarian paradigms
based on a highest on task/lowest relationship;
correlated is the team leader/supporting that is highest
on task/highest on relationship (Clark, 2004; Johnson,
1998). Clark proposed two other models in the country
club leader who is lowest on task, highest relationship
and the impoverished leader who is low on both
relationship and task orientation. The country club
leader cannot use punitive coercive measures to
persuade others while the impoverished leader detaches
from subordinates and the organization. Although the
most advantageous is the team leader/supporting model,
a caveat to understanding which leadership style is
appropriate is the situational context of the environment
and people involved (Clark, 2004). The best
rehabilitation and treatment options for youth involve
specific leadership skills and cognitive-behavioral
interventions to change criminogenic thinking.
Transactional and transformational
leadership
Two leadership models that youth may benefit are
the transactional and transformational models
exhibited as similar in nature and often used
concurrently (Pallai, Schriesheim, & Williams,
1999). An effective leadership model is transactional
leadership or an exchange of rewards that occur
between followers, leaders, and where expectations
are clear in order that subordinates earn benefits; the
model is based on four types of behaviors: passive
management by exception, active management by
exception, laissez-faire leadership, and contingent
rewards (Spencer, 2002). Contingent rewards and
active management refer to a leader who uses a series
of rewards and punishments to motivate followers;
therefore, leaders are acutely aware of problems and
takes immediate action to correct problems. The
latter two models, passive management and laissez-
faire leadership, are styles where the leader is not
goal or relationship oriented and relinquishes power,
does not monitor subordinates, and addresses goal-
obstruction as a matter of organizational mission
attainment (Spencer, 2002). Considering that
transactional leadership can be passive or active, the
form used in detentional boot camps is the
contingent/active management sub-model where the
leader uses corrective action immediately for
violations of rules or problems (Pallai, Schriesheim,
& Williams, 1999; Spencer, 2002).
A complimentary leadership style is
transformative leadership described by Feinberg,
Ostroff, and Burke (2005) as leadership that inspires
followers to do more than expected for a collective
purpose through motivation, admiration, and trust;
thus, followers form attributes and consensus about
the leader based on behavior. In their study of
transformative leadership, the authors used a sample
of mangers and subordinates that were administered
the Leadership Assessment Inventory designed to
measure whether leaders use transformational or
transactional leadership styles. Feinberg, et al.,
concluded that positive leader behavior correlated to
positive consensus among subordinates. Findings
implicated how patterns of transformative leadership
form between leaders and followers as leaders who
scored high on peer and subordinate ratings had a
more transformative leadership style (Feinberg, et al.,
2005).
Cognitive-behavioral interventions
The current climate of harsher sentences and long
prison terms postulates there is a growing concern over
the recidivism rate (Henning & Frueh, 1996).
According to a theory made popular by Martinson in
the 1970’s that “nothing works” in correctional
treatment, authors such as Gibbons (1986); Henning
and Frueh; Howell (2003) believe the theory premature.
Henning and Frueh further believed that cognitive
functioning programs in correctional treatment offer the
most hope in reducing recidivism and typically have the
most success. The North Carolina Department of
Corrections (2002) reinforced that position by
proposing techniques, approaches, or programs, which
are highly successful, have an impact on the thinking or
cognition of offenders as a common characteristic.
Cognitive-behavioral interventions (CBIs) focus on the
maladaptive behaviors (i.e., antisocial behaviors) that
teach offenders new ways of thinking and skills that
facilitate internal controls and external behaviors. It as
was further recommended that restructuring cognitive
deficits and disorders promote pro-social thinking
(Baro, 1999). Specifically directed at juveniles, Howell
(2003) proposes positive programs for juveniles and
alludes to use of meta-analyses and program evaluation
that provide rich explanations for the phenomenon. The
meta-analysis conducted by Lab and Whitehead (1998)
of juvenile correctional treatment found that most
programs examined have a positive effect on
recidivism; that is, the experimental groups had lower
recidivism rates than the control groups.
In 1989, Walters suggested that cognition in habitual
offenders played a significant role, particularly if
criminal choices and criminogenic conditions were
present. According to Walters (1995), life conditions
modify the choices and decision making processes of
individual affect. Walters (1998) renewed his call for
cognitive programs and further cited attributions,
expectancies, problem-solving strategies, and thinking
styles to advance theories of criminology. It was
theorized by Walters (1995, 1998); Simourd and Olver
(2002) that a criminal attitude emerges as a product of a
belief system that offenders are not willing to give up
power and control. As suggested by the North Carolina
Corrections (2002), that criminals and juvenile
delinquents seek immediate gratification derived from
power, pleasure, excitement, and other hedonistic
pleasures. The need for power and control extends to
the prison/detention setting where threats to staff and
inmates are a concern (Baro, 1999). Henning and Frueh
(1996) discuss that inmates possess criminogenic
cognitive deficits such as reasoning, poor problem
solving, cognitive impulsivity, and lack of a social
perspective. Although many programs are designed for
adult offenders, these same principles apply to juveniles
with a chronic and increasing pattern of
delinquent/criminal behavior and institutional
adjustment.
Correctional boot camps
An example of short-term, correctional detention
that provides military-style shock incarceration,
cognitive-behavioral interventions, and leadership for
behavioral change as an alternative to long-term
detention of juveniles is the correctional boot camp
(Howell, 2003). Howell cited that boot camps do
little to promote rehabilitation and are not cost-
effective for the taxpayer; there is little evidence that
these facilities reduce recidivism and the rate for
recidivism for juveniles is similar to adult offenders.
Salerno (1994) proposed that boot camps have little
rehabilitative effect, most candidates drop out, and
there is a reliance on participants to get out early by
internalizing expectations, which is true of many
prison or detention paradigms. The New York State
Department of Correctional Services (2004); “Boot
camps” (1998), found contrary to Howell and Salerno
that boot camps save taxpayers money, graduates
earn early release, had lower re-offense rates, and
promote successful integration back to the
community compared to control groups. In addition,
McKenzie, Wilson, Armstrong, and Gover (2001)
alluded that juveniles in traditional facilities had
significant adjustment problems compared to
participants in boot camps because of the positive
nature and structure of the military environment.
Further habilitation aspects improve management and
control techniques within the correctional
environment, promote community relations, and deter
crime (“Boot camps,” 1998). Boot camp participants
believed the environment more therapeutic, less
dangerous, and youth were less antisocial and less
depressed than counterparts in traditional settings
were.
Sometimes viewed as a further net-widening of
the criminal justice system, the primary treatment
tool of shock is the military model using physical
exercise, military discipline, rehabilitative
programming, and quality aftercare programs (“Boot
camps,” 1998). Correctional boot camps are much
more than the knuckle-dragging image of the drill
sergeant in the popular media as a cruel and sadistic
task-master. The drill sergeant is a leader who uses
transformational and transactional leadership to
inspire participants to re-evaluate their lives through
respect for authority, maturity, self-control,
responsibility, and communication. Significant
individual goals include improving self-respect,
accepting discipline, and learning to work with
others. These programs minimize failure and promote
a rehabilitative goal of prosocial attitudes with
rigorous enforcement of rules, strict discipline, and
sanctions for breaches of rules under the care,
custody, and control of the drill sergeant. These are
important caveats to understanding cognitive-
behavioral interventions to change criminal and
antisocial thinking. Leadership is found where the
interaction is aggressive and conflict dominates;
occasionally, active/transactional leadership that
initially utilizes negative feedback, corrective criticism,
and negative reinforcement in the transformational
perspective (Morash & Rucker, 1990; Spencer, 2002).
Conclusion
Three important leadership styles that facilitate the
reformation of youth are situational leadership,
transformative leadership, and transactional leadership
in discussions of cognitive-behavioral interventions and
correctional boot camps. While each have specific
dimensions that segregate one from another and provide
some similarities used in concert, it was postulated that
a combination of transactional and transformational
may be used by leaders as the most efficient and must
be situational depending on the clientele. The leader is a
dynamic individual willing to use innovation in youth
reformation based on leadership style and program
mission.
References
Baro, A.L. (1999). Effects of a cognitive restructuring
program on inmate institutional behaviors.
Criminal Justice and Behavior, 26(4), 466-
484.
Bass, B. (1989). Stogdill's Handbook of Leadership: A
Survey of Theory and Research. New York:
Free Press.
Bass, B. (1990). From transactional to transformational
leadership: Learning to share the vision.
Organizational Dynamics, 18(3), 19-31.
Bootcamps: Issues for Canada (1998). Alberta,
Canada: John Howard Society of Alberta.
Retrieved April 23, 2007 from
http://www.johnhoward.ab.ca/PUB/C
34.htm
Clark, D. (2004). Concepts of leadership. Retrieved
April 20, 2007 from
http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/lea
der/leadcon.html
Feinberg, B.J., Ostroff, C., & Burke, W.W. (2005). The
role of within-group agreement in
understanding transformational leadership.
Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 78, 471-488.
Gibbons, D.C. (1986). Correctional treatment and
intervention therapy: Bringing sociology
and criminology back in. International Journal
of Offender Therapy and Comparative
Criminology 30(3), 255-271.
Henning, K.R. & Frueh, B.C. (1996). Cognitive
behavioral treatment of incarcerated offenders:
An evaluation of the Vermont department of
corrections’ cognitive self-change program.
Criminal Justice and Behavior 23(4), 523-541.
Howell, J.C. (2003). Preventing & reducing juvenile International Journal of Offender and
delinquency: A comprehensive framework. Comparative Criminology,33(3).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Walters, G.D. (1995). The psychological inventory of
Johnson, M.M. (1998). Applying a modified criminal thinking styles part I: reliability
situational leadership mode lto and preliminary validity. Criminal Justice
residential group care settings. Child & and Behavior, 22(3), 307-325.
Youth Care Forum, 27(6), 383-398. Walters, G.D. (1998). Associate editor’s editorial:
Lab, S.P. & Whitehead, J.T. (1998). An analysis of Putting more thought into criminology
juvenile correctional treatment. In J.G. nine years later. International Journal of
Weis, R.D. Crutchfield, & G.S. Bridges Offender and Comparative Criminology,
(Eds.), Juvenile delinquency Readings (2nd 42(3), 195-197.
ed.) (pp. 560-564). Thousand Oaks, CA: Whoriskey, P. (2007, October 14). Manslaughter trial
Pine Forge Press. dims attraction of prison boot camps. The
McKenzie, D.L., Wilson, D.B., Armstrong, G.S., & Buffalo News, A12.
Gover, A.R. (2001). The impact of boot
camps and traditional institutions on
juvenileresidents: Perceptions, adjustment,
and change. Journal of Research in Crime
and Delinquency, 38(3), 279-313.
Morash, M. & Rucker, L. (1990). A critical look at
the idea of boot camp as a correctional
reform. Crime and Delinquency, 36(2), 204
222.
Nelson, M. (2007, October 13). Eight acquitted in
boot camp trial. The Buffalo News, A7.
New York State Department of Correctional Services
(2004). 31,284 nonviolent Shock graduates
work hard to earn early release. DOCS
Today, 13(10), 6-9.
North Carolina Department of Correction (2002).
Lessons learned: Best practices for criminal
justice partnership programs. Retrieved
April 24, 2007 from
http://crrp41.doc.state.nc.us/docs/pubdocs/
0005167.PDF
Pallai, R., Schriesheim, C.A., Williams, E.S. (1999).
Fairness perceptions and trust as
mediators for transformational and
transactional leadership: A two-sample
study. Journal of Management, 25(6),
897-933.
Salerno, A.W. (1994). Boot camps: A critique and a
proposed alternative. In Weis, J.G., R.D.
Crutchfield, & G.S. Bridges (Eds.), Juvenile
delinquency: Readings (2nded.) (pp. 560-
564). Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge
Press.
Simourd, D.J. & Olver, M.E. (2002). The future of
criminal attitudes research and practice.
Criminal Justice and Behavior 29(4), 427-
446.
Spencer, E. (2002). Leadership models and theories:
A brief overview. Retrieved April 27, 2007
fromhttp://www.cda-
acd.forces.gc.ca/cfli/engraph/research/pdf/1
2.pdf
Walters, G.D. (1989). Associate editor’s comments:
Putting more thought into criminology.