on bootcamps
The Headline, The Start, The Obvious Response
Teen in government bootcamps charged over two armed robberies cries the Radio NZ headline, and the obvious response is:
"Once more for the dimwits in the Beehive: bootcamps don't work"
But I already ranted this on calckey.social.
The first half of that article is all very predictable: Teenager opts in to the bootcamp trial but reoffends. It also comes with a concerning quote:
A community provider connected to the programme says it should be emphasised these kids are "persistent offenders".
"These are the ones that everything's been offered to them in the community ... and then they continue to offend and seriously offend."
And if that has you asking serious questions about the professionalism of those involved in running the bootcamps, then you have the correct response.
But Wait, There's More
This is an article of two halves, and that second half allows Anonymous Bootcamp Staffer to go into more details about these "persistent offenders", and suddenly things start to make sense.
He was frustrated with the use of the word 'military' to describe what he called an "intensive wraparound programmme in residence".
[......]
He described the in residence component as having intensive support, therapy, counselling, "that should be standard practice" in youth residence, "but it's not because it's obviously expensive".
Ah, right. Now, allow me one more "once more for the dimwits in the Beehive":
"that should be standard practice"
These are not bad kids who need to be beaten into shape, these are broken kids carrying truckloads of trauma who need care, treatment, counselling, and training and education that meets their needs. They need to be shown that there is a place for them in society, that they can contribute, and that they will be welcomed.
And more:
He said it really mattered where the kids went after being in-residence, because for some of those young people they might be returning to families with drug addiction or gang affiliations.
[.......]
"How does that support then get reinforced once you're actually back out in the community."
And that, right there, is another important step in the process. What environment are they going back into? And will the support continue when they are in the community?
So I'm wondering what step-down is there from the bootcamp. Are they placed into a supportive, pro-social environment where they still have access to ongoing counselling and supervision? Is there anybody working with the families to boost their skills and help them provide the pro-social support the rangatahi need? Or are the rangatahi just dumped back in the community and expected to magically succeed?
It would seem, judging by what is reported in this article, that the answers to those questions are the wrong ones.
Now, I'm not suddenly pro-bootcamp. It doesn't matter whether you call these things "Military Style Academies" or "bootcamps", it's all still just cheap, tawdry, deliberately cruel politics designed to elicit a particular reaction from a particular segment of the voting public. But I am very much pro people getting the support, treatment, counselling, training, and education they need to step back from crime and integrate into society.
Notice how I wrote "integrate" and not "reintegrate". That was a deliberate choice. Far too many people in prison never had a chance to integrate into society. That's not their fault - they did not choose the circumstances they were born into.
We are rapidly approaching an election, so this needs to be said, and repeated, and repeated ad nauseam:
Any politician that wants me to believe they are genuinely tough on crime needs to demonstrate to me how they are going to throw boatloads of money at health, mental health, housing, education, welfare, and community support to ensure that all our young people's needs are being met. And this includes investing in their families and communities.
After all, what makes prisons such abysmally sad places is that they are nothing more than collecting pools for wasted talent.