Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

With the early stages of emotional enchantment with their symbolic appeal over, boot camps are increasingly being subjected to accountability measures. Despite their public popularity, research thus far has often cast doubt on the practical ability of such interventions to fulfill their expectations. This study of a 90-day, jail-based shock incarceration program adds to the mounting empirical evidence suggesting that boot camps may not be producing desired results. Realistically, however, such results are unlikely to extinguish this politically viable sentencing alternative. In exploring variables beyond program participation that might contribute to recidivism, this study found relationships between the likelihood of being rearrested and race, type of release, number of prior felonies, age, and sentencing points (criminal history). The implications of these findings for both judicial sentencing considerations and structural program modifications are discussed along with the challenges of constructing a matched comparison group for offenders serving jail rather than prison time.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Austin, J. , & Jones, M. , & Bolyard, M. (1993). The growing use of jail boot camps: The current state of the art [National Institute of Justice Research in Brief]. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

Bourque, B. B. , Han, M. , & Hill, S. M. (1996). A national survey of aftercare provision for boot camp graduates [National Institute of Justice Research in Brief]. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

Burns, R. (1996, July-August). Boot camps: The empirical record. American Jails, 42-49.

Castellano, T. C. , & Plant, S. M. (1996). Boot camp aftercare programming: Current limits and suggested remedies. In A. Fins (Ed.), Juvenile and adult boot camps (pp. 235-255). Lanham, MD: American Correctional Association.

Cowles, E. L. , Castellano, T. C. , & Gransky, L. A. (1995). Boot camp drug treatment and aftercare intervention: An evaluation review. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

Cronin, R. C. (1994). Boot camps for adult and juvenile offenders: Overview and update [National Institute of Justice Research in Brief]. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

Dickey, W. J. (1994). Evaluating boot camp prisons. Washington, DC: Campaign for an Effective Crime Policy.

Gendreau, P. (1996). The principles of effective intervention with offenders. In A. T. Harland (Ed.), Choosing correctional options that work: Defining the demand and evaluating the supply (pp. 117-130). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

MacKenzie, D. , & Piquero, A. (1994). The impact of shock incarceration programs on prison crowding. Crime & Delinquency, 40, 222-249.

10.

MacKenzie, D. , & Souryal, C. (1994). Multisite evaluation of shock incarceration [National Institute of Justice Research Report]. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

11.

Minor, K. I. (1999). Is recidivism a valid measure of correctional success? In C. B. Fields & S. A. Egger (Eds.), Controversial issues in corrections (pp. 1-8). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

12.

Osler, M. W. (1991). Shock incarceration: Hard realities and real possibilities. Federal Probation, 55(1), 34-42.

13.

Parent, D. (1989). Shock incarceration: An overview of existing programs [National Institute of Justice Issues and Practices]. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

14.

Peters, M. , Thomas, T. , & Zamberlan, C. (1997). Boot camps for juvenile offenders: Program summary. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

15.

Recidivism rates reveal boot camp shortcomings . (1995). Corrections Alert, 2(15), 1-2.

16.

Reno asks prison officials for help rehabilitating criminals. (1995, August 11). Corrections Digest, p. 2.

17.

Sharp, D. (1995). Boot camps—Punishment and treatment [Special insert]. Corrections Today, 57(3).

18.

Shock incarceration works in New York State, new study finds. (1996, April 26). Corrections Digest, 1, 6-9.

19.

U.S. General Accounting Office . (1993). Prison boot camps: Short-term prison costs reduced, but long-term impact uncertain. Washington, DC: Author.

Predicting the Likelihood of Rearrest among Shock Incarceration Graduates: Moving Beyond Another Nail in the Boot Camp Coffin

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References