Although previous research has found the disciplinary model of correctional boot camps to be ineffective in reducing recidivism, the impact of a rehabilitative model is still unclear. The current study addresses this issue through an outcome evaluation of Penn-sylvania's Motivational Boot Camp Program, which uses a multidimensional approach to its rehabilitative programming. The authors predict that this program model should be more effective than traditional prison in reducing recidivism and that this effect will be particularly strong for certain high-risk offenders (i.e., those who are young and/or have a prior criminal record). The results from their logistic regression analyses indicate no significant differences in the recidivism of offenders graduating from the boot camp and those released from prison. However, tests for interactions indicate that this program performs better than prison for offenders with a prior record. This particular finding has important policy implications for targeting appropriate offenders for such programs.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Albonetti, C., & Hepburn, J. (1997). Probation revocation: A proportional hazards model of the conditioning effects of social disadvantage. Social Problems, 44(1), 124-138.
2.
Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (1998). The psychology of criminal conduct (2nd ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
3.
Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Hoge, R. D. (1990) Classification for effective rehabilitation: Rediscovering psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17, 19-52.
4.
Andrews, D. A., Zinger, I., Hoge, R., Bonta, J., Gendreau, P., & Cullen, F. T. (1990). Does correctional treatment work? A clinically relevant and psychologically informed meta-analysis. Criminology, 28(3), 369-404.
5.
Austin, J., & Krisberg, B. (1982). The unmet promise of alternatives to incarceration. Crime and Delinquency, 28, 374-409.
6.
Cullen, F. T., & Applegate, B. K. (1997). Offender rehabilitation. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Dartmouth.
7.
Cullen, F. T., & Gendreau, P. (1989). The effectiveness of correctional rehabilitation. In L. Goodstein & D. L. MacKenzie (Eds.), The American prison: Issues in research policy.New York: Plenum.
8.
Dowden, C., & Andrews, D. A. (2000). Effective correctional treatment and violent reoffending: A meta-analysis. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 42(4), 449-467.
9.
Florida Department of Corrections. (1990). Florida executive summary: Boot camp: A 25-month review. Tallahassee: Florida Department of Corrections.
10.
Flowers, G. T., Carr, T. S., & Ruback, R. B. (1991). Special alternative incarceration evaluation. Atlanta: Georgia Department of Corrections.
11.
Gendreau, P., Little, T., & Goggin, C. (1996). A meta-analysis of the predictors of adult offender recidivism: What works. Criminology, 34, 575-608.
12.
Hepburn, J. R., & Albonetti, C. A. (1994) Recidivism among drug offenders: A survival analysis of the effects of offender characteristics, type of offense, and two types of intervention. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 10, 159-179.
13.
Horney, J., Osgood, D. W., & Marshall, I. H. (1995). Criminal careers in the short-term: Intra-individual variability in crime and its relation to local life circumstances. American Sociological Review, 60, 655-673.
14.
Hunt, G. M., & Azrin, N. H. (1973). A community-reinforcement approach to alcoholism. Behavior Research and Therapy, 11, 91-104.
15.
Kempinen, C., & Kurlychek, M. (2001). Pennsylvania's motivational boot camp: 2000 report to the legislature. University Park: Pennsylvania State College, Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing.
16.
Land, K. C., McCall, P., & Williams, J. R. (1990). Something that works in juvenile justice. Evaluation Review, 14, 574-606.
17.
Lipsey, M. W. (1989, November). The efficacy of intervention for juvenile delinquency: Results from 400 studies. Paper presented at the 41st annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Reno, NV.
18.
Lipsey, M. W. (1992). Juvenile delinquency treatment: A meta-analytic inquiry into the variability of effects. In T. D. Cook, H. Cooper, D. S. Cordray, H. Hartmann, L. V. Hedges, R. J. Light, et al. (Eds.), Meta-analysis for explanation: A casebook. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
19.
MacKenzie, D. L. (1991). The parole performance of offenders released from shock incarceration (boot camp prisons): A survival analysis. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 7, 213-236.
20.
MacKenzie, D. L. (2000). Evidence-based corrections: Identifying what works. Crime and Delinquency, 46, 457-471.
21.
MacKenzie, D. L., Brame, R., McDowall D., & Souryal, C. (1995). Boot camp prisons and recidivism in eight states. Criminology, 33, 327-357.
22.
MacKenzie, D. L., & Parent, D. (1991). Shock incarceration and prison crowding in Louisiana. Journal of Criminal Justice, 19, 225-237.
23.
MacKenzie, D. L., & Shaw, J. W. (1993). The impact of shock incarceration on technical violations and new criminal activities. Justice Quarterly, 10, 463-487.
24.
MacKenzie, D. L., Shaw, J. W., & Gowdy, V. B. (1990). An evaluation of shock incarceration in Louisiana. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
25.
MacKenzie, D. L., Shaw, J. W., & Souryal, C. (1992). Characteristics associated with successful adjustment to supervision. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 19, 437-454.
26.
MacKenzie, D. L., & Souryal, C. (1994). Multisite evaluation of shock incarceration. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
27.
Martinson, R. (1974). What works? Questions and answers about prison reform. Public Interest, 35, 22-54.
28.
Morgan, K. (1994). Factors associated with probation outcomes. Journal of Criminal Justice, 22, 341-353.
29.
New York Department of Correctional Services and Division of Parole. (1997). The ninth annual shock incarceration legislative report. New York: Author.
30.
Petersilia, J. (1995). A crime control rationale for reinvesting in community corrections. The Prison Journal, 75, 479-496.
31.
Petersilia, J., & Turner, S. (1993). Intensive probation and parole. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research (Vol. 17). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
32.
Rhodes, W. (1986). A survival model with dependent competing events and right-hand censoring: Probation and parole as an illustration. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 2, 113-137.
33.
Sampson, R., & Laub, J. (1990). Crime and deviance over the life course: The salience of adult social bonds. American Sociological Review, 55, 609-627.
34.
Sherman, L., Gottfredson, D., MacKenzie, D. L., Eck, J., Reuter, P., & Bushway, S. (1997). Preventing crime: What works, what doesn't, what's promising. College Park: University of Maryland Press.
35.
Sims, B., & Jones, M. (1997). Predicting success or failure on probation: Factors associated with felony probation outcomes. Crime and Delinquency, 43, 314-327.
36.
Ulmer, J. (2001). Intermediate sanctions: A comparative analysis of the probability and severity of recidivism. Sociological Inquiry, 71, 164-193.
37.
Visher, C., Lattimore, P., & Linster, R. (1991). Predicting the recidivism of serious youthful offenders using survival models. Criminology, 29, 329-366.
38.
Warr, M. (1998). Life course transitions and desistance from crime. Criminology, 36, 183-216.
39.
Zhang, S. X. (1998). In search of hopeful glimpses: A critique of research strategies in current boot camp evaluations. Crime and Delinquency, 44, 314-334.
