Using official data records, this study examined differences in recidi vism - defined as fingerprinted rearrest - among participants in two wide ly used intermediate sanctions, electronic house arrest (N=331) and boot camp prison (N=309). Logistic regression was used to identify predictors of recidivism. Participation in the boot camp program, as opposed to electronic house arrest was consistently associated with avoiding rearrest, and race (African-American) was associated with being rearrested for several categories of offense. The conclusion was that although techno logical advances may be of significant assistance to correctional practi tioners, such advances alone are not the magic bullet that will insure future compliance with the law.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Akers, R.L. (1985). Deviant Behavior: A Social Learning Approach, 3rd ed. Belmont, CAWadsworth,
2.
Ball, R.A., R.C. Huff and J.R. Lilly (1988). House Arrest and Correctional Policy: Doing Time at Home. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
3.
Baumer, T., R. Mendelsohn, and C. Rhine (1990). Final Report: The Electronic Monitoring of Non-Violent Convicted Felons: An Experiment in Home Detention. Report submitted to the National Institute of Justice, Washington, D.C.
4.
Benda, Brent, Nancy J.Toombs and Leanne Whiteside (1996). " Recidivism Among Boot Camp Graduates: A Comparison of Drug Offenders To Other Offenders ." Journal of Criminal Justice, 24 (3): 241-253.
5.
Bowen, Andy (1991). "Making Boot Camp Bigger and Better in Georgia ." Corrections Today53 (6):98-101.
6.
Bureau of Justice Statistics (1995). Correctional Populations in the United States: Executive Study. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice .
7.
Charles, M. (1988). An Evaluation of Allen Superior Court Family Relations Division Juvenile Electronic Monitoring Pilot Project. Indiana University at Fort Wayne, School of Public and Environment Affairs .
8.
Clarke, Stevens H. and Antia L. Harrison (1992). Recidivism of Criminal Offenders Assigned to Community Correctional Programs or Released from Prison in North Carolina in 1989. Chapel Hill, NC: Institute of Government.
Cronin, R.C. (1994). Boot Camps for Adults and Juvenile Offenders: Overview and Update. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.
11.
Flowers, Gerald T., Timothy S. Carr, and R. Barry Ruback (1991). Special Alternative Incarceration Evaluation. Atlanta, GA: Georgia Department of Corrections.
12.
Ford, D. and A.K. Schmidt (1985). Electronic Monitored Home Confinement. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice Reports .
13.
Gottfredson, D.M. and T. Hirschi (1990). A General Theory of Crime. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
14.
Hatchett, P. (1987). The Home Confinement Program: An Appraisal of the Electronic Monitoring of Offenders of Washtenaw County, Michigan. Community Programs Evaluation Unit, Research Division, Program Bureau, Michigan Department of Corrections.
15.
Hengensh, Donald J. (1991). "The Real Concept Behind Boot Camps." Corrections Today. 53 (6)106-109.
16.
Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of Delinquency. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
17.
Jolin, A. (1987). Electronic Surveillance Program, Clackamas County, Oregon Community Corrections Evaluation. Oregon City, OR : Clackamas County Community Corrections.
18.
Jolin, A. and Rogers, R. (1989). "Electronically Monitoring House Arrest: An Empirical Study." In (ed) Contemporary Community Corrections (1992), Thomas Ellsworth, Waveland Press, Prospect heights, IL.
19.
Jones, Mark (1996). "Do Boot Camp Graduates Make Better Probationers ?" Journal of Crime and Justice19 (1):1-14.
20.
Jones, Mark and Darrell L. Ross (1997). "Is Less Better" Boot Camp, Regular Probation and Rearrest in North Carolina.? American Journal of Criminal Justice21 (2):147-161.
21.
Lilly, J.R., R.A. Ball and J. Wright (1987). "Home Incarceration with Electronic Monitoring in Kenton County, Kentucky: An Evaluation." in B. R. McCarthy (ed.), Intermediate Punishments: Intensive Supervision, Home Confinement and Electronic Surveillance. Monsey, NY: Willow Tree Press.
22.
Maguire, Kathleen and Ann L. Pasture. (eds.) (1995). Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics 1994. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.
23.
Maxfield, M.G. and T.L. Baumer. (1990). "Home Detention with Electronic Monitoring: Comparing Pretrial add Postconviction Programs." Crime and Delinquency36:521-36.
24.
MacKenzie, D.L. (1991). "The Parole Performance of Offenders Released From Incarceration (Boot Camp Prisons): A Survival time Analysis." Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 7:213-236.
25.
MacKenzie, D.L. and Claire C. Souryal (1994). Multisite Evaluation of Shock Incarceration. A Final Summary Report. Washington, D.C.:National institute of Justice.
26.
MacKenzie, Doris Layton and James Shaw (1993). "The Impact of Shock Incarceration on Technical Violations and New Criminal Activities." Justice Quarterly . 10 (3):463-488.
27.
MacKenzie, D.L. and C. Souryal (1992). "Boot Camp Survey: Rehabilitation, Recidivism Reduction Outrank Punishment as Main Goals." Corrections Today . October: 90-96.
28.
MacKenzie, Doris Layton. (1994). "Results of a Multisite Study of Boot Camp Prisons ." Federal Probation.58:60-66.
29.
Morgan, Kathleen, Scott O'Leary and Neal Quitno (eds.) ( 1994). State Crime Rankings 1994. Lawrence, KS: Morgan Quitno Publishers.
30.
Niederberger, W. and W.F. Wagner (1985). "Electronic Monitoring of Convicted Offenders: A Field Test." Washington, D.C.: A Report to the National Instituted of Justice.
31.
Parent, Dale G. (1993). "Boot Camps Failing To Achieve Goals." Overcrowded Times, 5, (4):8-11, (August).
32.
Parent, D.G. (1989). Shock Incarceration: An Overview of Existing Programs . Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
33.
Pearce, Sandy and John H. Madler (1995). Compendium of Community Corrections Programs in Programs in North Carolina Fiscal Year 1993-94. Unpublished document.
34.
Petersilia, J. (1987). Expanding Options for Criminal Sentencing [Report No. R-3544-EMC]. Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Cooperation.
35.
Petersilia, J. (1988). House Arrest [Report NO. NCJ 104559], Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice.
36.
Philips, Thomas P. (1955). Roots of Strategy. Harrisburg, PA: Military Science Publishing.
37.
Renzema, M. and D. Skelton (1990). "Use of Electronic Monitoring in the United States: 1989 Update. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice.
38.
Schmidt, A.K. (1989). Electronic Monitoring of Offenders Increases. In NIJ Reports [Report 212] (pp.2-5). Washington, D.C. , National Institute of Justice.
39.
Shaw, J.W. and Doris Layton MacKenzie (1992). "The One-Year Community Supervision Programs for Drug Offenders." In Smart Sentencing: The Emergence of Intermediate Sanctions, (eds.) J. M. Byrne, A. J. Lurigio, and J. Petersilia.Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publication.
40.
State Bureau of Investigation (1995). Crime in North Carolina: Uniform Crime Report. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Department of Justice.
41.
U.S. General Accounting Office (1993). Prison Boot Camps: Short-Term Prison Costs Reduced, but Long Term Impact Uncertain . Washington, D.C.: U.S. General Accounting Office.
42.
Vaughn, J.B. (1987). "Planning for Change: The Use of Electronic Monitoring as a Correctional Alternative." In B.R. McCarthy (ed.), Intermediate Punishments: Intensive Supervision, Home Confinement and Electronic Surveillance (pp.153-68). Monsey, NY: Willow Tree Press, Inc.
43.
Vaughn, J. (1993). "Survey of Juvenile Electronic Monitoring and Home Confinement Programs." Juvenile and Family Court Journal4 (4) 1-36.
44.
von Hirsch, Andrew (1990). "The Ethics of Community-Based Sanctions." Crime and Delinquency36 (1):162-173.
45.
Whittington, M. (1988). Electronic Home Confinement for Juveniles: Preliminary Report. Santa Ana, CA: Orange County Probation Department.
