Shock incarceration programs, or boot camp prisons, have been advocated as one means to deal with the recent massive influx of drug offenders into the criminal justice system. The study compares the attitudes of prisoners (N = 103) in a minimum security facility and inmates (N = 267) in a prison boot camp toward alcohol, marijuana, and hard drugs (measured by acceptability scales) over a 6-month period. The findings reveal that shock incarceration appears to be an effective program in changing attitudes toward the use of alcohol but has little impact on attitudes toward illicit drug use. It also appears that an inmate's history of alcohol and drug use has a greater influence on attitudinal change than does prison setting.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Acorn, L.
(1991). Working in a boot camp. Corrections Today, 53(6), 112-115.
2.
Austin, J.
(1995, February). Correctional options: An overview [Special section]. Corrections Today, 57(1).
3.
Booth, B.
, Russell, D., Soucek, S., & Laughlin, P. (1992). Social support and outcome of alcoholism treatment: An exploratory analysis. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 18(1), 87-101.
4.
Brecht, M.
, Anglin, D., & Wang, J. (1993). Treatment effectiveness for legally coerced versus voluntary methadone maintenance clients. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 19(1), 89-105.
5.
Bureau of Justice Statistics
. (1992). A national report: Drugs, crime, and the justice system. Washington, DC: Department of Justice.
6.
Burton, V.
, Marquart, J., Cuvelier, S., Alarid, L., & Hunter, R. (1993). A study of attitudinal change among boot camp participants. Federal Probation, 57(3), 46-52.
7.
Camp, D.
(1991). Shock incarceration in Georgia: An analysis of task performance and training needs among corrections officers. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 16(3/4), 153-176.
8.
Chaiken, M.
, & Johnson, B. (1988). Characteristics of different types of drug-involved offenders (NCJ 108560). Washington, DC: Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
9.
Cowles, E.
, Castellano, T., & Gransky, L. (1995). “Boot camp” drug treatment and aftercare interventions: An evaluation review. Washington, DC: Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
10.
Currie, E.
(1993). Reckoning: Drugs, the cities, and the American future. New York: Hill & Wang.
11.
Farabee, D.
, Simpson, D., Dansereau, D., & Knight, K. (1995). Cognitive inductions into treatment among drug users on probation. The Journal of Drug Issues, 25(4), 669-682.
French, M.
, Zarkin, G., Hubbard, R., & Rachal, J. (1993). The effects of time in drug abuse treatment and employment on posttreatment drug use and criminal activity. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 19(1), 19-33.
14.
Goodstadt, M.
, Cook, G., Magid, S., & Gruson, V. (1978). The drug attitudes scale (DAS): Its development and evaluation. The International Journal of Addictions, 13(8), 1307-1317.
15.
Gordon, D.
(1994). The return of the dangerous classes. New York: W. W. Norton.
16.
Hayes, T.
, & Schimmel, D. (1993). Residential drug abuse treatment in the Federal Bureau of Prisons. The Journal of Drug Issues, 23(1), 61-73.
17.
Husband, S.
, & Platt, J. (1993). The cognitive skills component in substance abuse treatment in correctional settings: A brief review. The Journal of Drug Issues, 23(1), 31-42.
18.
Immarigeon, R.
(1995, December). Correctional options: What works? [Special section]. Corrections Today, 57(7).
19.
Inciardi, J.
(Ed.). (1993). Drug treatment and criminal justice. Newbury Park: Sage.
20.
Inciardi, J.
, & Martin, S. (1993). Drug abuse treatment in criminal justice settings. The Journal of Drug Issues, 23(1), 1-6.
21.
Inciardi, J.
, & McBride, D. (1991). Treatment alternatives to street crime: History, experiences, and issues. Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
22.
Karacki, L.
(1989). Shock incarceration—An alternative for first offenders? In Topics in Corrections. Washington, DC: Department of Justice, Bureau of Prisons Office of Research and Evaluation.
23.
Klein-Saffran, J.
(1991). Shock incarceration, Bureau of Prisons style. Research Forum, 1(2), 1-9.
24.
Kraska, P.
(1992). The processing of drug arrestees: Questioning the assumption of an ambivalent reaction. Journal of Criminal Justice, 20, 517-525.
25.
Leukefeld, C.
, & Tims, F. (Eds.). (1988). Compulsory treatment of drug abuse: Research and clinical practice. Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
26.
Leukefeld, C.
, & Tims, F. (Eds.). (1992). Drug abuse treatment in prisons and jails. Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
27.
Lutze, F.
(1992). Personal observation. Intensive Confinement Center, Lewisburg, PA.
28.
Lutze, F.
(1994). Personal observation. Federal Prison Camp, Allenwood, PA.
29.
Lutze, F. (1996). Does shock incarceration provide a supportive environment for the rehabilitation of offenders? A study of the impact of a shock incarceration program on inmate adjustment and attitudinal change. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania State University.
30.
MacKenzie, D.
(1990). Boot camp prisons: Components, evaluations, and empirical issues. Federal Probation, 54(3), 44-52.
31.
MacKenzie, D.
(1994). Shock incarceration as an alternative for drug offenders. In Doris L. MacKenzie & Craig D. Uchida (Eds.), Drug and crime: Evaluating public policy initiatives (pp. 215-230). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
32.
MacKenzie, D.
, Gould, L., Riechers, L., & Shaw, J. (1989). Shock incarceration: Rehabilitation or retribution?Journal of Offender Counseling, Services & Rehabilitation, 14(2), 25-40.
33.
MacKenzie, D.
, & Shaw, J. (1990). Inmate adjustment and change during shock incarceration: The impact of correctional boot camp programs. Justice Quarterly, 7(1), 125-150.
34.
Morash, M.
, & Rucker, L. (1990). A critical look at the idea of boot camp as correctional reform. Crime & Delinquency, 36(2), 204-222.
35.
National Institute of Justice
. (1994a). Drug use forecasting. 1993. Annual report on adult arrestees: Drugs and crime in American cities. Washington, DC: Department of Justice.
36.
National Institute of Justice
. (1994b). Justice and treatment innovation: The drug court movement. A working paper of the First National Drug ConferenceDecember 1993. Washington, DC: Department of Justice.
37.
Osler, M.
(1991). Shock incarceration: Hard realities and real possibilities. Federal Probation, 55(1), 34-42.
38.
Palmer, T.
(1995). Programmatic and nonprogrammatic aspects of successful intervention: New directions for research. Crime & Delinquency, 41(1), 100-131.
39.
Peters, R.
(1993). Drug treatment in jails and detention settings. In J. Inciardi (Ed.), Drug treatment and criminal justice (pp. 44-80). Newbury Park: Sage.
40.
Peters, R.
, & Kearns, W. (1992). Drug abuse history and treatment needs of jail inmates (1992). American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 18(3), 355-366.
41.
Rasmussen, D.
, & Benson, B. (1994). The economic anatomy of a drug war: Criminal justice in the commons. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
42.
Reuter, P.
(1995). Hawks ascendant: The punitive trend in American drug policy. In J. Inciardi & K. McElrath (Eds.), The American drug scene (pp. 345-364). Los Angeles: Roxbury.
43.
Sechrest, D.
(1989). Prison “boot camps” do not measure up. Federal Probation, 53(3), 15-20.
44.
Sharp, D.
(1995, June). Correctional options: Boots camps—punishment and treatment [Special section]. Corrections Today, 57(3).
45.
Shaw, J.
, & Mackenzie, D. (1991). Shock incarceration and its impact on the lives of problem drinkers. The American Journal of Criminal Justice, 16, 63-96.
46.
Shaw, J.
, & Mackenzie, D. (1992). The one-year community supervision performance of drug offenders and Louisiana DOC-identified substance abusers graduating from shock incarceration. Journal of Criminal Justice, 20, 501-516.
47.
Swartz, J.
(1993). TASC—The next 20 years: Extending, refining, and assessing the model. In J. Inciardi (Ed.), Drug treatment and criminal justice (pp. 127-148). Newbury Park: Sage.
48.
U. S. General Accounting Office
. (1991a). Drug treatment: Despite new strategy, few federal inmates receive treatment (GAO/HRD-91116). Washington, DC: Author.
49.
U. S. General Accounting Office
. (1991b). Drug treatment: State prisons face challenge in providing services (GAO/HRD-91-128). Washington, DC: Author
50.
U. S. General Accounting Office
. (1993). Confronting the drug problem: Debate persists on enforcement and alternative approaches (GAO/GGD-93-82). Washington, DC: Author.
51.
U. S. General Accounting Office
. (1995). Drug courts: Information on an new approach to address drug-related crime GAO/GGD-95-159BR. Washington, DC: Author.
52.
The war on drugs: Commentary and critique
[Special issue]. (1991). Social Justice, 16(4).
53.
Weinman, B.
, & Lockwood, D. (1993). Inmate drug treatment programming in the Federal Bureau of Prisons. In J. Inciardi (Ed.), Drug treatment and criminal justice (pp. 194-208). Newbury Park: Sage.
54.
Wellish, J.
, Anglin, D., & Pendergast, M. (1993). Treatment strategies for drug-abusing women offenders. In J. Inciardi (Ed.), Drug treatment and criminal justice (pp. 5-29). Newbury Park: Sage.
55.
Wexler, H.
, Falkin, G., & Lipton, D. (1990). Outcome evaluation of a prison therapeutic community for substance abuse treatment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17(1), 71-92.
56.
Wexler, H.
, & Lipton, D. (1993). From reform to recovery: Advances in prison drug treatment. In J. Inciardi (Ed.), Drug treatment and criminal justice (pp. 209-227). Newbury Park: Sage.
57.
White House
. (1989). National drug control strategy. Washington, DC: Office of National Drug Control Policy, Executive Office of the President.
58.
White House
. (1995a). National drug control strategy: Executive summary. Washington, DC: Office of National Drug Control Policy, Executive Office of the President.
59.
White House
. (1995b). National drug control strategy: Strengthening communities' responses to drugs and crime. Washington, DC: Office of National Drug Control Policy, Executive Office of the President.
60.
Zimring, F.
, & Hawkins, G. (1992). The search for rational drug control. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
