The effectiveness of a newly developed correctional facility operated by the Hidalgo County (TX) Community Supervision and Corrections Department is analyzed. To gauge boot camp effectiveness, 6 measures were used: (a) target population, (b) program completion, (c) service delivery, (d) attitude change, (e) community adjustment, and (f) recidivism. The findings suggest that the boot camp has succeeded in targeting and delivering services to a population in need. Caution is suggested in the selection process so that only those who are truly prison-bound are sentenced to the boot camp.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Austin, J.
, Jones, M., & Boylyard, M. (1996). A survey of jail-operated boot camps and guidelines for their implementation. In D. L. MacKenzie & E. E. Hebert (Eds.), Correctional boot camp: A tough intermediate sanction. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice.
2.
Cronin, C. C.
(1994). Boot camps for adult and juvenile offenders: An overview and update. NIJ Research Report. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice.
3.
Fabelo, T.
(1991). Uniform recidivism and revocation rate calculation. Austin, TX: Criminal Justice Policy Council.
4.
Fabelo, T.
(1996). Recidivism of offenders in community corrections: The record so far. Austin, TX: Criminal Justice Policy Council.
5.
Gowdy, V. B.
(1996). Historical perspective. In D. L. MacKenzie & E. E. Hebert (Eds.), Correctional boot camp: A tough intermediate sanction. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice.
6.
Gransky, L. A.
, Castellano, T. C., & Cowles, E. L. (1995). Is there a “second generation” of shock incarceration facilities? The evolving nature of goals, program elements, and drug treatment services in boot camp programs. In J. O. Smykla & W. L. Selke (Eds.), Intermediate sanctions: Sentencing in the 1990s. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
7.
Lemert, E.
(1951). Social pathology: A systematic approach to the theory of sociopathic behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill.
8.
MacKenzie, D. L.
(1990). Boot camp prisons: Components, evaluations, and empirical issues. Federal Probation, 54, 44-52
9.
MacKenzie, D. L.
(1993). Boot camp prisons in 1993. NIJ Reports. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice.
10.
MacKenzie, D. L.
, & Ballow, D. B. (1989). Shock incarceration programs in state correctional jurisdictions—An update. NIJ Reports. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice.
11.
MacKenzie, D. L.
, Gould, L. A., Reichers, L. M., & Shaw, J. W. (1989). Shock incarceration: Rehabilitation or retribution?Journal of Offender Counseling & Rehabilitation, 14, 25-40.
12.
MacKenzie, D. L.
, & Hebert, E. E. (1996). Correctional boot camps: A tough intermediate sanction. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice.
13.
MacKenzie, D. L.
, & Shaw, J. W. (1990). Inmate adjustment and change during shock incarceration: The impact of correctional boot camp programs. Justice Quarterly, 7(1), 125-150
14.
MacKenzie, D. L.
, & Souryal, C. C. (1990). Rehabilitation, recidivism reduction outrank punishment as main goals. Corrections Today, 53(6), 90-115.
15.
MacKenzie, D. L.
, & Souryal, C. C. (1991). The parole performance of offenders released from shock incarceration (boot camp prisons): A survival time analysis. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 19(3), 225-237.
16.
MacKenzie, D. L.
, & Souryal, C. C. (1994). Multisite evaluation of shock incarceration. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
17.
Morash, M.
, & Rucker, L. (1990). A critical look at the idea of boot camp as a correctional reform. Crime and Delinquency, 36, 204-222.
18.
Osler, M. W.
(1991). Shock incarceration: Hard realities and real possibilities. Federal Probation, 55(1), 34-52.
19.
Parent, D. (1989). Shock incarceration: An overview of existing programs. National Institute of Justice Issues and Practice Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
20.
Reckless, W. C.
, Dinitz, S., & Murray, E. (1956). Self-concept as an insulator against delinquency. American Sociological Review, 21, 744-756.
21.
Scheff, T. J.
, Retzinger, S. M., & Ryan, M. T. (1989). Crime, violence and self-esteem: Review and proposal. In A. M. Mecca, N. J. Smelser, & J. Vasconcellos (Eds.), The social importance of self-esteem. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
22.
Sechrest, D. K.
(1989). Prison “boot camps” do not measure up. Federal Probation, 53(3), 15-20.
23.
Snell, T. L.
(1995). Correctional populations in the United States, 1993. NIJ Reports. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice.
24.
Souryal, C.
, & MacKenzie, D. L. (1995). Shock incarceration and recidivism: An examination of boot camp programs in four states. In J. O. Smykla & W. L. Selke (Eds.), Intermediate sanctions: Sentencing in the 1990s. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
