Shock incarceration and positive adjustment during community supervision
Purchase on Springer.com
$39.95 / €34.95 / £29.95*
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.
This study examines the adjustment of offenders from shock incarceration programs (boot-camp prisons) during community supervision over a 1-year followup period in five states. Their performance is compared to comparison groups who were eligible for the shock program but did not attend. An index was used to quantify the positive activities of offenders. The results provide little conclusive evidence that the shock incarceration programs had a positive effect on offender behavior. The data do suggest that supervision intensity plays an important role in shaping offenders' activities during community supervision.
- Allison, P. D. (1990). Change scores as dependent variables in regression analysis.Sociol. Methodol. 20: 93–114.
- Anglin, M. D., and Hser, Y. (1990). Treatment of drug abuse. In Tonry, M., and Wilson, J. Q. (eds.),Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, Vol. 13 (Drugs and Crime), University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 393–460.
- Berk, R. A. (1991).An Introduction to Multilevel Analysis for Cross-Site Program Evaluations, Unpublished discussion paper.
- Bryk, A. S., and Raudenbush, S. W. (1987). Application of hierarchical linear models to assessing change.Psychol. Bull. 101(1): 147–158. CrossRef
- Bryk, A. S., and Raudenbush, S. W. (1992).Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
- Cook, T. D. and Campbell, D. T. (1979).Quasi-Experimentation: Design and Analysis Issues for Field Settings, Rand-McNally, Chicago.
- Gendreau, P., and Ross, R. (1987). Revivification of rehabilitation: Evidence from the 1980's.Just Q. 4: 349–407.
- Gowdy, V. B. (1993).Intermediate Sanctions (Research in Brief), National Institute of Justice, Washington, DC.
- Greene, W. H. (1993).Econometrics (2nd ed.), Macmillan, New York.
- Horney, J., Osgood, D. W., and Marshall, I. H. (1993).Criminal careers in the short-term: Month-to-month variation in crime and its relation to local life circumstances. Paper presented at the meetings of the American Society of Criminology in Phoenix Arizona, Nov.
- Hsiao, C. (1986).The Analysis of Panel Data, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA.
- Latessa, E. J., and Vito, G. F. (1988). The effects of intensive supervision on shock probationers.J. Crim. Just. 16: 319–330. CrossRef
- Littell, R. C., Freund, R. J., and Spector, P. C. (1991).SAS System for Linear Models (3rd ed.), SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC.
- MacKenzie, D. L. (1990). Boot camp prisons: Components, evaluations, and empirical issues.Fed. Probat. 54(3): 44–52.
- MacKenzie, D. L. (1991). The parole performance of offenders released from shock incarceration (boot camp prisons): A survival time analysis.J. Quant. Crim. 7: 213–236. CrossRef
- MacKenzie, D. L., and Brame, R. (1993).Shock Incarceration and Positive Adjustment During Community Supervision: A Multi-Site Evaluation, unpublished Final Report to the National Institute of Justice, University of Maryland, College Park.
- MacKenzie, D. L., and Shaw, J. W. (1990). Inmate adjustment and change during shock incarceration: The impact of correctional boot camp programs.Just. Q. 7: 125–150. CrossRef
- MacKenzie, D. L., and Shaw, J. W. (1993). The impact of shock incarceration on technical violations and new criminal activities.Just. Q. 10(3): 463–487. CrossRef
- MacKenzie, D. L., and Souryal, C. (1991). States say rehabilitation, recidivism reduction outrank punishment as main goals.Correct. Today 53: 90–96.
- MacKenzie, D. L., and Souryal, C. (1992).Inmate Attitude Change During Incarceration: A Comparison of Boot Camp and Traditional Prison. Unpublished Final Report to the National Institute of Justice, University of Maryland, College Park.
- MacKenzie, D. L., and Souryal, C. (1993).Multi-Site Study of Shock Incarceration: Process Evaluation, Unpublished Final Report to the National Institute of Justice, University of Maryland, College Park.
- MacKenzie, D. L., and Souryal, C. (1994).Inmate attitude change during incarceration: A comparison of boot camp and traditional prison (manuscript under review).
- MacKenzie, D. L., Shaw, J. W., and Souryal, C. (1992). Characteristics associated with successful adjustment to supervision: A comparison of parolees, probationers, shock participants, and shock dropouts.Crim. Just. Behav. 19(4): 437–453.
- Mason, W. M., Wong, G. M., and Entwistle, B. (1983). Contextual analysis through the multilevel linear model.Sociol. Methodol. 13: 72–101.
- Neter, J., Wasserman, W., and Kutner, M. H. (1989).Applied Linear Regression Models (2nd ed.), Irwin, Homewood, IL.
- Petersilia, J., and Turner, S. (1990).Intensive Supervision for High-Risk Probationers: Findings from Three California Experiments, Rand Corp., Santa Monica, CA.
- Petersilia, J., and Turner, S. (1993). Intensive probation and parole. InCrime and Justice: A Review of Research, Vol. 19, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 281–335.
- Raudenbush, S. W., and Chan, W. (1992). Growth curve analysis in accelerated longitudinal designs.J. Res. Crime Delinq. 29(4): 387–411.
- Souryal, C., and MacKenzie, D. L. (1994). Shock incarceration and recidivism: An examination of boot camp programs in four states. In Smykla, J. O., and Selke, W. L. (eds.),Intermediate Sanctions: Sentencing in the 90's, Anderson, Cincinnati, OH.
- Shock incarceration and positive adjustment during community supervision
Journal of Quantitative Criminology
Volume 11, Issue 2 , pp 111-142
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Kluwer Academic Publishers-Plenum Publishers
- Additional Links
- community supervision
- boot-camp prisons
- shock incarceration
- adjustment supervision
- positive adjustment
- intermediate sanctions