Journal of Quantitative Criminology

, Volume 7, Issue 3, pp 213–236 | Cite as

The parole performance of offenders released from shock incarceration (boot camp prisons): A survival time analysis

  • Doris Layton MacKenzie


The parole performance of offenders who were released after successfully completing a shock incarceration program was examined and compared to the performance of offenders who were serving time on probation or parole after a period of incarceration. Separate survival analyses were performed for recidivism as measured by (1) arrests and (2) failures (jailed, absconded, or revoked). Prior incarceration, age, age at first arrest, and risk assessment score were related to recidivism but type of sentence was not. Intensity of supervision was significantly related to recidivism but this relationship was eliminated when risk level was controlled. There was no evidence that shock incarceration reduces recidivism. Future research should focus on methods of reducing failures during community supervision for these young, nonviolent offenders within the framework of either a shock incarceration program or some other sentence.

Key words

Shock incarceration boot camp prisons recidivism survival analysis parole performance 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Allison, P. D. (1984).Event History Analysis, Sage, Beverly Hills, Calif.Google Scholar
  2. Boudouris, J., and Turnbull, B. W. (1985). Shock probation in Iowa.Offender Counsel. Serv. Rehab. 9: 53–67.Google Scholar
  3. Cox, D. R., and Oakes, D. (1984).Analysis of Survival Data, Chapman and Hall, New York.Google Scholar
  4. Greenfield, L. A. (1985).Examining Recidivism, Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  5. Harrell, F. E., Jr. (1986). The PHGLM procedure.SUGI Supplemental Library User's Guide, SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, N.C.Google Scholar
  6. Kalbfleisch, J. D., and Prentice, R. L. (1980).The Statistical Analysis of Failure Time Data, John Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  7. Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections (1987).IMPACT: Purposes, Policies and Procedures, LDPSC, Baton Rouge, La.Google Scholar
  8. MacKenzie, D. L., and Ballow, D. B. (1989). Shock incarceration programs in state correctional jurisdictions-An update.Natl. Inst. Just. Rep. 214: 9–10.Google Scholar
  9. MacKenzie, D. L., and Parent, D. G. (1991). Shock incarceration and prison crowding in Louisiana.J. of Crim. Just. 19: 225–237.Google Scholar
  10. 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.Google Scholar
  11. MacKenzie, D. L., Gould, L. A., Riechers, L. M., and Shaw, J. W. (1989). Shock incarceration: Rehabilitation or retribution?Offender Counsel. Serv. Rehab. 14: 25–40.Google Scholar
  12. MacKenzie, D. L., Shaw, J. W., and Gowdy, V. B. (1990). An Evaluation of Shock Incarceration in Louisiana, Unpublished manuscript. Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge.Google Scholar
  13. Maltz, M. D. (1984).Recidivism, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  14. Parent, D. (1989).Shock Incarceration: An Overview of Existing Programs. NIJ Issues and Practices, National Institute of Justice, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  15. Petersilia, J., and Turner, S. (1990). Comparing intensive and regular supervision for high-risk probationers: Early results from an experiment in California.Crime Delinq. 36: 87–111.Google Scholar
  16. SAS Institute Inc. (1985).SAS User's Guide: Statistic Version 5 Edition, SAS Institute, Cary, N.C.Google Scholar
  17. Schmidt, P., and Witte, A. (1988).Predicting Recidivism Using Survival Models, Research in Criminology Series, Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
  18. Vito, G. F., and Allen, H. W. (1981). Shock probation in Ohio: A comparison of outcomes.Int. J. Offender Ther. 25: 70–76.Google Scholar
  19. Vito, G. F. (1984). Developments in shock probation: A review of research findings and policy implications.Fed. Probat. 48: 22–27.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Doris Layton MacKenzie
    • 1
  1. 1.National Institute of JusticeWashington, D.C.

Personalised recommendations