Skip to main content
Log in

Is less better?: Boot camp, regular probation and rearrest in North Carolina

  • Published:
American Journal of Criminal Justice Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Using official data, 331 boot camp participants and a stratified random sample of 369 regular probationers were tracked for rearrests over a threeyear period. Chisquare tests and logistic regression analysis indicate that participation in boot camp was significantly associated with rearrest for drug offenses, offenses categorized as “other,” and all types of offenses combined. Contrary to most prior research, which suggests that boot camp participation has no effect on subsequent criminal behavior, the results in this study indicate that participation in the boot camp program had a detrimental effect on its participants.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • American Correctional Association. (1983).The American prison: From the beginning. Laurel, MD: Author.

  • Bodapati, M. R., Jones, M., & Marquait, J. W. (1995). The sentencing practices of judges and juries: A comparative analysis using Texas drug offenders.Journal of Crime and Justice, 18, 181–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burns, J. C., & Vito, G. F. (1995). An impact analysis of the Alabama boot camp program.Federal Probation, 59, 63–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burton, V. S., Marquait, J. W., Cuvelier, S., Alarid, L. F., & Hunter, R. J. (1993). A study of attitudinal change among boot camp participants.Federal Probation, 57, 46–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Byrne, J. M. & Pattavina, A. (1992). The effectiveness issue: Assessing what works in the adult community corrections system. In J. M. Byrne, A. J. Lurigio, & J. Petersilia (Eds.),Smart sentencing: The emergence of intermediate sanctions (pp. 281–303). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geerken, M. R., & Hayes, H. D. (1993). Probation and parole: Public risks and the future of incarceration alternatives.Criminology, 31, 549–564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunter, R. J. (1994, July, August). A locally operated boot camp: Harris County (Houston), Texas.American Jails, 12–15.

  • Jones, M. (1996). Do boot camp graduates make better probationers?Journal of Crime and Justice, 19, 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie, D. L. (1991). The parole performance of offenders released from shock incarceration: A survival time analysis.Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 7, 213–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie, D. L. (1994). Results of a multisite study of boot camp prisons.Federal Probation, 58, 60–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie, D. L., & Shaw, J. (1993). The impact of shock incarceration on technical violations and new criminal activities.Justice Quarterly, 10, 463–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie, D. L., & Souryal, C. (1995). Inmates’ attitude change during incarceration: A comparison of boot camp and traditional prison.Justice Quarterly, 12, 325–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maguire, K., & Pastore, A. L. (Eds.). (1995).Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics 1994. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCorkle, R. C. (1995). Correctional boot camps and attitudinal change: Is all this shouting necessary?Justice Quarterly, 12, 365–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mcgaha, J., Fichter, M., & Hirschburg, P. (1987). Felony probation: A reexamination of public risk.American Journal of Criminal Justice, 11, 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parent, D. G., Chaiken, M., & Logan, W. (1989).Shock incarceration: An overview of existing programs. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearce, S. C., & Madler, J. H. (1995). Compendium of community corrections programs in North Carolina fiscal year 1993–94. Unpublished document.

  • Petersilia, J., Turner, S., Kahan, J., & Peterson, J. (1985).Granting felons probation: Public risks and alternatives. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, R., & Jolin, A. (1989). Electronic Monitoring: A review of the empirical literature.Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 5, 141–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothman, D. J. (1971).The discovery of the asylum: Social order and disorder in the new republic. Boston: Little, Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spader, D. J. (1991). Individual rights vs. social utility: The search for the golden zigzag between conflicting fundamental values. In M. C. Braswell, B. R. McCarthy, & B. J. McCarthy (Eds.),Justice, Crime and Ethics, (pp. 25–50). Cincinnati: Anderson Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • State Bureau of Investigation. (1995).Crime in North Carolina 1994: Uniform crime report. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Department of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vito, G. F. (1987). Felony probation and recidivism: Replication and response.Federal Probation, 50, 17–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, S. (1994).Sense and nonsense about crime and drugs: A policy guide (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jones, M., Ross, D.L. Is less better?: Boot camp, regular probation and rearrest in North Carolina. Am J Crim Just 21, 147–161 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02887447

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02887447

Keywords

Navigation