U.S. Department of Justice 

National Institute of Justice 

140567 

This document has been reproduced exactly as received from the 

person or organization originating It. Points of view or opinions stated In 

this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent 

the oHlclal position or policies of the National Institute of Justice. 

Permission to reproduce this 0 I ; 'gI' J malerlal has been 

granted by • ~ /NIJ Pub11C Dana.ll1/ OJP 

u. S. Department of Justlce 

to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJAS). 

Further reproduction outside of the NCJAS system requires permission 

of the ~ owner. 

If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov.
U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

National Institute of Justice 

Michael J. Russell, Acting Director 

/'I05k7 

June 1993 

An Evaluation of Shock 

Incarceration in Louisiana 

Shock incarceration programs, or boot 

camps as they are commonly called, appeared in the early eighties as an alternative to traditional correctional programs. 

Offenders in these programs spend a 

relatively short period of time in a quasiAtilitary program involving physical 

~aining, drill, manual labor, and strict 

discipline. Since 1983,41 boot camp prisons have been opened in 26 State correctional jurisdictions, in addition to many 

programs developed and being considered 

in cities and counties, and for juveniles. I 

The Louisiana Department of Public 

Safety and Corrections (LDPSC) began 

its two-phase shuck incarceration program, 

called Intensive Motivational Program 

of Alternative Correctional Treatment 

(IMPACT), in 1987. In the first phase of 

the LDPSC program, offenders spend 90 

to 180 days in a medium-security prison 

participating in a rigorous boot camp program. While in the boot camp phase of the 

program, the offenders' daily activities are 

carefully supervised. In addition to daily 

work, physical exercise, and drills, offenders take part in group counseling, drug 

education, and other rehabilitation 

activities. 

Offenders who successfully complete the 

a(irst phase of the program are paroled and 

~gin the second phase in which they are 

by Doris Layton MacKenzie, Ph.D., 

James W. Shaw, and Vondle B. Gowdy 

placed under intensive supervision in the 

community. This phase requires offenders 

to have at least four contacts a week with 

their supervising officers, adhere to a strict 

8 p.m. to 6 a.m. curfew, perform community service, and work. Parolees are 

screened for alcohol and illegal drugs. 

These restrictions are gradually relaxed 

over the first year of supervision if the offender successfully complies with the 

requirements. 

This Evaluation Bulletin describes the results of a 1991 National Institute of Justice 

(NIJ) evaluation of the Louisiana shock incarceration program. The research considered design and implementation issues of 

Louisiana's IMPACT program. The study 

suggests some potential benefits of the 

shock incarceration program, identifies 

some areas where jurisdictions should be 

cautious when developing programs, and 

highlights key questions to be considered 

in ongoing NIJ evaluations of shock incarceration programs. 

The evaluation 

The evaluation of the Louisiana program 

was designed to identify the goals defined 

by the jurisdiction and to examine the success or failure of the program in meeting 

those goals. The evaluation consisted of 

three major components, which examined: 

• How the program was implemented 

(process evaluation). 

• Changes in inmate behavior and attitude 

as a result of participation in the program. 

• System-level changes, including the 

costs and benefits of the program. 

Program implementation 

The process evaluation I;escribed program 

goals, documented the program's implementation, and interviewed inmates, 

judges, prison staff, and community supervision agents.2 Evaluators collected data 

from department records to supplement information from interviews. 

Program goals 

The State of Louisiana specified that one 

major purpose of its shock incarceration 

program is to "provide a satisfactory alternative to the long-term incarceration of primarily youthful first offenders, thereby 

helping to relieve crowded conditions that 

exist in prisons throughout Louisiana. The 

program seeks to promote a positive image 

of corrections and, in general, to enhance 

public relations."3 

Another goal of the program is to equip 

individual participants with the life skills 

necessary for them to succeed in everyday 

life, both inside and outside the prison 

UATION BULLET 
Soon affer shock in&ceration programs appeared on, the corrections 

scene in the mid-eighties, the 

National Institute of Justice (NIJ) 

launched a research program to answer 

key questions about boot camps: How 

does the boot camp experience influence 

offenders? Does it deter them from future 

criminal activity? What are the bestways 

to organize and staff boot camp programs 

to ensure maximum impact? 

NIJ research indicates that although there 

is a common core of military-type drill 

and discipline within these programs, 

there are also wide variations in their 

operations, activities, time served, number 

served, release procedures and aftercare. 

The rigorous physical exercise, military 

';) drill, and discipline, as weIl as the housing 

barracks and other noninstitutional characteristics, distinguish correctional boot 

camps from traditional prisons and jails. 

This Evaluation Bulletin is a product of 

one of the first NIJ studies of shock incarceration. which was used as a model for 

an ongoing study of boot camp programs. 

To provide more far-reaching guidance, 

NIJ is currently examining boot camp 

programs that vary in elements expected 

to influence the results of the programs. 

When completed, the multisitestudy in 

eight States should give policymakers 

more definitive information on the impact 

of these programs and the importance of 

specific components of the programs in 

enabling jurisdictions to meet their goals. 

Based on the results of this assessment, 

a set of professional standards will be. 

established to assist·public officials and 

corrections professionals in the development, operation, improvement, and evaluation of correctional boot camp programs~. 

Michael J. Russell '. 

Acting Director 

National Institute of Justice 

system. "The program is based on the expectation that the acquisition of these skills 

and personal abilities will significantly 

increase offenders' abilities to lead lawabiding, creative, and fulfilling lives as 

contributing members of society.''4 

Program characteristics 

The process evaluation uncovered characteristics of the IMPACT program through 

data analysis, interviews, and detailed 

direct observation. Some of the aspects 

of decisionmaking, staffing, location, 

rehabilitation, and punishment are niscussed below. 

Decisionmaking. Disagreements among 

individuals or agencies about which offenders were appropriate candidates for 

shock incarceration resulted in some tension, and difficulty during the first year of 

the program. These difficulties appeared to 

be related to differing views of the primary 

goals of the program·-rehabilitating offenders or reducing prison crowding-and 

led to some disagreements about courses 

of action. 

Staff. Drill instructors and correctional officers in the program viewed themselves 

not only as authority figures responsible 

for control, but also as role models and 

agents of behavior change through positive 

reinforcement and support. Most staff 

training occurred on the job and, according 

to administrators, some correctional officers appeared to have difficulty adjusting 

to a new role that incorporated elements of 

supportive guidance with the traditional 

role of authority. In addition, some of the 

administrators who were interviewed expressed the opinion that there is a potential 

for abuse of authority in the program because staff employ summary punishments, 

such as making inmates drop to the ground 

to do pushups or stand at attention for a 

specific period of time. 

Staff interviews indicated that there had 

been a relatively high level of turnover of 

personnel (estimates were that prison staff 

stayed in the program an average of 6 

months), which may reflect bumout resulting from the high level of stress caused by 

the intensity of the program. 

The program also had an impact on probation and parole agencies. The intensive supervision required for shock incarceration 

parolees demanded more from parole 

agents than traditional supervision 

caseloads. This created difficulties for probation and parole agencies in terms of 

costs, workload, and danger according to 

the district supervisors. Intensive supervision requires that agents check on parolees 

in all parts of the jurisdiction at all hours of 

the day and night. 

2 

Location. The Louisiana shock incarcera- • 

tion program is situated within a larger 

prison complex, Hunt Correctional Center, 

which means that a higher level of administrative structure oversees the program. 

This type of organization may provide protection from potential abuses of authority 

by staff. Its location within the larger 

prison also permits staff to be rotated into 

and out of the program with minimal difficulty for individual staff members and the 

institution. One potential disadvantage, 

however, is that staff may easily be rotated 

into the program without the benefit of 

training. 

R.ehabilitation. The program incorporates 

elements that other research has shown are 

associated with the rehabilitation of criminal offenders: strict rules and authority, 

anticriminal modeling and reinforcement, 

problem solving, use of community resources, and development of interpersonal 

relationships.s 

Also, the correctional personnel who work 

with the inmates in the two phases of the • 

shock program do not view the program 

solely as a means of "getting tough" with 

offenders-punishing them, initiating retribution, or keeping them busy. Rather, staff 

endeavor to bring about positiv.e changes 

in the lives of the offenders. In the opinion 

of both the staff and the inmates, interaction between staff and inmates is more 

positive than in a regular prison. 

Punishment. The discipline and required 

physical activity are tough treatment for 

offenders who would otherwise escape 

such conditions. Offenders reported that 

time in boot camp was physically and 

mentally taxing; many dropped out before 

completing the program. The difficulty of 

the boot camp regimen achieved the principal public purpose of punishment in a 

much shorter period of time than prison 

sentences. 

Inmate evaluation 

The evaluation examined changes in inmate behavior and attitudes during the • 

prison phase of the program, as well as offender behavior during the community 
•

upervision phase, to assess the program's 

impact upon the lives of individual offenders. In addition, the behavior and attitudes 

of offenders who served time in the shock 

incarceration program was compared with 

attitudes of similar offenders who had been 

sentenced to prison and probation. 

IMPACT selection process 

To be considered for participation in 

IMPACT, an offender must have been 

convicted of a felony offense and must be 

sentenced to a tenn of imprisonment of 7 

yeam or less. Offenders must then be recommended by the Division of Probation 

and Parole, tht' sentencing court, and corrections staff. 1his three-stage process begins with the problltion or parole agent 

who recommends an offender to shock 

incarceration during lihe presentence investigation. Then during the sentence disposition, the sentencing judge may recommend 

an offender to shock incarceration. The 

diagnostic staff at th<~ Department of Corrections make the final detem1ination as eo whether the offender is eligible and 

suitable for the progr,atn. 

This three-group recommendation process 

ell~ures that candidatl~s for the program are 

drawn from that pop/illation of offenders 

who WQuid normally be sentenced to 

prison, raLiter than. from those who would 

normally be given probation. Only offenders who are sentenced to a regular prison 

term may be recommended for the boot 

camp program. 

After being selected, offenders must then 

volunteer for participation in the program. 

Other requirements deemed by the three 

groups to be important in determining suitability for the program are age (under 40 

years), no history of violence, and no psychological or physical disability that would 

prohibit full participation. Thus, most participants are young, nonviolent offenders 

who are serving a sentence following their 

first felony conviction. Violent, hardened, 

or career criminals are not considered appropriate candidates for the Louisiana 

• rogram. 

IMP ACT participants can drop out of the 

program at any time. Nominated offenders 

who do not choose to participate, who drop 

out of the program, or who do not make 

sufficient progress in the boot camp program are required to serve their sentences 

in a traditional prison until they become eligible for parole. Successful completion of 

the program can reduce the amount of time 

the offender spends in prison, and this is assumed by Louisiana officials to be a strong 

incentive for completing the program. 

Characteristics of shock program 

participants 

During the first year of the program, 298 

offenders entered the Louisiana shock program. On average, they were 23 years old 

with a 10th grade education. Forty percent 

were white, and 60 percent were nonwhite. 

On average, the offenders were 19 1/2 

years old at the time of their first arrest; 85 

percent had some prior criminal history 

(although this was their first felony incarceration); and 18 percent previously had 

Evaluatlion Methodology 

This research project used a pretestposttest norlequivalent control group d~­

sign to exan1ine attitude change as a 

result of shock incarceration. This is a 

quasi-experiment designed tOJUlSwer 

questions about causes and effects jn 

settings where experiments cannot be 

done. A researcher who cannot randomly assign people to treatment conditions can design a quasi-experiment to . 

determine whether a treatment has an 

effect. 

The attitudes of offenders were measured prior to participation in the shock 

incarceration program and after 3 

months in the program. The attitudes 

and changes in attitudes of the boot 

camp sample were compared to a similar sample of offenders who had spent 

3 months in a traditional prison. The 

samples were carefully selected to he· . 

similar to each other, but they were not 

3 

spent time in prison or jail for a 

misdemeanor. 

Thirty percent of the offenders who entered the shock incarceration program had 

previously violated probation. The majority of participants were serving time for 

burglary (43 percent), drug-related offenses (24 percent), or theft (12 percent); 

they had an average maximum sentence of 

46 months. 

Approximately 43 percent of the entrants 

dropped out without completing the program. Those who dropped out had to return to a traditional prison and serve the 

remainder of the sentence. They had to 

serve an average of 7 months longer than 

they would have if they had completed the 

program. There were no differences in age, 

race, gender, probation violations, or crime 

type between those who did or did not 

complete the program. 

(1 

. randomly assigned to shock versus traditional prison. . 

The performance of offendt5rs duting 

community supervision was examined 

D in a posttest design using monthly 

meastlres of positive adjustment and 

recidivism. This was a correlational 

study using survival analyses statistically controlling for differences among 

samples. Two major threats to validity 

in this design are selection and mortality. Data recorded at entry to prison 

prior to admittance to the shock program permitted an examination of mortality. However, because subjects were 

not randomly assigned to shock versus 

traditional incarceration, it is possible 

that samples differed prior to treatment. For this reason, results should be 

cautiously interpreted, and it will be 

particularly important to compare these 

results to results from other studies . 
Inmates' reactions 

During incarceration. To detennine the 

changes that occurred in a 3-month time 

period, samples of 116 boot camp gradu~ 

ates, 92 program dropouts, and 98 regular 

inmates were compared (see "Evaluation 

Methodology" on page 3). Inmates were 

asked a series of questions about the boot 

camp experience. On the whole, offenders 

believed shock incarceration was a more 

constructive way to serve time than a regular prison sentence. Offenders participating 

in the shock program reported that they had 

leamed valuable lessons and skills while 

serving their time. By comparison, regular 

prison inmates maintained that they had 

leamed only that they did not want to return 

to prison. 

Offenders in IMPACT adjusted to the 

shock incarceration environment differently 

than offenders serving time in a traditional 

incarceration program.6 They had more favorable attitudes toward staff, but had more 

conflicts with other inmates. Over the 3-

month period studied, the boot camp offenders raised their levels of approval for 

staff. Both traditional inmates and boot 

camp participants reported an increased 

number of conflicts with other inmates. 

IMPACT offenders left boot camp with 

stronger positive attitudes about their future 

and their experiences in the program than 

they had had at the beginning of the program. By comparison, prison inmates had 

negative attitudes that became even more 

negative during their time in prison. 

Using another measure of attitude, general 

social attitude, the shock incarceration 

offenders had more positive social attitudes 

than their counterparts in prison even before entering the boot camp program, and 

they became still more positive while in the 

program. Although the general social attitudes of prison inmates als0 improved 

while in prison, their attitudes never became as positive as those of the offenders 

in shock incarceration.7 

Offenders in shock incarceration reported 

that their experiences in the program were 

beneficial, while the prison inmates did not 

report positive experiences. There was 

some suggestion in the data collected that 

the shock incarceration program increases 

the offenders' perception of their ability to 

control specific events in their own lives. 

Under community supervision. The perfonnance of the 74 offenders released from 

shock incarceration was compared to two 

groups of offenders who served different 

types of sentences (l08 probationers and 74 

parolees) and to 17 prisoners who dropped 

out of the shock incarceration program.s 

The samples of probationers and parolees 

were selected to be as similar as possible to 

the offenders in shock incarceration (legal 

eligibility, age).9 All shock incarceration 

parolees were intensively supervised. The 

supervision of the other samples varied depending on the risk they posed, as measured by a standardized instrument used to 

assess risk of probationers and parolees. 

Failure was defined as absconding, revoking parole, or being jailed for a new offense 

or a technical violation. During the first 6 

months, 6.9 percent of the shock incarceration parolees, 6 percent of the other parolees, 2.8 percent of the probationers, and 

12.1 percent of the boot camp dropouts 

failed while under community supervision. 

Data analyses using survival analysislO 

techniques indicated that the shock incarceration parolees did not differ from either 

the dropouts or other parolees in time-tofailure during community supervision. The 

shock incarceration parolees did fail more 

often than the probationers. However, when 

age and past criminal history were controlled in the analyses, no differences were 

found between offenders in shock incarceration and any of the other groups. 11 

There were no statistically significant differences between the groups in the percentage arrested during the first 6 months of 

community supervision: 14.3 percent of the 

shock incarceration parolees, 15.4 percent 

of other parolees, 14.2 percent of the probationers, and 23 percent of the boot camp 

dropouts were arrested during their first 6 

months of community supervision. 

For all groups, younger offenders failed 

and were arrested more often than older 

offenders, and those who had previously 

spent time in a prison or jail failed more 

often than those who had not. 

4 

Inmates' Insights 

In their int~rviews with shock incarceration program participants, researchers offered open-elided 

questions to elicit opinions on all aspects of their experiences. Inmates 

remarked on their initial difficulty 

with the rigorous exercises required, 

emphasized the strictness Of the 

staff,~complained about the' 

quality and quantity of the food. 

Many also indicated they realized 

the advantages of the boot camp. 

Some representative comments'by 

various inmates follow. 

• r volunteered for IMPACT because "I wanted rehabilitation that I 

wouldn't receive in prison." 

• "This program teaches me to respect others and work with others. I 

learned confidence." 

• "Classes teach how to take care 

of body, personal hygiene. How to 

tell the old gang, no. How to deal 

with peer pressure." 

• "This is better than serving the 4 

years of my regular senten.ce .... I 

will get out after 107 days." 

• What is good about IMPACT is 

the "fonn of discipline. It teaches 

you to use your ears instead of your 

mouth." 

• "The program helps pass time, 

changeS" people. [It teaches you to] 

look out for yourself so you don't go 

d9wnhill." 

• "The program's main thing is to 

teach you to stay out of trouble." 

The research also examined the positive 

activities (such as starting work, attending 

school, or enrolling in vocational or technical training) of offender groups during 

community supervision. The majority of 

offenders from the shock incarceration 

group reported that their intensive parole • 

supervision helped them reintegrate into 

society after release. Boot camp offenders 
.were involved in significantly more positive activities during community supervision as compared to the other samples. 

However, over a 6-month period of community supervision, the positive social 

activities of all groups decIined.12 

Correctional system changes 

The system-level analyses focused on 

changes in the correctional system that 

occurred as a result of implementing the 

IMPACT program. A statistical model was 

developed and used to predict how the program affected prison bedspace. The coSt 

or the shock incarceration program was 

compared to the cost of other sentencing 

options. 

Prison bedspace 

Since one of Louisiana's goals for the program was to reduce prison crowding, the 

effect of the shock program on bedspace 

was examined. 

A militaIy regimen is an important part of daily life in Louisiana's IMPACT program at Elayne 

Hunt Correctional Center. 

5 

Because the recidivism of offenders released from the shock program was not 

lower than similar offenders released from 

prison or under probation (see community 

supervision above), it cannot be assumed 

that prison crowding would be affected by 

a reduction in the numbers of offenders retuming to prison. 

A more direct effect on crowding would 

occur if offenders spent less time in prison. 

This would require: (1) a sufficient number 

of eligible inmates, (2) a large number of 

offenders completing the program, (3) a 

true reduction in the length oftime offenders spend in prison, and (4) offenderparticipants who would otherwise be 

prison-bound. 

Despite the program's potential to free up 

prison beds, an average of only 64 offenders were in the program at anyone time 

during the first year, even though 120 beds 

were available to the program. This small 

number of offenders entering the program 

appears to have resulted from either a 

small pool of eligible nonviolent prisonbound offenders or a small number of offenders recommended for the program by 

judges, combined with the fairly large 

number who did not volunteer or who 

dropped out. 13 

About 23 percent of the offenders arriving 

at the diagnostic center with recommendations for admittance to the shock incarceration program declined to volunteer or were 

rejected. Approximately 27 percent of the 

entrants dropped out of the shock incarceration program, and another 16 percent 

were required to leave for disciplinary, 

medical, or other reasons. Thus, for every 

100 inmates who entered prison with the 

potential to complete the shock incarceration program, only 34 actually completed 

the program and were paroled. 

The amount of time offenders spent in 

prison was significantly reduced if they 

completed the shock incarceration program. Those who completed the program 

served approximately 4 months before being released on parole. If they had served 

their sentences in prison instead of in the 

shock incarceration program, the earliest 

they could have been released would have 

been after approximately 15 months. 
Stcitistical model 

A bedspace model was developed to estimate the actual number of beds saved or 

lost as a result of the shock incarceration 

program and to examine the potential number of beds that might be saved if certain 

parameters in the model were changed. 14 

Dropout and failure rates, time served in 

prison, recidivism, and the probability of 

facing prison rather than probation were 

entered in the model as parameters. 

The impact on prison capacity is particularly positive if only prison-bound offenders take part in the shock incarceration 

program and if offenders who are eligible 

for the program (but do not enter) are not 

released by the parole board at their earliest eligibility date. In the bedspace models, 

the researchers assumed that all offenders 

were prison-bound because of the threestage decisionmaking process requiring 

judges to first sentence offenders to a term 

in prison and then recommend the shock 

program. Furthermore, data collected on 

the release dates for offenders who left the 

shock incarceration program and served 

time in a traditional prison indicated that 

they were not released at their earliest parole date. These estimates were used in the 

model. 

Estimates produced by the beds pace model 

indicated that approximately 154 prison 

beds were saved during the course of 1 

year; an average of 64 beds were used for 

the shock incarceration program. If all 120 

beds available for the program had been 

used, approximately 288 prison beds 

would have been saved per year. 

Costs 

The research also examined whether shock 

incarceration is more expensive than traditional incarceration. LDPSC administrators 

estimated that for an individual inmate, the 

program cost approximately $29.28 per 

day, which was slightly higher than the estimated $27.98 per day for an inmate in a 

traditional medium security prison. 

Inmates who completed the shock program 

spent an average of 4.12 months in shock 

before being released on parole. In contrast, a sample of offendl~rs with similar 

sentences who served thdr time in traditional prisons were found to have served 

an average of 20.5 month5\ before being released on parole. Using the per day cost estimates, the cost of the time in prison for 

offenders who complete the shock incarceration program would be $3,676 

($892.'28 per month for 4.12 months), 

while the cost for offenders serving traditional sentences would be $17,460 

($851.71 per month for 20.5 months). 

TIlUS, for each offender who completed the 

in-prison phase of the shock incarceration 

program (and who otherwise would have 

served a traditional prison sentence), there 

was a cost savings of $13,784 for the inprison phase of shock incarceration. 

However, the second phase of the 

IMPACT program involves a period of 

intensive supervision for its parolees that 

does not apply to regular prison parolees. 

This phase costs an estimated $5,956 more 

for a shock incarceration parolee than for a 

traditional parolee. Therefore, this cost 

must be subtracted from the $13,784 cost 

savings incurred during the in-prison phase 

of the program to calculate the total 

amount saved for an offender who completes the shock incarcemtion program. 

That is, if shock incarceration costs 

$13,784 less for the in-prison phase but 

$5,956 more for the parole phase, then a 

total of $7,828 is saved for each offender 

who completes shock incarceration instead of a traditional prison sentence. 

Granted this is a rough estimate of the 

cost ofIMPACT. 

Other costs and benefits should be considered in the analyses of shock incarceration 

programs. Frequently these are hidden or 

not immediately obvious, such as the costs 

related to crimes that parolees might commit while in the community; selection, 

diagnosis, and assessment of participants; 

staff training; prison construction; and the 

heavy demands placed on prison staff. 

Conclusions 

In establishing the IMPACT program, 

Louisiana's major goal was to create a new 

sentencing option that would provide 

6 

placement for inmates who would other- • 

wise be sent to'the State's crowded prisons. This study reveals that programs like 

IMPACT may achieve this result. But to 

maintain a positive impact on prison 

bedspace needs, programs have to select 

participants carefully to ensure that shock 

incarceration candidates are consistently 

drawn from prison-bound offenders and 

that there are a sufficient number of eligible of tenders who will complete the 

program. 

This evaluation clearly indicates the importance of identifying the goals of the 

shock program and developing the program elements to reach those goals. 

The hard labor, physical exercise, summary punishments, boot camp atmosphere, 

and strict discipline of the Louisiana shock 

incarceration program combine to present 

a potential for both accidents and staff 

abuse of authority. The con'ectional staff 

and administration in Louisiana are well 

aware of these possibilities. They recommend that any jurisdiction developing a 

shock incarceration program should educate itself about these potential problems. 

There appear to be some benefits for individual inmates who complete IMPACT. 

They report more positive attitudes, are 

more optimistic about their futures, have 

more positive attitudes toward staff than 

other inmates, and state that the shock incarceration experience was beneficial. Due 

to !h~ regime of physical exercise and the 

drug-free environment, many inmates also 

reported that shock incarceration was a 

healthy experience. Additionally, upon release they became involved in more posi~ 

tive social activities. 

.' 

At this time, the effectiveness ofIMPACT 

in reducing recidivism remains questionable. Positive changes may be apparent as 

more community supervision data become 

available. Clearly, offenders need additional support or help in making the transition back into the community. Although 

offenders experience some positive 

changes while in the program, these 

changes are not enough to enable them to • 

successfully overcome the difficulties they 
• face when they return to their home 

environment. 

The methodology used in this study is being applied to NIJ research on boot camp 

programs in eight different jurisdictions. It 

is anticipated that the multisite study will 

provide more definitive information on the 

issues raised by this initial evaluation of 

Louisiana's IMPACT. It is also expected 

to identify those eiements needed for effective shock incarceration programs. 

Notes 

1. D.L. MacKenzie and L. Elis, 1992. 

"Survey of Correctional Boot Camps. t, 

University of Maryland, College Park, 

MD: unpublished manuscript. 

2. D.L. MacKenzie, L.A. Gould, L.M. 

Riechers, and J.W. Shaw, 1989. "Shock 

Incarceration: Rehabilitation or Retribution?" Journal o/Offender Counseling 

Services and Rehabilitation, 14:25-40. 

3. The Louisiana Department of Public 

• 

Safety and Corrections, 1987. "IMPACT: 

Purpose, Policies, and Procedure." Baton 

Rouge, LA: unpublished manuscript. 

• 

4. See the Louisiana Department of Public 

Safety and Corrections, 1987. 

5. See D.L. MacKenzie, L.A. Gould, L.M. 

Riechers, and J.W. Shaw, 1989. 

6. D.L. MacKenzie and J.W. Shaw, 1990. 

"Inmate Adjustment and Change During 

Shock Incarceration." Justice Quarterly, 

7(1):125-150 . 

7. Problem drinkers who entered the shock 

program appeared to become less socially 

maladjusted during the program. This was 

not true for problem drinkers in regular 

prison. J.W. Shaw and D.L. MacKenzie, 

1992. "Shock Incarceration and Its Impact 

on Problem Drinkers." The American 

Journal o/Criminal Justice, XVI(1): 

63-96. 

8. D.L. MacKenzie, 1991. "The Parole 

Performance of Offenders Released From 

Shock Incarceration (Boot Camp Prisons): 

A Survival Time Analysis." Quantitative 

Criminology, 7(3):213-236. 

9. This was not an experimental design, so 

subjects were not randomly assigned to 

treatments (see "Evaluation Methodology" 

on page 3). Variables were entered in 

the data analyses to control for the differences among samples and the intensity of 

supervision. 

10. Survival analysis is a statistical technique specifically designed to test for 

differences in time-to-failure for two or 

more groups . 

11. See D.L. MacKenzie, 1991. 

12. The study found that problem drinkers 

demonstrated a mO!"t sporadic performance 

than nonproblem drinkers during community supervision, suggesting that problem 

drinkers may have more difficulty adjusting during the transition to living in the 

community. 

13. Since this study was completed, the 

eligibility criteria have been changed and 

7 

offenders with a past felony conviction 

may, under certain circumstances, be 

admitted to the program. 

14. D.L. MacKenzie and D.G. Parent, 

1991. "Shock Incarceration and Prison 

Crowding in Louisiana." Journal 0/ 

Criminal Justice, 19(3):225-237. 

Doris Layton MacKenzie, Ph.D., 

visiting scientist at NIJ, is currently 

associate professor in the Institute of 

Criminal Justice and Criminology, 

University of Maryland. 

James W. Shaw is a candidate for a 

doctor of criminology and criminal 

justice at the University of Maryland. 

Voncile B. Gowdy, a social scientist, 

manages the Corrections Research 

ProgI)'IDl at NIJ. 

Opinions or points of view expressed in 

this document are those of the authors and do 

not necessarily reflect the official position or 

policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

The Natiollal Illstitllte of Justice is a compollellt of the Office of Jllstice Programs, 

which also illcludes the Bureau of Justice 

Assistallce,Bureall ojJustice Sratistics, Office 

of Juvellile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevellfioll, alld the Office for Victims of 

Crime. 

NCJ 140567