National Institute of Justice

Research Report

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

National Institute of Justice

D
E
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T
 
O
F
 
J
U
S
T
I
C
E


O
F
F
I
C
E
 
O
F
 J
U
S
T
I
C
E
 
P
R
O
G
R
A
M
S


B
J
A
 N
I
J
 O
J
J
D
P
 B
J
S
 O
V
C


Multisite Evaluation of

Shock Incarceration

Evaluation Report
Multisite Evaluation of

Shock Incarceration

Doris Layton MacKenzie

Claire Souryal

University of Maryland

A Final Summary Report Presented to the National Institute of Justice

September 1994
U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

National Institute of Justice

Jeremy Travis

Director

Winifred L. Reed

Acting Director

Evaluation Division

Voncile Gowdy

Project Monitor

The National Institute of Justice is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Bureau

of Justice Statistics, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime.

This investigation was supported in part by Grant #90–DD–CX–0061 from the National Institute of Justice, Office

of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice to the University of Maryland. Points of view in this document are

those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Requests for copies should be sent to the senior author at the University of Maryland, Department of Criminal

Justice and Criminology, 2220 LeFrak Hall, College Park, MD 20742.

NCJ 142462
iii

Robert J. Jones, Research Scientist III

Steven P. Karr, Research Scientist III

Illinois Department of Corrections

Jean S. Wall, Corrections Executive Officer

Louisiana Department of Public Safety

and Corrections

Cheryl Clark, Director of Shock Development

David Aziz, Program Research Specialist III

New York State Department of Correctional

Services

Thomas J. Herzog, Program Research Specialist III

New York State Division of Parole

Francis Ferrari, Director, Statistical Analysis

Center

Michelle Minietta, Statistical Analyst II

Kelly Menifee Lindley, Statistical Analyst II

Oklahoma Department of Corrections

Robert McManus, Coordinator of Planning and

Research

South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole,

and Pardon Services

Sammie Brown, Director of Division of

Classification

South Carolina Department of Corrections

Anthony Fabelo, Executive Director

Nancy Arrigona, Planner

Lisa Riechers, Research Specialist

Texas Criminal Justice Policy Council

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the State programs

for their participation in the evaluation. Researchers in each State were supportive at every stage of

the process. The results of the evaluation—even if

not favorable—will further scientific knowledge

and, as a result, facilitate the development of

programs that better accomplish the Nation’s

correctional goals. Thus, correctional administrators and staff are owed a debt of thanks for their

willingness to help in this research project.

Research Team

Researchers from each State involved in the

multisite study of shock incarceration met in the

summer of 1990 to plan the evaluation. The

research design and instruments utilized are a

result of this collaborative effort. State researchers

were responsible for data collection and, in some

States, data analysis. Multisite researchers include

the following:

Doris Layton MacKenzie, Principal Investigator

Claire Souryal, Research Associate

Robert Brame, Jr., Research Associate

James Shaw, Research Associate

Alex Piquero, Research Assistant

Lori Elis, Research Assistant

Stacy Skroban, Research Assistant

Melissa Bamba, Research Assistant

University of Maryland

Robert Kreigner, Research Administrator

Kenneth Baugh, Jr., Research Associate

Florida Department of Corrections

Judy Schiff, Senior Operations Analyst

Judith Hadley, Advanced Programmer Analyst

Charlotte Beard, Associate Operations Analyst

Gerald Flowers, Senior Operations Analyst

Georgia Department of Corrections
v

Table of Contents

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 1

Shock Incarceration Program Characteristics .................................................................................... 1

Multisite Evaluation Research Design ............................................................................................... 3

Program Goals and Implementation ................................................................................................... 6

Georgia ........................................................................................................................................... 6

New York ....................................................................................................................................... 6

Program Contrasts .......................................................................................................................... 7

Program Comparisons .................................................................................................................... 8

Interviews ........................................................................................................................................... 9

Correctional Officers...................................................................................................................... 9

Boot Camp Inmates...................................................................................................................... 10

Probation/Parole Officers............................................................................................................. 11

Changing Offenders: Deterrence and Rehabilitation ................................................................................ 12

Military Basic Training Model ......................................................................................................... 12

Shock Incarceration as a Catalyst for Change .................................................................................. 13

Rehabilitative Programming ............................................................................................................. 13

Discussion ......................................................................................................................................... 15

Attitude Change ......................................................................................................................................... 16

Methodology ..................................................................................................................................... 16

Subjects ........................................................................................................................................ 16

Procedure ...................................................................................................................................... 17

Instruments ................................................................................................................................... 17

Results ............................................................................................................................................... 17

Discussion ......................................................................................................................................... 17

Impact on Recidivism................................................................................................................................ 20

Methodology ..................................................................................................................................... 24

Subjects ........................................................................................................................................ 24

Instruments ................................................................................................................................... 24

Statistical Analyses ...................................................................................................................... 26

Results ............................................................................................................................................... 26

Florida .......................................................................................................................................... 26

Georgia ......................................................................................................................................... 26

Illinois ........................................................................................................................................... 27

Louisiana ...................................................................................................................................... 27

New York ..................................................................................................................................... 27

Oklahoma ..................................................................................................................................... 28

South Carolina .............................................................................................................................. 28

Texas ............................................................................................................................................ 28

Discussion ......................................................................................................................................... 28
vi

Table of Contents (continued)

Positive Activities During Community Supervision................................................................................. 30

Methodology ..................................................................................................................................... 32

Subjects ........................................................................................................................................ 32

Procedure ...................................................................................................................................... 32

Index ............................................................................................................................................. 32

Results ............................................................................................................................................... 32

Summary of Positive Adjustment Study .......................................................................................... 33

Reducing Prison Crowding ....................................................................................................................... 33

Entry Decisionmaking ...................................................................................................................... 34

Eligibility and Suitability Criteria .................................................................................................... 35

Program Length ................................................................................................................................ 35

Program Size ..................................................................................................................................... 36

Graduation Rates .............................................................................................................................. 36

Discussion ......................................................................................................................................... 36

Estimating Prison Bedspace Savings ........................................................................................................ 37

Results ............................................................................................................................................... 37

Florida, Louisiana, and New York ............................................................................................... 37

Georgia and South Carolina ......................................................................................................... 40

Discussion ......................................................................................................................................... 40

Summary .................................................................................................................................................. 40

Program Characteristics.................................................................................................................... 40

Inmate Attitudes During Incarceration ............................................................................................. 41

Offender Recidivism......................................................................................................................... 41

Adjustment During Community Supervision ................................................................................... 42

Prison Bedspace Reduction .............................................................................................................. 42

Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................ 43

Notes .......................................................................................................................................................... 43

Additional References ............................................................................................................................... 45
1

drug treatment/education or academic education,

although the emphasis placed on such programming varies. In New York, for example, the

program is structured as a therapeutic community.

Rehabilitative programming, therefore, plays a

central role in the program. In other States, though,

such programming is clearly peripheral to the boot

camp experience.

As the boot camp program concept has developed

over the years, however, rehabilitative programming has come to play a more prominent role in

the day-to-day routine. The earliest boot camp

models devoted very little time to such programming. Many of those pioneering programs have

since been enhanced with additional therapeutic

services. Programs developed in recent years

seemed to place a greater emphasis on rehabilitative programming from the outset.

By and large, boot camp programs have been

designed for young, male offenders convicted of

nonviolent offenses. Eligibility and suitability

criteria were developed to restrict participation to

this type of offender. For example, the March 1992

survey of shock incarceration programs revealed

that the majority of programs (61.5 percent) then in

operation limited participation to individuals

convicted of nonviolent offenses (see exhibit 3).

Fifty percent of the programs further restricted

participation to individuals serving their first

felony sentence as an adult. Minimum and maximum age limits were also the norm. The minimum

age limit generally fell somewhere between 16 and

18 years of age, while maximum age limits most

commonly ranged between 23 and 25 years of age

(although two programs allowed offenders older

than 30 years of age to participate and five programs had not established a maximum age limit).

Female offenders were permitted to participate in

roughly 50 percent of the States, although the

number of beds available to female inmates was

generally limited.

Introduction

Since their inception in 1983, shock incarceration

programs (also known as boot camps, the terms are

used interchangeably throughout this document)

have enjoyed considerable popular support. Like

other intermediate sanctions, the programs are

intended to alleviate prison crowding and to reduce

recidivism. But, because they are additionally

perceived as being “tough” on crime (in contrast to

some other intermediate sanctions), they have been

enthusiastically embraced as a viable correctional

option.

Indeed, the presumed combination of cost savings

and punitiveness has proven irresistible to politicians. Witness the remarkable growth of boot

camp prison programs nationwide (see exhibits 1

and 2). At the beginning of calendar year 1984,

just two States operated boot camp programs. Less

than 10 years later, a survey completed in March

1992 revealed that 25 States and the Federal

Bureau of Prisons were operating a total of 41

programs.1

 Two additional States were planning to

implement programs later that year. Not only had

the number of State jurisdictions operating boot

camp programs increased, but the capacity of

existing programs had increased as well. Georgia’s

program capacity, for example, was slated to

expand from 250 beds to approximately 3,000 beds

by 1994. Note that these figures do not take into

account the programs developed at the county level

or programs developed for juveniles.

Shock Incarceration Program

Characteristics

As the name suggests, boot camp programs are

modeled after military boot camp training. Participation in military drill and ceremony, physical

training, and hard labor is mandatory. Inmates

begin their day before dawn and are involved in

structured activities until “lights out,” approximately 16 hours later.

The military-style regime is generally supplemented with rehabilitative programming such as
2

Exhibit 1. State Shock Incarceration Programs for Adults as of March 1992

Date State Number of Number of Participants/

Programs Capacity

1983 Georgia 5 800/800

Oklahoma 4 415/438

1984

1985 Mississippi 1 223/263

1986

1987 Florida 1 93/100

Louisiana 1 64/136

New York 5 1500/1500

South Carolina 2 198/216

1988 Alabama 1 140/180

Arizona 1 92/150

Michigan 3 160/6001

1989 Idaho 1 236/250

North Carolina 1 82/90

Tennessee 1 103/150

Texas 2 329/400

1990 Illinois 1 215/230

Maryland 1 332/448

New Hampshire 1 32/65

Wyoming 1 23/24

1991 Arkansas 1 150/150

Bureau of Prisons 1 192/192

Colorado 1 114/100

Kansas 1 66/104

Nevada 1 60/60

Ohio 1 76/94

Virginia 1 79/100

Wisconsin 1 40/40

Total 41 5,814/6,880

1992 Programs planned—Massachusetts and Pennsylvania

1992 Considering beginning programs—California, Indiana, Missouri, and Rhode Island

1

Was to begin taking inmates again in approximately mid-May.
3

Multisite Evaluation Research Design

To examine the efficacy of shock incarceration

programs, the evaluation effort was guided by the

following research questions: (1) Are shock

incarceration programs successful in fulfilling

stated program goals? and (2) What particular

components of shock incarceration programs lead

to success or failure in fulfilling program goals?

The study consisted of five major components:

(1) a qualitative description of the eight programs

based on staff and inmate interviews, official

program materials, and observation; (2) a study of

inmate attitudinal change during incarceration; (3)

a study of offender recidivism; (4) a study of

positive adjustment during community supervision

as measured by indicators such as employment and

educational status; and (5) a study of prison

bedspace savings.

Prior research examining the effectiveness of

shock incarceration programs had been limited to

one location.2

 Given the large differences among

programs, generalization could not easily be drawn

from research examining one program and then

another. The multisite evaluation was designed to

fill this gap. Seven sites were initially selected to

participate in the evaluation. An eighth site (Illinois) was added during the evaluation’s second

year. The eight State-level programs selected for

participation in the evaluation were Florida,

Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, New York, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas.

Exhibit 2. Shock Incarceration Programs In the United States as of April 1993

States With Programs

States Planning or 

Considering Programs

States Without Programs
4

Exhibit 3. Shock Incarceration Program Characteristics as of March 1992

Eligibility Criteria %Yes (N=26)

Convicted of Nonviolent Offense Only 61.5% (16)

Convicted of Nonviolent or Violent Offense 38.5% (10)

Serving Time:

1st Felony (adult) 50.0% (13)

1st in State Prison 73.1% (19)

Age Minimum (in years)

Less Than 16? 11.5% (3)

16 to 18? 76.9% (20)

Over 19? 3.8% (1)

No Minimum? 7.7% (2)

Age Maximum (in years)

23 to 25? 50.0% (13)

26 to 30? 23.1% (6)

Over 30? 7.7% (2)

No maximum? 19.2% (5)

Entry Voluntary 69.2% (18)

Dropout Voluntary 65.4% (17)

Release Supervision

Intensive 42.3% (11)

Moderate 7.7% (2)

Varies 50.0% (13)

Entry Decisionmaking

Judge Recommends, DOC Approves 19.2% (5)

Judge Sentences, DOC has no veto 23.1% (6)

Judge Sentences to DOC, DOC Selects 26.9% (7)

DOC Selects, Judge Approves 12.0% (3)

Combination 12.0% (3)1

1

 Programs that utilize a combination of entry decisionmaking methods:

Bureau of Prisons: 1) Judge recommends, DOC approves; 2) Judge sentences, DOC selects; 3) DOC selects, Judge

approves.

Colorado: 1) Judge recommends, DOC approves; 2) DOC selects.

Oklahoma: 1) Judge sentences, DOC cannot veto; 2) Judge sentences, DOC selects.
5

Exhibit 4. Program Characteristics of the Eight Shock Incarceration Programs Participating in the

Multisite Evaluation (1989).

Selection Decisions

Primary Entry Decisionmaking Responsibility:

Judge: GA, SC “Old”, TX

DOC: NY (16-25 yrs), IL, LA

DOC + Judge’s Approval: FL, NY (26-29 yrs)

Both Judge & DOC: SC “New”, OK

Program Characteristics

Rehabilitative Focus

High: LA, OK, NY, IL

Low: SC, FL, GA, TX

Voluntary Entry

Yes: SC, LA, NY, GA, IL

No: OK, FL, TX

Voluntary Dropout

Yes: LA, SC, NY, IL

No: OK, FL, TX, GA

Release Supervision

Level of Supervision

Intensive: LA, NY, IL

Moderate or Mixed: SC, OK, FL, GA, TX

Program Location

Located in Larger Prison

Yes: LA, SC, OK, FL, GA, TX

No: NY, IL

Selection of the participating sites began in 1989

with a survey of State correctional systems. In the

survey, shock incarceration programs were defined

by the following core components: strict rules,

discipline, and boot camp-like atmosphere; mandatory participation in military drills and physical

training; and separation of program participants

from other prison inmates. The participating sites

were selected because they incorporated the core

elements of shock incarceration programs and

because they varied on several dimensions hypothesized to influence the realization of program

goals. The participating programs were selected to

differ on the following dimensions: decisionmaking authority, supervision intensity upon

release, program components, and program location (see exhibit 4).

The results of each portion of the evaluation are

summarized in this document. The review begins

with an examination of the development and

implementation of the eight programs selected for

participation in the multisite study with special

emphasis on the programs developed in Georgia

and New York.

The answers to the following questions have a

profound effect on the ability of programs to

achieve their stated goals:
6

■ What are their program goals?

■ What types of offenders are targeted for

participation in the programs?

■ How are offenders selected for participation?

■ How much of the daily routine is devoted to

rehabilitative activities?

■ What percentage of program entrants graduate

from the program?

■ How intensely are offenders supervised upon

release?

Program Goals and Implementation

An inquiry into the efficacy of any program must

begin with an understanding of what the program

is trying to achieve—its goals and objectives.

Examination of written reports and program

materials, coupled with interviews with

decisionmakers in each State, led to the identification of two overarching program goals.

First, at the system level, the programs were

expected to provide an alternative to incarceration

that would reduce prison crowding (and related

costs). Secondly, at the individual level, such

programs were intended to reduce recidivism.

Individual level goals were couched in terms of

either deterrence or rehabilitation. Other goals set

forth by programs included promoting community

relations (e.g., increasing public safety or providing incarceration alternatives deemed acceptable

by the public) and improving prison control and

management.

As the following descriptions of the programs

developed in Georgia and New York illustrate,

program structure and content varied considerably

among programs.3

Georgia. To avert a Federal takeover of its extremely crowded prison system, Georgia developed an array of sentencing options throughout the

1980’s aimed at saving costly prison space.

Implemented in November 1983, Georgia’s 90-day

boot camp program was one such option.

When the program was selected for participation in

this study, program capacity was 250. Legal

eligibility criteria restricted participation to 17 to

25-year-old males who were convicted of a felony,

sentenced to at least 1 year, and had not been

previously incarcerated. Offenders were placed in

the program by the judiciary as a condition of

probation. The sentencing judge retained case

control until offenders were terminated from

probation.

Although initial participation was voluntary,

inmates were not permitted to drop out of the

program voluntarily. Inmates did leave the program though for medical or disciplinary reasons

prior to graduation. These offenders were discharged through a revocation process and served

the remainder of their sentence in prison. During

calendar year 1989, approximately 91 percent of

the offenders who entered the program graduated.

The focus of the program in 1989 and 1990 was on

work detail. Inmates were required to work approximately 7 hours per day (5 days per week).

Two hours per week were devoted to rehabilitative

activities that consisted mainly of life-skills

classes. Upon release, offenders received regular

probation.

Interviews with correctional officers and judges

revealed that they strongly supported the program.

In general, correctional officers were proud to be

associated with the program and judges believed

that it was one of the best programs for young

offenders. Probation officers were more skeptical.

Boot camp participants reported improved physical

conditioning as one positive aspect of the program.

Some inmates reported that they had been verbally

abused.

New York. Established in 1987 as part of an

Omnibus Prison Crowding Bill, the program was

the largest in the Nation at the time of multisite
7

data collection. In 1990, New York State operated

5 shock incarceration facilities with a total capacity of 1,500, including approximately 100 beds for

female inmates. Program length was 180 days.

Offenders were selected for participation in the

program from a pool of offenders already sentenced to the New York Department of Correctional Services (NYDOCS). Primary placement

authority rested with NYDOCS with one exception

(placement of offenders between the ages of 26

and 29 had to be approved by the sentencing

judge). Eligible offenders had to be between the

ages of 16 and 30, sentenced to an indeterminate

term, and eligible for parole within 3 years. (A

recent legislative change raised the age limit to 34

years of age and younger, effective April 14,

1992.) Conviction of felony violent offenses

rendered an offender ineligible. Offenders could

also be deemed ineligible based on medical or

psychiatric conditions, security classification, and

criminal history.

Participation in the program was voluntary.

Inmates retained the right to drop out of the

program at any time. In this event, they were

returned to prison to serve the remainder of their

sentence. During calendar year 1988, approximately 69 percent of the offenders who entered the

program graduated.

Beyond the common core of military-style discipline, training, and hard work, New York’s program was noteworthy because it was structured as

a therapeutic community and because it heavily

emphasized substance abuse treatment. Participants spent approximately 4 hours per day involved in therapeutic programming and 1.6 hours

per day in academic education. For example, each

platoon formed a small “community” and met

daily to problem solve and discuss their progress in

the program. Inmates also learned decision-making

skills (called the Five Steps to Decision-making)

as well as life-skills. A total of 200 hours were

additionally devoted to Alcohol and Substance

Abuse Treatment (ASAT) program

activities.

During the in-prison phase, parole staff worked

closely with the inmate and the inmate’s family to

develop a residence and employment plan for

implementation upon release from prison to a 6-

month intensive community supervision program.

High supervision standards included increased

home visits, mandatory substance abuse counseling, weekly curfew checks, and random urinalysis.

Other supervision objectives included enrollment

in an academic or vocational program within 2

weeks of release and employment (at least parttime) within 1 week.

Interviews with corrections officers revealed that

they considered working in the boot camp to be a

rewarding experience because they believed they

were accomplishing something worthwhile. Boot

camp participants reported learning the most from

the ASAT program and were most concerned

about finding a job upon release from the program.

Parole officers were aware of the difficult family/

community environments to which many boot

camp parolees were forced to return. They believed that the smaller caseloads and more intensive supervision allowed them to do a better job.

Program Contrasts. To summarize, Georgia’s

program capacity was 250, and program length

was 90 days. Participation in the program was

limited to young, first-time incarcerated offenders

sentenced to the program as a condition of probation. Case control remained with the sentencing

judge. Approximately 91 percent of the offenders

who entered the program graduated.

In contrast, New York’s program capacity was

1,500, and program length was 180 days. Eligibility criteria permitted offenders up to 30 years of

age to participate. Participants were chosen from a

pool of prison-bound offenders already sentenced

to NYDOCS. Participation in the program was
8

completely voluntary. Approximately 69 percent

of the offenders who entered the program

graduated.

Offenders in Georgia spent 2 hours per week

involved in rehabilitative activities as compared to

offenders in New York who spent 5.6 hours per

day involved in rehabilitative activities. Upon

release, program graduates in Georgia received

regular community supervision, while graduates in

New York began a 6-month period of intensive

community supervision.

Georgia’s and New York’s programs were selected

for illustration because they provided the most

extreme contrast among the eight programs.

Program Comparisons. The other six programs in

the multisite evaluation tended to resemble one of

the programs more than the other. For example,

programs most similar to the model developed in

New York included Illinois, Louisiana, and

Oklahoma. Like the program developed in New

York, program length in Illinois, Louisiana, and

Oklahoma was longer than 90 days. Program

length ranged between 120 and 180 days in Illinois

and between 90 and 180 days in Louisiana and

Oklahoma. During the in-prison phase of the

program, these programs also devoted relatively

more time to counseling and educational programs.

Illinois incorporated a total of 3 hours per day of

rehabilitational activities (1.5 hours of counseling

and 1.5 hours of education). Similarly, Louisiana

allotted 3.5 hours per day to rehabilitational

activities (2 hours of counseling and 1.5 hours of

education), and Oklahoma allotted 3.29 hours per

day to rehabilitational activities (0.29 hours of

counseling and 3 hours of education). New York

incorporated 5.6 hours per day of rehabilitational

activities. Further, Illinois, Louisiana, and New

York developed a 6-month intensive community

supervision phase of the program. Oklahoma’s

program can be distinguished from the programs

developed in New York, Louisiana, and Illinois,

because it did not develop an intensive community

supervision phase of the program.

The programs developed in Florida, South Carolina, and Texas more closely resembled Georgia’s

program than New York’s. Program length was 90

days in each, as it was in Georgia. The four

Exhibit 5. Program Legal Eligibility and Suitability Criteria Based on Individual Characteristics

Mental Physical Free From Prohibition

Health Health Contagious Against

Gender Age Requirements Requirements Disease Homosexuality

Florida Male118 to 251Yes Yes No No

Georgia Male117 to 25 Yes Yes Yes No

Illinois Male/Female 17 to 29 Yes Yes No No

Louisiana Male/Female up to 391Yes1Yes1No Yes1

Oklahoma Male 17 to 25 No No No No

New York Male/Female 162

 to 291Yes1Yes1No No

South Carolina Male/Female 17 to 24 Yes Yes Yes No

Texas Male 17 to 25 Yes Yes No No

1

 Signifies all criteria not mandated by the legislature but imposed by DOC.

2

 No younger than 16 at the time the crime was committed.
9

programs also did not devote as much time to

rehabilitation. The number of hours per day

allotted to rehabilitation ranged from .29 hours in

Georgia to 1.8 hours per day in Florida. Furthermore, none of the programs developed an intensive

community supervision phase of the program.

Programs differed in other characteristics as well.

For example, four of the eight boot camp programs

permitted females to participate in the program at

the time of the study (Illinois, Louisiana, New

York, and South Carolina). In Illinois and Louisiana, female offenders were housed in the same

location as male inmates and participated in many

of the same activities. In New York and South

Carolina, separate programs were developed for

female inmates. Most boot camp programs required offenders to be physically and mentally

healthy, although this was not true in Oklahoma. In

Oklahoma, inmates with physical or mental

problems were placed in separate squads. Louisiana was the only program that prohibited homosexual offenders from participation.

Exhibits 5 through 8 provide a summary of program characteristics. These program characteristics

will be examined as they relate to the program

goals of changing offenders (by means of deterrence or rehabilitation) and reducing prison

crowding.

Interviews

Interviews were conducted with correctional

officers, boot camp inmates, and probation/parole

agents supervising boot camp graduates. The

interviews were designed to capture the views of

the employees toward the boot camp programs as

well as their attitudes toward boot camp participants. Interviews with boot camp participants

focused on their experience in the program and

what they perceived as the positive and negative

elements of the program.

Correctional officers. Correctional officers

generally reported that they thought boot camp

programs were beneficial. In their opinion, these

programs offered young offenders a second chance

and segregated them from the general prison

Exhibit 6. Program Legal Eligibility and Suitability Criteria Based on Criminal History

No Previous No Prior No Pending No History No History No Previous

Prison Felony Charges of Sex of Violent Abscond or

Incarceration Conviction Offenses or Assaultive Escape

Behavior Offense

Florida Yes Yes No No No No

Georgia Yes1

Yes No No No No

Illinois Yes2No No No No No

Louisiana Yes No Yes1

Yes1Yes1No

Oklahoma No No No No No No

New York Yes1

No No Yes1Yes1Yes1

South Carolina Yes1No No No No No

Texas Yes No Yes1No Yes1Yes1

1

 Signifies all criteria not mandated by the legislature but imposed by DOC.

2

 No previous adult felony incarceration.
10

population. Other program benefits included

serving less time, getting off drugs, improving

work habits, and developing self-esteem and

discipline. Correctional officers were often proud

to be associated with the program, reporting that

their job provided a sense of accomplishment.

In New York, officers stated that their work

entailed more than simply demanding obedience

and control. They viewed their role as being

supportive and helpful. Similarly, in Illinois, staff

reported that they were more concerned with the

process of rehabilitating inmates than they were

with traditional custodial duties. In Texas, officers

believed that teaching responsibility, discipline,

and teamwork were the primary goals of the

program. In Florida, discipline and effective staff

were cited as the major program strengths.

However, there were reports of staff members who

had difficulty maintaining a supportive role.

Program administrators in Louisiana, for example,

removed several overzealous drill instructors from

the program. One problem noted specifically by

drill instructors in Louisiana was stress resulting

from working so closely with boot camp inmates.

In Oklahoma, too, staff expressed concern over the

stressful nature of their work environment, noting

that the potential for abuse was exacerbated due to

feelings of stress. Another problem noted by

correctional officers was that of inadequate drill

instructor selection and the consequent high

turnover rate. Apparently, guards were sometimes

chosen for the drill instructor position because of

their military background, not their correctional

experience.

Boot camp inmates. In two States, boot camp

participants reported being somewhat surprised by

the intensity of the program, particularly the

amount of physical exercise, yelling and screaming, and work. In New York, inmates found the

discipline and structured routine difficult to

handle. In Illinois and New York, inmates reported

that they opted to participate in the program

because it meant serving a shorter sentence. In

several States, boot camp participants stated that

Exhibit 7. Program Legal Eligibility and Suitability Criteria Based on

Offense-Related Characteristics.

Length of Eligible Type of

Sentence for: Offense

Florida 6 yrs or less NA No capital or life felony

Georgia 5 yrs or less2

Probation NA

Illinois 5 yrs or less NA No Class X felony3

Louisiana 7 yrs or less Parole NA

Oklahoma None NA Nonviolent

New York Indeterminate Parole (3 yrs) Nonviolent1

South Carolina 5 yrs or more NA Nonviolent

Texas 10 yrs or less Probation NA

1

 Signifies all criteria not mandated by the legislature but imposed by DOC.

2

 Sentenced to 5 years or less of probation.

3

 Class X felonies include 1st or 2nd degree murder, armed violence, aggravated kidnapping, criminal sexual assault,

aggravated criminal abuse or a subsequent conviction for criminal sexual abuse, forcible detention, or arson.
11

Exhibit 8. Number of Inmates Entering and Exiting Multisite Evaluation Shock

Incarceration Programs

State FL GA IL LA OK NY SC TX

“Old”

Capacity 100 250 230 120 150 1,500 120 200

Total

Entered 1,1411

932 8321298 57312,993 47314791

(Dates) (10/87- (1/89- (10/90- (2/87- (1/89- (1/90- (7/89- 10/89-

1/91) 12/89) 10/91) 2/88) 12/89) 12/90) 7/90 10/90)

Graduated 519 8492

363 169 424 1,907 395 338

(%) (48.46) (91.06) (58.7) (56.7) (89.8) (63.7) (84.0) (89.89)

Time in Days 100.5 89 121.3 125.7 104.6 180 84.23 81.1

Dismissed (%) (51.54) (9.01) (41.3) (43.3) (10.17) (36.3) (15.96) (10.11)

Reason for Dismissal

Discipline 427 842

52 22 48 219 39 6

Medical 92 1442

— 11 — 39 36 27

Voluntary — — 2033

82 — 369 — —

Other 33 — — 14 — 459 — 5

they preferred the program over serving time in a

conventional prison due to shorter sentences,

personal safety, and better living conditions.

Inmates noted both positive and negative aspects

of the program. Positive aspects generally included

improving physical conditioning (i.e, getting in

good shape); learning to live without cigarettes and

drugs; improving education levels through opportunities offered; learning discipline, perseverance,

and self-control; and improving self-esteem and

self-confidence. In Louisiana, inmates reported

enjoying exercise, marching, and military drill in

part because it helped the time to pass more

quickly, and because they thought their time was

being put to good use. On the negative side,

inmates reported the following: verbal abuse or

negative verbal communications, the inferior

quality and sometimes small quantity of the food,

harsh treatment by staff, lack of control over time,

and too little sleep.

In South Carolina, boot camp dropouts reported

that they dropped out because they could not

accept the authority and control of the correctional

officers. In Louisiana, dropouts reported that they

left the program because of what they perceived as

inhumane treatment. They also stated they did not

see any value in the required marching and drills.

However, they reported that they would recommend the program to all first-time offenders who

faced 5 or more years in prison.

Probation/parole officers. Probation/parole

officers were generally more skeptical about boot

camp programs. According to supervising officers

in Georgia, real changes in respect for authority

1 In Florida, N=1,141 entered the program. Calculations are based on N=1,071, the number who exited the program between 10/

87 and 01/91. In Illinois, N=832 entered the program. Calculations are based on N=618, the number who exited the program

between 10/90 and 10/91. In Oklahoma, N=573 entered the program. Calculations are based on N=472, the number who exited

between 1/89 and 12/89. In South Carolina, N=473 entered the program. Calculations are based on N=470. In Texas, N=479

entered the program. Calculations are based on N=376.

2 There were problems with the data in obtaining dropout rates. These estimates were based on percentages from actual data

for 1984 to 1989. The estimates of dropout rates may therefore be high.

3 Inmates who leave the program for medical reasons fall into the “quit” category but cannot be distinguished from others. Illinois

DOC officials estimate that a large number of inmates who leave voluntarily leave for medical reasons.
12

and behavior varied. Officers in Georgia and

Louisiana believed, though, that improved appearance and training were helpful in obtaining employment. In Illinois, parole officers reported that

boot camp graduates tended to follow orders better

than regular parolees and were more ambitious in

seeking employment and referrals to substance

abuse agencies. Parole officers in New York

similarly stated that they enjoyed working with

young, more enthusiastic offenders. Probation/

parole officers, though, were more aware of the

sometimes devastating home/community environments to which boot camp graduates returned. As

one long-standing parole officer in New York

replied: “While they are in the boot camp they are

told, ‘You are somebody. It’s important to us that

you do well, that you are fed well, and that you are

clothed well’...Then they go back to utter depravity. It’s like throwing them down a well.”

Changing Offenders:

Deterrence and

Rehabilitation

As mentioned at the outset, a major program goal

was to reduce recidivism by means of rehabilitation or deterrence. In fact, six States listed offender

rehabilitation as a goal (Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, New York, Oklahoma, Texas).4

 Specific

rehabilitative strategies included teaching accountability or responsibility, developing self-worth or

self-esteem, or providing education or substance

abuse education or treatment.

At the same time, however, shock incarceration

programs were designed to serve as specific

deterrents. The majority of programs in the

multisite evaluation listed deterrence as a goal of

the program (Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas). Specifically, it was

posited that either the difficult nature of the

program or the harsh reality of prison life would

deter participants from future offending, also

reducing recidivism.

Military Basic Training Model

Examination of the program’s impact at the

individual level begins with an exploration of its

core elements—the elements that distinguish it

from other correctional options. Rooted in military

basic training, these core components include

military drill and ceremony, physical training,

strict discipline, and physical labor. Is there any

value to this regimented military routine in and of

itself? Clearly, it is these elements of the program

in addition to incarceration itself that are expected

to serve as deterrents.

Research on specific deterrence has not been

promising, however. For example, researchers

have previously reported limited or no deterrent

effect as a result of incarceration in a training

school.5

 Similarly, research on the Scared Straight

program failed to find evidence of a deterrent

effect.6

 Realistically, it is unlikely that the boot

camp experience will lead to increased perceptions

of either the certainty or severity of punishment.

Further, in terms of general deterrence, there is no

reason to believe that individuals on the street will

be deterred by the threat of serving time in a boot

camp prison. In fact, interviews with camp participants revealed that prior to arriving at the boot

camp, they did not believe that they would have

trouble meeting program requirements.

Aside from deterrence, however, the experience of

leading a structured, day-to-day routine may have

some beneficial by-products. Political support for

these programs seems, in part, to be based on the

idea that the regimented lifestyle and discipline of

the boot camp will be transferred to life on the

outside.7

 Completing the highly structured and

demanding program is further expected to inspire a

sense of accomplishment that may generalize to

other activities. This sense of accomplishment is
13

reinforced in many programs by graduation

ceremonies that are attended by family and friends.

Former shock incarceration participants reported

that the program helped them to “get free” of drugs

and to become physically fit. Other advantages

mentioned by offenders included learning to get up

early in the morning and being active all day.

Thus, the military regimen program appeared to

promote physical health by ensuring a drug-free

environment, balanced diet, and sufficient

exercise.

Contrary to popular opinion, however, it is unlikely that the long hours of hard labor characteristic of shock incarceration will improve work skills

or habits. The labor that is often required of shock

incarceration participants is largely menial, consisting of picking up trash along highways, cleaning

the facility, or maintaining grounds. Researchers

have noted that for work programs to be successful

(i.e., promote rehabilitation) they must “enhance

practical skills, develop interpersonal skills, minimize prisonization, and ensure that work is not

punishment alone.”8

 Considering the type of work

generally required of shock inmates, it appears

unlikely that it will be of much value in and

of itself.

In short, the basic shock incarceration model may

have some merit independent of rehabilitative

programming. To summarize, positive by-products

attributed to the core elements of shock incarceration alone may include physical fitness, drug-free

existence, the experience of structured life-style,

and a sense of accomplishment.

Shock Incarceration as a

Catalyst for Change

The basic shock incarceration experience is

designed to induce stress. Incarceration, too, by its

very nature, produces stress. Stress levels peak

early during a period of incarceration and gradually taper off.9

 Research has revealed that prison

inmates were most receptive to personal change

(e.g., self-improvement classes, education, or

training) during this period of high emotional

stress. Within a period of several months, as stress

levels tapered off, however, desire to change did

also. Inmates who, for example, had enrolled in

self-improvement classes dropped out in favor of

institutional jobs. In one study, the researchers

concluded that the desire for change was related to

the emotional distress experienced at the onset of

the prison term. They argued further that treatment

programs should begin as early in the prison term

as possible to take advantage of the motivation to

change.10

These research findings may be relevant to shock

incarceration. Not only are inmates incarcerated,

but they are forced to participate in a physically

demanding and stressful program. At the same

time, most programs require participation in

rehabilitative programming ranging from academic

education, to drug treatment, to individual counseling. Generalizing from the findings then, the basic

shock incarceration experience may make participants particularly receptive to the rehabilitative

programming that is required of them. The program experience may initiate a period of selfevaluation and change.

The implications of this approach are twofold.

First, the basic program may function predominantly as a catalyst for change. Therefore, shock

incarceration programs that do not also offer

rehabilitative programming will have no effect

other than those previously discussed. Secondly, if

shock incarceration programs by definition function primarily as catalysts due simply to the stressinducing nature of the program, attention then

must shift to the adequacy of rehabilitative

programming.

Rehabilitative Programming

Almost 20 years have passed since a researcher,

referring to correctional treatment, appeared to
14

suggest that “nothing works.”11 In response,

prominent researchers in the field of corrections

reviewed the extant literature on the effectiveness

of treatment programs and concluded, on the

contrary, that effective treatment existed and that

on average appropriate treatment reduced recidivism by 50 percent.12 The key, of course, was the

word “appropriate.”

Appropriate treatment was defined as treatment

guided by three psychological principles: (1)

intensive treatment should be matched with highrisk offenders; (2) treatment should address

“criminogenic needs”; and (3) treatment should

follow general strategies of effective treatment

(e.g., anti-criminal modeling, warm and supportive

interpersonal relations) and match type of treatment (e.g., cognitive or behavioral) to individual

characteristics.13 On the other hand, intervention

strategies that have generally been found to be

ineffective are those that are nondirective, use

behavior modification techniques that focus on

incorrect targets, and emphasize punishment.14

The first principle suggests that more intensive

treatment should be reserved for offenders who are

considered higher risks. This is because high-risk

offenders respond more positively to intensive

treatment than do lower risk cases who perform

just as well or better in less intensive treatment.15

Examination of the types of offenders targeted by

this study’s multisite programs reveals that participants tended to be young, male, first-felony

offenders. Many of these offenders were druginvolved as well. Therefore, by virtue of age and

gender as well as the fact that many shock incarceration participants are drug-involved and would

otherwise serve prison time, they appear to be

relatively high-risk offenders.

The second principle requires that treatment

programs target the criminogenic needs of offenders. Criminogenic needs are dynamic needs of

offenders that when addressed reduce the likelihood of recidivism.16 Criminogenic needs may

vary from individual to individual. Important

criminogenic needs include substance abuse

treatment, prosocial skill development, interpersonal problem-solving skills, and prosocial

sentiment.

By and large, shock incarceration programs

attempt to address criminogenic needs. Seven

States incorporated substance abuse education/

treatment; six States provided job preparedness

training; six States included academic education;

and four States taught problem-solving or

decisionmaking skills. Three States (Illinois,

Louisiana, New York) also provided intensive

supervision upon release, which extended treatment/education to the community and sometimes

provided job training and opportunities.

There are, however, additional program characteristics that may influence the effectiveness of

programming. The length of the program itself is

one such example. Four of the programs in the

multisite evaluation were 90 days long (Florida,

Georgia, South Carolina, Texas). Louisiana and

Oklahoma ranged from 90 to 180 days; Illinois

ranged from 120 to 180 days; and in New York the

minimum length of stay was 180 days. It would

appear that 6 months of substance abuse treatment

and/or education is more likely to have a positive

outcome than 3 months. In fact, researchers have

reported that length of drug treatment is related to

successful outcome.17 This may be true of other

program components as well. Furthermore, programs such as Illinois, Louisiana, and New York

that provided intensive supervision upon release as

well as continued educational, employment, and

treatment opportunities may more effectively

address criminogenic needs.

Another important component that may influence

programming is the voluntary nature of the program. In some programs participation was completely voluntary (Illinois, Louisiana, New York).

Offenders must have volunteered to participate and

could drop out of the program at any time. In
15

others (Florida, Oklahoma, South Carolina “old,”

Texas), participation was entirely involuntary.

Offenders were forced to participate and were not

permitted to drop out voluntarily. It has been

hypothesized that offenders who volunteer to

participate in shock incarceration possess a greater

sense of control than those for whom participation

is mandatory.18 A sense of control may consequently lead to higher levels of commitment to the

program.

The third principle, responsivity, outlines styles or

modes of effective treatment that are components

of effective treatment programs. Effective styles of

treatment use firm but fair approaches to discipline, anti-criminal modeling, and concrete problem solving.19 Workers in these programs “relate to

offenders in interpersonally warm, flexible, and

enthusiastic ways while also being clearly supportive of anti-criminal attitudinal and behavioral

patterns.”20 Furthermore, effective programs must

be cognizant of the fact that individual characteristics may interact with treatment style or mode of

delivery. For example, highly anxious individuals

are not as likely to benefit from stressful, interpersonal confrontation as would less anxious

individuals.21

What is most evident from the media reports and

visits to boot camp prisons, though, is confrontation (e.g., drill sergeants screaming at inmates).

Although staff and inmates directly involved in the

program say the discipline and staff authority is

firm and relatively fair, outsiders who view the

program and some program dropouts accuse the

staff of domination and abusive behavior. Program

staff generally attempt to act as anti-criminal

models, reinforcing anti-criminal styles of thinking, feeling, and acting. However, few programs

hire psychologists or others experienced in behavior modification techniques who are intimately

involved in the training of staff.

Discussion

Shock incarceration programs provide a combination of punitive and rehabilitative program elements that are expected (in many programs) to

both deter and to rehabilitate. The basic program

model contains the more punitive elements including hard work, physical training, and military drill

and ceremony. These elements may have some

positive value. For example, they may promote

physical health, a drug-free environment, and a

sense of accomplishment. However, it is unlikely

that any of the individual program components will

lead to increased discipline, accountability, or

improved work habits as frequently hypothesized.

Based on previous research on deterrence, it is also

unlikely that they will have a deterrent effect.

Rehabilitative programming in shock incarceration

programs has received increased emphasis over the

years. If the basic military model is viewed primarily as a catalyst for personal change, rehabilitative

programming is of great importance because the

other benefits of the program are minimal and,

most importantly, are not related to recidivism.

Examination of the three guiding principles of

effective treatment, however, reveals that shock

incarceration programs probably do not maximize

their treatment potential. Although rehabilitative

programming attempts to target criminogenic

needs, the effect of such programming is mediated

by the responsivity principle, which stipulates that

treatment is most effective when counselors relate

to offenders in a warm and supportive manner and

provide anti-criminal modeling and problem

solving. Thus, although staff may try to provide

anti-criminal modeling, the authoritarian atmosphere may not be conducive to effective

treatment.

In the following sections, the effectiveness of boot

camp programs in changing inmate attitudes,

recidivism, and positive activities in the community upon release is examined. For the programs to
16

be deemed successful, positive changes in attitudes, reduced recidivism, and increased positive

activities would be observed. However, since

major differences exist among programs, some

programs may be successful while others are not.

In these cases, differences among programs will be

examined to identify characteristics that may be

associated with success.

Attitude Change

A frequent assumption that is made regarding

incarceration is that the pains of imprisonment will

be accompanied by the harms of imprisonment.

That is, it is assumed that the pains of imprisonment lead to negative attitudes toward the prison,

staff, and programs (i.e., prisonization) and thus

prison will have a detrimental impact on offenders.

Inmates are hypothesized to form a “society of

captives” characterized by anti-staff attitudes. As a

consequence, offenders reject constructive aspects

of the prison such as treatment or educational

programs that may give them the skills needed to

succeed when they return to the community.

An equally destructive influence of incarceration

may be the development (or exacerbation) of

general antisocial attitudes. Reviews of the evaluation literature indicate a positive association

between antisocial attitudes and criminal activities.22 Most theories of crime also recognize the

significance of criminal cognitions or attitudes.23

The impact of shock incarceration on inmate

attitudes has not yet been fully explored. It has

been hypothesized that the boot camp environment

with its strict rules, discipline, and regimentation

may increase the pains of imprisonment and as a

result promote the development of increased

antistaff, anti-program, and antisocial attitudes.

According to this view, the regimented routine

may have a negative impact on participants.

Offenders may leave the boot camp prison angry,

disillusioned, and more negative than they would

have been had they served time in a traditional

prison.

On the other hand, the negative effect of the

regimented routine may be offset or mediated by

the rehabilitative programming required of inmates. As discussed earlier, though, the amount of

rehabilitative programming incorporated into the

daily routine varied among programs in this study.

In New York’s, with its emphasis on rehabilitation,

inmates may have developed more antisocial or

anti-program/staff attitudes. Changes in inmate

attitudes, then, may vary as a function of the type

of program. Offenders graduating from more

treatment-oriented programs may not change at all

or may change in a positive direction, while

offenders graduating from programs that emphasize work and physical training may develop more

negative attitudes over time.

The impact of boot camp prisons on inmate

attitudes during incarceration (attitudes toward the

program/staff and antisocial attitudes) was assessed in this phase of the evaluation. Six States

participated in the study (Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, New York, South Carolina, Texas). The

attitudes of offenders serving time in the shock

incarceration programs were compared to the

attitudes of demographically similar offenders

serving time in “traditional” prisons. Attitudes

toward the shock incarceration program (or prison)

and antisocial attitudes were assessed once after

offenders arrived at the boot camp (or prison) and

again 3 to 6 months later, depending upon the

length of the shock incarceration program. Programs differed on critical dimensions such as the

emphasis placed on rehabilitation, the voluntary

nature of the program, and program difficulty—

dimensions that might be expected to influence

attitudinal change.

Methodology

Subjects. A sample of “regular” prison inmates

was compared to a sample of shock incarceration
17

inmates in Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, New York,

and South Carolina. While four of these States

selected one sample of prisoners as a comparison

group, New York selected two samples of prisoners: (1) offenders who refused to enter shock

incarceration, and (2) offenders who were legally

eligible but were deemed unacceptable at the

reception center. Texas did not select a prison

comparison sample but instead selected two shock

incarceration samples: (1) a sample selected prior

to the implementation of the enhanced substance

abuse treatment, and (2) a sample selected after the

implementation of the treatment program. Researchers in Texas were particularly interested in

examining the effect of the enhanced program by

comparing it to the earlier shock incarceration

program that did not include an enhanced treatment component.

Procedure. Data were collected from institutional

records and inmate self-report questionnaires. The

inmate self-report questionnaire was administered

to both samples once at the beginning of the

offenders’ period of incarceration and a second

time approximately 90 days later (or 180 days later

in New York).

Instruments. The self-report questionnaire consisted of two scales: (1) the Jesness Antisocial

Attitudes Scale and (2) a program attitudes scale.

The Antisocial Attitudes Scale was developed to

measure antisocial attitudes, specifically attitudes

towards police or authority, level of maturity, and

degree of social deviance. The scale has been

found to be associated with recidivism and shortterm change in behavior.

The second scale consisted of 12 items that measured the degree to which offenders expected their

period of incarceration to motivate them to change

in a positive manner (e.g, “I am becoming more

mature here.”), and the belief that the program/

prison will help them make positive changes (e.g.,

“This place will help me learn self-discipline.”).

Note that the questions were written to apply to

either shock incarceration or prison inmates.

Results

Boot camp entrants became more positive about

the boot camp experience over the course of the

program as measured by the program attitudes

scale in Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, New York,

and South Carolina (see exhibit 9). In contrast,

prison inmates either did not change or developed

more negative attitudes toward their prison experience.24 Since both Texas samples were composed

of shock incarceration inmates, both samples became more positive about the program over time.

There was no evidence that attitudinal change

varied as a function of the type of boot camp.

When antisocial attitudes were measured, there

were no differences between boot camp inmates

and prison inmates. As shown in exhibit 10, both

boot camp inmates and prison inmates became less

antisocial during their time in prison.

Changes in attitudes may also be related to characteristics of the program, such as the amount of time

devoted to rehabilitation versus work and physical

training, the number of offenders dismissed from

the program, and the voluntary nature of the

program. Neither time devoted to rehabilitation nor

voluntary exit was significantly related to program

attitude difference scores. However, time devoted

to rehabilitation, program rigor, and voluntariness

appeared to lead to greater reductions in antisocial

attitudes.

Discussion

Despite differences among the programs in content

and implementation, the results of this study were

surprisingly consistent. Boot camp inmates became

more positive about the program over time, while

offenders serving time in prison did not develop

more positive attitudes. Both groups reflected less

antisocial attitudes over time. This was true of
18

Exhibit 9. Program Attitude Scale Scores at Time 1 and Time 2 by State and Sample

56

54

52

50

48

46

44

42

40

Prog ram Attitudes

FLORIDA

Shock Entrants Prison Inmates

Sample

Time 1 Time 2

56

54

52

50

48

46

44

42

40

Program Attitudes

GEORGIA

Shock Completers Prison Inmates

Sample

Time 1 Time 2

56

54

52

50

48

46

44

42

40

Prog ram Attitudes

LOUISIANA

Shock Completers Prison Inmates

Sample

Time 1 Time 2

56

54

52

50

48

46

44

42

40

Program Attitudes

NEW YORK

Shock Entrants Shock Ineligibles

Sample

Time 1 Time 2

56

54

52

50

48

46

44

42

40

Prog ram Attitudes

SOUTH CAROLINA

“Old” Shock Grads. Prison Inmates

Sample

Time 1 Time 2

56

54

52

50

48

46

44

42

40

Program Attitudes

TEXAS

Preenhanced Shock Enhanced Shock

Sample

Time 1 Time 2
19

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

Antisocial Attitudes

LOUISIANA

Shock Incarceration CompletersPrison Inmates

Sample

Time 1 Time 2

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

Antisocial Attitudes

NEW YORK

Shock Incarceration EntrantsShock Incarceration Eligibles Sample

Time 1 Time 2

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

Antisocial Attitudes

SOUTH CAROLINA

“Old” Shock

Incarceration Grads.

Prison Inmates

Sample

Time 1 Time 2

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

Antisocial Attitudes

TEXAS

Preenhanced Shock IncarcerationPrison Inmates

Sample

Time 1 Time 2

Exhibit 10. Antisocial Attitude Scale Scores at Time 1 and Time 2 by State and Sample

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

Antisocial Attitudes

FLORIDA

Shock Incarceration 

Entrants

Prison Inmates

Sample

Time 1 Time 2

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

Antisocial Attitudes

GEORGIA

Shock Incarceration

Completers

Prison Inmates

Sample

Time 1 Time 2
20

“enhanced” boot camp programs that emphasized

treatment as well as programs that emphasized

military training, hard labor, and discipline.

However, inmates in the programs that were

voluntary, had more rehabilitation, and higher

dismissal rates had a greater impact in reducing

antisocial attitudes.

Thus, the results did not support the contention

that the boot camp experience leads to the development of more negative attitudes. Offenders did not

leave the boot camps more alienated or antisocial

than the average offender entering prison. In fact,

during the boot camp program, they developed

more positive attitudes toward the program and

their future.

The finding that both boot camp inmates and

prison inmates become less antisocial during

incarceration supports some current research

indicating that prison may have some positive

influence on some inmates. However, it is important to remember that these offenders were different from the general prison population. By and

large, they were convicted of nonviolent crimes

and had less serious criminal histories. In fact, in

several States, it is likely that many of the offenders would have received probation if the boot camp

had not been in operation. As a consequence, their

prison experience may have been very different

from that of a more “typical” offender. For example, those relatively low-risk offenders may

have had opportunities to enter prison programs or

to move to minimum security prison or halfway

houses where additional opportunities were

available. Such opportunities may have had a

positive impact on their attitudes.

Impact on Recidivism

One of the first questions asked about boot camp

prisons is “Are they successful?” By successful,

many people mean “Do they reduce the criminal

activity of offenders subsequent to release?” The

simplicity of the question belies the complexity of

any research endeavor intended to address it.

Studies of recidivism require consideration of

several important factors. First, any study of

recidivism must take into account the length of

time offenders have been free in the community to

commit crimes. An examination of exhibit 11

shows, for example, that at the end of the first

month, less than 10 percent of the samples in each

State had been arrested. In contrast, after 12

months of community supervision between 30 and

60 percent of the samples had been arrested.

Obviously, time in the community makes a difference in comparing recidivism rates. In this evaluation, offenders were followed in the community for

a period of either 1 or 2 years beginning from the

first day of community supervision.

The selection of a particular measure of recidivism

is also consequential. Different measures of

recidivism are likely to produce different “failure”

rates due to the influence of criminal justice

system-related factors (e.g., compare exhibits 12

and 13). For this same reason, it is difficult to

make comparisons across States even when the

same measure of recidivism is used. For example,

after 12 months of community supervision, estimates of arrest rates ranged from approximately 23

percent in Louisiana (shock incarceration graduate

sample) to a high of 66 percent in Florida (prison

parolee sample). In comparison, estimates of new

crime revocations ranged from a low of less than 2

percent in South Carolina (shock incarceration

graduate sample) to a high of more than 22 percent

in Florida (prison releasee sample). Therefore, in

this study the following three measures of recidivism were analyzed on a State-by-State basis: (1)

arrest, (2) return to prison (revocation) for a new

crime, and (3) return to prison (revocation) for a

technical violation.

Of singular importance to the research question

addressed here, however, is the selection of

comparison samples. Most shock incarceration
21

Exhibit 11. Estimated Proportion of Offenders Arrested by Number of Days Following Release

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360

1.00

0.90

0.80

0.70

0.60

0.50

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00

Shock Graduates Shock Dropouts Prison Parolees

Florida

0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600 660 720

1.00

0.90

0.80

0.70

0.60

0.50

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00

Enhanced Shoc k Preenhanced Shoc k Shock Probation

Texas

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360

1.000

0.900

0.800

0.700

0.600

0.500

0.400

0.300

0.200

0.100

0.000

Shock Graduates Shock Dropouts Prison Parolees

New York

0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600 660 720

1.00

0.90

0.80

0.70

0.60

0.50

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00

"New" Shock "Old" Shock Prison Parolees Probationers

Shock Dropouts

Louisiana

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360

1.00

0.90

0.80

0.70

0.60

0.50

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00

"New" Shock "Old" Shock Prison Parolees Probationers

Split-Probationers

South Carolina
22

Exhibit 12. Estimated Proportion of Offenders Revoked for a New Crime by Number of Days

Following Release

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360

1.00

0.90

0.80

0.70

0.60

0.50

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00

Shock Graduates Shock Dropouts Prison Parolees

New York

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360

1.00

0.90

0.80

0.70

0.60

0.50

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00

Shock Graduates Shock Dropouts Prison Releasees

Florida

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360

1.00

0.90

0.80

0.70

0.60

0.50

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00

Shock Graduates Shock Failures Prison Parolees

Illinois

0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600 660 720

1.00

0.90

0.80

0.70

0.60

0.50

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00

Shock Graduates Prison Parolees Probationers

Georgia

0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600 660 720

1.00

0.90

0.80

0.70

0.60

0.50

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00

"New" Shock "Old" Shock Prison Parolees Probationers

Shock Dropouts

Louisiana

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360

1.00

0.90

0.80

0.70

0.60

0.50

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00

"New" Shoc k "Old" Shoc k Prison P arolees Probationer s

South Carolina

Note: Estimates could not be calculated

for the split-probation sample.
23

Exhibit 13. Estimated Proportion of Offenders Revoked for a Technical Violation by Number of

Days Following Release

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360

1.00

0.90

0.80

0.70

0.60

0.50

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00

Shock Graduates Shock Dropouts Prison Parolees

New York

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360

1.00

0.90

0.80

0.70

0.60

0.50

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00

Shock Graduates Prison Parolees

Illinois

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360

1.00

0.90

0.80

0.70

0.60

0.50

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00

Shock Graduates Shock Dropouts Prison Releasees

Florida

0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600 660 720

1.00

0.90

0.80

0.70

0.60

0.50

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00

Shock Graduates Prison Parolees Probationers

Georgia

0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600 660 720

1.00

0.90

0.80

0.70

0.60

0.50

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00

"New" Shock "Old" Shock Prison Parolees Probationers

Shock Dropouts

Louisiana

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360

1.00

0.90

0.80

0.70

0.60

0.50

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00

New Shock Graduates Old Shock Graduates Prison Parolees

Probationers Split-Probation

South Carolina
24

Exhibit 14. Estimated Proportion of Offenders Revoked for Any Reason by Number of Days

Following Release

0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600 660 720

1.00

0.90

0.80

0.70

0.60

0.50

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00

Shock Graduates Prison (Ineligible) Prison (Eligible)

Shock Dropouts

0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600 660 720

1.00

0.90

0.80

0.70

0.60

0.50

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00

Enhanced Shock Preenhanced Shock Shock Probation

Oklahoma Texas

participants are convicted of nonviolent crimes and

do not have a serious criminal history. Ideally,

these shock incarceration participants should be

compared to similarly situated offenders—offenders who although they received a different criminal

sanction have similar characteristics that can be

related to recidivism, such as age or criminal

history. In this study, comparison groups were

selected to minimize possible sample differences.

Comparison groups, for example, had to meet the

legal eligibility criteria of the shock incarceration

program. Nevertheless, due to lack of random

assignment to treatment conditions (boot camp

versus some other correctional sanction), the

possibility of critical sample differences could not

be ruled out. As a consequence, demographic,

criminal history, and supervision intensity variables were controlled statistically in the recidivism

analyses.

An additional issue related to sample selection was

the appropriate treatment of offenders who

dropped out or were dismissed from the shock

incarceration programs. In four States (Florida,

Illinois, Louisiana, New York), the percentage of

noncompleters was quite high. In those States,

shock incarceration noncompleters were analyzed

as separate samples because they generally spent

very little time in the shock incarceration

programs.

Methodology

Eight programs took part in this portion of the

multisite evaluation (Florida, Georgia, Illinois,

Louisiana, New York, Oklahoma, South Carolina,

and Texas). This section provides an overview of

the research design.

Subjects. By and large, performance under community supervision of samples of shock incarceration graduates is compared to performance under

community supervision of comparison samples of

prison parolees, probationers, and shock incarceration dropouts. Comparison samples were selected

to be as similar as possible to shock incarceration

samples in terms of demographic, offense-related,

and criminal history variables. They were required

to meet the legal eligibility criteria of the shock

incarceration program. Samples were followed in

the community for a period of either 1 or 2 years.

Instruments. Data were collected on demographics (e.g., age and race), offense-related characteristics (e.g., offense type and sentence length), and

criminal history (e.g., prior arrests and prior

convictions).

Either the Offender Adjustment to Community

Supervision instrument or the State department of

corrections data base was used to collect recidivism data. The Offender Adjustment to Commu-
25

Exhibit 15. Estimated Failure Rates (%) at 12 and 24 Months by State and Treatment Sample

Controlling for Age, Race, Criminal History, and Supervision Intensity

(when available)1

State and Sample Arrest New Crime2Technical

Violation

Florida (12 Months)

Shock Graduates (N=112) 56.5% 9.3% 9.2%

Shock Dropouts (N=68) 50.0% 10.4% 15.0%

Prison Releasees (N=109) 65.8% 22.4% 12.3%

Georgia (12 Months/24 Months)

Shock Graduates (N=79) Not Available 16.6%/ 41.4% 5.0%/ 11.0%

Prison Releasees (N=98) 16.3% /40.9% 1.1% / 2.5%

Probationers (N=85) 5.2% /14.6% 1.6% / 3.7%

Illinois (12 Months)

Shock Graduates (N=98) Not Available 2.3% 11.8%

Shock Dropouts (N=98) 12.5% ——

Prison Releasees (N=98) 12.7% 2.6%

Louisiana (12 Months/24 Months)

“New” Shock Graduates (N=117) 23.3% / 37.3% 2.0% / 7.7% 3.1% /12.4%

“Old” Shock Graduates (N=102) 26.0% / 40.6% 3.4% /11.8% 2.3% / 9.9%

Prison Releasees (N=143) 39.4% / 55.5% 12.3% /29.9% 6.6% / 21.2%

Probationers (N=108) 45.6% / 61.6% 4.6% /14.7% 8.3% /24.9%

Shock Dropouts (N=72) 42.8% / 58.9% 14.0% /32.9% 19.4% /43.8%

New York (12 Months)

Shock Graduates (N=94) 49.5% 6.6% 3.3%

Shock Dropouts (N=97) 57.3% 9.6% 12.4%

Prison Releasees (N=95) 57.0% 10.3% 8.2%

Oklahoma (12 Months/24 Months)

Shock Graduates (N=210) Not Available 4.4% /11.3%

Prison (Ineligible) (N=34) 3.4% / 9.0%

Prison (Eligible) (N=70) 5.3% /13.6%

Shock Dropouts (N=31) 4.8% /12.4%

South Carolina (12 Months)

“New” Shock Graduates (N=84) 40.3% 1.3% 2.1%

“Old” Shock Graduates (N=85) 63.4% 13.8% 14.5%

Prison Releasees (N=64) 43.2% 5.7% 5.5%

Probationers (N=69) 50.1% 15.4% 18.6%

Split-Probationers (N=24) 61.2% _____ 22.3%

Texas (12 Months/24 Months)

Enhanced Shock (N=330) 32.2% / 51.7% 4.5% /10.8%

Preenhanced Shock (N=224) 31.7% / 51.1% 3.3% / 8.0%

Shock Probationers (N=115) 30.7% / 49.9% 7.2% /16.5%

1Comparing rates across States presents problems due to differences in analyses and in programs.

2 In Oklahoma and Texas, column refers to revocation for any reason (either new crime or technical violation).
26

nity Supervision instrument is a 19-item questionnaire that provides information on contacts with

the criminal justice system, including whether an

offender has been arrested or jailed, has probation

or parole supervision status revoked for a new

crime or a technical violation, or has absconded.

The date of each measure of recidivism is provided

as well.

Statistical analyses. Community supervision

performance was analyzed using survival time

models. Survival time models are unique in that

they analyze the length of time until an event

occurs (e.g., recidivism), rather than simply

whether or not that event took place. Such models

have been widely used in the operations research

literature (e.g., to investigate time until an electronic piece of equipment fails) and the biostatistical literature.25 Analyzing “time-to-failure” is

generally considered preferable because as a

criterion variable it contains valuable information

that from a statistical standpoint would be inefficient to ignore.26 Survival time analysis also

considers the fact that the actual number of offenders “at risk” in the community changes over time.

Offenders exit caseloads by means other than

“failure,” e.g., legal release from supervision.

Parametric regression-based models permit the

inclusion of explanatory variables, allowing the

examination of “time until failure” conditional on

the values of these variables. Demographic,

criminal history, and supervision intensity variables were added to these models as control

variables in each State. The results from these

models are reported in this paper. Exhibits 11

through 14 present the results of the analyses.

Estimated failure rates are shown in exhibit 15.

Results

Florida. Florida Department of Corrections boot

camp program graduates were compared to

samples of prison releasees and program “failures”

during 1 year of community supervision. Boot

camp program “failures” were required to complete their sentence in prison until eligible for

parole. Analyses revealed that the boot camp

graduate sample did not differ significantly from

the comparison samples when arrest rates or

revocation rates for a technical violation was

examined. Boot camp graduates, though, were less

likely than the prison releasees to have had their

supervision status revoked as a result of a new

crime.

In interpreting the results, however, it is critical to

note that the boot camp graduate and failure

samples were arrested and revoked at similar rates.

Because boot camp failures were generally dismissed during the first 2 weeks of the program,

such results suggest the operation of a selection

effect. In other words, offenders who were selected

for the boot camp program—regardless of whether

they graduated—probably differed in some unmeasured way from those who were sentenced to

prison. Community supervision performance, then,

appears to have been a reflection of these differences and not a function of correctional treatment.

Georgia. New crime and technical revocation rates

(arrest data were not available) of graduates from

Georgia’s boot camp program (called the Special

Alternative Incarceration Program) were compared

to the rates of prison parolees and probationers

over a period of 2 years. (Because of the small

percentage of offenders dismissed from the program [less than 10 percent], a sample of program

dismissals was not analyzed.) The boot camp

graduate and the prison parolee samples did not

differ on any measure of recidivism. In comparison

to the probation sample, however, the boot camp

graduate sample was more likely to have had its

community supervision status revoked as a result

of a new crime.

Whether the prison or the probation sample served

as a better comparison to the boot camp graduate

sample is difficult to judge. However, since boot

camp graduates were admitted to the boot camp by
27

means of a judicial order, the probation sample

may have been the better comparison sample.

Notably, then, the boot camp graduate sample was

“outperformed” by the probation sample in the

analysis of new crime revocations.

However, it should be emphasized that criminal

history and supervision intensity were not controlled in the analysis. In addition, Georgia’s

program offered almost no rehabilitative or therapeutic programming (e.g., counseling, drug treatment, academic education). The lack of programming may have contributed to a more negative

program experience and may therefore explain

why boot camp graduates appeared to fare worse

during community supervision than probationers.

Illinois. Samples of boot camp graduates, boot

camp failures, and prison parolees were compared

in Illinois over the course of 1 year of community

supervision. The boot camp graduate sample was

intensively supervised for 6 months. Three months

of electronic monitoring followed by 3 months of

intensive supervision was mandatory. The two

comparison samples were not intensively supervised. Supervision intensity was not controlled in

the analyses. Measures of recidivism included

revocation as a result of a new crime and revocation as a result of a technical violation. Analyses

revealed that the shock incarceration graduate

sample was significantly more likely to have had

their supervision status revoked as a result of a

technical violation than both comparison samples,

but significantly less likely to have had their

supervision status revoked as a result of a new

crime.

Louisiana. The community supervision performance of two samples of graduates from

Louisiana’s boot camp program, called IMPACT

(Intensive Motivational Program of Alternative

Correctional Treatment) was compared with the

performance of samples of probationers, prison

parolees, and shock incarceration dropouts during

2 years of community supervision. Two samples of

shock incarceration graduates were evaluated to

examine the impact of changes in the admission

criteria used to select program participants. The

“old” and “new” boot camp graduate samples did

not differ on any measure of recidivism. In general, the boot camp graduate samples (“old” and

“new”) had more technical revocations than the

prison and probation samples and fewer new crime

revocations than the prison sample.

When an attempt was made to control for supervision intensity, the results changed dramatically.

Once supervision intensity was controlled, boot

camp graduates had fewer arrests than the parolee,

probation, and dropout samples. They also had

fewer new crime revocations than the parole and

shock incarceration dropout samples and fewer

technical revocations than the shock incarceration

dropout sample. However, due to the difficulty

involved in statistically controlling for supervision

intensity, these results should be interpreted very

cautiously.

New York. Recidivism rates of New York shock

incarceration graduates were compared to those of

offenders who had dropped out of the program and

to prison parolees. In New York, revocations do

not necessarily result in a return to prison. Only

revocations that resulted in a return to prison were

considered here. In brief, the shock incarceration

graduate sample did not differ from either comparison sample in the analysis of arrests or returns

to prison as a result of a new crime during 1 year

of community supervision. The shock incarceration graduate sample was less likely to be returned

to prison for a technical violation, however. This

result is somewhat surprising given the fact that

the shock incarceration graduate sample was

intensively supervised during community supervision and the comparison samples were not. Prior

research indicates that more intense supervision is

frequently associated with higher rates of revocation due to technical violations (data were not
28

available on supervision intensity). However, the

shock incarceration graduate sample in New York

also received greater aftercare opportunities (e.g.,

vocational programs, substance abuse treatment,

and counseling) as part of the community supervision phase of the program, perhaps facilitating

their adjustment during community supervision.

Oklahoma. Offenders who graduated from

Oklahoma’s Regimented Inmate Discipline (RID)

Program were compared to the following three

samples of offenders: (1) shock incarceration

dropouts, (2) parolees who were ineligible for the

shock incarceration program, and (3) parolees who

had been judged eligible for the shock incarceration program but had not been admitted due to lack

of bedspace at the time of sentencing. The recidivism rate of the shock incarceration graduate

sample did not differ significantly from the rates of

any of the comparison samples as measured by any

revocation (arrest data were unavailable).

South Carolina. Two samples of shock incarceration program graduates were compared to probationers, parolees, and split probationers in South

Carolina over a period of 1 year. One shock

incarceration graduate sample (“old”) was selected

when shock incarceration participants were

screened and referred to the program by the South

Carolina Department of Probation, Parole, and

Pardon Services (SCDPPS). The other shock

incarceration graduate sample (“new”) was selected after responsibility for screening offenders

for the program shifted to the South Carolina

Department of Corrections (DOC). The new shock

incarceration sample members had been sentenced

to prison and were subsequently sent to the program by the DOC as an alternative to prison.

In general, the new shock incarceration graduate

and prison samples had lower recidivism rates than

the old shock incarceration graduate, the splitprobation, and probation samples. The new shock

incarceration graduates were less likely than the

old shock incarceration graduates to be arrested or

revoked for either a new crime or a technical

violation. They were also less likely than the split

probationers and probationers to have had their

supervision status revoked. The new shock incarceration graduate and prison samples did not differ

significantly on any measure of recidivism. The

old shock incarceration graduate and probation

samples also did not differ significantly.

Thus, the old shock incarceration graduate

sample—the sample most likely to have been selected from a pool of probation-bound offenders—

performed most similarly to the probation-based

samples. Further, the new shock incarceration

graduate sample—the sample most likely to have

been selected from a pool of prison-bound offenders—performed most similarly to the prison

sample. Differences among samples therefore

cannot be attributed to the effect of the shock

incarceration program.

Texas. A sample of releasees from the Texas

Special Alternative Incarceration Program (SAIP)

who had participated in the program prior to the

implementation of an enhanced drug treatment

program (“preenhanced” shock) was compared to a

sample of SAIP releasees who had access to the

drug treatment program (“enhanced” shock) and a

sample of boot camp probationers. Samples did not

differ significantly on any measure of recidivism.

Discussion

The impact of boot camp programs on offender

recidivism is at best negligible. In Texas and

Oklahoma, for example, there were no significant

differences between boot camp releasees and

comparison samples on any measure of recidivism.

In Georgia, boot camp graduates were more likely

to have had their supervision status revoked for the

commission of a new crime than the probation

comparison sample. The boot camp graduate

sample, however, did not differ significantly from

the prison comparison sample.
29

In Florida and South Carolina, differences among

samples appeared to stem from preexisting differences in the characteristics of boot camp participants and comparison sample members that were

related to recidivism. In Florida, the similarity in

recidivism rates of boot camp graduates and

failures (who spent only a very short period of time

in the boot camp), for example, provides strong

evidence of such a selection effect. Furthermore, in

South Carolina, the sample of boot camp graduates

most likely to have been selected from a pool of

probation-bound offenders performed most similarly to the probation-based comparison samples.

However, the boot camp graduate sample most

likely to have been selected from a pool of prisonbound offenders performed most similarly to a

comparison sample of prison inmates. Thus, in five

of the eight boot camp programs evaluated, the

boot camp program did not have a positive impact

on offender recidivism.

In Illinois, Louisiana, and New York, there is some

evidence—though not unambiguous—that boot

camp graduates may have had lower rates of

recidivism on some, but not all, measures of

recidivism. In Illinois and Louisiana, boot camp

graduates had fewer new crime revocations than

prison parolees, but more technical revocations.

The increased rate of revocations as a result of a

technical violation may have been due to the fact

that boot camp graduates were intensively supervised upon release (including 3 months of electronic monitoring in Illinois). Supervision intensity

does not necessarily explain the lower rate of new

crime revocations, although intensive supervision

may delay the onset of new crime revocations. The

Illinois Department of Corrections reports, for

example, that the new crime revocation rate of

boot camp graduates increased considerably during

the second year of community supervision.27

New York boot camp graduates were less likely to

be returned to prison as a result of a technical

violation. No differences existed among samples in

recidivism when arrests or returns to prison for

new crimes were examined. Individual-level data

on the level of supervision intensity were not

available in New York. It is known, though, that

program graduates were intensively supervised for

6 months upon release and were involved in an

aftercare program. The reduced rate of returns to

prison for technical violations may have been a

result of the enhanced aftercare phase of the

program.

In any case, Illinois, Louisiana, and New York

were the only States in which any evidence was

found that the boot camp program reduced recidivism. In New York, the reduction in recidivism

was limited to technical violations. In Illinois and

Louisiana, graduates were more likely to be

revoked as a result of a technical violation but less

likely to be revoked as a result of a new crime.

These three programs also stand out as the only

three programs that instituted an intensive supervision phase of the program. Importantly, in all three

programs, the possibility that these differences

stemmed from the intensive community supervision phase and not the in-prison phase of the boot

camp program cannot be ruled out. In other words,

it is very likely that differences in recidivism rates

were due to the type of community supervision and

not the in-prison phase of the program.

In sum, although there were significant sample

differences that appeared to favor the boot camp

graduate sample on some measures of recidivism,

it cannot be concluded that their superior performance during community supervision was due to

the effect of the in-prison phase of the program.

Supervision intensity appeared to be a confounding

factor, making it difficult to draw definitive

conclusions.

Some critics of boot camp prisons have suggested

that boot camp graduates may “go wild” in the

community once they are free from the rigid

structure and rules of the program. The evidence
30

from this multisite study does not support this

assertion with the possible exception of Georgia.

In Georgia, boot camp graduates were more likely

to have their supervision status revoked for a new

crime than a comparison group of probationers. On

balance, however, boot camp graduates performed

as well as similarly situated offenders who had

served time in prison or had been placed on

probation.

Georgia’s program may be distinguished from

programs such as the ones developed in New York,

Louisiana, and Illinois by the amount of time

devoted to therapeutic programming. Boot camp

participants in Georgia received very little treatment while they were in the boot camp perhaps

explaining their increased rate of recidivism when

compared to probationers. The program experience

may have had a negative effect. Offenders in New

York, Louisiana, and Illinois spent at least 3 hours

per day involved in treatment-related activities.

This may explain why they did better than the

comparison groups on some measures of recidivism. While clearly speculative at this point, the

hypothesis fails to explain why the enhanced drug

treatment program in Texas appeared to have no

effect on offender recidivism. Oklahoma’s program, too, devoted a considerable amount of time

to rehabilitative programming with no demonstrable effect on recidivism. It should be noted

again, however, that both Texas’ and Oklahoma’s

programs had not instituted intensive community

supervision phases.

Thus, after careful examination of the results, there

is very little evidence that the shock incarceration

experience leads to a reduction in offender recidivism. The results suggest, however, that offenders

who are released from shock incarceration programs appear to perform just as well as those who

serve longer prison terms. A longer term of incarceration does not serve as an additional deterrent.

Furthermore, the estimated rates of new crime

revocations of boot camp graduates controlling for

demographic, criminal history, and supervision

intensity variables were relatively low (ranging

from 1.3 to 22 percent) in 1 year. Thus, they may

be appropriate candidates for early release from

prison.

Future studies of recidivism must employ random

assignment to either a shock incarceration program

or a control group. In addition, evaluation efforts

would greatly improve if treatment and control

groups receive equal levels of supervision upon

release to the community. Shock incarceration

programs are still experimental. It would be irresponsible to continue placing offenders (particularly juveniles) in such programs without more

carefully monitoring their effect at both the

individual- and system-level. If success is measured in terms of recidivism alone, there is little

evidence that the in-prison phase of boot camp

programs have been successful.

Positive Activities During

Community Supervision

One of the presumed advantages of shock incarceration programs is that they engender a heightened sense of personal responsibility, accountability, confidence, and self-discipline. As a result, the

programs are posited to increase the capability of

offenders to adjust successfully to the day-to-day

requirements of community living. This aspect of

the study examined community adjustment of boot

camp prison graduates in five States (Florida,

Georgia, Louisiana, New York, South Carolina).

Community adjustment was measured in terms of

success in pursuing employment, education, residential and financial stability, and treatment.28

Supervising probation or parole agents were asked

to respond to a 10-item index at 3-month intervals

during 1 year of community supervision.
31

Exhibit 16. Estimated Positive Adjustment Scores by Sample and State

1

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

Estimated Positive Adjustment Scores

FLORIDA

Shock Graduates Shock 

Dropouts Probationers

X=.45

X=.37

X=.32

1

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

Estimated Positive Adjustment Scores

GEORGIA

Shock

Graduates

Prison Parolees Probationers

X=.41 X=.41 X=.42

1

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

Estimated Positive Adjustment Scores

LOUISIANA

Shock

Graduates

Shock

Dropouts

Parolees Probationers

X=.43 X=.46 X=.45 X=.43

1

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

Estimated Positive Adjustment Scores

NEW YORK

Shock Graduates Shock 

Dropouts Prison Parolees

X=.55

X=.48 X=.49

Note: Scores are adjusted for sample differences on measured variables. In Florida, shock graduates were significantly

different from both shock dropouts and prison releasees (p<.05). In New York, shock graduates differed from shock

dropouts (p<.09). Supervision intensity was not controlled in New York.

1

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

Estimated Positive Adjustment Scores

SOUTH CAROLINA

“Old”

Shock

“New”

Shock

Parolees Probationers

X=.46 X=.46

X=.49

X=.44
32

Methodology

Subjects. The community adjustment of male boot

camp program graduates was compared to the

adjustment of prison parolees, probationers, and

boot camp program dropouts. The comparison

samples met the legal eligibility requirements of

the boot camp program in the respective State.

Offenders were not randomly assigned to correctional sanction.

Procedure. Subjects were followed during community supervision for a maximum of 12 months.

Due to revocation of supervision status or legal

release, however, some offenders did not complete

the full 12-month followup period.

Index. The 10-item index required probation and

parole agents to indicate whether during the

previous 3-month period the offender met the

following conditions:

■ Employment or enrollment in school.

■ Continued employment or participation in

educational or vocational programs for more than a

3-month period.

■ Participation in self-improvement programs

(e.g., educational, counseling).

■ Attainment of financial stability.

■ Satisfactory progression in following the

requirements of supervision

■ Attainment of upward mobility in employment,

education, or training.

■ Attainment of stability in residency and

employment.

■ Avoidance of critical incidents that showed

instability or immaturity.

■ Demonstration of an inability to solve

problems.

■ Avoidance of involvement in illegal activities.

Responses were summed and averaged over the 1-

year period. Scores ranged from 0 to 1. A score of

1 indicated that the offender was adjusting perfectly to community supervision as measured by

the index.

In three States (Florida, Georgia, South Carolina),

a measure of supervision intensity was also

available. Probation/parole agents reported the

number of offender contacts during community

supervision on a monthly basis. The average

number of contacts was used as an indicator of

supervision intensity.

Results

The results of the analyses are shown in exhibit 16.

In Georgia, Louisiana, and South Carolina, there

were no differences between the shock incarceration graduate samples and the comparison samples.

The shock incarceration graduate sample, however,

outperformed both the prison parolee and the

shock incarceration dropout samples in Florida. In

New York, the shock incarceration graduate

sample adjusted marginally better than the shock

incarceration dropout sample, but not better than

the prison parolee sample. In general, offenders

who were younger, nonwhite, serving a sentence

for a property offense, and who had a criminal

history adjusted less well during community

supervision.

Analyses examining changes over time indicated

that both positive adjustment and supervision

intensity tended to decline slightly over time

during the 1-year period of community supervision. In addition, offenders who were supervised

more intensely adjusted more positively than

offenders who were supervised at lower levels of

intensity. However, the effect of supervision

intensity on positive adjustment leveled off at

about two contacts per month. Increases in supervision intensity beyond two contacts per month

failed to lead to significant increases in positive

adjustment until contacts reached extremely high

levels (e.g., 15 to 20 monthly contacts).
33

Summary of Positive Adjustment Study

Shock incarceration graduates did not adjust more

positively to community supervision as is commonly hypothesized. The adjustment to community supervision of boot camp graduates did not

differ from comparison samples of offenders with

the exception of graduates in Florida. Demographic and offense-related characteristics as well

as criminal history were important determinants of

positive adjustment in each of the States. Supervision intensity was also a key predictor of positive

adjustment, suggesting that intensive supervision

may serve to coerce participation in positive

activities.

The boot camp graduate sample in Florida adjusted

significantly more positively to community

supervision than both the shock incarceration

dropout and prison parolee samples. How did

Florida’s program differ from the programs in the

other States to produce this result? Certainly more

information is needed to address this question

adequately, so the researchers can only speculate.

Perhaps, for example, Florida’s shock incarceration program uniquely equipped its graduates with

the skills, abilities, and motivation to perform well

during community supervision. Florida’s program,

however, did not incorporate as much treatment or

counseling as the programs developed in Louisiana

or New York, although it did devote more time to

such programming than did Georgia. Thus, although Florida’s program did not stand out in

terms of time devoted to rehabilitative programming, the content of its rehabilitative programming

may have distinguished it from the other programs.

This is an issue that should be investigated in

greater depth.

Alternatively, the relatively high termination rate

characteristic of Florida’s program may explain the

superior performance of the shock incarceration

graduate sample. Over the course of 3 years, for

example, approximately 50 percent of its participants were dismissed for disciplinary, medical, or

emotional difficulties. This rate was substantially

higher than the dismissal rates observed in other

States. Thus, participants who succeeded in the inprison phase of the program may have adjusted

more positively to community supervision for the

same reasons that they successfully graduated from

the program.

In the other States, the evidence did not support the

hypothesis that the shock incarceration program

participants adjusted more positively than comparison samples. However, the effect of supervision

intensity was less ambiguous. In the three States

with measures of supervision intensity, positive

adjustment increased as supervision intensity

increased. Thus, more contact between offenders

and correctional officials appeared to lead to more

successful adjustment during community supervision. This result is consistent with what has been

observed in other studies and suggests that supervision intensity may be a key factor in coercing

offenders to participate in positive activities during

community supervision.

Reducing Prison Crowding

The use of boot camp prisons as a means of

reducing prison crowding requires careful attention

to program design. For a program to save prison

bedspace and consequently reduce crowding, the

sentence length of a sufficiently large number of

prison-bound offenders must be reduced. In other

words, offenders who complete the program must

serve less time in the boot camp than they would

have otherwise served in a conventional prison.

For example, an offender who receives a 6-year

sentence might be eligible for parole after serving

one-half of the sentence (i.e., 3 years). With

additional “time-off” for good behavior, he or she

might be paroled from prison after serving 2 years.

In contrast, an offender sent to the boot camp with

the same 6-year sentence would become eligible
34

for parole after completing the 3-month boot camp

program. In the former case, a prison bed would

have been needed for 24 months, while in the latter

case, the bed would have been needed for only 3

months—a savings of 21 months. Used in this

manner, boot camp prisons function as an early

release mechanism.

It has also been hypothesized that prison crowding

can be alleviated by reducing the recidivism rate of

boot camp graduates. A reduction in recidivism

translates into fewer offenders being rearrested,

convicted, and returned to prison. As a consequence, it is expected that the demand for prison

beds will be reduced. Recidivism reduction is

posited to occur as a result of either deterrence or

rehabilitation. This premise is investigated in the

following bedspace analysis.

Entry Decisionmaking

To successfully reduce crowding, programs must

first target prison-bound offenders—offenders who

would have otherwise served time in prison had

the boot camp program not existed. Boot camp

offenders are generally drawn from either a pool of

probation-bound or prison-bound offenders.

Selecting offenders from a pool of probationbound offenders would widen the net by increasing

the number of imprisoned offenders. Instead of

alleviating prison crowding, the program would

serve only to exacerbate it.

The entry decisionmaking process adopted by a

program is critical to the selection of prison-bound

offenders. The programs in Georgia and New York

(see page number 6) illustrate the two primary

ways offenders were selected for participation. In

general, responsibility for program selection rested

primarily with either the sentencing judge or the

department of corrections (although some States

used a combination of decisionmakers).

In Georgia (as well as in Texas and South Carolina

“old”), the sentencing judge assumed primary

decisionmaking power. In other States such as

New York, offenders were first sentenced to the

department of corrections and then selected for

participation in the program by department officials (e.g., Florida, Illinois, Louisiana). In Florida

and New York (for offenders 26 years of age and

older), the sentencing judge had to approve the

department of correction’s decision. In two States

(Oklahoma and South Carolina “new”), both

judge-based and department of corrections-based

methods had been put into practice.

When the sentencing judge has control over

placement decisions, it is more likely that the

program will be used as an alternative to probation

rather than to prison because judges often search

for a sanction that falls somewhere in severity

between probation and prison.29 While this may not

be an unreasonable use of the program, it will have

the undesirable side effect of “widening-the-net,”

rather than shrinking it. By empowering the

department of corrections to make placement

decisions, the probability of selecting offenders

who would have otherwise served time in prison is

maximized. States (such as New York) that rely on

the latter method of selecting offenders for participation will be more likely to alleviate prison

crowding, consistent with their stated goals.

South Carolina provides the best example of the

crucial link between program design and program

goals. As originally implemented in 1987, placement into the program was solely the responsibility

of the court. Evaluation of the program revealed,

however, that during its first several years of

operation an estimated 10 percent of the offenders

placed in the program were actually diverted from

serving time in prison. During its second year of

operation, approximately 36.7 percent were

diverted. The original legislation was then repealed

and replaced with legislation that empowered the

department of corrections (in addition to the

judiciary) to select boot camp participants. The
35

expressed purpose of the legislation was to maximize the ability of the program to reduce prison

crowding.

Eligibility and Suitability Criteria

Differences in the legal eligibility criteria and

suitability criteria affect the ability of a program to

reduce crowding. To influence prison crowding, a

sufficiently large number of offenders must

successfully graduate from the program. Many

boot camp programs have established fairly rigid

eligibility criteria that place restrictions on the type

of offender considered “acceptable” for the program. As shown in exhibit 5, program participation

has generally been limited to young offenders. As

in Georgia, the maximum limit was either 24 or 25

years of age in Florida, Oklahoma, South Carolina,

and Texas. In New York, however, the maximum

age limit extended to 29, thereby increasing the

pool of eligible offenders.

Eligibility criteria further restricted participation to

offenders who did not have a serious criminal

history. With the exception of Oklahoma, all States

permitted only those offenders who were serving

their first term of incarceration to participate (see

exhibit 6). Georgia and Florida further required

that offenders had no prior felony convictions.

New York as well as Louisiana and Texas did not

permit offenders with a history of violent or

assaultive behavior to participate in the program.

Offense type is also pertinent to the placement

decision. Three States (Oklahoma, New York,

South Carolina) restricted participation to offenders convicted of nonviolent offenses only (see

exhibit 7). States such as Florida and Illinois

allowed offenders convicted of violent offenses to

participate with some restrictions (e.g., no capital

or life felony). In four States (Florida, Georgia,

Illinois, and Louisiana), sentence length must have

been less than between 5 and 7 years (see exhibit

7). Some States further required that offenders be

eligible for probation or parole (Georgia, Louisiana, New York, Texas).

The implications of restrictive eligibility and

suitability criteria are twofold. First, to affect

crowding a sufficient number of offenders must

graduate from the program. If eligibility criteria

prove too restrictive, program beds may simply not

be filled because not enough offenders are deemed

eligible to participate. In addition, eligible offenders are likely to have shorter sentences and may

therefore refuse to participate in the program.

Given the difficulty of completing the boot camp

program compared to serving a short sentence in

prison, such a rational decision is not surprising.

Secondly, eligibility and suitability criteria generally limit participation to young, nonserious

offenders convicted of nonviolent offenses—the

type of offender most likely to have otherwise

been sentenced to probation. Targeting this type of

offender, then, would seem to increase the likelihood of selecting participants from a pool of

probation-bound offenders, rather than prisonbound offenders (particularly when the sentencing

judge possesses primary entry decisionmaking

responsibility).

Program Length

Program length also affects the ability of the

program to reduce prison crowding. Remember, to

reduce crowding a sufficiently large number of

offenders must serve less time in the boot camp

than they would have otherwise served in prison.

As discussed, program length varies (see exhibit

8). New York’s program, for example, is twice as

long as Georgia’s (180 days as compared to 90

days). Program length can affect prison crowding

in two ways. First, it influences the sheer number

of individuals who could have served a reduced

sentence as a result of the program. Holding all

other program characteristics constant (including

number of beds), for example, two times as many
36

offenders could have graduated from Georgia’s

program during a 1-year period than from New

York’s.

Secondly, program length is related to the net

reduction in time served. For example, an offender

who completes Georgia’s boot camp program

instead of serving a 1-year prison sentence, reduces time served by 9 months. An offender in

New York with the same 1-year prison sentence,

reduces time served by 6 months. Clearly, the net

reduction in time served will have a significant

impact on prison crowding. Reducing time served

by 1 or 2 months will, however, have a negligible

impact on prison crowding.

Program Size

Program size varies tremendously (see exhibit 8).

New York’s program capacity, for example, was

considerably larger than Georgia’s at the time of

data collection (1,500 beds as compared to 250

beds). Program size obviously affects the number

of offenders graduating from the program.

Differences in program size though may offset

differences in program length. Once again, consider the programs developed in Georgia and New

York. In Georgia, the maximum number of offenders who could have graduated from the program

during 1 calendar year (given that the program was

operating at capacity and the graduation rate was

100 percent) would have been 1,000 offenders.

Under the same conditions, 3,000 offenders would

have graduated from New York’s program during

the same time period. Program size is therefore

clearly influential. Small programs will have

trouble making a dent in the larger correctional

system.

Graduation Rates

The discussion thus far has assumed that all

offenders who enter the programs graduate. Recall,

for example, that the graduation rate in Georgia

was considerably higher than the graduation rate in

New York (91 percent as compared to 64 percent;

see exhibit 8). In both programs, offenders who

failed to graduate from the program were returned

to the general prison population to serve the

remainder of their sentence. Thus, to reduce time

served, offenders must graduate from the program.

Graduation rates appeared to be higher in the

programs in which the sentencing judge possessed

authority over entry decisionmaking (e.g., Georgia

and South Carolina “old”), rather than the department of corrections (e.g., Florida, Louisiana, and

New York).

Considering program length, program size, and

graduation rates concurrently, the actual number of

offenders who graduated from Georgia’s and New

York’s programs were 849 (during calendar year

1989) and 1,907 (during calendar year 1990),

respectively. Thus, despite the fact that New

York’s program was six times larger, only slightly

more than two times as many offenders graduated

from its program than from Georgia’s.

Discussion

Program design is critical to the successful reduction of prison crowding. Entry decisionmaking

is perhaps the most important consideration.

Programs that rely on a department of correctionsbased selection process are more likely to influence prison crowding. Programs that select

probation-bound offenders will widen the net and

increase costs.

Eligibility and suitability criteria limit the number

of offenders graduating from the program and

influence the selection of probation-bound offenders rather than prison-bound offenders. Targeting

more serious offenders with longer sentences

increases the probability that they would have

otherwise served time in prison had the program

not existed. Program size, program length, and

graduation rates are factors that affect the number

of offenders who could have served reduced
37

the program on prison bedspace and on personmonths of confinement.

Results

Variations of the model were run to explore how

changes in program characteristics would influence

prison bedspace needs. For example, models were

run using different estimates of recidivism rates,

dismissal rates, rates of parolee revocations, and

changes in the number of entrants. Exhibit 18

shows estimates of the model using data from each

State program. As the chart illustrates, New York’s

program—the program with the largest capacity—

had the greatest potential impact on the larger

correctional system. Depending on the percentage

of prison-bound offenders admitted, the program

could either substantially increase or decrease the

need for prison beds. This model predicted somewhat greater bedspace savings if 75 percent to 100

percent of the offenders would have been imprisoned. Exhibit 19 illustrates what would happen if

the recidivism rates of boot camp graduates were

reduced by 50 percent. A comparison of exhibits

18 and 19 reveals that recidivism reduction had

little overall effect on the model.

Florida, Louisiana, and New York. Based on a

review of the entry decisionmaking process

adopted by each State and an examination of

program characteristics, in Florida, Louisiana, and

New York it was most likely that 75 to 100 percent

of the boot camp entrants would have otherwise

served time in prison. In each State, boot camp

entrants had been sentenced to prison. Furthermore, offenders judged ineligible or unsuitable or

offenders who dropped out of the program completed their sentence in a traditional prison. While

some offenders may have plea bargained or were

sent to prison by the judge because there was a

boot camp, this was likely not true in the vast

majority of cases.

sentences as a result of the program. Program

length also affects the net reduction in time served.

To maximize prison bedspace savings, each factor

must be taken into account. Models examining the

actual impact of the boot camp programs on prison

crowding in five States are discussed in the next

section.

Estimating Prison

Bedspace Savings

This phase of the study examined the impact of

five boot camp programs on prison bedspace

needs. The impact of boot camp programs on

prison crowding was assessed using models that

yielded estimates of bedspace savings or losses

attributable to the program.30 The model estimated

the number of beds saved or lost taking the following factors into consideration: program capacity,

duration of imprisonment, recidivism rates, and

dismissal rates. The models were run using different estimates of the percentage of offenders who

would have otherwise served time in prison had

the program not existed (e.g., 0, 25, 50, 75, 100

percent). Program characteristics were also

examined to determine whether the programs

were being used as an alternative to prison or to

probation.

The model estimated the total person-months of

confinement saved by determining the difference

between the average prison term and the average

shock incarceration duration. That difference was

then multiplied by the program capacity (or the

actual number of offenders admitted in 1 year).

The initial months saved were then discounted by

the probability that the persons would not have

been confined (they would have been on probation) and the time served by those who dropped out

(voluntarily dropped out), washed out (dismissed

for discipline reasons), or had their supervision

status revoked. The model calculated the impact of
38

Exhibit 18. Average Duration of Imprisonment in Five Shock Incarceration Programs

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

Florida

Georgia

Louisiana

South Carolina

New York

LEGEND

Prison Beds (Thousands)

Probability of Imprisonment

Average Duration of Imprisonment (In Months)

FL GA LA NY SC

Shock Incarceration Graduates 3.3 3.0 4.0 6.0 3.0

Shock Incarceration Dropouts 01 01 13.7 18.1 01

Shock Incarceration Washouts 9.5 2.6 14.5 20.4 12.0

Shock-Eligible Prisoners 8.5 9.6 20.5 17.9 12.4

Shock Graduates Revoked 13.4 13.4 10.7 20.6 13.2

1 No voluntary dropouts were permitted.

Exhibit 19. Estimates of the Impact of Boot Camp Prisons on the Need or Loss of Prison Beds

When the Probability That Entrants Would Have Been Imprisoned Changes
39

In Louisiana, the models predicted bedspace

savings ranging from a low of 129 to a high of 338

depending upon the probability of imprisonment

and other factors. The major factor influencing the

models was the probability of imprisonment. If

most offenders were prison-bound and the size of

the program stayed the same, changes in program

characteristics did not appear to have a major

impact on the prison system. Thus, for Louisiana’s

program to have had a significant impact on prison

bedspace needs, it was critical that participants be

selected from those who would have otherwise

served time in prison.

Examination of New York’s program produced

very different results. Due to the size of the

program alone, it could have had a significant

impact on the prison system. If 100 percent of the

participants were prison-bound, for example,

between 1,037 and 1,668 beds per year could have

been saved as a result of the boot camp program. If

75 percent of the participants were prison-bound,

though, only between 76 and 549 beds could have

had been saved. Thus, even small changes in the

percentage of prison-bound offenders could have a

major impact on the prison system. Bedspace

savings also depended on other program characteristics. Changes in graduation rates or recidivism

rates, for example, had a small effect on bedspace

estimates. Reducing the number of dismissals,

though, had a much larger effect on prison

bedspace savings.

In Florida, the estimates of beds needed or saved if

75 or 100 percent of the offenders had been prisonbound were the main focus. Three of the models

predicted that the program would result in an

overall need for prison beds, although the need

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

Florida

Georgia

Louisiana

South Carolina

New York

LEGEND

Prison Beds (Thousands)

Probability of Imprisonment

Exhibit 20. Estimates From Bedspace Model When Recidivism Is Reduced by 50 Percent Showing

Impact on Prison Beds When the Probability That Entrants Would Have Been Imprisoned

Changes
40

would have been small (ranging from between 8

and 56 additional beds). The results seem to have

been driven by the high washout rate and the small

difference between time served in the boot camp

program and time served in prison by those who

were eligible for the boot camp program but served

time in prison instead. Thus, even if boot camp

graduates were prison-bound, the boot camp

program had a minimal effect on prison bedspace

savings given the size of Florida’s prison population. The goal of reducing prison crowding was

therefore not realized.

Georgia and South Carolina. It is likely that a

much smaller percentage of offenders sentenced to

Georgia’s and South Carolina’s boot camps would

have otherwise served time in prison. If less than

50 percent of the offenders would have been

imprisoned (e.g., probability of imprisonment

equals either 0 or 25 percent) as shown in exhibit

19, these boot camps would have increased the

demand for prison beds.

Discussion

Boot camp programs are widely touted as an

effective method for reducing prison crowding.

The analyses completed here underscore the

importance of program design in seeking to reduce

prison crowding. While the programs have the

potential for reducing prison crowding, the converse is also true.

To reduce prison crowding, boot camp programs

must be designed to ensure that participants would

have otherwise served time in prison. The larger

the program the more important this will be

because even if 50 percent of the offenders were

prison-bound, the program could substantially

increase the need for prison beds. There is no

support for the position that boot camp prisons will

significantly impact prison crowding by reducing

recidivism rates.

Other factors that may influence prison bedspace

needs include, for example, dropout and washout

rates. Further, even apparently small changes such

as increasing the wait between entry to prison and

admittance to the boot camp can have a substantial

impact on the need for prison beds. However, these

factors will not overcome the influence of net

widening.

Summary

The multisite evaluation examined the efficacy of

eight adult “boot camp” prison programs. The

evaluation investigated both the individual- and

system-level impact of the programs. It consisted

of five major components: (1) a qualitative description of the eight participating programs based

on staff and inmate interviews, official program

materials, and observation; (2) a study of inmate

attitudinal change during incarceration; (3) a study

of offender recidivism; (4) a study of positive

adjustment during community supervision as

measured by indicators such as employment and

educational status; and (5) a study of prison

bedspace savings.

Program Characteristics

Modeled after military boot camp training, participation in military drill/ceremony, physical training,

and hard labor was mandatory in each program.

Program length ranged from 90 to 180 days.

Program participants were generally young males

convicted of nonviolent offenses who did not have

an extensive criminal history. Beyond this common core, programs varied on characteristics

hypothesized to affect the ability of the program to

achieve stated correctional goals. For example,

programs differed in the type of therapeutic

programming adopted as well as the hours per day

devoted to such programming. In addition, programs varied in size, location (whether located

within a larger prison or separately), intensity of
41

release supervision, and type of aftercare during

community supervision.

The two major goals of each boot camp program

were to reduce prison crowding and to reduce

recidivism by means of deterrence or rehabilitation. The core elements of the program (e.g.,

military drill and ceremony, physical training, hard

labor) would be expected to have little value in and

of themselves. Although theoretically these

elements are expected to have a deterrent effect, it

is unlikely that either a specific or general deterrent effect will be realized. The structured routine

may promote physical health, a drug-free environment, and a sense of accomplishment, however.

Rehabilitative programming in boot camp programs has received increased emphasis over the

years. Although rehabilitative programming in the

majority of programs attempts to address

“criminogenic” needs (i.e., dynamic needs that

reduce the likelihood of recidivism if successfully

addressed), the authoritarian atmosphere characteristic of the military may not be conducive to

effective treatment. Program characteristics that

may influence the effectiveness of rehabilitative

programming include program length and voluntary participation.

Inmate Attitudes During Incarceration

All boot camp programs had a similar impact on

inmate attitudes as measured by a prisonization

scale. Unlike comparison samples of inmates

incarcerated in conventional prisons, boot camp

participants developed more positive attitudes

toward their prison experience over time. These

positive changes for prison inmates were supported

by interviews with boot camp inmates. They

believed that the experience had been positive and

that they had changed for the better. Although

many of them said they had initially entered

because they would spend less time incarcerated,

near the end of their time in the boot camp they

said that the experience had changed them for the

better and that they were proud of themselves for

being able to complete such a difficult program.

Both samples of boot camp program participants

and comparison samples of inmates incarcerated in

a conventional prison developed more prosocial

attitudes over time as measured by an antisocial

attitude scale.

Offender Recidivism

Based on the totality of the evidence, boot camp

programs did not reduce offender recidivism. By

and large, the recidivism rate of boot camp graduates did not differ from the rates of comparison

samples of similarly situated inmates who had

served a longer term of incarceration in a conventional prison. When differences in recidivism rates

appeared to favor samples of boot camp graduates,

their superior performance could not be attributed

to the effect of the program.

More specifically, the boot camp experience did

not result in a reduction in recidivism in five

States. For example, in Oklahoma and Texas, boot

camp graduates were no less likely to recidivate

than comparison samples. In Georgia, boot camp

graduates were more likely to be revoked as a

result of a new crime than a sample of probationers. In Florida and South Carolina, analyses

revealed that those who were selected for participation in the boot camp programs differed initially

in some unmeasured way from those who were

selected as comparison group members. Differences in offender recidivism appeared to spring

from these preexisting differences and not correctional treatment.

In three States, boot camp graduates had lower

recidivism rates on one measure of recidivism. In

New York, boot camp graduates were less likely to

be returned to prison for a technical violation than

the comparison samples. Boot camp graduates in

New York, however, were no less likely to be

arrested or to be returned to prison for a new crime

than the comparison samples. In Illinois and
42

Louisiana, boot camp graduates had fewer new

crime revocations, but more revocations as a result

of a technical violation. When we contrast these

three programs with the other five, a constellation

of characteristics are found that distinguish these

programs. Most notably, Illinois, Louisiana, and

New York were the only three programs that

developed an intensive supervision phase of the

program. Individual level data was not available on

supervision intensity in either Illinois or New

York. The comparison groups were not intensively

supervised. Therefore, in the analyses, the impact

of the in-prison phase from the community supervision phase of these programs could not be

untangled.

Other similarities among these three boot camps

were a strong rehabilitative focus, high dropout

rates (30 to 50 percent), voluntary participation,

and selection from prison-bound entrants. Inmates

also spent the longest time in these boot camps

(120 to 180 days). Although these similarities are

not exclusive to the three boot camps, it is possible

that these program characteristics in combination

with the intensive supervision phase of the programs have a positive impact on program participants. However, these analyses did not untangle

the effects of intensive supervision from the inprison boot camp phase.

If the military boot camp atmosphere alone had an

impact on program participants, boot camp participants in each State would have been expected to

have lower recidivism rates than comparison

samples. A nonmilitary program with a strong

rehabilitative component followed by intensive

supervision might be just as effective as one with

the boot camp atmosphere.

The evidence that the three programs had a favorable impact on boot camp graduates is weak.

Differences in recidivism were limited to only one

measure of recidivism. In fact, in two States boot

camp graduates were more likely to be revoked for

a technical violation. Furthermore, the boot camp

graduates from these States did not adjust more

positively to community supervision.

Adjustment During

Community Supervision

The analyses examining the positive activities of

the boot camp graduates during community

supervision revealed that with the exception of

Florida, boot camp graduates and comparison

samples adjusted equivalently to community

supervision as measured by indicators such as

employment and educational status and financial

and emotional stability. Boot camp graduates in

Florida performed better than the comparison

sample of parolees. However, specific characteristics of the program that clearly explained these

results could not be identified.

The performance of both samples declined over

time during 1 year of community supervision. In

addition, the more intensely offenders were

supervised in the community the better they

adjusted. However, the improvement in adjustment

leveled off after two contacts per month. Thus,

there may be an optimal number of contacts that

will induce offenders to participate in positive

activities beyond which there is no additional gain.

Prison Bedspace Reduction

Program design is critical to the successful reduction of prison crowding. Programs that empower

the department of corrections to select boot camp

participants are most likely to alleviate prison

crowding because they maximize the probability of

selecting offenders who would have otherwise

been sentenced to prison. Other program characteristics that affect the ability of boot camp programs

to reduce prison crowding include restrictive

eligibility and suitability criteria, program length,

program size, and graduation rates.
43

The analyses indicate that the boot camps in New

York and Louisiana reduced the need for prison

beds. This reduction was greater in New York

because of the much larger size of the program.

Estimates suggest that the Florida program had

very little influence on either reducing or increasing the demand for prison beds. South Carolina

and Georgia correctional systems would have to

increase the number of prison beds to accommodate the program. Sufficient data were not available to examine the impact of the boot camp on

prison beds in Illinois, Oklahoma, and Texas.

Thus, the analysis of the impact of the program on

prison bedspace savings revealed that carefully

designed programs can reduce prison crowding.

Clearly, the major factor influencing prison bedsavings is whether the boot camp program targets

prison-bound offenders. To reduce prison crowding, a sufficient number of prison-bound offenders

must successfully complete the program serving

less time than they would have otherwise served

in a conventional prison. Operating in this manner,

boot camp prisons function as early release

mechanisms.

Bedspace savings models examining the effect of

the boot camp on prison crowding did not support

the idea that prison crowding would be reduced

through a reduction in recidivism. Even reducing

recidivism rates of boot camp graduates by 50

percent did not result in a substantial savings of

prison beds.

Conclusion

Are boot camp prisons successful in achieving

their objectives? To answer this question, objectives must be clearly defined. Examination of these

eight boot camp programs led the researchers to

conclude that the programs had two major objectives—reducing prison crowding and changing

offenders. The research examining the effectiveness of the programs in achieving these objectives

indicates that some programs reached some of the

objectives. Programs can be, and some appear to

be, designed to successfully reduce prison crowding. The results examining the effectiveness of the

programs in changing offenders is less positive.

There is some evidence that some positive things

happened during the in-prison phase of the program. However, there is very little evidence that

the programs have had the desired effect of reducing recidivism and improving the positive activities of offenders who successfully completed the

program.

Jurisdictions considering the development of a

boot camp program are strongly advised to explicitly state the goals and objectives of the program

prior to its design. A feasibility study should be

undertaken to examine whether there are sufficient

inmates who would be suitable and eligible for the

program. Furthermore, the financial cost of the

program must be anticipated particularly if additional beds will be needed, or intensive rehabilitation will be a component of the program. These

programs are experimental. This research is a first

step in examining the effectiveness of such programs. It is critical that correctional programs such

as boot camps be evaluated to identify if they are

successful in achieving their goals.

Notes

1. MacKenzie, D.L., and C. Souryal. (1993).

Multisite Study of Shock Incarceration: Process

Evaluation. Unpublished Final Report to the

National Institute of Justice. College Park, MD:

University of Maryland.

2. MacKenzie, D.L. (1990). “Boot Camp Prisons:

Components, Evaluations, and Empirical Issues.”

Federal Probation, 54, 44–52.

3. Data collection began in 1990. Program descriptions were based on the characteristics of the

programs at the time of data collection. It should

be noted that Georgia’s program changed substantially since 1990. Researchers within each State
44

should be contacted to obtain up-to-date

information.

4. In 1990, South Carolina adopted the goal of

offender rehabilitation.

5. Lotz, R., Regoli, R., and R. Raymond. (1978).

“Delinquency and Special Deterrence.” Criminology, 15(4):539–547.

6. Fickenauer, J.O. (1992). Scared Straight! and

the Panacea Phenomenon. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice-Hall.

7. Osler, M.W. (1991). “Shock Incarceration: Hard

Realities and Real Possibilities.” Federal Probation, 55(1):34–42.

8. Gendreau, P., and R.R. Ross. (1987).

“Revivication of Rehabilitation: Evidence From

the 1980s.” Justice Quarterly, 4, 349–408.

9. See Zamble, E., and F. Porporino. (1990).

“Coping, Imprisonment, and Rehabilitation: Some

Data and Their Implications.” Criminal Justice

Behavior, 17(1):53–70. See also MacKenzie, D.L.,

and L.I. Goodstein. (1985). “Long-Term Incarceration Impacts and Characteristics of Long-Term

Offenders: An Empirical Analysis.” Criminal

Justice and Behavior, 12, 395–414.

10. See Zamble and Porporino (1990), op. cit.

11. Martinson, R. (1974). “What Works? Questions and Answers About Prison Reform.” Public

Interest, 35, 22–54.

12. See Gendreau and Ross (1987), op. cit. See

also Andrews, D.A., Zinger, I., Hoge, R.D., Bonta,

J., Gendreau, P., and F.T. Cullen. (1990a). “Does

Correctional Treatment Work? A Clinically

Relevant and Psychologically Informed MetaAnalysis.” Criminology, 28(3):369–404.

13. See Andrews, D.A., Bonta, J., and R.D. Hoge.

(1990b). “Classification for Effective Rehabilitation: Rediscovering Psychology.” Criminal Justice

and Behavior, 17(1):19–52. See also Andrews et

al., (1990a), op. cit.

14. Cullen, F., and P. Gendreau. (1989). “The

Effectiveness of Correctional Rehabilitation:

Reconsidering the ‘Nothing Works’ Debate.” In L.

Goodstein and D.L. MacKenzie (Eds.), The

American Prison: Issues in Research and Policy.

New York: Plenum Press.

15. See Andrews et al., (1990b), op. cit.

16. See Andrews et al., (1990b), op. cit.

17. Anglin, M., and Y. Hser. (1990). “Treatment of

Drug Abuse.” In M. Tonry and J. Wilson (Eds.),

Drugs and Crime. Chicago: The University of

Chicago Press.

18. See Goodstein, L., MacKenzie, D.L., and R.L.

Shotland. (1984). “Personal Control and Inmate

Adjustment to Prison.” Criminology, 22, 343–369.

See also MacKenzie, D.L., Goodstein, L.I., and

D.C. Blouin. (1987). “Personal Control and

Prisoner Adjustment: An Empirical Test of a

Proposed Model.” Journal of Research in Crime

and Delinquency, 24, 49–68.

19. Andrews, D.A., and J.J. Kiessling. (1980).

“Program Structure and Effective Correctional

Practices: A Summary of the CaVIC Research.” In

R.R. Ross and P. Gendreau (Eds.), Effective

Correctional Treatment. Toronto: Butterworths.

20. See Andrews et al., (1990a), op. cit.

21. See Andrews et al., (1990b), op. cit.

22. See Jesness, C.F. (1983). The Jesness Inventory (rev.ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. See also Jesness, C.F. (1985).

Jesness Inventory Classification System. Palo Alto,

CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. See also

Andrews et al., (1990b), op. cit.

23. See Andrews et al., (1990b), op. cit.

24. Interaction effects were statistically significant in each comparison except when New York

shock entrants were compared to the sample that

refused to participate in the program. Although
45

not significant, however, the direction of the

change was similar.

25. Schmidt, P., and A.D. Witte. (1988). Predicting Recidivism Using Survival Models. New York:

Springer-Verlag.

26. See Schmidt and Witte (1988), op. cit.

27. Karr, S. P., and R.J. Jones (1993). Impact

Incarceration Program: 1993 Annual Report to the

Governor and the General Assembly. Springfield,

IL: Illinois Department of Corrections.

28. Latessa, E.J., and G.F. Vito. (1988). “The

Effects of Intensive Supervision on Shock Probationers.” Journal of Criminal Justice, 16, 319–330.

29. Morris, N., and M. Tonry. (1990). Between

Prison and Probation: Intermediate Punishments

in a Rational Sentencing System. New York:

Oxford University Press.

30. See MacKenzie, D.L., and D. Parent. (1991).

“Boot Camp Prisons for Young Offenders.” In

J.M. Byrne, A.J. Lurigio, and J. Petersilia (Eds.)

Smart Sentencing: The Emergence of Intermediate

Sanctions, pp. 103–119. London: Sage Publications. See also MacKenzie, D.L., and A. Piquero.

(1994). “The Impact of Shock Incarceration

Programs on Prison Crowding.” Crime and Delinquency, 40(2):222–249.

Additional References

Florida Department of Corrections, Bureau of

Planning, Research, and Statistics. Research

Report: Boot Camp Evaluation. Tallahassee,

Florida, 1989.

Flowers, Gerald T., Carr, T. S., and R. B. Ruback.

Special Alternative Incarceration Evaluation.

Atlanta, Georgia: Georgia Department of Corrections, 1991.

Illinois Bureau of Administration and Planning.

Impact Incarceration Program: 1992 Annual

Report to the Governor and the General Assembly.

Springfield, Illinois: Illinois Department of Corrections, 1992.

Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections. IMPACT: A Program of the Louisiana

Department of Public Safety and Corrections.

Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 1992.

New York State Department of Correctional

Services and the New York Division of Parole. The

Sixth Annual Shock Legislative Report. Albany,

New York: Unpublished report by the Division of

Program Planning, Research and Evaluation and

the Office of Policy Analysis and Information,

1994.

New York State Department of Correctional

Services and the New York Division of Parole. The

Fifth Annual Shock Legislative Report. Albany,

New York: Unpublished report by the Division of

Program Planning, Research and Evaluation and

the Office of Policy Analysis and Information,

1993.

State Reorganization Commission (:). An Evaluation of the Implementation of the South Carolina

Department of Corrections’ Shock Incarceration

Program. Columbia, South Carolina, 1992.

Texas Department of Corrections, Texas Adult

Probation Commission, and Texas Criminal Justice

Policy Council. Special Alternative Incarceration

Program: Enhanced Substance Abuse Component.

Austin, Texas, 1989.