Description & Citation--Study No. 6986 | |
Bibliographic Description | |
| ICPSR Study No.: | 6986 |
|---|---|
| Persistent URL: | http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR06986 |
| Title: | Multisite Evaluation of Shock Incarceration: [Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas], 1987-1992 |
| Principal Investigator(s): | Doris Layton MacKenzie, University of Maryland |
| Funding Agency: | United States Department of Justice. National Institute of Justice. |
| Grant Number: | 90-DD-CX-0061 |
| Bibliographic Citation: | MacKenzie, Doris Layton. MULTISITE EVALUATION OF SHOCK INCARCERATION: [FLORIDA, GEORGIA, ILLINOIS, LOUISIANA, OKLAHOMA, SOUTH CAROLINA, AND TEXAS], 1987-1992 [Computer file]. ICPSR version. College Park, MD: University of Maryland [producer], 1997. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 1998. doi:10.3886/ICPSR06986 |
Scope of Study | |
| Summary: | This study analyzes shock incarceration (boot camp) programs in Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas. In each state, offenders who participated in boot camps were compared with demographically similar offenders who were sentenced to prison, probation, or parole. The impact of shock incarceration on offenders was assessed in two major areas: (1) changes in offenders' attitudes, expectations, and outlook during incarceration (self-report/attitude data), and (2) performance during and adjustment to community supervision after incarceration (community supervision data). The self-report/attitude data include variables measuring criminal history, drinking and drug abuse, and attitudes toward the shock incarceration program, as well as demographic variables, such as age, race, employment, income, education, and military experience. The community supervision data contain information on offenders' behaviors during community supervision, such as arrests, absconding incidents, jail time, drug use, education and employment experiences, financial and residential stability, and contacts with community supervision officers, along with demographic variables, such as age and race. In addition to these key areas, more detailed data were collected in Louisiana, including a psychological assessment, a risk and needs assessment, and a community supervision follow-up at two different time periods (Parts 11-18). For most states, the subjects sampled in the self-report/attitude survey were different from those who were surveyed in the community supervision phase of data collection. Data collection practices and sample structures differed by state, and therefore the data files are organized to explore the impact of shock incarceration at the state level. For each state, the unit of analysis is the offender. |
| Subject Term(s): | alcohol abuse, criminal histories, drug abuse, offenders, parole, prison inmates, probation, program evaluation, shock incarceration programs |
| Geographic Coverage: | Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, United States |
| Unit of Observation: | Individuals. |
| Universe: | All states with shock incarceration programs and all youthful offenders serving sentences in state institutions. |
| Data Type: | survey data, and administrative records data |
| Data Collection Notes: | The codebook and data collection instruments are provided as Portable Document Format (PDF) files. The PDF file format was developed by Adobe Systems Incorporated and can be accessed using PDF reader software, such as the Adobe Acrobat Reader. Information on how to obtain a copy of the Acrobat Reader is provided through the ICPSR Website on the Internet. |
Methodology | |
| Sample: | The states selected in this study were chosen because they had programs that incorporated the core elements of shock incarceration but varied on several dimensions hypothesized to influence the realization of program goals. These dimensions include decision-making authority, supervision intensity upon release, program components, and program location. Respondents were sampled differently for each part of the study in each state. Data on offender comparison and change during incarceration (self-report/attitude data) are available for five states. Florida: The shock incarceration sample was selected from five consecutive inmate classes entering the shock program between January and September 1990. The sample was considered complete when approximately 100 inmates had been surveyed at both time periods. The regular prison sample was chosen by first randomly selecting a youthful offender prison. Then a list of all inmates with demographic and offense characteristics that met shock program eligibility was compiled. The first 25 to 67 names on the list were selected to receive the questionnaires. Georgia: The shock sample was selected from two shock programs. Staff at the institutions selected approximately the first 50 inmates who entered each program. The regular prison sample was selected from three diagnostic prisons. The first 50 inmates at each site who met the eligibility criteria were included in the sample. Louisiana: The shock sample consisted of all offenders who entered the shock program between October 1987 and October 1988. The regular prison sample consisted of offenders who were legally eligible for the shock program, but who had not received the required recommendations. Oklahoma: The first shock sample consisted of all offenders who entered the shock program between August and November 1989. The second shock sample consisted of approximately the first 150 inmates to enter the shock program beginning in January 1990. These two samples differed only in the instruments that were completed. The first regular prison sample consisted of inmates who met the shock incarceration criteria between July and October 1989, but who could not participate because of insufficient bedspace. The second regular prison sample met all shock eligibility criteria except for the fact that they had prior incarcerations. South Carolina: Three samples of male offenders and a few female offenders were compared. The first shock sample consisted of four consecutive classes that entered the program beginning October 1989 when the program was run by Probation, Parole, and Pardon Services. The second shock sample was selected after a legislative change that transferred the administration of the program to the Department of Corrections. Data on offender adjustment to community supervision are available for all seven states. Florida: A sample of shock incarceration graduates was collected from the Department of Corrections computer beginning in February 1990. The first 100 eligible inmates were selected. The shock dropout sample was made up of shock participants who did not complete the program for disciplinary or motivational reasons. The Department of Corrections computer was used to identify those dropouts who were being released on probation as of February 1990. The third sample was comprised of a comparison group of probationers who met the shock program criteria. Georgia: The shock graduate sample was randomly selected from those who had successfully completed the program. A probation sample and a parole sample were randomly selected from those inmates who met shock eligibility criteria. A shock dropout sample was not assessed because there were too few inmates to follow as a sample. Oklahoma: The four samples of offenders compared during incarceration were followed during community supervision. The two shock samples were divided into those who did and did not complete the program. South Carolina: The first shock graduate sample was randomly selected from those who graduated from the program when it was being run by Probation, Parole, and Pardon Services. The second shock graduate sample was selected from those who graduated from the program when it was under the supervision of the Department of Corrections. The other two samples consisted of comparison groups of randomly selected probationers and parolees. Texas: The pre-enhanced shock sample graduated from a shock program that did not include drug treatment. The enhanced shock sample graduated from a shock program that included drug treatment. The probation sample neither participated in the shock program nor received drug treatment. Illinois: Shock graduates included offenders who completed the program between June and August 1992. Shock dropouts who failed to complete the program served the remainder of their sentence in prison and then were released to community supervision between May and August 1992. The third sample consisted of offenders who served traditional prison sentences. Sample assignment was not random, but selection procedures were employed to ensure that shock graduates and prison releasee samples did not differ significantly by demographic, offense, or history characteristics. Louisiana: Community supervision follow-ups were conducted one year and two years after the shock program. Many respondents in this part of the study had also participated in the self-report phase. In the one-year follow-up, the shock graduate sample consisted of all male inmates who entered the shock program between October 1987 and October 1988 and graduated. Probation and parole offenders were included in their respective samples only if they met shock eligibility criteria. A small sample of shock dropouts was also followed. The two-year follow-up consisted of five samples. The first shock graduate sample consisted of all male inmates who had entered the shock program between October 1987 and October 1988 and graduated. The second shock graduate sample consisted of male inmates who graduated from the shock program between May 1989 and March 1990. The probation sample consisted of offenders who met shock eligibility criteria. The parole sample was made up of paroled inmates who had participated in the self-report and one-year community supervision follow-up surveys. The shock dropout sample consisted of offenders who entered the shock program between October 1987 and October 1988 and had failed to graduate. |
| Data Source: | personal interviews, self-enumerated questionnaires, and official records from correctional institutions |
| Mode of Data Collection: | The self-report and attitude data were collected from self-enumerated questionnaires. The community supervision data were gathered from surveys completed by supervision personnel. Demographic and official records data were taken from the official records of the respective correctional institutions. |
| Response Rates: | Not applicable. |
| Presence of Common Scales: | Several Likert-type scales were used, along with the Jessness Antisocial Attitudes Scale, a Motivation to Change scale, a Beneficial Expectation scale, an Attitudes Towards Prison/IMPACT (shock) scale, and Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory items. |
| Extent of Processing: | Hardcopy documentation was converted to machine-readable form, and the data and documentation were reformatted by ICPSR. ICPSR performed checks for undocumented codes, recoded selected variables, and standardized missing data codes. ICPSR also produced a PDF codebook and generated SAS and SPSS data definition statements for this collection. |
Access and Availability | |
| Note: | A list of the data formats available for this study can be found in the summary of holdings. Detailed file-level information (such as record length, case count, and variable count) is listed in the file manifest. |
| Original ICPSR Release: | 1998-07-28 |
| Version History: | The last update of this study occurred on 2006-03-30. |
| 2006-03-30 - File UG6986.ALL.PDF was removed from any previous datasets and flagged as a study-level file, so that it will accompany all downloads. | |
| 2006-03-30 - File QU6986.ALL.PDF was removed from any previous datasets and flagged as a study-level file, so that it will accompany all downloads. | |
| 2006-03-30 - File CB6986.ALL.PDF was removed from any previous datasets and flagged as a study-level file, so that it will accompany all downloads. | |
| 2005-11-04 - On 2005-03-14 new files were added to one or more datasets. These files included additional setup files as well as one or more of the following: SAS program, SAS transport, SPSS portable, and Stata system files. The metadata record was revised 2005-11-04 to reflect these additions. | |
| Dataset(s): |
|
Careers | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Official Representative Site | Accessibility
© 2007 Regents of the University of Michigan. ICPSR is part of the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan.
