Multisite Evaluation of Shock Incarceration: [Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas], 1987-1992 (ICPSR 6986)
Principal Investigator(s): MacKenzie, Doris Layton, University of Maryland
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.
These data are freely available.
WARNING: Because this study has many datasets, the download all files option has been suppressed, and you will need to download one dataset at a time.
MacKenzie, Doris Layton. MULTISITE EVALUATION OF SHOCK INCARCERATION: [FLORIDA, GEORGIA, ILLINOIS, LOUISIANA, OKLAHOMA, SOUTH CAROLINA, AND TEXAS], 1987-1992. ICPSR version. College Park, MD: University of Maryland [producer], 1997. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 1998. http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR06986.v1
Persistent URL: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR06986.v1
This study was funded by:
- United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. National Institute of Justice (90-DD-CX-0061)
Scope of Study
Subject Terms: 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 Types: 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.
Study Purpose: This study was designed to analyze shock incarceration (boot camp) programs in Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas. It was guided primarily by two 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?
Study Design: This study consists of two main parts: offender comparison and change during incarceration (self-report/attitude data) and offender adjustment to community supervision (community supervision data). Self-report/attitude data are available for five states (Florida, Georgia, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and South Carolina). In each state, a sample of shock incarceration inmates was compared to a sample of traditional prison inmates during incarceration. Subjects in both samples completed a self-report questionnaire twice in a repeated measure design. The first questionnaire was completed early in their incarceration and the second was administered approximately 90 days later, except in Louisiana where the survey was administered at three points in time. The questionnaire consisted of personal history and attitude items. Demographic data were also collected on each subject from official records. Community supervision data, which are available for all seven states, were compiled to compare three samples of offenders: (1) shock incarceration graduates, (2) offenders on probation or parole, and (3) shock incarceration dropouts. In most states, data were collected at three-month intervals for one year. In Oklahoma, data were collected at two time periods. Offenders in Texas were followed for two years. In Louisiana, subjects were evaluated after one year and again after two years. For most states, the subjects sampled in the self-report/attitude survey were different from those who were surveyed in the community supervision 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 shock or comparison group offender.
Sample: States were selected based on the existence of shock incarceration programs that varied along key hypothesized dimensions. Respondents were sampled differently in each state. In many cases convenience samples were used, selecting the first offenders that met the eligibility criteria until the sample goal was reached. In other cases, random sampling was used.
personal interviews, self-enumerated questionnaires, and official records from correctional institutions
Description of Variables: The self-report/attitude data files measure offender comparison and change during incarceration. The same core questionnaire was used in Florida, Georgia, Oklahoma, and South Carolina. Variables in these files include type of crime committed, prior arrests and convictions, juvenile delinquency, drinking and drug use, attitudes toward the shock program, asocial attitudes, and demographic information, such as age, race, employment, income, education, and military experience. The South Carolina file also has a sex variable, since the sample includes both men and women. The other data files measure offender adjustment to community supervision. The same core questionnaire was used in Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina. Variables in these files include type of crime committed, prior arrests and convictions, and demographic information, such as age and race. In addition, information about offenders' behaviors during community supervision was recorded, including arrests, absconding incidents, jail time, pending violations, revocations, drug use, educational and employment experiences, financial and residential stability, overall progress in the program, and number and types of contacts with community supervision officers. The South Carolina file contains an additional variable, age at first arrest. The Georgia file contains additional variables from a two-year follow-up that measure arrests, revocations, abscondings, and legal releases. The Louisiana files contain more detailed information than the other state files (Parts 11-18). In addition to similar self-report and community supervision variables, the Louisiana data provide other attitude and psychological variables. These include the Jessness personality inventory, attitudes toward shock incarceration, locus of control, perceived control of events, coping methods, state-trait anxiety, assertive interactions, and conflicts in prison.
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: ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection:
- Standardized missing values.
- Performed recodes and/or calculated derived variables.
- Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes.
Original ICPSR Release: 1998-07-28
- 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.
Related Publications (?)
- List all ~24 citations associated with this study
Most Recent Publications
- Citations exports are provided above.
Export Study-level metadata (does not include variable-level metadata)
If you're looking for collection-level metadata rather than an individual metadata record, please visit our Metadata Records page.