Shock Incarceration in Louisiana, 1987-1989 (ICPSR 9926)

Time Period(s) View help for Time Period(s)

Date of Collection View help for Date of Collection

Hide

Study Purpose View help for Study Purpose

This study describes the results of one phase of an evaluation of the "shock incarceration" program formally called IMPACT (Intensive Motivational Program of Alternative Correctional Treatment) in the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections (LDPSC). The evaluation was completed by the Louisiana State University in collaboration with the LDPSC. The study examines the changes which occur in offenders participating in the shock program from start through parole and compares these offenders with a matched sample of offenders not in the shock program. The results of the study were intended to provide a valuable assessment of the shock program for the LDPSC and to furnish other jurisdictions with information relevant to the development of such programs in their correctional systems. Shock program participant samples were compared with three nonshock offender samples: (1) probation, (2) parole, and (3) incarcerated. Four meaningful sets of sample comparisons were made. First, the nonshock incarcerated offenders were compared to the incarcerated shock program participants. Second, shock dropouts were compared to shock completers. Third, shock completers and nonshock incarcerated offenders were compared. Fourth, nonshock parole and probation samples were compared to shock completers and shock dropouts. Three types of data were collected for this study: (1) record, (2) self-report, and (3) parole/probation performance. Part 1 consists of inmate data collected from the incarcerated shock program participants (N = 208) and the incarcerated nonshock offenders (N = 144). Information includes police record data, clinical diagnostic data, offender's self-reported demographic data, scales for self-reported attitudes, and offender's self-reported criminal and substance abuse history. Part 2 contains demographic data collected for all samples, including police record data and clinical diagnostic data. Part 3 consists of parole and probation data for all inmates. Offenders were followed for 12 months after leaving prison or until they failed community supervision (by absconding, being jailed for a lengthy period of time, or having their parole/probation revoked). Consequently, there is monthly data for between 1 to 12 months for each offender. Information includes items relating to parolees' performance at work and school, substance abuse counseling, interpersonal relations, compliance with intensive supervision program requirements, and contacts with the criminal justice system.

Study Design View help for Study Design

Five groups were studied using a quasi-experimental design. The shock participants were statistically compared with the nonshock groups using a time-series control group design. The design protects against, or allows testing of, invalidity due to history, testing, instrumentation, selection, and mortality.

Sample View help for Sample

Five offender samples were selected: (1) shock completers (N = 116), (2) shock dropouts (N = 92), (3) nonshock probationers (N = 108), (4) nonshock parolees (N = 74), and (5) nonshock incarcerated (N = 98, with partial records for an additional 46). All inmates who entered the shock program from October 1987 until October 1988 who were willing to participate in the study were included in the shock samples. The three nonshock samples were matched as closely as possible to the shock samples by only selecting subjects who would have been legally eligible to enter the shock program. The nonshock probation and parole samples were selected from six probation and parole districts in the state of Louisiana: Natchitoches, East Baton Rouge, Shreveport, New Orleans, Thibodaux, and Amite. The probation sample was selected from offenders who had been given primary recommendation for the shock program by a probation agent but who were sentenced to probation instead. The parole sample was selected from first offenders being paroled from the LDPSC. Each parolee's record was examined for any data which would have disqualified the offenders from participating in the shock program. For the nonshock incarcerated sample, priority was given to offenders who received a primary recommendation for the shock program from a probation agent but were not recommended to the program by their sentencing judge. Of these, 46 were not available for the entire study, resulting in a completed sample of 98.

Universe View help for Universe

Male offenders in six probation and parole districts in Louisiana.

Unit(s) of Observation View help for Unit(s) of Observation

Data Source View help for Data Source

Data Type(s) View help for Data Type(s)

Description of Variables View help for Description of Variables

Information on demographics, sentence characteristics, release date, and criminal history were collected from LDPSC records for all samples. LDPSC information for the nonshock incarcerated and paroled offenders and shock program participants was also collected. This included I.Q. (Beta II) and MMPI scores, and diagnostic personnel evaluations of mental health, substance abuse, general attitude, adjustment, and violence potential. The self-report data consisted of a number of attitude and personality scales, as well as drug and alcohol self-report information. Several scales were developed to measure attitudes and expectations about prison programs. These scales gauged inmates' attitudes toward the drill instructors or staff, the difficulty of the program, and counseling and special programs. Previously-designed scales were also used to measure aggressiveness, adjustment to prison, frequency and seriousness of inmates' conflicts with others, personality type and characteristics, and the method used to cope with difficult situations. Drug and alcohol self-report items focused on amount of use, type of use, frequency of use, method of obtaining illegal drugs, and age at first use. The parole performance evaluation completed each month included items relating to parolees' performance at work and in school, substance abuse counseling, interpersonal relations, intensive supervision program requirements, and contacts with the criminal justice system. To examine whether shock incarceration helped problem drinkers adjust to law-abiding, prosocial lives, an "Adjustment to Prosocial Living Index" was developed.

Response Rates View help for Response Rates

Not applicable.

Presence of Common Scales View help for Presence of Common Scales

Several scales were developed to measure attitudes and expectations about prison programs (MacKenzie and Shaw, 1990). Two scales, Easy Time and Beneficial Expectations, were developed to measure shock inmates' expectations about the shock program. Three scales, Personal Change, The Victim, and Staff and Program Attitudes, were developed to examine both shock and nonshock inmates' attitudes toward shock incarceration and regular prison, respectively. "Assertive Interactions" (Aggressiveness) were measured with a previously-designed nine-item scale (some items are similar to prisonization scales) (Goodstein and MacKenzie, 1984). Adjustment to prison was measured with the "State-Trait Anxiety Scale" (Speilberger, Gorsuch, and Lushene, 1970), and "Conflicts With Others" (Shoemaker and Hillery, 1980), a scale measuring the frequency and seriousness of inmates' conflicts with others. "Coping Methods" were measured with a scale developed by McCrae (1987), which is designed to measure the method one uses to cope with a difficult situation. Personality type and characteristics were measured using the "Jesness" scales, and two locus-of-control scales, the "Perceived Control Scale," developed to be situation-specific (Riechers, 1988), and a more abstract locus-of-control scale developed by Valecha and Ostrom (1974). Additional scales included the I.Q. (Beta II) and MMPI scales.

Hide

Original Release Date View help for Original Release Date

1993-12-18

Version History View help for Version History

Hide