Predicting the likelihood of rearrest among shock incarceration graduates: Moving beyond another nail in the boot camp coffin

Crime and Delinquency

Volumn 47, Issue 2, 2001, Pages 221-242

  Stinchcomb, Jeanne B ^a   Clinton Terry III, W ^b  

^a FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 23044525190     PISSN: 00111287     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0011128701047002004     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Austin, J., & Jones, M., & Bolyard, M. (1993). The growing use of jail boot camps: The current stale of the art [National Institute of Justice Research in Brief]. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
2. Bourque, B. B., Han, M., & Hill, S. M. (1996). A national survey of aftercare provision for boot camp graduates [National Institute of Justice Research in Brief]. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
3. Bums, R. (1996, July-August). Boot camps: The empirical record. American Jails, 42-49.
4. Castellano, T. C., & Plant, S. M. (1996). Boot camp aftercare programming: Current limits and suggested remedies. In A. Fins (Ed.), Juvenile and adult boot camps (pp. 235-255). Lanham, MD: American Correctional Association.
5. Cowles, E. L., Castellano, T. C., & Gransky, L. A. (1995). Boot camp drug treatment and aftercare intervention: An evaluation review. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
6. Cronin, R. C. (1994). Boot camps for adult and juvenile offenders: Overview and update [National Institute of Justice Research in Brief]. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
7. Dickey, W. J. ( 1994). Evaluating boot camp prisons. Washington, DC: Campaign for an Effective Crime Policy.
8. Gendreau, P. (1996). The principles of effective intervention with offenders. In A. T. Harland (Ed.), Choosing correctional options that work: Defining the demand and evaluating the supply (pp. 117-130). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
9. MacKenzie, D., & Piquero, A. (1994). The impact of shock incarceration programs on prison crowding. Crime & Delinquency, 40, 222-249.
10. MacKenzie, D., & Souryal, C. (1994). Multisite evaluation of shock incarceration [National Institute of Justice Research Report]. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
11. Minor, K. I. (1999). Is recidivism a valid measure of correctional success? In C. B. Fields & S. A. Egger (Eds.), Controversial issues in corrections (pp. 1-8). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
12. Osler, M. W. (1991). Shock incarceration: Hard realities and real possibilities. Federal Probation, 55(1), 34-42.
13. Parent, D. (1989). Shock incarceration: An overview of existing programs [National Institute of Justice Issues and Practices]. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
14. Peters, M., Thomas, T., & Zamberlan, C. (1997). Boot camps for juvenile offenders: Program summary. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
15. Recidivism rates reveal boot camp shortcomings. (1995). Corrections Alert, 2(15), 1-2.
16. Reno asks prison officials for help rehabilitating criminals. (1995, August 11). Corrections Digest, p. 2.
17. Sharp, D. (1995). Boot camps - Punishment and treatment [Special insert]. Corrections Today, 57(3).
18. Shock incarceration works in New York State, new study finds. (1996, April 26). Corrections Digest, 1, 6-9.
19. U.S. General Accounting Office. (1993). Prison boot camps: Short-term prison costs reduced, but long-term impact uncertain. Washington, DC: Author.