't
..
c
Make Use of Prison Labor Allow the private sector to employ prisoners By Robert O. Atkinso n
me ri can jails and prisons now hold Illore than 2 mill ion inmates. \Xlh ile the inll}Qrt of this milepost may be more symholic than real, its fiscal im pact is quite real. A t $40 billion annually, o r $20,000 a year pe r p risoner. incarceratio n is a majo r budge t item. So it is likewise significa nt dla t more than cwo-thirds or all (state) ex-offenders arc re-:trrested in three yea rs. One successful activity that helps ofTs("t public COStS for prisons :m d redu ce recidivism is prison wo rk in industries. AI the fede ral level, Fed eral Priso n Industril'S (FPI), :m arm of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, employs prisoners making goods :md services. Und er the trade lI:tnte UNICOR, FPI m:l rkets about 150 ty pes of products and services t'O federal agencies. This inciud{'S furnitllr(·, textiles, electronic COntpOnCtllS and engi ne repair. Hy t11~n d ate. FPI is limit("d to olTering its good s and sen'ices to the federal go\"ertlIn re turn fo r this limitation, me mo Congress has requirl,,([ lhat fl.-deral age ncies purchase a portion o f the products they need from 1:1'1 - even if ,he products COSt mOTe than they would from a private \·end o r. Af the State level . federal legislation P :15S(;([ in 1979 ena b k-d sta te prisons to allow private companies to e mploy prisone rs making goods a lld servi ces for inters(':tte ['f:mspOTl. However, the legislation con (':tined so man y restri ctions thaI the prog ra m e mplo)'s o nl y about 5,000 prisoners. Employing inmates in p rison industries programs provi d c.~ three impon-.Hlt benefits: First, prisoner work req uireme nts leld to be![(-r security in prisons :tIId lower recidivism. T he Fede ral Bureau o fPrisollS' POSt Release Employme!ll Projl'Ct co ncluded that indUSTries inmates we re not only beller behaved while in p rison but we re 35 percent less likely to be rearrested afte r rdease. Second, prison industries programs generate revenue that can go to offset taxpayer-s upported costs for housing prisoners. This revenue can suppOrt vic tim restitutio n, child su ppOrt and the like. Thi rd. in COlHraSt 10 those that argue
A
26
that prison labor is a :ocro-su m ga me, inmate work actually helps the eco nomy. T he economy benefits because both regular :lIld prison worke rs arc prod ucing outpm. If a morc robust inmate labo r progr.1I11 succeeded in employing an additional 350,000 prisone rs who produced an a\'erage of $35,000 l:fer year in value-ad ded, the U.S. econo my would he $ 12.2 billion brger. In r('cem yea rs. however, pr i ~on ind ustries programs have generated increasing crit icism. Some on the Lefi oppose prison labor: these critics do not bel ieve t!l;H prisoners sh ould be rC<luired to work. Furt!1("Tlllorc, {he}' m:linrain 111:11 , if prison COStS aR· lowered by requi ring prisoners to work, it will be easi('r for elected oflici:tls to enaCt tougha sente ncing ]}Qlicics. In contrasl, som e on d1t~ Ri ght o ppose FPI because Ihey see it as an unwarr:tntcd gove rtlmelH intrusion into Ihe marketplace. Fin~lI y. a narrow segme nt of employers and organized Ilbor argue that prison I:tbor takes jobs away from law-abiding Atlle rieans. As a res ult, Congress has introdu ced legislat io n to <lr:lIlwticall y restrict FPl"s abilit}' to employ priso n labor. T he Federal Industries COl1lpetilion l!1 Pri son C ontrac ti ng Act of 2003 ( H .R. 18 29) passed the H o use in 2004 by a wide marg in; a companion bill awaits consider:ttion in the Scnate. The bill, sponsored by Rep. Peter Hoekstra, Michiga n Republica n, will allow federal age ncies 10 buy the products Ihey now buy from FPI from priva te conlracmrs ~ that is, if the price is lower. This will l'iiminate approximately half of dte current sales of FPI. The bill no ne theless ac knowledges the importance of work for prisoners and therefore authorizes funding for voca tional tmining and allows FI' I 10 sell to non-profits at an oper.nional loss (with the difTerenee being made up by an appropr iation from C ongress). Congress i~ right rhat FI'[ is in m::ed of significant reform. However. while the sratus (IUO was not sustainable. dr:tmatiC:ll1y red ucing FPJ's role WlS not Ihe on ly. or the best choice. Instead , Congress could fi nd an alternarive means of addressing t ht" issue WWW.
ri llOllsoc.CJrg
of unfair COnllX., til ion while Hill gening the social and ccollomic bcndils from prison industries program. This can be done by
eli minating FPI's preference
(0
scll
to
the
fed eral gover nment a nd by allowing pri\':1lc Sl'c{() r companies to ('mploy prisoners. Private companies should be able 10 go inm federal or state prisons and, \Virh tht· con senT of the prison officials, hire prisone rs as their employees. FPI should TransiTion out of the business of making and sell ing goods. Instead, they should fl cilit:He the employmell t of inm:llC labor by private sector companies. In their new rolc, FP[ would provide the security and space for p riva te Co ntrac tors to SCI up production f.1cilities insi(le the prison. AI [he same time, Congress should lift the federal restrict io ns govcrning tile Prison Indust ry Enhance ment (PIE) Program so Ihal S[;lte prison programs could more.' dre.'ctivdy engage with pri va te.' compauics who want to emplo)' prisoners. Six years after Congress passed legislatio n ending wclr.'1 re as we know it, it is ironic that the re is one m:tjor group in so c iery that still gets public sup pOrt wit hout work rC<luiremellt: prisollers. As a resul t, it is timc ro e nlist the {' nm::prent'urial energies of t he private sector and reduce the regulatio ns ,lIld barriers to compa nies em ploying prisoners. Doing so is good for prisoners, the justice system, ernpl oyers and taxpayers. \;7
-
Robt'rt D. Atkimoll is /lict' prt'sidt'llt ofthe /'rogrnsi/le Policy Imriwrt tllld dirt<"lor of PP/ j Trrlmology 17m! New econolllY Project
The RillOn Forum · Winter 2005