Practice Goals
Correctional work industries are designed to provide work experiences for incarcerated persons while they are incarcerated. There are multiple objectives of prison-based work industries, including 1) providing them with opportunities to work, 2) reducing institutional problem behaviors by decreasing the amount of idle time for those who are incarcerated, and 3) assisting in the operation of prisons by using them in institutional maintenance tasks. Correctional work industries can affect recidivism rates because they provide incarcerated persons with the opportunity to develop marketable job skills, which can help lead them to employment after their release from prison.
The 2005 Census of State and Federal Correctional Facilities found that 88 percent of facilities offered work programs. The work programs included facility support services, such as office administration, food service, and building maintenance (74 percent); public works, including road and park maintenance (44 percent); prison industries (31 percent); and work release assignments (28 percent). Slightly more than half (54 percent) of all incarcerated persons held at facilities that offered work programs had work assignments at the end of 2005 (Stephan 2008).
Some correctional work industry programs are regulated under the federal Prison Industry Enhancement Certification Program (PIECP). Under the PIECP, local or state prison industry programs can be exempt from federal restrictions on the sale of prisoner-made goods in interstate commerce, provided they meet all the necessary requirements and are certified by the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA). The PIECP ensures that participants are placed in realistic work environments, are paid prevailing wages, and are able to develop marketable skills to increase their chances of finding employment upon their release. Profits earned from prisoner-made goods have helped offset the costs of incarceration, compensate crime victims, and support families of those incarcerated (BJA 2002).
Target Population/Eligibility
With regard to the PIECP, participation in work programs must be voluntary. But beyond voluntary participation, eligibility criteria that must be met to participate in a work program may vary by state or by correctional institution. Eligibility criteria that may be required include 1) a minimum amount of time without any disciplinary reports, 2) minimum and medium security levels, 3) enrollment or completion in a high school or GED program, 4) a minimum amount of time remaining on a prison sentence (e.g., 6 months), and 5) no major medical problems prohibiting work (Smith et al. 2006).
In addition, eligibility criteria may vary by industry. For example, some industries may require the submission of an application and an in-person interview. Some industries may require prior work experience or may want to ensure that a participant will be a good fit for the particular work that must be performed.
Practice Theory
There are several obstacles that incarcerated adults must face upon their release from prison, including the prospect of unemployment. A lower level of educational attainment, an absence of a steady history of employment, and a lack of vocational or job skills can hinder one’s efforts to find a job and make a decent wage. Providing work opportunities to adults while they are in prison can help them overcome some of these challenges by fostering the skills they need to find employment (Davis et al. 2014).
Practice Components
There are several different models of PIECP programs. Programs that use the employer model often (but not always) have private sector firms located inside the correctional institution that manage the PIECP population and produce goods for sale in open markets. In the customer model, the departments of correction manage the PIECP production facilities and deliver the produced goods to private firms for sale in open markets. With the manpower model, participants are supervised by the private companies but are considered to be employed by the department of correction (Smith et al. 2006, 24).
