Prisoner labor

Prisoner labor is the productive effort contributed to the economy by those who are incarcerated. Traditionally, prison labor has tended to be inefficient, largely due to its being bureaucratically organized. Specifically, Concerns about security have often been such a high priority that the freedom needed for prisoners to accomplish productive work has been mostly eliminated.

Prison has sometimes been compared to a third world country due to the lack of capital available to prisoners. John Washburn writes, "A more apt analogy would be a comparison of prison labor to the economies of Germany and Japan after World War II. Each was bankrupt, devastated, had no sizeable natural resources, and was under occupation. Yet over the past decades, both countries have shown what the utilization of 'human capital' can do."

Systems

The first prison labor system to be used was the "public account system" in which the state assumed the entire responsibility for its program, including providing for the prisoner's upkeep, providing raw materials for the manufacture of goods, and acting as middle man by selling products. This system, which dates back to the 1700s, provided restitution to the victim and to the state. The "public works and ways system" used prisoners for state projects. It fell out of favor during the 1800s, an era in which the "contract" system of prison labor, which allowed private firms to contract for prisoner labor, was widely used. An outside contractor paid the state a specified sum for the labor of a prisoner based on a fixed amount per prisoner. Another system, the "lease" system, was predominant in the southern states following the American Civil War. Under that system, the state would lease the prisoner to a private individual or corporation for a specified sum. In turn, the lessee would agree to house, feed, clothe, and guard the prisoner.

Another system, the "piece-price system", allowed a contractor to pay a price to the prison authorities for each article the prisoner completed. The prison authorities could then pay a small wage to the prisoner, including incentives for reaching quotas. This system, although used experimentally in Massachusetts, was not as profitable to the state as other systems and did not become widespread.

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, organized labor and business successfully lobbied for legislation, such as the Hawes-Cooper Act of 1929, the Ashurst-Sumners Act, and the Prohibitory Act of 1940, prohibiting private firms from contracting for prison labor and selling prison-made goods on the open market. The percentage of the prison population engaged in some sort of productive labor declined from 75 percent in 1885 to 45 percent in 1940. The new regulations led to the "state-use" system, in which prisoners work exclusively for the state and the state is the exclusive market for prison-made goods. The state-use system differed from the public account system in that it was a closed system that did not involve the private sector at all, except as a source of raw materials. In the 20th century, the public works and ways system regained popularity.

One of the arguments for allowing prisoners opportunities to earn higher wage rates through more productive work is that "the savings inmates accumulate in prison may help ease their transition into open society." This could reduce or eliminate the need for lengthy stays in halfway houses. Private participation in prison work programs has taken various forms. In some states, private industry has leased space and operated directly within the prison. Elsewhere prisons have instituted subcontracting arrangements with private industry. Business persons have served as consultants to prisons by investigating the most effective method for improving state industry programs. Private entrepreneurs have also provided financial assistance and have served on the board of directors of one prisoner-run program.

Prisoner-run businesses

One proposal for making prison labor more efficient is to allow prisoners to run businesses and retain profits. Officially sanctioned inmate-run businesses have included Con'Puter Systems Programming (Massachusetts), the Inmate Novelty Program (Maine), the Law Enforcement Assistance Association's Free Venture Pilot Program, and the Bureau of Justice Assistance's Private Sector/Prison Industry Enhancement Certificate Program.

Con'Puter Systems Programming was a partnership created by inmate graduates of a prison-based computer training programme. The partners were both the managers of the business and were responsible for its organisation. It was based in the minimum security Massachusetts Correctional Institution in Framingham. It was a true entrepreneurship program in the partners had profits at risk and were responsible for borrowed equipment. They made daily decisions in scheduling, financing, and advertising. The firm earned a net profit of $35,000 on gross revenues of $96,000. The recidivism rate of the prisoners involved was as low as 3 percent. Con'Puter was ultimately closed amid charges of tax evasion. It was also charged but never proven that Con'Puter served as a front for drug and gambling operations.

The Inmate Novelty Program produced novelties for sale to tourists. Within three years, the gross revenues of the novelty program went from $70,000 to $550,000. Many of the involved prisoners began sending money home to their families. Ultimately, a ten-week lockdown was initiated by the State Bureau of Corrections and the entire administrative staff of Maine State Prison was reassigned. Restrictions were imposed on the Inmate Novelty Program amid concerns that a small group on inmates known as the 'novelty kings' had gained too much control over the day-to-day aspects of prison life. In addition, there were concerns about health hazards because the entire prison had been turned into a virtual factory. It appears that the restrictions were reimposed because the Maine Corrections Bureau had received a federal grant under the auspices of the Law Enforcement Assistance Association and, in an effort to obtain the funding, applied the recommendations of a highly negative report funded and conducted by the LEAA.

The goals of the Private Sector/Prison Industry Enhancement Certificate Program were to place inmates in a realistic working environment so that they could acquire marketable skills, make payments of restitution to their victims and support their families, themselves and the institution. This program was piloted in six states. The Free Venture Pilot Program suffered from high labour turnover rates because of inmate transfers. These transfers also greatly reduced the firing authority of supervisors. Payments to prisoners under that program ranged from $.20 to $3.74 an hour, with the majority of Free Venture shops paying less than $.50 an hour. The Stillwater Data Processing Systems program allowed prisoners to occupy temporary project manager positions and to sit on the company's board of directors. Other than that, the PS/PIECP lacked any substantial input or management on the part of the prisoners and was little more than a better-paying contract or piece-price system.

Zephyr Products is another example of a prisoner-staffed business.

Opposition

One of the arguments against prisoners receiving income is that it interferes with their punishment. Still, it seems likely that a prisoner, if given the choice, would prefer to walk out of the door than to remain in prison, even if he were receiving an income there. Thus, he is still being punished.

Another argument is that prisoners should not be allowed to organize, lest they cause trouble. However, "enforced idleness" has also been cited as a possible factor encouraging the formation of violent gangs in prison. Likewise, some concern has been expressed over the kinds of implements, such as knives, that prisoner laborers might have access to. But prisoners already use such implements in other types of work and can obtain "shanks" through the underground economy anyway.