Running head: PRISON SENTENCES: ALTERNATIVES TO HARD TIME

Prison Sentences: Alternatives to Hard Time Lauren A. Shapiro Introduction to Forensic Psychology May 5, 2012 Dr. L. Brodie

PRISON SENTENCES: ALTERNATIVES TO HARD TIME Abstract

Incarceration is the number one way felons and other criminal offenders are punished and rehabilitated in the United States. According to 2006 evaluations, over $68,747,203,000 was spent on corrections while 2009 estimates indicate that it costs an average of $47,102 a year to incarcerate an inmate in a California state prison, with this annual cost increasing by about $19,000 since 2001. Several programs have been established as alternatives to hard time and to potentially reduce recidivism rates in released inmates. While some of these elaborate programs seemingly appear to be solutions to the problem, they have failed, while, others that have resorted to more concrete solutions have achieved significant success. It currently remains unknown as to why these programs have not achieved widespread use; however, their results are consistent and undeniable: they work.

PRISON SENTENCES: ALTERNATIVES TO HARD TIME Prison Sentences: Alternatives To Hard Time

Incarceration is the number one way felons and other criminal offenders are punished and rehabilitated in the United States. This explains why the United States has the highest documented rate of incarceration in the world (Walmsley, 2009). According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2,292,133 adults were incarcerated in US federal and state prisons and county jails at the end of 2009 (Glaze, 2010). This staggering number means that approximately 1% of the adult population or 743 of every 100,000 American adults were incarcerated at the end of 2009 (Walmsley, 2009). While crime rates have declined approximately 25% between 1988 and 2008, the United States has experienced a surge in its prison population with estimates suggesting that it has quadrupled since 1980. This increase has been attributed to the War on Drugs, an undertaking by the US government to reduce the illegal drug trade through the establishment of drug policies that discourage the production, distribution and consumption of illegal drugs (West, Sabol, & Greenman, 2010). According to 2006 evaluations, over $68,747,203,000 was spent on corrections while 2009 estimates indicate that it costs an average of $47,102 a year to incarcerate an inmate in a California state prison, with this annual cost increasing by about $19,000 since 2001 (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2010). Given the current state of the economy, the operating costs of incarceration and recidivism rates, critics have begun to question whether cost-effective and alternative means of incarceration should be implemented in American prisons.

PRISON SENTENCES: ALTERNATIVES TO HARD TIME

Rates Advocates have spent the last several decades fighting for "tough on crime initiatives", arguing that public safety is priceless and that a flourishing prison population is further proof of this fact. Furthermore, they maintain that locking up individuals convicted of minor offenses keeps these so-called criminals from committing more serious offenses (Welch, 2003). From 2000 to 2008, the state prison population increased by 159, 200 prisoners, with violent offenders accounting for 60% of this increase and 22% of all prisoners (state and federal inmates) convicted of drug-related charges. Compounding this issue is the fact that most prisons in the United States are severely overcrowded (Human Rights Watch, 2003). For example, California has 33 prisons with a total capacity for 100,000 inmates; however, current estimates suggest that California prisons are currently housing over 170,000 inmates, more than a 70% surplus (Moore, 2009). Some argue that we live in a "society of prisons" and as a result, government spending is exorbitant (Conley, 1977). According to investigations, in 1999, states spent more than $34 billion on prisons. An adjustment for inflation reveals that since 1982, this is an increase of 122% (Butterfield, 2002). Analyses of government spending prove that corrections is the fastest growing area of the public sector. In fact, "many states are now spending more on corrections than on higher education, social programs, and public assistance for the poor and dependent children" (Welch, 2003). Undoubtedly,

PRISON SENTENCES: ALTERNATIVES TO HARD TIME this is a disturbing trend, especially since the vast majority of inmates are

nonviolent offenders, a population who have been demonstrated to have lower rates of recidivism in the first place.

The Current Problem The belief is that inmates could and should work for the benefit of the State. In other words, inmates can help build the institutions that house them and they can even work in prison factories to pay for the cost of their incarceration. Based off a penitentiary established in Auburn, NY in the early twentieth century, factory production and exploiting the labor of inmates to profit and/or defray the expenses of incarceration is formally known as the Auburn model (Conley, 1977). The Auburn model was originally established in hopes of solving the problem of inmate idleness as well as an implementable and potentially profitable way to ease the taxpayer's burden. Unlike other programs intended to rehabilitate offenders, prison work programs "help manage the population by occupying the time of the prisoners, aid in the operation of the prison, create revenue, and provide a way for prisoners to "pay back" their debt to society" (Wilson, Gallagher, & MacKenzie, 2001). Humanitarians; however, argue that the primary flaw in this model was that convict rehabilitation was secondary to the primary concern: economics (Welch, 2003). An integral part of the debate on relying heavily on prisons is the fact that eventually all nonviolent prisoners return to the community where their

PRISON SENTENCES: ALTERNATIVES TO HARD TIME problems originated. Worse, after years of imprisonment, often with violent offenders and other criminals, ex-cons typically impaired by the debilitating effects of prison life and, with few opportunities to improve their circumstances upon release, often resort to crime and other self-destructive behaviors. Thus, it must be noted that incarceration as a control tactic for

reducing crime is riddled with contradictions and may actually serve to worsen the situation (Welch, 2003). Most incarcerated individuals have extremely low levels of education and a very limited pool of job skills and resources. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (2010), "only 59% of state prison inmates had a high school diploma or its equivalent (compared to 85% for the adult population as a whole), and only two-thirds of inmates were employed during the month before they were arrested for their current offense". These numbers beg to question whether it is lack of work (due to education, lack of skills, or otherwise) that lands these individuals into prison in the first place. Kling and Tyler show that incarcerated offenders in Florida averaged about $1,200-2,000 a year in formal labor market earnings prior to incarceration (Bushway, 2003). Studies have resulted in fairly strong empirical evidence that suggests that an individual's criminal behavior is responsive to employment circumstances and that lack of work is highly correlated with crime (Bushway, 2003). Based on these findings, many have begun to question whether improving the poor work outcomes of offenders, by offering prison-based work programs, would lead to a reduction in crime and recidivism.

PRISON SENTENCES: ALTERNATIVES TO HARD TIME Prison Work Programs Based on the high rates and the substantial costs associated with ex-

convicts who unsuccessfully re-enter their communities, many have begun to question the effectiveness of hard time and have begun advocating for proper rehabilitation and social resources (Wilson J. A., 2007). Programs like Project Greenlight, which was "designed to emphasize specific services that would improve certain interim quality-of-life outcomes and, as a result, would affect subsequent criminal behavior" have been proven ineffective despite seeming like perfect solutions to the problem (Wilson J. A., 2007). Project Greenlight emphasized cognitive-behavioral skills training because previous research has demonstrated, time and time again, that this type of program has consistently demonstrated positive results in reducing offender recidivism. The program established partnerships with the New York City Department of Homeless Services to find housing for inmates, counselors matched inmates with employment opportunities, inmates were required to attend drug education and relapse prevention classes, psychoeducation seminars were provided to inmates and their families and classes to develop practical skills like obtaining Medicaid coverage were offered. Furthermore, Greenlight staff worked on an individual basis with each inmate to establish a release plan which included establishing connections with community-based organizations and introductions to parole officers (Wilson J. A., 2007). Yet, in spite of all these precautions and painstaking measures, the program failed to improve participants' postrelease outcomes. This failure led individuals to question

PRISON SENTENCES: ALTERNATIVES TO HARD TIME

whether "money might be more effectively spent on job training, education, and family services in poor neighborhoods with high crime rates rather than exporting those funds to prisons, courts and police officers outside the community" (Welch, 2003). Despite Project Greenlight's failure there is still hope. Findings from an evaluation funded by the National Institute of Justice suggests that when individuals are incarcerated, having a real job with real pay, or a job that simulates the real world, yields benefits for when they are released (Moses & Smith, 2007). The study concludes that offenders who worked for private companies while incarcerated were more likely to obtain employment once released, maintained employment longer, and had lower recidivism rates than those who did not work or those who worked in traditional correctional industries (Wilson, Gallagher, & MacKenzie, 2001). The theory behind these prison-based work programs is that by obtaining work experience in specific industries, while incarcerated, inmates are finally able to acquire the skills they need to secure productive employment upon release and avoid recidivism. In addition, these programs typically "(1) work with inmates to identify vocational interests and aptitudes, (2) develop individual plans of study for improving vocational skills, (3) providing the identified training as well as other needed services, and (4) helping inmates secure post-release employment" (Lattimore, Witte, & Baker, 1990). Other names for these work-based prison programs include, inmate labor, correctional programs and factories behind fences. These programs,

PRISON SENTENCES: ALTERNATIVES TO HARD TIME

despite their underuse and demonstrated results, are not new. In fact, workbased prison programs - programs in which inmates are supervised by prison staff or private factories under supervision and work for a modest sum - have existed for more than 150 years (Moses & Smith, 2007). One such program, created by Congress in 1979 is called the Prison Industry Enhancement Certification Program (PIECP). PIECP allows individuals who are incarcerated to be employed by a private employer in a "free world" occupation and earn the current minimum wage. PIECP encourages State and local correctional facilities to establish alliances with factories and private companies to provide inmates with real work opportunities that simulate jobs that they might potentially have upon release (Moses & Smith, 2007). First and foremost, PIECP "seeks to generate products and services that enable prisoners to make a contribution to society, offset the cost of incarceration, support family members, and compensate crime victims. PIECP also seeks to reduce prison idleness, increase inmate job skills, and improve the prospects for prisoners' successful transition to the community upon release" (Wilson J. A., 2007). These programs, unlike Project Greenlight, obtain positive results since they do release offenders from prison into the same circumstances under which they entered: lacking practical job skills, possessing few economic resources and have little to no access to social service providers, they tend to encounter the same significant barriers they faced prior to incarceration.

PRISON SENTENCES: ALTERNATIVES TO HARD TIME

10

To establish further evidence of their effectiveness, the National Institute of Justice teamed with the U.S. Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Assistance to fund the first national evaluation of PIECP. Although the findings of this study are not entirely conclusive and may reflect selection bias, they are positive. The study's authors found that, upon release, individuals who participated in the Prison Industry Enhancement Certification Program found jobs more quickly and held them significantly longer than did other inmates who opted not to work under PIECP and were released back into their communities. According to the study, approximately 55 percent of workers who participated in PIECP obtained gainful employment within the first three months following their release (Moses & Smith, 2007). The researchers measured recidivism rates for three groups, PIECP workers, Traditional Industry workers and non-workers using the traditional measures of incarceration success: new arrest, conviction and incarceration. The results showed that PIECP workers who were released back into their communities following the conclusion of their sentence had significantly lower rates of rearrest, conviction, and incarceration than offenders who were in the Traditional Industries and non-work groups (Moses & Smith, 2007). Most importantly; however, the wages earned by Prison Industry Enhancement Certification Program participants during their incarceration benefitted taxpayers in addition to helping the inmates themselves (Wilson J. A., 2007). The added benefit of this program is that the program allows a percentage of PIECP wages to be saved for the inmate upon their release;

PRISON SENTENCES: ALTERNATIVES TO HARD TIME

11

however, the vast majority of the wages are paid back to the State to cover the cost of the inmate's room and board. Furthermore, these programs ensure that restitution is paid to the victim, that alimony and child support payments are paid, and that the inmate has resources to fall back upon when they have completed their prison sentence (Moses & Smith, 2007).

Conclusion The research definitely suggests that the Prison Industry Enhancement Certification Programs have been successful. Not only do inmate PIECP wages benefit inmates, taxpayers, victims, and families but they also assist the State in paying for the exorbitant costs of incarcerating inmates. PIECP participants also acquire post-release jobs more quickly, retain these jobs longer, and return to the criminal justice system less frequently and at a lower rate than inmates who worked in Traditional Industries or opted not to work at all during their incarceration (Moses & Smith, 2007). It is a wonder then, why Prison Industry Enhancement Certification Programs have not been more widely implemented in the face of their demonstrated success. Given the current state of the economy, the operating costs of incarceration and increased recidivism rates are clearly unsustainable. With over $68,747,203,000 spent on corrections and estimates which suggest that it costs an average of $47,102 a year to incarcerate an inmate in a California state prison, with this annual cost increasing by about $19,000 every 7-8 years, Federal and State governments must take decisive measures to

PRISON SENTENCES: ALTERNATIVES TO HARD TIME

12

turn incarcerated inmates into profitable individuals, or at the very least, offset what has become an increasingly heavy burden on taxpayers.

PRISON SENTENCES: ALTERNATIVES TO HARD TIME References Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2010). Census bureau's annual government finance survey and annual survey of public employment. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Bushway, S. (2003). Understanding the nexus between prisoner reentry and work. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Butterfield, F. (2002, Feburary 11). Study finds steady increase at all levels of government in cost of criminal justice. New York Times , p. A14.

13

Conley, J. A. (1977). Prisons, production, and profit: Reconsidering the importance of prison industries. Milwaukee, Wisconsin: Unpublished. Glaze, L. E. (2010). Correctional Populations in the United States, 2009. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Human Rights Watch. (2003, April). Incarcerated America. Human Rights Watch Backgrounder . Lattimore, P., Witte, A., & Baker, J. (1990). Experimental assessment of the effect of vocational training on youthful property offenders. Evaluation Review , 133155. Moore, S. (2009, August 4). California prisons must cut inmate population. The New York Times . Moses, M. C., & Smith, C. J. (2007). Factories behind fences: Do prison 'real work' programs work? National Institute of Justice Journal , 32-35. Walmsley, R. (2009). World prison brief. London, England: International Centre for Prison Studies.

PRISON SENTENCES: ALTERNATIVES TO HARD TIME Welch, M. (2003). Force and fraud: a radically coherent criticism of corrections as industry. Contemporary Justice Review , 227-240.

14

West, H. C., Sabol, W. J., & Greenman, S. J. (2010). Prisoners in 2009. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Wilson, D. B., Gallagher, C. A., & MacKenzie, D. L. (2001). A meta-analysis of corrections-based education, vocation and work programs for adult offenders. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency , 347-368. Wilson, J. A. (2007). Habilitation or harm: Project Greenlight and the potential consequences of correctional programming. National Institute of Justice Journal, 2-7.