Some writers assert that prisoners are 90 percent unemployed since fewer than one in 10 prisoners work in a prison industry that produces goods like license plates, mattresses or circuit boards. The Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics 1993 reports that in 1990 only about 7 percent of prisoners worked in prison manufacturing industries and 4 percent in farming, down from a combined 16 percent in 1984, suggesting that prison jobs have lagged behind the enormous increase in prison population. Meanwhile, the proportion of prisoners doing housework like laundry or food service increased from 32 to 41 percent over the same period. Work-release jobs remained below 1 percent of prisoners and a steady 8.7 percent remained enrolled in vocational training programs. All told, about half of prisoners worked nationally, counting household chores (facility support).

Texas has long been a leader in state-operated prison industries, yet in 1994 employed only 7,500 inmates (fewer than one in 10) in 42 factories inside prison walls and produced a reported $94.3 million in state-use sales, less than $13,000 in sales per prison worker. The agriculture division employed 6,500 prisoners and generated an estimated $32.7 million, or $5,000 per worker. Since probably half of sales are spent on inputs other than labor in manufacturing and agriculture, prisoner labor productivity obviously is poor.

Work in prison benefits nearly everyone. It relieves tedium within prisons and enables prisoners to earn wages and acquire marketable skills while learning individual responsibility and the value of productive labor. It also ensures that they are able to contribute to victim compensation and to their own and their families’ support while they are in prison. For businesses, it can provide access to a new pool of labor (both pre- and post-release), a new market for their goods and services and a new source of goods and services to buy.

What is holding back the productive use of prison labor? What can be done to make it a central rather than marginal activity of Texas prisons?

Historical Experience. Prisons originally were intended to be self-supporting, and during the l9th century many state prisons ran surpluses, returning excess funds to their state governments. Today, prison inmates are a huge drain on taxpayer wallets despite the millions of available hours of healthy, prime-age labor they represent. If prisoners worked 40 hours a week at the current federal minimum wage of $4.25, each would produce $8,840 of market value per year.

During a relaxation of federal prohibitions on the use of inmate labor during World War II, U.S. prison industries produced sorely needed war materiel, and prison morale reportedly rose. As in the l9th century, many prisons became self-supporting, and some ran surpluses. Yet the federal government reimposed its restrictions at the war’s end, paying little heed to the success of the prisons in becoming self-supporting and less to the rehabilitative value of the work itself.

"Increasing productive work for prisoners requires the repeal of two federal laws."

Removing National Barriers to Prison Work. Increasing productive work for prisoners requires the repeal of the Walsh-Healy Act of 1936, which prohibited convict labor on government contracts exceeding $10,000, and the Sumners-Ashurst Act of 1940, which made it a federal offense to transport prison-made goods within a state for private use.

Throughout the nation, a score of exceptions to these federal restrictions on prison labor have been authorized under the 1979 Percy Amendment, provided the inmates were paid a prevailing wage, labor union officials were consulted, free labor was not adversely affected and the goods were in an industry without local unemployment.55 Since 1979 the Prison Industry Enhancement (PIE) certification program has certified 34 jurisdictions and generated gross earnings for convicts of $44 million and offsetting incarceration costs of $8 million. Yet by the end of 1994, only 1,700 prisoners were employed in 116 programs with annual earnings of $10-11 million, with about half of the earnings going toward family support, victim restitution, taxes and incarceration costs.56

"The primary state obstacle to prison work appears to be resistance to new ideas."

Removing State Barriers. Until 1989, prisoners in Texas were forbidden to work for pay. After a Sunset Law review of the Texas Department of Corrections in 1987, legislation passed in 1989 included authorization for the department to contract with other state agencies and local governments and to pursue agreements with private business and industry to use inmate labor.

Today the primary obstacle to private production and gainful employment for Texas prisoners appears to be resistance to new ideas by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Texas’ success in state-run prison industries probably has hindered the move toward private sector opportunities for prison employment and production. “Nope, not invented here,” seems to be the attitude. Bill Robinson, a three-time-convicted felon who is now a Southern Baptist minister and chairman of Corrections Concepts, Inc., has fought the TDCJ for 11 years in an effort to build and operate a 600-bed, Christian-based vocational training and private production facility for prisoners. With the industry jobs already recruited, Robinson says, “The TDCJ doesn’t want to do anything that will succeed. Prisons are the only industry whose very success depends on its own failure.”57

What can increase work opportunities for Texas prisoners? Here are some possibilities:

• Wardens and prison officials could be paid bonuses for progress toward financial self-sufficiency.

• A TDCJ Office of Enterprise Prison Recruiting could be created to recruit private industry work programs.

• Private prison operators must be allowed to “profit” from the use of convict labor, thus paving the way for new “enterprise prisons.”

• The state should set up procedures and actively solicit bids for approved and supervised private uses for prison labor by responsible private contractors.

• To diminish prisoner litigation against work, Texas should institute the “English rule” under which prisoners can lose as well as win lawsuits; for example, eliminate good-time credits during the suit unless the court orders otherwise upon settlement.

Ultimately, only the private sector can provide productive work for thousands and thousands of prisoners. A new survey of prison industries managers shows that they believe they “must operate like and work with private companies.” Washington state corrections administrator Charles Riveland says that if political and union objections could be overcome, the prisoners working for private companies in the prison system could jump from the current 3 percent to 50 percent.58 The state can lease out labor both inside and outside prison walls and yet retain its control, inspection and auditing responsibilities. This will transfer the problems faced by prison industries to more capable hands — private enterprise, which is already accustomed to adjusting to high turnover, poor skills, high costs of production and quality control problems.