| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
Prison Industries Enhancement Certification Program
| |
<
< | The Prison Industries Enhancement Certification Program (PIECP) is a United States federal statutory program. First passed in 1979, it authorizes state prisoners to be privately employed, a practice that has generally been banned since the early 1930s. Specifically, the PIECP offers parameters under which states may set up their own Prison Industry Enhancement (PIE) programs, allowing prisoners to be employed in private business enterprises. Since the first of these programs was implemented, PIE programs have been established in nearly every state. Despite the argued benefits, the Program is not without controversy. Numerous abuses of PIE programs have been recorded since its inception. In response, there have been several adjustments to the PIECP meant to address some of the major issues, but it remains to be seen what effect these will have. | >
> | The Prison Industries Enhancement Certification Program (PIECP) is a United States federal statutory program. First passed in 1979, it authorizes state prisoners to be privately employed, a practice that has generally been banned since the early 1930s. Specifically, the PIECP offers parameters under which states may set up their own Prison Industry Enhancement (PIE) programs, allowing prisoners to be employed in private business enterprises. Since the first of these programs was implemented, PIE programs have been established in nearly every state. Despite the potential benefits, the Program is not without controversy. Among other things, criticism has been leveled at the numerous abuses of PIE programs that have been recorded since its inception. In response, there have been several adjustments to the PIECP meant to address some of the major issues, but it remains to be seen what effect these will have. | | | Background | |
<
< | Prison labor in the United States has a long and painful history. By the 1930’s, however, recognizing the inhumanity of forced penal labor and, likely more importantly to Congress , the competitive advantage that those employing penal labor enjoyed, legislation was enacted to stem the use of inmate labor. The Ashurst- Sumners Act of 1935 made the interstate transfer or sale of prisoner made goods across state lines a federal crime, effectively stopping the use of inmates in the production of goods in prisons and by private companies.
Notes
:
:
| >
> | Prison labor in the United States has a long history. By the 1930’s, however, recognizing the questionable morality of forced penal labor and, more pressing to Congress, the competitive advantage that those employing penal labor enjoyed, legislation was enacted to stem the use of inmate labor. The Ashurst- Sumners Act of 1935 made the interstate transfer or sale of prisoner made goods across state lines a federal crime, effectively stopping the use of inmates in the production of goods in prisons and by private companies. | | |
By the late 1970’s, shifting ideological views on the proper role of prisons and the proper method of rehabilitation caused a renewed interest in prison labor. The midcentury view of inmates as patients that needed to be cared for and ‘cured’, fell out of favor. Proponents of increasing productive labor by prisoners came from both the political right and left. The former was adamant that criminals were being treated too leniently at the expense of the taxpayer, while the latter was concerned that the therapeutic approach of rehabilitating prisoners was both creating a false stigma of inmates as ‘sick’, and guaranteeing that they wouldn’t have the skills necessary to survive in the outside world at the end of their sentences. | | | Criticisms | |
<
< | Despite the potential, if not actual, benefits of the PIECP, there have been numerous instances of recorded abuse in its implementation. One of the most prevalent has been continued findings of inmates not receiving fair pay. Largely unprotected by the Fair Labor Standards Act, inmates rights, especially an entitlement to fair wages, is governed by the PIECP requirements. While employers are entitled to pay market wages, which for unskilled workers might be low, inmate wages are often kept at minimum levels even as experience rises. Often employers pay far below minimum wage, keeping the inmate workers in “training,” and paying them accordingly. This, of course, has resulted in the displacement of more costly non-prison workers.
Notes
:
:
,:
:
| >
> | Despite the potential benefits of the PIECP, critics have pointed to the numerous instances of recorded abuse in its implementation. One of the most prevalent has been continued findings of inmates not receiving fair pay. Largely unprotected by the Fair Labor Standards Act, inmates rights, especially an entitlement to fair wages, is governed by the PIECP requirements. While employers are entitled to pay market wages, which for unskilled workers might be low, inmate wages are often kept at minimum levels even as experience rises. Often employers pay far below minimum wage, keeping the inmate workers in “training,” and paying them accordingly. This has also resulted in the displacement of more costly non-prison workers. | | | | |
<
< | Similarly, while participation in the Program is supposed to be voluntary, inmates have not always been made aware that up to eighty percent of their already low income is automatically redirected towards prison costs, compensation funds, and employers themselves as “reimbursement” for training. In certain instances, inmates were not even told that participation in the first place was voluntary, though recorded instances or accusations of the latter has been rare.
Notes
:
| >
> | Another point of concern has been that while participation in the Program is supposed to be voluntary, inmates have not always been made aware that up to eighty percent of their already low income is automatically redirected towards prison costs, compensation funds, and employers themselves as “reimbursement” for training. In certain instances, inmates were not even told that participation in the first place was voluntary, though recorded instances or accusations of the latter has been rare. | | | | |
<
< | Likewise, PIE Program contracts, while supposed to be conducted through an open bid system, accessible to all businesses that meet the state requirements, have also shown to be heavily politicized. In Wisconsin for instance, the Department of Corrections awarded a significant contract to a glove manufacturer who happened to be a major campaign contributor of the state governor. In a heavily secretive process, the contract allowed for the manufacturer to produce goods well below market cost, and the contract specifically disallowed the Department of Corrections from contracting with any of the manufacturer’s competitors.
Notes
,:
| >
> | Likewise, it has been argued that PIE Program contracts, while supposed to be conducted through an open bid system, accessible to all businesses that meet the state requirements, have also shown to be heavily politicized. In Wisconsin for instance, the Department of Corrections awarded a significant contract to a glove manufacturer who happened to be a major campaign contributor of the state governor. In a heavily secretive process, the contract allowed for the manufacturer to produce goods well below market cost, and the contract specifically disallowed the Department of Corrections from contracting with any of the manufacturer’s competitors. | | | | |
<
< | There is another major criticism leveled against the PIECP. Many of the participants in PIE programs never get a chance to use their skills in the outside world because either their sentence length or their age makes the likelihood of them ever working upon release minimal. Even prisoners who are released with a significant amount of employable years ahead find it difficult obtaining a job, despite their experience, because of the stigma they bring as prospective employees. One of the main benefits that the program is supposed to offer is, therefore, non-existent. | >
> | There is another major criticism leveled against the PIECP. Many of the participants in PIE programs never get a chance to use their skills in the outside world because either their sentence length or their age makes the likelihood of them ever working upon release minimal. Even prisoners who are released with a significant amount of employable years ahead find it difficult obtaining a job, despite their experience, because of the stigma they bring as prospective employees. One of the main benefits that the program is supposed to offer, critics contend, is therefore non-existent. | | | | |
<
< | The BJA has made efforts to address these and other problems. Additional guidelines to the act were issued both in 1985 and then again in 1999, by clarifying and adding to the original Program’s provisions. For instance, whereas originally a PIECP employer’s word that inmates were voluntarily participating was deemed sufficient, signatures are now required from inmates showing they understood ALL the terms of their employment. In regards to wages, the original act was ambiguous as to which types of inmates and jobs were entitled to market wage. This meant that many inmates who were assigned to tasks not directly involved in production, for example those given janitorial duties, were not paid market wage. The 1999 amendments made it clear that ANY “notable” jobs for which similarly situated private business would incur costs must be compensated fairly. Likewise, the level of consultation now required with business and union leaders on a program’s’ potential harm to the local labor market and overall business environment, is much greater that it was previously. Nevertheless, because of remaining ambiguities, difficulty in monitoring, and the lack of standardization amongst various PIE programs, abuses continue to occur . Nor do these additional BJA guidelines change the fact that inmates may never get a chance to benefit economically from the skills the Program is supposed to offer them. | >
> | The BJA has made efforts to address these and other problems. Additional guidelines to the act were issued both in 1985 and then again in 1999, by clarifying and adding to the original Program’s provisions. For instance, whereas originally a PIECP employer’s word that inmates were voluntarily participating was deemed sufficient, signatures are now required from inmates showing they understood ALL the terms of their employment. In regards to wages, the original act was ambiguous as to which types of inmates and jobs were entitled to market wage. This meant that many inmates who were assigned to tasks not directly involved in production, for example those given janitorial duties, were not paid market wage. The 1999 amendments made it clear that ANY “notable” jobs for which similarly situated private business would incur costs must be compensated fairly. Likewise, the level of consultation now required with business and union leaders on a program’s’ potential harm to the local labor market and overall business environment, is much greater that it was previously. Nevertheless, because of remaining ambiguities, difficulty in monitoring, and the lack of standardization amongst various PIE programs, abuses continue to occur . Nor do these additional BJA guidelines, it has been argued, change the fact that inmates may never get a chance to benefit economically from the skills the Program is supposed to offer them. | | | | |
<
< | As PIECP begins its fourth decade, it remains to be seen to seen to what extent, if at all, the Program has achieved success in its stated objectives. Actual research measuring its effects has been extremely limited and potentially biased. Whether or not the BJA and Congress’ efforts to curb the Program’s abuses will prove effective likewise remains open.
Notes
:
| >
> | With PIECP beginning its fourth decade, no clear consensus has yet been reached as to whether or not the Program has achieved success in its stated objectives. Actual research measuring its effects has been extremely limited and potentially biased. Whether or not the BJA and Congress’ efforts to curb the Program’s abuses will prove effective likewise remains open. | | | Primary Source |
|