The Future of Correctional Industries

Abstract

A critical issue underlying planned change is the organizational philosophy or statement of put pose. A clear definition and understanding of purpose is a necessary antecedent, or framework, for innovation.As with corrrc tional systems general ly, correc tional industries are faced with inul tiple, often conflicting, goals and expectations. Operating as they do within a larger correctional system which is itself responsible to publl( and legislative needs, industries' purpose is sometimes shifting, always ambiguous.Three generally accepted pm poses are elimination of idleness, rehabilitation, and profit orientation. Undo! the free-venture model. the order of these purposes is essentially reversed. In no case is there a common set of definitions, nor a system for effectively integrating all three. Some combinations of two aims seem feasible, but it is questionable whether all three are presently comlatible. The idleness issue can be resolved by employing 1~lIge n111T11)f'1S of inmates in laborintensive jobs, but this conflicts with a capital-intensive economy and the concept of rehabilitation. Providing rehabilitation involves extensive vocational training which, if provided by industl ies' shops, effectively obviates profit.Yrof rt t The question, then, is whether profit is a reasonable public-policy objective for correctional industries, or whether the concept should be scaled to simply minimlling the costs of incarceration. There are at least t two broad reasons foi questionllng the (ClitlitiltN of ptofit ()llt'Ilt<ltl()Il -one economic, one philosophical. From a purely economic perspective , thete are so many elements of the profit mechanism missing from correctional industries that its implementation is at worst it best olmive. There are three