The incarcerated population of the United States in 2020 consists of “almost 2.3 million people in 1,833 state prisons, 110 federal prisons, 1,772 juvenile correctional facilities, 3,134 local jails, 218 immigration detention facilities, and 80 Indian Country jails as well as in military prisons, civil commitment centers, state psychiatric hospitals, and prisons in the U.S. territories (Sawyer & Wagner 2020)”. The purpose of this paper is to examine the vocational and educational challenges faced by those who are currently incarcerated by the United States justice system. These challenges are present both during and after incarceration and have consequences that impact the families of these individuals and contribute to the overall cycle of poverty and racial discrimination in the United States.
Incarcerated individuals are exposed to a multitude of unique vocational disadvantages both during and after incarceration. During incarceration there is limited vocational training available, limited educational opportunities, and few programs to address either of these. Even where vocational opportunities do exist, there are few, and wages are strikingly low. This can present issues for an inmate’s personal life by restricting the amount of time they have for activities that contribute to personal fulfillment. For example, having a mandatory work schedule can cut back on time that would normally be spent on family visitations, legal consults with lawyers, and any clinical rehabilitation that may be occurring.
Post-Incarceration, inmates often experience unique hardships when trying to find meaningful employment. This can happen as a result of being unable to pass the CORI checks that are required by employers as well as abiding by stricter guidelines when finding housing. These regulations can limit where these individuals can both live and work, and thus diminish employment opportunities due to long commutes, for example. In the same way, restrictions on time available for work, such as house arrest, parole, or probation. This can restrict employment opportunities by limiting the time that can be committed to a job or education outside of the home as well constricting the geographic area in which an individual can seek employment. Another aspect to be considered is how the loss of an individual’s driver’s license due to the nature of their crime affects his or her independence and ability to transport him or herself to work, school, training, or other opportunities for vocational advancement.
Since there are people constantly cycling through the justice system, the demographics are constantly changing. According to Gramlich, “blacks have long outnumbered whites in U.S. prisons (Gramlich, 2019)”, but in recent years, this gap has begun to narrow. Gramlich also points out that “the nation’s imprisonment rate is at its lowest level in more than two decades. The greatest decline has come among black Americans, whose imprisonment rate has decreased 34% since 2006 (Gramlich, 2019)”. Many inmates are between the ages of 20 and 35, a crucial time in vocational and career development and when many people are gaining full-time employment (Western 2001). It is important to note that the younger an individual is when incarcerated, the less likely they are to have a high school diploma, GED, or vocational skills training. Many jobs require one, if not multiple, of these qualifications (Western 2001). An inmate is less likely to have these qualifications because he or she was not able to finish high school, obtain a GED, or learn vocational skills due to time spend in prison where it would normally have been spent in school full-time. It is therefore unsurprising that employment rates for previously incarcerated individuals are 15-25% lower than the general population. Another significant contribution to this statistic is the lack of interpersonal relationships that can often create job leads or opportunities, along with the stigma of having been incarcerated. While there are anti-discrimination laws in place to protect these individuals in their vocational pursuits, it is difficult, if not impossible, to stop conscious (or unconscious) bias of interviewers and hiring managers when considering prospective employees. According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, approximately 40,000 people return to the correctional system annually and 200,000 currently incarcerated individuals are veterans (Federal Bureau of Prisons)”. This quote/statistic seems out of place.
The US justice system has in fact developed a means by which to address these challenges and disadvantages. This system is called UNICOR, “the trade name for Federal Prison Industries (FPI), a wholly owned Government corporation that was established by Congress on June 23, 1934. Its mission is to protect society and reduce crime by preparing inmates for successful reentry through job training (Federal Bureau of Prisons)”. UNICOR creates jobs for inmates to produce a variety of products and services such as: embroidery and silk screen, power distribution, electronic communications, welding, machining, printing, binding, data entry, help desks, automotive maintenance and repair, wood working, electronics recycling, and solar management (Federal Bureau of Prisons)”. This is not an exhaustive list of what UNICOR produces but does exemplify many of the trades and career fields that inmates can gain experience in while involved with the program. The wages for UNICOR jobs as opposed to standard prison jobs is also substantially higher. Inmates working at UNICOR can earn anywhere between $0.23-$1.15 per hour of labor (Federal Bureau of Prisons). UNICOR boasts that it is self-sustaining and operates at no cost to tax payers. They also advertise themselves as having positive impact on the greater community as with program participants being 24% less likely to return to the correctional system. This saves tax payers, on average, $29,000 per non-repeat offender per year. Alternative programming to UNICOR costs the tax payer $8,000-$9,000 per inmate per year (Federal Bureau of Prisons).
Aside from UNICOR’s vocational program, there also exists inmate educational programs. NorthWestern University in Illinois runs an educational program in the state for incarcerated individuals to obtain higher education and found that “there is a 43% reduction in recidivism rates for those prisoners who participate in prison education programs. Indeed, the higher the degree, the lower the recidivism rate is: 14% for those who obtain an associate degree, 5.6% for those who obtain a bachelor’s degree, and 0% for those who obtain a master’s degree (NorthWestern)”. As previously mentioned, the lower the recidivism rate is, the more money tax payers save. They also discovered that “there are increased and improved employment opportunities available for those formerly incarcerated people who engaged in prison education programs, and reentry is far smoother and more successful for those who took classes in prison, especially insofar as gainful employment is one of the defining features of successful reentry (NorthWestern)”. Since there are many jobs, including rehabilitation counseling, that require a college degree, the more education an incarcerated (or any) individual has, the more likely they are to find meaningful employment. Other institutions that offer similar programs to NorthWestern University include: the US Department of Education’s Pell grants program, Boston University, the US Department of Justice, and the United Teen Equality Center.
A study done by Coppedge and Strong in 2013 further reinforces the value of education and vocational skills training in the US prison system. While their study focuses specifically on agricultural careers, many of their findings also apply to the greater incarcerated population. In Vocational Programs in the Federal Bureau of Prisons: Examining the Potential of Agricultural Education Programs for Prisoners Coppedge and Strong discuss the history of vocational programs in prisons. The publication mentions the Three Prisons Act passed by Congress in 1891 which established the federal prison system [and] allotted $100,000 to each institution to create workshops for the employment of inmates. . . These workshops culminated the early precursors of Vocational Training; programs that have grown and have become a cornerstone in correctional education over the past century (Coppedge & Strong)”. The success of these programs is what lead to the creation of the current educational and vocational programs that are in place. The study also highlights the independent and self-sustaining history of vocational programs in the prison industry. For example, “Bennett (1943.) reported that the Federal Prison Industries had intensified their production to aid in the War leading to net sales of $7,062,017.07 a portion of which went to vocational training which had 1,600 inmates enrolled Bureau wide (Coppedge & Strong 2013)”. Due to the capital generated by these prototype programs, the vocational training programs were able to sustain themselves while also contributing to the greater economy. More empirical evidence to support the use of educational and vocational programs in corrections institutions is expressed when Coppedge and Strong state that “after several years of experimentation and trials in education and curriculum; the education program as a whole was being developed around four principle units. The units were elementary education, modified form of academic education for inmates who were above a fourth grade level, related trades & occupational classes, and special classes that met the practical and cultural needs of inmates (Coppedge & Strong)”. Dividing the inmates into cohorts developed to address their specific needs and meet them at their own education level further helps these individuals to achieve their vocational and educational goals, as it reduces the probability of being ‘left behind’, or put at a disadvantage as compared to their classmates.
Devah Pager at Harvard University also did a study on the incarcerated population of the US, seeking to examine “the consequences of incarceration for the employment outcomes of black and white men (Pager 2003)” in her publication The Mark of a Criminal Record Pager explains that “incarceration has changed from a punishment reserved primarily for the most heinous offenders to one extended to a much greater range of crimes and a much larger segment of the population (Pager 2003)”. This extension of punishable crimes consequentially leads to an increase in the number and variety of individuals who re-enter society with criminal records. Not only does this affect the ex-offender personally, but it also has an impact on the workforce as a whole. This impact stems from a reduction in the amount of eligible applicants for available opportunities in the greater community.
Pager also highlights the severe inequality of black versus white levels of incarceration. She asserts that “the expansion of the prison population has been particularly consequential for blacks. The incarceration rate for young black men in the year 2000 was nearly 10%, compared to just over 1% for white men in the same age group (Pager 2003)”. Additionally, “the typical Black drug trafficker receives a sentence about ten percent longer than a similar White drug trafficker (United States Sentencing Commission)”. This keeps a much higher percentage of black men in low-wage jobs or struggling to find employment with a criminal record, than white men in an economic system that already favors white men. The hardships faced by these previously-incarcerated individuals extends to family and children as well. A child with an incarcerated parent “often struggles with anxiety, depression, learning disabilities and aggression which undermines his/her own chances for success (Federal Bureau of Prisons)”. This behavior can be accompanied by withdrawal from academics or extracurricular activities, which in turn can create obstacles when applying to for their own jobs or to colleges. This again factors into the poverty cycle and inequitable opportunities for black people as they are at a greater risk for encountering these obstacles than are the children of white men. Another consideration in the adverse effects of incarceration on the family is the loss of income for the household of the individual entering the correctional (is it corrections or correctional?) system. This creates financial hardship, especially when it comes to supporting children. If a one-parent household is unable to carry the burden of economic stress, it could possibly drop the family below the poverty line (never mind the effects of incarcerating a single parent). Again, this disproportionately affects black people, who are more likely to be convicted of the same crimes that white people are acquitted of. These hardships added to the racism already present in the greater American society creates a culture of oppression and poverty that affects entire families as well as the general economy.
To close, the effects of incarceration on an individual, their family, and the workforce is overall negative and overwhelmingly poignant. While there exists empirical evidence to support a growing number of educational and vocational programs for inmates, discrimination and biases still exist in the court of law, the American justice system as a whole, and trickles down into the workplace. These factors, among many others, must be considered in order to end the poverty cycle and create a more equitable society in the United States.