THE MISSISSIPPI LEGISLATURE

The Joint Committee on

Performance Evaluation and Expenditure Review

Report # 571

A Performance Review of the Mississippi Prison Industries Corporation

Executive Summary

Introduction

PEER received an inquiry from a legislator regarding whether the Mississippi Prison Industries Corporation (MPIC) is in conformity with its statutory mandate. The complaint alleges that MPIC might have exceeded its statutory authority because of:

• the accumulation of a large asset base;
• the sale of products not manufactured by inmates; and,
• “unreasonable” competition with private businesses.

PEER focused its analysis on determining whether MPIC’s operations are accomplishing its statutory mission and goals.

In assessing the activities of MPIC in relation to its statutory mission and goals, PEER sought to answer the following questions:

• How did the Mississippi Prison Industries Corporation begin and what is its purpose?
• How does MPIC operate?
• How well is MPIC accomplishing its statutory mission and goals?

Background

Prison industries are work programs in correctional facilities that aim to provide real-world experience to inmates in order to increase inmates’ job skills and instill a work ethic so that they are better prepared to re-enter society and gain employment.

Although the prison industries program is not a new concept in Mississippi, the Mississippi Prison Industries Act of 1990 created the current prison industries program and defines MPIC’s mission and goals. These include providing inmates with useful activities that can lead to meaningful employment after release in order to assist in reducing recidivism, reducing the cost of state government, mirroring as closely as possible operations of private industry for rehabilitative purposes, reducing the idleness of inmates, and providing an incentive for good behavior. The law also notes that Mississippi’s prison industries should “not seek to unreasonably compete with private enterprise.”

MPIC is governed by a thirteen-member board appointed by the Governor with the advice and consent of the Senate. The corporation employs full-time, non-inmate employees, as well as non-inmate contract employees, and operates five traditional industry work programs at the state prisons with inmate labor. MPIC also contracts with private businesses to use inmate labor and prison space to supplement the businesses’ workforce.

In FY 2012, MPIC provided work opportunities for 338 inmates. Sales for that fiscal year totaled approximately $6.5 million and were primarily made to government entities. Net profits were $30,873; overhead expenditures totaled approximately $1.6 million; and MPIC’s assets were valued at approximately $10.2 million.

Conclusions

The following summarize PEER’s conclusions regarding whether MPIC is accomplishing its statutory mission and goals.

• The challenge of balancing MPIC’s statutory mission and goals with its programs--Although its enabling legislation requires that MPIC provide inmate training and rehabilitation, the law also requires that prison industries should not “unreasonably compete with private enterprise.” MPIC must strike a balance between achieving its mission and not unreasonably competing with the private sector by knowing (through collecting and analyzing relevant data) to what extent its programs are producing benefits.
• Post-release employment and recidivism--MPIC programs closely duplicate the operating activities of a free enterprise. Whether this duplication produces the desired rehabilitative results is unknown because neither MDOC nor MPIC has tracked and reported post-release employment or recidivism data for MPIC program participants and has not established post-release performance measures. Such data is necessary for MPIC to measure its success in achieving its goal of improving inmate rehabilitation.
• Inmate idleness--MDOC and MPIC share responsibility for reducing inmate idleness through various education, treatment, and work programs. For FY 2012, approximately three percent of inmates in the three state prisons (and one and a half percent of inmates in correctional facilities across the state) were involved in MPIC’s work programs. Neither MDOC nor MPIC maintains a waiting list for inmates who wish to participate in MPIC programs; therefore, it is unknown to what extent MPIC is able to serve the number of inmates who want to participate in its programs.
• Cost avoidance--One of MPIC’s statutory goals is to reduce the cost of state government; however, MPIC has not tracked its reduction of the state’s costs by operating industries with inmate labor. Thus, MPIC cannot illustrate how effective it is at saving the state money.
• Inmate work skills and employability--Due in part to a lack of direction by MDOC, MPIC has limited coordination with MDOC’s vocational education programs and has not aligned its industries with industries that are growing in Mississippi. Further, MPIC has not offered inmates classroom training or auxiliary programs through community colleges, as authorized by state law. As a result, inmates have missed the opportunity to increase their skills and their employability, which would likely provide for more successful re-entry into the community upon release.
• Use of assets--In 2005, MPIC built a men’s transition center, which provides pre- and post- job placement services to its residents for successful re-entry into the community. The transition center provides valuable re-entry services to certain inmates who are typically not a part of MPIC’s work programs in the prisons. However, PEER questions whether this is the highest and best use of MPIC’s assets, given its statutory goals to rehabilitate inmates through useful work activities (i. e., through its work programs in the prisons) and reduce the cost of state government by operating prison industries programs with inmate labor.
  
  Also, MPIC does not have a written contract with MDOC to operate the transition center. As a result, there is an increased risk for confusion in the management of the center and with payments for operations.
• Resale and reporting of items not manufactured by inmates--MPIC does not report sales for finished goods separately from sales for items manufactured by inmates. Instead, MPIC attributes some of its sales of finished goods to its furniture/service shop, where the goods are handled and repackaged. This practice provides an inaccurate picture of the sales and net profits of the furniture/service shop.
• Time frames for capital expenditures--MPIC has approximately $4 million in cash assets. Of that amount, MPIC included approximately $3.6 million in its capital expenditures forecast dated January 2013. However, the forecast provided no time frames for when MPIC plans to spend this money.

Recommendations

• In order for MPIC to show its impact on post-release inmate outcomes (i. e., employment and recidivism), MPIC should partner with researchers at a community college or university. Research questions might include:
  
  
  • Do released inmates who have participated in an MPIC program have a lower recidivism rate than released inmates have not participated in an MPIC program?
  • Do released inmates who have participated in an MPIC program have a higher rate of employment after release than released inmates who have not participated in an MPIC program?
  • Are released inmates employed using their skills after release?

  At minimum, MPIC should maintain data and records to show recidivism rates for inmates who have participated in MPIC programs.

• MPIC should track its cost avoidance or cost savings to government entities, particularly in regard to the amount of money saved by providing goods and services at a lower price than the market prices. This cumulative figure should be included in MPIC’s annual report and could be used for promotional purposes to increase sales.
• MDOC should maintain a waiting list of all inmates interested in MPIC programs. This list should be monitored by MPIC to help gauge how well it is serving the number of inmates who want to participate.
• MPIC should seek to form a stronger relationship with MDOC’s vocational programs for the purpose of coordinating efforts in rehabilitating inmates. To help ensure that released inmates have been taught skills valued by hiring industries, MDOC and MPIC should engage businesses and industries in designing vocational and employment-related reentry programs.
• MPIC should more proactively seek opportunities to engage Mississippi Delta Community College and other community colleges in certifying inmates or providing further instruction for inmates.
• MPIC should use employment projections from the Mississippi Department of Employment Security to identify the industries, jobs, and skills that will be in demand in this state. MPIC should then respond to those demands by developing industries accordingly and, when feasible, in coordination with vocational programs.
• MPIC should develop performance indicators that are measurable and directly related to its statutory goals. These indicators should be included in MPIC’s annual report and could be used for promotional purposes to increase sales or help to develop a positive image.
• MPIC should add timeframes to its capital expenditures forecasts.
• MPIC should improve the accuracy of its reporting by separating manufactured items from resale items. Such reporting would improve the accuracy of the sales data and would provide management with a more accurate picture of where MPIC is losing money, for which items it should review pricing structure, or whether it should consider closing the furniture shop due to low sales and consistent net losses.
• MDOC should create a master plan for correctional work programs that should describe a logical sequence of training, employment, and post-release job placement for inmates, as required by MISS. CODE ANN. Section 47-5-573.
• MDOC should include in its annual report post-release employment data and recidivism data for inmates who participated in MPIC programs, as required by MISS. CODE ANN. Section 47-5-559.
• If MPIC does not provide a clear resolution of the accountability issues identified in this report by June 30, 2016, the Legislature should consider instituting a sunset review to determine whether MPIC is serving a clear purpose or whether MPIC should be dissolved.

PEER Home Page         Full Text PDF (569K)