Search for a command to run...
Modern correctional industries have emerged as enter prises with two missions: one to operate as viable, self sufficient businesses, and the other, to train inmate workers in marketable job skills. To meet these goals, correctional industries must strive to balance their opera tions, giving equal emphasis to business and social mission objectives. This article describes a training pro cess model called the Working Model, that is designed to be compatible with the needs of today's correctional industries. Developed by PRIDE Enterprises, Florida's correctional industries program, the Working Model is a comprehensive six-phase program consisting of orienta tion, certified on-the-job training, pre-release training, and post-release job placement. The author details the fundamental principles behind the Working Model and the rationale for its development. Included is an outline of the Model and a depiction of principal activities in each of its six phases. For most of this century, correctional industries as an enterprise lacked direction and purpose. Stunted by strong political, legislative, and economic influences, it remained fragmented and without focus for decades. Correctional industries has been unable to establish its niche in American society. It was not until after WW2 that social changes began to affect correction's philosophy, which in turn affected correctional industries. The gradual shift in philosophy from punishment to rehabilitation helped correctional industries focus on reintegration as its primary mission. Reintegration stressed job skills training in a realistic work setting. During the past two decades, this philoso phy has continued to evolve. In the view of this writer, correctional industries has begun to emerge as a coordi nated business and training enterprise. However, de spite this maturing process the struggle to maintain a balance between conflicting goals persists to this day. The purpose of this article is two-fold: (1) to trace the process of change occurring within correctional indus tries that forms the backdrop for the current state of inmate training; and (2) to describe a training process model developed by PRIDE Enterprises, Florida's cor rectional industries, which is offered as a viable program for correctional industries interested in advancing their training program interests. Historical Context — Decline & Stagnation During the period from the late 19th century to the outbreak of WW2, correctional industries declined dra matically. In its heyday, at the beginning of this century, correctional industries employed about 85% of all in mates. However, by 1940, this figure had fallen to 44% (American Correctional Association, [ACA], 1986). Strong opposition from the private sector business community and organized labor, combined with several scandals involving abuse of inmate laborers, led to significant congressional action that all but sounded the death knell for correctional industries. The ensuing decline and stag nation translated to restricted markets (due to pressures from business and labor), inferior goods and services, unreliable delivery, unrealistic prices, featherbedding, and poorly trained inmate workers. All the while correctional industries labored under mixed signals and confusion regarding purpose and mission. Conflicting goals include whether to provide meaningful work or to reduce idleness to train inmates for post-release jobs without conflicting with private sector businesses or to develop good work habits while trying to conform to restrictive prison regulations, and have con tinued to plague correctional industries (ACA, 1986). Much of the ambiguity surrounding correctional in dustries stems from the lack of clarity as to their basic purpose. After WW2, for example, correctional philoso phy shifted from punishment to rehabilitation. During the 1950s and 1960s, corrections' rehabilitative approach relied on the assumptions of the so-called medical model, which held that correctional staff would deal with prob lems as illnesses by diagnosing and treating them (Silverman & Vega, 1996). Correctional officials viewed the offender as someone who had an illness and required only the proper treatment to cure his or her criminality. This philosophy, in turn, reduced correctional industries to being laboratories for training, and consequently they lost their identity as business enterprises. Success in industries was measured not by the balance sheet but by the development of work skills related to future prisoner worker employment after release (ACA, 1981, p. xii). Behavioral scientists and prison administrators alike considered correctional industries as just another treat ment program. To an extent, this philosophy lingers even now. For example, a recent attempt to use a correctional industry platform to support a therapeutic program in