|Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant|
|Taxpayers||$1,794||Benefits minus costs||$5,980|
|Participants||$0||Benefit to cost ratio||$12.69|
|Others||$4,056||Chance the program will produce|
|Indirect||$641||benefits greater than the costs||100 %|
|Net program cost||($512)|
|Benefits minus cost||$5,980|
|Meta-Analysis of Program Effects|
|Outcomes measured||Treatment age||No. of effect sizes||Treatment N||Adjusted effect sizes(ES) and standard errors(SE) used in the benefit - cost analysis||Unadjusted effect size (random effects model)|
|First time ES is estimated||Second time ES is estimated|
Any criminal conviction according to court records, sometimes measured through charges, arrests, incarceration, or self-report.
Any employment, including part-time work.
|Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant|
|Affected outcome:||Resulting benefits:1||Benefits accrue to:|
|Crime||Criminal justice system||$1,794||$0||$4,056||$897||$6,747|
|Program cost||Adjustment for deadweight cost of program||$0||$0||$0||($256)||($256)|
|Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant|
|Annual cost||Year dollars||Summary|
|Program costs||$485||2016||Present value of net program costs (in 2018 dollars)||($512)|
|Comparison costs||$0||2016||Cost range (+ or -)||10 %|
Benefits Minus Costs
Benefits by Perspective
Taxpayer Benefits by Source of Value
|Benefits Minus Costs Over Time (Cumulative Discounted Dollars)|
|The graph above illustrates the estimated cumulative net benefits per-participant for the first fifty years beyond the initial investment in the program. We present these cash flows in discounted dollars. If the dollars are negative (bars below $0 line), the cumulative benefits do not outweigh the cost of the program up to that point in time. The program breaks even when the dollars reach $0. At this point, the total benefits to participants, taxpayers, and others, are equal to the cost of the program. If the dollars are above $0, the benefits of the program exceed the initial investment.|
Berk, J.A. (2009). Essays on work and education: Behind bars and in the free world. Dissertation Abstracts International, 69(11), A.
Bohmert, M.N., & Duwe, G. (2012). Minnesota's Affordable Homes Program: Evaluating the effects of a prison work program on recidivism, employment and cost avoidance. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 23(3), 327-351.
Cox, R.J.A. (2009). An economic analysis of prison labor. Atlanta, Ga: Georgia State University.
Drake, E.K. (2003). Class I impacts: Work during incarceration and its effects on post-prison employment patterns and recidivism. Olympia, WA: Washington State Department of Corrections, Planning and Research Section.
Hopper, J.D. (2009). The effects of private prison labor program participation on inmate recidivism. Dissertation Abstracts International, 69(07), A.
Lutze, F.E., Drapela, L.A., & Schaefer, R.L. (2015). Washington State Correctional Industries: An outcome evaluation of its effect on institutional behavior, employment, and recidivism. Pullman: Washington State University.
Maguire, K.E., Flanagan, T.J., & Thornberry, T.P. (1988). Prison labor and recidivism. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 4(1), 3-18.
Saylor, W.G., & Gaes, G.G. (1996). PREP: Training inmates through industrial work participation, and vocational and apprenticeship instruction. Washington, DC: United States Federal Bureau of Prisons.
Smith, C.J., Bechtel, J., Patrick, A., Smith, R.R., & Wilson-Gentry, L. (2006). Correctional Industries preparing inmates for re-entry: Recidivism & post-release employment. (Retrieved from United States Department of Justice database; Document No. 214608)
Soderstrom, I.R., Minor, K.I., Castellano, T.C., & Adams, J.L. (2001). An evaluation of a state's correctional industries program. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, Washington, DC.
Evans, M, & Koenig, S. (2011). Does participation in Washington’s Correctional Industries increase employment and reduce recidivism? Washington State Department of Corrections.
Richmond, K.M. (2009). Factories with fences: The effect of prison industries on female inmates. College Park, Md: University of Maryland.