Human Rights and Prisons

5.3 Work and Training

Law and policy framework

Section 66 of the Corrections Act details that all prisoners may be employed in work (with the exception of those awaiting trial, on remand or detained under Immigration conditions, who may be employed if they request to be). Work should provide the prisoner with work experience, or assist their rehabilitation or community reintegration. It is also intended to offset establishment costs (for instance, by providing labour to keep the prison clean).
No prisoner should work more than 40 hours per week, across six days per week. Prisoners should not work on days that conflict with their religious beliefs or practices (s81). The International Labour Organisation details that prisoners should not be forcibly hired at the disposal of private companies or ventures.

Issues

In recent history, the nature of training and employment opportunities for prisoners was a serious concern. Many programmes, across different institutions, were shut down, apparently on economic grounds. For instance, the Ombudsmen’s Office (2005) highlighted that programmes in carving, horticulture and nurseries had closed because they failed to show a satisfactory financial return. The Department of Corrections (2009c) notes that prison employment programmes are not fully funded by government, and so are subject to the constraints of ‘commercial viability’ – with the result that poor performing industries are closed and resources are re-directed to activities that can be self-sustaining.
Over the last few years, the Department of Corrections has made noteworthy changes to practice on training and employment. In particular, the Prisoner Skills and Employment Strategy has provided a clear focus to assist prisoners to gain work skills and to acquire training-related qualifications. The Department of Corrections (2011) has reported that over 70 per cent of sentenced prisoners are currently involved in some form of employment or job training. The Department advises (ibid.) that, in 2010/11, prisoners undertook 7,022,878 hours of employment activity and spent 171,175 hours engaged in Trade and Technical Training. In the past 12 months, 533 prisoners have achieved a total of 780 National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) level 1-3 qualifications while participating in Corrections Inmate Employment’s (CIE) industry sector and Trade and Technical Training activities. This is a 113 per cent increase from the previous financial year.
Good progress can be identified in a number of aspects, including:

• 
  The development of work beyond that required to maintain the prison building (eg cleaning) or daily prisoner care (eg laundry). Since 2006, Corrections Inmate Employment (CIE) has actively worked to increase prisoner participation and the quality of employment training, focusing its efforts upon: expanding existing CIE prison-based industries such as farming, horticulture, engineering, forestry, catering and laundries; and developing new industries such as photocopier assembly and recycling, State housing refurbishment, organic vegetable gardening, grounds and building maintenance, and distribution and warehousing.
  

Examples include: the Habitat for Humanity programme involving Rimutaka prisoners; the Puppies in Prison Programme at Auckland Women’s; Small Engine Maintenance at Wanganui Prison; the Construction Facility – that refurbishes around 40 state houses a year – at Spring Hill; or, the Pre-cast concrete business at Auckland. These initiatives develop significant skills that are transferable on release.

Other initiatives announced following the launch of the 2009-2012 Prisoner Skills and Employment Strategy in October 2009, include: the building of twelve new workshops, and expansion of training in motor mechanics, painting and decorating, horticulture, distribution, catering, building and construction, bricklaying and plumbing (Collins, 2009d).

• 
  The consolidation of programmes that are connected to training certificates from nationally-recognised institutions such as Industry Training Organisations, Weltec or UCOL. This approach has a number of functions such as building prisoner confidence in their abilities and providing employers with an indication that the individual has reached a national standard of proficiency. The Department of Corrections (2010b) states that prisoners were assessed against a total of 80,199 New Zealand Qualifications Authority (NZQA) credits over the previous year. These credit achievement figures reflect a sustained growth over the last few years.
  

• 
  The continuation of the Release to Work programme in which prisoners are placed in forestry, horticulture, construction and other industries. In 2008-09, Corrections sustained a level of 150 prisoners engaged in Release to Work programmes, however this number declined to 117 in 2009-10 (ibid). The reasons for this decline have been attributed to tightening economic conditions by the Department however commentators, such as the Howard League, have claimed that it is the consequence of increased risk-averse practices (Morning Report, 2011)
  

• 
  The development of strategies to attend to the specific training and employment needs of Māori prisoners and young prisoners.
  

This training and employment approach taken by Corrections, since 2006 – aided by the injection of additional government funding – is commendable and must be developed. In building upon this progress, a few points might be made.

First, studies show that those who have participated in prison-based employment programmes have a higher chance of gaining employment, on release, than other prisoners. They also have lower recidivism rates (Department of Corrections, 2009f). International evidence (McHutchison, 2005) suggests that work that is (i) meaningful (ii) linked to vocational training and accreditation, and (iii) linked to social environments in which the prisoner will be released has a positive correlation with reduced re-offending rates. Further, work that develops prisoner responsibilities (for example, in organising activities, working in teams, prisoners instructing other prisoners, and so) is useful. However, much of prison work (such as cleaning or laundry work) is not proven to reduce reoffending rates – although, of course, it may reduce prisoner boredom, provide a wage for prisoners, decrease tension, and bring cost-savings to the institution. Thus, some work opportunities provide greater benefit than others.
Second, while the Employment Policy establishes a rationale for setting a commercial objective to prison industries, there is a strong argument to be made that employment opportunities should not be developed solely in terms of commercial viability. If work programmes can be directed along meaningful, pro-training and pro-community values, then they can bring long-term economic benefits – such as in terms of reducing reimprisonment rates. Moreover, other rehabilitative programmes are fully funded and do not have to operate along commercial lines.
Third, that opportunities to work must be sustained across time for prisoners. There is a distinction between having work programmes on paper and operations in practice. At times, when prisons face stress in prisoner numbers or staff shortages, workshops and training opportunities may well be downgraded due to logistical difficulties. Similarly, if prisons pursue a dominant ethos of risk-aversion, valuable working opportunities could well be undermined. This could lead to what Keve (1974:30) called the ‘soft pretense of work’.
Fourth, although it is acknowledged that a significant number of prisoners lack literacy or numeracy skills and that this inhibits their involvement in certain employment routes, the Department might still increase opportunities for prisoners to pursue more high-tech, information-based programmes. There is more scope, for instance, for further IT-based training and employment opportunities.
Fifth, in line with the Department’s recognition of meeting the needs of certain prisoners, training and employment strategies that attend to the specific needs of women prisoners should be developed.
Sixth, that while work can be viewed as beneficial for prisoners, and society, the Department must be mindful of the potential of work to be experienced as exploitation or abuse (Reilly, 2009). It also appears that many prisoners struggle to pay for their weekly requirements – phone cards, cigarettes, and so on – out of their wages. Given these circumstances, the nature of payment for prison work is worthy of further examination. Similarly, further research on the perceptions and experiences, of prisoners and staff, towards work and pay practices would be welcome.