International Advances in Economic Research

, Volume 12, Issue 4, pp 540–550 | Cite as

Prison Labor: The Local Effects of Ohio Prison Industries



Prison labor has both positive and negative effects. Keeping prisoners active, training and socializing them to be productive citizens after prison, and helping to pay for their incarceration are some of the positives. Potential crowding out of free labor and industry is the major potential negative. This paper addresses the quantitative financial and employment consequences on local free labor and industry of prison industries in Ohio using an input–output model for Ohio. Based on the analysis, prison industries employment in Ohio has negligible to positive employment consequences for the Ohio economy and partially offsets the incarceration cost of the inmates who participate – providing between 5 and 10 percent of the incarceration cost in net cash flow and induced tax revenues.




Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Flanagan, T. J.; Thornberry, T. P.; Maquire, K.; McGarrell, E. “The Effect of Prison Industry Employment on Offender Behavior: Final Report of the Prison Industry Research Project,” Albany, New York: The Hindelang Criminal Justice Research Center, State University of New York at Albany, January 29, 1988.Google Scholar
  2. Grieser, R. C. “Do Correctional Industries Adversely Impact the Private Sector,” Correctional Industries, 1989, pp. 18–24.Google Scholar
  3. Harrison, P. M. “Prisoners in 2002,” available at, 2003.
  4. Korpi, K. “Re: Prison Industry Enhancement Certification Guideline [OJP(BJA)-1150],” Letter from the Director of Department of Research and Collective Bargaining Services, AFSCME, to Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, September 8, 1998.Google Scholar
  5. Marshall, R. “Preliminary Opinion on Inmate Labor Participation,” National Symposium on the Economics of Inmate Labor Force Participation, George Washington University, Washington, District of Columbia, May 21, 1999.Google Scholar
  6. Maryland Division of Corrections. State Use Industries Annual Report FY 2001. September 1, 2001.Google Scholar
  7. Reynolds, M. “Factories Behind Bars,” NCPA Policy Report no. 206, 1996.Google Scholar
  8. Schwalb, S. “The State of Correction,” Proceedings of the American Correctional Association Conference, American Correctional Association, 1994.Google Scholar
  9. Scott, C. E.; Derrick, F. W. “Prison Labor Effects on the Unskilled Labor Market,” American Economist, 48 (2), Fall 2004, pp. 74–81.Google Scholar
  10. —. “Prison Labor and Education Program Effects on Recidivism.” Unpublished Working paper, 2005.Google Scholar
  11. Yae, M. “An Analysis of Correctional Industries Programs,” Corrections Today, 61 (6), 1999, pp. 94–97.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Atlantic Economic Society 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Loyola College in MarylandBaltimoreUSA

Personalised recommendations