ABSTRACT Title: PRISON INDUSTRIES IN SOUTH CAROLINA: 1996–2005 WHY AND HOW THE PIE MODEL PROSPERED Marie Fajardo Ragghianti, Ph.D., 2008 Directed By: Charles F. Wellford, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice The purpose of this study is to determine why the enhanced prison industries (PIE) model has prospered for more than 10 years in South Carolina, when in other states it has struggled to survive—or even been abolished. A history of prison industries in the United States will provide context for a review of legal, economic, and political issues affecting the PIE program in South Carolina and elsewhere. The leadership style of the state’s director of prison industries (under whose tenure the PIE model has developed and flourished) will be described. Additionally, a cross- jurisdictional comparison of the PIE programs in five other states will be presented, to facilitate future research initiatives, and to provide policymakers and correctional administrators with preliminary guidance for development or improvement of PIE initiatives. In this regard, a conceptual model of enhanced prison industries will be developed and described. Finally, policy and program recommendations will be made, based on the study’s findings. PRISON INDUSTRIES IN SOUTH CAROLINA: 1996–2005 WHY AND HOW THE PIE MODEL PROSPERED By Marie Fajardo Ragghianti Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Maryland, College Park, in partial fulfillment Of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 2008 Advisory Committee: Professor Charles F. Wellford, Ph.D., Chair Professor Eric D. Wish, Ph.D. Professor Doris L. MacKenzie, Ph.D. Thomas R. Kane, Ph.D. Professor William W. Falk, Ph.D. Copyright by Marie Fajardo Ragghianti 2008 PREFACE Originally, my dissertation was to be a search for the “ideal” American prison. It was my intention to research and describe key components essential to establishing and identifying a prison “ideal.” While I was not convinced that such a prison currently existed, I believed that a number of prisons might be identified where research-based programming revealed success measured in terms of reduced recidivism and perhaps even cost effectiveness. Some elements I identified to make up an ideal prison were prison industries, drug treatment, vocational training and education. My dissertation committee, however, asked me to narrow my focus to one element, or component, of a successful prison. At least two members of my committee knew that my focus for many years had been on identifying effective prison-based drug treatment programs for offenders with a history of substance abuse. Indeed, the choice of narrowing my focus to prison-based drug treatment seemed compelling, certainly the most expedient path toward completing my dissertation. However, in my reviews of successful prison-based drug treatment programs, I had noticed that a common Achilles heel for inmates who graduated such programs was difficulty in finding gainful employment. Recent research (Knight et al., 1999; Martin, et al., 1999; Wexler, et al., 1999) revealed, however, that inmate drug treatment graduates who received assistance in finding post-prison employment were ii more likely to remain both drug- and crime-free than inmates who did not receive such assistance. For a long time, I had observed that inmate employment, like substance abuse treatment, appeared to be associated with reduced recidivism. It seemed unlikely to me, however, that an offender—even a gainfully employed offender with a high- paying job—could sustain a crime-free lifestyle in the post-prison world, if he or she had an untreated history of substance abuse. Just as treatment alone was not sufficient for treatment graduates who needed jobs, employment alone might not be sufficient for an inmate who needed treatment for substance abuse. Substance abuse has been called a primary (as opposed to secondary) problem. In other words, until and unless the problem of substance abuse is successfully addressed, other rehabilitative measures are likely to be ineffective. In short, an ex-offender with a history of drug abuse is likely to relapse to drug use—no matter how splendid his or her education, training or job. Indeed, a higher salary might facilitate the purchase of more or “better” drugs. The research of the past few decades, however, while not complete, has made important inroads into the issues related to treatment of substance-abusing inmates. I did not feel that I had much to contribute in my dissertation, other than adding to the already considerable extant research findings in the area. Prison industries, on the other hand, seemed ripe for examination. The research on prison industries was not as developed, and could hardly be described as “considerable.” Besides, from a personal perspective, it seemed to me that I had iii more room to grow in pursuing what for me was “the unknown”—in short, I wanted to attempt to develop a modest expertise in another area. For these reasons, I chose to narrow the focus of my dissertation to prison industries. I wanted to learn more about a crucial ingredient for post-prison success. Employment is fundamental to the post-prison lives of most offenders, just as a c r i me -free environment is fundamental to the lives of citizens. Could there be a link between the two? The search for the answer has been long and tedious. Many times I felt discouraged by the enormity of the goal I had set for myself. How much easier (and faster!) it might have been, had I stayed with the issues associated with drug treatment— issues that I knew well. But my topic, enhanced prison industries (better known by its acronym PIE), did not disappoint. At the end of my journey, I remained as exhilarated by my subject as I had been when I began. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am indebted to many people. As I seek to acknowledge them, my only apprehension is that I may overlook someone who helped me along the way. In fact, there was a small army of such people. I cannot begin without thanking the individual members of my committee. My committee chair, Charles Wellford, warned me at the outset that my task would be difficult, yet he took on the thankless task of overseeing my study from beginning to end. Dr. Wellford has been a source of enormous encouragement to me from the moment I arrived at the University of Maryland. He always responded promptly to my calls, and I always appreciated it. Doris MacKenzie, knowing that I was familiar with substance abuse issues and unfamiliar with prison industries, tolerated my change in direction and gave not a hint that she might have misgivings. Eric Wish, my long time dear friend, supported me from the beginning. It was Eric who—in an earlier iteration of a (different) dissertation, observed that I did not seem interested in my topic. When I acknowledged that I had lost interest in the topic, he urged me to reconsider, and explore something that really interested me. I took his advice, and will forever be indebted. Tom Kane, assistant director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, a man that I admire very much, not only sat on my committee but introduced me to Steve Schwalb, then Federal Prison Industries Chief Operating Officer, who provided invaluable insight early on in my dissertation forays. Likewise, Bobby Vassar, U.S. v House of Representatives Legislative Counsel, was a perfect initial interview as I began my study. (It was also great to see an old friend.) Paula Allen, executive administrative assistant to the Dept. of Criminology and Criminal Justice, has helped me in countless ways, and always with a smile. Thank you, Paula, for everything! And thank you to Bill Falk, who generously read my lengthy study and arrived at my defense, armed with probing questions and insights. I am indebted to Doug Lipton, mentor and friend who urged me for years to complete my Ph.D. His constant prodding helped to keep it in the forefront of my mind, when it occasionally lapsed into the background of my busy career. Greg Falkin, too, of NDRI, must be acknowledged as someone whose encouragement I never forgot. Harry Wexler, also of NDRI, counseled me during one particular rough patch, when I wondered if I would ever really finish. I could not have started, much less completed, this study without the full cooperation and assistance of Tony Ellis, South Carolina’s Director of Prison Industries. Tony was unstinting in providing me with myriads of records, documents, brochures, and even catalogs and DVDs. He was helpful, informative, forthcoming, and at all times, candid. He was generous in his assessment of his peers, and just as generous in helping me locate them. Tony introduced me to Rickie Harrison, administrative manager of prison industries, who escorted me to prison industries programs around the state, and was always available to answer questions. Rickie was a goldmine of information and assistance, mailing, faxing, or emailing me endless streams of data. vi Thank you to numerous other interviewees, including former South Carolina SCDC Director Bill Leeke; Former SCDC Deputy Commissioner of Administration Dr. Hugh Clements; SCDC Plant Manager of Tyger River Correctional Institution Ray Quinn; SCDC Production Manager of the Tire Retread Plant at Lieber Correctional Institution Jack Staudt; SC State Senator Chauncey “Greg” Gregory; U.S. Textiles CEO Hans Lengers; several SCDC PIE inmate workers; Cleveland- Marshall College of Law Professor Emerita and labor lawyer Joan Baker; Federal Bureau of Prisons UNICOR Chief Administrative Officer and 2007 NCIA Board of Directors member Robert C. Grieser; Florida PIE Program Manager, Brian Connett; SCDC Legal Counsel Lake Summers (who has represented SCDC Prison Industries in several lawsuits). In particular, I thank Gwyn-Smith Ingley and Gina Honeycutt, past and current NCIA executive directors.