U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Statistics

APRIL 2023

Statistical Brief

NCJ 306021

Survey of Prison Inmates

Work Assignments Reported by Prisoners, 2016
Lauren G. Beatty and Tracy L. Snell, BJS Statisticians

About 61% of all U.S. prisoners in 2016 reported
that they had a current work assignment(figure 1). Eight in 10 federal prisoners and 6in 10 state prisoners reported that they currently had awork assignment. In this report, a work assignment inprison includes those inside the prison facility, on facility
grounds, or off facility grounds. Findings in this reportare based on self-reported data collected through theSurvey of Prison Inmates (SPI), which was most recently
fielded in 2016. The SPI represents a key source ofnational data on prisoner characteristics and is collected
through face-to-face interviews with a national sample offederal and state prisoners age 18 or older.
Almost three-quarters (73%) of U.S. prisoners who had
a work assignment when interviewed in 2016 said they
were required to have a work assignment (figure 2). Most
federal (83%) and state (71%) prisoners who had a work
assignment reported that they were required to have one.
In 2016, the most common type of work assignment
reported by all prisoners in the United States was janitorial
duties (18%), followed by food preparation or related
duties (12%) (table 1). These patterns were consistentamong both federal and state prisoners.

Among U.S. prisoners in 2016 who had a work assignmentthat was not a requirement, 7 in 10 (70%) reported thatlearning new job skills was a very important reason in
their decision to work while in prison (figure 3). Federaland state prisoners who chose to have a work assignment
reported similar reasons for their decision. Learning new
job skills (71% of federal and 70% of state prisoners) andearning spending money (63% of federal and 54% of stateprisoners) were commonly reported as a very importantfactor in their decision to work. In contrast, spendingtime with friends or making new friends was most likely
to be rated by federal (67%) or state (63%) prisoners as anunimportant reason for taking a work assignment.

Figure 1
Percent of prisoners in the United States, by workassignment status and prison population, 2016
All prisoners*60.9

39.1
79.7

Federal prisoners

20.3

58.4

State prisoners
010 20 30 40
Work assignment
No work assignment

50

41.6
60

70

80

90 100Note: Percentages exclude missing data and are based on the total numberof prisoners for each prison population. See table 1 for percentages
and the estimated number of prisoners for each prison population andappendix table 1 for standard errors.
*Includes state prisoners and sentenced federal prisoners.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Prison Inmates, 2016.

Figure 2
Percent of prisoners in the United States with awork assignment, by requirement status and prison
population, 2016
All prisoners*

73.2

Federal prisoners

26.8
83.3

State prisoners

71.3

0

10 20 30 40 50 60
Work assignment required
Work assignment not required

70

16.7
28.7

80

90 100Note: Percentages exclude missing data and are based on the numberof respondents who had a prison work assignment. See appendix table
2 for percentages, the estimated number of prisoners who had a work
assignment for each prison population, and standard errors.
*Includes state prisoners and sentenced federal prisoners.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Prison Inmates, 2016.

TABLE 1Percent of prisoners in the United States, by type of work assignment and prison population, 2016
Type of work assignment
Total
Had a work assignment
NoYes
Janitorial duties
Grounds/road maintenanceFood preparation/related duties
Laundry
Medical services
Farming/forestry/ranching
Goods production/industriesb
Library/stockroom/store servicesc
Maintenance or repair/construction
OtherAll prisonersa
100%

Federal prisoners
100%

State prisoners
100%

39.1%
60.9
18.1
5.7
11.9
2.6
1.5
1.6
3.9
7.9
4.6
4.6

20.3%
79.7
28.2
7.1
14.2
2.1
0.9
0.4
6.7
12.1
6.9
3.2

41.6%
58.4
16.7
5.6
11.6
2.7
1.6
1.7
3.5
7.3
4.3
4.8

Estimated number of prisoners

1,421,700

173,400

1,248,300

Note: Percentages exclude missing data. Counts are rounded to the nearest 100. Details may not sum to the totals because respondents could report
more than one type of prison work assignment. See Questions on prison work assignments in the Survey of Prison Inmates, 2016 for more information on thequestions asked to measure work assignments in prison. See appendix table 1 for standard errors.
aIncludes state prisoners and sentenced federal prisoners.
bIncludes contract services such as telemarketing, the tag shop, or the print shop.
cIncludes services such as office help, recreation, sew shop, or barber or beauty shop.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Prison Inmates, 2016.

Figure 3
Reasons prisoners in the United States chose to have a work assignment that was not a requirement, byimportance of reason and prison population, 2016
All prisoners*
Learn new job skills
Earn spending money
Break up boredom/try it
Get out of prison early
Spend time with/make friends
Federal prisoners
Learn new job skills
Earn spending money
Break up boredom/try it
Get out of prison early
Spend time with/make friends
State prisoners
Learn new job skills
Earn spending money
Break up boredom/try it
Get out of prison early
Spend time with/make friends
0102030
Very important

4050
Somewhat important

6070
Not important

8090100Note: Percentages exclude missing data and are based on the number of respondents who had a prison work assignment that was not a requirement.
See Questions on prison work assignments in the Survey of Prison Inmates, 2016 for more information on the questions asked to measure work assignments
in prison. See appendix table 3 for percentages, the estimated number of prisoners for each prison population, and standard errors.
*Includes state prisoners and sentenced federal prisoners.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Prison Inmates, 2016.

Work Assignments Rep or ted by Prisoners, 2016 | April 2023 2

Questions on prison work assignments in the Survey of Prison Inmates, 2016
Respondents to the Survey of Prison Inmates, 2016
(SPI) were asked whether they currently had a work
assignment inside the prison facility, on facility grounds,
or off facility grounds. (See figure 1 and table 1.) Those
respondents who reported that they had a prison work
assignment at the time of their interview were asked
about the types of work assignments they had. (Seetable 1.) Respondents could report more than one typeof prison work assignment. Their responses were codedby interviewers based on a predetermined list of prison
work assignments:

 maintenance, repair, or construction

 general janitorial duties such as cleaning, sweeping, orThe 2016 SPI also asked respondents who had a work
assignment that was not a requirement about theirmotivation to work while incarcerated, including reasons
why they worked and how important those reasons werein their decision to work. (See figure 3.)

mopping grounds or road maintenance food preparation or related duties in the kitchen,bakery, butchery, etc.

 laundry medical services such as in the hospital, infirmary, orother medical services

 farming, forestry, or ranching goods production, industries, or contract services suchas telemarketing, in the tag shop, in the print shop, etc.

 other.

All respondents who reported having a current work
assignment were also asked whether they were required
to have one. (See figure 2.) Respondents could berequired to have a prison work assignment based on theconditions of their sentence, by the state department ofcorrections (for state prisoners), by the Federal Bureau ofPrisons (for federal prisoners), or by the specific facility
where they were incarcerated.

For more information on the questions asked in the 2016
SPI, the survey documentation and data are archived
at the Inter-university Consortium for Political andSocial Research (ICPSR; study number 37692). The 2016questionnaire is also available on the BJS website athttps://bjs.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh236/files/media/
survey/spi16q_2.pdf.

 library, stockroom, or store services such as office help,

recreation, sew shop, barber or beauty shop, etc.

Work Assignments Rep or ted by Prisoners, 2016 | April 2023 3Methodology
Findings in this report are based on self-reported
data collected from a national sample of state andfederal prisoners in the 2016 Survey of Prison Inmates(SPI). The data were collected through face‑to‑faceinterviews with respondents using computer‑assisted
personal interviewing.
The target population for the 2016 SPI was sentenced(99%) or unsentenced (1%) state prisoners and sentenced
federal prisoners age 18 or older in the United States
during 2016. The primary objective of the SPI was toproduce national statistics of the state and sentenced
federal prison populations across a variety of domains.
Item nonresponse
All percentages in this report are based on nonmissing
data, as explained in the figure and table notes. The item
nonresponse rates for all characteristics presented areless than 1.0% for all prisoners and for state prisoners.
Among federal prisoners, the item nonresponse rates areless than 1.5% for all characteristics presented.
Standard errors
When national estimates are derived from a sample, aswith the SPI, caution must be used when comparing
one estimate to another or when comparing estimates
between years. Although one estimate may be larger
than another, estimates based on a sample rather thana complete enumeration of the population have somedegree of sampling error. The sampling error of an
estimate depends on several factors, including the sizeof the estimate, the number of completed interviews,
and the intracluster correlation of the outcome within
prisons. When the sampling error around an estimate istaken into account, estimates that appear different may
not be statistically different.
One measure of the sampling error associated withan estimate is the standard error. The standard error
may vary from one estimate to the next. Generally, anestimate with a smaller standard error provides a morereliable approximation of the true value than an estimate
with a larger standard error. Estimates with relatively
large standard errors have less precision and reliability
and should be interpreted with caution.
For complex sample designs, there are several methods
that can be used to generate standard errors around apoint estimate (e.g., percentage or count). In this report,

Taylor Series Linearization (TSL) methods were used toestimate the standard errors for percentages and counts.
The TSL method directly estimates variances througha linearized function by combining variance estimatesfrom stratum and primary sampling units (PSU) used tosample respondents. In the SPI, the design parameters
used for computing TSL variances are V1571 (geographystratum), V1572 (sex stratum), and V1573 (PSU).
Readers should note that, for purposes of confidentialityand disclosure protection, these design parameters
appear on the 2016 SPI restricted-use file only. The file isarchived at the Inter-university Consortium for Politicaland Social Research (ICPSR; study number 37692).
Readers may use the estimates and standard errors of
the estimates provided in this report to generate a 95%
confidence interval around the estimates as a measure of
the margin of error. Typically, multiplying the standard
error by 1.96 and then adding or subtracting the result
from the estimate produces the confidence interval.*This interval expresses the range of values with which
the true population parameter is expected to fall 95% ofthe time if the same sampling method is used to selectdifferent samples.
For small samples and estimates close to 0%, the useof the standard error to construct the 95% confidence
interval may not be reliable. Therefore, caution should
be used when interpreting the estimates. Caution should
also be used if constructing a 95% confidence interval,
which would include zero in these cases, because theestimate may not be distinguishable from zero.
This report focuses on describing the rates and patternsof work assignments within the state prison populationand separately within the federal prison population. It
does not include any significance testing to compare
estimates of state and federal prisoners on workassignments. Direct comparisons are not advised due todifferences in the operations of state and federal facilities
that pertain to the availability, timing, assignment, andmanagement of prison work assignments.
Additional resources
For more information on the 2016 SPI methodology,
see Methodology: Survey of Prison Inmates, 2016 (NCJ252210, BJS, July 2019) and Methodology in Profile ofPrison Inmates, 2016 (NCJ 255037, BJS, December 2021).
*The most accurate way to compute confidence intervals, especially forcomplex sample designs such as the 2016 SPI, is to account for the final
SPI weight (V1585) and all design parameters as described above.

Work Assignments Rep or ted by Prisoners, 2016 | April 2023 4

APPENDIX TABLE 1
Standard errors for figure 1: Percent of prisoners in the United States, by work assignment status andprison population, 2016 and table 1: Percent of prisoners in the United States, by type of work assignment
and prison population, 2016
Type of work assignment
Total
Had a work assignment
NoYesJanitorial duties
Grounds/road maintenanceFood preparation/related duties
Laundry
Medical services
Farming/forestry/ranching
Goods production/industries
Library/stockroom/store services
Maintenance or repair/construction
Other

All prisoners:

Federal prisoners:

State prisoners
:

1.20%
1.20
0.61
0.54
0.34
0.17
0.13
0.21
0.32
0.26
0.38
0.32

2.58%
2.58
1.68
0.87
0.77
0.29
0.21
0.17
1.25
0.75
0.76
0.34

1.33%
1.33
0.65
0.60
0.37
0.19
0.15
0.24
0.32
0.28
0.42
0.36

32,5008,500

31,300Estimated number of prisoners
Note: Standard errors of counts are rounded to the nearest 100.
:Not calculated.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Prison Inmates, 2016.

APPENDIX TABLE 2
Percentages and standard errors for figure 2: Percent of prisoners in the United States with a work
assignment, by requirement status and prison population, 2016
Required to have a work assignment
Yes
NoAll prisoners*
Percent
Standard error
73.2%
1.37%
26.8
1.37

Federal prisoners
Percent
Standard error
83.3%
2.70%
16.7
2.70

State prisoners
Percent
Standard error
71.3%
1.55%
28.7
1.55

Estimated number of prisoners whohad a work assignment

859,300

136,400

722,900

27,0007,100

26,000Note: Percentages exclude missing data and are based on the number of respondents who had a prison work assignment. Counts and standard errors ofcounts are rounded to the nearest 100.
*Includes state prisoners and sentenced federal prisoners.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Prison Inmates, 2016.

Work Assignments Rep or ted by Prisoners, 2016 | April 2023 5

APPENDIX TABLE 3
Percentages and standard errors for figure 3: Reasons prisoners in the United States chose to have a work assignment that was not arequirement, by importance of reason and prison population, 2016
Learn new job skills
Percent
Standard error
100%
:69.7
1.11%
15.0
0.77
15.3
0.84
229,000
11,900

Importance of reason
All prisoners*
Very important
Somewhat important
Not important
Estimated number of all prisoners
Federal prisoners
Very important
70.7%
Somewhat important
13.5
Not important
15.8
Estimated number of federal prisoners 22,600
State prisoners
Very important
69.6%
Somewhat important
15.1
Not important
15.3
Estimated number of state prisoners 206,500

Reason for choosing to have a work assignment
Earn spending money
Break up boredom/try it
Get out of prison early
Percent
Standard error
Percent
Standard error
Percent
Standard error
100%
:
100%
:
100%
:
54.9
1.69%
50.7
1.21%
43.8
1.46%
16.6
0.76
25.1
1.07
15.0
0.87
28.5
1.61
24.2
0.97
41.2
1.68
229,000
11,900229,000
11,900229,000
11,900Spend time with/make friends
Percent
Standard error
100%
:
13.6
0.76%
23.2
0.88
63.2
1.14
229,000
11,900

3.45%
2.10
2.20
3,400

62.8%
14.1
23.0
22,600

2.87%
1.58
2.38
3,400

43.0%
27.2
29.8
22,600

2.27%
2.28
2.76
3,400

33.5%
14.2
52.3
22,600

2.78%
2.07
3.28
3,400

12.5%
20.8
66.7
22,600

2.09%
2.61
3.77
3,400

1.17%
0.82
0.90
11,400

54.0%
16.9
29.1
206,500

1.84%
0.82
1.77
11,400

51.6%
24.9
23.5
206,500

1.30%
1.17
1.02
11,400

44.9%
15.1
40.0
206,500

1.58%
0.94
1.81
11,400

13.8%
23.4
62.8
206,500

0.81%
0.92
1.18
11,400Note: Percentages exclude missing data and are based on the number of respondents who had a prison work assignment that was not a requirement. The estimated number of prisoners reflects the numberof respondents who had a prison work assignment that was not a requirement. Counts and standard errors of counts are rounded to the nearest 100. See Questions on prison work assignments in the Survey ofPrison Inmates, 2016 for more information on the questions asked to measure work assignments in prison.
:Not calculated.
*Includes state prisoners and sentenced federal prisoners.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Prison Inmates, 2016.

Work Assignments Rep or ted by Prisoners, 2016 | April 2023 6The Bureau of Justice Statistics of the U.S. Department of Justice is the principal
federal agency responsible for measuring crime, criminal victimization,
criminal offenders, victims of crime, correlates of crime, and the operation ofcriminal and civil justice systems at the federal, state, tribal, and local levels.
BJS collects, analyzes, and disseminates reliable statistics on crime and justicesystems in the United States, supports improvements to state and local criminal
justice information systems, and participates with national and internationalorganizations to develop and recommend national standards for justicestatistics. Alexis R. Piquero, PhD, is the director.
This report was written by Lauren G. Beatty and Tracy L. Snell. Lauren G.
Beatty conducted statistical analysis, and Tracy L. Snell verified it. Stephanie
Mueller and Emily D. Buehler verified the report.
Eric Hendrixson edited the report. Jeffrey Link produced the report.
April 2023, NCJ 306021

NCJ 306021

Office of Justice Programs
Building Solutions • Supporting Communities • Advancing Justicewww.ojp.gov