Table of Contents
Warren Burger, an Appreciation

1

Dedication: Warren Burger’s Quest for Factories with Fences

2

Foreword: Federal Prison Industries: the Myths, Successes,
and Challenges of One of America’s Most Successful Government
Programs

5

Work, Education, and Public Safety:
A Brief History of Federal Prison Industries

10

References

36

Appendices

38

Warren Burger: An Appreciation

Chief Justice Burger’s personal dedication to improving America’s correctional systems is a
hallmark for everyone in the corrections profession. He advocated the intense use of industry programs in our Nation’s prisons to combat and alleviate inmate idleness, while preparing inmates for productive careers upon release. Chief Justice Burger was a tireless advocate
of prison industries. His service as co-chairman of the National Prison Industries Task Force
transformed work and rehabilitation programs for inmates into meaningful and effective
resources. Chief Justice Burger was convinced that the keys to successful correctional
programs were “education, job training, and employment.”
His initial efforts to promote inmate work programs through the Task Force spearheaded a
series of conferences, seminars, and studies on the subject. Chief Justice Burger was a great
communicator, extolling the merits of “factories with fences.” He was able to gain public
support and sentiment for prison industry programs by educating the public. He understood
the need to balance the interests of private sector businesses and industry with correctional
goals. He had an inherent understanding that if we promoted the concept of work ethics in
inmates, it would reduce recidivism.
We will long cherish the legacy of Chief Justice Burger’s commitment to “factories with
fences” and Federal Prison Industries. It is in recognition of that spirit that we proudly
dedicate this publication to him.

Kathleen M. Hawk
Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons
CEO, Federal Prison Industries

Joseph M. Aragon
Chairman, Board of Directors
Federal Prison Industries

Dedication
Warren Burger’s Quest for “Factories with Fences”
by Warren I. Cikins
Reprinted and adapted with the permission of the Legal Times, (c) 1995.
On June 25, 1995, a great light went out: U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger
passed away at the age of 87. In the wake of his death, much has been written about Chief
Justice Burger’s commitment to strengthening the criminal justice system and to ensuring
the punishment of the wrong-doer, but that’s only part of the picture. Warren Burger believed in swift, certain punishment, but he also believed in giving offenders an opportunity
to reform themselves. “When society places a person behind walls and bars,” he said in
1981, “it has an obligation—a moral obligation—to do whatever can reasonably be done to
change that person before he or she goes back into the stream of society,” While there are
many ways to provide inmates with opportunities for change—through such means as drug
treatment, education, recreation, and religious services—clearly one of the most important is
prison industries. And Warren Burger was one of prison industries’ most passionate supporters.
Keeping inmates productively occupied was a subject in which Chief Justice Burger was
always interested. Even as a young man, Burger objected to the mere “warehousing” of
prisoners—something he observed during a tour of a Minnesota prison while he was a Boy
Scout. During his later years on the Federal bench and continuing after his retirement from
the Supreme Court, he became a staunch proponent of prison industries programs as a cost
effective way to occupy inmates’ time and teach them meaningful job skills. During a 1981
speech to the Lincoln, Nebraska, Bar Association, he speculated on the future of corrections,
asking “more warehouses or factories with fences?”
During the late 1970’s and early 1980’s, many public policymakers began questioning the
value of prison programs—including prison industries—because they did not seem to
reduce inmate recidivism as much as their supporters had hoped. This, however, was not
reason enough for Burger to give up. “The fact that [rehabilitating offenders] is far more
difficult than we had thought,” he explained, “is the very reason we must consider changes
and enlarge our efforts.”
In the early 1980’s, at Chief Justice Burger’s urging, George Washington University President Lloyd Elliott agreed to create a Center on Innovations in Corrections. An advisory
board of senior Government officials and representatives of the private sector was assembled to formulate a range of job training projects to be implemented at the State level.
The concept of having an advisory board grew into the creation of a National Task Force on
Prison Industries. Prison industries have always been controversial. Prison managers
generally support prison industries because they keep inmates productively occupied and
teach them job skills. Industry and labor leaders generally oppose prison industries, arguing
2

that they will displace private sector business and laborers. The Task Force—which included senior officials from all three branches of Government, as well as prominent business leaders and distinguished criminologists—tried to find some middle ground. It met
several times at the Supreme Court to help create a climate of acceptance for prison industries as a limited but essential component of the criminal justice system.
A high-water mark in the Burger effort to stimulate an informed debate about the appropriate role of prison industries in society was the Conference at Wingspread (a conference
center in Racine, Wisconsin) in February 1985. Almost 100 participants divided into 11
committees to study the following areas related to prison industries: laws, executive orders,
and regulations; procurement; marketing; inmate compensation; staff training; offender
input; education, inmate training and job placement; business and labor concerns; industries
management; research and evaluation; media and public relations. Priority was placed on
controlling prison costs and establishing programs that would help inmates defray some of
the costs of incarceration. Private industry representatives, corrections administrators,
legislators, university personnel, and concerned citizens chaired or reported on these committees’ activities.
When Chief Justice Burger retired from the Supreme Court in 1986 to give full-time attention to his job as chairman of the Commission for the Bicentennial of the U.S. Constitution,
he put his involvement in prison industries on the back burner. But by the early 1990’s, he
returned to the fray. When a congressman introduced an amendment to the 1990 crime bill
to sharply restrict Federal Prison Industries in four key product areas (furniture, textiles,
apparel, and footwear), Chief Justice Burger went into action. As the Washington Post
reported, “Burger fired off letters to House and Senate conferees labeling it an ‘astonishing
proposal’ that would be ‘an incredible setback to one of the most enlightened aspects of the
Federal prison system’.” Perhaps inspired by Burger’s defense of FPI, Senator Strom
Thurmond (R-SC) told his colleagues that he would not accept the anti-FPI amendment, and
that pronouncement brought the matter to an end. The Post quoted Burger as saying, “My
position on this is the most conservative one you can imagine. If you can take an individual
and train him so he can do something a little more useful than stamping license plates, he’s
a little less likely to go back [into prison]. This isn’t for the benefit of the criminal community. It’s for the benefit of you and me.”
Later in the 90’s, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, working closely with the Brookings Institution, began an effort to find common ground on the issue of Federal Prison Industries
among: (1) private sector industries in furniture, textiles, electronics, etc.; (2) the AFL-CIO;
and (3) the Federal Government. At the same time, Chief Justice Burger revived the Prison
Industries Task Force. Former Attorney General Griffin Bell agreed to serve as chairman
and was later succeeded by Judge William Webster, the former Director of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation and the Central Intelligence Agency. Chief Justice Burger and
Attorney General Janet Reno addressed the Task Force Meeting on January 12, 1994. Mr.
Burger cited the Scandinavian governments as role models in recognizing that almost all
incarcerated individuals eventually return to society and should be made literate and trained
in meaningful jobs. He emphasized that “the U.S. needs to focus on education, training, and
work, to try to make offenders better people than when they entered the system.”

3

Chief Justice Warren Burger continued to promote prison industries until the end of his life.
He made speeches, appeared on television, and provided forewords for books and tapes
encouraging greater acceptance of what he called “factories with fences.” It was my great
honor to have assisted him in many of these undertakings. I saw a quality of spirituality in
him in this quest for inmate rehabilitation that is in short supply at this time. He will be
sorely missed by prison officials, inmates, victims of crime, and the general public at
large—especially in an era of strong punishment (which he advocated) without the
countervailing willingness to welcome home a reformed prodigal son. He felt strongly about
the saying attributed to Dostoyevsky that “a civilization will be judged by how it treats its
wrongdoers.” To be tough on crime does not mean “throwing away the key.” Warren Earl
Burger will long be remembered for making us face that fact and act accordingly.
In honor of his commitment to the rehabilitative value of prison work programs, this volume
on the history of Federal Prison Industries is dedicated to the late Warren E. Burger.
Mr. Cikins is a leading consultant on criminal justice issues and Vice Chairman of the
National Committee on Community Corrections. He served with the Brookings Institution
from 1975 to 1993.

4

Foreword
Federal Prison Industries: The Myths, Successes, and Challenges of
One of America’s Most Successful Government Programs
by Steve Schwalb
Federal Prison Industries, Incorporated (FPI) was created over 60 years ago. Throughout our
history, we have served Federal Government customers by producing competitively-priced,
high-quality goods and services and backing them up with outstanding customer service and
quality guarantees. But our immediate customers are only part of the picture: by keeping
inmates positively focused and productively occupied, and by teaching them how to read,
write, and work, we have also served the public by significantly increasing the security of
Federal prisons and providing inmates with opportunities to become productive, law-abiding
citizens after release.
FPI is a true success story; a Government program that has exceeded the expectations of its
creators, cost taxpayers almost nothing, and benefited millions of constituents.
As I reflect on my early tenure as Assistant Director for the Industries, Education, and
Vocational Training Division and Chief Operating Officer of FPI, I am particularly proud to
be associated with two groups: my predecessors as Assistant Director, and the current staff
of the Corporation. The former—comprised of such outstanding leaders and visionaries as
James Bennett, A. H. Conner, Fred Wilkinson, Preston Smith, Wade Markley, Olin Minton,
J. T. Willingham, John “J. J.” Clark, Loy Hayes, Sr., Dave Jelinek, Jerry Farkas, and Rick
Seiter—established the culture, standards, and tradition for FPI. The latter—through their
continued professionalism and dedication—carry our reputation for excellence into the
future.
Although FPI has faced and overcome numerous challenges during its history, it will
probably face its greatest challenges in the years to come. Increasing Federal inmate populations, declining Federal budgets, and a rapidly changing Federal marketplace will require
FPI to constantly improve operations to maintain its viability.
Numerous myths abound about FPI, perhaps because it is a relatively unknown Federal
program. As we enter our 7th decade of operation, I want to address these myths as a way of
both correcting misconceptions and sharing with our constituents and critics alike the basis
for our immense pride in our accomplishments on behalf of the Nation.
Myth #1: Federal Prison Industries has an unfair competitive advantage over the private
sector.
This, the most inaccurate of all FPI myths, apparently is based on a misunderstanding of the
restrictions under which FPI operates. It is true that FPI pays its inmates less than a private
sector worker would get paid for carrying out similar assignments. Yet any competitive

5

advantage that accrues from this is more than offset by the lower average productivity of
inmates and the security inefficiencies associated with employing inmates.
In addition, due to concerns expressed by both labor and private business at the time FPI
was formed, Federal statute provides for significant constraints on FPI’s activities, which
further diminish any competitive advantage. Specifically, FPI is required by law to:
l

Employ as many inmates as reasonably possible.

l

Concentrate on manufacturing products that are labor intensive.

l

l

l

l

l

l

Provide the maximum opportunity for inmates to acquire marketable skills for use
upon release.
Diversify production as much as possible to minimize competition with private
industry and labor, and to reduce the burden on any one industry.
Avoid taking more than a reasonable share of the Federal market for any specific
product.
Sell products only to the Federal Government, meeting the quality and delivery
requirements of the Federal customer, and not exceeding current market prices.
Comply with Federal procurement regulations.
Operate in an economically self-sustaining manner.

In addition to these constraints, it should be noted that the average Federal inmate has an 8th
grade education, is 37 years old, is serving a l0-year sentence for a drug related offense, and
has never held a steady job. According to a recent study by an independent firm, the overall
productivity rate of an inmate with a background like this is approximately l/4 that of a
civilian worker. Finally, the costs associated with civilian supervision of inmate workers
and numerous measures necessary to maintain the security of the prison add substantially to
the cost of production.
It is hard to see how one could genuinely interpret the cumulative effect of these limitations
as a “competitive advantage.” In fact, Robert Q. Millan, a former member of FPI’s Board of
Directors, provided the following assessment of FPI’s situation: “As a former banker, I am
well aware of the operations of a variety of businesses. In private sector business, it is of
primary importance to eliminate all inefficiencies possible in order to maximize profit. I
could not recommend to my former bank, or any bank, that it make loans to a business that
was controlled by the conflicting mandates and had the inherent inefficiencies that handicap
FPI.”
FPI has no competitive advantage. In fact, quite the opposite is true. That it has succeeded in
spite of the obstacles it faces is a tribute to the support of our customers and the dedication
of our staff.

6

Myth #2: FPI enjoys a “superpreference” for sale of its goods to Federal agencies.
The term “superpreference” is an inflammatory term coined by FPI critics to engender
sympathy from certain quarters. The facts are much less provocative.
Federal procurement law requires that Federal agencies purchase products from FPI, provided that FPI can meet the purchaser’s quality, price, and delivery requirements. This
“mandatory source” (the proper term) designation merely requires that Federal agencies
contact FPI to see if its products will meet their needs. If so, procurement from FPI is
required. If not, FPI is obliged to grant a waiver, allowing the Federal customer to purchase
the product on the commercial market. The waiver process has worked very effectively: in
fiscal year 1995, FPI granted 80 percent of all waivers requested, thereby directing $383
million in Federal Government purchases to the private sector.
FPI’s mandatory source provides a steady flow of work and reduces the requirement for FPI
to expend large amounts of money on advertising and marketing. If such expenses had to be
incurred, sales levels and market share would have to be expanded, which would have an
adverse impact on private sector companies in the same businesses as FPI.

Myth #3: Inmates in FPI are not being taught marketable skills.
FPI teaches inmates the most marketable skill of all: how to work. No matter the job,
successful employees must first possess a basic work ethic: dependability, reliability, the
ability to work as a member of a team, the willingness to take direction from a supervisor,
and pride in a job well done.
In addition, for many FPI jobs, the trade skills learned are directly transferable to the private
sector. Examples include welding, soldering, printing, data entry, computer scanning and
digitizing, furniture manufacture and refinishing, upholstery, metal fabrication, apparel
manufacturing, and vehicle repair. Many of these programs are linked to a State certified
vocational or apprenticeship program.
In order to advance beyond the entry level, inmates are also required to complete their GED.
This is considered the minimum level of functional literacy required to be successful in
today’s society. Requiring such an achievement enhances an inmate’s employment prospects.
A recently completed research study on post release employment of Federal inmates found
that inmates who work in FPI are better behaved while in prison, are more likely to be
employed—at higher wages—after release, and are significantly less likely to re-offend than
inmates who did not participate in FPI.
Thus, FPI benefits both individual inmates and society as a whole by increasing the odds
that ex-offenders can become law-abiding, tax-paying citizens. This is one of FPI’s most
noteworthy successes.

7

Myth #4: FPI has an adverse impact on the private sector.
This assertion is based on a narrow, illusory definition of the private sector. There is no
dispute that if FPI did not exist, certain private sector companies would sell more products
to the Federal Government. There is, however, more to the situation than meets the eye.
An independent market study recently concluded that FPI’s sales represent less than 2
percent of the Federal Government’s annual purchases. Further, when Federal procurements
go down, private sector companies can increase the ratio of sales to the commercial market.
By law, FPI cannot.
Virtually every FPI sales dollar is returned to the private sector. In fiscal year 1995, FPI had
net sales of $459 million. Of this, $257 million was spent on raw material purchases from
private sector vendors. Another $87 million was spent on wages and benefits for FPI staff,
which in turn were spent in the private sector. Of the pay earned by inmates, 50 percent was
paid to the public in the form of fines, restitution, and child support. Even items the inmates
bought in the commissary (using their FPI earnings) were initially purchased from the
private sector vendors.
These specific dollar illustrations do not take into account the intangible value FPI adds to
the local community by contributing to safe, secure management of correctional facilities.
More than one mayor has said that the combination of direct FPI expenditures in the local
economy and the aforementioned intangible value on property values and community safety
result in an overall net gain, even taking into account any direct effect on businesses in the
same product line as FPI.
The plain truth is that the overall effect of FPI on private sector businesses is negligible. If
FPI did not exist, the increased appropriations required to provide alternative programs for
inmates, offset by increases in private sector income, would result in a net increased cost to
the taxpayers.

A History of Success
For six decades, FPI has been self-sufficient, funding operations through the sale of its
products to the Federal Government, rather than Government appropriations. In fact, over
the years, FPI has returned over $80 million to the U.S. Treasury.
During its history, FPI has provided valuable products and services to the Federal Government. Soldiers have had their uniforms, bedding, shoes, dorm furniture, helmets, flak vests,
and other items made by FPI. Likewise, FPI has provided veterans hospitals with pajamas,
towels, sheets, and mattresses. FPI has also produced missile cables (including those used
on the Patriot missiles during the Gulf War), wiring harnesses for jets and tanks, radio
mounts, battery boxes, postal bags, weather instrument parachutes, office furniture, and
signs. Services provided to the Government include rebuilding vehicles, remanufacturing
electric motors, entering data, and printing Government documents (such as this one).

8

.

All these products and services have been provided in response to the needs of our Federal
Government customers and in service to the Nation. It is a legacy of which we are very
proud. And it is the reason why FPI is one of the country’s most successful Government
programs.

The Future Challenge
The challenge for FPI is to remain financially self-sufficient while providing enough work
for an increasing number of inmates. The Federal inmate population has tripled over the last
10 years, and it is projected to continue growing for the foreseeable future. In order for the
Bureau of Prisons to successfully manage the increased number of inmates, FPI will have to
create jobs for these additional inmates.
FPI’s influence on the successful management of Federal prisons is no secret; it has been a
matter of public policy for over six decades. Policymakers have long recognized that
increasing the number of incarcerated individuals means increasing the number of prisons
and, in turn, increasing the size of FPI in order to improve both the management of the
prisons and an inmate’s chances of success upon release. As we begin the next decade,
continued support of Federal Prison Industries will pay important dividends for the country.

Steve Schwalb is the Bureau of Prisons Assistant Director for Industries, Education, and
Vocational Training and Chief Operating Officer for Federal Prison Industries, Inc.

9

Work, Education, and Public Safety:
A Brief History of Federal Prison Industries
by John W. Roberts
Introduction
“No single phase of life within prison walls is more important to the public or to the inmate
than efficient industrial operations and the intelligent utilization of the labor of prisoners,”
stated a Federal Bureau of Prisons report in 1949. This statement is still true today, nearly
50 years later. As long as society relies on incarceration to punish convicted offenders, it
will be necessary to maintain vibrant industrial programs to employ prisoners. Safe and
effective prison administration would be virtually impossible without prison industries.
Since 1934, Federal Prison Industries, Incorporated—a wholly-owned corporation of the
United States Government—has operated factories and employed inmates in America’s
Federal prisons. Also known as FPI or UNICOR, Federal Prison Industries, Inc., has made
an incalculable contribution to law enforcement by contributing to the safety and security of
Federal correctional institutions. At the same time, it has produced a wide array of products
for use by the U.S. Government and provided tens of thousands of inmates with the vocational training and work experience they needed to become gainfully-employed, law-abiding
citizens after release. FPI serves many constituencies—the public, prison staff, other
Federal agencies, and even the inmates themselves. It is one of the most successful and
cost-effective enterprises of the Federal Government.
Historically, however, industrial and other work programs for prisoners have generated
considerable controversy. Organized labor and small business alike have expressed fears
that prison-made merchandise constituted unfair competition. And the brutal work programs that appeared in State and county prisons during the 19th century precipitated a
national outcry.
FPI was created with such concerns in mind. It was designed to enable inmates to perform
meaningful work under humane conditions without posing a significant competitive threat
to private industry or free labor. In fact, properly-organized prison industrial programs such
as FPI can be justified on several grounds:
1. Safe prison management and better prison discipline through the reduction of idleness.
Idleness in prison is dangerous. It can give rise to boredom and frustrations that can explode in disputes among inmates and in attacks by inmates upon prison staff. Prison industrial activity is, first and foremost, a management tool. It enhances discipline within prison
by keeping inmates occupied and by raising their morale. During the 20th century, periods
of greatest unrest in prisons throughout the United States have coincided with periods of
depression in prison industries.

10

2. Cost-efficiency. It is more expensive to operate a prison where the inmates are idle,
tense, and disruptive than it is to operate a prison where the inmates are busy and welldisciplined. Investments in prison industries can lower expenditures on day-to-day prison
operations and decrease the likelihood of having to expend resources to quell disturbances.
Moreover, prison industrial programs enable inmates to produce items of value for the
Government, such as furniture, electronics, signs, military gear, and so forth. Sale of these
products, in turn, generates revenue that can be used to offset expenses that would otherwise
have to be met through appropriated funds. FPI staff salaries are funded out of such earnings, and, for many years, FPI revenues were also used to subsidize educational and other
programs for inmates.
3. Inmate job-training and rehabilitation. The primary task of prison is to confine offenders, but a secondary task is to provide inmates with ways to improve themselves during
confinement. Prisons cannot magically rehabilitate offenders, but they can provide opportunities for inmates to reform their behavior and rehabilitate themselves. As former Federal
Bureau of Prisons Director J. Michael Quinlan has written, “We can’t ‘cure’ criminal
behavior, but we know that some programs work for some inmates some of the time.”
Prison work programs are among those that can help. The work experience and vocational
training they provide can increase ex-offenders’ prospects for employment and reduce the
likelihood of recidivism.
4. Inmate financial responsibility. Inmates have families to help support, court-imposed
fines to pay, and victims to recompense. The wages they earn through employment in
prison labor programs, however meager, can help them meet those obligations. Under the
Bureau’s Inmate Financial Responsibility Program (IFRP), all inmates who have courtrecognized financial obligations must use at least 50 percent of their FPI earnings to pay
their just debts. Since the program began in 1987, more than $80 million has been collected.
Sanford Bates, the first Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, once observed that
“Prisoners should work because it is economically necessary, socially advisable, and
because it represents the most important element in the general attempt to solve the problem
of delinquency.” In short, if prisons are necessary to protect society, then prison industries
are necessary to make those prisons function properly.
In its 60 years of operation, Federal Prison Industries, Inc., has provided meaningful employment for inmates, developed sound educational and vocational training programs for
inmates, and helped minimize the economic impact of prison labor on the private sector. As
a component of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, its operations are limited to the correctional
institutions of the Federal Government. But it has played a strong leadership role throughout the field of corrections and has served as an example to the prison systems of the various
States. The history of FPI is a critical chapter in the history of corrections in general, and of
prison work programs in particular.

11

Early Prison Work Programs
Prisons are a relatively modern social institution. Until the mid-18th century, fines, banishment from the community, corporal punishment, and execution were the primary means of
punishing offenders. By the latter part of the century, incarceration was being championed
as a more humane form of punishment.
Shortly after the first penitentiaries began to appear, prison administrators realized that
inmates needed some way to productively occupy their time. The penitentiary system that
evolved in Pennsylvania was based on keeping inmates in solitary confinement, where they
could study the Bible, meditate about their misdeeds, and do penance for their crimes. The
prolonged idleness and minimal contact with other people reputedly caused many prisoners
to suffer mental breakdowns. To make the isolation less severe, and to help convicts
prepare for honest employment after release, officials of prisons modeled on the Pennsylvania or “Solitary” system permitted inmates to work by themselves at various occupations in
their cells, such as shoemaking, weaving, tailoring, and polishing marble.
By the 1820’s, the New York State prison at Auburn was fashioning an alternative model
for incarceration. Under the “Congregate” system, inmates worked together, under extremely rigid discipline, in prison factories. Prison factories during the 19th century produced shoes, barrels, carpets, engines, boilers, harnesses, clothing, and furniture—goods
that could not be produced at all under the “Solitary” system, or not in quantities sufficient
to generate a significant revenue. This merchandise was sold on the open market to American consumers or exported to Canada and Latin America, and the proceeds helped support
prison operations.
Meanwhile, southern and midwestem States were developing their own prison systems,
some of which adopted programs that leased inmates to toil virtually as slave labor for
private businesses. The convict lease system generated income for the prison and reduced
overhead because the contractors in many cases were responsible for feeding and sheltering
the convicts they leased. Left to the mercy of the contractors, however, leased convicts
were subjected to terrible abuses. The convict lease system expanded after the Civil War,
particularly in the southern States, where it became a partial replacement for slavery.
Prison factories that produced cheaply-made, low-wage consumer goods undercut free labor
and private business. Aggrieved unions and manufacturers joined forces to bring about
legal restrictions and even abolition of prison industrial enterprises. While not as threatening to businesses, the convict lease system was anathema to unions because it pitted free
labor against prisoners in direct competition for jobs, thereby driving down wages for free
labor—or depriving free labor of jobs entirely.
Yet the alternatives to the brutal convict lease systems and the notorious prison sweatshops
of the 19th century were almost as bad. Inmates would sit in their cells all day long or loiter
in prison factories that had work only for a handful of men. With no work to do, and
without the means for constructive educational or recreational programs, inmate idleness
became a serious problem. Increasing numbers of inmates in deteriorating facilities with
little to do led inevitably to disruptive behavior and to the harsh forms of discipline that
prison administrators felt obliged to adopt in order to prevent chaos.
12

There were important efforts to reform prison and prison labor practices during the last
quarter of the 19th century, most notably the “state-use” system. Devised in New York
State, it prohibited prisons from producing goods for sale to the public, but encouraged the
production of goods for sale to the New York State Government. For the most part, however, prison administrators in the 19th century were faced with a dismal choice: either
accept debilitating and potentially dangerous inmate idleness, or maintain labor programs
that exposed inmates to appalling abuses and threatened the interests of private industry and
free labor.

Federal Inmate Work Programs Prior to the Creation of Federal Prison
Industries
The controversy over prison labor was an important factor leading to the establishment of
Federal prisons. Before the 1890’s, the Federal Government did not operate its own prisons.
Instead, the Justice Department paid State prisons and county jails to house individuals
convicted of committing Federal crimes. The public outcry over the convict lease system,
however, motivated the passage of a Federal law prohibiting the leasing of Federal offenders. Consequently, many State prisons and county jails became reluctant to house Federal
offenders, because it was not economically advantageous to incarcerate inmates they could
not lease. Moreover, the expansion of Federal law enforcement activities and the enactment
of new Federal laws in the late 19th century led to an increase in the prosecution of Federal
lawbreakers and to overcrowding in the prisons where they were held. With a growing
population of Federal prisoners, and the growing reluctance of non-Federal prisons to house
them, the Federal Government had no choice but to build prisons of its own. Congress
authorized the establishment of three Federal prisons in 1891.
Industrial and other work programs at the first three Federal prisons were woefully
inadequate. Inmates helped build the U.S. Penitentiaries at Atlanta and Leavenworth, but
construction work on those facilities was substantially complete by 1902 and 1906,
respectively. Thereafter, inmates lucky enough to work at Atlanta, Leavenworth, and the

Boat building at USP McNeil Island, circa 1910.

third penitentiary at McNeil Island, Washington (which the Bureau vacated in 198l),
engaged in institutional maintenance and janitorial work; farming to produce food for prison
use; tailoring, mending, and laundering of inmate clothing; performing clerical functions in
prison offices; and working as houseboys or “trusties ” at the houses of wardens or other
staff members. Inmates at McNeil Island (located on Puget Sound) built boats, scows, and
wharfs for official use by the prison. USP Atlanta opened a textile mill in 1919, and Leavenworth built a shoe factory in 1924; both institutions were required by law to sell their
products only to Federal agencies. Although these work activities were better than nothing,
they were not nearly ambitious enough to keep all inmates busy.
In 1928, the U.S. Bureau of Efficiency—forerunner of the modern Office of Management
and Budget—issued a report on conditions inside Federal prisons. The following year, the
Special Committee on Federal Penal and Reformatory Institutions of the U.S. House of
Representatives also reported on Federal prison conditions and made recommendations for
reform. The architect of both reports was a future Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons,
James V. Bennett.
The situation in Federal prisons, as described in the two Bennett reports, was deplorable.
Overcrowding at the three penitentiaries was severe—eight men crowded into cells designed
for four, and inmates sleeping in dark, poorly-ventilated basements or makeshift living
quarters in the prisons’ warehouses. Sanitation was atrocious, and there were no rehabilitation programs to speak of. And there was idleness—extreme, chronic idleness, brought
about by a lack of prison industrial programs. In Atlanta, for example, only 850 out of
3,149 inmates could work in the textile mill. Although several hundred additional inmates
were employed in prison maintenance activities or on the prison farm, hundreds of inmates
at USP Atlanta had little or nothing constructive to do.
Accordingly, the Special Committee recommended that “immediate steps” be taken to
establish additional shops and factories in Federal prison. The Committee noted that there

14

was “an ample market” in the Federal Government to keep all Federal prisoners employed.
It further noted that prison industrial programs could be self-sustaining and that industrial
expansion would not require Congressional appropriations.
The Bureau of Efficiency and House of Representatives reports served as catalysts for
legislation that consolidated the previously autonomous Federal prisons under the authority
of a single, centralized agency: the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP). The BOP was established in 1930 as a component of the Department of Justice. Its first Director was Sanford
Bates, and one of Bates’ Assistant Directors was James V. Bennett.
Under Bates and Bennett, the new Bureau of Prisons implemented a wide array of desperately-needed reforms. It began a major prison expansion program to alleviate terrible
overcrowding. It implemented an agency-wide policy system and a chain-of-command
structure to ensure uniform practices and accountability. It introduced staff training programs and devised new programs for the classification and treatment of offenders. And it
sought to create a new prison industrial structure that would solve the problem of inmate
idleness.

The Birth of Federal Prison Industries, Inc., 1934-35
The new Federal Bureau of Prisons could not have achieved its goals of reforming Federal
prisons without having a system of inmate work programs in place. But with the economy
mired in the Great Depression and the passage of more laws that prohibited the transportation and sale of prison-made goods, inmate idleness was looming as a serious threat. James
Bennett found that some wardens were so desperate to find tasks to keep inmates busy that
they resorted to make-work assignments, such as having prisoners keep salt shakers in
straight lines on mess hall tables. Bennett attributed the rash of prison disturbances in the
early 1930’s to the lack of meaningful work programs.

15

In order to keep inmates busy, prison administrators would have to create work assignments.
The challenge was finding enough work assignments to go around. During the 1930’s, the
BOP developed four basic categories of work assignments for inmates:
l

l

l

l

Institutional support—work within and for the prison, such as janitorial duties,
groundskeeping, food preparation, clerical assistance, and routine maintenance
and repair work,
Farming—until the 1970’s, nearly every Federal prison maintained a farm.
Public service—highway construction, forestry on public lands, grounds maintenance on military bases, and assistance to other Federal agencies.
Prison industries—work in prison factories, producing goods for use by the
Federal Government.

None of the categories by itself could employ all inmates who needed work. Having a
variety of job options for inmates, however, helped ensure that there would be enough work
for everyone to do—not merely digging ditches and filling them in again, but realistic
assignments, with established procedures, regular hours, and definite goals.
At the heart of the work program was prison industries. This was the most difficult to
implement, but it made everything else possible. It could employ a large enough percentage
of the inmate population to take pressure off other work categories and make it unnecessary
to dilute job assignments. Further, prison industries could provide skills training and, hence,
was rehabilitative by nature. Finally, it could generate financial support for educational and
recreational programs and pay modest inmate wages, thereby easing burdens on the taxpayers. But in the early years of the BOP, there remained powerful opposition to prison industrial programs from labor unions and business interests.
In order to create work programs necessary for prison safety and inmate rehabilitation while
avoiding the alienation of labor and business, Bureau of Prisons Director Sanford Bates and
Assistant Director Bennett devised plans for Federal Prison Industries, Incorporated. FPI
was designed so that it would not interfere significantly with private industry and would
involve minimal taxpayer support. The rudiments of the plan for FPI were as follows:
1. Federal Prison Industries, Inc., would make products for sale only to the Federal Government; it would not compete against private sector companies in any other market. The socalled “state-use” system had first appeared in the 19th century but had never before been
attempted on such a scale.
2. FPI would be sufficiently diversified so as to avoid having an undue impact on any
particular industry. Not only would the corporation be limited to one market—the Federal
Government—but also within that market it would never be able to sell more than a certain,
minimal percentage of merchandise in any product area. Moreover, FPI’s suppliers would
be private, so FPI programs actually would generate business for private companies, rather
than take it away.

16

Federal Prison Industries Board of Directors, circa 1939. Sanford Bates is seated second from the
left; James Bennett is seated far right.

3. A Board of Directors, composed of representatives of business, labor, agriculture, and
consumer groups, as well as Government, would ensure that FPI would not cause undue
hardship on any industry. It would determine what product lines should be avoided, what
product lines had to be abolished, and in which product lines production should be moderated—partly in order to minimize the impact of prison labor on free enterprise.
4. Industrial work would be an important rehabilitative activity by giving inmates experience in various skilled trades and teaching them good work habits.
5. Inmates would be paid for their labor out of the Corporation’s revenues; the inmates
could use their stipends to purchase goods from the institution commissary, to help support
their families, or to pay fines or restitution. Not only would those inmates who worked in
FPI factories receive pay, but FPI proceeds would also be used to pay inmates in other work
categories (such as farming and institutional support), albeit at lower pay scales.
6. The profits from FPI sales would go into a revolving fund that would finance all industrial operations (including capital improvements) and also help subsidize other prison
programs for inmates. Thus, the financial basis for FPI had the advantage of requiring no
additional burdens on taxpayers. A unique, intra-governmental multiplier effect came into
play. Government money spent by an agency on FPI-made furniture, for instance, also
offset prison expenses. The Government, in other words, got more value for its money; of
course, that same money eventually passed back into the national economy, in the form of
staff salaries, inmate wages, and payments to private sector vendors.
When legislation authorizing the creation of Federal Prison Industries, Inc., was introduced
in Congress, however, the American Federation of Labor (AFL) immediately voiced its
opposition. President Franklin D. Roosevelt took a strong, personal interest in the matter,
and, one rainy morning in 1934, called Director Bates and AFL President William Green to
the Oval Office. According to Bates’ memoirs, Roosevelt greeted the labor leader with a

17

hearty “Hello, Bill,” and said “we have a little problem here that we want you to solve for
us.” Bates recalled that “I caught up my breath in amazement at this manner of approach.”
During the meeting, Bates and Roosevelt were able to draw out Green’s objections to the
proposed legislation as well as his suggestions for improvement, and, ultimately, the American Federation of Labor withdrew its opposition. Emphasis on the “state-use” system had
overcome the skepticism of organized labor. (Subsequently, AFL Vice President Thomas
Rickert became a charter member of FPI’s Board of Directors. Later, William Green’s
successor as AFL President, George Meany, also served as an FPI Board member.)
On June 23, 1934, President Roosevelt signed the law that authorized the establishment of
Federal Prison Industries, and on December 11, 1934, he issued Executive Order 6917,
which formally created FPl. FPI officially commenced operations on January 1, 1935.

FPI Through Depression and War, 1935-1945
In 1934, there were only a handful of industrial operations at Federal prisons—a textile mill
producing cotton duck cloth at USP Atlanta, a shoe factory at USP Leavenworth, and a
broom and brush factory at the Leavenworth Penitentiary Annex. Those factories and all of
the BOP’s industrial assets—including a revolving capital fund that had been set up in
1930—were transferred to FPI when the corporation came into existence on January 1,
1935. This transfer of assets represented an initial capital investment by the U.S. Government of just over $4 million in FPI—an investment paid back many times over, as FPI paid
$82 million in dividends to the U.S. Treasury between 1946 and 1969.
FPI immediately embarked upon a program of expansion and diversification. In its first 2
years of operation, FPI opened a mattress factory at USP Atlanta; a clothing factory and
wooden furniture factory at USP Leavenworth; a clothing factory and metal furniture
factory at USP Lewisburg; a foundry and brick plant at the Chillicothe, Ohio, Reformatory;
a cotton garment factory at the Federal Industrial Institution for Women at Alderson, West
Virginia; a broom factory and woolens mill at the El Reno, Oklahoma, Reformatory; a
clothing factory and rubber mat shop at USP Alcatraz, California; and a rubber mat shop at
the New Orleans Federal Jail. It also opened laundries at USP Atlanta and at the Federal
Detention Headquarters in New York.
On the eve of World War II, FPI was producing more than 70 categories of products at 25
separate shops and factories. It offered a very wide range of items for sale to the Federal
Government. Canvas products included mechanic’s aprons, basket inserts, coal bags, feed
bags, laundry bags, mail bags, drop cloths, map cases, autolnobile and truck seat covers,
tarpaulins, knapsacks, and tents of all sizes. There was metal furniture (filing cabinets, bed
frames, stationery cabinets, library carts, waste receptacles, chairs, desks, lockers, and
shelving); fibre furniture (wicker chairs, settees, library tables, and writing desks); and
wooden furniture (bureaus, tables, chiffoniers, stools, office screens, hat racks, chairs, and
desk trays). The foundry cast bronze name plates, tablets, and land survey monuments;
aluminum stamp handles; and iron boiler grates, gutter grates, manhole covers, ballasts,
flanges, door holders, and bushings. FPI also produced clothing (chambray work shirts,
woolen suits and uniforms, dungarees, undergarments, hospital gowns, riding breeches,
overalls, and leather jackets); cotton textiles; metal food trays and document cases; mat-

tresses; footwear (military shoes, men’s and women’s dress shoes and Oxfords, canvas
Oxfords, children’s shoes, leather arch supports, and baseball cleats); rubberized and woodblock mats; work gloves and mittens; and a multitude of brooms and brushes (shaving
brushes, tooth brushes, paint brushes, dust brushes, scrubbing brushes, typewriter brushes,
hearth brooms, parlor brooms, and warehouse brooms).
For a brief time in the 1930’s, FPI even manufactured license plates for Federally-owned
vehicles—but FPI was a long way from the stereotype about prisons and license plate
factories. FPI was becoming a major corporation, employing a growing workforce in
numerous skilled trades, and producing an impressive variety of goods.
FPI was meeting one of its most important goals by increasing the percentage of inmates it
employed. In 1935, FPI employed just over 2,000 inmates, or 13 percent of the Federal
inmate population. By 1940, these numbers had grown to 3,400 inmates and 18 percent of
the Federal inmate population. FPI’s revenues were also on the increase during this period.

In 1937, its third year of operation, FPI realized nearly $570,000 in profits, on gross sales of
over $3.7 million. “We scarcely believed this could be done in a Depression year,” Bennett
recalled in his autobiography. By 1940, sales approached $5.4 million.
Part of the profits were paid to the United States Treasury as dividends. The rest were
plowed back into FPI operations through the revolving fund and into expanded vocational
training courses for the inmates. By the late 1930’s, FPI was on sufficiently firm financial
ground to establish a fund to finance vocational training programs and job placement
services. It began hiring industrial counsellors at individual institutions to plan vocational
study courses and appointed a job placement director to coordinate FPI’s vocational training
opportunities with the needs of outside industry, to help ensure that inmates would learn the
most marketable skills.
19

Two—Clothing
Revised January
Tailored by Federal Prison Industries, Inc,

Jackets—Leather-faced

5 5 -J-95—Made of soft pliable russet leather,
O. D. woolen blanket lined throughout.
Jacket is well tailored. Two button adjustable wrist and back straps. Four
button front, the top button forming
a snug fit at the throat. The collar is
of the shawl type and is woolen blanket
faced. Non-flap pockets at the waist
line, are also lined with the same material.
Prices quoted upon request.

20

Two—Fibre Furniture
Revised January 1 1939

26-C-4810—Fibre arm chair. Friezette or tapestry upholstered spring
seat cushion, wing back, braced flat arms. Matches settee
26-S-32290 a n d l i b r a r y t a b l e 2 6 - T - 6 4 3 5 . H e i g h t o f s e a t
161/2 inches, width 20 inches, depth 18 inches, height of back
above seat 23 inches. Estimated crated shipping weight 100
pounds.
26-C-15500-Fibre rocker. Same dimension as arm chair 2 6 - C - 4 8 1 0 .
Estimated crated shipping weight 110 p o u n d s .

26-S-32290—Fibre s e t t e e , w i t h t h r e e r e m o v a b l e F r i e z e t t e o r t a p e s t r y u p h o l s t e r e d s p r i n g s e a t c u s h i o n s , b r a c e d f l a t a r m s a n
Matches arm
straight back.
library table
chair 26-C-4810,
2 6 - T - 6 4 3 5 . H e i g h t o f s e a t 161/2
inches, width 621/2 inches, depth
20 inches, height of back above
seat 23 inches. Estimated crated
shipping weight 170 pounds.

26-T-6435—Fibre library table, desk
style, made in one length only,
with drawer and book shelves.
Matches settee 26-S-32290 and arm
chair 26-C-4810. Top made of
hardwood. Height 30 inches, width
30 inches, length 48 inches. Estimated crated shipping weight 130
pounds.

21

FPI’s expansion, however, was strictly controlled. The law and FPI’s own regulations
imposed severe competitive disadvantages to prevent FPI from having an unfair negative
impact on private industry. Many of the restrictions were particularly tight because they
had been conceived during the Depression. Apart from limiting its customers to Federal
agencies, the biggest competitive disadvantage that FPI cultivated was diversification.
By spreading its work out over as many industries as possible, it minimized its sales potential in each area. Had it specialized in a handful of industries, of course, it could have
increased its efficiency, lowered its costs, and acquired much larger market shares. FPI also
spread the work out among as many inmates as possible by requiring a maximum of hand
labor and prohibiting overtime; although these requirements made FPI less efficient, they
aided prison management by keeping a larger number of inmates occupied. And, even
though Federal agencies were required by law to purchase FPI goods whenever possible,
FPI surrendered millions of dollars of potential sales by issuing clearances authorizing
Federal agencies to buy merchandise from private industries.
In addition, FPI met with representatives of unions and private industry, listened to their
grievances, and negotiated settlements where appropriate. In 1935, FPI officials met with
the Legislative Committee of the Cotton Duck Association and voluntarily agreed to limit
the number of spindles at the USP Atlanta textile mill, the hours those spindles operated,
and the total output of woven textiles. After negotiations with representatives of the Brush
Manufactures Association, FPI agreed to restrict installation of labor-saving machinery at
the Leavenworth Annex brush factory and to refrain from developing new product lines in
that industry. In 1937, it negotiated mutually-satisfactory arrangements with the Marking
Device Industry Association, the Association of Metal Furniture Manufacturers, the Shoe
Manufacturers Association, and various units of organized labor.
When the United States entered World War II in December 1941, FPI was almost 7 years
old, and it was well-enough established to make a major contribution to the war effort. Its
most immediate contribution was in the manufacture of war material. Production soared as

Federal inmates manufacture tents for the U.S. military, circa 1942.

22

FPI factories went on 2 or 3 shifts per day, and 9.5 percent of the output was sold to the
military. Sales jumped from a little over $7 million in 1941 to nearly $18.8 million in 1943.
The Army and Navy were among FPI’s biggest customers even before the war, and, during
the war, FPI added many new products specifically for the military, such as bomb fins and
casings, TNT cases, parachutes, cargo nets, and wooden pallets (for use in storing military
gear). FPI also handled much of the laundry for stateside military bases, and the shipyard at
USP McNeil Island built, remodeled, and repaired military patrol boats, tugboats, barges,
and Navy floats used in submarine defense. Even though the number of inmates employed
by FPI remained fairly stable at about 3,500, FPI increased production three-fold and, in 4
years, produced more than $75 million of goods that went directly to the war effort.
Even before the United States intervened in World War II, FPI stepped up production to
supply the military, which had already begun its massive buildup in anticipation of entering
the conflict, and to provide goods sent to the embattled Great Britain under the Lend-Lease
program. By May 1941, USP Atlanta alone produced eight to ten train carloads of defense

A chalk drawing reminds FPI workers during World War II of the importance of their work.

products per day. FPI’s production did not escape the attention or the criticism of the Nazi
government. Warden Joseph Sanford of USP Atlanta noted with satisfaction that the
Germans “apparently. . . didn’t realize that even men in prison in America were willing to
work hard to preserve the future liberties to which they could now look forward.”
Another way in which FPI contributed to the war effort was by training inmates to move
directly into jobs in defense industries after being released from prison. FPI hired additional
personnel to provide job placement services for inmates and set up job placement centers at
several institutions that helped hundreds of inmates every year find jobs in defense industries.
To meet special war needs, FPI also introduced 35 new vocational training courses and
revamped 37 existing ones. Alongside such traditional training courses as painting, masonry, plumbing, and office machine repair, FPI added welding, aircraft sheetmetal work,
23

Inmates at the Federal Reformatory in Chillicothe, Ohio. learn about aircraft mechanics.

ship-building crafts, automobile mechanics, aviation mechanics, drafting, and electrician
training. An airplane mechanics school at the Chillicothe Reformatory, for example, provided full-time training to inmates who could expect immediate placement following their
release from prison in the all-important aircraft industry.
Having been born in the midst of economic hard times, FPI had matured into a valuable
national asset that played an important role in helping to win the Second World War.

Temporary Downturns and New Directions, 1946-1959
The end of World War II ushered in a period of fluctuation in FPI’s fortunes. By the mid1950’s, however, stability was restored as FPI developed new products and services.
24

As soon as the Axis powers surrendered in 1945, the military canceled millions of dollars
worth of contracts with FPI. FPI, in turn, was forced to cancel orders with its suppliers.
Sales plummeted from over $17.5 million in 1945 to less than $10.7 million the following
year. Even with the decline, however, sales remained well above pre-war levels.
Reconversion from a wartime economy to a peacetime economy caused dislocations
throughout the United States, so the decline in sales and production for FPI was not unexpected. FPI was able to mitigate the effects of reconversion by turning to the backlog of
orders from civilian agencies that had built up during the war, when military orders took
precedence. It was able to promote constructive inmate activity in other ways by developing new training programs—especially in such emerging fields as radio communications, air
conditioning, and refrigeration.
United States intervention in the Korean War in June 1950 generated a flood of new military
orders for FPI. In 1952, sales peaked at over $29 million, and the number of inmates
employed by the corporation reached an unprecedented 3,800. Sales fell by more than one
third after the armistice was signed in 1953.
Fewer defense-related orders after the Korean War and the need to re-tool factories in order
to produce new products led to some temporary shutdowns of FPI factories and an increasing problem with inmate idleness. By 1954, in fact, FPI had only enough work for 18
percent of the Bureau’s inmates. The corporation’s biggest losses were in textiles. FPI
struggled to cope with these difficult circumstances by shifting as many industrial jobs as
possible to the penitentiaries, to ensure that as many of the potentially more disruptive
inmates requiring higher security were kept occupied.
Industrial programs in State prisons also faced a declining number of orders in the 1950’s,
and State industries’ problems were often more severe than the FPI’s. As a result of inmate
idleness, State prison systems experienced a rash of disturbances in the early and mid1950’s. Even the Bureau was not immune; some minor disturbances that occurred at two or
three facilities during the 1950’s coincided with the reduction of prison industries operations
at those institutions.
FPI’s Board of Directors commented on the connection between idleness and the violence in
State prisons. In its Annual Report for 1954 it observed:
“The prison riots and disturbances which have occurred so
extensively in State prisons throughout the country in the past 2
years have demonstrated most effectively and at tragic cost the
absolute necessity for a well-planned and comprehensive work
and production program. . . . (L)arge groups of idle prisoners
create a constant hazardous situation. The deteriorating effect of
long periods of idleness in prison is in turn one of the major
causes of the unrest and tensions underlying these costly and
destructive outbreaks.”
The period of decline for FPI, however, was short lived. With tightening Federal budgets in
the 1950’s, FPI realized that there would be a new market in renovating existing equipment,
25

MCFP Springfield inmates manufacture prosthetic limbs, circa I950.

so that Federal agencies would not always have to purchase expensive new merchandise.
FPI opened shops at BOP facilities at Petersburg, Virginia; Terminal Island, California;
Terre Haute, Indiana, and elsewhere, that specialized in repairing, refurbishing, and reconditioning furniture, office equipment, tires, and other types of Government property. Other
new industrial programs included a tobacco processing factory at FCI Ashland, Kentucky,
and a new woolen factory at USP Terre Haute. In addition, FPI introduced new vocational
training programs, such as the manufacture of artificial limbs and dentures, hospital attendant work, and television repair.
Between 1957 and 1960, FPI undertook a major expansion program. The $5 million
program—financed entirely through FPI’s revenues and not through Congressional appropriations—built or renovated factories, vocational training buildings, warehouses, and other
structures in 18 of the Bureau’s 31 institutions. This capital improvement program helped
make possible the higher production and enhanced vocational training that would characterize FPI during the 1960’s.
FPI expanded operations in another way during the 1950’s. Under a law passed in 1949,
FPI assumed responsibility for operating factories at certain military prisons. It operated a
clothing factory at the Army’s Disciplinary Barracks at Lompoc, California, and a tailor
shop at the Army’s Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.
For the first 10 years after World War II, as the national economy shifted back and forth
between wartime and peacetime production, FPI’s sales fluctuated significantly, and there
were occasional instances of inmate idleness. By the end of the 1950’s, however, capital
expansion and the development of new products and services pushed FPI’s sales above $31
million annually for the first time, and FPI was employing a greater number of inmates than
ever before. The stage was set for FPI to assume new responsibilities in the coming decade.

26

The Medical Model and Modernization, 1960-1980
Since its inception in 1930, and particularly during the administration of Director James V.
Bennett (1937-1964), the Federal Bureau of Prisons emphasized the goal of rehabilitating
offenders through a series of “individualized treatment” programs that included counselling,
education, vocational training, and work. The rehabilitation philosophy reached its zenith in
the 1960’s. The “Medical Model”—the theory that an inmate’s criminal tendencies could
be diagnosed and treated, almost like a physical disease—was in vogue throughout the
Bureau and corrections in general. If the diagnosis showed poor socialization and inadequate work skills as the factors causing a person to turn to crime, the prescription could
involve a combination of social skills counselling and vocational training. The desired
result of rehabilitating the inmate was not always achieved, although Bennett frequently
cited a Ford Foundation study that demonstrated a marked decline in recidivism during his
years as Director.
Although primarily justified as a method for maintaining stability within BOP institutions,
FPI had always played a vital role in the Bureau’s rehabilitation efforts. During the “Medical Model” phase of the 1960’s, FPI’s rehabilitative efforts assumed greater value and
visibility.
The legislative high point of the Medical Model era was passage of the Federal Prisoner
Rehabilitation Act of 1965. Implemented during the administration of Bennett’s successor,
Myrl Alexander, the act provided for a variety of diagnostic, counselling, halfway house,
study release, and work release opportunities (similar opportunities already were available
to youthful offenders). FPI’s job placement service acquired an important responsibility for
making possible the work release provision of the new law.
Within the prisons, FPI improved its educational offerings during the 1960’s. “Teaching
machines,” with modules in a variety of academic and vocational subjects, were distributed
throughout the Bureau. New training programs were introduced in auto body repair, farm
equipment repair, and other occupations. In addition, job rotation was stepped up and
“cluster training” was developed, so that inmates could learn the basic skills for several
related occupations at the same time.
FPI in the 1960’s also sought to develop those industries that had the most training potential. The corporation expanded its electronics operations, such as electronic cable assembly
for the military at the factory at USP McNeil Island. It also inaugurated industrial keypunch operations at FCI Terminal Island and FPC Alderson, opened a custom furniture
factory at FPC Allenwood, and established a plastics factory at USP Terre Haute that
manufactured dinnerware, trays, and chairs. Meanwhile, FPI scaled back outmoded industries with limited training value for modem job markets, such as the laundries, foundry
operations, and the needle trades.
The trend of improving educational programs and developing modern industries offering
valuable training experiences continued into the 1970’s. A textile vocational training school
opened at USP Atlanta; an Industrial Programs Division was established at FPI headquarters
to develop new industrial operations providing better work and skills training; productiontraining units appeared in 1975, to coordinate classroom training programs with on-the-job
27

learning during actual production; and new industrial operations included key-to-tape data
processing at FPC Alderson, a computer programming service at USP Leavenworth, keypunch operations at FCI Fort Worth and FCI Miami, an electronic cable factory at FCI
Memphis, a wood/plastics prototype shop at FCI Petersburg, and a machine tool and die
shop at USP McNeil Island.
Modernization occurred in other ways, as well, during the 1960’s and 1970’s. Capital
improvements included new vocational training buildings at Alderson, Atlanta, Englewood,
and Marion, a dry kiln at Ashland, the installation of steel fabricating machinery at Terminal
Island, and new industrial buildings at several sites. To control environmental pollution,
FPI modernized its industrial waste systems. Also, FPI began putting more disabled inmates to work in such assignments as fabricating weather balloons. Finally, with the inmate
population diminishing, FPI implemented strategies to maintain production levels, such as
redesigning plant layouts, obtaining new kinds of raw materials and modern machinery,
devising new production methods, and introducing new product lines.
Meanwhile, the Vietnam War helped precipitate fluctuations in FPI’s sales and production.
As the conflict escalated in the late 1960’s, FPI sales to military agencies accelerated.
Increased Federal spending on the Vietnam War was offset, however, by cutbacks for FCI’s
non-military customers, resulting in an overall decline in FPI sales in 1969 and 1971. Sales
also declined when the United States ended its involvement in the war and military purchasing was curtailed.
By the middle of the 1970’s, FPI was working to moderate sales fluctuations through a
greater emphasis on marketing and customer service. In 1974, it established regional
marketing positions and organized the corporation into seven divisions, each of which
handled resource management, production, and sales in a specific FPI industry (Automated
Data Processing, Electronics, Graphics, Metals, Shoe and Brush, Textiles, and Woods and
Plastics). A year later, it initiated a program to improve product quality and acceptability.
Although the law required that Federal agencies purchase from FPI whenever possible, the
corporation still had to compete in order to win customers.
28

Then in 1977, FPI introduced a new corporate logo and a new tradename: “UNICOR.”
Coinciding with its new image, FPI established a Corporate Marketing Office to develop
nationwide marketing strategies and programs. The marketing initiatives of the middle and
late 1970’s presaged even greater efforts during the 1980’s and 1990’s to make UNICOR
more responsive to customer needs and to base UNICOR’s activities squarely on modern
business principles.

Marketing the Product and Selling the Program: UNICOR Since 1980
Since 1980, the Federal Bureau of Prisons has undergone startling changes. The inmate
population has gone up drastically. The composition of the inmate population has changed
as well, with larger numbers of violent offenders, drug offenders, and alien detainees. And
the Bureau has moved away from the Medical Model to adopt a more balanced philosophy
of corrections. The need to help the Bureau cope with all the changes has underscored the
value of industrial programs as an inmate management tool. Yet just as UNICOR’s contributions to Bureau stability were becoming more vital, UNICOR’s very mission of providing
work for inmates came under unusually harsh scrutiny. Thus, UNICOR not only had to
improve its marketing efforts to ensure sufficient sales to keep increasing numbers of
inmates employed, it also had to work tirelessly to explain UNICOR’s vital public safety
function to lawmakers and citizens.
The Bureau officially de-emphasized the Medical Model in 1975. Critics of the Medical
Model had contended that it did not have as favorable an effect on recidivism as James
Bennett and others had believed, that it encouraged inmates to try to give the false impression that they were rehabilitated and suitable for early release, and that it was unrealistic to
expect prisons to do a better job of socializing and educating people than institutions in the
free community. Above all was the view that the Medical Model was a form of coercion
and that genuine changes in human behavior could not be coerced. Norman Carlson, who
presided over the shift away from the Medical Model as BOP Director from 1970 to 1987,
explained that “there are limitations to what Government can do to intervene in people’s
lives when there is no desire to change.”
In place of the Medical Model, the Bureau adopted the Balanced Model of corrections.
Rehabilitation was not abandoned as a goal of incarceration, but it was balanced against
other correctional goals such as punishment, deterrence, and incapacitation. While rehabilitation ceased to be the primary objective, rehabilitation programs were still offered for
inmates who wished to take advantage of them.
UNICOR continued to play an important role in Federal prisons under the new philosophy.
Its work programs, of course, would always be an indispensable component of inmate
management. The work and education programs that UNICOR provided remained the
backbone of the rehabilitative opportunities that were part of the Balanced Model.
Modernization in UNICOR factories—while somewhat limited by the need to employ as
many inmates as possible—kept the corporation competitive during the 1980’s and 1990’s.
It also made possible good vocational training experiences for inmates. UNICOR overhauled its textile line in the 1980’s and enhanced its metal and wood furniture lines and its

29

electronic product lines. It developed new lines in stainless steel products, thermoplastics,
printed circuits, modular furniture, ergonomic chairs, Kevlar-reinforced products (such as
military helmets), and optics, and it introduced state-of-the-art production techniques
(including the use of modern printing equipment for the automated production of Government forms). The new and enhanced products helped UNICOR respond to customer
demands and expand employment. Moreover, the adoption of more modern techniques and
equipment permitted UNICOR to upgrade its on-the-job training, thereby better preparing
inmates for post-release employment.
On-the-job training had always been an essential component of the occupational training
that was available to inmates. Consequently, occupational training at any particular institution was often limited primarily to the industrial operation that happened to exist there. In
the 1980’s UNICOR moved to broaden its vocational training base. For a few years in the
1970’s, responsibility for administering education programs had been shifted away from
UNICOR. But by 1981, recognizing the close relationship between academic education and
occupational training, the Bureau returned educational programs to UNICOR. UNICOR
immediately embarked upon “Project One Million” and “Project Three Million,” which,
together, provided four million dollars of start-up money for modern occupational training
programs throughout the Bureau. These would give inmates more diverse training opportunities, would meet outside standards for vocational programs, and would not be tied to
existing UNICOR industrial programs at a particular institution.
Meanwhile, the commitment to academic training was redoubled. In 1982, the Bureau
decided that inmates must demonstrate a 6th grade literacy level before they could advance
beyond entry level pay status. In 1986, the literacy standard was increased to 8th grade
level, and in 1991 a high school diploma or GED certificate became the requirement. To
promote academic achievement still further, education departments at each institution
established incentive programs to motivate students and recognize their accomplishments,
and a new position of Associate Warden for Industries and Education was established at
many larger institutions to improve coordination between industrial work assignments,
vocational training, and academic education.
The move to enhance UNICOR’s educational programs coincided with a sharp increase in
the number of Federal inmates. Between 1930, when the BOP was established, and 1979,
the number of Federal inmates remained fairly constant, ranging from 17,000 to 24,000.
After 1980, the population began to climb dramatically: from 24,000 in 1980, to 50,000 in
1987, to nearly 95,000 by 1994. Increased prosecution for drug-related crimes, longer
sentences, the abolition of parole, and an increasing responsibility for housing aliens awaiting deportation accounted for much of that increase.
A critical need existed for constructive activities as a safety valve to relieve institutional
tensions at a time when more and more inmates were crowding into the system. Accordingly, UNICOR embarked upon spirited marketing and customer service campaigns in order
to increase the demand for UNICOR products.
UNICOR conducted market research; increased its participation in trade shows around the
country; opened marketing centers, field office display areas, and a product showroom at
30

BOP headquarters; and set up product distribution centers to respond more quickly to
customer needs. Stressing “total customer satisfaction” as a goal, UNICOR established a
customer service program, expanded its quality enhancement program, and provided
extensive training on quality improvement to hundreds of line staff and managers. Although
its marketing activities were modest in comparison to those of private industries, UNICOR
felt they were essential for retaining its customer base in a time of increasing competition.
Fortunately, these customer satisfaction initiatives and limited marketing campaigns were
effective in generating enough sales to support adequate work opportunities for Federal
inmates.
Meanwhile, UNICOR streamlined its administrative operations by reorganizing product
divisions, implementing strategic planning principles, introducing an automated management control system to reduce costs and facilitate product delivery, and adopting a factory
activation program that coordinated construction design with product planning. It also
renovated and expanded many of its existing factories during the 1980’s and 1990’s to make
them more efficient.
In short, UNICOR endeavored to follow the modern marketing and management principles
in the 1980’s and 1990’s that had proven successful for private sector enterprises. According to long-time Board member William E. Morgan, the adoption of modern business
methods reflected the influence of astute business executives who served on the Board at
that time, such as John Marshall Briley (former Vice President and General Counsel of
Owens-Corning Fiberglass), Donald A. Schwartz (President of Medallic Art Company), and
Mark D’Arcangelo (Vice President for Marketing and Sales, General Electric Company).
Because of these measures, UNICOR was able to increase production annually by 4 percent
between 1987 and 1990, even though Federal procurement in UNICOR’s product lines
decreased by 40 percent during the same period.
31

At the same time, it was also able to respond more effectively than ever before to customer
demands. One example was its role as a supplier to the military during the 1990-91 Persian
Gulf conflict. UNICOR provided Kevlar helmets, camouflage battle uniforms, lighting
systems, sandbags, blankets, and night vision eyewear for the military to use during Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm. It even manufactured cables for chemical
gas detection devices and for the Patriot missile systems that played a key role in defending
Allied troops during the Persian Gulf War. Brigadier General John Cusick, commanding
officer of the Defense Personnel Support Center, praised UNICOR for the “superb support
[it] provided to America’s Fighting Forces” and for helping ensure that “we received the
supplies the troops needed to win the war.”
UNICOR’s successes, however, generated controversies like those it had previously encountered. Still worried by a recession that occurred in the late 1980’s, some elements of

UNICOR manufactured a wide range of items to supply the U.S. military during the Persian Gulf War.

private business and organized labor began to voice a very old concern: that prison industrial programs posed a threat to free enterprise and to the jobs of the non-offending population. Bills were introduced in Congress that would have severely hampered UNICOR’s
ability to add or expand product lines. UNICOR and the Bureau faced the same challenge
that Sanford Bates and James Bennett had faced more than a half-century earlier: to justify
prison industrial programs and prove that they could be operated in such as way as to avoid
harming the private sector.
UNICOR’s critics focused particular attention on “mandatory sourcing”—the statutory
requirement that Federal agencies purchase from UNICOR if it could provide the desired
products on time and at competitive prices. UNICOR responded that it was empowered to
waive mandatory sourcing to permit Federal agencies to buy competing products from the
private sector and pointed out that in 1989 alone it granted $78.9 million in waivers. It also
32

explained that mandatory sourcing was necessary to offset some of its competitive disadvantages (such as labor intensive production, mandatory diversification of product lines, an
untrained, undereducated labor pool, the extra security costs and production delays associated with operating factories within prisons, and, of course, its restriction to a single customer). Finally, UNICOR reasserted that it was a stimulus to the private sector in many
ways: purchasing products from private sector suppliers, doing business with private sector
sub-contractors, and being a major employer of non-inmate staff members in the communities where it operated factories.
To provide an objective assessment of the controversy, Congress mandated in 1990 that an
independent market study of UNICOR be undertaken. The nationally respected Deloitte
and Touche accounting firm conducted the study. One of the principal findings of the study,
completed in August 1991, was that UNICOR’s impact on the private sector was negligible.
Deloitte and Touche found that UNICOR’s sales amounted to only 2 percent of the Federal
market for the types of products and services that it provided. The study confirmed that
UNICOR’s operations were concentrated in labor-intensive industries, and noted that the
output and efficiency of UNICOR’s inmate employees was only one-quarter of workers in
the private sector. Deloitte and Touche also noted that the mandatory source advantage was
offset by the corporation’s built-in competitive disadvantages, such as increased overhead
costs due to product diversification. While Deloitte and Touche noted that UNICOR’s
customer service and delivery ratings were below average in some of its product lines in
comparison with other suppliers, it also found that UNICOR received high ratings from
customers for its custom-made products (such as electronics assemblies for military equipment) .
In addition, the study determined that UNICOR’s prices were comparable to those of private
sector vendors. While the Deloitte and Touche study addressed UNICOR’s impact on the
private sector, another study conducted about the same time demonstrated that UNICOR
was successfully carrying out its mission in another way by playing a very favorable role in
preparing inmates for release. The Post-Release Employment Project (PREP) was a 7-year
study conducted by the Bureau’s Office of Research and Evaluation that compared postrelease activities of a group of inmates who had participated in UNICOR programs with
those of another group of inmates who had not. One of the most important recidivism
studies in decades, the PREP study showed that inmates who were involved in UNICOR’s
industrial or educational programs were less likely to engage in misconduct while incarcerated than inmates who were not involved in those programs. It also showed that those
inmates were more likely to find and keep full-time, better-paying jobs than those who were
not involved in UNICOR programs. Of greatest significance, perhaps, was the fact that
participants in UNICOR work and education programs were less likely to commit crimes
after release and less likely to return to prison. The PREP study, therefore, seemed to reveal
a link between UNICOR programs and lower recidivism rates.
A principal focus of the Deloitte and Touche study was to identify options for creating
additional inmate jobs without relying exclusively on expansion in traditional products. The
report recommended three strategies: that private sector businesses be required to subcontract with FPI to use inmate labor on Government contract work; that FPI be authorized to
work with private sector partners, using inmate labor to produce goods that would otherwise
33

be manufactured or assembled by offshore labor sources, and sell them on the open market;
and that FPI’s mandatory source be expanded to include services, as well as goods.
Following release of the study, the Brookings Institution agreed to host a Federal Prison
Industries Summit to bring together representatives from business, labor, the criminal justice
system, and the Congress to engage in a high-level, broad-based discussion of the study and
of FPI’s future growth requirements. The Summit, which occurred in June 1992, spawned a
series of workgroups and subcommittees that attempted to develop more detailed growth
strategies. These initial deliberations culminated in a second Summit in July 1993. A final
Summit proceedings report, which provided a comprehensive analysis of each growth
strategy, including dissenting opinions, was transmitted to Congress in October of that year.
The Summit report indicated that there were a variety of growth strategies available, ranging
from expansion in traditional industries to manufacture of products for sale to charitable and
relief organizations. It concluded, however, that no combination of growth opportunities
could generate a sufficient number of inmate jobs without generating opposition from some
quarter.
As a follow-up to the Summits, a Growth Strategies Implementation Committee was
established, with representatives from private industry, organized labor, the Small Business
Administration, and FPI suppliers. The Committee, which has met regularly since early
1994, has been successful in maintaining an open, honest dialogue on key issues.
Another follow-up to the Summit report was the National Prison Industries Task Force,
which met in 1994 to discuss growth strategy options. It was co-chaired by former Chief
Justice Warren Burger and former Federal Judge, FBI Director, and CIA Director William
Webster.
Continuing on these initiatives, FPI has made a concerted effort over the past several years
to reach out to labor, industry, and related parties to maintain a constructive dialogue.
Relationships have improved, and progress continues to be made toward a peaceful coexistence among parties with divergent interests.

Conclusion
Federal Prison Industries’ greatest success is impossible to quantify: the extent to which it
has prevented inmate unrest that would have been costly—in lives as well as dollars. This
success is also obscured by the snarl of contentiousness over programs for inmates and sales
to the Federal Government. But as one Federal warden commented in an interview, “When
you get inmate idleness, you get discontent, and that breeds rebelliousness . . . If they burn
this place down, it would cost $30 million to rebuild.” In the face of an escalating inmate
population and an increasing percentage of inmates with histories of violence, UNICOR’s
programs have helped ease tensions and avert volatile situations, thereby protecting lives
and Federal property. Prisons without meaningful activities for inmates are dangerous
prisons, and dangerous prisons are expensive prisons. The work and education programs of
Federal Prison Industries have played an essential role in protecting lives, preserving
stability, and saving money in America’s Federal prisons.

34

At the same time, Federal Prison Industries has met its other goal of offering opportunities
for inmates who want to take the personal responsibility for rehabilitating themselves. Most
inmates eventually will be returned to society; industrial and educational programs can help
them to steer clear of criminal activity after release. Former United States Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger, a strong advocate of UNICOR, once asked, “Do we really want [released
inmates] coming out without any training, without any skill they can sell on the outside?”
Calling UNICOR “one of the most enlightened aspects of the Federal prison system,”
Burger stated, “My position on this is the most conservative one you can imagine. If you
can take an individual and train him so that he can do something a little more useful than
stamping license plates, he’s a little less likely to go back [into prison]. . . This isn’t for the
benefit of the criminal community. It’s for the benefit of you and me.” In other words, work
programs serve society by making prisons safer and less costly to operate, and by helping
prisoners reform their behavior so they are less likely to be a threat after release. Federal
Prison Industries works with inmates, but its primary beneficiary is the law-abiding public.
Federal Prison Industries was created in 1934 to solve the plague of inmate idleness in
Federal prisons. From the beginning, its work programs were based on the “state-use”
system so that it would not harm the private sector. It quickly became a remarkably costeffective enterprise for the Federal Government by selling needed merchandise to Federal
agencies and using the income to fund its own operations, to pay dividends to the U.S.
Treasury, to subsidize inmate educational and vocational training programs, and to avoid the
high costs associated with trying to manage disruptive prisoners.
Having come into existence during the economic depression of the 1930’s, FPI expanded its
productive capacity rapidly during World War II and became an important defense supplier.
Throughout its history, FPI has adapted and upgraded its product lines in response to
changing customer demands; the canvas feed bags for horses and wicker settees it produced
in the 1930’s, for example, have been supplanted by automated data processing services,
modular office furniture, and electronic cables for defense systems. It also has continually
revised and improved its educational programs, adding training programs in such emerging
industries as aviation mechanics in the 1940’s, television repair and air conditioning in the
1950’s, and computers in the 1980’s, to better prepare inmates to enter the job market after
release. Consistently praised as an exemplary prison management and correctional program, FPI borrowed marketing and customer service principles from the private sector in
the 1980’s, and streamlined its operations, in order to succeed even during the period of
Government belt-tightening in the 1990’s.
For over 60 years, Federal Prison Industries, Incorporated, has been the most important
program in Federal prisons. As the Federal inmate population climbs during the remainder
of this century and well into the next, FPI will continue to be a critically important tool for
managing Federal prisons that are orderly, cost-efficient, productive, and humane.

John W. Roberts, Ph.D., is Chief of Communications and Archives for the Federal Bureau
of Prisons.

35

References
Sanford Bates, Prisons and Beyond, reprint edition (Freeport, N.Y.: Books for Libraries
Press, 1971).
Sanford Bates Papers (documents B1-B), Sam Houston State University, Huntsville Texas.
James V. Bennett, I Chose Prison (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1970).
James V. Bennett Papers (documents [J40-41]-51, [J50]-17, [J58]-34), Sam Houston State
University, Huntsville, TX.
Congressional Record, October 4, 1990, pp. H8882-H8886.
A.H. Conner, “Prison Labor: Legal Background of Prison Labor in the Federal Prison
System,” n.d., typescript, Miscellaneous Federal Prison Industries Historical
Records, BOP Archives, Washington, DC.
Deloitte and Touche, “Executive Summary of Independent Market Study of UNICOR,”
August 1991, BOP Archives, Washington, DC.
John J. DiIulio, Jr., No Escape: The Future of American Corrections (n.p.: Basic Books,
1991).
Federal Bureau of Prisons, Annual Reports, 1930-1993, BOP Archives, Washington, DC.
Gearing Federal Prisons to the War Effort (Atlanta: Federal Bureau of Prisons, 1942).
Handbook of Correctional Institution Design and Construction (Washington, DC: Federal
Bureau of Prisons, 1949).
Thirty Years of Prison Progress (Lompoc, CA: Federal Bureau of Prisons, ca. 1960).
Federal Prison Industries, Inc., Annual Reports, 1935-1993, BOP Archives, Washington,
DC.
Minutes of Board of Directors’ Meeting, 1934-1970, BOP Archives, Washington, DC.
David H. Freedman, “Technology Visits the Big House,” Forbes (April 1994): 6-8.
Mark Miller, “When Convicts Get Competitive,” Newsweek (August 20, 1990): 44.
Oral History Interview with Honorable Warren E. Burger, Washington, DC, August 31,
1994, BOP Archives, Washington, DC.
Oral History Interview with Dr. William E. Morgan, Washington, DC, February 11, 1993
BOP Archives, Washington, DC.
36

Constance Potter, The Federal Prison System, 1926-1932, master’s thesis, Washington State
University, 1976.
“Prison Industries Criticized,” Hartford Courant (July 19, 1990): A-l 1.
“Prison War Work: Inmates Help the Fight,” Life 13 (December 7, 1942): 49-56.
William G. Saylor and Gerald G. Gaes, “The Post-Release Employment Project: Prison
Work Has Measurable Effects on Post-Release Success,” Federal Prisons
Journal 2 (Winter 1992): 33-6.
“PREP Study Links UNICOR Work Experience With Successful Post-Release Outcome,”
Research Forum 1 (January 1992).
Richard A. Ryan,“First You Get Mugged by the Criminal . . . ” Detroit News (August 6,
1993): 1E.
U.S. Bureau of Efficiency, “The Federal Penal and Correctional Problem,” (typescript), by
James V. Bennett, March 1928, BOP Archives, Washington, DC. (Also in Record
Group 51, National Archives and Records Administration, Washington, DC).
U.S. House of Representatives, Hearings Before the Special Committee on Federal Penal
and Reformatory Institutions, 70th Congress, First Session, May 28, 1928.
“U.S.-Run Business Staffed with Inmates Brings Opposition from Industry, Labor,”
Washington Post (November 12, 1990): A8-9.
Fred T. Wilkinson, “A Perspective on Federal Prison Industries,” Progress Report 8
(April-June 1960).

37

Appendix A: Key Personnel in FPI History

BOP Directors, 1930-1996
Sanford Bates
James V. Bennett
Myrl E. Alexander
Norman A. Carlson
J. Michael Quinlan
Kathleen M. Hawk

930-1937
937-1964
964- 1970
970-1987
987-1992
992-present

Assistant Directors for Industries, 1930-1996
James V. Bennett
A. H. Conner
Fred T. Wilkinson
Preston G. Smith
T. Wade Markley
Olin C. Minton
J. T. Willingham
John J. Clark
Loy S. Hayes
David C. Jelinek
Gerald Farkas
Richard Seiter
Steve Schwalb

1934-1937
1938-1960
1960-1961
1961-1965
1965-1966
1967-1969
1969-1971
1971-1972
1972-1973
1974-1979
1979-1989
1989-1993
1993-present

FPI Board Members, 1934-1996
Original Members Appointed By President Roosevelt:
Sanford Bates
Dr. Marion L. Brittain
Sam A. Lewisohn
Thomas A. Rickert
Judge John B. Miller

1934-1972
1934-1952
1934-1951
1934-1941
1934-1937

Representing Agriculture:
Judge John B. Miller
Emil Schram
Dr. William E. Morgan

38

1934-1937
1938-1966
1966 to present

Representing the Attorney General:
Sanford Bates
Peter B. Bensinger
Richard Abel
Shirley D. Peterson
Harry H. Flickinger
Stephen R. Colgate

1934-1972
1974- 1984
1985-1990
1991-1992
1992-1992
1994 to present

Representing the Secretary of Defense:
E. Earle Rives
Frank A. Reid
John Marshall Briley
Robert Q. Millan
Todd A. Weiler

1949-1953
1953-1959
1960-1988*
1989-1996
1996 to present

*Board Member Emeritus: 1989- 1990
Representing Industry:
Dr. Marion L. Brittain
Berry N. Beaman
Daryl F. Grisham
Paul T. Shirley
Mark J. D’ Arcangelo
Susan A. Loewenberg

1934-1951
1954-1976
1979-1982
1982-1990
1991-1995*
1995 to present

* Chairman Emeritus: May 1995-present
Representing Labor:
Thomas A. Rickert
Robert J. Watt
George Meany
Lane Kirkland
Kenneth Young
Richard G. Womack

1934- 941
1943- 947
1947- 979
1980- 988
1994- 1995
1996-present

Representing Retailers & Consumers:
Sam A. Lewisohn
James L. Palmer
Monica Herrera Smith
Donald A. Schwartz
Thomas N. Tripp
Joseph M. Aragon

1934-1951
1951-1976
1979- 1984
1985-1992
1993- 1994
1994 to present

39

Appendix B: Legislation Authorizing FPI
AN ACT
To provide for the diversification of employment of Federal prisoners, for their training and
schooling in trades and occupations, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in
Congress assembled, That it shall be the duty of the Attorney General to provide employment for all physically fit inmates in the United States penal and correctional institutions in
such diversified forms as will reduce to a minimum competition with private industry or
free labor.
SEC. 2. The Attorney General may make available the services of United States prisoners to
the heads of the several departments under such terms, conditions, and at such rates as may
be mutually agreed upon, for the purpose of constructing or repairing roads the cost of
which is borne exclusively by the United States; clearing, maintaining, and reforesting
public lands; building levees; and for construction or repairing any other public ways or
works which are or may be financed wholly or in major part by funds appropriated from the
Treasury of the United States. To carry out the purpose of this section the Attorney General
may establish, equip, and maintain camps upon sites selected by him and designate such
camps as a place for confinement of persons convicted of an offense against the laws of the
United States, or transfer thereto any person convicted of any offense against the laws of the
United States. The expenses of transferring and maintaining prisoners at such camps shall
be paid from the appropriation “Support of United States prisoners,” and said appropriation
may, in the discretion of the Attorney General, be reimbursed for such expenses.
SEC. 3. The Attorney General shall establish such industries as will produce articles and
commodities for consumption in United States penal and correctional institutions or for sale
to the departments and independent establishments of the Federal Government and not for
sale to the public in competition with private enterprise: Provided, That any industry
established under authority of this Act be so operated as not to curtail the production within
its present limits, of any existing arsenal, navy yard, or other Government work shop. In
establishing said industries the Attorney General shall provide such forms of employment in
the Federal penal and correctional institutions as will give the inmates a maximum opportunity to acquire a knowledge and skill in trades and occupations which will provide them
with a means of earning a livelihood upon release. The industries to be established by the
Attorney General under authority of this section may be either within the precincts of any
penal or correctional institution or in any convenient locality where an existing property
may be obtained by lease, purchase, or otherwise.
SEC. 4. In lieu of the working-capital funds authorized for the textile mill at Atlanta Penitentiary by the Act approved July 10, 1918 (chapter 144, Fortieth Statute, page 897; section
799, title 18, United States Code), and for the shoe factory at the Leavenworth Penitentiary
by the Act approved February 11, 1924 (chapter 17, Forty-third Statute, page 7; section 772,
title 18, United States Code), there is hereby created a consolidated prison industries working-capital fund which shall be available for carrying on industrial enterprises at any of the
several Federal penal and correctional institutions heretofore or hereafter established.
40

SEC. 5. All money appropriated for, or now on deposit with the Treasurer of the United
States to the credit of the said working-capital funds at Atlanta Penitentiary and Leavenworth Penitentiary, shall be credited to the consolidated prison industries working-capital
fund herein authorized. All money received from the sale of the products or by-products of
such industries as are now or hereafter established, or for the services of said United States
prisoners, shall be placed to the credit of said prison industries working-capital fund, which
may be used as a revolving fund. There are authorized to be appropriated such additional
sums as may from time to time be necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act.
SEC. 6. The prison industries working-capital fund shall be administered and disbursed by
or under the direction of the Attorney General, and shall be available for the purchase,
repair, or replacement of industrial machinery or equipment; for the purchase of raw materials; for compensation to inmates employed in any industry under rules and regulations
promulgated from time to time by the Attorney General; for the employment of necessary
civilian officers and employees engaged in any industrial enterprise at any of the Federal
penal and correctional institutions and in the District of Columbia; for the repair, alteration,
erection, and maintenance of industrial buildings and equipment; and for travel and any
other expenses incident to or connected with the establishment, operation, or maintenance of
such prison industries as are now established or may hereafter be established by the Attorney General at the several penal and correctional institutions.
SEC. 7. The several Federal departments and independent establishments and all other
Government institutions of the United States shall purchase at not to exceed current market
prices, such products of the industries herein authorized to be carried on as meet their
requirements and as may be available and are authorized by the appropriations from which
such purchases are made. Any disputes as to the price, quality, suitability or character of the
products manufactured in any prison industry and offered to any Government department
shall be arbitrated by a board consisting of the Comptroller General of the United States, the
Superintendent of Supplies of the General Supply Committee, and the Chief of the United
States Bureau of Efficiency, or their representatives. The decision of said board shall be
final and binding upon all parties.
SEC 8. The Act of Congress approved June 21, 1902 (Chapter 1140, Thirty-second Statutes,
page 39i), as amended by the Act of April 27, 1906 (Chapter 1997, Thirty-fourth Statutes,
page 149; sections 710 to 712a, inclusive, title 18, United States Code), providing for
commutation of sentences of United States prisoners for good conduct shall be applicable to
prisoners engaged in any industry, or transferred to any camp established under authority of
this Act; and in addition thereto each prisoner, without regard to length of sentence, may, in
the discretion of the Attorney General, be allowed, under the same terms and conditions as
provided in the Acts of Congress referred to in this section, a deduction from his sentence of
not to exceed three days for each month of actual employment in said industry or said camp
for the first year or any part thereof, and for any succeeding year or any part thereof not to
exceed five days for each month of actual employment in said industry or said camp.
SEC. 9. All Acts and parts of Acts in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
Approved, May 27, 1930.

41

[PUBLIC.—No. 461—73D CONGRESS]
[H.R. 9404]
AN ACT
To authorize the formation of a body corporate to insure the more effective diversification
of prison industries, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That in order more effectively to carry out the policy and
purposes of the Act of May 27,1930 (46 Stat. 391; U. S. C., title 18, sec. 71l), entitled “An
Act to provide for the diversification of employment of Federal prisoners, for their training
and schooling in trades and occupations, and for others purposes,” the President is hereby
authorized and empowered, in his discretion, to create a body corporate of the District of
Columbia to be known as “Federal Prison Industries,” which shall be a governmental body.
SEC. 2. The President shall appoint a board of directors of said corporation which shall
consist of five persons, one of whom shall be a representative of industry, one a representative of labor, one a representative of agriculture, one a representative of retailers and consumers, and one a representative of the Attorney General. The board of directors shall serve
at the will of the President and without compensation.
SEC. 3. The President shall transfer to said corporation the duty of determining in what
manner and to what extent industrial operations shall be carried on in Federal penal and
correctional institutions and may transfer to said corporation any part or all of the other
powers and duties now vested in the Attorney General or any other officer or employee of
the United States by said Act of May 27, 1930. It shall be the duty of the board of directors
to diversify so far as practicable prison industrial operations and so operate the prison shops
that no single private industry shall be forced to bear an undue burden of competition from
the products of the prison workshops.
SEC. 4. The Secretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized and directed, upon the formation
of the corporation, to transfer to a fund to be known as the “Prison Industries Fund” all
balances then standing to the credit of the prison industries working-capital fund. All
moneys under the control of the corporation shall be deposited or covered into the Treasury
of the United States to the credit of said fund and withdrawn therefrom only pursuant to
accountable warrants or certificates of settlement issued by the General Accounting Office.
All valid claims and obligations payable out of said fund shall be assumed by the corporation. The corporation is hereby authorized to employ the aforesaid fund, and any earnings
that may hereafter accrue to the corporation, as operative capital for the purposes enumerated in the said Act of May 27, 1930, and in accordance with the laws generally applicable to
the expenditures of the several departments and establishments of the Government, and also
for the payment of compensation in such amounts as the Attorney General may authorize to
inmates of penal institutions or their dependents for injuries suffered in any industry:
Provided, That in no event shall compensation be paid in a greater amount than that provided in the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act of September 7, 1916, as amended.
Accounts of all receipts and disbursements of the corporation shall be rendered to the
General Accounting Office in such manner, to such extent, and at such times as the Comptroller General of the United States may direct for settlement and adjustment pursuant to
42

title III of the Act of June 10, 1921 (42 Stat. 23), and such accounting shall include all fiscal
transactions of the corporation, whether involving appropriated moneys, capital, or receipts
from other sources.
SEC. 5. The board of directors shall make an annual report to Congress on the conduct of the
business of the corporation and on the conditions of its funds.
SEC. 6. This Act is supplemental to the Act of Congress approved May 27, 1930, and in the
event of the failure of the corporation to act as herein authorized the Attorney General shall
not be limited in carrying out the duties conferred upon him by the Act approved May
27, 1930.
Approved, June 23, 1934.

43

Appendix C: Presidential Order Establishing FPI
EXECUTIVE ORDER
Creating A Body Corporate To Be Known As Federal Prison Industries, Inc.
By virtue of the authority vested in me by the Act of June 23, 1934, (Public No. 461,73rd
Congress), it is hereby ordered that a corporation of the District of Columbia be and is
hereby created, said Corporation to be named as
FEDERAL PRISON INDUSTRIES, INC.
1. The governing body of said corporation shall consist of a board of five directors to hold
office at the pleasure of the President. The following persons shall constitute the first Board
of Directors:
Mr. Sanford Bates
Mr. Thomas A. Rickert
Hon. John B. Miller

Dr. M. L. Brittain
Mr. Sam A. Lewisohn

2. The principal office of said corporation shall be in the City of Washington, District of
Columbia, but the corporation shall have power and authority to establish such other offices
or agencies as it may deem necessary or appropriate.
3. The said corporation shall have power to determine in what manner and to what extent
industrial operations shall be carried on in the several penal and correctional institutions of
the United States and shall, so far as practicable, so diversify prison industrial operations
that no single private industry shall be forced to bear an undue burden of competition with
the products of the prison workshops. It shall also have power to do all things it is authorized to do by the said Act of June 23, 1934, and all things incident to or necessary or proper
in the exercise of its functions.
4. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 4 of the said Act, the Secretary of the Treasury is
directed to transfer to a fund to be known as “the Prison Industries Fund” all balances
standing to the credit of the Prison Industries Working Capital Fund on the books of the
Treasury and the corporation is authorized to employ the aforesaid fund and any earnings
that may hereafter accrue to the corporation, as operating capital.
5. The Attorney General is directed to transfer to the corporation hereby created all personal
property, assets, accounts receivable, and equipment of any and every kind now under the
jurisdiction of the Industrial Division of the Bureau of Prisons of the Department of Justice.
6. The corporation shall assume all valid claims and obligations now payable out of the
Prison Industries Working Capital Fund.
7. Said corporation shall have power to sue and be sued.

44

8. Any vacancies occurring in the membership of the Board of Directors shall be filled by
the President of the United States.
9. The heads of the several executive departments, independent establishments and Government owned and Government controlled corporations shall cooperate with the corporation in
carrying out its duties and shall purchase, at not to exceed current market prices, the products or services of said industries, to the extent required or permitted by law.
10. All powers and duties vested in the Attorney General and not specifically transferred to
the corporation by said Act of June 23, 1934, or by this Executive Order and assumed by
said corporation, shall remain vested in the Attorney General or his duly qualified representatives as heretofore.
FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT
The White House, (No. 6917)
December 11, 1934

45

Published in May 1996 by Federal Prison Industries, Inc.
Kathleen M. Hawk, Chief Executive Officer
Steve Schwalb, Chief Operating Officer
Edited and Designed by Andrew Stephens
Cover Design by Paul Lloyd
Printed by Federal Prison Industries, Inc.
Federal Correctional Institution, Sandstone, MN