one of the more striking testimonials, from an Illinois county tuberculosis on: "In the schools where we have weighed the children, those doing the chores gained weight, while those who did not do the chores lost weight in nstances. In one school Crusaders gained from three to five pounds, whereas saders lost from one to three pounds in the same period."

offee and tea are very injurious," runs a New Jersey school composition. know by experience. If you drink tea or coffee for supper, you will be awful all night. Now that I am a Crusader, I drink nothing but pure water and A tribute to the efficiency of the Crusade is found in letters from coffee its in some localities, inquiring why the beverage is banned for children. Pennsylvania county tuberculosis association reports a number of foreigners ve bought cows to give their children milk, as a direct result of the Crusade. e Modern Health Crusade is promoting nutrition in every state in the union, several foreign countries. This does not mean for a minute, however, that zed nutrition work outside the Crusade is not needed. If one-third of the 1000 American children of school age are malnourished, legions of them should Fight to nutrition classes and clinics. One need not be a pessimist, however, ict that it will be impossible to establish enough nutrition clinics and classes. e times of curtailed expenditure, we must depend to a large extent on methods ation that cost but little and that reach homes on a wholesale scale. The Modern Health Crusade is such a method. The work, conducted by school ́s, averages in cost from five to ten cents per child for thirty weeks' intensive good health habits. To a large degree the home work of the Crusade links nes to the school and reaches parents and others of non-school age. Thus the de broadcasts nutritional teaching from the school and wins community support rition classes and school lunches.

DIVISION IV-PUBLIC AGENCIES AND

INSTITUTIONS

CAN PRISONS BE MADE SELF-SUPPORTING AND INMATES
BE PAID ADEQUATE WAGES AT THE SAME TIME?

W. Richmond Smith, Government Service Agency, New York City

The subject upon which I have been asked to talk to you is the "Maintenance of Prisons and the Methods of Remuneration for Prisoners," and more particularly to discuss the question "Can Prisons Be Made Self-supporting and Inmates Be Paid Adequate Wages at the Same Time?" I assume the subject infers that the money necessary to pay both maintenance and wages should come from the operation of productive industries in the prisons. In that case there will perhaps be a clearer understanding of the subject if it is restated in the words: "Can Prison Industries Be So Conducted As to Make the Prisons in Which They Are Located Self-supporting and at the Same Time Pay Adequate Wages to the Inmates?"

This is primarily a business problem. The only way in which we can accurately estimate what can be accomplished with prison labor is by approximating the fundamental conditions under which free labor is successfully producing. No industry manned with free labor could exist unless it paid wages large enough to enable the workmen to maintain themselves and their dependents. Wages are a prime element in the cost of production. Expenditures for labor, material, and overhead are always a first charge against the gross revenue from the sale of the product. Out of wages the workman maintains himself and his dependents; out of overhead the management of the industry pays the salaries of the non-producing executive and administrative staffs and the cost of plant maintenance. At present more than at any other time in the history of American industry the good-will of labor is essential to profitable industrial production. The good-will of labor cannot be had by any industry that does not pay adequate wages.

Prison industries are manned by labor that is not free. The entire possible force is composed of those found guilty of breaking laws enacted for the protection of the public. They have been punished by loss of freedom and the rights of citizenship. It is true that in the days of black slavery certain kinds of profitable industrial production were secured from unfree labor without its good-will. In these cases the incentive to produce was replaced by a gentle persuader in the form of a stock whip and a whipping post. The question is, in this day, can the unfree labor of prisoners be made to turn out profitable industrial production without the incentive of fair treatment and adequate wages? Some of the facts upon which to base an intelligent opinion can be had from a brief summary of what has been accomplished in that direction in this country.

The different methods of employing the labor of prisoners can be roughly divided into two groups-one under which the state does not control, and the other under which the state does control, the labor of the prisoner. In the first group there are

202

two methods, known as the Lease System and the Contract System. In the states where these two methods are used not all the prisoners are employed under them. The evident desire for change is shown by experiments made with other methods. In the states referred to, however, these two methods predominate in the employment of prison labor.

Under the Lease System, the use of which predominates only in the state of Alabama, the prisoners are handed over to contractors under lease to work in the coal mines and turpentine forests. They are under the custody of the contractor, who houses and feeds them. The wages they receive are totally inadequate for the work they are compelled to do. The return to the state under this method is about $1,000,000 a year, in addition to the amount required for the maintenance of the prison institutions. The only thing that can be said of the Lease System is that the $1,000,000 return to the state is taken out of the hides of the prisoners.

Under the Contract System, the use of which predominates in the state of Maryland, the labor of the prisoners is disposed of under contract, but their actual custody remains with the state. The industrial plants are located in buildings under control of the state, but the wages are paid by the contractors, who are also supposed to pay a sum equivalent to that which otherwise would have to be appropriated by the legislature for the maintenance of the prisoners and the upkeep of the prison institutions. Wages paid prisoners under this method are inadequate, and the return to the state does not include the interest on the capital invested in the buildings in which the plants are located.

In the second group there are also two methods, known as the Public Account System and the State Use System. There are a number of the states in which the use of these two systems predominate where there is a considerable mixture of methods, due to the desire to try experiments in an effort to improve conditions and get better results.

Under the Public Account System, which predominates in Minnesota, the state owns and conducts the industrial plants in which the prisoners are employed. It also disposes of the product of the industries. The remuneration to prisoners varies from thirty cents a day for farm work to a dollar a day for certain kinds of shop work. But this remuneration can scarcely be called wages, because it has no direct relation to either the quality or quantity of work done. The cost of carrying on the industries is paid out of a capital rotation fund set up by the state, and the gross receipts from the sale of the product is paid into this fund. The so-called wages paid prisoners are more or less arbitrarily fixed and paid out of appropriations made by the legistature. The return to the state under this method includes the equivalent of what would otherwise have to be appropriated for the maintenance of the prisoners and the upkeep of the institutions in which they are housed. The appropriations for remuneration for prisoners are limited to an amount equal to the balance of the income from the industries. The product is disposed of in the open market below market prices in competition with the product of free labor. In 1920 the state claims to have cleared a profit of over $400,000 from the industries, but none of this profit was used to increase the remuneration to prisoners.

Under the State Use System, which prevails in Ohio, the state not only owns and conducts the industries, but disposes of the product to meet the needs of the state

government and its political subdivisions. None of the product of the industries is disposed of in the open market. The prisoners are paid from eight to forty cent a day, and here again the remuneration can scarcely be called wages, because it has no direct relation to either the quality or quantity of work done. The cost of carrying on the industries is paid out of a capital rotation fund set up by the state, and the gross receipts from the sale of the product is paid into this fund. The so-called wages paid prisoners are more or less arbitrarily fixed and paid out of appropriations made by the legislature. The return to the state under this method includes the equivalent of what would otherwise have to be appropriated for the maintenance of the prisoners and the upkeep of the prison institutions. In 1920 the state claims to have cleared a profit of about $150,000 from its industries, but none of this profit was used to increase the remuneration to prisoners.

From this brief and admittedly imperfect summary of existing methods of employing the labor of prisoners in productive industry it is obvious that at least one fundamental essential to the success of industrial production by free labor is entirely lacking. Under no one of the methods described is an adequate wage incentive offered. The virtual slavery under the Lease System cannot take its place. The exploitation of the prisoner by private contractors under the Contract System cannot be advocated as a substitute. The charitable donations in lieu of wages under the Public Account System has not been an unqualified success, even when the product of the industries has been slaughtered in the open market in competition with the product of adequately paid free labor in similar industries outside. Not even the fairest method of them all -the State Use System-has supplied sufficient incentive to earn the good-will of the prisoner workmen. It is a far cry from conditions under the Lease System. Much has been done to better conditions, but still experience indicates that an essential fundamental to successful production has been neglected. Adequate wages mean both quality and quantity production. Charitable donations in lieu of wages are not a sufficient incentive.

The method of employing prison labor in the state of New York is practically the same as that in use in the state of Ohio. The industries are conducted by the state, and the product is disposed of only to the state government and its political subdivisions. The cost of carrying on the industries is paid out of a capital rotation fun and the gross receipts from the sale of the product are paid into that fund. prisoners are paid a cent and a half a day, whether they do any work in the indust or not, with a limit of twenty cents a day for overtime.

Following a declaration made by former Governor Alfred E. Smith, of the stat of New York, before the Prison Congress in 1919, that some method should be found to prevent the dependents of prisoners suffering actual want, even to starvation, while their bread-winners were in prison, the Prison Survey Committee was appointed in March of that year. This Committee was instructed to make a c all the institutions under the Prison Department and develop a reorganization of the prison industries and the business methods department. The report of this Prison Survey Committee co information about the prison industries in the state of New Yor definite objective in view, and its recommendations point the way to of the industries upon a wage-paying and self-supporting basis.

SEGREGATION OF PRISONERS

A careful analysis of the prison population of the state showed that a little over 38 per cent was physically and mentally fit to be enlisted in productive industries. The balance was made up of: 28 per cent of criminal insane, from 8 to 14 per cent of mental defectives requiring institutional care, about 5 per cent of constitutional psychopaths who should be segregated, about 5 per cent of tuberculosis cases needing special treatment, about 2 per cent representing the average census of general hospital cases, and about 6 per cent representing prisoners undergoing examination and classification before assignment, those awaiting execution and those required in court. Thus, out of a normal census of 5,300 prisoners, 2,000 were estimated to be actually available to be placed at work in the industries. Previous to the appointment of the Committee the state legislature had appropriated money for the construction of a new penitentiary at Wingdale, to which it was proposed to transfer prisoners confined in Sing Sing prison. The Committee recommended that a general receiving station be established at the old Sing Sing prison through which all prisoners should pass to be examined and assigned to work in the industries or segregated in the institutions where they could receive the custodial care their mental or physical condition required. It also recommended that the institutions for the care of the insane criminals be placed under the Hospital Commission and that the constitutional psychopaths and mental defectives requiring custodial care be placed in special institutions set apart for them. In this manner the Committee proposed to weed out of the prison institutions conductng industries all those who could not be put to some kind of work, and provided for a receiving station in which this weeding out and assignment to work would be done.