What Can We Get For 63 Cents? 

(Part One)

There’s a line from an old cartoon, “The Fat Albert Show” where the main character, voiced by comedian Bill Cosby, says, “What can we get for 63 cents?”

The same quotation can be applied to a recent situation here at USP Tucson, where a friend of mine found that his pay for working the dorm laundry cart was suddenly, without memo or warning, reduced to 60 cents a month.

He felt, as I did, that it was insulting. The normal rate of pay was $5.25, but his pay, along with all the other laundry workers, was cut down to mere pennies.

I want to start a discussion on this, raising two critical questions. The first question is more for the reader on the outside of the prisons: is the reduction of pay by the prison legal? I have to pose this first, to allow myself to define the limits of this scenario. No doubt, many on the outside are unfamiliar with the idea of how inmates in federal prisons are paid. This question will help us get on common ground.

The second question opens up the rabbit hole: IF the prison illegally paid these workers, what THEN are they doing with the extra money? This question is more speculative, because I cannot hit the “bull’s eye” here. But I hope to give a very compelling argument that I believe staff here are not only illegally reducing inmate pay, but may be unethically reproaching it somewhere else – possible embezzlement.

Extreme? Possibly. By the end of this essay, I have to have persuaded you that even if I cannot prove the accusation, I would be dangerously close to it.

So, the first question: Is the reduction from $5.25 a month to 60 cents a month legal? To start with, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, or FBOP, has inmate workers in every prison. Staff may not like to admit it, but every prison runs off inmate workers. From the cafeteria to recreation to dorm orderlies, commissary, education or laundry, every department in the prison needs inmate workers to keep the prison working.

In a general sense, the FBOP requires every able-bodied inmate to work, this is to mask the fact that the prison cannot run effectively without inmates. Now, we may argue the idea that prison work is essentially slave labor; while I could make a run at that idea, this essay doesn’t take that particular trail, although if you’re keen enough to read between the lines, you may get my interpretation.

But back to the first question, does USP Tucson have a legal right to reduce an inmate’s pay from $5.25 to 60 cents a month? We first need to be clear, as of 2026, no federal inmate, because of their incarceration, has a legal right to fair wages (yet). That means no inmate has a constitutionally protected right to a minimum wage. Inmates make FAR less than the average citizen, in fact in most cases, you likely make more in one hour than most inmates make in a month (or months).

Take my friend’s job, as a laundry cart worker; he was making $5.25 a month, which is known as Maintenance Pay. This is (theoretically) the lowest pay scale that a federal inmate is supposed to make.

But if that’s true…why is this guy making 60 cents a month? Now you see the issue, and the possible rabbit hole I could be digging into. So, let’s put policy to this:

Under the FBOP program statements, there is a section titled “Inmate Work and Performance Pay”, under PS5251.06 (PS means Program Statement), it states in part, “(a) The Warden shall ensure that all institutional work assignments have standardized work descriptions. Each inmate work position is assigned one to four grade levels…”

I believe here we have established a standard that while inmates have no rights to a minimum wage as society understands it, there are in fact grade levels for work which appear to be clearly defined.

PS5261.06 defines an Institutional Work Assignment as “a work assignment which contributes to the day-to-day operations of the institution”. We can thus agree, LAUNDRY certainly qualifies as a work assignment.

So, how are inmates paid? Reviewing the same program statement, it states “(a) The Warden at each Bureau of Prisons institution is to establish an Institutional Inmate Work and Performance Pay Committee to administer an institution’s work and pay performance pay program. The Committee is to be comprised of an Associate Warden, the Inmate Performance Pay Coordinator and any other member(s) the Warden considers appropriate.”

Take note of the term, “Pay Performance”. This is the scale that every prison is supposed to use, mandated by FBOP policy. Let’s define this, as per FBOP policy:

“As part of the Inmate Work and Performance Pay program, the Bureau of Prisons has created four pay grade levels for inmates assigned to institutional work assignments. The highest level is Pay Grade One and the lowest is Pay Grade Four…”

So now, by the FBOP’s policy, we’ve established that inmates are generally paid in four basic levels, but there are exceptions, which I’ll touch on in a second. These pay grades are based on the number of working inmates on the compound, not to be confused with the total number of inmates on the compound.

This is important to understand; a prison with 1000 inmates does not need 1000 workers. USP Tucson, right now, has about 900 or so inmates, but fewer than 200 actually work.

The pay scale is actually a pyramid, with those in Grade Pay Level One making up only 5% of the inmate workforce. Grade Two makes up 15%, Grade Three 25% and Grade Four 55% (all approximate). This is all according to FBOP policy (PS5251.06). Note that the pay grades should account for 100% of the inmate workers.

So, how much does one get? Basically, there are “assigned” values to the pay grade. In order, from Grade One to Grade Four, inmates are paid hourly by the following amounts: 40 cents, then 29 cents, then 17 cents, and finally 12 cents. This means, for example, that a Grade One worker (whether cafeteria or orderly) would make 40 cents per hour. The lowest pay grade would make 12 cents per hour.

Does this make sense so far? If my friend is making 60 cents a MONTH, you’d suppose he’s working only 5 hours a month. The math clearly underscores this.

But as I mentioned earlier, there are exceptions. For example, inmates who work in the Commissary make different pay than regular workers. According to PS4500.12, under “Trust Fund/Deposit Fund Manual”, it states:

“(a) Rate of pay. The hourly rate of pay for inmates assigned to Commissary activities is .55 per hour starting, .75 per hour after three months service, if warranted, .95 per hour after six months service, if warranted, and $1.20 per hour after nine months service, if warranted.”

Some inmate jobs, like Commissary are paid more; those Commissary workers start off making more than a Grade One level. But just as there’s a high end, there’s also a low.

I noticed in much of my research that many Courts quote BOP policy, and mention the FOUR grade levels – but there is a fifth. It’s omitted because technically, it is not listed as a Performance pay, so it does not qualify as one of the four pay grades.

The fifth level is referred to in PS8120.03, under “Work Programs for Inmates – FPI”. The “FPI” stands for Federal Prisons Industries, which includes services or repair or maintenance, such as Laundry. Remember, my friend works (or worked) the Laundry cart. We’ll touch up on that in the second part of this series. Stay tuned.

(Part Two)

I mentioned the five levels of pay, let’s look at that a bit more, focusing a bit on the grade levels:

“(a) Grade Levels. Inmate workers in FPI locations receive pay at FIVE levels, ranging from 5th grade pay (lowest) to 1st grade pay (highest)”. But as I share this, there is another standard, one commonly called “Maintenance Pay”. Program statement 5251.06 states:

“Inmate Work and Performance Pay: Maintenance Pay may be used as a temporary compensation for inmates who perform satisfactorily but are assigned to work detail that have an excessive number of inmate positions due to overcrowded conditions. Ordinarily, Maintenance Pay should be a monthly flat rate, payable when an inmate has worked 2 weeks or more on a job assignment…”

What then, is Maintenance pay? The FBOP policies are discreet on this, as a general search isn’t very clear on the definition or value. But, we can define it by using case laws, where the courts utilize FBOP policy in their arguments. Here’s two:

In United States v. Oseguera (9th Circuit, US Dist. Lexis 20236), it states, “Defendant claims that his current pay schedule of $25.00 every three months will be increased to $50.00 every three months and if he does not keep current in these payments, he will lose privileges at the Hobby Shop, be limited to $25.00 a month at the commissary, will be placed on MAINTENANCE PAY OF $5.25 per month…” (emphasis mine).

In United States v. Johnson (9th Circuit, US Dist. Lexis 39652) in 2006 (as with the previous case law I shared), it states “Johnson does not specify his own circumstances, but alleges that inmates who are permitted to work full time at his facility earn MAINTENANCE PAY AT THE RATE OF $5.25 a month…” (emphasis mine).

This IS the standard pay for Maintenance Pay – $5.25 a month. So, back to the first question… was the reduction of my friend’s pay from Maintenance Pay – determined at $5.25, to 60 cents a month – legal?

On a regular search of the Lexis Law Library, available to federally housed inmates, I typed in a search for “Maintenance Pay” under the Federal Bureau of Prisons Program Statements, and got only 15 hits… not ONE defined the numerical value of Maintenance Pay… odd.

But searching recent case laws across the country, the courts have defined it for us. I typed in a search for “maintenance pay of” and had several hits. For example:

Drew v. Murphy, (7th Circuit US. Dist. Lexis 14991) says, “…Shaw advised Plaintiff that if he refused to participate then he would be subjected to the following sanctions: (1) restricted to MAINTENANCE PAY OF $5.25 per month for any work assignment he acquired…” (emphasis mine).

Here, in case law, the defined amount of Maintenance Pay, the lowest amount of pay a federal inmate can receive per month, is $5.25. Mind you, as we discussed before, federal inmates are not constitutionally guaranteed a minimum wage, as society knows it, but they have policies of how much they are to be paid for work.

In Drew v. Figueredo, (7th Circuit, US Dist. Lexis 190832) says, “On June 20, 2019, Plaintiff was assigned to work as a G-Unit orderly cleaning showers. Instead of Performance Pay of $32/month, Plaintiff earned MAINTENANCE PAY OF $5.25 a month. This job and lower pay resulted from his lack of participation in the Drug Education course.” (emphasis mine).

Again, the definition of Maintenance pay, as defined through the courts, is $5.25. Notice that this pay is different from Performance Pay, and is always lower; in fact, the lowest.

In Shelton v. United States (US Appeals 539 Fed. Appx. 1011, 2013) it says, “The inmates contributions may derive from outside resources or institutional work program compensation. Prisoners receive minimum ‘MAINTENANCE PAY’ of $5.25 per month, but productive working inmates ‘may’ receive enhanced compensation known as ‘performance pay’ or in exceptional cases, ‘bonus pay’” (emphasis mine).

Here, I believe the Court is in error. The case here implies that Maintenance Pay (as of the year 2013) is the standard… it is not. It is the MINIMUM standard. The Court uses the word “may” as if it’s optional for an inmate to receive a Performance pay. That is incorrect, as policy establishes (by most) FOUR Grade Levels, based on the population of the inmate working class at that institution. The Court assumes that all “prisoners receive minimum Maintenance Pay of $5.25 per month”. As I’ve already demonstrated through FBOP policy, and several case laws, the opinionated sections on Shelton v. United States doesn’t align with what we’ve discussed; only that Maintenance pay is indeed $5.25.

So, we again go back to my first demurral; is 60 cents a month a legal pay for an inmate, if the minimum pay per month is Maintenance Pay, which courts recognize as $5.25? Again, nowhere have I found that the FBOP pays inmates under this amount. We have documented that every person (inmate) working in the FBOP is paid according to one of four pay grades, the idea being the higher the grade, the more you stand to earn. You WANT a Grade Pay one as opposed to a two, three or four, because you’d make more money. The title alone is worthless unless there was a financial benefit to it.

In like manner, these grade levels are to be desired more than Maintenance Pay, because as we have clearly defined, Maintenance pay is the LOWEST an inmate is to be paid – which kinda gives you an answer to our first question about an inmate earning 60 cents a month.

To further support my argument, we’ll need to define further the REASON for Maintenance Pay. Remember, in Program. Statement 5251.06, it states that Maintenance Pay is ordinarily used as a temporary pay when they have a large number of workers, more than normal. But Maintenance Pay is also used in a punitive manner; when inmates fail to do certain things, or do things they should not, they are REDUCED to Maintenance Pay.

It is critically important to understand that last part, that inmates are REDUCED to this pay. Nowhere is a person increased to this pay, and nowhere does it say that a person is reduced BELOW Maintenance Pay. Let’s examine four of numerous examples to underscore this:

(Part Three)

Let’s talk now about some examples of the punitive ways the Maintenance Pay is applied in federal prisons:

There are at least four examples to start with to prove this. PS5251.06 points out the penalty for an inmate not paying restitution and/or fines through the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program, or IFRP:

“… However, an inmate on IFRP refusal status cannot earn above maintenance pay level”, and “(c) an inmate who refuses to participate in the financial responsibility program shall not ordinarily receive performance pay above the maintenance pay level, or bonus pay”.

This is easily supported in case law. Using just 9th Circuit case laws, the courts literally copied and pasted the same terminology, all in agreement that if an inmate “refuses” IFRP, they are reduced to Maintenance Pay, or cannot be paid more than Maintenance Pay. For example, in West v. Thomas (US Dist. Lexis 50956, 2008), it states:

“…The consequences to an inmate who refuses to comply with the provisions of his (FRP) are as follows: …(3) the inmate will not receive performance pay above the maintenance pay level, or bonus pay, or vacation pay.”

I noted several case laws that quoted the EXACT same thing, to include Jones v. Daniels (US Dist. Lexis 49442, 2007). Dixeu v. Daniels (US Dist Lexis 49778, 2007), and McIntee v. Daniels (US. Dist. Lexis 65114, 2006).

To further support the Maintenance Pay as a punitive measure, look at PS5380.08, under Financial Responsibility Program; “…An inmate working above the Maintenance Pay level who fails to make satisfactory progress on his or her payment is to be REDUCED to Maintenance Pay”. (emphasis mine)

If an inmate is reduced to Maintenance Pay, which is $5.25, why is USP Tucson paying people 60 cents a month? This is NOT the minimum pay. Maintenance pay clearly is THE minimum pay. In fact:

“It is the Performance Pay Coordinator’s RESPONSIBILITY to ensure those inmates do not earn above Maintenance Pay or earn bonus pay or vacation. Additionally, an inmate who is in “refuse” status and assigned to work more than one detail will not earn above Maintenance Pay for his or her total combined earnings from each work assignment” (PS5380.08).

Again, the minimum standard is Maintenance Pay, used in many cases as punitive actions. Even in the Psychology Department, Maintenance Pay is recognized as the minimum, as PS5330.11 states: “(e) Efforts of non-participation: (i) are not eligible for performance pay above Maintenance Pay, or for bonus pay, or vacation pay…” and “…RDAP refusal: (ii) (prohibiting) Performance Pay above Maintenance Pay, bonus pay or vacation pay.”

I’m trying to hammer in my point; that the FBOP, even though tactfully hidden, establishes that the LEAST a federal inmate can get when working is $5.25, known as Maintenance Pay. This is established in case law, such as Klyara v. Apker (9th Circuit, US Dist. Lexis 167723, 2015):

“… The consequences for failing to participate in the IFRP include being restricted to ONLY $5.25 per month of “performance pay”.(emphasis mine).

No case law I’ve shared states an inmate being punished to earn LESS than Maintenance Pay. They all agree that if you fail to pay your fines and restitution (IFRP) or refuse certain programs, you can be reduced to Maintenance Pay or if already there, prohibited from earning more than Maintenance Pay.

Of note, there is a case law, Sarabia-Nava v. Hollingsworth (10th Circuit US Dist. Lexis 11416, 2013) which states, “Generally, a prisoner in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons is expected to work as assigned by the prisoner’s Unit Team. However, certain events may REDUCE a prisoner’s wages to the Maintenance Pay level. These events include a refusal to participate in the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program and the commission of a disciplinary infraction involving drugs or alcohol. The restriction ordinarily is in effect for a one-year period, and the wage reduction is viewed as administrative, rather than disciplinary sanction”…

My personal opinion here: these punitive reductions of pay ARE disciplinary; if an inmate is earning, for example, Grade Four Pay, and is reduced to Maintenance Pay of $5.25, it clearly is disciplinary, just as much as if they restricted his spending limit to $25.00 a month, restricted visitation or his phone minutes. But again, that is my personal opinion…

But what we’ve cemented is that the Maintenance Pay is more commonly reserved as punishment. While Maintenance Pay can be temporarily used if there is overcrowding in the prison population, it is more often used as punishment for those who don’t have a GED, refused a Drug Rehab class, didn’t pay their IFRP or had a 100 or 200 series infraction for drugs or alcohol. To cap this, let’s use PS5251.06:

“(e) Inmates receiving performance pay who are found through the disciplinary process… to have committed a level 100 or 200 series drug or alcohol related prohibited act will automatically have their performance pay reduced to Maintenance Pay level…”

This is emphasized in Performance Pay Recipient, which says, “Reduction in performance pay to Maintenance pay level”. So, it appears by the abundance of case laws and FBOP statements, that the Maintenance Pay of $5.25 is the least a federal inmate should be paid… so again, why is my friend being paid 60 cents a month?

This was not a mistake. He’s been paid 60 cents since January, and it’s now been four months. And he’s not the only one – every laundry cart worker has been reduced BELOW Maintenance Pay. In fact, it’s not just laundry cart workers; many inmates here at USP Tucson have been complaining of lower-than-normal wages, many under the Maintenance Pay standard.

There may be two counters to this, which if left unchecked, could give ammunition to the opposition, so we will need to address these here.

One counter is that the Maintenance Pay in the FBOP does in fact have other – and lower – values. Two cases prove this, the first being Fazzini v. Henman (US Dist. Lexis 1249) which says: “On September 11, 1990, plaintiff refused to complete the paperwork to begin participation in a payment plan on his assessed fine. Due to this failure to cooperate, plaintiff was placed on Maintenance Pay of $5.00 per month”.

Here, we see that the defined value of Maintenance Pay is lower than what we have established in the $5.25 pay. So, let’s share the second example, from Muhammed v. Moore:

(Part Four)

I mentioned a couple of case laws where the Maintenance Pay is defined as under the $5.25 that I have been establishing. Here is the second of the two I want to share, from Muhammad v. Moore (US Dist. Lexis 869): “It appears from the record plaintiff’s earnings have been reduced to Maintenance Pay of $5.00 per month due to his failure to participate in the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program.”

Do note, both of these cases were out of the 10th circuit. Note as well, these were in the 1990’s. Fazzini v. Henman was actually 1994, but the case notes 1990. Muhammad v. Moore was 1991. These cases were, as of this year (2026) now three decades old. It may appear that the Maintenance Pay was $5.00.

Yet, in United States v. Rossin, in the 3rd Circuit, there is a mention of a Maintenance Pay of only $2.76. I’d challenge that it may not mean it was the official Maintenance Pay, if even the publishers of the case seem to agree that the number is suspect. I highly doubt it was the official Maintenance Pay, just as now, I’d certainly not agree that 60 cents is “Maintenance Pay”. It was what the inmate got paid, not necessarily the actual Maintenance Pay.

This leads to the other counter – hourly pay. Prisons could argue that because inmates are, for the most part, paid “by the hour”, it can justify why one could, in theory, be paid below Maintenance Pay.

But this leaves too many interpretations, all used to find loopholes to prevent paying inmates. Remember, a Grade Level One inmate would be making 40 cents an hour. By contrast, a Grade Level Four inmate makes 12 cents an hour.

If the Grade Level One worker is allowed to work 2 hours a week, he’d make 80 cents a week. Over four weeks, that’s $3.20 a month. But, if a Grade Level Four worker gets six hours a day, 5 days a week, he makes $3.60 a week, and $14.40 a month, far more than the Grade One.

Why bother the higher level if you can’t make more money than those in the lower grades? This “counting coins” leads to staff restricting their worker to minimum hours, and minimum pay. It also opens the doors for discrimination and retaliation, where an officer or staff member can dictate how much you really make.

This doesn’t appear to be one major cause in my friend making 60 cents a month, not that it is based on retaliation or discrimination. I know this situation intently, and can assure you, it has nothing to do with that. But what I am implying is that the true reason may be more diabolic, deceptively so.

Nowhere in the FBOP does it state that inmates are paid hourly rates, even though it uses hourly rates to differentiate pay grades. The minimum pay, as we have established, is the Maintenance Pay, which courts agree is $5.25.

My friend, wanting to be as respectful as he could, went to the Laundry Officer, and very politely told the officer that, under those circumstances, he had to quit. He explained that since he took the job in January of 2025, he had not been paid but TWICE, both being 60 cents. He worked 4 months, and was (poorly) paid in two.

The Laundry Officer, as my friend said to me, seemed to be very understanding and sympathetic. He really seemed to understand that, for 60 cents a month, you cannot buy anything. Our commissary sells a variety of items, but for 60 cents, you can enjoy ONE Ramen noodles (currently 50 cents). You’d have to work 9 months just to buy a bag of coffee (which now just recently jumped to $5.75 for a 3oz of Keefe Columbian coffee). He’d have to work 15 months to afford a case of soda (currently $9.10).

In short, he can’t afford to keep the job – no one can.

So, why would staff be so inconsiderate to have a prison job that does not allow the worker to purchase anything of value…

What can you get for 60 cents a month?

To (hopefully) summarize, was it legal to cut my friend’s pay to 60 cents a month? Given all I have shared, surely the answer seems obvious. This issue is personal, because years ago, I myself used to do the same job as laundry cart. I was paid, get this, $18.00 a month! That’s 30 TIMES more than what they’re getting now!

This now opens up the second question: if USP Tucson is illegally paying these guys, what then are they doing with the extra money? This then brings up a critical element: budget.

It would be common knowledge that federal institutions, such as prisons, are given a budget from the government. Keeping this simple, it starts from the Executive Office of the President. Program Statement 1201.23 of the FBOP states:

“Management Control and Program Review Manual – Office of Management and Budget (OMB) – A function within the Executive Office of the President with responsibility for coordination of all management and budget activities of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government”.

Makes sense; it starts at the top. According to PS2100.04, “Bureau of Prisons (BOP) Budget Process: [There are four phases]: Budget Development, Congressional Approval, Budget Execution and Review”. It also adds, “Generally 18 months before the beginning of the fiscal year” is when budgets are considered.

So, the BOP projects a budget for every prison – to include USP Tucson, and submits it for review. Whatever is approved is given to the BOP, who in turn distributes it to all the prisons.

When USP Tucson gets their budget – at the beginning of the fiscal year (October), the monies have already been determined as to which departments it should go. The Cafeteria has their budget, Medical has theirs, Recreation has theirs, Education has theirs – and the pay for inmate workers.

Consider then, the budget for inmate pay would have already been here by October of 2024, yet the pay for laundry cart workers was suddenly adjusted in late January, early February. Why did USP Tucson, with budget in hand, wait about four months to slash pay so much?

If it was about budget cuts, wouldn’t USP Tucson have simply cut the jobs, rather than such a dehumanizing pay? You’ve already slashed the pay by almost 90%, why not simply cut the laundry cart jobs and have the laundry workers who work in the laundry department absorb the responsibilities?

Doesn’t that seem simpler? You’re doing no favor to those inmates by letting them keep their job, if it’s now literally worthless. USP Tucson got the money to pay every worker their Performance Pay or Maintenance Pay – the budget should have reflected that in October. So, why are they suddenly cutting their pay?

We’ll have to explore this with a bit of logic, so we’re still on the same platform.

(Part Five)

So, let’s think logically on this:

Let’s say USP Tucson has 10 dorms (currently we’ve dropped to 9). Each dorm requires a Laundry Cart worker, so that’s 10 Laundry Cart workers for the compound. If they were all making the Maintenance Pay, which we have established at the MINIMUM pay, then USP Tucson would be paying these guys $5.25 X 10, or $52.50 a month for all these workers. This also adds up to $630 for the entire year to pay these ten workers.

Now remember, prison jobs are supposed to START at Grade Level Four, unless situations put an inmate in Maintenance Pay status, such as FRP refusal (Financial Responsibility Program) or an incident charge. But, to make my point more clearer, let’s just assume that all ten laundry cart workers are making $5.25.

With the “budget cuts” to a mere 60 cents a month, those same 10 guys are now making 60 cents X 12 months, or $7.20 a year. For all ten workers combined, that’s only about $72 a year. USP Tucson “saves” about $558.00… for what? A person on Maintenance Pay can make $3.00 more in two months’ work than all these ten laundry cart workers could make in a single month.

So, we’re back to the budget, which USP Tucson received in October of 2024, the start of the fiscal year of 2025. Considering the Pay Rates, PS5251.06 sheds light on the delegation of the budget:

“(8) Performance Pay Rates: The Assistant Director, Correctional Programs Division, will issue an Operations Memorandum periodically announcing hourly rates for Performance Pay. The rate will remain in effect, regardless of the Operations Memorandum expiration date, until a new rate is announced.”

It seems to me that this Correctional Program Division, which is by PS4100.06, is located in Washington, DC, determines the pay rate – NOT USP Tucson. Any changes in the rate MUST come from them, not an arbitrary decision by staff… but that seems to be what happened. Why did USP Tucson suddenly, without warning or a memo, slash the pay of these workers?

Remember, I used to make $18.00 a month doing exactly the same job. Who thought it was a good idea to cut the pay to Maintenance – the accepted lowest pay, then go much deeper? It’s clear that the Central Office and the Correctional Programs Division did not.

Yet, we know that the institution does have some influence. PS5380.08 states that the Performance Pay Coordinator here at USP Tucson can ensure that inmates on FRP refusal do not earn above Maintenance Pay- they can adjust an inmate’s pay – if the situations are legitimate.

But, what if they aren’t?

In a case law, Izard v. Blair (6th Circuit, US App. Lexis 1714, 1999), it states, “….He claimed that, on May 3, 1996, Blair [Performance Pay Coordinator] arbitrarily reduced the pay grade for his prison job from Grade One to Grade Two in violation of Bureau of Prisons (BOP) policy stating that performance pay is vested, once give.”

Now to clarify that last point, that is incorrect. The inmate in this case believed that his pay was protected, that it is vested, but it is not; it can change. But of note, the PPC did in fact change the pay – meaning legally (or illegally) it can be done.

Let’s learn a bit about the Performance Pay Coordinator, or PPC, in a crash course. There is, at every federal prison, an Institutional Work and Performance Pay Committee, as noted in PS5251.06. It states, in part “(a) The Warden at each Bureau of Prisons institution is to establish an Institution Inmate Work and Performance Pay Committee to administer the institution’s work performance pay program. The Committee is to be comprised of an Associate Warden, the Inmate Performance Pay Coordinator, and any other member(s) the Warden considers appropriate.”

So, delegation of the budget to pay inmates is in the hands of this committee. To further clarify, “The Warden will appoint an Inmate Performance Pay Coordinator (IPPC) who is a full-time employee, and who ordinarily serves at a department head level. The institution Controller will normally serve as either the IPPC or as a committee member.”

Now, let’s add their responsibilities:

“(b) The Committee is responsible for approving the following aspects of the institution’s inmate work and performance pay program: (1) Number of inmates on each work detail, (2) Number of pay grades in each detail, (3) Job descriptions, (4) Performance standards, (5) Budgeting for special act rewards and (6) Bonus pay/special bonus pay procedures.”
May I submit to you, this committee cannot successfully implement aspects 5-6 if they’re slashing pay… their claim of budgeting issues couldn’t allow it. But you see, by the FBOP’s statements, that the money to pay inmates is already in the hands of this institution, and has been since October of 2024. In order to request the budget, this prison had to have carefully itemized every detail, which includes EXACTLY how many jobs USP Tucson had, how many inmates, each inmate’s pay grade, and the amount needed to pay them all for the fiscal year.

They wouldn’t have made up an arbitrary number; the Executive Branch would have certainly scrutinized it, and compared it to the previous fiscal year. So, we’d have to believe USP Tucson got what it requested.

And we believe this to be true from staff’s own mouth. On January 30th, 2025, USP Tucson held what is called a “Townhall Meeting” with three inmate representatives from every dorm. Seven members of the administrative staff were there to address (and I use that word VERY loosely) our concerns, which were many.

One of the questions asked by our representatives to the administration was the current and ongoing issue of inmates being paid lower than what they were supposed to get. We’ll talk about that in the next segment, as it appears that we are slipping a foot into a rabbit hole, with dangerous implications about what staff is doing with inmate pay.

(Part Six)

Let’s discuss one of the major concerns that the inmate representatives brought up during the prison Townhall Meeting here at USP Tucson: inmate pay.

One of the main questions was about inmate pay, and why it was so low. Two administrative staff members said to every representative there, “We have plenty of money”. The representatives were quick to point out that after the previous Townhall Meeting about three months before, staff put a memo out promising to hire 50 more workers, of which staff to this point has failed to bring to pass.

My point as we continue this discussion, this prison claimed to hire 50 more workers, because they said that they have the money. But there were no new jobs created… at least not in reality.

I know for a fact that USP Tucson creates “ghost jobs” to give the impression that they have a large inmate workforce. One year, I myself was assigned to the Plumbing Crew, although I knew absolutely nothing about plumbing. I remember addressing my concerns to staff, to which they told me that I didn’t have to go. They just needed the names to give the appearance that most inmates have a job and are working.

Doesn’t that seem odd? I mean, think about this: if USP Tucson created a number of these “ghost jobs”, could they also have used those same names to send with the budget request, to fool the government into giving them more money? Let’s say right now, here at USP Tucson, as of April of 2026, there are 150 inmate workers. USP Tucson would certainly request a budget to pay for each and every position, whether a Grade Level One worker in the Cafeteria or the dorm orderly making Maintenance Pay (not saying that all dorm orderlies make Maintenance Pay). Every job description and pay grade is itemized by the Institution Work and Performance Pay Committee, as we previously discussed.

So, what if USP Tucson added 50 more jobs… or 75? They’re using these inmate names to show that they have a workforce, but also to justify a larger budget. You wouldn’t ask Congress to provide money to pay only 150 inmate workers, if you’re declaring 200 or more workers, would you?

I know for a fact that USP Tucson is using “ghost jobs”, in fact I know several guys who have admitted having one. They don’t seem to mind, because on paper, it appears they are working or “programming”, which allows them to do their time without any hassle. But I think they’re missing the subterfuge; they’re being used by the prison to get more money from the government, to which they – the ghost jobs – get zero financial benefit.

I guess the trade off is the prison gets what they want (names) the inmate gets what they want (to not be bothered). But, could this be a form of “slavery”? USP Tucson is making money off every ghost job, and not even telling those inmates. This could account for thousands, maybe tens of thousands of dollars that prisons like USP Tucson is getting… but to do what with it?

I mentioned USP Tucson put out a flyer of creating 50 new jobs on the compound, and in that January Townhall Meeting, two staff members said, “we have plenty of money”. If this is true, then can we assume that the budget to pay inmates may be inflated with money to pay those “ghost jobs”? If so, where does that money go?

So, here’s my coup d’etat, my power play: one of the guys here sent a request to FOIA (Freedom of Information Act), requesting the total amount of budget that USP Tucson received to pay inmates. It’s actually called, “TRUPAY Budget Allocation” for USP Tucson, and he was able to acquire the budget for October of 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022, the beginning of the fiscal years for those periods of time. It took him a while for him to get the info, so we’re off a couple of years as I originally wrote this, but it gives you an idea of what might be taking place now. Here are the numbers he acquired:

October 2019- $256,472.96
October 2020-$173,556.60
October 2021-$161,640.20
October 2022- $201,517.73

Now we know that 2020 and 2021 were basically COVID years, and we were on lockdown or modified movements – so who was getting paid outside of cafeteria workers and (sometimes) dorm orderlies, to command over $150,000?

Quick math; even if we had 50 inmates working in the cafeteria, which is a high number, especially during COVID, and 5 dorm orderlies per dorm (10 dorms), that’s 100 inmate workers moving around during COVID (2020-21). That breaks down to each inmate making $1,500 a year, or about $125 per month.

No inmate comes close to making that, even if every inmate was a Grade Level One. The numbers don’t add up – so, where did the rest of the money go? A Grade Level One job could get you about $60 a month on a good month. So if 100 inmates made $60 a month, that’s $6000 a month for all the workers. In a year, that’s $72,000 for all those workers… but the budget for each of those two COVID years exceeded $150,000.

And remember, according to policy, the pay grades are in pyramid form, so there is no way every worker is making Grade Level One, and there not be any Grade Level Two, Three or Four. But I used this extreme to try to make my point.

What happened to the rest of the money?

In 2022, we received $201,517.73 for the fiscal year of 2023. We got that money in October of 2022. The odd number tells us that the request is very specific. This has to imply that USP Tucson was meticulous in requesting to the government exactly what jobs they had, exactly who was working them (including ghost jobs) and how much USP Tucson needed to pay them.

But do the math. I asked a few guys here to tell me about how many inmates currently work here at USP Tucson. I gave them an arbitrary number, 200, and asked if that was too high or too low. On a current compound of about 900, the actual jobs don’t change much, but with 4 dorms currently closed, that’s about 20 orderlies lost. I wanted to get an idea of whether 200 was too large a number, or too low, to make my next point.

(Part Seven-)

I wanted to try to illustrate the argument I have about the pay for inmates, and to this point I am questioning how USP Tucson was budgeted money to pay inmates, but now question where the money is going.

To make my point, I wanted to use an arbitrary number, 200, as the number of inmates working here at USP Tucson. I asked numerous guys if that number was too high, or too low. Most guys said that 200 may be a high number, great, it helps to make my point. If 200 inmate workers are here at USP Tucson, with a budget of $201,517.73 for the fiscal year of 2023, that would average to about $1000 a year, per inmate. Reduced to a monthly pay, that means each inmate is making about $90.00 a month. (For the record, there may be close to 150 inmates working here at USP Tucson at the time of this essay).

Compare this to a Grade Level One pay of 40 cents an hour, as we documented earlier. If an inmate works 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, he’d make $3.20 a day, or $16.00 a week. Over 4 weeks, he’d make about $64.00 a month. That’s Grade Level ONE pay on a good month.

There’s no way the budget was just enough to pay inmate workers; there’s far too much money left after the workers are paid – where is the extra money?

As I was originally writing this essay, we had a visit from our Associate Warden in our dorm, attempting to address some issues. We challenged her on why guys were getting cheated on pay, as in my friend making 60 cents a month. The Associate Warden says that she tried to do something about it, but “gave up on it”.

But, according to policy, it is by HER hand, as part of the Performance and Pay Committee, to ensure that all working inmates get the proper pay grade – not to be reduced below the Maintenance Pay. At the time, many inmates were arguing that their pay had been changed to a lower amount, without notice, or they were not paid at all. The Associate Warden, whom we call “The Lyin Queen”, dodged the issue, even though she is responsible in part for inmates working and their pay.

For her to say that she “gave up” is concerning, because it implies that she does not have our best interests in mind when it comes to inmate pay. My friend told me that when he talked to the Laundry Officer, he brought to his attention that while the laundry cart workers were reduced to 60 cents a month, there was a guy who was making Maintenance Pay, because he didn’t pay his FRP.

The sympathetic officer told my friend that it was true; that an inmate on FRP refusal can’t make more than the $5.25 Maintenance Pay. We established this numerous times earlier with case laws and FBOP program statements.

But do you see the hypocrisy? An inmate is being punished by getting Maintenance Pay, but a guy doing the exact same job, with no penalties, is making almost a TENTH of the same pay.

So, if a guy has an incident of drugs or alcohol, has no GED, refuses the Drug Rehabilitation class and fails to pay his quarterly FRP, he is guaranteed a Maintenance Pay job of $5.25. But a guy like me, for example, with no incident reports, a college degree and faithfully made my FRP payments for over 5 years… I get 60 cents a month?

What am I supposed to get for 60 cents a month?

And I could write several more pages of how inmates have not been paid on time, or got less than their Grade Level pay. Far too many times have inmates complained about their pay suddenly “adjusted”, usually for a lower pay. Remember, the rates come from the Central Office, not USP Tucson.

One inmate told me he had been reduced to $8.00 a month, which is less than a Grade Level Four. He works almost every day for about 5 hours. Let’s call it 5 days a week. He’d be working 25 hours a week. In four weeks, that’s 100 hours.

Do the math: he’s making 8 CENTS an hour… Grade Level Four is 12 cents.

So, if USP Tucson got the budget in October, using ghost jobs, and flirting a memo of hiring 50 more people, if two administrative staff members claim to have “plenty of money” to pay inmate workers, if they’ve slashed pay for laundry workers like my friend, and have “adjusted” pay (illegally, I believe) of many other inmates, they would have saved a HUGE amount of money; money ear-marked for inmate pay.

Where is that money?

I think we can all agree that my friend was wrongly paid, based on all the information we’ve gone through. The first question seems to be easily understood and resolved. The second question is more subjective, so I needed to create common platforms so we could all understand what I am implying. I am stating that it is possible that USP Tucson is, at the very least, misappropriating the budget to pay inmates, and thus cheating them out of pay.

Or, one could say, “stealing” their pay.

To prove me wrong, one could request a Freedom of Information Act and see exactly how much USP Tucson received in the fiscal year of 2024, or any year for that matter. Divide that number by 200 inmates, which is a high number for working inmates on a compound of about 900, but it makes my point. If the average pay is over $30, something is wrong. The higher the number, the more suspicious you should be.

And if the number IS that high, ask yourself, what is USP Tucson, to specifically include the Administration, the Controller, and Performance Pay Coordinator, actually doing with all that extra money- because to be sure, the inmates are not getting it.

My friend had to quit the laundry cart job because he was only getting 60 cents a month. Nobody in prison can live off that. So. you tell me:

What can YOU get for 60 cents (a month)?

NOTE: After this essay was written and mailed out, the Laundry “increased” the pay for laundry cart workers to $1.25 a month. Another friend of mine took the job, mainly to have something to do. But, after a few months, he noticed that the pay DROPPED from $1.25 to $1.09. Discouraged (and insulted) he decided to quit the job. Laundry cart workers are still not getting the minimum pay, which we established as Maintenance Pay.