There are generally two types of libraries in jails and prisons: the recreational and law libraries. This chapter will freely discuss both types as they are oftentimes located in the same physical space and/or managed by the same staff. As a further vocabulary matter, though the terms “jail,” “prison,” and “correctional” are not fully interchangeable, they will be used loosely to describe any library within a facility of non-voluntary confinement. Finally, there are many terms to describe people experiencing incarceration. While activists tend to use people-first language, those working within these institutions generally use the terms “inmates,” “prisoners,” or “convicts.”

Because these libraries are so malleable in staffing, physical space, funding, and other matters, it is important to remember they share a common mission: serving the needs of the incarcerated population. As a result, librarians in these facilities are as diverse as the physical space they work in, holding a wide variety of credentials and viewpoints. This chapter will also devote some attention to rules established by the courts to protect this very literal captive audience and their access to the legal system.

History of Correctional Libraries

Repentant Origins (1790-1870)

The first documented book-service program was between the Philadelphia Prison Society and the Walnut Street Jail in 1790. Like all similar programs during this period, inmates were provided only with religious materials—often only Bibles. Chaplains or volunteer organizations administered many such programs outside of the facility and so naturally became involved with jails for this purpose. The Puritans believed strongly in promoting literacy in Colonial and Early America. Literacy allowed each person to read and understand their moral obligations on Earth. Thus, the provision of religious materials in this setting was meant to encourage prisoners to recognize and atone for their alleged sins.

Rehabilitative Era (1870-1970)

Owing in large part to the failure of repentance-based initiatives to reduce crime and reform offenders, criminologists and progressive activists called for prison libraries to be overhauled with educational and recreational purpose. Reading was to be considered an incentive to offenders with good behavior. Reformers at the 1870 American Prison Congress began the process of changing the role and perception of prison libraries to reflect these goals. In 1930, the American Correctional Association released its first manual for prison libraries. At the same time, librarianship was coalescing into an organized profession with graduate degrees, standardization of catalog entries, and the rise of professional associations. Nevertheless, prison libraries struggled to gain traction in state facilities before the 1966 passage of the Library Services and Construction Act, which provided funding for underserved populations.

Modern Conceptualization (1970-Present)

Many factors contributed to the evolution of the modern prison library. The most influential are likely the library standards drafted in partnership between the American Correctional Association (ACA) and the American Library Association (ALA), as well as the U.S. Supreme Court’s rulings in Bounds v. Smith (1977) and Lewis v. Casey (1996).

The ACA’s library standards made recommendations for space planning, acceptable levels of service, and collection-building to the population’s needs. To receive ACA accreditation, which is voluntary, a facility must follow those standards, though the library provisions are intentionally flexible and easily satisfied. Currently, the ACA accredits roughly 80% of correctional facilities, and subsequently their libraries, in the U.S. and others abroad.

The Supreme Court’s rulings in Bounds and Lewis are of more practical importance for prison law libraries. In Bounds, the Court held that prisoners have a constitutional right of meaningful access to the court either through the provision of an adequate law library or adequate assistance from those trained in the law. With those flexible terms, the Bounds decision created considerable confusion for inmates, prison administrators, and courts alike. As a result, the Court revisited its decision in Lewis, holding that inmates must show they were actually harmed by their alleged denial of access. The effect has been to doom nearly every challenge to prison law libraries since, though fear of running afoul of those access to court standards has led administrators to be risk-averse with staffing and physical space allocated to prison law libraries.

Staffing

Private Contractors vs. Government Employees

Government’s ability to contract services in the incarceration context is broad, up to and including wholesale operation of private prisons. Privatization traces its roots to the earliest days in America but took on a new vigor during the 1990s and beyond. The idea that private industry could do the same job as government at a fraction of the cost was famously championed by President Bill Clinton during his time in office. In signing the Federal Activities Inventory Reform (FAIR) Act of 1998, President Clinton required federal agencies to review their activities and decide whether they were inherently governmental or if such activities could be performed by private entities. Following that review, private prison contracts expanded tremendously, and while the ideal of privatization has been significantly, though not entirely discredited[i] in the years since, a tour of most, if not all jails and prisons today will reveal an alarming reliance on private labor to carry out the government’s correctional role.

Librarians

Correctional libraries usually have a person on staff referred to as a librarian but that person may not have a degree in library science. Accreditation standards do not require the library to employ a librarian or even to staff the library with someone of a particular education or experiential background. The standards merely require the jail to provide incarcerated persons with adequate assistance in researching and utilizing the law. Nevertheless, it is common practice to refer to the head of library services as the librarian regardless of their actual title.

Prison librarians frequently have law degrees, library degrees, or both. However, considering the undesirable work environment and low salaries, it is also common to find librarians with no obviously relevant qualifications whatsoever. What remains constant is a commitment to service. The role of correctional librarians is to provide inmates with legal research support and materials to attack their sentences, challenge their conditions of confinement, and otherwise protect their rights. Fulfilment of this role satisfies the Supreme Court’s access to court requirement.

Prisons may avoid having a library altogether so long as they have a program by which inmates can communicate meaningfully with persons trained in the law—i.e., a paralegal, law school clinic, or legal aid organizations. Most prisons find it difficult to eliminate libraries altogether in practice as they offer a wide range of services that are not easily replaceable with other systems. Thus, most prisons continue to maintain libraries and staff them with a librarian to manage incarcerated workers, develop collections, and provide reference services.

Concept in Action: One Entry Point to Prison Librarianship

Kathy has worked in the only women’s prison in the state for the last twenty years as an administrative assistant—a generic title that has meant her job duties can change wildly from year-to-year. Recently, the law librarian at her prison retired and prison budgets will not allow hiring a formally educated replacement. Kathy’s supervisor asks her to become the new librarian but informs her it does not come with additional pay or benefits.

Kathy is used to such requests and happily takes on the challenge of a new role despite having no formal training, guidance, or knowledge about community or professional resources. Kathy hopes to spend the last 10 years of her career in this role, building relationships with peers at other institutions and modernizing some policies and practices within her own facility. She knows she can do the job adequately on her own, but also knows she will be able to provide better service if she asks others for help.

Kathy does some research and learns that librarians typically have a master’s degree. She asks her employer if there is a tuition assistance program to enable her enrollment in such a program and is pleasantly surprised to hear there is. Once in school, she learns of library associations where she can ask questions of other library professionals. Kathy begins a host of networking activities to learn best practices in collection development, patron interactions, and issues unique to prison libraries.

Paralegals and Library Assistants

Both paralegals and library assistants are optional positions within the correctional setting. Paralegals may be brought in to supplement or replace library services or fill the librarian role. Library assistants perform more manual tasks than librarians, such as collecting or distributing books, receiving shipments, gathering or delivering legal requests/responses, making photocopies, and the like. Often, library assistants are trained to backfill the librarian role so they may cover vacations and sick time. Library requests are time-sensitive to guarantee the right of access to court is not violated, so staff must be available throughout the year.

Attorneys

Attorneys generally do not want to be involved with jail or prison libraries except to the extent necessary to represent their incarcerated clients. Libraries on the outside often host “lawyer-in-the-library” events where an attorney will advise the public on legal issues, but those are almost exclusively civil matters. Incarcerated persons need civil law assistance in jail (divorce, custody battles, collections, evictions, etc.). In reality, however, the issues are often so entangled with their criminal matters that attorneys hesitate to get involved in such a limited capacity. Some prisons have maintained contracts with in-prison attorneys who supervise paralegal staff in providing access to the courts, though such contracts are being phased out in nearly every jurisdiction.

Incarcerated Workers

The idea of using incarcerated labor is centuries old, though exchanging that labor for payment is relatively new. Workers in most correctional libraries should not expect to receive minimum wage in most jurisdictions, to the extent they are paid at all. But library workers enjoy other benefits, such as consistent access to legal and recreational materials, a break from the monotony of incarcerated life, and an opportunity to exchange privileges with other inmates for personal gain. Library workers will want to pay close attention to their facility’s civilian training briefing(s) and quickly learn appropriate boundaries in dealing with incarcerated workers.

Physical Space

Central vs. Distributed Models

In most facilities, the library is a centralized location that inmates may visit subject to jail or prison policies. There have been such spaces depicted in television and movies, including The Shawshank Redemption (1994) and Orange is the New Black (2013-2019). Centralized libraries are typically areas filled with bookshelves and tables for incarcerated persons to read, write, study, and prepare documents. The downsides of centralized libraries include designating a large space within the facility, staffing the library with both knowledgeable civilians and order-keeping officers, and regularly monitoring the space for contraband.

In many jails and prisons, however, there is no physical library for inmates to visit. I refer to these as “distributed libraries” in which the library is decentralized or scattered across the facility. These can take many forms, including smaller bookshelves within the inmate housing units, mobile book carts that stay within a housing unit or migrate from unit to unit, or correspondence-based delivery of materials from off-site library staff. The downsides of distributed libraries include an obligation to consistently replenish materials throughout the facility, to obtain space both on- and off-site for staff to work in and store materials, and to establish policies for employing and supervising inmate workers.

Collection Development

As previously mentioned, jail libraries often contain a combination of legal and recreational resources. Thus, the collection is similarly bifurcated into those two halves. Libraries can choose between two models of collection building: one dependent on circulation and the other based on triage. In the circulation model, librarians purchase low quantities of a variety of books for the recreational collection and plan for them to be checked in and out. This system provides accountability for damaged materials but means many books spend relatively little time on the shelves.

In the triage model, librarians order bulk quantities of books that cover a variety of categories: fiction, non-fiction, Spanish-language, dictionaries, self-help materials, and the like. This system lends itself naturally to distributed libraries in which it is important to provide consistent coverage of materials to all inmates. In distributed libraries, it is often impossible to check books in and out as the shelves may be open to inmates during free time. Library staff may be neither present nor involved in regulating book usage. Thus, it is impossible to hold specific persons responsible for damage to books and library staff must plan for heavier losses than in circulation-based models.

Books about the law are often too expensive to replace regularly, and so are rarely circulated regardless of the library’s model. More commonly, library staff provide incarcerated persons with scans of relevant sections from law books upon request. In some libraries, these sections are checked out, while other libraries “sell” the materials for a printing fee, just as they would for premade motions or other legal copy. Such fees can range from $.10 per page to $1.00, but typically hover between $.25 and $.50.

To account for indigence concerns—i.e., incarcerated persons who have little-to-no money—jails and prisons generally place a charge on the inmate’s account rather than deducting current funds. This charge is functionally similar to using a credit card, allowing the facility to claim it does not deny access to legal materials based on an inability to pay. The downside of this arrangement is that inmates can overdraw their account balances, meaning that any money placed in their account by family members or friends in the future will first be used to settle printing debts.

Technology

Technology has remained roughly static in correctional facilities for the last few decades. Many prisons still use typewriters, wall-mounted telephones that resemble payphones, and paper-based processes. Some facilities have upgraded to touchscreen kiosks and computers in various forms, including those secured to desks/tables, mounted to walls, and attached to mobile carts. These devices generally have access to a limited version of the Internet (or Intranet), word processing software, and databases such as Westlaw or Lexis Nexis for legal research.

The first correctional tablets entered jails and prisons in 2012 and have since spread rapidly to other facilities. These devices are specifically manufactured for the corrections industry, reflecting the unique concerns in providing technology to incarcerated individuals. Correctional tablets are enclosed in clear cases that are intended to withstand greater physical impacts than traditional cases, and generally cannot be opened by inmates.

It is no understatement to say tablets are transforming the corrections model—possibly more so than at any other time in history. Tablets can be provided to every inmate in a facility at low, or no cost at all, which is a tremendous improvement on traditional models of shared kiosks and computers.

Common tablet features include music and video streaming, text and email messaging, phone calls, eBook and audiobook libraries, legal research databases, video games, word processing, cloud storage, and digitized mail services. There are many more options, particularly if a facility wants its own software loaded onto the tablets, but even that starting list makes clear how substantially tablets are changing the correctional landscape.

eBooks & Partnership Opportunities

eBooks

Correctional administrators are responsible for negotiating tablet contracts with manufacturers. If consulted during such negotiations, library staff will need to be aware of tablet features and cost-shifting mechanisms to best advocate for their patron base. For example, advocates have been concerned that eBooks are available under several pricing models (per page, per minute, or per book charges for rentals or purchases) at the discretion of the contracting parties, though the costs rest with inmate users. Advocates are also concerned that these rates are excessive, particularly in the case of public domain texts. These books are available in digital format at no cost outside of jails and prisons but may cost as much as $14.99 on correctional tablets.

Tablet manufacturers have maintained that eBook libraries are not designed to replace traditional jail libraries. They defend limited title lists and excessive prices as an optional service. However, tablets have proven to be effective profit centers for institutions and manufacturers alike, whereas traditional libraries are unquestionably cost centers. Library staff will therefore need to be aware of tablets and should become champions for their responsible use rather than antagonist towards the devices.

Inside Partnerships

Correctional facilities are like small towns—every essential service must be available, from medical care to food preparation and education. Libraries fill many roles and can prove a tempting partner to other departments within the facility. For example, in prisons where reentry and rehabilitative departments lack discretionary budgets, library staff can purchase books to support others’ programming needs. In suicide watch units within jails, patients are often unable to have possessions other than knot-proof blankets. Some librarians in these institutions have partnered with medical professionals to have supervised access to reading materials.

Moreover, building and maintaining relationships is crucial to ensure decision-makers are invested in the library and its goals. For this reason, library staff must resist the temptation to isolate themselves from the rest of the community. Inside partnerships promote access, ensure relevance, and demonstrate value to administrators—who sign the contract—and the incarcerated—who benefit from library resources.

Outside Partnerships

Libraries are alluring partners and correctional libraries are no exception. It takes an even greater intention to partner with individuals and groups outside the facility than within. Potential partners include local authors, publishers, advocacy groups, legal and paralegal schools, legal aid organizations, and other community support groups.

Some librarians have recruited unpaid volunteers in juvenile detention facilities to implement nightly bedtime readings over the intercom. Connecting with a local chapter of Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous can bring support groups into library spaces or result in free or discounted self-help books. Ultimately this work is highly dependent on the relationships developed by library staff over time.

Conclusion

Working in a correctional library allows staff to operate in a dynamic environment in which the structure of the library and its role are highly malleable. Library staff work closely with their patrons in atypical ways compared with other institutions as their patrons cannot choose to go elsewhere for their legal and recreational information needs. Those who enjoy variety in their work and the ability to witness the impact of their assistance will find meaning within a correctional library.