With COVID-19, inmates’ access to books is gaining greater attention

While COVID-19 has wrought many changes in library and information science, one positive development may be growing attention to inmates’ access to reading materials, as observed in recent actions by the American Library Association (ALA). My concern is if these efforts are tied too closely to COVID-19, then any concessions granted during the pandemic may lose ground once the pandemic is behind us.

Introduction:
The authors of a paper published in December 2020 in Open Information Science allege that, historically, LIS “has not heavily grappled with the provision of library services to people who are incarcerated and the need to advocate for incarcerated people’s access to books and other information” (Austin, 2020) but that “At the moment, there is growing attention given to states’ attempts to curtail book access for people inside of jails and prisons” (ibid).

Even before the March 2020 shut-downs spurred by COVID-19, the ALA at its 2020 Mid-Winter Meeting, approved a Resolution in Opposition to Charging Prisoners to Read. The ALA “Condemns the existence of for-profit programs that charge incarcerated people for access to reading material, acknowledging such programs only serve to deepen existing inequities barring free access to information for all people” (ALA, 2020).

The ALA also co-signed a letter, in April 2020, asking that prison telecom companies Global Tel Link (GTL) and Aventiv Technologies “waive [their] fees for incarcerated people to access digital content on [their] tablets during this pandemic” (PEN America, 2020a).

The letter highlights increased isolation that prisoners face under COVID-19.

“Tablets and e-readers are one of the few ways that some of the nation’s two million incarcerated people have to access educational and recreational content in prison, especially critical as officials respond to the virus by further isolating prison populations from the outside world. Pay-per-minute rates for the use of these tablets can be prohibitive for incarcerated people, cutting off a crucial lifeline to families, friends, and loved ones” (PEN America, 2020b).

In her presentation at ALA Midwinter 2021, ALA Executive Director Tracie D. Hall drew attention to “Information Redlining,” which she defines as “the systematic denial of equitable access to information, information services, and information retrieval methods” (Hall, 2021a).

In her column for American Libraries, Hall addressed the worsening problem of inmates’ access to reading, stating that “[D]etention facilities are signing contracts with communications providers that often charge exploitative rates — sometimes up to 5 cents per minute for reading and accessing information via digital devices” (Hall, 2021b).

Literature Review:
Several headlines draw attention to contracts between correctional facilities and for-profit corporations. Prison Policy Initiative reported that 11 states have signed contracts with prison telecom companies to provide ostensibly “free” tablet computers to inmates (Finkel, 2019).

“But as with most state contracts that appear to cost nothing, there is a catch — several in fact. First, the ‘free’ tablets charge users at every opportunity, including above-market prices for phone calls, video chats and media. Even sending an email requires a paid ‘stamp’” (ibid).

The briefer adds that the introduction of tablets has paved the way for prison administrators to eliminate essential services, including law libraries and access to physical books. Several contracts guarantee a fee, or a percentage of revenue, for the Department of Corrections (ibid).

Writing for Newsweek, Marika Malaea observed that a 2019 contract between the West Virginia Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation and GTL “states that inmates will be charged 3 cents a minute to read books ... despite the fact that all available books come from Project Gutenberg, a free online library” (Malaea, 2019).

Eldon Ray James, writing for American Libraries, observed that “After tablets were introduced in prisons in Maryland, New York, and Pennsylvania, there were statewide attempts to ban book donations. All those states reversed course in the face of public pressure” (James, 2020).

And for USA Today, author Chris Wilson related ways that reading books helped him get through a prison life sentence. But he cautioned that exploitive eReader fees are robbing similar inmates of that benefit (Wilson, 2020).

PEN America produced an issue briefer in September 2019, stating that security concerns, e.g. the smuggling of drugs in or through the pages of a book, are often invoked as the rationale for restricting physical books. “But authorities have offered very little evidence that this problem is widespread enough to warrant such a restrictive response” (PEN America, 2019).

Discussion:
The ALA’s resolution is a call to action, for “all library workers ... to contact their state legislatures to express their concern” over the denial of inmates’ access to information (ALA, 2020).

One difficulty is the fact that these contracts can be lucrative — both for the telecom provider and for the DOC. And the so-called “free” tablets can offer an incentive for the DOC to eliminate programs that it perceives as costly. But any such “savings” need to be weighed against higher rates of recidivism.

A study by the National Center on Education, Disability, and Juvenile Justice found that, “While poor reading skills and poor academic performance are not direct causes of criminal activity, adolescents who have deficits in these areas are disproportionately represented in correctional institutions” (EDJJ, n.d.). The study cites findings by the Bureau of Justice and Statistics, that “individuals with a low literacy level are at greater risk for criminal behavior and incarceration” (ibid).

While these studies concern literacy, not simply access to reading, I would argue that it is difficult to boost someone’s reading level when they’re charged by the minute to read.

The ALA and letter co-signers make a compelling statement about prisoners’ isolation during COVID-19, but I am concerned that if COVID-19 forms the basis for waiving fees, what happens when the pandemic is behind us? Will companies like Aventiv and GTL still face pressure to eliminate their fees? Is there a way to harness the humanitarian goodwill around COVID-19 in order to permanently eliminate barriers to prisoners’ ability to read?

Works Cited
American Library Association. (2020). Action Item: Resolution in Opposition to Charging Prisoners to Read, 2020 Mid-Winter Meeting. Retrieved Dec. 29, 2020. http://www.ala.org/aboutala/sites/ala.org.aboutala/files/content/ALA%20CD%2041%20Resolution%20in%20Opposition%20to%20Charging%20Prisoners%20to%20Read.pdf

Austin, J., et. al. (2020). “Systemic Oppression and the Contested Ground of Information Access for Incarcerated People.” Open Information Science, Vol. 4, Issue 1. De Gruyter. Retrieved Dec. 28, 2020. https://www.degruyter.com/view/journals/opis/4/1/article-p169.xml

EDJJ. (n.d.). The Impact of an Intensive Reading Program on Literacy Skills of Youth in Juvenile Corrections. Retrieved Feb. 13, 2021. http://www.edjj.org/litSkills.html

Finkel, M. and Bertram, W. (2019). More states are signing harmful “free prison tablet contracts” [Issue briefer]. Prison Policy Initiative. Retrieved Feb. 13, 2021. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2019/03/07/free-tablets/

Hall, T.D. (2021a, Jan. 22-26). Information Redlining: Five steps libraries can and must take to close the widening socioeconomic divide [On-demand webinar]. ALA Midwinter Meeting & Exhibits - Virtual. https://2021.alamidwinter.org/

Hall, T.D. (2021b). “Defending the Fifth Freedom: Protecting the right to read for incarcerated individuals.” American Libraries, Jan. / Feb. 2021, Vol. 52, #1/2, Page 6 https://americanlibrariesmagazine.org/2021/01/04/defending-fifth-freedom-information-access-prisons/

James, E.R. (2020). “Prisoners Pay to Read.” American Libraries: The Scoop, May 22, 2020. Retrieved Dec. 28, 2020. https://americanlibrariesmagazine.org/blogs/the-scoop/prisoners-pay-to-read-prison-tablets/

Malaea, M. (2019). “West Virginia Charges Prisoners 3 Cents a Minute to Read E-Books From Free Library, Despite Earning Less Than $1 an Hour.” Newsweek. Retrieved Dec. 30, 2020. https://www.newsweek.com/west-virginia-charges-prisoners-3-cents-minute-read-e-books-free-library-despite-earning-less-1474050

PEN America (2019). Literature Locked Up: How Prison Book Restrictions Constitute the Nation’s Largest Book Ban [Issue briefer]. Retrieved Jan. 24, 2021. https://pen.org/literature-locked-up-prison-book-bans-report/

PEN America (2020a). Letter: Organizations Demand Prison E-Book Readers Drop Access Fees During COVID-19. Retrieved Dec. 29, 2020. https://pen.org/letter-ereader-ceos/

PEN America. (2020b). Prison E-Readers and Tablets Should Be Free During Coronavirus Outbreak [Press release]. Retrieved Dec. 28, 2020. https://pen.org/press-release/prison-e-readers-and-tablets-should-be-free-during-coronavirus-outbreak/

Wilson, C. (2020). “Books helped me get through a life sentence. Exploitative fees rob others of benefit.” USA Today, Feb. 11, 2020. Retrieved Dec. 30, 2020. https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/policing/spotlight/2020/02/03/books-helped-me-get-through-life-sentence-fees-rob-others-benefit/4569506002/

Compiled as part of a grad-school application for a Master’s degree in Library and Information Science