In the beginning of the 20th century, prison libraries were still primarily filled with religious materials (Rubin, 4). However, during the Great Depression beginning in 1929, prisoners who had once been "kept occupied with industrial tasks" no longer had meaningful tasks to do (Rubin, 4). Books were seen as a solution to the boredom then experienced by inmates, so prisons began to improve their libraries (Rubin, 4). Additionally, 1929 was the year the federal prison library system was formally established (Rubin, 4). In the 1930s, instead of focusing solely on religious goals, prison libraries moved toward education as a primary goal (Rubin, 4). Austin MacCormick, a prison educator, published The Education of Adult Prisoners in 1931, and in that text he argued that reading in prisons should be "moral and directed" (Lehmann, 492). In 1950, MacCormick wrote the American Prison Association's Library Manual for Correctional Institutions that also called for reading to be directed and argued that prison libraries were "an instrument of wholesome recreation, of direct and indirect education, and of mental health" (Lehmann, 492).
Rehabilitation
In response to a wave of prison riots in the 1950s, group therapy was introduced in prisons (Sullivan, 26). In regard to libraries, bibliotherapy began to emerge during this time (Sullivan, 26). Bibliotherapy is "the treatment of a patient through selective reading" (Sweeney 306). The goal of group therapy and bibliotherapy was rehabilitation rather than punishment, and therefore the 1950s became known as the "Era of Treatment" (Sweeney, 306). Notably, "in 1954 the American Prison Association changed its name to the American Correctional Association and encouraged its members to call their prisons 'correctional institutions'" (Sweeney, 306). This reflected a new attitude toward the purpose of prisons; rather than purely retributive, prisons could provide "corrective" rehabilitation programs for prisoners as well. However, in practice, bibliotherapy was often implemented in such a way that prisoners were treated as "passive recipients of literary medicine" rather than active participants (Sweeney, 307-308). Ultimately, bibliotherapy was not seen as being necessarily successful in prisons, and it was largely abandoned after the 1960s (Sweeney 310) (Sullivan 26). The 1970s and 1980s saw a new philosophy arise in regard to prison libraries, which was that they should provide for the "educational, recreational, and informational needs of users, the same as in the free world" (Sullivan, 26). According to Sullivan, "No longer was the library to be an instrument of behavior control and modification except in the broadest custodial sense of providing a means to alleviate the constant tension owing to the prevalent idleness in prison" (Sullivan, 26). I think this shift in viewpoint away from the rehabilitation/treatment potential for libraries toward a model more similar to public libraries represented a critical shift in American prison libraries. Since libraries were no longer seen as important for rehabilitation or treatment, it makes sense that they soon began to decline in prisons.
Decline
In the early 1970s, the Federal Bureau of Prisons closed some libraries in federal prisons (Suvak). According to a survey completed in 1975, many federal prison libraries had budgets too small to maintain a functioning library; the average materials budget was $500 (Suvak). Overcrowding was also a concern in federal prisons at that time, and this caused the Federal Bureau of Prisons to "fear that as overcrowding gets more serious, a fledgling library would be converted into a dormitory, and the startup investment would be lost" (Suvak). Suvak also argues that the opinion that libraries in prisons were an "underutilized resource for a literate elite" was pervasive during this time, and consequently libraries received less funding than education programs and recreation programs (Suvak). However, during the 1930s when there had been more support for prison libraries and the Federal Bureau of Prisons put more resources into them, prison libraries had been more successful (Suvak). For example, the total circulations in all federal prison libraries in 1937 was 815, 396 while in 1972 it was only 128, 420, while the prison population itself had doubled by that time (Suvak). However, the 1970s also saw one of the most important Supreme Court cases in regard to prison libraries, which is discussed more in depth under the tab "Court Cases."
In the 1980s, many prisons were constructed but libraries within these prisons were a low priority (Sweeney, 311). During the 1980s and 1990s, funding for prison libraries was scarce (Sweeney, 311). Sweeney provides examples of instances in which library books for prison libraries came largely from donations or were funded from revenue generated from vending machines, which had to be split between the library, recreation department, and religious services (Sweeney, 311). I think this reduction in funding not only for libraries but also for other services was reflective of an attitude that the goal of prison is punishment only, not rehabilitation. However, in the 1990s the American Library Association released an updated Library Standards for Adult Correctional Institutions that called for prison libraries to "emulate the public library model and subscribe to the philosophy that library services 'shall ensure the inmates' rights to read and their free access to information...and encompass the same variety of material, formats, and programs as available in the outside community" (Lehmann, 493). Although the ALA held this opinion, not everyone agreed. Some in the library field argued that, "providing inmates with palliatives should not, cannot be our purpose...we must understand that placing an emphasis on what inmates ask for does not begin to fulfill our obligations to either our profession, the state, or our users" (Coyle, 67). Instead, the argument was made that, "librarians need to concentrate on developing programs and collections that are useful, informative, and educational; that challenge, in various ways, the facile assumptions on which inmates build and sustain their criminal careers" (Coyle, 67). Coyle also argued that it was a waste of limited library budgets for a library to "divide its resources and blunt its purpose by attempting to satisfy recreational needs" (Coyle, 67).
What lies at the heart of the difference between these two viewpoints is the question of what prisoners are actually entitled to and what will help serve the purpose of rehabilitation; Coyle clearly felt that recreational reading did not serve a purpose beyond recreation, whereas others may argue that it does. I think this is a topic that is still in dispute today, because even though access to library materials such as GED books and parenting books have a very clear purpose in preparing prisoners for re-entry into society, having access to works of fiction does not. However, I think the argument can be made that reading fiction provides prisoners with a constructive means of recreation that can help improve their literacy, critical thinking skills, and interest in new topics, which will also ultimately be of benefit to themselves and to the rest of society upon their release.