Introduction

Within the context of Canada and the United States, libraries place an emphasis on providing access to information on diverse topics without any limitations, biases, or opinions on individual choice to the population they serve (American Library Association, 1996). However, the extent to which they can accomplish this mission is fundamentally altered when examining prison libraries and the contexts in which they exist. The intricacy of the prison environment makes these libraries subject to strict policies and governance that are in place for the operation of the entire facilities. According to Arford (2013):

The prison and the library are two institutions whose raisons d’être seem fundamentally at odds. One exists to confine and discipline the defiled and dispossessed, the other to provide knowledge, with all its emancipatory powers, freely to each and every member of society (p. 13).

The inability to separate these two entities – correctional facilities and libraries – within this context, and their seemingly opposing ideals becomes increasingly apparent when examining the ability to develop library collections.

To examine how correctional facilities’ policies and operation challenge collection development in their libraries, this chapter will examine how the perception of inmates affects their right to information; how censorship is more restrictive in these spaces under the reasoning of security; how a lack of adequate funding impacts both staffing and resource acquisition; and how the inability to access resources outside of these libraries exacerbates existing collection deficits. Responses to these challenges will also be examined in the chapter.

While a lens of social justice theory will be applied in the context of inmates’ right to information, it should be noted that the topic of prison abolition will not be covered. However, it should be acknowledged that the issues brought up in the course of this examination are all inextricably linked to larger systemic issues – such as the prison industrial complex, colonialism, and systemic racism – and to fully respond to the issues presented here would require much larger and complex discussions and solutions.

Background and Current Content

Correctional facilities within Canada are either administered on a federal or provincial/territorial level. Federal facilities house individuals who have received a sentence of two years or more, whereas provincial/territorial facilities are responsible for individuals who have received a sentence of less than two years (Correctional Service Canada, 2019). As of 2019, the prison population total in Canada was 38, 570 (World Prison Brief, n.d.). As of 2015, the number of institutional establishments in Canada was 216, with 43 being federal and 173 existing on a provincial/territorial level (World Prison Brief, n.d.). Currently, there is only one policy written for federal prison libraries in Canada which is the National Guide for Institutional Libraries (De Agostini, 2022).

The inception of prison libraries in Canada dates back to the 19th century, as documented by Curry, Wolf, Boutilier, and Chan (2003). In the 1980s, the Correctional Service of Canada commissioned two reports on institutional libraries throughout Canada, the analysis of which defined the role of prison libraries and made recommendations to support these roles (Ings & Joslin, 2011). Prison libraries aim to provide both educational and recreational materials, as well as reduce recidivism for inmates (Marshall, 2011). Libraries play a crucial role not just while an individual is serving their sentence, but also upon their reintegration into society, as it serves as a main source of information. This is particularly significant for individuals who have experienced prolonged periods of incarceration.

Official stances have been taken by both the American Library Association (ALA) and the Canadian Federation of Library Associations (CFLA) regarding individuals’ right to information, regardless of if they are currently incarcerated. ALA’s “Prisoner’s Right to Read: An Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights,” outlines this right to intellectual freedom, and discourages censorship in prison libraries (Conrad, 2012). The 2016 position statement of CFLA (originally adopted by the Canadian Library Association), titled “Prison Libraries Network: The Right to Read,” upholds the idea that reading and access to information are fundamental human rights. It underscores the vital role of prison libraries in safeguarding these rights, including the defense of intellectual freedom for their patrons. The statement advocates for prison libraries to actively promote literacy and digital literacy, and the reintegration of former inmates into society (Canadian Federation of Library Associations – Fédération canadienne des associations de bibliothèques [CFLA], 2016). Furthermore, in The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, also known as the Nelson Mandela Rules, access to a library is identified as a right (United Nations Office on Drug and Crime, 2015).

Despite this positioning, many correctional facilities in Canada at both levels of government do not have libraries within their facilities, and individuals must submit request forms for materials in these instances. Furthermore, it is becoming increasingly more expensive to operate correctional facilities (The John Howard Society of Canada, 2019), and in response existing library services have been eliminated (Zoukis, 2016). The background environment and conditions in which prison libraries operate affects the ability to meet the needs of the patrons they serve, and further challenges can be found in these constrained environments.

Challenges

There are many challenges that face the prison libraries and the prison industrial complex itself is acknowledged as an issue by the general public and the correctional institutions. The dehumanization of inmates exists as an ignored subject as they are othered upon entrance into these facilities, with an out of sight, out of mind mentality (Mirpuri, 2019). Those outside of prisons see no connection between themselves and those within correctional facilities, and therefore the denial of basic human rights within these ordered spaces either appears to be a consequence of justice, or beyond one’s control. Gordon (2008) describes this relationship and its unbalanced consequences: “[t]he prisoner’s fate is always bound up with those of us who are not-yet-captured, regardless of whether this relation is acknowledged” (p. 652). This mentality calls for a cultural shift within both Canadian and American societies. However, as this will not happen overnight, it is important to examine other current challenges to prison libraries and their policies and collections in order to see what other shifts must happen as well.

Censorship

Prison libraries are the same as other libraries in the way that they provide services and materials to patrons. However, prison libraries are unique from other libraries in the specific patrons that they serve and the challenges that they face. Because the patrons using these libraries are inmates of the prison, certain factors must be considered when selecting materials, which can lead to censorship within the library and its collection. Prison libraries also face challenges when it comes to staffing and funding, and with acquiring materials, especially when it comes to technology. All of these challenges are also enhanced when considering that prison libraries must also follow the protocols set by the correctional institution they are in. The results of a survey done in the United States by seventeen librarians and library staff in prison libraries across 10 states found that 24% of libraries have no formal collections development policies (Dalton, 2013). Within these instances, it was found that these libraries were subject to the policies and procedure to the correctional institutions where they were housed. Prison libraries toe the line between being a library and being a part of the correctional facility.

Libraries give people the ability to access information, but prisons hold the authority to take those rights away. A prison’s policies can reduce its patrons’ access to the library collections as they are being restricted on the grounds of privileges, strict schedules, and security protocols (De Agostini, 2022; Steele, 2021). Restrictions and limitations bring into question the right to information and intellectual freedom of prisoners. The limitations on what library services are available and what materials inmates are allowed to read can vary from facility to facility. The way the general public and decision makers within correctional institutions view prisons as either places of punishment or as places of rehabilitation affects the restrictions and limitations inmates have. This also means that giving inmates the right to information is not always seen as a necessity (De Agostini, 2022). Prison libraries are often treated as a privilege someone is awarded in return for good behaviour, even though access to information can be considered a right for every Canadian citizen (CFLA, 2016).

Censorship and monitoring in prison libraries affect its ability to effectively develop collections that are in line with their goals as information institutions. Censorship can mean the limiting or restricting of certain materials from inmates because of the content.  Correctional institutions have the right to control what materials are selected for the library and which materials are prohibited (Correctional Service Canada, 2012). For people incarcerated for acts of violence, materials containing information or descriptions of the violent acts can be a cause for concern. Correctional facilities may have guidelines in place that allow the review and removal of materials deemed to promote violence, be a potential security threat, or stand contrary to the facility’s objectives (Gaines, 2019). In most prison libraries, it is not uncommon to see that materials for selection are highly censored and controlled by the warden and administrators who supervise the activities of the library. This is because the facility’s main priorities are concerned with security and potential security risks, not with the access to information that inmates have. Within the United States, this is strengthened by the regulations of the Federal Bureau of Prisons that stipulate publications can be declined for approval in cases where they are deemed to pose a threat to the institution’s security, orderly conduct, or discipline, or if they could potentially aid criminal activities (Losowsky, 2011).

An example of exercising censorship in prisons is the Linda Hayes case. Following their conviction for the murder, kidnapping, and sexual assault of the Petit family members, the prosecutors sought access to Hayes’ reading lists in an effort to prove that her reading choices fueled her crimes (Conrad, 2012). The prosecution also questioned the collection development policies of the correctional facility where Hayes had previously been incarcerated (Conrad, 2012). There were suspicions that the reading material Hayes had access to from a prison library was affecting her behavior and may have influenced their criminal actions, as Hayes reportedly read books of a criminal nature while imprisoned prior to committing the crimes (Conrad, 2012). Due to scenarios such as this, considering inmates’ preferences as part of the collection development process for the library’s collection can be considered controversial (Conrad, 2012).

Staffing

Another challenge prison libraries face is hiring librarians to run the libraries. The International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) advocates staffing prison libraries with professionally trained librarians, but there is little evidence of this recommendation taking place, and the practice of prison officers and inmates managing the libraries remains a common occurrence (Rosen, 2020). This staffing shortage can partially be attributed to it being difficult to find people who want to work in prison libraries, and even more so, people who are qualified as librarians and want to work in prisons (Rosen, 2020). As De Agostini (2022) states, “[p]rison libraries in Canada at both federal and provincial-territorial levels continue to be mostly understaffed or staffed with untrained workers, with services and accessibility varying widely between institutions” (p. 4). Prison libraries are often forgotten by the library and information professional community at large, and are not seen at the same level as public and academic libraries (De Agostini, 2022). Not having a librarian running a library can affect many of its aspects, including building useful collections. The inability of libraries to hire sufficient staff can also be a result of funding, as they cannot afford to pay the salaries. Poor wages in conjunction with the environmental conditions and emotional labor that comes with working in prison librarianship makes job openings less desirable to workers, leading to poor staffing.

Funding

In addition to funding for staff, prison libraries also face the challenge for materials. It is not uncommon for prison libraries to compete with other sectors of their facilities for funds, nor for them to be considered the least important in budgeting (Whart, 2017). The lack of funding can be seen in the materials available in prison libraries collections. Most of the time, the prison library is low on the list of the prison’s priorities and is overlooked during budget allocation. This funding problem presents a cyclical issue: the inability to purchase materials further compromises a library’s sense of importance in its institutions, which then allows for an easier dismissal of its budgetary needs.

The shortage of funding also means that prison libraries often lack key technological resources and alternative formats of resources, such as ebooks and audiobooks (De Agostini, 2022).  Technologies, such as computers that are typically available in other kinds of libraries, are often missing from prison libraries (Rosen, 2020). Patrons’ accessibility to the internet is important, as it enables them to find information and resources not present within a library’s collection. Any gaps in a collection can potentially be supplemented by outside information while still utilising library resources. In the case of prison libraries, resources that are accessible online are limited under the reasoning of security risks, which in turn further the gaps in their collections. Patrons are also put at a disadvantage as they will not be accustomed to new technological changes, nor would they be able to develop digital literacy skills, making reintegration into society more difficult (Zivanai & Mahlangu, 2022).

The challenges that prison libraries face are largely centered around balancing the information rights of their patrons with the policies and security protocols of their correctional facilities. Perceptions of inmates, both by the general public and decision makers within correctional facilities, can exacerbate this balancing act if informational rights are treated instead as a privilege. Additionally, staff within prison libraries are not always trained library professionals due in part to low desire to work within a correctional facility environment, and low engagement in this sector from the professional community. Prison libraries face a very limited budget, resulting in underdeveloped collections, and supply of technological and alternative resources, and exacerbates the aforementioned staffing challenge due to lower wages. Though prison libraries face all these factors, there are solutions that address these challenges.

Responses 

Fostering relationships between correctional facilities and information institutions has been a response born out of community will. Many organizations that collect donations of books to supplement prison library collections exist within the United States and Canada, including the Prison Library Project in California, Books Behind Bars in New Jersey, Open Door Books in Montreal, Books 2 Prisoners in Vancouver (Prison Book Program, n.d.), and the Greater Edmonton Library Association (GELA). GELA works within the confines of different correctional facilities’ policies, including that of the Edmonton Institution for Women, the Edmonton Institution, and the Edmonton Remand Centre (GELA, n.d. b, para. 1). They explicitly state that they will only accept donations of books in good condition and that either “fulfills specific request, or . . . is recently published” (GELA, n.d.a, para. 5). There is intention and direction in their work as they look to meet requests made by those utilizing correctional libraries. Such work highlights that it is possible to meet at least some of the informational needs of inmates, even with a lack of structured policies and funding on part of different levels of government. What is crucial in this aspect is that there is a focused effort to build collections in correctional facilities by way of identifying the current gaps, and that there are standards to what materials are accepted as donations (as opposed to an afterthought, or that these populations are less deserving of quality materials). However, this type of work relies heavily upon volunteers and donations, and its sustainability is not guaranteed.

A few different potential responses exist to address the lack of policies, structure, and funding to libraries in correctional facilities. Firstly, there is the option to follow a model that currently exists in Norway. The National Library of Norway partners with municipalities to provide correctional facilities with libraries, which are viewed as branches within the system (Krolak, 2019). In this instance, a federal, public agency is directly responsible for prison libraries. This model ensures that all prison libraries are staffed by library and information professionals, and salaries and resources are funded through the National Library. In order for Canada to adopt this model, it would require structural changes to the existing public library systems and its associated governments. Currently, most libraries exist on a municipal level with provincial/territorial involvement in the aspects of governing policies and funding support (Wilson, 2008). There is no federal public library, complicating the replication of Norway’s system. As Canada has two different categories of correctional facilities, federal and provincial/territorial, public libraries would need to either be consolidated on a provincial/territorial or federal level. This would require either the restructuring of different systems within a province/territory to become one system governed by a dedicated department, or a public federal library system would need to be created. The drawbacks of this potential response are evident in the complicated steps; it would require a considerable amount of funding, personnel, and additional resources to plan, implement, and run these new systems. Alternatively, municipalities, provinces/territories, and the federal government could come to a series of agreements to provide correctional facilities with libraries, both federally and provincially/territorially. However, this potential response would also require substantial resources to draft and legislate any policy, and it could easily become increasingly complicated with every new individual agreement.

Another potential response would be to have formalized committees recognised on both federal and provincial/territorial levels that act in the same capacity as a board would for any public library. These committees would ensure that every correctional facility has functional and adequately equipped libraries. A disadvantage of this more formalized approach to collection management in prison libraries is the bureaucracy the committee would have to contend with, which would hinder the immediacy of its work, as opposed to volunteer groups (Sinclair, 2023).

At the very least, De Agostini (2022) highlighted the importance of examining and reforming the governing policies for prison library services in Canada. It is worth repeating that there is currently one policy written for federal prison libraries in Canada – the National Guide for Institutional Libraries (Correctional Service Canada, 2012, as cited in De Agostini, 2022). There are different prison systems in Canada, and a federal policy cannot apply to an area of provincial jurisdictions, therefore one policy cannot address all the needs of its patrons. In its current form, the National Guide for Institutional Libraries’ guidelines are broad and often contradict themselves (Correctional Service Canada, 2012). The challenging position that prison libraries find themselves in – acting in accordance with both the expectations of libraries and correctional facilities – is evident in its writing. For example, library staff are told to ensure that patrons have access to a wide array of information, equivalent to that of a public library, but this is quickly caveated with a clarification that not all materials can be made available due to security concerns. The end result is a document that leaves many final decisions up to the interpretation and judgment of individual correctional facility staff. Provinces and territories should work with the federal government to develop common standards based on a revised approach to the National Guide for Institutional Libraries. Included in this overarching policy should be the requirement that all incarcerated individuals have access to a library; that library resources are not to be withheld as a form of punishment; and that all staff working in prison libraries have either existing minimum qualifications, or in instances that this is not possible, that they be provided mandatory training and supplemental education upon hiring. By focusing on a number of specific requirements, and on their presence rather than instances in which they may be absent, there is less room for individual interpretation. Additional policies would then need to be created on a provincial/territorial level to better identify and meet the needs of its patrons. Examples of such policies at a provincial/territorial level might include identifying languages needed to be included in the collection, and relevant legal information that needs to be made available. These policies should be reviewed and updated regularly, and explicit wording should be included to eliminate individual authority members’ discretion.

It is important that every facility has a library, and that access to it is identified as a human right, not a luxury. In the aforementioned The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, also known as the Nelson Mandela Rules, rule sixty-four states: “Every prison shall have a library for the use of all categories of prisoners, adequately stocked with both recreational and instructional books, and prisoners shall be encouraged to make full use of it” (United Nations Office on Drug and Crime, 2015, p. 19). An emphasis is placed on the title of the document where it reads “standard minimum.” In order to maintain a sufficient volume of materials to meet population numbers within correctional facilities, governing policies could mimic the Government of Alberta’s (2018) Best Practices for Public Libraries in Alberta. Included in this document is the number of items needed in a facility per capita to be viewed as meeting acceptable standards, and mobile libraries are given suggested hours for how long they should be visiting communities, again based on population.

Conclusion 

According to Greenway (2001), providing library services to those experiencing incarceration can be controversial and challenging, but ultimately beneficial to our society. Libraries in their nature are meant to provide open access to information on a wide range of topics, without any biases or opinions on the population they serve. Diametrically opposed to this, prisons restrict information and access, and many have biases about the people who are housed in them – both from those within and outside of the facilities. This contradiction creates challenges and can especially be seen when selecting materials for the libraries. Censorship, funding, and staffing are all issues that prison libraries within Canada face. Existing responses to these challenges primarily exist in the form of community members volunteering their time and resources, as seen with GELA. Potential responses include the revision and addition of policies and organizational structures that dictate a library’s collection within correctional facilities. However, it cannot be ignored that many of the challenges prison libraries face are influenced by systemic issues associated with prisons, and will necessitate significant societal action for any response to be meaningful.

Sources for Further Reading

De Agostini, M. (2022). Locked up libraries: A critique of Canadian prison library policy. Journal of Radical Librarianship, 8, 1–24. https://journal.radicallibrarianship.org/index.php/journal/article/view/69/58

De Agostini highlights many of the challenges that are found in prison libraries in Canada. He also recommends some changes that can be made in Canadian prisons with its policies and its services.such as by improving the services they provide to the population they serve, as it has been ignored by the prison administrators and policy makers. De Agostini points out that changes need to be made to the funding, staff, and lack of adequate material in prison libraries for them to be equipped to meet the basic human right requirement for the people they serve.

Conrad, S. (2012). Collection development and circulation policies in prison libraries: An exploratory survey of librarians in US correctional institutions. The Library Quarterly 82(4), 407–427. https://doi.org/10.1086/667435

Conrad examines prison library policies on collection development as well as patron privacy within prison libraries. Conrad details the results of a survey sent out to different libraries within correctional institutions and relays the findings. Conrad’s article was influenced by the Linda Hayes case, who’s reading list was requested during e court proceedings. The prosecution questioned the collection development policy of the prison she had served her time in and requested for a list of books that Hayes had accessed while she served her term as proof that the materials had influenced her criminal actions.

Correctional Service Canada. (2012). National Guide for Institutional Libraries. https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/lbrr/archives/cn21137-eng.pdf

The National Guide for Institutional Libraries is currently Canada’s only policy for libraries in federal correctional facilities. It outlines the purpose of such libraries, the expectations of library staff, expectations surrounding collection management and library services, and protocols for book donations.

United Nations Office on Drug and Crime. (2015). The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners. https://www.unodc.org/documents/justice-and-prison-reform/Nelson_Mandela_Rules-E-ebook.pdf

The United Nations Office in Drug and Crime compiled a list of rules that should be followed to ensure that imprisoned individuals are treated with dignity. Rule sixty-four specifically advocates for the presence and available use of libraries within prisons.

References

American Library Association. (1996, January 23). Library Bill of Rights. https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/librarybill

Arford, T. (2013). Captive knowledge: Censorship and control in prison libraries (Publication No. 3590253). [Doctoral dissertation, Northeastern University]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.

Canadian Federation of Library Associations – Fédération canadienne des associations de bibliothèques. (2016, August 26). Prison libraries network: The right to read. http://cfla-fcab.ca/en/guidelines-and-position-papers/prison-libraries-network-the-right-to-read-position-statement/

Conrad, S. (2012). Collection development and circulation policies in prison libraries: An exploratory survey of librarians in US correctional institutions. The Library Quarterly 82(4), 407–427. https://doi.org/10.1086/667435

Correctional Service Canada. (2012). National Guide for Institutional Libraries. https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/lbrr/archives/cn21137-eng.pdf

Correctional Service Canada. (2019, February 25). Frequently asked questions. https://www.canada.ca/en/correctional-service/corporate/news-media/frequently-asked-questions.html

Curry, A., Wolf, K., Boutilier, S., & Chan, H. (2003). Canadian federal prison libraries: A national survey. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 35(3), 141–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000603353002

Dalton, M. (2013). There is a lack of standardization in the collection development and circulation policies of prison library services. Evidence Based Library & Information Practice, 8(2), 248–250. https://doi.org/10.18438/B8R611

De Agostini, M. (2022). Locked up libraries: A critique of Canadian prison library policy. Journal of Radical Librarianship, 8, 1–24. https://journal.radicallibrarianship.org/index.php/journal/article/view/69/58

Gaines, L. V. (2019, May 29). Illinois prison removes more than 200 books from prison library. Illinois Newsroom. https://ipmnewsroom.org/illinois-prison-removes-more-than-200-books-from-prison-library/

Gordon, A. F. (2008). Methodologies of imprisonment. Publications of the Modern Language Association of America, 123(3), 651–658. https://doi.org/10.1632/pmla.2008.123.3.651

Government of Alberta. (2018). Best Practices for Public Libraries in Alberta. https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/d424e091-e381-4dc4-b03f-a5a8b51a80fb/resource/bb49bd6b-7ba8-4fd1-85b4-d33f514279f0/download/best-practices-for-alberta-public-libraries-2018.pdf

Greater Edmonton Library Association. (n.d.a). Donation information. https://gela.ca/donation-information/

Greater Edmonton Library Association. (n.d.b). GELA prison libraries project. https://gela.ca/gela-prison-project/

Greenway, S. A. (2007). Library Services Behind Bar. Bookmobile and Outreach Services, 10(2), 43–64. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242647141_Library_Services_Behind_Bars

Ings, C. & Joslin, J. (2011). Correctional service of Canada prison libraries from 1980 to 2010. Library Trends, 59(3), 386–408. https://doi.org/10.1353/lib.2011.0002

Krolak, L. (2019). Books Beyond Bars: The Transformative Potential of Prison Libraries. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000369835

Losowsky, A. (2011, October 3). Prison books ban: The censorship scandal inside America’s jails. The Huffington Post. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/prison-books-ban_n_991494

Marshall, A. M. J. (2011). Library services in correctional settings. Information Outlook, 15(1), 24–26.

Mitchell, K. (n.d.). 5 things to know about prison and jail libraries. Borys Law. https://www.boryslaw.ca/5-things-know-prison-jail-libraries/

Mirpuri, A. (2019). A correction-extraction complex: Prison, literature, and abolition as an interpretive practice. Cultural Critique, 104, 39–71. https://doi.org/10.1353/cul.2019.0036

Prison Book Program. (n.d.). Books to prisoners programs. Retrieved December 3, 2023, from https://prisonbookprogram.org/prisonbooknetwork/

Rosen, J. (2020). Evaluating impact in the forgotten field of prison librarianship. Serials Librarian, 79(1–2), 38–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/0361526X.2020.1772173

Sinclair, L. (2023, August 17). Books behind bars. This. https://this.org/2023/08/17/books-behind-bars/

Steele, J. E. (2021). Books behind bars: Cases of censorship in two south Mississippi prisons. In J. Garner (Ed.) Exploring the Roles and Practices of Libraries in Prisons: International Perspectives (pp. 119–131). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0065-283020210000049007

Tomaso, J. (Host). (2021, March 20). 15 minutes with… Steven Hayes. [Audio Podcast Episode]. In 15 Minutes With… Podcast Addict. https://podcastaddict.com/episode/https%3A%2F%2Fdts.podtrac.com%2Fredirect.mp3%2Fapi.spreaker.com%2Fdownload%2Fepisode%2F43976060%2Fdeborahs_questions_for_hayes_final_edit.mp3&podcastId=2450935

The John Howard Society of Canada. (2019, July 11). Latest data shows too many people in jails and prisons. https://johnhoward.ca/blog/latest-data-shows-too-many-people-in-custodyproblems-in-jails-and-prisons/

United Nations Office on Drug and Crime. (2015). The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners. https://www.unodc.org/documents/justice-and-prison-reform/Nelson_Mandela_Rules-E-ebook.pdf

Whart, A. (2017, October 20). A day in the life of a prison librarian. Public Libraries Online. https://publiclibrariesonline.org/2017/10/a-day-in-the-life-of-a-prison-librarian/

Wilson, V. (2008). Public libraries in Canada: An overview. Library Management, 29(6/7), 556–570. https://doi.org/10.1108/01435120810894554

World Prison Brief. (n.d.). Canada. https://www.prisonstudies.org/country/canada

Zivanai, E., & Mahlangu, G. (2022). Digital prison rehabilitation and successful re-entry into a digital society: A systematic literature review on the new reality on prison rehabilitation. Cogent Social Sciences, 8(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2022.2116809

Zoukis, C. (2016, August 10). Federal prisoners in Canada have limited access to libraries due to funding cuts. Zoukis Consulting Group. https://federalcriminaldefenseattorney.com/federal-prisoners-in-canada-have-limited-access-to-libraries-due-to-funding-cuts/