HR-9986-119
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsored by Rick Larsen (D-WA)
What it does
This bill would require the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct a study of library services in state and federal prisons within one year of enactment and submit a report to Congress. The report would cover what library services exist, how they are funded, the demographic makeup of incarcerated people in prisons with libraries, and outcome data including recidivism rates, parole compliance, workforce placement, and disciplinary infractions for individuals released from prisons that offer library services.
Who benefits
Incarcerated individuals in state and federal prisons, who may see improved library services if the study leads to policy action. Formerly incarcerated people broadly, if findings support expanded reentry programs. Policymakers and researchers who would gain a comprehensive national dataset on prison library services. Prison administrators seeking evidence-based programming. Communities that receive returning citizens, who may benefit from lower recidivism if library access is expanded as a result. Taxpayers, if the study informs cost-effective reentry interventions that reduce reincarceration costs.
Who is hurt
No group faces direct, immediate harm from this bill, as it only mandates a study. State governments may face indirect administrative burden in providing data to the GAO. The GAO itself would bear the cost of conducting the study, drawing on its existing appropriations. Advocacy groups seeking immediate legislative action on prison libraries — rather than further study — may view this as a delay tactic.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that no comprehensive national dataset currently exists on prison library services, making evidence-based policymaking difficult. They contend that existing research — including studies linking correctional education and programming to recidivism reductions of up to 43% (RAND Corporation, 2013) — suggests libraries may be a cost-effective reentry tool, and that a GAO study would provide the rigorous, government-verified data needed to justify expanded funding or federal standards.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the federal government already has access to substantial correctional data through the Bureau of Justice Statistics, and that commissioning another study delays concrete action on a well-documented need. They contend that the bill's scope — covering state prisons, which are primarily a state responsibility — raises federalism concerns about federal oversight of state correctional systems, and that the resources spent on the study would be better directed toward directly funding prison library programs.
Constitutional context
No significant constitutional issue is raised by this bill. Congress has broad authority under Article I to direct the GAO to study federal programs, and the study of state prisons is advisory only — it does not compel states to act, avoiding anti-commandeering concerns under the Tenth Amendment.
Checks and balances
The legislative branch gains informational authority through this bill; the GAO (a congressional agency) conducts the study and reports back to Congress, with no new executive branch regulatory power created.
Historical precedent
The Second Chance Act of 2007 authorized federal funding for reentry programs and directed studies on recidivism reduction, establishing a precedent for federal research mandates focused on correctional outcomes.