By Kesha A. Moore

As the coronavirus continues to spread in the U.S. and surge in an increasing number of states, it is critical that we consider the role of jails in the transmission of the virus. Even with highly effective social distancing outside of the jails, our national rates of COVID-19 deaths are projected to rise by 98% due to infections in jails. Jails act as a revolving door for the spread of COVID-19 in our communities. Inhabitants of the jails — both staff and incarcerated persons — come from our communities and soon return to them. Thus, the strategy of social distancing to limit the spread of COVID-19 can only be effective if it includes jails, which are a primary vector for the infection. 

New York: NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Thurgood Marshall Institute, 2020.

By  Sandhya Kajeepeta

After four decades of growth, the size of the U.S. incarcerated population has been declining for the past decade, and racial disparities were beginning to shrink. The start of the COVID-19 pandemic triggered immediate calls for decarceration (i.e., reducing the number of people incarcerated), given the high risk of the virus spreading in congregate settings like jails and prisons and subsequent, inevitable spread to the neighboring community. Although the majority of incarcerated people were left behind bars to face potential illness and death, the U.S. incarcerated population experienced its largest recorded one-year population reduction in U.S. history. This large-scale decarceration undoubtedly saved lives and will have long-term benefits for those who were diverted out of jails and prisons, as well as their families and communities. However, not all benefited from the decarceration equally: racial disparities in jail and prison worsened during the COVID-19 pandemic, and Black people represented a larger percentage of the incarcerated population as it declined. In this brief, we examine the drivers of pandemic-related decarceration, interrogate its impacts on racial disparities, and draw lessons to inform policy recommendations for racially equitable decarceration.

New York: NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Thurgood Marshall Institute, 2023. 21p.

By Stuart Ross, Mark Wood, Ron Baird and Kajsa Lundberg

The COVID-19 pandemic required corrections agencies to rapidly adapt their service delivery models to minimise person-to-person contact. Digital service delivery played a key role in the process. This shift to remote service delivery highlighted the opportunities and benefits offered by digital service delivery technologies, as well as their risks and drawbacks.

This paper draws on the results of a scoping review of digital developments in corrections. It examines the impact of the shift to digital platforms on the way that activities and services were delivered and on the way that these digital solutions were shaped by a range of technology and resourcing factors. It also explores the impact of the shift to virtual modes of communication and service delivery on service providers and service users.

Trends & issues in crime and criminal justice no. 677. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology. 2023. 16p.

By Bryce Tuggle

State and local leaders have implemented social distancing and “Safer at Home” policies to slow the spread of COVID-19, the disease caused by the new coronavirus. However, Tennessee’s local jails and state prisons may not have the space required to minimize risks of transmission between inmates, staff, and the community. This report explains why many Tennessee jail and prison populations face increased risks from COVID-19 and how that creates additional risks for the general public. Figure 1. 46 of Tennessee’s 116 Active Local Jails Had More Inmates than Beds in February 2020 Occupancy rate is the number of inmates on February 29, 2020 divided by bed capacity. Capacity is measured as the number of beds inspected by the Tennessee Corrections Institute in the most recent quarter. Numbers over 100 indicate that the jail was operating over capacity. Source: Tennessee Department of Correction Monthly Jail Report

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• The most recent available data show 60% of Tennessee’s local jails and state prisons were near, at, or over capacity at the end of February. Of 116 active jails, 46 had more inmates than beds.

• The close quarters of jails and prisons operating near, at, or over capacity make it harder to take steps public health experts recommend to slow the spread of COVID-19.

• Jails and prisons could potentially serve as reservoirs for future COVID-19 outbreaks among the general public due to the heightened infection risks for inmates, staff, and those around them.

• As TDOC and some county sheriffs take steps to combat COVID-19 in their facilities, state and local leaders may want to consider more ways to protect health while guarding public safety

Nashville: The Sycamore Institute, 2020. 9p.

By Julia Laskorunsky, Kelly Lyn Mitchell and Sandy Felkey Mullins

This report examines the challenges and opportunities that states faced in deciding whether to release people from prison during the COVID-19 pandemic. It focuses on the legal mechanisms available to jurisdictions and the factors that influenced whether they were willing or able to use those mechanisms to release people from prison. Our goal is to illuminate whether back-end release mechanisms can be used to reduce prison populations that have been bloated by the policies of the mass-incarceration era or whether relief from mass incarceration must take some other form. The report presents case studies of six states—Alabama, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Washington—to gain a more in-depth view of how events unfolded during the pandemic. Overall, our study found that the number of individuals released early from prisons during the pandemic was limited due to a variety of factors, including politics, risk-averse decision-making, shifting external pressures, the limited scope of compassionate and medical release statutes and the use of discretion to deny release. In addition, few changes to policy or practice that occurred during the pandemic had a lasting impact on back-end release practices. We conclude that the back-end release mechanisms offer only a modest opportunity to reduce mass incarceration, and the current system is unlikely to make a substantial difference in addressing mass incarceration due primarily to risk aversion. Instead, state-level carceral policies that focus on diffusing responsibility for back-end release and that reduce incarceration in the first place have the greatest chance of achieving long-term reductions in prison populations.

St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 2023. 73p.

By Katrina Morrison*, Kirstin Anderson, Emma Jardine, Matthew Maycock, Richard Sparks

This is the final report from the project ‘A Review of Interventions, Innovation, and the Impact of Covid-19 in the Scottish Prison System within a Comparative Analytical Framework’ for the Scottish Government Coronavirus (Covid-19) Learning and Evaluation Oversight Group. This project was funded by the Scottish Government in 2022 with the aim of uncovering what occurred in prisons in Scotland and throughout the rest of the world during the Covid-19 pandemic. This project falls under the following three call themes: Theme 2: international pandemic recovery strategies Theme 3: learning from public service innovation and creativity Theme 4: inequalities and human rights The aims of the project are: i) To review evidence from Scotland and beyond on experiences of Covid-19 in prisons and identify transferable learning to inform Scotland’s Covid Recovery Strategy ii) To focus on innovations in prison policy and practice that may prove valuable for the future of imprisonment in Scotland, as well as those that may have wider resonance across the public sector (e.g., those in other long-term confined spaces such as retirement complexes and care homes) iii) To identify gaps in current evidence and develop plans for future comparative research on impacts of Covid-19 in prisons This study was undertaken in accordance with the methodological framework outlined in the Joanna Briggs Institute’s Manual for Evidence Synthesisi,ii. Academic and grey literature databases were searched between May and August 2022 with no new sources added after August 31st, 2022. It should be noted this report reflects the literature uncovered during searches using these criteria; it does not claim to uncover everything that happened in prisons across the world at this time. The world-wide Covid-19 pandemic presented numerous challenges to penal policy and especially to people living and working in prisons. High prison populations, often limited healthcare, the proximity of many people living closely together in small spaces and the movement of people (staff and visitors) in and out of prisons which can also lead to the virus having the potential to spread to local communitiesiii,iv - all led to urgent challenges. Another key consideration when considering the impact of Covid-19 on people in custody is their ‘increased prevalence of underlying health conditions’v,vi making them more vulnerable to Covid-19 than the general populationvii. The health of people in prisons is a public health concern and six months before the first cases of Covid-19 were confirmed in China, it was argued that overcrowding in prisons and its subsequent health risks was a ‘global time bomb.

Edinburgh: The Scottish Centre for Crime & Justice Research 2023. 39p.

By Julia Laskorunsky

Kelly Lyn Mitchell and Sandy Felkey Mullins

This report examines the challenges and opportunities that states faced in deciding whether to release people from prison during the COVID-19 pandemic. It focuses on the legal mechanisms available to jurisdictions and the factors that influenced whether they were willing or able to use those mechanisms to release people from prison. Our goal is to illuminate whether back-end release mechanisms can be used to reduce prison populations that have been bloated by the policies of the mass-incarceration era or whether relief from mass incarceration must take some other form. The report presents case studies of six states—Alabama, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Washington—to gain a more in-depth view of how events unfolded during the pandemic. Overall, our study found that the number of individuals released early from prisons during the pandemic was limited due to a variety of factors, including politics, risk-averse decision-making, shifting external pressures, the limited scope of compassionate and medical release statutes and the use of discretion to deny release. In addition, few changes to policy or practice that occurred during the pandemic had a lasting impact on back-end release practices. We conclude that the back-end release mechanisms offer only a modest opportunity to reduce mass incarceration, and the current system is unlikely to make a substantial difference in addressing mass incarceration due primarily to risk aversion. Instead, state-level carceral policies that focus on diffusing responsibility for back-end release and that reduce incarceration in the first place have the greatest chance of achieving long-term reductions in prison populations.

.St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 2023. 73p.

By F. Ann Carson and  Melissa Nadel 

This report provides details on the effects of COVID-19 on state and federal prisons from March 2020 to February 2021. The report presents data related to COVID-19 tests, infections, deaths and vaccinations. It also provides statistics on admissions to and releases, including expedited releases, from state and federal prisons during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Washington, DC:  U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2022. 45p.

By Lucy Wainwright,  Sarah Senker, Krysia Canvin & Laura Sheard

The impact of COVID-19 has been exceptional, particularly on the National Health Service which has juggled COVID affected patients alongside related staff shortages and the existing (and growing) health needs of the population. In prisons too, healthcare teams have been balancing patient needs against staffing shortfalls, but with additional strains unique to the prison population. Such strains include drastic lockdown regimes and prolonged isolation, the need to consider health alongside security, known health inequalities within prisoner groups, and an ageing and ethnically diverse population (both groups disproportionately affected by COVID). The aim of this paper is to contribute to emerging research on the impact of COVID-19 on prison healthcare.

Health & Justice volume 11, Article number: 6 (2023)

By Lois M. Davis, Susan Turner, Michelle C. Tolbert, Allison Kirkegaard, Beverly A. Weidmer

In this report, the authors examine trends in the overall coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection rate for the U.S. state prison population and summarize the findings from the most recent and most comprehensive study undertaken to date of correctional systems' responses to COVID-19 published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The authors also present the results of their 2022 survey of state correctional education directors to understand what modifications were made to educational programs for incarcerated individuals, including leveraging of technology in response to COVID-19 and impacts on instructional delivery and quality, student access to programs, enrollment and certifications earned, and on budgets.

Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2023. 20p.

By Sana Khan, Emily West, Stephanie Rosoff

In response to the rapid spread of COVID-19 in 2020, jails across the U.S. implemented emergency strategies to reduce jail populations and mitigate the vi- rus’s spread. This included releasing people pretrial while they awaited their case resolution. At the same time, public data show that violent crime and homicides have increased nationally. These increases have put a spotlight on criminal legal reform efforts, with growing public discourse in some political and media circles suggesting that reforms are causing these increases. While the recent uptick in violence is real, this analysis shows that, on average, cities and coun- ties implementing jail population reform efforts successfully reduced jail populations without jeopardizing community safety. To explore whether increases in violent crime were related to the pandemic and criminal legal reforms, the CUNY Institute for State & Local Governance (ISLG) analyzed violent crime, incarceration, and rebooking data from sites participating in the Safety and Justice Challenge (SJC), a nationwide initiative to safely reduce jail populations. This data provided comprehensive information on individuals booked into and released from jail over time, allowing ISLG to capture trends in rebooking outcomes in sites with varying geographies, populations, and jail sizes. The rebooking analysis covers data through April 2021, which is more recent than many well-established data sources.

New York:  CUNY Institute for State & Local Governance, 2023. 21p.

By Tammy Felix, David Pyrooz, Meghan Novisky, Jennifer Tostlebe, and Jessica Dockstader

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continues to pose a substantial problem for our country’s correctional agencies. Since the onset of COVID-19, practical information about effective responses for correctional agencies has been lacking. Correctional leadership has been forced to innovate to keep their staff and populations safe and ensure continuity of operations. Along with the need to make modifications, many state departments of corrections have faced drastically reduced budgets. After two years of these challenges, correctional leaders and staff as well as incarcerated populations have been severely affected. In addition to their normal responsibilities, staff have had to take on additional duties and adjust to major changes in their work environment. The National Institute of Corrections (NIC) recognizes the importance of understanding how correctional systems across the country continue to modify their operations. Studying the outcomes of these modifications is essential to assist the broader correctional system in reaching a new normal. CNA, the Correctional Leaders Association (CLA), and the National Sheriffs’ Association (NSA) worked with NIC to gather and synthesize fact-based, practical information regarding these modifications. CNA, CLA, and NSA, in conjunction with NIC, recruited individuals from jails and prisons from all 50 states to participate in a survey and focus groups to assess the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on their operations. This report focuses on the effect of COVID-19 in state correctional systems, referred to as correctional facilities moving forward, by providing information on the modifications correctional facilities made in response to COVID-19, a summary of effects on operations, a discussion of themes that emerged during the focus groups, and highlights of the innovative responses that correctional facilities have taken. The following are our key findings.

Arlington, VA: CNA. 2023. 51p.

By Anna Harvey, Orion Taylor and Andrea Wang

This report, updating the September 2020 Impact Report on COVID-19, Jails, and Public Safety, draws on a sample of approximately 19 million daily individual-level jail records collected by New York University's Public Safety Lab between Jan. 1, 2020 and Oct. 22, 2020. We explore how bookings, releases, and rebooking rates changed during the pandemic, relative to the pre-pandemic period. + Jail populations in the sample decreased by an average of 31% over the six weeks following the March 16 issuance of the White House "Coronavirus Guidelines for America," which expired on April 30. Jail populations then increased and have since recovered half of these decreases, despite explosive COVID-19 case growth in many of the counties in the sample. Counties with higher countywide COVID-19 case growth between March 1 and Oct. 22 have not seen larger reductions in jail populations. The decreases in jail populations after the issuance of the White House Guidelines on March 16, and the lack of responsiveness of jail populations to local COVID prevalence after those guidelines expired, suggest the importance of clear policy directives for reducing disease transmission risk within county jails. + Jail bookings dropped sharply in mid-March and remain on average 36% below pre-pandemic levels. As bookings declined, the characteristics of those booked into jails shifted. Those booked into jails between mid-March and late October were booked on more charges on average, were more likely to be booked on felony charges, and were less likely to be booked on lesser charges like…..

• More.....

  failure to appear, than those booked into jails prior to this period. + Although jail bookings dropped after mid-March, those booked into jails were detained for longer periods of time. Average detention duration increased sharply after mid-March, doubling from about 15 to 30 days, and remains nearly twice as high as the pre-pandemic average detention duration. This increase has offset reductions in admissions, and contributed to rebounding jail populations observed since mid-March. + Parallel to trends in daily bookings, daily releases dropped sharply in mid-March and remain approximately 40% below baseline levels. Those released from jails between mid-March and late October had been booked on more charges on average, were more likely to have been booked on felony charges, and were less likely to have been booked on lesser charges such as failure to appear, than those released from jails prior to mid-March.  The rate at which those released from detention are rebooked into jail following release is one possible measure of the public safety risk of jail releases. To date, 30-, 60-, 90-, and 180-day rebooking rates among those released during the pandemic have remained 13% - 33% below pre-pandemic rebooking rates. To the extent that rebooking rates measure the average public safety risk of releasing individuals from jail, this risk remains lower now than prior to the pandemic. + While the proportion of Black individuals among daily jail admissions did not change appreciably during the pandemic, the proportion of Black people among those released from jails during the pandemic decreased by approximately 5% relative to the pre-pandemic period. As a result, the proportion of jail populations composed of Black individuals rose during the pandemic.   

Washington, D.C.: Council on Criminal Justice, December 2020. 27p.

BySchnepel, Kevin T., Joanna Abaroa-Ellison, et al.

Across the country, the coronavirus pandemic has had taken a heavy toll on incarcerated populations. High infection and mortality rates stem largely from the crowded conditions and shifting populations within prisons, along with the challenges of implementing effective mitigation strategies, such as physical distancing. This report explores the potential relationship between COVID-19 testing rates and COVID-19 infection and mortality outcomes across the 32 state prison systems where information necessary to conduct such an analysis was publicly available. The report also describes how four states (Colorado, Connecticut, Michigan, and Vermont) conducted mass testing, and details outcomes for their incarcerated populations. Approximately half of the departments in the U.S. attempted to test all individuals in their prisons through some form of mass, or universal, testing program. This report draws on data available as of February 16, 2021.

Washington, DC: Council on Criminal Justice, 2021. 21p.

By Thailand Institute of Justice

Prison health is extremely important to public health, not only because of the high prevalence of serious and often life threatening conditions among prisoners, but also because of the continuous exchange between those in prison and the communities outside. Since December 2019, the world has been grappling with a new global health threat: the outbreak of COVID-19 caused by the novel coronavirus. Prisons have turned into potential hot spots of the disease. Despite chronic overpopulation, resource constraints and other challenges, prisons around the world have tried to contain the spread of the virus through various measures. This report aims to highlight challenges, promising practices, lessons learned and recommendations on how prisons have dealt with COVID-19, using examples from around the world.

Bangkok:Thailand Institute of Justice, 2022. 72p.

By Penal Reform International and Thailand Institute of Justice

Global Prison Trends 2022 is Penal Reform International’s annual flagship report, published with the Thailand Institute of Justice, identifying the key trends and challenges in prison systems worldwide.

Two years into the COVID-19 pandemic, despite repeated calls to reduce prison populations since the onset of the crisis, the global prison population has reached an all-time high. Global Prison Trends 2022 exposes that, rather than a decrease in prison numbers, many governments are instead increasing prison capacity, with a significant expansion in the global prison estate in the past year.

London: PRI and Thailand Institute of Justice 2022. 64p.

By DLA Piper

In March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic was declared. Overnight, prisons became a key public health concern for governments. Prisons – particularly overcrowded facilities and those with poor sanitation, hygiene and ventilation – are known to act as a source of infection, amplification and spread of infectious diseases. Urgent action was required to limit the transmission of COVID-19 to prisoners, staff and the broader community. Recognizing the challenge and potential serious health risks, governments globally took swift action to decongest their prison systems through releasing prisoners and limiting new admissions. This report analyses the approach to decongesting prison systems adopted by governments in 53 jurisdictions across Asia Pacific, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, North and Central America. The results of those 53 jurisdictional analyses have been summarized into key findings set out in Part 2 of this report and in an infographic at Annexure A.

London: DLA Piper, 2020. 52p.

By Kelly Lyn Mitchell, Julia Laskorunsky, Natalie Bielenberg, Lucy Chin and Madison Wadsworth

In response to the global pandemic in 2020, states and the federal government began to make non-routine releases from prison in order to reduce prison populations to allow for social distancing in prison facilities. This report is aimed at describing where such prison releases occurred, the legal mechanisms used to achieve these releases, and the factors within jurisdictions that made non-routine prison releases more or less likely to occur. We write this report, not to examine the national response to the pandemic, but to better understand when and how extraordinary measures may be used to effect prison release, and to determine whether there are lessons from this experience that can be applied to reducing the effects of mass incarceration. All but three Democratic-led jurisdictions (21 of 24) made COVID-related prison releases while only about half of Republic-led jurisdictions (14 of 27) did so (Table 4). » Nearly all of the jurisdictions (7 of 8) with the largest COVID-related releases—those greater than 10% of the 2019 prison population—were indeterminate in structure.

Minneapolis: Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, University of Minnesota Law School. 2022. 86p.

By Helen Fair and Jessica Jacobson

When the World Health Organization (WHO) declared COVID-19 a global pandemic on 11 March 2020, there was immediate concern about the potential health impacts on prisoners and prison staff. Concern focused on the close proximity in which prisoners live, particularly in overcrowded systems; the prevalence of underlying health conditions which affect many of those in custody; and the porous nature of prison walls and boundaries, presenting a risk of infection spreading from prisons to local communities. In the wake of the declaration of the pandemic, penal reformers and human rights organizations around the world called for measures to be taken to reduce the numbers of people in prison, particularly in overcrowded systems, and to contain the risks of infection spreading. This report examines the population management and infection control measures (excluding direct health interventions) taken by prison systems in a diverse group of ten countries spanning all five continents: Kenya, South Africa, Brazil, the USA (and more specifically, New York State), India, Thailand, England and Wales, Hungary, the Netherlands, and Australia (more specifically, New South Wales). The report is produced under the banner of ICPR’s international, comparative project, ‘Understanding and reducing the use of imprisonment in ten countries’, launched in 2017.

London: Institute for Crime & Justice Policy Research, 33p.

By Alexander Söderholm

The disruption caused by COVID-19 has exposed the health inequities faced by marginalised communities globally, particularly those deprived of their liberty in prison settings. As a result of the extreme risks posed by COVID-19 to these individuals, international organisations, civil society organisations (CSOs), and community advocates have called for urgent criminal justice system and prison reforms. Calls have been made to address chronic overcrowding in prisons, the suspension of arrests and incarceration of people for minor or non-violent offences, and the urgent roll-out of life-saving health and harm reduction measures for people who use drugs in custodial facilities and the community. While it is the state’s legal obligation to provide adequate care to people deprived of their liberty, COVID-19 has shed light on how many states have reneged on this responsibility. As aptly expressed by a group of researchers, ‘we cannot forget that prison health is public health by definition’. While many states heeded the call to release people in prison, few have taken substantial steps toward addressing the structural issues exposed by COVID-19 within their criminal justice systems. Meanwhile, others have not fulfilled their promises to carry out measures such as early release programmes to reduce overcrowding in prisons. As such, the briefing paper seeks to shed light on the experiences of people involved with the criminal justice system prior to, during and after incarceration, with a focus on four case study countries: Colombia, Ireland, Indonesia and Kenya.

London: International Drug Policy Consortium, 2021. 25p.