Conditions of Confinement in U.S. Carceral Facilities during COVID-19: Individuals Speak: Incarcerated during the COVID-19 Epidemic (INSIDE)

  1. Nicole Cassarino
  2. Harika Dabbara
  3. Carla B. Monteiro
  4. Arthur Bembury
  5. Leslie Credle
  6. Uma Grandhi
  7. Samantha White
  8. Monik C. Jiménez

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Objectives

We aimed to describe conditions of confinement among people incarcerated in the United States during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and assess the feasibility of a community-science data collection approach.

Methods

We developed a web-based survey with community partners to collect information on confinement conditions (COVID-19 safety, basic needs, support). Formerly incarcerated adults released after March 1, 2020, or non-incarcerated adults in communication with an incarcerated person (proxy) were recruited through social media from July 25, 2020, through March 27, 2021. Descriptive statistics were estimated in aggregate and separately by proxy or formerly incarcerated status. Additionally, we compared responses between proxy and formerly incarcerated respondents using chi-square or Fisher’s exact tests as appropriate based on alpha=0.05.

Results

Of 378 responses, 94% were by proxy, and 76% reflected state prison conditions. Participants reported inability to physically distance (≥6ft at all times) (92%), inadequate access to soap (89%), water (46%), toilet paper (49%) and showers (68%). Among people who received mental healthcare before the pandemic, 75% reported reduced care. We found that responses were consistent between formerly incarcerated people and proxy-respondents.

Conclusions

Our findings suggest that a community-science approach to data collection is feasible. Based on these findings, COVID-19 safety and basic needs were not sufficiently addressed within some carceral settings. Thus, we recommend the lived experiences of incarcerated individuals should be included to make informed and equitable policy decisions.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2022.03.15.22271255: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Ethicsnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variable“My work and experience with the criminal justice system has been the impetus that motivates me to seek solutions that can help reduce recidivism by providing essential resources to formerly incarcerated individuals … I believe in working with the gatekeepers to ensure that funding is directed to critical areas that are needed most, and will have a significant impact on the population and the communities we work with.” —Arthur Bembury “Because of the things I saw during my 19 years of incarceration I have become an advocate for the women I had to leave behind and the women that will sleep in a prison bed tomorrow.” —CAB Member “Surviving the Federal carceral punishment system is the motivation that drives the work I do today.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Cell Line AuthenticationAuthentication: At Justice 4 Housing we advocate for the abolishment of discriminatory housing policies and ending incarceration of women.” —Leslie Credle At study onset, there were no validated instruments to examine confinement conditions among incarcerated individuals during the pandemic; therefore, we developed a novel survey across four domains: COVID-19 safety, basic needs, support, and demographics factors.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Data were collected anonymously using REDCap and the survey was distributed using a snowball sampling method through Twitter and Facebook and by email to community-partner organizations, medical and legal professionals, and local politicians.
    REDCap
    suggested: (REDCap, RRID:SCR_003445)

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    Despite this limitations, general comparisons with other studies and anecdotal reports support the patterns we observed. In addition, generalizability of our sample by race and ethnicity is uncertain due to missing data for these variables. Although our sample is likely to overrepresent conditions in female facilities given our CAB member’s networks; there is no evidence to suggest that conditions would be improved for incarcerated males or individuals of color. Furthermore, our novel data collection methods were developed early in the pandemic based on public health priorities at that time which have changed with respect to sanitation procedures over the course of the pandemic. Furthermore, data from proxies may not be optimally reported for all variables due to the proportion of “I don’t know” or “Skip” responses to some questions, such as mental healthcare access. Lastly, two of our variables (facility on lockdown and ability to shower when wanted) demonstrated low internal validity; significantly more FII reported ability to shower daily if wanted, compared to proxies, while more proxies reported lockdown conditions compared to FII. However, 15.8% of FII who answered the questions regarding showering and lockdown were released before May 2020, prior to widespread response in all states. Additionally, all were incarcerated in Florida, which may reflect variability in different states’ responses. However, we observed high internal validity for other variables, suggesting th...

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2022.03.15.22271255v1 on medRxiv