Suicides in state prisons in the United States: Highlighting gaps in data.

OBJECTIVES: Our objectives were to document data availability and reporting on suicide mortality in state prison systems. The United States leads the world in mass incarceration, a structural determinant of health, but lacks real-time reporting of prison health statistics. This absence is particularly notable in suicides, a leading cause of death that carceral policies play a key role in mitigating. METHODS: Suicide data for each state prison system from 2017-2021 were gathered through statistical reports, press releases, and Freedom of Information Act requests. We graded states based on data availability. RESULTS: Only sixteen states provide updated, frequent, granular, freely provided suicide data. An additional thirteen states provided frequently updated data but that had little granularity, was incomplete, or was not freely provided. Eight states provided sparse, infrequent, or outdated data, and thirteen provided no data at all. CONCLUSIONS: The 2000 Death in Custody Reporting Act requires that states provide these data freely, yet the majority of states do not. There is a need for reliable, real-time data on suicides, suicide attempts, and conditions of confinement to better understand the harms of the carceral system and to advocate for change.

Context specific HIV risk: evidence from screening into the southern pre-exposure prophylaxis study (SPECS).

While Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is efficacious in preventing HIV, little is known about PrEP use among those on community supervision. The Southern Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis Study (SPECS) investigates barriers and facilitators for PrEP initiation and use among adults on community supervision (e.g., probation, parole). Challenges to PrEP use in this setting are abundant. SPECS uses a mixed-methods sequential design, including a multi-site, prospective cohort study in three southern states - North Carolina, Florida, and Kentucky. This analysis describes individual demographic, criminal legal, and HIV risk factor characteristics, by site and enrollment status. Pooled association analyses accounted for site via stratified statistical tests. Between June 2019-March 2020, SPECS screened 702 individuals and enrolled 276 participants (39%). Of those who were eligible, 98% agreed to enroll. Age, gender, and sexual orientation varied by enrollment and by site, while race/ethnicity varied by site but not enrollment status. Criminal legal histories varied by enrollment and HIV risk factors varied by site. SPECS provides a granular and detailed assessment of HIV risk in three diverse southern settings. It highlights how the level and type of HIV risk varies by location and by nature of criminal legal involvement and calls for the need for context-specific interventions for HIV prevention.

Lessons Learned From Conducting Community-Based Research on HIV Prevention With Youth During COVID-19.

Mitigating HIV burden among Black youth requires true community engagement. This brief report identifies challenges, strategies, and lessons learned from transitioning our three-phased, community-engaged HIV prevention project with Black youth to a remote format during COVID-19. The project involved (1) building a community-academic partnership on youth sexual health, (2) participatory youth workshops, and (3) youth surveys and interviews about HIV prevention. Feedback from community-academic partnership, pile sorting themes, and preliminary qualitative analyses guided this report. Challenges included a disruption to in-person engagement while strategies included relying heavily on pre-existing partnerships to recruit youth for interviews. We learned that pre-existing community engagement was essential for completing phase three remotely. More education is needed to support Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) awareness for HIV prevention and there is a need to address structural barriers to healthcare engagement such as community violence and mental illness. Community-engaged HIV research focused on youth can adapt if anchored in community relationships. Future studies must work to more fully center youth's voices and address the structural issues that may inhibit them from engaging in HIV prevention.

Collateral consequences of COVID-19 for people on probation and parole.

BACKGROUND: While the severe detrimental impact of COVID-19 on incarcerated people is well known, little is known about the experience of COVID-19 on those on community supervision. Our objective was to better understand the experience of the COVID-19 pandemic and its collateral consequences for those on community supervision (e.g., probation, parole). Beginning in December 2020, we conducted 185 phone surveys about COVID-19 with participants in The Southern Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) Study across its three sites - Florida, Kentucky, and North Carolina. We conducted rapid assessment interviews with both closed- and open-ended questions. We calculated descriptive statistics for close-ended questions and conducted a content analysis for open-ended questions. RESULTS: The COVID-19 pandemic affected those on community supervision through their experiences in the community and while incarcerated with over one-quarter of participants being reincarcerated during this time. In addition to many (128/185) experiencing COVID-19 symptoms, about half (85/185) of participants reported a diagnosis in their network with 16 of those participants losing loved ones to the pandemic. Participants experienced disruptions to their social network, healthcare, and livelihoods. Though many maintained their support systems, others felt isolated and depressed. Experiences during COVID-19 exacerbated difficulties already faced by those with criminal involvement. CONCLUSIONS: The public health community must recognize those experiencing probation and parole, not only those housed in carceral facilities, as disproportionately impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. We must tailor programs and services to meet their needs.

Retention strategies among those on community supervision in the South: Lessons learned during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: Cohort studies must implement effective retention strategies to produce internally valid and generalizable results. Ensuring all study participants are retained, particularly those involved in the criminal legal system, ensures study findings and future interventions will be relevant to this group, who are often lost to follow-up: critical to achieving health equity. Our objective was to characterize retention strategies and describe overall retention among an 18-month longitudinal cohort study of persons on community supervision prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We implemented various retention strategy best-practices (e.g., multiple forms of locator information, training study staff on rapport building, study-branded items). During the COVID-19 pandemic, we developed and describe new retention strategies. We calculated overall retention and analyzed differences between those retained and lost to follow-up by demographic characteristics. RESULTS: Prior to the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, 227 participants enrolled across three sites (N = 46 North Carolina; N = 99 Kentucky; N = 82 Florida). Of these, 180 completed the final 18-month visit, 15 were lost to follow-up, and 32 were ineligible. This resulted in an overall retention of 92.3% (180/195). While most participant characteristics did not differ by retention status, a greater proportion of those experiencing unstable housing were lost to follow-up. CONCLUSION: Our findings highlight that when retention strategies are flexible, particularly during a pandemic, high retention is still achievable. In addition to retention best-practices (e.g., frequent requests for updated locator information) we suggest other studies consider retention strategies beyond the study participant (e.g., paying participant contacts) and incentivize on-time study visit completion (e.g., providing a bonus when completed the study visit on time).

Age and COVID-19 mortality in the United States: a comparison of the prison and general population.

PURPOSE: The USA has a rapidly aging prison population that, combined with their poorer health and living conditions, is at extreme risk for COVID-19. The purpose of this paper is to compare COVID-19 mortality trends in the US prison population and the general population to see how mortality risk changed over the course of the pandemic. The authors first provide a national overview of trends in COVID-19 mortality; then, the authors assess COVID-19 deaths among older populations using more detailed data from one US state. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: The authors used multiple publicly available data sets (e.g. Centers for Disease Control and prevention, COVID Prison Project) and indirect and direct standardization to estimate standardized mortality rates covering the period from April 2020 to June 2021 for the US and for the State of Texas. FINDINGS: While 921 COVID-19-related deaths among people in US prisons were expected as of June 5, 2021, 2,664 were observed, corresponding to a standardized mortality ratio of 2.89 (95%CI 2.78, 3.00). The observed number of COVID-19-related deaths exceeded the expected number of COVID-19-related deaths among people in prison for most of the pandemic, with a substantially widening gap leading to a plateau about four weeks after the COVID-19 vaccine was introduced in the USA. In the state population, the older population in prison is dying at younger ages compared with the general population, with the highest percentage of deaths among people aged 50-64 years. RESEARCH LIMITATIONS/IMPLICATIONS: People who are incarcerated are dying of COVID-19 at a rate that far outpaces the general population and are dying at younger ages. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: This descriptive analysis serves as a first step in understanding the dynamic trends in COVID-19 mortality and the association between age and COVID-19 death in US prisons.

Mental health emergency department visits: An exploration of case definitions in North Carolina.

BACKGROUND: Mental health (MH) disorders comprise a high disease burden and have long-lasting impacts. To improve MH, it is important to define public health MH surveillance. METHODS: We compared MH related definitions using ICD-10-CM codes: The Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists' (CSTE) surveillance indicators for all MH, mood or depressive, schizophrenic, and drug/alcohol-induced disorders; and North Carolina's (NC) syndromic surveillance system's definition for anxiety/mood/psychotic disorders, and suicide/self-harm. We compared code definitions and frequent codes in 2019 emergency department (ED) data for those age ≥ 10 years. RESULTS: CSTE's definition resulted in over one million MH-related visits (23% of all ED visits) and NC's definitions in 451,807 MH-related visits (9% of all ED visits). Using CSTE's broadest definition, nicotine use was the most common visit type; using NC's definitions, it was major depressive disorder. CONCLUSIONS: Standardizing population-level MH indicators benefits surveillance efforts. Given its prevalence, efforts should focus on documenting MH to improve treatment and prevention.

COVID-19 community spread and consequences for prison case rates.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 and mass incarceration are closely intertwined with prisons having COVID-19 case rates much higher than the general population. COVID-19 has highlighted the relationship between incarceration and health, but prior work has not explored how COVID-19 spread in communities have influenced case rates in prisons. Our objective was to understand the relationship between COVID-19 case rates in the general population and prisons located in the same county. METHODS: Using North Carolina's (NC) Department of Health and Human Services data, this analysis examines all COVID-19 tests conducted in NC from June-August 2020. Using interrupted time series analysis, we assessed the relationship between substantial community spread (50/100,000 detected in the last seven days) and active COVID-19 case rates (cases detected in the past 14 days/100,000) within prisons. RESULTS: From June-August 2020, NC ordered 29,605 tests from prisons and detected 1,639 cases. The mean case rates were 215 and 427 per 100,000 in the general and incarcerated population, respectively. Once counties reached substantial COVID-19 spread, the COVID-19 prison case rate increased by 118.55 cases per 100,000 (95% CI: -3.71, 240.81). CONCLUSIONS: Community COVID-19 spread contributes to COVID-19 case rates in prisons. In counties with prisons, community spread should be closely monitored. Stringent measures within prisons (e.g., vaccination) and decarceration should be prioritized to prevent COVID-19 outbreaks.

Incarcerated workers: overlooked as essential workers.

OBJECTIVE: To use the example of COVID-19 vaccine prioritization for incarcerated workers to call attention to the need to prioritize incarcerated workers' health. METHODS: From November to December 2020, we searched publicly available information (e.g. Department Of Corrections websites and press releases) for 53 US prison systems, including all states, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and Puerto Rico. Coders reviewed if states had prison labor policies, if states had COVID-19 specific prison labor policies, the location of work, industries both pre- and during the COVID-19 pandemic, the scope of work, and hourly wage. Findings were compared to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's occupational vaccine prioritization recommendations. RESULTS: Every facility has incarcerated individuals working in some capacity with some resuming prison labor operations to pre-pandemic levels. All but one prison system has off-site work locations for their incarcerated population and many incarcerated workers have resumed their off-site work release assignments. Additionally, every state has incarcerated workers whose job assignments are considered frontline essential workers (e.g. firefighters). In at least five states, incarcerated workers are participating in frontline health roles that put them at higher risk of acquiring COVID-19. Yet, no state followed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended vaccination plan for its incarcerated population given their incarcerated workers' essential worker status. CONCLUSION: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended that incarcerated people be prioritized for vaccination primarily due to the risk present in congregate style prison and jail facilities. Furthermore, our review found that many incarcerated people perform labor that should be considered "essential", which provides another reason why they should have been among the first in line for COVID-19 vaccine allocation. These findings also highlight the need for incarcerated workers' health to be prioritized beyond COVID-19.

Carceral epidemiology: mass incarceration and structural racism during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic and the ongoing epidemic of mass incarceration are closely intertwined, as COVID-19 entered US prisons and jails at astounding rates. Although observers warned of the swiftness with which COVID-19 could devastate people who are held and work in prisons and jails, their warnings were not heeded quickly enough. Incarcerated populations were deprioritised, and COVID-19 infected and killed those in jails and prisons at rates that outpaced the rates among the general population. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted what has been long-known: mass incarceration is a key component of structural racism that creates and exacerbates health inequities. It is imperative that the public health, particularly epidemiology, public policy, advocacy, and medical communities, are catalysed by the COVID-19 pandemic to drastically rethink the USA's criminal legal system and the public health emergency that it has created and to push for progressive reform.

COVID-19 in corrections: Quarantine of incarcerated people.

Carceral settings in the United States have been the source of many single site COVID-19 outbreaks. Quarantine is a strategy used to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 in correctional settings, and specific quarantine practices differ state to state. To better understand how states are using quarantine in prisons, we reviewed each state's definition of quarantine and compared each state's definition to the Centers for Disease Control's (CDC) definition and recommendations for quarantine in jails and prisons. Most prison systems, 45 of 53, define quarantine, but definitions vary widely. No state published definitions of quarantine that align with all CDC recommendations, and only 9 states provide quarantine data. In these states, the highest recorded quarantine rate occurred in Ohio in May 2020 at 843 per 1,000. It is necessary for prison systems to standardize their definitions of quarantine and to utilize quarantine practices in accordance with CDC recommendations. In addition, data transparency is needed to better understand the use of quarantine and its effectiveness at mitigating COVID-19 outbreaks in carceral settings.

The association between intersystem prison transfers and COVID-19 incidence in a state prison system.

Prisons are the epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic. Media reports have focused on whether transfers of incarcerated people between prisons have been the source of outbreaks. Our objective was to examine the relationship between intersystem prison transfers and COVID-19 incidence in a state prison system. We assessed the change in the means of the time-series of prison transfers and their cross-correlation with the time-series of COVID-19 tests and cases. Regression with automatic detection of multiple change-points was used to identify important changes to transfers. There were over 20,000 transfers between the state's prisons from January through October 2020. Most who were transferred (82%), experienced a single transfer. Transfers between prisons are positively related to future COVID-19 case rates but transfers are not reactive to current case rates. To mitigate the spread of COVID-19 in carceral settings, it is crucial for transfers of individuals between facilities to be limited.

COVID-19 cases and testing in 53 prison systems.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has entered United States prison systems at alarming rates. Disparities in social and structural determinants of health disproportionately affect those experiencing incarceration, making them more vulnerable to COVID-19. Additionally, prisons are sites of congregate living, making it impossible to practice social distancing, and most prisons have relied only on incremental measures to reduce risk and spread of COVID-19. To more fully understand the impact that COVID-19 is having on incarcerated populations, it is critical to have systematic data on testing, test positivity, cases, and case fatality. Using data from the COVID Prison Project, we present data on 53 prison systems COVID-19 testing, test positivity, case, and case fatality by state and compare these data with each state's general population. We do this for the early stages of the pandemic, utilizing data through July 15, 2020. RESULTS: Many states are not reporting full information on COVID testing with some also not reporting on case fatality. Among those reporting data, there is a wide variation between testing, test positivity, and case rates within prison systems and as compared to the general population. However, when more tests are deployed more cases are identified with the majority of state prisons having higher case rates than their general population. CONCLUSIONS: These findings underscore the need for the implementation and study of COVID-19 mitigation and surveillance strategies to flatten the COVID-19 curve in prisons across the country. We call for future research to build on these data from the COVID Prison Project to protect the health of our nations' often forgotten residents.