COVID-19 Restrictions In Jails And Prisons: Perspectives From Carceral Leaders.

COVID-19 has been an unprecedented challenge in carceral facilities. As COVID-19 outbreaks spread in the US in early 2020, many jails, prisons, juvenile detention centers, and other carceral facilities undertook infection control measures such as increased quarantine and reduced outside visitation. However, the implementation of these decisions varied widely across facilities and jurisdictions. We explored how carceral decision makers grappled with ethically fraught public health challenges during the pandemic. We conducted semistructured interviews during May-October 2021 with thirty-two medical and security leaders from a diverse array of US jails and prisons. Although some facilities had existing detailed outbreak plans, most plans were inadequate for a rapidly evolving pandemic such as COVID-19. Frequently, this caused facilities to enact improvised containment plans. Quarantine and isolation were rapidly adopted across facilities in response to COVID-19, but in an inconsistent manner. Decision makers generally approached quarantine and isolation protocols as a logistical challenge, rather than an ethical one. Although they recognized the hardships imposed on incarcerated people, they generally saw the measures as justified. Comprehensive outbreak control guidelines for pandemic diseases in carceral facilities are urgently needed to ensure that future responses are more equitable and effective.

"It was like you were being literally punished for getting sick": formerly incarcerated people's perspectives on liberty restrictions during COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has greatly impacted the health of incarcerated individuals in the US. The goal of this study was to examine perspectives of recently incarcerated individuals on greater restrictions on liberty to mitigate COVID-19 transmission. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured phone interviews from August through October 2021 with 21 people who had been incarcerated in Bureau of Prisons (BOP) facilities during the pandemic. Transcripts were coded and analyzed, using a thematic analysis approach. RESULTS: Many facilities implemented universal "lockdowns," with time out of the cell often limited to one hour per day, with participants reporting not being able to meet all essential needs such as showers and calling loved ones. Several study participants reported that repurposed spaces and tents created for quarantine and isolation provided "unlivable conditions." Participants reported receiving no medical attention while in isolation, and staff using spaces designated for disciplinary purposes (e.g., solitary housing units) for public health isolation purposes. This resulted in the conflation of isolation and discipline, which discouraged symptom reporting. Some participants felt guilty over potentially causing another lockdown by not reporting their symptoms. Programming was frequently stopped or curtailed and communication with the outside was limited. Some participants relayed that staff threatened to punish noncompliance with masking and testing. Liberty restrictions were purportedly rationalized by staff with the idea that incarcerated people should not expect freedoms, while those incarcerated blamed staff for bringing COVID-19 into the facility. CONCLUSIONS: Our results highlighted how actions by staff and administrators decreased the legitimacy of the facilities' COVID-19 response and were sometimes counterproductive. Legitimacy is key in building trust and obtaining cooperation with otherwise unpleasant but necessary restrictive measures. To prepare for future outbreaks facilities must consider the impact of liberty-restricting decisions on residents and build legitimacy for these decisions by communicating justifications to the extent possible.

COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy and uptake: Perspectives from people released from the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

People in United States (US) prisons and jails have been disproportionately impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. This is due to challenges containing outbreaks in facilities and the high rates of health conditions that increase the risk of adverse outcomes. Vaccination is one strategy to disrupt COVID-19 transmission, but there are many factors impeding vaccination while in custody. We aimed to examine the perspectives of former residents in the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) regarding COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and acceptance. Between September-October 2021, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 21 recently released individuals who were incarcerated before and during COVID-19 and coded transcripts thematically. We assessed perceptions of the vaccine rollout and factors shaping vaccination uptake in custody and after release. The vaccine was available to seven participants in custody, of whom three were vaccinated. Interviewees had mixed attitudes about how vaccines were distributed, particularly with priority given to staff. Most were reluctant to get vaccinated in custody for varying reasons including observing staff declining to be vaccinated, lack of counseling to address specific questions about safety, and general lack of trust in the carceral system. By contrast, twelve got vaccinated post-release because of greater trust in community health care and stated they would not have done so while incarcerated. For residents in the BOP, COVID-19 vaccination was not simply a binary decision, instead they weighed the costs and benefits with most deciding against getting vaccinated. Institutions of incarceration must address these concerns to increase vaccine uptake as the pandemic continues.

A Human Rights Framework for Advancing the Standard of Medical Care for Incarcerated People in the United States in the Time of COVID-19.

The COVID-19 pandemic has underscored the lack of resources and oversight that hinders medical care for incarcerated people in the United States. The US Supreme Court has held that "deliberate indifference" to "serious medical needs" violates the Constitution. But this legal standard does not assure the consistent provision of health care services. This leads the United States to fall behind European nations that define universal standards of care grounded in principles of human rights and the ideal of equivalence that incarcerated and non-incarcerated people are entitled to the same health care. In this paper, we review a diverse legal and policy literature and undertake a conceptual analysis of policy issues related to the standard of care in correctional health; we then describe a framework for moving incrementally closer toward a universal standard. The expansion of Medicaid funding and benefits to corrections facilities, alongside a system of comprehensive and enforceable external oversight, would meaningfully raise the standard of care. Although these changes on their own will not resolve all of the thorny health problems posed by mass incarceration, they present a tangible opportunity to move closer to the human rights ideal.

Unstable gynaecological patient with an ankle monitor: implications of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Alternatives to Detention programme in the healthcare setting.

We review the case of an unstable gynaecological patient in the USA who presented with profuse vaginal bleeding after spontaneous miscarriage and was ultimately diagnosed with a uterine arteriovenous malformation managed with interventional radiology embolisation of her uterine artery. Her case was complicated by the presence of an ankle monitoring device which had been placed by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement as part of the Alternatives to Detention programme in which she was enrolled during her immigration proceedings. The device prompted important considerations regarding the potential use of cautery, MRI compatibility and device-related trauma, in addition to causing significant anxiety for the patient, who was concerned about how the team's actions could affect her immigration case. Discussion of her course and shared perspective highlights the unique clinical and medicolegal considerations presented by the expanded use of ankle monitoring devices for electronic surveillance (or 'e-carceration') of non-violent immigrants and others.

COVID-19 vaccine prioritization of incarcerated people relative to other vulnerable groups: An analysis of state plans.

BACKGROUND: Carceral facilities are epicenters of the COVID-19 pandemic, placing incarcerated people at an elevated risk of COVID-19 infection. Due to the initial limited availability of COVID-19 vaccines in the United States, all states have developed allocation plans that outline a phased distribution. This study uses document analysis to compare the relative prioritization of incarcerated people, correctional staff, and other groups at increased risk of COVID-19 infection and morbidity. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a document analysis of the vaccine dissemination plans of all 50 US states and the District of Columbia using a triple-coding method. Documents included state COVID-19 vaccination plans and supplemental materials on vaccine prioritization from state health department websites as of December 31, 2020. We found that 22% of states prioritized incarcerated people in Phase 1, 29% of states in Phase 2, and 2% in Phase 3, while 47% of states did not explicitly specify in which phase people who are incarcerated will be eligible for vaccination. Incarcerated people were consistently not prioritized in Phase 1, while other vulnerable groups who shared similar environmental risk received this early prioritization. States' plans prioritized in Phase 1: prison and jail workers (49%), law enforcement (63%), seniors (65+ years, 59%), and long-term care facility residents (100%). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that states' COVID-19 vaccine allocation plans do not prioritize incarcerated people and provide little to no guidance on vaccination protocols if they fall under other high-risk categories that receive earlier priority. Deprioritizing incarcerated people for vaccination misses a crucial opportunity for COVID-19 mitigation. It also raises ethical and equity concerns. As states move forward with their vaccine distribution, further work must be done to prioritize ethical allocation and distribution of COVID-19 vaccines to incarcerated people.