Back

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

Cassarino, N.; Dabbara, H.; Monteiro, C. B.; Bembury, A.; Credle, L.; Grandhi, U.; White, S.; Jimenez, M. C.

2022-03-17 epidemiology
10.1101/2022.03.15.22271255 medRxiv
Show abstract

ObjectivesWe 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. MethodsWe 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 Fishers exact tests as appropriate based on alpha=0.05. ResultsOf 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. ConclusionsOur 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.

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.