skip to main content
US FlagAn official website of the United States government
dot gov icon
Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
https lock icon
Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( lock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Title: A study of SARS-COV-2 outbreaks in US federal prisons: the linkage between staff, incarcerated populations, and community transmission
Abstract Background Since the novel coronavirus SARS-COV-2 was first identified to be circulating in the US on January 20, 2020, some of the worst outbreaks have occurred within state and federal prisons. The vulnerability of incarcerated populations, and the additional threats posed to the health of prison staff and the people they contact in surrounding communities underline the need to better understand the dynamics of transmission in the inter-linked incarcerated population/staff/community sub-populations to better inform optimal control of SARS-COV-2. Methods We examined SARS-CoV-2 case data from 101 non-administrative federal prisons between 5/18/2020 to 01/31/2021 and examined the per capita size of outbreaks in staff and the incarcerated population compared to outbreaks in the communities in the counties surrounding the prisons during the summer and winter waves of the SARS-COV-2 pandemic. We also examined the impact of decarceration on per capita rates in the staff/incarcerated/community populations. Results For both the summer and winter waves we found significant inter-correlations between per capita rates in the outbreaks among the incarcerated population, staff, and the community. Over-all during the pandemic, per capita rates were significantly higher in the incarcerated population than in both the staff and community (paired Student’s t-test p  = 0.03 and p  < 0.001, respectively). Average per capita rates of incarcerated population outbreaks were significantly associated with prison security level, ranked from lowest per capita rate to highest: High, Minimum, Medium, and Low security. Federal prisons decreased the incarcerated population by a relative factor of 96% comparing the winter to summer wave (one SD range [90%,102%]). We found no significant impact of decarceration on per capita rates of SARS-COV-2 infection in the staff community populations, but decarceration was significantly associated with a decrease in incarcerated per capita rates during the winter wave (Negative Binomial regression p  = 0.015). Conclusions We found significant evidence of community/staff/incarcerated population inter-linkage of SARS-COV-2 transmission. Further study is warranted to determine which control measures aimed at the incarcerated population and/or staff are most efficacious at preventing or controlling outbreaks.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
2032747
PAR ID:
10338279
Author(s) / Creator(s):
; ; ; ; ;
Date Published:
Journal Name:
BMC Public Health
Volume:
22
Issue:
1
ISSN:
1471-2458
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. null (Ed.)
    Background: Our objective was to examine the temporal relationship between COVID-19 infections among prison staff, incarcerated individuals, and the general population in the county where the prison is located among federal prisons in the United States. Methods: We employed population-standardized regressions with fixed effects for prisons to predict the number of active cases of COVID-19 among incarcerated persons using data from the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) for the months of March to December in 2020 for 63 prisons. Results: There is a significant relationship between the COVID-19 prevalence among staff, and through them, the larger community, and COVID-19 prevalence among incarcerated persons in the US federal prison system. When staff rates are low or at zero, COVID-19 incidence in the larger community continues to have an association with COVID-19 prevalence among incarcerated persons, suggesting possible pre-symptomatic and asymptomatic transmission by staff. Masking policies slightly reduced COVID-19 prevalence among incarcerated persons, though the association between infections among staff, the community, and incarcerated persons remained significant and strong. Conclusion: The relationship between COVID-19 infections among staff and incarcerated persons shows that staff is vital to infection control, and correctional administrators should also focus infection containment efforts on staff, in addition to incarcerated persons. 
    more » « less
  2. Incarcerated individuals are a highly vulnerable population for infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Understanding the transmission of respiratory infections within prisons and between prisons and surrounding communities is a crucial component of pandemic preparedness and response. Here, we use mathematical and statistical models to analyze publicly available data on the spread of SARS-CoV-2 reported by the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections (ODRC). Results from mass testing conducted on April 16, 2020 were analyzed together with time of first reported SARS-CoV-2 infection among Marion Correctional Institution (MCI) inmates. Extremely rapid, widespread infection of MCI inmates was reported, with nearly 80% of inmates infected within 3 weeks of the first reported inmate case. The dynamical survival analysis (DSA) framework that we use allows the derivation of explicit likelihoods based on mathematical models of transmission. We find that these data are consistent with three non-exclusive possibilities: (i) a basic reproduction number >14 with a single initially infected inmate, (ii) an initial superspreading event resulting in several hundred initially infected inmates with a reproduction number of approximately three, or (iii) earlier undetected circulation of virus among inmates prior to April. All three scenarios attest to the vulnerabilities of prisoners to COVID-19, and the inability to distinguish among these possibilities highlights the need for improved infection surveillance and reporting in prisons. 
    more » « less
  3. To date, most criminal justice research on COVID-19 has examined the rapid spread within prisons. We shift the focus to reentry via in-depth interviews with formerly incarcerated individuals in central Ohio, specifically focusing on how criminal justice contact affected the pandemic experience. In doing so, we use the experience of the pandemic to build upon criminological theories regarding surveillance, including both classic theories on surveillance during incarceration as well as more recent scholarship on community surveillance, carceral citizenship, and institutional avoidance. Three findings emerged. First, participants felt that the total institution of prison “prepared” them for similar experiences such as pandemic-related isolation. Second, shifts in community supervision formatting, such as those forced by the pandemic, lessened the coercive nature of community supervision, expressed by participants as an increase in autonomy. Third, establishment of institutional connections while incarcerated alleviated institutional avoidance resulting from hyper-surveillance, specifically in the domain of healthcare, which is critical when a public health crisis strikes. While the COVID-19 pandemic affected all, this article highlights how theories of surveillance inform unique aspects of the pandemic for formerly incarcerated individuals, while providing pathways forward for reducing the impact of surveillance. 
    more » « less
  4. Background: Nursing home (NH) residents and staff were at high risk for COVID-19 early in the pandemic; several studies estimated seroprevalence of infection in NH staff to be 3-fold higher among CNAs and nurses compared to other staff. Risk mitigation added in Fall 2020 included systematic testing of residents and staff (and furlough if positive) to reduce transmission risk. We estimated risks for SARS-CoV-2 infection among NH staff during the first winter surge before widespread vaccination. Methods: Between February and May 2021, voluntary serologic testing was performed on NH staff who were seronegative for SARS-CoV-2 in late Fall 2020 (during a previous serology study at 14 Georgia NHs). An exposure assessment at the second time point covered prior 3 months of job activities, community exposures, and self-reported COVID-19 vaccination, including very recent vaccination (≤4 weeks). Risk factors for seroconversion were estimated by job type using multivariable logistic regression, accounting for interval community-incidence and interval change in resident infections per bed. Results: Among 203 eligible staff, 72 (35.5%) had evidence of interval seroconversion (Fig. 1). Among 80 unvaccinated staff, interval infection was significantly higher among CNAs and nurses (aOR, 4.9; 95% CI, 1.4–20.7) than other staff, after adjusting for race and interval community incidence and facility infections. This risk persisted but was attenuated when utilizing the full study cohort including those with very recent vaccination (aOR, 1.8; 95% CI, 0.9–3.7). Conclusions : Midway through the first year of the pandemic, NH staff with close or common resident contact continued to be at increased risk for infection despite enhanced infection prevention efforts. Mitigation strategies, prior to vaccination, did not eliminate occupational risk for infection. Vaccine utilization is critical to eliminate occupational risk among frontline healthcare providers. Funding: None Disclosures: None 
    more » « less
  5. In the first two years of the COVID-19 pandemic, per capita mortality varied by more than a hundredfold across countries, despite most implementing similar nonpharmaceutical interventions. Factors such as policy stringency, gross domestic product, and age distribution explain only a small fraction of mortality variation. To address this puzzle, we built on a previously validated pandemic model in which perceived risk altered societal responses affecting SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Using data from more than 100 countries, we found that a key factor explaining heterogeneous death rates was not the policy responses themselves but rather variation in responsiveness. Responsiveness measures how sensitive communities are to evolving mortality risks and how readily they adopt nonpharmaceutical interventions in response, to curb transmission. We further found that responsiveness correlated with two cultural constructs across countries: uncertainty avoidance and power distance. Our findings show that more responsive adoption of similar policies saves many lives, with important implications for the design and implementation of responses to future outbreaks. 
    more » « less