April 7th, 2023 • Catherine Charleston
COVID Scorecard Update 8: Despite waning public urgency for the COVID pandemic, accountability and transparency in prison COVID rates remain crucial
It has been three years since the UCLA Law Behind Bars Data Project started tracking the coronavirus pandemic in detention facilities. While many prison systems have taken steps to reduce the risk of exposure for incarcerated individuals through increased testing and vaccinations, there has been a decline in transparency regarding infection and death rates as society shifts to a less restrictive approach to the pandemic. This quarter, many states have ceased reporting statistics, completely removing COVID data from their websites.
Key Changes
Since the December 2022 update, several states have removed previously reported data:
- California stopped reporting staff testing data.
- Kentucky stopped reporting the cumulative number of deaths among staff and incarcerated individuals and removed the historical data from its webpage.
- Maine no longer reports its total incarcerated population and the cumulative number of vaccinated incarcerated people.
- Oregon ceased tracking active staff cases.
- Wisconsin stopped reporting cumulative and active staff cases.
In addition, four new states have stopped regularly reporting any data, including Arkansas, Kentucky, North Carolina, and Virginia, bringing the total number of states that are no longer actively reporting COVID data to 29. Furthermore, no carceral agencies earned new points for increasing their reported data compared to December 2022, and all but four agencies have failing grades.1
Even as the general public lifts pandemic safety measures, encouraging carceral agencies to continue testing and reporting COVID data remains critical for a couple reasons.
First, data from several states show substantially high active cases among staff. Many states do not report the total staff populations, complicating the assessment of the infection rate among staff members compared to the general public. However, when active staff cases are compared to active incarcerated person cases, the discrepancy suggests that staff infection rates pose a unique exposure risk to incarcerated people. For example, as of the first week of April:
- Connecticut reported 91 active cases among staff and only two active cases among incarcerated people.
- Texas reported 203 active staff cases across 39% of facilities, with 24 active cases among incarcerated people.
- Colorado reported 101 active staff cases and only four active cases among incarcerated people.
Second, incarceration poses unique challenges for isolating after testing positive for COVID. Incarcerated individuals are often placed in solitary confinement for up to two weeks after testing positive, which comes with its own mental health concerns. Considering that incarcerated folks are often housed in densely populated environments with limited opportunities to reduce their voluntary exposure risk, extra precautions are necessary to limit COVID exposure and outbreaks.
While many state agencies transition to a less restrictive approach to the COVID pandemic, prisons are inherently different and require additional accountability due to the crowded living conditions. COVID continues to circulate and poses a threat to vulnerable populations. Therefore, monitoring COVID infection rates and deaths among incarcerated individuals and staff is crucial to ensure the humane treatment of all.2
Carceral Agency Scores
| Carceral Agency | Overall | Data Quality | Reporting for Incarcerated People | Reporting for Staff |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BOP | F(18 / 32) | 4 / 8 | 8 / 12 | 6 / 12 |
| ICE | F(10 / 32) | 2 / 8 | 8 / 12 | 0 / 12 |
| Alabama | F(10 / 32) | 0 / 8 | 2 / 12 | 8 / 12 |
| Alaska | F(0 / 32) | 0 / 8 | 0 / 12 | 0 / 12 |
| Arizona | F(0 / 32) | 0 / 8 | 0 / 12 | 0 / 12 |
| Arkansas | F(5 / 32) | 2 / 8 | 2 / 12 | 1 / 12 |
| California | D(23 / 32) | 6 / 8 | 11 / 12 | 6 / 12 |
| Colorado | F(19 / 32) | 6 / 8 | 10 / 12 | 3 / 12 |
| Connecticut | F(9 / 32) | 2 / 8 | 5 / 12 | 2 / 12 |
| Delaware | F(10 / 32) | 0 / 8 | 7 / 12 | 3 / 12 |
| District of Columbia | F(0 / 32) | 0 / 8 | 0 / 12 | 0 / 12 |
| Florida | F(0 / 32) | 0 / 8 | 0 / 12 | 0 / 12 |
| Georgia | F(0 / 32) | 0 / 8 | 0 / 12 | 0 / 12 |
| Hawaii | F(18 / 32) | 4 / 8 | 10 / 12 | 4 / 12 |
| Idaho | F(8 / 32) | 4 / 8 | 4 / 12 | 0 / 12 |
| Illinois | F(12 / 32) | 0 / 8 | 6 / 12 | 6 / 12 |
| Indiana | F(12 / 32) | 4 / 8 | 8 / 12 | 0 / 12 |
| Iowa | F(0 / 32) | 0 / 8 | 0 / 12 | 0 / 12 |
| Kansas | F(14 / 32) | 2 / 8 | 6 / 12 | 6 / 12 |
| Kentucky | F(4 / 32) | 0 / 8 | 2 / 12 | 2 / 12 |
| Louisiana | F(0 / 32) | 0 / 8 | 0 / 12 | 0 / 12 |
| Maine | F(0 / 32) | 0 / 8 | 0 / 12 | 0 / 12 |
| Maryland | F(21 / 32) | 2 / 8 | 10 / 12 | 9 / 12 |
| Massachusetts | F(6 / 32) | 4 / 8 | 2 / 12 | 0 / 12 |
| Michigan | F(12 / 32) | 4 / 8 | 8 / 12 | 0 / 12 |
| Minnesota | F(11 / 32) | 2 / 8 | 6 / 12 | 3 / 12 |
| Mississippi | F(0 / 32) | 0 / 8 | 0 / 12 | 0 / 12 |
| Missouri | F(0 / 32) | 0 / 8 | 0 / 12 | 0 / 12 |
| Montana | F(6 / 32) | 0 / 8 | 3 / 12 | 3 / 12 |
| Nebraska | F(0 / 32) | 0 / 8 | 0 / 12 | 0 / 12 |
| Nevada | F(10 / 32) | 2 / 8 | 4 / 12 | 4 / 12 |
| New Hampshire | F(9 / 32) | 0 / 8 | 9 / 12 | 0 / 12 |
| New Jersey | F(7 / 32) | 0 / 8 | 4 / 12 | 3 / 12 |
| New Mexico | F(0 / 32) | 0 / 8 | 0 / 12 | 0 / 12 |
| New York | F(10 / 32) | 2 / 8 | 6 / 12 | 2 / 12 |
| North Carolina | F(0 / 32) | 0 / 8 | 0 / 12 | 0 / 12 |
| North Dakota | F(18 / 32) | 2 / 8 | 8 / 12 | 8/ 12 |
| Ohio | F(0 / 32) | 0 / 8 | 0 / 12 | 0 / 12 |
| Oklahoma | F(0 / 32) | 0 / 8 | 0 / 12 | 0 / 12 |
| Oregon | F(4 / 32) | 0 / 8 | 2 / 12 | 2 / 12 |
| Pennsylvania | D(24 / 32) | 6 / 8 | 12 / 12 | 6/ 12 |
| Rhode Island | F(20 / 32) | 4 / 8 | 10 / 12 | 6 / 12 |
| South Carolina | F(16 / 32) | 2 / 8 | 8 / 12 | 6 / 12 |
| South Dakota | F(0 / 32) | 0 / 8 | 0 / 12 | 0 / 12 |
| Tennessee | F(0 / 32) | 0 / 8 | 0 / 12 | 0 / 12 |
| Texas | F(16 / 32) | 6 / 8 | 5 / 12 | 5 / 12 |
| Utah | F(0 / 32) | 0 / 8 | 0 / 12 | 0 / 12 |
| Vermont | F(18 / 32) | 6 / 8 | 6 / 12 | 6 / 12 |
| Virginia | F(0 / 32) | 0 / 8 | 0 / 12 | 0 / 12 |
| Washington | D(22 / 32) | 6 / 8 | 8 / 12 | 8 / 12 |
| West Virginia | D(23 / 32) | 8 / 8 | 10 / 12 | 5 / 12 |
| Wisconsin | F(13 / 32) | 6 / 8 | 7 / 12 | 3 / 12 |
| Wyoming | F(0 / 32) | 0 / 8 | 0 / 12 | 0 / 12 |
- For purposes of this report, D is a non-failing grade.↩
- From the beginning of July 2022 to the end of January 2023, the State Accountability team, led by Josephine Wang, reached out to 26 states, Washington D.C. and 3 ICE facilities (Prairiland ICE Facility, Alexandria Staging Facility, NWIPC) who had stopped reporting COVID data. The only three facilities that responded, provided the team with the requested/missing data, and stated they would update and restart publishing their COVID data again were the Delaware DOC, Minnesota DOC, and the Virginia DOC. Eight DOC facilities responded to our follow-ups, but stated that they either did not have the requested/missing data or they had stopped collecting COVID data altogether. These facilities stated that they would not restart publishing COVID data again. Nine facilities responded, provided us with the requested/missing data, but stated that COVID data would not be publicly updated or published anymore, and would have to be accessed via email request or public records request. Seven DOC facilities, Washington D.C. DOC, and the three ICE facilities did not respond to the team’s follow ups at all.↩
next post
June 7th, 2023 • Kamilah Mims, Shireen Jalali-Yazdi, Nora Browning, Joe Gaylin, Viviana Gonzalez, Mike Dickerson, and Jade Magaña
Study: Incarcerated People Faced Medical Abuse, Poor Safety Protocols, Unsanitary Conditions, and Severe Isolation as COVID-19 Ravaged California State Prisons
Four prisons—Chuckwalla, Mule Creek, Chuckwalla, Chino, and Solano—stood out as particularly bad actors.