Prisoners as Living Organ Donors

This chapter considers the special case in which a prisoner seeks to serve as a living donor and what lessons can be learned from human subjects protections for research participants given that both activities are done with the primary goal to benefit third parties. In the federal regulations that codify human subjects protections in the US (45 CFR 46), there are additional protections enumerated for research on prisoners. Current Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Prisons policy allows prisoners to serve as living donors but only for first-degree relatives. This chapter describes what special considerations should be assessed for prisoners to ethically serve as potential living donors using a vulnerabilities approach adapted from the human research subjects protection literature. The donor transplant team (living donor advocacy team) needs both a living donor advocate and a prisoner liaison to ensure that the potential prisoner-donor satisfactorily addresses the vulnerabilities faced by prisoners.

Is There a Temporal Relationship between COVID-19 Infections among Prison Staff, Incarcerated Persons and the Larger Community in the United States?

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.

The Novel Coronavirus and Enforcement of the New Separate System in Prisons

Coronavirus has had a significant impact on daily life. Prisons are not exempt from the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Prisons are particularly at risk due to their secure environment and vulnerable inmate populations. We examine steps taken by the 50 state departments of correction and the Federal Bureau of Prisons to mitigate COVID-19 as reported on their websites. While states vary in their response to the virus, those responses do not appear to be related to regional or political differences. Few are testing or quarantining all inmates, and there are more proactive responses devoted to staff than inmates in their facilities. Findings demonstrate that prison systems’ policies regarding COVID-19 testing, quarantining, and provision of personal protective equipment for inmates do not fully align with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations. As a result, the steps prison systems are taking to mitigate the effect of COVID-19 may be more reactionary than proactive, which may be less effective overall.

SARS-CoV-2 Infection Among Correctional Staff in the Federal Bureau of Prisons

Objectives. To examine SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) epidemiology and risk factors among Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) staff in the United States. Methods. We calculated the SARS-CoV-2 case rate among 37 640 BOP staff from March 12 to June 17, 2020, using payroll and COVID-19–specific data. We compared occupational factors among staff with and without known SARS-CoV-2 using multiple logistic regression, controlling for demographic characteristics. We calculated relative risk among staff in stand-alone institutions versus complexes (> 1 institution). Results. SARS-CoV-2 was reported by 665 staff across 59.8% of institutions, a case rate of 1766.6 per 100 000. Working in dorm-style housing and in detention centers were strong risk factors, whereas cell-based housing was protective; these effects were erased in complexes. Occupational category was not associated with SARS-CoV-2. Conclusions. SARS-CoV-2 infection was more likely among staff working in institutions where physical distancing and limiting exposure to a consistent set of staff and inmates are challenging. Public Health Implications. Mitigation strategies—including augmented staff testing, entry and exit testing among inmates, limiting staff interactions across complexes, and increasing physical distancing by reducing occupancy in dorm-style housing—may prevent SARS-CoV-2 infections among correctional staff. (Am J Public Health. Published online ahead of print April 15, 2021: e1–e4. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2021.306237 )

ORGANIZATIONAL AND LEGAL ASPECTS OF WITNESS PROTECTION IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

The article examines organizational and legal aspects of the implementation of the witness protection program in the United States. Special attention is paid to activities in this area of the US Department of Justice, the US Marshals Service, which directly provide protection for witnesses and the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Some statistics on witness protection are provided. Concrete protective measures and their application in relation to the participants in criminal proceedings are considered.

Correctional Officer Mental Health Training: Analysis of 52 U.S. Jurisdictions

Research indicates correctional officer (CO) mental health training may be effective in facilitating the safety and security of both inmates and COs. We assessed Department of Corrections’ CO preservice (requisite for beginning an official post) mental health training requirements in 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons. We obtained information regarding instruction method, training duration, and courses required. Descriptive statistics showed that all jurisdictions require mental health training, ranging from 1.5 to 80 hr ( M = 13.54, SD = 14.58, Mdn = 8). When considering course titles, the most common course topic is crisis intervention ( n = 44, 84.62%). The next most frequent course topics are general psychoeducation ( n = 24, 46.15%), special populations ( n = 12, 23.08%), specific clinical interventions ( n = 7, 13.46%), institutional procedure specific to mental health ( n = 6, 11.54%), and CO mental health and self-care ( n = 4, 7.69%). Future research should examine whether CO mental health training is related to positive mental health outcomes and other important institutional metrics, as well as variations in training and its impact at the national and international levels.