Impact on Reintegration and Service Needs for Individuals in Jails During the Pandemic
Katie L. Swope, Ph.D.
Ken Smythe-Leistico, Ed.D., MSW, LSW
Sarah Laite, MSW, LSW
The world faced a huge obstacle in March 2020: the COVID-19 pandemic. This had a catastrophic impact on not only the world, but on how the criminal justice system would handle its incarcerated population. Servick (2020) found that the nationwide jail population dropped by about 25% between March and June 2020. This was done to alleviate the overcrowding issues and quarantine requirements to keep both the incarcerated individuals and employees safe. Other reports have found that the median population reduction percentage between February 2020 and February 2021 was only 16% (Vera Institute of Justice as cited in Wilford et al., 2021). In one jail highlighted in this paper, a 30% reduction in the jail population was actuated (ACJ, 2021). Pressure to reduce incarceration populations has been present for a long time. The pandemic forced these institutions to make dramatic, instant changes. As a result, many policies and plans emerged to lower the number of incarcerated individuals across the country.
The COVID-19 burden also created even more inequality among the incarcerated populations, specifically that people of color were incarcerated at higher rates than whites and tended to get longer sentences. Furthermore, people of color who are incarcerated have higher rates of underlying health conditions that make them extremely at risk for COVID-19 complications (Servick, 2020). In addition, Nowotny et al. (2021) note that Black, Latino, and Native Americans are already overrepresented in correctional settings, and will be the groups that are most likely affected by COVID-19 outbreaks. Recent data shows disparities in the general population of society regarding a higher number of positive cases, access to proper testing, and mortality rates (Nowotny et al., 2021), which would be exacerbated within the justice system since there is a larger population of minorities that are incarcerated.
Population Reduction Efforts in General
Different states and jurisdictions reduced correctional population sizes in a variety of ways. For example, New York City facilities released people being held for parole violations and those serving short sentences (Servick, 2020). In Ohio, Franklin County waived some cash bail requirements, expanded electronic monitoring, and encouraged the use of citations for certain misdemeanors (Servick, 2020). Other jurisdictions had different strategies, but the goal was to decrease the number of incarcerated individuals housed in the facilities while limiting the number of new bookings. The COVID-19 pandemic systematically forced the justice system to change the way it functioned previously since proper precautions were not possible in the current conditions. This aided in the decrease of the total incarcerated population, alleviating some overcrowding issues.
Correctional facilities had to adapt how things operated both administratively and in day-to-day operations. According to Guzman (2020), some jail facilities temporarily suspended roll call, performed outside temperature checks, accepted arrestees in the sally port where the arrestee and officer’s temperature was taken prior to entry, closed lobbies, and prohibited visitors. The limited access to programs and reentry services directly impacted an incarcerated person’s successful transition back into society.
Guzman (2020) reported that many facilities learned that video conferencing was necessary to continue day-to-day operations. Video conferencing allowed incarcerated individuals to continue meeting with lawyers, visitors, doctors, counselors, case workers, etc. without risking exposure. However, many jurisdictions did not have the funding to acquire the technology. Personal protective equipment (PPE) was another necessary expenditure. Access to purchase these supplies and implement new technology was and continues to be difficult (Guzman, 2020). Most importantly, Guzman (2020) found that the ability to be flexible during this new era was critical for everyone’s safety. Facilities needed to communicate with both its employees and the incarcerated population about the seriousness of the situation and the changes that needed to occur due to the pandemic (Guzman, 2020).
Results of Restrictions and Release
National recidivism rates for those leaving jail continue to be alarmingly high with 73% reoffending (Spjeldnes, Jung, & Yamatani, 2014) and being reincarcerated within approximately three years of release (Jenkins, Dammer, & Raciti (2017). Yet, research on jail release programs is sparse in comparison to prisons. Jenkins et al. (2017) emphasize that a lack of funding and the brief nature of jail terms leads to minimal research on reentry. The authors go on to say that when there is a lack of coordination between jail programming and community programs, those released often don’t find the services they need.
The consequences of the restrictions related to the new COVID-19 protocols in jails are yet to be fully explored, as it is still a developing problem. However, studies have already examined smaller-scale impacts in various states. In New York City, recently released individuals have reported an increase in depression and anxiety symptoms after only a three-to-six-month release when surveyed (Barrenger & Bond, 2021).
All the participants from this particular study reported using mental health support services and other programs in the last 30 days, but all experienced challenges related to stay-at-home orders that resulted in program hours being limited, staffing and service delivery delays, or the shutting down of services altogether. Barrenger & Bond (2021) report that a national survey found that 75% of reentry programs have been curtailed or canceled as a result of the COVID-19 protocols. This will continue to impact the reentry process and success of incarcerated individuals being released into society after serving their time in a correctional facility.
Prior to COVID-19, recently released individuals faced barriers such as unstable housing, lack of income, and access to health care when they returned to the community (Barrenger & Bond, 2021). These individuals were 13 times more at risk for death due to homicide, suicide, cardiovascular disease, and drug overdose in the first two weeks following release (Barrenger & Bond, 2021). Now all these previous barriers are exacerbated in light of the COVID-19 pandemic and restrictions. Programming and policies needed to adapt quickly to provide any type of success for individuals being released in the current COVID-19 world.
To determine how large-scale the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic actually was relies on data collection. Without proper and transparent data collection, the real impact could be missed. In June 2020, The United States Department of Health and Human Services released new requirements for states reporting data based on race, ethnicity, age, and gender to have a clearer picture of COVID-19 disparities (Nowotny, et al., 2021). Currently, only four states (Massachusetts, Tennessee, Vermont, and Washington) are reporting any demographic information on COVID-19 within their correctional facilities (Nowotny, et al., 2021). The lack of data has made identifying disparities difficult. Nowotny et. al. have highlighted the ways that COVID has increased disparities in more subtle ways, including the increase of COVID-19 cases in clustered areas that tend to have a high rate of released inmates (Nowotny, et al., 2021).
In addition to the previously discussed issues, it can be argued that correctional facilities have received less policy attention and COVID-19 resources than other group living quarters (nursing homes, etc.), making it even more difficult to adapt and change as needed. While the focus has been on multiple health precautions and social distancing incarcerated individuals and early release for qualified individuals, other issues related to transmission to the surrounding community need to be addressed as well. For example, Nowotny et al. (2021) suggest that facilities need to continue to reduce their population levels to allow for proper social distancing and provide “equitable, comprehensive, and responsible discharge planning,” so people can reenter society safely (p. 199). To prevent community spread following release, “resources needed to be devoted to testing upon release, access to safe places to quarantine, and retesting 14 days during community reentry” (Nowotny et al., 2021, p. 199).
Allegheny County Jail
In one specific facility, a targeted approach was conducted to help reduce the population of incarcerated individuals and stop the spread of COVID-19. For two calendar years, the jail population at months-end averaged 2,370 individuals and never fell below 2,100 (ACJ, 2021). To address the concern around overpopulation, pretrial services reviewed bail status of individuals identified as medically high risk to determine who would be eligible for release. The administration focused on public safety as their primary consideration in making release decisions. Incarcerated individuals’ highest charge was examined, and rank ordered compared to other incarcerated individuals to determine if they would be released early or not. The highest charge was determined by looking at all charges for which a person was currently sentenced, all charges for a pending case, and all charges for which a person was on probation (ACJ, 2021). Highest charge was defined as a charge of homicide of a person or a weapon related felony (ACJ, 2021). As a result, 470 low charge individuals and 181 high charge individuals were released (ACJ, 2021). The highest charge was not the sole criteria but was a significant factor in determining release.
After these determinations, the jail population decreased from 2,170 to 1,511 (30% decrease) between March 15, 2020, and June 1, 2020 (ACJ, 2021). The initial period of March 15, 2020, to April 15, 2020, saw the most dramatic decline. The initial period saw a 3:1 ratio of people being released compared to people being booked (ACJ, 2021). The late COVID period (April 16, 2020, to June 1, 2020) ratio was 1:1 (ACJ, 2021). This was achieved by the combination efforts of the judiciary, Pretrial Services, Adult Probation, and the Office of the Public Defender (ACJ, 2021). Racial disparities continued during these releases, with black individuals continuing to be booked at higher rates. Although more black individuals were released than whites, the proportion of black to white inmates actually grew by 3%. (ACJ, 2021). Of those released, 4% received support from reentry programs or justice-related services, 11% were supervised by Allegheny County Pretrial Services, 48% were supervised by adult probation, and 37% did not have any specific support or supervision upon release (ACJ, 2021). The Department of Human Services did check in when contact information was available to those who were not under any type of supervision.
After these determinations, the jail population decreased from 2,170 to 1,511 (30% decrease) between March 15, 2020, and June 1, 2020 (ACJ, 2021). The initial period of March 15, 2020, to April 15, 2020, saw the most dramatic decline. The initial period saw a 3:1 ratio of people being released compared to people being booked (ACJ, 2021). The late COVID period (April 16, 2020, to June 1, 2020) ratio was 1:1 (ACJ, 2021). This was achieved by the combination efforts of the judiciary, Pretrial Services, Adult Probation, and the Office of the Public Defender (ACJ, 2021). Racial disparities continued during these releases, with black individuals continuing to be booked at higher rates. Although more black individuals were released than whites, the proportion of black to white inmates actually grew by 3%. (ACJ, 2021). Of those released, 4% received support from reentry programs or justice-related services, 11% were supervised by Allegheny County Pretrial Services, 48% were supervised by adult probation, and 37% did not have any specific support or supervision upon release (ACJ, 2021). The Department of Human Services did check in when contact information was available to those who were not under any type of supervision.
_____________________________
Katie L. Swope, Ph.D., is an assistant professor in the Criminal Justice Division at the University of Pittsburgh at Greensburg since 2023 and has been teaching in higher education since 2011. Katie received her bachelor’s degree in criminology from Slippery Rock University in Pennsylvania and her master’s and doctorate degree in criminology from Indiana University of Pennsylvania. Katie has presented at multiple conferences throughout her academic career at both the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences (ACJS) and the American Society of Criminology (ASC).
Ken Smythe-Leistico, Ed.D., MSW, LSW is an assistant professor and MSW Field Director at Carlow University. He is a strong believer in experiential and applied learning. Ken’s research merges evidence-based approaches with practical service delivery to create innovative practices that get results. He has been featured as an Emerging Leader by the Harvard Family Involvement Network of Educators, honored by Pittsburgh Magazine as one of the region’s “40 under 40”, and is the author of several articles, book chapters, and a children’s book. Ken possesses undergraduate degrees in psychology and sociology from the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater, a master’s in social work from the University of Alabama, and a doctorate in education at the University of Pittsburgh.
Sarah Laite, MSW, LSW, is a licensed social worker in both Ohio and Pennsylvania. She provides clinical mental health services in a private practice setting in Austintown, Ohio and works with Carlow University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania as a Project Coordinator for the Carlow Underserved and Rural Engagement (CURE) program. Sarah is a graduate of Carlow’s Master of Social Work program and is currently a Ph.D. student studying Community Engagement at Point Park University. Her passion and research focus has primarily pertained to the experience of trauma and the movement to create trauma-informed communities.
References
Allegheny County Jail Collaborative. (2019). 2018-2019 Annual Report. Allegheny County Analytics: https://www.alleghenycountyanalytics.us/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/19- ACDHS-09_Jail-Collaborative_102119.pdf
Allegheny County Department of Human Services. (2020). Women in the Allegheny County Criminal Justice System. Allegheny County Analytics. https://www.alleghenycountyanalytics.us/index.php/2020/09/22/women-in-theallegheny-county-criminal-justice-system/
Barrenger, S. & Bond, L. (2021). Mental health and services impacts during COVID-19 for individuals with serious mental illnesses recently released from prison and jail. Journal of Behavioral Health Services. 48(3), 610-616.
Guzman, C. (2020). COVID-19 in our nation’s jails: Challenges, lessons, and best practices moving forward. American Jails, 36-38.
Jenkins, M.J., Dammer, H., & Raciti, D. (2017). Built around failure. Corrections Today, July/August, 58-66.
Nowotny, K. Bailey, Z., Brinkley-Rubinstein, L. (2021). The Contribution of Prisons and Jails to US Racial Disparities During COVID-19. American Journal of Public Health. 111(2), 197-199.
Servick, K. (2020). Pandemic inspires push to shrink jails, prisons: New research focuses on the health and public safety impacts of “decarceration.” Science. 369(6510), 1412-1413.
Spjeldnes, S., Jung, H., & Yamatani, H. (2014). Gender differences in jail populations: Factors to consider in reentry strategies. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation. 53, 75-94. DOI: 10.1080/10509674.2013.868387.
Wilford, M., Zimmerman, D., Yan,S ., & Sutherland, K. (2021). Innocence in the shadow of COVID-19: Plea decision making during a pandemic. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 27(4), 739-750.