Overview

The Marshall Project, the nonprofit investigative newsroom dedicated to the U.S. criminal justice system, has partnered with The Associated Press to compile data on the prevalence of COVID-19 infection in prisons across the country. The Associated Press is sharing this data as the most comprehensive current national source of COVID-19 outbreaks in state and federal prisons.

Lawyers, criminal justice reform advocates and families of the incarcerated have worried about what was happening in prisons across the nation as coronavirus began to take hold in the communities outside. Data collected by The Marshall Project and AP shows that hundreds of thousands of prisoners, workers, correctional officers and staff have caught the illness as prisons became the center of some of the country’s largest outbreaks. And thousands of people — most of them incarcerated — have died.

In December, as COVID-19 cases spiked across the U.S., the news organizations also shared cumulative rates of infection among prison populations, to better gauge the total effects of the pandemic on prison populations. The analysis found that by mid-December, one in five state and federal prisoners in the United States had tested positive for the coronavirus -- a rate more than four times higher than the general population.

This data, which is updated weekly, is an effort to track how those people have been affected and where the crisis has hit the hardest.

Methodology and Caveats

The data tracks the number of COVID-19 tests administered to people incarcerated in all state and federal prisons, as well as the staff in those facilities. It is collected on a weekly basis by Marshall Project and AP reporters who contact each prison agency directly and verify published figures with officials.

Each week, the reporters ask every prison agency for the total number of coronavirus tests administered to its staff members and prisoners, the cumulative number who tested positive among staff and prisoners, and the numbers of deaths for each group.

The time series data is aggregated to the system level; there is one record for each prison agency on each date of collection. Not all departments could provide data for the exact date requested, and the data indicates the date for the figures.

To estimate the rate of infection among prisoners, we collected population data for each prison system before the pandemic, roughly in mid-March, in April, June, July, August, September and October. Beginning the week of July 28, we updated all prisoner population numbers, reflecting the number of incarcerated adults in state or federal prisons. Prior to that, population figures may have included additional populations, such as prisoners housed in other facilities, which were not captured in our COVID-19 data. In states with unified prison and jail systems, we include both detainees awaiting trial and sentenced prisoners.

To estimate the rate of infection among prison employees, we collected staffing numbers for each system. Where current data was not publicly available, we acquired other numbers through our reporting, including calling agencies or from state budget documents. In six states, we were unable to find recent staffing figures: Alaska, Hawaii, Kentucky, Maryland, Montana, Utah.

To calculate the cumulative COVID-19 impact on prisoner and prison worker populations, we aggregated prisoner and staff COVID case and death data up through Dec. 15. Because population snapshots do not account for movement in and out of prisons since March, and because many systems have significantly slowed the number of new people being sent to prison, it’s difficult to estimate the total number of people who have been held in a state system since March. To be conservative, we calculated our rates of infection using the largest prisoner population snapshots we had during this time period.

As with all COVID-19 data, our understanding of the spread and impact of the virus is limited by the availability of testing. Epidemiology and public health experts say that aside from a few states that have recently begun aggressively testing in prisons, it is likely that there are more cases of COVID-19 circulating undetected in facilities. Sixteen prison systems, including the Federal Bureau of Prisons, would not release information about how many prisoners they are testing.

Corrections departments in Indiana, Kansas, Montana, North Dakota and Wisconsin report coronavirus testing and case data for juvenile facilities; West Virginia reports figures for juvenile facilities and jails. For consistency of comparison with other state prison systems, we removed those facilities from our data that had been included prior to July 28. For these states we have also removed staff data. Similarly, Pennsylvania’s coronavirus data includes testing and cases for those who have been released on parole. We removed these tests and cases for prisoners from the data prior to July 28. The staff cases remain.

About the Data

There are four tables in this data:

• covid_prison_cases.csv contains weekly time series data on tests, infections and deaths in prisons. The first dates in the table are on March 26. Any questions that a prison agency could not or would not answer are left blank.

• prison_populations.csv contains snapshots of the population of people incarcerated in each of these prison systems for whom data on COVID testing and cases are available. This varies by state and may not always be the entire number of people incarcerated in each system. In some states, it may include other populations, such as those on parole or held in state-run jails. This data is primarily for use in calculating rates of testing and infection, and we would not recommend using these numbers to compare the change in how many people are being held in each prison system.

• staff_populations.csv contains a one-time, recent snapshot of the headcount of workers for each prison agency, collected as close to April 15 as possible.

• covid_prison_rates.csv contains the rates of cases and deaths for prisoners. There is one row for every state and federal prison system and an additional row with the National totals.

Queries

The Associated Press and The Marshall Project have created several queries to help you use this data:

Get your state's prison COVID data: Provides each week's data from just your state and calculates a cases-per-100000-prisoners rate, a deaths-per-100000-prisoners rate, a cases-per-100000-workers rate and a deaths-per-100000-workers rate here

Rank all systems' most recent data by cases per 100,000 prisoners here

Find what percentage of your state's total cases and deaths -- as reported by Johns Hopkins University -- occurred within the prison system here

Attribution

In stories, attribute this data to: “According to an analysis of state prison cases by The Marshall Project, a nonprofit investigative newsroom dedicated to the U.S. criminal justice system, and The Associated Press.”

Contributors

Many reporters and editors at The Marshall Project and The Associated Press contributed to this data, including: Katie Park, Tom Meagher, Weihua Li, Gabe Isman, Cary Aspinwall, Keri Blakinger, Jake Bleiberg, Andrew R. Calderón, Maurice Chammah, Andrew DeMillo, Eli Hager, Jamiles Lartey, Claudia Lauer, Nicole Lewis, Humera Lodhi, Colleen Long, Joseph Neff, Michelle Pitcher, Alysia Santo, Beth Schwartzapfel, Damini Sharma, Colleen Slevin, Christie Thompson, Abbie VanSickle, Adria Watson, Andrew Welsh-Huggins.

Questions

If you have questions about the data, please email The Marshall Project at info+covidtracker@themarshallproject.org or file a Github issue.

To learn more about AP's data journalism capabilities for publishers, corporations and financial institutions, go here or email kromano@ap.org.

Prison Inmates in India

Demographics, Age, Education, Caste, Wages, Rehabilitation, Technical Info

By Rajanand Ilangovan [source]

About this dataset

This dataset provides a detailed view of prison inmates in India, including their age, caste, and educational background. It includes information on inmates from all states/union territories for the year 2019 such as the number of male and female inmates aged 16-18 years, 18-30 year old inmates and those above 50 years old. The data also covers total number of penalized prisoners sentenced to death sentence, life imprisonment or executed by the state authorities. Additionally, it provides information regarding the crimehead (type) committed by an inmate along with its grand total across different age groups. This dataset not only sheds light on India’s criminal justice system but also highlights prevelance of crimes in different states and union territories as well as providing insight into crime trends across Indian states over time

More Datasets

For more datasets, click here.

Featured Notebooks

• 🚨 Your notebook can be here! 🚨!

How to use the dataset

This dataset provides a comprehensive look at the demographics, crimes and sentences of Indian prison inmates in 2019. The data is broken down by state/union territory, year, crime head, age groups and gender.

This dataset can be used to understand the demographic composition of the prison population in India as well as the types of crimes committed. It can also be used to gain insight into any changes or trends related to sentencing patterns in India over time. Furthermore, this data can provide valuable insight into potential correlations between different demographic factors (such as gender and caste) and specific types of crimes or length of sentences handed out.

To use this dataset effectively there are a few important things to keep in mind: •State/UT - This column refers to individual states or union territories in India where prisons are located •Year – This column indicates which year(s) the data relates to •Both genders - Female columns refer only to female prisoners while male columns refers only to male prisoners •Age Groups – 16-18 years old = 21-30 years old = 31-50 years old = 50+ years old •Crime Head – A broad definition for each type of crime that inmates have been convicted for •No Capital Punishment – The total number sentenced with capital punishment No Life Imprisonment – The total number sentenced with life imprisonment No Executed– The total number executed from death sentence Grand Total–The overall totals for each category

By using this information it is possible to answer questions regarding topics such as sentencing trends, types of crimes committed by different age groups or genders and state-by-state variation amongst other potential queries

Research Ideas

• Using the age and gender information to develop targeted outreach strategies for prisons in order to reduce recidivism rates.
• Creating an AI-based predictive model to predict crime trends by analyzing crime head data from a particular region/state and correlating it with population demographics, economic activity, etc.
• Analyzing the caste of inmates across different states in India in order to understand patterns of discrimination within the criminal justice system

Acknowledgements

If you use this dataset in your research, please credit the original authors. Data Source

License

License: Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0) - You are free to: - Share - copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially. - Adapt - remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially. - You must: - Give appropriate credit - Provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. - ShareAlike - You must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.

Columns

File: SLL_Crime_headwise_distribution_of_inmates_who_convicted.csv | Column name | Description | |:--------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | STATE/UT | Name of the state or union territory where the jail is located. (String) | | YEAR | Year when the inmate population data was collected. (Integer) ...

This dataset displays the inmate populations for all the Federal Prisons throughout the United States on 7.2.08. This weekly Population Report can be found on the Bureau of Prisons website at bop.gov. These facilities are positioned by their lat/lon and this dataset is updated on a weekly basis.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General annually releases data on the segregation, restrictive confinement, and deaths in custody of inmates in Ontario’s adult correctional system. Data Source: Offender Tracking Information System (OTIS) Segregation is defined in Ontario Regulation 778 as any type of custody where an inmate is in highly restricted conditions for 22 to 24 hours or does not receive a minimum of two hours of meaningful social interaction each day, excluding circumstances of an unscheduled lockdown. A record is created each time an inmate meets the conditions of segregation and closed when the inmate no longer meets those conditions. A break in a segregation placement is defined as occurring when an individual is out of segregation conditions for 24 or more continuous hours. The Ministry of the Solicitor General defines restrictive confinement as any type of confinement that is more restrictive than the general population but less restrictive than segregation. As a result, the ministry is reporting on any case within the fiscal year reporting period where an individual was held in a unit regularly scheduled to be locked down for 17 hours or more per day. This timeframe is considered more restrictive than that of the general population based on an assessment of provincewide lockdown times. Regularly scheduled lockdowns are daily routine times where movement out of a cell is restricted, such as during meal times and overnight. The Ministry of the Solicitor General is committed to providing greater transparency by releasing data on all custodial-related deaths that occurred within the calendar year reporting period. The datasets in this category include information on gender, race, age, religion or spiritual affiliation, and alerts for mental health concerns and suicide risk. To simplify the provision of data, several data tables include information on both individuals in segregation conditions and individuals in restrictive confinement. Due to the differences in the way that the data on segregation conditions and restrictive confinement have been collected, and the differences in the definitions of these concepts, these numbers should not be compared to each other. Some individuals may have both placements in restrictive confinement and segregation conditions, within the reporting period. Therefore, these numbers should not be added together when calculating proportions out of the total. Please refer to https://www.ontario.ca/page/jahn-settlement-data-inmates-ontario for additional information on the data release, including written overviews of the data and disclosure on data collection methods.

This is qualitative data collection of semi-structured interviews conducted between December 2019-October 2020 within a study that examined how the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman (seek to) effect change in prisons following prisoner suicides and how death investigations could have more impact on prison policy and practice. The study ran from 2019-2021. Internationally, prisoner mortality rates are up to 50% above those in the community. Although prisoner deaths are frequent and have significant implications across a broad range of stakeholder groups, these harms are rarely acknowledged. We address this by examining how the PPO (seek to) effect change in prisons following prisoner suicides and how death investigations could have more impact on prison policy and practice from semi-structured interviews with multisectoral stakeholders. Within this project, 46 semi-structured interviews were undertaken with multisectoral stakeholders: 17 PPO staff (who work across England and Wales from a base in London), 8 prison Governing Governors (representing 8 prisons), 11 regional SCGLs (representing all but two regions nationally) and 9 Coroners (who represent 9 of the 92 separate coroners’ jurisdictions in England and Wales) and bereaved family members (n=1). These professional groups have received limited consideration in previous research despite International laws, e.g. Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, requiring that all deaths in state detention are independently investigated. In England and Wales, prisoner deaths are externally investigated by at least the police, PPO and Coroner. These police, ombudsman and coroner investigations can be very disruptive and cause uncertainty and anxiety for all involved. The research demonstrates how the harms of prisoner deaths and investigations are broadly unacknowledged and radiate widely. We sought to stimulate both i) more substantive support for all those caught up in prison suicides and death investigations and ii) reconsideration of how prisoner deaths are investigated. For data storage and analysis purposes, the participants were divided into four categories: 1) Prison and Probation Ombudsman staff (PPO); 2) Governing Governors (Governors); 3) Safer Custody Group Leads (SCGLs); 4) Coroners (coroners); 5) bereaved family members (prisoner family). Because of the sensitivity of this research 3 SCGL transcripts have been omitted due to the participants still being identifiable following transcript anonymisation. Further information about the project and links to publications are available on the University of Nottingham SafeSoc project webpage https://www.safesoc.co.ukIn May 2019, Dutch courts refused to deport an English suspected drug smuggler, citing the potential for inhuman and degrading treatment at HMP Liverpool. This well publicised judgment illustrates the necessity of my FLF: reconceptualising prison regulation, for safer societies. It seeks to save lives and money, and reduce criminal reoffending. Over 10.74 million people are imprisoned globally. The growing transnational significance of detention regulation was signalled by the Optional Protocol to the United Nations Convention against Torture/OPCAT. Its 89 signatories, including the UK, must regularly examine treatment and conditions. The quality of prison life affects criminal reoffending rates, so the consequences of unsafe prisons are absorbed by our societies. Prison regulation is more urgent than ever. England and Wales' prisons are now less safe than at any point in recorded history, containing almost 83,000 prisoners: virtually all of whom will be released at some point. In 2016, record prison suicides harmed prisoners, staff and bereaved families, draining ~£385 million from public funds. Record prisoner self-harm was seen in 2017, then again in 2018. Criminal reoffending costs £15 billion annually. Deteriorating prison safety poses a major moral, social, economic and public health threat, attracting growing recognition. Reconceptualising prison regulation is a difficult multidisciplinary challenge. Regulation includes any activity seeking to steer events in prisons. Effective prison regulation demands academic innovation and sustained collaboration and implementation with practitioners from different sectors (e.g. public, voluntary), regulators, policymakers, and prisoners: from local to (trans)national levels. Citizen participation has become central to realising more democratic, sustainable public services but is not well integrated across theory-policy-practice. I will coproduce prison regulation with partners, including the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman, voluntary organisations Safe Ground and the Prison Reform Trust, and (former) prisoners. This FLF examines three diverse case study countries: England and Wales, Brazil and Canada, developing multinational implications. This approach is ambitious and risky, but critical for challenging commonsensical beliefs. Interviews, focus groups, observation and creative methodologies will be used. There are three aims, to: i) theorise the (potential) participatory roles of prisoners and the voluntary sector in prison regulation ii) appraise the (normative) relationships between multisectoral regulators (e.g. public, voluntary) from local to (trans)national scales iii) co-produce (with multisectoral regulators), pilot, document and disseminate models of participatory, effective and efficient prison regulation in England and Wales (and beyond) - integrating multisectoral, multiscalar penal overseers and prisoners into regulatory theory and practice. This is an innovative study. Punishment scholars have paid limited attention to regulation. Participatory networks of (former) prisoners are a relatively new formation but rapidly growing in influence. Nobody has yet considered agencies like the Prisons Inspectorate and Ombudsman alongside voluntary sector organisations and participatory networks, nor their collective influences from local to transnational scales. Nobody has tried to work with all of these agencies to reconceptualise prison regulation and test it in practice. Findings will be developed, disseminated and implemented internationally. The research team will present findings and engage with diverse stakeholders and decision makers through interactive workshops (Parliament, London, Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham), and multimedia outputs (e.g. infographics). This FLF has implications for prisons and detention globally, and broader relevance as a case study of participatory regulation of public services and policy translation. Within this project, 46 semi-structured interviews were undertaken with: 17 PPO staff (who work across England and Wales from a base in London), 8 prison Governing Governors (representing 8 prisons), 11 regional SCGLs (representing all but two regions nationally) and 9 Coroners (who represent 9 of the 92 separate coroners’ jurisdictions in England and Wales) and bereaved family members (n=1). The sample was purposive for all groups, as appropriate for our exploratory analysis and the resources available, however the sample is not representative of all staff in the groups we interviewed. Face to face interviews were conducted with PPO participants in December 2019. Due to the COVID pandemic, SCGL, Governing Governor, Coroner and bereaved family member interviews were undertaken by telephone and Microsoft TEAMS audio calls (at the participant’s preference) between July and October 2020.

Non-natural deaths of inmates in custody.

BackgroundSuicide is a prominent source of harm and death globally, and it is the leading cause of premature death among prisoners. Therefore, the main aim of this study was to determine the prevalence and factors associated with suicidal ideation and attempt among prisoners in Northwest Ethiopia.MethodsAn institution-based cross-sectional study design was performed from May 23 to June 22, 2022. After proportional allocation to the three correctional institutions, a total of 788 study participants were randomly recruited. The World Health Organization Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) was used to evaluate suicide ideation and attempt. To determine factors associated with suicidal ideation and attempt, multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted. At a 95% confidence interval (CI) of P-value

This dataset shows the number of people that are in prison by state in 2006 and 2007. These numbers are then compared to show the difference between the two years and a percentage of change is given as well. This data was brought to our attention by the Pew Charitable Trusts in their report titled, One in 100: Behind Bars in America 2008."" The main emphasis of the article emphasizes the point that in 2007 1 in every 100 Americans were in prison. To note: Many states have not completed their data verification process. Final published figures may differ slightly. The District of Columbia is not included. D.C. prisoners were transferred to federal custody in 2001

This dataset shows the total amount of State Prison Expenditures for Medical Care, Food expenses, and Utilities in the year 2001. Over a quarter of prison operating costs are for basic living expenses. Prisoner medical care, food service, utilities, and contract housing totaled $7.3 billion, or about 26% of State prison current operating expenses. Inmate medical care totaled $3.3 billion, or about 12% of operating expenditures. Supplies and services of government staff and full-time and part-time managed care and fee-for service providers averaged $2,625 per inmate, or $7.19 per day. By comparison, the average annual health care expenditure of U.S. residents, including all sources in FY 2001, was $4,370, or $11.97 per day. Factors beyond the scope of this report contributed to the variation in spending levels for prisoner medical care. Lacking economies of scale, some States had significantly higher than average medical costs for everyone, and some had higher proportions of inmates whose abuse of drugs or alcohol had led to disease. Also influencing variations in expenditures were staffing and funding of prisoner health care and distribution of specialized medical equipment for prisoner treatment. Food service in FY 2001 cost $1.2 billion, or approximately 4% of State prison operating expenditures. On average nationwide, State departments of correction spent $2.62 to feed inmates each day. Utility services for electricity, natural gas, heating oil, water, sewerage, trash removal, and telephone in State prisons totaled $996 million in FY 2001. Utilities accounted for about 3.5% of State prison operating expenditure. For more information see the url source of this dataset.

This data comes from the Survey on Sexual Violence, 2006, an administrative records collection of incidents of inmate-on-inmate and staff-on-inmate sexual violence reported to correctional authorities. This dataset in particular focuses on allegations of inmate-on-inmate sexual violence reported by State or Federal prison authorities by State. Between January 1 and June 30, 2007, BJS completed the third annual national survey of administrative records in adult correctional facilities, covering calendar year 2006. Although the results were limited to incidents reported to correctional officials, the survey provides an understanding of what officials know, based on the number of reported allegations, and the outcomes of follow-up investigations. By comparing results of the 2006 survey with those from 2004 and 2005, BJS is able to assess trends in sexual violence for the first time since the Act was passed. AL, AK, GA, MS, NV, NC, VA, WI: Allegations of abusive sexual contacts could not be counted separately from allegations of nonconsensual sexual acts. MT: Includes consensual contact between inmates. SC, WV: Allegations limited to substantiated occurrences only. For more information on this data please go to: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/svrca06.htm

This dataset shows the total amount of expenditures and operating costs that states spent on inmates in the fiscal year of 2001. Correctional authorities spent $38.2 billion to maintain the Nation's State correctional systems in fiscal year 2001, including $29.5 billion specifically for adult correctional facilities. Day-today operating expenses totaled $28.4 billion, and capital outlays for land, new building, and renovations, $1.1 billion. The average annual operating cost per State inmate in 2001 was $22,650, or $62.05 per day. Among facilities operated by the Federal Bureau of Prisons, it was $22,632 per inmate, or $62.01 per day. In a followup to a study based on FY 1996 data, this report presents unique statistics on the cost of operating State prisons in FY 2001. Information was obtained by extracting corrections data from each State's responses to the U.S. Census Bureau's annual Survey of Government Finances. Item categories were standardized across jurisdictions, and reported figures were verified with State budget officials. For more information please see source url.

This dataset shows the comparison between the amount of spending that was spent on higher education and corrections by each state in the United States from 1987 to 2007. This data was brought to our attention by the Pew Charitable Trusts in their report titled, "One in 100: Behind Bars in America 2008." The main emphasis of the article emphasizes the point that in 2007 1 in every 100 Americans were in prison. To note: Many states have not completed their data verification process. Final published figures may differ slightly. The District of Columbia is not included. D.C. prisoners were transferred to federal custody in 2001

This dataset shows the percentage of State Employees that work in Corrections by state in the year 2006. This data was brought to our attention by the Pew Charitable Trusts in their report titled, One in 100: Behind Bars in America 2008. The main emphasis of the article emphasizes the point that in 2007 1 in every 100 Americans were in prison. To note: The District of Columbia is not included. D.C. prisoners were transferred to federal custody in 2001

This dataset shows the amount of money that each state spent on their Corrections program both in percentage of the Overall amount of money spent in the State and as a total amount of money. This data was brought to our attention by the Pew Charitable Trusts in their report titled, One in 100: Behind Bars in America 2008. The main emphasis of the article emphasizes the point that in 2007 1 in every 100 Americans were in prison. To note: The District of Columbia is not included. D.C. prisoners were transferred to federal custody in 2001.