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.

The National Prisoner Statistics (NPS) data collection began in 1926 in response to a congressional mandate to gather information on persons incarcerated in state and federal prisons. Originally under the auspices of the U.S. Census Bureau, the collection moved to the Bureau of Prisons in 1950, and then in 1971 to the National Criminal Justice Information and Statistics Service, the precursor to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) which was established in 1979. From 1979 to 2013, the Census Bureau was the NPS data collection agent. In 2014, the collection was competitively bid in conjunction with the National Corrections Reporting Program (NCRP), since many of the respondents for NPS and NCRP are the same. The contract was awarded to Abt Associates, Inc. The NPS is administered to 51 respondents. Before 2001, the District of Columbia was also a respondent, but responsibility for housing the District of Columbia's sentenced prisoners was transferred to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and by yearend 2001 the District of Columbia no longer operated a prison system. The NPS provides an enumeration of persons in state and federal prisons and collects data on key characteristics of the nation's prison population. NPS has been adapted over time to keep pace with the changing information needs of the public, researchers, and federal, state, and local governments.

The National Prisoner Statistics (NPS) data collection began in 1926 in response to a congressional mandate to gather information on persons incarcerated in state and federal prisons. Originally under the auspices of the U.S. Census Bureau, the collection moved to the Bureau of Prisons in 1950, and then in 1971 to the National Criminal Justice Information and Statistics Service, the precursor to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) which was established in 1979. From 1979 to 2013, the Census Bureau was the NPS data collection agent. In 2014, the collection was competitively bid in conjunction with the National Corrections Reporting Program (NCRP), since many of the respondents for NPS and NCRP are the same. The contract was awarded to Abt Associates, Inc. The NPS is administered to 51 respondents. Before 2001, the District of Columbia was also a respondent, but responsibility for housing the District of Columbia's sentenced prisoners was transferred to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and by yearend 2001 the District of Columbia no longer operated a prison system. The NPS provides an enumeration of persons in state and federal prisons and collects data on key characteristics of the nation's prison population. NPS has been adapted over time to keep pace with the changing information needs of the public, researchers, and federal, state, and local governments.

As of December 2022, there was a total of 139,631 prisoners in the state of Texas, the most out of any state. California, Florida, Georgia, and Ohio rounded out the top five states with the most prisoners in the United States.

Research shows that prison visitation is integral to the success of incarcerated people, reducing recidivism, facilitating reentry into the community, and promoting positive parent-child relationships. However, people are often incarcerated long distances from their home communities in areas that are difficult to reach by public transport, creating significant barriers to in-person visitation. Departments of corrections are exploring the use of computer-based video visits as a means to address some of the visitation needs of those in custody in a cost-effective way while continuing to encourage in-person visits. To learn more about this practice, the study team conducted the following research activities: A survey of incarcerated people: The study team surveyed 211 people incarcerated in Washington State prisons about their use of video visits, their perceptions of the service, and their experiences of in-person visits more generally. This was a self-administered, pen-and-paper survey. An impact evaluation of video visits: The study team analyzed individual-level administrative data from the Washington Department of Corrections (WADOC) and the private video visit vendor (JPay) to understand whether use of the service affected four outcomes: 1) the number of in-person visits people received, 2) the number of rule violations (of any severity) people committed in prison, 3) the number of general (ie. non-serious) rule violations they committed, and 4) the number of serious (as defined by WADOC) rule violations that were committed. The researchers used two analytic techniques: 1) a difference-in-difference test, using inverse probability of treatment weighting, and 2) Bayesian additive regression trees. An analysis of in-person visit rates: The study team analyzed administrative data relating to all people who were incarcerated for the 12 month period ending November 2015 (n=11,524). The study team produced descriptive statistics and conducted negative binomial regressions to understand the rates of in-person visits and how these related to the characteristics of the incarcerated people.

These data assess the effects of the risk of local jail incarceration and of police aggressiveness in patrol style on rates of violent offending. The collection includes arrest rates for public order offenses, size of county jail populations, and numbers of new prison admissions as they relate to arrest rates for index (serious) crimes. Data were collected from seven sources for each city. CENSUS OF POPULATION AND HOUSING, 1980 [UNITED STATES]: SUMMARY TAPE FILE 1A (ICPSR 7941), provided county-level data on number of persons by race, age, and age by race, number of persons in households, and types of households within each county. CENSUS OF POPULATION AND HOUSING, 1980 [UNITED STATES]: SUMMARY TAPE FILE 3A (ICPSR 8071), measured at the city level, provided data on total population, race, age, marital status by sex, persons in household, number of households, housing, children, and families above and below the poverty level by race, employment by race, and income by race within each city. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) 1980 data provided variables on total offenses and offense rates per 100,000 persons for homicides, rapes, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny, motor vehicle offenses, and arson. Data from the FBI for 1980-1982, averaged per 100,000, provided variables for the above offenses by sex, age, and race, and the Uniform Crime Report arrest rates for index crimes within each city. The NATIONAL JAIL CENSUS for 1978 and 1983 (ICPSR 7737 and ICPSR 8203), aggregated to the county level, provided variables on jail capacity, number of inmates being held by sex, race, and status of inmate's case (awaiting trial, awaiting sentence, serving sentence, and technical violations), average daily jail populations, number of staff by full-time and part-time, number of volunteers, and number of correctional officers. The JUVENILE DETENTION AND CORRECTIONAL FACILITY CENSUS for 1979 and 1982-1983 (ICPSR 7846 and 8205), aggregated to the county level, provided data on the number of individuals being held by type of crime and sex, as well as age of juvenile offenders by sex, average daily prison population, and payroll and other expenditures for the institutions.

This study examines the criminal activities of a group of young offenders after their release from prison to parole supervision. Previous studies have examined recidivism using arrests as the principal measure, whereas this study examines a variety of factors, including length of incarceration, age, sex, race, prior arrest record, prosecutions, length of time between parole and rearrest, parolees not prosecuted for new offenses but having their parole revoked, rearrests in states other than the paroling states, and the nature and location of rearrest charges. Parolees in the 22 states covered in this study account for 50 percent of all state prisoners paroled in the United States in 1978.

Nationwide, over 1.9 million adults were living in correctional facilities as of the 2020 Decennial Census. Correctional facilities for adults include the following types:Federal detention centers, providing "short term" confinement or custody of adults pending adjudication or sentencing. Includes Immigrations Enforcement (ICE) and Customs inmates and ICE Contract Detention Facilities, among other types of federal detention centers.Federal and state prisons*, where people convicted of crimes serve their sentences. Patients in hospitals operated by or for federal or state correctional authorities are counted in the prison population.Local jails and other municipal confinement facilities*, operated by or for counties, cities, and American Indian and Alaska Native tribal governments. Patients in hospitals operated by or for local correctional authorities are counted in the jail population.Correctional residential facilities. Residents may be allowed extensive contact with the community, such as for employment or schooling, but are obligated to occupy the premises at night. Examples are halfway houses, restitution centers, and prerelease, work release, and study centers.Military disciplinary barracks and jails, managed by the military to hold those awaiting trial or convicted of crimes.*This category may include privately operated correctional facilities.Full documentation of definitions available on pages B-11 and B-12 of the technical documentation for 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File. Data available for state, county, tract, block group, and block from the U.S. Census Bureau's 2020 Public Law 94-171 files. State data is symbolized as both a count and a percentage of the adult population. Data for county and below is symbolized to show counts only, as the percentages at lower geography levels are not very meaningful.

We estimate the effect on recidivism of replacing time served in a common closed-cell prison with time served in an open-cell one. We deal with the endogenous assignment of inmates to different prison regimes using variation that is driven by nearby prisons' overcrowding. Switching regimes for a year reduces recidivism by around 6 percentage points (or pp). The effects are largest for inmates with low levels of education and are weak for violent and for hardened criminals.

Adult correctional services, custodial and community supervision, average counts of offenders in federal programs, Canada and regions, five years of data.

ABSTRACT Background: Tuberculosis is a worldwide public health problem and is more prevalent in specific populations, such as prisoners. The aim of this study was to analyze the epidemiological and operational indicators of tuberculosis in prisoners in a southern region of Brazil. Methods: This was a descriptive, observational study, utilizing secondary data from the Notifiable Diseases Information System on tuberculosis cases diagnosed in prisoners in the state of Rio Grande do Sul, southern Brazil, from 2014 to 2018. Prisoner data used to calculate incidence were extracted from reports by the National Penitentiary Department. Results: From 2014 to 2018, 3,557 tuberculosis cases were reported in Rio Grande do Sul prisoners. The incidence rate of tuberculosis in prisoners was 1,235/100,000 individuals in 2014 and 1,430/100,000 individuals in 2018. The proportion of new TB cases tested for HIV was high, 83.4% in this period; among those tested, 12.9% were HIV coinfected. The proportion of new cases of pulmonary tuberculosis confirmed by laboratory criteria was 52.6% in this period. In total, 18.4% of new pulmonary tuberculosis cases were initiated on directly observed treatment in this period, and 36.4% of contacts of new cases of pulmonary tuberculosis with laboratory confirmation were examined. Among retreatment pulmonary tuberculosis cases, 82.4% were laboratory-confirmed. Conclusions: Tuberculosis incidence is increasing on a per-capita and absolute basis in Rio Grande do Sul. Laboratory confirmation, HIV testing, directly observed treatment, and contact investigation rates were all low, indicating the need to improve medical and public health measures for tuberculosis control in prisons.

BackgroundMexico City prisons are characterized by overcrowded facilities and poor living conditions for housed prisoners. Chronic disease profile is characterized by low prevalence of self reported hypertension (2.5%) and diabetes (1.8%) compared to general population; 9.5% of male inmates were obese. There is limited evidence regarding on the exposure to prison environment over prisoner’s health status; particularly, on cardiovascular disease risk factors. The objective of this study is to assess the relationship between length of incarceration and selected risk factors for non-communicable chronic diseases (NCDs).Methods and FindingsWe performed a cross-sectional analysis using data from two large male prisons in Mexico City (n = 14,086). Using quantile regression models we assessed the relationship between length of incarceration and selected risk factors for NCDs; stratified analysis by age at admission to prison was performed. We found a significant negative trend in BMI and WC across incarceration length quintiles. BP had a significant positive trend with a percentage change increase around 5% mmHg. The greatest increase in systolic blood pressure was observed in the older age at admission group.ConclusionsThis analysis provides insight into the relationship between length of incarceration and four selected risk factors for NCDs; screening for high blood pressure should be guarantee in order to identify at risk individuals and linked to the prison’s health facility. It is important to assess prison environment features to approach potential risk for developing NCDs in this context.

The National Inmate Survey (NIS) is part of the Bureau of Justice Statistics' (BJS) National Prison Rape Statistics Program, which gathers mandated data on the incidence and prevalence of sexual assault in correctional facilities under the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (PREA; P.L. 108- 79). Inmates are randomly assigned to receive either a survey of sexual victimization or a survey of mental and physical health, past drug and alcohol use, and treatment for substance abuse. About 92 percent of the respondents completed modules through the survey of sexual victimization while the other eight percent completed modules through the alternative survey. However, the data in this study focuses solely upon substance use and treatment. No respondent answered questions about sexual victimization. The same eight percent of respondents (n=3,908) who completed the alternative survey are the same 3,908 respondents from the study National Inmate Survey (NIS) - Prisons: Alternative Survey Respondents Only, [United States], 2007-2009 (ICPSR 37016).

The National Inmate Survey (NIS) is part of the Bureau of Justice Statistics' (BJS) National Prison Rape Statistics Program, which gathers mandated data on the incidence and prevalence of sexual assault in correctional facilities under the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (PREA; P.L. 108- 79). Inmates are randomly assigned to receive either a survey of sexual victimization or a survey of criminal history, facility climate, and mental health. About 90 percent of the respondents completed modules through the survey of sexual victimization while the other 10 percent completed modules through the alternative survey. However, the data in this study focuses primarily upon criminal history, facility climate, and mental health. No respondent answered questions about sexual victimization.

Snapshot img

Prison Management Systems Market Size 2025-2029

The prison management systems market size is forecast to increase by USD 412.2 billion, at a CAGR of 5.8% between 2024 and 2029.

Prison management systems have witnessed significant growth in recent years, driven by key trends such as innovative upgrades to software and increasing government expenditure on public safety. These systems help manage various aspects of prison operations, including inmate records, security, and rehabilitation programs. However, the high implementation and maintenance costs remain a challenge for the market. The adoption of advanced technologies like artificial intelligence and biometric identification is expected to enhance the functionality and efficiency of prison management systems. Additionally, the growing focus on reducing recidivism rates and improving prison conditions will further fuel market growth. Despite these opportunities, the high initial investment and ongoing expenses associated with implementing and maintaining these systems may hinder market expansion.

What will be the size of the Market During the Forecast Period?

Request Free Sample

Prison management systems have become an essential component of correctional facilities worldwide. These systems facilitate effective inmate management, ensuring the safety and security of staff and inmates. Key functionalities include inmate information management, tracking, and scheduling for visitation, medical records, and incident reporting. Security is a top priority in prison management, with biometric systems playing a significant role. Fingerprint scans or facial recognition technology help maintain accurate records of prisoners, enhancing security and reducing the risk of escapes. Biometric identification also streamlines staff management, ensuring only authorized personnel access restricted areas. Financial management is another crucial aspect of prison management systems.
These solutions enable efficient tracking of commissary sales, inmate funds, and other financial transactions. Analysis and reporting features provide valuable insights into prison operations, enabling prison authorities to make data-driven decisions. Communication is essential for maintaining order and safety within correctional facilities. Prison management systems offer features like instant messaging and email services, allowing staff to coordinate effectively and respond promptly to inmate requests or emergencies. CCTV cameras and software solutions further bolster security by providing real-time monitoring and recording capabilities. Medical facility management and case management modules ensure that inmates receive proper care and attention, while incident reporting features help prison authorities maintain records of disciplinary actions and rehabilitation programs.

How is this market segmented and which is the largest segment?

The market research report provides comprehensive data (region-wise segment analysis), with forecasts and estimates in 'USD million' for the period 2025-2029, as well as historical data from 2019-2023 for the following segments.

Deployment

  On-premises
  Cloud-based


Component

  Solution
  Services


Geography

  North America

    Canada
    US


  Europe

    Germany
    UK
    France


  APAC

    China
    India


  Middle East and Africa



  South America

    Brazil

By Deployment Insights

The on-premises segment is estimated to witness significant growth during the forecast period.

In the market, on-premises deployment is an option where organizations purchase and install the software on their servers. IT specialists manage and maintain it within the organization. However, the market share for this segment is projected to decrease due to the high cost of implementation and limited scalability. On-premises systems are typically priced under a one-time perpetual license fee, which includes recurring charges for support, training, and updates. Prisons also bear additional expenses for monitoring, maintenance, upgrades, and end-user training. companies offer installation, data migration, and employee training services during implementation. Key features of on-premises prison management systems include visitation scheduling, medical records management, incident reporting, commissary management, safety and security, suicide prevention, advanced security equipment, smart locks, video surveillance, intrusion detection, alarms & notifications, and prisoner information management with biometric details.

Get a glance at the market report of share of various segments Request Free Sample

The on-premises segment was valued at USD 626.60 million in 2019 and showed a gradual increase during the forecast period.

Regional Analysis

North America is estimated to contribute 36% to the growth of the global market during the forecast period.

Technavio's ana

The Delaware Department of Correction (DOC) operates four prison facilities (Level V), eight quasi-incarceration community corrections facilities that serve as violation of probation centers or work release centers (Level IV), and five Probation & Parole locations (Levels III, II, and I). Offenders may also be supervised while on home confinement, or the offender may be supervised on an administrative basis only while restitution is paid. Some offenders are physically housed at the Delaware Psychiatric Center while in the custody of the DOC. This dataset provides a snapshot of the offender population in custody or under supervision at these various locations on the last day of each calendar month. A count of how many offenders by the year, month (snapshot of last day of month), county, type of institution, institution name, sentence type, gender, race, and ethnicity can be produced by selecting the desired variable in each category. Questions about offender data can be directed to the DOC’s Planning & Research Unit. Instructions for submitting a data request can be found here: http://www.doc.delaware.gov/datarequests.shtml. The DOC’s annual reports (http://www.doc.delaware.gov/annualReport.shtml) also contain a variety of information and data.

In 2022, the incarceration rate of African Americans in local jails in the United States was *** incarcerations per 100,000 of the population -- the highest rate of any race or ethnicity. The second-highest incarceration rate was among American Indians/Alaska Natives, at *** incarcerations per 100,000 of the population.

This is qualitative data from a focus group conducted in September 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. Within this project, a focus group was conducted with former prisoners in England and Wales (n=5): Across jurisdictions, prisoner suicide rates consistently exceed those amongst comparable groups in the general population (Zhong et al., 2021). Deaths in coercive institutions threaten the right to life, which is ‘the most fundamental of all human rights [and a] condition of the enjoyment of other rights’ (Owen and Macdonald, 2015: 121). The high rates of suicide and self-harm in prison are of international concern (Dear, 2006). Prison suicide reduction has been designated a priority activity by the World Health Organisation (2007) and England and Wales’ Ministry of Justice (2016). generating very significant harm and costs (Roulston et al., 2021; Author, 2021). Peer support is part of the (international) response to suicidal prisoners, but too little is known about the experience of these interventions. For data storage and analysis purposes the transcript has been carefully anonymised with any potentially identifiable details removed. Within the transcript the 5 former prisoners have deliberately not been differentiated between to protect their identity. Because of the sensitivity of this research, transcripts of follow up support and analysis groups 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.uk

In 2023 Turkey had the highest incarceration rate among European countries, at 408 prisoners per 100,000 inhabitants, followed by Georgia, which had an incarceration of 256. The country with the lowest incarceration rate in this year was Liechtenstein, which had 15 people in prison for every 100,000 inhabitants. Germany had one of the lowest rates of 69 when compared with other major European countries such as France and England & Wales, which had rates of 106 and 136 respectively. The Russian Federation has in previous years been the country with the highest incarceration rate in the Council of Europe's data, however, as the country was removed as a member of the council in 2022 due to their invasion of Ukraine, data for Russia is no longer available.