Correctional services during and beyond COVID-19

In the current policy briefing, we use the terms “imprisoned people” and “incarcerated persons” because this terminology is less stigmatizing than terms such as “inmates” or “prisoners”. We are restricting the current policy brief to recommendations concerning prison living and post-prison living in an era of “decarceration”, which refers to reducing the size of the incarcerated population. We recognize that decarceration includes alternatives to imprisonment such as pretrial diversion practices or alternatives introduced at the back and front-end of sentencing, which are largely beyond the scope of the current brief.

We also recognize that there are many marginalized and vulnerable populations in prison, including: women, people with mental health disorders or needs and substance use challenges, persons with brain injuries, persons with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Disorder and other health-related conditions, transgender and non-binary self-identifying persons, and other equity-seeking groups. It is beyond the scope of the current brief to attend to the complexity of each groups’ needs and unique positioning in detail. For instance, while the needs of incarcerated Black Canadians and people of colour are important and worthy of attention, we chose to focus on the inequities of incarcerated Indigenous Peoples, because (i) this group has the highest rates of incarceration for any sub-population in Canada (see “Indigenous persons in prison” section) and (ii) the robust empirical data on Indigenous Peoples in Canada and existing policy-oriented documents details their unique needs, such as the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s “Calls to Action”. We intend to address some of the unique needs of diverse populations in future policy briefings. The present brief is a starting point to highlight recommendations for various pressing issues, as evidenced during the trials and tribulations imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic. As researchers, we are committed to provide evidence-informed recommendations.

In the days following 12 March 2020, when the World Health Organization declared Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) a pandemic, the Canadian provinces and territories began imposing strict lockdown measures. These governments recognized closed-custody correctional facilities, including prisons, correctional centres, and jails, as potentially high-risk for the transmission of COVID-19, despite confusion about how best to manage the virus in prisons (and other confined spaces). On 12 March 2020, the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers (UCCO-SACC-CSN), representing federal correctional officers employed by Correctional Service Canada (CSC), requested support from CSC to help ensure the health and safety of their members during the pandemic (UCCO-SACC-CSN 2020). Of course, it is not only the physical health risk posed by the novel virus that creates distress; researchers are finding that the mental health effects of COVID-19 are dire, as isolation and quarantine are having undeniable effects on people’s social and mental health (del Rio and Malani 2020; Rajkumar 2020; Torales et al. 2020; Xiong et al. 2020). The World Health Organization defines “health” as a having three facets—social, physical, and mental health—and urges us to recognize each as nonhierarchical components of health and as having a significant effect on people’s overall health (World Health Organization 2020).

In the spring of 2020, CSC reported several in-prison outbreaks of COVID-19 that affected both those housed and working in prison. Provincial and territorial institutions took urgent measures in response to the pandemic, such as decreasing the prison population by releasing those that were eligible (Statistics Canada 2020a, 2020b). Federal prisons also took steps to manage the virus by suspending visits and programming, imposing lockdowns, distributing personal protective equipment (PPE), and introducing additional measures for containing, testing, and detecting COVID-19. Altogether, COVID-19 and the institutional responses have affected the social, physical, and mental health of those housed in and employed by prisons.

By early November 2020, the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) updated COVID-19 guidelines to account for the risk posed by aerosol transmission of the virus (Miller 2020). Such a change is particularly important given public health measures informing that physical distancing alone, which is already near impossible in prison, does not adequately protect incarcerated persons from aerosol transmission, which requires well-ventilated spaces when indoors. Incarcerated persons sleep, eat, shower, use the washroom, and exercise, among other activities, in close proximity to other incarcerated persons, officers, and staff in often poorly ventilated prison spaces (Ricciardelli 2014b)—making aerosol transmission particularly concerning.

Officers and staff bear the status of essential service providers and now “face an unprecedented, ongoing challenge” if they are to limit (and manage) the spread of COVID-19 in prisons (Ricciardelli and Bucerius 2020). Staff and officers must balance staying safe and healthy while maintaining the care, custody, and control of incarcerated persons as well as striving not to infect their family members and friends or bringing COVID-19 into the institution. In some cases, despite an outbreak of COVID-19 in the correctional institution, correctional officers working in some provincial systems are asked to continue coming into work when COVID-19 outbreaks happen and to otherwise isolate when not working (Herring 2020). To this end, in Canada and abroad, COVID-19 “represents a serious threat to the health and welfare of people who live and work in these facilities” (Pyrooz et al. 2020, np, see also Kinner et al. 2020; Stephenson 2020).

Infectious disease is not a new concern in prison. About one-quarter of new correctional officer recruits, some with and some without prior correctional work experience, indicated (without being asked) that infectious disease was their biggest fear of working in a correctional institution (R. Ricciardelli, unpublished data). These findings predate the novel coronavirus and the possibility of airborne transmission, with interviewees reporting fears of hepatitis, HIV, and tuberculous. The COVID-19 pandemic imposes additional stress on a subpopulation already concerned about contagion, likely impacting officers’ well-being and mental health.

There are several factors that influence how easily COVID-19 can be introduced and spread in correctional institutions, including: the daily intake of incarcerated people in provincial and territorial systems, the movement of staff in and out of institutions, the physical layout and size of the respective prisons, shorter sentences (leading to potentially higher turnover rates), the use of holding cells for newly admitted people, and the demographic makeup and health conditions of the incarcerated population. However, empirical evidence in support of one of more of these explanations for COVID-19 infections in correctional settings is lacking. It is possible that the correlates of COVID-19 infection in noninstitutionalized settings to not translate to institutionalized settings like jails and prisons.

As of 7 January 2021, in the federal correctional system, 1201 incarcerated persons had tested positive for COVID-19 in penitentiaries across the country, of which three incarcerated people had died (Correctional Service Canada 2020). At least in part, the more recent escalation in numbers can be attributed to the introduction of rapid testing in federal prisons. UCCO-SACC-CSN confirmed that, as of 4 November 2020, 123 federal correctional officers had tested positive (Robertson 2020). The provincial systems too have been impacted by multiple outbreaks. For instance, as of 31 October 2020, 104 of the 161 incarcerated people in the Calgary Correctional Centre had tested positive, comprising 65% of the population housed in prison, as well as 20 staff and officers (Bruch 2020). In Manitoba, at Headingley Correction Centre, 86 incarcerated persons and 24 staff and correctional officers had tested positive as of 3 November 2020 (Unger 2020). Administrators, advocates, and journalists continue to report outbreaks across the country, including at institutions such as the Saskatoon Correctional Centre and Grand Valley Institution (CBC News 2020; Ghonaim 2020). In Canadian federal penitentiaries, some facilities reported outbreaks in the early months after the virus first spread to Canada (i.e., Mission Institution in British Columbia and the Multi-level Federal Training Centre in Quebec, or more recently in Stoney Mountain Institution), with additional outbreaks following during wave two of the pandemic.

As we step out in these new and unprecedented times, we put forth considerations and associated recommendations that look to the present and future of correctional services in Canada. In doing so, we will focus on (i) recommendations that directly pertain to the current pandemic and how to best address COVID-19 related concerns in correctional systems, yet (ii) also make recommendations for people working and housed in prison now and beyond the pandemic. In the current policy brief, we provide evidence-informed recommendations for correctional services across systems in four key areas:

Canada houses individuals charged or convicted of crimes in one of fourteen unique but interconnected correctional systems: (i) the federal system known as the CSC or (ii) one of 13 different provincial and territorial systems, each governed by their own provincial or territorial Ministry or Department overseeing correctional services (e.g., Justice, Public Safety). The main difference between the federal and provincial–territorial systems is sentence duration and remand status (e.g., persons housed in prison awaiting trial or sentencing). CSC houses individuals convicted of a crime and sentenced to two or more years in prison, in institutions of diverse security classification that range from minimum (e.g., no secure perimeter) to maximum (e.g., very secure parameter) (Ricciardelli 2014b). In 2015–2016, correctional institutions in Canada housed an average of approximately 40 000 adults per day, representing a national incarceration rate of 139 per 100 000 individuals (Reitano 2017). People housed in federal institutions account for a smaller number of incarcerated persons in comparison to the provincial and territorial systems, for instance in 2017–2018 “on a typical day” 14 015 individuals were housed in one of over 50 federal penitentiaries (Correctional Service Canada 2019). Generally, after serving one-third of a federal sentence, a federally incarcerated person may be eligible for parole or for statuary release after serving two-thirds of their sentence.

The provincial and territorial correctional systems house the majority of incarcerated persons in Canada. Collectively, they oversee appropriately 177 closed-custody institutions (e.g., prisons, correctional centres, and jails) that confine individuals who are either sentenced to a prison term of two years less one day or remanded into custody. Since 2004–2005, remanded people constituted the majority of the provincial and territorial custodial population (Manitoba Government and General Employees’ Union February 9, 2012; Porter and Calverley 2011; Statistics Canada 2017b). For example, on an “average day” in 2014–2015, more adults were housed in prison awaiting trial than convicted individuals serving a sentence in custody. Specifically, in the provincial and territorial systems, of the 24 014 adults per day on average in sentenced custody and pretrial detention, 13 650 (57%) were incarcerated pretrial (Statistics Canada 2017b). Remand facilities housing incarcerated persons (i.e., jails, detention centres, and correctional centres) operate as maximum-security institutions. Although individuals remanded into custody are legally presumed innocent, they are held awaiting trial in custody, rather than the community, because they are unable to secure bail either for being considered a flight risk, a threat to the public in terms of posing a substantial likelihood to offend, or otherwise unable to satisfy basic bail requirements (e.g., lacking a surety) (Deshman and Myers 2014). After serving a portion of their sentence in custody, provincially and territorially sentenced individuals are eligible for probation.

The overwhelming majority of people enter prison with some degree of vulnerability. Incarcerated persons are likely to lack employment experience and educational attainment and often suffer from compromised mental health or challenges with substance misuse or addiction. Many incarcerated people have experienced periods of homelessness in their lives and the vast majority have experienced childhood trauma in the form of physical and sexual abuse (Bucerius et al. 2020a) and changing caregiver situations (Bucerius 2020). At the provincial level, Bucerius et al. (2020b) found that 88% of male participants and 84% of female participants identified having experienced violent victimization (e.g., hitting, getting beaten up, had weapons used against them, etc.) at some point in their lives, with a mean age of the first violent victimization that male participants could recall being 14 years, and female participants 17 years of age. In total, 34% of their male participants had experienced some form of sexual victimization (e.g., unwanted touching and sexual assault) during their lives, with a mean age of first sexual victimization for men being 7.4 years old. In total, 75% of the female sample had experienced sexual victimization, with the first victimization occurring at an average age of 9.9 years old. At the federal level, these numbers are even higher, with the great majority having experienced physical and (or) sexual abuse long before being first charged with a crime (95% of all federally sentenced women and 87% of all federally sentenced men) (Bucerius 2020). These data reflect that people housed in prison experience victimization at much higher rates than the general population in Canada. Data from the General Social Survey (GSS) (N = 33 089) reported that 32.8% of Canadian men and 22.9% of Canadian women had experienced violent victimization before the age of 15. In terms of sexual victimization, 4.6% of Canadian men and 13.2% of Canadian women have been sexually victimized prior to the age of 15 (Statistics Canada 2016).

People housed in prison are also at a disadvantage when it comes to educational attainment. At the federal level, CSC reports that between 1995 and 2005, eight in every 10 persons admitted to federal custody did not have a high school diploma. Moreover, upwards of 20% of new federal admissions had less than a grade eight education (Boe 2005). The statistics are in dramatic contrast to 14% of the Canadian population aged 25 or older who, in 2016, reported less than a high school diploma as their highest educational level (Uppal 2017). Beyond entering prison under-educated, periods of incarceration severely limit a person’s ability to develop a history of employment or to develop marketable skills that would support later reintegration (Graffam et al. 2004; Atkin and Armstrong 2013). Disadvantages become more pronounced for persons whose first experience of incarceration was during their youth or young adulthood—the period in which invaluable apprenticeship, educational, and training opportunities are highly consequential (Nagin and Waldfogel 1995). Incarcerated persons are more likely to have lower than average levels of literacy and numeracy and to lack job skills, interpersonal skills, social competencies, technological literacy, and prior work experience in comparison to the general population (Waldfogel 1994; Fletcher 2001; Nally et al. 2011; Decker et al. 2014; Young 2017).

Internationally, rates of infectious disease, chronic diseases, and mental health disorders are higher among incarcerated persons than in the general population (Harris et al. 2007; Wilper et al. 2009; Fazel and Baillargeon 2011; Stewart et al. 2014). Simply said, persons enter prison with poor baseline health. In Canada, Beaudette et al. (2015) reported that the lifetime prevalence of any mental disorder among men newly admitted to CSC ranged from 78% to 88% across regions and the prevalence of a current mental health disorder among these same men ranged from 68% to 82% (see also Stewart et al. 2017). Yet, in the general Canadian population, diagnosed mental disorder prevalence rates remain around 10% (Statistics Canada 2018). Looking at the prevalence of mental disorders among 154 women incarcerated in six CSC facilities, Brown et al. (2018) found that almost 80% of federally sentenced women in custody “meet the criteria for a current mental disorder, including high rates of alcohol and substance use, antisocial personality disorder and borderline personality disorder” (p. iii). In addition, almost two-thirds of their sample reported a major mental disorder over their lifetime and 17% a current major mental disorder.¹ Formerly incarcerated persons, in comparison to the general population, are more likely to have mental health needs, ranging from substance dependence to neurological or psychiatric needs to broader health issues (e.g., poor diet and smoking) (Graffam et al. 2004). Drawing from a sample of 2273 newly admitted adult male federally incarcerated persons in Canada, Stewart et al. (2014) determined that these men most commonly report the health conditions of head injury (34.1%), asthma (14.7%), and back pain (19.3%). Nolan and Stewart (2014) found that the most common cited health concerns among 280 newly admitted adult women incarcerated persons included back pain (26%), head injury (23%), hepatitis C virus (19%), and asthma (16%). Overall, incarcerated people tend to enter prison in already poor health and are met with in-prison health care and nutrition that requires careful evaluation to ensure that health conditions improve or, at least, do not worsen.

Many provincial and territorial prisons are currently housing fewer people in an effort to reduce prison populations during the COVID-19 pandemic (CBC News 2020; Cousins 2020; Statistics Canada 2020a). Organizational responses also include early release and reducing arrests, jail bookings, and admissions (also tied to temporary court closures or delays). We define decarceration as alternatives to incarceration, such as serving sentences in the community rather than in prison, as well as the premature conclusion of a criminal sentence, and the aggregate reduction in the prison population. Decarceration efforts have been rarer at the federal level (see, for example, Quan 2020), where incarcerated persons are serving longer sentences and have more distant eligibility dates for statuary release (i.e., incarcerated persons are eligible after serving two-thirds of a federal sentence) or parole (i.e., eligibility commences after servicing one third of a federal sentence).

Decarceration is increasingly necessary, especially during the current pandemic. Imprisonment is an expensive and often ineffective means of dealing with crime and public safety, and generally damages the well-being and life chances of those who are subjected to it, such as by severing ties to family members and employment opportunities. Imprisonment also has well-documented collateral consequences, such as how incarceration affects the children of people who are incarcerated (Murray and Farrington 2008; Turney and Wildeman 2013; Wakefield and Wildeman 2013). The link between crime and imprisonment is highly complex, meaning that changes in imprisonment rates are generally thought to have relatively little impact on rates of crime (see, for example, DeFina and Arvanites 2002; Carter 2003). In countries—such as Finland—where deliberate efforts have been made to reduce their prison populations, the evidence does not suggest an associated increase in crime rates (Lappi-Seppälä 2009).

The nature, scope, and structure of decarceration must take into account the circumstances, positioning, and needs of the incarcerated people—particularly in relation to their own safety and well-being, while balancing this with public safety. Decarceration efforts must be geared toward meeting the needs of incarcerated people (i.e., does the person who transgressed the law, even if 10, 15, or even 20 years ago, present the same threat to public safety today? What about months or weeks later post-offense?), the seriousness of the offense and potentiality for recidivism or desistance from crime, and their security classifications within the system. Providing individuals with the community supports and services that would allow them to be released and re-enter the community in a safe and humane way (e.g., ensuring that individuals have access to safe housing options, crisis counselling, etc.) seems like the “better” option than continued imprisonment.

To this end, any release planning must be informed by an individual’s history and their own views of their life, past and present, and future plans; in other words, release planning must be desistance focused. In addition, the process of releasing a person from prison must realistically assess the threat posed by the person to society and the threat society poses to the person who is being released. Considering personal safety measures and processes of rehabilitation or recovery at play in prison, care and safe housing must be assured before releasing a person during COVID-19, as should the continuation of any rehabilitative interventions from which individuals feel they are deriving benefit. The resting assumption that everyone housed in prison prefers release may ignore the individual’s perspective as researchers have demonstrated that prison can—tragically—serve as a space of temporary refuge for some incarcerated people (Bucerius et al. 2020a; Pyrooz et al. 2020). Improving the quality of various forms of welfare provision within society (e.g., housing, mental health services, refuges for victims of abuse, and drug detoxification) would reduce the likelihood of citizens regarding prisons as more positive environments than the free community. To this end, effort should be made to provide individuals with the community supports and services that would allow them to be released and re-enter the community in a safe and humane way, so that people are not put in a position where the prison seems like the “better” option.

To facilitate decarceration at all levels of the prison system, stakeholders and administrators must assess and critically examine the decarceration of halfway houses and other temporary housing spaces. Governments must closely examine the cases of those living in such facilities, recognizing who may be psychologically, socially, and physically ready for complete and successful reintegration into the community (i.e., to leave the halfway house). The release of incarcerated persons from halfway houses frees up existing space in halfway houses for persons leaving prison.

Decarceration, however, “is a process, not a one-time action” (Wang et al. 2020, pp. S-3). To this end, our recommendations include immediate actions geared toward decarceration and, given the uncertain nature of the pandemic and its duration, longer-term actions for implementation. We also advocate for equity in decarceration efforts, referring specifically to ensuring all people inside prisons are considered for early release. Equity is particularly important in relation to incarcerated Indigenous Peoples, who are disadvantaged at every stage of the criminal justice system, including when it comes to parole decisions and re-entry (Cardoso November 29 2020).

Prior to the pandemic, correctional institutions across jurisdictions suffered from overcrowding, leaving incarcerated people confined in close proximity. Double- and even triple-bunking has been a longstanding practice in Canada, particularly at the provincial–territorial level (Piché 2014). Before COVID-19, administrators often used lockdowns to punish misconduct and regain control of prison units. In the context of COVID-19, lockdowns are a strategy to prevent the spread of the virus by limiting the movement of prisoners. Incarcerated people are held in their cells for upwards of 22–23.5 h each day, a situation that profoundly limits their privacy and has significant impacts on their mental health (Grassian 2006; Arrigo and Bullock 2008; Haney 2018a, 2018b). The suspension of in-person visitations further alienates and isolates incarcerated persons. Many institutions have also suspended programming for incarcerated people (e.g., schooling, recreational activities) to prevent program staff and volunteers from entering the facilities and potentially spreading the virus.

Decarceration reduces the challenges associated with lockdowns and overcrowding. Decreasing prison populations reduces overcrowding and the need for double-bunking. It also allows for greater physical distancing among incarcerated persons and, for individuals who remain in prison, greater access to services, resources, and programming, including educational and vocational programs. There is good reason, therefore, for believing that prisons are more effective when there are fewer people in them, as well as when their overall “moral quality” is high (Auty and Liebling 2020). Those who remain in prison will have more opportunities to focus on their health and well-being, and develop life skills, as long as programming resumes or continues amidst the pandemic, potentially through alternative means of program delivery. Research demonstrates that imprisoned people desire programming they find beneficial for self-betterment, recovery, and re-entry success (Ricciardelli 2014b; Ricciardelli and Mooney 2017).

Additionally, maintaining social networks is extremely difficult for people housed in prison (Austin and Hardyman 2004). Social networks serve as support systems for successful re-entry (including social and employment re-entry supports), and losing one’s social network can have detrimental effects on imprisoned persons’ well-being and their re-entry success (Lin 2001; Berg and Huebner 2011; Wright and Cesar 2013) (as also discussed in our section on decarceration). Reducing the prison population through decarcerating means that there is more space to move people around the prison system (including locating incarcerated persons closer to their families and social networks), and we anticipate a reduced need for lockdowns as fewer numbers of people interacting may reduce conflict between the prison and staff populations. Fewer lockdowns will also allow those remaining in prison to be in contact with their social networks outside of prison and have social interactions inside of prison.

As correctional services cannot safety release all incarcerated people into the community, we make several recommendations specific to those individuals and the staff that continues to care for them.

The United Nations (2020) Department of Economic and Social Affairs has urged member states to take pre-emptive steps in addressing the unique needs and priorities of Indigenous Peoples while managing the COVID-19 outbreak. Canada’s colonial legacy has led to Indigenous Peoples disproportionately suffering from poorer health and living conditions, making them particularly susceptible during the pandemic (Bourassa 2008; Reading and Wien 2009; Bourassa et al. 2015; Noakes 2018; Gould et al. 2020; Sarangi 2020; Statistics Canada 2017a; Yellowhead Institute 2020). While most Indigenous communities have minimized the spread of COVID-19 by issuing states of emergency, rates of infection for Indigenous Peoples are increasing in places such as Manitoba (Yellowhead Institute 2020). According to the First Nations Health and Social Secretariat of Manitoba (2020), Indigenous Peoples make up approximately 9% of Manitoba’s population, yet account for 18% of the province’s COVID-19 cases, 24% of hospitalizations, 35% of patients in intensive care unit beds, and 12% of deaths (Pauls 2020).

The preceding risks are exacerbated in Canada’s prison system, where the Office of the Correctional Service Canada (2019), the United National (2018), and the United Nations Special Rapporteur on violence against women (Šimonović 2018) recognize the crisis of overrepresentation of Indigenous persons in prison.

Within criminalized populations, racial disparities have steadily increased over the past 15 years. A 2013 report from the Office of the Correctional Investigator found that from 2003 to 2013, the incarceration rates for people of colour rose by 75%. Incarceration rates for Indigenous Peoples also increased during this period, where they continue to be grossly overrepresented in all federal and territorial–provincial prisons across Canada (Owusu-Bempah and Wortley 2014). A 2020 report found that, over the past decade, the incarceration of non-Indigenous individuals decreased by 14%, while the Indigenous population in prison increased by 43% (Zinger 2020). Indigenous adults account for 28% of admissions to provincial and territorial prisons and 28% of federal admissions, despite representing only 5% of the Canadian adult population.² The overrepresentation of Indigenous people is most pronounced in the prairie region—both in the provincial and the federal correctional systems. For example, while making up only 6.5% of Alberta’s population, Indigenous Peoples represent over 45% of those housed in Alberta’s provincial and federal prisons (on average). Indigenous Peoples are also more likely to be incarcerated at a younger age than non-Indigenous Canadians (Bucerius 2020).

Overrepresentation is even more pronounced for Indigenous women, who make up 4% of the general population, but account for 43% of female admissions nationally (versus 26% for Indigenous men) and over 41% of incarcerated women in federal prisons (Maleakieh 2018; Zinger 2019). Furthermore, the Edmonton Institution for Women (a federal prison for all women sentenced in the prairie region) houses, on average, 65% Indigenous women (Short 2020).

Threading the experiences of incarceration is Canada’s legacy of colonialism, which continues to impact Indigenous people’s health (Bourassa 2008, p. 24). Researchers have pointed to intergenerational trauma, also referred to as transgenerational trauma or historical trauma, as leading to increased substance abuse and violence (Bombay et al. 2009). Intergenerational trauma describes how trauma can be transmitted across generations, as evidenced by how the Sixties Scoops and residential schools have traumatized survivors and continues to affect families. Intergenerational trauma can shape the well-being and lived experiences of Indigenous people, including those housed in prison. The Correctional Investigator, Ivan Zinger (2019) showed that 92% of federally incarcerated Indigenous women suffer from moderate to high substance abuse needs and 97% had a diagnosed mental health disorder. Research in provincial prisons in Alberta demonstrates that incarcerated Indigenous individuals are more likely to have been victims of sexual and violent crime than non-Indigenous incarcerated persons, and are more likely to have been victimized at a younger age when these crimes occurred against them. The disparity is even more pronounced for incarcerated Indigenous women (Bucerius et al. unpublished data). As the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls (2019) suggests, we take a “trauma-informed approach” by incorporating evidence-based knowledge of incarcerated persons’ victimization history into our recommendations (p. 173).

Canada’s legacy of colonialism underpins higher rates of poverty among Indigenous communities, constituting and perpetuating structural inequalities that impact health and access to health care. For instance, among Indigenous Peoples, status First Nation children on reserve and off-reserve experience poverty rates of 53% and 41%, respectively. Moreover, 32% of nonstatus First Nations, 25% of Inuit children, and 22% of Métis children live in poverty (Sarangi 2020). Research strongly suggests that impoverished living conditions can lead to health risks and affect life expectancy (Noakes August 23 2018). Life expectancy estimates illuminate pronounced differences between Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations in Canada (Statistics Canada 2017a). The life expectancy among non-Indigenous Canadian women is 84 years, contrasting 73 years for Inuit women, 80 years for Métis women, and 78 years for First Nations women (Statistics Canada 2017a). The life expectancy of non-Indigenous Canadian men averages 79 years, contrasting 73 years for First Nations men, and 64 years for Inuit men (Statistics Canada 2017a). Chronic health conditions are also more common among the Indigenous population than non-Indigenous Canadians (Reading and Wien 2009). Bourassa (2008) explained that Indigenous persons are more likely to experience co-morbid health conditions at younger ages (e.g., respiratory illness, diabetes), thus affecting morbidity, which in the context of COVID-19 increases vulnerability to complications from infections.

Nevertheless, for some incarcerated Indigenous individuals, prison is their only or main source of “help” (Bucerius et al. 2020a), citing access to health care, educational and cultural programming, food, and shelter that they otherwise would not have on the outside. Our recommendations account for this understanding of prison by encouraging prison programming and release efforts that involve collaboration with community institutions concerning health, transportation, employment, and culture. Our recommendations also incorporate the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada’s “calls to action” and the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls’ “calls for justice”.

In Canada, the majority of persons under the supervision of correctional services, at the federal or provincial and territorial levels, are living in the community on conditional release (publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/ccrso-2018/index-en.aspx). All formerly incarcerated persons, those undergoing early release or those released on schedule, require a plausible, customized, and fitting reintegration plan. The plan must include considerations tied to needs for housing and daily living, social and employment support, a continuity in health care, and assistance to understand the restrictions tied to conditions of release. When considering the future of community correctional services, we recommend rigorous re-envisioning of the caseloads of community correctional employees, as well as supporting their mental health both preventatively and reactively.

Our suggestions for responding to the current COVID-19 crisis also create space for rethinking some aspects of incarceration more broadly, both in Canada and abroad. We suggest policymakers, stakeholders, and others reconsider whether sentences are appropriate, if all persons in prison need to be there, and if some incarcerated individuals can be safely reintegrated. Particularly, we recommend officials consider releasing incarcerated persons who pose minimal risk to re-offend. Officials need to contemplate how else we can reduce overcrowding—without building larger prisons, which are antithetical to the aims of decarceration. Additional pressing questions that need to be addressed include how to promote family unification beyond free phone and video calls and how to assist incarcerated people to maintain positive and healthy connections in the community. We urge governments and policymakers to consider these questions and evaluate possibilities for informed and structured decarceration and alternatives to imprisonment for those incarcerated persons who can safely live in the community. The COVID-19 crisis is an opportunity to rethink old practices and reform on a broad scale.