Where Do You Go When Your Prison Cell Floods? Inadequacy of Current Climate Disaster Plans of US Departments of Correction

The global climate crisis is the most significant, potentially irreversible environmental threat to humanity we face.¹ In the last three years, we have experienced the warmest years on global record, and the number of extreme climate-related events is projected to increase.² The negative impacts of these events are disproportionate across different populations: Black individuals are 40% more likely than White people to reside in areas with the highest projected increases in extreme temperature-related deaths.³

One understudied factor that may exacerbate the impact of climate disaster events on individuals is incarceration status. Incarceration is a key facet of structural racism in the United States. The United States contains 25% of the world’s incarcerated population despite making up less than 5% of the world’s overall population, and marginalized individuals are overrepresented in these settings.⁴ Carceral systems have historically experienced heightened morbidity and mortality from climate disasters when systems have not evacuated facilities or taken other preventative actions; this was evident in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, where residents of Orleans Parish, Louisiana prisons were left in their cells without water, food, and ventilation for days while correctional staff left their posts.⁵ In addition, jails and prisons themselves present environmental risk. Prisons contribute to greenhouse gas emissions, and people inside are regularly exposed to contaminated water, hazardous waste, and food insecurity.⁶

Despite this, there is currently no unified federal plan to provide oversight or relief to incarcerated people during climate disaster events. As a result, states are responsible for developing and enacting emergency management (EM) plans that cover the entire state, including those living in congregate settings. The design and implementation of these plans vary state to state, with specific tasks delegated to relevant state agencies, departments, and sometimes nongovernmental organizations. To identify how incarcerated people are represented in climate disaster response, we reviewed state and department of correction (DOC) policies on disaster planning.

Disaster Response in Carceral Settings

To characterize the inclusion of incarcerated people in statewide protocols for disaster response, we performed a content analysis of each state’s EM plan. These plans were identified by searching state government Web sites with the terms “emergency management plan” and “disaster response plan.” Using an inductive approach, we qualitatively coded state plans for mentions of incarcerated people and DOC system-level guidance. We also coded DOC-specific EM plans for all 50 states; these plans were searched for on DOC Web sites. Searches for both DOC and state-level plans were performed in February of 2022. After all coding was complete, a thematic analysis was performed to identify consistent findings across state and DOC EM plans.

We identified 40 states with publicly shared EM plans on their government Web site. Of these 40 states, 30 (75%) mentioned incarcerated people in some capacity. Six states (15%) included protocols around DOC resident safety and evacuation. The most common mentions of incarcerated individuals were in the context of labor: 24 states (60%) mentioned DOC resident labor for disaster mitigation; 14 states (35%) mentioned only DOC resident labor for disaster mitigation, with no other references to incarcerated people or the DOC; 10 states (25%) did not mention the DOC or incarcerated people in their published EM plans (Table 1).

TABLE 1—

Content Analysis of State and Department of Corrections (DOC) Emergency Management (EM) Plans: United States, 2022

	No. (%) of State EM Plans (n = 40)	No. (%) of DOC EM Plans (n = 17)
Mentioned DOC resident labor	24 (60)	7 (41)
Only mentioned DOC resident labor	14 (35)	4 (24)
Mentioned DOC resident evacuation or safety	6 (15)	6 (35)
Mentioned DOC provision of resources	9 (23)	0 (0)
No mention of incarcerated people or DOC	10 (25)	NA

Note. NA = not applicable.

Overall, 33 DOCs (66%) did not have EM plans published on their Web site at the time of this analysis. Of the 17 DOCs that did have published EM plans, seven systems (41%) discussed resident labor. Twenty-four percent (n = 4) of DOCs only discussed labor, with no other references to resident safety or DOC provision of resources. Six DOCs (35%) discussed protocols to promote resident safety during disasters. Full references for state and DOC EM plans can be found in the Appendix (available as a supplement to the online version of this article at http://www.ajph.org).

Implications and Solutions

Most state and DOC EM plans do not outline how to protect the safety of incarcerated populations and carceral staff. Common themes across state and DOC-level EM plans include resident labor and use of materials from DOCs, with few mentions of resident safety. Because carceral settings are often situated in areas that are disparately affected by climate disasters, this lack of guidance may result in excess negative impact during public health emergencies.

More than half of the EM plans that indicate the use of incarcerated labor to mitigate climate disasters do not provide any insight into other procedures to prioritize the health and well-being of incarcerated people. Where EM policies indicate tasks delegated to those in the custody of the DOC, safety precautions are notably absent; only one DOC (Colorado) indicated that the medical needs of incarcerated work crews would be assessed on an ongoing basis in the event of a disaster. Overall, only six states outlined protocols to keep incarcerated individuals safe in the event of a disaster.

Carceral institutions follow policies developed by the American Correctional Association (ACA). The ACA states that all staff must be trained in the facility’s emergency management plans but does not specify any standards of care during these emergencies.^7(p198) Whereas carceral standards for disaster risk management and response are lacking in the United States, other nations maintain robust guidelines. Indonesia provides comprehensive protocols for staff training, resident evacuation, risk assessment, and contingency planning. Jails in the Philippines are required to maintain and update emergency operational plans. Staff and detainees must routinely participate in drills designed to respond to climate disasters.⁶

To ensure that DOCs adequately prepare for these emergencies, federal funding could be contingent on creating these essential features of operation. Eligibility requirements or post-award audits for federal emergency relief and preparedness funds could be changed to include precise requirements for the presence of robust operations plans. Incentivizing the creation of these programs promotes a system wherein state emergency response agencies, with the support of the ACA, routinely audit and evaluate carceral emergency operations plans. Crucially, this avoids the lengthy process of rewriting federal statutes and delivers flexible solutions in the shortest time frame.

Longer-term solutions include creating policies that explicitly require the protection and well-being of prison residents. EM plans should include an evacuation policy and plan to provide food, water, clothing, and shelter. If incarcerated labor is mentioned in these policies, there should be protocols in place to ensure that people are appropriately compensated with money or sentence reduction. Visits with health care staff should be prioritized, as the labor can be mentally and physically demanding. Ultimately, systems can also actively work to reduce carceral populations to minimize the number of individuals affected by a climate disaster.

The infrastructure of carceral facilities, overcrowding, and higher rates of chronic medical conditions all contribute to the likelihood that climate-related disasters significantly affect the health of incarcerated people.⁵ However, few state or DOC EM plans indicate how this increased risk will be mitigated. These findings add to the growing evidence that there is a lack of transparency with respect to climate disaster response and little accountability regarding this population. There must be significantly greater oversight of policies and procedures to protect incarcerated people in the event of climate disasters, particularly as the world faces a global climate crisis of increasing severity.