Rethinking standards on prison cell size in a (post)pandemic world: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE: To describe the current international, regional and national standards on prison cell spatial density and the evidence for the association between COVID-19 transmission and prison crowding measures to provide recommendations on prison cell spatial density standards for a (post) pandemic world. DESIGN: Scoping review. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, ProQuest, Informit, Criminal Justice Abstracts, Cochrane, Web of Science, Scopus, EMBASE, Google Scholar and Google were searched up to November 2021. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Guidelines were included provided they described standards of prison accommodation with respect to prison cells. Studies were included provided they examined an association between COVID-19 cases and a crowding measure. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data were extracted by one reviewer and cross-checked by another. Quantitative and qualitative data on prison cell standards and characteristics of studies examining an association between COVID-19 and prison crowding were collected. Findings were synthesised qualitatively. RESULTS: Seventeen reports and six studies met eligibility criteria. International and regional standards on cell spatial density were mostly qualitative, with two quantifiable international standards located (3.4 m(2) and 3.5 m(2) per person for multiple occupancy cells), and two quantifiable regional standards located (4 m(2) per person (Europe) and 5.75 m(2) or 4 m(2) per person (Australia and New Zealand)). Country-based standards varied substantially, ranging from 1.25 m(2) per person (Pakistan) to 10 m(2) per person (Netherlands). Consideration of airborne transmission of disease in prisons were mostly overlooked or absent to rationalise standards. There was consistent evidence that prison crowding measures were associated with COVID-19 transmission/cases. CONCLUSION: Considering the physics of respiratory emissions, we recommend prison cell spatial density standards be updated to reflect graded levels of risk that consider other factors that combine to inform airborne transmission risk. Decarceration strategies should be considered and become vital if standards are not met.