|
CorrectCare
 |
|
Condom Machine Rules
• Take
only one condom per visit to the gym.
• Immediately open condom package and discard the
external paper box and cellophane wrapper.
• Condoms enclosed in the clear sealed plastic
wrapper are not contraband.
• Condoms remaining in the box or removed from the
clear sealed plastic wrapper are contraband and will
be confiscated.
• Having sex in jail is illegal under California
Penal Code § 286(e).
• Failure to obey these rules will result in
discontinuation of this condom access program. |
Prevention in
Practice: Access to Condoms in California
By Mary Sylla, JD, MPH
Providing
inmates with access to condoms is controversial. To some it
seems hypocritical—why would we give inmates condoms when it’s
illegal to have sex in jail and prison?—and to others it seems
like common sense, unless we pretend to ignore the fact that
some sexual activity takes place in jails and prisons. There are
clearly pros and cons and unusual challenges to adopting a harm
reduction strategy in a law-and-order environment.
On Oct. 15,
2007, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed the latest
“prison condom bill” to hit his desk. But this time he directed
the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to
determine the “risk and viability of such a program” by
establishing a pilot program.
What follows is
a review of the inmate condom access programs in two jails—one
in Los Angeles and one in San Francisco—administered by the
Center for Health Justice, a community-based nonprofit
organization focused on HIV and incarceration, and ongoing
research on those programs.
Condom
Access: Pros and Cons
There are serious concerns about providing inmates with
condoms. Introducing anything new into the security environment
provides an additional potential tool for conducting illegal
activities, including secreting contraband and assaulting staff
with bodily fluids or excrement (called “gassing” in
California).
Furthermore, in
a rule-based environment it can be considered hypocritical to
tell inmates it’s illegal to engage in sexual activity and then
provide the means to “safely” engage in that activity. From this
viewpoint it sends the wrong message. Condoms also could be used
by assailants to prevent evidence of sexual assault from
remaining.
But there are
also reasons why provision of condoms to inmates might be a good
idea. Even though it is illegal to have sex in jail or prison,
that rule cannot be perfectly enforced in the many overcrowded
and understaffed institutions in this country.
Both scientific
evidence and popular media point to the fact that sexual
activity takes place behind bars. Last year the CDC published in
the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report a study that
documented seroconversion during incarceration. Those who became
HIV-infected were 8 to 10 times as likely as likely to report
engaging in male-to-male sexual activity while in prison than
those who did not.
The prevalence
of known HIV among prisoners is extremely high, 5 to 7 times
that of the general population. The very behaviors that put
people at risk for HIV infection—injection drug use and sex
work—are also behaviors that can lead to incarceration. In the
United States, approximately one in four persons with HIV
infection passes through a jail or prison each year, and many of
those do not know they are infected. Therefore, a considerable
number of HIV-infected inmates may unwittingly transmit their
infection to others.
Where Are
Condoms Provided?
Condoms are provided to inmates in county jails in Los
Angeles, San Francisco, Washington, D.C., Philadelphia and New
York, and in the state prisons in Vermont and Mississippi. The
manner in which condoms are made available varies widely, and
most reach only a small subset of the inmate population.
In Los Angeles,
the Center for Health Justice distributes free condoms to a
segregated gay male population only, one condom per week per
inmate, a limit imposed by the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department.
San Francisco’s
Forensic AIDS Project (part of the Department of Public Health)
distributes condoms upon request through its public health
nurses in one-on-one health counseling sessions, one per person,
per request, and upon release. Earlier this year the Center for
Health Justice in San Francisco installed a condom dispensing
machine—a vending machine set to require no payment—in a gym to
which 800 inmates have access. About 70 condoms per week are
taken from the machine.
In Washington,
D.C., inmates in the D.C. jail system have access to free
condoms during health education classes, voluntary HIV pretest
or posttest counseling, or upon request to members of the health
care staff. The jail’s health educator and staff of a
community-based AIDS service provider distribute about 200
condoms to inmates each month.
In
Philadelphia, inmates can get condoms from the medical services
department or through the commissary.
Two Pilot
Programs in California
The Los
Angeles County Jail Model
The Los Angeles condom access program was the result of a unique
set of circumstances: A new custody chief—who had just been
promoted from medical services—approached the Center for Health
Justice about the possibility of designing a program that could
provide gay male inmates in dormitory-style housing units with
access to condoms without involving custody staff or time.
The program
today exists as it did when implemented: Once a week a health
educator from the Center for Health Justice goes into each dorm,
provides a brief, interactive HIV education session, explains
the rules of the program (including that sex is still illegal in
jail under California law and that the condoms are not to leave
the dorm or they will be considered contraband) and hands one
condom to each inmate who lines up to receive one.
Although the
average has changed over time, the Center for Health Justice
currently distributes about 120 condoms per week to the 300+
inmates in this unit.
To evaluate
this program, 101 of the approximately 300 inmates who live in
the unit for segregated gay males were asked a series of
questions through a computer-assisted self-interview program.
Although the formal data analysis has not been completed,
interesting statistics compiled so far include that 93% of
respondents were aware of the condom program and 82% had
received at least one condom from the program. Fifty-three
percent of respondents reported anal sex during the past 30
days—but despite access to condoms, 75% of those individuals
said it was unprotected. The three top reasons for not using
condoms were (1) my partner and I are both HIV negative (or
positive), (2) I ran out of condoms and (3) I don’t like the way
condoms feel.
Information was
gathered about other methods of condom access: 66% preferred the
current method of distribution; other methods of distribution
cited were medical (41%), vending (10%) or canteen (8%).
Charles R. Drew
University’s Nina Harawa, PhD, MPH, and the Center for Health
Justice (with funding from the Institute for Community Health
Research, itself funded by the California HIV/AIDS Research
Program) are evaluating the pilot program to determine whether
it is reducing sexual risk activity. The results of this
evaluation will be finalized and published during the coming
year, but they support the assertion that some risk-reduction is
achieved in this population through access to condoms.
The San
Francisco County Jail Model
In San Francisco, the Center for AIDS Prevention Studies and
Olga Grinstead, PhD, MPH, are conducting research on a novel way
to provide inmates with access to condoms that has been
successful in other countries.
As mentioned
above, in San Francisco, inmates have had access to condoms
since 1987 through the Forensic AIDS Project. In the fall of
2006, the Center for Health Justice, Dr. Grinstead and the
Forensic AIDS Project approached the sheriff of San Francisco
about installing a condom dispensing machine, in part because of
reports from Forensic AIDS Project staff that the demographic
characteristics of the health educator seemed to influence
whether a inmate being counseled took a condom. The Center for
Health Justice sought to evaluate a method of providing access
to condoms that is more anonymous as well as less
staff-intensive.
The dispensing
machine program and its pilot feasibility are being conducted by
the Center for Health Justice in collaboration with the Forensic
AIDS Project. The machine was installed in April 2007 in a gym
to which 800 inmates have access every week for their three
hours of recreation. Sheriff Michael Hennessey himself, to
provide a large number of inmates with access to the machine,
suggested the precise location.
Before the
machine was installed, brief written surveys were conducted with
inmates to elicit baseline information about their HIV status,
knowledge of the existing condom program and risk behavior.
Interviews were conducted with sheriff’s department staff to
assess attitudes about condom access for inmates and to
determine potential security concerns. Center for Health Justice
staff also made presentations to all deputy staff and inmates
affected by the program before the machine was installed. The
same written survey and similar interviews were conducted after
the machine was operational for four months.
The machine
itself is a low-profile, tamper-resistant unit, designed to
withstand break-in attempts. It dispenses condoms in a
cellophane-wrapped paper box. Inside the box the condoms are
enclosed in another cellophane wrapper. The “Condom Machine
Rules” posted next to the machine indicate that condoms are to
be removed from the box and carried only in the clear wrapper,
with the condom inside visible.
During the
study period the Center for Health Justice has successfully
installed, stocked and maintained the condom machine. Data
analyses of the pre- and post-surveys and interviews are
currently underway. Preliminary data analyses indicate that
inmate self-report of sexual activity did not increase during
the study period. In addition, the custody staff have reported
no increase in reported sexual activity or any other security
problems related to increased condom access.
We have
encountered few operational problems, the most notable falling
on the staff restocking the machine: The machine was difficult
to open and close for restocking and sometimes jammed. A new
model of machine has been purchased to address these problems.
Condoms
Coming Soon to a Facility Near You?
While controversial, there is a trend toward increased
inmate access to condoms. The CDC now recommends that prison
systems with existing condom distribution programs evaluate
those programs, and those without such programs consider the
feasibility of implementing them.
Gov.
Schwarzenegger’s “friendly” veto of legislation requiring inmate
access to condoms may result in a pilot project across the
state. At the federal level, California Rep. Barbara Lee’s
JUSTICE Act of 2007 (H.R. 178), modeled on the California bill,
requires federal prisoners to have access to condoms. Even where
legislation is not pending, jails and prisons are considering
the issue.
Regardless,
programs that involve corrections cannot be successful without
the support of the administration of corrections systems. The
best circumstances for risk reduction involve input at the
development stage, and any success these programs have is a
credit to the professionalism of the corrections staff in the
facilities where they exist.—
About the author: Mary
Sylla, JD, MPH, is the director of policy and advocacy at the
Center for Health Justice, based in West Hollywood and Larkspur,
CA;
http://healthjustice.net. This article is a written version
of a presentation given at the National Conference on
Correctional Health Care in Nashville on Oct. 17, 2007. It is a
slightly abridged version of an article that appeared in the
October-November issue of IDCR.
[This article first appeared in the
Fall 2007 issue of CorrectCare.]
|