We’re tough on crime here in Nevada. Very tough.
Residents who howl in opposition to increased taxes for such trifles as quality public schools and a modicum of social services have no trouble calling for tougher laws and longer sentences. Tax increases for education are controversial, but no one ever had to float a bond in this state to build a prison.
That’s because we’re tough on crime in Nevada. And when voters cast ballots for politicians and judges who shout the loudest about how very tough they’ll be on those lowlifes and ne’er-do-wells among us, they inevitably provide plenty of business for our bustling penitentiary industrial complex. Unofficial motto: “If you build it, they will fill it.”
Although we rank 15th nationally in adult incarceration by population, according to the state Department of Corrections — and it’s intriguing to note the crime rate statewide has actually decreased in recent years — there’s little likelihood the Silver State will cease being very tough on crime any time soon.
The trouble with putting so many people in prison is that someone has to keep an eye on them. That old expression about “locking them up and throwing away the key” might work on the campaign trail, but in reality it takes trained correctional officers to prevent chaos and bloodletting.
This is where tough-on-crime Nevada suddenly becomes downright docile. An in-depth assessment of shift relief requirements and staff needs at Nevada prisons by the Association of State Correctional Administrators in September 2014 determined our prisons operated 100 officers and supervisors short of their legislative mandate. That’s no small number.
And correctional officers I’ve interviewed say even that figure is deceiving. The Department of Corrections, they said, commonly counted inexperienced cadets and trainees as certified staffers. A single officer was commonly tasked with monitoring up to 200 inmates in circulation, they said.
A lack of sufficient direct supervision created a challenge, the study found. “Although optimum staffing provides for direct supervision, staff shortages often result in facilities operating under intermittent supervision, where officers patrol the housing units but are not physically present in the unit at all times, because they are required to cover more than one unit when staff shortages exist.”
The analysis also found that the department, rather conveniently for the state’s political elite, had been using inaccurate methodology. The report concluded, “The reason the 100 staff are required is because the existing shift relief factor was based on out of date estimates of the number of days staff were actually available to work their posts. That underestimation resulted in a shortage of 100 staff that meant mandated posts either went unfilled, or were filled with staff working overtime.”
While you might think prison officials would make certain sufficient professionally trained staff were on the job at Nevada’s toughest prisons, the assessment found that wasn’t the case.
In attempting to divvy up the projected additional staff needed to reach the legislative minimums, the experts found High Desert State Prison 27 staffers short. Ely State Prison lacked 15 staffers, Lovelock’s Northern Nevada facility 13, and Southern Desert 12. But, again, veteran officers interviewed said the numbers don’t tell the whole story. It’s not just a lack of personnel; it’s a lack of experience of those on the job as well.
If you’re wondering how an inexperienced correctional officer trainee at High Desert State Prison found himself unsupervised with a 12-gauge shotgun in his hands on the night in November 2014 when authorities allege he committed involuntary manslaughter while attempting to break up an inmate brawl, perhaps the report’s findings will help end the confusion.
After what appeared to be a lot of thoughtful analysis, the assessment acknowledged another factor common to many jurisdictions when the subject is the maintenance of a professionally trained and sufficiently staffed prison system. Adding 100 trained staffers and supervisors was no simple matter.
“Recognizing that it is neither reasonable nor realistic to expect all of the recommendations to be implemented immediately,” the report stated, “we strongly recommend adoption of a phased implementation of the recommended increases in staff.”
We’re tough on crime here in Nevada. Very tough.
Until it comes time to pay the check.
John L. Smith’s is a columnist for the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Contact him at jsmith@reviewjournal.com. On Twitter: @jlnevadasmith