I Told You So: The Scandal at Summit View

 

Last year another Aedifice@ was constructed to contain so-called Adangerous youth@ in a super-max prison going by the newspeak name of ASummit View Correctional Center.@  Both before and after the opening of this institution, I wrote columns in area newspapers (AImprisoning youth: There must be a better way,@ Review-Journal, July 11, 1999 and AIf it looks like a prison...,@ Las Vegas City Life, June 22, 2000) where I predicted bad things would happen.  I hate to say it, but I told you so. 

In the first article I argued that those who will benefit most from the building of this institution would be the vendors who provide various services to these kinds of institutions (just think of what goes into the building and the maintenance of any prison or jail and you’ll come up with all sorts of profitable enterprises Acashing in on crime@).  And this does not count Correctional Services Corporation, one of several companies making profits from locking people up.  This is, after all, a multi-billion dollar industry - what many have called the APrison Industrial Complex.@  I also mentioned what a terrible waste it is to spend all this money ($20 million or so to build, and about $4 million per year to operate, more than $100 per offender per day on average, while money for prevention (including such causal factors as child abuse and neglect, drug abuse, broken families, discrimination, poverty, etc.) receives a pittance.  Nevada=s state budget on juvenile justice a couple of years ago earmarked less than 10% on prevention - mostly spending on new probation officers, with the rest going to building this new institution plus other infrastructure expenditures - a measly $200,000 or so for drug treatment.

The state of Nevada justified this new institution mostly by way of a survey of youthful offenders in state training schools found that about 115 of them were Aserious and chronic@ offenders and thus were too Adangerous@ for the existing training schools.  Sure, these offenders committed some serious felonies.  However, passing judgement on a person=s life based upon the Arecord@ on file somewhere - especially in juvenile court - may lead to some erroneous conclusions about this individual.  This is because every Acrime@ has a context behind it and if you look only at the offense charged you will be missing a lot.  Even the word Afelony@ is often misleading.  (Theft of a bicycle is a “felony,” as is possessing one marijuana cigarette.)  The criteria that were eventually used to determine which offenders ended up in this maximum security institution were dubious at best; at worst, it was a complete fraud. 

The reason I make such a serious charge is that (as I pointed out in the City Life article) is that a point system was set up to determine who would be eligible to be sent to Summit View. Also, juvenile offenders were classified according to four different Alevels@ based upon the total points for their offenses.  Level I offenders were the least serious, while Level IV was the most serious.  As I pointed out at the time, to assign any numeric value to a specific offense is quite arbitrary.  The classification system that was used divided offenses into four categories: minor, serious, severe, and violent.  I could find no scientific rationale, no previous research that justified these categories.  (One would think that when we are dealing with the lives of juveniles and ostensibly looking out for the protection of the public, criteria would have some rational and scientific basis.) 

One example I found was that Agrand larceny auto@ was rated Asevere@ while just plain Agrand larceny@ was Aserious.@  Also, a Abomb threat@ was classified as Aserious,@ but not Asevere@ nor even Aviolent.@  Another example: 60 points were assigned for a violent offense, but only 12 points for a Asevere@ offense.  Within the Aviolent category@ was armed robbery, but within the Aserious@ category one would find Astalking.@  Is armed robbery five times more serious than stalking?  Also, grand theft auto was given 12 points, while domestic violence was given only six points.  Is an auto more valuable than a woman being abused or stalked?  You get the picture. One important finding from this survey that needs mention here is that as you proceed from level I to level IV the proportion of racial minorities (especially blacks) increase exponentially.  A cursory look inside Summit View will find few white faces.

I predicted at the time that the state would have trouble finding enough Adangerous@ youth to house in this facility.  Well, that prediction certainly came true.  During the first year of operation Summit View had one hell of a time filling the beds (96 were originally provided).  In fact, I learned through various sources (people both in and out of the system) that Correctional Services Corporation needed 60 beds filled in order to make a profit.  In time they became so desperate to fill beds that they Aborrowed@ some juvenile offenders from the overcrowded detention center at the Juvenile and Family Court Services (while they awaited completion of an extension of their own detention center).  Keep in mind that these kids were already committed to regular institutions in Nevada, yet Summit View was created for kids ostensibly too Adangerous@ for regular training schools.  One searches in vain to find truly Adangerous@ offenders and they are rarely found.  And, curiously, most of those so classified come from the ranks of the poor and racial minorities.  Yet there is what I have called the AField of Dreams Syndrome@ at work here - build them and they will come.  If you have empty beds, some way will be found to fill them, even if you have to do some Acreative classification@ (a very common procedure - probably done at Summit View, although I have no data to support this).

So what has happened since the opening of Summit View just over one year ago?  Not much, just the firing of three or four administrators, procedures not being followed, a sex scandal involving two women Acorrectional workers@ (aged 22 and 24) who are charged with engaging in oral sex with certain youths, a protest by 19 boys who complained that when the most recent administration took over, all the progress they had made was negated and they had to start anew.  They are charged with trying to escape.  Court cases are currently pending.  Also, Summit View hired someone who had been arrested for having sex with a juvenile and a background check did not reveal this.

But there is perhaps a bigger problem here.  Among the promises that were made when this new facility was opened was that it would save the state money and provide troubled kids some good programming.  This is the typical promise made by companies seeking to profit from crime.  They rarely succeed in saving the state money and they rarely succeed in reducing crime.  (They can=t really afford to have crime reduced, as it would reduce their profits.)  And since profit is the driving force, personnel are counted as Acosts@ and so cutting these Acosts@ means cutting corners on whom they hired, how much they are paid, and even the costs of the programs which are suppose to help these kids.  Well, during the past year it looks as if neither of these goals has been reached at Summit View. 

As reported in the Las Vegas Sun the company that has run the prison, Youth Services International, has announced that it wants out of its $4.3 million annual contract (AOperator of privatized youth prison calls it quits,@ September 24, 2001).  The state is now considering its options on how to run the facility. This is another example of the consistent failure of the privatization of prisons.  But we are still left with the most serious problem, as I see it.