Nevadans paying hefty price for

Nevadans paying hefty price for >war= on crime

It appears that Nevada "needs" another juvenile "correctional institution" - in this case this state's first "maximum-security detention center" for male offenders (Las Vegas Sun, March 11, 1999). This institution will be built in North Las Vegas at an estimated cost of around $20 million (spread out over 30 years for a mortgage, this means more like $60 million), a cost which does not count operating expenses (at least $4 million per year. Apparently no one took a critical look at why we really need such an institution nor explored what kinds of alternatives are available for these so-called "hardened offenders," other than maximum-security institutions.

The citizens of Nevada would be much better off to spend the money on proven alternatives for so-called "dangerous" youth. (More on alternatives later.) As history shows, the recidivism rates for such institutions have averaged around 80-90%. Not a good investment, especially when we are merely "training" these youths to become more thoroughly enmeshed in a criminal life style when they return to society.

Starting in the 1820s our society began down the long, disastrous road of building such institutions, which would become the most costly and negative social experiment in the world. We began in New York with the "houses of refuge," continued with the building of "reform schools," then began the build-up of "reformatories" and "industrial and training schools" and finally with just plain "training schools." The results? High recidivism rates, numerous scandals (resulting in the closure of many an institution), physical and mental abuse of inmates and a continual growth in the youth crime problem. This grand experiment finally hit a roadblock in the early 1970s as our society began to experiment with the closing of many such institutions and the replacement with community alternatives. Lo and behold people began to discover that the kinds of offenders typically found in such institutions were not the "dangerous predators" the media hype led us to believe (a recent report notes that even today less than 15% of those in juvenile institutions are violent offenders) and that most can be more easily treated in the several alternatives that abound.

Apparently Nevada is not buying this argument, as it wants to "get tough" and "send a message" to our youthful "predators." We must ask, however, why, in the face of such overwhelming evidence of the failure of this approach, Nevada wants to build a new youth prison. Could the reason be that it is more profitable for private industry, such as Correctional Services, Inc. of Florida, who will operate the prison after it is built. Incidentally, the reader should investigate how the profits of such private corporations have soared in recent years ("invest in prisons, it's good for business" should be the buzz words) and the huge profits to be made by those who furnish everything from bar soap to toilet seats. This "crime control industry" collects billions of dollars in profits from the existence of crime every year. It needs victims and it needs a steady supply of offenders, no matter what age.

There are alternatives. An example is a program that I evaluated two years ago in San Francisco. Known as the "Detention Diversion Advocacy Program," it concentrates on "high risk" youth who would otherwise be housed either in juvenile detention or be sent to "maximum-security" institutions. The program also utilizes a range of different community services (such as mental health centers, drug treatment programs, recreation programs, family counseling programs) for each youthful offender it supervises. The results of my evaluation found that the recidivism rate of offenders within this program was 50% less than a comparable group left within the juvenile justice system!

Space does not permit a full description of this program, nor others like it. Suffice it to say it demonstrates that sending serious offenders to what amounts to a "juvenile prison" is costly and counterproductive.

Because of unjustified fears of crime (perpetuated by a media that believes in the credo "If it bleeds, it leads"), the public has been led to believe that crime among juveniles is "out of control" and that we need to "get tougher" (we have passed the stage of "getting tough") on these "super-predators." Guess what the reality is? Juvenile crime has decreased in recent years and that these prisons are becoming more and more populated with racial minorities charged with non-violent crimes, especially drug offenses. Moreover, we are dealing with the kinds of offenders who began in our system of juvenile justice as victims (including physical and emotional abuse, educational and medical neglect) and became in time victimizers, largely because we have chosen to spend money at the "back end" of the system rather than in the "front end."

Think of the money that will be spent on a new institution and think of what kinds of alternative programs the money can be used for. Think of the $60 million dollars spread out over the next 30 years and think more than $4 million each year (operating expenses noted above) that could be used more productively. What a horrible waste of money and lives!

Update: Nevadans - and taxpayers all over the country - continue to pay a hefty price, especially in light of the budget crises hitting virtually every state in the country, resulting in cut-backs in many needed social services. Few cut-backs can be found, however, within the crime control industry, as usual.