James Hardesty

Sun, Sep 14, 2008 (2 a.m.)

Carson City — Nevada, like other states, faces two harsh realities that are increasingly converging. We are experiencing one of the worst economic downturns in the state’s history, and at the same time serious overcrowding in our prisons and county jails.

According to a recent survey, the Nevada Corrections Department is housing inmates at 134 percent of its capacity. As a result, we again are faced with calls to spend more than $286 million to build yet another prison. Overcrowding and the increased costs of supervising an aging prison population threaten the state’s budget at a time when we can least afford it.

So what is Nevada to do? To start, the state should implement and adequately fund proven strategies that stem the flow of inmates into prison, reduce recidivism and protect the public. And, we can plan for the future.

During the past decade funding for proven strategies to address prison overcrowding and reduce recidivism has been inadequate and little has been done to plan for the problem we now face. Although the 1995 Legislature created the Advisory Sentencing Commission to make recommendations concerning sentencing, prisons and related matters, the commission did not meet in the six years before the 2007 legislative session. And, a 2002 governor’s task force made recommendations, but little action was taken to implement them.

Instead, the state devoted resources to build prisons while underfunding programs that reduce recidivism. This does not mean the Corrections Department is adequately funded. It is not. The department not only faces the inefficiency and cost of operating over capacity, but the funding shortfall causes significant waiting lists for treatment, education and job training programs that would reduce recidivism when inmates return to society.

As many in the criminal justice system recognize, proven strategies to keep defendants out of prison also have been underfunded. Drug and mental health courts have changed lives, kept people out of prison and reduced recidivism. Yet there is funding for only 75 slots in the Clark County Mental Health Court program when more than 350 are needed. The lack of services, treatment, housing and supervision capacity prevents judges from using proven alternatives to incarcerating defendants.

Funding pressures also raise important public safety concerns. Recent cuts to the Parole and Probation Division’s budget resulted in 57 vacant positions in Clark County alone. Personnel shortages reduce the division’s capacity to supervise defendants on probation and inmates granted parole or placed in residential confinement. And when a term of incarceration has been served, the state has no reentry system or support mechanism for inmates returning to our streets.

Although funding may be tight, the state must prioritize its dollars to reduce overcrowding and recidivism and protect the public. Now more than ever, the state must identify improvements to make the system more efficient and effective.

For its part, the 2007 Legislature gave the old Advisory Sentencing Commission new life, changing its name, expanding its membership and redefining the scope of its work.

The new Advisory Commission on the Administration of Justice includes four legislators, prosecutors, public defenders, judges, the attorney general, victims’ advocates, inmate advocates and representatives of the State Bar of Nevada, law enforcement, the Corrections Department, the Parole and Probation Division and the Parole Board. The commission has been tasked to study the State’s criminal and juvenile justice system and evaluate the effectiveness and fiscal effect of various policies and practices related to felony and gross misdemeanor offenses. At its first meeting, the commission recognized public safety as the foundation for its work.

The commission has created subcommittees to study the collection, availability and dissemination of data needed to evaluate the criminal justice system. The subcommittees will also study issues involving victims’ rights, juvenile justice and mandatory sentencing for drug offenses, and investigate alternatives to incarceration and additional intermediate sanctions for defendants before imposing prison sentences. And, working with the PEW Charitable Trusts, the commission hired consultants, including those with UNR and UNLV, to study the effects of Nevada’s 1995 Truth-in-Sentencing legislation.

In August the commission adopted its first series of recommendations. These include recommendations aimed at improving the Victims of Crime Program, studying new approaches to juvenile justice, amending the substantial assistance sections of the drug trafficking laws, revising good-time credit legislation adopted by the 2007 Legislature and modifying the parole hearing process. The commission also promotes changes in the State Pardons Board’s membership, a plan to expand drug and mental health courts, and improvements to the system for collecting restitution on behalf of victims.

Although some work has been completed, more is needed. The process over the past year has brought together representatives of nearly every stakeholder in the criminal justice system and has generated a dialogue not seen in years. These efforts will help find ways to enhance public safety and reduce recidivism while cutting unnecessary expense.

James Hardesty, a Nevada Supreme Court justice, is chairman of the Nevada Legislature’s Advisory Commission on the Administration of Justice.