Episode 9: Why Your Jail Will (Probably) Always Be Short Staffed
The Scope of the Staffing Crisis
Let’s start with the data. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, local jails lost approximately 17,000 correctional officers between 2013 and 2023. The Bureau of Labor Statistics expects this trend to continue, projecting a 7% reduction in correctional officers by 2034.²
Some jails are operating at truly alarming levels of understaffing.
One jail in Atlanta is currently short 59% of its authorized staffing.
A jail in Virginia has been operating at roughly 50% staffing for five years.
These are extreme examples, but nationally it’s common for jails to operate 20–30% short-staffed.
Why Understaffing Is So Dangerous
Running short-staffed in a correctional facility is not just inconvenient — it’s dangerous.
Short staffing leads to:
Longer shifts
Mandatory overtime
Increased officer burnout
Reduced safety
More frequent lockdowns
Lockdowns increase inmate frustration, which leads to more mental health crises, more violence, and more disciplinary issues. From the officer’s perspective, you’re working long hours in a dangerous environment, often alone, supervising inmates who are stressed, mentally ill, and angry.
In an Associated Press article on the Fulton County Jail, officers reported situations where one officer was responsible for monitoring up to 200 inmates at once. This is an objectively terrible working condition.
Turnover and Overtime
Unsurprisingly, correctional facilities experience 20–30% annual staff turnover.
That means your entire workforce turns over every 3–5 years.
Because jails can’t close, governments are forced to rely heavily on overtime to keep facilities operational. In some states, overtime costs reach hundreds of millions of dollars annually. Nationally, overtime spending almost certainly reaches into the billions.
Some Facilities Have Fixed This — How?
Here’s the key question: if staffing is such a problem, why aren’t all jails understaffed? Some facilities maintain staffing levels of 95% or higher. Let’s look at what they’re doing differently.
Case Study #1: Utah Department of Corrections
In February 2024, Utah was short about 400 officers. Within a little over a year, they hired approximately 350 new officers and now report having more applicants than openings.
What changed?
Officer pay increased by 40%
Improved recruitment advertising
Streamlined hiring process
Case Study #2: Wisconsin Department of Corrections
In early 2024, Wisconsin had a 56% vacancy rate. Within a year, they reduced that vacancy rate to 17%.
Their strategy?
Officer pay increased by 65%
That’s it.
Case Study #3: Arapahoe County Jail (Colorado)
Arapahoe County regularly operates at 95% staffing capacity. I reached out to them directly, and a big thank-you to Jon at the Arapahoe County Sheriff’s Office for taking the time to speak with me.
According to Jon, their success comes from:
Starting salaries near $80,000 per year
Predictable schedules (primarily four 10-hour shifts)
Strong workplace reputation
Streamlined hiring with frequent applicant communication
Using the jail as a pipeline into police positions (they generally only hire police who have worked in their jail)
The Common Thread
Every successful example has the same core solution:
They pay officers enough to make the job competitive. Advertising and hiring efficiency help — but compensation is the foundation.
“Pay Doesn’t Matter” — Does It?
Some organizations argue that higher pay doesn’t improve staffing. The Prison Policy Institute has made this claim, noting that inflation-adjusted wages rose between 2013 and 2023 while staffing declined. They argue the solution is reducing jail populations rather than increasing staffing.
Here’s my rebuttal — in three parts.
Rebuttal #1: Wage Growth Was Minimal
Between 2013 and 2023:
CPI inflation was 31%
Nominal correctional officer wages rose 35%
That’s a real wage increase of about 3% over ten years — effectively nothing.
Rebuttal #2: CPI Misses the Real Cost of Living
CPI measures consumer goods — not housing.
Between 2013 and 2023:
If your wages increase 35%, consumer prices increase 31%, and rent increases 50%, your standard of living has declined. Officers are worse off today than they were a decade ago.
Rebuttal #3: Jail Populations Are Already Reduced
Jails have been reducing populations for years — especially since COVID. At this point, many facilities have already released their lowest-risk individuals. What remains is a population that is more violent, unstable, and resource-intensive.
You can want fewer people in jail and want safe staffing for the people who remain. These positions are not mutually exclusive.
Opportunity Cost and the Labor Market
This brings us to a key economic concept: opportunity cost.
People don’t buy jobs with money — they buy jobs with time. Taking a corrections job means giving up every other job you could do with that same time. So how does corrections pay compare?
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics:
Median correctional officer salary: ~$53,000
Comparable to truck drivers and bus drivers
$5,000–$10,000 less than police officers
Now compare corrections to other non-degree careers:
Corrections pays 15–20% less than many alternatives — and with worse working conditions.
Pay Growth and Job Quality
Corrections also lacks meaningful wage growth. Officers with 20 years of experience often make only marginally more than those with five. Promotions add responsibility without proportional compensation.
Combine that with:
Dangerous environments
Trauma exposure
Poor lighting and infrastructure
Mandatory overtime
Public stigma
Low pay + hard job = predictable staffing crisis.
Adam Smith explained this centuries ago. Dangerous, unpleasant, stressful jobs require a wage premium. Corrections does not offer one.
Why Can’t Local Governments Fix This?
If low pay is the problem, why not just raise wages? Because local governments are broke. They must fund jails, police, schools, fire departments, EMS, roads, and more — with limited revenue. Raising wages means either cutting other services or raising taxes.
And here’s the problem: states often prohibit local governments from raising taxes.
How We Got Here: Block Grants and Unfunded Mandates
Since the late 1970s, the federal government shifted from fully funding programs to issuing block grants — fixed sums that don’t adjust for inflation or demand.
Programs like:
TANF
Mental health services
Substance use treatment
Many of these block grants are worth 40% less in real terms than when they were created. Yet the mandates remain. When governments are required to provide services without adequate funding, that’s called an unfunded mandate. States then pass these costs down to counties and cities — while simultaneously limiting their ability to raise revenue.
Cost Shifting and Liability Dumping
States cut expensive services — like psychiatric hospitals — which pushes people with severe mental illness into jails. Local governments absorb the cost. Then, when something goes wrong, lawsuits target:
Jail administrators
Mental health staff
County governments
This is called liability dumping.
The Bottom Line
Your jail is understaffed because officers are underpaid. Officers are underpaid because local governments are poor. Local governments are poor because costs are pushed downward while revenue is capped.
Ending on a Hopeful Note
None of this can be fixed quickly — and it certainly can’t be fixed at the jail level alone. This is the result of decades of federal and state policy decisions. But it can be fixed. If we address the economic distortions discussed earlier in this series and begin stabilizing public finances, this problem is solvable — albeit slowly, over decades. The longer we wait, the harder it becomes.