Juvenile Incarceration and Alternatives in Tennessee

• NCJ Number: 89432
• Author(s): W Register
• Date Published: 1983
• Length: 56 pages
• Grant Number(s): 82-JS-AX-0012
• Sponsoring Agency: Ford Foundation; Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP)
• Corporate Author: Bedfordshire Police
• Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/; Bedfordshire Police
• Publication Type: Report (Study/Research)
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: One of a series of reports prepared under the Fellows in Education Journalism program.

Annotation

This paper critiques the juvenile justice system in Tennessee, with particular attention to the development of alternatives to the current prevalent use of institutionalization.

Abstract

Problems besetting the juvenile justice system in Tennessee are in the following categories: (1) the public's demand for harsher handling of juvenile offenders; (2) declining local, State, and Federal support for social services used by juvenile courts in the past; (3) the operation of juvenile courts outside of State control and funding, resulting in violations of due process guarantees; (4) juvenile judge control of probation staff and detention facilities; (5) a corrections system still embedded in large and expensive training schools; (6) the commitment of minor offenders to institutions because of the diminishing availability of local services; (7) the failure of juvenile institutions to provide needed service; and (8) the committing of almost 10,000 children to adult jails annually. The State lacks a clear policy for the handling of juveniles, and until one is developed, it is doubtful that any coordinated and comprehensive system reforms and innovations will be undertaken, particularly while the public persists in its demand that juveniles be treated punitively (meaning incarceration). The shortage of funding may force corrections to depart from the expensive large-scale use of incarceration of juveniles to the use of diversion programs that are less expensive. The inability to continue to fund the current policy of institutionalization may thus force the State and localities to reconsider juvenile justice policy.