Jailing kids does harm, not good
“Tennessee’s shared future prosperity depends on fostering the health and well-being of the next generation. Equipping today’s most at-risk youth for the future means adapting policies that will not do more harm than good in the long run,” according to a Tennessee Commission on Children and Youth January 2015 policy brief.
The brief recommends the juvenile justice system should “rely on community-based alternatives to juvenile justice that use smaller facilities and have well-trained staff to supervise youth.”
Large residential facilities are counterproductive.
I recently read about Dr. Willie Herenton’s proposal for two 200-bed juvenile justice facilities in Shelby County.
Research indicates youth incarceration is an ineffective strategy to address delinquency. The Annie E. Casey Foundation’s 2011 No Place for Kids: The Case for Reducing Juvenile Incarceration, reports America’s juvenile corrections facilities are dangerous, ineffective, unnecessary, obsolete, wasteful and inadequate.
The report calls for investing in promising nonresidential alternatives and replacing large institutions with small, treatment-oriented facilities for the dangerous few.
Nonresidential alternatives should be used whenever possible in the best interest of the youth and public safety. The lack of appropriate nonresidential alternatives is problematic. Instead of adding beds, communities should invest in additional intensive, highquality nonresidential alternatives — evidencebased family intervention, rigorous career preparation and vocational training, intensive youth advocate and mentoring programs, cognitive-behavioral skills training, and specialized mental health and substance abuse models.
The Casey Foundation is working to close all “large, prison-like institutions” for children committed to state custody.
There will continue to be a limited number of youthful offenders who require secure confinement to protect the public and themselves. In the best interest of the youth and community, there should be small, communitybased, treatment-oriented facilities to effectively treat and rehabilitate youthful offenders. Small facilities provide greater opportunity to recruit volunteers to work with the youth and provide an environment more conducive for treatment.
To be successful, they cannot be viewed as a stand-alone response to juvenile delinquency, but must be integrated into a continuum of noncustodial services. Additionally, research suggests small facilities are more likely to emphasize rehabilitation over control.
A 2005 bulletin from the Federal Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) says, “When secure confinement is necessary, the establishment of small, community-based facilities to provide intensive services in a secure environment offers the best hope for successful treatment of those juveniles who require a structured setting.”
A 2013 OJJDP report on youth in secure facilities reports larger facilities tend to exceed their capacity more frequently than smaller ones. This is consistent with the “when you build it, they will come” unfortunate reality and outcome in the juvenile justice system.
Early June data from the Department of Children’s Services reports 201 children with a juvenile delinquency adjudication from Shelby County in state custody, 123 of them in secure placement. Two 200bed facilities for juvenile justice youth in Shelby County would be significant “widening the net” at the expense of appropriate programming for youth, especially youth of color.
Shelby County needs more and more effective programming for youth who commit delinquent offenses, but the focus should be on evidencebased alternatives. Two 200 bed facilities would be unwise.