Social study A social study of the child or family prior to the hearings, and a carefully developed plan prepared by a person trained for that particular type of job is essential. Without this material, it is almost impossible for the juvenile judge to make sound decisions which will have a positive and lasting effect on the child and his family. Each of the 95 counties has a county director of welfare who, by law, will be responsible to the court for preparing a social study when directed by the juvenile judge of that county to make the study. All but 5 county directors have 1 or more welfare workers who can assist with special court studies, and 76 child-welfare workers, who have had a minimum of 1 year graduate work in social work, are available within the State to lend assistance to the courts for special cases. See map (appendix, exhibit 12) for State welfare services. The State welfare department lists their field personnel on June 18, 1956, asCounty directors (without social work training) -- County directors (with 1 year or more graduate work). Welfare workers___. Trained child-welfare workers (with 1 year or more graduate work). Specialized services 67 19 372 76 16 Physical examinations, mental examinations, and psychiatric study to assist in the diagnosis and treatment of cases should be available when needed. The State department of mental health, through its guidance clinics, will make "recommendations to county judges concerning disposition of delinquent, neglected, or dependent children." Counseling, treatment, and evaluation are services rendered. On June 18, 1956, the following clinics were in operation: Child Welfare and Psychiatric Clinics, Memphis Mental Health Guidance Clinic of Middle Tennessee, Nashville Mental Health Association Guidance Clinic, Chattanooga Mental Health Center of Knoxville, Knoxville Oak Ridge and Jackson are expecting mental health clinics to be opened soon. Additional facilities are also available to juvenile courts through the department of public health and through the department of education. Factual conclusion 1. Juvenile judges have exclusive and original jurisdiction. 2. 60 percent of the child population is served by juvenile judges with legal training. 3. 77 percent of all commitments to, and releases from State training schools are made through juvenile courts served by judges with law degrees. 4. 57 percent of all commitments to, and releases from, State training schools are from the 7 special juvenile courts. 5. Only 6 counties out of 95 have probation service, with a total of 43 officers in these positions. 6. 44 percent of the children committed to, and released from, the State training schools are from counties without probation service. 7. Only five counties provide specialized detention service. 8. Social studies of children and families can be provided by the county welfare department of the State department of welfare. 9. Psychiatric help, medical and educational services are available to the juvenile courts through the State departments of mental health, public health, and education. 10. Only four cities have specialized juvenile police (none of these have specially trained officers). It can be concluded that part of the reason for the breakdown in the juvenile court system is not the fault of the law but the fact that the counties for one of many reasons cannot, or will not, provide the basic services required. Juvenile courts cannot operate and help children without all of its many vital services. Proposed plan No system of juvenile courts will work in this or any other State regardless of the judicial arrangement if the total provisions for services through the court are not provided. A statewide system of special judges working through districts or any other arrangements still depends for its success upon social study, probation, aftercare, detention facilities, and other specialized services. The number of trained persons needed to provide these services is dependent on the number of children being served by the juvenile courts, and not on the number of courts or regions which are served by a court. The law makes provision for the county court to provide these services through the juvenile judge. However, for reasons pointed out, the system has not worked in Tennessee. These services must be provided; if not by the county, then the State, in its final responsibility to its children and to the laws of the land, must provide them. There are two major areas of service which are almost completely lacking in the present State system. These are: 1. Probation.-A. Probation after adjudication: Assigning a trained worker to supervise and work with a child and his family in order to help him adjust to society (in place of commitment to an institution or no service). B. Probation after commitment: Releasing a child from a State training school to the committing court to be assigned to a probation officer for aftercare service to help in his adjustment, and to speed his return to normal society. 2. Detention.-Specialized facilities for secure custody of children who cannot be released in the custody of a guardian while awaiting formal disposition of the juvenile court. Working on the assumption that the State must provide services to children that cannot or will not be provided by local communities, it is necessary to determine a form of organization that will best serve the children and the State of Tennessee. Many different forms of organizations have been used across the Nation. The Tennessee Commission on Youth Guidance, after careful study, feels that the probation services provided on a statewide system as outlined above might best serve the juvenile courts and the correctional institutions if placed within the department of correction. It is further recommended that the State, for the purpose of probation services, be broken into regions corresponding with those used by the State welfare department, and, for the purposes of administration, that these regions be divided into four districts as outlined on the map in exhibit 11. By using the same basic regions it would simplify the evaluation of many services being provided to children by the State of Tennessee. This type of organization would 1. Make it possible for the probation officer to be employed by the department of correction but be responsible by law to the judge who commits a child to the worker's care. 2. Keep the channels of types of services provided through the courts to children clearly delineated. 3. Provide a closer administrative tie-up between the training schools, in the department of correction, that release a child, and the probation officer employed through the same department to whom the child is released by the committing court. It is further recommended that as soon as the caseload of a worker goes over the 50 units as described on page 408 for 2 consecutive months, an additional worker should be provided to the region. Personnel standards for classification and selection of probation and aftercare workers should be established by representatives from the Juvenile Judges Association, the County Judges Association, the Tennessee Commission on Youth Guidance, representative from the Governor's office, the department of correction, and the department of personnal. The department of personnel should then develop examinations and make the selection of qualified personnel which will be referred to the department of correction All personnel employed should have civil service or merit system status. They will be responsible administratively to the department of corrections but will legally be responsible to the juvenile judge in their district who commits a child to their care. While serving a child committed to their care they will have the same authority as a peace officer in regard to that child as already provided by law. See map in exhibit 11 for breakdown and organization. (The number of workers assigned to each region was established on the figures provided through the department of correction for commitments to and release from the 4 State training schools in correlation with the recommended maximum caseload of 50 probation cases under continuing supervision, and making allowances for travel.) Two hundred thousand dollars would provide the minimum number of probation and aftercare workers needed within the State of Tennessee and would provide, in addition, limited funds for secretarial help. Travel funds could be charged to the counties at the rate of 7 cents a mile or at a prorated fee which would cover the cost of the service. Detention facilities Each of the four districts (outlined previously in this study) have a specialized detention facility. These are located in Knoxville, Chattanooga, Nashville, and Memphis. Each of these are currently expanding or building new facilities. Each is staffed and in close proximity to other specialized service for children. There are many proposals which might be suggested in planning for some type of statewide system of detention facilities. The Tennessee Commission on Youth Guidance feels that much more study must be accomplished in this area before sufficient information is known, in order to make a realistic recommendation. Several possibilities are suggested in the report on State systems of juvenile courts on file in the commission's office. The commission feels that by providing sufficient numbers of qualified probation officers through the proposed State system, the number of children who might have needed detention facilities would be reduced, and that a qualified probation worker working with the local judge and community would, in many instances, be able to encourage the development of adequate facilities for the counties' needs, or there might develop a sharing of adequate facilities for detention between neighboring counties. It is therefore hoped that by providing qualified probation officers through a State system, the quality of detention within the State will improve, and at the same time the use of the facilities for detention will be decreased to include only those few youngsters who need detention as described earlier in this report. |