The other "Missouri Model": systemic juvenile injustice in the Show-Me State.

• Author: Quinn, Mae C.
• Position: I. Introduction through III. The "Other" Missouri Model B. Juvenile Courts and Due Process Failures, p. 1193-1218 - Bombshell or Babystep? The Ramifications of Miller v. Alabama for Sentencing Law and Juvenile Crime Policy

1. INTRODUCTION: COMPETING REALITIES OF JUVENILE JUSTICE FOR THE SHOW-ME STATE II. THE "MISSOURI MODEL"--DIVISION OF YOUTH SERVICES AS PART OF THE STORY III. THE "OTHER" MISSOURI MODEL A. Collapsing Schools and Criminalizing Childhood 1. Educational Inadequacies 2. Safe Schools Act Problems 3. Other Net-Widening Practices B. Juvenile Courts and Due Process Failures 1. Conflicts in Court Structure 2. Lack of Probable Cause Hearings 3. Informal Process as Punishment 4. Impoverished Juvenile Defense System C. Imprisoning Youth 1. Race and Justice by Geography 2. Forgotten and Unprotected 3. Mandatory Death Behind Bars Sentences IV. A SINGLE VISION: EVOLVING STANDARDS AND HOPE FOR THE DAYS AHEAD I. INTRODUCTION: COMPETING REALITIES OF JUVENILE JUSTICE FOR THE SHOW-ME STATE

   For years Missouri has been touted as a model for juvenile justice. Stakeholders and commentators continually declare that the Show-Me State--with its "Missouri Model"--employs the most modern and innovative approaches when it comes to treatment of court-involved youth. This account is reflected in press coverage, television news shows, and agency white papers. But this is only part of the picture; there is much more happening in Missouri when it comes to juveniles. However, this "other" part of the story seldom has been openly discussed--until now. (1)

   From failing schools, to deeply conflicted court structures, to a shortage of free representation, Missouri's most vulnerable children must contend with outdated and deficient systems of support as they make their way to adulthood. As was discussed at the University of Missouri School of Law's recent symposium relating to the Supreme Court of the United States' decision in Miller v. Alabama, (2) this reality stands in stark contrast to a commitment to evolving standards of decency of a modern society. For too many Missouri youth daily life includes ongoing indignities, deprivation of legal protections, and denial other basic rights--including one of the most fundamental features of our shared human experience--that is, the right to hope. (3) In fact, as this

   Article goes to press eighty-four of Missouri's young people--some as young as fourteen years old--have been mandatorily sentenced to die in Missouri's maximum security prisons. (4)

   This Article seeks to contrast the rosy picture painted on the national level--one that suggests a model system of juvenile justice from top to bottom --with the more troubling day-to-day problems facing youth in Missouri's communities, courts, and institutions of confinement. This examination is rooted in my own recent experiences. Like others who attended the symposium, I am an academic who teaches about the theories underlying Supreme Court decisions like Miller. However, I also run a youth advocacy clinic in the real world of St. Louis, Missouri.

   Thus what follows is not a theoretical analysis of the implications of Miller. Rather, it is an account of the law as lived by Missouri's most vulnerable youth--from kids in Missouri's local trial courts to individuals serving mandatory juvenile life sentences without any opportunity for parole. It is informed by the work of Washington University School of Law's Juvenile Law and Justice Clinic (JLJC), a law school clinic engaged in youth advocacy efforts in St. Louis, Missouri. (5) And it argues it is time to shed light on the "other" Missouri Model of juvenile justice--and fundamentally reform the system.

   Part II of this Article examines some of the most well-known claims about the Missouri Model of juvenile justice, clarifying that the positive press to date actually describes only one small component of the larger juvenile justice structure: Missouri's system of residential correction for state-placed adjudicated youth. And while that system has much to admire and replicate, it also has room for improvement.

   In Part III, this Article fills in what has been left out of most public and press stories about Missouri's larger youth justice system. That is, despite mostly glowing media accounts, Missouri's at-risk youth are poorly served by several overlapping broken entities. It focuses first on Missouri's failing education system, which is made worse by punitive policing and push-out practices. It then examines Missouri's conflicted and outdated juvenile court system, a structure that appears to be unconstitutional in its entirety. It describes Missouri's nearly non-existent indigent juvenile defense system, a system that has resulted in young people all too frequently defending themselves in Missouri's courts. Finally, it explains how children are too easily sent to Missouri's adult prisons--many banished to die there without anyone ever hearing their stories.

   Part IV calls upon stakeholders to move beyond the rhetoric and own up to the ways in which the state is failing its most needy children. By meaningfully implementing Miller's evolving standards mandate for every child--no matter when, where, or to whom they were born--we can begin to deliver true juvenile justice. And in the days that follow Missouri might actually become a model system, one that is committed to a single vision of common decency--and hope--for all of its children.

2. THE "MISSOURI MODEL"--DIVISION OF YOUTH SERVICES AS PART OF THE STORY

   A Google query with the words "the Missouri Model" yields over 80,000 results. (6) These include a New York Times article, (7) a piece on CNN.com, (8) coverage by ABC's Primetime. (9), most of the entries paint a picture of a juvenile justice system that is kinder, gentler, and far more innovative than others around the country. (10) is a system that has been called a "guiding light," (11) national model, (12) even "the Missouri Miracle" (13) its dedication to helping youth succeed. (14)

   But it is important to take note of what is really being described by these accounts--it is Missouri's Division of Youth Services (DYS). DYS is an executive branch agency, part of the state's larger Department of Social Services, which provides care for young people found guilty of wrongdoing who have been placed in the state's custody by court order. (15) In other words, DYS is the state's "juvenile corrections agency." (16) With all of the press and attention, it is easy to overlook the fact that only a small part of Missouri's justice system for youth is actually considered a model in its features--a part that impacts only a minor percentage of court-involved youth.

   The DYS Missouri Model was established in the 1980s under the leadership of then-Executive Director Mark Steward. (17) At that time, the agency decided to rethink its approach to state-placement, which was seen as the mere "warehousing" of youth in grim facilities without much in the way of treatment--and without regard for their futures. (18) Missouri was not alone in its use of such practices as many other jurisdictions did the same--or worse. (19) But Missouri took the lead in establishing smaller, dormitory-style residential treatment facilities across the state. (20)

   Contrasted with old-fashioned, workhouse-like facilities or youth correctional centers with concrete cells for sleeping spaces, many of today's DYS facilities have outdoor spaces for youth residents to explore, comfortable living areas with bunk beds and furniture, and little in the way of barbed wire. (21) the greater number of facilities, children can remain closer to family and friends in the community. (22) arrangement ideally allows for more contact and visits. (23) entire living experience is intended to be more youth-friendly, humane, and...