'Young offenders are not problem kids'

INTERVIEW/Mark Steward

Instead of a cell, a room, instead of detention, residential care, instead of yelling, listening. If a young offender in custody becomes aggressive his mates will be the first to defuse that conflict, de-escalate fights, use grappling holds. No pepper spray, isolation as a last resort and only for short periods of time. This is how the Missouri model of juvenile justice has become noted for lowering rates of recidivism, at 9% in 2008, and the violence endemic in secure facilities.

“We do not believe in behavioral compliance as a goal” said Mark Steward Director of the Missouri Youth Services Institute, a non profit organization dedicated to juvenile justice reform. He was the director of the State of Missouri's Division of Youth Services for over 17 years, and has been described as the architect of the Missouri model. "We believe we need to help kids in custody to chose to change their behavior.”

The biggest choice here is to stop offending. The Missouri system has been credited with reducing recidivism among young offenders, through decentralizing the juvenile justice system, keeping youths in smaller, home like environments closer to home, offering therapy and retraining staff to engage in less confrontational and more supportive relationships with the teens. With residences that average 10 young offenders to 2 adult supervisors, the Missouri model has built successfully on the desire of teens for acceptance and to go back home, and the justice’s system goal of spending less.

When asked if politicians support the model, Steward pointed out that while voters support retributive justice for adults, they are in favor of rehabilitation for youngsters. As to what causes these young people to enter the justice system, “overwhelmingly, they were involved with drugs and have suffered abuse” and they need to find a way out. The environment is home-like for a purpose: “Kids need to know we care about them.” And although there are they aren’t in cells, there are strict rules of discipline. “Its almost like the reverse of a gang, they help each other observe the rules.”

When Mark Steward began working with Juvenile Justice in Missouri 30 years ago, 600 young offenders were confined in a central institution in the heart of the state, managed by white rural staff members who did not understand the kids who came from inner cities, of different ethnicities, kids who felt isolated, alone and depressed. Its been a long road traveled, and now the Missouri model is inspiring similar initiatives across the United States. In this exclusive interview to Comunidad Segura, Mr Steward tells us about the change of heart led to this new model of justice: “These are not problem kids, they are kids with problems”

How did it all start?

Right when I graduated from college the state of Missouri had a very bad reform school system, one very large facility of about 600 or 700 for boys and girls , it was very violent, a very horrible place to be. Some of the judges and papers wrote stories about it in the 60’s, and the legislators looked at it, there were murders, suicides, sex abuse, so they decided they need to try a different approach to work with these youths, they opened up a new facility, and I was the first of the group counselors hired.

In this new smaller facility we started using therapeutic models, the old way was more like a juvenile prison, most places still operate like that today are very prison like, youths in uniforms, in cells, it borders from very correctional to almost brutal.

We started working with a group of about 70 kids, doing group therapy, and working in much smaller groups in a different kind of environment. For example I would take small groups and have them earn money, and then take them to the movies, ball games, and do a lot of things that they had ever done before. We soon found that the more we did these kinds of activities, the better it worked.

The Missouri model was long in gestation…

It grew gradually over the next 20 years or so, the state kept opening up more and more facilities based on that model. After 20 or some years I was invited to take over running the whole state system.

The program was good, but we did not have the right resources, trainers, we started actively working to get more funds, to improve our program. It was during those two decades, and especially in the 80s that we got things together. Then in the 90s and in the 2000 we really just improved it more and more, and its a completely different type of system.

Could you describe how it is today?

When you come into one of our facilities, even the most serious offenders, even in those programs up to 18 years of age, live in open dorms, not locked in cells, they wear their own clothes, staff works with small groups of youths, about 10 to 12 youths...

Did you have trouble convincing people to adopt this new model?

It was a process of gradual change... the legislators and governors and judges saw that youths were responding to this. We found out we kept 90 % of these young men and women from going back into prison, recidivism stats are in favor. This won over even the most conservative people who know that a lot of these kids can be dangerous.

Where do most of the young offenders come from?

Lots of kids of come from St Luis, from inner cities of St Luis (that was the murder capital for a decade) and Kansas city. What we found out is that they had been very damaged, They had been in gangs, they are dangerous, but once you put them into this kind of environment, then you can start dealing with issues.

You have a different approach to discipline?

We don’t just do the behavioral compliance, which is what a lot of prisons do, the “just follow the rules and you will get out”. We don’t do that, we deal with the issues, what do you to offend other people? What kind of an impact does that have on their own lives? To get the kids to understand, to get it into their own hearts and own heads how they have hurt other people, and then how to make those changes, so you can change your life.

When the public says: 'we don’t want this to be a nice place to treat them well because they are bad kids, they have done horrible things...' we answer those critics with another question: what do you want when those kids come out? Do you want them to continue to rob and murder and rape or do you want them to come out and 90% of them succeed and work, have families and have a better life?

The Missouri Model has been making waves and it seems to have had much impact in the US, how significant is its influence outside state borders?

Its now being utilized from coast to coast, implemented in Washington DC with inner city kids, in New Orleans, in Luisiana, in California, in Mexico, it’s a way of dealing with these kids that they respond to, it helps them and it changes them. We have also had visits from Russia, Japan, European and Latin American countries.

It seems to be a very labor intensive in the sense that it demands a lot of time from professionals.

All over the world, and here, people see prison as a place to alot punishment. Well, the way we look at it here in Missouri, children sent away into the juvenile system, away from home and from family for 2 or 3 years, that is punishment in itself... then the question is, is what do we do with those youths? We want them to get fixed, come out better than they came in, because a lot of kids in a lot of systems come out worse, and that is hard for the general public to understand that sometimes. The old saying ‘if you do the crime, you do the time’ is a very narrow and short sighted approach, just not the right approach for these kids.

So that also means you are not scared of young people who are violent, you are not afraid of them?

That is right and the biggest thing is we have dangerous kids, when they are coming off the streets they will hurt you,  they will hurt the staff, even when I was a counselor they tried to hurt me and I am not a big guy. We try to empower the other kids in the program to also be responsible for helping the other kids... we take a village approach, we, everybody, the staff, the kids, we all work together towards the goal of helping each other. If one kid is angry, mad or violent, the other kids intervene.

You were able to control violence in the residences?

So since we have started this program we have not had a single instance of suicide, very very low incidence of violence, or staff or kids hurt. It works, and these are heavily involved gang kids, we rely on trained staff and and a big part of the program is kids getting to take part in stopping violence aswell.

How do you see young offenders?

The most important thing is that we see them as kids with problems, not problem kids. This makes a huge difference. These kids know that we care about them, we try to thelp them and when they leave they know they’ve got all we can give them here to help them move forward and have a better life.. so there is a real bond and relationship developed, so if a kid comes in and tries to hurt a member of staff or another kids, everybody will step up and stop him. Its almost the reverse mentality of the gangs...

This means environment plays a role, so you do away with cells?

No cells, in some places still have kids in private rooms, in Washington for example. But they don’t look like cells anymore. There are other states where kids live together in open dorms, and they are able to work together… It really makes a difference in how you set the environment up, if you throw a kid into a dungeon, a nasty dirty filthy place, where people are yelling at them, they will not believe we want the best for them. When they come in right in the front door, they are met by staff who say we want to help you and then they meet with kids who say you may remember me from the street when we were mad gang members, but we are not now, things have changed. We are not going to tolerate that kind of violence in here.

What was the biggest challenge in taking an experience that works in one institution and making it into public policy?

I think the biggest challenge is changing the staff and politician’s minds and attitudes. All politicians will say it is important to be tough on crime,  but all the politicians say it because its what they believe its what their constituents want to hear. But that but in survey after survey what we find is that the general public feels that way about adult offenders. But the population very much will supports rehabilitation for kids. Because their minds are not fully developed, that is why they are not allowed to drink or vote or anything else at 14 or 16.

How about cost?

Look they are spending  a lot of money on these kids in a juvenile prison, and it does not cost any more to implement a program like ours in New York, California, Washington DC and Luisiana, New Mexico. It does not cost anymore, but you have to get through to the staff and make them understand that this is a different way of approaching it.

So you have consolidated a program for staff training?

The staff training piece is one of the biggest ones, when we go into a new state, we do an assessment, a review of their system. Quite frankly, most state systems are very punitive and oppressive. Their message is follow the rules or we will make you follow the rules.

What is your goal with staff training?

We don't want staff to approach kids from a position of power, like they are cops, and the young offenders are in the wrong. We want them to say to a child, “if you go on like this you will be in prison the rest of your life, what can we do to help you change your behavior?”

How does it change things for the staff?

It is more demanding of staff but, on the other hand, they get involved in a positive way, their roles becomes that of a big brother, big sister, uncle or aunt, its very rewarding for them to see kids come in messed up and see them thankful when they leave. For the staff most people want to feel good about themselves for helping someone than to beat the hell out of someone.

Is there a big role in the Missouri model for treating substance abuse?

Most definitely. The great majority if not every one of them coming into the juvenile system have used drugs, and pretty heavy drugs.

Are the drugs directly related to the offending?

In a lot of the cases they were dealing to make money to buy drugs or were high when they committed the offenses, there is a direct correlation between . Our prisons are filled with drug related offenders.

A lot of our program or in fact the whole program is set up to deal with these kids in terms of how do you stay away from the gang, from the drugs, what do you do for other drugs when you get out, can you have fun doing something else?

We are realistic about drug use.. We know that if they get out they will go to parties they may drink and smoke. But you know its about making good decisions… if they were selling drugs or using meth or crack or cocaine you aske them what does that get you? A lot of time gets you right back here? 

Do you think relaxing drug use laws would lower the numbers of youths being incarcerated?

In most systems like Missouri the first time that a kid gets caught for using marijuana or something like that they very seldom go into the juvenile system, they will receive counseling they will be put on probation, there are a number of other solutions. By the time they enter the system it has really escalated into a more significant problem... So early intervention and drug treatment is very important, but getting to drug use before that, in schools etc is best.

Don't you think that family can play a negative role in rehabilitating young offenders?

Before we started, our system was very different. Young offenders were sent to one central institution in the middle of the state. There the staff was white, poor and rural, and the kids from inner cities from gangs, were from other backgrounds, they were Latino, were black urban and had no relation with the staff. The kids were isolated, alone and depressed. So we started putting the programs close to kids’ homes... in Missouri we have programs scattered across these state, we do family therapy with the families. We try to surround them with services... a lot of parents are trying to do the right thing with their kids, and a lot of time they don’t know how.

So kids do not necessarily want to get away from their families?

They do and they don´t, but you get pulled away from home, the first place you want to go back to... there is that pull, family is number one with most anyone.. 95% of the kids do want to go back home. A lot of them are single families. Even when families are abusive or dysfunctional, despite their problems, kids still want to come home.

What was the watershed event, when you felt things had changed, or that change was a reality?

Even way early on many many years ago when we first started trying this approach, they sent us some of the toughest kids... it was a test,  they didn’t want this to succeed. When we started on we learned a lot by trial and error, but what we found out was dealing with the most delinquent kids, the toughest kids, if you opened out your heart to them, and they knew that you are trying to help them,  90 % respond, it took other kids longer to realize that, with a lot of kids it would be a matter of months, some it took longer.

These kids often have years and years on the streets that make them suspicious, and it takes longer to build that trust. The gang savvy kids, they’d start faking it... Often it’s the other kids who are pretty honest with each other and help talking about life after they leave.

The fact is that once you change the environment from a punitive one to a supportive one, then the kids know. They realize it’s a safe place where they can get help for real serious issues. Because the truth is some of these kids, once you get to know them, reveal they’ve been through serious abuse, physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional abuse, all kinds you name it.

Even with those kids living on the streets, you can reach them? 

Its going to take more, you never know for sure which kids reacts positively. But some of those kids after a while start getting it and understanding it.. and when that happens they can make some tremendous changes. The problem is that you don’t know exactly when it will happen.
The exception is when you get a true sociopath, you don’t get a lot of them, that have no conscience, those are the kids are different, we keep in them in the system. They are the most trying kids, they can be there for a long time..

Do they stay in the system, or they go somewhere else?

We keep them.

What time frame are we talking about?

The majority of our kids low, moderate and secure care, average 7 or 8 months. Serious offenders...  they can be in our residential centers for a year or two. (We don’t call them detention centers, they are residential centers, where kids live together and go.) Now those under dual sentencing those youths who have committed  very very serious offenses, we can keep them till they are 21.

The goal is?

Successful release from after care. Which means they have a job or are enrolled in school or are doing something productive towards a goal.our graduates.. so working or going to school.

Do the convictions go on their record?

In Missouri its a sealed juvenile record.

How about the interest in boot camps to re-educate unruly teens?

In 1988 when I was director, I was asked to look into the value of boot camps, and we did some research. What I came out with was what I heard from an officer who said well, “these are the most polite kids we rearrested...”

You changed the environment in the residences, but violence keeps coming in through the media, and games. How do you see that?

Violence desensitizes, the cop killer videogame, makes things unreal, I think all those things have a role. Different things have an impact on all kids, and somethings have a big impact on a specific kid. Mainly you look at the core thing, family, home envorment, the communtiy , the gangs. On a one to 10 family is a ten, and those things may be a 2 or 3..