In the stead of viable solutions, dismay has pervaded most media coverage of California’s juvenile justice system. The two most recent youth inmate suicides, combined with documented human rights violations occurring at California youth correctional facilities nicknamed “gladitorial schools”, have caught the eye and fired the imagination of the California public.

Fortunately, popular response to this coverage has been equally dramatic.

An article in the San Francisco Chronicle references a recent protest which compared Iraqi prisoner and youth offender abuse. Candid criticism voiced by former California youth inmates fuels the demands by California activists for the closure of the California Youth Authority (CYA). In the words of former San Francisco youth inmate Will Roy: “You can’t build something effective on top of something rotten.”

After months of awareness that the CYA must transform its “corrections model” currently at work, Californians are only just beginning to envision successful alternatives.

On July 1, Missouri’s youth prison program made the front page of the Los Angeles Times for its innovative, nurturing approach that yields results. Only 30 percent of detained youth return to prison in Missouri, while California is making headlines for its 90 percent recidivism rate. Jenifer Warren presents an angle in her Thursday article, “Spare the Rod, Save the Child,” as unusual as it is elegant, shifting the spotlight from what California is doing wrong toward what Missouri has done right. In Missouri,

“[I]nmates, referred to as ‘kids,’ live in dorms that feature beanbag chairs, potted plants, stuffed animals and bunk beds with smiley-face comforters. Guards – who are called ‘youth specialists’ and must have college degrees – go by their first names and don’t hesitate to offer hugs.”

The usual suspicions abound toward the application of Missouri’s program to California’s system. California’s Undersecretary of Youth and Adult Corrections, Kevin Carruth, is one such skeptic: “Everything I hear about Missouri tells me its program works great for the population they have, but our demographics are very different.”

The drama of the situation is compounded by potential financial threat looming on the horizon. Though gang-related homicides across the country have increased 50 percent over the last five years, proposed cutbacks in state and federal funding endanger California’s at-risk youth programs. California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger may terminate $134 million, two-thirds of the Temporary Assistance to Needy Family funding for juvenile prevention and probation, in the upcoming year. In addition, a recent White House proposal would cut 40 percent next year in the federal Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant, from which California received $4.7 million in 2004. The grant would be eliminated entirely by 2005 if the proposal passes.

In the face of all these obstacles, Missouri’s Youth Penal System Chief Mark Steward’s words and presence must not be underestimated. They attest that a failing system can be completely overthrown and redesigned, with excellent results:

“The old corrections model was a failure; most kids left us worse off than when they came in. So we threw away that culture, and now we focus on treatment, on making connections with these guys and showing them another way. It works.”

As for Caruth’s doubts, Warren writes: “Steward said he believes that his state’s success can be replicated in California, despite the different mix of offenders.”

Time is of the essence; action is essential. The proven success of Missouri’s system may be the best tool California has to reshape a system that cannot be ignored. And thanks to alternative coverage presented by visionary journalists like Jenifer Warren, solutions emerge where only complaints existed before.