Downsizing Juvenile Institutions in Ohio: Five Innovations

Changing Ohio Corrections

“…ODYS officials and juvenile court judges responded to these implications in a positive manner (Lowenkamp & Latessa, 2005b), albeit gradually, over time (Lux et al, 2015). In 2014, a significant marker emerged suggestive of their efforts and the impact of Latessa's research.…”

“…Nonetheless, though a successful initiative, RECLAIM also experienced some challenges. In response to a settlement reached in SH v. Stickrath, 2008, a decision was made to pursue the creation of Targeted RECLAIM (Lux et al, 2015). Like its precursor, this innovation continues to provide economic incentives to the counties relative to their adjudication rates in treating youth in their respective communities.…”

“…The report also applies risk considerations matched to programs, services, custody requirements, and the level of supervision (Lovins & Latessa, 2013). As of 2013, 80 of 88 juvenile courts had implemented OYAS, joined by community corrections facilities and ODYS institutions (Lux et al, 2015).…”

South Korea’s Responses regarding Mitigating the COVID-19 Crisis behind Bars

“…In the first half of 2020, an increasing number of confirmed cases of COVID-19 were reported in correctional facilities around the world, particularly in the United States, Brazil, and the Philippines (International Drug Policy Consortium, 2020; Santos, 2020). There are conventionally three approaches that can be taken to address this double crisis of the pandemic and its impacts on prisons: downsizing, status quo, and upsizing (Byrne et al, 2015;Lux et al, 2015;Turner et al, 2015). Downsizing efforts include the early release (or shift to house confinement) of certain prisoners based on bail, misdemeanor charges, and underlying health conditions.…”

Treatment Quality and Reoffending in the Sunshine State

“…The ultimate result should be an effective system that identifies the correct youths for intervention, provides them with appropriate evidence‐based interventions, delivers services with strong fidelity, and engages in ongoing monitoring of all aspects of the system. Substantial progress has in fact been made in each of these areas—sophisticated tools and practices now abound in the areas of risk assessment (Andrews, Bonta, and Wormith, ; Taxman, ), diversion of low‐risk youth (Lux, Schweitzer, and Chouhy, ), structured decision making with dispositions (Baglivio, Greenwald, and Russell, ), the systematic evaluation of intervention programs (Lipsey et al., ), and the use of meta‐analytic techniques to summarize and disseminate results (Lipsey, ). Thus, it is now commonly recognized that the nation's approach to juvenile justice is increasingly informed by research evidence (see Bishop and Feld, ).…”