Search

Based on screenings of 1,150 manuscripts, we synthesize evidence from 18 eligible studies of educational interventions implemented within juvenile correctional facilities. The studies include 5 intervention categories: remedial academic instruction, computer-assisted instruction, personalized academic instruction, vocational education, and GED completion. Effectiveness is measured in terms of 4 outcomes: academic performance in reading or mathematics, diploma completion, postrelease employment, and postrelease recidivism. Focusing on studies with the strongest basis for causal inference, we find positive and statistically significant effects for computer-assisted instruction in raising reading comprehension, and for personalized learning in improving diploma completion and post-release employment. These findings are driven by large and well-executed randomized trials of Scholastic's Read 180 curriculum and Florida's Avon Park Youth Academy. Despite the limited research base, these studies suggest that it is possible to undertake rigorous research in juvenile facilities about programs that best improve the outcomes of young offenders. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Introduction: Increased interest in collaborative and inclusive approaches to healthcare improvement makes revisiting Elinor Ostrom's 'design principles' for enabling collective management of common pool resources (CPR) in polycentric systems a timely endeavour. Theory and method: Ostrom proposed a generalisable set of eight core design principles for the efficacy of groups. To consider the utility of Ostrom's principles for the planning, delivery, and evaluation of future health(care) improvement we retrospectively apply them to a recent co-design project. Results: Three distinct aspects of co-design were identified through consideration of the principles. These related to: (1) understanding and mapping the system (2) upholding democratic values and (3) regulating participation. Within these aspects four of Ostrom's eight principles were inherently observed. Consideration of the remaining four principles could have enhanced the systemic impact of the co-design process. Discussion: Reconceptualising co-design through the lens of CPR offers new insights into the successful system-wide application of such approaches for the purpose of health(care) improvement. Conclusion: The eight design principles - and the relationships between them - form a heuristic that can support the planning, delivery, and evaluation of future healthcare improvement projects adopting co-design. They may help to address questions of how to scale up and embed such approaches as self-sustaining in wider systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]