By Alec Savage 

ABSTRACT 

In the United States, nearly 44% of criminals released from prison return before their first year out of prison – headlining the United States as one of the countries with the highest recidivism rates.1 In 2005, about 68% of 405,000 released prisoners were arrested for a new crime within three years, and 77% were arrested within five years.2 When recidivism, the legal term that refers to a criminal’s relapse into criminal behavior, is high, it is an indicator of the inability of a criminal justice system to reintegrate the offender into society.  

The problem is not isolated to the adult population. For example, in Ohio, the recidivism rate for youthful offenders was as high as 82% in 2018. The term youthful offender is defined as  “youth under the age of 18 who are accused of committing a delinquent or criminal act and are  typically processed through a juvenile justice system.”3 Society’s failure to reintegrate offenders  demands innovative solutions. An up-and-coming program born out of Ohio offers one unique solution to this epidemic. “Expanding Horizons” demonstrates striking success at lowering the rate of rearrest for youth offenders through its fitness program. Recidivism rates for youth offenders in the state went from 84% to as low as 25% for those who participated in this  program. These recidivism numbers are collected annually.  

Expanding Horizons’ design centers around the fitness methodology known as CrossFit and supplements its programming with trauma-trained fitness coaches and mandatory  counseling. Expanding Horizons' success motivated Ohio’s state government to invest in its  expansion to counties across the state and inside of Ohio’s Youth Correctional Facilities. The  program has also expanded into other states across America. This note will highlight Ohio’s CrossFit Expanding Horizons and assert that its success as  a community-based alternative to incarcerating youth is an argument for its expansion into  county probation programs and prisons across the United States.

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

ABSTRACT

NTRODUCTION

PART 1: 

A. The History of America’s Juvenile Justice System

B. Modern-Day Juvenile Justice Systems

C. The Issue with Incarcerating Youthful Offenders

PART 2: 

A. Ohio’s Juvenile Justice System: Transforming to a Community-Based Approach

B. The Issue’s Ohio Encountered Transitioning Away from Youth Prisons

PART 3: Effective Community-Based Programs: Ohio’s CrossFit Expanding Horizons

A. The Origin Story

B. The Program’s Methodology

Conclusion

Citations

INTRODUCTION 
In this note, I will assert community-based alternatives to rehabilitating youthful  offenders is the most effective form of rehabilitation and the Expanding Horizons’ program is a  highly impactful program able to positively impact youthful offenders on probation and in youth  prisons. In Part I, I will discuss America’s history in sentencing youthful offenders and the ways in which science has led to our understanding that youthful offenders must be sentenced  differently than adults. In Part II, I will highlight Ohio’s county-led juvenile court system and  how state led juvenile court systems may be limited in running successful community-based programs. In Part III, I will argue the importance of building a community as a touchstone for all  rehabilitation programs by highlighting the ways in which Expanding Horizon’s was able to  create a community for its participants. 

PART I 

PART A: THE HISTORY OF AMERICA’S JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM 

Throughout the 19th century, youth accused of crimes were tried in the same courts as  adults and “reports have indicated that during this period approximately one dozen youths were  executed for crimes committed before they reached the age of 14.”4In 1925, the “New York  House of Refugee” was established as America’s first institution designed to separate troubled  youth by providing accommodations and protecting them from being criminalized as adults.5 The House of Refugee was America’s first attempt at rehabilitation, and it consisted of housing the youth with homeless adults and effectively removing them from society which lowered their ability to recommit crimes. These efforts led to reforms across the nation that prioritized  industrial schools, designed to incarcerate youth and reform them in a militarized, educational  setting.6 However, these industrial schools were “the subject of frequent scandals stemming from physical abuse to managerial incompetence” and were eventually closed in most states.

These institutions, although highly problematic, eventually led to the creation of the  American juvenile justice system. The juvenile justice system began as a state-led approach, supported by the “ancient legal of doctrine ‘parens patriae’ (the State as Parent).” This approach was largely based on the concept that children need to be protected from their criminal  communities and parents.9 The first state juvenile court was established in Cook County, Illinois, in 1899, and by 1925 all but two states established some type of juvenile justice system for  youthful offenders.10 While the federal court system failed to acknowledge the need to sentence youth differently from adults, these state juvenile courts recognized that “rather than merely  punishing youth for their crimes, juvenile courts sought to turn these wayward youth into  productive citizens— through rehabilitation and treatment.” Juvenile courts were largely informal, and often did not require an attorney to be present.  The judge made decisions from a holistic approach considering all the factors in the juvenile’s life, rather than the traditional adversarial justice system where each party presents their side of  the case.12 Rather than by representation in court, the fate of the juvenile was the responsibility of a single judge and this led to much controversy and fear the system would  “ignore constitutional protections and ultimately fail to serve the best interests of youth.”

In response to growing concerns, the Supreme Court affirmed in 1967 that the juvenile  courts need to respect the due process of law and rights of juveniles during their proceedings.14 This ruling allowed youth offenders the ability to advocate with an attorney and witnesses, and  the right to appeal a judge’s decision.15 However, Justice Stewart’s dissent in In Re Gault, warned that the Court’s decision would “convert a juvenile proceeding into a criminal  prosecution.”16 He stressed the historical intent of the juvenile justice system was not to  prosecute and punish juveniles, but rather “correct a condition,” and meet society's  “responsibilities to the child.”17 

The petition sought the release of Gerald Francis Gault, appellants' 15-year-old son, who had been  committed as a juvenile delinquent to the State Industrial School by the Juvenile Court of Gila  County, Arizona… The Supreme Court stated that ‘parens patriae’ [t]he Latin phrase proved to  be a great help to those who sought to rationalize the exclusion of juveniles from the constitutional  scheme…But there is no trace of the doctrine in the history of criminal jurisprudence….a  proceeding where the issue is whether the child will be found to be ‘delinquent’ and subjected to  the loss of his liberty for years is comparable in seriousness to a felony prosecution. The juvenile  needs the assistance of counsel to cope with problems of law, to make skilled inquiry into the  facts, to insist upon regularity of the proceedings, and to ascertain whether he has a defense and to  prepare and submit it. The child ‘requires the guiding hand of counsel at every step in the  proceedings against him. Id. at 3–36. 

The worry Justice Stewart had anticipated became a reality in the late 1980s when the  public became concerned that “serious juvenile crime was increasing, and that the [juvenile  justice] system was too lenient on youth charged with breaking the law.”18 The increase in youth  crime caused states to respond to the alleged “juvenile super-predators” by passing more  stringent laws which “removed certain age youth charged with [violent] offenses from the  juvenile justice system in favor of the [adult] criminal justice system.”19 Transferring youth into  the adult criminal system allowed juveniles to be subject to serious sentences, including the  death penalty. Additionally, sentencing youth in the adult criminal system does little to reduce  recidivism because it does not prioritize reintegrating them into their communities.20 The “tough  on crime” movement, from the 1980s to 2000s, triggered detrimental impacts on society with  youthful offenders arrested at the highest rates in history.21 

In the 2000s there was another shift in the ways juvenile courts sentenced youth  offenders. This shift began with data which showed “that adolescents have the capacity to  change, to be rehabilitated when matched to the most appropriate, effective interventions.”22 Research presented young adults’ brains are still developing and should be considered less  culpable and more capable of reform than older adults.23 With this understanding in mind, young  adults must be judged by a different standard than adults when they commit crimes.24 Furthermore, in 1999, the U.S. Department of Justice publicly denounced the notion of a  “juvenile super-predator” and provided metrics showing the increase in violent crimes was a  factor in all age groups, specifically increasing at a higher rate in adult courts rather than juveniles.25 

In response to the new research and the public at large, the U.S. Supreme Court  elucidated through several rulings in court cases that children are entitled to special consideration  under the Eighth Amendment due to their reduced culpability and greater capacity for reform. In Roper v. Simmons, the Court prohibited the execution of children under 18 at the time of the  crime.26 Graham v. Florida, held that children convicted of nonhomicide offenses cannot be  sentenced to life without parole and must have a “realistic” and “meaningful opportunity to  obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation.”27 In Miller v. Alabama and  Montgomery v. Louisiana, the Court established that children must have this meaningful  opportunity for release even in homicide cases— except in the rarest of cases where the  sentencer determines that the child “exhibits such irretrievable depravity that rehabilitation is  

There was an actual increase in homicides by juveniles. This increase, however, can be explained by factors other than the advent of juvenile super-predators. Nearly all of the increase in the  juvenile arrest rate for murder that occurred between 1987 and 1993 was erased by 1997. In fact,  the murder rate in the U.S. in 1997 was lower than it had been since the 1960’s. This trend raises  another question about the super-predator theory. If the increase in juvenile homicides between  1987 and 1993 is explained by the development of a new breed of juvenile super-predator, then  what explains the substantial decline after 1994? Nothing in the super-predator notion would  predict such a decline. Id. at 5. 

impossible.”28 These Court decisions were deemed to be grounded in “psychology and brain  science [showing] fundamental differences between juvenile and adult minds.”29 As the Supreme Court and legislatures across the country began to recognize brain  science and psychological research, the juvenile justice system has begun to reemphasize  rehabilitation and deemphasize prosecution. As a result, in “1999 more than 100,000 juvenile  offenders were confined in a residential placement facility in the U.S;” this number “decreased to  approximately 35,485 juveniles in 2019.”30 

Part B: MODERN-DAY JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEMS 

Although America’s juvenile justice system made strides through recent legislation and  Supreme Court rulings, the changes within each state’s legislation have not been uniform across  the country. The distinction between processing youthful offenders within the juvenile justice  system as opposed to the adult criminal court system is one of many legislative gaps across the  nation. These differences in juvenile justice systems across the U.S. can have significant impacts  on youthful offenders' ability to rehabilitate into society. 

Most states made substantial progress in raising the age for when a child can be tried as  an adult, however, some states are still sentencing youth as adults for violent crimes at the age of  10 or 14.31 Nonetheless, progress was made during the “raise the age” initiative with the majority of states raising the age to which the court can sentence a minor for a civil crime to 18 years old and for violent criminal crimes to 16 years old.32 The “raise the age” initiative is a nationwide  movement that aims to increase the number of youthful offenders over whom the juvenile court  system has original jurisdiction instead of the criminal court systems who would try the minor as  an adult.33 Jurisdictional age laws remain highly impactful in the juvenile justice system and  have led to an alarming amount of juvenile crimes being transferred into adult criminal court. In  2019, “40,800 cases involving youth younger than 18 [to become] subject to criminal court  processing.”34 

The choice to process the youth offender in adult court aims to prevent the youth from  reoffending by incapacitation (confinement) in prison. However, if the youthful offender is in the  juvenile justice system, the state can decide between various sentencing alternatives that aim to  rehabilitate the youth amongst other youth and allow them to re-enter their communities rather  than confining them away in prison. These alternatives can range from programs like probation  programs or correctional facilities to youth prisons. Although juvenile justice systems vary as to  the age in which they transfer the youth into the adult criminal court system, they all must decide on how to sentence the youthful offender once they are in the juvenile justice system. Many juvenile justice systems assess youthful offenders through a system typically  named a “youthful offender risk assessment”, which is an assessment completed through the state's juvenile correctional department.35 Depending on the crime, and the offender's socio economic and behavioral factors, the state chooses to detain the offender or integrate them into a  probation program. Most states have a function of two types of programs (1) residential  placement (correction/detention facilities); and (2) community-based alternatives (probation  programs).36 

The judge can sentence the youthful offender to the state juvenile correction department  and either the correctional department or the judge decides which facility is best for the  offender.37 Juvenile courts sentenced youthful offenders to detention at a rate of 65% of cases in  2019, with “technical violations of probation, parole, or valid court order accounting for 18% of  youth in detention centers on any given day.”38 

Part C: THE ISSUE WITH INCARCERATING YOUTHFUL OFFENDERS 

Although juvenile facilities are aimed at helping youth rehabilitate, many studies suggest  those forms disproportionately impact minorities, lower recidivism at a lesser rate than  community-based approaches, and overall, are fiscally more expensive.39 Studies suggest incarceration disproportionally impacts black youth as opposed to white  youth since “twice as many youth of color are detained and committed as compared to white youth.”40 Furthermore, “Black, Native American, and Latinx youth are incarcerated at 5, 3, and  1.7 times the rate of white youth, respectively, with disparities increasing as youth move deeper into the system.”41 

Additionally, detention facilities are limited in rehabilitative services they can provide  youth to promote healthy living behind bars.42 Studies show that “detention has negative long term effects on youths’ development, physical and mental well-being, and education.”43 There is  a lack of necessary rehabilitative services to allow the child to feel connected to a sense of  community, and therefore detaining adolescents can lead to long-term mental health issues that  last through adulthood. 

Finally, the incarceration of youth is fiscally more expensive than alternative probation  programs. For example, in Ohio, the cost of the Behavioral Health Juvenile Justice Initiative, a  community-based program, costs $5,200 annually per child compared to $185,303 to incarcerate  one youth.44 Data gathered from a 2022 study highlighted that in “40 states taxpayers spend at  least $100,000 a year for a single young person’s confinement, and in 12 states spend over $250,000 a year for a single young person’s confinement.”45 Not only is incarcerating youth a more costly decision than community-based alternatives, but this expensive measure falls short  in its effort to rehabilitate the youthful offender. 

PART II 

PART A: OHIO’S JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM: TRANSFORMING TO A COMMUNITY-BASED  APPROACH 

Over the past two decades, Ohio’s Department of Youth Services (DYS) transitioned  funding away from 11 youth prisons in 1990 to three prisons.46 Alternatively, it created 12  community correction facilities (CCFs) which are “a form of secure, residential incarceration,  but they are less restrictive and focus on treatment and specialized case management.”47 The best  programs for lowering recidivism rates occur when the juvenile offender is allowed access to  state-funded programs that identify the youth’s needs and do not remove them from their  community (incarcerate them).48 These programs are called community-based alternatives and  emphasize rehabilitating the youth at the most local level - the community level.  

In the early 1990s, “policymakers in Ohio moved to encourage local counties to place  youth in need of residential intervention into locally operated treatment facilities instead of more  costly state-operated correctional facilities.”49 This transition into rehabilitation at a local level led to the creation of Ohio’s “state initiative called Reasoned and Equitable Community and  Local Alternatives to the Incarceration of Minors (RECLAIM).50 The RECLAIM initiative is “focused on reducing the number of incarcerated youths in Ohio residential facilities while  simultaneously improving alternative options in the community via transfer of funds from the  state to counties.”51 

RECLAIM evaluates the amount of state funding a county receives based on several  factors, “including how much money is appropriated for the program in each year, the average  number of felony adjudications over a previous number of years, and the number of days youth  spend in state or community correctional facilities.”52 This initiative incentivizes local courts to  engage their youth in community-based, rehabilitative approaches in order to receive more  funding.53 

The incentives for counties to rehabilitate youth through RECLAIM Ohio, rather than  sending the youth to a prison include: saving money, lowering recidivism rates, and “reinvesting  in more efficient ways of youth rehabilitation.”54 Financially, “estimates suggest the [RECLAIM]  program costs about $9,800 per youth per year, at a total state appropriation of $6.4 million in  the 2020 budget year.”55 This is much less than the annual cost of running the last two youth prisons in Ohio which is estimated at 96 million.56 Ohio’s RECLAIM efforts in six counties lowered “youth prison admissions… by about 80 percent over the span of a decade, from 989  youth in 2009 to just over 200 in 2019.”57 

PART B: THE ISSUE’S OHIO ENCOUNTERED TRANSITIONING AWAY FROM YOUTH PRISON’S

Although Ohio incentivizes community-based alternative sentencing for its youthful  offenders, it also has a robust assessment program that decides the risk level of the offender  which still dictates whether the individual ends up incarcerated in a youth facility. The Ohio  Youth Assessment System (OYAS) determines the risk involved with a juvenile offender and this  determination may suggest youth prisons or CCFs (incarceration), as opposed to community based alternatives (rehabilitation).58 This risk assessment is based on many variables but most  importantly the seriousness of the felony.59 Some felonies, like murder, have been deemed so  egregious that the youthful offender must be sentenced to some form of incarceration. Although,  data suggests that “placing youths in the community leads to a reduced chance of reoffending or  being committed following juvenile justice supervision and custody,” Ohio’s legislation does not  fully support every youthful offender being allotted community-based alternatives.60 In 2018, Ohio enacted Senate Bill 66, which supports the success of community-based  alternatives by providing more flexibility to the juvenile justice system when deciding which sentence to give to a youthful offender. The bill included "rehabilitating the offender" as a  purpose for felony sentencing.61 This purpose for rehabilitation requires the court to provide a  sentence that is "reasonably calculated" to achieve the offender's rehabilitation, as well as the  other felony sentencing principles under the pre-existing law.62 

The bill enacts a limitation on judicial sentencing for offenders convicted of fourth- and  fifth-degree felonies, where judges are required to sentence an offender to a community control  sanction unless the offense is one of violence or a "qualifying assault.”63 If an offender were to  “violate the terms of his community control sanction, the law limits the judge to sanction the  offender to a community-based correctional facility or jail as a penalty, as opposed to a prison  sentence.”64 Senate Bill 66 does not force all judges to sentence youth to community-based alternatives. However, it does value the rehabilitation of the offender and provides some  safeguards to ensure judges aim towards such community-based alternatives. 

PART III:  

EFFECTIVE COMMUNITY-BASED PROGRAMS: OHIO’S CROSSFIT EXPANDING HORIZONS

For the past six years, the coaches and gym members of CrossFit Crave teamed up with  RECLAIM OHIO and Expanding Horizons. Expanding Horizons is “a government-funded  program geared toward improving the physical, mental, and emotional well-being of youth  involved in the juvenile court system.”65 The Expanding Horizons collaboration with CrossFit Crave is a community-based alternative to sentencing youthful offenders that is adopted in  Ohio’s juvenile courts and youth correctional facilities across the state.66 The program is  primarily funded through RECLAIM Ohio and has gained recognition across the country as an  effective program exemplifying the success of youth rehabilitation in the community-based  alternative.67 

PART A: THE ORIGIN STORY 

Expanding Horizons’ initial partnership began with a fitness chain known as F-45. This  partnership aimed to give youthful offenders in the Expanding Horizons program an outlet for  health and wellness to complete the program's holistic approach to rehabilitation. F-45 is a global  gym enterprise that aims to train the “complete wellness solution from functional training to  HIIT (High-Intensity Interval Training).”68 Despite its mission to bring a wellness solution  through fitness, the relationship between Expanding Horizons and F-45 was fraught. Court  Administrator/Chief Probation Officer, Angie Gehle, described how the partnership felt  “unwanted” and that the program was failing to produce the desired effects on their youth. For  example, she explained how “the kids only had one pair of shoes and they would track mud into  the gym” causing many conflicts with the gym. Overall, she felt that the “relationship was tense,  and the members of the gym were afraid of the juveniles.”69 The issue with Expanding Horizons' initial partnership with F-45 was not the workouts, it was the lack of community to embrace the  youthful offenders. 

Despite the failing partnership with F-45, Gehle knew the importance of having a health  and wellness component to her probation program, so she reached out to CrossFit Crave’s gym  owner Matt Shindledecker, and the now director of Expanding Horizons Debbie Wagner, to  create a “holistic approach to well-being that addresses a juvenile's physical, mental, and  emotional health.”70 The differences Angie noticed between the gym at F45 and CrossFit Crave were instant.  

The Chief Probation Officer stated that the gym owners “helped get the kids shoes and  workout clothes” and when it came to partnering with CrossFit Crave the gym members “just get  it, and they go above and beyond for the kids, by helping them secure jobs within the  community.” Angie and other probation officers attend CrossFit Crave’s gym classes with the  youthful offenders four times a week. The difference between CrossFit and F-45 was not the  workouts within the gym, it was the welcoming nature of members of the gym and the  commitment to bringing the youthful members a community to support them. 

Expanding Horizon’s partnership with CrossFit Crave began in Mercer County, Ohio. In  2019, Expanding Horizons started with 12 youthful offenders and has now expanded to 15  programs throughout Ohio and the U.S. Initially, the recidivism rate tracked annually was as low  as 25%, which allowed the program to apply for more funding through Ohio’s RECLAIM  competitive grant funding. The competitive grant is rewarded to RECLAIM programs that have  the greatest success in lowering recidivism rates within Ohio.

Ohio’s Department of Youth Services Program Development Manager, Perry Palumbo  stated the “Expanding Horizon’s program had some of the lowest recidivism rates for a  community-based alternative program in Ohio” and this garnered Governor Mike DeWine’s  attention. As of June 30, 2023, the Mercer County Expanding Horizon’s program serviced 88  youth between the ages of 12-17 years old. Of these youth 70% were male, and 30% were  female.71 Amongst this population, 6% were Hispanic, 8% black, and 86% white.72 75% of this  group have not reoffended or incurred any delinquency charges within one year of completion of  the program.73 

In 2021, the Governor and his team went to visit CrossFit Crave to get a firsthand look at  the program and to consider its expansion into Juvenile correctional facilities and prisons.74 Soon  after the Governor’s visit Expanding Horizons entered a prison on the east side of Cleveland,  known as the Cuyahoga Hills Correctional Facility. The superintendent of Cuyahoga Hills Correctional Facility, Joseph Marsilio, states the program has seen great success in transitioning the youthful offenders out of the facility and into  CrossFit gyms outside of the facility. He explains the program allows CrossFit gym owners from  the communities where the youthful offender will be placed to come and meet the youthful  offender before their release from the correctional program. The youthful offender can have the  gym membership paid for by the state of Ohio if they stay within the standards of their probation.  

Many of these youthful offenders find jobs through the CrossFit community they become a part  of when leaving the correctional facility. Allowing local CrossFit gym owners to visit the kids  and teach classes inside the correctional facility gives the kids the ability to transition back into their communities with a strong support system. The correctional officers at Cuyahoga Hills earned their CrossFit level 1 certification,  permitting them to help coach and train the youth within the facility more efficiently because  they will not have to rely on the availability of outside-the-facility CrossFit coaches. The  CrossFit Expanding Horizons partnership has been awarded various honors for becoming the  most impactful probation program in Ohio.75 The program is in communication with 105 gyms  throughout the U.S. and Canada also aiming to work within their juvenile justice systems and  help youthful offenders. The expansion of this community-based alternative probation program  is a prime example of what it takes to be successful at rehabilitating youthful offenders.

PART B: THE PROGRAM’S METHODOLOGY 

The Expanding Horizons program is a movement and wellness program that centers  around CrossFit. CrossFit is “a fitness program that produces measurable outcomes through  lifestyle changes, centered on training and nutrition.”76 The workouts “consist of constantly  varied, high-intensity, functional movements, and are most fun and effective among friends at a local CrossFit gym.”77 Mercer County Juvenile Court Judge Mathew L. Gilmore said “the body mind connection is undeniable. What we have seen is that these kids develop self-esteem over  time. That has paid dividends in reducing recidivism.” 

In addition to the fitness plans, the program has a mental health component as well with  probation officers working with the youthful offenders through “motivation speech” and each  CrossFit coach receiving mental health training from a professional. The mental health seminar  is mandatory for all coaches who work with youthful offenders. This seminar provides coaching  from an athlete-centered approach as it relates to mental health and trauma. It empowers coaches  to effectively coach athletes who have been through trauma “without triggering past trauma  through subtle cues, language, and general awareness techniques.”78 

In the counseling training, CrossFit coaches gain an increased understanding of what  “trauma, stress, and family structure do to the brain in early childhood development and  throughout adulthood.79 They learn to use subtle athlete-centered coaching techniques and  language with at-risk athletes.” For example, the coaches are able to prevent various trauma  triggers through techniques such as: “(1) primary prevention technique: coaching athletes in a  way that facilitates wellness; (2) secondary prevention: coach in a way the keeps psychological  issues in check; and (3) tertiary prevention: demographics with existing conditions- coach in a  way that doesn’t trigger symptoms.”80 

Probation officers engage the youthful offenders with motivational speech, which is a  therapy technique that originated with drug addicts.81 The key to motivational speech “is to demonstrate to the individual the discrepancy between their current (negative) behavior, and the  positive goals they wish to achieve.”82 Motivational speech is not a counseling approach “but a  means of communication designed to mobilize an individual’s internal desire for change and to resolve ambivalence for continued change.83 The ability to work effectively with the non voluntary, resistant, and often difficult-to-reach youth and families is critical to probation  officers.”84 

The youthful offenders in Expanding Horizon’s engage in motivational speech bi-weekly with probation officers. The probation officers and staff members go to CrossFit Crave classes  with the youthful offenders and choose to exercise alongside them. As noted by director Debbie  Wagner, “when the probation officers show up and work with the kids it allows them the  opportunity to build a community of support and encouragement for one another.” The  Expanding Horizon’s community-based probation program is a mixture of physical and mental  components that have had immense success at integrating troubled youth back into their communities. 

CONCLUSION 

Despite society’s strongest hopes, there is always the possibility for deviance – even  among the precious youth. The history of the juvenile justice system in the United States paints a  picture of responding to youth who commit crime with the strictest repercussions and a shift towards a more flexible sentencing, considering the ways children differ from adults and  environmental factors. Though steps towards revision of the juvenile justice system have moved  in a positive direction, one cannot ignore the fact that youth recidivism is at an alarmingly high  rate in the United States. If children will commit crimes, what is the best approach to preventing  it from happening again? The answer is found in community. 

Expanding Horizons in Ohio is the beginning of what can be a transformation in the  juvenile justice system. Not only are community-based approaches a more financially affordable  option, but the statistics on lowering recidivism rates also speak to the effectiveness of these  initiatives. Community-based programs show the importance of creating a space where children  can tap into the energy of feeling that they can get a second chance at life with a support system  behind them. Community-based programs side with the historical court cases which determined  youth can reform their ways and are not a lost cause. Community-based programs send a  message of hope. To truly find solutions to saving America’s youth, the answer is not finding  more reasons to send youth offenders to prisons but rather finding more ways to send them into enrichening spaces of community and acceptance. 

Citations 

1 Recidivism Rates by County 2024, World Population Review (last visited Feb. 1, 2024)  https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/recidivism-rates-by-country.  

2Id. 

3 Youth.Gov, Juvenile Justice (last visited Feb. 1, 2024), https://youth.gov/youth-topics/juvenile-justice.

4 Britannica History and Society, Juvenile Justice (last visited Feb. 1, 2024),  

https://www.britannica.com/topic/juvenile-justice. 

5 Center on Juvenile & Criminal Justice, Juvenile Justice History (last visited Feb. 1, 2024),  https://www.cjcj.org/history-education/juvenile-justice-history.

6Id. 

7Id. 

8Id. 

9 See Julian W. Mack, The Juvenile Court, 23 HARV. L. REV. 104, 104–05 (1909). 

10 Youth and the Juvenile Justice System, 2022 National Report (last visited Feb. 1, 2024),  https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/publications/2022-national-report.pdfat 78. 

11 Id.

12 Britannica History and Society, Juvenile Justice, 2024 Supra, 2024, Note 4, (Donald J. Shoe Maker, Gary  Jenson). 

13 Id. 

14 In Re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 4 (1967). 

15 Id. at 6. 

16 Id. 

17 Id.

18 Britannica History and Society, Juvenile Justice, 2024, Supra Note 4, (Donald J. Shoe Maker, Gary  Jenson). 

19 Id. 

20 Id. 

21 Youth and the Juvenile Justice System, 2022 National Report, 2022, Supra note 10, at 78 (Charles  Puzzanchera, Sarah Hockenberry, and Melissa Sickmund). 

22 Id. 

23 Id.

24 Id. 

25 SHAY BILCHIK, 1999 NATIONAL REPORT SERIES JUVENILE JUSTICE BULLETIN: CHALLENGING THE MYTHS 5 (2000) https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/178993.pdf:  

26 Ropper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005). 

27 Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 74–75 (2010).

28 Montgomery v. Louisiana, 557 U.S. 190, 733 (2016); Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 473 (2012). 29 Graham, 560 U.S. 48 at 68; see also Miller, 567 U.S. 460 at 471–72. 

30 Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Racial and Ethnic Disparity in Juvenile Justice  Processing (last visited Feb. 1, 2024), https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/model-programs-guide/literature-reviews/racial-and ethnic-disparity.  

31 Interstate Commission for Juveniles: Serving Juveniles while protecting communities, Age Matrix (last  visited Feb. 1, 2024), https://juvenilecompact.org/age-matrix (“Kansas sentences juveniles at 10 years old for violent  crimes; Delaware sentences juveniles between 14-16 for specific violent crimes; Maryland sentences youth for rape  and 1st degree murder at the age of fourteen; Indiana sentences youth for violent crimes at the age of 16; Wisconsin,  Texas, and Geogia sentence youth for violent crimes at 17.”)

32 Youth and the Juvenile Justice System, 2022 National Report, 2022, Supra note 10, at 80 (Charles  Puzzanchera, Sarah Hockenberry, and Melissa Sickmund). 

33 Id. 

34 Id.

35 Id. 

36 Id. 

37 Youth and the Juvenile Justice System, 2022 National Report, 2022, Supra note 10, at 91 (Charles  Puzzanchera, Sarah Hockenberry, and Melissa Sickmund). 

38 Id. 

39 Ohio Capitol Journal, Its Time Ohio Lawmakers Fund Alternatives to Youth Incarceration (last visited Feb. 1, 2024), https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2021/06/07/its-time-ohio-lawmakers-fund-alternatives-to-youth incarceration/.

40 Id. 

41 Id. 

42 Research Gate, Arrested development: The effects of incarceration on the development of psychosocial  maturity (last visited Feb. 1, 2024),  

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229064555_Arrested_development_The_effects_of_incarceration_on_the _development_of_psychosocial_maturityat at 1074–75. 

43 Id. 

44 Ohio Capitol Journal, Its Time Ohio Lawmakers Fund Alternatives to Youth Incarceration (last visited Feb. 1, 2024), https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2021/06/07/its-time-ohio-lawmakers-fund-alternatives-to-youth incarceration/. (“It costs Ohio taxpayers $185,303 to incarcerate one child for one year. This is a staggering amount  for us to spend on youth incarceration, an ineffective and harmful approach to the needs of communities in our  state–particularly young Black Ohioans, who are six times more likely than their white counterparts to be  incarcerated.”)

45 Justice Policy Institute, Sticker Shock 2020: The Cost of Youth Incarceration (last visited Feb. 1, 2024),  https://justicepolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Sticker_Shock_2020.pdf 

46 Policy Matters Ohio, Justice Reform: Promise Over Punishment (last visited Feb. 1, 2024),  https://www.policymattersohio.org/files/research/promisejuvenilejustice.pdf pg 1. 

47 Id. 

48 Park et al., An Assessment of Juvenile Justice Reform in Ohio: Impact on Youth Placement and Recidivism  from 2008 to 2015, 70 CRIME & DELINQUENCY 1, 16–17 (2022).  

49 Park et al., An Assessment of Juvenile Justice Reform in Ohio: Impact on Youth Placement and Recidivism  from 2008 to 2015, 70 CRIME & DELINQUENCY 1, 16–17 (2022).

50 Id. 

51 Id. 

52 Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, State Juvenile Justice Reforms can Boost Opportunity, Particularly  for Communities of Color (last visited February 16, 2024), https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and tax/state-juvenile-justice-reforms-can-boost-opportunity-particularly-for#_ftn56. 

53 Id. 

54 Id. 

55 Id.

56 Id. 

57 Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, State Juvenile Justice Reforms can Boost Opportunity, Particularly  for Communities of Color, 2021, Supra Note 51, (Cortney Sanders). 

58 Park et al., An Assessment of Juvenile Justice Reform in Ohio: Impact on Youth Placement and Recidivism  from 2008 to 2015, 70 CRIME & DELINQUENCY 1, 16–17 (2022) 

59 Id. 

60 Id. at 15-16.

61 Senate bill 66. Sec. 2929.11. (A) 

62 Park et al., An Assessment of Juvenile Justice Reform in Ohio: Impact on Youth Placement and Recidivism  from 2008 to 2015, 70 CRIME & DELINQUENCY 1, 15–16 (2022). 

63 Id. 

64 Id. at 20–21. 

65 CrossFit, Beyond Tomorrow: How CrossFit Crave is Breaking the Incarceration Cycle (last visited Feb. 1,  2024), https://www.crossfit.com/battles/beyond-tomorrow-how-crossfit-crave-is-breaking-the-incarceration-cycle

66 The Daily Standard, Fitness Aids Troubled Youth: State May Copy CrossFit Program (last visited Feb. 1,  2024), https://dailystandard.com/archive/2021-10-15/stories/43966/fitness-aids-troubled-youth. 

67 Id. 

68 F45 Training, What is F45 Training? (last visited Feb. 1, 2024), 

https://f45training.com/what-is-f45/.  

69 Mercer County Probate/Juvenile Court, Court Staff (last visited Feb. 1, 2024), 

https://mercercountycourts.com/staff.php.

70 The Daily Standard, Fitness Aids Troubled Youth: State May Copy CrossFit Program (last visited Feb. 1,  2024),  

https://dailystandard.com/archive/2021-10-15/stories/43966/fitness-aids-troubled-youth.

71 PowerPoint on Program Snapshot from Angie Gehle, Chief Prob. Officer, Mercer Cnty. Juv. Ct., to Judge  Mathew L. Gilmore, Mercer Cnty. Juv. Ct. (June 30, 2023) (on file with author). 

72 Id. 

73 Id. 

74 The Daily Standard, Fitness Aids Troubled Youth: State May Copy CrossFit Program, Supra Note 63,  (William Kincaid).

75 Ohio Department of Youth Services, Winners Announced for Community Recognition Awards (last visited  Feb. 1, 2024), https://dys.ohio.gov/about-us/communications/news/winners-announced-for-community-recognition awards. 

76 Crossfit, Getting Started: What is Crossfit? (last visited Feb. 1, 2024), 

https://www.crossfit.com/what-is-crossfit. 

77 Id.

78 PowerPoint on Mental Health Training from Debbie Wagner, Director, Expanding Horizon’s CrossFit  Probation Program. (Jan. 11, 2024) (on file with author). 

79 Id. 

80 Id. 

81 Motivational Interviewing Implementation and Practice Manual: Motivational Speech A JSSE Resource  (2015)

82 Id. 

83 Id. 

84 Id.