The pressing problem for the Ohio Department of Youth Services in 1992 was overcrowding in its institutions; population in the State's juvenile facilities had reached 187 percent of capacity; and at least half of the State's facilities were old, unsafe, unsecured, and bordering on inhumane. The first formulation of a strategy built on consensus began in 1988 with the establishment of a Policy Advisory Group (PAG), whose mission was to examine State juvenile institutional overcrowding problems and offer recommendations. The PAG's major focus was to provide more community-based sanctions for nonviolent offenders. Its recommendation limited the authority of juvenile judges to commit lower-level offenders to State incarceration. The PAG recommended a major infusion of money through county subsidies to expand local programs. A major part of the reform strategy of the 1980s was to engage in honest discussion with legislators and judges about the poor state of the physical infrastructure of juvenile facilities. Legislators, judges, educators, and youth advocates were shown the realities and results of overcrowding and neglected facilities. They were sold on the need for action. A Capital Appropriations Bill enabled the department to replace a number of older facilities and help build several community corrections facilities. Such action was a needed temporary safety valve for overcrowding problems. The evolution to RECLAIM Ohio had begun. In 1994 RECLAIM Ohio was piloted in nine Ohio counties with the goals of empowering local juvenile court judges with more options and alternatives for the juvenile offender and to improve the Department of Youth Services' ability to treat offenders. Consistent with these goals, the department also sought greater involvement of families in community-based programs and an increased ability to provide services to the youth in custody. RECLAIM Ohio was fully implemented in 1995 as a new paradigm for how Ohio manages juvenile corrections. 1 reference