Alternatives to Pretrial Detention:Pre Global Best Practice Catalog

This Global Best Practice Catalog of Alternatives to Pretrial Detention was completed by students of the Master of Arts Degree Program in International Crime and Justice at John Jay College of Criminal Justice as part of their capstone course, in collaboration with the US State Department\u27s Diplomacy Lab program. This catalog is intended to cover best practices in reducing pretrial detention (either before it occurs or while it is occurring) across the globe, including laws, policies and programs. It does not include Oceania or very detailed information on North America. Each entry meets 5 of 8 criteria below, as decided by the students: 1. It respects human rights 2. It is affordable for the country\u27s budget 3. It is available to the majority of accused 4. It is definable: we know how the best practice works in context 5. It ensures public safety: no further crime or victimization occurs upon release from detention 6. It is verifiable: more than one source attests to it (it is not a recommendation - it really exists) 7. It is sustainable - it really works and it can self-subsist 8. It should not result in profits for private entities, beyond reasonable salaries Each entry includes: Title of the Practice Listing of the class best practice criteria that it meets (5 out of 8) Paragraph description of the practice, to include -how long it’s been in practice -what the main components of the best practice are -scope: local or national -who it affects -costs if available (how it’s funded) -who’s in charge of it (e.g. NGO/organizational structure) -any independent evaluations? -results -whether it has been exported elsewhere (used in another country) Links Bibliography Associated files are a series of case studies where student teams apply global best practice to selected countries. (El Salvador, Uruguay, Bangladesh, Ghana, Liberia and Macedonia.

Intensive care unit burden is associated with increased mortality in critically ill COVID-19 patients

BACKGROUND: Traditional models to predict intensive care outcomes do not perform well in COVID-19. We undertook a comprehensive study of factors affecting mortality and functional outcome after severe COVID-19.METHODS: In this prospective multicentre cohort study, we enrolled laboratory-confirmed, critically ill COVID-19 patients at six ICUs in the Skåne Region, Sweden, between May 11, 2020, and May 10, 2021. Demographics and clinical data were collected. ICU burden was defined as the total number of ICU-treated COVID-19 patients in the region on admission. Surviving patients had a follow-up at 90 days for assessment of functional outcome using the Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended (GOSE), an ordinal scale (1-8) with GOSE ≥5 representing a favourable outcome. The primary outcome was 90-day mortality; the secondary outcome was functional outcome at 90 days.RESULTS: Among 498 included patients, 74% were male with a median age of 66 years and a median body mass index (BMI) of 30 kg/m 2 . Invasive mechanical ventilation was employed in 72%. Mortality in the ICU, in-hospital and at 90 days was 30%, 38% and 39%, respectively. Mortality increased markedly at age 60 and older. Increasing ICU burden was independently associated with a two-fold increase in mortality. Higher BMI was not associated with increased mortality. Besides age and ICU burden, smoking status, cortisone use, P a CO 2 >7 kPa, and inflammatory markers on admission were independent factors of 90-day mortality. Lower GOSE at 90 days was associated with a longer stay in the ICU. CONCLUSION: In critically ill COVID-19 patients, the 90-day mortality was 39% and increased considerably at age 60 or older. The ICU burden was associated with mortality, whereas a high BMI was not. A longer stay in the ICU was associated with unfavourable functional outcomes at 90 days

Governance strategy and costs : board compensation in Sweden

Shareholders are not identical, but differ in their objectives and actions. One difference is the level of delegation of the principal functions to the board, which we suggest can be observed through the level of directors’ compensation. We analyze the difference in board compensation through the concept of governance strategy and suggest two distinct categories of shareholder strategies: the company governance strategy and the financial governance strategy. These strategies create different distributions of governance costs, which we separate into principal costs and agency costs. We claim that the financial governance strategy adopts a higher level of delegation, which implies that the principal costs are assumed by the corporation and that agency costs are higher. This in turn can explain the higher compensation for the directors of the board compared to compensation under the company governance strategy. We test our hypothesis using a three-year panel of Swedish listed corporations and find that shareholders pursuing a financial governance strategy are associated with higher levels of board compensation. These findings suggest the existence of differences in governance strategies, reflected in governance costs through board compensation, among different types of shareholders in a corporation