Effective Collaboration For Serious Violent Offender Reentry

David Osher, Ph.D.Center for Effective Collaboration and Practice

Technical Assistance Partnership for Child & Family Mental HealthAmerican Institutes for Research

www.air.org/cecpwww.air.org/tapartnership

OJJDP Conference on Serious Violent Offender ReentryWashington, DCOctober 1, 2002

Why Collaborate? Youth Have Multiple Needs

Mental health Physical Health Substance Abuse Prevention & Treatment Education Employment Housing Recreation Spiritual Family

Why Collaborate? Stakeholders have Multiple Concerns About

Short and Long-Term Educational, Vocational, Civic, and Safety Outcomes Families Schools Taxpayers

Why Collaborate? Eliminate Fragmentation Eliminate Duplication Eliminate Distrust Use Scarce Resources Wisely Address Multiple Risk Factors Across

Multiple Domains Improve the Effectiveness of Interventions Build Capacity—No Agency Can Do It Alone Enhance Staff & Community Safety

Collaboration is Not a Good in Itself

Can Collaborate to Do Bad Things (or because the “Boss told you to”)

Can Collaborate to Do Good Things, but Do them Badly

Cultural Barriers to Collaboration

Knowledge

Professional Socialization

Language

Missions, Values, Beliefs, Rituals

Communities of Knowledge and Communities of Practice

Constituencies and their expectations

Structural Barriers to Collaboration

Mandates & Accountability

Funding Streams

Organization of Resources

Jobs

Money

Time

The burden of routine

What is on the desk when one gets back from a planning meeting

Other Barriers to Collaboration

Self-interest

Turf

Management of Change

Agency Driven approaches to planning and evaluation

Who is Collaborating (Different Dynamics) Agency Collaboration Inter Agency Collaboration Family Agency Collaboration Family Interagency Collaboration Agency Community Collaboration Faith Based and Community Collaboration Inter Agency Community Collaboration Interagency Family Community Collaboration

We can Distinguish Between Two Approaches to Service Delivery

PROVIDER DRIVEN

CHILD & FAMILYDRIVEN

SOURCE OFSOLUTIONS

professional family and their supportteam

RELATIONSHIP dependent client partner/collaborator ORIENTATION isolating and “fixing” a

problem viewed asresiding in the child orfamily

ecological approachenabling the child andfamily to do better

ASSESSMENT deficit oriented strengths based PLANNING resource based individualized for each

child and family PROGRAM SERVICEAVAILABILITY

limited by agency’s menuand professionalconvenience

comprehensive andprovided when and wherethe child and familyrequire

EXPECTIATIONS low high OUTCOMES based on symptoms based on quality of life and

desires of child and family

Provider-driven Systems•Professionals and agencies are viewed as the key force in solving problems.

•Providers “fix” their “clients” who are compliant and passive.

Family members often share this orientation because:

•they are socialized to it as a sign of respect;

•they are fulfilling the expectations of the system in order to insure they get services;

•they have been blamed, labeled dysfunctional, judged inadequate or otherwise deemed unfit to make decisions.

Family-driven Systems• Responsibility for decision making is held collectively and equally by all members of the team.

The Family is:

•deemed to have expert knowledge regarding their child; and

•expected to contribute to defining and resolving the issues.

Family-driven Practice in ACTION Example

Back End: Rhode Island Parent Support Network Led Transition

Planning at the RITS

Characteristics of Effective Community-Wide Collaborations

Shared Ownership and Accountability Consumer-Driven Consumer-centered Goals and Orientation Multi-disciplinary across multiple domains Strategic & Data Driven Individual & Collective Accountability Culturally Competent Problem-Solving Approach Clear, Consistent, & Simple Interventions & Expectations

Characteristics of Effective Collaborations Sustained Supportive Infrastructure Institutionalized through

Policy Leadership Management Protocols & Procedures, Practices Monitoring CQI Evaluation

Impact of Collaboration Agency staff have come to know their counterparts in other

agencies and are friendlier with one another; allowing them to work with one another in a more respectful way.

Agencies work together to change or adapt to a situation rather than place blame.

Shifting the focus of service delivery from the individual service provider to the system as a whole.

Impact of Collaboration Less service fragmentation. Better response to specialized through more appropriate

service options. Enhanced access to services Improved ability to consider the needs of the “whole child

and the whole family” within the context of their community.

Collaborative Outcomes: The Bottom Line KEEP IT SIMPLE KEEP IT REAL KEEP THE FOCUS ON

THE CHILD THE FAMILY COMMUNITY CAPACITY & SAFETY

LINK IT TO A THEORY OF CHANGE

Talking the Talk

Walking the Talk

Walking the Walk

Towards Effective Collaboration

Collaboration as a Developmental Process

Stage I: Individual Action

Stage II: One-on-One

Stage III: New Service Development

Stage IV: Professional Collaboration

Stage V: True Collaboration

Promising Practices in Children’s Mental Health: Volume VI

Resources www.air.org/cecp Video: Making Collaboration Work for Children,

Youth, Families, Schools, & Communities (CEC)

Video: Promising Practices for Safe and Effective Schools (OJJDP)

Promising Practices in Children’s Mental Health (CECP, 1999, 2000, 2001) 13 Volumes

Improving Prevention, Providing More Efficient Services, and Reducing Recidivism For Youth With Disabilities (CECP/EDJJ)