Effective Collaboration For Serious
Violent Offender Reentry
David Osher, Ph.D.
Center for Effective Collaboration and Practice
Technical Assistance Partnership for Child & Family Mental Health
American Institutes for Research
www.air.org/cecp
www.air.org/tapartnership
OJJDP Conference on Serious Violent Offender Reentry
Washington, DC
October 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 & FAMILY
DRIVEN
SOURCE OF
SOLUTIONS
RELATIONSHIP
ORIENTATION
professional
ASSESSMENT
PLANNING
strengths based
individualized for each
child and family
limited by agency’s menu comprehensive and
and professional
provided when and where
convenience
the child and family
require
low
high
based on symptoms
based on quality of life and
desires of child and family
PROGRAM
SERVICE
AVAILABILITY
EXPECTIATIONS
OUTCOMES
dependent client
isolating and “fixing” a
problem viewed as
residing in the child or
family
deficit oriented
resource based
family and their support
team
partner/collaborator
ecological approach
enabling the child and
family to do better
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
Towards Effective Collaboration
Talking the Talk
Walking the Talk
Walking the Walk
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)