Assessing Cross-Sector Stakeholder Perspectives on Oakland (CA)’s Juvenile Reentry System

• DOI: 10.1177/1525107118801304
• Author: Sara Bedford,Marthea Alley-Caliz,Sonia Jain-Aghi,Yvette Leung,Henrissa Bassey,Alison K. Cohen,Priya Jagannathan
• Date: 01 December 2017
• Published date: 01 December 2017
• Subject Matter: Research Articles

Research Article

Assessing Cross-Sector

Stakeholder Perspectives

on Oakland (CA)’s Juvenile

Reentry System

Sonia Jain-Aghi

1,2

, Alison K. Cohen

1,2,3,4,5

,

Priya Jagannathan

6

, Henrissa Bassey

1,2

, Yvette Leung

7,8

,

Marthea Alley-Caliz

9

and Sara Bedford

6

Abstract

We surveyed 75 staff and administrators involved in Oakland (CA)’s Second Chance

Initiative from diverse agencies (e.g., probation, behavioral health, public health/

medical, education, community-based service providers) to assess the local juvenile

reentry system. Sharing and using data across partner agencies, mutual trust,

opportunities for interagency collaboration, system-level youth and family engage-

ment, shared governance, and limited resources repeatedly arose as areas for

improvement. Many defined reentry success using positive youth developmental

outcomes. Government and community perspectives around barriers and effective-

ness often differed with some similarities.

1

DNA Global, LLC, Oakland, CA, USA

2

Health and Human Development Program, WestEd, Oakland, CA, USA

3

Innovations for Youth, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA

4

Graduate School of Education, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA

5

Department of Public and Nonprofit Administration, School of Management, University of San Francisco,

San Francisco, CA, USA

6

Department of Human Services, City of Oakland, Oakland, CA, USA

7

Y’s Change, Oakland, California, USA

8

Alameda County Health Care Services Agency, San Leandro, CA, USA

9

Alameda County Probation Department, DARRT (Data, Analysis, Research and Reporting Team),

Oakland, CA, USA

Corresponding Author:

Alison K. Cohen, Department of Public and Nonprofit Administration, School of Management, University

of San Francisco, 211 Malloy Hall, 2130 Fulton Street, San Francisco, CA 94117, USA.

Email: akcohen@usfca.edu

Justice Research and Policy

2017, Vol. 18(2) 98-124

ªThe Author(s) 2018

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/1525107118801304

journals.sagepub.com/home/jrx

Keywords

adolescents, cross-sector partnerships, juvenile justice system, juvenile reentry, urban

Juvenile justice reform is on the rise in the United States, with reformers particularly

interested in preventing recidivism. One opportunity for reform is in the reentry

process, in which young offenders reenter their communities. Community-based

approaches appear to be particularly useful in these settings, but partnerships between

government agencies and community-based orga nizations (CBOs) to deliver such

services require collaboration. This article shares local knowledge from a process

evaluation of an innovative, evidence-based collaborative Second Chance Initiative

in Oakland, California, that aimed to align practices with principles of positive youth

development (Lerner, Phelps, Forman, & Bowers, 2009) and systems reform (Bruns,

Rast, Peterson, Walker, & Bosworth, 2006; Erickson, 2012).

We report on the development and results of a juvenile reentry cross-system partner

survey that aimed to measure specific system-level components across the continuum

of the juvenile reentry system. We report descriptive statistics in this setting for the

following overarching categories identified as relevant for systems change: shared

vision and goals (Johnston & Unnithan, 2012; Nissen, 2010), interagency collabora-

tion and communication (Johnson & Chrispeels, 2010), shared governance and

decision-making (Evan, Aubry, Hawkins, Curley, & Porter-O’Grady, 1995), and data

sharing and use. We also report on characteristics of youth-centered work: youth and

family engagement (Altschuler, 2011; Burton, Cohen & Jain-Aghi, 2014), multidis-

ciplinary assessments, coord inated case planning (Haight, Bidwe ll, Choi, & Cho,

2016), and evidence-based practices (Henggeler & Schoenwald, 2011). Finally, we

report on orienting toward impact, which includes defining success, and perceived

impact of the Second Chance Initiative on systems and services. We then discuss these

findings in relation to the existing base of literature.

Promoting Juvenile Justice Reform

There is a growing list of juvenile justice practices, processes, and policies from intake

to reentry that may reduce recidivism, ensure public safety, and improve rehabilitation

of young offenders (Altschuler, 2011; Altschuler & Brash, 2004; Fagan, 1990; Macal-

lair, Males, Enty, & Vinakor, 2011; Mears, Shollenberger, & Willison, 2010; Mears &

Travis, 2004). For example, there is a growing consensus that traditional punitive

methods of confinement do not work, and more innovative, community-based, inte-

grated approaches that ensure continuity of care to meet multiple needs of young

offenders are needed. Community-based care, compared to institutional care, is gen-

erally more effective in reducing subsequent arrest (Chung, Little, & Steinberg, 2005;

Greenwood, 2008; Phillippi, Cocozza, & DePrato, 2013; Pullmann et al., 2006; Ryan,

Abrams, & Huang, 2014; Welsh & Farrington, 2012). Researchers emphasize the

importance of having a collaborative system of multisectoral strategies that aligns

Jain-Aghi et al. 99