Evaluating the Implementation of a Collaborative Juvenile Reentry System in Oakland, California

• Author: Sonia Jain,Alison K. Cohen,Henrissa Bassey,Yvette Leung,Priya Jagannathan,Sara Bedford
• Published date: 01 September 2018
• DOI: 10.1177/0306624X18755480
• Date: 01 September 2018
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X18755480

International Journal of

Offender Therapy and

Comparative Criminology

2018, Vol. 62(12) 3662 –3680

© The Author(s) 2018

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0306624X18755480

journals.sagepub.com/home/ijo

Article

Evaluating the

Implementation of a

Collaborative Juvenile

Reentry System in

Oakland, California

Sonia Jain1, Alison K. Cohen1,2, Priya Jagannathan3,

Yvette Leung4,5, Henrissa Bassey1, and Sara Bedford3

Abstract

Traditional juvenile reentry systems often inadequately meet offenders’ complex needs.

Policymakers and researchers increasingly recognize the importance of a collaborative

community- and development-based reentry system to improve recidivism, youth

developmental outcomes, and public safety. Yet, system-level process evaluations of

integrated reentry systems are scarce. California’s Alameda County juvenile reentry

system implemented evidence-based strategies and practices to better serve reentry

youth. We report findings from a process evaluation, using data from 15 key stakeholder

interviews, focus groups with community-based providers, a reentry system-wide

stakeholder survey, site visit observations, and document reviews. We identified

strengths, challenges, and lessons learned. System-level strengths included increased

multidisciplinary assessments, interagency collaboration, and specialty courts. Challenges

included differing agency agendas, limited family and youth engagement, and data sharing.

We recommend future researchers and practitioners to further examine and implement

integrated system-level processes and organizational change, informed by the ecological-

developmental perspective, to help promote positive outcomes for reentry youth.

Keywords

collaboration, community-based, evaluation, implementation, juvenile justice, reentry,

systems change

1DNA Global, LLC, Oakland, CA, USA

2University of California, Berkeley, School of Public Health & Graduate School of Education, USA

3Department of Human Services, Oakland, CA, USA

4Y’s Change, Oakland, CA, USA

5Alameda County Health Care Services Agency, San Leandro, CA, USA

Corresponding Author:

Alison K. Cohen, DNA Global, LLC, 6114 La Salle Avenue, Suite 647, Oakland, CA 94611, USA.

Email: akcohen@gmail.com

755480IJOXXX10.1177/0306624X18755480International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative CriminologyJain et al.

research-article2018

Jain et al. 3663

Many have called for juvenile justice system reform, inspired by the ineffective ways

in which status offenders and low to medium risk juveniles are detained and treated.

Detention affects individuals’ lives, public safety, and public expenditures (Coalition

for Juvenile Justice [CJJ], 2012; Kim, 2009; Sander et al., 2011). “Tough on crime”

policies and systems, prominent since the 1990s, have often led to detention for non-

violent, first-time juvenile offenses such as underage drinking, truancy, and vandalism

(Bender, 2012; Freiburger & Burke, 2011), “arresting” their normal psychosocial

development and leading to more troubled delinquent trajectories than would have

otherwise been expected (Steinberg, Chung, & Little, 2004).

In 2014, approximately 1 million juveniles were arrested and processed by the U.S.

justice system (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention [OJJDP], 2015).

Most juveniles placed in detention facilities face overcrowding and unsafe conditions,

including residing with high-risk offenders (CJJ, 2012). They may encounter abuse

and stigmatization, and are often deprived of due procedural rights and the opportunity

to express personal concerns in the courtroom (CJJ, 2012; Kim, 2009; Sander et al.,

2011). Youth of color continue to be disproportionately affected, as a result of long-

standing system-level inequities (Freiburger & Burke, 2011; Rodriguez, 2013).

System-level change is a particularly promising approach for addressing these system-

level policy and practice challenges to improve outcomes for reentry youth.

Over the last 20 years, there has been a significant decline in youth confinement

across states, including in California, which dropped from 524 per 100,000 in 1997 to

271 per 100,000 in 2010 (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2011). However, in California

and other states, the burden of responsibility for a larger number of prisoners and juve-

nile offenders has shifted to the local counties as a result of changes to the state sen-

tencing laws (Stahlkopf, Males, & Macallair, 2010). Recidivism rates continue to be

as high as 50% (California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation [CDCR],

2010), suggesting that more work needs to be done locally to improve reentry

outcomes.

Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological-developmental theory posits that individuals

are nested within many different environments (e.g., reentry system, community,

school, peers, home) that can affect their development. Applying the ecological-devel-

opmental perspective to reentry system reform emphasizes the importance of cumula-

tive disadvantage (Sampson & Laub, 1997; Steinberg et al., 2004): Many of the

juveniles detained have experienced an array of problems at home, school, and/or in

their communities with inadequate supports and opportunities prior to offending

(Barnert et al., 2015; Vidal et al., 2017). Those prior experiences, in addition to their

detention experience, may affect their reentry trajectories during and post detention

(Wolff, Baglivio, & Piquero, 2017). For instance, more than half of juveniles detained

struggle with serious mental and/or behavioral health issues (Schubert, Mulvey, &

Glasheen, 2011; Wasserman, McReynolds, Schwalbe, Keating, & Jones, 2010). Post

release, juvenile offenders typically return to the same settings as predetention, which

means exposure to the same risk factors. Post detention, many continue to suffer from

significant trauma and mental health issues (Ford, Chapman, Hawke, & Albert, 2007),

substance abuse, and health issues (Golzari, Hunt, & Anoshiravani, 2006). Into adult-

hood, juvenile offenders on average attain lower levels of education (Keith & Mccray,