A Review of the Training and Accreditation of Restorative Justice Facilitators in Aotearoa New Zealand

A Review of the Training and Accreditation of Restorative Justice Facilitators in Aotearoa New Zealand

Executive Summary

4

INTRODUCTION CURRENT SYSTEM HAS A NUMBER OF POSITIVE ASPECTS TRAINING IMPROVEMENTS ACCREDITATION IMPROVEMENTS PROMOTING PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST WORK WORKFORCE PLANNING MĀORI, TIKANGA, KAWA AND RESTORATIVE JUSTICE TRAINING AND ACCREDITATION VALUE FOR MONEY VISUAL OVERVIEW OF THE FINDINGS OF THIS REVIEW

4 4 4 4 5 5 5 6 6 6

Training Program Design, Awareness Of Training, Selection Of Participants And Access 12 GOOD TRAINING IN GENERAL 12 AWARENESS OF TRAINING 12 GETTING THE RIGHT PEOPLE ON THE TRAINING PROGRAMME - THOSE WITH APPROPRIATE PRESKILLS 12 IMPROVEMENTS TO PROVIDER GROUP PRE-SELECTION AND PRE-SKILLS BUILDING WITH POTENTIAL TRAINEES 13 COURSE SELECTION – PROVIDER GROUP SELECTION AND SUPPORT 14 ACCESS TO TRAINING 15 OTHER ROLE TRAINING 16

Training Curriculum, Content and Organization, Topics, Competencies

18

TRAINING AREAS COVERED COVERED EXPECTED AREAS PRE-COURSE MODULES ADDITIONAL TOPICS NZQA

18 18 18 18 19

Teaching, Learning & Assessment

20

OVERALL TEACHING OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT LEARNING RESOURCES WORKBOOK ASSESSMENT NEW MODES OF DELIVERY

20 20 21 21 21 22

Programme Management & Quality Assurance

23

WHO SHOULD RUN THE RJ FACILITATORS COURSE? QUALITY ASSURANCE AND IMPROVEMENT FROM FEEDBACK

23 23

Ongoing Professional Development

24

AN IDEAL INDUCTION PROCESS FORMAL TRAINING EARLY-CAREER MENTORING SUPERVISION DEVELOPING CAREER PATHWAYS DELIVERY OF NETWORKING OPPORTUNITIES OTHER ROLES

24 25 25 25 27 27 27

2

Accreditation Programme Purpose and Design

28

CLEAR PURPOSE FOR ACCREDITATION DELAYS AWARENESS OF ACCREDITATION EFFECTIVENESS OF PROVISION OF CURRENT ACCREDITATION SYSTEM WHAT IS THE BEST APPROACH TO ADOPT TO RE-ACCREDITATION ENCOURAGING FURTHER PROFESSIONAL TRAINING AS PART OF RE-ACCREDITATION THE CURRENT APPROACH TO ACCREDITATION ASSESSMENT IS SOUND ACCREDITATION MODERATION WHEN SHOULD PEOPLE BE ABLE TO APPLY FOR ACCREDITATION? HOW HARD SHOULD IT BE TO GET ACCREDITED PROVIDER GROUP ACCREDITATION

28 28 29 29 30 30 32 32 32 33 33

Best Practice, Gaps, Issues and Quality Review

34

PROMOTING BEST PRACTICE IN THE SECTOR THE CASE OF REPORT WRITING, A PARTICULARLY VISIBLE AND IMPORTANT ASPECT OF BEST PRACTICE POSSIBILITY OF A FORMAL QUALITY MARK APPROACH TO ENSURING BEST PRACTICE.

34

Workforce Planning

35

The Need for Facilitator Specialisation

36

SPECIALISATION CONTINUUM OF RISK SAFETY AND SPECIALISED CONCERNS AND COMPETENCIES HIGH EMOTION RJ WORK PRISON WORK FAMILY VIOLENCE TRAINING AND ACCREDITATION RECOGNITION OF PRIOR TRAINING BEING ABLE TO ASSESS RISK ENTRY TO SERVICE REQUIREMENTS FOR PROVIDER GROUPS

36 36 38 38 38 39 40 41 41

Māori, Tikanga, Kawa and Restorative Justice Training and Accreditation

42

LACK OF MĀORI ASSESSORS APPROPRIATE TRAINING IN TIKANGA AND KAWA FOR RJ FACILITATORS

42 42

Conclusion

45

Appendices

46

APPENDIX 1: REVIEW METHODOLOGY APPENDIX 3: SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW SCHEDULE APPENDIX 4: FACILITATORS’ SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE APPENDIX 5: PROVIDER GROUPS AND STAKEHOLDERS SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS DoVIEW OUTCOMES MODEL

46 48 49 50 51 52

34 34

3

Executive Summary INTRODUCTION This review examines Restorative Justice (RJ) training and accreditation in New Zealand. It takes place within the wider context of the New Zealand government seeking to significantly increase the number of RJ conferences that are undertaken. If an increased emphasis on RJ within the New Zealand justice system is to be implemented successfully, it requires an appropriate level of RJ facilitator capacity and capability. A key aspect of building this capacity and capability is training and accreditation for those who fill this role. Hence the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) has commissioned this review through Restorative Justice Aotearoa (RJA), the professional association for restorative practices agencies and professionals in New Zealand.

CURRENT SYSTEM HAS A NUMBER OF POSITIVE ASPECTS This review has found that a number of aspects of the existing system of RJ facilitation training and accreditation are sound, in particular the idea of a training course combined with an accreditation process. The reviewers therefore propose building on the existing base that has been constructed over a number of years, in order to further develop the area of RJ in New Zealand.

TRAINING IMPROVEMENTS There were many positive comments from respondents about the current RJ facilitators' training course, including excellent trainers; good structure for the course; and good teaching methods (e.g. extensive use of role-plays). However a number of improvements were suggested such as urgent updating of the resources used in the current core RJ facilitator training; further attention to the best way of teaching Māori tikanga and kawa; greater focus on key topics such as report writing; and consideration of whether there could be some discretion about the modules different trainees need to complete, depending on their existing skill levels. This review makes recommendations regarding content of the core RJ facilitators’ course and also suggests other courses that could be developed, including a generic RJ training module that could provide information about RJ to a range of people, not just RJ facilitators. At the current time some people are attending the facilitator training course who are not primarily in RJ facilitation roles and this can have the effect of diluting the focus of the course for the other participants. In addition to the suggestion about a generic RJ course, other recommendations are made about introducing specialist topic courses (e.g. family violence).

ACCREDITATION IMPROVEMENTS The review found that the basis of the accreditation system is sound. A number of people thought the experience of being accredited was very useful for their professional development. However there are some practical issues with the accreditation system that need to be improved, including the availability of assessors; delays in processing the results of assessments; the need for Māori assessors; a better reassessment process; and the integration of accreditation with a professional development pathway that all RJ facilitators should follow.

4

PROMOTING PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT The RJ facilitator role is a relatively new professional role. While it is important to have ongoing professional development for any professional role, it is particularly important for a professional role in the early stages of its development. The reviewers believe that there should be eight components to any overall professional development process: induction; formal training; accreditation; early-career mentoring; supervision; continuing ‘inservice’ training; the provision of networking opportunities; and providing attractive career pathways. Each of these eight components needs improvement in the case of RJ facilitation in New Zealand. Looking at each of these areas: induction of new RJ facilitators needs to be boosted by encouraging and assisting provider groups in doing this. The formal training system improvements that are recommended in this review need to be implemented. This review's recommendations for improving the current accreditation system should be adopted. Early-career mentoring needs to be provided by provider groups. Supervision for all RJ facilitators needs to be promoted. The provision of ‘in-service’ training for RJ facilitators need to be improved by provider groups, Restorative Justice Aotearoa and the Ministry of Justice. A range of networking opportunities needs to be provided by the same groups. Lastly, the challenges of developing coherent and attractive career pathways for RJ facilitation in a diverse community-based sector need to be overcome. In addition to specific recommendations for improving components of the professional development process, this review also recommends that information on professional development plans should be included as part of the accreditation and reaccreditation process.

SPECIALIST WORK While some RJ facilitation work is generic, other RJ work is intertwined with a variety of specialist issues. The predominant other issues are: high-emotion and serious offending (e.g. homicide); prison work; family violence; and, sexual offending. Doing RJ work where one or more of these issues coexist necessitates high-quality risk management; specialist skills; and, in some instances (e.g. sexual offending) requires embedding RJ within a wider program of treatment for the offender. There are important implications for training and accreditation arising out of specialist work. A risk management continuum can be identified: from specialist work which requires minimal additional training (e.g. high-emotion work); through to that which requires extensive additional training, specialist accreditation and working within a network of referral provider partners dealing with the specialist topic (e.g. family violence). Finally, there may be instances where all of the above is required, plus embedding the RJ work within a formal treatment programme for the offender, such as for sexual offending. The Ministry of Justice is currently producing guidelines and competencies for doing RJ where family violence and sexual offending is involved. These guidelines will provide a strong foundation for the development of training and accreditation standards in the specialist topics area.

WORKFORCE PLANNING This review is primarily concerned with how to improve training and accreditation for RJ facilitators. However, there is a wider question that lies behind this. This question concerns the number of RJ facilitators needed to meet the expected demand for RJ conferences under the Government's new policy on this topic. Almost all the facilitators contacted for this review with whom the reviewers discussed workload issues, felt that they were currently under-utilised. This suggests that there is

5

significant spare capacity in RJ facilitation at the current time that can go towards meeting the demands made by the new regime. It is not possible to exactly predict whether this spare capacity will be sufficient to meet the increased demand for RJ facilitators going forward. The best approach to this issue is to adopt an 'agile-based planning approach'. This approach is where organisations or sectors collect 'real-time' feedback on what is happening and respond immediately with a flexible strategic response. This could be achieved through surveys of Provider Groups, or less formally from ongoing liaison during the transition period between the MOJ, RJA and contracted provider groups; and information from RJ facilitators about their current workload collected at the time of accreditation. This sector intelligence could inform a quick response by the MOJ to take steps to increase the number of RJ facilitators should this prove necessary, or to reduce the number of places available in training courses should it become obvious that there is an oversupply of RJ facilitators.

MĀORI, TIKANGA, KAWA AND RESTORATIVE JUSTICE TRAINING AND ACCREDITATION Two issues in regard to Māori are dealt with in this review. The first is the lack of trainers and accreditation Assessors who are Māori. This needs to be addressed by the MOJ. Recently a Māori trainer has been recruited by the training provider, this is a positive development. The second issue is the type of preparation that is needed for non-Māori RJ facilitators to work effectively with Māori. A set of levels of intensity for working with Māori are identified in this review from working occasionally with Māori, most of whom do not have strong knowledge of tikanga and kawa; working with some Māori in non-Māori settings; and working with Māori in Māori contexts. The objective of the core RJ facilitator training course should be to equip facilitators to be able to work in the first of these situations and to know when and how to seek cultural supervision when reviewing a referral. Additional training needs to be provided to those who wish to work in other situations. It is important that provider groups and facilitators have good connections with their local iwi and know where they can access appropriate assistance.

VALUE FOR MONEY The economic benefit of Restorative Justice is likely to be large because previous studies have ‘indicate that the use of restorative justice leads to reductions of future victimization, and to justice sector cost savings from both fewer offenders returning to court, and reduced imprisonment rates’ 1. The economic cost of reoffending is high and RJ is likely to yield a high return on investment. In order for RJ processes to be run effectively RJ facilitators need to have appropriate knowledge and skills. Therefore, training and accreditation for RJ facilitators is likely to be adding significant economic value. It is however outside the scope of this review to undertake a cost-effectiveness or cost-benefit analysis of the value of RJ facilitator training and accreditation.

VISUAL OVERVIEW OF THE FINDINGS OF THIS REVIEW The methodology used in this review included the use of the DoView Visual Program Review Process (http://doview.com/u/programreviews.html). This is an approach to reviewing an organisation, program or sector in which a visual model (an Outcomes DoView – 1

Ministry of Justice (2011). Reoffending Analysis for Restorative Justice Cases: 2008 and 2009. Wellington, June 2011. http://www.justice.govt.nz/publications/globalpublications/r/reoffending-analysis-for-restorative-justice-cases-2008-and-2009. 6

http://doview.com/plan/draw.html) is built of the programme that is under reviewed. This

visual model also shows the location of the programme within its wider context. The advantage of this approach is that it is the fastest way of the reviewers becoming clear about what the programme consists of and what it is that is being reviewed. The DoView can also be used as a way of communicating with interviewees in the course of the review. In addition it can also be used to provide a visual summary of what the review found. Below are the two key pages from the DoView Outcomes Model. The model works from left to right with the outcome on the right. The traffic lights on the boxes show the extent to which issues were identified with each box. Green means that only minor issues were identified, red means major issues. The full DoView Outcomes Model is includes as an Appendix and the webpage version of the DoView is available at http://doview.com/doviews/1/restorativejusticereview112.html.

DoView.com/plan/draw.html User-friendly training (e.g. web based systems) Trainees are able to access training (.e.g location, cost) Well designed training with clear objectives and based on good practice Well managed training

Culturally appropriate training

Different roles have appropriate training offered (e.g. facilitators, coordinators) Curriculum appropriate (uptodate, well organised, right skills)

Training consistent throughout the country

Trainees, stakeholders and organisations knows training is available

Regular training held

Good use of new technologies in training

Appropriate selection processes

Right topics offered in training and training futurefocused (e.g. domestic violence)

Training is well delivered Quality learning resources

Right people trained and they do the right courses (role)

Appropriate numbers of trainees are trained (ethnicity, gender, age)

Quality training

Appropriate and well moderated assessment

Suitable range of levels offered in training (e.g. basic/ advanced)

Cultural competence of trainees enhanced

doview.com model

Training is appropriate from a Maori perspective Ongoing review and quality assurance of training and improvement from feedback and evidence Training provides value for money

aw according to Duignan's Outcomes Model Rules. DoView.com/plan/draw.html. Webpage version of this model available at DoView.com/doviews/1/restorativejusticereview112.html. Paul Duignan [email protected]

DoView.com/plan/draw.html Appropriate accreditation period Well designed accreditation system with clear objectives and based on good practice Facilitator accreditation is credible to individuals, stakeholders and employees Sufficient assessors Sufficient resources

Stakeholders and employers know about facilitator accreditation

Facilitator accreditation assessment methods appropriate, well moderated and set at right level

Facilitators know about accreditation

Facilitator accreditation is culturally appropriate

Facilitators are able to access accreditation Facilitator accreditation is incentivised (e.g. from contract providers, organisationally) and facilitators see it as having benefits personally for them

Facilitator accreditation is appropriate from a Maori perspective

Accreditation fits into facilitators' career pathways Accreditation is ongoing and appropriate approach to reaccreditation

Right people accredited

Appropriate numbers of people are accredited (ethnicity, gender, age)

High-quality facilitator accreditation system

Facilitator accreditation is transferrable across different sectors Facilitator accreditation is transparent

Ongoing review and quality assurance of accreditation system and improvement from feedback and evidence Accreditation system provides value for money

doview.com model

Facilitator accreditation accords to natural justice and fairness

Draw according to Duignan's Outcomes Model Rules. DoView.com/plan/draw.html.Webpage version of this model available at DoView.com/doviews/1/restorativejusticereview112.html. Paul Duignan [email protected]

7

RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendation 1: That the Facilitator Induction Training Enrolment Form be improved to make the expected pre-skill requirements more explicit. (Desirable, MoJ). Recommendation 2: That consideration be given to the removal of the ‘no criminal history’ requirement for potential facilitators so that ‘wounded healers’ who have become socially integrated and rehabilitated can work as RJ facilitators. That RJA lead the investigation of the possibility of removing the ‘no criminal history’ requirement for potential facilitators and work with MoJ and provider groups to develop assessment and engagement guidelines on this issue if it is considered a sound concept. (Desirable, RJA, MoJ). Recommendation 3: That provider groups ensure that: 1) those they send to the RJ facilitator training courses have the necessary pre-skills to benefit from the training (if necessary by developing these in their induction process) (Necessary, Provider Groups); 2) trainee RJ facilitators have an apprenticeship plan for working towards accreditation (Necessary, Provider Groups); 3) participants studying the pre-course modules are provided with input from a mentor or their provider group team to maximise learning when on the core course. (Desirable, Provider Groups); 4) every trainee RJ facilitator has active mentoring in their first year arranged by their provider group. (Necessary, Provider Groups); and, 5) every RJ facilitator has an internal or external supervisor arranged by their provider group. (Necessary, Provider Group). Recommendation 4: That face to face training of RJ facilitators continue to be delivered at a national level for the next several years. In the longer-term, transferring aspects of the training to a sophisticated on-line e-learning environment should be kept under active consideration by the MOJ. (Desirable, MoJ). Recommendation 5: That generic training in some form be provided for people from other RJ roles. Whether electronic, face-to-face or a combination of both needs to be considered further when the future mix of training is determined. (Desirable, MoJ). Recommendation 6: That: 1) to the extent possible, the content of the MoJ course should be expanded to include both specific skills e.g. report writing, identification of family violence and sexual offending, and general awareness of issues such as raising the profile of RJ, the need for cultural and clinical supervision and issues surrounding children's attendance. However, given the course is of limited duration, the addition of these topic needs to be weighed up against the topics which are already in the course (Necessary, MoJ); 2) that, where possible, more ‘learning from the group’ be incorporated into the delivery approach within the core RJ course. (Desirable, MoJ); 3) that the course workbook be reviewed to see if it can be reduced in size and made more useful as an ongoing resource (Desirable, MoJ); and, 4) that in addition to the immediate

8

feedback collected at the end of the core RJ course, feedback should be requested from course participants two months after completion. (Desirable, MoJ). Recommendation 7: That consideration be given to having the restorative justice facilitators’ course approved by NZQA. (Desirable, MoJ). Recommendation 8: That the MOJ and RJA investigate the need for a ‘deskfile’ resource for the RJ process as a whole including the role of the Court. The relationship between this and the course manual would need to be clarified if such a deskfile was produced. (Desirable, MoJ and RJA). Recommendation 9: That provider groups be encouraged to improve their current induction process for trainee RJ facilitators as part of the apprenticeship approach proposed in this review. (Necessary, MoJ, Provider Groups). Recommendation 10: That MOJ provide additional training as recommended in this review (specialist training and some of the training topics listed in the in-service training section of this review) and make available to provider groups a list of other relevant training that RJ facilitators could attend to improve their skills as part of initial training and as in-service training. (Desirable, MoJ). Recommendation 11: That under the standards for Ministry of Justice contracting to provider groups there should be good practice recommendations relating to professional development and career pathways. (Desirable, MoJ). Recommendation 12: That MOJ and RJA consider what other networking possibilities could be arranged for RJ facilitators. (Desirable, MoJ, RJA). Recommendations 13: In regard to the accreditation system the MoJ should:

1) remedy the management problems with the current accreditation system as described in the accreditation section of this review. (Necessary, MoJ); 2) appoint more assessors in order to speed the assessment process (Necessary, MoJ); 3) provide a certificate acknowledging the status of Ministry of Justice Accredited Facilitators. (Desirable, MoJ); 4) communicate the details of the accreditation process and the advantages of being accredited to RJ facilitators. (Necessary, MoJ); 5) set five years as the length of the accreditation process; 6) stagger the dates when people come up for reaccreditation to avoid a bottle-neck of reaccreditations needing to be done. (Necessary, MoJ); 7) require that RJ facilitators when they are accredited submit a professional development plan and two and a half years into this accreditation period require that they submit a report on their professional development to the MOJ. (Necessary, MoJ); 8) continue the current approach to accreditation moderation. (Necessary, MoJ); and 9) not set any fixed time for those applying for accreditation - the timing should be worked out as part of the individual RJ facilitator’s apprenticeship plan. (Necessary, MoJ). Recommendation 14: That provider group accreditation should be encouraged by MOJ and RJA. (Necessary, MoJ, RJA).

9

Recommendation 15: That possibilities be investigated for improving the standard of report writing. (Necessary, MoJ, RJA, Provider Groups). Recommendation 16: That provider groups provide information about their RJ facilitators' spare capacity in their annual reporting to MOJ. (Desirable, MoJ). Recommendation 17: That the requirements in regard to the level of accreditation, training, embedding within a referral network and locating within a dedicated specialist treatment programme for different types of specialist work be informed by the table below. (Necessary, MoJ, RJA, Provider Groups).

Standard RJ facilitator training and accreditation

Plus training in highemotion work

Plus specialised training

Plus specialised accreditation

Plus embedded within a referral network

Only within a dedicated specialised treatment programme

Homicide Prison-work Family violence Sexual offending

Recommendation 18: That a high-emotion specialised course be established. (Necessary, MoJ). Recommendation 19: That the existing accreditation process for prison work continue and specialist training be developed. (Necessary, MoJ). Recommendation 20: That the MoJ consider offering a family violence advanced training module with the pre-requisite of having completed the core RJ training course. This could be set up in combination with specialised accreditation for family violence RJ work. Accreditation should require having done the core RJ facilitator course, however, some grandfathering provision should be made for those experienced facilitators who might not have done the core RJ course, but who would benefit by doing this module. If the MoJ does not wish to offer this specialized training, that they consider other alternatives to ensure that skill levels are sufficient in the sector in regard to this topic. (Desirable, MoJ). Recommendation 21: That a sexual offending advanced training module with the pre-requisite of having completed the core RJ training course be set up in combination with specialised accreditation for sexual offending RJ work. Accreditation should require having done the core RJ facilitator course, however, some grandfathering provision should be made for those experienced facilitators who might not have done the core RJ course, but who would benefit by doing this module. (Necessary, MoJ). Recommendation 22: That it be possible for experienced and skilled practitioners in the family violence and sexual offending area to achieve accreditation. A paper-based application process that allows facilitators to provide evidence of their prior learning and skills may be appropriate for this.

10

If their application was successful, these experienced facilitators could proceed to the accreditation phase without the requirement to attend training. (Necessary, MoJ). Recommendation 23: That the concept of an advanced facilitative-style training session be considered where advanced practitioners in the family violence and sexual offending area could workshop to improve their knowledge and skills. (Necessary, MoJ). Recommendation 24: That the MoJ actively recruits Māori assessors to remedy the current situation where there are no Māori assessors. (Necessary, MoJ). Recommendation 25: That the teaching of tikanga and kawa for RJ facilitators should focus on: 1. including in self-completion module 3 a compulsory assignment on working with Māori; 2. including in the block course some basics about tikanga and kawa and the dynamics and values of whanau Maori; 3. Information about what is appropriate practice in regard to working with Māori and the fact that additional knowledge and skills will be required if working more intensively with Māori; 4. Information on other courses which are available to build competency in tikanga and kawa; and, 5. Information about how to forge links with local Māori so as to increase knowledge and identify associations whom a RJ facilitator could work with who have the necessary skills. (Necessary, MoJ).

11

Training Program Design, Awareness Of Training, Selection Of Participants And Access While some RJ training has been available in NZ for many years, the MOJ training that is the subject of this review was established in 2008. 109 people have attended this five-day face-to-face training course and 8 are listed as not having completed it.

TRAINING IMPROVEMENTS There were many positive comments about the current core RJ facilitators' training course: excellent trainers, good structure for the course, and good teaching methods (e.g. extensive use of role-plays). However there were a number of improvements suggested for the course (referred to as the core RJ training course in this review). These include: urgent updating of the resources used in the training; further attention to the best way of teaching tikanga and kawa; more focus on a list of topics such as report writing; and consideration of whether there could be more tailoring of the aspects of the course people need to do, depending on their level of skill.

GOOD TRAINING IN GENERAL In general, the training is well designed with a clear purpose and focus. But there are some areas where improvement is needed. The RJ facilitator training was designed for the purpose of teaching the Restorative Justice role and practice to those who already had relevant transferable skills and experience, for instance, people who have previously been involved in facilitating groups or interviewing people for therapeutic purposes. The objective of the training is to develop the trainees’ existing skills to make them ready to start working as RJ support facilitators, able to begin their journey towards accreditation. The training is not currently designed to teach communication or facilitation pre-skills that it is presumed people will have prior to attending on the course. This issue is discussed in more detail below.

AWARENESS OF TRAINING In regard to awareness of the existence of the training course, there were no concerns raised about lack of awareness by those who are likely to want to participate in it. However, there may be people from outside the RJ field who could benefit from the training as a way of gaining entry into RJ work. Because such people were not contacted as part of this review, the reviewers do not know the level of awareness of the RJ facilitator training course amongst this wider group.

GETTING THE RIGHT PEOPLE ON THE TRAINING PROGRAMME - THOSE WITH APPROPRIATE PRE-SKILLS Are the right people coming to the RJ facilitators’ training course? And if not, how can this be remedied? It was reported by the trainers and those who had attended the course that some participants in the training course did not have the necessary level of pre-skills which are required for participants to get the most out of the course. Some had ‘never seen an RJ conference’.

12

Understandably, this was frustrating for those on the training course who had been doing RJ facilitation for years and who saw the training as ‘more of a refresher’. For the training to add the most value for participants, it is important that those coming on the course have the relevant pre-skills.

IMPROVEMENTS TO PROVIDER GROUP PRE-SELECTION AND PRE-SKILLS BUILDING WITH POTENTIAL TRAINEES In order to ensure that those attending the course have the necessary pre-skills, provider groups should address two aspects. The first is to put in place steps to enhance the pre-skills of participants being sent on the training program. Second, greater selectivity is needed in deciding who provider groups send to the training. Where a participant is attending without the sponsorship of a provider group, the MOJ should take this role. Provider groups need to be comfortable with turning down, or delaying, people who may want to be sent to the training. This would be necessary when the applicant does not have the required pre-skills and where it is not feasible for the provider group to develop these pre-skills given the induction resources they have available. There already exists an excellent pre-selection toolkit for selecting RJ facilitators that received praise from respondents. A similar tool could be incorporated as an aspect of this same toolkit, which would assist provider groups select trainees who are appropriate to send on the RJ facilitator course. The current Facilitator Induction Training Enrolment Form could be improved to make the expected pre-skill requirements more explicit, for example by including the identification of specific skills. These skills include facilitation, interviewing and good general oral and written (including computer) communication skills, experience working with a wide cross-section of the community, and understanding of the sector. It would then be clear to the applicant filling out the enrolment form, which areas they need to up-skill prior to going on the training. Ideally, provider groups could have an external review process for those attending the training perhaps partnering with another Provider Group to review each other's potential facilitators and provide comment on readiness or suggestions for pre-training preparation activities. There was a suggestion of a need for facilitators who are ‘wounded healers’ and that the no criminal history requirement be removed so that potential facilitators are not precluded by reason of criminal convictions, but rather are required to produce evidence of their social integration and rehabilitation over recent years. In the reviewers opinion this concept has merit, however putting in place a system which manages risk around this is not trivial. The concept should be investigated and if thought sound, guidelines for member organization could be developed by RJA, in conjunction with their member organizations and MoJ. Recommendation 1: That the Facilitator Induction Training Enrolment Form be improved to make the expected pre-skill requirements more explicit. (Desirable, MoJ). Recommendation 2: That consideration be given to the removal of the ‘no criminal history’ requirement for potential facilitators so that ‘wounded healers’ who have become socially integrated and rehabilitated can work as RJ facilitators. That RJA lead the investigation of the possibility of removing the ‘no criminal history’ requirement for potential facilitators and work

13

with MoJ and provider groups to develop assessment and engagement guidelines on this issue if it is considered a sound concept. (Desirable, RJA, MoJ).

COURSE SELECTION – PROVIDER GROUP SELECTION AND SUPPORT The five-day training course is designed to get trainees to the point where they are ready to go out as a support facilitator and start an apprenticeship with experienced facilitator ‘mentors’. Many trainees leave the course feeling very enthusiastic about RJ and keen to use their new skills. However, at the current time, after the course some of them feel they ‘don't get any work’ or development support from their provider group. Our recommendation is that if provider groups do not need new facilitators, then they should not send people on the training course. If they do need facilitators, then they need to provide pre- and postcourse support for them, and ideally the expectations of a planned apprenticeship should be clearly recorded, for the benefit of both parties. To gain a good conversion rate of trainees to accredited facilitators, it is the opinion of the reviewers that prior to beginning the face-to-face modules, prospective trainees need to have: •

successfully completed a thorough facilitator selection process (a guide to this is provided on the MOJ website),

•

successfully completed the self-completion modules which are available, preferably in a collegial study group environment or with input and discussion from experienced facilitators,

•

started an induction process, so have seen conferences and understand the work and work conditions they will have as facilitators,

•

been informed that there is sufficient referral demand so they have a reasonable expectation of adequate work. If provider groups do not have enough referrals to provide facilitators with regular work, new facilitators will become disengaged and leave. In addition, new facilitators may reduce the workflow for experienced facilitators, which can also result in dissatisfaction by experienced facilitators with their role.

•

worked with their provider group to develop a simple apprenticeship plan to their accreditation, including clear expectations about workload, timeframes, review processes and remuneration. A brief illustrative example is provided below.

Apprenticeship Plan for: Name In June 2013 - complete RJ Facilitator Training Course in Auckland. During June-July 2013 - observe or act as support facilitator at 2-4 conferences, noting observations for post-conference debriefing (remuneration will be $x/conference), - attend facilitator's monthly meeting, - attend meeting with mentor(s), - review progress with Provider Group Coordinator. In July-August 2013

14

- act as support-facilitator and take notes at 3-4 conferences and write at least 2 mock conference reports, that will be compared with those submitted to the court and discussed with mentor(s) (remuneration will be $x/conference), - attend facilitator's monthly meeting, - attend clinical supervision, - attend meeting with mentor(s), - review progress with Provider Group Coordinator. In September- October 2013 - take lead-facilitator role in 3-4 conferences, with a mentor or other experienced facilitator in cofacilitation role. Write conference report, for review by mentor/lead-facilitator…, etc. During the current period of transition to increased referral numbers, provider groups may need additional resources to provide the required support and apprenticeship to their facilitators. This may be more important than other efforts to increase the number of trained and accredited facilitators. Recommendation 3a: Provider groups should ensure that those they send to the RJ facilitator training courses have the necessary pre-skills to benefit from the training by: 1) developing these in their induction process (Necessary, Provider Groups; 2) ensuring that trainee RJ facilitators have an apprenticeship plan for working towards accreditation (Necessary, Provider Groups).

ACCESS TO TRAINING It is important to make it as easy as possible for a wide range of trainees to attend core RJ facilitator training. A bias in the type of people who become RJ facilitators can be the result of barriers to their participation in training for the role. There are three aspects to access: the ability to travel to the training; being able to cover the cost of not working while undergoing the training; and being free of family responsibilities long enough to attend the training, especially if it is in another locality. The MOJ currently pays only a travel subsidy to assist with travel costs. The costs of not working and those associated with being able to be free of family responsibilities are not covered. On the one hand, an argument was advanced by some respondents that training at a regional rather than national level could help reduce access barriers related to family responsibilities. A regional approach would mean that participants could travel home each evening. There would also be less cost for the MOJ and provider groups resulting from travel and accommodation subsidies for participants. A second argument in favour of regional-based training was that there are some regional differences (e.g. rural, suburban, urban) plus diversity in the cultural make-up of local populations and training could be tailored accordingly. On the other hand, many respondents who had attended the training felt that the 'residential-like’ nature of the course was one of most important aspects of its success. They talked about the benefits of formal and informal training being extended into the evenings. Getting away from their day-to-day preoccupations allowed them to concentrate more on developing their RJ facilitator skills. Secondly, a centralised national course brings together trainee facilitators from all around country. Regional training would tend to attract much smaller numbers and hence lack the diversity in views helpful for any training process. The cross-provider and cross-regional networking which results from national training was seen as an invaluable part of the whole training process by many respondents. In particular, respondents thought that there was great value in being exposed to how other provider groups undertook RJ conference facilitation. In fact. some thought that more time should be spent on this aspect within the core course.

15

While there are some advantages with regional training being able to concentrate on regional issues as noted above, the general impression the reviewers obtained during the review was that the advantages of national training outweigh those of a regionally-based training system. One respondent suggested that participants who had to take unpaid leave from their work to attend the training course could be paid through some other means, thus reducing the cost barrier. This does not seem viable to the reviewers. Finally, since the national delivery of training should continue, thought needs to be given as to how more ‘in-service’ training (as opposed to initial formal training) at a regional level could be provided. Proposals for this are discussed in the section on enhancing professional development later in this review. While face-to-face training needs to be continued at least the next few years, peoples’ tolerance for elearning is steadily increasing over time, together with advances in the platforms being used for elearning. The MOJ should continue to be open to the possibility that a number of years from now, more aspects of the core training could transferred to being on-line. This is particularly the case if real-time online interaction (e.g. Skype and similar platforms) is built into the training. Recommendation 4: That face to face training of RJ facilitators continue to be delivered at a national level for the next several years. In the longer-term, transferring aspects of the training to a sophisticated on-line e-learning environment should be kept under active consideration by the MOJ. (Desirable, MoJ).

OTHER ROLE TRAINING The current core RJ training is designed to focus solely on RJ facilitators. However, there are a number of other roles in the RJ sector that may benefit from some type of training in RJ, albeit at a less intense level than that being provided for facilitators. As the RJ facilitator training course is the most widely recognised training in the RJ sector, it has tended to attract a wider group of people than just those directly involved in the RJ facilitator role. For example those who coordinate cases at court, or manage teams of RJ facilitators. Some respondents said that having a mix of roles diluted the focus of the course from just being about RJ facilitators, and the non-facilitator participants sometimes lacked the required skill levels for the activities undertaken in the course. This raises the question of whether there should be training available for people involved in other roles within the RJ sector. This includes not just the two roles mentioned above, but also panel members, interpreters, cultural support people and provider group coordinators/managers. There was support for this concept from a number of respondents, with one saying 'it would be really, really helpful for the coordinators to have specific training'. It is recommended that generic training in some form be provided for people from other RJ roles. The best method of providing this generic training needs to be considered in the context of the overall recommendations in this report for additional RJ training. The reviewers do not wish to make detailed recommendations regarding the delivery mode – face-to-face versus electronic. As has just been discussed in regard to core training, deciding on the best mix of on-line and face-to-face elements for delivering training is something which has to take into account a rapidly transforming landscape in regard to how much e-learning people will tolerate and rapidly improving e-learning platforms.

16

Once the MOJ has decided on the basis of this report what new training should be offered, the MOJ should then consider the best mix of modes for its delivery in consultation with experts who are up to date with the current situation in regard the rapidly evolving possibilities for electronic delivery. The content of the generic course could include the material in the current self-paced modules. Together with some new material, these could be adapted on an e-learning platform to provide a generic introduction to RJ. For instance, the material could be tailored to assist community panel members develop their skills and understanding. Or there could be an aspect of the course tailored for those in NGOs working with RJ facilitators, so that they could receive a good overview of the RJ role and practice. If other material is needed for those in other roles, e.g. new provider group managers/coordinators, these could be developed within the overall framework of the delivery the self-paced module material and whatever new material is needed. To complement this, it might be the case that a face-to-face training module could be developed that provides an introduction to the RJ area. This could be delivered locally by an experienced facilitator or provider group manager if good easily usable resources were made available. It would be attended by interested people in the roles listed above and any others who have a specific interest in RJ, for example Victim Support workers or Living Without Violence facilitators. Providing this additional training forum would also mean that it was less likely that people would end up inappropriately in the RJ facilitator training course. Recommendation 5: That generic training in some form be provided for people from other RJ roles. Whether electronic, face-to-face or a combination of both needs to be considered further when the future mix of training is determined. (Desirable, MoJ).

17

Training Curriculum, Content and Organization, Topics, Competencies TRAINING AREAS COVERED It appears that the training covers most of the essential generic topics that need to be covered in RJ facilitator training. However, there are three areas of concern: issues related to Māori; more emphasis on report writing; and provision for specialist training which is dealt with later in this review.

COVERED EXPECTED AREAS Most respondents thought that the training covered the expected areas. One respondent even commented that it 'went above and beyond what I expected'. Another described it as 'so packed in' you 'don't have time to get bored' and you 'went to your room at night really exhausted'. The training course was noted as being very good as regards approaches to victims and offenders and on 'being sensitive to their situation and vulnerabilities'. It was noted that the training 'really helped me in understanding the Sentencing Act' and that 'learning to deal with all the different personalities was very helpful' (presumably referring to the role-play aspect of the training).

PRE-COURSE MODULES The pre-course modules are a good concept and are generally well executed. Ideally, participants should have some mentor or group discussion support when going through these. The self-paced pre-course modules were praised as ‘informative and insightful’ and provided adequate preparation for the training course. There was a clear difference in experience between those who had worked through the modules with input from a mentor or team from their provider group, and those who went through them alone. Some of those who wanted more from the block course were those who had missed out on the opportunity to discuss the pre-course modules. This was illustrated with one participant saying 'the early online part of the course had some useful exercises but these could have been better managed in a classroom situation with feedback that could be discussed'.

ADDITIONAL TOPICS There are some additional topics, or expansion of topics recommended for inclusion in the training course. These were both specialist areas such as prison work and domestic violence which are discussed later, and generic topics which should be included in generic core RJ facilitator training. One generic area that was mentioned was report writing. This was described as 'critical', and it cannot just be taught through 'informal learning with their provider group'. Currently the self-completion module on report writing is provided to trainees at the end of the face-to-face course and left to the provider group to oversee, as part of the facilitator’s preparation for accreditation. Respondents believe that it needs to be dealt with as part of the formal teaching in the core course. A second area requested area as 'more ‘victim-focused’ training and training in initial communication with victim to advise of the benefits to them of RJ as a victim'.

18

A third area was how to 'promote and raise the profile of RJ in the Justice System or the larger community'. A fourth area was the issue of the 'need for cultural and clinical supervision and perhaps this needs to be a new module in the new training'. A fifth area involved teaching guidelines for the attendance of children. A sixth was identifying Family Violence (FV) and Sexual Offending (SO) cases. While recommendations are made later in this review in regard to specialist RJ training, there needs to be some general skill-building amongst RJ facilitators to improve their ability to identify when FV and SO issues are involved in a case. Another area noted was in regard to Māori content and working cross-culturally. Some thought that more Māori content would be good and one even commented that the 'cultural component was totally inadequate, e.g. Māori culture and that there should have been a greater focus on working both biculturally and cross-culturally'. However other Māori who had attended the course thought that it was 'best for RJ facilitators to get training in working in a bi-cultural way from other sources'. There is further discussion on this in the section on Māori and RJ training and accreditation later in this report. Recommendation 3b: When studying the pre-course modules, participant need input from a mentor or their provider group team to maximise learning when on the core course. (Desirable, Provider Groups). Recommendation 6a: That, to the extent possible, content of the MoJ course should be expanded to include both specific skills e.g. report writing, identification of family violence and sexual offending, and general awareness of issues such as raising the profile of RJ, the need for cultural and clinical supervision and issues surrounding children's attendance. However, given the course is of limited duration, the addition of these topic needs to be weighed up against the topics which are already in the course. (Necessary, MoJ).

NZQA The concept of developing a restorative justice qualification on the NZQA framework was raised with a number of respondents. In general there was mixed support for linking to the framework. The point was made that the most value would be added by just having the course approved by NZQA. This was in contrast to also attempting to set up a full NZQAtype qualification. Given that a number of people wanting to do the training and accreditation already have other qualifications, it was thought that putting effort into establishing a full NZQA qualification was not justified at the current time. Recommendation 7: That consideration be given to having the restorative justice facilitators’ course approved by NZQA. (Desirable, MoJ).

19

Teaching, Learning & Assessment OVERALL TEACHING Overall the teaching in the RJ facilitator course is being well received and the teaching methods are thought to be good in general. The training course was frequently described as ‘effective and adequate’ and ‘excellent’. Many respondents commented on how much they enjoyed the training and a number reported it was the ‘best training programme I have ever done’. The ‘course delivery was excellent’, with ‘fantastic instructors’ who had ‘been there, done that’ and provided a ‘very supportive environment’ where ‘everything taught had a story with it that related - really interesting, really informative’. As one respondent summarised it: ‘All in all the training provided an excellent coverage of the whole RJ process, as well as giving each of us the tools needed for negotiating conflict and sensitive emotions. It provided a sound basis upon which to build our knowledge and expertise in RJ facilitation through continued experience’. Facilitator trainees noted a good balance between learning and doing, theory and practice. This might be best illustrated by some trainees wishing there had been more role plays and less theory and others noting that there could have been ‘more emphasis on the theories and values underpinning the practical skills [and] perhaps less group role-plays’. In terms of the teaching methods, the most valuable learning activities were perceived to be the role plays of pre-conferences and conferences. ‘Role plays were the most useful tool for me’, also described as the ‘most effective learning’ and ‘incredibly valuable’. The post role play feedback sessions were also mentioned as ‘very helpful at teaching us individually what we needed to work on’. Several of the respondents noted that the homework aspect was a good feature of the course. In addition, the use of the 'issues board' was a responsiveness aide that was appreciated by respondents who had done the training. This was a noticeboard for questions and issues that was added to during the week and ticked off at the end. A number of people also noted that follow-up emails to the trainers after the course were responded to and that continuation of support was appreciated. The trainers' ability to give feedback that ‘gave encouragement, while encouraging them to develop further’ was noted, and there were many comments praising having ‘such an experienced practitioner’ on the training staff and that the MOJ ‘must continue having highly experienced RJ facilitators doing the training’. One note for possible improvement was that one respondent commented that the ‘positive’ approach with no criticism that they experienced as feedback on their role play performance was not as effective as if they had got free and frank critical feedback for improvement. The usual practice of feedback consisting of 'two positives and two negatives' was noted, although some critiqued this as unrepresentative of what their provider group actually did. Another respondent said that developing the skill of being able to graciously take and process negative feedback on one’s performance was a marker of being able to examine one’s own practice and essential to being an effective RJ practitioner in the long-run.

OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT Despite the generally enthusiastic response to the training, a number of suggestions were made regarding areas where the training could be improved.

20

Respondents noted the helpfulness of having trainers with a broad experience in RJ and that they ‘modeled most of the skills as well and then communicated how we were to practice them ourselves’. There were valuable discussions that took place between the trainers and the other trainees, ‘everyone had the chance to have their input’. Some pointed to the potential to use more of this style in the training, saying they ‘would have liked to have had more interaction within the wider group’ and the opportunity to run the programme ‘restoratively - that is by engaging the people present in a dialogue, using the strengths of the group to do the “educating”’. Another respondent would have liked to ‘talk about observations and tips [with] the others who were doing the training, but had previous experience’. They did not think that there was enough time in the training dedicated to this style of learning. Another area that raised concern was in regard to training for Māori and of Māori cultural issues. This is dealt with in the section of this review on Māori and RJ training and accreditation. Recommendation 6b: That, to the extent possible, more ‘learning from the group’ be incorporated into the delivery approach within the core RJ course. (Desirable, MoJ).

LEARNING RESOURCES The learning resources used in the training programme need to be reviewed. In particular the self completion modules and some of the face-to-face materials have not been updated since the course began in 2008. Some respondents saw the need for more, and newer, video examples of RJ conferences – ‘watching the video was surprisingly helpful’. The new Restoring Hope video was identified as potentially a good additional training tool. It was also noted that videos could be used more in the self-paced training modules.

WORKBOOK In regard to the course workbook, some respondents commented that ‘the resources - such as the workbook - were very valuable and will continue to be a great reference for the future’. However, others noted that they hadn't opened their workbooks since they completed the training course. As one respondent commented, ‘throw out the manual, write a new one, about half the length’. Recommendation 6c: The course workbook be reviewed to see if it can be reduced in size and made more useful as an ongoing resource.(Desirable, MoJ).

ASSESSMENT In regard to assessment within the course there was a wide range of comment. Some thought the assessment process was 'fair and well-executed', saying that the trainers were ' extremely transparent and clear in indicating what they were teaching us, and what outcomes they expected from us'. Others appear to have misunderstood the purpose of assessment – 'felt very much like a test - trainers watching, and if I did something wrong I'd have to do it again', while some challenged the focus of assessment, for example 'abolish the two beginning rote written assessments. Test for specific things, like the ability to listen and reflect back - content and emotion’. One more common area of concern was that of the benchmark for passing the assessments and completing the course: some participants ‘who were obviously [to the respondent] not comprehending or able, were allowed to proceed to the end’, another respondent said ‘I was unsure whether some of the people on the course should have been passed as easily as they were’ – although course participants may not be aware of the outcome of their course-mate’s assessments, it should be noted that continuing until the end of the course does not mean that participants have passed all their

21

assessments and indeed trainees who complete the course may need to re-sit assessments after the course has ended. Some respondents felt that ‘there was an unspoken understanding that if a person stayed the course, they would pass’ and noted that ‘failure to pass everybody would look like they had done a bad job, and would be an implicit criticism of the selecting Trusts as well’. The was also some criticism of the self-directed nature of the pre-course assignments - 'the existing training process can be manipulated due to self-directive assignments' providing opportunities for cheating as ‘all the answers are in the Module'.

NEW MODES OF DELIVERY One respondent suggested having the training delivered in a modular way using e-learning with work experience between sets. However, given that many respondents thought that the face-to-face training was essential, this review would not recommend fully transferring the training to electronic delivery, even with extensive use of Skype at the current. However as already discussed above, the possibilities for using new technology should be investigated on a regular basis.

22

Programme Management & Quality Assurance WHO SHOULD RUN THE RJ FACILITATORS COURSE? The reviewers do not have a particular view on whether the MOJ and or the sector’s professional organization, Restorative Justice Aotearoa (RJA), or some other organization should run the course. Regardless of where the training programme is managed, it is important that the design, curriculum and resources should be developed in conjunction with professional trainers and experienced facilitators. This review recommends that a range of new training workshops be made available as part of professional development. RJA is in an ideal position to facilitate or provide such additional training, whether or not they also took on the running of the RJ facilitator training course.

QUALITY ASSURANCE AND IMPROVEMENT FROM FEEDBACK Training has been tweaked based on feedback but no comprehensive updating or development has occurred since 2008. The quality of the course is monitored with feedback sheets at the end of the course. Brief course summaries are provided to the MOJ at the end of each course, along with the results of the participant's feedback. We would suggest that participant feedback on training be sought a month or two after participants have finished the course. At this stage they can comment further on the training content and how it prepared them for their RJ facilitation work. One suggestion that was made was the development of a manual for the RJ process as a whole including the role of the Court. ‘A deskfile would be great. . . This would be an excellent resource that Ministry of Justice could make available.’ Either the Ministry of Justice or RJA may wish to prepare such a resource, if they thought it would be valuable. Recommendation 6d: That in addition to the immediate feedback collected at the end of the core RJ course, feedback should be requested from course participants two months after completion. (Desirable, MoJ). Recommendation 8: That the MOJ and RJA investigate the need for a ‘deskfile’ resource for the RJ process as a whole including the role of the Court. The relationship between this and the course manual would need to be clarified if such a deskfile was produced. (Desirable, MoJ and RJA).

23

Ongoing Professional Development The sound development of RJ facilitation in New Zealand is dependent on professional development. We suggest it be embedded within an eight-fold overall professional development process we have developed as part of this review consisting of: induction, formal training, accreditation, early-career mentoring, supervision, continuing ‘in-service’ training, the provision of networking opportunities, and attractive career pathway options. At the moment the training and accreditation aspects of these eight components are the most developed. Aspects of the other six are happening in various ways, but there is a need for them to be formalised, better promoted and supported.

AN IDEAL INDUCTION PROCESS An ideal induction process would provide a fully supported introduction to RJ facilitation. It should be based on the induction guidance that is already available on the MOJ website. The MOJ, as well as the RJA provider group accreditation process, could more actively encourage and incentivise the use of a comprehensive induction process by provider groups. There was strong support from respondents regarding the importance of pre-training preparation and in particular, having the opportunity to observe RJ conferences prior to attending the RJ facilitator training course. They encouraged trainee RJ facilitators to 'sit in on as many RJ conferences as possible' either as an observer or a note-taker. ‘It helps you understand the training better’ and provides ‘a much better idea of the context and process in action’ and ‘was very valuable preparation and a must for any trainee facilitators'. The following steps would occur in a best-practice induction process, with the trainee RJ facilitator 1) completing the self-paced modules with a study group, 2) observing conferences, 3) going away to the MOJ funded RJ training, 4) observing conferences again, 5) undertaking the report writers or co-facilitators role, 6) undertaking a more active role in pre-conferencing & conferencing, 7) undertaking the lead facilitator role, with an experienced co-facilitator, 8) receiving appropriate supervision from external supervisors, 9) having opportunities for continued learning through continuing ‘in-service’ training, 10) participation in networking via RJ forums and professional conferences. Some provider groups offered this type of induction process for their facilitators, but many facilitators reported serious gaps in their induction and found the idea of a properly planned apprenticeship (as described earlier in this report) as very appealing. It should be noted that provider group managers may need training of their own to enable them to better engage with their facilitators on these topics, and assist in the development of these plans. Recommendation 9: That provider groups be encouraged to improve their current induction process for trainee RJ facilitators as part of the apprenticeship approach proposed in this review. (Necessary, MoJ, Provider Groups).

24

FORMAL TRAINING The current RJ facilitator training is one type of training that is necessary to provide the skills for RJ facilitators. Additional training that the MOJ should consider supporting is: - an additional generic introductory course for anyone involved in RJ in any of the RJ roles. - specialised RJ training in particular areas (e.g. high-emotion, prison work, domestic violence, sexual offending) as discussed below Other relevant training courses that are already available and that facilitators could consider attending for their own development, include: - basic skills courses (e.g. group facilitation, oral and written communication skills), - Māori tikanga and kawa related training, - general cultural awareness and training related to working with particular cultural groups, - other training in human psychology and group processes, - understanding processes of victimization and the victim ‘world view’, - training related to the justice system and the law. Recommendation 10: That MOJ provide additional training as recommended in this review (specialist training and some of the training topics listed in the in-service training section of this review) and make available to provider groups a list of other relevant training that RJ facilitators could attend to improve their skills as part of initial training and as in-service training. (Desirable, MoJ).

ACCREDITATION Accreditation is a key component of ongoing professional development. The improvement of the accreditation aspect of the current system is discussed in the section on accreditation below.

EARLY-CAREER MENTORING Mentoring is an important component of professional development and it should be encouraged. While some provider groups report using a sound mentoring system and facilitators recommend ‘having a mentor to work with and discuss processes’, some new facilitators did not have someone actively taking on this role with them. These respondents were very enthusiastic about the idea of having a dedicated mentor to guide them through the first year of their RJ work. Many commented that the ‘best way to get ready is to start facilitating with, or in the presence of, an experienced facilitator who can guide and counsel you when needed’. Recommendation 3c: That every trainee RJ facilitator has active mentoring in their first year arranged by their provider group. (Necessary, Provider Groups).

SUPERVISION Ongoing professional supervision is essential for RJ facilitators to ensure that they have a forum where they can discuss any issues that develop in their ongoing work. Supervision can be provided either from within a provider group or external to it. One respondent commented ‘qualified supervision is essential to keep ourselves accountable and safe. We need to be able to examine our practice, talk about why something worked well so I can repeat that behaviour.’ Currently, some provider groups encourage peer supervision and have trained their staff in how to do this. Others have an external supervisor who provides group or individual clinical supervision each month. Some provider groups do not provide any supervision for their facilitators.

25

Recommendation 3d: That every RJ facilitator has an internal or external supervisor arranged by their provider group. (Necessary, Provider Group).

FURTHER ‘IN-SERVICE’ TRAINING In this section, we have been talking about professional development as a broad concept with eight aspects - induction, formal training etc. In this particular sub-section, we are focusing on one aspect of this: further ‘in-service’ training for those who have already completed initial formal training and been accredited as RJ facilitators. Further ‘in-service’ training consists of a range of activities a RJ facilitator should undertake after their initial training course to enhance their professional performance. Further ‘in-service’ training needs to be encouraged and incentivised by the Ministry of Justice. In many professions such a requirement is linked to re-registration or re-accreditation. A large number of topics were suggested (listed below) for ongoing ‘in-service’ training and could be run as either face-to-face seminars, or online webinars. Topics in regard to prison, domestic violence and sexual offending have not been included as it is proposed later in this review that specialist training in these areas be set up. Until these courses have been established however, it may be appropriate to have ‘in-service’ training in regard to some of these specialist topics. It may be helpful for training to be provided in an ongoing capacity at the level of 'guidance to identify' these specialist cases. Possible topics for ‘in-service’ training: - peer-supervision, - debriefing and using the debriefing process to identify skill gaps and areas for development - acting as a true 'critical friend' rather than a ‘self-congratulatory chat’, - dealing with grief, - facilitating agreements that work (the process of development, monitoring, specificity etc), - building for outcomes - developing a good list of outcomes from a conference, - cultural development, - working with youth, - legal processes, - reflective listening, - dealing with aggression, - challenging situations, - approaching the victims, - work related grievances - when both parties are involved in offending and see themselves as a victim, - trauma, - conflict mediation, - psychological empowerment models, - drug and alcohol issues, - suicide prevention, - relevant legislation, - the court system, - working with panel conferences, - working with Pacific Island peoples, - working with Asian people (particularly for Aucklanders),

26

- gang-affiliated participants, - Māori culture, tikanga, kawa, perhaps noho marae, - overview of recent RJ and other relevant research, - experiences of victims in RJ, - inviting responsibility (overcoming barriers and engaging the non-engaged offender). There has already been a recommendation earlier in this report suggesting that the MOJ makes some of this in-service training available.

DEVELOPING CAREER PATHWAYS Ideally there would be comprehensive career pathways for RJ facilitators. To a large extent, these are dependent on the nature of the organizations in which people are employed. If employment in the RJ sector continues to be located within small Trusts set up in a variety of ways with a variety of employment models, developing attractive RJ career pathways is always going to be a challenge. There are, however, some things that can be done to support the development of RJ career pathways in spite of the nature of the sector. These largely relate to increased standardization of the employment terms and conditions of RJ facilitators. However, such standardization may cut across the desire for flexible employment arrangements so that different providers in different settings can adapt their employment arrangements to their particular situation. This would include issues of job title, job descriptions, remuneration and succession planning for key roles. Recommendation 11: That under the standards for Ministry of Justice contracting to provider groups there should be good practice recommendations relating to professional development and career pathways. (Desirable, MoJ).

DELIVERY OF NETWORKING OPPORTUNITIES Networking opportunities are essential for ongoing development in any profession and are usually very well supported. There should be support for forums taht have a networking function for RJ facilitators. Existing networking functions include: 1. The annual Restorative Justice Practitioners Conference 2. South Island provider groups' biannual meetings, which include training and networking. These opportunities should be complemented by networking planning. This could, for instance, consist of a central register of networking opportunities. Recommendation 12: That MOJ and RJA consider what other networking possibilities could be arranged for RJ facilitators. (Desirable, MoJ, RJA).

OTHER ROLES The section above has described induction and professional development for people in the RJ facilitation role. It may be that other RJ roles need a similar induction process. In particular the community panel roles may benefit from an induction process, which could be offered by interested provider groups.

27

Accreditation Programme Purpose and Design CLEAR PURPOSE FOR ACCREDITATION The idea of an accreditation process is a sound idea and respondents could see the advantages of having such a framework. There are, however, some problems with the way the current system is working, in particular delays in people gaining accreditation and the lack of Māori assessors. This is a major problem which is discussed in the section on Māori and RJ facilitation and accreditation. Support for accreditation is based in part on the fact that it is a way of obtaining recognition for preexisting experience and skills amongst those who have been practicing for a considerable length of time. However, some provider groups reported having few facilitators interested in the accreditation process. This may be a response to the problems and delays in the current accreditation process described in this section and the current lack of demand for accreditation within the Ministry of Justice contracting process. In a wider sense there are trade-offs in having an accreditation system. Anything that makes it harder for people to enter practicing a profession has a potential downside. On the other hand, it is essential if the credibility of RJ facilitation is to be maintained that those doing the work do so at a certain standard.

DELAYS Facilitators and provider groups described many delays in the accreditation system. These can be grouped into four areas: delays in getting the required experience for eligibility; in having an assessor assigned to a facilitator; delays caused through difficulties in having assessors observe a conference, and delays in receiving the result of the accreditation process. Delays in getting the required experience for accreditation: • • • •

inadequate number of referrals being assigned to those awaiting accreditation, lack of referrals going on to the conference stage, the accreditation applicants lack of time to devote to RJ work while managing their existing work and other commitments. lack of accurate knowledge amongst facilitators as to what is required for accreditation.

Long delays between facilitators completing the internal assessment activity and a MOJ assessor being assigned to them: • •

provider organizations taking a long time to complete and submit the relevant forms to the MOJ delays between the forms being submitted and the MOJ assigning an assessor.

Then there are often significant delays trying to get an assessor to observe a conference: • waiting for a suitable conference to be assigned to the facilitator (if sensitive or a strongly emotive case, facilitators sometimes do not wish for the participants to have to be observed). One respondent said they ‘don't want to be taking something from the family’. • setting a conference date that suits both the participants and the assessor, complicated by conferences often happening at short notice. As one respondent said, ‘I was told that there is only one person available in the South Island to [do the assessment] and they are already busy

28

with their own work.’ Another said, ‘it is up to the parties when a conference is held and not about fitting in with flights and giving enough notice to get the best flight that works for the assessor. [This] seriously skews priorities that take away from the heart of basic RJ best practice.’ Finally, delays were reported in receiving the results of the assessment. In one case it was reported that ‘it took 3 months to find out if it had been successful’. The small number of assessors plays an important role in the delays which are occurring. The Ministry of Justice should also review their paper work in terms of notifying both the participant that they have been successfully accredited and for how long, and the sponsoring provider group. Those successfully completing the accreditation process should be provided with a certificate acknowledging their achievement. Recommendations 13a: In regard to the accreditation system the MoJ should: 1) remedy the management problems with the current accreditation system as described in the accreditation section of this review. (Necessary, MoJ); 2) appoint more assessors in order to speed the assessment process (Necessary, MoJ); and, 3) provide a certificate acknowledging the status of Ministry of Justice Accredited Facilitators. (Desirable, MoJ).

AWARENESS OF ACCREDITATION No problems were reported regarding general awareness of the accreditation option. Many RJ facilitators are not doing accreditation. This is partly because there is no requirement to complete it and hence no incentive for them to go through the process. The sector is aware of the significant problems with the accreditation programme and the delays in completing it and this seems to be putting off some provider groups from proceeding. Many facilitators are keen to become accredited but say they are unsure of their current position in the process - either because they have not had enough conferences offered to them to be able to proceed with accreditation, or because of delays caused by either their provider group or the Ministry of Justice. While facilitators tend to know about the accreditation programme in general, many do not seem to know about the specific requirements of the accreditation programme, despite these being publically available on the Ministry of Justice website. Recommendation 13b: That the details of the accreditation process and the advantages of being accredited should be communicated better to RJ facilitators. (Necessary, MoJ).

EFFECTIVENESS OF PROVISION OF CURRENT ACCREDITATION SYSTEM There was strong support for continuing with the current model that requires an assessor from outside the facilitator's provider group. One Māori provider group observed that different provider groups will work in different ways but the overall process used should be the same and an external assessor system is important to this. However, there are a range of costs associated with this approach: •

•

potential risk to the quality of the conference, for instance when a conference might have been postponed in the best interests of the people involved but is not delayed because of the difficulty in arranging for the assessor to observe, there are problems associated with the long distances assessors have to travel (e.g. in the South Island),

29

•

cost of paying for the assessor's travel.

In spite of these costs the current accreditation system should be continued and enhanced.

WHAT IS THE BEST APPROACH TO ADOPT TO RE-ACCREDITATION Many respondents expressed concern about the temporary re-accreditation system that is currently in operation. At present, a facilitator's initial accreditation period is three years, after which they are required to apply for re-accreditation which uses the same process but only lasts eighteen months. At the moment, a relatively large number of people come up for re-accreditation at the same time, which puts pressure on the limited number of accreditation assessors. The reviewer’s first recommendation regarding the accreditation system is that the dates when people come up for re-accreditation should be staggered. This would reduce the burden on available assessors doing accreditation and re-accreditation work. Furthermore, even if the re-accreditation period became valid for three years, it would still create unsustainable workloads on both the RJ facilitators and the assessors, when compared to typical requirements for other professions. A second recommendation from the reviewers is therefore that the full re-accreditation process should only need to be undertaken every five years. Recommendation 13c: That the dates when people come up for reaccreditation should be staggered to avoid a bottle-neck of re-accreditations needing to be done. (Necessary, MoJ). Recommendation13d: That the full re-accreditation process only be undertaken every five years. (Necessary, MoJ).

ENCOURAGING FURTHER PROFESSIONAL TRAINING AS PART OF REACCREDITATION In a previous section on training, an eight-fold approach to professional development was put forward by the reviewers. It highlighted the importance of both accreditation and other aspects of professional development such as 'in-service' training. There was a range of views amongst respondents as to whether further ‘in-service’ training should be encouraged or mandated. The fact that most major professions have some sort of system to encourage, or require, further professional training would suggest that RJ facilitation should have a similar system. However it is important that whatever is proposed, further ‘in-service’ training should not be overly cumbersome. It should not impose such a time or money cost on RJ facilitators as to be a disincentive to them continuing to be facilitators. This is particularly important in the case of RJ facilitation because for a number them, being an RJ facilitator is an adjunct to their core profession (e.g. lawyer, social worker) where they may be meeting smilar ‘in-service’ training requirements as part of their core professional accreditation. The promotion of in-service training needs consideration: merely telling RJ facilitators that they should do such training is unlikely to make much difference to whether this is done or not. Motivated RJ facilitator would continue to do further in-service training, while less motivated ones would probably not change their behavior at all. At the other extreme further in-service training could be mandated in some way. Looking at other professions' experience in this regard, many include a system for monitoring whether practitioners are actively undertaking such training. One approach requires that a certain number of 'endorsed' training courses are attended each year. This is the type of system used by professions such as accountants and architects. Particular courses have 'professional development credits' which are accumulated to reach a required target number of credits. A different approach is taken by psychologists in New Zealand where each registered psychologist has to

30

maintain a professional training/development portfolio which is required each year as part of their annual registration. A random twenty percent of those re-registering in any year have to submit their professional development portfolios for auditing. The first system appears complex and would require too much ongoing administration. In particular different types of 'in-service' courses would need to be reviewed to allocate the number of professional development credits each course should attract. The reviewers therefore are suggesting that a simpler regime be employed. This would be one where, at the time of accreditation (or reaccreditation), the applicant should submit a professional development portfolio. They would then be required to report on the achievement of this two and a half years into their five year their accreditation. This reporting would simply consist of them submitting it to the Ministry of Justice. Whether the Ministry of Justice has a system to provide any feedback on this portfolio would depend on the Ministry’s resources at the time. A template which could be adapted for RJ facilitation is available from the Psychologists’ Registration Board's website.

Recommendation 13e: That RJ facilitators be registered for a period of five years. When they are accredited they would be required to submit a professional development plan. Two and a half years into this accreditation period they would have to submit a report on their professional development to the MOJ. (Necessary, MoJ).

31

Accreditation Assessments THE CURRENT APPROACH TO ACCREDITATION ASSESSMENT IS SOUND In general respondents thought that the current approach to accreditation assessment was sound. As one respondent said: ‘The process did assess what I could and couldn’t do and really was extremely well done. If accreditation and re-accreditation is as rigorous and competent as what I experienced then I am really impressed and supportive of it.’ There were some comments in regard to the absence of Māori assessors and the appropriateness of Pakeha assessors assessing Māori. These are discussed in the section on RJ and Māori.

ACCREDITATION MODERATION There is currently a moderation process in place for moderating accreditation. This includes another assessor reviewing the assessment documentation and looking at the following questions: • Was the correct assessment material used • Was the assessment completed in full • Was there sufficient evidence for each decision • Do you agree with each decision • Do you agree with the final decision – competent or more evidence required • Was the feedback given to the candidate accurate and complete • Was the assessment decision recorded and reported to Ministry of Justice • Was the candidate given the assessment decision within a week of the assessment This approach should be continued. Recommendation 13f: The current approach to accreditation moderation should be continued. (Necessary, MoJ).

WHEN SHOULD PEOPLE BE ABLE TO APPLY FOR ACCREDITATION? Some respondents felt that after training they were ‘ready for facilitating a conference but ‘certainly not ready to start the accreditation process’. Currently a facilitator is required to facilitate for at least six months prior to beginning the accreditation process, to provide them with time to progress from support-facilitator to lead-facilitator skill level. While this time to develop skills may be required for some, it does not allow for the diversity in skill and experience levels amongst those completing the RJ facilitator training course. For example, the reviewers got the impression from some respondents that they felt ready to begin the accreditation assessment process immediately after training. No fixed time should be set for applying for accreditation, the timing should be worked out as part of the individual RJ facilitator’s apprenticeship plan. Recommendation 13g: No fixed time should be set for applying for accreditation; the timing should be worked out as part of the individual RJ facilitator’s apprenticeship plan. (Necessary, MoJ).

32

HOW HARD SHOULD IT BE TO GET ACCREDITED At present the RJ facilitator accreditation assessment has a very high pass rate – there are 39 accredited facilitators and only 1 facilitator who has been assessed as ‘not yet competent’. Is this highpass rate good or bad? In reflecting on this point it should be noted that in contrast to this pass rate the Fellowship Programme of the Arbitrators and Mediators Institute of New Zealand (AMINZ) maintains a 25% fail rate in order to 'maintain standards'. Of course RJ Facilitator accreditation assessment is a competency-based assessment process and so the idea of striking a fail rate is not applicable in the same way. However there is no reason why the level of competency required could not be increased if this was felt to be desirable. At the current time, given that there is likely to be a growing demand for RJ facilitators, it is not certain that the pool of eligible and motivated potential RJ facilitators is large enough to adopt an approach that would see more potential facilitators failing. The situation regarding the supply of people seeking RJ accreditation should be monitored and if at some time in the future there proves to be an excess of people seeking accreditation for the number of RJ facilitators required, then the idea of increasing the level of competence required could be considered. Such an approach is an option in any area where the number of eligible people wanting to be accredited is larger than the number of people needed to do the work.

PROVIDER GROUP ACCREDITATION RJ training and individual RJ facilitator training is only one part of the framework necessary to promote good practice in RJ facilitation work. As one respondent said: ‘we cannot just rely on the Ministry of Justice process to become fully trained in RJ practice. It involves a lot more than that.’ The question of other aspects of professional development, for example further in-service training, networking etc. has been discussed earlier in this report. The other component which is discussed in this section is provider group accreditation. One of the key supports for high quality facilitation is the quality of the provider organization in which facilitators are located. The functioning of the organisation and the support provided by the provider group is likely to be a major influence on how an RJ facilitator goes about their work. One group of facilitators identified what they saw as the importance of their organization - its philosophy and the way it had been set up, as key to their effectiveness as RJ facilitators. As one respondent said: ‘facilitators can only be as good as their provider group’. The provider group plays a key role in providing supervision and support in a wider sense. For safe and effective practice in this rapidly developing area it is important that RJ provider groups have a sound understanding of restorative processes and restorative justice practice, and that that knowledge is valued and nurtured. Provider groups need to be 'high-trust collegial operations', ideally providing the eight aspects of professional development discussed earlier and provider accreditation can help ensure that this happens. Those organizations that had been through the group accreditation process were supportive of it: ‘Everyone should have to do it. It was the best thing for the provider group that could be done. It should be required for Ministry of Justice tender’. Some respondents said that it was very important to examine practices and check that the policies and procedures are in place: ‘we need to sit back and ask are we doing it well? And then check again in a few years’. Recommendation 14: That provider group accreditation should be encouraged by MOJ and RJA. (Necessary, MoJ, RJA).

33

Best Practice, Gaps, Issues and Quality Review PROMOTING BEST PRACTICE IN THE SECTOR Best practice sharing is important for any profession as it contributes to the maintenance of consistent standards across the sector. Some respondents emphasised the challenge that the RJ sector is facing as it becomes more recognised within the criminal justice system. As one pointed out ‘we want RJ to be mainstreamed in the criminal justice system - we won't get there if we don't meet the [required] standards’. In addition, other respondents highlighted the importance of continuing to examine practice. 'We need to keep examining our practice - some of it is very self-congratulatory. It needs to be open to the air and examined by everybody.’ Another respondent said, we ‘need to be hard-nosed about effectiveness and need to have very good evaluation’. The components of professional development discussed earlier in this report will to a large extent provide the vehicles through which best practice can be shared across the sector.

THE CASE OF REPORT WRITING, A PARTICULARLY VISIBLE AND IMPORTANT ASPECT OF BEST PRACTICE One important aspect of best practice sharing is report writing, and for two reasons. The first is that it is the conduit through which information about the RJ conference is communicated to the courts. Secondly it is the visible face of RJ to key stakeholders within the criminal justice system. Ways of improving report writing for RJ facilitation need to be explored. Some options for improving report writing include greater emphasis on report writing in RJ training and the development of a proforma template for the facilitators within a region. Recommendation 15: That possibilities be investigated for improving the standard of report writing. (Necessary, MoJ, RJA, Provider Groups).

POSSIBILITY OF A FORMAL QUALITY MARK APPROACH TO ENSURING BEST PRACTICE. One additional way of ensuring best practice is to take some sort of formal quality mark approach. This has been adopted by the British Restorative Justice Council. While this is something that could be considered in the future, it is not recommended in this report that it be pursued at the current time.

34

Workforce Planning This review is primarily concerned with how to improve training and accreditation for RJ facilitators. However, there is a wider question that lies behind this which concerns the number of RJ facilitators needed to meet the expected demand for RJ conferences likely to occur under the Government's new policy. All the facilitators contacted for this review with whom the workload issue was discussed, felt that they were currently under-utilised. This suggests that there is significant spare capacity in regard to RJ facilitation, but it is not possible to exactly predict whether it will be sufficient to meet the increased demand for RJ facilitators. The best approach to this issue is to adopt an 'agile-based planning approach'. This a approach is where organizations or sectors collect 'real-time' feedback on what is happening and respond immediately with a flexible strategic response. This could be achieved through surveys of provider groups, or less formally from ongoing liaison during the transition period between the MOJ, RJA and contracted provider groups; and information from RJ facilitators about their current workload collected at the time of accreditation. This sector intelligence could inform a quick response by the MOJ to take steps to increase the number of RJ facilitators should this prove necessary, or to reduce the number of places available in training courses should it become obvious that there is an oversupply of RJ facilitators. Recommendation 16: That provider groups provide information about their RJ facilitators' spare capacity in their annual reporting to MOJ. (Desirable, MoJ).

35

The Need for Facilitator Specialisation SPECIALISATION While much restorative justice work is generic, there are times when specialist concerns will arise. Providing for these in both restorative justice practice and training is complex, requiring a framework that allows RJ facilitators to work in cases where specialist concerns exist, but only in regard to those areas and situations where this can be done in relative safety for all concerned. The MOJ and many in the sector agree that a one-off restorative justice intervention is unlikely to achieve the degree of change required for family violence or sexual offending to stop. As noted in the Restorative Justice in family violence and sexual offending cases, practice guidelines consultation document (MOJ (2013) the use of restorative justice in family violence cases ‘is likely to be one step only in a much longer process potentially involving support and change programmes and services for the victims and offenders, together with involvement of a range of other family and community supports. The length and extent of the process will depend on the nature and extent of the family violence.' One respondent noted that in bringing together the parties in a family violence or sexual offending case (with appropriate risk management), restorative justice practice is doing something very different from other parts of the family violence or sexual offending sectors. While this provides the opportunity for a beneficial outcome, it also presents unique risks so that it is critical that facilitators leading such processes are accredited as having had the training and experience required to ensure a robust assessment of, and maintenance of, safety. Women who have experienced intimate partner violence are uniquely at risk of future harm from the same offender. Research shows that compared to victims of stranger violence, those who have survived intimate partner violence are at increased risk of harm even after the relationship has ended. The potential lethality of that risk is increased if the victim has also been a victim of sexual violence within the intimate partner relationship. In the case of intimate partner violence, the usual RJ referral process – offering RJ as an option to the offence victim – is placing that person in a position where their decision may place them in jeopardy of retaliatory harm. Therefore it is very important that there is no expectation on the part of RJ staff, referrers or participants as to which RJ 'should' occur in any particular case. It should also be noted that the area of family violence requires a wide knowledge of relationship patterns and the skills relevant to working with them so that it is possible that a facilitator could work safely with adult sibling violence but not with intimate partner violence. Thus relevant knowledge, of theory and current research regarding family and intimate partner violence, is vital for competent and effective facilitation. Some of this could be learnt and assessed in self-completion modules, enabling a richer discussion during the subsequent practical training course.

CONTINUUM OF RISK There is a continuum of risk when specialist concerns arise in Restorative Justice that runs between high emotion and very serious offending such as homicide, through prison-based work, domestic violence and on to sexual offending. The further along this continuum an issue is, the more elaborate are the safeguards that need to be in place. The reviewers believe that there should be additional training and accreditation requirements for RJ facilitators working where specialist concerns are

36

present. Because these requirements are related to managing risk, the further along the continuum of risk RJ work is being done, the more demanding the requirements should be. The table below shows the requirements for more advanced training modules and accreditation based on respondents' views and the need to adequately respond to the risk at each level of the risk continuum.

Standard RJ facilitator training and accreditation

Plus training in highemotion work

Plus specialised training

Plus specialised accreditation

Plus embedded within a referral network

Only within a dedicated specialised treatment programme

Homicide Prisonwork Family violence Sexual offending

However, there were some strongly divergent opinions were offered by respondents on this matter. One side argued that RJ work involving sexual offending should never be done unless it is done within a comprehensive sexual offending programme (such as Project Restore’s model) since what may appear to be a 'straightforward' case of sexual offending is often the tip of the iceberg in terms of the offender's behaviour. In this view, the sexual offending aspect could overwhelm the process at any stage and because it is not being worked with within a wider treatment programme this could expose the parties to excessive risk. An opposite view argued that doing RJ work in cases that involved sexual offending, at least at ‘less serious’ levels, is possible if it is done by facilitators who have the necessary training and skills. All respondents agreed that such work needs to be embedded within a referral network that ensures that any issue that arises can be referred and dealt with appropriately. The reviewers’ conclusion from their reflection on this issue is to err on the side of caution and recommend that any RJ work involving sexual offending should be done within a comprehensive sexual offending programme and also be embedded within a referral network that ensures that any issue that arises can be referred and dealt with appropriately. The safety of the RJ facilitators and their participants is paramount. If the MoJ wished to move away from this position, the reviewers suggest that any other approach is extensively evaluated to ensure that safety is being maintained.

37

In addition to these considerations, it is important that provider groups, and not just individual facilitators are assessed for their readiness for undertaking and supporting the safe delivery of referrals in this area including provision of supervision, specialist training and mentoring. Recommendation 17: That the requirements in regard to the level of accreditation, training, embedding within a referral network and locating within a dedicated specialist treatment programme for different types of specialist work be informed by the table above. (Necessary, MoJ, RJA, Provider Groups).

SAFETY AND SPECIALISED CONCERNS AND COMPETENCIES As mentioned earlier in this review, the MOJ and RJA have been preparing guidelines for working with family violence and sexual offending issues. These guidelines acknowledge the complexity of working safely where specialised concerns are involved, and will identify facilitator’s skills, key competencies and experience requirements, providing invaluable material for use in the detailed design of specialised training modules and specialised accreditation proposed in this section of the review. For instance, learning how to use the guidelines for safety assessment will be an essential part of the family violence training module and accreditation process.

HIGH EMOTION RJ WORK All of the specialised areas have the common need for facilitators to be able to work with people experiencing high emotion. A specific advanced training module on working with individuals and groups experiencing high emotion would be a valuable training resource for facilitators likely to be involved in such work on a regular basis, and could also be a pre-requisite for those wishing to apply for advanced training or accreditation for prison work, family violence or sexual offending. A standalone course would mean that any RJ facilitator could take the opportunity to up-skill in this area without having to do all of the specialised training in one of the other advanced topics. It would also mean that the common ground of high-emotionality between prison-work, family violence and sexual offending could be dealt with once and those doing advanced training and accreditation in more than one area would not have to repeat this material each time. At the current time at least, the core RJ facilitator training course should not be a pre-requisite to studying the high emotion work training module, since a number of RJ facilitators have not yet undertaken the core course. Recommendation 18: That a high-emotion specialised course be established. (Necessary, MoJ).

PRISON WORK There is an existing accreditation process for facilitators wishing to deliver post-sentence RJ conferences within the prison environment which was developed by RJA, Prison Fellowship NZ and the Department of Corrections. This accreditation is for three years, subject to annual updates. An advanced training module is proposed to assist with preparation for post-sentence and prison work, which should be developed in accordance with the existing prison work guidelines. Completing facilitator accreditation should not be a pre-requisite for doing the prison work training module, although this would be desirable in the future.

38

Recommendation 19: That the existing accreditation process for prison work continue and specialist training be developed. (Necessary, MoJ).

FAMILY VIOLENCE TRAINING AND ACCREDITATION It is proposed than an advanced training module be set up in the family violence area in addition to advanced accreditation being required. Respondents differed greatly in their beliefs about the training requirements for facilitators of family violence cases. For instance, some questioned whether both facilitators in a co-facilitation situation needed to be trained. At present, having one trained and accredited facilitator is the practical solution in the interim, when there are few people with the right skills and expertise in this area. Excessive requirements in this regard could mean that less people were getting experience in the area, and therefore not moving through the process of training and accreditation in this specialised area. Some respondents questioned the length of any course in family violence saying that it ‘doesn’t need to be a week long course - [just] a one or two days course of some modules’, while others felt that safe practice required a diploma-level training programme. Many believed that a specific accreditation process would be necessary and some commented that they hoped the process would not be ‘too onerous’ for those with the relevant skills who were already doing this type of work. This review recommends that there be a family violence advanced training module with the prerequisite of having completed the core RJ training course. However, some provision should be made for those experienced facilitators who might not have done the core RJ course, but who would benefit by doing this module. The Ministry of Justice guidelines, which are being produced, will provide guidance as to what should be in the training program. This specialised training module will form an essential part of the induction of facilitators new to this area of work, and should require evidence of a high standard of competence rather than passing a low bar of entry. In contrast to the conclusions reached in an earlier discussion in this review about the core RJ facilitator training course, in the area of family violence training, a successful pass of the course should not be assumed. With the lives of conference participants at stake, the responsibilities and level of competence of the facilitator are significantly greater than that required in more generic scenarios. RJ facilitators attending the RJ advanced training module would have to be doing it as part of a wider professional development process to bring their skills in RJ family violence work to a suitably high level. This should involve all of the eight components in the professional development pathway identified earlier, but in this case tailored to the family violence domain. As set out in the risk continuum table, there should be an expectation in regard to family violence work that it takes place embedded within a network of referral agencies with which the facilitator has good contact. It is also recommended that advanced accreditation be required in regard to family violence work. The Ministry of Justice guidelines which are being produced will provide guidance as to what should be required for accreditation. It is anticipated that the professional background of these facilitators will be as important as their restorative justice skills. It may be decided that specialist training of this nature should not be delivered by the Ministry of Justice. It should be noted however, that many provider groups have done very little family violence work in the past, and even when groups have accepted these types of referrals, often a limited number of facilitators have done the work. Therefore it is important that training is available and that provider groups are not left unsupported and under-resourced as they work to access appropriate training and up-skill their facilitators in this critical area.

39

Recommendation 20: That the MoJ consider offering a family violence advanced training module with the pre-requisite of having completed the core RJ training course. This could be set up in combination with specialised accreditation for family violence RJ work. Accreditation should require having done the core RJ facilitator course, however, some grandfathering provision should be made for those experienced facilitators who might not have done the core RJ course, but who would benefit by doing this module. If the MoJ does not wish to offer this specialized training, that they consider other alternatives to ensure that skill levels are sufficient in the sector in regard to this topic. (Desirable, MoJ).

SEXUAL OFFENDING The risk assessment and conferencing processes in the sexual offending area are complex and high risk, requiring highly skilled facilitators. As shown in the risk continuum table, the reviewers are not sure, on the basis of the comments from respondents, whether it should be required that all RJ sexual offending related work takes place within a dedicated sexual offending programme. This requirement might be too demanding, and a regime like that set out for family violence facilitation could be possible (i.e. advanced training, advanced accreditation, plus working embedded in a referral network). The reviewers are seeking feedback on this point from readers of this draft review. In regard to the advanced training module, the Ministry of Justice practice guidelines and the standards for providers working with cases involving sexual offending will provide guidance on the nature of the facilitator training to be delivered in this area. As with family violence, it is presumed that the pass rate of the sexual offending advanced training module will not always be 100%. The same goes for the advanced accreditation which the reviewers recommend is set up in this area. As with family violence, it is important that such practitioners are involved in a comprehensive professional development pathway to ensure that they have a current high level of skill in the area. RJ facilitators working in this area require accreditation to assess their competency and experience. It is anticipated that the professional background of these facilitators will be as important as their restorative justice skills. Recommendation 21: That a sexual offending advanced training module with the pre-requisite of having completed the core RJ training course be set up in combination with specialised accreditation for sexual offending RJ work. Accreditation should require having done the core RJ facilitator course, however, some grandfathering provision should be made for those experienced facilitators who might not have done the core RJ course, but who would benefit by doing this module. (Necessary, MoJ).

RECOGNITION OF PRIOR TRAINING A process for recognising the existing skills of those facilitators already working in the area of family violence and sexual offending is necessary. It should be possible for skilled practitioners to apply for assessment for domestic violence or sexual offending work advanced accreditation without undergoing further training particularly at the current time when the MOJ is wanting to rapidly build up the number of RJ facilitators it can be assured are up to a sufficiently high standard.

40

A paper-based application process that allows facilitators to provide evidence of their prior learning and skills may be appropriate for this. If their application was successful, these experienced facilitators could proceed to the accreditation phase without the requirement to attend training. Recommendation 22: That it be possible for experienced and skilled practitioners in the family violence and sexual offending area to achieve accreditation. A paper-based application process that allows facilitators to provide evidence of their prior learning and skills may be appropriate for this. If their application was successful, these experienced facilitators could proceed to the accreditation phase without the requirement to attend training. (Necessary, MoJ). It should be noted however, that many facilitators will have slowly developed skills in these areas over years and without having an opportunity to attend specialist training courses. There would be enormous value in offering these practitioners an advanced facilitative-style training session where they could examine new theory and techniques and have the opportunity to share and practice together. Many respondents commented that there is ‘always more we can learn’ and it would be unfortunate if these facilitators, who will most likely continue to be involved in family violence and sexual offending work, are not provided with opportunities for skill-refreshment. One useful element to assess in any system for recognising prior experience and skills would be evidence of their understanding of, and links to a network of referral agencies. Many facilitators already working in this area have strong, embedded relationships with appropriate family violence or sexual offending agencies. The MOJ guidelines will provide more information to help develop the requirements in this area. Recommendation 23: That the concept of an advanced facilitative-style training session be considered where advanced practitioners in the family violence and sexual offending area could workshop to improve their knowledge and skills. (Necessary, MoJ).

BEING ABLE TO ASSESS RISK It needs to be noted that the RJ facilitator's ability to assess risk is particularly important, with implications therefore in the training, accreditation and recognition of previous skills and experience processes and systems. Some family violence and sexual offending cases will present with offences that do not immediately signal these specialist areas. The process of reviewing and appropriately assigning referrals is often complex and requires a high level of skill at all phases in the RJ process.

ENTRY TO SERVICE REQUIREMENTS FOR PROVIDER GROUPS As has already been discussed in this review, good RJ facilitator work requires that they are supported by their provider group. This is especially important in the specialist areas as in general RJ facilitation. Provider groups interested in accepting a referral for family violence or sexual offending cases, need to meet the MOJ's 'Entry to service requirements for providers'. It would also be desirable that they meet the RJA Provider Accreditation competency standards and organisational requirements.

41

Māori, Tikanga, Kawa and Restorative Justice Training and Accreditation This section addresses two pertinent questions relating to Māori RJ facilitation. The first looks the issue of the lack of Māori Assessors, the second focuses on whether the current system provides enough training and support for non-Māori RJ facilitators to work appropriately with Māori. Māori are significantly overrepresented in the criminal justice system as both victims and offenders, creating the need for Māori RJ practitioners and non-Māori practitioners who are able to work effectively with Māori. It is important that the RJ facilitator training is attractive and appropriate for Māori facilitators. It is positive to hear that many Māori respondents praised the current training course.

LACK OF MĀORI ASSESSORS The argument for having Māori assessors was described as ‘assessors need a Māori world view to understand better the work [the Māori Facilitators] are doing and the way they are doing it’. This explains why some Māori provider groups felt that the lack of Māori assessors was a significant issue and had delayed having their facilitators assessed. They were ‘willing to wait for a Māori assessor’ to be available ‘because there are no Māori assessors the assessment methods are therefore not appropriate at all’. One noted ‘you cannot dispute the MOJ [accreditation] process if you have opted into it’. However, a number of other Māori facilitators did not mind the idea of having a non-Māori assessor in the short term – saying that they wished to ‘just get on with it and then become assessor [themselves] so there are some Māori assessors from here on, then encourage others to do the same. Once there’s one [Māori Assessor] it will start the ball rolling.’ In response to these two perspectives, this review recommends that the ultimate objective should be the ability for Māori accreditation applicants to be assessed by someone with a Māori worldview if they wish. Given that there are currently no Māori assessors it is to be expected that moving to this situation will take some time, however a number of accredited and experienced Māori respondents have expressed an interest in becoming accreditation assessors and active recruitment would be a positive move. Recommendation 24: That the MoJ actively recruit Māori assessors to remedy the current situation where there are no Māori assessors. (Necessary, MoJ).

APPROPRIATE TRAINING IN TIKANGA AND KAWA FOR RJ FACILITATORS The second issue dealt with in this section is what needs to be done to teach the appropriate level of knowledge and skills to RJ facilitators so that they can work effectively with Māori. There were some positive comments made about the current training and the usefulness of learning a karakia, for example. However there was general agreement that the tikanga and kawa component of the RJ facilitator training course was not large: ‘using Māori names in a role play is not teaching about tikanga or differences you might encounter when facilitating a conference with Māori participants’. While it would seem desirable that all facilitators should have the cultural competence to work effectively with Māori participants, there was a diversity of views on how much more Māori tikanga and kawa should be taught in the core RJ facilitator course. Some thought that there was sufficient, even ‘too much' content because they did not get many Māori referrals. (A low level of referrals can result from either there being few Māori living locally, or areas with a large Māori population where there is a Māori provider group.) While others wanted more content, many were realistic about how much could be taught within the confines of the core RJ course. One respondent said that not enough was

42

taught, ‘and there never will be. A rudimentary knowledge of tikanga Māori and kawa is likely to be of little help. Two to three days training in these areas would be the minimum to understand the traditional Māori approach to justice, its application in a Māori context, underlying tikanga values relating to justice, and appropriate kawa for the conduct of RJ meetings.’ Another Māori respondent said that people who had completed a six month course on the subject still weren’t necessarily culturally competent. The question of non- Māori working with Māori in RJ is complex. One respondent highlighted the issues as follows. ‘At least half of the offenders I have come across in the last three years, have been young Māori men. They were not familiar with tikanga or kawa, and to have it dropped on them by an obviously Pakeha facilitator, would have come across as a blatant act of one-upmanship, and would therefore make a successful conference less likely. There is a huge gap between the theoretical desirability of a culturally aware approach, and the actual young men who come before us. I have dealt with two Māori on Māori intra-family violence, and we have been guided by them as to cultural protocols and the use of te reo. In other words, it would not be sensible to lay down hard and fast rules or regulations. The success of these conferences depends very much on being able to respond in the moment, as required, rather than according to some manual.’ In order to respond to this issue, it is important to be clear that there is a range of situations where RJ facilitators may be working with Māori. These are: 1) occasionally working with Māori participants in RJ conferences where most of whom do not have strong knowledge of Māori tikanga and kawa, 2) working with some Māori participants in RJ conferences which are run in non- Māori settings; 3) working with Māori participants in RJ conferences in Māori settings. At the final end of this spectrum it is important that the people involved have high level of competence in working with Māori. As one respondent noted, ‘at least one of the team that take on marae-based cases or cases involving one Māori party should either be Māori or should be assisted by someone competent in the language and culture’. The table below sets out the spectrum of situations in regard to working with Māori and what is required to work in each of them. Information taught in the core RJ course Working occasionally with Māori most of whom have limited knowledge of tikanga and kawa Working with some Māori in non- Māori settings Working with Māori in Māori contexts

Plus some additional training or experience in tikanga and kawa Desirable

Plus extensive training or experience in tikanga and kawa

Or working with associates with the appropriate skills

The table increases clarity about what training is appropriate within the core RJ course. The focus of the core RJ training should be on providing training which can teach the skills needed in regard to the first situation of working with Māori. This being said, a number of respondents stated that the most important thing is an understanding of and sensitivity to the values and dynamics of whanau Māori and that this may be more helpful than a

43

focus on teaching generalised tikanga and kawa, which can vary considerably according to one’s affiliations and personal preferences. The content of this training should include: 1. The self-completion module and a compulsory assignment on working with Māori 2. Some basic information about the values and dynamics of whanau Maori and tikanga and kawa, about appropriate practice in regard to working with Māori and being able to adapt to their preferred level of observing Māori tikanga and kawa. 3. Information about what is appropriate practice in regard to working with Māori. In other words, talking about the table above and the various levels of skill or support that are needed. 4. Information on other courses which are available to build competency in Māori tikanga and kawa 5. Information about how to forge links with local Māori so as to increase knowledge and build relationships. Identify cultural advisors with whom the provider group and its facilitators could collaborate.

Recommendation 25: That the teaching of tikanga and kawa for RJ facilitators should focus on: 1. including in self-completion module 3 a compulsory assignment on working with Māori; 2. including in the block course some basics about tikanga and kawa and the dynamics and values of whanau Maori; 3. Information about what is appropriate practice in regard to working with Māori and the fact that additional knowledge and skills will be required if working more intensively with Māori; 4. Information on other courses which are available to build competency in tikanga and kawa; and, 5. Information about how to forge links with local Māori so as to increase knowledge and identify associations whom a RJ facilitator could work with who have the necessary skills. (Necessary, MoJ).

44

Conclusion This review has considered what needs to be done in regard to enhancing RJ training and accrediation in New Zealand as part of a new government policy to increase the number of RJ conferences which are taking place. It has put forward a number of recommendations in regard to training and accreditation. Implementing all of these recommendations would require additional resources. Once the MOJ has decided which recommendations it wishes to implement it will need to consider resourcing issues.

45

Appendices APPENDIX 1: REVIEW METHODOLOGY The review used the following methodology. 1. Development of a visual model of the RJ sector (a DoView Outcomes Model – http://doview.com/plan/draw.htm) and where training and accreditation fit within this to provide orientation for the reviewers and to assist respondents to reflect more deeply on the topics. 2. Meeting with a small initial group to scope the issues with the review team. 3. Individual and group interviews with 34 respondents. Some face-to-face, many by telephone. The interviews used a semi-structured interview process where the interview had a set of topics they were covering and moved through them and into digressions to follow the flow of the interview. They were also provided with a copy of the training and accreditation pages from the DoView model. 4. Questionnaires sent to 82 people (responses from 27). These were distributed by email using Survey Monkey. 5. Analysis of documentation related to RJ training and accreditation. 6. Analysis of results from the interviews and questionnaires was undertaken using a thematic analysis approach. Key themes and quotes were identified from each of the interviews, in most cases immediately after the interview. These were then brought together with the findings from the questionnaires and the documentation analysis. The review report was drafted from this material. 7. The draft report was circulated for comment and these comments were included in the final version.

46

APPENDIX 2: LIST OF INTERVIEWEES Alison Hill, Ministry of Justice Anne Evans-Scott, PACT Training Ariana Te Paea, Manukau Urban Māori Authority Atholl Leask, Manawatu Community Justice Trust Atul Sharda, UK Restorative Justice Council Everard Halbert, Wellington Restorative Justice Services Trust Fiona Landon, Project Restore New Zealand Flora Sands, Community of Saint Luke, Auckland Helen Bowen, New Zealand Restorative Justice Trust Islay Brown, Court Services Specialist Jo-Ann Vivian, Ministry of Justice John Delany, Tauranga Moana Restorative Justice Trust Jon Everest, Restorative Justice Services Wellington Trust & PACT Training Josie Dolan, Restorative Justice Otago Judge Phil Recordon Les Solomona, Presbyterian Social Services Lynda Duncan, Ministry of Justice Mike Hinton, Restorative Justice Aotearoa Naida Glavich, Chair, Ngati Whatua Natalia Taurimu, Presbyterian Support Peter Sammons, Waitakere Restorative Justice Community Group Trust Phillip Green, Arbitrators and Mediators Institute of New Zealand Restorative Justice Aotearoa Māori Caucus Rina McGhee, Te Runanga O Ngati Porou Restorative Justice Programme Robyn Smith, Te Runanga O Ngati Porou Restorative Justice Programme Rodney Holm, Taranaki Restorative Justice Trust Roslyn Hefford, Ministry of Justice Sir David Caruthers, Chair, NZ Parole Board Tania Sprout, Ngatihine Health Trust Board Tim Clarke, Waikato Hauraki District Restorative Justice Cooperative Trust Tony Paine, Victim Support Venus Wati, Ngatihine Health Trust Board Winifred Murray, PhD in Restorative Justice Practice

47

APPENDIX 3: SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW SCHEDULE DATE: NAME: DESIGNATION: PROVIDER ORGANISATION: FACILATOR OR COORDINATOR: TRAINED? (date) ACCREDITED? (date) 01 Is the training well designed and managed? (What organisation should run it, criteria for selection of organisation?) 02 Do trainees and stakeholders know the training is available, where to access it and are they prepared for it and incentivised to do it? (Is timing of courses OK for facilitators? Should it be delivered regionally? Are they supported by their provider organisation?) 03 Is the selection process appropriate? (Do providers select right people? Use a toolkit to do so? Do trainees have the right skills?) 04 Is the training itself good? E.g. could more be done online, well delivered, quality resources, right topics? (Are small trusts likely to have problems with new technology options?) 05 Is training working for Māori? 06 Are the right levels being offered and should there be training for different roles? e.g. coordinators as well as facilitators? 07 Is the assessment process good? Should it be on the NZQA framework? 08 How can we make sure other RJ training is also of good value? 09 Does training teach cultural competency? 10 Does the training system provide value for money? 11 Is the accreditation well designed and managed? (Who should do it MOJ or RJA or someone else?) 12 Is the accreditation credible, are their sufficient assessors and resources? Are the right people being accredited? (How could the number of assessors be worked out?) 13 Do trainees and stakeholders know that accreditation is available, where to access it and incentivised to do it? (Is it a problem getting people from outside the region?) 14 Is the accreditation period appropriate, the assessment methods appropriate and should it be transferrable across different sectors? 15 Does accreditation fit into facilitators career pathways? 16 What is the best way to deal with re-accreditation? 17 Does training teach cultural competency? 18 Does the accreditation system provide value for money? General comments

48

APPENDIX 4: FACILITATORS’ SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE Q1. What year did you attend the MOJ training course? How many conferences have you facilitated since then? Did you expect this number when you entered the training? Q2. How did your organisation select you for the training? What did you do to prepare for the training? What induction process would you recommend for future facilitators? Q3. Did the training cover the areas you were expecting and needing? What should there have been more of and what should there have been less of in the training? Q4. Was the course taught in ways that worked for you? Were the learning resources effective and adequate? What were the most useful learning activities? Q5. Was there enough Māori tikanga and kawa in the content and delivery of the course? Did the training prepare you for working with Māori participants in RJ conferences? Q6. How did you find the training assessment process? Would you like the training to be aligned to the NZQA framework? Why? Why not? Q7. After the training, did you feel ready to facilitate conferences and start the accreditation process? Q8. Have you completed facilitator accreditation? When? If not, why not? If yes, are the assessment methods are appropriate? Q9. What additional specialist training and/or on-going professional development would you like to be able to do now? Q10. Any additional comments about the induction, training, or accreditation programme?

49

APPENDIX 5: PROVIDER GROUPS AND STAKEHOLDERS SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE Q1. Are the current RJ training options adequate? What specialist RJ training should be available for facilitators and other RJ worker roles? Q2. Is there enough Māori tikanga and kawa being delivered in the content and delivery of the MOJ training course? Q3. Should the training be aligned to the NZQA framework? Q4. Are the facilitator assessment methods appropriate for accreditation? Are there changes you would like to make? Q5. What changes would you like to see made to the current training programme? What would you like to see added or removed from the training? Q6. Have you experienced problems regarding facilitators getting accredited (or re-accredited)? Q7. Should facilitators be required to have ongoing professional development? If so, what should it look like? Q8. What advantages and disadvantages do you foresee if the MOJ facilitator training modules were delivered regionally rather than centrally? Q9. Are there issues about facilitator induction, training and accreditation that you would like to see addressed? What about other roles, such as panels, coordinators, etc? Q10. Any other comments?

50

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Many thanks to the dozens of people who contributed to this review by participating in interviews, completing surveys, emailing comments and discussing these issues with us, including those who shared their experiences and thoughts during the Restorative Practices Conference, Auckland, May 2013. Particular thanks go to the following people who generously assisted with the initial scoping of this review: Ariana Te Paea, Fiona Landon, Greg Jansen, John Delaney, Jon Everest, Mike Hinton. We acknowledge and greatly appreciate the work of Michelle McKeefry and Alison Parker, who provided considerable and invaluable administrative support.

51

DoVIEW OUTCOMES MODEL This review included the use of the DoView Visual Program Review Process (http://doview.com/u/programreviews.html). Below is the full DoView which is also available as a webpage version at http://doview.com/doviews/1/restorativejusticereview112.html.

The Restorative Justice Sector DoView

® DoView.com/plan/draw.html

Reduced social costs High-quality trainers

Community support for restorative practice

Support and linkages with the sectors in which RJ works

High-quality assessors (facilitator or group)

Quality training

High-quality facilitator accreditation system

High-quality group accreditation system

Quality provider organisations

High-quality facilitators doing the RJ work

High quality RJ processes (e.g. conferences, panels, conversations) Participants needs and justice interests are met

Harm repaired

Improved wellbeing for victims, families and communities Reduced crime

Accountability encouraged

Strengthened social connections People take responsibility for their actions

Build community/ individual ownership rangatiratanga

Value for money Maori perspectives embedded throughout

Healthy communities whanaungatanga

doview.com model

Engaged purchaser/payer (MOJ)

Draw according to Duignan's Outcomes Model Rules. DoView.com/plan/draw.html. Webpage version of this model available at DoView.com/doviews/1/restorativejusticereview112.html. Paul Duignan [email protected]

DoView.com/plan/draw.html Communities know how to access relevant RJP processes

Communities understand what restorative approach is all about

Communities understand where RJP providers fit in terms of justice being served

Communities become involved in different ways and stages of the RJP processes Communities see how a restorative justice approach can work in many domains and sectors (e.g. justice, schools, work)

Communities have confidence in RJP provider organisations Communities trust RJP practitioners to do their job properly

Community support for restorative practice

Communities have confidence in the RJP process

Sufficient central and local government support and funding for communities to participate in restorative justice Community funding sources see restorative justice as a good place to invest in (e.g grant bodies)

doview.com model

Diversity of communities is recognised (e.g. there are different parts of community involved in different issues - e.g. traffic rather than schools Tangata whenua communities are fully engaged in the restorative justice work

Draw according to Duignan's Outcomes Model Rules. DoView.com/plan/draw.html. Webpage version of this model available at DoView.com/doviews/1/restorativejusticereview112.html. Paul Duignan [email protected]

53

DoView.com/plan/draw.html

Sectors engaged and consulted regarding RJ issues related to their sector Different sector languages spoken

Sectors know what's in it for them

Good transfer of learning from one sector to another

Good synergies between those working in different sectors

Key influencers in sectors understand the importance of RJ to their sector

Support and linkages with the sectors in which RJ works

doview.com model

Good communication with sectors

Draw according to Duignan's Outcomes Model Rules. DoView.com/plan/draw.html. Webpage version of this model available at DoView.com/doviews/1/restorativejusticereview112.html. Paul Duignan [email protected]

54

DoView.com/plan/draw.html Trainers know about the different areas of RJ work (e.g. domestic violence, corrections) Trainers have the relevant general RJP subject matter expertise

Trainers undergo an appropriate selection process

Trainers are well-trained in adult professional learning

Trainers have the right attributes/personality Trainers have the right values Trainers have the right experience Trainers are culturally competent in relevant tikanga Maori Trainers can work multiculturally

Trainers have sufficient time to prepare and do the training Trainers are well resourced

Trainers have sufficient personal support Trainers have sufficient professional supervision

Highquality trainers

Trainers have sufficient other professional support networks (e.g. information) Trainers have sufficient provider/organisational support (e.g. administration)

doview.com model

Barriers to people becoming trainers are identified and eliminated (e.g. getting Maori involved) Sufficient number of Maori trainers as appropriate Trainers are quality controlled (on-going assessment)

Draw according to Duignan's Outcomes Model Rules. DoView.com/plan/draw.html. Webpage version of this model available at DoView.com/doviews/1/restorativejusticereview112.html. Paul Duignan [email protected]

55

Assessors undergo an appropriate selection process

Assessors have know about the different areas of RJ work (e.g. domestic violence, corrections)

Assessors have sufficient time to prepare and do the assessment

Assessors have the relevant general RJP subject matter expertise

Assessors are well resourced Assessors have sufficient personal support

Assessors have the right attributes/personality Assessors have the right values Assessors have the right experience Assessors are culturally competent in relevant tikanga Maori Assessor can work multiculturally

Assessors have sufficient professional supervision

DoView.com/plan/draw.html

Highquality assessors (facilitator or group)

Assessors have sufficient other professional support networks (e.g. information) Assessors have sufficient provider/organisational support (e.g. administration)

Infrastructure to support more and better assessors and assessment tools

Sufficient number of Maori assessors as appropriate Assessors are quality controlled (on-going assessment)

doview.com model

Barriers to people becoming assessors are identified and eliminated (e.g. getting Maori involved)

Draw according to Duignan's Outcomes Model Rules. DoView.com/plan/draw.html. Webpage version of this model available at DoView.com/doviews/1/restorativejusticereview112.html. Paul Duignan [email protected]

56

Trainees are able to access and participate in training (e.g. location, cost, block courses)

Well managed training

Appropriate selection processes Training incentivised and individual trainees see it having benefits to them personally

Training is appropriate from a Maori perspective

Culturally appropriate training Training consistent throughout the country Training available regularly Good use of new technologies in training Training is well delivered

DoView.com/plan/draw.html Suitable range of levels offered in training (e.g. basic/ advanced) Right topics offered in training and training futurefocused (e.g. domestic violence) Curriculum appropriate (uptodate, well organised, right skills) Different roles have appropriate training offered (e.g. facilitators, coordinators)

Appropriate and well moderated assessment Right people trained and they do the right courses (role)

Training fits into facilitators' career pathways

Quality training

Appropriate numbers of trainees are trained (ethnicity, gender, age)

Quality learning resources Cultural competence of trainees enhanced doview.com model

Well designed training with clear objectives and based on good practice

Trainees, stakeholders and organisations know training is available

User-friendly training (e.g. web based systems)

Ongoing review and quality assurance of training and improvement from feedback and evidence Training system provides value for money Other RJ related training is also of high quality

57

Recruits the right facilitators

Well resourced

Well administered

Provider organisation is culturally competent in tikanga Maori

Well governed Provider organisation can work multiculturally Financially sustainable

Sustainable in other regards (e.g. succession planning)

Has engagement with tangata whenua in their region

Well connected to other services (e.g. specialist services) Understand what their competencies are

Ensure provision of competencies they do not have from others outside the organisation (e.g. specialist domestic violence RJP skills)

DoView.com/plan/draw.html Plans, implements and documents their facilitators' professional development pathways Provides training and support for other roles in the organisation (e.g. panel members, coordinators) Has mechanism for prescreening whether potential trainees have the prerequisite skills Ensures that trainees get training for the prerequisite skills they need

Organisational structure (or collaboration with other groups) supports follow-up

Are funded to support follow-up

Quality provider organisations

Educates stakeholders and their communities about what RJP (Restorative Justice Practices) is

Have specific structures and processes in place to work in specialist areas (e.g. domestic violence, prisons)

Monitors and evaluates their effectiveness and uses it for improvement Are able to obtain and share information about participants with other organisations for wraparound care (where appropriate) Quality control of the organisation (e.g. organisational accreditation)

doview.com model

Well connected to, and supported by, their communities

Draw according to Duignan's Outcomes Model Rules. DoView.com/plan/draw.html. Webpage version of this model available at DoView.com/doviews/1/restorativejusticereview112.html. Paul Duignan [email protected]

58

DoView.com/plan/draw.html Appropriate accreditation period Well designed accreditation system with clear objectives and based on good practice Facilitator accreditation is credible to individuals, stakeholders and employees Sufficient assessors Sufficient resources

Stakeholders and employers know about facilitator accreditation Facilitators know about accreditation Facilitators are able to access accreditation Facilitator accreditation is incentivised (e.g. from contract providers, organisationally) and facilitators see it as having benefits personally for them

Facilitator accreditation assessment methods appropriate, well moderated and set at right level Facilitator accreditation is culturally appropriate Facilitator accreditation is appropriate from a Maori perspective

Accreditation fits into facilitators' career pathways Accreditation is ongoing and appropriate approach to reaccreditation

Right people accredited

Appropriate numbers of people are accredited (ethnicity, gender, age)

High-quality facilitator accreditation system

Facilitator accreditation is transferrable across different sectors Facilitator accreditation is transparent

Ongoing review and quality assurance of accreditation system and improvement from feedback and evidence Accreditation system provides value for money

doview.com model

Facilitator accreditation accords to natural justice and fairness

Draw according to Duignan's Outcomes Model Rules. DoView.com/plan/draw.html. Webpage version of this model available at DoView.com/doviews/1/restorativejusticereview112.html. Paul Duignan [email protected]

59

DoView.com/plan/draw.html

Group accreditation is a well designed system

Group accreditation is credible to facilitators, groups, stakeholders, employees and the public

Gaining group accreditation is incentivised (e.g. from contract providers, organisationally)

Stakeholders and employers know about group accreditation Providers know about group accreditation

Group accreditation is appropriate from Maori perspective

Groups see group accreditation as having benefits for them organisationally

Group accreditation is accessible to providers

Group accreditation is culturally appropriate

Group accreditation is transparent

High-quality group accreditation system

Group accreditation is ongoing

doview.com model

Group accreditation accords to natural justice and fairness

Draw according to Duignan's Outcomes Model Rules. DoView.com/plan/draw.html. Webpage version of this model available at DoView.com/doviews/1/restorativejusticereview112.html. Paul Duignan [email protected]

60

Facilitators have the basic prerequisites for entering professional training

DoView.com/plan/draw.html Facilitators have sufficient time

Where people do not have the prerequisites there is a training mechanism to train them Facilitators have their pre-existing skills assessed

Facilitators undergo an appropriate selection process Barriers to people becoming facilitators are identified and eliminated (e.g. getting Maori involved)

Facilitators well trained

Facilitators have the right skills

Facilitators have sufficient personal support

Facilitators have the right attributes/personality

Facilitators have sufficiently mentored

Facilitators have the right values

Sufficient professional supervision

Facilitators have the right experience

Sufficient other professional support networks (e.g. information)

Facilitators are culturally competent in tikanga Maori

Sufficient provider/ organisational support (e.g. administration)

Facilitators can work multiculturally

High-quality facilitators doing the RJ work

doview.com model

Facilitators are well resourced

Facilitators go through a properly planned apprenticeship and ongoing professional development Facilitators are quality controlled (ongoing accreditation and assessment) Clear career pathway for facilitators

61

DoView.com/plan/draw.html

Suitable, timely prior communication with participants about the process, consents and arrangements

Capacity of participants to engage in the process is assessed

Other risks are assessed accurately

The process is planned and implemented in the light of participants capacity and managing any other risks

Process undertaken in an appropriate location

Adequate documentation of what occurred in the process

Other required documentation completed satisfactorally

Follow-up is planned for as part of the outcome of the process

Follow-up is resourced

High quality RJ processes (e.g. conferences, panels, conversations)

The outcomes from the process are not formulaic

Process is credible from a multicultural perspective Process is credible from a Maori perspective

doview.com model

Multiple outcomes achieved at the same time where possible

Draw according to Duignan's Outcomes Model Rules. DoView.com/plan/draw.html. Webpage version of this model available at DoView.com/doviews/1/restorativejusticereview112.html. Paul Duignan [email protected]

62

DoView.com/plan/draw.html

Participants have a realistic picture of what the process can potentially offer them Participants know how to access relevant RJP processes Participants understand 'what's in it for me?' and see wider value in the process

Participants give informed consent for the participation

Participants have input into the process

Participants have confidence in RJP provider organisations Participants trust RJP practicioners to do their job properly Participants have confidence in the specific RJP process they are involved in

Participants are well supported in having their needs met and interests protected Participants' perceived risks are managed well around the process

Participants referred to other services, as appropriate

Participants needs and justice interests are met

Victim's needs are prioritised Participants are appropriately involved at different stages in the RJP processes

Participants' individual cultures and diversity are respected Maori participants culture respected

doview.com model

Participants have sufficient financial resources to attend and participate in the process

Draw according to Duignan's Outcomes Model Rules. DoView.com/plan/draw.html. Webpage version of this model available at DoView.com/doviews/1/restorativejusticereview112.html. Paul Duignan [email protected]

63

DoView.com/plan/draw.html

Purchasers ensure that there are good outcomes-focused funding and other systems in place

Purchasers know about the training and accreditation system

Purchasers trust the training and accreditation system Purchasers believe that training and accreditation will ultimately produce better outcomes for participants

Purchasers consult with provider and provider organisations about training and accreditation Purchasers build trust relationships with providers

Purchasers know what they are paying for in terms of training and accreditation

Purchasers encourage the use of evidencebased practice in RJ Purchasers ensure there are good audit trails for the use of public money on RJ work

Engaged purchaser/ payer (MOJ)

Purchasers ensure multicultura perspective embedded

doview.com model

Purchasers ensure Maori perspective embedded

Draw according to Duignan's Outcomes Model Rules. DoView.com/plan/draw.html. Webpage version of this model available at DoView.com/doviews/1/restorativejusticereview112.html. Paul Duignan [email protected]

64

65

DoView.com/plan/draw.html User-friendly training (e.g. web based systems) Trainees are able to access training (.e.g location, cost) Well designed training with clear objectives and based on good practice Well managed training

Trainees, stakeholders and organisations knows training is available

Appropriate selection processes

Culturally appropriate training

Different roles have appropriate training offered (e.g. facilitators, coordinators)

Training consistent throughout the country

Curriculum appropriate (uptodate, well organised, right skills)

Regular training held

Good use of new technologies in training

Right topics offered in training and training futurefocused (e.g. domestic violence)

Right people trained and they do the right courses (role)

Appropriate numbers of trainees are trained (ethnicity, gender, age)

Quality training

Appropriate and well moderated assessment

Training is well delivered Quality learning resources

Suitable range of levels offered in training (e.g. basic/ advanced)

Cultural competence of trainees enhanced

Ongoing review and quality assurance of training and improvement from feedback and evidence Training provides value for money

doview.com model

Training is appropriate from a Maori perspective

Draw according to Duignan's Outcomes Model Rules. DoView.com/plan/draw.html. Webpage version of this model available at DoView.com/doviews/1/restorativejusticereview112.html. Paul Duignan [email protected]

66

DoView.com/plan/draw.html Appropriate accreditation period Well designed accreditation system with clear objectives and based on good practice Facilitator accreditation is credible to individuals, stakeholders and employees Sufficient assessors Sufficient resources

Stakeholders and employers know about facilitator accreditation Facilitators know about accreditation Facilitators are able to access accreditation Facilitator accreditation is incentivised (e.g. from contract providers, organisationally) and facilitators see it as having benefits personally for them

Facilitator accreditation assessment methods appropriate, well moderated and set at right level Facilitator accreditation is culturally appropriate Facilitator accreditation is appropriate from a Maori perspective

Accreditation fits into facilitators' career pathways Accreditation is ongoing and appropriate approach to reaccreditation

Right people accredited

Appropriate numbers of people are accredited (ethnicity, gender, age)

High-quality facilitator accreditation system

Facilitator accreditation is transferrable across different sectors Facilitator accreditation is transparent

Ongoing review and quality assurance of accreditation system and improvement from feedback and evidence Accreditation system provides value for money

doview.com model

Facilitator accreditation accords to natural justice and fairness

Draw according to Duignan's Outcomes Model Rules. DoView.com/plan/draw.html. Webpage version of this model available at DoView.com/doviews/1/restorativejusticereview112.html. Paul Duignan [email protected]

67

DoView.com

The HTML and DoView version of this file is available at DoView.com/doviews/1/cera-117.html

DoView software - DoView.com

Dr Paul Duignan on Twitter.com/paulduignan

Discuss DoView approach on our Linkedin Community of Practice - Tinyurl.com/doviewplanningln

[email protected]

Developed using DoView.com software

Parker Duignan Consulting Dr Paul Duignan [email protected]. See the HTML version of this DoView at DoView.com/doviews/1/restorativejusticereview112.html. 25 July 2013.July 2013.

Resources

68

69