• No results found

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

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

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

Copied!
69
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)

A Review of the

Training and

Accreditation of

Restorative Justice

Facilitators in

Aotearoa

New Zealand

(2)

Executive Summary

4

INTRODUCTION 4

CURRENT SYSTEM HAS A NUMBER OF POSITIVE ASPECTS 4

TRAINING IMPROVEMENTS 4

ACCREDITATION IMPROVEMENTS 4

PROMOTING PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 5

SPECIALIST WORK 5

WORKFORCE PLANNING 5

MĀORI, TIKANGA, KAWA AND RESTORATIVE JUSTICE TRAINING AND ACCREDITATION 6

VALUE FOR MONEY 6

VISUAL OVERVIEW OF THE FINDINGS OF THIS REVIEW 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 PRE-

SKILLS 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 18

COVERED EXPECTED AREAS 18

PRE-COURSE MODULES 18

ADDITIONAL TOPICS 18

NZQA 19

Teaching, Learning & Assessment

20

OVERALL TEACHING 20

OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT 20

LEARNING RESOURCES 21

WORKBOOK 21

ASSESSMENT 21

NEW MODES OF DELIVERY 22

Programme Management & Quality Assurance

23

WHO SHOULD RUN THE RJ FACILITATORS COURSE? 23

QUALITY ASSURANCE AND IMPROVEMENT FROM FEEDBACK 23

Ongoing Professional Development

24

AN IDEAL INDUCTION PROCESS 24

FORMAL TRAINING 25

EARLY-CAREER MENTORING 25

SUPERVISION 25

DEVELOPING CAREER PATHWAYS 27

DELIVERY OF NETWORKING OPPORTUNITIES 27

(3)

Accreditation Programme Purpose and Design

28

CLEAR PURPOSE FOR ACCREDITATION 28

DELAYS 28

AWARENESS OF ACCREDITATION 29

EFFECTIVENESS OF PROVISION OF CURRENT ACCREDITATION SYSTEM 29

WHAT IS THE BEST APPROACH TO ADOPT TO RE-ACCREDITATION 30

ENCOURAGING FURTHER PROFESSIONAL TRAINING AS PART OF RE-ACCREDITATION 30

THE CURRENT APPROACH TO ACCREDITATION ASSESSMENT IS SOUND 32

ACCREDITATION MODERATION 32

WHEN SHOULD PEOPLE BE ABLE TO APPLY FOR ACCREDITATION? 32

HOW HARD SHOULD IT BE TO GET ACCREDITED 33

PROVIDER GROUP ACCREDITATION 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

34 34

POSSIBILITY OF A FORMAL QUALITY MARK APPROACH TO ENSURING BEST PRACTICE. 34

Workforce Planning

35

The Need for Facilitator Specialisation

36

SPECIALISATION 36

CONTINUUM OF RISK 36

SAFETY AND SPECIALISED CONCERNS AND COMPETENCIES 38

HIGH EMOTION RJ WORK 38

PRISON WORK 38

FAMILY VIOLENCE TRAINING AND ACCREDITATION 39

RECOGNITION OF PRIOR TRAINING 40

BEING ABLE TO ASSESS RISK 41

ENTRY TO SERVICE REQUIREMENTS FOR PROVIDER GROUPS 41

Māori, Tikanga, Kawa and Restorative Justice Training and Accreditation

42

LACK OF MĀORI ASSESSORS 42

APPROPRIATE TRAINING IN TIKANGA AND KAWA FOR RJ FACILITATORS 42

Conclusion

45

Appendices

46

APPENDIX 1: REVIEW METHODOLOGY 46

APPENDIX 3: SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW SCHEDULE 48

APPENDIX 4: FACILITATORS’ SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE 49

APPENDIX 5: PROVIDER GROUPS AND STAKEHOLDERS SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE 50

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 51

(4)

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.

(5)

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 ‘in- service’ 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 co- exist 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

(6)

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.

M

ĀORI, 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/global-

(7)

dov ie w .co m m odel o v iew .c o m m o d e l

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.

Well designed training with clear objectives and based on good practice Well managed training

Trainees are able to access training (.e.g location, cost) Trainees, stakeholders and organisations knows training is available Appropriate selection processes

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

Culturally appropriate training

Training consistent throughout the country Regular training held

Good use of new technologies in training Training is well delivered Quality learning resources

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

in training and training future- focused (e.g. domestic violence) Suitable range of levels offered in training (e.g. basic/

advanced)

Right people trained and they

do the right courses (role) Appropriate numbers of trainees are trained (ethnicity, gender, age) Appropriate and well moderated assessment DoView.com/plan/draw.html Quality training

Cultural competence of trainees enhanced 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 paul@parkerduignan.com

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

Appropriate accreditation period 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 Facilitator accreditation is transferrable across different

sectors Facilitator accreditation is transparent Accreditation fits into facilitators' career pathways Accreditation is ongoing and appropriate approach to re- accreditation Right people accredited Appropriate numbers of people are accredited (ethnicity, gender, age) DoView.com/plan/draw.html High-quality facilitator accreditation system

Facilitator accreditation accords to natural justice and fairness

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

(8)

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

(9)

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 re- accreditations 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).

(10)

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 high- emotion 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.

(11)

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 situa- tion 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).

(12)

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’.

(13)

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

(14)

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 post- course 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

(15)

- 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 co- facilitation 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.

(16)

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 e- learning is steadily increasing over time, together with advances in the platforms being used for e- learning. 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.

(17)

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).

(18)

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'.

(19)

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 bi- culturally 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 NZQA-

type 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).

(20)

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.

(21)

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

(22)

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.

(23)

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).

(24)

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).

(25)

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.

References

Related documents

to explore the pharmacokinetic properties of three representative active alkaloids (benzoylhypaconine, benzoylmesaconine, benzoylaconine) after administration of extracts of

Though many read The Chronicles of Narnia unaware that Lewis was a scholar of medieval literature, Lewis’s scholarship profoundly shaped the world of Narnia

Although no significant changes were observed in the monocyte CD62L cell surface expression following THR surgery (p = 0.213, as determined by ANOVA) (Figure 2b), a trend of

Hashin proposed different failure modes associated with the fibre tow and the matrix, considering, in both modes, differences in tension and compression (Hashin 1980), as shown in

About Hakim Tirmidhi Muhammad Usman Al-Khusht says, “This great scientist, in fact, has reached a level that can not be lightly enriched with a vast knowledge, deep

The objective of this study was to develop Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy in combination with multivariate calibration of partial least square (PLS) and

that TILs scored by the recommendations could be associ- ated with the prognosis of TNBCs [27]. In this study, we performed a retrospective analysis of TILs in 166 core nee- dle

Furthermore, transwell invasion assays and cell cycle assays indicated that H19 knockdown inhibited both cells invasion and proliferation, but this effects was attenuated