You are on page 1of 69
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

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

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

OTHER ROLES

27

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 ACCREDI TATION ASSESSMENT IS SOUND

3 2

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

34

THE CASE OF REPORT WRITING, A PARTICULARLY VISIBLE AND IMPORTANT ASPECT OF BEST PRACTICE

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

SAFETYAND 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:

FACILITATORSSURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

49

APPENDIX

5:

PROVIDER GROUPS AND STAKEHOLDERS SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

50

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

51

DoVIEW OUTCOMES MODEL

52

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 facilitatorscourse 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.

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- servicetraining; 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-servicetraining 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

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 rates1 . 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 (htt p:// dov i ew.c om/ u/ progr am rev i ew s.ht ml). 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-

publications/r/reoffending-analysis-for-restorative-justice-cases-2008-and-2009.

doview.com model

doview.com model

htt p:/ / doview.c om/ pl a n/ draw. htm l ) 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

  DoView.com/plan/draw.html   Trainees are
 
  DoView.com/plan/draw.html
  DoView.com/plan/draw.html

DoView.com/plan/draw.html

 
Trainees are able to access training (.e.g location, cost)
Trainees are able
to access training
(.e.g location,
cost)

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

Different roles have appropriate training offered (e.g.

location, cost) User-friendly training (e.g. web based systems) Different roles have appropriate training offered (e.g.
Culturally appropriate training

Culturally appropriate training

facilitators,

coordinators)

Right people

trained and they do the right

 
  courses (role)

courses (role)

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

Curriculum

Trainees, stakeholders and organisations knows training is available

Trainees, stakeholders and organisations knows training is available

Trainees, stakeholders and organisations knows training is available appropriate (uptodate, well

appropriate

(uptodate, well

Trainees, stakeholders and organisations knows training is available appropriate (uptodate, well
Training consistent throughout the country Regular training held organised, right skills) Appropriate numbers of
Training consistent throughout the country Regular training held organised, right skills)

Training consistent throughout the country

Regular training held

organised, right

skills)Training consistent throughout the country Regular training held organised, right

Training consistent throughout the country Regular training held organised, right skills)
Regular training held organised, right skills) Appropriate numbers of trainees are trained
Regular training held organised, right skills) Appropriate numbers of trainees are trained

Appropriate

numbers of

trainees are

trained (ethnicity,

held organised, right skills) Appropriate numbers of trainees are trained (ethnicity, Quality training

Quality

training

 

Right topics offered

gender, age)

Well managed training
Well
managed
training
 
Appropriate selection processes
Appropriate
selection
processes

in training and training future-Good use of new technologies in training

Good use of new technologies in training

 
Appropriate and well moderated assessment
Appropriate and
well moderated
assessment
 
 
focused (e.g. domestic violence)

focused (e.g. domestic violence)

   

Training is well delivered

    Training is well delivered
 
  Suitable range of

Suitable range of

 

Quality learning resources

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

 

Cultural competence of trainees enhanced

 
  Cultural competence of trainees enhanced  
Training is appropriate from a Maori perspective Ongoing review and quality assurance of training and
Training is appropriate from a Maori perspective Ongoing review and quality assurance of training and

Training is appropriate from a Maori perspective

Ongoing review and quality assurance of training and improvement from feedback and evidence

Ongoing review and quality assurance of training and improvement from feedback and evidence

Training provides value for money

Training provides value for money
Well designed accreditation system with clear objectives and based on good practice

Well designed accreditation system with clear objectives and based on good practice

Facilitator accreditation is credible to individuals, stakeholders and employees

Facilitator

accreditation is

credible to

individuals,

stakeholders

and employees

to individuals, stakeholders and employees Sufficient assessors Sufficient resources  
Sufficient assessors
Sufficient
assessors
Sufficient resources
Sufficient
resources
 
  Appropriate accreditation period

Appropriate accreditation period

  Appropriate accreditation period

Stakeholders and

employers know

about facilitator

 
employers know about facilitator  
 

Facilitator accreditation

Accreditation fits into facilitators' career pathways
Accreditation fits
into facilitators'
career pathways
 

accreditation

assessment methods appropriate,

Facilitators know about accreditation
Facilitators know
about accreditation
Facilitators are able to access accreditation
Facilitators are able to
access accreditation
Facilitators know about accreditation Facilitators are able to access accreditation

well moderated and set at right level

access accreditation well moderated and set at right level   Right people accredited Appropriate numbers of
 
Right people accredited
Right people
accredited
Appropriate numbers of people are accredited (ethnicity, gender, age)
Appropriate
numbers of
people are
accredited
(ethnicity,
gender, age)

Facilitator accreditation is culturally appropriate

Facilitator accreditation is culturally appropriate Accreditation is ongoing and appropriate approach to re-
Facilitator accreditation is culturally appropriate Accreditation is ongoing and appropriate approach to re-
Accreditation is ongoing and appropriate approach to re- accreditation
Accreditation is
ongoing and
appropriate
approach to re-
accreditation
accreditation is culturally appropriate Accreditation is ongoing and appropriate approach to re- accreditation

Facilitator accreditation is

 
  appropriate from a Maori

appropriate from a Maori

Facilitator accreditation is incentivised (e.g.

perspective

Facilitator accreditation is incentivised (e.g. perspective

from contract providers, organisationally) and facilitators see it as

Facilitator accreditation is transferrable across different sectors

having benefits personally for them

Facilitator accreditation is transparent

having benefits personally for them Facilitator accreditation is transparent
Facilitator accreditation accords to natural justice and fairness

Facilitator accreditation accords to natural justice and fairness

Ongoing review and quality assurance of accreditation system and improvement from feedback and evidence

Ongoing review and quality assurance of accreditation system and improvement from feedback and evidence

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

Accreditation system 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

Paul Duigna n paul@parkerduignan.com DoView.com/plan/draw.html High-quality facilitator

DoView.com/plan/draw.html

High-quality facilitator accreditation system
High-quality facilitator accreditation system
High-quality facilitator accreditation system

High-quality

facilitator

accreditation

system

High-quality facilitator accreditation system

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 paul@parkerduignan.com

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 healerswho 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

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 facilitatorscourse approved by NZQA. (Desirable, MoJ).

Recommendation 8: That the MOJ and RJA investigate the need for a deskfileresource 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 facilitators apprenticeship plan. (Necessary, MoJ).

Recommendation 14: That provider group accreditation should be encouraged by MOJ and RJA. (Necessary, MoJ, RJA).

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

Plus training

Plus

Plus

Plus

Only within a dedicated specialised treatment programme

facilitator

in high-

specialised

specialised

embedded

training and

emotion work

training

accreditation

within a

accreditation

referral

network

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.

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).

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 traineesexisting 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 facilitatorstraining 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.

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 healersand 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 healerswho 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).

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 workor 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

- 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.

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-servicetraining (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, peoplestolerance 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.

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.

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.

Or there could be an aspect of the course tailored

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).

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 insightfuland 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 facilitators 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'.

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 facilitatorscourse approved by NZQA. (Desirable, MoJ).

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 adequateand 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 instructorswho had been there, done thatand provided a very supportive environmentwhere 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 learningand ‘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 furtherwas noted, and there were many comments praising having ‘such an experienced practitioneron 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 ones performance was a marker of being able to examine ones 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.

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-mates assessments, it should be noted that continuing until the end of the course does not mean that participants have passed all their

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 passand 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.

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 sectors 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

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.

This would be an excellent resource that

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 deskfileresource 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).

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 betterand 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).

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.

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

FURTHER ‘IN-SERVICETRAINING

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-servicetraining 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-servicetraining 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),

- 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.

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 pre- existing 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

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),

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 reviewers 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.

the full re-accreditation process should only need to be undertaken every five years.

A second recommendation from the reviewers is therefore that

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 RE- ACCREDITATION

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

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 re- accreditation), 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 Ministrys resources at the time. A template which could be adapted for RJ facilitation is available from the PsychologistsRegistration 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).

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 couldnt 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 facilitators 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 facilitators apprenticeship plan. (Necessary, MoJ).

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 high- pass 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).

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 pro- forma 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.

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).

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

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

Plus

Plus

Plus

Plus

Only

facilitator

training in

specialised

specialised

embedded

within a

training and

high-

training

accreditation

within a

dedicated

accreditation

emotion

referral

specialised

work

network

treatment

programme

Homicide

           

Prison-

           

work

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 Restores 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 seriouslevels, 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 reviewersconclusion 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.

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 facilitators 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 stand- alone 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.

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 doesnt 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 onerousfor 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 pre- requisite 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.

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.

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.

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 facilita- tors. 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 un- derstand 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 asses- sorto 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 [them- selves] so there are some Māori assessors from here on, then encourage others to do the same. Once theres 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 partici- pants.

While it would seem desirable that all facilitators should have the cultural competence to work effec- tively 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

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 tradi- tional 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 werent necessarily culturally com- petent.

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 cultur- ally 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 suc- cess 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 re- quired to work in each of them.

 

Information taught in the core RJ course

Plus some addi- tional training or experience in ti- kanga and kawa

Plus extensive training or ex- perience in ti- kanga and kawa

Or working with associates with the appropriate skills

Working occasionally with Māori most of whom have limited knowledge of tikanga and kawa

 

Desirable

   

Working with some Māori in non- Māori settings

       

Working with Māori in Māori contexts

       

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

focus on teaching generalised tikanga and kawa, which can vary considerably according to ones af- filiations and personal preferences.

The content of this training should include:

1. The self-completion module and a compulsory assignment on working with ori

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 ori so as to increase knowledge and build rela-

tionships. Identify cultural advisors with whom the provider group and its facilitators could collabo- rate.

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).

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.

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.

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

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

APPENDIX 4: FACILITATORSSURVEY 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?

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?

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.

doview.com model

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 ®

High-quality trainers High-quality facilitators doing the RJ work Community High-quality High-quality support for
High-quality
trainers
High-quality
facilitators doing
the RJ work
Community
High-quality
High-quality
support for
assessors
facilitator
restorative
(facilitator or
accreditation
practice
group)
system
Support and
linkages with
the sectors in
which RJ
works
Quality
High quality RJ
processes (e.g.
conferences,
panels,
conversations)
High-quality
training
group
accreditation
system
Quality
Participants
needs and justice
interests are met
provider
organisations

Harm repaired

Accountability

encouraged

People take

responsibility for

their actions

Engaged purchaser/payer (MOJ)

Engaged purchaser/payer (MOJ)

Value for money

Maori perspectives embedded throughout

(MOJ) Value for money Maori perspectives embedded throughout DoView.com/plan/draw.html Reduced social costs Improved

DoView.com/plan/draw.html

Reduced social costs

Improved wellbeing for victims, families and communities

Improved wellbeing for victims, families and communities Reduced crime Strengthened social connections Build

Reduced crime

Strengthened social connections

Build community/ individual ownership rangatiratanga

Healthy

communities

whanaungatanga

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 paul@parkerduignan.com

doview.com model

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

DoView.com/plan/draw.html

Communities know how to access relevant RJP processes

Communities

become involved in different ways and stages of the RJP processes

Communities have confidence in RJP provider organisations

Communities understand what restorative approach is all about Communities understand where RJP providers fit in
Communities understand what restorative approach is all about Communities understand where RJP providers fit in

Communities understand what restorative approach is all about

Communities understand what restorative approach is all about Communities understand where RJP providers fit in terms
Communities understand what restorative approach is all about Communities understand where RJP providers fit in terms

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

where RJP providers fit in terms of justice being served Communities see how a restorative justice
where RJP providers fit in terms of justice being served Communities see how a restorative justice

Communities see how a restorative justice approach can work in many domains and sectors (e.g. justice, schools, work)

in many domains and sectors (e.g. justice, schools, work) Communities trust RJP practitioners to do their
in many domains and sectors (e.g. justice, schools, work) Communities trust RJP practitioners to do their

Communities trust RJP practitioners to do their job properly

Communities trust RJP practitioners to do their job properly Communities have confidence in the RJP process

Communities have confidence in the RJP process

Sufficient central and local government support and funding for communities to participate in restorative justice

Tangata whenua communities are fully engaged in the restorative justice work

Community funding sources see restorative justice as a good place to invest in (e.g grant
Community funding sources see restorative justice as a good place to invest in (e.g grant
Community funding sources see restorative justice as a good place to invest in (e.g grant

Community funding sources see restorative justice as a good place to invest in (e.g grant bodies)

Diversity of communities is recognised (e.g. there are different parts of community involved in different issues - e.g. traffic rather than schools

is recognised (e.g. there are different parts of community involved in different issues - e.g. traffic
Community support for restorative practice
Community
support for
restorative
practice
than schools Community support for restorative practice Draw according to Duignan's Outcomes Model Rules.

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 paul@parkerduignan.com

53

doview.com model

Sectors engaged and consulted regarding RJ issues related to their sector

Different sector

languages spoken

related to their sector Different sector languages spoken Sectors know what's in it for them Good

Sectors know what's in it for them

languages spoken Sectors know what's in it for them Good transfer of learning from one sector

Good transfer of learning from one sector to another

Good synergies

between those

working in

different sectors

synergies between those working in different sectors Key influencers in sectors understand the importance of RJ

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

in sectors understand the importance of RJ to their sector DoView.com/plan/draw.html Support and linkages with the
in sectors understand the importance of RJ to their sector DoView.com/plan/draw.html Support and linkages with the

DoView.com/plan/draw.html

Support and linkages with the sectors in which RJ works
Support and
linkages
with the
sectors in
which RJ
works

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 paul@parkerduignan.com

doview.com model

doview.com model Trainers know about the different areas of RJ work (e.g. domestic violence, corrections) Trainers
Trainers know about the different areas of RJ work (e.g. domestic violence, corrections) Trainers have
Trainers know about the different areas of RJ work (e.g. domestic violence, corrections) Trainers have
Trainers know about the different areas of RJ work (e.g. domestic violence, corrections) Trainers have

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

Trainers have the relevant general RJP subject matter expertise

areas of RJ work (e.g. domestic violence, corrections) Trainers have the relevant general RJP subject matter

DoView.com/plan/draw.html

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

Trainers have sufficient time to prepare and do the training

Trainers are well resourced

Trainers Trainers are undergo an well-trained in appropriate adult selection professional
Trainers Trainers are undergo an well-trained in appropriate adult selection professional
Trainers Trainers are undergo an well-trained in appropriate adult selection professional
Trainers Trainers are undergo an well-trained in appropriate adult selection professional

Trainers

Trainers are

undergo an

undergo an well-trained in

well-trained in

appropriate

adult

selection

professional

process

learning

adult selection professional process learning Trainers have the right attributes/personality Trainers have

Trainers have the right attributes/personality

Trainers have the right values

right attributes/personality Trainers have the right values Trainers have the right experience Trainers are culturally

Trainers have the right experience

Trainers are culturally competent in relevant tikanga Maori

Trainers can work multiculturally

Trainers have sufficient personal support

Trainers have sufficient professional supervision

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)

involved) Sufficient number of Maori trainers as appropriate Trainers are quality controlled (on-going assessment)
Trainers have sufficient other professional support networks (e.g. information) Trainers have sufficient
Trainers have sufficient other professional support networks (e.g. information) Trainers have sufficient
Trainers have sufficient other professional support networks (e.g. information) Trainers have sufficient

Trainers have sufficient other professional support networks (e.g. information)

Trainers have sufficient provider/organisational support (e.g. administration)

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

High-

quality

trainers

support (e.g. administration) High- quality trainers Draw according to Duignan's Outcomes Model Rules.

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 paul@parkerduignan.com

55

doview.com model

Assessors

undergo an

appropriate

selection process

Assessors undergo an appropriate selection process Assessors have know about the different areas of RJ work

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

Assessors have the relevant general RJP subject matter expertise

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 time to prepare and do the assessment

Assessors are well resourced

Assessors have sufficient personal support

well resourced Assessors have sufficient personal support Assessors have sufficient professional supervision Assessors

Assessors have sufficient professional supervision

Assessors have sufficient other professional support networks (e.g. information)

Assessors have sufficient provider/organisational support (e.g. administration)

provider/organisational support (e.g. administration) DoView.com/plan/draw.html High- quality assessors

DoView.com/plan/draw.html

support (e.g. administration) DoView.com/plan/draw.html High- quality assessors (facilitator or group)

High-

quality

assessors

(facilitator

or group)

High- quality assessors (facilitator or group)

Infrastructure to support more and better assessors and assessment tools

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

Sufficient number of Maori assessors as appropriate

Assessors 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 paul@parkerduignan.com

doview.com model

Trainees are able to access and participate in training (e.g. location, cost, block courses) User-friendly
Trainees are
able to access
and participate
in training (e.g.
location, cost,
block courses)
User-friendly training
(e.g. web based
systems)
DoView.com/plan/draw.html
Training is appropriate
from a Maori perspective
Suitable range of
levels offered in
training (e.g. basic/
advanced)
Trainees,
Appropriate and
stakeholders
well moderated
Well
and
Culturally appropriate
assessment
designed
organisations
training
training
know training
Right topics offered
in training and
training future-
focused (e.g.
domestic violence)
with clear
is available
Right people
trained and they
do the right
courses (role)
Training fits
objectives
Training consistent
throughout the country
Quality
into facilitators'
and based
Curriculum
career
training
on good
Appropriate
appropriate
pathways
practice
selection
Training available
(uptodate, well
processes
regularly
organised, right
Appropriate
skills)
numbers of
Well
managed
Good use of new
technologies in training
training
Training
incentivised
and individual
trainees see it
having benefits
to them
personally
trainees are
Different roles have
appropriate training
offered (e.g.
facilitators,
coordinators)
trained (ethnicity,
gender, age)
Training is well delivered
Quality learning
resources

Cultural competence of trainees enhanced

Cultural competence of trainees enhanced

Ongoing review and quality assurance of training and improvement from feedback and evidence

Ongoing review and quality assurance of training and improvement from feedback and evidence

Training system provides value for money

Training system provides value for money

Other RJ related training is also of high quality

Other RJ related training is also of high quality

doview.com model

Well resourced

Well administered

Well governed

Well resourced Well administered Well governed Financially sustainable Sustainable in other regards (e.g. succession

Financially

sustainable

resourced Well administered Well governed Financially sustainable Sustainable in other regards (e.g. succession planning)

Sustainable in

other regards

(e.g. succession

planning)

resourced Well administered Well governed Financially sustainable Sustainable in other regards (e.g. succession planning)
in other regards (e.g. succession planning) Recruits the right facilitators Well connected to, and
Recruits the right facilitators Well connected to, and supported by, their communities Plans, implements and
Recruits the right facilitators
Well connected
to, and supported
by, their
communities
Plans, implements and
documents their facilitators'
professional development
pathways
Organisational
Provider
organisation is
culturally
Well connected to
other services
(e.g. specialist
services)
structure (or
collaboration with
other groups)
competent in
supports follow-up
tikanga Maori
Provides training and support
for other roles in the
organisation (e.g. panel
members, coordinators)
Understand what
Provider
their
organisation can
competencies are
work
multiculturally
Has mechanism for pre-
screening whether potential
trainees have the
prerequisite skills
Has engagement
with tangata
whenua in their
region
Ensure provision
of competencies
they do not have
from others
outside the
organisation (e.g.
specialist
domestic violence
RJP skills)
Ensures that trainees get
training for the prerequisite
skills they need
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

Quality control of the organisation (e.g. organisational accreditation)

Are able to obtain and share information about participants with other organisations for wraparound care (where appropriate)

Are funded to support follow-up Educates stakeholders and their communities about what RJP (Restorative Justice
Are funded to support follow-up Educates stakeholders and their communities about what RJP (Restorative Justice
Are funded to support follow-up Educates stakeholders and their communities about what RJP (Restorative Justice

Are funded to support follow-up

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

funded to support follow-up Educates stakeholders and their communities about what RJP (Restorative Justice Practices) is
about what RJP (Restorative Justice Practices) is DoView.com/plan/draw.html Quality provider organisations
about what RJP (Restorative Justice Practices) is DoView.com/plan/draw.html Quality provider organisations
about what RJP (Restorative Justice Practices) is DoView.com/plan/draw.html Quality provider organisations
about what RJP (Restorative Justice Practices) is DoView.com/plan/draw.html Quality provider organisations
about what RJP (Restorative Justice Practices) is DoView.com/plan/draw.html Quality provider organisations

DoView.com/plan/draw.html

Quality provider organisations
Quality
provider
organisations
DoView.com/plan/draw.html Quality provider organisations Draw according to Duignan's Outcomes Model Rules.

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 paul@parkerduignan.com

58

doview.com model

d oview.com model DoView.com/plan/draw.html Well designed accreditation system with clear objectives and based on good

DoView.com/plan/draw.html

Well designed accreditation system with clear objectives and based on good practice Facilitator accreditation is
Well designed accreditation system with clear objectives and based on good practice Facilitator accreditation is

Well designed accreditation system with clear objectives and based on good practice

system with clear objectives and based on good practice Facilitator accreditation is credible to individuals,

Facilitator

accreditation is

credible to

individuals,

stakeholders

and employees

is credible to individuals, stakeholders and employees Sufficient assessors Sufficient resources Stakeholders and

Sufficient

assessors

individuals, stakeholders and employees Sufficient assessors Sufficient resources Stakeholders and employers know about

Sufficient

resources

and employees Sufficient assessors Sufficient resources Stakeholders and employers know about facilitator
and employees Sufficient assessors Sufficient resources Stakeholders and employers know about facilitator

Stakeholders and

employers know

about facilitator

accreditation

and employers know about facilitator accreditation Facilitators know about accreditation Facilitators are able

Facilitators know

about accreditation

accreditation Facilitators know about accreditation Facilitators are able to access accreditation Facilitator

Facilitators are able to access accreditation

accreditation Facilitators are able to access accreditation Facilitator accreditation is incentivised (e.g. from

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

facilitators see it as having benefits personally for them Appropriate accreditation period Facilitator

Appropriate accreditation period

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

accreditation is appropriate from a Maori perspective Facilitator accreditation is transferrable across different

Facilitator accreditation is transferrable across different sectors

accreditation is transferrable across different sectors Facilitator accreditation is transparent Accreditation fits

Facilitator accreditation is transparent

different sectors Facilitator accreditation is transparent Accreditation fits into facilitators'   Right

Accreditation fits

into facilitators'

 

Right people

accredited

career pathways

Accreditation is ongoing and appropriate approach to re- accreditation

Accreditation is ongoing and appropriate approach to re- accreditation Appropriate

Appropriate

numbers of

 

people are

accredited

(ethnicity,

 

gender, age)

Facilitator accreditation accords to natural justice and fairness

Facilitator accreditation accords to natural justice and fairness

Ongoing review and quality assurance of accreditation system and improvement from feedback and evidence

Ongoing review and quality assurance of accreditation system and improvement from feedback and evidence

Accreditation system provides value for money

assurance of accreditation system and improvement from feedback and evidence Accreditation system provides value for money
of accreditation system and improvement from feedback and evidence Accreditation system provides value for money
High-quality facilitator accreditation system
High-quality
facilitator
accreditation
system
for money High-quality facilitator accreditation system Draw according to Duignan's Outcomes Model Rules.

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 paul@parkerduignan.com

59

doview.com model

doview.com model DoView.com/plan/draw.html Group accreditation is a well designed system Gaining group accreditation

DoView.com/plan/draw.html

Group accreditation is a well designed system Gaining group accreditation is Stakeholders and employers know
Group accreditation is a well designed system Gaining group accreditation is Stakeholders and employers know
Group accreditation is a well designed system Gaining group accreditation is Stakeholders and employers know
Group accreditation is a well designed system Gaining group accreditation is Stakeholders and employers know
Group accreditation is a well designed system Gaining group accreditation is Stakeholders and employers know
Group
accreditation is
a well designed
system
Gaining group
accreditation is
Stakeholders and
employers know about
group accreditation
Group accreditation is
transparent
incentivised (e.g.
from contract
High-quality
providers,
Providers know about
group accreditation
Group accreditation is
appropriate from Maori
perspective
group
organisationally)
Group
accreditation
accreditation is
system
credible to
facilitators,
Groups see group
accreditation as
having benefits for
them organisationally
Group accreditation is
accessible to providers
Group accreditation is culturally
appropriate
groups,
stakeholders,
Group accreditation is ongoing
employees and
the public
Group accreditation accords to natural justice and fairness

60

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 paul@parkerduignan.com

Facilitators have DoView.com/plan/draw.html the basic prerequisites for Facilitators have entering sufficient time
Facilitators have
DoView.com/plan/draw.html
the basic
prerequisites for
Facilitators have
entering
sufficient time
professional
training
Facilitators are well
resourced
Facilitators have the right
skills
Where people do
not have the
prerequisites -
there is a training
mechanism to
train them
Facilitators have
sufficient personal
support
Facilitators have the right
attributes/personality
Facilitators have
Facilitators have
Facilitators
sufficiently mentored
Facilitators have the right
values
their pre-existing
well trained
Facilitators
skills assessed
Sufficient professional
undergo an
Facilitators have the right
experience
High-quality
facilitators
doing the RJ
work
supervision
appropriate
selection process
Sufficient other
professional support
Barriers to people
becoming
facilitators are
identified and
eliminated (e.g.
getting Maori
involved)
networks (e.g.
Facilitators are culturally
competent in tikanga
Maori
information)
Sufficient provider/
Facilitators can work
multiculturally
organisational support
(e.g. administration)
Facilitators go through a properly planned apprenticeship and ongoing professional development
Facilitators are quality controlled (ongoing accreditation and assessment)
Clear career pathway for facilitators
doview.com model

doview.com model

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

Capacity of participants to engage in the process is assessed

of participants to engage in the process is assessed Other risks are assessed accurately The process

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

other risks Process undertaken in an appropriate location Adequate documentation of what occurred in the process

Adequate documentation of what occurred in the process

Other required

documentation

completed

satisfactorally

Other required documentation completed satisfactorally Follow-up is planned for as part of the outcome of the

Follow-up is planned for as part of the

outcome of the process

Follow-up is

resourced

of the outcome of the process Follow-up is resourced DoView.com/plan/draw.html High quality RJ processes (e.g.
of the outcome of the process Follow-up is resourced DoView.com/plan/draw.html High quality RJ processes (e.g.

DoView.com/plan/draw.html

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

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

The outcomes from the process are not formulaic

Multiple outcomes achieved at the same time where possible

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

Process is credible from a multicultural perspective

Process is credible from a Maori perspective

Process is credible from a multicultural perspective Process is credible 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 paul@parkerduignan.com

doview.com model

d oview.com model DoView.com/plan/draw.html Participants have confidence in RJP provider organisations Participants

DoView.com/plan/draw.html

Participants have confidence in RJP provider organisations

Participants are well supported in having their needs met and interests protected

Participants have a realistic picture of what the process can potentially offer them

Participants give informed consent for the participation Participants needs and Participants know how to access
Participants give informed consent for the participation Participants needs and Participants know how to access
Participants give informed consent for the participation Participants needs and Participants know how to access
Participants give
informed consent
for the participation
Participants
needs and
Participants know
how to access
relevant RJP
processes
Participants trust
RJP practicioners
to do their job
properly
Participants
referred to other
services, as
appropriate
Participants have
confidence in the
specific RJP
process they are
involved in
Participants'
perceived risks are
managed well
around the process
Victim's needs are prioritised
involved in Participants' perceived risks are managed well around the process Victim's needs are prioritised
Participants understand 'what's in it for me?' and see wider value in the process Participants
Participants understand 'what's in it for me?' and see wider value in the process Participants

Participants understand 'what's in it for me?' and see wider value in the process

understand 'what's in it for me?' and see wider value in the process Participants have input

Participants have input into the process

understand 'what's in it for me?' and see wider value in the process Participants have input
Participants are appropriately involved at different stages in the RJP processes Participants have sufficient financial
Participants are appropriately involved at different stages in the RJP processes Participants have sufficient financial
Participants are appropriately involved at different stages in the RJP processes Participants have sufficient financial

Participants are appropriately involved at different stages in the RJP processes

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

stages in the RJP processes Participants have sufficient financial resources to attend and participate in the
Participants' individual cultures and diversity are respected Maori participants culture respected
Participants' individual cultures and diversity are respected Maori participants culture respected
Participants' individual cultures and diversity are respected Maori participants culture respected

Participants' individual cultures and diversity are respected