Final report - Ministry of Justice | New Zealand Ministry ... · PDF fileFinal report 17 June...

Final report

17 June 2016

Prepared for

Ministry of Justice, New Zealand Police and Department of Corrections

Prepared by Akroyd Research & Evaluation Shaun Akroyd Judy Paulin Kirimatao Paipa Nan Wehipeihana

Glossary .................................................................................................................................. 3

Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 4

Background ............................................................................................................................................. 4

Overview: Te Rūnanganui o Ngāti Porou (Gisborne) ................................................................. 5

Establishing the iwi panel team .............................................................................................................. 5

Operational considerations ..................................................................................................................... 6

Implementing iwi panels ......................................................................................................................... 7

Overview: Manukau Urban Māori Authority ............................................................................ 9

Establishing the iwi panel team .............................................................................................................. 9

Operational considerations ................................................................................................................... 10

Implementing iwi panels ....................................................................................................................... 11

Perspectives .......................................................................................................................................... 12

Overview: Te Rūnanganui o Taranaki Whānui (Hutt Valley) ................................................... 12

Operational considerations ................................................................................................................... 12

Implementing iwi panels ....................................................................................................................... 12

Perspectives .......................................................................................................................................... 13

Interview guides ................................................................................................................... 14

Information sheets and consent forms................................................................................... 23

End notes .............................................................................................................................. 35

Table 1: Interview guide for justice sector, iwi panel provider staff and panel stakeholders ........... 17

Table 2: Interview guide for victims ................................................................................................... 21

Table 3: Interview guide for offenders ............................................................................................... 23

Disclaimer: The information in this document is presented in good faith using the information available to us at the time of preparation. It is provided on the basis that the authors of the report are not liable to any person or organisation for any damage or loss that may occur in relation to taking or not taking action in respect of any information or advice within this document.

Some Māori terms used in this appendix

Term Translation

aroha ki te tangata respect for people

kaiwhakahaere Whānau Ora navigator or support worker who works with iwi panel offenders to meet offender needs

karakia prayer

kaumātua elders, older male

kaupapa purpose, aim, reason

kaupapa Māori Māori or view, theory, ideology

koha gift, contribution

marae Māori gathering p ace

mihi introduce oneself

moemoea vision

noho marae gathering on a marae

pakeke elders, adult

pānui advertise, promote

pō hiri welcome

rūnanga governance body within iwi boundaries

tikanga procedures, customs, behaviours

ānanga educational forum

whānau family

whānau ora/Whānau Ora family wellbeing/a government programme

Abbreviations

ILO Iwi Liaison Officer (NZ Police)

WEAP Whānau E ucation Action P an

This is the technical appendix for the report ‘Iwi panels: an evaluation of their implementation and operation at Hutt Va ey, Gisborne an Manukau from 2014 to 2015’.

The appendix gives an overview of the establishment and operation of iwi panels at each provider site. It also contains copies of the interview guides, information sheets, consent forms and observation sheets used in the evaluation. Each site has its own chapter and appears in the following sequence:

Te Rūnanganui o Ngāti Porou (Gisborne)

Manukau Urban Māori Authority (Manukau)

Te Rūnanganui o Taranaki Whānui (Hutt Va ey). Where a process is the same at each site, the process is not outlined in each chapter (the referral process, for example, is the same for all 3 sites). Gisborne, being the first site in the appendix, is necessarily the most comprehensive. For Manukau and Hutt Valley, a process is only mentioned if there is a unique feature that occurs only at that site.

The iwi panel team in Gisborne comprises the manager, 10 panellists selected from pakeke, an administration support person and 2 facilitators.

Manager

The manager was seconded from her role as Māori Responsiveness A visor within Police. She was first involved with iwi panels in 2012 when she comp ete a community internship at Ngāti Porou through the Department of Internal Affairs. Her secondment became fulltime in 2014.

Panellists

Gisborne panellists were recruited through pānui (advertisements) sent from Te Rūnanganui o Ngāti Porou to se ecte pakeke ithin the Tairā hiti community. The rūnanga’s ate chief executive, Api Mahuika, an other Ngāti Porou leaders also directly approached some pakeke.

Panellists must be pakeke who have a mix of cultural, professional and community expertise and experience. They are expected to be leaders in their own right and have the capacity to support the iwi panel initiative.

For example, one panellist is a probation officer on secondment to the rūnanga to assist with reintegration. He brings his Corrections experience and a reintegration perspective to discussions of the causal factors of offending. He supports offenders by transporting them to and from panels, assists with noho marae, suggests voluntary work options, and monitors voluntary hours worked.

Most panellists (excluding agency representatives) are ex-teachers or have a background in social work. They’re not pai for their work on the panels but they do receive koha that covers 6 hours of their time.

When they begin, panellists learn about the offender eligibility criteria for offenders.1 They also receive documentation and have conversations with the manager, rūnanga CEO and one other rūnanga leader to learn about their role.2

Administration support

The administration support person began working with the iwi panel in July 2014 as a minute-taker. Soon afterwards, her role widened to include:

the typing and printing of plans for signoff after a panel

receiving and processing referrals from Police

managing emails from Police

audio-recording panels and filing audio records

sending copies of panel notes, offender plans, and offender letters of apology (if applicable) to Police

inputting data, updating and maintaining panel databases for the Ministry of Justice an Ngāti Porou i i.

Facilitators

Two panel facilitators were appointed; one in June 2014, the other in November 2014. They were initially employed part-time but are now full-time. One facilitator has restorative justice experience an 10 years’ experience orking with Child, Youth and Family. The other is a trained social worker with extensive community and iwi experience. They are a so traine Whānau Education Action Plan (WEAP)3 champions. Combined, the facilitators estimate they know about 90 percent of the families of offenders that have come through the iwi panel.

When they started, they were given sufficient material and briefed by the manager about the purpose and intent of the panels.

For facilitators, iwi panels are about:

early intervention; offering offenders a second chance

helping to relieve pressure on an overloaded and overworked justice system

finding appropriate solutions to address offending

including hānau who live and have a stake in the community, in decisions about local justice issues

preventing repeat offending

addressing the causes of offending and providing targeted support

having a Māori so ution because Māori can do better for Māori hānau.

At least 2 other people (the manager and a senior pakeke) have also occasionally facilitated panels.

Iwi Liaison Officer

An Iwi Liaison Officer (ILO) from Police is responsible for coordinating offender referrals to the rūnanga and ensuring they’re of a high quality. He also attends panels as a Police representative when the manager isn’t avai ab e. The ILO was already familiar with the idea of the panels from talking with a Hawke’s Bay provider who wanted to establish a panel in 2011. He began working with the Gisborne iwi panel in June 2014.

Training

The training given to panellists varied. Some attended a professional development workshop facilitated by the Ministry of Justice in late 2014. Some received WEAP champion training the same year. One panellist undertook de-escalation and motivational interviewing training. The facilitators attended restorative justice training. Some pane ists i n’t get any specific training.

Staff funding

The facilitators are funded from the iwi panel contract (2 x 40 hours a week) with the Ministry of Justice on behalf of the justice sector. The contract also funds koha for each panellist, at 6 hours a week. The position of manager is funded

by Police through a secondment; the a ministrator is fun e by the rūnanga.

The rūnanga also provides offenders who go through the panel with:

driver licence courses

counselling

budgeting

advocacy.

Promotion and socialisation

Iwi. Ngāti Porou i i has worked with the Ministry of Justice, Police and the Department of Corrections on a range of contracts since 2012. The iwi panel contract built upon these relationships to support the establishment and implementation of the initiative.

Police. Police provided additional resourcing for the iwi panel by seconding a Māori Responsiveness Advisor to the rūnanga as iwi panel manager. This supported the development of workable and useful processes between the provider and Police and was particularly useful in improving the quality of referrals.

Iwi Liaison Officer. The ILO promoted the iwi panel programme within Police and developed ways of socialising the processes with them to ensure they produced quality referrals. The ILO had prior knowledge of iwi panels, was keen to work with the provider and his involvement made it an ‘easy se ’ to local Police.

He socialised the initiative through group discussions, at line-ups and formed a leadership team to govern the process. A lot of the training and discussion was about changing from an ‘arrest’ min set to offering offenders another option that cou mean they i n’t nee to attend court.

The ILO trained staff in how to use correct Police file procedures for cases referred to a panel. This took a lot of work to get right and ensure that all referral information needed was included and correct, and that referrals were made soon after arrest. He also showed how the panels fit with the Policing Excellence strategy, that is, working

towards a 19% reduction in Police prosecutions of low-level non-traffic offences.

Community. Panellists promoted and socialised the iwi panels through their extensive community connections including with the Salvation Army, hospices, churches and marae.

Roles

Facilitator. The role of facilitator includes conducting pre-panels, facilitating restorative justice panels, monitoring plans and following them up, and bringing parties together, for example, panellists, offenders, victims, Police and Corrections staff.

In Gisborne, the facilitator also chairs the panel. An agenda is followed, enabling all attendees to contribute to the discussion and negotiation of offender plans. The facilitator ensures the offender agrees with the Police summary of facts, their participation in the conference, and plan content. They get the offen er’s agreement to the plan and follow up with the offender.

Police. A Police representative is always present at panels. This is to ensure an official perspective is offered, for example, to clarify the nature and legal implications of the offen er’s arrest and to support the panellists.

The manager attends most panels but the ILO or community Po ice i atten if she can’t.

Panellists. Panellists see their role as:

creating a safe and welcoming environment (for example, making whakapapa connections, being calm and putting the offender and victim at ease, upholding mana, being respectful)

drawing on the wisdom of their professional, personal, community and cultural experiences to effect positive change

providing offenders with the opportunity to reflect on the seriousness of their offence

asking searching and critical questions designed to elicit a holistic picture of the

offender and their environment. For example, reasons for the offending, support networks, financial position and transport needs

negotiating an offender plan appropriate for the offence committed. For example, that addresses reparation and offending, and offers opportunities for behavioural change.

Corrections. A probation officer is on secondment from Corrections to the iwi panel and is able to draw on his networks to support offenders, for example, placing offenders at suitable locations to complete community hours that may be included in their plan.

Referrals

Eligibility. To attend an iwi panel, an offender must be aged 17 years or older and have committed a low-level crime for which they would have qualified for referral under the pre-charge warning alternative resolution criteria.

Māori an non-Māori a u ts who commit a low-level offence can be referred to the panel by Po ice before they’re charge . Offenders who commit an offence involving family violence or methamphetamines, or which carries a maximum pena ty of more than 6 months’ imprisonment, are not eligible to attend an iwi panel. They on’t need to be first-time offenders. Indeed, some have extensive criminal histories.

Timing. All providers should receive a referral within a week of an offender committing an offence. This helps facilitators locate offenders as soon as possible after the offence and, hopefully, get their commitment to attend a panel.

Pre-panels

Timing. Pre-panels mostly occur within a week before the panel. Some are held the same day immediately before the panel, depending on when the referral is received by the provider and the availability of offenders. Pre-panels usually last no more than 30 minutes.

Process. The main purpose of pre-panels is to make sure the panel is as efficient and comprehensive as possible. Pre-panels allow

facilitators to make sure details of the offence are correct and that they understand the legal implications and nature of the offence and the kind of support the offender needs.

Facilitators meet offenders to verify the accuracy of the Police summary of facts and whether the offender admits to the offence. The facilitator may conduct preliminary investigations into the offen er’s ega situation an the conditions of their offence. For example, in cases of driver licensing offences, they may check with the Ministry of Transport about demerit points and when the offender could expect to be able to legally drive.

They also ask offenders why they offended and try to understand their family and living situation, transport and support needs.

Panels

A panel refers to a single meeting with one offender. There can be many panels in a day; this is how the Gisborne provider usually schedules them.

The panel is usually comprised of 10 people. It could be more depending on whether the offender’s hānau, support people, and the victim attend. The panel is typically comprised of:

the offender

the victim (if they’ve agreed to attend)

hānau (offen er an /or victim support person)

a facilitator

panellists (from 4 to 10 individuals)

a Police representative (usually the iwi panel manager or a community Police representative)

a Corrections representative

an administrative assistant.

Timing. Panels are generally held in the middle of the week (usually a Wednesday). The timing is flexible depending on the availability of referrals, offenders and panellists. Panels usually last between 30 to 60 minutes depending on their complexity.

Process. Panels are held in a large meeting room at the provi er’s premises. Offenders are offered hot drinks and food.

The panel process follows an agenda but is generally informal. Tikanga Māori – for example, karakia, whakawhanaungatanga, aroha ki te tangata – ensures a safe and welcoming environment for all.

After the facilitator reads the Police summary of facts and the offender agrees with them, the facilitator may rea out a victim’s statement (if the victim hasn’t atten e in person) an the consequences of the offending for the victim are discussed.

The offender has plenty of opportunity to express their feelings about their actions and the victim. The panel might also discuss with the offender what they might do differently if in a similar situation in future; the consequences of the offending for the community; and the consequences for the offender if they reoffend.

Part of the discussion is about reinforcing the value of the panel process and emphasising the pane ’s support for the offender to stop offending. Typically, a panel proceeds like this:

pō hiri/mihi hakatau (including kai)

karakia

facilitator or chair welcomes everyone and states the purpose of the meeting

whakawhanaungatanga from all present (un ess this as one uring the pō hiri)

the facilitator or chair reads the Police summary of facts

offender has a chance to agree (or not) with the main points in the summary of facts

offender has a chance to speak to the panel about their offending

victim (if in attendance) addresses the panel and the offender

if the victim isn’t in atten ance, the facilitator or chair may rea out the victim’s statement where applicable

consequences of the offending for the victim, community and offender are discussed

offender plan is discussed and negotiated

agreement is reached on the plan, monitoring and follow-up

plan is drafted

plan is signed by the facilitator and offender.

Offender plans

An offender plan aims to hold the offenders to account for the offence and put in place measures to prevent future offending. Plan components include:

pay financial reparation to the victim. The amount paid being relative to the nature of the offence

undertake community service

to not reoffend for 3 months after the panel is held. If the offender reoffends within this period, they’re referre back to Police

complete the requirements to get a driver licence

agree to be supported by a mentor

write and submit a letter of apology to the victim

attend a one- ay ānanga at a oca marae

develop and implement a WEAP

investigate job training (for example, for a trade).

Follow-up and compliance. Offenders are typically expected to complete their plan tasks within 3 months or sooner. Facilitators follow-up with them to check on their progress and wellbeing. For those on 3-month plans, facilitators book a review for them at about 2 months.

Benefits of iwi panels

One iwi panel stakeholder built on its restorative justice training to support hui at a local high schoo . The rūnanga fe t the restorative approach practiced in iwi panels worked well as an early intervention approach in secondary schools. This now operates in 3 local schools.

The moemoea for the provider is to have iwi panels on the East Coast in Tolaga Bay, Tokomaru Bay, Ruatōria, Tikitiki, and Te Araroa. In preparation for this, at the end of October 2015, the rūnanga recruited two pakeke iwi panel panellists from Ruatōria.

Manukau Urban Māori Authority (MUMA) has been providing services to the wider Manukau community for the past 20 years out of their two bases in Māngere and Papatoetoe. MUMA manage a number of Ministry of Justice programmes, for example, restorative justice.

MUMA decided that the term marae community justice panel would be more appropriate and reflective of the pan-tribal nature of MUMA and the multicultural nature of the community, rather than a single iwi identity. For the purposes of consistency, this appendix refers to all of the providers, including MUMA, as providing iwi panels.

The iwi panel team in Manukau comprises the manager, 7 panellists and 2 facilitators.

Manager

The manager of MUMA’s restorative justice project was seconded to manage iwi pane s’ development. Their facilitation skills and resources great y contribute to the pi ot’s success in Manukau. They knew tikanga Māori and practice, and had existing relationships within Māori communities which enabled them to engage and facilitate with offenders.

Panellists

There are 7 designated panel members and, where applicable, kaumātua are secon e if required. Panels observed for the evaluation were made up of the iwi panel manager, panel chairperson, kaumātua an a Māori arden. Each panel consists of three members selected based on their relevant experience and skill in dealing ith offen ers. Other kaumātua are expecte to be able to use their knowledge and experience to make good judgements in relation to offenders.

Administration support

MUMA oesn’t have a specific administration support person for iwi panels. The whole team manages administration, such as uploading data into a Ministry of Justice spreadsheet for reporting purposes.

Facilitators

Two MUMA staff members had their roles reconfigured as panel facilitators. They are each employed for 32 hours a week.

Staff funding

Ngā Whare Waatea as use for the initial iwi panels, however these have been rehoused for the interim until the building of a kura kaupapa Māori is completed. Whānau Ora. The Whānau Ora team at MUMA is seen as an essential component of the support system to offenders and victims to the iwi panels. T o Whānau Ora navigators were initially involved before funding was cut. Their involvement was very valuable because they were able to hear offenders’ stories firsthand at the panel and could provide options and planning immediately.

Paying panellists. MUMA decided early on that they would pay panellists. They felt it was wrong to expect panellists to be available without suitable acknowledgement of their time and expertise.

However, in the beginning when the panels were being established, referral numbers fluctuated a lot and several panels would be arranged but then cancelled due to non-attendance of offenders. MUMA would still have to pay panelists for a full day. In hindsight, MUMA would have made a half-day arrangement with panelists until the project was properly underway.

Promotion and socialisation

Provider. MUMA recognised early that iwi panels would be an easy fit with their service. They already had the marae, kaumātua, re ationships and support services in place. Importantly, they see iwi panels as an opportunity to engage their kaumātua in a meaningfu ay, using their life experiences and knowledge to guide the young people who attend the panels.

They have experienced and trained restorative justice facilitators and staff involved in other justice projects who have the skills, knowledge and relationships that iwi panels require.

Police. MUMA has a long relationship with the justice sector, including a Memorandum of Understanding with Police which outlines the responsibilities and accountabilities of both parties. During the iwi panel process, MUMA and Police worked together to enable a wider network of support to be offered to offenders in South Auckland and Franklin. The provi er’s strong existing relationship with community police was also useful. Papakura Marae. The marae is a second venue (after Ngā Whare Waatea, MUMA’s marae in Māngere) for panels, and deals mainly with driving offences and some criminal offences. Māori wardens. Māori ardens are an extra support for iwi panels in Manukau. They help with transporting offenders and their families to and from the panels; Police cover this cost. However, Māori ar ens are mindful about their restrictions as a voluntary agency as the number of referrals increase.

Roles

Panellists. The role of a panellist is to help address reasons for offending, develop a plan to help offenders to make suitable reparation where applicable and, ultimately, to make better life choices.

Referrals

Initially, the iwi panel team received referrals from 8 different Police sources. These were often incomplete, requiring panel staff to spend a lot of time finding the missing information. It can take 3 to 4 meetings with the offender to ensure all the information on the Police summary of charges is correct, and to set a meeting time that the offender agrees with. MUMA staff would send incomplete referrals back to Police.

It took time for Police to understand the need for complete referrals and be trained in the referral process. Once the training was complete and Police chose to have just one contact person to handle the referrals (instead of 8), the quality of referrals and process itself greatly improved.

Pre-panels

Pre-panels generally occur within a week or 2 weeks of MUMA receiving a referral. Initially, pre-panels were held at the police station but are now held at MUMA’s premises. Most pre-panels last for about 30 to 45 minutes.

Process. The aim of MUMA pre-panels is the same as at the other provider sites (see page 7 ‘Pre-pane s’). Pre-panels are also an opportunity to bring offenders and their victims together, if the victim agrees. The victim’s safety is paramount; if police are available, they attend the pre-pane to ensure the victim’s safety. The usual process involves:

conducting separate interviews

hearing from the victim first

asking offender and victim if they agree with the process

reaching agreement about the offender plan.

Panels

The evaluator attended 2 panels: one at Papakura Marae; the other at Ngā Whare Waatea, MUMA’s urban marae in Māngere. At Papakura, the panel heard from 2 offenders for driving offences. At Ngā Whare Waatea, 3 offenders attended; they all had previous criminal records which were taken into account in the proceedings.

Offender plans

In deciding on a plan, panellists ask offenders questions about their circumstances, such as:

their living arrangements

hether they’re emp oye

other sources of income

their family needs

mental and physical wellbeing

ability to compensate the victim. They also consider:

the impact of the crime and the offender plan on the victim

the danger posed to the public by the crime.

Plans agreed upon required an offender to:

refrain from driving

attend a driving course

get their driver licence

attend a defensive driving course

atten Māori arden rounds

be referred to another programme (such as the Community Alcohol and Drug Services Māori Unit for drug and alcohol assessment)

o community ork ith Māori ar ens

write a letter of apology to victim

work with a mental health worker

volunteer at their local Salvation Army

Follow-up and compliance. MUMA follows the

same process in monitoring and following-up

with offenders as the other providers.

Offenders. In interviews after their panels, offenders showed a high level of satisfaction with the process. Some said they were surprised at how holistic yet fair their plans were, and how their circumstances were considered. Specifically, they said they were satisfied with:

being heard

being able to speak without interruption

not feeling judged

the directness and clarity of the process

feeling welcomed by the pō hiri

having food and a warm drink

mixing with panellists before the panel

the process being explained to them before it started.

Training

Kaiwhakahaere. All kaiwhakahaere completed a 5-day restorative justice facilitator training course in October 2014. The training was delivered by the consultancy PACT and the restorative justice team at Community Law Wellington and Hutt Valley who initially helped with iwi panel facilitation.

Background

Hutt Va ey’s mo e focuses on the strength of the rūnanga to engage Māori and walk with them to address the issues they may have with their behaviours that lead to offending and reoffending. With this in mind, Hutt Valley a opte an acronym, ‘CARE’, to he p focus their

collective efforts. CARE stands for Culture, Accountability, Reparation, Empathy. Also key to their approach is having:

a clear direction

key partners such as Police and the Ministry of Justice

a skilled team of panellists with strong cultural skills

a suitable environment that suits their cultural context

adequate resources such as staff and funding.

Roles

Panellists. All panellists at Te Rūnanganui o Taranaki Whānui (the ‘rūnanga’) i entify as Māori and fall into 2 groups:

those who take part solely in the iwi panel on the day. These panellists, one of whom chairs and facilitates the panels, are sought for their wisdom, cultural knowledge, and community links

those who help with pre-panel preparation of the offender, take part in the panel on the day, and follow-up with and monitor the offender afterwards. These panellists are kno n as kai hakahaere (‘navigators’ or ‘support peop e’).

Panellists on the day. The rūnanga has 4 panellists – 3 men and 1 woman – who take part in the panel on the day. All panellists have held senior managerial positions in national or local government and are highly respected and active senior members of the oca Māori community.

One panellist chairs and facilitates the panels. He has a strong focus and desire to maintain mana around the iwi leadership of the panels.

All panellists are emp oye by the rūnanga in wider roles and have some knowledge and understanding of restorative justice best practice, though none is an accredited restorative justice facilitator.

In the past, the rūnanga ha selected panel members from the wider community (for example, from Upper Hutt and Stokes Valley) but this was difficult to manage, given they all had

different employers. Limiting panel membership to rūnanga emp oyees has given them the opportunity to more deeply establish the iwi panel process.

Panellists who are also kaiwhakahaere. The rūnanga emp oys 5 kaiwhakahaere who help prepare the offender at the pre-panel stage, support them at the panels, and monitor and follow-up with them as they complete their plan.

Panels

Process. Every Wednesday, 3 or 4 panels are held at Te Māori, the cultural centre of Rūnanganui o Taranaki Whānui at Waiwhetu in the Hutt Valley. The centre is a modern concrete building that incorporates Māori esign e ements but ooks quite unlike a traditional marae. It houses 2 large waka as well as other cultural artwork.

The offender usually makes their own way to the venue but the ILO or a kaiwhakahaere will transport them there, if required.

The panel convenes around a table in part of a large room that is partially screened off to provide privacy and a sense of togetherness. The offender and any others (such as the victim or a support person) must walk past the waka in order to join those at the table.

Offender plans

Offender plans include a unique feature – the preparation of a hānau p an ( uring fo o -up) – which is designed to put the offender and/or their hānau on a track they want to be on.

Offenders. All 5 offen ers (Māori an non-Māori) the evaluator interviewed said they were very satisfied with the iwi panel process and would recommend it to others in similar circumstances. They said the experience was not particularly punitive and were surprised to find the panellists had genuinely wanted to help them get their lives on a better footing.

Panellists. The senior panellists whose role was limited to the panel said the strength of the iwi panel process was that it allowed offenders (regardless of their ethnicity) to have a different type of conversation than they did in court.

Tables 1, 2, and 3 show the interview guides for the evaluation of the implementation and early operation of iwi panels for the following stakeholders:

Iwi panel members

Facilitators, service providers

Advisory/steering group members from justice sector agencies (ie Ministry of Justice, Department of Corrections, NZ Police)

Victims

Offenders

Table 1: Interview guide for justice sector, iwi panel provider staff and panel stakeholders

Introduction

1. Explain purpose of the evaluation 2. Explain why we want them to participate 3. Discuss ethical processes, and obtain informed consent 4. Explain structure of the interview – covering:

a. Background b. Establishing the iwi panel service c. Community engagement/partnership based approach d. Sufficient referrals and quality of plans e. Justice experiences by victims, offenders, and community f. Improvements g. Outcomes

Background

1. Please describe your position/role with the iwi panel? 2. How long have you been involved with the iwi panel/processes? 3. How have you come to be involved in the iwi panel processes? 4. What is your understanding of the purpose of the iwi panels and its intended operation? 5. How close to the intended operation are the iwi panels currently operating?

Evaluation focus area Questions

1 Establishing the service

Advisory/Steering group members

How was the purpose and intent of the iwi panels project communicated to all partners? How successful was the communication to all partners? How did you assess the success of the communication?

How were expectations about the operation of iwi panels communicated to iwi panel partners, for example: o criteria and scope of services o meeting evidential threshold sufficiency o aim to reduce harm and victimisation o improved community and justice sector relationships

How successfully were the expectations about the operation of iwi panels communicated?

How successfully were the above features achieved?

Justice, Corrections, Police, iwi panel members /facilitators/ service providers

How was the purpose and intent of the iwi panels project communicated to you? By whom? How successfully was this communicated?

Was your understanding of the purpose and intent of the iwi panels assessed at any stage? If so, by whom and how? How were expectations about the operation of iwi panels communicated to you, for example:

o criteria and scope of services o aim to reduce harm and victimisation o improved community and justice sector relationships

How successfully were the expectations about the operation of iwi panels communicated?

How successfully were the above features achieved?

How easy or difficult was it developing infrastructure and processes to support effective services, for example: o Police referral pre-charge criteria and protocols for referrals o Processes and guidelines for iwi panels to facilitate and develop reparation and rehabilitation plans o Processes for making referrals to community and agency support services o IT systems o Mechanisms for ongoing learning and quality improvement o Including victim and offender input

How easy or difficult has it been establishing the iwi panel?

Was there adequate funding to establish the iwi panels (as applicable)? Why / Why not?

Were there selection criteria for the iwi panel? Do you know what you were selected on?

What kind of training did you receive/provide for this role? From whom/to whom? When, how much training? How satisfied were you with the training you received/provided?

Was there appropriate balance / range of skills and experiences amongst panel members?

How competent and confident did you feel (before) and after the training? How competent and confident do you feel now?

What did iwi /Māori/community nee to o to support the eve opment an operation of iwi panels?

What were any enablers and barriers to the development and operation of iwi panels from your perspective? How were barriers mitigated?

How flexible was the iwi panel programme to enab e you to respon or a apt to oca tikanga Māori approaches?

What, if anything, is distinctive about the development and operation of iwi panels in your rohe?

How much support for iwi panels was there at the beginning? What about now?

2 Community engagement/partnership based

approach

Justice, Corrections, Police, iwi panel members / facilitators /service providers

How well have relationships between iwi/Māori providers and justice sector agencies been established?

How did the justice sector engage iwi/Māori provi ers/community from the ‘start’ in terms of service esign, eve opment an implementation? How well was this engagement done? What processes supported this engagement?

What decision-making and shared expectation processes were developed to support the engagement/partnership based approach (e.g. zero tolerance for drunk-driving)? How useful were these?

What did the justice sector need to do to support the development and operation of iwi panels with iwi/Māori/community?

What were any enablers and barriers to the development and operation of iwi panels from your perspective? How were barriers mitigated?

How flexible was the iwi panel programme to enab e it to respon or a apt to oca tikanga Māori approaches?

What, if anything, is distinctive about the development and operation of iwi panels in your area?

How and to what extent has delivering restorative justice conferences and/or post-release community reintegration services helped providers to participate in PROV?

What has helped, and hindered the contribution of restorative justice conferences, and post-release community reintegration services to support providers to participate in PROV?

3 Sufficient referrals and quality of plans Justice, Corrections, Police, iwi panel members / facilitators / service providers

What were expected numbers of Police referrals to iwi panels each period? Were these achieved?

What would you expect quality referrals to look like? How well were quality referrals achieved? What were enablers and barriers to the quality of referrals?

What processes supported: o Fair and equitable outcomes for participants? o Improved and efficient Police referrals to iwi panel? o Appropriate referrals made to community and agency support services? o The timeliness of referrals and the length of time taken to complete the panel process?

What process is there to assess the quality of the facilitation of the Panels? Is it important to have such a process?

What process is there to assess the quality of the development of reparation and rehabilitation plans through the iwi panel processes? Is it important to have such a process?

Where offenders plans require offenders to be referred to agencies post panel, how well has it worked?

4 Justice experiences by victims, offenders,

and community

Justice, Corrections, Police, iwi panel members / facilitators /service providers

What expectations did you have prior to the iwi panel about its appropriateness/impact on victims, offenders and community? Were your expectations met?

Was there anything that happene for you that you i n’t expect from the iwi panel process? What was it that happened?

How appropriate do you feel the iwi panel process is for victims, offenders and community?

How safe do you feel the iwi panel process is for victims, offenders and community?

How respectful are the iwi panel processes for victims, offenders and community?

How fair are the reparation/sentence/plans for victims, offenders and community?

What processes have supported: o Fair and safe experiences for victims and offenders? o Appropriate input into plans by victims and offenders? o Efficient iwi panel member facilitation and development of fair and appropriate reparation and rehabilitation plans

e.g. iwi panel processes are conducted correctly o The eve opment of appropriate/fair offen er p ans (e.g. inking offen ers’ reparation an rehabi itation p an to

things that matter most to the community/victims)? o Victim, offender and community satisfaction with the iwi panel processes?

How satisfied are you with the iwi panel process?

What improvements might be made to the iwi panel process?

To what extent is the iwi panel process contributing to reducing harm and victimisation? How so?

5 Improvements Do you have any suggestions for improvement?

Prompt as required:

Establishing the iwi panel service

Developing community engagement/partnership based approach, iwi panel member training or preparation process

Sufficient referrals and quality development of plans

Justice experiences by victims, offenders, community

6 Outcomes Regarding the focus areas that we have talked about today:

a. Establishing the iwi panel service b. Community engagement/partnership based approach c. Sufficient referrals and quality of plans d. Justice experiences by victims, offenders, and community What would success/the ideal outcomes look like for each of the above areas? What things would we expect to be in

place/happen/be evident?

What would your minimum outcomes expectations be for the above areas? What things would we expect to be in place/happen/be

evident?

Table 2: Interview guide for victims

Introduction


a. Background b. Introduction to the iwi panel c. Quality of plan d. Experience of iwi panel e. Improvements f. Outcomes

5. This interview will take 10-15 minutes

Background

1. How have you come to be involved in the iwi panel process? 2. What is your understanding of the purpose of the iwi panels and how they worked?


1 Introduction to the iwi panel

Victims

How did you first hear about iwi panels?

Who explained the purpose of iwi panels to you?

How easy or difficult was it for you to understand how the iwi panels worked? How so?

Di you atten the offen er’s pane ? Why/ hy not?

2 Quality of plan Victims

Did you have any input into the plan?

Did you get to see the plan?

What did the plan look like and do you think it was appropriate to the offending?

How satisfied were you with the quality of the reparation and rehabilitation plan? Were you kept informed about the offen er’s progress in comp eting the p an?

What could have been done better?

3 Experience of iwi panel

Victims

How did the iwi panel work?

How appropriate did you feel the iwi panel process was for you?

How safe was the process for you?

How respectful was the process for you?

Do you feel that the reparation and rehabilitation plan was fair? Why/why not?

Did the panel members do a good job? Why/why not?

Did the process take place in a timely way?

What expectations of the iwi panel process did you have prior to it? Were your expectations met? Why/why not?

Was there anything that happene for you that you i n’t expect? What as it that happened?

How satisfied are/were you with the iwi panel process?

Were you asked to fill in a feedback form?

Would you recommend this process to others (in general)? How come?


4 Improvements Do you have any other suggestions for improvement?

5 Outcomes Regarding everything that we have talked about today:

What would an ultimate successful experience (with and in iwi panel) for you look like?

What would your minimum expectations of the experience and outcome look like?

Table 3: Interview guide for offenders

Introduction


a. Background b. Introduction to the iwi panel c. Quality of plan d. Experience of iwi panel e. Improvements f. Outcomes

5. This interview will take 10-15 minutes

Background

1. How have you come to be involved in the iwi panel process? 2. What is your understanding of the purpose of the iwi panels and how they work?


1 Introduction to the iwi panel

Offenders

How did you first hear about iwi panels?

Who explained the purpose of iwi panels to you?

How easy or difficult was it for you to understand how they worked? How so?

Why did you decide to attend an iwi panel?

2 Quality of plan Offenders

Di you have any input into the p an? Was your hānau invo ve in eve oping the p an?

Did you get to see the plan?

What did the plan look like and do you think it was appropriate to your offending?

How satisfied were you with the content of your reparation and rehabilitation plan? How did you go with achieving the actions in your plan?

What impact, if any, did going through the iwi panel have on you – attitudes, behaviours, relationships?

What could have been done better?

3 Experience of iwi panel

Offenders

How did the iwi panel work?

How appropriate did you feel the iwi panel process was for you?

How safe was the process for you?

How respectful was the process for you?

Do you feel that the reparation and rehabilitation plan was fair? Why/why not?

Did the panel members do a good job? Why/why not?

Did the process take place in a timely way?

What expectations of the iwi panel did you have prior to attending? Were your expectations met? Why/why not?

Was there anything that happene for you that you i n’t expect? What as it that happene ?

How satisfied are/were you with the iwi panel process?

Were you asked to fill in a feedback form?

Would you recommend this process to others (in general)? How come?


4 Improvements Do you have any other suggestions for improvement?

5 Outcomes Regarding everything that we have talked about today: What would an ultimate successful experience (with and in iwi panel) for you look like? What would your minimum expectations of the experience and outcome look like?

The following are information sheets and consent forms for the evaluation of the implementation and early operation of iwi panels for the following stakeholders:

Iwi panel members

Facilitators, service providers, panellists

Advisory/steering group members from justice sector agencies (ie Ministry of Justice, Department of Corrections, NZ Police)

Victims

Offenders

Evaluation of Partnering to Reduce Offending and Victimisation (PROV): Information Sheet (Justice, Corrections, Police, Iwi Panel, Service Providers, and community stakeholders) – Sept 2015

You are invited to take part in an interview or group discussion as part of the evaluation of PROV. Please read this information before deciding to take part in the interview or group discussion.

What is the evaluation about?

The evaluation aims to assess the implementation and early operation of the iwi panels and, where possible, assess how restorative justice conferences and post release community reintegration have helped providers to take part in the overall community engagement/partnership approach that is being trialled in the PROV project.

Who will conduct the evaluation?

Akroyd Research & Evaluation Limited has been contracted to conduct the evaluation on behalf of the Ministry of Justice.

How will the information be used?

The findings from the PROV evaluation will help improve the current community engagement/partnership approach. The evaluators will ensure that any interview data, including any audio recordings, are securely stored in a password protected computer and can only be accessed by the evaluators. Data will be stored in secure storage at Akroyd Research & Evaluation Limited for a period of three years before being destroyed. Grouped information will be shared with Ministry of Justice and potentially made public.

What will my participation in the evaluation involve?

Your participation will involve speaking to an evaluator for 30-60 minutes about your experience with the iwi panel and/or other community justice services. Interviews will be recorded, and some may be transcribed, if you give permission for this to happen.

What are the possible benefits and risks of this study?

A key benefit is that you will contribute to improving the current and any future engagement/partnership approach in the justice sector. Given the relatively small sample size of the evaluation, while we will make all attempts to ensure you are not identified in any reporting, anonymity cannot be guaranteed.

What are my rights?

It’s your choice hether you participate in the eva uation. You may stop the interview at any time. You on’t have to ans er any questions you on’t ant to. You may also withdraw any feedback you have provided up to five days after your interview. The evaluator will keep the information you provide confidential. Your name will not be used in any evaluation reports and we will attribute verbatim quotes using grouped role descriptors.

Who do I contact for more information or if I have questions or concerns?

Akroyd Research & Evaluation Project manager [contact information]

Ministry of Justice Senior advisor (Research & Evaluation) [contact information]

Evaluation of Partnering to Reduce Offending and Victimisation (PROV): Consent form (Justice, Corrections, Police, Iwi Panel, Service Providers, and community stakeholders) – Sept 2015

The purpose of the evaluation has been clearly explained to me, and:

I kno that I on’t have to participate in this eva uation

I have been given the information sheet

I understand the information explained to me

I have had the chance to ask questions about the evaluation and have had them answered to my satisfaction

I kno that I on’t have to ans er any questions that I on’t ant to, an I can request for the recording device to be turned off at any time

I know that I can withdraw my information up to five days after my interview and my information will not be used

I un erstan that I on’t be i entifie in any reports

I understand that interview notes, audio recordings, and any transcripts will be stored securely at Akroyd Research for three years before being destroyed

I know who to contact if I have any questions about the evaluation

I understand that the summarised information from this evaluation will be shared with the Ministry of Justice, and potentially made available to the public

I agree for my interview to be audio recorded (please circle): YES / NO

I agree for my interview to be transcribed YES / NO

I would like a summary of the evaluation findings: YES / NO

I agree to participate in this evaluation under the conditions set out in the Information Sheet and Consent Form.

Participant name:

Organisation:

Address or email (for summary):

Signature:

Date:

If you have any questions about the evaluation, contact:



Evaluation of Partnering to Reduce Offending and Victimisation (PROV): Information Sheet (iwi panel offenders) – Sept 2015

You are invited to take part in an interview about your experience with an iwi panel. Please read this information before deciding whether to take part.


The evaluation is about how well the iwi panel are working and have helped to foster a sense of community engagement/partnership in justice processes.


Akroyd Research & Evaluation Limited is conducting the evaluation for the Ministry of Justice.



The evaluators will keep the information you provide confidential. The only exceptions to this are if you tell the interviewer you have committed a serious crime that has not come to the attention of the Police or you say something that suggests that you or someone else may be at serious risk of harm. If you say you have committed a serious crime the interviewer may report the crime to the Police. If you say something that suggests that you or someone else may be at serious risk of harm the interviewer may need to share that information with support services.


Your participation will involve speaking with an evaluator for around 20 minutes about your views of the iwi panel process. Interviews will be audio recorded, and possibly transcribed, if you agree.


A key benefit is that you will contribute to improving the current and any future engagement/partnership approach in the justice sector. Given the relatively small number of offenders being interviewed, while we will make all attempts to ensure you are not identified in any reporting, anonymity cannot be guaranteed.

What are my rights?

It’s your choice hether you participate in the eva uation or not. You can stop the interview at any time. You on’t have to ans er any questions you on’t ant to. You may a so ask, up to five ays after your interview, for your feedback from the interview not to be used.




Evaluation of Partnering to Reduce Offending and Victimisation (PROV): Consent form (iwi panel offenders) – Sept 2015

The purpose of the evaluation has been clearly explained to me and:







I un erstan that I on’t be i entifie in any reports








Participant name:


Signature:

Date:




Evaluation of Partnering to Reduce Offending and Victimisation (PROV): Information Sheet (iwi panel victims) – Sept 2015

You are invited to take part in an interview about your experience with an iwi panel. Please read this information before deciding whether to take part.


The evaluation is about how well the iwi panel are working and have helped to foster a sense of community engagement/partnership in justice processes.


Akroyd Research & Evaluation Limited is conducting the evaluation for the Ministry of Justice.



The evaluators will keep the information you provide confidential. The only exception to this is if you say something that suggests that you or someone else may be at serious risk of harm. If this happens the interviewer may need to share that information with support services.


Your participation will involve speaking with an evaluator for around 20 minutes about your views of the iwi panel process. Interviews will be audio recorded, and possibly transcribed, if you agree.


A key benefit is that you will contribute to improving the current and any future engagement/partnership approach in the justice sector. Given the relatively small number of victims being interviewed, while we will make all attempts to ensure you are not identified in any reporting, anonymity cannot be guaranteed.

What are my rights?

It’s your choice hether you participate in the eva uation or not. You can stop the interview at any time. You on’t have to ans er any questions you on’t ant to. You may a so ask, up to five ays after your interview, for your feedback from the interview not to be used.




Evaluation of Partnering to Reduce Offending and Victimisation: Consent form (iwi panel victims) – Sept 2015

The purpose of the evaluation has been clearly explained to me and:







I un erstan that I on’t be i entifie by name in any reports








Participant name:


Signature:

Date:




Evaluation of Partnering to Reduce Offending and Victimisation (PROV): Panel Observation Information Sheet (Justice, Corrections, Police, Iwi Panel, Service Providers, and community stakeholders) – Sept 2015

You are invited to take part in the evaluation of Partnering to Reduce Offending and Victimisation which will involve the iwi panel (iwi panel) you are taking part in being observed by an evaluator (with permission). The evaluators will observe some of the iwi panels, and information from these observations will contribute to the assessment of how the iwi panels are operating. Individual cases and participants will not be identified.


The evaluation aims to assess the implementation and early operation of the iwi panel (iwi panels) and, where possible, assess how restorative justice conferences and post release community reintegration have helped providers to take part in the overall community engagement/partnership approach that is being trialled in the PROV project.


Akroyd Research & Evaluation Limited has been contracted to conduct the evaluation on behalf of the Ministry of Justice.


The findings from the observations will help improve the current community engagement/partnership approach. The evaluators will ensure that any notes are securely stored in a password protected computer and can only be accessed by the evaluators. Data will be stored in secure storage at Akroyd Research & Evaluation Limited for a period of three years before being destroyed. Findings from observations will be part of the grouped information that will be shared with Ministry of Justice and potentially made public.


Your participation will involve participating in an iwi panel, and you will be asked to give your permission to be observed by an evaluator. The panel will not be audio-recorded.


A key benefit is that findings from observations will contribute to improving the current and any future engagement/partnership approach in the justice sector. Given the relatively small sample size of the evaluation, while we will make all attempts to ensure you are not identified in any reporting, anonymity cannot be guaranteed.

What are my rights?

It’s your choice hether you participate in the eva uation through being observe . You may stop the observation at any time. The evaluator will keep observation information confidential. Your name will not be used in any evaluation reports and we will attribute verbatim quotes using grouped role descriptors.




Partnering to Reduce Offending and Victimisation Evaluation - Iwi/Māori Justice Panels (iwi panels)

Process around the observations The evaluators will consult with the appropriate person (probably the chair or the iwi panel facilitator/kaiwhakahaere) at each site ahead of time to agree processes related to the observations. No observations will be made by an evaluator without the express permission of the chair or the iwi panel facilitator/kaiwhakahaere. Our preference is for offenders and victims to be informed at the preparation stage as to the likely presence of an evaluator at their iwi panel panel meeting. The eva uator’s ro e as an observer shou a so be explained - especially that they have no part to play in the decision-making at the panel meeting. At the beginning of an iwi panel panel meeting, the chair would be expected to introduce the evaluator by name and explain the reason for their presence. Other participants at the iwi panel meeting would be expected to give their verbal agreement to the eva uator’s presence. Their written informed consent will not be sought. If a person ho hasn’t ha the chance to be informed at the preparation stage of the likely presence of the evaluator (for example, the offen er’s support person) strong y objects to the eva uator being there, then the eva uator i immediately leave (and not observe) the panel. Base information

Date

Start time

iwi panel panel number

Offender (e.g. age, gender, ethnicity, prior offending)

Offence(s) for which offender is before the panel

Date offence(s) occurred

Victim present at iwi panel?

First name of facilitator/kaiwhakahaere

First names of other panel members

Support person(s) present? (specify whom)

Police present at iwi panel?

Reparation and rehabilitation plan content

Plan includes ACC-funded alcohol and/or drug counselling?

Plan includes the offender spending time helping a new community-led initiative?

Finish time

Iwi panel processes Tick in LH box if happened

Chair or kaumātua opens panel meeting with a karakia and welcomes participants

Chair introduces iwi panel panel members

Chair hands panel meeting over to Facilitator/Kaiwhakahaere

Facilitator/Kaiwhakahaere explains the purpose of the iwi panel meeting

Facilitator/ Kaiwhakahaere/another iwi panel member read the Police summary of facts (plus circle who)

Offender agrees material points in the summary of facts

Offender admits his/her guilt

Victim/iwi panel members talk about the consequences of the offending incident for the victim

iwi panel member reads statement from the victim

iwi panel members consi er victim’s nee s an , if appropriate, request the provi er to support them to access this from an appropriate organisation/agency

iwi panel members talk about the consequences of the offending incident for the community

iwi panel members talk about the consequences of the offending incident for the offender

iwi panel members asked the offender for his/her explanations as to why the offending incident(s) occurred

iwi panel members and the offender and victim (if present) agree what might be an appropriate amount of reparation ($s) and/or appropriate amount & type of rehabilitation to make up for the offending incident(s)

iwi panel members and the offender agree a reparation and rehabilitation plan and a timeframe by which the offender is to complete it

iwi panel facilitator and offender sign the reparation and rehabilitation plan

Offender is given a copy of the reparation and rehabilitation plan

During the iwi panel, the offender spoke:

0% of the time

About a quarter of the time

About a half of the time

About three-quarters of the time

Almost all of the time

Evaluators’ assessment (to be completed immediately after the panel)

1. On a scale of 1 ‘not at all well’ to 5 ‘extremely well’, how well did the facilitator ... ?

Not at all well

Extremely well

N/A

1 2 3 4 5

Welcome the offender (and victim) to the iwi panel panel

Explain the purpose of the iwi panel panel?

Provide for any express wish by the offen er/offen er’s support person for culturally specific processes to be observed?

Ensure the offen er’s vie s ere hear ?

Ensure the offen er’s support person’s vie s were heard?

Ensure the victim’s vie s ere hear ?

Ensure the victim’s support person’s vie s were heard?

Provide for any express wish by the victim/victim’s support person for cu tura y specific processes to be observed?

Ensure the iwi panel members’ vie s ere heard?

Avoid anyone dominating the iwi panel panel?

Manage any risks or unexpected things at the iwi panel panel?

2. On a scale of 1-5, how well did the iwi panel members as a whole (including the facilitator)... ?

Not at all well

Extremely well

N/A

1 2 3 4 5

Question the offender as to the underlying factors and circumstances of their offending?

Talk about the consequences of the offending for the victim?

Talk about the consequences of the offending for the community?

Talk about the consequences of the offending for the offender?

Not at all well

Extremely well

On a scale of 1-5, how well did the offender…?

1 2 3 4 5

Appear to understand the reparation and rehabilitation plan?

Appear to accept the reparation and rehabilitation plan

Other comments

Talk about the consequences of the offending for the offen er’s fami y/ hanau?

Talk about the consequences of the offending for another group (eg Police)?

Seem to know about appropriate options in the local community for the offender to undertake some community service?

Involve the offender in their decision making about setting restitution conditions?

Set rehabilitation conditions that addressed the offen er’s un er ying causes of offen ing?

Set rehabilitation conditions that fitted with the offen er’s persona circumstances?

Came up with a reparation and rehabilitation plan that could be completed in less than 2 months

Perform overall?

1 Eligibility criteria for iwi panels includes: offenders committing any offence liable for up to 6 months imprisonment if convicted in

court; offenders free from domestic violence offences; 17+ years of age; offenders need to agree to participate and agree to the summary of facts; forbidden drivers – offenders driving without a current vehicle licence (included in eligibility since June 2015).

2 Panellist roles included engaging offenders and or victims in panels to collectively discuss the reasons for the offending, and

develop a plan to assist offenders to address their offending and make suitable reparation (where applicable).

3 Whānau E ucation Action P an (WEAP) is a too use by provi ers contracted to the Ministry of Education to support children and hānau in higher e ucationa achievement. Its name has since been change to Whangaia te Pa Harakeke by this provider.

Final report - Ministry of Justice | New Zealand Ministry ... · PDF fileFinal report 17 June...

Documents

Transcript of Final report - Ministry of Justice | New Zealand Ministry ... · PDF fileFinal report 17 June...