Notes of the scoping meeting held in Mayfair House, Wellington on Wednesday 20 February 2008
Phil McCarthy (Chair) General Manager, Rehabilitation and Reintegration
Russell Underwood National Advisor: Volunteers
Lyanne Kerr National Director, PARS
David Major National Director, PCSANZ
Barry Timms Transition Manager, PFNZ
Basil Wakelin Board Member, PFNZ
Brendan Anstiss
Kim Workman
1. PMcC extended a welcome to those present and outlined the key objectives of the meeting, which were to define the role, function and composition of the Group.
2. RU provided the meeting with a brief synopsis of the policy review, development, consultation and approval processes to date.
3. On 3 August 2007 the Department of Corrections (The Department) published the ‘Review of Volunteer Policy: Consultation Document’ and followed it with a six week consultation period. A total of 22 submissions were received (11 external and 11 internal). These were carefully reviewed and revised policy recommendations, policy statement and operating standards developed.
4. A subsequent meeting between the Department and Heads of key stakeholder organisations (The Stakeholders) led directly to further refinements in the proposed volunteer policy and operating standards. These, in turn, received qualified approval from the Department’s Prison Services Management Team (PSMT).
5. The refined volunteer policy and operating standards were tabled at a further meeting with the Stakeholders in December 2007. Following this meeting, the Stakeholders confirmed that there were no fundamental problems that would preclude progressing the new volunteer policy to the next stage. The Stakeholder representatives present confirmed that this was the case.
6. BW referred to the high turnover of volunteers shortly following approval and expressed PFNZ’s support for a strategy of pre-application ‘trial’ visits, under supervision, to tackle this problem. This would enable prospective volunteers to experience the unique characteristics of the prison environment, before deciding whether this form of volunteering was appropriate for them. There was consensus that ‘trial’ visits would be helpful, although these would need to be available on a consistent basis across all prisons. It was agreed that the volunteer policy and operating standards be amended to the effect that ‘PSMT had endorsed the principle that ‘trial’ visits for prospective volunteers be permitted, on condition that the prison manager was happy that appropriate supervision was in place.’
7. RU explained that the position of National Advisor: Volunteers had now been permanently established as part of the restructure of Prison Services.
8. The PSMT had endorsed the permanent establishment of a total of 4.5 FTE volunteer coordinator positions subject to a number of stipulations, including the identification of the additional funding required and review of reporting lines and configuration to ensure ‘best fit’ within the new Prison Services structure. The basic premise was that this resource would be equally split across the nine new Prison Services areas (0.5 FTE position per area), although further consultations on the precise split was ongoing.
9. While the Stakeholder representatives were generally happy to endorse the permanent establishment of a volunteer coordinator resource, there were some reservations. BT expressed PFNZ’s concern about the volunteer coordinator resource for the Wellington prisons which was potentially set to be reduced by half to 0.5 FTE. This was an area with a large number of active volunteers and the support provided by the volunteer coordinator during the past year had proved critical. Action - PMcC agreed to discuss this matter further with the Regional Manager for this area.
10. The meeting discussed potential strategies to help mitigate the reduction in the volunteer coordinator resource. Suggestions put forward included incorporating ‘support of volunteers’ as a specific line in the Prison Chaplaincy’s new contract with the Department; reviewing the precise role of the volunteer coordinator to make the best use of the resource, and; engaging volunteers, with the right skills sets, to act as ‘Assistant Volunteer Coordinators’. The latter strategy received particular support, with Stakeholder representatives suggesting that such roles could be resourced from within their ranks.
11. Stakeholder representatives sought clarification on what ‘volunteer training’ was likely to consist of under the new policy. RU confirmed that the primary focus of the training would be matters of health, safety and security.
12. BW stressed the importance of properly equipping volunteers to be effective in what they do. PFNZ and PARS would continue to focus their volunteer training delivery in this area. PMcC applauded the initiative and sentiment shown by the Stakeholders in providing further comprehensive training to volunteers, although given its separate and specialist nature, the Department was unlikely to want to sanction it specifically.
13. Following discussion the meeting agreed to:
14. The Group identified the following regular agenda items: