Circle Sentencing Program Evaluation - Essay Example

Table of Contents Evaluation of the Program: Circle Sentencing Executive Summary The concept of Circle Sentencing has been in place in a number of places since it was first instituted in New Zealand and then exported to Australia, Canada and the United States. The idea is that the local community, particularly as concerns natives such as Indians, native Alaskans, and the native Aborigines of New Zealand and Australia, are brought together when someone has committed a crime but is deemed suitable for restorative services, rather than being incarcerated and lost to the community altogether (Rieger, 2001; Potas, Smart, Brignell, Thomas, & Lawrie, 2003). The judge in the case and elders of tribes or other ethnic groups, meet together with the offender, thus creating ties between all concerned in how the offender will serve restitution through community services or some other type of applicable punishment. In many of these cases, the victim of the crime will participate in the Circle, although those victims of rape or other physical abuse, may not be so inclined to attend. In such cases, it is also questionable as to whether the Circle is appropriate for use because it tends to promote power and domination which the victim, particularly females and children, may not be able to garner for themselves (Rieger, 2001). It depends heavily on how the Circle is structured and justice applied, along with the cultural application and influences (Potas et al., 2003). The Circle, in essence, acts as a trouble-shooting and problem-solving forum for common issues of alcoholism and drug abuse, for example, with the community helping the offender achieve success by taking care of children, or in other ways, while the offender attends physical rehabilitation to move away from drugs or alcoholism (Tumeth, 2011). The Circle Sentencing is primarily used in ethnic or tribal situations where cultural environments promote the full group as being active in helping one of its members rather than having the offender be removed to face judicial justice by incarceration. 1.1 Background of Australian Circle Sentencing The idea of utilizing the Circle Sentencing came into play in 1999 (Rekhari, 2006-07), first in Port Adelaide, then 2002 in New South Wales (NSW), because it was evident that the indigenous peoples, most often the Aborigines, were becoming more prolific in the judicial system although they were being sentenced more often for lesser crimes than other criminals. Part of this was due to an increase in police powers, truth in sentencing, the criminalisation of offensive language, and that the police often targeted those inclined to recidivism (AIC, 2010). Implementing this program had several objectives in mind: reduction in barriers between court systems and the Aboriginal people; to improve support for Aborigines; support for victims where applicable; empowering the Aboriginal community; providing beneficial solutions through reflective sentencing utilizing the community as supervisors; and mostly, to break the cycle of recidivism (Rekhari, 2006-07, p. 1). The Circle Sentencing process comes in a basic infrastructure but is flexible to accommodate different cultures, such as in the Aborigines which uses a system of Elders within its culture. Just one year later, in a follow-up evaluation conducted by the NSW Aboriginal Justice Advisory Council (AJAC) and the Judicial Commission of NSW (Tumeth, 2011), it was already shown as being very successful in its application. The Circle representatives have been able to provide specific counselling and advice that is constructed within the offender’s cultural background, thus providing more resonance in the purpose of achieving rehabilitation (Rekhari, 2006-07). It is also noted that several cases show that the offender (Aborigine) respects the discussion and judgement provided by the elders and this method of allowing the offender to also speak what is on his (or her) mind, assists the Circle with further discussion (Daly & Proietti-Scifoni, 2011). This is particularly useful when the Circle (Elder) is able to show the offender that he should change his thinking in order to achieve success in rehabilitation. The offender also sees that people care about him rather than just becoming a number in the judicial system (Rekhari, 2006-07). This is often a way of thinking about non-indigenous peoples as being the ‘colonials’ with nearly two hundred years of judicial brutal treatments behind them. 1.2 Project/Program/Initiative Definition – A Sample Evaluation Plan It has been determined that another look at this Circle Sentencing program should take place to review the current status of effectiveness of Circle Sentencing court systems in Australia and New Zealand as well. Recidivism is important to document in how successful the program is remaining in place, or whether there should be adjustments made to accommodate any recent socio-environmental changes over the past decade. 2. Evaluation Governance In this case, the writer is the evaluator of the program which is conducted through literature review and overview of statistical presentation for successful application and where failures have occurred. In a true evaluation, those officials who make up the Circle Sentencing Group, would also become part of interviews on experiences gained from this program. These people are: the Circle Sentencing Court Magistrate; the offender; the Director of Public Prosecutions; offender’s legal representative; the four Circle Sentencing Panel members; and the Circle Sentencing co-ordinator (Madden, 2007, p.11). 2.1 Purpose of the Evaluation The purpose of the evaluation is to determine whether the goals of the Circle Sentencing program has met its goals, both for the court system and those of indigenous backgrounds, which includes the Tribal Panel and the offender. Part of this is the empowerment of the Tribal Elders as regards the concept of taking care of its own, based on its culture (Fetterman & Wandersman, 2005). These goals include the relief within the court system for alleviating backlogs of cases, whereby lesser crimes committed by indigenous peoples, are moved away from the incarceration level and into the indigenous community for supervision and follow-up on rehabilitative restoration of the offender. This also reduces the problems of incarcerating indigenous peoples into the prison population where there is a danger to those of a different cultural outlook from the general population. Instead, the indigenous background is addressed and recognized that rehabilitation and supervision conducted by Circle Sentencing (CS) Tribal Elders, with monitoring by the CS co-ordinator, is far more effective because restitution is made through the offender’s own community. 2.2 Scope for the Evaluation Inclusions (What does the evaluation include?) Exclusions (What does the evaluation exclude?) Cases of alcohol/drugs abuse Violent injury cases not applicable for Circle Sentencing Effectiveness of Circle discussions between offender and officials Sexual assault cases not applicable for Circle Sentencing Success versus recidivism (Table 1: DET, 2013) 2.3 Core Evaluation Questions (DET, 2013) The Preliminary Questions for Designing the Initial Evaluation Infrastructure Involvement- Q.1: Whose sanction and support is required in order to conduct the evaluation and how will it be secured? Internal Communications- Q.2: How will lines of communication be implemented between the program team, the evaluation team and the Evaluation Steering Committee? Q.3: How will the progress updates be delivered to the required parties and at what points in the evaluation schedule? External Credibility- Q.4: How do we ensure the evaluation program will be free of bias? Realistic Expectations- Q.5: How will the timeline for the project be established in order to attain the information needed for each part of the data gathering process and for analysis of each section? Securing the Data- Q.6: How will we establish the centralization of the data received as we prepare it for further analysis and how will we provide for its protection? Public Relations and Communications- Q.7: How will stakeholders be consulted in regards to their part in the evaluation and how will they receive the final reports of the program evaluation? Stakeholder Responsibilities- Q.8: How will we ensure that the evaluation plan and the team meet responsibilities and the acceptance of the key stakeholders? Sample Questionnaires for Stakeholders by Defined Groups Sample Survey Questions (This information is gathered first through primary sources and then also researched through secondary resources for verification) For the Court Sentencing Magistrate: Q.1: In using Circle Sentencing for indigenous offenders, by what percentage did this type of program reduce the load of cases within your court system? Q.2: How effective was the program infrastructure in putting the rehabilitation of the offender into the hands of the CS Elders, with monitoring by the CS co-ordinator? Q. 3: Was this reduction of the indigenous peoples being incarcerated in the prison system provide relief from dangerous occurrences within the population? Q. 4: What percentage of recidivism has occurred with any of those offenders who were remanded to the Circle Sentencing process and what are the most common reasons for why this has occurred? For the Circle Sentencing Co-ordinator: Q. 1: What percentage of cases are turned over to you for presentation to the CS Panel of the offender’s tribe in a normal year’s time? Q. 2: Of these cases, what percentage are successfully concluded to the full term of the sentence? Q. 3: What percentage of recidivism has occurred within these cases after completion? Q. 4: As the CS co-ordinator, have you noted where improvements could be made for better outcomes in the process of Circle Sentencing? Q. 5: Are there enough adequate services available to handle all the different types of rehabilitation programs needed to accomplish successful outcomes? For the CS Elders Panel: Q. 1: How successful do you see this program as regards the application of community supervision in rehabilitation of indigenous offenders from your group? Q. 2: Do you feel that your panel is better equipped to handle imposing sentences on the offenders brought before you? Q. 3: What improvements to the CS program do you think should be implemented to help ensure better success in rehabilitating offenders in your community? Do you have enough services made available for your needs in designing appropriate sentences? Q. 4: As the Circle Sentencing Magistrate has the final word on all outcomes and sentences, do you feel this person has been fair and has been mindful of the community’s values and culture? If not, what improvements do you feel should be addressed? In conducting interviews with the three entities listed above, these are the people who are most engaged in the effectiveness or non-effectiveness of the program and who see it through from beginning to end (Shaw, Greene, & Mark, 2006). Questions can also be made of the offender as well as to how he or she sees the personal cultural environment addressed as part of the sentencing infrastructure. In retrospect, the evidence shows that indigenous offenders, put through the Circle Sentencing court, are far more comfortable in dealing with the known entity rather than having to endure the more foreign Western-styled application of justice applied through normal courts systems. 2.4 Evaluation Stakeholders Everyone benefits from this evaluation because any program that successfully removes criminal activity from general society, is to be recommended and further enhanced by developing more programs that can be utilized in the rehabilitative process. This is also another area for review in that the rehabilitative programs developed are as useful for the indigenous offenders as they are for the total offender population (Madden, 2007). Those programs which are developed by the Elders or the community, must also be evaluated as to whether they are efficient enough to accommodate the needs of the community and the offender. In some cases, outside services, normally used by the general offender population, may need to be used because there is no applicable community program. Evaluation must also be made as to how successful this has been regarding offender recidivism. Audience (Who are the audiences for the information from the evaluation? e.g., students, teachers, management, staff, partners, etc.) How evaluation findings will be used (How can they apply new knowledge from the evaluation study?) Circle Sentencing Officials (all positions) To further develop programs that assist the offender in successful rehabilitation via CS Steering Committees involved* To assist in further development as needed Australian Government For purposes of oversight in program development and funding administrative budgets Research & Development Personnel The team conducts all the interviews, implementation of questionnaires and provides data analysis on areas of weakness *Consists of the SC Magistrate, representatives of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Aboriginal Legal Services, Legal Aid, Corrections, Domestic Violence Crisis Service, Aboriginal Justice Centre, Community Elders Panel, Court Administrators, Victims of Crime, and CS Co-ordinator (Madden, 2007, p.2). (Table 2: DET, 2013) 2.5 Evaluation Management Structure Personnel Duties Project and Research Director/Manager All reports and problems that occur are reviewed and decisions are made as to how to proceed. Research and Analysis Team (1 to 3 people) Conduct interviews, research cases, conducts statistical analysis, and provide results. Evaluation Writer Is also part of the team in order to understand firsthand how data was gathered and interpreted. All members of the Circle Sentencing Group Provide answers to questionnaires; makes suggestions on missing information; provides other consultation. The actual evaluation is conducted mainly by the Research team and retains the main authority over the evaluation process. Input by the CS group is as needed. (Table 3: DET, 2013) 2.6 Evaluation Governance Group Membership This also refers back to the same group listed above, with the Evaluation Research team overseeing and directing the major portion of research, with additional assistance from the CS group. The CS group provides all the court documentation as regards statistics on outcomes of cases, and from comparable government data, for correlation purposes. All parts of the Circle Sentencing program will be reviewed and the Human Rights Act (HRA) of 2004 will also be applied to the cases handled over the previous years to determine where there may have been lapses in applying the HR Act to the CS cases. Madden (2007) states that there were several instances in his capacity as CS Magistrate where he was overruled by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Madden, 2007, p.17-18) because the Commonwealth of Australia and prosecuting authority were not part of the initial Circle Court initiation into the system. Madden (2007) felt this was a violation of Section 8 of the HR Act which deals with recognition and equality before the law. It is situations such as the above that must be addressed as part of the evaluation. 2.7 Evaluation Governance Group Terms of Reference Roles and responsibilities The Project and Research Director/Manager designs the infrastructure of the research program and designs the questionnaires to be conducted. The Research and Analysis Team provides the questionnaires to the various officials participating in the CS group, provide follow-up questionnaires where needed, and conduct the analysis of questionnaire returns and the data obtained from government databases. The CS Group must be available to participate in questionnaires and provide documentation of cases and outcomes for review of data. (Table 4: DET, 2013) 2.8 Reporting Requirements Date Report type Writer/s Audience Two months after initiation of the evaluation(Specify the submission date of the report) Initial reports on returns of the questionnaires(Specify the report type, i.e., progress report, interim report, final report) Research writer and research analysts on text returns(Identify the officer/s writing the report) Director/Manager of the Research Team(Identify the stakeholder/ audience for the report, e.g., Minister, Policy and Performance Committee, Evaluation Steering Committee, external stakeholders, etc) One month after first reports are turned in (3 months after beginning) Analysis of questionnaire statistical data, along with government statistics Research writer and research analysts data compilation Director/Manager and the full CS Group –recommendations for further reviews here Five months after initiation of evaluation Full final evaluation report Writer, research and analysis teams -Director/Manager -CS Group -Australian Government -Funding Entities (Table 5: DET, 2013) This is a sample outline of how the evaluation would be conducted over time. There is always room for extension, as needed, if there are problems in gathering data. In some cases, it may be determined through review and further consultation that questionnaires should be changed to accommodate unforseen developments, based on information gathered that indicate problems that should be explored further. This is essential in developing the program to its fullest capabilities for future use, particularly as it will be expanding (Moran, 2010). 3. Evaluation Design Any evaluation must address the purpose of the program which, in this case, is the Circle Sentencing Court. The initial purpose for this program was to allow indigenous people to be tried and sentenced by a group of elders from their own cultural background (Daly & Proietti-Scifoni, 2011; Moran, 2010). In the American Constitution, for example, a citizen is to be tried by a jury of his or her peers. In this respect, the same dignity and rights of the person is being addressed when the indigenous citizen, usually an Aborigine, is to be tried and sentenced by his own panel of tribe elders, with the national judicial system officer in attendance as well. This becomes the first point of the framework listed below, the Jury of Peers (Tribe). 3.1 Evaluation Framework Contractual/Legal Arrangements The evaluation team and participants should establish clear working agreements to ensure efficient collaboration and protect involved parties’ rights Setting up evaluation team, and other positions connected with the evaluation process. Who is the sponsor Who is on the evaluation team Who are the other audiences How are they related to the program? Realistic commitments – adjusting to timetables of those being interviewed and those who are conducting questionnaires What clarifications assure that the evaluation can proceed while making reasonable efforts to serve a broad audience but not becoming bogged down in over identifying and consulting with stakeholders? Gantt chart for timetables of each section of the process The Backup Plan if processes must be changed midway through Stating Beginning and Ending points Final consolidation point in order to apply for this year’s funding status (Table 6: DET, 2013) 3.2 Information and Collection Core evaluation question to address Information required Information sources Data collection and analysis Number of cases involved in Circle Sentencing Courts versus overall population(Specify The Core Evaluation Question/s to be addressed by the evaluation as listed in Section 2.3) Data on cases tried under CS and those rejected by CS(List the subsets of information required to answer the Core Evaluation Questions) Government Databases(What are sources for the information? E.g., from employees, clients, project/program/iniative documentation, etc.) Researchers will gather data and put into analysis formats(What are the best methods to employ in data collection and analysis? E.g., questionnaires, interviews, examining documentation etc.) Descriptive profiles of offenders (protected data) Gender, Age, Marital Status, Children, Job Court documents Researchers will gather data and put into analysis formats(What are the best methods to employ in data collection and analysis? E.g., questionnaires, interviews, examining documentation etc.) Types of Criminal Offenses (ID protected) Description of Sentencing Programs Court documents Researchers will gather data and put into analysis formats(What are the best methods to employ in data collection and analysis? E.g., questionnaires, interviews, examining documentation etc.) What legal Acts were applied to the CS cases? Human Rights (2004) Crimes Act (2006) Court documents Researchers will gather data and put into analysis formats(What are the best methods to employ in data collection and analysis? E.g., questionnaires, interviews, examining documentation etc.) Results of Sentencing Performance outcomes Court documents & interviews Researchers will gather data and put into analysis formats(What are the best methods to employ in data collection and analysis? E.g., questionnaires, interviews, examining documentation etc.) Recidivism Rates Data collected Court/Government Databases Researchers will gather data and put into analysis formats(What are the best methods to employ in data collection and analysis? E.g., questionnaires, interviews, examining documentation etc.) (Table 7: DET, 2013) The above table is a preliminary overview of a standard Information and Collection plan which is also fluid, depending on individual circumstances for each evaluation framework. This also includes the availability of government databases and how well they are designed and administered. 4. Evaluation Resources and Timeframe This section encompasses the number of researchers, writers and the Director/Manager available for the evaluation process. It will also outline each person from the Australian Court System involved, such as the CS Magistrate and the CS Co-ordinator. Appropriate contacts must be made in the administrative side of the government whereby data can be pulled as reports and also in appropriate pulls for further analysis and variables correlation. Based on who can be brought on board for the evaluation process, the timetable will then be built around that availability of resources and personnel. 4.1 Budget and Staff Resources Based on the personnel available, as determined in the first section, the salary is then based on the number of days used for conducting the evaluation in all its various formats, such as conducting questionnaires through the written process (Shaw et al., 2006). The written questionnaire is considered the best form in this situation, as not all people connected to this evaluation will have appropriate access to the Internet. This also provides the opportunity for follow-up interviews if needed. The budget will be built around the personnel involved and how many hours it is presumed that the evaluation will take, projected from beginning to end. Supplies are also added into the budget, along with personal expenses should it be deemed necessary to travel out of town to interview Elders or other identified sources of information. 4.2 Evaluation Staff Roles and Responsibilities As the program is being designed, the roles of each person within the evaluation will be determined, according to the needs of the plan and also to accommodate special skills which certain people may have been hired for, for example, writing final reports or conducting specific analysis using advanced methodologies (Shaw et al., 2006). Some people are also good at interviewing others and help make them feel comfortable, which is essential in getting to the truth and the information needed. 4.3 Time Schedule The time schedule will outline each section of the project along with each person’s responsibilities which must be accomplished at a certain time in order for the next phase to take place. Some parts can overlap, but there will be definite beginning points and ending points for each person in completing their part of the project (Shaw et al., 2006). The writers are usually the last part of the process in building the final report, although each person in the project should remain available, or on call, in order to answer any problematic questions uncovered during the consolidation process. Sample Time Schedule in an Evaluation Plan and Time Schedule Major Milestones Due Date Consultation with Evaluation Services regarding support and approval process for the evaluation February 1st, 2013 Program Logic Model (or evaluation framework) generated February 8th, 2013 Evaluation Governance Group established with endorsed Terms of Reference February 12th, 2013 Draft Evaluation Proposal presented to Evaluation Governance Group for feedback February 18th, 2013 Evaluation Proposal endorsed by Evaluation Governance Group February 23rd, 2013 Evaluation Proposal approved by Evaluation Steering Committee February 16th, 2013 Consultant contracted (if applicable) or Evaluation Team appointed February 28th, 2013 Progress Report to Evaluation Steering Committee March 15th, 2013 Data gathering and analysis complete April 15th, 2013 Progress Report to Evaluation Steering Committee April 25th, 2013 Draft Evaluation Report presented to Evaluation Governance Group for feedback May 10th, 2013 Draft Evaluation Report endorsed by Evaluation Governance Group May 14th, 2013 Final Evaluation Report approved by Evaluation Steering Committee May 22nd, 2013 Brief with any recommendations to the Policy and Performance Committee with any recommendations May 30th, 2013 (Table 8: DET, 2013) 5. Program Logic and Program Theory Program Logic refers to the plan on which a project is designed to accomplish a set of goals. It is based, therefore, on the desired outcome and can be designed in linear steps in a common road map of actions to be taken. In the case of the Circle Sentencing Evaluation, the following diagram is built with the final objective in mind – how successful the program has been and how can it be developed further to accomplish greater success (Davison, 2004). The Program Logic for Circle Sentencing (Designed by Writer, 2013) Program Theory – Theory of Action Program Theory is the method of creating the Linear Program Logic as shown above, but also goes beyond that by investigating the links between the variables (Davison, 2004). This provides the principles by action concerning the Circle Sentencing program and the theory which provides that those offenders who are judged within their own cultural environment, by those who know the offender well, provides a certain shame and a desire to do better by those who are considered more ‘family.’ This is a far more effective tool in guarding against recidivism by using a familiar environment, rather than becoming a faceless number within the Australian court system. 6. Summary and Conclusion The process of creating this evaluation outline for the Circle Sentencing program has presented the application of both independent and participatory evaluations in obtaining both primary and secondary information and data (Davidson, 2004). Both are needed to fully evaluate the success of this program, which to this point, has appeared to work very well, with only a few hitches. In defining the evaluation presented here, both in the form it was created in, and through the determination of the goals for its application, the best description of this is that it is a Component Evaluation because it determines each component of this program as to whether it was successfully implemented (Davidson, 2004). However, there are aspects of this program that are dimensional as well, in determining the values and qualities of the Circle Sentencing in action. Appendix 1: Sample Evaluation Plan Checklist (Provided by DET, 2013) This checklist have been included to assist in the development of the Evaluation Plan. Contractual/Legal Arrangements The evaluation team and participants should establish clear working agreements to ensure efficient collaboration and protect involved parties’ rights ESC, evaluation team, and other roles Who is the sponsor Who is on the evaluation team Who are the other audiences How are they related to the program? Realistic commitments What clarifications assure that the evaluation can proceed while making reasonable efforts to serve a broad audience but not becoming bogged down in over identifying and consulting with stakeholders? Delivery schedule What is the schedule of evaluation services and products? Editing reports Who has authority for editing evaluation reports? Access to data What existing data may the evaluation team use What new data may they obtain? Access to stakeholders Are there sufficient safeguards to assure that the evaluation team may contact involved stakeholders? Pre-release reviews Will the ESC be provided appropriate opportunities to review the draft report for clarity and fairness prior to their finalisation and release? Release of reports Who will release the reports What audiences may receive them? Responsibility and authority Have the system personnel and the evaluation team agreed on what persons and groups have both the responsibility and authority to perform the various evaluation tasks? Finances What is the schedule of payments for the evaluation Who will provide the funds? Technical Design The evaluation team should convert a general evaluation plan to a detailed, yet flexible technical plan Objectives What is the program intended to achieve/produce In what terms should it be evaluated?  Variables What classes of information will be collected, e.g., context, inputs, processes, outcomes? Program description Will the program be described sufficiently, so that stakeholders will understand its nature? Investigatory framework Under what conditions will the data be gathered, e.g., experimental design, case study, survey, site review, examination, etc.? Instrumentation What data gathering instruments and techniques will be employed How will the evaluator assure that they address the key evaluation questions? Sampling What samples will be drawn How will they be drawn Will they meet both utility and technical requirements? Data gathering How will the data gathering plan be implemented Who will gather the data? Have multiple modes of data gathering been planned to ensure triangulation? Data storage and retrieval What format, procedures, and facilities will be used to store and retrieve the data? What strategies are in place to ensure the data complies with ethics and codes of conduct? Data analysis How will the data be analysed? Sources of interpretation Who is charged to interpret findings, e.g., the evaluators, various stakeholders, a regulatory body, etc.? Bases for interpretation What bases will be used to interpret findings, e.g., objectives, assessed needs, contractual specifications, laws and regulations, democratic ideals, social norms, performance by a comparison group, technical standards or criteria, polls, judgments by reference groups, etc.? Methods of interpretation What methods will be used to assign value meaning to findings, e.g., focus groups, a Delphi study, advocacy and adversary reports, etc.? Reports What reports will be used to disseminate the evaluation findings? Reporting media Considering the preferences of the audiences, what are the most appropriate means of reporting findings, e.g., detailed technical reports, summaries, press conferences, study sessions, memos and letters, video presentations, web assessable documentation, etc.? Reporting language Will reports need to be presented in different languages: technical or non technical, simple English or other language(s) to meet the needs of different audiences? Reporting format Will reports be carefully formatted to enhance their readability, e.g., use of white space? Responsive design What ongoing evaluation planning process and resource plan will assure flexibility for adding to or otherwise revising the evaluation questions and obtaining unanticipated, pertinent information? Delimited design Is there a clear delimitation of the design, including the purpose of the evaluation and the questions that will be answered? Attention to trade offs How will the evaluation address trade offs between comprehensiveness and selectivity at each stage of the evaluation: planning; budgeting; and collecting, organizing, analysing, interpreting, and reporting information? Technical adequacy What are assurances that the findings will be reliable, valid, and objective? Moral/Ethical Imperatives The evaluation team and clients/stakeholders should clarify and confirm the evaluation’s role in ethically serving some socially valuable purpose Philosophical stance Will the evaluation be value based, value plural, or value free? Evaluation team’s values Will the evaluation team’s technical standards and values conflict with the client system’s and/or sponsor’s values; will the team face any conflict of interest problems; what will be done about possible conflicts? Judgments Will the evaluation team judge the program; or obtain, analyse, and report the judgments of various reference groups? Objectivity How will the evaluation team avoid being coopted and maintain their objectivity? Equity How will the evaluation team make sure to address and honour the needs and rights of all stakeholders equitably, taking appropriate account of their gender, ethnicity, and language backgrounds? Cost effectiveness Compared to its potential payoff, will the evaluation be carried out at a reasonable cost? Appendix 2: List of Tables 1. Scope for the Evaluation – Inclusions/Exclusions p. 7 2. Evaluation Stakeholders – Audience/Evaluation Use p. 9-10 3. Evaluation Management Structure – Personnel/Duties p. 10 4. Evaluation Governance Group- Roles/Responsibilities p. 11 5. Reporting Requirements – Data/Report/Writer/Audience p. 11 6. Evaluation Framework – Contractual/Legal p. 12 7. Information and Collection – (As Required) p. 13 8. Sample Time Schedule – Major Milestones/Due Date p. 15 Resources AIC. (2010). Courts and Sentencing. Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) Online. Daly, K., & Proietti-Scifoni, G. (2011). ‘The Elders Know …The White Man Don’t Know’: Offenders’ View of the Nowra Circle Court. Indigenous Law Bulletin (ILB), 7(24). Davidson, E.J. (2004). Evaluation Methodology Basics: The Nuts and Bolts of Sound Evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. DET. (2013). Evaluation Planning Template. Department of Education and Training Online. ET. (2013). Program Logic. Evaluation Toolbox (ET) at Better Evaluation Online. Fetterman, D., & Wandersman, A. (eds.). (2005). Empowerment Evaluation Principles in Practice. London, UK: Guilford Press. Funnell, S.C., & Rogers, P.J. (2011). Purposeful Program Theory. San Fransisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publications. Madden, S.G. (2007). The Circle Court in the ACT – An Overview and Its Future. International Association of Young Lawyers (AIJA) Online. Moran, S. (2010). Circle Sentencing to Grow in NSW. The Australian Online. 08 October 2010. Potas, I., Smart, J., Brignell, G., Thomas, B., & Lawrie, R. (2003). Circle Sentencing in New South Wales: A Review and Evaluation. Judicial Commission of New South Wales and Aboriginal Justice Advisory Council. Reiger, L. (2001). Circle Peacemaking. Alaska Justice Forum, 17(4). Rekhari, S. (2006-07). “People’s Law” and Restorative Justice: The Success of Circle Sentencing in New South Wales. Justice Connections, 3, pp. 1-16. Shaw, I.F., Greene, C., & Mark, M.M. (eds). (2006). The SAGE Handbook of Evaluation. London, UK: SAGE Publications. Tumeth, R. (2011). Is Circle Sentencing in the NSW Criminal Justice System a Failure? Aboriginal Legal Service (NSW/ACT). Read More