Post-Separation Counselling and Mediation Services (Part 3): Synthesis of findings

This is the 3rd part of a report Tamara Blakemore and I did in partnerships with Uniting counselling and mediation services about best practice in post-separation counselling and mediation

I have divided the report into 6 posts:

  1. The introduction and findings from the literature review
  2. Staff interview, client survey and document review
  3. Synthesis of findings
  4. Synthesis of findings (continued)
  5. Summary and conclusion
  6. References

You can download the formatted report from here and you can read the executive summary here. Details of the research team and reference group, and how to reference the report are at the end of the post.

Synthesis of Common and Key Findings

When considered collectively, common and key findings emerged from the rapid review (Part A), staff interviews (Part B) and the client survey and document review (Part C). These findings can help with the continuous improvement of Uniting services. The figure below provides an illustrative overview of common and key findings across the reports. The findings are organised into the subsections of the developed conceptual framework for the research. The following sections of the report discuss these in more detail.

Contexts of Practice

Increasing Complexity

The rapid review found that there was a context-heavy gaze across the extensive, but fragmented, evidence base reviewed. One hundred and thirty-three sources reviewed were in-depth descriptions of context—that is, the issues, considerations and characteristic challenges faced by mediators and counsellors in the post-separation space. Staff who were interviewed described the contexts of their work as complex and challenging. They explained that these complexities influence their approach to work, and they described the impact their work has on them.

Findings from the interviews with Uniting staff indicated a fairly widely held belief among the practitioners that their work is becoming more complex. Consistent with the results of the rapid review, staff suggested that key areas of complexity include domestic violence and engaging families from diverse backgrounds, and that there is a need for adequate funding and resources to respond appropriately to complex cases. Complexity in the context of practice is influenced by systemic and structural factors as well as individual, cultural and relational factors, each of which require consideration and can pose challenges for practice.

Staff who were interviewed expressed an overall sense of confidence in their capacity to respond to complexity in their work. They identified strategies that echo the promising practice profiled in the rapid review, including strategies for recruitment, retention and training of an inclusive workforce, as well as collaborative and sensitive approaches to work that emphasise safety and connection. Interview participants felt that major limitations in working with more complex cases are funding and available resources: they felt they could do more if they had more resources. Participants noted that (increasingly) complex client needs may often be better met by services that are more time- and resource-intensive:

If we’re going to provide best practice, then we really need to have the resources available, and best practice for me does include either someone talking about developmental needs, someone who can see the kids and feed back information to the parents, because that’s the way in. (36M)[1]

Findings from the rapid review and staff interviews highlighted that best practice in post-separation counselling and mediation is responsive to context and complexity and requires a nuanced appreciation of factors that frame both clients’ experiences and likely outcomes. Further, the data highlighted that a nuanced and sensitive understanding of context is an understated, and potentially unrecognised, driver of good practice.

Practitioner Role and Purpose

A Common Focus

From the rapid review, Goodhardt et al. (2005, p. 319), suggested “purpose drives practice”; that is, the why of work leads to clarity about the what, how and, ultimately, with what outcome. In the staff interviews, when asked what they hoped to achieve in their work, there was a clear focus on the wellbeing of children. This common focus and sense of purpose was observed across interviews with adult counsellors, child counsellors and mediators. Across practice contexts, staff who were interviewed were clear about the impact that separation can have on children. They believed that a major part of their role is to help children and parents navigate the changes in ways that minimise distress and negative effects for children, regardless of whether they are working directly with children.

The rapid review found that the best way for counselling and mediation practice to support the wellbeing of children and meet their needs was keenly debated. Across the evidence reviewed, it was agreed that in order to protect the best interests of children post-separation, it is vital that their voices are heard and their experiences acknowledged. The voices and experiences of children have often been absent or effectively silenced in post-separation processes, at least historically (House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs, 2003). When interviewed, participating Uniting staff discussed the primacy of the best interests of children in models of child inclusive practice (discussed later in this report) and, consistent with their reported grounding in family systems theory, in work with parents. Staff emphasised that parents need to change their behaviour in order to improve their children’s wellbeing, and this is one of the main outcomes they hope to achieve, even if it is not always possible. In addition to a focus on the child, staff (particularly adult counsellors) identified a number of other goals they want to achieve in their work, including improving the wellbeing of clients, decreasing the level of conflict, helping clients gain new insights and ensuring that Uniting delivers high-quality services.

Organisational Practice

The organisational ethos, culture, conduct, policy and practice at Uniting was suggested by the staff who were interviewed to be protective factors for both clients and practitioners. Participants described working for a strong organisation, were positive about their work and noted that Uniting is grounded in good practice and has good policy, guidelines and tools:

I just wanted to probably say that I felt that the policies and the practices for counselling and mediation were really good. I think we’ve got a really good structure. (02M)

Staff were positive about their managers and supervisors, commenting about characteristics such as openness, flexibility, support, availability and experience. They felt they worked in a supportive environment, with both informal support from their colleagues (e.g., checking in with each other during breaks, being available for advice or as a sounding board) and more formal support from their managers and the organisation (e.g., supervision and an Employment Assistance Scheme). The availability, frequency and flexibility of supervision were seen as an important in ensuring high quality practice by staff. Supervision was clearly built into the day-to-day practice of staff and was recognised as being essential for good practice by the practitioners. Not only did staff say that it is important, but supervision was frequently referred to in terms of how staff respond to the challenges of their work.

The interviews were conducted after a period of major organisational change, and some staff were concerned about the potential impact of some of these changes on best practice. In particular, there were concerns about the impact of closing the Institute of Family Practice on the induction of new staff and ongoing training, and a perceived increasing focus (in both Uniting overall and the sector more broadly) on business decisions rather than a focus on the best interests of clients.

These findings echo the sentiments of Australian research by Lundberg and Moloney (2010), who noted that both personal and organisational resources are important in mitigating the imposts of post-separation practice on workers (including negative emotional impacts, work-related stress and burnout) and ensuring positive outcomes for practitioners and clients alike. The authors identified that practitioners’ capacity for effective use of self in their work, critical reflection and self-awareness are essential to good practice outcomes and practitioners’ self-care and wellbeing (Lundberg & Moloney, 2010). The authors also noted that participants in their study considered “the supportive and understanding culture of the organisation to be ‘extremely’ important in enabling them to cope with the demands of high conflict FDR” (Lundberg & Moloney, 2010, p. 218).

The review of Uniting’s policies and practice documents explored potential organisational drivers of practice, particularly how practice is framed and positioned by practice guidelines, internal policies and funding requirements. It highlighted that Uniting’s policy documents are well structured, generally aligned with funding requirements and written in clear, direct and easy-to-follow plain English. The review contained several suggestions, including considering how the documents can help to:

  • facilitate relationship-building in practice
  • articulate how the procedures and policies align with Uniting’s values, ethics and principles
  • attend to the complexities of context
  • lead the way in extending Uniting’s engagement with diversity (see above).

Complexity of Presenting Issues

Complexity of presenting issues

Domestic Violence

Domestic violence was noted by the Uniting staff who were interviewed to be one of the key complexities that increasingly characterises the context of their work. Dobinson and Gray (2016) identified that family violence is defined in legislation as violent, threatening or any other behaviour that coerces or controls a member of the perpetrator’s family or causes them to be fearful, with a non-exhaustive list of typical behaviours including physical, sexual, verbal, emotional and financial abuse.

While contexts of domestic violence were acknowledged to clearly add layers of complexity to the practice and process of counselling and mediation, Uniting practitioners who were interviewed were mostly positive about their ability to respond appropriately to domestic violence and to make a difference, and they believed it was important that they did so:

Yes, to answer your question before, which was, “Can we work with DV?” Absolutely, and I think we get some fantastic outcomes, as opposed to someone who has been a victim of domestic violence and goes to court and gets to be cross-examined by their partner and made to feel that way again. We can provide them with a process where they are empowered to make choices and be supported to say, “No”, and be supported to be able to respond for themselves. (27M)

Across the reviewed evidence base for best practice in post-separation counselling and mediation, key considerations and challenges for practice in the context of domestic violence include issues that are fundamentally related to safety. Across the literature, there was unilateral support for the primacy of safety for those engaged with post-separation services and supports, but also a sense that when, whether and how appropriate risk-mitigation strategies and suitable models of care are implemented will be influenced by how practitioners construct, understand, assess and screen for conflict, violence and safety. These considerations have serious implications for practitioners’ ability to ensure client safety and the workability of legal outcomes reached.

Consistent with this, interviews with Uniting staff identified that in thinking about suitability for mediation in cases where there has been domestic or family violence, staff (particularly managers) emphasised the importance of assessing whether mediation is safe for survivors, and not proceeding to mediation in severe cases or where there is a risk to the perpetrator’s partner:

It will depend. On every single case it will depend on what the domestic violence was, when it happened—because the last thing you want to do is disempower somebody that’s had the therapy and the counselling and feels like they’re strong enough to be in a room … Where we feel there’s a power imbalance or that it’s not going to be—somebody’s not going to be able to make decisions in the best interest of the child without the fear of repercussions, it’s not going to be suitable for mediation. (26CM)

Over the past three decades, the conceptual constructions of family violence have grown increasingly complex and nuanced. As Kaspiew (2008, p. 280) noted:

A common thread through these approaches is that not all violence is the same, and that it occurs upon a continuum of severity ranging from situation-based ‘conflict’ to an extreme form of coercive control marked by severe violence and the exertion of control through mechanisms such as emotional and verbal abuse, social isolation and restriction of access to financial resources.

Uniting staff who were interviewed identified that assessing client safety in their practice involves more than ensuring that the parties are physically safe; it also means ensuring that they will not be intimidated or exposed to coercive, controlling behaviour:

I guess when you’re talking about mediation, it’s about assessing the ability of each party to engage in that mediation process freely, without being intimidated, and to work towards making agreements free of pressure or coercion from the other party. (01C)

Given the fluid, volatile and reactive nature of family violence, practitioners in the post-separation space are required to sit with, assess, screen and plan around risk in a way that is responsive and attuned to vulnerability. Across the existing evidence for best practice, there is considerable discussion about how practitioners practically do this, as well as the complexity of issues associated with screening and assessing risk. Appropriate screening and detection of violence (including coercive control) requires an understanding of what forms of violence render a case inappropriate for mediation (in particular) and what processes need to be implemented to ensure the case can be safely and effectively dealt with in mediation (Cleak & Bickerdike, 2016).

If screening for family violence does not occur in a safe, private space, it is likely that powerful disincentives to disclose violence—especially in the presence of the perpetrator—will intimidate the victim and they will remain silent (Ballard et al., 2011). Even when screening does occur, detection rates vary. For instance, Ballard et al. (2011) found that, despite pre-mediation preparation, mediators did not report the presence of intimate partner violence in more than half the cases in which the parties themselves reported violence. Evidence suggests that, unless asked directly, victims are unlikely to make disclosures of violence (Morse et al., 2012). However, counter to concerns raised by opponents of universal screening, clients respond well to direct questions delivered sensitively and/or via non-threatening means (Lee & Ralfs, 2015). How practice responds to this remains unclear, with another study finding that although approximately 60% of divorcing couples who attended mediation reported physical violence on a screening measure, only 7% of these couples were screened out of mediation (Beck et al., 2011).

Demonstrating responsivity to these issues, Uniting is undertaking a trial of the universal DOORS (Detection of Overall Risk Screen; McIntosh & Ralfs, 2012) screening tool to supplement existing safety screening processes. Reviewing the existing evidence base for post-separation practice identified some advantages of the DOORS approach and some caution regarding its workability in everyday practice. Some victims of domestic violence who were involved in evaluating the tool supported the repeated questions about violence, but others suggested that screening tools that are too long and/or repetitive can be experienced as intimidating (Cleak & Bickerdike, 2016).

Apart from a consensus on prioritising safety and the need for screening and assessment of risk evidence for best practice in contexts of family violence, literature also suggests the need for a collaborative approach to service and support (e.g., Croucher, 2014; Field & Lynch, 2014; Kaspiew et al., 2014; Moloney, Qu, Weston, & Hand, 2013). Uniting staff who were interviewed identified that working successfully with domestic violence often requires more nuanced, sensitive and resource-intensive programs. Staff who had been involved with the Coordinated Family Dispute Resolution (CFDR) (discussed in later sections of this report) were very positive about CFDR as an example of how Uniting can successfully work with domestic violence. The program involved a specialist risk assessment at the start, ongoing safety assessments throughout the process, safety planning and domestic violence support, independent legal advice, and mediation. It was an expensive and resource-intensive program, but it produced demonstrable results:

Highly successful, highly resourced, and also highly expensive in terms of the way that the government sees what we do [but not] in comparison to what it would cost to send them through the family court. (27M)

Engaging Families from Diverse Backgrounds

In health, welfare, education and counselling literature, engagement is commonly described as positive relationships that develop between service users and providers that support the achievement of service users’ aims and expectations (Addington et al., 2006; Brady & Scully, 2005; Coatsworth et al., 2001; Dearing et al., 2005). Engagement has often been operationalised and measured in practice settings as a static concept, such as a count of attendance or participation (e.g., Coatsworth et al., 2001; Connors et al., 1997), or a dynamic concept, such as the nature and quality of the relationship between the worker and the client (e.g., Fletcher & Visser, 2008). Findings from the rapid review identified that meeting the multiple and often conflicting aims and objectives of diverse populations of clients is a key consideration and challenge for practice. In a substantive overview of the Family Support Program family law services, the Allen Consulting Group (2013) noted that the capacity of services to adapt and tailor their delivery of services is critical for engaging with target populations. They stressed that one-size-fits-all approaches are particularly ineffective in reaching disadvantaged and vulnerable populations. Across the literature reviewed, best practice was identified as that which is aware, responsive and inclusive, with particular attention given to the contextual complexities of working with fathers, children and culturally diverse clients.

Culturally inclusive and competent service delivery refers to systemic, organisational and professional behaviours, attitudes and policies that enable effective and appropriate service delivery to individuals from non-dominant cultural groups (Cross et al., 1989). Practice that is culturally inclusive builds on and subsumes cultural awareness (knowledge of cultural norms) and cultural sensitivity (recognition of diversity within cultural groups) and requires practitioners to develop an appreciation and understanding of their own cultural norms and how these interact with the contexts of their work (Education Centre Against Violence, 2006; Sawrikar & Katz, 2008). Despite an obligation for programs funded by the Commonwealth Family Support Program (including FRCs, family mediation, counselling and support services) to offer accessible, equitable and responsive services, and to engage groups that may have barriers to access (including families from CALD backgrounds; Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, 2006), gaps in equitable service provision and access still exist (Armstrong, 2011a, 2011b).

When interviewed, Uniting staff identified that the complexity of engaging with families from diverse backgrounds (notably Indigenous and CALD families) exists at multiple, and perhaps intersecting, aspects of practice. Some participants identified the challenge of engaging with a representative cross-sector of the community, while others highlighted the challenge of competing priorities for practice, and some noted practical challenges such as the use of interpreters:

We do already get a significant number of CALD clients here, but drilling down I don’t know that they are necessarily reflective of the region. There’s certainly a large Hindi population in this area, and they’re fairly underrepresented in our client base actually. (Anonymous)[2]

Culture has also been recognised as influencing the methods of, and the assumptions underpinning, mediators’ practice, as well as what is brought to the mediation by both parties (Armstrong, 2011b). This fits with Alexander’s (2008, p. 98), suggestion that “mediator orientation”—inclusive of the “worldviews, paradigms, behaviours and manner in which they conduct the process”—can influence the agenda for mediation, the standards and norms of behaviour, and the range of possible outcomes the process can achieve. Consistent with this, findings from the interviews with Uniting staff identified that factors contributing to the challenge of working with complexity include the fit between cultural norms and practice models, language and communication needs, and clients’ previous or concurrent experiences of structural and systemic disadvantage and distrust:

But I think, around our cultural groups, we always have to think about—mediation can be completely foreign. There are a lot of countries and cultures that don’t recognise an impartial person. So even in mediation when you’ve said it six times every which way that the mediator can’t provide legal advice and can’t take a position they just will view you as a judge, they will view you as a lawyer, they will view you as someone who is an elder, and so you should be able to tell us what to do. (27M)

The staff from one office saw their approach as treating everybody as an individual regardless of their background, which meant they could successfully work with people from quite diverse backgrounds. This mainly related to their work once families were in the office. Some of their other comments indicated that they were aware of the need to address some of the barriers experienced by families from diverse backgrounds in accessing services, that they made proactive attempts to engage marginalised groups and that they adopted inclusive practices:

Whoever comes through, we treat them the same. Coming through the door for a session, I’m not going, “You’re Aboriginal, therefore I’m going to treat you differently” or “You look like you’re born somewhere else, overseas, and therefore I’m going to—”. I think the basic aspects are all maintained no matter who’s walking through. The curiosity and the interest, the neutrality is maintained … A simple example is, as they come in, I’m not going, “What is your partner’s name?” or “What is his name?” I’m not asking, “What is his name?” [I’m asking] “Are you in a relationship? What is your partner’s name?” Then if I’m hearing a partner’s name and I’m quite not sure if it’s a male or a female, I would ask, “Is your partner male or female?” (Anonymous)

Uniting staff who were interviewed identified a number of constructive strategies to address these challenges, including the recruitment and retention of a workforce inclusive of different genders, sexualities, cultures and abilities; more dedicated time to be present in and with diverse communities; and consideration of fit and flexibility of technological (and online) service delivery. These suggestions are in line with those made by Bagshaw et al. (2006) in their consideration of post-separation practice. They highlighted a general lack of understanding of culturally relevant issues among non-Indigenous service providers who have contact with Indigenous people, as well as a need to employ more Indigenous staff and to educate and support those already employed. They also noted that the needs and experiences of Indigenous children and their families are not adequately understood or addressed by non-Indigenous service providers, and that families and children who live in rural and remote areas are more likely to face inadequate service provision. Similarly, Brown et al. (2012) highlighted capacity building and workforce development initiatives as key strategies for best practice because of the concern that a lack of culturally responsive and bicultural personnel has impeded the effective use of the family law system for clients from diverse backgrounds.

Some staff emphasised the importance of achieving a balance between inclusivity and quality, noting that good practice should remain central to addressing complex presenting issues and contexts. For example, participants spoke about the importance of not compromising quality of service in an effort to employ staff from diverse backgrounds, and suggested that building strong relationships with diverse communities takes time and effort:

It’s very hard, often, to get professional staff, trained staff, who are from those diverse backgrounds. There’s a lot of languages spoken in some places, but sometimes not fabulous work. So where do you draw the line? (Anonymous)

It’s not just a one-off visit. I’ve gone and sat down with some of these people. It’s actually having a consistent, ongoing relationship with them all the time and making the time to do that. It’s quite time-consuming, but I think it needs to be done. (02M)

Consistent support for greater workforce capacity was also noted in reports on the Family Support Program’s family law services (Allen Consulting Group, 2013) and community engagement in post-separation services (Family and Relationship Services Australia, 2012). Both reports identified that culturally competent staff with access to ongoing training and supervision, as well as the recruitment and development of staff from target populations, are important “first-step” enablers to engaging with culturally diverse communities. Best practice in working effectively in culturally inclusive and sensitive ways needs to be more than just employing an advisor and/or staff member from underrepresented sections of the population; it also needs to include collaborative and collective ways of working together with the community. Strategies for active inclusive practice include the establishment of advisory committees, engaged collaboration in program co-design and, wherever possible, integration and collaboration between services to support the establishment of appropriate service pathways for easier access, engagement and effective response (Allen Consulting Group, 2013).

Gender

Changes to the Family Law Act in 2006 encouraged a default assumption that post-separation parents should be supported to share the care of their children in ways that make ongoing meaningful relationships with both parties possible. These changes have been championed by some as “new recognition” of the importance of fathers in children’s development and wellbeing and, perhaps relatedly, by others as a response to recognition of the missing role that fathers had tended to play in the lives of their children post-separation (Fletcher & St George, 2010; Fletcher & Visser, 2008).

The rapid review suggested that it is important to better understand gender differences in the ways that men and women engage with services and supports, the ways they communicate, the capacity of workers to engage with these differences, and their intersection with cultural differences (Fletcher & Visser, 2008). Addis and Mahalik (2003) suggested that, to date, the development and design of support services may be too normed towards traditionally “feminine” rather than “masculine” means of engagement and problem-solving—relying on an awareness, ability and appreciation of the value of naming and narrating personal issues.

Findings from the interviews with Uniting staff highlighted practitioner awareness of gendered issues in their work and in engaging well with men. In particular, there was concern about the gender balance in mediation, with some staff believing that it could be difficult for people to walk into a room dominated by the opposite gender, and that it would be helpful if there were two mediators of different genders:

I don’t know how I’d go walking in a room with my, say, ex-husband and two male counsellors. I would struggle with three men. You know, just that sense of non-neutrality. I feel for dads that come here and have mediation, because they have three females in the room at times. How can that not—you know? (33C)

Differences in engagement with services offered and the perception of service outcomes were also noted in the surveys conducted with past Uniting clients. While it should be noted that the number of male respondents was small (n = 23), gendered differences were statistically significant. Analysis of data from the survey responses found that, overall, the men who responded were less satisfied with the service they had received and were less positive about the outcomes compared with women. The mean score for every outcome was lower for men than for women. For men, the mean score for all 23 outcome measures (using a five-point Likert scale) was below the midpoint of the Likert scale, but it was below the midpoint for only seven (30%) of the outcomes for women. Sixty per cent of the men indicated that they did not learn any skills compared with 28.3% of women. A number of men were quite unhappy with their experience with Uniting counselling and mediation services and/or the family law system. Seven respondents strongly disagreed with all 23 outcome measures that applied to them, and a further three strongly disagreed with all but one of the outcome measures. Of these 10 people, seven were men and three were women (28.0% of the men compared with 6.5% of the women). A couple of fathers added comments that highlighted their feelings about their experience, noting that their frustration was with the whole system and not just their experience with Uniting:

I’ve learnt that what the mother wants, the mother gets—simple as that. The laws and the system encourage mothers to do as they please, and there is absolutely nothing a dad can do about it. If both parents wanted each other in their child’s life, it would be that way regardless of any system.

Fathers’ experiences post-separation are likely to be influenced by a wide range of contextual and background factors, including the unique circumstances of the relationship breakdown and factors related to work, age, health, friends and family, previous and current relationships, mental health, social supports, emotional resources, finances and cultural background. The success of engaging these men in post-separation counselling and mediation services is suggested by Fletcher and Visser (2008) to ultimately be tied to the outcomes achieved in terms of post-separation parenting plans and the wellbeing of children. They suggested that how well these outcomes are achieved will be determined by the skillset of practitioners and their awareness and willingness to recognise the gendered needs and nuances of their work.

Resources and Funding

Resources and funding for post-separation services and supports were discussed in the evidence reviewed—primarily in relation to complex presenting issues and corresponding models of response. These included screening and assessment of safety and risk in contexts of domestic violence (Field & Lynch, 2014; Robinson & Moloney, 2010), child inclusive models of practice (Bagshaw et al., 2006; Hart, 2009) and work with families from culturally diverse backgrounds (Armstrong, 2011a, 2011b). Uniting staff who were interviewed highlighted the tensions between best practice and appropriate resources and funding. They identified that working with complex issues often requires more time- and resource-intensive responses, and that without adequate funding, they cannot provide the service they want to:

If we’re going to provide best practice, then we really need to have the resources available, and best practice for me does include either someone talking about developmental needs, someone who can see the kids and feed back information to the parents, because that’s the way in. (36M)

Some staff indicated that they can use the more resource-intensive programs as often as they want, but this was mainly in relation to programs that they felt were occasionally helpful but not central to best practice:

Look, with child inclusive, I would say it’s there and use it. In fact, I made a referral last week. There was another referral made the week before. [Name of worker] only has so much time, but they don’t come in constantly, so [they are] not beating it off with a stick. So, that’s always available or appears to be always available. (11M)

[1] The participants were identified by a random number followed by a code showing their current role: A = Anchor counsellors, C = counsellors (non-Anchor), M = mediators and O = other.

[2] Participants are quoted anonymously when there is a risk that they could be identified or that their relationship with other staff may be affected.

Continued in the next post: Synthesis of findings (continued)

The citation for the full report is:

Blakemore, T., & Stuart, G. (2020). Best practice and trends in counselling and mediation services in NSW: A collaborative case study of Uniting. Summary and synthesis report. Uniting. https://www.uniting.org/content/dam/uniting/documents/community-impact/research-and-innovation/Best_Practice_Trends_in_Counselling_and_Mediation-Summary%20Report.pdf

While most of the research was done by Tamara and me, Chris Krogh did the document analysis, and we were supported by Amanda Howard, Shaun McCarthy and Milena Heinsch from the University of Newcastle. The research assistants were Elizabeth Sinclair, Alex Madafiglio and Stephanie Hardacre.

The Uniting Research Reference Group members were Tom McClean, Duncan Cameron, Pauline O’Neill, Margaret Nimac, Amanda Rolfe, Rochelle Arellano, Andrew Spaulding, Elke Pitkethley, Joe Schumacher and Lisa Robinson.

If you liked this post please follow my blog, and you might like to look at:

  1. Best practice in counselling and mediation services: A collaborative case study of Uniting (Summary)
  2. Post-Separation Counselling and Mediation Services (Part 1): Introduction to research and literature review
  3. 20 tips for an online workshop
  4. Creating a safe space for a workshop on Zoom
  5. Postcards from Practice: Initial Learnings from the Name.Narrate.Navigate Program
  6. 4 types of power: What are power over; power with; power to and power within?

If you find any problems with the blog, (e.g., broken links or typos) I’d love to hear about them. You can either add a comment below or contact me via the Contact page.

About Graeme Stuart

Lecturer (Family Action Centre, Newcastle Uni), blogger (Sustaining Community), Alternatives to Violence Project facilitator, environmentalist, father. Passionate about families, community development, peace, sustainability.
This entry was posted in Being an academic, Families & parenting and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

I'd love to hear what you think!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.