The specific individuals who deliver an intervention was seen as making an important contribution to the delivery of an intervention. These contributions are presented through the following two subthemes:
146
Subtheme 2: Experience of working with children 6.6.1 Subtheme 1: Facilitators’ characteristics
Across all participant groups it was acknowledged that the characteristics associated with facilitators were important, because they influenced how children and parents engaged with them. A few facilitators reported that it was advantageous for interventions to be delivered by a team of facilitators who had different personalities, in order to reflect the different types of children attending the intervention, “the benefit of
having 3 facilitators in our case is that we have a different way of speaking with and working with children” (Joe). One specific characteristic isolated by an intervention
provider as important to any facilitator delivering Intervention A, was being nurturing,
“the nurturing side of it I think is key to it with the right people doing it… it’s just people’s nature” (Helen). This attribute was identified as being innate to the facilitators
rather than something that could be taught through training.
One parent highlighted the importance of facilitators being non-judgmental, due to her previous experiences of talking to other professionals within the context of DVA and feeling judged and blamed as a mother. Jackie had perceived some professionals as
“speaking down” to her, which made her feel “a little bit small”. She attributed this to
professionals speaking to her as though “you’ve just come out of a domestic problem
household”. In contrast, the facilitators spoke to her in such a way that she felt like “a normal person… rather than… oh there’s one of the mums who’s been battered or something’s happened in the house and that’s why her kids here”. However, Jackie still
found it difficult to trust facilitators due to experiencing circumstances where trust of her child’s safety had been breached by the DVA perpetrator. However, Jackie was encouraged by the group-based nature of the intervention to trust the facilitators because there was some form of accountability, “it was like safety in numbers”. From Naomi’s perspective as a mother, she was confident that facilitators were not a threat to the children as they had “gone through the right sort of process in being able to be there to
deliver the course”. Cinderella reported that she felt comfortable and physically safe in
the company of the facilitators, “The people just made you feel safe, I would always feel
safe there with them”, as she inherently perceived the facilitators as responsible adults
who could help protect her, “you could tell you were safe with them.”
All parents felt that the ideal facilitator was someone who could draw upon their personal experiences, “somebody ideal for that job, would be somebody that’s been
147
through it all so…they have a better understanding of it and more of an understanding of parents and children” (Jackie). Whilst experiencing such personal circumstances was
not a requirement for being a facilitator, parents viewed those facilitators who shared personal experiences with them as being easier to relate to as they demonstrated having a better understanding of the issues discussed. Parents viewed this as important in contributing to the credibility of what facilitators said to parents during informal conversations or at parent sessions. However, parents perceived facilitators who did not draw upon these personal experiences or did not have them, as “reading from a
textbook” (Elaine) and were subsequently less relatable.
One intervention provider highlighted the importance of facilitators being open minded and responsive to feedback given by children, parents or another facilitator about the delivery of the intervention. Facilitators demonstrated their openness by prompting feedback, “asking the children along the way, okay are we doing it right, are
we doing it fast enough for you, are you bored…getting as much feedback as you can whether it’s from the children or the parents or the co-facilitator” (Zara). Facilitators
reported that it was important to remain open to the possibility of doing things better and
“not being complacent that you’re the best” (Zara).
The children compared their experience of the facilitators as more favourable than their experience of school teachers; teachers seemed to offer the closest comparator as people in authority who were not family members. Cinderella described facilitators as being “nicer than teachers” because of how they engaged and communicated,
“Teachers like nag nag nag. They [facilitators] were a lot nicer so like they were there to help us learn about it but in a different way to what a teacher would”. Furthermore,
Cinderella felt that unlike teachers, facilitators “…actually listen to you” and “….
answer properly back to you”. Kwaii-Chan felt that the facilitators talked to her “properly” as if she was a ‘grown up’. This helped her to engage with the facilitators
more fully. Some facilitators reported that a desirable facilitator was someone who delivered the interventions in a way that contrasted to children’s expectations of teachers
“I think that’s one of things they’re expecting of you, that teacher role. I think someone that’s able to have a laugh and a joke and not react to them as they want to” (Mike).
6.6.2 Subtheme 2: Experience of working with children
Having experience of working with children was also deemed central to the facilitator role. It was viewed by children, parents and intervention providers that facilitators’ experience of working with children equipped them to communicate and
148
engage with children and respond to any communication challenges in light of the
“…development of children and having some awareness of the different abilities of children and the different ways any communication difficulties can be overcome”
(Eleanor). Cinderella reported that this experience would enable facilitators to communicate to children with clarity. Cinderella recalled, “The volcano helped me to
not hold my emotions in… it was basically telling us if we didn’t tell people like how we feel about stuff that’s basically what would happen inside our heads and it will all come out at once like if you’re angry and sad”. She believed that having a strong
understanding about the meaning underpinning a ‘fun’ activity needed to be communicated well by facilitators, and this was critical to ensuring the effectiveness of the activity, “…even though it was fun I still remember the meaning of it… I think that’s
because they explained it as well as when we were going along”. Interestingly, the
facilitators viewed this activity as the least helpful “I think the volcano one was one that
facilitators…didn’t really feel that the children always got the messages and the aims of what that session was trying to do” (Eleanor). Another ‘fun’ activity recalled by
Cinderella was one that she believed was less clearly explained by facilitators with regards to its purpose and she thought it was “…probably one of the activities that I
don’t think really helped…. It didn’t do anything” (Cinderella).
Stakeholders viewed the physical safety of the children as important, but in relation to facilitators successfully managing group dynamics amongst children, “I think
to be a facilitator on any group you have to have some knowledge of group dynamics and managing a group [of children]” (Eleanor). The significance of facilitators’
experience of working with children meant that facilitators would be better equipped to
“manage conflict or behaviour”, in a “safe way” (Joe).