72 Chapter 3 Evaluation of the role of the MCD facilitator In the single-MCD-evaluation forms, participants valued the quality of the facilitators relatively highly (Table 2). Item 3.1 shows facilitators were more critical toward their performances, yet still positive. Table 2 shows how participants experienced the support of the facilitators in speaking up and their stimulation to reflect on values and norms. The evaluation in the survey-after-the-series shows how participants (n=151) valued the role of the facilitator as positive (64,9%), neutral (27,2%), or negative (8%). Three of the 16 participating teams scored 1 of their facilitators with below-average grades. The interviews and steering committee meetings reported a lack of a positive fit between those facilitators and teams; hence, some changes were made. Participants mentioned the importance of having a competent facilitator and feeling well-connected with them. Some participants said it would help if facilitators had more knowledge about the prison context and work culture since most facilitators had no prior experience at DCIA. Others mentioned the positive side of an external facilitator: their objective and neutral stance toward case content. Table 2. Evaluation scores, the MCD facilitators, rounded averages, a 5- or 10-point scale by MCD participants by MCD facilitators How do you rate the quality of the MCDfacilitator? How do you rate your own role as facilitator? 7.9 /10 7.5 /10 The facilitator stimulated reflection on values and norms 4.2 /5 - The facilitator made me feel comfortable speaking freely 4.3 /5 - Evaluation of the used MCD conversation method After single MCD sessions, participants were asked, ‘How do you rate the conversation method used for this meeting?’. This item showed a mean score of 7.5 out of 10. Participants mostly appreciated these steps of the dilemma method: identifying damages of the possible actions in a dilemma, schematic representation of perspectives of the various stakeholders in the case, brainstorming about alternative actions, and translating conclusions into actions and agreements. Based on the need for a more practical approach, a few participants mentioned a preference for peer supervision instead of MCD. Many participants said there is a need for more time dedicated to the last part of MCD, the final steps in which concrete suggestions and action are made for a follow-up.