The document discusses the development of an accreditation system for autism spectrum disorder (ASD) training and trainers in Scotland. It describes a multi-phase consultation process to develop national training standards and an accreditation framework. Key areas investigated through consultation included the need for accreditation, the accreditation process and components, and how training should be evaluated. Feedback from consultation events helped identify themes and issues to inform the final accreditation system design.

1. Accreditation System for Training & Trainers in ASD: a work in progress Anna Robinson [email_address] Charlene Tait [email_address]

2. Background to Project Funded for 2 years by Scottish Government: Why SSA & NCAS? National training framework Development of ASD awards - PDA in SVQ framework Range of training on offer delivered by a range of providers

3. National training framework

5. Phase 1: Consultation & development of standards Phase 2: Pilot groups “test out” standards Phase 3: Translation of the levels; rework standards, indicators & evidence Phase 4: Development of portfolio pathways & CPD; ATAS “goes live” Phases of the Project

6. Why Accreditation? Our Hypothesis Proposal stage: Security – for purchasers, providers, consumers The potential impact on individuals with ASD-in terms of improved standards in service delivery “ Standardisation” – in terms of quality Contributes to a common body of knowledge across a range of practitioners involved with people with ASD Complimentary to and supportive of other forms of regulation

7. Key Strands Accreditation of training providers – courses, materials etc Accreditation of trainers Accreditation of training/CPD portfolios

8. Pre-consultation thinking Perceived Issues: Cost Process Content Independence - accrediting body

9. The Consultation Process Why Consultation? 6 consultation events – 88 participants Consultation by invitation On line consultation questionnaire Feedback informing development of accreditation system

10. Focused Consultation Key areas investigated: Need for accreditation Process of accreditation – rigour What should be evaluated? – components How should training be evaluated?

11. Consultation Event Methods: Presentation – baseline of information Small group discussion – scribe Tasks related to key areas

12. Consultation Outcomes Explored the findings: Feedback reviewed Key themes identified “ Rogue” issues emerged

13. Consultation Themes Perspectives Quality assurance & Positive impact (12) Costs (11) Independent & who’s accrediting? (8) Duplication (5) Parent professional difference (2) Professionalism / exclusivity (2) / Why specialism (1)

14. The System: content system’s remit (7) ethical practice (4) robust (3) Training levels (3) structure ongoing (reaccreditation) process (10) Direct observation & assessment (9) Trainers profile level (4) A “merging” system (2) Registration (2) Consultation Themes

15. The System: other issues Visual branding (2) / Quality assurance (3) intrinsic motivators (3) Possible support process (3) who’s monitoring & Lead role? (6) Consultation Themes

16. Consultation Themes The Standards Supporting evidence (11) Trainers credentials & profile level (10) Theory to practice (7) Accessibility (5) ASD specialism (4) Practice guidelines (3) / Training resource transferability Multi-agency / collaborative (1)

17. “ Rogue Issues” higher management commitment Why bother? Assessment of charities Geographical reach

18. Additional thoughts Experiential involvement of people with an ASD & ethical practice (6)

19. Interested Parties

20. Training Providers Training Purchasers

21. Post-consultation thinking Training & service user community receptive to the concept Confirmation of issues and concerns- consistency of feedback across all 5 groups Additional areas for final system identified Initial components of project design affirmed Standards easily identified- specific indicators more challenging

22. Next Steps Pilot groups testing model Development of all key strands Research efficacy / impact of accredited training to test initial hypothesis