Measuring performance and effectiveness for Mäori ... - Te Puni Kokiri

“In brief there is a prima facie case for
engaging citizens and service users in the
design and development of performance
measures. The more citizens are involved the
more buy-in and the more likely it will be used
and credible” (Ho, 2008). This engagement
may also build the public capital of the
organisation concerned by reducing public
apathy about the public service” (Gill and
Russell, 2011, p.9).
This point is stated in another way by Thomas
(2006, p.66) “performance measurement …
should involve consultation with the key
stakeholders and the public at large, so
that the results of the PMM [Performance
Measurement Management] system have more
legitimacy and support, especially among the
people most directly affected by programs”.
Although silent on specific user groups,
official guidance emphasises the importance
of agencies engaging with stakeholders and/
or significant user groups of services to agree
on the appropriate measures, including direct
measures of quality (Controller and Auditor-
General, 2002, 2009; The Treasury, 2008).
External measures of output quality that focus
on the purchaser or consumers of the output
are a better test of real performance rather
than the standards set and evaluated by the
provider itself (The Treasury, 2008).
The case for engaging Mäori
Kingi (2003) argues that: measures need to
consider what is important or relevant to
the Mäori individuals receiving the service;
and outcomes for Mäori derive from a Mäori
world view. (Durie, Kingi and Graham 2012,
p.42) recently advised “that effectiveness
was in part linked to an agency’s ability to
engage successfully with Mäori……It was
further stressed that engagement must be
meaningful and viewed as an opportunity to
better understand the needs of Mäori and
to ensure that outcomes for Mäori are fully
maximised”. They also emphasise, at page 32,
that “consumer satisfaction measures [are]
based on the simple premise that consumer
needs and preferences should be met. To
improve access to, and use of public services,
Mäori preferences, choices and decisions must
be fully considered”.
Williams (2000) and Kawharu (2001, p.2)
suggest at the very least, any discussion about
outcomes and government effectiveness for
Mäori should allow Mäori to participate in the
decision about what kind of measure is used
Humpage (2002, p.193).
Reporting to Mäori and the wider
public on performance
Both the international literature generally (de
Lancer, 2001; de Bruijn, 2006, p.59; Thomas,
2006, p.63; OECD, 2009), and domestic
literature emphasise the importance of
using performance information to reflect
on performance and improve the service
delivery effectiveness and reporting results
to stakeholders. The 1998 Controller and
Auditor-General guidance required agencies
to provide feedback to Mäori. However, it does
not specify which Mäori.
Durie and Kingi (2010) suggest for reporting to
Mäori at least against Mäori-specific impact
measures, it is important that Mäori clients and
participants receive reported information on
their overall progress, or lack of it.
“If outcome measures are to be useful,
information concerning their use and
application must be made available
to Mäori….[service providers]. Such
information dissemination mechanisms
will necessarily require a broad range of
strategies. The costs associated with this
process, and training in particular, will
also need to be considered” (Durie and
Kingi, 2010, p.32).
11
D E V E L O P I N G A N D R E P O R T I N G A G A I N S T M E A S U R E S O F E F F E C T I V E N E S S F O R M Ä O R I