Measuring performance and effectiveness for MÃƒÂ¤ori ... - Te Puni Kokiri

More documents

Recommendations

Info

22 including their capacity to perform those tasks expected of whänau (Durie and Kingi, 2010); and the status of whänau by assessing their capacities to perform those tasks expected of whänau (Durie, 2003c). Key characteristics of whänau relationships are: collective identity, interdependence, mutuality, reciprocity and shared responsibility within a Mäori context. Whänau is more than the socio-economic status of individual members. A whänau’s strengths or weaknesses cannot be fully measured by adding together the sum total of indicators based on the circumstances of its individual members. Durie et al. (2012, p.39) suggest Mäori-specific wellbeing measures (whänau or otherwise) are likely to have maximum utility if they are able to be applied across a range of agencies, sectors, and organisations, regardless of the size or operational design. 4.5 STRENGTH-BASED MEASURES OF ADVANCEMENT IN CONTEMPORARY TE AO MÄORI A measure of Mäori wellbeing and other Mäori specific measures should emphasise progressive advancement rather than the management of adversity. Several Mäori authors see this as relevant to aspirations towards self-determination. O’Sullivan (2006, p.7) asserts that “Mäori perceive development as development as Mäori, not advancement by assimilation”. In other words, development for Mäori “includes their desire to take charge of their own development [as Mäori, not just as citizens]; an ongoing interest in selfdetermination, autonomy, and involvement in policies and programmes that affect them” (Ringold, 2005, p.8). Mäori have their own perception of their world and how it should evolve. Durie (2003a, p.312) points out that under the Mäori-specific approach the aim is to assess outcomes for Mäori against contemporary norms common amongst Mäori, not to compare Mäori with any other ethnic population group or collective of groups. Care is needed to ensure the measures reflect the diverse cultural realities of Mäori and are not shaped by views which are outdated, too constrained, or out of alignment with the contemporary environment (Durie and Kingi, 2012, p.40). Integrated approach Models of Mäori development and social advancement have all stressed the need for an integrated approach to Te Ao Mäori outcome states. “A deficit in any of the domains would constitute an unhealthy position (for Mäori at least) and irrespective of how favourable the other outcome domains are. To this end, Mäori measures of effectiveness are likely to be mutually reliant – that is a positive outcome might only be achieved when all constructs show positive gains” (Durie et al., 2012, p.41). Agencies need to do more to: recognise Mäori potential and capacity and strengths, particularly within the community; and use that information to address Mäori concerns (Durie et al., 2012, p.42). Durie et al. (2012, p.50) argue that agencies should explore the “opportunities to exploit the positive aspects of Mäori society, Mäori endeavour, Mäori culture or Mäori success…” Their work and Hua Oranga also suggests that agencies with a provider arm might be best placed to trail such measures. T E P U N I K Ö K I R I M E A S U R I N G P E R F O R M A N C E A N D E F F E C T I V E N E S S F O R M Ä O R I : K E Y T H E M E S F R O M T H E L I T E R A T U R E
4.6 MEASURES FOR MÄORI AS PART OF A MEASUREMENT FRAMEWORK Mäori outcomes require multiple dimensions and indicators/measures of performance reflecting the holistic nature and concepts of Mäori wellbeing. Mäori-specific or cultural measures might best be employed as part of a framework to measure improvement in Mäori outcomes. The framework should capture wellbeing for the individual and Mäori groups, such as whänau (as discussed above), and the Mäori population as a whole. Ideally the framework would capture indicators and measures of advancement for other significant Mäori groups such as hapu and iwi. Developing and trialling a framework In building such a framework, Durie and Kingi (2010, p.31) suggest practitioners need to start from an analysis of what the literature says are important outcomes or impacts from an intervention for, and according to, Mäori clients. As with mainstream universal and comparative measures, such a framework of Mäori-specific measures would need to be trialled prior to implementation. Importantly, this would help to refine the outcome or impact dimensions that are important to Mäori clients and the key aspects of whänau advancement to be captured. Durie et al. (2012, p.41) also point out that either new data collection mechanisms will be needed or the reinterpretation or analysis of existing information will be required. 4.7 TE HOE NUKU ROA AND HUA ORANGA FRAMEWORKS The literature review found a limited number of Mäori-measurement framework examples in the public domain. Significant frameworks were Te Hoe Nuku Roa and Hua Oranga, the groundbreaking indigenous health measurement framework in the health sector. The Hua Oranga framework has impact measures which capture Mäori customer cultural enhancement (or not) during, and at the end of an intervention (Durie and Kingi, 2010). Te Hoe Nuku Roa was developed from a longitudinal Massey University study involving 550 households and is in use in the health and housing sectors. It is a study built on a relational framework made up of four interacting axes: paihere tangata (human relationships); Te Ao Mäori (Mäori culture and identity); ngä ähuatanga noho-ä-tangata (social-economic circumstances); and ngä whakanekeneke (change over time). Each axis forms a pütake (root), from which subsets, ngä peka (branches), take form, resulting in ngä rau (leaves), the areas of inquiry that will provide essential information both to quantify and qualify ngä peka and ngä pütake. The benefit of this framework is one axis can be linked with items on the other. This provides for the creation of a more complete profile of Mäori than has been possible in the past. Most descriptions of Mäori have suffered from cross-sectional limitations and a single sectoral interest (Te Pümanawa Hauora Research Centre for Mäori Health and Development, undated). 7 23 7 In 2009 the study applied the Healthy Housing Index to 80 homes in the Nelson/Marlborough region, gathering information on the structure and conditions of various homes. M Ä O R I - S P E C I F I C M E A S U R E S A N D T H E I R C H A R A C T E R I S T I C S : T H E L E S S O N S F R O M L I T E R A T U R E O N M Ä O R I W E L L B E I N G
Page 1 and 2: MÄTAURANGA KNOWLEDGE Ka möhio, ka
Page 3 and 4: C O N T E N T S 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Page 5 and 6: (Gill and Russell, 2011, p.8). As D
Page 7 and 8: PART 1 : INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE T
Page 9 and 10: Table One - examples of performance
Page 11 and 12: 2.2 NO ONE-SIZE-FITS-ALL - PERFORMA
Page 13 and 14: “In brief there is a prima facie
Page 15 and 16: PART 3 : COMPARATIVE MEASURES - GOO
Page 17 and 18: 3.3 CAPTURING VARIATION WITHIN MÄO
Page 19 and 20: quantified in the annual Social rep
Page 21 and 22: Raising performance between sites/o
Page 23: New Zealand (2002) explains that hi
Page 27 and 28: PART 5: KEY IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES F
Page 29 and 30: 5.4 THE NEED FOR FORETHOUGHT Much o
Page 31 and 32: GLOSSARY Aspirational goals Expecte
Page 33 and 34: A P P E N D I C E S
Page 35 and 36: The “Mäori Perspective” Report
Page 37 and 38: Illustrative examples of Hua Oranga
Page 39 and 40: Table Six - Measures for employment
Page 41 and 42: Donnell, A., and Social Programme E
Page 43 and 44: Kukutai, T. (2004) ‘The Problem o
Page 45 and 46: State Service Commission (2003a) Pu
Page 48: Te Puni Kökiri, Te Puni Kökiri Ho

Measuring performance and effectiveness for MÃƒÂ¤ori ... - Te Puni Kokiri

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?