Māori Provider Organisations
Whānau Ora Action Research
Te Puni Kōkiri, 2010-2012
Te Puni Kōkiri implemented Action Research within the context of the Whānau Ora (Māori family wellness) initiative and Katoa Ltd advised them about this. Action Research was well-placed to increase knowledge about the delivery of Whānau Ora services in a way that was responsive to providers/provider collectives and whānau, as well as informative for funding agencies about how they might best support the aspirations of Whānau Ora providers/provider collectives and whānau.
What works for māori
Department of Corrections, 2012
Evidence from research and evaluation across five major domains (economic development, education, health, whānau and wellness) is used to identify a common set of interventions, initiatives, approaches and practices that increase understanding of what helps Māori succeed or improve outcomes in life.
Te Puni Kōkiri, 2011
Eleven host organisations, their Kaitoko Whānau (navigator), key community support people and agencies, and whānau were interviewed about the implementation of, and outcomes from, the Kaitoko Whānau programme. This evaluation found very strong evidence that the Kaitoko Whānau initiative works. Host organisations and Kaitoko Whānau met expectations and the early outcomes experienced by whānau exceeded expectations.
Building Maori Social Service Provider Capacity
Department of Child, Youth and Family, 2004-08
The Department of Child Youth and Family's (CYF) capacity building initiative – the Iwi Māori Provider Development Fund (IMPDF) – began in 2000 with the release of Māori and Iwi capacity building fund in the government’s budget. The first evaluation of this fund described the implementation of the IMPDF along with preliminary outcomes. A clear finding from this evaluation was that providers wanted more freedom to decide what their capacity needs were and how their capacity was built. In response CYF contracted the development of a capacity self-assessment tool, along with training and coaching support, so that providers could: self-assess their capacity needs, work out a development plan and apply to the IMPDF for funding. CYF also instigated a register of mentors, coaches and supervisors that providers could contract with directly. Two rounds of training in capacity self-assessment have occurred to date (2005 & 2007) and two rounds of IMPDF funding have been distributed to Māori and Iwi providers following on from their capacity self-assessment, formation of development plans and application to the IMPDF. A scoping report, commissioned by Child, Youth and Family, then contributed to an ongoing assessment of CYF’s efforts to build the capacity of Māori and Iwi providers of CYF social services and is a key input into scoping a final evaluation of CYF’s capacity building initiative – the Iwi Māori Provider Development Fund.
Māori and Iwi Provider Success
Te Puni Kōkiri, 2000-2002
Fifty-seven successful Iwi and Māori NGOs were drawn together from five regions throughout Aotearoa: Taitokerau, Tamaki Makaurau, Taranaki, Tairawhiti and Te Waipounamu. In each region at least two NGOs were identified from each of six sectors (housing, employment and training, health, social services, justice, education). Providers were asked to share their organisational stories and to talk about their aspirations and work. The determinants of their success were then analysed.Pihama, L., Cram, F. & Walker, S. (2002). Creating methodological space: A literature review of Kaupapa Māori research. Canadian Journal of Native Education, 26, 30-43.Pipi, K., Cram, F., Hawke, R., Hawke, S., Huriwai, TeM., Keefe, V., Mataki, T., Milne, M., Morgan, K., Small, K., Tuhaka, H. & Tuuta, C. (2002). Māori and iwi provider success: A Research report of interviews with successful iwi and Māori providers and government agencies. Wellington: Te Puni Kōkiri.Pipi, K., Cram, F., Hawke, R., Hawke, S., Huriwai, TeM., Mataki, T., Milne, M., Morgan, K., Tuhaka, H. & Tuuta, T. (2004). A research ethic for studying Māori and iwi provider success. Journal of Social Policy, 23, 141-153.