Family Futures

52 / 210

[ ] 50
A dvancing S ocial I ntegration and I ntergenerational Solidarity
funders had operated within clearly demarcated sectoral
boundaries, and developing programmes where intersec-
toral cohesion was important presented some difficulties.
Although Whānau Ora was to be a whole-of-government
policy, in fact the main contributors came from the minis-
tries of Health, Social Development, Māori Development
and, to a lesser extent, the ministries of Education, Justice
and Housing. Even then, unbundling funding agreements
from different sectors so that providers could operate
within a simplified contractual climate proved to be espe-
cially problematic. Many providers had contracts with
a number of government agencies and often had several
separate contracts with the same agency. Combining all
contracts into a single overarching agreement was the aim.
However, although it was possible to amalgamate contracts,
the resulting ‘single’ contract had a number of schedules
that reflected original agreements.
In addition to integrating government sectors, an inte-
grated approach also required providers to adopt shared aims
and practices so that whānau could experience a coherent
and consistent service rather than one that was fragmented,
duplicated or contradictory. Provider groups located in the
same region were invited to form collectives and then to
tender for Whānau Ora contracts. By the end of the third
year more than 30 collectives had been established, each
comprising a number of independent NGOs that had agreed
to work under the Whānau Ora model. Collaboration was
not a universally rewarding experience and some collectives
(a small number) dissolved or restructured with different
members. But the more common finding was that NGOs
welcomed the opportunity to be part of an integrated
system. The appointment of dedicated whānau ‘navigators’
who worked across providers to broker the best opportuni-
ties for whānau proved to be an additional opportunity for
consolidating the aims of the new collectives.
Combining crisis intervention with capability build-
ing tested both providers and funders. Provider collectives,
largely made up of health and social service workers, were
more accustomed to dealing with family crises. However, the
Whānau Ora approach not only included the resolution of
a critical event for one or more members of the family, but
also building strengths for the whānau as a whole. In order
to address the dual emphasis the Whānau Ora team would
need to include expertise in sport and exercise, Māori cultural
heritage, nutrition, education, health and financial literacy,
estate literacy (especially for whānau with land interests)
and information technology. In effect the focus would shift
towards addressing the determinants of disadvantage and the
prevention of adversity. Phase two of the policy would place
particular emphasis on building capability.
The adoption of results based accountability remains a
key aspect of Whānau Ora. It will necessitate the use of
indicators to determine whether or not interventions have
improved whānau circumstances. Outcome measurements
have not previously been a requirement for government
contracts in social policy areas, but the increasing interest
in social service bonds where ‘payment for results’ under-
pins contracts will align Whānau Ora with other similar
programmes. However, it is not always clear what indica-
tors will be most appropriate. Reducing adversity (such
as offending, rheumatic fever or inadequate housing) is of
particular interest to government agencies; while measur-
ing increases in family achievements (such as educational
success, home ownership or cultural affirmation) is impor-
tant for wh ānau who want to see their aspirations realized.
In addition to measuring gains made by individual wh ānau
members, gains made by the whānau as a whole will need
to be quantified. Collective measures relevant to wh ānau
have not been employed to any great extent and measures of
whānau ‘success’ are even less well formulated than measures
of whānau disadvantage. A framework to address whānau
success has been developed as part of a wider inquiry into
whānau well-being. ‘Te Puawaitanga o Ngā Whānau: Markers
of Flourishing Wh ānau’ identifies six markers of flourish-
ing: wh ānau heritage, whānau wealth, whānau capabilities,
cohesion within wh ānau, connectedness beyond whānau and
whānau resilience. The markers enable the concept of flour-
ishing as applied to whānau to be better understood and used
to measure progress towards wh ānau ‘success’.
Wh ānau Ora is a relatively new government policy, still
in an evolutionary stage. The high-level aims are that all
wh ānau should be self-managing, living healthy lifestyles,
participating fully in society, confidently participating in
Māori networks, economically secure and successfully
involved in wealth creation. They should be cohesive, resil-
ient and nurturing.
While those aims are unlikely to be fully realized in the
short term, they will be more achievable when there is
ongoing government commitment and a significant attitu-
dinal shift from funders, providers and whānau themselves.
Importantly, a switch from focusing only on disadvantage
and wh ānau deficits, to a focus on success and empower-
ment, will be a necessary precondition for realizing the
Whā nau Ora goals. That shift will be premised on the
notion that despite adversity and hardship, all whānau have
the potential to flourish. It will also recognize that empow-
erment requires a capacity for whānau to be self-managing
and self-determining.
Three years after launching the policy, there is sufficient
encouraging evidence to warrant optimism for Wh ānau
Ora. Whānau have been shown to be capable of significant
transformations manifested in the adoption of healthier
lifestyles, a capacity for forward planning and more appro-
priate use of services. Moreover, there has been progress in
inter-sector collaboration at both local and national levels,
and despite the complexities of integrated contracts, social
bonds and appropriate outcome indicators, the limita-
tions of unisectoral initiatives have been well recognized.
Similarly, for the most part, the more than 30 provider
collectives have been able to adapt to new ways of working
and to embrace a wh ānau-centred practice model that
facilitates without undermining wh ānau leadership or initi-
ative. But probably a more important sign of the relevance
of Whā nau Ora is the widespread enthusiasm from whānau
generally for the concept. The policy has been accompanied
by the spontaneous emergence of a range of programmes
in M āori communities where wh ānau success has been
fostered and celebrated.