Success frameworks for Place-Based Initiatives; Design and (PDF)

Success frameworks for Place-Based Initiatives: Design and toolkit Prepared for: Social Wellbeing Agency Toi Hau Tāngata 23 December 2020 ISBN 978-0-473-56150-5  2 Contents CONTEXT Report purpose 3 Background to the success frameworks 4 Designing the success frameworks 6 Te Tiriti o Waitangi is the foundation 9 SUCCESS FRAMEWORKS SASWB success framework (maturity-based) 11 Manaaki Tairāwhiti success framework 19 NEXT STEPS Future directions 26 SUPPORTING EVIDENCE and TOOLS Bibliography 27 Appendices 32 Acknowledgements Nāu te rourou, nāku te rourou, ka ora ai te iwi With your food basket and my food basket, the people will thrive We developed the success frameworks collaboratively. We acknowledge the wisdom and guidance from Leslynne Jackson, Manaaki Tairāwhiti, Suzanne Corcoran, Seema Kotecha and Ann Wilkie from the South Auckland Social Wellbeing Board (SASWB), Dr Charles Sullivan from the Social Wellbeing Agency (SWA), and Sam Hoben from the Ministry of Social Development (MSD). We thank Dr Penny Hagen for sharing her insights from The Southern Initiative. We acknowledge the contribution of our team members Dr Lanuola Asiasiga, Maria Marama, Glenis Hiria Philip-Barbara, and Rachael Lamb-Yorski. Please contact Liz Smith, Litmus partner, on [email protected] with any questions about this document.  3 Report purpose The purpose of this report is to present the success frameworks for Manaaki Tairāwhiti and the South Auckland Social Wellbeing Board (SASWB). The success frameworks provide insight into the role and value of two Place-Based Initiatives (PBIs) as localised and whānau- centred adaptive approaches to address complex issues. The report contains the context and design process for the two success frameworks, and case study templates for Manaaki Tairāwhiti and the SASWB. The draft case study templates and the success frameworks were tested and refined through developing prototype case studies. The case study approach adopted trials a pragmatic way of demonstrating the PBIs progress in contributing to social sector system change and sharing learnings to enable broader system improvements. We detail the intended use of the success frameworks and their review process. The appendices contain information that may be useful for other Place-Based Initiatives (PBIs) and similar approaches, including a theory of change, key literature insights, and tools for assessing collective action and whānau outcomes. The success frameworks are living documents. They will continue to evolve over time as both Manaaki Tairawhiti and SASWB adapt to meet the needs of their people and place. Note: The Manaaki Tairāwhiti Governance Group has not formally agreed to their framework at December 2020. The Manaaki Tairāwhiti framework will continue to evolve based on their feedback.  4 Background to the success frameworks In 2016, Cabinet agreed to fund Manaaki Tairāwhiti and SASWB Many types of Place-Based Initiatives (PBIs) and approaches exist. The purpose of Manaaki Tairāwhiti and SASWB was to improve outcomes for at-risk children and their whānau by shifting collective decision-making and discretion to the local level. Funding the Place-Based Initiatives (PBIs) responded to the Productivity Commission’s report, More Effective Social Services. The report found the social service system to be ‘bureaucratic, inflexible, wasteful, and unable to learn from experience’ (Productivity Commission, 2015). Funding the PBIs was intended to (Cabinet Social Policy Committee, 2016, Cabinet Social Wellbeing Committee 2018a, and 2018b): ▪ give local social sector leaders (through the local PBIs) flexibility and support to collectively tailor services to what works in their communities ▪ move decision-making to local social sector leaders ▪ better integrate services across government, iwi, and other agencies to minimise duplication. Since 2016, these PBI models have evolved Since 2016, Manaaki Tairāwhiti and SASWB have adapted to local conditions and the changing articulation of government priorities. In 2019, the Litmus evaluation described their structures and visions as follows: ▪ Manaaki Tairāwhiti is an iwi-led PBI with members from 13 government agencies and non-government organisations (NGOs). Iwi leadership, through the independent co- chairs of its governance group, has instrumentally progressed the vision of Manaaki Tairāwhiti: Mā te mahi tahi e tipu matomato ai ngā whānau o te Tairāwhiti. United leadership that enables all whānau to flourish in Tairāwhiti. Whānau flourishing (community vision) ▪ SASWB is a government agency-led PBI with 13 government agency/local government members and an independent non-government chair. The vision of SASWB is: All children in Māngere (and South Auckland) are healthy, learning, nurtured, and connected to their communities and culture, and building a positive foundation for their future. I want my children to have an awesome life (whānau vision) A national support function, based in the Ministry of Social Development (MSD), supports the PBIs.  5 Manaaki Tairāwhiti and SASWB are based on a whānau-centred way of working and system change Both PBIs use a test, learn, and adapt approach to develop cross-agency ways of working to meet the needs of whānau with complex inter-generational needs. Through trialling whānau- centred, cross-agency ways of working, they are identifying system changes to improve outcomes for wider whānau. The theory of change, in Appendix 1, demonstrates the complexity of this type of PBI working across local, regional, and national tiers. The PBIs are grounded on a shared vision and a collective whānau-centred way of working based on effective cross-agency governance and operational structures. The local and national backbone structure is critical for the ongoing development and sharing of evidence-based insights across the tiers. Central government has a vital role in enabling the PBIs through devolved decision-making, sustained funding, and drawing on learnings for wider system change to benefit whānau. The 2019 evaluation demonstrated the value of the PBIs The evaluation found the PBIs, over the last four years (2016-2019), have developed new, cross-sector ways of working to meet the needs of whānau with complex multi-generational needs. Through the test, learn, and adapt process, the PBIs have contributed to positive whānau outcomes. They have also influenced system change at local and regional levels and have sought to influence changes in national-level social sector systems (Litmus, 2019). The evaluation also identified areas for strengthening the PBIs Underpinning the success framework are two areas for strengthening the PBIs. Firstly, no agreed success framework exists to demonstrate the ongoing value of the PBIs. In 2019, substantial investigative work found quantifying PBIs’ impact on whānau wellbeing outcomes using both traditional and innovative methods was not feasible, at that time. Quantifying outcomes was not possible due to the nature of the PBIs and technical issues affecting the feasibility of impact estimates for whānau. The second area is improving central government agencies’ awareness of the value of the PBIs in enabling cross-sector collaboration to improve social systems that better support whānau with complex inter-generational needs. Currently, no formal mechanisms exist for the PBIs to share their insights and enable system change at a national level. In 2020, Litmus was commissioned to develop a success framework using qualitative, collective impact approaches. The overarching purpose of the success framework is to demonstrate the value of Manaaki Tairāwhiti and SASWB to their communities, MSD, and other central government agencies, and create shared learning opportunities.  6 Designing the success frameworks We summarise below the framework design process to illustrate the collaboration with SASWB and Manaaki Tairāwhiti, MSD and SWA, and the iterative prototyping and refinement of the frameworks. The success frameworks reflect the ongoing evolution of the PBIs. We commenced the design process in February 2020. We paused the development of the success frameworks during the Covid-19 lockdown period as Manaaki Tairāwhiti and SASWB worked to minimise the effect of the lockdown on whānau. We began with a hui to determine purpose and use We held hui with SASWB and Manaaki Tairāwhiti, MSD, and SWA to agree the purpose and use of the success framework. We debated the value of having a common success framework covering both PBIs versus unique frameworks for each. Having a common framework was viewed as a way for the PBIs and central government to evaluate their progress collectively and share learnings. This initial consideration reflected commonalities in their underlying theory of change (e.g., working collectively, being whānau-centred, focusing on system change). However, a common framework would dilute the different origins, in particular, Manaaki Tairāwhiti being iwi-led and differing geographical and population needs. We agreed to develop two frameworks to reflect the uniqueness of each PBI. Some commonalities are reflected across the PBI success frameworks. We used the following principles to guide the design We agreed on principles to guide the development and use of the success frameworks. The success framework will be: ▪ based on Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and recognise the Crown and iwi partnership ▪ centred on the uniqueness of each PBI and also the commonalities across the PBIs ▪ flexible and adaptive to the changing dynamic of the PBIs ▪ focused on the local, regional, and national system levels ▪ fostering shared learnings to support decision-making and action ▪ fit-for-purpose and not place unneeded demand or resource requirements on the PBIs. We completed a brief review of national and international literature At the first hui, we agreed the success framework would demonstrate success for the PBIs across three macro-level areas: ▪ the strength of and adaptation of the collective way of working  7 ▪ the contribution to social sector systems change at local and regional levels and sharing system learnings at a national level ▪ positive outcomes or change for whānau involved in PBI system change processes. We focused the literature review across these three areas and reviewed the international literature on success criteria for PBIs. In summary, we found: ▪ No off-the-shelf model or one ‘right way’ exists and the importance of working collaboratively to develop the framework (Clear Horizon et al., 2018) ▪ Measurement frameworks can be restrictive and resource-intensive (Cabaj and Weaver, 2016) ▪ The importance of tools to support reflective learning to support PBIs’ vision (Cabaj and Weaver, 2016; Lankelly Chase, 2017; Ferris and Hopkins, 2015). Highlights from the literature are in Appendix 2, and references are in the bibliography. We engaged with The Southern Initiative The Southern Initiative is a place-based programme set up by Auckland City Council in 2012. This PBI uses co-design principles to take an integrated approach to social and economic development in South Auckland. We reviewed and took into consideration their approach to assess success. We developed a prototype success framework Drawing across the work above, we developed a single prototype success framework and tools to work across both PBIs. We held separate hui and had several meetings with Manaaki Tairāwhiti and SASWB to discuss their feedback on the prototype. Feedback on the prototype indicated the preference for: ▪ strengthening the focus on Te Tiriti o Waitangi ▪ having tailored success frameworks for each PBI to reflect the differing origins, leadership, and approaches to system improvement ▪ strengthening the links to the PBIs’ strategic direction ▪ simplifying the approach and drawing only on existing evidence and insights ▪ increasing the focus on the role of central government agencies to enable PBI success and use the PBI learnings to inform wider social sector system change. We developed two success frameworks and tested them Based on the feedback, we developed two success frameworks: a generic ‘maturity-based’ success framework for PBIs for use by SASWB (and similar initiatives), and a tailored framework for Manaaki Tairāwhiti.  8 We tested and refined the frameworks following a collective hui with the PBIs, MSD, SWA, and the Litmus team. We further refined frameworks through developing a prototype case study for each PBI. We then developed case study templates for use by the PBIs going forward (in Appendix 4 and 5). We held a closing hui to agree the shared learning approach We agreed the success frameworks are working drafts, and will evolve over time. MSD and the PBIs will use the case studies to encourage discussion of PBI insights at a central government level and to highlight barriers to system improvement at this level. The shared learning approach (at national and regional levels) is in Future Directions (page 26).  9 Te Tiriti o Waitangi is the foundation Te Tiriti o Waitangi (the Treaty of Waitangi; Te Tiriti) is the founding document of Aotearoa New Zealand. Te Tiriti is an agreement between two signatories – the Crown (tangata Tiriti) and Māori (tangata whenua). Te Tiriti defines the Crown and Māori relationship of the PBIs Manaaki Tairāwhiti is an iwi-led PBI Selwyn Parata, Chair of Te Rūnanganui o Ngāti Porou, instigated Manaaki Tairāwhiti. Iwi leadership continues through the independent co-chairs from Te Rūnanganui o Ngāti Porou and Te Rūnanganui o Tūranga-nui-a-Kiwa. Iwi leadership enables a power shift to a locally determined vision and delivery by the community. SASWB are working on strengthening their inclusion of Māori and iwi In 2019, the Strategic Māori Advisory Group, consisting of strategic Māori advisors from each agency, was established. Over the next two years, the Strategic Māori Advisory Group will work to progress iwi and Māori participation and leadership across the SASWB. The Strategic Māori Advisory Group is connecting with mana whenua, te rōpū whai, and Papakura Marae. Te Puni Kōkiri is supporting the SASWB Implementation Office team in this mahi. Te Tiriti o Waitangi is the foundation of both success frameworks Using Te Tiriti as the foundation of the success frameworks: ▪ recognises pre-existing Māori rights and the relationship with the Crown (including government agencies and local government). The Crown’s responsibility to Te Tiriti is to protect existing and long-held Māori interests, to confer the rights of equal citizenship on Māori, including the right to equity of outcomes ▪ sets out a framework for a relationship between two peoples, recognising and respecting their mana and tapu, while considering how they might co-exist in one place staying true to their respective cultures, needs, and societal norms ▪ offers a useful means to check the health of relationships at all levels of PBIs, exploring power dynamics, cultural safety, the recognition of mana and tapu, and the extent societal issues affecting groups have been mitigated to achieve equity of outcomes.  10 Table 1: The articles of Te Tiriti in Te Reo Māori and a high-level overview of what giving effect to the articles means for the PBIs1 Article 1 – Kāwanatanga Ko nga Rangatira o te Wakaminenga me nga Rangatira katoa hoki ki hai i uru ki taua wakaminenga ka tuku rawa atu ki te Kuini o Ingarani ake tonu atu-te Kawanatanga katoa o o ratou wenua. Goal for PBI: Governance and management reflects a modern and inclusive approach Māori leaders and Māori are influential in decision- making positions at all levels. Māori input is supported at all levels of the PBI, including decision-making, prioritising, purchasing, planning, policy, implementing, and evaluating services. Article 2 – Tino rangatiratanga Ko te Kuini o Ingarani ka wakarite ka wakaae ki nga Rangatira ki nga hapu-ki nga tangata katoa o Nu Tirani te tino rangatiratanga o o ratou wenua o ratou kainga me o ratou taonga katoa. Otiia ko nga Rangatira o te Wakaminenga me nga Rangatira katoa atu ka tuku ki te Kuini te hokonga o era wahi wenua e pai ai te tangata nona te Wenua-ki te ritenga o te utu e wakaritea ai e ratou ko te kai hoko e meatia nei e te Kuini hei kai hoko mona. Goal for PBI: Māori have self-determination PBIs are working in partnership with Māori providers and promoting and championing their work. PBIs are creating and resourcing opportunities for Māori to exercise tino rangatiratanga, control, authority, and responsibility over Māori wellbeing. PBIs are creating kaupapa Māori solutions, and ensuring Māori are not disadvantaged by their choices. For some, this will mean the development of ‘by Māori, for Māori as Māori’ initiatives, opportunities, and the restoration of iwi self- management. Article 3 – Oritetanga Hei wakaritenga mai hoki tenei mo te wakaaetanga ki te Kawanatanga o te Kuini-Ka tiakina e te Kuini o Ingarani nga tangata maori katoa o Nu Tirani ka tukua ki a ratou nga tikanga katoa rite tahi ki ana mea ki nga tangata o Ingarani. Goal for PBI: Equitable outcomes for Māori This goal is to reduce disparities that exist between Māori and non-Māori by addressing current systems and policy settings that maintain them. PBIs are ensuring Māori are equitably represented. For example, recruitment processes reflect and value cultural competencies and active retention and recruitment of Māori staff. Ritenga Māori declaration – Wairuatanga2 E mea ana te Kawana ko ngā whakapono katoa o Ingarani, o ngā Wetereiana, o Roma me te ritenga Māori hoki e tiakina ngatahitia e ia. Goal for PBI: Respectful engagement that recognises Māori values This goal is focused on the extent to which engagement with Māori is informed by respect for and knowledge of Māori spiritual dimensions of wellbeing. Evidence of an investment of time and/or money that ensures cultural/spiritual practices are accorded proper respect, attention, and are Māori led. We used this framing to create questions for the PBIs and their central government partners when reflecting on the PBIs’ progress and success. 1 We acknowledge the guidance of Maria Marama, Glenis Hiria Philip-Barbara, and Katrina Taupo, Te Puni Kōkiri in developing the table. 2 The Ritenga Māori declaration is often referred to as the ‘fourth article’ or the ‘verbal article’ and reflects the right to freedom of religion and beliefs. For further information see: https://www.health.govt.nz/system/files/documents/pages/whakamaua-tiriti-o- waitangi-framework-a3-aug20.pdf; https://www.hrc.co.nz/files/4914/5497/4522/Waitangi_Poster_2016a.pdf; https://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/populations/maori-health/te-tiriti-o-waitangi  11 SASWB success framework (maturity- based) Rationale for a maturity-based success framework Working collaboratively with SASWB, we developed a maturity-based success framework. A maturity-based success framework demonstrates the phases of development for an initiative or programme. The maturity-based framework is intended to be used by the SASWB and other similar initiatives (i.e., government agency-led PBIs with multiple government agency members, a government agency champion, and an independent non-government chair). Developing a maturity-based success framework recognises: ▪ The mechanism of change in this type of PBI is cross-sector collaboration and collective action, which takes time to realise the desired benefits (Wilks et al., 2015; Crimeen et al., 2017). Using a maturity framework demonstrates the progression of the PBIs, focused first on getting the foundational structures in place to facilitate collaboration and collective action to create system change for positive whānau outcomes. ▪ The strategic direction and actions for the PBI, together with their performance measures, are developed and adapted locally to reflect people and place. The SASWB have recently completed their five-year Strategy (2020 – 2025) and two-year Action Plan. The maturity-based framework does not set the strategic direction of the PBI. The framework focuses on the value and contribution of the PBI at a macro-level. ▪ Externally imposed measurement or performance frameworks can constrain the dynamic and adaptive nature of the PBIs through restrictive measures of success (Cabaj and Weaver, 2016). The maturity-based framework offers flexibility and enables insights into PBI establishment and maintenance of collective and adaptive ways of working to enable system improvement and improved outcomes for whānau. ▪ PBIs have a depth of evidence and insights, reports, and processes on which to draw on. The maturity-based success framework draws on this evidence base and minimises additional data collection for the PBI beyond a reporting function. ▪ Using a maturity-based success framework enables a shared learning approach regionally and nationally through sharing the progress and success story of the PBIs. The insights from the PBIs can influence policy direction at the national level, if mechanisms exist to inform relevant central government agencies.  12 Purpose of the SASWB success framework The PBI maturity-based success framework has the following objectives, to: ▪ guide the establishment of new PBIs or similar approaches in other regions ▪ manage central government funders’ expectations on the ongoing development of PBIs from their establishment to maturity ▪ inform funders on the value and merit of PBIs or similar approaches over the long-term ▪ facilitate a shared learning process with central government agencies and the Social Wellbeing Board to adopt the learnings from the PBIs to improve social sector systems. The maturity-based success framework Figures 1 and 2 below are the maturity-based success framework. Figure 1 is an overview of the framework. The figure is read from left to right; that is, flowing from establishment, test and learn, collective actions to collective outcomes stages. The framework covers four tiers of the PBI: ▪ The Te Tiriti maturity framing draws on the work of Te Arawhiti/The Office for Māori Crown Relations on building closer partnerships with Māori. In particular, our stages in this tier reflect three areas of engagement central to the Te Arawhiti work (collaborate, co-design, empower).3 ▪ Central government (CG) including Ministers, the Social Wellbeing Board, and agencies. This focuses on the devolution of decision-making and on using learnings from the PBIs to strengthen social sector processes. This tier acknowledges that central government has a key role in enabling the PBIs, and central goverment agencies can through their funding and decision-making processes inhibit PBIs collective action and system change contribution. As noted in our main evaluation of PBIs, central government agencies need to become more fluent in holding the tensions that arise from devolved decision-making (Litmus, 2019). - We have referred to this tier as the ‘national’ level. To fully embrace systems change, funders must be prepared to see how their own ways of thinking and acting must change as well. (Kania, 2018 p5). ▪ PBI maturity reflects the structures, processes, people, resources, and time needed to develop the foundations of a shared vision and collective action to create sustained positive whānau outcomes based on system change. 3 https://tearawhiti.govt.nz/assets/Tools-and-Resources/Building-closer-partnerships-with-Maori-Principles.pdf  13 - We have referred to this tier as the ‘regional’ level. Systems change is about shifting the conditions that are holding the problem in place (Kania, 2018 p3). ▪ Whānau represent the heart of the PBIs and the transformation of processes, from responding to a one-off individual or whānau needs and aspirations to whānau self- determining solutions for themselves and their communities. - We have referred to the community as the ‘whānau’ level. Figure 2, based on the high-level framework, presents criteria demonstrating progression for each of the tiers. The criteria focus on the ways of working across the range of stakeholders (collective action based on a whānau-centred approach), and the contribution of the PBIs to creating sustained system change to effect positive whānau outcomes. Figure 2 also presents some key conditions needed to set up a PBI in the Pre-establishment criteria.  14 Figure 1: Overview of the maturity-based success framework across the PBI tiers  15 Figure 2: Criteria demonstrating progression in the maturity-based success framework across the tiers Tiers Pre-establishment Establishment Test and learn Collective action Collective outcomes Māori- Crown Recognition siloed agency approach to address complex needs is not working The Crown and Māori work together to determine the issues/problems and develop solutions together that are reflected in proposals. Each party retains its own decision-making ability. The Crown and Māori partner to determine the issue/problem, design the process, and develop solutions. The Crown and Māori make joint decisions. Māori decide and the Crown assists in implementing the decision made by Māori. National Recognition siloed agency approach to address complex needs is not working PBI placed in area with persistent social and economic challenges Mandate from Cabinet to create a PBI with local decision-making rights Funding is allocated to create and enable the PBI structure Central government provides ongoing funding to support the work of the PBIs Lead agency supports PBIs’ flexibility and manages lightly, recognising the time needed to develop structures and test and learn Lead agency creates pathway for PBIs to share local insights and identify new opportunities for the work of the PBI (e.g., Joint Venture) Lead agency uses learnings from PBIs to change social sector process, policies, and procedures at a national level Regional A readiness to work differently amongst local leaders Evidence of attempts to work collectively Regional cross-agency leaders establish formal PBI structures (e.g., governance, mgmt., backbone function) Local leaders (e.g., PBI Board Chair) know the local area and the people and are committed for the long-term Local evidence is used to refine the collective vision Local organisations involved in the PBI develop local protocols for consent and data sharing PBI has an effective tiered structure of governance, management, and operations based on relationships, trust, and a shared vision Local leaders hold PBIs accountable to the community PBI members develop a growth mindset, are open and flexible in their approach, and willing to trial new ways of working Local evidence is used to develop collaborative initiatives based on a whanau-centred way of working Agencies and organisations on the PBI governance group seek to influence their organisations to improve systems and processes based on PBI evidence PBIs are testing whanau-centred way of working/ initiatives and building frontline provider capabilities Local evidence is used to assess initiatives and refine the way of working PBIs widen interactions with other inter- sectoral agencies to address whānau aspirations (e.g., economic agencies) PBI has created and maintained effective processes for cross- agency collective action Local system change has resulted in positive outcomes for whānau PBIs are influencing national level policy and practice and new opportunities are emerging to effect wider system change Whānau Whānau are disempowered by social sector agencies and needs are not met Research with whānau identifies needs, aspirations, and priorities Whānau have a voice in what is working and not working in the services they receive Whānau are partners in the co-design services Whānau determine solutions for their communities Positive outcomes for whānau