Whānau and family connections are important for all tamariki and rangatahi. Those tamariki and rangatahi living outside of their homes are particularly vulnerable to a disconnection from who they are, and where they are from. Developing and nurturing wider whānau relationships can support deeper, meaningful connections to Māori whakapapa and cultural identity, preserving this knowledge for future posterity.
Under the , Oranga Tamariki has a responsibility to ensure that connections for all tamariki and rangatahi and whānau are honoured, and that tamariki and rangatahi in care can build and maintain these relationships.
Over the past three years, we heard from Oranga Tamariki that they are placing greater emphasis on connecting all and with their and families, and the importance of a cultural approach as the first step to building this connectedness. Connectedness is important for establishing and maintaining a sense of belonging, which in turn is a protective factor that strengthens people’s resilience.1 We’ve seen some progress towards this within Oranga Tamariki, particularly about recording contact arrangements in plans, but we continue to hear that implementation needs to improve.
Oranga Tamariki data shows that almost all tamariki plans contain information on contact arrangements with whānau, and positive feedback from our community visits suggests that Oranga Tamariki is supporting contact with whānau to occur.
This year Oranga Tamariki introduced the lead indicator Tamariki Māori, which shows that around half of tamariki and rangatahi Māori were supported to connect to their marae, or – or that strong connections were already in place.
Many tamariki and rangatahi told us they can contact their whānau as often as they like, but some said they feel they are prevented from doing this or were only able to contact their whānau at set times, and they did not understand why.
Both this year and last year, we heard from Oranga Tamariki kaimahi that the Kairaranga-ā-whānau is an essential role within Oranga Tamariki for supporting connections between tamariki, rangatahi and their whānau. We also heard that while there is some training and support in place to build the cultural capability of Oranga Tamariki kaimahi across the organisation to be able to build connections and work effectively with Māori whānau, access to this support seems to vary, and some kaimahi feel they need more support than what is available to them. As a consequence, we heard repeatedly that the responsibility for working with tamariki Māori and their whānau, hapū and iwi sometimes falls unevenly on Māori kaimahi in Oranga Tamariki sites.
Whānau caregivers told us that communication from Oranga Tamariki needs to improve, particularly around the rationale for policies, such as when whānau caregivers need to be approved prior to caring for tamariki, and for decisions such as whether contact with wider whānau can occur, and when.
Oranga Tamariki carried out case file analysis to understand whether there is evidence that the needs for and to establish, maintain and strengthen connections with their family, , family group, , and have been sufficiently considered and met.
N/A 2020/2021
84% 2021/2022
86% 2022/2023
This is a measure of whether the needs of tamariki and rangatahi to establish, maintain or strengthen connections with members of their family, whānau, and/or family group have been identified and addressed in their plan (not whether identified actions were delivered).
54%2020/2021
59%2021/2022
67%2022/2023
This is a measure of whether the identity and cultural needs of tamariki are identified and addressed in their plan. It shows consistent improvement across three years in how this is recorded in plans, but it does not indicate whether support was provided to enable this to happen.
measure changed/not comparable2020/2021
87%2021/2022
90%2022/2023
This is a measure of whether, for the 86 percent of tamariki and rangatahi whose plans identified and addressed their need to establish, maintain, or strengthen connections with their family, whānau or family group, there was support provided for the tamariki and rangatahi to do this.
N/A2020/2021
N/A2021/2022
52%2022/2023
This is a measure of the proportion of tamariki and rangatahi Māori who are being supported to establish, maintain or strengthen connections with their marae, hapū or iwi. As the methodology that Oranga Tamariki has used to collect this data has changed, we are not able to compare this across years or comment on whether there has been any improvement.
measure changed/not comparable2020/2021
5%2021/2022
3%2022/2023
This is a measure of whether current plans for tamariki and rangatahi Māori considered the views of their hapū or iwi. Case file analysis over two years shows very low consideration of the views of hapū and iwi in the plans for tamariki and rangatahi Māori. We note that responsibility for achieving this does not rest solely with Oranga Tamariki, and requires commitment from whānau, hapū and iwi to be successful.
88%2020/2021
90%2021/2022
91%2022/2023
Structured data shows that the number of tamariki and rangatahi Māori in care with an iwi affiliation recorded has increased over the past three years.
In response to our 2020/2021 report, Oranga Tamariki told us about its practice shift to build relationships with the , , , communities and partners it works with, based on a approach.
Last year, in response to data showing low rates of connection between tamariki and rangatahi Māori and their marae, or , Oranga Tamariki acknowledged that it can be difficult to distinguish in its case file analysis between an engagement with a whānau member and engagement which might more broadly represent marae, hapū or iwi. It noted that this in turn makes it difficult to determine whether its practice is compliant with the . Oranga Tamariki noted that it needed to consider a change to the methodology to be confident of what this says about practice.
Oranga Tamariki made changes to its case file analysis methodology and introduced the lead indicator Tamariki Māori. This showed around half of tamariki Māori were supported to connect to their marae, hapū or iwi – or that strong connections were already in place. Now that self-monitoring is in place, we will continue to look for improvements in the future.
We continued to hear from Oranga Tamariki staff and leadership about the importance of a cultural approach as the first step to build connectedness with whānau, and between whānau and their tamariki and rangatahi. This is part of the shift in practice within Oranga Tamariki that we heard about in 2020/2021, but is still a new approach for many kaimahi. Oranga Tamariki kaimahi told us it is essential to place whānau at the centre of the decision-making process. The -a-whānau model, which comes from a belief that whānau have the answers, was becoming more embedded within Oranga Tamariki, and this was supporting better connections with whānau. We also heard that for tamariki and rangatahi Māori, and Māori providers were effective in supporting tamariki and rangatahi to stay with their whānau or to move to be with whānau.
This year, Oranga Tamariki case file analysis identified that almost all tamariki and rangatahi plans included details on contact arrangements with members of their immediate whānau. This was further supported by tamariki, rangatahi, caregivers and whānau telling us that Oranga Tamariki was providing support to build and maintain connections between tamariki, rangatahi and their whānau regularly, often through supervised visits, and by providing support with transport to visits. Regular contact and visits with whānau are important for tamariki and rangatahi to develop connections, and with those connections, a sense of belonging, and identity about who they are and where they come from.
Oranga Tamariki leadership and kaimahi from both Lower Hutt and Porirua sites, Te Awe, and regional management, spoke positively of policy that enables tamariki and rangatahi to stay connected with their whānau. Kaimahi discussed section 7AA enabling connection – unless there is a court order – with whānau, having access specified in court plans, and setting an expectation in court that tamariki are to maintain their connection with whānau, and iwi. We were told that if return home is not possible, then tamariki and rangatahi are connected with whānau firstly, then hapū and iwi, which is outlined in social work plans. Some kaimahi spoke of working with tamariki, rangatahi and whānau to rebuild their relationships, and there being supports in place to “support tamariki staying with whānau or being supported to move to whānau”. One regional management kaimahi highlighted Te Awe being “heavily whānau orientated” and taking a “lead seat” in this space.
Caregivers also told us how they were supporting the tamariki and rangatahi in their care to build and maintain connections with their whānau, including how they work closely and independently with whānau to have clear communication and understanding of situations. This was especially important for non-whānau caregivers trying to create connections with whānau. Supporting connections to whānau included regular phone calls and by supporting visits, including sometimes providing transport themselves. Some caregivers told us they have photographs of the whānau of the tamariki or rangatahi in their care on display in their homes.
However, we also heard from caregivers that connections with whānau became difficult where Oranga Tamariki required the social worker to arrange contact. This was described as a barrier because it did not support caregivers and whānau to develop organic or natural relationships where they collectively support the tamariki or rangatahi. For example, we heard from a non-whānau caregiver that while she was willing and wanted to facilitate access between the tamariki in her care and their whānau, the social worker prevented this, saying it needed to be arranged by them rather than the caregiver. The caregiver told us that often contact did not happen for several months, and the caregiver felt that this connection with whānau was prevented by the social worker.
We heard mixed feedback from tamariki and rangatahi about how often they saw their whānau. Some rangatahi told us they can decide how often they see their whānau, and that they had social workers who supported that.
”Yeah, we have phones and that, so we choose when we see them [our whānau]. We can go out on weekends and stuff with them.”
This is in line with findings from Te Tohu o te Ora, which found that 77 percent of tamariki and rangatahi (10-17 years of age) in care, were able to keep in touch with their birth family/whānau as much as they would like to.
“When I go ... to see caregivers I get to go see mum too because she lives nearby... The staff here drive us where we need to go. I video call my dad... he is coming over to see me soon.”
Some tamariki and rangatahi told us that they felt prevented from seeing their whānau as much as they wanted to. A key factor here was differences in access to phones, which impacted on their ability to call their whānau when they wanted to, or having set times when they could call or text.
“I haven’t seen my mum since I’ve been here. I keep asking, they say yes, but then they said to me that my mum doesn’t want to see me – but then I ask my mum, and she says she misses me and wants to see me – but she doesn’t know who to speak to, to see me.“
When we look at connections with wider whānau, hapū and iwi, Oranga Tamariki data shows that contact arrangements with hapū and iwi in plans are unchanged (nine percent this year and last), while case file analysis suggests that evidence of relationships with hapū and iwi in case recording decreased from already very low rates (13 percent last year and 11 percent this year).
We heard from some Oranga Tamariki kaimahi that whānau can be reluctant to discuss their whakapapa with Oranga Tamariki, because it is considered tapu (sacred) and that this can be a barrier to identifying wider whānau members. They told us that whānau need trust to share that information, and that trust needs to be built over time. They told us that for tamariki and rangatahi Māori, this means it can sometimes be a challenge to develop connections with wider whānau. An Oranga Tamariki social worker said:
“If I can break down those barriers by finding that hononga [connection] and we have that connection, they can become more open to share.”
As mentioned in the chapter on Manaakitanga, we continue to hear mixed views about support to build cultural competence and confidence, and that this also impacts on their ability to make connections with wider whānau members.
In our previous reports, we heard from social workers that they lacked the necessary cultural competence and confidence to help them make connections with whānau and Māori organisations and to support the practice shift. In response, Oranga Tamariki told us that they were providing kaimahi with additional training, including te Hāpai Ō and Tū Māia programmes. However, we continued to hear mixed views.
We heard that lessons in te reo Māori were available to kaimahi, and in one site, we heard about a new programme that the team had participated in to support a approach. We also heard there was significant regional support for the practice change leads and social workers, who were receiving external cultural supervision. They spoke positively about this support in terms of their social work practice generally.
However, other Oranga Tamariki kaimahi told us that there was a lack of access to cultural training. Some leadership said that the budget was limited on what they could offer their kaimahi in terms of training. We heard that some Oranga Tamariki social workers were not receiving supervision and they felt this had an impact on their ability to implement the practice shift in a culturally competent way. Social workers told us that everyone is open to the practice shift, but that they would benefit from supervision and guidance showing what that looks like in practice. Some frontline kaimahi told us there were times where they felt pressured by leadership within Oranga Tamariki to place tamariki and rangatahi with whānau purely because of the practice shift, and without fully understanding the needs of the tamariki, rangatahi and whānau. This indicates that understanding practice shift, and how to implement it is varied within Oranga Tamariki, and more work is required to enable consistent implementation.
Similar to the discussion in the chapter on Manaakitanga, we heard that requirements around taking a cultural approach sometimes fell unevenly on Māori kaimahi in sites. Many Oranga Tamariki staff said that they relied on their Kairaranga-ā-whānau to support their cultural approach to practice. This is despite the role of the Kairaranga- ā-whānau being to help identify and weave connections between tamariki, rangatahi and their whānau, and to support iwi affiliation for tamariki Māori.
Like last year, Oranga Tamariki advised that there are Kairaranga-ā-whānau roles in most sites, and for the three years this report covers, all regions had at least one. We commonly heard from Oranga Tamariki kaimahi that the Kairaranga-ā-whānau role is an essential resource but that it is not always available. We also heard that the expectations on the role, and what it can realistically achieve, may sometimes be too high. Some Oranga Tamariki kaimahi told us they felt that having a Kairaranga-ā-whānau engage with the whānau was less invasive for the whānau. We also heard mixed feedback from care partners about the Kairaranga-ā- whānau role, and that some are better than others.
We were told that, in some regions, Oranga Tamariki is still working to build relationships with iwi. Oranga Tamariki kaimahi acknowledged there has been mistrust in the past, and it will take time and trust to repair. We heard in some regions that it was expected that the practice shift would be done in partnership with local iwi, but the relationships were not there yet.
We heard again this year how policies and processes can create time constraints and barriers to connecting tamariki and rangatahi with their whānau, hapū, iwi and other important people in their life. Overall, whānau and caregivers spoke of what they considered was an overly risk-averse practice being applied, and this was impacting on their ability to support connections for tamariki and rangatahi. We heard this particularly in relation to caregiver approvals. The require that all prospective caregivers are approved prior to tamariki or rangatahi being placed in their care. The purpose of the caregiver approval process is to determine the extent to which the prospective caregiver:
is likely to be a suitable caregiver who is able to provide an appropriate standard of care for the child or young person; and
is able to provide a safe, stable, and loving home for the child or young person; and
is able to meet the needs of the child or young person; and
is able to promote mana tamaiti (tamariki) and acknowledge whakapapa and support the practice of whanaungatanga in relation to the child or young person.
We heard from some whānau caregivers that they didn’t always see the importance of the approval process for whānau members, or why it was required again at times. For example, a whānau caregiver who cared for tamariki only during school holidays told us they needed a new approval every time they had the tamariki in their care (every two months). They felt that this focus on renewing approval processes took time and effort away from what was needed for the tamariki. Oranga Tamariki national office told us that this experience is at odds with its policy, which only requires caregiver approvals to be renewed if there are additional members in the household that have not been approved as caregivers for the tamariki or rangatahi. Others indicated they felt that, as whānau members, they should be able to care for tamariki or rangatahi within their whānau without requiring the permission of Oranga Tamariki.
In addition, whānau caregivers spoke about changes in approval procedures and that Oranga Tamariki did not always explain the context behind these changes. Some whānau caregivers told us they felt that changes and updates on caregiver approvals could be better communicated by Oranga Tamariki. Some Oranga Tamariki kaimahi in leadership positions also highlighted occasions when going through the provisional caregiver approval process, which happens for urgent placements, could be humiliating for some whānau caregivers, and that historical incidents from a whānau caregiver’s past could sometimes overshadow their current situations.
We further heard how policies, and importantly how a lack of communication from Oranga Tamariki around those policies, could put whānau caregivers in uncomfortable situations with their wider whānau, particularly around visitation. Policies were not always explained well by Oranga Tamariki, and whānau caregivers, tamariki and rangatahi did not always understand why Oranga Tamariki felt connections were not suitable. One whānau caregiver told us:
“I didn’t know that I had ask to let the kids to go the whānau. That is the thing, if it was not safe, I would not send them. That made me mad. They are my whānau; they are safe. I know that. I don’t understand why it is like that. They said, ‘oh it’s under the Act so it has to be approved’.”
Some Oranga Tamariki kaimahi told us that timeframes and financial restrictions prevented them from building effective relationships with whānau. We heard that some kaimahi felt it was difficult to access funding to support whānau connections to occur and would therefore over- justify why this was needed to get a successful outcome, despite it being a policy and regulatory criteria, and in the best interests of the tamariki or rangatahi. This suggests that implementing the support to make connections with whānau is not aligned with the improvements seen in recording both the needs and the actions to address them, in plans and assessments.
56%2021/2022
52%2022/2023
78%2021/2022
76%2022/2023
44%2021/2022
40%2022/2023
Open Home Foundation data on the frequency of taking into account the views of family and whānau, and also of hapū and iwi in plans for and has not changed significantly from last year.
Open Home Foundation was able to provide an example highlighting how it worked in partnership with Oranga Tamariki to ensure siblings could reunite at their whenua (land), and how the hapū has subsequently been involved in planning and decision making for tamariki and rangatahi.
64%2021/2022
62%2022/2023
Open Home Foundation data shows that 76 percent of tamariki and rangatahi plans identified contact arrangements with whānau this year, which is similar to last year. Contact arrangements with hapū, iwi and marae were also similar at 62 percent of the time this year, compared with 64 percent last year.
Open Home Foundation told us that, this year, support was provided to every and in its custody to establish, maintain, or strengthen connections with family and whānau. This is an increase from last year when this was provided 97 percent of the time. For hapū and iwi, support was provided to tamariki and rangatahi in Open Home Foundation custody to establish, maintain or strengthen their connections 90 percent of the time, which is an increase from 83 percent last year.
These measures have been evidenced through support for tamariki and rangatahi to visit their marae in other parts of the country, attending events at marae with their whānau carers or foster parents, and tamariki and rangatahi learning whaikairo, kapa haka and te reo. Open Home Foundation told us this a priority for tamariki and rangatahi who are living with non-whānau, but also provided to those who are living with whānau.
“Foster parents and whānau have a good relationship. Foster parents invited grandmother to the whānau at her house … have just taken to the marae – support with vouchers – emotional time of reconnection – grandma was really involved.”
“[Rangatahi] would go back to his marae … [He would] often go back over there, [it is] particularly important to see his marae and iwi and that this was done with whānau and iwi and not foster parents. Done with whānau who were okay to take him up.”
“As much connection as possible, try to be led by whānau. Whānau contact, arranged by whānau, for us working with iwi is still a work in progress but that’s only my opinion.”
Open Home Foundation also told us that it has more tamariki and rangatahi registered with their iwi, and with connections formed with hapū this year.
“The social worker spent ages to engage with whānau, but then we were able to get the young person’s dad to the meeting, he [dad] was able to make changes by talking and communicating to the whānau, and then things were changing. The young person started to blossom, and you can see the changes being made. A real sense of celebration. Dad even opened a meeting with a karakia. Young person felt family was there to help and support.”
These improvements are in line with Open Home Foundation’s response to our 2021/2022 report, where it told us that this year it would focus on all tamariki and rangatahi in its care having a strong sense of identity and whānau connectedness.
“We have a Cultural Advisor. His main focus is building those connections with iwi and supporting our cultural practice.”
“We’ve really struggled, our staff is out of their depth, the child wants to know their whakapapa. But we don’t know how to go about it, how do we respectfully do that. We’re trying to build better relationships with whānau, to build trust, etc. We’ve been meeting with our local iwi so in the future we can connect them and ask them to help connect. There is a Māori cultural advisor we’ve connected to. The other thing is Mataiwi (service) we connect with, they were invited to our and meeting relating to our tamariki, Mataiwi is able to help us to ensure young person gets better opportunities.”
Open Home Foundation noted that some rangatahi have been reluctant to build these connections due to the harm that occurred to them whilst within the whānau. It explained how, in these situations, social workers have engaged with whānau to share their whakapapa for the rangatahi in letters, photos and other ways, and that this is kept safe for the rangatahi in their memory box or care story.
1 https://.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/literature-reviews/social-connectedness-and- wellbeing.html