Data practices
Data practices prevent the full extent of disparities being known and effectiveness being measured
Poor and disjointed data practices limit understanding of disparities for Māori in the oranga tamariki system.
Agencies responsible for delivering services and supports in the oranga tamariki system need good data at a population level, including about ethnicity and disparities. Without this, they have limited ability to assess, on an ongoing basis, whether services and supports meet the needs of and Māori and their . Data and analysis are needed for agencies to also understand where and what adjustments to make and to track impacts.
The absence of data and analysis means agencies cannot assess whether and to what extent services and supports are making a difference to outcomes for tamariki and rangatahi Māori and their whānau.
It also makes it difficult to assess whether Oranga Tamariki is meeting its duties relating to prevention and early intervention or whether the benefits of its partnerships with and Māori providers are being realised in practice.
Disparities for Māori in the oranga tamariki system are compounded by overrepresentation. Clear data on this can make visible structural issues such as bias, discrimination, racism and historical patterns and ways they can be addressed.
It may provide insights into why Māori escalate through the oranga tamariki system more than non-Māori and how to address some of their poorer outcomes.
NZ Police collection and recording of ethnicity data does not meet Stats NZ guidelines
NZ Police records one ethnicity for each individual, despite guidance from Stats NZ that individuals should be able to identify with multiple ethnicities. In contrast, Oranga Tamariki records multiple ethnicities and follows the Stats NZ ethnicity classifications and standards.145
There are also many tamariki and rangatahi with unknown ethnicity in NZ Police data. We note this throughout our report where ethnicity is unknown for 10 percent or more of a group. For example, NZ Police data shows that ethnicity was only recorded for 68 percent of tamariki and rangatahi proceeded against by NZ Police in 2024/25.
Not being able to report on a significant proportion of tamariki and rangatahi subject to police proceedings makes it difficult to see the full picture of disparities and to understand how it is changing over time.
Oranga Tamariki is producing less analysis of disparities
In the past, using data that was available, Oranga Tamariki produced several publicly available reports and factsheets about overrepresentation and disparities for tamariki and rangatahi Māori in the oranga tamariki system.146 This work helped with understanding the system and disparities within it. More recently, Oranga Tamariki has completed less in-depth analysis and produced less information and fewer insights on disparities for Māori.
For example, following the repeal of section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act in April 2025, Oranga Tamariki discontinued annual reports on measures of disparity and disproportionality for tamariki and rangatahi Māori.147 This gap is not fully addressed by the information it produces about over-representation and disproportionality for Māori in its Strategic intentions 2024/25 – 2029/30148 or in its annual reports.
It is difficult to see how Oranga Tamariki can identify and respond to the needs of tamariki and rangatahi Māori and their whānau in the oranga tamariki system without regular indepth analysis about disparities.
Some data practices by NZ Police and Oranga Tamariki make it hard to see what is making a difference for and Māori, and what the gaps are.
Data on proceedings does not show how NZ Police responses impact on reoffending
The way NZ Police records which response (method of proceeding) was used for tamariki and rangatahi who come to its attention for offending makes it difficult to see how tamariki and rangatahi progress through the youth justice system. This means NZ Police cannot easily track whether its interventions are reducing reoffending.
For example, in the last quarter of 2024/25, NZ Police started combining four distinct youth justice responses into one reporting line,149 making it impossible to tell, at a system level, which of the four responses have been used.
NZ Police also only records the initial method of proceeding. Its system-level data does not track subsequent, more intensive, responses to tamariki and rangatahi offending.150
It is critical for NZ Police to address gaps in its data practices so it can understand whether its responses are reducing harm and whether its responses are contributing to overrepresentation of Māori involved in youth justice.
Data from Oranga Tamariki does not show whether FGCs result in agreed plans or provision of services and supports
Data from Oranga Tamariki does not show how many FGCs result in agreed plans. It also does not show whether services that would help tamariki, rangatahi and their were offered or provided.
At a system level, it is therefore not clear whether tamariki and rangatahi Māori and their whānau are getting access to the services and supports they need.
Lack of data from Oranga Tamariki on referrals to services following a report of concern means effectiveness cannot be assessed
Oranga Tamariki has again been unable to provide reliable data on how many tamariki and rangatahi are referred to community services after a decision to take no further action has been made about a report of concern. The lack of oversight by Oranga Tamariki of these referrals is a significant issue – one we have been pointing to since 2024.
Oranga Tamariki does not know whether support was provided as a result of the referral or whether it addressed the needs of tamariki, rangatahi and their whānau.
It also does not know if a community referral prevented further reports of concern being made or if the community organisation it was referred to was sufficiently concerned about the safety of tamariki that it made a further report of concern to Oranga Tamariki.
With community organisations playing an increasingly vital role in triaging and addressing risks at the earliest possible stage, this gap is particularly important.
We hear from whānau that they have good experiences with community organisations, particularly where support is relationshipbased, culturally grounded and focused on strengthening whānau capability.
We understand that in November 2025 Oranga Tamariki started to reinforce the importance of social workers recording referral to services as an outcome of an assessment following a report of concern. It may take some time for this change to be embedded in practice, but we are hopeful that better data will be available in the future as a result of this change.
Better data about referrals, action taken as a result and the rate of renotification would help show the difference being made by these organisations and services, including if they are preventing deeper involvement in the system. Given Māori are already more likely to have deeper involvement in the system, data and information that can identify what works for them is crucial.
Data gaps are a lost opportunity
The impact of poor data practices is a lack of visibility of how both statutory and nonstatutory services can make a difference to the outcomes for tamariki and rangatahi Māori and their whānau.
Improved data would inform how the oranga tamariki system could better meet the needs of tamariki and rangatahi Māori and their whānau, prevent escalation in the system and support them to achieve their future aspirations.
145 Information about NZ Police’s approach to ethnicity data collection can be found in Ethnicity data collection by justice sector agencies: Prepared for Te Rau o te Tika – the Justice System Kaupapa Inquiry (WAI 3060) – June 2024.
146 For example, see ot.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/About-us/Research/Latest-research/Report-on-disparities-and-disproportionalityexperienced-by-tamariki-Maori/A3-disparities-and-disproportionality-measurement-2023.pdf
147 orangatamariki.govt.nz/about-us/performance-and-monitoring/section-7aa/section-7aa-report
148 Oranga Tamariki. (2024). Strategic intentions 2024/25–2029/30. orangatamariki.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/About-us/Corporate-reports/Strategic-intentions/Strategic-Intentions-2024-2029.pdf
149 Warnings/cautions, alternative actions, FGCs and Te Pae Oranga were grouped together under one proceeding type – youth justice intervention.
150 For example, if a rangatahi is referred to Oranga Tamariki to attend a pre-charge youth justice FGC but NZ Police later decides to charge the rangatahi in relation to the offending, only the referral to FGC is recorded in the method of proceeding data.