Evaluative rubric for revised monitoring framework - Sites and … · 2018. 9. 27. · Evaluative rubric for revised monitoring framework - Sites and residences Preface The Office

Evaluative rubric for revised monitoring framework - Sites and residences

Preface

The Office of the Children’s Commissioner OCC) seeks to improve outcomes for vulnerable children and young people, their families and whānau by

monitoring Child, Youth and Family (CYF), Aotearoa New Zealand’s government agency which has responsibility for the care and protection of our most

vulnerable children and young people. Our monitoring is independent of CYF and we take an organisational development approach to support CYF to

continually improve the quality of their care and protection and youth justice services.

OCC co-designed this evaluative rubric with CYF. It contains the standards by which we judge CYF’s performance across the eight domains of our revised

monitoring framework (see domain map on page 2). The rubric contains content relevant to assessing both care and protection and youth justice services

across sites and residences. In the future, we plan to separate the residence content from the site content to make two distinct rubrics.

The rubric contains two ‘golden threads’, ‘voices of children and young people’ and ‘responsiveness to Māori’, which we have ‘woven’ through all of our

domains to highlight the importance of these two areas for improving outcomes for children and young people and their families and whānau.

We developed the rubric to increase the transparency of our ratings and to facilitate CYF sites’ and residences’ clear understanding of how well they are

currently performing and what is needed to improve their performance and outcomes for vulnerable children and young people and their families and

whānau. We provide descriptions of transformational, well placed, developing, minimally effective/weak, and detrimental practice.

The rubric is a living document. OCC continually revises and updates the rubric as we collect more evidence and learn more about what works best for

children and young people and their families and whānau. We will endeavour to ensure that the rubric available on our website is updated at least once per

year with our latest additions and revisions.

A guide to interpreting the ratings is given on page 5. It is important to note that the ratings were developed in the context of current practice in Aotearoa

New Zealand. What is transformational now may simply be well placed in the future. The section on transformational practice is designed to build on the

descriptions of well placed practice. To achieve a rating of ‘transformational’, the site or residence must first meet the requirements for ‘well placed’.

Not all of the practice standards contained in this rubric are under the direct control of sites or residences. Rather, some are relevant to the wider

organisation and can only be addressed by CYF national office; others require CYF to engage with other government and non-government organisations. This

is consistent with our organisation-wide approach to monitoring. Some of the recommendations in our monitoring reports are site or residence specific and

others are directed to CYF national office.

It is also worth noting that under the domain ‘quality of social work practice’, some ratings of ‘well placed’ or ‘transformational’ require achievement of a set of

elements, denoted by the words, ‘achievement of all of the following’. In these instances, the site or residence must achieve the complete set of elements to

receive a rating of well placed or transformational.

2

Domain Map

Domain 1

Leadership and direction

Purpose, direction and

strategy

Leadership

Values, behaviour and organisational

culture

Domain 2

People development

Workforce development

Performance management

Domain 3

Operational Management

Systems and structures

Roles and responsibilities

Allocation of resources

Domain 4

Culture of learning and improvement

Improving performance and

effectiveness

Responsiveness to stakeholder

feedback

Review

Communities of practice

Domain 5

Quality of social work practice

Effective use of legislative, policy

and practice frameworks

Supervision

Culturally appropriate

practice

Access to complaints

system

Quality intake, safety screening, assessment and

investigation

Robust intervention

practice

Transitions between and

from care

Domain 6

Caregiver support system

Recruitment

Caregiver support services

Domain 7

Engagement with children & young people, and their

families & whānau

Child-centred practice

Engagement with whānau

Domain 8

Parternships and networks

Collaboration and partnerships

with stakeholders

Consultation and links in the community

Organisational Performance Quality of Social Work Practice

3

Contents

Preface ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 1

Domain Map ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2

Quick reference guide to the ratings provided for each domain and sub-domain .............................................................................................................................. 5

DOMAIN 1: Leadership and direction ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6

Sub-domain: Purpose, direction and strategy ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 6

Sub-domain: Leadership ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 11

Sub-domain: Values, behaviour and organisational culture ................................................................................................................................................................... 15

DOMAIN 2: People development .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 19

Sub-domain: Workforce development ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 19

Sub-domain: Performance management ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 21

DOMAIN 3: Operational management ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 24

Sub-domain: Systems and structures .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 24

Sub-domain: Roles and responsibilities .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 25

Sub-domain: Allocation of resources ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 27

DOMAIN 4: Culture of learning and improvement ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 29

Sub-domain: Improving performance and effectiveness ......................................................................................................................................................................... 29

Sub-domain: Responsiveness to stakeholder feedback ........................................................................................................................................................................... 30

Sub-domain: Review ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 32

Sub-domain: Communities of practice ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 33

DOMAIN 5: Quality of social work practice ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 36

4

Sub-domain: Effective use of legislative, policy and practice frameworks ........................................................................................................................................ 36

Sub-domain: Supervision ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 40

Sub-domain: Culturally appropriate practice ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 42

Sub-domain: Access to complaints system ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 49

Sub-domain: Quality intake, safety screening, assessment and investigation - Sites ................................................................................................................... 53

Sub-domain: Quality admission and assessment - Residences ............................................................................................................................................................ 69

Sub-domain: Robust intervention practice - Sites ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 76

Sub-domain: Robust intervention practice - Residences ......................................................................................................................................................................... 86

Sub-domain: Transitions between and from care ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 93

DOMAIN 6: Caregiver support system ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 99

Sub-domain: Recruitment .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 99

Sub-domain: Caregiver support services ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 101

DOMAIN 7: Engagement with children & young people and their families & whānau ................................................................................................................. 106

Sub-domain: Child-centred practice .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 106

Sub-domain: Engagement with families and whānau ............................................................................................................................................................................. 107

DOMAIN 8: Partnerships and networks ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 109

Sub-domain: Collaboration and partnerships with stakeholders ........................................................................................................................................................ 109

Sub-domain: Consultation and links in the community ......................................................................................................................................................................... 113

5

Quick reference guide to the ratings provided for each domain and sub-domain

Rating Assessment What it means

Transformational/outstanding

Exceptional, outstanding, innovative, out of the norm

Well placed

Strong performance, strong capability, consistent practice

Developing

Some awareness of areas needing improvement; some actions to address

weaknesses, but inconsistent practice; pockets of good practice

Minimally effective/weak

Low awareness of areas needing improvement; lack of action to address

weaknesses; significant concerns exist

Detrimental Actively causing harm, negligent, ignoring, rejecting, undervaluing,

undermining practice

6

DOMAIN 1: Leadership and direction

Sub-domain: Purpose, direction and strategy

Key evaluative

questions

Transformational/

outstanding

Well placed Developing Minimally

effective/weak

Detrimental

How effective are the

site or residence

leadership team in

articulating the goals,

expectations and

strategy to their staff

and stakeholders?

The site or residence’s

leadership team has

ownership of Child,

Youth and Family’s

(CYF’s) national

direction, strategy and

expectations, and strives

to embed these in their

day to day operations

The site or residence

regularly self-assesses

and evaluates its

performance and

adjusts its work to

address the findings of

the self-assessment; the

site or residence

consults with key

stakeholders, via survey,

workshop, or other

face-to-face methods,

to inform their self-

assessment


local strategic plan is a

The site or

residence

leadership team is

effective in

articulating the

national strategy,

goals and

expectations to

their staff and

stakeholders

The site or

residence

completes annual

self-assessments

and has a clear

understanding of

their relative

strengths and areas

for development

The leadership

team provides

collective

leadership and

direction to staff

and stakeholders in


may have

communicated the

national direction and

strategy to staff, but

some staff do not

understand it


may have completed

a self-assessment but

does not yet have a

full picture of their

strengths and areas

for development, or

their areas of activity

do not match the

priorities in their plan


has not yet

developed their local

strategic plan; or they

have developed it but

it does not accurately

reflect priority areas

for development; or


does not understand

or support the

national direction

and strategy; there

has been no

translation of the

national strategy into

action


has not completed a

self-assessment and

does not have a clear

understanding of

their relative

strengths and areas

for development,


has no current

intention to develop

a local strategic plan


has not articulated

their (statutory) role

or direction to


ignores,

misunderstands,

and/or undermines

the national direction

and strategy


has an inaccurate

view of their

strengths and areas

for development and

does not plan to do

anything further to

clarify these


believes that local

strategic plans are a

waste of time

The site or

residence’s actions

are not aligned with

the national strategic

direction or with

areas that need

development

7

living document,

encompassing a clear

vision and values,

priorities, key steps, and

timeframes; the plan

drives the work and

effectively addresses

areas for development

within the organisation;

ongoing

implementation and

regular review of the

local strategic plan has

demonstrably improved

outcomes for C&YP,

their families and

whānau

Site or residence staff

have meaningfully

contributed to and feel

a sense of ownership of

the local plan; all staff

are aligned behind the

vision and working

collectively in an

effective way to achieve

the local plan

Key stakeholders in the

community such as

Health, Education, and

iwi/Māori organisations

have meaningfully

the development of

their own local

strategy and plans,

building on their

vision which clearly

reflects the

identified priority

areas for

development; the

site or residence

has taken concrete

steps to address

areas needing

development

Staff participate in

the development of

the local strategy

and feel confident

that their input has

been included in it

The site or

residence has

clearly articulated

their (statutory)

role, strategy and

direction to

stakeholders

there is no clear view

as to how to translate

the local strategy into

action, resulting in

fragmented and

inconsistent practice

Staff may have

participated in the

development of a

local strategy, but it is

not owned by all

levels of the

organisation


struggles to clearly

articulate their

(statutory) role,

strategy and/or

direction to

stakeholders

stakeholders

There is no staff

input to identify

strengths and areas

for development


deliberately

miscommunicates

their (statutory) role

and direction to

stakeholders

8

contributed to and feel

confident that their

input has been included

in the site or residence’s

local strategic plan

Local knowledge and

wisdom about what

works is integrated in

the local plan and

delivery of the service

Key stakeholders are

deeply engaged in

supporting the direction

the site or residence is

taking to ensure good

outcomes for C&YP,

their families and

whānau; ‘lets do it

together’ philosophy

drives the site/residence


understands the drivers

of other organisations

and has successfully

influenced these to

improve outcomes for

C&YP, their families and

whānau

9

Golden Thread: Responsiveness to Māori

How effective is the site

or residence leadership

team in articulating

the goals, expectations

and strategy to


mokopuna Māori?

How well does the

leadership team take

account of and

integrate the principles

of the Indigenous and

Bicultural Principled

Framework?


has a clear vision for

mokopuna Māori and a

clear local plan for

building Māori cultural

capability and

improving outcomes for

mokopuna Māori; and

all staff can readily

articulate the priorities

in their local plan for


mokopuna Māori


local strategy and plans

clearly reflect the

contribution of mana

whenua or other

iwi/Māori organisations,

and these groups are

confident that their


in the local plan


uses culturally

appropriate methods to

engage mokopuna

Māori, whānau and

iwi/Māori organisations

in assessing their

The site or

residence has a

local plan for

building Māori

cultural capability

and improving

outcomes for

mokopuna Māori

which reflects its

strengths and areas

for development in

this area; staff can

articulate the

priorities in their

local plan for

improving

outcomes for

mokopuna Māori

Iwi/Māori

organisations have

contributed

meaningfully to the

organisation’s local

strategy and plans

The site or

residence is actively

implementing the

Indigenous and


Framework into


may have a plan for

building cultural

capability and

improving outcomes

for mokopuna Māori

however it does not

accurately reflect the

site’s strengths and

areas for

development in this

area, or staff cannot

articulate the

priorities in their local

plan for improving

outcomes for

mokopuna Māori


may be trying to

implement the

Indigenous and


Framework into their

way of working with

mokopuna Māori,

their whānau and

iwi/Māori

stakeholders, but

their efforts,

commitment, and/or

capability to do so


has no plan for

building Māori

cultural capability or

improving outcomes

for mokopuna Māori,

and staff do not have

a clear sense of their

site or residence’s

strengths and areas

for development in

this area


is not implementing

the Indigenous and



way of working with

mokopuna Māori,

their whānau and

iwi/Māori

stakeholders


does not accept or

understand that

building Māori

cultural capability

and improving

outcomes for Māori

is important and has

no intention of

developing a local

plan for this.


has no intention of

implementing the

Indigenous and



way of working with

mokopuna Māori,

their whānau and

iwi/Māori

stakeholders, and

does not agree with

or uphold the values

in the framework

10

performance and

determining key

priorities


has integrated the

Indigenous and



way of working with

mokopuna Māori, their

whānau and iwi/Māori

stakeholders

their way of

working with

mokopuna Māori,

their whānau and

iwi/Māori

stakeholders

are inconsistent

Golden Thread: Voices of children and young people (C&YP)

Are C&YP in care

aware of and involved

in the purpose,

direction and strategy

set by a site or

residence? How are

they involved? Are they

satisfied with their

level of involvement?

How are C&YP

affected by the

purpose, direction and

strategy of a site or

residence?

Are C&YP involved?

Are C&YP valued by

decision-makers?

C&YP‘s participation is a

key driver for leadership

actions, the direction,

strategy and service

delivery priorities for

the site or residence

A range of formal and

informal channels exist

to enable C&YP to

input/participate in

setting the direction

and service delivery

priorities for the site or

residence

C&YP understand and

actively participate in

discussions about the

C&YP are aware of

and involved in the

direction, strategy

and service delivery

priorities for the

site or residence

The leadership

team encourages

regular input from

C&YP; invites C&YP

to provide

feedback and

comment on key

decisions that

impact on them

The site or

residence’s

C&YP’s input is

sought inconsistently;

there is no consistent

acknowledgement or

recognition of the

voices of C&YP in

care

C&YP may be

informed of the site

or residence’s

vision/direction but

the documents

offered are not

written in child-

friendly language


chooses specific

The site or

residence’s vision

and strategy are

developed with no

input from C&YP;

seen as the domain

of staff and the

leadership team;

C&YP seen as

recipients of a service

C&YP are not aware

of the site or

residence’s vision or

strategy

The leadership team

do not value or see

any reason for

involving C&YP;

there is no reference

to C&YP in strategic

documents

The leadership team

is dismissive of C&YP

and do not believe

that C&YP have any

role to play in setting

the site or

residence’s direction

or vision

Information on the


11

Do C&YP feel heard? site or residences’

vision/direction and

service delivery

priorities; child-friendly,

accessible documents

are provided to C&YP

C&YP feel that their

opinions are heard and

valued by decision-

makers; C&YP report

seeing changes at the

site or residence as a

result of their input

vision/direction are

explained and

communicated to

C&YP at the time of

entry to care;

documents

provided to C&YP

are child-friendly,

accessible and

easily understood

C&YP to provide

input – other C&YP

excluded

vision and strategy is

withheld from C&YP;

C&YP are not seen as

a key stakeholder

Sub-domain: Leadership

Key evaluative

questions

Transformational/

outstanding


effective/weak

Detrimental

How well does the

senior team in the site

or residence provide

collective leadership

and direction to staff

and stakeholders?

How well does the site

or residence provide

leadership and support

to the leadership of

other agencies in the

sector?


manager and

leadership team

demonstrate a

collaborative,

distributive leadership

style which enables

others to take

effective leadership

roles; staff describe

the leadership as

effective, courageous

and innovative


manager and

leadership team are

well respected by staff


manager has

demonstrably

improved the

performance of the

organisation

The leadership team

promotes inter-


manager may be

respected by staff, but

there are concerns

about the rest of the

leadership team; or

some staff respect the

manager and

leadership team, but

others don’t


manager is trying to


manager and

leadership team are

not respected by staff


manager is not

contributing to

improved

organisational

performance

There is minimal

collaborative working

Most staff hold

negative opinions

about the site or

residence’s manager

or leadership team


manager is

negatively affecting

the performance of

the organisation

The site or

residence’s teams are

12


manager has

demonstrably

improved

performance of the

organisation,

consequently

improving outcomes

for C&YP; the site or

residence manager is

highly effective in

leading their site or

residence through

significant changes

The leadership team

promotes and enables

inter-connectedness

between different

teams to ensure

joined-up, well-

coordinated services;

in residences, clinical

and care teams work

in close synergy with

each other, ensuring

that clinical plans are

effectively

operationalized and

that a consistent

approach is taken to

preventing escalation

of behavioural and

emotional problems

connectedness

between different

teams to support

joined-up, well-

coordinated services;

in residences, clinical

and care teams work

collaboratively to

operationalize clinical

plans

The leadership team

holds productive

relationships with

their key community

stakeholders and

supports the

leadership of other

agencies in the sector

The leadership team

is outcomes focused

and actively seeks

C&YP’s input and

voice to drive site and

residence operations

improve the

performance of the

organisation but is

struggling to achieve

results


teams work

inconsistently with

each other; in

residences, the

manager may be

trying to increase

collaboration between

the clinical and care

teams, but their

services are not well

connected or joined

up

The leadership team

holds working

relationships with their

key community

stakeholders; these

relationships tend to

be functional and

transactional

The leadership team

understand and are

concerned about

outcomes for C&YP;

however tend to be ad

hoc in how they

between teams; in

residences the clinical

and care teams are

not working

cooperatively

The leadership team

has forged

relationships with

some stakeholders

but these are not well

thought through and

lack purpose; these

relationships tend to

be nominal

The leadership team

understands and is

concerned about

outcomes for C&YP

but do not act on

these concerns; pay

lip service

in frequent conflict

with each other; in

residences, there is

active undermining

occurring between

the clinical and care

teams

The leadership team

is dysfunctional and

is disconnected from

staff and

stakeholders

The leadership team

does not show any

real concern for

outcomes for C&YP

13

and responding

effectively to C&YP


holds productive

relationships with

their key external

stakeholders and also

with a wider group of

stakeholders, who, for

sites, may refer C&YP

into the organisation

or receive Partnered

Response (PR)

referrals


provides leadership

and support to the

leadership of other

agencies in the sector

The leadership team

consistently reflects

on and utilises the

breadth and depth of

their relationships

with stakeholders to

ensure diversity of

views and knowledge

is captured in

decision-making

access C&YP’s voice;

C&YP’s voice is

considered only ‘when

it is possible’ and is

viewed as an optional

extra

14


How effective are site

and residence

leadership teams at


capability?

The leadership team’s

commitment to

improving outcomes

for mokopuna Māori

is demonstrated by

tangible actions to

build Māori cultural

capability that have

successfully achieved

a culturally competent

workforce

The leadership team

can articulate the

relationship between

improving the cultural

capabilities of staff

and improved

outcomes for

mokopuna Māori

The leadership team

has established

strong, positive and

worthwhile

relationships with

mana whenua, other

iwi and Māori social

service agencies which

enables their

meaningful

contribution to the

The leadership team’s

commitment to

improving outcomes

for mokopuna Māori

is demonstrated by

tangible actions to


capability, for example

by employing an

onsite cultural advisor

or supporting and

resourcing their Māori

rōpū to lead actions in

this area

The leadership team

has productive

relationships with

mana whenua, other

iwi and/or Māori

social service

agencies and seeks

their input and

involvement

The leadership team

enables the cultural

capability building of

staff.

The leadership team

may be committed to

improving outcomes

for mokopuna Māori

but there is

inconsistent support

or action to build

Māori cultural

capability; or the

organisation lacks the

means to build their

own cultural capability

The leadership team

has inconsistent

engagement with

mana whenua, other

iwi, and/or Māori

social service agencies

The leadership team

does not value Māori

cultural capability

building; there is no

tangible support for

building Māori

cultural capability

The leadership team

is aware of iwi/Māori

stakeholders, but

make excuses for not

engaging with them

The leadership team

actively devalues the

importance of

building Māori

cultural capability

and undermines

Māori world views

The leadership team

ignores or excludes

iwi/Māori

stakeholders

15

work of the

organisation

There is shared

agenda setting with

iwi/Māori

stakeholders at the

decision-making

table; there is a

partnership approach

to decision-making

Golden Thread: Voices of C&YP

How do site and

residence leadership

decisions take account

of what C&YP in care

say they need?

C&YP feel heard and

valued by the site or

residence’s leadership

and staff; staff act

promptly on issues

identified by C&YP;

C&YP’s needs are

prioritised and

addressed with a

sense of urgency

C&YP feel they are

consistently heard

and responded to by

leadership

Some C&YP feel they

are heard and

responded to by

leadership some of

the time

C&YP do not feel

heard or responded to

C&YP feel that leaders

ignore or disregard

them and their needs

Sub-domain: Values, behaviour and organisational culture

Key evaluative

questions

Transformational/

outstanding


effective/weak

Detrimental

How well does the

leadership at the site

or residence develop


has an outstanding

culture; the culture is

The site or

residence’s culture is

collaborative and


culture is respectful

and professional but


culture is reflected by

pessimistic and


culture is autocratic,

bullying, negative,

16

and promote the

values, behaviours

and culture it needs

to support the best

outcomes for C&YP?

What is morale like at

the site or residence?

open and participatory;

staff are consistently

optimistic, enthusiastic

and highly motivated

to do their best for

C&YP

The leadership team

and staff consistently

model the values,

behaviours and culture

needed to support

optimal outcomes for

C&YP and their

families and whānau


practices are

underpinned by a

youth-centred culture;

the residence has

achieved a therapeutic

environment for C&YP

which consistently and

effectively addresses

the underlying

determinants of

behavioural and

emotional problems

Morale at the site or

residence is

consistently very high;

the site or residence is

a sought after

respectful; staff and

leadership team

enjoy positive

relationships

The leadership team

develops and

promotes the values,

behaviours and

culture needed to

support optimal

outcomes for C&YP

and their families and

whānau; the culture

is supportive, non-

blaming, and

compassionate

The leadership values

staff, promotes their

development, and

encourages them to

offer suggestions and

ideas

Morale is high and

nearly all staff enjoy

working at the site

or residence

there is inconsistency

across teams and

variability in the


staff and the

leadership team

The leadership team

tends to be ad hoc in

how it promotes the

values, behaviour and

culture needed to

support optimal

outcomes for C&YP

Morale is mixed but

some people enjoy

working at site or

residence

unmotivated staff;

issues in the


management and staff

are not addressed

The leadership team

does not have a clear

sense of the values,

behaviours and

culture needed to

support optimal

outcomes for C&YP

Morale is low and staff

do not enjoy working

at the site or

residence

power driven; staff are

immobilised and

fearful

The leadership team

rejects the values,

behaviours and

culture needed to

support optimal

outcomes for C&YP

People avoid working

at the site or

residence

17

workplace; the site or

residence is

recommended by staff


How well do site and

residence leadership

teams embrace and

uphold Māori values?


leadership team

embraces tikanga

Māori and promotes it

through a variety of

channels

Tīkanga Māori is

valued and integrated

into the site or

residence’s ways of

working: Māori cultural

forms such as pōwhiri,

karakia, waiata, and

poroporoaki, are

regularly practiced;

and staff understand

the relationship

between their cultural

practices, quality social

work practice, and

improving outcomes

for mokopuna Māori

Staff enthusiastically

and actively use te reo

Māori and continually

strive to improve their

pronunciation


practices tīkanga

Māori and has some

awareness of its link

to improving

outcomes for

mokopuna Māori

Staff use some te reo

Māori


uses tīkanga Māori

and/or te reo Māori,

intermittently but

their purpose or

value is unclear to

staff


practises very little

tīkanga and te reo

Māori; some staff do

not value their use

Staff at the site or

residence are

negative about using

tikanga or te reo

Māori and actively

undermine their value

18


How are C&YP’s

needs understood and

valued by decision-

makers?

Wherever possible, the

leadership team

prioritises what C&YP

say they need when

making decisions

C&YP’s voices are

heard alongside, and in

the context of, the

voices of their families,

whānau, hapū and iwi

C&YP’s needs are

understood and are at

the forefront of

thinking and planning

by decision-makers

C&YPs stated needs

are responded to

promptly and used to

continually improve

the quality of the

service

The leadership team

takes account of

what C&YP say they

need when making

decisions

C&YP’s voices are

heard alongside and

in the context of the

voices of their


C&YP’s needs are

understood by

decision-makers

Decision-makers

value C&YP voices,

and respond

promptly to C&YPs

stated needs

The leadership team

inconsistently takes

into account what

C&YP say they need

when making

decisions

Decision-makers value

the voices of some,

but not all, C&YP, and

respond inconsistently

to C&YPs stated needs

Decision-makers do

not have systems in

place to listen to or

respond to the needs

of C&YP

Decision-makers

reject or ignore

C&YP’s voices

C&YP are not viewed

as stakeholders in

their own right

19

DOMAIN 2: People development

Sub-domain: Workforce development

Key evaluative

questions

Transformational/

outstanding


effective/weak

Detrimental

How well does the

organisation

anticipate and

respond to current

and future capacity

and capability

requirements?

How well does the

organisation

develop its

people/frontline

staff (including its

leadership)?

There is continuous

looking ahead for

innovative and creative

ways of building the

capacity and capability

of the site or residence

in relationship with the

wider community to

meet the needs of

C&YP and build the

capability of their



workforce strategy is

fully implemented and

reflects a strong

understanding of future

needs

There is good

analysis of capacity

and capability, and

effective plans in

place to meet the

identified needs

There is a clear

understanding and

plan of site workforce

needs and this is

informed by and

communicated to

staff

There are plans in

place to build capacity

and capability but the

plans are not

resourced or do not

adequately address

the real issues

Workforce

development strategy

exists but is not fully

communicated to staff

and implementation is

not well coordinated

There is some

awareness of capacity

and capability

requirements but no

effective action to

address identified

needs

Workforce

development strategy

is in development; not

yet communicated to

staff or implemented

There is no

understanding or

analysis of capacity

and capability

requirements and the

needs of staff and

C&YP are ignored

No workforce

development strategy;

do not have any

picture of workforce

needs

How well does the

organisation

maintain a diverse

workforce?

There are innovative

plans to recruit staff

from diverse cultural

backgrounds (eg,

community and/or iwi

secondments; kaumatua

involved in recruitment);

There is active

planning to recruit

staff of different

cultural backgrounds,

and a good fit

between staff

backgrounds and the

There is some

planning to recruit

staff of different

cultural backgrounds,

but the team has

limited fit to

community needs

There is no planning

to recruit staff from

diverse cultures; any

currently employed

are there by chance

rather than design

Do not recognise or

value need for

diversity of staff-poor

fit between staff

cultural background

and experience and

the needs of the

20

and staff with diverse

backgrounds and

experience meet the

needs of the community

needs of the

community

community

How well does the

organisation

develop capacity to

engage with C&YP

from Pasifika and

other cultural

backgrounds, their

families and

communities?

Leadership supports

and resources staff to

take responsibility for

their own cultural and

clinical up-skilling; staff

have the confidence,

willingness and skills

needed to be able to

engage with, and meet

the needs of C&YP and

families from Pasifika

and other cultural

backgrounds

There are good

opportunities for

cultural and clinical

up-skilling of staff,

and consistent

encouragement for

staff to develop their

capability to be able

to engage with, and

meet the needs of

C&YP and families

from Pasifka and

other cultural

backgrounds

There is inconsistent

development of staff

to be able to engage

with and meet the

diverse needs of

C&YP and families

from Pasifika and

other cultural

backgrounds

There is a failure to

develop staff to be

able to engage with

and meet the diverse

needs of C&YP and


and other cultural

backgrounds

The organisation

understands the need

but do not do

anything about it

Staff are actively

discouraged from

developing their

cultural and clinical

skills to be able to

engage with, and meet



and other cultural

backgrounds

Staff do not believe

they have a

responsibility to

develop their own

cultural practice


How well does the

organisation

develop capacity to

engage with

mokopuna Māori,

their whānau and

communities?

Leadership

demonstrates active and

positive engagement

with mokopuna Māori,

their whānau, hapū and

communities; makes

sure relationships and

systems are in place to

support consistently

high levels of

Leadership shows

consistent positive

engagement with

mokopuna Māori,

their whānau, hapū

and communities


takes tangible actions

to build Māori

cultural capability, for

Leadership engages

inconsistently with


whānau, hapū and

communities


support to build Māori

cultural capability; or

the organisation lacks

the means to build

Leadership does not

engage with

mokopuna Māori,

their whānau, hapū

and communities


does not value Māori

cultural capability

building; there is no

tangible support for

There is no cultural

leadership; active

discouragement to

engage with


whānau, hapū and

communities


actively devalues the

importance of building

21

responsiveness


takes tangible actions to


capability and this has

resulted in a culturally

competent workforce

example by

employing an onsite

cultural advisor or

supporting and

resourcing their

Māori rōpū to lead

actions in this area

their own cultural

capability


capability

Māori cultural

capability and

undermines Māori

world views


Do C&YP feel that

decision-makers in

their lives know

how to build a

relationship with

them, and

understand them

and their needs? Do

they feel they have

a meaningful voice?

C&YP’s engagement

with and confidence in

the service enables their

active involvement in

determining how

decision-makers build

relationships with them

C&YP feel engaged,

listened to, cared for,

and understood; they

trust staff and have

confidence that

decision-makers

know how to develop

a relationship with

them

C&YP feel listened to

and cared for but not

fully understood; they

don’t have full

confidence that

decision-makers know

how to build a

relationship with them

C&YP don’t feel

understood by staff;

they believe that

decision-makers don’t

know how to build a

relationship with them

C&YP do not feel they

have a voice or a

relationship with

decision-makers

C&YP feel invisible,

undermined, not cared

for, or not understood;

they believe that

decision-makers ‘have

it in for them’

C&YP fear leadership

and staff; do not feel

safe to engage with

them

Sub-domain: Performance management

Key evaluative

questions

Transformational/

outstanding


effective/weak

Detrimental

How well does the

organisation reward

performance and/or deal

with inadequate

performance?

Proactive systems in

place to support and

promote high standards

of performance

Performance

Systems in place to

monitor performance

and identify

performance issues

early; plans put in

place and

Poor or unsafe

performance is

identified but efforts

to address it are

inconsistent and not

always timely

Poor or unsafe

performance is not

identified and not

resolved

Performance

Poor performance is

deliberately ignored

Performance

development plans

and staff’s learning

22

development plans are in

place, contain high

quality, innovative ideas

for meeting staff’s

development needs, and

are part of a continuous

quality improvement

process that prioritises

staff’s development

Good performance is

celebrated

Informal and formal

processes to address

performance issues are

managed in respectful

and reflective ways that

strengthen the overall

culture and performance

of the organisation

performance issues

tracked consistently

Performance

development plans

are in place,

congruent with staff’s

development needs,

owned by staff, and

regularly updated

Good performance is

recognised

Inadequate

performance is

identified early and

coaching and

professional

development is put in

place

Poor or unsafe

performance is

formally addressed in

timely and effective

ways

Performance

development plans

may be in place but

they are not

congruent with

staff’s development

needs, or not

regularly updated

Leadership does not

have a clear sense of

performance and

how to respond to

performance issues

when they are

identified

development plans

are not in place, and

identified gaps in

skills are not being

addressed

Consequently, poor

performance is

accepted and not

addressed

needs are ignored

despite identifying

potentially harmful

practices

How does the

organisation encourage

high performance?


takes responsibility for

developing its capacity

and capability to be

innovative and

transformative in order

to improve outcomes for

Staff understand the

qualities needed to

be a good performer

and are supported to

develop these

qualities. This is

reflected in their PDP

Staff may understand

the qualities needed

to be a good

performer but do not

consistently act to

develop these

qualities

Staff do not

understand the

qualities needed to

be a good performer

High performance is

not recognised

Supervision is limited

Staff have a false

understanding of

the qualities needed

to be a good

performer

High performance is

discouraged

23

C&YP

The organisation actively

encourages and rewards

the expertise present at

the site or residence and

has systems in place to

share to good practice

Supervision is valued and

regarded as a key

learning and professional

development tool;

reflective supervision

practice is embedded

plan.

High performance is

acknowledged and

celebrated; there are

clear avenues for

high performers to

further develop their

skill base and

learnings are shared

with other staff

Quality supervision;

in depth, purposeful

High performance

may be

acknowledged and

celebrated but there

are a lack of clear

avenues for high

performers to further

develop their skill

base or to share

learnings with other

staff

Supervision is

irregular and/or is

case work driven

and lacks depth No supervision; or

case consultations


Do C&YP feel the people

making decisions in their lives

have the skills needed to

relate to and communicate

well with them, their families

and whānau?

Do C&YP feel the key people

in their lives have the ability

to provide the support and

services they need?

C&YP’s engagement

with and confidence

in the service enables

their active

involvement in

determining how

support and services

are provided to them

C&YP have

confidence that key

people in their lives

have the ability to

provide the support

and services they

need

C&YP feel that some,

but not all, key


have the ability to

provide the support

and services they

need

C&YP feel that the

key people in their

lives do not have the

ability to provide the

support and services

they need

C&YP feel that the

key people in their

lives undermine

them and withhold

information about

services available to

them

24

DOMAIN 3: Operational management

Sub-domain: Systems and structures

Key evaluative

questions

Transformational/

outstanding


effective/weak

Detrimental

How well designed are

the structures and

systems to support the

delivery of effective,

high quality practice

and privilege C&YP’s

voices?

Structures and systems

(eg, IT, CYRAS, HR,

policies, PD, intake

systems, tools, practice

support, team

configuration, multi-

agency meetings, site

plan, leadership

meetings, etc) are

coordinated or

integrated with systems

from other agencies to

best meet the needs of

C&YP and their families

and whānau

Systems and structures

are periodically

reviewed to ensure they

are fit for purpose and

responsive to emerging

issues; insights are

shared with regional

and national offices to

lift system level practice

The organisation has

Structures and

systems are well

understood by all

staff and used to

ensure service

delivery is timely

and responsive

Systems and

structures are

designed to be

consistent with and

support high quality

practice

Structures and

systems are in place

but only some staff

have a good

understanding of the

systems and

structures, their

purpose and how to

use them to achieve

effective outcomes

for mokopuna Māori

Staff see

systems/structures as

compliance/onerous

Structures and

systems may be in

place but staff do not

understand the

systems and

structures, their

purpose or how to

use them to achieve

effective outcomes

There is active

resistance from

leadership team to

putting structures

and systems in place

– seen as wasteful;

unnecessary

Staff have total

disregard the need

for systems and

structures and do not

value it

25

embedded innovative

systems to ensure that

C&YP have regular,

ongoing opportunities

to influence the

organisation’s direction,

service delivery

priorities and practices

relevant to C&YP’s

wellbeing


Do C&YP understand

the rules around them,

how decisions are

made, who is

responsible for making

them, and how to

change them?

How do the systems

and structures impact

on the wellbeing of

C&YP?

Decision-making

processes and the

design of structures and

systems are child-

centred; built around


are highly responsive to

their wellbeing; C&YP

have input into aspects

of the system that

matter to them

All C&YP

understand the rules

around them, how

decisions are made,

who is responsible

for them, and how

to change them

C&YP feel confident

and safe in raising

issues


understanding by

C&YP of the rules

around them, how

decisions are made,

who is responsible for

them, or how to

change them

C&YP do not


around them, how

decisions are made,

who is responsible for

them, or how to

change them

C&YP are misled or

deceived about the

rules around them,

how decisions are

made, who is

responsible for them,

and how to change

them

Sub-domain: Roles and responsibilities

Key evaluative

questions

Transformational/

outstanding


effective/weak

Detrimental

How clear are the

roles, responsibilities

Roles and

responsibilities are

Roles and


Roles and


There is a lack of

understanding of

Descriptions of roles

and responsibilities do

26

and accountabilities

throughout the site or

residence and across

all those involved in

service delivery?

clearly understood by

staff and community

partners and this

enables staff to work

constructively

together and with

others

There is harmonious

synergy between staff

and with community

partners

There is shared

accountability

between the site or

residence and

community partners

clear and understood

by staff, stakeholders

and whānau

Reporting lines are

clear and are

consistently followed

There is shared

accountability across


not consistently

understood

Reporting lines are

clear but not

consistently followed




roles and

responsibilities,

leading to a chaotic,

haphazard

environment

Reporting lines are

unclear

There is a lack of



not exist

Staff do not know

their jobs; they work

in isolation and make

decisions without

following due process

Reporting lines are

ignored

No one takes

responsibility


Do C&YP know and

understand the roles

and responsibilities of

key people in their lives

– for example social

workers, youth

advocates, caregivers,

lawyers, police, youth

workers, health

workers,

teachers/education

support workers?

Can C&YP readily

C&YP are given the

opportunity to have

input into the design

of roles and

responsibilities that

matter to them

C&YP understand the

different roles of the

professionals working

with them and can

access them whenever

they want or need

C&YP understand the

roles and

responsibilities of key


C&YP can readily

access the


with them


understanding by

C&YP of the roles and

responsibilities of the

key people in their

lives

C&YP’s

understanding about

the professionals

working with them is

based on unclear and

often incorrect

information including

C&YP like the staff

but do not

understand the roles

and responsibilities of

key people in their

lives; this means that

they do not know

who to approach for

finding solutions for

issues and challenges

they face in the site or

residence

C&YP find it difficult

C&YP are misled or

deceived about the

roles and

responsibilities of key


C&YP are actively

prevented from

accessing the

professionals they

need

27

access the


with them?

hearsay and

conjecture

Some C&YP find it

difficult to access the


with them

to access the


with them

Sub-domain: Allocation of resources

Key evaluative

questions

Transformational/

outstanding


effective/weak

Detrimental

How well does the

leadership and

management team

allocate resources to

support its goals?

There is evidence of

collaboration and joint

decision-making with

relevant community

partners; resources are

considered collaboratively

to best match need to

maximise collective

impact for C&YP

There is a clear,

consistent

connection between

resource allocation

and the goals of the

site or residence (eg,

site action plan)

Resources are not

consistently allocated

to achieve the goals

of the site or

residence (eg, site

action plan)

There is no clear sense

of what is driving

resource allocation

decisions

Staff are confused and

puzzled about

decisions – have no

input

There is misuse of

resources, and/or

leadership and

management

withhold resources

from C&YP

To what extent does

the allocation of

resources consider the

diverse needs of C&YP

in care?

Resources are allocated in

innovative, flexible, and

creative ways to

effectively meet the

diverse needs of C&YP


whānau

Resources are

allocated to

effectively meet the

diverse needs of

C&YP and their



consideration for the

diverse needs of

C&YP in care when

making resource

allocation decisions

There is no evidence

that the diverse needs

of C&YP in care have

been considered in

the allocation of

resources

The diverse needs

of C&YP in care are

ignored when

making resource

allocation decisions

28


Do C&YP have access

to the resources they

need to be safe, settled

and secure in their

placements, successful

in completing their

plans (particularly for

youth justice), reach

their goals, pursue

their interests and

increase their

wellbeing?

Resources are maximised

and used in flexible,

creative ways to ensure

that C&YP successfully

complete their plans,

maintain their interests

and increase their

wellbeing

Resources are focused on

the things that C&YP,

caregivers, families and

whānau need to do to

meet C&YP’s needs

C&YP have access to

the resources they

need to be safe,

secure and settled,

achieve their goals,

maintain their

interests and

increase their

wellbeing

Some C&YP have

access to the

resources they need

to be safe, secure and

settled, achieve their

goals, maintain their

interests and increase

their wellbeing

C&YP do not have

access to the

resources they need

to be safe, secure and

settled, achieve their

goals, maintain their

interests and increase

their wellbeing

Barriers are put in

place that deny

C&YP access to the

resources they

need to be safe,

secure and settled,

achieve their goals,

maintain their

interests and

increase their

wellbeing

29

DOMAIN 4: Culture of learning and improvement

Sub-domain: Improving performance and effectiveness

Key evaluative

questions

Transformational/

outstanding


effective/weak

Detrimental

How well does the

site or residence use

and respond to data

it holds on each

child in their care?

Missing data is actively

pursued and gaps are

extrapolated to produce

strategies for service

development that meet

the holistic needs of

C&YP and their whānau

Actively seek to set up

shared measures to

determine collective

impact of efforts across

agencies

Reflection practice

amongst staff is the norm


uses individual, site,

and external data to

develop holistic

solutions and better

meet needs of C&YP

and their whānau

Staff are encouraged

to reflect on data for

children in their care

to develop

appropriate responses

and solutions to

achieve outcomes


uses data it holds on

C&YP but uses only

a fraction of the

data resulting in a

patchy, piecemeal

approach to service

delivery; no clear

approach to meet

the holistic needs of

C&YP and their

whānau


does not use or

respond to data it

holds on C&YP within

their care to inform

practice or services;

gather it for

compliance and

reporting purposes

only

Data on C&YP is

actively dismissed or

ignored or not

captured – do not see

the point in it

How well does the

site or residence

utilise management

data to improve

their services to

C&YP?

Management data is

mapped with community

level data to inform

future planning and

generate innovative

approaches to service

development and delivery

There is consistent use

of management data

to ensure the site is

well-informed,

planning effectively

and positioned to deal

with upcoming

challenges

Skill and

competence exists

but use of

management data

tends to be

inconsistent across


Lack of competence

or analytical skill

within site or

residence to promote

use of management

data to improve

services to C&YP

Management data is

manipulated or

misused to achieve

personal agendas

30

Sub-domain: Responsiveness to stakeholder feedback

Key evaluative

questions

Transformational/

outstanding


effective/weak

Detrimental

How well are the

observations and

feedback from

stakeholders

obtained and used

to inform practice

improvement?


consistently uses a

range of methods,

including face-to-face

meetings, to ensure that

feedback from key and

other external

stakeholders informs

the organisation’s

annual self-assessment;

key external

stakeholders have

confidence that their


in the organisation’s

local plan


proactively initiates

one-on-one or group

meetings with key

stakeholders to ensure

they have regular

opportunities to provide

the organisation with

feedback throughout

the year; the site or

residence has made

tangible practice

Key external

stakeholders are given

opportunities, eg, via

phone calls or surveys,

to inform the site or

residence’s annual

self-assessment; the

organisation carefully

considers feedback

from external

stakeholders in

developing their local

plan

Observations and

feedback from

stakeholders are

sought and used to

inform practice

improvement


is responsive to

concerns raised by

external stakeholders

and addresses these

Key external

stakeholders are

sometimes given

opportunities to

inform the site or


self-assessment

Observations and

feedback from

stakeholders are

sometimes sought

but not used

consistently to inform

practice

improvement


is not consistently

responsive to

concerns raised by


Key external

stakeholders are not

given the opportunity

to inform the site or


self-assessment

Observations and

feedback from

stakeholders are not

sought

The site or residence is

not responsive to

concerns raised by


Observations and

feedback from

stakeholders are

discounted; refusal to

accept feedback from

other agencies


ignores or actively

disregards concerns

raised by external

stakeholders

31

improvements as a

result

There is continuous

improvement and an

accountability loop in

place; feedback is given

to stakeholders

regarding what has

been achieved


responsive to all

concerns raised by


and promptly addresses

these; the organisation

finds effective solutions,

lessening the need for

subsequent feedback


How well are

observations and

feedback from

C&YP obtained and

used to inform

practice

improvement?


finds new, innovative

ways of obtaining

observations and

feedback from C&YP

and their voices are

prioritised in shaping

practice improvements

Observations and

feedback from C&YP

are consistently

sought and regularly

used to inform

practice improvement

Observations and

feedback from C&YP

are sought

inconsistently and

sometimes used to

inform practice

improvement

Observations and

feedback from C&YP

are not sought

Observations and

feedback from C&YP

are discounted or

ignored

32

Sub-domain: Review

Key evaluative

questions

Transformational/

outstanding


effective/weak

Detrimental

How well does the

site or residence

monitor, measure

and review its

programmes and

services to ensure

that it is delivering

intended results for

C&YP?

There is continuous

quality improvement

in place for all

programmes and

services to ensure they

are delivering the


C&YP, their families

and whānau; there is a

culture of self-

assessment evident in

the site or residence,

and the organisation

seeks external

community input to

develop a robust,

accurate picture of

their own performance


regularly monitors,

measures and reviews

its programmes and

services to ensure that

they are delivering the



and whānau

There is a positive

attitude to self-

assessment and the

organisation uses it to

inform their strengths

and weaknesses

The findings from

reviews result in new

goals and actions


monitoring,

measuring and

reviewing of

programmes and

services

The findings from

reviews are not always

translated into goals

and action

Culture of self-

assessment is patchy

and findings not used

to inform future

decisions


does not monitor,

measure or review its

programmes and

services

There is no culture of

self-assessment; the

environment is

compliance oriented


rejects the

importance of

monitoring,

measuring and

reviewing its

programmes and

services


How well does the

site or residence

monitor, measure

and review its

programmes and

services to ensure

that it is delivering

Iwi/Māori partners are

involved in the site or

residence’s reviews

and have confidence


influenced the

resulting goals and


involved in the site or

residence’s reviews


sometimes involved in

the site or residence’s

reviews


not involved in the


reviews


has no intention of

involving iwi/Māori

partners in any

reviews

33


mokopuna Māori?

actions


Are C&YP involved

in reviewing

programmes and

services and, if so,

what is their level of

involvement and are

they satisfied with

this and the

outcome?


finds new, innovative

ways of involving

C&YP in reviewing

programmes and

services, and ensuring

that the resulting

goals and actions are

influenced by the

voice of C&YP

C&YP are involved in

reviewing

programmes and

services and are

satisfied with their

level of involvement

C&YP are not

consistently involved

in reviewing

programmes and

services, and/or some

C&YP are not satisfied

with their level of

involvement

C&YP are not involved

in reviewing

programmes and

services and are

dissatisfied with their

lack of involvement

The voices of C&YP

are ignored or

rejected

Sub-domain: Communities of practice

Key evaluative

questions

Transformational/

outstanding


effective/weak

Detrimental

How well does the

organisation

promote a culture

of learning?

(amongst staff)


has successfully

achieved a culture of

learning amongst staff;

staff take pride in their

work and consistently

learn from mistakes;

staff proactively look for

better ways of

practising and


Learning needs are

identified and plans

are put in place to

address them

The organisation

promotes a culture of

learning and

mentoring, and offers

regular training

opportunities

Learning needs are

identified but not

responded to

effectively

There are

opportunities for

learning or training

but they are not

actively promoted or

embedded

Learning needs are not

identified or

responded to

There are few

opportunities for

learning or training

Learning needs of staff

are ignored

Learning needs are not

valued and are

undermined

34

C&YP

There is ongoing

mentoring and training

as a team resulting in

sound practice

How well are the

forums for

promoting sharing

and learning across

practitioners

working?

Information and lessons

are shared across

practitioners and with

community partners to

promote a culture of

learning across the

wider community

Opportunities for

promoting sharing

and learning across

practitioners are

regularly taken up

and participants

understand and

embrace the

principles

underpinning such

initiatives

There are some

opportunities for

promoting sharing

and learning across

practitioners but they

are not consistently

taken up by all staff

across the site or

residence

There are few

opportunities for

promoting sharing

and learning across

practitioners; forums

are plagued by

irregular attendance

There is resistance to

practitioners attending

forums which promote

sharing and learning


How well is a

continuous

improvement

approach to

building cultural

capability

demonstrated,

particularly for

mokopuna Māori?

The Indigenous and


Framework is well

embedded at the site or

residence


has developed a ‘kawa’

statement that provides

guidance on how staff

will work effectively with

Māori

Māori practice models

The Indigenous and


Framework is in the

process of being

embedded

Staff development

plans consistently

include goals to apply

Māori practice

models

There is some

evidence of the use

of Māori practice

There is support for

the Indigenous and


Framework but it is

not yet implemented

or consistently applied

Staff development

plans do not

consistently include

goals to apply Māori

practice models

There is no support for

the Indigenous and


Framework

Staff development

plans do not include

goals to apply Māori

practice models

The Indigenous and


Framework is actively

undermined at the site

or residence;

leadership and

management

discourage staff from

applying tikanga Māori

frameworks or

practice models

35

are well embedded models


Do C&YP think that

the adults around

them learn from

what they have

done previously?

C&YP think that not

only do the adults

around them

consistently learn from

what they have done

previously, they

continuously look for

new ways of improving

the service and share

those lessons with

others

C&YP think that the

adults around them

consistently learn

from what they have

done previously

C&YP think that adults

around them

sometimes learn from

what they have done

previously

C&YP think that adults

around them fail to

learn from what they

have done previously

C&YP think that the

adults around them

are not capable of

learning from what

they have done

previously, or are

negligent in not

applying what they

have learnt previously

36

DOMAIN 5: Quality of social work practice

Sub-domain: Effective use of legislative, policy and practice frameworks

Key evaluative questions Transformational/

outstanding


effective/weak

Detrimental

How well do Youth Justice services

adhere to the youth justice

principles described in the CYP&F

Act 1989, Part 4, Section 208?

How well do Care and Protection

services adhere to the general

principles described in Part 1,

Section 5, and Section 6

(paramountcy of the C&YP), and

to the care and protection

principles in Part 2, Section 13?

How well do Care and Protection

and Youth Justice residences and

any other iwi, cultural or

community residences adhere to

Part 7, Sections 361-409?

How well does the organisation

use the frameworks, policies,

practices and tools provided by

CYF in its day-to-day practice?

How well and to what extent are

policies implemented and

outcomes achieved?


demonstrates in-

depth understanding

of the legislative,

policy and practice

frameworks relevant

to its service, and

uses them in its day to

day practice across all

phases of its work to

achieve positive

outcomes for C&YP

and their families,

whānau and

caregivers


models innovative

uses of legislative,

policy and practice

frameworks to achieve

positive outcomes for

C&YP and their

families, whānau and

caregivers



understands the

relevant legislative,

policy and practice

frameworks provided

by CYF and uses

them in its day to

day practice to

achieve positive

outcomes for C&YP

and their families,

whānau and

caregivers


implements CYF

policies effectively


is using a range of

practice tools to

improve outcomes

for C&YP and their


caregivers


is implementing


has a functional


relevant legislative,

policy and practice

frameworks but does

not always adhere to

them


may implement

some CYF policies

effectively but

struggles to

implement others, or

is implementing

some policies in an

inconsistent manner


uses practice tools

inconsistently, or is

not using practice

tools in an optimal

way


is seeking to

The site or

residence lacks

understanding of

the relevant

legislative, policy or

practice

frameworks

The site is not

implementing CYF

policies effectively

The site or

residence is not

making use of

practice tools

The site is not

seeking to

implement cultural

frameworks into

their ways of

working with C&YP

and their families,

whānau and

caregivers


actively misinterprets

or ignores relevant

legislative, policy or

practice frameworks;

principles of the

CYP&F Act are

dismissed


is implementing CYF

policies in a way that

is harmful to C&YP,

their families,

whānau and

caregivers


uses practice tools

inappropriately


misuses its legislative

power; the

organisation uses the

CYP&F Act to justify

actions or decisions

to keep whānau out

37

flexible and prepared

to try new approaches

(ie, take some risks),

with appropriate

safeguards in place, to

ensure a C&YP-

centred approach is

maintained


thorough job of

implementing CYF

policies is tangibly

enhancing C&YP’s

wellbeing; outcomes

of new policies are

evaluated and findings

shared

A range of practice

tools and innovative

techniques are

embedded into the


everyday practice to


C&YP and their


caregivers


has integrated

appropriate cultural

frameworks into their

ways of working with

cultural frameworks

into their ways of

working with C&YP,

their families,

whānau and

caregivers

implement cultural

frameworks into

their ways of

working with C&YP,

their families,

whānau and

caregivers but is not

yet in a position to

do this consistently

and/or effectively

of the system


dismisses or

undermines the use

cultural frameworks

in their work with

C&YP and their


caregivers

38

C&YP and their


caregivers


How well does the site or residence

demonstrate the use of Māori

practice frameworks?


has integrated the

Indigenous and




C&YP and their



promotes the

involvement of

whānau, hapū and

iwi in the decision

making for

mokopuna Māori

and considers their

views


promotes the

maintenance and

strengthening of the


mokopuna Māori

and their whānau,

hapū and iwi


is implementing the

Indigenous and




C&YP and their



consistently

promotes the

involvement of

whānau in the

decision making for

mokopuna Māori


facilitates the access

of mokopuna Māori

to their whānau


is seeking to

implement the

Indigenous and




C&YP and their


but is not yet in a

position to do this

consistently and/or

effectively


recognises the

importance of

promoting whānau

in the decision

making for

mokopuna Māori

however practice is

inconsistent


facilitates the access

of mokopuna Māori

to their whānau,

however, this is

The site is not

seeking to

implement the

Indigenous and




C&YP and their


The promotion of

whānau involvement

in decision making

for mokopuna Māori

is the exception and

staff are unaware of

the importance of

whānau involvement

in the decision

making for

mokopuna Māori


is not facilitating the

access of mokopuna

Māori to their

whānau

The site is actively

undermining the

Indigenous and


Framework


actively undervalues

the involvement of

whānau in decision

making for

mokopuna Māori


actively undermines

the importance of

facilitating the access

of mokopuna Māori

to their whānau

39

inconsistent


Do C&YP receive the level of

support they require from their

social worker to reach their full

potential?

Are C&YP aware of and do they

understand their care and youth

justice plans – did they assist in

developing, monitoring and

evaluating them?

Do C&YP feel that their goals,

needs and aspirations are

understood by their social worker

and reflected in their plans?

C&YP receive

outstanding support

from their social

worker to enable

them to build their

strengths and

succeed in life

C&YP have in-depth

understanding of

their care and youth

justice plans

C&YP are central to

developing,

monitoring and

evaluating their

plans


goals, needs and

aspirations are

deeply understood

by their social

worker, and central

to their plans

C&YP receive the

level of support they

require from their

social worker to

reach their full

potential

C&YP are aware of

and understand their

care and youth

justice plans

C&YP assist in

developing,

monitoring and

evaluating their

plans


goals, needs and

aspirations are

understood by their

social worker, and

reflected in their

plans

C&YP receive good

support from their

social worker but

not to the level to

reach their full

potential

C&YP are aware of

their care and youth

justice plans but do

not fully understand

them

C&YP have limited

involvement in

developing,

monitoring and

evaluating their

plans

C&YP feel that

some, but not all, of

their goals, needs

and aspirations are

understood by their

social worker, and

only sometimes

reflected in their

plans

C&YP receive only

minimal support

from their social

worker

C&YP are not aware

of their care and

youth justice plans

or do not

understand them

C&YP are not

involved in

developing,

monitoring and

evaluating their

plans


goals, needs and

aspirations are not

understood by social

workers, and not

reflected in their

plans

C&YP do not receive

support from their

social worker

C&YP are denied

access to their care

and youth justice

plans

C&YP are

deliberately excluded

from developing,

monitoring and

evaluating their

plans


goals, needs and

aspirations are

ignored or rejected

by social workers

40

Sub-domain: Supervision

Key evaluative

questions

Transformational/

outstanding


effective/weak

Detrimental

How good and how

regular is the

supervision?

Supervision is

prioritised at the site

or residence; there is a

strong culture of

reflective practice

including examining

the impact of

supervisory practice

on staff capability and

service quality for

C&YP and their


High quality, regular

supervision is available

for supervisors and

other senior

practitioners (eg,

practice leaders, TLOs,

TLCPs)

Supervision is valued

and high quality; in-

depth and purposeful

Reflective practice is

evident; supervision

covers self-care and all

dimensions of practice

The regularity of

supervision meets

policy requirements

Supervision is valued

by staff but its

regularity does not

meet policy

requirements and/or it

lacks deep reflection

on practice; it is driven

by case work only

Supervision is sporadic

and lacks depth; does

not meet staff needs

No supervision or case

consultation;

supervision is not

valued


How good and how

regular is cultural

supervision?

Cultural supervision is

readily available,

actively promoted,

and utilised by staff on


offered to and utilised

by staff; cultural

supervision is high


offered to staff but is

not well utilised;

provision of cultural


not offered to staff

Supervision is not


not considered of

value or is actively

41

a regular basis

There are systems in

place to continually

improve the quality of

cultural supervision

and reflection on

cultural practice

Cultural supervision

and support is also

readily available for

the cultural leaders,

advisors, or Māori

rōpū at the site or

residence

All supervision

(professional and

cultural) consistently

promotes practitioner

awareness and the

ability to critically

reflect on own

personal values,

cultures, knowledge

and beliefs to manage

the influences of

personal biases when

practising

quality

Supervision is

culturally appropriate

and there is well-

developed reflection

on cultural practice

Some supervision


awareness and self-

reflection, and work is

underway to ensure

that it is consistently

provided

supervision is

superficial

Supervision is


but there is

inconsistent reflection

on cultural practices of

staff

The site understands

the importance of

supervision that


awareness and self-

refection

culturally focussed

Supervision does not

develop practitioner

awareness or self-

reflection

dismissed

Supervision devalues

Māori world views

Practitioner awareness

and self -reflection are

not considered

important elements of

effective social work

practice

42

Sub-domain: Culturally appropriate practice


outstanding


effective/weak

Detrimental


integrate the practices

appropriate for Pasifika C&YP

and their families?

How well does the site or

residence take account of and

integrate the principles of the

Pacific Practice Framework in its

social work practice?


has successfully

integrated culturally

appropriate practices

into their day to day

work and

interventions with

Pasifika C&YP and

their families


is working in

innovative ways to

deliver outcomes for

Pasifika children,

young people and

their families


has well developed

relationships with

key Pasifika

stakeholders and

communities and

offers practical

support to these

groups for their

initiatives


Staff understand

what constitutes

culturally

appropriate practice

for Pasifika C&YP

and their families,

and can apply

culturally

appropriate

approaches to

engage Pasifika

C&YP and their

families, and are

building on their

existing skill base

Staff are building

relationships with

key stakeholders in

Pasifika communities


is actively

implementing the

Pacific Practice


their social work

practice with Pasifika

C&YP, families and

Staff have some

understanding of

what constitutes

culturally

appropriate

practice for Pasifika

C&YP and their

families but are not

applying it

consistently in their

work with Pasifika

C&YP and their

families

Staff do not have

the skills or training

to develop

practices

appropriate for

meeting the needs

of Pasifika C&YP

and their families

Staff may have

engagement with

some Pasifika

stakeholders but

the relationship is

not yet strong

Staff are unaware of

what constitutes

culturally


for Pasifika C&YP

and their families

Staff are not

engaging with

Pasifika stakeholders

There is limited

recognition or

understanding of

how policies work

for Pasifika C&YP

and their families;

‘one size fits all’

attitude


is not implementing

the Pacific Practice


their social work

practice with Pasifika

C&YP, families and

stakeholders

Staff attitudes,

practices and

behaviours

undermine the

world view of

Pasifika C&YP and

their families

The site or

residence has no

intention of

implementing the

Pacific Practice

Framework into

their social work

practice with

Pasifika C&YP,

families and

stakeholders, and

does not agree with

or uphold the

values in the

framework

43

has integrated the

principles of the

Pacific Practice


social work practice

with Pasifika C&YP,

families and

stakeholders

stakeholders enough to benefit

Pasifika C&YP and

their families

The site or

residence may be

trying to

implement the

Pacific Practice

Framework into

their social work

practice with

Pasifika C&YP,

families and

stakeholders, but

their efforts,

commitment,

and/or capability to

do so are

inconsistent



appropriate for migrant and

refugee C&YP and their

families, and those from other

cultures?


has successfully




work and

interventions with

migrant and refugee

C&YP and families

and those from

other cultures


is working in

Staff understand

what constitutes

culturally


for migrant and

refugee C&YP and

their families, and

can apply culturally

appropriate

approaches to

engage migrant and

refugee C&YP and

their families, and

Staff have some

understanding of

what constitutes

culturally

appropriate

practice for

migrant and

refugee C&YP and

their families but

are not applying it


work with migrant

and refugee C&YP


what constitutes

culturally


for migrant and

refugee C&YP and

their families

Staff are not

engaging with

migrant and refugee

stakeholders

There is limited

Staff attitudes,

practices and

behaviours

undermine the

world view of

migrant and

refugee C&YP and

their families

44

innovative ways to


migrant and refugee

families and those

from other cultural

backgrounds


has well developed

relationships with

key migrant and

refugee stakeholders

and communities

and offers practical

support to these

groups for their

initiatives

are building on their

existing skill base

Staff are building

relationships with

key stakeholders in

migrant and refugee

communities

and their families

Staff do not have


to develop

practices

appropriate for

meeting the needs

of migrant and

refugee C&YP and

their families

Staff may have

engagement with

some migrant and

refugee

stakeholders but

the relationship is

not yet strong

enough to benefit

migrant and

refugee C&YP and

their families

recognition or

understanding of

how policies work

for migrant and

refugee C&YP and

their families; ‘one

size fits all’ attitude



appropriate for lesbian, bisexual,

gay, and trans-gendered (LBGT)

C&YP and their families and

whānau?


has successfully

integrated



work and

interventions with

LBGT C&YP and



Staff understand

what constitutes


for LBGT C&YP and

their families and

whānau, and can

apply appropriate

approaches to

engage LBGT C&YP

and their families

and whānau, and are

Staff have some

understanding of

what constitutes

appropriate

practice for LBGT

C&YP and their

families and

whānau but are not

applying it


work with LBGT


what constitutes


for LBGT C&YP and

their families and

whānau

Staff are not

engaging with LBGT

stakeholders

There is limited

Staff attitudes,

practices and

behaviours

undermine the

world view of LBGT

C&YP and their

families and

whānau

45

is working in

innovative ways to


LBGT C&YP and their



has well developed

relationships with

key LBGT

stakeholders and

communities and

offers practical

support to these

groups for their

initiatives

building on their

existing skill base

Staff are building

relationships with

key stakeholders in

LBGT communities

C&YP and their

families and

whānau

Staff do not have


to develop

practices

appropriate for

meeting the needs

of LBGT C&YP and

their families and

whānau

Staff may have

engagement with

some LBGT

stakeholders but

the relationship is

not yet strong

enough to benefit

LBGT C&YP and

their families and

whānau

recognition or

understanding of

how policies work

for LBGT C&YP and

their families and

whānau; ‘one size fits

all’ attitude



appropriate for C&YP with

disabilities and their families

and whānau?


has successfully

integrated



work and

interventions with

C&YP with

disabilities and their

Staff understand

what constitutes


for C&YP with


families and whānau,

and can apply

appropriate

approaches to C&YP

with disabilities and

Staff have some

understanding of

what constitutes

appropriate

practice for C&YP

with disabilities

and their families

and whānau but

are not applying it



what constitutes


for C&YP with



Staff are not

engaging with

disability

Staff attitudes,

practices and

behaviours

undermine the

world view of C&YP

with disabilities and

their families and

whānau

46



is working in

innovative ways to


C&YP with




has well developed

relationships with

key disability

stakeholders and

communities and

offers practical

support to these

groups for their

initiatives

their families and

whānau, and are

building on their

existing skill base

Staff are building

relationships with

key stakeholders in

disability

communities

work with C&YP

with disabilities

and their families

and whānau

Staff do not have


to develop

practices

appropriate for

meeting the needs

of C&YP with

disabilities and

their families and

whānau

Staff may have

engagement with

some disability

stakeholders but

the relationship is

not yet strong

enough to benefit

C&YP with

disabilities and

their families and

whānau

stakeholders

There is limited

recognition or

understanding of

how policies work

for C&YP with


families and whānau;

‘one size fits all’

attitude




appropriate for mokopuna Māori

and their whānau?


has successfully




Staff understand

what constitutes

culturally


for mokopuna

Staff have some

understanding of

what constitutes

culturally

appropriate


what constitutes

culturally


for mokopuna

Staff attitudes,

practices and

behaviours

undermine the

world view of

47

How well do staff demonstrate

competence to work with Māori?

work and

interventions with

mokopuna Māori

and their whānau


is working in

innovative ways to


mokopuna Māori

and their whānau

Staff engage in

culturally

appropriate

approaches in an

inclusive manner


demonstrates well

established,

collaborative

relationships with

iwi/Māori

stakeholders and

mana whenua that

build the capability

of both the

organisation and

iwi/Māori

stakeholders to

achieve the best

outcomes for

mokopuna Māori

and their whānau

Māori and their

whānau, and can

apply culturally

appropriate

approaches to

engage mokopuna

Māori and their

whānau, and are

building on their

existing skill base.

Staff engage

appropriately in

Māori customary

practices in their

work with

mokopuna Māori

and their whānau

(eg, powhiri,

whakatau)

Staff are actively

building

relationships with

iwi/Māori

stakeholders or

mana whenua and

these are beginning

to benefit the

mokopuna Māori

and whānau with

whom the

organisation is

working

practice for

mokopuna Māori

and their whānau

but are not

applying it

consistently in

their work with

mokopuna Māori

and their whānau

Staff do not have

the skills or

training to

develop practices

appropriate for

meeting the needs

of mokopuna

Māori and their

whānau

Staff have some

engagement with

iwi/Māori

stakeholders or

mana whenua but

the relationship is

not yet strong

enough to benefit

the mokopuna

Māori and whānau

with whom the

organisation is

working

Māori and their

whānau

Staff are not

engaging with

iwi/Māori

stakeholders or

mana whenua

There is limited

recognition or

understanding of

how policies work

for mokopuna

Māori and their

whānau; ‘one size

fits all’ attitude

mokopuna Māori

and their families

and whānau

Staff actively

undervalue

culturally

appropriate

practice for

mokopuna Māori

and their whānau

48



the principles of the

Treaty of Waitangi

and their social work

practice


Are C&YP provided with

opportunities to maintain and

strengthen their connections to

their culture and spiritual

practices?

C&YP have

consistent access to

a range

opportunities to

strengthen their

connections to their

culture and spiritual

practices

C&YP are immersed

in their culture (to

the extent they want

to be) and are gently

encouraged to

expand their

awareness of culture

and identity as a key

resilience factor and

source of wellbeing

in their life

C&YP have

opportunities to

strengthen their



practices

Mokopuna Māori

know their whānau,

hapū and iwi and

feel connected to

them

C&YP have some

opportunities to

strengthen

connections to

their culture and

spiritual practices

Mokopuna Māori

may know their

whānau, hapū and

iwi but are not fully

or meaningfully

connected to them

C&YP do not have

opportunities to

strengthen



practices

Mokopuna Māori do

not know their

whānau, hapū or iwi

C&YP are denied

opportunities to

strengthen



practices

Mokopuna Māori

are denied

opportunities to

know their whānau,

hapū and iwi

49

Sub-domain: Access to complaints system


outstanding


effective/weak

Detrimental

Residences:

What is the quality of the

grievance/complaints process at

the residence?

Te Whaea

Maramatanga is

embedded at the

residence

In addition to the

standards listed under

‘well placed’,

achievement of all of

the following:

o Advocates, whom

C&YP readily identify

with, are easily

available to help

C&YP to make a

complaint;

o The complaints

process is trusted by

C&YP and used as a

way of resolving

genuine concerns;

the residence has

transformed the

culture of ‘narcing’

The residence has

special systems in

place to protect C&YP

Te Whaea

Maramatana is

actively being

implemented at the

residence

Achievement of all of

the following:

o The residence has a

high quality

grievance/

complaints process:

the complaints

process is clear and

fair; information

about the

complaints process

is regularly

communicated to

C&YP; written

information about

the complaints

process is clearly

visible in the

residence; and well

maintained

complaints and

suggestion boxes

Te Whaea

Maramatanga is in

an early stage of

implementation at

the residence or is

being implemented

inconsistently

Some elements of

the residence’s

grievance/

complaints process

are inconsistent or

incomplete: eg, it is

not understood by

most C&YP; or it is

not always fair; or

information about

the complaints

process is not

regularly

communicated to

young people; or

written information

about the

complaints process

is not clearly visible

in the residence; or

there are poorly

Te Whaea

Maramatanga is

not being

implemented at

the residence

Many elements of

the residence’s

grievance/

complaints process

are missing or

incomplete

The residence does

not have a back up

protective system

in place for when

C&YP are unhappy

with the outcomes

of a complaint

Te Whaea

Maramatanga is

rejected by the

residence

The residence does

not have a

grievance/

complaints process

for C&YP

C&YP’s grievances

or complaints are

ignored

50

who are especially

vulnerable, eg C&YP

with intellectual

disabilities or mental

health problems

are clearly visible in

the C&YP’s units;

o The residence has a

high quality

protective system

in place for when

C&YP are unhappy

with the outcomes

of a complaint: a

Grievance Panel

regularly visits the

residence and has

contact with C&YP

o The residence and

their Grievance

Panel analyse the

pattern of

grievances/

complaints to

understand and

address the

underlying causes

of the complaints

maintained or no

complaints or

suggestions boxes

The residence may

have a good

quality grievance/

complaints process

but there are issues

with the back-up

protective system:

eg, the grievance

panel does not

regularly visit the

residence; or

C&YP’s concerns

are not adequately

resolved when they

are unhappy with

the outcome of a

complaint

Sites:

How well does the site enable

access to the client complaints

system?

The site has enhanced

their complaints

system so that it is

easy to access for

C&YP and their


C&YP and their

Information about

the complaints

system is readily

available to C&YP

and their families

and whānau

C&YP and their

Information about

the complaints

system may be

available to C&YP

and their families

and whānau but

they are not

supported to

Information about

the complaints

system is not

readily available to

C&YP and their

families and

whānau

The site

discourages C&YP

and families and

whānau from using

the complaints

system if they are

unhappy about the

51


are empowered to

access the site’s

complaints system if

they are unhappy with

the site’s service


are supported to

access the

complaints system if

they are unhappy

with the site’s service

access the

complaints system

if they are unhappy

about the site’s

service

site’s service


Do C&YP know and understand

the complaint process?

Do C&YP feel able to make

complaints?

Are C&YP satisfied with how

complaints are dealt with and

know what to do if they are

unhappy with the outcome of a

complaint?

Do C&YP understand their rights?

C&YP have

ownership of the

both the complaints

process and back-

up protection

system (eg,

grievance panel and

advocates) if they

are not happy with

the outcome of an

investigation

All C&YP feel that it

is easy to make

complaints should

they need to

All C&YP feel safe

to make a

complaint about

any other staff

member or young

person

All C&YP feel safe

to make an appeal

C&YP know and

understand the

complaint process

C&YP feel able to

make complaints

C&YP are satisfied

with how

complaints are

dealt with and know

what to do if they

are unhappy with

the outcome of a

complaint

C&YP in the

custody of the Chief

Executive are given

a copy of the

Children’s Charter,

are talked through

the Charter, have

their questions

answered, and have

an age-appropriate

Some, but not all,

C&YP understand

the complaint

process

Some, but not all,

C&YP feel able to

make complaints

Some, but not all,

C&YP are satisfied

with how

complaints are

dealt with and

know what to do if

they are unhappy

with the outcome

of a complaint

Some but not all

C&YP in the

custody of the

Chief Executive are

given a copy of the

Children’s Charter;

or C&YP are given

C&YP do not

understand the

complaint process

C&YP do not feel

able to make

complaints

C&YP are not

satisfied with how

complaints are

dealt with and don’t

know what to do if

they are unhappy

with the outcome

C&YP in the


Executive are not

given a copy of the

Children’s Charter

and do not have an

age-appropriate

understanding of

their rights

Staff deny C&YP

access to

information about

the complaints

system

C&YP are

discouraged from

making complaints

C&YP’s rights are

ignored

52

if they are not

satisfied with the

outcomes of an

investigation

C&YP view the

complaints process

as timely and

helpful, and use it

as a valid way of

resolving genuine

concerns

C&YP’s confidence

in the complaints

system contributes

to positive

outcomes

C&YP have an

excellent

understanding of

their rights and are

empowered to

teach other C&YP

their rights

understanding of

their rights

a copy of the

Children’s Charter

but it is not talked

through with them

or they are not

given a chance to

ask questions; or

some C&YP do not

have an age-

appropriate

understanding of

their rights


What is the quality of the

grievance/complaints process for

mokopuna Māori?

How effective is the site or

residence’s grievance/complaints

process for mokopuna Māori?

Staff’s use of

culturally

appropriate

methods is integral

to investigating and

resolving C&YP’s

Staff are

consistently mindful

about using

culturally

appropriate

methods to

Staff sometimes

investigate or

resolve complaints

using culturally

appropriate

methods

Staff do not

investigate or

resolve complaints

using culturally

appropriate

methods

Staff deliberately

forego the use of

culturally

appropriate

methods to

investigate or

53

complaints

The site or

residence has taken

innovative steps to

ensure that the

grievance/

complaints process

is effective for

mokopuna Māori

Mokopuna Māori

have ownership of

the both the

complaints process

and back-up

protection system if

they are not happy

with the outcome of

an investigation

investigate and

resolve C&YP’s

complaints

The site or

residence’s

grievance/

complaints process

is effective for

mokopuna Māori

Mokopuna Māori

feel enabled to use

the grievance/

complaints process

The site or

residence’s

grievance/

complaints process

is not consistently

effective for

mokopuna Māori

Some, but not all,

mokopuna Māori

feel enabled to use

the grievance/

complaints process

The site or

residence’s

grievance/

complaints process

is less effective for

mokopuna Māori

than non-Māori

Mokopuna Māori

do not feel enabled

to use the

grievance/

complaints process

resolve complaints

The site or

residence’s

grievance/

complaints process

results in harm to

mokopuna Māori

Mokopuna Māori

are actively

discouraged from

using the

grievance/

complaints process

Note: This next sub-domain has two sections – one for sites and another for residences. In the future, we will separate the

content for sites from the content for residences to make two distinct rubrics

Sub-domain: Quality intake, safety screening, assessment and investigation - Sites

Key evaluative

questions

Transformational/

outstanding


effective/weak

Detrimental

How robust and well

informed are site

In addition to the



the following:

Some elements of the

site’s intake process,

Many elements of the

site’s intake process,

The site’s intake

processes, consistency

54

intake processes,

consistency meetings

and front end

decision making

about appropriate

service pathways?

‘well placed’,


the following:

o Site consistency

meetings are always

attended by the

Differential Response

Coordinator (DRC) to

provide additional

advice about the

suitability of

potential non-

statutory service

delivery pathways for


and whānau

o Site consistency

meetings are

regularly attended

by key external

stakeholders to

strengthen decision

making regarding

service pathways,

enhance key

stakeholders’


site’s statutory

threshold, and

increase the range of

Partnered Response

(PR) options

o Site consistency

meetings are

attended by at least

two senior staff to

enable robust

discussion about

service delivery

pathways; practice

leaders and site

managers

periodically attend


for quality assurance;

o Senior staff arrive

prepared for


with all the

information needed

to make optimal

pathway decisions

about a C&YP and

their family or

whānau; or they

ensure that this

information is made

available during the

consistency meeting

or gathered

promptly after the

meeting before

confirming and

recording pathway

consistency meetings,

or front end decision

making about service

pathways are of

inconsistent quality,

for example:

o Consistency

meetings are not

consistently attended

by at least two staff

members; or

o There is no quality

assurance for

decision making at

the consistency

meetings; or

o Staff are not well

prepared for

consistency

meetings; or

o Service pathway

decisions are made

and recorded before

all the necessary

information is

available; or

o Key worries and

pathway rationales


recorded; or

o New cases are

consistency meetings,

or front end decision

making are

inconsistent, missing

or incomplete

The site does not

accurately match

C&YP and their


to optimal service

responses

There is a lack of

consultation with the

CP Resource Panel

The site’s duty

arrangements are

unclear to staff

meetings, or front end

decision making are

negligent, resulting in

unsafe decisions for

C&YP

The site mismatches

C&YP and their

families and whānau to

service responses

The site actively

disregards advice and

expertise from the CP

Resource Panel

The site’s duty

arrangements are

disorganised and

chaotic

55

available to C&YP

and their families

and whānau

Well-established trust

relationships with iwi,

community and

government agencies

combine with robust

referral pathway

decisions at the site to

ensure consistently

well-matched service

responses for C&YP,

their families and

whānau

Consultation with the

CP Resource Panel is

thorough and has

improved outcomes

for C&YP and their


The site’s duty

arrangements are

clear to external

stakeholders

decisions;

o Key worries for the

C&YP and pathway

rationales are made

explicit and

accurately recorded

in accordance with

the Decision

Response Tool (DRT);

o New cases are

allocated to site

social workers in a

considered, fair and

inclusive way that

takes into account

staff workloads and

provides social

workers with insight

into pathway

rationales

The site consistently

matches C&YP and

their families and

whānau to the optimal

service response to

meet their needs

Timely and consistent

consultation takes

place with the CP

Resource Panel, in

accordance with

allocated to social

workers

electronically with

little or no discussion

about the pathway

rationale or case

itself

o The site does not

consistently match

C&YP and their


to the optimal

service response

Consultation takes

place with the CP

Resource Panel, but

not always in a timely

or thorough way; or



inconsistent

The site’s duty

arrangements are not

clear to all staff and/or

do not enable

supervisors and social

workers to work

efficiently and have

some down time from

the most stressful

work

56

practice policy

The site’s duty

arrangements are clear

to staff and enable

supervisors and social

workers to carry out

their roles and tasks to

a high standard and in

timely and efficient

ways

What is the quality of

safety and risk

screening carried out

at the site?

How effective are

safety screens in

keeping C&YP safe

and informing

subsequent pathway

decision making?

In addition to the


‘well placed’,


the following:

o Staff use innovative

tools and

approaches to

engage C&YP, make

sure they understand

what is happening,

and gather their

information;

o During safety and

risk screening, social

workers go out of

their way to

overcome barriers

and create

opportunities for

engaging with


the following:

o Social workers

ensure that all C&YP

are seen as part of

safety and risk

screening;

o During safety and

risk screening, social

workers engage with

C&YP’s family and

whānau and other

key stakeholders as

appropriate to

ensure the right

information is

gathered;

o Consistent, robust

and high quality

safety and risk

screening accurately


site’s safety and risk

screening process are

of inconsistent quality:

eg, a few C&YP are not

seen as part of safety

and risk screening; or

social workers don’t

engage with all the

stakeholders they

need to in order to

gather the right

information; or the

information gathered

is not used


subsequent decision

making; or the voices

of C&YP and their


are not clearly

captured and recorded

Many elements of

the site’s safety and

risk screening

process are of

inconsistent quality

There is a lack of

confidence that the

site’s safety and risk

screening keeps

C&YP safe

The site’s safety and

risk screening

process is negligent,

resulting in unsafe

decision making and

practices for C&YP

The site’s safety and

risk screening does

not keep C&YP safe

57

C&YP’s family and

whānau and other

key stakeholders to

ensure the right

information is

gathered

o Social workers apply


practices during safety

and risk screens to

gain a deep

understanding of all

the factors affecting

the safety of C&YP


whānau

o All the information

collected is

synthesised to inform

decision making and

planning and to

effectively engage

C&YP and their


with the service

response that best

matches their needs

informs subsequent

site decision making;

o The voices of C&YP

and their families

and whānau are

clearly interwoven

and recorded

throughout safety

and risk screens

Safety and risk

screening is effective

in keeping C&YP safe

in the safety and risk

screen

Safety and risk

screening is usually

effective in keeping

C&YP safe, but there

are concerns that

some C&YP could ‘slip

through the cracks’


Child and Family

Assessments (CFAs)

carried out at the

In addition to the


‘well placed’,



the following:

o Social workers



site’s CFAs are of

inconsistent quality:

eg, a few C&YP are not

seen as part of CFAs;

Many elements of

the site’s CFAs are of


There is a lack of

The site’s CFAs are

negligent, resulting

in unsafe decision

making and practices

58

site?

How effective are

CFAs in assessing

needs and informing

subsequent pathway

decision making?

the following:

o Staff work in

innovative ways to

make sure that C&YP

understand what is

happening;

o During CFAs social

workers go out of

their way to overcome

barriers and create

opportunities for

engaging with C&YP’s

family and whānau

and other key

stakeholders to ensure

the right information

is gathered

o Social workers apply


practices during CFAs

to gain a deep



C&YP and their



collected is


decision making and

to effectively engage

C&YP and their


are sensitively

assessed as part of

CFAs;

o During CFAs social

workers engage with

C&YP’s family and

whānau and other

key stakeholders as

appropriate to

ensure the right

information is

gathered;


and high quality

CFAs accurately

inform subsequent

decision making


and their families

and whānau are

clearly interwoven

and recorded

throughout CFAs

CFAs:

o are child-centred

and young person

focused

o are timely and have

purpose

o gather relevant

or social workers don’t

engage with all the

stakeholders they

need to in order to

gather the right

information; or the


is not used


subsequent decision


of C&YP and their


are not clearly


in the CFAs

CFAs are usually


C&YP safe, but there

are concerns that

some C&YP could ‘slip

through the cracks’

confidence that the

site’s CFAs keep

C&YP safe

for C&YP

The site’s CFAs do

not keep C&YP safe

59

with the service

response that best

matches their needs

information

o are free from bias

o include careful

analysis

o are recorded clearly

in a useful manner

CFAs are effective in

keeping C&YP safe

How well does the

site use Gateway

assessments to

determine C&YP’s

health and education

needs?

The site uses the

results of Gateway

assessments to ensure

that C&YP’s needs are

met and to inform

planning of health and

education services

All C&YP entering care

are referred for a

Gateway assessment

C&YP in the custody

of the Chief Executive

are offered a Gateway

assessment within 10

working days of

entering care; an initial

health check is offered

if there are immediate

health concerns

Gateway assessments

are used prior to FGCs

as needed to help

clarify and identify

ways to address

C&YP’s health and

education needs

Gateway assessments

accurately identify

Some, but not all,

C&YP entering care

are referred for a

Gateway assessment

C&YP in the custody


may be offered a

Gateway assessment

but not within the 10

day timeframe

specified in the caring

for C&YP policy; or

some C&YP may

receive the Gateway

assessment within the

10 day timeframe, but

others fail to receive

the Gateway

assessment in this

time frame; or initial

health checks are not

consistently offered if

C&YP entering care

are not referred for a

Gateway assessment

Initial health checks

are not offered

Gateway assessments

are not used prior to

FGCs to help clarify

and identify ways to

address C&YP’s


needs

The site does not

believe in Gateway

assessments; or

actively ignores any

needs identified in

Gateway assessments

Initial health checks

are not offered even

when there are

serious immediate

health concerns

60

C&YP’s health and

education needs

there are immediate

health concerns

There are missed

opportunities to use

Gateway assessments

prior to FGCs to help

clarify and identify

ways to address

C&YP’s health and

education needs


information

gathering and

Tuituia assessments

and how well do they

identify the needs

and strengths,

aspirations and

hopes of C&YP and

their families and

whānau?

How well do site

Care and Youth

Justice plans identify

the needs and

strengths, aspirations

and hopes of C&YP

and their families

and whānau?

How well do plans

and Tuituia

In addition to the


‘well placed’,


the following:

o Care and Youth

Justice Plans and

Tuituia assessments

are used to gain a

holistic view of C&YP

and their families

and whānau, and an

in-depth

understanding of

their whakapapa,

strengths, needs,

aspirations, hopes

and resources;

o C&YP’s whakapapa,

and aspirations are

consistently and


the following:

o Care and Youth

Justice plans and

Tuituia assessments

consistently identify

the key needs,

strengths and hopes

of C&YP and their


care plans include a

genuine permanent

care goal and

concurrent care goal

o C&YP’s needs,

strengths and hopes

are consistently and

accurately recorded

in their Care and

Youth Justice plans,

Tuituia assessments,


Care and Youth Justice

plans or Tuituia

assessments are of


for example:

o The plans or Tuituia

assessments are

not used

consistently,

identifying some,

but not all, key

needs, strengths or

hopes of C&YP and

their families and

whānau; or

o C&YP’s needs,

strengths and

hopes are not

consistently or

accurately recorded

Care and Youth

Justice plans or

Tuituia assessments

are not being used;

consequently the site

does not identify the

needs, strengths or

hopes of C&YP and

their families and

whānau; care plans

do not include a

genuine permanent

care goal or


Staff are not familiar

with the Tuituia

framework

Tuituia reports are

not completed at

appropriate

assessment points

Care and Youth

Justice plans or

Tuituia assessments

are ignored, rejected

or falsified

C&YPs’ needs are not

identified; permanent

care goals are

falsified

Staff misapply the

Tuituia framework

For C&YP who

offend, dynamic risk

factors are ignored

The site rejects the

standards in the Case

Evaluation Tool

Case consultations are

not used, even for

complex C&YP who

61

assessments include

the voices of C&YP

and their families

and whānau?

accurately recorded

in their Care and



and on CYRAS; they

serve as a key driver

for actions taken by


to help C&YP reach

their potential;


and their families

and whānau serve as

a key driver for

actions taken by the

site to help C&YP

reach their potential

Staff have excellent


Tuituia framework and

apply it in innovative

ways to achieve

holistic assessments of

C&YP

Assessments exceed

the standards set out

in the Case Evaluation

Tool


always attended by

the right people who

work together in

and on CYRAS;


and their families

and whānau are

clearly recorded

throughout all Care

and Youth Justice

plans, Tuituia

assessments, and on

CYRAS

Tuituia assessments:

o are child-centred

and young person

focused


purpose

o gather relevant

information


o include careful

analysis


in a useful manner

Staff are familiar with

and consistently apply

the Tuituia framework

in their assessments of

C&YP

Tuituia reports are

in their Care or


Tuituia

assessments, or on

CYRAS; or


and their families

and whānau are

not consistently

recorded

throughout Care

and Youth Justice

plans, Tuituia

assessments, or on

CYRAS; or

o Care plans do not

consistently include

a genuine

permanent care

goal or concurrent

care goal

Staff may be familiar

with the Tuituia

framework but do

not consistently

apply it in their

assessments of C&YP

Tuituia reports are

not consistently

completed at

appropriate

assessment points;

For C&YP who

offend, dynamic risk

factors are not

explored across

either the Mokopuna

Ora or Kaitiaki

Mokopuna

dimensions of Tuituia

Where relevant, the

site does not seek

residence input into

Tuituia assessments;

or assessments

consistently fail to

meet the standards

set out in the Case

Evaluation Tool

Case consultations

are not typically held

for C&YP who offend

and who have a CP

intervention which is

current or has been

active within the last

three months


not attended by the

right people, eg for

C&YP with both YJ

and CP status, case

consultations are not

attended by both YJ

have both YJ and CP

status

For C&YP with both CP

and YJ status, YJ staff

ignore or reject

information from CP

staff and vice versa

62

partnership to ensure

that all relevant

information about the

C&YP is available to

support sound

decision making

completed at

appropriate

assessment points,

including prior to

youth justice FGCs (for

C&YP who also have

current CP

involvement) and prior

to YP’s discharge from

residence

For C&YP who offend,

all the dynamic risk

factors are explored

across both the

Mokopuna Ora and

Kaitiaki Mokopuna


Where relevant, the

site ensures that

residence staff have

the opportunity to

contribute to Tuituia

assessments, meeting



Tool

A case consultation is

held for all C&YP who

offend and who have a

care and protection

(CP) intervention

which is current or has

they are not

consistently

completed prior to

youth justice FGCs

(for C&YP who also

have current CP

involvement) or prior

to YP’s discharge

from residence

For C&YP who

offend, only some of

the dynamic risk

factors are explored

across both the

Mokopuna Ora and

Kaitiaki Mokopuna


Where relevant, the

site inconsistently

seeks contributions

from residence staff

to Tuituia

assessments; or

assessments do not

consistently meet the

standards set out in

the Case Evaluation

Tool


held for only some

C&YP who offend and

who have a CP

and CP staff

For C&YP with both

CP and YJ status, YJ

staff do not typically

seek information

from CP staff prior to

key decisions being

made and vice versa

63

been active within the

last three months


attended by the right

people, eg for C&YP

with both YJ and CP

status, case

consultations are

chaired by the practice

leader and attended

by both YJ and CP

staff, including the

residential case leader

if the YP is in

residence

For C&YP with both


staff seek information

from CP staff prior to

key decisions being

made and vice versa

intervention which is

current or has been

active within the last

three months


not consistently


people, eg for C&YP

with both YJ and CP

status, case

consultations are not

consistently chaired by

the practice leader or

attended by both YJ

and CP staff

For C&YP with both


staff inconsistently

seek information from

CP staff prior to key

decisions being made

and vice versa

For C&YP who

offend, how timely,

available and useful

are their offending

profiles?

Offending profiles are

prepared promptly in

consultation with key

stakeholders, shared

appropriately, and

used innovatively to

inform decision

making at pre-FGC

case consultations or


prepared and

recorded in CYRAS for

all C&YP who offend

prior to pre-FGC case

consultations

Offending profiles

help to inform

decision making at


prepared and

recorded in CYRAS for

only some C&YP who

offend prior to pre-

FGC case

consultations


used inconsistently to


not typically prepared

and recorded in

CYRAS for C&YP who

offend prior to pre-

FGC case

consultations


not useful


misleading and do not

support good decision

making

64

other forums FGCs and other

forums

inform decision

making at FGCs and

other forums

How effectively does

the site implement

the Child Protection

Protocol (CPP)?


investigations carried

out at the site?

How effective are

investigations in

assessing needs and

informing

subsequent

decisions?

The CPP is

implemented in

innovative ways to

achieve optimal

outcomes for C&YP


whānau

The site and Police

work together in a

seamless, integrated

way to keep C&YP

safe

In addition to the


‘well placed’,


the following:

o Staff work in

innovative ways to

make sure that C&YP

understand what is

happening;

o During investigations

social workers go

out of their way to

overcome barriers

and create

opportunities for

The CPP is being

implemented

effectively and

consistently, according

to the guidelines

The site and Police

consistently work well

together to keep

C&YP safe


the following:

o Social workers


are sensitively

assessed as part of

investigations;

o During investigations

social workers

engage with C&YP’s

family and whānau

and other key

stakeholders as

appropriate to

ensure the right

information is

gathered;


The CPP is being

implemented but

inconsistently

The site and Police

work together but not

in a consistent way


site’s investigations

are of inconsistent

quality: eg, a few

C&YP are not seen as

part of investigations;

or social workers don’t

engage with all the

stakeholders they

need to in order to

gather the right

information; or the


is not used


subsequent decision


of C&YP and their


are not clearly


in the investigations

There is low awareness

of the CPP and it is not

being implemented

The site and Police are

not working together

Many elements of the

site’s investigations are

of inconsistent quality

There is a lack of

confidence that the

site’s investigations

keep C&YP safe

The CPP is ignored or

rejected

The site and Police

ignore or reject each

other’s advice

The site’s

investigations are

negligent, resulting in

unsafe decision


for C&YP

The site’s

investigations do not

keep C&YP safe

65

engaging with

C&YP’s family and

whānau and other

key stakeholders to

ensure the right

information is

gathered

All the information

collected is


decision making and

to effectively engage

C&YP and their


with the service

response that best

matches their needs

and high quality

investigations

accurately inform

subsequent decision

making


and their families

and whānau are

clearly interwoven

and recorded

throughout

investigations

Investigations are


C&YP safe

Investigations are

usually effective in

keeping C&YP safe,

but there are concerns

that some C&YP could

‘slip through the

cracks’

How consistently and

how well does the

site ensure consent

and engagement

from families and

whānau for referrals

to Partnered

Response (PR)?

The Differential

Response Coordinator

(DRC), or similar

dedicated position, is

highly valued at the

site and receives high

quality support for the

work involved; and/or

the site has an

innovative system in

place for engaging

with families and

whānau and seeking

their consent for

referral to PR

The site has a

dedicated role, such as

a DRC, for managing

referrals to PR; and/or

the process used to

engage with families

and whānau and seek

their consent to

referral to PR is of

consistently high

quality

The site’s DRC is

skillful in listening to


supporting them to

The site does not have

a role dedicated for

managing referrals to

PR; and/or the process

used to engage with


and seek their consent

to a referral to PR is of


The site’s DRC lacks

the skills to

successfully engage


and gain their consent


any system in place to

manage referrals to PR

and refers a

disproportionally small

number of families

and whānau to PR

Families and whānau

who are referred to PR

do not give their

consent to the referral

The site refuses to

refer to PR, even when


could benefit

66

C&YP and their


are fully informed

about and fully

engaged in all

decision making about

referral to PR

Virtually all of the


referred to PR consent

to the referral

identify their needs,

and gaining their

consent for a referral

to PR

The majority of


referred to PR consent

to the referral

for referral to PR

Many families and

whānau who are

referred to PR do not

consent to the referral

How effectively does

the site transition

C&YP and their


across to NGOs

through partnered

response?

The site has an

innovative process in

place for transitioning


to PR

The site consistently

ensures that when

C&YP and their


are referred to PR,

they are fully

supported through an

agreed process of

transition, introduced

to the NGO workers

through a face-to-face

meeting, and given

optimal opportunity to

engage with the

NGO’s services

The site has a clear

process in place for

transitioning families

and whānau to PR


receive enough

support from the site

to engage effectively

with PR providers

The site has a system

in place for keeping

track of families and

whānau who are

referred to PR

The site’s process for


and whānau to PR is

of inconsistent quality


sometimes do not

receive enough

support from the site

to engage effectively

with PR providers


any system in place for


and whānau to PR


receive no support

from the site to

engage with PR

The site refuses to

refer to PR, even when


could benefit

67

The DRC or similar

role follows up with


to ensure they have

successfully engaged

with PR providers



intake, safety

screening, CFAs and

investigations for

mokopuna Māori and

their whānau?

How well do staff

demonstrate

competence to work

with Māori to achieve

effective intakes and

assessments?

Staff consistently

demonstrate cultural

competence in their

work with mokopuna

Māori and their


stakeholders as

appropriate to achieve

effective intakes,

safety and risk screens,

assessments or

investigations, and

referrals to PR

Staff understand and

model the relevance

of cultural

competence to

improving outcomes

for mokopuna Māori

Staff apply culturally


to gain an


factors affecting

mokopuna Māori and

their whānau and to

effectively engage

C&YP and their

whānau with the

service response that

best matches their

needs


relevance of cultural

competence to

improving outcomes

for mokopuna Māori

Staff inconsistently

apply culturally


to gain an


factors affecting

mokpuna Māori and

their whānau, or to

engage C&YP and

their whānau with the


best matches their

needs

Some staff

understand the


competence to

improving outcomes

for mokopuna Māori

but others do not

Staff are not applying


practices to gain an


factors affecting

mokopuna Māori and


engage C&YP and



best matches their

needs

Staff do not

understand the


competence to

improving outcomes

for mokopuna Māori

Staff actively ignore

or undermine culture

when seeking to gain

an understanding of


mokopuna Māori and


engage C&YP and

their whānau with an

appropriate service

response

Staff actively

undervalue or

disregard the


competence to

improving outcomes

for mokopuna Māori


Do C&YP have an

age-appropriate

Sites ensure that all

C&YP have an age-

Most C&YP have an

age-appropriate

Some C&YP have an

age-appropriate

C&YP do not have an

age-appropriate

C&YP misinterpret or

misunderstand what

68

understanding of

what is happening

and why they are

being asked

questions?

Are C&YP enabled to

identify and develop

their awareness of

their culture and its

impact on their

identity and

wellbeing in their

Tuituia and other

assessments?

appropriate

understanding of what

is happening and why

they are being asked

questions

All C&YP feel safe,

welcome and

comfortable at the site

and are enabled to

develop meaningful

relationships with staff


C&YP identify and

develop awareness of


impact on their

identity and wellbeing

in their Tuituia or

other assessments

understanding of

what is happening

and why they are

being asked

questions

The majority of C&YP

feel safe, welcome

and comfortable at

the site, and are

enabled to develop

meaningful

relationships with

staff

C&YP are given

opportunities to


awareness of their

culture and its impact

on their identity and

wellbeing in their

Tuituia or other

assessments

understanding of

what is happening

and why they are

being asked

questions, but a

significant proportion

do not

Some C&YP may feel

safe, welcome and

comfortable at the

site, but a significant

proportion do not

C&YP are not given

consistent

opportunities to


awareness of their



wellbeing in their

Tuituia or other

assessments

understanding of

what is happening or

why they are being

asked questions

C&YP do not feel

safe, welcome and

comfortable at the

site

C&YP are not given

opportunities to


awareness of their



wellbeing in their

Tuituia or other

assessments

is happening or why


questions

Most C&YP do not

feel safe at the site,

even after being

there several times

C&YP’s awareness of


impact on their

wellbeing is

undermined or

discounted in their

Tuituia or other

assessments

69

Sub-domain: Quality admission and assessment - Residences

Key evaluative

questions

Transformational/

outstanding


effective/weak

Detrimental


the residence’s

admission process for

C&YP?

In addition to the


‘well placed’,


the following:

o The residence does

an outstanding job

during the admission

process in making all

C&YP feel safe,

welcome and

comfortable in the

residence;

o The residence

provides child-

friendly written

resources to C&YP

to help them to

understand the

purpose of the

residence, how it

operates and the

staff roles at the

residence


the following:

o The residence does a

good job during the

admission process in

making C&YP feel

safe, welcome and

comfortable in the

residence;

o The residence

provides child-

friendly written

resources to C&YP

to help them to

understand their

rights and the rules

and regulations

Some elements of

the residence’s

admission process

are of inconsistent

quality: eg, the

residence does not

consistently make

C&YP feel safe,

welcome and

comfortable; or the

residence does not

consistently provide

child-friendly written

resources to C&YP to

help them to

understand their

rights and the rules

and regulations

The residence has

not developed a

consistent admission

process for C&YP

The way the

residence admits

C&YP is unsafe and

detrimental to their

wellbeing


assessments carried

In addition to the



the following:


assessment are of

Many elements of

the residence’s

The residence’s

assessments are

70

out at the residence?

How effective are

assessments in

identifying needs and

informing

subsequent pathway

decision making?

‘well placed’,


the following:

o The residence

ensures that early in

a C&YP’s residence

placement, a range

of assessments are

innovatively used to

gain a holistic view

of C&YP and their


and an in-depth

understanding of

their whakapapa,

strengths, needs,

aspirations, hopes

and resources;

o Staff work in

innovative ways to

make sure that C&YP

understand what is

happening;

o During assessments

case leaders go out

of their way to

overcome barriers

and create

opportunities for

engaging with

C&YP’s family and

whānau and other

o Case leaders ensure

that all C&YP are

sensitively assessed

shortly after

admission;

o During assessments,

case leaders engage

with C&YP’s family

and whānau and

other key

stakeholders as

appropriate to

ensure the right

information is

gathered;

o Assessments


the key needs,

strengths and hopes

of C&YP and their



and high quality

assessments

accurately inform

subsequent decision

making


and their families

and whānau, along

with their needs,


for example:

o The assessments are

not used

consistently,

identifying some, but

not all, key needs,

strengths and hopes

of C&YP and their


or

o Case leaders don’t

engage with all the

stakeholders they

need to in order to

gather the right

information; or

o C&YP’s needs,

strengths and hopes


or accurately

recorded in their

ICPs or operational

plans; or

o The information

gathered is not used

consistently to

inform subsequent

decision making

assessments are of


Assessments are not

being used;

consequently the

residence does not

identify the needs,

strengths and hopes

of C&YP and their


negligent, resulting

in unsafe decision


for C&YP


identified

Information about

C&YP is ignored,

rejected or falsified

71

key stakeholders to

ensure the right

information is

gathered

o Case leaders apply

culturally


during assessments

to gain a deep



C&YP and their


o C&YP’s whakapapa

and aspirations are

consistently and

accurately recorded

in their ICPs and

operational plans;

they serve as a key

driver for actions

taken by the

residence to help

C&YP reach their

potential;


collected is

synthesised to

inform decision

making and to

effectively engage

C&YP and their

strengths and hopes,

are clearly and

accurately recorded

throughout their

ICPs and operational

plans

Assessments:

o are child-centred

and young person

focused


purpose

o gather relevant

information


o include careful

analysis


in a useful manner

o CFAs are effective in

keeping C&YP safe

72


with the service

response that best

matches their needs


and their families


a key driver for


residence to help

C&YP reach their

potential

How well does the

residence determine

C&YP’s health and

education needs?

Health and Education

personnel work as part

of the leadership team

of the residence

The residence works

well with Health and

Education personnel

to ensure that all

C&YP entering the

residence have their


needs promptly

assessed

Some, but not all,

C&YP admitted to the

residence have their


needs promptly

assessed

C&YP admitted to

the residence do not

have their health and

education needs

promptly assessed

The residence does

not assess C&YP’s

health or education

needs, even when

there are immediate

concerns

How well do

residence Individual

Care Plans (ICPs)

identify the needs

and strengths,

aspirations and

hopes of C&YP and

their families and

whānau?

In addition to the


‘well placed’,


the following:

o ICPs and Tuituia

assessments are

used to gain a


the following:

o ICPs and Tuituia

assessments


the key needs,

strengths and hopes

of C&YP and their


ICPs or Tuituia

assessments are of


for example:

o The ICPs or Tuituia

assessments are not

used consistently,

ICPs or Tuituia

assessments are not

being used;

consequently the

residence does not

identify the needs,

strengths or hopes of

C&YP and their


ICPs or Tuituia

assessments are

ignored, rejected or

falsified


identified; permanent

care goals are

falsified

73

How well do Tuituia

assessments identify

the needs and

strengths, aspirations

and hopes of C&YP

and their families

and whānau?

How well do ICPs

and Tuituia

assessments include

the voices of C&YP

and their families

and whānau?

holistic view of C&YP

and their families

and whānau, and an

in-depth

understanding of

their whakapapa,

strengths, needs,

aspirations, hopes

and resources;

o C&YP’s whakapapa,

and aspirations are

consistently and

accurately recorded

in their ICPs, Tuituia

assessments,

operational plans

and on CYRAS; they

serve as a key driver

for actions taken by

residence to help

C&YP reach their

potential;


and their families


a key driver for


residence to help

C&YP reach their

potential

Staff have excellent



ICPs include a

genuine permanent

care goal and


o C&YP’s needs,

strengths and hopes

are consistently and

accurately recorded

in their ICPs, Tuituia

assessments,

operational plans

and on CYRAS;


and their families

and whānau are

clearly recorded

throughout all ICPs,


operational plans

and on CYRAS

Staff are familiar with

and consistently apply

the Tuituia framework

in their assessments of

C&YP

The residence

contributes to Tuituia

assessments, meeting



Tool

identifying some, but

not all, key needs,

strengths or hopes of

C&YP and their


or

o C&YP’s needs,

strengths and hopes


or accurately

recorded in their

ICPs, Tuituia

assessments,

operational plans

and on CYRAS; or


and their families

and whānau are not

consistently recorded

throughout ICPs,


operational plans

and on CYRAS; or

o ICPs do not

consistently include a

genuine permanent

care goal or


Staff may be familiar

with the Tuituia

framework but do not

consistently apply it in

ICPs do not include a

genuine permanent

care goal or


Staff are not familiar

with the Tuituia

framework

The residence does

not contribute to

Tuituia assessments

or consistently fails

to meet the


the Case Evaluation

Tool

Staff misapply the

Tuituia framework

The residence rejects

the standards in the

Case Evaluation Tool

74

Tuituia framework and

apply it in innovative

ways to achieve

holistic assessments of

C&YP

The residence


assessments,

exceeding the


the Case Evaluation

Tool

their assessments of

C&YP

The residence


assessments but does

not meet the


the Case Evaluation

Tool; or contributes

inconsistently to

Tuituia assessments



admissions for

mokopuna Māori and

their whānau?

How well do staff

demonstrate

competence to work


effective admissions

and assessments?

Staff consistently

demonstrate cultural

competence in their

work with mokopuna

Māori and their


stakeholders as


effective admissions or

assessments


model the relevance

of cultural

competence to

improving outcomes

for mokopuna Māori

Staff apply culturally


to gain an


factors affecting

mokopuna Māori and

their whānau and to

effectively engage

C&YP and their

whānau with the


best matches their

needs



competence to

improving outcomes

for mokopuna Māori


apply culturally


to gain an


factors affecting

mokpuna Māori and


engage C&YP and



best matches their

needs

Some staff

understand the


competence to

improving outcomes

Staff are not applying


practices to gain an


factors affecting

mokopuna Māori and


engage C&YP and



best matches their

needs

Staff do not

understand the


competence to

improving outcomes

for mokopuna Māori

Staff actively ignore

or undermine culture

when seeking to gain

an understanding of


mokopuna Māori and


engage C&YP and

their whānau with an

appropriate service

response

Staff actively

undervalue or

disregard the


competence to

improving outcomes

for mokopuna Māori

75

for mokopuna Māori

but others do not


Do C&YP have an

age-appropriate

understanding of

what is happening

and why they are

being asked

questions?

Are C&YP enabled to


their awareness of


impact on their

identity and

wellbeing in their

Tuituia and other

assessments?

Residences ensure

that all C&YP have an

age-appropriate

understanding of what

is happening and why


questions

C&YP help to shape

and influence the rules

at the residence

All C&YP feel safe,

welcome and

comfortable at the

residence and are

enabled to develop

meaningful

relationships with

other C&YP and staff

Residences ensure

that all C&YP identify

and develop

awareness of their



wellbeing in their

Tuituia or other

assessments

Most C&YP have an

age-appropriate

understanding of

what is happening

and why they are

being asked

questions

C&YP have a good


rules at the residence

The majority of C&YP

feel safe, welcome

and comfortable at

the residence, and are

enabled to develop

meaningful

relationships with

other C&YP and staff

C&YP are given

opportunities to


awareness of their



wellbeing in their

Tuituia or other

assessments

Some C&YP have an

age-appropriate

understanding of

what is happening

and why they are

being asked

questions, but a


do not

Some C&YP may

have a good


rules at the residence,

but a significant

proportion do not; or

C&YP understand

some, but not all, of

the rules at the

residence

Some C&YP may feel

safe, welcome and

comfortable at the

residence, but a


do not

C&YP are not given

consistent

C&YP do not have an

age-appropriate

understanding of

what is happening or

why they are being

asked questions

C&YP do not


at the residence

C&YP do not feel

safe, welcome and

comfortable at the

residence

C&YP are not given

opportunities to


awareness of their



wellbeing in their

Tuituia or other

assessments


misunderstand what

is happening or why


questions


misunderstand the

rules at the residence

Most C&YP do not

feel safe at the

residence, even after

being there for some

time



impact on their

wellbeing is

undermined or

discounted in their

Tuituia or other

assessments

76

opportunities to


awareness of their



wellbeing in their

Tuituia or other

assessments

Note: This next sub-domain also has two sections – one for sites and another for residences. In the future, we will separate

the content for sites from the content for residences to make two distinct rubrics

Sub-domain: Robust intervention practice - Sites

Key evaluative

questions

Transformational/

outstanding


effective/weak

Detrimental


care and protection

or youth justice

family group

conferences (FGCs)?

Sites consistently

adhere to all the FGC

standards

Sites adhere to most of

the FGC standards most

of the time:

1. Meaningfully

engaged

family/whānau –

Family/whānau is

consistently engaged

throughout the FGC

process

2. The right support

people – the right

FGCs adhere to some

FGC practice

standards but not

others; or there is

inconsistent

adherence to FGC

practice standards

FGCs are not

consistently

organised and held

within the statutory

timeframes

FGCs do not adhere to

the FGC practice

standards

FGCs are frequently

organised and held

outside of the

statutory timeframes

The FGC practice

standards are ignored

or rejected; or FGCs

have a detrimental

impact on C&YP, their


The statutory

timeframes for FGCs

are ignored, and FGCs

do not get organised

77

support people are

identified invited and

arrive knowing what

to expect at the FGC

3. All information – All

relevant information

on the needs,

strengths and risks of

the C&YP and their

family/whānau is

gathered and shared

in a frank and honest

way

4. Mokopuna voices –

C&YP take part in

every stage of the

FGC process; their

involvement is

enabled in a way that

reflects their culture

and needs, and their

views and opinions

are heard and

considered as part of

decision making and

planning

5. Engaged victims –

Victims are

meaningfully

engaged throughout

the FGC process,

know their rights and

78

how to actively

participate in making

decisions,

recommendations

and plans for C&YP

6. Empowered

family/whānau –

Family/whānau arrive

at the FGC knowing

they have the right to

actively participate in

the making of

decisions,

recommendations

and plans

7. Effective facilitation –

The FGC is facilitated

in a way that

generates a creative

and unique plan for

C&YP

8. Active plans – Plans

are supported,

actively monitored

and regularly

reviewed

FGCs are organised

and held within the

statutory timeframes

How well are C&YP

and their caregivers,


and whānau are fully


and whānau are


engagement of

C&YP and their


The organisation

excludes C&YP or

79


engaged in their

planning and

decision-making?

engaged in planning

and decision making

that affects them; they

have ownership of their

own plans and take a

leadership role in

developing and

monitoring their own

plans

Capability and

decision-making of


and whānau is

strengthened

Feedback from C&YP


whānau is an integral

part in strengthening

the service they receive

All

caregivers/residence

staff are fully

empowered partners in

the C&YP’s support

team and welcomed to

contribute to all

aspects of the C&YP’s

plan; they are actively

encouraged to play

their part in ensuring a

successful outcome

from the resulting

consistently engaged

in planning and

decision-making that

affects them

All caregivers/residence

staff are partners in the

C&YP’s support team;

they are consistently

invited to contribute to

all aspects of the

C&YP’s plan and are

encouraged to play

their part in ensuring a

successful outcome

from the resulting

interventions

C&YP and their


in planning and

decision-making

that affects them

Caregivers/residence

staff are sometimes

invited to contribute

to the C&YP’s plan

and are consistently

supported to play

their part in

ensuring a

successful outcome

from the resulting

interventions; or


staff are consistently

invited to contribute

to C&YP’s plan but

are only sometimes

supported to play

their part in

ensuring a

successful outcome

are not engaged in

planning and


affects them


staff are not invited to

contribute to the

C&YP’s plan or are

not supported to

play their part in

ensuring a successful

outcome from the

resulting

interventions


from planning and


affects them

Decision-making of

C&YP and their


is weakened


staff are deliberately

not given information

about plans and

interventions for the

YP in their care

80

interventions

How well are plans

and resulting

interventions

matched to the needs

of C&YP and their

families and

whānau?

Plans and interventions

are accurately informed

by assessment,

sensitively tailored to

the needs, strengths

and aspirations of each

C&YP and their family

and whānau, and

designed to achieve

sustainable change for


and whānau


consistently and

accurately address the

needs of C&YP and

their families and

whānau

Plans and

interventions do not

consistently or

accurately address

the needs of C&YP

or their families and

whānau

Plans and


match the needs of

C&YP or their families

and whānau

Plans and

interventions cause

harm to C&YP or their



interventions

delivered to C&YP

and their families

and whānau?

In addition to the


‘well placed’, high

quality interventions

delivered to C&YP and

their families and

whānau are:

o currently being

evaluated (if not

already evidence-

based);

o delivered by

competent staff;

o delivered with the

active engaged

support of the team

around the C&YP,

High quality

interventions delivered

to C&YP and their

families and whānau are:

o child-centred;

o team oriented,

including the


staff and other

involved

stakeholders as key

support partners

o strengths-based;

o evidence-based;

o tailored to the

individual C&YP and

Some, but not all,

interventions being

delivered to C&YP


whānau are high

quality; or

interventions are

inconsistently

delivered to C&YP


whānau

Some interventions

are team oriented,

including the

caregiver/residence

staff and other

involved stakeholders

as key partners

The interventions

being delivered to

C&YP and their


are of dubious quality

Few interventions are

team oriented;


include the

caregiver/residence

staff or other involved

stakeholders as key

partners

C&YP (in the custody

of the Chief Executive)

do not receive medical,

dental, mental, or

physical health care as

The interventions

being delivered to

C&YP and their


are harmful or

undermining progress

No interventions are

team oriented; the

caregiver/residence

staff and other

involved stakeholders

are excluded

The health needs of



are ignored

The education needs

81

including their

caregiver/residence

staff and other

involved

stakeholders as key

partners

o tailored to the

wants, needs and

aspirations of

individual C&YP and

their families and

whānau, and enable

C&YP and their


to develop new skills

and self-confidence,

relationships, and

provide a sense of

accomplishment;

o culturally responsive;

o achieving tangible,

sustained positive

change for C&YP

and their

family/whānau

C&YP are empowered

to develop effective

relationships with

health providers to

ensure their health

needs are met

his/her whānau;

o achieving positive

change for C&YP

and their

family/whānau

All C&YP (in the custody


receive: routine medical

and dental care at least

annually or as required;

specialist medical and

dental care as required;

specialist mental and

physical health care as

required

Social workers ensure

that C&YP’s school or

early childhood

education centre has

relevant, up-to-date

information on their care

arrangements; social

workers liaise with the

school or early

childhood education

centre to promote and

advocate for C&YP’s

educational needs


of the Chief

Executive) do not

consistently receive

medical, dental,

mental, or physical

health care as

required

Social workers do not

consistently ensure

that C&YP’s school or

early childhood

education centre has

relevant, up-to-date

information on their

care arrangements; or

social workers do not

consistently liaise

with the school or

early childhood

education centre to

promote and

advocate for C&YP’s

educational needs

required


ensure that C&YP’s

school or early

childhood education

centre has relevant,

up-to-date

information on their

care arrangements; or


liaise with the school

or early childhood

education centre to

promote and advocate

for C&YP’s educational

needs

of C&YP (in the


Executive) are ignored

82

C&YP are empowered

to develop effective

relationships with

education providers to

ensure their education

needs are met

How timely are the

interventions

experienced by C&YP

and their families

and whānau?

The timing of

interventions is based

on what works best for

the C&YP and their

family and whānau

Interventions are

sequenced and timed

for optimal impact

Interventions

experienced by C&YP


whānau are consistently

timely

Some C&YP and

their families and

whānau experience

timely interventions

while others

experience delays

C&YP and their


complain of untimely

interventions and

frustrating delays

The needs of C&YP


whānau are unmet

due to interventions

not occurring

How well are FGC

services achieving


C&YP?

FGCs and associated

services have a

significant, sustained

positive impact on the

wellbeing of C&YP and

their families and

whānau

FGCs build

resourcefulness and

capability in the wider

community

FGCs and associated

services have a

significant positive

impact on the

wellbeing of C&YP and

their families and

whānau

FGCs and associated

services have an

inconsistent impact

on the wellbeing of

C&YP and their


FGCs and associated

services are not

making a positive

difference to the

wellbeing of C&YP


whānau

FGCs and associated

services have a

detrimental impact on

the wellbeing of C&YP


whānau

How well are FGC,

Care, and Youth

Justice plans

resourced and

supported?

The local community

supports and assists

FGC and Care and

Youth Justice plans to

achieve lasting change

FGC and Care and

Youth Justice plans are

supported and

monitored with

appropriate resources

FGC and Care and

Youth Justice plans

are supported but

not consistently;

and/or plans lack

FGC and Care and

Youth Justice plans

are not well

resourced, supported

or monitored

FGC and Care and

Youth Justice plans

are not developed

Progress and plans

are ignored

83

How regularly and

how well is progress

against FGC, Care

and Youth Justice

plans monitored?

for C&YP and their


The support given to

monitor progress and

implement plans

consistently results in


C&YP over and above

expectations

The site regularly and

consistently facilitates

multi-agency

monitoring of progress

against plans and

coordinates collective

actions to address

emerging issues

The site engages in a

continuous cycle of

assess, plan,

implement, review

(APIR) for all C&YP and

their family and

whānau

For C&YP designated

‘high risk’, (eg, C&YP

with both YJ and CP

status), site social

workers intensify their

face to face contact as

needed to ensure

adequate monitoring,

Progress against plans

is regularly monitored

and emerging issues

are consistently

addressed

Support given to


implement plans

consistently enables

plans to be followed

For C&YP designated

‘high risk’ (eg, C&YP

with both YJ and CP


workers have face to

face contact every week

(or weekly video or

telephone contact for

C&YP in a placement

outside of the site

social worker’s

geographical area);

these meetings are

consistently recorded in

CYRAS

resources or

sufficient monitoring

Progress against

plans is monitored

but inconsistently

and/or emerging

issues are not

consistently

addressed


support to monitor

or implement plans,

resulting in plans not

being followed

For C&YP

designated ‘high

risk’ (eg, C&YP with

both YJ and CP


workers do not

consistently have

weekly contact; or

these meetings are

inconsistently

recorded in CYRAS


is not monitored

There is insufficient

support to monitor

progress or

implement plans

For C&YP designated

‘high risk’, (eg, C&YP

with both YJ and CP


workers have only

sporadic contact;

these meetings are

not recorded in

CYRAS

There is undermining

of support to monitor

or implement plans

Site social workers do

not bother to have

any contact with

C&YP, even those

designated ‘high risk’

84

planning and optimal

outcomes

How effective is the


C&YP and their

social workers?

The relationship

between C&YP and

their social workers is

transformative for the


or whānau

C&YP who are in the


Executive are visited by

their social worker as

often as necessary to

maintain a positive,

trusting, secure

relationship

The relationships

between C&YP and

their social workers are

positive and effective

C&YP who are in the


Executive are visited by

their social worker at

least once every 8

weeks

The relationships

between C&YP and

their social workers

are inconsistently

positive or effective

C&YP who are in the


Executive are visited

by their social

workers but not

regularly enough to

meet policy

requirements

The relationships

between C&YP and

their social workers

are not positive or

effective

C&YP who are in the


Executive are visited

only rarely by their

social workers


bother to develop

relationships with

C&YP


bother to visit C&YP

who are in the


Executive



FGCs and associated

interventions for

mokopuna Māori

and their whānau?

How well do staff

demonstrate

competence to work

with Māori to

achieve effective

interventions?

Staff consistently work

in culturally appropriate

ways with mokopuna

Māori, their whānau

and iwi/Māori

stakeholders as


effective FGCs and

associated interventions


model the relevance of

cultural competence to


Staff work in culturally

appropriate ways with

mokopuna Māori and

their whānau

throughout FGCs and




competence to

improving outcomes

for mokopuna Māori


apply culturally

appropriate

practices with

mokopuna Māori

and their whānau

throughout FGCs

and associated

interventions

Some staff

understand the


competence to

Staff do not work in


ways with mokopuna

Māori and their

whānau throughout

FGCs and associated

interventions

Staff do not

understand the


competence to

improving outcomes

for mokopuna Māori

Staff actively ignore or

undermine culture

during FGCs or

associated

interventions

Staff actively

undervalue or

disregard the


competence to

improving outcomes

for mokopuna Māori

85

mokopuna Māori

FGCs and associated

interventions

strengthen whānau

capability and decision-

making

improving outcomes

for mokopuna Māori

but others do not


Do interventions

reflect and support

the needs, goals,

relationships and

aspirations of C&YP?

Do interventions

have a positive

impact on the

wellbeing of C&YP?

Do youth justice

interventions for

C&YP ensure

accountability while

addressing the

reasons for the

offending?

Are C&YP enabled to


awareness of their

culture and its

impact on their

identity and

wellbeing as part of

Interventions meet

C&YP’s needs,

strengthen their

relationships, and

enable their goals and

aspirations to be

realised

Youth justice

interventions

successfully address the

underlying reasons for

the offending and

prevent reoffending


C&YP identify and



impact on their identity

and wellbeing as part of

their interventions

Interventions reflect

and support the needs,

goals, relationships and

aspirations of C&YP

Youth justice

interventions hold YP

accountable whilst also

addressing the


the offending

C&YP are given

opportunities to


awareness of their




their interventions


and support some,

but not all, of the

needs, goals,

relationships and

aspirations of C&YP

Youth justice

interventions hold

YP accountable but

do not address the

underlying reasons

for the offending

C&YP are not given

consistent

opportunities to


awareness of their

culture and its

impact on their

identity and


their interventions

Interventions do not

reflect and support

the needs, goals,

relationships and

aspirations of C&YP

Youth justice


effectively hold YP

accountable or

address the


the offending

C&YP are not given

opportunities to


awareness of their




their interventions

Interventions

undermine the needs,

goals, relationships

and aspirations of

C&YP

Youth justice

interventions ignore

the underlying

reasons for the

offending



impact on their

wellbeing is

undermined or

discounted as part of

their interventions

86

their interventions?

Sub-domain: Robust intervention practice - Residences

Key evaluative

questions

Transformational/

outstanding


effective/weak

Detrimental

How well are C&YP


whānau engaged in

their planning and

decision-making?


and whānau are fully

engaged in planning and

decision making that

affects them; they have

ownership of their own

plans and take a

leadership role in

developing and

monitoring their own

plans

Capability and decision-

making of C&YP and their

families and whānau is

strengthened

Feedback from C&YP and

their families and whānau

is an integral part of

strengthening the service

they receive

C&YP and their


are consistently

engaged in planning

and decision-making

that affects them


engagement of

C&YP and their


in planning and

decision-making

that affects them

C&YP and their


are not engaged in

planning and decision-

making that affects

them

The organisation

excludes C&YP or their


from planning and


affects them

Decision-making of

C&YP and their

families and whānau is

weakened

How well are plans

and resulting


are accurately informed


consistently and

Plans and



do not match the


cause harm to C&YP or

87

interventions

matched to the needs

of C&YP and their

families and whānau?

by assessment, sensitively

tailored to the needs,

strengths and aspirations

of each C&YP and their

family and whānau, and

designed to achieve

sustainable change for


and whānau

accurately address the

needs of C&YP and

their families and

whānau

consistently or

accurately address

the needs of C&YP

or their families and

whānau

needs of C&YP or their


their families and

whānau


interventions and

programmes

delivered to C&YP in

residences?

In addition to the


‘well placed’, high quality

interventions delivered to


and whānau are:

o currently being

evaluated (if not

already evidence-

based);

o delivered by

competent staff;

o tailored to the wants,

needs and aspirations

of individual C&YP


whānau, and enable

C&YP and their


to develop new skills

and self-confidence,

relationships, and

High quality

interventions delivered

to C&YP and their


are:

o child-centred;

o strengths-based;

o evidence-based;

o tailored to the

individual C&YP

and his/her

whānau;

o achieving positive

change for C&YP

and their

family/whānau

Some, but not all,

interventions being

delivered to C&YP

and their families

and whānau are

high quality; or

interventions are

inconsistently

delivered to C&YP

and their families

and whānau

Some, but not all,

programmes being

delivered to C&YP

are high quality; or

programmes are

inconsistently

delivered to C&YP

The interventions

being delivered to

C&YP and their


are of dubious quality

The programmes

being delivered to

C&YP are of dubious

quality

The interventions

being delivered to

C&YP and their


are harmful or


The programmes

being delivered to

C&YP are harmful or


88

provide a sense of

accomplishment;

o culturally responsive;

o achieving tangible,

sustained positive

change for C&YP and

their family/whānau

How timely are the

interventions

experienced by C&YP


whānau?

The timing of

interventions is based on

what works best for the

C&YP and their family

and whānau

Interventions are

sequenced and timed for

optimal impact

Interventions

experienced by C&YP


whānau are

consistently timely

Some C&YP and

their families and

whānau experience

timely interventions

while others

experience delays

C&YP and their


complain of untimely

interventions and

frustrating delays

The needs of C&YP


whānau are unmet due

to interventions not

occurring

How well are

interventions and

programmes

achieving positive

outcomes for C&YP in

residences?

Interventions delivered to

C&YP in residences have

a significant, sustained

positive impact on their

lives and wellbeing and

that of their families and

whānau

Programmes that C&YP

participate in have a

significant, sustained

positive impact on their

lives, relationships and

wellbeing

Interventions and

programmes build

Interventions delivered

to C&YP in residences

have a significant

positive impact on

their wellbeing

Programmes that

C&YP participate in

have a positive impact

on their wellbeing

Interventions

delivered to C&YP

in residences have

an inconsistent

impact on their

wellbeing

Programmes that

C&YP participate in

have an inconsistent

impact on their

wellbeing



are not making a

positive difference to

their wellbeing

Programmes that

C&YP participate in are

not making a positive

impact on their

wellbeing



have a detrimental

impact on their

wellbeing

Programmes that

C&YP participate in

have a detrimental

effect on their

wellbeing

89

resourcefulness and

capability in the wider

community


behaviour

management at the

residence?

Staff go out of their way

to learn about the C&YP

in their care and to

develop positive,

nurturing, and secure

relationships with them

Staff react immediately,

consistently and

decisively in their

management of C&YP’s

inappropriate behaviour

The Behaviour

Management System

(BMS) is seamlessly

integrated into life at the

residence; along with

C&YP’s robust

relationships with care

and clinical staff, the BMS

effectively supports C&YP

to regulate their own

emotions and behaviour

The residence is creative

in their identification of

appropriate rewards and

consequences for C&YP;

C&YP feel highly

motivated to make an

Staff develop positive,

nurturing and secure

relationships with the

C&YP in their care

Staff consistently

manage C&YP’s

inappropriate

behaviour in ways that

are safe and respectful

The BMS is

consistently

implemented by care

staff

The residence has

identified a range of

appropriate rewards

and consequences for

C&YP; C&YP feel

motivated to make an

effort

Staff consistently de-

escalate C&YP’s

challenging behaviours

and prevent potentially

serious incidents

Some staff have

nurturing, secure

relationships with

the C&YP in their

care but others do

not; or staff

relationships with

C&YP are

inconsistently

positive and

nurturing

Staff’s management

of C&YP’s

inappropriate

behaviour is

inconsistent

The BMS is

implemented

inconsistently by

care staff

The residence is

unclear about

appropriate rewards

and consequences

for C&YP or

inconsistently

implements them;

C&YP are not

Staff do not learn

about the C&YP in

their care or develop

positive, nurturing

relationships with

them

Staff do not manage

C&YP’s inappropriate

behaviour effectively at

the residence, for

example, they ignore

C&YP’s inappropriate

behaviour

There is no effective

BMS in place at the

residence; the

residence does not use

rewards or

consequences to

manage C&YP’s

behaviour; C&YP are

not motivated to make

an effort

Staff do not know how

to de-escalate


or prevent potentially

serious incidents

Staff do not care about

the C&YP in their care

and do not bother

trying to develop a

positive relationship

with them

Staff let challenging

behaviours escalate or

deliberately attempt to

provoke C&YP into

escalating

Staff react to C&YP’s

inappropriate

behaviour in ways that

are harmful, eg they

assault C&YP, use

stand-over tactics, or

lose their temper etc

90

effort; the consequences

prevent repeat

occurrences of

challenging behaviour

Staff are highly skilled in

de-escalating C&YP’s


and preventing

potentially serious

incidents

consistently

motivated to make

an effort

Staff are

inconsistent in their

de-escalation of

challenging

behaviours

How well are ICPs

resourced and

supported?

How well are ICPs

translated into

operational plans and

implemented by care

staff?

The local community

supports and assists ICPs

to achieve lasting change

for C&YP and their



implement ICPs and

operational plans



C&YP over and above

expectations

ICPs are supported

and monitored with

appropriate resources


implement ICPs and

operational plans


them to be followed

ICPs are translated into

clear, effective

operational plans that

are consistently

implemented by care

staff

ICPs are supported

but not consistently

and/or plans lack

resources


support to

implement ICPs or

operational plans,

resulting in plans

not consistently

being followed

ICPs are translated

into operational

plans, but they are

not as clear or

effective as they

should be; or

operational plans


implemented by

care staff

ICPs are not well

resourced or

supported


support to implement

ICPs or operational

plans

ICPs are not translated

into effective

operational plans; or

care staff are not

implementing the

operational plans

ICPs are not developed

ICPs or operational

plans are ignored or

undermined

ICPs are mistranslated

into operational plans

so that care staff

implement potentially

harmful or ineffective

actions

91

How regularly and

how well is progress

against ICPs and

operational plans

monitored?

The residence regularly

and consistently

facilitates multi-agency

monitoring of progress

against plans and

coordinates collective

actions to address

emerging issues; care

staff consistently attend

multi-agency team (MAT)

meetings to inform

C&YP’s ICPs; C&YP

consistently attend MAT

meetings to have a say in

their ICPs


monitor progress



C&YP over and above

expectations

The residence engages in

a continuous cycle of

assess, plan, implement,

review (APIR) for all C&YP

and their family and

whānau

The residence uses

MAT meetings

effectively to achieve


C&YP; progress

against plans is

regularly monitored

and emerging issues

are consistently

addressed

Support given to


implement plans


plans to be followed

Progress against

plans is monitored

but inconsistently

and/or emerging

issues are not

consistently

addressed


support to monitor

plans, resulting in

plans not being

followed


is not monitored


support to monitor

progress

Progress and plans are

ignored

There is undermining

of support to monitor

or implement plans

How effective is the


C&YP and their care

workers and case

The relationship between

C&YP and their care

workers and case

managers is

The relationships

between C&YP and

their care workers and

case managers are

The relationships

between C&YP and

their care workers

or case managers

The relationships

between C&YP and

their care workers or

case managers are not

Care workers and case

managers do not

develop relationships

with C&YP

92

leaders? transformative for the


or whānau

effective are inconsistently

effective

effective



ICPs, operational

plans and associated

interventions for

mokopuna Māori and

their whānau?

How well do staff

demonstrate

competence to work


effective programmes

and interventions?

Staff consistently work in


ways with mokopuna

Māori, their whānau and

iwi/Māori stakeholders as


ICPs and implement




model the relevance of

cultural competence to


mokopuna Māori

Interventions strengthen

whānau capability and

decision-making



mokopuna Māori and

their whānau to

achieve ICPs and

implement


associated

interventions



competence to

improving outcomes

for mokopuna Māori


apply culturally

appropriate

practices with

mokopuna Māori

and their whānau

throughout ICPs,

operational plans

and associated

interventions

Some staff

understand the

relevance of

cultural

competence to

improving

outcomes for

mokopuna Māori

but others do not



ways with mokopuna

Māori and their

whānau throughout

ICPs, operational

plans and associated

interventions

Staff do not

understand the


competence to

improving outcomes

for mokopuna Māori


undermine culture

during ICPs,

operational plans or

associated

interventions

Staff actively

undervalue or

disregard the


competence to

improving outcomes

for mokopuna Māori


Do interventions and

programmes reflect

and support the

needs, goals,

relationships and

Interventions meet

C&YP’s needs, strengthen

their relationships, and

enable their goals and

aspirations to be realised


and support the

needs, goals,

relationships and

aspirations of C&YP

Interventions

reflect and support

some, but not all,

of the needs, goals,

relationships and

aspirations of

Interventions do not

reflect and support

the needs, goals,

relationships and

aspirations of C&YP

Interventions

undermine the needs,

goals, relationships

and aspirations of

C&YP

93

aspirations of C&YP?

Do interventions and

programmes have a

positive impact on the

wellbeing of C&YP?

Do youth justice

interventions for

C&YP ensure

accountability while

addressing the

underlying reasons

for the offending?

Are C&YP enabled to


awareness of their




their programmes

and interventions?

Youth justice

interventions successfully

address the underlying

reasons for the offending

and prevent reoffending

Residences ensure that all

C&YP identify and



impact on their identity

and wellbeing as part of

their interventions

Youth justice

interventions hold YP

accountable whilst

also addressing the


the offending

C&YP are given

opportunities to


awareness of their




their interventions

C&YP

Youth justice

interventions hold

YP accountable but

do not address the

underlying reasons

for the offending

C&YP are not

given consistent

opportunities to

identify and

develop awareness

of their culture and

its impact on their

identity and

wellbeing as part

of their

interventions

Youth justice


effectively hold YP

accountable or

address the


the offending

C&YP are not given

opportunities to


awareness of their




their interventions

Youth justice

interventions ignore

the underlying reasons

for the offending



impact on their

wellbeing is

undermined or

discounted as part of

their interventions

Sub-domain: Transitions between and from care

Key evaluative

questions

Transformational/

outstanding


effective/weak

Detrimental

How effectively are

C&YP’s transitions

between care

placements

(including residences)

Transition planning

begins as soon as C&YP

enter the residence or

care placement

Transition planning

begins soon after

C&YP enter the

residence or care

placement

Transition planning

sometimes begins

early in a new

placement but at

other times is left

Transition planning

typically starts late in

the placement

Residence and site

Residence and site

staff disregard the

transition needs of

C&YP

94

planned and

supported?

For YP in youth

justice residences,

what is the quality of

the pre-release and

post-release

meetings?

Residence and site staff

consistently go out of

their way to ensure that

C&YP are successfully

connected into education,

work and other

meaningful activities

before they leave the

residence or placement

Residence and site staff

consistently work in an

integrated and

coordinated way to plan

and manage successful

transitions for C&YP

C&YP can readily

influence their transition

plans

The site and/or residence

continues to support

C&YP for as long as

needed after they leave

the residence

There is wider community

involvement in, and

support for, C&YP’s care

transitions

Residence and site

staff effectively plan

for and support care

transitions

C&YP are informed

promptly if there are

changes to their

transition plans and

why

The transition plan

arrangements enable

a smooth transition

for C&YP; the

residence continues to

support C&YP for

several months after

they leave the

residence

Site staff work with

residence staff to

prepare well for pre-

and post-release

meetings; they are


people, eg, the

residential case leader,

site practice leader,

key social worker,

police, key

family/whānau

members, any victims,

and the YP him or

until late in the

placement

There is

inconsistent

planning and

support for care

transitions

C&YP are not

consistently

informed if there

are changes to

their transition

plans

The transition plan

arrangements do

not consistently

enable a smooth

transition for C&YP;

the residence’s

support for C&YP

typically ends

shortly after C&YP

leave the residence

Site staff prepare

well for some but

not all pre-release

meetings; or some

pre-release

meetings are not

attended by the

right people

staff do not plan for or

support care

transitions

C&YP are not

informed about

changes to their

transition plans

The transition plan

arrangements do not

enable smooth

transitions for C&YP;

the residence does not

provide any support to

C&YP after they leave

the residence

Site staff do not

prepare well for pre-

release meetings; they

are not attended by

the right people

Pre-release meetings

do not enable

family/whānau,

caregivers, or other

key community

members to build

rapport with the YP or

successfully finalise the

arrangements for YP

moving back into the

community

Pre- or post-release

meetings do more

harm than good, eg

by making the YP feel

stressed, unsupported

and/or uncertain

about their future

95

herself

Pre-release meetings

enable family/whānau,


key community

members to build

rapport with the YP

and successfully

finalise the

arrangements for YP

moving back into the

community

Post-release meetings

successfully check that

the YP’s plan is on

track and risk factors

are being managed;

any associated issues

are addressed

Pre-release

meetings do not

consistently enable

family/whānau,


key community

members to build

rapport with the YP

or successfully

finalise the

arrangements for

YP moving back

into the community

Post-release

meetings are not

consistent in

checking that the

YP’s plan is on track

and risk factors are

being managed;

associated issues


addressed

Post-release meetings

do not check that the

YP’s plan is on track

and risk factors are

being managed;

associated issues are

not addressed

How well does

transition planning

support young people

to leave care

(whether they are in

care through care

and protection or

youth justice plans)?

C&YP are successfully

connected to their

whānau and community

C&YP are empowered to

develop their strengths in

the community

The site continues to

support C&YP for as long

There are tailored

transition plans in

place, which are

consistently

implemented

The voice of C&YP


whānau is clearly

evident within the

There are tailored

transition plans,

but the plans are

not consistently

implemented

There is some

evidence of the

voice of C&YP in

Transition plans are

generic with no

individual tailoring

The voice of C&YP is

not evident in the

transition plans

The site does not

provide support to

There are no transition

plans in place

The voice of C&YP is

ignored in transition

planning

96

as needed after they

leave care

There is wider community

involvement in, and

support for, C&YP’s

transitions to

independence

transition plans

The site continues to

support C&YP for the

set policy period after

they leave care

the plans

The site supports

some C&YP for the

set policy period

after they leave

care, but not

others; or the site

provides some

support to C&YP

after they leave

care but not for the

set policy period

C&YP after they leave

care

How integrated and

accountable are

transition plans?

There is clear ownership,

accountability and

support for integrated

transition plans

There is clear

identification of and

support for C&YP’s circle

of support

The community, through

its presence on the Care

and Protection Resource

Panel or Community

Liaison Committee, is

actively engaged in

transition planning for

C&YP in care


integrated with clear

accountability

There is clear

identification of

C&YP’s circle of

support

There is consistent

resourcing,

monitoring and

follow-up of transition

plans


integrated but lack

accountability; or

transition plans

have accountability

but are not well

integrated

C&YP’s circle of

support is unclear

or needs further

development

There is

inconsistent

resourcing,

monitoring and

follow-up of

transition plans


not integrated and do

not have clear

accountability; C&YP

are ‘in drift’

C&YP’s circle of

support is not

identified

Transitions plans are

not adequately

resourced, monitored

or followed up


refuses to be

accountable for

transition plans

C&YP’s whānau and

community supports

are ignored or

rejected

97


How well does

transition planning

support mokopuna

Māori to transition

between placements

or to leave care?

Staff consistently work

in culturally


mokopuna Māori,

their whānau and

iwi/Māori stakeholders

as appropriate to

achieve effective

transitions for C&YP

between and from

care


model the relevance

of cultural

competence to

improving outcomes

for mokopuna Māori

Transitions strengthen

whānau capability and

decision-making



mokopuna Māori and

their whānau

throughout transitions

between and from

care



competence to

improving outcomes

for mokopuna Māori


apply culturally


with mokopuna Māori

and their whānau

throughout

transitions between

and from care

Some staff

understand the


competence to

improving outcomes

for mokopuna Māori

but others do not



ways with mokopuna

Māori and their

whānau throughout

transitions between

and from care

Staff do not

understand the


competence to

improving outcomes

for mokopuna Māori


undermine culture

throughout C&YP’s

transitions between

and from care

Staff actively

undervalue or

disregard the


competence to

improving outcomes

for mokopuna Māori


Are C&YP aware of

and do they

understand their

transition plans?

What level of

involvement do

C&YP have in

C&YP have ownership

of their transition

plans

C&YP’s well-

developed

connections with

whānau, hapū, iwi and

C&YP are aware of,

involved in the

development of, and

understand their

transition plans

C&YP are consulted

on their transition

C&YP are aware of

their transition plans

but some do not

understand them


consultation of C&YP

on their transition

C&YP are not aware of

their transition plans

C&YP are not

consulted about their

transition plans

C&YP do not feel

adequately prepared

There are no transition

plans

Staff do not share

transition plans with

C&YP

C&YPs’ ideas for their

transition plans are

98

developing and

influencing their

transition plans?

Do C&YP feel

adequately prepared

for leaving CYF

care/residences?

the community give

them a high level of

confidence for leaving

CYF care

C&YP feel they have

lots to look forward to

and are optimistic

about leaving care

plans

C&YP feel adequately

prepared for leaving

CYF care

plans

Some C&YP feel

adequately prepared

for leaving CYF care

for leaving CYF care ignored or rejected

C&YP are stressed

about and ill-prepared

for leaving CYF care

99

DOMAIN 6: Caregiver support system

Sub-domain: Recruitment

Key evaluative

questions

Transformational/

outstanding


effective/weak

Detrimental

How well designed

and effective is the

recruitment strategy

for caregivers?

An innovative, multi-

agency recruitment

strategy is embedded

There is multi-agency

responsibility for

finding care

placements and multi-

agency support for

ensuring placements

work well

All C&YP in the


Executive are matched

with an approved,

skilled caregiver; social

workers go out of

their way to address

barriers to finding

appropriate

family/whānau

placements for C&YP

The recruitment

strategy is well

established and

consistently

implemented

All C&YP in the


Executive are placed

with an approved

caregiver; all efforts

are first made to

identify appropriate

family/whānau

placements for C&YP

The recruitment

strategy is in place but

inconsistently

implemented

Most, but not all,

C&YP in the custody


are placed with an

approved caregiver;

inconsistent efforts are

made to identify

appropriate

family/whānau

placements

There is awareness of

the need for a


but it is not yet

developed

There is a lack of

attention paid to

ensuring that C&YP in

the care of the Chief

Executive are placed

with an approved

caregiver; the site

does not make efforts

to identify appropriate

family/whānau

placements for C&YP

There is no


or valuing of the need

for a recruitment

strategy

The site discounts the

need to place C&YP

with approved

caregivers; the site

undermines efforts to

identify appropriate

family/whānau

placements for C&YP


How well designed

and effective is the

CYF successfully

supports iwi social

There is consistent,

active seeking out of

There is ad hoc

consideration given to


consider family,

The recruitment

strategy actively

100


for Māori caregivers?

services to provide


placements for

mokopuna Māori

CYF works with mana

whenua and iwi and

Māori organisations to

successfully locate kin

caregivers and recruit

high quality Māori

caregivers

family, whānau, hapū

and iwi as caregiver

options; a systemic

approach is taken to

finding appropriate

placements for

mokopuna Māori

family, whānau, hapū

and iwi as caregiver

options


as caregiver options

dismisses family,


as caregiver options


Are the views of

C&YP in care sought

to inform the

development of the

caregivers’

recruitment strategy?

C&YP feel confident


influenced the

caregivers’ recruitment

strategy

The site goes out of

their way to address

any barriers

preventing siblings

from being placed

together where

possible and/or

practicable

The views of C&YP in

care are sought to

inform the

development of the

caregivers’


Siblings are placed

together where

possible and/or

practicable unless

there are safety

concerns that require

addressing

The views of C&YP

are inconsistently

sought to inform the

development of the

caregivers’


Inconsistent efforts

are made to place

siblings together

The views of C&YP are

not sought to inform

the development of

the caregivers’


No effort is made to

place siblings together


ignored or rejected in

the development of

the caregivers’


The site actively seeks

to separate siblings

from each other

101

Sub-domain: Caregiver support services

Key evaluative

questions

Transformational/

outstanding


effective/weak

Detrimental

How well are

caregivers provided

with training and

development?

The training provided to

caregivers is extended to

the C&YP’s wider whānau

so that they can also

increase their skills and

provide respite care

For caregivers who need

intensive support, there is

flexible, multi-agency,

wrap-around support in

place to enable them to

achieve their personal

learning and

development goals

The organisation informs

key stakeholders about

the support and

entitlements that

caregivers should receive

from CYF so that others

are in a position to

advocate for caregivers’

entitlements on their

behalf

Training for

caregivers is readily

available and

accessible; caregivers

are encouraged and

supported to

participate in a

variety of

learning/training

events that meet

their needs

Personal learning

and development

plans are in place for

all non-

family/whānau

caregivers and some

family/whānau

caregivers as

needed; plans are

tailored to

caregivers’ needs

Caregivers are

informed of their

roles and

responsibilities and

the nature of the

Training may be

available but the

opportunities available

lack variety or do not

meet caregiver needs;

or caregivers have some

difficulty accessing

training opportunities;

or caregivers are not

consistently encouraged

and supported to

participate in

learning/training events

Caregivers don’t have a

say in what training they

need

Personal learning and

development plans may

be in place, but they are

not tailored to

caregivers’ needs

Caregivers are only

partially informed about

their roles and

responsibilities or the

nature of the support

and entitlements they

Caregivers are not

given opportunities

to participate in

learning/training

events

There are no

personal learning

and development

plans in place for

caregivers

Caregivers are not

informed of their

roles and

responsibilities or

the nature of the

support and

entitlements they

should receive from

CYF

Training and

development of

caregivers is not

considered important

Informing caregivers

about their roles and

responsibilities or the

nature of the support

and entitlements

they should receive

from CYF is not

considered important

102

support and

entitlements they

should receive from

CYF

should receive from

CYF; or some caregivers

are fully informed but

others are not informed

How well are

caregivers supported

and resourced to

manage challenging

and high risk

behaviour, both for

children with high

needs and young

people who have

offended?

All caregivers have a plan

and the information and

resources they need to

care for their C&YP and

manage challenging and

high risk behaviour

The support that

caregivers receive to

manage challenging and

high risk behaviour

enables them to

effectively support C&YP

to regulate their

behaviour

There is a regional

approach to caregiver

support; resources are

pooled to maximise the

quality and quantity of

support

All caregivers have a

plan and the

information they

need to care for their

C&YP and manage

challenging and high

risk behaviour

Caregivers can

access the mix of

services they need to

care effectively for

C&YP with


risk behaviour

Caregivers can access

training and some

resources but it does

not sufficiently equip

them to be able to

manage challenging

and high risk behaviour

There is no training

or additional

resources available

to caregivers for

managing


risk behaviour

The need for

additional support

and resources for

caregivers to manage


risk behaviour is not

acknowledged

How well are

caregivers provided

with support, both

financial and social

work, to undertake

their care effectively?

There is a multi-agency

support package to

ensure that caregivers are

effective in their role with

C&YP

Caregiver social workers

There is a dedicated

role for the provision

of caregiver support

services that is well

supported and

resourced to do their

job well

There is a dedicated

role for the provision of

caregiver support

services but a lack of

support for this person

to do their job well

There is no

dedicated role for

the provision of

caregiver support

services and no

active seeking for a

replacement

There is no dedicated

role for the provision

of caregiver support

services and the

organisation does

not care

103

proactively identify when

caregivers need support

and provide outstanding

practical and emotional

support whenever it is

needed; social workers’

engagement with

caregivers enables

caregivers to care

effectively for their C&YP

Caregivers receive the

financial resources

needed to care effectively

for their C&YP; there is

flexibility in the provision

of financial resources to

caregivers

Caregivers’ approval

status and support needs

are reviewed as often as

necessary to maintain

C&YP’s safety and

wellbeing

Every caregiver is

allocated a caregiver

social worker to

provide them with

practical and

emotional support;

caregiver social

workers take

responsibility for

engaging with

caregivers, at least

once every 8 weeks;

the quality of social

workers’

engagement with

caregivers is high

Caregiver social

workers work

effectively as a team

with children’s key

social workers to

support C&YP’s

placements

Social workers

respond promptly

and consistently to

phone calls by

caregivers

Caregivers have

strong positive

relationships with

their caregiver social

Some caregivers are


social worker to provide

them with practical and

emotional support but

others are not; or

caregiver social workers

do not take

responsibility for

engaging with the

caregivers; or caregiver


engage with the

caregivers at least once

every 8 weeks; or the

quality of social

workers’ engagement

with caregivers is

inconsistent

Caregiver social workers

do not consistently

work as a team with

children’s key social

workers to support

C&YP’s placements


promptly or consistently

return phone calls by

caregivers

Caregivers have

inconsistent


Caregivers are not


social worker to

provide them with

practical and

emotional support

Social workers do

not return phone

calls by caregivers

Caregivers have

poorly developed

relationships with


worker and their

child’s key social

worker

Caregiver social

workers do not work

effectively with

children’s key social

workers to support

C&YP’s placements

Caregivers do not

receive the standard

allowance payments

to which they are

entitled


status and support

needs are not

reviewed

The organisation

does not believe that

the caregivers need

practical or

emotional support

from social workers

Social workers ignore

or do not bother to

return phone calls by

caregivers

Caregivers have

negative

relationships with


worker and their


worker

Caregiver social

workers actively

undermine the work

of children’s key

social workers or vice

versa

Caregivers are

prevented from

receiving the

standard allowance

payments to which

they are entitled


status and support

104

worker and their


worker

Caregivers receive

the standard

allowance payments

to which they are

entitled, and ensure

that allowances for

C&YP’s clothing,

birthdays, Christmas

and pocket money

are used for C&YP in

their care and/or

passed on to C&YP

in an age

appropriate way


status and support

needs are reviewed

within the first six

months of being

approved and

annually thereafter

caregiver social worker

and/or their child’s key

social worker; or some

caregivers have good


caregiver social worker

and/or their child’s key

social worker but others

do not

Some caregivers receive

the standard allowance

payments but others do

not; or caregivers’

receipt of allowance

payments is

inconsistent; or

caregivers do not

consistently use

allowances for C&YP’s

clothing, birthdays,

Christmas and pocket

money for C&YP in their

care


status and support

needs may be reviewed,

but not within the

timeframe specified in

the caregiver support

and review policy

needs are ignored

How well are the

observations and

Caregivers are part of the

C&YP’s care team,

Observations and

insights of caregivers


integration of


integrate

Observations and


105


integrated into the

planning and

decision-making for

C&YP in care?

actively involved in


making for C&YP

are consistently

integrated into the

planning and

decision-making for

C&YP

caregivers’ observations

and insights into


making for C&YP

observations and


into planning and

decision-making for

C&YP

are rejected or

actively ignored


Do C&YP in care feel

safe and valued by

their caregivers?

Are the views of

C&YP sought when

care and protection

placement options

are considered for

them?

C&YP feel safe and

valued by their caregivers

and well-supported to

achieve their aspirations

and potential

Care and protection

placements decisions

take full account of the

views of C&YP and what

they believe is best for

them

C&YP feel safe and

valued by their

caregivers

The views of C&YP

are sought when

care and protection

placement options

are considered for

them

Some, but not all, C&YP

feel safe and valued by

their caregivers


sometimes sought

when care and

protection placement

options are considered

for them

C&YP do not feel

safe or valued by

their caregivers

The views of C&YP

are not sought when

care and protection

placement options

are considered for

them

C&YP feel rejected

by their caregivers

C&YP are living in

unsafe environments

The views of C&YP

are ignored or

rejected when CP

placement options

are considered for

them

106

DOMAIN 7: Engagement with children & young people and their families & whānau

Sub-domain: Child-centred practice

Key evaluative

questions

Transformational/

outstanding


effective/weak

Detrimental

How well does the

organisation examine

children’s experiences

and their journey

through the system

How does the site or

residence use the voices

and feedback of C&YP to

inform their practice?

The organisation’s

direction, service

delivery priorities and

practice is shaped by

C&YP’s voices

One child, one plan

the driving mantra

The Assess, Plan,

Implement, Review

(APIR) process is

embedded within the

organisation and is

the way the

site/residence

engages with C&YP

The leadership team

actively uses


from the grievance

process to change or

modify practice

C&YP are well

informed about their

plans and decisions

that affect them

C&YP fully

understand the

grievance process and

staff are encouraged/

reminded about the

importance of

enabling C&YP’s

voice to the grievance

process

Seek C&YP voice and

input but not moving

forward in terms of

actions

Promotion of

grievance process

inconsistent across

units within a site or

residence

Leadership team do

not seek out C&YP

input into planning

and decision-making;

do not see value in

this

The grievance process

is unclear or not in

place

C&YP views and input

actively ignored,

dismissed, overridden

by leadership team

and staff views

C&YP are

discouraged from

participating in

developing their plans

C&YP actively

discouraged from

using grievance

process eg, forms are

not readily available;

no receptacle box for

dropping forms back

to ensure anonymity

107


Do C&YP feel that the

decision-makers around

them are focused on

what’s best for them?

Do C&YP feel valued by

the decision-makers

around them?

Do C&YP feel that their

views are taken into

account and make a

difference to how they

are cared for?

C&YP lead the

development of their

own plans; plans

capture their

aspirations and

hopes; and C&YP are

supported to make

decisions that are

best for them

C&YP feel confident,

cared for and have a

high level of trust that

their needs are

prioritised

C&YP feel staff try to

focus on what is best

for them but

obstacles often get in

the way

C&YP do not

understand and are

not involved with

decision and plans

that affect them

C&YP experience

things being done to

them, not with them

C&YP feel excluded

and isolated, that

their views are

rejected and

undermined

Sub-domain: Engagement with families and whānau

Key evaluative

questions

Transformational/

outstanding


effective/weak

Detrimental

How well are staff

listening to children and

their families and

whānau and tailoring

their responses to their

needs?

Are families and whānau

supported to achieve

agreed plans of care for

their C&YP?

All practice is fully

informed by C&YP


whānau


are fully supported to

take ownership of

their plans


has strong

relationships with

whānau and seek to

involve them in all

decisions relating to

C&YP


advocates for C&YP

with their families and

whānau and


engagement with

whānau is

inconsistent or patchy


lacks the cultural skills

to engage

meaningfully with



relationships with

family and whānau

are weak and at

times, fraught and

tense


dismisses whānau as

stakeholders and

regards them as the

problem

No relationships; the

site or residence uses

power and influence

to actively work

against improving

outcomes for

108

endeavours to get

them on board to

strengthen outcomes

for C&YP

mokopuna Māori and

their whānau


Do C&YP feel they are

listened to about the

amount of contact they

need and want with the

families/whānau?

Do they understand the

rationale for their

contact arrangements?

Wherever possible,

C&YP have the

amount of contact


whānau that they

need and want

C&YP are fully

consulted and

informed about all

contact decisions, and

all opportunities to

meet their contact

needs are fully

explored

C&YP feel they are

listened to regarding

the amount of contact

they need and want


whānau

C&YP fully

understand the

rationale for contact

decisions

Some C&YP feel they

are listened to

regarding the amount

of contact they need

and want with their


Some C&YP

understand the

rationale for contact

decisions and plans

C&YP do not feel they

are listened to

regarding the amount

of contact they need

and want with their


C&YP are not given

any explanation for

decisions made about

contact

C&YPs views about

the amount of contact

they need and want


whānau are ignored

or rejected

Staff stop C&YP from

seeing their families

and whānau with no

explanation or clear

rationale

109

DOMAIN 8: Partnerships and networks

Sub-domain: Collaboration and partnerships with stakeholders

Key evaluative

questions

Transformational/

outstanding


effective/weak

Detrimental


residence currently

engage and collaborate

with government, non-

government and other

community

organisations to support

effective delivery?

How does the site

demonstrate a partnered

approach with key

stakeholders for

delivering outcomes for

C&YP?

There is stakeholder

representation in site

and residence

leadership; joint

decision-making; joint

training and

development; and

shared measurement

High quality

interactions with key

and other stakeholders

routinely occur at all

levels relative to roles

and responsibilities

within the organisation

The leadership team

responds promptly and

effectively when

concerns are raised by

stakeholders; the

response addresses the

underlying issue,

thereby reducing the

need for such concerns

to be raised in the

The site or residence has

sound relationships with

their key stakeholders

and use their networks

to achieve optimal

outcomes for C&YP

High quality interactions

with key stakeholders

routinely occur at

supervisor, manager and

leadership team levels

The leadership team

responds promptly and

effectively when


stakeholders

The work of onsite


staff is respected and

used to inform the social

and care work of the

residence


participate in a number


has some networks

and relationships with

key stakeholders, but

they are narrow; the

site or residence tends

to meet with the

‘same old’

stakeholders; not all

the key players are

around the table; or

there is some

engagement with key

community partners

but it lacks depth and

value

The leadership team is

not consistently

responsive when


stakeholders

The work of onsite


staff is not used



has limited

engagement with key

stakeholders; or there

is some engagement

with stakeholders but

these are not the most

relevant for the site or

residence

The leadership team

does not respond

when concerns are

raised by

stakeholders;

complaints from the

community about a

lack of responsiveness

are justified

The work of onsite


staff is not used to

inform the social and

care work of the

residence


o The site or residence

has no engagement

with or awareness of

key stakeholders; the

site or residence is

disconnected from

the community

o The site or residence

has dysfunctional

relationships with key

stakeholders that are

impacting negatively

on outcomes for

C&YP; or there is

disregard for

community input or

concerns; a ‘why

bother’ mentality

persists across the

organisation

o The work of onsite


staff is actively

disregarded or

ignored

110

future

The work of onsite


staff is seamlessly

integrated into the

social and care work of

the residence


initiate a number of

multi-agency forums

that enable joined up

working for C&YP and

their families and

whānau

Sites or residences

have innovative

arrangements in place

to manage, maintain

and continuously

develop their


and other stakeholders

Community partners

have a clear

understanding of their

local site’s statutory

threshold and work

collaboratively with

CYF to ensure that

C&YP are matched

with the optimal

of multi-agency forums

to facilitate joined up

working for C&YP and

their families and

whānau

Sites or residences have

several arrangements in

place to maintain their


stakeholders

Community partners

have a sound

understanding their local

site’s statutory threshold

Care & Protection

Resource Panel members

understand their role

and purpose and actively

engage with site

leadership teams to

ensure a coordinated

and cohesive service

The residence has a

sound relationship with

its Grievance Panel that

is ensuring an effective

grievance process is in

place for C&YP

There are clear lines of

communication across

agencies; community

the social and care

work of the residence


participate in some

multi-agency forums

but are missing from

other important

forums where their

presence is needed to

achieve optimal

outcomes for C&YP


whānau; or attendance

at key interagency

meetings is irregular


arrangements to

maintain relationships

with their key

stakeholders are

piecemeal or

inconsistent

Community partners

do not have a

consistent

understanding of their

local site’s statutory

threshold

Care & Protection

Resource Panel

membership has

diversity and members

do not attend

interagency meetings


does not have

arrangements in place

to maintain

relationships with

their key stakeholders

Community partners

do not understand

their local site’s

statutory threshold

A Care and Protection

Resource Panel exists

but lacks diversity and

does not meet

regularly

The residence has a

poor relationship with

its Grievance Panel

but is trying to

address this


inform stakeholders

about the outcomes

of their reports of

concern or return

phone calls from

community partners

who ring seeking

information about

o The site does not have

a Care & Protection

Resource Panel; if one

exists, the wrong

people are on it

o The residence does

not have a Grievance

Panel; if one exists,

the wrong people are

on it

o There are entrenched

negative attitudes and

behaviour amongst

staff

111

service response

Care & Protection

Resource Panel

members support the

site in the wider

community and

facilitate networking in

the community; the

members sit alongside

site meetings and act

as community liaison

The residence’s strong

relationship with its

Grievance Panel is

ensuring an effective

grievance process is in

place that is trusted by

C&YP


has strong

relationships with

youth networks and

groups, eg, Youth Net

Community partners

advocate for the site or

residence in the

community

Social workers’

communication with

key external

stakeholders is reliable

partners know who to

contact about what

Social workers’ strive to

consistently inform

stakeholders about the

outcomes of their

reports of concern and

to return phone calls

from community

partners who ring

seeking information

about families or whānau

who are on CYF plans

are engaged, but

there is a lack of clarity

about their role and

purpose; the members

do not take

information back to

the community

The residence’s

relationship with its

Grievance Panel is

inconsistent, affecting

the quality of the

grievance process for

C&YP

Lines of

communication

between the site or

residence and their

stakeholders are

inconsistent;

community partners

have to go to some

effort to find out who

to contact about what


consistently inform

stakeholders about

the outcomes of their

reports of concern or

return phone calls

from community

partners who ring

families or whānau


112

and consistent; social

workers regularly and

consistently inform

stakeholders about the

outcomes of their

reports of concern and

return phone calls from

community partners

who ring seeking

information about

families or whānau


seeking information

about families or

whānau who are on

CYF plans



residence currently

engage and collaborate

with mana whenua,

other iwi and local Māori

social service agencies?

There is iwi or Māori

social service agency

representation in site

and residence

leadership; joint

decision-making; joint

training and

development; and

shared measurement


engagement with iwi and

Māori social service

agencies is purposeful

and high quality

relationships exist;

interactions are positive

There is engagement

with iwi and/or Māori

social service agencies

but it is sporadic or

tends to be individual

dependant; the site or

residence does not

have institutional

relationships in place

There is awareness of

iwi and Māori social

service agencies and

their representatives

in the community but


does not seek

engagement


does not see value in

having a relationship

with iwi or Māori social

service agencies


Do C&YP think that the

people working with

them know and engage

with each other or work

effectively as a team -

for example teachers,

social workers, police,

C&YP see a network of

people/agencies and

community members

around them working

together in innovative

ways to improve the

system

C&YP see the

people/agencies who

work with them

engaging with each

other and working

effectively together as a

team to achieve change

C&YP see some

people/agencies

engaging with each

other but they do not

always work effectively

together, so the pace

of change is slow

C&YP think that the

people/agencies

working with them

don’t engage with

each other or work

effectively together as

a team

C&YP see the

people/agencies who

work with them in

conflict with each

other rather than

focused on their needs

or goals

113

health practitioners,

whānau?

Are families and whānau

supported and enabled

to achieve agreed plans

for care and protection

and youth justice?


feel ownership of

plans, and whānau

capability and

decision-making is

strengthened

Families and whānau are

supported and enabled

to achieve agreed plans

Some, but not all,


are supported and

enabled to achieve

agreed plans


are not supported or

enabled to achieve

agreed plans


are undermined so

that plans cannot be

achieved

Sub-domain: Consultation and links in the community


outstanding


effective/weak

Detrimental

How well does the leadership

and management draw on

local resources and expertise to

support effective delivery?

How well do they consult with

and engage with the

community so as to better

serve the needs of the

community?


consistently listens to

and genuinely values

the advice of key and

other external

stakeholders; key

stakeholders

consistently see their

advice being

translated into

practice

The site regularly and

systematically

involves key external

stakeholders in case

consultations to

ensure optimal

outcomes for C&YP


listens to and

genuinely values the

advice of key

stakeholders

The site involves key


in key case

consultations to


C&YP

Timely and consistent

consultation takes

place with the CP

Resource Panel, in

accordance with

practice policy


listens to and values

the advice of some

key stakeholders but

not others; or the site

or residence listens to

the advice of key

stakeholders only on

a selective basis

The site involves key


only sporadically in

case consultations

Consultation takes

place with the CP

Resource Panel, but

not always in a timely

or thorough way; or


does not listen to or

value the advice of

key stakeholders

The site does not

involve key external

stakeholders in case

consultations

There is a lack of


CP Resource Panel

The residence does

not draw on the

expertise of onsite


staff or off-site

professionals


actively disregards

advice and expertise

from key stakeholders

There is no

consultation or

engagement with the

community

The site actively

disregards advice and

expertise from the CP

Resource Panel

114

Consultation with the


thorough and has

improved outcomes

for C&YP and their


The residence

effectively draws on

the expertise of onsite


staff and off-site

professionals to

ensure effective,

holistic care for C&YP

The community sees

CYF as part of the

community

The community feels

a part of the site or

residence

The residence draws

on the expertise of

onsite Health and

Education staff and

off-site professionals

to improve outcomes

for C&YP

The community is

informed about the

services and

operations at the site

or residence

Key community

stakeholders are

consistently consulted

and listened to



inconsistent

The residence

inconsistently draws

on the expertise of

onsite Health and

Education staff and

off-site professionals

There are inconsistent

levels of consultation

and engagement with

community

stakeholders

There are minimal

levels of consultation

and engagement with

the community

How and to what extent does

the organisation evoke feelings

of trust and transparency

amongst the wider community?

The community

advocates for CYF and

has a high level of

respect and trust that


is delivering a high

quality service to

C&YP and their


There is mutual

respect and trust

The community has a

high level of trust and

confidence in the site

or residence

The community trusts

some, but not all,

parts of the site or

residence; or the

community has a

moderate level of

trust in the site or

residence’s ability to

achieve positive

outcomes for C&YP

The community has

minimal trust in the

site or residence

The community

mistrusts the site or

residence and has no

confidence in the

organisation

The community

disrespects and

actively undermines

CYF

115

between

sites/residences and

all their key

stakeholders

Are there gaps in service

provision in the community,

either for care and protection

or youth justice?

Joint decision-making

and partnerships

means that services

are constantly re-

oriented to better

meet needs of the

community

Community partners

are visible and

present alongside CYF

There is a plan for

addressing gaps in

community services

but it has limited

implementation

There are significant

gaps in service

provision in the

community and no

plan to address these

The numerous gaps in

service provision in

the community are

ignored



listen to and respond to the

advice of mana whenua, other

iwi, and Māori social service

agencies to better serve the

needs of mokopuna Māori?


regularly and

systematically

consults with key

Māori stakeholders to

best serve the needs

of mokopuna Māori;

and Māori

stakeholders feel their

advice is consistently

listened to and

genuinely valued by

the site or residence;

Māori stakeholders

consistently see their

advice being

translated into

practice



consults with key

Māori stakeholders to


mokopuna Māori;

Māori stakeholders

feel their advice is

listened to and valued

by the site or

residence


draws on the

expertise of Māori

stakeholders to


mokopuna Māori

Māori stakeholders

have trust and


consults with some

key Māori

stakeholders but not

others; or the site or

residence only

consults sporadically

with Māori

stakeholders


inconsistently draws

on the expertise of

Māori stakeholders

Some Māori

stakeholders have

trust or confidence in


but others do not


does not consult with

key Māori

stakeholders


does not draw on the

expertise of key Māori

stakeholders

Key Māori

stakeholders have

minimal trust in the

site or residence


actively disregards

advice and expertise

from key Māori

stakeholders

Due to problems in

the relationship

between the site or

residence and key

Māori stakeholders,

there is active

undermining of the

site or residence

116

effectively draws on

the expertise of Māori

stakeholders to

ensure effective,

holistic care for

mokopuna Māori

There is mutual

respect and trust

between

sites/residences and

their key Māori

stakeholders

Opportunities to work

with Māori

stakeholders have

been thoroughly

explored and

resulting

arrangements have

noticeably improved

engagement and

outcomes for

mokopuna Māori and

their whānau

confidence in the site

or residence


with key Māori

stakeholders have

been explored


with key Māori

stakeholders have

only half-heartedly or

haphazardly been

explored


Do C&YP feel well connected

to their communities?

Are C&YP engaged in or

encouraged to participate in

pro-social activities?

C&YP are given

opportunities to act

as mentors or peer

support for other

C&YP in care in their

community

Appropriate

community-based

services are offered,

available and timely;

C&YP feel

comfortable and

Lack of community

networks at

site/residence level

means that C&YP are

not able to access the

breadth of

C&YP unsure about

whether the site or

residence is working

with community for

their interests

C&YP feel that the

site/residence is

isolating them from

their community or

disregarding their

community networks

117

Are there well connected

resourceful networks within the

community able to support and

monitor youth justice plans?

C&YP are well-

informed, positive

participants in

community life

confident about their

networks

C&YP feel connected

to the community and

able to pursue their

interests; C&YP are

encouraged and

supported to pursue

their interests

community-based

services they need or

desire; explanation

not offered for when

services are withheld

or not offered

C&YP have no access

to community

information and no

sense of what they

can access from the

community

C&YP are aware that

relationships between

the site/residence and

the community are

fraught and tense

Documents

Evaluative rubric for revised monitoring framework - Sites and … · 2018. 9. 27. · Evaluative rubric for revised monitoring framework - Sites and residences Preface The Office