Challenges and solutions to the wicked problems in the NZ Public Sector? Part II

Last month I reflected on the issue of increasingly complex social problems being faced in the NZ public sector and internationally.   

The linkedin article and blog reflected on the need for social innovation in the public sector, highlighting the potential for Systems ways of working (including systems thinking and design thinking) and identifying practical example frameworks and tools.

Innovative ways of working are essential.  But in my experience they’re limited unless supported by the right type of leadership and governance.  

This reflection explores the importance and influence of leadership and governance in enabling systems ways of work.  

Much of modern management was developed during the 20th century and based on ideas of objectivity, where technical expertise was seen as the gold standard.  In this era social problems were largely addressed as complicated issues that required a technical solution.    

 

The NZ public sector hasn’t always kept up with the increasing complexity that exists in society.  In the New Zealand public sector it is common to see governance and leadership that is not suited to solving complex challenges.  I’ve experienced this directly in the health and justice sectors.  This is amplified by the public and media scrutiny which can make public sector leaders more cautious and hinders creativity.  In a recent news article in The Post, Josie Pagani highlighted this issue again, arguing that “The public sector doesn’t just need cuts, it needs transformation.  

Complex situations and systems are different from technical complicated situations in a variety of ways.  Table 1 below outlines some of the differences.  

Complicated Situations and Systems	Complex Situations and System
Generally large scale – very many parts.	Large scale – built up from large numbers of mutually interacting parts
Often closed systems	Open and influenced by other systems
Require significant coordination or specialised technical expertise.	Expertise is a factor but only one contributor to success.
Outcomes or outputs are fully predictable - high certainty of outcome repetition (e.g. product quality)	Not overly predictable (Low chance of repeated outcomes). Context matters.  Individual systems must be understood in their own context.
Parts play specific functional roles and are guided by very simple rules.	Collective behaviour feeds back into the behaviour of individual parts.   Parts learn and adapt from experience.
Not inherently robust in that parts cannot be removed so must build redundancy into the system (e.g. back up parts).	Inherently robust due to adaptability so can survive the removal of parts by adapting.
Total is sum of the parts so can be dismantled to parts to be understood	The whole is greater than parts so cannot be understood by examining parts. Instead the interactions among the parts plays a big role​.
Error can be engineered out	Failure and error is normal and expected

In reality, any situation is not so clear cut because a public sector context might involve a combination of complicated and complex systems working together.  So any context might sit on a sliding scale between complicated and complex.  But the public sector is certainly becoming more complex as time goes on.  So this calls for a different type of leadership and governance.

Adapting leadership style to the situation

Systems and design thinking are powerful tools for complexity but they are not a panacea for all public sector illness. Systems approaches, in general, are very time and resource-intensive, especially when used to transform the functioning of any particular policy area of a social system in practice.  

The New Zealand public sector can not afford to use up valuable resource on systems approaches to solve simple problems, or even complicated issue that needs technical engineering expertise.  So leaders need to know when systems approaches are best suited and should consider carefully before initiating systems approaches and processes.  Refer to Snowdon and Boones 2007 HBR article ‘’a leaders framework for decision making for helpful guidance on this topic.  

Leadership that enables or inhibits innovation

Public sector leaders need to know what good leadership suited to complexity looks like. They need to know whether they have the capacity, and capability and commitment to lead through large scale changes within policy systems. Otherwise, the exercise will be largely wasted.  

Instead of attempting to impose a course of action, Snowdon explains how leaders must be prepared to patiently allow paths forward to reveal themselves.  So a leader needs to ask exploratory questions, and be aware of the mood in the room, and then use their judgement to know the best way to respond.  To do this within the social sector involves talking with people.  

This is a different approach to solving other types of problems.  In these situations it’s much easier for a leader to convince themselves they are right or to unwittingly manipulate a social situation so that people say what they want to hear.  

Great leadership in these situations requires a strong moral compass, emotional awareness and social intelligence - otherwise people see right through you or learn through experience that you’re not to be trusted.  But on the other hand, innovation requires change, which causes friction so a great leader cant be a pushover.  Leading through complexity requires you to drive a group of people towards a vision, but a collective vision rather than their own one.  As a leader, you need to decide if you are actually enabling or disabling innovation.  

Mike Bennetts, previous CEO at Z Energy, is a New Zealand workplace leader who understands the local context and has written some excellent recent LinkedIn articles on this topic.  

Leaders operate within governance systems.  

Leaders operate within governance structures.  Governance is a ‘control’ system and forum for setting direction, strategy, and strategic priority, and then checking and monitoring progress.  Ashbys law of complexity states the "The complexity of a control system must be equal to or greater than the complexity of the system it controls." 

Complicated issues can be incredibly challenging, but they do have one right answer so they can be solved through linear logic and technical expertise.  This means that the governance and strategy can also be linear, driven by technical expertise and upfront visibility of detailed plans.  In more complex situations top down management styles and ways of working become less effective.  

Instead complex situations in the public sector are relational and intertwined with the very fabric of our society.  So they require more experimental and very nuanced ways of working and a different type of leadership and governance.  

Case in point 

By way of example I had a direct experience of a cross government initiative to address a major social issue two years ago.  The issue crosses welfare, health & justice so requires involvement from many agencies including Te whatu Ora; Oranga Tamariki; Whanau Ora; Ara Poutama Aotearoa ( Corrections) Police, and others. 

The initiative addressed the complex nature of the issue in that it used a strong whole-of-system understanding to inform its vision and strategic priorities.  It also sought cross agency involvement and consensus.  These were significant enablers that provided clear and compelling direction for this complex social issue.  Unfortunately what I also saw was that the strategy then set top down tactical goals that all agencies had to commit to.  The program also developed uniform resources e.g. online training modules.  These uniform and simplistic ‘solutions’ didn’t take into account the intricacies of each agency. For example one agency had a significant staffing issue so simply couldn’t commit to the rigid L&D goals set by the strategy.  In another agency the online module tool couldn’t be accessed by a big portion of the intended audience as they didn’t have access to computers that was needed.  The inflexibility of the goals and solutions didn’t suit the complexity of the situation.

When setting strategy and directions for complicated technical issues governance groups can identify solutions and a clear course of action within their strategic plans.  Then can then monitor progress against these and hold management to account in this way.  But as mentioned above, this becomes increasingly less effective the more complex a situation becomes, because there is no right answer.  

Case in point

As another example,I remember a couple of years ago talking with the head of an social sector innovation function. They were describing how part of their role as program lead was to ‘keep their governance group at arms length’.  They expanded on this point, that the governance group wanted to see plans and solutions upfront.  But the innovation team didn’t actually know what would work because the environment was unpredictable.  Instead they needed space to explore and test solutions, to iteratively work towards an effective outcome.  They were happy to be held to account for outcomes but needed space to create the solution through the process.

Governing in increasing complexity

Referring back to table 1, here are a few reflections.

• The governance group needs to represent the complexity of the situation it is governing for.

• The relationship between the members of the governance group matters.

• Governing groups needs to be set a clear direction but not impose a specific course of action to provide space so that paths can reveal themselves.

• Governance for complexity also needs to monitor non-linear progress.  Rather than ticking off whether a project is ‘on time & on budget’ against the pre-set plan, they need to

• monitor the relationships between the people and groups.  Also 

• whether the unexpected challenges are being effectively identified and solved.

At a national level.  Wicked national social sector problems may also take many years to improve significantly, so at the level of national politics they might need to be more insulated from the three-year govt election cycle whilst still having democratic integrity.  

Large scale sector-wide innovations can take years and sometimes decades to be implemented.  Here are a couple of examples of this from the Justice sector.  

Case in point - The KROM in Norway 

Norway's prison system is renowned as one of the most effective and humane in the world. Norway also has one of the lowest recidivism rates and crime rates the world.  It wasn’t always this way.  Before the introduction of the rehabilitative justice system, Norway and other Northern European countries had largely punitive justice systems. 

But at the end of the 1960s, a prisoners' movement critical of the prison system developed in the Scandinavian countries..  This was particularly strong in Norway where the Norwegian Association for Criminal Reform (KROM) was formed.  KROM directly led and influenced substantive changes in the penal system over from the 1970s through to the 1990s and beyond.

Case in point - Dominican Republic 

But Scandinavian society has a lot of enablers for social innovation. What about in Central America?  For over a decade now, Dominican Republic has been reshaping its penitentiary system.  In 2004 the country opened its first prison designed with a focus on education and clean living conditions and staffed by graduates from a newly created academy for penitentiary studies.  Now the model system, runs 18 of the Dominican Republic’s 35 prisons

One difference between the traditional Dominican prison system and the new model shows up in the recidivism rates - the number of inmates who commit crimes within three years of being released.  Reports show that less than 5 percent of inmates released from the model system re-offend; in the traditional system the rate is 50 percent.

“What’s remarkable about the Dominican Republic’s example is that it has taken place in a country that has the same socioeconomic conditions as other Latin American countries,” said Elias Carranza, director for the United Nations’ Latin American Institute for the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders.

With these types of wicked social issues, the chopping and changing that happens with three-year election cycle promises can hinder social innovation rather than help.  This is particularly true with social issues that always have a high profile, like Health, Welfare and Justice.  

If Government policy direction is changed with election cycles, then long term strategic priorities and innovations can be repeatedly undermined.  But New Zealand political parties can maintain a bi-partisan position on foreign policy.  So why can’t they establish bipartisan positions on other wicked social issues?

Complexity and innovation are not easy.  But the New Zealand public sector can get better at it.  To do so requires a particular type of leadership and governance to enable innovative ways of working.

Challenges and solutions to the wicked problems in the NZ Public Sector (Part I)

 The 2023 New Zealand election is highlighting some of the wicked challenges facing the public sector.  To address these the public sector needs to adapt and become more innovative.  But how does it do it?  This article explores the issue of social innovation and the use of ‘Systems Approaches’.

The 2023 New Zealand election highlighted some of the wicked challenges facing the public sector.  The Labour party identified issues like the economic chaos that COVID left behind.  The National Party highlighted issues of crime and the need to bolster frontline services like Police, nurses, doctors and midwives.  ACT highlighted issues like the truancy in schools that occurred in 2022 and other complex challenges facing the education sector.  The Greens identify significant global climate change, environmental and social issues.  While Te Pāti Māori identify the deep rooted and long standing social inequalities faced by Māori.  At the leaders debate, hosted by Jack Tame, a question about the causes of crime led to answers ranging from individual criminal behaviour through to entrenched poverty.   

These are complex issues.  But Aotearoa New Zealand is not the only country in the world facing complex challenges.  The OECD describes the link between these current issues and larger macro-trends highlighting “the rise of globalisation, burgeoning technology, volume of information and the evolving environmental crisis”.  The world is now highly interconnected and interdependent. The resulting complexity of global challenges has widened the gap between the social problems that governments like New Zealand's face and the public sector's capacity or capability to do so.  One thing that sets these complex issues apart from many complicated 20th century challenges is unpredictability.   

What is different about complex issues?

Complexity is not a new concept.  Issues of complexity have been understood and explored historically by many different societies in many different ways.  Even in the modern world the idea of wicked problems emerged as far back as the 1970’s.  

In 2007 Snowdon and Boone helped to popularise understandings of complexity in organisational practice by explaining the difference between complicated and complex issues.  They describe how in Complicated issues can be very difficult to solve but they are still knowable and predictable so have at least one right answer.  Complex issues are different in many ways, including that they are unpredictable and so have no right answer.  They can also have very unclear boundaries.   

My work experience with complexity and innovation started in my 20’s after starting a personal training business in London, UK; then a clinical exercise physiology business in Melbourne, Australia.  I didn’t know about the topics of complexity or innovation as disciplines. I just had some big interesting challenges that I came across and so had to learn and adapt my services, business model and general approach to survive and grow, so I was innovating but without realising it.  It can be easier sometimes for small organisations and new organisations to be adaptable and innovative as they don’t have entrenched ideas or ways of working.  

Snowdon and Boone identify how many management and leadership approaches established in organisations, which includes the public sector, were developed in the 20th century to deal with complicated issues.  They are still used in many public sector teams, organisations and across government and this is what contributes to the gap.  Similarly, the OECD (2017) highlights how public policy makers have traditionally addressed social problems through discrete interventions layered on top of one the other, but considered separately based on “cause and effect” relationships. However, each of these interventions may shift consequences from one part of the system to another, or simply address symptoms while ignoring causes.  

That said, Innovation does occur in the New Zealand public sector.  In the last decade I’ve seen lots of examples at all different organisational levels including project - program level, organisational level and industry - sector level.  

On a personal level, I’ve enjoyed being involved with innovative projects and programs.  I also know of at least one of the old DHBs that ran an innovation lab to keep evolving design and operation in operating theatres.  At another level up, I’ve worked in a health services provider that have won awards for innovation and am aware of a number of community health organisations that proved to be hugely innovative in their responses to the Covid pandemic.  Even at governmental department level there is innovation happening.  

Up at sector level, I'm familiar with the Justice sector's innovation program (High Impact Innovation Program) which has been running for a number of years.  I’ve also been part of a steering group promoting innovation for Safety.  

One common thread I have experienced at these different levels is Systems approaches to leadership, governance and management methods, practices and processes.  Traditional leadership and management approaches do not work for managing and solving the inter-related issues like the many that New Zealand public sector organisations and departments have to grapple with, like the ageing population, poverty and especially for indigenous Maori and other minority ethnic populations, the widening gap between rich and poor in general, and the increasing pressures on health services and the justice system. 

Recognition of a complexity gap in the public sector has led to growing interest in systems approaches.  The complexity gap is the disconnect between the complexity of problems that the social sector faces and their organisational capacity and capability to solve them.

Systems approaches and ways of working

Systems approaches are a set of methods, processes  and practices that affect change in real world systems that are inherently complex in nature.  These approaches include systems thinking, systems engineering, systems innovation and design thinking have interlinked philosophical foundations and share, in some cases, methodologies.  Systems approaches have developed over 80 years or more, but they are far from established in the public sector (OECD 2017).

Innovation comes from changes in how social-systems are structured and operate. This requires an understanding of the nuanced relationships between the different parts, and the gaps between what can be seen. It also means reflecting on how best to use this knowledge to take action (i.e. design and design thinking) by devising proposals to be tested and implemented as system interventions.

Systems thinking provides practical methods and tools to; show hidden dynamics of overwhelming social systems; explore the ways in which the relationships between system components affect its functioning; and choose which interventions can lead to better results.  Here are some practical options that I have found useful over the last decade. 

Understanding context. Snowden's Cynefin framework is a practical tool to identify whether a situation or organisational context is complex, complicated or simple, to help leaders.  Similarly, Yin provides a practical table to identify the context of a research problem, to decide the most suitable study approach.  (refer Yin: Case Study Research and Applications fig 1.2: table of relevant situations for different research methods).

Practical project frameworks suited to complex situations and systems include the double and triple diamonds (Design Thinking); the Case Study method (Refer Yin 2014: Case Study Research and Applications); the Developmental Work Research Expansive Learning Cycle (Engstrom CHAT); and, Agile project management.

Systems processes and tools.  System diagramming is a method from cybernetics that has grown in popularity and the Open University offers a free course on it.  Critical Systems Heuristics provides a question set tool for exploring system features.  Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) also offers tools like an 8-question framework (Mwanza) and an Activity Systems diagramming framework (Engstrom). The Ideo website offers lots of different design thinking tools.

Summary

In summary, this article has highlighted the complex nature of issues faced in the NZ public sector and internationally.  But has identified that innovation does exist and highlights the further potential for Systems oriented ways of working including systems thinking and design thinking.  I’ve also provided some practical example methodologies, tools and frameworks.

Wellbeing and Innovation in Aotearoa New Zealand Prisons - Part IIII

 Workman has highlighted (in conversation 2021) that while general lessons can be learnt from the experiences of others, approaches are not easy to transfer to the Aotearoa New Zealand setting due to socio-cultural and legislative differences.  There have also been other acknowledgements that the New Zealand Correctional System needs to find our own solutions.  The Roper Committee reported that the ‘large-scale fortress prisons found in countries such as the United States, United Kingdom and Australia have been no more successful in reducing recidivism than our smaller prisons. It is no longer appropriate that we continue to look to these overseas models for answers in the penal area’. 

Understanding Aotearoa New Zealand Justice - a bicultural indigenous and colonial History

Aotearoa New Zealand is a pacific, bi-cultural and colonial country with its own unique history and context.  Pre-colonial Māori society operated a model of justice, for any hundreds of years, based on restorative principles and practices and which did not include prisons or incarceration .  Features of a well-functioning Corrections system can be different when considered from a Te Ao Māori worldview because the discussion includes indigenous knowledge from what they already ‘knew’, rather than what we need to do that is ‘new’.  

Once European and the people of various Māori communities met, a process of negotiation and exchange began that continues to this day.  By the end of the 19th century, the Māori forms of justice had replaced by a justice system based on emergent European concepts and practice which emphasized individual responsibility, demand for order and certainty in punishments, replacement of corporal punishments with imprisonment, and the removal of punishment from public view (ibid 16).

  

The current New Zealand Justice System is largely based on English Common Law, but Aotearoa New Zealand Justice has it’s own unique history, context, cultural identity and challenges.  The constitution has bi-cultural foundations, starting with the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi.   There are different pakeha and Māori perspectives and experiences of Justice.   

In the 180 years since the Treaty of Waitangi was signed there have been many challenges with Criminal Justice, particularly for Māori.

In his 1987 report on Justice Reform in Aotearoa New Zealand, Moana Jackson identified inherent bias and limitations in different research methodologies, highlighting the need to understand socio-cultural and ‘systemic decision and operation’ factors in New Zealand from a Māori perspective and explaining how Māori methodologies and conceptual frameworks can support good socio-cultural research in general.  Jackson further highlights that no analysis of any problem can be undertaken without an understanding of its past.

More recently, in 2007 Hepi and Foote highlighted an issue of mainstream research and indigenous cultures.  Specific to the New Zealand context, they identify how Māori communities, in general, have not benefited from mainstream research which has tended to emphasize negative statistics without suggesting constructive solutions.  They further note how, as a result, Māori treat researchers with suspicion, questioning their motives and methods.

Does Aotearoa New Zealands bi-cultural history and make-up influence prison unit practice and function in any practical way?  They certainly do!  If we consider specialist prison units operating within the New Zealand prison network we can identify specialist treatment units and drug treatment units like we might find in many western countries but that they operate under a combination of Therapeutic Community and traditional Māori principles and practices, known as kaupapa Māori and tikanga Māori.  This hybrid approach is distinctive.  In addition, the NZ Custodial network also operates specialist Māori Focus Units and a Pacifica Focus Unit - which are culturally oriented units unique to this region. Māori principles and practices are not derived from modern health science models or from a western worldview and so can not be overseen or accredited by a college of Psychiatrists like in the UK.  They do not necessarily have a directly equivalent English word.  To be deeply understood they need to be considered within an overall te ao Māori worldview.  Tikanga Māori also includes unique practices like haka or whakawhanaungatanga or hongi. These prison units are described and explored further in the following chapters, but this brief summary already shows how a NZ framework needs to be modeled on both - a therapeutic & tikanga community’ framework.   

Understanding Aotearoa New Zealand Custodial Context - legislative influences 

Historical and ongoing changes that occur within Aotearoa New Zealand justice and wider society continue to influence structure, performance and outcomes at all levels within the department of Corrections as a part of the justice system.  Some examples of recent events and circumstances that have been identified as influencing current performance within Corrections and outcomes include changes to justice legislation and backlogs within the court system leading to increasing % of people on remand in prisons.  Another local issues is activation of Australian legislation known as ‘501’s leading to deportees entering the criminal justice system.  It is widely reported in the media how the gang population in New Zealand has been dramatically increasing and changing over the past decade or more, and the Australian 501 programme is a primary driver in this.  This is directly influencing crime and directly influencing the prison population and social dynamics.  During informal discussions one New Zealand Prison Director highlighted how the dynamics and influence of gangs in NZ is completely different to that of Europe.  As an organisation of around 10’000 staff, 18 Custodial facilities and over 160 Community Probation sites, Corrections is organised in ways that have evolved over time, with a dynamic prison network including sites, units, operating practices, management systems and decision making processes that function in ways that are different to other jurisdictions.  

Understanding Aotearoa New Zealand Custodial Context - the scale of Operating Environments

One of the challenges is identifying sites to study that are already wellbeing oriented.  Stevens has previously identified that it can be difficult to define prison environments like therapeutic communities, noting that “A treatment method as complex and multifaceted as the therapeutic community” is difficult to operationalize due to “the different processes and mechanisms potentially at work.” TCs in the UK and US differ somewhat; in the US they are hierarchical and treat substance misusing populations, whilst in the UK they are democratic and offer group therapy and structured community living.  

Because this is a new and novel research proposal, there are no prisons or prison residential units/communities that are clearly identified through academic research to meet our proposed multi-stakeholder model of Wellbeing orriented Custodial environments, based on Hokai Rangi and its purpose statement.  

As previously discussed, there are some international examples of whole prison systems recognized as being high performing, with positive measurable whole of society outcomes (including people in prison, staff and wider society in general).  This includes, notably, the northern European countries like Norway, Finland, Sweden and Denmark.  Germany is also recognized.   

Some other countries have individual prisons within their wider network that operate under significantly different operating principles and practices to their wider prison network, such that they are also getting different outcomes.  Examples include Grendon & Springhill in the UK, Marngoneet Correctional Centre In Australia, the CCR’s in Dominican Republic.  For ongoing periods these facilities have been different in a variety of ways.  Including the design of their facilities, their operating budgets, staffing levels, staff capability and their day to day operational policies and processes.

Unlike many of these other countries, New Zealand does not currently have a whole system or any whole prisons within its network that are operating under conditions significantly different.     

There has been an attempt to reform the entire prison network through a 1989 strategy called Te Ara Hou.  It was ultimately unsuccessful in its long-term goals and was stopped and superseded in 1994 but did show some promising signs with Newbold (1994) concluding "The results (of Ara Hou) have been rather dramatic. In the first year of He Ara Hou alone, there was a threefold increase in the number of inmates completing educational coursework. Nearly a quarter of all prisoners are engaged in academic courses (Braybrook & Southey, 1992). In addition, there has been a 75 percent reduction in misconduct reports and escapes, and suicides have remained low, at about four a year (Department of Justice, 1991). In 1992, there was only a total of 40 assaults by inmates on staff in the entire country, most of which were minor and involved no injury (He Ara Hou, August 1992; Newbold, 1992).  

Its worth noting that in 2005 Northland Regional Corrections Facility (NRCF) opened with a Māori focus approach applied to the whole facility, to embrace a holistic approach to re-offending although we have not found any evidence of its implementation or of significantly different outcomes.  Also that a new custodial therapeutic community facility ‘Hikitia’ is currently in development in the Waikato near the city of Hamilton.  It is a partnership project between Corrections, the Waikato District Health Board and the local Maori Iwi.  It will be an entire Custodial facility and that will operate under a unique kaupapa Māori based therapeutic model, but that this facility is not yet operational.  

Since the 1990’s though, New Zealand has had examples of individual prison units that have operated under somewhat different conditions.  

Identifying and evaluating unit level prison environments

Ara Poutama Aotearoa / Corrections NZ publishes information about its different functions and units on its website, as well as reports of evaluations of performance of Custodial functions published within its online journal ‘Practice’ and through other reports.  The stated aim of Practice: The New Zealand Corrections Journal (NZCJ) is to promote good practice and encourage professionalism by offering in-depth, academic and practice focused articles. Corrections recommends it for all those working professionally with offenders, especially in New Zealand.

A review of the published information(Table T) as a part of a preliminary identification and validation process confirmed that there are no examples of whole prisons within the 18 site network that are operating under significantly unique conditions (e.g. under a Therapeutic Communities model like Grendon (UK) or other operating approach like Bastoy or other Scandinavian prisons) and that are recognised for getting significantly different outcomes.  

Our assessment of performance differentiated Custodial Units from Pathways, Programmes and Services (ref Table FG).

Table FG

Pathways	Co-designed kaupapa Māori pathway from sentencing through to reintegration, providing access to effective rehabilitation and reintegration services
Programmes	L&D initiatives delivered to Tane by specialist providers for a set period of time with the aim of achieving developmental outcomes.
Services	Support functions like Case Managers and Māori  Navigators that work with Tane, meeting periodically, to help them re-integrate and prepare for life after prison

By differentiating initiatives in this way, we were able to identify a number of different prison units that appear to operate differently to the norm and also appear to get better outcomes.  

Table T

Function	Outcome focus	Source
STURP, Te Tirohanga, programmes	RQ results for Māori.  Programme oriented.	https://www.corrections.govt.nz/resources/research/journal/volume_6_issue_2_november_2018/the_effectiveness_of_corrections_rehabilitation_interventions_with_maori
Te Tirohanga (Māori focus units)	Summary of 2009 evaluation the Māori Focus Units and the Māori Therapeutic Programme and 2010/11, evaluation of therapeutic outcomes.	https://www.corrections.govt.nz/resources/research/journal/volume_4_issue_2_december_2016/the_department_of_corrections_tikanga-based_programmes
Te Tirohanga (Māori focus units)	A process evaluation of the Te Tirohanga National programme was completed in April 2015.	https://www.corrections.govt.nz/resources/research/journal/volume_6_issue_1_july_2018/a_brief_history_of_te_tirohanga_units
Special Treatment Unit Rehabilitation Programme (STURP)	A review of the evolution in theory and practice in offender rehabilitation over these last two decades.	Twenty years of Corrections - The evolution of offender rehabilitation, Dr Peter Johnston, New Zealand Corrections Journal, Volume 3, Issue 2, December 2015
Special Treatment Unit Rehabilitation Programme (STURP)	Review of outcomes for high-risk, persistently violent prisoners following 12 months in STURP units.	Surviving the first year, by Professor Devon Polaschek, Article download link
At Risk Units	Summary of best practice intervention and Custodial factors influencing outcomes for at-risk people in prison.	https://www.corrections.govt.nz/resources/research/journal/volume_5_issue_2_november_2017/transforming_intervention_and_support_for_at-risk_prisoners
NRCF	Identification of Māori focus approach applied to the whole facility in 2005.	https://www.corrections.govt.nz/resources/research/journal/volume_5_issue_2_november_2017/from_mori_therapeutic_programmes_to_mauri_t_pae
Not Custodial specific	Review of key risk management oriented issues for staff safety and health.	https://www.corrections.govt.nz/resources/research/journal/volume_6_issue_1_july_2018/the_journey_to_achieve_a_safer_and_healthier_workplace
Not unit specific	Review of international literature identifying issues relating to Corrections Officer wellbeing.	https://www.corrections.govt.nz/resources/research/journal/volume_5_issue_1_july_2017/corrections_officer_wellbeing_training_challenges_and_opportunities
Annual reports	Published data annualised, including rehabilitation quotient	https://www.corrections.govt.nz/resources/strategic_reports/annual-reports

It is important to note the limitations on this brief evaluation.  Studies of the relationship between imprisonment and outcomes have several methodological complications.  Auty and Leibling 2018 highlight how reconviction studies offer only a proxy measure of reoffending, since only a very small proportion of crimes result in a conviction, methodologically valid control groups are hard to establish, the probable existence of intervening variables makes identifying causal mechanisms difficult. Official data is often insufficiently detailed to be able to link a factor to an outcome.  In summary, it is not easy to isolate or confirm a specific effect of a situation this is especially problematic in prisons research, where prisoners may serve their sentence in several different establishments.  It's important to acknowledge that individual outcome measures have limitations.  Pierce 2019 explains that “Major prison reforms, especially those that involve significant infrastructure investments, are often measured by narrow indicators such as cell space, number of program hours, and eventual crime or recidivism rates, it is important to build a more holistic picture of incarcerated people’s daily experiences and what changes they consider important to their well-being.

Even so, the Departments Hokai Rangi 2019-2024 Strategy identifies (p.g. 13) that ‘some of our programmes are making a positive difference and will remain part of our service provision.  Our current programmes, assessments, and facilities including; Mauri Tū Pae (run at all Te Tirohanga units and Northland Region Corrections Facility); Tamaua Te Koronga (rangatahi programme); Specialist Māori Cultural Assessment (SMCA); The Whare programme; Te Whare Tapa Whā Alcohol and Other Drug Intensive Treatment Programme; Tikanga Māori; Whare Oranga Ake (2 units); Te Tirohanga (5 units); and Tiaki Tangata (reintegration support)’.

As a statement of intent, Hokai Rangi also noted that ‘We will keep what currently works, but kaupapa Māori-based approaches will be the foundation of our practice, processes, and pathways’ (pg 19).  Within the existing prison network through, at the ‘unit level’ there are residential units that are acknowledged as operating under different principle and practice frameworks.

Custodial Residential Units

Special Treatment Units (STURPs)	STURPs are separate units within a prison facility where all therapy and custody staff work together to create a ‘therapeutic community’ to support prosocial thinking, behaviour and identity of participants.  The aim of these units are to provide access to therapeutic treatments in conducive living environments through models of operation that integrate western and te ao Māori worldviews.  STUs are identified in Department literature as being world leading, and its most effective intervention, of the entire suite of rehabilitation the department delivers, consistently producing impacts on re-offending as good as any programme in the world. There has been acknowledgement of the influence of ‘daily life’ in STURP, described by one STURP staff member as “the way STURP runs in its own unit to encourage a ‘community of change’ environment to be provided 24 hours a day. When the men are not in programme they are expected to learn how to live communally, engage in meaningful activities (eg employment, voluntary activities), participate in community meetings, and take responsibility for the unit in which they live”. Specialist Treatment Units are based at a number of prisons including Rimutaka STURP, Christchurch Mens, Otago CF, Whanganui, Hawkes Bay, Tongariro, Spring Hill, Waikeria, Auckland Prison, Arohata Womens Prison.  Rolleston Kia Marama STU – Sex Offender Treatment Unit.
Māori  Focus Units (MFUs)	Māori Focus Units operate through a operating framework incorporating Kaupapa Māori so have significant differences with the general network.  They are available to all motivated tāne who identify with any culture although priority is given to tāne who identify as Māori, are of Māori descent or who have Māori tamariki.  Designed by te ao Māori pūkenga and te reo Māori education movement rangitira, Te Tirohanga was strongly modelled on kohanga reo and kura kaupapa – to have a space where we could create a kaupapa Māori environment and offer things like kapa haka, whakairo, raranga, tikanga and te reo Māori.  The Te Tirohanga units were previously known as “Māori Focus Units”. The first Māori Focus Unit opened in Mangaroa Prison (now Hawke’s Bay Regional Prison) in 1997. By 2002, dedicated units had also been established at Waikeria, Tongariro, Whanganui and Rimutaka and there are also two Whare Oranga Ake units to support people to re-enter society.  In 2009, Corrections evaluated the Māori Focus Units and the Māori Therapeutic Programme and in 2010/11, the therapeutic outcomes of the units were also specifically evaluated. The reviews found that the units provided a pro-social environment, but were not reaching their full rehabilitative potential. As a result, Corrections further developed the therapeutic model operating in the units.  When looking at other therapeutic communities, the whānau-centric approach is what makes Te Tirohanga innovative. Wherever the programme is based, the inclusion of whānau, hapū, and iwi is critical to its success. The Departments Hokai Rangi strategy was derived in part from the Te Ao Marama operating framework.
Drug treatment Units	Drug treatment units aim to reduce re-offending by assisting participants to address their dependence on alcohol and other drugs by provide a group-based programme in a therapeutic environment for prisoners with alcohol and drug related issues.
Self-care units	Self-care accommodation, mainly situated outside of a prison’s secure perimeter, provide prisoners with a degree of autonomy. The open, shared accommodation teaches people the necessary living skills (budgeting, cooking and cleaning) required for a successful reintegration into society.  The majority of self-care units house up to 20 prisoners who are in some form of full-time work (under our release to work programme).
Violence prevention Unit	A unit for violent offenders who are at high risk of further violent offending which aims to give participants the skills to avoid re-offending.
Mothers with babies	A small number of women give birth while serving a sentence and others have young children at the time of sentencing.  These are units for mothers with children under the age of 24 months, to enable them to care for their child.

Note: Many of the units identified as operating within different models (principles and practices) are ‘special units’, working with a particular cohort, e.g. Drug treatment, Sex Offenders , mothers.  There is an argument that these people might be more ‘compliant’ such that the research outcomes would have limited transferability to other units.  This issue and others will need to be addressed within research design, to be finalised within the validation stage.  

Validation insights and summary 

*these insights are based on published findings only, not analysis of source data

• A primary focus of published performance evaluation has been rehabilitation.  

• The strongest evaluation focus has been on programmes and services, rather than the influence of daily life.  There are examples of acknowledgement of the influence of daily life but it has not had significant evaluation focus.  

• Rehabilitation Quotient (RQ) is identified by Corrections as a reliable and established validation indicator for prisoner rehabilitation and behaviour that is used in around 40 distinct rehabilitation/ reintegration services.  

• The department has acknowledged the associated use of other data sources for programme effectiveness, including fieldwork-based evaluations and reviews of quality of delivery and participant response.

STURP facilities and Te Tirohanga Maori Focus Unit facilities appear to have the most potential as positive outliers.  Both these unit types that are recognised as achieving more positive outcomes than the general population units.  They are also acknowledged as having deliberately designed environments.  The majority of research focus is on programme delivery rather than the influence of the daily living environment and associated principles, practices and processes (or tikanga).  Additional anecdotal feedback has also been received for Te Ao Marama, identifying it as a particularly positive outlying Te Tirohanga unit 

Conclusions

This paper has been a reflective review addressing the question of oranga wellbeing within the custodial context.  It began with a question about Custodial Facilities then looked inwards, to provide context about Ara Poutama Aotearoa The department of Corrections and its strategic commitment to wellbeing.  

The paper then looked outward to explore relevant international literature and identify the concept of prison social climate as a valid and reliable theoretical concept and proxy for our identified definition of wellbeing.  This is one, that it is able to maintain a harmony between the complimentary and yet sometimes competing positive outcomes for the rehabilitation and heath of people in prison, for the safety and engagement of staff and the maintenance of order and security for benefit of the wider public safety.  

Building on the social climate concept, examples of outcomes driven operational frameworks were then presented to explore what is required to best meet these different outcomes concurrently.  

A brief summary of these frameworks highlighted some key themes and one issue identified in particular was the importance of local context leading to a key conclusion that while valuable lessons can be learnt from international examples, it is vital to build explicit models and explanations of how a wellbeing orriented custodial facility should operate from local examples, knowledge and experience.  To illustrate this finding the paper explores the particular context of Aotearoa New Zealand highlighting cultural and practical considerations that would need to be addressed within an operational framework for a wellbeing oriented custodial unit for it to be suited and useful.  

Finally a selection of ‘outlier’ custodial units that are currently operating within the Aotearoa New Zealand Custodial System was identified from published literature and presented.  Of this group, STURP facilities and Te Tirohanga Maori Focus Unit facilities were identified as having the most potential for study as positive outliers.  Both these unit types that are recognised as achieving more positive outcomes than the general population units and they are also acknowledged as having deliberately designed environments.