Close Contents
Next Section

Kete Hoahoa Pūnaha: He aratohu me ngā ngā take wānangaFurther guidance and case studies: System Design Toolkit for shared problems

  1. Section 01
    Ētahi umanga ā-motuA few agencies at a national level
    1. 1.1
      Te whakarite ngātahiVoluntary coordination
    2. 1.2
      Haepapa ngātahiShared responsibility
    3. 1.3
      Kawenga tōpūtangaCollective accountability
    4. 1.4
      Tari taupuaSemi-structural integration
  2. Section 02
    Te nuinga/katoa o ngā umanga ā-motuMost/all agencies at a national level
    1. 2.1
      Karapu tūaoVoluntary club
    2. 2.2
      Kaiārahi mahi/upoko rōpū ngaioFunctional leader/head of profession
    3. 2.3
      Kaiārahi ā-pūnahaSystem leader
    4. 2.4
      Aroturuki tara-ā-whare Internal regulator/monitor
    5. 2.5
      He mahi hei painga Shared functions
  3. Section 03
    Te mahitahi a aroākapa me te hapori rāneiWorking together at a frontline or community level
    1. 3.1
      NohotahitangaCo-location
    2. 3.2
      Kōtuinga pānga ngātahiCollective impact network
    3. 3.3
      Poari pānga ngātahiCollective impact board
    4. 3.4
      Ratonga whakawhitiFederated services
    5. 3.5
      Ara tukungaDelivery vehicles
01 August 2022

A Cabinet-mandated board that has collective responsibility for performance on local priorities and usually reports to a lead minister.

The basics

  • When to use this tool

    As with collective impact network but:

    • Cabinet mandate required to sustain collaboration due to difficult trade-offs between priorities
    • Local need differs significantly from national priorities

  • How to agree goals/outcomes
    • Overall remit set nationally
    • Location boundaries agreed nationally
    • Local priorities determined by board
    • Small number of discrete results with agreed measures

  • Governance model required
    • CEs collectively agree to consistent delegations (test and learn)
    • Cabinet-mandated board consisting of regional leaders from participating agencies/organisations
    • May include organisations outside the Public Service
    • May use an independent chair, but ideally self-organising
    • Consensus agreement to interorganisational work programme

  • Ministerial relationships required
    • Lead minister for the board mandated by Cabinet

  • Incentives required
    • Collective responsibility for improving results
    • Periodic reporting to local community
    • Engagement with local community

  • How to manage the funding
    • National level agreement to pool funding for local priorities (each agency to make contribution from baseline)
    • Separate appropriation for local priorities
    • Collective agreement to spend pooled funding

Case study: South Auckland Social Wellbeing Board

The South Auckland Social Wellbeing Board (SASWB) was established with the aim to improve outcomes for children and young people in South Auckland. It is one of 2 place-based initiatives currently in action, the other one being Manaaki Tairāwhiti.

SASWB is designed to have collective accountability through an independent chair to the lead minister. The board is comprised of local senior officials from member agencies and an independent chair. It is a decision-making body that is designed to allow the senior officials to make collective decisions through consensus. The initial member agencies were the Ministry of Social Development, the Ministry of Health, Counties Manukau District Health Board (now part of Health NZ), the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Justice, New Zealand Police and Te Kawa Mataaho Public Service Commission.

The chair of the board is a non-voting position; their role is to lead sound consensus decision-making and ensure members are held to account for their agencies’ contributions to SASWB’s objectives. The chair also has lead responsibility for representing board advice to ministers, Cabinet and Parliament where appropriate.

The independent chair is appointed by the lead minister following consultation with the Cabinet Appointment and Honours Committee. The other members of the board are appointed by the member agencies. They must be at an appropriate level of seniority to exercise delegated authority and influence programmes and services relating to the remit of SASWB.

SASWB is intended to primarily rely on making better use of existing resources which are supplemented by a discretionary fund. Member agencies will continue to report for accountability and other purposes on the services and programmes within their appropriations. SASWB reports regularly to the Social Wellbeing Board against their strategy, supported by the National Support Team at the Social Wellbeing Agency.

Home —South Auckland Social Wellbeing Board

Implementation and emerging outcomes evaluation of the Place-Based Initiatives December 2019 — South Auckland Social Wellbeing Board

 

  1. Section 3.2
    Kōtuinga pānga ngātahiCollective impact network
  2. Section 3.4
    Ratonga whakawhitiFederated services