Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand logoLink to Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand
. 2022 Jul 27;53(5):697–711. doi: 10.1080/03036758.2022.2094968

Kia Tika, Kia Pono - Honouring Truths: ensuring the participatory rights of tamariki and rangatahi who are care experienced

Susan P Kemp a,CONTACT, Hunia Te Urukaiata Mackay (Ngāti Toa Rangatira, Ngāti Koata, Ngāti Rangitihi, Rongowhakaata) b, Michelle Egan-Bitran a, Paula Toko King (Te Aupōuri, Te Rarawa, Ngāpuhi, Ngāti Whātua, Waikato-Tainui, Ngāti Maniapoto) c, Amanda Smith d, Shana Valente d, Carmel West d, Tupua Urlich d, Zak Quor d, Jennifer Prapaiporn Thonrithi d, Kiri Phillips d, Carolyn Phillips d, Isaac Heron d, Saron Bekele d, Stanley Baldwin d
PMCID: PMC11459782  PMID: 39440131

ABSTRACT

This paper provides an overview of ‘Kia Tika, Kia Pono – Honouring Truths’ (Te Rōpū Arotahi 2022), an ethical framework to guide engagement with tamariki (children) and rangatahi (young people) who are care experienced (that is, who currently or at some stage in their lives have been in foster or residential care). Centring the voices and priorities of rangatahi with care experience, ‘Kia Tika, Kia Pono’ is intended for use by organisations and others working across the range of sectors and services that seek to engage tamariki and rangatahi who are care experienced in governance, policy making, service design, media or research. Its purpose is to ensure that these efforts are ethical, meaningful, and culturally safe. Grounded in Te Tiriti o Waitangi and participatory rights frameworks, ‘Kia Tika, Kia Pono’ is responsive to the cultural context of New Zealand. It is also distinctive in its centring of rangatahi with care experience as both knowledge-holders and knowledge-creators. In summarising the key elements of the ‘Kia Tika, Kia Pono’ framework, we also draw upon our insights from the research process regarding participatory practice with rangatahi with care experience.

Kupu Māori/glossary of Māori words: Aroha: love, compassion, empathy; hapū: kinship group, sub-tribe, sub-nation, to be pregnant; hui: gathering, meeting, assembly, seminar, conference; iwi: extended kinship group, tribe, nation, people, bone; kai: food, meal; karakia: incantation; a set form of words to state or make effective a ritual activity; kaupapa: purpose, agenda; koha gift; especially one maintaining social relationships and has connotations of reciprocity; korowai: ornamented cloak; mana: spiritually sanctioned or endorsed influence, power, and authority; manaakitanga: showing and receiving care, respect, kindness, and hospitality; māramatanga: enlightenment, insight, understanding; mauri: life principle, life force, vital essence; pono: to be absolutely true, unfeigned, genuine; rangatahi: younger generation; rangatira: chiefly, esteemed, leader; tamariki: children; Te Tiriti o Waitangi: the Māori version of the Treaty of Waitangi; tika: what is right/good for any particular situation; tikanga Māori: customary system of values and practices that have been developed over time and are deeply embedded in the social context; tūāpapa: foundation, platform; ūkaipō: a place of nurturing and of spiritual and emotional strength; wairuatanga: spirituality; wānanga: to meet, discuss, deliberate, consider; whanau: to be born, extended family, family group; whanaungatanga: relationship, kinship, sense of family connection; a relationship through shared experiences and working together which provides people with a sense of belonging

KEYWORDS: Participation, rights, ethics, children, young people, tamariki, rangatahi, care experience, child protection

Introduction

‘All this information we are giving you are like feathers in a korowai. They create the protection (both sides – the right people, doing the right things). Don’t take power away from my words. Honour the person and story. Ask yourself - Why am I doing this? Why am I speaking to children and young people?’ (Rangatahi with care experience)

Globally, and in the nation state known as New Zealand, interest in engaging the perspectives of children and young people is expanding rapidly across a range of sectors and stakeholders (McMellon and Tisdall 2020). As this ‘call to participation’ (Switzer 2020, p. 169) broadens, so does the need for guidelines and safeguards to ensure ethical, accountable participatory practice. Evidence suggests that tamariki (children) and rangatahi (young people) often experience practices that adults frame as participatory as tokenistic if not exploitative (Warming 2011; McMellon and Tisdall 2020: Switzer 2020). The likelihood of this is even greater for tamariki and rangatahi who are care experienced (that is, who currently or at some stage in their lives have been in foster or residential care), given the power-laden systems in which they and their whānau are typically embedded, the complexities of their life experiences, and a lack of knowledge and skills in participatory practice in child protection services (Garcia-Quiroga and Agoglia 2020; Toros 2021b). These factors underscore the need for ethical frameworks to guide the practice of organisations and others seeking to engage with these tamariki and rangatahi. New Zealand has well-developed frameworks to guide ethical practice with young people (Finlay-Robinson et al. 2019; Ara Taiohi 2020), but these are not tailored for practice with tamariki and rangatahi with care experience.

In this paper, we provide an overview of the key elements of ‘Kia Tika, Kia Pono – Honouring Truths’ (Te Rōpū Arotahi 2022), an ethical framework developed to guide the practice of organisations and others who seek to engage with and learn from tamariki and rangatahi who are care experienced. Grounded in Te Tiriti o Waitangi and participatory rights frameworks, ‘Kia Tika, Kia Pono’ centres the knowledge, voices, and priorities of rangatahi with care experience, and is given life by their passionate investment in creating positive change for tamariki and rangatahi involved with the care system. Its purpose is to ensure that those engaging with tamariki and rangatahi who are care experienced understand what it means to do so in ways that are ethical and culturally safe. That is, it aims to ensure these participatory processes and practices are tika and pono: that they entail the right people, doing the right things (King 2020). In the paper that follows we first situate ‘Kia Tika, Kia Pono’ in relation to relevant policy mandates and extant empirical research before providing overviews of the research project, our collaborative work with participating rangatahi, and the main elements of the framework. We conclude with reflections on lessons learned about participatory practice from our experience of co-creating ‘Kia Tika, Kia Pono’ with rangatahi with care experience.

Realising the participatory rights of tamariki and rangatahi with care experience in New Zealand: context and mandates

‘Kia Tika, Kia Pono’ is underpinned by Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the founding document of New Zealand. It is also supported and informed by international human rights frameworks, including the 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (the Children’s Convention), the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) (2007), and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) (2006). An important cornerstone is Article 12 of the Children’s Convention, which stipulates the right of children and young people to meaningful participation in decisions and processes relevant to their lives (UN Committee on the Rights of the Child 2009).

Meaningful participation entails a ‘process by which children and young people are actively involved and have genuine influence in decision-making on matters that affect them. Making sure that children and young people have the right information, are able to engage in dialogue, have their views seriously considered and are involved in understanding the outcomes of their involvement are all part of the ongoing process of children’s participation’ (Children’s Convention Monitoring Group 2019, p. 9). New Zealand government policy commitments to children’s participatory rights include the Child and Youth Wellbeing Strategy (Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet 2019) and the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989. There are a number of key reports and frameworks in this ‘participation ecosystem’ (Fitzmaurice 2017, p.43) (refer to Children’s Convention Monitoring Group 2019; Office of the Children’s Commissioner and Oranga Tamariki-Ministry for Children 2019; Ara Taiohi 2020, 2021; Independent Children’s Monitor 2020; Oranga Tamariki Voices of Children and Young People Team 2021).

In concert these human rights instruments and policy frameworks provide a mandate for and give direction to efforts to advance the participatory rights of tamariki and rangatahi in New Zealand. However, they lack the specificity to provide guidance to the growing array of organisations and others seeking to engage with tamariki and rangatahi with care experience.

The need for an ethical framework to guide participatory practice with tamariki and rangatahi with care experience

Evidence indicates that tamariki and rangatahi with care experience derive personal, developmental, and social benefits from meaningful participation in processes and decisions relevant to their lives and wellbeing, including enhanced agency, self-esteem, and sense of control (Vis et al. 2011; van Bijleveld et al.; 2015; Kennan et al. 2018; Toros 2021b). Meaningful participation thus offers important opportunities for upholding the mana and rangatiratanga of tamariki and rangatahi with care experience (Lindsay Latimer et al. 2021). Input by tamariki and rangatahi has also been shown to enhance the quality and relevance of child protection decision-making and related services (Archard and Skivenes 2009), and as demonstrated by recent efforts in New Zealand in the area of child wellbeing, to have positive impacts on policy making (Brown et al. 2020).

Nonetheless, New Zealand and international research reveals persistent gaps between policies mandating their inclusion and realisation of the participatory rights of tamariki and rangatahi with care experience (Atwool 2006; Falch-Eriksen et al. 2021; Toros 2021a). Tamariki and rangatahi in the child protection system rarely feel meaningfully included in planning and decision-making (Atwool 2006; van Bijleveld et al. 2014; Alfandari 2017; Križ and Skivenes 2017; Damiani-Taraba et al. 2018). Furthermore, when the views of children and young people are sought, their input often fails to carry weight in adult-centric systems or to have real impact on decision-making and services that directly affect their lives and wellbeing (Bessell 2011; van Bijleveld et al. 2015; Alfandari 2017; Kennan 2018).

Reasons identified for this slippage include social and organisational emphases on protecting tamariki and rangatahi, managing risk, and prioritising safety (Vis et al. 2011; Toros 2021b); beliefs that adults know what is best for tamariki and rangatahi and/or that they lack the capacity for providing meaningful input; and power differentials that reinforce adult authority and undermine the agency and voice of tamariki and rangatahi (McCafferty 2021; Toros and Falch-Eriksen 2021). Factors such as high workloads, competing organisational priorities, and gaps in social workers’ knowledge and skills also contribute to tamariki and rangatahi with care experience feeling overlooked and disregarded (Diaz and Aylward 2019; Toros 2021a, 2021b). Research highlights wide variability in workers’ understandings of participatory rights and significant shortcomings in their readiness for supporting meaningful participation by tamariki and rangatahi with care experience (van Bijleveld at al. 2015), including a lack of tools for supporting participatory practice (van Bijleveld et al. 2020; 2021).

In New Zealand, the gaps between the rights of tamariki and rangatahi with care experience to meaningful participation, and realisation of these rights in practice, are of particular concern for Indigenous Māori. Tamariki and rangatahi Māori are significantly overrepresented in New Zealand child protection services. Furthermore, as underscored in recent reviews of Oranga Tamariki-Ministry for Children (for instance the 2021 Waitangi Tribunal report, He Pāharakeke, he Rito Whakakīkinga Whāruarua: Oranga Tamariki Urgent Inquiry), tamariki and rangatahi Māori and their whānau face significant historical and contemporary barriers to equitable inclusion because of colonisation, coloniality and racism (King et al. 2018).

Approach to developing ‘Kia Tika, Kia Pono’

‘Kia Tika, Kia Pono’ was co-created by rangatahi who are care experienced, staff members from VOYCE-Whakarongo Mai (an independent non-governmental organisation focused on amplifying the voices of children and young people in care in New Zealand), and researchers from Waipapa Taumata Rau/The University of Auckland and Te Rōpū Rangahau Hauora a Eru Pōmare, University of Otago, Wellington, with consultation and input from a core group of adult stakeholders. The research question guiding our project was ‘What constitutes good practice in relation to the ethical, culturally safe engagement and participation of children and young people with care experience in governance, policy making, service design, and research?’.

The project design included three interlocking components:

  1. Assessment of current knowledge and practice through a systematic scoping literature review and synthesis of the international and New Zealand research on children and young people’s participation in child protection services, and an environmental scan of content about participation by tamariki and rangatahi on the public websites of key institutional stakeholders in the Aotearoa New Zealand child, youth, and whānau/family sector.

  2. Input by and co-creation with rangatahi who are care experienced (detailed in the following sections).

  3. Consultation with and input from adult stakeholders with recognised expertise in child and youth-centred policies and services, child protection services, and/or monitoring and advocacy for children's rights and wellbeing. Focus groups were held with these expert knowledge holders to elicit their views on ethically and effectively engaging children and young people who have care experience in research, governance, policy making, and/or service design, from the particular perspective of New Zealand. We also sought stakeholders’ input on the materials emerging from our engagement with the rangatahi and the draft framework.

Throughout the project, we were committed to upholding the mana and rights of participating rangatahi, building on existing research and applied knowledge, and ensuring the research was consistent with the values and practices that we were aiming to explore, including underpinning rights, participatory ethics, and tikanga Māori. The project was also guided throughout by the ethical principles established by ‘Te Ara Tika Guidelines for Māori research ethics: A framework for researchers and ethics committee members’ (The Pūtaiora Writing Group 2010), and by the guidelines for research with children established by the international Ethical Research Involving Children Project (ERIC). Ethical approval was granted by the University of Auckland Human Participants Ethics Committee (Reference # 022386).

Assessment of current knowledge and practice

To inform the project as a whole, including our hui with rangatahi with care experience and with key stakeholders in the area of child protection and/or participatory rights, we conducted a scoping literature review (SLR) (Levac et al. 2010; Haight 2018) of the national and international evidence on the key dimensions of effective, ethical, culturally safe engagement with, and participation by, tamariki and rangatahi who are care experienced, and facilitators and barriers to good practice. Findings from the SLR confirmed those of other recent reviews pointing to ongoing challenges in embedding participatory principles in everyday child protection practice (e.g. Toros 2021b), and a dearth of frameworks and tools offering detailed guidance on ethical, culturally safe participatory practice with tamariki and rangatahi with care experience (van Bijleveld et al. 2020; 2021).

To complement the SLR, we conducted an environmental scan of content related to participation by tamariki and rangatahi (including those with care experience) in decision-making and services on the public-facing websites of key institutional stakeholders in the New Zealand child, youth, and whānau/family sector. Organisational websites reviewed included the Office of the Children’s Commissioner; Oranga Tamariki-Ministry for Children; VOYCE-Whakarongo Mai; Ara Taiohi; Save the Children; UNICEF; Ministry of Education; Ministry of Health; Whānau Ora Commissioning Agencies; the Independent Children’s Monitor; the Human Rights Commission; and the Ombudsman’s office.

Consistent with New Zealand’s obligations as a signatory to the Children’s Convention, the websites we reviewed point to broad institutional commitment to ensuring engagement and participation in decision-making and services by tamariki and rangatahi. However, in the public-facing materials of the entities we reviewed, much of this content focuses on broad principles. Less information is readily available on specific strategies and tools for supporting meaningful and ethical engagement and participation in decision-making and services by tamariki and rangatahi. Furthermore, there is lack of publicly available material specific to participatory practice with tamariki and rangatahi who are care experienced.

Collaboration and co-creation with rangatahi who are care experienced

The expertise and input of a diverse group of twelve rangatahi who are care experienced were central to the work of the project. The rangatahi who agreed to participate identified with a number of ethnic social groups. They had connections to and ongoing relationships with VOYCE-Whakarongo Mai. In addition to personal experiences of foster or residential care, some also had experience with consultation to and/or participation in governance, policy making, media, and advocacy efforts related to tamariki and rangatahi with care experience.

Our initial research design included three research hui with participating rangatahi. From the outset, members of the research team were committed to enacting the participatory rights principles at the heart of the project. We focused on manaakitanga (showing care for) and whakawhanaungatanga (building relationships with) the rangatahi involved, demonstrated by attention to issues such as time, space, facilitation, kai (appropriate food), koha (recognition for their participation and contributions), following through on what was agreed, and maintaining good processes. Over the course of the project, we aimed to nurture the rangatahi, uphold their self-determination and ensure reciprocity in our relationships with them.

Despite these commitments, as the project unfolded the rangatahi helped the adult members of the research team see that our initial processes were falling short in realising their full and meaningful participation. We worked together to adjust the processes of the project to share power more actively and ensure rangatahi could contribute in ways that, based upon their suggestions, worked better for them, such as by giving input in smaller groups or one-on-one rather than just in larger hui. The COVID-19 pandemic also led to adjustments in the delivery and timeframe of the project. When lockdowns required shifts from face-to-face hui to Zoom hui, for example, we used these for whakawhanaungatanga with the rangatahi, checking in on how they were doing and ensuring that we sustained their connections with the team members.

Effectively, our work with the rangatahi shifted to a process of wānanga – a collaborative means of knowledge sharing and creation – around our common kaupapa (purpose) and commitment. As a collective, we developed a sense of shared responsibility for building knowledge, grounded in a process of ‘active and collective thinking and problem-solving’ (Smith et al. 2019, p. 5). In the wānanga context, ‘[k]nowledge sharing becomes a way to cut across relations of power … by talking across power to each other, enhancing connections and relationships’ (Smith et al. 2019, p. 2). Wānanga thus emerges as the full expression of the realisations and possibilities that knowledge creating and making of meaning brings (King 2020).

Iterative, collaborative data generation and analysis

Consistent with the shift in the project to co-creation, we took an iterative approach to analysing the data generated from the hui with the rangatahi. Data from the first rangatahi hui were analysed by two research team members using reflexive thematic analysis (Terry et al. 2017). Identified themes were reviewed and cross-checked by a further two research team members, and then shared with, and workshopped by the full research team and the rangatahi. Together with insights from the key stakeholder hui and findings from the literature, these refined themes became the foundation for the ensuing participatory processes and practices with the rangatahi.

From the initial stages of the project onward, the rangatahi collaboratively reviewed, refined, and signed-off on the developing framework, which has three components. The first two components of ‘Kia Tika, Kia Pono’ – ‘Our Words’ and ‘Values’ – are based on the themes from hui with the rangatahi. The third component of the framework, a set of eighteen reflexive questions to guide planning and practice for engaging with tamariki and rangatahi with care experience, was developed iteratively from the perspectives and lived experience shared by rangatahi, the input and consultation feedback provided by the adult stakeholders, and findings from the SLR and environmental scan.

Outline of the ‘Kia Tika, Kia Pono’ framework

‘Kia Tika, Kia Pono’ lays out the key elements needed to ensure that the processes and practices used by organisations and other people engaging with tamariki and rangatahi with care experience honour and respect their contributions and uphold their mana. For engagement with these tamariki and rangatahi to be ethical, meaningful, and mana-enhancing, processes and practices are required that affirm and uphold them as rangatira (expert leaders), however this should look for them. At the heart of this work are relationships with tamariki and rangatahi based on respect, recognition, and trust (Husby et al. 2019; Munford and Sanders, 2020). Building these requires processes and practices of engagement carefully tailored to ensure meaningful participation by tamariki and rangatahi of all ages, abilities, and cultures. It also requires clear, mutually determined understandings of how tamariki and rangatahi and the adults who engage with them will work together, facilitated by organisations and adults with the skills and knowledge to engage effectively with tamariki and rangatahi from diverse backgrounds, many of whom have complex and challenging life experiences and little confidence that their voices will be heard and acted upon.

The three interlocking elements of ‘Kia Tika, Kia Pono’ are described as follows. We have included quotes from several of the rangatahi participating in the project to illustrate aspects of the three components that together comprise the framework.

Our words

‘When I give you my words, I give you myself.’ (Rangatahi with care experience)

The first component of the framework, ‘Our Words’, draws directly from the words of participating rangatahi to illuminate what rangatahi with care experience see as essential to their ability to participate with organisations and others in ways that support their wellbeing and uphold their mana. Grounding ‘Kia Tika, Kia Pono’ in the perspectives of rangatahi sends a message to organisations and other people using this framework that tamariki and rangatahi need to be at the centre of this work.

‘Our Words’ identifies and expands in detail on three groups of factors that rangatahi view as critical to engaging ethically and effectively with care experienced children and young people, including: 1) organisational factors; 2) adult factors; and 3) process factors.

Ethical values

The second component of ‘Kia Tika, Kia Pono’ is a set of eight core Ethical Values derived from the perspectives of participating rangatahi (Table 1). These Ethical Values set the tūāpapa (foundation) upon which the ethical framework stands.

Table 1.

Ethical Values.

Ethical engagement with children and young people who are care experienced means recognising that they are rangatira (expert leaders) on their own stories, lived experience and knowledge. Ethical engagement upholds the mana of children and young people who are care experienced, honours the stories that they share, and supports:
Honouring the uniqueness of every child and young person. Mauri
Honouring the belonging of every child and young person to their whānau/family/culture. Ūkaipō
Demonstrating love, respect and care and being inclusive of diversity. Aroha, Manaakitanga
Investing in mutually respectful, reciprocal relationships that nurture, respect and strengthen sense of belonging for children and young people. Whanaungatanga
Acknowledging the contributions of young people through supporting their development. Koha
Ensuring information is clear and accessible for all children and young people so they understand the purpose of the engagement. Māramatanga
Always opening and closing sessions in a positive way that ensure that children and young people are feeling okay. This might be through karakia, or through other ways. Wairuatanga
Organisations and adults who are genuine and committed with the right skill set to provide support for children and young people to engage in ways that value their strengths. Pono, Tika
Open in a new tab

Reflexive questions to guide planning and practice

‘The right people, doing the right things.’ (Rangatahi with care experience)

The final component of ‘Kia Tika, Kia Pono’ is a set of eighteen reflexive questions designed to guide organisations and people seeking to engage with tamariki and rangatahi who are care experienced in ensuring that any form of participation – whether in-person or via other modalities (such as online surveys) – is ethical and culturally safe. Grounded in the ‘Ethical Values’ (refer to Table 1), the ‘Reflexive Questions’ are intended to ensure intentionality and care across all stages of the work, from preparation and planning regarding the purpose of the engagement and the form it will take, to the processes and practices by which the engagement is enacted, through to active follow-up, feedback, and evaluation.

Purpose and preparation: is the purpose of the engagement tika and pono?

‘Why is your organisation doing it? Participation needs to feel real and authentic. It’s about people’s intentions and integrity.’ (Rangatahi with care experience)

The first set of ‘Reflexive Questions’ focuses on ensuring that organisations and people seeking to engage with tamariki and rangatahi who are care experienced have done their homework prior to any proposed engagement with tamariki or rangatahi with care experience. These questions call on organisations and people to reflect carefully on the reasons why they are seeking the engagement, how the knowledge and information they are given will be used, and – importantly – how tamariki and rangatahi will benefit, directly and indirectly, from their investment in this work. To ensure that tamariki and rangatahi with care experience, whose lives typically are already complex, are not burdened unnecessarily, we encourage organisations and people to find out what is already known about the area in which they are seeking input. We also remind them of the need to follow standard ethical guidelines, for example in relation to free, prior and informed consent.

Processes: are the processes of engagement tika and pono?

‘Don’t assume we know how to contribute – you can have all the care experience in the world but if you are not able to express that confidently or safely that experience alone is not enough. You need to teach how to do so … it’s harder to contribute if you are dropped in it.’ (Rangatahi with care experience)

It is critical that the processes and practices of engagement rest on a solid foundation. The second set of ‘Reflexive questions’ thus call on organisations and people seeking to engage with rangatahi and tamariki with care experience to proactively assess their readiness and capability for the work, including ensuring that their obligations to Te Tiriti o Waitangi and other human rights instruments can be fulfilled, and that consultation with relevant partners and organisations has taken place - including whānau, Hapū and Iwi, Māori organisations, Pacific organisations, and other organisations that support tamariki and rangatahi and their whānau. The ‘Reflexive Questions’ also explore whether organisations and people have ensured that appropriate resourcing and capabilities are in place, such as an appropriate, warm and welcoming setting, and any supports needed by staff (such as reflective supervision, mentoring and/or training) to facilitate their ability to ensure that tamariki and rangatahi can participate meaningfully (van Bijleveld et al. 2020).

The ‘Reflexive Questions’ in this section ask organisations and people to pro-actively ensure that those facilitating any engagement have relevant knowledge and skills. Inclusive participatory practice requires carefully tailored methods with the flexibility and responsiveness to enable tamariki and rangatahi to participate in ways that work for them (Kennan et al. 2018). As a rangatahi participant pointed out, facilitators need to ‘keep an open mind and get to know who you are trying to connect with and then get creative about how you work together. Be flexible – some kids might be dyslexic or can’t read much.’ (Rangatahi with care experience.)

For participatory processes to be pono, it is important that these wrap participating tamariki and rangatahi in manaakitanga and in aroha: ‘the enacting of care, concern, respect and compassion for others’ (Young et al. 2020, p. 2). In addition to stressing the need for care in building and sustaining relationships, the ‘Reflexive Questions’ remind organisations and people that participatory processes, which can be stressful or triggering, need to leave tamariki and rangatahi with care experience ‘whole’. To support their wellbeing, plans need to be in place for regular check-ins with participating tamariki and rangatahi, during and after engagement, and for resources such as pastoral care to be available if needed.

The ‘Reflexive Questions’ also remind those planning to engage with tamariki and rangatahi with care experience that upholding mana necessarily entails reciprocity. In part this involves recognising the contributions of tamariki and rangatahi in ways that are meaningful to them and that add value to their lives. However, the participating rangatahi stressed that they also want these relational processes to be more than superficial. As one rangatahi said, ‘don’t be the system’:

‘It needs to be clear that the work being undertaken will be done together and through a two-way relationship … don’t be the system, you are a human being as well. For me I connected much better with people who were just themselves.’ (Rangatahi with care experience)

Follow-up, feedback and evaluation: is the follow-up from the engagement tika and pono?

‘Don’t “use and go’. I hate telling my stories and them using it but then being forgotten about. They benefit but you don’t.’ (Rangatahi with care experience)

Research findings (Lundy 2018) and feedback from the rangatahi in this project stress the central importance of feedback and evaluation so that tamariki and rangatahi are informed about what happened or not as a result of their input. Lundy (2018) describes feedback as ‘a unique opportunity for demonstrating transparency and further participation, both of which are crucial for social accountability’ (p. 350). The final set of ‘Reflexive Questions’ in this section calls on organisations and people seeking to engage tamariki and rangatahi with care experience to pro-actively ensure that plans for feedback, follow-up and evaluation are built into their planning. The questions also remind those using the framework that tamariki and rangatahi with care experience, who frequently feel powerless in relation to adults and adult systems, want their input and participation to make a difference. From this perspective, feedback and follow-through, and the commitment to accountability that these embody, are ethical responsibilities.

‘I am entrusting someone to do something meaningful with my words. People need to uphold and deliver when using the power behind my message … the last thing you want to do is pour your heart out and see no results and impact.’ (Rangatahi with care experience)

Discussion

With growing awareness of the value and importance of actively seeking the perspectives and input of tamariki and rangatahi comes a responsibility to ensure that these participatory processes have ethical integrity. ‘Kia Tika, Kia Pono’ represents an important step towards scaffolding ethical participatory practice with tamariki and rangatahi with care experience. Nonetheless, a framework is just a guide, not the work itself. The process of implementing our project taught us important and lasting lessons about the need in this work for both sustained investment and ongoing vigilance regarding the integrity of our own processes and practices. In particular, the critical feedback regarding their experience in the project from the rangatahi to adult members of the research team was a powerful reminder that deeply held principles and solid portfolios of relevant experience are not a guarantee of inclusive and respectful action (Davidson, 2017; Reich et al. 2017).

Over the course of the project, our collective processes of reflection, re-grouping, and co-creation provided critical, real-time learning regarding the pragmatics entailed in meaningfully engaging rangatahi with care experience as expert knowledge holders on their own lives. Our initial project design was quite conventional and researcher centric. But feedback from the rangatahi and reflection on the extent to which our processes were falling short of the principles we were claiming for the project fundamentally transformed our approach, contributing significantly to the shape and integrity of ‘Kia Tika, Kia Pono’ and creating important opportunities for learning and growth.

For the adult members of the research team, this learning underscored the central importance of relational accountability, those ‘dynamics of … relationships (established through th[e] work)’ (Reich et al. 2017, p. 2). As our attentiveness to the relational processes at the heart of the project increased, other factors also supported a more fully collaborative approach. The COVID-19 pandemic slowed our project down, but also gave us time to build more layered relationships among the rangatahi and adult members of the team. In addition to genuine commitment, time, and space, engaging as a collaborative team in the context of the pandemic reminded us that the essence of this relational work is aroha. As Young et al. (2020) note, ‘Aroha is at the heart of co-construction as we take note of one another, listening, learning, and growing. It creates a whakawatea (to clear a pathway or make way) so that we can work together honestly and deeply’ (p.3).

At the same time, we became increasingly mindful of the need to continuously address questions of initiation, benefits, representation, legitimation, and accountability (refer to Bishop, 1996). Such questions focus attention on whose interests and concerns are being prioritised, who will benefit from the project and how, whose perspectives are centred, and who will determine how the knowledge from the project was shared. For example, we have tried to make sure that the rangatahi are centrally involved in shaping final products from the research, co-producing materials for publication (including this paper) and evaluating the project.

As the project unfolded, we also became significantly more mindful of the dynamic nature of participation, and of the importance of respecting the choice and agency of rangatahi around their involvement. Switzer (2020) cautions that call to participation comes with its own pressures and complexities, including the risk that participatory processes will inadvertently recreate extractive and power-laden processes (see also Davidson 2017). Participation is a right. But tamariki and rangatahi also have the right to choose whether to participate or not, or how they do so, and to have these choices be respected, without negative consequences (Switzer 2020).

Conclusion

Aimed primarily at ensuring ethical participatory practice in the context of governance, policy making, service design, media, and research, ‘Kia Tika, Kia Pono’ is designed to be used by organisations and people working across the range of sectors and services that engage tamariki and rangatahi who are care experienced. Although it is not focused specifically on service delivery, the guidance it offers is relevant to social workers and other service providers who work with individual tamariki and rangatahi and their whānau. It will also be useful in other sectors that seek to hear and learn from diverse groups of tamariki and rangatahi, including researchers, the media, and the private sector.

Anchored in, and responsive to the cultural context of New Zealand, ‘Kia Tika, Kia Pono’ is distinctive in its centring of rangatahi with care-experience as not only the expert leaders of their own lives, but also as knowledge-holders, -creators, and makers of meaning. Kia Tika, Kia Pono has been brought to life by their gifts of time, space, energy, experience, and commitment to co-creating the cultural values at its core. Honouring these gifts of mana from the outset was essential. As the rangatahi stated:

‘The Kaupapa should have consultation with children and young people from the earliest stages. Allow our insights into the architectural phase, we can be more than builders … It needs to be clear that the work being undertaken is going to be done together and through a two-way relationship.’

Our involvement with the rangatahi in the project didn’t always go smoothly or the way we would have originally anticipated. Yet the shift to co-creation provided important opportunities for learning and growth for both the rangatahi and the adult members of the team. As Switzer (2020) points out – and our collective experiences demonstrate – participation rests on ‘contradictory ground’ (p. 172). For tamariki and rangatahi, particularly those with care experience, participation alongside powerful adults can be a stressful experience, fraught with tensions and anxieties. Yet it also has the potential, through reciprocity, mutual engagement, and shared learning, to uphold their mana and affirm them as rangatira. The challenge, as ‘Kia Tika, Kia Pono’ aims to make clear, is to engage rather than sidestep these complexities, and to do so reflexively and with integrity.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by University of Auckland Faculty Research Development Fund; MBIE Endeavour Fund - Smart Ideas Grant; Ngā Pae o te Māramatanga (Publication Support Grant).

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

References

  1. Alfandari R. 2017. Evaluation of a national reform in the Israeli child protection practice designed to improve children's participation in decision-making. Child & Family Social Work. 22:54–62. [Google Scholar]
  2. Ara Taiohi . 2020. Code of ethics for youth work in Aotearoa New Zealand. 3rd ed. Wellington, New Zealand: Ara Taiohi. https://arataiohi.org.nz/career/code-of-ethics/. [Google Scholar]
  3. Ara Taiohi . 2021. Mana Taiohi. Wellington, New Zealand: Ara Taiohi. [Google Scholar]
  4. Archard D, Skivenes M.. 2009. Hearing the child. Child & Family Social Work. 14(4):391–399. [Google Scholar]
  5. Atwool N. 2006. Participation in decision-making: the experience of New Zealand children in care. Child Care in Practice. 12(3):259–267. [Google Scholar]
  6. Bessell S. 2011. Participation in decision-making in out-of-home care in Australia: what do young people say? Children and Youth Services Review. 33(4):496–501. [Google Scholar]
  7. Bishop R. 1996. Collaborative research stories: whakawhanaungatanga. Palmerston North, New Zealand: Dunmore Press. [Google Scholar]
  8. Brown K, Fitzmaurice L, Milne K, Provoost D.. 2020. Engaging children and young people in the policy process. Policy Quarterly. 16(1):3–9. [Google Scholar]
  9. Children’s Convention Monitoring Group . 2019. Getting it right: Are we listening? Children’s participation rights in government policy. Office of the Children’s Commissioner. https://www.occ.org.nz/publications/reports/getting-it-right-are-we-listening/.
  10. Damiani-Taraba G, Sky I, Hegler D, Woolridge N, Anderson B, Koster A.. 2018. The listen to me project: creating lasting changes in voice and participation for children in care through a youth-led project. Child & Youth Services. 39(1):75–95. [Google Scholar]
  11. Davidson E. 2017. Saying it like it is? Power, participation and research involving young people. Social Inclusion. 5(3):228–239. [Google Scholar]
  12. Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet . 2019. Child and Youth Wellbeing Strategy. https://dpmc.govt.nz/our-programmes/child-and-youth-wellbeing-strategy.
  13. Diaz C, Aylward T.. 2019. A study on senior managers’ views of participation in one local authority … a case of wilful blindness? The British Journal of Social Work. 49(5):1333–1349. [Google Scholar]
  14. Ethical Research Involving Children Project (ERIC) . https://childethics.com/.
  15. Falch-Eriksen A, Toros K, Sindi I, Lehtme R.. 2021. Children expressing their views in child protection casework: current research and their rights going forward. Child & Family Social Work. 26(3):485–497. [Google Scholar]
  16. Finlay-Robinson S, Baxter R, Dunlop H.. 2019. Whai wāhitanga: youth participation in Aotearoa: before 2020 and beyond. Kaiparahuarahi. 1(20):35–58. [Google Scholar]
  17. Fitzmaurice L. 2017. Children’s voices in system reform - A case study on children and young people’s participation within the modernisation of child, youth and family. Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work. 29:41–52. [Google Scholar]
  18. Garcia-Quiroga M, Agoglia IS.. 2020. Too vulnerable to participate? Challenges for meaningful participation in research with children in alternative care and adoption. International Journal of Qualitative Methods. 19:160940692095896. [Google Scholar]
  19. Haight W, Waubanascum C, Glesener D, Marsalis S.. 2018. A scoping study of Indigenous child welfare: the long emergency and preparations for the next seven generations. Children and Youth Services Review. 93:397–410. [Google Scholar]
  20. Husby ISD, Kiik R, Juul R.. 2019. Children’s encounters with professionals – recognition and respect during collaboration. European Journal of Social Work. 22(6):987–998. [Google Scholar]
  21. Independent Children’s Monitor . 2020. Ethics code. https://www.icm.org.nz/assets/Uploads/Documents/Nga-Kete-Rauemi/Ethics-Code-Final-2020.pdf.
  22. Kennan D, Brady B, Forkan C.. 2018. Supporting children’s participation in decision making: a systematic literature review exploring the effectiveness of participatory processes. The British Journal of Social Work. 48(7):1985–2002. [Google Scholar]
  23. King P, Cormack D, Kōpua M.. 2018. Oranga mokopuna: a tāngata whenua rights-based approach to health and well-being. MAI Journal: A New Zealand Journal of Indigenous Scholarship. 7(2):186–202. [Google Scholar]
  24. King PT. 2020. Oranga Mokopuna: ethical co-designing for the Pluriverse [unpublished doctoral thesis]. Wellington, New Zealand: University of Otago.
  25. Križ K, Skivenes M.. 2017. Child welfare workers’ perceptions of children's participation: a comparative study of England, Norway and the USA (California). Child & Family Social Work. 22:11–22. [Google Scholar]
  26. Levac D, Colquhoun H, O'Brien KK.. 2010. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implementation Science. 5(1):1–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Lindsay Latimer C, Le Grice J, Hamley L, Greaves L, Gillon A, Groot S, Manchi M, Renfrew L, Clark TC.. 2021. ‘Why would you give your children to something you don’t trust?’: Rangatahi Health and Social Services and the Pursuit of Tino Rangatiratanga. Kōtuitui: New Zealand Journal of Social Sciences Online. doi: 10.1080/1177083X.2021.1993938 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Lundy L. 2018. In defence of tokenism? Implementing children’s right to participate in collective decision-making. Childhood. 25(3):340–354. [Google Scholar]
  29. McCafferty P. 2021. Children’s participation in child welfare decision making: recognising dichotomies, conceptualising critically informed solutions. Child Care in Practice. 1–18. [Google Scholar]
  30. McMellon C, Tisdall EKM.. 2020. Children and young people’s participation rights: looking backwards and moving forwards. The International Journal of Children’s Rights. 28(1):157–182. [Google Scholar]
  31. Munford R, Sanders J.. 2020. Shame and recognition: social work practice with vulnerable young people. Child & Family Social Work. 25(1):53–61. [Google Scholar]
  32. Office of the Children’s Commissioner and Oranga Tamariki . 2019. What makes a good life? Children and young people’s views on wellbeing. Office of the Children’s Commissioner and Oranga Tamariki, https://www.occ.org.nz/publications/reports/what-makes-a-good-life/.
  33. Oranga Tamariki Voices of Children and Young People Team . 2021. Te Mātātaki 2021. Wellington, New Zealand: Oranga Tamariki – Ministry for Children. [Google Scholar]
  34. Reich J, Liebenberg L, Denny M, Battiste H, Bernard A, Christmas K, Dennis R, Denny D, Knockwood I, Nicholas R, Paul H.. 2017. In this together. International Journal of Qualitative Methods. 16(1):160940691771734–12. [Google Scholar]
  35. Smith L, Pihama L, Cameron N, Mataki T, Morgan H, Te Nana R.. 2019. Thought space wānanga—A kaupapa Māori decolonizing approach to research translation. Genealogy. 3(4):74. [Google Scholar]
  36. Switzer S. 2020. “People give and take a lot in order to participate in things:” youth talk back – making a case for non-participation. Curriculum Inquiry. 50(2):168–193. [Google Scholar]
  37. Te Rōpū Arotahi . 2022. Kia Tika, Kia Pono – Honouring Truths: an ethical framework for engaging with children and young people who are care experienced. https://voyce.org.nz/kiatikakiapono.
  38. Terry G, Hayfield N, Clarke V, Braun V.. 2017. Thematic analysis. In: Willig C, Stainton-Rogers W, editors. The SAGE handbook of qualitative research in psychology. 2nd ed. London: Sage; p. 17–37. [Google Scholar]
  39. The Pūtaiora Writing Group . 2010. Te Ara Tika guidelines for Māori research ethics: a framework for researchers and ethics committee members. https://www.hrc.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2019-06/Resource%20Library%20PDF%20-%20Te%20Ara%20Tika%20Guidelines%20for%20Maori%20Research%20Ethics_0.pdf.
  40. Toros K. 2021. Children’s participation in decision making from child welfare workers’ perspectives: a systematic review. Research on Social Work Practice. 31(4):367–374. [Google Scholar]
  41. Toros K. 2021. A systematic review of children’s participation in child protection decision-making: tokenistic presence or not? Children & Society. 35(3):395–411. [Google Scholar]
  42. Toros K, Falch-Eriksen A.. 2021. “I do not want to cause additional pain … ”–child protection workers’ perspectives on child participation in child protection practice. Journal of Family Social Work. 24(1):43–59. [Google Scholar]
  43. United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child . 2009. General Comment No. 12: The right of the child to be heard. https://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/crc/docs/advanceversions/crc-c-gc-12.pdf.
  44. United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities . December 13, 2006. https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities.html.
  45. United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child . November 20, 1989. https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx.
  46. United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples . September 13, 2007. https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/declaration-on-the-rights-of-indigenous-peoples.html.
  47. van Bijleveld GG, Bunders-Aelen JF, Dedding CW.. 2020. Exploring the essence of enabling child participation within child protection services. Child & Family Social Work. 25(2):286–293. [Google Scholar]
  48. van Bijleveld GG, Dedding CW, Bunders-Aelen JF.. 2014. Seeing eye to eye or not? Young people's and child protection workers’ perspectives on children's participation within the Dutch child protection and welfare services. Children and Youth Services Review. 47:253–259. [Google Scholar]
  49. van Bijleveld GG, Dedding CW, Bunders-Aelen JF.. 2015. Children's and young people's participation within child welfare and child protection services: a state-of-the-art review. Child & Family Social Work. 20(2):129–138. [Google Scholar]
  50. Van Bijleveld GG, de Vetten M, Dedding CW.. 2021. Co-creating participation tools with children within child protection services: what lessons we can learn from the children. Action Research. 19(4):693–709. [Google Scholar]
  51. Vis SA, Strandbu A, Holtan A, Thomas N.. 2011. Participation and health - a research review of child participation in planning and decision-making. Child & Family Social Work. 16(3):325–335. [Google Scholar]
  52. Waitangi Tribunal . 2021. He Pāharakeke, he Rito Whakakīkinga Whāruarua: Oranga Tamariki Urgent Inquiry. https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/WT/wt_DOC_171027305/He%20Paharakeke%20W.pdf.
  53. Warming H. 2011. Children’s participation and citizenship in a global age: empowerment, tokenism or discriminatory disciplining? Social Work & Society. 9(1):119–134. [Google Scholar]
  54. Young S, McKenzie M, Omre C, Schjelderup L, Walker S.. 2020. ‘Warm eyes’, ‘warm breath’, ‘heart warmth’: using aroha (love) and warmth to reconceptualise and work towards best interests in child protection. Social Sciences. 9(4):54. [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand are provided here courtesy of Royal Society Te Aparangi and Taylor & Francis

RESOURCES