IR-01-24-19094
8 August 2024
Amy Ferguson
[FYI request #27091 email]
Dear Amy
Request for information
Thank you for your Official Information Act 1982 (OIA) request dated 31 May 2024, which you
refined after discussion with Police on 11 June 2024, to now seek:
1. Current total number of active gang members by region, the past two years of
data - the three most recent documents.
2. Data on the funding and resource allocation for gang management initiatives over
the past two years.
3. Summary of the impact of these [gang management] initiatives on community safety
and crime rates [last 2 years].
4. Metrics or criteria used to evaluate the success of the Gang Intel igence Centre.
5. Summary of data sharing agreements between the Police and other agencies
regarding gang management.
6. Outline the metrics used to evaluate the success of current gang management
policies.
7. Summary data showing changes in gang activity or membership over the most
recent full year for which data is available.
With regards to questions one and seven, please find attached a two-page Word document
detailing the active gang membership, by region, for the past two years along with percentage
change in active gang membership, by region.
With regards to question two, Operation Cobalt, and its predecessor Operation Tauwhiro,
are two large scale Police initiatives with a focus on gang management, enforcement and
disrupting unlawful gang behaviour and intimidation. Both Operations include activities
undertaken by both dedicated and non-dedicated staff, as a ‘whole of policing’ approach
is applied, therefore quantifying staffing resource is difficult. In 2022, the Labour Government
invested $94.5m to target gangs and organised crime. This funding was allocated across the
public service and was not allocated specifically to the NZ Police.
Police National Headquarters
180 Molesworth Street. PO Box 3017, Wellington 6140, New Zealand
Telephone: 04 474 9499. www.police.govt.nz
With regards to questions three and six, by way of a summary of the impact and success of
these gang management initiatives and policies, I provide an overview of Operation Cobalt
figures* as of 18 July 2024, Police has:
• conducted 1,765 search warrants and 977 warrantless searches
• entered 90,269 charges, warnings, and infringement notices across several
differing crime types
• issued 119,963 (traffic related) Infringement Offence Notices
• seized 700 firearms.
* Noting that Operation Cobalt data is provisional as it is drawn from live data collection and is
therefore subject to change as information becomes available. Data is captured by automated
searches and manual reporting. The data includes activities undertaken by both dedicated and
non-dedicated staff as a ‘whole of policing’ approach is applied. Data is captured by automated
searches and manual reporting charges are defined as “prosecutions, warnings, and
infringement notices (excluding traffic related) that had a mode of arrested, summonsed,
other, or courts held (Youth/TPO referrals are not shown)”.
In addition to these two gang-related Police Operations, Police piloted an initiative called
Resilience to Organised Crime in Communities (ROCC), which is a cross-agency work
programme currently operating in three Police districts, which runs alongside policing
enforcement initiatives and offers gang whānau the opportunity for referrals for addictions
and to other social agencies. More information about ROCC can be found here:
https://www.police.govt.nz/about-us/publication/proactive-release-resilience-organised-
crime-communities-papers
On 14 May 2024, Police announced the establishment of the new National Gang Unit (‘NGU’)
along with Gang Disruption Units (‘GDU’) in the 12 Police Districts. More information about
the NGU can be found here:
https://www.police.govt.nz/news/release/police-establish-new-national-gang-unit-and-
frontline-teams-increase-pressure-gangs
Details regarding potential resources, structures, and operating models for the NGU and GDU
are in the design stages and subject to wider internal consultation and Executive approval.
With regards to question four, regarding metrics used to evaluate the success of the Gang
Intelligence Centre, please find attached a PDF document titled “Gang Harm Insights Centre
Performance Outcomes Framework.”
With regards to question five, I refer you to the Police website which details the twelve
agencies Police have data sharing agreements with, which can be publicly accessed here:
https://www.police.govt.nz/about-us/publication/new-zealand-gang-intelligence-centre-
approved-information-sharing-agreement)
Police considers the interests requiring protection by withholding the information are not
outweighed by any public interest in release of the information.
Please note that as part of its commitment to openness and transparency, Police
proactively releases some information and documents that may be of interest to the public.
An anonymised version of this response may be publicly released on the New Zealand Police
website.
Amy Ferguson IR-01-24-19094 – Questions 1 and 7
1. “Current total number of active gang members by region, the past two years of data - the three
most recent documents.”
The National Gang List (NGL) identifies the individuals who, at time of publication:
• were known to New Zealand Police, and
• met all internal criteria to be regarded as a member of a New Zealand Adult Gang.
Because the NGL reflects the data that Police held at the time the NGL was produced, changes in this
data do not directly indicate that
total gang membership has increased within that community.
Operational activity, improvements in recording practices, and data quality audits can result in more
members being identified and recorded, without actual membership increasing in the community.
There is no direct relationship between the date an individual joined a gang, and the date police
became aware of their membership. While Police may learn of an individual’s membership at the
time they join, there are other cases where we may not learn about an individual’s membership for
an extended period after they first joined. Even if Police hold indicators of possible membership, it
can take time to obtain the details necessary to result in their inclusion on the NGL.
Year and
Counties/
Month Northland Waitematā Auckland
City Manukau Waikato Bay of
Plenty Eastern Central Wel ington Tasman Canterbury Southern Total
2022 / 02
279
397
303
675
654
1456
1279
689
929
200
620
210
7691
2022 / 04
280
405
293
713
641
1454
1283
679
918
196
643
217
7722
2022 / 06
284
423
310
742
644
1470
1289
679
915
196
643
240
7835
2022 / 08
284
453
311
793
656
1512
1304
695
924
189
663
235
8019
2022 / 10
327
480
325
835
670
1522
1329
749
1033
195
657
235
8357
2022 / 12
333
492
327
845
682
1509
1342
760
1045
207
661
240
8443
2023 / 02
335
497
327
864
782
1525
1355
768
1044
209
665
236
8607
2023 / 04
364
500
324
912
878
1538
1367
806
1050
196
701
239
8875
2023 / 06
376
492
340
935
956
1564
1381
852
1054
199
717
234
9100
2023 / 08
386
507
339
966
952
1559
1387
854
1064
201
714
240
9169
2023 / 10
386
515
355
974
962
1570
1397
843
1077
214
729
248
9270
2023 / 12
394
523
363
991
965
1587
1408
849
1085
213
739
249
9366
2024 / 02
391
529
365
1001
963
1628
1382
870
1099
211
741
267
9447
Table 1: National Gang List - Total counts by District per month.
7. “Summary data showing changes in gang activity or membership over the most recent full year
for which data is available.”
The National Gang List (NGL) identifies the individuals who, at time of publication:
• were known to New Zealand Police, and
• met all internal criteria to be regarded as a member of a New Zealand Adult Gang.
Because the NGL reflects the data that Police held at the time the NGL was produced, changes in this
data do not directly indicate that
total gang membership has increased within that community.
Operational activity, improvements in recording practices, and data quality audits can result in more
members being identified and recorded, without actual membership increasing in the community.
There is no direct relationship between the date an individual joined a gang, and the date police
became aware of their membership. While Police may learn of an individual’s membership at the
time they join, there are other cases where we may not learn about an individual’s membership for
an extended period after they first joined. Even if Police hold indicators of possible membership, it
can take time to obtain the details necessary to result in their inclusion on the NGL.
Year and
Counties/
Month Northland Waitematā Auckland
City Manukau Waikato Bay of
Plenty Eastern Central Wel ington Tasman Canterbury Southern Total
2022 / 02
2022 / 04 +0.36%
+2.02%
-3.30% +5.63% -1.99% -0.14% +0.31% -1.45%
-1.18%
-2.00%
+3.71%
+3.33%
+0.40%
2022 / 06 +1.43%
+4.44%
+5.80% +4.07% +0.47% +1.10% +0.47% +0.00%
-0.33%
+0.00%
+0.00% +10.60%
+1.46%
2022 / 08 +0.00%
+7.09%
+0.32% +6.87% +1.86% +2.86% +1.16% +2.36% +0.98%
-3.57%
+3.11%
-2.08%
+2.35%
2022 / 10 +15.14% +5.96%
+4.50% +5.30% +2.13% +0.66% +1.92% +7.77% +11.80% +3.17%
-0.90%
+0.00%
+4.21%
2022 / 12 +1.83%
+2.50%
+0.62% +1.20% +1.79% -0.85% +0.98% +1.47% +1.16% +6.15%
+0.61%
+2.13%
+1.03%
2023 / 02 +0.60%
+1.02%
+0.00% +2.25% +14.66% +1.06% +0.97% +1.05%
-0.10%
+0.97%
+0.61%
-1.67%
+1.94%
2023 / 04 +8.66%
+0.60%
-0.92% +5.56% +12.28% +0.85% +0.89% +4.95% +0.57%
-6.22%
+5.41%
+1.27%
+3.11%
2023 / 06 +3.30%
-1.60%
+4.94% +2.52% +8.88% +1.69% +1.02% +5.71% +0.38% +1.53%
+2.28%
-2.09%
+2.54%
2023 / 08 +2.66%
+3.05%
-0.29% +3.32% -0.42% -0.32% +0.43% +0.23% +0.95% +1.01%
-0.42%
+2.56%
+0.76%
2023 / 10 +0.00%
+1.58%
+4.72% +0.83% +1.05% +0.71% +0.72% -1.29%
+1.22% +6.47%
+2.10%
+3.33%
+1.10%
2023 / 12 +2.07%
+1.55%
+2.25% +1.75% +0.31% +1.08% +0.79% +0.71% +0.74%
-0.47%
+1.37%
+0.40%
+1.04%
2024 / 02 -0.76%
+1.15%
+0.55% +1.01% -0.21% +2.58% -1.85% +2.47% +1.29%
-0.94%
+0.27%
+7.23%
+0.86%
Table 2: National Gang List - Percentage change by District per month. Percentage changes are
based on the difference from the previous bimonthly period, for each column in the table.
Measuring impact of the Gang Harm Insights Centre
What this performance outcomes framework is:
▪
A set of core outcomes, indicators and measures that align with the
The Gang Harm Insights Centre is an inter-agency model of col aboration, that
GHIC’s strategic purpose, principles and focus areas
uses information and data from across 12 participating agencies to produce
What this performance outcomes framework is not:
evidence-based insights into gang-related harm.
▪
Individual or employee performance measures, although KPIs should align
As the GHIC operates in a complex system in which it is an enabler of agencies to
to strategic intent
empower communities, it can take years to see real and lasting change across
▪
A capability framework, although in striving to achieve outcomes, there is
the gang-harm space, and much of the GHIC’s influence remains unable to be
requirement for growing workforce capability
measured. However, underpinning this framework is the assumption that
▪
A financial performance framework
quality, holistic and strength-based insights matter – and the process as to how
▪
A long-term outcomes framework, although it is recommended that one of
they are created also matters.
the GHIC’s core strategies should be to develop a robust and reliable set of
This performance outcomes framework is therefore the first step in building a
indicators and measures across its work
comprehensive understanding of the impact of the GHIC, and laying the
Some monitoring processes and tools wil need to be developed in order to track
foundations to measure long term impact across the gang-related harm space.
and measure performance as defined in this framework. These include:
It is not expected that the GHIC wil be achieving across al areas initially but that
▪
Six monthly internal reporting dashboard for steering
it wil grow its capabilities as it actively works toward achieving and increasing
committee/governance
the quality and quantity of its activities, and reach into communities.
▪
Feedback survey 1 (for use across products)
▪
Feedback survey 2 (for use across community engagement)
▪
Baseline and annual reporting
Definitions used in this document
Focus areas: High-level grouping of similar outcomes under the one area. Useful for cross-agency work
that needs to cut across more traditional, linear ways of working and thinking.
Outcomes: Clear, unambiguous statements that articulate the changes the GHIC would like to see or
expects to see due to its work.
Indicators: Specific change that needs to happen to achieve a desired outcome. These are usual y
evidence-based, validated indicators of change.
Measures: Specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and timebound set of measures to show if the GHIC
is making progress toward achieving the indicators. These can be quantifiable measures to count the
quantity, size, or degree of change; objective (observed) or subjective (self-reporting); and supported
with mixed and qualitative measures to reflect the story underlying these numbers, and sometimes
intangible and exploratory outcomes that are often difficult to quantify.
Baseline report: Initial data and analysis col ected across a selection of foundational measures, updated
annual y.
Key focus areas
A model for change
Influencing narrative
Strengthening impact
The GHIC is a model of
The GHIC works with the sector
The GHIC strengthens the
interagency col aboration,
and communities to hear their
quality, reliability and
working together to improve
experience, using holistic
breadth of information
understanding of gang-
insights to reframe the narrative
relating to gang harm
related harm
around gang-related harm
across the sector
Three focus areas with five high level outcomes. Each outcome has a set of indicators and measures as follows…
1.1 An
interagency model of col aboration that
2.1 Chal enges the
dominant narrative of gang-
3.1 Builds cross-sector and cross-agency
delivers
excel ence across insights, every time,
related harm, creating a space for change and
knowledge and capability into gang-
on time
conversation
related harm.
1.2 A trusted
kaitiaki of data and information,
2.2 Builds
sustained community connections,
with capability to deliver holistic, strength-
enabling community voice to be heard
based, cultural y affirming insights
throughout its work
Focus area 1: A platform for change
Reporting tools
Baseline
6 month SG
12 month
Outcomes
Indicator
Measures
Targets
measures
survey and
Source
TBC
dashboard
reporting
1.1 An
Number and increase of the GHIC
interagency model
products released annual y
TBC
•
Internal review and tracking
of collaboration
aligned to strategic workplan
that delivers
excellence
Number and increase of
Products are
across insights,
multiagency contributions and
•
•
Internal review and tracking
recognised for
TBC
every time, on
requests into the GHIC
quality, timeliness,
time
and reliability of
Number and increase of
insights
community contributions and
•
•
Internal review and tracking
requests into the GHIC
TBC
Products meet the GHIC’s
insights quality framework* and
100%
•
Internal review and tracking
style guide*
The GHIC products receive high
>75%
•
Feedback loop embedded into products
satisfaction ratings across users
rating
Number of agency and
The GHIC has
>75%
community stakeholders who
•
strong
report shared purpose and focus
rating
Annual survey of employees, agencies,
col aboration and
stakeholders, communities - validated
satisfaction scores
Number of stakeholders who
col aboration and satisfaction scales.
>75%
for its products and rate interagency col aboration
rating
•
engagement
and trust highly
Number of community
stakeholders who rate
>75%
Feedback surveys after community
community col aboration and
rating
•
engagement
trust highly
Reporting tools
Baseline
6 month SG
12 month
Outcomes
Indicator
Measures
Targets
measures
survey and
Source
TBC
dashboard
reporting
1.2 A trusted
Quality data
Develop and utilize operating
100%
•
Internal review and tracking
kaitiaki of data
practices build safe protocols, in alignment with the
complies
and information,
and trusted data
AISA
with capability to
sharing
deliver holistic,
relationships
Products adhere to the GHIC’s
100%
•
Internal review and tracking
strength-based,
data protocols and ethics
complies
culturally affirming
frameworks for safe and
insights
effective use of data.
Datasets are managed and
Zero data
•
Internal review and tracking
stored responsibly
breach
Increased use of
Number and increase of
% per
•
Internal review and tracking
culturally affirming
products reflect kaupapa Māori
year of al
and inclusive data
research methods
products
practices and
frameworks that
Number and increase of
% per
•
Internal review and tracking
reflect diversity of
products adopt Pacific or other
year of al
insights across the
cultural frameworks to deliver
products
GHIC products
insights
*Indicates that product has not yet been created or is in development.
Focus area 2: Influencing narrative
Reporting tools
Baseline
6 month SG
12 month
Outcomes
Indicator
Measures
Targets
measures
survey and
Source
TBC
dashboard
reporting
2.1 Challenges
the
Number of policy professionals
# and
Internal review and tracking (SG and
dominant
Increased reach of
and decision makers requests for increase
•
GHIC)
narrative of gang-
the GHIC
products
related harm,
messaging (non-
creating a space
web)
Number policy and other
for change and
documents that frame issues in
# and
Internal review and tracking (SG and
•
conversation
alignment with the GHIC
increase
GHIC)
narrative
Increased reach of
Number of downloads or website #, reach,
the GHIC
hits of products or quarterly
•
Web analytics when available
increase
messaging
insights report
(web/online)
Number of social media and
#, reach,
•
Web analytics when available
online engagements
increase
Increased visibility
of the GHIC
Wil ingness of media to engage
insights and
with the GHIC insights and
•
Media analysis
narrative
narrative in media
Number insights report that
#,
include qualitative research and
•
Internal review and tracking
community voice.
increase
Frequency and approach of the
#, reach,
2.2 Builds
Increase in
•
Internal review and tracking
GHIC outreach into communities
approach
sustained
communities that
community
see their voice
Frequency of community
connections,
reflected in the
reaching out to engage with the
#,
enabling
GHIC products
GHIC
increase
•
Internal review and tracking
community voice
to be heard
throughout its
Increased use of
Number and increase of
% per
work
culturally affirming
products reflect Kaupapa Māori
year of al
•
Internal review and tracking
and inclusive data
research methods
products
Reporting tools
Baseline
6 month SG
12 month
Outcomes
Indicator
Measures
Targets
measures
survey and
Source
TBC
dashboard
reporting
practices and
frameworks that
Number and increase of
reflect diversity of
% per
products adopt Pacific or other
insights across the
cultural frameworks to deliver
year of al
•
Internal review and tracking
GHIC products (as
insights
products
per 1.2)
*Indicates that product has not yet been created or is in development.
Focus area 3: Strengthening impact
Reporting tools
Baseline
6 month SG
12 month
Outcomes
Indicator
Measures
Targets
measures
survey and
Source
TBC
dashboard
reporting
3.1
Builds cross-
X number of agencies or
#, reach,
sector and cross-
communities requesting support increase
•
Internal review and tracking
agency
knowledge
or training
and capability into
gang-related
x number of agencies and
#, reach,
harm.
The GHIC is the go-
communities proactively given
•
Internal review and tracking
support or training
increase
to intel igence
source for holistic
x number of requests to
insights into gang-
#, reach,
participate in wider conferences,
related harm
increase
•
Internal review and tracking
workshops and symposiums
x number of requests to
contribute or col aborate with
#, reach,
•
Internal review and tracking
academic, government or other
increase
insight centres
Col aborates to
develop indicators
and measures that
Support wider sector by
developing baseline long term
Dedicated work strategy stream to
support long term
indicators and measures of
develop long term indicators of harm.
gang-related harm
gang-related harm.
changes and
impact.
*Indicates that product has not yet been created or is in development.
Appendix 1
Brief technical and other notes
These can be kept track of continuously through organisational
Measures drive behaviour and performance. So it is important to be clear about
processes. These are helpful to show productivity and output.
what is being measured and why. Sometimes measures are used to report
2. Subjective measures can include surveys using validated col aboration
success and what good looks like, other times it is to drive quality improvement
and satisfaction scales that measure perceived experiences of
and performance.
col aboration, self-reported rates in interaction, how people feel about
working together, and quality of engagement with end products. These
1.1 An Interagency col aboration that delivers excellence across insights,
need to be deliberately col ected in survey format either at the end of a
every time, on time
period of time (annual y) or continuous per product, and are useful to
Being a model for interagency col aboration means the GHIC performs at a
quality improvement, and identifying roadblocks to col aboration.
high level of cooperation, efficiency and effectiveness across agencies,
Product Excel ence
stakeholders and communities to deliver exceptional, high quality, and
Product excel ence is critical to the GHIC’s success. This is reflected in on
innovative products.
time, quality delivery of products as outlined in the Term of Reference, and
Measures for both col aboration and product excel ence are reflected in the
measured through satisfaction ratings, use and distribution of products, as
performance framework.
wel as evidenced by requests for further information or engagement, or
publication. Other markers of excel ence include replication of findings, and
Collaboration
ability to stand up under internal and external scrutiny and review.
To quantify abstract concepts such as col aboration requires turning the
A Strategic Work Programme wil help align products to strategic intent,
concept into a tangible numerical value. Within the context of
and guide quality by assessing requests from agencies against priorities as
col aboration, this can only be done by assigning values to actions we deem
outlined in the Terms of Reference. Striving for excel ence also inspires
to be important. For example, how wel efforts have been combined to
staff, and builds trust in insights from partner agencies, contributing to
impact the number and quality of products, and the degree to which
further retention and col aborative practices.
schedules, workplans, targets are being achieved; or self-reported
feedback on how people col aborate. As such, measures for col aboration
1.2 A trusted kaitiaki of data and information, with capability to deliver
process can be subjective or objective. For example:
holistic, strength-based, culturally affirming insights
1.
Objective measures can include observing and keeping track of
Of the seven elements of the data stewardship framework provided by the
activities that actual y happen e.g. frequency of meetings, exchange
GCDS1, measuring stewardship performance is one of them2. Data
between agencies, and importantly on time delivery of products.
stewardship covers creation, col ection, management and use of data to be
1 https://data.govt.nz/leadership/gcds/
2 https://www.data.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/Data-stewardship-framework-and-toolkit-Nov2020.pdf
used ethnical y and sensitively. For the GHIC performance outcomes
many different activities. With this in mind, the performance framework
framework, the focus is both of keeping data safe, ensuring al data
wil focus on simple indicators of change including,
(qualitative and quantitative) adheres to the GHIC’s quality insights
▪
reach of the new messaging, products etc that reflect new narrative
framework, and building cultural y responsive capabilities across data and
(e.g. online distribution of quarterly reports)
information.
▪
increased visibility and messaging of new narrative in media and social
2.1 The GHIC challenges the dominant narrative of gang-related harm,
media, and
creating a space for change and conversation
▪
increased engagement with new narrative across policy professional
Using its insights to shift the dominant narrative about gang-related harm
and leadership.
is a key focus of the GHIC. Knowing what narrative to change, how and for
Each wil require dedicated surveil ance and tracking, particularly before
whom is important. At a functional level, key elements of narrative change
the GHIC online presence is established and analytics can be used to inform
include a clear process around:
reach.
▪
Consistency of language and vocabulary used when reporting insights
When thinking about narrative change, it is also important to be very aware
▪
Amplifying the voice of those being researched
of the context in which your new narrative is operating. Although we
▪
Using images, metaphors and other language devices consistently and
assume upward trajectory in terms of reach, influence, engagement with a
sensitively
new narrative is a measure of success, this may not be the case depending
▪
Developing key messaging that wil resonate with the target audience,
on what is happening in the broader societal and media context. For
and carry the narrative more broadly
example, has the dominant narrative been strengthened through negative
The narrative change that the GHIC wants to see then needs to be
election campaigning and messaging? If so, sometimes “success” may have
articulated in its communication and stakeholder strategies, as wel as
to be measured not in terms of linear upward trajectories, but simply
holding the line on a different narrative 3 4.
supported by its Tone of Voice and style guide.
There are several measures of narrative change depending on its context
2.2 The GHIC builds sustained community connections, enabling community
and target audience. Simple measures of reach, to more complex measures
voice to be heard throughout its work
of changes to media discourse, attitudes and belief, and changes to policy
A core component of participatory approaches to developing insights, and
and institutional practice. Of course, narrative change especial y in
one that recognises and reflects cultural y empowering methods of
complex settings, can take years to make an impact, and be attributable to
engagement, is not only including but amplifying the voices of those who
are being researched. Quality relationships take time to develop,
3 See page 35,
4See for different pathways of impact https://democracyfund.org/idea/six-models-for-understanding-
https://www.orsimpact.com/DirectoryAttachments/3102021_103034_594_ORS_Impact_Measuring_Na
impact/
rrative_Change_2.0.pdf
particularly across communities that have little reason to engage with
Given the complexity of gang-related harm, some of this data may be
Government agencies.
missing, or incomplete, or lacking in quality. An evidence-based,
The GHIC must work careful y, sensitively and from a community
methodological y sound set of indicators and measures of gang-related
perspective to build trusted, reciprocal and sustained relationships,
harm is necessary given none currently exists in Aotearoa to the degree
engaging on ethical y and cultural y sound principles. Te Arawhiti
that the GHIC requires. Developing indicators requires both academic and
5 provides
good guidelines as to how to engage in meaningful ways with tangata
community expertise, and a sound knowledge of assessing and reviewing
whenua, as does the Ministry for Pacific Peoples across diverse Pacific
existing tools and measures that could be used to inform gang-related
communities
harm measures, and/or creating and validating new tools and measures.
6 7.
Therefore the performance framework focuses on what the GHIC is doing
A clear set of measures wil help guide long term strategy and measure the
to achieve community trust, and whether that is being reciprocated, not
broader impact of prevention and intervention activities, of which the
what the community needs to do for the GHIC. It also encourages targets to
GHIC’s insights are a part.
be established for the percentage of products that include Kaupapa Māori
Principles applied across measures
research methods, and Pacific and other multicultural frameworks. Setting
diversity targets across insights can help shape deliberate decision making
Relevant
Is it relevant to what the GHIC is trying to achieve?
when developing new products, and track progress in generating
Reliable
Accurate for its intended use, and free from bias?
knowledge that champions Māori insights expertise, as wel as other
Diverse
Reflects cultural y diverse ways of knowing and measuring success?
multicultural perspectives into gang-related harm.
Attributable
What is being measured can be influenced by actions taken by GHIC
3.1 Builds cross-sector and cross-agency knowledge and capability into
Wel -defined
Clear and unambiguous so that data can be easily measured and
gang-related harm
understood
A core responsibility of an insights centre is to use their work to grow
Timely
Data is produced frequently enough to track progress
capabilities across the research and insights community in which they
So what?
Is it meaningful to be acted upon, and wil it be acted on for learning or
operate, and across partner and participating agencies. This also ties in
quality improvement?
with the two other focus areas, particularly influencing narrative, as a
means to build trusted research and insights relationships, and build a new
narrative across partner and participating agencies.
Reliable, rigorous and quality data is critical for delivering holistic,
strength-based and timely gang-related harm insights across Government.
5 https://www.tearawhiti.govt.nz/te-kahui-hikina-maori-crown-relations/engagement/
7 https://www.mpp.govt.nz/publications-resources/resources/yavu/
6 https://www.mpp.govt.nz/assets/Resources/Yavu-Booklet.pdf
