🔎 Public Annotation – Supervised Contact Provider Payments (MoJ, 2023/2024)

A dataset is currently circulating (including via social media) showing total payments to supervised contact providers for the 2023/2024 financial year, with entries such as:
• aDapt Family Solutions (~$877,856)
• Care Solutions NZ Ltd (~$1,071,842)
• Barnardos New Zealand
• Catholic Family Support Services
• and other Family Court-related providers

The table is titled:

“Total payment made to individual providers by financial year 2023/2024”

and appears to originate from Ministry of Justice-funded supervised contact services (Family Court context).

⸻

⚠️ Key Observation

A targeted search of fyi.org.nz has not identified any publicly indexed OIA request or response that contains this dataset, table structure, or provider-level breakdown.

This suggests that the information may have been:
• released via a direct (non-FYI) OIA response,
• shared informally or privately, or
• not yet publicly indexed or linked to an accessible request thread.

⸻

📌 Why This Matters

This dataset raises legitimate public-interest questions regarding:
• Transparency of public spending on supervised contact services
• Distribution of funding across providers
• Underlying service drivers (e.g. case volume vs duration)
• Availability of supporting data (sessions, contracts, performance monitoring)

Importantly, payment totals alone do not indicate wrongdoing — but without context (e.g. number of cases, duration, funding model), the data cannot be meaningfully interpreted.

⸻

📨 Action Taken

A new Official Information Act request has been prepared seeking:
• the full underlying dataset
• methodology and definitions used to compile the table
• contracting and funding structures
• any related OIA disclosure records
• and supporting analysis or performance information

⸻

🔗 Research Value

If confirmed and expanded, this dataset may contribute to broader analysis of:
• outsourced justice and dispute-resolution services
• provider-based funding models
• and system-level transparency across public agencies

⸻

🧭 For Other Researchers

If anyone has:
• the original OIA request or response
• a full copy of the released document
• or related Ministry of Justice disclosures

please share links or references to help establish a complete public record.

This request should be classified as “I’ve received some of the information” rather than “all information received.”

While the Ministry has provided partial contextual information (definitions, funding framework, and rates), the core components of the request—namely the underlying dataset, disclosure records, and analytical material—have not been substantively released.

------------------------------------------------------------

KEY ISSUES IDENTIFIED

------------------------------------------------------------

1. DATASET NOT PROVIDED (CORE INFORMATION WITHHELD / DEFERRED)

The Ministry confirms the existence of a dataset (compiled September 2024 and previously released), but declines to provide it at this time on the basis that it is “under review.”

This is not a formal refusal under the OIA, nor is a statutory extension cited. The effect is a functional delay without clear legal grounding under sections 15 or 15A.

2. CONTRADICTION: DATASET EXISTS VS “NOT HELD”

The Ministry states:

- A dataset was compiled and released in 2024; however

- The “full dataset” is now refused under section 18(g)(i) on the basis that it is not held

This creates a material inconsistency between:

(a) existence of a dataset sufficient to generate provider-level payment tables, and

(b) claim that the underlying dataset is not held.

This raises questions about:

- Whether the dataset is held in a form excluded under section 2(6)(a) (court records), or

- Whether only derived/aggregated outputs are retained

The distinction is not clearly explained.

3. COURT DATA EXCLUSION (SECTION 2(6)(a))

The Ministry relies on section 2(6)(a) to exclude underlying data linked to court information.

However:

- No attempt is made to provide a de-identified or partially redacted dataset

- No explanation is given as to why aggregation beyond the prior table is not possible

This limits transparency regarding public expenditure on contracted providers.

4. DISCLOSURE TRACKING RECORD WITHHELD (SECTION 9(2)(g)(i))

The only identified disclosure record (OIA Information Sheet) is withheld under “free and frank” grounds.

This is notable because:

- Disclosure logs are typically administrative records

- The withholding limits visibility of how datasets are released and tracked

The public interest test is asserted but not explained in detail.

5. ANALYTICAL / POLICY MATERIAL – “DOES NOT EXIST” (SECTION 18(e))

The Ministry states no analytical or policy material exists regarding:

- Distribution of payments

- High-value providers

- Duration or continuation of services

- Incentive or risk analysis

Given the scale and sensitivity of supervised contact services, this suggests either:

(a) such analysis is not undertaken, or

(b) it is not recorded in retrievable form

Both possibilities raise governance and oversight questions.

6. ABSENCE OF PROCUREMENT / PANEL FRAMEWORK

The Ministry confirms providers are not selected via a procurement or panel process, but instead approved under a Practice Note.

This indicates:

- A non-competitive or non-centralised selection model

- Potential variability in provider engagement and funding distribution

This has implications for transparency, consistency, and oversight.

7. LIMITED DATA GOVERNANCE VISIBILITY

Across the response, there is no clear evidence of:

- Centralised dataset governance

- Routine reporting or audit of provider payments

- System-level monitoring of expenditure patterns

------------------------------------------------------------

STATUS CLASSIFICATION (FYI)

------------------------------------------------------------

✔ I’ve received some of the information

✘ Not all information received

------------------------------------------------------------

GOVERNANCE SIGNAL (PUBLIC INTEREST)

------------------------------------------------------------

This response indicates potential fragmentation between:

- Operational data (court-linked systems)

- Financial systems (payment records)

- Public transparency mechanisms (OIA outputs)

The inability to provide a coherent dataset, combined with absence of analytical material, suggests a potential gap in system-level oversight of:

- Public expenditure

- Provider distribution

- Service duration and incentives

------------------------------------------------------------

NEXT STEPS (PUBLIC RECORD)

------------------------------------------------------------

A follow-up OIA is likely required to:

- Clarify whether the dataset exists in extractable form outside court record exclusions

- Require provision of aggregated or de-identified datasets

- Test the application of section 18(g)(i) and section 2(6)(a)

- Request clarification of data governance and retention practices

- Seek disclosure logs in a non-opinion-based format

This annotation is provided to assist other requesters and to document emerging governance patterns across Ministry of Justice data transparency practices.