iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

• No specific system for determining or verifying ADHD-related clinician competence was identified in the material provided • No formal monitoring or evaluation framework was provided • No documentation describing system-wide governance or accountability arrangements was provided

130

• No detailed or structured implementation plan or rollout framework was provided beyond stakeholder materials • No commissioning plans or service specifications were provided • No workforce or training strategy was provided

The request also sought information on governance, implementation, workforce development, commissioning, funding, and monitoring. The response included background documents and sector materials, but:

• ADHD assessment & treatment are not included in core general practice funding, services may be delivered in a range of models, including fee-for-service. • Monitoring of impacts is anticipated, draft analytical work has explored possible outcome measures, no formal evaluation framework provided.

• Uptake of the prescribing changes depends on individual clinicians developing competence and choosing to provide ADHD care, with services expected to vary by region. • No additional funding for training or implementation was identified in the material provided.

The documents indicate that: • The ADHD Clinical Principles Framework is not a clinical guideline and does not mandate new requirements for health professionals or services. • The Framework outlines expected standards of care based on existing evidence, rather than introducing new obligations.

120

The key change is that more clinicians can now prescribe ADHD medication. However, the information provided indicates that the broader system around diagnosis, training, funding, and consistency is not described in detail in the material provided.

An Official Information Act response from Manatū Hauora (Ministry of Health) provides insight into the New Zealand Clinical Principles Framework for ADHD (2025) and the February 2026 prescribing changes.

A minimal graphic with a beige background and bold black text stating: “ADHD Framework & Prescribing Changes: Not a System-Level Response.” Smaller text at the bottom reads: “OIA Response #35 Ministry of Health.”

130

Corrections states that its offence-focused programmes are grounded in the Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) model and are designed to support people with a wide range of strengths and challenges, including those with ADHD.

100

– modifying rehabilitation or education programmes specifically for ADHD – improving access to ADHD assessment or treatment Corrections does not hold advice, internal reports, reviews, or correspondence acknowledging barriers or limitations in recognising or supporting ADHD.

Corrections has not conducted studies, reports, or analysis relating specifically to people under its management with ADHD. Corrections has not undertaken coordinated inter-agency work specifically relating to: – identifying ADHD among people in its care

ADHD diagnoses, where identified or disclosed, are recorded in individual health files. Corrections does not hold centrally collated data on how many people in prison or on community sentences have ADHD. Determining this would require manual review of individual health files.

120

An Official Information Act response from the Department of Corrections clarifies how ADHD is currently recognised and recorded across prison and community-based settings (1 Jan 2015 – 1 Dec 2025). The Department confirmed that Corrections does not routinely screen for ADHD at prison intake.

Graphic with beige background and black text reading: “ADHD in Corrections (2015–2025): Not Routinely Screened. Not Centrally Collated.” Small text at the bottom reads: “OIA Response #16 Department of Corrections.”

22 - ADHD Research Funding, Prioritisation, and Equity Gaps - a Official Information Act request to Health Research Council of New Zealand

The Health Research Council does not hold: • ADHD-specific assessment criteria • Internal gap analysis comparing ADHD to other conditions • Analysis describing inequities in ADHD research or outcomes Full Official Information Act response: fyi.org.nz/request/3307...

fyi.org.nz

Kia ora, I’m making this Official Information Act request as part of ADHDInquiryNZ, a grassroots, unfunded, and non-partisan volunteer initiative supporting a public petition calling for a Parliament...

031

ADHD is not treated as a distinct research area. Researchers assign a primary health issue. The most common primary category in ADHD-relevant proposals was “mental health” (1 funded, 13 unfunded). Reporting occurs at broader health issue levels.

Between 2015–2025: • 4 funded applications were identified as relevant to ADHD (via agreed search terms and review). • 46 ADHD-relevant applications were unsuccessful. Details of unsuccessful proposals were withheld under s9(2)(b).

100

An Official Information Act response from the Health Research Council clarifies how ADHD-related research was identified and funded between 1 Jan 2015 and 1 Dec 2025. Summary below.

Square beige graphic with bold black headline text reading: “ADHD-Related Research Applications (2015–2025): 4 Funded. 46 Unsuccessful.” A small line at the bottom reads: “OIA #22 Health Research Council (NZ).”

101

It further confirmed that it has not undertaken a systemic review or thematic investigation specifically relating to ADHD during the period requested, and has not had work programmes specifically dedicated to ADHD. ADHD is addressed within broader disability work rather than a distinct framework.

The Commission confirmed that ADHD is recognised under the disability ground of the Human Rights Act 1993. It also confirmed that it does not maintain a separate internal classification for ADHD. ADHD-related matters are recorded under the broader prohibited ground of disability.

The Commission conducted a keyword search of its database between 1 Jan 2015 and 31 Dec 2025. It identified: • 223 enquiries or complaints referencing ADHD-related terms • 122 complaints alleging unlawful discrimination • 116 where both a prohibited ground and area of life were identifiable

Human Rights Commission OIA response on ADHD (2015–2025). ADHD-related discrimination complaints span education, employment, government activity and housing.

121

Taken together, the response indicates that while ADHD is referenced within awareness and training materials, it is not included in workforce data collection systems or specifically referenced within current HR policy frameworks.

010

Health NZ advised that new Workplace Diversity & Inclusion, Reasonable Accommodation, and Flexible Working policies are currently in development.

100

The response identified internal guidance and awareness materials, including a 2023 Neurodiversity in the Workplace – A Manager’s Guide, ADHD-related e-learning modules, and Diversity Hub resources. These sit within broader diversity and inclusion initiatives.

100

Health NZ also confirmed that its workforce registration and payroll datasets do not include information related to ADHD, neurodiversity, disability, or mental health. This means ADHD is not separately captured within workforce data systems.

100

Health NZ confirmed that its current Workplace Diversity & Inclusion, Reasonable Accommodation, and Flexible Working policies do not specifically reference ADHD. ADHD is covered under broader disability and neurodiversity frameworks.

100

An Official Information Act response from Health New Zealand | Te Whatu Ora has clarified how ADHD is recognised within the national health workforce.

111

The 2026 Standards refer to diverse learner needs, including those associated with neurodivergence, and a draft Inclusive Teaching Practice Guide has been developed. The framework is not focused on the needs of specific disability groups and does not separate groups of learners with different needs.

100

The Council further confirmed that it holds no specific information relating to preparing teachers to support learners with ADHD. The Council noted that inclusive practice is addressed within the Standards for the Teaching Profession.

100

It also confirmed that the Council does not deliver Professional Learning and Development (PLD), and that no PLD has been funded, commissioned, or formally endorsed by the Council since 2015 that includes specific ADHD awareness or classroom practice.

An Official Information Act response from the Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand has clarified how ADHD is recognised within teacher education and professional standards. The Council confirmed that ADHD is not explicitly mentioned in Initial Teacher Education (ITE) Programme Requirements.

100

000

100

ADHDInquiryNZ @adhdinquiry.nz · 10/02/2026

111

Taken together, these responses show how inclusion can be named in policy work without being implemented in a way that makes specific communities, including people with ADHD, visible or trackable. Response letter and documents available via FYI link: fyi.org.nz/request/3331...

000

ADHDInquiryNZ @adhdinquiry.nz · 10/02/2026

A follow up OIA on the “sense of inclusion” KPI used in the Strong Public Media business case confirmed that inclusion was referenced, but no measurement framework, demographic scope, or monitoring approach was ever established.