Social investment has returned to the policy agenda, with funders and providers facing growing pressure to show their decisions have measurable impact. Natalie James from MartinJenkins discusses how to ensure investment decisions are grounded in evidence that captures the full value of what’s achieved.
Social investment marks a shift in how we think about welfare. Rather than providing a broad safety net, social investment takes a preventative approach, targeting those most at risk and supporting them to participate fully in work and society. It reframes support not just a cost, but a long-term investment in human potential.
Between 2011 and 2017, social investment gained momentum as a fiscal strategy for addressing entrenched social issues, with an approach that was more data-driven and focussed on outcomes. The creation of the Integrated Data Infrastructure (IDI) in 2011 enabled a better understanding of what works for whom, while the roll-out of Treasury’s CBAx tool in 2015 helped to standardise and monetise outcomes across social sectors.
Social investment back on the policy table
Last year the Government re-established a stand-alone Social Investment Agency, expanding its role as a system steward, and strengthening cross-agency data use and evidence-based decision making. Together with the new Social Investment Fund, this establishes clear expectations for the social sector: set clear goals, understand what works through data, and direct resources where impact is measured to be greatest.
However, to be most effective, a social-investment approach requires keeping the real-world needs of individuals, whānau, and communities at the heart of how we design services and measure impact. Investment decisions need to be grounded in evidence that reflects the full value of the outcomes achieved.
Building an evidence base centred on real-world contexts
At the heart of social investment is the ability to understand who needs support, what works for them, and how to tailor interventions accordingly. Linked administrative data like that available in the IDI helps us to understand patterns of need, but it often lacks the depth to explain why barriers persist, or to tell us how to intervene effectively in different contexts.
Research that’s sensitive to context and co-designed with individuals, whānau and families, providers, and frontline workers can uncover hidden assumptions and the real-world factors that shape success. Investing in this kind of learning helps us design services that are relevant, equitable, and impactful, and it can prevent the higher cost of poorly targeted interventions down the line.
Designing for outcomes, balancing accountability and flexibility
Initiatives under the Social Investment Fund are expected to show a clear line of sight between evidence, outcomes, and mechanisms that support change, setting a strong precedent for outcomes-based contracting across government.
Well-defined theories of change and intervention logics are crucial here, so that we understand service assumptions and barriers and set realistic expectations for progress.
Outcomes that are too broad can lead us to lose focus, while if they’re too narrow we risk overlooking critical enablers that support lasting change, like building trust with communities. Striking the right balance between accountability and flexibility is essential to keep services responsive and effective.
Measuring what matters and what works
The right mix of tools for measuring impact is essential to get a full picture of what’s working. Relying too much on quantitative evidence can oversimplify complex social issues and risk undervaluing important, less tangible aspects of change.
Monetisation methods support accountability and comparisons, but assigning value to social outcomes is never neutral. It involves judgments about what matters, how to measure it, and how to value future benefits. This reinforces the value of integrated, mixed-methods evaluation that combines quantitative data with qualitative insights to reflect the full complexity of social change.
This richer, more grounded picture of “what works” ultimately enables services to adapt, improve, and lead to meaningful change on the ground.
Social investment as a complement to a broad wellbeing focus
Regardless of political stripes, the evolving social investment paradigm has potential to complement a broader wellbeing focus, by translating goals into targeted actions that are based on evidence and monitoring their impact over time.
For central government, the practicalities of scaling social investment requires a shift in how interventions are funded and delivered. This includes moving beyond short-term funding cycles and embracing longer-term, outcomes-based approaches. It also calls for deeper collaboration across sectors, portfolios, and levels of government to address complex social challenges in an integrated way.
It also demands better metrics that reflect the complexity and breadth of wellbeing in real contexts, to allow funders and providers to balance the complexity of social issues with the imperative for demonstrable results.
Natalie James is a Senior Consultant at MartinJenkins. She is dedicated to helping clients get the most analytic value out of their data, including through use of the IDI. Natalie is also a thoughtful qualitative researcher, approaching interviews and engagement with care and curiosity.
