Why haven't governments in the past insisted social services show positive returns for the funding they receive?
In other words: results. It's results that count.
We have been lulled into believing that each year that more and more billions of dollars will be required to keep pace with demand, without checking first to see what difference the funding allocated to social welfare spend in the past year has made.
Now is a good time to evaluate services.
Covid has left the Government scrambling for money.
They've spent up large trying to reduce the social and economic impacts on families and businesses.
And, if they are going to fund social services at the same level as in the past, I think there will be an even greater demand now in some areas: police, courts, health - particularly mental health - then the Government must start to fund for agreed successful outcomes.
If the outcomes are lukewarm at best, then funding ceases. Simple as that.
Too many lives are wasted when we leave people parked on the sideline with no hope in sight.
Too many dollars are wasted because no-one asks, "Did we get value for the taxpayer's money, and what difference have these services made?"
Of course, it's a mammoth exercise to evaluate services, because you don't look at evaluation from just the funder's point of view.
Providers, whether government agencies or non-government agencies, will come under scrutiny.
And most importantly, those receiving support should be able to show the difference these services have made.
If they say the dial has not shifted for them, then you know something's wrong.
Is it a time factor; more years required for difficult cases? Is the government agency the wrong provider for those services? Are the services outdated and past their use-by date?
We won't know unless someone insists on a deep dive to see exactly what the situation is.
I am often told how hard it is to measure the differences services make to families.
But families tell me that is not true - they know, but they are never asked.
Who's doing the guessing on their behalf, then? Families are the ones who can tell the Government whether the return on their social welfare spend has hit the mark or not.
They know when agencies are just going through the motions.
They know they are someone's meal ticket.
I don't think social investment should be viewed with suspicion, particularly when we see what we currently get as adequate social outcomes.
But it should not be used to chop services either if they're producing the desired results. This is where data will play an important role.
If data shows failures in some areas, then why should these continue to be funded? Robust data must underpin any and all evaluations.
The problem is current data from government agencies is often patchy, unreliable and rarely real-time. Great for guesswork and improvisation.
If social investment can show what is working and what isn't, and puts an end to governments accepting that "near enough is good enough" for struggling New Zealanders, then I'm all for it.
Otherwise, our families will continue to be seen as liabilities and treated as such. Their dial remains stuck in the same old place, and governments continue to fund for failure.
Merepeka Raukawa-Tait has worked in the private, public and nonprofits sectors. Today she writes, broadcasts and is a regular social issues commentator on TV. Of Te Arawa, Merepeka believes fearless advocacy for equity and equality has the potential to change lives.
