What the Social Investment Fund’s evaluation model asks of providers
The Social Investment Fund (the Fund) opens on 25 August with a new evaluation model that could reshape how social services are funded. It’s a test case, and it’s raising tough questions for providers.
The Fund is inviting new investment applications from providers delivering social services across Aotearoa. While the Fund’s first round is modest in scale, it represents a significant shift in how government funding may be allocated in the future. This initial round can be seen as a proof of concept, and an opportunity to test new approaches before wider implementation. There is also a shift in the evaluation model used for the Fund and what it asks of providers, both now and in the longer term.
The first round of the Fund targets initiatives that support children from families with complex needs - specifically those with a parent currently or recently in prison, those whose parents experienced the care system, and children stood down or suspended from school at age 12 or younger. These cohorts were selected by Fund Ministers based on their potential for improved long-term outcomes.
Social investment, as defined by the Social Investment Agency (SIA), is about using evidence to improve outcomes. It’s a compelling idea, especially in a sector where funding is often short-term and impact is hard to measure. But the promise of better data and clearer results comes with trade-offs. Evaluation is not neutral. It shapes what is valued, what is measured, and ultimately, what is funded.
The Fund’s evaluation model moves away from counting activities and towards assessing changes in people’s lives
This shift is welcome in principle. Outputs, like attendance or enrolment, rarely tell the full story. Outcomes, like sustained employment or improved well-being, are harder to measure but more meaningful. Yet the model relies heavily on data infrastructure that many providers may not have. Organisations are expected to collect and share unique identifiers such as National Health (NHI) or Inland Revenue Department (IRD) numbers. For some, this will be straightforward. For others, particularly smaller, community-based providers, it may be a significant barrier.
The Fund’s first round will prioritise organisations that already collect this data. While this makes sense from a technical standpoint, it risks excluding providers who are deeply embedded in their communities but lack formal systems. The promise to develop alternative approaches over time is encouraging, but it leaves questions about equity and access in the short term.
SIA has committed to providing evaluation expertise and support. This includes designing evaluation plans, conducting analysis, and sharing insights. Providers won’t need to hire their own evaluators, and qualitative insights are explicitly valued alongside quantitative data.
Evaluation should be a partnership, not a compliance exercise
So, this is a positive step. But the model still places significant responsibility on providers to engage with data systems, consent processes, and ongoing measurement. For some, this may be a stretch, especially if the benefits of evaluation are not immediately clear.
The Fund’s contracts are four years long, allowing time for outcomes to emerge. This is a welcome departure from short-term funding cycles. But it also means providers are committing to a model that is still being tested. The evaluation methods, such as propensity score matching and counterfactual analysis, are robust but complex. Whether they can be applied consistently across diverse contexts remains to be seen.
SIA has described its approach as “learning by doing”
This is pragmatic and honest. Social investment is still relatively new in New Zealand, and the Fund represents an opportunity to build evidence and refine methods. But learning by doing also requires transparency, humility, and a willingness to adapt. Providers will need clarity on how their data will be used, what insights they can expect, and how evaluation findings will influence future funding decisions. The risk is that evaluation becomes a gatekeeper rather than a tool for improvement.
Evaluation should support learning, not just accountability. That means being open about what works, what doesn’t, and why
For providers considering an application, the key questions are not just about eligibility or funding. They’re about fit. Does your organisation have the data systems required? Are you comfortable with the evaluation model? Do you have the capacity to engage with it meaningfully?
It’s also worth considering what outcomes matter most to your community and whether the Fund’s priorities align. Evaluation can be a powerful tool, but only if it reflects the values and goals of those delivering and receiving services.
The Social Investment Fund is an ambitious initiative
Its evaluation model has the potential to shift how we understand and improve social services. But ambition must be matched by realism. Providers operate in complex environments, and evaluation must be flexible enough to accommodate that.
As the Fund rolls out, the sector will be watching closely. The challenge is not just to measure impact, but to do so in a way that is inclusive, respectful, and genuinely useful. The lessons from this first round about feasibility, equity, and infrastructure will be critical. If the model is to be generalised, it must evolve in partnership with the sector. That’s the promise of social investment and the test of its success.