The problem I have with what I understand by social investment is that if carried to its extreme - targetting the most disadvantaged - it is somewhat utopianr, something it shares with the opposite extreme on the left, Univeral Basic Income. Either of these policy interventions proposed by right and left respectively if pushed to the extreme would require the dismantling of the welfare state and probably would not "work" anyway.
I am a quantitative social scientist and very much committed to the efficient functioning of the public sector and to rigorous evaluation, but it has to be realistic. Individuals live in a context so, yes, focus on them in their early years - but what about their (possibly dysfunctional) family, the standard of living and life style in the home, the quality of the neighbourhood facilities, and the adequacy of the school - just for starters! We have seen a halt to social housing construction, the police will no longer attend family harm events, we are in recessionary times, and according to some the educational system is sub par. So, the indications for success without those contextual enablers are not good!
Recently I was privy to a marvellously detailed and precise presentation of an evaluation of what I think has been the only fully effective social investment bond-funded intervention where an existing NGO-led programme for young offenders was enhanced - and produced better results. But parenthetically we need to know that Oranga Tamarki had to set aside $24 million in its budget for this intervention, and the changes suggested by the funders were actually refinements of what was already in the programme - but longer and more intense. So, yes, it was a worthwhile trial, but it suggested that do the job properly with young offenders we have to spend more. And I am not aware of whether this has been taken up. Given the cutbacks in government expenditure, this seems unlikely.
As I say, I am a quant, I am an evaluator, and I believe that the public sector needs to prove itself and stand up to scrutiny. But can this be done objectively and effectively if there is a strong ideological agenda and the drum beat of tax cuts and cost containment? I am sceptical.
Your post is a good description of universities. They hire academics on the basis of their passion for (and skill in) research, as evidenced by a PhD, and accordingly pay "peanuts", but teaching ability is also important to the employer and this skill does not correlate well with passion for (and skill in) research. Having hired them with little thought about their skill in teaching, they then attempt to assess their teaching ability, and subcontract this to the students ("teaching evaluations"). Academics then do things to improve their teaching evaluations, but many of these things (such as generous grading) do not correlate well with skill in teaching.
The inevitable result of paying peanuts is to end up with adversely selected simians.
The problem I have with what I understand by social investment is that if carried to its extreme - targetting the most disadvantaged - it is somewhat utopianr, something it shares with the opposite extreme on the left, Univeral Basic Income. Either of these policy interventions proposed by right and left respectively if pushed to the extreme would require the dismantling of the welfare state and probably would not "work" anyway.
I am a quantitative social scientist and very much committed to the efficient functioning of the public sector and to rigorous evaluation, but it has to be realistic. Individuals live in a context so, yes, focus on them in their early years - but what about their (possibly dysfunctional) family, the standard of living and life style in the home, the quality of the neighbourhood facilities, and the adequacy of the school - just for starters! We have seen a halt to social housing construction, the police will no longer attend family harm events, we are in recessionary times, and according to some the educational system is sub par. So, the indications for success without those contextual enablers are not good!
Recently I was privy to a marvellously detailed and precise presentation of an evaluation of what I think has been the only fully effective social investment bond-funded intervention where an existing NGO-led programme for young offenders was enhanced - and produced better results. But parenthetically we need to know that Oranga Tamarki had to set aside $24 million in its budget for this intervention, and the changes suggested by the funders were actually refinements of what was already in the programme - but longer and more intense. So, yes, it was a worthwhile trial, but it suggested that do the job properly with young offenders we have to spend more. And I am not aware of whether this has been taken up. Given the cutbacks in government expenditure, this seems unlikely.
As I say, I am a quant, I am an evaluator, and I believe that the public sector needs to prove itself and stand up to scrutiny. But can this be done objectively and effectively if there is a strong ideological agenda and the drum beat of tax cuts and cost containment? I am sceptical.
Your post is a good description of universities. They hire academics on the basis of their passion for (and skill in) research, as evidenced by a PhD, and accordingly pay "peanuts", but teaching ability is also important to the employer and this skill does not correlate well with passion for (and skill in) research. Having hired them with little thought about their skill in teaching, they then attempt to assess their teaching ability, and subcontract this to the students ("teaching evaluations"). Academics then do things to improve their teaching evaluations, but many of these things (such as generous grading) do not correlate well with skill in teaching.