How to Improve Social Outcomes
I have previously outlined the compelling case to build a community and disaster resilient Wellington and save $100m per annum (here,) how to improve economic outcomes (here), and how to improve environmental outcomes (here).
This thought piece outlines how to improve social outcomes.
The objective is to lift all social outcome scores to 80% by 2030.
The 5-year trends for social outcomes [1] show:
Capabilities (greater than 80%) are level of independence (Social connections) , and not experiencing discrimination (Safety and security)
Capabilities (between 60% and 80%) are:
level of satisfaction in self and family and level of control over life (Subjective wellbeing)
ability to find support in times of crisis (Connections)
feeling safe walking alone in neighbourhood (Safety and security)
degree of work life balance (Time use)
mental wellbeing (Health)
Vulnerabilities (less than 60%) are a lack of connections in helping others and supporting community, lack of residents being part of a neighbourhood support group and lack of disaster preparedness at home (Connections)
[1].The trends from survey data within a Wellington suburb have been gathered each October since 2019 through a community survey which asks questions of residents based on the wellbeing indicators in the Governments Living Standards Framework here, which have been aligned to the Governments resilience areas here. Here is the Wellington suburb survey results https://newlandrg.weebly.com/result-2019-2024.html
If the objective is achieved to lift all social outcome scores to 80% by 2030 the benefits[1] are that people will feel safer, have better mental health, be more engaged in their community, be more prepared for a disaster, be more able to find support in times of crisis, have improved mental health and have improved work life balance.
My aspiration is for a city where people find fulfilment in community relationships, understand their role within society, and are free to help others. Where there is healthy competition and sustainable cooperation, and the focus is on community wellbeing rather than simply material wealth.
Right now, in Wellington, social services are disorganised and focused on the providers, not the people. This makes it hard for residents to know where to go for help, how to get the support they need, or how to help others. It’s also unclear if local homes and communities are prepared to cope during the first 7 days after a natural disaster—before government help kicks in.
There are many recent publications expressing the need for people to know their neighbours and feel a sense of belonging and connection. From recent media I see high adolescent suicide, increasing need for mental health services, lack of social cohesion, and the need for connected communities. See here
To achieve the objective for all scores to be 80% by 2030 a phased solution needs to be delivered by public and private sector leaders with community leaders with less regulation and more enabling social infrastructure. The options are to:
Survive: Services are organised and targeted to people who need them. (i.e. social investment)
Revive: Services are well-organised and easier for people to find and use.
Thrive: Services are led by the community, designed around people’s needs, and easy to access.
Each of these options would transparently show the costs and benefits from an economic, social, cultural and environmental perspective for decision makers to identify the preferred option and way forward. It is likely the preferred “public value” option is Thrive. To be affordable and achievable this will need to be phased starting with Survive (i.e. social investment) for the first three years, then Revive for 3 years and then Thrive.
A “Coordinated Provider Centric model” has been developed for the Revive option to better coordinate the delivery of social services, build connections, get the community ready to respond to a disaster, enable people to find support in times of crisis, improve mental health and improve work life balance.
This requires the Government to reprioritise its existing investment programme to initiatives that deliver, in the words of the Minister of Finance, “better bang for buck” and better public value.
In addition, the social cost and benefits need to be considered in the options in the economic, environment, transport, water, housing and energy programmes so the trade-offs are clear before the decision is made.
Next steps
In my next thought piece, I will outline the choices we have to improve cultural outcomes and how the choices could be phased over 10 years to Survive, then Revive and then Thrive.
I would love to collaborate with others who are working in this space, trying to solve similar problems, please leave a comment.
[1] Using the wellbeing indicators in the Governments Living Standards Framework and attaching monetary values to the indicators/benefits from The Treasury’s CBAx data set.