Note: This page is based on the findings of a project by What Works Growth in 2019 to provide ideas on how evidence-based policymaking could support better outcomes in disadvantaged places.
Background
In 2019, the What Works Network, led by the What Works Centre for Local Economic Growth, brought together its collective expertise to work in-depth with two towns, Grimsby and Wakefield, to identify ways in which evidence-based policymaking could support better outcomes in these places.*
In places often referred to as ‘left behind’ or ‘disadvantaged’, social problems act as a barrier to improving economic outcomes, while poor economic outcomes (such as hight unemployment and poverty) act as a barrier to tackling social problems. For places with vulnerable populations, the pressure on local government to allocate scarce time and money to an increasing number of issues is mounting.
The project was designed to develop a deep understanding of the challenges faced by ‘disadvantaged places’ and the policy interventions being used to address them. Drawing on expertise and experience of the What Works Network, the project sets out six principles of evidence-based policy design for authorities having to do more with less. It also identifies two areas of practice which are relevant to multiple policy areas, and where the evidence suggests small changes could make a difference to important outcomes for residents.
Six steps for doing more with less – taking an evidence-based approach in disadvantaged places
Applying the evidence to existing practices
We identified two areas of practice where the evidence suggests small changes could make a difference to important outcomes for residents—using reminders to improve take up and engagement, and using mentors to support people in need.
Using reminders to improve take up and engagement
One of the challenges in a variety of contexts is the difficulty in engaging vulnerable people to take up and follow through with support and development. Sending reminders represents one way of improving these outcomes.
What the evidence says on reminders
- Text message reminders are very low cost and the evidence suggests they can be effective in improving attendance at employment training courses, school, medical appointments, and even improving rates of college enrolment.
- Reminders should be as simple as possible and should highlight the benefits to the recipient of participation.
- The evidence suggests that reminders are often more effective for those least likely to attend.
The available evidence is of a high quality and points to positive effects at generally very low costs. For example:
- Employment training programmes: Text message reminders had positive effects on course attendance and final exam performance. Reminders that improve training attendance sometimes also had positive effects on performance, as measured by final grades. Reminders appeared to be most effective for those least likely to attend employment training.
- School attendance: Texts to parents about children’s activities and attendance records reduced student absenteeism, and there were also some positive effects on pupil performance.
- Healthcare appointment/medical treatments: Both text messaging reminders and telephone reminders increased attendance rates at healthcare appointments. However, postal reminders were not effective. Reminders were also effective in getting people to take medication.
- Other contexts: The effectiveness of reminders is supported by the evidence available from other contexts — and other countries — such as claiming benefits, college enrolment, gym attendance, voting in non-compulsory elections, and saving money.
Using mentors to support people in need
A proposed solution for a range of problems is mentoring. To help improve the cost-effectiveness of mentoring programmes, it is important to consider what works for designing, developing and implementing good mentoring programmes.
What the evidence says on mentoring
- Across a range of policy areas, mentoring programmes have had some positive impacts.
- It is important to think about who is being mentored and how mentors will be selected and matched to mentees carefully, and to consider what kind of support will be offered to mentors.
- The length of the mentoring programme and the frequency and length of meetings can all make a difference to how well the programme works.
- Poorly-terminated relationships — especially due to mentor drop-outs — may lead to negative outcomes. It is therefore important to think about how programmes are going to end.
- There is evidence that these programmes can be good for mentors as well as the mentees.
Whether mentoring is effective depends on the type of programme and the aim:
- Apprenticeships: Mentors improved rates of completion and the level of skills. There was no impact on broader outcomes.
- Academic achievement: Mentors had little impact on academic achievement of school children but did have a positive impact for non-academic outcomes such as attitudes to school, attendance and behaviour.
- Reoffending: Reoffending rates fell for those enrolled on mentoring programmes.
- Wellbeing: There is evidence that mentoring is good for the wellbeing of the mentor as well as the mentee.
