Toynbee Hall's Money Mentors programme

1. Description of the programme
2. The study
3. What are the outcomes?
4. Key findings
5. Points to consider

Description of the programme

The Money Mentors programme offered training and support to people in Tower Hamlets, and aimed to improve the community’s financial resilience. The programme operated as part of the wider ‘Financially Inclusive’ Tower Hamlets project, which implemented collaborative grass-roots approaches to tackling the effects of financial exclusion in a severely deprived borough.

The programme targeted people at risk of financial exclusion: 61% of participants were registered unemployed, 81% were female, 35% were of Bangladeshi origin, 26% were of African origin and 66% were aged between 30 and 49.

The programme was a 60-hour course to train participants in money management and mentoring. Once trained, participants would go on to share their new expertise with at least one other person. All participants had the opportunity to gain a qualification. Trainers worked across the borough, in community-based settings, to promote the programme and recruit participants.

 At the point of reporting, the programme had trained 318 Money Mentors and it was expected that 350 participants in the cohort would graduate. A further 700 Tower Hamlets residents received one-to-one support.

The study

Toynbee Hall undertook this mixed methods study. It used outcome data to undertake a Social Return on Investment (SROI) analysis, using the New Economics Foundation’s methodology. The evaluation captured quantitative outcomes using  Toynbee Hall’s MAP tool (a financial wellbeing measurement questionnaire). Participants completed a pre-questionnaire at the beginning of the course, followed up by a second questionnaire 10-15 weeks later. Use of the MAP Tool was introduced midway through the programme (covering respondents in cohorts 3, 4, and 5 only) so the analysis is based on 174 pre- and 110 post-questionnaires. Qualitative outcomes were collected through 10 interviews with learners and a focus group with staff to explore the delivery model.

What are the outcomes?

There were two main sets of outcomes and indicators. The first looked at:

• Improved financial skills
• Behaviour change
• Use of information and advice
• Financial confidence
• Financial well-being
• General well-being

A different set was used to calculate the Social Return on Investment (SROI):

• Increased financial resilience
• Increased well-being
• Increased digital inclusion
• Reduction in stress in relationships with family and friends
• Regular volunteering

Key findings

For the first set of changes, responses to the questionnaire found:

• Improved financial skills: Prior to the course 40% of participants “always” and 17% “sometimes” struggled with finances; this fell to 2% and 12% respectively, while those who felt that they were “very good” at managing finances rose from 10% to 49%. The proportion of those who had kept budgets they’d set “always” and “most of the time” rose from 25% to 79%, while those who “never” did fell from 36% to 0%;
• Behaviour change: Scores related to shopping habits improved (e.g. comparing prices, reading the small print) and the proportion who “never” saved fell from 46% to 15%;
• Use of information and advice: Participants became much more willing to seek advice about money from all sources. These included free advice agencies (up from 38% to 84%), friends and relatives (up from 39% to 57%), the internet (up from 32% to 66%) and social landlords (up from 4% to 36%);
• Financial confidence: 65% expressed an improvement in their confidence about their financial future. Many reported wider improvements in their communication skills;
• Financial well-being: Those who found it “very” or “quite” difficult to manage fell from 49% to 11%, while those who were “doing all right” or “living comfortably” rose from 25% to 59%;
• General well-being: 25% of participants reported a reduction in their wider anxiety levels. There was a strong correlation between increased financial confidence and improved well-being. Overall, men reported a stronger effect than women did. 43% of participants reported better relationships with friends and family.

The Social Return on Investment analysis calculated an SROI ratio of 1:3 over a three-year period indicating both financial and social benefits of the programme.

Points to consider

• Methodological limitations: The lack of a control or comparison group, or more robust qualitative approach to test causality, means that there are limits to the strength of the conclusions. It is also important to note that the statistical significance demonstrated in the study is not necessarily proof of attribution. With no control group the SROI methodology makes certain assumptions and uses 'deadweight' figures from other (similar) programmes and financial data (proxies) from other sources.
• Relevance / applicability: This study will be useful to people interested in the delivery and outcomes of financial training to financially excluded and low income households.
• Generalisability/ transferability: The evaluators highlight the possibilities of using the Money Mentors approach with people receiving Universal Credit. Most participants were in a precarious financial situation at the beginning. The study does not investigate differences between groups except between men and women.

Full report

Toynbee Hall's Money Mentors programme - full report