- Description of the programme
- The study
- Key findings
- Points to consider
Description of the programme
[This is an extract from the Executive Summary of the evaluation report. Further amendments may be made to this Summary, pending review by the Evidence Hub partner]
The What Works for You (WW4U) project aimed to provide support to two client groups with an identified need for support with financial capability; young people aged 16-25 and working aged adults recently released from prison. This pilot project took place over a 12-month period, supporting 164 clients residing in and around Exeter. Client specific sessions were due to take place twice a week for five hours, with each client supported over a five-week period in a community hub setting via a ‘holistic wellbeing’ approach. The holistic support consisted of an initial assessment, one-to-one case work and assessment, guided learning through a wide range of resources and materials, peer support and group work.
The study
The project evaluation assessed the key research question of ‘to what extent does the Community Housing Aid’s (CHA’s) ‘holistic wellbeing’ approach in its hub impact on the financial capability of 16-25 year olds and ex-offenders referred to the project because they face homelessness’.
The outcomes measured include:
- Ability to live within means through budgeting, income maximisation and claiming all benefit entitlements
- Sense of control over finances, resilience and knowledge to make informed decisions
- Ability to resolve outstanding debt, budget, maximise income and live within their means
- Confidence when resolving changes in personal circumstances
- Knowledge and confidence to seek financial (and non-financial) advice in the future
- Ability and knowledge to address and resolve debts, arrears or benefit problems etc. before they emerge or escalate
- Reduced money related worries or concerns
- Ability to identify and plan towards longer-term goals or plans and taking responsibility for finances.
SERIO, at the University of Plymouth, designed an evaluation that focused on the impact of the project using a pre/post design. The evaluation method comprised of: a range of survey questions from the MAS Financial Capability Outcomes Framework, with 164 completed baseline questionnaires and 40 at follow-up; qualitative interviews with a sample of 17 interviews at baseline and six at follow-up; two informal observations at financial intervention sessions; four case studies; and four qualitative interviews with project stakeholders.
Key findings
-
Outcome Evaluation:
- At follow-up, both young people and ex-offenders reported an increase in knowledge of how to access financial advice, with ex-offenders discussing how their understanding of financial services had improved following the WW4U programme.
- Clients made improvements towards planning and sticking to a budget. For ex-offenders, inability to budget due to limited funds was a theme in the baseline interviews. Despite limited funds at follow-up, ex-offenders demonstrated confidence and skills in utilising budgeting strategies.
- Greater improvements were observed for ex-offenders compared to young people for measures taken to maximise income, with an increase of ex-offenders checking whether they were receiving all benefits, tax credit or pensions they were entitled to. Steps towards debt resolution was also observed at follow-up in the interviews with ex-offenders.
- Modest improvements in money management were identified, with an increase in both client groups reporting to be organised with finances. Ex-offenders also reported improvement in feeling in control of their finances, with only minor improvements reported from young people.
- Both client groups reported an increase in confidence towards approaching household income and expenditure, confidence in being able to talk to people who can give advice around money, and confidence in negotiating with creditors or organisations they owed money to.
- At follow-up, the ex-offenders interviewed reported considering longer-term goals, suggesting clients had broadened their consideration and recognised the importance of future long-term financial goals.
- Through the pre-and-post questionnaires, improvements were identified in client’s ability to manage financially day-to-day, along with a reduction in the extent to which they worried about their situation following the intervention. At follow-up, interviews with ex-offenders revealed how mental wellbeing improved for those who reported practical changes in their situation.
- The evidence suggests the project made progress against the intended outcomes and had a positive impact on financial capability, with follow-up interviews and case studies supporting the monitoring data. The findings suggest ex-offenders benefited from the programme more than young people.
- Findings should however be viewed with caution due to the small sample size at follow-up. A lack of a control group also does not allow the evaluation to determine causation, meaning we cannot draw definitive conclusions as to the effectiveness of the programme through this evaluation.
-
Process Evaluation:
- Delivering such a project with typically hard to engage groups was identified as a key challenge, particularly recruiting young people into the project. To address this, adaptations to project delivery for young people were implemented, including introducing community outreach and group work elements to meet client and partner organisation needs. Such adaptations meant the evaluation no longer aligned with the research question for young people, who were predominantly supported in a one-off, group work format, rather than the five sessions in the community hub setting. As such, the effectiveness of the hub setting could not be evaluated for young people following this evaluation.
Points to consider
- There was concern from stakeholders that the data monitoring questionnaires may have impacted on the intervention itself, making clients less willing to engage in the project due to both the length and language of the questionnaire.
- The project experienced ongoing issues with engagement, with only 40 of the 164 clients providing follow-up data. The small sample size and analysis using unmatched data therefore limits any conclusions drawn from the evaluation and the ability to generalise findings to wider populations.
- The project delivery changed for young people to be predominantly delivered off site in one-off group work sessions in venues they were familiar with, meaning the hub setting could not be assessed.
- In noting the challenges of resolving financial difficulties for clients within the confines of the project length, the evaluation may have benefitted from more long-term follow-up with clients, for example three to six months following completion of the programme. This would allow for longer-term assessment beyond the post-intervention assessments of the follow-up questionnaires, interviews and case studies.
- Stakeholders noted that by extending project delivery out into the community, successful links were fostered with partner organisations that may increase the feasibility of future delivery. This includes allowing for flexible delivery of one-off group sessions for young people.
Full report
What Works for You project evaluation - full report
