The LGA Behavioural Insights Programme webinar on the topic of tackling post pandemic challenges and the cost-of-living was organised as part of the LGA’s Behavioural Insights Programme. It showcased the results and impacts of the projects delivered by Phase 8 of the Behavioural Insights Programme.
To support council innovation, the LGA has provided continued support since 2015 that is focused on local government behavioural insights that builds capacity, capability and understanding of how behavioural science can be used to improve outcomes from local government services. The LGA has worked with over 50 councils across a variety of service areas and the resources, assets and reports from all these projects can be found on our website.
Over 400 people attended the webinar and heard from speakers in the three council consortiums who shared the findings and experiences of using behavioural insights to improve local government services in the areas of sustainable travel and health inequalities.
The session was chaired by Cllr Neil Prior, Deputy Chair, LGA Improvement and Innovation Board and Cabinet Member for Corporate Improvement and Communities, Pembrokeshire County Council. Cllr Prior set out an overview of the behavioural insights programme offered by the LGA, introduced the speakers, and gave a running order of the day. Cllr Prior was joined by:
- Laura Taylor, Environmental Engagement and Behaviour Change Manager, Kent County Council, representing the Kent Energy Saving Consortium
- Lucinda Brook, Low Carbon City Officer, Plymouth City Council, representing the Plymouth Retrofitting Consortium;
- Lorraine Hughes, Public Health Consultant, Sunderland City Council, representing the North East Mental Health Consortium.
View presentations from this event.
Cllr Prior also introduced the new behavioural insights results video, which showcases eight case studies across service areas including public health, climate and waste, and community safety. Over the next few months, we will be running a ‘Nudge of the Month’ campaign, where you will have the chance to learn more about our previous trials, if you’d like to have a look at our first nudge follow us on Twitter @LGAProductivity.
Laura Taylor, Environmental Engagement and Behaviour Change Manager, Kent County Council
Background
A consortium was formed in Kent with the aim of reducing energy usage, this consortium was made up of Ashford Borough Council, Folkstone & Hythe District Council, Gravesham Borough Council, Kent County Council, Medway Council, the NHS, Sevenoaks District Council, Swale Borough Council, Thanet District Council, and Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council.
The Behaviour
It was clear to the consortium members that an energy cost crisis was on the horizon and winter was approaching. This resulted in people wanting to reduce their energy usage and a chance to break bad energy habits, giving the consortium a great opportunity to give people advice on how to do this. The consortium coalesced around the idea of encouraging low-cost energy saving actions within low to middle income households, specifically wanting to target those who may be struggling with the cost of living for the first time.
The intervention
After a literature review and survey of almost 2,000 residents a campaign of ‘Share the Warmth’ was decided upon, this campaign would focus on empowering residents to share messages about low-cost ways to save energy. This campaign was chosen to overcome the lack of trust and information overload the public were feeling, as friends and family hold more influence through their trusted relationships. Using messengers to share the energy saving tips, also meant they would use language and cultural norms that were salient to their friends and family.
An online platform was used to host the intervention, consisting of some top energy saving tips and their potential savings, a quiz to test people’s understanding and a survey to see who was participating and how many people were participating. The trial lasted for four weeks, and people were mainly recruited using social media, with limited paid for advertising on Facebook.
Results
There was a rapid drop off over the time the trial was active, with most engagement coming in the first week. It also became clear that a lot was being asked of participants, with a large drop off at each stage of participation. Of those who accessed the website 35 per cent committed to sharing the warmth, with 73 per cent of those participants helping at least one person, however only 17 per cent of people ended up completing everything through to the diversity survey. It was clear the tips were useful to increase people’s knowledge, with those taking part having 40 per cent more knowledge than a control group in the short term.
Of the three randomised messages that were utilised during the campaign, social norming was the most effective, with altruistic appeal and ease of implementation being less effective. Not many people filled in the final evaluation survey, which was open to both participants and non-participants, of the participants who did fill in the survey, 89 per cent helped 3.3 other households each, compared to only 32 per cent of non-participants who only shared knowledge with 2.2 households each.
Recommendations and Challenges
Although the trial was successful there were a few things that could have been done to improve, which may be taken forward if you decide to try a similar trial. Firstly, there was no energy providers on board with the trial, which meant proxy measures had to be utilised to get a base level of energy usage and it was impossible to tell how much actual energy had been saved. Additionally, the trial was launched a month early to not coincide with Christmas, this had the effect of rushing to get the trial live and the trial being run during the world cup, which may have had an effect on visits. The website was also quite information-heavy, which could’ve been a turn off to some people.
Lucinda Brook, Low Carbon City Officer, Plymouth City Council
Background
A consortium was formed in Devon with the goal of increasing the take up of retrofitting, this consortium was made up of Devon County Council, East Devon District Council, Exeter City Council, Plymouth City Council, South Hams District Council, and West Devon Borough Council.
The Behaviour
Plymouth had previously worked with the other consortium members on the climate emergency and ‘Cosy Devon’, a household energy saving scheme across Devon (now called Energy Saving Devon). The consortium wanted to further increase the resident take up of retrofitting measures to increase energy efficiency, with 85 per cent of local authority districts in England and Wales having less than half their homes at an energy efficiency of band C or above.
The Intervention
Before deciding on a trial, a lot of scoping work and research took place to narrow down the focus behaviour and area of retrofit. This included stakeholder mapping, a literature review, and primary research, including a survey of 5,000 residents. This groundwork found that a significant proportion of the population were actively considering retrofit measures, with cost reduction a key driver. However, retrofitting wasn’t widely understood, people perceived retrofitting as complicated, expensive, long-term, disruptive, and environmentally driven. To tackle this, it was agreed that any solution decided on had to be simple, affordable, immediate, and salient. A pilot that focused on loft insulation with a DIY focus was considered to meet all of these factors.
To encourage people to insulate their lofts to a specific depth, two messages were created, one financial and one normative, paired with two graphics, one showing energy escaping through the roof and one quirkier approach with a mackerel designed to creatively communicate the required depth. Success of each message and graphic was measured through the amount of click throughs to the website, the amount of time spent on the site and the amount of interaction with an easy to read “DIY guide to insulating your loft”.
Results
The results found that the combination of the roof and the social normative message were the most successful, generating 50 per cent more click throughs than the other variants. This was in spite of the research where cost was identified consistently as the number one driver. However, it was also found that the mackerel and financial message had the most click throughs for under 34s. There was also a greater amount of click throughs from older people, with a direct correlation of older groups interacting more. This was attributed to increased levels of home ownership, financial security and availability of time. Finally, the rural response was far greater than the urban response, which means alternative messages and graphics could be used in the future to try and change this. Unfortunately, there was an issue with the website that meant no intention to install data could be gathered.
Recommendations and Challenges
Although the trial gained some good results there were also challenges and areas identified for improvement. Time constraints led the consortium to a social media approach first and foremost. Using additional channels may have yielded further insight. The trial design stage had identified 20 or more potential interventions that had merit and could be explored further. Another learning was around the power of conversations and whether the council was the correct messenger for this information, with some discussions moving into wider council responsibilities
Lorraine Hughes, Public Health Consultant, Sunderland City Council
Background
A consortium was formed in the North East with the aim of improving the mental health of young people, this consortium was made up of Darlington Council, Durham County Council, Gateshead Council, Hartlepool Council, Middlesborough Council, Newcastle Council, North Tyneside Council, Northumberland Council, Redcar and Cleveland Council, South Tyneside Council, and Sunderland Council.
The Behaviour
The consortium originally identified the mental health of young people as an area needing attention at the tail end of the Covid-19 pandemic, with children aged 5 – 16 with a probable mental health disorder increasing from 11 per cent in 2017 to 16 per cent in 2020. Initial insights showed that CAHMS (children and adolescent mental health services) were overburdened and that the council’s resources would be best placed in prevention and directing less serious cases to alternative support. This research led to the councils coalescing around the statement of ‘Develop an intervention to increase access to, and use of, mental health self-help tools for CYP aged 10-15 who may be experiencing low mood and/or anxiety for the first time’.
The intervention
To decide upon an intervention just under 50 one-to-one and small group interviews with children, parents and adults who work with young people took place, as well as a survey of over 200 students from across the North East and two immersions on a mental self-help tool. These activities identified six key barriers to the use of mental health self-help tools amongst 10 – 15-year-olds. These barriers included a lack of awareness of tools, a perceived lack of relevance of the tools, the effort taken to engage, the lack of leverage of the right messengers, no triggers, and the lack of accessibility for all.
Following the gathering of these insights a behavioural trial was selected based on the APEASE (Acceptability, Practicability, Effectiveness, Affordability, Side-effects, and Equity) criteria, with a priority of increasing the awareness of mental health self-help tools on social media identified. Using this criteria the trial selected was a social media campaign to test five messages and two creative routes to increase the awareness of mental health self-help tools for 13 -15-year-olds, with the messages and art being co-created with the target demographic.
Results
After two weeks the results showed that testimonials were the most effective in driving the usage of mental health self-help tools, with control, social proofing, value framing and authority cues being less effective.
Recommendations and Challenges
During the creation of the trial there was much debate between councils about the use of social media and if this would case accessibility issues for those without access to the internet. To mitigate this risk the initial trial was run on social media, with the most successful option being taken forward as a physical campaign, giving confidence that the investment will be more likely to yield results.
Question and Answer Session
How did you get buy in from senior members?
This was quite difficult as there was a long period of time before the intervention was decided on, so there was no tangible project. This may be easier in the future, as members know what to expect from this kind of project.
Were those individuals who complete the survey targeted to low and middle income?
Some of the advertising was targeted to lower income areas, however it was also important to know who had been reached out to, as this was the target audience. Two thirds of households reached out to were low to middle income.
How did you involve your local, voluntary, and community sector?
Some of the stakeholders that were interviewed were from voluntary and community groups. Keen to further develop these relationships in the future.
Can you give examples of what proxies you used to calculate ROI?
We did not actively calculate ROI in this trial. We could have made some estimations of money saved by householders through the number of actions reported in the evaluation survey and estimating the financial saving of each action, however this would have been subject to many errors, not least that we had very few evaluation survey responses so those data should not be generalised as representative of all participants’ impact.
How did the presenters address the ethical issues of their programmes?
We were concerned about the reach of our campaign via traditional channels not extending to those who would most benefit from the tips. That is why we designed the trial to empower people to share within their networks and particularly to those that might be most vulnerable.
The different treatments used in the trial (receiving the quiz before or after they read the tips and receiving a different message to encourage sharing energy saving tips), really weren’t likely to cause ethical impacts, as everyone ultimately received the advice and decided whether or not to act upon it.
If you didn't have a dedicated team where in the organisation did you drive it from e.g comms or the services that would benefit from the change?
Driven from our Climate Change network of officers across public sector partners across Kent and Medway
Did you face any challenges regarding stoicism in your target audience? A lot of the common things we hear in relation to energy are around 'it wasn't this bad in my day'.
We did not get comments to that effect, a bigger barrier identified through the initial research was people thinking they had already done all they could to save energy and so not engaging with the tips at all as a result.
Would a physical (rather than mainly digital) space in a mainstream setting, like community sustainability Hubs in shopping centres, have been useful for reaching the community on the Kent Green Action project?
We wanted to trial a face-to-face engagement using the messenger effect and that is what we want to pursue in future. We can’t say it would be more effective because we weren’t testing that but based on experience our partners felt that would be a more effective way of sharing information and encouraging action.
How did you get buy in from senior members?
This wasn’t a barrier for us. Senior members understand the scale of the challenge around retrofit although behavioural science is less well understood. We don’t have a dedicated a dedicated behavioural insights teams.
Response by tenure type?
Eighty per cent of the response to the primary research was from those who owned their properties outright or with a mortgage. Respondents how were tenants cited their tenure as their reason for not installing energy efficient measures.
How did you involve your local, voluntary, and community sector?
We worked closely with community energy companies, with them being invited to engage with the consortium, attend workshops and input into the intervention design, especially when scoring different interventions. We are currently working out the best way for further collaboration and how we can work together without duplicating resource.
Can you give examples of what proxies you used to calculate ROI?
We weren’t focused on measuring ROI on this trial as we couldn’t control the outcome within the allotted timeframe. We were focused on the return from insight primarily. We had hoped to capture intention to act through engagement with the DIY guide, but we had technical difficulties. In the future, we might look to build on it with a data capture element, which would give us a follow up opportunity.
How did the presenters address the ethical issues of their programmes?
We were careful in the design of the creative, to ensure the message didn’t ‘criticise’ people for not adopting energy efficiency measures. We did consider a normative approach with regard to highlighting those people in a street that ‘had money to burn’ and dismissed it for ethical reasons again. The choice of platform did pose questions around inclusion but it was felt that Facebook and Instagram had wide reach.
If you didn't have a dedicated team where in the organisation did you drive it from e.g comms or the services that would benefit from the change?
The project was primarily driven by climate officers within their local authorities with the input of comms.
Can this work directly link and contribute towards Levelling-Up place priorities and if so, how?
Devon’s housing stock is some of the least energy efficient in the country and fuel poverty rates are rising. With the continued rise in energy prices, it will only serve to exacerbate inequalities. So, the retrofit agenda is key to Levelling Up– as is the balance of how we support and encourage able to pay residents who are home owners versus those in rented accommodation and social housing. One area we need to give more focus to is private landlords and alongside the MEES legislation how we encourage retrofit adoption.
What have you learnt about approaching rural retrofit messaging?
We have learnt that there wasn’t a significant difference between the response of rural respondent’s vs urban. But they were more responsive overall, which suggests they are primed and ready to act in this area.
How did you measure the conversation? Did you use social listening tools?
This was measured using the Facebook and Instagram analytical tools which show reach, engagement, number of comments etc. We didn’t deploy additional social listening tools as it was only in field for a limited amount of time.
Really keen to hear how you found the quirky posts in terms of engagement - did you see more activity on your socials after this?
The trial was set up through Devon County’s social channels. There were a lot more conversations initiated through the quirky creative compared to the roof creative. Some commented on the use of mackerel by the Council – it’s not a typical approach clearly! Others naturally referenced how the size related to other areas of council responsibility which could be deemed negative. However, the relational discussions around size may have increased the salience around our message. Nonetheless – it showed the value of triggering conversations around the topic. We don’t have data on the trial’s impact on wider Council comms.
Peer to peer if often more impactful than messaging direct from government or council, so perhaps collaboration with local community leaders, groups and community Hubs (including those focused on wider sustainable living) would help the Plymouth project?
Yes – we are working with the community energy organisations, but I do agree that collaborating with community hubs would be really valuable. Open homes was one of the interventions on the table which is peer-to-peer just harder to organise. We’d like to think about how we make some of those wider interventions happen.
How did you get buy in from senior members?
It varies from member to member, members with previous experience of trials tend to be more receptive. This trial was driven by directors of public health, so buy was less important.
How did you find working across such a large region?
It was helpful to have prior relationships and a regional role with children and young people. Across the region there are two groups of authorities that have close relationships, so the only difficulty came from engaging these groups.
How did you involve your local, voluntary, and community sector?
Engaged directly with these sectors and shared work gathered from the across the consortium to inform the work being done.