Agenda item

The Committee received a presentation on Behavioural Science from Professor Ivo Vlaev of Warwick University and Amy Jones of Ernst Young LLP.  A copy of both presentations are interleaved with the agenda.

·         Human behaviour greatly affects wealth, the environment and society and importantly in light of the current climate of financial insecurity, this adds another layer of complexity and challenge. In addition, the meeting was advised that unhealthy behaviours like smoking, obesity and healthcare associated infections are related to the choices people make.

·         A realisation of the need to influence behaviour change in all aspects of society has resulted in institutions and government applying behavioural insights to public policy around the world.

·         The art of influencing behaviour is nothing new and has been around for quite a while, for example coercion, however what is new in recent years has been identifying how best to do it. Recent research in  behavioural science indicates that approaches based on information and education do not actually work that well, but people are influenced in remarkably similar ways by the framing of a decision and by subtle contextual factors which are fast, automatic and largely unconscious.

·         Professor Vlaev informed the meeting that applying behavioural science has resulted in improving health outcomes in that, there has been a dramatic fall in levels of smoking across adults in the UK, although not in the case of the poorest members of the society. Members were advised that the behaviour changes of smokers was primarily due to a combination of factors such as price rises, social marketing campaigns and public smoking bans

·         Members were informed that although straightforward incentives in influencing behaviour has its appeal amongst policy makers, these  approaches are grounded in a neoclassical perspective which states that preferences are rational and reflective, with a bold assumption that self-interested individuals always make rational decisions.

·         Behavioural economics challenges the assumption that people are rational and utilizes a theoretical approach rooted in sound evidence based- theory. This theory involves understanding behaviour change and any intervention design should be informed by recent comprehensive models of behaviour and behaviour change.

·         According to recent and integrative frameworks for understanding behaviour and designing behaviour change , human behaviour is an interacting system in which capabilities, opportunities and motivations interact to generate behaviour therefore produce behavioural capability which in turn influences these components.

·         The three conditions necessary and sufficient for the performance of a specified behaviour are the skills necessary to perform the behaviour, an intention to perform the behaviour and no environmental constraints that make it impossible to perform the behaviour.

·         With regard to capability, the issues to consider are the level of knowledge, awareness and mental stamina to engage in understanding and reasoning. The question here is whether people will be able to understand, will they find it difficult and is there a role for tools to assist in understanding and reasoning.

·         In terms of opportunity, Members were informed of the importance of having environmental infrastructure and technology in place to support and sustain the behaviour. Meeting was informed that there is clear evidence which confirms how people are affected by their environment.

·         Members were informed that studies have shown that motivation plays a key factor in people’s behaviour, of which 80% is reflective, which is uncontrolled, emotional, effortless, fast and unconscious and the remaining 20%, automatic which is controlled, rule based, slow, rational and conscious.

·         Professor Vlaev informed the meeting that models on behavioural insights have shown that when human beings receive information, it automatically triggers a habit which leads to a decision, however when the information is novel, then decisions tend to be reflective and conscious. Human behaviour tend to avoid losses and acquire gains in their decision making process.

·         Nudge theory or economics challenges the previous theory and practices of addressing human behaviour. it recognises first that the environment has a big impact and questions what can be done about human irrationality. Nudge economics recognises that instead of telling people what to do, go with human nature.

·         Professor Vlaev highlighted two cases when nudge theory had been applied and had resulted in an improvement in better outcomes. The drawing of a fly on men’s urinal at Amsterdam Airport had resulted in a significant decline in spillages on the toilet floor and importantly cleaning cost. Another example shared with members was the decision by the highway authorities in Lake Shore, Chicago to paint narrow white lines on the road in an area notably for high levels of accidents. The decision to paint lines resulted in drivers unconsciously slowing down as they approached the hotspot and a fall in car accidents.

·         Nudge means pushing people gently, not shoving or forcing them or persuading them into new and better behaviours which would be cost effective. Professor Vlaev, shared the 9 practical tools - MINDSCAPE, an acronym which means, Messenger, Incentives, Norms, Defaults, Saliency, Priming, Affect, Commitment and Ego. Tools essential for Nudge theory to be successful in influencing behaviour change.

·         Professor Vlaev reiterated the importance of the message that is to will impact behaviour change, the need for it to be timely and importantly who delivers the message as people tend to respond to someone who is recognisable, hence the role of celebrities. Also social norms is relevant, for example sharing what others are doing goes a long way in changing behaviour, this is notable with messages left in hotels regarding using less towels reminding hotel guests of environmental issues, such messages resonates with people. Also offering options will not result in any significant change in behaviour but employing default techniques has seen changes in behaviours, for example instead of offering resident’s options of grey or green energy, default to the latter and everyone will take up that option. Employing this default technique has resulted in an uptake in pensions schemes and organ donations, where enrolment becomes automatic and opting out will require a concerted effort.

·         Members were advised that making things accessible will result in an uptake of service or activity as evidence demonstrates that the introduction of cycle paths and running paths had led to a significant increase in cyclists and runners without any form of persuasion.  Also salient messages regarding household electrical appliances and its energy use, savings on electrical bills is well received. In terms of discouraging short journey driving mentioning the amount of levels of Co2 emissions does not work but stating the cost to car budget, using computerised data, people take notice.

·         Another success highlighted as a result of employing ‘nudge theory’ was the painting of baby faces on shop shutters which has detracted perpetrators. Evidence indicates that such an image speaks to people’s innate caring nature as no one wants to deface baby images. Experimental trials with baby faces introduced in Camden and Croydon has resulted in a 50% reduction in antisocial behaviour.

·         Amy Jones of LLP shared her experience with the Committee, having set up Croydon’s Behavioural Science Unit, the first in local government across the country. It’s mission was to discover the root causes of problems in service delivery, design solutions with people in mind, and making the delivery of the Service easier. Members were reminded that whatever initiative designed is evidence based and trialled.

·         Amy Jones informed members that in over 2 years 80 projects had been delivered by the Behavioural Unit (BU)and about 150 members of staff had been upskilled with lots of benefits and returns on investment.

·         Members heard evidence of the approach employed by the Behavioural unit with the sole aim of improving the delivery of Croydon council services. The approach would require a mapping exercise for users, speaking with stakeholders as they are aware of the various challenges, identifying biases, bottlenecks and opportunities and targeting behaviours. The end result is to design something that addresses those behaviours and make it easier. This will have to be tested, after which, if necessary amend and make some improvements. The final stage will be to implement and roll it out.

·         Other instances where behavioural insights approach had been employed by the Unit was in addressing the failure of the Council complying with the statutory deadline of 21 days with the Children Looked After. There was a high number of DNA appointments (Do not Attend), where young people failed to attend their appointments which was costing the NHS £160 a day. The unit decided to make subtle changes to the invitation letter, inserting a map within the letter and the time of appointment and a tear off slip reminder. This subtle change resulted in a 50% drop in DNA appointments.

·         Members were advised that although the essence of most interventions is in principle to make things easier, there are instances where the intervention is to make things harder such as introducing wall climbers to prevent the painting of graffiti on walls.

·         Following the Grenfell Fire Incident, the unit helped redesign the messaging around hazardous materials being left in communal area of tower blocks. Attention was also directed at in particular the notices, placing them in visible areas. In addition the unit recognised the difficulty with hard to reach groups and BAME residents regarding the fire safety literature and signs especially with residents that English is not necessarily their first language, so a decision was taken by the unit to improve the design graphics which then spelt out the message better.

·         Amy Jones also shared with the meeting the e involvement of the unit in improving the late applications with regards to the Council’s secondary school admission, which has resulted in a 33% decrease in late applications. In addition members were advised of the benefit in monitoring the number of hits on the council website as it provides the Council the appropriate time and opportunity to engage with residents in a more effective way.

·         The Committee heard evidence of how the BU addressed issues of under occupation using behavioural insights. In this instance, the unit recognised immediately that the one size fit approach which was previously employed was not applicable. The unit in particular focussed on a particular group called the ‘Silent generation’. This required a mapping exercise to understand their journey and the entry point into under occupation. From this mapping exercise, the BU was able to identify their exact needs. Amy Jones reiterated the 3 essentials for behaviour change, capability, opportunity and motivation, noting that in the case of the silent generation, previously the focus had been primarily on motivation and just addressing their present needs and not their future needs, so the Unit came up with a checklist to be used by staff and then plotted it with different messages to identify which was effective. In this case the unit agreed that the most effective message was deadlines resulted in behaviour changes.

·         In response to a question on how to address recycling of food waste on housing estates, members were advised of the importance of intelligence gathering, after which biases, bottlenecks and opportunities will need to be considered. Any solution designed to address behaviours will have to be evidence based, piloted and then rolled out. 

·         Members were advised that any initiative addressing behaviour change would require political buy in and leadership. In addition, before tackling behaviour among its residents, staff behaviours would need to be addressed.

·         Members were reminded that besides employing nudge techniques to influence behaviour change, some forms of enforcement and incentives may still be required. In response to a question on how to ascertain what works, Amy Jones noted that to determine what work best, initiatives need time to be tested.

·         In response to complaints about inadequate recycling facilities for food waste, the meeting was advised of an unpublished research which suggests that replacing large containers with smaller bins especially as there is a stigma attached to larger bins in communal area, that these smaller bins would go a long way in increasing recycling rates, however there is a cost implication with this option especially as the support and assistance of the managing agency will be required to ensure its effectiveness.

·         With regards to concerns about the confusing messages to residents in different authorities regarding items to be recycled, it was noted that issues around capability, knowledge, skills and motivation would need to be thoroughly considered. Education is key, however any campaign to address behaviour change should be timely.

·         In response to a question on how to monitor the effectiveness of any initiative to address behaviour change, the meeting was advised that having in place an Internal Hub within the Council will be in a position to analyse, engage trials and introduce flexibility.

·         Amy informed the meeting that presenting the LGA has a behavioural insights funding program for behavioural science projects, but this deadline has now ceased until the next round of funding in November 2020.

The Chair thanked both Professor Vlaev and Amy Jones for their presentations.