Forum Home → Discussion → Housing costs → Thread
Study showing ‘nudge’ techniques help reduce fraud and error
Interesting research showing that ‘nudge’ techniques - where a claimant is sent a separate letter reminding them of the need to report changes of circumstances - can be effective in reducing fraud and error. Capita Local Government - who carried out the research on behalf of the DWP recommends -
councils should introduce a dedicated letter to remind claimants to report changes in circumstance. Simplification techniques should be used to make the letter as effective as possible.
Ground-breaking…If you remind someone to do something…They are more likely to do it….....
Indeed! and that gentle reminding may well be more effective than nasty threats…
Is this not just another fine example of how nudge claims “evidence based” victories and cites case studies that, with just the teeniest bit of momentary thought/analysis turn out to be nothing of the sort?
So, in one case, the response rate rose all of 2% against the control group. Significant financially perhaps, but not at all statistically. The numbers selected in each area also fall well short of making the results statistically significant. The random selection of those included in the study therefore introduces the clear possibility that any of the groups nudged to higher ground may have done what they did anyway. What was put into the research to assess that? Oh, nothing!
One might also wonder at
-the extent of any analysis of the frequency of declarations by members of any of the groups i.e. were they frequent declarers anyway.
- whether their past history of declarations was taken into account
- whether the length of claim was taken into account
- what the cut off point was for associating a nudge with a declaration
So, for example, if claimant 1 has been iro HB for 24 months and made no declarations in the first 12 because there was nothing to report but one in the second 12 immediately after this letter then how was it determined that the declaration was because of the nudge as opposed to simply being a declaration because, er, there was something to declare? If the declaration was 12 weeks after the letter then how does one determine that the letter was the determinant of the declaration? How many claimants had seen a WRO and suddenly realised what needed to be declared? How many declarations were made by the claimants themselves rather than someone acting on their behalf… and so on…
Strikes me this has more to do with Capita spotting a pot of money and grabbing it than any evidence based policy making.
What is not clear from the report is whether any of these people were actually spoken to to ascertain what it was that motivated them to report the change. That would seem to be fairly basic to getting anywhere close to properly ascertaining cause and effect (not that it wouldn’t still be problematic to some extent).
Otherwise, as you say, the slight increase on such a statistically tiny group could be down to nothing more than random chance and people doing what they would have done anyway.
Reminds a little of how the bedroom tax supposedly “caused” a reduction in the number of social tenants getting HB. Some commentators who supported the measure immediately projected from this that the bedroom tax had incentivised people to go and get a job! Er…no…what had happened was that people on small amounts of HB (mainly people already IN work) had simply lost that residual entitlement when the bedroom tax kicked in.
There’s a lot of nudging going on behind the scenes in government.
The rise of nudge – the unit helping politicians to fathom human behaviour
The Independent reports a not so ground breaking conclusion from the ‘nudge unit’ -
‘There is evidence that welfare conditionality in the UK - mandatory behaviour requirements such as attending meetings with work coaches or providing repeated evidence of disability in order to receive benefits - is associated with anxiety and feelings of disempowerment’
but the Behavioural Insights Team report does call for DWP investigation into whether welfare conditionality actually has any positive effects/results.
[ Edited: 20 Oct 2016 at 09:16 am by Stuart ]That’s the first time I have seen any figures relating to the number of people who will not have to be reassessed for ESA too. I wonder where the 100,000 figure comes from?
The Independent reports a not so ground breaking conclusion from the ‘nudge unit’ -
‘There is evidence that welfare conditionality in the UK - mandatory behaviour requirements such as attending meetings with work coaches or providing repeated evidence of disability in order to receive benefits - is associated with anxiety and feelings of disempowerment’
but the Behavioural Insights Team report does call for DWP investigation into whether welfare conditionality actually has any positive effects/results.
Would you Adam and Eve it, there are two schools of behavioural insight specialists. The “nudge” unit and the “cattleprod” unit. Come on guys make your mind up…...