Description of the programme

MyBnk’s The Money House (TMH) is a 5-day programme aimed at enabling young people to increase their knowledge and skills relating to personal money management and independent living. These new skills and knowledge were expected to lead to several outcomes relating to behaviour change in the participants (e.g. reduced debt) and the evaluation also notes a strong link between financial capability and wellbeing in relation to longer-term outcomes (although this was beyond the scope of this study).

During the period from January 2018 to March 2020, 984 participants attended, and 821 completed the programme.

The 5-day programme included: 1. Making tenancy agreements, calculating the costs of moving into a new flat, and avoiding eviction. 2. Understanding the benefits system. 3. Paying household bills and choosing utility providers. 4. Banking – accounts and savings. 5. Budgeting and spending habits. 6. Shopping (consumer rights, comparison websites and offers). 7. Borrowing money. 8. Spotting and avoiding scams.

This report is an evaluation of the third year of the programme.

The study

A social cost-benefit analysis (SCBA) was carried out by NEF Consulting during the period January 2018 to August 2020.

MyBnk collected outcomes data through participant surveys at three specific time points – the first day of the programme (baseline), the last day of the programme (end line), and on a date between 1 and 11 months later (follow-up). NEF Consulting adjusted the survey questions for the SCBA and gathered indicator data against the following outcomes for participants: reduced debt, improved financial comfort, and improved emotional wellbeing.

The benefit beyond the young person was also assessed: to local authorities, housing providers and public health services. The outcomes for state and housing providers were: reduced eviction costs; reduced rent-arrears write-offs; reduced costs to health services; direct costs avoided from fulfilling statutory obligation to Care Leavers.

Matched data (same individuals) and pooled analysis (using data from other programme participants) were both used, with a minimum sample size of 50 individuals. The analysis accounts for deadweight and sets out the assumptions used to calculate the attribution of change to the programme.

Key findings

• Improved financial knowledge and skills. The majority of participants – ranging from 58 to 77%, depending on the type of knowledge – answered “a lot” to the questions on how much their skills and knowledge improved. The significant change in participants’ skills and knowledge observed was identified as a key immediate outcome when mapping outcomes.
• Improved frequency of saving. Those saving on a regular basis increased by 7 percentage points from baseline to follow-up.
• Confidence in managing their money increased. Participants reported that their confidence increased by 14 percentage points from baseline to follow-up.
• Debt reduction. Fewer participants experienced debt (1.8%) as a result of the programme.
• Doing well financially. Participants were more likely to be doing well financially (0.9%) and were less likely to report as suffering from money-related anxiety or depression (3%).
• Reduction in evictions: TMH participants were 0.7% less frequently evicted than those who did not participate in the TMH programme.

The cost-benefit ratio was found to be positive, at £1: £1.76, meaning that for every £1 invested, £1.76 of social value is created (the cost of the programme over the evaluation period was £827,133 while the value created was £1,457,400, of which £963,300 (66%) is created for programme participants).

The report notes that each course had a maximum capacity of eight participants but that over the evaluation period attendance averaged at approximately four participants per course. The average net value generated per course could have more than tripled if course capacity was fully utilised.

Points to consider

• While data collection is one of the programme’s strengths, further research through longer-term data collection (e.g. follow-up after one year or more) would build understanding of the sustainability of the outcomes.
  • The SCBA modelling is highly sensitive to assumptions on attribution and drop-off. The evaluators included a useful sensitivity analysis, and note that they applied a ‘conservative approach’ to their findings.
• The intervention sites were all within central London, and so findings may not be directly transferable to other areas. The model is clearly set out and suitable for adaptation.
• Findings will be of relevance to those interested in the SCBA methodology deployed here, and also to policy makers and practitioners working to support young adults’ financial capability and their transition to independent living.