An independent evaluation of the Community Money Mentors programme Year 1

• Description of the programme:
• The study:
• Key findings:
• Points to consider:

Description of the programme:

Community Money Mentors is a three-year financial capability programme (2015- 18) run by Toynbee Hall across London. The programme aims to promote financial inclusion by partnering with community organisations to train local people as money mentors. The programme is training 280 money mentors in personal money management and mentoring. The training runs over 60 hours and leads to a nationally recognised qualification. The mentors learn financial skills and knowledge to improve their own financial health and wellbeing. The mentors develop the skills to share their new financial knowledge with people in their community. In this way the programme aims to improve the financial capability of partner organisations and 2,000 local residents. The programme is training 28 organisations in financial inclusion policy and practice, assessing current practice and providing good practice recommendations. The programme builds on the Community Money Mentors programme Toynbee Hall ran in Tower Hamlets (2012-15), which was funded by the Big Lottery Fund and designed to enhance financial capability and reduce financial exclusion.

The study:

This evaluation covers the first year of the Community Money Mentors programme (2015-18) delivered across London. The aim of the evaluation was to assess the impact of the programme on the attitudes, knowledge and behaviour of the money mentors and the local people they shared information with. It also considered the effects on partner organisations receiving capacity-building support from Toynbee Hall.

The evaluation used a mixed methods approach including:

• a survey completed by 35 money mentors;
• focus groups attended by 15 money mentors; and
• interviews with eight secondary beneficiaries (local people receiving information from the money mentors) and two partner organisations.

Key findings:

The report included both process and outcomes evaluations, and identified the following key findings:

• The money mentors receiving training reported:
  • Increased knowledge: focus groups attendees reported gaining new knowledge on a range of topics, including priority and non-priority debts, prioritising spending and online shopping.
  • Improved money management skills: money mentors reporting being okay or very good at managing their money more than doubled from 43% to 94%. This was reinforced by a reported increase in mentors undertaking weekly/monthly budgeting (from 57% to 83%). Mentors were also more likely to plan ahead after attending the training (77% compared to 49% prior to the training).
  • Enhanced savings habits: Just over half the mentors responding to the survey reported saving money by changing payment method, tariff, supplier or borrowing.
  • Increased confidence: Mentors also reported heightened awareness of their consumer rights and opportunities to switch providers. Many had challenged existing service providers to lower their offer or had switched provider.

The results were compared with national benchmark data where possible and appropriate. The evaluation found that compared to the overall population, the money mentors entered the programme at a lower level of financial capability. However the money mentors experienced greater improvements in financial skills and knowledge, in some cases even surpassing the national average by the end of the course.

• During year one of the programme, the money mentors shared information with over 1,500 people. This included advice on personal budgeting, saving, price comparisons, banking and other financial matters. Eight of these secondary beneficiaries were consulted for the evaluation and suggested the mentoring had:
  • Increased their confidence and control over their finances by providing advice on budgeting and cutting non-essential spending.
  • Improved their budgeting skills, by saving money on their shopping, reducing unnecessary spending and not spending all their money in one go.
  • Increased their awareness of financial services and offers. The mentoring advice made them more aware that they could switch providers and helped them understand the process, even if most had not actually switched.
  • Improved their savings habits. Some were saving more and had set up a savings target, opened savings accounts and switched providers.

Points to consider:

Methodological limitations:

• Reflections on secondary beneficiary impact were based on a very small group of respondents. Theauthors recognise that the evaluation methodology could have been enhanced in this area. For example, they suggest group interviews could be conducted with a selection of money mentors and secondary beneficiaries whom they provided sustained information and advice to.

Relevance:

• The study does not rely on a control group, as it can be complicated and costly to sample a group of people similar to those receiving the intervention. However, comparisons are made with national benchmark data where possible and appropriate. This does increase the credibility of the results and suggest they may be of interest to other similar settings.

Generalisability/ transferability:

• The sample was too small to test for statistical significance. The evaluation was therefore too small in scale for inferences to be made to the wider population, and therefore caution should be used in generalising from the results.