Utilising psychologically informed behavioural interventions to reduce failure to attend rates to a voluntary Active Labour Market support programme: A field experiment

Active Labour Market Programmes (ALMP) can increase the likelihood of re-entering employment and can also improve physical and psychological wellbeing. However, Failure To Attend (FTA) rates have been shown to be between 17-49% of appointments being missed. This level of FTA is inefficient, risks individuals’ physical, psychological wellbeing and financial harm and costs the taxpayer millions of pounds each year. One core but under-investigated aspect, in this context, is the referral to ALMP programmes. The author had an opportunity to test different referral processes that unemployed people undergo when being referred to a voluntary ALMP within the United Kingdom’s Jobcentre Plus (JCP) network.

Based on theories of psychological ownership, public commitment, the theory of planned behaviour and empirical findings of previous research, 3 referral processes were compared to the normal business as usual referral process to determine their effectiveness in maximising attendance rates. Following a 4-armed Clustered Randomised Control Trial (K=56, N= 4,194), with JCP office as the unit of randomisation, logistic regression was performed to identify associated variables related to attendance at key stages of the target ALMP (Initial Reception Meeting (IRM), Day 1 and Completion). Attendance at the IRM was improved for participants exposed to the Active Engagement process (OR 1.441; 95% CI 1.081-1.919; p= 0.013). Day 1 attendance rates were improved for those participants experiencing the Passive Engagement (OR 1.623; 95% CI 1.271-2.073; p <0.001) and Active Commitment processes (OR 1.433; 95% CI 1.110-1.849; p=0.006). No statistical difference was detected between referral processes relating to completion of the ALMP. Other characteristics such as educational and housing status, confidence in finding work, age and gender were also related to attendance behaviour at different stages of the ALMP process.

Qualitative research was also undertaken with 104 trial participants (Work Coaches and Claimants) to explore participants experience of the interventions, how the interventions influenced their behaviour and review trial integrity. Evidence from these data showed how operational staff supported individual’s decision-making in the take up of ALMP support, for example, the use of feedback from other participants. Financial strain was reported as a barrier for individuals being able to attend the ALMP. Opportunity for social interaction and ‘getting out of the house’ were reported reasons for taking up the ALMP. Flexibility in the timing of appointments was also reported as being helpful in promoting attendance.

Good operational design of referral processes can help improve FTA rates to ALMP support. The active engagement process did reduce appointment FTA rates at the IRM stage but not at the other stages of the ALMP process. Passive engagement and active commitment processes yielded higher odds of attendance at Day 1 of the target ALMP. The exact process by which this behaviour occur is unclear, but the research posits the potential for psychological control over appointment attendance being a plausible explanation, with the Active Engagement offering more control over the IRM appointment increasing attendance but also extends control over the decision to withdraw from the ALMP process at the Day 1 stage. Conversely, the passive engagement and active commitment could be seen as formalising the referral process and thus reducing the sense of individual control over attendance to the IRM but also reduced control regarding attendance at Day 1 of the ALMP, hence these two interventions leading to higher odds of attending the ALMP. Therefore, the type of referral process used needs to be matched with the stages of the ALMP individuals are being referred. To enable take-up and maintain engagement with ALMP, barriers such as conflicting demands and financial means need to be addressed for potential participants to effectively meet their appointment. Individuals see ALMP as opportunities to gain latent benefits such as social interaction. Therefore, more emphasis on such latent benefits should be given at the point of introducing the ALMP with prospective participants.