Behavioral Science for Government and Policy Teams
The Problem You Are Facing
Policy defines what should happen. Behavior determines what actually happens. You have designed programs, published guidance, launched services, and communicated requirements. But citizen uptake is lower than projected. Compliance is inconsistent. Service utilization does not match eligibility. The policy is sound. The behavior change is not happening.
This gap is not unique to government. It follows the same pattern seen in every organizational context: people can understand, agree with, and value a policy while still not complying with it. The forces at the moment of action (effort required, complexity of the process, social norms, habitual alternatives) routinely override the intention to comply.
Why Information Campaigns Produce Awareness Without Action
Government communication campaigns are often well-designed and well-funded. They raise awareness effectively. But awareness is only one component of the behavioral equation. The COM-B model shows that behavior also requires Capability (can the citizen navigate the process?), physical Opportunity (is the process accessible, simple, and timed right?), social Opportunity (are peers complying?), and Motivation (does compliance feel worth the effort at the moment of action?).
Information campaigns primarily address reflective Motivation (beliefs about why the policy matters) and, sometimes, Capability (knowledge about what to do). They do not address the environmental and habitual barriers that govern most citizen behavior.
Evidence from behavioral science interventions in government settings consistently shows that small design changes (simplifying forms, changing defaults, adding social proof, reducing steps) produce larger compliance gains than large communication campaigns. Pre-booked vaccination appointments increased uptake by 11.7 percentage points. Making the opt-out button equally prominent on cookie banners reduced acceptance of non-essential cookies by 53 percentage points. These are environmental interventions, not information interventions.
What a Behavioral Approach Adds to Policy Implementation
The SHIFT framework structures behavioral diagnosis and intervention design for policy contexts.
Specify the citizen behaviors required for policy outcomes (not 'increase program uptake' but 'eligible residents complete the online registration within 14 days of eligibility notification').
Diagnose the barriers using COM-B (is the registration process too complex? Do citizens lack the information needed to complete it? Is there social stigma? Do competing priorities override the intention to register?).
Design interventions matched to the barriers: simplify the registration process, pre-fill fields with available data, send timed prompts, use social proof in communications.
The Test and Iterate stage is particularly valuable for government. Behavioral interventions can be piloted in one district or one population segment before scaling, with behavioral data (actual compliance, not just awareness) measured within weeks. This evidence-based approach reduces the political and financial risk of scaling interventions that do not work.
For multi-agency policy where citizen behavior spans multiple services, the behavioral approach provides a common diagnostic language. COM-B classification enables coordination across agencies by identifying shared barriers and designing complementary interventions rather than duplicating efforts.
The highest-leverage government behavioral interventions are often environmental redesigns (simpler forms, better defaults, fewer steps) rather than communication campaigns. If awareness is high but uptake is low, the barrier is not information. Diagnose before campaigning.
