Government and academia: What Works Centres

This is one of five deep dives into mechanisms UK central government uses to engage with researchers. The deep dives are accompanied by a report looking at the big picture of how government can improve its approach to researcher engagement. 

These outputs build on past Institute research on how government can work better with academia, and the IfG Academy’s work in supporting academics seeking to engage with policy makers.

Independent evidence centres continue to offer distinctive advantages for government

Set up in 2013, the What Works Network unites 12 evidence centres ‘committed to increasing both the supply of and demand for evidence in their policy area’ and the output of which ‘is tailored to the needs of decision-makers’. ⁶² Evaluation Task Force, What Works Network Strategy, op. cit.  The work of What Works Centres (WWCs) has covered a wide variety of policy areas, from policing to early childhood education, and they have engaged in collaboration with a variety of stakeholders, including government departments, public service leaders and frontline staff, to ensure cutting-edge evidence informs policy making and service delivery. To this day, it continues to enjoy substantial institutional support across government as well as benefitting from a strong reputation within the academic community.

The What Works Network’s distinct position in the UK evidence ecosystem can be partially attributed to the role of Professor David Halpern, who finished his 10-year term as What Works National Advisor in 2023. Research on KBOs suggests that, apart from contextual factors like diminishing analytical capability within government, the successful emergence of evidence intermediaries like WWCs depends on the support and advocacy of key well-connected individuals. ⁶³ MacKillop E and Downe J, ‘What counts as evidence for policy? An analysis of policy actors’ perceptions’, Public Administration Review, 2023, vol. 83, no. 5, pp. 1037–50, https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13567  Senior sponsorship can help shore up institutional support for WWCs as well as more effectively making the case for why officials should adopt a ‘what works’ approach to policy making.

But the case for government to set up and support the work of independent evidence centres is strong on its own terms. In performing their knowledge brokering function, WWCs, adopt a variety of strategies, like improving the climate for evidence use, prioritising and co-producing evidence, as well as packaging it for, and ‘pushing’ it to, decision-makers. ⁶⁴ Global Commission on Evidence to Address Societal Challenges,The Evidence Commission Report: A wake-up call and path forward for decision-makers, evidence intermediaries, and impact-oriented evidence producers, McMaster University Health Forum, 2022, ch. 5, https://www.mcmasterforum.org/docs/default-source/evidence-commission/evidence-commission-report.pdf?Status=Master&sfvrsn=2fb92517_5/Evidence-Commiss…  These strategies help policy makers manage the oversupply of evidence by delineating higher from lower quality evidence (though the distinction always remains to some extent fraught), as well as converting academic insights into easier-to-understand and more readily actionable policy steers. WWCs simultaneously maintain high standards of academic rigour and legitimacy – differentiating themselves from think tanks and other policy organisations – while ensuring they are responsive to government priorities to a greater extent than more ‘traditional’ research institutes.

While government may hold some leverage over WWCs around funding, meaning that centres often have to perform a delicate ‘balancing act’, it also retains an interest in ensuring credible and independent external organisations can provide adequate advice and challenge. As a result, the What Works Network has continued to operate independently, often with arrangements in place that help safeguard centres’ autonomy – such as the agreement between the Wales Centre for Public Policy (WCPP) and the Welsh Government for the WCPP to consistently publish its research findings, regardless of how they reflect on government policy. ⁶⁵ Martin S, ‘‘Pulling rather than pushing’: a demand-led approach to evidence mobilisation’, in Sanders M and Breckon J, The What Works Centres: Lessons and Insights from an Evidence Movement, Bristol University Press, 2023, pp. 100-112

The What Works landscape has changed

The What Works Network is far from internally homogenous. Centres vary substantially in policy focus, funding model, incubator organisation(s), balance struck between conducting primary research and evaluation and evidence synthesis and review, or between engagement with policy makers and the frontline, as well as the types of evidence they tend to operate with. While this creates some complexity, it is also a reflection of the diverging needs, gaps and resource requirements in different policy areas.

There has been substantial variation in the WWC landscape over time. Of the nine WWCs listed in our 2018 report, ⁶⁶ Sasse T and Haddon C, How government can work with academia, Institute for Government, 2018, https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publication/how-government-can-work-academia  two no longer exist (What Works Centre for Wellbeing and What Works Centre for Scotland), one has been subject to a merger (Early Intervention Foundation, now part of Foundations), and another five have emerged.

What Works Wellbeing was founded in 2014 against the backdrop of increased interest in the concept of wellbeing among policy makers, including then prime minister David Cameron. ⁶⁷ Sanders M, ‘Wellbeing matters to everyone – and no-one’, King’s College London, 19 March 2024, retrieved 19 June 2026, https://www.kcl.ac.uk/news/wellbeing-matters-to-everyone-and-no-one  It closed in 2024 after its funding had dried up. Over the course of its existence, it provided extensive input into a variety of policy areas, for instance informing changes to the Treasury’s Green Book and securing the introduction of wellbeing as a key metric in the Levelling Up framework. ⁶⁸ What Works Wellbeing, ‘Statement of closure’, What Works Wellbeing, 12 December 2023, retrieved 22 July 2026, https://whatworkswellbeing.org/blog/statement-of-closure/  But the breadth of its remit, the lack of long-term ministerial sponsorship, and departmental refusals to take ownership of wellbeing as a policy goal substantially restricted What Works Wellbeing’s ability to secure funding. This example highlights the importance of clear goals and policy focus for WWCs if they are to retain support and the ability to influence policy.

In 2023, the Early Intervention Foundation and What Works for Children’s Social Care merged to form Foundations, following the recommendations of the Independent review of children’s social care. ⁶⁹ Department for Education, Independent Review of Children’s Social Care: Final Report, GOV.UK, 2022, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/independent-review-of-childrens-social-care-final-report  The review’s final report argued that the two centres’ overlapping remits led to duplication and risked sending diverging signals to the system. The vision it laid out was one where further integration among WWCs with remits in this space (including the Education Endowment Fund and the Youth Endowment Fund) would be achieved in the long run. Previous research highlights the risks posed by ‘territoriality’ and limited coordination among KBOs. ⁷⁰ Breckon J and Boaz A, Evidence intermediary organisations: Moving beyond a definitional morass, Transforming Evidence for policy and practice, 2023, https://transforming-evidence.org/storage/pdf-final-21sept-23-evidence-intermediaries-studiomatica-dev3-2.pdf; Global Commission on Evidence to Address Societal Challenges, The Evidence Commission Report: A wake-up call and path forward for decision-makers, evidence intermediaries, and impact-oriented evidence producers, op. cit.  Attempts at reducing competition and improving join-up across the What Works Network are therefore welcome, though the question of what form they should take remains open – and efforts in this area should be sensitive to specific organisational contexts.

The WWC landscape continues to evolve. In January 2026, the ESRC and DWP launched a joint funding opportunity of up to £15mn for the creation of a new What Works Centre for Local Employment Support. ⁷¹ UK Research and Innovation (UKRI), ‘What works centre (WWC) for local employment support’, UKRI, 27 January 2026, retrieved 16 June 2026, https://www.ukri.org/opportunity/what-works-centre-wwc-for-local-employment-support/  The new centre is intended to build on preliminary analytical work carried out by DWP around local interventions to support workforce participation. This example of coordination between a government department and a major research funder around creating an evidence centre feeding into a key government priority suggests that there is strong recognition within the UK civil service that WWCs make a distinct and valuable contribution to the policy making process. This is encouraging news for this model of organising knowledge brokering.

The Evaluation Task Force’s secretariat role for the What Works Network is welcome

The other major change in the What Works landscape has been the role taken on by the Evaluation Task Force (ETF) as the secretariat to the What Works Network. This has been helpful in several respects. For one, it strengthens the network’s connection with the civil service whilst allowing continued self-governance through the What Works Council – to which every WWC is represented and which makes key decisions, for instance on granting membership to the network. The ETF’s role is that of a convenor supporting the What Works Network and acting as an advocate for the ‘what works’ approach in government. It fulfils this role by helping expand connections between WWCs and teams across the civil service beyond ‘the usual suspects’ or offering advice to departments that may wish to sponsor a new WWC around how to do it most effectively. However, our interviews suggest that it is the ETF’s role as a champion for evaluation across government, rather than this more direct brokering role, that many WWCs find most useful.

The ETF’s taking on the secretariat function to the What Works Network has also coincided with a greater sense of strategic clarity and a streamlining of processes within the What Works ecosystem. In 2023, the ETF published the What Works Network strategy, in which it laid out the Network’s priorities and how it intended to help achieve them. ⁷⁶ Evaluation Task Force, What Works Network Strategy, op. cit.  The strategy lists five strategic priorities:

• Better WWC coverage of government policy priorities (for instance around benefits, the justice system and net zero) 
• Greater use of evidence about ‘what works’ to inform decisions about public services (beyond traditional pockets of engagement, through relationship brokering and stimulating demand) 
• More collaboration between WWCs and with international partners 
• High-performing WWCs delivering high-quality evidence and demonstrating real impacts (for instance by streamlining What Works Network membership and evaluation processes) 
• Stronger advocacy for the long-term funding and independence of WWCs (by exploring additional opportunities for public funding). ⁷⁷ Ibid.

These priorities are well-targeted and get to the heart of the main challenges facing the What Works ecosystem. There has already been some progress – for instance by simplifying the network’s membership system. But structural pressures and barriers persist, and more will be needed in the coming years to ensure they are overcome.

An outstanding question remains around whether the role of ‘what works’ champion can be adequately fulfilled by a team. David Halpern’s influence in government helped shore up the What Works Network’s reputation. While the ETF can successfully broker engagement between WWCs and teams across Whitehall, senior civil servant and ministerial buy-in may be more effectively buttressed by an individual champion with exceptional personal clout.

Funding and evaluation continue to raise concerns

Funding remains one of the foremost concerns for WWCs. This is not symmetrical across the network – some centres enjoy larger endowments and more stable funding streams than others, which are more vulnerable to changes in government priorities. Indeed, some WWCs have recently seen their funding streams renewed or even increased. ⁷⁸ See e.g. Education Endowment Foundation (EEF), EEF annual report, September 2023-August 2024, EEF, 2025, https://d2tic4wvo1iusb.cloudfront.net/production/documents/annual-reports/eef-annual-report-2024-v1.0.0.pdf?v=1782063458

But a tighter fiscal environment and the drive to identify efficiencies across departments has made the challenge more salient. Recent efforts to build demand for WWC engagement are positive and may serve to offset some of these additional pressures. What is also required is continued senior sponsorship for the what works approach, at a ministerial level as well as at the level of central civil service leadership.

As is the case elsewhere in academia, the response to tighter financial constraints has fuelled wide-ranging conversations around how WWCs can effectively demonstrate impact to funders and other key stakeholders. WWCs have long been concerned to prove and sustain their legitimacy as privileged evidence intermediaries. ⁷⁹ MacKillop E and Downe J, ‘What counts as evidence for policy? An analysis of policy actors’ perceptions’, Public Administration Review, 2023, vol. 83, no. 5, pp. 1037–50, https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13567  But describing impact and quantifying their contributions to the policy making process has become far more salient in recent years, including in academic research on the topic. ⁸⁰ Vallance P, MacKillop E, Downe J and Norman G, ‘Understanding the impact of knowledge brokering organizations: the case of the UK What Works Centres’, Research Evaluation, 2025, vol. 34, https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvaf022  As elsewhere in academic-policy engagement, tracking impact is difficult because research is very rarely translated directly into policy change, but instead shapes policy thinking in government in more diffuse ways. Some WWCs shy away from making clear policy recommendations to their stakeholders in government, and often limit themselves to conveying their account of ‘what the evidence shows’, making impact evaluation even more challenging.