"Information campaigns designed to raise awareness of the potential risks of (irregular) migration have attracted much attention and investment across the world in recent years. Studies have repeatedly shown that many migrants start their journeys with limited or biased information and end up in vulnerable situations. In response, information campaigns have increased in number and the type, format, messages and strategy of such campaigns have diversified.
This report presents the results from a systematic literature review of evaluations of such information campaigns in the field of migration. The study reveals that the evidence base available for programming and policymaking in this area is strikingly limited. We find that the uptake in the use of information campaigns has far outpaced any rigorous assessment of the effects that different campaigns may have on their respective target groups. In the absence of reliable evidence, the debate on the potential of this policy tool often relies on largely anecdotal evidence. Better evidence can show how information campaigns can be designed to best achieve their intended effects given the particular circumstances. The current lack of evidence limits the impact of future campaigns. While rigorous assessment of campaign impact can be difficult and costly, better evidence is clearly needed – wherever feasible and appropriate.
Based on an extensive, systematic literature review, 60 relevant evaluations of information campaigns that targeted potential migrants and traffickers, as well as communities at large, were identified from a pool of 3,600 records. Only 30 of the selected campaign evaluations had publicly available results; the rest were collected through expert referrals. Two studies were published in peer-reviewed journals. Among the campaigns featured in the 60 studies, the most popular communication tools were workshop-type activities and cable TV programmes/advertisements. Most campaigns focused on trafficking, followed by irregular migration and, more generally, smuggling. A common issue is the lack of a clearly defined campaign objective and/or target group. This hampers any rigorous evaluation of programme effects. Whenever an objective is defined, it is most often aimed at “awareness-raising” and “knowledge generation.” The majority of the campaign evaluations claimed that the campaign under study was “successful” in inducing a change in knowledge, perceptions, attitudes and – to a lesser degree – (intended) behaviour. However, most of the evaluations reviewed provided relatively little evidence of the full impact of information campaigns. While many of the evaluations reported the number and profiles of campaign recipients or beneficiaries, impact was not directly measured. (In the evaluation literature, impact is defined as a change in outcome that is directly attributable to the programme and not any other factor.)
Most of the evaluations identified did not meet minimum standards for robust evidence on programme effects. The large majority of evaluations were based on based on cross-sectional surveys of small numbers of participants (N) sampled at convenience, limiting the generalizability of the results. Only a few large-N studies employed a control-group design or involved pre- and post-measurements. None employed a (quasi-)experimental method for causal inference (e.g. randomized controlled trial, which is considered the “gold standard” for measuring impact)." (Executive summary)