What works in Cardiff
All catalogues · United Kingdom profile
Quality scores are 0–100 rubric scores; “strong evidence” reflects study design; adoptions count documented replications elsewhere. Know more
Evidence snapshot for Cardiff
Accessible Voting Pilot — Wales Trials Audio and Tactile Devices With Blind and Partially Sighted Voters reports that in February 2025, Cardiff was one of two locations where the Welsh Government tested accessible voting equipment with blind and partially sighted voters. Across 77 trials of audio and tactile voting solutions, 94% resulted in participants correctly marking their intended choice, 83% were completed independently, and 91% were completed in secret. The evidence does not quantify how many of the 77 trials took place specifically in Cardiff versus Wrexham, nor does it provide separate outcomes by location.
Drawn from: Accessible Voting Pilot — Wales Trials Audio and Tactile Devices With Blind and Partially Sighted Voters · SNAP — Quantexa's AI Network-Analytics Platform Powers Companies House's Economic-Crime Crackdown · Glastir — Wales' Whole-Farm Payment Scheme for Peatland, Water and Biodiversity Outcomes · Estyn's National Thematic Review of Generative AI Data-Protection Practice in Welsh Schools
Generated from this place's cited practices only. Always check the linked sources.
Strengths & weaknesses vs peers
Strengths
Evaluation evidence +51 pts 100 here · 49 average
Documented learning +26 pts 100 here · 74 average
Demonstrated reach +24 pts 100 here · 76 average
Transparency, ethics & data protection +20 pts 67 here · 47 average
Biodiversity — conservation / improvement, evidenced +18 pts 67 here · 48 average
Transparency, fairness & accountability +13 pts 67 here · 54 average
Evidence of impact / measured public value +9 pts 67 here · 57 average
Weaknesses
Scalability & sustainability -12 pts 50 here · 62 average
Water & soil — retention, infiltration, erosion control -15 pts 33 here · 48 average
Equity & inclusion -17 pts 33 here · 50 average
Innovation level -22 pts 40 here · 62 average
Evidence of learning impact -26 pts 0 here · 26 average
Sustainability (ongoing) -78 pts 0 here · 78 average
Score profile vs peers
Coloured bar: Cardiff. Grey bar: peer average across the corpus. Both on a common 0–100 scale.
Points compare this place's average on each dimension with the average across all evaluated places, on a common 0–100 scale. Know more
Top good practices here
SNAP — Quantexa's AI Network-Analytics Platform Powers Companies House's Economic-Crime Crackdown · 67
Glastir — Wales' Whole-Farm Payment Scheme for Peatland, Water and Biodiversity Outcomes · 40
Estyn's National Thematic Review of Generative AI Data-Protection Practice in Welsh Schools · 33
Each number is the practice's overall 0–100 quality score against its catalogue's rubric. Know more
Recommended to adopt or replicate
Transferable practices from elsewhere that address this place's gaps.
Ciudad Mujer — El Salvador's Integrated Women's Services Programme · fit 100/100
- Rated highly transferable
- Backed by strong evidence
- Addresses this place's weak dimensions
Already adopted in 3 other places
SASA! Community Mobilisation Programme against Intimate Partner Violence — Uganda · fit 100/100
- Rated highly transferable
- Backed by strong evidence
- Addresses this place's weak dimensions
Already adopted in 4 other places
Karya — Fair-Wage AI Data-Work Platform Bringing Digital Income to Rural India · fit 100/100
- Backed by strong evidence
- Addresses this place's weak dimensions
safe+natal — Comadrona-Designed Smartphone Checklist for Maternal Risk Screening in Rural Guatemala · fit 100/100
- Backed by strong evidence
- Addresses this place's weak dimensions
Digital Green — Video-Mediated Agricultural Extension · fit 100/100
- Backed by strong evidence
- Addresses this place's weak dimensions
Kartu Prakerja – National Digital Skills and Financial Inclusion Programme · fit 100/100
- Backed by strong evidence
- Addresses this place's weak dimensions
Rwanda's Land Tenure Regularization Programme — Titling Land in Women's Names · fit 90/100
- Rated highly transferable
- Backed by strong evidence
- Addresses this place's weak dimensions
- Rated highly transferable
- Backed by strong evidence
- Addresses this place's weak dimensions
Already adopted in 6 other places
Fit estimates how well a practice matches this place, 0 (poor) to 100 (excellent); the list is ordered to favour practices that address this place's gaps. Know more