Jobs & pay · UK · young people aged 16–24 · April–June 2026

Nearly a million young people are outside work, education and training.

An estimated 981,000 UK 16–24-year-olds, 13.0% of the age group, were outside employment, education or training in April–June 2026. Separately, 2.78 million people aged 16–64 were economically inactive because of long-term sickness in May–July 2026.

Priority: Remove the main barriers to sustained suitable work and progression, with a dedicated youth route. What would change it →

Evidence last reviewed 9 October 2026

Getting a first job, holding on to one through illness, and earning enough to get ahead are different challenges. The unemployment rate alone cannot tell all three stories.

Different age groups and periods; these figures overlap and must not be added. Recent labour-market estimates are uncertain: focus on the longer pattern, not a single quarter.

A route into work or learning is missing for too many.

Leaving education does not always lead straight to a job. Some young people are searching; others face barriers that job adverts alone cannot solve. Start with how many are outside both work and learning.

How many young people are outside work, education or training?

981,000 young people are missing out on work and learning

Young people aged 16–24 not in education, employment or training, as a percentage of ALL people aged 16–24, UK, seasonally adjusted, quarterly, Oct–Dec 2001 to Apr–Jun 2026. The latest count is printed beside the end of the line.

United Kingdom · Oct–Dec 2001 to Apr–Jun 2026 (quarterly)

1996–2026 displayed window · observations only. Shading marks years outside the displayed record.

The share of young people outside work, education and training fell through the 2010s and reached a low of 9.7% in April to June 2021. It has risen since to 13.0% — back to around its 2014 level, but below the 16.9% reached after the financial crisis. The rise is real but small quarter to quarter: the survey's 95% interval is about ±0.9 points, so focus on the multi-year direction, not single quarters.

Sources, definitions and data

Geography:: United Kingdom — All people aged 16–24 (the denominator includes students and workers)
Measure:: Per cent of all people aged 16–24
Period:: Oct–Dec 2001 to Apr–Jun 2026 (quarterly)
Status:: Official statistics, Labour Force Survey. Latest quarter ±0.9 points (95% interval, ONS Table NEET 2).
Calculation:: As published (Table 1, people, seasonally adjusted). Rate to one decimal place.
Compare with:: The Jul–Sep 2011 peak (16.9%) and the Apr–Jun 2021 low (9.7%)
Not included / breaks:: ONS reweighted the survey from January–March 2019, causing a step change, so the line is broken there; compare levels either side with care. Mid-2023 and 2024 estimates remain volatile. NEET is not a narrower unemployment rate: it uses all young people as the denominator, and most NEET young people are not unemployed but economically inactive.

Source: ONS, Young people not in education, employment or training (NEET), UK, Table 1 (seasonally adjusted) (released 27 August 2026). Chart WORK-01.

View the data as a table

Quarter	NEET rate (%)	NEET (thousands)
Oct–Dec 2001	12.9	833
Jan–Mar 2002	13.3	859
Apr–Jun 2002	13.4	873
Jul–Sep 2002	13.3	873
Oct–Dec 2002	12.7	836
Jan–Mar 2003	13.5	893
Apr–Jun 2003	13.4	891
Jul–Sep 2003	13.1	877
Oct–Dec 2003	12.6	847
Jan–Mar 2004	12.4	836
Apr–Jun 2004	12.9	879
Jul–Sep 2004	13.4	918
Oct–Dec 2004	13.4	922
Jan–Mar 2005	13.4	925
Apr–Jun 2005	13.7	947
Jul–Sep 2005	13.5	935
Oct–Dec 2005	14.4	1,003
Jan–Mar 2006	14.1	984
Apr–Jun 2006	14.6	1,022
Jul–Sep 2006	14.3	1,006
Oct–Dec 2006	13.8	979
Jan–Mar 2007	14.1	1,000
Apr–Jun 2007	14.1	1,004
Jul–Sep 2007	13.7	983
Oct–Dec 2007	13.4	965
Jan–Mar 2008	13.4	966
Apr–Jun 2008	13.8	998
Jul–Sep 2008	14.3	1,034
Oct–Dec 2008	14.2	1,025
Jan–Mar 2009	15.1	1,097
Apr–Jun 2009	15.6	1,128
Jul–Sep 2009	15.4	1,122
Oct–Dec 2009	14.9	1,083
Jan–Mar 2010	15.5	1,128
Apr–Jun 2010	14.7	1,074
Jul–Sep 2010	15.3	1,120
Oct–Dec 2010	15.9	1,164
Jan–Mar 2011	15.3	1,125
Apr–Jun 2011	15.8	1,164
Jul–Sep 2011	16.9	1,246
Oct–Dec 2011	16.5	1,212
Jan–Mar 2012	16.2	1,193
Apr–Jun 2012	16.2	1,192
Jul–Sep 2012	15.0	1,104
Oct–Dec 2012	14.8	1,084
Jan–Mar 2013	15.0	1,100
Apr–Jun 2013	14.9	1,089
Jul–Sep 2013	14.9	1,092
Oct–Dec 2013	14.2	1,038
Jan–Mar 2014	13.4	979
Apr–Jun 2014	13.2	963
Jul–Sep 2014	13.3	967
Oct–Dec 2014	13.3	971
Jan–Mar 2015	12.8	934
Apr–Jun 2015	12.7	919
Jul–Sep 2015	11.8	856
Oct–Dec 2015	11.9	858
Jan–Mar 2016	12.0	866
Apr–Jun 2016	11.7	844
Jul–Sep 2016	12.0	860
Oct–Dec 2016	11.5	822
Jan–Mar 2017	11.2	795
Apr–Jun 2017	11.2	791
Jul–Sep 2017	11.3	796
Oct–Dec 2017	11.3	793
Jan–Mar 2018	11.4	798
Apr–Jun 2018	11.1	778
Jul–Sep 2018	10.9	758
Oct–Dec 2018	11.3	789
Jan–Mar 2019	11.2	782
Apr–Jun 2019	11.5	808
Jul–Sep 2019	11.5	806
Oct–Dec 2019	10.8	750
Jan–Mar 2020	11.4	797
Apr–Jun 2020	11.6	808
Jul–Sep 2020	11.2	777
Oct–Dec 2020	11.8	818
Jan–Mar 2021	10.7	745
Apr–Jun 2021	9.7	675
Jul–Sep 2021	10.2	708
Oct–Dec 2021	10.3	724
Jan–Mar 2022	10.6	743
Apr–Jun 2022	10.5	742
Jul–Sep 2022	10.4	734
Oct–Dec 2022	11.9	842
Jan–Mar 2023	11.6	826
Apr–Jun 2023	11.7	839
Jul–Sep 2023	11.9	855
Oct–Dec 2023	12.1	876
Jan–Mar 2024	12.9	936
Apr–Jun 2024	12.6	920
Jul–Sep 2024	12.9	950
Oct–Dec 2024	13.3	981
Jan–Mar 2025	12.3	912
Apr–Jun 2025	12.8	951
Jul–Sep 2025	12.6	943
Oct–Dec 2025	12.8	958
Jan–Mar 2026	13.5	1,011
Apr–Jun 2026	13.0	981

Same headline. Different barriers.

Looking for a job is only part of the story.

Of the 981,000 young people outside work, education and training in Apr–Jun 2026:

393,000

Were looking for work and available to start

For this group, finding a suitable vacancy and a chance to build experience matter.

588,000

Were not looking or not available to start

This includes different circumstances, such as ill health or caring. This table does not tell us how many face each barrier.

What could help young people find a route in? →

Why this differs from the unemployment rate

“NEET” means not in education, employment or training. Its rate counts all 16–24-year-olds. Youth unemployment is 16.4% (May to July 2026), but counts only those working or looking for work, including students seeking a part-time job. The rates have different denominators.

The transition out of education is the pressure point.

The risk is higher after age 18. These groups overlap: the chart compares rates within each group, rather than adding up separate groups of people. Each dot is a percentage of its own group.

Who is most likely to miss out on work and learning?

15.2% of 18–24-year-olds are outside work and learning

NEET rate by age group and sex, UK, April to June 2026 (filled dot) and a year earlier (open dot). Each group's own population is the denominator.

United Kingdom · Apr–Jun 2026 and a year earlier

Apr–Jun 2026A year earlierAll 16–24, 13.0%

Aged 18–2415.2%
Young men, 16–2413.7%
All aged 16–2413.0%
Young women, 16–2412.3%
Aged 16–175.3%

The risk sits overwhelmingly with 18–24-year-olds, after compulsory education or training ends in England. Young men are more likely than young women to be NEET, and most NEET young people are economically inactive rather than unemployed: 588,000 are economically inactive and 393,000 unemployed. These are survey estimates: a confidence interval around one level does not show whether a change between two periods is significant, so small year-to-year movements should not be read as real changes. The multi-year pattern is the more reliable signal.

Sources, definitions and data

Geography:: United Kingdom
Measure:: Per cent of each group
Period:: Apr–Jun 2026 and a year earlier
Status:: Official statistics; 95% intervals in this quarter are about ±1.1 points for 16–17 and for 18–24, ±0.9 for all 16–24
Calculation:: As published (Table 1: people, men and women, seasonally adjusted).
Compare with:: All 16–24-year-olds, 13.0%
Not included / breaks:: ONS does not publish NEET estimates below UK level. The 16–17 rate is low partly because young people in England must stay in education or training until 18.

Source: ONS, Young people not in education, employment or training (NEET), UK, Table 1 (seasonally adjusted) (released 27 August 2026). Chart WORK-04.

View the data as a table

Group	Apr–Jun 2026	Year earlier
Aged 18–24	15.2	15.1
Young men, 16–24	13.7	13.3
All aged 16–24	13.0	12.8
Young women, 16–24	12.3	12.3
Aged 16–17	5.3	4.5

ONS does not publish NEET rates below UK level. For a local view with a different measure: claimant rates across Hampshire’s 13 council areas.

Illness can close the door to work. Support has to help reopen it.

For someone managing a health condition, being told to find a job may miss the immediate problem. Treatment, workplace adjustments and suitable hours can matter alongside employment support. The figures show the scale of the challenge, not a verdict on anyone’s willingness to work.

Is ill health keeping more people out of work?

2.78 million people are out of work through long-term sickness, up from 2.08 million before Covid

People aged 16–64 who are economically inactive — not working and not seeking work or not available to start — because of long-term sickness, UK, seasonally adjusted, rolling three-month estimates, 2000 to May to July 2026.

United Kingdom · 2000 to May–Jul 2026

1996–2026 displayed window · observations only. Shading marks years outside the displayed record.

The number out of work through long-term sickness barely moved for a decade, then rose by about 700,000 after 2019. It peaked in Sep–Nov 2023 and has edged down since, but remains far above its pre-pandemic level. The survey cannot say why: mental health conditions, longer NHS waits and an older workforce are all associated with the rise, and their relative weight is still being researched.

Sources, definitions and data

Geography:: United Kingdom — People aged 16–64
Measure:: Millions of people
Period:: 2000 to May–Jul 2026
Status:: Official statistics, Labour Force Survey; ONS advises caution over short-term changes
Calculation:: As published (LF69, thousands) divided by 1,000. Each point is a three-month window, plotted at its final month.
Compare with:: October–December 2019, 2.08 million; peak 2.85 million in Sep–Nov 2023
Not included / breaks:: Counts only people whose MAIN reason for inactivity is long-term sickness; people working with a health condition, and the unemployed, are not in it. A different measure from the unemployment rate — do not add them together.

Source: ONS, Labour Force Survey: economically inactive because of long-term sickness, 16–64, LF69 (released 15 September 2026). Chart WORK-02b.

View the data as a table

Three months to	Long-term sick (thousands)
Nov–Jan 2000	2,291
Dec–Feb 2000	2,295
Jan–Mar 2000	2,306
Feb–Apr 2000	2,312
Mar–May 2000	2,302
Apr–Jun 2000	2,290
May–Jul 2000	2,288
Jun–Aug 2000	2,303
Jul–Sep 2000	2,310
Aug–Oct 2000	2,318
Sep–Nov 2000	2,355
Oct–Dec 2000	2,341
Nov–Jan 2001	2,336
Dec–Feb 2001	2,337
Jan–Mar 2001	2,342
Feb–Apr 2001	2,341
Mar–May 2001	2,349
Apr–Jun 2001	2,341
May–Jul 2001	2,363
Jun–Aug 2001	2,365
Jul–Sep 2001	2,370
Aug–Oct 2001	2,391
Sep–Nov 2001	2,387
Oct–Dec 2001	2,384
Nov–Jan 2002	2,385
Dec–Feb 2002	2,382
Jan–Mar 2002	2,384
Feb–Apr 2002	2,361
Mar–May 2002	2,369
Apr–Jun 2002	2,362
May–Jul 2002	2,360
Jun–Aug 2002	2,316
Jul–Sep 2002	2,307
Aug–Oct 2002	2,293
Sep–Nov 2002	2,291
Oct–Dec 2002	2,283
Nov–Jan 2003	2,314
Dec–Feb 2003	2,323
Jan–Mar 2003	2,307
Feb–Apr 2003	2,284
Mar–May 2003	2,271
Apr–Jun 2003	2,261
May–Jul 2003	2,263
Jun–Aug 2003	2,257
Jul–Sep 2003	2,266
Aug–Oct 2003	2,293
Sep–Nov 2003	2,299
Oct–Dec 2003	2,301
Nov–Jan 2004	2,273
Dec–Feb 2004	2,273
Jan–Mar 2004	2,279
Feb–Apr 2004	2,304
Mar–May 2004	2,309
Apr–Jun 2004	2,315
May–Jul 2004	2,320
Jun–Aug 2004	2,338
Jul–Sep 2004	2,339
Aug–Oct 2004	2,324
Sep–Nov 2004	2,314
Oct–Dec 2004	2,307
Nov–Jan 2005	2,292
Dec–Feb 2005	2,283
Jan–Mar 2005	2,285
Feb–Apr 2005	2,327
Mar–May 2005	2,311
Apr–Jun 2005	2,296
May–Jul 2005	2,266
Jun–Aug 2005	2,256
Jul–Sep 2005	2,248
Aug–Oct 2005	2,265
Sep–Nov 2005	2,264
Oct–Dec 2005	2,255
Nov–Jan 2006	2,247
Dec–Feb 2006	2,229
Jan–Mar 2006	2,223
Feb–Apr 2006	2,211
Mar–May 2006	2,233
Apr–Jun 2006	2,242
May–Jul 2006	2,227
Jun–Aug 2006	2,198
Jul–Sep 2006	2,194
Aug–Oct 2006	2,214
Sep–Nov 2006	2,229
Oct–Dec 2006	2,228
Nov–Jan 2007	2,214
Dec–Feb 2007	2,245
Jan–Mar 2007	2,242
Feb–Apr 2007	2,247
Mar–May 2007	2,211
Apr–Jun 2007	2,209
May–Jul 2007	2,216
Jun–Aug 2007	2,215
Jul–Sep 2007	2,200
Aug–Oct 2007	2,201
Sep–Nov 2007	2,202
Oct–Dec 2007	2,220
Nov–Jan 2008	2,228
Dec–Feb 2008	2,215
Jan–Mar 2008	2,224
Feb–Apr 2008	2,221
Mar–May 2008	2,196
Apr–Jun 2008	2,174
May–Jul 2008	2,175
Jun–Aug 2008	2,201
Jul–Sep 2008	2,227
Aug–Oct 2008	2,197
Sep–Nov 2008	2,182
Oct–Dec 2008	2,149
Nov–Jan 2009	2,163
Dec–Feb 2009	2,173
Jan–Mar 2009	2,160
Feb–Apr 2009	2,145
Mar–May 2009	2,153
Apr–Jun 2009	2,144
May–Jul 2009	2,156
Jun–Aug 2009	2,179
Jul–Sep 2009	2,191
Aug–Oct 2009	2,168
Sep–Nov 2009	2,184
Oct–Dec 2009	2,178
Nov–Jan 2010	2,175
Dec–Feb 2010	2,181
Jan–Mar 2010	2,205
Feb–Apr 2010	2,228
Mar–May 2010	2,233
Apr–Jun 2010	2,246
May–Jul 2010	2,234
Jun–Aug 2010	2,228
Jul–Sep 2010	2,224
Aug–Oct 2010	2,228
Sep–Nov 2010	2,230
Oct–Dec 2010	2,230
Nov–Jan 2011	2,205
Dec–Feb 2011	2,183
Jan–Mar 2011	2,190
Feb–Apr 2011	2,191
Mar–May 2011	2,192
Apr–Jun 2011	2,189
May–Jul 2011	2,191
Jun–Aug 2011	2,189
Jul–Sep 2011	2,189
Aug–Oct 2011	2,186
Sep–Nov 2011	2,175
Oct–Dec 2011	2,139
Nov–Jan 2012	2,121
Dec–Feb 2012	2,154
Jan–Mar 2012	2,156
Feb–Apr 2012	2,159
Mar–May 2012	2,164
Apr–Jun 2012	2,140
May–Jul 2012	2,125
Jun–Aug 2012	2,072
Jul–Sep 2012	2,064
Aug–Oct 2012	2,087
Sep–Nov 2012	2,062
Oct–Dec 2012	2,052
Nov–Jan 2013	2,046
Dec–Feb 2013	2,053
Jan–Mar 2013	2,070
Feb–Apr 2013	2,060
Mar–May 2013	2,059
Apr–Jun 2013	2,064
May–Jul 2013	2,013
Jun–Aug 2013	2,007
Jul–Sep 2013	1,984
Aug–Oct 2013	1,974
Sep–Nov 2013	2,016
Oct–Dec 2013	2,043
Nov–Jan 2014	2,041
Dec–Feb 2014	2,007
Jan–Mar 2014	1,996
Feb–Apr 2014	1,998
Mar–May 2014	1,990
Apr–Jun 2014	1,991
May–Jul 2014	2,027
Jun–Aug 2014	2,018
Jul–Sep 2014	2,022
Aug–Oct 2014	2,024
Sep–Nov 2014	2,039
Oct–Dec 2014	2,036
Nov–Jan 2015	2,028
Dec–Feb 2015	2,024
Jan–Mar 2015	2,026
Feb–Apr 2015	2,042
Mar–May 2015	2,075
Apr–Jun 2015	2,085
May–Jul 2015	2,094
Jun–Aug 2015	2,102
Jul–Sep 2015	2,111
Aug–Oct 2015	2,078
Sep–Nov 2015	2,088
Oct–Dec 2015	2,074
Nov–Jan 2016	2,105
Dec–Feb 2016	2,081
Jan–Mar 2016	2,100
Feb–Apr 2016	2,089
Mar–May 2016	2,055
Apr–Jun 2016	2,042
May–Jul 2016	2,035
Jun–Aug 2016	2,009
Jul–Sep 2016	2,007
Aug–Oct 2016	1,990
Sep–Nov 2016	1,999
Oct–Dec 2016	1,959
Nov–Jan 2017	1,991
Dec–Feb 2017	1,985
Jan–Mar 2017	1,991
Feb–Apr 2017	1,979
Mar–May 2017	1,994
Apr–Jun 2017	1,982
May–Jul 2017	2,007
Jun–Aug 2017	2,023
Jul–Sep 2017	2,055
Aug–Oct 2017	2,032
Sep–Nov 2017	1,982
Oct–Dec 2017	1,997
Nov–Jan 2018	1,987
Dec–Feb 2018	1,984
Jan–Mar 2018	1,977
Feb–Apr 2018	1,986
Mar–May 2018	2,004
Apr–Jun 2018	2,043
May–Jul 2018	2,049
Jun–Aug 2018	2,032
Jul–Sep 2018	2,000
Aug–Oct 2018	1,983
Sep–Nov 2018	1,992
Oct–Dec 2018	2,007
Nov–Jan 2019	2,006
Dec–Feb 2019	1,979
Jan–Mar 2019	2,012
Feb–Apr 2019	1,983
Mar–May 2019	2,026
Apr–Jun 2019	2,030
May–Jul 2019	2,062
Jun–Aug 2019	2,067
Jul–Sep 2019	2,062
Aug–Oct 2019	2,089
Sep–Nov 2019	2,086
Oct–Dec 2019	2,080
Nov–Jan 2020	2,117
Dec–Feb 2020	2,118
Jan–Mar 2020	2,229
Feb–Apr 2020	2,243
Mar–May 2020	2,234
Apr–Jun 2020	2,233
May–Jul 2020	2,262
Jun–Aug 2020	2,288
Jul–Sep 2020	2,327
Aug–Oct 2020	2,320
Sep–Nov 2020	2,291
Oct–Dec 2020	2,328
Nov–Jan 2021	2,297
Dec–Feb 2021	2,263
Jan–Mar 2021	2,307
Feb–Apr 2021	2,288
Mar–May 2021	2,313
Apr–Jun 2021	2,297
May–Jul 2021	2,326
Jun–Aug 2021	2,376
Jul–Sep 2021	2,396
Aug–Oct 2021	2,400
Sep–Nov 2021	2,446
Oct–Dec 2021	2,436
Nov–Jan 2022	2,446
Dec–Feb 2022	2,460
Jan–Mar 2022	2,440
Feb–Apr 2022	2,466
Mar–May 2022	2,443
Apr–Jun 2022	2,506
May–Jul 2022	2,581
Jun–Aug 2022	2,639
Jul–Sep 2022	2,636
Aug–Oct 2022	2,586
Sep–Nov 2022	2,561
Oct–Dec 2022	2,586
Nov–Jan 2023	2,670
Dec–Feb 2023	2,706
Jan–Mar 2023	2,699
Feb–Apr 2023	2,689
Mar–May 2023	2,665
Apr–Jun 2023	2,706
May–Jul 2023	2,735
Jun–Aug 2023	2,737
Jul–Sep 2023	2,742
Aug–Oct 2023	2,824
Sep–Nov 2023	2,850
Oct–Dec 2023	2,849
Nov–Jan 2024	2,821
Dec–Feb 2024	2,842
Jan–Mar 2024	2,824
Feb–Apr 2024	2,830
Mar–May 2024	2,829
Apr–Jun 2024	2,824
May–Jul 2024	2,835
Jun–Aug 2024	2,796
Jul–Sep 2024	2,793
Aug–Oct 2024	2,798
Sep–Nov 2024	2,805
Oct–Dec 2024	2,776
Nov–Jan 2025	2,812
Dec–Feb 2025	2,784
Jan–Mar 2025	2,775
Feb–Apr 2025	2,782
Mar–May 2025	2,776
Apr–Jun 2025	2,780
May–Jul 2025	2,792
Jun–Aug 2025	2,824
Jul–Sep 2025	2,826
Aug–Oct 2025	2,818
Sep–Nov 2025	2,800
Oct–Dec 2025	2,786
Nov–Jan 2026	2,785
Dec–Feb 2026	2,792
Jan–Mar 2026	2,772
Feb–Apr 2026	2,772
Mar–May 2026	2,747
Apr–Jun 2026	2,774
May–Jul 2026	2,780

Keeping a job matters as much as getting one.

This count excludes people already working with a health condition. It also cannot show whether treatment or an adjustment would enable someone to work. Those questions need evidence about support and outcomes.

Health, work and support →

A job should be a way forward. What does the pay actually buy?

A bigger payslip can still leave a household struggling if prices have risen too. This chart removes inflation, showing how slowly average spending power has improved since the financial crisis.

Has pay kept up with prices?

Average real pay is 4.6% above 2007, 18 years on

Average weekly earnings including bonuses, whole economy, adjusted for prices using CPIH to 2015 prices, Great Britain, annual averages, 2000–2025.

Great Britain · 2000–2025

1996–2026 displayed window · observations only. Shading marks years outside the displayed record.

Real pay fell for years after the financial crisis, to a low in 2014, recovered slowly, first passed its 2007 level in 2021 (pandemic job losses fell mostly on lower-paid workers, which lifted the average), dipped when inflation spiked in 2022, and is now 4.6% above 2007. Nearly two decades brought little extra buying power on average.

Sources, definitions and data

Geography:: Great Britain — Employees (not the self-employed)
Measure:: £ a week at 2015 prices
Period:: 2000–2025
Status:: Official statistics
Calculation:: Annual average of the monthly A3WX series. Real and nominal pay are never compared on this chart.
Compare with:: 2007: £505 a week; low £473 in 2014
Not included / breaks:: An average (mean) across employees, pulled up by high earners; says nothing about how pay is distributed, about the self-employed, or about Northern Ireland.

Source: ONS, Average Weekly Earnings in real terms (2015 prices), A3WX. Chart WORK-02c.

View the data as a table

Year	£ a week (2015 prices)
2000	427
2001	442
2002	449
2003	457
2004	471
2005	482
2006	493
2007	505
2008	505
2009	495
2010	494
2011	487
2012	481
2013	475
2014	473
2015	483
2016	490
2017	489
2018	492
2019	500
2020	504
2021	520
2022	512
2023	514
2024	524
2025	528

Finding enough work

Are there jobs — and enough hours?

A job count cannot show whether someone gets the hours they want. Explore vacancies, unemployment and involuntary part-time work.

Jobs and hours →

What is left to live on

The same wage can buy very different lives.

Rent, mortgage payments, family size and other income shape what remains after the bills. Compare the household stories.

Living standards →

Judge support by the job people keep, not the programme they start.

A route into work, help to stay well enough to work, and better pay need different responses. The assessments below set out who delivers, what it could cost and what evidence would show that it is working.

Shareable visual summary

Visual summary

Image held

The image is not offered for download or sharing until the reasons below are resolved. The chart here is drawn from today’s records.

Nearly a million young people are outside work, education and training.

13.0% of 16–24-year-olds in the UK, April–June 2026: 393k unemployed (looking for work) and 588k economically inactive (not seeking work or not available to start, often because of caring, study plans or ill health). Survey estimates.

Share of 16–24-year-olds who are NEET

13.0%

Within the NEET total

393k (40.1%) Unemployed (looking and available)
588k (59.9%) Economically inactive (not seeking work or not available to start)

Inactive is not the same as unwilling: it includes caring, ill health and people about to start a course.

Why the supplied image is held

The bar showing 13% of young people is drawn at about 15%. The chart above is drawn to scale.

Text and data version

Nearly a million young people are outside work, education and training. 13.0% of 16–24-year-olds in the UK, April–June 2026: 393k unemployed (looking for work) and 588k economically inactive (not seeking work or not available to start, often because of caring, study plans or ill health). Survey estimates.

Records behind this visual summary
Measure	Value	Period	Geography	Type	Source
Young people not in education, employment or training	981k	Apr–Jun 2026	United Kingdom	survey estimate	Office for National Statistics, Young people not in education, employment or training
NEET rate, 16–24	13.0%	Apr–Jun 2026	United Kingdom	survey estimate	Office for National Statistics, Young people not in education, employment or training
NEET and unemployed (looking and available for work)	393k	Apr–Jun 2026	United Kingdom	survey estimate	Office for National Statistics, Young people not in education, employment or training
NEET and economically inactive (not looking, or not available, for work)	588k	Apr–Jun 2026	United Kingdom	survey estimate	Office for National Statistics, Young people not in education, employment or training

Social card

A landscape card for sharing this finding. Post it with the page link — an uploaded image does not link back by itself.

Download image

All visual summaries, their source records and their publication state are listed on Shareable visuals.

Evidence → choices → outcomes

What could improve it?

More people in sustained, suitable work across Great Britain, and fewer young people out of education, employment or training for long spells.

These options link to their national assessment, including funding, delivery constraints and remaining uncertainties.

Assessed option · provisional
Offer evidence-based employment support alongside healthcare
Fidelity reviews, NHS integration and an impact evaluation inside Connect to Work.
9/10 criteria scored
Coverage of the appraisal, not an impact score.
Delivery: Amber
Whole-life costs incomplete
Evidence and delivery constraints
Trials exist, but effects differ by setting; pooled out-of-work groups showed no employment impact. Do not infer a uniform national growth effect.
Specify cohort and voluntary offer; secure clinical referrals, trained employment specialists, employer links and linked-data evaluation.
Growth and prosperity list Evidence and assessment
Assessed option · provisional
Target minimum-wage enforcement where underpayment is highest, and test whether it works
7/10 criteria scored
Coverage of the appraisal, not an impact score.
Delivery: Amber
Whole-life costs incomplete
Evidence and delivery constraints
Minimum-wage and Kickstart evidence address different policies. Existing Youth Guarantee funding cannot settle the additionality of all three.
Separate wage-floor/enforcement, progression and targeted youth support; specify increment and monitor hours and access.
Equality and opportunity list Evidence and assessment
Assessed option · provisional
Make childcare places work for working parents
Test additional capacity, affordability and parental employment.
8/10 criteria scored
Coverage of the appraisal, not an impact score.
Delivery: Amber
Whole-life costs incomplete
Evidence and delivery constraints
IFS finds employment effects depend on the hours offered. This is indirect evidence for filling today’s local supply gaps. A September 2026 process evaluation exists; it is not a causal national impact estimate.
Verify unmet demand, existing awards and provider viability; cost places, workforce, premises, operating subsidy and parental fees. Track access and sustained parental work. Proposed owners: councils, DfE and providers in England; separate devolved arrangements.
Growth and prosperity list Evidence and assessment

This domain in the UK SWOT →UK National Action Plan →

How we assessed these options

What would it take to improve this?

What would move the needle?

The outcome we want: More people in sustained, suitable work across Great Britain, and fewer young people out of education, employment or training for long spells.

The main constraint: Most NEET young people and most people out of work through ill health are economically inactive, so job-search rules reach few of them; what helps is individual, depends on employers offering real jobs and on NHS capacity to refer, and needs trained employment specialists that DWP, councils and providers must recruit and keep.

Constraint type: workforce, coordination, market structure.

The options on the table

What is funded now, and the changes assessed against it — the current baseline and the alternatives, before the position today and the actions.

Health-linked work supportDelivery RAG: Amber
Work that paysDelivery RAG: Amber
Employer-linked shortage training beyond constructionDelivery RAG: Amber
Timely workplace adjustments for disabled workersDelivery RAG: Amber
And 1 option assessed with another page as home.

Provisional single-reviewer assessments from the 6 October 2026 review; not approved business cases, and not government policy.

Health-linked work supportDelivery RAG: Amber
Funded now
Connect to Work has taken referrals since April 2025 and aims to support about 300,000 people by 2029/30; IPS also operates in NHS mental health services. The proposal here is to hold it to fidelity and integrate it with care, not to start something new.
The change assessed
Fidelity reviews, NHS integration and an impact evaluation inside Connect to Work.
Range if completed: 17.0–20.0 out of 30 (equal weights; not yet assessed: incremental affordability (Co))
Work that paysDelivery RAG: Amber
Funded now
Baseline: the National Living Wage of £12.71 from April 2026; the Fair Work Agency established on 7 April 2026; HMRC enforcement (budget £31.5m in 2024/25) and naming rounds continuing (September 2026). Targeted enforcement with an evaluation of deterrence is a UK Facts proposal, not government policy.
The change assessed
Not yet defined.
Range if completed: 14.0–23.0 out of 30 (equal weights; not yet assessed: increment beyond baseline (Ad), expected incremental benefit (Bn), incremental affordability (Co))
Employer-linked shortage training beyond constructionDelivery RAG: Amber
Funded now
Not yet stated in the record.
The change assessed
Appraise a defined adult or technical training cohort with employer placements in a verified non-construction shortage.
Range if completed: 15.0–21.0 out of 30 (equal weights; not yet assessed: expected incremental benefit (Bn), incremental affordability (Co))
Timely workplace adjustments for disabled workersDelivery RAG: Amber
Funded now
Funded baseline: Access to Work (£320.7m on provision in 2024–25) and 480 extra case managers and caseworkers to clear the backlog by September 2027 (May 2026; restated 2 October 2026). A defined decision standard for in-work cases, tested with a comparison, is a UK Facts proposal, not government policy.
The change assessed
Test a defined assessment-to-adjustment improvement for workers facing verified delays, distinguishing employer duties from public support.
Range if completed: 16.0–22.0 out of 30 (equal weights; not yet assessed: expected incremental benefit (Bn), incremental affordability (Co))

Assessed with another page as home

These options also bear on this topic. The full assessment sits on the home page named under each.

Childcare places that parents can actually useDelivery RAG: Amber
Home: Education.
Funded now
Funded baseline (England): 30 hours a week for 38 weeks for working parents of children from 9 months (since September 2025), the universal 15 hours for 3–4-year-olds, and 15 hours for disadvantaged 2-year-olds, with £9.5bn for early years in 2026–27; school-based nursery and capital grants add places. Commissioning extra places only where a local gap is shown is a UK Facts proposal, not government policy.
The change assessed
Commission specified additional places/hours in demonstrated local supply gaps beyond the funded baseline; adult-carer support remains a separate option.
Range if completed: 16.0–22.0 out of 30 (equal weights; not yet assessed: expected incremental benefit (Bn), incremental affordability (Co))

Alternatives already on record: 26 options listed under the points in the position today (15 without an action record), and 2 earlier options under other options compared. They have not been scored in the review.

The position today

What we can build on (2)
What is holding us back (4)981,000 people aged 16–24 (13.0%) were not in education, employment or training; 588,000 of them were economically inactive rather than looking for work. (Apr–Jun 2026 · United Kingdom)
What could improve things (1)Match the route to the barrier: paid jobs and apprenticeships for young people ready to work, and health-linked support for people out of work through ill health.
What could make it worse (1)

Which quadrant a point sits in is our analytical judgement, not a statistical category. Each point says whether it is a measured fact, our synthesis or a risk.

What we can build on Strengths

Health-linked employment support has been tested in large UK randomised trials: for out-of-work participants in the West Midlands it raised the share working 13 weeks or more in a year by 4 percentage points.
Measured factConfidence: Moderate· Randomised 2018–2019; outcomes at 12 months· West Midlands and Sheffield City Region
Source: Department for Work and Pensions, Health-led Employment Trials: evaluation synthesis report (Synthesis report Table 2.1)
Options assessed against this point: Health-linked work support (Amber delivery RAG)
What government has committed to
Funding: Connect to Work, a voluntary supported-employment programme built on Individual Placement and Support, is agreed to run 2025/26 to 2029/30 at an estimated £1.2bn and aims to support about 300,000 people by the end of 2029/30; funding is confirmed to 2028/29 (£114m for 2025/26 and £978m from Spending Review 2025), with £138m for 2029/30 onward still to be requested. DWP runs annual IPS fidelity reviews.
Who and when:
Starmer government (to July 2026), 26 November 2024.
Since 20 July 2026:
Kept by the Burnham government. Business case 2 summary published 30 July 2026, after the change of PM; DWP re-stated on 23 September 2026 that Connect to Work 'will reach 300,000 sick or disabled people' within a £3.5bn employment support package. Source: Department for Work and Pensions, Connect to Work: Programme Business Case 2 summary (Executive summary; paragraphs 3.1.1–3.1.2).
Source:
DWP, DfE and DHSC, Get Britain Working White Paper (Executive summary; Connect to Work)
Checked 4 October 2026. A commitment is not delivery.
Options (3)
- ShortlistedHold Connect to Work to IPS fidelity and integrate it with NHS care
  Referrals from clinical teams plus annual IPS-25 fidelity reviews keep delivery close to the tested model that raised sustained work in the West Midlands trial.
  Who: DWP and accountable local authorities; NHS commissioners · Evidence: Experimental or quasi-experimental evaluation · Status: Funded programme · Works through NHS: Referrals from clinical teams plus annual IPS-25 fidelity reviews keep delivery close to the tested model that raised sustained work in the West Midlands trial.
  Source: Department for Work and Pensions, Health-led Employment Trials: evaluation synthesis report (Table 2.1 summary of impacts)
- Report sustained job outcomes from payroll data against a comparison group
  Publishing HMRC-payroll outcomes at 6-12 months tests whether the trial effect is reproduced at national scale.
  Who: DWP · Evidence: Expert or audit recommendation · Status: Site-editorial action
  Source: Department for Work and Pensions, Connect to Work: Programme Business Case 2 summary (Executive summary; paras 2.1.5, 3.1.1-3.1.2, 4.3 (fidelity assurance))
- Seek funding for Connect to Work beyond 2028/29 at the next Spending Review
  Securing the £138m tail removes the risk that services wind down before the 300,000 target is reached.
  Who: HM Treasury and DWP · Evidence: Modelled scenario · Status: Announced proposal
  Source: Department for Work and Pensions, Connect to Work: Programme Business Case 2 summary (Executive summary; paras 2.1.5, 3.1.1-3.1.2, 4.3 (fidelity assurance))
Paid and supported routes are funded: an £820 million Youth Guarantee package includes six-month paid jobs for young people long on Universal Credit, and Connect to Work has committed funding to 2028–29.
Measured factConfidence: High· December 2025 to 2028–29· Great Britain (Jobs Guarantee); England and Wales (Connect to Work)
Source: DWP and DfE, Almost a million young people to benefit from expanded support, new training and work experience opportunities (Opening paragraph); Department for Work and Pensions, Jobs Guarantee (Jobs Guarantee page); Department for Work and Pensions, Connect to Work: Programme Business Case 2 summary (Paragraph 3.1.2)
What government has committed to
Funding: An additional £1bn announced in March 2026 took total extra investment in the Youth Guarantee and the Growth and Skills Levy to £2.5bn over three years (superseding the £820m package of December 2025). The Jobs Guarantee offers six-month fully funded jobs (up to 25 hours a week) to all eligible 18-24-year-olds on Universal Credit and looking for work for 18 months, expected to support over 90,000 young people over three years; Phase One runs in six areas and national rollout across 25 areas goes live 'later in 2026'.
Who and when:
Starmer government (to July 2026), 16 March 2026.
Since 20 July 2026:
Kept by the Burnham government. Acted on and expanded under Burnham: first Jobs Guarantee starts announced 26 Aug 2026; on 27 Sep 2026 DWP announced an expansion to young people on health benefits from April 2027 (offer from week 13 after a Work Capability Assessment); £2,000 SME apprenticeship hiring payment live from 1 Oct 2026; apprenticeship brokerage extended to all 14 Mayoral Strategic Authorities from spring 2027 (£100m over two years, 28 Sep 2026). No announcement that the national rollout has gone live was found. Source: DWP, Thousands of young disabled people to be offered guaranteed jobs (Paras 4-8: offer from week 13 after Work Capability Assessment; 'will start from April 2027'; £2.5bn over three years).
Source:
DWP / DfE, Major employment drive to help unlock 200,000 new jobs and apprenticeships for next generation (Bullets; para 'These changes are backed by an additional £1bn, taking the total ... to £2.5 billion over the next three years'; 'From the Autumn 2026, we are expanding the Jobs Guarantee to all eligible 18-24 year olds')
Checked 4 October 2026. A commitment is not delivery.
Options (3)
- ShortlistedRun the Jobs Guarantee as real jobs with wraparound support, judged on sustained work
  Six-month paid jobs with support move long-unemployed 18-24s into work; judging on unsubsidised work 12 months later guards against churn back to Universal Credit.
  Who: DWP and Jobs Guarantee delivery partners; employers · Evidence: Synthesis of robust evaluations · Status: Funded programme
  Source: Department for Work and Pensions, Jobs Guarantee (Landing text: 'over 90,000 young people over the next three years'; Phase One live in 6 areas; National Rollout 'will go live later in 2026' across 25 areas)
- Extend the Jobs Guarantee to young people on health benefits as planned from April 2027
  A voluntary guaranteed job after the Work Capability Assessment reaches NEET young people with health conditions who are inactive rather than job-seeking.
  Who: DWP · Evidence: Untested proposal · Status: Announced proposal
  Source: DWP, Thousands of young disabled people to be offered guaranteed jobs (Paras 4-8: offer from week 13 after Work Capability Assessment; 'will start from April 2027'; £2.5bn over three years)
- Use the £2,000 SME apprenticeship hiring payment and mayoral brokerage to add youth apprenticeships
  Paying non-levy employers £2,000 per apprentice aged 16-24 and matching young people to local SMEs lowers the cost of hiring and searching.
  Who: DfE/DWP; Mayoral Strategic Authorities; employers · Evidence: Observational analysis · Status: Funded programme
  Source: Department for Education / DWP, £2,000 boost for small businesses who take on young apprentices (1 October 2026) (Opening bullets; 'Additional information: Apprenticeship Hiring Payment')

What is holding us back Weaknesses

981,000 people aged 16–24 (13.0%) were not in education, employment or training; 588,000 of them were economically inactive rather than looking for work.
Measured factConfidence: High· Apr–Jun 2026· United Kingdom
Source: Office for National Statistics, Young people not in education, employment or training (NEET), UK (Table 1 (seasonally adjusted))
Options assessed against this point: Employer-linked shortage training beyond construction (Amber delivery RAG)
What government has committed to
Funding: Government commits that every young person aged 16-24 should have the opportunity to earn or learn, backed by £2.5bn over three years to support almost one million young people and deliver up to 500,000 opportunities (Youth Guarantee, Youth Jobs Grant of £3,000 per hire, Jobs Guarantee, 50,000 more youth apprenticeships).
Who and when:
Starmer government (to July 2026), 16 March 2026.
Since 20 July 2026:
Kept by the Burnham government. Burnham made youth unemployment a first-speech priority (20 Jul 2026) and added new measures: technical education pathways from age 14 with roll-out ambition from Sept 2028 (27 Jul), Vocational GCSEs from as early as Sept 2029 and a National Mission on Work Experience seeking 200,000 extra placements (23 Sep), Jobs Guarantee expansion to health-benefit claimants from April 2027 (27 Sep). The £2.5bn package was re-stated on 1 Oct 2026. The Milburn review's final report is due later in 2026. Source: DfE, New Vocational GCSEs unveiled in major shake-up to hands-on learning for teens (Paras 1-5: Vocational GCSEs from as early as September 2029; National Mission on Work Experience (additional 200,000 placements)).
Source:
DWP / DfE, Major employment drive to help unlock 200,000 new jobs and apprenticeships for next generation (Bullets; para 'These changes are backed by an additional £1bn, taking the total ... to £2.5 billion over the next three years'; 'From the Autumn 2026, we are expanding the Jobs Guarantee to all eligible 18-24 year olds')
Checked 4 October 2026. A commitment is not delivery.
Options (4)
- ShortlistedMatch routes to barriers for NEET 16-24s: paid jobs, apprenticeships and early identification
  Segmenting NEET young people by barrier and offering a suited route (job, apprenticeship, training) targets the 588,000 who are inactive as well as those job-seeking.
  Who: DWP, DfE, councils (16-17 tracking), employers · Evidence: Synthesis of robust evaluations · Status: Funded programme
  Source: Youth Futures Foundation, Wage subsidies (Youth Employment Toolkit) (Headline: employment 'Low positive impact', 'Emerging' strength; about 3 percentage points 12-24 months later)
- Build technical pathways from age 14 with employer work experience
  Earlier technical routes and work experience aim to stop disengagement before young people leave education.
  Who: DfE with Mayoral Strategic Authorities, schools, colleges, employers · Evidence: Untested proposal · Status: Announced proposal · Works through Education: Earlier technical routes and work experience aim to stop disengagement before young people leave education.
  Source: Prime Minister's Office, 10 Downing Street, PM: 'From today Britain will value the hard hat as much as the graduation cap' (Opening bullets; para 'ambition to begin rolling them out from September 2028')
- Pay employers £3,000 to hire 18-24s six months on Universal Credit (Youth Jobs Grant)
  A hiring subsidy at six months intervenes before long-term unemployment sets in.
  Who: DWP; employers · Evidence: Synthesis of robust evaluations · Status: Funded programme
  Source: DWP, Youth Jobs Grant (Landing text: up to £3,000 per job; opened 30 June 2026)
- Remove practical barriers: childcare and travel costs
  Help with upfront childcare and travel costs lowers the cost of taking a job or course.
  Who: DWP (UC childcare, Flexible Support Fund); DfE; local transport authorities · Evidence: Untested proposal · Status: Established
  Source: GOV.UK, Help with childcare costs: Universal Credit (Page text)
2.78 million people aged 16–64 were economically inactive because of long-term sickness, against 2.08 million at the end of 2019.
Measured factConfidence: High· Oct–Dec 2019 and May–Jul 2026· United Kingdom
Source: Office for National Statistics, Labour Force Survey: economically inactive because of long-term sickness, 16–64 (Series LF69)
Options assessed against this point: Health-linked work support (Amber delivery RAG)
What government has committed to
Funding: Government is investing £3.5bn in employment support for sick or disabled people, including Connect to Work (300,000 people), WorkWell (£259m, up to 250,000 people), over 1,000 Pathways to Work advisers and a 'Right to Try Work' guarantee; the Keep Britain Working programme is building a Workplace Health System with employers.
Who and when:
Burnham government (from 20 July 2026), 23 September 2026.
Since 20 July 2026:
Made by the current government. Re-stated and extended under Burnham: Workplace Health System update and Vanguards (23 Sep 2026); £60m Pathways to Work Innovation Fund opened for bids (1 Oct 2026, closes 26 Oct); Jobs Guarantee to include young people on health benefits from April 2027. Milburn and Timms reviews 'due to conclude later this year'.
Source:
DWP, New plan for Britain's first Workplace Health System (Paras on Vanguards; '£3.5 billion employment support package'; Milburn and Timms reviews 'due to conclude later this year')
Checked 4 October 2026. A commitment is not delivery.
Options (3)
- ShortlistedOffer IPS-based employment support alongside healthcare for people who want work
  Place-then-train support integrated with clinical teams moves people out of sickness inactivity into sustained work.
  Who: DWP/local authorities (Connect to Work); NHS England · Evidence: Experimental or quasi-experimental evaluation · Status: Funded programme · Works through NHS: Place-then-train support integrated with clinical teams moves people out of sickness inactivity into sustained work.
  Source: Department for Work and Pensions, Health-led Employment Trials: evaluation synthesis report (Table 2.1 summary of impacts)
- Prevent exits from work: workplace adjustments and occupational health via Keep Britain Working
  Early adjustments and occupational health stop sickness absence becoming permanent inactivity.
  Who: Employers; DWP (Keep Britain Working, Access to Work) · Evidence: Expert or audit recommendation · Status: Pilot
  Source: DWP / Sir Charlie Mayfield, Keep Britain Working Review: final report (Publication summary; Vanguard phase)
- Test new support through the Pathways to Work Innovation Fund and evaluate before scaling
  Funding trials of new approaches with comparison groups builds evidence on what returns people to work.
  Who: DWP · Evidence: Untested proposal · Status: Funded programme
  Source: DWP, Call for bold new ideas to support disabled people and those with health conditions into work (Opening paras: £60m Pathways to Work Innovation Fund, applications close 26 October 2026)
Access to Work decisions averaged 109 working days in November 2025 against a 25-day target (28 days in 2021–22), with 62,100 applications awaiting a decision at 31 March 2025; the employment rate of disabled people was 29.7 points below that of non-disabled people in mid-2025.
Measured factConfidence: Moderate· March 2022 to November 2025 (processing); Q2 2025 (employment gap)· Great Britain (Access to Work); United Kingdom (employment gap)
Source: National Audit Office, The Access to Work scheme (HC 1644) (Key facts; paragraph 14); Department for Work and Pensions, The employment of disabled people 2025 (Table MSR001)
Options assessed against this point: Timely workplace adjustments for disabled workers (Amber delivery RAG)
What government has committed to
Funding: 480 new Access to Work case managers and caseworkers (a 72% increase) to clear the backlog by September 2027, prioritising people starting work within four weeks.
Who and when:
Starmer government (to July 2026), 19 May 2026.
Since 20 July 2026:
Kept by the Burnham government. Restated by DWP on 2 October 2026 (“nearly 500 additional staff”). The future design of Access to Work (the Pathways to Work options, the grant cap, the delivery model) is unconfirmed since 20 July 2026. Source: Department for Work and Pensions, New report backs government action to help neurodivergent people succeed at work (Bullet on Access to Work staff).
Source:
Department for Work and Pensions, Huge recruitment boost to tackle backlog in vital disability work scheme (Opening paragraphs)
Checked 7 October 2026. A commitment is not delivery.
Options (3)
- ShortlistedSet a decision standard for people in work or starting a job, phased in by region
  Adjustments arrive before a job is lost; phasing lets retention be compared.
  Who: DWP with employers · Evidence: Expert or audit recommendation · Status: External proposal
  Source: National Audit Office, The Access to Work scheme (HC 1644) (Paragraph 19 (recommendations)); Department for Work and Pensions (NatCen), Journeys to Access to Work (RR1136) (Summary of findings)
- Clear the Access to Work backlog with extra staff by September 2027
  More caseworkers cut waits for everyone.
  Who: DWP · Evidence: Untested proposal · Status: Announced proposal
  Source: Department for Work and Pensions, Huge recruitment boost to tackle backlog in vital disability work scheme (Opening paragraphs)
- Hold employers to the duty to make reasonable adjustments
  Many adjustments are the employer’s legal duty and need no public grant.
  Who: Employers; tribunals · Evidence: Untested proposal · Status: Established
  Source: legislation.gov.uk, Equality Act 2010, section 20 (duty to make adjustments) (Section 20(3)–(5) and (7))
About 445,000 jobs were paid below the legal minimum in 2025 (382,000 in 2024), while HMRC identified arrears for 25,200 workers in 2024/25. The underpayment figure is a survey estimate, not proven non-compliance.
Measured factConfidence: Moderate· 2024 to 2025 (underpayment); 2024/25 (enforcement)· United Kingdom
Source: Low Pay Commission, Low Pay Commission Report 2025 (Table 9.1); Department for Business and Trade, National minimum wage enforcement and compliance report 2024 to 2025 (pp.4–6); Office for National Statistics, Low and high pay in the UK: 2025 (Main points (“not a measure of non-compliance”))
Options assessed against this point: Work that pays (Amber delivery RAG)
What government has committed to
Legislation: The Employment Rights Act 2025 created the Fair Work Agency, which took statutory responsibility for minimum-wage enforcement from 7 April 2026 (HMRC delivers it under contract until April 2027); the National Living Wage rose to £12.71 in April 2026.
Who and when:
Starmer government (to July 2026), 18 December 2025.
Since 20 July 2026:
Kept by the Burnham government. The naming round went ahead on 3 September 2026 and further provisions were commenced on 1 October 2026; the April 2027 rate awaits the Low Pay Commission’s recommendation. Source: Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade, Short-changing staff isn’t a shortcut to success: nearly 660 employers announced as failing to pay the minimum wage (Opening paragraphs (first naming round since the Fair Work Agency was set up)).
Source:
legislation.gov.uk, Employment Rights Act 2025 (c. 36) (Part 5)
Checked 7 October 2026. A commitment is not delivery.
Options (4)
- ShortlistedTarget enforcement at the sectors with most underpayment and evaluate it
  Inspections where underpayment is commonest recover more and may deter more.
  Who: Fair Work Agency with HMRC · Evidence: Observational analysis · Status: External proposal
  Source: Department for Business and Trade, National minimum wage enforcement and compliance report 2024 to 2025 (pp.4–6)
- Keep raising the National Living Wage towards two-thirds of median pay
  A higher floor lifts the lowest-paid; the Low Pay Commission finds recent rises have not significantly cut jobs.
  Who: UK government on Low Pay Commission advice · Evidence: Observational analysis · Status: Established
  Source: Department for Business and Trade, LPC recommendations take the National Living Wage to £12.71 (Opening paragraphs); Low Pay Commission, Low Pay Commission Report 2025 (Executive summary paragraphs 11–14)
- Name employers who underpay
  Public naming adds a reputational penalty.
  Who: BIST and the Fair Work Agency · Evidence: Untested proposal · Status: Established
  Source: Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade, Short-changing staff isn’t a shortcut to success: nearly 660 employers announced as failing to pay the minimum wage (Opening paragraphs)
- Offer in-work progression support to people on Universal Credit
  Coaching helps low-paid workers raise hours or pay.
  Who: DWP · Evidence: Experimental or quasi-experimental evaluation · Status: External proposal
  Source: Department for Work and Pensions, Universal Credit: in-work progression randomised controlled trial (Summary p.5)

What could improve things Opportunities

Match the route to the barrier: paid jobs and apprenticeships for young people ready to work, and health-linked support for people out of work through ill health.
Depends on: Support stays voluntary, placements are real jobs with training, and success is judged on sustained work 6–12 months later rather than starts.
Our synthesisConfidence: Moderate
Source: Department for Work and Pensions, Health-led Employment Trials: evaluation synthesis report (Summary “Main findings”); Youth Futures Foundation, Apprenticeships (Youth Employment Toolkit) (Headline panel)
Options assessed against this point: Health-linked work support (Amber delivery RAG); Employer-linked shortage training beyond construction (Amber delivery RAG)
What government has committed to
Target: Government has a long-term ambition to achieve an 80% employment rate, pursued by bringing down economic inactivity through a new jobs and careers service, joined-up work, health and skills support and a Youth Guarantee.
Who and when:
Starmer government (to July 2026), 26 November 2024.
Since 20 July 2026:
Not confirmed either way since the change of Prime Minister on 20 July 2026. No re-statement of the 80% ambition found on gov.uk or in written answers since 20 Jul 2026. The routes it relies on were acted on under Burnham (Jobs Guarantee starts, Connect to Work business case, Workplace Health System), so the approach of matching support to barrier continues.
Source:
DWP, DfE and DHSC, Get Britain Working White Paper (Executive summary para 2; Box 1 'A bold, long-term ambition to reach an 80% employment rate')
Checked 4 October 2026. A commitment is not delivery.
Options (3)
- ShortlistedPaid jobs and apprenticeships for young people ready to work
  Matches the job-ready group to paid routes judged on sustained work.
  Who: DWP, DfE, employers · Evidence: Synthesis of robust evaluations · Status: Funded programme
  Source: Department for Work and Pensions, Jobs Guarantee (Landing text: 'over 90,000 young people over the next three years'; Phase One live in 6 areas; National Rollout 'will go live later in 2026' across 25 areas)
- ShortlistedHealth-linked IPS support for people out of work through ill health
  Matches the health-barrier group to integrated employment support.
  Who: DWP and NHS · Evidence: Experimental or quasi-experimental evaluation · Status: Funded programme · Works through NHS: Matches the health-barrier group to integrated employment support.
  Source: Department for Work and Pensions, Connect to Work: Programme Business Case 2 summary (Executive summary; paras 2.1.5, 3.1.1-3.1.2, 4.3 (fidelity assurance))
- Keep support voluntary and publish sustained-work outcomes at 6-12 months
  Judging programmes on sustained work rather than starts tests the item's condition.
  Who: DWP · Evidence: Expert or audit recommendation · Status: Site-editorial action
  Source: Youth Futures Foundation, Wage subsidies (Youth Employment Toolkit) (Headline: employment 'Low positive impact', 'Emerging' strength; about 3 percentage points 12-24 months later)

What could make it worse Threats

Gains are modest and fragile: Kickstart left an extra 11 in every 100 participants in unsubsidised work two years on, and weak employer demand, poor placements or diluted delivery could cut that further.
Risk, not a certaintyConfidence: Moderate
Source: Department for Work and Pensions, Kickstart Scheme: a quantitative impact assessment (Executive summary: key findings); Youth Futures Foundation, Apprenticeships (Youth Employment Toolkit) (Limitations); Centre for Mental Health, Investment priorities for mental health 2025 (PDF pp.22–23 (fidelity of IPS))
What government has committed to
No commitment found. No published government commitment was found to judge the Jobs Guarantee or Youth Guarantee on sustained unsubsidised work 6-12 months after placements, or to publish an impact evaluation of the Jobs Guarantee against a comparison group. Connect to Work has an impact evaluation commitment (PBC2), with annual summaries 'not for publication'.
Searched: gov.uk search API (DWP/HMT/No10 news since 20 Jul 2026: 'jobs guarantee', 'youth guarantee', 'Connect to Work', '80% employment rate'); No10 news list; parliament written-questions API (answeredWhenFrom 2026-07-20, '"employment rate"', '"80% employment rate"'); Jobs Guarantee guidance landing page
Checked 4 October 2026. A commitment is not delivery.
Options (3)
- ShortlistedCommission a Jobs Guarantee impact evaluation with a comparison group before full scale-up
  Measuring unsubsidised work 12 months after the subsidy ends shows whether gains exceed Kickstart's +11 per 100.
  Who: DWP · Evidence: Experimental or quasi-experimental evaluation · Status: External proposal
  Source: Department for Work and Pensions, Kickstart Scheme: a quantitative impact assessment (Executive summary: key findings)
- ShortlistedRecruit employers with real vacancies and screen placement quality
  Placements that are real jobs with training are more likely to lead to retained employment, reducing the dilution risk.
  Who: DWP delivery partners; employers · Evidence: Synthesis of robust evaluations · Status: Funded programme
  Source: Youth Futures Foundation, Wage subsidies (Youth Employment Toolkit) (Headline: employment 'Low positive impact', 'Emerging' strength; about 3 percentage points 12-24 months later)
- Hold health-linked support to fidelity reviews
  Annual IPS fidelity reviews reduce the risk that diluted delivery cuts the modest trial effect.
  Who: DWP; Social Finance/BASE fidelity assurance · Evidence: Experimental or quasi-experimental evaluation · Status: Funded programme
  Source: Department for Work and Pensions, Connect to Work: Programme Business Case 2 summary (Executive summary; paras 2.1.5, 3.1.1-3.1.2, 4.3 (fidelity assurance))

The actions worth examining

Our shortlist for this page. Research quality, policy status, cost and funding are judged separately; none of these is government policy unless its status says so.Our shortlist. None is government policy unless its status says so.

Offer evidence-based employment support alongside healthcare — indicative costing / partial funding
Target minimum-wage enforcement where underpayment is highest, and test whether it works — not yet costed / funding not identified
Get Access to Work decisions made in weeks for people at risk of leaving work — not yet costed / funding not identified

And 1 more in the full list.

Action 1A09Policy status: funded programme
Offer evidence-based employment support alongside healthcare
Individual Placement and Support puts an employment specialist alongside health services to find matched work quickly and keep supporting the person once they start.
The thread: issue, evidence, action
1. Issue Weakness: 2.78 million people aged 16–64 were economically inactive because of long-term sickness, against 2.08 million at the end of 2019. Also: opportunity, strength
2. Evidence Economically inactive because of long-term sickness, aged 16–64
3. Action A09, this action
Assessment (draft, 6 October review)
- This action: Health-linked work support
  Delivery RAG: AmberGate: pending
  Range if completed: 17.0–20.0 out of 30 (equal weights; not yet assessed: incremental affordability (Co))
  National plan: Growth and prosperity list
Who decides:
DWP and local authority delivery areas (Connect to Work), with NHS commissioners (England and Wales)
Evidence:
Experimental or quasi-experimental evaluation. Randomised trials of an adapted model found modest effects that varied by place; evidence is strongest for severe mental illness, a different group.
Expected effect:
+4 percentage points (22% vs 18%): working 13 or more weeks in the year after joining (out-of-work participants) (West Midlands Combined Authority). No effect for out-of-work participants in Sheffield City Region, and no effect on earnings at 12 months. 2 more results in “What it takes”.
Cost and funding
£1.03bn in total, 2025–26 to 2028–29, cash (nominal) prices; 2 further cost lines, some not yet costed
Funding: Indicative costing / partial funding
Why it is shortlisted here: Long-term sickness keeps more people out of work than before 2020; the best-evidenced support is already funded through Connect to Work and must be held to fidelity.
What it takes
The problem
People with health conditions who want to work often get employment help that is separate from their care and does not stay with them in work.
Who is affected, and where
Adults with health conditions or disabilities who want to work, in England and Wales. Territory: England and Wales. Connect to Work covers England and Wales; Scotland and Northern Ireland run their own employment support.
Policy status
A funded programme already exists. Connect to Work has taken referrals since April 2025 and aims to support about 300,000 people by 2029/30; IPS also operates in NHS mental health services. The proposal here is to hold it to fidelity and integrate it with care, not to start something new.
The evidence
What the research found:
Working 13+ weeks in a year: +4 percentage points for out-of-work participants in the West Midlands; +3 points for people in work in Sheffield City Region (weaker evidence); no effect for out-of-work participants there; no earnings effect at 12 months; small health gains in Sheffield City Region only.
Evaluated on:
9,785 adults with mild to moderate health conditions, in or out of work; Sheffield City Region and West Midlands, 2018–2020
Transfer to this case:
Results for severe mental illness or for one area should not be assumed for all economically inactive people.
Our recommendation (separate from the research):
Keep delivery at fidelity, integrate it with NHS care, and judge it by sustained work and health, not referrals or starts.
Strongest counter-evidence:
One of three trial groups saw no employment effect and the Exchequer return within a year was 1–2p per £1; benefits were mainly in health and wellbeing, and only in one area.
Effects on record
- Working 13 or more weeks in the year after joining (out-of-work participants): +4 percentage points (22% vs 18%) (randomised control group receiving usual support; 12 months after randomisation, 2018–2020; significant at the 99% level; no interval published). evaluated, moderate confidence; West Midlands Combined Authority. No effect for out-of-work participants in Sheffield City Region, and no effect on earnings at 12 months.
- Working 13 or more weeks in the year after joining (people in work but struggling): +3 percentage points (randomised control group; 12 months after randomisation, 2018–2020; significant only at the 90% level; no interval published). evaluated, limited confidence; Sheffield City Region. Weaker evidence than the West Midlands result.
- Self-reported health (EQ-5D-5L) at 12 months: +0.10 standard deviations (randomised control group; 12 months after randomisation; significant at the 90% level (99% when Sheffield groups are pooled); no effect in the West Midlands). evaluated, limited confidence; Sheffield City Region. Small; not found in the West Midlands. Not evidence of reduced NHS demand.
Cost and funding
Cost completeness: Partly costed. Funding: Indicative costing / partial funding.
- Connect to Work grant and programme costs, 2025–26 to 2028–29 (recurring spending; paid by central government): £1.03bn in total, 2025–26 to 2028–29, cash (nominal) prices. Sum of the four years in the revised business case. Excludes £15.5m spent in 2023–24 and 2024–25.
- Connect to Work costs, 2029–30 to 2031–32 (recurring spending; paid by central government): £134.4m in total, 2029–30 to 2031–32, cash (nominal) prices. Sum of the last three years in the revised business case.
- NHS clinical integration, referral and supervision for IPS (recurring spending; paid by NHS): Not yet costed. Not in the DWP business case. An older national IPS price is not a current rollout budget.
- Autumn Budget 2024 and Spending Review 2025 settlements for Connect to Work: £1.09bn, 2025–26 to 2028–29 — committed (allocated to this scope). £114m for 2025–26 plus £978m for 2026–27 to 2028–29. The business case says funding and costs differ because volume forecasts changed.
- Connect to Work funding to be requested at a future Spending Review: £138m, 2029–30 to 2031–32 — not committed (no allocation). “Will be requested in a future Spending Review.”
Who pays:
DWP for Connect to Work grants; the NHS for clinical integration and IPS in mental health services.
Financing proposed:
£138m for 2029–30 onwards is to be requested at a future Spending Review.
Gap remaining:
Connect to Work is funded to 2028–29; the later years are not committed and the NHS-side integration cost is not established.
What delivery needs
Skills:
Trained employment specialists and supervisors.
Operational capacity:
NHS referral routes and fidelity reviews.
Infrastructure:
None beyond services.
Permissions:
Data sharing between health and employment services.
Law:
No new law.
Public consent:
Voluntary for participants.
First step and stages
First step: Select the eligible group, service standard and an existing capacity gap in one area. (owner: DWP delivery areas and NHS commissioners)
1. Recruit and train to fidelity — Connect to Work delivery areas (proposed stage, not an official timetable)
2. Refer and support into work — Providers with NHS teams (proposed stage, not an official timetable)
3. Measure sustained work and health from payroll and survey data — DWP (proposed stage, not an official timetable)
Depends on: NHS capacity to refer and integrate; Employer vacancies
Trade-offs
Who gains and who loses:
Gains for participants who find suitable work; intensive support per person means fewer people reached.
What else the money or effort could do:
The same money could fund less intensive support for more people, or health services directly.
Strongest counterargument:
Trial effects were modest and inconsistent; scaling may dilute fidelity further.
Risks:
Unsuitable jobs, pressure on people who are not ready, and over-claiming benefit savings.
How we would judge it
Baseline:
Economic inactivity due to long-term sickness (ONS Labour Force Survey).
Leading indicator:
Programme starts and the share in paid work within 12 months.
Outcome:
Employment sustained 6–12 months later (HMRC payroll data), job quality and health.
Continue, adapt or stop:
Continue where sustained work beats a matched comparison; adapt or stop where it does not.
Earlier option on this page
This card replaces the option “Health-related employment support (Individual Placement and Support)” (operating: Connect to Work: referrals since April 2025; updated business case approved March 2026.). Its evidence: IPS is well evidenced for people with severe mental illness in secondary care. A UK randomised trial in primary and community care (9,785 people, 2018–19) found a 4 percentage point rise in working 13+ weeks in a year for out-of-work participants in the West Midlands, a smaller effect for people in work in Sheffield City Region, and none for out-of-work participants there; no earnings effect at 12 months. DWP, Health-led Employment Trials: evaluation synthesis report (April 2023) · DWP, Connect to Work: Programme Business Case 2 summary (July 2026)
Sources
- Department for Work and Pensions, Health-led Employment Trials: evaluation synthesis report, Synthesis report Table 2.1 (2023-04; relevant passages checked)
- Department for Work and Pensions, Connect to Work: Programme Business Case 2 summary, Section 3.1, Table 9 (2026-07-30; full text checked)
- Centre for Mental Health, Investment priorities for mental health 2025 (2025-05-07; full text checked)
- Department for Work and Pensions, Health-led Employment Trials: evaluation synthesis report, Table 2.1 (Sheffield City Region out-of-work group) (2023-04; relevant passages checked)
Source published April 2023 (trials); July 2026 (business case); evidence reviewed 2026-10-04. Reconsider if: Connect to Work impact evaluation results; The next Spending Review; New trials in different populations.
Also on: NHS, Economy, Benefits — one shared record, so its cost is counted once.
Action 2A65Policy status: external proposal
Target minimum-wage enforcement where underpayment is highest, and test whether it works
The Fair Work Agency targets inspections and arrears recovery at the sectors and employers where underpayment is most common, and measures whether underpayment falls there relative to elsewhere.
The thread: issue, evidence, action
Assessment (draft, 6 October review)
- This action: Work that pays
  Delivery RAG: AmberGate: pending
  Range if completed: 14.0–23.0 out of 30 (equal weights; not yet assessed: increment beyond baseline (Ad), expected incremental benefit (Bn), incremental affordability (Co))
  National plan: Equality and opportunity list
Who decides:
The Fair Work Agency (BIST), with HMRC delivering minimum-wage enforcement until April 2027 (UK)
Evidence:
Observational analysis. Underpayment is measured by survey; enforcement recovers arrears, but no evaluation of deterrence or recovery exists; evidence on wage floors themselves shows little employment loss but is a different question.
Expected effect:
Direction plausible; size not established.
Cost and funding
Not yet costed
Funding: Not yet costed / funding not identified
Why it is shortlisted here: The national work-that-pays option (Equality list), narrowed to its evidenced part: about 445,000 jobs are paid below the minimum, and enforcement has never been evaluated; targeting and testing it is the bounded change. Youth support stays with A08.
What it takes
The problem
About 445,000 jobs were paid below the legal minimum in 2025, but HMRC identified arrears for 25,200 workers in 2024/25 and there is no evaluation of whether enforcement deters underpayment.
Who is affected, and where
Workers entitled to the National Minimum or Living Wage across the UK, starting with sectors where survey estimates show the most underpayment. Territory: UK. The minimum wage applies UK-wide; in Northern Ireland workers complain through the Labour Relations Agency. The Fair Work Agency’s remit beyond the minimum wage in Northern Ireland was not verified.
Policy status
Proposed by researchers or others, not government policy. Baseline: the National Living Wage of £12.71 from April 2026; the Fair Work Agency established on 7 April 2026; HMRC enforcement (budget £31.5m in 2024/25) and naming rounds continuing (September 2026). Targeted enforcement with an evaluation of deterrence is a UK Facts proposal, not government policy.
The evidence
What the research found:
Underpayment was estimated at 445,000 jobs in 2025 (382,000 in 2024); HMRC identified £5.8m of arrears for 25,200 workers in 2024/25. The Low Pay Commission judges recent rises have not significantly harmed employment.
Evaluated on:
Jobs at or below the minimum wage in the UK (Low Pay Commission analysis of ASHE); United Kingdom, 2024–2025
Transfer to this case:
ASHE-based underpayment is not proven non-compliance; enforcement effects are not established.
Our recommendation (separate from the research):
Direct inspections at the sectors with the most estimated underpayment, publish arrears and repeat offending by sector, and compare underpayment trends in targeted sectors with others.
Strongest counter-evidence:
Survey estimates overstate true underpayment, and targeting may shift rather than reduce it.
Cost and funding
Cost completeness: Not yet costed. Funding: Not yet costed / funding not identified.
Who pays:
Central government (BIST); employers found underpaying through arrears and penalties.
Financing proposed:
Within the Fair Work Agency’s budget; not identified.
Gap remaining:
Unknown: the Fair Work Agency’s budget and the cost of targeted inspection and evaluation.
What delivery needs
Skills:
Inspectors.
Operational capacity:
Transfer of about 500 HMRC staff from April 2027.
Infrastructure:
Case and data systems.
Permissions:
Data sharing with HMRC.
Law:
Employment Rights Act 2025 enforcement powers (commenced April 2026).
Public consent:
None.
First step and stages
First step: The Fair Work Agency publishes estimated underpayment and enforcement activity by sector and sets a targeted inspection plan with a comparison of sectors not targeted. (owner: Fair Work Agency (BIST))
1. Publish underpayment and enforcement by sector — Fair Work Agency (proposed stage, not an official timetable)
2. Target inspections — Fair Work Agency with HMRC (proposed stage, not an official timetable)
3. Compare underpayment trends — Low Pay Commission; Fair Work Agency (proposed stage, not an official timetable)
Depends on: Staff transfer from HMRC; ASHE underpayment estimates
Trade-offs
Who gains and who loses:
Low-paid workers in sectors such as hospitality, retail and care.
What else the money or effort could do:
Inspector time spent on targeted sectors is not available for complaints elsewhere.
Strongest counterargument:
Complaint-led enforcement may find the worst cases faster.
Risks:
Shifting underpayment between sectors; measuring arrears rather than compliance.
How we would judge it
Baseline:
2025: about 445,000 jobs paid below the minimum (LPC); 2024/25: £5.8m arrears for 25,200 workers.
Leading indicator:
Inspections and arrears in targeted sectors.
Outcome:
Estimated underpayment in targeted sectors against others.
Continue, adapt or stop:
Continue targeting where estimated underpayment falls faster than in other sectors.
Sources
- Low Pay Commission, Low Pay Commission Report 2025, Table 9.1; executive summary paragraphs 11–14 (2026-02-02; relevant passages checked)
- Department for Business and Trade, National minimum wage enforcement and compliance report 2024 to 2025, pp.4–6 (2025-11-05; relevant passages checked)
- Office for National Statistics, Low and high pay in the UK: 2025, Main points (“not a measure of non-compliance”) (2025-10-23; relevant passages checked)
Source published 2 February 2026 (LPC); 5 November 2025 (DBT enforcement); 23 October 2025 (ONS); evidence reviewed 2026-10-07. Reconsider if: The Low Pay Commission’s enforcement report (later in 2026); ONS low pay statistics for April 2026; The April 2027 minimum wage rates.
Action 3A73Policy status: external proposal
Get Access to Work decisions made in weeks for people at risk of leaving work
A fast route for people already in work or starting a job, with a defined decision standard and clear employer duties, gets adjustments in place before a job is lost.
The thread: issue, evidence, action
Assessment (draft, 6 October review)
- This action: Timely workplace adjustments for disabled workers
  Delivery RAG: AmberGate: pending
  Range if completed: 16.0–22.0 out of 30 (equal weights; not yet assessed: expected incremental benefit (Bn), incremental affordability (Co))
  National plan: Related option, assessed separately
Who decides:
Department for Work and Pensions, with employers (Equality Act 2010 s.20 duty to make reasonable adjustments) (Great Britain)
Evidence:
Expert or audit recommendation. The NAO finds DWP does not know whether the scheme provides value for money and recommends building evaluation in; qualitative research describes harms from delays; no study estimates the effect of faster adjustments on staying in work.
Expected effect:
Direction plausible; size not established.
Cost and funding
Not yet costed
Funding: Not yet costed / funding not identified
Why it is shortlisted here: The workplace-adjustments option (related to work that pays, NE2): Access to Work decisions take months and some people lose work while they wait; a decision standard for in-work cases, phased in by region, is the bounded test. It builds on the adjustments option card, which stays.
Builds on the option Workplace adjustments and support to stay in work compared below.
What it takes
The problem
Disabled people wait months for Access to Work decisions — 109 working days on average in November 2025 against a 25-day target — and some work without support, cut their hours or lose work while they wait.
Who is affected, and where
Disabled people in Great Britain applying to Access to Work who are in work or have a job offer, starting with those at risk of leaving work while they wait. Territory: Great Britain. Northern Ireland runs a separate Access to Work (NI) scheme through the Department for Communities; not assessed.
Policy status
Proposed by researchers or others, not government policy. Funded baseline: Access to Work (£320.7m on provision in 2024–25) and 480 extra case managers and caseworkers to clear the backlog by September 2027 (May 2026; restated 2 October 2026). A defined decision standard for in-work cases, tested with a comparison, is a UK Facts proposal, not government policy.
The evidence
What the research found:
Waits of weeks to months meant working without support, temporary adjustments or reduced hours, and some self-employed applicants lost work; 62,100 applications were awaiting a decision at 31 March 2025.
Evaluated on:
Access to Work applicants and employers (90 applicant and 26 employer interviews); the scheme as audited; Great Britain, 2024–2026
Our recommendation (separate from the research):
Set a decision standard for in-work and job-start cases, publish processing times as statistics, and compare job retention at six months for fast-tracked applicants with similar applicants before the standard applies.
Strongest counter-evidence:
There is no counterfactual estimate that faster decisions keep people in work; much of the benefit may depend on employers, who are often unsure of their own duties.
Cost and funding
Cost completeness: Not yet costed. Funding: Not yet costed / funding not identified.
Who pays:
DWP (within its departmental budget, so overspends are met from other DWP budgets); employers for reasonable adjustments.
Financing proposed:
Within DWP’s administration budget; not identified.
Gap remaining:
Unknown: no cost per adjustment delivered or per job retained, and the cost of the 480 extra staff is not published.
What delivery needs
Skills:
Assessors and case managers.
Operational capacity:
Backlog clearance by September 2027.
Infrastructure:
Case management systems that can publish processing times.
Permissions:
None.
Law:
None new.
Public consent:
Employer cooperation.
First step and stages
First step: DWP publishes processing times as official statistics and sets a decision standard for in-work and job-start cases, phased in by region so retention can be compared. (owner: DWP)
1. Publish processing times as statistics — DWP (proposed stage, not an official timetable)
2. Phase in the decision standard by region — DWP (proposed stage, not an official timetable)
3. Compare job retention at six months — DWP (evaluation) (proposed stage, not an official timetable)
Depends on: Backlog clearance; The Pathways to Work decision on the future Access to Work model
Trade-offs
Who gains and who loses:
Aimed at disabled workers at risk of leaving work, including deaf and neurodivergent people who rely on support workers.
What else the money or effort could do:
Prioritising in-work cases could lengthen waits for others.
Strongest counterargument:
Employers already hold the legal duty; faster public support may substitute for adjustments employers should make.
Risks:
Shifting delay to other applicants; measuring decisions rather than adjustments in place.
How we would judge it
Baseline:
November 2025: 109 working days average processing time against a 25-day target (NAO); disability employment gap 29.7 points in Q2 2025.
Leading indicator:
Working days from application to decision for in-work cases.
Outcome:
Share still in work six months after applying, against comparison regions.
Continue, adapt or stop:
Keep the standard where retention rises without longer waits for other applicants.
Sources
- National Audit Office, The Access to Work scheme (HC 1644), Key facts; paragraphs 8, 14 and 19 (2026-02-06; relevant passages checked)
- Department for Work and Pensions (NatCen), Journeys to Access to Work (RR1136), Summary of findings (2026-06-25; relevant passages checked)
- National Audit Office, The Access to Work scheme (HC 1644), Paragraph 8 (no quantitative assessment of effectiveness) (2026-02-06; relevant passages checked)
Source published 6 February 2026 (NAO); 25 June 2026 (NatCen); 19 May 2026 (DWP); evidence reviewed 2026-10-07. Reconsider if: Access to Work statistics to March 2026 (29 October 2026); The Timms and Milburn reviews; A decision on the Pathways to Work consultation.
Action 4A08Policy status: funded programme
Build paid routes into work for excluded young people
Pair paid work — a fully subsidised six-month job or a foundation apprenticeship — with preparation, travel or other tailored support and employers offering real vacancies, so that young people move into jobs or training they keep.
The thread: issue, evidence, action
1. Issue Weakness: 981,000 people aged 16–24 (13.0%) were not in education, employment or training; 588,000 of them were economically inactive rather than looking for work. Also: threat, opportunity, strength
2. Evidence Young people aged 16–24 not in education, employment or training; Unemployment rate, aged 16–24
3. Action A08, this action
Assessment (draft, 6 October review)
Not assessed in the 6 October review; this action stays in the topic plan with its own evidence.
Who decides:
DWP (Jobs Guarantee, Youth Hubs) and DfE with Skills England (apprenticeships), with employers, colleges and local delivery partners (Great Britain)
Evidence:
Experimental or quasi-experimental evaluation. A matched comparison of Kickstart and an earlier synthesis of apprenticeship studies both find modest employment gains; neither tests the Jobs Guarantee group, who have been out of work longer.
Expected effect:
+11 per 100: unsubsidised employment two years after starting a subsidised job (Kickstart) (Great Britain). Evidence from Kickstart, an earlier scheme for a less disadvantaged group; the Jobs Guarantee has not been evaluated.
Cost and funding
£820m in total, Announced 6 December 2025; the announcement gives no years, price basis not stated by the source; 1 further cost line, some not yet costed
Funding: Programme funding exists; project allocation unconfirmed
Why it is shortlisted here: Nearly one in eight young people are NEET; paid routes are funded and the question is whether they reach the right young people and lead to work that lasts.
What it takes
The problem
Most young people not in education, employment or training are economically inactive rather than looking for work, and many face health or other barriers that a job offer alone does not fix.
Who is affected, and where
Young people aged 16–24 not in education, employment or training: 18–24-year-olds long on Universal Credit (Jobs Guarantee, Great Britain) and 16–21-year-olds starting foundation apprenticeships (England). Territory: Great Britain. The Jobs Guarantee covers Great Britain (phase one included areas in Scotland and Wales); apprenticeships are devolved, and foundation apprenticeships are England only.
Policy status
A funded programme already exists. The £820 million Youth Guarantee package (December 2025) funds the Jobs Guarantee: six-month paid jobs of 25 hours a week, with wages paid in full by DWP, for 18–24-year-olds who have been on Universal Credit and looking for work for 18 months. Phase one runs in six areas; the national rollout goes live later in 2026 and DWP expects to support over 90,000 young people over three years. Foundation apprenticeships for 16–21-year-olds began in England on 1 August 2025, with an employer incentive of up to £2,000. On 27 September 2026 the Burnham government said the Jobs Guarantee will be offered, on a voluntary basis, to eligible young people on health benefits from April 2027. The proposal is to match routes to barriers and judge them on sustained work — not a new scheme.
The evidence
What the research found:
DWP estimates that for every 100 Kickstart participants an extra 11 were in unsubsidised employment two years later, compared with a similar group; the Exchequer recovered 27p per £1 spent at two years (£1.18 counting all benefits). The Youth Futures Foundation rates apprenticeships as having a high positive impact on employment — about 10 more young people in work per 100 at 12–24 months — but the evidence as “emerging”, the cost as high, and notes very few studies.
Evaluated on:
Kickstart starters aged 16–24 on Universal Credit (March 2021 to January 2022) compared with similar eligible non-starters; young NEET apprentices in mainly international studies.; Great Britain, 2021–2024 (Kickstart); international studies (apprenticeships)
Transfer to this case:
Jobs Guarantee participants have been on Universal Credit for 18 months — a harder-to-help group than most Kickstart starters.
Our recommendation (separate from the research):
Segment young people by barrier, recruit employers with real vacancies before commissioning places, and judge each route on sustained work or learning 6–12 months after support ends.
Strongest counter-evidence:
Subsidised jobs can displace unsubsidised hiring and favour the young people easiest to help; apprenticeship evidence is thin and covers employment only, not education, training or wellbeing.
Effects on record
- Unsubsidised employment two years after starting a subsidised job (Kickstart): +11 per 100 (a matched group of eligible young people who did not start a placement; Starts March 2021 to January 2022; outcomes at two years; Matched comparison, not randomised; no interval in the executive summary). evaluated, moderate confidence; Great Britain. Evidence from Kickstart, an earlier scheme for a less disadvantaged group; the Jobs Guarantee has not been evaluated.
- Employment 12–24 months after an apprenticeship (NEET young people): Direction plausible; size not established. evaluated, limited confidence; International studies. The toolkit reports about 10 more in work per 100 but rates the evidence “emerging” from few studies, so no size is plotted here.
Cost and funding
Cost completeness: Published programme envelope; project costs still needed. Funding: Programme funding exists; project allocation unconfirmed.
- Youth Guarantee package (programme envelope), including the Jobs Guarantee (recurring spending; paid by central government): £820m in total, Announced 6 December 2025; the announcement gives no years, price basis not stated by the source. A package total covering several strands, not the cost of a sustained job. Jobs Guarantee national rollout grants are £2,150–£2,650 per participant for support on top of the wage subsidy (DWP grant guidance, June 2026). The same guidance’s ministerial foreword says a further £1bn was added in March 2026 over the spending review period (youth employment programmes with the Growth and Skills Levy: £2.5bn over three years); it is not added to this record because no Jobs Guarantee budget line or years are published (P-DWP-NJG-GUIDANCE-2026, foreword).
- Support beyond the grant: travel, health support, employer supervision and evaluation (recurring spending; paid by central government, employers, households): Not yet costed. Employer supervision time and young people’s travel costs are real costs not covered by the subsidy.
- Youth Guarantee package (£820m): £820m — not committed (programme envelope, not a project award). Not an award to any local route.
Who pays:
DWP (wage subsidy and support grants); employers (supervision, and wages after the subsidy ends); the apprenticeship budget and employers for apprenticeships; young people (travel and time).
Financing proposed:
Youth Guarantee funding; the apprenticeship budget and employer incentives.
Gap remaining:
Unknown: the £820 million package has no published years or cost per sustained job, and support beyond the grant (travel, health, supervision) is not costed.
What delivery needs
Skills:
Work coaches, employer liaison staff and mentors.
Operational capacity:
Enough employers offering real jobs and training places.
Infrastructure:
Transport to work, especially in rural areas.
Permissions:
None.
Law:
None.
Public consent:
Voluntary participation; employers willing to take part.
First step and stages
First step: Segment young people by barrier and recruit employers with real vacancies before commissioning places. (owner: DWP and local delivery partners, with DfE)
1. Evaluate phase one against a comparison group — DWP (proposed stage, not an official timetable)
2. National rollout with delivery partners — DWP and delivery partners (proposed stage, not an official timetable)
3. Track sustained work and learning at 6 and 12 months — DWP and DfE (payroll and education records) (proposed stage, not an official timetable)
Depends on: Employer demand for young recruits; Health support for young people with conditions (A09)
Trade-offs
Who gains and who loses:
Gains for young people long out of work; employers receive subsidised labour; the young people furthest from work may not be reached by a job offer.
What else the money or effort could do:
Money spent on the longest-unemployed is not spent on earlier prevention or on health support.
Strongest counterargument:
Subsidised placements add modestly and may displace other hires; many NEET young people need health or caring support before a job.
Risks:
Cream-skimming, poor-quality placements, displacement of unsubsidised jobs and counting starts as success.
How we would judge it
Baseline:
NEET rate, 16–24 (ONS NEET Table 1).
Leading indicator:
Starts, and the share still in the job or apprenticeship at six months.
Outcome:
Unsubsidised work or learning 12 months after support ends, against a comparison group; earnings and wellbeing.
Continue, adapt or stop:
Expand routes whose participants beat a comparison group at 12 months; redesign or stop those whose participants return to Universal Credit at the same rate.
Earlier option on this page
This card replaces the option “Sustained youth pathways: guaranteed jobs, training and early support” (funded: Youth Guarantee package of £820 million announced December 2025. Jobs Guarantee phase one in six areas from spring 2026 (none in Hampshire); national rollout later in 2026, expected to support over 90,000 young people over three years (DWP, updated September 2026).). Its evidence: The closest UK evaluation is Kickstart (2020–22, subsidised six-month jobs for 16–24-year-olds on Universal Credit): DWP estimated that for every 100 participants an extra 11 were in unsubsidised work two years later. The new Jobs Guarantee targets a harder-to-help group (18 months on Universal Credit) and has not yet been evaluated. DWP, Kickstart Scheme: a quantitative impact assessment (October 2024) · DWP, Jobs Guarantee grant guidance (updated September 2026) · DWP and DfE, Almost a million young people to benefit from expanded support (December 2025)
Sources
- Department for Work and Pensions, Kickstart Scheme: a quantitative impact assessment, Executive summary: key findings and methodology (2024-10-07; relevant passages checked)
- Youth Futures Foundation, Apprenticeships (Youth Employment Toolkit), Headline panel; limitations (2026-08-26; full text checked)
- Department for Work and Pensions, Jobs Guarantee, Jobs Guarantee page (updated 16 September 2026) (2026-01-29 (updated 2026-09-16); relevant passages checked)
- DWP and DfE, Almost a million young people to benefit from expanded support, new training and work experience opportunities, Opening paragraph; Jobs Guarantee paragraph (2025-12-06; full text checked)
- Department for Education, DfE update: further education, 21 May 2025 (foundation apprenticeships), Item 5 (2025-05-21; relevant passages checked)
- Youth Futures Foundation, Apprenticeships (Youth Employment Toolkit), Limitations / about the evidence (2026-08-26; full text checked)
Source published 7 October 2024 (Kickstart); 6 December 2025 (Youth Guarantee); 16 September 2026 (Jobs Guarantee page); evidence reviewed 2026-10-04. Reconsider if: A Jobs Guarantee evaluation; Updated Youth Futures Foundation apprenticeship evidence; A new Spending Review settlement for youth employment.

How the options are assessed

One shared record per option — the same one the national plan reads. Delivery RAG, gate and list membership are separate judgements.

Health-linked work support — Amber delivery RAG; gate pending
Work that pays — Amber delivery RAG; gate pending
Employer-linked shortage training beyond construction — Amber delivery RAG; gate pending
Timely workplace adjustments for disabled workers — Amber delivery RAG; gate pending

Provisional single-reviewer assessments from the 6 October 2026 review; not approved business cases, and not government policy.

A09Delivery RAG: AmberGate: pending
Health-linked work support
Existing action A09, assessed at the same scope.
Provisional single-reviewer assessment; not an approved business case.
Who and where
Adults with health conditions or disabilities who want to work, in England and Wales. (from the action record) Jurisdiction: England and Wales.
Result so far
Range if completed: 17.0–20.0 out of 30 (equal weights; not yet assessed: incremental affordability (Co))
Funded now (baseline)
Connect to Work has taken referrals since April 2025 and aims to support about 300,000 people by 2029/30; IPS also operates in NHS mental health services. The proposal here is to hold it to fidelity and integrate it with care, not to start something new. (from the action record)
The change assessed (marginal)
Fidelity reviews, NHS integration and an impact evaluation inside Connect to Work. (from the superseded 4 October selection table)
- Domain home: Jobs & pay
- In the national plan: Growth and prosperity list
- Previous version: NP3: Put employment support alongside healthcare for people who want to work (4 October 2026 slate, superseded 7 October 2026).
What the evidence supports—and the next decision
Evidence for supported employment is relevant, but it does not establish the additional effect of improving an already commissioned service.
Codex — AI-assisted analytical follow-up · 8 October 2026. Proposed appraisal design; the attributed scores below are unchanged. No funding or delivery agreement is implied.
Define the change
Select a Connect to Work delivery area with a documented fidelity or NHS referral gap. Compare the specified improvement with its funded delivery plan.
Test whether it works
Sustained employment and earnings at 6 and 12 months, health and participant experience; compare eligible participants offered the improvement with a credible comparison group. Record who never enters the service.
Establish the cost
Additional employment-specialist, clinical and supervision hours × loaded rates, plus data and evaluation. Deduct only costs genuinely displaced; never count the whole programme award as a new cost or saving.
Protect against harm
Participation stays voluntary. Monitor selection of easier cases, job quality and health deterioration.
- DWP: Connect to Work grant guidance →
Read with the outcome evidence and sources in the full assessment. Monitoring proposals are not existing baseline measurements. A numerical benefit or cost score needs evidence for the defined increment, not just the scale of the problem.
Full assessment of Health-linked work support: ten criteria, scenarios, delivery, costs and monitoring
The ten criteria (0–3)
Each criterion is scored 0 to 3 by the reviewer. “Not yet assessed” means unknown: it is never counted as zero.
Scale and severity (Sc)3 of 3 — Severe harm across a broad population
Reviewer’s reason: Provisional problem-importance judgement from linked site pages; not the scale of achievable benefit.
Increment beyond baseline (Ad)2 of 3 — Specific material change to existing delivery
Reviewer’s reason: Specify cohort and voluntary offer; secure clinical referrals, trained employment specialists, employer links and linked-data evaluation. A missing rating requires a defined marginal change.
Confidence in the proposed action (Ev)1 of 3 — Indirect, mixed, modelled or weak causal support
Reviewer’s reason: Trials exist, but effects differ by setting; pooled out-of-work groups showed no employment impact. Do not infer a uniform national growth effect.
Expected incremental benefit (Bn)1 of 3 — Small
Reviewer’s reason: Unknown unless a reasonably defined target-population benefit can be judged; no bonus merely for spanning domains.
Reason and score disagree — under review
Residual harms (Hm)2 of 3 — Manageable harm with specified safeguards
Reviewer’s reason: Clinical displacement; unsuitable pressure to work; variable fidelity.
Incremental affordability (Co)Not yet assessed
Reviewer’s reason: Cost integration, staff caseloads, clinical time, data and follow-up against commissioned provision.
Delivery capacity (Ca)1 of 3 — Binding scarce resource
Reviewer’s reason: Specify cohort and voluntary offer; secure clinical referrals, trained employment specialists, employer links and linked-data evaluation.
Distribution (Fa)3 of 3 — Benefits concentrated on disadvantaged people with assessed burdens
Reviewer’s reason: Provisional distribution judgement for the stated target; verify who pays, who gains and excluded groups.
Meaningful first outcome (Ti)2 of 3 — More than one and up to three years
Reviewer’s reason: First meaningful outcome, not announcement: Sustained employment, earnings, health and wellbeing versus a comparator.
Readiness (Rd)2 of 3 — Named commissioning/allocation/coordination step
Reviewer’s reason: DWP, health commissioners and local employment partners; Targeted delivery and evaluation
Four weightings
Normalised as 10 × weighted sum ÷ sum of weights, on a 0–30 scale. Where a criterion is not yet assessed, the range is the lowest and highest result if it were later scored 0 or 3 — not a score, a confidence interval or a rank.
Equal weights: Range if completed: 17.0–20.0 out of 30. Not yet assessed: incremental affordability (Co). Funding gate: not passed.
Evidence doubled: Range if completed: 16.4–19.1 out of 30. Not yet assessed: incremental affordability (Co). Funding gate: not passed.
Scale doubled: Range if completed: 18.2–20.9 out of 30. Not yet assessed: incremental affordability (Co). Funding gate: not passed.
Cost ignored (the funding gate still applies): Range if completed: 18.9–18.9 out of 30. Not yet assessed: incremental affordability (Co). The missing criteria carry no weight here, so the ends meet; the record is still incomplete. Funding gate: not passed.
Funding gate: Not passed — the cost is not yet assessed or no allocation is committed for this scope. Ignoring cost in a weighting never removes the gate.
Delivery RAG and gate
Delivery RAG shown: AmberReview’s claim: Amber. Best the recorded evidence allows: Amber.
Review’s reason: Cost integration, staff caseloads, clinical time, data and follow-up against commissioned provision.
Why it is not Green yet
Scope (population, place and increment) not verified against the delivery baseline.
No verified owner with the powers in place.
Delivery capacity not verified.
Lifetime incremental costs not complete.
No credible funding (a committed allocation for the scope).
Safeguards not specified.
Monitoring lacks a metric, a data source or a baseline.
Green needs verified scope, a verified owner with the powers, verified capacity, complete lifetime costs with credible funding, specified safeguards and monitoring with a metric, source and baseline. Amber means appraisal gaps remain; Red means a material delivery obstacle. Red does not mean unimportant.
Gate: Pending — appraisal incomplete (review label: “Pending: incomplete appraisal”).
Why: Scores incomplete; Funding gate not passed (cost unknown or no credible funding).
The gate is separate from national list membership: being listed does not make an option eligible, and an eligible option need not be listed.
Cost and funding
Lifetime costing: Partial — some lines costed, no whole-life total. Review: “Full incremental costing not established in reviewed material”.
Connect to Work grant and programme costs, 2025–26 to 2028–29 (complete for scope; C-CTW-2025-29)
Connect to Work costs, 2029–30 to 2031–32 (complete for scope; C-CTW-2029-32)
NHS clinical integration, referral and supervision for IPS (not costed; C-A09-NHS)
Still to cost: Cost integration, staff caseloads, clinical time, data and follow-up against commissioned provision.
Funding status: indicative costing or partial funding.
Owner, powers and capacity
Proposed owner: DWP, health commissioners and local employment partners (proposed, unverified).
Powers: needs a decision or allocation. Capacity: binding constraint.
Powers and capacity read from the review’s Rd and Ca anchors; no proposed owner has agreed to act (the review: “Proposed owners have not agreed to act”).
England:
DWP and local authority delivery areas (Connect to Work), with NHS commissioners (action record)
Scotland:
not assessed
Wales:
DWP and local authority delivery areas (Connect to Work), with NHS commissioners (action record)
Northern Ireland:
not assessed
Connect to Work covers England and Wales; Scotland and Northern Ireland run their own employment support.
Dependencies, safeguards and risks
Depends on: None recorded.
Safeguards
None specified yet.
Risks and residual harms: Clinical displacement; unsuitable pressure to work; variable fidelity.
Monitoring and measured results
Metric: Sustained employment, earnings, health and wellbeing versus a comparator.
Data source: Not yet named. Baseline: Not yet established.
Measures already on the domain page
Economically inactive because of long-term sickness, aged 16–64: latest 2.78 million (May–Jul 2026); baseline 2.08 million (Oct–Dec 2019) (United Kingdom).
A page measure is not necessarily the review’s metric; linking the two is an editorial decision still to be made.
Evidence for the outcome
Outcome: Sustained employment, earnings, health and wellbeing versus a comparator.
Trials exist, but effects differ by setting; pooled out-of-work groups showed no employment impact. Do not infer a uniform national growth effect.
Sources: gov.uk (not yet in the source register)
Effect records for this action
Working 13 or more weeks in the year after joining (out-of-work participants): +4 percentage points (22% vs 18%) (evaluated, moderate confidence; West Midlands Combined Authority)
Working 13 or more weeks in the year after joining (people in work but struggling): +3 percentage points (evaluated, limited confidence; Sheffield City Region)
Self-reported health (EQ-5D-5L) at 12 months: +0.10 standard deviations (evaluated, limited confidence; Sheffield City Region)
SWOT points it addresses
2.78 million people aged 16–64 were economically inactive because of long-term sickness, against 2.08 million at the end of 2019.
Health-linked employment support has been tested in large UK randomised trials: for out-of-work participants in the West Midlands it raised the share working 13 weeks or more in a year by 4 percentage points.
Match the route to the barrier: paid jobs and apprenticeships for young people ready to work, and health-linked support for people out of work through ill health.
Review record
Assessment version: working-review-2026-10-06 (A09@working-review-2026-10-06).
Reviewer: Author of the review blueprint (single reviewer, not named in uk-facts-complete-plan.json). Reviewed: 6 October 2026.
Scored in the working review of 6 October 2026 on the shared ten-criterion scale (one reviewer); not independently calibrated.
First 90 days (review): Produce a signed scope and current-delivery baseline; Specify cohort and voluntary offer; secure clinical referrals, trained employment specialists, employer links and linked-data evaluation. Obtain incremental costs and an accountable decision before expansion.
Decision route: Targeted delivery and evaluation
An earlier assessment exists on the 4 October 2026 selection table (nine H/M/L bands; superseded 7 October 2026). Its bands are kept, not converted into these scores.
An editorial screening framework by one reviewer, not a formal appraisal or business case. Proposed owners have not agreed to act.
A65Delivery RAG: AmberGate: pending
Work that pays
Existing action A65, assessed at the same scope.
Provisional single-reviewer assessment; not an approved business case.
Who and where
Workers entitled to the National Minimum or Living Wage across the UK, starting with sectors where survey estimates show the most underpayment. (from the action record) Jurisdiction: UK.
Result so far
Range if completed: 14.0–23.0 out of 30 (equal weights; not yet assessed: increment beyond baseline (Ad), expected incremental benefit (Bn), incremental affordability (Co))
Funded now (baseline)
Baseline: the National Living Wage of £12.71 from April 2026; the Fair Work Agency established on 7 April 2026; HMRC enforcement (budget £31.5m in 2024/25) and naming rounds continuing (September 2026). Targeted enforcement with an evaluation of deterrence is a UK Facts proposal, not government policy. (from the action record)
The change assessed (marginal)
Marginal change not yet defined
- Domain home: Jobs & pay
- In the national plan: Equality and opportunity list
What the evidence supports—and the next decision
Wages, hours, security and in-work support are separate levers; higher gross pay alone does not establish higher disposable income.
Codex — AI-assisted analytical follow-up · 8 October 2026. Proposed appraisal design; the attributed scores below are unchanged. No funding or delivery agreement is implied.
Define the change
Choose a specific employment-standard, enforcement or support change beyond the current legal and funded baseline.
Test whether it works
Disposable income, hours, job retention, security and employer adjustment; report by household type and region.
Establish the cost
Enforcement and support budgets, employer costs, prices, tax and benefit interactions, with employment-response scenarios.
Protect against harm
Watch reduced hours, informal work and loss of opportunities for vulnerable workers; retain accessible redress.
Read with the outcome evidence and sources in the full assessment. Monitoring proposals are not existing baseline measurements. A numerical benefit or cost score needs evidence for the defined increment, not just the scale of the problem.
Full assessment of Work that pays: ten criteria, scenarios, delivery, costs and monitoring
The ten criteria (0–3)
Each criterion is scored 0 to 3 by the reviewer. “Not yet assessed” means unknown: it is never counted as zero.
Scale and severity (Sc)3 of 3 — Severe harm across a broad population
Reviewer’s reason: Provisional problem-importance judgement from linked site pages; not the scale of achievable benefit.
Increment beyond baseline (Ad)Not yet assessed
Reviewer’s reason: Separate wage-floor/enforcement, progression and targeted youth support; specify increment and monitor hours and access. A missing rating requires a defined marginal change.
Confidence in the proposed action (Ev)1 of 3 — Indirect, mixed, modelled or weak causal support
Reviewer’s reason: Minimum-wage and Kickstart evidence address different policies. Existing Youth Guarantee funding cannot settle the additionality of all three.
Expected incremental benefit (Bn)Not yet assessed
Reviewer’s reason: Unknown unless a reasonably defined target-population benefit can be judged; no bonus merely for spanning domains.
Residual harms (Hm)1 of 3 — Material harm/unresolved mitigation
Reviewer’s reason: Reduced hours/hiring in some settings; displacement; inappropriate generalisation.
Incremental affordability (Co)Not yet assessed
Reviewer’s reason: Employer costs and incidence, enforcement, support programme costs and fiscal effects by option.
Delivery capacity (Ca)2 of 3 — Stretched but plausibly obtainable
Reviewer’s reason: Separate wage-floor/enforcement, progression and targeted youth support; specify increment and monitor hours and access.
Distribution (Fa)3 of 3 — Benefits concentrated on disadvantaged people with assessed burdens
Reviewer’s reason: Provisional distribution judgement for the stated target; verify who pays, who gains and excluded groups.
Meaningful first outcome (Ti)2 of 3 — More than one and up to three years
Reviewer’s reason: First meaningful outcome, not announcement: Hourly and weekly pay, hours, sustained employment and progression.
Readiness (Rd)2 of 3 — Named commissioning/allocation/coordination step
Reviewer’s reason: Employment departments, employers, enforcement bodies and skills partners; Split pay, progression and youth support
Four weightings
Normalised as 10 × weighted sum ÷ sum of weights, on a 0–30 scale. Where a criterion is not yet assessed, the range is the lowest and highest result if it were later scored 0 or 3 — not a score, a confidence interval or a rank.
Equal weights: Range if completed: 14.0–23.0 out of 30. Not yet assessed: increment beyond baseline (Ad), expected incremental benefit (Bn), incremental affordability (Co). Funding gate: not passed.
Evidence doubled: Range if completed: 13.6–21.8 out of 30. Not yet assessed: increment beyond baseline (Ad), expected incremental benefit (Bn), incremental affordability (Co). Funding gate: not passed.
Scale doubled: Range if completed: 15.5–23.6 out of 30. Not yet assessed: increment beyond baseline (Ad), expected incremental benefit (Bn), incremental affordability (Co). Funding gate: not passed.
Cost ignored (the funding gate still applies): Range if completed: 15.6–22.2 out of 30. Not yet assessed: increment beyond baseline (Ad), expected incremental benefit (Bn), incremental affordability (Co). Funding gate: not passed.
Funding gate: Not passed — the cost is not yet assessed or no allocation is committed for this scope. Ignoring cost in a weighting never removes the gate.
Delivery RAG and gate
Delivery RAG shown: AmberReview’s claim: Amber. Best the recorded evidence allows: Amber.
Review’s reason: Employer costs and incidence, enforcement, support programme costs and fiscal effects by option.
Why it is not Green yet
Scope (population, place and increment) not verified against the delivery baseline.
No verified owner with the powers in place.
Delivery capacity not verified.
Lifetime incremental costs not complete.
No credible funding (a committed allocation for the scope).
Safeguards not specified.
Monitoring lacks a metric, a data source or a baseline.
Green needs verified scope, a verified owner with the powers, verified capacity, complete lifetime costs with credible funding, specified safeguards and monitoring with a metric, source and baseline. Amber means appraisal gaps remain; Red means a material delivery obstacle. Red does not mean unimportant.
Gate: Pending — appraisal incomplete (review label: “Pending: incomplete appraisal”).
Why: Scores incomplete; Funding gate not passed (cost unknown or no credible funding).
The gate is separate from national list membership: being listed does not make an option eligible, and an eligible option need not be listed.
Cost and funding
Lifetime costing: Not established. Review: “Full incremental costing not established in reviewed material”.
Still to cost: Employer costs and incidence, enforcement, support programme costs and fiscal effects by option.
Funding status: not identified.
Owner, powers and capacity
Proposed owner: Employment departments, employers, enforcement bodies and skills partners (proposed, unverified).
Powers: needs a decision or allocation. Capacity: unverified.
Powers and capacity read from the review’s Rd and Ca anchors; no proposed owner has agreed to act (the review: “Proposed owners have not agreed to act”).
England:
The Fair Work Agency (BIST), with HMRC delivering minimum-wage enforcement until April 2027 (action record)
Scotland:
The Fair Work Agency (BIST), with HMRC delivering minimum-wage enforcement until April 2027 (action record)
Wales:
The Fair Work Agency (BIST), with HMRC delivering minimum-wage enforcement until April 2027 (action record)
Northern Ireland:
The Fair Work Agency (BIST), with HMRC delivering minimum-wage enforcement until April 2027 (action record)
The minimum wage applies UK-wide; in Northern Ireland workers complain through the Labour Relations Agency. The Fair Work Agency’s remit beyond the minimum wage in Northern Ireland was not verified.
Dependencies, safeguards and risks
Depends on: None recorded.
Safeguards
None specified yet.
Risks and residual harms: Reduced hours/hiring in some settings; displacement; inappropriate generalisation.
Monitoring and measured results
Metric: Hourly and weekly pay, hours, sustained employment and progression.
Data source: Not yet named. Baseline: Not yet established.
Measures already on the domain page
Jobs paid below the applicable minimum wage (estimate): latest 445,000 (2025); baseline 382,000 (2024) (United Kingdom).
A page measure is not necessarily the review’s metric; linking the two is an editorial decision still to be made.
Evidence for the outcome
Outcome: Hourly and weekly pay, hours, sustained employment and progression.
Minimum-wage and Kickstart evidence address different policies. Existing Youth Guarantee funding cannot settle the additionality of all three.
SWOT points it addresses
About 445,000 jobs were paid below the legal minimum in 2025 (382,000 in 2024), while HMRC identified arrears for 25,200 workers in 2024/25. The underpayment figure is a survey estimate, not proven non-compliance.
Review record
Assessment version: working-review-2026-10-06 (A65@working-review-2026-10-06).
Reviewer: Author of the review blueprint (single reviewer, not named in uk-facts-complete-plan.json). Reviewed: 6 October 2026.
Scored in the working review of 6 October 2026 on the shared ten-criterion scale (one reviewer); not independently calibrated.
First 90 days (review): Produce a signed scope and current-delivery baseline; Separate wage-floor/enforcement, progression and targeted youth support; specify increment and monitor hours and access. Obtain incremental costs and an accountable decision before expansion.
Decision route: Split pay, progression and youth support
An editorial screening framework by one reviewer, not a formal appraisal or business case. Proposed owners have not agreed to act.
A68Delivery RAG: AmberGate: pending
Employer-linked shortage training beyond construction
Proposed new action A68; sourced research home and appraisal design; scope and funding remain provisional.
Not stated in the review record; treated as a provisional single-reviewer assessment, not an approved business case.
Who and where
Appraise a defined adult or technical training cohort with employer placements in a verified non-construction shortage. (from the 6 October review) Jurisdiction: not defined.
Result so far
Range if completed: 15.0–21.0 out of 30 (equal weights; not yet assessed: expected incremental benefit (Bn), incremental affordability (Co))
Funded now (baseline)
Funded baseline not yet stated
The change assessed (marginal)
Appraise a defined adult or technical training cohort with employer placements in a verified non-construction shortage. (from the 6 October review)
- Domain home: Jobs & pay
- In the national plan: Related option, assessed separately
What the evidence supports—and the next decision
Training effects vary with participants, course quality and employer demand; shortage forecasts do not prove a course works.
Codex — AI-assisted analytical follow-up · 8 October 2026. Proposed appraisal design; the attributed scores below are unchanged. No funding or delivery agreement is implied.
Define the change
Define a non-construction occupation, eligible cohort, recognised qualification and employer placement beyond existing provision.
Test whether it works
Completion, sustained employment and earnings against comparable eligible non-participants; follow those who leave early.
Establish the cost
Tuition, trainers, equipment, trainee support and employer time, including deadweight and displacement.
Protect against harm
Avoid selection of only the easiest applicants; verify genuine vacancies and prevent unpaid labour replacing paid jobs.
Read with the outcome evidence and sources in the full assessment. Monitoring proposals are not existing baseline measurements. A numerical benefit or cost score needs evidence for the defined increment, not just the scale of the problem.
Full assessment of Employer-linked shortage training beyond construction: ten criteria, scenarios, delivery, costs and monitoring
The ten criteria (0–3)
Each criterion is scored 0 to 3 by the reviewer. “Not yet assessed” means unknown: it is never counted as zero.
Scale and severity (Sc)2 of 3 — Serious harm to a defined group or widespread moderate harm
Increment beyond baseline (Ad)2 of 3 — Specific material change to existing delivery
Confidence in the proposed action (Ev)1 of 3 — Indirect, mixed, modelled or weak causal support
Expected incremental benefit (Bn)Not yet assessed
Residual harms (Hm)2 of 3 — Manageable harm with specified safeguards
Incremental affordability (Co)Not yet assessed
Delivery capacity (Ca)1 of 3 — Binding scarce resource
Distribution (Fa)3 of 3 — Benefits concentrated on disadvantaged people with assessed burdens
Meaningful first outcome (Ti)2 of 3 — More than one and up to three years
Readiness (Rd)2 of 3 — Named commissioning/allocation/coordination step
Four weightings
Normalised as 10 × weighted sum ÷ sum of weights, on a 0–30 scale. Where a criterion is not yet assessed, the range is the lowest and highest result if it were later scored 0 or 3 — not a score, a confidence interval or a rank.
Equal weights: Range if completed: 15.0–21.0 out of 30. Not yet assessed: expected incremental benefit (Bn), incremental affordability (Co). Funding gate: not passed.
Evidence doubled: Range if completed: 14.5–20.0 out of 30. Not yet assessed: expected incremental benefit (Bn), incremental affordability (Co). Funding gate: not passed.
Scale doubled: Range if completed: 15.5–20.9 out of 30. Not yet assessed: expected incremental benefit (Bn), incremental affordability (Co). Funding gate: not passed.
Cost ignored (the funding gate still applies): Range if completed: 16.7–20.0 out of 30. Not yet assessed: expected incremental benefit (Bn), incremental affordability (Co). Funding gate: not passed.
Funding gate: Not passed — the cost is not yet assessed or no allocation is committed for this scope. Ignoring cost in a weighting never removes the gate.
Delivery RAG and gate
Delivery RAG shown: AmberReview’s claim: Amber. Best the recorded evidence allows: Amber.
Review’s reason: Specify sector, cohort, placement and recognised completion; cost tuition, trainee support, employer time, trainers and evaluation. Track earnings and sustained employment. Proposed owners: skills bodies, colleges and employers.
Why it is not Green yet
Scope (population, place and increment) not verified against the delivery baseline.
No verified owner with the powers in place.
Delivery capacity not verified.
Lifetime incremental costs not complete.
No credible funding (a committed allocation for the scope).
Safeguards not specified.
Monitoring lacks a metric, a data source or a baseline.
Green needs verified scope, a verified owner with the powers, verified capacity, complete lifetime costs with credible funding, specified safeguards and monitoring with a metric, source and baseline. Amber means appraisal gaps remain; Red means a material delivery obstacle. Red does not mean unimportant.
Gate: Pending — appraisal incomplete (review label: “Pending baseline verification, incremental costing and funding; not a rollout approval”).
Why: Scores incomplete; Funding gate not passed (cost unknown or no credible funding).
The gate is separate from national list membership: being listed does not make an option eligible, and an eligible option need not be listed.
Cost and funding
Lifetime costing: Not established. Review: “Not fully costed in this review”.
Still to cost: Specify sector, cohort, placement and recognised completion; cost tuition, trainee support, employer time, trainers and evaluation. Track earnings and sustained employment. Proposed owners: skills bodies, colleges and employers.
Funding status: not established in review.
Owner, powers and capacity
Proposed owner: skills bodies, colleges and employers (proposed, unverified).
Powers: needs a decision or allocation. Capacity: binding constraint.
Powers and capacity read from the review’s Rd and Ca anchors; no proposed owner has agreed to act (the review: “Proposed owners have not agreed to act”).
England:
not assessed
Scotland:
not assessed
Wales:
not assessed
Northern Ireland:
not assessed
Not defined in the review.
Dependencies, safeguards and risks
Depends on: None recorded.
Safeguards
None specified yet.
Monitoring and measured results
Metric: Define and baseline the outcome described in delivery requirements before approval.
Data source: Not yet named. Baseline: Not yet established.
Evidence for the outcome
Outcome: Define and baseline the outcome described in delivery requirements before approval.
Training reviews find mixed results; employer involvement is promising, but no specific new programme or transferable benefit estimate is established.
Sources: whatworksgrowth.org (not yet in the source register)
SWOT points it addresses
981,000 people aged 16–24 (13.0%) were not in education, employment or training; 588,000 of them were economically inactive rather than looking for work.
Match the route to the barrier: paid jobs and apprenticeships for young people ready to work, and health-linked support for people out of work through ill health.
Review record
Assessment version: working-review-2026-10-06 (A68@working-review-2026-10-06).
Reviewer: Author of the review blueprint (single reviewer, not named in uk-facts-complete-plan.json). Reviewed: 6 October 2026.
Scored in the working review of 6 October 2026 on the shared ten-criterion scale (one reviewer); not independently calibrated.
An editorial screening framework by one reviewer, not a formal appraisal or business case. Proposed owners have not agreed to act.
A73Delivery RAG: AmberGate: pending
Timely workplace adjustments for disabled workers
Existing action A73, assessed at the same scope.
Not stated in the review record; treated as a provisional single-reviewer assessment, not an approved business case.
Who and where
Disabled people in Great Britain applying to Access to Work who are in work or have a job offer, starting with those at risk of leaving work while they wait. (from the action record) Jurisdiction: Great Britain.
Result so far
Range if completed: 16.0–22.0 out of 30 (equal weights; not yet assessed: expected incremental benefit (Bn), incremental affordability (Co))
Funded now (baseline)
Funded baseline: Access to Work (£320.7m on provision in 2024–25) and 480 extra case managers and caseworkers to clear the backlog by September 2027 (May 2026; restated 2 October 2026). A defined decision standard for in-work cases, tested with a comparison, is a UK Facts proposal, not government policy. (from the action record)
The change assessed (marginal)
Test a defined assessment-to-adjustment improvement for workers facing verified delays, distinguishing employer duties from public support. (from the 6 October review)
- Domain home: Jobs & pay
- In the national plan: Related option, assessed separately
What the evidence supports—and the next decision
Access to Work research identifies service experience and gaps; the effect of shortening a particular delay needs direct evaluation.
Codex — AI-assisted analytical follow-up · 8 October 2026. Proposed appraisal design; the attributed scores below are unchanged. No funding or delivery agreement is implied.
Define the change
Specify the assessment-to-adjustment bottleneck for a defined worker group, distinguishing employer duties from public support.
Test whether it works
Time to a usable adjustment, job retention, worker experience and access against the existing pathway.
Establish the cost
Assessors, equipment, support, employer contributions and administration, including replacement and renewal.
Protect against harm
Do not substitute public support for employer obligations; protect consent, privacy and accessible appeals.
- DWP: Access to Work research review →
Read with the outcome evidence and sources in the full assessment. Monitoring proposals are not existing baseline measurements. A numerical benefit or cost score needs evidence for the defined increment, not just the scale of the problem.
Full assessment of Timely workplace adjustments for disabled workers: ten criteria, scenarios, delivery, costs and monitoring
The ten criteria (0–3)
Each criterion is scored 0 to 3 by the reviewer. “Not yet assessed” means unknown: it is never counted as zero.
Scale and severity (Sc)2 of 3 — Serious harm to a defined group or widespread moderate harm
Increment beyond baseline (Ad)2 of 3 — Specific material change to existing delivery
Confidence in the proposed action (Ev)1 of 3 — Indirect, mixed, modelled or weak causal support
Expected incremental benefit (Bn)Not yet assessed
Residual harms (Hm)2 of 3 — Manageable harm with specified safeguards
Incremental affordability (Co)Not yet assessed
Delivery capacity (Ca)2 of 3 — Stretched but plausibly obtainable
Distribution (Fa)3 of 3 — Benefits concentrated on disadvantaged people with assessed burdens
Meaningful first outcome (Ti)2 of 3 — More than one and up to three years
Readiness (Rd)2 of 3 — Named commissioning/allocation/coordination step
Four weightings
Normalised as 10 × weighted sum ÷ sum of weights, on a 0–30 scale. Where a criterion is not yet assessed, the range is the lowest and highest result if it were later scored 0 or 3 — not a score, a confidence interval or a rank.
Equal weights: Range if completed: 16.0–22.0 out of 30. Not yet assessed: expected incremental benefit (Bn), incremental affordability (Co). Funding gate: not passed.
Evidence doubled: Range if completed: 15.5–20.9 out of 30. Not yet assessed: expected incremental benefit (Bn), incremental affordability (Co). Funding gate: not passed.
Scale doubled: Range if completed: 16.4–21.8 out of 30. Not yet assessed: expected incremental benefit (Bn), incremental affordability (Co). Funding gate: not passed.
Cost ignored (the funding gate still applies): Range if completed: 17.8–21.1 out of 30. Not yet assessed: expected incremental benefit (Bn), incremental affordability (Co). Funding gate: not passed.
Funding gate: Not passed — the cost is not yet assessed or no allocation is committed for this scope. Ignoring cost in a weighting never removes the gate.
Delivery RAG and gate
Delivery RAG shown: AmberReview’s claim: Amber. Best the recorded evidence allows: Amber.
Review’s reason: Audit delays and current legal/service baseline; cost assessors, adjustments, employer contributions and administration. Measure retention, access and worker experience. Proposed owners: DWP, employers and support providers.
Why it is not Green yet
Scope (population, place and increment) not verified against the delivery baseline.
No verified owner with the powers in place.
Delivery capacity not verified.
Lifetime incremental costs not complete.
No credible funding (a committed allocation for the scope).
Safeguards not specified.
Monitoring lacks a metric, a data source or a baseline.
Green needs verified scope, a verified owner with the powers, verified capacity, complete lifetime costs with credible funding, specified safeguards and monitoring with a metric, source and baseline. Amber means appraisal gaps remain; Red means a material delivery obstacle. Red does not mean unimportant.
Gate: Pending — appraisal incomplete (review label: “Pending baseline verification, incremental costing and funding; not a rollout approval”).
Why: Scores incomplete; Funding gate not passed (cost unknown or no credible funding).
The gate is separate from national list membership: being listed does not make an option eligible, and an eligible option need not be listed.
Cost and funding
Lifetime costing: Not established. Review: “Not fully costed in this review”.
Still to cost: Audit delays and current legal/service baseline; cost assessors, adjustments, employer contributions and administration. Measure retention, access and worker experience. Proposed owners: DWP, employers and support providers.
Funding status: not identified.
Owner, powers and capacity
Proposed owner: DWP, employers and support providers (proposed, unverified).
Powers: needs a decision or allocation. Capacity: unverified.
Powers and capacity read from the review’s Rd and Ca anchors; no proposed owner has agreed to act (the review: “Proposed owners have not agreed to act”).
England:
Department for Work and Pensions, with employers (Equality Act 2010 s.20 duty to make reasonable adjustments) (action record)
Scotland:
Department for Work and Pensions, with employers (Equality Act 2010 s.20 duty to make reasonable adjustments) (action record)
Wales:
Department for Work and Pensions, with employers (Equality Act 2010 s.20 duty to make reasonable adjustments) (action record)
Northern Ireland:
not assessed
Northern Ireland runs a separate Access to Work (NI) scheme through the Department for Communities; not assessed.
Dependencies, safeguards and risks
Depends on: None recorded.
Safeguards
None specified yet.
Monitoring and measured results
Metric: Define and baseline the outcome described in delivery requirements before approval.
Data source: Not yet named. Baseline: Not yet established.
Measures already on the domain page
Average working days from Access to Work application to decision: latest 109 days (November 2025); baseline 28 days (2021–22) (Great Britain).
A page measure is not necessarily the review’s metric; linking the two is an editorial decision still to be made.
Evidence for the outcome
Outcome: Define and baseline the outcome described in delivery requirements before approval.
DWP research describes Access to Work and evaluation challenges; it is not a causal estimate of this process improvement. This narrow proposal does not exhaust disability or gender equality.
Sources: gov.uk (not yet in the source register)
SWOT points it addresses
Access to Work decisions averaged 109 working days in November 2025 against a 25-day target (28 days in 2021–22), with 62,100 applications awaiting a decision at 31 March 2025; the employment rate of disabled people was 29.7 points below that of non-disabled people in mid-2025.
Review record
Assessment version: working-review-2026-10-06 (A73@working-review-2026-10-06).
Reviewer: Author of the review blueprint (single reviewer, not named in uk-facts-complete-plan.json). Reviewed: 6 October 2026.
Scored in the working review of 6 October 2026 on the shared ten-criterion scale (one reviewer); not independently calibrated.
An editorial screening framework by one reviewer, not a formal appraisal or business case. Proposed owners have not agreed to act.

Decision briefs

Run Connect to Work to the tested model, side by side with NHS care, and test whether it works
Match each young person out of work to the paid route that fits their barrier — and judge every route on work still held a year later

The leading option set out as a decision someone could take: who decides, who benefits, the best evidence, cost and funding, and the main trade-off. The full research record is one click away.

Decision briefExisting programmeReviewed 2026-10-04

Run Connect to Work to the tested model, side by side with NHS care, and test whether it works

The thread: issue, evidence, action

Issue Weakness: 2.78 million people aged 16–64 were economically inactive because of long-term sickness, against 2.08 million at the end of 2019. Also: opportunity, strength
Evidence Economically inactive because of long-term sickness, aged 16–64
Action Offer evidence-based employment support alongside healthcare

Decision required: Whether DWP and NHS commissioners add fidelity reviews, NHS referral routes and a payroll-data impact evaluation to Connect to Work, starting in one delivery area.
Who and where: Adults with health conditions or disabilities who want to work. Applies in: England and Wales.
Accountable body: Department for Work and Pensions
Intervention: Place employment specialists alongside health services, with rapid job search and support once in work, to the IPS model.
Best evidence, and where it applies: UK randomised trials of 9,785 people found modest, place-varying effects: +4 points working 13+ weeks in the West Midlands, none for out-of-work participants in Sheffield City Region.Studied in: 9,785 people with health conditions, in and out of work, in the West Midlands and Sheffield City Region (Trials 2018–2019, outcomes at 12 months).How closely the comparison transfers to this decision: Norway — partial.
Extra cost of this change: Capital: none identified in the brief.Recurring: Connect to Work programme, 2025–26 to 2028–29 — £1.03bn in total, 2025–26 to 2028–29, cash (nominal) prices; Connect to Work after 2028–29 — £134.4m in total, 2029–30 to 2031–32, cash (nominal) prices; NHS clinical integration, referral and supervision — Not yet costed.One-off or mixed: Fidelity reviews and impact evaluation — not yet established.
Funding: Not funded yet: a possible funding route exists, but nothing is allocated to this change.Committed to this change: none.Possible source, not an award: none identified.Unfunded: The NHS-side and evaluation costs are not established; Connect to Work’s committed money pays for the existing programme only, and 2029–30 onwards is not committed.
Savings and wider benefits: Not yet specified: no cashable saving or avoided cost has been costed for this change. Expected outcomes are listed one by one in the research appendix and are never added together or counted as money available.
First 90-day step: One delivery area agrees referral routes, a fidelity standard and a payroll-data comparison.The proposed first milestone; a 90-day date is not yet specified. Owner: DWP with the integrated care board. Proposed by UK Facts, not an official deadline.
Twelve-month milestone: Not yet specified.Time to a first useful result: Fidelity and referral data within six months; sustained-work results 12 to 18 months after starts.
Outcome, and when to scale or stop: Measure: Fidelity scores and referrals from NHS services.Scale if: Sustained work beats the comparison once fidelity is confirmed.Stop if: No difference from the comparison after fidelity is confirmed.
Main trade-off: NHS staff time is drawn from other care, and the effect per person is modest.
Source and review date: Health-led Employment Trials: evaluation synthesis report (April 2023). Reviewed 2026-10-04.

An editorial proposal by UK Facts for discussion, not government policy. Records: A09 · effects E-A09-WORK-WMCA, E-A09-WORK-SCR, E-A09-HEALTH · costs C-CTW-2025-29, C-CTW-2029-32, C-A09-NHS

Research appendix: study design, effect sizes and limits, alternatives, full costing, international comparisons and how we would know

1.The change, in plain words

Run Connect to Work to the tested model, side by side with NHS care, and test whether it works

2.The decision requested

Decision: In one delivery area first, agree the eligible group, an IPS fidelity standard, NHS referral routes and a payroll-data comparison; then fund the NHS side explicitly and decide on Connect to Work after 2028–29 using the results.
Accountable institution: Department for Work and Pensions
Geography: England and Wales
Powers: Existing powers: DWP grant agreements with delivery areas; NHS commissioning by integrated care boards.
Delivery partners: NHS England and integrated care boards; Connect to Work delivery areas (local authorities); Welsh Government and Welsh local authorities; HMRC (payroll data for evaluation)

3.Who it is for, and what changes beyond today

Target population: Adults with health conditions or disabilities who want to work.
Eligibility: Connect to Work’s existing eligibility; the trial evidence is strongest for people referred through health services.
Scale: Connect to Work aims to support about 300,000 people by 2029–30; the change starts in one area and scales with fidelity.
Baseline: 2.78 million people aged 16–64 were economically inactive because of long-term sickness (May–July 2026, UK).
Source: Office for National Statistics, Labour Force Survey: economically inactive because of long-term sickness, 16–64 (Series LF69); Department for Work and Pensions, Connect to Work: Programme Business Case 2 summary (Section 3.1)
Change beyond existing law or funding: Connect to Work’s funding pays for the programme; it does not pay for NHS-side integration, fidelity reviews or an impact evaluation — the change proposed here.

4.How it would work

Do: Place employment specialists alongside health services, with rapid job search and support once in work, to the IPS model. Changing: More people with health conditions start and keep matched paid work.

Working 13 or more weeks in the year after joining (out-of-work participants, West Midlands)
Measured for this interventionEffect record E-A09-WORK-WMCA
+4 points in one trial area; none for the equivalent group in Sheffield City Region.
Working 13 or more weeks (people in work but struggling, Sheffield City Region)
Measured for this interventionEffect record E-A09-WORK-SCR
+3 points; weaker evidence.
Self-reported health at 12 months
Measured for this interventionEffect record E-A09-HEALTH
Gains in one area only; not counted as a supported benefit.

Outcomes are kept separate and never added into one impact figure.

5.Best evidence

Health-led Employment Trials: evaluation synthesis report
Author or institution:
Department for Work and Pensions (Health-led Employment Trials evaluation synthesis)
Published:
April 2023
Evaluation period:
Trials 2018–2019, outcomes at 12 months
Design:
Randomised controlled trials in two areas
Sample or population:
9,785 people with health conditions, in and out of work, in the West Midlands and Sheffield City Region
Effect and uncertainty:
+4 points (West Midlands, out of work); +3 points (Sheffield, in work); none for Sheffield out of work; no earnings effect at 12 months
Limits:
Modest, place-varying effects; Exchequer return within a year about 1–2p per £1
Where: Synthesis report Table 2.1. Affiliation is provenance, not proof of quality.

6.Alternatives, counter-evidence and who loses

Closest feasible alternative: Lighter-touch employment support reaching more people for the same money; or paid placements for young people (A08), with a stronger measured effect for a different group.
Strongest counter-evidence: One of three trial groups saw no employment effect, and there was no earnings effect at 12 months.
Source: Department for Work and Pensions, Health-led Employment Trials: evaluation synthesis report (Synthesis report Table 2.1)
Distributional effects: Gains for people with health conditions who want to work; people not ready for work must not be pressured.
Main downside: NHS clinical time is taken from other care, and benefits per person are modest.

The options compared, including current policy
Option	Who is reached	Evidence	Likely outcome and timing	Cost and funding	Main trade-off
The proposalAdd fidelity, NHS integration and an impact evaluation	People with health conditions referred through the NHS	UK RCTs; Norway RCT for mental illness	Modest gains in sustained work within 12–18 months	Incremental cost not established; route via ICBs and DWP	NHS clinician time
Current policyCurrent policy: Connect to Work as funded	About 300,000 people by 2029–30	No impact evaluation yet	Unknown effect	Committed to 2028–29	Fidelity and integration may drift at scale
AlternativeLighter-touch support for more people	More people, less intensively	Not reviewed here	Unknown	Within existing budgets	Departs from the tested model

The options compared, including current policy

The proposal
Add fidelity, NHS integration and an impact evaluation
Who is reached
People with health conditions referred through the NHS
Evidence
UK RCTs; Norway RCT for mental illness
Likely outcome and timing
Modest gains in sustained work within 12–18 months
Cost and funding
Incremental cost not established; route via ICBs and DWP
Main trade-off
NHS clinician time
Current policy
Current policy: Connect to Work as funded
Who is reached
About 300,000 people by 2029–30
Evidence
No impact evaluation yet
Likely outcome and timing
Unknown effect
Cost and funding
Committed to 2028–29
Main trade-off
Fidelity and integration may drift at scale
Alternative
Lighter-touch support for more people
Who is reached
More people, less intensively
Evidence
Not reviewed here
Likely outcome and timing
Unknown
Cost and funding
Within existing budgets
Main trade-off
Departs from the tested model

7.What other countries or the devolved nations show

Country lesson · Norway, Trial published 2019

Individual Placement and Support inside Norway’s welfare system

Evidence: Experimental or quasi-experimental evaluationPartial match: some conditions differ

What was changed: Individual Placement and Support delivered to the manual — an employment specialist in the treatment team, rapid job search for paid work and continued support in work — against high-quality usual care.
Study design and population: Randomised controlled multicentre trial; employment from national registry data. 410 people struggling to work because of moderate-to-severe mental illness.
Measured outcome there: Competitive employment 37.4% against 27.1% at 18 months (36.6% against 27.1% at 12 months), with better mental health and quality of life.
Cost status: Not reported in the abstract read; no cost transfer to the UK is made.
What failed or remains uncertain: Only the abstract was read; nearly two thirds of the IPS group were not in competitive work at 18 months; results are for a mental-illness population.
Why the UK differs: Norway has stronger job protection and a different benefit system; Connect to Work serves a broader group with physical and mental conditions, and UK trials found smaller, place-varying effects.
First change required here: Put the employment specialist inside NHS teams with fidelity reviews, and use registry (HMRC payroll) data to compare outcomes, as Norway did.

Not a UK forecast: the effect above was measured in that place and population. Source: Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, A randomized controlled multicenter trial of individual placement and support for patients with moderate-to-severe mental illness (Abstract). Reviewed 2026-10-04.

8.What delivery needs first

staff — NHS clinicians’ time for referral and joint working. (Scarce resource shared with other priorities; owner: Integrated care boards)
data — Lawful data sharing with HMRC payroll data for a comparison. (Requirement; owner: DWP with HMRC)
staff — Trained employment specialists and fidelity reviewers. (Requirement; owner: Delivery areas)

9.What it would cost

How the cost is built up: Existing Connect to Work programme (funded) + NHS integration per area + fidelity reviews + impact evaluation. Only the last three are the proposal.

Cost build-up: one row per component, with scope, unit, quantity, unit cost, type, price year, period, status and source.
Component	Unit and quantity	Unit cost or amount	Type, price year, period	Status
Connect to Work programme, 2025–26 to 2028–29England and Wales	programme; quantity to be set from need and capacity	£1.03bn in total, 2025–26 to 2028–29, cash (nominal) prices (ledger C-CTW-2025-29)	recurring; price year not stated; 2025–26 to 2028–29	Current quoted costThe existing programme; not the incremental change.
Connect to Work after 2028–29England and Wales	programme; quantity to be set from need and capacity	£134.4m in total, 2029–30 to 2031–32, cash (nominal) prices (ledger C-CTW-2029-32)	recurring; price year not stated; 2029–30 to 2031–32	Current quoted cost
NHS clinical integration, referral and supervisionNHS side, per delivery area	per delivery area; quantity to be set from need and capacity	Not yet costed (ledger C-A09-NHS)	recurring; price year not stated; From the first area	Not yet established
Fidelity reviews and impact evaluationFirst delivery area, then national	per evaluation; quantity to be set from need and capacity	Not yet established	one-off revenue; price year not stated; Two years	Not yet established

Connect to Work programme, 2025–26 to 2028–29
England and Wales
£1.03bn in total, 2025–26 to 2028–29, cash (nominal) prices (ledger C-CTW-2025-29)
recurring; price year not stated; 2025–26 to 2028–29; Current quoted cost
The existing programme; not the incremental change.
Connect to Work after 2028–29
England and Wales
£134.4m in total, 2029–30 to 2031–32, cash (nominal) prices (ledger C-CTW-2029-32)
recurring; price year not stated; 2029–30 to 2031–32; Current quoted cost
NHS clinical integration, referral and supervision
NHS side, per delivery area
Not yet costed (ledger C-A09-NHS)
recurring; price year not stated; From the first area; Not yet established
Fidelity reviews and impact evaluation
First delivery area, then national
Not yet established per evaluation
one-off revenue; price year not stated; Two years; Not yet established

10.Who pays, and what is missing

Programme envelope (a possible route, not an award): None identified
Allocation committed to this change: None
Remaining gap: The NHS-side and evaluation costs are not established; Connect to Work’s committed money pays for the existing programme only, and 2029–30 onwards is not committed.
Proposed financing: NHS integration from integrated care boards’ commissioning budgets; evaluation from DWP’s Connect to Work evaluation budget.
Responsible payer: central government, NHS
Budget displaced: NHS community and mental-health services; other employment support.

Committed money exists for the existing programme (Autumn Budget 2024 and Spending Review 2025 settlements for Connect to Work), but it does not pay for the change proposed here.

11.First milestone and time to a useful result

One delivery area agrees referral routes, a fidelity standard and a payroll-data comparison. (Owner: DWP with the integrated care board. Proposed by UK Facts, not an official deadline.)

Time to first useful result: Fidelity and referral data within six months; sustained-work results 12 to 18 months after starts.

What could delay it: NHS teams can release clinician time. Data-sharing agreements with HMRC are in place before starts.

12.How we would know

Baseline: Share of participants in paid work at entry; inactivity through long-term sickness in the area.
Comparison: A matched comparison or phased roll-out between areas, using HMRC payroll data.
Leading indicator: Fidelity scores and referrals from NHS services.
Follow-up: Sustained work 6–12 months after starting.
Continue if: Sustained work beats the comparison once fidelity is confirmed.
Adapt if: Fidelity is low or referrals come mainly from outside the NHS; adjust the model or the eligible group.
Stop if: No difference from the comparison after fidelity is confirmed.
Thresholds: Not yet set: From DWP’s evaluation design and power calculation for Connect to Work.

What is not yet known, and how to find out

What does NHS integration cost per area? (cost)Next step: Cost clinician time and supervision in the first area.Scope: NHS referral, joint working and supervision per delivery area · Data or quotes needed: Time-use data from the first area; ICB staff costs · Who can estimate it: The integrated care board with DWP
Does Connect to Work at scale reproduce the trial effects? (effect)Next step: A payroll-data comparison from the first areas.Defensible route: evaluation of existing delivery

Sources last checked 4 October 2026 · Owner: Evidence editor (James Harris) · Next check: ONS UK labour market: October 2026 (economic inactivity, long-term sickness) (20 October 2026) or the first trigger: Connect to Work programme statistics or the first evaluation report.

Decision briefExisting programmeReviewed 2026-10-04

Match each young person out of work to the paid route that fits their barrier — and judge every route on work still held a year later

The thread: issue, evidence, action

Issue Weakness: 981,000 people aged 16–24 (13.0%) were not in education, employment or training; 588,000 of them were economically inactive rather than looking for work. Also: threat, opportunity, strength
Evidence Young people aged 16–24 not in education, employment or training; Unemployment rate, aged 16–24
Action Build paid routes into work for excluded young people

Decision required: In one Jobs Guarantee delivery area in England, DWP and its delivery partner, with the council and colleges, assess each young person’s main barrier before placing them in a fully paid six-month job, a foundation apprenticeship or a supported internship, and judge all three routes on the same measure: work or learning 6 and 12 months after support ends, against a comparison group.
Who and where: Young people aged 16–24 in the chosen area who are not in education, employment or training, in three groups: 18–24-year-olds on Universal Credit for 18 months (Jobs Guarantee); 16–21-year-olds, or up to 25 for care leavers, prison leavers and young people with an EHC plan, suited to a foundation apprenticeship; and 16–24-year-olds with an EHC plan suited to a supported internship. Applies in: Local.
Accountable body: Department for Work and Pensions (Jobs Guarantee, Jobcentre Plus), with the Department for Education and Skills England (foundation apprenticeships, supported internships)
Intervention: Assess each young person’s main barrier at referral and offer the paid route designed for it, with wraparound support, travel help and a named employer contact.
Best evidence, and where it applies: Kickstart, the closest UK scheme, left 11 more in every 100 participants in unsubsidised work two years on than a matched group (DWP, 2024), but 54 in 100 of that group found work anyway. The Jobs Guarantee itself is unevaluated and serves young people further from work.Studied in: 163,000 placements started across the scheme; 16–24-year-olds on Universal Credit at risk of long-term unemployment (Starts March 2021 to January 2022; outcomes to 24 months, extrapolated to five years).How closely the comparison transfers to this decision: Australia (national) — partial.
Extra cost of this change: Capital: none identified in the brief.Recurring: Youth Guarantee package, including the Jobs Guarantee (programme envelope) — £820m in total, Announced 6 December 2025; the announcement gives no years, price basis not stated by the source; Jobs Guarantee delivery partner grant (wraparound support, job sourcing, administration) — £2,650 per participant (maximum); Jobs Guarantee wages (up to 25 hours a week at the age-relevant minimum wage, plus employer National Insurance and pension, for up to six months) — not yet established; Supported internship place — £15,697 per intern; Support beyond the grant: travel, health support, employer supervision — Not yet costed.One-off or mixed: Employer onboarding costs (Jobs Guarantee) — £250 per participant (maximum); Foundation apprenticeship employer incentive (first wave) — £2,000 per apprentice (maximum); Barrier assessment, 6- and 12-month outcome tracking and evaluation by route — not yet established.
Funding: Not funded yet: a possible funding route exists, but nothing is allocated to this change.Committed to this change: none.Possible source, not an award: Youth Guarantee package (£820m) (£820m).Unfunded: Unknown: no Jobs Guarantee budget or cost per sustained job is published, and the assessment, support beyond the grant and evaluation are not costed.
Savings and wider benefits: Not yet specified: no cashable saving or avoided cost has been costed for this change. Expected outcomes are listed one by one in the research appendix and are never added together or counted as money available.
First 90-day step: Agree the barrier assessment, route rules and the 6- and 12-month outcome record with the delivery partner, council and colleges before the area’s first national-rollout referrals.The proposed first milestone; a 90-day date is not yet specified. Owner: DWP with the area’s Jobs Guarantee delivery partner. Proposed by UK Facts, not an official deadline.
Twelve-month milestone: Not yet specified.Time to a first useful result: Placement completion within about six months of the first starts; work or learning 12 months after support ends needs roughly 18 months from first starts, and a two-year result like Kickstart’s about two and a half years.
Outcome, and when to scale or stop: Measure: Starts by route and barrier group, and the share still in the job, apprenticeship or internship at three and six months.Scale if: Participants in a route are more often in unsubsidised work or learning at 12 months than the comparison group, and employer-reported deadweight is low enough that the cost per additional person in lasting work is acceptable in the business case.Stop if: Participants return to Universal Credit at the same rate as the comparison group, or most placements are jobs employers say they would have filled anyway.
Main trade-off: A fully paid job costs a lot per extra person in lasting work and some placements fill jobs that would have been filled anyway; assessing barriers takes adviser time and can leave those furthest from work deferred with no offer.
Source and review date: Kickstart Scheme: a quantitative impact assessment (full report) (7 October 2024); Apprenticeships (Youth Employment Toolkit) (26 August 2026 (last updated)). Reviewed 2026-10-04.

An editorial proposal by UK Facts for discussion, not government policy. Records: A08 · effects E-A08-WORK, E-A08-APPRENTICE · costs C-YG-2025, C-A08-SUPPORT

Research appendix: study design, effect sizes and limits, alternatives, full costing, international comparisons and how we would know

1.The change, in plain words

Match each young person out of work to the paid route that fits their barrier — and judge every route on work still held a year later

2.The decision requested

Decision: Agree, for one national-rollout delivery area, a shared barrier assessment at referral, route rules and a single outcome record across three paid routes; and ask DWP’s Jobs Guarantee evaluation to report sustained work by route and barrier group, with employer-reported additionality, before the next funding decision.
Accountable institution: Department for Work and Pensions (Jobs Guarantee, Jobcentre Plus), with the Department for Education and Skills England (foundation apprenticeships, supported internships)
Geography: Local
Powers: Existing powers: Employment and Training Act 1973, section 2 (DWP arrangements to help people obtain and keep work, including temporary employment) and the Jobs Guarantee grant funding agreements; DfE apprenticeship funding rules; councils’ duties to young people with EHC plans under the Children and Families Act 2014. No new law.
Delivery partners: Jobs Guarantee delivery partner for the area; Jobcentre Plus work coaches; Employers offering real vacancies; Further education colleges and apprenticeship training providers; Council SEND, leaving-care and supported-internship teams; DWP Access to Work (job coaching)

3.Who it is for, and what changes beyond today

Target population: Young people aged 16–24 in the chosen area who are not in education, employment or training, in three groups: 18–24-year-olds on Universal Credit for 18 months (Jobs Guarantee); 16–21-year-olds, or up to 25 for care leavers, prison leavers and young people with an EHC plan, suited to a foundation apprenticeship; and 16–24-year-olds with an EHC plan suited to a supported internship.
Eligibility: Each route’s existing rules (Jobs Guarantee: continuously on Universal Credit for 18 months in the Intensive Work Search regime, referred by DWP; foundation apprenticeships: England, level 2, at least eight months; supported internships: an EHC plan). The added step is an assessment of the main barrier — no work experience, qualifications below level 2, a health condition or disability, caring, housing or travel — which decides the route and the support.
Scale: The Jobs Guarantee referrals DWP already expects in that delivery area under its grant agreement, plus the apprenticeship and supported-internship places that local employers will actually offer — set in the local business case, not a national number. One area lets the routing and the outcome record be tested before anything wider.
Baseline: 981,000 people aged 16–24 in the UK (13.0%) were not in education, employment or training in Apr–Jun 2026; 588,000 of them were economically inactive rather than looking for work, and the rate among 18–24-year-olds was 15.2%. No published series follows young people on any paid route to see whether they are still in unsubsidised work or learning 12 months after it ends, so the local baseline must be built from payroll and education records.
Source: Office for National Statistics, Young people not in education, employment or training (NEET), UK (Table 1 (seasonally adjusted))
Change beyond existing law or funding: The Jobs Guarantee, foundation apprenticeships and supported internships are already funded and running in separate systems. What is added: one barrier assessment at referral that decides the route; one outcome measure for all three (work or learning 6 and 12 months after support ends, from payroll and education records); employer additionality questions at the end of each placement; and routes judged against a comparison group rather than by starts.

4.How it would work

Do: Assess each young person’s main barrier at referral and offer the paid route designed for it, with wraparound support, travel help and a named employer contact Changing: more young people complete a placement and move into work or training they keep, and fewer are put in a route that does not fit

Unsubsidised work two years after starting a subsidised job
Measured for this interventionEffect record E-A08-WORK
Measured for Kickstart starters (2021–22), who were closer to work than Jobs Guarantee participants will be; the Jobs Guarantee effect is not yet known.
Employment 12–24 months after an apprenticeship for NEET young people
Measured for this interventionEffect record E-A08-APPRENTICE
From a synthesis of mainly international studies, rated “emerging”; foundation apprenticeships themselves have not been evaluated.
Paid work after a supported internship for young people with an EHC plan
Hypothesis to test
Provider and council surveys report 32% to 45% of interns in paid work, but with no comparison group the added effect is unknown.
More sustained work when young people are placed by barrier rather than by eligibility alone
Hypothesis to test
Untested anywhere we found; this is what the pilot must show.

Outcomes are kept separate and never added into one impact figure.

5.Best evidence

Kickstart Scheme: a quantitative impact assessment (full report)
Author or institution:
Department for Work and Pensions (analysts’ impact assessment)
Published:
7 October 2024
Evaluation period:
Starts March 2021 to January 2022; outcomes to 24 months, extrapolated to five years
Design:
Propensity-score matching of starters with eligible young people on Universal Credit who did not start, with a difference-in-differences check, using HMRC payroll records
Sample or population:
163,000 placements started across the scheme; 16–24-year-olds on Universal Credit at risk of long-term unemployment
Effect and uncertainty:
Employment +11 percentage points at 24 months (confidence interval 0.5 points); 54% of the comparison group were in work anyway; two thirds of starters completed the six months. Average cost per start: £4,368 wages, £1,692 employer start-up payment, £785 departmental cost; the Exchequer lost £4,970 per participant at two years (27p back per £1). No cost per additional job is published, and earnings gains are imputed in the cost-benefit model rather than measured from payroll records.
Limits:
Not randomised, and sensitive to the comparison group: against young people referred but not started, 65% vs 59% were in work. Before matching, starters were better qualified and less likely to have had special educational needs than eligible non-starters, so the group helped was closer to work. Assumes no substitution in the central case.
Where: Section 3.2 (net impacts); Chart 3.5 (sensitivity); section 4 (unit costs and additionality). Affiliation is provenance, not proof of quality.
Apprenticeships (Youth Employment Toolkit)
Author or institution:
Youth Futures Foundation (What Works centre for youth employment)
Published:
26 August 2026 (last updated)
Evaluation period:
Studies of varying dates; outcomes 12–24 months after the intervention starts
Design:
Synthesis of high-quality impact studies (Youth Employment Toolkit)
Sample or population:
Young people not in education, employment or training, mainly in international studies
Effect and uncertainty:
Apprenticeships: high positive impact on employment, about 10 more young people in work per 100 at 12–24 months; evidence rated emerging; cost rated high.
Limits:
Very few studies; employment only (no measured effect on education or training); best for young people well equipped to pursue an apprenticeship.
Where: Headline panel; limitations. Affiliation is provenance, not proof of quality.
Wage subsidies (Youth Employment Toolkit)
Author or institution:
Youth Futures Foundation
Published:
26 August 2026 (last updated)
Evaluation period:
Studies of varying dates; outcomes 12–24 months after the intervention starts
Design:
Synthesis of impact studies of wage subsidies delivered within targeted youth employment programmes
Sample or population:
NEET young people aged 16 to 24
Effect and uncertainty:
About 3 more young people in work per 100 at 12–24 months (low positive impact); evidence emerging; cost high; larger for 18–24-year-olds and those with the biggest barriers, treated with caution.
Limits:
A different outcome window and method from the Kickstart assessment, so the two figures are not comparable or additive.
Where: Headline panel; key findings; costs. Affiliation is provenance, not proof of quality.
Evaluation of the strengthening of the supported internship programme: research report
Author or institution:
CooperGibson Research and St Mary’s University, for the Department for Education
Published:
March 2026
Evaluation period:
September 2022 to March 2025
Design:
Mixed-methods programme evaluation with surveys, case studies, administrative data and provider costing surveys; no comparison group
Sample or population:
Supported interns aged 16–24 with an EHC plan (1,977 survey responses; costing data for about 440–450 interns a year)
Effect and uncertainty:
Providers reported 45% of the previous year’s interns in permanent paid work and 17% NEET; council surveys 32% (2022/23) and 43% (2023/24). Average cost per intern £14,676 to £15,697.
Limits:
Self-reported destinations at unclear time points, no counterfactual, and costing from 12–13 providers.
Where: Executive summary pp.8–14. Affiliation is provenance, not proof of quality.

6.Alternatives, counter-evidence and who loses

Closest feasible alternative: Keep the Jobs Guarantee as designed — a job offer for everyone who reaches 18 months on Universal Credit — and judge it through DWP’s national evaluation, leaving apprenticeships and supported internships to separate DfE systems and measures.
Strongest counter-evidence: Kickstart’s result shrinks against the closest comparison: among young people referred but not started, 59% were in work at two years against 65% of starters, rather than 54% in the main model. In Australia, among host businesses that hired their PaTH intern, 30% said they would have hired the same young person anyway and 55% would otherwise have hired someone else. The wage-subsidy synthesis puts the employment gain at about 3 in 100.
Source: Department for Work and Pensions, Kickstart Scheme: a quantitative impact assessment (full report) (Chart 3.5 (sensitivity analysis)); Australian Government Department of Education, Skills and Employment, Youth Jobs PaTH evaluation report (pp.99–100); Youth Futures Foundation, Wage subsidies (Youth Employment Toolkit) (Headline panel)
Distributional effects: Gains go to young people long on Universal Credit and to young disabled people who get a supported route; employers receive subsidised labour. Most NEET young people are economically inactive and many do not claim Universal Credit, so they are outside the Jobs Guarantee; those with the most complex needs may be judged unsuitable and deferred. Substitution can move jobs away from other young jobseekers.
Main downside: The cost per additional person in lasting work is high and unpublished: the Exchequer lost £4,970 per Kickstart participant at two years, and the Jobs Guarantee pays the whole wage for a group DWP expects to have more complex needs.

The options compared, including current policy
Option	Who is reached	Evidence	Likely outcome and timing	Cost and funding	Main trade-off
The proposalBarrier assessment across three paid routes, judged on work or learning a year later (this brief)	NEET young people in one area: long-term Universal Credit claimants, care leavers and young disabled people	Each route has some evidence (below); routing by barrier is untested	Completion within six months; 12-month outcomes after about 18 months	Routes already funded; assessment, tracking and evaluation not costed or allocated	Adviser time and data linkage; those judged unsuitable may get no offer
Current policyCurrent policy: the Jobs Guarantee as designed — a paid six-month job for everyone reaching 18 months on Universal Credit	18–24-year-olds on Universal Credit for 18 months; DWP expects over 90,000 over three years	Unevaluated; closest scheme (Kickstart) +11 in work per 100 at two years for an easier-to-help group	National rollout later in 2026; DWP evaluation planned, no date published	Wages plus £2,150–£2,650 per participant delivery grant, within the Youth Guarantee (£820m announced December 2025, plus £1bn added March 2026); no Jobs Guarantee budget published	Misses inactive young people not on Universal Credit; deadweight and substitution
AlternativeFoundation apprenticeships	16–21-year-olds, or up to 25 for care leavers, prison leavers and young people with an EHC plan, in England	Apprenticeships: about 10 more in work per 100 at 12–24 months (emerging, mainly international); foundation apprenticeships unevaluated	At least eight months of paid training; employment effect after 12–24 months	Apprenticeship budget plus an employer incentive of up to £2,000 (first wave)	Depends on employers creating places; suits young people ready to start a job
AlternativeSupported internships for young people with an EHC plan	16–24-year-olds with an EHC plan	Observational: 32% to 45% in paid work reported by councils and providers; no comparison group	One academic year, then job outcomes	£14,676–£15,697 per intern (2022/23–2023/24); 16–19 and high-needs funding	Needs job coaches and Access to Work; families fear losing benefits
AlternativeHealth-linked employment support (Connect to Work, including IPS) — see the national decision brief	Adults of any age with health conditions or disabilities who want to work, in England and Wales	Randomised UK trials: +4 percentage points working 13+ weeks in a year (West Midlands, out of work); no earnings effect	Results at 12 months	Funded to 2028–29; later years and NHS integration not committed	Not designed for young people specifically; depends on NHS referral capacity

The options compared, including current policy

The proposal
Barrier assessment across three paid routes, judged on work or learning a year later (this brief)
Who is reached
NEET young people in one area: long-term Universal Credit claimants, care leavers and young disabled people
Evidence
Each route has some evidence (below); routing by barrier is untested
Likely outcome and timing
Completion within six months; 12-month outcomes after about 18 months
Cost and funding
Routes already funded; assessment, tracking and evaluation not costed or allocated
Main trade-off
Adviser time and data linkage; those judged unsuitable may get no offer
Current policy
Current policy: the Jobs Guarantee as designed — a paid six-month job for everyone reaching 18 months on Universal Credit
Who is reached
18–24-year-olds on Universal Credit for 18 months; DWP expects over 90,000 over three years
Evidence
Unevaluated; closest scheme (Kickstart) +11 in work per 100 at two years for an easier-to-help group
Likely outcome and timing
National rollout later in 2026; DWP evaluation planned, no date published
Cost and funding
Wages plus £2,150–£2,650 per participant delivery grant, within the Youth Guarantee (£820m announced December 2025, plus £1bn added March 2026); no Jobs Guarantee budget published
Main trade-off
Misses inactive young people not on Universal Credit; deadweight and substitution
Alternative
Foundation apprenticeships
Who is reached
16–21-year-olds, or up to 25 for care leavers, prison leavers and young people with an EHC plan, in England
Evidence
Apprenticeships: about 10 more in work per 100 at 12–24 months (emerging, mainly international); foundation apprenticeships unevaluated
Likely outcome and timing
At least eight months of paid training; employment effect after 12–24 months
Cost and funding
Apprenticeship budget plus an employer incentive of up to £2,000 (first wave)
Main trade-off
Depends on employers creating places; suits young people ready to start a job
Alternative
Supported internships for young people with an EHC plan
Who is reached
16–24-year-olds with an EHC plan
Evidence
Observational: 32% to 45% in paid work reported by councils and providers; no comparison group
Likely outcome and timing
One academic year, then job outcomes
Cost and funding
£14,676–£15,697 per intern (2022/23–2023/24); 16–19 and high-needs funding
Main trade-off
Needs job coaches and Access to Work; families fear losing benefits
Alternative
Health-linked employment support (Connect to Work, including IPS) — see the national decision brief
Who is reached
Adults of any age with health conditions or disabilities who want to work, in England and Wales
Evidence
Randomised UK trials: +4 percentage points working 13+ weeks in a year (West Midlands, out of work); no earnings effect
Likely outcome and timing
Results at 12 months
Cost and funding
Funded to 2028–29; later years and NHS integration not committed
Main trade-off
Not designed for young people specifically; depends on NHS referral capacity

7.What other countries or the devolved nations show

Country lesson · Australia (national), Wage subsidy from January 2017, internships from April 2017; evaluation covers starts to 31 March 2018 (report 2020)

Internships and a youth wage subsidy in Australia

Evidence: Observational analysisPartial match: some conditions differ

What was changed: Youth Jobs PaTH: two blocks of employability training; voluntary internships of four to 12 weeks with a host business (A$1,000 to the business, A$200 a fortnight to the young person on top of income support); and a Youth Bonus Wage Subsidy of up to A$10,000 over 26 weeks for hiring an unemployed 15–24-year-old into an ongoing job of at least 20 hours a week. Delivered through the national employment-services providers, including Transition to Work and Disability Employment Services.
Study design and population: Departmental mixed-methods evaluation: administrative and income-support records, one-off surveys of employment-services providers, host businesses and young people, and interviews. No comparison group; deadweight and substitution were estimated from what host businesses said they would have done. 37,064 young people who used at least one element between January 2017 and March 2018; 4,498 internship starts; 19,423 young people placed with a wage subsidy by 11,817 businesses.
Measured outcome there: About half of interns had a job placement within three months of the internship ending (57% under jobactive, 54% under Transition to Work, 43% under Disability Employment Services). About half of young people whose last placement carried the wage subsidy were off income support three months later (51% jobactive, 49% Transition to Work). Of host businesses that hired their intern, 30% said they would have hired that young person anyway (deadweight), 55% would otherwise have hired someone else (substitution) and 14% said the job was additional.
Cost status: The 2016–17 Budget committed A$762.6 million over four years for the whole programme; the evaluation does not publish a cost per job or per additional job.
What failed or remains uncertain: Outcomes are gross placement and off-benefit rates, not effects against a comparison group. Employer-reported deadweight and substitution were large, so most placements were not additional jobs. A few young people believed internships were compulsory; early on, low referrals led training providers to cancel or reschedule courses; job-placement rates after internships were lower in Disability Employment Services (43%) than elsewhere.
Why the UK differs: Australia used contracted national employment-services providers and a wage top-up for any ongoing job, while the Jobs Guarantee pays the whole wage for a six-month job for young people out of work for 18 months, a harder-to-help group. Australian award wages, benefit rules and the scale of provider incentives differ from the UK’s.
First change required here: Ask employers the same additionality questions at the end of each Jobs Guarantee placement, and report deadweight and substitution alongside DWP’s payroll-based comparison, so “jobs filled” is never reported as “jobs created”.

Not a UK forecast: the effect above was measured in that place and population. Source: Australian Government Department of Education, Skills and Employment, Youth Jobs PaTH evaluation report (Executive summary pp.8–10; “Additionality, substitution, deadweight and displacement” pp.99–100). Reviewed 2026-10-04.

8.What delivery needs first

dependency — Employers in the area offering real vacancies, apprenticeship places and supported-internship placements, recruited before places are commissioned. (Scarce resource shared with other priorities; owner: Jobs Guarantee delivery partner and DWP employer teams, with colleges)
staff — Work coaches with time for a barrier assessment, employer liaison staff and trained job coaches for supported internships. (Scarce resource shared with other priorities; owner: DWP (Jobcentre Plus) and the delivery partner; council supported-internship providers)
data — Linked payroll (RTI), Universal Credit and Individualised Learner Record data by route at 6, 12 and 24 months, under an agreed data-sharing arrangement. (Requirement; owner: DWP and DfE analysts)
dependency — Health and mental-health support for young people whose main barrier is a health condition, through Connect to Work or NHS services. (Requirement; owner: Connect to Work delivery area and NHS commissioners)
infrastructure — Affordable transport to placements, especially outside towns. (Requirement; owner: Council or combined authority)

9.What it would cost

How the cost is built up: Per young person: the route cost (Jobs Guarantee wages + delivery grant + onboarding; or apprenticeship training funding + employer incentive; or cost per supported intern) + support beyond the grant + barrier assessment; plus area-level tracking and evaluation. Cost per sustained additional job = total added cost ÷ (young people in work or learning at 12 months − the number expected from the comparison group). No source yet publishes this figure for any of the three routes.

Cost build-up: one row per component, with scope, unit, quantity, unit cost, type, price year, period, status and source.
Component	Unit and quantity	Unit cost or amount	Type, price year, period	Status
Youth Guarantee package, including the Jobs Guarantee (programme envelope)Great Britain: Jobs Guarantee, training and work-experience places, Youth Hubs and intensive support	programme; quantity to be set from need and capacity	£820m in total, Announced 6 December 2025; the announcement gives no years, price basis not stated by the source (ledger C-YG-2025)	recurring; price year not stated; Announced December 2025; years not published	Current quoted costRead from the ledger. An announced package across several strands, not the cost of this pilot or of a sustained job. DWP’s June 2026 grant guidance says a further £1 billion was added in March 2026 over the spending review period; the ledger figure does not include it. Source: DWP and DfE, Almost a million young people to benefit from expanded support, new training and work experience opportunities (Opening paragraph); Department for Work and Pensions, National Jobs Guarantee Scheme: grant guidance (national rollout) (Ministerial foreword)
Jobs Guarantee delivery partner grant (wraparound support, job sourcing, administration)Each young person starting a Jobs Guarantee job in the pilot area	per participant (maximum); quantity to be set from need and capacity	£2,650Range: £2,150 to £2,650 per participant	recurring; 2026 (cash) prices; Per participant, national rollout	Current quoted costThe published band for applications; the figure shown is its maximum. Participant numbers come from the area’s grant agreement. Source: Department for Work and Pensions, National Jobs Guarantee Scheme: grant guidance (national rollout) (Section 4.2)
Jobs Guarantee wages (up to 25 hours a week at the age-relevant minimum wage, plus employer National Insurance and pension, for up to six months)Each young person starting a Jobs Guarantee job	per participant; quantity to be set from need and capacity	Not yet established	recurring; price year not stated; Up to six months per participant	Not yet establishedReimbursed at actual cost; DWP publishes no per-participant amount. Kickstart’s average wage payment was £4,368 per start in 2021–22, a different wage rate and completion pattern. Source: Department for Work and Pensions, National Jobs Guarantee Scheme: grant guidance (national rollout) (Sections 4.1 and 4.3)
Employer onboarding costs (Jobs Guarantee)Each young person starting a Jobs Guarantee job	per participant (maximum); quantity to be set from need and capacity	£250	one-off revenue; 2026 (cash) prices; Once per participant	Current quoted cost Source: Department for Work and Pensions, National Jobs Guarantee Scheme: grant guidance (national rollout) (Sections 4.1 and 4.4)
Foundation apprenticeship employer incentive (first wave)Each foundation apprentice aged 16–21 (or up to 25 if eligible) placed through the pilot	per apprentice (maximum); quantity to be set from need and capacity	£2,000	one-off revenue; 2025–26 (cash, first wave) prices; Once per apprentice	Historic costTraining costs come from the apprenticeship budget and are not priced here. Source: Department for Education, DfE update: further education, 21 May 2025 (foundation apprenticeships) (Item 5)
Supported internship placeEach young person with an EHC plan placed on a supported internship through the pilot	per intern; quantity to be set from need and capacity	£15,697Range: £14,676 (2022/23) to £15,697 (2023/24) per intern	recurring; 2023/24 (cash; provider costing survey, May 2025) prices; One academic year per intern	Historic costAlready paid from 16–19 and high-needs funding; only extra places are a new cost. Based on 12–13 providers. Source: Department for Education (CooperGibson Research and St Mary’s University), Evaluation of the strengthening of the supported internship programme: research report (Executive summary, value for money)
Support beyond the grant: travel, health support, employer supervisionYoung people starting a Jobs Guarantee job or foundation apprenticeship	per participant; quantity to be set from need and capacity	Not yet costed (ledger C-A08-SUPPORT)	recurring; price year not stated; Each year of operation	Not yet establishedRead from the ledger record, which has no amount. Source: Department for Work and Pensions, Jobs Guarantee (Jobs Guarantee page)
Barrier assessment, 6- and 12-month outcome tracking and evaluation by routeAll referrals in the pilot area, for at least two years	per area; quantity to be set from need and capacity	Not yet established	one-off revenue; price year not stated; Two to three years	Not yet established

Youth Guarantee package, including the Jobs Guarantee (programme envelope)
Great Britain: Jobs Guarantee, training and work-experience places, Youth Hubs and intensive support
£820m in total, Announced 6 December 2025; the announcement gives no years, price basis not stated by the source (ledger C-YG-2025)
recurring; price year not stated; Announced December 2025; years not published; Current quoted cost
Read from the ledger. An announced package across several strands, not the cost of this pilot or of a sustained job. DWP’s June 2026 grant guidance says a further £1 billion was added in March 2026 over the spending review period; the ledger figure does not include it.
Source: DWP and DfE, Almost a million young people to benefit from expanded support, new training and work experience opportunities (Opening paragraph); Department for Work and Pensions, National Jobs Guarantee Scheme: grant guidance (national rollout) (Ministerial foreword)
Jobs Guarantee delivery partner grant (wraparound support, job sourcing, administration)
Each young person starting a Jobs Guarantee job in the pilot area
£2,650 per participant (maximum) (range £2,150 to £2,650 per participant)
recurring; 2026 (cash) prices; Per participant, national rollout; Current quoted cost
The published band for applications; the figure shown is its maximum. Participant numbers come from the area’s grant agreement.
Source: Department for Work and Pensions, National Jobs Guarantee Scheme: grant guidance (national rollout) (Section 4.2)
Jobs Guarantee wages (up to 25 hours a week at the age-relevant minimum wage, plus employer National Insurance and pension, for up to six months)
Each young person starting a Jobs Guarantee job
Not yet established per participant
recurring; price year not stated; Up to six months per participant; Not yet established
Reimbursed at actual cost; DWP publishes no per-participant amount. Kickstart’s average wage payment was £4,368 per start in 2021–22, a different wage rate and completion pattern.
Source: Department for Work and Pensions, National Jobs Guarantee Scheme: grant guidance (national rollout) (Sections 4.1 and 4.3)
Employer onboarding costs (Jobs Guarantee)
Each young person starting a Jobs Guarantee job
£250 per participant (maximum)
one-off revenue; 2026 (cash) prices; Once per participant; Current quoted cost
Source: Department for Work and Pensions, National Jobs Guarantee Scheme: grant guidance (national rollout) (Sections 4.1 and 4.4)
Foundation apprenticeship employer incentive (first wave)
Each foundation apprentice aged 16–21 (or up to 25 if eligible) placed through the pilot
£2,000 per apprentice (maximum)
one-off revenue; 2025–26 (cash, first wave) prices; Once per apprentice; Historic cost
Training costs come from the apprenticeship budget and are not priced here.
Source: Department for Education, DfE update: further education, 21 May 2025 (foundation apprenticeships) (Item 5)
Supported internship place
Each young person with an EHC plan placed on a supported internship through the pilot
£15,697 per intern (range £14,676 (2022/23) to £15,697 (2023/24) per intern)
recurring; 2023/24 (cash; provider costing survey, May 2025) prices; One academic year per intern; Historic cost
Already paid from 16–19 and high-needs funding; only extra places are a new cost. Based on 12–13 providers.
Source: Department for Education (CooperGibson Research and St Mary’s University), Evaluation of the strengthening of the supported internship programme: research report (Executive summary, value for money)
Support beyond the grant: travel, health support, employer supervision
Young people starting a Jobs Guarantee job or foundation apprenticeship
Not yet costed (ledger C-A08-SUPPORT)
recurring; price year not stated; Each year of operation; Not yet established
Read from the ledger record, which has no amount.
Source: Department for Work and Pensions, Jobs Guarantee (Jobs Guarantee page)
Barrier assessment, 6- and 12-month outcome tracking and evaluation by route
All referrals in the pilot area, for at least two years
Not yet established per area
one-off revenue; price year not stated; Two to three years; Not yet established

10.Who pays, and what is missing

Programme envelope (a possible route, not an award): Youth Guarantee package (£820m): £820m
Allocation committed to this change: None
Remaining gap: Unknown: no Jobs Guarantee budget or cost per sustained job is published, and the assessment, support beyond the grant and evaluation are not costed.
Proposed financing: The Jobs Guarantee grant, part of the Youth Guarantee (announced as an £820 million package in December 2025 and expanded by £1 billion over the spending review period in March 2026; no Jobs Guarantee budget line is published), already pays wages and delivery for eligible young people; apprenticeships are paid from the apprenticeship budget and the employer incentive; supported internships from 16–19 and high-needs funding. The barrier assessment, tracking and evaluation would need to be agreed within DWP’s Jobs Guarantee evaluation or a joint DWP–DfE allocation. Nothing is allocated to them.
Responsible payer: central government, employers, councils
Budget displaced: DWP employment-support money not spent on earlier prevention or health-linked support; employers’ supervision time; council high-needs budgets, already in deficit in many areas, for extra supported internships.

11.First milestone and time to a useful result

Agree the barrier assessment, route rules and the 6- and 12-month outcome record with the delivery partner, council and colleges before the area’s first national-rollout referrals. (Owner: DWP with the area’s Jobs Guarantee delivery partner. Proposed by UK Facts, not an official deadline.)

Time to first useful result: Placement completion within about six months of the first starts; work or learning 12 months after support ends needs roughly 18 months from first starts, and a two-year result like Kickstart’s about two and a half years.

What could delay it: Employers offer enough real vacancies and placements Payroll, Universal Credit and education records can be linked by route Referral volumes reach the level in the grant agreement A credible comparison group can be formed (matched non-starters or a phased start)

12.How we would know

Baseline: For the area: NEET young people by group, Jobs Guarantee referrals, and the share of recent participants in each route in unsubsidised work or learning 12 months after leaving, from payroll, Universal Credit and Individualised Learner Record data.
Comparison: Matched eligible young people who did not start, as in the Kickstart assessment, reported against both referred-not-started and non-referred groups because the result depends on which is used; a phased start across areas if more join.
Leading indicator: Starts by route and barrier group, and the share still in the job, apprenticeship or internship at three and six months.
Follow-up: 6, 12 and 24 months after support ends: unsubsidised work or learning, earnings from payroll records, return to Universal Credit, and employer-reported additionality and substitution.
Continue if: Participants in a route are more often in unsubsidised work or learning at 12 months than the comparison group, and employer-reported deadweight is low enough that the cost per additional person in lasting work is acceptable in the business case.
Adapt if: A route fills its places but completion or 12-month outcomes are no better than the comparison group: change the barrier rules, the support or the employers used before expanding.
Stop if: Participants return to Universal Credit at the same rate as the comparison group, or most placements are jobs employers say they would have filled anyway.
Thresholds: Not yet set: An acceptable cost per additional sustained job and the smallest effect worth detecting need the area’s referral volumes, a power calculation and DWP’s evaluation design, none of which is published yet.

What is not yet known, and how to find out

What is the cost per additional young person in sustained work for each route? (cost)Next step: Estimate it from actual spend and the comparison-group result in DWP’s Jobs Guarantee evaluation, and apply the same method to the apprenticeship and supported-internship routes in the pilot area.Scope: Each route in the pilot area: cost per participant and per additional person in work or learning at 12 months · Data or quotes needed: Actual wage, delivery-grant and onboarding spend per participant; apprenticeship training funding; cost per supported intern; support beyond the grant; matched comparison outcomes · Who can estimate it: DWP analysts (Jobs Guarantee evaluation) with DfE
What do the barrier assessment, support beyond the grant and outcome tracking cost? (cost)Next step: Price them in the area’s business case before the first referrals.Scope: All referrals in one delivery area for two to three years · Data or quotes needed: Adviser time per assessment, travel and health-support quotes, data-linkage and evaluation costs · Who can estimate it: The Jobs Guarantee delivery partner with DWP
Does the Jobs Guarantee add lasting work for young people out of work for 18 months? (effect)Next step: Report DWP’s planned evaluation against a comparison group, by barrier group and route.Defensible route: evaluation of existing delivery
Does placing young people by barrier improve outcomes compared with one offer for everyone eligible? (effect)Next step: Test it in one area with a phased start or matched comparison and pre-registered 12-month outcomes.Defensible route: bounded pilot
Can payroll, Universal Credit and learner records be linked by route at 6 and 12 months? (data)Next step: Agree a DWP–DfE data-sharing arrangement before the first referrals.
Are there enough employers with real vacancies in the area? (delivery)Next step: Map vacancies and placements with the delivery partner and colleges before commissioning places.

Sources last checked 4 October 2026 · Owner: Evidence editor (James Harris) · Next check: ONS young people not in education, employment or training (NEET), UK: November 2026 (26 November 2026) or the first trigger: DWP Youth Guarantee or Jobs Guarantee guidance changes.

What it would take

The order things have to happen in, who pays, and the effects and appraisals on record.

The order things have to happen in

First, the prerequisite
Segment young people by barrier and recruit employers with real vacancies
Owner: DWP and local delivery partners, with DfE
No date: the timing depends on the steps before it.
Then, the decision
Fund NHS referral routes and fidelity reviews alongside Connect to Work
Owner: DWP delivery areas and NHS commissioners
No date: the timing depends on the steps before it.
Then, delivery
Jobs Guarantee national rollout; IPS referrals from clinical teams
Owner: DWP delivery partners; Connect to Work providers with NHS teams
No date: the timing depends on the steps before it.
Finally, the measured outcome
Sustained work at 6–12 months against comparison groups; NEET and sickness inactivity falling
Owner: DWP (payroll data) and ONS
No date: the timing depends on the steps before it.
Then, the decision
Set an Access to Work decision standard for in-work cases and publish processing times as statistics
Owner: DWP
No date: the timing depends on the steps before it.
Then, delivery
Target minimum-wage inspections by sector and publish arrears and repeat offending
Owner: Fair Work Agency
No date: the timing depends on the steps before it.

Who pays, and what is still missing

Cost, committed funding and the remaining gap for the same scope and years. A programme envelope is not an award to a project; a proposal is not committed money. No total is shown because these costs are on different bases or periods and cannot be added.

Connect to Work (A09): cost and funding by period

£ in total, cash (nominal) prices. Outline = cost; solid = committed; hatched = proposed, not committed; empty = no funding identified.

Connect to Work grant and programme costs, 2025–26 to 2028–29: cost £1.03bn; committed £1.09bn
Connect to Work costs, 2029–30 to 2031–32: cost £134.4m; nothing committed; proposed £138m

The same records as on the NHS page, counted once. Committed funding for 2025–26 to 2028–29 is slightly above the revised cost; the later years are costed but not funded. NHS integration costs are not established.

Cost and funding ledger

Youth Guarantee package (programme envelope), including the Jobs Guarantee
A08 · recurring spending · published programme envelope
Amount
£820m in total, Announced 6 December 2025; the announcement gives no years, price basis not stated by the source
Who pays
central government
Committed
None identified
Proposed, not committed
£820m (Youth Guarantee package (£820m))
Gap
Not established
Support beyond the grant: travel, health support, employer supervision and evaluation
A08 · recurring spending · not costed
Amount
Not yet costed
Who pays
central government, employers, households
Committed
None identified
Proposed, not committed
—
Gap
Not established
Connect to Work grant and programme costs, 2025–26 to 2028–29
A09 · recurring spending · complete for scope
Amount
£1.03bn in total, 2025–26 to 2028–29, cash (nominal) prices
Who pays
central government
Committed
£1.09bn
Proposed, not committed
—
Gap
None for this scope
Connect to Work costs, 2029–30 to 2031–32
A09 · recurring spending · complete for scope
Amount
£134.4m in total, 2029–30 to 2031–32, cash (nominal) prices
Who pays
central government
Committed
None identified
Proposed, not committed
£138m (Connect to Work funding to be requested at a future Spending Review)
Gap
£134.4m
NHS clinical integration, referral and supervision for IPS
A09 · recurring spending · not costed
Amount
Not yet costed
Who pays
NHS
Committed
None identified
Proposed, not committed
—
Gap
Not established

Cost and funding ledger
Cost line (action)	Amount	Who pays	Committed	Proposed, not committed	Gap
Youth Guarantee package (programme envelope), including the Jobs Guarantee A08 · recurring spending · published programme envelope	£820m in total, Announced 6 December 2025; the announcement gives no years, price basis not stated by the source	central government	None identified	£820m (Youth Guarantee package (£820m))	Not established
Support beyond the grant: travel, health support, employer supervision and evaluation A08 · recurring spending · not costed	Not yet costed	central government, employers, households	None identified	—	Not established
Connect to Work grant and programme costs, 2025–26 to 2028–29 A09 · recurring spending · complete for scope	£1.03bn in total, 2025–26 to 2028–29, cash (nominal) prices	central government	£1.09bn	—	None for this scope
Connect to Work costs, 2029–30 to 2031–32 A09 · recurring spending · complete for scope	£134.4m in total, 2029–30 to 2031–32, cash (nominal) prices	central government	None identified	£138m (Connect to Work funding to be requested at a future Spending Review)	£134.4m
NHS clinical integration, referral and supervision for IPS A09 · recurring spending · not costed	Not yet costed	NHS	None identified	—	Not established

“Not yet costed” means no defensible cost has been found — not that the action is free. Lifetime benefits, benefit-cost ratios and forecast savings are never shown here as money available to spend.

Effects on record, with evidence ratings (5 records)

What the evidence says each action changes

Effects on record — these measure different outcomes, so they are not drawn on one scale
Action	Outcome and area	Effect	Compared with	Evidence
Offer evidence-based employment support alongside healthcare	Working 13 or more weeks in the year after joining (out-of-work participants) Work and pay	+4 percentage points (22% vs 18%)significant at the 99% level; no interval published	randomised control group receiving usual support; 12 months after randomisation, 2018–2020	evaluated; moderate confidence; West Midlands Combined AuthorityNo effect for out-of-work participants in Sheffield City Region, and no effect on earnings at 12 months.
Offer evidence-based employment support alongside healthcare	Working 13 or more weeks in the year after joining (people in work but struggling) Work and pay	+3 percentage pointssignificant only at the 90% level; no interval published	randomised control group; 12 months after randomisation, 2018–2020	evaluated; limited confidence; Sheffield City RegionWeaker evidence than the West Midlands result.
Offer evidence-based employment support alongside healthcare	Self-reported health (EQ-5D-5L) at 12 months Health and care	+0.10 standard deviationssignificant at the 90% level (99% when Sheffield groups are pooled); no effect in the West Midlands	randomised control group; 12 months after randomisation	evaluated; limited confidence; Sheffield City RegionSmall; not found in the West Midlands. Not evidence of reduced NHS demand.
Build paid routes into work for excluded young people	Unsubsidised employment two years after starting a subsidised job (Kickstart) Work and pay	+11 per 100Matched comparison, not randomised; no interval in the executive summary	a matched group of eligible young people who did not start a placement; Starts March 2021 to January 2022; outcomes at two years	evaluated; moderate confidence; Great BritainEvidence from Kickstart, an earlier scheme for a less disadvantaged group; the Jobs Guarantee has not been evaluated.
Build paid routes into work for excluded young people	Employment 12–24 months after an apprenticeship (NEET young people) Work and pay	Direction plausible; size not established	—	evaluated; limited confidence; International studiesThe toolkit reports about 10 more in work per 100 but rates the evidence “emerging” from few studies, so no size is plotted here.

How we would know

Young people aged 16–24 not in education, employment or training; Economically inactive because of long-term sickness, aged 16–64; Unemployment rate, aged 16–24; and 2 more.

The outcome measures to watch. A baseline is where we start, not a target; where there is no official target we say so.

Young people aged 16–24 not in education, employment or training
% of 16–24-year-olds · United Kingdom
Baseline
12.8%
Apr–Jun 2025
Latest
13.0%
Apr–Jun 2026
Target: none — no official NEET target.
Source: Office for National Statistics, Young people not in education, employment or training (NEET), UK (Table 1). Next release: quarterly (check the release calendar).
Economically inactive because of long-term sickness, aged 16–64
people · United Kingdom
Baseline
2.08 million
Oct–Dec 2019
Latest
2.78 million
May–Jul 2026
Target: none — no official target for this measure.
Source: Office for National Statistics, Labour Force Survey: economically inactive because of long-term sickness, 16–64 (Series LF69). Next release: monthly labour market release (check the release calendar).
Unemployment rate, aged 16–24
% · United Kingdom
Baseline
14.3%
May–Jul 2025
Latest
16.4%
May–Jul 2026
Target: none — no official target.
Source: Office for National Statistics, Labour Force Survey: unemployment rate 16+ (MGSX) and 16–24 (MGWY) (Series MGWY). Next release: monthly labour market release (check the release calendar).
Average working days from Access to Work application to decision
working days · Great Britain
Baseline
28 days
2021–22
Latest
109 days
November 2025
Official target: 25 working days (DWP’s target, reported by the NAO).
Source: National Audit Office, The Access to Work scheme (HC 1644) (Key facts; paragraph 14). Next release: not published routinely (DWP management information) (check the release calendar).
Jobs paid below the applicable minimum wage (estimate)
jobs · United Kingdom
Baseline
382,000
2024
Latest
445,000
2025
Target: none — no official target; a survey estimate, not proven non-compliance.
Source: Low Pay Commission, Low Pay Commission Report 2025 (Table 9.1). Next release: annual (Low Pay Commission report) (check the release calendar).

Measured results

What each option would be judged on, and the latest value of the measures already on this page. A measure moving is not proof that an option caused it.

Health-linked work support
Judged on: Sustained employment, earnings, health and wellbeing versus a comparator.
Data source: not yet named; baseline: not yet established.
- Economically inactive because of long-term sickness, aged 16–64Latest: 2.78 million (May–Jul 2026). Baseline: 2.08 million (Oct–Dec 2019). United Kingdom.
National plan: Growth and prosperity list
Work that pays
Judged on: Hourly and weekly pay, hours, sustained employment and progression.
Data source: not yet named; baseline: not yet established.
- Jobs paid below the applicable minimum wage (estimate)Latest: 445,000 (2025). Baseline: 382,000 (2024). United Kingdom.
National plan: Equality and opportunity list
Employer-linked shortage training beyond construction
Judged on: Define and baseline the outcome described in delivery requirements before approval.
Data source: not yet named; baseline: not yet established.
No measure on this page yet.
National plan: Related option, assessed separately
Timely workplace adjustments for disabled workers
Judged on: Define and baseline the outcome described in delivery requirements before approval.
Data source: not yet named; baseline: not yet established.
- Average working days from Access to Work application to decisionLatest: 109 days (November 2025). Baseline: 28 days (2021–22). Great Britain.
National plan: Related option, assessed separately

Where the ideas come from

Research, counter-evidence and methods (17 sources; 1 claim held back)

Health-led Employment Trials: evaluation synthesis report — Department for Work and Pensions, 2023-04.Randomised controlled trials of an adapted IPS service with economic and process evaluations; 9,785 people randomised in Sheffield City Region and the West Midlands, May 2018 to October 2019; people with mild to moderate physical or mental health conditions, in or out of work; Two English combined authorities. Relevant passages checked, 2026-10-04. Limits: Adapted IPS for mild to moderate conditions; results differ sharply by site and group. Not evidence about severe mental illness or all economically inactive people.
Almost a million young people to benefit from expanded support, new training and work experience opportunities — DWP and DfE, 2025-12-06.Government announcement; Great Britain. Full text checked, 2026-10-04. Limits: Its original Jobs Guarantee scope (18–21-year-olds, 55,000 jobs) has since been widened; see the Jobs Guarantee page.
Jobs Guarantee — Department for Work and Pensions, 2026-01-29 (updated 2026-09-16).Programme guidance; Great Britain. Relevant passages checked, 2026-10-04.
Connect to Work: Programme Business Case 2 summary — Department for Work and Pensions, 2026-07-30.Programme business case; England and Wales. Full text checked, 2026-10-04.
Young people not in education, employment or training (NEET), UK — Office for National Statistics, 27 August 2026.Official statistics (Labour Force Survey); United Kingdom. Relevant passages checked, 2026-10-04.
Labour Force Survey: economically inactive because of long-term sickness, 16–64 — Office for National Statistics, 15 September 2026.Official statistics (Labour Force Survey); United Kingdom. Relevant passages checked, 2026-10-04.
The Access to Work scheme (HC 1644) — National Audit Office, 2026-02-06.Audit report; Great Britain. Relevant passages checked, 2026-10-07. Limits: Processing figures come from DWP’s manually updated case spreadsheet, not official statistics.
The employment of disabled people 2025 — Department for Work and Pensions, 2025-11-04.Official statistics; United Kingdom. Relevant passages checked, 2026-10-07.
Low Pay Commission Report 2025 — Low Pay Commission, 2026-02-02.Independent body report; United Kingdom. Relevant passages checked, 2026-10-07. Limits: Observational; more employers report cutting staff numbers than in previous years.
National minimum wage enforcement and compliance report 2024 to 2025 — Department for Business and Trade, 2025-11-05.Government report; United Kingdom. Relevant passages checked, 2026-10-07.
Low and high pay in the UK: 2025 — Office for National Statistics, 2025-10-23.Official statistics; United Kingdom. Relevant passages checked, 2026-10-07.
Apprenticeships (Youth Employment Toolkit) — Youth Futures Foundation, 2026-08-26.Toolkit entry based on an earlier commissioned meta-analysis (employment outcomes only); Mainly international studies. Full text checked, 2026-10-04. Limits: Few studies; apprenticeships are not in the newer network meta-analysis behind the rest of the toolkit; employment outcomes only.
Kickstart Scheme: a quantitative impact assessment — Department for Work and Pensions, 2024-10-07.Matched comparison of starters with eligible non-starters; Starts March 2021 to January 2022; Great Britain. Relevant passages checked, 2026-10-04.
Investment priorities for mental health 2025 — Centre for Mental Health, 2025-05-07.Evidence review and policy proposals. Full text checked, 2026-10-04. Limits: Supports examining Individual Placement and Support for appropriate populations. Check original trials, service fidelity and the vintage of any national costing before reuse.
DfE update: further education, 21 May 2025 (foundation apprenticeships) — Department for Education, 2025-05-21.Government guidance; England. Relevant passages checked, 2026-10-04.
Journeys to Access to Work (RR1136) — Department for Work and Pensions (NatCen), 2026-06-25.Qualitative research; Great Britain. Relevant passages checked, 2026-10-07. Limits: 90 applicant and 26 employer interviews; not statistically representative.
Labour Force Survey: unemployment rate 16+ (MGSX) and 16–24 (MGWY) — Office for National Statistics, 15 September 2026.Official statistics (Labour Force Survey); United Kingdom. Relevant passages checked, 2026-10-04.

Counter-evidence and criticism

Build paid routes into work for excluded young people: Subsidised jobs can displace unsubsidised hiring and favour the young people easiest to help; apprenticeship evidence is thin and covers employment only, not education, training or wellbeing. (Youth Futures Foundation)
Offer evidence-based employment support alongside healthcare: One of three trial groups saw no employment effect and the Exchequer return within a year was 1–2p per £1; benefits were mainly in health and wellbeing, and only in one area. (Department for Work and Pensions)
Get Access to Work decisions made in weeks for people at risk of leaving work: There is no counterfactual estimate that faster decisions keep people in work; much of the benefit may depend on employers, who are often unsure of their own duties. (National Audit Office)
Target minimum-wage enforcement where underpayment is highest, and test whether it works: Survey estimates overstate true underpayment, and targeting may shift rather than reduce it. (Office for National Statistics)

Claims held back

The Jobs Guarantee will cut the NEET rate by a given amount — The scheme has not been evaluated and targets a narrower group than all NEET young people. Needed: The phase-one evaluation against a comparison group.

“Full text checked” means we read the report itself; “relevant passages” means the sections behind each figure; “summary or abstract only” means we could not read the full study, so no number from it is published here without another source.

Other options compared — not on the shortlist (2)

Other options compared

Options from earlier work on this page that are not on the shortlist. They remain valid choices; their evidence is shown as before.

preventionStatus: announced
Workplace adjustments and support to stay in work
Aims to:
Fewer people leave work when they develop a health condition.
How:
Employers make early adjustments — hours, duties, equipment, phased returns — and get occupational health advice, so sickness absence does not become a permanent exit.
Who decides:
Employers; DWP (Keep Britain Working vanguard, and Access to Work grants for adjustments).
Main constraint:
Small employers rarely have occupational health; uptake is voluntary; people who have already left work are not reached.
Evidence:
Limited evidence — plausible mechanism, little direct evaluation
See the trade-offs and evidence
What the evidence shows
The Keep Britain Working review (November 2025) set out the case and proposed a three-year vanguard phase with employers to build the evidence base; it is a programme designed to produce evidence, not one that already has an evaluated effect in the UK.
Policy status
Vanguard phase with employers under way; government updates published through March 2026.
Resources
Employer time and occupational health capacity; grants for adjustments through Access to Work.
Consent and decisions needed
Voluntary for employers; any statutory duty would need legislation and would be contested by business groups.
Time
Vanguard runs about three years; effects on inactivity would show later.
Cost and yield
No official costing of a national rollout.
Trade-offs and who pays
Costs fall on employers; a voluntary approach may reach mainly large employers that already do this.
How we would know it worked
Leading indicator: Share of employers with access to occupational health and making recorded adjustments. Outcome: Fewer people moving from sickness absence into long-term sickness inactivity. It would not be working if: Flows from work into health-related inactivity do not fall at participating employers relative to similar ones.
Sources
Keep Britain Working review: final report (November 2025)
DWP, Keep Britain Working vanguard phase: terms of reference
immediate reliefStatus: operating
Practical barriers: childcare and transport
Aims to:
People who could work, or study, are not stopped by the cost of getting there or of childcare.
How:
Help with upfront childcare costs and travel to work or training lowers the cost of taking a job or course.
Who decides:
DWP (Universal Credit childcare element, Flexible Support Fund); DfE (childcare entitlements, 16–19 Bursary Fund); local transport authorities.
Main constraint:
Support paid in arrears can still block a start; rural bus services may not exist to be subsidised.
Evidence:
Not evaluated — a mechanism to test, not an evidenced fix
See the trade-offs and evidence
What the evidence shows
Universal Credit already reimburses up to 85% of childcare costs, within monthly caps. No UK evaluation is cited here showing how much extra childcare or transport support changes employment or NEET rates for these groups.
Policy status
Existing support operates; no new national programme for young people’s transport.
Resources
Benefit and grant spending; local bus networks.
Consent and decisions needed
Changes to Universal Credit rules need DWP and Treasury agreement; bus support is a local decision.
Time
Can act within months.
Cost and yield
Depends on design; no official costing cited.
Trade-offs and who pays
Spending on cost barriers helps those nearly ready to work, not those furthest from it.
How we would know it worked
Leading indicator: Take-up of childcare and travel support among people starting work or training. Outcome: Job and course starts that last six months or more. It would not be working if: Take-up rises with no change in sustained starts.
Sources
GOV.UK, Childcare costs in Universal Credit

The options side by side
Option	Resources	Time	Evidence	Outcome to watch
Workplace adjustments and support to stay in work	Employer time and occupational health capacity; grants for adjustments through Access to Work.	Vanguard runs about three years; effects on inactivity would show later.	limited	Fewer people moving from sickness absence into long-term sickness inactivity.
Practical barriers: childcare and transport	Benefit and grant spending; local bus networks.	Can act within months.	not evaluated	Job and course starts that last six months or more.

How this connects to the UK priorities

Previous version. These are the 4 October 2026 priorities (NP1–NP8), superseded on 7 October 2026. The national action plan is linked from each assessed option above.

From the previous version of the UK action plan (4 October 2026). A link here never adds to a priority’s evidence count.

Previous version. The 4 October 2026 slate, superseded; see the national action plan.
Outcome priority 6: Hold the new family hubs to what worked in Sure Start, starting where access is weakest
- Provides evidence — findings here underpin UK-S2, UK-O2.
Outcome priority 2: Put employment support alongside healthcare for people who want to work
- Implements an action — A09 on this page.
- Benefits — evidence supports a benefit here.
- Provides evidence — findings here underpin UK-S2, UK-W3, UK-O2.
Outcome priority 1: Set a minimum price per unit of alcohol in England
- Provides evidence — findings here underpin UK-W3, UK-O2.
Outcome priority 3: Fit home adaptations faster for older people most at risk of falling
- Provides evidence — findings here underpin UK-W3, UK-O2.

Plan reviewed 2026-10-07. How we judge evidence.

Follow the part of the story that matters to you

Young people: routes in, and what blocks them →Ill health and work: why are more people out of work sick? →Who has a job, and enough hours? →Pay and security: is work paying more? →What employers cannot recruit: apprenticeships and skills →Your area: who is claiming work-related benefits? →

How this connects

What happens after school or college?
Post-16 routes, apprenticeships and degrees decide who arrives in the labour market with what — the step before NEET.
How long are people waiting for treatment?
Long-term sickness is the main reason more people are out of work than before 2020; NHS waiting times are one part of that picture.
Waiting-list totals cannot tell us how many people would return to work after treatment — that is association, not a measured effect.
Who receives support while out of work?
Universal Credit work requirements, unemployment and inactivity are different counts of different people.
Benefit categories are administrative and do not map one-to-one onto survey labour-market status.
How do UK working rights compare with Europe’s?
Paid leave, sick pay and who pays for them shape whether people with health conditions can stay in work.

Sources and methods (6)

ONS, Young people not in education, employment or training (NEET), UK, Table 1 (seasonally adjusted) (released 27 August 2026) — NEET counts and rates, by status, age and sex
ONS, NEET sampling variability, Table NEET 2 (95% confidence intervals) (released 27 August 2026) — 95% intervals for the latest NEET estimates
ONS, Labour Force Survey: unemployment rate 16+ (MGSX) and 16–24 (MGWY), MGSX, MGWY; MGWY is also published in Table A06 SA (released 15 September 2026) — unemployment rates, 16+ and 16–24
ONS, A06 SA: Educational status and labour market status for people aged from 16 to 24, Table A06 SA, series MGWY (released 15 September 2026) — cross-check of the 16–24 unemployment rate by three-month window
ONS, Labour Force Survey: economically inactive because of long-term sickness, 16–64, LF69 (released 15 September 2026) — economic inactivity because of long-term sickness, 16–64
ONS, Average Weekly Earnings in real terms (2015 prices), A3WX — real average weekly earnings

Method notes

Labour Force Survey figures are survey estimates with sampling error; ONS designated them official statistics again on 11 August 2026 after a period as “official statistics in development”, and still advises focusing on long-term movements.
LFS rates are rolling three-month averages, labelled here by their full window (for example “May–Jul 2026”).
NEET is a share of all people aged 16–24; the unemployment rate is a share of the economically active. They answer different questions and must not be compared as if one were a subset of the other.
Real pay covers Great Britain (Average Weekly Earnings does not cover Northern Ireland) and is deflated by CPIH (consumer prices including owner occupiers’ housing costs) to 2015 prices.

A route into work or learning is missing for too many.

981,000 young people are missing out on work and learning

Looking for a job is only part of the story.

Were looking for work and available to start

Were not looking or not available to start

The transition out of education is the pressure point.

15.2% of 18–24-year-olds are outside work and learning

Illness can close the door to work. Support has to help reopen it.

2.78 million people are out of work through long-term sickness, up from 2.08 million before Covid

Keeping a job matters as much as getting one.

A job should be a way forward. What does the pay actually buy?

Average real pay is 4.6% above 2007, 18 years on

Are there jobs — and enough hours?

The same wage can buy very different lives.

Judge support by the job people keep, not the programme they start.

Visual summary

Share of 16–24-year-olds who are NEET

Within the NEET total

Social card

What could improve it?

Offer evidence-based employment support alongside healthcare

Target minimum-wage enforcement where underpayment is highest, and test whether it works

Make childcare places work for working parents

What would move the needle?

The options on the table

Assessed with another page as home

The position today

What we can build on Strengths

What is holding us back Weaknesses

What could improve things Opportunities

What could make it worse Threats

The actions worth examining

Offer evidence-based employment support alongside healthcare

The problem

Who is affected, and where

Policy status

The evidence

Effects on record

Cost and funding

What delivery needs

First step and stages

Trade-offs

How we would judge it

Earlier option on this page

Sources

Target minimum-wage enforcement where underpayment is highest, and test whether it works

The problem

Who is affected, and where

Policy status

The evidence

Cost and funding

What delivery needs

First step and stages

Trade-offs

How we would judge it

Sources

Get Access to Work decisions made in weeks for people at risk of leaving work

The problem

Who is affected, and where

Policy status

The evidence

Cost and funding

What delivery needs

First step and stages

Trade-offs

How we would judge it

Sources

Build paid routes into work for excluded young people

The problem

Who is affected, and where

Policy status

The evidence

Effects on record

Cost and funding

What delivery needs

First step and stages

Trade-offs

How we would judge it

Earlier option on this page

Sources