Policy paper

30 July 2026: Connect to Work - Programme Business Case 2 Summary

Published 30 July 2026

Applies to England and Wales

Executive Summary

Connect to Work is a major part of the government’s Get Britain Working strategy. In each year at peak, it aims to support up to 100,000 people with complex barriers to work move towards sustained employment. The programme utilises validated, evidenced based, supported employment models and is delivered through coordinated clusters of local authorities, with the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) overseeing funding arrangements.

The programme has been agreed to run from 2025/26 to 2029/30 at an estimated cost of £1.2 billion, generating expected benefits of £2.6 billion. The programme demonstrates value for money, with an expected net present value (NPV) of £1.3 billion when accounting for societal benefits. 

Connect to Work referrals commenced in April 2025. Delivery is through grant funding agreements to 49 delivery areas with a lead Accountable Body (AB). In 2025/26, 47 received direct funding through Connect to Work Grant Funding Agreements, while 2 received funding in 2025/26 as Established Mayoral Strategic Authorities (EMSA) through the Integrated Settlement. From April 2026, a further 5 EMSAs (covering 8 of the original Connect to Work ABs) received funding via Integrated Settlements, routing around 43% of programme funding through this model for the Spending Review period. 

It is standard government practice to develop and assess business cases in line with His Majesty’s Treasury’s Green Book guidance, which sets out best practice for appraising and evaluating public spending proposals. This Programme Business Case 2 (PBC2) fulfils the condition set upon the approval of Programme Business Case 1 (PBC1) for the Department to publish an updated summary in 2026. PBC1 received His Majesty’s Treasury approval on 23 June 2025 (and the summary was subsequently published on 29 January 2026). This summary is now being published following the approval of Connect to Work PBC 2 on 26 March 2026. The business case outlines an updated view of the expected benefits of the proposal, including anticipated savings and improvements to participant experience. It reflects lower anticipated starts in the first 2 years, based on the delivery plans which local areas submitted and the application of an adjustment due to optimism bias. Its publication forms part of the government’s commitment to transparency and value for money in public spending.

1. Strategic Case

1.1 Rationale

1.1.1 One of the government’s 5 missions is to kickstart economic growth, with good jobs and improved productivity in every part of the country. The government aims to take a more collaborative, locally led approach to tackling economic inactivity.

1.1.2 There are over 2 million people in the UK^{[footnote 1]} who would like to work but are not participating in the labour market. Long-term sickness continues to be the most common reason for economic inactivity among the working age population and between 2014 and 2022, disabled workers (defined by the Equality Act 2010) were nearly twice as likely to fall out of work as non-disabled people.

1.1.3 In October 2024, the government decided to expand access to ‘Supported Employment’, an evidence-based model for supporting disabled people and those with significant health conditions using a ‘place, train and maintain’ approach through a new voluntary, locally led programme called Connect to Work. This is the first programme within the government’s ‘Pathways to Work’ package of support and marks the first step towards greater devolution of responsibilities and funding for employment programmes to local areas.

1.1.4 Delivery is through clusters of local authorities (Delivery Areas) with a named local authority acting as the Accountable Body (AB). ABs set out delivery in a plan that is approved by DWP and cannot change programme eligibility/suitability criteria, though they can prioritise groups within those criteria. Connect to Work is primarily aimed at out-of-work participants (85%) with in-work retention support (15%); out-of-work participants can receive up to 12 months support and in-work participants up to 4 months, with extensions on a case-by-case basis.

1.1.5 From Autumn Budget 2024, Connect to Work funding was included in scope for the Integrated Settlement for eligible EMSAs. Integrated Settlements provide a consolidated funding pot granted by the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG), with outcomes frameworks and a different accountability model.

1.1.6 Those receiving Connect to Work funding in their Integrated Settlement will still be required to deliver Supported Employment to the same eligible groups and to comparable outcomes and targets as other areas, and to continue using DWP systems and evaluation. This is with the exception of Greater Manchester, which has been given additional flexibility. Integrated Settlements, particularly in the case of Greater Manchester, create some uncertainty in what will be achieved due to the differences in the available controls. Where differences in controls apply, this has been noted in the business case with potential uncertainty captured.

1.2 Objectives and outcomes

1.2.1 The key strategic outcome for Connect to Work is primarily to move more of the economically inactive target groups into sustained work using the evidence-based Supported Employment models. It will also include support for people in the above groups who are at risk of losing their job and becoming inactive. The key objectives are:

• delivering a national Supported Employment model supporting approximately 300,000 individuals by the end of financial year 2029/30

• supporting local economic growth through the employment of people from across our target populations (7 percentage points (ppt) of additionality, the additional proportion of participants entering employment as a direct result of the programme, is achieved (at a minimum) across the combined Connect to Work participant group)

• contributing to a framework for effective, locally driven and integrated employment support that can be sustained

• improving the general health and wellbeing of participants, including support to build strategies to manage their disability and barriers to work and gain financial independence

2. Value for Money - The Economic Case

2.1 Connect to Work Outcomes

2.1.1 The economic modelling in this business case has been updated and now employs the Department’s Social Cost Benefits Analysis (SCBA) model. This approach estimates the savings accrued by having an individual move from unemployment to employment and applies these estimates to the expected number of additional people in work due to the programme, based on additionality scenarios.

The analysis primarily considers employment effects, with health effects in a separate scenario.

The return on investment calculations have also been updated in this Programme Business Case to include revised assumptions on participant volumes (Table 3) and updated costs.

Economic Appraisal

Value for Money and note on revised methodology

2.1.2 This economic appraisal uses the Department’s SCBA model to estimate socioeconomic, fiscal, and Annually Management Expenditure (AME) Return on Investment (ROI). The SCBA model, developed alongside the move to Universal Credit (UC) calculates the impact of individuals shifting from UC to employment based on assumptions about characteristics such as hours worked, wage rates, rental costs, and duration on higher wages.

2.1.3 Individual benefit estimates for participants moving into work were multiplied by the employment impact to calculate total programme benefits. These estimates apply to both the Out of Work (OOW) and In Work Retention Support (IWRS) cohorts, as both groups are expected to generate identical benefits.

2.1.4 Previous versions of the Connect to Work business case estimated the ROI using Benefit Cost Ratios (BCRs) adapted from the Work Choice (WC) programme. While this provided evidence-based estimates, differences between WC and Connect to Work prompted exploration of alternative approaches better configured to Connect to Work. The SCBA offers a bottom-up, tailored approach, estimating returns based on evidence-backed assumptions for an average participant. Unlike the WC-adjusted model, which relied on legacy benefits, SCBA focuses on UC, reflecting the reality for most participants. The updated model uses recent evidence for wage rates and hours worked, making it more applicable. Tables 1 and 2 compare the savings estimated, using volumes from PBC1, from the SCBA model with the previous model (WC adjusted).

Table 1. Savings from SCBA Model

	Over 5-year funded period	Total programme savings
Total AME Savings (£m)	483	767
Total Fiscal Savings (£m)	836	1323
Total Societal Impact (£m)	1428	2267
Total ROI = AME + Social (£m)	1912	3034

Table 2. Savings from Previous model (WC adjusted)

	Over 5-year funded period	Total programme savings
Total AME Savings (£m)	386	600
Total Fiscal Savings (£m)	764	1188
Total Societal Impact (£m)	1061	1649
Total ROI = AME + Social (£m)	1447	2249

2.1.5 The business case economic modelling for ROI has been revised with updated assumptions for volume numbers and unit costs, reflecting variances between approved delivery plans from most grant areas and modelled estimates and assumptions. These changes, alongside methodological revisions, are the largest drivers of changes to ROI estimates. The business case now includes for a refined rollout schedule and updated assumptions which reduce projected participant starts from 308,819 in PBC1 to 288,455 in PBC2, a reduction of 20,364. This is driven by variances between approved GFAs rollout adjustments. Expected overall volumes were reduced for 2025/26 to reflect optimism bias in ramp up profiles. This was determined based on evidence from past schemes and early performance indications. Previous programmes illustrate recovery towards profile in the second year. That, along with planned support and performance management for local areas, led to an assumed 10% overall optimism bias for 2026/27 and areas being collectively back to profile, and therefore no reduction for optimism bias from 2027/28 onwards.

There are opportunities during the programme’s life to maximise volumes through proactive performance management, e.g. annual reviews. This could see delivered volumes exceed forecasts illustrated in table 3.

Table 3. Volume profile for Connect to Work and Integrated Settlements

Movements from PBC1 to PBC2	25/26	26/27	27/28	28/29	29/30	Total
PBC1 Apr 2025	33,623	93,210	100,168	72,440	9,378	308,819
PBC2	17,954	75,406	103,033	79,501	12,561	288,455
Variance from PBC1	-15,669	-17,804	2,865	7,061	3,183	-20,364

2.2 Cost, Savings and Impact Assessment

2.2.1 Three scenarios, based on evidence for the target group gathered from previous programmes, have been developed for the economic modelling of benefits based on differing levels of employment additionality. These scenarios are:

• Central – 7 ppt employment additionality

• Optimistic – 10 ppt employment additionality

• Pessimistic – 3 ppt employment additionality

Sensitivity analysis was also conducted on different earnings assumptions:

• Central - participants earn the National Minimum Wage (NMW) and work average hours for disabled workers

• Optimistic - median hourly wage data for disabled workers, uprated to 2025/26 prices, while maintaining the same hours worked

• Pessimistic - NMW but work only 16 hours per week

2.2.2 These scenarios produce different impacts which in turn leads to different levels of AME, Fiscal and socio-economic returns. The tables presented below show the undiscounted ROIs by scenario for each year in the funded period, with totals for the funded period and the totals after 9 years (when the full returns will have been delivered).

2.2.3 In the central scenario, the benefit–cost ratio is estimated at 2.28, calculated by combining the 0.58 AME and 1.70 societal benefit-cost ratios shown in table 5. This means that £2.28 of benefits are expected to generate for every £1 spent. As societal benefit-cost ratios in previous iterations of the business case did not include fiscal benefits, the cost–benefit measures are not summed across all categories; instead, AME and societal returns are combined to estimate total benefit-cost ratios, to allow for consistency and comparison across the different business case estimates.

Table 4. Benefit Cost Ratios across Connect to Work

BCR	AME	Fiscal	Societal
Baseline/Central Scenario	0.58	0.99	1.70
Employment Optimistic	0.82	1.42	2.43
Employment Pessimistic	0.25	0.43	0.73
Earnings Optimistic	0.72	1.30	2.12
Earnings Pessimistic	0.25	0.38	0.85

2.2.4 Under the central scenario (7 ppt additionality), the programme generates growing AME savings, fiscal gains, and social impacts throughout its funding period. Employment benefits increase steadily, leading to sustained job outcomes. Returns are mainly from:

• participants achieving stable employment

• lower benefit costs

• higher tax income

• broader societal improvements in health and wellbeing

2.2.5 The modelling also tests earnings assumptions, acknowledging outcome changes based on wage and hours worked.

Tables 5 and 6 below illustrate the estimated benefits from the central scenario of the programme.

Table 5. Connect to Work Central Scenario Benefit Profile

	25/26	26/27	27/28	28/29	29/30
AME (£m)	8	44	95	136	145
Fiscal (£m)	14	76	164	235	250
Societal (£m)	25	131	280	402	429
Employment Impact (Additional People in Work, cumulative, thousand)	1	7	14	19	20
Employment outcomes (total people in work, cumulative, thousand)	8	40	84	119	124

Table 6. Connect to Work Central Scenario Benefit Totals

	Over 5-year funded period	Total programme savings
Total AME Savings (£m)	428	729
Total Fiscal Savings (£m)	739	1249
Total Societal Impact (£m)	1266	2140
Total ROI = AME + Social (£m)	1694	2864

2.3 Do Nothing Option

2.3.1 The cost of the do-nothing option is presented in terms of the potential benefits forgone by not proceeding with the planned rollout of Connect to Work. See table 8.

2.3.2 This is because the programme had already selected its preferred option at the OBC stage: an 85/15 split between out-of-work and in-work participants. This approach allows DWP to focus more on out-of-work cohorts, aligning with workforce participation goals while still offering reasonable support for those in work.

2.3.3 As a result, other options were not modelled in this version of the business case. Only the preferred option and a “do nothing” option was analysed.

Table 7. Forgone benefits originating from the do-nothing option

	Lower Estimate	Central Estimate	Higher Estimate
Total AME savings (£m)	310	724	1034
Total Fiscal savings
(£m)	481	1249	1784
Total Social impact (£m)	917	2140	3447
Total ROI = AME + Social (£m)	1227	2864	4091
Employment impact (Additional people in work, thousand)	9	20	29

2.4 Benefits by Categorisation and Perspective

Table 8. Monetised/Non-Monetised Economic Benefit Assessment

Benefit	Monetised?	Section (AME, Fiscal, Societal)
Increase in Economic Output	Monetised	Societal
Improved health-related quality of life	Monetised	Societal
Reduced DWP operational costs	Monetised	AME, Fiscal, Societal
Reduced NHS and wider public sector costs	Non-monetised	-
Increased tax revenue	Monetised	Fiscal
AME savings	Monetised	AME, Fiscal

2.4 Grant Delivery Should Cost Assessment

2.4.1 The Should Cost analysis provides an evidence-based estimate of total programme grant funding, built from forecast participant volumes and delivery assumptions, then refined to reflect real-world delivery constraints. It starts with a central model (from PBC1 volumes) to calculate total expected costs, based on:

• an 85/15 split between OOW and IWRS participants

• defined support durations (12 months OOW, 4 months IWRS)

• built-in programme tails (ongoing costs after referrals end)

The total cost is then allocated to Devolved Areas (DAs) using a Grant Formula Model.

The Should Cost model combines standardised assumptions with delivery insights to produce a realistic, allocation-ready estimate of programme funding.

2.5 Discounted Cash Flow

2.5.1 The net present value (NPV) for the preferred option is £1.3 billion, up from £693 million in PBC1 partly due to changes in the economic appraisal method.

3. Affordability - The Financial Case

3.1 Funding Requirement

3.1.1 The total revised funding required for the life of the programme is £1.2 billion (2023/24 to 2031/32).  This is reflective of the updated rollout schedule and approved grant funding agreements.

3.1.2 Funding of £114 million for 2025/26 was confirmed at Autumn Budget 2024. A further £978 million was provided through Spending Review 2025 to cover 2026/27 to 2028/29. The £138 million funding for 2029/30 and beyond will be requested in a future Spending Review. The Programme remains within His Majesty’s Treasury funding envelope, subject to future Spending Review outcomes.  The variance to funding for these years reflects changes to volume forecasts and planning assumptions since SR 2025 submission.

The updated grant unit cost per participant start in nominal terms is £3,886. This is slightly higher than unit cost from PBC1 reflecting revised volumes assumptions.

Table 9. Impact of changes from the PBC1 to PBC2

Movements from PBC1 to PBC2 (£m)	23/24	24/25	25/26	26/27	27/28	28/29	29/30	30/31	31/32	Total
PBC1 (Apr 2025)	3.0	12.6	110.4	249.8	366.5	344.7	137.9	0.2	0.1	1,225.2
Variance for approved plans to modelling	-	-	(0.7)	(0.3)	(7.4)	(8.5)	(3.8)	-	-	(20.7)
Revised grant costing assumptions	-	-	(18.9)	(8.6)	0.0	0.0	0.0	-	-	(27.5)
Replanning and other revised assumptions	0.0	(0.1)	(0.1)	0.3	(0.1)	0.1	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.1
PBC2	3.0	12.5	90.7	241.2	359.0	336.3	134.1	0.2	0.1	1,177.1

Whole life costs of the business case

3.1.3 As shown in Table 11 the whole life costs of the business case are broken down into spend areas.

3.1.4 A total of £16 million has been spent from 2023 to March 2025 in the following areas:

• programme staff, professional support and other programme costs

• initial section 31 grants to support local areas in preparing their delivery plans and initial implementation

3.1.5 Future costs amount to £1.2 billion covering the following areas:

• section 2 grant funding for local areas makes up the bulk of planned expenditure

• ongoing management of the grant programme by the Department costing £32 million. Totals are subject to rounding

Table 10. Expenditure summary

Expenditure Line (£m)	Sunk costs 23/24	Sunk costs 24/25	Future costs 25/26	Future costs 26/27	Future costs 27/28	Future costs 28/29	Future costs 29/30	Future costs 30/31	Future costs 31/32	Total
DWP Payroll Costs	2.1	4.6	6.9	5.2	5.0	5.0	3.8	-	-	32.6
DWP Consultancy	0.8	1.3	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	2.1
DWP Other Programme Costs	-	0.3	1.4	2.4	1.8	1.9	1.9	-	-	9.7
DWP IT Investments	0.1	1.7	2.3	1.5	0.6	0.6	0.6	-	-	7.4
DWP Capital Investment	-	-	0.5	1.1	1.2	1.0	0.4	0.2	0.1	4.5
Connect to Work Grants	-	4.6	68.3	113.9	208.0	196.3	75.2	-	-	666.3
Grant for Integrated Settlements	-	-	11.3	117.1	142.4	131.5	52.2	-	-	454.5
Total	3.0	12.5	90.7	241.2	359.0	336.3	134.1	0.2	0.1	1,177.1

3.2 Risks

3.2.1 The main risks to programme costing are:

• Uncertainty in Forecast and Expenditure. To address uncertainty in the forecasts particularly resulting in an underspend, optimism bias (whereby an assumed optimism within the financial returns) and over-programming are employed to reduce this risk and maximise participant volumes.

• Integrated Settlements. From 2026/27, funding for 8 additional Accountable Bodies will move into Integrated Settlements, bringing the total to 10 delivery areas funded in this way. While Integrated Settlements reduce the number of individual grants the department must administer, they also limit direct financial controls, increasing uncertainty around achieving value for money. Due to uncertainty about the level of monitoring required, revised resource costings are not yet available, and any management cost savings are expected to be immaterial to the overall business case. The conditions of the settlement for all EMSAs excluding Greater Manchester (adherence to fidelity, robust MI measurement and participation in the evaluation) act as mitigations for the risk, and the MHCLG-led Programme Boards enable interventions where outcomes are not being achieved in line with targets, which is on a 6-monthly basis. The flexibility in Greater Manchester increases uncertainty, but one of the conditions for agreeing to this more flexible approach is that Greater Manchester works alongside DWP to develop a robust impact evaluation of this funding. Accounting officer responsibility for ensuring value for money moves to the MHCLG Permanent Secretary when the funding is transferred.

4. Commercial Case

4.1 Commercial context

4.1.1 The programme continues to deliver through a local authority grant model, consistent with devolution objectives, and includes controls to support accountability and assurance.

Of the 3 models considered at the Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) stage (in-house, local authority grant and contracting with devolution) it was agreed that the local authority grant approach was more consistent with the devolution agenda than national contracts. The current government has outlined plans to devolve funding for employment support as part of its Manifesto commitments. The local authority grant approach obtained approval through the Cabinet Office’s Complex Grants Advisory Panel Board on 20 May 2024 and 31 March 2025.

4.1.2 Although funding beyond 2028/29 is at DWP’s own risk pending the next Spending Review, to address concerns over delivery and reputational risks, the programme obtained approval from the Secretary of State to sign Grant Funding Agreements (GFAs), with a defined funding period of up to March 2030. This matches the basis on which ABs have been planning since early 2024. HMT approval has been confirmed for this approach. If the programme were only able to issue one-year GFAs, ABs would not have been able to procure contracts with good VfM. ABs would also find the recruitment of staff and implementation of the programme challenging without confirmation of long-term funding.

4.2 Grant delivery controls and digital enablement

4.2.1 PBC2 describes the controls underpinning the participant journey and grant management, including eligibility checks, performance measures, and pre- and post-payment cost validation. Payments are made in arrears based on claims made my Accountable Bodies, with statutory local authority finance officer sign-off and defined remedies within the GFA.

4.2.2 PBC2 also describes the digital approach to referrals and management information. At launch, a DWP Central Referral Team accept referrals on behalf of Accountable Bodies and checks for duplicate provision; post-launch, digital capabilities will enable Accountable Bodies to make referrals directly, with the solution built around a number of components, including:

• Provider Referrals and Payments (PRaP) System for processing referrals, managing participants on provision, Accounting Officer controls and performance management MI. PRaP Operational Design and Digital Systems team use PRaP to on-board ABs

• iSupplier Portal – user interface for PRaP that enables ABs (or their sub-contracted providers) to manage referrals

• Real Time Earnings (RTE) feeds into PRaP to validate earnings outcomes of participants

• Support Offers (SO) to check participants are not currently on other contracted provision and to push referral data into PRaP

At launch, and until Support Offers has equivalent capabilities:

• Labour Market System (LMS) to check participants haven’t previously been referred to contracted provision via LMS and generate location codes so that referrals can be mapped to ABs and local authority areas

• UC Support Portal to check UC benefit participants aren’t currently on other contracted provision

• Contracted Employment Provision MI Reporting to carry out analysis and evaluation using data from PRaP

• Transfer Your File (TYF) for ABs to securely upload referral and MI data and receive errors and exceptions and used by ABs to submit their claims to DWP

• Data Warehouse to store MI for use by policy and performance analysts

4.3 Fidelity assurance

4.3.1 Close adherence (known as high fidelity) to the evidence based Individual Placement and Support (IPS) and Supported Employment Quality Framework (SEQF) models is associated with better outcomes. DWP has introduced a Fidelity Assurance system into Connect to Work. Services will be annually reviewed against the IPS 25 and shortened SEQF scales^{[footnote 2]}. The reviews will highlight good practice and areas where services are struggling to achieve fidelity. Services will be supported to create action plans to address areas for development.

This is one of the key controls DWP have in place to ensure delivery of the expected business case outcomes.

4.3.2 Following a commercial exercise, a successful tender was awarded to Social Finance Limited who will carry out Fidelity Assurance services across the relevant Connect to Work geographies along with their key sub-contractor BASE.

4.3.3 The total Contract Price is £7.75 million.

4.3.4 The decision to award the Fidelity Assurance contract was approved at the Connect to Work Programme Board on 25 June 2025 and CAB Approval Point 2 on 26 June 2025. The Fidelity Assurance Contract was signed on 6 August 2025 and the Fidelity Assurance services started on 1 August 2025.

4.3.5 All Integrated Settlement areas excluding Greater Manchester are expected to continue to receive regular fidelity assessment from the contracted fidelity assurance provider.

5. The Management Case

5.1 Programme Management Arrangements

5.1.1 Connect to Work formally joined the Department’s Change Portfolio in November 2023. DWP Policy Group have maintained policy responsibility. The Connect to Work programme is being delivered under DWP’s Change Portfolio using Waterfall project methodology and will align to PRINCE2 and Managing Successful Programmes delivery methodologies. Governance oversight is provided through the Three Lines of Defence model, with the Programme Board responsible for overall delivery.

5.1.2 The programme is included within the Government Major Projects Portfolio and is subject to independent scrutiny from the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority (NISTA) and the Government Internal Audit Agency. A Gate 4 review in October 2025 resulted in a Green rating, providing assurance on delivery progress and readiness.

5.1.3 The programme’s critical path has been formally baselined through an approved Plan on a Page, supported by a detailed project schedule. Progress and dependencies are actively managed and reported through Programme Checkpoints and regular Programme Board reporting.

5.1.4 Key delivery roles are clearly defined, with the Senior Responsible Owner supported by the Programme Director and key stakeholders.

5.2 Risk Management Approach

5.2.1 Risk management is embedded within programme governance. The Project Management Office maintains a comprehensive risk register, with each risk assigned an owner and action manager. Risks are reviewed monthly and escalated to the Programme Board as needed. Each risk is supported by a contingency plan, ensuring resilience and preparedness.

5.3 Stakeholder Engagement and Communications

5.3.1 The programme has participated extensively in advisory forums, provider round tables, and conversations with delivery partners. Regional Engagement Leads are collaborating closely with Accountable Bodies, and employer events have further reinforced connections with the labour market. Ongoing engagement continues through webinars, regional forums, and one-to-one meetings, ensuring stakeholders remain involved and supported throughout delivery.

5.4 Evaluation Plan

5.4.1 DWP has commissioned a consortium led by The National Centre for Social Research to evaluate the Connect to Programme. This will combine process, outcome, impact and economic evaluation of the Programme and explore variation between delivery areas. The evaluation commenced in November 2025 and expected to conclude end of 2031 and will include those receiving funding through an Integrated Settlement, excluding Greater Manchester.

5.4.2 Subject to programme timescales, we expect evaluation to commence and reports products according to this timeline:

• participant fieldwork taking place Spring 2026 to Winter 2030

• early Insights report to be published in Autumn 2026

• interim report to be published in 2027/28

• annual summaries of emerging findings (not for publication) to be delivered in 2028, 2029 and 2030

• final report to be published in 2031/32

5.5 Benefits Management

5.5.1 Benefits management is governed by a Benefits Realisation Plan and Strategy, which will evolve as the programme matures. While full assurance of benefits will be confirmed through evaluation, live tracking of outcomes will provide early indications of delivery. The programme’s success is contingent on timely referrals from ABs, with mitigation in place to support planned roll out schedules.

5.5.2 Benefits management is more challenging under the Integrated Settlement, where DWP has a reduced role in performance management. The Settlement for 2026/27 to 2028/29 has been designed to include parameters that mitigate the risks to benefits realisation.

5.6 Data Collection and Publication

5.6.1 Data and Management Information systems are in place to track referrals, starts, job outcomes, and earnings. Core metrics are recorded through DWP systems, including PRaP and HMRC earnings data, enabling consistent performance monitoring across delivery areas. Management information is produced through a structured reporting framework, including regular internal and external MI packs, with official statistics publications providing transparency on programme performance. These outputs support both performance management and wider accountability across delivery areas.

1. ONS Statistics: Economic Inactivity seasonally adjusted ↩

2. Fidelity Assurance in Connect to Work - IPS Grow ↩