Research and analysis

Home Decarbonisation Skills Training competition: Phase 1 evaluation summary

Published 1 September 2025

Applies to England

Evaluation executive summary of HDSTC Phase 1: Extract of evaluation

By Winning Moves prepared for Midlands Net Zero Hub and Department for Energy Security and Net Zero in October 2024.

The full evaluation report can be found on the Midlands Net Zero Hub’s website.

---

Introduction

The Home Decarbonisation Skills Training Competition (HDSTC) was launched in September 2022. Midlands Net Zero Hub (MNZH) delivered the competition, using funding from Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ). Eighteen UK training organisations received up to £1 million each to fund training for people working, or who want to work, in the energy efficiency, building retrofit and low carbon heating sectors.

The overall aim of the HDSTC was to increase supply chain capacity, both in terms of volume and skill level, to support the delivery of existing DESNZ home retrofit schemes, as well as the decarbonisation of buildings, in support of the UK’s net zero carbon emissions target. The competition – and the courses it funded - was organised into three ‘Work Packages’ (‘WPs’), each addressing a different aspect of home decarbonisation:

WP1 – training to PAS 2035 standards as a retrofit assessor and retrofit coordinator.

WP2 - training to National Occupational Standards, or higher, in the installation of domestic insulation measures.

WP3 –training for the installation of domestic heat pumps (air or ground source), including design of the heating system.

This evaluation concerns Phase 1 of the HDSTC (Phase 2 was subsequently launched in June 2023) to assess the extent to which the skills training competition has achieved its stated aims and objectives, and to identify successes and challenges faced in its delivery and implementation.

The methodology comprised a review of programme data and documentation, assessment of data collected through a feedback survey with trainees (administrated by MNZH), interviews with DESNZ and MNZH staff involved in the HDSTC, interviews with providers offering funded training and a retrospective survey with trainees. This retrospective survey was completed by 447 respondents, of whom 309 received training through Work Package 1 (WP1), 14 through Work Package 2 (WP2) and 124 through Work Package 3 (WP3). Given the low number of responses from WP2, (partly due to data access limitations that will be explored later in the report), analysis of the data does not include charts for this group, and is restricted to reporting actual numbers rather than percentages. For the same reason, comparative analysis between work packages is confined to a small number of comparisons between WP1 and WP3.

The evaluation also includes a light touch assessment of the value for money of the HDSTC, considering scheme costs against those benefits that could be best demonstrated from the available survey evidence.

The implementation and delivery of the competition

MNZH received 25 applications to deliver training under the competition. Most of those who were awarded funding said they heard about the HDSTC directly from MNZH. Successful training providers were positive about the process implemented for this competition, with widespread agreement that the type and amount of information required was proportionate to the funding allocated.

Most training providers reported that there was no need to existing course provision to meet competition requirements, and most built on existing relationships to engage and recruit potential trainees.

The monitoring requirements of training providers enabled MNZH to keep a good track of progress with delivery. Though it was larger providers, particularly those who had delivered training as part of the Green Homes Grant Skills Training Competition (effectively a pilot of the HDSTC), that seemed to be more comfortable meeting them. Six (usually smaller and / or less experienced) providers felt that monitoring submissions were too frequent.

The extent to which the competition has met its intended outcomes/ impacts

More than 7,940 unique people working, or who want to work, in the energy efficiency, building retrofit and low carbon heating sectors received training through Phase 1 of HDSTC:

Work Package	Unique trainees
1	1,722
2	1,550
3	4,668
Total	7,940

The extent to which individual providers met their original target number of course completions is summarised below:

100% or more - 4 of 19 (21%) training providers

Between 80% and 99% - 7 of 19 (37%) training providers

Less than 80% - 7 of 19 (37%) training providers

Discontinued - 1 of 19 (5%) training providers

Of the providers interviewed in the evaluation that achieved less than 80% of their target, reasons for this were felt to be either overly ambitious targets or an insufficiently attractive offer for the types of potential learners (in particular unemployed learners) in the geographic area of the training centre.

Through supporting the provision of free or subsidised training, the HDSTC successfully addressed cost as a barrier to upskilling large numbers of the sector over a relatively short period of time. Of the employers interviewed, three stated that they would not have sent employees on the course at all as the training was too costly and only available during working hours, which would disrupt onsite contract work. Four (of the 17 interviewed) stated that subsidised and free course delivery had enabled training for a larger number of their employees, (different roles, responsibilities and levels of experience), than in the absence of the subsidy. This increased the proportion of staff with new knowledge and skills, more effectively ‘futureproofing’ their business for any changes in consumer demand. A further six employers stated that there would have been substantial delays in offering training to their employees without the HDSTC subsidy.

Across all three work packages, approximately three quarters of trainees were satisfied with the course overall (WP1: 73%, WP2: 13 out of 14 trainees, WP3: 74%). Delivery mechanisms, especially online modules and recorded content were perceived as flexible., allowing access to course content and completion of aspects of training at any time and place. There were slightly lower satisfaction ratings (among both WP1 and WP3 trainees) for ‘having the opportunity to put skills into practice’. Dissatisfaction with this aspect was often linked to courses being online and / or lacking practical demonstrations; these, and installation experience, were highlighted as critical in preparing trainees to complete work for clients.

Overall, through interviews with the sample of trainees and employers, the evaluation found evidence of a wide range of intended HDSTC outcomes:

• Improved sector specific and technical skills and knowledge that have enabled trainees (and the businesses they work for) to expand their capacity to undertake certain types of work, take on new types of work (e.g. install new measures such as heat pumps) and / or deliver work for new clients.
• Improved sector specific and technical skills and knowledge that have impacted on the efficiency, and quality of the installation and/or assessment work being completed.
• The credentials to work on specific government schemes that businesses were not previously able to e.g. the Boiler Upgrade Scheme and Social Housing Decarbonisation Fund. There is also evidence that trainees have gone on to deliver, or are planning to deliver, work as part of government schemes, subsequent to the training. Across all three work packages, approximately 1 in 7 trainees reported that they had not previously worked on government schemes but are planning to do so since securing the required accreditations and qualifications through the HDSTC.
• Increased confidence that trainees will have the skills to benefit from increased demand for energy efficiency, building retrofit and low carbon heating activity i.e. futureproofing the business.

In combination, all the above are expected to enhance the reputation of the business.

From the perspective of training providers, enhanced reputation, derived from involvement on a government funded competition, was the most cited benefit of engagement. Recognition via a government scheme was seen to effectively serve as a kite mark for quality provision that providers hoped to capitalise on.

Value for money

The available evidence^{[footnote 1]} suggests that the HDSTC has provided substantial cumulative benefits (even assuming some deadweight) if these are monetised and extrapolated to the participant population, and persistence of certain benefits is taken into account.  Amongst the sample interviewed in this evaluation, there was recognition of a range of trainee and organisational benefits:

• Jobs created and safeguarded, with commensurate GVA benefits.
• Improved workforce productivity; with employers reporting work being completed quicker/to a higher standard and reduced costs on projects.
• Business performance improvements; including increased numbers of contracts, increased turnover, reduced costs, and improved profit margin. Training providers also reported both reputational and commercial benefits from being involved in the HDSTC.
• Decarbonisation benefits; the programme’s contribution to decarbonisation and improved energy efficiency through increased numbers of firms working on relevant schemes and projects.

1. There are limitations around (a) the numbers and profile of participant businesses with whom benefits were discussed; (b) the extent to which respondents were able to quantify any benefits. ↩