Decision briefPublic-policy proposalReviewed 2026-10-04
Use part of Hampshire’s new crisis fund to find residents missing benefits they are owed, help them claim, and measure the result
The thread: issue, evidence, action
- Issue Weakness: Men’s life expectancy at birth was 83.7 years in Hart and 78.0 in Southampton — a 5.7-year gap inside one county. Also: weakness, opportunity, strength
- Evidence Gap in male life expectancy between the highest and lowest of the 13 areas; House price to earnings ratio in the highest area (Winchester)
- Action Build a Hampshire plan around specific local needs and powers
- Decision required
- Hampshire County Council, Portsmouth City Council and Southampton City Council each set aside part of the resilience share of their 2026–27 Crisis and Resilience Fund (£11,035,376, £3,691,344 and £4,280,879) for one shared, evaluated benefit check: letters and help to claim for households their records show are likely to be missing support, with the 11 district councils sharing their benefit records.
- Who and where
- Low-income households in ceremonial Hampshire already known to councils through Housing Benefit, Council Tax Reduction or a Crisis Payment application. Applies in: Local.
- Accountable body
- Hampshire County Council (upper-tier recipient of the crisis and resilience funding for the 11 districts); Portsmouth City Council and Southampton City Council (unitary recipients); the 11 district councils as Housing Benefit, Council Tax Reduction and Housing Payment administrators
- Intervention
- Use council and DWP records to write to households likely to be missing benefits, and offer a named adviser to help them claim.
- Best evidence, and where it applies
- A data-matched letter campaign in 17 London boroughs reported more than 2,000 successful Pension Credit claims from 8,239 letters in 2023, without a comparison group; DWP’s own 2023 trial found 27.5% of households written to made a successful claim against 4.6% of similar households not written to.Studied in: 8,239 pensioner households in 17 London boroughs (February to August 2023).How closely the comparison transfers to this decision: London, England (17 boroughs) — high; Pennsylvania, United States — partial.
- Extra cost of this change
- Capital: none identified in the brief.Recurring: One local pilot and its evaluation — Not yet costed; Data matching and screening — not yet established; Letters and reminders — not yet established; Help to complete claims — not yet established.One-off or mixed: Local 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: Unknown until the service is costed; the fund allocations are a ceiling shared with other uses, not an award to this service.
- 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
- The three councils agree the cohort definition and the county–district data-sharing agreement, and count the first monthly DWP list of pensioners on Housing Benefit without Pension Credit in each area.The proposed first milestone; a 90-day date is not yet specified. Owner: Hampshire County Council with Portsmouth and Southampton city councils. Proposed by UK Facts, not an official deadline.
- Twelve-month milestone
- Not yet specified.Time to a first useful result: About four months after the first letters for claim decisions (the period DWP’s trial used); income and repeat crisis applications after about a year.
- Outcome, and when to scale or stop
- Measure: Responses and claims started within eight weeks of a letter.Scale if: Successful claims and income gained are clearly higher among households contacted than in the comparison group, at a cost to the fund the councils judge worthwhile against crisis payments forgone.Stop if: Contacted households claim no more than the comparison group, or the data-sharing basis cannot be agreed.
- Main trade-off
- Money and adviser time spent on finding unclaimed support is not available for crisis payments or food support from the same ring-fenced fund.
- Source and review date
- How London used data to make pensioners £8 million a year better off (15 September 2023); Pension Credit ‘Invitation to Claim’ Trial (DWP research report RR 96) (7 October 2024). Reviewed 2026-10-04.
An editorial proposal by UK Facts for discussion, not government policy. Records: A48 · effects E-A48-LOCAL · costs C-A48-PILOT
Research appendix: study design, effect sizes and limits, alternatives, full costing, international comparisons and how we would know
1.The change, in plain words
Use part of Hampshire’s new crisis fund to find residents missing benefits they are owed, help them claim, and measure the result
2.The decision requested
- Decision
- Agree, as a joint decision of the three upper-tier and unitary councils, a named amount from the Resilience Services strand of each 2026–27 Crisis and Resilience Fund allocation for a common benefit take-up service; a single cohort definition; a data-sharing agreement with the 11 district councils; contracted help to claim; and a staggered contact order so results can be compared.
- Accountable institution
- Hampshire County Council (upper-tier recipient of the crisis and resilience funding for the 11 districts); Portsmouth City Council and Southampton City Council (unitary recipients); the 11 district councils as Housing Benefit, Council Tax Reduction and Housing Payment administrators
- Geography
- Local
- Powers
- The Crisis and Resilience Fund grant determination 2026–27 (31/8363) requires a portion of each allocation to fund longer-term financial resilience, such as advice; DWP guidance lists benefit checks and application support as eligible resilience activity and allows local evaluation as an administration cost. DWP’s monthly data share (including people on Housing Benefit but not Pension Credit) is available to councils that have signed the DWP–local authority memorandum of understanding (Annex C). No new law; a county–district data-sharing agreement is needed.
- Delivery partners
- The 11 Hampshire district councils (Housing Benefit and Council Tax Reduction records; Housing Payments); Local advice providers such as Citizens Advice and Age UK local organisations, commissioned through the councils’ resilience grants; DWP Pension Credit and Universal Credit processing teams; NHS Hampshire and Isle of Wight ICB social prescribing and care teams as a referral route (to be agreed)
3.Who it is for, and what changes beyond today
- Target population
- Low-income households in ceremonial Hampshire already known to councils through Housing Benefit, Council Tax Reduction or a Crisis Payment application.
- Eligibility
- Phase 1: pensioner households on the DWP monthly list of people on Housing Benefit but not Pension Credit. Phase 2: working-age households on Council Tax Reduction whose records suggest entitlement to Universal Credit or other support they do not receive. A letter is an invitation, not an entitlement decision.
- Scale
- Set by the size of each council’s monthly DWP list and Council Tax Reduction caseload, which are not published, and by the number of advisers the councils can commission. The first round is sized to adviser capacity in each area and kept to a stated share of the resilience strand chosen by each council.
- Baseline
- Crisis and Resilience Fund allocations for 2026–27: Hampshire County Council £11,035,376, Portsmouth £3,691,344, Southampton £4,280,879 and the 11 districts £1,648,139 for Housing Payments — £20,655,738 in ceremonial Hampshire (UK Facts sum of the published rows). Across Great Britain, 62% of those entitled to Pension Credit claimed it in 2023–24; no local take-up rate is published.
Source: Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (with DWP), Crisis and Resilience Fund Grant Determination 2026 to 2027 (31/8363) (Annex A); Department for Work and Pensions, Income-related benefits: estimates of take-up, financial year ending 2024 (Section 1)
- Change beyond existing law or funding
- The fund already pays for crisis payments and resilience grants: Portsmouth, for example, offers resilience funding to organisations for money advice and support to increase income. The added change is proactive contact from records across all 13 areas with one cohort definition, district records shared with the county, a funded route for help with claims, and a joint evaluation with a staggered contact order. It re-specifies part of an existing ring-fenced allocation; it is not new money.
4.How it would work
Do: Use council and DWP records to write to households likely to be missing benefits, and offer a named adviser to help them claim Changing: more entitled residents claiming Pension Credit, Universal Credit, Attendance Allowance and Council Tax Reduction, so their regular income rises
More successful benefit claims among households contacted
Hypothesis to testEffect record E-A48-LOCAL
Reported in London (no comparison group) and in DWP’s trial (non-random comparison); not tested in Hampshire.
Higher regular income for households that start claiming
Hypothesis to test
London reported an average of £3,879 a year per successful household (gross); a Hampshire figure must come from awards actually made.
Fewer repeat Crisis Payment applications from households helped
Hypothesis to test
An expected outcome named in DWP’s fund guidance, not an evaluated effect. Measure it separately and do not add it to income gains.
Outcomes are kept separate and never added into one impact figure.
5.Best evidence
How London used data to make pensioners £8 million a year better off
- Author or institution:
- Policy in Practice (the delivery provider), funded by the Mayor of London with 17 London boroughs
- Published:
- 15 September 2023
- Evaluation period:
- February to August 2023
- Design:
- Data-matched letters from council records, signposting to advice partners; provider monitoring, no comparison group
- Sample or population:
- 8,239 pensioner households in 17 London boroughs
- Effect and uncertainty:
- More than 2,000 successful Pension Credit claims worth just under £8.4m in the first year; about £700,000 of Attendance Allowance claimed by 186 people. Gross figures with no uncertainty range.
- Limits:
- Some households would have claimed anyway; reported by the company that ran it; costs not published.
Where: Opening paragraph; “Being smart with data through meaningful collaboration”. Affiliation is provenance, not proof of quality.
Pension Credit ‘Invitation to Claim’ Trial (DWP research report RR 96)
- Author or institution:
- Department for Work and Pensions; research report RR 96
- Published:
- 7 October 2024
- Evaluation period:
- July to November 2023
- Design:
- Planned test with a non-random comparison group (10 local authority areas written to; the rest of Great Britain not)
- Sample or population:
- 2,409 pensioner households on Housing Benefit without Pension Credit written to (708 under refined criteria)
- Effect and uncertainty:
- 27.5% made a successful claim against 4.6% of the comparison group (refined criteria); mean award just under £51 a week.
- Limits:
- Treatment areas not randomly chosen; DWP letters, not council letters; under four months’ follow-up.
Where: Executive summary; section 1.3.2. Affiliation is provenance, not proof of quality.
- Author or institution:
- Department for Work and Pensions (council case study in fund guidance)
- Published:
- 2026 (updated 7 April 2026)
- Evaluation period:
- Not stated
- Design:
- Council case study: data-matched contact using the Low Income Family Tracker; no comparison group
- Sample or population:
- 191 pension-age households contacted in one campaign
- Effect and uncertainty:
- £113,879 of additional income reported as unlocked for these households.
- Limits:
- Small, uncontrolled and undated; included in guidance as an example, not as an evaluation.
Where: Case study 8 (Bracknell Forest Council). Affiliation is provenance, not proof of quality.
6.Alternatives, counter-evidence and who loses
- Closest feasible alternative
- Leave take-up to DWP’s national letters (see the benefits decision brief) and spend the fund’s resilience share on general money advice that waits for people to come forward.
- Strongest counter-evidence
- None of the campaigns found had a randomised comparison, so their gross results overstate the effect. In a US randomised trial, outreach mainly drew in less-needy eligible people, and most people written to did not enrol.
Source: National Bureau of Economic Research, Take-up and Targeting: Experimental Evidence from SNAP (NBER Working Paper 24652) (Abstract; p.3); Department for Work and Pensions, Pension Credit ‘Invitation to Claim’ Trial (DWP research report RR 96) (Section 1.3.2 (non-random areas))
- Distributional effects
- Gains go to low-income residents already on council records; people who claim nothing and are unknown to councils are missed. Residents needing crisis payments could get less if the resilience share grows. The extra benefit is paid mostly by central government.
- Main downside
- It diverts part of a ring-fenced, time-limited local fund and scarce adviser time from immediate crisis help, and its benefits depend on DWP processing claims promptly.
| Option | Who is reached | Evidence | Likely outcome and timing | Cost and funding | Main trade-off |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The proposalA shared, evaluated benefit take-up service funded from the crisis fund’s resilience share (this brief) | Low-income residents on council and DWP records across all 13 areas | Reported results in London and DWP’s trial; no randomised UK evaluation | Claims within about four months; income gains within a year | Not costed; possible route in the councils’ ring-fenced allocations, nothing allocated | Displaces crisis payments and food support from the same fund |
| Current policyCurrent policy: each council runs its own crisis payments and resilience grants | People who apply for crisis help or find an advice service | No local evaluation found | Immediate crisis relief; little change in unclaimed support | Within the 2026–27 allocations | Reaches people in crisis, not those quietly missing out |
| AlternativeDWP writes to pensioners on Housing Benefit nationally (see the benefits decision brief) | Pensioners on Housing Benefit without Pension Credit | DWP trial: 27.5% against 4.6% | National; timing set by DWP | DWP administration budget; not allocated | Pension Credit only; no help for working-age households |
| AlternativeTarget the consortium’s Warm Homes: Local Grant at the least efficient low-income homes (see the national decision brief) | Low-income households in cold, inefficient homes | See the national decision brief on /energy | Over one or more heating seasons | £34.8m consortium grant led by Portsmouth (national programme) | Different need; capital works, not income |
| AlternativeLink local social-rent awards to households in temporary accommodation (see the national decision brief) | Households in temporary accommodation in the districts and cities | See the national decision brief on /housing | Years: homes must be bought or built | Eastleigh is a strategic partner (£154.4m for 1,042 homes) | Large capital cost; slow to show results |
The options compared, including current policy
The proposal
A shared, evaluated benefit take-up service funded from the crisis fund’s resilience share (this brief)
- Who is reached
- Low-income residents on council and DWP records across all 13 areas
- Evidence
- Reported results in London and DWP’s trial; no randomised UK evaluation
- Likely outcome and timing
- Claims within about four months; income gains within a year
- Cost and funding
- Not costed; possible route in the councils’ ring-fenced allocations, nothing allocated
- Main trade-off
- Displaces crisis payments and food support from the same fund
Current policy
Current policy: each council runs its own crisis payments and resilience grants
- Who is reached
- People who apply for crisis help or find an advice service
- Evidence
- No local evaluation found
- Likely outcome and timing
- Immediate crisis relief; little change in unclaimed support
- Cost and funding
- Within the 2026–27 allocations
- Main trade-off
- Reaches people in crisis, not those quietly missing out
Alternative
DWP writes to pensioners on Housing Benefit nationally (see the benefits decision brief)
- Who is reached
- Pensioners on Housing Benefit without Pension Credit
- Evidence
- DWP trial: 27.5% against 4.6%
- Likely outcome and timing
- National; timing set by DWP
- Cost and funding
- DWP administration budget; not allocated
- Main trade-off
- Pension Credit only; no help for working-age households
Alternative
Target the consortium’s Warm Homes: Local Grant at the least efficient low-income homes (see the national decision brief)
- Who is reached
- Low-income households in cold, inefficient homes
- Evidence
- See the national decision brief on /energy
- Likely outcome and timing
- Over one or more heating seasons
- Cost and funding
- £34.8m consortium grant led by Portsmouth (national programme)
- Main trade-off
- Different need; capital works, not income
Alternative
Link local social-rent awards to households in temporary accommodation (see the national decision brief)
- Who is reached
- Households in temporary accommodation in the districts and cities
- Evidence
- See the national decision brief on /housing
- Likely outcome and timing
- Years: homes must be bought or built
- Cost and funding
- Eastleigh is a strategic partner (£154.4m for 1,042 homes)
- Main trade-off
- Large capital cost; slow to show results
7.What other countries or the devolved nations show
Country lesson · London, England (17 boroughs), February to August 2023 (first phase)
Targeted Pension Credit letters across 17 London boroughs
Evidence: Observational analysisClose match to the UK decision
- What was changed
- Funded by the Mayor of London, Policy in Practice analysed the boroughs’ own records (with its Low Income Family Tracker software) to identify 8,239 pensioner households likely to be entitled to Pension Credit, wrote to them, and pointed them to partners such as Age UK to help them claim.
- Study design and population
- Campaign monitoring by the delivery provider: claims and awards tracked in council data after the letters; no comparison group. Pensioner households known to the boroughs (for example through Housing Benefit or Council Tax Reduction) whose records suggested Pension Credit entitlement.
- Measured outcome there
- More than 2,000 successful claims, worth just under £8.4 million in their first year (average £3,879 per household); about £700,000 of Attendance Allowance was also claimed by 186 people. DWP’s own trial report describes the campaign’s claim success rate as around 28%.
- Cost status
- Not published in the source read: the cost of the data work, letters and advice is not stated.
- What failed or remains uncertain
- With no comparison group, some of these households would have claimed anyway, so the figures are gross results, not the campaign’s effect. The provider ran and reported the campaign. Most households written to did not make a successful claim. Results for the later phase were not checked.
- Why the UK differs
- An English case, so the benefit rules match. London boroughs are unitary councils that hold both benefit records and the local welfare budget; in Hampshire the county holds the crisis fund while the 11 districts hold Housing Benefit and Council Tax Reduction records, so a data-sharing agreement is needed first.
- First change required here
- Use the same cohort definition across every participating council and stagger the order of contact, so a comparison group exists from the start.
Not a UK forecast: the effect above was measured in that place and population. Source: Policy in Practice, How London used data to make pensioners £8 million a year better off (Blog post, sections “Being smart with data through meaningful collaboration” and opening paragraph); Department for Work and Pensions, Pension Credit ‘Invitation to Claim’ Trial (DWP research report RR 96) (Section 2.3 (comparison with the Mayor of London initiative, footnote 8)). Reviewed 2026-10-04.
Country lesson · Pennsylvania, United States, Sample drawn late 2015; letters sent in the first half of 2016; enrolment followed for nine months
Writing to older people likely to be eligible for food assistance in Pennsylvania
Evidence: Experimental or quasi-experimental evaluationPartial match: some conditions differ
- What was changed
- State and Medicaid records were linked to find people aged 60 and over who were not enrolled in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) but were likely to be eligible. One group received a letter from the state human services department and a reminder postcard; a second group received the same letter with a number for a non-profit that gave phone help to complete the application and gather documents; a third group received nothing.
- Study design and population
- Randomised controlled trial of about 30,000 people in three equal groups, registered in the AEA RCT Registry; outcomes from state administrative records. Older people already enrolled in Medicaid but not in SNAP, identified from linked administrative data as likely eligible.
- Measured outcome there
- After nine months, 6% of the control group had enrolled, against 11% of those sent the letter only and 18% of those also offered help to apply; the differences were statistically significant (p < 0.001). About 30% of each letter group called in, and about 75% of applications succeeded in all three groups. The authors’ rough cost per additional enrollee was about $20 for the letter and about $60 with application help.
- Cost status
- Historic and approximate: the authors’ own rough calculation in US dollars for 2016; no UK cost can be read from it.
- What failed or remains uncertain
- Most people who were written to still did not enrol. The extra enrollees received lower benefits and were less sick than people who enrolled without the letter, so the outreach reached less-needy eligible people better than the neediest. Dropping the reminder postcard cut the letter’s effect by about a fifth. A working paper finding; the authors’ welfare conclusions rest on a model.
- Why the UK differs
- SNAP is a food benefit with a different application process, run by a state; Pension Credit is a cash benefit run by DWP, with a backdating rule and passported help. The data match here used Medicaid enrolment; the UK equivalent is Housing Benefit and Council Tax Reduction records, which miss entitled pensioners who claim neither.
- First change required here
- Randomise the order in which identified households are written to, and test letter only against letter plus a named person who helps complete the claim, so the UK learns the cost per extra successful claim and who is reached.
Not a UK forecast: the effect above was measured in that place and population. Source: National Bureau of Economic Research, Take-up and Targeting: Experimental Evidence from SNAP (NBER Working Paper 24652) (Abstract; Introduction pp.1–3). Reviewed 2026-10-04.
8.What delivery needs first
- law — Each council must have signed the current DWP–local authority memorandum of understanding (Annex C) to receive the monthly DWP data share. (Genuine veto: nothing proceeds without it; owner: Each council’s information governance lead)
- data — A data-sharing agreement so the county can use district Housing Benefit and Council Tax Reduction records, or so districts run the matching themselves to a common definition. (Requirement; owner: Hampshire County Council with the 11 district councils)
- staff — Benefit advisers who can help residents complete claims, including home visits for older and disabled people. (Scarce resource shared with other priorities; owner: Councils and commissioned advice providers)
- dependency — From 2028–29 districts no longer receive fund allocations, and the reorganisation decision for Hampshire is under review, so the agreement must survive changes in who holds the money and the records. (Requirement; owner: Hampshire County Council, Portsmouth and Southampton, with MHCLG)
- public consent — Letters that explain why the council has written and how records were used, tested with residents. (Requirement; owner: Council communications and advice partners)
9.What it would cost
How the cost is built up: Data matching + letters × households contacted + assisted claims × households helped + evaluation = cost to the fund. Extra benefits paid are reported separately as income gained by residents (mostly paid by central government), never netted against the fund.
| Component | Unit and quantity | Unit cost or amount | Type, price year, period | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| One local pilot and its evaluationThe benefit take-up service across the participating councils | per pilot; quantity to be set from need and capacity | Not yet costed (ledger C-A48-PILOT) | recurring; price year not stated; First year | Not yet establishedRead from the ledger, which has no amount. |
| Data matching and screeningMonthly DWP lists and district Council Tax Reduction records | per council per year; quantity to be set from need and capacity | Not yet established | recurring; price year not stated; 2026–27 onwards | Not yet establishedCould be in-house analysis or a licensed tool; DWP guidance counts data and analytics as an administration cost. |
| Letters and remindersHouseholds in each contact wave | per household contacted; quantity to be set from need and capacity | Not yet established | recurring; price year not stated; Each wave | Not yet established |
| Help to complete claimsHouseholds who respond and want help | per assisted claim; quantity to be set from need and capacity | Not yet established | recurring; price year not stated; Each wave | Not yet established |
| Local evaluationStaggered-contact comparison across the participating councils | per evaluation; quantity to be set from need and capacity | Not yet established | one-off revenue; price year not stated; First 12 months | Not yet established |
One local pilot and its evaluation
The benefit take-up service across the participating councils
Not yet costed (ledger C-A48-PILOT)
recurring; price year not stated; First year; Not yet established
Read from the ledger, which has no amount.
Data matching and screening
Monthly DWP lists and district Council Tax Reduction records
Not yet established per council per year
recurring; price year not stated; 2026–27 onwards; Not yet established
Could be in-house analysis or a licensed tool; DWP guidance counts data and analytics as an administration cost.
Letters and reminders
Households in each contact wave
Not yet established per household contacted
recurring; price year not stated; Each wave; Not yet established
Help to complete claims
Households who respond and want help
Not yet established per assisted claim
recurring; price year not stated; Each wave; Not yet established
Local evaluation
Staggered-contact comparison across the participating councils
Not yet established per evaluation
one-off revenue; price year not stated; First 12 months; 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
- Unknown until the service is costed; the fund allocations are a ceiling shared with other uses, not an award to this service.
- Proposed financing
- The Resilience Services strand of each council’s 2026–27 Crisis and Resilience Fund allocation (£11,035,376 Hampshire County Council; £3,691,344 Portsmouth; £4,280,879 Southampton). These are ring-fenced allocations for several uses; no amount is allocated to this service.
- Responsible payer
- councils, central government
- Budget displaced
- Crisis Payments, food support and other resilience grants funded from the same allocation.
11.First milestone and time to a useful result
The three councils agree the cohort definition and the county–district data-sharing agreement, and count the first monthly DWP list of pensioners on Housing Benefit without Pension Credit in each area. (Owner: Hampshire County Council with Portsmouth and Southampton city councils. Proposed by UK Facts, not an official deadline.)
Time to first useful result: About four months after the first letters for claim decisions (the period DWP’s trial used); income and repeat crisis applications after about a year.
What could delay it: District councils agree to share records or run the matching Advisers can be commissioned within the 2026–27 grant year DWP processes claims promptly Reorganisation does not interrupt the agreement
12.How we would know
- Baseline
- For each identified household: benefits received at the start, and any Crisis Payment applications in the previous year.
- Comparison
- Households on the same lists contacted in later months act as the comparison for those contacted first, with the order randomised within each council area.
- Leading indicator
- Responses and claims started within eight weeks of a letter.
- Follow-up
- At four and 12 months: successful claims by benefit, annual income gained, refusals, repeat Crisis Payment applications, and who was reached by age, area and household type.
- Continue if
- Successful claims and income gained are clearly higher among households contacted than in the comparison group, at a cost to the fund the councils judge worthwhile against crisis payments forgone.
- Adapt if
- Response is low or many claims are refused: change the letter, the screening or the help offered before the next wave.
- Stop if
- Contacted households claim no more than the comparison group, or the data-sharing basis cannot be agreed.
- Thresholds
- Not yet set: Levels need the local cohort sizes, the cost per contact and per assisted claim, and a power calculation across the 13 areas; none is available yet.
What is not yet known, and how to find out
- What does the service cost per extra successful claim? (cost)Next step: Price data matching, letters and help to claim in each council, then divide by extra successful claims against the staggered comparison.Scope: First 12 months of the service across Hampshire County Council, Portsmouth and Southampton · Data or quotes needed: In-house analyst time or software quotes; postage; advice-provider quotes per assisted claim; evaluation tender · Who can estimate it: The three councils’ finance teams with their advice providers
- Does council-led contact raise successful claims compared with households not yet contacted? (effect)Next step: Run the first waves as a bounded pilot with a randomised contact order.Defensible route: bounded pilot
- How many households are on each council’s DWP list and Council Tax Reduction caseload? (data)Next step: Count the first monthly DWP list and the Council Tax Reduction caseload in each area before setting the scale.
- How has Hampshire County Council divided its 2026–27 allocation between crisis payments and resilience services? (data)Next step: Read the county’s published decision report and delivery plan (not accessible to automated checks on 4 October 2026).
- Will district councils share Housing Benefit and Council Tax Reduction records with the county? (legal)Next step: Draft a data-sharing agreement and data protection impact assessment with the districts.
Sources last checked 4 October 2026 · Owner: Evidence editor (James Harris) · Next check: DWP income-related benefits: estimates of take-up, financial year ending 2025 (22 October 2026) or the first trigger: Hampshire crisis fund allocations or scheme rules.