National priorities, 4 October 2026 (earlier version)

The national priorities as published on 4 October 2026, replaced on 7 October 2026 by the national action plan.

Where the previous priorities’ actions sit now

The 4 October 2026 slate — six outcome priorities and two delivery enablers chosen from the top of the selection table — is kept unchanged below, with its briefs, effects, funding and scoreboard. Here is where each of its actions sits in the national action plan.

Previous version · decision portfolio · reviewed 4 October 2026

The decision portfolio: 6 priorities and 2 delivery enablers

An editorial shortlist by UK Facts, not government policy. Each line is a decision someone could take; rank is not readiness, and a possible funding route is not an award. Select a title for its decision brief.

  1. Outcome priority 1: Set a minimum price per unit of alcohol in England

    Why selected
    The strongest within-UK evidence of any candidate: Scotland’s floor price cut deaths wholly caused by alcohol by 13.4%, at little cost to the Exchequer.
    Budget status
    Mainly a legal or regulatory change: administration costs still need a budget.
    Time to a first useful result
    The assessment within months of commissioning; measured health effects two to three years after a floor takes effect (Scotland’s evaluation covered 32 months).
    Depends on
    No shared capacity bottleneck recorded.
    Evidence
    Evidenced impact: health and care. Recorded harm or trade-off: poverty and inequality.

  2. Outcome priority 2: Put employment support alongside healthcare for people who want to work

    Why selected
    One of the few responses to health-related inactivity tested in UK randomised trials; the service is funded, so the gain is in running it to the tested model alongside NHS care.
    Budget status
    Not funded yet: a possible funding route exists, but nothing is allocated to this change.
    Time to a first useful result
    Fidelity and referral data within six months; sustained-work results 12 to 18 months after starts.
    Depends on
    Shared capacity: early-years, health-visiting, NHS referral and occupational-therapy capacity.
    Evidence
    Evidenced impact: work and pay. Plausible wider benefit, not yet tested: health and care.

  3. Outcome priority 3: Fit home adaptations faster for older people most at risk of falling

    Why selected
    High-certainty trial evidence: hazard checks and adaptations cut falls by 38% for older people at higher risk — and did nothing when untargeted, so the targeting is the change.
    Budget status
    Not funded yet: a possible funding route exists, but nothing is allocated to this change.
    Time to a first useful result
    Waiting-time change within months; falls outcomes after about 12 months.
    Depends on
    Shared capacity: early-years, health-visiting, NHS referral and occupational-therapy capacity.
    Evidence
    Evidenced impact: health and care.

  4. Outcome priority 4: Fix the coldest homes first, and check the work before it is paid for

    Why selected
    Measured gas savings in the least efficient homes, a funded programme, and a randomised trial abroad linking insulation to better health — if homes are chosen by need and the work is checked.
    Budget status
    Not funded yet: a possible funding route exists, but nothing is allocated to this change.
    Time to a first useful result
    Warmth and energy use after one heating season; health outcomes after two.
    Depends on
    First, a pipeline of what is ready to build. Shared capacity: construction and installer workforce; planning and council delivery staff; commercial and contract-management capability.
    Evidence
    Evidenced impact: energy and bills. Plausible wider benefit, not yet tested: health and care. Recorded harm or trade-off: housing.

  5. Outcome priority 5: Buy or build social-rent homes for households in temporary accommodation

    Why selected
    One of the most severe and widespread harms in the evidence; the choice between buying and building social-rent homes should be made against the cost of temporary accommodation.
    Budget status
    Not funded yet: a possible funding route exists, but nothing is allocated to this change.
    Time to a first useful result
    Acquisition lettings within months of an award; new-build lettings in years.
    Depends on
    First, a pipeline of what is ready to build. Shared capacity: construction and installer workforce; grid and utility connections; planning and council delivery staff; commercial and contract-management capability.
    Evidence
    Evidenced impact: none yet — no evaluated or modelled benefit is on record. Plausible wider benefit, not yet tested: housing, poverty and inequality and education and children.

  6. Outcome priority 6: Hold the new family hubs to what worked in Sure Start, starting where access is weakest

    Why selected
    The only candidate with evaluated benefits in two distinct areas — GCSE results and hospital admissions — and new family hubs are being funded now, so the decision is how to build them.
    Budget status
    Not funded yet: a possible funding route exists, but nothing is allocated to this change.
    Time to a first useful result
    Reach within a year; child development at two to three in about two years; attainment only as cohorts age.
    Depends on
    Shared capacity: early-years, health-visiting, NHS referral and occupational-therapy capacity.
    Evidence
    Evidenced impact: education and children and health and care. Recorded harm or trade-off: crime and justice.

Delivery enablers — judged separately, never ranked against the outcome priorities

  1. Delivery enabler 1: Publish what is ready to build — projects and housing sites — with each blocker’s owner and cost

    Why selected
    Homes, retrofit and infrastructure draw on the same builders and connections; publishing what is ready to build, and what blocks the rest, is the condition for sequencing them.
    Budget status
    Not funded yet: a possible funding route exists, but nothing is allocated to this change.
    Time to a first useful result
    Status at the next pipeline update; delivery effects over two updates.
    Depends on
    First, realistic costs and managed contracts. Shared capacity: construction and installer workforce; grid and utility connections; commercial and contract-management capability.
    Evidence
    Evidenced impact: none yet — no evaluated or modelled benefit is on record. Plausible wider benefit, not yet tested: housing and living standards and growth.

  2. Delivery enabler 2: Set realistic costs before spending, then manage contracts to the result

    Why selected
    Every outcome priority that spends money does so through budgets and contracts, and 34 of 172 rated major projects were Red.
    Budget status
    Mainly a legal or regulatory change: administration costs still need a budget.
    Time to a first useful result
    Publication within a year; delivery results at the next major projects report.
    Depends on
    Shared capacity: commercial and contract-management capability.
    Evidence
    Evidenced impact: none yet — no evaluated or modelled benefit is on record. Plausible wider benefit, not yet tested: public service delivery and defence and security.

How this set relates to the headline

The headline — “Skilled people, investment, delivery: the three shortages holding Britain back” — is about capacity that several services need at once. The two delivery enablers act on that directly: a pipeline of what is ready to build and realistic costs and managed contracts. The outcome priorities were not chosen because they remove a shortage; they were chosen on the published criteria, led by the harm addressed, the benefit added beyond existing programmes and the strength of the evidence. 5 of the 6 draw on a shared capacity bottleneck (a minimum price for alcohol does not), which is why the order of work is a decision in itself. 7 of the 8 also call on public money, and none has an allocation committed to the change it proposes (who pays).

Where the evidence stops

“Evidenced impact” means an evaluated or modelled benefit, checked at claim level; “plausible wider benefit” means a link that has not been tested. Only one priority (family hubs built on what worked) has evidenced impact in more than one policy area; 4 have it in one area only; and 3 (social-rent homes for families in temporary accommodation, a pipeline of what is ready to build and realistic costs and managed contracts) have none yet, so their case rests on severity, audit findings or a mechanism still to be tested. Single-area evidence is reported as it is. The effects, area by area.

What this portfolio does not solve

  • No priority acts on climate and water risks are already here, although the national SWOT records it.
  • Important actions stay in their own topic plans rather than the national list: Crime, SEND, Immigration, Revenue options, Pensions and Brexit.
  • The evidence is not yet strong enough to choose an action for Personal debt, Cost of living, Inflation, Innovation and AI capability and resilience.
  • Near-misses to reconsider at the next review: stop scams across banks, platforms and telecoms, help eligible people claim support they already qualify for and meter homes in water-stressed areas, with a social tariff that protects low-income households.
  • The ranking is a judgement on nine published criteria, not a complete ordering of every possible UK policy. 5 of the 6 outcome priorities keep their place under all 6 weightings tested; the last place changes with the weighting. Ranking assumptions and sensitivity.

Who can act: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland

Most of these decisions are for England, because the powers are devolved. “Applies” means the proposal as written covers that nation; “devolved” means its own government decides, and its programmes were not reviewed unless the note says so.

  • A minimum price for alcoholEngland: appliesScotland: devolvedWales: devolvedNorthern Ireland: devolvedAlcohol pricing is devolved: Scotland and Wales already set a floor; Northern Ireland’s current position is not confirmed in this review. The proposal is for England.
  • Job support alongside NHS careEngland: appliesScotland: devolvedWales: appliesNorthern Ireland: devolvedConnect to Work covers England and Wales. Employment support is devolved in Northern Ireland (Department for Communities) and partly in Scotland (Scottish Government employability services); their equivalents were not reviewed here.
  • Faster home adaptations for people at risk of fallingEngland: appliesScotland: devolvedWales: devolvedNorthern Ireland: devolvedAdaptations and social care are devolved: Wales and Northern Ireland run their own grants and Scotland funds adaptations differently; not reviewed here.
  • Warmer homes for the coldestEngland: appliesScotland: devolvedWales: devolvedNorthern Ireland: devolvedEnergy efficiency support is devolved: Scotland runs Warmer Homes Scotland, Wales its own Warm Homes Programme and Northern Ireland its Affordable Warmth Scheme. Their scale and results were not reviewed here.
  • Social-rent homes for families in temporary accommodationEngland: appliesScotland: devolvedWales: devolvedNorthern Ireland: devolvedHousing is devolved. Equivalent decisions sit with the Scottish Government (Affordable Housing Supply Programme), the Welsh Government (Social Housing Grant) and Northern Ireland’s Department for Communities and Housing Executive; their programmes were not reviewed here.
  • Family hubs built on what workedEngland: appliesScotland: devolvedWales: devolvedNorthern Ireland: devolvedEarly years are devolved: the Welsh Government runs Flying Start, Northern Ireland runs Sure Start through its Department of Education, and the Scottish Government sets its own offer.
  • A pipeline of what is ready to buildEngland: appliesScotland: appliesWales: appliesNorthern Ireland: appliesThe pipeline covers UK government projects, regulated sectors and mayoral authorities; planning is devolved. The Scottish Government, Welsh Government and Northern Ireland Executive run their own capital programmes; coordination was not assessed here.
  • Realistic costs and managed contractsEngland: appliesScotland: appliesWales: appliesNorthern Ireland: appliesApplies to UK departments. Devolved governments set their own budgets within block grants; the Procurement Act 2023 covers Wales and Northern Ireland, while Scotland largely keeps its own regime.

Previous version · 4 October 2026 · replaced 7 October 2026 · 6 outcome priorities and 2 delivery enablers from 36 topic plans

The priorities that could make the biggest difference

Previous version, kept for reference. The national action plan above supersedes it. This slate was ranked on the published selection table (severity, benefit added beyond existing programmes, evidence and six other criteria). Rank is not readiness, and each priority is a decision with its own brief. Delivery enablers follow the outcome priorities and never take an outcome slot.

  • 1. Set a minimum price per unit of alcohol in England

    Why selected: The strongest within-UK evidence of any candidate: Scotland’s floor price cut deaths wholly caused by alcohol by 13.4%, at little cost to the Exchequer.

    Evidence supports benefits in 1 policy area. Needs a named decision or allocation.

  • 2. Put employment support alongside healthcare for people who want to work

    Why selected: One of the few responses to health-related inactivity tested in UK randomised trials; the service is funded, so the gain is in running it to the tested model alongside NHS care.

    Evidence supports benefits in 1 policy area; 1 further link needs testing. Can start with current authority and verified resources.

  • 3. Fit home adaptations faster for older people most at risk of falling

    Why selected: High-certainty trial evidence: hazard checks and adaptations cut falls by 38% for older people at higher risk — and did nothing when untargeted, so the targeting is the change.

    Evidence supports benefits in 1 policy area. Needs a named decision or allocation.

  • 4. Fix the coldest homes first, and check the work before it is paid for

    Why selected: Measured gas savings in the least efficient homes, a funded programme, and a randomised trial abroad linking insulation to better health — if homes are chosen by need and the work is checked.

    Evidence supports benefits in 1 policy area; 1 further link needs testing. Needs enabling capacity/evidence first.

  • 5. Buy or build social-rent homes for households in temporary accommodation

    Why selected: One of the most severe and widespread harms in the evidence; the choice between buying and building social-rent homes should be made against the cost of temporary accommodation.

    Potential links under review. Needs a named decision or allocation.

  • 6. Hold the new family hubs to what worked in Sure Start, starting where access is weakest

    Why selected: The only candidate with evaluated benefits in two distinct areas — GCSE results and hospital admissions — and new family hubs are being funded now, so the decision is how to build them.

    Evidence supports benefits in 2 policy areas. Needs a named decision or allocation.

An editorial synthesis by UK Facts, not government policy. Evidence counts are generated from effect records; harms are shown and never counted.

Outcome priority 1 · reference NP7

Set a minimum price per unit of alcohol in England

Outcome sought: Fewer deaths and serious illness caused by alcohol in England, with the largest gains expected in the most deprived areas.

Why it is selected
It is first on the published selection table under every weighting tested. A controlled evaluation inside the UK found deaths wholly attributable to alcohol fell 13.4% (95% CI −18.4% to −8.3%) in Scotland against England; England has no floor price, so the change is fully additional; and it is not a public-spending programme. Its constraint is a decision, not scarce capacity: it needs primary legislation, and ministers said in June 2026 that they have no plans for it.
Policy areas with evidence of benefit
Evidence supports benefits in 1 policy area. Supported: Health and care. Trade-off or harm recorded (never counted): Poverty and inequality.
Leading constraint
A government decision and parliamentary time: ministers have said they have no plans to legislate. Who can resolve it: DHSC and the Home Office, with Parliament.
Funding status (by action)
  • A49Funding: Not a direct public-spending programme
First decision
DHSC, with the Home Office, commissions and publishes an English impact assessment of a minimum unit price and decides whether to legislate with a review clause.
Readiness
Needs a named decision or allocation. Primary legislation is needed and ministers have said they have no plans for it. No spending allocation is needed beyond the impact assessment and enforcement, which are not costed.
Strongest challenge
It raises prices for moderate drinkers on low incomes, can strain dependent drinkers, and passes the extra money to retailers rather than the Exchequer.

Decision briefPublic-policy proposalReviewed 2026-10-04

Set a minimum price for each unit of alcohol sold in England

The thread: issue, evidence, action

  1. Issue Weakness (Health): Alcohol-specific deaths in England were 13.8 per 100,000 people in 2024. The rate fell on 2023, but across the UK it was still 14.8 against 11.8 in 2019, and within England it ranged from 10.9 in London to 21.1 in the North East. Also: opportunity (Health), strength (Health)
  2. Evidence Alcohol-specific deaths
  3. Action Set a minimum price per unit of alcohol in England
Decision required
Whether DHSC and the Home Office commission an English impact assessment of a minimum unit price and, if it supports it, legislate with a review clause.
Who and where
All alcohol sold in England; the intended effect is on heavier drinkers who buy the cheapest, strongest drinks. Applies in: England.
Accountable body
Department of Health and Social Care, with the Home Office (alcohol licensing)
Intervention
Set a legal minimum price per unit of alcohol, enforced through licensing.
Best evidence, and where it applies
Scotland’s 50p floor cut deaths wholly caused by alcohol by 13.4% against England (95% CI −18.4% to −8.3%) in its first 32 months; admissions fell 4.1%, not significantly.Studied in: Adults in Scotland, with England as the comparison (MUP from 1 May 2018; health outcomes to December 2020; sales to three years after).How closely the comparison transfers to this decision: Scotland — partial.
Extra cost of this change
Capital: none identified in the brief.Recurring: none identified in the brief.One-off or mixed: Legislation, guidance, licensing enforcement and evaluation — Not yet costed.
Funding
Mainly a legal or regulatory change: administration costs still need a budget.Committed to this change: none.Possible source, not an award: none identified.Unfunded: Administration and evaluation costs are not established; no public programme budget is needed.
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
An English impact assessment published, with modelled effects by income and drinking level.The proposed first milestone; a 90-day date is not yet specified. Owner: DHSC with the Home Office. Proposed by UK Facts, not an official deadline.
Twelve-month milestone
Not yet specified.Time to a first useful result: The assessment within months of commissioning; measured health effects two to three years after a floor takes effect (Scotland’s evaluation covered 32 months).
Outcome, and when to scale or stop
Measure: Off-trade sales per adult and the price distribution of cheap drinks.Scale if: Deaths wholly attributable to alcohol fall relative to the comparison.Stop if: No change against the comparison at the statutory review.
Main trade-off
Prices rise for moderate drinkers on low incomes and some dependent drinkers face strain, while the extra money goes to retailers, not the Exchequer.
Source and review date
Evaluating the impact of minimum unit pricing for alcohol in Scotland: Final report. A synthesis of the evidence (June 2023); Evaluating the impact of alcohol minimum unit pricing on deaths and hospitalisations in Scotland: a controlled interrupted time series study (March 2023). Reviewed 2026-10-04.

An editorial proposal by UK Facts for discussion, not government policy. Records: A49 · effects E-A49-DEATHS, E-A49-ADMISSIONS, E-A49-DEPENDENT · costs C-A49-ADMIN

Research appendix on the Health page → Study design, effect sizes and limits, alternatives, the full costing, international comparisons and what would transfer.

Priority record: pathways, costs, owners, sequence and measures
National SWOT findings addressed
UK-W3, UK-O2
Mechanism
A legal floor price per unit raises the price of the cheapest, strongest drinks that heavier drinkers buy most, cutting consumption where harm is concentrated (A49).
Policy today
No floor price in England; ministers said in June 2026 they “do not currently have any plans” for one. Scotland has had a floor since May 2018 (65p since September 2024) and Wales since March 2020 (65p from October 2026).
What would be added
Primary legislation for an English floor price, with an impact assessment, a review clause, an uprating rule and support through treatment services for dependent drinkers.
Who benefits
Heavier drinkers and their families, especially men and people in the most deprived areas; health and care services through less alcohol-caused illness (not a cash saving).
Who bears the costs
People who buy the cheapest, strongest drinks pay more, mostly to retailers; some low-income people with alcohol dependence face financial strain; councils enforce through licensing.
What would be forgone
Parliamentary time; and the revenue a duty-based alternative would raise for the Exchequer instead of retailers.
The strongest alternative
Raising alcohol duty on the cheapest strong products: the money goes to the Exchequer, but retailers can choose not to pass duty rises through on cheap drinks, and no evaluation of its effect on deaths was reviewed here.
Lead institution
Department of Health and Social Care, with the Home Office (alcohol licensing)
Partners
Parliament; Councils (licensing and trading standards); Public health teams and alcohol treatment services; Retailers
Devolved and local powers
Alcohol pricing is devolved: Scotland and Wales already set a floor; Northern Ireland’s current position is not confirmed in this review. The proposal is for England.
What delivery needs
Primary legislation and an impact assessment; enforcement through existing licensing; a price level and uprating rule; treatment capacity for people with dependence. No new delivery workforce.
Prerequisites
An English impact assessment that models price levels and effects on low-income dependent drinkers.
Competing for the same resources
Draws on almost none of the scarce delivery capacity the other priorities share; it competes for legislative time and with the duty alternative.
Near-term milestone
Impact assessment published, with modelled effects by income and drinking level. (Proposed by UK Facts, not an official deadline.)
Medium-term checkpoint
Deaths wholly attributable to alcohol in England against a credible comparison, two to three years after a floor takes effect. (Proposed.)

Do this → this changes → these outcomes

Every pathway record for the actions above, including harms. Only validated, evaluated or modelled benefits held with at least moderate confidence count towards the reach label; the rest are links to test.

Health and care
Poverty and inequality

  • A49 → Higher spending on alcohol by dependent drinkers who do not cut down → Financial strain for some people with alcohol dependence on low incomes

    Harm or burdenEvaluated· Confidence: Limited· Direct· Checked at claim level· Scotland; Immediate

    Who: Economically vulnerable people with alcohol dependence (harmed). Size: direction plausible; size not established.

    Qualitative evidence: PHS found no evidence that these experiences were prevalent or typical, and limited evidence that MUP cut consumption among people with dependence. Treatment and support services are the mitigation.

    Source: Public Health Scotland, Evaluating the impact of minimum unit pricing for alcohol in Scotland: Final report. A synthesis of the evidence (Printed pp.13, 55 and 80)

Costs and funding (records shared with the domain plans)

  • Legislation, guidance, licensing enforcement and evaluation of a minimum unit price in England (C-A49-ADMIN): Not yet costed.

Each cost is counted once in the national table below; unknown amounts read “Not yet costed”, never £0.

How we would know

Baseline
Alcohol-specific deaths in England: 13.8 per 100,000 in 2024 (ONS, age-standardised).
Outcome measures
Deaths and admissions wholly attributable to alcohol; off-trade alcohol sales per adult; each kept separate.
Distribution
Outcomes by deprivation; reported hardship among dependent drinkers; access to treatment.
Review point
A statutory review three to five years after commencement.
Continue or expand if
Deaths wholly attributable to alcohol fall relative to a credible comparison.
Adapt or stop if
No change against the comparison at the review, or serious harm to dependent drinkers that mitigation cannot address; adapt the level before stopping.

Evidence limits

The Scottish effect was measured at 50p in 2018–2020; the effect of a 65p floor, or of any floor in England with its lower baseline harm, is a forecast. Admissions did not fall significantly, and the English baseline uses a narrower definition (alcohol-specific) than the evaluation (wholly attributable).

Sources: Public Health Scotland, Evaluating the impact of minimum unit pricing for alcohol in Scotland: Final report. A synthesis of the evidence (Section 3.3, printed p.32; Table 5, p.90); The Lancet, Evaluating the impact of alcohol minimum unit pricing on deaths and hospitalisations in Scotland: a controlled interrupted time series study (Table 1); UK Parliament, Written answer: minimum unit pricing for alcohol in England (HL972) (Answer text); Office for National Statistics, Alcohol-specific deaths in the UK: registered in 2024 (Section 3)

Evidence reviewed 2026-10-04.

Sources last checked 4 October 2026 · Owner: National plan editor (James Harris) · Next check: OHID Local Alcohol Profiles for England: 2026 update (1 December 2026, provisional) or the first trigger: ONS alcohol-specific deaths in the UK, next annual release (date not announced when reviewed).

Outcome priority 2 · reference NP3

Put employment support alongside healthcare for people who want to work

Outcome sought: More people with health conditions in suitable, sustained work.

Why it is selected
Inactivity through long-term sickness has risen to 2.74 million (three months to Aug 2026), and Individual Placement and Support is one of the few responses tested in UK randomised trials. Connect to Work is funded to 2028–29, but its funding covers the programme, not the change proposed here: holding it to the tested model, joining it to NHS care and evaluating it. The same marginal-change test is applied to every funded candidate. It ranks below NP7 because measured effects are modest and varied by place.
Policy areas with evidence of benefit
Evidence supports benefits in 1 policy area; 1 further link needs testing. Supported: Work and pay. To test: Health and care.
Leading constraint
NHS capacity to refer and integrate: the clinical side is not costed in the DWP business case. Who can resolve it: Integrated care boards and NHS England with DWP delivery areas.
Funding status (by action)
  • A09Funding: Indicative costing / partial funding
First decision
DWP delivery areas and NHS commissioners select the eligible group, service standard and an existing capacity gap in one area, and agree referral routes within current Connect to Work funding.
Readiness
Can start with current authority and verified resources. Connect to Work is operating with funding committed to 2028–29 (F-CTW-SR2025), and DWP areas and NHS commissioners can agree referral routes under existing powers. That money pays for the programme, not the NHS-side integration, whose cost is not established; funding after 2028–29 is not committed.
Strongest challenge
One of three trial groups saw no employment effect and the Exchequer return within a year was 1–2p per £1; scaling to 300,000 people may dilute fidelity further.

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

  1. Issue Weakness (Jobs & pay): 2.74 million people aged 16–64 were economically inactive because of long-term sickness, against 2.08 million at the end of 2019. Also: opportunity (Jobs & pay), strength (Jobs & pay)
  2. Evidence Economically inactive because of long-term sickness, aged 16–64
  3. 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 on the Jobs & pay page → Study design, effect sizes and limits, alternatives, the full costing, international comparisons and what would transfer.

Priority record: pathways, costs, owners, sequence and measures
National SWOT findings addressed
UK-W3, UK-S2, UK-O2
Mechanism
An employment specialist works alongside health services to find matched work quickly and keeps supporting the person once they start (A09).
Policy today
Connect to Work has taken referrals since April 2025, with funding committed to 2028–29, and aims to support about 300,000 people by 2029–30; IPS also runs in NHS mental health services.
What would be added
Fidelity reviews against the IPS model, NHS referral and clinical integration in each delivery area, an impact evaluation using payroll data, and a funding decision for 2029–30 onwards.
Who benefits
Adults with health conditions or disabilities in England and Wales who want to work.
Who bears the costs
DWP (Connect to Work grants); the NHS (clinical integration, IPS in mental health services).
What would be forgone
The same money could fund lighter-touch support for more people, or health services directly.
The strongest alternative
Paid routes into work for young people (A08, Youth Guarantee): a stronger measured effect (11 more in 100 still working at two years under Kickstart) but a different group, and the proposal adds little beyond the funded programme.
Lead institution
Department for Work and Pensions
Partners
NHS England and integrated care boards; Local authority Connect to Work delivery areas; Welsh Government and Welsh local authorities (Wales delivery)
Devolved and local powers
Connect to Work covers England and Wales. Employment support is devolved in Northern Ireland (Department for Communities) and partly in Scotland (Scottish Government employability services); their equivalents were not reviewed here.
What delivery needs
Trained employment specialists and supervisors; NHS referral routes and fidelity reviews; data sharing between health and employment services; employer vacancies. Voluntary for participants; no new law.
Prerequisites
Agreed NHS referral pathways in each delivery area.
Competing for the same resources
NHS community and mental-health staff time is also needed by NP2 (health visiting), NP8 (occupational therapists) and by waiting-list recovery.
Near-term milestone
Referral pathways and fidelity reviews in place in every delivery area. (Proposed by UK Facts, not an official deadline.)
Medium-term checkpoint
Sustained work 6–12 months after starting, against a matched comparison, from the Connect to Work evaluation. (Proposed.)

Do this → this changes → these outcomes

Every pathway record for the actions above, including harms. Only validated, evaluated or modelled benefits held with at least moderate confidence count towards the reach label; the rest are links to test.

Work and pay

  • A09 → More participants start suitable jobs → Working 13 or more weeks in the year after joining (out-of-work participants)

    BenefitEvaluated· Confidence: Moderate· Direct· Checked at claim level· West Midlands Combined Authority; 12 months, sustained at 21 months

    Who: Out-of-work adults with mild to moderate health conditions. Size: +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).

    No effect for out-of-work participants in Sheffield City Region, and no effect on earnings at 12 months.

    Source: Department for Work and Pensions, Health-led Employment Trials: evaluation synthesis report (Synthesis report Table 2.1)

  • A09 → Fewer people falling out of work → Working 13 or more weeks in the year after joining (people in work but struggling)

    BenefitEvaluated· Confidence: Limited· Direct· Checked at claim level· Sheffield City Region; 12 months

    Who: Employed adults with health conditions at risk of leaving work. Size: +3 percentage points (randomised control group; 12 months after randomisation, 2018–2020; significant only at the 90% level; no interval published).

    Weaker evidence than the West Midlands result.

    Source: Department for Work and Pensions, Health-led Employment Trials: evaluation synthesis report (Synthesis report Table 2.1)

Health and care

  • A09 → More health referrals and condition management → Self-reported health (EQ-5D-5L) at 12 months

    BenefitEvaluated· Confidence: Limited· Indirect· Checked at claim level· Sheffield City Region; 12 months

    Who: Trial participants in Sheffield City Region. Size: +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).

    Small; not found in the West Midlands. Not evidence of reduced NHS demand.

    Source: Department for Work and Pensions, Health-led Employment Trials: evaluation synthesis report (Synthesis report Table 2.1)

Costs and funding (records shared with the domain plans)

  • Connect to Work grant and programme costs, 2025–26 to 2028–29 (C-CTW-2025-29): £1.03bn in total, 2025–26 to 2028–29, cash (nominal) prices. Funding F-CTW-SR2025: Funding committed for this scope, £1.09bn.
  • Connect to Work costs, 2029–30 to 2031–32 (C-CTW-2029-32): £134.4m in total, 2029–30 to 2031–32, cash (nominal) prices. Funding F-CTW-FUTURE: Costed proposal; funding not committed, £138m.
  • NHS clinical integration, referral and supervision for IPS (C-A09-NHS): Not yet costed.

Each cost is counted once in the national table below; unknown amounts read “Not yet costed”, never £0.

How we would know

Baseline
Economically inactive because of long-term sickness, aged 16–64 (2.74 million, three months to Aug 2026, UK).
Outcome measures
Share in paid work within 12 months; employment sustained 6–12 months later (HMRC payroll data); job quality and health.
Distribution
Outcomes by condition, age and area; people not ready for work must not be pressured.
Review point
At the Connect to Work impact evaluation, and before the 2029–30 funding decision.
Continue or expand if
Sustained work beats a matched comparison.
Adapt or stop if
No difference from comparison after fidelity is confirmed; adapt the model or the eligible group first.

Evidence limits

Effects: +4 points in the West Midlands, +3 points for people in work in Sheffield City Region (weaker evidence), none for out-of-work participants there; no earnings effect at 12 months. Health gains appeared in one area only. Benefit and tax effects are not separately evidenced and are not counted.

Sources: Department for Work and Pensions, Health-led Employment Trials: evaluation synthesis report (Synthesis report Table 2.1); Department for Work and Pensions, Connect to Work: Programme Business Case 2 summary (Section 3.1, Table 9); Centre for Mental Health, Investment priorities for mental health 2025; 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)

Evidence reviewed 2026-10-04.

Sources last checked 4 October 2026 · Owner: National plan 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.

Outcome priority 3 · reference NP8

Fit home adaptations faster for older people most at risk of falling

Outcome sought: Fewer falls, injuries and emergency admissions among older people at higher risk who live at home.

Why it is selected
A Cochrane review rated the evidence high-certainty: for older people selected for higher risk, a home hazard assessment with adaptations cut the rate of falls by 38% (rate ratio 0.62, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.70); for people not selected for risk there was no effect. England already funds adaptations through the Disabled Facilities Grant but does not target it by falls risk or set a speed standard, so the change adds exactly the part the evidence says matters. An existing grant delivered by councils is not a reason to exclude it — the same is true of NP4. It ranks below NP3 because occupational-therapist and contractor capacity limit pace, and benefits fall in one policy area.
Policy areas with evidence of benefit
Evidence supports benefits in 1 policy area. Supported: Health and care.
Leading constraint
Occupational-therapist and adaptation-contractor capacity. Who can resolve it: DHSC and councils (OT and trusted-assessor workforce); housing authorities and home improvement agencies (contractors).
Funding status (by action)
  • A52Funding: Programme funding exists; project allocation unconfirmed
First decision
A housing authority and its health and care partners agree a falls-risk referral route, an OT check and a time-to-installation standard for a defined share of adaptations, within their existing grant.
Readiness
Needs a named decision or allocation. Housing authorities can prioritise within their existing grant under current powers, but each needs to decide to, and the occupational-therapist capacity and cost are not established.
Strongest challenge
Within a fixed grant, prioritising falls risk lengthens waits for others, and the OT workforce may not stretch to more assessments.

Decision briefExisting programmeReviewed 2026-10-04

Fit home adaptations quickly for older people most at risk of falling

The thread: issue, evidence, action

  1. Issue Weakness (Social care): Falls led to 221,600 emergency hospital admissions of people aged 65 and over in 2024/25 — 1,958 per 100,000, below the 2,256 of 2019/20 but about 600 admissions a day. Also: opportunity (Social care), strength (Social care)
  2. Evidence Emergency hospital admissions due to falls, people aged 65+
  3. Action Fit home adaptations faster for older people at high risk of falling, after an occupational-therapist hazard check
Decision required
Whether housing authorities, with falls services, set a falls-risk referral route, an OT hazard check and a time-to-installation standard for a defined share of Disabled Facilities Grant work.
Who and where
Older people living at home who are at higher risk of falling (for example after a fall or with falls-service involvement). Applies in: England.
Accountable body
Housing authorities (grant decisions); MHCLG with DHSC (grant guidance)
Intervention
Refer people at higher risk to an OT or trusted-assessor hazard check and fit the recommended adaptations quickly.
Best evidence, and where it applies
A 2023 Cochrane review: home hazard reduction cut falls by 38% for people selected for higher risk (high certainty) and had no effect for people not selected.Studied in: Community-dwelling older people; 9 studies (1,513 participants) selected for higher risk (Trials included in the 2023 review).
Extra cost of this change
Capital: Disabled Facilities Grant 2026–27 — £723m in total, 2026–27, price basis not stated by the source.Recurring: OT hazard assessments and faster processing — Not yet costed.One-off or mixed: Evaluation of falls and waits — 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: Disabled Facilities Grant allocations 2026–27 (£723m).Unfunded: Assessment and evaluation costs are not established; the grant itself is an envelope, not an award to this change.
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
Current waiting times published and a falls-risk fast route running in a first set of authorities.The proposed first milestone; a 90-day date is not yet specified. Owner: Housing authorities with NHS falls services. Proposed by UK Facts, not an official deadline.
Twelve-month milestone
Not yet specified.Time to a first useful result: Waiting-time change within months; falls outcomes after about 12 months.
Outcome, and when to scale or stop
Measure: Days from falls-service referral to completed adaptation.Scale if: Falls among people adapted fall against the comparison without other applicants’ waits lengthening materially.Stop if: No difference in falls once targeting and speed are confirmed.
Main trade-off
Within a fixed grant, other applicants — including disabled children — may wait longer.
Source and review date
Environmental interventions for preventing falls in older people living in the community (CD013258) (March 2023). Reviewed 2026-10-04.

An editorial proposal by UK Facts for discussion, not government policy. Records: A52 · effects E-A52-FALLS · costs C-DFG-2627, C-A52-OT

Research appendix on the Social care page → Study design, effect sizes and limits, alternatives, the full costing, international comparisons and what would transfer.

Priority record: pathways, costs, owners, sequence and measures
National SWOT findings addressed
UK-W3, UK-O2
Mechanism
An occupational therapist or trained assessor checks home hazards for people at higher risk of falling, and the grant fits the recommended rails, lighting and level access quickly (A52).
Policy today
The Disabled Facilities Grant (£723m in 2026–27) and free minor adaptations up to £1,000 exist; grants follow eligibility and a means test, not falls risk, and the last national review found more than six months from application to completion, before the wait for an assessment.
What would be added
A falls-risk referral route from NHS falls services and GPs, an OT hazard check, priority within the existing grant and a published time-to-installation standard.
Who benefits
Older people living at home who are at higher risk of falling, and their carers; health and care services through fewer injuries (not a cash saving).
Who bears the costs
Central government (the grant), housing authorities, councils and the NHS (occupational-therapist time), and other grant applicants who may wait longer within a fixed budget.
What would be forgone
Within a fixed grant, prioritising falls risk delays other adaptations, including for disabled children; OT time used here is not available for reablement or discharge assessments.
The strongest alternative
Reablement after hospital discharge (A51): reaches people at a similar point but its effect is not established by trials.
Lead institution
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Disabled Facilities Grant), with the Department of Health and Social Care
Partners
Housing authorities; Social care occupational therapists; NHS falls services and GPs; Home improvement agencies and adaptation contractors
Devolved and local powers
Adaptations and social care are devolved: Wales and Northern Ireland run their own grants and Scotland funds adaptations differently; not reviewed here.
What delivery needs
Occupational therapists or trusted assessors; adaptation contractors; falls-service data to identify people at higher risk; landlord consent in rented homes. No new law.
Prerequisites
A referral route from NHS falls services and GPs to the grant team, with current waiting times published.
Competing for the same resources
OTs are also needed for reablement and hospital discharge; some adaptation trades overlap with retrofit installers (NP4).
Near-term milestone
Current waiting times published and a falls-risk fast route running in a first set of authorities. (Proposed by UK Facts, not an official deadline.)
Medium-term checkpoint
Falls and fall injuries among people adapted, against a comparison of people waiting, after 12 months. (Proposed.)

Do this → this changes → these outcomes

Every pathway record for the actions above, including harms. Only validated, evaluated or modelled benefits held with at least moderate confidence count towards the reach label; the rest are links to test.

Health and care

  • A52 → Hazards removed (rails, lighting, non-slip surfaces) and behaviour changed → Rate of falls among older people at higher risk of falling

    BenefitEvaluated· Confidence: High· Direct· Checked at claim level· International trials, including the UK; Within a year

    Who: Community-dwelling older people selected for higher risk of falling. Size: −38% rate of falls (rate ratio 0.62) (usual care or no intervention in randomised trials; Trials included in the 2023 review; 95% CI 0.56 to 0.70 (falls −44% to −30%); 9 studies, 1,513 participants; high certainty).

    No effect for people not selected for risk (rate ratio 1.05, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.16), so the targeting is the intervention. Trials measured falls, not admissions or care-home moves.

    Source: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Environmental interventions for preventing falls in older people living in the community (CD013258) (Abstract, main results (people selected for higher risk))

Costs and funding (records shared with the domain plans)

  • Disabled Facilities Grant 2026–27 (programme envelope) (C-DFG-2627): £723m in total, 2026–27, price basis not stated by the source. Funding F-DFG-2627: Programme funding exists; project allocation unconfirmed, £723m.
  • Occupational-therapist home-hazard assessments and faster processing for people at higher risk of falls (C-A52-OT): Not yet costed.

Each cost is counted once in the national table below; unknown amounts read “Not yet costed”, never £0.

How we would know

Baseline
Emergency admissions due to falls, people aged 65+: 1,958 per 100,000 (221,600 admissions), England 2024/25 (OHID).
Outcome measures
Falls and fall injuries among people adapted; days from referral to installation; emergency admissions as a lagging measure.
Distribution
Waits for other grant applicants, including disabled children; reach among people on low incomes and in rented homes.
Review point
After 12 months of the fast route.
Continue or expand if
Falls among people adapted fall against the comparison without other applicants’ waits lengthening materially.
Adapt or stop if
No difference in falls once fidelity is confirmed, or other applicants’ waits grow; adapt the targeting first.

Evidence limits

Trials measured falls, not admissions or care-home moves; the effect inside routine English grant delivery is untested; current national waiting times are not published (the latest are from 2018).

Sources: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Environmental interventions for preventing falls in older people living in the community (CD013258) (Abstract; Analyses 1.1–1.4); Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, Changing the way government allocates Disabled Facilities Grant funding to local authorities in England: consultation response (Allocation section); University of the West of England for MHCLG and DHSC, Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) and other adaptations: external review (Chapter 7, Table 7.1); Office for Health Improvement and Disparities (Fingertips), Emergency hospital admissions due to falls in people aged 65 and over (indicator 22401) (Indicator 22401, England)

Evidence reviewed 2026-10-04.

Sources last checked 4 October 2026 · Owner: National plan editor (James Harris) · Next check: Public Health Outcomes Framework: November 2026 data update (emergency admissions for falls) (3 November 2026) or the first trigger: Announcement of the 2027–28 Disabled Facilities Grant allocation.

Outcome priority 4 · reference NP4

Fix the coldest homes first, and check the work before it is paid for

Outcome sought: Warmer homes and lower energy use for low-income households in the least efficient homes, without new damp or defects, with health measured separately.

Why it is selected
About 2.36 million households in England are in fuel poverty; measured gas savings after insulation are real (a median 17% after solid wall insulation) and £4.4bn of low-income grants is allocated at programme level. Scheme rules already require PAS 2035 standards and TrustMark installers, so the marginal change is choosing homes by health need as well as income and energy rating, independent inspection before final payment, and an evaluation that measures health separately. Joint fourth with NP1 on the selection table: their order is not meaningful. Health benefits are a hypothesis for English homes, and installer capacity is short.
Policy areas with evidence of benefit
Evidence supports benefits in 1 policy area; 1 further link needs testing. Supported: Energy and bills. To test: Health and care. Trade-off or harm recorded (never counted): Housing.
Leading constraint
Installer capacity and independent inspection: delivery under the local grant has been slow to report. Who can resolve it: DESNZ with accreditation bodies and councils; Skills England for the workforce shared with NP1 and NP5.
Funding status (by action)
  • A18Funding: Programme funding exists; project allocation unconfirmed
First decision
DESNZ adds independent post-installation inspection with retained final payment to scheme rules, and councils agree health referral routes for selecting eligible homes.
Readiness
Needs enabling capacity/evidence first. The grants are allocated at programme level, but installer capacity and an inspection regime must be in place before volumes rise; inspection and evaluation are not yet costed.
Strongest challenge
Savings can be smaller than modelled and poor work can cause damp; bills depend mostly on wholesale and network costs that insulation does not change.

Decision briefExisting programmeReviewed 2026-10-04

Fix the coldest homes first — and measure bills and health separately

The thread: issue, evidence, action

  1. Issue Weakness (Energy): 9.4% of households in England — about 2.36 million — were projected to be in fuel poverty in 2025, based on 2024 final estimates; these are not final 2025 survey results. Also: threat (Energy), opportunity (Energy), strength (Energy)
  2. Evidence Households in fuel poverty
  3. Action Fix cold and inefficient homes with quality-assured work
Decision required
Whether DESNZ adds independent inspection before final payment to the low-income grant rules, and councils with health partners agree referral routes so homes are chosen by health need as well as income.
Who and where
Low-income households in homes rated EPC D to G, prioritising those with health conditions made worse by cold. Applies in: England.
Accountable body
Department for Energy Security and Net Zero
Intervention
Survey, then install insulation, heating and ventilation together in the coldest homes chosen by need, and inspect before final payment.
Best evidence, and where it applies
Solid wall insulation cut median gas use by 17% (England and Wales); a New Zealand randomised trial found insulation halved the odds of poor self-rated health in homes with respiratory illness.Studied in: Homes in England and Wales with measures installed, mostly under government schemes (2024 savings for measures installed in 2023).How closely the comparison transfers to this decision: Seven low-income communities, New Zealand — partial.
Extra cost of this change
Capital: Warm Homes low-income grants — £4.42bn in total, 2025–26 to 2029–30, price basis not stated by the source; Energy performance upgrades per home (average cap) — £16,600 per home (average across a project).Recurring: Administration and ancillary costs — Up to 15% of total project spend; Surveys, independent inspection, remediation and monitoring — Not yet costed.One-off or mixed: Linked health and energy 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: Warm Homes Plan low-income grant allocations (£4.42bn).Unfunded: Inspection, remediation and evaluation costs are not established; the £4.4bn is a programme envelope, not an award to this change.
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
Inspection and remediation standard in scheme rules; first health-referred homes surveyed.The proposed first milestone; a 90-day date is not yet specified. Owner: DESNZ with councils. Proposed by UK Facts, not an official deadline.
Twelve-month milestone
Not yet specified.Time to a first useful result: Warmth and energy use after one heating season; health outcomes after two.
Outcome, and when to scale or stop
Measure: Inspections passed first time and defects remedied.Scale if: Measured savings and warmth hold after inspection.Stop if: A measure causes defects; stop that measure.
Main trade-off
Installers and grant money spent here are not available for other work, and poor installation can cause damp.
Source and review date
National Energy Efficiency Data-Framework (NEED): summary of analysis 2026 (June 2026); Effect of insulating existing houses on health inequality: cluster randomised study in the community (March 2007). Reviewed 2026-10-04.

An editorial proposal by UK Facts for discussion, not government policy. Records: A18 · effects E-A18-GAS-USE, E-A18-HEALTH, E-A18-DAMP · costs C-WHP-LOWINCOME, C-A18-QUALITY

Research appendix on the Energy page → Study design, effect sizes and limits, alternatives, the full costing, international comparisons and what would transfer.

Priority record: pathways, costs, owners, sequence and measures
National SWOT findings addressed
UK-W2, UK-O1, UK-T2
Mechanism
Choose homes by need, survey before work, install insulation, heating and ventilation together, and inspect independently before final payment (A18).
Policy today
The Warm Homes Plan allocates £4,422m of low-income home grants for 2025–26 to 2029–30 (England); Warm Homes: Local Grant caps average spending at £16,600 per home for energy upgrades and £16,600 for low-carbon heating and already requires PAS 2035 and TrustMark installers.
What would be added
Health-linked selection (referral from GPs or respiratory services among eligible households), independent post-installation inspection with retention of final payment and a remediation route, and an evaluation that measures warmth, energy use, bills and health separately.
Who benefits
Low-income and fuel-poor households in the least efficient homes in England, especially people with respiratory or other cold-sensitive conditions.
Who bears the costs
Central government (grants); landlords (a 50% contribution after the first home, and minimum standards, partly passed on in rents); occupants bear disruption.
What would be forgone
Grant spent here is not available for other energy or housing programmes; installers used here are not available for new-build or heat-pump work.
The strongest alternative
Rebalancing electricity and gas prices to favour clean heating (A17): cheaper for government but modelled on an overtaken baseline and raises bills for households that cannot switch.
Lead institution
Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (England)
Partners
MHCLG (private-rented standards); Councils and the Warm Homes: Local Grant consortia; NHS primary care and respiratory services (referral); Landlords; Accredited installers, retrofit coordinators and independent inspectors
Devolved and local powers
Energy efficiency support is devolved: Scotland runs Warmer Homes Scotland, Wales its own Warm Homes Programme and Northern Ireland its Affordable Warmth Scheme. Their scale and results were not reviewed here.
What delivery needs
Accredited installers, retrofit coordinators and independent inspectors; council delivery teams; health referral agreements; landlord and occupant agreement.
Prerequisites
An inspection and remediation standard in scheme rules before volumes rise. Installer workforce plan shared with NP1 and NP5. Depends on: NP5.
Competing for the same resources
Competes with NP1 and NP5 for construction trades; grant overlaps the UK infrastructure envelope (same money, counted once).
Near-term milestone
Inspection standard in scheme rules; first health-referred homes surveyed. (Proposed by UK Facts, not an official deadline.)
Medium-term checkpoint
Weather-adjusted energy use, indoor warmth, defects found and fixed, and health outcomes in treated homes against a comparison, two heating seasons after installation. (Proposed.)

Do this → this changes → these outcomes

Every pathway record for the actions above, including harms. Only validated, evaluated or modelled benefits held with at least moderate confidence count towards the reach label; the rest are links to test.

Energy and bills

  • A18 → Lower heat demand → Gas use in homes after solid wall insulation

    BenefitEvaluated· Confidence: Moderate· Direct· Checked at claim level· England and Wales; The year after installation

    Who: Households in solid-walled homes that are insulated. Size: −17% median gas use (similar homes without measures; 2024 savings for measures installed in 2023; indicative; varies year to year and includes households choosing to heat more).

    Observational comparison, mostly from government schemes; savings for cavity and loft insulation are smaller.

    Source: Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, National Energy Efficiency Data-Framework (NEED): summary of analysis 2026 (Section 3, Figure 3.1)

Health and care
Poverty and inequality
Housing

Costs and funding (records shared with the domain plans)

  • Warm Homes Plan: low-income home grants (C-WHP-LOWINCOME): £4.42bn in total, 2025–26 to 2029–30, price basis not stated by the source. Funding F-WHP-LOWINCOME: Programme funding exists; project allocation unconfirmed, £4.42bn.
  • Property surveys, installation quality checks, remediation and monitoring (C-A18-QUALITY): Not yet costed.

Each cost is counted once in the national table below; unknown amounts read “Not yet costed”, never £0.

How we would know

Baseline
Fuel poverty in England (9.4% of households, 2025).
Outcome measures
Indoor warmth, weather-adjusted energy use and bills in treated homes; pre-specified health outcomes measured separately.
Distribution
Rents after upgrades in private-rented homes; outcomes for households with health conditions.
Review point
Annually with the fuel poverty statistics and NEED analysis; health at the end of the second heating season.
Continue or expand if
Measured savings and warmth hold after inspection.
Adapt or stop if
Any measure that causes defects is stopped; schemes whose savings fall far below survey estimates are reviewed.

Evidence limits

Savings vary year to year and include households choosing to heat more; the New Zealand health results come from different homes and a population chosen for respiratory illness; the fall in the fuel-poverty count partly follows from its definition.

Sources: Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, National Energy Efficiency Data-Framework (NEED): summary of analysis 2026 (Section 3, Figure 3.1); Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, Warm Homes: Local Grant – policy guidance for local authorities (updated June/July 2026) (Summary table; section 6.1); Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, Warm Homes Plan (updated 18 March 2026) (Funding allocations table); BMJ, Effect of insulating existing houses on health inequality: cluster randomised study in the community (Abstract); Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, Annual Fuel Poverty Statistics in England, 2026 (2025 data) (Report p.1)

Evidence reviewed 2026-10-04.

Sources last checked 4 October 2026 · Owner: National plan editor (James Harris) · Next check: DESNZ Warm Homes: Local Grant statistics, October 2026 (26 November 2026) or the first trigger: DESNZ annual fuel poverty statistics for England (usually published early in the year; date not announced when reviewed).

Outcome priority 5 · reference NP1

Buy or build social-rent homes for households in temporary accommodation

Outcome sought: Fewer households — especially families with children — in temporary accommodation, moved into settled homes they can afford.

Why it is selected
Temporary accommodation is among the most severe harms in the national evidence — 135,580 households, including 177,530 children, in March 2026 — and councils’ gross spending on it was £2.82bn in 2024–25. A £39bn programme is open, but it funds supply and is not tied to these households. A US randomised trial found that a settled, affordable tenancy more than halved homelessness among families leaving shelter, though at higher, not lower, cost. Joint fourth with NP4 on the selection table; no UK evaluation tests the link, and construction capacity is short.
Policy areas with evidence of benefit
Potential links under review. To test: Housing, Poverty and inequality, Education and children.
Leading constraint
Construction and acquisition capacity: homes take years to build, and buying existing homes may not add supply. Who can resolve it: MHCLG and Homes England with councils; Skills England for the construction workforce (shared with NP4 and NP5).
Funding status (by action)
  • A02Funding: Programme funding exists; project allocation unconfirmed
First decision
A council with Homes England (or the GLA) compares buying, building and leasing for its families in temporary accommodation over a declared horizon, and links its first programme award to lettings to those households.
Readiness
Needs a named decision or allocation. The programme money is a ten-year envelope allocated by bidding, not a project award, and no whole-life comparison for a named authority has been costed.
Strongest challenge
Grant may not be the binding constraint: the last programme delivered below plan as build costs rose, and buying existing homes can move households around rather than add homes.

Decision briefExisting programmeReviewed 2026-10-04

Buy or build social-rent homes? Make the choice against the cost of temporary accommodation

The thread: issue, evidence, action

  1. Issue Weakness (Housing): 135,580 households, including 177,530 children, were in temporary accommodation. Also: opportunity (Housing), strength (Housing)
  2. Evidence Households in temporary accommodation
  3. Action Use social-housing funding to reduce temporary accommodation
Decision required
Whether a council, with Homes England or the GLA, compares buying, building and leasing homes for a named group in temporary accommodation over a declared horizon, and ties its first programme award to lettings to those households.
Who and where
Households in temporary accommodation, starting with families with children. Applies in: England.
Accountable body
The local housing authority, with Homes England or the GLA (awards)
Intervention
Supply settled social-rent homes, by whichever route is quicker and cheaper over the horizon, and let them to households in temporary accommodation.
Best evidence, and where it applies
A US randomised trial of 2,282 homeless families found a long-term affordable tenancy more than halved homelessness — but cost about 9% more than usual care. No UK evaluation tests this link.Studied in: 2,282 families in emergency shelter in 12 communities (Enrolment 2010–2012; 20- and 37-month follow-up).How closely the comparison transfers to this decision: 12 US communities — partial; Five Canadian cities — low.
Extra cost of this change
Capital: Social and Affordable Homes Programme — £39bn in total, 2026–27 to 2035–36, price basis not stated by the source.Recurring: none identified in the brief.One-off or mixed: Purchase or build, repairs, financing, management, maintenance, voids and support for a named scheme — Not yet costed; Whole-life comparison and 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: Social and Affordable Homes Programme envelope (£39bn).Unfunded: Unknown until a named scheme is costed; the £39bn is a programme envelope, not an award to this package.
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
First whole-life comparison published for a named authority; first award linked to temporary-accommodation lettings.The proposed first milestone; a 90-day date is not yet specified. Owner: Council with Homes England or the GLA. Proposed by UK Facts, not an official deadline.
Twelve-month milestone
Not yet specified.Time to a first useful result: Acquisition lettings within months of an award; new-build lettings in years.
Outcome, and when to scale or stop
Measure: Lettings from awards to households in temporary accommodation.Scale if: Lettings reach households in temporary accommodation and whole-life costs track the comparison.Stop if: Homes are not let to the target group.
Main trade-off
Acquisitions can compete with other buyers and renters; new build takes years and scarce builders.
Source and review date
Family Options Study: 3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families (summary report) (October 2016); The Affordable Homes Programme since 2015 (September 2022). Reviewed 2026-10-04.

An editorial proposal by UK Facts for discussion, not government policy. Records: A02 · effects E-A02-TA, E-A02-CHILDREN-TA · costs C-SAHP-ENVELOPE, C-A02-SCHEME

Research appendix on the Housing page → Study design, effect sizes and limits, alternatives, the full costing, international comparisons and what would transfer.

Priority record: pathways, costs, owners, sequence and measures
National SWOT findings addressed
UK-W2, UK-O1, UK-T3
Mechanism
For a named authority and household group, compare acquisition and repair, new construction and the current temporary-accommodation pathway over a declared horizon, then steer programme awards to the route that houses them sooner at lower whole-life cost (A02).
Policy today
The Social and Affordable Homes Programme 2026–2036 (£39bn) made its first allocations on 25 August 2026 (£9.58bn to 33 strategic partners outside London, most of the programme still to allocate), aimed at supply with at least 60% social rent; the Local Authority Housing Fund is the dedicated temporary-accommodation capital route.
What would be added
A published whole-life comparison of buy, build and the current pathway for named household groups, and programme awards tied to lettings to households in temporary accommodation — a UK Facts proposal, not government policy.
Who benefits
Households in temporary accommodation, especially families with children, in England.
Who bears the costs
Central government (grant), councils and housing associations (borrowing repaid from rents, management), tenants (rents); renters and buyers competing for the same homes if acquisitions do not add supply.
What would be forgone
The same grant could buy more homes at higher rents or repair existing stock; acquisitions can compete with first-time buyers and private renters.
The strongest alternative
Long leases of private homes for temporary accommodation, or the Local Authority Housing Fund’s acquisitions: faster for some households but adding less to total supply. Neither has a UK effect estimate.
Lead institution
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (England)
Partners
Homes England and the Greater London Authority (awards); Local housing authorities; Housing associations; Developers and estate agents (acquisitions)
Devolved and local powers
Housing is devolved. Equivalent decisions sit with the Scottish Government (Affordable Housing Supply Programme), the Welsh Government (Social Housing Grant) and Northern Ireland’s Department for Communities and Housing Executive; their programmes were not reviewed here.
What delivery needs
Available properties or deliverable sites; development, acquisition and housing-management staff; housing associations’ balance sheets (also needed for repairs and safety work); allocation rules that let these homes to households in temporary accommodation.
Prerequisites
A whole-life comparison for a named authority before awards. Sites and connections sequenced through NP5 for new-build routes. Depends on: NP5.
Competing for the same resources
New-build competes with NP4 (retrofit installers) and NP5 (infrastructure) for construction workers; acquisitions compete with other buyers and renters; housing associations’ borrowing is also needed for repairs and safety work.
Near-term milestone
First whole-life comparisons published; first awards linked to temporary-accommodation lettings. (Proposed by UK Facts, not an official deadline.)
Medium-term checkpoint
Households moved from temporary accommodation into programme homes, nights in temporary accommodation and tenancy sustainment, against plan, three years after first awards. (Proposed.)

Do this → this changes → these outcomes

Every pathway record for the actions above, including harms. Only validated, evaluated or modelled benefits held with at least moderate confidence count towards the reach label; the rest are links to test.

Housing
Poverty and inequality
Education and children

  • A02 → Fewer children living in temporary accommodation → Stability of home and school for children leaving temporary accommodation

    BenefitPlausible link, untested· Confidence: Limited· Indirect· Not yet validated· England; From rehousing; educational effects would take years to observe

    Who: Children in households in temporary accommodation. Size: direction plausible; size not established.

    Our sources count the children affected but none evaluates the effect of rehousing on attendance, attainment or health, so this is a link to test, not a finding.

    Source: MHCLG, Statutory homelessness: England time series (Table TA1)

Costs and funding (records shared with the domain plans)

  • Social and Affordable Homes Programme 2026–2036 (programme envelope) (C-SAHP-ENVELOPE): £39bn in total, 2026–27 to 2035–36, price basis not stated by the source. Funding F-SAHP-PROGRAMME: Programme funding exists; project allocation unconfirmed, £39bn.
  • Grant, borrowing, rent, maintenance and infrastructure for a named scheme (C-A02-SCHEME): Not yet costed.

Each cost is counted once in the national table below; unknown amounts read “Not yet costed”, never £0.

How we would know

Baseline
Households in temporary accommodation (135,580, March 2026); councils’ gross temporary-accommodation spending (£2.82bn, 2024–25), England.
Outcome measures
Households leaving temporary accommodation into settled homes; nights in temporary accommodation; total public cost; tenancy sustainment.
Distribution
Children in temporary accommodation; rents relative to income for new lettings; effects on other renters and buyers where homes are acquired.
Review point
Annually with the quarterly temporary-accommodation statistics and revenue outturn.
Continue or expand if
Lettings from awards reach households in temporary accommodation and whole-life costs track the comparison.
Adapt or stop if
Homes are not additional locally or completions fall persistently short as costs rise; switch to the cheaper route for that authority.

Evidence limits

Whether new social-rent homes are additional locally and reach households in temporary accommodation has not been evaluated in the UK. The US trial tested rent subsidies, not newly bought or built homes, and the subsidy cost more than usual care. Gross temporary-accommodation spending is largely offset by housing benefit and is not a saving available to a housing programme.

Sources: MHCLG / Homes England / GLA, Social and Affordable Homes Programme 2026 to 2036 (collection; MHCLG policy statement; Homes England prospectus) (Policy statement “Introduction” and “Delivery routes”); National Audit Office, The Affordable Homes Programme since 2015 (Summary, paragraph 14); MHCLG, Statutory homelessness: England time series (Table TA1); Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, Local authority revenue expenditure and financing England: 2024 to 2025 individual local authority data – outturn (RO4 housing services) (ENGLAND row, temporary accommodation lines); US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, Family Options Study: 3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families (summary report) (Summary pp.3–5, 9)

Evidence reviewed 2026-10-04.

Sources last checked 4 October 2026 · Owner: National plan editor (James Harris) · Next check: MHCLG statutory homelessness in England: April to June 2026 (temporary accommodation) (29 October 2026, provisional) or the first trigger: Social and Affordable Homes Programme prospectus, bidding round or allocations.

Outcome priority 6 · reference NP2

Hold the new family hubs to what worked in Sure Start, starting where access is weakest

Outcome sought: Better development and later attainment for disadvantaged young children, with health benefits where the evidence supports them.

Why it is selected
Sure Start access raised GCSE results and cut hospital admissions by age 15 — the only candidate with evaluated benefits in two distinct areas. Best Start Family Hubs are now being rolled out with over £500m, so the marginal change is to hold them to the features that were evaluated, start where access is weakest and phase the roll-out so it can be evaluated. It is sixth because effects per child are modest and arrive slowly, transfer from the 2000s is uncertain, and Wales’s Flying Start raised contact without a measurable change in child development by age three.
Policy areas with evidence of benefit
Evidence supports benefits in 2 policy areas. Supported: Education and children, Health and care. Trade-off or harm recorded (never counted): Crime and justice.
Leading constraint
The early-years and health-visiting workforce. Who can resolve it: DfE with DHSC/NHS England (health visitors) and councils.
Funding status (by action)
  • A13Funding: Programme funding exists; project allocation unconfirmed
First decision
DfE, with councils, publishes the hub specification based on the evaluated Sure Start features, prioritises the areas of weakest access and fixes the order of the remaining roll-out so it can be evaluated.
Readiness
Needs a named decision or allocation. The hubs are funded at programme level, but the specification, area order and evaluation design are decisions not yet taken, and the evaluated service mix is not costed.
Strongest challenge
Effects are modest per child and arrive over 10–15 years; a diluted national roll-out may not reproduce them, and lifetime benefits cannot pay for upfront delivery.

Decision briefExisting programmeReviewed 2026-10-04

Build the new family hubs like the Sure Start centres that worked, starting where access is weakest

The thread: issue, evidence, action

  1. Issue Weakness (Education): 25.8% of disadvantaged pupils got grade 5+ in English and maths GCSE, against 53.1% of other pupils — a 27.3 points gap, against 25.2 points in 2018/19. Also: opportunity (Education)
  2. Evidence Disadvantage gap: grade 5+ in English and maths at 16
  3. Action Rebuild integrated early-years help where access is weakest
Decision required
Whether DfE specifies the hub offer from the evaluated Sure Start features, puts the weakest-access areas first and phases the remaining roll-out so it can be evaluated.
Who and where
Children under five and their families, especially in disadvantaged areas with weak access to services. Applies in: England.
Accountable body
Department for Education
Intervention
Offer integrated health, parenting and early-education support close to families, with outreach, where access is weakest.
Best evidence, and where it applies
Living near a 2000s Sure Start centre raised the chance of five good GCSEs by 0.9 points and cut hospital admissions by 8.5% by age 15 (IFS); Wales’s Flying Start raised contact but showed no child-development difference by age three.Studied in: Children in England born around 1990–2007 (Sure Start roll-out 1999–2010; outcomes to age 16).How closely the comparison transfers to this decision: Wales — partial.
Extra cost of this change
Capital: none identified in the brief.Recurring: Best Start Family Hubs roll-out — at least £500m in total, Announced 6 July 2025 (“over £500 million”), hubs in every local authority from April 2026 to the end of 2028; fiscal years and price basis not stated in the announcement., price basis not stated by the source; Evaluated Sure Start service mix and workforce — Not yet costed.One-off or mixed: Phased-roll-out 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: Best Start Family Hubs: “over £500 million” to the end of 2028.Unfunded: The cost of meeting the specification and of the evaluation is not established; the over-£500m is a programme envelope.
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
Hub specification, access map and roll-out order published.The proposed first milestone; a 90-day date is not yet specified. Owner: DfE with councils. Proposed by UK Facts, not an official deadline.
Twelve-month milestone
Not yet specified.Time to a first useful result: Reach within a year; child development at two to three in about two years; attainment only as cohorts age.
Outcome, and when to scale or stop
Measure: Reach among disadvantaged families in target areas.Scale if: Reach rises and early development improves against later-starting areas.Stop if: No difference in development against later areas once the specification is met.
Main trade-off
Effects per child are modest and slow, and a phased roll-out means some areas wait.
Source and review date
The short- and medium-term effects of Sure Start on children’s outcomes (May 2025); National evaluation of Flying Start: impact report (December 2013). Reviewed 2026-10-04.

An editorial proposal by UK Facts for discussion, not government policy. Records: A13 · effects E-A13-GCSE, E-A13-HOSPITAL, E-A13-CRIME · costs C-BSFH-2025, C-A13-SERVICE

Research appendix on the Education page → Study design, effect sizes and limits, alternatives, the full costing, international comparisons and what would transfer.

Priority record: pathways, costs, owners, sequence and measures
National SWOT findings addressed
UK-S2, UK-O2, UK-W2
Mechanism
Accessible, integrated health, parenting and early-education support with outreach, located where access is weakest and built to the features of the evaluated programme (A13).
Policy today
Best Start Family Hubs in every local authority from April 2026, “backed by over £500 million”, with up to 1,000 hubs by the end of 2028 (England). NELI, the reception language programme, is separately funded for every state school to 2028–29.
What would be added
A specified hub offer drawn from the evaluated Sure Start features (local access, health visiting with early education, outreach), first in the areas of weakest access, with the roll-out phased so that comparable areas start at different times.
Who benefits
Disadvantaged children under five and their families in England, especially in areas where services have thinned.
Who bears the costs
Central government and councils (hubs), the NHS (health visiting). Costs fall now; most benefits arrive later and partly to other budgets.
What would be forgone
Hub money and staff not spent on childcare places or other services; health-visitor time taken from universal visits.
The strongest alternative
Expanding funded childcare hours instead: it reaches more families but is a different intervention whose child-development effects were not reviewed here.
Lead institution
Department for Education (England)
Partners
Department of Health and Social Care and NHS commissioners (health visiting); Councils; Researchers (evaluation)
Devolved and local powers
Early years are devolved: the Welsh Government runs Flying Start, Northern Ireland runs Sure Start through its Department of Education, and the Scottish Government sets its own offer.
What delivery needs
Early-years practitioners, health visitors and outreach workers; accessible buildings; local commissioning capacity; families’ trust. No new law.
Prerequisites
A map of access and a specified offer before buildings or branding. An evaluation design agreed before the remaining roll-out is scheduled.
Competing for the same resources
Health visitors and community NHS staff are also needed for NP3’s referral routes and NP8’s assessments.
Near-term milestone
Hub specification, access map and roll-out order published. (Proposed by UK Facts, not an official deadline.)
Medium-term checkpoint
Reach among families in target areas, and child development at age two to three, in early against later hub areas, within two years. (Proposed.)

Do this → this changes → these outcomes

Every pathway record for the actions above, including harms. Only validated, evaluated or modelled benefits held with at least moderate confidence count towards the reach label; the rest are links to test.

Education and children

  • A13 → Better early development and school readiness → Five GCSEs at A*–C (or equivalent) at 16

    BenefitEvaluated· Confidence: Moderate· Direct· Checked at claim level· England; Age 16

    Who: Children living near a centre, largest for disadvantaged children. Size: +0.9 percentage points (about 2%) (children without access, before and after centres opened; cohorts born around 1990–2003; quasi-experimental; method update changed some earlier findings).

    2000s Sure Start, not today’s family hubs.

    Source: Institute for Fiscal Studies, The short- and medium-term effects of Sure Start on children’s outcomes (Executive summary printed p.6)

Health and care

  • A13 → Health problems identified and treated earlier → Hospital admissions by age 15

    BenefitEvaluated· Confidence: Moderate· Indirect· Checked at claim level· England; Ages 11–15

    Who: Children in areas with centres. Size: −8.5% by age 15 (areas with fewer centres per child; cohorts born 1990s–2000s; admissions rose 10% at age 1 before falling).

    Not a cashable NHS saving.

    Source: Institute for Fiscal Studies, The short- and medium-term effects of Sure Start on children’s outcomes (Executive summary printed pp.6–7, Fig. ES.2)

Crime and justice

  • A13 → — → Criminal record by age 16

    Mixed: trade-offEvaluated· Confidence: Moderate· Indirect· Checked at claim level· England; Age 16

    Who: Young people in areas with centres. Size: direction plausible; size not established.

    More young people had a criminal record by 16, driven by an 11% rise in cautions; a fall in convictions was not significant. A trade-off to watch, not a benefit.

    Source: Institute for Fiscal Studies, The short- and medium-term effects of Sure Start on children’s outcomes (Executive summary printed p.8)

Costs and funding (records shared with the domain plans)

  • Integrated early-years service package and workforce (C-A13-SERVICE): Not yet costed.
  • Best Start Family Hubs roll-out (programme envelope) (C-BSFH-2025): at least £500m in total, Announced 6 July 2025 (“over £500 million”), hubs in every local authority from April 2026 to the end of 2028; fiscal years and price basis not stated in the announcement., price basis not stated by the source. Funding F-BSFH-2025: Programme funding exists; project allocation unconfirmed.

Each cost is counted once in the national table below; unknown amounts read “Not yet costed”, never £0.

How we would know

Baseline
Good level of development at age five (DfE EYFS profile); disadvantage gaps at 11 and 16.
Outcome measures
Reach and use; child development and language now; attainment and hospital admissions later, kept separate from projections.
Distribution
Reach and outcomes for disadvantaged children and children with greater needs.
Review point
Each year for reach; child development at the end of the phased comparison; long-run outcomes only as cohorts age.
Continue or expand if
Reach in target areas rises and early child-development measures improve against later-starting areas.
Adapt or stop if
Reach stays low or development shows no difference against later areas; change the offer before scaling; never judge by EHC-plan numbers.

Evidence limits

Transfer from 2000s Sure Start to today’s hubs is uncertain; crime results are mixed (more cautions by 16); Wales’s Flying Start found no difference in child development by about age three.

Sources: Institute for Fiscal Studies, The short- and medium-term effects of Sure Start on children’s outcomes (Executive summary pp.6–10; Table ES.1); Department for Education, Government revives family services supporting 500,000 more kids (press release) (Press release text); Welsh Government (Ipsos MORI and SQW), National evaluation of Flying Start: impact report (Summary pp.5–8); UCL Institute of Health Equity / Health Foundation, Build Back Fairer: The COVID-19 Marmot Review (Executive summary Box 9)

Evidence reviewed 2026-10-04.

Sources last checked 4 October 2026 · Owner: National plan editor (James Harris) · Next check: DfE early years foundation stage profile results: 2025 to 2026 (22 October 2026) or the first trigger: Best Start Family Hubs allocations, years or price basis confirmed.

Shown separately

Delivery enablers

Disciplines that make the spending priorities deliverable — planning shared builders and connections, realistic costs and managed contracts. Their evidence is audit and modelling, not outcome evaluation, so they are listed separately and not ranked against the outcome priorities.

Delivery enabler 1 · reference NP5

Publish what is ready to build — projects and housing sites — with each blocker’s owner and cost

Outcome sought: Committed capital turned into completed, used assets and homes closer to plan, with shared workforce and connections sequenced rather than double-booked.

Why it is selected
An enabler, not an outcome intervention: its evidence is a general model of public investment (OBR) and audit findings, not an evaluation of a pipeline. It is selected because NP1 and NP4 depend on the construction workforce and connections it would sequence, and because low investment is among the most persistent national weaknesses.
Policy areas with evidence of benefit
Potential links under review. To test: Housing, Living standards and growth.
Leading constraint
Construction workforce and grid connections shared by housing, retrofit and infrastructure. Who can resolve it: NISTA with HM Treasury, using A45’s shared-capacity mapping; Skills England for the workforce; NESO and Ofgem for connections.
Funding status (by action)
  • A03Funding: Programme funding exists; project allocation unconfirmed
  • A01Funding: Not yet costed / funding not identified
First decision
NISTA with HM Treasury publishes approved/aspirational status and a milestone for each pipeline project, and MHCLG publishes the blocker, owner and infrastructure cost for a first set of priority housing sites.
Readiness
Needs enabling capacity/evidence first. The money is a ten-year envelope and the binding constraints are the construction workforce, grid connections and project-level business cases; the site infrastructure package is not costed.
Strongest challenge
Stable plans can lock in poor projects, and permissions and grant may not be the binding constraint on homes; more capital can be wasted without better appraisal.

Decision briefExisting programmeReviewed 2026-10-04

Publish what is ready to build — projects and housing sites — with each blocker’s owner and cost

The thread: issue, evidence, action

  1. Issue Weakness (Growth & productivity): Total investment was 18.7% of GDP in 2024, the lowest in the G7 (the other six had a median of 21.8%); the UK was lowest in 23 of the 33 years since 1992. Also: opportunity (Growth & productivity), strength (Growth & productivity), strength (Growth & productivity)
  2. Evidence Total investment (gross fixed capital formation); Business investment
  3. Action Give productive investment a stable delivery pipeline
Decision required
Whether NISTA and HM Treasury publish approved-versus-aspirational status and milestones for every pipeline project, and MHCLG the blocker, owner and infrastructure cost for a first set of priority housing sites.
Who and where
Infrastructure projects in the pipeline and priority housing sites. Applies in: UK.
Accountable body
HM Treasury and the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority (NISTA); MHCLG for housing sites
Intervention
Publish what is approved and funded, what blocks priority sites and who owns each blocker.
Best evidence, and where it applies
No evaluation of a pipeline or blocker list exists; the OBR models +0.4% potential output after five years from 1% of GDP more public investment, if projects are as productive as average.Studied in: UK public investment (Modelled).
Extra cost of this change
Capital: Ten-year infrastructure funding — £725bn in total, “Over the next decade” from June 2025; Spending Review 2025 totals to 2029–30, then grown with forecast inflation (HM Treasury footnote 12). Exact fiscal years are not stated for the headline., cash (nominal) prices; Planning staff, site infrastructure and financing for priority sites — Not yet costed.Recurring: none identified in the brief.One-off or mixed: Project costs published one by one — Not yet costed.
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: Ten-year infrastructure funding commitment (at least £725bn) (£725bn).Unfunded: Publication and site-package costs are not established.
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
Status and milestones published at the next six-monthly pipeline update; first site blocker list published.The proposed first milestone; a 90-day date is not yet specified. Owner: NISTA with HM Treasury; MHCLG. Proposed by UK Facts, not an official deadline.
Twelve-month milestone
Not yet specified.Time to a first useful result: Status at the next pipeline update; delivery effects over two updates.
Outcome, and when to scale or stop
Measure: Share of projects with published status and milestones.Scale if: Projects reach milestones near published cost and priority sites start faster than comparable ones.Stop if: Publication changes neither sequencing nor delivery within two updates.
Main trade-off
Staff time and transparency costs now, with no measured return; stable plans can lock in weak projects.
Source and review date
Public investment and potential output (Discussion Paper No. 5) (August 2024). Reviewed 2026-10-04.

An editorial proposal by UK Facts for discussion, not government policy. Records: A03, A01 · effects E-A03-OUTPUT, E-A01-HOMES · costs C-10YIS-ENVELOPE, C-A03-PROJECTS, C-A01-SITE-PACKAGE

Research appendix on the Growth & productivity page → Study design, effect sizes and limits, alternatives, the full costing, international comparisons and what would transfer.

Priority record: pathways, costs, owners, sequence and measures
National SWOT findings addressed
UK-W1, UK-O1, UK-O3, UK-W4
Mechanism
Publish which pipeline projects are approved and funded with milestones (A03), and the blocker, owner and infrastructure cost on priority housing sites (A01), then sequence them against shared workforce and grid capacity.
Policy today
The 10 Year Infrastructure Strategy (June 2025) commits at least £725bn over a decade with an online pipeline updated at least every six months; planning reforms are in force (revised NPPF, December 2024; Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025).
What would be added
Approved-versus-aspirational status and milestones for every pipeline project, a site-by-site blocker list for priority housing sites, combined demand for builders, installers and connections, and completed, used assets as the measure.
Who benefits
Users of the infrastructure and homes delivered; construction firms able to plan staff; indirectly NP1 and NP4.
Who bears the costs
Taxpayers (capital and borrowing), bill-payers for regulated projects, councils (planning staff), developers (contributions), and communities near construction.
What would be forgone
Analytical and planning staff time; capital and builders used on one project are not available for others.
The strongest alternative
Raising business investment through tax incentives or pension-fund reform instead of public projects: aimed at the larger private share, but not assessed on this site’s action records.
Lead institution
HM Treasury and the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority (NISTA), with MHCLG for housing sites
Partners
Spending departments; Local planning authorities; Regulators and network operators (Ofgem, Ofwat, NESO); Skills England; Devolved governments
Devolved and local powers
The pipeline covers UK government projects, regulated sectors and mayoral authorities; planning is devolved. The Scottish Government, Welsh Government and Northern Ireland Executive run their own capital programmes; coordination was not assessed here.
What delivery needs
Appraisal and commercial capacity in departments and NISTA; council planning and infrastructure specialists; data from regulators and network operators; no new law.
Prerequisites
Realistic cost baselines and contract management for pipeline projects (NP6). Spending Review capital settlements beyond 2029–30. Depends on: NP6.
Competing for the same resources
The £725bn envelope includes housing and energy capital, so it overlaps NP1 and NP4 money; all three compete for the same construction workers.
Near-term milestone
Pipeline status and milestones published; first priority-site blocker list published. (Proposed by UK Facts, not an official deadline.)
Medium-term checkpoint
Share of projects reaching milestones near published cost, and time from permission to start on priority sites, at the next two six-monthly updates. (Proposed.)

Do this → this changes → these outcomes

Every pathway record for the actions above, including harms. Only validated, evaluated or modelled benefits held with at least moderate confidence count towards the reach label; the rest are links to test.

Housing

  • A01 → More sites move from permission to start → Net additional homes

    BenefitModelled· Confidence: Limited· Direct· Checked at claim level· England; Five years and more

    Who: Households seeking a home. Size: direction plausible; size not established.

    The OBR’s 170,000 extra homes by 2029–30 is its judgement of the 2024 planning reforms already in place, not of this site-by-site package, whose marginal effect has not been estimated.

    Source: Office for Budget Responsibility, Economic and fiscal outlook, March 2025 (Paragraph 3.37)

Living standards and growth

  • A03 → More completed infrastructure in use → Potential output

    BenefitModelled· Confidence: Limited· Indirect· Checked at claim level· United Kingdom; Five to fifty years

    Who: The economy as a whole; distribution depends on projects. Size: direction plausible; size not established.

    The OBR’s +0.4% of potential output after five years (2.4% after 50) is for a permanent rise of 1% of GDP in investment of average productivity — not an estimate for a pipeline, and not cash for the Exchequer.

    Source: Office for Budget Responsibility, Public investment and potential output (Discussion Paper No. 5) (Paragraph 4.7)

Costs and funding (records shared with the domain plans)

  • Planning staff, site infrastructure and financing for priority sites (C-A01-SITE-PACKAGE): Not yet costed.
  • 10 Year Infrastructure Strategy: government infrastructure funding (programme envelope) (C-10YIS-ENVELOPE): £725bn in total, “Over the next decade” from June 2025; Spending Review 2025 totals to 2029–30, then grown with forecast inflation (HM Treasury footnote 12). Exact fiscal years are not stated for the headline., cash (nominal) prices. Funding F-10YIS-ENVELOPE: Programme funding exists; project allocation unconfirmed, £725bn.
  • Project capital, maintenance, financing and workforce costs for pipeline projects (C-A03-PROJECTS): Not yet costed.

Each cost is counted once in the national table below; unknown amounts read “Not yet costed”, never £0.

How we would know

Baseline
Total investment, 18.7% of GDP in 2024 (UK, lowest in the G7); net additional homes (208,600, 2024–25, England).
Outcome measures
Assets completed and in use; time from permission to start on priority sites; net additional homes; living standards, with an explicit attribution limit.
Distribution
Where projects are built and who uses them, by region and nation.
Review point
Each six-monthly pipeline update.
Continue or expand if
Projects reach milestones near their published cost and priority sites start faster than comparable sites.
Adapt or stop if
Status publication does not change sequencing or delivery within two updates; review the pipeline and cancel weak schemes rather than lock them in.

Evidence limits

The OBR models +0.4% potential output after five years from 1% of GDP more public investment, if projects are as productive as average public capital; no study measures a pipeline’s or blocker list’s effect, and potential output is not cash. The OBR’s 170,000 extra homes is a modelled estimate of the December 2024 planning-framework changes already in place, not of this proposal or of the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025.

Sources: HM Treasury and NISTA, UK Infrastructure: A 10 Year Strategy (Paragraphs 1.24, 1.28–1.32; Annex); Office for Budget Responsibility, Public investment and potential output (Discussion Paper No. 5) (Paragraph 4.7); Office for Budget Responsibility, Economic and fiscal outlook, March 2025 (Paragraph 3.37); World Bank, World Development Indicators: Gross fixed capital formation (% of GDP) (NE.GDI.FTOT.ZS)

Evidence reviewed 2026-10-04.

Sources last checked 4 October 2026 · Owner: National plan editor (James Harris) · Next check: the first trigger: NISTA annual report on the Government Major Projects Portfolio.

Delivery enabler 2 · reference NP6

Set realistic costs before spending, then manage contracts to the result

Outcome sought: Public money in the outcome priorities buys the services and assets intended, closer to the cost and date planned.

Why it is selected
An enabler, not an outcome intervention: the evidence is audit and expert recommendation, and no saving can be assumed. It is selected because the delivery record is weak — 34 of 172 rated major projects were Red and no departmental delivery plans have been published since 2021 — and because NP1, NP4 and NP5 all spend through contracts that need commercial staff at the same time.
Policy areas with evidence of benefit
Potential links under review. To test: Public service delivery, Defence and security.
Leading constraint
Senior commercial and contract-management capability, which is thin. Who can resolve it: The Cabinet Office (Government Commercial Function) with departments; HM Treasury for analytical capacity.
Funding status (by action)
  • A23Funding: Not yet costed / funding not identified
  • A20Funding: Not yet costed / funding not identified
First decision
The Cabinet Office, with lead departments, names a set of renewing contracts — starting with those delivering housing, retrofit and pipeline projects — and publishes their baseline cost, outcome and milestones; HM Treasury publishes consistent baselines for the next planning cycle.
Readiness
Needs enabling capacity/evidence first. The legal duties exist, but the commercial and analytical capacity to apply them to named contracts has not been costed or secured.
Strongest challenge
Procurement failures often stem from changing policy and unrealistic budgets; more reporting can become paperwork and deter small suppliers.

Decision briefStatutory/accountability reformReviewed 2026-10-04

Set realistic costs before spending, then manage the contracts that deliver the priorities to the result

The thread: issue, evidence, action

  1. Issue Weakness (Public procurement): 34 of 172 rated government major projects were Red (successful delivery appears unachievable, with major issues that do not appear manageable at that stage), 16 ratings were withheld and 1 project was not yet rated. Also: weakness (Public procurement), strength (Public procurement)
  2. Evidence Government major projects rated Red
  3. Action Buy measurable results and manage contracts through delivery
Decision required
Whether the Cabinet Office names the renewing contracts that deliver the housing, retrofit and pipeline priorities and publishes their baseline cost, outcome and milestones, with HM Treasury publishing consistent service cost baselines.
Who and where
Renewing public contracts and the services they buy. Applies in: UK.
Accountable body
The Cabinet Office (Government Commercial Function), with HM Treasury
Intervention
Specify outcomes before tender, publish whole-life cost and milestones, manage contracts through delivery, and set cost baselines before money is committed.
Best evidence, and where it applies
Audit and expert recommendation only: 34 of 172 rated major projects were Red (March 2026); no evaluation estimates savings from outcome-specified contracts.Studied in: UK government commercial function (Not an evaluation).
Extra cost of this change
Capital: none identified in the brief.Recurring: Commercial staff, oversight, transition and maintenance — Not yet costed; Analytical capacity for service cost baselines — Not yet costed.
Funding
Mainly a legal or regulatory change: administration costs still need a budget.Committed to this change: none.Possible source, not an award: none identified.Unfunded: Staff costs are not established; no saving is counted.
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
Named renewing contracts with published outcomes, whole-life cost and milestones.The proposed first milestone; a 90-day date is not yet specified. Owner: Cabinet Office with lead departments. Proposed by UK Facts, not an official deadline.
Twelve-month milestone
Not yet specified.Time to a first useful result: Publication within a year; delivery results at the next major projects report.
Outcome, and when to scale or stop
Measure: Contracts with published outcome and milestone baselines.Scale if: Named contracts meet milestones closer to cost than comparable contracts.Stop if: Baselines go unused within one spending review.
Main trade-off
Scarce commercial staff are moved from other contracts, and reporting can deter small suppliers.
Source and review date
The role of procurement in delivering mission-led government (September 2025). Reviewed 2026-10-04.

An editorial proposal by UK Facts for discussion, not government policy. Records: A23, A20 · effects E-A23-SERVICE, E-A23-DEFENCE · costs C-A23-CAPABILITY, C-A20-ANALYSIS

Research appendix on the Public procurement page → Study design, effect sizes and limits, alternatives, the full costing, international comparisons and what would transfer.

Priority record: pathways, costs, owners, sequence and measures
National SWOT findings addressed
UK-W4, UK-O3, UK-T1, UK-T3
Mechanism
Specify outcomes before tender, publish whole-life cost and milestones, and staff contract management for the life of the contract (A23); publish the cost of present service standards and the outcome each budget should buy (A20).
Policy today
Spending Review 2025 budgets to 2028–29; the Green Book (2026); the Procurement Act 2023 (from 24 February 2025) requires KPIs and performance publication for larger contracts.
What would be added
An outcome-and-milestone baseline for a named set of renewing contracts — starting with those that deliver NP1, NP4 and NP5 — and a published cost-of-current-standards baseline per service.
Who benefits
Users of publicly contracted services and capabilities; taxpayers, if overruns fall.
Who bears the costs
HM Treasury, departments and contracting authorities (analysts, commercial and contract-management staff); suppliers (compliance and reporting, partly passed back in prices).
What would be forgone
Scarce commercial and analytical staff deployed here leave other contracts and policy work less covered.
The strongest alternative
Bringing services back in-house where markets are thin (the insourcing Public Interest Test from April 2027): a different remedy whose results do not exist yet.
Lead institution
The Cabinet Office (Government Commercial Function) and HM Treasury (spending)
Partners
Spending departments and contracting authorities; Ministry of Defence (defence equipment); National Audit Office (independent audit); Parliament (Estimates scrutiny)
Devolved and local powers
Applies to UK departments. Devolved governments set their own budgets within block grants; the Procurement Act 2023 covers Wales and Northern Ireland, while Scotland largely keeps its own regime.
What delivery needs
Analysts, evaluators, finance and commercial professionals; consistent cost and outcome data; the central digital platform for contract data; ministers accepting published trade-offs; suppliers willing to bid on outcome terms.
Prerequisites
One ledger of costs and funding (A47) so baselines use consistent periods and price bases.
Competing for the same resources
Commercial staff are scarce; the contracts behind NP1, NP4 and NP5 all need them at once.
Near-term milestone
Named renewing contracts with published outcomes, whole-life cost and milestones. (Proposed by UK Facts, not an official deadline.)
Medium-term checkpoint
Delivery against milestones and change orders for those contracts, and forecast-versus-outturn gaps, at the next major projects report. (Proposed.)

Do this → this changes → these outcomes

Every pathway record for the actions above, including harms. Only validated, evaluated or modelled benefits held with at least moderate confidence count towards the reach label; the rest are links to test.

Public service delivery

  • A23 → Fewer change orders and delays → Contracts delivering the specified service on time and near cost

    BenefitPlausible link, untested· Confidence: Limited· Direct· Not yet validated· United Kingdom; Contract lifetimes

    Who: Service users and taxpayers. Size: direction plausible; size not established.

    Recommended by research and audit; no evaluation estimates the effect.

    Source: Institute for Government, The role of procurement in delivering mission-led government (Report PDF p.4)

Defence and security

Costs and funding (records shared with the domain plans)

  • Analytical and delivery capacity to publish service baselines and outcome measures (C-A20-ANALYSIS): Not yet costed.
  • Commercial staff, contract oversight, transition, maintenance and supplier compliance (C-A23-CAPABILITY): Not yet costed.

Each cost is counted once in the national table below; unknown amounts read “Not yet costed”, never £0.

How we would know

Baseline
Major projects rated Red (34 of 172, March 2026); tracked commitments with a dated, costed plan.
Outcome measures
Delivery against milestones and cost; change orders; forecast-versus-outturn gaps in cost and outcomes.
Distribution
Small-supplier participation and late payment; services with weak outcome data protected from easy cuts.
Review point
Annual major projects report and each spending review.
Continue or expand if
Named contracts meet milestones closer to cost than comparable contracts, and published baselines are used in allocation decisions.
Adapt or stop if
Reporting deters bidders without improving delivery, or baselines go unused within one spending review.

Evidence limits

No evaluation estimates savings or service effects; better contract management cannot fix unrealistic budgets or policy changes.

Sources: Institute for Government, The role of procurement in delivering mission-led government (Report PDF pp.4–5, p.19); National Audit Office, Lessons learned: a planning and spending framework that enables long-term value for money (HC 234, Session 2024-25) (Summary paragraph 11); HM Treasury, The Green Book (2026) (Chapters 6–9); National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority, NISTA Major Projects Annual Report 2025–26 (ratings at 31 March 2026) (Ratings by department)

Evidence reviewed 2026-10-04.

Sources last checked 4 October 2026 · Owner: National plan editor (James Harris) · Next check: the first trigger: National Audit Office reports on commercial capability or contract management.

Cross-domain effects

One action, several outcomes

Previous version (NP1–NP8, 4 October 2026), replaced on 7 October 2026 by the national action plan.

Rows are the priorities; columns are distinct outcome areas, so Economy and Growth, or Education and SEND, count once. A solid mark is an evaluated benefit for the cited intervention and population, a hollow mark a modelled result, a dashed mark a mechanism not yet tested. Select a mark to see its source and transfer limits.

An evidence map, not a measure of size: marks are never sized, no effects are added together, and two pages describing the same outcome count once. Most priorities have evaluated benefits in one area; only the family hubs have them in two.

  • Evaluated: Evaluated benefit for the cited intervention and population
  • Modelled: Modelled result, not observed
  • Untested: Mechanism not yet tested, or only weakly evidenced, here
  • Trade-off: Harm or trade-off recorded (never counted as a benefit)

  • Outcome priority 1 · Set a minimum price per unit of alcohol in England

    1 evaluated · 0 modelled · 0 untested · 1 trade-off

    Health and care Evaluated

    Outcome priority 1 · Set a minimum price per unit of alcohol in England — Health and care

    Poverty and inequality Trade-off

    Outcome priority 1 · Set a minimum price per unit of alcohol in England — Poverty and inequality

    • Trade-off: Financial strain for some people with alcohol dependence on low incomes

      Evaluated; confidence Limited; checked at claim level; Scotland; Immediate · Economically vulnerable people with alcohol dependence (harmed)

      Size: Direction plausible; size not established

      Transfer limits: Qualitative evidence: PHS found no evidence that these experiences were prevalent or typical, and limited evidence that MUP cut consumption among people with dependence. Treatment and support services are the mitigation.

      Source: Public Health Scotland, Evaluating the impact of minimum unit pricing for alcohol in Scotland: Final report. A synthesis of the evidence (Printed pp.13, 55 and 80)

      Effect record E-A49-DEPENDENT

  • Outcome priority 2 · Put employment support alongside healthcare for people who want to work

    1 evaluated · 0 modelled · 1 untested

    Health and care Untested

    Outcome priority 2 · Put employment support alongside healthcare for people who want to work — Health and care

    • Untested: Self-reported health (EQ-5D-5L) at 12 months

      Evaluated; confidence Limited; checked at claim level; Sheffield City Region; 12 months · Trial participants in Sheffield City Region

      Size: +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)

      Transfer limits: Small; not found in the West Midlands. Not evidence of reduced NHS demand.

      Source: Department for Work and Pensions, Health-led Employment Trials: evaluation synthesis report (Synthesis report Table 2.1)

      Effect record E-A09-HEALTH

    Work and pay Evaluated

    Outcome priority 2 · Put employment support alongside healthcare for people who want to work — Work and pay

    • Evaluated: Working 13 or more weeks in the year after joining (out-of-work participants)

      Evaluated; confidence Moderate; checked at claim level; West Midlands Combined Authority; 12 months, sustained at 21 months · Out-of-work adults with mild to moderate health conditions

      Size: +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)

      Transfer limits: No effect for out-of-work participants in Sheffield City Region, and no effect on earnings at 12 months.

      Source: Department for Work and Pensions, Health-led Employment Trials: evaluation synthesis report (Synthesis report Table 2.1)

      Effect record E-A09-WORK-WMCA

    • Untested: Working 13 or more weeks in the year after joining (people in work but struggling)

      Evaluated; confidence Limited; checked at claim level; Sheffield City Region; 12 months · Employed adults with health conditions at risk of leaving work

      Size: +3 percentage points (randomised control group; 12 months after randomisation, 2018–2020; significant only at the 90% level; no interval published)

      Transfer limits: Weaker evidence than the West Midlands result.

      Source: Department for Work and Pensions, Health-led Employment Trials: evaluation synthesis report (Synthesis report Table 2.1)

      Effect record E-A09-WORK-SCR

  • Outcome priority 3 · Fit home adaptations faster for older people most at risk of falling

    1 evaluated · 0 modelled · 0 untested

    Health and care Evaluated

    Outcome priority 3 · Fit home adaptations faster for older people most at risk of falling — Health and care

    • Evaluated: Rate of falls among older people at higher risk of falling

      Evaluated; confidence High; checked at claim level; International trials, including the UK; Within a year · Community-dwelling older people selected for higher risk of falling

      Size: −38% rate of falls (rate ratio 0.62) (usual care or no intervention in randomised trials; Trials included in the 2023 review; 95% CI 0.56 to 0.70 (falls −44% to −30%); 9 studies, 1,513 participants; high certainty)

      Transfer limits: No effect for people not selected for risk (rate ratio 1.05, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.16), so the targeting is the intervention. Trials measured falls, not admissions or care-home moves.

      Source: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Environmental interventions for preventing falls in older people living in the community (CD013258) (Abstract, main results (people selected for higher risk))

      Effect record E-A52-FALLS

  • Outcome priority 4 · Fix the coldest homes first, and check the work before it is paid for

    1 evaluated · 0 modelled · 1 untested · 1 trade-off

    Housing Trade-off

    Outcome priority 4 · Fix the coldest homes first, and check the work before it is paid for — Housing

    Health and care Untested

    Outcome priority 4 · Fix the coldest homes first, and check the work before it is paid for — Health and care

    Energy and bills Evaluated

    Outcome priority 4 · Fix the coldest homes first, and check the work before it is paid for — Energy and bills

    • Evaluated: Gas use in homes after solid wall insulation

      Evaluated; confidence Moderate; checked at claim level; England and Wales; The year after installation · Households in solid-walled homes that are insulated

      Size: −17% median gas use (similar homes without measures; 2024 savings for measures installed in 2023; indicative; varies year to year and includes households choosing to heat more)

      Transfer limits: Observational comparison, mostly from government schemes; savings for cavity and loft insulation are smaller.

      Source: Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, National Energy Efficiency Data-Framework (NEED): summary of analysis 2026 (Section 3, Figure 3.1)

      Effect record E-A18-GAS-USE

  • Outcome priority 5 · Buy or build social-rent homes for households in temporary accommodation

    0 evaluated · 0 modelled · 3 untested

    Housing Untested

    Outcome priority 5 · Buy or build social-rent homes for households in temporary accommodation — Housing

    Education and children Untested

    Outcome priority 5 · Buy or build social-rent homes for households in temporary accommodation — Education and children

    • Untested: Stability of home and school for children leaving temporary accommodation

      Plausible link, untested; confidence Limited; not yet validated; England; From rehousing; educational effects would take years to observe · Children in households in temporary accommodation

      Size: Direction plausible; size not established

      Transfer limits: Our sources count the children affected but none evaluates the effect of rehousing on attendance, attainment or health, so this is a link to test, not a finding.

      Source: MHCLG, Statutory homelessness: England time series (Table TA1)

      Effect record E-A02-CHILDREN-TA

    Poverty and inequality Untested

    Outcome priority 5 · Buy or build social-rent homes for households in temporary accommodation — Poverty and inequality

  • Outcome priority 6 · Hold the new family hubs to what worked in Sure Start, starting where access is weakest

    2 evaluated · 0 modelled · 0 untested · 1 trade-off

    Health and care Evaluated

    Outcome priority 6 · Hold the new family hubs to what worked in Sure Start, starting where access is weakest — Health and care

    • Evaluated: Hospital admissions by age 15

      Evaluated; confidence Moderate; checked at claim level; England; Ages 11–15 · Children in areas with centres

      Size: −8.5% by age 15 (areas with fewer centres per child; cohorts born 1990s–2000s; admissions rose 10% at age 1 before falling)

      Transfer limits: Not a cashable NHS saving.

      Source: Institute for Fiscal Studies, The short- and medium-term effects of Sure Start on children’s outcomes (Executive summary printed pp.6–7, Fig. ES.2)

      Effect record E-A13-HOSPITAL

    Crime and justice Trade-off

    Outcome priority 6 · Hold the new family hubs to what worked in Sure Start, starting where access is weakest — Crime and justice

    • Trade-off: Criminal record by age 16

      Evaluated; confidence Moderate; checked at claim level; England; Age 16 · Young people in areas with centres

      Size: Direction plausible; size not established

      Transfer limits: More young people had a criminal record by 16, driven by an 11% rise in cautions; a fall in convictions was not significant. A trade-off to watch, not a benefit.

      Source: Institute for Fiscal Studies, The short- and medium-term effects of Sure Start on children’s outcomes (Executive summary printed p.8)

      Effect record E-A13-CRIME

    Education and children Evaluated

    Outcome priority 6 · Hold the new family hubs to what worked in Sure Start, starting where access is weakest — Education and children

    • Evaluated: Five GCSEs at A*–C (or equivalent) at 16

      Evaluated; confidence Moderate; checked at claim level; England; Age 16 · Children living near a centre, largest for disadvantaged children

      Size: +0.9 percentage points (about 2%) (children without access, before and after centres opened; cohorts born around 1990–2003; quasi-experimental; method update changed some earlier findings)

      Transfer limits: 2000s Sure Start, not today’s family hubs.

      Source: Institute for Fiscal Studies, The short- and medium-term effects of Sure Start on children’s outcomes (Executive summary printed p.6)

      Effect record E-A13-GCSE

  • Delivery enabler 1 · Publish what is ready to build — projects and housing sites — with each blocker’s owner and cost

    0 evaluated · 2 modelled · 0 untested

    Living standards and growth Modelled

    Delivery enabler 1 · Publish what is ready to build — projects and housing sites — with each blocker’s owner and cost — Living standards and growth

    • Modelled: Potential output

      Modelled; confidence Limited; checked at claim level; United Kingdom; Five to fifty years · The economy as a whole; distribution depends on projects

      Size: Direction plausible; size not established

      Transfer limits: The OBR’s +0.4% of potential output after five years (2.4% after 50) is for a permanent rise of 1% of GDP in investment of average productivity — not an estimate for a pipeline, and not cash for the Exchequer.

      Source: Office for Budget Responsibility, Public investment and potential output (Discussion Paper No. 5) (Paragraph 4.7)

      Effect record E-A03-OUTPUT

    Housing Modelled

    Delivery enabler 1 · Publish what is ready to build — projects and housing sites — with each blocker’s owner and cost — Housing

    • Modelled: Net additional homes

      Modelled; confidence Limited; checked at claim level; England; Five years and more · Households seeking a home

      Size: Direction plausible; size not established

      Transfer limits: The OBR’s 170,000 extra homes by 2029–30 is its judgement of the 2024 planning reforms already in place, not of this site-by-site package, whose marginal effect has not been estimated.

      Source: Office for Budget Responsibility, Economic and fiscal outlook, March 2025 (Paragraph 3.37)

      Effect record E-A01-HOMES

  • Delivery enabler 2 · Set realistic costs before spending, then manage contracts to the result

    0 evaluated · 0 modelled · 2 untested

    Public service delivery Untested

    Delivery enabler 2 · Set realistic costs before spending, then manage contracts to the result — Public service delivery

    • Untested: Contracts delivering the specified service on time and near cost

      Plausible link, untested; confidence Limited; not yet validated; United Kingdom; Contract lifetimes · Service users and taxpayers

      Size: Direction plausible; size not established

      Transfer limits: Recommended by research and audit; no evaluation estimates the effect.

      Source: Institute for Government, The role of procurement in delivering mission-led government (Report PDF p.4)

      Effect record E-A23-SERVICE

    Defence and security Untested

    Delivery enabler 2 · Set realistic costs before spending, then manage contracts to the result — Defence and security

Context only — not counted as an effect

  • Outcome priority 4 · Poverty and inequality: Low-income households counted as fuel poor. The fall in the headline count partly follows from the definition. Whether hardship actually falls depends on real bills, heating behaviour and prices, which the count does not measure. (Annual Fuel Poverty Statistics in England, 2026 (2025 data); record E-A18-FUELPOV)

Sequence and shared bottlenecks

What has to happen first

Previous version (NP1–NP8, 4 October 2026), replaced on 7 October 2026 by the national action plan.

The order work must start in is not the ranking. Homes, retrofit and infrastructure need the same builders and connections, and the care priorities share health visitors, NHS referral staff and occupational therapists, so sequencing is a decision in itself.

Prerequisites between priorities

An arrow means the first must be in place before the second can scale. It is not a claim that one causes the other’s outcomes.

  1. NP6: Set realistic costs before spending, then manage contracts to the resultmust come beforeNP5: Publish what is ready to build — projects and housing sites — with each blocker’s owner and cost

    Realistic cost baselines and managed contracts before pipeline projects are approved.

    Owner: HM Treasury and the Cabinet Office

  2. NP5: Publish what is ready to build — projects and housing sites — with each blocker’s owner and costmust come beforeNP1: Buy or build social-rent homes for households in temporary accommodation

    Construction workforce and connection capacity sequenced across projects before housing awards peak.

    Owner: NISTA with HM Treasury

  3. NP5: Publish what is ready to build — projects and housing sites — with each blocker’s owner and costmust come beforeNP4: Fix the coldest homes first, and check the work before it is paid for

    Installer capacity planned alongside other construction demand before retrofit volumes rise.

    Owner: NISTA with DESNZ

NP7, NP3, NP8, NP2 neither wait on nor hold up another priority, so they can start in parallel.

A proposed sequence

An editorial ordering to show what must start first — not a forecast and not a government timetable.

  1. Step 1 · proposed

    First 100 days

    • NP7 Impact assessment published, with modelled effects by income and drinking level. Owner: Department of Health and Social Care, with the Home Office (alcohol licensing).
    • NP3 Referral pathways and fidelity reviews in place in every delivery area. Owner: Department for Work and Pensions.
    • NP8 Current waiting times published and a falls-risk fast route running in a first set of authorities. Owner: Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Disabled Facilities Grant), with the Department of Health and Social Care.
    • NP4 Inspection standard in scheme rules; first health-referred homes surveyed. Owner: Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (England).
    • NP1 First whole-life comparisons published; first awards linked to temporary-accommodation lettings. Owner: Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (England).
    • NP2 Hub specification, access map and roll-out order published. Owner: Department for Education (England).
    • NP5 Pipeline status and milestones published; first priority-site blocker list published. Owner: HM Treasury and the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority (NISTA), with MHCLG for housing sites.
    • NP6 Named renewing contracts with published outcomes, whole-life cost and milestones. Owner: The Cabinet Office (Government Commercial Function) and HM Treasury (spending).

  2. Step 2 · proposed

    Years 1–2

    • NP7 Legislation for an English floor price passed, with a review clause and treatment-service support. Owner: DHSC, Home Office and Parliament.
    • NP3 Connect to Work running at fidelity with NHS referrals; funding decision for 2029–30 onwards. Owner: DWP with NHS commissioners.
    • NP8 Falls-risk fast route running in housing authorities that choose it, with falls tracked against a comparison. Owner: Housing authorities with NHS falls services.
    • NP6 Named renewing contracts managed against published outcomes and milestones. Owner: Cabinet Office and lead departments.
    • NP5 Shared demand for builders, installers and connections published and used to sequence projects and housing sites. Owner: NISTA with HM Treasury and MHCLG.
    • NP4 Health-referred homes treated under the inspection standard, with defects tracked. Owner: DESNZ and councils.
    • NP1 First homes bought, leased or started under awards tied to temporary-accommodation lettings. Owner: Homes England, GLA and councils.
    • NP2 Hubs opened to the specification in the first areas of the phased roll-out. Owner: DfE, councils and NHS commissioners.

  3. Step 3 · proposed

    Years 3–5

    • NP7 Deaths wholly attributable to alcohol in England against a credible comparison, two to three years after a floor takes effect. Owner: Department of Health and Social Care, with the Home Office (alcohol licensing).
    • NP3 Sustained work 6–12 months after starting, against a matched comparison, from the Connect to Work evaluation. Owner: Department for Work and Pensions.
    • NP8 Falls and fall injuries among people adapted, against a comparison of people waiting, after 12 months. Owner: Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Disabled Facilities Grant), with the Department of Health and Social Care.
    • NP4 Weather-adjusted energy use, indoor warmth, defects found and fixed, and health outcomes in treated homes against a comparison, two heating seasons after installation. Owner: Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (England).
    • NP1 Households moved from temporary accommodation into programme homes, nights in temporary accommodation and tenancy sustainment, against plan, three years after first awards. Owner: Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (England).
    • NP2 Reach among families in target areas, and child development at age two to three, in early against later hub areas, within two years. Owner: Department for Education (England).
    • NP5 Share of projects reaching milestones near published cost, and time from permission to start on priority sites, at the next two six-monthly updates. Owner: HM Treasury and the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority (NISTA), with MHCLG for housing sites.
    • NP6 Delivery against milestones and change orders for those contracts, and forecast-versus-outturn gaps, at the next major projects report. Owner: The Cabinet Office (Government Commercial Function) and HM Treasury (spending).

Shared bottlenecks

Where two or more priorities need the same people, connections or money — and the proposed response.

One funding view

Who pays, and what is still missing?

Previous version (NP1–NP8, 4 October 2026), replaced on 7 October 2026 by the national action plan.

Costed is not the same as funded, and a programme envelope is not a project award. For each priority, the envelope, the allocation committed to the change proposed and the remaining gap are separate fields, read from the same records as the decision briefs and domain plans.

  • Outcome priority 1: Set a minimum price per unit of alcohol in England

    Funding status:
    Mainly a legal or regulatory change: administration costs still need a budget
    Programme envelope (a route, not an award):
    None
    Committed to this change:
    None
    Remaining gap:
    Administration and evaluation costs are not established; no public programme budget is needed.

    No bar drawn: The total cost is not established.

  • Outcome priority 2: Put employment support alongside healthcare for people who want to work

    Funding status:
    Not funded yet: a possible funding route exists, but nothing is allocated to this change
    Programme envelope (a route, not an award):
    None
    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.

    No bar drawn: The total cost is not established.

  • Outcome priority 3: Fit home adaptations faster for older people most at risk of falling

    Funding status:
    Not funded yet: a possible funding route exists, but nothing is allocated to this change
    Programme envelope (a route, not an award):
    Disabled Facilities Grant allocations 2026–27 — £723m, 2026–27
    Committed to this change:
    None
    Remaining gap:
    Assessment and evaluation costs are not established; the grant itself is an envelope, not an award to this change.

    No bar drawn: The total cost is not established.

  • Outcome priority 4: Fix the coldest homes first, and check the work before it is paid for

    Funding status:
    Not funded yet: a possible funding route exists, but nothing is allocated to this change
    Programme envelope (a route, not an award):
    Warm Homes Plan low-income grant allocations — £4.42bn, 2025–26 to 2029–30
    Committed to this change:
    None
    Remaining gap:
    Inspection, remediation and evaluation costs are not established; the £4.4bn is a programme envelope, not an award to this change.

    No bar drawn: The total cost is not established.

  • Outcome priority 5: Buy or build social-rent homes for households in temporary accommodation

    Funding status:
    Not funded yet: a possible funding route exists, but nothing is allocated to this change
    Programme envelope (a route, not an award):
    Social and Affordable Homes Programme envelope — £39bn, 2026–27 to 2035–36
    Committed to this change:
    None
    Remaining gap:
    Unknown until a named scheme is costed; the £39bn is a programme envelope, not an award to this package.

    No bar drawn: The total cost is not established.

  • Outcome priority 6: Hold the new family hubs to what worked in Sure Start, starting where access is weakest

    Funding status:
    Not funded yet: a possible funding route exists, but nothing is allocated to this change
    Programme envelope (a route, not an award):
    Best Start Family Hubs: “over £500 million” to the end of 2028
    Committed to this change:
    None
    Remaining gap:
    The cost of meeting the specification and of the evaluation is not established; the over-£500m is a programme envelope.

    No bar drawn: The total cost is not established.

  • Delivery enabler 1: Publish what is ready to build — projects and housing sites — with each blocker’s owner and cost

    Funding status:
    Not funded yet: a possible funding route exists, but nothing is allocated to this change
    Programme envelope (a route, not an award):
    Ten-year infrastructure funding commitment (at least £725bn) — £725bn
    Committed to this change:
    None
    Remaining gap:
    Publication and site-package costs are not established.

    No bar drawn: The total cost is not established.

  • Delivery enabler 2: Set realistic costs before spending, then manage contracts to the result

    Funding status:
    Mainly a legal or regulatory change: administration costs still need a budget
    Programme envelope (a route, not an award):
    None
    Committed to this change:
    None
    Remaining gap:
    Staff costs are not established; no saving is counted.

    No bar drawn: The total cost is not established.

No stacked bar is drawn: no allocation and cost here share a scope, period and price basis and add up, so adding them would be meaningless. Outcome priority 2 has committed money for the existing programme, which does not pay for the change proposed.

The cost ledger behind these priorities: every cost record once

17 unique cost records sit behind the selected priorities and enablers, each counted once: 7 have a published amount and 10 are not yet costed.

No combined total is shown. The records use different price bases, periods and annual-versus-total amounts, and 10 costs are unknown, so adding them would be meaningless. The funding gap is therefore unknown — not zero.

Overlapping money: C-WHP-LOWINCOME, C-SAHP-ENVELOPE, C-10YIS-ENVELOPE overlap — the infrastructure envelope includes housing and energy capital — so they must never be added together or claimed twice.

Committed for its scope: Autumn Budget 2024 and Spending Review 2025 settlements for Connect to Work: £1.09bn for 2025–26 to 2028–29, covering a cost of £1.03bn (C-CTW-2025-29). Everything else is a programme envelope, a costed proposal or not yet costed.

Selected priorities only: costs of actions that stay in domain plans are in those plans’ ledgers. Tax-gap recovery, GDP gains and lifetime benefits are not counted as available money.

  • Legislation, guidance, licensing enforcement and evaluation of a minimum unit price in England

    C-A49-ADMIN · NP7 (A49)

    Not yet costed

    Who pays: central government, councils

    No funding identified; gap unknown.

  • Connect to Work grant and programme costs, 2025–26 to 2028–29

    C-CTW-2025-29 · NP3 (A09)

    £1.03bn in total, 2025–26 to 2028–29, cash (nominal) prices

    Costed for the stated scope · Who pays: central government

    Funding committed for this scope — £1.09bn, 2025–26 to 2028–29 (project allocation; F-CTW-SR2025); no gap for this scope

  • Connect to Work costs, 2029–30 to 2031–32

    C-CTW-2029-32 · NP3 (A09)

    £134.4m in total, 2029–30 to 2031–32, cash (nominal) prices

    Costed for the stated scope · Who pays: central government

    Costed proposal; funding not committed — £138m, 2029–30 to 2031–32 (no allocation; F-CTW-FUTURE); gap £134.4m

  • NHS clinical integration, referral and supervision for IPS

    C-A09-NHS · NP3 (A09)

    Not yet costed

    Who pays: NHS

    No funding identified; gap unknown.

  • Disabled Facilities Grant 2026–27 (programme envelope)

    C-DFG-2627 · NP8 (A52)

    £723m in total, 2026–27, price basis not stated by the source

    Published programme envelope; project costs still needed · Who pays: central government

    Programme funding exists; project allocation unconfirmed — £723m, 2026–27 (programme envelope; F-DFG-2627); gap unknown

  • Occupational-therapist home-hazard assessments and faster processing for people at higher risk of falls

    C-A52-OT · NP8 (A52)

    Not yet costed

    Who pays: councils, NHS

    No funding identified; gap unknown.

  • Warm Homes Plan: low-income home grants

    C-WHP-LOWINCOME · NP4 (A18)

    £4.42bn in total, 2025–26 to 2029–30, price basis not stated by the source

    Published programme envelope; project costs still needed · Who pays: central government

    Programme funding exists; project allocation unconfirmed — £4.42bn, 2025–26 to 2029–30 (programme envelope; F-WHP-LOWINCOME); gap unknown

    Overlaps other envelopes in this table; never add them.

  • Property surveys, installation quality checks, remediation and monitoring

    C-A18-QUALITY · NP4 (A18)

    Not yet costed

    Who pays: central government, landlords, households

    No funding identified; gap unknown.

  • Social and Affordable Homes Programme 2026–2036 (programme envelope)

    C-SAHP-ENVELOPE · NP1 (A02)

    £39bn in total, 2026–27 to 2035–36, price basis not stated by the source

    Published programme envelope; project costs still needed · Who pays: central government

    Programme funding exists; project allocation unconfirmed — £39bn, 2026–27 to 2035–36 (programme envelope; F-SAHP-PROGRAMME); gap unknown

    Overlaps other envelopes in this table; never add them.

  • Grant, borrowing, rent, maintenance and infrastructure for a named scheme

    C-A02-SCHEME · NP1 (A02)

    Not yet costed

    Who pays: central government, councils, households

    No funding identified; gap unknown.

  • Best Start Family Hubs roll-out (programme envelope)

    C-BSFH-2025 · NP2 (A13)

    at least £500m in total, Announced 6 July 2025 (“over £500 million”), hubs in every local authority from April 2026 to the end of 2028; fiscal years and price basis not stated in the announcement., price basis not stated by the source

    Published programme envelope; project costs still needed · Who pays: central government

    Programme funding exists; project allocation unconfirmed (programme envelope; F-BSFH-2025); gap unknown

  • Integrated early-years service package and workforce

    C-A13-SERVICE · NP2 (A13)

    Not yet costed

    Who pays: central government, councils, NHS

    No funding identified; gap unknown.

  • 10 Year Infrastructure Strategy: government infrastructure funding (programme envelope)

    C-10YIS-ENVELOPE · NP5 (A03)

    £725bn in total, “Over the next decade” from June 2025; Spending Review 2025 totals to 2029–30, then grown with forecast inflation (HM Treasury footnote 12). Exact fiscal years are not stated for the headline., cash (nominal) prices

    Published programme envelope; project costs still needed · Who pays: central government, councils

    Programme funding exists; project allocation unconfirmed — £725bn (programme envelope; F-10YIS-ENVELOPE); gap unknown

    Overlaps other envelopes in this table; never add them.

  • Project capital, maintenance, financing and workforce costs for pipeline projects

    C-A03-PROJECTS · NP5 (A03)

    Not yet costed

    Who pays: central government, councils, bill-payers, private investors

    No funding identified; gap unknown.

  • Planning staff, site infrastructure and financing for priority sites

    C-A01-SITE-PACKAGE · NP5 (A01)

    Not yet costed

    Who pays: central government, councils, developers

    No funding identified; gap unknown.

  • Commercial staff, contract oversight, transition, maintenance and supplier compliance

    C-A23-CAPABILITY · NP6 (A23)

    Not yet costed

    Who pays: central government, councils

    No funding identified; gap unknown.

  • Analytical and delivery capacity to publish service baselines and outcome measures

    C-A20-ANALYSIS · NP6 (A20)

    Not yet costed

    Who pays: central government

    No funding identified; gap unknown.

Outcome scoreboard

How we would know

Previous version (NP1–NP8, 4 October 2026), replaced on 7 October 2026 by the national action plan.

Each measure is read from its domain plan, with its baseline, latest value, target status and next release. Allocations and announcements are inputs, not outcomes, and no national change can be attributed to one priority alone.

Selection rationale

Why these priorities?

Previous version (NP1–NP8, 4 October 2026), replaced on 7 October 2026 by the national action plan.

We assessed 68 candidate actions from 36 topic plans (67 published action records, plus drafts considered but not published). Accountability, governance and site-method actions were screened out of the national slate by design. The rest were rated High, Medium or Low on nine published criteria — severity and scale, the benefit added beyond existing law and funding, evidence, cost and funding, scarce capacity, distribution, time to impact, distinct cross-domain outcomes and prerequisites — with the same marginal-change test for funded and unfunded options alike. The six outcome priorities are the top of that table, checked under six weightings; delivery enablers are judged separately because their evidence differs. An editorial judgement with reasons, not government policy.

The UK has real assets to build on — a large services, research and university base, interventions tested in its own public services and independent bodies that check the numbers, long-run falls in crime, pensioner poverty and early heart deaths, a much cleaner power system, and long-term capital commitments. What holds it back is low investment and slow growth, unevenly spread between regions, housing costs that have pulled away from pay, ill health that keeps people out of work, and thin capacity to deliver; climate, water and trade risks are already measurable. Six outcome priorities, chosen from 36 topic plans, would act on those harms, and two delivery enablers would make the spending ones deliverable; each is set out as a decision someone could take, with its owner, funding status and main trade-off.

Six outcome priorities, not seven. The first five are in the top six under all six weightings tested. The sixth place is not stable: early-years hubs (A13), Pension Credit take-up outreach (A25), a coordinated response to one scam route (A06) and, since the restored concerns were added on 4 October 2026, metering homes in water-stressed areas with a social tariff (A53) tie on the base weighting and swap places under others; the published tie-break goes to the stronger evidence, then to distinct cross-domain outcomes — A13 and A53 both have an evaluated effect, and only A13 has evaluated benefits in two areas. Flood-defence allocation by risk (A54) scores lower: its evidence is an audit, not an evaluation. Funded or locally delivered status counts the same way for every candidate: it can help on cost and funding, and the benefit test looks only at what a proposal adds beyond the programme — which is why hot-spot policing (A07), the Youth Guarantee (A08), tutoring (A10), NELI (A11) and surgical hubs (A04) stay in their domain plans.

The selection table, assumptions and sensitivity

Every rated candidate, its nine criterion bands, the two rules that decide the shortlist, and how the ranks move under six weightings — with how each of the 37 topic routes relates to the plan and how every candidate was assessed in words (68 candidates: 67 published action records and 1 unpublished draft (A05)). A score here is a reading aid, not an objective ranking of all UK policy.

Ranking assumptions and sensitivity →

Near-misses and strong candidates that were not selected

What the evidence cannot yet tell us

  • Do planning reforms raise completions, or mainly permissions?

    Permissions are counted quickly; completed homes take years and depend on builders and demand.

    The evidence →

  • How much extra NHS activity do extra staff deliver?

    Staff numbers have grown faster than measured activity since 2019; the reasons are debated.

    The evidence →

  • Will connection reform shorten real connection times?

    The grid queue has been reprioritised; the test is when projects actually connect.

    The evidence →

  • What would the priorities add to GDP?

    No reliable estimate exists for these priorities, alone or together. Published return estimates for individual investment types differ by method and horizon and cannot be added together.

    The evidence →