Consumer Advice and Information programme: evaluation

This report evaluates the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero’s Consumer Advice and Information (CAI) programme, specifically the Home Retrofit Advice and Information Line (phoneline) and Local Energy Advice Demonstrator (LEAD) programme. It focuses on how well these services supported households seeking to improve the energy efficiency of their property, particularly for hard-to-reach households and households living in hard-to-decarbonise homes. It covers the national phoneline and 36 local demonstrator projects, assessing delivery, user experience, outcomes, and value for money. Overall, the programme showed that personalised, local advice can help people take action, but more support and better coordination are needed to maximise impact. --- RAF048/2324: Evaluation of the consumer advice and information programme Local Energy Advice Demonstrator programme and Home Retrofit Advice and Information Line Final report Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (2026) © Crown copyright 2026 This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk. Where we have identified any third-party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. Evaluation of DESNZ Consumer Advice and Information programme Contents Executive Summary _________________________________________________________ 6 Introduction ______________________________________________________________ 6 Home Retrofit Advice and Information Line ______________________________________ 7 Local Energy Advice Demonstrators (LEAD) _____________________________________ 9 Glossary _________________________________________________________________ 14 1 Introduction ___________________________________________________________ 16 Background ________________________________________________________ 16 1.1 Evaluation aims _____________________________________________________ 18 1.2 1.3 Evaluation approach and timings _______________________________________ 18 1.4 Report structure _____________________________________________________ 19 2 Home Retrofit Advice & Information Line __________________________________ 20 2.1 2.2 2.2.1 2.3 2.3.1 2.4 2.4.1 2.4.2 2.4.3 2.4.4 2.4.5 2.4.6 2.5 2.5.1 2.5.2 2.5.3 2.5.4 Introduction ________________________________________________________ 20 Background ________________________________________________________ 20 Service aims and rationale for intervention ____________________________ 20 Evaluation methodology ______________________________________________ 21 Strength and limitations of evidence _________________________________ 22 Evaluation Findings __________________________________________________ 24 What aspects of the service are working well/less well? __________________ 24 What has been achieved? _________________________________________ 27 What are customers’ experiences of using the phoneline service? __________ 32 What are the impacts of the service? _________________________________ 35 How effective is the phoneline? _____________________________________ 36 Does the phoneline represent value for money? ________________________ 42 Phoneline conclusions ________________________________________________ 47 Has the phoneline met its aims and objectives? ________________________ 47 Customer experiences of the phoneline and retrofit journey _______________ 48 Promotion of the phoneline ________________________________________ 48 Does the phoneline represent value for money to the public purse? _________ 49 3 Local Energy Advice Demonstrator (LEAD) programme ______________________ 50 Introduction ________________________________________________________ 50 3.1 Service aims and rationale for intervention ____________________________ 50 3.1.1 3.1.2 Key Performance Indicators ________________________________________ 51 3.2 Methodology _______________________________________________________ 52 Strength and limitations of evidence _________________________________ 56 3.2.1 3.3 What has been achieved? _____________________________________________ 58 To what extent did projects meet their KPIs? ___________________________ 58 3.3.1 Were hard-to-reach customers and hard-to-decarbonise homes reached? ___ 59 3.3.2 What support was provided by LEADs? _______________________________ 60 3.3.3 3.3.4 What difference have the services made to users? ______________________ 61 3.4 How effective were the LEAD projects? __________________________________ 64 Assessing the effectiveness of projects _______________________________ 65 3.4.1 3 Evaluation of DESNZ Consumer Advice and Information programme 3.4.2 3.4.3 3.4.4 3.4.5 3.4.6 3.5 3.5.1 3.5.2 3.5.3 3.5.4 3.5.5 3.5.6 3.6 3.6.1 3.6.2 3.6.3 3.6.4 3.6.5 3.6.6 Effectiveness of delivering advice locally ______________________________ 71 What approaches were effective at engaging and advising customers? ______ 72 What approaches were less effective in engaging and advising customers? __ 92 What challenges and barriers influenced project effectiveness? ____________ 94 Delivery and management of LEAD _________________________________ 101 Value for Money ___________________________________________________ 102 Limitations ____________________________________________________ 103 Economy _____________________________________________________ 103 Efficiency _____________________________________________________ 104 Cost-effectiveness ______________________________________________ 109 Equity ________________________________________________________ 114 Conclusions on value for money ___________________________________ 117 LEAD Conclusions _________________________________________________ 118 Engaging hard-to-reach customers and hard-to-decarbonise homes _______ 118 What difference has LEAD made to customers? _______________________ 119 What approaches are most effective? _______________________________ 120 Challenges and barriers in the customer journey _______________________ 122 What has been learned? _________________________________________ 123 Does LEAD represent value for money to the public purse? ______________ 124 4 Overall conclusions ___________________________________________________ 126 Providing advice and information is challenging ___________________________ 126 4.1 4.2 How were services delivered and experienced by users? ___________________ 126 To what extent is there a need for CAI? _________________________________ 127 4.3 To what extent did the services achieve their stated objectives? ______________ 127 4.4 To what extent did the policy represent value for money to the public purse? ____ 128 4.5 4 Evaluation of DESNZ Consumer Advice and Information programme List of Tables Table 1: Strength of evidence .................................................................................................. 22 Table 2: Survey respondents hard-to-reach characteristics ..................................................... 28 Table 3: Reasons for not installing measures .......................................................................... 35 Table 4: Changes in understanding and confidence ................................................................ 37 Table 5: Customer confidence in applying to schemes (base =437) ........................................ 39 Table 6: Support needed for undecided customers .................................................................. 40 Table 7: Summary of projects selected as part of the case study approach ............................ 52 Table 8: Summary of evidence gathered ................................................................................. 55 Table 9: Strength of evidence .................................................................................................. 56 Table 10: Summary of performance against installation targets ............................................... 66 Table 11: Percentage of survey respondents reporting outcomes by LEAD project ................ 68 Table 13: Categorisation of projects for evaluating Efficiency ................................................ 106 Table 14: Cost-effectiveness analysis for Group 1 ................................................................. 110 Table 15: Cost-effectiveness analysis for Group 2 ................................................................. 111 Table 16: Cost-effectiveness analysis for projects with a focus on HTR households ............. 112 Table 17: Characteristics of survey respondents by LEAD project ......................................... 116 Table 18: Comparison of reported outcomes for hard-to-reach and non-hard-to-reach ......... 117 List of Figures Figure 1: Reasons for calling the phoneline between April 2023 to March 2025 ...................... 25 Figure 2: Call outcomes for the phoneline between April 2023 and March 2025 ..................... 26 Figure 3: Venn diagram showing incidence of hard-to-reach and hard-to-decarbonise ........... 30 Figure 4: Confidence in internet use ........................................................................................ 31 Figure 5: Overall satisfaction with the phoneline service .......................................................... 32 Figure 6: Suggested improvements ......................................................................................... 34 Figure 7: Customer profile by HTR characteristics ................................................................... 59 Figure 8: Customer profile by HTD characteristics ................................................................... 60 Figure 9: Has your understanding of the following changed?. .................................................. 62 Figure 10: What measures have you installed (or are you planning to install) ........................ 64 Figure 11: Reported outcomes by percentage of customers who were hard-to-reach. ............ 70 Figure 12: What approaches were effective at engaging and advising customers? ................. 72 Figure 13: Challenges and barriers influencing the effectiveness of LEAD projects ................ 94 Figure 14: Actual expenditure as a percentage of original budget ......................................... 104 Figure 15: Cost per transaction for case study projects ......................................................... 105 Figure 16: Cost per transaction for LEAD projects grouped by intensity category ................. 108 Figure 17: Comparison of actual cost-per-transaction with forecasts ..................................... 108 5 Evaluation of DESNZ Consumer Advice and Information programme Executive Summary Introduction This is the final report for the evaluation of the Consumer Advice and Information (CAI) Programme. The evaluation was conducted for the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) by Winning Moves, Energy Saving Trust and Brook Lyndhurst. The programme, delivered between 2023 and 2025, is a multi-channel advice service, providing online information tools (outside the scope of the evaluation), the Home Retrofit Advice and Information Line (phoneline) and Local Energy Advice Demonstrator (LEAD) programme (both within the scope of this evaluation). These services are aimed at the private housing sector (i.e., owner-occupiers, private landlords and their tenants)—particularly households who are hard-to-reach (HTR)1 (e.g. the digitally excluded) and/or live in a hard-to- decarbonise (HTD)2 property. The services provided impartial advice about retrofitting residents homes, aiming to help households—in particular fuel poor households—reduce their energy bills and carbon emissions while improving comfort. The evaluation was developed based on the programme Theory of Change. It comprised a programme of research including surveys, qualitative interviews, ethnography and desk-based research to provide a detailed analysis of: • How the services were delivered and experienced by users, identifying successes and challenges faced in delivery (process evaluation) • The extent to which the services achieved their stated objectives (outcome evaluation) • The extent to which the policy represented value-for-money (VfM) to the public purse (economic evaluation)3 All primary research cited in this report was conducted between April 2024 and March 2025. Conclusions have been based on multiple evidence sources wherever possible. Where only a single evidence source was available, any limitations of that evidence are summarised. 1 The definition of hard-to-reach has been deliberately broad from the project outset. It is defined in the initial call for projects as “Less internet-literate, elderly, fuel poor, off gas grid, minority ethnic groups, non-native English speakers, those with disabilities, those sensitive to internal disruption in homes, etc,” 2 The call for projects defined this as “listed buildings/conservation areas, planning restrictions, non-standard construction, terraced homes, flats, off-gas-grid homes, poorly performing homes, etc.” 3 The Value for Money (VfM) assessment has adopted a 4 Es framework, examining Economy, Efficiency, Effectiveness, Cost-effectiveness, and Equity, to provide a comprehensive view of how well the LEAD programme used its resources to achieve outcomes 6 Evaluation of DESNZ Consumer Advice and Information programme Home Retrofit Advice and Information Line During the two-year period 1st April 2023 to 31st March 2025 there were 16,029 calls to the Home Retrofit Advice and Information Line, of which 12,555 were in-scope.4 This represents 16,019 unique customers, with 12,546 customers advised on in-scope topics. Who has been reached? The assessment of who has been reached by the phoneline is reliant on survey data.5 Based on self-reported characteristics from the survey, 45% of respondents could be classified as hard-to-reach, and 55% living in hard-to-decarbonise properties (76% of respondents were either hard-to-reach or living in a hard-to-decarbonise property, 26% were both, and 24% were neither). The survey shows that phoneline users are less wealthy than average, with a high proportion in receipt of benefits, and more likely to be disabled, providing evidence that the phoneline has met its objective of supporting hard-to-reach groups. In terms of digital exclusion, 17% of respondents did not have access to the internet at home—compared to 4% of the general population—showing the phoneline supports customers who are more likely to be digitally excluded. Those who did have internet access generally felt confident using it, with evidence from qualitative research suggesting that the phoneline also supports consumers who prefer speaking directly to someone to better understand government application processes, or to understand how different measures might work for them, as well as those without digital access or confidence. Customer experience Service data for the period 1st April 2023 to 31st March 2025 shows that customers primarily called to get advice on government schemes (47% of all calls). Most survey respondents cited calling to receive information on government schemes (68%) and to check their eligibility (52%). Following the advice received through the phoneline, 46% of survey respondents looked for more information from other sources, and 44% went on to check their eligibility for a government scheme, with 30% applying to one. 40% went on to contact their energy supplier about financial support for energy efficiency measures. 15% had gone on to successfully install a measure in their home, with a further 10% in progress or planned. Customer satisfaction with the overall service was high (95% satisfied) immediately after an (in-scope) call to the phoneline,6 but by the time of the evaluation survey 3-8 months later, satisfaction had declined to 61% among survey respondents. Evidence suggests the drop in satisfaction may reflect negative experiences when seeking financial support after receiving advice through the phoneline, with those still awaiting confirmation of eligibility reporting lower rates of satisfaction than those who had successfully completed installations. Respondents 4 Count of all calls with call reasons assigned minus those recorded as “Not in scope”. 5 The survey data represents a non-random sample of 10% of those who called the phoneline during the timeframe covered by the survey. Further details of the evaluation customer dataset, survey sampling and the methodological limitations are provided in the technical methods annex. 6 Source: ResQ post-call customer satisfaction data, average score from 3 questions, for customers advised during April 2023 to March 2025, 95% of customers rated the service at satisfactory (6 or above) immediately after a call. For details of the CSAT questions see technical annex. 7 Evaluation of DESNZ Consumer Advice and Information programme cited lack of progress as the key reason for dissatisfaction (28%), followed by not having received the help they needed (27%), and ineligibility for schemes (14%). How effective was the phoneline? Stakeholder research and monitoring data show the service effectively raises awareness of and facilitates access to government schemes. However, it is less effective at delivering tailored advice on measures. Following use of the phoneline, customers showed a slight increase in their understanding of energy efficiency measures, including their costs and benefits and the steps needed to install them—though confidence in the quality, functionality and cost-effectiveness of measures largely remained unchanged. The phoneline number was listed on GOV.UK, Citizens Advice websites, Department for Work & Pensions letters, and energy supplier letters, which generated a significant number of calls. However, greater targeted promotion of how the service can advise customers on energy efficiency and low carbon heat measures could have helped shift the focus from providing information and advice on government schemes. Was the service value for money? There is clear evidence that the intended customers and outcomes are being met. However, without DESNZ forecasts or a comparator service as a reference, it is challenging to assess whether the observed outputs and outcomes represent value for money. The service has been delivered below the maximum two-year contract value. The service handled an average of 25 calls per day. There is some evidence of economies of scale, although service costs were not significantly reduced during periods of lower call volumes, as originally envisaged by DESNZ. The service successfully reached its target populations of hard-to-reach households living in hard-to-decarbonise properties. The evaluation suggests there may remain latent demand from consumers who were not made aware of the service through the channels detailed above, who might be reached through further targeted promotion. 8 Evaluation of DESNZ Consumer Advice and Information programme Local Energy Advice Demonstrators (LEAD) In August 2023, 36 projects across England were awarded funding to design and deliver local, personalised home retrofit advice in order to test different customer engagement and advice delivery approaches.7 Like the phoneline, the service had an explicit focus on serving hard-to- reach households and those living in hard-to-decarbonise homes. Collectively, the LEAD projects adopted a wide range of delivery models, target audiences and advice styles, from home visits to attending events or community groups. Projects also varied in scale. The evaluation adopted a case study approach to enable greater depth of insight into a sample of projects.8 While analysis of programme monitoring data included all LEAD projects, primary research focused on a subset of 13 projects. What was achieved? Collectively, the projects provided 78,553 customers with bespoke advice against a baseline forecast of 87,216 (i.e. achieving 90% against this target). Performance across the projects was mixed, with 13 out of 36 projects meeting or exceeding their target. To an extent, this was to be expected for a test and learn programme, with some of the innovative methods tested proving less effective. Projects also tended to be overly ambitious in the forecasts included in their funding bids, and some found it took more time and resource to engage customers than anticipated. Projects report that 10,459 customers have installed energy efficiency measures to date, representing 13% of all customers advised, which is a lower conversion rate than anticipated. However, the primary research suggests this number could be higher due to the typical length of the retrofit journey; this is a lagging indicator, and more customers are likely to install measures in future on the basis of LEAD advice. Measures installed by customers advised vary widely, and include clean heat technologies, insulation and smaller measures such as draught proofing, radiator reflectors and energy saving light bulbs. Who has been reached? Projects successfully identified, reached and engaged hard-to-reach and hard-to-decarbonise households, under the broad definitions adopted by CAI.9 They have served both low-income (under £30,000 per year) and able-to-pay (income over £30,000) households. Service users’ knowledge of and interest in energy efficiency measures also varied widely. Customer experience Service users were generally satisfied with the content and mode of advice, although they sometimes felt it could be better tailored to their circumstances. Customers valued friendly 7 However, only 35 projects started delivery. 8 Selection was based on the extent to which projects had contact details for their customers (to enable primary research in the evaluation), where good progress had been made in engaging customers and where projects were using particularly interesting approaches (to gather useful lessons learned). 9 This includes those over the age of 65, ethnic minorities, and customers with a physical or mental health condition. 9 Evaluation of DESNZ Consumer Advice and Information programme advisers who they could relate to, who took time to listen to their needs, did not judge or patronise, and provided practical advice and support – such as adjusting boiler settings or Thermostatic Radiator Valves (TRVs), or applying for funding on their behalf. However, many customers struggled with the onward customer journey, both due to a lack of follow-up support and challenges accessing funding, which remains a key barrier for many. Projects have been effective at moving some customers along the customer journey to retrofit. This includes increasing their understanding of energy efficiency measures, and to a lesser extent increasing customer confidence in measures and their intention to install. The extent to which projects were able to increase customer understanding was affected by the type of customer: • Customers with a household income over £30,000 were more likely to report an increase in understanding compared to lower income households. • Fewer hard-to-reach customers reported an increase in understanding. Increases in customer understanding were also affected by project and the type of advice provided (discussed further below). How effective was LEAD? Despite differences in delivery models and challenges in analysing inconsistent outcome data, several projects appear to have delivered strong results in their specific contexts. Some scored highly across a wide range of outcome measures, with survey responses indicating improved understanding and decision-making. Others achieved positive outcomes while supporting large numbers of hard-to-reach households, and one was particularly effective in supporting uptake of government funding schemes. However, results should be interpreted with caution due to the likelihood that survey responses overrepresent those who received more intensive support, and differences in the characteristics of households supported across projects make it difficult to compare their effectiveness. Among the project case studies explored by this evaluation, those that: (i) (ii) (iii) tailored the advice to the needs of individual customers conducted home visits / surveys communicated findings, actions and next steps in a report often had higher proportions of customers with positive outcomes (e.g. increases in understanding, satisfaction with the service). Where advice was lighter touch, this resulted in lower proportions of customers reporting positive outcomes. In-depth approaches are inevitably more resource intensive and are more costly to deliver. The evidence suggests that the higher cost does increase customers’ confidence that the advice is accurate, enables it to be more tailored to the customer and their home, and increases trust in the advice and the likelihood of taking subsequent action. Reports help customers to make informed decisions. 10 Evaluation of DESNZ Consumer Advice and Information programme Other key lessons include: • In person engagement is effective at engaging customers who would have not otherwise engaged with energy efficiency advice. • Being seen as impartial and measure-agnostic is important for gaining customer trust (which is essential for effective engagement). In general, the delivery organisations were trusted by customers, though some projects found that it was effective to gain ‘endorsement’ from other trusted organisations e.g. GPs, Citizens Advice, employers. • Advisers need both interpersonal and technical skills to convince the customer that the advice is trustworthy and accurate, and to encourage them to take next steps. Customers who are self-funding measures, particularly larger scale measures, require advisers with a stronger technical skill set. • There is customer appetite for advice over multiple interactions and follow-up support. Projects learned that customers need and would like more follow-up support to keep them engaged as they progress through the onward retrofit journey. This includes further support to understand the potential return on investment for customers considering self-funding measures; support to engage and quality assure installers; and further opportunities to ask questions, discuss options and check progress. Some hard- to-reach customers need ‘hand-holding’ support to overcome the barriers they face, such as completing forms on their behalf, contacting suppliers and installers, or being present in the home while works are carried out. There were several common barriers to action following advice: • Many customers cannot afford to self-fund measures. Projects reported that customers with a household income of £30,000-£60,000 do not have disposable income to invest in measures. Some customers in this group cited affordability as the key barrier, while others simply felt that the return on investment was not worthwhile. There was interest from some customers for information about finance options to pay for measures, and projects suggested that this is something they would need to provide advice on in any future support. • Projects aimed to support customers in accessing funding streams (e.g. HUG, GBIS, ECO) to support the cost of installing measures. They spent a large amount of time informing customers about funding, checking their eligibility, completing applications and chasing progress on behalf of customers. In some cases, this led to successful installations, however the process length and changing eligibility criteria/spending priorities for some schemes meant that not as many customers progressed to installation as anticipated.10 10 ECO/GBIS changes came into effect in July 2025, though some were backdated to November 2024. This included an expansion of eligible measure combinations. See https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/energy-company-obligation-4-and-the-great-british-insulation- scheme-mid-scheme-changes/outcome/energy-company-obligation-4-and-the-great-british-insulation-scheme- mid-scheme-changes-final-stage-impact-assessment for details. 11 Evaluation of DESNZ Consumer Advice and Information programme • Availability of trusted installers was cited by some projects and customers as an issue. Some customers would value impartial advice on which installers to engage and impartial quality assurance on work completed, both of which were outside of the remit of the LEAD programme. • Issues with the property: project advisers found that a considerable number of homes they visited were in a state of disrepair and would need significant maintenance or ancillary works before measures could be effectively installed. Some customers could not afford or were unable to prepare properties for measures, e.g. clearing lofts to support new insulation. These activities cannot be funded under existing schemes. Did LEAD represent value for money? Taken together, the LEAD programme offers strong evidence of efficient and inclusive delivery, with several projects achieving good value for money across multiple dimensions. However, shortcomings in the data available for this evaluation—such as a lack of itemised input cost data, ambiguous definitions for key performance indicators, and gaps in survey coverage— mean it is challenging to make definitive, comparative judgements for all projects. Future programmes would benefit from greater clarity around expectations (and obligations) for monitoring, which would facilitate value-for-money evaluation. Key findings: • Economy (were resources acquired at the right cost?) The programme maintained strong control over spending, with most projects delivering within or below their allocated budgets. DESNZ financial oversight during delivery played a key role in safeguarding public funds. However, economy could have been strengthened through clearer expectations and more consistent scrutiny of cost assumptions at the application stage. • Efficiency (were outputs delivered proportionate to costs?) Almost all case study projects delivered at a lower cost-per-transaction than they had forecast in bids, suggesting efficient use of resources. Variation between projects largely reflects differences in the intensity of support offered e.g. the share of customers receiving a home visit. Some projects delivered advice at a low cost-per-transaction relative to other projects offering a similar intensity of support—though these tended to be projects based in more affluent areas, which served fewer hard-to-reach households (which may be less resource-intensive). Variation in projects’ interpretation of key performance indicators and a lack of standardised output measures make it difficult to compare efficiency across projects in a consistent way. • Cost-effectiveness (did projects deliver meaningful outcomes relative to their cost?) The evaluation found that different delivery models can be cost-effective in different contexts. Two projects demonstrated strong value for money, combining high outcome performance with relatively low costs, despite having contrasting approaches. One operated in an affluent area, using local partnerships and volunteers, while the other supported a high proportion of low-income and disabled households through an in-house model. Other 12 Evaluation of DESNZ Consumer Advice and Information programme projects showed promise in specific areas, such as driving retrofit uptake or grant applications, but data limitations make it difficult to draw robust conclusions from those findings. Overall, no single delivery model or approach was consistently associated with strong cost-effectiveness. Home visits featured in several of the more successful projects— but their impact appears to have been dependent on local context and the quality of the advice. Further research would be needed to understand which specific elements of these projects made them cost-effective. • Equity (did projects reach those most in need and ensure fair access to support?) The programme engaged a diverse range of vulnerable and hard-to-reach households, with particularly strong representation among older people, disabled individuals, low-income households, and those without internet access. However, there were significant differences between projects. Several engaged a high proportion of households meeting multiple indicators of vulnerability, whereas two projects engaged fewer such households. These differences appear to reflect both the characteristics of the local population and the targeting approach adopted by each project. Some were designed specifically to support disadvantaged households, while others also aimed to reach the general or “able to pay” market. Many projects adapted their approach to meet the needs of hard-to-reach groups, through in-person engagement, home visits, and advocacy-style support. While outcomes for these groups were generally lower, reflecting the greater barriers they face, there were some examples which demonstrated that equitable outcomes can be achieved with a well- designed approach. 13 Evaluation of DESNZ Consumer Advice and Information programme Glossary Term CEF Definition The Community Energy Fund (CEF) is a £10m grant scheme for urban and rural communities to develop energy services to benefit their local area. Citizens Advice A network of independent charities which offers confidential advice online, over the phone, and in person, for free. Key areas of support include applying for Universal Credit, money or debt and problems with a purchase or service received. ECO EPC GBIS The Energy Company Obligation (ECO) places an obligation on medium and large energy suppliers to deliver measures that improve the ability of low-income, fuel-poor and vulnerable households to heat their homes. The scheme has seen 5 iterations, ECO1, ECO2, ECO2t, ECO3 and ECO4. ECO4 applies to measures installed from 1 April 2022 to 31 March 2026 and takes a ‘whole house’ approach. An Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) tells you how energy efficient a property is. You must have an EPC when you’re selling a property, renting out a property or building a new property. The Great British Insulation Scheme (GBIS) places an obligation on medium and large energy companies to deliver measures that result in reduced energy usage. The scheme complements ECO4, and mostly delivers single insulation measures. As well as supporting low-income and vulnerable households, it is also available to those who aren’t low income or on means-tested benefits living in homes with an Energy Performance Certificate rating of D-G, and within Council Tax bands A-D in England and A-E in Scotland and Wales. GOV.UK HM Government website. The place to find government services and information online. HTD Hard-to-decarbonise homes. These properties more difficult to retrofit with energy efficiency and clean heating measures, due to their age, construction type, location, heritage value, or existing standard of 14 Evaluation of DESNZ Consumer Advice and Information programme HTD HTR HUG insulation. Note that a narrower definition has been adopted by DESNZ since the drafting of this report. Hard-to-reach households. The definition of hard-to-reach has been deliberately broad from the project outset and was defined in the initial call for projects as “Less internet-literate, elderly, fuel poor, off gas grid, minority ethnic groups, non-native English speakers, those with disabilities, those sensitive to internal disruption in homes, etc”. The Home Upgrade Grant (HUG) provided energy efficiency upgrades and low carbon heating via local authorities to households in England that are low income, off the gas grid, have an EPC between D and G. This was superseded by Warm Homes: Local Grant. FWTSE Find Ways To Save Energy (FWTSE) is a web tool that allows users to input key details about their property and returns information about ways in which they could save energy (and thus costs) in their homes. https://www.gov.uk/improve-energy-efficiency Net Zero Hubs The Local Net Zero Hubs programme helps local authorities and communities in England to play a leading role in decarbonisation, supporting local authorities to develop net zero projects and attract commercial investment. Private Rented Sector Regulations The Private Rental Sector (PRS) is a classification of housing in the UK, where a landlord owns the property and leases it to a tenant. Properties must meet a minimum energy efficiency standard of EPC E. Landlords must provide an Energy Performance Certificate for the property. SHDF WHD The Social Housing Decarbonisation Fund (SHDF) was designed to bring a significant proportion of the UK social housing stock to Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) band C standard. It supports the installation of energy performance measures in social homes in England. This has been superseded by The Warm Homes: Social Housing Fund. The Warm Home Discount (WHD) Scheme is a one-off £150 discount off electricity bills. If consumers are eligible, electricity suppliers will apply the discount to bills. 15 Evaluation of DESNZ Consumer Advice and Information programme 1 Introduction 1.1 Background To meet the government’s commitment to reach Net Zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, the UK will need to decarbonise most of its buildings by this time. With over a fifth of UK greenhouse gas emissions coming from heating buildings, the 2021 Heat and Buildings Strategy set out the government’s plan to significantly cut carbon emissions from the UK’s 30 million homes. In England, the government has also set targets to improve the energy efficiency of homes to alleviate fuel poverty. Home energy efficiency upgrades are complex, and there is mounting evidence that shortcomings in the customer journey and availability of impartial, independent advice are limiting consumer action towards home decarbonisation and uptake of government energy efficiency schemes.11 Ensuring consumers have access to independent and government- endorsed information on energy efficient home upgrades is a DESNZ priority. The government’s Consumer Advice and Information (CAI) programme aimed to: • Enhance the government-led home energy advice offer, meeting the immediate need to better support consumers with advice and information to improve the energy efficiency of their homes • Test and learn what approaches, particularly at a local level, are most effective in supporting widespread consumer action towards • Facilitate consumer access to government schemes by acquiring new customers • Support the effective delivery of wider funding schemes and regulatory requirements by identifying and sharing learning, improving value for money and regulatory compliance The CAI programme sought to achieve this by providing private sector households (i.e. homeowners, private landlords and their tenants) with impartial advice and information. It comprised three workstreams, designed to interact and support each other, sharing learning and best practice. Only the local advice and phoneline components of the programme are in scope for this evaluation. 1. Home Retrofit Advice and Information Line The phoneline service was launched in March 2023 and remains operational. It provides consumers in England with impartial home energy retrofit advice. This component of the programme represents £1.25m in funding. 11 Evidence includes research conducted with 4,298 homeowners in England by Censuswide on behalf of Energy Saving Trust in August 2023, and research on consumer protection: Consumer protection in the green heating and insulation sector 16 Evaluation of DESNZ Consumer Advice and Information programme The phoneline was designed to provide a ‘digital assist’ channel for the Find Ways to Save Energy in Your Home and scheme eligibility checker services on GOV.UK (in keeping with the Government Digital Service manual requirement for assisted digital support). More broadly, it provides the digitally excluded and wider public with general energy efficiency advice. During the call, customers are asked a series of questions about their property characteristics, which generates a set of information about their house suitability for home energy performance improvements, how to carry out these improvements cost-effectively, and where to find further support, including information on Government grants and funding schemes. 2. Local Energy Advice Demonstrator (LEAD) projects The Local Energy Advice Demonstrator programme ran from July 2023 to March 2025. Following a competitive application process, 36 projects were awarded funding to trial a range of innovative approaches to delivering local, in-person advice across England.12 This component of the programme represents £19.9 million in funding, with project budgets ranging from £100k to £1.9 million. The projects were delivered through the five regional Net Zero Hubs in England. These projects provided an opportunity to test and learn from different approaches to addressing the advice needs of groups whose needs may not be met by other services, such as: • Consumer groups that are most likely to benefit from targeted in-person advice, such as HTR consumers • Consumers living in properties that are HTD, such as traditional and listed buildings, and homes in conservation areas 3. Online (not within the scope of this evaluation) The above services complement a suite of information tools available on the GOV.UK website. These tools are the Find Ways to Save Energy in Your Home service (launched in July 2022) and eligibility checker/referral services for the Great British Insulation Scheme (GBIS) and Home Upgrade Grant phase 2 (HUG2) (which went live in September 2023). As they remain in development, these GOV.UK services were outside the scope of this evaluation. 12 Of which 35 progressed to delivery. 17 Evaluation of DESNZ Consumer Advice and Information programme 1.2 Evaluation aims An independent evaluation was commissioned to assess: • How the programme was delivered and experienced by users, identifying successes and challenges faced in delivery (process evaluation) • The extent to which the programme achieved its stated objectives (outcome evaluation) • The extent to which the policy represented value for money (VfM) to the public purse (economic evaluation) The evaluation findings will inform the department’s understanding of how the public seek and respond to information about home energy upgrades, including: • how different methods of energy efficiency advice can reach and support different consumer groups • best practice in delivering local, in-person advice • whether further intervention is needed in the consumer home energy advice sector The evaluation also seeks to examine the role of consumer advice in supporting public awareness and take up of government funding schemes such as the Home Upgrade Grant and the Energy Company Obligation—helping maximise the impact of Government funds and driving the pace of retrofit required to meet net zero targets. 1.3 Evaluation approach and timings This evaluation was conducted by a consortium of Winning Moves Ltd, Energy Saving Trust, and Brook Lyndhurst. Due to differences in the scope and nature of the phoneline and LEAD, distinct evaluations were undertaken for each service, though the evaluations were designed to answer the same set of questions. Structured by a Theory of Change and contribution claims, each evaluation took a mixed- method analytical approach, drawing on programme documentation and monitoring data, qualitative primary research with staff involved in service design and delivery, and primary research (both quantitative and qualitative) with service users. The Theories of Change, contribution claims and approach to contribution analysis are set out in the technical annex to this report. For both the phoneline and LEAD, analysis was conducted for each element of research (survey, qualitative interviews, monitoring data). The assessment of contribution claims was drawn from the Theory of Change at programme, service or project level. 18 Evaluation of DESNZ Consumer Advice and Information programme Conclusions have been based on evidence from more than one evidence source wherever possible. Where only single sources were available the limitations with that evidence are summarised. The evaluation of the LEAD programme used a case study approach. While monitoring data was analysed for all projects, but primary data collection focused on 13 of the 36 projects.13 A systematic analysis of each of these case study projects was conducted, synthesising and triangulating all evidence, with consideration of the robustness and reliability of each source. This enabled a rounded view of what each project achieved with consideration of its unique context. The technical annex to this report sets out the evaluation research questions and their coverage, as well as details on the methods employed and their limitations. The work has been undertaken in compliance with ISO20252, the International Standard for Social and Market Research. Winning Moves is registered to the Standard. 1.4 Report structure This report includes separate chapters for the evaluations of the phoneline and LEAD. Each chapter follows a similar structure: • A description of service aims and rationale • A summary of the evaluation methodology • Findings in response to the evaluation questions • Conclusions on the service from evaluation evidence A final concluding chapter summarises findings that are applicable to both services, with wider relevance for consumer advice and information policy. 13 Primary research focused on a subset of projects that were able to provide sufficient number of customer contact details to enable meaningful research. More detail about this approach can be found in section 3.2 and in the technical annex to this report. 19 Evaluation of DESNZ Consumer Advice and Information programme 2 Home Retrofit Advice & Information Line 2.1 Introduction This chapter comprises the final evaluation of the Home Retrofit Advice & Information Line (“the phoneline”). It covers service need and development, a summary of the evaluation methodology, and key findings from the primary research and subsequent analysis. Findings cover the process of delivery to date, service reach, the impacts of the service and a value-for- money assessment. 2.2 Background The phoneline service was first committed to in April 2022 within the British Energy Security Strategy, against a backdrop of increasing gas prices for households.14 Improving the energy efficiency of homes was identified to bring down energy bills in the long term. The strategy identified the importance of trusted advice, including that delivered through telephone support: “Research suggests the government is the trusted source of advice so we will work with trusted voices to scale up our information offer to help households understand energy saving measures… We will launch additional support for homeowners through telephone support and specific local area advice for energy consumers” (British Energy Security Strategy, page 13) Funding for the phoneline service was approved in July 2022 as part of the Consumer Advice and Information (CAI) programme. 2.2.1 Service aims and rationale for intervention The phoneline aimed to: • Reach the digitally excluded and digitally reluctant The phoneline would support digitally excluded and digitally reluctant consumers not sufficiently served by the digital tools provided on GOV.UK webpages (i.e. act as a ‘digital assist’), in keeping with Government Digital Service manual requirements and WCAG 2.2 AA accessibility standards (which require that services are accessible to all users). • Help consumers understand options suggested by the digital tools in more detail The phoneline would allow consumers to speak to a trained advisor to discuss each retrofit option provided in the Find Ways to Save Energy (FWTSE) tool in more detail and to help them understand the potential costs, benefits and disruption that retrofit may cause, by 14 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/62611337d3bf7f55cc9fd89f/british-energy-security-strategy-print- ready.pdf 20 Evaluation of DESNZ Consumer Advice and Information programme discussing their specific circumstances. The customer could either complete the FWTSE assessment and save a copy of the action plan to discuss with an advisor, or the advisor would help them complete the assessment during the call. The phoneline was anticipated to provide a greater depth of advice when compared to the predecessor Simple Energy Advice (SEA) digital assist phoneline service. • Provide in-depth advice and support on capital schemes The phoneline would help potential applicants understand what fabric and heating measures may be appropriate for their properties and their eligibility for government scheme support. Again, the phoneline was expected to provide a digital assist service for the Home Upgrade Grant 2 (HUG2) and Great British Insulation Scheme (GBIS) eligibility checkers and referral services. • Assist private landlords The phoneline would help landlords in understanding their Energy Performance Certificates and/or applying for exemptions from the Private Rented Sector Regulations where required. • General Energy efficiency advice and home retrofit support Beyond supporting specific digital tools and capital schemes, the phoneline also aimed to serve as a trusted source of general energy efficiency and home retrofit advice. Specially trained, dedicated advisors would provide personalised guidance on improving energy performance across a wide range of property types and circumstances, helping consumers understand holistic retrofit approaches and long-term energy-saving strategies. This broader support was intended to empower consumers to make informed decisions about their homes, even if they were not currently eligible for funding schemes, and to encourage uptake of energy efficiency improvements more widely. 2.3 Evaluation methodology The overall evaluation design and approach is set out in section 1.3 above. Specific methods used to evaluate the phoneline were as follows: • Desk review of programme documentation and data, including recent reports of research commissioned by DESNZ, the outline and full business case, service contract and other service management documents • Analysis of the phoneline service dataset containing records of all call instances • 3 in-depth interviews with DESNZ policy and delivery staff involved in the development and current delivery of the phoneline • Site visit to the contractor delivering the phoneline service (ResQ) on 10th April 2024 - including in-person interview, call observation and discussion with advisors • Two phases of qualitative interviews (targeting the same group of customers) who called the phoneline November-December 2023. Wave 1 achieved 33 interviews (which were 21 Evaluation of DESNZ Consumer Advice and Information programme conducted April-July 2024), and Wave 2 (conducted January 2025) with re-interviewed 22 of these 33 to capture longer-term experiences. • A telephone survey with 437 unique individuals (conducted in two tranches, August- September 2024, and January-February 2025) who called the phoneline between January to October 2024 inclusive (i.e. 2-8 months prior to interview). A census of customers who opted in to being included in the dataset was used, with a response rate of 15%. In total, this represents 10% of the customers who called the phoneline during that time (4,588 unique customers, excluding out of scope calls). Survey data was not weighted, as there was no data within the sample frame to weight against. • Analysis of service cost and call data and findings from customer research, to support a value for money assessment of the service. The technical annex to this report details a programme theory of change, evaluation objectives, associated research questions, and offers a more detailed description of the evaluation methodology. 2.3.1 Strength and limitations of evidence Table 1: Strength of evidence Theme Strength of evidence Development and delivery of the phoneline Evidence is strong. We have not found significant ambiguity or inconsistencies in what was described by different stakeholders or when cross referenced to the sources used in the desk review. Only a small number of calls were observed during the ResQ site visit, but these provided valuable insights into how advisors handle diverse enquiries and challenging situations, although it was not practical to corroborate this (e.g. by listening to recordings of phone calls). Monitoring data Strength of evidence is moderate. The service data lacks customer demographics, property age, type and EPC rating, preventing targeted sampling and survey weighting or representativeness checks. This meant relying on customer research when assessing who the service had reached. The final service dataset contained more detailed call outcomes, although 5% of calls are missing a call outcome. Customer research Strength of evidence is moderate. • The timing at which the interviews were conducted may have affected interviewee’s perspectives. This is particularly the case for households taking part in the surveys, as participants 22 Evaluation of DESNZ Consumer Advice and Information programme Theme Strength of evidence Customer research Value for money may have responded months after they received advice, risking recall bias. We had to balance this concern with our desire to gather evidence on longer-term perspectives of the services and consumers’ subsequent action. • Our survey was unable to use random probability sampling due to low numbers of customers who opted in to (a) be recontacted by evaluators and (b) complete the survey (with opt-in rates of 63% and 15% respectively). Our survey sample comprises 10% of customers who called the phoneline 3-8 months prior to fieldwork. The non-random nature of this sample could bias survey estimates. To mitigate these limitations: • We adopted a mixed methods approach, combining qualitative and quantitative methods, which enabled us to capture both the frequency of different experience and perceptions, as well as greater depth of understanding of different customer journeys. • To maintain recall accuracy for the survey, respondents were not surveyed beyond 8 months after their phoneline interaction (e.g. for wave 1, customers advised between January 2023 and March 2024 were surveyed in August/September 2024). • To allow us to establish longer-term perspectives and impacts of the phoneline, we conducted qualitative follow-up interviews up to 14 months after phoneline interaction; with the in-depth approach allowing participants to be able to reflect further back, which a short survey would not have allowed for. • Conducting two waves of the survey has provided us with a larger sample size and allows greater confidence in the findings. • Strength of evidence is moderate. • The assessment lacked DESNZ forecasts for outputs and outcomes, and a suitable comparator phoneline service to compare actual costs, outputs and outcomes. • The lack of demographic monitoring data meant the assessment of equity is reliant on survey data, so the same limitations with survey data detailed above apply. 23 Evaluation of DESNZ Consumer Advice and Information programme 2.4 Evaluation Findings 2.4.1 What aspects of the service are working well/less well? 2.4.1.1 Specifying the service An existing government contact centre supplier framework was used to procure the phoneline service,15 offering a faster solution than an open tender route. The use of an existing supplier framework helped achieve the objectives of launching the service by winter 2022-23 and ensuring continuity of government advice provision. ResQ and DESNZ reached an agreement about the types and complexity of information (particularly in relation to technologies) to be provided to callers. During the first year of service, DESNZ worked with ResQ to develop a focused information hub for advisors to use to support customers’ needs. 2.4.1.2 Promoting the service During development it was envisaged the phoneline would be promoted among the “not digitally able” via other services/organisations. Promotion of the service to date has relied on GOV.UK, Citizens Advice websites, Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) communications and energy supplier letters. This approach has generated 12,676 in-scope calls between April 2023 to March 2025. The service dealt with unanticipated spikes in call demand (including out of scope calls) resulting from consumer communications arranged by other DESNZ teams. The example provided by stakeholders was inclusion of the phoneline number in a Warm Homes Discount letter; the CAI programme and ResQ were unaware of this communication and ResQ were unable to concurrently increase capacity through an increase in call handlers. Stakeholders also described the phoneline acting as a ‘front door’ for a wider range of government services. Stakeholders noted the phoneline lacks a clear brand or identity. For example, the phoneline number is placed on three different GOV.UK webpages and described as either “Find Ways to Save Energy in Your Home”, “Great British Insulation Scheme helpline” or “Home Upgrade Grant helpline”. This reflects the objective of using the phoneline to provide assisted digital support for the GOV.UK webpages above. Evidence suggests the phoneline has not been promoted as effectively as it could have been. Wider promotion activity has not taken place, owing to concerns over large spikes in call demand, associated service capacity, and impacts on call response times. 15 Contact centre lot within Crown Commercial Services Framework RM6181 24 Evaluation of DESNZ Consumer Advice and Information programme 2.4.1.3 Call reasons and call outcomes From phoneline data covering the advice period April 2023 to March 2025, call reasons16 recorded by advisors were dominated by advice on government schemes, out of scope calls, and advice on energy efficiency and low carbon heat products. Figure 1: Reasons for calling the phoneline between April 2023 to March 2025 47% 21% 19% 5% 5% 3% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Advice on schemes Out of scope Advice on products Find ways to save energy tool Seek for information Other Source: DESNZ monitoring data Call reasons associated with the Find Ways to Save Energy (FWTSE) tool accounted for 5% of all calls. Stakeholder research revealed that calls seeking advice on specific energy efficiency, renewable and low carbon heat measures were not common. Among these, the most common enquiries were about solar PV, windows and insulation. Stakeholder interviews and discussion with ResQ advisors in March and April 2024 revealed that most incoming calls focused on a variety of government financial support, including the Warm Homes Discount (which is out of scope for the service). Responses to the phoneline user survey are broadly consistent with these findings. Most survey respondents cited information on government schemes (68%), and help checking eligibility (52%) as primary reasons for their call. Only 7% wanted help with the Find Ways to Save Energy tool. During the call, advisors helped respondents to check their eligibility (44%), gave information on government schemes (39%), and sign-posted to other services (38%)— primarily energy suppliers. 16% of respondents were given advice on energy efficiency measures. 16 Individual call descriptors were combined - “Seeking scheme advice” and “Advice on schemes” into “Advice on schemes”. “Other” is combined “Feedback/reporting problems”, “Other”, “Landlord exemption”, “Advice on saving energy”. “Digital Assistance” and “Advice on questionnaire” combined into “Find ways to save energy tool”. 25 Evaluation of DESNZ Consumer Advice and Information programme ResQ advisors reported low customer awareness of the Find Ways to Save Energy tool, with few calls driven by issues using or completing it. In cases where advisors had completed assessments with customers, they suggested callers preferred speaking to someone in person rather than going through the content of the action plan. In addition, advisors also used outputs from the GOV.UK site Find an Energy Certificate (EPC summary) as complimentary/additional information alongside the action plan. Using phoneline data covering the advice period April 2023 to March 2025, call outcomes (Figure 2 below) recorded by advisors17 were dominated by advice on government schemes, advice on products, advice on EPCs and calls not in scope, which is broadly consistent with incoming call reasons in Figure 3 above.18 Completion of government scheme eligibility checks, use of the FWTSE tool during the call and landlords’ exemptions were rare call outcomes. Comparing call reasons and outcomes, the proportion of out-of-scope call instances reduces from 21% of call reasons, to 9% of call outcomes, suggesting that advisors were effective in turning incoming out of scope calls into in-scope calls (see section 2.4.1.4 below). Call outcome is not recorded for 5% of calls, which limits interpretation.19 Figure 4: Call outcomes for the phoneline between April 2023 and March 2025 53% 19% 12% 9% 5% 3% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Advice on government schemes Advice on products EPC advice Not recorded Not in scope Other Source: DESNZ monitoring data 17 In the calls dataset a unique call instance can have multiple call outcomes logged against it, the %’s in Figure 2 are based on the number of times a call outcome is logged. In Figure 2 rarely occurring descriptors “Landlord exemption”, “Used the FWTSE tool” and “Scheme eligibility checks” have been combined into “Other”. 18 The descriptors used for call reasons and outcomes are not wholly consistent, for example advice on EPC’s is only recorded for call outcomes, possibly reflecting that customers do not know in advance of calling that they need help with accessing/producing an EPC. 19 The call outcome “Not In Scope - No change to call reason” is presumably used where an advisor is unable to convert an out-of-scope call reason to an outcome that is in-scope. 26 Evaluation of DESNZ Consumer Advice and Information programme 2.4.1.4 Call handling Where the initial call enquiry topic was out of scope, advisors reported attempting to provide in- scope advice (e.g. information on government schemes or measures). Pre-recorded messages were also used to try and re-direct out of scope call reasons. ResQ advisors suggested callers often wanted to speak to someone in person regardless of the nature of enquiry. Advisors reported receiving regular queries about installers. ResQ are restricted on what information can be provided by advisors, which focuses on signposting to MCS for queries on renewable energy and low carbon heat measures and Trustmark for help finding retrofit professionals. 2.4.2 What has been achieved? 2.4.2.1 Call volumes and customers advised Between 1st April 2023 and March 31st, 2025, the service handled 16,184 calls in total, of which 12,676 were in-scope.20 This equates to an average of 674 calls each month, of which an average of 528 were in-scope calls. During the same period, the service advised 16,177 customers in total, of which 12,670 customers were advised on in-scope topics. The service handled on average 25 calls each day21 which reflects promotion of the service focused on government websites, Citizens Advice, DWP and energy supplier letters (see Section 2.4.1.2). 2.4.2.2 Who has been reached? As mentioned in 2.3.1, the assessment of who has been reached by the phoneline relies heavily on the survey of consumers who opted into both being contacted by and taking part in the survey (as demographic information is not captured by ResQ). As such, the sample was non-random and may not be fully representative of all callers. Nevertheless, the survey results can be viewed as indicative, and the key characteristics of the survey population are summarised in Table 2 below. Household composition The majority (66%) of phoneline customers were from 1- or 2-person households. 25% of households had children (compared to 29% nationally).22 23% of residents from households interviewed were aged over 65, compared to 19% of residents nationally.23 Older people are more likely to be at risk of cold-related health issues, 20 Count of all calls with call reasons assigned minus those recorded as “Not in scope”. Advisors would attempt to translate out of scope enquiries into in-scope calls. There is some quantitative evidence this took place (Sections 2.4.1.3 - 2.4.1.4), although 5% of calls lacked a call outcome which limits interpretation. 21 The calculation for the average number of calls per day allows for the service being closed on public holidays, Sundays and open 9am-12pm on Saturday. 22 Office for National Statistics (ONS), 2024. Labour Force Survey. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/families/bulletins/familiesandh ouseholds/2023 23 23 Nomis - Bulk Data Export - Population estimates - local authority based by single year of age 27 Evaluation of DESNZ Consumer Advice and Information programme which suggests that the phoneline is reaching this group who may benefit more from energy advice and support. 40% of households had at least one person of working age who was unemployed.24 Ethnicity Most respondents (77%) were of White ethnicity, though this was significantly lower than the England average (86%). Based on survey respondents, Asian / Asian British households were overrepresented among phoneline users (11% of respondents, compared to the England population average of 7%).25 Disability 25% of residents from the households interviewed26 have a long-term disability or health condition which interferes with their day-to-day life (compared to 18% of residents in England and Wales). Table 3: Comparison of survey respondents hard-to-reach characteristics compared to averages in England Factor Survey respondents UK national average Household income27 57% below £30k (base =200) Median £34.5k Percentage of household residents who are disabled28 Percentage of household residents over the age of 65 25% (base =349) 18% 23% (base =362) 19%29 Children under 1630 25% (base =363) Percentage of households in receipt of benefits 51% (base =347) Pre-payment meter 7% (base =373) 29% n/a Unknown – estimated 4 million households (~14%)31 24 Calculated by subtracting number of people in employment, children, and over-65s from total household number 25 Nomis - Ethnic group by household reference person 26 20% of respondents did not answer this question 27 Average household income, UK - Office for National Statistics 28 Disability, England and Wales - Office for National Statistics (ons.gov.uk) 29 Nomis - Bulk Data Export - Population estimates - local authority based by single year of age 30 The survey asked for number in household, rather than the status of the respondent, and so is not directly comparable to UK average 31 How do prepayment meters work and what are the risks around them? | UK News | Sky News 28 Evaluation of DESNZ Consumer Advice and Information programme Factor Survey respondents UK national average Ethnicity of survey respondent / household reference person32 77% White 23% from an ethnic minority background, including: -11% Asian, Asian British -5% Black -4% Mixed -3% Other (base =341) 86% White 14% from an ethnic minority background including: -7% Asian -4% African, Caribbean, Black -2% Mixed -2% Other Income and benefits Of those who were willing and able to divulge this information, 57% of respondents had household annual incomes of less than £30,000. 33 Given the median UK household income is £34,500,34 this suggests the phoneline is reaching households with low to average incomes. 51% of respondents (who were willing to divulge this information35) reported being on benefits. The evidence suggests that the phoneline is reaching consumers who may be more at risk of fuel poverty. Additionally, given that one of the focuses of the phoneline is to support people with applications to government schemes (many of which have eligibility criteria related to being low income or in receipt of benefits). Taken together, this evidence suggests that the phoneline is reaching its target audience. Property tenure 95% of respondents owned their own property, with 4% being private tenants and 1% social tenants. Additionally, 6% of respondents were landlords. Property type Most respondents lived in semi-detached (30%), terraced (28%) or detached (24%) houses, with 12% living in flats. Where respondents were aware, 52% of properties were built from 1940s onwards; with 48% being pre-1900 to 1939. These properties are likely to be harder-to- decarbonise than modern properties, given the prevalence of solid walls. 11% of properties were listed buildings or in a conservation area, making these likely to be harder-to-decarbonise. 75% of respondents reported that their households had mains gas as their central heating main fuel type, with 14% using electricity, 7% oil and 4% other. 32 Nomis - Ethnic group by household reference person 33 31% of respondents did not answer this question 34 Average household income, UK - Office for National Statistics (ons.gov.uk) 35 16% of respondents did not answer this question 29 Evaluation of DESNZ Consumer Advice and Information programme 2.4.2.3 To what extent has the service been effective in engaging hard-to-reach consumers and hard-to-decarbonise homes? We have used survey responses to calculate the proportion of households classified as hard- to-reach and/or hard-to-decarbonise. Hard-to-reach consumers are those deemed more difficult to provide with energy efficiency and clean heating advice, whether for social, economic, cultural, or geographical reasons. Hard-to-decarbonise homes are homes that are more difficult to retrofit with