Funding, structuring and supporting digital inclusion in local government

What good digital inclusion means

Good digital inclusion means designing and delivering services that everyone can use. This includes people who are offline, lack confidence or need extra support. Inclusion requirements should be built into how services are assessed and improved over time (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT), 2025a). Digital transformation should not treat exclusion as an afterthought. People need the access, resources and skills to participate, and government services should be inclusive by design. UK commitments also emphasise governance and accountability. New services must meet inclusive service standards before publication, and service assessments should use inclusion measures to support improvement (DSIT, 2025c).

UK strategies define digital inclusion as ensuring people can use the internet in ways that benefit them day to day. Success should therefore be judged by meaningful use and real-life outcomes, not connectivity alone. Inclusion is multi-dimensional: people may face barriers relating to access, skills, motivation and trust (Cabinet Office, 2014). The UK Digital Inclusion Charter also states that no single organisation can address these barriers alone. Effective delivery depends on strong partnerships across sectors (Cabinet Office, 2015).

International evidence reinforces this approach. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) argues that governments should provide user-centred, inclusive online services, invest in skills and support people most at risk of exclusion (OECD, 2024b). Evidence from the United States also shows that broadband infrastructure alone is insufficient. Digital equity requires affordable high-speed services, suitable devices, skills and technical support (National Telecommunications and Information Administration, 2023). Good digital inclusion therefore combines inclusive service design, service standards and assurance, assisted digital support, and coordinated cross-sector delivery. For councils, this has two dimensions. As place leaders, they convene partners and coordinate provision. As service providers, they must ensure their own services are inclusive and that responsibility is shared across the organisation (LGA, 2025a).

Barriers to digital inclusion

Barriers to digital inclusion cluster around access, skills, motivation and trust (Cabinet Office, 2014). UK action planning also identifies data and device poverty, barriers within digital services, and low confidence (DSIT, 2025c). These barriers matter particularly for councils. Older people, disabled people, people on low incomes and people experiencing unemployment are both more likely to be excluded and more likely to need council support. As services become digital and increasingly use artificial intelligence, exclusion affects access to statutory services. Digital inclusion is therefore a precondition for fair local service delivery (LGA, 2025a).

A minority of people still lack internet access. Ofcom estimates that 2.8 million people, or 4 per cent of the UK population, have no internet access (Ofcom, 2025). An estimated 3 per cent of adults lack a smartphone, tablet or laptop. Affordability is also a persistent barrier: 7 per cent of households, around 1.9 million, struggle to afford broadband (Good Things Foundation, 2024g). People receiving universal credit may be unable to afford a device or connectivity, increasing the risks of sanctions and deep poverty (Good Things Foundation, 2024d).

Digital skills gaps remain substantial, especially among older and lower-income groups. In 2023, around 49 per cent of people aged 75 or older could not complete all eight Foundation Level tasks. This compared with 29 per cent of people aged 65 to 74 and 16 per cent of those aged 55 to 64 (Karania, 2024). Income also matters: 81 per cent of people on the lowest incomes have Foundation Level digital skills, compared with 96 per cent of people on higher incomes (Good Things Foundation, 2024a). Access is not the only issue. Among people who are offline, 62 per cent cite lack of interest as the main reason. Nearly 36 per cent report concerns about privacy (Cabinet Office, 2014).

Service design and support also shape exclusion. Among people who are offline, 33 per cent report difficulty using council and government services (Good Things Foundation, 2024b). At system level, the UK digital government blueprint identifies inconsistent measurement of service quality, cost and capacity for change. This makes it harder to identify where public services create or reduce exclusion (DSIT, 2025a). UK grant guidance also recognises that the evidence base is substantial but fragmented, limiting learning and the ability to scale effective practice (DSIT, 2025b).

Measuring impact

Impact measurement should reflect the multi-dimensional nature of inclusion rather than rely on a single measure of internet use (Cabinet Office, 2014). Three complementary layers are needed: service and system measures within assurance processes; programme monitoring of outputs and outcomes; and population indicators showing who is excluded and where. DSIT plans to pilot inclusion measures in service assessment. The digital government blueprint also calls for a consistent framework and annual reporting of outcomes, including digital inclusion (DSIT, 2025a, 2025c).

UK grant guidance requires funded projects to report quantitative or qualitative data on inputs, activities, outputs and, where available, outcomes and impacts. Projects should identify both output and outcome key performance indicators (DSIT, 2025b). Examples include participant demographics, training sessions, devices and data packages. Pre- and post-engagement questionnaires can help identify change. The UK Digital Inclusion Strategy also describes two inclusion scales, including a nine-point individual scale. It identifies basic digital skills at point seven as the minimum needed to use the internet effectively (Cabinet Office, 2014). No single measure is sufficient because inclusion depends on access, skills and context (Good Things Foundation, 2024g).

Common national datasets have important limitations. The question "Have you used the internet in the last three months?" no longer provides an adequate picture of digital inclusion. The most recent Office for National Statistics release is 'Internet users 2020', leaving decision makers without sufficiently current or detailed evidence (Good Things Foundation, 2024g). Data collection must also be practical and accessible. Good Things Foundation uses short questionnaires and combines quantitative and qualitative methods. It recognises that some participants face literacy or English-language barriers. Its post-support survey takes place two to six weeks after support to maximise response rates (Good Things Foundation, 2024f).

Programme evaluations show the outcomes that an impact framework could capture. The Future Digital Inclusion programme supported more than one million people to learn basic digital skills. Of these learners, 66 per cent progressed to employment-related activity and 39 per cent to accredited qualifications (Good Things Foundation, 2024e). Another programme supported more than 25,000 people, with 27 per cent entering employment (Good Things Foundation, 2024c). Longer-term evidence shows that 92 per cent of beneficiaries felt happier, healthier or better off because of support (Good Things Foundation, 2026).

This evidence suggests a further change in measurement. Digital inclusion can be lost through life events, and councils cannot control the number of excluded residents. A more useful measure is therefore the resilience of the place. This means assessing the density, coordination and persistence of local support, rather than only counting outputs from individual projects. It also aligns measurement with the support system that councils can influence.

Return on investment from digital inclusion spending

The evidence supports a return on investment case built around three elements: better employment and earnings from digital skills; more efficient public services; and methods for valuing non-market outcomes (Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, 2022a; DSIT, 2025a; BBC, 2025). Because exclusion is multi-dimensional, value for money should cover several outcomes. These include employment, access to services, safer and more confident internet use, and wellbeing. A single universal ratio is unlikely to apply to every intervention (DSIT, 2025b; BBC, 2025).

Some studies provide monetised estimates. A UK assessment suggests that ending digital poverty could increase annual earnings by around £17 billion if six million people gained essential digital skills for work (Digital Poverty Alliance and Deloitte, 2023). Regional evidence suggests that manual workers with essential digital skills earn £2,160 more a year than those without them (West Midlands Combined Authority, 2026). Wellbeing valuation can capture benefits that do not appear directly in earnings or budgets. Research for the BBC uses life satisfaction scores to estimate the value of digital inclusion, including reduced isolation, greater confidence and improved access to support (BBC, 2025).

Three practical steps would strengthen return on investment assessment. First, define an outcomes chain covering inputs, activities, outputs and outcomes. Second, collect pre- and post-support data where possible to identify change linked to the intervention (DSIT, 2025b). Third, align local evaluation with the Government's move towards consistent measures and annual outcome reporting. This would allow comparison across services and places and build a cumulative national evidence base (DSIT, 2025a).

The most prominent UK estimate is the 2022 Centre for Economics and Business Research study for Good Things Foundation. It modelled a 10-year national programme and estimated a benefit-cost ratio of around 9.48 to one. This is equivalent to approximately £9.48 returned for each £1 invested. The estimated net present value was around £12.2 billion across nine benefit streams (Cebr, 2022). The companion document, 'An Economic Multiplier Model for Digital Inclusion', provides the detailed breakdown.

Other programme and international evidence points in the same direction. Social return on investment studies include BT's Get IT Together programme, at around £3.70 for each £1 invested, and New Zealand modelling, with a benefit-cost ratio of around two to one. The latter rises to three to one when programmes use community engagement and co-design. The Superfast Broadband programme reports £2.70 to £3.80 for each £1 invested, while Be Connected reports a social return of $4.01 for each $1. Overall, digital inclusion programmes generate returns of around two to 10 times their cost. Higher returns are associated with well-designed, community-centred programmes that capture a wider range of benefits.

Digital inclusion as a driver of regional growth

Digital inclusion supports regional growth because it enables participation in work, services and learning. Exclusion is unevenly distributed and is highest outside London and the South East (DCMS, 2022a). More than 10 per cent of people in the North East, Yorkshire and the Humber, and Northern Ireland do not use the internet (DCMS, 2022b). Three mechanisms connect inclusion with growth: higher productivity and labour-market participation; wider access to public services and opportunities; and greater value from digital services, not simply wider network coverage (OECD, 2024a).

Regional growth strategies should combine infrastructure investment with locally delivered inclusion support. The digital government blueprint links national and local service transformation with better value for money (DSIT, 2025a). Local funding mechanisms also matter. The UK Shared Prosperity Fund released £2.6 billion of local funding in 2022 (LGA, 2023). In Liverpool City Region, an initiative involving Lloyds Bank and partners supported more than 5,000 residents. It shows how combined authorities, businesses and voluntary and community sector partners can coordinate support across a local labour market (Lloyds Banking Group, 2025a).