Skip to main content
WUHLD
← Back to insights

Measuring Benefits Utilization: Tracking Will Service Take-Up and Impact

· 18 min

Executive Summary

One-third of proposed benefit changes are rejected by management teams due to insufficient data, according to the REBA/Howden Benefits Design Research 2025 survey of 360 organisations. Simultaneously, 76% of HR and benefits leaders cannot demonstrate any return on investment on benefits provision. Will planning services, as a relatively recent addition to UK benefits portfolios, face a distinctive measurement challenge: no published UK benchmark exists for will service take-up rates. Yet will services -- with their discrete, identifiable completion events -- are uniquely amenable to robust utilization tracking. The April 2027 inclusion of unused pension funds within the inheritance tax estate creates an additional measurable dimension: the coordination between pension death benefit nominations and will provisions. This article presents a practical analytics framework enabling benefits professionals to construct utilization dashboards, establish internal benchmarks, and link will service engagement to workforce outcomes.

1. Introduction

The benefits measurement deficit is not a peripheral concern for HR analytics teams -- it is the single greatest barrier to sustained investment in employee financial wellbeing services.1 The CIPD Reward Management Survey 2026, based on a YouGov survey of 1,059 HR and reward decision-makers, found that 22% of employers have no objectives underpinning their benefits package, and among those that do set objectives, only 33% confirm those benefits fully meet them.2 The Benifex Evolution Report 2023 quantified the scale of the data maturity gap: 89% of reward and benefits professionals admitted they could improve their data utilization, while only 11% rated their use of data and insight as "excellent."3

For benefits analysts and data-driven HR managers, these statistics describe a profession that overwhelmingly recognises the value of evidence-based decision-making -- 99% believe data-driven reward and benefits deliver better results -- yet systematically fails to implement it.3 Will planning services exemplify this paradox. As a benefit type gaining traction within UK financial wellbeing programmes, will provision lacks the established measurement infrastructure that pension auto-enrolment, Employee Assistance Programmes (EAPs), or private medical insurance have developed over decades. No published UK survey provides a benchmark take-up rate for employer-sponsored will services, leaving benefits teams unable to answer the fundamental question: is the provision working?

The regulatory landscape adds urgency. From 6 April 2027, most unused pension funds and death benefits will fall within the scope of inheritance tax (IHT), creating a measurable coordination imperative between pension death benefit nominations and will provisions.4 This policy change transforms will service utilization from a standalone wellbeing metric into a component of pension governance -- and produces a new category of trackable KPI that has no existing analytical precedent.

This article provides a structured measurement framework, grounded in current UK benefits research and aligned with CIPD people analytics maturity standards, for tracking will service utilization and demonstrating its impact.

2. The Benefits Measurement Deficit: Quantifying the Problem

The REBA/Howden Benefits Design Research 2025, surveying 360 organisations representing approximately 1.8 million employees, produced one headline finding that benefits analysts should treat as a strategic imperative: one-third of proposed benefit changes are rejected by management teams due to insufficient data.1 Over 80% of respondents believe future projects face rejection without clear, data-backed business cases.1 The measurement deficit is not an inconvenience; it is a gating factor for benefits investment.

The deficit operates at multiple levels. The CIPD Reward Management Survey 2026 revealed that while 77% of employers link benefits to at least one objective -- most commonly retention (44%) or engagement (37%) -- only 31% link benefits to productivity or business performance.2 Among those employers that set objectives and review against them, only 33% report benefits fully meeting those objectives.2 A further 15% of employers with stated objectives never review benefits performance against them at all.2 The gap between employer and employee perception compounds the problem: 60% of employers report offering a good benefits package, but only 40% of employees agree.2

The data types used to inform benefits decisions expose a significant reporting hierarchy. The REBA/Howden research found that the majority of organisations report only benefits costs (67%) and employee satisfaction data (62%) to management.5 Absence rates are reported by 42%, healthcare claims by 35%, and wellbeing scores by only 23%.5 This pattern reflects a profession operating primarily at the descriptive analytics level -- tracking what was spent and whether employees expressed satisfaction -- without connecting expenditure to measurable outcomes. Lowest-income workers remain the least likely to know what benefits are available to them or how to access them, compounding the challenge of measuring utilization across a diverse workforce.2

The inability to demonstrate ROI has quantifiable consequences. Benifex found that 76% of HR and benefits leaders cannot demonstrate any return on investment on benefits, and barely half can measure total spending on benefits and assess its impact on engagement and wellbeing.3 Only 15% can measure benefits impact in real time.3 The CIPD/Railpen Future of Workforce Reporting 2025 analysis of FTSE 100 annual reports confirmed this deficit extends to corporate disclosure: only 15% of FTSE 100 companies provided absence rate information, while 38% disclosed turnover rates and just one company disclosed recruitment costs.6 If the largest UK companies struggle to report workforce data consistently, mid-market employers face even steeper challenges.

The barriers to measurement maturity are methodological rather than technological. The REBA/Howden survey identified data availability and usability challenges (59%), external benchmarking difficulties (51%), and lacking analytical tools (48%) as the primary obstacles. Skills gaps ranked lowest at 24%.7 Benefits analysts possess the competence; what they lack is the structured approach to applying it to specific benefit types.

3. Analytics Maturity and Measurement Infrastructure

The CIPD People Analytics Factsheet (February 2025) identifies three maturity levels for people analytics: descriptive (what happened), predictive (what will happen), and prescriptive (what to do).8 Within descriptive analytics, a further distinction exists between Level 1a -- single data set analysis (absence rates, recruitment volumes, attrition figures) -- and Level 1b, which combines multiple data sets to generate multidimensional insight.8 Effective will service utilization measurement requires, at minimum, Level 1b capability: combining take-up data with workforce outcome metrics to move beyond simple headcounts. The CIPD's guidance emphasises that people analytics strategy should connect people data with business data to support decision-making -- a principle that applies directly to the integration of benefits utilization data with workforce outcome measures.8

Current benefits analytics infrastructure provides a foundation for this progression. The Aon UK Benefits and Trends Survey 2025 found that 50% of UK companies already use an online benefits platform, with a further 21% planning implementation within three years -- projecting 71% platform adoption by approximately 2028.9 The REBA/Barnett Waddingham Benefits Trends 2025 survey of 296 organisations representing approximately 1.4 million employees found that 81% of employers cite digital tools as critical for benefits management, yet only 29% currently use digital or data tools for reporting purposes -- an expected 176% increase in adoption for reporting applications.10 The Aon survey additionally found that 72% of employees want customisation of benefits, though only 41% currently have access to personalised options, indicating demand for the kind of data-driven benefit targeting that robust utilization analytics enables.9

This gap between infrastructure availability and analytical application mirrors the broader measurement deficit. Half of UK employers have the platform capability to track individual benefit utilization; the challenge is implementing a measurement methodology that generates actionable insight. The emerging international standards landscape supports this direction. ISO 30414:2025, the second edition of the global human capital reporting standard, establishes 58 metrics across 11 core areas including productivity and organisational culture.11 The 2025 edition upgrades the 2018 guidelines to mandatory requirements alongside recommendations, and expands areas of disclosure to include guidance on AI, ethics, and data governance.11 While the standard does not prescribe specific benefit utilization metrics, it establishes the principle that human capital measurement should connect workforce data with business outcomes -- precisely the analytical objective that will service utilization tracking addresses.

Progression from descriptive to predictive analytics enables modelling of which employee cohorts are most likely to engage with will services, based on demographic and life-event data. Prescriptive analytics, the most mature level, can recommend targeted interventions -- for example, triggering will service communications following detected life events such as property purchases, marriage, or new dependants. Benefits analysts seeking to build a case for will service investment should frame the measurement framework within this maturity progression, demonstrating a pathway from basic utilization tracking to predictive engagement modelling over a defined horizon.

4. Will Service Utilization: The Measurement Opportunity

Will services occupy a distinctive position within the benefits measurement landscape. Unlike continuous wellness programmes where engagement is diffuse and difficult to quantify, will services produce discrete, identifiable completion events: initial enrolment, consultation booking, will drafting session, will completion, periodic review, and update following a life event. Each event represents a measurable data point within a defined completion funnel. This episodic structure enables cleaner utilization measurement than most wellbeing benefits.

The demand-side baseline underscores the potential. Money and Pensions Service (MaPS) data indicates that 56% of UK adults aged 18 and over do not have a will.12 Among those in their 30s, 75% are intestate; among those in their 40s, 65%; and 53% of adults aged 50 to 64 lack a will.12 For employers, this establishes a sizeable addressable population within the workforce for whom will service provision addresses a documented gap. When segmented by working-age cohorts, the data suggests that the majority of a typical employer's workforce would qualify as potential beneficiaries of will service provision.

No published UK survey provides a benchmark take-up rate for employer-sponsored will services. This represents both a measurement challenge and an analytical opportunity. EAP utilization data provides the closest analogical benchmark available. UK EAP utilization averages approximately 10-12%, with 82% of organisations reporting take-up between 0 and 25%.13 The HCML research finding that 79% of employers provide an EAP but only 27% of employees recognise their workplace offers one highlights the awareness-utilization gap that any episodic benefit faces.13 Will services likely face a similar or more pronounced awareness deficit, given their relative novelty as an employee benefit. The EAP benchmark suggests that a good utilization rate for an episodic benefit sits between 10% and 15%, with high-performing programmes exceeding 20% -- providing a directional reference for will service target-setting.

International reference points, while not directly transferable, offer additional context. The SHRM 2023 Employee Benefits Survey found that 42% of US employers offered legal services (including wills and estate planning) by 2023, up six percentage points from 2022, with estate planning identified as the most-utilized service within legal plans.14 This US data, which must be treated as geographically qualified rather than a UK proxy, suggests that when legal services are offered, estate planning generates meaningful utilization -- reinforcing the case for a structured measurement approach.

Benefits analysts constructing a will service utilization framework should begin by defining each stage of the completion funnel as a distinct metric: awareness (percentage of eligible employees who know the benefit exists), enrolment (percentage who register interest or book an initial session), completion (percentage who execute a will through the service), and maintenance (percentage who return for periodic review or update). Tracking conversion rates between these stages enables identification of specific bottlenecks -- whether low awareness, enrolment friction, or completion drop-off -- and informs targeted interventions. The distinction between leading indicators (awareness, enrolment) and lagging indicators (completion, maintenance) is critical: leading indicators enable proactive communication adjustments, while lagging indicators confirm whether the service is delivering its intended outcome.

5. The April 2027 Coordination Metric: A New Measurement Dimension

The pension death benefit IHT changes effective from 6 April 2027 create a measurement dimension that has no precedent in UK benefits analytics. From that date, most unused pension funds and death benefits fall within the IHT estate, with personal representatives (not scheme administrators) liable for reporting and paying any resulting IHT.4 These provisions are contained in the Finance (No. 2) Bill 2025-26, which completed Public Bill Committee stage on 3 February 2026 and is proceeding through Parliament; the effective date of 6 April 2027 remains subject to enactment. The Government's consultation response estimated that approximately 10,500 estates will newly face IHT liability, with approximately 38,500 estates paying more IHT as a result.15 Death-in-service benefits payable from registered pension schemes are excluded from this scope.4

For benefits analysts, the significance lies in the coordination requirement this creates. Pension contributions represent a major element of employer benefits expenditure. From April 2027, the post-death tax efficiency of pension savings depends in part on the alignment between pension death benefit nomination forms (expressions of wish) and will provisions. Where these documents are misaligned -- nominating different beneficiaries or failing to account for the IHT implications -- the resulting tax inefficiency undermines the value of both the pension benefit and any will service provision.

This coordination requirement produces a measurable KPI: the pension-will coordination rate. This proposed metric can be defined as the percentage of pension scheme members who have both an up-to-date expression-of-wish or death benefit nomination form and a current will that reflects their pension nomination intentions. Tracking this metric requires connecting two data systems -- pension administration records and will service completion records -- that currently operate in organisational silos. The analytical challenge is integration; the measurement methodology is straightforward. This is a novel metric proposed for the first time in this analysis; no existing industry research validates it as an established KPI, though the underlying data points exist within most pension and benefits administration systems.

Additional trackable dimensions flow from this coordination imperative. Benefits teams can measure employee engagement with pension-estate coordination communications, attendance at information sessions addressing the April 2027 changes, and completion rates for nomination form reviews prompted by the policy change. Each dimension provides a leading indicator of whether the organisation's communication strategy is reaching scheme members in time to act before the April 2027 effective date.

Pension changes already command disproportionate management attention: the REBA/Howden research found that pension changes escalate to Board level nearly three times more frequently than wellbeing changes, with benchmarking used by 85% of organisations for pension decisions.1 The pension-will coordination rate connects will service measurement to this existing governance structure, providing a pathway for will service data to reach decision-makers through established pension reporting channels. Benefits analysts can leverage this governance proximity to elevate will service measurement from a peripheral wellbeing metric to a component of pension scheme governance reporting.

6. Building the Dashboard: A Practical Measurement Framework

Translating the preceding analysis into operational measurement requires a tiered approach that aligns with the CIPD analytics maturity progression.8 The following framework proposes four tiers, each building on the data infrastructure and analytical capability of the preceding tier.

Tier 1 -- Utilization Metrics (Descriptive Level 1a). These are the foundational metrics every employer offering will services should track: take-up rate (enrolments divided by eligible population), completion rate (completed wills divided by enrolments), review rate (periodic reviews divided by completed wills), and update rate (will revisions divided by identified life event triggers). In Year 1, these metrics establish internal baselines. For reference, if will service take-up patterns mirror EAP utilization, initial take-up in the range of 8-15% would be consistent with established episodic benefit benchmarks.13

Tier 2 -- Engagement Metrics (Descriptive Level 1b). Engagement metrics capture the depth of interaction beyond headline utilization: awareness rate (measured through employee benefits survey responses confirming knowledge of the benefit), platform interaction data (logins, information page views, FAQ engagement), and communication response rates (click-through on will service promotion emails, webinar registrations). The awareness-utilization gap identified in EAP data -- where 79% of employers provide the benefit but only 27% of employees recognise it -- confirms that awareness measurement is a prerequisite for interpreting utilization figures.13 Without awareness data, a low take-up rate is ambiguous: it may reflect lack of interest or lack of knowledge.

Tier 3 -- Outcome Correlation Metrics (Predictive Level 2). At this level, benefits analysts connect will service utilization to workforce outcomes: financial wellbeing survey scores pre- and post-provision, absence rates among will service users compared with non-users, and retention rates segmented by benefit engagement level. The pension-will coordination rate sits within this tier, connecting will service data with pension administration data.15 The CIPD Good Work Index 2025 provides the evidential basis for these correlations: 31% of employees reported that money worries negatively affected work performance, while employees satisfied with their financial circumstances showed higher job satisfaction (78%) and better ability to achieve job objectives (61%).16 These financial wellbeing metrics function as both leading indicators (predicting which employees may benefit most from will service provision) and outcome measures (assessing whether provision correlates with improved financial confidence).

Tier 4 -- Strategic Impact Metrics (Prescriptive Level 3). The most mature tier connects measurement to business outcomes: benefits budget approval rates correlated with data quality, contribution to financial wellbeing strategy maturity, and the organisation's progression against the CIPD analytics maturity model. At this level, benefits teams can demonstrate that their measurement capability -- not just their benefits provision -- delivers strategic value. Given that one-third of benefit changes face rejection without data, demonstrating progression from Tier 1 to Tier 4 directly addresses the investment case.1

Establishing Baselines and Setting Targets. Year 1 should focus exclusively on establishing internal baselines for Tier 1 and Tier 2 metrics, resisting the temptation to set improvement targets before the data confirms a starting position. From Year 2, improvement targets can be calibrated against internal baselines and, where available, analogical benchmarks (EAP utilization ranges, communication response rate norms). By Year 3, organisations with Level 1b or Level 2 analytical maturity can progress to Tier 3 outcome correlations, linking utilization data to workforce metrics. This three-year progression mirrors the timeline afforded by the April 2027 pension IHT changes: organisations initiating measurement in 2025 or early 2026 will have baseline data available before the coordination imperative takes effect.

DEI Segmentation. Utilization data segmented by demographic, income band, employment type, and life stage is essential for identifying and addressing participation disparities. The CIPD Good Work Index 2025 found that 30% of employees cannot manage an unexpected GBP 300 bill, rising to 52% among those earning under GBP 20,000.16 If will service utilization skews toward higher earners or older employees, the benefit risks reinforcing existing financial wellbeing inequalities. Demographic segmentation enables benefits teams to design targeted interventions -- adjusted communication channels, workplace-based access sessions, or multilingual materials -- that broaden participation across the workforce. This segmentation directly supports diversity, equity, and inclusion objectives within the broader benefits strategy.

Data Governance Considerations. Combining will service utilization data with workforce outcome data introduces data governance requirements. Benefits analysts should ensure that utilization tracking complies with GDPR data minimisation principles, that individual-level will service data is not accessible to line managers, and that any correlation analysis operates on anonymised or aggregated data sets. The ISO 30414:2025 framework's expanded guidance on data governance and AI ethics provides a reference point for establishing appropriate data handling protocols.11

Conclusion

The benefits measurement deficit documented by REBA/Howden, CIPD, and Benifex represents a systemic challenge that directly threatens investment in financial wellbeing services. Will planning provision, precisely because it lacks established UK utilization benchmarks, faces particular vulnerability to the evidence gap that blocks one-third of benefit changes at the proposal stage. Yet the characteristics that make will services a measurement challenge -- their novelty, their lack of external benchmarks -- simultaneously make them a measurement opportunity. The discrete, episodic nature of will service completion events enables cleaner utilization tracking than most wellbeing benefits, and the April 2027 pension death benefit IHT changes create a coordination metric that connects will service measurement to established pension governance structures.

Benefits analysts who implement a structured measurement framework -- progressing from Tier 1 utilization baselines through to Tier 3 outcome correlations and Tier 4 strategic impact metrics -- build not only the evidence base for will service investment but transferable analytical capability applicable across the entire benefits portfolio. The measurement framework presented here is deliberately benefit-agnostic in its architecture: the tiered approach, the leading-lagging indicator distinction, and the DEI segmentation methodology apply equally to any discrete employee benefit. In a profession where 89% acknowledge their data practices fall short, the organisation that measures first gains the analytical advantage.

CPD Declaration

Estimated Reading Time: 18 minutes Technical Level: Advanced Practice Areas: Benefits analytics, financial wellbeing measurement, pension governance, HR data strategy

Learning Objectives

Upon completing this article, practitioners will be able to:

  1. Evaluate the current benefits measurement deficit using quantified evidence from REBA/Howden, CIPD, and Benifex research surveys
  2. Apply the CIPD people analytics maturity framework (descriptive, predictive, prescriptive) to classify an organisation's current benefits measurement capability
  3. Design a multi-tier utilization measurement framework for will services, distinguishing between utilization, engagement, outcome correlation, and strategic impact metrics
  4. Analyse the April 2027 pension death benefit IHT changes to derive a pension-will coordination rate as a novel benefits KPI

Competency Mapping

  • CIPD Profession Map: People Analytics -- Evidence-based practice and data-driven decision-making
  • CIPD Profession Map: Reward -- Benefits design, implementation, and evaluation

Reflective Questions

  1. How would an assessment of current benefits measurement maturity within a given organisation classify against the CIPD descriptive-predictive-prescriptive framework, and what specific data gaps would need to be addressed to progress to the next level?
  2. What data governance protocols would be necessary before combining will service utilization data with workforce outcome metrics such as absence rates or retention figures?
  3. How might the April 2027 pension death benefit IHT changes alter the prioritisation of estate planning coordination within an organisation's benefits communication strategy?

Professional Disclaimer

The information presented reflects the regulatory and legislative position as of 2026-02-26. Regulations, tax rules, and professional guidance are subject to change. Readers should independently verify all information before acting and seek advice from appropriately qualified solicitors, financial advisors, or other professionals for their specific circumstances.

Neither WUHLD nor the author accepts liability for any actions taken or decisions made based on the content of this article. Professional readers are reminded of their own regulatory obligations and duty of care to their clients.

Footnotes

Footnotes

  1. REBA/Howden Employee Benefits -- Benefits Design Research 2025 (April 2025). https://reba.global/resource/briefing-benefits-design-research-2025.html ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  2. CIPD -- Reward Management Survey 2026: Focus on Employee Benefits (January 2026). https://www.cipd.org/uk/knowledge/reports/reward-survey-employee-benefits/ ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6

  3. Benifex -- The Evolution Report (2023). https://benifex.com/resources/report-the-evolution-reports ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  4. GOV.UK -- Inheritance Tax: unused pension funds and death benefits (October 2024, updated July 2025). https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/inheritance-tax-unused-pension-funds-and-death-benefits ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  5. REBA/Howden Benefits Design Research 2025 -- Data types reported to management (April 2025). https://reba.global/resource/briefing-benefits-design-research-2025.html ↩ ↩2

  6. CIPD/Railpen -- Future of Workforce Reporting (November 2025). https://www.cipd.org/en/knowledge/reports/future-workforce-reporting/ ↩

  7. REBA/Howden Benefits Design Research 2025 -- Barriers to data maturity (April 2025). https://reba.global/resource/briefing-benefits-design-research-2025.html ↩

  8. CIPD -- People Analytics Factsheet (February 2025). https://www.cipd.org/en/knowledge/factsheets/analytics-factsheet/ ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  9. Aon -- UK Benefits and Trends Survey 2025. https://www.aon.com/en-gb/capabilities/health-and-benefits/uk-benefits-and-trends-survey ↩ ↩2

  10. REBA/Barnett Waddingham -- Benefits Trends for 2025 (2024). https://reba.global/resource/benefits-trends-for-2025-briefing-pdf.html ↩

  11. ISO -- ISO 30414:2025 Human resource management: Requirements and recommendations for human capital reporting and disclosure (August 2025). https://www.iso.org/standard/30414 ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  12. Money and Pensions Service -- Over half of UK adults don't have a will (2025). https://maps.org.uk/en/media-centre/press-releases/2025/over-half-of-uk-adults-dont-have-a-will ↩ ↩2

  13. Employee Benefits -- 82% of employers have EAP take-up between 0-25% (July 2024). https://employeebenefits.co.uk/healthcare-and-wellbeing/82-of-employers-have-employee-assistance-programme-take-up-between-0-25/276574.article ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  14. SHRM -- 2023 Employee Benefits Survey (June 2023). https://shrm-res.cloudinary.com/image/upload/v1685728116/Employee%20Benefits/CPR-222434-Employee-Benefits-Executive-Summary-FINAL-for-PUBLICATION.pdf ↩

  15. GOV.UK -- IHT on pensions consultation: summary of responses (July 2025). https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/inheritance-tax-on-pensions-liability-reporting-and-payment/outcome/inheritance-tax-on-pensions-liability-reporting-and-payment-summary-of-responses ↩ ↩2

  16. CIPD -- Good Work Index 2025 (June 2025). https://www.cipd.org/globalassets/media/knowledge/knowledge-hub/reports/2025-pdfs/8868-good-work-index-2025-report-web1.pdf ↩ ↩2

Preview Free